Are We Still Not There Yet? Moving Further Along the Gender Highway

  • Clara GreedEmail author


Sustainability, especially environmental sustainability, has been a driving force of planning policy for nearly 30 years. A key determinant in shaping cities is the nature of planning policy and thus the perspective and ‘world view’ of the policy-makers themselves, but the ‘dissonance’ between what the planners imagine is required and the realities experienced by the urban population as they seek to access and use ‘the city of everyday life’ is still striking. Solutions appear to be focused upon restriction, control and penalization, or upon condemnation of personal lifestyle choices, without offering alternatives based upon investment in structural spatial change and better transport systems and services. There has been an over-emphasis both upon the environmental and technical aspects of transport planning, at the expense of social considerations, especially gender. Many people, especially women, have found environmentally focused sustainable policies have made their daily lives more difficult, whilst not necessarily enabling them to adopt a greener lifestyle. The differential social impact of physical transport policy on different social groups, especially women, and other relatively powerless and unrepresented groups, is not considered. In order to enable women and men of all ages to travel comfortably and easily it is important to make transport systems accessible and usable, with adequate ancillary facilities. The ‘city of everyday life’ with short distances, mixed land uses and multiple centres would take into account gender considerations as it reduces the need to travel, creates more sustainable and accessible cities, whilst creating a higher quality of urban environment for all. It would provide more jobs and facilities locally and help revitalize declining areas overall.


  1. Age UK. (2009). One voice: Shaping our ageing society. London: Age Concern.Google Scholar
  2. Anthony, K. H. (2001). Designing for diversity: Gender, race and ethnicity in the architectural profession. Chicago: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  3. Beeching, R. (1963). The Beeching report: Reshaping railways. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  4. Booth, C., Darke, J., & Yeandle, S. (1996). Changing places: Women’s lives in the city. London: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
  5. Bruntland Report. (1987). Our common future, World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Buckingham-Hatfield, S. (2000). Gender and environment. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. CABE. (2008). Inclusion by design: Equality, diversity and the built environment. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.Google Scholar
  8. CIC. (2009). Gathering and reviewing data on diversity within the construction professions. Construction Industry Council, London, in association with University of the West of England, Bristol.Google Scholar
  9. Coleman, C. (2008). Women, transport and cities: An overview an agenda for research. In J. Darke, S. Ledwith, R. Woods, & J. Campling (Eds.), Women and the city: Visibility and voice in urban space (pp. 83–97). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  10. DCLG. (2007). Gender equality scheme. London: Department of Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  11. EUROFEM. (1998). Gender and human settlements: Conference report on local and regional sustainable human development from a gender perspective. Hämeenlinna: Eurofem.Google Scholar
  12. Fincher, R., & Iveson, K. (2008). Planning and diversity in the city: Redistribution, recognition and Encounter. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilroy, R. (2008). Places that support human flourishing: Lessons from later life. Planning Theory and Practice, 9(2), 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. GLA. (2006). An urgent need: The state of London’s toilets. London: London Assembly and Greater London Authority.Google Scholar
  15. GLA. (2007). Planning for equality and diversity in London, London: Greater London authority: Supplementary guidance to the greater London strategic development plan. London: GLA (Greater London Authority).Google Scholar
  16. Goldsmith, S. (2000). Universal design: A manual of practical guidance for architects. Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  17. Grabham, E., Cooper, D., Krishnadas, J., & Herman, D. (Eds.). (2008). Intersectionality and beyond: Law, power and the politics of location. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  18. Greed, C. (1994a). Women and planning: Creating gendered realities. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Greed, C. (1994b). The place of ethnography in planning. Planning Practice and Research, 9(2), 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greed, C. (2003). Inclusive urban design: Public toilets. Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  21. Greed, C. (2005). Overcoming the factors inhibiting the mainstreaming of gender into spatial planning policy in the United Kingdom. Urban Studies, 42(4), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greed, C. (2008). Are we there yet? Women and transport revisited. In T. P. Uteng & T. Cresswell (Eds.), Gendered mobilities (pp. 243–256). London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  23. Greed, C. (2011). Planning for sustainable urban areas or everyday life and inclusion. Urban Design and Planning, 164(2), 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greed, C. (2012). Planning for sustainable transport or for people’s needs. Urban Design and Planning, 165(4), 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greed, C. (2016). Taking women’s bodily functions into account in urban planning policy: Public toilets and menstruation. Town Planning Review, 87(5), 505–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greed, C., & Johnson, D. (2014). Planning in the UK: An introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Hamilton, K., Jenkins, L., Hodgson, F., & Turner, J. (2005). Promoting gender equality in transport. Equal Opportunities Commission, Manchester, Working Paper No. 34.Google Scholar
  28. Hamilton-Baillie, B. (2008). Towards shared space. Urban Design International, 13(2), 130–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harvey, D. (1975). Social justice and the city. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  30. Hass-Klau, C. (1990). The pedestrian and city traffic. London: Belhaven Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hayden, D. (2002). Redesigning the American Dream: The future of housing, work and family life. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  32. Imrie, R., & Hall, P. (2001). Inclusive design: Designing and developing accessible environments. London: Spon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jarvis, H., Cloke, J., & Kantor, P. (2009). Cities and gender. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lenclos, M. (2002). Inclusive design: Access to London transport. London: Royal College of Art.Google Scholar
  35. Little, J., Peake, L., & Richardson, P. (1988). Women in cities: Gender and the urban environment. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lucas, K. (2012). Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy, 20, 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Madariaga, I. S., & Roberts, M. (Eds.). (2013). Fair shared cities: The impact of gender planning in Europe. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  38. Manley, S. (1998). Creating accessible environments. In C. Greed & M. Roberts (Eds.), Introducing urban design (pp. 153–167). Harlow: Longmans.Google Scholar
  39. Massey, D. (1984). Spatial divisions of labour: Social structures and the geography of production. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  40. Matrix. (1984). Making space: Women and the man-made built environment. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  41. Mouffe, C. (2005). The return of the political. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  42. ODPM. (2003). Sustainable communities: Building for the future. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.Google Scholar
  43. ODPM. (2005). Diversity and equality in planning: A good practice guide. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.Google Scholar
  44. Oliver, K. (1988). Women’s accessibility and transport policy in Britain. In S. Whatmore & J. Little (Eds.), Gender and geography (pp. 19–34). London: Association for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  45. ONS. (2012). Social trends. London: Office of National Statistics.Google Scholar
  46. Plymouth. (2001). Gender audit of the local plan review 2001 for the City of Plymouth. University of Plymouth, School of Architecture, in association with City of Plymouth Council, written by M. McKie and team.Google Scholar
  47. Reeves, D. (2005). Planning for diversity: Policy and planning for a world of difference. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Roberts, M. (1991). Living in a man-made world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. RTPI. (2003). Gender mainstreaming toolkit. London: Royal Town Planning Institute, by D. Reeves, C. Greed & C. Sheridan (Eds.), see for subsequent material on gender and planning.
  50. Stimpson, C., Dixler, E., Nelson, M., & Yatrakis, K. (Eds.). (1981). Women and the American city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. TCPA. (2009). Planning for accessible and sustainable transport. London: Town and Country Planning Association.Google Scholar
  52. Uteng, T. P., & Cresswell, T. (2008). Gendered mobilities. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  53. Vallance, S., Perkins, H., & Dixon, J. (2011). What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum, 42, 342–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. WDS. (2005). Cycling for women. London: Women’s Design Service.Google Scholar
  55. Whatmore, S., & Little, J. (Eds.). (1988). Gender and geography. London: Association for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Environment and TechnologyUniversity of the West of EnglandBristolUK

Personalised recommendations