Sustainability related challenges in mobility planning have been recognised at the international level and the urgency for change has been widely discussed among scholars. However, there seems to be no general agreement on the best ways of pursuing such change. To seek answers to the question of how to pursue change, this study analysed the development of the broad research fields of mobility, urban planning and transitions, and the overlap of these bodies of literature. Both academic and non-academic literatures were covered. By means of a systematic literature review, as well as bibliometric studies, several prominent research themes that address change from planning and transition perspectives were identified. Moreover, these themes describe different viewpoints and challenges in mobility planning. These include planning and policy for sustainable mobility and accessibility, backcasting and scenario planning, indicators in planning, modes of transport, decision-making, studies of global North and global South, as well as overarching themes of equity, equality and justice, roles of institutions, and co-production of knowledge. Strategies for staying up to date with these fields were also identified. In the literature covered, the temporal dimension in mobility planning was described in four different ways, but little was found about how accelerated transitions towards sustainable mobility can be achieved. Further knowledge gaps were identified in relation to behavioural change, policy development, institutionalisation of planning capacity and social sustainability in mobility planning. This created an outline for possible future studies.

A quarter of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) originate from the transportation sector. Continuously increasing demand for transportation services worldwide is one of the main urban challenges addressed by Sustainable Development Goal 11, target 2. One way to address this issue is to develop an integrated transportation system that can ensure confidence and comfort for the passengers. This will contribute not only to the customers’ experience but also to operators and authorities through sustainable, cost-effective, and profitable services. Conversely, the lack of such a system or a poorly managed system prevents the economy and society from realizing its potential. In the transition towards sustainability, the planning process of complex systems such as transportation often requires supportive tools and methods, such as futures methodologies that assist decision-making by providing information about possible futures. In today’s rapidly changing environment, forecasting tools do not always provide the expected outcomes since it is difficult to predict all the unexpected events. Therefore, there is a demand for alternative methods that not only grasp the constant changes but also create additional value (for example, meeting the needs of multisectoral collaboration and creation of common vision). The present article investigates the usefulness of three such methodologies, namely backcasting, foresighting, and SymbioCity, for the planning process of the bus park and railway station in Kisumu, Kenya, and Centralen in Gothenburg, Sweden. The paper’s contribution is a description of the Kenyan transportation system (which has not been studied in detail before), planning process, and pertinent issues related to the stations both in Kisumu and Gothenburg, located in the sharply contrasting contexts of global South and global North, respectively. On the basis of field research, interviews, and feasibility study of futures methodologies, the paper concludes that backcasting is the most suitable of the methodologies for both places, since it can be applied at a small scale, and provides creative solutions and has a high level of integration of stakeholders. Furthermore, the paper examines the application of the futures methodologies in multisectoral urban transitions apart from transportation and draws conclusion on what can be learnt from it.

There are many socially engaged research modes in sustainability science. The main ones are action research and transdisciplinary research. There is also transdisciplinary action research, a field that seems to combine the two. This paper aims to provide a better understanding of the differences between these research modes in the context of sustainability science to help potential users to determine appropriate research mode(s) to fulfil their purposes. To do so, we asked three research questions: (i) What are the aims of these research modes? (ii) What are some methods used to fulfil the aims of these research modes? (iii) In what empirical domain are the different approaches being used today? Using a comparative systematic-narrative hybrid literature review and bibliometric studies the paper attempts to fulfil the set aim. In total, we analysed 1487 articles in-depth, of which 633 utilised the action research mode, 787 used transdisciplinary research, and 67 used transdisciplinary action research. There are a lot of similarities between the research modes, e.g. they all use traditional qualitative social science research methods, engage the same types of stakeholders, and address the same sustainability issues. But the differences relate to the aims of the research modes. Researchers employing action research seem to be more intent on achieving action in the practice domain and knowledge from that action for both practitioners and researchers (action-for-knowledge). In contrast, researchers employing transdisciplinary research rather seem to be more intent on producing new, relevant and shared knowledge for an action that is later undertaken in the practice domain (knowledge-for-action). Although this might be a premature conclusion, researchers employing transdisciplinary action research seem to be more intent on achieving action based on integrative knowledge (integrative knowledge-for-action). Finally, some advice regarding the choice of research mode for a particular purpose is presented.

Planning in modern urban environments requires skills to address complexity in order to move towards sustainability. Co-production of knowledge in transdisciplinary groups was found to be a useful tool in such contexts. Using the concepts of multilingualism, epistemic communities and culture, the article proposed a conceptual framework for analysing complexity of co-production settings, as an indispensable means of managing complex challenges. The framework was evaluated based on inclusiveness, cross-sectoral understanding, applicability in different contexts and time perspectives. Moreover, it was compared to other studies. Based on the framework, several suggestions to maintain were put forth for a process leader (facilitator) when preparing for a co-production process: linguistic equality between participants, disciplinary integrity, a working culture of mutual respect, simultaneous mitigation and informed facilitation. Finally, the article suggested possible future research questions, related to development of the framework: identification of levels of complexity and mapping specific tools to address complexity at each level; integration of other factors of diversity, such as gender, age, as well as political and institutional contexts.

This paper presents a case study of a transdisciplinary scenario planning workshop that was designed to link global challenges to local governance. The workshop was held to improve stakeholder integration and explore scenarios for a regional planning project (to 2050) in Blekinge, Sweden. Scenario planning and transdisciplinary practices are often disregarded by practitioners due to the perception of onerous resource requirements, however, this paper describes a ‘rapid scenario planning’ process that was designed to be agile and time-efficient, requiring the 43 participants from 13 stakeholder organizations to gather only for one day. The process was designed to create an environment whereby stakeholders could learn from, and with, each other and use their expert knowledge to inform the scenario process. The Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) was used to structure and focus the scenario planning exercise and its subsequent recommendations. The process was evaluated through a workshop participant survey and post-workshop evaluative interview with the regional government project manager to indicate the effectiveness of the approach. The paper closes with a summary of findings which will support those wishing to conduct similar rapid scenario planning exercises to inform policy planning for complex systems.

A tool that provides an organised overview of sustainability goals for relevant stakeholders at different levels is proposed. The MUSTS tool was developed and prototyped, then tested within a multistakeholder collaborative project for sustainable transport planning in Sweden. By applying the tool, this study managed to sort and organise 179 goals in 30 documents at five levels into 109 goal categories and help stakeholders identify the goals relevant to their work. An exemplification of the results from the tool shows that different aspects of ‘health’ are aimed for by the goals in the various policy and planning documents. It also shows the different stakeholders with mandate and legitimacy to act on these goals. The usefulness of the tool for various contexts and for other purposes, such as sustainability assessment of the goals in policy and planning documents, monitoring and reporting of the goals, and supporting dialogue-based processes is discussed.