Home–University Travel Plan for Sustainable Mobility: A Comparative Study Between the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and the University of Calabria

Abstract

One of the most crucial aspects of urban planning is transport, which allows access to different land uses and mobility within the metropolitan area. However, because they are linked to sustainable development, transport networks have a detrimental impact on economic, social, and environmental factors. To date, there are many regulatory instruments in place that promote the green economy and aim to limit the excessive use of natural resources. Many municipalities are adopting “Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans” with the aim of redesigning areas and traffic flows in cities and encouraging public transport use to reduce urban pollution and make cities more livable. In Italy, moreover, the figure of the mobility manager has been introduced for companies and public bodies whose task is to optimize the systematic travel of their organization’s employees through the drafting and adoption of the Home–University Travel Plan (HUTP), which is a document whose main objective is to incentivize the use of sustainable forms of mobility by defining specific measures that positively impact the community. Mobility management, therefore, emerges as a fundamental approach to developing and implementing strategies to ensure people’s mobility in an efficient manner in relation to social, environmental, and energy-saving purposes. Following these considerations, this paper presents the development of an HUTP for the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTh), Greece, based on a work already carried out for the University of Calabria (Italy), and a comparative study between these two HUTPs follows. The choice to draft such plans does not respond to regulatory requirements but to a desire to contribute to the paradigm shift required by the new forms of mobility in the university campuses, which represent an attractive pole of considerable importance on the urban and regional territory. The initiatives to foster sustainable forms of mobility described in this document are also identified considering the Sustainable Development Goals, approved by the United Nations and outlined in Agenda 2030, with the aim also of promoting actions to improve the livability of the territory, ensure inclusion, increase collective well-being and increase the sensitivity of the entire academic community to the issue of sustainability.

1. Introduction

The viability and safety of cities face significant obstacles as a result of the rising demand for transportation. Transportation sustainability is primarily measured by the effectiveness and efficiency of the transportation system as well as the environmental and climate impacts. Transportation is the main source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the European Union, and road transport is the major contributor to local air pollution and smog, causing, thus, respiratory illnesses and cancers [1,2]. So, there is a need for increasing investment in sustainable mobility at the local level, aiming to reduce GHG emission levels and, thus, mitigate climate change and improve public health through better air quality. The real purpose of transportation is to provide social and economic connections where people have more opportunities afforded by increased mobility with access to work, education, goods and services, friends, and family. However, the social costs of transportation include traffic accidents, physical inactivity, and time loss during commuting; meanwhile, the economic costs include vulnerability to fuel price increases, wasting people’s time, and slowing the delivery of goods and services. Subsequently, sustainable transportation systems contribute positively to the environmental, social, and economic sustainability of the communities they serve, creating more vibrant, livable, and sustainable cities [3].

Planning for sustainable mobility necessitates a paradigm shift because the majority of people own and use a car for almost all travel when there are alternative modes of transportation like walking, cycling, and using public transit. Several approaches have been suggested to develop more sustainable transportation and mobility management; therefore, it emerges as a fundamental approach to developing and implementing strategies to efficiently ensure people’s mobility in relation to social, environmental, and energy-saving purposes [3].

Among the main actions of mobility management, travel plans undoubtedly play a decisive role in the orientation of mobility demand [3,4]. The development and implementation of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) create the conditions for changing users’ behavior and directing them toward forms of sustainable mobility for their daily trips [5,6].

Recently, the development of new technologies, Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications, and the implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSs) have supported new initiatives for sustainable mobility, boosting the paradigm shift toward shared and green transport modes [7,8]. Attention toward sustainable mobility has also grown in urban areas characterized by the presence of university campuses, which represent attractive poles of considerable interest for the analysis of transport system planners [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16].

With these premises in mind, this paper aims to draft a Home–University Travel Plan (HUTP) for the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece) on the basis of work already carried out for the University of Calabria (Italy) [17], providing a comparative analysis in terms of benefits expected from the implementation of the plans.

The choice of the two contexts is due to the fact that both are university campuses and have similar characteristics.

University campuses like Stanford in the US are virtually non-existent in Europe. Stanford is a unique model that is characterized by its vast extension, strong visual identity, rich offer of services and a particular geographical position. Replicating it faithfully in Europe is difficult if not impossible. The main reason is that there is no centralized database cataloging all university campuses in Europe nor a universally accepted definition of “university campus”.

In any case, University of Calabria and Aristotle University of Thessaloniki could both be considered university campuses if these are the characteristics of a campus:

• Vastness: an extremely large campus, with large green spaces, scattered buildings and an almost rural atmosphere.
• Architecture: the consistent and distinctive architectural style, creating a strong visual identity.
• Integration with nature: a campus immersed in a natural environment, with gardens, woods and lakes.
• Services: a campus that offers a wide range of services to its students, including accommodation, restaurants, sports centers, libraries and state-of-the-art laboratories.

In Europe, other cases could be Oxford and Cambridge in the UK, Uppsala in Sweden, Delft in the Netherlands, and Copenhagen in Denmark. In any case, this is a small number compared to the numerous European universities. We could estimate the percentage at around 1–2 percent of the total. An HUTP is a strategic framework developed by a university to manage and optimize the mobility of its students, faculty, and staff. The plan aims to reduce the environmental impact of commuting to and from the campus while promoting more sustainable and healthier travel options.

Key components of an HUTP may include encouraging the use of public transport, shared modes of transport, active travel options, the use of electric vehicles, flexible work and study schedules, and awareness campaigns. These measures can enable a reduction in individual transport modes, the number of single-occupancy vehicles on the road and the peak-time travels.

Possible impacts of the HUTP on sustainable mobility include a decrease in carbon emissions, as the reduction in single-occupancy vehicle use and encouragement of eco-friendly travel alternatives help lower the university’s overall carbon footprint. Additionally, sustainable transport options, such as public transit and carpooling, lead to reduced traffic congestion in and around the campus. A decrease in vehicle use also results in improved air quality, while promoting walking and cycling contributes to better health for both students and staff. Financial benefits arise as public transportation, carpooling, or cycling reduce individual travel costs. Lastly, the university’s commitment to sustainable transport practices can enhance its reputation as an environmentally conscious institution.

In order to achieve our aim, a literature review follows in which we identify the gaps in the relevant literature. After that, in Section 3, we analyze the case study of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTh) campus and the city of Thessaloniki as its trips’ origin and destination areas. In Section 4, we present our methodology. Section 5 presents the results and discussion of the comparative study. Finally, in Section 6 and Section 7, we finish our paper with our conclusions.

2. Literature Review

Using the search string within the article title, abstract, and keywords “home AND university AND travel AND plan” on Scopus yielded 35 results. The search string “home AND university AND mobility AND plan” yielded 42 results. Nevertheless, after examining these papers, it was found that most were overlapping, and only three (3) were relevant to this paper’s topic [18,19,20].

In a 2020 paper, Watts and Stephenson evaluated an employer transport plan implemented by the University of Sheffield in September 1997. The plan aimed to manage workers’ transport needs to reduce car trips and associated emissions. Using surveys and focus groups, the evaluation found a marginal 7% reduction in car use and a slight increase in travel diversity. Key deterrents to car use included objections to paying for parking and ineligibility for permits. Despite these measures, significant behavioral changes were hindered by employees’ perceptions of the university’s motives and attitudes toward car use and public transport. The study concluded that more substantial disincentives and improved non-car alternatives are necessary to further reduce car use [18].

In 2021, Saha and Fatmi explored how the University of British Columbia’s Okanagan (UBCO) campus can reduce its carbon footprint and align with government targets by promoting virtual campus scenarios and autonomous electric vehicles (AEVs). They tested 50 scenarios using a transport simulation model, considering various combinations of online classes, working-from-home, and hybrid approaches alongside different AEV penetration rates (levels 2 and 5). Their key findings are as follows: (i) a 40% AEV penetration rate with fully in-person classes can reduce GHG emissions by approximately 36%, meeting UBCO’s 2030 target; (ii) a 50% AEV penetration rate combined with a 10% hybrid virtual campus can reduce emissions by about 48%, aligning with the 2040 target; (iii) a fully virtual campus can achieve a 76% reduction in GHG emissions, meeting the 2050 target; and (iv) level 5 AEVs are more effective at lower penetration rates, but at higher rates, they perform better only when coupled with a 10% virtual campus scenario. These results highlight the potential of combining virtual campus initiatives with AEV adoption to significantly reduce emissions and meet long-term sustainability goals [19].

In 2023, Di Gangi et al. examined a pilot application in Messina, southern Italy, to promote using e-bikes as a sustainable transport mode. The project, supported by the Ministry of Ecological Transition, evaluated the e-bike’s effectiveness in reducing reliance on fossil fuels and enhancing eco-friendly mobility. Over nine months, data on e-bike usage, including distance traveled and trip frequency, were collected. There were three key findings: (i) average daily distance traveled: 6.9 km, (ii) usage rate on working days: 81%, and (iii) annual CO₂ reduction per person: 245 kg. The study also highlighted the positive impact of e-bike use on users’ psycho-physical well-being and reduced urban mobility stress. Despite challenges like mechanical issues and inadequate infrastructure, 15% of participants adopted e-bikes as their primary mode of transport. These results provide a foundation for future policies and adjustments before expanding similar services to students and schools. Nevertheless, it has to be mentioned that his paper was not campus-specific [20].

From the above, it is obvious that there is not much published research on HUTPs, even though there is a need for such research and practice, as shown below.

Universities are increasingly focusing on sustainable mobility to reduce environmental impact and improve campus accessibility. Studies have shown that a significant portion of university communities, particularly staff and faculty, rely heavily on private cars for commuting [14,21]. To address this, universities are developing sustainable mobility action plans that promote public transport, cycling, and walking [10,13,18]. These plans often include improving infrastructure, offering incentives for sustainable transport modes, and implementing stricter policies on business travel. Travel plans are emerging as effective tools for modifying travel behavior and reducing single-occupant car trips [22]. Universities are also exploring innovative solutions like e-bikes, car-sharing, and remote working to further reduce emissions [22,23,24,25]. By implementing these measures, universities can significantly decrease their carbon footprint and serve as role models for sustainable urban mobility.

By comparing the few research papers found to the increasing interest of universities in promoting sustainable mobility and HUTPs, a need for more research regarding HUTPs is revealed. Several papers highlight gaps and areas for improvement in current research and practices. Papantoniou et al. (2020) note that no scientific contribution provides a comprehensive template for university mobility managers to develop an efficient and effective sustainable university mobility plan tailored to the specific needs and characteristics of campuses [13]. Scheffer et al. (2019) point out the recurring issues of traffic jams, pollution, and inadequate infrastructure in university settings, indicating a need for immediate planning and restructuring to address these problems [23]. Ribeiro et al. (2022) identify significant barriers to using public transport and active modes, such as travel distance, time, weather conditions, and car ownership, suggesting that more research is needed to develop effective strategies to overcome these barriers [14]. Cappelletti (2021) discusses the need for policies and strategies to encourage sustainable transport modes and highlights the importance of understanding the mobility routines of university community members to reduce environmental impact [26].

These points collectively indicate that more research is necessary to develop tailored, effective, and comprehensive HUTPs that address university communities’ specific needs and challenges. This need is also highlighted by the fact that school campus traffic circulation has started to be treated distinctively compared with ordinary urban traffic circulation [27]. This paper answers this need for more research regarding HUTPs by describing how the HUTP for the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, was developed, based on the HUTP for the University of Calabria, Italy, and by comparing them to derive useful information.

The literature review was also analyzed using a tool developed at the University of Calabria, mySLR [28]. mySRL is a digital platform which was developed to support researchers in conducting systematic literature reviews (SLRs). The platform is able to overcome limitations of other available tools to support, in particular, reviews in the organization and management field of study. In this platform, the keywords “(travel OR mobility) AND plan AND university AND home” were used in the query, so as to merge the two previous analyses, and the Scopus database was always used. This resulted in 80 articles (without duplication) that were subjected to the platform analysis. The research started from 1969 data and, compared to the previous one, the number of articles obtained was slightly higher than the sum of the two previous research studies.

From the analysis of the results provided by the platform, it was possible to conclude that the best cataloguing involves two large topics (Figure 1). The first topic included 54 documents, and the second one included 26. Observing the temporal distribution of the articles on the subject of this note immediately highlights its actuality. Furthermore, the examination of the notes found through the mySLR platform led to the identification of the three most significant articles previously described and discussed [18,19,20].

3. Case Study

In this section, the analyzed contexts are described to allow a simpler and more intuitive comparison of the results illustrated in the paper regarding the applied methodologies.

3.1. The City of Thessaloniki

Thessaloniki is the second-largest city in Greece and the capital of the geographic region of Macedonia, the administrative Region of Central Macedonia, and the Decentralized Administration of Macedonia and Thrace. The Municipality of Thessaloniki, which also covers the historical center of the city of Thessaloniki, had a population of 319,045 in 2021, while the Thessaloniki metropolitan area had 1,006,112 inhabitants [29], which corresponds to 9.6% of the national population and is considered the most significant economic, industrial, administrative, and cultural center of northern Greece.

Regarding the traffic features of the Thessaloniki metropolitan region, over 1,600,000 journeys are performed daily with the city center serving as the origin or/and destination of 25% of those trips. Because most daily travels (55%) are performed in private cars and car ownership is still highly prevalent in the city, the city’s road system is frequently crowded, there are often delays, and illegal parking is prevalent during peak hours [30]. The lack of adequate public transport is another factor causing traffic issues; the Metro is still being built, and currently, Thessaloniki’s only available public transport option is the public bus system.

The urban center is crucial for many different forms of activity and has a history of experiencing significant traffic volumes; by far, motor vehicles are the primary cause of air pollution in this area. Numerous residents who commute, live, work, shop, or go frequently to busy places for enjoyment are subjected to high levels of air pollution caused by traffic. In the city center’s urban core, there is a large increase in noise pressure concurrently.

3.2. The Campus of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

The Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTh) is the largest in Greece. The main campus is located in the center of the city of Thessaloniki and covers an area of about 33.4 hectares. It comprises ten faculties, which consist of 40 schools and one (1) single-school Faculty. The 2019–2020 academic year census shows that 85,618 students study at Aristotle University, 74,303 in undergraduate programs, 6928 in postgraduate programs, and 4387 at the doctoral level. The teaching staff counts 2600 people. The administration office consists of 278 permanent employees and 256 employees under a private law contract of indefinite duration [29].

3.3. The Urban Area of Cosenza

Cosenza is the Calabrian city that has been most recently affected by the phenomenon of administrative and functional “overflow”. Thirty years ago, Cosenza was a physically self-contained city; today, on the contrary, it is a much more articulated city, materially polycentric, tightly welded to Rende, Castrolibero and a part of Montalto Uffugo, precisely the “scalo” fraction adjacent to Rende and the university area. The entire conurbation is, in fact, a single city animated by an intense network of urban mobility and collective services. From the google satellite image (Figure 2), it is easy to verify that there are no solutions of continuity between the municipalities listed above and that the University of Calabria (Unical) campus is peripheral to this area and relatively isolated.

The establishment of the University of Calabria in the Rende area in the early 1970s has represented the catalyst for the urban evolution of the last quarter of a century and the new dislocation of the resident population. The birth of the Calabrian university was a great opportunity for the urban growth of the entire city area and, more generally, for the economic and cultural revival of Cosenza. Currently, approximately 120,000 inhabitants live permanently in the Cosenza area without considering the several thousand students and employees of Unical who live there for most of the year. Cosenza “in fact” therefore concentrates a population that is already appreciable in terms of the minimum threshold to exploit agglomeration economies and to offer ranges of services of a higher quality profile. More important, however, is the still considerable attractive potential of Cosenza as a whole, both toward significant segments of the Calabrian and extra-regional population and above all toward the possible location of new advanced and innovative economic and entrepreneurial activities.

The urban area of Cosenza has within it a considerable wealth of resources and skills that can be put to the service of the development of these two polarities. First of all, it has an abundance of academic scientific resources in the field of logistics and management of complex sorting systems, industrial mechanics, new materials and applied economics that, if appropriately strengthened and connected, represent a strategic lever to implement and expand the spectrum of economic activities related to the full use of the port of Gioia Tauro on the Tyrrhenian Sea. On the other hand, in the Cosenza area, there are now important skills and experiences available in the field of management and enhancement of cultural heritage, which could be channeled and more specialized toward the tourist development of the Sibaritide on the Ionian Sea.

It should also be noted that the urban area is already configured as a natural attractive area for the promotion of development that is projected and integrated toward and from the Tyrrhenian Sea; in this context, the axis of the Cosenza Paola route is particularly interesting.

The urban area also represents the epicenter of a vast metropolitan urban area that extends in a ring with other small and medium-sized urban centers that wind from the Savuto valley, to the belt of the Pre-Sila range, to the Crati valley and the Serre Cosentine.

3.4. The Campus of the University of Calabria

The campus of the University of Calabria is located in a hilly area not far from the urban centers of the cities of Rende and Cosenza. With its 200 hectares of surface area occupied by classrooms, offices, service structures, laboratories, sports facilities and green spaces, it is the largest campus in Italy and one of the greenest in Europe. Unical has a student population of approximately 24,500 units. The enrolled students are divided into 78 courses of study divided among the 14 departments of the campus (33 Bachelor’s Degrees, 38 Master’s Degrees and 7 Single-Cycle Master’s Degrees). Unical’s dependent staff is divided into approximately 800 units of teaching staff and just over 600 units of technical–administrative staff.

4. Methodological Approach

4.1. The Case of the Home–University Travel Plan for the University of Calabria (Italy)

The methodological approach was developed to assess the sustainability of the present mobility conditions on the university campus and propose relevant measures and potential interventions to achieve sustainable mobility. The implemented methodological approach is based on the Home–University Travel Plan already drawn up for the University of Calabria (Italy) [17], some measures of which are illustrated in Figure 3.

The proposed approach consists of the following steps: (a) analysis of the transportation supply, (b) analysis of the employees’ and students’ demand for mobility, (c) design of intervention measures, (d) estimation of the benefits, (e) measure implementation, and (f) monitoring program.

4.2. Analysis of the Transportation Supply

In order to determine the instrumental resources allocated to mobility and, more generally, the mobility infrastructure and services, an analysis of the characteristics of the supply of transportation present in the territory was conducted. The analysis made it possible to reconstruct a cognitive picture of the infrastructure (road and railway network, bicycle and pedestrian paths, rest areas, etc.) and transportation services usable by employees and students as part of their home–work commute. The analysis focuses particularly on the supply of public transport services in the reference area and the alternative modes to private transportation by the university campus.

4.2.1. Road Network

Thessaloniki serves as a hub for key highways, including the A1/E75 (Athens–Thessaloniki–Evzonoi), A2/E90 (Egnatia Odos), and A25 (Thessaloniki–Serres–Promachonas), which link the city to other regions in Greece and neighboring countries such as North Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Türkiye. The city’s traffic is managed through the Outer Ring Road, which completely bypasses Thessaloniki, and the C-shaped Inner Ring Road that connects with these major routes. The campus is directly connected to the Ring Road via the K8 Triandria interchange and to the city through main roads like Egnatia and Agiou Dimitriou. A new infrastructure initiative, the “New Eastern Ring Road of Thessaloniki Flyover”, is currently under development. This project aims to reduce traffic in the urban center by constructing a four-lane Overground Expressway (Flyover) with emergency lanes and improving the existing ground-level roadway.

4.2.2. Public Rail Transportation Services

The New Thessaloniki Railway Station, situated in the Xirokrini district on Monastiriou Street and 2.5 km from the university campus, is the primary passenger rail hub of the city. It provides connections to Athens, Edessa, Florina, Serres, Alexandroupoli, and borders with North Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Türkiye via major railway routes. Managed by Hellenic Train S.A., a subsidiary of the Italian National Railways Group, the station offers Intercity and Intercity Express services, including high-speed trains to Athens, alongside suburban rail services. The Thessaloniki Suburban Railway, a three-line commuter network, connects the city to its metropolitan area and regions such as Edessa, Florina, Serres, and Larissa, with extensions reaching Paleofarsalos.

4.2.3. Public Road Transportation Services

The Organization of Urban Transportation of Thessaloniki (OASTH) manages 79 bus routes throughout the metropolitan area, accommodating up to 180 million passengers annually. Numerous stops within the campus ensure easy access to the rest of the city. Intercity bus services operate from the “Macedonia” Bus Station, situated 5 km from the city center in Menemeni, with urban bus routes connecting it to the campus. These services provide links to Central Macedonia, various locations across Greece, several islands, and international destinations, including Albania, Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Germany, and Türkiye.

4.2.4. Metro System

The Thessaloniki Metro, an underground public transit system, is expected to begin operations on its main line in November 2024, following delays due to archaeological discoveries. Overseen by Elliniko Metro S.A., the system comprises two lines: Line 1 (“Base Project”) and Line 2 (“Kalamaria Extension”). Both are designed to transport at least 18,000 passengers per hour in each direction with driverless trains operating at 90 s intervals, which was manufactured by Hitachi Rail Italy.

Planned expansions include a four-station extension of Line 2 to Macedonia International Airport and an eight-station western loop. The project also features 2000 park-and-ride spaces near the university campus, which will be served by the Panepistimio and Sintrivani–Ekthesi stations.

Figure 4 shows the New Railway Station at the left end of the red line, just above the port. The Intercity Bus Station of Thessaloniki, “Macedonia”, is below the Menemeni Metro station. The Thessaloniki International Airport “Makedonia” is seen on the right side at the end of the extension to the airport line. The Thessaloniki Metro stations that will serve the campus are the fifth and sixth stations counting from the left end of the red line, i.e., Sintrivani and Panepistimio, respectively.

4.2.5. Port and City Water Services

The Port of Thessaloniki is a significant hub in the eastern Mediterranean, acting as a gateway to the Balkans and southeast Europe. Integrated into the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T), it connects with major motorway and railway systems, supporting international freight transport and attracting global tourists. Additionally, the port hosts the “Karavakia” waterbus service, which links central Thessaloniki to nearby coastal towns. This 50-min ferry route, operated by three vessels, stops at the Port, White Tower, Neoi Epivates, and Peraia.

4.2.6. Airport

The Thessaloniki International Airport “Makedonia”, situated 13 km southeast of the city in Thermi, has direct access to major road networks. It provides 2285 parking spaces along with car rental and taxi services. A future overground extension of the Thessaloniki Metro is planned to connect the airport to the city’s transit system. For now, 24 h bus lines 01X/01N, operated by OASTH, link the airport to key locations, including the Intercity Bus Station, the university campus, and the railway station.

4.2.7. Bike and Pedestrian Paths

Thessaloniki has a designated bicycle and pedestrian pathway stretching along the waterfront from the harbor to the Concert Hall. Additional bike routes extend from Aristotle Square, the White Tower, and reserved lanes on Agiou Dimitriou Street and Konstantinou Karamanli Avenue. Although the university campus includes a bicycle route, it remains unlinked to the city’s broader cycling network.

4.2.8. Measures for Accessibility/Mobility for People with Disability

City offices provide a transportation network for People with Disability (PwDs). Transportation is provided by three specially adapted vehicles in two shifts, 6:00–14:00 and 14:00–22:00. Those transported pay a token fee, while regular network members pay an annual fee of €15.00. University services also include transportation for students with mobility disability from their residences to the campus and vice versa.

4.3. Analysis of the Mobility Demand

The analysis of the mobility demand of the entire academic community is an integral part of the information and analysis phase of the Home–University Travel Plan. It is preparatory to the definition of measures to be implemented to promote sustainable forms of mobility, improve accessibility to the campus, reduce road congestion from private vehicular traffic, decrease environmental impact, and ensure greater safety in travel. In order to ensure a comprehensive assessment of the phenomena related to home–university commuting, a cognitive survey on home–university commuting was prepared and addressed to the entire population of AUTh through online questionnaires on the LimeSurvey platform. Specifically, two surveys were administered: one aimed at the student population and another at the employed staff, including faculty, technical, and administrative staff. The surveys should be repeated periodically to obtain a systematic collection of data on the habits and needs of the academic community on home–university travel also by virtue of the changes induced by the measures that will eventually be implemented. The questionnaire was prepared in April 2023, and it aimed at investigating elements useful for understanding employees’ commuting habits and needs as well as their propensity for change. The questionnaire for employees is composed of five macro-sections related to the respondent’s biographical data (gender, age), data pertaining to work activity (category of membership, type of contract, working hours, agile work, time of entry/exit to/from campus), means of transportation and subscriptions to transportation services in the respondent’s availability, systematic home–university travel (area of origin of travel, habitual mode of travel, distance traveled to work location, time taken to reach work location, reasons behind the choice of the current mode of travel, degree of satisfaction with the current mode of travel), and propensity to change mode for home-to-work travel (degree of propensity to change, reasons behind change). At the end of the work, 284 completed questionnaires were returned by employees with an overall response rate of 8.8%. The sample size is such that it is claimed to be representative of the target population (3200 employees surveyed) with a 95% confidence level and 5.55% margin of error. The home–university commute survey for students instead is composed of seven macro-sections, the same five of the employees survey with the addition of the availability of spending on transportation services and the index of liking of digital services available on a digital platform. The data collection campaign returned 1038 completed questionnaires with an overall response rate of 1.1%. The sample size is such that it is claimed to be representative of the target population (85,000 students) with a 99% confidence level and a 4% margin of error. In compliance with EU Regulation 2016/679 and Legislative Decree No. 196/2003 (following updates in Legislative Decree 101/2018), the data collected are used in aggregate and anonymous form.

4.4. Design of the Intervention Measures

The analysis of the demand for mobility and the current supply of transportation services brings to light the critical issues that currently burden the mobility system that characterizes access to the campus. Measures that could potentially be implemented in the short to medium term are then described below. They have as a common goal the promotion of sustainable forms of mobility capable of shifting a proportion of home-to-work trips made by private motor vehicles to mobility models with a low environmental impact, appropriately taking into account the propensity to change declared by employees, as well as available company resources.

• Measure 1—Activation of agreements with local public transport companies:

The analysis of the samples of respondents shows that 71.9% of employees and 42.0% of students say they do not have subscriptions to public transportation services; it is good to activate agreements with the Organization of Urban Transportation of Thessaloniki in order to facilitate and incentivize the use of collective transportation at subsidized rates for the employees and the students, especially in the future perspective where public transport services are reorganized according to the provisions of the Thessaloniki SUMP, including the entry into service of the metro [32,33]. The estimated percentage value of people inclined to implement the measure is 51.1% of the employees and 60.6% of the students. This is an estimated value inferred from the survey considering the percentage of people who are in favor of using public transportation. AUTh is not expected to assume the estimated costs of implementing the measure.

• Measure 2—Activation of carpooling platforms:

From a study by Mitsakis et al. [34], the average number of travels in Thessaloniki on working days is estimated to be 1,300,000, or 11.5% of all journeys drawn to the city’s center, and 67% of all trips are made in cars, or 871,000, and 65% of them (566,150) have just one (1) passenger, for an average vehicle occupancy rate of 1.44 people per vehicle. This phenomenon, combined with the unattractiveness of public transport, exacerbates the city’s traffic problem. The introduction of a carpooling platform would make it possible to structure the custom put into practice spontaneously by part of the academic community to share trips by private vehicle. Adopting a carpooling platform would allow community users with compatible routes and schedules in their home–university commutes to share a private car or ask to travel as passengers and share any travel expenses. Platform users can arrange their trips through mobile apps, providing the car (as a driver) or “asking” to move as passengers and share any travel expenses. Carpooling is compatible with sustainable mobility actions and fosters social relationships. The percentage value of people inclined to implement the measure is 16.9% of employees and 24.1% of students. More in-depth studies should be conducted for an accurate cost estimate, including establishing cost estimates with service providers.

• Measure 3—Securing pedestrian routes and creation of a Woonerf zone:

It is considered appropriate to improve and secure the pedestrian pathway on the borders of the campus in order to incentivize and facilitate soft mobility and micro-mobility for travel to and from the campus. As declared in the SUMP of Thessaloniki, the redesign of the streets along the campus area with the “canalization” of the traffic along Egnatia Street and the creation of a park-and-ride hub and a bus terminal has been established. The creation of a secure, welcoming, and accessible environment that supports the ability of the academic community to move around and utilize all of the open spaces and built environment of the university campus is therefore necessary in order to provide efficient mobility and accessibility to everyone. The strong demand for parking spots on the AUTh campus resulted in an unsustainable scenario where the sidewalks serve as de facto parking spaces, decreasing the level of mobility available to pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users. A survey targeting AUTh’s academic community [35] found that 86.0% of the participants agree or strongly agree with redesigning the open spaces of the campus of AUTh, and 72.3% prefer the alternative of a Woonerf zone renovating the open spaces to make them accessible to all, including also the main internal roads of the campus (Figure 5). Woonerven zones were first developed in the Netherlands in the early 1970s and were defined by law in 1976. A Woonerf zone is not just a pedestrianized street; on the contrary, it is a model of mixed traffic in which all modes of urban mobility can co-exist, but car drivers are expected to give right of way to all the other road users, and they may not drive faster than at a walking pace, while through car traffic is generally hindered [27,35]. The same study also presents another solution regarding the accesses and paths for bicycles and pedestrians based on a segregated traffic approach [36], which was compared with the Woonerf approach. The percentage value of people inclined to implement the measure is 19.4% of employees and 30.1% of students (this is an estimate deduced from the survey considering the percentage of people who say they walk to campus). AUTh is not expected to bear the estimated costs of implementing the measure. In addition to producing advantages from the point of view of sustainable mobility, Woonerf zones offer a series of economic benefits that go beyond simple urban redevelopment. Among the most significant benefits are (1) the increase in real estate value, generated by greater attractiveness for residents and potential buyers, (2) the development of local commerce, generated by better usability of places for pedestrians and a more livable environment, (3) the reduction in public costs, generated by lower costs for road maintenance, less pollution and greater safety, (4) the increase in tourism, generated by the new tourist connotation of the area affected by the interventions, (5) reduction in social costs induced by road accidents, generated by a mitigation of the danger of vehicular traffic.

• Measure 4—Activating agreements with providers of car-sharing and shared micro-mobility services:

As part of the planning of measures for sustainable mobility, it would be appropriate to enter into agreements and conventions with providers of car-sharing and shared micro-mobility services (bike-sharing, scooter-sharing, moped-sharing), encouraging a zero environmental impact thanks to the short-term rental of micro-mobility vehicles managed by smartphone application mobile platforms. The Thessaloniki’s SUMP has included the lifting of the traffic ban on Aristotle Street, a north–south axis in the campus area, in the direction from Egnatia Street to Agios Dimitrios Street, and the installation on this road of a system of electric vehicles and shared bicycles. The percentage value of people inclined to implement the measure is 10.2% of employees and 17.0% of students. With regard to estimating the costs required to implement the measure, no expenses are expected to be borne by the university for the activation of agreements with providers of car-sharing and shared micro-mobility services because providers offer zero-cost solutions of service management and subscriptions charged to the user who uses the vehicles. However, the possibility of using mobility vouchers reserved for employees and students who use subscriptions to shared micro-mobility services during the home–university commute could be considered.

• Measure 5—Construction of bicycle routes in continuity with the city bicycle network:

As declared in Thessaloniki’s SUMP, the enlargement of the cycle path network has been established. Among the funded interventions, there is the bicycle connection between the university campus and many other routes to benefit the safety and comfort of home–university travel. The implementation of the measure will have to be shared and agreed upon with the administration of the Municipality of Thessaloniki, which will have to frame its design within the framework of the Urban Plan of Cycling Mobility as a sectoral tool of the SUMP. The percentage value of people inclined to implement the measure is 31.3% of employees and 45.5% of students. The value is inferred from the percentage of users who expressed a propensity to use private bicycles when correlated with the availability of suitable bicycle routes, and the intervention is fully funded by the administration; no costs are expected to be covered by AUTh.

Planned Interventions by the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP)

Strategy B of Thessaloniki’s SUMP proposes to redefine the role and function of five areas of the municipality. The strategy highlights zones of influence and feedback along the city’s new public transport mode (metro), which are called upon to form part of a multimodal and sustainable transport system, bridging the urban discontinuities of the city. In area number 3, which includes the campus of AUTh, the creation of park-and-ride stations and electric vehicle-sharing facilities, the creation of a bus terminal, and the redistribution of public space combined with the creation of a low-traffic zone are proposed.

All the metropolitan area municipalities have also equipped themselves with a common shared SUMP of the metropolitan area of Thessaloniki with the common goal of the transformation of public transport recognized as the key pillar for achieving the goal of sustainable mobility and urban development. The proposed measures are the creation of a unified and intelligent fee system; the creation of bus lanes, light signaling priority, and a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system; discouraging the use of private vehicles; promoting the use of public transport; and promoting the creation of a tram network.

4.5. Estimation of Benefits

The benefits that can be obtained with the implementation of the Home–University Travel Plan (HUTP) measures can be evaluated in terms of benefits directly acquired by the university population, with reduced transportation costs, increased travel comfort, and reduced travel time, but also in terms of benefits for the institution itself, which could benefit from strengthening its image and enhancing its virtuous position among the other universities as well in terms of its sustainability. The community would also gain from the implementation of the HUTP’s proposed measures, as they would have an impact on lowering traffic congestion levels on the road network and lowering emissions that contribute to climate change.

In particular, the reduction in emissions is specifically assessed by adopting the same calculation procedures adopted for the University of Calabria case and described in Annex 4 of the document “Guidelines for the drafting and implementation of Home-Work Commute Plans” defined by the Italian Ministry of Transport, which is known as “Piani degli Spostamenti Casa-Lavoro (PSCL)” in Italian [37]. For each measure, the environmental benefits achievable over the course of one year were therefore estimated with reference to the savings in emissions of climate-altering gases (carbon monoxide [$CO$], and carbon dioxide [$C{O}_2$]), atmospheric pollutant gases (nitrogen oxides [${NO}_x$]) and particulate matter with a size smaller than 10 microns (${PM}_{10}$). Specific average emission factors by emission standard, fuel type, and engine capacity were deduced from the Emisia database in the reference territorial context of Greece [38]:

• $FE\left(CO\right)=2.1 \mathrm{g}/\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}$;
• $FE\left(C{O}_2\right)=239.57 \mathrm{g}/\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}$;
• $FE\left({NO}_x\right)=1.03 \mathrm{g}/\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}$;
• $FE\left({PM}_{10}\right)=0.03 \mathrm{g}/\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}.$

Underlying the estimation of environmental benefits, certain assumptions related to the implementation of the individual measure were adopted:

• The estimated value of users adhering to the measure is set out in the descriptions of each measure.
• The average daily travel distance (round-trip) taken by employees and students to reach the university campus using private transportation and avoided because of adopting the measure is calculated from the average travel distance reported by the sample of users inclined to adopt the measure.
• The number of days in a year when the measure is operational varies in relation to the measure to be implemented.

It should be noted that the overall value of the reduction in pollutant emissions cannot be derived from the algebraic sum of the benefits reported since some measures, in fact, are referrable to the same axis of intervention (e.g., encouraging the use of local public transport) and involve the same target users (e.g., potential bus passengers). Therefore, the estimates presented refer exclusively to the impact that each individual measure could have if applied not in combination with the other measures.

Procedures for Calculating the Environmental Benefits

Procedure 1—The procedure is applied to estimate the environmental benefits that are achieved when an employee gives up the use of private cars in favor of travel by bicycle, on foot, or by local public transport; this procedure is also applied in the presence of measures to encourage working from home or co-working. The estimated environmental benefits related to the reduction in pollutant emissions ($\mathsf{\Delta }Em{i}_{pol}$ expressed in kg/year) due to the decrease in mileage traveled by private cars ($\mathsf{\Delta }k{m}_{car}$) as a result of adopting the measures proposed in the plan can be estimated using the following formula:

$$\mathsf{\Delta }Em{i}_{pol}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathsf{\Delta }k{m}_{car}{FE}_{pol}Op}{1000}} (\mathrm{kg}/\mathrm{year})$$

(1)

where the following apply:

• $Op$ is the number of days in a year that the employee works from home and/or co-working and/or commuting on foot, by bicycle, or by transit to reach his work location.
• ${FE}_{pol}$ are the average emission factors for each of the pollutants considered ($CO$, $C{O}_2$, ${NO}_x$, and ${PM}_{10}$) expressed in g/km.

The daily reduction in employee car mileage ($\mathsf{\Delta }k{m}_{car}$) is assessable by the following formula:

$$\mathsf{\Delta }k{m}_{car}={\displaystyle \frac{Ut}{\delta }}L (\mathrm{km})$$

(2)

where the following apply:

• $Ut$ is the number of employees subtracted from the use of a car as a result of changing the mode of travel to work;
• $\delta$ is the average car occupancy rate (equal to 1.4); and
• $L$ is the average daily travel distance (round trip), expressed in kilometers, traveled by the employee to reach the place of work using a private vehicle and avoided as a result of adopting the proposed measures.

Procedure 2—The procedure is applied to estimate the environmental benefits that are achieved when an employee gives up the use of private cars because he/she takes advantage of carpooling or car-sharing services (corporate or private). The estimate of environmental benefits related to the reduction in pollutant emissions ($\mathsf{\Delta }Em{i}_{pol}$ expressed in kg/year) due to the decrease in mileage traveled by private cars ($\mathsf{\Delta }k{m}_{car}$) as a result of adopting the measures proposed in the PSCL can be estimated using the following formula:

$$\mathsf{\Delta }Em{i}_{pol}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathsf{\Delta }k{m}_{car}{FE}_{pol}Gs}{1000}}-{\displaystyle \frac{k{m}_{share}{FE}_{share}Gs}{1000}} (\mathrm{kg}/\mathrm{year})$$

(3)

where the following apply:

• $Gs$ is the operability of the proposed intervention (i.e., the average number of working days per year that a person uses a shared mobility or carpooled vehicle);
• ${FE}_{pol}$ are the average emission factors for each of the pollutants considered ($CO$, $C{O}_2$, ${NO}_x$, and ${PM}_{10}$), expressed in g/km, for the private car no longer used by the employee in his home–work commute; and
• ${FE}_{share}$ is the average emission factor for each considered pollutant ($CO$, $C{O}_2$, ${NO}_x$, and ${PM}_{10}$), expressed in g/km, for the car taken for sharing.

The daily reduction in employee car travel ($\mathsf{\Delta }k{m}_{car}$) resulting from the use of a sharing mobility or carpooling service can be estimated through Equation (2).

The estimated carpooled mileage ($k{m}_{share}$) can be estimated with the following formula:

$$k{m}_{share}=Rentk{m}_{rent} (\mathrm{km})$$

(4)

where the following apply:

• $Rent$ is the number of daily rentals of shared vehicles; and
• $k{m}_{rent}$ is the estimated average mileage (in km) of a shared or pooled vehicle during a rental.

The estimated benefits achievable with the implementation of the identified measures are presented in

Table 1. Estimated benefits achievable with the implementation of the identified measures.

Measure	Environmental Benefits				Other Benefits
	ΔEmi ($\mathit{C}\mathit{O}$) Kg/Year	ΔEmi ($\mathit{C}{\mathit{O}}_2$) Kg/Year	ΔEmi (${\mathit{N}\mathit{O}}_{\mathit{x}}$) Kg/Year	ΔEmi (${\mathit{P}\mathit{M}}_{10}$) Kg/Year	A	B	C	D
1	274,962	31,367,943	134,862	3928	Yes	No	No	No
2	38,346	4,374,548	18,807	547	Yes	No	No	Yes
3	202,637	23,117,101	4115	119	Yes	No	No	Yes
4	18,521	2,112,908	9084	264	Yes	No	Yes	No
5	91,964	10,491,358	45,106	1313	Yes	No	Yes	Yes

1. Activation of agreements with local public transport companies. 2. Activation of carpooling platforms. 3. Securing pedestrian routes and creation of a Woonerf zone. 4. Activating agreements with providers of car-sharing and shared micro-mobility services. 5. Construction of bicycle routes in continuity with the city bicycle network. A: Reduction in transportation costs. B: Increase in the travel comfort. C: Reduction in the travel time. D: Increase in safety.

.

The definition of priorities for the implementation of the defined measures and the preparation of the communication strategies required to share with the academic community the goals each measure aims to achieve are prerequisites for implementing the defined measures. Short-term measures are taken into consideration if they can be implemented during 2024, and medium-term measures are taken into consideration if they can be implemented by 2028, also according to the interventions provided by the Thessaloniki’s SUMP. The time horizon for the execution of the measures is anticipated to vary depending on the priority for implementing the interventions, as highlighted in Figure 6.

The university community should be involved in the implementation phase of the HUTP, not just in the initial data collection through questionnaires. Progress made during the implementation phase should be communicated to raise awareness of opportunities and address any problems. A mobility manager should continuously monitor the HUTP to assess the effectiveness of the measures, identify concerns, and provide solutions. This evaluation should allow for the evaluation of benefits for both the university community and the community as a whole, allowing for necessary adjustments to achieve goals while staying within budget constraints.

The Guidelines for Drafting, Implementing and Evaluating Home-Work Commute Plans are reported in

Table 2. Indicators of effectiveness of the implementation of the measures defined in the HUTP [39].

Indicator
No. of cars owned per 100 employees
No. of cars used per 100 employees
No. of cars used per 100 employees during peak hours
No. of bicycles used per 100 employees
No. of transit users per 100 employees
No. of carpool users every 100 employees
Average “door-to-door” time
Total kilometers traveled by each mode
Degree of employee satisfaction

, which were defined by the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), Energy Systems for Mobility and Habitat Division [39]. During the monitoring phase, additional surveys should be conducted to assess adherence to implemented measures, satisfaction levels, and environmental benefits. Regular monitoring campaigns should be conducted to track vehicle and pedestrian flows into and out of the campus. These data will help support the planning of interventions and estimate their effects, ensuring a comprehensive analysis of mobility demand. This will also help calculate environmental benefits and evaluate the effectiveness of the measures.

Table 2 shows the indicators for which a comparison should be made between the current and estimated values before and after the implementation of the plan (for each indicator, during the implementation of the plan, the current value, the estimated value and the effective value after the conclusion of the observation will be reported). This allows for the assessment of the effectiveness of the implemented measures.

However, the 1998 ENEA document’s evaluation procedure for HUTP measures does not consider innovative measures like shared micro-mobility. It is recommended that an evaluation procedure be adopted that considers additional elements for the evaluation of HUTP measures, such as opportunities for active mobility, accessibility of public transportation for groups with reduced mobility, and access to shared micro-mobility services. This should extend the analysis to all components of the academic community, including employees and students. For this reason, it would be appropriate to introduce and add new indicators, not included in the ENEA evaluation procedure, which consider the impact that some HUTP measures can have on the campus sustainability as described in

Table 3. A new set of indicators to assess the effectiveness of implementing the measures outlined in the HUTP.

Indicator
No. of car-sharing users per 100 employees/students
No. of bike-sharing users per 100 employees/students
No. of scooter-sharing users per 100 employees/students
No. of parking slots per 100 employees/students
No. of charging station for electric vehicles
No. of Park and Ride areas
Total kilometers of pedestrian paths
Total kilometers of bicycle paths

.

During the monitoring phase, additional surveys targeting the academic community should be conducted to assess adherence to implemented measures, satisfaction, and environmental benefits. Regular monitoring campaigns should be conducted to detect vehicular and pedestrian flows in and out of the campus, enabling a detailed analysis of mobility demand. These data will feed simulation models to support intervention planning and estimate their effects, ultimately supporting the reduction in consumption, pollution, and climate-change emissions.

5. Results and Discussion

After analyzing the responses and defining the intervention measures for the two cases at the University of Calabria (in the city of Rende) and the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, a comparative study of these case studies is carried out to draw conclusions.

5.1. Comparison of the Mobility Demand

The first comparison is made on the most relevant data from the survey results. Regarding the availability of their own means of transportation, most respondents stated that they own a car, although there were some differences. In particular, there are lower percentages in the case of Thessaloniki and among students: for staff, there is 92.8% in Rende compared to 79.6% in Thessaloniki; for students, there is 45.6% in Rende compared to 30.5% in Thessaloniki. Comparable percentages were found for motorcycle ownership, while for bike and similar ownership, there is a higher percentage for Greeks (11.6% of staff and 11.5% of students) than Italians (6.2% of staff and 2.8% of students). Regarding subscriptions to transportation services, it turns out that more users in Thessaloniki have subscriptions to the bus system (21.8% of staff and 65.0% of students) than in Rende (4.3% of staff and 32.7% of students). Very low percentages turn out to be subscription holders of micro-mobility sharing services.

Regarding the main means of transportation used to make journeys, it appears that among staff, the main means used is the car with a clear prevalence in Rende (89.7% compared to 58.8% in Thessaloniki). Among students, the car is also the main means of transportation in Rende (34.4% compared to 14.5% in Thessaloniki). Regarding the use of public means of transportation, the bus is the most used mode by students, especially among Greeks: among students, 42.0% in Thessaloniki and 32.5% in Rende use the bus; while among the staff, there are lower percentages (9.2% in Thessaloniki and 3.6% in Rende). The walking mode is also widely used, especially among students (30.9% in Thessaloniki and 22.1% in Rende) who reside near campuses. On the other hand, there is a big difference between the two cities in the staff who claim to walk to work: 19.4% of Greeks compared to only 0.5% of Italians.

The motivations behind the differing behaviors observed between the two contexts analyzed can be primarily attributed to the different motorization rates in the two countries (570 private cars per 1000 inhabitants in Greece vs. 695 private cars per 1000 inhabitants in Italy) and, more importantly, to the quality of public transport services. As highlighted in Section 4.2, the public transportation supply is more diverse and robust in the Greek context. In contrast, the Rende campus suffers from a local public transport system dominated by a single operator with suboptimal service quality. This disparity in transport service availability and quality plays a significant role in shaping mobility choices with the Greek setting offering more attractive and sustainable alternatives to private vehicle use. Furthermore, the data relating to walking are strongly skewed toward the Greek campus, since the position of the Greek university is central to the urban area of the city of Thessaloniki and extremely compatible with commuting on foot; on the contrary, the Rende campus is located on the boundaries of the city and is difficult to reach by walking from the residential zones except for students who reside in the campus area.

Regarding the degree of satisfaction with the mode of transportation used, the users who say they are satisfied or fully satisfied are for staff 60.2% in Thessaloniki and 50.5% in Rende; for students, there are lower percentages, with 41.2% in Thessaloniki and 36.0% in Rende.

Regarding the willingness to use a different means of transportation, it appears that for both universities, a high percentage of users are willing to use public transportation if it is subject to increased and improved service (more frequency and increased travel comfort): among the staff, there is a willingness to use of 51.1% in Thessaloniki and 41.4% in Rende; among students, there is a willingness to use of 60.6% in Thessaloniki and 49.9% in Rende. It then turns out that Greek students are more willing to use private bicycles, subject to the construction of new bicycle routes, than Italian students (45.5% in Thessaloniki and 22.0% in Rende). In contrast, the percentages of staff who say they would use private bicycles are comparable: 31.3% in Thessaloniki and 27.3% in Rende. There are comparable percentage results, however, for the propensity to use micro-mobility sharing services in both cases and for both cities.

5.2. Comparison of the Intervention Measures and of the Expected Benefits

The analysis of the mobility demand of the university population and the current supply of transportation services bring to light the critical issues that currently burden the mobility system that characterizes campus access. The intervention measures proposed for each campus have as a common goal the promotion of sustainable forms of mobility capable of shifting an aliquot of home–work trips made by private motor vehicles toward mobility models with a low environmental impact, appropriately taking into account the propensity for change declared by employees and students. In general, we identified the following strengths for reducing the amount of private motor vehicle travel:

• The promotion of the use of local public transport (through specific agreements with operators and the offer of “mobility vouchers”).
• The encouragement of bicycle use (for shorter home–work routes).
• The promotion of carpooling.
• The promotion of shared mobility.
• The management of mobility information provision.

The benefits achievable through the implementation of the measures envisaged in the HUTP can be assessed in terms of benefits directly acquired by employees and students (among others, reduced transportation costs, increased travel comfort, and reduced travel time) but also in terms of benefits to the image of the universities, which could benefit from national and international recognition in the area of sustainability and energy transition for an increasingly green campus. At the same time, the city would also benefit from implementing the HUTP measures, impacting the same measures on reducing congestion levels from vehicular traffic on the road network and reducing pollutant and climate-changing emissions.

Therefore, for each measure, the environmental benefits that can be achieved over the course of one year were estimated with particular reference to the savings in emissions of climate-change gases (${CO}_2$), atmospheric pollutant gases (${NO}_x$), and particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (${PM}_{10}$). The $CO$ data saved on emissions are not available on the Rende University campus. It is intended to highlight how the overall value of the reduction in pollutant and climate-change emissions cannot be derived from the algebraic sum of the benefits reported in the paper; in fact, some measures are referrable to the same axis of intervention (e.g., encouraging the use of local public transport) and involve the same target users (e.g., potential bus passengers). Therefore, the estimates shown refer exclusively to the impact that the single measure could have on the community if applied not in combination with the other measures. The comparison shows that for the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, there are higher benefits in terms of saved pollutant emissions; this is due to the larger university population and more people willing to implement the proposed measures (

Table 4. Comparative analysis of the expected benefits for the university campuses of Rende and Thessaloniki.

Measure	University of Calabria (Rende)			Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
	ΔEmi (${\mathit{C}\mathit{O}}_2$) Kg/Year	ΔEmi (${\mathit{N}\mathit{O}}_{\mathit{x}}$) Kg/Year	ΔEmi (${\mathit{P}\mathit{M}}_{10}$) Kg/Year	ΔEmi (${\mathit{C}\mathit{O}}_2$) Kg/Year	ΔEmi (${\mathit{N}\mathit{O}}_{\mathit{x}}$) Kg/Year	ΔEmi (${\mathit{P}\mathit{M}}_{10}$) Kg/Year
1	3,265,973	11,952	768	31,367,943	134,862	3928
2	2,683,119	9819	631	4,374,548	18,807	547
3	369,794	1352	87	23,117,101	4115	119
4	1,182,534	4327	278	2,112,908	9084	264
5	856,086	3133	201	10,491,358	45,106	1313

1. Activation of agreements with local public transport companies. 2. Activation of carpooling platforms. 3. Securing pedestrian routes and creation of a Woonerf zone. 4. Activating agreements with providers of car-sharing and shared micro-mobility services. 5. Construction of bicycle routes in continuity with the city bicycle network.

).

At present, there are no other universities that have adopted the same procedures for calculating environmental benefits. However, the results presented for the two analysis contexts (University of Calabria and Aristotle University of Thessaloniki) are in line with the estimates of environmental benefits obtained in other contexts in relation to similar actions in favor of sustainable mobility [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49].

6. Possible Future Developments of Research During the Implementation of the Measures

The University of Calabria is part of the Network of Italian Universities for Sustainable Development (RUS—Rete delle Università per lo Sviluppo sostenibile). At the beginning of 2024, this network published the “2023 Report—Capacity building and best practices in Italian universities” and, in this report, it developed a proposal for indicators to measure the commitment of universities to sustainable development. In particular, among the RUS Indicators proposed by thematic area and comparison with the main international ranking systems, the report suggested those specific to mobility also for the evaluation of the home–university travel plan.

To support universities in monitoring the effectiveness of these policies,

Table 5. University sustainable mobility indicators.

Specific Topic	ID	Description/Goal	Indicator	Unit	Possible Disaggregation of the Indicator	SDGs
Mobility behaviors and policies	M1	Measures the share of sustainable vehicles in thetotal fleet of vehicles owned by the university (owned or leased)	Number of sustainable vehicles/total vehicles of the university	%	Disaggregation by vehicle type (cars, vans, bicycles, etc.) and/or by fuel type (electric, hybrid, LPG, other) in relation to potential users (n. employees/students)	11 13
	M2	Measures the share of sustainable home–university movements (percentage of people who do not use a private motorized vehicle) by the academic community (students and staff)	Number of people who make sustainable trips home–university/ academic population	%	Disaggregation by movement mode: active mobility (foot, bicycle, micro-mobility), TPL (bus and train) and car sharing/pooling or by single means of transport or user type (staff/students). Identification of the share of multimodal trips (car plus sustainable modes).	11 13
	M3	Measures the share of sustainable travel within the staff missions (teachers/staff)	Number of sustainable movements per mission/total missions	%	Disaggregation by mission type (scientific vs. logistics or representation) related to personnel	11 13
	M4	Measures the share of annual per capita spending of the university in support of incentives for sustainable mobility	Total expenditure to encourage sustainable mobility/ academic population	per capita €	Disaggregation by type of expenditure, type of user (students vs. staff) and by location in the case of polycentric universities	11 13
Infrastructure and equipment for sustainable transport vehicles	M5	Measures per capita spending on infrastructure/equipment, i.e., the share of investments cumulated over the last three years to support sustainable mobility	Investment expenditure on infrastructure or equipment for sustainable mobility in the last three years/academic population	per capita €	Disaggregation by type of expenditure, type of user (students vs. staff) and by location in the case of polycentric universities	11 13
	M6	Measures the availability, quality and consistency of bicycle stations on the university grounds	Number of bicycle parking spaces on university ground/ academic population	N/1000 persons	Disaggregation by type of station (individual bicycles or bike sharing, stations with anti-theft devices or monitored, covered/uncovered, with e-bike charging, etc.) and by University location in the case of polycentric universities	11 13

proposes six “macro” indicators, which are potentially disaggregatable (by type of user, university location in polycentric universities, transport means/mode, type of expenditure, etc.), if the data were available, providing a more complete picture. The first four focus on the ability of MM policies to incentivize sustainable transport behaviors and choices. Specifically, the indicator M1 is aimed at monitoring the university’s vehicle purchasing/leasing policies, toward the conversion of the vehicle fleet toward a 100% sustainable fleet, as well as the commitment to equipping itself with bicycles for short-distance travel by staff. The M2 and M3 indicators aim to measure the sustainability of students’ and staff’s choices of transportation in home–work travel and on missions, measuring the share of people who do not use a private motorized vehicle and use air transport only for long-distance travel. Since it is not possible to request the adoption of sustainable behaviors without implementing adequate transport alternatives (in terms of tariffs, frequency, capillarity, etc.), the M4 indicator provides an economic measure of the universities’ MM actions in co-financing transport services, allowing their use at a discounted price, etc. in terms of annual per capita spending (e.g., discounts, agreements and direct co-financing costs of transport services such as TPL, sharing, pooling, etc.). Finally, the last two indicators aim to measure the availability, quality and consistency of the infrastructures supporting sustainable mobility. M5 records the cumulative amount of investments in the last three years to create such infrastructures/equipment on university grounds (e.g., bicycle storage or workshops; electric charging stations) or co-finance others outside, to improve accessibility with sustainable means (e.g., cycle paths to university buildings). M6 focuses on bicycle stations.

Therefore, during the implementation phase of the home–university travel plan at the University of Calabria, it is intended to monitor the indicators proposed by RUSs over time, in order to verify the positive effects forecast in terms of improving the Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030, and also to identify the appropriate corrections during the process. The method tested at the University of Calabria, due to its generality and connection with the global SDGs, can easily be transferred to the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, also to continue the comparisons between the two university realities.

7. Conclusions

New development models have increasingly centered on sustainability in recent years, particularly in terms of living styles that are compatible with environmental, social, and economic sustainability. The HUTP promotes activities targeted at improving the academic community, concentrating on measures based on increasingly sustainable mobility and inclusive policies for all road users because sustainability is precisely the plan’s goal. Since 2021, the University of Calabria has employed a university mobility manager to manage the decision making, planning, programming, management, and marketing of the best sustainable transport options. The promotion of the implementation of interventions for the organization and management of the mobility demand of the entire academic population is one of the tasks assigned to the mobility manager to reduce the environmental impact caused by private vehicular traffic. The same is proposed for the Aristotle University in Thessaloniki.

The HUTP was specifically created to enhance “corporate” sustainability (in this case, the academic community). Therefore, universities must be aware of the issue of environmental sustainability on the subject of mobility due to their social function, as well as to set a good example for the rest of the society that hosts it, but most importantly for the territory of which they are a part. The analyses detailed in the two case studies specifically aim to draw inspiration from all the sustainability concepts presented. They examine the future of the campus from the perspective of mobility, which reduces, and often inhibits, the use of private vehicles and guides decisions on sustainability and energy transition issues.

The HUTP emphasizes reducing the use of private vehicles on campus, which directly lowers carbon emissions, traffic congestion, and the environmental footprint. By promoting alternative modes of transport, such as cycling, walking, and public transportation, the plan aligns with environmental sustainability goals. By focusing on inclusive policies for all road users, the plan enhances social sustainability by ensuring equitable access to transportation options. This promotes a more diverse and accessible campus environment, benefiting all members of the academic community. Also, the plan incorporates future-oriented thinking particularly with regard to the energy transition. By exploring and encouraging the use of alternative energy sources for transportation, such as electric vehicles and public transport systems powered by renewable energy, the plan aligns with broader sustainability and energy goals.

The main objective of the work has therefore been fully achieved; a complete methodology on how to conduct a HUTP was presented, with specific reference to university campuses, and a comparative analysis was proposed between two case studies in different countries. However, the study presents some limitations, mainly related to the location of the analyzed cases, the availability of experimental data and the territorial development policies. While the mobility initiatives and interventions proposed are promising, the study primarily focuses on the specific cases of the University of Calabria and the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. This could limit the generalizability of the findings, as other universities with different geographical, cultural, and infrastructural contexts may face distinct challenges and opportunities in implementing similar sustainable mobility solutions. Additionally, the study relies on theoretical frameworks and planned initiatives, meaning there is a lack of long-term empirical data to evaluate the actual impact of these mobility measures. Another limitation is the potential underestimation of external factors that can influence the success of sustainable mobility strategies, such as public policy changes, economic shifts, or technological advancements in transport. These factors can alter the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed solutions over time, which would, in this case, need to be reviewed and adapted.

As regards future research developments, it would be appropriate to evaluate mobility planning initiatives in other similar contexts and evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed interventions in reducing environmental impact, improving social inclusion or changing transport behavior by monitoring the impacts of the proposed sustainable measures.

During the implementation phase, it is also proposed to include aspects of urban safety, gender sensitivity and general inclusion (for example, of disabled people) in the description of the standards and in their monitoring, because in addition to mobility needs or measures, ecological and efficiency issues, the social sphere is considered very important and such as to influence the system’s approach, decisions and results.

Monitoring the measures implemented becomes essential in good mobility management practices. It is therefore desirable to design monitoring standards that integrate the methodological framework presented in the paper to fully account for the behavioral aspects of the academic community, such as resistance to change or the deeply ingrained use of private vehicles.