Gendering Smart Mobilities 9781138608276, 9780429466601

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Notes of Contributors
Prologue
Core idea
Capturing the theme: gendering smart mobilities
The source code
Book structure
Reference
Part I: Setting the stage
Chapter 1: Gendering smart mobilities: An introduction
Gendering mobility from modern to smart
Notes
References
Chapter 2: Smart mobility – for all?: Gender issues in the context of new mobility concepts
Introduction
What do we know about the gender-specific use of digitised smart mobility applications?
Smart mobility, new mobility concepts, and digitised mobility services
Users of new mobility concepts and services
Interim conclusions
Understanding gender-specific use of digitised smart mobility services and options
Future research on digitised smart mobility services and options from a gender perspective: starting points and a conceptual suggestion
Starting points
Conceptual approach
Conclusion and outlook
Notes
References
Chapter 3: Couples, the car, and the gendering of the life course: What ordinary trip diary data from the past may tell us about smart mobilities in the future
Introduction
Background
Gender and the car
Gender and time use
Gender, the life course, and (travel) behaviour change
Conclusions and consequences for smart mobilities
Methods
Data
Analysis approach
Variable definitions
Results I: car allocation in couples sharing one car
Results II: changes in car access over time
Conclusions
Acknowledgement
Note
References
Chapter 4: Towards an anthropology of transport affect: The place of emotions, gender, and power in smart mobilities
Introduction
Material
Theoretical backdrop
Risk-taking men, emotional men
Volvo trucks: designing Vera and the future of transportation
The gendered challenge of smart mobility
References
Part II: Smart mobilities and overlaps
Chapter 5: Gender-sensitive mobility socialisation: Understanding mode choice of children and adolescents from a gender perspective
Introduction
Mobility
Mode choice and mobility as in a cognitive scope of transportation possibilities
Gender differences in mobility
Socialisation
Socialisation stages
Socialisation and gender
Bringing together gender, mobility, and socialisation
Development of gender-typical cognitive maps
Gender differences in the use of modes for children and adolescents
Discussion and conclusion
References
Chapter 6: Smart cities, smart mobilities, and children
Introduction
Research setting and methods
Smart cities, mobilities, and children
Mobile technologies and techno-mobilities: children and their parents in the smart city
Paving the way for children’s creative and playful everyday mobilities as doing sustainable urbanism
Notes
References
Chapter 7: Cycling London: An intersectional feminist perspective
Introduction: London’s ‘cycling revolution’
Research questions and methodology
Gender and cycling
Cycling, female empowerment, and the right to the city
Cycling London
Approach to cycling policy and infrastructure
Implicit male bias: infrastructure
Implicit male bias: representation
Androcentric male bias: ‘smart’ interventions
Policy recommendations
Material infrastructure
Gender expertise
Social infrastructure
Diversify
Conclusion
Notes
References
Chapter 8: Smart gendered mobilities and lessons for gendered smart mobilities: Economic migrants in Bristol, UK
Gender and mobilities
Historical precedents
Contemporary mobilities: smart cities, gender, and smart mobilities
Gender, mobility, and meaning-making
Bristol economic migrants (BEM) study 2016: lessons for gendered smart mobilities
The role of the Internet in finding work, accessing services, and social integration
Smart strategies: the role of social interaction and collective action
Smart integration
Conclusion
References
Part III: Case studies
Chapter 9: Gender equality and ‘smart’ mobility: A need for planning to address the real needs of all citizens
Introduction
Aim and objectives
The local and regional planning
Discussion
Acknowledgements
Notes
References
Chapter 10: The gendered dimension of multimodality: Exploring the bike-sharing scheme of Oslo
Introduction
The theoretical underpinnings
Social practice theory
Shared ‘smart’ mobilities
Gendered patterns of cycling
Oslo: the case and context
Oslo bysykkel: the bike-sharing scheme of Oslo
The scheme
Rebalancing and optimised provision
Integration of Baerum Bysykkel with Oslo Bysykkel
‘Bymøbler’ city infrastructure vs. transport mode
Oslo bysykkel: the gendered variations
Women use the city bikes less than men
Women are more sensitive to low temperatures than are men
Trip duration and city bike usage
Spatial patterns of city bike usage
Most prominent trip purposes, reasons for selecting city bikes, and transport modes for city bikers
Overall evaluation of the city bike system
Modifications needed
Multivariate analysis
Discussion
Acknowledgements
Note
References
Chapter 11: User experiences and perceptions of women-only transport services in Mexico
Measuring travel satisfaction among women-only transport users
Transport for women only
Case study
Characterisation of the study area
Characterisation of the travel modes for women only
Analysis
Descriptive analysis
Service aspects and overall travel satisfaction
Overall travel satisfaction models
Discussion
Mexico and smart mobilities
Smart and non-smart solutions to PTW
Conclusions and recommendations
Acknowledgements
Notes
References
Chapter 12: Smart biking as gendered innovations and smart city experiment?: The case of Mobike in China
Mobike as disruptive-gendered innovation
The making of Mobike
Mobike pioneer of fourth-generation shared biking
De-gendering and democratic design?
The bike as a lifestyle icon in shifting biking regimes
Mobike as a smart city experiment: an innovative journey
Closing remarks
Notes
References
Chapter 13: Gendering smart mobilities in Latin America: Are ‘smart cities’ smart enough to improve social justice?
Introduction: evaluating social sustainability through a gender-informed lens
Methods: a gender analysis of ICT potential to address planning issues in two cities
From smart growth to smart cities: marketing sleight of hand or genuine ‘smarts’?
Smart growth
‘Smart’ cities
Mobility as a service (MaaS) and transport planning
Santiago and Temuco-Padre Las Casas: ICT relevance to sustainability with equity
Santiago: gender, sustainability, and modal shares
Care-related trips
Temuco: low levels of Internet access and high priority on walking and universal access
Cycling’s gender potential
Discussion: behind the hype, issues of governance, power, and inclusion
Community Informatics (CI): part of the answer?
Employment issues, particularly in the Global South
Final reflections: smart enough?
Acknowledgements
Note
References
Chapter 14: Smart as agency and human interaction: Exploring the work of women bus conductors in Bengaluru, India
Introduction
Urban public space
Public space in urban India
Observation of women bus conductors
Structure of the chapter
What is a conductor?
India’s 33 per cent reservation
Literature
Mobility as methodology
Findings
Micropolitics 1: The family
Why a government job?
Training
Micropolitics 2: The public
When agency builds
Discussion
How might this agency translate to beyond the woman conductor?
Women passengers
‘Smart’ as human-centric solutions
Acknowledgements
Notes
References
Chapter 15: Some gender equality and equity planning cases in urban planning in Malmö, or how I became a transport feminist
Learning to crawl: ‘traffic-for-all’ principles
Production and reproduction as dialectical opposites
Intense research in Malmö thanks to a gender equality grant
A thought experiment of equalising men’s and women’s travel patterns
Underlying explanation factors: it comes down to urban planning
Meeting the stakeholders in segregated groups
The future of public transport in Malmö and project recommendations
Tracking theory to realisation: ‘easy to preach, difficult to practise’
Social sustainability as a part of comprehensive smart mobility schemes
Inclusion, equity, intersectionality, and so on
Hope for the future, and the need for speed
Works consulted
Summing up
Epilogue: Towards an intersectional understanding of transport transitions
References
Index

Citation preview

Gendering Smart Mobilities

This book considers gender perspectives on the ‘smart’ turn in urban and transport planning to effectively provide ‘mobility for all’ while simultaneously attending to the goal of creating green and inclusive cities. It deals with the conceptualisation, design, planning, and execution of the fastemerging ‘smart’ solutions.   The volume questions the efficacy of transformations being brought by smart solutions and highlights the need for a more robust problem formulation to guide the design of smart solutions, and further maps out the need for stronger governance to manage the introduction and proliferation of smart technologies. Authors from a range of disciplinary backgrounds have contributed to this book, designed to converse with mobility studies, transport studies, urban-transport planning, engineering, human geography, sociology, gender studies, and other related fields.   The book fills a substantive gap in the current gender and mobility discourses, and will thus appeal to students and researchers studying mobilities in the social, political, design, technical, and environmental sciences. Tanu Priya Uteng (PhD) is Senior Researcher at the Institute of Transport Economics in Oslo, Norway. She has worked and published across a host of cross-cutting issues in the field of urban and transport planning over the past 16 years. Her works builds on cross-fertilising urban mobilities, transport-related social exclusion, gendered mobilities, travel behaviour studies, transport modelling, and inclusive planning. She is currently leading long-term strategic EU and Research Council projects on designing inclusive urban spaces, first–last mile connectivity, climate change and transport planning, green-shift, and shared mobilities. Her previous edited works include Gendered Mobilities and Urban Mobilities in the Global South. Hilda Rømer Christensen (PhD) is Associate Professor and Head of Coordination for Gender Studies, University of Copenhagen. She also heads Gender Certificate, an interdisciplinary educational initiative on Gender and Body Dynamics. She has written extensively on gender, culture, and more lately on gender in transport in comparative perspectives. She is currently leading a research project focused on World Dynamics in Micro Perspectives: (Re)making Middle Class Families, China and Denmark, including housing, mobility and transport, and is a scientific coordinator for the Horizon 2020 project TINNGO, focusing on gender, transport, and smart mobilities (2019–2021). Lena Levin (PhD) is Senior Researcher at the unit Mobility, Actors and Planning Processes (MAP) within the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI). She is also a participant at K2, The Swedish Knowledge Centre for Public Transport. Her research centres on how the transport system is shaped, developed, and utilised by actors with various interests, perspectives, and ascendancy (e.g. how policy is construed and implemented in planning processes; interaction between experts and citizens; and how participants interact in mobile settings). She is a partner of the EU project Transport Innovation Gender Observatory (TInnGO) (2019–2021).

Transport and Mobility Series Editor: John Nelson

The inception of this series marks a major resurgence of geographical research into transport and mobility. Reflecting the dynamic relationships between sociospatial behaviour and change, it acts as a forum for cutting-edge research into transport and mobility, and for innovative and decisive debates on the formulation and repercussions of transport policy making. A Life Cycle Governance Framework Jason Monios and Rickard Bergqvist Railway Deregulation in Sweden Dismantling a Monopoly Gunnar Alexandersson and Staffan Hulten Community-Owned Transport Leigh Glover Geographies of Transport and Mobility Prospects and Challenges in an Age of Climate Change Stewart Barr, Jan Prillwitz, Tim Ryley and Gareth Shaw Urban Mobilities in the Global South Edited by Tanu Priya Uteng and Karen Lucas Spaces of Congestion and Traffic Politics and Technologies in Twentieth-Century London David Rooney Gendering Smart Mobilities Edited by Tanu Priya Uteng, Hilda Rømer Christensen, and Lena Levin For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/Transportand-Mobility/book-series/ASHSER-1188.

Gendering Smart Mobilities

Edited by Tanu Priya Uteng, Hilda Rømer Christensen, and Lena Levin

First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 selection and editorial matter, Tanu Priya Uteng, Hilda Rømer Christensen, and Lena Levin; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Tanu Priya Uteng, Hilda Rømer Christensen, and Lena Levin to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-1-138-60827-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-46660-1 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Wearset Ltd, Boldon, Tyne and Wear

Contents

List of figuresviii List of tablesx Notes on contributorsxi Prologuexvii TANU PRIYA UTENG, HILDA RØMER CHRISTENSEN, AND LENA LEVIN

PART I

Setting the stage

1

  1  Gendering smart mobilities: an introduction3 HILDA RØMER CHRISTENSEN, TANU PRIYA UTENG, AND LENA LEVIN

  2 Smart mobility – for all? Gender issues in the context of new mobility concepts8 BARBARA LENZ

  3 Couples, the car, and the gendering of the life course: what ordinary trip diary data from the past may tell us about smart mobilities in the future28 JOACHIM SCHEINER

  4 Towards an anthropology of transport affect: the place of emotions, gender, and power in smart mobilities57 DAG BALKMAR AND ULF MELLSTRÖM

vi  Contents PART II

Smart mobilities and overlaps

75

  5 Gender-sensitive mobility socialisation: understanding mode choice of children and adolescents from a gender perspective77 INES KAWGAN-KAGAN, JULIA SCHUPPAN, AND PER OLE PETERSEN

  6  Smart cities, smart mobilities, and children

94

TANJA JOELSSON

  7  Cycling London: an intersectional feminist perspective

109

TIFFANY F. LAM

  8 Smart gendered mobilities and lessons for gendered smart mobilities: economic migrants in Bristol, UK

127

AVRIL MADDRELL

PART III

Case studies

141

  9 Gender equality and ‘smart’ mobility: a need for planning to address the real needs of all citizens143 LENA LEVIN AND KARIN THORESSON

10 The gendered dimension of multimodality: exploring the bike-sharing scheme of Oslo162 TANU PRIYA UTENG, HANS MARTIN ESPEGREN, TORSTEIN S. THRONDSEN, AND LARS BÖCKER

11 User experiences and perceptions of women-only transport services in Mexico188 ROBERTO F. ABENOZA, JAVIER ROMERO-TORRES, ODED CATS, AND YUSAK O. SUSILO

12 Smart biking as gendered innovations and smart city experiment? The case of Mobike in China210 HILDA RØMER CHRISTENSEN

13 Gendering smart mobilities in Latin America: are ‘smart cities’ smart enough to improve social justice?229 LAKE SAGARIS

Contents  vii 14  S  mart as agency and human interaction: exploring the work of women bus conductors in Bengaluru, India251 MORGAN CAMPBELL

15 Some gender equality and equity planning cases in urban planning in Malmö, or how I became a transport feminist270 DANIEL SVANFELT

Summing up Epilogue: towards an intersectional understanding of transport transitions

285 287

DANIEL OVIEDO AND TANU PRIYA UTENG

Index290

Figures

   2.1  Share of female Uber service riders, 2017 13    2.2 Driving licence ownership by gender and age (18+) for Germany, 2017 19    2.3 A framework for understanding the integration of ‘smart’ into gendered mobility, based on Law’s Framework for Understanding Gender and Mobility22    7.1  The gender gap in cycling in London 110   7.2  Superhighway routes 115   7.3  Quietway routes 116    7.4  Employment status of Londoners 118    8.1 Top tips for new migrants: best sources of information for jobs and business 132   10.1 Membership and trip making, disaggregated by gender, 2017168   10.2  Length of membership 168   10.3 Monthly variations in trip-making patterns, disaggregated by gender 169   10.4 Trips made by women as a function of temperature 170   10.5 Trips made in different temperature categories, disaggregated by gender 170   10.6 Average trip duration per month (top) and per hour (below), disaggregated by gender 171   10.7  Trip duration, disaggregated by gender 172   10.8 Share of trips between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m., disaggregated by gender 173   10.9  Zones of Oslo 175 10.10  Popular shared-bike routes for women 177 10.11 Popularity of routes vis-à-vis share of female employment in the different zones of Oslo 178 10.12  Trip purposes on shared bikes 179 10.13  Reasons for choosing city bikes over other transport modes 179 10.14  Modes replaced by city bikes on the last bike trip 180 10.15  Evaluation of the city bike system 181

Figures  ix   10.16 Ideal renting time, disaggregated by gender   10.17 Identified factors to increase further use of city bikes   10.18 Distribution of the dependent variable bike-sharing route, female share   11.1 Platform of metro line no. 9 showing segregated areas for waiting and boarding   11.2 Mexibus–BRT line no. 1: (left) users boarding and alighting; (right) articulated bus and station   11.3 Satisfaction with the overall trip and travel attributes and perceptions of walking and waiting times regarding mode and victimisation   11.4 Overall travel satisfaction evaluations by age, education, income, purpose, frequency of travel by PT, and previous victimisation for travel modes and travellers that have or have not been a victim of any aggression   12.1 Mobike. Beijing, 2017   12.2 Mobikers. Beijing, 2019   13.1a Map of Santiago’s ‘comunas’   13.1b Modal share for Santiago’s ‘comunas’   14.1 A male conductor tries to gauge how many more passengers can board the already crowded bus in Jayanagar, Bengaluru, India   14.2 A male driver and female conductor working together during their shift change the display board for the bus route   15.1 Map of men’s and women’s residences (‘night population’), and men’s and women’s workplaces (‘day population’) in Malmö’s city districts   15.2 Upcoming ‘smart’ solutions

181 182 184 194 194 197

198 217 224 236 236 254 267 276 281

Tables

  2.1 Gender split among private customers of various car-sharing providers in Europe around 2010 12   3.1 Descriptives of variables used in regression of car access in couple households 39   3.2 Descriptives of variables used in regression of change in car access from one year to the next in couple households40   3.3 Self-reported car access by gender and household car ownership in couple households 43   3.4  Regression model of car access in low-car couple households 44   3.5 Regression model of change in car access from one year to the next in couple households 46 10.1 The ten most popular city-bike routes and their relative popularity among men and women bikers 174 10.2 The ten routes with the highest relative popularity among female bikers 174 10.3  Start zone and relative popularity among female bikers 176 10.4 Effects of origin, destination, and route attributes on female share of bike-sharing routes 183 11.1 Summary statistics of the socio-demographic, travel, and service attribute characteristics 195 11.2 Location in mixed PT system where any type of offence against women takes place 199 11.3  General and victim and non-victim models 200 11.4  General and travel mode-specific models 202 13.1  Six goals and challenges for ‘smart’ cities 230 13.2 Gender, transport, and ICTs: potential benefits for Santiago and Temuco 241 13.3 Smart governance, ten applications regarding transport/mobility244 15.1 Changes in modal split if men in Malmö were to adopt the same travel behaviour as women, and vice versa  274

Contributors

Roberto F. Abenoza holds a PhD in Transport Science from the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden. His research interests include perceived quality of the public transport service, door-to-door trips, safety perceptions, and spatial analysis. He has published more than ten articles in top-ranked scientific journals, as well as book chapters. Dag Balkmar is Associate Professor and Senior Lecturer in Gender Studies at Örebro University, Sweden. He has published within the areas of masculinity studies, gender and technology, gender and mobility, and risk and violence. He is project leader of ‘Trucks for All: Developing Norm-critical Innovation at Volvo’, funded by VINNOVA (Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems). Lars Böcker is an urban and transport geographer. He has studied urban mobility behaviours in relation to climate, weather, urban form, nature, resource use, technological innovation, social and environmental justice, and urban policy and planning. He holds a PhD in Human Geography from Utrecht University, the Netherlands. He currently works as a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Human Geography and Sociology at the University of Oslo (Norway), where he is involved as researcher, coordinator, and/or PhD supervisor on projects on shared mobility, smart suburban mobility, multimodal public transport, urban metabolism, and inclusive decarbonisation. Morgan Campbell (PhD) is a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Leeds. Coming from an interdisciplinary background, her research investigates the fissures between how cities are experienced by different populations and how they are represented as metanarratives of economic production, political power, and lifestyle consumption. In addition, she looks at public transport as a form of public space in motion; and agency and negotiation in the context of the everyday mobility of under-represented populations. Oded Cats is an Associate Professor of Passenger Transport Systems at Delft University of Technology and a researcher at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. He is co-director of the Smart Public Transport Lab at TU Delft, leading a research group that works closely with public transport

xii  Contributors authorities and operators. His research develops methods and models of multimodal metropolitan passenger transport systems by combining advancements from behavioural sciences, operations research, and complex network theory. His research contributions include understanding travellers’ needs, preferences, user classes and their consequences for service design, accessibility, and equity. He is the recipient of a personal European Research Council starting grant devoted to mobility on demand (CriticalMaaS), and leads several European and national research projects. Hilda Rømer Christensen (PhD) is Associate Professor and Head of Coordination for Gender Studies, University of Copenhagen. She also heads Gender Certificate, an interdisciplinary educational initiative on Gender and Body Dynamics. She has written extensively on gender, culture, and more recently on gender in transport in comparative perspectives. She is currently leading a research project focused on World Dynamics in Micro Perspectives: (Re)making Middle-class Families, China to Denmark, including housing, mobility, and transport. She led the EU Transgen project 2007, and was coordinator of the research network Gendering Smart Mobilities in the Nordic Region in 2017/2018. She is currently a scientific coordinator for the Horizon 2020 project TINNGO, focused on gender, transport, and smart mobilities (2019–2021). Among her recent articles are ‘The lure of car-culture. Gender, class and nation in 21st century car-culture in China’, ‘Is the kingdom of the bicycles rising again? Gendering cyclists in post-socialist China’, and ‘Gendering mobilities and (in)equalities in post-socialist China’. Hans Martin Espegren works as team lead data science in Urban Sharing, a Norwegian tech start-up building a platform for powering shared micromobility solutions. Their technology is currently used by all the major bikeshare schemes in Norway, as well as in Edinburgh in the UK. He holds a MSc degree from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, where he specialised in the optimisation of bike-share systems. Tanja Joelsson holds a PhD in Gender Studies from Linköping University, Sweden, and is currently a researcher at the Department of Child and Youth Studies, Stockholm University. Her research has focused on rural youth cultures and young men’s risk-taking practices, children’s and parents’ practices and experiences of everyday mobility, and on transport policy. Her research interests concern the intersections of risk, violence, affect, place, mobility, and gender, age, class, and ethnicity. She has recently co-edited a collection on feminist transport planning with Christina Lindkvist Scholten entitled Integrating Gender into Transport Planning – From one to many tracks ­(Palgrave Macmillan). Ines Kawgan-Kagan is a mobility expert and PhD candidate at the Technische Universität Berlin, focusing her research on gender differences in sustainable urban mobility. She studied traffic systems, sociology, public administration, and basic business studies at the Technische Universität Berlin, the Freie

Contributors  xiii Universität Berlin, the University of Applied Science for Public Administration and Law Berlin, Germany, and the Linnaeus University, Sweden. She carried out research at the German Aerospace Center (DLR) in Berlin, at the HTW Berlin and Technische Universität Berlin, and was a management consultant for APPM GmbH. Tiffany F. Lam is a consultant with NEF Consulting. She is an urban sociologist with experience in qualitative research and socio-spatial analysis. Prior to joining NEF Consulting, she worked on independent consulting projects related to gender, cycling, and sustainable cities (i.e. a research report about gender-inclusive urban climate action for C40 Cities’ Women4Climate initiative, and a report for the Greater London Authority about making London’s public spaces and public transport safer for women and girls). She is a cycling activist with expertise on inclusive cycling (having worked on various cycling projects in London, New York, Washington, DC, Mexico City, etc.), and was named one of Cycling UK’s 100 Women in Cycling 2018. Tiffany holds a MSc in City Design and Social Science from the London School of Economics, and a BA in Women’s Studies and Peace and Justice Studies from Tufts University. Barbara Lenz is Director of the DLR Institute of Transport Research, and Professor for Transport Geography at Humboldt Universität zu Berlin. One core topic in her research on transport demand and travel behaviour in the passenger and freight sector is the implications and effects of technology use. This includes extensive research on the interrelation of new information and communication technologies (ICT) and travel behaviour, the use of new ­platform-based mobility concepts, and automated driving technology from a user perspective. In 2019 she joined the EC Mission Board for Climate Neutral and Smart Cities. Lena Levin (PhD) is senior researcher at the unit Mobility, Actors and Planning Processes (MAP) within the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI). She is also a participant at K2, The Swedish Knowledge Centre for Public Transport. Her research centres on how the transport system is shaped, developed, and utilised by actors with various interests, perspectives, and ascendancy (e.g. how policy is construed and implemented in planning processes; interaction between experts and citizens; and participants interacting in mobile settings). For the past 15 years she has conducted research on gender equality, and transport, especially gender impact assessment (GIA), and recently social impact assessment (SIA) in transport infrastructure change. She is a partner of the EU project Transport Innovation Gender Observatory (TInnGO). She has recently (2019) published ‘How to apply gender equality goals in transport and infrastructure planning’ in the book Integrating Gender into Transport Planning – From One to Many Tracks, and is currently writing a handbook on how to integrate gender into planning practices.

xiv  Contributors Avril Maddrell is Professor of Social and Cultural Geography at the University of Reading. Her current research interests lie in spaces, landscapes and practices of death, mourning and remembrance; sacred mobilities; and gender. She is Editor of Social and Cultural Geography, former Editor of Gender, Place and Culture, and author/co-author/co-editor of numerous books, including Complex Locations (RGS-Wiley, 2009), Sacred Mobilities (Ashgate, 2015), Contemporary Encounters in Gender and Religion (Palgrave, 2017), Deathscapes. Spaces for death, dying, mourning and remembrance (Ashgate, 2010), Consolationscapes […] (Routledge, 2019), and Memory, Mourning, Landscape (Rodopi, 2010). Ulf Mellström is Professor of Gender Studies at Karlstad University, Sweden. He has published extensively within the areas of masculinity studies, gender and technology, gender and risk, engineering studies, globalisation, and higher education. He is Editor-in-chief of NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies. Daniel Oviedo is a researcher and lecturer in transport and development planning at University College London. He is an experienced researcher and consultant in projects related to urban and interurban transport in cities of Latin America, Africa, and India. He holds a PhD in Development Planning from UCL and a BSc and MSc in Civil Engineering from Universidad de los Andes, Colombia. He specialises in the social, economic, and spatial analysis of inequalities related to urban transport and policy evaluation in developing countries. He has published several journal articles related to the links between transport, poverty, accessibility, and social exclusion. Per Ole Petersen studied chemistry at Technical University Berlin, Germany. As a former nurse, his research interest focus is now on hormones and genetics. Tanu Priya Uteng (PhD) is Senior Researcher at the Institute of Transport Economics in Oslo, Norway. She has worked in and published across a host of cross-cutting issues in the field of urban and transport planning over the past 16 years. Her areas of expertise include urban mobilities, transport-related social exclusion, gendered mobilities, travel behaviour studies, transport modelling, and inclusive planning. She is currently leading several long-term strategic projects looking at topics such as bicycling, first–last-mile connectivity, climate and travel behaviour, green-shift, commuting, and shared mobilities. She has edited Gendered Mobilities and Urban Mobilities in the Global South. Lake Sagaris is an internationally recognised expert on cycle-inclusive urban planning, civil society development, and participatory planning theory and practice as they relate to urban-regional governance. An award-winning writer and editor, she began her working life in Chile in 1980 as a freelance journalist with the London Times, Toronto Globe and Mail, Miami Herald,

Contributors  xv and other media. Her current work uses participatory action research methods and community–government partnerships in Santiago and Temuco (Chile) to apply an intermodal approach based on ‘ecologies of modes and actors’ to transition towards more sustainable transport. She focuses on resilience, social justice and inclusion, particularly gender, safety, and security issues. These experiences have led to awards in Chile and abroad, participation in a UN Expert Group meeting on sustainable transport, and presentations in Latin America, Europe, Canada, Taiwan, the US, and India. Joachim Scheiner received his PhD in Geography at Freie Universität Berlin. He is now a Professor in Transport Studies at the Faculty of Spatial Planning, Technische Universität Dortmund, Germany, where he is head of the research field Travel Behaviour and Mobility. His research focuses on travel behaviour in the context of residential mobility, spatial development, and societal change. Julia Schuppan holds a doctorate in sociology, and researched the relationship between entering and leaving work and their connection to individual mobility at the Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Environmental Politics and Technische Universität Berlin, Germany. She studied sociology and psychology at the University of Leipzig, Germany, and at the University of Nantes, France. She currently works at the German ­Aerospace Center (DLR) as a research associate. Yusak O. Susilo is a BMVIT Endowed Professor in Digitalisation and Automation in Transport and Mobility Systems at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria. His main research interest lies in the intersection between transport and urban planning, transport policy, decision-making processes, and behavioural interactions modelling. In ­particular he is interested in the variability of individuals’ travel patterns and decision-making behaviours, and the interaction of such patterns with changes in activity locations, urban form, policies, environments, and technology characteristics. Daniel Svanfelt is head of unit at the City Planning Office at the City of Malmö, and coordinating officer for the theme Gender Equality and Equity. He has a background as strategic transport planner at the Office, and as a former traffic consultant. He possesses project management experience from early stages in primarily public transport development projects and more recently within the field of parking and mobility. He holds a MSc degree in Traffic and Spatial Planning, and Civil Engineering from Lund University, Sweden. Karin Thoresson is a senior researcher at the Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute. She holds a PhD in social science from Linköping University. Her thesis was on the role of cost–benefit analysis in Swedish transport policy and draws upon the field of science and technology studies. Karin is interested in knowledge claims shaping the transport system and its relation

xvi  Contributors to sustainable transport futures. Her work explores the boundaries between expertise and politics in the transport sector and how decision support and ways of understanding is shaped by (and shapes) the norms and traditions of Swedish transport planning. Currently, she is working in a project about efforts to reduce the modal share of car traffic in Swedish cities. Torstein S. Throndsen (MA) is currently pursuing his doctoral research in the Department of Sociology and Human Geography at the University of Oslo. He is an urban transport geographer and his research interests include public transport travellers’ behaviour, the relationship between land use and transport, and spatial analysis. Javier Romero-Torres is a Professor in the Department of Transport, Centro Universitario UAEM Nezahualcóyotl, Autonomous University of Mexico State, Nezahualcóyotl, Mexico. Research areas include public transportation, quality service, and discrete choice models. He is the author of Perception of Satisfaction from Women-only Public Transportation, and co(editor) of Transport Topics (2017).

Prologue Tanu Priya Uteng, Hilda Rømer Christensen, and Lena Levin

Core idea This book is a response to the current discussions on smart cities, smart mobilities, and digitalisation. The book considers and critically examines the logics of ‘smart’ technological fixes which leave important social and cultural issues unattended. While the possibilities, technical detailing, and effectiveness of smart solutions are being valorised and much celebrated, research studies, primarily from the Global North, have presented grounds to be worried about the exclusive nature of smart solutions. In this broad domain of exclusivity, gender emerges as a strong contender, and there exists a need to analyse the smart cities/smart mobilities agenda from a gender perspective. We position this book in the forefront of this discussion before it is too late to act, and gender as a category, once again, comes as an afterthought to the entire (smart) planning conceptualisation and execution. The mobilities-turn (Sheller and Urry 2006) placed the agenda of differentiated and exclusive mobilities at the forefront, and it is a fitting moment to question the influx and intermingling of the different formats of smart systems, access to such systems, and their implications for gendered mobilities. This book expands the domain of smart mobilities by shifting the prevailing technical focus to other equally important domains like inclusive solutions, governance, and the interface of gender, technology, society, and processes of socialisation. The research questions in the various chapters deal with change in the nature of mobility solutions being proposed, its relationship with societal conditions, the gendering of everyday travel, and its interactions over time and transition processes. The complexity of these relationships calls for a multi-theoretical approach, which considers macro-level perspectives as well as the micro-determinants for individual attitudes and behaviour. Such theoretical foundations are not readily available, and need to be constructed through bringing a host of theoretical standpoints to reflect upon the theme of Gendering Smart Mobilities. This is probably the first time in the history of the world where both Global North and South are simultaneously seeing the infiltration of the digital interface in determining daily mobilities. Although the scale and performance of digitalisation differ, smart cities and smart mobilities agendas have been a strong presence in the guiding principles and policy landscapes of the Global South. The

xviii  Prologue modalities of unpacking smartness, however, remain largely unexamined. We were interested in mapping whether and how smart solutions are enabling inclusive mobilities and promoting inclusive cities at large. And, more precisely, how smart policies and programmes can be designed to address the following lacunas which have been consistently highlighted to have negative externalities for women across the developed and developing contexts:

1 A continued focus on building infrastructure for car use (albeit in the face of the dominance of non-motorised modes in the Global South). 2 Primacy of time-saving logics over activity participation for informing road-building projects and land-use plans. 3 Social ramifications of spatial decisions.

Capturing the theme: gendering smart mobilities Gender equality and sustainable development are two long-standing and central priorities in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 2030 Agenda also builds primarily on creating inclusive societies. In light of these goals, the planning field is confronted with operationalising ‘mobility for all’ – a conundrum given the multiplicity of involved actors, networks, and contexts. An area of critical importance for sustainable and gender-fair development is mobility and transport, which has so far been neglected and downplayed in research and policy making both at the national and global levels. Rooted in the idea of smart, green, and integrated transport, the overall objective of this book is to contribute to new conceptualisations on smart cities, transport, mobility, and gender equality. The book explores both potentials and limitations of upcoming ‘smart’ modes of mobility in terms of gender equality and sustainability. The focus of attention is how intersections and synergy can be created between emerging transport modes and evaluations, gender equality, and sustainability. The intention is to bring forth the nuanced understandings of inclusiveness before smart policies are implemented without considering the gender dimension, and we are left to grapple with a slew of unequitable consequences.

The source code The book draws its inspiration from the workshop series consisting of the following three workshops on Gendering Smart Mobilities. This series was funded by the Joint Committee for Nordic Research Councils for the Humanities and the Social Sciences (NOSHS) supporting Nordic workshops.

1 Gendering Smart Mobilities (Oslo, August 2017). 2 Non-motorised mobility – walking and cycling (Copenhagen, April 2018). 3 Planning and policy processes (Stockholm, August 2018). Further information on this workshop series is available at http://koensforskning.soc.ku.dk/ projekter/gendering_smart_mobilities/.

Prologue  xix The book also forms part of an ongoing Nordic Flagship Project SHIFT – Sustainable Horizons in Future Transport – funded by Nordic Energy Research (grant no. 77892), www.nordicenergy.org/flagship/project-shift/. Tanu Priya Uteng leads WP3 of SHIFT which looks at future transport solutions in the Nordics.

Book structure This book promotes and establishes new knowledge in the following ways: •

• • • • •

Through extending the discussions on gender and transport and gendered mobilities. Topics like institutional and inter-sectoral practises, and measures to ease access to opportunities are explored in light of smart solutions and women’s travel behaviour, preferences, and needs. Combining insights from several academic disciplines and research methodologies to address the field of smart cities/mobilities and its gendered variations. Exploring ways to evaluate a wide range of measures and relating them to the current policies in smart planning. Thinking through consolidated strategies for creating inclusive cities and mobilities. Putting forth ideas on how to involve stakeholders across various sectors for exchanging research/practical knowledge and enhancing the applicability of the research findings. Promoting new discussions, measuring tools, and methodologies for analyses.

The introductory chapter, Chapter 1, presents cross-cutting emerging trends and policy themes which will be further explored in the following chapters. Chapter 2 investigates the framework of new mobility concepts to highlight how specific gender gaps are being produced. It also discusses the consequences for travel mode choice in the urban context. One general conclusion is that though automation, digitalisation, and the sharing economy are expected to increase transport system accessibility, it is not self-evident that the positive effects will accrue to everyone. Chapter 3 expands upon mobility biographies through investigating the gendered nature of car access in couple households who share a car, and changes in car access over time as a function of life course events, socio-demographics, urban form, and path dependence. The chapter posits that smart mobility services such as sharing systems may help relax women’s daily travel and activity patterns. Chapter 4 talks about the anthropology of transport. The chapter reflects upon historical as well as contemporary cases related to the transport system with particular reference to smart mobilities. The novelty of this work lies in highlighting the gendered nuances of often ignored and yet powerful themes – emotions, risk taking, masculine prowess, and technical dexterity – and their positions in current and future mobility paradigms.

xx  Prologue Chapter 5 brings forth the processes of socialisation and its impact upon mode choices. Further, the importance of understanding and shaping attitudes towards specific modes during childhood and adolescence is highlighted. The findings asks us to consider the differences between active and passive participation in traffic along with the already established focus on private versus public transport when discussing gendered mobilities. Chapter 6 elaborates upon the case of children’s mobility to conceptualise mobility as an assemblage of human and non-human relations, of technologies, and the material. The chapter concludes that everyday creative and playful mobility practices could provide a new framework for considering and designing ‘smart’ cities and sustainable urban environments. Chapter 7 looks at London’s ‘cycling revolution’, highlighting how London’s cycling paradigm treats infrastructure as apolitical reflecting an implicit androcentric bias. London’s cycling interventions raise the profile of already visible privileged cyclists (white, middle-class men) for whom cycling is a lifestyle choice while erasing ‘invisible cyclists’ for whom cycling is an economic necessity. Chapter 8 examines the assemblage of mobilities undertaken by immigrant women in the UK with particular attention to strategies enriching their participation and the mobilisation of smart collective approaches to travel. The chapter also brings forth an important theoretical framing for studying smart mobilities, i.e. affordances. Chapter 9 discusses whether and how gender equality is elaborated in long-term planning practices at a regional level. The Swedish case reveals that both gender equality and diversity were perceived as difficult areas in regional transport planning, and more knowledge and experience were needed. Further, there is a lack of structure for incorporating ‘gender’ into the planning process. Chapter 10 builds on the case of the bike-sharing scheme in Oslo, Norway to understand how gendered variations of the practices, design, and performance of the bike-sharing system lead to active (or passive) sustainable travel behaviour. Shared ‘smart’ mobilities of bicycling have been used to develop a conceptual model to highlight how transport decisions and schemes may trigger new sets of mobility practices. Chapter 11 builds on the highly gendered variant of personal safety perceptions. Data from Mexico City and its metropolitan area is used to examine how the characteristics of female travellers and their trips impact upon travel satisfaction with public transport for women-only for different travel modes (metro, city bus, and metropolitan BRT). Chapter 12 scrutinises smart biking in the context of gendered innovations and as a smart city experiment. Based on media representations, interviews, reports, and surveys, this chapter locates the making of the biking company Mobike in the landscapes of recent innovation strategies. It is argued that Mobike counts as an experimental case of disruptive-gendered innovations which feeds into challenges of sustainable urban transport and social equity.

Prologue  xxi Chapter 13 presents the cases of a small regional city, Temuco-Padre Las Casas, and a major metropolitan region, Santiago, Chile, to reflect upon how smart city strategies could potentially neglect or activate powerful interactions between gender and transport to achieve sustainability with equity. Chapter 14 is built around the case of women bus conductors in Bengaluru, India. This chapter presents some pertinent issues for considering design solutions like smart ticketing which might make bus conductors redundant. Measures which augment opportunities for human interaction and negotiation as a smart solution to improve women’s mobility need attention in designing smart solutions. Chapter 15 illustrates the challenges associated with addressing social sustainability, gender equality, and equity issues from a practitioner’s perspective. Drawing upon the case of the Swedish city of Malmö, the author suggests that new smart mobility schemes need to be developed in the context of the everyday lives of different groups. Standards and norms within the transport field need to be highlighted, discussed, and challenged to inform smart solutions.

Reference Sheller, M. and Urry, J. (2006) The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 38(2), 207–226.

Part I

Setting the stage

1 Gendering smart mobilities An introduction Hilda Rømer Christensen, Tanu Priya Uteng, and Lena Levin

Mobility is a key element in the formation of well-functioning societies. While transport is an asset on both individual and societal levels, it contains a series of serious externalities. Smart mobility in its various meanings is said to hold the solution to some of these problems by facilitating the aims of curbing pollution, reducing traffic congestion, and noise and travel costs, along with increasing safety and transfer speed. The proximity of smart mobility and smart cities echoes both global and regional developments in the twenty-first century. Notwithstanding various elusive ideas about smart cities, it is a fact that cities are encountering demographic changes and a vast growth of city populations, from 54 per cent in 2014 to an estimated 68 per cent in 2050. At this point in time 6 to 7 billion people will be living in cities all around the globe. Such prognosis confronts both cities and countryside with new and pressing challenges of social, environmental, and economic issues. And such developments make mobility transformation a far more pressing topic (Fonzone et al., 2018). Critical environmental concerns are closely intertwined/intersecting with these challenges, and low carbon society and sustainable forms of transport are vital. Across the world, top politicians have now declared their will to change the systems, be it in the phrasing of the Chinese President Xi Jingping who in 2012 addressed a system shift of Chinese modernisation: ‘The model of killing the hens to get the egg and draining the lake to get the fish has reached a dead end’ (this saying was repeated in 2019 in the Embrace exhibition through greener lifestyle, China Daily, 5 April 2019). This declaration has been followed by various interventions in curbing the escalating car culture and skyrocketing CO2 emissions in the Middle Kingdom since then. In Europe, a change to a fossilfree future has recently been declared, linking climate and transport: ‘Europe’s climate strategy should include ending carbon emissions from transport by 2050’ (EU Unveils Climate Strategy for Fossil Fuel-free Transport, 20 December 2018). In sum, governments around the globe are currently confronted with mounting and demanding challenges in the field of connecting transport, sustainability, and mobility for all. This volume addresses gender in relation to the various ideas and practices of smart mobilities and sustainable mobility for all. This includes the importance of sustainable and gender-fair development in mobility and transport, which has so

4  Hilda Rømer Christensen et al. far been neglected in research and policy making all over the globe. An area of critical importance for smart, sustainable, and inclusive development is the gendered dimensions of ‘daily mobility and transport’, which has up until now been downplayed in technological and social innovation as well as in research and policy making (Transgen 2007; Priya Uteng and Cresswell 2008). As for studies on smart mobility, there are glaring gaps when it comes to gender both at European and global levels, and studies highlight that, already at this early stage of emerging smart mobilities, gender gaps are both existing and emerging. Several chapters in this volume show that regular users of shared cars and bikes comprise a relatively exclusive group of primarily middle-class men and a minority of professional women without household obligations. Women who have family responsibilities or who practise a more complicated travel pattern are to a larger degree being referred to the cheaper commuter-travel alternatives. Yet, these groups have not been able to use the more convenient but also more expensive ride sourcing, be it cars or bikes as per their preference and convenience (Priya Uteng et al., Chapter 10; Christensen, Chapter 12, this volume).

Gendering mobility from modern to smart In the West, the car industry from early on became closely connected not only to mobility as such but also to national economies. Besides, cars have held high visibility in the social landscape and cultural imaginary and as a seismograph of modernity since the dawn of the twentieth century.1 Cars and car culture have been at the heart of our understanding of the modern world and have even been called ‘the commodity form as such in the twentieth century’, indicating sophisticated technology, speed, and independency, and to a high degree have been identified as a masculine gadget (Ross 1995: 17). Not only did the car industry in many Western countries, such as the US, UK, France, and Germany, become one of the most important drivers of national economic growth, cars and their use also became closely linked to certain gendered constructions that associated men and masculinity to cars in very specific ways. For example, Fordism from early on charged cars and car production along strictly gendered codes and gendered division of work. During the same process the white male engineer was rendered a hegemonic figure in Western technology and innovation.2 The new technology of the car also contributed to consolidate a divided and conservative gender culture at the beginning of the twentieth century. Women were by and large excluded from cars as drivers and from car design and production as well as from transport as a labour market, transport planning, and policies. At later stages women were assigned to certain secondary family-oriented transportation tasks related to suburban life and family care (Scharff 1991; Donatelli 2001). So, in a nutshell, the motorised world has been developed along strictly divided gender lines, and women have entered the car world much later than men and in spite of resistance and stereotyping (Christensen and Breengaard 2019). We might ask what the prospects of the smart mobility revolution are for enhancing gender equality and mobility for all today. Car production has been

Introduction  5 and still is a growth engine for Europe, not least the leading car-producing ­economies, and Europe is currently struggling to uphold a leading role in car production. As the director of the influential European Road Transport Research Advisory Council (ERTRAC) stated, ‘the road to automated mobility represents a key opportunity for Europe to retain its leadership and pave the way for a new mobility landscape for all of its citizens’ (ERTRAC 2019: 4). The sector has a manufacturing output of close to 20 million vehicles and a contribution tote European GDP of 6.8 per cent, and the car sector has an estimated employment of 13 million people. Europe regards itself as a leading part in the global race towards automated transport which is supported by huge investments in the sector – 54 billion euros in 2017 alone, forecasted to rise to 250 billion in 2020 (ERTRAC 2019).3 Imaginations of smart mobility are at present led mainly by producers and manufactures who promote an optimistic vision of a society in which technological advances will deliver a ‘benign mobility system that all users can access seamlessly and on demand’ (Marsden and Reardon 2017). In addition, the European Union and its aligned agencies endorse themselves as leading parties in the development of what is now called CAD, i.e. Connected and Automated Driving. Smart cars are envisioned as a solution that can avoid many of the evils of today’s conditions. Smart car mobility will, according to such optimistic lines, bring massive gains in safety, cost reduction, and infrastructures, and vehicles will be used more efficiently. What is more, the smart mobility solutions are predicted to bring much greater consumer choice due to shared ownership, data aggregation, and peer-to-peer mobility that reduces the grip of large providers (Viechnicki et al. 2015). According to ERTRAC, automated driving innovation is motivated by both technological advancements as well as social goals. Automated driving is endorsed as ‘one of the key technologies and major technological advancements influencing and shaping our future mobility and equality of life’ (ERTRAC 2019: 4). Such hopeful narratives are however doubted by critical scholars who forecast a reinforcement of the prevailing ‘system of automobility’, including all its evils of waste, pollution, and environmental degradation with the coming of automated cars (Freudendal-Pedersen et al. 2019). What is more, the current craze for automated cars seems to be neglecting human differences and social equality and gender, a fact that became clear at a recent CAD conference in Brussels in April 2019, organised by the Connected Automated Driving ­Initiative and commissioned by the EU. Throughout the conference, human aspects remained a kind of black box, referring to generalised behavioural studies of gender-neutral humans such as ‘drivers’, ‘passengers’, ‘the elderly’, and ‘the impaired’. None of these groups were addressed substantially in terms of gender, age, or in social terms. Current horizons and proposed key actions pay unequal attention to the various aspects of technology and human aspects. While technology is the main driver throughout, it remains unclear how and why human and social factors will be considered or how resources for including such aspects will be provided. The jargon of ‘mobility for all’ and the proclaimed attention to human factors and

6  Hilda Rømer Christensen et al. quality of life appear to be mainly window dressing and as a soft wrapping of the technological fix in connected and automated activities (Balkmar and Mellström 2018). It seems already predictable how gendered inequalities in relation to class, age, and race are being reproduced in the emerging smart and connected systems (Mandersscheid 2018; Hildebrand and Sheller 2018). In both words and images promoted by the tech companies, women, children, and elderly people tend to be relegated to the passenger seat, if they are taken on board at all. They are implicitly relegated to what in the smart terminology is termed as ‘unprotected’ road users, consisting of pedestrians, cyclists, and powered two-wheeler riders, that need protection because they are involved in severe injuries in rising numbers (ERTRAC 2019: 14). Gender and diversity are perspectives which thus far have been marginal in the research, design, and planning of smart mobility. Given that transportation systems are already gendered, the question for future actions concerns how we can ensure that new smart mobility technologies and services do not reproduce marginalised gendered meanings and practices. This volume presents a selection of chapters which address these pressing issues from both methodological and empirical levels departing from various Nordic, European and perspectives drawn from the Global South. We would like to thank the Nos-HS (The Joint Committee for Nordic Research Councils in the Humanities and Social Sciences: NOS-HS) which supported the research network Gendering Smart Mobilities in the Nordic Region. The network featured three workshops in Oslo, Copenhagen, and Stockholm which spurred the preliminary stages of the chapters presented in this volume. The network aimed at strengthening and proliferating Nordic cooperation and models, and a paradigm shift in overall transport planning and practices. Departing from the prevailing idea of smart, green, and integrated transport, the overall objective was to contribute to a new Nordic model in transport, mobility, and gender equality in a comparative perspective.

Notes 1 At the world level the number of registered vehicles rose from 126,888 million in 1960 to over 1 billion in 2010. This figure represents the number of cars; light, medium, and heavy-duty trucks; and buses. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle. 2 In 1914 Ford introduced the five-dollar day, meant as a family wage and only open to (married) men and single women. The Ford adoption of a family wage also reinforced the notion that women should remain low waged or stay at home (Christensen 2015). 3 At the global level the auto industry is regarded as the leading driver of global economic growth (cf. the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers), and it has expanded by over 30 per cent in the ten-year period ending in 2005. The industry is a leading employer throughout the world, with 9 million people involved in making 60 million vehicles, or 5 per cent of global manufacturing jobs. Indirect employment from automotive activity is fivefold, representing 50 million jobs connected indirectly to the auto industry. Other industries involved in the manufacture and service of vehicles include textiles, plastics, iron, steel, glass, aluminium, computer chips, and rubber. The industry also involves significant research and development

Introduction  7 activity, representing an investment of nearly $85 billion. It is estimated that the manufacture of vehicles contributes more than $430 billion to the governments of 26 countries combined (see www.reportlinker.com/ci02294/Automotive.html).

References Balkmar, D. and Mellström, U. (2018) Masculinity and autonomous vehicles. A ­degendered or resegregated future system of automobility? Transfers 8(1), 47–63. Christensen, H.R. (2015) The lure of car-culture. Gender, class and nation in 21st century car-culture in China. Women, Gender and Research 24(1), 96–110. doi: https://doi. org/10.7146/kkf.v24i1.28517. Christensen, H.R. and Breengaard, M.H. (2019) Gender smart transport – Translating theory into practice. TINNGO Road Map (Innovation Gender Observatory mobility. EU Horizon 2020 project), forthcoming. Donatelli, C. (2001) Driving the suburbs: Minivans, gender, and family values. Material Cultural Review 54. ERTRAC (2019) Connected Automated Driving Roadmap. Brussels: European Road Transport Research Advisory Council. Available at www.ertrac.org/uploads/documentsearch/ id57/ERTRAC-CAD-Roadmap-2019.pdf. Fonzone, A., Saleh, W., and Rye, T. (2018) Smart urban mobility – Escaping the technological sirens. Transportation Research Part A 115, 1–3. Freudendal-Pedersen, M., Kesselring, S., and Servou, E. (2019) What is smart for the future city? Mobilities and automation. Sustainability 11, 221. doi: 10.3390/ su11010221. Hildebrand, J.M. and Sheller, M. (2018) Media ecologies of autonomous automobility: Gendered and racial dimensions of future concept cars. Transfers: Interdisciplinary Journal of Mobility Studies 8(1), 64–85. Mandersscheid, K. (2018) From automobile to the driven subject. Discursive assertions of mobility futures. Transfers 8(1), 24–43. Marsden, G. and Docherty, I. (2013) Insights on disruption as opportunities for transport policy change. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 51, 46–55. Marsden, G. and Reardon, L. (2017) Questions of governance: Rethinking the study of transportation policy. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 101, 238– 251. Priya Uteng, T. and Cresswell, T. (2008) Gendered Mobilities. London and New York: Routledge. Ross, K. (1995) Fast Cars, Clean Bodies: Decolonization and the reordering of French culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Scharff, V. (1991) Taking the Wheel: Women and the coming of the motor age. University of New Mexico Press. Transgen (2007) Gender Mainstreaming European Transport Research and Policies, Building the knowledge base and mapping good practices. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen. Viechnicki, P., Khuperkar, A., Fishman, T.D., and Eggers, W.D. (2015) Smart Mobility: Reducing congestion and fostering faster, greener, and cheaper transportation options. Available at www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/industry/public-sector/smart-mobilitytrends.html.

2 Smart mobility – for all? Gender issues in the context of new mobility concepts Barbara Lenz

Introduction In recent years we have heard many conversations about ‘smart mobility’ – a term which emphasises the new aspects of the transport sector that have arisen from digitisation:1 energy efficiency and low emission levels, safety and comfort, affordability and accessibility. By its very nature, smart mobility constitutes a core element of the ‘smart city strategy’ that is considered to be a ‘winning urban strategy using technology to increase the quality of life in urban space, both improving the environmental quality and delivering better services to the citizens’ (Benevolo et al. 2016). Within this strategy, digitisation plays a significant role as an instrument that supports the creation of a complex, integrated transport system providing a multitude of mobility opportunities for citizens, such as ‘new mobility concepts’, as well as creating a new means of access to transport solutions, both new and conventional. For the user, digitisation allows easier access to information about transport services, travel routes and travel times, schedules and stops, ticket options and fares. It also makes new mobility concepts available, providing new transport options that increase the user’s flexibility when it comes to everyday travel. Particularly well known are so-called ‘sharing concepts’ such as car and bike-sharing on the one hand, and ride-sharing on the other. Other innovations aim to improve existing mobility options, above all public transport, by adding complementary services and reorganising the conventional supply system. Companies like Deutsche Bahn and the Berlin public transport operator, BVG (Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe), for instance, are experimenting with car- and ride-sharing systems in a way that complements their existing services. The general expectation is that smart mobility – whether in the form of new concepts, or of improvements and enhancements to conventional transport services – will have a large and positive impact on the mode choice of users, in particular by encouraging them to become multimodal, by stimulating them to rely on a multitude of mobility and transport services instead of their individual car alone (Shaheen et al. 2016). In parallel with the rise of new mobility services, digitised information services have been implemented, providing easy access to conventional mobility services. The number of users of these is almost innumerable; for

Gender issues in new mobility concepts  9 instance, BVG alone had almost three million downloads of its app in 2017 (BVG 2017). Perhaps surprisingly, research into the development, use, and impact of smart mobility has remained largely gender neutral. Digitisation in the transport sector, in terms of both new mobility services and existing information services, has provoked little interest as touching the issue of gender. This is all the more remarkable given the differences in the way that these services are used by women and men. Data on the use of non-stationary2 car-sharing, for instance, shows a relatively small proportion of women users. By contrast, ‘ridesharing’/’ride-hailing’ operators such as Lyft or Uber indicate that most of their users are women (Dogtiev 2017). The lack of knowledge in this area is very basic: it concerns both the question ‘Who are the users of what?’, and the reasons behind the differences in use that we can at present observe. This deficit is particularly troubling when one considers the fact that smart mobility is supposed to be a concept that provides an improvement in mobility for all, and one that puts the user at the centre. The topic of smart mobility from a gender perspective has several aspects. I focus on two of these in this chapter: gender-specific mobility behaviour on the one hand, and gender-specific use of digital devices and applications on the other. While there is a recognised and increasing body of literature on genderspecific mobility behaviour, this is not the case concerning the use of digital devices and applications. Incorporating the digitisation issue into the gendered perspective (i.e. a perspective determined or limited by gender) on mobility behaviour, however, is a vital requirement, given the common belief that smart mobility is an approach to transport that promises an improvement in mobility and access opportunities for everyone. Taking into account this enhanced approach to researching smart mobility will enable us to ask whether, and if so how, new mobility services will enlarge existing gaps in the profile of users or perhaps even create new ones. Opening up research about smart mobility from a gender perspective not only concerns the academic realm but also has immediate practical relevance. A strategy that aims to make mobility ‘smart’ must plan explicitly for new mobility concepts and digitised services to be equally accessible for women and men. Moreover, in future discussions of this subject we will have to extend the current scope from its restricted first-world perspective to one that takes in newly industrialised and developing countries. With this background in mind, the following sections of the chapter are organised as follows. The following section will start by defining and clarifying the concepts of ‘smart mobility’, ‘new mobility concepts’, and ‘digitised mobility services’, then review the literature about the use of these new concepts and services, in particular from a gender-specific point of view. This review will reveal that the current state of knowledge on the subject of gender and smart mobility is relatively poor. To derive insights into potentially gendered characteristics of the use of digital applications and options, the author will explore other areas of digitisation and its application in everyday life in the next section, and will discuss how this can be applied to smart mobility. The next section will

10  Barbara Lenz discuss starting points for future research on digitised smart mobility services and options from a gender perspective, and go on to suggest a conceptual framework with reference to Law’s Framework for Understanding Gender and Mobility (1999). The chapter will end by drawing conclusions and bringing out avenues for research needs, highlighting emerging issues for further research in this area, with a particular focus on automated driving.

What do we know about the gender-specific use of digitised smart mobility applications? Smart mobility, new mobility concepts, and digitised mobility services The ‘smart mobility strategy’ depicts an approach that aims to improve (urban) mobility in terms of efficiency in the use of transport capacity, increased energy efficiency, and reduced emissions, greater safety, and reduced costs. It includes, on both the supply and user side, low-tech elements such as walking or cycling, and also high-tech elements such as connected digitised traffic flow or fleet management, and platform-based services (Benevolo et al. 2016). Digitisation is the essential enabler of most innovations and advancements within the ‘smart’ strategy. It undergirds a variety of applications which organise/reorganise/ optimise the supply side and offer new services to the end user. Digitisation gives rise to new mobility options, as well as creating new services to enhance existing ones, most notably public transport, and improving access to these services. The large majority of new mobility concepts are so-called ‘sharing’ concepts which are differentiated by the role that the user plays: while car-sharing requires an active user who drives the car him/herself, in the case of ride-sharing or ride-hailing there is another driver, meaning that the user remains passive, since he or she does not need to drive. The concept of car-sharing3 goes back to the 1970s when the sharing of a car between individuals from different households began in Switzerland, France, and the Netherlands, and some years later in Germany. At that time car-sharing was organised in the form of an association; since then, car-sharing has also become a commercial commodity provided by profit-oriented companies. Car-sharing can be organised as a station-based system, in which vehicles of the fleet are accessible at fixed places, usually within cities. To access the service, users have to become a registered member of one or more car-sharing organisation. To use a vehicle, they make a reservation in advance by phone, Internet, or mobile platform, and pay per use. Five years ago there were about 6 million such users, with access to about 90,000 vehicles worldwide, provided by about 170 carsharing operators (Le Vine et al. 2014). About half of all car-sharing vehicles in Europe are on the road in Germany (Loose 2010; see also Kuhnimhof 2017). A more recently developed form of car-sharing is the so-called ‘flexible’ or ‘one-way free-floating’ version, which operates with a fleet of vehicles that can be

Gender issues in new mobility concepts  11 picked up and left at any point within a geofenced area. Access to the system is provided by a digital platform; permission to use the system via the platform depends on satisfying legal requirements such as the possession of a driving licence, and financial ones – basically, ownership of a valid credit or debit card. In addition, some operators require users to have a smartphone for communicating with them when they want to access a vehicle. The great majority of free-floating car-sharing takes the form of commercial systems run by one central operator (e.g. car2go and DriveNow). These are available only in inner cities with a high density of residents and of workers – in other words, where there are plenty of potential customers. Free-floating car-sharing is available in almost 50 bigger cities worldwide; in 2015, free-floating car-sharing organisations and companies provided 20,000 vehicles to approximately 2 million registered users (Bert et al. 2016). A rapidly increasing share of the market is being occupied by new mobility concepts that originate from the idea of ride-sharing: someone uses his or her car to go from A to B, and offers a lift to other persons with a similar travel origin and destination. Companies like Uber and Lyft have transformed this system into a commercial ride-hailing service with a multitude of independent subcontractors, who are not going from A to B ‘anyway’, but are rather seeking passengers, as does a traditional taxi. The home base of these subcontractors is spatially dispersed and they are not restricted to delimited areas, which means that they can also serve lower density areas. Access to these systems is possible only via smartphone. Today, ride-hailing services are available worldwide – Uber and Lyft (the two largest) operate in almost 500 cities (Lyft being active only in the US); Uber reports that its drivers deliver about 500 million rides annually (Dogtiev 2017). In parallel to driving the development of new mobility concepts, digitisation has also meant that the existing traditional mobility concept of public transport has been empowered by new services which either significantly improve the existing ones or enhance them with new mobility options. Important improvements of existing public transport services relate to service information. This information has not only become much more comprehensive and reliable but also more mobile and dynamic in its accessibility. In addition, ticketing is available online and in mobile form; this particular facility, however, also requires a valid credit or debit card and a mobile phone. New mobility options which enhance existing operators’ services often take the form of car- and bike-sharing services provided as part of the public transport service package, or (a very recent development) the integration of ride-sharing services into the supply offered by public transport providers. This substantial improvement of public transport services is a worldwide phenomenon, albeit taking on different forms depending on regional geographies and structures. Users of new mobility concepts and services Research into smart mobility services has, to date, failed to address gender issues. There are, however, a limited number of studies that distinguish users by

12  Barbara Lenz gender. The information available concerns mainly the use of car-sharing – both station-based and free-floating – and of ride-sharing and ride-hailing services in Germany and the US. Car-sharing In Germany in January 2017, about 1.7 million people were registered with one of the 150 car-sharing operators – one-third with station-based services, and two thirds with free-floating ones. Some ten years ago, several studies on stationbased car-sharing had shown that among users, males dominated. In approximate terms, the split frequently found was 40 per cent women and 60 per cent men (Table 2.1). A significantly more imbalanced gender distribution is found for free-floating services; studies focused on Germany report a share of men among registered users amounting to about 70 per cent. Most of them are young adults in the age group up to 35 years, living in one- to two-person households, having aboveaverage formal education and above-average income (WiMobil 2016). Despite the rapid increase in overall numbers of users, this distribution seems to be remaining relatively stable, as confirmed by a study from 2016, when 69 per cent of station-based and 71 per cent of free-floating car-sharing users were men (Riegler et al. 2016: 37). Although the unequal gender distribution in the use of car-sharing is clear and has been so for many years now, there is practically no investigation about

Table 2.1  Gender split among private customers of various car-sharing providers in Europe around 2010 Car-sharing provider and/or location

Share of male customers (%)

Share of female customers (%)

Source

cambio, Brussels (Belgium) Several providers

58

42

58

42

Three providers in London (UK) Mobility, Switzerland

69

31

Taxistop, cambio 2009 Italian Ministry of Environment 2009 Synovate 2006

53

47

Two providers in Frankfurt 63 (Germany) Ten providers in Germany 58

37

Source: Loose (2010: 54).

42

Bundesamt für Energie (Swiss Federal Office of Energy) 2006 traffiQ 2007 Wuppertal Institute 2007

Gender issues in new mobility concepts  13 the whys and wherefores that lead to this gap. This is the more surprising, as a considerable number of studies, in particular for the US, rely on big and valuable datasets that would make it possible for gender differences to be addressed (see e.g. Circella et al., 2017). Ride-sharing/ride-hailing4 Ride-hailing has sparked research interest only recently. Studies show that women are, in many countries, heavy users of ride-hailing services. A survey for several US cities (dense urban neighbourhoods, as well as more suburban locations in the metropolitan areas of Boston, Chicago, New York, Seattle, Washington, DC, San Francisco, and Los Angeles) revealed that 23 per cent of women had already used ride-hailing services compared to 20 per cent of men (Clewlow and Mishra 2017). The results are based on a dataset of 4,094 respondents aged 18+ from two surveys, one in 2014/2015 and one in 2015/2016. Another study, using Uber data for Egypt, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, and the UK, shows shares of female users of between 31 per cent (in India) and 57 per cent (in Indonesia) (IFC and Accenture 2018: see Figure 2.1). In addition, the Uber data-based study provides an insight into the patterns and motivations of women using ride-sharing. Usage patterns reflect the mobility needs that are particular to women. The authors report that women tend to make shorter, more frequent trips than men, and of a greater variety of types, and, moreover, that they are more likely than men to use ride-hailing to go shopping,

Indonesia

Mexico

United Kingdom

South Africa

Egypt

India 0

10

20

30

Figure 2.1  Share of female Uber service riders, 2017. Source: IFC and Accenture (2018: 33).

40

50

60

14  Barbara Lenz to travel to health services, and to visit relatives. At the same time women travel more with children than do men (30 per cent compared to 22 per cent) (IFC and Accenture 2018: xii). The main motivations for women to use ride-hailing services are the increase in mobility and access to places not served by public transport. Moreover, ridehailing allows women to make trips they could not make before, chiefly for safety reasons (IFC and Accenture 2018: xii). It may also be assumed that safety concerns are the underlying motivation for a broader range of trip purposes than simply going out after dark, given that an ever-increasing number of new ridesharing services that target exclusively female users are emerging. New mobility services New digitisation-based mobility services have become widespread. As mentioned above, for public transport use they provide information, alerts, and ticketing; for car use they offer access to parking places and give information on routes and travel times; for bicycle use they also inform about routes, travel times, and levels of effort needed (and hilliness encountered) for particular routes; and, finally, there are services that include several transport modes, either in combination or by way of comparison between modes. Mobile access to these services is provided by the smartphone, which has become almost the perfect all-in-one instrument for such purposes. Almost 80 per cent of Germans aged 18+ use smartphones, and only 12 per cent of these smartphones are more than two years old (MWC 2017). In a recent study about ‘digitised mobility services’ (DLR/Kantar, 2018), it was discovered that the following characteristics were more common among the group of smartphone users than among the group of non-users: • • • • • • •

gender: more men; age: more young people; education: those with a higher formal education; professional occupation: more working people; household income: those with higher incomes; mobility behaviour: people who made more trips, and more multimodal trips; ownership and use of digital devices: those who were better equipped, and made use of them in a broader variety of ways.

In addition, users tend to live more often in households with at least one person under the age of 18, and in bigger cities (i.e. with a total population of half a million or more). When we made the comparison for persons living in similar conditions, in particular with respect to their occupation (categorised as homemaker, part-time employee, or full-time employee), gender differences in the use of digitised mobility services were no longer significant. To this add the general finding that

Gender issues in new mobility concepts  15 female users are equally likely as male users to be younger, to be more often employed, and to earn higher wages than non-users. However, women do less often have a job, while the share of part-time employment among women is much higher than among men. Therefore from an overall perspective they use digitised mobility services less than men, and this is particularly true when it comes to the use of services related to car use. At the same time, it is interesting to observe that women are better equipped than men with mobile devices; this corresponds with their more frequent use of the mobile Internet in general. Interim conclusions Summarising the insights into gender-specific use of new platform-based mobility options and digitised mobility services, we can draw the following conclusions.

1 The pattern of use of these options and services reveals gender gaps, but ones that do not appear equally across the services under consideration. Rather, there are clear differences from one kind of service to another, but these are not as yet understood. Pending further research, several assumptions can be made concerning the underlying reasons: • acceptance of technology-based services differs between genders; • services suit women and men in different ways; • resources enabling the use of these services are dissimilar between women and men. 2 Starting from these assumptions, the author studied research literature which addresses comparable issues in other fields. The literature review concerned research about: • acceptance and use of new technologies; • gender-specific activity patterns; • gender-specific access to mobility and ICT (information and communications technology) resources. 3 The following section will provide a brief discussion of the evidence reported in the literature. Building on the discussion, a suggestion will be put forward about research needs related to ‘smart mobility’, focusing on those aspects where smart mobility connects with the use of digital technology.

Understanding gender-specific use of digitised smart mobility services and options Acceptance and use of new technologies From the 1980s onwards, the rise of new ICT stimulated an abundance of studies on the acceptance of computers and the Internet, mostly in the context of the working world. As a theoretical basis for measuring this, Davis (1985, 1989) developed the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Davis himself, and others

16  Barbara Lenz also, improved this model over the years by means of several modifications and enhancements (for a comprehensive overview see Mazman et al. 2009; Li 2010). As a general proposition, the revised TAM suggested that user acceptance of new technologies was determined by two key beliefs: ‘perceived ease of use’ and ‘perceived usefulness’ (Wixom and Todd 2005). Particularly important improvements to the model were the integration of a subjective norm, the examination of gender differences in the role of the original TAM constructs, and the related role of experience as proposed by Venkatesh and Morris (2000). To analyse both short-term and long-term effects of technological innovation on users, Venkatesh and Morris studied the reactions and usage behaviour, over a five-month period, of 342 knowledge workers who were introduced to a new software system. They found significant differences between men and women concerning the factors influencing the use of a new technology: while men were more driven by instrumental factors (perceived usefulness), women were more motivated by process (perceived ease of use) and social (subjective norm) factors. In a more qualitative interpretation of their findings, the authors suggest that: men are more focused in their decision making regarding new technologies, while women are more balanced in their decision making process. In other words, while men only consider productivity-related factors, women consider inputs from a number of sources including productivity assessments when making technology adoption and usage decisions. (Venkatesh and Morris 2000: 129) It is worth adding that the perceptions of normative pressure were actually lower among women than among men. Another essential suggestion for improvement of the TAM had already been made earlier, concerning ‘facilitating conditions’ (Thompson et al. 1991) and ‘perceived compatibility […] to existing values, beliefs and experiences’ (Ilie et al. 2005: 15). The particular contribution of these extensions in terms of relevant factors consists in the explicit consideration of the environment and context that is already there once the innovation is introduced. Against this background, the innovation not only needs to meet perceived usefulness and ease of use, but must also allow for integration into existing activity patterns, habits, environments, and framework conditions. Most of the more recent studies on technology acceptance that take into account gender differences have concerned issues related to the working environment. Given that they address this specific context they come to relevant conclusions, but there is only a little evidence from other fields to suggest that those gender differences also hold true from a more general perspective. Van Slyke et al. (2004), for instance, provide corresponding results for online shopping. Other studies, including those for online shopping, fail to confirm the high significance of the observed differences between women and men as regards decision making (Lian and Yen 2014). It is thus unclear how far the results from

Gender issues in new mobility concepts  17 direct use of ICT technologies are transferable to the acceptance and adoption of applications that use ICT as an instrument, thus contributing to a new service, for instance, in only a more indirect manner. As key learning points from this discussion, two issues seem to be of particular importance:

1 Factors influencing decision making in the use of new technologies differ between women and men. 2 Perceived compatibility can play a significant role as a factor that influences acceptance and use decisions. Gender-specific activity and travel patterns in daily life Travel patterns are a direct result of activities that people carry out in their daily life, independently from the freedom of choice which individuals have as to whether or not they carry out an activity in the first place. Accordingly, Hjortol distinguishes the wish to travel, the opportunity to travel, and the obligation to travel as three distinct, but at the same time interrelated, reasons for travel (Hjortol 2008: 194). Important factors that impact upon the kind of activity, and the time and the place of its accomplishment, are: social relations, the meaning of activities (the ‘symbolic code’5), and – as Law (1999) suggested – the built environment. Many researchers have paid particular attention to the field of social relations, and to the influence that gender-specific division of labour inside and outside of the home has on daily travel patterns. Their studies have consistently shown that the activity and travel patterns of women are very much affected by the complex time–space constraints upon travel experienced by anyone who bears significant responsibilities for both domestic work and employment – which applies, above all, to women (cf. Law 1999: 577). Expectations that ongoing societal developments such as professional occupations should have induced significant changes were only partially fulfilled. In even the best cases, imbalances were mitigated but not eliminated. In the case of work trips in Norway in the years 1992 and 2005, Hjortol (2008) observed that ‘differences between the genders persisted, but it was smaller than in 1992’ (Hjortol 2008: 203). The 2008 German NTS (National Travel Survey) found similar developments (Lenz et al. 2011; cf. for NTS 2002, Nobis and Lenz 2005): fully employed women make shorter trips to work than fully employed men, even when they have no children. The mean ­ distance between home and workplace decreases yet further in households with children; while it is true that the home–workplace distance is also shorter for men in such households, the difference is marginal compared to the home–workplace distance for men without children. These findings were underpinned by studies examining relatively slow changes in the division of domestic responsibilities, in levels of participation in gainful employment, and in income earned (BMFSFJ 2017). It would seem that this applies across the whole of Europe. Even though recent studies in several European countries have shown that traditional forms of division

18  Barbara Lenz of labour constitute an exception in early phases of partnership, they have also concluded that traditional forms were dominant during the later phases. It was, more than anywhere else, among couples without children that egalitarian arrangements for division of non-work labour, as well as egalitarian attitudes to genderspecific division of labour, were found (Bühlmann et al. 2009; Grunow 2013). Women’s choice to work (on average) closer to home than men may perhaps be ascribed to these traditional forms of labour division in the non-work field, which includes the (perceived) need to escort children to kindergarten and school or to places of leisure activities. In 2008, women in Germany with parttime employment and children aged 18 years or younger made 21 per cent of their trips for such escorting purposes – a higher proportion of their trips than those to or from work. Women in full-time employment still made 15 per cent of their trips to escort children, as compared to 10 per cent for full-time employed men. Similar findings are reported for the US (McDonald 2008). Overall, we find that women’s activity and travel patterns continue to be influenced by obligations to care for children and households. This implies constraints upon time flexibility, and requires provision of mobility not only for the woman herself but also for children that need to be accompanied, or who have to be with the actual traveller because they cannot be left alone at home. Gender-specific access to mobility and ICT resources ‘Gender shapes access to resources, notably time, money, skills and technology’ (Law 1999: 578). While access to all of these resources influences travel behaviour, the particular interest in the context of gender-specific use of digitised mobility services focuses on skills and technology, as specific skills and the availability of technology are a precondition for using the services under consideration. Over the past two or three decades, gaining the skills needed for driving a car – in other words, the acquisition of a driving licence – as well as the actual experience of driving a car have both seen relatively fast changes in levels of uptake among women. In most European countries the proportion of women with a driving licence rose in recent years, nearing the figure for men. In Germany, for instance, 85 per cent of women held a driving licence in 2017, while the percentage stood at 91 per cent for men (BMVI 2018). At the same time, the share of women who own a car increased from about 28 per cent in 1994 to 34 per cent in 2017 (Kunert et al. 2012; KBA 2017). Figures for other European countries, such as the UK, are broadly similar, although they do differ in levels of licence holding and the size of the gap between women and men. In the UK, 69 per cent of women held a driving licence in 2016 compared to 80 per cent of men; the share of female car keepers was 39 per cent in 2017 compared to 33 per cent in 1997 (Department for Transport 2018). The possession of a driving licence has already reached the same level for women and men from 18 to 40, but a gender gap still exists for the cohorts born in 1980 or earlier (Figure 2.2). In the longer run this gap will be closed across all

Gender issues in new mobility concepts  19 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

1 18 7 –1 9 20 –2 4 25 –2 9 30 –3 4 35 –3 9 40 –4 4 45 –4 9 50 –5 4 55 –5 9 60 –6 4 65 –6 9 70 –7 4 75 –7 9 80 –8 4 85 ...

0%

Age Men 2002

Women 2002

Men 2017

Women 2017

Figure 2.2 Driving licence ownership by gender and age (18+) for Germany, 2017. Source: BMVI (2018: 23).

age groups as today’s younger cohorts get older, leading to equal driving licence possession within all age groups (infas/DLR 2010a). Gender-specific differences in mobility behaviour and access to mobility resources are low, and sometimes even invisible in the case of young adults either living on their own or in the early phase of a partnership (cf. as mentioned above). The German NTS reveals that women compensate for the lack in their car ownership, and thus in their permanent access to a car, by being chauffeured, by walking, or – to a very small degree – by using public transport more often than men. When it comes to season ticket ownership, there are almost no differences between women and men. While women have slightly more privately purchased season tickets, men have slightly more season tickets subsidised by their employer (infas/DLR 2010b, Table P 8.1.1 A). There is virtually no gender gap as regards ownership of communication devices. Data for the US indicate that in January 2018, 77 per cent of all American adults owned a smartphone, with the split being 75 per cent of adult women and 80 per cent of adult men (PEW 2018). PEW research also shows levels of smartphone

20  Barbara Lenz ownership to be lower in Europe than in the US; gender-specific indications, however, are not available. Among the respondents of the corresponding survey for Germany mentioned earlier (BMVI 2018), even more women than men, proportionally, were equipped with mobile digital devices. In summary, we observe a continuing gender gap in access to a car that is constantly decreasing but at the same time widening with increasing years. As for cohorts of younger ages, there are virtually no more gaps between the sexes with regard to driving licences and digital devices. Whether the current reopening of the gap in the later stages of life will persist in the future cannot, however, be predicted at present.

Future research on digitised smart mobility services and options from a gender perspective: starting points and a conceptual suggestion The objective of this chapter is to make an initial exploration into the underlying factors that might help explain the observed facts about the gender-specific use of new mobility concepts and new mobility services, both rooted in digitised applications. The idea was to stimulate research that will contribute to an understanding of the motivations and reasons that lead to gender-specific observed behaviours, and to help in the design of new mobility concepts and services in a way that makes them equally useful for both men and women. Starting points Drawing conclusions from what has been said in the previous sections, the following starting points for further research can be laid down.

1 On the basis of studies about the acceptance and use of new technologies, it was shown that women and men apply different approaches to assessing and using new technologies. This allows us to put forward the following assumptions: • New technology-based mobility options and services are also considered in a different way by women and men. • Men integrate new technology-based mobility options in their mobility behaviour fairly quickly, with the aim of optimising their movements. • Women are more concerned with perceived ease of use of these new options/services, and how to integrate them into their daily mobility practices. So far, however, neither an explicit gender perspective nor an innovation acceptance approach has been applied in studies about new mobility options and digitised services. The particular outcome that might be expected from the application of such an approach would be gaining an understanding of the gender-specific factors that influence decision making during the process of becoming aware of such new options and services.

Gender issues in new mobility concepts  21 2 The review of statistics and studies on activity and travel patterns of women and men has revealed the way in which they continue to be genderspecific, in particular for families with young children. The link to the use or non-use of new mobility options and digitised services is twofold: the first aspect concerns the places of gender-specific activities. How are those places ‘connected’ to the opportunities that new options and services provide? In the light of this question there is a need to scrutinise the current way of analysing these patterns through a schematic framework characterised by parameters such as trip length, travel time, or transport mode, as this approach ignores the fact that traditional activity and travel patterns are tied to specific locations. Where are the places to which women, and to which men, go and stay? In what way, and to what extent, do they overlap with new mobility options and services? The second aspect concerns the way in which women and men carry out activities. ‘Making errands’, for instance, is not necessarily as simple as one person travelling to the municipal authority, carrying out her or his personal business, and then travelling home, but could be an activity where a little child has to be taken along. This is another weakness of common approaches in transport research: a lack of consideration (at least much of the time) as to whether a person travels on her or his own, or if she or he is accompanying someone else who might have special requests/needs when travelling. Research and planning should take this into account. 3 Clearly the gap in gender-specific access to mobility resources is shrinking, and no longer even exists when it comes to ICT devices. This prompts the conclusion that it is not instrumental capabilities in the sense of technological know-how that explains the gap between women and men in the use of new mobility options and digitised services. Rather it may be other resources such as (financial) mobility budgets or the availability of credit or debit cards as basic access authorisation. Future research should include those aspects in order to understand their impact. Conceptual approach These starting points imply that further research should include at a fundamental level the provision of a comprehensive view of gender-specific mobility and the factors that influence it. The framework for understanding gender and mobility developed by Law (1999) appears particularly suitable for adaptation to the issue of smart mobility. Law distinguishes several areas where gender makes a fundamental difference to impacts on daily mobility. These areas are division of labour and activities, access to resources, subject identity and symbolic code, as well as the built environment. They structure gender relations, give meaning to, and organise multiple aspects of daily life. At the same time, they shape daily mobility needs and practices through the patterns of activity, access to mobility resources, experience of embodiment,6 meaning of mobility practices, and the environment in which the activity takes place.

Source: based on Law (1999: 576).

Figure 2.3 A framework for understanding the integration of ‘smart’ into gendered mobility, based on Law’s Framework for Understanding Gender and Mobility.

Gender issues in new mobility concepts  23 From this perspective the smart mobility issue is – above all – a mobility choice that is supposed to be influenced by gender structures and according to mobility needs and practices. To better understand the gender-specific implications of smart mobility, a framework should be applied that incorporates gendered access to resources of time, money, skills, and technology; gendered experience of embodiment; and gendered significance of mobility practices, settings, and objects with respect to digitisation-based new mobility options (Figure 2.3). This approach would allow the perception and understanding of smart mobility as a form of mobility that becomes integrated into existing gender-specific mobility behaviour, rather than a new option that takes on the same ‘shape’ for any user.

Conclusion and outlook Implementing ‘smart mobility’ as a strategy which includes all citizens irrespective of gender requires much more analytical research on the subject of genderspecific motivations and decision-making factors as touching the appropriation of new mobility options and services. What researchers, planners, and policy makers need to understand are the factors that foster – or hinder – the implementation of smart mobility applications. In view of automated mobility, the relevance of enhanced gender-specific smart mobility research extends also to a longer term perspective. Opening up smart mobility research so that it is looked at from a gender perspective will necessitate research that builds to a large extent on qualitative methods. One important objective of qualitative research must be to discover and explore the broader picture that is made up of motivations, experiences, perceptions, beliefs, and expectations towards smart mobility, its components, and the interrelation between them. As Scholten et al. (2012: 584) emphasise, qualitative approaches are particularly useful in providing gender studies with a ‘close, empathic and micro-levelled interventional approach that makes obstacles and constraints due to spatio-temporal conditions visible and thereby changeable’. Such research would also incorporate cultural meanings of smart mobility and its components beyond the first-world perspective. Policy makers and planners will need to carry out research on gender-specific mobility that goes beyond the current concept of smart mobility. In the medium and long term, ‘smart’ will no longer be defined only by digitised applications and mobility concepts inside the existing transport system, but will also include automation. Considering that automation of driving might be the future of mobility, research will need to investigate issues such as access to automated services and adaptability of automation to individual mobility needs. Current research shows that automated driving optimists are for the most part men, while the majority of women are ‘fence-sitters’ (Smith et al. 2018), and men are significantly more convinced than women that automated driving will provide a range of benefits (Menon et al. 2018). Particularly challenging will be the question of what impact automation will have on the time use of women and men (for impact on time use see e.g. Kolarova

24  Barbara Lenz et al. 2017; Milakis et al. 2017; Steck et al. 2018). In this context, it will be essential that research lays additional stress on the aspects of gendered environment which concern land use, infrastructure, services, and public space. Mobility options that allow for long daily journeys (for the most part commutes) will have a large impact not only on mobility itself but also on the division of labour in households and the spatial fragmentation of activities and duties. Again, this will require an extension of the perception and assessment of mobility options in a holistic manner, something that has already been stated as a requirement for gender-sensitive mobility research (Cresswell and Uteng 2016: 1). To add the gender perspective to any issue of ‘mobility of the future’ will be a general need not only in research, but – probably even more – in policy making. In light of this requirement research must provide relevant analysis for decision makers.

Notes 1 In this chapter the term ‘digitisation’ makes reference to the conversion of analogue information in any form (text, photographs, voice, etc.) to digital form with suitable electronic devices (such as a scanner or specialised computer chips) so that the information can be processed, stored, and transmitted through digital circuits, equipment, and networks. This implies the integration of digital technologies into everyday life by the digitisation of everything that can be digitised, which is sometimes labelled ‘digitalisation’ (Business Dictionary). There will be no differentiation in the text between ‘digitisation’ and ‘digitalisation’, as the two words are to some extent interchangeable, and there is no agreed standard. 2 ‘Non-stationary’ (or ‘free-floating’) car-sharing is not constrained by the need to pick the car up from and bring it back to a predefined station, but instead allowing the driver to park the car anywhere within a designated zone ready for the next pick-up. 3 Sharing systems can also provide other types of vehicles like bicycles, scooters, or Segways. These services, too, are organised either as station-based or free-floating. 4 The original idea of ride-sharing was to match drivers and passengers who share a trip destination. In most cases (e.g. Uber or Lyft) it has developed into a commercial service, and is therefore now called ride-hailing. Ride-hailing describes a service provided by a ‘Transportation Network Company’ (TNC) that matches passengers with drivers via websites or mobile apps. The service has become taxi-like and is no longer based on trip destination sharing. 5 ‘Symbolic code’ or ‘social code’ is the basic system to classify ‘reality’ that structures human thinking about ‘the world’. Humans structure and classify their environment not individually but collectively and assign it to categories. These categories are predefined by the respective culture to which people belong; categories do not exist naturally (cf. Sahlins 1994). 6 Based on the finding that both body and environment are relevant for cognitive activities, (some) sociologists assume that cognition is not only a mental activity but also includes a human’s body and his or her natural and cultural environment. Thus cognitive activity always depends on the specific situation that a human encounters (Vannini 2016).

References Benevolo, C., Dameri, R.P., and D’Auria, B. (2016) Smart mobility in smart city. In T. Torre, A.M. Braccini, and R. Spinelli (eds), Empowering Organizations. Champagne: Springer, pp. 13–28.

Gender issues in new mobility concepts  25 Bert, J., Collie, B., Gerrits, M., and Xu, G. (2016) What’s ahead for car sharing? The New Mobility and its impact on vehicle sales. Boston Consulting Group (BCG). Available at http://image-src.bcg.com/Images/BCG-Whats-Ahead-for-Car-Sharing-Feb-2016_ tcm9-64441.pdf (accessed 15 July 2018). Bühlmann, F., Elcheroth, G., and Tettamanti, M. (2009) The division of labour among European couples: The effect of life course and welfare policy on value–practice configurations. European Sociological Review 26(1), 49–66. BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2017) Zweiter Gleichstellungsbericht der Bundesregierung. Deutscher Bundestag (18. Wahlperiode), Drucksache 18/12840. BMVI (Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur) (ed.) (2018) Mobilität in Deutschland. Kurzreport. Bonn. Available at www.mobilitaet-in-deutschland.de/pdf/ infas_Mobilitaet_in_Deutschland_2017_Kurzreport.pdf (accessed 15 July 2018). Business Dictionary. Available at www.businessdictionary.com/definition/digitization. html (accessed 15 January 2019). BVG (Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe) (2017) Zahlenspiegel 2017. Available at www.bvg.de/images/ content/meldungen/2017/170405_OnlineZahlenspiegel.pdf (accessed 15 July 2018). Circella, G., Alemi, F., Berliner, R.M., Tiedeman, K., Lee, Y., Fulton, L., and Mokhtarian, P.L. (2017) Multimodal Behavior of Millennials: Exploring Differences in Travel Choices Between Young Adults and Gen Xers in California. Ninety-sixth Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. Available at https://docs.trb.org/prp/17-06827. pdf (accessed 15 July 2018). Clewlow, R. and Mishra, G.S. (2017) Disruptive Transportation: The adoption, utilization, and impacts of ride-hailing in the United States. Institute of Transportation Studies. University of California, Davis. Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-17-07. Cresswell, T. and Priya Uteng, T. (2016) Gendered mobilities: Towards an holistic understanding. In T.Priya Uteng and T. Cresswell (eds), Gendered Mobilities. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 15–26. Davis, F.D. (1985) A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New Enduser Information Systems: Theory and results. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Davis, F.D. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 319–340. Department for Transport (2018) Vehicle Licensing Statistics: Annual 2017 (Revised). Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/716075/vehicle-licensing-statistics-2017-revised.pdf (accessed 15 August 2017, released on 12 April 2018). DLR (German Aerospace Center)/Kantar (2018) Empirische Grundlagenstudie zu den Auswirkungen von Digitalisierungstendenzen im Verkehrsbereich. Project on behalf of the German Ministry for Transport and Digital Infrastructures. Forthcoming. Dogtiev, A. (2017) Uber Revenue and Usage Statistics 2017. Available at www.businessofapps.com/data/uber-statistics/ (accessed 15 August 2017, updated 23 August 2017). Grunow, D. (2013) Zwei Schritte vor, eineinhalb Schritte zurück. Geschlechtsspezifische Arbeitsteilung und Sozialisation aus Perspektive des Lebensverlaufs (Gender-based division of labour and socialisation as a matter of biography). Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation 33(4), 384–398. Hjortol, R. (2008) Daily mobility of men and women – A barometer of gender equality? In T. Priya Uteng and T. Cresswell (eds), Gendered Mobilities. Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate, pp. 193–210. IFC (International Finance Corporation) and Accenture (2018) Driving toward equality: Women, ride-hailing, and the sharing economy. Washington. Available at www.ifc.org/ wps/ ​ w cm/connect/987fd54b-8d69-4d98-bb23-c62b84c3815b/IFC+​ D TE+​ R eport+​ Final+March+1.pdf?MOD=AJPERES (accessed 15 July 2018).

26  Barbara Lenz Ilie, V., van Slyke, C., Green, G., and Lou, H. (2005) Gender differences in perception and use of communication technologies: A diffusion of innovation approach. Information Resources Management Journal 18(3), 13–31. Available at https://pdfs.semanticscholar. org/53a3/2c9d125885fb08441afcd2a69a664676cb0e.pdf (accessed 20 July 2018). infas (Institute for Applied Social Sciences)/DLR (German Aerospace Center) (2010a) Mobilität in Deutschland 2008. Ergebnisbericht. Struktur – Aufkommen – Emissionen – Trends. Bonn, Berlin. infas/DLR (2010b) Mobilität in Deutschland 2008. Tabellenband. Bonn, Berlin. KBA (Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt) (2017) Bestandsüberblick am 1. Januar 2017. Available at www.kba.de/DE/Statistik/Fahrzeuge/Bestand/Ueberblick/2017/2017_b_uebersicht_ node.html (accessed 15 July 2018). Kolarova, V., Steck, F., Cyganski, R., and Trommer, S. (2017) Estimation of Value of Time for Autonomous Driving Using Revealed and Stated Preference Method. European Transport Conference. Kuhnimhof, T. (2017) Car ownership and usage trends in Germany – Response to the Commission on Travel demand’s call for evidence: Understanding travel demand. Berlin. Available at www.demand.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/25-EC1-Tobias-Kuhnimhof.pdf (accessed 15 July 2018). Kunert, U., Radke, S., Chlond, B., and Kagerbauer, M. (2012) Auto-Mobilität: Fahrleistungen steigen 2011 weiter. DIW Wochenbericht 79(47), 3–14. Law, R. (1999) Beyond women and transport; Towards new geographies of gender and daily mobility. Progress in Human Geography 23(4), 567–588. Lenz, B., Köhler, K., Giesel, F., Kihm, A., and Rahn, C. (2011) Neues aus der MiD2008. Presentation at the German Ministry for Transport, Building and Urban Development, unpublished. Le Vine, S., Zolfaghari, A., and Polak, J. (2014) Carsharing: Evolution, challenges and opportunities. ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report 22. Available at www.acea.be/ uploads/publications/SAG_Report_-_Car_Sharing.pdf (accessed 15 July 2018). Li, L. (2010) A critical review of technology acceptance literature. Available at www.acea. be/uploads/publications/SAG_Report_–_Car_Sharing.pdf (accessed 19 April 2011). Lian, J-W. and Yen, D.C. (2014) Online shopping drivers and barriers for older adults: Age and gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior 37, 133–143. Loose, W. (2010) Aktueller Stand des Car-sharing in Europa. Endbericht D 2.4 Arbeitspaket 2; Bundesverband CarSharing e.V. Available at www.carsharing.info/images/ stories/pdf_dateien/wp2_endbericht_deutsch_final_4.pdf (accessed 15 July 2018). McDonald, N.C. (2008) Household interactions and children’s school travel: The effect of parental work patterns on walking and biking to school. Journal of Transport ­Geography 16(5), 324–331. Mazman, S.G., Usluel, Y.K., and Çevik, V. (2009) Social influence in the adoption process and usage of innovation: Gender differences. International Journal of Behavioral, Cognitive, Educational and Psychological Sciences 1, 229–232. Available at https://waset.org/publications/11887/social-influence-in-the-adoption-process-andusage-of-innovation-gender-differences (accessed 15 July 2018). Menon, N., Zhang, Y., Pinjari; A., and Mannering, F. (2018) Understanding the influence of customers’ perception towards automated vehicles on their intended adoption: A cluster analysis approach. Presentation at Autonomous Vehicle Symposium, San Francisco, CA. Milakis, D., van Arem, B., and van Wee, B. (2017) Policy and society related implications of automated driving: A review of literature and directions for future research. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems 21(4), 324–348. MWC (Mobile World Congress) (2017) Umfrage: 78 Prozent der Deutschen nutzen Smartphones. Available at www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Umfrage-78-Prozentder-Deutschen-nutzen-Smartphones-3632629.html (accessed 15 August 2017, first published 22 February 2017).

Gender issues in new mobility concepts  27 Nobis, C. and Lenz, B. (2005) Gender differences in travel patterns: Role of employment status and household structure. Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation, Transportation Research Board Conference Proceedings 35(2), Technical papers, S., 114–123, Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation 2004, Chicago, IL. PEW Research Center (2018) Internet and technology. Mobile fact sheet. Available at www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/ (accessed 15 July 2018). Riegler, S., Juschten, M., Hössinger, R., Gerike, R., Rößger, L., Schlag, B., Manz, W., Rentschler, C., and Kopp, J. (2016) Carsharing 2025 – Nische oder Mainstream? München (ifmo). Available at www.ifmo.de/files/publications_content/2016/ifmo_2016_ Carsharing_2025_de.pdf (accessed 28 August 2018). Sahlins, M. (1994) Kultur und praktische Vernunft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Scholten, C., Friberg, T., and Sandén, A. (2012) Re-reading time geography from a gender perspective: Examples from gendered mobility. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 103(5), 584–600. Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., and Zohdy, I. (2016) Shared mobility: Current practices and guiding principles. No. FHWA-HOP-16-022. Smith, B., Greaves, S., Arnold, T., Olaru, D., and Collins, A. (2018) Autonomous vehicles down under: An empirical investigation of consumer sentiment. Presentation at Autonomous Vehicle Symposium, San Francisco, CA. Steck, F., Kolarova, V., Bahamonde-Birke, F., Trommer, S., and Lenz, B. (2018) How autonomous driving may affect the value of travel time savings for commuting. Transportation Research Record, 0361198118757980. Thompson, R.L., Higgins, C.A., and Howell, J.M. (1991) Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 125–143. Vannini, P. (2016) Body/Embodiment: Symbolic Interaction and the Sociology of the Body. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Van Slyke, C., Belanger, F., and Comunale, C.L. (2004) Factors influencing the adoption of web-based shopping: The impact of trust. ACM SIGMIS Database 35(2), 32–49. Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. (2000) Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly 24(1), 115–139. WiMobil (2016) Wirkung von E-Car Sharing Systemen auf Mobilität und Umwelt in urbanen Räumen. Abschlussbericht. FuE‐Programm Förderung von Forschung und Entwicklung im Bereich der Elektromobilität des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (BMUB), Berlin. Available at www.erneuerbar-mobil.de/sites/default/files/2016-10/Abschlussbericht_WiMobil.pdf (accessed 30 August 2018). Wixom, B.H. and Todd, P.A. (2005) A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research 16(1), 85–102.

3 Couples, the car, and the gendering of the life course What ordinary trip diary data from the past may tell us about smart mobilities in the future Joachim Scheiner Introduction Research on gender–travel links has evolved since the late 1970s. The car has played a central role in this research from the beginning, and it continues to do so (Rosenbloom 1978; Giuliano 1979; Polk 2004; Best and Lanzendorf 2005; Schwanen 2011). This is hardly surprising, since the car represents a key resource for mobility in modern, developed societies more than any other ‘mobility tool’. This is, of course, not to say that gender–travel studies do not look at a large variety of other travel (and activity) variables, including various travel modes (e.g. Matthies et al. 2002; Scheiner 2014a; Preston and McLafferty 2016; Miralles-Guasch et al. 2016), trip (especially commute) distances and durations (Crane 2007; Scheiner et al. 2011; Preston and McLafferty 2016; Tilley and Houston 2016), trip chaining (Scheiner 2014b), or time use and trip purposes (Schwanen 2007; Ettema and van der Lippe 2009; Scheiner 2016). In the past two decades, the gender–travel literature has charted various subfields, with very nuanced and subtle understandings of the role which travel, mobility, and accessibility play for gender structures and vice versa (see Hanson and Pratt 1995; Law 1999; Kwan et al. 2009; Hanson 2010; Schwanen 2011). Notably, two broad fields can be distinguished, each of which includes various topics and approaches (Hanson 2010). One is rooted in cultural and social sciences, works primarily with qualitative data based on constructivist-interpretive approaches, attempts to capture the meaning of travel, and considers gender as an ‘output variable’ shaped by the continuous construction and reconstruction of gendered mobility and other dimensions of human action. The other is the one this chapter is more situated in. It has stronger roots in geography and planning, often works with standardised data, and is based on more positivist views or critical rationalism (see Naess (2015) for more details). It tends to look at statistical associations to gain an understanding of gender relations and their links to travel, with less focus on subjective meaning, and it typically considers gender as one of several explanatory (‘input’) variables for travel. Biography studies and life course studies tend to reflect a similar dichotomy, with biography research primarily employing a subjective, (self-)reflective

Life course, gender, and future smart mobilities  29 p­ erspective, and life course research looking at life course structures from a ‘bird’s eye’ perspective (Sackmann 2007; see Rossi (1985) and Elder et al. (2006) for discussions of the terms life course, life span, and life cycle). Both have clear links to gender studies, and both have found their way into travel studies in the past one or two decades. Specifically, gendered life course studies argue that the structures of the life course are inherently gendered, and that the gendered nature of social life varies over the life course. Studies concerned with the links between travel and the life course look at stability and change in travel behaviour over people’s lives, often using the label ‘mobility biographies’. Few studies to date have attempted to disentangle the links between gender, the life course, and travel within one framework. The special role of the car led to the investigation of various questions. This obviously includes the study of car ownership, car access, and car use for men and women. It also includes sophisticated analysis of the economic, social, spatiotemporal, and psychological factors that may be ‘behind’ the mere binary coding of men and women. What is more, cohort and panel studies try to capture car access or car use over the life courses of men and women, and the processes and events that bring about changes in car access or use (Beckmann et al. 2005; Beige and Axhausen 2017; Scheiner 2014a). Finally, a recent strand of literature looks at households who share a car, trying to understand the circumstances that contribute to a particular allocation of the car between partners. Most recently, some attempts have been made to link this strand to smart mobilities. This literature is primarily based on theoretical reasoning and speculation, while thorough data analysis is difficult, as most available travel behaviour surveys hardly allow for a nuanced analysis of the use of smart mobilities. However, it may be argued that ordinary trip diaries allow the study of certain measures that permit indirect conclusions on the propensity to change (e.g. by adopting innovative forms of mobility) even without having direct information. This actually has an advantage over directly asking people about their inclination to accept novelties, as the study of realised, past behaviour bears less risk of bias than the study of hypothetical situations. Which measures could be relevant here? First, strong variability of travel behaviour has been shown to result in a higher propensity for change (Heinen and Ogilvie 2016; de Haas et al. 2018). Such variability can be captured by looking at short-term variations, or by looking at travel behaviour changes over longer periods. Second, the need to cope with limited resources and, accordingly, to find alternative solutions in case the resource is not available – particularly in a position of limited power – favours the need to accept innovations. Hence, this chapter reports a twofold study. It first examines gendered car access in couples who share one car by extending a similar study (Scheiner 2013a). This is followed by a study of the factors that contribute to changes in car access from one year to the next based on panel data. The measure used is realised car access, as expressed in duration of access over a week. Both studies use the German Mobility Panel, but the first treats the data as if they were cross-sectional.

30  Joachim Scheiner The following section provides some background. This is followed by a description of the data and methods. The results are presented in two parts, as outlined above. The chapter closes with some conclusions for smart mobilities.

Background Gender and the car Early studies on gender–travel links highlighted the below-average car ownership/ access and use among women, framing this with women’s more complex trip and activity patterns (Hanson and Hanson 1980; Brennecke 1994). Conversely, women have been found to walk and use public transport more often than men. The same is true for making trips as a car passenger (Hanson and Hanson 1980). More recently, several longitudinal studies found evidence for gender convergence (Rosenbloom 2006; Crane 2007). For instance, Sicks et al. (2012) find for Germany that men were 3.1 times as likely as women to drive for a given trip in 1976, but only 1.3 times as likely in 2008. This is paralleled by convergence over time, i.e. more egalitarian gender relations in terms of time use and activity patterns (see below). Women’s somewhat lower car use is paralleled by their stronger use of other modes, resulting in more multimodality (i.e. more varied mode use), though again there is some evidence for gender convergence over time (Heinen and Mattioli in print). Women’s more varied mode choices are also reflected in the over-proportionate use of unusual modes such as carpooling with non-household members (Neoh et al. 2017). The theoretical mechanisms that contribute to understanding such differences are manifold. They are typically discussed in concert and considered to be complementary rather than competitive with no author championing one hypothesis to the exclusion of all others (see for discussion Hanson and Pratt 1995; Law 1999; Schwanen 2011; Preston and McLafferty 2016; Tilley and Houston 2016; Xiong and Zhang 2017; Lee et al. 2018). Very briefly put, these hypotheses claim that (1) women are disadvantaged in terms of economic power and associated access to economic, social, spatial, and temporal resources; (2) women are disadvantaged due to their disproportionate commitment to household and family responsibilities that limits their economic independence; (3) women are disadvantaged due to long-standing patriarchal power relations that may operate over and above economic inequalities, and (4) women themselves may be blamed for these disadvantages because they do not strive enough for more power or better negotiating positions – they just ‘don’t ask’ (Babcock and Laschever 2003). The two hypotheses that have gained most attention in transport studies are economic resources (in terms of money, time, and cars), and social roles (the ‘household responsibility’ hypothesis). Less consideration has been devoted to gendered norms, although Polk’s (1998) seminal work clearly suggests that men tend to link cars to ideas such as a fascination for technology, speed, and exhibition of power, while women typically consider cars to be practical tools (see also Barker (2008) on the transmission of such ideologies from parents to children).

Life course, gender, and future smart mobilities  31 Even less effort has been dedicated to the explicit study of the role of gendered preferences and attitudes in travel (e.g. Ettema and Van der Lippe 2009). The preference hypothesis is supported by the finding that even women with easy access to a car use public transport more than men, and they are more inclined than men to reduce their car use (Matthies et al. 2002; Polk 2004). These hypotheses should not be understood as being independent of each other. Neither can the causal relationships between them be clearly determined. For instance, gendered social roles on the intra-household level may be an outcome or a driver of inequality between two partners’ economic power. Patriarchy may drive economic inequality, but economic inequality may also help maintain patriarchy over time. The notion of preference assumes individual freedom of choice, but preferences may have their roots in societal traditions, and may hence operate on the basis of patriarchy, inequality, and culturally defined social roles. One may well argue that women’s lower car use counters their actual greater need to drive which arises from the multiple roles that women, especially mothers, have to balance. Public transport is less suitable to organise the complex trip chains (Currie and Delbosc 2011) that are associated with multiple duties and multiple destinations which women typically have to deal with more than men (see the following sub-section). This raises the issue of the factors that contribute to car access over and above the mere physical and financial restrictions that limit car purchase. This question is studied in some – primarily European – literature on car allocation in couples who share one car. Anggraini et al. (2008) employ a decision tree model to study car allocation in low-car households (couples sharing a car) in the Netherlands. They find that the chance of car use is considerably higher for the male partner than for the woman under various conditions. The allocation of the car is affected by ­spatio-temporal setting and – though less so – by socioeconomic circumstances. Maat and Timmermans (2009) study commute mode in dual-earner households. They find that in dual-earner couples with only one car, having the longer commute and commuting to a low-density work location increases the likelihood for a partner to commute by car. What is more, men are more likely to leave the car at home in households with young children. The circumstances of the male partner affect car use more than the circumstances of female partners. In a series of papers, Scheiner and Holz-Rau (2012a, 2012b; Scheiner 2013a) look at car allocation and car use using different kinds of measurement. Although their results do not generally support women’s weak power position in couples, they show that women tend to struggle more than men when it comes to car allocation. They find evidence for the importance of social roles and economic power in car allocation, but also strong evidence that women have less chance of taking the car, other variables held constant. Habib (2014) echoes findings by Anggraini et al. (2008) that car allocation is affected by the transport setting (commute distance, commute direction, parking situation at work). Interestingly, his data (from Toronto) suggest that females have a better chance than males of being allocated the car.

32  Joachim Scheiner Gender and time use Gendered time use has been researched in countless studies. The general finding is that men take on disproportionate shares of paid (employed, marketed) work and women disproportionate shares of unpaid (non-marketed, household/family/care) work. When total workload, including paid and unpaid work, is considered both genders carry similar loads (Sayer 2010; Stanfors and Goldscheider 2017). While the gendered division of work still exists around the world, various studies from different countries have shown gender differences in activity patterns to converge over time (Fisher et al. 2007; Blau et al. 2010; Sayer 2010; Gershuny and Kan 2012). Among households with children things seem to evolve differently. Mothers make a consistently above-average contribution to unpaid work (Statistisches Bundesamt 2015; Altintas and Sullivan 2016; Stanfors and Goldscheider 2017). A re-traditionalisation of work sharing has been detected among married couples from a life course perspective, and having children has been identified as a key factor in accelerating this process (Grunow et al. 2012). Mothers’ family obligations increase with the number of children and decrease with the age of the youngest child (McGinnity and Russell 2008; Scheiner 2013b). Linking employment, household, and family obligations is more common for women than for men, especially since female employment increases over time in various countries (van der Lippe 2010). This may result in a ‘double burden’ or ‘second shift’ for women (McGinnity and Russell 2008), and in more diverse and complex activity patterns. Complexity may be revealed in various patterns, such as the fragmentation of activities in space and/or time, the variety of activities performed, and the number and/or distribution of spatially and/or temporally fixed anchor points in daily life. Bianchi et al. (2007) find that married mothers report more frequent multitasking than married fathers, reflecting a strategy of time management to juggle multiple duties. Bittman and Wajcman (2000) provide evidence that women’s leisure is more contaminated by interruptions and combined with unpaid work than men’s, even though there may be little gender difference in leisure time in quantitative terms. Offer and Schneider (2011) add that mothers not only multitask more often than fathers, but that types of multi-tasking differ in that mothers typically experience more negative effects and stress from multi-tasking than fathers. Alexander et al. (2011) study the fragmentation of activity patterns in the Netherlands, i.e. the disintegration of activities into smaller sets. Using various spatial and temporal measures of fragmentation, they find few significant gender differences. These suggest somewhat more fragmentation among men than among women. Schwanen et al. (2008) find that women than men coordinate and deal with more space–time fixity constraints. Again this is because women engage in family and household obligations more than men. Looking at trends over time, gender convergence has also been observed in the distribution of activities over the day and the week, i.e. women’s temporal distribution of activities over the course of a day is becoming more similar to that of men (Fisher et al. 2007).

Life course, gender, and future smart mobilities  33 Gender, the life course, and (travel) behaviour change Life course research has become a broad field of inquiry over recent decades (for an overview see Mortimer and Shanahan 2006). Gender as a basic concept appears somewhat underdeveloped in this research (Widmer and Ritschard 2009: 29; see Oakil (2016: 2) for transport studies), although it has been given some attention. Rossi’s (1985) seminal edited book on gender and the life course covers careful reflections from historical, demographic, psychological and sociological, and economic and political perspectives. Attention has been given to the gendered character of the life course by economists who calculated the differences in lifetime earnings between men and women (Boll et al. 2017). Gender structures in the life course seem to be obvious, given that the timing, sequencing, and occurrence of some life stages are characterised by strong gender inequalities. For instance, women leave their parental home earlier than men, marry earlier, and become parents earlier in life (Hillmert 2005). Inasmuch as such structures open up or inhibit options for subsequent life stages, they may cause new inequalities at later stages. The most researched example and consistent finding in this respect is childbearing, which has a traditionalising influence on ideology (Davis and Moore 2010), on household work sharing, and, hence, on activity patterns (Grunow et al. 2012) and travel patterns (Best and Lanzendorf 2005). These trends are on the household and individual level. As changes over time in the aggregate suggest increasingly egalitarian gender relations, cohort and period effects may show trends that contrast with life course effects. Period and cohort effects may also intersect with life courses from one generation to the next in gendered ways (e.g. the spread of the Internet is one such cohort-specific change, and its adaptation is linked with the gender division of household work) (Schwanen et al. 2014). Gender convergence in travel behaviour over time has also been observed to evolve in cohort specific ways (Scheiner et al. 2011). Even though economic inequality, norms, or ideologies may foster such ‘standard trajectories’, considerable de-standardisation of life paths has been observed over time in various countries (for Germany see Kohli 2007; Scherger 2009; for Switzerland Widmer and Ritschard 2009; for the US Liefbroer and Elzinga 2012). Standardisation refers to belonging to particular, ‘normal’ demographic states at certain ages and the transitions connecting these states to one another. Processes of de-standardisation or individualisation refer more to women than to men (Scherger 2009, Widmer and Ritschard 2009), particularly because of women’s increasingly diverse occupational trajectories. In recent years, a limited number of studies have linked travel and the life course to gender. This research looks at how life course events that separate life course stages from each other result in changing travel behaviour. This may be because such events cause social role transitions, and changes in resources and aspirations, which in turn result in a mismatch between the situation a person lives in and the required (or desired) mobility, which may cause stress (Clark et al. 2016; Scheiner 2018). Early work on this issue was undertaken by Rosenbloom

34  Joachim Scheiner (1987). Based on data from the US and the Netherlands she highlights the effects of women’s over-proportionate care responsibilities on gendered travel needs, and how this changes when children grow older. Four more recent authors may be highlighted in this area. First, Oakil (2016) studies changes from limited or no access to full car access and vice versa based on retrospective data in the Netherlands. He finds that events such as cohabitation, the birth of the first child, divorce, residential relocation, and employer change significantly increase the likelihood of a change to full car access for women. The effects for men point in the same direction, respectively, but only the effect of cohabitation is significant. Another important finding is that women generally switch more often from full access to limited or no access, or vice versa, than men. Oakil et al. (2018) use Dutch register data to study car ownership following union dissolution. They find that car ownership after couple separation is significantly lower for women than for men, even after controlling for income, employment, and household type (lone parent versus living alone). Second, Sharmeen et al. (2014) study changes in activity and travel needs (based on activity and travel durations), and social ties in response to life course events. They use retrospective data collected in the Netherlands, and they find that men show stronger changes in activity durations and are more likely to make new ties than women when an event occurs. Third, Scheiner (2014a) uses German panel data to study changes in mode choice from one year to the next as a function of life course events. He finds significant effects for some key events, and some effects differ distinctly between men and women, suggesting that men and women are differently affected by life course events. For instance, women tend to walk more following the birth of a child. Generally, women tend to react more than men to changes in circumstances. In a follow-up paper, Scheiner (2014b) studies changes in tour complexity and activity pattern entropy over time. He finds that entry into the labour market results in increased entropy, for women even more than for men, while at the same time, tour complexity increases for men but not for women. Conversely, the transition into unemployment reduces entropy, but only for women, while retiring means that entropy decreases for both genders, but less for women than for men. In another paper Scheiner (2016) looks at the gendered effects of key events on time use. The overall result is that key events in partnership and the family affect women’s time use more than men’s, while for labour market events it is mostly the other way round. Fourth, in a Swiss study Beige and Axhausen (2017) find positive effects of being female on the propensity of various changes occurring over the life course (residence, employment, education level, mobility tool ownership, main travel mode), but only two of these changes are significant (residence, employment). They conclude that women behave more variably than men. Other studies that are relevant here look at travel behaviour change without making direct links to the life course. A number of studies suggest that women are more likely than men to reduce their car use (or at least intend to do so), which may be due to stronger ecological norms, weaker car habits, and a more

Life course, gender, and future smart mobilities  35 critical attitude towards the automobile. This is despite the fact that they drive less than men (Matthies et al. 2002; Polk 2003, 2004). This is countered by Mulley and Ma (2018). They confirm that females drive less at the baseline, but find that males reduce their driving faster than females in response to a social marketing programme on mode choice in Australia. Some studies on behaviour changes caused by incidents in the transport network also suggest a higher propensity for change among women. Mokhtarian et al. (2011) study travellers’ reaction to a temporary highway closure in ­California. They find that women are generally more likely to alter travel behaviour. This includes several behavioural reactions which are more likely for women: avoid the rush hour, change route, use public transport, and carpooling. They are also more likely to respond to employer-funded public transport subsidies. Murray-Tuite et al. (2014) study commute mode changes following a fatal rail transport accident in Washington, DC. They find some evidence that women are more likely than men to change both mode (to another form of public transport) and seating location, suggesting stronger risk aversion among women. However, the survey did not include people who changed to modes other than public transport. On the other hand, Ben-Elia and Ettema (2011) find that Dutch men are more likely than women to avoid the rush hour as a reaction to rewards. This may be because women face stronger temporal constraints that preclude them from commuting to work later in the morning. For cycling, the results are also mixed. Rose and Marfurt (2007) find that the Australian annual ‘Ride-to-Work’ event that aims to motivate people to cycle commute has more (and longer lasting) effects on women than on men. Conversely, Yang et al. (2016) study the chance of switching from driving to the combined use of a public bicycle system and public transport. They find that males are more likely to switch than women. It should also be noted that several studies do not find any evidence for gender differences on travel change propensity. This includes studies of changes in mode use following residential relocation (Klinger and Lanzendorf 2016; Klinger 2017), switching from active to non-active commuting and vice versa from one year to the next (Clark et al. 2016), general resistance to changing travel (measured as an index from various ‘vignettes’, i.e. scenarios of travel change) (Murtagh et al. 2012), and stages of change in commute mode away from the car in Sweden (Olsson et al. 2018). Conclusions and consequences for smart mobilities A number of points can be taken from the literature. First, it has been suggested that women’s greater variety of activities and the variable practices associated with these patterns may make them more prone to change to more sustainable travel patterns (Miralles-Guasch et al. 2016). This argument can be extended to the larger diversity of modes that women use (Heinen and Mattioli in print).

36  Joachim Scheiner Second, studies of the links between travel and the life course show that some life course events have differential effects on men and women. Clearly, behaviour changes and the potential for behaviour changes are gendered. However, to date the details of the ways in which these changes happen are less than conclusive. From the life course/travel literature one may perhaps conclude that the gendering of life course events exhibits clearer results on time use than on travel. Further, it should be recalled that the de-standardisation of life courses over time has been found to be stronger for women than for men. What is more, a notable number of studies on behavioural change find that women are more likely than men to adjust to changed situations or adopt innovations from travel demand management, although again the overall findings are not consistent. Third, studies on car allocation in low-car households suggest that women struggle harder for car access in constrained situations, or they are more inclined to give in and adjust to circumstances. Overall, this leads me to hypothesise that women may be more prone to behavioural change, to adjust to changed circumstances, and to adopt innovations than men, though the evidence is far from being conclusive. This may also suggest that women are more likely to be innovators in smart mobilities. The empirical part of this chapter is based on standard trip diary data that do not include information on smart mobilities. However, the data used are from a panel survey. Hence, they include information on changes in car availability and travel behaviour over time. The following sections link two empirical studies. The first studies car allocation in couple households who share a car. This is based on the idea that the expected lower car access among women requires more flexibility and variability in travel. The second study looks at changes in car access over time as a function of life course events, socio-demographics, urban form, and path dependence from a gender perspective. The idea here is to understand whether and how women react more strongly to changing circumstances. The results should be seen against the background of the German gender policy context. Germany is commonly considered a conservative (or social capitalist/corporatist) regime in terms of gender relations, similar to France, Belgium, and the Netherlands (Kan et al. 2011; van der Lippe et al. 2011). Germany has some notable incentives for couples to conduct a male-breadwinner-and-female-housewife type of work sharing, including a joint income tax system for couples and a relatively poor provision of public childcare (Cooke 2006; Kan et al. 2011). Parental leave regulations are generous (36 months since 1992), but included little financial benefit until 2006 (Geisler and Kreyenfeld 2012). Female labour force participation rates have increased steadily over time, but with high proportions of part-time work (Dustmann 2005). In the past few years, Germany has undertaken considerable efforts to expand childcare facilities, and to encourage women into employment and fathers to take paternal leave (Geisler and Kreyenfeld 2012). Hence Germany has recently experienced a process of rapid change in gender relations.

Life course, gender, and future smart mobilities  37

Methods Data I use the German Mobility Panel (GMP) 1994 to 2014.1 The GMP is a household survey with the sample organised in overlapping waves. Every household is surveyed three times over a period of three consecutive years (KIT 2012) (e.g. from 1994–1996), before being excluded from the survey. Trips are recorded over a whole week by all household members aged 10 years or over, using a trip diary. Personal and household-related socio-demographic attributes are collected as well as accessibility and spatial context attributes at the residence and at the household members’ places of work or education. The data include a total of 35,655 individual weeks reported by 17,255 individuals. Only those cases for which complete information is available are used. Analysis approach I use regression modelling to study the effects of socio-demographic as well as spatial and access variables on car availability. Unweighted data are used for regression modelling and any tests of significance, but weighted data for descriptive analysis. The data include non-independent (clustered) observations due to the panel survey design used, which violates a basic assumption of statistical analysis. The use of OLS regression may thus result in underestimated standard errors and, hence, overestimated parameter significance (Hedeker et al. 1994). Thus, I employ a cluster-robust estimation based on pooled data. This model controls for autocorrelation within subjects emerging from the temporal order of records. The correlation matrix of within-subject dependencies is thus estimated as part of the model. Similar to OLS, the standard errors may be too small when the number of clusters is finite (Wooldridge 2003; Nichols and Schaffer 2007). However, the cluster-robust estimator converges to the true standard error as the number of clusters (not the number of observations) approaches infinity (Kézdi 2004; Nichols and Schaffer 2007). Given the large sample and number of clusters, this issue should not raise serious concern. The SPSS procedure GEE (generalised estimating equations) is used for the analysis. The coefficients reported may simply be interpreted as population average estimates, as in ordinary regression. Concerning model specification (see Garson (2010) for details), the autoregressive correlation type is used due to the temporal order of within-subject measurements. This means that values at a given point in time are a function of prior values plus error term. The dependent variables used are continuous in nature, and normal distribution is assumed. A graphical inspection reveals that this assumption holds true for change in car access over time. Car access at a given point in time is somewhat right-skewed, but not to an extent that raises concern (skewness = 1.07). There is no determination coefficient available for cluster-robust regression. SPSS reports a quasi-likelihood under independence criterion (QIC) which is an extension of the Akaike information criterion (AIC) for repeated measures

38  Joachim Scheiner (Garson 2010). It is available in a corrected form (QICC) that penalises model complexity and small sample size. QICC works in a ‘the smaller the better’ form. It is reported for the final models as well as for the intercept models. However, there is no formal test of significance in model improvement available. For comparison, OLS regressions with a random subsample of one observation per individual are estimated. The results are available upon request from the author. A comparison of the cluster-robust regressions with the OLS regressions yields similar results, supporting the robustness of the findings. The R² values from the OLS regressions are reported in the results table for readers’ convenience. Variable definitions Target variables Access to a car may be measured in various ways. An obvious measure is selfreported car availability. In this chapter I use a more unusual measure, i.e. the amount of time the (only) household car is used by one of two partners in a household, plus the time she or he has it available at the destination. This captures the time this partner has ‘power’ over the car, while the other partner normally has no access. Hence, I sum up travel time by car as a driver plus associated activity times during the report week (except for housing – assuming that if the car is parked at the household’s residence it is available for other household members as well). This is the measure I use for studying car access at a given point in time in low-car households (see section below on Results I). I use this measure to compute change in car access from one year to the next, and I use the change variable as the dependent variable in the following section (Results II). The change variable is distributed symmetrically around zero. Explanatory variables I started previous, similar analyses of the same data with a wide range of explanatory variables, many of which turned out insignificant. To reduce arbitrary selection, I started the modelling process in this chapter with the variables used in previous papers. These include the following:

1 Two studies of car availability in low-car households (Scheiner and Holz-Rau 2012a; Scheiner 2013a). From the variables used in these papers I excluded the following due to lack of significance: age difference between partners, relative education level of partners, variety of public transport systems in the neighbourhood, a binary variable that indicates living at a central location within the city of residence, and various indicators of activity pattern. 2 A study on change in mode use (Scheiner 2014a). From the variables used here I excluded self-reported car availability for obvious reasons, and central residential location, due to lack of significance. The variables finally used are shown in Tables 3.1 and 3.2.

Car access (minutes per week) Respondent’s share in household work Respondent’s share in employed work Number of children in household (< 10 years) Number of children in household (10–13 years) Number of children in household (14–17 years) Difference in number of trips per week (respondent minus partner) Urbanity (variety of facilities in neighbourhood) Year of observation (base year = 0) n

Municipality 500,000 inh PT system quality to place of work/education Both partners need car (poor PT connection) Neither partner needs car Partner needs car, while respondent does not Respondent needs car, while partner does not

8,545 1 1 4 3 2 7.29 5 20

0 0 0 0 0 0 –7.29 0 0 2,534

3.22 9.68

1,895 0.42 0.64 0.46 0.18 0.19 –0.09 1.38 5.75

1,425 0.25 0.33 0.80 0.44 0.44 1.72

0 0 2,341

0 0 0 0 0 0 –7.29

Min

SD

Min

M

44.0 15.6 27.2 13.2

44.3 15.6 13.7 26.4 Max

41.1 28.1 16.1 14.8

Women (%)

40.6 28.3 16.0 15.2

Men (%)

Table 3.1  Descriptives of variables used in regression of car access in couple households

5 20

5,982 1 1 4 3 2 7.29

Max

3.23 8.98

918 0.59 0.36 0.48 0.18 0.19 0.09

M

1.38 5.27

1,025 0.25 0.33 0.80 0.45 0.44 1.74

SD

Child’s birth Full-time employed Part-time employed Apprenticeship, trainee, education Not employed Entry into labour market Leaving labour market (no retirement) Walking distance PT stop to place of work or education […] […] decreases […] increases […] does not change Parking situation at place of work/education […] […] is difficult […] gets much worse […] gets much better […] does not change Driving licence holding Achievement of driving licence Municipality 500,000 inh Central residential location within city Move to periphery Move to centre

1.8 22.5 24.1 10.9 42.6 4.1 2.6 4.3 4.6 91.0 15.7 1.7 1.8 96.5 79.0 2.0 67.1 17.5 15.4 16.5 2.8 2.9

4.7 4.7 90.6 13.2 1.8 1.9 96.3 87.9 1.9 69.1 16.5 14.3 15.6 2.7 2.6

Women (%)

1.9 48.3 4.1 11.8 35.7 2.9 1.5

Men (%)

Table 3.2  Descriptives of variables used in regression of change in car access from one year to the next in couple households

4 4 5 5 96 92.16 19 9,395 8,237

0 0 0 –5 6 0.36 0 0 –8,150 7,790

Max 0.24 0.28 3.05 –0.01 54.48 32.83 9.59 1,669.4 –11.5

M

Note Car access in minutes per week away from home with the car as a driver (trip time plus activity time).

Number of children in household (< 10 years) Number of children in household (10–17 years) Urbanity (variety of facilities in neighbourhood accessible on foot) Change in urbanity Cohort (94 years in 1994 = 0) Cohort, squared, divided by 100 Year of survey (1994 = 0) Car access in the year prior to change (baseline) Change in car access

Min 0.59 0.63 1.42 1.11 17.74 20.37 5.26 1,529.3 1,239.9

SD 0 0 0 –5 5 0.25 0 0 –5,521 8,399

Min 4 4 5 5 96 92.16 19 8,174.5 6,926

Max

–0.01 55.30 33.56 9.41 961.3 3.4

0.24 0.29 3.05

M

0.59 0.63 1.43 1.12 17.28 19.80 5.06 1,185.0 884.5

SD

42  Joachim Scheiner Some of the variables may need some explanation (see Scheiner and Holz-Rau (2013) for more details). Urbanity is calculated from self-reported walking access in the neighbourhood to various facilities. The parking situation at the workplace and the walking distance from public transport to work are based on subjective reports. The public transport system quality to work is calculated from various categories, as reported by respondents. A change report in the dummy ‘central location of residence within the city’ is used to capture the direction of a move (towards a more central or a more remote location). The respondent’s shares in both partners’ total household (or employed) work are measured by the sums of weekly activity durations. Note that both refer only to out-of-home activities. I started the modelling process using interaction terms between gender and any other variable to account for gender differences in the effects of life circumstances and life events. This resulted in strong multi-collinearity in some cases, most pronouncedly between the variables cohort and cohort squared, and their respective gender interactions, with variance inflation factors (VIF) exceeding VIF = 100. I therefore decided to present separate models here, but include information on which interaction terms turned out significant, as these suggest significant gender differences in the effect of a variable. In the resulting models, variance inflation is no longer an issue (all VIF values < 2; Schendera (2008: 105) suggests VIF < 10 as a threshold). The only exception is cohort (VIF = 63.8) which is obviously correlated to cohort squared (VIF = 67.4). The cohort variables are retained in the model due to the recent debate on gender-specific trends in travel behaviour among young adults (Tilley and Houston 2016).

Results I: car allocation in couples sharing one car Table 3.3 shows the self-reported car availability and actual duration of car access, as defined above, of licensed adults living in couple households. This is categorised by gender and household car ownership. Regular car availability unsurprisingly increases with household car ownership. While in fully equipped households 93 per cent of licensed adults report that they have a car regularly available, the corresponding figure is 64 per cent in low-car households, and 5 per cent in households who do not own a car. In full-car households there is hardly any gender difference in self-reported availability, but the time a partner is actually away from home with a car is considerably higher for men than for women. In low-car households a similar observation can be made, although the absolute levels of car use are lower, and the gender difference is more pronounced. While in full-car households car access in minutes per week is about 50 per cent higher for men than for women (2,403.7/1,612.2), the figure for men is 120 per cent higher in low-car households (1,596.3/724.2). Self-reported car availability in low-car households is also higher for men, but the difference is not as striking. This suggests a clear dominance of the male partner.

Life course, gender, and future smart mobilities  43 Table 3.3 Self-reported car access by gender and household car ownership in couple households Men

Women

All

No-car households Yes, regularly Upon agreement No Car access (min/ week, mean) n

3.9% 20.0% 76.2% 215.7

6.2% 28.5% 65.3% 248.5

4.7% 23.2% 72.1% 227.9

145

101

246

Low-car households (1 car) Yes, regularly* Upon agreement* No* Car access (min/ week, mean)* n

68.4% 27.9% 3.8% 1596.3 3,754

58.1% 34.8% 7.2% 724.2 3,180

63.8% 30.9% 5.3% 1206.1 6,934

Full-car households (2+ cars) Yes, regularly Upon agreement No Car access (min/ week, mean)* n

93.1% 4.4% 2.4% 2403.7

92.2% 5.0% 2.8% 1612.2

92.7% 4.7% 2.6% 2077.3

4,051

3,062

7,113

Notes Licensed adults only. Sample size refers to individuals, including repeat observations. Empty cells are due to the small sample. * Gender difference significant (p = 0.01); Chi-square for self-reported car availability, t-test for duration of car access in minutes per week.

In households without a car, another observation may be worth mentioning. Car availability is somewhat higher for women here in terms of duration, and clearly higher in terms of self-reported availability, although the differences are not significant due to small sample sizes. This may suggest that women are more often able to organise a car from outside the household. The factors that affect car access are studied in Table 3.4. As expected from the descriptive analysis, being female is associated with significantly lower car access. This can be seen from the difference in intercepts (and the significant gender effect in the model including both men and women). The fulfilment of social and economic roles is associated with more car access in a nuanced way. First, employed work contributes considerably more strongly to getting car access than non-marketed, household work, suggesting that people assign a

0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.03

1490.7 381.6 1168.6 –174.1 –1.6 223.7 –193.2 –108.2 –267.9 –28.6 –420.7 –387.6 –3.8 60.2 –11.7 1.75 4,423 5,147 2,534 1,444 0.141

–175.7 –292.9 –23.2 111.6 1.1 0.88 2,053 2,460 2,341 1,325 0.171

–30.3 –80.7 –190.0 –44.3

805.5 201.8 756.8 –3.5 0.0 144.9

B

B

Sig.

Women

Men

Notes Licensed adults only. Car access in minutes per week away from home with the car as a driver (trip time plus activity time). * In this case there is no interaction, but the main effect of gender is significant in the model, including men and women.

Intercept Respondent’s share in household work Respondent’s share in employed work Number of children in household ( 500,000 inh –138.3 Urbanity (variety of facilities in neighbourhood accessible on foot) –39.5 Move to periphery 31.8 Move to centre 32.4 Change in urbanity –9.1

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.14 0.11 0.04

0.43

–13.6 14.6

Access to place of work or education and associated changes Walking distance PT stop to place of work or education […] […] decreases […] increases Parking situation at place of work or education […] […] is difficult […] gets much worse […] gets much better

–92.3

Intercept

–44.3 –69.5 –31.6 125.9 66.7 –24.6

–144.7 –133.6 417.2

–28.2 139.4

–80.0 –304.2 –287.4 422.3 –421.2

–13.1 –9.1 –281.0

208.7

B

B

Sig.

Women

Men

Table 3.5 Regression model of change in car access from one year to the next in couple households

0.03 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.23 0.01

0.00 0.19 0.00

0.61 0.01

0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.45 0.53 0.00

0.01

Sig.

0.39 0.04 0.28 0.06 0.54 0.25

0.54 0.68 0.10

0.65 0.50

0.02 0.20 0.38 0.05 0.03

0.82 0.06 0.44

0.02*

Sig.

Gender interaction

20.5 –12.6 –13.6 –0.4 1.2 9,121 11,976 7,794 4,924 0.245

Cohort and period Cohort (94 years in 1994 = 0) Cohort, squared, divided by 100 Year of survey (1994 = 0)

Baseline value of car access Car access in the year prior to change (minutes) Scale/10^6 QICC/10^6 QICC (intercept model)/10^6 n (observations) n (individuals) R² adj (OLS regression) 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

–0.3 0.6 5,260 6,271 8,404 5,253 0.203

3.6 1.4 –5.6

250.2 506.1

Notes Car access in minutes per week away from home with the car as a driver (trip time plus activity time). * In this case there is no interaction, but the main effect of gender is significant in the model including men and women.

537.6 789.0

Licence holding and car availability and associated changes Driving licence holding Achievement of driving licence

B

B

Sig.

Women

Men

0.00

0.21 0.66 0.00

0.00 0.00

Sig.

0.00

0.00 0.01 0.13

0.00 0.02

Sig.

Gender interaction

48  Joachim Scheiner those in education or training and those not in employment, but without significant gender differences. Entry into the labour market increases car access, and leaving the labour market into unemployment reduces it. Both changes are stronger for men than for women. Taken overall, labour market variables affect men clearly more than women. The land-use and transport context affects changes in car access in various ways. When walking distance from a public transport stop to the workplace gets longer (which may be due to a job change or the public transport network deteriorating) women increase their car access. The same is true when the parking situation at the workplace eases. Again, this effect is only significant for women. For both genders, a difficult parking situation at the place of work is associated with reductions in car access even if there is no change in the parking situation. Living in a large city is associated with over-proportionate reductions in car access. In the size category 100,000 to 500,000 inhabitants this association is only significant for women, while in the largest cities it is stronger for men (significant interaction term). Living in a mixed land-use area is associated with above-average reductions in car access as well. Residential moves towards more remote locations are associated with increased car access for women, while women’s car access decreases when the level of urbanity increases (which may be due to residential moves or changes in the land-use system at the place of residence). Taken overall, women thus appear to react more strongly to changes in the land-use and transport system than men. Holding a driving licence is associated with over-proportionate increases in car access, and this is more so for men than for women. The achievement of a driving licence unsurprisingly has an even stronger positive effect on car access. Again the effect is stronger for men. Cohort effects suggest a positive trend in car access from one cohort to the next, but with decreasing strength. This is only significant for men, and it is countered by a negative period effect. Viewed together, the cohort effects suggest a maximum increase among men born in 1981. Finally, the negative effects of baseline car access suggest strong path dependency. This indicates that behavioural extremes are likely to converge towards the mean over time, as has been found for mode use (Scheiner 2014a; Klinger and Lanzendorf 2016) and car ownership (Cao et al. 2007).

Conclusions I briefly summarise the results from the study of car allocation in low-car couple households, and change in car access over time in couples. From the section on Results I one may conclude that women have considerably lower access to a car than their male partners in low-car households. In addition, the gain in car access associated with fulfilling certain social roles is stronger for the ‘male’ role of breadwinning than for household work, and it is

Life course, gender, and future smart mobilities  49 stronger for male breadwinning than for female breadwinning. These findings, along with others, lead me to suggest that men dominate car access as long as the household car is a limited resource (i.e. two partners share one car). On the other hand, I found that having younger children is associated with enhanced car access for the mother (see section on Results I), but no gendered effects seem to be associated with the birth of a child (see section on Results II). Employment (state and change) exhibits stronger effects on men’s car access, which reflects classical role schemes (Results II). Concerning adjustment to changing external circumstances, women appear to react more strongly to changes in the land-use and transport system than men (Results II). However, Results I do not permit this conclusion. A notable side issue is that in zero-car households, women appear to be somewhat better able to organise a car from outside the household. This means that while there is mixed evidence on the power exhibited in couples in negotiations and agreement over the use of a shared car, two overarching issues remain: car access is lower for women and their power to increase access either by bringing home money or by doing out-of-home household work is more limited than male power. What does this mean for smart mobilities? A number of findings from the literature support the idea that women have a stronger inclination and/or need for innovations such as new, ‘smart’ mobility services, because they tend to gain more utility from them: they have more diverse activities, more complex schedules, undertake more trip chaining, use more varied modes, and have more propensity to change. From the analysis in this chapter, I tend to carefully confirm this hypothesis. Coping with daily life in a low-car situation (i.e. when a car is not available all the time) is relatively complex, and smart mobility services may relieve this situation. This is especially true for people who juggle multiple duties under spatial and temporal constraints, such as employment, childcare, household work, and perhaps care for elderly kin, and these people are over-proportionately women. Such duties are associated with fixity constraints, multiple destinations, times, and people’s needs that require coordination. Smart mobilities have their roots in the smart cities paradigm, and they have been very broadly, and vaguely, defined, but are typically conceived of as energy efficient, comfortable, affordable, and ‘intelligent’ ways of organising transport that are envisioned as seamless, clean, green, efficient, and flexible (Wolter 2012; Docherty et al. 2018), and that make extensive use of digital technologies (e.g., users’ smartphone apps, computerised traffic management, and vehicle-to-vehicle or vehicle-to-infrastructure communication). Jeekel (2017) identifies vehicle technologies, intelligent transport systems (ITS), data issues, and new mobility services as broad characteristics that are summarised under smart mobilities. Smart mobility services in this field typically refer to information, booking, and payment (e.g. electronic ticketing). It has been claimed that smart mobilities contribute to more sustainability in transport, especially from the perspective of producers (Flügge 2017; see Docherty

50  Joachim Scheiner et al. (2018) for a critical perspective), and that smart and sustainable transport forms are sometimes even considered synonymous (Noy and Givoni 2018). Whether or not the general promise for more sustainability can be fulfilled is not discussed here, as sustainability not only depends on efficiency, affordability, comfort, and intelligence but also not least on the mere amount of energy consumed for travelling overall. If history has anything of value to tell us about transport trends, improving the efficiency, comfort, or affordability of travel is very likely to contribute to more transport (‘induced travel’). However, there may still be value in improving the transport situation of certain population groups, and the analyses in this chapter suggest that women tend to belong to these groups, certainly when it comes to new mobility services (Kamargianni et al. 2016; this is in line with Jeekel’s (2017) proposition that new mobility services tend to contribute to more social sustainability, while ITS and vehicle technologies may have more negative effects). Given their limited car access even in a society of very high car-ownership levels such as Germany, new mobility services may help ease women’s daily travel and activity patterns. Services that may contribute to this are, for instance, networked public and semi-private systems, such as conventional public transport linked with last-mile bike-sharing, or stand-alone sharing systems, such as car-sharing, bike-sharing, and ride-sharing. Such systems may clearly permit multiple destinations to be linked and serve longer trip chains better than conventional public transport or the bicycle alone. Services may also reach beyond mere mobility into the accessibility field and include flexible, decentralised facilities, delivery services, and more. Concerning other dimensions of smart mobilities such as computerised vehicle technologies and intelligent transport systems (ITS), it is easy to assign them a somewhat ‘masculine flavour’ that does not attract women to the same extent as men. On the other hand, however, it is exactly the upcoming digital vehicle technologies that take power away from drivers, thus contributing to more ‘female driving’. It has to be pointed out, however, that the gender aspects of such services that arise from limited car access only apply to the extent that car access is limited. The increase in car ownership over the past decades has dramatically reduced gender differences in car access from one cohort to the next (Beckmann et al. (2005) for Germany). In case this trend continues into the future, there may be just as much or as little point in using smart mobility services for women as for men.

Acknowledgement This research was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) as part of the project ‘Veränderungen der Mobilität im Lebenslauf: Die Bedeutung biografischer und erreichbarkeitsbezogener Schlüsselereignisse’ (Travel behaviour changes over the life course: The role of biographical and accessibility-related key events, 2015–2020).

Life course, gender, and future smart mobilities  51

Note 1 The GMP is conducted by the University of Karlsruhe on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (BMVBS). The data are provided for research use by the Clearingstelle Verkehr (www.clearingstelle-verkehr.de).

References Alexander, B., Hubers, C., Schwanen, T., Dijst, M., and Ettema, D. (2011) Anything, anywhere, anytime? Developing measurement instruments to assess the spatial and temporal fragmentation of activities. Environment and Planning B 38(4), 678–705. Altintas, E. and Sullivan, O. (2016) Fifty years of change updated: Cross-national gender convergence in housework. Demographic Research 35, 455–470. Anggraini, R., Arentze, T.A., and Timmermans, H.J.P. (2008) Car allocation between household heads in car deficient households: A decision model. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 8(4), 301–319. Babcock, L. and Laschever, S. (2003) Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Barker, J. (2008) Men and motors? Fathers’ involvement in children’s travel. Early Child Development and Care 178(7–8), 853–866. Beckmann, K.J., Holz-Rau, C., Rindsfüser, G., and Scheiner, J. (2005) Mobilität älterer Menschen – Analysen und verkehrsplanerische Konsequenzen. In W. Echterhoff (ed.), Strategien zur Sicherung der Mobilität älterer Menschen. Köln: TUV Publishers, pp. 43–71. Beige, S. and Axhausen, K.W. (2017) The dynamics of commuting over the life course: Swiss experiences. Transportation Research A 104, 179–194. Ben-Elia, E. and Ettema, D. (2011) Rewarding rush-hour avoidance: A study of commuters’ travel behavior. Transportation Research Part A 45, 567–582. Best, H. and Lanzendorf, M. (2005) Division of labour and gender differences in metropolitan car use. An empirical study in Cologne, Germany. Journal of Transport Geography 13(2), 109–121. Bianchi, S.M., Robinson, J.P., and Milkie, M.A. (2007) Changing Rhythms of American Family Life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bittman, M. and Wajcman, J. (2000) The rush hour: The character of leisure time and gender equity. Social Forces 79(1), 165–189. Blau, F.D., Ferber, M.A., and Winkler, A.E. (2010) The Economics of Women, Men, and Work, 6th edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Boll, C., Jahn, M., and Lagemann, A. (2017) The Gender Lifetime Earnings Gap – Exploring gendered pay from the life course perspective. HWWI Research Paper No. 179. Hamburg Institute of International Economics. Brennecke, J. (1994) Alltagsmobilität Wiesbadener Frauen. In T. Bracher et al. (eds), Handbuch der kommunalen Verkehrsplanung (6. Ergänzungslieferung 06/94). Berlin: VDE, ch. 2.2.1.3. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., and Handy, S.L. (2007) Cross-sectional and quasi-panel explorations of the connection between the built environment and auto ownership. Environment and Planning A 39, 830–847. Clark, B. Lyons, G., and Chatterjee, K. (2016) Understanding the process that gives rise to household car ownership level changes. Journal of Transport Geography 55, 110–120. Cooke, L.P. (2006) Policy, preferences, and patriarchy: The division of domestic labor in East Germany, West Germany, and the United States. Social Politics 13(1), 117–143. 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. Currie, G. and Delbosc, A. (2011) Exploring the trip chaining behaviour of public transport users in Melbourne. Transport Policy 18(1), 204–210.

52  Joachim Scheiner Davis, S.N. and Moore, S.B. (2010) Bearing children, becoming mothers: The influence of childbearing on unmarried women’s gender ideology. International Journal of Sociology of the Family 36(2), 77–91. de Haas, M.C., Scheepers, C.E., Harms, L.W.J., and Kroesen, M. (2018) Travel pattern transitions: Applying latent transition analysis within the mobility biographies framework. Transportation Research Part A 107, 140–151. Docherty, I., Marsden, G., and Anable, J. (2018) The governance of smart mobility. Transportation Research Part A 115, 114–125. Dustmann, C. (2005) The assessment: Gender and the life cycle. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 21(3), 325–339. Elder Jr, G.H., Johnson, M.K., and Crosnoe, R. (2006) The emergence and development of life course theory. In J.T. Mortimer and M.J. Shanahan (eds), Handbook of the Life Course. Berlin: Springer, pp. 3–19. Ettema, D. and Van der Lippe, T. (2009) Weekly rhythms in task and time allocation of households. Transportation 36(2), 113–129. Fisher, K., Egerton, M., Gershuny, J., and Robinson, J.P. (2007) Gender convergence in the American Heritage Time Use Study (AHTUS). Social Indicators Research 82(1), 1–33. Flügge, B. (ed.) (2017) Smart Mobility – Connecting Everyone: Trends, concepts and best practices. Wiesbaden: Springer Vieweg. Garson, G.D. (2010) Generalized linear models and generalized estimating equations. http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/gzlm_gee.htm (accessed 15 March 2011). Geisler, E. and Kreyenfeld M (2012) How Policy Matters: Germany’s parental leave benefit reform and fathers’ behavior, 1999–2009. MPIDR Working paper WP 2012-021. Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. Gershuny, J. and Kan, M.Y. (2012) Half-way to gender equality in work? Evidence from the multinational time use study. In J. Scott, S. Dex, and A. Plagnol (eds), Gendered Lives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 74–94. Giuliano, G. (1979) Public transportation and the travel needs of women. Traffic Quarterly 33(4), 607–615. Grunow, D., Schulz, F., and Blossfeld, H.P. (2012) What determines change in the ­division of housework over the course of marriage? International Sociology 27(3), 289–307. Habib, K.N. (2014) Household-level commuting mode choices, car allocation and car ownership level choices of two-worker households: The case of the city of Toronto. Transportation 41(3), 651–672. Hanson, S. (2010) Gender and mobility: New approaches for informing sustainability. Gender, Place and Culture 17(1), 5–23. Hanson, S. and Hanson, P. (1980) Gender and urban activity patterns in Uppsala, Sweden. Geographical Review 70(3), 291–299. Hanson, S. and Pratt, G. (1995) Gender, Work and Space. London: Routledge. Hedeker, D., Gibbons, R.D. and Flay, B.R. (1994) Random-effects regression models for clustered data with an example from smoking prevention research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62(4), 757–765. Heinen, E. and Mattioli, G. (in print) Does a high level of multimodality mean less car use? An exploration of multimodality trends in England. Transportation. doi: 10.1007/ s11116-017-9810-2. Heinen, E. and Ogilvie, D. (2016) Variability in baseline travel behaviour as a predictor of changes in commuting by active travel, car and public transport: A natural experimental study. Journal of Transport & Health 3(1), 77–85. Hillmert, S. (2005) From old to new structures: A long-term comparison of the transition to adulthood in West and East Germany. Advances in Life Course Research 9, 151–173. Jeekel, H. (2017) Social sustainability and smart mobility: Exploring the relationship. Transportation Research Procedia 25, 4296–4310.

Life course, gender, and future smart mobilities  53 Kamargianni, M., Li, W., Matyas, M., and Schäfer, A. (2016) A critical review of new mobility services for urban transport. Transportation Research Procedia 14, 3294–3303. Kan, M.Y., Sullivan, O., and Gershuny, J. (2011) Gender convergence in domestic work: Discerning the effects of interactional and institutional barriers from large-scale data. Sociology 45(2), 234–251. Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT) (2012) Das Deutsche Mobilitätspanel (MOPHandbuch). Karlsruhe: KIT. Kézdi, G. (2004) Robust standard error estimation in fixed-effects panel models. Hungarian Statistical Review Special(9), 96–116. Klinger, T. (2017) Moving from monomodality to multimodality? Changes in mode choice of new residents. Transportation Research A 104, 221–237. Klinger, T. and Lanzendorf, M. (2016) Moving between mobility cultures: What affects the travel behavior of new residents? Transportation 43(2), 243–271. Kohli, M. (2007) The institutionalization of the life course: Looking back to look ahead. Research in Human Development 4(3–4), 253–271. Kwan, M-P., Schwanen, T., and Ren, F. (2009) Gendered rigidity of space-time constraints and human activity patterns: An activity-based approach. In D. Wang and S-M. Li (eds), Transportation and Geography. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Society for Transportation Studies, pp. 951–959. Law, R. (1999) Beyond ‘women and transport’: Towards new geographies of gender and daily mobility. Progress in Human Geography 23(4), 567–588. Lee, J., Vojnovic, I., and Grady, S.C. (2018) The ‘transportation disadvantaged’: Urban form, gender and automobile versus non-automobile travel in the Detroit region. Urban Studies 55(11), 2470–2498. Liefbroer, A.C. and Elzinga, C.H. (2012) Intergenerational transmission of behavioural patterns: How similar are parents’ and children’s demographic trajectories? Advances in Life Course Research 17(1), 1–10. Maat, K. and Timmermans, H.J.P. (2009) Influence of the residential and work environment on car use in dual-earner households. Transportation Research Part A 43(7), 654–664. Matthies, E., Kuhn, S., and Klöckner, C.A. (2002) Travel mode choice of women. The result of limitation, ecological norm or weak habit? Environment and Behavior 34(2), 163–177. McGinnity, F. and Russell, H. (2008) Gender Inequalities in Time Use. Dublin: The Equality Authority. Miralles-Guasch, C., Melo, M.M., and Marquet, O. (2016) A gender analysis of everyday mobility in urban and rural territories: From challenges to sustainability. Gender, Place and Culture 23(3), 398–417. Mokhtarian, P.L., Ye, L., and Yun, M. (2011) Effects of gender on commuter behavior changes in the context of major freeway reconstruction. In Transportation Research Board (ed.), Women’s Issues in Transportation. Summary of the Fourth International Conference, Irvine, California, 27–30 October 2009. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Mortimer, J.T. and Shanahan, M.J. (eds) (2006) Handbook of the Life Course. Berlin: Springer. Mulley, C. and Ma, L. (2018) How the longer term success of a social marketing program is influenced by socio-demographics and the built environment. Transportation 45, 291–309. Murray-Tuite, P., Wernstedt, K., and Yin, W. (2014) Behavioral shifts after a fatal rapid transit accident: A multinomial logit model. Transportation Research Part F 24, 218–230. Murtagh, N., Gatersleben, B., and Uzzell, D. (2012) Self-identity threat and resistance to change: Evidence from regular travel behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 32, 318–326.

54  Joachim Scheiner Naess, P. (2015) Built environment, causality and travel. Transport Reviews 35(3), 275–291. Neoh, J.G., Chipulu, M., and Marshall, A. (2017) What encourages people to carpool? An evaluation of factors with meta-analysis. Transportation 44, 423–447. Nichols, A. and Schaffer, M. (2007) Clustered errors in stata. Available at www.docstoc. com (accessed 18 January 2011). Noy, K. and Givoni, M. (2018) Is ‘smart mobility’ sustainable? Examining the views and beliefs of transport’s technological entrepreneurs. Sustainability 10(2), 422. Oakil, A.T.M. (2016) Securing or sacrificing access to a car: Gender difference in the effects of life events. Travel Behaviour and Society 3, 1–7. Oakil, T., Manting, D., and Nijland, H. (2018) The role of individual characteristics in car ownership shortly after relationship dissolution. Transportation 45(6), 1871–1882. Offer, S. and Schneider, B. (2011) Revisiting the gender gap in time-use patterns. Multitasking and well-being among mothers and fathers in dual-earner families. American Sociological Review 76(6), 809–833. Olsson, L.E., Huck, J., and Friman, M. (2018) Intention for car use reduction: Applying a stage-based model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, 216. Polk, M. (1998) Gendered Mobility: A study of women’s and men’s relations to automobility in Sweden. Göteborg: University. Polk, M. (2003) Are women potentially more accommodating than men to a sustainable transportation system in Sweden? Transportation Research Part D 8, 75–95. Polk, M. (2004) The influence of gender on daily car use and on willingness to reduce car use in Sweden. Journal of Transport Geography 12(3), 185–195. Preston, V. and McLafferty, S. (2016) Revisiting gender, race, and commuting in New York. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 106(2), 300–310. Rose, G. and Marfurt, H. (2007) Travel behaviour change impacts of a major ride to work day event. Transportation Research A 41(4), 351–364. Rosenbloom, S. (1978) Editorial: The need for study of women’s travel issues. Transportation 7(4), 347–350. Rosenbloom, S. (1987) The impact of growing children on their parents’ travel behavior. Transportation Research Record 1135, 17–25. Rosenbloom, S. (1993) Women’s travel patterns at various stages of their lives. In C. Katz and J. Monk (eds), Full Circles. Geographies of women over the life course. London: Routledge, pp. 208–242. Rosenbloom, S. (2006) Understanding women’s and men’s travel patterns: The research challenge. In Transportation Research Board (ed.), Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation Vol. 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Transportation Research Board Conference Proceedings 35. Washington, DC: National Research Council, pp. 7–28. Rossi, A.S. (ed.) (1985) Gender and the Life Course. Hawthorne: Aldine. Sackmann, R. (2007) Lebenslaufanalyse und Biografieforschung. Wiesbaden: V.S. Verlag. Sayer, L.C. (2010) Trends in housework. In J. Treas and S. Drobnic (eds), Dividing the Domestic: Men, women & household work in cross-national perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 19–38. Scheiner, J. (2013a) Der Pkw als knappe Ressource. Wie Frauen und Männer in Partnerschaften über ein Auto verhandeln und welche Rolle Mobilität und räumlicher Kontext spielen. Berichte. Geographie und Landeskunde 87(1), 65–85. Scheiner, J. (2013b) Gender roles between traditionalism and change: Time use for outof-home activities and trips in Germany, 1994–2008. In R. Gerike, F. Hülsmann, and K. Roller (eds), Strategies for Sustainable Mobilities: Opportunities and challenges. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 79–102. Scheiner, J. (2014a) Gendered key events in the life course: Effects on changes in travel mode choice over time. Journal of Transport Geography 37, 47–60.

Life course, gender, and future smart mobilities  55 Scheiner, J. (2014b) The gendered complexity of daily life: Effects of life-course events on changes in activity entropy and tour complexity over time. Travel Behaviour & Society 1(3), 91–105. Scheiner, J. (2016) Time use and the life course: A study of key events in the lives of men and women using panel data. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 16(4), 638–660. Scheiner, J. (2018) Why is there change in travel behaviour? In search of a theoretical framework for mobility biographies. Erdkunde 72(1), 41–62. Scheiner, J. and Holz-Rau, C. (2012a) Gender structures in car availability in car deficient households. Research in Transportation Economics 34(1), 16–26. Scheiner, J. and Holz-Rau, C. (2012b) Gendered travel mode choice: A focus on car deficient households. Journal of Transport Geography 24, 250–261. Scheiner, J. and Holz-Rau, C. (2013) A comprehensive study of life course, cohort, and period effects on changes in travel mode use. Transportation Research Part A 47,167–181. Scheiner, J., Sicks, K., and Holz-Rau, C. (2011) Gendered activity spaces: Trends over three decades in Germany. Erdkunde 65(4), 371–387. Schendera, C. (2008) Regressionsanalyse mit SPSS. München: Oldenbourg. Scherger, S. (2009) Social change and the timing of family transitions in West Germany. Evidence from cohort comparisons. Time & Society 18(1), 106–129. Schwanen, T. (2007) Gender differences in chauffeuring children among dual-earner families. The Professional Geographer 59(4), 447–462. Schwanen, T. (2011) Car use and gender: The case of dual-earner families in Utrecht, the Netherlands. In K. Lucas, E. Blumenberg, and R. Weinberger (eds), Auto Motives: Understanding Car Use Behaviours. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 151–171. Schwanen, T., Kwan, M.P., and Ren, F. (2008) How fixed is fixed? Gendered rigidity of space– time constraints and geographies of everyday activities. Geoforum 39(6), 2109–2121. Schwanen, T., Kwan, M.P., and Ren, F. (2014) The Internet and the gender division of household labour. The Geographical Journal 180(1), 52–64. Sharmeen, F., Arentze, T., and Timmermans, H. (2014) An analysis of the dynamics of activity and travel needs in response to social network evolution and life-cycle events: A structural equation model. Transportation Research Part A 59, 159–171. Sicks, K., Scheiner, J., and Holz-Rau, C. (2012) Aktivitätsmuster und Verkehrsmittelnutzung von Frauen und Männern: Trends von 1976 bis 2008. Straßenverkehrstechnik 56(5), 281–287. Stanfors, M. and Goldscheider, F. (2017) The forest and the trees: Industrialization, demographic change, and the ongoing gender revolution in Sweden and the United States, 1870–2010. Demographic Research 36, 173–226. Statistisches Bundesamt (2014) Auf dem Weg zur Gleichstellung. Wirtschaft und Statistik, August, 465–477. Statistisches Bundesamt (ed.) (2015) Zeitverwendungserhebung. Aktivitäten in Stunden und Minuten für ausgewählte Personengruppen 2012/13. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt. Tilley, S. and Houston, D. (2016) The gender turnaround: Young women now travelling more than young men. Journal of Transport Geography 54, 349–358. van der Lippe, T. (2010) Women’s employment and housework. In J. Treas and S. Drobnic (eds), Dividing the Domestic: Men, women & household work in cross-national perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 41–58. van der Lippe, T., de Ruijter, J., de Ruijter, E., and Raub, W. (2011) Persistent inequalities in time use between men and women: A detailed look at the influence of economic circumstances, policies and culture. European Sociological Review 27(2), 164–179. Widmer, E.D. and Ritschard, G. (2009) The de-standardization of the life course: Are men and women equal? Advances in Life Course Research 14, 28–39. Wolter, S. (2012) Smart Mobility – Intelligente Vernetzung der Verkehrsangebote in Großstädten. In H. Proff, J. Schönharting, D. Schramm, and J. Ziegler (eds), Zukünftige Entwicklungen in der Mobilität. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler, pp. 527–548.

56  Joachim Scheiner Wooldridge, J.M. (2003) Cluster-sample methods in applied econometrics. The American Economic Review 93(2), 133–138. Xiong, Y. and Zhang, J. (2017) Influence of land use and transport policies on women’s labor participation and life choices. In J. Zhang (ed.), Life-oriented Behavioral Research for Urban Policy. Tokyo: Springer Japan, pp. 243–265. Yang, M., Liu, X., Wang, W., and Li, Z. (2016) Empirical analysis of a mode shift to using public bicycles to access the suburban metro: Survey of Nanjing, China. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 142(2), 05015011.

4 Towards an anthropology of transport affect The place of emotions, gender, and power in smart mobilities Dag Balkmar and Ulf Mellström Introduction In this chapter we argue for a closer attention to the place of emotions and affect in transport and mobility studies. We do this from a gender and technology perspective, which in our own work (Balkmar 2012, 2018; Balkmar and Joelsson 2010, 2012; Mellström 2003a, 2003b, 2004) have often highlighted the intense emotionality and affective structures underlying individual, group as well as societal experiences of transport and mobility. We argue that emotions and affect are strong motivational powers that regulate how we travel, in what way we travel, and how we appreciate different means of transportation, beyond purely rational choices. Opportunities of transport and mobility are also closely related to a number of intersectional categories such as gender, class, and age, generating different forms of affective economies (Ahmed 2004: 118ff.). It is within such affective economies that we as consumers, drivers, passengers, and travel companions do things together and align ourselves with different communities of mobility (motorcyclists, car owners, pedestrians, skateboarders, cyclists, etc.) through emotional attachment and affective structures. So, rather than seeing emotions as psychological dispositions we need to consider how emotions work to mediate between the individual and collective, the material and non-material, the psychic and social, because this is what emotional work does. We would also like to emphasise the importance of taking emotions and affect into account, as they are often major reasons for resisting or adapting new technologies within the transport and mobility sector (Waytz et al. 2014). As we have argued elsewhere (Balkmar and Mellström 2018), such an approach is increasingly important, as there are a number of pressing concerns that need to be addressed in car-intensive societies in urgent need of a future sustainable mobility. Not least it is important to start questioning the deep-rooted historical as well as contemporary connection between car cultures, automobility, and masculinity. This is an affective economy founded on control, speed, sexuality and embodiment, and the intense emotions and excitement aroused through the combination of these different affective elements. Since we are also moving into an era of presumably smart mobilities, we also stress that it is very important to address more than the functionality of transport. The latter is something that often preserves

58  Dag Balkmar and Ulf Mellström outdated technological infrastructures and trajectories. A case in point, for instance, could be driverless cars, and as Kröger and Weber (2018: 16) point out: The concepts of the driverless car that may or may not hit the road in some years differ considerably. But the common point is in all cases, that the promise of safer and more efficient self-driving cars made by commercial players, resonated by the journalistic and popular culture discourse prolongues the old logics of a technological fix: Technology is mainly understood as a tool instead of the embodiment of social relations and the common product of human and non-human practices and actors. Accordingly, the dominant discourse tries to solve the problems of contemporary road transportation systems in a top-down and instrumental way leaving central social and cultural issues of postfordist mobility unattended. Similar to ‘old’ transport technologies, ‘new’ innovations in the field of connected transport, e-mobility and smart cities, emotions and affect play a vital role in the gendering, communicating, and domesticating of smart mobilities. We therefore argue for an anthropology of transport affect as a serious scholarly undertaking within mobility and transport studies. This implies how people feel and act as a consequence of aroused emotions experienced within an affective economy such as the mobility and transport system (Ahmed 2004; Sheller 2004). In this chapter the research question translates into the question: What role do emotions and affect play in the gendered imaginary of current and future systems of transport and ‘smart’ mobility? In the first section of the chapter we map the theoretical background of an anthropology of transport affect. Here we outline the theoretical background to various forms of embodiment in the context of transport and gendered mobilities, including ‘automotive emotions’ (Sheller 2004) and systemic approaches more generally. In particular, we outline how we conceptualise the connection between emotions, affect, and masculinity. In the second section we reflect upon different cases related to cars and emotions, including gendered (smart) mobilities, to think through the place of affect and emotions, in mobilities more generally, and how smart mobilities may challenge current embodied entanglements of technology and masculinity in particular. The first cluster of cases draws upon empirical studies on car enthusiasts, motoring magazines, and a biographical account, where emotional ties and experiences of cars, and competing with cars stand out as highly charged emotional relations (Mellström 1999; Balkmar 2012). We also draw upon more recent examples of how autonomous trucks are imagined, especially how increased automation not only comes to reformulate the driver/technology relation in significant ways, but also how emotional dimensions are ‘built into’ driverless designs in ways that potentially reformulate the established entanglement of technology and masculinity. Together, these cases illustrate a number of possibilities in how emotions, pleasure, and power come to matter in (smart) mobilities, in particular with reference to increased levels of automation.

Emotions, gender, power in smart mobilities  59

Material To discuss how emotions matter in transport and smart mobilities, in this chapter we will exemplify by drawing upon our existing research, popular debates, and discourses around autonomous vehicles and smart mobilities, and in particular the example of Volvo’s autonomous truck Vera. Here we draw upon how Volvo launch and market their autonomous solutions to broader audiences. The popular debates we draw upon should be seen as illustrative examples rather than as an all-encompassing study reflecting the multitude of possibilities that smart mobilities entail. However, with these examples we will analyse audiovisual representations of different cases of ‘new’ and ‘old’ (smart) technology, ranging from users’ representations and representations used for marketing, and thereby contributing to formulate a contemporary imaginary of automated mobility and smart mobilities futures more generally. Our goal is not only to argue for an anthropology of transport affect as a serious scholarly undertaking within mobility and transport studies but also to contribute with discussions on the place of emotions, gender, and power in smart mobilities, with a particular focus on the gendered configurations produced in such ‘past and present “imagined futures”  ’ (Hildebrand and Sheller 2018: 68).

Theoretical backdrop In this section we outline the theoretical background to our chapter, in particular connections between emotions, affect, and masculinity. We begin with Ahmed’s (2004) concept of ‘affective economies’, followed by a discussion of our view on emotions, affect, and embodiments in the context of transport and gendered mobilities. We then move on to discuss driving experiences as forms of cyborgic entanglements of technology, masculinity, and pleasure, followed by a focus on gender, emotions, and (smart) mobilities more specifically. An anthropology of transport affect investigates how people feel and act as a consequence of aroused emotions experienced in the mobility and transport system. We presume that the mobility and transport system involves various affective economies (Ahmed 2004) that regulate and channel how travel and mobility patterns are organised. What is meant by affective economies is further elaborated in the following quote by Ahmed (2004: 119): In such affective economies, emotions do things, and they align individuals with communities – or bodily space with social space – through the very intensity of their attachments. Rather than seeing emotions as psychological dispositions, we need to consider how they work, in concrete and particular ways, to mediate the relationship between the psychic and the social, and between the individual and the collective. This includes individual, group, and societal structures with human and non-human elements. As such it is part of a larger posthuman turn in the social sciences and

60  Dag Balkmar and Ulf Mellström the humanities which propose that we need to pay closer attention to the ­entanglements of nature, culture, materiality, affect, emotions, and corporeality in knowledge production (Barad 2007; Braidotti 2013). It is within such a theoretical move that we believe it is important to include transport and mobility studies. We further believe that such an approach is fruitful for widening the theoretical repertoire and extending the empirical possibilities of transport and mobility studies as well as being key to a future sustainable transport and mobility system. As there is much contemporary, and sometimes conflicting, theorising of how affect and emotion relate to each other (Massumi 2002; Wetherell 2012; Deleuze and Guattari 1987; Reeser 2017; Reeser and Gottzén 2018), we argue along the lines of separating affect and emotions with regard to the mobility and transport system. Emotions are culturally coded as we as subjects learn how to be emotional, what kinds of feelings are allowed in a specific cultural setting, and how to express emotions in various cultural contexts. Affect is closely related but refers to how emotions are channelled through human and non-human materiality. This implies that emotions are transferred through bodies or other forms of materiality. Affect is thus pre-discursive and exists prior to aroused emotions within an affective economy. For instance, a man caught in a traffic jam, sounding the horn of his car, is expressing his individually felt emotions through acting out his frustration via the materiality, the transport system, surrounding him. His emotions are consequently transmitted within a culturally and materially regulated system that both precedes his emotionally aroused action as well as extends his actions through the same system. The dyadic relation between affect and emotion may also be described as a reiterative process unfolding and functioning as a chain with one leading to another (Reeser 2019). It is within such a model of conceptualising affect and emotions that we suggest automotive emotions (Sheller 2004) are channelled and regulated through an affective economy in the transport and mobility system. In the historical as well as the current automobility systems, emotions, horsepower, and risk stand out as important elements in the construction of many forms of identities and emotional attachment to motor vehicles. It is, for instance, suggested that the emphasis on engine power, and the driving pleasure that in many cases is associated with it, also promote a more ‘active’ and ‘rowdy’ form of driving – which in turn also encompass damaging effects not only in terms of risk but also of the environment (Hagman 2010: 27). Historically, the appeal of cars and motor vehicles has been related to masculinity through associations with power and speed, but also through connotations with wild, untameable animals (i.e. anthropomorphisation) (Ladd 2008; Duffy 2009). Despite its damaging effects to the environment, the combustion engine remains a dominant technology worldwide. As Mimi Sheller (2018: 5) argues: [d]espite efforts at technological innovation, the internal combustion engine is rapidly taking hold in China and in the Global South more generally, and remains deeply tied to common sense, everyday ways of life in the Western

Emotions, gender, power in smart mobilities  61 world, which I have referred to as ‘automotive emotions’ that are deeply attached to the ‘automobilized self ’. In order to understand how motor cultures can be so attractive and persistent, Sheller argues that the emotional aspects of cars and car driving need to be taken more seriously. She notes that ‘ethical forms of car consumption have been debated and implemented as if the intense feelings, passions and embodied experiences associated with automobility are not relevant’ (Sheller 2004: 222). Of central concern to understand the place of emotions, pleasure, and power in mobilities – including shifts towards ‘smart mobility’ – are different entanglements of technology and masculinity. Considering entanglements of technology and masculinity encompasses discourses and practices as to how masculinity has been constructed around intimacy, technology, technological systems, and cyborgisation. Cyborgisation is here referring to different forms of man– machine systems where bodies and technologies merge interdependently. Much current theorising in mobility studies is conceptualising various forms of cyborgisation. For instance, drawing upon a posthuman understanding in feminist science and technology studies, Balkmar and Joelsson (2010) suggest the figuration of the bionic man as a way to conceptualise how cars and other vehicles are extensions of the (male) body. The idea of the bionic man is further closely linked to the concept of autoeroticism as a way of understanding the profound embodied and emotional relationship between men, technologies of movement, and risk taking (Balkmar and Joelsson 2010). In a similar vein, Dant (2004) conceptualises this kind of entanglement as a driver-car assemblage. Historically, such gendered entanglements point in two different directions, namely destructiveness and emancipatory hopes of transcendence through cyborgisation. In the context of autonomous mobility more specifically, such technology may appear either as ‘utopias of mobilities’ or as ‘dystopias of malfunctioning technology’ (Jensen and Freudendal-Pedersen 2012, cited in Hildebrand and Sheller 2018: 64). Automated mobility disrupts not only taken-for-granted notions of who controls the vehicle, ‘but also how the entire system of driving implies, affords, and enhances multiple senses, thoughts, and feelings (e.g., of safety, power, security, citizenship, etc.) on an individual and societal level’ (Hildebrand and Sheller 2018: 65). Smart mobilities are thus political technologies, and as we argue in the following, need to be understood in relation to emotions, affect, cyborgisation, and gendered intimacy with technological artefacts and systems. As we have argued elsewhere, this is also changing: ‘the gendered implications mean that cars, trucks and other motor vehicles as traditional means for men to express masculine identities, status and pleasures, not least performed through ownership, care or (aggressive and competitive) driving, are gradually being undermined’ (Balkmar and Mellström 2018). In this vein, smart mobilities can possibly be the tricksters of future posthuman masculinity, but they are also a tool to understand the ‘leitmotif’ of the male desire of transcendence in the history of masculinity. Smart mobility is often formulated in utopian narratives as the next technological

62  Dag Balkmar and Ulf Mellström solution to the present transport problems, bringing hopes for more sustainable transport futures with increased safety, improved fuel economy, reduced congestion, and increased road capacity (Kröger and Weber 2018). For more than a century, automobiles have been objects of desire and fascination, especially for men, but also for many women. Transport may entail very different emotions, such as feelings of pleasure, power, and fascination, but also anger and so-called ‘road rage’, including fear of being hit, of hitting someone, to feelings of safety and being in control. Being emotional about, and affected by, cars and driving is, as many scholars have pointed out before us, typically masculine coded (Landström 2006; Mellström 2004). Based on a study of the symbolic representations of cars and humans in motoring magazines, Landström (2006: 26) found that women are figured as rational and less able to attach emotionally to cars, while men’s relationships with cars are ‘premised on passion and pleasure’. Hence, in this ‘economy of pleasure’, contrary to dominant perspectives, men do not struggle with an inability to express emotions; quite the contrary: in the particular context of cars and automobility, men are assumed to be highly capable of displaying emotions of pleasure, lust, and excitement. Even though men and women show no differences in their ability to anthropomorphise machines and motor vehicles, as Enda Duffy (2009) notes, anthropomorphisation has throughout history been a typically masculine enterprise. By anthropomorphisation we refer to the process through which humans project human qualities onto non-humans such as animals and artefacts. Scholars working on affect and emotions in the context of mobility technologies have analysed how the conjoining of human and machine bodies are highly emotional relations, where cars are positioned as both responsive and seductive (Landström 2006; Hagman 2010). Such links are not only gendered but also potentially changing with transport innovations, which calls for further enquiries into the field of smart mobilities and emotions through an anthropology of transport affect. Affect and emotions are not to be thought of as solely individual (men’s) responses to certain situations and technologies of movement, but contextdependent and infused with power. De Boise and Hearn (2017: 780) argue that ‘[i]t is not enough to point out that men have emotions and that emotions are embodied, but evaluate the ends to which emotions are put, what they are directed toward, how intensely and how these circulate between bodies to sustain as well as challenge men’s privileges.’ An anthropology of transport affect builds on these insights while especially taking inspiration from Sheller (2004), who suggests that the emotions that cars (including other means of transport) may elicit should be understood as not ‘located solely within the person, nor produced solely by the car as a moving object, but occur as a circulation of affects between (different) persons, (different) cars, and historically situated car cultures and geographies of automobility’ (Sheller 2004: 227, cited in Balkmar 2012). Building on these insights, rather than situating transport emotions in individual (im)mobile bodies and psyches, our approach rather emphasises how embodied transport emotions are co-produced and

Emotions, gender, power in smart mobilities  63 s­ ustained in an affective economy produced through dominant mobility and transport systems (Ahmed 2004; Sheller 2004). A key element in transport emotions and masculinity revolves around how engine power and the experiences of driving build on a cyborgic entanglement of technology and masculinity. Part of such gendered entanglement is to consider how human bodies respond physically to the many ways in which technologies of movement may ‘impress’ themselves upon users’ bodies (Sheller 2004, drawing upon Ahmed 2004). For example, cars are sometimes considered to communicate with the driver as in a form of hybridised embodiment, experienced by drivers of becoming ‘one’ with the car, as in producing corporeal experiences of control and power (Sheller 2004: 228; Lupton 1999; Balkmar 2012; Mellström 2004; Balkmar and Joelsson 2010; Schyfter 2009). As we have argued elsewhere, several of these core values, which to a large extent constitute masculine regimes of meaning and identity formations in relation to automobility, are at stake in the advent of smart mobilities, especially in ‘relation to autonomous vehicles as the imagined futures of self-driving vehicles possibly challenge the entangled relation between power and pleasure, control and joy’ (Balkmar and Mellström 2018: 48, drawing upon Berscheid 2017; Laurier and Dant 2012). With the advent of electric self-driving vehicles, for example, the active ‘masculine’ act of driving is significantly reduced as everyone become ‘passive’ passengers, which in turn opens up the possibility of the feminisation of gendered power relations of automobility (Hildebrand and Sheller 2018: 66). To hand over control of the steering wheel to the car may, as Berscheid (2017) argues, undermine and potentially change ‘the gendered roles of cars and their drivers as well as their relationship with each other’. Apart from focusing on the pleasures of technology, it is of equal importance to understand all such forms of masculine (and female) relations with different kinds of machines not only as a story about pleasures and joys in artefacts but about power, control, and mastering also encompassing large-scale technical systems more generally (Balkmar and Mellström 2018). For example, as discussed by Katherina Manderscheid (2018), autonomous cars have long since been part of more or less grandiose visions of the future system of automobility. One such example of futuristic passionate engineering was displayed in the Eureka PROMETHEUS Project (PROgraMme for a European Traffic of Highest Efficiency and Unprecedented Safety, 1987–1995) (Juhlin 1997), at the time the largest R&D project ever in the field of self-driving cars. A related story of large-scale engineering projects as projects of passion is the Volvo XC90 SUV. Here the emotional involvement has been described as directing the master story of the project development process of the Volvo model and related management (Bragd 2002). Together, these stories form a narrative of passionate, hard-working men displaying multiple layers of emotional involvement, investments that tie people, transport technologies, and large-scale systems together in intriguing ways (Redshaw 2008; Schyfter 2009; Mellström 1999). A related case may be found in Bruno Latour’s well-known study of the rail car ARAMIS (1996). He underscores to the role of love and affectionate attachment

64  Dag Balkmar and Ulf Mellström as pivotal for the successful outcome of technological projects. Latour depicts love as the uniting force that held the ARAMIS project together in a heterogeneous network of actors and actants, despite the project failing to reach the stage of a functioning full-scale transport system. In order to gender smart mobilities one also has to consider the passion, sociality, and emotions inherent in these processes, something we observe in the contemporary imaginary of automated mobility and smart mobilities futures. Smart mobilities, associated with past and future sustainable technologies of movement, are mobilised and acted upon in gendered ways. It is also important to note that mobility technologies, including ‘smart mobilities’ of various kinds, may extend some users’ capacity to move while restricting and immobilising others (Sheller 2014). When reflecting upon gendered mobilities it is therefore important to consider the impact that gender, sexuality, race, class, body, disability, and nationality may have in the production of ‘who moves, how, at what speed, and with what degree of autonomy’ (Oswin 2014: 85).

Risk-taking men, emotional men On way of exemplifying what we mean by an anthropology of transport affect is to start with risk taking, a typically ‘male’ problem in most driving cultures around the world, ‘done’ through everyday practices related to transport and mobility (Pratt and Hanson (1994) in Hanson 2010). How people feel and act due to aroused emotions experienced in the mobility and transport system may add important perspectives on risk taking as a gendered problem, not least by emphasising its pleasurable – yet inherently violent – sides. Here we turn to engage with modified cars and their drivers who, due to how their cars look, their ways of driving, and the overall culture formed around car styling, are associated with the stereotypical figure of the young male ‘dangerous driver’ (Balkmar and Joelsson 2012). When, for instance, car modifiers like 24-year-old Lars talk about driving their modified and fast cars at a dedicated race-track, the emotional and embodied dimension of car driving comes to the fore: When racing Kinnekulle ring, one feels lap after lap is getting faster and faster and one becomes one with the car, it is like that. The body reacts positive to it, absolutely. It’s a feeling hard to describe, no argument there, it’s the same feeling that one gets in a spontaneous street race. (Balkmar 2012) This quote exemplifies how human bodies may physically respond to the ways in which cars ‘impress’ themselves upon their bodies, be it when the driver experiences becoming ‘one’ with the car or ‘the whoosh of effortless acceleration’ while performing a street race situation (Sheller 2004: 228). Automobile pleasure may be related to specific situations, including elements of control in risky situations, as exemplified above; pleasure is also associated with driving a

Emotions, gender, power in smart mobilities  65 particular car. Consider how one of Balkmar’s (2012) informants, Tim, formulates his experiences of driving his new Audi. Every millimetre of the car is thought through, it communicates totally with the driver. Every single gear gives the exact amount of torque in a way that’s really amazing. It’s totally unbelievable; every part of the car you touch feels absolutely right. When you’ve experienced this car, once you’ve started driving it, you simply do not want to stop. (Balkmar 2012) This excerpt describes the embodied relationship where emotions are transferred through human bodies and other forms of materiality. The car’s responsiveness is described as ‘absolutely right’, suggesting the conjoining of human and machine bodies (cf. Sheller 2004: 225). The communication between driver, touch, and machine power is formulated as harmonic. This particular car is not ‘other’ to him, it is fully responsive to the driver, responding to his touch and will in a way that produces an emotional ‘high’ (Balkmar 2012). Conjoined, the car extends the driver and its power becomes his power to control (Barthel 1992: 144). This particular car’s driver appeal (‘you simply do not want to stop’) is outlined through an emotional register where the car is referred to as responsive, unbelievable, and seductive (Landström 2006). Along these lines, we also observe how these embodied relations take on gendered dimensions as men we have interviewed frequently attribute their vehicles with the qualities they want to see in the one they love. This became evident in an interview with one of our informants, Johan. When talking about his car (a Chevrolet Corvette Stingray), he describes it as a woman lying on her side with her ‘flesh’ located on the right spots. His relationship is a long-term connection: I’m still trying to get to know her. She has been mine only for four years. I think I need another five years at least before we really know each other. (Mellström 1999) Our informant has dismantled ‘her’ into separate parts; every single screw and bolt has been scrutinised. Johan is passionate about his car and it was the fulfilment of a dream nourished for many years. The sound of the Corvette’s 375 horsepower engine is like wonderful music to him, and the feeling of driving and owning the car is just as joyful. In this passionate relationship, the car assumes the shape of a beautiful woman. He has dismantled his Corvette piece by piece, he knows the machine intimately from the inside. He is absorbed and taken by her, and she has become an extension of him – or that is at least the way he describes it. The way he and other men describe their vehicles works in a similar manner as when they describe other personal and inter-sexual relationships. It seems to reflect experiences and characteristics of lives lived within the frames of normative heterosexuality. An underlying desire to be taken and held by the machine is commonly expressed, incorporating the sensual pleasures and joys of interacting with technology.

66  Dag Balkmar and Ulf Mellström Consequently, the feminisation of motors, the described masculine desire to become one with the vehicle, to be held by the machine, may also be seen as an expression of (hetero)sexual energy. A tight symbolic connection between masculinity, sexuality, and motorcycles is something we can see in literature concerning motorcycling (Lagergren 1999; Schyfter 2009). In his memoir Pilgrimage on a Steel Ride. A memoir about men and motorcycles, Gary Paulsen (1997: 34) writes that he has met: hundreds of men and four women who owned Harleys and they all said the same – that the bike became an extension, took them, held them. Whether the four women Paulsen met masculinise their Harleys is something he never comments upon. However, what is evident in the descriptions by Paulsen is that motorcycles are looked upon as feminine materiality. They become obnoxious women who have, as Paulsen writes (1997: 8–9): ‘a serious element of bitchiness involved’, or: She would prove to be the crankiest piece of goddamn machinery I would ever have – choke her too much and she flooded and wouldn’t start, don’t choke her enough and she’d never start – and I would come to love her dearly. Despite the unpredictability Paulsen loves his Harley. He is prepared to forgive her at the same time as he masters this female materiality. This lingering technoeroticism appears to be a common element in these men’s relations to vehicles such as cars and motorcycles. It is part of a gendered subjectivity with machinery, an expressive component mediating and focusing experiences of bonds and links between men and machines. Together, these emotional, gendered, and sexually charged accounts bear witness to an embodied and materialised dimension in the lived experience of what it means to be a driver or to own a powerful, sporty, luxurious, and unique car or motorcycle. While these examples illustrate a strong sense of attraction and sensuality in the design, experience, and indeed experiences from driving, another facet is how and which emotions are and can be displayed in such situations, including exercising control over one’s emotions as a driver (Balkmar and Joelsson 2012). The question is: How may emotions and affects come to matter in smart mobilities when there is no driver or clearly defined users to impress? How does the historically powerful connection between masculinity, affect, and transport technologies translate into a new era of smart mobilities? Volvo trucks: designing Vera and the future of transportation To illustrate the emotional and anthropomorphised dimensions of smart mobilities, we will focus on how Vera – an electrified autonomous transport robot used in logistical nodes to move trucks around – is represented in Volvo’s social media channels.

Emotions, gender, power in smart mobilities  67 In one film, Ismail Ovacik, Chief Designer of Exteriors at Volvo trucks, presents Vera to a wider audience. In the film, Vera is introduced with the camera first zooming in over the truck as it is parked and on display in what seems to be a large warehouse. In the first section of the clip, the camera films Ovacik from behind as he is drinking coffee and standing in a relaxed pose, seemingly taking a moment to enjoy Vera from a distance. As he scrutinises the truck, Ovacik explains: A good design is to fulfil its purpose, and it should be obvious how you are going to use it. And the other aspect is the emotional side of it, it appeals to you, and you really like it. (www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/about-us/automation/vera.html) Even though it is far from clear to us how autonomous trucks like Vera operate and can be used, by whom, and for what purposes, as indicated in the excerpt, its likability and appeal are key aspects of autonomous smart mobility. With no cab and no driver in the picture, the intended users are less clear. In the film, Vera is depicted as something more than merely a tool built to transport goods; instead Vera is designed with a broader societal context in mind. These trucks are intended to populate ‘society’ and to be working ‘with people and for people’. As the literature on autonomous vehicles has suggested, part of what predicts trust in autonomous vehicles and a willingness to use them lies in their capacity to produce a humanlike appearance (Lee et al. 2015; Waytz et al. 2014). Waytz et al. (2014: 116) argue that their test drivers were more likely to trust and enjoy a vehicle that was given a name, gender, and voice (i.e. anthropomorphised). Vera is not only anthropomorphised as in being given a name and a gender, Vera also resembles something beyond being merely a tool for transportation, namely an industrious citizen. The next section of the truck preview elicits this further. Vera is described as a ‘high-tech’ project with a ‘brain’ located in the front, where the ‘intelligence lies’, and where the Volvo brand iron mark is placed (described as ‘the most important part of the vehicle’). The light-grey side panels of the truck represent the ‘human side of the vehicle’, described as ‘soft and simple so it feels approachable and not too heavy on the road’. While this would exemplify a typical gender-dichotomous narrative (connecting brain; technological intelligence; importance on the masculine side; with light; human; soft; simple, and approachable on the feminine side) and an example of gender being built into the smart design, the more typically masculine connotations of conventional trucks are significantly downplayed (there is no driver, no exhaust pipe, no audible engine, no visible engine parts, no dirt, etc.). Instead, with the V-shaped lights fully integrated into the truck body, together with added scallops to highlight the backbone, the truck anticipates a sophisticated, sleek, and smooth design compared to the more angular design of contemporary trucks. However, there are also ‘shoulders’ integrated into the design to add what Ovacik describes as ‘confidence to the vehicle’ and to build ‘the trust feeling that it is

68  Dag Balkmar and Ulf Mellström able to pull those tons behind it’. With the shoulders added, the design may still emphasise the typically masculine capabilities recognised in contemporary trucks. In the very last clips of the presentation film the chief designer gently moves his fingertips over the contours of the truck as he says: you know that what you are going to create would be the first one and would be looked at, I have seen so many people taking selfies with Vera, to me that means that we actually managed to give her a soul, it just feels that they acknowledge Vera, almost as a person. (www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/about-us/automation/vera.html) In the above quote the importance that Vera managed to produce the right emotions in people is emphasised. This autonomous truck design and the marketing analysed above completely put driver/truck relations aside; instead, the people–truck interfaces anticipated to be the future work relations in which this autonomous truck will be embedded are emphasised. Even when the driver is completely removed, there seems still to be an anxiety of the truck’s loss of masculinity to consider, which is done by reinstating typically masculine affordances related to power, muscle, and confidence in the design. However, compared to contemporary heavy trucks, some of them described as ‘a deadly menace to cyclists and pedestrians’ (Schmitt 2016), Vera exemplifies how anthropomorphisation also occurs outside specific regimes based on masculinity, driving pleasure, and risk taking (Balkmar and Mellström 2018). Volvo’s vision of future transportation clearly reflects the increasingly intimate cohabitation between (hu)man and machines in times of current digital revolutions. Viewed this way, the audiovisual representation of autonomous smart mobility studied here seems less about technology per se than a question of getting the emotional communication right. However, this utopian narrative on future smart mobilities within the freight industry is not about drivers’ emotions related to sensations (or pain, for that matter) of being on the move (Bissell et al. 2018: 6). Future smart transportation nevertheless stresses the importance that new technologies convincingly manage to impress themselves upon people – as ‘someone’ trustworthy. With the ambition to develop a truck with the ability to ‘feel approachable’, the designers at Volvo not only reinvent dominant gender scripts in trucking but also emphasise Vera as more than an object of desire and fascination – this is a truck with ‘a soul’.

The gendered challenge of smart mobility In this concluding section, we first return to discuss how emotions and affect come to matter in the cases referred to, in particular with reference to the emotional implications that come with increased levels of automation. In addition, we reflect upon policy and committee formulations on autonomous vehicles, including what our discussion may mean for the broader smart cities/mobilities agenda.

Emotions, gender, power in smart mobilities  69 We have discussed cases that illustrate a number of possibilities in how e­ motions, pleasure, and power come to matter in (smart) mobilities. As illustrated above, contemporary cars, engine power, and the experiences of driving are built on what may be called ‘a cyborgic entanglement of technology and masculinity’. The merging of boundaries between human bodies and car bodies into hybridised embodiment makes the motor car into an extension of the human body, where the car affords a whole range of ‘automobile emotions’, ranging from excitement to feelings of safety and control. Previous studies have emphasised how increased automation may come to reformulate such driver/technology relations in significant ways (Hildebrand and Sheller 2018; Berscheid 2017). One possibility is, as Laurier and Dant (2012) propose, that autonomous vehicles will take away the excitement related to drivers’ mastery of their cars, even becoming a potential ‘game changer’ with regard to men and masculinity, as suggested by Berscheid (2017). As noted above, Vera is programmed to follow rules, be fully predictable, and to simply carry out transport tasks, so that ‘autonomous driving’ is no longer a masculine practice where driving skills and vehicle control would confer social status upon the (professional) driver. Hence, autonomous vehicles put focus on the new opportunities in how ‘smart’ mobilities may come to challenge key dimensions of a gendered economy of pleasure, not least with regard to male users’ emotions and dispositions related to car-use – namely how automated vehicles may come to transform the experiences of mobility (Bissell et al. 2018). Automated automobility may transform the experience of mobility in many ways, one example being how driving may become less about expressing an identity as a driver and more about ‘inhabiting a space’ as passengers (Laurier and Dant 2012: 223). While automated vehicles may transform ‘the sensory pleasures and pains of being on the move’ (Bissell et al. 2018: 5), with Vera, its design appeal is not intended for drivers nor for passengers, but for ‘people’ who interact with Vera, including their sensory experiences of Vera being on the move. Increased automation may produce new labour regimes that include transformations of what skills will be required in the transport business. For example, autonomous trucks may reduce demands on a workforce doing manual work in some locations, but may also create new jobs in control centres situated in different locations to where the trucks are operating (Bissell et al. 2018: 9). A possibility related to this is how smart mobilities and their capacity to make the driver redundant not only repudiate drivers’ power over their vehicles but also reassign it to the car designers, computers, and engineers (Balkmar and Mellström 2018). Vera exemplifies a related process towards such re-segregation where certain forms of masculine gendered economies of pleasure are losing ground while others are becoming more dominant. While typically masculine affordances are discernible in the representation of Vera, the male driver is no longer part of the picture. The possible social impact for the now redundant drivers, be it the loss of skilled jobs in the transport sector, including changes in the labour skills required in the sector, is likely to affect working-class men (Lipson and Kurman 2016; Wadhwa and Salkever 2017). Vera exemplifies the possibility of how ‘the dominant form of masculinity of working-class men in

70  Dag Balkmar and Ulf Mellström the transport system will give way to the professional, calculating rationality of technical specialists associated with the “ruling-class men” within large scale engineering organizations and social institutions’ (Wajcman 1991; Balkmar and Mellström 2018). Given the lack of gender equality in the IT industry and the professions of robotics and software development, the code that governs autonomous vehicles like Vera is likely to be produced by certain men and certain forms of masculinities, extending the male control and management of autonomous vehicles (Hildebrand and Sheller 2018: 78; Misa 2010, in Bissell et al. 2018: 6). Emotions and affect may also have motivational powers for the legitimation of autonomous transport transformations more generally, including the performative power of emotions in policy and programme formulations. As FreudendalPedersen et al. (2019) note, ‘[d]iscourses on automated mobility in urban spaces are in a process of creation and different stakeholders contribute in shaping the urban space and its infrastructures for automated driving in the near or distant future.’ Bissell et al. (2018) emphasise the impact that ‘powerful plans or visions’ may have on producing enthusiasm for an invested party – meaning that speculating on the design and shape of future technologies may have ‘important performative powers’. An illustrative example is the writings of the Swedish committee assigned to submit constitutional proposals on how to create better legal frameworks for automated driving on public roads. It is anticipated that with increased urbanisation, connected, shared, and autonomous vehicles are likely to transform urban spaces, as they are expected to solve parking problems, freeing up space, including making it possible for deliveries in urban areas to be handled with e-mobile vehicles at times when traffic is low (SOU 2018: 281). The committee anticipates that autonomous mobility will open up new mobility opportunities for people with physical disabilities in a manner that is not possible at present (SOU 2018: 66). In their investigation report they write: ‘Sweden must accept – as far as possible – rapid introduction of vehicles with automated functions as part of a wider context in which the entire transport sector is facing major changes’ (SOU 2018: 59). We note how emotionally charged the narrative is, connecting to cultural anxieties over environmental damage and the planet, fear of nations falling behind technological development with implications for jobs and economic growth, including anticipating hopes that the next mobility system will be more environmentally friendly, socially progressive, and inclusive than former ones. If emotions are cultural practices with political implications, as Ahmed (2004) suggests, emotions would need to be considered as forming a part in the legitimation of transformations in certain directions. Furthermore, this form of writing constructs autonomous vehicles in deterministic ways, as more or less an inevitable part of future urban mobility and a ‘smart cities’ development that supposedly ‘fits all’ (Freudendal-Pedersen et al. 2019). The problem with constructing autonomous vehicle technologies as quick-fix solutions is how it may ‘produce new – or perpetuate existing – forms of social inequality’ (Bissell et al. 2018: 6). For example, Priya Uteng and Lucas

Emotions, gender, power in smart mobilities  71 (2018) note how in the case of the Smart City programme in India, as mainly corporate driven, there is a tendency to shift focus from the mobility needs of disenfranchised people onto the need for smart buildings, roads, and intelligent parking. Against this background, it remains important to critically consider how smart mobilities, in similar ways to previous mobility regimes, produce inclusions and exclusions, where access ‘is likely to be unevenly distributed across classed and racial lines’ (Bissell et al. 2018: 8; Sheller 2018). This leads us to conclude that smart mobilities have the potential to open up exciting possibilities beyond the current mobility paradigm, based on rationality and instrumentalism in combination with a gendered economy of (masculine) pleasure. Self-driving vehicles are already a reality on the roads of North America and parts of Europe, tested largely by researchers and engineers, but also by ‘ordinary people’ as in Volvo’s Drive Me project in Gothenburg, Sweden (Kröger and Weber 2018). Drawing upon Latour (1996), we argue that affectionate attachment in such grandiose transport projects makes up a fundamental part in achieving change. To illustrate this point we have drawn upon the perspectives from Sheller (2004), who focuses the affective and emotional dimension of car travel for the production of meanings and bodily sensations, including Ahmed’s (2004) affect theory which emphasises emotions as cultural practices with political implications. This way, we may better grasp both autonomous emotions while being on the move and in the legitimation of transport transformations, including the place of affect and emotions in the planning of future transport and mobility systems. Such a perspective seems not only necessary but also smart as we are facing an irreversible need for sustainable mobility. The inherent emancipatory openings of smart mobilities are giving designers, engineers, consumers, planners, and stakeholders immense opportunities to think beyond our fossil-fuel congested transport system which is still based on a masculinity of industrial modernity (Anshelm and Hultman 2014).

References Ahmed, S. (2004) The Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Anshelm, J. and Hultman, M. (2014) A green fatwā? Climate change as a threat to the masculinity of industrial modernity. NORMA: The International Journal for Masculinity Studies 9(2), 84–96. doi:10.1080/18902138.2014.908627. Balkmar, D. (2012) On Men and Cars: An ethnographic study of gendered, risky and dangerous relations. Dissertation. Linköping: Linköping University. Balkmar, D. (2018) Violent mobilities: Men, masculinities and road conflicts in Sweden. Mobilities 13(5), 717–732. doi:10.1080/17450101.2018.1500096. Balkmar, D. and Joelsson, T. (2010) Den bioniske mannen på autoerotiska äventyr – mäns risktagande i trafikrummet [The bionic man on autoerotic adventures – men’s risk taking in traffic space]. NORMA: The International Journal for Masculinity Studies 5(1), 27–44. Balkmar, D. and Joelsson, T. (2012) Feeling the speed – The social and emotional investments in dangerous road practices. In M. Jansdotter Samuelsson, C. Krekula, and M. Åberg (eds), Gender and Change. Karlstad: Karlstad University Press, pp. 37–52.

72  Dag Balkmar and Ulf Mellström Balkmar, D. and Mellström, U. (2018) Masculinity and autonomous vehicles: A degendered or resegregated future system of automobility? Transfers: Interdisciplinary Journal of Mobility Studies 8(1), 44–63. doi:10.3167/TRANS.2018.080105. Barad, K.M. (2007) Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Barthel, D. (1992) When men put on appearances: Advertising and the social construction of masculinity. In S. Craig (ed.), Men, Masculinity and the Media. London: Sage, pp. 137–153. Berscheid, A-L. (2017) Masculinity in danger? Autonomous cars as cultural challenge. Contribution to the blog 2025ad.com by Continental and others, 15 April 2016. Available at www.2025ad.com/in-the-news/blog/automated-driving-and-masculinity/ (accessed 31 May 2017). Bissell, D., Birtchnell, T., Elliott, A., and Hsu, E. (2018) Autonomous automobilities: The social impacts of driverless vehicles. Current Sociology 1–19. Available at https:// journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0011392118816743. Bragd, A. (2002) Knowing Management: An ethnographic study of tinkering with a new car. Dissertation. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University. Braidotti, R. (2013) The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press. Dant, T. (2004) The driver-car. Theory, Culture and Society 21(4/5), 61–79. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus [Electronic version] Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. De Boise, S. and Hearn, J. (2017) Are men getting more emotional? Critical sociological perspectives on men, masculinities and emotions. The Sociological Review 65(4), 779–796. doi:10.1177/0038026116686500. Duffy, E. (2009) The Speed Handbook: Velocity, pleasure, modernism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Freudendal-Pedersen, M., Kesselring, S., and Servou, E. (2019) What is smart for the future city? Mobilities and automatization. Sustainability 11(1). https://doi. org/10.3390/su11010221. Hagman, O. (2010) Driving pleasure: A key concept in Swedish car culture. Mobilities 5, 25–39. Hildebrand, J. and Sheller, M. (2018) Media ecologies of autonomous automobility. Gendered and racial dimensions of future concept cars, transfers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Mobility Studies 8(1), 64–85. doi:https://doi.org/10.3167/TRANS.2018.080106. Jensen, O.B. and Freudendal-Pedersen, M. (2012) Utopias of mobilities. In M. Hviid Jacobsen and K. Tester, Utopia: Social theory and the future . Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 197–217. Joelsson, T. (2013) Space and Sensibility: Young men’s risk-taking with motor vehicles. Dissertation. Linköping: Linköping University. Juhlin, O. (1997) Prometheus at the Wheel: Representations of road transport informatics. Linköping: Linköping University. Kröger, F. and Weber, J. (2018) Introduction: Autonomous driving and the transformation of car cultures. Transfers, Interdisciplinary Journal of Mobility Studies 8(1), 15–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.3167/TRANS.2018.080103. Ladd, B. (2008) Autophobia: Love and hate in the automotive age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lagergren, L. (1999) Svensk motorcykelkultur. Dissertation. Linköping: Linköping University. Landström, C. (2006) A gendered economy of pleasure: Representations of cars and humans in motoring magazines. Science Studies 19(2), 31–53. Latour, B. (1996) Aramis or the Love of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Laurier, E. and Dant, T. (2012) What else we do while driving: Towards the driverless car. In M. Grieco and J. Urry (eds), Mobilities: New perspectives on transport and society. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 223–244.

Emotions, gender, power in smart mobilities  73 Lee, J-G., Kim, K.J., Lee, S., and Shin, D-H. (2015) Can autonomous vehicles be safe and trustworthy? Effects of appearance and autonomy of unmanned driving systems. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 31, 682–691. doi:10.1080/ 10447318.2015.1070547. Lipson, H. and Kurman, M. (2016) Driverless: Intelligent cars and the road ahead. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lupton, D. (1999) Monsters in metal cocoons: ‘Road rage’ and cyborg bodies. Body & Society 5(1), 57–72. Manderscheid, K. (2018) From the Auto-mobile to the driven subject? Discursive assertions of mobility futures. Transfers: Interdisciplinary Journal of Mobility Studies 8(1), 24–43. doi: https://doi.org/10.3167/TRANS.2018.080104. Massumi, B. (2002) Parables for the Virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Mellström, U. (1999) Män och deras maskiner. Nora: Nya Doxa. Mellström, U. (2003a) Teknik och maskulinitet: män och deras maskiner (S. 57-[76]). In B. Berner (ed.), Vem tillhör tekniken?: kunskap och kön i teknikens värld. Lund: Arkiv. Mellström, U. (2003b) Masculinity, Power and Technology: A Malaysian ethnography. Aldershot: Ashgate. Mellström, U. (2004) Machines and masculine subjectivity, technology as an integral part of men’s life experiences. In W. Faulkner and M. Lohan, Special Issue: Masculinities and Technology. Men and Masculinities 6(4), 368–383. Misa, T.J. (ed.) (2010) Gender Codes: Why women are leaving computing. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Oswin, N. (2014) Queer theory. In P. Adey, D. Bissell, K. Hannam, P. Merriman, and M. Sheller (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Mobilities. New York: Routledge, pp. 85–93. Paulsen, G. (1997) Pilgrimage on a Steel Ride. A memoir about men and motorcycles. New York: Harcourt. Priya Uteng, T. and Lucas, K. (eds) (2018) Urban Mobilities in the Global South. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Redshaw, S. (2008) In the Company of Cars: Driving as a social and cultural practice. Aldershot: Ashgate. Reeser, T. (2017) Producing awkwardness: Affective labour and masculinity in popular culture. Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal 50(4), 51–69. Reeser, T. (2019) Approaching affective masculinities. In L. Gottzén, U. Mellström, and T. Shefer (eds), Routledge International Handbook of Masculinity Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 103–112. Reeser, T. and Gottzén, L. (2018) Introduction: Masculinity and affect: New possibilities, new agendas. NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies 13, 145–157. Schmitt, A. (2016) London is going to ban the deadliest trucks from its streets. Available at https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/10/21/london-is-going-to-ban-the-deadliest-trucksfrom-its-streets/. Schyfter, P. (2009) The bootstrapped artefact: A collectivist account of technology ontology, functions, and normativity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A 40(1), 102–111. Sheller, M. (2004) Automotive emotions. Theory, Culture and Society 21(4/5), 221–242. Sheller, M. (2018) Mobility Justice: The politics of movement in an age of extremes. London: Verso. SOU (2018) 16, Utredningen om självkörande fordon på väg. Vägen till självkörande fordon: introduktion. Stockholm: Norstedts juridik. Volvo Trucks – Designing Vera and the future of transportation. Available at www. youtube.com/watch?v=_QIb0hUEdoQ (accessed 18 December 2018). Wadhwa, V. and Salkever, A. (2017) The Driver in the Driverless Car: How our technology choices will create the future. Uttar Pradesh, India: Harper Business.

74  Dag Balkmar and Ulf Mellström Wajcman, J. (1991) Feminism Confronts Technology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Waytz, A., Heafner, J., and Epley, N. (2014) The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Psychology 52, 113–117. Wetherell, M. (2012) Affect and Emotion: A new social science understanding. London: Sage.

Part II

Smart mobilities and overlaps

5 Gender-sensitive mobility socialisation Understanding mode choice of children and adolescents from a gender perspective Ines Kawgan-Kagan, Julia Schuppan, and Per Ole Petersen Introduction For most of us, mobility is somewhat commonplace. It is often a matter of routine and we usually only actively consider the choice of modes of transport in situations where we are heading to new destinations (e.g. in case of key events, like residential relocation or starting a new job) (Müggenburg and Lanzendorf 2015). Studies have repeatedly shown, also in international comparison, empirical evidence of differences in choosing modes of transport between men and women in adulthood (Knoll et al. 2009) resulting from the more complex daily lives of women (Scheiner and Holz-Rau 2017). In particular, regarding new smart technology and future mobility trends (e.g. autonomous cars, car-sharing), gender differences are evident and crucial to acknowledge when it comes to future mobility (Kawgan-Kagan 2015, 2017). In most cases these findings are not followed up and gender-specific differences are not included in the final analysis (Groß 1998). In other works, they are not considered at all (Dierolf 2005; Ewing et al. 2004; McDonald 2008; Taubmann 2014). Thus, generally the focus remains on descriptive findings, but the reasons for the differences in empirical studies usually remain hidden. Regarding gender, it must be noted that the terms sex and gender cannot be given a uniform, fixed definition, since these do not involve fixed constants but a social framework (Butler 2004; Ebeling 2006; Hagemann-White 1988). In addition, there are no gender-neutral zones in science or society (Knoll et al. 2009). Although gender and sex are still the subject of partly controversial discussions within gender studies (Butler 2004; Ebeling 2006; Hagemann-White 1988), it can be said that a general distinction is made between the biological gender (sex) and the social gender (gender) (Ebeling,2006). Thus, the terms sex and gender do not involve fixed constants but a social framework that is still the subject of partly controversial discussions within gender studies (Butler 2004; Ebeling 2006; Hagemann-White 1988). Gender roles are seen as a complex knowledge system (Hirschhauer 1996) derived from various influences (e.g. experiences or so-called everyday knowledge, images conveyed by the media, or even scientific knowledge, to name but

78  Ines Kawgan-Kagan et al. a few), and one that is often unconsciously called up in everyday situations in order to be able to classify and assess other people using the category of sex (Scott 1986). Due to the constantly reproduced and consolidated relationship of sex and gender, we use the term biological sex as an indicator for gender as it is commonly done in empirical studies owing to the complexity of data collection. In general, mobility behaviour is shaped by individual factors (e.g. sociodemographics, sociocultural aspects, availability of transport modes) (Busch-­ Geertsema 2018) and external settings (e.g. infrastructure, accessibility concept) (Klinger et al. 2013). Gender-specific differences that may have an influence on mobility are found in social relations, symbolic meanings, and further aspects as reception and use of the built environment (Law 1999), and thus impact upon individual factors and external settings. Significant findings affecting mobility behaviour are therefore different wage levels (Finke 2011) or the continuing role-specific division of household tasks in relationships (Wetterer 2003). Furthermore, a power gap between men and women and their effects on the availability of modes of transport are explained (Bauhardt 1999). As a result, gender differences in mobility and their origins are constantly being rediscovered. In this chapter, we want to look at the origins of gender-specific smart mobility regarding the mobility behaviour of children and adolescents, and the process of mobility socialisation. Children and adolescents represent a population group whereby mobility plays an outstanding role. Starting with dependent mobility with their parents and other accompanying adults to age 5 or 6 (FGSV 2012), the radius of action increases with increasing independence from parents. This, on the one hand, is inevitably associated with travelling longer distances, and on the other hand ‘being on the road’ is seen as a pastime and as social interaction within the group (Tully 1999). In adolescence, mobility not only serves a specific purpose but can also be an end in itself. Obtaining a driving licence also gives adolescents the opportunity to participate independently in motorised travel, which has a significant influence on their future mobility behaviour. Finally, adolescents represent the road users of the coming decades who must be inspired by sustainable and conscious transport behaviour in view of various problems, such as global warming, increasing population, or scarcity of resources. This is only possible if the factors and authorities that influence later decisions are recognised, and thus consideration of parenthood, childhood, and adolescence is particularly important with respect to mobility education and mobility socialisation.As our main statement, we conclude that there are gender-specific differences in mobility and use of transport modes already in childhood and adolescence that are the result of gender-specific mobility socialisation. In addition, the following questions are to be clarified in this work: What are the gender-typical differences in an own-mobility development? What are the decisive socialisation authorities for children and young people in terms of subsequent mobility behaviour? Following on from this, we lead the argument to our final question: In what way does socialisation influence mobility behaviour

Gender-sensitive mobility socialisation  79 and the choice of modes of transport through social gender roles starting in childhood and adolescence? In order to examine our main statement, we will first present some theoretical basics on gender, socialisation, and mobility and explain their connection to each other. An argument will be developed from various findings from previous empirical studies to support our statement of gender-specific constructs in mobility socialisation. Finally, advice for future gender-sensible smart mobility socialisation and mobility education is given in order to develop a gender-sensible future smart mobility.

Mobility Mode choice and mobility as in a cognitive scope of transportation possibilities The behaviour of individuals is by no means always rational and rationally controlled. Rather, there are superficially irrational and emotional reasons for making decisions, which can also be decisive in choosing the modes of transport. In mobility psychology, the behaviour and experience of people in transport systems and the underlying psychological processes are the focus of scientific analysis (Schlag and Schade 2007). They developed three relevant levels of decision and behaviour in the choice of modes of transport, whereby these are not independent of one another but are part of a network of interdependent decisions, interacting, for example, with spatial structures or transport services. Decision processes are structured hierarchically in terms of time and routine. In the long term and of primary importance, there is an objective decision level with rare and mostly considered decisions that concern a long-time horizon such as the choice of place of residence or work, but also changes in lifestyle such as discontinuation, reduction, or relocation of activities. Furthermore, owning a vehicle as well as the type of vehicle are long-term decisions. Infrastructural factors such as (lack of) local and long-distance public transport services play a role in the creation of opportunities for changes in location, i.e. mobility. The second level of mobility consists of subjective and medium-term decisions that have a greater impact on transport behaviour. This includes travel frequencies and lengths, itinerary choice, and choosing the modes of transport. Infrastructural offerings are an important factor in this regard as well, but the perception of them and the alternatives are more important here. At this level, decisions are often habituated with a medium time horizon. Short-term decisions, as the third level, are usually just as subjective as medium-term decisions. Nevertheless, the temporal effect here is only of short duration. In concrete terms, this includes, for example, driving style and speed selection, which can be influenced by the driving situation. This third level is often highly habituated and routine. This three-step model clearly shows that choosing the modes of transport is not a new decision to be made in each case, but rather represents a highly habituated behaviour, which is usually only changed or completely worked out by context changes (e.g. residential relocation) (Bamberg et al. 2003).

80  Ines Kawgan-Kagan et al. A further distinction is important in this context: Ahrend et al. (2013) define the terms mobility and transportation. While transportation represents an actual change of location of, for example, persons, goods, and data, mobility tends towards people’s anticipated potential change of location. This cognitive scope of transport possibilities is opened up from various aspects such as spatial, physical, social, and virtual factors, and can be changed by new experiences and alterations in life situation. A person’s subjective mobility is a plan of all the options that are available and conceivable for these people to make a real change of location a reality. Mobility can therefore be described as the movement in a cognitive space (Möglichkeitsraum) and transport as the movement in concrete space (Canzler and Knie 1998). The choice of modes of transport represents a concrete part of transport or mobility. The modes of transport used to travel a route are decided first in the mind. If an alternative cannot be thought of, it cannot be implemented (Ahrend et al. 2013). It is precisely this cognitive scope of transportation possibility which represents a highly individual value that is shaped by the entire environment. Gender differences in mobility Although women in Western societies are predominantly employed, they usually also assume additional household and care-giving responsibilities (Dribe and Stanfors 2009; Schneebaum and Mader 2013). If the proportion of childless working women and men is partly equal, the proportion of women is reduced by the double burden when a child, especially one between 0 and 14 years, lives in the household (Berlin-Brandenburg 2017; Kawgan-Kagan 2015). In addition, there are also differences in the distribution of full-time and part-time models, since the child(ren) factor is also decisive here: part-time models are generally used more by women than by men. While in Berlin in 2012 70 per cent of childless men and 63 per cent of childless women worked full-time, around 50 per cent of women and 73 per cent of men with children worked full-time (Berlin-Brandenburg 2017). This effect may be found in several studies about mobility and transportation (Kawgan-Kagan 2015, 2019). Parenthood, therefore, leads to a reduction in employment among women and an increase among men. These sociodemographic backgrounds, including the responsibility for accompanying and care-giving journeys, lead to different transport patterns – to a gender mobility gap. While men travel longer distances on average and at the same time head to fewer destinations per day, women show significantly more complex routes with a smaller mobility radius (Bauhardt 1999; Kawgan-Kagan 2015, 2017). Therefore, work trips for men are longer than those of women, as they are on average more than twice as long as accompanying journeys (Stiewe and Krause 2012). Women who take care of children and household chores usually do not leave the immediate vicinity of their place of residence; whereas men often have a linear path to a more distant job without further interruptions (Kawgan-Kagan 2015, 2019; Knoll et al. 2009). The effect of gender-typical care-giving can be found for the age categories in which smaller children are statistically more present in a household (Kawgan-Kagan 2015). At this age it is often women who restrict their employment

Gender-sensitive mobility socialisation  81 and pursue household and care-giving responsibilities. In urban Berlin, women use bikes and public transport more frequently than men (SrV 2008). For Germany as a whole, there is only one difference here for those above the age of 65. Nevertheless, there is a difference in car use: men use cars more frequently than women in Germany (Konrad 2016; Scheiner and Holz-Rau 2012; Sharmeen et al. 2014; Stiewe and Krause 2012). There are also considerable differences with regard to new sustainable mobility concepts: these services are most frequently used by men and by only a few women (Giesel and Nobis 2016; Kawgan-Kagan 2015, 2019). Studies suggest that female car-sharers primarily use the services without children (KawganKagan 2015). The use of free-floating car-sharing is very difficult to achieve while caring for children (Kawgan-Kagan 2017). These findings clearly show that parenthood and the resulting tasks and responsibility for the household have a decisive influence on the variables that determine the choice of modes of transport. Christine Bauhardt examined urban development and transport policy in 1999 and explained the relationship between gender and mobility on the basis of the choice of modes of transport – in this case the car, and as an opposite pole to local public transport. The various choices of modes of transport, depending on differing demands, are justified in relation to one’s access to the car resource. On the one hand, men have a higher average salary and are therefore more likely to be able to afford their own car. On the other hand, Bauhardt argues that there is a power gap between men and women in a relationship: if a car is in the household, the man uses it for his journeys and denies the woman access or even prevents her from obtaining a driving licence as a basic requirement for using a car. As a result, women are forced to use public transport more often than men. Both reasons (different division of household tasks and access to resources) argue on one level with gainful employment or with the assumption of care-giving and household tasks. The effects of these differences are therefore to be expected in adulthood. Law (1999) explains in her theoretical framework regarding everyday mobility that gender must have an influence on the view and perception of infrastructural conditions and mobility offerings. Using examples, she shows how gender influences perception as a symbolic code. This code assigns to things a binary evaluation with male and female. This stereotypical attitude is particularly reflected in the distinction between private and public transport. A lot of studies about masculinity and cars can be found in science and technology studies (Balkmar 2012; Weber and Kröger 2018). A study by Scharff (1992) regarding the perception of the car already showed gender-specific assignments for modes of transport in the US at the beginning of the nineteenth century which have run through history and still shape the societally constructed and learned gender stereotypes with regard to choosing the modes of transport, as shown in this section.

Socialisation The previous section showed the factors that exert influence in adulthood. But it is precisely the social environment and the symbolic code (i.e. the gender-typical

82  Ines Kawgan-Kagan et al. attribution of men and women to modes of transport) that do not begin in adulthood. These two factors are already subject to gender imbalance in childhood and adolescence: on the one hand, different spaces for outdoor exploration are provided for children and adolescents; on the other hand, they grow up in a society that considers cars to be male and public transport to be more female (Balkmar and Mellström 2018). This section will examine these two aspects in detail. Socialisation is to be understood as a process of the emergence and development of an individual’s personality in mutual dependence on the societally mediated social and material environment. […] Socialisation always implies an idea of social order, which is usually based on a fit between individual and society. (Niederbacher and Zimmermann 2011: 15) Thus, socialisation describes the interaction of all factors on a physical, psychological, and social level in the development of an individual personality with his or her own ideas, wishes, and abilities. Socialisation is a lifelong process, beginning in early childhood (Hurrelmann and Bauer 2015). Socialisation stages The individual stages from both a temporal and spatial perspective, including the respective agents of socialisation that influence this development of an individual personality, are explained below. Family Due to its continuity, the family is by far the most important stage of socialisation, because in the family, parents and siblings are the most important reference persons for children (Berk 2011). Even if young people distance themselves from the family with increasing age in order to achieve greater independence, the family remains an important point of reference into adulthood. It usually accompanies a person from birth until the end of his or her life, albeit in a different context. The family is usually the sole framework of development for infants and young children, with parents being the decisive and – with the exception of older siblings and sometimes grandparents – the only caregivers. Even if small children are accommodated in a day-care centre, the greatest part of the experience in terms of time and feeling takes place within the family (Berk 2011). Apart from the fact that infants and young children are fundamentally dependent on their families, as otherwise they would simply not be able to survive, all activities are determined, planned, and carried out by and with the family at this age. During this time, the children experience traffic and mobility almost exclusively passively, since they are hardly granted autonomy when participating in traffic, even if they have already learned to walk. They are not yet able to make independent decisions or correctly assess dangerous situations.

Gender-sensitive mobility socialisation  83 However, as children get older, they inevitably spend more time outside the family, as their stay in kindergarten or school takes more time and first friendships are made. In addition, they can increasingly actively participate in traffic events, either as pedestrians or as soon as they have their own bicycle and can use it to move on their own. Day care and kindergarten A day-care centre is usually the first environment in which children meet regularly with their peers and meet caregivers outside the family. Moreover, the longer separation from parents, due to the still widespread gender stereotypical distribution of roles in families with children, above all the separation from the mother, represents a certain independence, even if supervision of the children only passes from the parents to the educators. At the day-care centre, children also come into contact with the topic of traffic for the first time, both through games and stories and through education in road safety and their first own experiences, such as field trips and riding their own bicycles. The attitudes and behaviour of the educators play a decisive role here, because they are not only the main reference persons for children during the time in the day-care centre, but also guide the further development of those children with their pedagogical decisions (Rohrmann 2009, 2010). School At school, children begin to form into groups that are significantly smaller than the given group forms, such as classes or day-care groups, and make their first lasting friendships, whereby the group size decreases with increasing age and the number of friends also decreases (Niederbacher and Zimmermann 2011). Finally, young people concentrate on a few close friends (about two to four in primary school and only one or two in adolescence) and a somewhat larger reference group of several friends, the so-called peer group (Niederbacher and Zimmermann 2011). Due to the considerable amount of time school children spend in schools, these schools provide an important framework for the formation of friendships between peers, although the emphasis shifts towards extracurricular activities with increasing age (Jüttemann and Thomae 2002). In addition, the topic of mobility will be introduced in more detail at school when topics such as road safety or the possible effects of transport are discussed in class. At the same time, various experiences with different modes of transport are made on the way to school, which can have a decisive influence on later mobility behaviour. Peer group The peer group is understood to be the circle of young people’s friends who, as they grow older, establish themselves alongside the family and increasingly outside school and in which the young people seek support and confirmation. In

84  Ines Kawgan-Kagan et al. addition, the peer group as an independent body is an important sign of independence and autonomy, which is why, despite the somewhat shorter period of influence on socialisation compared to school or family, it has great significance for the development of behaviour and moral concepts (Jüttemann and Thomae 2002). Finally, ideas, behaviours, and structures can be discussed and experienced here, which in other contexts (school and family) are criticised and sanctioned as unconventional or even antisocial (Berk 2011). The peer group also stands for the exploration of new areas of action, which also entails an extension of the radius of action and, thus, increased mobility. One must not forget that among young people, ‘being on the move’ as an end in itself and a pastime is considerably important. Mobility is, therefore, of great significance within the peer group and partly serves as a status factor: Frequent ‘being on the move’ is synonymous with pronounced independence and independence from the family (Tully 1999). It is, therefore, an elementary part of distancing oneself from the family and attaining adult status. In summary, it may be said that duration and intensity have a considerable influence on socialisation processes. A value space and attitudes towards the choice of modes of transport are already shaped here and shaped by further socialisation processes. Socialisation and gender Socialisation also involves the development of a gender identity of one’s own. This is largely characterised by the idea of a binary gender system and social role assignments. In the first four to five years of life children do not yet have their own idea of sex, which shows itself, for example, in the fact that boys sometimes express their desire to become a mother; however, they can already distinguish men and women on basic superficial characteristics such as clothes or make-up. Since knowledge of one’s own gender and its importance is only pronounced at the age of about 6, it is very likely that this classification is made exclusively on the basis of socially imparted role concepts, because: most kindergarten children do not yet realize that characteristics associated with a particular gender – activities, toys, professions, hairstyles, and clothing – in no way determine a person’s gender. (Berk 2011: 366) In the first years, parents are almost the only role models for gender roles, so that their behaviour is observed by children and subsequently seen as a measure of normality. Another important influencing factor is picture books or stories that are read to children (Burghardt and Klenk 2016). In this way, they learn about the differences between men and women, boys and girls at an early age (Grigat 2009). Studies considering influences of different family structures such as same-gender parents and gender socialisation are practically non-existent but a warranty for further empirical research is given (Kuper et al. 2014). The influences

Gender-sensitive mobility socialisation  85 on gender socialisation of single-parent households show that the lack of one parent can lead to developing contradictory or vague role models (Khudyakova et al. 2016). In short, single-parent families and mothers seem to have less traditional gender-role socialisation compared to two-parent families (Leve and Fagot 1997). In the day-care centres, boys and girls still receive distinct types of support, often following the assumption that boys have a greater need for exercise and are generally wilder and more frolicsome, whereas girls would prefer quieter so-called indoor activities (Rohrmann 2009, 2010). However, this separation is problematic in several respects, as it not only passes on and consolidates widespread stereotypes but also limits the development of both groups. On the one hand, such indoor activities as handicrafts or reading, which are seen as typically female activities and are, therefore, associated with girls, are important for the training of school-related skills such as fine motor skills and reading skills, both areas in which boys regularly perform worse in examinations (Rohrmann 2010). On the other hand, ‘wild’, physically demanding outdoor activities such as classic romping or sports games not only have a positive effect on physical fitness, they are also important prerequisites for developing psychomotor skills, body control, and experiencing the environment, especially the sense of orientation and the growth of so-called ’cognitive maps’ (see p. 000). Nevertheless, girls are not only less often encouraged to engage in such activities, they are also more heavily sanctioned in the event of overreactions, since they are expected to be more reserved because of their existence as girls, whereas reckless or even aggressive behaviour is regarded as ‘natural’ in the case of boys (Ryan and Branscombe 2013). However, the formation of so-called ‘cognitive maps’ can certainly have an impact on later mobility behaviour, as is shown in the following section.

Bringing together gender, mobility, and socialisation The term mobility socialisation summarises influences in developmental history on a person’s mobility, both conscious transport education and unconscious behaviour of parents or negative experiences (Limbourg et al. 2000). As for socialisation, mobility socialisation is a process in which an individual becomes part of the mobility society that includes the emergence of a mobility lifestyle (Tully and Baier 2011). Following Tully and Baier (2011), three levels play a role in the mobility socialisation process: social framework conditions such as infrastructure or cultural models, meso-social conditions such as family role models, road safety education at school, and personal conditions such as individual attitudes, norms, age, or gender. The term mobility socialisation refers to both explicitly imparted knowledge content and implicit behaviours of others that are individually adopted. The importance of socialisation for mobility becomes apparent as a decisive factor when one considers that lifelong learning and socialisation processes and the knowledge built up lead to a background of

86  Ines Kawgan-Kagan et al. values and intentions that strongly influence perception and motivation (Fuhrer and Wölfing 1997). Development of gender-typical cognitive maps Specifically, parents have a significant influence if children experience their parents as regular drivers. Children are accustomed to travelling in their own cars and finding this type of transport participation normal, which can lead to them naturally using their own cars in adulthood and being less open to other modes of transport (Limbourg et al. 2000). Recent studies show that parents are increasingly less likely to allow their children to travel distances alone on a daily basis, and thus there is a lack of competence development with respect to transport safety (Zu Fuß zur Schule 2015). Active exploration of the environment has an especially significant influence on the development of children’s own mobility (McNamara 1986; Tolman 1948). Active exploration of the environment is reflected in so-called cognitive maps, whereby a high complexity of these cognitive maps is equivalent to a good understanding of spatial structure and, thus, to good orientation (McNamara 1986; Tolman 1948). In this context, too, the family is of particular importance, especially transport behaviour that is largely unconsciously demonstrated by parents, which the children observe, internalise, and implement as soon as they begin to take on responsibility. Parents therefore play an exemplary role and fundamentally consolidate the mobility option space. Although parents also take conscious measures in road safety education, the unconscious influences ‘are much more effective than the planned ones, because children are usually exposed to them more frequently and more constantly than the influences of the planned measures’ (Kalwitzki 1998: 86). The perception of parents using modes of transport in childhood and adolescence shows that ‘From the interviewees’ point of view, the most common modes of transport for both parents is the car – 72% of fathers and 57% of mothers. Bikes only play a greater role among mothers (17%) as the most common modes of transport’ (Flade and Lohmann 2000). Children and adolescents are given different frameworks for training their own cognitive maps right from the start: while boys enjoy more freedom, girls are given a smaller space in which to move (Bauhardt 1999). This is evident beyond family socialisation: the interior designs of playgrounds and public facilities give more space for activities assigned to boys such as football matches, and the activities assigned to girls are more selective and marginalised, and have less space available. Due to the smaller mobility radius of girls and more selective games, girls are not perceived enough in public space and in turn are not taken into account enough in planning concepts, although surveys of children regarding their game preferences have shown that girls also have a strong urge to move like boys (Ahrend 2002). In this way, gender stereotypes are constantly reproduced and consolidated, despite contrary findings. In summary, the different stages have considerable influence on socialisation processes. The development of cognitive maps is subject to a social influence

Gender-sensitive mobility socialisation  87 that is usually unconsciously communicated at various stages of socialisation and already leads to significant differences in children and adolescents. Gender differences in the use of modes for children and adolescents Gender-typical differences are also evident in choosing modes of transport for the period of adolescence, during which time adolescents already travel on their own to school, but they are also influenced by socialisation through family and the wider social environment. At this point we argue that power relations, which, according to Bauhardt (1999), regulate access to car resources, can only manifest in a heteronormative relationship as a sign of traditional task sharing. The availability of a car in the household can only be influenced once adolescence has been completed and such a relationship has developed. Conversely, it could also be concluded that there should be no significant differences between young men or boys and young women or girls before this division of tasks. Nevertheless, we now discus various empirical findings that already show differences at school age. School trips and non-school trips The route to school is usually an interesting matter in studies on children and adolescents choosing modes of transport: Due to constant repetition this is a highly routine process which usually proceeds subconsciously as long as no new decisive factors are added (Müggenburg and Lanzendorf 2015). Therefore, the first distinction includes school trips as a contrast to non-school trips such as infrequently going shopping. External factors regarding children’s travel mode are distance to school, neighbourhood-built environment (i.e. major street intersections, retail density, and block density) (Mitra and Buliung 2015; Stark et al. 2018), and parental perceptions of traffic safety (Guliani et al. 2015). A survey of 3,455 pupils from Baden-Württemberg shows clear differences in choosing modes of transport to school between girls and boys (Richter 2005): At 18.3 per cent, boys used bicycles more frequently than girls (11.1%), while girls (52.4%) used public transport more frequently than boys (40.6%). Stark et al. (2018) found in their study about travel patterns from secondary schools (7th grader, 13 years) in Austria and Germany that girls are more likely to travel to school go by car than boys (standardised direct effect .20, p ≤ 0.01) using a Bayesian approach for nonlinear structural equation modelling. Since they were only considering transit and car use, they found no significant differences in the use of public transit however. Guliani et al. (2015) estimated structural equation modelling analysing walking versus being driven to find the influence on hometo-school trip data on 720 students attending 5th/6th grade in 16 public schools in Canada. They focused on the neighbourhood environment and the perceived traffic safety by parents. Their results show that boys are more likely to walk to school (versus being driven) than girls. This shows the necessity for another important dimension of trip characteristics.

88  Ines Kawgan-Kagan et al. Accompanied trips and unaccompanied trips Stark et al. (2018) differentiated between accompanied and unaccompanied trips: unaccompanied are shorter and involve higher freedom of mode choice. Separating non-school trips into trips with and without supervision, Stark et al. (2018) found no significant influence of gender on car use or transit use for 13-year-old German and Austrian pupils. In contrast, being female led to a higher probability for transit use (standardised direct effect .23, p ≤ 0.01) and a lower probability for car use (standardised direct effect –.21, p ≤ 0.01). We conclude that the effect of the supervising person at this age leads to gender-typical stereotypes of travel modes as the influence over the socialisation process consolidates differences in mode choice. Looking at the differences in preferences for future use, it can be seen that among children and young people, the reasons for not using a bike are similar; however, the reasons for not using a bike indicate a clear affinity of boys for the car (Flade and Lohmann 2000). Guliani et al. (2015) concluded that girls are exposed to a greater influence of parental decisions. The fact of girls being longer and more often accompanied by a supervising person leads to a more passive experience of travel mode choice. This results in a more passive development of cognitive maps and a consolidated stereotypical attribution of travel modes.

Discussion and conclusion The findings clearly show that there are already gender-typical differences in choosing modes of transport before the division of tasks or that power relations based on partnership provide the basis for this. It also shows that there is a shift in transport preferences in adolescence: boys are more likely to use bikes than girls, who travel by public transport or with their parents. As soon as boys have the opportunity to obtain a driving licence and have access, they switch to a car, i.e. personal motorised transport. On the other hand, women seem to be discovering bikes when they become adults in the meaning of a symbolic change of use. This shift is a sign that the attitudes of girls and boys towards modes of transport are changing with growing up: for boys, the bike is a mode of appropriating space at school age. Bikes are considered sporty and active, and rather unfeminine. It is an expression of personal non-motorised, individual transport, while local public transport entails safe and passive participation in transport. In adulthood, the car replaces the bike as a mode of transport for the male. On the other hand, for women the bike is a relaxed and healthy way of getting around, whereby public transport tends to be more emphasised, but also motorised personal transport as co-driver. A differentiation between private and public therefore does not seem to cover the entire picture; rather, we suggest that a distinction should be made between active and passive transport participation when gendertypical differences are discussed. Especially regarding traffic safety, there is a gender bias in the development of cognitive maps that is necessary for a good understanding of spatial structure and, thus, good orientation.

Gender-sensitive mobility socialisation  89 It is evident from this that measures aimed at changing usage behaviour with respect to modes of transport must start as early as childhood in order to achieve sustainable success. Planned and structured road safety education is mainly employed in school lessons to promote the competence and thus the safety of children in road traffic and in using public transport. These measures are pure road safety education measures and aim at competence, for example, when crossing the road or cycling. In Germany, during the 4th grade (corresponding to children aged 10), every pupil in primary school has to undergo bicycle training and test. Mobility education, by contrast, includes measures that explain various mobility options, thus offering alternatives to the previous choice of modes of transport (Ahrend et al. 2013). This kind of mobility education as part of the curriculum is handled across a broad variety in Germany due to the federal education system. In Berlin, in 2017 mobility education and road safety education were newly introduced as one of 13 topics touching all subjects (Berlin 2017). Furthermore, programmes like ‘going on foot to school and kindergarten’ conducted by BUND (BUND 2017) supports kindergartens, schools, teachers, educators, parents, and children in training, exploring, and understanding the importance of going on foot to explore the environment, strengthen social relations, orientation, and self-confidence. It has long been clear that parents are role models (Limbourg et al. 2000). Therefore, there is even a programme aimed at pregnant women and women with small babies to encourage them to bike, use the cargo-bike or bicycle-trailers, and not to purchase a car instead (Gering and Eberhardt 2015). Nevertheless, there is evidence of a gender mobility gap for children and young adolescents which needs to be addressed in order to anchor sustainability in attitudes and values. The person who does the most educational work has a particularly significant influence on mobility education. Learning mobility, especially sustainable mobility, must already be considered gender-sensitive in the mobility education of children and adolescents. Mobility education must, therefore, also consider factors that not only aim at road safety but also shape attitudes and values, and, in particular, promote sustainable behaviour through the education system. To make the mobility of individuals more sustainable, theories must continue to be generated (Flade 2013). The underlying interdependencies of gender and mode choice must be studied in more detail. Social constructs need to be included in explanation models and taken into account in developing measures for achieving gender-sensitive and non-stereotypical mobility. In integrating mobility socialisation into this model and lifelong learning, as explained above in the threelevel model by Tully and Baier (2011), gender plays a crucial role regarding the basis of personal conditions. Explanation models for choosing modes of transport include infrastructural factors (expansion of cycle paths, public transport offerings) and their perception, and objective variables such as sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors (income, education, age, etc.). As one such factor, gender has been and is often used to identify differences. The reasons why differences are evident have almost always gone unnoticed. However, it is more important than ever to

90  Ines Kawgan-Kagan et al. recognise these differences, especially when new mobility offerings such as smart mobility services and innovative technologies are emerging, to enable usage for as many people as possible.

References Ahrend, C. (2002) Mobilitätsstrategien zehnjähriger Jungen und Mädchen als Grundlage städtischer Verkehrsplanung. Münster: Waxmann. Ahrend, C., Daubitz, S., Schwedes, O., Böhme, U., and Herget, M. (2013a) Kleiner ­Begriffskanon der Mobilitätsforschung. IVP-Discussion Paper(1). Balkmar, D. (2012) On Men and Cars: An ethnographic study of gendered, risky and dangerous relations. Linköping University Electronic Press. Balkmar, D. and Mellström, U. (2018) Masculinity and autonomous vehicles. Transfers 8(1), 44–63. Bamberg, S., Rölle, D., and Weber, C. (2003) Does habitual car use not lead to more resistance to change of travel mode? Transportation 30(1), 97–108. Bauhardt, C. (1999) Bürgersteige und Straßenbahnen für die Frauen – den Männern ICE und Transrapid? In S. Collmer, P. Döge, and B. Fenner (eds), Technik, Politik, Geschlecht. Bielefeld: Kleine Verlag. Berk, L. (2011) Entwicklungspsychologie. München: Pearson Studium. Berlin-Brandenburg, A.f.S. (2017) Gender Datenreport Berlin 2016. Available at www. statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/gender/kapitel/pdf/Gender_Datenreport_2016.pdf. Berlin (2017) Rahmenlehrplan. Teil B. Fachübergreifende Kompetenzentwicklung. Available at https://bildungsserver.berlin-brandenburg.de/fileadmin/bbb/unterricht/rahmenlehrplaene/ Rahmenlehrplanprojekt/amtliche_Fassung/Teil_B_2015_11_10_WEB.pdf. BUND (2017) Mobilitätserziehung Berlin. Available at http://mobilitaetserziehung-berlin.de/. Burghardt, L. and Klenk, F.C. (2016) Geschlechterdarstellungen in Bilderbüchern-eine empirische Analyse. GENDER-Zeitschrift für Geschlecht, Kultur und Gesellschaft 8(3), 61–80. Busch-Geertsema, A. (2018) Bewusstes Entscheiden, Einstellungen und Gewohnheit in der Alltagsmobilität Mobilität von Studierenden im Übergang ins Berufsleben: Die Änderung mobilitäts-relevanter Einstellungen und der Verkehrsmittelnutzung. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, pp. 27–105. Butler, J. (2004) Undoing Gender. New York: Psychology Press. Canzler, W. and Knie, A. (1998) Möglichkeitsräume: Grundrisse einer modernen Mobilitäts- und Verkehrspolitik. Wien: Böhlau. Dierolf, T. (2005) Die Rolle des Fahrrades als Verkehrsmittel im betrieblichen Mobilitätsmanagement an Universitäten und Hochschulen Bestandsanalyse und Entwicklung einer Konzeption für die Universität Stuttgart. Stuttgart Selbstverlag. Dribe, M. and Stanfors, M. (2009) Does parenthood strengthen a traditional household division of labor? Evidence from Sweden, National Council on Family Relations. Journal of Marriage and Family 71(1), 33–45. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00578.x. Ebeling, K.S. (2006) De/Konstruktion von Geschlecht und Sexualität. In K.S. Ebeling and S. Schmitz (eds), Geschlechterforschung und Naturwissenschaften – Einführung in ein komplexes Wechselspiel. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 281–296. Ewing, R., Schroeer, W., and Greene, W. (2004) School location and student travel analysis of factors affecting mode choice. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1895, 55–63. doi: 10.3141/1895-08. FGSV (2012) Gender Mainstreaming im Verkehrswesen. Kinder als Verkehrsteilnehmende. AK 1.1.1 Gender und Mobilität. Finke, C. (2011) Verdienstunterschiede zwischen Männern und Frauen. Eine Ursachenanalyse auf der Grundlage der Verdienststrukturerhebung 2006. Wirtschaft und Statistik 1/2011, 36–48.

Gender-sensitive mobility socialisation  91 Flade, A. (2013) Der rastlose Mensch – Konzepte und Erkenntnisse der Mobilitätspsychologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Flade, A. and Lohmann, G. (2000) Einflussgrößen und Motive der Fahrradnutzung im Alltagsverkehr. Band 2: Ergebnisse der Befragung von Schülerinnen und Schülern in Ahrensburg. Retrieved from Darmstadt. Fuhrer, U. and Wölfing, S. (1997) Von den sozialen Grundlagen des Umweltbewußtseins zum verantwortlichen Umwelthandeln. Die sozialpsychologische Dimension globaler Umweltproblematik. Bern: Hans Huber. Gering, A. and Eberhardt, H. (2015) Radfahren in der Schwangerschaft und mit Baby: Hannah Eberhardt. Giesel, F. and Nobis, C. (2016) The impact of carsharing on car ownership in German cities. Transportation Research Procedia 19, 215–224. doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2016.12.082. Grigat, M. (2009) Rollenbilder in Bilderbüchern. Welche Geschlechterstereotype transportieren Bilderbücher? (BA). Hochschule Neubrandenburg. Groß, S. (1998) Mobilitätsverhalten von Jugendlichen: Empirische Untersuchung zur Verkehrsmittelwahl und ihrer Determinanten als Beitrag zur Bindung Jugendlicher an den ÖPNV in Dortmund. Diplomarbeiten Agentur diplom.de. Guliani, A., Mitra, R., Buliung, R.N., Larsen, K., and Faulkner, G.E. (2015) Genderbased differences in school travel mode choice behaviour: Examining the relationship between the neighbourhood environment and perceived traffic safety. Journal of Transport & Health 2(4), 502–511. Hagemann-White, C. (1988) Wir werden nicht zweigeschlechtlich geboren. […] In C. Hagemann-White and M. Rerrich (eds), Frauen Männer Bilder. Männer und Männlichkeit in der feministischen Diskussion. Bielefeld: AJZ-Verlag, pp. 224–235. Hirschhauer, S. (1996) Wie sind Frauen, wie sind Männer – Zweigeschlechtlichkeit als Wissenssystem. In C.e.a. Eifert (ed.), Was sind Männer? Was sind Frauen? Geschlechterkonstruktionen im historischen Wandel. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, pp. 240–256. Hurrelmann, K. and Bauer, U. (2015) Einführung in die Sozialisationstheorie. Weinheim. Basel: Beltz Studium. Kultur und Gesellschaft. Jüttemann, G. and Thomae, H. (2002) Persönlichkeit und Entwicklung. Weinheim: Beltz. Kalwitzki, K.P. (1998) Theorie und Praxis der Mobilitätspsychologie Beispiel “Das Verkehrsbüro”. Umweltpsychologie 2(2), 14–23. Kawgan-Kagan, I. (2015) Early adopters of carsharing with and without BEVs with respect to gender preferences. European Transport Research Review 7(4), 1–11. doi: 10.1007/s12544-015-0183-3. Kawgan-Kagan, I. (2017) Gendered Sustainable Urban Mobility – A gender analysis of preferences for shared e-mobility using a quantitative sociological approach. Paper presented at the Gendering Smart Mobility in the Nordic Regions, Oslo, Norway. Kawgan-Kagan, I. (2020) Are Women Greener than Men? A preference analysis of women and men from major cities in Germany over sustainable urban mobility. Manuscript submitted for publication. Khudyakova, T.L., Gridyaeva, L.N., and Klepach, Y.V. (2016) Specific features of gender identity formation in children from single-parent and nuclear families in ontogenesis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 233, 393–396. Klinger, T., Kenworthy, J.R., and Lanzendorf, M. (2013) Dimensions of urban mobility cultures – A comparison of German cities. Journal of Transport Geography 31, 18–29. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.05.002. Knoll, B., Szalai, E., Steininger, D., and Urbanek, B. (2009) Gender Gap im Verkehrsund Mobilitätsbereich, Hintergrundbericht. Retrieved from Wien. Konrad, K. (2016) Mobiler Alltag im Wandel des Geschlechterverhältnisses. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Kuper, L.E., Coleman, B.R., and Mustanski, B.S. (2014) Coping with LGBT and racial– ethnic-related stressors: A mixed methods study of LGBT youth of color. Journal of Research on Adolescence 24(4), 703–719.

92  Ines Kawgan-Kagan et al. Law, R. (1999) Beyond ‘women and transport’: Towards new geographies of gender and daily mobility. Progress in Human Geography 23(4), 567–588. Leve, L.D. and Fagot, B.I. (1997) Gender-role socialization and discipline processes in one- and two-parent families. Sex Roles 36(1–2), 1–21. Limbourg, M., Flade, A., and Schönharting, J. (2000) Mobilität im Kindes- und Jugendalter: Leske + Budrich. McDonald, N. (2008) Children’s mode choice for the school trip: The role of distance and school location in walking to school. Transportation 35(1), 23–35. doi: 10.1007/ s11116-007-9135-7. McNamara, T.P. (1986) Mental representations of spatial relations. Cognitive Psychology 18(1), 87–121. Mitra, R. and Buliung, R.N. (2015) Exploring differences in school travel mode choice behaviour between children and youth. Transport Policy 42, 4–11. Mobilität in Städten – SrV 2008: Sample Berlin. Analysis by TU Dresden/VIP (2008) Retrieved from Berlin. Müggenburg, H. and Lanzendorf, M. (2015) Beruf und Mobilität – eine intergenerationale Untersuchung zum Einfluss beruflicher Lebensereignisse auf das Verkehrshandeln Räumliche Mobilität und Lebenslauf. Munich: Springer, pp. 79–95. Niederbacher, A. and Zimmermann, P. (2011) Grundwissen Sozialisation. Dortmund: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften GmbH. Richter, B. (2005) Ökologisch verantwortliches Mobilitätsverhalten als pädagogisches Ziel: Muss die gängige Verkehrserziehung erweitert werden? Berlin: Tenea Verlag. Rohrmann, T. (2009) Gender in Kindertageseinrichtungen – Ein Überblick über den Forschungsstand. Retrieved from München. Rohrmann, T. (2010) Starke Mädchen – starke Jungen! Geschlechterbewusste Pädagogik als Schlüssel für Bildungsprozesse in der Kita – Ausgabe Berlin-Brandenburg. Retrieved from Berlin and Denkte. Ryan, M.K. and Branscombe, N.R. (2013) The SAGE Handbook of Gender and Psychology. London: Sage. Scharff, V. (1992) Taking the Wheel: Women and the coming of the motor age. UNM Press. Scheiner, J. and Holz-Rau, C. (2012) Gendered travel mode choice: A focus on car deficient households. Journal of Transport Geography 24, 250–261. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.02.011. Scheiner, J. and Holz-Rau, C. (2017) Women’s complex daily lives: A gendered look at trip chaining and activity pattern entropy in Germany. Transportation 44(1), 117–138. Schlag, B. and Schade, J. (2007) Psychologie des Mobilitätsverhaltens. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 29–30/2007, 27–32. Schneebaum, A. and Mader, K. (2013) The gendered nature of intra-household decision making in and across Europe. In W.V.U.o.E.a. Business (ed.), Department of Economics Working Paper Series (Vol. 157). Vienna. Scott, J.W. (1986) Gender: Eine nützliche Kategorie in der historischen Analyse. American Historical Review 91(5), 1053–1075. Sharmeen, F., Arentze, T., and Timmermans, H. (2014) An analysis of the dynamics of activity and travel needs in response to social network evolution and life-cycle events: A structural equation model. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 59, 159–171. Stark, J., Bartana, I.B., Fritz, A., Unbehaun, W., and Hössinger, R. (2018) The influence of external factors on children’s travel mode: A comparison of school trips and nonschool trips. Journal of Transport Geography 68, 55–66. Stiewe, M. and Krause, L. (2012) Geschlechterverhältnisse und Mobilität – Welchen Beitrag leisten Mobilitätserhebungen? Schwechat. Taubmann, V.K.u. (2014) Verkehrsentwicklungsplan Pirna 2030. Tolman, E.C. (1948) Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review 55(4), 189. Tully, C. (1999) Erziehung zur Mobilität: Jugendliche in der automobilen Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

Gender-sensitive mobility socialisation  93 Tully, C. and Baier, D. (2011) Mobilitätssozialisation. In O. Schwedes (ed.), Verkehrspolitik. Eine interdisziplinäre Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 195–211. Weber, J. and Kröger, F. (2018) Introduction: Autonomous driving and the transformation of car cultures. Transfers, Interdisciplinary Journal of Mobility Studies 8(1), 15–23. doi: 10.3167/trans.2018.080103. Wetterer, A. (2003) Rethorische Modernisierung – Vom Verschwinden der Ungleichheit aus dem zeitgenössischen Differenzwissen. In G. Knapp and A. Wetterer (eds), Achsen der Differenz – Gesellschaftstheorie und feministische Kritik 2. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot. Zu Fuß zur Schule (2015) Available at www.fuss-ev.de/projekte/21-projekte/projekte/31zu-fuss-zur-schule.html.

6 Smart cities, smart mobilities, and children Tanja Joelsson

Introduction In public debate, and among researchers (e.g. in urban planning and transport), the smart city has evolved as a welcome light in the dawning apocalypse of unsustainable urban environments. In a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of smart city research, De Jong et al. (2015: 36, emphasis in original) find that: the ‘smart city’ stands out as a new set of concepts, in which social inclusion and the role of the internet for the creation of new businesses and jobs, for the provision of high quality services and for the empowerment of citizens with information, are prominent features. Information and communication technologies (ICT) and digitalisation have been put forward as the future for urban life and environments. What ‘smart’ entails is fluid, open, multifaceted and contested (De Jong et al. 2015; Albino et al. 2015; Deakin 2014), but ‘optimization of data management to improve urban services’ (Geoffron 2017: 87) is perceived as one commonality for smart cities. ICTs are in the smart city context used either as a means to achieve other ends or perceived as a question of infrastructure (Granath 2016). When it comes to transport and mobilities, densification of the urban milieu together with intelligent and energy-efficient transport solutions are vital factors for moving into the smart era, enabled by new entanglements between technologies, materials, and bodies (such as shared fleets, autonomous and electric vehicles, etc., managed by smart technologies). Transport and mobilities are central in and for the smart city, since transport emissions make up one-third of the national Co2 emissions in Sweden (SOU 2008/09:93) and a quarter in Europe (WHO-OECD 2015). Geoffron (2017: 97) argues that the smart city ‘constitutes a potentially disruptive challenge’, since it questions automobile practices as well as diversifies economic models and opens up for competition from other stakeholders from the trades and industry. In this disruptive space, then, a potential for the reformulation of subjects in public space can take place, making (new) practices possible, and also visible, of social groups such as children which during past decades are said to have made ‘a retreat from the street’ (Valentine 2004: ch. 5). Such reimaginings can also contribute to a

Smart cities, smart mobilities, and children  95 reconfiguration of public space, offering more equal or just access to the city by promoting sustainable, social and ecological, everyday mobility practices. Identifying the creativity and playfulness of children’s everyday mobility practices might provide such novel ‘disruptive’ frameworks and tools for both the understanding and analyses of smart cities and sustainable urbanisms. Research carried out in Euro-American cities shows how the spatial range of children’s adult-unaccompanied mobility has been steadily decreasing (Fyhri et al. 2011; Shaw et al. 2015), although some researchers question the compatibility of the studies carried out (Bhosale 2015; Bhosale et al. 2017), and question the notion of ‘independence’ as a guiding principle in researching children’s everyday mobility (e.g. Mikkelsen and Christensen 2009). Notwithstanding, in Sweden, for instance, the amount of cycling children has halved since the 1980s and the amount of cycling children aged 7 to 14 years has decreased from 24 per cent to 15 per cent (Niska et al. 2017). Other research, including my own, shows how shifts in children’s mobility are taking place due to cultural, social, spatial, and economic changes in society. These shifts can be related to an increased institutionalisation of childhood (Zeiher 2009), in part due to planning processes, infrastructure, and the built environment (and thus policy, politics, and planning practices; Joelsson 2019a), in part due to parents’ heightened risk awareness owing to automobility and perceptions of social dangers (cf. Valentine 2004, but see also Joelsson 2019b). In this chapter I wish to direct attention to the smart city, smart mobilities, and urban children by summoning the call for more empirical studies on children’s everyday (mobility) practices in the light of sustainable urbanism (Christensen et al. 2018; cf. Kitchin 2015). I will illustrate, via the findings from an ethnographic research project on children’s mobility in Uppsala, Sweden, how middle-class children and their parents are engaging in practices that could be seen as ‘smart’. Furthermore, by drawing upon the notion of ‘transitional space’ as used by Kullman (2010), I argue that understanding mobility, and particularly children’s mobility, benefits from being conceptualised as an assemblage. Mobility is hence composed of human and non-human relations, of technologies and material objects, thus producing space and subjectivities (Lefebvre 1991; Massey 1994). Conceptualising children’s mobilities as an assemblage is a fruitful way of approaching sustainable urbanism and smart cities, by providing a bottom-up approach where children’s (creative) practices take centre stage. Before I embark on this project, a few words on the research setting and methods used are necessary, followed by a review of previous research on children’s everyday mobilities, and on smart cities and feminist critiques of smart cities. Research setting and methods Uppsala municipality is located in the mid-east of Sweden, with a population of c. 215,000 inhabitants, which makes it the fourth largest municipality in Sweden (Statistics Sweden 2016). Around 21 per cent of the municipality’s population comprises children under 18 years old (Uppsala Municipality Facts 2017).

96  Tanja Joelsson Uppsala is one of the fastest-growing regions in Sweden and has a population density of 98 inhabitants per square kilometre (national average (NA) 24.5; Statistics Sweden 2016). Uppsala is the county town of Uppsala County, and hosts the oldest university in the Nordic region (which is the third largest employer in the municipality). Uppsala County borders five other counties, among them Stockholm County. Compared to the national average, the unemployment rate is lower (4%; NA 6%), and the majority of the population has upper secondary education (35%; NA 43%) or higher education (55%; NA 45%).1 Like many Swedish cities, Uppsala is planned for motorised mobility, and struggles with how to transition from this car-based built environment to more sustainable modes of transport. Compactness characterises the city, since building vertically constitutes the dominant mode with which urban planning tackles housing shortages. In the local sustainability objectives, the municipality is to be fossil-free by 2030 and by 2050 the climate impact positive. In relation to transport and travel, the municipality strives to have a fossil-free vehicle fleet, purchase climate neutral transports and work vehicles, as well as aim for 70 per cent of travel on foot, by bicycle, or public transport (Uppsala Municipality 2014/2015). In an annual SHIFT ranking2 carried out in Sweden, Uppsala is one of the eighth best of approximately 300 municipalities on work with sustainable transport, and was also awarded an honorary award for its work with improving the conditions for cycling in 2018 (Trivector 2018). The municipality’s goal is hence to become and be a smart city (Uppsala Municipality 2014/2015).3 In this chapter, some findings from a two-year ethnographic research project on children’s mobility in Uppsala, Sweden are discussed, with particular attention to the notion of the smart city. Fifty-nine predominantly middle-class children (34 girls and 25 boys) were involved in research tasks that included mobility diaries, go-alongs or walking interviews, photography, mapping exercises, and formal interviews. The children were between 7 and 13 years old. In addition, 33 parents were interviewed about their children’s mobility (Joelsson 2019b). A policy analysis of regional and municipal transport policies in Uppsala, Sweden was also conducted (Joelsson 2019a). Of the interviewed families, 22 live in singlefamily housing areas, 3 in mixed housing areas, and 8 in high-rise areas. The ­children’s neighbourhoods are in different stages of densifying processes. The vast majority of the households own at least one car, and most of the parents hold a driver’s licence. Most of the children have a mobile phone. In this chapter I will discuss some of the key findings, which are separately discussed elsewhere (see Joelsson 2019a, 2019b), in relation to ‘smart cities’ or ‘sustainable urbanism’ (Christensen et al. 2018). For more detailed discussions on methodology and methods, see Joelsson 2019a, 2019b.

Smart cities, mobilities, and children In the early 1990s, the term smart city was coined in urban planning by Batty (1990) and Laterasse (1992). Recently, the scholarly interest in smart cities has exploded and the topic has been studied from technological perspectives, within urban planning,

Smart cities, smart mobilities, and children  97 geography, and in research on transport and mobilities (see e.g. Deakin 2014; Picon 2015; Araya 2015; Song et al. 2017). The smart city is seen as a way to tackle the pressing climate challenges urban cities face through a ‘combination of technical progress in buildings and energy, making it possible to design positive energy buildings […] and connect them together in ecodistricts, that makes it possible to draw up new urban landscapes’ (Geoffron 2017: 91). Informed by feminist work on smart cities, this chapter may be seen as an attempt to discuss issues of power, equality, and marginalised or subjugated groups such as children, together with the smart city. Rose (2018: 108) argues that ‘smart cities are mostly explained, designed and led by men and may thus focus on what are constituted as masculine concerns’, making it pivotal to discuss the gendering of smart cities. One effect of the masculinism inherent in the discourse of the smart city is the disinterest in domestic spaces, i.e. in the reproductive everyday life constituting the social fabric (cf. Jarvis et al. 2001). Moreover, the ‘technological solutionism’ (Rose 2018: 108) imbued in the smart city discourse echoes a functionalist planning paradigm, also prevalent in, for instance, mainstream transport planning (Lindkvist Scholten and Joelsson 2019). In visual representations of the smart city, women, children, or other non-normative groups are absent (Rose 2018), making it necessary to analyse processes related to inequalities linked, for instance, to gender, age, ethnicity, and class, and their intersections. Childhood and children are rarely mentioned in the mainstream research on smart cities, despite the fact that 40 per cent of the global child population live in cities (UNICEF 2012). Sergeyeva and Laktukhina (2016) discuss the child in a smart city in a review article, focusing predominantly on ICTs and digital technologies. They point out that children and young people are both users of ICTs and smart technologies but can also be targets, for instance, when parents monitor their children’s whereabouts through digital technologies. The increasing surveillance and control is not specific to children, but rather an effect of the global digitalisation trend. Sergeyeva and Laktukhina (2016: 32) call for more research on what they term ‘children’s smart mobility’, which I interpret as a call for more situated analyses of children and their mobilities in smart urban environments. Kitchin (2015) goes further in the critique of the smart city concept, pointing to the scholarly lack of detailed, in-depth empirical studies from different locations with different conditions, thus illuminating ‘the discursive and material realities of actually existing smart city developments’ (Kitchin 2015: 134). As is briefly mentioned above, this would entail a more fluid and flexible take on technologies, material objects, and various relationships with humans and non-humans, as well as with the surrounding environment. Christensen et al. (2018) provide such situated accounts, but conceptualise what in other fields are termed smart, as ‘sustainable urbanism’. Rather than focusing on the planning visions of the sustainable community, their detailed empirical work is devoted to how children living in and with actually existing ‘built-in sustainable urban architectures and radical technologies’ understand and interact with their environment (Christensen et al. 2018: 3). Christensen et al. (2018: 178) argue that children’s ‘experiences, emotions, mobilities, play and political agency’ are a source of knowledge for planners and policy makers, but are also crucial to take into account when developing sustainable urban spaces. In the text, then,

98  Tanja Joelsson everyday life is understood to produce the social and the spatial, and children’s everyday (mobile) practices are in this sense part of constructing public space, despite the discursive framing of children and childhood as belonging to the private sphere. Here, the particular focus is on the creativity and playfulness of children’s everyday mobility practices, and how these can provide us with ‘disruptive’ frameworks and tools necessary to work towards sustainable urbanisms. Urban densification is generally perceived as positive in the smart city literature. Compact urban environments provide ample settings for experimenting with new mobilities, since the extent of urban sprawl is central for determining sustainable potential: Urban compactness is one of the main conditions when deploying sustainable systems, since it helps reduce journey distances and allows investment in high-capacity public transport, while facilitating journeys by foot and bicycle (OECD 2010). (Geoffron 2017: 92) The stress on active transport indicates that children’s mobility would at a first glance benefit from ‘smarting’ the compact city. However, some researchers have found that compactness has the opposite effect, leading to an increase in motorised traffic and a decrease in green spaces (Björklid and Nordström 2007). In turn, children’s unsupervised outdoor play decreases as streets are deemed unfit as play spaces by (urban middle-class) parents (e.g. Prezza et al. 2005; Fyhri et al. 2011). In contrast, Karsten and Felder (2015) explore how urban families, parents and children, consume the city through family outings, arguing that urban environments provide leisure activities other other than unsupervised outdoor play. Shifting residential patterns where middle-class families to a larger extent remain in urban environments (Boterman et al. 2010) may implicate shifting ideals and concepts, as well as practices, of middle-class parenting and childrearing in urban Europe and North America (cf. Holloway and Pimlott-Wilson 2014; Laureau 2003). This again suggests that more children are brought up in urban areas, using and transforming urban space in their everyday lives, albeit in ambivalent ways. Karsten and Felder (2015) hold that private age-specific domains have grown in number, and pubs and restaurants have been turned into family spaces (Karsten et al. 2015). These new children’s domains can be considered the result of both the emancipation of children (they are recognized as little consumers) and the ignorance of children, who are denied access to the ordinary space of the street. (Karsten and Felder 2015: 206) In another study on Dutch urban children, Karsten and Felder (2016) find that children use private gardens, balconies, pavements, courtyards, and other places in the city as play space, which illustrates how children use their local environment for play regardless of the design of the surrounding environment. Similarly, Van der Burgt and Gustafson (2013) show how children living in compact urban environments

Smart cities, smart mobilities, and children  99 both adjust to and resist the spatial conditions as well as the time-spatial organisation of daily life. Children’s mobilities have been investigated within transportation research (see Shaw et al. 2015), transdisciplinary research on mobilities (e.g. Bhosale 2015), and research concerning the social and cultural geographies of childhood (see e.g. Barker et al. 2009; Mikkelsen and Christensen 2009; cf. Valentine 2004). In this vast body of work on mobilities, there is increasing devotion to children’s use of mobile technologies (e.g. Mikkelsen and Christensen 2009; Prout 2005; Williams and Williams 2005; cf. Fotel and Thomsen 2004), as well as children’s use of and interaction with everyday technologies (Cortés-Morales and Christensen 2014; Christensen et al. 2018). The concept of ‘transitional space’ (Kullman 2010) serves as a nodal point for understanding the emergence of mobile children. Kullman (2010: 830) suggests that transitional space invites more situated analyses of how children become mobile in engaging with their surroundings. The concept refers to ‘an adaptive web of materials and bodies, such as buses, cars, parents and mobile phones – all contributing to a simultaneous sense of trust and playfulness that invites families to resolve ambiguities of growing up in situated ways” (Kullman 2010: 830). Christensen et al. (2018: 190) likewise suggest that sustainable urbanism can be fruitfully analysed as ‘assemblages of more-than-human materialities’. Stressing the interdependency of children’s mobilities (Nansen et al. 2015), children’s experiences and practices in relation to mobility are shaped and mediated by a network of actors (Mikkelsen and Christensen 2009). Childhood is in this sense understood as a hybrid consisting of the social, technological and biological (Prout 2005). Children are embodied ‘nodes of material connections to places near and far’ (Ansell 2009: 199), suggesting that children are not only affected by and affect their immediate environments but also impact upon spaces of which they are both unaware and absent from (such as political decision-making arenas). Children are constituted as subjects through their everyday mobile practices, and simultaneously produce space (Lefebvre 1991; cf. Kullman 2010). I would argue that a focus on the creativity and playfulness in children’s everyday mobility practices provides a fruitful way to further our understanding of both children’s mobilities and social and ecological sustainability, if this is carried out within a situated manner where the diverse and varied contexts of children’s mobilities are recognised. Focusing on playfulness and creativity is not antithetical to acknowledging conditions that restrict and hinder children’s mobilities on different levels; rather they are mutually constituting and interdependent.

Mobile technologies and techno-mobilities: children and their parents in the smart city In this section I will discuss some of the findings from the ethnographic research project on children’s mobilities. The project did not specifically focus on digital technologies, but the use of mobile phones for mobility purposes were nevertheless striking. Many children mentioned that they received a mobile phone when they

100  Tanja Joelsson also expressed a desire to expand their spatial range of movement. This was sometimes framed as a precondition from the parents’ side, and some children were well aware that the mobile phone calmed parents’ worries and anxieties. Some parents mentioned that they tracked their children’s whereabouts with the help of their mobile phones (cf. Fotel and Thomsen 2004), but more often the mobile phone was just present in negotiations of children’s everyday mobility (Barker 2003). Kullman refers to the ‘collective work needed to test and maintain […] attachments [between children and public spaces] and the various agencies they enable’ (Kullman 2010: 831), a process wherein both people and material objects are participating. Mobile phones, digital and non-digital technologies are in this sense integrated into children’s everyday lives and shape their mobilities in various and creative ways (cf. Cortés-Morales and Christensen 2014). Let us consider Ellie4 and Måns. Ellie is 12 years old, and her mother talks at length about how the presence of digital technologies in her daughter’s life affects Ellie’s spatial mobility: I hope it has become clear that she [Ellie] has her social life at Star Stables, Skype, the mobile phone. […] Amazing really, that that opportunity exists, but it may be that she doesn’t look for other types of activities because of that. She has her music class, but then you don’t hang out more than for that particular moment. And if social media hadn’t existed she might have been mobile in a completely different way and had the motivation to do it, but now I think she finds it okay to walk home for twenty–thirty minutes, take care of her life here [home, online] and then sometimes make up a plan for socializing outside the home. Ellie’s mother’s account of her daughter’s mobility practices may cast Ellie as a typical middle-class child whose mobility is bound up with the time–spatial organisation of her daily life. Ellie describes how she cycles and walks on a daily basis between home and school, as well as to leisure activities, but she also rides the train and bus to friends’ houses. She particularly enjoys walking, she tells me: ‘sometimes I ask my dad to come and meet me [after my Italian class], so we can walk home together’ (cf. Horton et al. 2014). As with many of the research participants, the social dimensions of mobility are heavily stressed. For Ellie, spending mobile time with her father was as important as about feeling safe and secure when walking home after her Italian class. Accompaniment, by any mode of transport, has been seen mainly as a way to protect the child (risk management), but is also about ‘doing family’ (Van der Burgt and Gustafson 2013; cf. Morgan 2011; Holdsworth 2013) and a reproduction of engaged child– parent relations (Finch 2007; Forsberg 2009). Elsewhere, I have argued that the affective practices that parents and children engage in, in their everyday negotiations around children’s mobilities, can be seen as different ways of promoting and supporting children’s spatial range and mobile exploration, rather than merely as risk-management practices with the purpose of restricting their children’s mobility (Joelsson 2019b; cf. Horton et al. 2014).

Smart cities, smart mobilities, and children  101 From a more general point of view, the child research participants are affected by ‘a mobility system which privileges those who can access a private vehicle and can afford to use it’ (Mullen and Marsden 2016: 113). The children in my project are from middle-class households and all of them had access to one or several cars through their families, which also made it possible for some of them to express accessibility to cars by talking about the possibility of being chauffeured if the weather was too bad (signalling choice), or how the spaceness of the car entailed comfort, contemplation, silence, and calmness (signalling preference). Walking as a recreational activity may also be seen as an effect of how choice is exercised among some of the research participants (cf. Horton et al. 2014). To be able to socialise with parents when walking home from leisure activities, school, or when taking a Sunday stroll is of course also dependent on having parents who are able to accompany a child, which in turn might relate to a more flexible work situation associated with higher education and a more stable economic situation. Furthermore, the fact that many of my research participants found being chauffeured as associated with comfort and with being able to have some moments of peace and quietness also illustrates how the car is not only perceived in line with the structural story of the car as linked to autonomy and freedom identified by Freudendal-Pedersen (2009) but may also be regarded as a recreational space for children (cf. Barker 2006) or a space for socialising with friends, siblings, and parents or other adults (Barker 2003). Another variety of accompaniment is the virtual kind. Måns, 11 years old, enjoys company on his way to school and prefers the company of his closest friends. However, Måns has made it clear through various strategies that he does not need his parents to accompany him physically to school. His mother recalls: MOTHER:  [H]e

called me when he was walking home alone because he wanted the company. TANJA:  Over the phone. MOTHER:  Yes, someone to talk to. And it’s not about him being scared or insecure, but because it’s boring to walk alone. So, being accompanied by virtual means is another creative way of keeping close contact and avoiding boredom. These examples show how digital technologies are entrenched in children’s mobilities and lives, and help shape the ways children are being mobile. The social work carried out between children and their parents in order to promote children’s spatial mobility on their own is sometimes accomplished through the mobile phone (cf. Kullman 2010; Fotel and Thomsen 2004; Williams and Williams 2005). So, although some parents considered social media as changing the landscape for peer socialising in the neighbourhood, building social relations with peers or parents while being mobile was very common. The child–parent–­ technology–environment entanglement can in some sense be categorised as smart if the intelligent dimension is thought of as being creative. One part of smart cities is that ‘the distinction between service suppliers and consumers is less clear’, which ‘calls for increasing investment from users, who need to be more closely involved

102  Tanja Joelsson with managing new services offered to them’ (Geoffron 2017: 91). The top-down approach might instead be reformulated to encompass a more dialogic and powerdispersed approach, a ‘democratic ecology’ where the smart city ‘might be better conceived of as living habitats capable of adapting to the emergent needs of citizens and residents’ (Araya 2015: 1). That is, socio-technological innovators tend to use ‘the street’ as inspiration for innovations, being inspired by how people use technologies in new settings and in new ways. Children’s playful and innovative use of space and diverse vehicles and technologies is of course part of this (Christensen et al. 2018). Magda, 10 years old, is one of the many children in my research who use a kick-bike for getting to and from school. When I accompanied Magda on her way to school one autumn morning, the Magda/kick-bike hybrid emerged: Magda jumps on the kick-bike and sets off on high speed and I barely have time to stutter that she can show me the way she usually takes to school. I cry out a little apologetically that I may not be as fast as her, thinking of how my poor middle-aged legs will feel sore tomorrow. Magda navigates skillfully between cyclists and pedestrians on the narrow pedestrian and bicycle lane along the road to school. I feel a little out of place on my kickbike, and start to ponder about the traffic rules for a kick-bike: am I a pedestrian or a cyclist? Magda does not seem to care about it, but solves it by moving exactly on the white line separating the pedestrian field from the bicycle field. Magda is fast, so I cannot talk to her while kicking. When we reach the crossing at the busy road, she stops, quickly walks over bike field without looking behind, and presses the button to the traffic lights. The kick-bike/Magda hybrid enhances the self-directed movement of the human body by adding speed. The size of the kick-bike makes it easier to manoeuvre and the physical closeness to the asphalt shape a tangible relation between Magda’s legs and feet, the ground, and the board on the kick-bike. Due to school recommendations around cycling,5 the kick-bike was used by many children to get to and back from school. Children preferred the kick-bike instead of walking due to its speed potential and for being a fun vehicle, while parents perceived the kick-bike to be a safer mode of transport than bicycles. The use of the kick-bike in Magda’s case was the result of a negotiation in her family as well as part of the preceding spatial training to be mobile that had taken place years before (Joelsson 2019b; cf. Kullman 2010) the particular accompaniment illustrated in the field note above. On a more anecdotal note, and aside from the now common e-bikes, the use of Segways and hoover boards seems to have attracted businessmen as well as pre-teens, while the expanding range of specific electric/non-electric skateboards appeal to teenagers of both genders and to middle-aged men. Toddlers run around on balance bikes and somewhat older children manoeuvre (non-electric) kick-bikes, claiming space and simultaneously testing bodily, social, and spatial boundaries. The repertoire of expansions of human bodies takes up contemporary urban space, making up a huge potential for the smart city. Understanding how such practices can be accommodated in age-friendly manners

Smart cities, smart mobilities, and children  103 (cf. Murray 2015) requires recognition of how diverse technologies and digitalisation, infrastructure, and the built environment interact with social groups differently. They can be, however, used creatively by groups which were not the intended users, and are as such reshaping public space in playful ways.

Paving the way for children’s creative and playful everyday mobilities as doing sustainable urbanism In line with current research within the ‘new mobilities’ paradigm, the acknowledgement of the fundamental impact and significance of mobilities for society and social life (Freudendal-Pedersen 2009; Urry 2007) identifies the impact systems of mobilities have upon individuals of all genders (Priya Uteng and Cresswell 2008), young as well as old (Holdsworth 2013). Addressing ­children as a social group, and age and generation as forceful power orders, in analyses of transport and mobility can challenge ideas, concepts, and practices which can help in a transition towards more equal and sustainable transport and mobility systems, and by extension, societies (Joelsson 2019a). In this chapter, some findings from an ethnographic project on children’s mobilities in Uppsala, Sweden have been presented. In line with recent calls for more in-depth empirical work on the everyday lives of inhabitants in smart cities, I have argued that children’s creative and playful everyday mobility practices can inform analyses of sustainable urbanisms, as well as provide tools for policy makers and planners struggling with pressing climate concerns. A shift away from top-down functionalist planning paradigms and technological solutionism towards the everyday lives and everyday practices of the urban population will enable a more democratic approach to understanding and thus further support liveable and resilient cities. Indeed, children’s creative and playful everyday mobilities may be regarded as a way of doing sustainable urbanism in the present. From one perspective, then, children’s mobilities could be argued to be sustainable already, given the predominance of non-motorised transport modes in this group (see also Polk (1998, 2003) for an equivalent discussion on women and car use). Children’s practices are a good example for all others to follow. But perceiving children in the present as sustainable subjects per se is problematic for the reasons mentioned above. Furthermore, by assuming a causal ‘natural’ connection between children as sustainable, children are cast as a-political subjects, disconnected from the political sphere and decision-making arenas. As indicated, ‘children’ do not constitute a homogeneous group but are positioned differently according to social power structures, rendering them different possibilities and conditions. Some are, and may be in the future, more privileged and able to make choices affecting the environment more or less depending on the lens of evaluation. The need to perceive the social and the ecological dimensions in sustainability as intertwined is here evident (Jarvis et al. 2001; Christensen et al. 2018). It is likewise important to acknowledge how ecological sustainability can stand in contrast to pursuits for social sustainability and equality (Rømer Christensen 2019). De Jong et al. (2015) find that while the smart city may be able to provide some tools for the ecological

104  Tanja Joelsson sustainability of urban environments, the effects on social equality are less straightforward. To circumvent and balance this preponderance of ecological sustainability, some researchers have strived to develop a more inclusive notion of the smart city (Townsend 2013) or highlight urban residents’ agency and collaborative decision making (Araya 2015). Here, focusing on children’s creative and playful everyday mobility practices, provides one opening for addressing social as well as ecological dimensions of sustainable urbanisms. Another contribution of the chapter has been to propose a more dynamic and flexible understanding of children’s everyday mobility by a theoretical development of the concept of mobility. I have suggested, in line with many others, that children’s mobilities can be conceptualised as an assemblage. Parts of the ethnographic findings show how children’s (understanding of) mobility is more diverse and complex than movement between different locations, and that children’s mobility, perhaps to a greater extent than many other social groups, is interdependent (Nansen et al. 2015), social, and in becoming (Kullman 2010). To study how children actually get around and how they reason around their mobility in relation to structural and social conditions is therefore highlighting children as socio-spatial agents (James and James 2004), where they also interpret and reproduce society at the same time (cf. Kullman 2010). Children build spatial and social relations through mobile practices which are not captured in how transport and mobility is understood in transport politics or policies (Doughty and Murray 2016). Understanding children’s everyday mobilities as an assemblage opens up both the dynamic nature and the fluidity of children’s ways of being mobile, as well as enabling children’s mobility to mean different things depending on historical, cultural, and social contexts. It further enables analysing different relations: to human as well as to non-human subjects; and to materiality in general. To focus on the transitional space when analysing children’s mobility is then one way of contributing to the call which Kitchin (2015) makes for more situated ethnographic accounts on smart cities, in this case how children practise mobility in the smart city Uppsala in Sweden. In light of the chapter’s contribution, it is easy to suggest that more empirical work needs to be done specifically on and with children in the smart cities across the world. It is of particular interest to investigate the diversity of children as a social group: children with different socioeconomic conditions, of different ages and genders, living in urban as well as peri-urban and sub-urban environments. It is moreover imperative to remain wary of the use of the concept the smart city, and to critically engage with it empirically and theoretically in relation to children as urban citizens.

Notes 1 Commuting to Stockholm County makes up a significant proportion of the labour-force mobility (15,800 individuals commuting from Uppsala compared to 6,229 commuting from Stockholm County to Uppsala). In comparison, 10.573 individuals commute to other municipalities within Uppsala County, whereas 3,464 individuals from Uppsala commute to other municipalities within the county). See www.uppsala.se/contentassets/ f09f9e6b994f41408c66064a2da8470b/statistisk-folder_sv.pdf.

Smart cities, smart mobilities, and children  105 2 SHIFT is a European benchmarking tool measuring sustainable urban transport, built on EcoMobilitySHIFT. 3 As pointed out in the research review, the definition of a smart city is disputed. The aim of this chapter is not to evaluate whether or not Uppsala is a smart city but to discuss how children’s mobilities can be related to the smart city. 4 All the research participants carry fictional names to ensure anonymity. 5 Many schools held recommendations where cycling to school unaccompanied by an adult was encouraged from Year 5.

References Albino, V, Berardi, U., and Dangelico, R.M. (2015) Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology 22(1), 3–21. Ansell, N. (2009) Childhood and the politics of scale: ‘Descaling’ children’s geographies? Progress in Human Geography 33(2), 190–209. Araya, D. (2015) Smart Cities as Democratic Ecologies. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Barker, J. (2003) Passengers or political actors? Children’s participation in transport policy and the micro political geographies of the family. Space and Polity 7(2), 135–151. Barker, J. (2006) ‘Are We There Yet?’: Exploring aspects of automobility in children’s lives. PhD thesis, Brunel University, UK. Barker, J., Kraftl, P., Horton, J., and Tucker, F. (2009) The road less travelled – New directions in children’s and young people’s mobility. Mobilities 48(1), 1–10. Batty, M. (1990) Intelligent cities: Using information networks to gain competitive advantage. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 17(3), 247–256. Bhosale, J. (2015) Understanding Children’s Independent Mobility. PhD thesis, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. Bhosale, J., Duncan, S., Stewart, T., Chaix, B., Kestens, Y., and Schofield, G. (2017) Measuring children’s independent mobility: Comparing interactive mapping with destination access and licence to roam. Children’s Geographies 15(6), 678–689. Björklid, P. and Nordström, M. (2007) Environmental child-friendliness: Collaboration and future research. Children, Youth and Environments 17(4), 388–401. Boterman, W., Karsten, L., and Musterd, S. (2010) Gentrifiers settling down? Patterns and trends of residential location of middle-class families in Amsterdam. Housing Studies 25(5), 693–714. Christensen, P., Hadfield-Hill, S., Horton, J., and Kraftl, P. (2018) Children Living in Sustainable Built Environments. New urbanisms, new citizens. London and New York: Routledge. Cortés-Morales, S. and Christensen, P. (2014) Unfolding the pushchair. Children’s mobilities and everyday technologies. Research on Education and Media 6(2), 9–18. Deakin, M. (2014) Smart Cities: Governing, modelling and analysing the transition. London and New York: Routledge. De Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C., and Weijnen, M. (2015) Sustainable-smart-­ resilient-low carbon-eco-knowledge cities; Making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. Journal of Cleaner Production 109, 25–38. Doughty, K. and Murray, L. (2016) Discourses of mobility: Institutions, everyday lives and embodiment. Mobilities 11(2), 303–322. Finch, J. (2007) Displaying families. Sociology 4(1), 65–81. Forsberg, L. (2009) Involved Parenthood. Everyday lives of Swedish middle-class families. PhD thesis, Linköping University, Sweden. Fotel, T. and Thomsen, T.U. (2004) The surveillance of children’s mobility. Surveillance and Society 4, 535–554. Freudendal-Pedersen, M. (2009) Mobility in Daily Life. Between freedom and unfreedom. Aldershot: Ashgate.

106  Tanja Joelsson Fyhri, A., Hjorthol, R., Macket, R.L., Fotel, T.N., and Kyttä, M. (2011) Children’s active travel and independent mobility in four countries: Development, social contributing trend and measures. Transport Policy 18, 703–710. Geoffron, P. (2017) Smart cities and smart mobilities. In D. Attias (ed.), The Automobile Revolution. New York: Springer International Publishing, pp. 87–98. Granath, M. (2016) Den smarta staden – hur smart kan den bli? Digitaliseringsdiskurser i policy och planering av stadsutveckling [The Smart City – how smart can ‘IT’ be? Discourses on digitalisation in policy and planning of urban development]. PhD thesis, Linköping University, Sweden. Holdsworth, C. (2013) Family and Intimate Mobilities. Basingstoke and New York: ­Palgrave Macmillan. Holloway, S.L. and Pimlott-Wilson, H. (2014) Enriching children, institutionalizing childhood? Geographies of play, extracurricular activities, and parenting in England. Annals of the Asssociation of American Geographers 104(3), 613–627. Horton, J., Christensen, P., Kraftl, P., and Hadfield-Hill, S. (2014) ‘Walking […] just walking’: how children and young people’s everyday pedestrian practices matter. Social and Cultural Geography 15(1), 94–115. James, A. and James, A.L. (2004) Constructing Childhood: Theory, policy and social practice. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Jarvis, H., Pratt, A.C., and Cheng-Chong, Wu P. (2001) The Secret Life of Cities. The social reproduction of everyday life. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Joelsson, T. (2019a) Hypermobile, sustainable or safe? Imagined childhoods in the neoliberal transport system. In T. Joelsson and C. Lindkvist Scholten (eds), Integrating Gender into Transport Planning – From one to many tracks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Joelsson, T. (2019b) ‘So that we don’t spoil them’: Understanding children’s everyday mobility through parents’ affective practices. Children’s Geographies (published online 20 February 2019). Available at www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/147332 85.2019.1582752. Karsten, L. and Felder, N. (2015) Parents and children consuming the city: Geographies of family outings across class. Annals of Leisure Research 18(2), 205–218. Karsten, L. and Felder, N. (2016) De nieuwe generatie stadskinderen. Ruimte maken voor opgroeien. Rotterdam: nai010 uitgevers. Karsten, L, Kamphuis, A., and Remeijnse, C. (2015) ‘Time-out’ with the family: The shaping of family leisure in the new urban consumption spaces of cafes, bars and restaurants. Leisure Studies 34(2), 166–181. Kitchin, R. (2015) Making sense of smart cities: Addressing present shortcomings. Cambridge Journal of regions, Economics and Society 8, 131–136. Kullman, K. (2010) Transitional geographies: Making mobile children. Social and Cultural Geography 11(8), 829–846. Laterasse, J. (1992) The intelligent city. In F. Rowe and P. Veltz (eds), Telecom, Companies, Territories. Paris: Presses de L’ENPC. Laureau, A. (2003) Unequal Childhoods: Class, race and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space. Malden, Oxford, and Carlton: Blackwell. Lindkvist Scholten, C. and Joelsson, T. (2019) Introduction: The political in transportation and mobility – Toward a feminist analysis of everyday mobility and transport planning. In C. Lindkvist Scholten and T. Joelsson (eds), Integrating Gender into Transport Planning – From one to many tracks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Massey, D. (1994) Space, Place and Gender. Oxford: Polity Press. Mikkelsen, M.R. and Christensen, P. (2009) Is children’s mobility really independent? A study of children’s mobility combining ethnography and GPS/mobile phone technologies. Mobilities 4(1), 37–58. Morgan, D. (2011) Rethinking Family Practices. Berlin: Springer.

Smart cities, smart mobilities, and children  107 Mullen, C. and Marsden, G. (2016) Mobility justice in low carbon energy transitions. Energy Research and Social Science 18, 109–117. Murray, L. (2015) Age-friendly mobilities: A transdisciplinary and intergenerational perspective. Journal of Transport and Health 2, 302–307. Nansen, B., Gibbs, L., MacDougall, C., Vetere, F., Ross, J., and McKendrick, J. (2015) Children’s interdependent mobility: Compositions, collaborations and compromises. Children’s Geographies 13(4), 467–481. Niska, A., Henriksson, M., Anund, A., Eriksson, J., Ihlström, J., Svedberg, W., Wallén Warner, H., and Wehtje, P. (2017) Cykling bland barn och unga. En kunskapssammanställning [Cycling among Children and Youth. A research overview]. The Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), Report 958. Picon, A. (2015) Smart Cities: A spatialised intelligence. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Polk, M. (1998) Gendered mobility: A study of women’s and men’s relations to automobility in Sweden. PhD thesis, Gothenburg University, Sweden. Polk, M. (2003) Are women potentially more accommodating than men to a sustainable transportation system in Sweden? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 8(2), 75–95. Prezza, M., Alparone, F.R., Cristallo, C., and Luigi, S. (2005) Parental perceptions of social risk and of positive potentiality of outdoor autonomy for children: The development of two instruments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25, 437–453. Priya Uteng, T. and Cresswell, T. (2008) Gendered Mobilities. London and New York: Routledge. Prout, A. (2005) The Future of Childhood. London: Routledge. Rømer Christensen, H. (2019) Gendering mobilities and (in)equalities in post-socialist China. In T. Joelsson and C. Lindkvist Scholten (eds), Integrating Gender into Transport Planning – From one to many tracks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 249–269. Rose, G. (2018) Look Inside™: Corporate visions of the smart city. In K. Fast, A. Jansson, J. Lindell, L.R. Bengtsson, and M. Tesfahuney (eds), Geomedia Studies: Spaces and mobilities in mediatized worlds. New York, and Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Sergeyeva, O. and Laktukhina, E. (2016) Child in ‘Smart City’: Social studies review of children’s mobility. In EGOSE ‘16 Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia, pp. 31–34. Shaw, B., Bicket, M., Elliott, B., Fagan-Watson, B., Mocca, E., and Hillman, M. (2015) Children’s Independent Mobility: An international comparison and recommendations for action. London: Policy Studies Institute. Song, H., Bregni, S., Srinivasan, R., Sookoor, T., and Jeschke, S. (2017) Smart Cities: Foundations and principles. New York: John Wiley & Sons. SOU (2008/09:93) Mål för framtidens resor och transporter [Objectives for Future Travel and Transport]. Statistics Sweden (2016) Available at www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-siffror/ (accessed 17 April 2019). Townsend, A. (2013) Smart Cities: Big data. Civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia. New York: W.W. Norton. Trivector (2018) SHIFT2018 – Rankning av städers arbete med hållbara transporter [SHIFT 2018 – Ranking of municipalities work on sustaianable transport]. PM 2018: 52. Available at www.trivector.se/fileadmin/user_upload/Traffic/Rapporter/SHIFT_ PM_2018_webb.pdf. UNICEF (2012) The State of the World’s Children 2012: Children in the urban world. New York: UNICEF. Uppsala Municipality (2014/2015) Miljö- och klimatprogram [Environment and Climate Programme]. Available at www.uppsala.se/contentassets/5d36faebce83404888c3a467 7bad5584/Miljo-och-klimatprogram-2014-2023.pdf (accessed 9 August 2018). Uppsala Municipality Facts (2017) Available at www.uppsala.se/contentassets/f09f9e 6b994f41408c66064a2da8470b/uppsala-municipal-facts.pdf (accessed 17 April 2019).

108  Tanja Joelsson Urry, J. (2007) Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press. Valentine, G. (2004) Public Space and the Culture of Childhood. Aldershot: Ashgate. Van der Burgt, D. and Gustafson, K. (2013) ‘Doing time’ and ‘creating space’: A case study of outdoor play and institutionalized leisure in and urban family. Children, Youth and Environments 23(3), 24–42. WHO-OECD (2015) Economic Cost of the Health Impact of Air Pollution in Europe: Clean air and wealth. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. Williams, S. and Williams, L. (2005) Space invaders: The negotiation of teenage boundaries through the mobile phone. The Sociological Review 53, 314–331. Zeiher, H. (2009) Institutionalization as a secular trend. In J. Qvortrup, W.A. Corsaro, and M.S. Honig (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Childhood Studies. New York: ­Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 127–139.

7 Cycling London An intersectional feminist perspective Tiffany F. Lam

Introduction: London’s ‘cycling revolution’ Chapter 7 looks at London’s ‘cycling revolution’, highlighting how London’s cycling paradigm reflects an implicit androcentric bias in the design, delivery, and discourses of cycling infrastructure in the city. London’s cycling interventions raise the profile of already visible privileged cyclists (white middle-class men) for whom cycling is a lifestyle choice while erasing ‘invisible cyclists’ for whom cycling is an economic necessity. Cycling became my main mode of transportation in 2013, and inspired feelings of independence and empowerment by liberating me from street harassment. I was never still enough to be approached by a potential harasser and, if I were, I could escape more quickly on two wheels than on foot. However, cycling increased my vulnerability to motorised traffic. This unfair trade-off underscores the importance of the right to safe urban mobility. Everyone deserves to be able to move around the city freely without fear of sexual harassment, sexual violence, and road traffic danger. The articulation and safeguarding of this right is increasingly relevant as cycling continues to rise on urban policy agendas worldwide. In the United Kingdom, former Mayor of London Boris Johnson’s self-proclaimed ‘cycling revolution’ (Greater London Authority 2013), characterised by Johnson’s unprecedented investment in cycling infrastructure, garnered ubiquitous international media attention. Johnson’s successor, Sadiq Khan, pledged to continue that legacy and stated that he wants London to be a ‘byword for cycling’. Leading up to London’s next mayoral election, cycling advocates have criticised Khan for failing to deliver on cycling promises. In an age when cities are in constant competition for investment, jobs, tourism, quality of life, and global city status, London’s ‘cycling revolution’ can augment its clout as a global city. Cycling projects are situated within broader ecosystems of policy circulation. The future of cycling in London will shape the future of cycling in the United Kingdom and in other cities that look to London, particularly in other English-speaking, low-cycling countries. But first, it is important to deconstruct the populist narrative surrounding the highly publicised ‘cycling revolution’.

110  Tiffany F. Lam 100

Women (%)

90

Men (%)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

H a cy ve cl us e e hi d re Aw Su a r pe e rh of ig Cy hw c ay le H s av Su e u pe se rh d ig Cy hw c An ay le tic s ip at ed us ag Pr e e* co nt em pl at io n **

Ab le t bi o ri cy de cl e a

C

yc le

0

Figure 7.1  The gender gap in cycling in London. Source: Transport for London (2015: 84–86). Notes * Anticipated usage: have not yet used a cycle superhighway but anticipate using one in the future. ** Pre-contemplation: have previously never considered cycling but could be open to it in the future.

Despite the significant rise in cycling over the past two decades, a gender gap persists whereby men make 63 per cent of cycling trips (Transport for London 2018). This begs the questions: For whom has there been a cycling revolution in London? How will successive mayoral administrations help achieve inclusive growth in cycling? Furthermore, there are multiple dimensions of the gender gap in cycling, as shown in Figure 7.1. Therefore, addressing the gender gap in cycling will require a complex, multi-pronged approach. In this chapter, I challenge cycling policy and infrastructure practice in London from an intersectional feminist perspective which analyses gender as a complex category that intersects with other socially constructed categories (i.e. race, class, sexuality, migrant status, ability/disability, etc.) to compound inequalities and produce uneven urban cycling experiences. I critique London’s overarching cycling framework, which is foregrounded by material infrastructure, particularly infrastructures of mobility that manifest as either Cycle Superhighways or Quietways. This cycling framework privileges spatial fixes (i.e. a new Superhighway or speed hump) and treats spatial interventions as apolitical and value-neutral. This leaves little room to consider sociocultural barriers to cycling, and issues around inclusion and social justice. In order to make London a ‘byword for cycling’, inclusion and social justice must foreground cycling policy and infrastructure practices.

Cycling London: a feminist perspective  111

Research questions and methodology Central to my analysis is an intersectional feminist perspective, which acknowledges that there are multiple kinds of systemic, structural inequalities (i.e. racism, sexism, classism) which interact in complex ways to compound inequalities and reinforce certain power dynamics (Crenshaw 1991 Frye 1983). Intersectionality is necessary to understand the nuances of power, privilege, and oppression. For example, in the United Kingdom, people with disabilities are more likely to be women aged 65 or above, and of lower income or in poverty. Consequently, they are disproportionately burdened by the costs of public transportation, car ownership, or specialty cycles (Andrews, interview, 22 June 2016).1 Here, gender, age, class, and disability status intersect to exacerbate barriers to access and mobility in urban space. Since everyday environments are the product of someone’s conscious intention, infrastructure reflects, reinforces, and reproduces various social inequalities (Ehrnberger et al. 2012). It is therefore important to interrogate the ideologies and normative assumptions underpinning cycling policy and infrastructure projects. Three avenues of investigation informed my research:

1 Process: For whom are cycling policies and infrastructure designed? To what extent do social categories of identity (i.e. race, class, gender, sexuality, migrant status, ability/disability, etc.) enter into design and decisionmaking processes? 2 Outcomes: How do cycling policies and infrastructure produce disparate (raced, classed, gendered, etc.) outcomes on the ground and what are their implications? 3 Future outlook: How could an intersectional feminist perspective be integrated and codified into cycling policy and infrastructure practice to enhance inclusion and social justice? My methodology involved a review of the literature on gender and cycling; policy document analysis; ethnography at cycling conferences and advocacy events; semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders;2 and interviews with everyday female cyclists (women aged 21 to 55 in London who cycle commute on a daily or almost daily basis), recruited through word-of-mouth requests and posts on cycling forums.3 In what follows, I briefly review the literature on gender and cycling, outline London’s approach to cycling policy and infrastructure, discuss how London’s cycling projects reflect an implicit male bias, and discuss policy implications. I conclude by exploring how to integrate an intersectional feminist perspective in cycling projects to make cycling more inclusive.

Gender and cycling Urban cycling is a relatively new but growing area of research. Most literature on urban cycling focuses on the material and rational factors influencing people’s

112  Tiffany F. Lam choice to cycle in an attempt to standardise movements and ‘predict and provide’ infrastructure accordingly (Spinney 2009). There is a plethora of research on cycling infrastructure and best practices (Pucher et al. 2010; Lugo 2012), which consistently demonstrates that women prefer protected cycle lanes away from motorised traffic because it heightens their perception of safety (Garrard et al. 2008; Pucher et al. 2010; Aldred and Woodcock 2008; Lam and Cosgrave 2019). Given all the evidence about the necessity of protected cycle lanes in encouraging cycling among under-represented groups, like women, the failure to provide such infrastructure is arguably discriminatory. That said, the hegemony of material infrastructure within the emerging body of cycling literature is problematic because it reflects a belief that spatial fixes – spatial, material, and technical interventions – are apolitical and value-neutral. The emphasis on ‘spatial design implies that urban-cyclists-to-come can be conjured without a direct confrontation with extant land use patterns and transport networks (Stehlin 2014: 29), let alone a direct confrontation with power structures (Angelo and Hentschel 2015). Cycling does not occur in a vacuum, and structural inequalities in society, such as sexism, racism, and classism, will be reproduced in cycling. The disproportionate focus on material infrastructure ignores the historical legacies of institutional inequalities and political disenfranchisement that spatial fixes alone cannot eradicate. It is also important to destabilise the binary characterisation of infrastructure in cycling advocacy and policy discourse as ‘hard’ or ‘soft’, in which hard infrastructure takes precedence. ‘Hard’ infrastructure is material infrastructure (i.e. cycle lanes, racks) while ‘soft’ infrastructure, or social infrastructure, includes encouragement, education, and outreach (Gannon, interview, 1 June 2016).4 Hard infrastructure carries greater political capital, as policy makers tend to privilege it as a magic bullet, which obfuscates injustices endemic in urban mobility (Miciukiewicz and Vigar 2012: 1954). Instead of positioning hard and soft infrastructure in a hierarchy, it could be helpful to reframe the former as ‘supportive environments’ and the latter as ‘smarter choices’ (Cope, interview, 6 July 2016).5 Material infrastructure creates supportive environments and social infrastructure enables people to make smarter travel choices. Both work in tandem to make cycling more inclusive. The gender gap in cycling cannot be properly addressed without a distinction between the provision of material goods or resources and the actual ability of people to access and utilise them. For instance, while men and women may have the same resources (i.e. a cycle, a cycle lane, ability to cycle, cycle parking), there are ‘variations [race, class, gender, age, etc.] in our ability to convert resources into actual freedoms’ (Sen 1990: 121). Most literature on the gender gap in cycling, particularly in low-cycling, Englishspeaking countries like the United Kingdom, are highly descriptive and focus on women’s behaviour without analysing underlying power dynamics (Steinbach et al. 2011; Hanson 2010). This falsely insinuates that the gender gap is attributable to individual choice instead of systemic barriers that constrain choice, and that solutions are individual rather than structural. Fortunately, there is burgeoning

Cycling London: a feminist perspective  113 interest in and demand for more research on cycling inequalities, such as gender and racial disparities, and broader issues around inclusive cycling (Garrard et al. 2008; Aldred et al. 2016; Steinbach et al. 2011; Lugo 2012; Stehlin 2014). Both academic literature and policy documents (from the Greater London Authority and Transport for London) could more adequately reflect and engage with a nuanced, pluralistic understanding of socially constructed categories of identity, such as race, class, and gender. Within policy documents, such categories are often treated as independent demographic variables, instead of social constructs that are imbued with power and intersect to contour social, spatial, political, and economic relations. As such, my research contributes a much-needed intersectional feminist analysis of the gender gap in cycling in London by exploring how power relations unfold in city cycling projects. Cycling, female empowerment, and the right to the city Cities worldwide are setting ambitious cycling targets which simply cannot be achieved unless more women cycle. Moreover, gender inequalities in cycling emblematise larger social inequalities. Studies increasingly reveal a confidence, not competence, gap between women and men, which begins early and has severe consequences, including occupational segregation, the pay gap, and the under-representation of women in leadership (Kay and Shipman, 2014). This emerges in cycling too, since women are more likely than men to describe themselves as inexperienced cyclists’ (Cope, interview, 6 July 2016). Patriarchy socialises females to minimise their bodily and spatial presence, which constrains their physical range of motion (Young 1980). The way we are socially conditioned to inhabit our bodies and physical (urban) space correlates with our inclusion or exclusion in symbolic (socioeconomic and political) space. Young (1980) argues that changing the ways in which a woman inhabits her body and occupies public space could alter her paradigm of subjectivity. Cycling on roads designed for motorised traffic requires cyclists to constantly claim urban space, which could potentially translate to greater confidence in symbolic space. After all, ‘women’s appropriation of the city through mobility in public space […] may strengthen women’s agency and autonomy’ (Levy 2013: 58). The role of cycling in helping women claim space – physically, on city streets, and symbolically, in other areas of life – surfaced in my interviews with women cyclists. For instance, one woman said: The first time I rode a bike in London, all I remember is my boyfriend screaming at me to ‘Take the lane! Take the lane!’ Unable to do as instructed, I was left behind as he turned right and I was herded forward by the busy traffic. As a woman, I have often felt conditioned to be seen and not heard, to not be a nuisance, to not get in anyone’s way. To cycle safely in London, you have to go against impulses that have been drilled into you by society. On that first day, I didn’t want to annoy or inconvenience any of the drivers, but in doing so I put myself at risk.

114  Tiffany F. Lam   I’ve improved since then, but it’s a constant internal struggle to remind myself that I have just as much right to the road as anyone else. Interestingly, in overcoming my need to ‘remain small,’ I have noticed benefits in other areas of life outside of cycling. I’m not going to pretend the changes have been monumental, but I’d like to think I participate more in meetings and stand my ground when my opinion is being questioned. For me, cycling hasn’t fixed the problem, but it has started a journey towards full occupation of all the space I deserve. (Email, 22 January 2018) Similarly, another woman reaffirms the importance of unapologetically claiming and owning space, especially as a woman: Training as a cycling instructor encouraged me and gave me the confidence to physically take up more space on the road. That makes me feel safer on the road, which is very satisfying and empowering. Teaching other women and children to do the same, as I do for my job, is something I find very fulfilling, as more often than not, it is women that I see “’hugging the pavement’ as they ride along the road. It is almost like they are physically apologising for being out on the road. This mind-set is what we need to change. (Email, 24 January 2018) Another woman echoes the notion that claiming road space as a cyclist helps her overcome deeply ingrained aspects of female socialisation: On public transportation or just walking down the street, men invade my personal space every day: Men come too close, make comments, or just stare at me. These experiences don’t just last for a few seconds. Often they take up a lot of emotional and mental space, even days after the encounter. Cycling, on the other hand, I experience as creating space around me that I don’t need to defend. Even though this space gets invaded a lot by cars, buses, taxis, or people on the street verbally harassing me, these incidents feel different because they usually only last for a few seconds (until I cycle past). Sitting on my bicycle, I feel more freedom, safety, and agency compared to any other mode of transport.   When cycling, there is always the possibility to physically distance myself from people when needed. On public transportation that is not always possible. If you are standing on a packed bus or tube, there is no escaping men pressing themselves against you or staring at your legs for 30 minutes. Not feeling ‘stuck’ in these harassing experiences is important. There is freedom in experiencing/learning it’s okay to disengage from people that make you feel uncomfortable for whatever reason. This is something I didn’t grow up learning, rather the opposite, actually. (Email, 31 January 2018) These anecdotes illustrate how the assertiveness, feelings of control, ownership, and freedom to take up space gained through cycling is especially valuable for

Cycling London: a feminist perspective  115 women because it helps change their paradigm of subjectivity. It helps them unravel internalised social conditioning teaching them to be small and out of the way. Laying claims to urban space via cycling also informs one’s relationship to the city: The freedom and independence that I feel when I am on my bike is intoxicating. Rather than being shuttled around the city’s underground network, I am in control of my journey and engaging with my surroundings. In a city like London where you can often feel like you are being swept along in the crowd, that sense of presence, control and freedom is welcome. (Raphaelle Moor, Email, 28 July 2016) Urban theorists rally around ‘the right to the city’, which is ‘[t]he freedom to make and remake our cities and ourselves’ (Harvey 2008: 23). From a gender perspective, the right to the city is having the freedom to enjoy safe access to and passage through the city (Levy 2013). It is having the ability to claim space in cities. Cycling in the city is a way of exercising our ‘right to the city’. Women characterise cycling in London as ‘a liberating and empowering way to get around’ (Emma Illingworth, email, 7 July 2016) and ‘the perfect way to engage with the city’ (Kathryn Firth, email, 28 June 2016). As such, making cycling more inclusive will help democratise the right to the city.

Cycling London Approach to cycling policy and infrastructure London’s cycling policy discourse is foregrounded by material infrastructure. London’s ‘cycling revolution’ delivered ‘two clear kinds of branded route: high capacity Superhighways [see Figure 7.2], mostly on main roads, for fast commuters,

Figure 7.2  Superhighway routes. Source: Transport for London (2015).

116  Tiffany F. Lam

Figure 7.3  Quietway routes. Source: Transport for London (2015).

and slightly slower but still direct Quietways [see Figure 7.3] on pleasant, low-traffic side streets for those wanting a more relaxed journey’ (Greater London Authority 2013: 10). Such dualistic branding of cycle lanes is similar to slow and fast lanes in swimming pools, but less relevant to urban mobility. ‘Quietways’ suggest leisurely cycling that may appeal more to the elderly, women, children, people with disabilities, and novice or less confident cyclists. Data confirms that women typically prefer Quietways (Councillor Demirci, interview, 7 June 2016).6 Meanwhile, Superhighways associate cycling with speed, athleticism, aggression, and riskiness, which are implicitly coded as masculine. Moreover, the branding of the Superhighways echoes larger transport planning narratives of speedy connectivity, rooted in the techno-capitalist drive for rapid profit and accumulation (Aldred 2013; Stehlin 2014). The branding of the Superhighways and the emphasis on speed alienates and penalises women, sometimes costing them their lives. In the first study on near misses in the United Kingdom, the Near Miss Project found that cycling speed is the main factor affecting near-miss rates, which are consistent across London (Aldred 2015). Women tend to cycle more slowly than men do, which increases their risks of near misses, as well as traffic injuries and fatalities (Aldred 2015). Near misses are road incidents that may not result in injuries but induce fear and stress, and significantly impact perceptions and experiences of safety. Therefore, near misses should be treated as seriously as injuries and collisions. Implicit male bias: infrastructure London’s Superhighways and Quietways reproduce the implicit male bias and overvaluation of economic productivity in transport planning by facilitating radial, longer distance journeys to and from Central London. Public transport optimises the ‘typical’ journey to work – radial, long-distance journeys into the

Cycling London: a feminist perspective  117 city centre, based on the historical male breadwinner’s work commute (Levy 2013; Law 1999; Whitzman 2013). This makes public transportation unevenly distributed and deeply gendered, as women have been historically excluded from and still face barriers in the formal labour market. Women also tend to make more frequent, short-distance and encumbered journeys than men do, entailing childcare and domestic responsibilities. Therefore, radial infrastructure planning for cycling perpetuates existing male biases in transport planning and continues to ignore the gendered nature of urban mobility. The gender disparities in employment status in London (see Figure 7.4) further problematise the male bias in radial cycle infrastructure provisioning. Women comprise 51 per cent of London’s population but just 36 per cent are in full-time employment (Transport for London 2015: 75). As such, women are more economically precarious and possess less bargaining power with employers and male partners, which can compound their vulnerability to domestic violence. Men in London make 8 per cent more ‘usual workplace’ trips and 6 per cent more work-related trips than women do, while women make more trips for shopping, personal business, and education (Transport for London 2015: 88). The gender differences in economic resources and trip purposes can hinder women’s urban mobility. The failure of public transport and cycle routes to account for gender inequalities in urban mobility is detrimental to women’s personal and professional development, economic status, leisure time, and overall well-being. Furthermore, the increasing flexibility in the labour market and the growth of the gig economy call into question the relevance of radial route planning, as the nature of work is evolving. The poor provisioning of Quietways also exhibits an implicit male bias, since Quietways are more targeted to and utilised by women. Although perceptions of danger from motorised traffic may be diminished on Quietways, the poor street lighting may aggravate women’s perceptions of danger from crime or harassment. Quietways can also seem more dangerous due to the prevalence of speeding. The Superhighways were prioritised and built first, while the Quietways have been severely delayed, with the first opening in summer 2016. Quietways have been criticised for their delayed delivery, poor quality, and ineffective governance (Laker 2016; Walker 2016). An implicit male bias is present in the governance of the Superhighways and Quietways. A singular body, Transport for London, oversees Superhighways, which results in a more consistent, seamless cycling experience. Meanwhile, Transport for London, Sustrans, and local authorities collaborate to implement Quietways, which creates inconsistencies in signage, ground surface material, width, and street lighting. There are discrepancies among London’s 33 local authorities in how they prioritise cycling, the resources they allocate to cycling infrastructure, the influence of cycling advocates, and best practice standards (Laker 2016; Walker 2016). The disjointed experience of traversing different boroughs on Quietways can be confusing for novice and less confident cyclists, and can compound barriers for disabled cyclists (Andrews, interview, 22 June 2016).

Source: Transport for London (2015: 75).

Figure 7.4  Employment status of Londoners.

Cycling London: a feminist perspective  119 Implicit male bias: representation Although MAMILs (middle-aged-men-in-Lycra) and hipsters may be facetious stereotypes of cyclists, it is no longer funny when they are reinforced in official policy documents (Lam 2017; Aldred et al. 2016; Doughty and Murray 2016; Miciukiewicz and Vigar 2012; Steinbach et al. 2011). Policy makers must challenge narrow, stereotypical representations of cyclists instead of reinforcing them. In The Mayor’s Vision for Cycling in London, Johnson praises MAMILs as ‘the admirable Lycra-wearers’ (Greater London Authority 2013: 5), which propagates the notion that cycling is the ‘preserve of a pretty hard-core bunch of people willing to go out of their way to cycle, rather than a very natural and easy everyday thing for everybody to be able to do’ (Clarke, interview, 24 June 2016).7 Johnson also alludes to the ‘enviable east Londoners on their fixed-gear bikes’ (Greater London Authority 2013: 5), describing how ‘[i]n the cooler parts of east London, a bike is the fifth limb for everyone under 30’ (Greater London Authority 2013: 4). The hipster stereotype is also alienating, because it portrays cycling as youthful, trendy, and alternative. MAMILs and hipsters are cycling’s ‘traditional demographic’ (Greater London Authority 2016: 9). Both are coded as white, middle class, and male, which reflects how ‘cycling in London [has] become attached to a particular White, bourgeois (and to some extent, male) sensibility, such that it is then harder to work to “become a cyclist” if one’s identity is differently constituted’ (Steinbach et al. 2011: 1127). Such exclusionary representations of cycling can compound sociocultural barriers – both cultural stigmas against cycling and sexist ideas that cycling is ‘unfeminine’ – for racial minorities, which material infrastructure alone cannot resolve. For instance, the dual under-representation of black women cycling in the media and on London streets is a barrier to cycling for black women, and the widespread perception of cycling as child’s play within certain Asian communities makes Asian women in London less inclined to cycle (Steinbach et al. 2011: 1126). This accentuates the need to diversify representations of cycling and cyclists in order to achieve inclusive growth in cycling. Forty-nine per cent of Londoners feel that cycling isn’t for ‘people like me’ (Transport for London 2018). In the words of Simone Salmon: Cycling still seems to be an elitist pastime, not the domain of women or people of colour. It’s also hard to access the culture that comes along with it, like joining a cycle group and having the correct gear. Cycling has to become a common/normal sight for women, so that it feels more doable. (Email, 26 January 2018) Transport for London is aware that the branding of Superhighways may resonate more with the stereotypical athletic, white MAMIL, while alienating women and racial minorities (Cannon, interview, 15 July 2016). It is currently rebranding London’s cycling infrastructure to eliminate the Superhighways and Quietways nomenclature (Transport for London 2018).8

120  Tiffany F. Lam Racial minorities are becoming the most rapidly growing segment of London’s population, which means that their transport needs must be met. Racial minorities comprise 40 per cent of London’s population, are London’s fastest growing demographic, and 41 per cent are under the age of 24 (Transport for London 2015: 22). This demographic data suggests that cycling may be a greater economic necessity for racial minorities because they are likelier to be students, not in full-time employment, and disproportionately burdened by rising public transportation costs. The cost of purchasing a cycle and fear of theft could pose greater barriers, which underscores the need to increase access to cycle hire and safe cycle storage. Yet, there are racial disparities in awareness of London’s cycling infrastructure and road safety. While 65 per cent of white Londoners are aware of Superhighways, only 53 per cent of racial minorities are similarly aware (Transport for London 2015: 41). Furthermore, black adults in London are 1.36 times more likely to be injured on the roads than white adults and 1.32 times more likely to be injured than Asian adults (2015: 52). The data is not disaggregated by transport mode or road user, but the crucial point is that racial inequalities in transport and urban planning must be confronted. Androcentric male bias: ‘smart’ interventions Despite acknowledgements that neither MAMILs nor hipsters are segments that policy makers should concentrate on (Cannon, interview, 15 July 2016), cycling policies and infrastructure – including ‘smart’ cycling interventions – continue to cater primarily for those demographics. The London Borough of Hackney, considered to be the city’s cycling borough, boasts two ‘smart’ cycling interventions: a cycling app and a digital cycle counter (Lam 2017). In 2014, Hackney became the first London borough to launch a cycling app, which collects data about preferred cycle routes and road defects. The Council also installed a digital display cycle counter on Goldsmith Row, the first of its kind in the United Kingdom, based on existing high cycling traffic flows (Gannon, interview, 1 June 2016). Hackney policy makers acknowledge that both the cycling app and counter are clearly ‘designed for one particular segment, and not a segment we [policy makers] absolutely need to concentrate on because that segment has been, already is, cycling’ (Gannon, interview, 1 June 2016). Yet, the borough uses data from the cycling app and counter to help inform forthcoming cycling investments. The datafication of cycling – the vast quantities of data that cycling apps collect – is increasingly informing transport planning decisions, especially since there has historically been less data on cycling and cyclists. Datafication creates asymmetric power relations in ways that are largely invisible and still unknown. It perpetuates a digital divide, which extends beyond access to a smartphone and includes digital literacy: interest, skills, comfort, confidence, and regularity in using the technology, which is lacking in many populations (Cosgrave 2016). Furthermore, data collection is not neutral. Our data-gathering methods and tools, and their underlying assumptions, reflect political decisions about who and

Cycling London: a feminist perspective  121 what should be measured, who and what count in the lens of power (Morozov 2013). Digital exclusion, social exclusion, and spatial exclusion are intricately intertwined. The datafication of cycling can compound existing inequalities by further privileging those who are comfortable, confident, and fluent with new technologies. According to Hackney’s cycling app, most cyclists in the borough are male, and 30 per cent of male cyclists are between 45 and 64 years old (Gannon, interview, 1 June 2016). The app users ‘are obviously recognised and a sector of the cycling populace, like the Strava generation’ (Gannon, interview, 1 June 2016). Strava is a running and cycling app designed for athletes, or people interested in physical fitness and activity who wish to monitor their performance stats (i.e. mileage, time, calories burned, etc.). ‘The Strava generation’ refers to people who are digitally literate, avid smartphone users. The focus on health and personal fitness also frames cycling as a lifestyle choice or amenity, which only appeals to a certain segment of the cycling populace while ignoring those for whom cycling is an economic or spatial necessity, who are less likely to want to self-monitor their cycling journeys. These ‘smart’ cycling innovations appear to be ‘formulated as a creative class carrot’ (Hoffman and Lugo 2014: 47) to attract a specific group of more desirable new users who are implicitly white, more affluent, and upwardly mobile (Hoffman and Lugo 2014). Cycling projects can result in a capitalisation of benefits in land prices, thereby displacing existing populations and attracting new people and businesses presumed to add more social, cultural, and economic capital. This further frames residents who have been cycling out of economic necessity but rendered invisible by cycling policy makers and advocates as undesirable, unproductive, and irrelevant (Hoffman and Lugo 2014: 58). Like Hackney’s cycling app, the cycle counter skews data collection by increasing the visibility of already visible cyclists – white, middle-class, able-bodied males – instead of tapping into latent demand for cycling among under-represented groups. If only a privileged cohort of cyclists produce cycling data, their cycling routes and journeys are the only ones that get counted and matter. As a result, infrastructure investments will exacerbate and reproduce inequality in both digital, online space, as well as physical, urban space. Therefore, basing forthcoming cycling interventions primarily off data from the app and cycle counter will only serve to continue to support existing cyclists rather than encourage inclusive growth in cycling. Alternative methods of data collection are necessary to ensure that the cycling journeys of under-represented cyclists are counted.

Policy recommendations If the first stage of London’s cycling revolution was to simply get more people cycling, now is the time to prioritise inclusive cycling. Policy recommendations to promote inclusive cycling in London fall into four categories: better material infrastructure provisioning, gender expertise, sustained investment in social infrastructure, and diversifying from within.

122  Tiffany F. Lam Material infrastructure London should invest in more protected cycle lanes that have consistent and clear signage, and function as a joined-up network, especially given the evidence that people of all genders prefer protected cycle lanes (Lam and Cosgrave 2019). This would help increase perceptions of safety from road traffic danger. Coupled with more secure cycle parking (on streets and at residences, educational institutions, cultural institutions, and businesses), these infrastructure investments would make cycling safer and more inclusive. Second, speed limits must be enforced along the Quietways and other residential, low-traffic side streets. This could occur through a combination of speed cameras and street interventions (i.e. road narrowing). Third, Transport for London should invest in orbital cycle routes, not solely radial routes, in order to support a wider variety of trips for a pluralistic population. Gender expertise Developing gender expertise – an understanding of how gender creates structural differences in access to and distribution of resources and power in society – is essential if Transport for London is to challenge implicit male biases in cycling policies and infrastructure projects. One tangible way to develop gender expertise is to look at the data differently. Data-collection methods should be reexamined to ensure that everyone is counted, not just existing cyclists, especially important in light of the increasing amount of smart cycling innovations. London could look to the City of San Francisco, which recently – and for the first time – collected gender- and race-disaggregated data about the use of cycling infrastructure in one neighbourhood. Typical cycling counts, conducted during peak commuting hours, reflected that most cyclists were men. However, when the city disaggregated data by gender, they found that more women were using the cycle routes for their commute than previously thought, but were travelling during off-peak hours (Lam and Cosgrave 2019). Basing cycling counts on peak commuting hours omits those less likely to travel then, like women, which underscores the need for more data about off-peak journeys. Another way to develop gender expertise is to conduct women’s safety audits. This enables transport planners and local authorities to broaden notions of cyclists’ safety beyond just road traffic safety, and to understand how gendered perceptions of safety impact upon how, when, where, and why people travel. Women and girls are socialised from a young age to worry about their personal safety when in public, and to alter their behaviour, dress, speech, and travel patterns to ‘avoid’ sexual harassment or violence. It is important to take gendered perceptions of safety (considering safety from street harassment and gender-based violence) just as seriously as road traffic safety. Raced perceptions of safety (i.e. safety from police harassment and racial profiling) are also important considerations. Finally, it is important to note that notions of road traffic safety must also be expanded to account for near misses, in addition to collisions.

Cycling London: a feminist perspective  123 Social infrastructure Another element necessary to promote inclusive cycling is sustained investment in social infrastructure for cycling. This includes targeted education and encouragement to women and racial minorities, given the substantial evidence that informal peer networks are critical in low-cycling contexts, especially among under-represented groups (Aldred 2012; Lugo 2012; Lam and Cosgrave 2019). London Borough of Hackney Councillor Demirci sees the value of mentoring and motivational schemes for cycling, reflecting on how, when she started cycling, her Kurdish relatives frequently disapproved of how ‘unfeminine’ and low-status cycling is (interview, 7 June 2016). The higher levels of pre-contemplation of cycling among London women and the gender gap in knowledge of how to cycle (Transport for London 2015: 84) suggest that cycle training could be more targeted to women. Cycling instructors should reflect the diversity of the borough so that under-represented groups can feel that cycling is for ‘people like me’. While local authorities across London deliver cycle-training programmes, they should be better advertised and networked with community-driven encouragement initiatives to ensure that they are truly accessible. According to Simone Salmon, founder of Bike Freedom, a cycle maintenance project in Southeast London, one of the main barriers to cycle training and maintenance for women of colour is finding time to attend class. This is why Bike Freedom does pop-up workshops in youth centres, community centres, and parks: not only is it more cost-effective, it also meets people where they are at. As Salmon says, ‘We need to reach out to masses of women at school gates during the school run, churches, mother and baby groups, libraries, and parks, so that we can find women who are interested in riding bikes’ (email, 25 June 2018). There is no need to reinvent the wheel and, as a public institution with limited resources, Transport for London and policy makers must tap into existing communitydriven efforts to increase inclusion in cycling. Transport for London admits to having: ‘good experience with the kinds of infrastructure that can get reasonably confident cyclists to cycle more, but we’re only just starting to learn what we need to do to capture people who do not currently cycle or who are not comfortable cycling in certain kinds of places.’ (Lavelle, Email, 6 June 2016)9 One easy way to remedy this is by increasing follow-up with cycling diversity grant winners. Transport for London offers grants of £10,000 over three years for community and non-profit led initiatives to diversify cycling. One previous grant recipient is the London Bike Kitchen, which runs a Women and GenderVariant (WaG) Night. Founder Jenni Gwiazdowski describes WaG nights as: a gateway drug into the world of bicycle mechanics. They’re not meant to replace any of our classes, but merely some ‘positive discrimination’ to provide a sideways experience in a classic bike workshop space. […] There are

124  Tiffany F. Lam often cries from those who fear having opportunities taken away from them. But we created a new space without taking space away from anyone else. (Email, 22 February 2018) To maintain momentum and strengthen civil capacity, Transport for London should increase and maintain communication with grant winners (including followup), and create a platform connecting grant winners with each other to build solidarity and leverage peer learning, which could then inform future cycling projects in London. Diversify Last but not least, Transport for London and local authorities must dedicate more institutional capacity to explicitly address inequalities in cycling. A good start would be to diversify from within and strengthen cultural competency to represent and respond to the diverse and pluralistic urban populations they serve. After all, an organisation’s commitment to diversity, inclusion, and social justice must begin from within. Another inroad would be to establish a Diversity and Inclusion Office to institutionally embed a commitment to inclusion and social justice. Such an office could be responsible for taking proactive measures to prevent implicit bias in cycling projects, training staff on the dynamics of power, privilege, and oppression, and engaging in long-term targeted community outreach (education and encouragement) to strengthen social infrastructure for cycling.

Conclusion Integrating an intersectional feminist perspective to make cycling more inclusive would entail interrogating the cycling subjects for whom policies and infrastructure are designed, making implicit assumptions explicit, and addressing discriminatory impacts of cycling policies and infrastructure. Cycling policies and infrastructure projects in London have primarily served an elite minority of middle-class white men who cycle out of choice, while further marginalising and ignoring latent demand among under-represented groups, like women, racial minorities, the elderly, youth, and people with disabilities. The implicit male bias in cycling interventions, coupled with poor institutional knowledge on diversity, inclusion, and social justice issues within transport planning and local authorities perpetuates inequalities in city cycling. There is no roadmap to codify an intersectional feminist perspective to cycling policy and infrastructure practice, but four actions that Transport for London could start with are: (1) providing better material infrastructure, (2) developing gender expertise to understand the gendered nature of urban mobility and the differential nature of women’s journeys, (3) making and sustaining investment in social infrastructure for cycling, and (4) diversifying the organisation from within to reflect the diversity of London. After all, London’s cycling revolution has to be inclusive. A true cycling revolution is not about cycling. It

Cycling London: a feminist perspective  125 is about democratising the right to the city and the right to safe, sustainable urban mobility.

Notes 1 Neil Andrews is the Campaigns and Policy Officer at Wheels for Wellbeing, the premier advocacy organisation for disabled cyclists in the United Kingdom. 2 I interviewed 30 relevant stakeholders, comprising policy makers, urban designers and planners, engineers, cycle shop owners, and cycling advocates. 3 I created a Mind the Cycling Gender Gap zine (there are two issues) based on my interviews with everyday female cyclists, published by Microcosm Publishing. 4 Pat Gannon is the Cycle Training Manager for the London Borough of Hackney. 5 Andy Cope is the Director of Insight at Sustrans, a charity organisation in the United Kingdom dedicated to making it easier for people to walk and cycle. 6 Feryal Demirci is the Councillor of Neighbourhoods and Sustainability in the London Borough of Hackney and plays a key role in the Borough’s cycling projects. 7 Andy Clarke is the Director of Strategy at the US-based Toole Design Group and the former Director of the League of American Bicyclists. 8 Russell Cannon is the Principal Strategy Planner, Cycling at Transport for London. 9 Paul Lavelle is the Principal Urban Design Advisor, City Planning at Transport for London, and revised the London Cycling Design Standards (published in 2014).

References Aldred, R. (2012) Cycling cultures: Summary of key findings and recommendations. Available at http://cyclingcultures.org.uk/Final-report-cycling-cultures.pdf (accessed 1 August 2016). Aldred, R. (2013) Incompetent or too competent? Negotiating everyday cycling identities in a motor dominated society. Mobilities 8(2), 252–271. Aldred, R. (2015) Cycling Near Misses: Findings from Year One of the Near Miss Project. Report, University of Westminster, UK. Aldred, R. and Woodcock, J. (2008) Transport: Challenging disabling environments. Local Environment 13(6), 485–496. Aldred, R., Woodcock, J., and Goodman, A. (2016) Does more cycling mean more diversity in cycling? Transport Reviews 36(1), 28–44. Angelo, H. and Hentschel, C. (2015) Interactions with infrastructure as windows into social worlds: A method for critical urban studies: Introduction. City 19(2–3), 306–312. Cosgrave, E. (2016) Safer Smarter Cities: Understanding Urban Safety in the Information Age. A working paper for the UN-Habitat Technical Working Group on Safer Smarter Cities. Crenshaw, K. (1991) Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43(6), 1241–1299. Doughty, K. and Murray, L. (2016) Discourses of mobility: Institutions, everyday lives and embodiment. Mobilities 11(2), 1–20. Ehrnberger, K., Rasanen, M., and Ilstedt, S. (2012) Visualising gender norms in design: Meet the mega hurricane mixer and the drill dolphia. Inernational Journal of Design 6, 85–98. Frye, M. (1983) The Politics of Reality: Essays in feminist theory. Trumansburg: The Crossing Press. Garrard, J., Rose, G., and Lo, S.K. (2008) Promoting transportation cycling for women: The role of bicycle infrastructure. Preventive Medicine 46(1), 55–59. Greater London Authority (2013) The Mayor’s Vision for Cycling in London.

126  Tiffany F. Lam Greater London Authority (2016) Human Streets: The Mayor’s Vision for Cycling Three Years On. Hanson, S. (2010) Gender and mobility: New approaches for informing sustainability. Gender, Place & Culture 17(1), 5–23. Harvey, D. (2008) The right to the city. New Left Review 53, 23–40. Hoffman, M. and Lugo, A. (2014) Who is ‘World class’? Transportation justice and bicycle policy. Urbanites 4(1), 45–61. Kay, K. and Shipman, C. (2014) The confidence gap. The Atlantic, May. Laker, L. (2016) Gilligan: Quietways Programme is a failure. Available at http://road.cc/ content/news/193478-gilligan-quietways-programme-failure (accessed 5 August 2016). Lam, T. (2017) Hackney: A cycling borough for whom? Applied Mobilities 1–18. Lam, T. and Cosgrave, E. (2019) Gender Inclusive Climate Action in Cities. A report for C40 Cities Women4Climate initiative. Law, R. (1999) Beyond ‘women and transport”: Towards new geographies of gender and daily mobility. Progress in Human Geography 23(4), 567–588. Levy, C. (2013) Travel choice reframed: ‘Deep distribution” and gender in urban transport. Environment and Urbanization 25(1), 47–63. Lugo, A. (2012) Planning for diverse use/ers: Ethnographic research on bikes, bodies and public space in LA. Kroeber Anthropological Society 101(1), 49–65. Miciukiewicz, K, and Vigar, G. (2012) Mobility and social cohesion in the splintered city: Challenging technocentric transport research and policy-making practices. Urban Studies 49(9), 1941–1957. Morozov, E. (2013) To Save Everything Click Here. New York: Public Affairs Books. Pucher, J., Dill, J., and Handy, S. (2010) Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review. Preventive Medicine 50, S106–S125. Sen, A. (1990) Means versus freedoms. Philosophy and Public Affairs 19(2), 111–121. Spinney, J. (2009) Cycling the city: Movement, meaning and method. Geography Compass 3(2), 817–835. Stehlin, J. (2014) Regulating inclusion: Spatial form, social process, and the normalization of cycling practice in the USA. Mobilities 9(1), 21–41. Steinbach, R., Green, J., Datta, J., and Edwards, P. (2011) Cycling and the city: A case study of how gendered, ethnic and class identities can shape healthy transport choices. Social Science & Medicine 72(7), 1123–1130. Transport for London (2015) Travel in London: Understanding Our Diverse Communities. Transport for London (2018) Cycling Action Plan. Walker, P. (2016) Lessons from London’s failing ‘Quietways’ cycle scheme. The Guardian, 14 June. Whitzman, C. (2013) Women’s safety and everyday mobility. In C. Whitzman, C. Legacy, C. Andrew, F. Klodawsky, M. Shaw, and K. Viswanath (eds), Building Inclusive Cities: Women’s Safety and the Right to the City. New York: Routledge, pp. 35–52. Young, I.M. (1980) Throwing like a girl: A phenomenology of feminine body comportment motility and spatiality Human Studies 3, 137–156.

8 Smart gendered mobilities and lessons for gendered smart mobilities Economic migrants in Bristol, UK Avril Maddrell Gender and mobilities Mobilities is the conceptual framework for analysing the meaning and experience of journeys which has grown in scope and theoretical purchase over the past ten years (Urry 2002; Sheller and Urry 2006). In the same way that place is a convergence of a particular set of spatialities, experiences, and meaning-making (Tuan 2001), movement ‘carries with it the burden of meaning’ (Cresswell 2006: 6), and, where movement contributes to this meaningful shaping of social time and space, it is described as mobility. In turn, mobilities are embodied, contextualised, and relational: ‘experienced through bodies and senses, inflected by place, practice, belief, emotion, and affect, but also by the constraints and agencies afforded by socio-economic, cultural, and political context, as well as physical capacities’ (Maddrell 2011: 16). Although scientific accounts usually demur from these aspects of embodied experience, they are, nonetheless, central to individual relational migration and other mobility trajectories, practices, and their associated meanings, including engagement with cities, towns, and villages as places of habitation, work, community, and social life. Historical precedents Mobilities, including specific forms of mobility such as international migration, are inflected by gender in a variety of ways. In my previous historical research on women’s geographical work in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, in which travel and fieldwork were major components, I argued that while examining the wider and varied contexts of any woman’s work/travel is vital, it is only by disaggregating gendered experience by situated localities, socioeconomic standing, and cultural norms within countries, communities, and families that we can understand women’s status and opportunities. That is to say, contextual approaches need the theoretical edge of feminist analysis, including attention to varied intersectional factors, in order to understand gendered needs and strategies. Likewise, analysis and understanding of men’s travel/travel writing is better for attention to particular paradigms of masculinity (see e.g. Driver 1991). Historical analyses of women travellers show that those of independent socioeconomic means were able to

128  Avril Maddrell t­ranscend social barriers ascribed to gendered norms (see Blunt (1994) on Mary Kingsley). Other women (and some men) without independent wealth, such as schoolteachers with modest incomes and no/little experience of international travel, pooled their resources, skills, and knowledge to facilitate collective endeavours, such as national and international field studies. Mobilising these networks served to collectivise knowledge, skills, costs, learning, and resources in order to enrich their life experiences, education, and ongoing professional development, particularly for women (Maddrell 2009). These activities were a form of smart gendered mobility which could also enhance learning and career opportunities, and such strategies represent potential insights for contemporary gendered mobilities in relation to our understanding of migrants in contemporary smart cities, as discussed in the next subsection. Contemporary mobilities: smart cities, gender, and smart mobilities Smart technologies can be inclusive and empowering: ‘New spatial media – the informational artefacts and mediating technologies of the geoweb – represent new opportunities for activist, civic, grassroots, indigenous, and other groups to leverage web-based geographic information technologies in their efforts to effect social change’ (Elwood and Leszczynski 2013: 544). Yet, feminist scholarship on digital technologies has long evidenced how information technology (IT), such as computer use and even social media-based activism, can be highly gendered and classed (see Morrow et al. 2015), and how contemporary big data projects reflect and (re)constitute gendered norms and urban inequalities (Rose 2017). Despite this awareness, discussions and representations of smart cities are dominated by men (as is common for urban studies more widely), and this has implications: I’m assuming that the overwhelming dominance of men in the smart sector does have a major impact: on what tech is designed and how, on how potential markets are perceived, on what data is collected and what even counts as data, on how the smart city is imagined and therefore built. (Rose 2016) Understanding gender is vital to a critical examination of what constitutes ‘smart cities’; likewise, gender has been amply demonstrated as a significant factor in understanding mobilities (see Priya Uteng and Cresswell 2008). Conventional understanding of ‘smart cities’ is closely linked to immediate and continuous access to the Internet, typically via a smartphone and apps accessible on that phone, so this prompts one to ask two key questions: is access to online resources and smartphones gendered? And is this understanding of what constitutes smart cities and associated smart mobilities sufficiently inclusive? It is argued that ‘Smartphones can be an effective tool to empower women, as they enable women to access different mobile services for various purposes, including managing a business’ (Ameen et al. 2018: 158). However, access to smartphones can vary markedly within countries, communities, and families, and a smartphone gender

Economic migrants in Bristol  129 gap is a key manifestation of these inequalities, especially in households where limited economic resources intersect with gendered hierarchies and norms. Bridging this smartphone gender gap and facilitating full access is not only a question of literal access and cost, but also relates to the marketing of smartphones and access to training in their effective and secure use (Ameen et al. 2018). Building on feminist critiques of earlier GIS systems, Leszczynski and Elwood argue that there is a need to apply gender analysis to developments during a period of burgeoning smart technology in order ‘to determine how it is that gender matters differently in this newly diversified, pervasive, and public context of geographic information technologies’ (Leszczynski and Elwood 2015: 12). With regard to new spatial media, they argue that gender ‘matters’ in three key aspects of socialtechnological life: (1) new practices of data creation and curation; (2) affordances of new technologies; and (3) new digital spatial mediations of everyday life. For example, they critique the prevalence of smartphone service apps for coffee shops and bars versus the limited number designed to accommodate the more varied complexities of everyday life – such as route planners to assist parents negotiating daily multi-staged work-childcare-commuting mobilities. From a policy perspective, Maria Sanguliano also argues that attention to gender is an important indicator of/requirement for inclusive smart cities, and that gender is a key variable for analysing urban innovation policies. For example, one European Union study has shown that men’s and women’s travel and consumption choices are influenced by environmental factors in different ways: 6 per cent more women than men buy local products motivated by reducing carbon dioxide, and 2 per cent more women than men choose environmentally friendly transport for environmental reasons, while men score more highly than women on car-sharing and buying cars with eco-credentials (European Parliament 2012; Sangiuliano n.d.). Similarly, different gendered mobility patterns have been identified in relation to key dimensions of space, time, purpose, and safety (allowing for differences in education, marital status, and income); this is evidenced in women’s typically shorter journey distances, ‘chain trip’ models of travel, and reported sense of vulnerability at transport changeover points, as well as car use to manage/minimise risk (European Parliament 2012; European Commission 2014; Ceccato 2014). Sangiuliano also highlights the often hidden gendered personal and social costs of the inability to optimise journeys, such as working women with children who reported having insufficient time for volunteering and other civic activities associated with social capital. These examples highlight the need for both technological innovation such as apps addressing the gendered needs of women and others with similar needs and concerns; urban design improvements to reduce risk (e.g. transport hubs and links); and for gender to be mainstreamed within transport-smart mobility policy and design. Gender, mobility, and meaning-making Emerging studies of smart cities in both the global North and South ‘highlight gendered and socio-economic patterns of inclusions and exclusions brought about by a digital urban age’ (Datta 2019). Gender and mobility are mutually

130  Avril Maddrell interacting: mobility shapes gender as much as vice versa (Hanson 2010). ­Contemporary studies of mobilities and, more specifically, the pursuit of inclusive policies for smart mobilities and smart cities thus need to be attentive to gender in ways that: (1) facilitate women’s full participation in society; (2) recognise that understanding gender is not just about being attentive to ‘women’ as a monolithic category, but being attentive to diverse gend ered experiences of women, men, and LGBTQ+ groups, as well as diversity within these broad gender categories; and (3) mobilise smart technologies to facilitate knowledge/resource-sharing and other collective modus operandi to create ‘smart’ cities and mobilities in the broadest sense. Part of that breadth of approach includes being attentive to migrant mobilities, including identifying and understanding nuanced gendered migrant mobilities. Within migration studies, feminist geographers have emphasised the need to ‘examine gender-differentiated power geometries at work in the labour market and the workplace, as well as patriarchal ideologies and the gendered power relations within the household and the reproductive sphere in shaping who moves and who stays’ (Yeoh and Huang 2011: 682). Drawing upon Hanson’s (2010) discussion, the next section of this chapter explores the assemblage of gendered smart mobilities enabled by, but not limited to, digital technology within the diverse mobilities and work-seeking practices of a cohort of international economic migrants in Bristol, UK. Bristol is a city with a population of approximately 450,000 residents, where the largest migrant communities are Polish, Spanish, Somali, and South and Southeast Asian. A sample of 33 recent ‘economic’ migrants who had settled in the city in the previous five years, and representing a range of countries of origin, were interviewed or participated in focus groups; this data was supplemented by ‘Top Tips’ from over 100 ‘established’ migrants who had lived in Bristol for at least five years. Balance was sought between EU and Non-EU migrants (Third Country Nationals (TCNs)) by gender and age as well as occupation, including highly qualified professional migrants. Nineteen of the participants were women, 14 were men; 14 were from the EU, 19 from beyond the EU (TCNs); 14 were White, and 19 were from Black and Ethnic Minorities. Overall, the participating migrants had a range of educational and professional backgrounds, countries of origin, ethnicities, and migration experiences, as well as varying expectations, aspirations, and intentions in relation to living and working in Bristol. In addition to these interviews and focus groups, the project team also consulted several migrant support groups in Bristol and a job coaching agency for migrants, and surveyed residents (not discussed here) (see Maddrell et al. 2016). Analysis of this qualitative research provides insights into aspects of intersectional gender in relation to particular constructs and alternative models of smart mobilities within the context of smart cities.

Bristol economic migrants (BEM) study 2016: lessons for gendered smart mobilities Migrants are heterogeneous. Even subcategories such as the broad (and critiqued) classification of ‘economic migrant’ is extremely varied, including

Economic migrants in Bristol  131 highly motivated entrepreneurs, highly qualified multilingual professionals who are head-hunted to work in UK firms and services (e.g. universities, media, and aerospace industries), and other graduates and skilled workers, as well as those who migrate without a job offer and may need guidance on finding work. Each migrant/migrant cohort will have a different relation to IT, as well as local services and communities, but these differences may be less distinct than previous scholarship has suggested. Indeed, even international ‘talent’ migrants who have typically been represented as having border-free and frictionless mobilities are often more socially and culturally embedded than migration studies allow (e.g. their mobilities are shaped by familial ties as well as the mechanisms of ‘talent’ recruitment and financial reward) (Leinonen 2012; Yeoh and Huang 2011).Thus, just as international migrants vary in their skill sets, employability, and relation to the places they live and work, there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to meeting migrants’ differing needs (Integration Up North (IUN) 2015). Nonetheless, when established migrants in the Bristol study were asked to share their ‘Top Tips’ for new migrants seeking to settle and find work in the city, several common themes emerged, namely (1) the role of the Internet as a vital source of information (ranging from government sites to job opportunities, to accessing public services and accommodation); (2) country-of-origin expatriate communities as sources of information, including social media feeds; and (3) the need for English language proficiency to achieve the best match between an individual’s skills and training, as well as the ability to confidently navigate rights and obligations without fear, including online and paper-based information and applications in order to access services, training, and any entitlement to benefits. While the first point supports conventional notions of smart cities, the latter indicates the need for a broad framing of smart migrant practices. The indicative selection of ‘Top Tips’ shown in Figure 8.1, identifying key sources of information on work and business from established migrants living in Bristol, highlights the central role of IT sources. Both female and male migrants originating from other European Union (EU) countries identify a mixture of websites, social media channels, such as Facebook or the business-focused LinkedIn site, and official local and national government or EU support services, job agencies, and libraries. The utility of these online sites was also reported by migrants from outside the EU, but this group was more likely to identify physical points of information such as job centres, shopping centres, and physical community groups, such as places of worship and other community meeting points. Interviews and focus groups with recent economic migrants showed a clear difference between those arriving to prearranged jobs or business ventures (engineers, medical staff, entrepreneurs, and those joining family businesses) and those without jobs in place on arrival. Outside of those joining family businesses, highly qualified, English language-competent and IT-savvy migrants were most likely to have prearranged employment or job interviews set up soon after arrival, having made applications or submitted CVs online in advance of migration. Educated EU migrants, male and female, expressed confidence about accessing professional jobs using customised online searches. One German

132  Avril Maddrell ‘Facebook groups of fellow nationals already resident here, community groups, employment agencies, but Facebook groups are much better’ (Female, 35+ years, EU) ‘There is information and support on setting up a business in the UK by EU-funded organisations and many organisations offer advice to migrants [on the] internet’ (Female, 35+, EU) ‘Internet, libraries, employment agencies, Bristol, City Council’ (Male, 35+, EU) ‘Use social media (Twitter, Facebook, [Gumtree]) where companies advertise and where communities of foreigners are offering support. Actually LinkedIn is very useful’ (Female, 35+, EU) ‘Local council, CAB, Business LINK, local parish council’ (Female, 35+, SE Asia) ‘Government support services, internet, local religious and other community groups’ (Male, 35+, SE Asia) ‘Council, shopping centre information points, advice centres’ (Male, Bachelor Income: Very low Income: Low Income: Medium Purpose: Work and study Purpose: Other Frequency: Rarely Frequency: Often Frequency: Very often Walking: TT Waiting: TT Walking: expect Waiting: expect Seats available Vehicle full Men in vehicle Tr. women only Metro BRT City bus Log-LL zero Log-LL final Nagelkerke Rsq N

M2 – Victim

M3 – Not a victim

Estim.

Sig.

Estim.

Sig.

Estim.

Sig.

0.038 –0.116 0.020 Ref.value 0.033 –0.077 Ref.value 0.017 0.003 Ref.value 0.052

0.735 0.260 0.840

–0.104 –0.170 –0.176 Ref.value 0.065 –0.031 Ref.value 0.068 0.032 Ref.value 0.017

0.440 0.166 0.152

0.284 0.087 0.441 Ref.value –0.175 –0.195 Ref.value –0.006 0.004 Ref.value 0.004

0.145 0.649 0.012

Ref.value –0.058 –0.122 Ref.value 0.013 0.019 0.085 0.196 0.115 0.164 0.142 0.308 0.429 0.514 Ref.value 4399.693 2320.016 0.303 917

0.735 0.301 0.862 0.967 0.550 0.592 0.090 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.000 0.016 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ref.value –0.093 –0.116 Ref.value 0.013 0.010 0.071 0.232 0.122 0.172 0.148 0.273 0.575 0.783 Ref.value 2937.649 1474.886 0.366 618

0.554 0.707 0.549 0.725 0.867 0.463 0.150 0.000 0.144 0.211 0.000 0.027 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ref.value –0.128 –0.199 Ref.value 0.011 0.014 0.173 0.103 0.002 0.105 0.093 0.293 0.134 0.062 Ref.value 1209.292 773.860 0.177 299

0.351 0.196 0.976 0.980 0.982 0.516 0.158 0.062 0.099 0.041 0.190 0.984 0.238 0.204 0.000 0.479 0.673

Women-only transport in Mexico  201 The influence of most socio-demographic variables (education and income) and travel characteristics (trip purpose) on the travel experience is insignificant. The exceptions are age and travel frequency by PT. For example, female travellers between 35 and 44 years of age who have not been the victim of any aggression are more satisfied than the oldest age group (>44). In addition, for a general trip (M1), those who travel often report lower satisfaction levels than those who travel very often. The effect of walking and waiting times for some models is positive. This means that the longer one walks to and waits at PTW the more satisfied one gets. The strength of the coefficients is weak (0.013–0.036) but significant. These counter-intuitive results could be explained by the fact that the models do not control for door-to-door travel times. This may reflect the satisfaction of travellers who wait and walk longer but who also travel longer distances. Therefore their ratio of waiting and walking times to total door-to-door travel time may remain similar to that of other trips. Perceiving waiting and walking times as shorter than expected has an overall positive influence in all models. In particular, compared to the general model (M1), the perception of waiting time as shorter than expected has more than two times more positive impact upon the travel experience when the traveller has been a victim of aggression (M2). Figure 11.3 showed that BRT travellers are more satisfied than others. Model results indicate that this still holds even after controlling for socio-demographic, travel characteristics, and service attributes. BRT is the second-best mode in terms of speed, reliability, and frequency. However, it is more highly regarded than metro, the best in service objective performance, which may indicate that other characteristics that have not been considered in this study such as securityrelated aspects may play an important role in influencing female travellers’ perceptions. Finally, being satisfied with each of the travel attributes exerts a positive impact upon the travel experience. The goodness of fit of the travel mode-specific models ranges between 0.291 (general model – M4) to 0.526 (City bus – M7). Metro and City bus models explain about 50 per cent of the variance in overall travel satisfaction. The impact of socio-demographic characteristics is more pronounced in models 4 to 7 than in M1 to 3. Young female travellers (44 Education: Secondary Education: High school Education: >Bachelor Income: Very low Income: Low Income: Medium Purpose: Work and study Purpose: Other Frequency: Rarely Frequency: Often Frequency: Very often Walking: TT Waiting: TT Walking: expect Waiting: expect Seats available Vehicle full

0.195 0.039 0.132 Ref.value 0.009 –0.076 Ref.value 0.070 0.061 Ref.value 0.021 Ref.value –0.155 –0.195 Ref.value 0.015 0.015 0.115 0.194 0.071 0.113

Estim.

0.000 0.002 0.016 0.000 0.139 0.018

0.153 0.007

0.812

0.476 0.462

0.928 0.307

0.084 0.709 0.200

Sig.

M4 – All

Table 11.4  General and travel mode-specific models

0.097 –0.060 0.133 Ref.value 0.330 0.187 Ref.value 0.014 –0.137 Ref.value 0.206 Ref.value –0.084 –0.122 Ref.value 0.013 0.005 0.081 0.291 0.240 0.004

Estim.

0.000 0.671 0.268 0.000 0.001 0.961

0.592 0.224

0.100

0.920 0.230

0.018 0.069

0.556 0.693 0.378

Sig.

M5 – Metro

–0.048 –0.100 0.022 Ref.value –0.245 –0.274 Ref.value –0.007 0.095 Ref.value 0.062 Ref.value 0.110 –0.054 Ref.value 0.000 –0.020 0.216 0.062 –0.132 0.244

Estim.

0.959 0.016 0.005 0.397 0.066 0.001

0.514 0.636

0.638

0.964 0.539

0.128 0.038

0.794 0.571 0.905

Sig.

M6 – BRT

0.353 0.170 0.118 Ref.value –0.449 –0.183 Ref.value –0.018 0.152 Ref.value –0.592 Ref.value –0.537 –0.375 Ref.value 0.032 0.036 0.012 0.146 0.141 0.134

Estim.

0.012 0.000 0.899 0.117 0.175 0.170

0.022 0.019

0.003

0.921 0.311

0.022 0.208

0.105 0.384 0.505

Sig.

M7 – City bus

Men in vehicle Tr. women only Verbal (men) Non-verbal (men) Physical (men) Verbal (women) Non-verbal (women) Physical (women) Log-LL zero Log-LL final Nagelkerke Rsq N

0.155 0.278 –0.149 –0.235 –0.021 –0.126 0.093 –0.157 2641.258 2347.702 0.291 917

Estim. 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.002 0.746 0.188 0.558 0.027

Sig.

M4 – All

–0.003 0.367 –0.095 –0.163 –0.186 –0.276 0.094 –0.149 1082.432 874.474 0.446 386

Estim. 0.969 0.000 0.300 0.107 0.044 0.028 0.650 0.111

Sig.

M5 – Metro

0.201 0.160 –0.181 –0.091 0.017 0.355 0.159 –0.067 846.672 773.941 0.221 315

Estim. 0.001 0.015 0.145 0.506 0.875 0.067 0.527 0.589

Sig.

M6 – BRT

0.138 0.155 –0.398 –0.457 0.004 –0.093 –0.264 –0.158 633.574 485.316 0.526 216

Estim.

0.077 0.039 0.008 0.012 0.976 0.581 0.576 0.325

Sig.

M7 – City bus

204  Roberto F. Abenoza et al. the overall assessment of the trip. In contrast, commuting trips made by metro have an almost (0.100) significant and positive effect (0.206) on travellers’ satisfaction. This might be explained by the higher exposure of City bus to peak-hour traffic congestion which may prolong travel times and worsen regularity and punctuality indexes. In general (M1–All), infrequent travellers are less likely to be satisfied with the overall trip than those travelling very often, which is in line with previous research for non-PTW systems (e.g. Woldeamanuel and Cyganski 2011). The strength of this effect is much larger for City bus travellers (–0.375 and –0.537) which may be attributed to the assumed lower expectations travellers have regarding City bus trips compared to modes with a consistent brand identity and with exclusive right of way (i.e. metro and BRT). The influence of longer walking and waiting times is similar to the one found in models 1 to 3. Walking times to metro stations are the same for mixed and women-only PT systems, so comparatively, female travellers may not feel penalised for using the women-only system. Across most of the models, meeting one’s expectations in terms of walking and waiting times has a positive influence on the traveller experience. Travel aspects such as level of satisfaction travelling with women only very positively influence the travel experience. Compared to other travel modes this positive impact is two times higher for metro users. This may indicate that more male travellers infringed women-only carriages and therefore PTW female users have higher evaluations of this attribute when fulfilled. A large number of the remaining service attributes are significant in most of the models. The sign of the effect is, as expected, positive, such as being satisfied with crowding levels or with the fact that seats and vehicles are not occupied by men (General and BRT – M4 and M6), or having available seats (Metro – M5) leading to higher satisfaction levels. However, BRT users report lower overall travel satisfaction even when they are satisfied that there are enough seats. The reason for this result however is not entirely understood. In general, having been a victim of any type of aggression from either men or other women has a negative impact on the travel experience. The strength of this negative effect is much higher when aggression occurs in City buses (–0.398 and –0.457), which might be explained by the higher exposure and sense of vulnerability female travellers may experience while waiting at unmonitored on-street stops. Verbal related aggression attains significant results in all models (M4 to M7), while other types of aggression are significant in only half of them. This indicates that satisfaction-wise, verbal aggression is the most harmful across modes.

Discussion Mexico and smart mobilities Mexico has seen the implementation of a number of smart mobility solutions over the past decade (Winter et al. 2016). In 2010, Mexico City inaugurated

Women-only transport in Mexico  205 ECOBICI, a bicycle-sharing system which currently covers about 500 stations spread over most parts of the City and with around 7,000 bikes, some of them electric. In 2012, Sonora State introduced in Hermosillo and its metropolitan area a PT travel planner app which allowed travellers to plan their trips, to check bus schedules, and to map and obtain details of travellers’ routes in real time. In 2014, some municipalities of Puebla and Tlaxcala states implemented an app that helped travellers locate and pay for parking using their smartphones. The system allowed for different types of payments (SMS, credit card, and cash) and aimed to reduce traffic build-up when searching for parking spaces. In 2015, the municipality of Acapulco introduced smart stoplights on one of its main avenues. The solution aimed to reduce the average travel time along the avenue by means of synchronising the lights considering real-time traffic conditions. In 2002 Mexico City initiated its sustainable mobility path with the approval of the transport and roadways law (Smart Cities Dive 2014). Under this law, the City saw the introduction of BRT and bike-sharing systems, zero-emissions corridors, and pedestrianised thoroughfares. However, these efforts were not enough to improve mobility and environmental issues in the City. For this reason, in 2014, a new mobility law which had the ‘right to mobility’ as its motto was established. This law aspires to prioritise pedestrian and cyclists trips, and to improve road safety and PT resilience. In addition, this law aims to stimulate the creation of a regulatory body for PT corridors and PT operators, which would improve the whole journey experience. In particular, efforts have been made to integrate PT modes, renew PT fleets, purchase more environmentally friendly vehicles, and include GPS technology, cooling systems, and bike racks. However, all these smart solutions may not be available to all travellers due to, for example, illiteracy (5% in 2015), low smartphone penetration rates (35% in 2016), or limited user Internet connectivity. Smart and non-smart solutions to PTW To date, no smart solutions have been proposed or deployed with the purpose of addressing sexual-related violence issues while travelling, which is one of the main causes that deter women from using PT in the Mexican context. Moreover, there is no evidence on how PTW has been linked to smart solutions and mobilities in Mexico and other parts of the world. Considering the results presented on overall satisfaction, this section proposes a number of solutions that may help increase travellers’ satisfaction with PTW services. The models’ results show that three travel attributes need to be prioritised. Improving the level of satisfaction of travelling with women only would allow an increase in overall travel satisfaction by around 0.3 points (on a 1–5 scale). Adopting measures such as enhancing the protection of BRT waiting areas by means of introducing physical barriers that are only accessible with smartcards could increase women’s safety within PT premises while waiting on platforms in what today are mixed-gender environments. Moreover, augmenting the presence

206  Roberto F. Abenoza et al. of officers in metro stations and fining male travellers who infringe the law could be adopted to increase women’s satisfaction with this attribute. The improvement of travellers’ perceptions in relation to experience with verbal aggression from both genders can also yield an increase of around 0.3 overall satisfaction points. Possible measures that could be implemented are media and at-station or on-board information campaigns to increase reporting and awareness. To this end, at-station and on-board monitors and sound systems could be employed. In addition, educational programmes to improve one’s behaviour towards one’s fellow travellers could be introduced. Delivering waiting times that meet female expectations could increase travel satisfaction of metro travellers and victimised travellers in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 points. Expectations of waiting times are, in principle, based on previous travellers’ experience and on service schedules, which highlights the importance of offering punctual and regular services. At the same time, perceived waiting times might be influenced by the characteristics of the waiting environment, of their immediate surroundings, and of the presence of at-stop real-time information. This way, smart bus stops and shelters equipped with alarms, built-in monitoring cameras, and smart displays could help increase feelings of safety among female travellers waiting at stops by allowing real-time surveillance and police response. In addition, the promotion and use of smartphone applications offering information on users’ safety perceptions experienced in different parts of the PT system and PT surrounding areas could help to pinpoint perilous walking, waiting, and travelling conditions. Free Wi-Fi could be provided within PT premises so that users without Internet connectivity could use the app. In addition, the sense of vulnerability that female travellers may experience while waiting at unguarded on-street stops may be avoided by reducing their waiting times and providing them with the opportunity to wait for their bus in safer environments. To this end, the introduction of PT journey planners’ apps offering real-time information could help mitigate the negative effect that being a victim of any type of aggression has on female travellers using City buses.

Conclusions and recommendations In sum, this chapter has demonstrated that female travellers’ appreciation of PTW services varies as a function of some of their socio-demographic and travel characteristics. In general, young travellers (< 25), and non-victimised travellers between 35 and 44 years of age, value PTW services the most. This finding is in line with previous results for non-PTW services (Mouwen 2015). Income level is found to play no significant role in female travellers’ evaluation of PTW which does not concur with previous findings for conventional mixed-sex services (e.g. Dong et al. 2016). Other travel characteristics which influence the travel experience are trip purpose and PT travel frequency. Trips made on the only mode without exclusive right of way (City bus) which are performed during the peak hour (commuting trips) negatively correlated with one’s travel

Women-only transport in Mexico  207 experience. This aspect entails a reduction of more than 0.5 from a total of 5 points (in a 1–5 overall satisfaction scale). These findings highlight the importance of understanding travellers’ characteristics and accounting for travel mode strengths and weaknesses when investigating travel experience-related issues on PTW services. Moreover, this study may help stakeholders identify, target, and prioritise female travellers’ groups who are least satisfied with the service. In addition, this study provides some policy recommendations and highlights the role of infrastructure that may help improve the overall travel experience. Considering the strength of the marginal effect’s coefficient from the models, the following three travel attributes should be prioritised: (1) level of satisfaction travelling with women only, (2) reducing exposure to verbal aggressions, and (3) meeting travellers’ waiting time expectations. There is a lack of studies that address the perceived and objective quality of PTW services. It would then be very insightful to design female satisfaction surveys for travellers using both PT systems (women only and mixed) so that comparative analyses in terms of travellers’ preferences and needs could be carried out. Moreover, the inclusion of a more comprehensive set of service- and security-related aspects in PTW surveys would allow for an assessment of their impact upon PTW satisfaction. Furthermore, studying PTW from a door-to-door perspective, where other trip stages and off-board transferring and waiting time components are included, could help when assessing the impact of other travel components upon the PTW experience. In addition, while there is evidence that women-only services help decrease sexually related aggression towards women within the PT system, they may not prevent the occurrence of other types of aggression but lead to an even larger increase in their occurrence. This is reflected in an assessment of the effectiveness of the programme ‘Viajemos seguras’ to reduce violence in the metro (Soto et al. 2017). Their assessment compared the incidence of sexual and physical violence during periods when women-only carriages were (peak hour) and were not active (off-peak hour). Their findings indicated that sexually related violence diminished within the PT facilities4 by 11 per cent, while physical violence increased by 30 per cent. The question of whether PTW is an effective policy to increase safety levels and trip satisfaction of women using PTW remains unanswered. Therefore, future studies should carry out before-and-after studies that would allow comparison of female perceptions and feelings before and after the introduction of PTW. Smart solutions that provide ridership data, likewise smartcard readers for BRT and City buses, and weight measurements in the air suspension system of women-only metro carriages could provide an objective measure of success or failure of PTW and the basis for capacity and route adjustments. In addition, there is no straightforward answer to whether PTW is an adequate policy measure to improve women’s mobility. Despite PTW offering a temporarily secure environment to female travellers from certain types of aggression while being on board, it may not be an effective solution in some

208  Roberto F. Abenoza et al. other areas of PT facilities (e.g. entrance, lobby, corridor, and waiting area). All in all, while it somehow helps mitigate the negative impacts for some, PTW fails to address the root causes of gender-based violence which can only be solved by societal changes driven by a change in attitudes that can be facilitated through educational programmes combined with persistent law enforcement.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Stockholm County’s (SLL) Research Development Funding [Grant no. 2016090] and Volvo Research Foundation [Grant no. SVG-2017–13] in supporting the authors’ research activities. We would also like to thank the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico in collecting the data.

Notes 1 ‘Ladies-only’ trains operated in the United Kingdom from the 1840s to the 1970s. 2 A small number of PTW were introduced for religious reasons such as in UAE and Iran. 3 A number of male traveller groups can board PTW: those who travel with a baby, those over 65 years of age, and the disabled. In addition, some male travellers ignored the regulations and boarded transport for women-only carriages and vehicles. 4 However sexually related violence may not diminish but only move to areas outside PT facilities.

References Abenoza, R.F., Liu, C., Cats, O., and and Susilo, Y.O. (2019) What is the role of weather, built-environment and accessibility geographical characteristics influencing travelers’ experience? Transportation Research Part A 122, 34–50. Chockalingam, K. and Vijaya, A. (2008) Sexual harassment of women in public transport in Chennai city: A victimological perspective. The Indian Journal of Criminology and Criminalists 29(3), 167–184. Clemes, M.D., Gan, C., Kao, T., and Choong, M. (2008) An empirical analysis of customer satisfaction in international air travel. Innovative Marketing 4(2), 49–62. Dong, G., Ma, J., Harris, R., and Pryce, G. (2016) Spatial random slope multilevel modeling using multivariate conditional autoregressive models: A case study of subjective travel satisfaction in Beijing. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 106(1), 19–35. Economia Hoy Journal (2018) ‘Transporte Rosa’ benefició a 10 millones de usuarias en 2017. Available at www.economiahoy.mx/nacional-eAm-mx/noticias/8992276/03/18/ Transporte-Rosa-beneficio-a-10-millones-de-usuarias-en-2017.html (accessed 24 May 2018). ENVIPE (2017) Encuesta Nacional de Victimización y Percepción sobre Seguridad Pública. Report, Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, Mexico. INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía) (2014) Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares. Report, Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, Mexico. INEGI (2017) Encuesta Origen-Destino en Hogares de la Zona Metropolitana del Valle de Mexico. Report, Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, Mexico.

Women-only transport in Mexico  209 INEGI (2018) Comunicado de prensa num. 104/18. Available at www.beta.inegi.org.mx/ contenidos/saladeprensa/boletines/2018/EstSociodemo/OrgenDest2018_02.pdf (accessed 24 May 2018). Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Bornstein, A., Fink, C., Gerami, S., and Samuels, L. (2009) How to Ease Women’s Fear of Transportation Environments: Case studies and best practices. Report, MTI 09-01 U.S. Department of Transportation. Metro, CDMX. Subway network map. Available at www.metro.cdmx.gob.mx/la-red/ mapa-de-la-red (accessed 24 May 2018). Mouwen, A. (2015) Drivers of customer satisfaction with public transport services. Transportation Research Part A 78,1–20. SM, Secretaría de Movilidad (2014) Programa Integral de Movilidad 2013–2018. Report, October, Mexico Distrito Federal. Smart Cities Dive (2014) Mexico City’s new mobility law shifts focus towards people, not cars. Available at www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/mexico-city-snew-mobility-law-shifts-focus-towards-people-not-cars/315781/ (accessed 25 December 2018). Soto, P., Aguilar, A., Gutierrez, E., and Castro, C. (2017) Evaluación de impacto programa Viajemos seguras en el transporte público en la Ciudad de México. Report, Inter-American Bank of Development, August. Susilo, Y., Abenoza, R., Woodcock, A., Liotopoulos, F., Duarte, A., Osmond, J., Georgiadis, A., Rodica, G., Bellver, P., Fornari, F., Tolio, V., O’Connell, E., Markucevičiūtė, I., and Diana, M. (2017) Findings from measuring door-to-door travellers’ travel satisfaction with traditional and smartphone app survey methods in eight European cities. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 17(3), 384–410. TRF (Thomson Reuters Foundation) (2014) Most dangerous transport systems for women. Available at http://news.trust.org//spotlight/most-dangerous-transport-systemsfor-women/ (accessed 24 May 2018). Winter, G., Patlan, M., Alvarado, L.O., Medina, S., Arevalo, J., and Ruiz, O. (2016) Smart Mobility, Diagnosis of the Present Situation in Mexico. Report, Instituto de Política para el Transporte y el Desarrollo, Mexico. Woldeamanuel, M. and Cyganski, R. (2011) Factors affecting traveller’s satisfaction with accessibility to public transportation. In 39th European Transport Conference, 10–12 October, Glasgow. Zermeño, M.F. (2009) La discriminación y violencia contra las mujeres en el transporte de la Ciudad de México. Report, Comisión nacional para la prevención de la discriminación, December, Mexico.

12 Smart biking as gendered innovations and smart city experiment? The case of Mobike in China Hilda Rømer Christensen Bikes cannot only change people and cities, but also the world. It is not only the symbol of peace, but also a weapon to fight the climate Change. (Hu Weiwei, founder and president of Mobike on the reception of the UN Champion of the Earth award, UN Conference on Environment, Nairobi, December 2017)

In December 2017 the Chinese biking company Mobike was awarded a prestigious global environmental prize: The UN Champion of the Earth Award for Entrepreneurial Vision. The prize ceremony was broadcast all over the world and conveyed a polished impression of a successful company, which in under two years had pioneered shared and smart cycling provisions not only in China but also around the world.1 Over only a few years, Mobike, together with a growing number of Chinese start-ups, seems to have had a visible impact in Chinese cities, where shared biking has become a smart way of transport. Notwithstanding all the problems that have surfaced along with the introduction of shared biking, it seems that smart bikes have been integrated into the transport modalities among the urban Chinese population. What is more, the bikes have opened up opportunities to change urban China from a vanishing kingdom of old bikes into a potential new kingdom of smart bikes (Christensen 2017). The invention and launch of Mobike was initially seen as a success model for various forms of innovation, including the celebrated ‘home-grown innovation’ which has been a feature of the current Chinese development plan.2 Mobike may be regarded as a genuine bottom-up initiative aimed at addressing the needs and search for new lifestyles among the Chinese middle class and in particular meeting a growing demand from urban (women) professionals on low salaries and with no or restricted access to cars. Mobike was a pioneer in a double sense. First, the Mobike company was a woman-led innovation project in a field routinely dominated by men.3 At the global level women make up a significant minority in the hyped field of entrepreneurship and innovation. Second, Mobike demonstrated a combination of high-tech with low-tech and business in a way that may be seen as a break away from hard core images of

The case of Mobike in China  211 technological innovation. Considering Hu Weiwei’s non-engineering and nontechnical background, the launch of Mobike as both a low carbon utility and as a new business model could indicate a new avenue in smart technological and gendered innovation. The biggest Chinese companies, Mobike and Ofo, became well known overnight in the field of shared biking, and took the lead from the beginning (Report 2 2017). As for the technologies, Mobike was a first mover in the combination of bike technology with app-based GPS devices which, for example, differed from the Ofo bikes, which required a specific code to unlock them. Mobike technology applied the ability to request track and pay for trips via mobile devices, and has been claimed to have changed the landscape and behaviour of users.4 The Ofo brand, launched by two students at Peking University, began operations in 2014 and was initially regarded as a campus bike. Against this background, Mobike claimed to be the world’s first and largest smart-bike-­ sharing platform in its presentation of the Mobike next generation material from 22 September 2017. Mobike is an interesting case both in terms of gender and innovation, as well as in the context of smart city experiments. Mobike was invented by Hu Weiwei who, in 2015, was a younger female graduate with a background in car journalism. This contrasts with the general gender profile in innovation, where men dominate as technical inventors, entrepreneurs, and investors. Besides, Mobike and smart biking with an equal appeal to men and women has contributed to disrupt the former gender-divided biking culture in China. What is more, the smart biking schemes claim to have contributed to curbing CO2 emissions and to changing urban transport modes in China, with more biking and less car driving (Reports 1 + 2 2017). This chapter fills a gap in studies of smart mobilities. With regard to studies of smart mobility in general, there are glaring gaps both in China and the West when it comes to gender. The few yet fragmented studies report that gender gaps are already emerging. Regular users of shared cars, for example, comprise a relatively exclusive group of mainly middle-class men and a minority of professional women without household obligations. Women who have family responsibilities or who practise a more complicated transit pattern are to a larger degree than men forced to use cheaper commuter-travel alternatives. They have not been able to use the more convenient yet also more expensive ride sourcing (Singh 2017; Christensen 2019). At present, shared or smart biking is an under-researched field, most notably in China, where by 2018 only a few reports of this fast-growing sector exist. These studies have been conducted by various university teams, and commissioned by the dominant bike-sharing companies themselves, such as Mobike and Ofo (Reports 1 + 2 2017). A number of (more independent) studies have focused on the contribution of shared biking to new sustainable value co-creation and ethical processes, and how users become involved in handling the free-floating bike fleets (Ibold and Nedopil 2017; China Daily 14 April 2017; Yin et al. 2018; Lan et al. 2017). In

212  Hilda Rømer Christensen terms of method, most of these studies are based on quantitative data and address limited topics related to doing better business and furthering responsible governance. They do not explicitly concern gendered differences or preferences. What is more, qualitative analyses of cultural and social aspects of biking are by and large absent both in general Chinese transport research and in the field of smart biking. It is a vital field to elucidate, not least bearing in mind the mega scales and revolutionary leaps made in China in terms of urban development, and transport modes and practices over the past decades. It is well known that, in particular, qualitative studies can bring about new aspects of how urbanisation, city growth, and new infrastructures are perceived, handled, and potentially changed. Broader cultural studies of transport and mobility can both throw deeper light on everyday life as well as on social relations in transport and mobility. In the following I will scrutinise smart and shared biking in contemporary urban China, using Mobike as a case in point. First, I will locate the making of Mobike in the current conceptual landscapes of disrupted and gendered innovations. Next, I will explore the gendered implications of Mobike design and technology, and how the scheme of shared biking has contributed to a potential new biking regime in China. In the final section I will assess Mobike as an experiment against the concepts of the smart city and innovation as a journey. What are the broader lessons to be learned from Mobike and smart biking in terms of sustainable urban transportation, smart cities, and gender?

Mobike as disruptive-gendered innovation This mature car industry with a history of a century seemed to have failed to keep up with the development of technology, as well as the increasingly personalized demand from consumers. Hu thought of bicycles – a vehicle she loves and most Chinese people have learned to use – as the most flexible, ecological means of transportation. (Hu Weiwei, in China Daily 15 December 2016) From a conceptual point of view Mobike aligns with the recent notions of disruptive and gendered innovations. The idea of disruptive innovation was coined by the American scholar Clayton Christensen who, in 1997, described disruptive innovation as providing a ‘cheaper, easier to use alternative to existing products or services often produced by nontraditional players that target previously ignored systems and/or use in novel contexts and combination’ (Christensen 1997). Against this horizon the notion of disruptive innovation suggested a broad and comprehensive location of innovation processes in contrast to the weakness of the dominant ideas of innovation, separate from social contexts. Christensen’s idea of disruptive innovation challenged the prevailing definition of innovation as exclusively linked to technology and market outcome. And against this horizon it was furthermore contended that if innovation was to go hand in hand with a low carbon society and environmental friendly practices it could not be brought about by isolated high-tech solutions. There was an imperative in this

The case of Mobike in China  213 logic for innovation to include broader mobilisations and involvements of people and politics. Besides, it was urged that innovation should initiate profound changes in everyday life as well as socioeconomic systems (Willis et al. 2007; Tyfield et al. 2010). Disruptive innovation from this particular angle was understood as the invention of alternatives to high-tech solutions, using examples such as refrigerators or alternative air-conditioning systems which applied simple materials such as water or sand and that were developed and deployed outside the centre of high tech. Mobike to some extent meets the criteria of disruptive innovation. On the one hand, one can argue that Mobike provided a simple solution and was invented by an outsider of hi-tech circles and initiated social changes in urban transport landscapes. The design process, on the other hand, differed from the more genuine examples of disruptive innovations. Mobike not only connected cuttingedge smartphone technologies with low-level transport/bike technologies. Mobike was at the same time a creation embedded in the new innovation and work culture developed in the current era of globalisation and platform economy (Poutanen and Kovalainen 2017). All in all this makes Mobike a hybrid, which both meets and challenges the original ideas of disruptive innovation. Here the making of Mobike aligns with the notion of gendered innovations which has specified and qualified a range of critical issues related to gender, power, and (in)equality glossed over in the notion of disruptive innovation. Gendered innovation is a flexible term that implies both theoretical understandings as well as methodological and empirical/material practices. For instance, the US/European-based project Gendered Innovations has brought the issue of user perspective and user-driven innovation to the fore and addressed the unhappy consequences of gender-blind research (Schiebinger and Klinge 2013). This means that the lack of gender perspective and more profound gender dimensions in technology development and design is regarded as a reason for the failure of many start-ups and why they and their products are not foreseen as ‘changing the world’ (Shiebinger 2008). Bray, an anthropologist specialising in China, argues along similar lines that successful innovations must depart from the daily practices in the home, from the kitchen table perspective, and include the masses (Bray (2012). The kitchen table horizon also indicates a gendered perspective and that it is vital to include women’s everyday perspectives. In general and seen from these various perspectives, too many useless things are produced, not least due to the lack of a deeper understanding of the processes in which technology becomes useful and practical (Poutanen and Kovalainen (2017: 6). The idea of gendered innovations and the platform forms a corrective to the main bulk of current research and innovation practices, and argues that gendered innovations require a proactive account. It is spelled out how traditional forms of gender bias or gender blindness in research and innovation are socially harmful and expensive, and lead to missed market opportunities (Schiebinger and Klinge 2013: 1). According to Londa Shiebinger and her team, gender should not be handled as an add-on after the misfit of the product or the process

214  Hilda Rømer Christensen has been revealed, but should be included from start to finish of the innovation processes. Gendered innovations along these lines consist in a ‘sophisticated method’ that includes not only a focus on gender balance in research and innovation teams. More importantly, it comprises a focus on gender as an analytical category in innovation processes. This means that gendered implications should be reflected right from beginning to the end. Gender, understood as a diverse array of forms and expressions, should be reflected in the conception of ideas, in design processes and methods, and be applied to the inclusion of gendered end users. Gendered Innovations forms a dynamic online resource that continues to provide strong case studies showing how gender-inclusive research can harness creative powers and how it leads to useful and better innovation in areas such as design, planning, and production (Schiebinger and Klinge 2013: 1). It should be noted that gendered innovations do not necessarily imply that women are inventors; yet Mobike makes up a double entry that illustrates women’s participation and at the same time provides a case for gendered innovations. In the following I will merge and displace the notions of disruptive and gendered innovation into the hyphenated term disruptive-gendered innovation. ­Disruptive-gendered innovation includes a flexible assemblage of both digital and non-digital technologies in alignment with the notion of gendered producers and users. Another normative requirement is that disruptive-gendered innovations should meet everyday needs and create significant changes in terms of sustainable practices and gender equality. The making of Mobike here makes a suitable empirical case of how disruptivegendered innovations have been brought about; the data consists in media materials from leading English language newspapers, such as China Daily and Shanghai Daily, supplemented with selected articles from the Chinese language press Renmin Daily and Global Times. The media material has been supplemented by consultations with Mobike staff and transport researchers. Last but not least, this material has been incorporated into the sociobiographical data and practices of Hu Weiwei aligned with written reports from the shared biking companies and their own promotion materials.5

The making of Mobike Motivated by the mundane experience of complicated access channels to rental bikes both in China and Sweden, Hu Weiwei started to explore the potential of translating smart car mobility technologies into the field of shared biking. In so doing she transposed the knowledge she had obtained as a graduate in communication and from her career in car journalism and car-sharing possibilities into a new field of urban transport. This in turn led her to set up an interdisciplinary team of engineers and IT people in a start-up project aimed at developing a new shared bike system. In pursuing this aim, Hu Weiwei literally made her way into the complex structures of designers and factories, who tended to regard her ideas as crazy and unrealistic, and some of her teamworkers even left the project.

The case of Mobike in China  215 Often, as she later recalled, she was met with resistance and stereotypes: ‘Can a young female journalist lead her company to achieve her target? She won’t succeed’!6 During the process, she managed not only to take the lead in the creation of a new design and with her team overcome technical challenges but also to provide venture capital. This was quite an accomplishment for a woman in the current gendered landscape of venture capital, which, as remarked earlier, is dominated by men. Studies show that the provision of capital has created enduring barriers for women inventors and entrepreneurs both in the West and the East (Poutanen and Kovalainen 2017). As for intellectual property rights, the practice of the Mobike founder also resembles other significant women entrepreneurs in practising a relaxed attitude towards patenting and which in a further note aligns with the current trends of open innovation. In a Chinese interview in 2017, Hu Weiwei claimed to uphold the intellectual property rights to the pioneering Mobike business model, yet the Mobike strategy was not to sue plagiarism but rather to keep up front when it comes to innovation. In her own words: ‘The most effective solution is to be a pioneer all the time.’7 At an overall level Mobike provides a clear and thus far rare example of disruptivegendered innovations enabled by the transition from industrial to digital modes of production. Mobike in this lens becomes an achievement that signals the move from male-dominated industrial technologies to digital technologies ‘based on brain, rather than brawn, and on networks rather than on a technicalprofessional hierarchy’. It is a window of opportunity that time and again has been predicted by feminist science and technology scholars (Wajcman 2009), and a shift that may signpost new assemblages of women and technologies/ machines that challenge existing hierarchies. In the case of Mobike it was this new alignment that provided a promising turn to more environmental and userfriendly urban transport and other devices for the masses.

Mobike pioneer of fourth-generation shared biking Seen in a historical perspective, smart bike-sharing has evident advantages compared to the earlier generations of rental bikes, often provided with government support. Shared biking – or what has been labelled free-floating bike-share – is the latest invention in a relatively long history of biking technologies. As already mentioned, Mobike technologies pioneered the smarting and greening mobility, where smart indicates integration of the latest technology, Internet, and telecommunication devices into mobility services. Greening includes the effects on non-motorised and sustainable forms of transport, and the enhancement of a low carbon society. Going back in history, it seems that biking technology stayed remarkably permanent during the twentieth century. This situation only changed gradually with the arrival of the post-Fordist system and growing global competition and specialised products (e.g. in the mountain and sports biking industry) (HuybersWither and Livingston 2010: 1204–2005) Shared biking technologies have been

216  Hilda Rømer Christensen developed and have proliferated in different forms along with the growing interest in curbing car use and CO2 emissions in large cities, a problem that became a major challenge in Chinese cities along with urbanisation and the exploding car culture in the twenty-first century. The first two or three generations of shared biking used public or semi-public bicycles based on docking station systems, often with quite complicated access systems, that differed from city to city. The docking system implied that the user had to start and end their travel at fixed points – often with centrally located docking stations close to metro stations or downtown locations. Most cities introduced these systems of shared biking as a kind of green window dressing, and not as something which could really meet the needs of millions of new residents for their daily commute (Shaheen et al. 2011).8 Technically, the Mobike system invented the GPS smart technologies through which locks and theft prevention mechanisms could be applied. The function of the system when it works is relatively simple: users with apps can locate and reserve bikes 15 minutes in advance, and scan a bike’s QR (quick response) code to unlock it. After use, riders simply park the bikes anywhere within the designed public parking spaces often strategically located in front of metro stations, public buildings, educational institutions, shopping malls, and other public areas. Mobike tapped into these possibilities and may be said to have pioneered a fourth generation of rental bikes, also known as smart mobility or ‘demandresponsive, multimodal systems’. Such systems also have the potential of combining the system with larger public transport systems and the provision of so-called seamless transport. Mobike officially operated/s in close cooperation with city governments regarding parking spaces and with a high level of sensibility towards the needs of users. Mobike, however, operates technically independently from city transport, which has also become a contested site of Mobike operations.9 The success of Mobike and Ofo has prompted other start-ups to launch shared biking systems which means that there has recently been an oversupply of shared bikes in big Chinese cities. More recently, then, the presence of Mobike and other shared biking systems has provoked and frustrated city authorities both in China and the West, who have become eager to regulate and limit the numbers and availability of bikes.

De-gendering and democratic design? The original ‘classic’ Mobike bicycle came in a relatively simple and robust version, with all vital parts put into boxes and wheels that could be easily dismantled for simple repair. As for design developments, Hu Weiwei went to various factories to find the most suitable materials. During the process she realised that the available ‘off-the-shelf bikes’ in existing factories did not meet requirements. Mobike therefore established its own team of industrial designers who assisted in designing the hardware of the signature Mobike. The first Mobike models showed a robust yet certain elegance in design and visibility, which tapped into the search for smart solutions and new lifestyles in the

The case of Mobike in China  217 emerging Chinese middle class. Not least, the silver and orange colours of the Mobikes initially became iconic and have been maintained in the various models ever since (Figure 12.1). The unisex design of Mobike contrasted the second and third generation of docking station shared bikes which often came in feminine forms and colours, including plastic baskets in the front – the Mobike models from the very beginning demonstrated a different aesthetics. While the basic colour was silver, the Mobike logo in orange accentuated both elegance and warmth in Chinese aesthetics. What is more, Mobike bikes also present a model which seems to have no clear gender distinction or appeal and which aims at accessibility for all. As such, Mobike models may be said to have de-gendered the existing Chinese bike designs because they use a ‘onemodel-fits-all’ design. This contrasts with the former landscape where bike models and designs were highly gendered; for example, one was met by stereotyping and hierarchical displays in bike shops and in marketing. Fancy sports bikes in black and grey shades associated intuitively with men and masculinity were displayed in the front of the stores in Beijing and Shanghai, while more feminine and cheaper bikes in pale pink and blue colours were stored in the rear (Christensen 2017). As for the new and less gendered models, it is thought-provoking that the

Figure 12.1  Mobike. Beijing, 2017. Source: Photo: Hilda Rømer Christensen.

218  Hilda Rømer Christensen company initially received complaints from women customers over lack of affordance in access and transport of bags. Mobike accordingly changed the original form and equipped their bikes with a robust bike basket for handbags. This pattern was followed by several of the other shared bike brands in the market.10 At this stage Mobike also seemed to have challenged the social and hierarchical orders of cyclists in pre-Mobike times where cyclists were located in a hierarchical pyramid, with the sports and mountain bikers at the top, the fashion bikers in the middle, and the mundane bikers who used the bike as a daily means of transport at the bottom.11 Here again it seemed as if shared biking denoted both a de-gendering and anti-hierarchical move into a biking landscape. Mobikes and other models quickly became popular among a broad sample of the emerging middle class, including both men and women. Yet new variations may be underwaywith Mobike at this initial stage being the most expensive shared bike provider, which complies with their relative higher quality and price sensitivity appealing to women bike users on lower salaries. Mobike bikes were intended to boost the quality and durability of average Chinese bikes. The prototype bike was made of aluminum and was from the beginning predicted to have a durability of over four years in all weather conditions, a fact which emphasised the idea of the circular economy and sustainability in the durability of the bikes’ life cycle.The improved and more elegant models have also made Mobike bikes more attractive in the landscape of shared bikes, and in general Mobike-shared bikes are regarded as of a better quality compared to other brands, not least the Ofo bikes which, as stated above, represent the main competitor. The Mobike models have over their short-lived existence been subject to ongoing improvements and refinements, both in technological and designer terms. The latest model presented as Mobike Next Generation in 2017 included both aesthetic and technological enhancements.12 The new model was presented as ‘industry leading’ and was based on scientific experimental data which made for a better bike: ‘Thanks to the development of a lower resistance tire, a light frame and the new automatic gearing the most recent model offers Mobike’s smoothest and most comfortable ride to date.’ Mobike on this occasion hired the world-famous Japanese industrial designer Naoto Fukasawa who introduced the design for an even smarter concept bike, and emphasised how bikes throughout history have functioned as much as an expression of style as of a smart means of transportation,13 a claim that makes a lot of sense in China in both current and historical perspectives.

The bike as a lifestyle icon in shifting biking regimes Mobike was a pioneer in the launching of smart technology and bikes, yet the label and designs also feed into the role of the bike as a lifestyle icon; a phenomenon which has been a fact over most of the twentieth century in China, for example, in Shanghai in the 1930s where the bike became a signature for the new middle class; and where modern middle-class masculinity at this time

The case of Mobike in China  219 implied short hair, a Western male suit, smoking a pipe, together with Western food and riding a bike. Students from girls’ schools who were also reported to be among the new bikers and members of the trend-setting literary community even talked about ‘the freedom vehicle’ (Rhoads 2012: 95) Following the launch of the PRC in 1949, the Chinese government took the lead in introducing the bike as an icon of communist universalism, equality, and modernity – and China as a nation of bicycles. The bike as a lifestyle icon also refers back to the central role of ‘a Flying Pigeon in every Household’. During the 1980s the bike became one of the so-called Big Four commodities, in line with the sewing machine, television, and washing machine, which tout court signalled a family as ‘modern’. As for transport and mobility, reform politics in China since the 1980s were clearly influenced by dominant Western paradigms of the car, including car use and car production as vital parameters of the socialist market economy and car ownership has become a ticket to the middle class (Christensen 2015; Gallagher 2006). Consequently the twenty-first century saw a marked fall in the level of biking in urban China, from 63 per cent of commuters travelling on bikes in 1986 to only 12 to 16 per cent in 2012.14 Yet recent figures from the bike-sharing companies show that bikes may be on the rise again along with reduced car use. A couple of reports issued in spring 2017 provided the first optimistic evidence of the contribution of shared bikes to the successful revitalisation of biking in China recently, which used big data analysis to reveal user profiles and the context of biking. Among other things they measured the cycling environment against six dimensions which ranked the cities according to use, parking, sustainability, health, services, and social cultivation. The reports also substantiated the use of bikes according to gender, age, distance travelled, etc. They demonstrated that shared bikes have mobilized both men and women, as well as the different generations. In the cities surveyed women accounted for between 40 and 50 per cent of users, with Kunming and Tianjin at the top and Xian at the bottom. The age distribution also proved quite striking, with most users aged between 18 and 45, yet with a large proportion made up of the group between the ages of 30 and 45. Beijing accounted for the most bike-friendly environment and the highest rate of biking. Shanghai was ranked first in terms of commuter biking. In addition, it was reported that men over the age of 60 undertook the longest rides, primarily as leisure rides in holiday resorts such as Hainan Island in southern China.15 As for the class and social perspectives, Shenzhen provided a good example. Here it turned out that Mobikes were mostly used at night by public cleaners, as this was the only mode of transportation available to them at night.16 This is a lack of transport mode that has been ignored by city planners not only in China but also throughout the world. Another way of locating biking and gender in a broader comparative framework is through the notion of biking regimes, which are inspired by similar complex ideas of regimes in comparative welfare studies. Looking at biking practices as a regime implies the analysis of biking at multiple levels in terms of culture, economy, planning, and practice. As such, biking regimes are connected

220  Hilda Rømer Christensen closely with other regimes, be it transport and welfare, including gender, age, and class. Studies have demonstrated a clear division between English-speaking liberal welfare states and Northern European nations in this regard. The Englishspeaking/liberal welfare states show a relatively low overall rate of biking and a higher level of bike inequality between men and women, young and old; meaning that women and older people are under-represented among cyclists. This contrasts with the biking-friendly regimes in Northern Europe, such as Holland, Germany, and Denmark, with a higher level of overall biking; and with more equity regarding both gender and age; in some cases women, even older women, seem to be overrepresented among cyclists (Aldred et al. 2015; Heinen and Kees 2010).17 Notably, when it comes to China, the large metropolises such as Beijing and Shanghai underwent a shift from a bike-friendly regime to a bikeunfriendly regime over only a few decades. In this respect urban China made an about-turn from the 1980s, when it was marked by a high proportion of bikers who were assumed to be equal in terms of gender, to the twenty-first century, when China had a lower rate of overall biking and rising gender inequality. In addition, with new types of bike use, mountain and sports biking was mainly pursued by men. After Mobike and other shared bike companies were launched they spread like wildfire, not only in Shanghai and Beijing but also in second, third to fourth tier Chinese cities; all over China shared bikes have been seen as initiating a ‘quiet revolution’, embracing the attempt to reinvigorate the nation’s love affair with the bike.18 The new bikes seemed in the first phase to be a promising avenue for the transformation of new biking technology into smart biking and for transforming China into the kingdom of the Mobike.19 Calculations from Mobike in 2017 were impressive in several respects and claimed to have helped reduce 4.4 million tons of CO2 emissions through providing 18.2 billion km of rides for 200 million users in 200 cities across the world. Yet more specific data on the riders were lacking in terms of whether the rides are substituting former car use – or walking, as well as data on how the production and waste aspects of shared biking can be included in the calculations.

Mobike as a smart city experiment: an innovative journey In this final section I will discuss Mobike in the context of the smart city. Does Mobike count as an experiment in the smart city discourse? In general, the notion of the smart city has become a buzzword in city planning around the globe. This implies that many cities – in both the West and the East – have moved into an era of experimentation in governance and planning. In this process the notion of an urban experiment has gained currency as a contrast to earlier top-down city goverment. Such experiments are said to act as ‘laboratories’ for trying out and understanding new innovations. This also means that city planning and development – rather than relying on long-term planning and problem solutions – have come to rely on experiments. Such experiments may

The case of Mobike in China  221 be provisional, fragmented, small scale – and conducted case by case. And such experiments have eventually become part of an overall process of locating problems and solutions, which are in themselves multiple and preliminary (Cowley and Caprotti 2018). Cowley and Caprotti argue that the power unfolding through the smart city is not technocratic, but rather is disruptive and intersects with disruptive business models. Recently, many Chinese cities have been open to low carbon developments projects in their efforts to become more modern and growth oriented as well as liveable for their citizens. And many Chinese cities have put new policy approaches on the agenda to foster green growth in the name of smart (eco) cities and the like (Hartog et al. 2018: 693; Chot and Geels 2008). Mobike and shared biking may clearly be seen as tapping into these ideas in the launching of a disruptive technology and practice that critically addresses what are seen as the modern ‘urban headaches’, such as the car craze, air pollution, noise, and crowds. Mobike has reintroduced biking as smart, sustainable, and useful in modern everyday life and made it cool to bike again. The question remains: does this make Mobike count as a genuine smart city experiment? Hartog et al. have developed a repertoire of conceptual tools for such analysis. They operate with what they call sensitising concepts with which to assess such experiments in a broad conext. The core sensitising notions suggested are, first, expectations and the formulation of a transition vision. The second core concept is labelled a socio-technical experiment, meaning that the experiment should provide a system of innovation across sectors and be part of an innovation journey. Moreover, a smart city should meet various other requirements such as being practice based, and be led by challenges of sustainable development, and involve social learning. Mobike seems to meet most of these requirements and prescriptions – and as a real-life experiment it also envisages deviations, complications, and ambiguities. As for the requirement of expectations and a transition vision, Mobike, assisted by the founder and president Hu Weiwei, managed to produce a branding strategy and vision which has made cycling cool and accepted again among the aspiring Chinese middle class. As is echoed in this quotation from Hu Weiwei: ‘When you combine environmental protection, technology and business, it’s going to be very cool. We can make environmental protection a lifestyle and a sustainable business model.’ At the same time Hu Weiwei as the acting president of Mobike also tended to promote and brand all the soft and green characteristics of Mobike. In her narrative the principles of sustainability and usefulness for residents were stressed. She spelled out a front-stage and romantic vision of Mobike as contributing to the making of liveable and green cities: ‘A bikingfriendly city must be really attractive,’ she said. Residents living there must be really happy because the city will be equipped with bike lanes, planted with trees and the air quality will be satisfactory. Only in good environments will people enjoy riding bicycles.

222  Hilda Rømer Christensen Should we just wait for the things to change? Everyone can contribute effort to make things change/happen.20 As for the requirement of the socio-technical experiment, it was defined as an ‘inclusive practice which was led by challenges and initiatives and designed to promote system innovation through social learning under conditions of uncertainty and ambiguity’. Mobike here qualified as an experiment of disruptive and gendered innovations which may be able to address major challenges and potential in contemporary China. Mobike represents low carbon innovation, and shared biking in general has become an issue of global significance in this regard not least because of the potential curbing of the growing carbon print. Besides, it is an example of the potential brought about by China’s spectacular social and economic growth, and the creation and roll-out of low carbon innovations. Mobike has been a darling of the Chinese regime and is promoted as home-grown innovation and as a manifest sign of Chinese first-mover abilities in the global innovation race. It represents a challenge to the ideas of China and other developing countries as followers of Western technologies and developments. As for the social learning and innovation journey, Mobike and shared biking in general have produced mixed lessons. Critical points of these lessons have been to address the low sense of responsibility and lack of ‘quality’ behaviours among urban residents and users. In addition, social media have spurred such discussions and circulated images of mountains of shared bikes as objects of destruction, of misuse, and of poor-quality bikes. Such discourses have created critical counter-images of Mobike and shared biking as producing waste rather than greener and smarter mobility in cities. The Mobike management has constantly downplayed these public and moral outcries, and Mobike in particular has tried to build up a shared responsibility between the company and its customers in another innovative move: a type of gamification where riders have been awarded surplus points for material and civic responsibility (e.g. in reporting back about bikes which were left illegally, etc.). In a wider horizon one could also include a critical look at the production principles of Mobikes as part of social learning. While shared biking has been celebrated in China the literal production system of mobike bikes has been omitted from the picture. From early on, Mobike set up an independent Mobike factory in Southern China, owned by the Taiwan-based multinational firm Foxconn. Foxconn is known as the main producer of Apple phones and other iconic Western electronics brands.Yet Foxconn is also known and contested for its enduring and rough exploitation of Chinese migrant workers, including low salaries, charged dorm systems, overall surveillance, and social control. This contrasts with Ofo, the main competer of Mobike, which initially chose a homegrown model in close cooperation with the existing Chinese bike industry, and iconic brands such as Forever and the Flying Pigeon. Foxconn has been named as a new type of global capitalist player and the prototypical industry of the twenty-first century, the ethics of which are often omitted from the consumer

The case of Mobike in China  223 horizon. In returning to the issues of gendered innovations and the role of Weiwei, one may ponder the use of gender and even Hu Weiwei as a front figure, and as a smart gimmick which covers up for brutal business and production methods.21 Besides, and this is perhaps the least recognised aspect, it is stated that a smart city experiment involves ambiguity. As far as the ambiguities are concerned, they have also been accumulating in the lifetime of Mobike and smart bikes. In particular it has been lamented that Mobike and other shared bike companies have intervened and exploited blind spots in city regulations, meaning that public spaces in cities are in principle free and accessible. This has caused friction and frustration between city governments and bike companies. An article in Renmin Daily provided a good example of confusion and frustration and the wish for better governance.22 It seems that shared biking provides challenges for governments, and also lays bare the ambivalence of market-driven innovations which connects to people’s needs. All in all, shared biking is confronting city governments with processes that go beyond government control. The situation, according to the press, requires governments to intervene and to balance relations between government, citizens, and the market. As quoted in Renmin Daily: Shared bikes are the result of the boom of mobile internet techniques, totally depending on the effective support of products and service by the internet. Facing such popularity of sharing bikes, enterprises, consumers or governments don’t have any experiences to use, traditional supervision ideals are not enough. The Chinese language and government-influenced press also from early on expressed a certain reluctance towards the anarchy of shared bikes: ‘The companies often execute practices without any legal basis, and they face severe challenges due to cheating, right infringements and harassment of public security.’23 A final point of ambiguity among users concerns the business principles which have been applied, and which have questioned the financial management and funding of the major shared bike providers. There is a growing distrust in the bike-sharing companies as not only providing green and smart transport but acting as cynical business companies. In fact the assumption of the shared biking adventure as just another Chinese tech bubble became a reality during the writing of this chapter and recently Mobike has been challenged by new operators in the field who now dominate the streets of the Chinese metropolis.24

Closing remarks Shared biking represents a potential revitalisation of biking abilities which also meets the longing for simple, convenient, and smart modes of transport.

224  Hilda Rømer Christensen Seen from the outside, this bold intervention may have the potential to take Chinese cities in new directions in combining smart technologies with more sustainable forms of transportation which have the support of citizens. The Mobike is an initiative which initially challenged men’s monopoly of technological innovations and which seemed to have enhanced gender equality in the field of everyday biking. At the same time, shared biking in the shape of Mobike has certainly emphasised existing inequalities between developed urban and rural areas, where bike-sharing is not provided or is inadequate, and where (a lack) of ownership of smartphones and the required subscriptions and capacities are distributed unequally. Even though the new systems seem promising, the long-term effects are yet to be seen in terms of, for example, the introduction of improved infrastructures and safety measures, pricing politics, and easy online access, as well as including the possibility of transporting family members – be it children, elderly relatives, or disabled persons – although a child travelling in the bike basket is forbidden and very risky, but used by many Chinese families (Figure 12.2).25 Innovation has become the new hype and mania in both developed and developing countries all over the world in recent decades and there is a pressing need for locating and situating innovative practices.

Figure 12.2 Mobikers. Beijing, 2019. The basket attached to the handlebars is often used to carry children, which can be risky. Shared bikes are in need of childfriendly innovation. Source: Photo: Hilda Rømer Christensen.

The case of Mobike in China  225 As with many other innovations, Mobike and shared biking has produced ambiguities, and has thus far elicited both enthusiasm and anger. It has brought back bikes to urban citizens and revived the feeling of biking as freedom and autonomy. Yet shared biking has also produced problems related to the oversupply of poor-quality bikes and urban disorder. Another concern is the (mis)use of personal data for commercial purposes by the (Mammoth) shared bike investors. Notwithstanding all the problems and challenges, I will argue that Mobike – and shared biking in China – has provided a potential new avenue in the male-dominated and car-centric developments of Chinese transport and mobility over recent years. Mobike surely forms part of an innovation journey, the end of which still has to be seen.

Notes   1 Pan Daily.Com, 7 December 2017. News coverage on CCTV, CNN, and other international TV channels.   2 Innovation-driven development was one of the main priorities of the thirteenth Five Year Plan in China (2016–2020). Available at https:euraxess.ec.europa.eu/worldwide/ china/innovation-driven-development-chinas-new-five-year-plan.   3 Fragmented statistics from the West show a glaring gender gap in innovation and patenting: in 2008 8 per cent of patents were obtained by women; in Europe in 2009 the variations between top and bottom ranged from 2.9 per cent in Austria to 14.2 per cent in Spain. One explanation for the low percentage of female inventors has been the low presence of female researchers in science and technology (Poutanen and Kovalainen 2017: 18–19).   4 Singh 2019. While Mobike was leading in technology and design and from early on aligned with various producers, Foxconn among others, Ofo launched a more simple bike, and connected to the traditional Chinese biking industry in Tianjin.  5 Media coverage of Mobike has been quite intensive in the hectic and short-lived history of the company. Screenings of online archives with keywords turned up the following numbers: Mobike: 446 articles (2016–2019) ,and Ofo: 399 articles; Hu Weiwei: 42 articles, many of which contain aspects of the founding history and Hu Weiwei’s motivation for the start-up. (Hu Weiwei, Why I created Mobike?, 2 August 2017 (A轮学堂 A轮学堂 in Yixi media). Speech/interview by Hu Weiwei, 17 February 2017, translated and transcribed in March 2017. This is the only article where Hu refers to her role as a woman in the field of innovation. Renmin Daily and Global Times 2016–2017: selection of articles with various Chinese keywords. This chapter applies to a limited number of core articles, which are referred to in the list of literature plus notes. Bike-sharing reports were issued by the IFO and Mobike in 2017: (1) Report on Bicycling in Major Chinese Cities in 2017, by Ofo Bicycle CO and the Chinese Academy of Transportation Sciences, Tongji University; (2) Report from Beijing Mobike Technology Ltd and Beijing Tsinghua Tongheng Urban Planning and Design Institute. The report was resumed in China Daily on 14 April 2017: Sharing puts bikes back on the street ([email protected]).  6 A轮学堂, A轮学堂 in Yixi media.  7 A轮学堂, A轮学堂 in Yixi media.  8 In 2008 Hangzhou in the southeastern part of China introduced the rental bike system, and in 2011 the city already boasted one of the world’s best public bicycle services. Metropolitan cities such as Shanghai and Guangzhou also introduced their own public bicycle rental services, and in 2013 a total of 65 Chinese cities ran over 70 systems (China Daily, 27 May 2013). Yet in 2011 the availability of shared bikes

226  Hilda Rømer Christensen was minimal (e.g. in Beijing 10,000 shared bikes were available for approximately 20 million residents, and in Shanghai 20,000 shared bikes were available for 23 million residents. Hangzhou was at this time named as having the best shared bike system in the world, with 65,000 bikes available for 8.3 million inhabitants (Zhang et al. 2015: 128).   9 Better management needed to improve bike-sharing service (China Daily, 9 November 2017). 10 China Daily + presentation by the technical director of Mobike (World Research Institute, 2 December 2017). 11 Shanghai Daily, 17 April 2006, Renmin Daily, 2 December 2015. 12 Mobike Global, 2017. 13 Mobike Global, 2017: 2. 14 The figures differ slightly according to statistics. In 2011 the BRCT Beijing Transport Research Centre reported a decline in Beijing, from 63 per cent in 1986 to 38.5 per cent in 2000 to 16.4 per cent in 2010 (BRTC, Beijing Transport Research Centre 2011). 15 The report issued by UFO (2017) (Report 1, 2017) provided the most adequate sociological evidence, looking at six dimensions, and ranked the cities with shared biking in a points system, including, gender, age, time use/distance, etc. 1 Use of bicycle 20 points. 2 Level of parking facility 20 points. 3 Level of energy saving and reduction of CO2 emissions 20 points. 4 Level of contribution to health/leverage health 10 points. 5 Level of service 15 points. 6 Level of social civilisation 15 points. 16 Hu Weiwei, interview, Yixi media. 17 In the bike-friendly regimes, such as Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands, women’s share comes close to or makes up over 50 per cent (45, 50, and 55% respectively), while women’s share of bicycling trips in the bike-unfriendly regimes such as the US and the UK only make up a minority of 25 per cent and 29 per cent respectively. Regimes are however not static, but dynamic. Germany in recent years has been shifting towards a bike-friendly regime. 18 Bike-sharing revolution aims to put China back on two wheels (China Daily, 28 December 2016). 19 Shanghai Daily, 25 April 2016; China Daily, 24 September 2016. 20 Hu Weiwei: A轮学堂 A轮学堂 in Yixi media. 21 For an elaboration of related ambiguities see Milwertz (2015). 22 The supervision of sharing bikes needs innovation (Renmin Daily, 4 December 2017). 23 Renmin Daily, 4 December 2017. 24 At the end of 2018, Hu Weiwei left Mobike for ‘personal reasons’. In spring 2019 the Mobike business was scaled down to focus on China only. It was realised that the expansion of Mobike into Europe, notably to German cities, had caused conflict with city governments and the press, who expressed a fear of ‘Chinese’ invaders which would undermine law and order in Europe. 25 It is estimated that smartphone ownership among Chinese will go up from approximately 58 per cent in 2017 to a total of 70 per cent in 2020. The elderly over the age of 65 and women are lagging behind, with the elderly accounting for 18 to 25 per cent of owners. In 2013 women lagged behind men at 43 per cent as compared to 57 per cent. The elderly and women present market potential and presumably a catch-up opportunity as smartphone users in the years to come. See www.emarketer.com/Chart/​Smartphone-​ User-​Penetration-​China-​by-​Age-​2014-​2020-​of-mobile-phone-users/​188732.

The case of Mobike in China  227

References Aldred, R., Woodcock, J., and Goodman, A. (2015) Does more cycling mean more diversity in cycling? Transport Reviews, doi: 10.1080/01441647.2015.1014451. Bray, F. (2012) Only connect: Comparative, national and global history as frameworks for the history of science and technology in Asia. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 6(2), 233–241. Christensen, C.M. (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Christensen, H.R. (2015) The lure of car culture. Gender, class and nation in 21st century car culture in China. Women, Gender & Research 24(1), 96–110. doi: 10.7146/kkf. v24i1.28517. Christensen, H.R. (2017) Is the kingdom of the bicycles rising again?: Cycling, gender, and class in post-socialist China. Transfers: Interdisciplinary Journal of Mobility Studies 7(2), 1–20. doi: 10.3167/TRANS.2017.070202. Christensen, H.R. (2019) Gendering mobilities and (in)equalities in post-socialist China. In C.L. Scholten and T. Joelsson (eds), Integrating Gender into Transport Planning – From One to Many Tracks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 249–269. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-05042-9_1. Chot, J. and Geels, F.W. (2008) Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journey, theory, findings, research agenda and policy. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 20(5), 537–554. Cowley, R. and Caprotti, F. (2018) Smart city as anti-planning in the UK. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 1–21. doi: 10.1177/0263775818787506. EMarketer (2016) Smartphone user penetration in China, by age, 2014–2020 (% of mobile phone users). eMarketer.com [online], 13 April. Available at www.emarketer. com/Chart/Smartphone-User-Penetration-China-by-Age-2014-2020-of-mobile-phoneusers/188732 (accessed 29 May 2019). Gallagher, K.S. (2006) China Shifts Gears: Automakers, Oil, Pollution, and Development. Paper presented to the International Studies Association, San Diego, 2 June. Hartog, H.D., Sengers, F., Xu, Y., Xie, L., Jiang, Y. and, Jong, M. (2018) Low carbon promises and realities: Lessons from three socio-technical experiments in Shanghai. Journal of Cleaner Production 181, 692–702. Heinen, E., van Wee, B., and Maat, K. (2010) Commuting by bicycle: An overview of literature. Transport Reviews 30(1), 59–96. doi: 10.1080/01441640903187001. Huybers-Wither, S.M. and Livingston, L.A. (2010) Mountain biking is for men. Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics 13(7–8), 1204–1222. Ibold, S. and Nedopil, C. (2017) The evolution of free-floating bike-sharing in China. Sustainable Transport in China, 3 August 2018. Available at www.sustainabletransport.​ org/archives/6278 (accessed 29 May 2019). Lan, L., Ma, Y., Zhu, D., Mangalagiu, D., and Thornton, T. (2017) Enabling value cocreation in the sharing economy: The case of Mobike. Sustainability 9(9), 1504. doi: 10.3390/su9091504. Milwertz, C. (2015) Death and my Ipad. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning 15(1), 20–27. Mobike Global (2017) Mobike next generation. Mobike [online], 22 September. Available at https://mobike.com/global/blog/post/next-generation-mobike (accessed 29 May 2019). Poutanen, S. and Kovalainen, A. (2017) Gender and Innovation in the New Economy. Women, identity and creative work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/ 978-1-137-52702-8. Ran, Yi (2017) The supervision of sharing bikes needs innovation. Renmin Daily, 4 December. Report 1 (2017) China Bike Sharing and Urban Development Report. Beijing: TUPDI Tsinghua Urban Planning and Design Institute (TUPDI).

228  Hilda Rømer Christensen Report 2 (2017) Report from Beijing Mobike Technology Ltd. Beijing: Tsinghua Tongheng Urban Planning and Design Institute (TUPDI). Rhoads, E. (2012) Cycles of Cathay: A history of the bicycle in China. Transfers 2(2), 95–120. Schiebinger, L. (ed.) (2008) Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Schiebinger, L. and Klinge, I. (2013) Gendered Innovations: How gender analysis contributes to research. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/. Shaheen, S.A., Zhang, H., Martin, E., and Guzman, S. (2011) China’s Hangzou public bicycle. Understanding early adoption and behavioral response to bike sharing. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Washington, DC, pp. 33–41. Shijia, O. (2017) Sharing puts bikes back on the street. China Daily [online] ,14 April. Available at www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/tech/2017-04/14/content_28922493.htm (accessed 29 May 2019). Singh, J.Y. (2017) Is smart mobility also gender smart? In T. Priya Uteng and L. Levin (this volume). Tyfield, T., Jin, J., and Rooker, T. (2010) Game Changing China: Lessons from China about disruptive low carbon innovation. Research Report, June. London: NESTA. Wajcman, J. (2009) Feminist theories of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34(1), 143–152. Available at https://academic.oup.com/cje/article/34/1/143/1689542. Weiwei, H. (2017) Why I created Mobike? A轮学堂A轮学堂/Yixi media [online], 17 February. Ref. as (A轮学堂A轮学堂/Yixi media). Speech/interview by Hu Weiwei. Translated and transcribed March 2017. Willis, R., Webb, M., and Wilddon, J. (2007) The Disrupters: Lessons for low carbon innovation form the new wave of environmental pioneers. London: NESTA. Yin, J., Qian, L., and Singhapakdi, A. (2018) Sharing sustainability: How values and ethics matter in consumers’ adoption of public bicycle-sharing scheme. Journal of Business Ethics 149(2), 313–332. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3043-8. Zhang, L., Zhang, H., Zheng-yu-Duan, and Bryde, D. (2015) Sustainable bike-sharing systems: Characteristics and commonalities across cities in urban China. Journal of Cleaner Production 97, 124–133 (p. 128).

13 Gendering smart mobilities in Latin America Are ‘smart cities’ smart enough to improve social justice? Lake Sagaris Introduction: evaluating social sustainability through a gender-informed lens From ‘smart growth’ in the 1990s to ‘smart cities’ today, the challenge of reducing car dependency and improving social equity and access has raised crucial questions regarding the social dimensions of sustainability, particularly given a new international consensus regarding Sustainable Development Goals (UNHabitat (Quito) 2016). Although there are many important synergies, there are also tensions and conflicts among these diverse agendas. Nowhere is this more evident than in concerns about gender and other forms of equity, inclusion/exclusion, access, and (im)mobility. For cities in Latin America, this situation is compounded by the high percentage of daily trips undertaken by women on public transit, walking, and, where perceived as viable, by taxi, collective taxi, private bicycle, cycle-taxis, public bike share, and other para-transit and non-motorised services. These modes are often neglected within smart city approaches: ‘big’ data generated by sensors, for example, may not provide gender disaggregated data, and Mobility as a Service may not consider walking, cycling, and intermodal walk-bike-bus strategies as central to IT platforms. Are ‘smart’ cities really smart enough to improve social justice? New information technology platforms could play a major role in improving intermodal walk-bike-bus combinations. But in a region where modes are typically planned individually by decision makers in different ministries or city government offices, integrating gender, health, security/safety, and other components poses major challenges to governance. ‘Smart city’ approaches are often driven by large technological firms eager to sell platforms that reflect commercial rather than social priorities. Moreover, smart city discourse often suggests an obsession with the motorised modes of transport (cars-trains-trams-planes) that predominate in developed countries, but are minority modes in most developing countries (LTAAcademy 2011). In this context social sustainability has come to the fore, reinforced by global agreements that seek to frame urban development, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2016) and the New Urban Agenda (UNHabitat 2016)

230  Lake Sagaris amid growing urgency, as storms, flooding, and fires underline concerns about the capacity of urban-regional systems to respond adequately. Our research suggests that social sustainability may be paramount: if social needs are neglected, economic and environmental goals are placed at risk. Batty et al. (2012) identify six potential benefits and six research challenges relevant to social sustainability (Table 13.1). I have added a third column with specific Table 13.1  Six goals and challenges for ‘smart’ cities Goals pursued when merging ICT and traditional infrastructures 1 2

3

4

5

6

Research challenges

Gendering smart mobilities: Can Smart Cities significantly improve how we:

Develop a new understanding of urban problems Find more effective, feasible ways of coordinating technologies

To explore the city as a Identify, integrate and address laboratory for specific gender issues? innovation Organise multipurpose, To relate smart city intermodal travel in socially infrastructure to inclusive* ways? operating functions and planning through management, control, and optimisation Improve models and To provide portfolios of Bring marginalised but crucial methods for using urban simulation that modes and the walk-bike-bus urban data across can inform future combination into planning spatial and temporal designs and spatial priorities? scales Develop new forms of To develop technologies Mobilise collective wills among decision makers, citizens, that improve informed urban governance technical staff, and academics participation and share and organisation: to simplify and overcome knowledge for key values smart, governance barriers and democratic city responsive, generate key facilitators of governance competitive, and change? equitable Define critical Develop technologies Identify important intersections problems related to that enhance equity, between social, energy and cities, transport, and fairness, and quality of environmental goals/needs/ energy life possibilities/aspirations and hazards/risks? Ensure greater and more Generate flexible and Identify risk, evolutionary planning models effective mobility and uncertainty and that mobilise civic capacity at access to opportunities hazards and take times of crisis and allow us to with equity appropriate measures learn relevant lessons for to avoid, mitigate, remediary or preventive and respond change?

Source: Own elaboration (column 3) based on Batty et al. (2012: 481–482). Note * Socially inclusive refers to low-cost, easy-to-use, widely available mobility and access solutions within the specific context of real cities, neighbourhoods, and metropolitan regions.

Smart mobilities in Latin America  231 questions about how smart cities could address key issues for sustainable transport with equity. This chapter focuses on the first four questions (Table 13.1), comparing this potential to real-world trends emerging in the metropolitan region of Santiago (over 6 million people) and the smaller regional city of Temuco-Padre Las Casas (population 350,000). The next section summarises the methods applied to develop this chapter, followed by a section that examines the transition from thinking about ‘smart growth’ to ‘smart cities’, emerging potentials, and risks as currently apparent in the scientific literature and in the context of Santiago and Temuco-Padre Las Casas. The next section discusses the gap between the promises of ICT and real needs/applications emerging in these two cities, followed by final reflections.

Methods: a gender analysis of ICT potential to address planning issues in two cities This chapter offers an analysis of social justice and transportation using a gender focus to identify key components of sustainability and equity, examine situations where these values enter into contradiction, and consider solutions involving information communications technologies (ICT) that might meet the challenge of achieving sustainable transport with equity. The data comes from five years of collaborative research by the Laboratory for Social Change (the Lab), using origin-destination data for the Metropolitan Region of Santiago (SECTRA-UAHurtado 2015), primary data from surveys regarding women and safety on public transport and cycling (Allen et al. 2018), and primary data from qualitative explorations of equity and transport issues, all within a participatory action research framework. Much of this analysis has been developed and enriched through ongoing collaborations with colleagues in Chile, India, Europe, the United States, Ecuador, and Argentina (Sagaris and Arora 2016, 2018; Sagaris et al. 2017; Sagaris 2018a; Sagaris and Tiznado-­ Aitken 2018). For this chapter, I have used an analytical approach to consider how the ICTdriven planning agenda, known as ‘Smart Cities’, could address sustainability issues that have emerged in planning processes in two Chilean cities: Metropolitan Santiago and Temuco-Padre Las Casas. I start with a review of how the framing of key urban planning issues shifted from ‘smart growth’ to ‘smart cities’ in recent years, and then consider mobility as a service (MaaS), one of the most significant ICT approaches to date. This literature is only just emerging, so I also considered feedback on these subjects from practitioners, particularly plenary sessions on the topic of smart cities and cycling at the Velo-City conferences (Netherlands 2017, Brazil 2018). I then briefly characterise each city, looking at trends affecting social inclusion, particularly the care-related trips carried out mainly by women, reflecting their socially assigned responsibility for children, older adults, and people with disabilities.

232  Lake Sagaris For those less familiar with thinking about cycle inclusion and its potential, the next section summarises the way different kinds of personal bicycle, cargo-bike, cycle-taxi, public bike-share, and other modalities have demonstrated cycling’s relevance to bridging gaps in a bus or bus-metro transport system. By comparing the literature reviewed and emerging trends in each Chilean city, I close with a discussion of where a smart city approach seems to be contributing to real-world solutions and where there is a mismatch between real needs and the kinds of ICTs emerging at the local level.

From smart growth to smart cities: marketing sleight of hand or genuine ‘smarts’? Twenty years ago, discourse regarding urban development began to focus on the concept of ‘smart growth’ as a way of reducing urban sprawl, by improving density, design, proximity to public transit, and other variables (Kunstler 1993; Geller 2003; Handy 2005; Jepson and Edwards 2010). Somewhere along the way, the focus shifted towards ‘smart cities’, a concept which refers primarily to the integration of diverse technologies in the planning and functioning of cities and metropolitan regions (Batty et al. 2012; Komeily and Srinivasan 2017; Okner and Preston 2017; Song et al. 2017). Smart growth Smart growth became an issue in the early 1990s, when author James Howard Kunstler delivered a blistering critique of the sprawling, low-density cities that had become the hallmark of American suburban life, encouraging excessive dependence on the car, with high costs in health, aesthetics, and urban exclusion (Kunstler 1993). Conceptualised as ‘automobility’ in the social sciences, this focus reflected a tangle of ideology and values, economic advantages (particularly for manufacturing and banks), amid promises of individual freedom and contact with nature, masking significant environmental and other costs (Sheller and Urry 2000; Beckmann 2001). Planning responded by placing issues of density and compactness at the centre of debates about ‘sustainable’ urban morphologies (Cervero and Kockelman 1997). According to the American Planning Association (2002, 2), ‘Compact, transit accessible, pedestrian-oriented, mixed use development patterns and land reuse epitomize the application of the principles of smart growth.’ (Handy 2005: 147) Cities are more than infrastructure, however. Margaret Grieco observed: ‘The consequences of women’s constrained mobility for their social and political empowerment have been greatly neglected in the discourse on social equity’ (Grieco 2006: 53). We should worry about this because ‘there is a relationship

Smart mobilities in Latin America  233 between mobility, power and well-being: women’s access or lack of access to transport has political and social consequences’. She emphasises that developing appropriate transport structures is not simply a matter of material techniques and engineering practices but requires a thorough grasp of relevant social patterns. One very relevant and pervasive dimension of social patterning is ‘gender’ – and transport systems have often been designed without sufficient attention […] to substantial gender differences. (Grieco 2006: 53) Grieco believes ICTs have potential for redressing this lack, particularly for identifying time-space constraints (2011) and for use in poverty mapping (2015). This chapter uses a gender perspective to analyse the potential for smart city approaches to address challenges to sustainability and social justice arising from women’s particular travel needs, as revealed in the experiences from Santiago and Temuco-PLC, discussed here. ‘Smart’ cities With the twenty-first century came a new agenda, ‘Smart Cities’, driven by technology firms more anxious to sell their products (Caragliu et al. 2011) than to resolve long-standing issues undermining the quality of urban life. Batty et al. (2012) consider participation and self-organisation ‘cornerstones to building a global knowledge resource’: a public good, accessible to every citizen, institution or business. On the one hand, people should be fully aware of the kind of public knowledge infrastructure they are contributing to, and of the potential benefits they will be able to get from it. On the other, people should be in full control of their contributed data/profiles. (Batty et al. 2012: 492) Cities have responded with cautious enthusiasm, while academics have attempted to maintain a critical balance in their studies of what remains an ambiguous and poorly defined concept (Batty et al. 2012). Of the six components they identify as central to smart cities, four relate directly to issues of mobility and access: smart mobility, smart people, smart living, and smart governance. The other two, a smart environment and a smart economy, are also affected by transport planning. Caragliu et al. (2011), however, warn of potential negative effects, particularly since these may be underestimated amid the enthusiasm and hype for new networked infrastructures. Pro-business bias may lead to neglect of promising alternatives, a central concern for developing countries, where access to cars, reliable WiFi networks, and other artefacts critical to access the benefits of smart

234  Lake Sagaris cities remain severely restricted. Dependence on large foreign corporations can also lead to challenges associated with capital mobility: low- and middle-income countries may have to sacrifice important revenues to entice technology firms to develop smart cities. Mobility as a service (MaaS) and transport planning In transport planning, smart city approaches attempt to integrate new technologies that make it easier to integrate diverse transport modes, tariffs and fares, multiple actors, and technologies into a single platform, promising more user-centred responses. Mobility as a service (MaaS) is an example (Expósito-Izquierdo et al. 2017; Hoadley 2017; Jittrapirom et al. 2017). As with the smart cities concept itself, definitions of MaaS are ambiguous. Typically they build from smart cards, shared (bikes, cars) modes, and recent developments in information and communication technologies (ICTs) in ways that offer ‘convenient door-to-door transport without the need to own a private vehicle’, encouraging the purchase of mobility services based on consumer needs. Thus, people use bike- or car-share rather than purchasing their own vehicle (Kamargianni et al. 2016). The ‘integrated and seamless’ mobility promised by MaaS is based on ticket and payment integration, a multimodal mobility package, and ICT integration. Smart cards offer a powerful example, with Paris’ Carte Orange, Hong Kong’s Octopus, and London’s Oyster cards enjoying huge subscriptions within months of being issued. By making transactions easier, these have drawn users away from private cars (Kamargianni et al. 2016: 3296–3297). Services usually involve public transport, bike and car-share, taxis and rental cars, parking, and occasionally regional transport, peer-to-peer car rental, and permits to use congestion charging zones. They encourage integrated payment through subscriptions or pay-per-use systems, mainly accessed using smartphone apps or a website (Jittrapirom et al. 2017). Most provide real-time information and trip planning, booking and ticketing, alerts, integrated invoice and occasionally municipal and freight services, real-time congestion monitoring, and other perks. MaaS options seem well suited to millennials, who place a high value on technology. As mobility theorist Mimi Sheller puts it: ‘the percentage of young drivers is inversely related to the availability of the Internet. Why spend an hour driving to work when you could take the bus or train and be on line?’ (quoted in Expósito-Izquierdo et al. 2017: 414). By ‘servicising’, which eliminates private vehicle ownership, end users are buying more services, instead of buying products […] people can focus on the activity itself rather than worry about the responsibility derived from the ownership. (Expósito-Izquierda et al. 2017: 416)

Smart mobilities in Latin America  235 Depending on affordability and spatial access issues, these servicising strategies, which replace ownership of a product with use of a service, could help lowincome families, women, and people with disabilities that limit or prevent them from driving, particularly the elderly in our ageing societies (Putnam 2000; Alsnih and Hensher 2003).

Santiago and Temuco-Padre Las Casas: ICT relevance to sustainability with equity Seven million people, just over 40 per cent of Chile’s total population (2017 Census), live in Metropolitan Santiago, divided among 52 municipal jurisdictions (comunas) inherited from the military regime (1973–1990). Almost 30 years after the regime ended, the city remains deeply segregated, with high-income households concentrated in the northeastern comunas of Vitacura, Las Condes, La Reina, Providencia, and Ñuñoa. In these sectors, car ownership is as concentrated as household income, reaching up to five cars per household. Overall, just 40 per cent of households have cars, despite a car-centred urban planning movement that has built up highways and high-speed trunk roads in the past 20 years, to the detriment of road safety and social inclusion (SECTRA-UAHurtado 2015). Recent transport investment in Metropolitan Santiago has focused mainly on highways and metro lines, which tend to serve a higher income population than the bus system. Despite this trend, cycling’s modal share first doubled (2007–2012) and is now estimated to have tripled to 6 per cent, but investment remains limited to cycle lanes in wealthier municipal jurisdictions. Temuco-Padre Las Casas, meanwhile, is a small provincial city with a population of 350,000 people, 25 per cent indigenous in Temuco, 50 per cent in Padre Las Casas. The region suffers from a highly centralised governance system, in which Santiago-based national ministries make most key decisions, with investment in a local train service and crucial bridges between the two urban areas subject to lengthy delays that have generated enormous congestion and contributed to local air pollution. A priority for the regional transport plan has been applying smart city approaches through contracts with private firms. In the following subsections we will focus on gender trends as apparent in data for Santiago, because there is more complete data; but we will also look at relevant trends in Temuco-Padre Las Casas, based on a recent participatory process that established communitybased goals and priorities for the regional transport plan. Santiago: gender, sustainability, and modal shares Income differences are reflected in modal shares for Santiago (Figure 13.1a, 13.1b), with the wealthiest sectors to the northeast posting a modal share for private cars of well over 50 per cent, approaching the levels of 70 to 80 per cent common in North America. In the rest of the city, public transport use has plunged

236  Lake Sagaris

Figure 13.1a  Map of Santiago’s ‘comunas’, municipal jurisdictions (left) and modal share (right). Source: Comunas, Open Source, Osmar Valdebenito (accessed on Wikipedia, 30 June 2018).

Figure 13.1b Modal share for Santiago’s ‘comunas’. Source: Sagaris et al. (2017). Note The dark-shaded zones to the northeast are the wealthiest sectors of the city, a reality reflected in the highest modal shares for the car. Most other comunas, with low- to mid-level incomes, post high rates of walking and some cycling, and relatively smaller shares for public transport and private vehicle ownership and use.

in the past 20 years, remaining at around the same level or slightly higher than car use (25% on average), and well below ‘active transport’; that is, trips made primarily by walking (36%) or cycling (4% – all figures from 2015 O-D survey). In recent years, innovative citizen–government collaborations (Sagaris 2015, 2018b; Sagaris and Ortuzar 2015) and significant investment have helped boost cycling’s modal share from just under 2 per cent (2000) to 4 per cent (SECTRAUAHurtado 2015), and it is currently estimated at 6 per cent, based on counts on major cycleways. Overall modal shares for Santiago (SECTRA-UAHurtado 2015) reveal that despite the car-centred urban development, sustainable modes, defined as walking, cycling, and public transport, still account for 66 per cent of total trips, ranging from as low as 31 per cent in the wealthy comuna of Vitacura (northeastern edgeshown in Figure 13.1) to 80 per cent in Cerro Navia (northwestern edge shown in Figure 13.1). Car use prevails in high-income sectors, described above, and in primarily rural comunas that have been absorbed as the city has expanded. If the story ended here, all would be well, at least as far as sustainability is concerned. The reality, however, is that a disproportionate number of walking trips (up to 80%) are made by women, from very low- and low-income neighbourhoods. This indicates that their access to the city’s educational, cultural, and employment centres is very limited, and more limited than men’s, even within their same demographic. In Chile, women’s participation in the labour force has

Smart mobilities in Latin America  237 lagged behind the rest of Latin America, just 43 per cent, compared to Argentina (48.4%), Mexico (50%), or Perú (64.4%), this last, the country that has increased the most (INE 2018). Care-related trips As occurs elsewhere, in Chile women do almost twice the domestic work of men and motherhood is associated with poverty, particularly for girls. Indeed, among the poorest quintile, 14 per cent of girls aged 15 to 20 were mothers, 10 per cent with more than one child, versus the richest quintile, where just 2 per cent have one child (ComunidadMujer 2016). Violence against women and girls affects women’s participation and can lead them to avoid public transport (Allen et al. 2018; INE 2018). A study of women, safety, and public transport in Santiago, Quito, and Buenos Aires found that just as women face a double burden of care-related and paid work, their mobility also involves a double burden of risk associated with road safety and social/gender-based violence. This limits their transport choices and therefore their access to work, education, culture, and social networks. Much of this risk occurs on the walk to and from public transport, and while waiting at stops and in metro stations, which have their own security guards. These conditions contribute to women’s desire to change from sustainable modes to private cars, a primary choice revealed by the three-city surveys, which contrasted with men’s interest in shifting to cars – or healthier, more sustainable cycling (Allen et al. 2018; Sagaris et al. forthcoming 2019). Temuco: low levels of Internet access and high priority on walking and universal access The participatory process in Temuco-Padre Las Casas took place over a twoyear period (2016–2018) and culminated in an international seminar focusing on smart city applications, the new participatory system for the regional transport plan, and ways in which complete street strategies could reinforce the plan’s new objectives, established by participating communities. These included goals for health, based on improving conditions for walking and cycling, more permanent channels for community participation, service improvements, and placed a high priority on measures to improve the mobility of people with disabilities. Women caregivers accompanying the sick to the regional hospital or local clinics played an active role in more than a dozen sessions held in different parts of the city-region, including many low-income and isolated communities. Three observations relating to intermodality/smart city approaches stand out. 1  ‘Transport’ problems often reflected the lack of local services – even banking machines, stores, and schools – in large communities of 10,000 to 40,000 people. Residents of the Fundo del Carmen area, for example, live close to the city centre in an area that combines social housing from the

238  Lake Sagaris

2

3

twentieth century with modern suburban homes for people with higher incomes today. The link to the city, however, is a narrow, fiercely congested road, reflecting that there are few basic services within walking or cycling distance of residences. This suggests that ICTs might be more efficiently applied to improve local service provision: automatic telling machines, for example, or delivery-based groceries. But simply making better use of a traditional supply system might help even more: in other Chilean cities, street fairs visit neighbourhoods two or three times a week, bringing fresh fruit and vegetables at reasonable prices. Level of service issues revealed discrimination and mistreatment affecting people with disabilities and students. Many service quality issues reflected the governance structure of urban transport in neoliberal Chile: buses are owned by small operators, who may neglect evening or late night services; refuse to stop for someone in a wheelchair (even in the pouring rain common to the region); or throw change at passengers, particularly students who pay lower fares. Regional transport authorities have few instruments to control these situations, although they can accumulate complaints and apply fines for certain misbehaviours. Participants responded positively to improving facilities for walking and cycling, particularly cycle-taxis on fixed routes, to improve services for women, children, older adults, and people with disabilities. Moreover, surveys confirmed interest among a majority of pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users, and even car drivers in seeing more resources and more space on city streets devoted to walking and cycling.

Two phenomena excited considerable interest among community leaders and regional transport planners at the closing seminar (October 2018). One was a ‘Propensity-to-Cycle tool’, developed in the UK, to simplify planning cycle networks, versus individual lanes (Lovelace et al. 2017). Depending on the data available, this tool has the potential to focus on different kinds of users, trip purposes, and needs. This has led to collaboration among academics in Chile and the UK to develop a Chilean version, which focuses on care-related rather than solely work-related trips. While major funding is going into smart cards and the like, however, most bike-related solutions must find sponsors or fail, as happened with Santiago’s cycle-taxi route in 2017. The second was participation from a PhD student, whose mobility in a wheelchair prompted her to develop a mapping tool for people with similar needs. These possibilities have received less attention – and certainly less funding – within transport planning to date, but in fact could offer far richer potential for genuine improvements to transport justice.1 Cycling’s gender potential As results from both cities indicate, a more inclusive and socially just transport system should mitigate some risks, many costs of transportation, and

Smart mobilities in Latin America  239 other barriers faced by women. Safer streets, from both a road safety and social safety perspective, can improve girls’ access to schools and other activities, and women’s access to shopping, jobs, education, and other important activities. Indeed, figures for Santiago indicate that women account for two to almost three times those making care-related trips (escorting, assisting the disabled or the infirm, shopping, and running errands). On weekdays, these trips account for almost 47 per cent of trips, compared to work (38%), studies (10%), and recreation (6%), rising to 64 per cent on weekends (Sagaris and Tiznado-­ Aitken 2018). To date, these trips have not been considered relevant in transport or landuse planning, a missed opportunity of considerable proportions. Analyses by the Lab in previous work have identified considerable potential for different formats of bicycles, tricycles/cargo-bikes, electro-assisted cycles, and cycletaxis to significantly reduce women’s transport costs and improve their quality of life. One analysis found, for example, that allowing housekeepers living in low-income communities on the southern edge of Santiago to replace long waits and lengthy rides on feeder buses with a direct ride on their own bicycle could reduce the percentage of their income spent on transport from 32 to 22 per cent, below the cost of the basic food basket (29%) (Sagaris et al. 2017). Similarly, a bikes-on-buses programme, like those available in North A ­ merican cities, could simplify travel in off-peak hours, making it easier for nurses, for example, to do night shifts without worrying about walking across lonely bridges, waiting at isolated stops for feeder services, or running the gauntlet of diverse risks inherent in public transport, if no provision has been made for women’s safety. Participatory planning sessions in low-income sectors in Temuco found that cycle-taxis connecting urban stops used by rural buses with crucial destinations, particularly hospitals and primary health facilities, could significantly improve access and travel for women accompanying people to cancer or other treatments (Sagaris 2018a). Cycle-taxis to assist in carrying shopping from local street fairs or stores, public bike-shares with appropriate cargo and child seats, and similar services could also greatly improve the quality and safety of women’s travel, without incurring the high costs of private, rental car, or taxi usage. These services exist in most cities worldwide, but they seldom take into account women’s particular needs. Bike-share systems seldom include structures to carry shopping, children, or other goods. As implemented in Santiago, using Paris-style sponsorship financing, bikeshare services are available mainly in central, mid- to high-income parts of the city, with the vast majority of potential users in low-income communities of little interest to sponsors. Attempts to bring bike-share to Temuco have failed due to lack of sponsors. Similarly, although participants saw cycle-taxis as a good way to improve links between rural bus stops and the regional hospital, or between homes and primary health facilities, this would require legal recognition

240  Lake Sagaris of bicycles as part of ‘public’ transport, to access subsidies that currently fund only buses and taxis. These examples are consistent with research by the European Cycling Federation, which found that cycle-inclusive urban policies (i.e. those that facilitate the full integration of different kinds of cycling and cycle facilities) could make a significant contribution to meeting 11 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. They also underline the governance challenges that current smart city solutions do not address. Transportation based on human energy is highly suited to distances under 5 km, particularly cycling, which can allow people to travel up to 8 km in less than 30 minutes, the typical transport ‘budget’ (Karner and Sagaris 2016). It is, moreover, low-emission and low-cost, both premium components of sustainability in developing countries. Recently, too, hand-pedalled cycles and other formats are demonstrating that bikes are also important to people with specific mobility needs. For older people, too, cycling keeps them healthy for longer, but also helps when carrying shopping and otherwise maintaining independence and inclusion. Altogether, these aspects make cycling strategic to improving gender and other inclusion-related conditions of mobility and access, thereby reinforcing the walk-bike-bus/train sustainable transport trio.

Discussion: behind the hype, issues of governance, power, and inclusion Experiences to date suggest that ICT-based platforms could mobilise this potential in diverse ways. Table 13.2 summarises gender factors and technological potential, but also indicates that this potential remains far from realisation. Looking at this potential (Table 13.2) in light of experience in Santiago and Temuco-PLC, however, suggests that the real technological responses to these challenges are emerging at the margins, but are not playing a central role in discourse and action on ICT integration into cities. Of the 15 transport-related observations (column 2) and their potential ICT responses (column 3), only smart cards and public bike-shares respond to some degree. Three crucial barriers stand out. One is simply that, even in relatively hightech Chile and despite the widespread use of smartphones and similar access methods, low-income users and particularly women often do not have the right phone (i.e. WiFi access) or the expensive data plans necessary to make these integral to trip planning. The second barrier is that neither smart city nor MaaS strategies as currently proposed pay attention to gender safety, walkability, or cycle-inclusion-related potentials. This is consistent with experience internationally: a review of 12 MaaS programs found 11 involved public transport and 8 bike-share, carshare, taxis, peer-to-peer or private car hire, or abd parking, but none involved other cycling formats, particularly bikes on buses or public transport, and

3.3

3.2

3.1

2.2

Physical differences Require assistance for care-related between men and women activities Demand more segregated cycling facilities and safer travel conditions for walking and cycling Gender differences in power Under-represented in transport debates, expressed in decision studies, and planning decisions making Expressed in time Require efficiency (direct, priority, highrestrictions quality infrastructure) routes and networks, reflecting human energy and walk-bike-bus combinations. Expressed in place Require micro-measures to deal with restrictions specific place-based problems

Participation in transport employment

1.3

2.1

Access to education, civic, social, and cultural spaces

Social and economic factors Access to employment

Transport relevance

1.2

1.1

Gender factor

continued

Simplify complex route planning and reduce fares at women’s peak travel times Maps to facilitate walking/cycling scheduling and synchronization, eg. public transport access when store/service is available Smart ticketing systems that simplify using different modes for single trips and for escorting trips. Gender analysis of women’s participation at every point in the transport employment chain Mobility as a Service platforms optimizing walking, cycle taxi, bike share and other modal integration. Contribute to collaborative governance through interactive evaluation, gender equity plans, monitoring, and planning procedures at diverse scales.

Smart city ICTs could:

Table 13.2  Gender, transport, and ICTs: potential benefits for Santiago and Temuco

Source: Own elaboration based on specific characteristics that differentiate women’s from men’s travel (column 1), summarised in Hodgson (2012: 4–5).

5.2

4.5 5.1

4.4

4.3

Expressed in access to private vehicle/higher public transport use Expressed in multipurpose travel and trip chaining Expressed in escorting and care-related trips Fewer trips as women age Awareness of double Require specific measures to generate Monitor safety, detect culprits, inform of risk using crowd sourcing vulnerability: general and safe, welcoming, comfortable, and and other methods. sex-related violence attractive urban environments Eliminate long waits at feeder services Reinforce bike-on-bus and other service information using realby providing low-cost, demand-driven time data on system functioning, provide seamless connections access such as public bike shares, using apps. cycle taxis, electro-assisted vehicles, cargo-bikes, etc. Need to connect with others to enhance Can help people synchronise and meet up as they travel. safety

4.2

Require specific types of equipment – child seats, cargo capacity, facilities for people with disabilities – as part of transport solutions. Intermodal solutions can greatly improve access, extent, and amount of travel at different points in the life cycle

Smart city ICTs could:

Cultural roles expressed as women responsible for care

Transport relevance

4.1

Gender factor

Table 13.2 continued

Smart mobilities in Latin America  243 cycle-taxis (Jittrapirom et al. 2017). Similarly, an overview of MaaS (ExpósitoIzquierdo et al. 2017) found that they consider bike-share but not other forms of integration. Another study examined 14 MaaS programs in Europe and the US, finding that the main components involve bike/car-sharing, rail, public transport, and taxis, using ICT ticket and payment integration (Kamargianni et al. 2016: 3301). In Temuco-Padre Las Casas, transport authorities have been testing a smart card system with a Spanish corporation (Everis) and support from the InterAmerican Development Bank. The system allows smartphone users to report problems in real time. This could drive improvements, but also raises the challenge of how the small transport office (with a staff of four to five people), covering a large region, will be able to respond. The smart card itself could eliminate demeaning situations in which drivers throw change at passengers, as described above. The third and probably most important shortcoming of these programmes involves issues of power, priorities, and governance. As with Uber, the business model or ‘sharing’ behind MaaS and similar approaches involves a private player developing a technological platform that allows it to concentrate significant revenues from diverse operators. It is difficult to see how improving walking trips, non-motorised trips with cargo and children, and providing diverse bike services would generate sufficient income to interest a large technological operator. Similarly, the limits to bikeshare implementation – only in higher income neighbourhoods in Santiago or not at all in Temuco – underline the need for new governance modals rather than massive investment in large technological firms. Indeed, smaller scale interventions may be best, particularly at the neighbourhood scale, where researchers are finding significant social innovations ­(MacCallum et al. 2009; Moulaert et al. 2010), particularly in terms of democratising governance (Abers 2000; Thomson 2001; Posner 2003; Avritzer 2006; Baiocchi et al. 2011). At this scale, technology, controlled by neighbourhood associations, micro and small businesses, or equivalent actors could streamline processes at modest cost, but this requires government funding for other kinds of collaborations. Indeed, while the Santiago and Temuco conditions suggest that ICTs could help, they also raise significant doubts about how much they actually do help, compared to investing directly in bike–bus integration, security (particularly for women and girls), and quality of public transport. In Santiago, a smart card system has existed since 2007, but although metro and bus services are now integrated, these do not provide access to public bike-share. As mentioned in the Hoadley report, complications involving open access to transport and fare-related data have arisen amid neglect of the ‘balanced governance model with public sector leadership’ important to achieving ‘an equitable and sustainable transport system’ (Hoadley 2017: 4–5). Few of the ICT tools discussed here focus on how to improve planning and people’s access to crucial information-sharing and participatory mechanisms (Table 13.3).

Table 13.3  Smart governance, ten applications regarding transport/mobility Recommendation

Rationale

Transport action

1

Plan for the future, the Planning for urban growth Establish ambitious intermodal future is now and health must be an walk-bike-bus goals, and ongoing process steps to achieve them. 2 Respect authenticity in Cities compete, Ensure transport measures place making authenticity fosters enhance built and natural community, and cannot heritage, help equalise be replicated access to quality environments for all. 3 View cities as The complex web of Respect neighbourhood dynamic, polycentric human activity in cities identities while connecting systems makes them centres for them with infrastructureinnovation services that articulate the city-region. 4 Invite data into all Quantitative analysis can Use data as a carrot, not a corners of City Hall achieve results stick, with technologies such otherwise unimaginable as fix-my-street, StreetMix, and increase to improve interactions. transparency 5 Craft community-led Local leadership elevates Focus on collaborative planning processes the process and ensures processes that generate plans community buy-in and ongoing participatory institutions. 6 Employ ICTS to Low-cost technology can Work with organisations that advance engagement expand outreach, can ensure participation of increase diversity of non-tech individuals in perspective partnership with ICT expertise. Smart cities face wicked Collaborate in ways that 7 Facilitate combine and mobilise challenges that belie multidisciplinary citizen, technical, academic, traditional government teams policy, and other forms of departments knowledge. Consider neighbourhood 8 Work at the Neighbourhoods are management models and neighbourhood scale dissimilar. A one-sizesocial businesses for lowfits-all approach is not cost multimodal solutions. appropriate 9 Aim high Ambition and inclusion Start from ‘best case’ are empowering solutions, then work through specific transitional strategies to reach them. Evaluate all projects for 10 Focus on resiliency Consider fiscal health, resiliency, sustainability, and sustainability public health, and inclusion, particularly educational and gender, race, age, and environmental disability. applications associated with transport

Source: Column 3 own elaboration, considering transport/mobility specifically, based on columns 1 and 2 (see Okner and Preston (2017, Table 12.1: 369).

Smart mobilities in Latin America  245 Community Informatics (CI): part of the answer? Over the past two decades, several Canadian researchers have contested governance models that concentrate power and revenues in the hands of a few ICT firms, using the concept of community informatics (CI; Gurstein 2007). Michael Gurstein defined community informatics as using ICTs to empower community processes by looking at how and under what conditions ICT access can be made usable and useful to the range of excluded populations and communities and particularly to support local economic development, social justice, and political empowerment. (Gurstein 2007: 11) Thus, CI is based on a commitment to the ‘disadvantaged’, and recognises the importance of a ‘lived physical community’ to individual and collective wellbeing, based on ‘applied social leadership, entrepreneurship and creativity’ (Gurstein, 2007: 12). An earlier collection of studies (Gurstein 2000) found examples of CI being applied to improve local governance (Buenos Aires), citizenship and democracy (Milan), urban governance (Antwerp), public school budgets (Seattle), and coordination of indigenous communities (Australia). In line with the CI approach, social innovation by Ashoka Fellow Pradip Kumar in Indian cities has developed new business models for rickshaw (cycletaxi) operators, complemented by smartphone applications, which have significantly improved both the quality of employment and city services of particular importance to women (Kumar 2012). Similarly, several applications, such as Santiago’s Apata (‘on foot’), combine sustainable transport modes, comparing specific routes and modes for speed, GHG emissions, and calorie consumption. In India and Colombia, Safetipin, an application for identifying safety and risks to women’s mobility, shows promise as a tool for improving gender inclusion (Safetipin 2016; Viswanath and Basu 2019). Employment issues, particularly in the Global South Closely related to governance is purpose: what, and most importantly, for whom, are we doing this – who wins, who loses, and how? Employment is central to social and community development in the Global South, where half or more of the population works in the informal sector, remaining locked in poverty due to their precarious employment. Many ICT-based models seem most likely to eliminate jobs upon which people depend, possibly replacing them with even more precarious employment. In Chile, Uber has been taken up by many, mostly young, male car owners, to the detriment of professional taxi services. In both Santiago and Temuco-PLC, regular taxi drivers tend to be individual car owners too: in fact, taxis are a typical recourse for people unable to find work in the formal sector. Taxis are relatively cheap compared to the Global

246  Lake Sagaris North, but their higher-than-Uber tariffs reflect licensing, registration, and other fees designed to maintain levels of service. To compete, many sign up for Uberlike platforms such as Easy or Safer Taxi, a model which requires that they charge more or earn less, to cover affiliation. In the short term, both systems provide additional income for people who might otherwise be unemployed, but in the case of private car providers, the lack of control over tariffs, working conditions, licensing, and so on may lead to a feudalisation of employment, rather than a modernisation involving improved income, safety, health, and other conditions. These observations suggest that how Maas and other ICT platforms work is probably less important than who decides how these new economic activities will function – and which initiatives will receive significant resources. Of the six features of smart cities mentioned above, governance that is, the rules of the game, who controls their fair application, and the institutions required to do so – could well be the most crucial. Batty’s conditions for building a global knowledge resource, discussed above, require full awareness and significant public participation in the development of public goods accessible to all. These elements remain mostly absent from developments in both Santiago and Temuco. Similarly, Caragliu’s warning that a business bias may neglect promising alternatives seems inherent in the dilemmas of bike-share and cycle-taxi implementation in Santiago and Temuco. These cities offer little evidence that servicising strategies are simplifying a car-free life for women, caregivers, low-income families, or people with disabilities. Thus, governance emerges as a major challenge, the most invisible and therefore the most difficult aspect of the system to adequately address. This is particularly true in the Global South, where highly fragmented political and planning institutions are struggling to democratise.

Final reflections: smart enough? This analysis identifies a significant gap between crucial social needs and emerging trends in smart city implementation in two Chilean cities. As a general phenomenon, smart cities, MaaS, public bike-share, and other approaches remain incipient, with few systems fully implemented to date. Partial models, starting with smart cards, are increasingly common in cities such as Santiago, Buenos Aires, and elsewhere in Latin America. As practitioners grapple with these concepts, the scientific literature is also incipient. Private firms, meanwhile, have attracted considerable interest in related products. In Chile, this has led to the organisation of major seminars, studies, and pilots. The Polis city network warns of the risks of taking a ‘purely commercial’ approach, however, that could replace sustainable walking, cycling, or public transport trips with taxis and car-sharing, or make transport too expensive for some. Whatever the approach, public sector oversight is essential (Hoadley 2017: 10).

Smart mobilities in Latin America  247 These caveats, important for developed cities, are even more significant for cities such as Santiago or Temuco-PLC. A business model that ignores gender and the importance of small and mid-sized firms, which in Chile provide 96 per cent of employment (Goldberg and Palladini 2008: 10), could contribute to sustainability by facilitating some modal shift from private cars into shared vehicles or trains, but significantly reduce economic and social sustainability. Balance emerges as crucial, particularly between what happens on the ground (social and physical infrastructures) and what happens in the virtual world of technology and commerce (ICT infrastructures). Where so many ‘heritage’ technologies such as cycling remain underused, we need to be very smart indeed to find the best way – for each person and each place – to improve governance, mobility, and equity. As noted in Temuco, some major contributions will probably come from the margins. And as occurs in the physical geographies and social imaginaries of cities and rural settlements, issues of power and control, inclusion and equity, remain as pressing as ever in the virtual and ICT worlds. To go beyond the rhetoric, human creativity and solidarity must become central to making cities genuinely ‘smart’ on the ground, in the streets, and in people’s lives.

Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Centro de Estudios de Desarrollo Urbano Sustentable (CEDEUS), with funding from Conicyt (FONDAP No. 15110020), and from the BRT+ Centre of Excellence, both located in the Transport Engineering and Logistics Department, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Special thanks to colleagues who have contributed to this analysis: Tom Godefrooij, Anvita Arora, Paul Hess, Susan Handy, Juan Carlos Muñoz, Sonia Reyes, and the participatory action research team at the Laboratorio de Cambio Social.

Note 1 In fact, as a result of contacts during the seminar, the student has received seed funding and support, including data, from regional transport authorities to further develop her application.

References Abers, R. (2000) Inventing Local Democracy: Grassroots politics in Brazil. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Allen, H., Sagaris, L., Pereyra, L,, et al. (2018) Ella se mueve segura – Women safety and public transport in three Latin American cities. Brussels and London: FIA Foundation and Buenos Aires: CAF. Alsnih, R. and Hensher. D.A. (2003) The mobility and accessibility experiences of seniors in an aging population. Transportation Research A Policy and Practice 35, 903–916.

248  Lake Sagaris Avritzer, L. (2006) New public spheres in Brazil: Local democracy and deliberative politics. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30, 623–637. Baiocchi, G., Heller, P., and Silva, M.K. (2011) Bootstrapping Democracy: Transforming local governance and civil society in Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Batty, M., Axhausen, K.W., Giannotti F., et al. (2012) Smart cities of the future. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 481–518. Beckmann, J. (2001) Automobility a social problem and theoretical concept. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19, 593–607. Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., and Nijkamp, P. (2011) Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology 18, 65–82. Cervero, R. and Kockelman, K. (1997) Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research D, 199–219. ComunidadMujer (2016) Resumen Ejecutivo Informe GET, Género Educación y Trabajo: la brecha persistente. Primer estudio sobre la desigualdad de género en el ciclo de vida. Una revisión de los últimos años. Santiago, Chile: ComunidadMujer. Expósito-Izquierdo, C., Expósito-Márquez, A., and Brito-Santana, J. (2017) Mobility as a service. In H. Song, R. Srinivasan, T. Sookoor, et al. (eds), Smart Cities: Foundations, principles and applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 409–432. Geller, A.L. (2003) Smart growth: A prescription for livable cities. American Journal of Public Health 93, 1410–1415. Goldberg, M. and Palladini, E. (2008) Chile: A strategy to promote innovative small and medium enterprises. Washington, DC: The World Bank Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Department, Latin America Finance and Private Sector Unit. Grieco, M. (2006) Gender, transport and social empowerment: Investigating the consequences of the intersection between gender and constrained mobility. In W. Ernst (ed.), Internationale Frauen- und Genderforschung in Niedersachsen: Naturbilder und Lebensgrundlagen – Konstruktionen von Geschlecht. Münster, Germany: Lit Verlag, pp. 53–62. Gurstein, M. (2000) Community Informatics: Enabling communities with information and communications technologies. Hershey, USA, and London: Idea Group Publishing. Gurstein, M. (2007) What is Community Informatics and Why Does it Matter? Milan: Polimetrica. Handy, S. (2005) Smart growth and the transportation-land use connections: What does the research tell us. International Regional Science Review 28, 146–167. Hoadley, S. (2017) Mobility as a service: Implications for urban and regional transport. Discussion paper offering the perspective of Polis member cities and regions. Brussels, Belgium: Polis Network. Available at www.polisnetwork.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/​ 12/polis-maas-discussion-paper-2017-final_.pdf (accessed 12 April 2019). Hodgson, F. (2012) Escorting economies: Networked journeys, household strategies and resistance. Research in Transportation Economics 34, 3–10. INE (2018) Género e informalidad laboral. Enfoque estadístico. Santiago, Chile: Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas – Chile. Jepson, E.J. and Edwards, M.M. (2010) How possible is sustainable urban development? An analysis of planners’ perceptions about new urbanism, smart growth and the ecological city. Planning Practice & Research 25, 417–437. Jittrapirom, P., Caiati, V., Feneri, A-M., et al. (2017) Mobility as a service: A critical review of definitions, assessments of schemes, and key challenges. Urban Planning 2, 13–25. Kamargianni, M., Li, W., Matyas, M., et al. (2016) A critical review of new mobility services for urban transport. Transportation Research Procedia 4, 3294–3303. Karner, A. and Sagaris, L. (2016) Testing a New Approach to Planning Sustainable Transport using Data from Metropolitan Santiago de Chile and the San Francisco Bay Area. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

Smart mobilities in Latin America  249 Komeily, A. and Srinivasan, R. (2017) Sustainability in smart cities: Balancing social, economical, environmental, and institutional aspects of urban life. In H. Song, R. ­Srinivasan, T. Sookoor, et al. (eds), Smart Cities: Foundations, principles and applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 409–432. Kumar, P. (2012) Our ight of way: Walk and cycle. In Our Right of Way. India Habitat Centre, New Delhi: Centre for Rural Development. Kunstler, J.H. (1993) The Geography of Nowhere: The rise and decline of America’s man-made landscape. New York: Simon & Schuster. Lovelace, R., Goodman, A., Aldred, R., et al. (2017) The Propensity to Cycle Tool: An open source online system for sustainable transport planning. Journal of Transport and Land Use 10, 505–528. LTAAcademy (2011) Passenger transport mode shares in world cities. Journeys, Land Transport Authority Academy Singapore, November. MacCallum, D., Moulaert, F., Hillier, J., et al. (2009) Social Innovation and Territorial Development. New York: Ashgate-Routledge. Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E., et al. (2010) Can Neighbourhoods Save the City? Community development and social innovation. New York: Routledge. Okner, T. and Preston, R. (2017) Smart cities and the symbiotic relationship between smart governance and citizen engagement. In H. Song, R. Srinivasan, T. Sookoor, et al. (eds), Smart Cities: Foundations, principles and applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 13–25. Posner, P.W. (2003) Local democracy and popular participation: Chile and Brazil in comparative perspective. Democratization 10, 39–67. Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Safetipin (ed.) (2016) Bogotá A Safety Analysis Report.. Gurgaon, India: Safetipin. Sagaris, L. (2015) Lessons from 40 years of planning for cycle-inclusion: Reflections from Santiago, Chile. Natural Resources Forum 39, 64–81. Sagaris, L. (2018a) Citizen participation for sustainable transport: Lessons for change from Santiago and Temuco, Chile. Research in Transportation Economics online, 1–8. Sagaris, L. (2018b) Desafíos institucionales de una participación improvisada. In P. Salinas (ed.), La Vía Medioambiental Desafíos y proyecciones para un Chile futuro. Santiago, Chile: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, p. 257. Sagaris, L. and Arora, A. (2016) Evaluating how cycle–bus integration could contribute to ‘sustainable’ transport. Research in Transportation Economics 59, 218–227. Sagaris, L. and Arora, A. (2018) Cycling for social justice in democratizing contexts: Rethinking “sustainable” mobilities. In T. Priya and K. Lucas (eds), Urban Mobilities in the Global South. London, New York: Routledge, p. 248. Sagaris, L. and Ortuzar, J.D. (2015) Reflections on citizen–technical dialogue as part of cycling-inclusive planning in Santiago, Chile. Research in Transportation Economics 53, 20–30. Sagaris, L. and Tiznado-Aitken, I. (2018) Walking and gender equity: Insights from Santiago Chile. In N. Villamizar-Duarte, D. Hernández Oviedo, and A.M. Ardila Pinto (eds), Latin American Studies Association. Barcelona, Spain. Sagaris, L., Tiznado-Aitken, I., and Steiniger, S. (2017) Exploring the social and spatial potential of an intermodal approach to transport planning. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 11, 721–736. Sagaris, L., Rivera, M., Cancino, G., et al. (2019) Ella se mueve segura, Santiago case study. In H. Allen, G. Cárdenas, L. Pereyra, and L. Sagaris (eds), Ella se mueve segura (ESMS). Un estudio sobre la seguridad personal de las mujeres y el transporte público en tres ciudades de América Latina. Caracas: CAF y FIA Foundation. Available at http://scioteca.caf.com/handle/123456789/1405. SECTRA-UAHurtado (2015) Estudio de Origen – Destino Santiago RM. Origin-destination surveys. Santiago, Chile: SECTRA, Ministry of Transport, Government of Chile.

250  Lake Sagaris Sheller, M. and Urry, J. (2000) The city and the car. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24. Song, H., Srinivasan, R., Sookoor, T., et al. (2017) Smart Cities: Foundations, principles and applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Thomson, K. (2001) From Neighborhood to Nation: The democratic foundations of civil society. Hanover and London: University Press of New England. UN (2016) Sustainable Development Goals. Available at www.un.org/sustainabledevel opment/​sustainable-development-goals/. UNHabitat (2016) New Urban Agenda. Available at http://habitat3.org/the-new-urbanagenda. Viswanath, K. and Basu, A. (2019) Safetipin. Available at: www.safetipin.com.

14 Smart as agency and human interaction Exploring the work of women bus conductors in Bengaluru, India Morgan Campbell Introduction Urban public space Early into his 1980 documentary on social life in urban public places,1 William H. Whyte concludes that social problems arise not from overuse but underuse of a particular space. An empty plaza, square, or underground passageway sends a signal that one should not be there, deterring potential users. Those in the space feel guarded, anxious, and possibly unsafe on account of an absence of others. Whyte observes that these underused spaces often rely on closed caption circuit televisions (CCTV) to monitor the space, usually in the name of security. But security of what or whom? While these devices ‘reassure management’, we are told that they ‘don’t see very much’, two possible reasons for why the presence of CCTV did not lead to more people using the space. Whyte proposes an alternative solution: the presence of more people. In their 2017 paper, Kummitha and Crutzen identify two dominate discussions around the rise of the smart city. The first is technology driven whereas the second is human driven. However, both discussions define the smart city according to an increased predominance of information communications technology (ICT). In the case of the latter, the human-driven approach is a reaction to the dominance of technology, arguing for improved human capital alongside ICT initiatives. The conclusion is that ‘smart’ is still understood as ICT. What if smartness itself was void of technology? For example, what if increased opportunities for human interaction, with all its variability and unpredictability, was labelled a smart solution? Although Whyte’s observations regarding people, space, and social interactions are limited to the United States and absent of any gender, class, or race analysis, they remain relevant to this chapter for several reasons. At the time of doing this research in 2016, CCTV was framed as the primary solution to addressing gender-based security issues in public transportation in urban India. The thought behind this technology intervention is that as a security mechanism, CCTV can foster a greater sense of security among women passengers. Forty years after Whyte’s study we still find technology at the centre of ‘solutions’ to urban social issues, only in this instance these solutions are framed as ‘smart’.

252  Morgan Campbell The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate a process of agency claiming among women bus conductors in Bengaluru through their work on the public buses. By focusing on the micropolitical encounters and relationships that women bus conductors navigate in their daily work I wish to frame their work as a smart solution to addressing issues of both gender-based exclusion and gender-based security in public transport. I discuss the process and outcome of a three-month participatory research project with women bus conductors in the city and make the argument that in the case of improving women’s mobility in India, as well as safety and security, technology is no substitute for another human being. This research began with two strands of qualitative questions. First, to understand whether and how being a woman affected a bus conductor’s ability to perform her duties. For example, did passengers treat these conductors differently from male conductors? How and why? The second part was to understand if and how the presence of women conductors leads to a more inclusive space inside the bus, for women passengers in particular. Public space in urban India In a country as heterogeneous as India it is impossible to reduce issues of gender and public space to a singular generalisation about how women experience and move through the city. Nevertheless, it can be said that the number of women one sees in almost any given public space, including transport, is not an accurate indicator of the proportion of women in the city, particularly after dark. Persistent gender norms translate spatially: where women should be and what they should be doing at certain times of day. Transgressing this unspoken structure can lead to violence. This reality was engrained into the public mind after the 2012 Delhi Rape Case, an incident in which a young medical student was fatally gang raped after she and a male friend decided to use a chartered bus to travel home from a movie at 9 p.m. In the aftermath of the Delhi Rape Case, reports coming from the Government of India (GoI), NGOs, and the media all looked at the question of women’s actual and perceived safety in urban public space, including public transport. It was found that most women experience some kind of gender-based harassment regularly (Astrop et al. 1996; Bhatt 2016; Chowdhury 2017; Jagori 2012). In 2013 the Government of India set up the Nirbhaya Fund in recognition of the Delhi Rape Case, A 1,000-Crore initiative to help NGOs and government organisations address and take action on improving the empowerment, safety, and security of women. The Government of India did not specify how the funds were to be used, and one of the most common initiatives to be funded at present is the installation of CCTV cameras in public transport and metro stations.2 In this instance we find the conversation around actual improvements towards women’s real and perceived safety and security being lost under the larger themes of surveillance and smart technologies. It also overlooks the need to think about ways for improving human interaction.

Women bus conductors in Bengaluru, India  253 Observation of women bus conductors Travelling by bus in Indian cities is crowded and often gender segragated. Women passengers board, alight, and stand in the front of the bus while male passengers occupy the middle and back. This segregated travel is meant to address the evidence that bus transport is the mode in which gender-based harassment is most commonly reported (e.g. Riverson and Kunieda 2005; Smith 2008; Mitra-Sarkar 2009). Given the reality of the challenges many women face in accessing and laying claim to public space, coupled with persistent gender norms that stigmatise women for joining the workforce, it is striking to find a relatively high proportion of women bus conductors in Bengaluru, the capital of Karnataka.3 These women wear khaki-coloured uniforms and carry the same weathered change pouches as their male colleagues, but their presence is far less innocuous. These women must occupy all sections of the bus in order to collect fares from the passengering public.

Structure of the chapter The first section gives an overview of what role a bus conductor plays and why Karnataka’s state and city bus corporation began hiring women conductors. This is followed by a review of the theoretical literature informing this research and an overview of the methodology used. The second section illustrates the micropolitical human relations that are negotiated while performing a job located in the public sphere. I focus on how agency is claimed by the conductor and the impact this has on the public space within the bus. To conclude, I reiterate the importance of human interaction and negotiation for improving gender inclusiveness in public space.

What is a conductor? Bangalore Metropolitan Transportation Corporation (BMTC) is the city’s bus network. Formed in the 1990s as an umbrella of Karnataka State Road Transport, BMTC carries an estimated 5 million passengers a day in a city where average bus speeds are less than 10 km an hour due to unbearable traffic, constant road construction, and understaffed law enforcement. To give some idea of Bengaluru’s transportation crises, about a million new cars are licensed every year, not including two-wheelers. The rising rates of vehicle ownership only further congest the roads, and it is usually the bus passenger who suffers the most. The city’s metro is operational, but is more than ten years behind schedule with limited network coverage. A conductor is an individual who walks up and down the bus asking passengers their destination and issuing a ticket and specific fare. The conductor is the interface between the driver and the public, requesting the driver to wait as passengers embark and disembark. Many buses do not have origin and destination

254  Morgan Campbell

Figure 14.1 A male conductor tries to gauge how many more passengers can board the already crowded bus in Jayanagar, Bengaluru, India. Source: Morgan Campbell.

information displayed, and so part of the job of the conductor is to answer passenger queries regarding the service route. Both driving and conducting is stressful. While the driver contends with road conditions, the conductor deals with passengers, collecting fares from tired, often frustrated passengers, who might speak to the conductor in any number of languages (e.g. Hindi, Kannada, Tamil, English). When the buses are crowded, which is often the case, it is virtually impossible to move between passengers. It is not uncommon for a conductor to get off at the front of the bus, walk through traffic, and enter the middle doors in order to collect fares from passengers in the back. Given the chaos of the city, the overcrowding of the bus, and close proximity to strangers, particularly the requirement for physical interaction through the exchange of money and tickets, it is surprising to find a number of women bus conductors in Bengaluru. India’s 33 per cent reservation In 1993 the central government introduced a 33 per cent reservation for women in government as an attempt to bring more equal gender representation. This is

Women bus conductors in Bengaluru, India  255 mandatory at the central level and optional at the state level. BMTC and KSRTC – the state’s road transport corporation – adopted the law and in 1994 put out a call for women bus conductors. Four women applied and all four got the job. Today there are approximately 7,000 conductors, of which somewhere between 700 and 9004 are women. While women bus conductors are also present in Chennai, Kochi, Chandigarh, Mumbai, and even Delhi, Bangaluru is thought to have the highest proportion of women bus conductors in the country (internal interview). The government sector, while low paying, is stable, secure, and offers amenities such as housing, medical insurance, educational schemes for children, and retirement pensions. Being a government employee is regarded as a position of respect, particularly among caste and class groups for whom upward mobility is difficult, especially in the private sector. Literature As the focus of this research was based on qualitative, subjective understandings of what it means to be a woman conductor, there was a conscious decision to focus on understanding the ‘micropolitcs’ of both mobility and gender, how, when, and why they intersect. Cresswell understands mobilities as ‘an entanglement of movement, representation, and practice’ (Cresswell 2010: 17) that illustrates how politics and power relations are inherent to mobilities itself. For Bissell (2016), to focus on micropolitics is to find threads that connect us to the macropolitics within the urban environment. This can be through a look at the institutions and infrastructures of mobility and how macropolitics produce and are produced by these micropolitics. Key to this transformation is the physical act of movement and the way that ‘mobility systems are actively changing people, rather than just passively transporting them’ (Bissell 2016: 395). This is illustrated in Bissell’s research of being a passenger on the local train from Sydney to Wollongong, Australia, where he focuses on ‘events’ that take place during the commute; specifically an evening commute in which a group of teenage boys pass provocative comments onto other passengers. This encounter is an entry point into an examination of power, class, and race relations that are negotiated and navigated while using the train. Turning our attention to gender, Smith (2004) argues that if feminists are to move beyond dominant ideologies about women, their place, and roles in society, then research must start with the everyday in order to uncover the informal and unspoken structures and institutions that form such ideologies. Phadke encourages feminists to move away from the Indian media’s obsession with major attacks on women in public as the basis for understanding the lived experience of gender, and rather focus on the everyday and ‘how spatial negotiations transpire and the way in which this interaction is an ongoing process as opposed to a singular event’ (Phadke 2012: 60). Implicit in these conversations is the importance of micropolitical encounters and one’s navigation through them.

256  Morgan Campbell Dunckel-Graglia’s work (2013) on pink transportation in Mexico City begins with the argument that public transport is ‘the gateway to urban public life’ (p. 89). However, insofar as urban public space is historically perceived as masculine, masculine behaviour is normalised into public transport. Added to this is the reality that in cities where public transportation is overcrowded, assertive behaviour is required. Prevailing gender norms are such that assertion or aggression are not or should not be qualities of a ‘respectable woman’. Women transit users are forced to reconcile these various conflicts and contradictory behaviours in various ways. Phadke et al. make a similar point: respectability in India is ‘fundamentally defined by the division between public and private spaces’ (2011: 24). Given that public spaces are not inherently respectable for women, a woman must ‘manufacture respectability’. This means dressing appropriately and treating public space as a passage between origins and destinations rather than a destination itself. Treating public space as a destination in and of itself, while normal for men, is inappropriate for women. A woman who is in public for too long, or, even worse, doing nothing, is a woman who invites trouble. She is referred to as a fallen woman, a streetwalker, or a public woman. In her interviews with women passengers, Dunckel-Graglia finds that for women in Mexico City, fear is as much about being in empty or dangerous spaces as it is about being labelled ‘a woman in public’ being in public space for too long is to be outside of the cultural norms deeming appropriate places for women (e.g. the home). Returning to this research, a woman bus conductor is not only in public; she is with the public. While she is clearly doing something, that job is thought to be masculine; it necessitates assertive even aggressive behaviour and therefore has the potential to be taken as inappropriate for women. Given the nature of her profession, a woman bus conductor does not have the time or physical space to manufacture respectability in a way that other women of her background would. Understanding norms around public space in the Indian context introduces us to several questions related to how women bus conductors navigate these norms while doing their job. Stated differently, how do women simultaneously navigate both occupational and social expectations regarding how they should ‘perform’ these various identities and roles? Public space, even if it is a physical entity, is still socially constructed. What is considered public space in one part of the world or one community cannot be taken as universal. Mobility as methodology The primary interest of this project was to locate the micropolitics that emerge from the quotidian responsibilities and duties of being a bus conductor and how these women navigate them. Research was ethnographic in nature, evolving through four different techniques: participant observation of bus conductors inside and outside the bus, unstructured interviews with conductors and other BMTC personnel, three focus group discussions, role-playing theatre, and secondary media sources.

Women bus conductors in Bengaluru, India  257 Bissell (2016) and Rink’s (2016) readings on micropolitics of mobility serve as illustrations through which micropolitics form the basis for inquiry as well as research methodology, and it is from these that I developed my own strategy for empirical research. Similar to Bissell, everyday ethnographic observation within the interior of public transit was an opportunity to locate power plays and exchanges between passengers, and, in my case, passengers and conductors. Understanding my position as visibly different and as a non-Kannada speaker meant the general public would view me as an unlikely candidate for ‘ordinary’ bus passenger travel. This required awareness of possible impacts on the research, namely how conductors and the passengering public would respond to me. A second methodological consideration was that conductors might avoid sharing information out of fear that I might relay that information to management, which could be negative in nature. The greatest challenges therefore were to establish the trust of the women conductors, and throughout the process of riding the bus, to draw attention neither to their work nor to myself. To help mitigate the fear of sharing information, the first stage of research was to contact the labour officer and head of BMTC for the purpose of permissions. While the project’s focus was not related to the transport agency itself, receiving permission from BMTC would help conductors feel more secure sharing information. The BMTC labour office agreed to reach out to a handful of conductors and organise the first focus group. From this focus group of five participants a snowball sample technique was employed. Participants were asked to share my contact information with other women conductors.5 A secondary method of convenience sampling was employed. This entailed going to the various bus depots (of which there are 43 in the city) either at the start of the first shift (typically 6.30 a.m.) or at the end of the first shift (typically 2.30 p.m.) and intercepting women bus conductors directly. In both cases, I introduced the project and myself to the women conductors and asked permission to ride their bus route for several hours during their shift in order to observe daily interactions between passengers and conductors. Some women were not comfortable with this proposition and others were. Participant observation began by riding the bus for the duration of a conductor’s shift and spending time at the bus depots before and after a conductor’s shift had ended. The latter allowed me to witness interactions between conductors and the public, how a conductor positioned herself within the public while off duty. It was also an opportunity to see how BMTC employees maintained a positive community among themselves after completing a shift, regardless of gender. Coinciding with participation observation was a series of approximately ten individual unstructured interviews with conductors. To overcome language barriers, these interviews were done at the start or end of a shift with the help of a female, Kannada-speaking language assistant. Some conductors were more interested in the project than others and these conductors sat with me when the bus was less crowded to point out tasks they were required to do at certain stages of the shift, an exchange that did not require in-depth language understanding. Some conductors introduced me to passengers

258  Morgan Campbell who travelled the route regularly, especially older passengers and those who spoke English fluently. As the research progressed and I became better acquainted with a handful of conductors, time was spent accompanying them in their daily activities, for example, travelling from the bus depot once a shift had ended to their child’s school to pick them up and then back home where homework was done and meals were cooked. As my presence became more familiar at the bus depots I was also introduced to male conductors, depot managers, and bus drivers. A total of three focus group discussions took place over the course of several months in the summer of 2016. The first was held in the BMTC head office, the second in Bangalore’s largest public park, and the third in the home of one conductor. Inspired by Augusto Boal and the Theatre of the Oppressed, two of these focus groups entailed the use of role playing and acting out scenes on the bus. Five women participated in the first discussion, four in the second, and eight men and women participated in the third discussion. My sample is by no means a representation of the general population of women BMTC conductors. However, as many of the women who were part of this research are some of the oldest-serving women conductors, their historical insight into several aspects of the micropolitics of being a woman conductor, particularly the view of the general public, is a valuable contribution to understanding when, where, and how women conductors embody their gender (and when they break out of gender norms). It is an entry point into gauging gender dynamics in public spaces and places, how human interaction assists in the ability to navigate and possibly change assumptions of where women should be and what they should be doing.

Findings In this section I discuss the findings from the research project. What was revealed over the course of the research was that women bus conductors must, in addition to the challenge of the work, confront several social relationships that are informed by gender norms. Broadly, we can think of these as: the relationship between the conductor and her family; the relationship between the conductor and her physical body (e.g. biological roles of giving birth, menstruation); the relationship between the conductor and the male driver she is paired with, and the relationship between the conductor and the passengering public. In the paragraphs below I highlight salient ways in which being both a conductor and working in/with the public becomes a process through which individual agency is realised. Micropolitics 1: The family Common to all of the women profiled was that the decision to become a bus conductor is not made by the individual woman but by her family. While the idea of the larger family having a say in the type of employment one takes up is not unique to conductor work or even to women, the decision for a daughter to

Women bus conductors in Bengaluru, India  259 become a female conductor did present several tensions. This type of work presents a dilemma between offering the family respectability associated with having a family member in a government job coupled with the danger of having a daughter who might be perceived of as a ‘public woman’. In the paragraphs below I give an overview of the qualities that make a government job desirable and then illustrate the tension of taking up this work through examples that emerged out of the focus group discussions. Why a government job? Although salaries in almost all government sectors tend to be lower than comparable work in the private sector, the benefits (e.g. pension, medical care, housing in many cases, stable hours) and particularly the security of a government sector position make this an attractive option for many people, particularly for populations who do not have access to other forms of material security (e.g. family money, investments, etc.) and/or social standing/security. That most government offices close at 5 p.m. is thought to be particularly accommodating to women who must also consider their domestic responsibilities (Radhakrishnan 2011). Pay raises, route preferences, better housing/housing allowances, medical coverage, educational scholarships for children, etc. are all in proportion to years of service or seniority. As long as a woman stays with her position she can expect an increase in benefits. Conductors and drivers have the option of transferring from BMTC to KSRTC, with preference given to those who have worked longer. The retirement age is 60 for bus conductors. Most conductors, especially women, join BMTC out of economic necessity. This was confirmed during an interview with HR (in July 2016), newspaper articles (Doval 2014; Desphande 2017), and by women conductors themselves. Commonalities that emerged throughout the different narratives during the first focus group were a conflict between economic necessity and concern for the reputation of the family. One conductor profiled while on duty explained: ‘I am from a village. I did not know much about buses or about work. I came here [Bengaluru] because I have a sister [here]. I saw a recruitment call and I applied.’ In the paragraph below I offer conversations from the first focus group to illustrate this tension in the context of the family. MODERATOR:  Had you seen other lady conductors before you applied? CONDUCTOR:  No. I’m from Gulbarga. There are no lady conductors there.

So when I was appointed, there were no lady conductors. I was in the village. In the beginning, I came here on my own. MODERATOR:  Did you stay here all on your own? CONDUCTOR:  [I came] on my own. Single. I stayed in my relative’s place. That was torture of another kind. Six months I would stay in their house. I would cry every day. After duty, I would come home and have a round of crying. And then I would get up and eat food, if I felt like it. Otherwise, I would just go to bed. After six months, I got married.

260  Morgan Campbell This conductor never said exactly how she found out about employment as a bus conductor and why she decided to pursue this over other possible forms of employment, though a reasonable assumption is that employment opportunities in the village are limited, particularly for women. Another theme that emerged from this focus group was that of education. Conducting work requires a certain level of educational qualification to be considered for the work as well as obtaining a licence through a test. Some women, especially those from villages, wanted to put whatever formal education they had to good use. Other conductors, such as those born and raised in the city, seemed aware that their level of education was not particularly high and therefore felt pleased that they could get a government job. In a separate conversation, the following unfolded with a different conductor: MODERATOR:  How did your family react? CONDUCTOR: What do they say? Dharmakke

dhatti kotre hitlage mola haakdange [Kannada proverb meaning When a cloth is given for charity it is measured in the backyard]. For the education I had, it was a very big thing for me to get a government job. When I first started this work, my mother did not approve because at that time, on the bus, they would look you up and down (acts this out) and say ‘eh, what are you doing here?’ Because in our society we are told how to talk, how to act. At that time we [i.e. women] did not go out, we were not allowed out, only when our bellies [gestures] only when we needed to fill our bellies were we going out.6 So they would look at us and think these things and say these things. [My mother would say] ‘Why can’t you find a different kind of work, with this work you will be thought of as a roadside woman, a public woman.’

Several conductors who joined at an early age said their parents worried that no one would marry them for being in this line of work. One conductor explained: CONDUCTOR: 

I wasn’t married when I first started working. I got married only after a few years of working. MODERATOR:  How did the prospective grooms feel about your job? CONDUCTOR:  It was difficult to find someone who would support me in my work. I was very sure that I wanted to continue working so I faced a lot of rejections and I was also looking for someone who would let me work. But I did get married. Training Women enter this job without experience. This is coupled with the fact that many are coming from outside the city, so they are unfamiliar with the different neighbourhoods, bus routes, and diversity of people and variety of languages spoken in the city. In earlier times, conductors received a week of training; mornings were dedicated to theory and afternoons were spent shadowing a senior conductor. When the 33 per cent reservation was first initiated, women received one extra

Women bus conductors in Bengaluru, India  261 day of training to address women’s topics such as how to protect one’s health, and the specific gender policies available to women through BMTC. One conductor recounted her first few days: ‘I had never travelled [in Bangaluru]. They [BMTC] sent me with an old conductor for one day. After that they gave me a small, easy route alongside a conductor. It could be either man or woman. If I asked a question, they would help me. Then the driver would help me. He would tell me the route and tell me where to do entry.’ When asked about this early experience again there was the reply: ‘In the beginning, I cried.’ None of these women took up conducting out of enthusiasm for the type of work it required. In fact, this work was a source of anxiety for some families – as seen in the reaction of the conductor’s mother above – and a daily anxiety for the woman herself. While no conductor presented her narrative as one of bravery, it was clear that embarking upon this type of employment, particularly for those who were coming to the city for the first time, required determination, and a steady mind and will to even get through the day. However, that determination is itself a type of agency. Perhaps best exemplified in the example of marriage, those who joined while unmarried wanted to continue working after marriage and therefore would only choose partners who allowed them to do so. Micropolitics 2: The public Several role-playing techniques were employed in order to stimulate conversations about the embodiment of gender through interactions with the public, wherein the public in this instance refers to bus passengers. In this subsection I address two main points. First, that conversations regarding the public’s perception and treatment of women conductors were not inherently negative, and many conductors focused only on positive exchanges. Second, when challenges from the public were explored through enactment, it was less about momentous confrontations or physical harassment and more about quotidian, minute challenges that were handled differently according to the beliefs and attitudes of individual conductors. Conductors who had worked for over ten years observed a change in the public in respect of the general attitude and treatment of women conductors. The second focus group took place in a large public park that provided ample space to enact different scenarios. The role-playing assignment was between a passenger carrying a BMTC monthly pass holder and the conductor. In this instance the conductors enacted the scenario so that the pass holder was a male engineering student. The enactment went as follows: CONDUCTOR:  To where [are you going]? STUDENT: Pass. CONDUCTOR:  Take it out and show it to me. STUDENT:  I have my pass in the bag. CONDUCTOR:  Hello, show it. Or we will have

to stop the bus. You need to show the pass. STUDENT:  What, are you a special conductor? The pass is in the bag.

262  Morgan Campbell The conductor playing the engineer ignored the conductor. The conductor playing the conductor pretended to issue other tickets and then came back to the student. She asked again for the pass. The conductor playing the engineering student rolled her/his eyes and looked in the bag. STUDENT:  Such a pain. CONDUCTOR:  Where is your identity card? STUDENT:  The pass is there isn’t it? Why do you need the college ID card? CONDUCTOR: 

To check that this is your pass.

The conversation continued with such precision that it was clear how quotidian an experience this is. We eventually froze the scenario and the two ­conductors sat down to discuss the enactment. The other conductors laughed, confirming that yes this is a common experience. We discussed the comment made by the engineering student, ‘What, are you a special conductor?’ All of the conductors present acknowledged that they had been asked some version of this. Especially with male passengers there seemed to be genuine annoyance with a lady conductor who followed protocol. The women were of two minds: first, that the male conductors do not get the same looks when asking questions that are part of their duty (i.e. to see the ID that accompanies the pass); second, that many of the male conductors don’t care as much and often don’t check the ID – an observation that gave way to a more general observation that women conductors follow certain protocols (e.g. giving correct change immediately) more strictly than men. When asked why this might be the case the women confirmed that it was in a woman’s nature – a point I will return to below. A second enactment that took place was when conductors were asked to role play the experience of witnessing gender-based harassment of a female passenger. In this instance, one conductor played a conductor observing a male passenger (also role played) subtly harassing a female passenger (also role played) by hanging close and brushing against her. Other conductors were invited to get up and act out the role of conductor in order to demonstrate what they would do. During the discussion afterwards conductors again confirmed that they had witnessed something like this during their duty. All acknowledged that, according to BMTC regulations, a passenger cannot be kicked off the bus. When trouble occurs on the bus a conductor can either stop the bus and wait for the police to arrive, or direct the bus to the police station or nearest bus station. In both cases passengers are not allowed to disembark, creating a very unfavourable situation for the conductor. One conductor said that if she saw this behavior she would immediately stop the bus and call the police. Several disagreed, first preferring to say something to the male passenger or physically act by putting herself in between the two passengers. A point of agreement was that sometimes the woman who is being targeted feels very embarrassed or insecure and therefore there is a risk that she might resent the bus conductor for drawing attention to the situation. In

Women bus conductors in Bengaluru, India  263 common practice they seemed to think that if a woman is being harassed she will most likely get off at the next bus stop as her way of dealing with the situation. One conductor said that if the woman passenger comes and sits next to her, only then will she (the conductor) raise the issue. Another disagreed, summarising with the following statement: ‘He may not have troubled me but as a woman, if I see another woman being troubled, I won’t just watch it.’ In both role-playing scenarios a confrontation and intervention occurred. Each scenario was full of small details, with every conductor acting out the scenario with such ease and enjoyment that it was clear that in the process of being a conductor these women know, understand, and anticipate the public in a way that only comes from experience. These experiences are grounded in human interaction and, in the instance of intervening in the case of harassment, no approach is inherently right or wrong. How a conductor interacts with the situation is context dependent and may or may not be grounded in her own experiences. While an applicationbased technology or CCTV camera may document a harassment, it does not allow her, or others, to change it in real time. It is the human factor that allows for an intervention that has the potential to make lasting change. A third scenario that was enacted and discussed was the mobility of the conductor herself within the bus; how a crowded bus impacted upon her work and what she did to mitigate potentially uncomfortable situations involving bodily proximity to strangers, especially male passengers. The conductors explained that this was part of the job, but as women it required precautions. One conductor explained her technique after being directly asked if she had ever faced harassment. ‘I know some have but I haven’t faced any problem from the men in the bus. If the bus is too crowded, I don’t always go back. I go to the middle of the bus and ask people to buy tickets. They pass the money and the ticket from person to person.’ A second and more seasoned conductor acknowledged that it was worse in the past, but she knows how to ‘handle’ passengers. Even if it is crowded, she will demand a certain level of personal space from the men in the back. ‘I say, man, I know you don’t have space behind you, but I have to give tickets, no? See, I have to stand here.’ This bodily assertion was also enacted. These various role-playing exercises reiterated that most conductors have more character studies behind them than a seasoned actress. Older conductors had ‘pretty much seen everything’ and took pleasure in recounting quirky stories from earlier days. It was observed that the narratives recounted were those in which the conductor was positioned in a positive, almost heroic light. There was a challenge, followed by an assertion or action on behalf of the conductor, and finally an outcome that demonstrated either to another individual or to the ‘public’ the conductor’s capacity for leadership, quick thinking, and positive results. When agency builds For a woman conductor to initiate these kinds of responses and interventions within the bus requires a certain level of confidence. The question is: how is

264  Morgan Campbell this confidence developed and what are the implications? For most conductors, male or female, becoming comfortable and even confident with the public was a process, with many emphasising how they felt when they first began this work and how this compared to how they feel now. In this subsection I focus on the challenges following examples at which confidence began to take over. S, originally from Hassan, a district south of Bengaluru, explained how she felt when she first started as a conductor. I used to be scared of the job when I started out. People here talked so many different languages and I knew only Kannada. But after some time, I learned to manage too. I have worked for so long now and I have done over 30 different routes. After I came here, I didn’t feel like going back [to my village]. In that way, I continued. I have also got many opportunities. As a conductor, they will give us space to work in the office also.7 If there is some other case, they will ask us to attend. For us, all that. In this short passage it is possible to trace the transition in S’s attitude, starting with feeling intimidated by the job over the course of being a conductor, to taking advantage of opportunities and feeling appreciated by the corporation (e.g. ‘For us, all that’). A connection between learning the profession, learning the city, and gaining confidence in herself is implied. The link between receiving an income and gaining respect from the family is well documented in literature and policy reports on women’s empowerment (e.g. SEWA, ILO, UNWomen, OECD, IMF, WB, Grameen Bank) with evidence that earning an income gives a woman more decision-making power within the family. However, one significant difference in the context of women bus conductors is that this respect is not only at the household level. While it is potentially complicated by the fact of being employed in a public sphere, it also has the potential to leverage respect from the public. Regardless of whether a passenger shows outward respect for the conductor, the conductor has both confidence and agency, which I define as the ability to be assertive and take charge of situations that often challenge one’s potential to be confident. We have the physical structure of the bus, we have the structure of the organisation, and we have the structure of society. The conductor moves through all of these micropolitical structures and relationships with conscious and unconscious agency.

Discussion How might this agency translate to beyond the woman conductor? There are positive ripple effects within several personal and professional relationships that ultimately focus on repositioning gender norms and relationships in unanticipated ways. These changes originate from their everyday duties and

Women bus conductors in Bengaluru, India  265 interactions; they are predicated on the public bus system but not necessarily instigated by this. Many conductors and drivers use the exchanges diddi and anna (sister and elder brother), words that reflect the type of relationship between two people who work together in tough conditions for hours on end. While establishing this relationship may take some time, the familiarity and support between conductor and driver sends a positive signal to the public. It is a heterosexual yet non-sexual, non-familial relationship that requires trust and confidence in one another. One unexplored aspect of this research was how working with a woman conductor might impact upon the male driver’s understanding of gender norms. Did this working relationship change his attitudes and views towards women more generally? How might this translate into future opportunities for his daughters, wife, sisters, etc.? In respect to the passengering public and the transformative power of human interaction, several examples emerged during discussions. M is a conductor originally from outside the city. She took up the job after she and her husband moved to the city. She didn’t want to work for several reasons, but primarily because she thought it was beneath her. After moving from the village to the city it was clear that both partners had to earn in order to live comfortably in the city. For this reason, she took up conductor work. During the first focus group the question of passengers and how to behave towards them was explored. Conductor M offered the following remark: When I came here, till then I had never extended my hand this way [shows hand with palms facing upward]. But when in a bus, I have to extend it this way. There [in the village] if you have to talk to someone, you do not talk more than what is necessary. Here it is not like that, with everyone, we talk ten things. Also, if someone touches me just a bit, I would want to go wash my hands [when I first started]. First I have to wash hands. If someone gave me something, I would wonder if I should eat [e.g. another conductor, driver or passenger]. But now it is not like that. I eat without washing my hands sometimes. M is describing the difference in caste and class relations in the village as opposed to the city. In the village, where it is assumed she was of a higher caste position, she was not expected to touch others, speak more than necessary, or take food from those who were positioned below her. As a conductor this was not possible, since every passenger is to be treated equally. Even within the organisation, it was expected that she would treat colleagues equally; to not accept food from someone would be considered offensive. She recognises that her behaviour and, we might say, judgments, have changed. Women passengers Similar to the question of male bus drivers, an aspect of this project was whether and how women passengers are impacted by the presence of a woman bus conductor. This was informally explored during the research period but must be

266  Morgan Campbell developed further. Considering the positive impact women police units and helpline numbers have had upon women’s comfort with reporting incidents of harassment, it is expected that the presence of women conductors fosters a similar level of assurance and confidence among women passengers. During the third focus group this inquiry was brought up. I was told that passengers ask women conductors for route clarifications and help far more than they did male conductors. This was true of male and female passengers but, while it was observed that male passengers also asked male conductors questions, the same did not seem to hold true for women passengers. Returning to the earlier example during the role-playing exercises when the women told me about ‘their nature’, women conductors explained that it was only natural that passengers asked them for help more than men. Women are, according to them, more understanding. While we might be quick to question the subjective nature of this ‘finding’ or judge this as a gender stereotype, for these conductors it was a positive stereotype. In fact, it challenged the assumption that conducting work was a ‘masculine’ job, as it was clear that passengers both needed and appreciated the assistance. CONDUCTOR 1:  They look at the conductor and behave. If there is a lady conductor.

[…] The lady [fare] collection, stopping [at the actual bus stop] everything will be done. The bus will go on time. Fares will be honest. CONDUCTOR 2:  Passengers come to us. Women are approachable; we are more friendly than the gents. They ask us where is this bus going. They know we will help them. Interestingly, the male conductors present during this discussion agreed with the statements made. ‘Smart’ as human-centric solutions The journey of this research project was a journey into understanding how agency develops and is claimed by women bus conductors. Returning to the work of William Whyte and the argument that public spaces need people in them in order to be accessible and safe, I would like to suggest that the presence of women bus conductors does more for establishing positive gender relations in the contemporary city than most top-down, technocratic approaches such as the installation of CCTV cameras or app-based technologies. As seen in the above examples from the focus groups and role-playing exercises, power dynamics and gender relations were negotiated through daily, informal interactions. Several conductors said they knew many of the passengers on their routes and, after years of transporting them, had developed simple friendships in which passengers would bring ripe mangoes to the conductor, sweets during the festival season, and occasionally an invitation to a son or daughter’s wedding. Transportation systems are created by and for humans, yet the human dimension is often neglected. Smart solutions to issues of efficiency, safety, and security of passengers are often framed according to the technologies behind

Women bus conductors in Bengaluru, India  267

Figure 14.2 A male driver and female conductor working together during their shift change the display board for the bus route. Source: Morgan Campbell.

them. Focusing on women bus conductors offers insight into those who are not in charge of making or controlling transport systems but are part of the daily operations of transportation services, the individuals who not only interact with but also constitute the users of transport. Wayfinding is an essential part of mobility in general. BMTC offers more than 2,000 different route networks. There are no maps at bus shelters, and signboards on buses are frequently blocked by faded or unclear advertisments. If women feel more comfortable asking women conductors for help, coupled with anecdotal evidence that women in India, particularly those using bus transport, have less access to smartphones and app-based technology, then there is a strong case for pushing to employ more women conductors. In 2017 the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation announced a possible phasing out of separate roles for conductors and drivers. Under the new scheme, a driver will be expected to take care of ticketing (Ananya 2017). However, the elimination of the conductor also comes in the wake of smart or electronic cardbased ticketing throughout India. In early 2019, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the launch of a National Common Mobility Card, a card that would allow for automatic fare collection on public transport (The Economic Times

268  Morgan Campbell 2019). While smart card ticketing would address the challenge conductors experience in trying to give the correct monetary change to passengers, it is more likely to make their work obsolete. How might the elimination of these women impact upon bus users, particularly women passengers for whom seeing a woman conductor reiterates a woman’s right to urban mobility? Is one smart solution overlooking a low-tech yet possibly more effective other?

Acknowledgements This research was financially supported through the Goethe Institut, Bangalore, and Sandbox Collective’s Gender Bender initiative. A special thanks to Nayana Udayashankar for her language and research support.

Notes 1 Both the video documentary and book are entitled The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (1980). 2 http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=101789. 3 It should be noted that South India is generally conceived of as being less overtly patriarchal in structure than the North. Bengaluru, or Bangalore (as it was formally called), has, for decades, been perceived as one of India’s ‘safest’ cities for women, a quality often attributed to its ‘laid-back’ nature and relatively educated population. This was further enhanced by the growth of the city’s tech sector and increased global feel and presence. However, several counterpoints can be found, including the 2017 mass molestation that occurred on New Year’s Eve and the murder of Gauri Lankesh, a writer and journalist, whose confrontation of gender and political violence was the basis for her murder. 4 Note that this is at best 10 per cent of the total conductor population, and suggestive that there are indeed barriers against women being conductors. 5 In communicating with women conductors this project was framed as a ‘life history’ project in which the goal was to understand what it was like to be a woman bus conductor. 6 It was unclear to me if this gesture was in respect of being of age for getting married and having children, or literally for food. 7 If a conductor or driver is no longer physically able to do his or her job, arrangements are made for a less physically taxing assignment.

References Ananya, I. (2017) Is Kerala going to employ fewer women bus conductors because it can’t pay salaries? The Ladies Finger! http://theladiesfinger.com/kerala-women-busconductors-drivers/ (accessed 15 October 2017). Astrop, A., Palmer, C., Maunder, D., and Babu, D.M. (1996) The urban travel behaviour and constraints of low income households and females in Pune, India. Transport Research Laboratory, 1–38. Bhatt, A. (2016) Women’s Safety in Public Transport. EMBARQ India. Available at www.wrirosscities.org/sites/default/files/Final_Report_30072015.pdf (accessed 10 December 2017). Bissell, D. (2016) Micropolitics of mobility: Public transport commuting and everyday encounters with forces of enablement and constraint. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 394–403.

Women bus conductors in Bengaluru, India  269 Chowdhury, S.R. (2017) Harassment fears: Why Delhi women pick lower-ranked colleges than ones they’re eligible for. Scroll.in. Available at https://scroll.in/article/858995/ fear-of-harassment-on-the-road-affects-womens-choice-of-college-in-delhi-study (accessed 1 November 2017). Cresswell, T. (2010) Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 28(1), 17–31. Deshpande, A. (2017) Lack of toilets pose an ordeal for women bus conductors of TSRTC. www.newindianexpress.com. Available at www.newindianexpress.com/cities/ hyderabad/2017/sep/01/lack-of-toilets-pose-an-ordeal-for-women-bus-conductors-oftsrtc-1650957.html (accessed 11 November 2017). Doval, N. (2014) Lack of toilets, safety issues hold back women in transport sector. www.livemint.com. Available at www.livemint.com/Politics/NNYYww75m9eQ9Kfg5qLdTL/ Some-women-opt-for-the-road-less-taken.html (accessed 12 June 2015). Dunckel-Graglia, A. (2013) Women-only transportation: How ‘pink’ public transportation changes public perception of women’s mobility. Journal of Publica Transportation 16(2), 85–105. Government of India (2013) Making Women More Secure in Delhi: Toward confidence building and tackling sexual harassment. New Delhi: Government of India. Available at http://indiacode.nic.in/acts-in-pdf/142013.pdf (accessed 10 August 2015). Jagori (2012) Women’s Safety Audit. Jagori, New Delhi. Available at www.jagori.org/ sites/default/files/publication/Parichiti-Jagori-Womens-Safety-Audit-Dec2012.pdf (accessed 11 November 2017). Kummitha, R.K.R. and Crutzen, N. (2017) How do we understand smart cities? An evolutionary perspective. Cities 67, 43–52. Mitra-Sarkar, S.A. (2009) Abandon all hope, ye who enter here: Understanding the problem of ‘Eve teasing’ in Chennai, India. In Transportation Research Board (ed.), Women’s Issues in Transportation. Irvine, CA: Transportation Research Board, pp. 74–84. Phadke, S. (2012) Gendered usage of public spaces: A case study of Mumbai. In S. Pilot and L. Prabhu (eds), The Fear that Stalks: Gender-based violence in public spaces. New Delhi: Zubaan, pp. 51–75. Phadke, S., Khan, S., and Ranade, S. (2011) Why Loiter? Women and risk on Mumbai streets. Gurgaon: Penguin. Radhakrishnan, S. (2011) Appropriately Indian: Gender and culture in a new transnational class. New Delhi: Orient Black Swan Publishers. Rink, B. (2016) Race and the micropolitics of mobility: Mobile autoethnography on a South African bus service. Transfers 6(1), 62–79. Riverson, J. and Kunieda, D. (2005) Overview of women’s transportation issues in developing countries: Challenges in addressing gender dimensions of transport in developing countries – Lessons from World Bank projects, 1–17. Smith, D.E. (2004) A sociology for women. In The Aberdeen Body Group (eds), The Body: Critical concepts in sociology. Volume II: Sociology, Nature and the Body. London: Routledge, pp. 1–52. Smith, M.J. (2008) Addressing the security needs of women passengers on public transport. Security Journal 21(1), 117–133. The Economic Times (2019) (Staff reporter) ‘One nation one card’: PM Narendra Modi launches mobility card that would work across country. The Economic Times. Published online 5 March 2019. Available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/ politics-and-nation/one-nation-one-card-pm-narendra-modi-launches-mobility-cardthat-would-work-across-country/articleshow/68261302.cms (accessed 5 May 2019). Whyte, W. (2001) The Social Life of Small Urban Space. New York: Project for Public Spaces.

15 Some gender equality and equity planning cases in urban planning in Malmö, or how I became a transport feminist Daniel Svanfelt Learning to crawl: ‘traffic-for-all’ principles I was born in 1975. That is slightly more than 40 years ago and not a very long time in light of typical urban development horizons. At the same time, many things have happened since then. That year was an international women’s year, when the United Nations declared that all discrimination against women must end. In Sweden, free abortion was guaranteed by new national legislation. The previous year had seen the implementation of a new parental insurance allowance, for the first time guaranteeing free leave for both new parents. Bear it in mind that equal rights, for men and for women, were clearly not evident during the years throughout history prior to that time. And things also do not change overnight merely because of political decisions. We carry within ourselves a set of standards and norms which can be trickier to change, especially if we are not conscious and aware of them. After two years, I moved with my family from central Malmö to the newly expanded suburb of Oxie, following the ‘green wave’ during the 1970s. This was a bigger movement where the city population started to decline quite dramatically in tandem with the de-industrialisation of the city. The men who had been working at the Kockums shipyard and the women in the textile manufacturing plants found that their livelihoods were rapidly crumbling. All this was not typically what I reflected upon at that time. The welfare state ensured that I got schooling up until the time I could take care of myself, at least being able to collect courses and credits on the civil engineering programme at Lund university to the extent that I could get my final degree. From what I remember, topics such as gender issues and social sustainability were not discussed at the technical faculty, certainly not during the 12 years of schooling preceding my university education. Maybe you could not expect this from primary school at the time. And higher studies mainly consisted of classic engineering challenges. Problem solving was largely through analysing and calculating, instrumentally, and giving the correct answer. But now, 20 years later, I wonder if something was starting to happen at around that time. The textbooks and examples of guidelines or instructive documents used by relevant government authorities on, for example, how to build roads consisted of

Gender and urban planning in Malmö, Sweden  271 type drawings, formulas, and diagrams of a technical nature, with intersection angles, curve radii, and so on. One example of how other perspectives were clearly subjugated is that the National Road Administration in its national design guidelines saw fit to include only one page with the headline ‘Traffic-for-all principle’, outlining that there existed the elderly, people with disabilities, and people who could not easily make their way around the transport system by car, such as children!, and that the ‘traffic environment’ we were trained to create should accommodate these groups as well. As opposed to the rest of the severalhundred-page volume dedicated to different highway speed standards and finding a fitting alignment of roads into the landscape, I can recall no further guidance mentioning how the ‘Traffic-for-all principle’ should be realised, other than that the roads should sometimes be able to be crossed – In urban areas, anyway. What I remember is the reasoning, debating, and advocating we were trained in – what I nowadays would dare to label challenging and changing the trafikmaktordning (the power structure of the transport sector), the outspoken and hidden standards. So, something was probably brewing at that time. This sprang from the rise of environmental awareness. The UN conference on sustainable development in Rio 1992 had given birth to a renewed interest in environmental matters from a global point of view, spurring a number of local Agenda 21 initiatives. This had not yet embraced social aspect of sustainability in the structured, integrated way that we have begun to talk about today.

Production and reproduction as dialectical opposites Many years later when I started my employment in the City of Malmö, I came on board the project group of ’Future public transport in Malmö’ (Framtidens kollektivtrafik i Malmö) as a project leader representing the City Planning Office. Shortly thereafter, my co-project leader from the Streets and Parks Department, Linda Göransson, managed to make our joint project a case in the development of a research venture focusing on gender equality, issued and funded in 2010 by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (Sveriges kommuner och landsting, SKL). During my former employment as a consultant I had come across the concept of gender equality in transport planning from time to time, experiencing an increasing interest and intensity. I, and my colleagues, caught glimpses of new and interesting aspects that could be measured, analysed, and taken into account in research fields, but also turned over to ordinary consultant assignments. I owe some of my interest in this field to Dr Lena Smidfelt Rosqvist at Trivector, with whom I worked at that time. I remember a presentation given by Professor Tora Friberg at Linköping University, and who opened my eyes by suggesting that someone ought to give some thought to reproduction in planning cases where the aim otherwise was geared exclusively towards production through a continues focus on regionalisation. At an aggregated level, this implied travelling further and further away on a daily basis to find better matches in the labour market. This principle became

272  Daniel Svanfelt established as the supreme measure for growth and welfare (this was further bolstered during the period when public discussion on a new high-speed rail system was gaining traction). But, as Tora pointed out, a bigger share of women tend to take responsibility for unpaid household work and caring for children, and maybe other family members who need special care. They seem more reluctant to find better paid jobs further away because of the need to work short distances from their home and their ‘duties’ as prescribed by the prevalent norms. So, shortening travel times is not equal to shortening travel distances, and have different effects on genders depending on responsibilities for (often unpaid) care-related and household responsibilities. The labour market areas for traditional female jobs are smaller, and have been so for a long time. Expanding access to employment areas by improving transport infrastructure and services has historically had a more significant effect on men’s travel patterns. Changing this would have to be preceded by a change in societal norms affecting and challenging female partners’ responsibilities and gender segregation of the labour market.

Intense research in Malmö thanks to a gender equality grant With the SKL grant from sustainable gender equality (Hållbar jämställdhet), our project group was able to accumulate new knowledge on how a better design of public transport systems could further assist different groups. We mapped the current knowledge level in the responsible organisations in Malmö City and how the project activities so far had taken on the aspect of gender equality. Furthermore, we produced materials for reflection in the form of gender disaggregated statistics, and finally we tried new forms for public consultations. Researchers from the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI) carried out the lion’s share of the investigative work and conducted an ongoing evaluation, together with WSP Sweden. I must especially credit Dr Lena Levin at VTI and Dr Charlotta Faith-Ell, with their fellow researchers, for this contribution. Trivector was commissioned to carry out gender budgeting calculations on the difference between men’s and women’s aggregated travel patterns in Malmö. The latter yielded an interesting result by showing – through calculations based on the travel diaries from the most up-to-date regional travel behavioural survey (2008) – that men and women in Malmö had clearly different travel behaviour in terms of modes, distances, times, and purposes. This was developed further for the sustainable urban mobility plan for Malmö (SUMP, in Swedish Trafik- och mobilitetsplan för Malmö) several years later. Women made shorter, but more complex trips (trip chains) than men. The modal split was also quite different. From the survey, we learnt that biking in Malmö was somewhat a ‘gender-neutral’ pursuit. This is not in sync with most other survey findings around the world and even in Sweden, where biking exhibits gendered differences depending on trip purpose and so on. The bike-share for women was 24 per cent, whereas it was 22 per cent for men. Men in Malmö made significantly

Gender and urban planning in Malmö, Sweden  273 more car trips than women, 48 versus 34 per cent (but women were twice as likely to be car passengers than men). Women instead used public transport for 17 per cent of their trips compared to just 12 per cent for men. But the gender gap was closed when looking at the subset of train travel (public transport in Malmö and the Skåne region was carried out by two modes: buses and trains) – the mode split for train travel was 5 per cent for men and 4 per cent for women. This was probably because men’s trips overall were longer, and trains obviously were – and still are – used for longer distances, but claims have also been put forward that it is easier to attract men to the higher status rail-bound modes. There is a saying, ‘A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure’, sometimes falsely attributed to a certain former British prime minister, but I have heard no similar slur against men riding trains or other rail-borne modes, perhaps suggesting that gender roles play some part in the explanation. Correspondingly, women also walked more – 23 per cent of trips, compared to men’s share of 16 per cent.

A thought experiment of equalising men’s and women’s travel patterns What would the hypothetical ‘equalising’ of travel behaviour mean from an aggregated urban planning viewpoint? If women were to adapt the same travel patterns as men in Malmö, we would obviously face an increase in car ridership and a decline in walking and using (local) public transport. Our calculations revealed that the emissions levels from traffic would increase by 31 per cent (CO2), 21 per cent (particles), and 35 per cent (NOx). Figures on the need for space are also both interesting and essential. If women in Malmö were to adopt the travel patterns of men, we would need additional space for accommodating the ‘emergent’ traffic which would be in terms of road space when the vehicles are rolling and parking spaces. Using these numbers, the space required for such a swap is 12 to 14 per cent, corresponding to approximately 200 standard town squares (Möllevångstorget in Malmö was used as an illustration of such a standard square). This could also be presented in monetary terms such as the economic cost for pollution, and acquisition and management of public space. Changing the use of public spaces could indeed in itself have biased effects since, men and women value them differently. This particular gender budgeting example confirms that there is a societal and individual effect of the current use of the transport system at the urban level, and that different approaches on how to create gender equality produce different effects. The question whether we can ‘afford’ or ‘allow’ women’s travel behaviour to become like men’s (on an aggregated level, as there will be individual variations within the subsets) is complemented by the fact that there is simply no space available to give away to the private motorist. On the contrary, there is public space that could be assigned to more constructive use if the opposite were true. So, instead of denying women the same rights to transport modes and space as men, we could argue that it would be productive to get more

274  Daniel Svanfelt men to walk and use public transport (Table 15.1). This would not only increase the overall performance of the modes but it would facilitate the relatively bigger share of women already walking and riding public transport. Limiting excessive traffic by upgrading the space to positive uses, such as parks, merchandise and other open-air activities like outdoor café seating, are also easy to promote to the wider public. The spill-over effects consist of making the urbanised areas more resilient to the effects of anticipated climate changes. The data from more recent travel surveys suggest that travel behaviour for both of the genders is converging. Younger women use cars more than older women, and younger men use them less than older men. Younger men seem to approach the same levels of ridership also in the local public transport system in comparison to their female counterparts. But this demographic ‘equalisation’ is happening only gradually. It is certainly not enough to be able to reach the national and global sustainability goals, even though Malmö’s citizens’ travel behaviour is closer to a sustainable level as compared to other Swedish cities. Sustainability is a major challenge, and many measures will have to be taken, but the case will be strengthened if the measures are fair from a gender (or overall equity) perspective as well. One more item from the study is quite interesting and should be mentioned. There was a clear difference in travel patterns when comparing Swedish-born citizens to those born abroad. The Swedish-born men and women made on average 2.8 trips and 2.7 trips a day respectively, but the average for both men and women born abroad was 2.0 trips a day. It seems that immigrant status, if treated as a proxy for those born abroad, is more important for the daily trip frequency than the variable of gender. Further, biking is a mode of transport more frequently used by the Swedish-born. We have made no further analysis of this topic, and it could have changed over time, but nonetheless this topic merits further attention. It is perhaps no coincidence that the city’s biking classes for immigrant women are much appreciated. Table 15.1 Changes in modal split if men in Malmö were to adopt the same travel behaviour as women, and vice versa Mode

If men adopted the travel behaviour of women (%)

If women adopted the travel behaviour of men (%)

Car Bus Train Bike On foot Other Sum Public (bus+train) Bike+foot

–16 +27 –6 +4 +18 –6

+17 –27 +6 –4 –18 +6

+17 +10

–17 –10

Source: Calculations by Trivector (2010).

Gender and urban planning in Malmö, Sweden  275

Underlying explanation factors: it comes down to urban planning There could of course be many underlying explanations for the results in variations by gender. Figure 15.1 shows one such possible factor – that the labour market for men and women in Sweden, and in Malmö, is indeed still visibly segregated. Women are represented slightly more on the labour market in the central areas of the city – with the university hospital area being the most obvious case of a female-dominated workplace. More ‘male-oriented workplaces are found on the outskirts of the city in so-called ‘special industrial or commercial areas’, and the harbour areas (to the map’s north), which are more car accessible. This is in itself no surprise. The question then arises: is the level of service and use of public transport a result of demographic presumptions? Or is the causal connection rather the other way around? Which markets for transport services should we prioritise? How are such decisions made? Is the knowledge on how different investments or cuts affect different groups of people taken into consideration? We saw earlier that the supply of transport services could be approached in different ways and we focused on the topic from a gender perspective. Should we target the current higher share of ‘female’ patterns in public transport (e.g. increasing the level of service to the hospital area, or at more diverse times of the day)? Or should we target more ‘male’ markets and direct services to ‘male’ areas, and focus more on the ‘male requests’, trying to raise the ridership where it is currently low, with faster, more direct routes to big factories and so on? Could we keep in mind measures that do both, such as increasing capacity at points and stretches of the network where this is needed for both men and women (and non-binary)? Are there other groups within the population that we should consider empowering? This leads us to another activity in the research project. In the part where we, supported by the researchers of VTI and WSP, tried new ways of making public consultations more inclusive, we got together with one group of employees at a traditionally male-dominated workplace, namely the police authority (located in a ‘special industrial or commercial area’ on the eastern outskirts of the city), and another group of employees from a traditionally female-dominated workplace, namely a clinic at the university hospital in the inner city. It turned out that representatives of both groups were eager to be able to travel more often by public transport. But they saw different reasons not to in those cases where they did not see it as a good-enough alternative. The ‘female pattern’ of wanting to go out during off-peak hours and manage more complex trip chains contrasted with the ‘male pattern’ of travelling to lowdensity special areas where the car is generally considered more or less the only viable option. This case illustrated conflicting objectives where not only did public transport quality matter but it was found that the basic urban planning principles were closely interlinked with travel behaviour and consequently mode choice. Dense walkable areas with urban qualities are more likely to yield a higher ‘rating’ of public transport.

Figure 15.1 Map of men’s and women’s residences (‘night population’), and men’s and women’s workplaces (‘day population’) in Malmö’s city districts.

Gender and urban planning in Malmö, Sweden  277

Meeting the stakeholders in segregated groups This way of segregating the public consultations was used more than once. The meetings became more like focus groups. We met secondary school pupils and divided them into two groups of (self-defined) boys and girls to see if we got different points of view from them. We did not. However, the way the discourse developed to reach those same conclusions – that they indeed wanted higher public transport quality – was somewhat different in the two groups. It developed along the typical lines of gender standards that matched our prejudices about 17-year-olds. We also met representatives for merchants (not gender segregated) in the city and discussed how they and their customers would be affected by upgrading public transport in their neighbourhoods, and a shift away from today’s more car-based transport system. This was in contrast with the earliest stages of the Future Public Transport project. Given a lack of gender awareness, public dialogues took place in rather a traditional way. Only one meeting was held at the City Hall and was attended by no more than a dozen people, the majority of whom were men. The discourse quickly geared towards technical aspects, such as questions and viewpoints on the specific proposals about introducing a modern tramway system on some of the major transport routes in Malmö. This was in opposition to the deeper studies and attempts we made later in the research project where we framed the discussions around more universal topics via specific targeting of focus groups and asking a new series of questions, for example: • • •

How would you describe the optimal public transport journey? What is an attractive and sustainable city to you? How can you contribute to the city’s development goals in this field, and how could we keep up a dialogue about that?

The ongoing evaluation also contained measuring of talk times disaggregated by gender, and noting the prevailing discourse of gender issues as a kind of meta-study including us (public servants) aside from the ‘regular’ count of men and women participating in the dialogues (‘counting heads’). The latter is in some cases a dubious measurement of equality. This was the first time I came across the talk time method in practise and I found it quite useful. Overall, we gained much practical experience in improved dialogue methods, and how they could be further used. The experiences and recommendations have contributed to a more thoughtful approach among us urban and transport planners when it comes to gender equality and social sustainability. We have not conducted any further extensive projects other than the one presented here within the urban and transport planning field in the City of Malmö. So, although it is relatively old, it still holds its position as a state-of-the-art example. It provided us with possible continuations in integrating broader aspects of gender equality and equity in designing the streets and parks in Malmö. The City Planning Office of Malmö was also eager to further explore the gender issue.

278  Daniel Svanfelt

The future of public transport in Malmö and project recommendations Upon ending the Future Public Transport project, new tasks were prescribed based on its recommendations, and a strategy was adopted by the City Executive Board. It was recommended that the overall quality of bus services should increase, so planning and development of this aim was deployed. For environmental reasons, the strategy stated that the operation of local buses should be all-electric once suitable technologies became available. It also stated that some of the bus lines in the not too distant future should be upgraded to modern tramways because the buses simply would not suffice. I continued my work, focusing mainly on the latter recommendation in a joint venture with the Regional Transport Authority, Skånetrafiken. One of the interesting parts of this planning task was to extend dialogues based on the lessons learnt from the earlier stages of Future Public Transport and findings from the Sustainable Gender Equality research. Efforts were made to render public consultations more suitable, diverse, and representative. So, instead of simply inviting the public with non-specific advertisements to the City Hall, we additionally targeted certain groups that we knew were difficult to reach. We made a joint effort with the consultations for the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Översiktsplan för Malmö) which was also being revised at the time and set up a ‘dialogue room’ in the central town square. We also visited a local shopping centre with our exhibition materials. But, most importantly, we were invited to non-profit associations in the local communities that were the most affected. We met two local women’s associations in two different areas (specifically with women from other cultural backgrounds than Swedish) to present the project and to talk about what it could mean for them and their local community. An insight from this set of public consultations was that we could gain a wider and more diverse picture of public opinion on projects and the project elements that related to them. Responses to our project aims and proposals varied highly, depending on the participants and the forum. A lot of time and effort is required to target relatively small groups. Yet, these groups, that could represent a large population and thus questions of priorities, need to be addressed in such situations. It was a success factor that the strategy for Malmö’s public transport contained a high-quality bus approach (later dubbed MalmöExpressen), as well as an upgrade to a tramway, pretty much in the same corridors (and so that they could be built in a way that the first step of infrastructural rearrangement was on the route to the next). This success factor was supported by a concurrent focus on social sustainability aspects, such as integration and gender equality. The first MalmöExpressen line, a high-quality bus line adapted to the prevailing conditions, was inaugurated in 2014 and now connects the so-called ‘vulnerable areas’ (areas with lower socioeconomic and cultural status) with the city centre, the central station, the main university locales, and the Western Harbour redevelopment area. An already existing idea was also realised to reinstate a commuter train service (the regional Pågatågen trains) on a railway stretch in Malmö that only

Gender and urban planning in Malmö, Sweden  279 carried freight trains. This was in cooperation with the National Transport Administration and Skånetrafiken that carried fruit – as late as December 2018, the trains started running with new station stops at Östervärn, Rosengård, and Persborg. This process too had increasingly social ambitions over time. The three new reopened stations are all in the vicinity of so-called ‘vulnerable areas’ in east Malmö with lower socioeconomic and cultural status.

Tracking theory to realisation: ‘easy to preach, difficult to practise’ It seems that the process of building the new Rosengård station was so hurried that only the absolute necessities in terms of physical infrastructure were put in place to allow the trains to stop and passengers to get on board and alight. At the two other stations, the existing platforms were slightly adjusted and reopened without changing anything in the wider context of the urban environment. Rethinking and redesigning along lines of gender equality was not easily detectable in the resulting new station environments. I would like to think that what has been carried out to date is only the first step, and that the city needs to keep working on the station and its immediate surroundings based on the principles of social sustainability. However, the important issue of the capacity restraints in the network remains. During the later stages of the financing discussions within the Sweden negotiations (Sverigeförhandlingen) between the state, the region, and the city, it became clear that there was not enough political support for investment in the 350-million-euro tramway project, and it was thus put on indefinite hold. I find it quite fascinating that along this nine-year time line of investigations and planning for the tramway, gender equality aspects were advancing on the professional agenda, along with increasing awareness of broader social aspects, affecting the line alignment and how it could be fitted into the urban fabric. Public participation through the new forms of dialogue, and its results, was promising. But, at the same time, political support for the project declined, and it may be interesting from a researcher’s point of view to look into the eventual correlation between the two. How did highlighting social issues in urban development, particularly gender, affect the views and thoughts about the tramway project among the decision makers – the politicians and higher ranking officers in charge? Was this the right priority to gain public and political support rather than focusing on more traditional, technical, and first-hand economic aspects (such as the positive cost– benefit ratio of the project)? It was emphasised that the proposed investment would bring the much-needed capacity and quality in the traffic system and in the urban development to be able to fully address a broader set of benefits and sustainability aspects. But was this a way of presenting findings that was unusual for the decision makers? We cannot tell yet, but one still wonders. Although the tramway project came to a halt, large investments were still agreed upon during the Sweden negotiations (almost equal to the sum of the planned tramway: 350 million euros), but the investments were focused on the

280  Daniel Svanfelt local bus and bike networks, in what we now call a ‘metropolitan package’. The first MalmöExpressen line was thus followed by four more lines during the following 15 years coupled with increased electrification of infrastructure. An infrastructure project aiming to solve some of the social as well as environmental and economic problems can really not be seen merely as a traditional infrastructure project. Instead, we need to focus on the needs and wants of the different groups and their lives. Our aim and hope with projects undertaken in Malmö’s metropolitan package is that they reduce mental and physical barriers, create healthy living spaces, and support a new kind of connectedness. Through scaling up local solutions such as walkability, security, and aesthetics, projects like high-frequency super-buses with dedicated rights of way will gain further leverage.

Social sustainability as a part of comprehensive smart mobility schemes I think there is an increased awareness of the need to adopt a gender-based approach, as well as a wider social sustainability approach. This demands that schemes like metropolitan packages – or any large-scale public investment – should widen their scope to venture beyond mere technical feasibilities and provide for social outcomes as well. I would like to think that it is partly because of my colleagues’ endeavours at the Streets and Parks Department and the lessons learnt that the city’s Technical Board decided that a gender impact assessment (GIA) must now be included in the documentation, along with all other specifications, when the package is sent for approval in due course. It will be interesting to see whether the ‘bus-based approach’ rather than the ‘French tramway approach’ will produce the same level of urban redevelopment, and further if the streets and public spaces will be designed in an equitable way. In light of the new mobility solutions, it is logical to assume that the high pace of infiltration of new modes, services, and partnerships for developing urban mobility we have seen in the past few years will continue and even increase. Malmö pioneered a full-scale car-sharing business for a larger geographical area when a new parking strategy was adopted in 2010 and implemented in the urban development of Western Harbour. The strategy stipulated that reduced parking spaces for cars in housing projects could be traded off for other mobility options aiming at reduced car ownership, and in extension, car use, and one such mobility offer was carsharing. This has resulted in car-sharing schemes being a part of mainstream planning today. For the City of Malmö, elaborate schemes to shift mobility are well explored, albeit not yet implemented in a sufficient magnitude. With the need to shift the entire transport system towards sustainability, such mobility trade-offs are increasingly needed. In doing this, it is vital to include gender aspects, and other social aspects, on how these new schemes are used by different groups. A ‘smart city’, in this respect, must also be an equitable city. This brings us to reiterate the need for creating solutions which can be truly smart, such as facilities for increased biking (Figure 15.2). New types of vehicles make longer trips and trips for a wider range of purposes less arduous, having a

Gender and urban planning in Malmö, Sweden  281

Figure 15.2  Upcoming ‘smart’ solutions. Source: Photo: Åsa Svensson, City of Malmö.

bearing upon potential effects on men’s and women’s travel behaviour and everyday lives. One can go faster on longer stretches with an electric bike and can carry children and/or groceries with ease on cargo-bikes. New electric scooter or kickbike fleets for shared use are increasingly being deployed in impressive numbers in bigger cities worldwide, and Malmö is no exception. I pointed out earlier that the overall use of bikes is high in Malmö (number of trips and modal split) but seems to be a gender-equal mode when looking at the aggregated numbers. But it would be interesting to analyse how different subcategories of new modes and mobility solutions, electric or not, shared or not, are

282  Daniel Svanfelt used differently depending on sex, age, cultural background, socioeconomic status, and so on. From my own, early (non-scientific) ocular inspection, I suspect that the new electric scooters or kickbikes are used mainly by younger men – but what does that mean in the long run? And how does the insertion of new modes into the urban environment, with their need for parking spaces and wider bike lanes, affect groups differently? This could be a part of a muchneeded standardised evaluation process, perhaps with national support, of new mobility schemes deployed throughout the country, both in the public and private spheres (e.g. when developing private properties like housing estates), and in the public realm when developing transport infrastructure and public spaces.

Inclusion, equity, intersectionality, and so on At the time of writing this chapter, I worked as a coordinator for gender equality and equity for the City Planning Office in Malmö. Given my role, I believe I had my ‘gender glasses’ fine-tuned and have had the privilege of continuing to work with gender mainstreaming in the urban planning field and not just within the transport sector. I could not manage this on my own though; further success must be guaranteed only by the combination of a knowledgeable and result-oriented ‘client’ (the politicians of the City Planning Board), a structured and goal-oriented management, and well-educated and aware fellow employees. The urban planning mission is a slow one, and the main effect on equity comes from the already existing and built environment, so whether we succeed will be visible only after many years and only if the other offices and departments of the city share the same aims and aspirations. As the planning case of Rosengård station shows, this work does not stop upon completing a construction project. A special challenge is built into the municipal tasks. The Government Instruction, one of the basic laws of Sweden, sets the definition of equality referring to equal value of all people, and creating opportunities for achieving participation and equality. An important juridical maxim for all public bodies is the principle of equal treatment – likabehandlingsprincipen – which states that all shall be treated equally in the face of the law. Juridically, this is an unquestionable principle. But I believe we should widen the narrative field to both equality and equity. Although the words sound similar, they do not mean the same thing. In fact, they could be seen as opposites in one respect. If equality points more in the direction that all should be treated equally, equity aims more at the notion that the public sector should produce equivalent results for all individuals. In this respect, we should possibly not provide the same service for everyone, but make sure that the services are equally and fairly perceived as best suited to individual needs. The effects of an investment or a measure, such as reallocation of public space, might be analysed and described along this parallel. This is harder to achieve and to measure in the urban planning sector, but one success factor that we probably cannot dodge is that we need to implement knowledge generated through dialogue and participation models, where citizens,

Gender and urban planning in Malmö, Sweden  283 residents, and users can contribute to urban development. This does not eliminate the need for hard facts and at times hardcore engineering skills. Rather they are complementary. With modern technology and digital solutions, this should become more and more relevant over time. The UN has developed its Agenda 2030 global goal framework, which is now being integrated into many public organisations’ targeting and management structures (the City of Malmö being one of them). Perhaps for the first time this sets a global standard with all three sustainability aspects included and somewhat balanced – ecologic, social, and economic – making it easier to adopt the intersectional approach. From Rio 1992 via Paris 2015 to Malmö 2019, I have come full circle. But I am sure it will keep on going. The trick is to figure out where it is best to go, and to find the tools to navigate safely into the future. Being an urban or transport planner in the twenty-first century will no doubt be different from that of the twentieth century. I hope that there is really no need for us to call ourselves ‘transport feminists’ to reassure people and organisations around us that we take gender equality and equity seriously, because that must become the natural fundamental level in my occupation over the coming years. But, as of today, it is prudent to use the term.

Hope for the future, and the need for speed So, how could my role as a ‘transport feminist’ be shaped in the imminent future? I think I will have to continue to visualise gender differences in the use and perception of public spaces and transport systems. More data needs to be disaggregated by gender – and also by other socioeconomic and cultural factors (equality data) – if possible. I will continue to convert educational and research findings into practise, and to promote and guide colleagues and other officers through standardised and user-friendly social impact assessment (SIA) and gender impact assessment (GIA) schemes. I believe that there will be a maturation of these working methods and a merging of them, together with environmental impact assessment (EIA) methodology, into a single ‘sustainability impact assessment’ approach, where economic factors are also considered and eventually merged. Or there will perhaps be more diffracted processes where quick, local, and partial SIAs or GIAs, and so on will be deployed throughout urban development projects and processes as a part of more agile management and governance procedures. Probably both things will happen, in different processes and at different levels. I and my colleagues will have to try to focus on themes like travel behaviour and everyday life in the urban context, safety and security in public areas, and its intertwining with private and mobile spaces. One example concerning safety and security is to design public transport stops to accommodate the needs of different groups and not just to take ‘the average fully functional guy’ as the norm. During dialogue processes, we need to measure users’ satisfaction levels of our performance as a public body, and to simultaneously find ways to equalise

284  Daniel Svanfelt different people’s expectations and needs. Apart from the female perspective, one assured approach to achieving sustainability is through including child perspectives at all levels, from idea generation to construction and operation. These perspectives entail mixed land use, natural and green recreational elements, including the city’s waters, improved walking conditions, enhanced public transport supply, etc. One of the soft strategies adopted in Malmö, which can initiate a different outlook to the planning strategies, was naming streets and spaces and erecting public statues of people not typically assigned high positions in the traditional hierarchical structure (notably more women). Our basic assumption is that public spaces will show less stereotypical and sexist representations of men, women, or people in general (e.g. in advertisements and art), and that the aforementioned initiatives will nudge a healthy and equitable positioning of women and lifestyles. To conclude this personal account, I reassure myself, my fellow practitioners, and researchers that gender issues should be further considered in urban and transport planning, although other socioeconomic and socioecological issues will also have to be focused on by stressing intersectionality. Apart from addressing the social ramifications, these measures must be put into effect to counter climate change and its aftermath.

Works consulted Alfengård, M. and Dall’Osso, E. (2018) Malmö City’s gender equality work from policy to implementation when planning Rosengård station – easy to preach, difficult to practice. Malmö universitet. Friberg, T. (2006) Towards a gender conscious counter-discourse in comprehensive physical planning. Linköpings universitet. Hübinette, T. (2015) Vad är jämlikhetsdata – Råd och tips för att arbeta med jämlikhetsindikatorer. Mångkulturellt centrum, ISBN 978-91-86429-39-3. Indebetou, L. (2010) Mäns och kvinnors resmönster i Malmö – konsekvenser m a p miljö, ytbehov och ekonomi. Trivector rapport 2010: 65. Jämställ.nu (www.jamstall.nu, on 2019–02–18) Viktiga årtal. Levin, L. and Faith-Ell, C. (2011) Genusperspektiv på utveckling av kollektivtrafik i Malmö – Hållbar jämställdhet vid planering av framtidens kollektivtrafik i Malmö. VTI rapport 712. Malmö stad (2011) På väg: En resa i jämställdhet. Malmö stad (2013) Översiktsplan för Malmö ÖP 2012 – Planstrategi – Utställningsförslag. Malmö stad (2014) Projekt- och processutvärdering – Spårväg etapp 1, fas 1. Malmö stad (2016) Sustainable urban mobility plan – Creating a more accessible Malmö. Malmö stad (2018) Hållbar jämställdhet i Framtidens kollektivtrafik. Available at www. malmo.se (accessed 18 February 2019). Malmö stad (2018) Översiktsplan för Malmö. Available at www.malmo.se (accessed 18 February 2019). Sveriges Riksdag (2018) Grundlagarna. Available at www.riksdagen.se (accessed 18 February 2019). Vägverket (1994) Vägutformning 94. Wikipedia (2018) 1975. Available at sv.wikipedia.org (accessed 18 February 2019).

Summing up

Epilogue Towards an intersectional understanding of transport transitions Daniel Oviedo and Tanu Priya Uteng

Transport is a biased subject. In all contexts and, to a given extent, intersecting biases ‘distort’ transport planning and the provision of infrastructure and services for mobility, privileging the interests of dominant social identities over those of minorities and other social groups with less power, influence, and recognition. Such biases, driven by generalisations of specific needs and interests as ‘universal’, turn the needs and preferences of dominant class(es), men, adults, able-bodied citizens, and dominant racial groups into the norm for designing, planning, delivering, and governing transport systems. Despite recent positive changes in policy and practice, driven by emerging social movements and empowerment of civil society organisations and progressive local governments in various cities in the Global North and South, a majority of citizens still experience restrictions in their mobility by means of spatial and social segregation, censure, and control associated with their social identities. Adopting a gendered perspective of transport means therefore to part from the recognition that not everyone starts from the same position of power when interacting with cities and their mobility systems. This edited collection is an expression of such recognition from a diverse set of perspectives and empirical realities of the cultural, societal, and institutional consequences of different mobilities and their ongoing transitions as part of the ‘smart’ revolution. Mobility is a complex social phenomenon that requires a relational and intersectional perspective to address the interactions of different individuals and social groups with transport modes, technologies, and public spaces. Such an intersectional perspective demands the examination of relations of gender in different dimensions of urban life, and their interactions with geographies, governance, autonomy, and dependency, which mediate practices and conditions for urban mobility. These complex relations are further compounded by the introduction of new technologies and mechanisms for urban mobility, their governance, the (re)definition of human–machine interactions, and the role of public and private sectors in transport in enabling mobility for all citizens. This places gendered debates around smart mobility at the centre of current academic and policy agendas around modern transport and urban planning. In a global policy arena where sustainability, inclusiveness, and diversity are at the core of current development agendas such as the United Nation’s Sustainable

288  Epilogue Development Goals (SDG) and the New Urban Agenda (United Nations 2017), a gendered perspective on new technological, social, behavioural, and governance developments and challenges surrounding urban mobility becomes a necessary area of research. In this context, beyond the direct connection with SDGs 5 (gender equality), 10 (reduced inequalities), and 11 (sustainable cities and communities), contributions in this book have also addressed pressing development priorities such as climate action (SDG 13), industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9), affordable and clean energy (SDG 7), and good health and well-being (SDG 3), all of which have either an explicit or implicit gendered dimension. Both the current policy landscape and many present debates surrounding smart cities and smart mobility are also a reflection of increasing political, social, and academic awareness of the imminent urgency of addressing climate change. The international agreements and global efforts to reduce carbon pollution such as the ‘Paris Agreement on Climate Change’ at the twenty-first Conference of Parties (UN 2015) provide legal and policy frameworks for international cooperation on the reduction of greenhouse gases and fostering behaviour change and innovation that can contribute to a more sustainable future. These efforts have been subsequently refined and strengthened in later forums and by emerging institutions such as the nascent regional observatories of the SDGs. Such a push from internationally recognised organisations operating at the supranational, national, and urban levels is also strengthened by the rapid growth of community-based organisations (CBOs) and non-government organisations (NGOs) actively working in the promotion of non-motorised transport, advocacy for inclusion and integration in public transport systems, and the defence of rights of both users and non-users of transport systems in different contexts throughout the Global North and South. Such a positive tide towards international consensus regarding priorities for the future and the sustainability of human development is also taking place in a context of rising social movements of a global reach and the strengthening of participation and communication with the widespread reach of social networks. With ‘accessibility’ to a ‘space for all’ perspectives to be shared and confronted, ever-growing arenas for debate and interaction need to be informed by conceptual and evidence-based reflections around smart mobility and gender equality in transport. New, rigorous knowledge on smart cities, transport, mobility, and gender equality that can inform different arenas of debate therefore becomes essential in achieving inclusive sustainability and mobility for all. As shown throughout this book, gender is perhaps one of the strongest determinants of travel purposes, and its intersection with other social relations lead to very different experiences of public space in transport systems by women and men in different social positions. The critical examination of such experiences and their implications for emerging systems, interactions, and disruptions associated with innovations in information and communication technologies is necessary for a more socially nuanced understanding of smart mobility. From walking and cycling to access to new modes of urban travel such as ride-sourcing and car-sharing, a gendered perspective enables a deeper reflection on the connections between

Epilogue  289 available assets for mobility and cultural and symbolic practices affecting access of women and girls of all social positions to opportunities in public space. The cumulative effects of social positions, combined with stratified transport systems that lead to social and spatial inequalities, impinge upon the notion of travel ‘choice’ for different social groups, with implications for exercising agency and well-being, and ultimately affecting individual self-development and right to the city. The chapters in this book, both as stand-alone pieces and an interconnected debate, are therefore a timely addition to the international literature in a moment when research focusing on the potential of technological developments and ­technology-based disruptions to urban mobility increases in pace and volume. Theory-grounded, applied, and situated knowledge around emerging mobility ­concepts, such as many contributions to this book, serve as testing grounds for challenging long-standing trends of gender and identity-based inequalities in transport. These are informed by multidisciplinary understandings of structural drivers of social inequalities and the recognition of context-specific determinants that can influence levels of participation, autonomy, and freedom for moving around public space and the role transport and communication technologies and innovations can play in either reinforcing or weakening cycles of segregation, censure, and social control. By bringing together contributions from different empirical realities – including the often-overlooked Global South – to current debates about smart mobilities, the book also contributes to inform more sensitive planning based on social identity that may lead to an improvement in the functioning of transport design and operation for everyone. In this regard, the inclusion of chapters exploring shared mobility systems, gender-centred transport developments, and the exploration of participation for social justice in diverse contexts can contribute to short-circuit the adoption of concepts of inclusiveness prior to the adoption of smart policies, preventing or controlling their potential exclusionary and unequitable consequences.

References United Nations (2015) Paris Agreement. Available at https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/ english_paris_agreement.pdf (accessed 12 April 2019). United Nations (2017) New Urban Agenda. Available at http://habitat3.org/wp-content/ uploads/NUA-English-With-Index-1.pdf (accessed 12 April 2019).

Index

Page numbers in bold denote tables, those in italics denote figures. access-egress 180, 184 accessible/accessibility 8–11, 28, 37, 50, 101, 123, 136, 137, 144, 145, 152, 183, 217, 223 accompanied trips 88 active transport 98, 236 active transport participation 88 adolescents, mode choice 77–90 affect 43, 45, 48, 60, 62, 66, 70, 71, 275, 279; transport affect 57–71 affective economies 57–60, 63 agency 251–268; building 263–264; woman conductor and 264–265 Agenda 2030 global goal framework, UN 283 age-specific mobility 156 Ahmed, S. 59, 70, 71 Ahrend, C. 80 Akaike information criterion (AIC) 37 Alexander, B. 32 analysis approach 37–38 androcentric male bias 120–121 androcentric bias 109, 120–121 Anggraini, R. 31 anthropology: of transport affect 57–71 anthropomorphized 60, 62, 66–68 ARAMIS, rail car 63, 64 aroused emotions 59 assemblages 99, 215 autoeroticism 61 automobile emotions 69 automobile pleasure 64 automotive emotions 58, 61 autonomous driving 69 autonomous vehicles 59, 63, 67–70 Axhausen, K.W. 34 Baden-Württemberg 87 Baier, D. 85, 89 Balkmar, D. 61, 65 Bangalore Metropolitan Transportation Corporation (BMTC) 253, 267; labour office 257; personnel 256 Barker, J. 30

Batty, M. 96, 230, 233 Bauhardt, C. 81, 87 Beige, S. 34 Beijing 217, 219, 220 Bencardino, M. 156 Ben-Elia, E. 35 benign mobility system 5 Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) 8, 9 Berscheid, A-L. 63, 69 Bianchi, S.M. 32 Big Four commodities 219 bikes, biking 280–281 bike-share services 169, 215, 232, 239, 240, 243, 246, 272 bike-sharing scheme 11, 50, 162–185, 205, 224 bikes-on-buses programme 239, 240 biography research 28–29 biological gender 77 biological sex 78 bionic man 61 Bissell, D. 70, 255, 257 Bittman, M. 32 Brante, T. 153 Bristol 127–138 Bristol and Avon Chinese Women’s Group (BACWG) 136 Bristol economic migrants (BEM) 130–132 Bristol Somali Forum 133, 134 Buenos Aires 237 Burwell, D. 155 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 192, 196, 197, 201, 204; waiting areas 205 Caprotti, F. 221 car access: changes over time 45–48; children 45; cohort effects 48; employment and 49; regression model of 44, 46–47 Caragliu, A. 233 car allocation 31, 36; couples sharing one car 42–45; transport and land-use system 45 car availability 36–38, 42, 43 care trips, care-related trips 231, 237, 239

Index  291 car ownership 34; gender and household 42 car production 4–5 car-sharing concept 10, 12–13; schemes 164 car use 14, 15, 29–31, 42, 69, 81, 87, 88, 129, 216, 220, 236, 280 ceteris paribus 198 childbearing 33 child-parent-technology-environment entanglement 101 children 14, 17–18, 21, 31–32, 34, 45, 49, 77–90, 94–105, 114, 134, 135, 144, 148, 191, 195, 231, 243, 255, 259, 272, 281; creative and playful everyday mobilities 103–104; mode choice 77–90; and smart cities 94–105; socio-spatial agents 104; sustainable urbanism 103–104 children’s mobilities, practices, experiences 95–101, 103, 104 China 60, 136, 210–226 China Daily 3, 211, 214 Chinese language 223 Chinese modernisation 3 Chockalingam, K. 190 Christensen, Clayton 212 Christensen, P. 97 city bikes 167–168; overall evaluation of 180; reasons for selecting 178–180 city bike usage: spatial patterns 172–178; trip duration and 171–172 city bus trips 196, 204 civic empowerment 151, 158 civil engineering programme 270 CIVITAS 156 Clemes, M.D. 190 closed caption circuit televisions (CCTV) 251, 252 cognitive maps 85, 86, 88 cognitive space, movement 80 collective action 136 community-based organisations (CBOs) 288 community informatics (CI) 245 commuter train 278 comprehensive smart mobility schemes 280–282 conductor 253–254 Connected Automated Driving Initiative 5 contemporary road transportation systems 58 conventional supply system 8 Cowley, R. 221 creativity 95, 98, 99, 247 Cresswell, T. 255 critical environmental concerns 3 critical rationalism 28 cyborg 59, 61, 63, 69 cyborgic entanglement 69 cyborgisation 61 cycle-inclusion 232, 240 cycle-taxis 239 cycling 35, 89, 95, 96, 109–125, 143, 155, 164–165, 184, 231, 232, 235–240, 246, 288

cycling infrastructure 109, 112, 117, 119, 120, 122, 164 cycling revolution 109–110, 115, 121, 124 Dant, T. 69 data 9, 19, 28–31, 34, 37, 78, 94, 116, 120–121, 128, 137, 145, 146, 152, 153, 166, 167, 169, 184, 189, 192, 207, 214 datafication, cycling 120 De Boise, S. 62 decision processes 79 De Jong, M. 94, 103 democratic ecology 102 dialectical opposites 271–272 digitalisation 94, 151 digitisation 10, 11, 24n1; transport sector 8, 9 digitised information services 8 digitised mobility services 9, 10–11, 15 digitised smart mobility services: acceptance and new technologies 15–17; conceptual approach 21–23; gender-specific access and ICT resources 18–20; gender-specific activity and travel patterns 17–18; research 20–23; starting points 20–21 discrimination 123, 136, 148, 156, 238, 270 Discrimination Act 153 disruptive frameworks, tools 95, 98 disruptive-gendered innovation 212–214 disruptive innovation 213 diversity 6, 35, 104, 123, 124, 130, 152, 153, 156–158, 260, 287 docking system 216 driverless car 58 driving, ‘active’ and ‘rowdy’ form 60 driving licence 11, 18, 19, 20, 48, 88, 143, 155; acquisition 18; ownership 19 dual-earner households 31 Duffy, Enda 62 Dunckel-Graglia, A. 256 economic equality 147, 149 economic inequality 31 economic migrants, Bristol 127–138 economic power 31 economic resources 30 economy of pleasure 62 egalitarian gender relations 33 electric self-driving vehicles 63 electrified technology 278 Elwood, S. 129 embodiment 21, 23, 57–59, 63, 69, 261 emotional men 64–68 emotions 57, 58, 60, 62, 70; automobilized self and 61; embodied relationship 65; material 59 employment: gendered division 185n1; opportunities 260; status, London 117, 118 English language proficiency 134–135 English-speaking/liberal welfare states 220 environmental impact assessment (EIA) 283

292  Index equality 4–6, 70, 97, 103, 104, 143–158, 213, 214, 219, 224, 270–284, 288 equity, equitable 273, 282–284; planning cases 270–284 ethnography 95, 99, 103, 104, 111, 256, 257 Ettema, D. 35 EU, European Union 5, 129, 131 Eureka PROMETHEUS Project 63 European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) 144 European Road Transport Research Advisory Council (ERTRAC) 5 everyday mobilities 81, 95, 98–100, 103–104, 162 explanation factors, urban planning 275 explanatory variables 38–42 Faith-Ell, C. 144, 153, 157, 272 Felder, N. 98 female driving 50 female labour force participation rates 36 female Uber service riders share 13 five-dollar day 6n2 Five Year Plan, China (2016–2020) 225n2 Ford 6n2 Fordism 4 Foucault, Michel 138 Foxconn 222 Framework for Understanding Gender and Mobility (1999) 10 free-floating car-sharing 11 French tramway approach 280 Freudendal-Pedersen, M. 70, 101, 157 Friberg, Tora 271, 272 functionalist planning paradigms 103 gender 3, 6; balance 214; behaviour changes 36; blindness 148; budgeting 273; and car 30–31; challenge 68–71; convergence 30, 32, 33; inequalities 33, 113, 117, 188, 220; life course and (travel) behaviour change 33–35; life course studies 29; mainstreaming 143, 144, 146, 157, 282; mobility gap 80, 89; relations 28; patterns, cycling 164–165; roles 77; social roles 31; stereotypes 86; structures 33; and time use 32; violence 122, 147, 188, 189, 208, 237 gender-based harassment 262 gender differences 14, 16, 32, 42; children and adolescents, modes 87–88 gendered innovations: smart biking 210–226 Gendered Innovations project 213, 214 gender equality 70, 143–158, 270–284; contemporary transport planning 144; local and regional planning 145–155; Malmö, intense research 272–273; objectives 158n1; symbolic value 150; transdisciplinary approach 146 gender gap 20, 110; cycling 112, 113, 123

gender impact assessment (GIA) 152, 280, 283 gender-informed lens 229–231 gender issues: mobility concepts and 8–24 gender-sensitive mobility socialisation 77–90 gender-specific differences 78 gender-travel links 28, 30 gender-typical cognitive maps development 86–87 Geoffron, P. 94 geographic location 156 German Mobility Panel (GMP) 29, 37 German National Travel Survey (NTS) 19 Global North 288 Global South 188, 189, 288, 289; employment issues 245–246 Global Times 214 goodness of fit 201 Göransson, Linda 271 Gothenburg 151, 152 governance 117, 144, 145, 153, 154, 156, 157, 163, 212, 220, 223, 229, 233, 235, 238, 240–247, 283, 287, 288 government job 259–260 Greco, I. 156 greening mobility 215 Grieco, Margaret 232 group interviews 150 Guliani, A. 87, 88 Gustafson, K. 98 Habib, K.N. 31 Hackney 121 Hanson, S. 130, 156 hard infrastructure 112 Hartog, H.D. 221 Hearn, J. 62 Heesch, K.C. 165 Henriksson, M. 154 (hetero)sexual energy 66 hipsters 119, 120 Hjorthol, R. 17 Hoadley report 243 Holz-Rau, C. 31 home-grown innovation 210 human-centric solutions 266–268 human interaction 251–268 human-machine interactions 287 Hu Weiwei 211, 214, 215, 221, 223 Hu Weiye 211 hybrid 99, 102, 213 impact assessment (IA) 158n2 implicit male bias: infrastructure 116–118; representation 119–120 inclusion 282–283 inclusive 128, 129, 156, 222 income level 206 individual choice 112, 147, 155 information and communication technologies (ICT) 94, 97, 156, 251

Index  293 innovation 221, 224 institutionalisation, childhood 95 intermodal 229, 237 Internet access 133–135, 137 Internet-based networks 133 intersectional feminist perspective 109–125 intersectionality 111, 282–284 intersectional perspective 157, 287 Jeekel, H. 49 Jeekel, J.F. 156 Joelsson, T. 61 Johnson, Boris 109 Karsten, L. 98 Kerala State Road Transport Corporation 267 Kitchin, R. 97, 104 Kröger, F. 58 Kullman, K. 95, 99, 100 Kunstler, James Howard 232 labour market 48, 151 labour market–gender differences 272, 275 ‘ladies-only’ trains, United Kingdom 208n1 Laktukhina, E. 97 Landström, C. 62 language 131, 132, 134, 135, 137, 138, 148, 214, 223, 254, 257, 260, 264 Laterasse, J. 96 Latin America: gender analysis, ICT potential 231–232; gender-informed lens 229–231; gendering smart mobilities in 229–247; governance, power, and inclusion 240–246; social sustainability 229–231 Latour, Bruno 63, 71 Laurier, E. 69 Lauwers, D. 157 Law, R. 10, 17, 21, 81 Leszczynski, A. 129 Levin, L. 144, 145, 153, 157 Levy, C. 155 life course 28–51 Litman, T. 155 livable cities 156 local government 149, 287 London’s cycling revolution 109–115; androcentric male bias 120–121; cycling policy and infrastructure 115–116; female empowerment and right to city 113–115; gender and cycling 111–115; gender gap 110; implicit male bias 116–120; policy recommendations 121–124; process and outcomes 111; research questions and methodology 111 London, UK 109–125, 234 long-term decisions 79 low carbon innovation 222 low-car couple household/low-car household 44, 48

Lucas, K. 70 Lyft 11 Ma, L. 35 MaaS see mobility-as-a-service Maat, K. 31 Malmö 270–284 MalmöExpressen (high quality bus service) 278, 280 MAMILs (middle-aged-men-in-Lycra) 119, 120 Manderscheid, Katherina 63 Marfurt, H. 35 marginal effect coefficients 200 marginalized groups 97, 148, 149 masculine gadget 4 masculinity 4, 57–61, 63, 66, 68–71, 81, 127, 217, 218 material infrastructure 110, 112, 115, 119, 121, 122, 124 The Mayor’s Vision for Cycling in London 119 medium-term decisions 79 Meier, Isabel 114 metropolitan package 280 Mexico, smart mobilities 204–205 micropolitics 255; family and 258–259; public and 261–263 migration 127, 130, 131, 133, 134 Mobike 210, 225; de-gendering and democratic design 216–218; disruptive-gendered innovation 212–214; fourth-generation shared biking, pioneer 215–216; GPS smart technologies 216; lifestyle icon, shifting biking regimes 218–220; making of 214–215; smart city experiment 220–223 Mobike Next Generation 2017 218 mobile technologies 99–103 mobilities 4, 287; biographies 29, 163; contemporary mobilities 128–129; defined 3; education 89; and gender 127–130; gender differences in 80–81; gendering 4–6; gender issues and 8–24; historical precedents 127–128; meaning-making and 129–130; as methodology 256–258; socialisation 85–88; transportation possibilities, cognitive scope 79–80 mobility-as-a-service (MaaS) concept 164, 231, 234–235, 240, 246 mobility practices, experiences 20, 21, 23, 69, 95, 98–100, 103, 104, 162 mode choice 8, 30, 34, 35, 77–90, 165, 275 Modi, Narendra 267 modus operandi 157 Mokhtarian, P.L. 35 Morris, M.G. 16 Mulley, C. 35 multicollinearity issues 199 multi-level perspective (MLP) theories 162 multimodality, gendered dimension 162–185; social practice theory 162–164

294  Index multivariate analysis 182–184 Murray, Sarah 113 Murray-Tuite, P. 35 Nagelkerke r-square values 200 Naoto Fukasawa 218 National Common Mobility Card 267 National Road Administration 271 national road database 154 national transport plans 157 new digitisation-based mobility services 14 new mobility concepts 11–15 new platform-based mobility options 15 Nirbhaya Fund 252 non-school trips 87 non-stationary’ (or ‘free-floating’) car-sharing 24n2 non-verbal aggressions 191 normative heterosexuality 65 Oakil, A.T.M. 34 Odds ratio tests 199 Offer, S. 32 Ofo bikes 211, 216, 218 OLS regression 37, 38 ‘one-model-fits-all’ design 217 one-way ANOVA 197 one-way free-floating version, car-sharing 10 online job portals 133 ordered logit regression models (OLMs) 199 ordinary trip diaries 29 Oslo bysykkel 165–166; baerum bysykkel integration 166–167; gendered variations 167–182; modifications needed 180–182 Oslo city bikes 165–167, 184; bike-sharing scheme of 165–166; city infrastructure vs. transport mode 165–166; rebalancing and optimised provision 166; scheme 166; see also city bikes overall travel satisfaction models 199–204 Pantzar, M. 163 Papa, E. 157 parental leave regulations 36 parenthood 80, 81 Paris-style sponsorship financing 239 passive transport participation 88 patriarchy 31 Paulsen, Gary 66 perceived ease of use 16 perceived usefulness 16 Phadke, S. 256 physical aggressions 191 Pilgrimage on a Steel Ride. A memoir about men and motorcycles (Paulsen) 66 policy recommendations 121–124; diversify 124; gender expertise 122; material infrastructure 122; policy, dimension 154; social infrastructure 123–124

Polis city network 246 politics, dimension 154 Polk, M. 30 power 29, 30, 57–71, 111, 112 power gap 78, 81 Priya Uteng, T. 4, 25, 70, 103, 128 pro-business bias 233 project groups 146 project recommendations 278–279 Propensity-to-Cycle tool 238 public consultations 277–279 public space 256; urban India 252 public transport 8, 11, 14, 19, 31, 42, 45, 48, 81, 88, 89, 271–284; Malmö 278–279 public woman 256, 259, 260 quasi-likelihood under independence criterion (QIC) 37; corrected form (QICC) 38 quietway routes 116, 117 Quietways 110, 116, 117, 119, 122 Quito 237 racial minorities 120 Ray, Nikki 114 reassure management 251 regional transport plans 154, 157, 158, 235 Renmin Daily 223 reproduction, production 271 resilience, resilient cities 103, 205 Reuters’ global online survey 189 ride-hailing service 11, 13–14, 24n4 ride-sharing operators 9 ride-sharing service 11, 13–14, 24n4 right to the city 113–115, 125, 289 Rink, B. 257 risk 29, 35, 60, 61, 95, 100, 116, 129, 199, 231, 237, 239, 245, 246 risk-taking men 64–68 road rage 62 road safety education 89 role-playing assignment 261 Rose, G. 35, 97 Rosenbloom, S. 33 Rossi, A.S. 33 Salmon, Simone 119, 123 Sanguliano, Maria 129 Santiago, Chile 231, 233, 235–240, 243, 245, 246; care-related trips 237; cycling’s gender potential 238–240; gender, sustainability, and modal shares 235–237; ICT and sustainability 235–240 Scharff, V. 81 Schatzki, T.R. 163 Scheiner, J. 31, 34 Schneider, B. 32 Scholten, C. 23 school trips 87 Schwanen, T. 32

Index  295 self-driving car 58, 63 self-driving vehicles 71 self-reported car access 43 self-reported car availability 42 Sergeyeva, O. 97 Shanghai 217, 218, 220 shared bikes 223 shared biking 211, 214, 215, 221, 222, 225 shared ‘smart’ mobilities 164 ‘sharing’ concepts 10 sharing systems 24n3 Sharmeen, F. 34 Sheller, Mimi 60, 62, 71, 156, 234 Shiebinger, Londa 213 SHIFT tool 105n2 short-term decisions 79 Shove, E. 145, 163 single-parent families 85 situated analyses 97, 99 smart biking, gendered innovations 210–226 smart cards 234 smart cars 5 smart cities 156, 233–234, 280; and children 94–105; gendering of 97; goals and challenges 230; parents in 99–103; planning issues 231–232; research setting and methods 95–96; smart growth 232–233; social justice and 229–247 smart city experiment 210–226 Smart City programme 71 ‘smart’ communication 138 smarter transport solutions 151 smart growth 229, 231–233 smart integration 136 smart interventions 120–121 smart mobility 280 smart-mobility, people, living, governance 233, 244 smartphones 128 smart strategies 136 smart technologies 128 Smith, D.E. 255 social code 24n5 social constructs 89 social equality 104 social gender 77; roles 78 social identity 289 social impact assessment (SIA) 152–153, 283 social infrastructure 112, 121, 123–124 social innovation 245 social integration 133–135 social interaction 136 socialisation 81–85, 88; day care and kindergarten 83; family 82–83; and gender 84–85; peer group 83–84; school 83; stages 82–84 socialised cultural gender norms 135 social justice 110, 124, 229–247 social learning 221, 222

social practice theory (SPT) 162–164 social roles 31 social sustainability 50, 103, 157, 229–231, 247, 270, 273, 277–282 socio-demographic variables 190 socioeconomics 31, 89, 104, 127, 134, 137, 156, 213, 279, 282 socio-technical experiment 221 soft infrastructure 112 spatial mobility 100 spill-over effects 274 stakeholders, segregated groups 277 Stark, J. 87, 88 stereotypical attitude 81 strategic environmental assessment (SEA) 153 strategies 101, 127, 133, 135–137, 144, 166, 229, 235, 237, 240, 246, 284 Strava 121 superhighway routes 115, 117 superhighways 110, 115–117, 119, 120, 164 Susilo, Y. 190 sustainable development goals (SDG) 153, 229, 240, 288 sustainable gender equality 272–278 sustainable smart mobility 3, 57, 71, 81, 89, 156, 205 sustainable transition 143 sustainable urbanism 96–99 sustainable urban mobility plan (SUMP) 272 Sweden 96 Swedish Transport Administration 153, 154 Swedish transport policy 143 target variables 38 technological solutionism 97, 103 technology 4, 5, 8, 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 30, 58, 59, 63, 81, 120, 129, 145, 151, 156–158, 166, 211–215 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) 15, 16 techno-mobilities 99–103 tecno-centric mobility 157 Temuco-Padre Las Casas, Chile 243, 247; cycling’s gender potential 238–240; discrimination and mistreatment, people with disabilities 238; ICT and sustainability 235–240; Internet access, low levels 237–238; transport problems 237–238; walking and cycling, facilities improvement 238; walking high priority and universal access 237–238 time use 23, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36 Timmermans, H.J.P. 31 tracking theory, realisation 279–280 traditional mobility concept 11 traffic-for-all principles 270–271 tramways 278–279 transitional space 95, 99 transition vision 221 transport 4; defined 3

296  Index transport affect, anthropology 57–71 transportation 57, 80; systems 6, 58, 266; volvo trucks 66–68 Transportation Network Company (TNC) 24n4, 132 transport cycling 165 transport feminist 270–284 Transport for London 117, 119, 122–124 transport for women only (PTW), Mexico 188–191; BRT, PTW policy 193–194; characterisation, study area 192–193; city buses, PTW policy 195; descriptive analysis 195–196; metro, PTW policy 193; overall travel satisfaction models 199–204; perceived and objective quality of 207; ridership counts 191; service aspects 196–199; smart and nonsmart solutions to 205–206 transport modes, city bikers 178–180 transport planning 234–235 transport policy 144 transport politics 144 transport transitions 287–289 transport variables 45 travel behaviour 18, 29, 33–36, 42, 143, 162, 163, 180, 184, 188, 272–275, 281, 283; change 29, 33–35 travel mode-specific models 202–203 travel patterns–gender differences 272–277 Treib, O. 153 trip diary data 28–51 T-test 197 Tully, C. 85, 89 two-parent families 85 Uber 11, 13, 243, 245, 246 UFO 226n15 UN, United Nations 270, 287 unaccompanied trips 88 The UN Champion of the Earth Award for Entrepreneurial Vision 210 ‘unprotected’ road users 6 Uppsala 95–96, 103 urban Berlin 80 urban compactness 98 urban densification 98 urban headaches 221 Urban Infrastructure Partner (UIP) 165, 166 urbanity 42, 48 urban planning 96, 273, 275, 277, 279, 282, 284; Malmö 270–284 urban public space 251–252 utopias 61

Van der Burgt, D. 98 Van Slyke, C. 16 variance inflation factors (VIF) 42 Venkatesh, V. 16 Vera, autonomous transport robot: transportation future and 66–68 verbal aggressions 190, 204, 206, 207 Viajemos seguras programme 207 victimisation models 199 Vijaya, A. 190 volvo trucks 66–68 vulnerable areas 278 Wajcman, J. 32 walkability 240 walking, recreational activity 101 Watson, M. 163 Waytz, A. 67 Weber, J. 58 Whyte, William 251, 266 window of opportunity 162 women 33 percent reservation for 254–255; car use of 34–35; city bikes and 167–168; family-oriented transportation 4; female employment 178; in full-time employment 18; popular shared-bike routes for 177; prominent trip purposes 178–180; sensitive to low temperatures 169–171; spatial patterns, city bike usage 172–178; training 260–261; travel modes characterisation, Mexico 193–195; trip duration and city bike usage 171–172 Women and Gender Variant (WaG) nights 123 women bus conductors: Bengaluru 251–268; observation of 253 women-only transport services: in Mexico 188–208 women-only transport users: travel satisfaction 189–191 women passengers 265–266 work 4, 17, 18, 32, 36, 37, 42, 43, 45, 57, 69, 89, 96, 97, 101, 117, 127, 133–137, 145, 147, 155, 237, 239, 246, 251–268 working-class men 69 work sharing, re-traditionalisation 32 work trips 80 Xi Jingping 3 Yang, M. 35 Young, I.M. 113