Stewarding capacity within transformative planning is about understanding current and future challenges and managing uncertainties about the future (Hölscher/Frantzeskaki/McPhearson et al. 2019b: 846). Communication is viewed as an important means of handling planning challenges for the municipalities. Important planning activities include creating plans, visions and long-term goals (Albrechts/Barbanete/Monno 2020: 3) that can support the overall sustainable goals in the municipalities and transformation of the municipal transport and mobility systems. The four municipalities in this study all have ambitious climate goals, but there is a lack of more concrete interventions intended, for example, to enable climate neutrality by 2030. Stewarding capacity is also about being able to use planning tools to achieve common goals. When using the example of mobility hubs as a tool to achieve systemic change in the local transport systems, one of the major planning challenges in all the municipalities is reaching a common agreement about the definition of mobility hubs and thus also about their design and future implementation. This involves changing existing structures and practices where planning is a central tool and where the implementation of mobility hubs can play an important part, requiring new ways of planning and the finding of new solutions.

Starting at the Swedish national level, there are currently no general policies or guidelines for the development of mobility hubs. The lack of policy documents, and thereby the lack of a clear definition of their meaning, brings both advantages and challenges for the municipalities. An advantage is that the municipalities are relatively free to experiment, develop and design mobility hubs. However, the lack of more general guidelines and an overall definition is pointed out as a main concern in all municipalities. A challenge is that mobility hubs are developed differently both between and within the municipalities, which can impact the way citizens and users understand and use the hubs. This has also made it possible for private actors to develop mobility hubs with different functions and services. As a result, there are many different definitions and functions ascribed to mobility hubs in the municipalities, varying from mobility houses, mobility stations, mobility zones and mobility nodes (see also Trygg/Grundel 2025: 4–5). This was also problematic between the municipalities as they could not agree on a more general definition. It was especially emphasized that a common definition of mobility hubs within the municipalities was important for communication and to be able to explain what a mobility hub is externally, to, for example, citizens, “as many do not understand what a mobility house or a mobility hub is and how it should work” (Uppsala workshop). The four municipalities have agreed on a roadmap where they define mobility hubs. A common definition was also important to communicate internally within the municipalities so that everyone worked towards the same goal.

“I don’t know if we really have the same definition of what these hubs are because there have been requests to include logistics functions and such things. We are just talking about shared vehicles now and then we will see if, at some point, it might be interesting to coordinate with other functions, but we are mainly talking about shared vehicles” (interview Malmö).

None of the comprehensive plans in the municipalities outline a general planning principle for mobility hubs as part of the municipal transport system. Plan-making is an important planning activity, and without concrete strategies, it is difficult for the municipalities to implement mobility hubs. However, the municipalities have started to integrate them into their transport plans and various other strategic documents. For example, in Linköping’s traffic plan (2022), mobility hubs are highlighted as a tool to enhance the attractiveness and accessibility of the city centre by promoting sustainable modes of transport. Parking and transfer points should be seamlessly integrated into the urban structure and designed to contribute to a vibrant urban life (Linköpings kommun 2022). The municipality defines mobility hubs as “a place where various mobility services dock or park. The primary function of a mobility hub is to offer various types of mobility. However, other services and amenities can also be advantageously connected to the hub” (Linköpings kommun 2022: 29). In Malmö and Umeå, the guidelines have mainly served as overviews of examples of mobility hubs and other mobility facilities (see for example Umeå kommun 2020; Malmö stad 2021). In Uppsala, there are no clear guidance documents, but Uppsala describes mobility hubs as the infrastructure around flexible forms of parking solutions with a range of different services, including mobility pools, autonomous cars, electric bikes and shared vehicle pools. In Umeå, the municipality is not officially working on implementing mobility hubs, except for a planned residential area, Tomtebo strand, where several mobility services will be part of the parking facilities in the area. For example, there will be access to bike garages, carpools, electric bikes and cargo bikes gathered in a common ‘hub’.

https://tomtebostrand.se (28.06.2025).

As pointed out above, all the municipalities have started to develop local guidelines for the implementation of mobility hubs, and they all look different with diverse aims. Thus, it is necessary to clearly state what they should contain and that the aim and goal of their development is to support a more sustainable transport system by providing easy access to sustainable modes of travel. In this way, the officials aim to be in control of the meaning of mobility hubs and clearly state the difference between a parking house and a mobility hub. The main difference is that a parking house is a physical building, but a mobility hub does not need to have a physical building. This highlights the importance of communication, using common language, definitions and strategies to be able to work with planning tools towards transformative change. Additionally, the work of defining and agreeing on common definitions and symbols of mobility hubs in plans and strategic documents was also part of joint learning processes on the local scale. This was specifically emphasized by the local officials as important to be able to work towards change and a common goal and to start implementing mobility hubs.

Unlocking capacity involves managing and identifying lock-ins and path dependencies to drive sustainability goals. In spatial planning, these path dependencies and lock-ins refer to the challenges inherent to changing norms and values and making alterations to the built environment and local infrastructures. To achieve unlocking capacity, it is crucial to identify the key actors, understand their mandates and support new initiatives. Research shows that it is especially difficult to implement planning interventions aimed at reducing car use and changing established organizational structures within the municipalities (Börjesson/Kristoffersson 2018: 35; Trygg/Wenander 2022: 1997). Municipal infrastructure investments often involve established systems or structures that are difficult to change, due to investments in existing infrastructure, for instance where the state, through the Swedish Transport Administration (Trafikverket), is responsible for public roads. The exception is public roads that are part of municipal road maintenance, which makes mobility hubs a possible way forward as they are treated as part of municipal roads. However, all municipalities indicate that when it comes to existing structures, it is difficult to change, for example, an entire street to develop a mobility hub. To address such matters and make minor changes in the infrastructure, the municipalities have started to test mobility interventions on a smaller scale. For example, in Linköping, a small number of parking lots along the streets have been replaced and turned into bicycle parking. Much of the planned structure in Malmö is expected to be around the existing bike-sharing system, ‘Malmö by bike’, which is owned by the municipality. The service is mainly financed by advertisements, which has also been seen as an important success factor and a reason for its existence. The implementation of mobility hubs in the city is planned to build on the existing bike-sharing system and to integrate other shared services. However, it is difficult to combine the system with other shared services as it needs to be combined with services from private actors, who are currently not willing to offer their services all over the municipality.

In Linköping, the municipality also aims to develop a mobility network that covers the entire city, with the idea that a mobility hub should be part of a larger transport system. Here, the municipal parking company was identified as an important enabler for developing mobility hubs, as they were the first to establish them, and other actors were expected to follow their example. So far, the municipal parking company has built mobility houses on the outskirts of newly built residential areas. The main goal has been to create car-free residential areas and to offer the residents other services besides parking in the mobility houses. This case, however, shows that established patterns are difficult to change and that it is important to identify the relevant actor who can drive change. Planning capacities involve understanding who the drivers of change are. In this case, the municipal parking company plays an important role in driving changes by developing mobility hubs. On the other hand, this role is also new for a car-parking company and highlights that actors can assume different roles: breaking away from business-as-usual can foster new alliances and options for change.

In all municipalities, the reluctance to shift towards more sustainable travel modes is frequently mentioned in both workshops and interviews. The officials perceive that there is often resistance among citizens when it comes to changes in the road networks aimed at reducing car traffic and parking, as these topics are sensitive. It was noted during one workshop that changes in public areas can lead to conflicts. For instance, converting squares into mobility hubs poses a risk. “A square should remain a square, while a mobility hub has a different appearance and other needs” (Linköping workshop). There are challenges in imagining things differently, and there is a tendency that when designing and envisioning mobility hubs, they are commonly described as being established and developed around a square or in a specific area.

The municipalities need to change existing patterns, structures and systems. Finding the capacity to shape this in planning practice is sometimes difficult because of norms such as car dependency and established structures regarding land use. Other issues are related to lock-ins affecting both the built environment and infrastructure systems as well as organizational structures. For example, it is challenging to change existing infrastructure such as streets, roads and squares to utilize or convert areas in cities for mobility hubs. This issue is also about changing established structures and systems, which within municipal operations is often a slow process, whereas transport and mobility planning today is often faced with rapid changes in mobility services.

Transformative capacity involves creating, testing and introducing innovations that can lead to transformative change through, for example, test beds, demonstration arenas and living labs. This challenges current planning structures as it means going outside more rigid municipal frameworks. Transformative capacity is about fostering opportunities for innovation, challenging dominant regimes and promoting broader acceptance of new solutions. As such, transformative capacity can be defined as the ability of actors to generate new ideas and courageously integrate them into new structures, practices and systems (Wolfram/Frantzeskaki/Maschmeyer 2016: 22). This is achieved by making new innovations visible and embedding them within existing or new structures, systems and practices.

As mentioned earlier, the four municipalities in this study are all part of the national innovation programme Viable Cities, and they were also part of a project within that programme as system demonstrators for mobility hubs. These two initiatives push the municipalities to work with more experimental forms of governance and to test and implement new solutions that can lead to system change. So far, much of the work around mobility hubs in the municipalities has involved testing and developing new mobility solutions, but with varying outcomes and degrees of implementation. Currently, there are examples of mobility houses in Malmö, Uppsala and Linköping. In all these cases, the municipalities have supported the risks and facilitated the implementation.

In Umeå, a hub concept was tested and set up as a pilot project in relation to shared cargo bikes (called U‑bike), where the municipality established two cargo-bike nodes in the city, combined with a bike garage in the city centre. The aim was to promote more sustainable ways of travel by allowing citizens to test and use different cargo bikes, thereby changing their perceptions about the usage of cars. Initially, the goal was to combine the hubs with other modes of travel, but it has been difficult to persuade private actors to get established in the municipality.

In Malmö, the municipality has experimented with mobility hubs in combination with ‘Malmö by Bike’. In 2024, the municipality tested two distinct mobility hubs. One of them was tested during the summer, in a so-called summer square, where car parking was temporarily removed during the summer months to test a mobility hub offering shared mobility solutions. The second hub was a further development of the existing mobility house “Anna” where additional mobility modes were added, including car-pools, electric bikes, cargo bikes, ‘Malmö by Bike’ and e‑scooters.

The shift to experimental forms of governance, requiring municipalities to incorporate urban experimentation into their planning practices and to test new solutions that can drive transformation, put pressure on the municipalities to integrate such work into existing structures, cultures and planning practices (see also Bulkeley/Castán Broto 2013: 362; Eneqvist/Karvonen 2021: 191), as also shown in the examples of Malmö and Umeå. However, urban experimentation requires political support and courage, as it challenges traditional governance structures, such as comprehensive planning and policymaking, in favour of more strategic functions (Agger/Sørensen 2018: 56). The officials in the four municipalities all point to the importance of political support and the political will to make things happen. For example, in Malmö, a political decision led to the implementation of 100 mobility enclosures, which made it possible to convert former parking spaces into parking for electric scooters. Such decisions are often perceived as controversial with politicians fearing they might lose popularity, but at the same time this demonstrates that with political will and courage, change is possible.

Relevant to political will and an essential part of such planning and governance processes is the development of long-term strategies and visions for the city, which are crucial for politicians to make commitments towards testing more sustainable futures: “Then you can imagine that there is still – I would say – an established way of working in Malmö, which is about testing. Politicians, I feel, are quite comfortable or fond of ‘yes, but we test’ and that is also very important, I think, because it is sometimes a bit easier, and you get started if you just allow yourself to test a little. Not that it is just a ‘test’, we know that too” (Interview Malmö).

At the same time experimentation has been criticized for being short-term and project-oriented, with the impact of such projects tending to be limited if they occur outside of ordinary municipal work (Bylund/Riegler/Wrangsten 2022: 6–7). However, in the case of the municipal work with mobility hubs in the four municipalities there is an ambition to move beyond the experimental phase: “Test beds, pilots we are almost past. We have reasoned here in Uppsala that we want to get past that. We want to work for real, so to speak, here and now. We have built mobility houses, we have allocated new plots, have several plans underway where we will point out that we will work in this way” (Workshop Uppsala).

This also demonstrates that, in relation to mobility hubs, municipalities have had the transformative capacity to experiment with new approaches. Officials have garnered and solidified support across departments and among local politicians in various ways. Additionally, the smaller-scale adjustment of converting a parking lot into bike parking has played a significant role in gaining acceptance for such changes.

Part of transformative planning is to envision the future as something radically different (Albrechts/Barbanente/Monno 2020: 2). Similarly, a crucial part of transformative capacity is future vision-making and goals (Hölscher/Frantzeskaki/McPhearson et al. 2019b: 846). Even though it can be debated whether mobility hubs are part of a radically different future, the municipalities have been working with visions and imaginaries to signal and communicate the possible role of mobility hubs in their future cities and to foster political support. In Malmö, the planning department developed several visionary images to illustrate what a mobility hub can be and as something to work towards. These visions include the design of an entire street and its surroundings when planning for the mobility hubs. Part of this imaginary is also the design and layout of logos and signs that can be used to communicate where and what services a specific mobility hub offers (Workshop Malmö). Similarly, Linköping described the way in which mobility hubs can be a planning tool to increase acceptance of shared mobility, making it more visible and encouraging new travel habits. Mobility hubs are also seen as a step towards reducing congestion and strain on the road network. In Uppsala, working with common visions, political goals and strategies was central to the implementation and planning of mobility hubs. Additionally, in Umeå, the work with U‑bike and the planning of hubs in newly established residential areas also aims to support a reduction of car usage among citizens and residents.

Coordination capacity involves creating conditions where multiple actors can collaborate to achieve a common goal. It encompasses both coordinating to ensure a long-term approach and fostering collaboration between different actors. Such processes also raise questions about the future role of planning and whether local planning offices should be responsible for these tasks (Eneqvist/Karvonen 2021: 188–189).

One of the major challenges for municipalities is to govern strategically. This involves mediating between different actors across scales, sectors and time. There is a clear tension between municipalities, property companies and municipal parking companies (owned by the municipality), as they all operate under different terms. In the case of mobility hubs, gathering services from different market operators with varying interests and types of shared services is challenging. For private companies, profitability is the main concern, while for municipalities, it is about maintaining a service for citizens and developing more sustainable transport systems. This also highlights uncertainties regarding the role of municipalities and who should take responsibility for developing mobility hubs if there is no clear coordination. For example, in Linköping, mobility hubs can be established by both private and municipal actors, in open spaces, buildings or larger properties. Municipalities hence see a risk that private property companies may rename their parking garages to mobility houses without significantly changing the content and design, potentially leading to the greenwashing of existing parking garages rather than contributing to more sustainable transport systems. In Malmö, the planners want to see a more structured development of mobility hubs and have therefore initiated dialogues with both the parking company and the regional authorities. Another issue in Malmö is how the development of mobility houses should be established: “Yes, we have thought a lot, but we have not really put anything down yet. Because we have thought: But what are our goals around this? Accessibility is very important, which we are trying to convey now when we had an exhibition about mobility hubs. So, we talked, we thought: But we focus on accessibility. Then this is kind of a side effect and hopefully, we can reduce car ownership and car use and so on, and in that way affect emissions. But it is still accessibility that we must […]. It is the social aspects of the whole thing that we need to emphasize” (Interview Malmö).

Despite much of the literature on urban experimentation and transformative change emphasizing collaboration between different actors to develop new solutions (Roebke/Grillitsch/Coenen 2022: 215), it is primarily the municipalities that have worked on developing definitions and roadmaps for mobility houses and mobility hubs. When it comes to mobility houses, municipal companies have taken the lead, although there are examples of private actors building mobility houses, such as in Hyllie in Malmö. In these cases, only residents can use the mobility houses, limiting access for other citizens. Additionally, the municipality cannot influence the content or design of these houses as they can with municipally owned houses. In Uppsala, private developers have also been involved in providing services such as bike pools and other micromobility solutions.

This highlights several challenges for municipalities in coordinating and collaborating with different actors in the development and operation of mobility hubs. There are significant questions about the roles of the municipality and the municipal parking company, and how collaboration with private actors should be structured, given that operations are driven by different logics in relation to the public good.