The Big Idea: When Climate Solutions Meet Urban Reality
Imagine this, busy streets are transformed into quiet walkways with trees, and children can play and neighbors socialize. It is fresh and clean in the air. Cafes are built outside and cars no longer park in the same area, bikers pass by small community gardens, and you can hear the sounds of the normal life. This is what is compelling cities all over the world to initiate car-free areas, and it is not just a fantasy.
The climate case is convincing. Cities with more comprehensive climate action plans, such as car-free initiatives, have reported major successes: air pollution has been reduced, thousands of jobs have been created, and healthcare expenses have been saved because of a decrease in deaths related to pollution (C40 Cities and Arup, 2018). As cities consume almost a quarter of all energy-related CO2 emissions worldwide, it is not only a matter of livability, but the key to climate survival that we change the way we move in cities.
However, what we are learning is this: even the best intentions can have unintended consequences. Although car-free areas provide environmental gains, they can also lead to what scholars refer to as green gentrification, where greening and environmental upgrading drives out the people who were supposed to benefit (Gould & Lewis, 2016). Green gentrification occurs when environmental improvements increase property values and attract higher-income residents, ultimately displacing long-term, often lower-income communities who can no longer afford to live in their newly “improved” neighborhoods. In Southeast Asia, and other cities with local contexts that are unique to the region, where rapid growth is accompanied by local realities of culture and economy, these lessons cannot be ignored, and are urgent.
Whether we should absolutely pursue car-free cities is not the question; the question is how we can drive climate action in cities with localized to its context without repeating the costly errors of others. Thus, we would like to share some pertinent lessons that cities should not overlook in their endeavors.
Four Critical Lessons for Climate-Conscious Cities
1. The Gentrification Trap: When Climate Action Displaces Communities
Here’s transportation planning’s twist: the more a neighborhood gets cleaner and more pleasant, the more expensive it becomes. Studies of European and North American cities show that new green systems, and greenspace in particular, can be a factor of gentrification, thereby causing social and racial inequalities (Rigolon & N nemeth, 2022). This trend is likely to compromise climate equity in the developing cities where low-income communities and informal settlements are already at risk.
When a once car-intensive road becomes a walking garden, the value of the properties in the area is usually boosted. Long-term residents themselves become the victims of the changes they have struggled to achieve since they are now priced out. The green infrastructure has resulted in speculation in the real estate industry, increasing house prices and displacing neighborhoods (Anguelovski, as cited in Bloomberg, 2022). Small family businesses—the corner stores and local cafés that give neighborhoods their character—get replaced by boutique shops catering to newcomers who can afford the higher rents.This “green gentrification” transforms climate action into climate injustice; it creates cleaner spaces for some while displacing communities that need those benefits most. This is an important lesson to Southeast Asian cities that are seeking to achieve rapid climate mitigation: environmental upgrades that do not include anti-displacement programs risk increasing inequality, even as they undermine the community support necessary to continue climate work. When long-term residents are priced out, cities lose the local knowledge, social networks, and grassroots advocacy that often drive successful environmental initiatives, while newcomers may lack the same investment in long-term sustainability efforts.
2. The Urban Heat Paradox: When Climate Solutions Create Climate Risks
Transportation decarbonization requires more than reducing cars—it demands climate-smart urban design. Poor planning can actually worsen the very climate impacts cities are trying to address.
Urban areas already experience temperatures about 1–7°F higher than temperatures in outlying areas during the day and nighttime temperatures about 2–5°F higher (EPA, 2025). When cities create car-free zones without considering heat, they sometimes remove the wrong things and add the wrong materials. Pedestrian plazas left wide open instead of tree-lined streets can trap heat; asphalt bike paths and concrete surfaces absorb and re-radiate heat, and mature trees removed to create open space can be a lost source of shade. Barcelona’s early pedestrianization efforts provide a cautionary example: some initially created large, open concrete plazas that became heat traps during summer months, forcing the city to retrofit these spaces with shade structures and vegetation—costly corrections that could have been avoided with climate-conscious design from the start (Méndez et al., 2022).
During heat waves, these design failures hit vulnerable populations—elderly residents, people without air conditioning, and outdoor workers.This is a critical design challenge in cities of tropical climates where mortality due to heat is already increasing with climate change.The concerns of the situation is that more livable spaces can be hazardous during the same weather extremes that climate action is aimed at mitigating.
Southeast Asian cities can take the lead on this- the design of car-free areas to take advantage of their local climatic conditions, rather than fighting against them. This means incorporating traditional design elements like covered walkways, monsoon drainage systems, and strategic tree canopies that provide cooling shade while accommodating the region’s intense heat and seasonal rainfall patterns.
3. The Inclusion Challenge: Ensuring Climate Action Serves Everyone
Climate-friendly transportation must be accessible transportation. Research on shared streets and car-free zones reveals a troubling reality: pedestrians with disabilities face significant barriers in spaces designed to be inclusive (Hägerhäll et al., 2022). This accessibility gap threatens both social justice and climate goals—if car-free zones don’t work for everyone, they won’t achieve the broad adoption necessary for meaningful emission reductions.
The planners perceive the area as open space, where wheelchair users feel lost in confusing landscape without the obvious paths. Individuals with visual disabilities no longer hear the sounds that guide them on their way when cars and pedestrians are allowed to mingle. Senior citizens who rely on automobile transport to do their groceries or attend doctors appointments may suddenly find themselves without services; even families with young children in strollers will not be able to easily navigate the design of the city streets.
The climate imperative makes this challenge more urgent. To achieve deep transportation decarbonization, cities need everyone to embrace car-free living—not just young, able-bodied residents. This requires robust, accessible alternatives—reliable public transit, ride-sharing programs, and truly universal design—built in from the start, not added as afterthoughts.
For cities with constrained resources and unique local needs, the lesson is clear: design inclusively from day one, or risk building climate solutions that exclude the very populations most vulnerable to climate impacts.
4. The Safety-Climate Nexus: Why Security Matters for Sustainable Transport
The assumption that removing cars automatically creates safer spaces deserves scrutiny—especially when cities are asking residents to abandon private vehicles for climate reasons. While pedestrian injuries from vehicle accidents certainly decrease, other safety concerns can emerge that undermine public support for car-free policies.
Empty car-free streets, particularly in the evening hours, can become crime magnets without proper lighting and natural surveillance; emergency vehicles—ambulances, fire trucks, police—may face delayed response times when navigating redesigned street layouts. New green value can sometimes overlook negative impacts for socially vulnerable residents while selling a new urban brand (Anguelovski et al., 2019).
The climate connection runs deeper than immediate safety concerns. If residents don’t feel secure using car-free spaces, they’ll retreat to private vehicles, undermining emission reduction goals. The important lesson of urban safety studies is that effective public spaces must have eyes on the street – a combination of residential and commercial activity that naturally keeps places monitored day and night.
Car-free zones succeed when they’re integrated into vibrant neighborhood life, not when they’re isolated pedestrian islands. To cities with a wide range of economic activities and local contexts, this implies the creation of car-free areas that accommodate the current economic activity- street vendors, small businesses, informal transport- instead of pushing them out.
The Path Forward: Climate Action That Works for Everyone
The future of urban climate action isn’t about choosing between emission reductions and community needs—it’s about achieving both. Cities pursuing transportation decarbonization must start with three climate-justice questions: Who lives here now and how do they move around? What low-carbon practices already exist? How can we strengthen sustainable transport without displacing the people who need it most?
For Southeast Asian cities and other regions with distinctive urban characteristics, the opportunity is might be unprecedented. By learning from real cases and building on local innovations, they can pioneer climate solutions that work for their specific contexts. The stakes couldn’t be higher: with urban populations in many regions expected to double by 2050, getting urban climate action right—or wrong—will shape global emission trajectories for decades.
That’s a model any city, anywhere, can adapt to their own climate challenges and local treasures.
Krape Sadakorn, Researcher
References
Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J. J., Masip, L., & Pearsall, H. (2019). Assessing green gentrification in historically disinvested neighborhoods: A longitudinal and spatial analysis of Barcelona. Urban Geography, 39(3), 458-491.
Bloomberg. (2022, November 10). A challenge for cities: Going green, without the gentrification. Bloomberg CityLab. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-11-10/a-challenge-for-cities-going-green-without-the-gentrification
C40 Cities and Arup. (2018). The benefits of urban climate action: Mexico City case study. C40 Cities.
Gould, K., & Lewis, T. (2016). Green gentrification: Urban sustainability and the struggle for environmental justice. Routledge.
Hägerhäll, C., Pazhouhanfar, M., & Kamal, B. (2022). Pedestrians with disabilities and town and city streets: From shared to inclusive space? Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 4, 944200.
Méndez, M. A., Gasco-Hernandez, M., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2022). Creating public value through smart urban transformation: An analysis of Barcelona’s smart city evolution. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 101668.
Rigolon, A., & Németh, J. (2022). Green gentrification in European and North American cities. Nature Communications, 13, 3816.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). What are heat islands? https://www.epa.gov/heatislands/what-are-heat-islands
