Advertisement

How to Integrate Gender Equality in the Future of “Smart” Mobility: A Matter for a Changing Planning Practice

  • Lena LevinEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11596)

Abstract

Sustainable transport is one of the key challenges of the UN and EU to ensure to meet society’s economic, social and environmental needs whilst minimising undesirable impacts. Sustainability planning may require changing the way we solve transportation problems. From the perspectives of the sustainability, we may assume that the emphasis should move in direction to changing the practice: but exactly what practice and who’s practices are to be changed? One way is to investigate gendered mobilities. The main differences in mobility patterns between women and men at a general level, are found in modal choice and travel distance. Women’s practices tend to be related to the most sustainable means of transport, while men’s practices are related to more un-sustainable transport. Relying on studies on transport planning including focus groups, interviews and workshops in Sweden, this paper ties the concepts of gender equality, to contemporary planning and sustainable “smart” mobility, and investigates in what way knowledge about gender equality is elaborated in regional planning practice. It appeared from the interviews that both gender equality and diversity were perceived as difficult in regional transport planning and that more knowledge and experience were needed. It was pointed out that there existed some knowledge but that there were no structures for how it could be incorporated into the planning process. Noticeable are conflicting practices, while policy on gender equality are attached to the planning there are still beliefs that transport planning can be gender neutral and free from social impacts. The smart mobility approach promises improvements of mobility and access opportunities for all.

Keywords

Gender equality Knowledge production Practice Mobility Transport planning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper was partly supported by the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems Vinnova (#2013-02700), Region Dalarna and The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, Formas (#2015-1140). Focus groups cited in this report have been discussed more thoroughly in a working paper written in Swedish by Karin Thoresson and Lena Levin.

References

  1. Aldred, R., Woodcock, J., Goodman, A.: Does more cycling mean more diversity in cycling? Transp. Rev. (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1014451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alnebratt, K., Rönnblom, M.: Feminism som byråkrati. Leopard förlag, Stockholm (2016)Google Scholar
  3. Angeles, L.C.: Transporting difference at work. taking gendered intersectionality seriously in climate change agendas. In: Griffin, C.M. (ed.) Climate Change and Gender in Rich Countries: Work, Public Policy and Action, pp. 103–114. Routledge, Abingdon (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banister, D.: The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transp. Policy 15, 73–80 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bencardino, M., Greco, I.: Smart communities. Social innovation at the service of the smart cities. TeMA. J. Land Use, Mobil. Environ. 39–51 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.6092/1970-9870/2533
  6. Benevolo, C., Dameri, R.P., D’Auria, B.: Smart mobility in smart city. In: Torre, T., Braccini, A.M., Spinelli, R. (eds.) Empowering Organizations. LNISO, vol. 11, pp. 13–28. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23784-8_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blumenberg, E.: Moving welfare participants to work: women, transportation, and welfare reform. AFFILIA 15(2), 259–276 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CIVITAS: Smart choices for cities Gender equality and mobility: mind the gap! (2014). http://www.eltis.org/resources/tools/civitas-policy-note-gender-equality-and-mobility-mind-gap. Accessed 01 Dec 2018
  9. Codex: Rules and guidelines for research: informed consent. http://www.codex.vr.se/en/manniska2.shtml. Accessed 25 Jan 2019
  10. Crenshaw, K.W.: Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanf. Law Rev. 43(6), 1241–1299 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christensen, H.R., Hjorth Oldrup, H., Poulsen, H: Malthesen, T.: Gender Mainstreaming European Transport Research and Policies – Building the Knowledge Base and Mapping Good Practices. (EU/FP 6, 2017) by Koordinationen for Kønsforskning, Københavns. Universitet. http://koensforskning.soc.ku.dk/projekter/transgen/eu-rapport-transgen.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2019
  12. EIGE: European Institute for Gender Equality. Review of the Implementation in the EU area K of the Beijing Platform for Action: Women and the Environment. Gender Equality and Climate Change. (2012). http://eige.europa.eu/, Accessed 01 Dec 2018
  13. EU: SDS, Sustainable Development Strategy. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/sdi/. Accessed 01 Dec 2018
  14. Feldman, M., Orlikowski, W.: Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organ. Sci. 22(5), 1240–1253 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fairclough, N.: Discourse and Social Change. Polity, London (1992)Google Scholar
  16. Faith-Ell, C., Levin, L.: Jämställdhet och genus i infrastrukturplanering – en studie av tillämpningen inom järnvägsplaneringen. Linköping and Stockholm: VTI Report 768 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. Faith-Ell, C., Levin, L.: Kön i trafiken. Jämställdhet i kommunal transportplanering. [Gender Mainstreaming in Transport Planning. Guidance for Regional and Local Transport Planners.] SKL, Stockholm. (2013). http://webbutik.skl.se/sv/artiklar/samhallsbyggnad/kon-i-trafiken-jamstalldhet-i-kommunal-transportplanering.html. Accessed 01 June 2018
  18. Freudendal-Pedersen, M., Kesselring, S., Servou, E.: What is smart for the future city? mobilities automation. Sustain. 11(221), 1–21 (2019)Google Scholar
  19. Garfinkel, H.: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1967)Google Scholar
  20. Greed, C.: Women and Planning. Creating Gendered Realities. Routledge, London (1994)Google Scholar
  21. Greed, C.: Are we there yet? Women and transport revisited. In: Cresswell, T., Priya Uteng, T. (eds.) Gendered Mobilities, pp. 243–253. Ashgate, Aldershot (2008)Google Scholar
  22. Greed, C.: Are we still not there yet? Moving further along the gender highway. In: Joelsson, T., Scholten, C. (eds.) From One Track to Many Tracks – Integrating Gender in Transport Politics, pp. 25–42. Palgrave MacMillan, London (2019)Google Scholar
  23. Government Bill 2008/09:93. Transport Policy Objectives. https://www.trafa.se/en/commissions/transport-policy-objectives/. Accessed 24 Feb 2019
  24. Göransson, A., (ed.): Maktens kön. Kvinnor och män i den svenska makteliten på 2000-talet. Nya doxa, Nora (2007)Google Scholar
  25. Halling, J., Faith-Ell, C., Levin, L.: Transportplanering i förändring: En handbok om jämställdhetskonsekvensbedömning i transportplaneringen. [Transport planning in change: A handbook on gender impact assessment]. K2, Linköping/ Lund/Stockholm (2016)Google Scholar
  26. Hanson, S.: Gender and mobility: new approaches for informing sustainability. Gend. Place Cult. J. Fem. Geogr. 17(1), 5–23 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hjorthol, R.: Same city—different options: an analysis of the work trips of married couples in the metropolitan area of Oslo. J. Transp. Geogr. 8(3), 213–220 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hjorthol, R.: Gendered aspects of time related to everyday journeys. Acta Sociol. 44(1), 37–49 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hjorthol, R.J., Levin, L., Siren, A.: Mobility in different generations of older persons: the development of daily travel in different cohorts in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. J. Transp. Geogr. 18, 624–663 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jeekel, J.F.: Social sustainability and smart mobility: exploring the relationship. Transp. Res. Procedia 25, 4296–4310 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Joelsson, T., Scholten, C. (eds.): From One Track to Many Tracks – Integrating Gender in Transport Politics. Palgrave MacMillan, London (2019)Google Scholar
  32. Jones, A., Goodman, A., Roberts, H., Steinbach, R., Green, J.: Entitlement to concessionary public transport and wellbeing: a qualitative study of young people and older citizens in London, UK. Soc. Sci. Med. 91, 202–209 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaufmann, V., Bergman, M.M., Joye, D.: Motility: mobility as capital. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 28(4), 745–756 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Law, R.: Beyond ‘women and transport’: towards new geographies of gender and daily mobility. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 23(4), 567–588 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Levin, L.: How may public transport influence the practice of everyday life among younger and older people and how may their practices influence public transport? Soc. Sci. 8(3), 96 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8030096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levin, L., Faith-Ell, C.: Women and Men in Public Consultation of Road Building Projects. Publication of selected articles from the Fourth International Conference on Women’s Issues in Transportation. TRB, Washington (2011)Google Scholar
  37. Levin, L., Faith-Ell, C.: Methods and tools for gender mainstreaming in Swedish transport planning. In: Proceedings from the 5th International Conference on Women’s Issues in Transportation - Bridging the Gap, 14–16 April 2014. TRB, Paris, Marne-la-Vallée, France, pp. 215–223 (2014)Google Scholar
  38. Levin, L., Faith-Ell, C.: How to apply gender equality goals in transport and infrastructure planning. In: Lindkvist Scholten, C., Joelsson, T. (eds.) Integrating Gender into Transport Planning: From One to Many Tracks, pp. 89–118. Palgrave Macmillan, London (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levin, L., Faith-Ell, C., Scholten, C., Aretun, Å., Halling, J., Thoresson, K.: Jämställdhetskonsekvensbedömning i regional transportplanering. [Gender impact assessment in regional transport planning]. K2 Research 2016:1, Lund (2016)Google Scholar
  40. Levin, L., Gil Solá, A.; Integrating social impact assessment in local and regional transport planning (2019, ongoing project)Google Scholar
  41. Levy, C.: Travel choice reframed: “deep distribution” and gender in urban transport. Environ. Urban. 25(1), 47–63 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Litman, T., Burwell, D.: Issues in sustainable transportation. Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues 6(4), 331–347 (2006). http://www.vtpi.org/sus_iss.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Metz, D.: Mobility of older people and their quality of life. Transp. Policy 7, 149–152 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mollenkopf, H., Marcellini, F., Ruoppila, I., Tacken, M.: What does it mean to get old and more immobile – and what can be improved? In: Mollenkopf, H., Marcellini, F., Ruoppila, I., Tacken, M. (eds.) Ageing and Outdoor Mobility: A European Study. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  45. Mouffe, C.: The Return of the Political. Verso Books, London (2005)Google Scholar
  46. Mouffe, C.: Agonistics. Thinking the World Politically. Verso Books, London (2013)Google Scholar
  47. Papa, E., Laouwers, D.: Smart mobility: opportunity or threat to innovate places and cities (2015). http://www.westminster.ac.uk/westminsterresearch. Accessed 10 Nov 2017
  48. Polk, M.: Gender mainstreaming in Swedish Transport Policy. In: Cresswell, T., Priya Uteng, T. (eds.) Gendered Mobilities, pp. 229–241. Ashgate, Aldershot (2008)Google Scholar
  49. Rosenbloom, S.: Understanding women’s and men’s travel patterns: the research challenge. In: Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation: Volume 1, Conference Overview and Plenary Papers, Conference Proceedings, vol. 35, pp. 7–28. National Research Council, Washington, DC (2006)Google Scholar
  50. Rönnblom, M.: What’s the problem? Constructions of gender equality in Swedish politics. Tidskrift för genusvetenskap 2–3, 33–55 (2011)Google Scholar
  51. Rönnblom, M.: Analysing power at play: (re-)doing an analytics of the political in an era of governance. In: Hudson, C.B., Rönnblom, M., Teghtsoonian, K. (eds.) Gender, Governance and Feminist Post-Structuralist Analysis: Missing in Action?, pp 162–180. Routledge, Oxford (2017)Google Scholar
  52. Schatzki, T.R.: Introduction: practice theory. In: Schatzki, T.R., Cetina, K., von Savigny, E. (eds.) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, pp. 1–14. Routledge, London (2001)Google Scholar
  53. Scheiner, J., Holz-Rau, C.: Gendered travel mode choice: a focus on car deficient households. J. Och Transp. Geogr. 24, 250–261 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sharp, J., Briggs, J., Yacoub, H., Hamed, N.: Doing gender and development: understanding empowerment and local gender relations. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 28, 281–295 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sheller, M.: Automotive Emotions. Feeling the Car in Automobilities. Theory Cult. Soc. 21(4–5), 221–242 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sheller, M.: The new mobilities paradigm for a live sociology. Curr. Sociol. Rev. 62(6), 89–811 (2014)Google Scholar
  57. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., Watson, M.: The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How it Changes. Sage, London (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shove, E., Watson, M., Spurling, N.: Conceptualizing connections: energy demand, infrastructures and social practices. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 18(3), 274–287 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smidfelt Rosqvist, L.: Gendered perspectives on Swedish transport policy-making: an issue for gendered sustainability too. In: Joelsson, T., Scholten, C. (eds.) From One Track to Many Tracks – Integrating Gender in Transport Politics, pp. 69–87. Palgrave MacMillan, London (2019)Google Scholar
  60. Smidfelt Rosqvist, L., Wennberg, H.: Harmonizing the planning process with the national visions and plans on sustainable transport: the case of Sweden. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 48, 2374–2384 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thoresson, K., Levin, L.: Analysis of focus group talk on gender equality, planning and transportation. Working paper. VTI and K2, Lund and Linköping (2014)Google Scholar
  62. Trafikanalys.: Uppföljning av de transportpolitiska målen. [Traffic Analysis: Follow-up of the transport policy objectives]. Report 2017:7, Stockholm (2017)Google Scholar
  63. UN. SDG, Sustainable Development Goals. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs. Accessed 01 Nov 2018
  64. Vagland, Å.: Gender equality as a subsidiary objective of Swedish transport policy. In: Paper for the Conference for Research on Women’s Transportation Issues in Chicago, 18–20 November 2004. SIKA Document 2004:2, Stockholm (2004)Google Scholar
  65. Vagland, Å.: Gender equality. a subsidiary objective of Swedish transport policy. In: TRA-Transport Research Arena Europe, Göteborg, Sweden, 12th–15th June 2006. Greener, safer and smarter road transport for Europe (2006)Google Scholar
  66. Watson, M.: How theories of practice can inform transition to a decarbonised transport system. J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 488–496 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wittbom, E.: Att spränga normer – om målstyrningsprocesser för jämställdhetsintegrering. Diss. Stockholm University (2009). http://jamda.ub.gu.se/bitstream/1/91/1/wittbom.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2018
  68. Wittbom, E.: Jämställdhetsintegrering med styrning bortom new public management. Tidskrift för genusvetenskap 39(2–3), 93–114 (2018)Google Scholar
  69. Woodward, A.: European gender mainstreaming: promises and pitfalls of transformative policy. Rev. Policy Res. 20(1) (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yamini J. S.: Is smart mobility also gender smart? NOS–HS workshop: Gendering Smart Mobilities in the Nordic region, Oslo, August 2017 (2017, Unpublished paper)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VTI, the Swedish National Road and Transport Research InstituteLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.K2, the Swedish Knowledge Centre for Public TransportLundSweden

Personalised recommendations