Fairness and Inclusion for Users of Surface Transport: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 1 by Ajeni Ari and Version 6 by Catherine Yang.

When looking into the concept of fairness in transport, inclusivity relating to users plays an important role. For a system to be both fair and inclusive, there is a need for valuable practices, implementation, and outcomes within the system that provide equitable access to transport resources for all abilities/disabilities. For public transport (PT), these resources are not limited to, but include the capability of the system to be accessible, safe, and meet the needs of its users without exclusions. To understand the perspectives of the factors affecting women’s use of public transport, it is important to acknowledge the existence of mobility disparities between men and women. Likewise, it is paramount to understand that genders vary in accordance to strata in society. With PT usage, there are more female than male users. Caring responsibilities, family duties, motherhood, lower income, age, and abilities/disabilities are more prevalent societal factors for women. For public transport to be inclusive and fair for all, there is need for it to embrace the needs of women and comprehend the factors that affect or discriminate against use.

  • fairness
  • justice
  • gender
  • public transport (PT)

1. Introduction

There has been a significant increase in research on the issues relating to fairness and inclusion in the transport sector. While past decades looked to economic development and environmentalism for successful implementation of public transport projects, research shows

There has been a significant increase in research on the issues relating to fairness and inclusion (equity) in the transport sector. While past decades looked to economic development and environmentalism for successful implementation of PT projects research shows

[1] equitable user engagement as a prominent issue. There is an ever present need to understand the consistently created patterns of social inequality

equitable user engagement as a prominent issue. There is an ever-present need to understand the consistently created patterns of social inequality

[2]. User acceptance and engagement with the service conforms to integrated network attributes

. Meeting targets for passenger uptake and engagements with service improvements rely on users’ acceptance of network developments and r realizing passengers’ expectations

[3]

. Studies in a variety of urban centres

[4][5][6], which are mostly experienced inequitably

have shown proportionality between increased public transport ridership and the successful integration of network attributes for which users’ engagement are nuanced, and not experienced equitably.
The global movement towards sustainable development can only be achieved with a system that is inclusive for all. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs) offer a baseline for globally recognised principles to challenge social, environmental, and economic inequity

[47]

. The UNSDGs specifically target the orderly and safe mobility of people in fighting inequality

[58]

and aim to cement women’s “full and effective participation and equal opportunities” in all aspects of life

[69]. A public transport system geared towards equitable access encompasses safe mobility and access to equal opportunity. The measure of such sustainable and effective transport systems and policies lies in their suitability for improving quality of life and standards of living that are equitable for all

. The goals “are integrated and indivisible”

[17]. In acquiring fairness, the user's acceptance of the service provided is essential. While transit opportunity may not be experienced equally, focus avoids favouring one group over the other, which in turn limits social and economic opportunities

; fair and inclusive mobility promotes equitable opportunities for women to access and engage with educational, economic, social, cultural, political, and wellbeing endeavours. The measure of such sustainable and effective transport systems and policies lies in their suitability for improving quality of life and standards of living that are equitable for all

[71]

. Where quality of life falters, sustained social and economic development are threatened by diminished equality

[8]. Fairness plausibility is credited to its tenacity for justice [9] and its probity in implementation [1]

. The attributes viewed as of primary importance to policy makers do not necessarily reflect the demands and priorities of passengers. Insufficient and/or inaccurate analysis of user needs, especially regarding disaggregation of user demographics

[8]. A lack of understanding of disparity in gendered mobility practices are detrimental to sustaining user engagement [10]

, leads to barriers to public transport access—financial, physical, temporal, and organizational

[11]. Comprehending women’s mobility needs are focal to addressing such matters of fairness and inclusion

. Such barriers, either real or perceived, may discourage and/or prevent use of public transport. Park

[12]

discusses these barriers as experienced by users of varying ability, highlighting a commonly reported lack of awareness among operators and other passengers of any additional needs. Similarly, Ait Bihi Ouali

[13]. While disparities do exist in the distribution of fairness, its conception leans towards impartiality

reports that there are significant gaps with respect to perceptions of safety on PT between women and men, with women feeling less safe. Passenger demographics, economic trends, and community concerns are shaping both the meaning of transport and issues highlighted in this area. This shift moves public transport analysis methods from system performance metrics towards that of interconnected multi-modal services and impact and improvement options that compel inclusive demand management solutions

[8]. A fair and just public transport allows societal interactions [14], promoting the user ability to thrive in society in the presence of inclusive user-centric policies [10][8].

.

2. Barriers and Opportunities

The prevailing barriers to equitable opportunities in public transport are viewed as being influenced by safety and security, accessibility and infrastructural integration. Women’s daily interactions with PT are majorly affected by safety

2. Fairness in Transport

Fairness is central to users’ acceptance of services provided. Policy implementation and its outcomes are more likely to be accepted by users when the decisions guiding them are viewed as fair. Tyler

[15], with imbalances of gender needs linked to homogeneous approaches

argues that the altruistic nature of procedural justice plays an important role in whether policy measures are perceived as fair or not, and how readily they are adopted. Fairness is the embodiment of equal treatment for all and is influenced by people’s understanding of their own experiences relative to others, in addition to factors such as social demographics, equity of outcomes and opportunity, social justice, etc.

[16] in transport policies. Investigations highlight disparities in the challenges faced by women, especially their personal safety while accessing the service, particularly at dark hours

. In a hierarchical framework, fairness is both governed by and is a characteristic of justice. The credibility of a fair system should be influenced by standards of justice drawn from plausible analysis

[17]

. While understanding how fairness is distributed in the transport sector is complex, impartiality is a requirement when examining its broad implementation

[1][16]

. Matters of inequality have no definite path to improvement, especially given the positive and negative nature of the effect of the varying needs and the effects of transport engagement on users [18]. There is no one-size-fits-all approach regarding fairness; fairness varies depending on applicability to issue, circumstances, and group

[16]

. In measuring justice and fairness, fairness may be used as a reciprocal for justice, with the perception of fairness and equity regarded as catalysts [19]. Fairness may be considered applicable to gauging if its presence is perceived to “adherence to rules (that) reflect appropriateness in decision”

[18]

. Regardless of varying conceptions, central to fairness is the avoidance of bias and the absence of obstructions, unless unambiguously justifiable [1][16]. Justice in society allows “interactions without social breakdown” [15]. Concerning justice and society, the users’ sense of fulfillment and self-worth can be encouraged with policies that are focused on their needs [11][16]. Research shows the involvement of numerous attributes across a variety of situations and modes may be viewed to justify personal differences on the concept or reach of fairness [16][20]

. Women’s apprehension to use public transport and/or transit space, stem from physical, phycological and conditional limitations

. The move towards a subjective understanding of people’s lived experiences, in considering what they thought and felt, alongside how it influenced their social experience, molds their views of justice and fairness [17]. Assessing the presence of justice involves comparison to recognized standards of justice principles or, “rules that will govern people’s coordination of their social interactions” [15]. Concerning justice and society, strong correlations with social psychology are reported; [17] users’ sense of fulfillment and self-worth can be encouraged with policies that are focused on their needs [11][17]. Justice matters to people in a social setting; subjective justice is rooted in what is fair or unfair to people and the justification or understanding of their stance [17]. This concept has implications for users’ public transport engagement decisions and perceptions, which are influenced by their experience with the service provided. Ridership, travel behaviours, and decision making are correlated with a user’s perception or judgment of justice and fairness [17][20], a relevance revealed when the ethical standards of an organization are considered. An understanding of what is deemed right and wrong can outweigh organisational goals or external societal pressures [17]. The justification of actions viewed to be moral are constructed to fit people’s judgment; strong social consequences arise from what people feel, resulting in views of fairness being a function of people’s reaction to change [17]. Reasons for particular actions and behaviours from users are empowered by fairness, what is deemed just, and the consequences of injustice [17]. Deficiency in the delivery of justice is intertwined with negative feelings, mental health issues, indignation, offense, etc. Adhering to the justice standard creates a social reality: “justice standards are a socially created reality…the ‘grease’ that allows groups to interact productively without conflict and social disintegration” [17]. Public transport users’ behaviours, experiences, and the resulting emotional impressions are formed by what is thought of as fair, embodied in the experience with the service and mediated by the judgment of justice. Acceptance of a service offering may be initiated by adopted procedural justice in an ideal system; the travel behaviours of women are often bounded by practicalities of economy, dependents, or time. Their experiences within and without these boundaries influence perceptions of fairness [15][17].

3. Social Justice, Procedural Justice, and Distributive Justice

In a globally accepted movement towards necessary sustainability, transport planning is strongly Influenced by social justice or equity [1]. Social justice has evolved to normalise the kind of methods used to solve issues, collective self-interest and self-preservation aiding to identify “reasonable solutions” [15]. This kind of justice for the greater good is manifested by social decisions which prioritize social good above personal gain and societal needs ahead of personal want [17]. The societal justice movement came into sharp focus after 1945, with a dearth of global resources following World War II. It was pioneered by the concept of relative deprivation where allocated resources intertwined with peoples’ needs and desires, and economic elasticity affected (dis)satisfaction. The concept of fairness from distributive outcomes—distributive justice—evolved from this subjective understanding and the effect of societal experiences and limitations [17]. This is in line with the theory of equity [17], which views the perception of fairness and behaviours correlated to people’s subjective comparison of their indulged goods and services or service outcomes to those of others; fair resource distribution is a function of people’s perception of what is expected, i.e., social norms as a fair outcome [15]. Thus, the movement is centred on a willingness to accept these norms, even in the absence of holistic desires

[15][17]

. Considered a form of distributive justice, the concept of fairness is intricate, and its nuances across cultures and among dynamic and evolving societal norms does not favour a straightforward definition [1]. In a world of limited resources, distributive justice represents an approach that could warrant a superior distribution of resources. The impact of transport on society comes at a cost which is not always evenly distributed [21], yet research highlights that the adoption of fair procedures exhibits a positive impact on exchange relationships. Procedures of the decision-making process are viewed to assist with shaping and bridging gaps of conflict relating to outcome satisfaction and views of procedural fairness

[17]

. The transport users’ understanding of fairness within a system is graded by their evaluation of the decision makers legitimacy in implementing fair procedures. By this legitimacy, authority could be enacted as an avenue that influence passenger decisions, perceptions, behaviours, and expected value of an existing system. To understand if the distributed outcome in the transport sector is viewed as just, especially in line with the implemented policies of procedural justice, Tyler [17] argues that people’s experiences and perceptions serve as a vital foundation for concerns of justice. Satisfaction erodes with assessment of justice as debased or tainted. Where fairness is observed to be lacking, the importance of understanding user-collated views of justice is key. Considerations as to whether people deem an outcome just, and the related behavioural reactions to it [17], is an area that needs addressing, as responses include behaviour change prompted by the delivery of distributive and procedural justice. The issue of just allocations is present in social justification, yet the involvement of policies that are perceived as fair are accepted by people, even when direct benefits are lacking [17]. Implementing sustainable practices in PT will reduce long-terms cost and allow sustainable cities with functional networks that cater to the needs of both current and future users. Fulfilling passengers’ needs encourages improved economic activity, quality of life, and the environmental r [22]. Continued dynamic engagement from society and policymakers in adopting social justice is necessary in providing a platform for diffusion and implementation of fairness

[15]

. Involving fairness in procedural processes legitimizes authorities’ decisions in the eye of the user. Procedural elements which instigate the judgment of fairness promote opportunities for users to have a voice [15], or expression, providing the feeling of being treated more fairly, a sense of control, and an agency in outcomes that reflect a sense of value in the process. Addressing impartial impacts, decisions need to be based on the views of those affected by the outcomes or situation. Therefore, to promote inclusion, an understanding of behaviours, perceptions, and habits among key users of public transport—women and vulnerable users—is essential.

4. Literature Context of Gender and Transport

It is acknowledged that the path that forms gender differs given societal, cultural, and other influences [23]

. To encourage women’s access and engagement with public transport, gender equity should be the focal point. An understanding of gendered roles is key to improving users' accessibility. Women’s travel patterns and behaviours are influenced by their household duties and care-giving responsibilities, often necessitating multi-modal travel use

. The abilities of people change over the course of their lives. Their needs and requirements of public transport [21] reflect these changes and are influenced by a number of variables. These changes include age, family situation, health, employment, caring responsibilities, motherhood, changes in location, etc., all of which affect the equilibrium of travel decisions, behaviours, and mobility [16][24][25]

. Nevertheless, planning and design focused primarily on radial, single-mode, one-directional, commuter-centered working trips neglect the shorter multi-destination journeys, which may include trips to locations such as schools, grocery stores, or (health) care facilities [26]. When gender disparity and the complex nature of women’s transit patterns are not considered in transport planning, it leads to limitations in safe and reliable modes. In catering to a gender-inclusive transport system, the provided infrastructural element of the service must be considered [27]. Safe access to public transport incorporates every journey and aspect of travel, from first mile to last mile. In addressing fair and equitable mobility for women, transit spaces are required to be safe and welcoming. Infrastructures and active travel provisions need to be universally integrated to allow for the complexity of women’s travel need, social activities and other modal choice

. The implication of such a dynamic differs between men and women [24][28]. Commuting times for men are typically longer than women, though this may be influenced by social and cultural considerations linked to gender

[27]

. Women face complexities of daily commitments involving compressed travel times given home care responsibilities, trip chaining between different modes, often across multiple locations, in order to fulfill duties regarding varying care obligations, children, household responsibilities, family responsibilities, leisure, etc.

[2824][29]

. Other gender differences are entwined with factors which are weighted in favour of men [27], such as proximity to desired location and access to public transport. Adopting processes that promote sustainable systems for all needs strong consideration tailored to the vulnerable, women, and those of differing abilities [24][30]. Stagnation in services provided by transport systems traps vulnerable people by habit, necessity, and acceptance into tolerating services that are not sufficiently addressing their needs. Scheiner and Holz-Rau [24] note that travel patterns are linked to travel norms and stability and are strongly influenced by circumstances and processes presented to the user that are outside the confines of familiarity. Studies on the concept of fairness for women among all PT users show a disparity for women, particularly given their mobility intricacy and the differences in the applied idea of fairness [16]. Although equal opportunity is a fundamental human right, for women, this is a norm that does not exist throughout all of their lives [8]

, plus, that of their dependant

. Inequality may be considered unavoidable, as stratification exist in society

[262]. Women’s mobility needs are often not accounted for in the onset of transport planning and design

. To empower an evolving demographic, matters of health, environment, social, and economic issues need to be addressed

[30]. Yet, paramount to a sustained public transport system is the inclusion of women’s mobility needs. The failure to observe these needs at the planning and decision-making stage deters multimodal, sustainable transit decisions while simultaneously adding risk to those with already limited mobility choices

. Inequitable distribution of opportunities, especially among marginalised groups, limits the ability to maintain agency in positive life outcomes [21]. Economic or social opportunities are unfair if they are gated. A public transport sector where gender plays a role in whether a service is accessible, safe, or meets required need fails in providing equal opportunity to all and fails to recognize the limitations of a uniform service [17]. McDonald [2] argues that gender varies between and within societies, that it is a concept conscious of time, outweighing an absolute biological nature, and is a social construct combined with personality differences between men and women, allowing socially acceptable interactions. In a global move towards an inclusive and sustainable approach, the UN sustainable development goals [8][22] for gender equality and reduced inequalities note that:
“Inequality is growing for more than 70 per cent of the global population, exacerbating the risks of divisions and hampering economic and social development” and “Women and girls represent half of the world’s population and therefore also half of its potential. But, today gender inequality persists everywhere and stagnates social progress.”
The well-being of society is implicitly linked with transport [21]. A sustainable approach for transport would include not just equity, but also environmental impact and efficiency [1]. This influence on society varies across different strata [3][21]. Stratification, e.g., race, gender, socioeconomic level, etc., far outweighs individual differences. It is a “characteristic of society” that is universally inconsistent, seen to persist over time, and embodies societal beliefs rather than just inequality [2]. Passenger routine and use of modes are highly correlated with their daily travel practices. These routines depend strongly on consistent social and spatial factors, with any deviations being detrimental for behavioural continuity [25]. Accessibility factors linked to caring responsibility and work are key to understanding differences between and within gender. There exist differences in commuting behaviours between men and women, even in situations where caring responsibilities were also handled by men [20][27]. Those with or without caring responsibilities differed with respect to how their travel patterns were affected. Men highlighted no change in travel patterns based on workload, while women with caring responsibilities or those who were first-time mothers saw a reduction in professional work—or a move to part time hours— with reduced earnings confounding their ability to afford fares [20][27]. The normalised involvement of women in undertaking the majority of family and care responsibilities, coupled with complex duties and life event triggers, result in travel decisions and factors that influence PT use that is eminently different from those of men [20][28][29]

.

Research on Fairness and Inclusion for Users of Surface Transport, informs on gender disparities among user experiences. User opinions of the service were investigated with respect to limitations and facilitators to accessibility, interaction with infrastructure as well as safety and security. Women's apprehension to engage with the service result from markedly deficient provisions of safety and security, specifically in relation to concerns of personal safety and transit space. These were disproportionately attributed to users with caring responsibilities and multimodal travellers. Public transport characteristics such as station location, crowding, reliability and modal integration amongst others, were found to influence women's travel behaviours and a resultant apprehension to engage with the service. Similarly, these transport characteristics impede upon women's sense of belonging, limiting their inclusion to society. Public transport service tends to be focused on transit from point A to point B, which lacks agile holistic interaction between modes, transit environments and destinations of choice. Women desire a transit system that provides safe and equitable functionality to their aggregated multimodal engagement. Their interaction with public transport is approached strategically to navigate arrays of attributes including security, interconnectivity, reliability, dynamic real-time information, service infrastructure amongst others, all of which are critical to their engagement yet ill-informed by service provider. For women, interactions with the transport service requires planning and aggregated service elements that allows sufficient logistical access to transit spaces accommodating their dependants and personal belongings; to modal connectivity and active travel i.e., walking and cycling. Environmental and interpersonal factors are crucial to women's mobility choice, as well as a gauge to phycological and behavioural impacts. Women in comparison to men interrogate the aptness of the service offering and it's fit for purpose.

An inclusive and equitable transport system entails planning and designs that accommodate the nuances of mobility and transit practices, providing operations that cater to safe and integrated access. A fair transport system errs to just outcomes that promote user independence, wellbeing, and their ability to thrive within society. Transport links people to society and for many a necessity that provides access to opportunities. Thus, a sustainable transport system requires provisions that limits passenger segregation, accommodating the multiplicities of mobility needs and user differentiated experience. There is no one size fits all approach to achieving gender inclusion, rather adapting user-centric solutions that accounts for the nuances of mobility needs. Public transport policy and planning, designed from the user perspective caters not just to gender inclusion but social, economic and environmental growth.

. Further effects on commuting include intermodal access, income, time spent commuting, mobility modes suited to caring duties, and mobility technology promoting efficiency [20][27]. The preceding authors note women also experience increased commuting times, especially in cases that altered travel patterns, such as a change in location for frequently accessed care, educational, or retail facilities. Gender commuting patterns differ with caring responsibilities or diversified roles of the working stereotype [20][27]. Infrequency in commuting journeys are linked to lower wages. In cases where a larger percentage of the population is working, there is a higher uptake in commuting on public transport. Women with caring responsibilities work fewer hours, have lower wages, and commute less [20][27][28]. The inverse is typically true for fathers who undertake caring responsibilities [31].

5. A Modern Status Quo of Prevailing Barriers to Equal Opportunity in PT

5.1. Safety

A Transport Infrastructure Ireland report, “Travelling in Women’s Shoes”, [32] identified that: “Safety (is) a primary concern for women and influences their daily travel choices.” Gonzalez Carvajal, Alam [33] detailed the disproportionate effect on women from gender-blind policies in transport. Homogeneous approaches to all passengers may meet equality requirements, but do not recognize the imbalance in security needs among genders. The global #MeToo movement has highlighted the scale of unwarranted and unsolicited verbal and physical contact women encounter in comparison to men, with Loukaitou-Sideris [34] commenting that: “Trains and buses are ground zero for the kinds of incidents highlighted by #MeToo.” Numerous surveys show the magnitude of these disparities. For example, when asked about travelling after dark and considering a variety of London-area transport settings, there was a greater than two-fold increase in reporting of unsafe feelings for women as compared to men [35]. Similar disparities were revealed by a safety and security report [36], and nearly identical values of 2.3 responses from women for every 1 from men were presented in a report compiled for the 2018 G7 [37]. The trend continues in 63% of San José University students surveyed reporting experiencing harassment [38]. The same findings, with a greater than 2-to-1 ratio of women to men, was also present for questions about feelings regarding being unsafe in transport situations. Disturbing statistics validate women’s concerns for safety, with nearly 3 in 4 experiencing sexual harassment in a public space [39] and 85% on public transport in France [40]. The gravity of this issue becomes more pronounced due to under-reporting or incredulous responses from authorities [39].

5.2. Accessibility

Gender equality and equity is still in need of redress, with many historically gendered roles playing out globally today and contributing to molding and limiting equitable accessibility to PT. Women constitute 94% of those taking family and home care responsibilities [41]. Women’s travel patterns and behaviours are often still centered around care-giving responsibilities, necessitating high frequency or multi-model trips [31]. Gaps exist in the planning of PT systems for such journeys caused by additional responsibilities. This results in limiting access to safe and reliable mobility modes. Planning and design’s focus on primarily radial, single-mode, one-directional, commuter-centered working trips neglect the shorter multi-destination journeys, which may include trips to locations such as schools, grocery stores, or (health) care facilities [42]. The complex and dynamic “Mobility of Care” journeys [43] are the prominent factor in women’s travel patterns [32]. Without considering additional service elements to meet the needs of mobility of care transport, accessibility is severely limited for large sections of the populous. Authorities’ decision making has resulted in policies that, “for most countries remain unrelentingly gender-blind” [44]. Echoing the findings of Loukaitou-Sideris [45], it is incumbent on decisionmakers not only to recognise the gaps in provision of need for PT users, but also to promote and deliver infrastructural changes to close them.

5.3. Infrastructure

A macroscopic picture of transport infrastructure, from first to last meter of a journey and not limited to time spent in direct interaction with a PT vehicle, sheds light on barriers to fair and equitable mobility for women. Safe and amenable spaces must exist from origin to station and throughout the journey to the final destination. These spaces display many common characteristics which can significantly improve the lived mobility experience of women. Sufficient lighting [46], stops, and walking or cycling routes that are properly integrated into the built environment, including such stops and routes close to residential areas and ensuring that pedestrian zones fully encompass key public spaces, such as school or healthcare facilities [47], allowing a clear line of site for other users and vehicles on transport routes and hubs; provision of walkways sufficient to accommodate children’s buggies or strollers [42], and more, are needed to improve the transport experience for women. The lack of such infrastructure occurs because it is often viewed as an afterthought to the provision of PT along a specific single-use service corridor: “Women’s mobility needs are often not taken into consideration at the early stage of designing, planning and developing transport systems, services and infrastructure” [48]. It is at the planning and decision-making stage of infrastructural projects that their considerations are necessary. Overlooking them or defaulting to land use that fails to meet a population’s present and future needs deters multimodal, sustainable transit decisions while simultaneously adding risk to those with already limited mobility choices: “Well planned infrastructure is also vital for women’s safety, with well-lit streets and transport plans that minimize risks for women and girls travelling alone and support decisions to commute” [49].  

References

  1. Rock, S.; Ahern, A.; Caulfield, B. Equity and Fairness in Transport Planning: The State of Play. In Proceedings of the Transport Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 12–16 January 2014.
  2. McDonald, B. An Introduction to Sociology in Ireland; Gill & Macmillan: Dublin, Ireland, 2009.
  3. Chowdhury, S.; Hadas, Y.; Gonzalez, A.V.; Schot, B. Public transport users’ and policy makers’ perceptions of integrated public transport systems. Trans. Policy 2018, 61, 75–83.
  4. Matas, A. Demand and Revenue Implications of an Integrated Public Transport Policy: The Case of Madrid. Trans. Rev. 2004, 24, 195–217.
  5. Buehler, R. Determinants of transport mode choice: A comparison of Germany and the USA. J. Transp. Geog. 2011, 19, 644–657.
  6. Abrate, G.; Piacenza, M.; Vannoni, D. The impact of integrated tariff systems on publictransport demand: Evidence from Italy. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2009, 39, 120–127.
  7. Litman T. Evaluating transportation equity. Victoria Transport Policy Institute; 2017United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: Social Development for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/2030agenda-sdgs.html (accessed on 1 May 2022).
  8. Hail, Y.; McQuaid, R. The concept of fairness in relation to women transport users. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2919. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: #5 Gender Equality. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/gender-equality/ (accessed on 14 September 2021).
  9. Tyler, T.R.; Boeckmann, R.J.; Smith, H.J.; Huo, Y.J. Social Justice in a Diverse Society; Taylor & Francis Group: Abingon-on-Thames, UK, 1997. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: #10 Reduced Inequality. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/inequality (accessed on 14 September 2021).
  10. Tiznado-Aitken, I.; Lukas, K.; Muñoz, J.C.; Hurtubia, R. Understanding accessibility through public transport users’ experiences: A mixed methods approach. J. Transp. Geog. 2020, 88, 102857.
  11. Cass, N.; Shove, E.; Urry, J. Social exclusion, mobility and access. Sociol. Rev. 2005, 53, 539–555.
  12. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: #5 Gender Equality. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/gender-equality/ (accessed on 14 September 2021).Park, J.; Chowdhury, S. Investigating the barriers in a typical journey by public transportusers with disabilities. J. Transp. Health 2018, 10, 361–368.
  13. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: #10 Reduced Inequality. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/inequality (accessed on 14 September 2021).AitBihiOuali, L.; Graham, D.J.; Barron, A.; Trompet, M. Gender differences in the perception of safety in public transport. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A Stat. Soc. 2019, 183, 737–769.
  14. Tyler, T.R. Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure. Int. J. Psych. 2000, 35, 117–125. Litman, T. The new transportation planning paradigm. Inst. Trans. Eng. 2013, 83, 20–28.
  15. Transport Infrastructure Ireland. Travelling in a Woman’s Shoes: Understanding Women’s Travel Needs in Ireland to Inform the Future of Sustainable Transport Policy and Design; Transport Infrastructure Ireland: Dublin, Ireland, 2020; Available online: https://www.tii.ie/technical-services/research/TII-Travelling-in-a-Womans-ShoesReport_Issue.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2021).Tyler, T.R. Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure. Int. J. Psych. 2000, 35, 117–125.
  16. Gonzalez Carvajal, K.; Alam, M.M. Transport is Not Gender Neutral; World Bank Blogs, 2018. Available online: https://blogs.worldbank.org/transport/transport-not-gender-neutral (accessed on 20 September 2021).Hail, Y.; McQuaid, R. The concept of fairness in relation to women transport users. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2919.
  17. Petterson, G.; Stafford, J. People’s Perception of Personal Security and Their Concerns about Crime on Public Transport: Research Findings; Department for Transport: London, UK, 2004.Tyler, T.R.; Boeckmann, R.J.; Smith, H.J.; Huo, Y.J. Social Justice in a Diverse Society; Taylor & Francis Group: Abingon-on-Thames, UK, 1997.
  18. Transport for London. Safety and Security: Annual Report 2013/2014; Transport for London: London, UK, 2014. Available online: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/safety-and-security-annual-report-2013-14.pdf (accessed on 22 September 2021).Nordbakke, S.; Schwanan, T. Well-being and Mobility: A Theoretical Framework and Literature Review Focusing on Older People. Mobilities 2014, 9, 104–129.
  19. Kluch, S.; Gordon, J. G7 Women Need Safety to Make Gender Inequality History, 2018 Gallup. Available online: https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/235475/women-need-safety-gender-inequality-history.aspx (accessed on 22 September 2021).Colquitt, J.A.; Rodell, J.B. Measuring justice and fairness. In The Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace; Cropanzano, R.S., Ambrose, M.L., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 187–202.
  20. Weinstein Agrawal, A.; Loukaitou-Sideris, A.; Tortora, C.; Hu, Y. Crime and Harassment on Public Transportation: A Survey of SJSU Students Set in International Context; Mineta Transportation Institute: San José, CA, USA, 2020. Uteng, T.P.; Christensen, H.R.; Levin, L. Transport and Mobility: Gendering Smart Mobilities, 1st ed.; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2020.
  21. Powers, M. Why the #MeToo Movement Is a Public Transportation Issue; Washington Post: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; Available online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/10/20/why-the-metoomovement-is-a-public-transportation-issue/ (accessed on 22 September 2021).Randal, E.; Shaw, C.; Woodward, A.; Howden-Chapman, P.; Macmillan, A.; Hosking, J.; Chapman, R.; Waa, A.M.; Keall, M. Fairness in Transport Policy: A New Approach to Applying Distributive Justice Theories. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10102.
  22. UN Women UK All-Party Parliamentary Group. Prevalence and Reporting of Sexual Harassment in UK Public Spaces; UN Women National Committee UK: London, UK, 2021; Available online: https://www.unwomenuk.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/APPG-UN-Women_Sexual-HarassmentReport_2021.pdf (accessed on 22 September 2021).United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: #11 Gender Equality. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/ (accessed on 14 September 2021).
  23. Tabary, Z. 220,000 Women Sexually Harassed on Public Transport in France: Study; Reuters: London, UK, 2017; Available online: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-women-france-sexcrimesidUSKBN1EF2J2 (accessed on 20 September 2021).Wood, W.; Eagly, A.H. Two traditions of research on gender identity. Sex Roles 2015, 73, 461–473.
  24. Central Statistics Office. Women and Men in Ireland 2019; Central Statistics Office Ireland: Cork, Ireland, 2019; Available online: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-wamii/womenandmeninireland2019/work/ (accessed on 23 September 2021).Scheiner, J.; Holz-Rau, C. A comprehensive study of life course, cohort, and period effects on changes in travel mode use. Trans. Res. A Policy Pract. 2013, 47, 147–181.
  25. European Institute for Gender Equality. Gender in Transport. 2017. Available online: https://eige.europa.eu/publications/gender-transport (accessed on 20 September 2021).Klinger, T. Moving from monomodality to multimodality? Changes in mode choice of new residents. Trans. Res. A Policy Pract. 2017, 104, 221–237.
  26. Morgan, G.; Bajpai, A.; Ceppi, P.; Al-Hinai, A.; Christensen, T.; Kumar, S.; Crosskey, S.; O’Regan, N. Infrastructure for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women; United Nations Office for Project Services: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2020; Available online: https://content.unops.org/publications/UNOPS-Infrastructure-for-GenderEquality-and-the-Empowerment-of-women.pdf?mtime=20200914194443&focal=none (accessed on 23 September 2021).Uteng, T.P.; Turner, J. Addressing the Linkages between Gender and Transport in Low- and MiddleIncome Countries. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4555.
  27. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. Fear and safety in transit environments from the women’s perspective. Secur. J. 2014, 27, 242–256. McQuaid, R.; Chen, T. Commuting times—The role of gender, children and part-time work. Res. Trans. Econ. 2012, 34, 66–73.
  28. CIVITAS Wiki Consortium. Policy Note: Smart Choices for Cities Gender Equality and Mobility: Mind the Gap! CIVITAS. 2018. Available online: https://civitas.eu/sites/default/files/civ_pol-an2_m_web.pdf (accessed on 23 September 2021).Oakil, A.T.M. Securing or sacrificing access to a car: Gender difference in the effects of life events. Travel Behav. Soc. 2016, 3, 1–7.
  29. Mlambo-Ngcuka, P. Foreward. In Infrastructure for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women; United Nations Office for Project Services: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2020; Available online: https://content.unops.org/publications/UNOPS-Infrastructure-for-Gender-Equality-and-the-Empowermentof-women.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2021).Scheiner, J. Gendered key events in the life course: Effects on changes in travel mode choice over time. J. Trans. Geog. 2014, 37, 47–60.
  30. Čermáková, L. Changing the mindset: Transport that meets user needs. In International Transport Forum, Transport Connectivity: A Gender Perspective; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019; pp. 12–13. Available online: https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/transport-connectivity-gender-perspective.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2021).Aguiar, B.; Macário, R. The need for an Elderly centred mobility policy. Trans. Res. Proc. 2017, 25, 4355–4369.
  31. European Institute for Gender Equality. Gender in Transport. 2017. Available online: https://eige.europa.eu/publications/gender-transport (accessed on 20 September 2021).
  32. Transport Infrastructure Ireland. Travelling in a Woman’s Shoes: Understanding Women’s Travel Needs in Ireland to Inform the Future of Sustainable Transport Policy and Design; Transport Infrastructure Ireland: Dublin, Ireland, 2020; Available online: https://www.tii.ie/technical-services/research/TII-Travelling-in-a-Womans-ShoesReport_Issue.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2021).
  33. Gonzalez Carvajal, K.; Alam, M.M. Transport is Not Gender Neutral; World Bank Blogs, 2018. Available online: https://blogs.worldbank.org/transport/transport-not-gender-neutral (accessed on 20 September 2021).
  34. Powers, M. Why the #MeToo Movement Is a Public Transportation Issue; Washington Post: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; Available online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/10/20/why-the-metoomovement-is-a-public-transportation-issue/ (accessed on 22 September 2021).
  35. Petterson, G.; Stafford, J. People’s Perception of Personal Security and Their Concerns about Crime on Public Transport: Research Findings; Department for Transport: London, UK, 2004.
  36. Transport for London. Safety and Security: Annual Report 2013/2014; Transport for London: London, UK, 2014. Available online: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/safety-and-security-annual-report-2013-14.pdf (accessed on 22 September 2021).
  37. Kluch, S.; Gordon, J. G7 Women Need Safety to Make Gender Inequality History, 2018 Gallup. Available online: https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/235475/women-need-safety-gender-inequality-history.aspx (accessed on 22 September 2021).
  38. Weinstein Agrawal, A.; Loukaitou-Sideris, A.; Tortora, C.; Hu, Y. Crime and Harassment on Public Transportation: A Survey of SJSU Students Set in International Context; Mineta Transportation Institute: San José, CA, USA, 2020.
  39. UN Women UK All-Party Parliamentary Group. Prevalence and Reporting of Sexual Harassment in UK Public Spaces; UN Women National Committee UK: London, UK, 2021; Available online: https://www.unwomenuk.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/APPG-UN-Women_Sexual-HarassmentReport_2021.pdf (accessed on 22 September 2021).
  40. Tabary, Z. 220,000 Women Sexually Harassed on Public Transport in France: Study; Reuters: London, UK, 2017; Available online: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-women-france-sexcrimesidUSKBN1EF2J2 (accessed on 20 September 2021).
  41. Central Statistics Office. Women and Men in Ireland 2019; Central Statistics Office Ireland: Cork, Ireland, 2019; Available online: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-wamii/womenandmeninireland2019/work/ (accessed on 23 September 2021).
  42. Morgan, G.; Bajpai, A.; Ceppi, P.; Al-Hinai, A.; Christensen, T.; Kumar, S.; Crosskey, S.; O’Regan, N. Infrastructure for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women; United Nations Office for Project Services: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2020; Available online: https://content.unops.org/publications/UNOPS-Infrastructure-for-GenderEquality-and-the-Empowerment-of-women.pdf?mtime=20200914194443&focal=none (accessed on 23 September 2021).
  43. Sanchez de Madariaga, I. Mobility of Care. United Nations Human Settlement Programme: Urban Lectures. 2018. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/mobility-of-care-ines-sanchez-de-madariaga (accessed on 23 September 2021).
  44. National Women’s Council of Ireland. Submission to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport on the Sustainable Mobility Policy: A Review of Ireland’s Public Transport and Active Travel Policy; National Women’s Council of Ireland: Dublin, Ireland; Available online: https://www.nwci.ie/images/uploads/NWCI__Dublin_Cycling_Campaign_Submission_to_Dept_of_Transport_Review_of_Sustainable_Mobility_Feb_2020.pdf (accessed on 23 September 2021).
  45. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. Fear and safety in transit environments from the women’s perspective. Secur. J. 2014, 27, 242–256.
  46. Montes Calero, L. Closing the gender gap in transport data: Good practices from Jalisco in Mexico. In International Transport Forum, Transport Connectivity: A Gender Perspective; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019; pp. 15–16. Available online: https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/transport-connectivity-gender-perspective.pdf (accessed on 23 September 2021).
  47. CIVITAS Wiki Consortium. Policy Note: Smart Choices for Cities Gender Equality and Mobility: Mind the Gap! CIVITAS. 2018. Available online: https://civitas.eu/sites/default/files/civ_pol-an2_m_web.pdf (accessed on 23 September 2021).
  48. Čermáková, L. Changing the mindset: Transport that meets user needs. In International Transport Forum, Transport Connectivity: A Gender Perspective; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019; pp. 12–13. Available online: https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/transport-connectivity-gender-perspective.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2021).
  49. Mlambo-Ngcuka, P. Foreward. In Infrastructure for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women; United Nations Office for Project Services: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2020; Available online: https://content.unops.org/publications/UNOPS-Infrastructure-for-Gender-Equality-and-the-Empowermentof-women.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2021).
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback