Although the study of barriers and inequality is central to understanding the dynamics of mobility and the structuring of urban life, we consider it relevant to also advance in understanding the strategies that these groups build to face the challenges of urban life. Different populations experience varying degrees of freedom or restriction when travelling, depending on their social, economic and spatial position. Depending on the characteristics of the individuals, but especially the social groups in which they are inserted, it is possible to observe creative mobility strategies to face the barriers imposed by the organisation of urban space, inequality or transport policies. 

Argument

The literature on urban mobility has made progress in recognising the diversity of commuting practices that emerge in contemporary cities. Based on a critique of the view that normalises and generalises commuting centred on home-work journeys, new research has highlighted differential mobilities that reveal the complexity of existing daily practices. Such research underlines the importance of building a more relational perspective that recognises the multiplicity of agents, modes, spatialities and infrastructures that structure urban daily life, valuing mobility as an essential element for guaranteeing the right to the city (Kaufmann, 2002; Levy, 2001; Manderscheid, 2016). From this perspective, groups previously considered marginal to urban planning are now seen as crucial agents for understanding the demands for infrastructure, public spaces and modes of transport. Among these groups, the elderly, women, children, individuals from different ethnic backgrounds and those working in informal labour stand out, whose mobility highlights specific challenges and needs (Archer, 2020; Ardila et al., 2020; De Madariaga & Zucchini, 2019; Oviedo et al., 2021; Viana Cerqueira & Motte-Baumvol, 2022) (Motte et al, 2016).

On the one hand, the perspective of differential mobilities encompasses mobility practices, highlighting phenomena such as the diversity of motives, which go beyond work; linked journeys, in multiple stages; the creation of new centralities or areas that attract travel according to different demands, the different meanings of travel according to the identities of individuals (Cerqueira, 2018, Ardila-Pinto et al., 2024). On the other hand, there is discussion of the factors that influence mobility practices, whether from the problems of barriers or the social and spatial inequalities faced by each group. There are many studies in the academic debate about the effects of inequalities and socio-spatial segregation, infrastructure deficiencies and violence.

Although the study of barriers and inequality is central to understanding the dynamics of mobility and the structuring of urban life, we consider it relevant to also advance in understanding the strategies that these groups build to face the challenges of urban life. Different populations experience varying degrees of freedom or restriction when travelling, depending on their social, economic and spatial position (Aguiar & Macário, 2017; Hernandez, 2018; Jirón, 2010; Lucas, 2012; Porter et al., 2018; Sagaris, 2014; Vecchio et al., 2020). Depending on the characteristics of the individuals, but especially the social groups in which they are inserted, it is possible to observe creative mobility strategies to face the barriers imposed by the organisation of urban space, inequality or transport policies.

These strategies can include choosing alternative routes, cooperating with other groups, adjusting travel times to avoid periods of greater risk or congestion, adopting informal modes of transport such as carpooling or alternative transport, articulating networks of urban spaces, or social mobilisation to guarantee the right to mobility. These practices are aligned with the concept of motility, which refers to the ability of an individual or group to be mobile, taking into account not only the physical aspects, but also the economic and social factors that facilitate or restrict this mobility (Kaufmann, 2002; Kaufmann et al., 2004). We aim to discuss the role of the availability of resources, such as financial access, social support networks and knowledge of available routes, which allow people to shape their commuting practices.

Understanding differential mobilities also involves investigating journeys that encompass the dynamics linked to leisure, care and social support networks, which are poorly captured by conventional analyses. Furthermore, urban mobility in the 21st century is increasingly shaped by the dynamics of digitalisation and the platform economy. In this context, we are also looking for articles that explore the role of these platforms in differential mobilities, such as the challenges faced by female app drivers or the risks and opportunities for passengers on these platforms. Finally, we aim to discuss strategies for social mobilisation and the fight for the right to mobility based on agendas such as the free pass, special wagons, the relocation of routes, the construction of infrastructure and spaces to guarantee universal accessibility, the construction of cycle lanes and pavements, the reduction of accidents, school mobility, among others. We believe that mobility is not just a purely technical issue, but one that is subject to controversy and forms part of the public sphere in cities.

Articles can include qualitative and quantitative approaches, case studies or comparative analyses. It should preferably be empirical research that contributes to understanding these practices. Suggested topics include, but are not limited to:

• Analysing the mobility strategies employed by women, older people, low-income populations and other groups with differential mobilities.
• Intersections between mobility and social capital: How does unequal access to mobility reflect and perpetuate social inequalities?
• Impacts of digital platforms (such as Uber, 99, etc.) on the mobilities of vulnerable groups
• Differential mobilities in the urban context: experiences and practices of travelling beyond compulsory reasons (leisure, family care, among others).
• The relationship between mobility and urban exclusion/inclusion: How do individuals develop strategies to access urban spaces and services?
• Public mobility policies and their impact (or lack of impact) on marginalised groups.
• Political mobilisation strategies to guarantee the right to mobility.

Publication schedule

This special issue will be published online in full open access on Forum Sociológico’s website in 2026.

Submission guidelines

Original proposals for scientific articles written in Portuguese, English, Spanish and French will be accepted.

All article proposals, both review and empirical, must be sent in their complete version by email (.docx format) to Forum Sociológico (forum@fcsh.unl.pt) with the title of the special issue in the subject field and

by April 30, 2025.

Before submitting a proposal to the journal within the scope of this special issue, all authors must

i) be aware of the policies, editorial procedures and rules for the preparation and submission of texts, published in particular on the pages Rules for the Submission of Originals and Declaration of Ethics and Good Practices;

ii) have participated substantially in the work;

iii) have identified all the sources of funding for the research carried out;

iv) obtain all the necessary authorisations and licences for reproduction, publication and dissemination in open access (rights to use images or other third-party material, etc.), assuming responsibility for indicating the respective credits in the work and any charges that may be incurred.), taking responsibility for indicating the respective credits in the work and any costs associated with obtaining them and exempting the journal and CICS.NOVA - Interdisciplinary Centre for Social Sciences of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities of NOVA University Lisbon from any responsibility in this regard;

v) taking final responsibility for the content and statements made in the text.

Scientific editors

• Ana Marcela Ardila Pinto, Department of Sociology, University of Minas Gerais (UMG), Brazil.
• Eugênia Cerqueira Viana, Department of Sociology, University of Minas Gerais (UMG), Brazil.
• Natalia Villamizar Duarte, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University, United Kingdom.

References

Aguiar, B., & Macário, R. (2017). The need for an elderly centred mobility policy. Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 4355-4369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.309

Archer, D. N. (2020). Transportation policy and the underdevelopment of black communities. Iowa Law Review, 106, 2125. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3797364

Ardila, A. M. A., De Oliveira, M. F., Cordeiro, B. B., & e Oliveira, L. L. H. S. (2020). Urban accessibility in Belo Horizonte, Brazil: a case study of mobility practices and demands of people with disabilities in the mobility systems. In D. Oviedo, N. Villamizar Duarte & A. M. Ardila Pinto (Eds.), Urban mobility and social equity in latin america: evidence, concepts, methods (Vol. 12) (pp. 209-233). Emerald Publishing Limited.

De Madariaga, I. S., & Zucchini, E. (2019). Measuring mobilities of care, a challenge for transport agendas. In C. L. Scholten & T. Joelsson (Orgs.), Integrating gender into transport planning (pp. 145-173). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05042-9_7

Hernandez, D. (2018). Uneven mobilities, uneven opportunities: social distribution of public transport accessibility to jobs and education in Montevideo. Journal of Transport Geography, 67, 119-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.08.017

Jirón, P. (2010). Mobile borders in urban daily mobility practices in Santiago de Chile. International Political Sociology, 4(1), 66-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-5687.2009.00092.x

Kaufmann, V. (2002). Re-thinking mobility: contemporary sociology. Ashgate.

Kaufmann, V., Bergman, M. M., & Joye, D. (2004). Motility: mobility as capital. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(4), 745-756. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2004.00549.x

Levy, J. (2001). Os novos espaços da mobilidade. Geographia, 3(6), 7-17. https://doi.org/10.22409/GEOgraphia2001.v3i6.a13407

Lucas, K. (2012). Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy, 20, 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.013

Manderscheid, K. (2016). Who does the move? Affirmation or deconstruction of the solitary mobile subject. In M. Endres, K. Manderscheid, & C. Mincke (Eds.), The mobilities paradigm: discourses and ideologies (pp. 91-113). Routledge.

Oviedo, D., Villamizar, N., & Ardila, A. M. (Orgs.). (2021). Urban mobility and social equity in Latin America: evidence, concepts, methods. Emerald Publishing.

Porter, G., Tewodros, A., & Gorman, M. (2018). Mobility, transport and older people’s well-being in Sub-Saharan Africa: review and prospect. In A. Curl & C. Musselwhite (Orgs.), Geographies of transport and ageing (pp. 75-100). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76360-6

Sagaris, L. (2014). Citizen participation for sustainable transport: the case of “Living City” in Santiago, Chile (1997–2012). Journal of Transport Geography, 41, 74-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.08.011

Vecchio, G., Tiznado-Aitken, I., & Hurtubia, R. (2020). Transport and equity in Latin America: a critical review of socially oriented accessibility assessments. Transport Reviews, 40(3), 354-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1711828

Viana Cerqueira, E., & Motte-Baumvol, B. (2022). Flexible work arrangements and household-related journeys. Who takes the lead in dual-earner heterosexual couples?. Travel Behaviour and Society, 26, 240-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2021.11.003