CITWIN Search Results

Work package contributors: WP3, WP4, WP5

1. Issue(s)

Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) and Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) are assessments to evaluate the quality of walking and cycling infrastructures. Tools as PLOS and BLOS have evoluted to a more user-centered approach but they fail to align with 15mC principles such as proximity and accessibility. Adressing this gap was crucial to align with these principles

2. How we adressed it

A review of existing PLOS and BLOS literature within the context of the 15-minute city made possible to identify the key broad constructs necessary to evaluate pedestrian and cycling infrastructures across urban contexts. For each constructs (6): indicators were identified and prioritised based on their frequency and relevance in literature (138 indicators). Those indicators were categorised into construct to form the "golden nuggets". A hierarchical and unified conceptual framework was developped.

• identify 6 broad constructs of PLOS and BLOS in 15-minute city
• classify 138 indicators we called the "Golden Nugget"
• develop a hierarchical and unified conceptual framework

Indicators were integrated into a three-layered conceptual framework to capture the complexity of non motorised transport. The three-layered conceptual framework is scalable (micro and macro) and give a comprehensive perspective.

3. Contribution(s) of research

• Adressing a methodological gap by proposing an integrated multiscalar conceptual framework that synthethises PLOS and BLOS models with the principle of the 15-minutes city
• Introducing a three-layered evaluative model between infrastructural elements, spatial urban context and functional performance in order to make assessments more transferable.

4. Publications

Maheshwari, R., Loidl, M., Khare, R., & Cools, M. (2025). Are we measuring what matters? A multilayered framework evaluating active mobility infrastructure through PLOS, BLOS and 15 minute city principles.
Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research, 6.

Read the article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmr.2025.100089

Work package contributors: WP4, WP6

Individual contributors: Ivana Paulusova, Fariya Sharmeen, Qian Wang. Department of Urban Planning and Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm (Sweden)

1. Issue(s)

There is ambiguity how accessibility should be objectively measured. Perceived bikeability is a relevant but conceptually fragmented construct characterized by heterogeneous definitions and inconsistant implementations. To assess perceived bikeability, it is necessary to examine discrepancies between objective and perceived bikeability. The research brought an alternative approach by considering the same elements as objective measures but evaluated through the lens of individuals perceptions.

2. How we adressed it

Literature review

A literature review has focused on definitions and measurements. Many authors demonstrate robust links between perceived bikeability and cycling behaviour. Three categories were identified :

• Perceived distances
• Environmental conditions and availability of cycling infrastructure
• Perceived opportunity or ability to reach destinations

4 factors influencing perceived bikeability (determinants) were also identified :

• Socio-demographics
• attitudes
• Mobility resources
• Social environment

Mis-alignement

3 sources of mismatches

• Mismatches between objective and perceived bikeability due to perception based data (misenterpretation of questions) or biased objective indicators (potential shortcomings, incomplete records...)
• Objective indicators fail to capture environmental attributes that are important to cyclists (safety, pleasantness, route continuity...)
• Perceptions are shaped by personal and social factors which are not captured by objective measures

Integrative conceptual framework

The research proposes an integrative conceptual framework that position perceived bikeability as a central component impacting cycling behaviour. Conceptual framework is built on literature review that synthethises empirically supported and hypothesized relationships between different components.

The components in figure are interconnected with direct and indirect effects on cycling behaviour and relative strengths of these effects. Objective bikeability provides the baseline physical context of conceptual model but characteristics such as population density, destination density, land-use mix... demonstrate less consistent associations with cycling outcomes. Individual socio-demographic characteristics generally exhibit weak but non-negligible associations with perceived bikeability but gender and age are highlighted. Individual attitudes, mobility resources and peer influence are more influential that socio-demographic attributes. Socio-cultural context such as policies, regulations, cultural norms have important role in shaping attitudes that influence individual behaviour.

Conceptualization of perveived bikeability

Perceived accessibility scale (from Lätmann) is useful to start measuring perceived bikeability. But it is analytically limited because of its aggregated nature and the limited guidance it provides into the specific aspects of cycling accessibility that should be taken into account. To adress these shortcomings, the research propose to assess perceived bikeability by :

• Maslow's hierarchy of needs
• Capability approach

Drawing on Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the Capability approach, 4 core needs underlying perceived bikeability are proposed : access, safety, social support and excitement

3. Summary

→ Considering two gaps

• Cycling behaviour is shaped by factors not captured by objective indicators
• Perception bikeability is conceptually fragmented and inconsistently operationalised

→ Developing a multidimensional framework

• Need to develop a multidimensional framework in which perceived bikeability is base on Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Capability approach

4. Publications

coming soon

Work package contributors: WP5, WP3, WP4

1. Issue

What we understand a maturity of urban digital twins ?

2. How to adress it

Theoritical framework

→ 2 constrasting views of cities :

• Urban mecanism as a view of mechanistic cause-and-effect processes that can be predicted. Today, this mechanistic view no longer dismisses the complex nature of cities but considers that they can be studied objectively This approach has a more nuanced conception of cities but stays focused on mathematical models.
• Urban vitalism approach views cities as a collection of complex relationships between humans and the urban environment. This approach is vague but important:
  "the vital principle [...] is at least a sort of label affixed to our ignorance" (Bergson, 1911)
  "mediates between the [...] scientific knowledge and the experience of life" (Greco, 2021)

→ The difference between both is relevant for our position regarding urban digital twins:

• Computational models are important but data do not exist independently of ideas, technologies, contexts in which they are conceived, produced and analysed.
• Taking it into account should make consider computational models do have a role in human centric urban planning and the view of urban vitalism.

→ The way to do this?

• Understand how the outcomes of computational models are interpreted and applied
• Considering computational models as a tool and a guide for thinking

3. Contribution(s) of research

We propose a revised structure of mature digital twins:

• A mature digital twin contains 3 core components (Grieves, 2022) : real city, virtual city and bidirectional connections in which human is involved ("human-in-the-loop")
• During bidirectional connections, four different stages of human information processing (Parasuraman et al, 2000) are considered to envision a mature digital twin:
• Information acquisition
• Information analysis
• Information selection
• Information implementation

Publications

Van der Meer, L., Esterle, L., Cools, M., & Loidl, M. (2026). Cities aren’t rocket engines: the maturity of digital twins in human-centred urban planning.
International Journal of Digital Earth, 19(1)

Read the article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2026.2630452

Work package contributors: WP4

Issue: How citwin uses NetAScore

How to adress it:

Click here

Publications

C. Werner,R. Wendel, D. Kaziyeva, P. Stutz,L. Van der Meer, L. Effertz, B. Zagel, M. Loidl M. (2024). NetAScore: An open and extendible software for segment-scale bikeability and walkability.
Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 52(1)

Read the article: https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083241293177

Work package contributors: all WP

1. CITWIN webinar with Brussels Mobility

On 27 April 2026, our partners had the opportunity to present the key progress updates and results of the project.

1. 1. Introduction, purpose and outcomes (Philip Amaral, Mario Cools)
2. 2. Spotlight on a CITWIN city: Eskilstuna, Sweden (Alva Zakariasson)
3. 3. How CITWIN is using NetAScore: example for the Brussels Region (Martin Loidl)
4. 4. The creation of a generic urban digital twin (Martin Gildberg Jespersen, Sigurd Rask Bye Jensen)
5. 5. Questions & Discussion