Authors: Annabel Scott-Collins; Sebastian Stannard; Jennifer Barker; John Preston; John Nellthorp, Adam Martin; Nisreen A. Alwan
As the UK moves towards net zero, reducing carbon emissions from transport is a major priority. However, transport isnât just about emissions or getting from A to B â it shapes the air we breathe, how active we are, and the safety of our streets.
Many low-carbon transport policies, such as improved cycling infrastructure, low emission zones and electric vehicles, can deliver clear health benefits alongside environmental gains. However, these health benefits are not always shared equally or fairly across the population â referred to as âhealth inequalitiesâ. While there is growing interest in the UK making a âjust transitionâ to net zero, it is unclear how health inequalities are understood and measured in relation to low-carbon transport interventions. Health equity and health disparities are not always clearly or consistently defined or measured, making it difficult to know whether a transport intervention is genuinely reducing health inequalities.
To better understand the relationship between transport and health inequalities, researchers from the Healthy Low-carbon Transport Hub reviewed the relevant academic literature. They identified 31 studies that explicitly examined the impact on health inequalities of low-carbon transport interventions. These studies covered a wide range of interventions, from active travel (cycling and walking) to low-emission zones and vehicle electrification. Most were conducted in high-income countries, and many relied on hypothetical, rather than real-world, data.
Across this evidence, a consistent pattern emerged: low-carbon transport interventions seem to improve health overall, particularly through better air quality and increased physical activity. But, the scale and distribution of health benefits vary widely. Some interventions appear to reduce inequalities, whilst others reinforce them.
The researchers found that health inequalities are often treated as secondary to general health outcomes. Studies tended to focus first on whether an intervention worked in general terms, and second on whether there were differences between groups. This means important health disparities may have been overlooked or only partially understood. Additionally, there was little consistency in how inequalities were measured, making comparisons between studies difficult and weakening the evidence base.
There were also important gaps in the research. Most studies focussed on physical health or air pollution, while mental health and broader wellbeing received less attention. Few studies considered how overlapping forms of inequalities interact, and most relied on modelling rather than observing real-world impacts.
The key message is simple: low-carbon transport has the potential to improve health, but it will not automatically deliver fair outcomes. To achieve a genuinely just transition, studies must measure not just whether interventions improve health, but who benefits and who does not. Policymakers must then make difficult decisions about how best to allocate scarce resources between interventions that may differ in their impacts on overall population health, health inequalities and net-zero objectives. Future research could both quantify these trade-offs and assess societal preferences regarding how they should be balanced when these objectives do not align perfectly.
The article draws from the paper, âLow carbon transport interventions and health inequalities: a scoping reviewâ, published in the Journal of Transport and Health, June 2026, and is free to read.