Intersectionality for sustainable mobility: a systematic literature review

Despite growing attention to inequity, sustainable mobility research remains constrained by single-category analyses that obscure compounded disadvantages and the structural mechanisms that produce them. Systems of oppression, such as patriarchy, racism, and classism, do not operate in isolation; their intersection shapes everyday mobility in ways that evade conventional analysis and harden into persistent policy blind spots. This systematic review examines how intersectionality is conceptualised and operationalised in sustainable mobility research. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched Scopus and Web of Science for peer-reviewed empirical papers (2013–2025) operationalising intersectionality by examining at least two co-constituted social positions linked to structural oppression. Twenty-six papers met the inclusion criteria. We identify four methodological typologies: (T1) intersectional analyses across category combinations; (T2) in-depth analysis of predefined intersectional identities; (T3) exploratory approaches in which social positions emerge during analysis; and (T4) intersectionality shaping study logic without explicit statistical intersectional analysis. Across typologies, seven topics structure intersectional barriers to accessing sustainable modes such as walking, cycling, and public transport: security, care, negative attitudes and social expectations, socio-spatial exclusion, economic constraints, limited knowledge, and infrastructure. Gender is the most frequently examined social position, often intersecting with class, race/ethnicity, disability, age, parenthood, and place of residence. Evidence shows that low-income women with migration or indigenous backgrounds, carers in transport-poor areas, and women with disabilities face the most precarious conditions for sustainable mode use. Where explicitly named, patriarchy is the dominant system of oppression reproducing these barriers, followed by racism, classism, and ableism. Building on these findings, we propose a research agenda: (1) clear analysis scope and scale specification, using theory-driven, intersectional sampling and comparisons to make privilege visible, (2) integrated mixed-methods designs linking structural patterns to lived experiences, and (3) stronger policy-focused application and evaluation assessing whether interventions reduce compounded disadvantage rather than reproducing mobility inequities.