In recent decades, governments have invested in strategic territories focused on knowledge production and application, which are strategic for socioeconomic development, particularly in urban areas. However, conceptual and terminological diversity hinders aspects such as the systematization of the literature, the advance of theoretical conceptualizations, and the formulation of coherent policies, especially in the context of socioenvironmental challenges. In this study, with the aim of consolidating this literature, we have conducted a systematic review with bibliometric and content analysis, examining publications on eight denominations associated with these territories. The literature reveals the existence of an established field; nonetheless, themes and denominations are still dispersed in the corpus. Among 400 authors, 339 published a single article, and only 13 authors have three or more studies in the sample. We identified a core of 11 journals that concentrate 73 of the 214 analyzed texts. We propose the term “knowledge territories” as an umbrella concept. A total of 114 case studies were identified. Governance is the most recurrent dimension (53% of the texts). Topics such as climate change, food production and diffuse effects of territorial occupation are rarely explored, as are the cases analyzed in the context of semi-peripheral and peripheral countries, indicating gaps and opportunities for future research.

In recent decades, governments have invested in strategic territories focused on knowledge production and application, which are strategic for socioeconomic development, particularly in urban areas. However, conceptual and terminological diversity hinders aspects such as the systematization of the literature, the advance of theoretical conceptualizations, and the formulation of coherent policies, especially in the context of socio-environmental challenges. In this study, with the aim of consolidating this literature, we have conducted a systematic review with bibliometric and content analysis, examining publications on eight denominations associated with these territories. The literature reveals the existence of an established field, nonetheless themes and denominations are still dispersed in the corpus. Among 400 authors, 339 published a single article, and only 13 authors have three or more studies in the sample. We identified a core of 11 journals that concentrate 73 of the 214 analyzed texts. We propose the term “knowledge territories” as an umbrella concept. A total of 114 case studies were identified. Governance is the most recurrent dimension (53% of the texts). Topics such as climate change and food production are rarely explored, as do the cases analyzed in the context of semi-peripheral and peripheral countries, indicating gaps and opportunities for future research.

The intensification of urbanization and the environmental crisis highlight the need for new paradigms of sustainable urban development, in which mobility plays a central role. This article analyzes sustainable urban mobility initiatives in Latin American knowledge territories through a comparative framework that integrates Knowledge-Based Urban Development (KBUD) and urban circularity principles. Grounded in the Fourth-Generation Knowledge Territories (TC4) perspective, the study focuses on governance models and social participation as drivers of transformative mobility practices. Methodologically, it adopts a qualitative and exploratory case study approach, combining primary data from field visits with secondary sources such as legislation, institutional documents, and technical reports. Despite the proliferation of science parks and innovation districts in Latin America, little is known about how governance and social participation shape sustainable mobility initiatives in these contexts, particularly when analyzed through the combined lenses of KBUD and urban circularity. The comparative analysis reveals varying degrees of openness and limitations in urban mobility governance across the three territories selected (distritotec—Mexico, Parque Patricios—Argentina, and Porto Digital—Brazil). The findings reveal distinct governance configurations and degrees of alignment with circular mobility principles. Distritotec stands out for its multistakeholder governance and community-led mobility initiatives, reflecting efforts to operationalize the quintuple helix model. Parque Patricios shows fragmented integration between infrastructure improvements and participatory planning, while Porto Digital presents limited articulation between innovation policies and sustainable mobility, with centralized governance and low public engagement. Persistent challenges observed throughout the cases include the weak institutionalization of citizen participation, insufficient strategies to disincentivize private car use, and a lack of data governance mechanisms.

The intensification of urbanization and the environmental crisis highlight the need for new paradigms of sustainable urban development, in which mobility plays a central role. This article analyzes sustainable urban mobility initiatives in Latin American knowledge territories through a comparative framework that integrates Knowledge-Based Urban Development (KBUD) and urban circularity principles. Grounded in the Fourth-Generation Knowledge Territories (TC4) perspective, the study focuses on governance models and social participation as drivers of transformative mobility practices. Methodologically, it adopts a qualitative and exploratory case study approach, combining primary data from field visits with secondary sources such as legislation, institutional documents, and technical reports. Despite the proliferation of science parks and innovation districts in Latin America, little is known about how governance and social participation shape sustainable mobility initiatives in these contexts, particularly when analyzed through the combined lenses of KBUD and urban circularity. The comparative analysis reveals varying degrees of openness and limitations in urban mobility governance across the three territories selected (distritotec-Mexico, Parque Patricios-Argentina, e Porto Digital-Brazil). The findings reveal distinct governance configurations and degrees of alignment with circular mobility principles. Distritotec stands out for its multistakeholder governance and community-led mobility initiatives, reflecting efforts to operationalize the quintuple helix model. Parque Patricios shows fragmented integration between infrastructure improvements and participatory planning, while Porto Digital presents limited articulation between innovation policies and sustainable mobility, with centralized governance and low public engagement. Persistent challenges observed throughout the cases include the weak institutionalization of citizen participation, insufficient strategies to disincentivize private car use, and a lack of data governance mechanisms.