The gender bias in mobility

This article originally appeared here in the November '21 issue of Electronic Specifier Design – see ES's Magazine Archives for more featured publications.

One comment that stuck with me was made by Patrick Ayad, Global Leader of Mobility and Transportation at Hogan Lovells. His seminar talked about living mobility, but he also pointed out the importance of the female perspective: “The way we think about mobility and moving is very much through a man’s perspective. It’s different to consider it from a female perspective because, traditionally, we have different mobilities.”

This was thought-provoking and piqued my curiosity, making me consider this supposed gender divergence in mobility. It led me to read up on various studies, virtually all of which concluded that there is an inherent gender bias in transport and daily movement.

Gender gap

An endless cycle emerged through the research, in which women typically occupy more part-time roles and have lower employment rates and wages than men. This affects the distance that they tend to travel, as well as their mode of transport.

Female mobility is often characterised through ‘trip-chaining’. This refers to the higher quantity of trips that women make in a day than men; however, the overall time that they spend travelling is still lower than the average man, who tends to commute further for work. Female mobility can also be expressed through the concept of ‘time poverty’, which pinpoints lack of time as a dimension of urban women’s experience of poverty.

Much of the data on gender and mobility doesn’t account for free work – an important factor as 75% of the world’s unpaid work is undertaken by women. This includes domestic jobs at home and in the community. Whilst some may be ‘enjoyable’, such as spending time with one’s children, they all contribute to the functioning of society.

This disproportionate share of many women’s efforts in comparison to their wealth is reflected in their ability to participate in the paid economy, which results in distinct gender disparities. It is also worth taking into account the difference in physiology as experts suggest that women’s physical condition affects their choice in route, due to them being more vulnerable on average.

On top of this, women have multi-modal travel patterns due to the wide variety of journey purposes that many undertake in a day. As well as their unpaid duties, such as dropping children to school or doing the shopping, it is suggested that they make more productive use of their commute time. More women travel to work via public transport, as opposed to men who tend to commute by car.

On top of this, the findings of some studies can be attributed to gender differences in psychology: research shows that women tend to drive more safely, which is evidenced by the fact that fewer fatal car accidents are connected to female drivers than male drivers.

A final consideration for the difference in female mobility might be the balance that women seek to find between maintaining their aesthetic presentation. An article written for the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting posited: “Style is a purchase driver that makes an entire marketing industry go round.”  This makes forms of transport such as walking and cycling less desirable.

Smart mobility must be gender smart

A study in humanities and social sciences observed: “Moving around provides for different experiences depending on whether you are a woman or a man. Insecurity and the fear of physical or sexual violence in public spaces, and when using public transportation, are key factors that limit the everyday movement of women and girls.”

Through this thinking, even the location of bus stops can affect how likely a woman is to utilise that mode of mobility. The study continued, saying that questioning and challenging the socioeconomic outcomes of gendered segregation in mobility will inevitably bring about “a better understanding of whether women and young girls can fully benefit from opportunities by cities, and in the process realise their human rights”.

Companies are revolutionising the way that they think, and mobility is being reimagined. An analysis of mobility in Madrid explained the way that city design and transport networks can reflect mobility, with traffic being the most important aspect. The report’s qualitative findings were as follows.

“Connections are optimised for the typical male ‘workforce’”, the study states, “with fast connections from residential areas to the city centre, where most offices are located, and poor connections for short trips to kindergartens, schools, supermarkets, and tangential lines to neighbouring residential areas.”

The report also suggested that in order to combat the gender bias in travelling, mobility services need to become consciously gender-tailored. This means that in the technological wake of innovation and forward-thinking social policies, consideration must be offered to developing these areas.

In terms of technology utilisation, another report looking at gender and mobility found that both men and women enjoyed incorporating technology into their journeys but in different ways. The report dispels the misconception that women adapt more slowly to technology than men. In fact, through focus groups they found that women favoured route-planning and ridesharing apps – as it not only optimised their time but also made them feel more personally secure.

The potential of smart mobility to transform gender conventions is limitless. As Natalie Gill writes in OpenGlobalRights: “Technology and digitalisation can provide an opportunity to drive great inclusion and equitable opportunities in cities, while at the same time continuing to drive great efficiency.”

It is time to tap into this new dimension of mobility, and explode the potential of technology in order to create smarter – and more just – towns and cities.