How to Apply Gender Equality Goals in Transport and Infrastructure Planning

  • Lena LevinEmail author
  • Charlotta Faith-Ell


Working systematically on gender mainstreaming in transport infrastructure entails implementing a gender perspective in all stages of decision-making, planning and execution. In light of the sustainability goals introduced through the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, this chapter presents a model of how to address gender mainstreaming in transport planning in a more systematic way. Previous research has addressed the gender-equality goals in Sweden; now, we suggest how to explore the model in an international context. Our research is influenced by the fields of social impact assessment (SIA) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA), which we have combined into a model for integrating gender equality into transport planning. We call it gender impact assessment (GIA). The model has been developed over ten years of research into how gender-equality goals are implemented in transport planning. The model is objectives-led, goal-oriented, and adapted to planning practice.

We argue that an objectives-led approach to GIA could further develop transport planning with regard to gender mainstreaming. First, this approach to GIA could improve the outcomes of transport planning and second, this model of GIA would provide an assessment of whether or not various strategic actions are moving in the desired direction. This means that transport planners would be able to evaluate the fulfilment of the 2030 Agenda goals or national gender-equality goals. Third, GIA would establish assessment criteria to be used for testing the effects on gender equality of strategic actions of transport plans. Fourth and finally, this approach to GIA also highlights potential goal conflicts.



This chapter was supported by the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems VINNOVA, Grant #2013-02700.


  1. Alnebratt, K. (2009). Meningen med genusforskningen – så som den framträder i forskningspolitiska texter 1970–2000. [The meaning of gender studies as it appears in research policy documents 1970–2000]. PhD dissertation, Gothenburg University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  2. Alnebratt, K., & Rönnblom, M. (2016). Feminism som byråkrati [Feminism as bureaucracy]. Stockholm: Leopard förlag.Google Scholar
  3. Balkmar, D. (2012). On men and cars: An ethnographic study of gendered, risky and dangerous relations. PhD dissertation, Linköping University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  4. Callerstig, A.-C., & Lindholm, K. (2011). Det motsägelsefulla arbetet med jämställdhetsintegrering. [The contradictory work on gender mainstreaming]. Tidskrift för genusvetenskap TGV, 2–3, 79–96.Google Scholar
  5. Cashmore, M., Richardson, T., Hilding-Ryedvik, T., & Emmelin, L. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments: Theorising the nature and implications of their political constitution. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 371–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CEMR. (2006). The European charter for equality of women and men in local life. Innsbruck May 2006.Google Scholar
  7. Christensen, H. R., Poulsen, H., Oldrup, H. H., Malthesen, T., Breengaard, M. H., & Holmen, M. (2007). Gender mainstreaming European transport research and policies: Building the knowledge base and mapping good practices. Copenhagen: TRANSGEN.Google Scholar
  8. Connell, R. W. (1996). Masculinities. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  9. Connell, R. W. (2006). Om genus. [About Gender]. Göteborg: Daidalos.Google Scholar
  10. Connell, R. W., & Wood, J. (2005). Globalization and business masculinities. Men and Masculinities, 7(4), 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dymén, C., Hiselius, L., Kronsell, A., & Smidfelt Rosqvist, L. (2017). Gender equality and increased energy efficiency in the transport sector. Paper for the Workshop Gendering Smart Mobilities in the Nordic Region, Oslo 24–25 August 2017.Google Scholar
  12. EIGE. (2017). Gender equality index 2017: Progress at a snail’s pace. European Institute for Gender Equality. Retrieved November 19, 2017, from
  13. European Commission. (1997). A guide to gender impact assessment. Directorate-General for Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs Unit V/D.5. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. (2015). Strategic engagement for gender equality 2016–2019. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved November 19, 2017, from
  15. Eveline, J., Bacchi, C., & Binns, J. (2009). Gender mainstreaming versus diversity mainstreaming: Methodology as emancipatory politics. Gender, Work and Organization, 16(2), 198–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fainstein, S., & Servon, L. J. (Eds.). (2005). Gender and planning. New Brunswick/New York/London: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Faith-Ell, C., & Levin, L. (2012). Jämställdhet och genus i infrastrukturplanering – en studie av tillämpningen inom järnvägsplaneringen. [Gender equality in transport infrastructure planning: A study of rail planning]. Stockholm and Linköping: VTI Report 768. Retrieved April 12, 2017, from
  18. Faith-Ell, C., & Levin, L. (2013). Kön i trafiken. Jämställdhet i kommunal transportplanering. [Gender mainstreaming in transport planning: Guidance for regional and local transport planners.] Stockholm: SKL [The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, SALAR]. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from
  19. Faith-Ell, C., Levin, L., Dahl, E., Engelbrektsson, E., Nilsson, S., & Yazar, M. (2010). Jämställdhet i samrådsprocesser vid svenska vägprojekt. Genusperspektiv på annonsering, deltagande och mötesinteraktion vid samråd med allmänheten [Gender equality of public participation in Swedish road building projects: A gender perspective on announcements, participation and interaction in public meetings]. Linköping and Stockholm: VTI Report 700.Google Scholar
  20. Forsberg, G., & Lindgren, G. (2015). Regional policy, social networks and informal structures. European Urban and Regional Studies, 22(4), 368–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gil Solá, A. (2016). Constructing work travel inequalities: The role of household gender contracts. Journal of Transport Geography, 53, 32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. Goffman, E. (2004). The presentation of self in everyday life (4th ed.). Stockholm: Norstedts akademiska förlag.Google Scholar
  24. Government Bill 2005/06:155. Makt att forma samhället och sitt eget liv – nya mål i jämställdhetspolitiken. [Power to shape society and their own lives: New gender policy objectives].Google Scholar
  25. Government Offices of Sweden. (2016). Mål för jämställdhet. [Objectives for gender equality]. Retrieved September 21, 2017, from
  26. Göransson, A. (Ed.). (2007). Maktens kön. Kvinnor och män i den svenska makteliten på 2000-talet. [The gender of power. Women and men in the Swedish power elite in the 2000s]. Nora: Nya doxa.Google Scholar
  27. Halling, J., Faith-Ell, C., & Levin, L. 2016. Transportplanering i förändring: En handbok om jämställdhetskonsekvensbedömning i transportplaneringen. [Transport planning in change: A handbook on gender impact assessment]. Linköping/ Lund/Stockholm: K2. Retrieved December 1, 2016, from
  28. Hanson, S. (2010). Gender and mobility: New approaches for informing sustainability. Gender, Place and Culture, 17(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hirdman, Y. (1993). Genussystemet – reflektioner om kvinnors sociala underordning [The gender system: Reflections on the subordination of women]. In C. Ericsson (Ed.), Genus i histoisk forskning [Gender in historical research]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  30. Hirdman, Y. (2003). Genus: Om det stabilas föränderliga former [Gender: On the shifting forms of stability]. Malmö: Liber.Google Scholar
  31. IAIA Social Impact Assessment. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from
  32. Jayyusi, L. (1984). Categorization and the moral order. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  33. Joelsson, T. (2013). Space and sensibility: Young men’s risk-taking with motor vehicles. PhD dissertation, Linköping University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  34. Kronsell, A. (2005). Gendered practice in institutions of hegemonic masculinity: Reflections from feminist standspoint theory. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(2), 280–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Labonté, R. (1994). Health promotion and empowerment practice frameworks: Issues in health promotion services HP-10-0102. Saskatchewan Population Health and Evaluation Research Unit, Canada.Google Scholar
  36. Lalonde, M. (1974). A new perspective of the health of the Canadians: A working document. Government of Canada, Ottawa, April 1974.Google Scholar
  37. Law, R. (1999). Beyond ‘women and transport’: Towards new geographies of gender and daily mobility. Progress in Human Geography, 23(4), 567–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levin, L., & Faith-Ell, C. (2011). Genusperspektiv på utveckling av kollektivtrafik. [Gender perspective on the development of public transport]. Linköping and Stockholm: VTI Report 712. Retrieved April 12, 2017, from
  39. Levin, L., & Faith-Ell, C. (2014). Methods and tools for gender mainstreaming in Swedish transport planning. Proceedings from The 5th international conference on women’s issues in transportation – Bridging the gap. 14–16 April 2014, Paris – Marne-la-Vallée, France. TRB, pp. 215–223.Google Scholar
  40. Lombardo, E., & Meier, P. (2008). Framing gender equality in the European Union discourse. Social Politics, 15(1), 101–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lombardo, E., Meier, P., & Verloo, M. (2010). Discursive dynamics in gender equality politics: What about ‘feminist taboos’? European Journal of Women's Studies, 17(2), 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mellström, U. (2002). Patriarchal machines and masculine embodiment. Science Technology, & Human Values, 27(4), 460–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mellström, U. (2017). Masculinity, power and technology. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Morrison-Saunders, A., Marshall, R., & Arts, J. (2007). EIA follow-up international best practice principles. Special Publication Series No. 6. Fargo, USA: International Association for Impact Assessment.Google Scholar
  45. Mouffe, C. (2005). The return of the political. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
  46. Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
  47. Sadler, B., & Verheem, R. (1996). SEA: Status, challenges and future directions. Report 53, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Development (VROM), The Hague Netherlands.Google Scholar
  48. Sandercock, L., & Forsyth, A. (2005). A gender agenda: New directions for planning theory. In S. Fainstein & L. J. Servon (Eds.), Gender and planning (pp. 67–85). New Brunswick/New York/London: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Sharp, J., Briggs, J., Yacoub, H., & Hamed, N. (2003). Doing gender and development: Understanding empowerment and local gender relations. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 28, 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Svedberg, W. (2014). Ett (O)jämställt transportsystem i gränslandet mellan politik och rätt – En genusrättsvetenskaplig studie av rättslig styrning för jämställdhet inom vissa samhällsområden. [A Gender (Un)Equal Transport System in the borderland between Policy and Law – A Gender Legal Study of legal governance for Gender Equality in certain areas of society]. PhD dissertation, Gothenburg University, Sweden. Google Scholar
  51. Therivel, R. (2010). Strategic environmental assessment in action. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  52. Tienari, J., Meriläinen, S., Holgersson, C., & Bendl, R. (2013). And then there are none: On the exclusion of women in processes of executive search. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 28(1), 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Trafikanalys. (2017). Uppföljning av de transportpolitiska målen 2017 [Follow-up of the transport policy goals 2017]. Transport Analysis. Report 2017:7.Google Scholar
  54. UN. (2015a). Sustainable development goals: A SRHR CSO guide for national implementation. London: International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). Retrieved April 12, 2017, from
  55. UN. (2015b). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved December 1, 2016, from
  56. Vanclay, F. (2003). International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(1), 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Woodward, A. (2003). European gender mainstreaming: Promises and pitfalls of transformative policy. Review of Policy Research, 20(1), 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VTILinköpingSweden
  2. 2.WSPStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Estonian Environment InstituteTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations