ArticlePloS one2026
Understanding the interplay between urban segregation and accessibility to services with network analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 15-minute city concept has gained momentum as an urban planning strategy to enhance livability, inclusiveness, and sustainability by ensuring that essential services are within a short walk or bike ride from home. However, while hyper-proximity is often promoted as desirable, its potential side effects on spatial segregation and social exclusion remain underexplored. In this paper, we propose a network-based analytical framework to investigate whether hyper-proximity models - such as the 15-minute city - may inadvertently reinforce spatial segregation by shaping service accessibility and urban transport connectivity. We model cities as complex spatial networks, quantify accessibility using the distribution of relevant Points of Interest (PoIs) and employ closeness centrality as a proxy for connectivity across multiple scales, from residential addresses to network-derived clusters and entire cities. Our results show that areas with better access to services generally exhibit higher connectivity and vice versa. However, this tendency is uneven when looking at socio-demographic factors. Some neighborhoods, particularly lower-income ones, experience both lower accessibility and weaker connectivity. In contrast, certain higher-income neighborhoods display low accessibility and limited connectivity, suggesting patterns of voluntary isolation. These findings indicate that hyper-proximity alone does not guarantee inclusiveness and may mask underlying socio-economic inequalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.