{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,15]],"date-time":"2026-02-15T00:08:24Z","timestamp":1771114104780,"version":"3.50.1"},"posted":{"date-parts":[[2026]]},"group-title":"SSRN","reference-count":0,"publisher":"Elsevier BV","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"abstract":"<jats:p>Urban nodes \u2013 which are the entity most often responsible for SUMP implementation \u2013 differ widely in their capacity and priorities for sustainable urban mobility planning, yet characterization and clustering according to institutional, social, and geographical typologies remains limited. This paper develops a transparent clustering pipeline that combines municipal context based on aggregated perceptions from planning officers. An online survey of mainland Portuguese municipalities yielded 53 valid responses. Likert items on perceived utility of planning instruments, planning challenges, and policy priorities were synthesised via block-wise exploratory factor analysis into six indicators. These indicators were merged with contextual variables (population class, legal SUMP obligation, topography, road-network structure, and planning-instrument maturity). We computed Gower dissimilarities and applied partitioning around medoids, selecting k using elbow and silhouette diagnostics and interpretability. A four-cluster solution emerged: (i) mandated mature planners\u2014larger, legally obliged municipalities with relatively mature instruments; (ii) voluntary SUMP adopters\u2014smaller municipalities adopting SUMPs despite no obligation, but reporting the strongest institutional and technical constraints; (iii) action-plan frontrunners\u2014municipalities relying on mobility action plans and showing the highest pro-environmental and modal-shift orientation; and (iv) low-maturity municipalities\u2014small, low-connectivity places with limited planning instruments and lower perceived utility and priorities. Population\/obligation and instrument maturity were the strongest separators, while perceived challenges were more uniform across clusters. The proposed grouping supports differentiated policy support and benchmark, from capacity-building for low-maturity urban nodes to implementation and monitoring support for ambitious voluntary adopters.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.2139\/ssrn.6240122","type":"posted-content","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,14]],"date-time":"2026-02-14T23:45:09Z","timestamp":1771112709000},"source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Clustering Urban Nodes for Sustainable Mobility Planning and Benchmark: Combining Contextual and Institutional Evidence"],"prefix":"10.2139","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-1538-1833","authenticated-orcid":true,"given":"Carlos","family":"Sampaio","sequence":"first","affiliation":[]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-0526-0691","authenticated-orcid":true,"given":"L\u00edgia","family":"Concei\u00e7\u00e3o","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-9460-7553","authenticated-orcid":true,"given":"Andr\u00e9  M.","family":"Carvalho","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]}],"member":"78","container-title":[],"original-title":[],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,14]],"date-time":"2026-02-14T23:45:09Z","timestamp":1771112709000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ssrn.com\/abstract=6240122"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026]]},"references-count":0,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2139\/ssrn.6240122","relation":{},"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026]]},"subtype":"preprint"}}