A Comprehensive Review of X-Minute Cities: Cycling Left Behind?

Written by guest writer Borhan Sepehri 

In recent years, the concept of X-Minute Cities has gained remarkable traction in urban planning discourse. Promoting the idea that key services and amenities should be accessible within a short time—typically within 15 or 20 minutes on foot or by bike—this model challenges the dominance of car-centric urban design. In our recent article published in the Journal of Cities, my co-author, Ayyoob Sharifi, and I conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of X-Minute City literature. This study primarily aimed to analyze the development of X-Minute City thinking in recent years. Using bibliometric analysis tools such as Bibliometrix and VOSviewer, the authors identified trending topics and terms, uncovered research gaps, and explored future research directions. In total, they analyzed 214 studies on X-Minute Cities published between 2019 and 2024. This study is notable for both the precision of its analysis and the fact that, to date, no prior bibliometric review had been conducted on this topic [1].

As such, the concept is rooted in proximity-based planning, which was a defining characteristic of cities before the rise of modernism and automobile-oriented development. As shown in Figure 1, the study highlights how the idea of proximity regained popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it was widely promoted by scholars and practitioners in response to urban vulnerabilities.

Figure 1. Annual publication and citation trends.

The detailed analysis revealed deeper insights into the evolution of related themes. As illustrated in Figure 2, keywords such as 15-Minute City, accessibility, and urban planning appear most frequently, reflecting the core concepts of the model and the prominence of the 15-Minute City. In parallel, a trend analysis of topical shifts provides further insights. Between 2019 and 2021, keywords like activity, urban, physical activity, and noise were common, indicating a strong early focus on the relationship between the X-Minute City and human activity, particularly physical movement [2,3]. This area, while foundational, still requires further empirical exploration to deepen our understanding.

In more recent years, however, topics such as Food, Policy, City Model, and Quality of Life have become more prominent. For instance, several studies have examined how working hours and travel behavior affect food consumption in 20-minute neighborhoods, or how these neighborhoods shape residents’ relationships with food retailers [4]. Another trending topic—especially in 2022, 2023, and 2024—is quality of life, which signals increasing interest in the broader impacts of proximity-based planning on urban wellbeing [5].

Despite these developments, it is important to note that cycling (biking) is not among the trending topics or frequently occurring keywords.

We also conducted a co-occurrence analysis, which revealed interesting differences between the 15-Minute City and 20-Minute City models—currently the two most popular approaches to proximity-based urbanism. As shown in Figure 3, the 15-Minute City is closely associated with terms like proximity, walkability, accessibility, neighborhood, and urban planning, which appear as the largest nodes. This underscores the centrality of spatial and planning concerns in this model.

Figure 3. Co-occurrence analysis for studies focused on 15-minute cities.

In contrast, Figure 4 presents the co-occurrence analysis of studies focused on the 20-Minute City model, which shows a stronger emphasis on socio-economic aspects. Terms like cross-sectional studies, adult, female, and male indicate a focus on population-based analyses and demographic patterns [6,7]. Furthermore, spatial analysis appears as a major node, linking across multiple clusters—indicating the widespread use of geographic methodologies to assess accessibility and equity in 20-minute cities [8,9].

Notably, the strong co-occurrence of terms such as urban design and inequalities in the yellow cluster reflects growing attention to spatial justice and the uneven impacts of urban interventions [10,11]. The term active transport (travel) also appears, suggesting the growing relevance of non-motorized mobility modes—including cycling, e-bikes, scooters, and electric skateboards—as potential complements to walking.

In the final section of the review, we identified several key gaps and directions for future research. The X-Minute City concept still needs to be expanded—both conceptually and practically—into new domains such as urban energy systems, artificial intelligence, contextual sensitivity, public preferences, public health outcomes, racial and identity dimensions, regulatory structures, and the typology of X-Minute Cities more broadly.

One critical gap is the relationship between cycling and X-Minute City models—a topic that deserves further attention. Although our bibliometric analysis found this area to be underrepresented, several important studies have begun to explore it. For instance:

• Knap et al. (2023) developed a methodology for measuring the X-Minute City through an accessibility-based metric (CSx), tested specifically for cycling in the Utrecht region. The results showed that even low-income groups could access essential services within 10 minutes of cycling, aligning with 15-minute accessibility goals [12].
• Hosford et al. (2022) examined cycling in Vancouver and found that including it in the 15-Minute City model significantly expanded access to key amenities like stores [13].
• Büttner et al. (2024) mapped 15-Minute City practices globally, noting that cities such as Paris, Portland, Hamburg, Bologna, and Valencia have made major investments in cycling infrastructure as part of their proximity-based urban strategies [14].

While these cases are promising, they remain exceptions rather than the rule. Walking continues to be the dominant mode envisioned in most X-Minute City frameworks. This raises an important question: Is the model inherently walking-oriented, or can it be effectively adapted for cycling as well?

As is well established, cycling promotes a healthy, sustainable lifestyle, and as we argue in our review, X-Minute Cities depend on lifestyle shifts to function effectively. The question, then, is whether a cycling lifestyle is compatible with the X-Minute City concept—or whether certain urban forms and timeframes (e.g., 5, 10, 15, 20, or 30 minutes) are better suited for it. This deserves contextual exploration.

Finally, as our review shows, different models of the X-Minute City serve different purposes and scales. Understanding which of these is most appropriate for cycling integration is essential for future planning and policy.

References

1. Sepehri, B., & Sharifi, A. (2025). X-minute cities as a growing notion of sustainable urbanism: A literature review. Cities, 161, 105902.
2. Guzman, L. A., Arellana, J., Oviedo, D., & Aristizábal, C. A. M. (2021). COVID-19, activity and mobility patterns in Bogotá. Are we ready for a ‘15-minute city’?. Travel Behaviour and Society, 24, 245-256.
3. Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2021). New urban models for more sustainable, liveable and healthier cities post covid19; reducing air pollution, noise and heat island effects and increasing green space and physical activity. Environment international, 157, 106850.
4. Oostenbach, L. H., Burnett, A. J., Lamb, K. E., & Thornton, L. E. (2024). Exploring food shopping behaviours in 20-minute neighbourhoods: a cross-sectional analysis of ProjectPLAN. Cities & Health, 8(4), 588-600.
5. Murgante, B., Valluzzi, R., & Annunziata, A. (2024). Developing a 15-minute city: Evaluating urban quality using configurational analysis. The case study of Terni and Matera, Italy. Applied Geography, 162, 103171.
6. Bulloch, Marissa, and Jonathan R. Olsen. “Exploring young people’s views of their local area related to the 20-minute neighbourhood policy: a national cross-sectional study.” Cities & Health 8, no. 6 (2024): 1081-1093.
7. Oostenbach, L. H., Lamb, K. E., & Thornton, L. E. (2022). Is having a 20-minute neighbourhood associated with eating out behaviours and takeaway home delivery? A cross-sectional analysis of ProjectPLAN. BMC public health, 22(1), 191.
8. Logan, T. M., Hobbs, M. H., Conrow, L. C., Reid, N. L., Young, R. A., & Anderson, M. J. (2022). The x-minute city: Measuring the 10, 15, 20-minute city and an evaluation of its use for sustainable urban design. Cities, 131, 103924.
9. Yang, G., Thornton, L. E., Daniel, M., Chaix, B., & Lamb, K. E. (2022). Comparison of spatial approaches to assess the effect of residing in a 20-minute neighbourhood on body mass index. Spatial and spatio-temporal epidemiology, 43, 100546.
10. Calafiore, A., Dunning, R., Nurse, A., & Singleton, A. (2022). The 20-minute city: An equity analysis of Liverpool City Region. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 102, 103111.
11. Olsen, J. R., Caryl, F., Nicholls, N., Smith, M., McCrorie, P., & Mitchell, R. (2023). Inequalities in neighbourhood features within children’s 20-minute neighbourhoods and variation in time spent locally, measured using GPS. Wellbeing, space and society, 5, 100174.
12. Knap, E., Ulak, M. B., Geurs, K. T., Mulders, A., & Van Der Drift, S. (2023). A composite X-minute city cycling accessibility metric and its role in assessing spatial and socioeconomic inequalities–A case study in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Journal of Urban Mobility, 3, 100043.
13. Hosford, K., Beairsto, J., & Winters, M. (2022). Is the 15-minute city within reach? Evaluating walking and cycling accessibility to grocery stores in Vancouver. Transportation research interdisciplinary perspectives, 14, 100602.
14. Büttner, B., Seisenberger, S., McCormick, B., Silva, C., Teixeira, J., Papa, E., & Cao, M. (2024). Mapping of 15-minute City Practices Overview on strategies, policies and implementation in Europe and beyond.
15. Etminani-Ghasrodashti, R., Paydar, M., & Ardeshiri, A. (2018). Recreational cycling in a coastal city: Investigating lifestyle, attitudes and built environment in cycling behavior. Sustainable cities and Society, 39, 241-251.
16. Birkenfeld, C., Victoriano-Habit, R., Alousi-Jones, M., Soliz, A., & El-Geneidy, A. (2023). Who is living a local lifestyle? Towards a better understanding of the 15-minute-city and 30-minute-city concepts from a behavioural perspective in Montréal, Canada. Journal of Urban Mobility, 3, 100048.