Personal Mobility Choices and Disparities in Carbon Emissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The promotion of sustainable mobility choices is a crucial element of transport decarbonization. It requires a fundamental understanding of the choices available to urban dwellers and of the equity and justice implications of green mobility solutions. In this study, we quantified personal mobility-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) and their associations with various land use, built environment, and socioeconomic factors. Our study captured personal, household, and neighborhood-level characteristics that are related to high emissions and disparities in emissions across the study region. We observed that the top 30% of emitters generated 70% of all transportation GHG emissions. Household income, family size, and vehicle ownership were associated with increased mobility emissions, while increased population density was associated with lower emissions. The percentage of visible minorities in a neighborhood was associated with lower emissions, but this effect was small. We further contrasted the spatial distribution of traffic-related air pollution with mobility GHG emissions. The results suggest that individuals who emit less GHG live in areas with higher air pollution. A computer vision-based model was used to predict GHG emissions from aerial images of neighborhoods, demonstrating that areas with high land use mixture were linked to a lower generation of mobility-based GHG emissions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".