Human mobility shapes how urban policy effects spread across cities
Abstract
Urban policies are often evaluated assuming their effects decay with geographic distance. However, cities are systems of human movement, and policy effects propagate through individual mobility rather than spatial proximity alone. This study demonstrates that neglecting mobility can systematically distort estimates of how urban policies affect activity. Using large-scale mobility data, we estimate the causal effects of three transportation interventions in Boston and New York City using both conventional geographic and mobility-based definitions of exposure. Geographic designs detect no effects, or even negative ones. When exposure is defined through mobility networks, the same interventions reveal substantial behavioral change. Boston's free-fare program increases overall activity by approximately 16%, with more pronounced effects among lower-income communities. Open Streets programs significantly increase visits to nearby businesses, particularly food establishments. For congestion pricing, geographic approaches suggest a decline in activity in Manhattan, while a mobility-based perspective indicates no net reduction but a shift away from shopping and grocery destinations. Analysis across 138 metropolitan areas in eight countries further reveals that geographic and mobility-network distances diverge locally in every city, indicating that this discrepancy is a general characteristic of urban mobility. Collectively, these findings show that urban policies operate not only where they are implemented but where and how people move, so their impact must be measured through mobility rather than through space.
Related
- Experienced partisan segregation across patterns of mobility behavior in US cities
- Mobility energetic balance frames spatial configuration of cities
- Hybrid Work and the Restructuring of Urban Mobility in U.S. Cities
- BMN Spread Complexity Across Phase Transitions
- Steady granular discharge across aperture shapes
BibTeX
@misc{joseph2026human,
title = {{Human mobility shapes how urban policy effects spread across cities}},
author = {Bijin Joseph and Hamish Gibbs and Takahiro Yabe and Esteban Moro},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2610.02639},
eprint = {2610.02639},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02639},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Human mobility shapes how urban policy effects spread across cities
AU - Bijin Joseph
AU - Hamish Gibbs
AU - Takahiro Yabe
AU - Esteban Moro
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/02
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2610.02639
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02639
AB - Urban policies are often evaluated assuming their effects decay with geographic distance. However, cities are systems of human movement, and policy effects propagate through individual mobility rather than spatial proximity alone. This study demonstrates that neglecting mobility can systematically distort estimates of how urban policies affect activity. Using large-scale mobility data, we estimate the causal effects of three transportation interventions in Boston and New York City using both conventional geographic and mobility-based definitions of exposure. Geographic designs detect no effects, or even negative ones. When exposure is defined through mobility networks, the same interventions reveal substantial behavioral change. Boston's free-fare program increases overall activity by approximately 16%, with more pronounced effects among lower-income communities. Open Streets programs significantly increase visits to nearby businesses, particularly food establishments. For congestion pricing, geographic approaches suggest a decline in activity in Manhattan, while a mobility-based perspective indicates no net reduction but a shift away from shopping and grocery destinations. Analysis across 138 metropolitan areas in eight countries further reveals that geographic and mobility-network distances diverge locally in every city, indicating that this discrepancy is a general characteristic of urban mobility. Collectively, these findings show that urban policies operate not only where they are implemented but where and how people move, so their impact must be measured through mobility rather than through space.
ER -