423

1 INTRODUCTION

Modern cities face growing challenges related to

congestion, air pollution, limited urban space, and

ageing transport infrastructure, which increasingly

force local authorities and institutions to rethink their

approach to mobility management [1], [2]. Port cities

encounter additional mobility pressures resulting from

the coexistence of industrial, logistic, and academic

functions within relatively compact urban areas. Their

transport systems operate within

a complex spatial structure shaped by port logistics,

freight corridors, shipyard activities, and intensive

heavy vehicle traffic. Unlike inland university cities,

where mobility patterns are largely determined by

residential, commercial, and educational functions,

port cities must simultaneously accommodate

industrial flows, international cargo operations, and

daily urban commuting. This functional layering

creates spatial conflicts, congestion along strategic

access routes, and growing competition for limited

urban space. As a result, sustainable mobility planning

in such environments requires an integrated approach

that accounts for the interdependencies between

passenger and freight transport systems. The high

concentration of activities and traffic flows further

intensifies mobility demand and contributes to

environmental pressures, reinforcing the need for

coordinated strategies that combine infrastructure

planning, behavioural change, and technological

innovation [3], [4], [5]. The concept of sustainable

Monitoring and Evaluating Sustainable Mobility

in a Fragmented Port-City Environment: Evidence

from a Maritime University

A. Jankowska, A. Przybyłowski, O. Gach & A. Lachowicz

Gdynia Maritime University, Gdynia, Poland

ABSTRACT: The implementation of sustainable mobility initiatives in academic institutions plays a crucial role

in shaping environmentally friendly transport behaviours and enhancing urban accessibility. This study focuses

on monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of sustainable mobility measures within a university setting,

examining their impact on commuting patterns and infrastructure usage. It further investigates the role of

institutional collaboration in advancing innovative transport solutions and assesses the influence of newly

introduced facilities and organizational strategies on mobility choices. By dissecting user feedback and mobility

data, the study provides insights into the effectiveness of implemented measures and identifies key challenges

and opportunities for further development and enhancing sustainable transport strategies. Despite these efforts,

transport behaviours still do not fully align with sustainability goals, highlighting the need for further research

and firmed actions. Nevertheless, the results of the survey conducted within this study indicate that the

sustainable development policy is progressing in a positive direction, as 45% of respondents report using

intermodal transport when commuting to the buildings of Gdynia Maritime University (GMU). The findings aim

to support policymakers, urban planners and academic institutions in refining mobility policies and

infrastructure to create a more accessible and sustainable transport environment.

http://www.transnav.eu

the International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 20

Number 2

June 2026

DOI: 10.12716/1001.20.02.16

424

mobility has emerged as a framework for balancing

environmental, social, and economic dimensions of

transport policy, focusing on reducing the

environmental footprint of travel while ensuring

accessibility and social inclusion [6], [7], [8], [9]. Within

this framework, universities and other large

institutions are increasingly recognized as key actors in

shaping urban mobility patterns and promoting more

sustainable travel choices among their communities

[10], [11], [12], [13], [14].

Academic institutions are among the most

prominent traffic generators in cities, as confirmed by

numerous studies on campus mobility planning [15],

[16]. Their size, spatial distribution, and daily

commuting patterns of students and employees exert a

strong influence on local transport systems.

Universities therefore play a dual role: they are both

contributors to mobility-related problems and

potential leaders in promoting sustainable transport

practices. Several researchers highlight that university

mobility plans or campus transport strategies can act

as catalysts for broader urban transitions by fostering

modal shift towards active and collective transport

modes, reducing parking demand, and improving

public transport integration [12], [17], [18]. Moreover,

continuous monitoring and evaluation are viewed as

essential tools in understanding the real effectiveness

of implemented measures and adjusting mobility

policies to user needs and evolving spatial conditions

[19], [20]. Against this background, universities are

increasingly expected to function not only as

educational and research centres but also as living

laboratories for sustainable mobility, testing and

promoting solutions that may later be adopted by cities

themselves.

The implementation of sustainable mobility

initiatives can significantly relieve the pressure on

agglomerations. Measures promoting active travel, the

use of public transport, and the introduction of digital

tools for mobility management support the transition

towards more environmentally friendly transport

systems. In university environments, such policies not

only improve accessibility for students and staff but

also serve as educational examples, shaping

environmentally conscious behaviours among future

professionals [11], [14], [18], [21]. Moreover,

sustainable mobility projects can reinforce the

university’s position as an active stakeholder in the

city’s climate strategy, highlighting the institution’s

commitment to reducing its carbon footprint and

supporting social well-being. However, the success of

these actions depends not only on the scope of

infrastructural investments but also on the level of

organizational coordination, institutional engagement,

and continuous evaluation of users’ needs and travel

behaviour [16], [22].

The case of Gdynia Maritime University (GMU)

illustrates these challenges particularly well. Located

in a dynamically developing port city, the university

operates across several dispersed sites - on Morska

Street, John Paul II Avenue, Sędzickiego Street in

Gdynia, and Roberta de Plelo Street in Gdańsk - each

generating substantial daily commuting flows. The

spatial separation of these sites makes the university

community highly mobile, but also exposes

weaknesses in local accessibility and transport

integration. Previous observations indicate that some

university units, such as the Faculty of Navigation, face

lower accessibility levels due to limited public

transport connections, which in turn increases reliance

on private cars. These spatial and organizational

conditions underline the need for systematic

monitoring, better coordination between university

management and municipal authorities, and the

development of comprehensive mobility plans [13],

[23], [24], [25].

Sustainable mobility initiatives at Gdynia Maritime

University are closely related to the institution’s

broader investment and development strategy.

Between 2025 and 2028, several major projects are

planned that will directly and indirectly affect mobility

and accessibility. The construction of the new Student

House, connected to the Sports and Recreation Centre,

will include an underground parking area with bicycle

storage and energy-efficient systems. The new IT

Centre, designed to support the recently established

Faculty of Informatics, will consolidate technical

laboratories and enhance the digital infrastructure,

opening opportunities for flexible working and

learning modes that can reduce physical commuting

needs. Another important investment is the two-level

parking facility, which will integrate charging stations

for electric vehicles and provide secure spaces for

bicycles and e-scooters, thus encouraging the transition

to low-emission modes. Finally, the redevelopment of

the main campus area at Morska Street will modernize

internal routes, improve pedestrian and cycling

accessibility, and create green open spaces that

enhance the quality of the urban environment.

Together, these projects reflect the university’s

growing commitment to aligning physical

development with environmental responsibility and

sustainable mobility objectives.

The study presented in this paper aims to evaluate

the current state of mobility and transport behaviour at

Gdynia Maritime University, with particular attention

to the perceptions, preferences, and needs of its users.

Rather than focusing on the outcomes of specific

investments, the research explores how students and

employees experience existing accessibility conditions,

what modes of transport they choose, and what factors

influence these choices. By combining survey data and

observational insights, the study seeks to identify key

determinants of commuting behaviour and to

highlight areas where institutional and infrastructural

improvements could foster more sustainable mobility

patterns. The results are intended to inform future

decision-making processes at both university and

municipal levels, supporting evidence-based planning

for accessible, low-emission, and user-oriented

mobility solutions.

2 METHODOLOGY

The study was designed with the University

community in mind - namely, its employees, students,

and all other stakeholders associated with the Gdynia

Maritime University. A total of 728 respondents

participated in the study, representing diverse

professional responsibilities. The indicated places of

residence of the respondents, as illustrated in Figure 1,

also suggest diversified transportation needs. The

primary objective of the study was to examine the

425

transportation preferences of users of the University’s

associated facilities, while identifying issues requiring

further attention and analysis.

Figure 1. Map of respodents’ arrivals to particular GMU’s

units. Source: own elaboration.

The findings will serve as a foundation for the

development of a comprehensive Mobility Plan for

GMU in the coming years. In line with the “living

laboratory” concept discussed in the Introduction, the

university community was treated as an active source

of empirical knowledge about real mobility practices

within a complex port-city environment. The survey

results constitute the first systematic dataset capturing

commuting behaviour, inter-campus movements, and

perceived barriers to accessibility in GMU’s multi-site

structure. This dataset forms a diagnostic baseline

against which future infrastructural and organizational

interventions – including those planned for 2025–2028

– may be evaluated.

The survey was conducted online via Microsoft

Forms in May 2025 and comprised 34 questions, not all

of which were mandatory. The main aspects of interest

included the modes of transport used by respondents,

travel times to and from the University, as well as inter-

faculty travel patterns. These responses provided

valuable insights into users’ perceptions and served as

an important indicator of focus areas within a broader

sustainable development framework for academic

spaces across the Tri-City area.

The questionnaire began with introductory

questions designed to better understand the profile of

respondents and to enable more precise interpretation

of the collected data. Variables such as the position

held and the organizational unit in which the

respondent performs their duties were also taken into

account.

Subsequent questions focused on key aspects

related to sustainable mobility analysis for GMU

commuting routes - specifically, the transport modes

used by respondents and the motivations behind their

choices. An important aspect of the study was the

distance between the place of residence and the

respective University unit, together with the average

commuting time.

The survey also examined movement between the

University’s facilities - namely, between the Faculty of

Navigation and the Main Building on Morska Street -

along with an analysis of travel time between these

locations.

For each of the two examined GMU locations, the

level of satisfaction among employees and students

was assessed with regard to the following aspects: car

and bicycle infrastructure, parking availability,

accessibility and service provision of public transport,

availability of MEVO public bicycle stations,

pedestrian accessibility, and transport safety.

An important section of the form consisted of open-

ended questions, allowing respondents to identify

transportation, communication, and social issues they

encounter while commuting to, from, or between

University buildings.

3 RESULTS

The questionnaire yielded comprehensive results and

corroborated long-term observations regarding the

transportation situation across GMU’s facilities. Before

discussing the open-ended responses, attention is first

directed to the transportation preferences of

respondents (Figure 2) for the Main Building on

Morska Street.

Figure 2. Modes of transport used for commuting to the main

building on Morska Street. Source: own elaboration.

Due to the wide distribution of respondents’ places

of residence, nearly 45% commute to Morska Street

using at least two modes of transport. In total, more

than half of all participants rely exclusively on a single

mode of transport most commonly walking, public

transport, or private car.

The main factors motivating respondents to walk to

GMU include proximity to their place of residence, cost

savings compared to other modes of transport, health

considerations, and the lack of direct parking

availability near the University.

Survey participants who rely on public transport

primarily cited fuel cost savings, road congestion

(particularly on expressways inaccessible to buses and

trolleybuses), and limited parking availability near

GMU as motivating factors.

Car users, on the other hand, justified their choice

in terms of time savings, convenience, comfort, and the

ability to perform other errands on the same day

without the need for transfers or waiting for

connections. Another relevant factor was convenient

access to parking, which for some might be facilitated

by a permit allowing entry onto the GMU campus. An

426

analysis of multimodal travel patterns is presented in

Figure 3.

Figure 3. Multimodal transport in the context of commuting

to the main building on Morska Street. Source: own

elaboration.

In the context of commuting to Morska Street, buses

and trolleybuses play a dominant role in intermodal

transport. The close proximity of bus stops near the

University, as well as the nearby SKM Gdynia Stocznia

– Uniwersytet Morski railway station, encourages

transfers. Many multimodal commuters leave their

private cars near other SKM stations and continue their

journey by train. A similar analysis for the Faculty of

Navigation is presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Modes of transport used for commuting to the

Faculty of Navigation building. Source: own elaboration.

A notably different situation is observed regarding

travel to the Faculty of Navigation building. Two-

thirds of the analysed group commuting to John Paul

II Avenue use multiple modes of transport (Figure 3.4).

Twelve percent reach the University on foot, mainly

due to proximity, cost savings, or lack of direct access

by car. Only 10% commute by private car, with high

parking fees in the vicinity of the Faculty cited as a

primary deterrent in open-ended responses.

A significant portion of multimodal trips involve

walking combined with bus or trolleybus travel. This is

the most common multimodal combination, largely

due to the absence of a direct public transport

connection to the Faculty. The nearest ZKM Gdynia

bus routes stop at Świętojańska Street, from which

respondents must either continue on foot or use paid

transportation options such as e-scooters or city bikes.

Another frequent travel pattern involves taking the

SKM train followed by a bus, bike, or walking segment

to reach the University.

Figure 5. Multimodal transport in the context of commuting

to the Faculty of Navigation building. Source: own

elaboration.

Figures 6–9 illustrate GMU students’ and

employees’ perceptions of various issues raised in the

questionnaire, evaluated using a Likert scale.

Figure 6. Students’ evaluations of issues indicated in the

questionnaire – main building on Morska Street. Source: own

elaboration.

From the students’ perspective, the most significant

problem is the limited availability of parking spaces in

the immediate vicinity of the University. This is

primarily due to the restricted number of campus entry

permits and the limited parking capacity along the

main street. Additionally, staggered class start times

often result in full parking occupancy.

Car infrastructure was assessed as generally

neutral, with negative opinions arising mainly from the

lack of continuous bus lanes along Morska Street.

Public transport users also highlighted congestion

during peak hours and the absence of direct routes to

the University.

City bikes are gaining popularity, which naturally

increases demand for docking stations. Students rated

the availability of such stations near the University as

moderate, suggesting potential for expansion in the

future.

From the employees’ perspective, parking capacity

is generally sufficient, and no major changes are

deemed necessary. Car infrastructure and access to city

bike stations were evaluated positively overall. Some

concern was expressed regarding cycling

infrastructure, primarily due to the condition of access

roads to the University - a situation expected to

improve given ongoing sidewalk renovations along

Morska Street.

427

Figure 7. Employees’ evaluations of issues indicated in the

questionnaire – main building on Morska Street. Source: own

elaboration.

Figure 8. Students’ evaluations of issues indicated in the

questionnaire – Faculty of Navigation building. Source: own

elaboration.

The situation differs significantly for the Faculty of

Navigation. Parking availability is much more limited

for students, largely due to permit requirements and

parking fees.

Public transport accessibility was also rated poorly,

as there is no direct connection to the building.

Respondents relying solely on public transport must

undertake a 15-minute walk or use paid transport

options such as e-scooters or city bikes to reach the

University.

The limited number of bike docking stations also

contributed to a negative evaluation of this aspect.

Figure 9. Employees’ evaluations of issues indicated in the

questionnaire – Faculty of Navigation building. Source: own

elaboration.

Most University employees work primarily in

GMU facilities located on Morska Street, while the

Faculty of Navigation generates considerably less

traffic. Consequently, demand for parking in that area

is lower and was rated as relatively neutral, although

survey participants did note high parking costs in

open-ended responses.

Conversely, compared to students, employees

assessed public transport accessibility more positively,

frequently opting for bus connections or paid

micromobility options for the final segment of their

commute.

In the context of sustainable urban mobility, the

study’s key findings are encouraging. Respondents

expressed few concerns regarding transport safety or

pedestrian accessibility at either analyzed location. A

sense of comfort and safety while using public

transport contributes to its regular use, while

unobstructed pedestrian access provides a reliable

alternative when other modes are unavailable.

Parking remains one of the most debated issues in

urban planning, often dividing opinions between

advocates and opponents. The situation at GMU is no

exception - strategic spatial management actions are

required, particularly around the Faculty of

Navigation.

4 DISCUSSION

The increasing emphasis on sustainable mobility -

particularly in the context of reducing private car

traffic in urban areas - has led to a growing number of

initiatives and studies focused on commuting to work

or educational institutions by public transport.

Nevertheless, numerous challenges remain that

entities such as GMU are unable to address

independently without cooperation with key

stakeholders, including municipal authorities.

A similar analysis was conducted in Italian

university cities, where the study led to the

implementation of a number of initiatives aimed at

facilitating student commuting to university

campuses. In the initial stage, individual

questionnaires were administered to identify the areas

regarded by students themselves as the most important

and therefore deserving attention in the pursuit of

efficient use of transport resources, corresponding to

the open-ended questions included in the

questionnaire designed for the GMU case. Municipal

authorities supported not only public transport

solutions but also car-sharing and bike-sharing

schemes in selected cities. Service frequencies were

increased and new routes were introduced, while

discounts were offered to interested students or, in

some cases, fares were fully waived. These measures

were implemented with the support of municipal

transport operators and local authorities seeking

improved coordination of urban transport systems

[26].

The results presented in this study may be

compared with findings from Pabna, a city in

Bangladesh, where questionnaire-based research was

conducted on a university transport system. Similarly

to the GMU case, questionnaires completed by

students and staff enabled an analysis of the system’s

strengths and weaknesses, its infrastructure, and the

overall attitudes of its users. The results indicated a

428

clear predominance of criteria such as cost-

effectiveness, cost reduction, and safety over travel

speed when choosing public transport as opposed to

private cars. The study also identified shortcomings,

including the lack of stops in the immediate vicinity of

university facilities, low service frequency, and an

often insufficient number of available routes [27].

Transport safety constitutes an important

dimension of sustainable mobility, extending beyond

objective accident statistics to include users’ subjective

perception of security and comfort. In line with

previous studies on university mobility systems [19]

[22] - perceived safety significantly influences modal

choice, particularly with respect to public transport

and active travel modes.

In the case of Gdynia Maritime University, the

Likert-scale evaluation revealed relatively low levels of

concern related to transport safety at both analysed

locations. Respondents did not identify safety as a

major barrier to commuting, which may indicate that

existing pedestrian infrastructure, public transport

services, and traffic organization provide an adequate

level of perceived security.

However, the spatial configuration of the Faculty of

Navigation, located within a port-related urban

structure and lacking a direct public transport

connection, requires additional consideration. The

necessity to combine multiple modes of transport and

to undertake extended walking segments may

influence subjective safety perceptions under specific

conditions, such as evening hours or adverse weather.

In port cities, where industrial, logistic, and academic

functions overlap [3], [4], transport safety should

therefore be analysed not only in terms of

infrastructure, but also in relation to urban spatial

integration and accessibility continuity. In this sense,

GMU may be interpreted as a “living laboratory” for

sustainable mobility in a port-city context. The

coexistence of port logistics, industrial traffic, and

dispersed academic facilities creates conditions that

differ significantly from inland university cities. The

identified multimodal patterns, reliance on SKM rail

connections, and accessibility gaps in the Faculty of

Navigation area illustrate how mobility solutions must

be adapted to spatial fragmentation and transport-

node dynamics. The empirical findings of this study

therefore extend beyond a single institutional case and

contribute to understanding sustainable mobility

governance in transport hubs where passenger and

freight systems intersect.

The findings derived from the studies cited above,

together with those presented in this article concerning

GMU, point to a key limitation in the form of the

restricted agency of certain stakeholders.

Consequently, close cooperation with public

authorities and the regular conduct of surveys are

necessary in order to continuously monitor the level of

satisfaction among residents and stakeholders. Such

efforts are frequently associated with long

implementation periods and the need for ongoing

analysis.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of GMU’s two main locations reveals

structural accessibility disparities that are strongly

influenced by the university’s embeddedness in a port-

city transport system. Unlike typical inland campuses,

GMU operates within a spatial structure shaped by

port logistics, industrial zones, and multimodal

transport corridors. This specificity significantly affects

commuting behaviour and modal choices, particularly

in the case of the Faculty of Navigation.

The survey results indicate that safety is not

currently perceived as a major barrier to accessing the

University’s facilities, which suggests that existing

pedestrian routes, traffic organization, and public

transport services provide an adequate level of comfort

and protection. Nevertheless, given the spatial

separation of university sites and the specific port-city

context, continued monitoring of perceived transport

safety - particularly in relation to access to the Faculty

of Navigation - should remain an integral element of

future mobility planning and infrastructure

development.

At the current stage of analysis, it can already be

concluded that extending bus routes to the area of the

Faculty of Navigation will be crucial from the

perspective of its users. Parking policy also warrants

particular attention. Extended occupancy studies

conducted at different times of day in the vicinity of

both GMU locations could enable more efficient

management of parking availability, for instance by

facilitating greater access for students during periods

of lower demand.

Continuous monitoring of implemented changes

and their systematic evaluation will significantly

support informed decision-making in the context of the

broader economic development of the city of Gdynia.

Such measures may contribute to long-term social and

spatial development, enhancing overall accessibility

and quality of life in the port-city environment.

The primary contribution of this study lies in

establishing an empirical, user-based diagnostic

framework for the development of a Mobility Plan

tailored to a maritime university operating within a

transport hub. By systematically capturing commuting

patterns and perceived barriers, the research provides

a replicable methodological approach for other higher

education institutions located in port cities or logistics-

intensive environments. In this regard, GMU’s

experience demonstrates how academic institutions

can function as strategic actors and testing grounds for

integrated sustainable mobility solutions that may

subsequently inform wider urban policy.

REFERENCES

[1] S. Gaggi, T. Fluhrer, and T. Janitzek, “Innovation in urban

mobility: policy making and planning,” 2013. [Online].

Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:166835194

[2] A. Przybyłowski, “Sustainable urban mobility planning:

Gdynia city case study,” Ekonomia i Prawo, 2018,

[Online]. Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:158436784

429

[3] G. Morel, F. R. Lima, H. Martell-Flores, and F. Hissel,

“Tools for an integrated systems approach to sustainable

port city planning,” 2013. [Online]. Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:27202332

[4] A. Jankowska, “Innovative Approaches to Transport

Challenges in Port Cities Based on Literature Review,”

TransNav, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 469–476, Jun. 2025, doi:

10.12716/1001.19.02.16.

[5] P. Fenton, “Port-City Redevelopment and Sustainable

Development,” 2020. [Online]. Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:212945947

[6] A. Przybyłowski, “Global trends shaping life quality in

agglomerations with particular emphasis on mobility in

seaport agglomerations,” TransNav, vol. 13, no. 3, pp.

615–620, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.12716/1001.13.03.18.

[7] V. Nikulina, D. Simon, H. Ny, and H. Baumann, “Context-

Adapted Urban Planning for Rapid Transitioning of

Personal Mobility towards Sustainability: A Systematic

Literature Review,” Sustainability, 2019, [Online].

Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:159295201

[8] C. Silva, J. P. Reis, and P. Pinho, “How Urban Structure

Constrains Sustainable Mobility Choices: Comparison of

Copenhagen and Oporto,” Environ. Plann. B Plann. Des.,

vol. 41, pp. 211–228, 2014, [Online]. Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:62706140

[9] F. Canıtez, “Sustainable Urban Mobility in Istanbul:

Transition and Planning,” Journal of Intelligent Decision

Making and Information Science, 2024, [Online].

Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:275307960

[10] M. KUZIA and A. PRZYBYŁOWSKI, “Challenges for

Urban Sustainable Mobility – Gdynia Maritime

University Case Study,” Economic and Environmental

Studies, vol. 17, no. 44, pp. 1071–1085, Dec. 2017, doi:

10.25167/ees.2017.44.27.

[11] G. Messori et al., “Mobility management at Politecnico di

Milano: New infrastructures and behavioural change,” in

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,

Institute of Physics Publishing, Jul. 2019. doi:

10.1088/1755-1315/296/1/012013.

[12] L. Oestreich, A. L. N. Júnior, and A. Ruiz-Padillo,

“Guidelines to promote sustainable transport in higher

education universities: a bibliometric and systematic

review,” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher

Education, 2024, [Online]. Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:269226311

[13] A. Kaszuba, A. Przybyłowski, K. Kościk, A. Lachowicz,

and M. Kuzia, “Sustainable Mobility Planning

Prerequisites and Perspectives-Gdynia Maritime

University Case Study,” TransNav, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 981–

990, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.12716/1001.17.04.25.

[14] V. Sgarra, E. Meta, M. R. Saporito, L. Persia, and D. S.

Usami, “Improving sustainable mobility in university

campuses: the case study of Sapienza University,”

Transportation Research Procedia, 2022, [Online].

Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:245952335

[15] P. Papantonioua et al., “Developing a Sustainable

Mobility Action Plan for University Campuses,” 2019.

[Online]. Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:201606175

[16] P. Rérat, “A campus on the move: Modal choices of

students and staff at the University of Lausanne,

Switzerland,” Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect., 2021,

[Online]. Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:240166606

[17] J. R. Kós, L. Oliveira, C. Mangrich, L. H. Pavan, R.

Almeida, and A. A. dos Santos, “Mobility in the City and

the University Campus Role: From an Outcome of Urban

Anomalies to a Vector of a Sustainable Transition,” in

Communication Systems and Applications, 2023.

[Online]. Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:259846129

[18] A. Dehghanmongabadi and Ş. Ö. Hoşkara, “Challenges

of Promoting Sustainable Mobility on University

Campuses: The Case of Eastern Mediterranean

University,” Sustainability, 2018, [Online]. Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:158534619

[19] P. J. G. Ribeiro, F. P. da Fonseca, and T. S. B. Meireles,

“Sustainable mobility patterns to university campuses:

Evaluation and constraints,” Case Stud. Transp. Policy,

vol. 8, pp. 639–647, 2020, [Online]. Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:214353242

[20] N. M. Petrović, S. Jednak, J. A. Radaković, M. Ćirović,

and D. Savić, “Trailblazing Sustainability: Lessons from

University Efforts so Far,” Human Being, Artificial

Intelligence and Organization, Conference Proceedings,

2025, [Online]. Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:277158084

[21] G. M. Cappelletti, L. Grilli, C. Russo, and D. Santoro,

“Sustainable Mobility in Universities: The Case of the

University of Foggia (Italy),” Environments, 2021,

[Online]. Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:236308294

[22] A. Romanowska, R. Okraszewska, and K. Jamroz, “A

Study of Transport Behaviour of Academic

Communities,” Sustainability, 2019, [Online]. Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:198659448

[23] A. Przybyłowski, A. Kaszuba, and M. Suchanek,

“SMART AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN MOBILITY –

PUBLIC AND SHARED TRANSPORT USERS’

BEHAVIOR IN GDYNIA CITY: A CASE STUDY,”

Transport Problems, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 33–46, 2024, doi:

10.20858/tp.2023.19.2.03.

[24] M. Kuzia and A. Przybyłowski, “Challenges for Urban

Sustainable Mobility – Gdynia Maritime University Case

Study,” Environ. Eng. Sci., vol. 17, pp. 1071–1085, 2017,

[Online]. Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:88507648

[25] A. Kaszuba, A. Przybyłowski, and M. Kuzia,

“Sustainable mobility challenges – case study of the

offshore center in Gdansk transport accessibility,”

Economics and Environment, 2024, [Online]. Available:

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:273537426

[26] M. D’Innocenzo and A. Tozzi, “Sustainable

Transportation: The Constraints of An Italian Public

University,” Journal of Sustainability Perspectives, pp.

449–456, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.14710/jsp.2023.20853.

[27] S. Sultana, T. Das, Md. Limon, M. Islam, and M. Rahman,

“A Comprehensive Assessment of University Transport

Services at Pabna University of Science and Technology

(PUST),” American Journal of Traffic and Transportation

Engineering, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 48–61, Jun. 2025, doi:

10.11648/j.ajtte.20251002.12.