CLOSING THE GAP

WHY DOES SHE MOVE? A STUDY OF WOMEN’S MOBILITY IN LAC CITIESKARLA DOMINGUEZ GONZALEZ

Photo credit: Sofia Guerrero, World Bank

OUTLINE

1. Motivation

2. Key Questions

3. Framework

4. Data

5. Findings

6. Recommendations

MOTIVATION• Zoom in and understand the mobility barriers that low-income women face to use public transport and access economic opportunities

• A lot has been researched on women’s mobility patterns but little we know about groups facing overlapping vulnerabilities (intersectionality)

• Apply a more holistic version of the concept of accessibility that goes beyond physical infrastructure and considers the full experience of women’s mobility (strong emphasis on agency)

• Some authors have added to the definition of accessibility other elements that influence person’s ability to access economic opportunities (Bocarejo and Oviedo, 2012), (Canon, 2010)

• Showcase the relevance of qualitative methodologies

• Several quantitative studies provide data on differences in women and men’s mobility, but additional research is needed on the reasons behind the decision to move.

KEY QUESTIONS

Two questions are addressed in the study:

• What are the mobility barriers that define low-income women’s mobility in three LAC cities (Lima, Buenos Aires and Rio de Janeiro)?

• To what extent these barriers affect women’s decision to access economic opportunities?

Some women’s voices

“It would take about two and a half hours just to get to work, five hours on a bus to ride there and back every day. It wouldn’t be good at all. I quit my job because of the travel time. It’s inhuman. No way would I continue to do that”.

30-50-YEAR-OLD WOMAN, RIO DE JANEIRO

“That’s why I have stopped studying…Transport is expensive... So what are we going to do? We have to work just to pay the fares…

these have gone up from 3 to 6 pesos, and they say they will rise again… to 11 pesos. That’s really over the top”.

30-50 YEAR-OLD WOMAN, BA HIGH

Framework: Exploring the connection between gender and mobilitythrough the lens of women’s agency

DATA

FINDINGS

There is a relationship between affordability and women’s safety

Availability of transport and infrastructure within communities was problematic in all sites, including in high accessibility areas, which puts women at more risks compared to men.

There is a linkage between gender norms, internal barriers and transport barriers.

A key finding from the report was that women prefer proximity than quality of jobs

Women’s use of public transport and access to better opportunities is not only a transport issue.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Transport Community Relational Individual

• Night buses• Demand driven transport• Incentives for drivers to get

into peripherical areas• Subsidized bicycle sharing

schemes• Designing transport services

to match demand and regulation

• Fare scheme suited to women’s mobility

• Environmental design to enhance women’s safety

• Improving dialogue and collaboration with the police

• Training community members to reclaim public spaces

• Expand the number of vacancies and nearby options for daycare units and kindergartens for younger children, or include daycare facilities within a Transport Oriented Development Infrastructure.

• Develop extracurricular activities

• Promote mentoring programs and identify role models

• Capacity building for women to search and apply for jobs

• Empower women to use public transport

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Authors: Karla Domínguez González (Gender Specialist), Ana Luiza Machado (Field Coordinator), Bianca Bianchi Alves (Senior Urban Transport Specialist), Veronica I. Raffo (Senior Infrastructure Specialist), Sofia Guerrero Gamez (Senior Transport Engineer) and Irene Portabales (Urban Transport Specialist)

Peer reviewers: Arturo Ardila (Lead Transport Economist), Maria Beatriz Orlando(Lead Social Development Specialist), and Paula Andrea Rossiasco (Senior Social Development Specialist)

Guidance and conceptualization of research: Shomik Mehndiratta (Transport PM for SAR)

Funding: UFGE

Support: Licette Moncayo

Additional feedback: Fatima Arroyo Arroyo (Senior Urban Transport Specialist) and Leonardo Canon Rubiano (Senior Urban Transport Specialist)

CLOSING THE GAP

GENDER, TRANSPORT AND EMPLOYMENT IN MUMBAIMUNEEZA MEHMOOD ALAM

(INITIAL RESULTS)

OUTLINE

1. Motivation

2. Key Questions

3. Data

4. Results

5. Policy Implications

MOTIVATION

Until recently, transport planning and design were regarded as “gender-neutral”. Now a growing body of literature:

➢ Women take slower modes then men. (Quiros, Mehndiratta and Ochoa, 2014)

➢ Women prefer public transport and taxi services to cars more than men (Ng and Acker, 2018)

➢ Transport deficiencies are particularly burdensome for low-income women (WB, Forthcoming)

There is limited evidence on:

➢ Evolution of mobility patterns over time

➢ The causal role that transportation networks play in women’s access to economic opportunities.

KEY QUESTIONS

Two questions are addressed in the study:

1. How do men and

women’s mobility patterns differ from each other, and how have they evolved over time in Mumbai?

2. Does lack of access

to mass transit limits women’s access to jobs?

DATA

Use a repeated cross-section:

➢ Use a household mobility survey collected in Baker and others (2005) in the winter of 2004

➢ Administer a new household survey (3,024 households) in the winter of 2019

Sampling Universe:

➢ Greater Mumbai Region

➢ All households with at least one male and one female member between 18-45 years of age

Sampling Method:

➢ Sampling was done in proportion to the ward-level population, based on WorldPop data for 2018

➢ 750 geographic points were sampled and roughly 4 households were sampled at each location

Map of sampled households by ward and zone (with income categories)

CHARACTERISTICS OF MAIN SURVEY RESPONDENTS

Category Male (in %) Female (in %)

Age Group

18-24 7.1 % 11.1%

25-29 16.4% 23.6%

30-34 20.3% 18.8%

35-39 18.2% 22.2%

40-45 38.0% 24.3%

Observations 3,024 3,024

Work status

Outside home 87.9% 15.6%

From home 10.6% 5.3%

Not working 1.5% 79.1%

Observations 3,024 3,024

Occupation

Unskilled worker 16.6% 25.9%Skilled worker 40.2% 31.9%Petty trader 3.6% 0.6%Self-employed

Professional 4.1% 9.2%Clerical/Salesman 4.2% 8.4%Supervisory role 15.3% 11.9%Self-employed worker 16.1% 12.2%

Observations 2,978 633

➢ 98 percent of male and 21 percent of female respondents work for pay.

➢ Median household size is 4 persons

➢ 63 percent of households have lived in their current home for more than 10 years

RESULTS OVERVIEW

1.There are important

differences in the mobility patterns of

men and women which reflect

differences in the division of labor within families

2.These differences in men and women’s mobility patterns and the evolution of these patterns point to an implicit “pink-tax” on female mobility

3.Transport is only one of the barriers to women’s likelihood of labor force participation

Work Related Trips: Women 17% & Men: 80%

1. DIFFERENCES IN MOBILITY PATTERNS

A. Purpose of trips mirrors the employment patterns and the traditional division of duties within the home:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Work (regular workplace)

Work (of site meeting, sales call)

Attend school/college as a student

Drop off/pick up kids to school

Drop off/pick up kids from tuition

Shop for groceries/clothes

Go to hospital/clinic/doctor

Outing (movies, food, park)

Socialize (visit friends/relatives)

Government office or religious place

Personal services (banking, dry cleaning)

Other

Purpose of trips (male and female) main respondents (2019)

Female (in %) Male (in %)

Shopping or taking kids to/from school/tuition:

Women: 50% & Men: 7%

1. DIFFERENCES IN MOBILITY PATTERNS

B. For work related trips women choose slower modes of transport than men:➢ Walking: Women 39% & Men: 28%➢ Public transit (bus/train):Women: 31% & Men:

24%➢ Rickshaw: Women: 14% & Men: 8%➢ 2-Wheelers: Women: 9% & Men: 32%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

On foot

By bicycle

By train

By public bus

By private bus

By auto-rickshaw (private)

By auto-rickshaw (shared)

By taxi

By Uber/Ola

By two-wheeler (own vehicle)

By own car/jeep/van

In someone else’s car/jeep/van

Other

Commute Mode for Work Trip

Female (in %) Male (in %)

Work Commute Time Intervals Male Female

1-10min 32.1 28.8

11-20min 29.1 31.1

21-30min 16.0 15.6

31-40min 8.1 9.1

41-50min 6.3 7.4

51-60min 3.7 3.2

61-90min 3.7 3.0

91-120min 0.8 1.3

Above 120min 0.4 0.6

C: For work relate trips the commute times are similar:➢ Average commute time is approximately the

same for men and women (24 minutes)

Men, on average, commute farther than women for work

2. IMPLICIT “PINK TAX” ON FEMALE MOBILITY

A. Between 2004 and 2019 a precipitous drop in the overall level of satisfaction with rail and bus transportation (meaning mass transit has not kept pace with people's expectations)….

➢ Satisfaction levels dropped in terms of: (a) reliability, (b) convenience, (c) safety, and (d) frequency ➢ Satisfaction with the level of crowding either stayed the same or mildly improved.

2. IMPLICIT “PINK TAX” ON FEMALE MOBILITY

B. … but this fall in satisfaction has impacted women and men differently:

“Pink Tax”: Women continue to either use slower modes of transport than men and/or pay a higher price than men to reach similar destinations

Commute Mode for Work Trip

Women continue to depend on mass transit➢ 2004: Both women and men made 40% of work trips

by bus or rail ➢ 2019: Women made 33% of work trips by bus or rail

and men made 24% of work trips by bus or rail

Both women and men shifted to different types of private or semi-private transport: ➢ Men largely shifted towards commuting to work by

two wheelers➢ Women increasingly shifted to using auto-rickshaws

or taxies

3. TRANSPORT IS ONLY ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT DETERMINES

WOMEN’S LIKELIHOOD OF JOINING THE LABOR FORCE

A. Only a small share of women see commuting as a barrier to working: The 2019 survey asked all female respondents (2,388 in total) who were not working whether they saw commuting as a barrier to working:

Category % Fem

Commutingis barrier to working

No 69.43Yes 30.57

Observations 2,388

Commutingis a barrier because:

public transport stop is far 3.73

trips are long 3.94commuting is expensive 1.05

commuting is unsafe 1.63of childcare duties 12.65of domestic duties 19.01family does not prefer 2.51

Only 31% women see commuting as a barrier to working

19% women see commuting as a barrier due to domestic duties

13% women see commuting as a barrier due to childcare

B. There is a role that transport can play in increasing women’s labor force participation:

To understand the role that access to public transit plays in women’s labor force participation, we limited the sample to households where the primary respondent (often the husband) has lived since birth. In this sample, being more than a 20-minute walk from a rail station reduces the probability that a woman works by approximately 4.5 percentage points*

CONCLUSION

A one size-fits-all transportation system can aggravate gender and socioeconomic inequalities, and limit women’s access to economic opportunities. Policy measures focused on improving public transit and walkability in Mumbai and provision of daycare facilities at key locations could differentially benefit women. Notably:

➢ Enhancing the walkability of Mumbai city by creating a walking friendly street network and providing affordable micro-mobility solutions in Mumbai (like scooters and bicycles) could also differentially benefit women given their reliance on walking.

➢ Improving the reliability, convenience, safety and frequency of bus and rail services could also differentially benefit women, given their reliance on public transit.

➢ Taking a network approach to the routing and timing of the rail and bus systems could better integrate public transit options and make public transit a more attractive option.

➢ Providing safe and affordable childcare services at suitable locations in Mumbai (possibly at or close to rail stations) could enhance women’s labor force participation in Mumbai.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

➢Authors: World Bank—Muneeza Alam and Matías Herrera Dappe

University of Maryland—Maureen Cropper and Palak Suri

➢Overall Guidance: Shomik Mehndiratta and Karla Gonzalez Carvajal

➢Administrative Support: Tema Alawari Kio-Michael

➢Reviewers: Maria Beatriz Orlando, Judy Baker, Gerald Paul Ollivier, Karla Dominguez Gonzalez and Aiga Stokenberga

➢GIS Support: Benjamin P. Stewart, Thomas Joshua Julio Gertin and Jack (Jianguo) Ma

➢Financial Support: Umbrella Facility for Gender Equality

24

Closing the Gap

Addressing gender and ethnicity gaps in North Macedonia: Case of TransportNATO KURSHITASHVILI

OUTLINE

1. Motivation

2. Scope

3. Data

4. Findings

5. Conclusions.

Motivation

• Women and men are not homogenous, and they experience transport differently due to their different socio-economic and demographic features, such as, income, age, disabilities, ethnicity and/or location.

• These multiple identities often lead to multiple and overlapping disadvantages for many, commonly known as ‘intersectionality’- influencing access to and use of services and economic opportunities of the multiple identity holders differently.

27

Ethnic and gender gaps in the labor market: North Macedonia

• Employment (in total):• 26% non-Roma female and 52% non-Roma male.• 13% Roma female and 31% Roma male.

• Employment in the Transport and Storage sector:• 12.8% female and 87.2% male.• Data by gender and ethnicity is not available.

Scope

29

The study (i) identified needs of Roma women, Roma men and non-Roma women for road infrastructure and public transport and (ii) explored their experiences and aspirations towards employment in transport sector jobs.

Data

• Eight focus groups of 78 participants in total

• Groups including Roma men, Roma women and non-Roma women

• Two pilot municipalities: Sveti Nikole and Kumanovo

• Varied socio-economic characteristics: employed, unemployed, retired, and students.

• Eight semi-structured interviews with the representatives of the two municipalities

• Seven representatives of public transport providers from five municipalities

• Sixteen representatives of road construction companies from eight municipalities

• Audit walks in two municipalities.

30

Findings (1): informal settlements

• Roma communities are disproportionally impacted by inadequate transport infrastructure compared to non-Roma. As their settlements tend to be informal, they are not part of urban planning and, thus, excluded from the benefits of infrastructure investments. Some of the problems include dilapidated roads and lack of sewage systems in their settlements that lead to flooding during heavy rain.

Findings (2): Pedestrian and cycling infrastructure

32

• Poor walking and cycling infrastructure is a challenge to all although in focus groups it was reported this be the case more so for women than men due to their higher reliance on walking.

• The challenges seem more exacerbated in the Roma communities where public infrastructure more broadly (e.g. lack of sewage system, asphalted roads) seems to be of poorer quality or non-existent.

• Some Roma women shared concerns about the challenges their children face in walking to school due to muddy roads and lack of asphalted sidewalks.

Findings (3): Public transport

Women tend to rely on public transport more than men. When public transport is unavailable or unaffordable, women often travel by foot, and their multiple tasks often add to their travel time. These challenges are more pronounced for Roma women due to poorer road infrastructure in their neighborhoods.

33

Findings (4): Safety in Public Space

• Roma women reported feeling much less safe than non-Roma in public spaces, which is likely influenced by both their ethnicity and gender.

34

Findings (5): Participation in planning and decision-making regarding transport projects

• All respondents regardless of gender and ethnicity

shared concerns about not being included in the

consultations concerning public infrastructure

projects in their communities. However, their views

differed with regards to their aspirations to be

consulted and the preferred modes of consultations.

• Rural women felt the most disempowered stating

that they believe they should not be the ones

influencing planning and decision-making for the

municipal budget and projects.

35

Findings (6): Employment

• Roma and non-Roma women face challenges in getting transport sector jobs, partly due to their perception that these jobs are unsuitable for women, as the sector is heavily male-dominated.

• For Roma women, this is exacerbated by employer perceptions that Roma women are not interested in working. At the same time, in the employers’ opinion, employing these under-represented groups could address some of the skills shortages they have been facing.

• Roma men were open to employment opportunities in the transport and construction sectors but noted that they are unaware of specific job announcements.

36

37

How to address identified mobility (and employment) barriers in the transport project?

Mobility

Providing grants to the selected municipalities to support investments identified by the communities themselves to enhance their mobility and road safety. Traditionally-excluded groups, such as Roma men and women, will directly engage in drawing-up action plans to address some of their mobility needs.

Ministry of Transport and Communication

Employment

Incorporating contractual obligations in the bidding process to raise the number of Roma (men and women) and non-Roma women employed in road works.

Contractors

• When building a road, there is an incorrect assumption that all users equally benefit from it. While some dimensions - such as gender and location - are increasingly considered in project design of road infrastructure and transport services, others - such as age or ethnicity - are less frequently explored, despite these also shaping mobility opportunities for millions of disadvantaged people.

• Additionally, as COVID-19 is impacting vulnerable groups the most, understanding their needs for public services and directing support accordingly is critical. The recovery phase of the pandemic must deliver sustainable and inclusive transportation services for a resilient post-pandemic recovery and this cannot be achieved without putting vulnerable groups at the front of transport planning.

Conclusion

THANK YOU