Measuring Mobilities of Care, a Challenge for Transport Agendas

  • Inés Sánchez de MadariagaEmail author
  • Elena Zucchini


This chapter proposes a methodology for accurately measuring daily travel associated with care tasks: activities performed by adults for children and other dependants, and the maintenance of the home. These activities are statistically performed by women, often as unpaid work. The travel associated with these tasks is not well described in the transport literature and is still less considered by transport policy agendas. We build the methodological framework for measuring this kind of travel around the innovative concept of mobility of care (Sánchez de Madariaga, Transporte metropolitano y grupos sociales: propuestas para una mejor planificación. Madrid: Ministry of Infrastructure, 2009, Schiebinger et al. Gender innovations in science, health and medicine, engineering and environment (launched 2011:, 2013), which provides an umbrella category for the design of transport statistics that takes into account gender dimensions in urban transport. The chapter further provides an empirical study that applies this methodology to analyse the daily mobility of women and men aged 30–45 years in the metropolitan region of Madrid.


Mobility of care Gender equality Transport policy Transport behaviour Mobility survey 


  1. Audirac, I. (2008). Universal design and accessible transit systems: Facts to consider when updating or expanding your transit system. Washington, DC: Project Action.Google Scholar
  2. Baylina, M. (1996). Metodología cualitativa y estudios de geografía y género [Qualitative methodologies and studies in gender geography]. Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona. Departament de Geografía.Google Scholar
  3. Bernard, A., Seguin, A.-M., & Bussiere, Y. (1997). Household structure and mobility patterns of women in O-D surveys: Methods and results based on the case studies of Montreal and Paris. In Women’s travel issues: Proceedings from the second national conference, October 1996, FHWA, US Department of Transportation, TRB, pp. 249–266.Google Scholar
  4. Blumen, I. (1994). Gender differences in the journey to work. Urban Geography, 15(3), 223–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumenberg, E. (2016). Why low-income women in the US still need automobiles. Town Planning Review, 87(5), 525–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bofill Levi, A., Dumenjó Martí, R.-M., & Segura Soriano, I. (1988). Las Mujeres y la ciudad manual de recomendaciones para una concepción del entorno habitado desde el punto de vista del género. Barcelona: Fundació Maria Aurelia Capmany.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, D., & Tisdell, C. (2002). Gender and differences in travel life cycles. Journal of Travel Research, 41, 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Consorcio de Transportes de Madrid. (2004). Encuesta de movilidad de Madrid EDM. Madrid: Consorcio de Transportes de Madrid.Google Scholar
  9. Converse, P. (1970). Attitude and no attitudes: Continuation of a dialog. In E. Tafte (Ed.), The quantitative analysis of social problems (pp. 168–189). Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  10. Crane, R. (2007). Is there a quiet revolution in women’s travel? Revisiting the gender gap in commuting. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(3), 298–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Department for Transport. (2000). Women and public transport: The checklist. London: DETR.Google Scholar
  12. Federal Highway Administration FHA. (1996, 2009, 2011). Research on women’s issues in transportation. Conference proceedings. Washington, DC: Transport Research Board.Google Scholar
  13. Gender Equality Unit. (2004). How to incorporate gender equality into infrastructure, housing, transport, urban development, youth services. Factsheets reports 2000 04. London: NDP.Google Scholar
  14. Generalitat de Catalunya. (2006). Enquesta de mobilitat quotidiana (EMQ06) Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.Google Scholar
  15. Gepken, F. (2002). Como incorporar una perspectiva de género en la practica corriente del planeamiento, in Sánchez de MAdariaga I. (Dir) Segundo Seminario Internacional de Género y Urbanismo, Madrid: Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.Google Scholar
  16. Gordon, P., Kumar, A., & Richardson, W. (1989). Gender differences in metropolitan travel. Regional Studies, 23(6), 499–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greed, C., Devis, L., Brown, C., & Dure, S. (2003). Gender equality and plan making. London: Royal Town Planning Institute.Google Scholar
  18. Grieco, M., & McQuaid, R. (2012). Special issue gender and transport: Transaction costs, competing claims and transport policy gaps. Research in Transportation Economics, 34, 1–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grieco, M., Pickup, L., & Whipp, R. (1989). Gender and transport: Employment and the impact of travel constraints. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  20. Guiliano, G. (1979). Public transportation and the travel needs of women. Traffic Quarterly, 33(4), 607–616.Google Scholar
  21. Hamilton, K. (1999). Women and transport: Disadvantage and the gender divide. Town and Country Planning, 68(10), 318–319.Google Scholar
  22. Hamilton, K., Jenkins, L., Hodgson, F., & Turner, J. (2005). Promoting gender equality in transport. Working Paper Series, no. 34. Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission.Google Scholar
  23. Hanson, S. (1980a). The importance of multi-purpose journey to work in urban travel behavior. Transportation, 9, 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanson, S. (1980b). Spatial diversification and multipurpose travel: Implications for choice theory. Geographical Analysis, 12(3), 245–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanson, S., & Pratt, G. (1995). Gender, work and space. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Eurostat. (2016). Harmonized European Time Use Survey (HETUS). Prepared tables, main activities (2-digit level) by sex and country. Eurostat
  27. Ilárraz, I. (2006). Movilidad sostenible y equidad de género, Zerbitzuan Journal, 40, 61–66.Google Scholar
  28. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2016). A gendered view of mobility and transport. Town Planning Review, 87(5), 547–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lucas, K. (2012). Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy, 20, 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayntz, R., Holm, K., & Hubner, P. (1976). Introduction to empirical sociology. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  31. Mayor of London. (2004). Expanding horizons: Transport for London’s women’s action plan: London: Mayor of London.Google Scholar
  32. McGuckin, N., & Murakami, E. (2005). Examining trip-chaining behavior: A comparison of men and women. Washington, DC: United States Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
  33. McGuckin, N., & Nakamoto, Y. (2005). Differences in trip chaining by men and women. In United States National Research Council (Ed.), Research on women’s issues in transportation report of a conference, Vol. II: Technical papers. Washington, DC: Government Publishing Office (GPO).Google Scholar
  34. Ministerio de Fomento. (2007). Encuesta de Movilidad de las Personas Residentes. Movilia 2006. Madrid: Ministerio de Fomento.Google Scholar
  35. O’Brien, M., & Shemilt, I. (2003). Working fathers: Earning and caring. Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission.Google Scholar
  36. Oxley, J., & Charlton, J. (2011). Gender differences in attitudes to and mobility impacts of driving cessation. In S. Herbel & D. Gaines (Eds.), Women’s issues in transportation: Summary of the fourth international conference, 27–30 October 2009, Irvine, CA (Vol. 2, pp. 64–73). Washington, DC: United States National Research Council (NRC) Transportation Research Board.Google Scholar
  37. Pickup, L. (1985). Women’s gender-role and its influence on travel behavior. Built Environment, 10, 61–68.Google Scholar
  38. Pickup, L. (1988). Hard to get around: A study of women’s travel mobility. In J. Little, L. Peake, & P. Richardson (Eds.), Women in cities: Gender and the urban environment. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Polk, M. (1996). Swedish men and women’s mobility patterns: Issues of social equality and ecological sustainability. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway. Administration, Washington DC,
  40. Rohmer, H. (2007). Gender mainstreaming European transport research and policy: Building the knowledge base and mapping good practices. Available at
  41. Root, A., Schintler, L., & Button, K. (2000). Women, travel and the idea of sustainable transport. Transport Reviews, 20(3), 369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rosenbloom, S. (1989). Trip chaining behaviour: A comparative and cross cultural analysis of the travel patterns of working mothers. In M. Grieco, L. Pickup, & R. Whipp (Eds.), Gender, transport and employment. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  43. Rosenbloom, S. (1993). Women’s travel patterns at various stages of their lives. In C. Katz & J. Monk (Eds.), Full circles: Geographies of women over the life course. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Rosenbloom, S. (1995). Travel by women. In Federal Highway Administration, nationwide personal transportation survey, Demographic Special Reports.Google Scholar
  45. Rosenbloom, S. (1996). Women’s travel issues in Federal Highway Administration Women Travel Issues, Proceedings from the second national conference. Washington, DC: Transport Research Board.Google Scholar
  46. Rosenbloom, S. (1998). Trends in women’s travel patterns. Berkeley: The University of California Transportation Center.Google Scholar
  47. Rosenbloom, S., & Burns, E. (1993). Gender differences in commuter travel in Tucson (Arizona). Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center.Google Scholar
  48. Sánchez de Madariaga, I. (2004). Urbanismo con perspectiva de género. Sevilla: Fondo Social Europeo - Junta de Andalucía.Google Scholar
  49. Sánchez de Madariaga, I. (2009). Transporte metropolitano y grupos sociales: propuestas para una mejor planificación. Report for CEDEX. Madrid: Ministry of Infrastructure.Google Scholar
  50. Sánchez de Madariaga, I. (2010). Housing, mobility and planning for equality in diversity: Cities, gender and dependence. In VVAA social housing and city (pp. 177–197). Madrid: Ministerio de Vivienda.Google Scholar
  51. Sánchez de Madariaga, I. (2013a). From women in transport to gender in transport: Challenging conceptual frameworks for improved policy making. Journal of International Affairs, 67, 43–66.Google Scholar
  52. Sánchez de Madariaga, I. (2013b). The mobility of care: Introducing new concepts in urban transportation. In I. Sánchez de Madariaga & M. Roberts (Eds.), Fair shared cities: The impact of gender planning in Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  53. Sánchez de Madariaga, I., & Neuman, M. (2016). Mainstreaming gender in the city. Town Planning Review, 87(5), 493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schiebinger, L., Klinge, I., Sánchez de Madariaga, I., & Schraudner, M. (Eds.). (2013). Gender innovations in science, health and medicine, engineering and environment (launched 2011:
  55. Schultz, D., & Gilbert, S. (1996). Women and transit security: A new look at an old issue. Proceedings of the Women’s Travel Issues Second National Conference, 25–27 October, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  56. Stiewe, M. (2012). Gender and mobility: Everyday mobility during changing gender relations. In 26th AESOP annual congress, 11–15 July, Ankara: Association of European Schools of Planning.Google Scholar
  57. Swedish Road Administration (SRA). (2009). The road transport sector: Sectoral report 2008. Stockholm: SRA.Google Scholar
  58. Swedish Road Administration (SRA). (2010). The road transport sector: Sectoral report 2009. Stockholm: SRA.Google Scholar
  59. Transport for London. (2007). Gender equality scheme. London: Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  60. Transportation Research Board. (2004, 2009, 2011). Research on women’s issues in transportation conference: Report of conference proceedings, TRB, Washington, DC Transportation Research Board of the US National Academies,
  61. Turner, J., & Grieco, M. (1998). Gender and time poverty: The neglected social policy implications of gender for time, transport and travel. Paper presented at International Conference on Time Use. Luneberg: University of Luneberg.
  62. Turner J., Hamilton K., & Spitzner M. (2006). Women and transport report. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
  63. Ullmann, F. (2013). Choreography of life. In I. Sánchez de Madariaga & M. Roberts (Eds.), Fair shared cities: The impact of gender planning in Europe. London/New York: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  64. United States Bureau of Labour Statistics. (2011). American time use survey: 2010 results. Washington, DC: United States Department of Labour.Google Scholar
  65. United States Federal Highway Administration. (2009). National household travel survey (NHTS): Summary of travel and trends. Washington, DC: Government Publishing Office (GPO).Google Scholar
  66. Uteng, T., & Cresswell, T. (Eds.). (2008). Gendered mobilities. New York: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  67. Wekerle, G. (1992). A working guide to planning and designing safer cities. Toronto: City of Toronto Planning and Development Department.Google Scholar
  68. Wekerle, G., & Rutherford, B. (1987). Employed women in the suburbs: Transportation disadvantage in a car-centered environment. Alternatives: Perspectives on Society, Technology, and Environment, 14(3–4), 49–54.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations