Examining the Different Travel Behaviors of Women and Men in Turkey: Women in Urban Transportation

Abstract

In this study, different travel behaviors of women and men were investigated. Gender issues that cause different travel behavior are mentioned and a bibliometric analysis of scientific research on the subject is presented. In order to understand how women and men benefit from transportation systems, the results of a survey conducted at the Turkey-wide Statistical and Regional Statistical Units Classification Level 2 (NUTS-2) scale were shared. It has been researched which type of transportation women and men use in their activities using travel vehicles in Turkey. As a result of the study, it was seen that women use urban public transportation more than men. It has been revealed that while 41 percent of men benefit from urban public transportation, 54 percent of women benefit from urban transportation systems. It is clearly expressed using the graphical method that which means of transportation women and men benefit from and to what extent. As a result of scientific research and survey studies, the differences in travel behavior of men and women were discussed and suggestions were developed regarding the integration of gender perspective into transportation planning policies.

Keywords

• women’s issues in transportation
• travel behaviour
• gender and women

Kadınların ve Erkeklerin Farklı Seyahat Davranışına Sahip Olması Üzerine: Kent İçi Ulaşımda Kadınlar

Abstract

Bu çalışmada kadınların ve erkeklerin farklı seyahat davranışları araştırılmıştır. Farklı seyahat davranışına neden olan toplumsal cinsiyet konularına değinilmiş ve konu ile ilgili yapılmış bilimsel araştırmaların bibliyometrik analizi sunulmuştur. Kadınların ve erkeklerin ulaşım sistemlerinden nasıl faydalandıklarının anlaşılması için Türkiye geneli İstatistiki ve İstatistiki Bölge Birimleri Sınıflandırması 2. Düzey (İBBS-2) ölçeğinde yapılmış olan bir anket çalışmasından sonuçlar paylaşılmıştır. Türkiye’de kadın ve erkeklerin seyahat aracı kullanarak gerçekleştirecekleri aktivitelerde hangi ulaşım türünden faydalandıkları araştırılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucunda kadınların erkeklerden daha fazla kent içi toplu ulaşım araçları kullandığı görülmüştür. Erkeklerin toplamının yüzde 41’i kent içi toplu ulaşım araçlarından faydalanırken kadınların toplamının yüzde 54’ünün kent içi ulaşım sistemlerinden faydalandığı ortaya koyulmuştur. Kadınların ve erkeklerin hangi ulaşım aracından hangi oranda faydalandıkları grafik yöntemi kullanılarak açıkça ifade edilmiştir. Yapılan bilimsel araştırmalar ve anket çalışmaları sonucunda kadınların ve erkeklerin seyahat davranışlarının farklılığı üzerine tartışılmış ve ulaşım planlama politikalarına toplumsal cinsiyet perspektifinin entegre edilmesi ile ilgili öneriler geliştirilmiştir.

Keywords

• toplumsal cinsiyet ve kadınlar
• Ulaşımda kadın sorunları
• seyahat davranışı

Ethical Statement

Etik kurul onay belgesi eklenmiştir.

Thanks

Kent Araştırmaları Enstitüsü'ne teşekkür ederiz.

References

1. Altunışık, R., Coşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S. ve Yıldırım, E. (2012). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri. (7.Baskı). Adapazarı: Sakarya Yayıncılık.
2. Arıkan, R. (2021). Araştırma yöntem ve teknikleri (4. baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık. Beebeejaun, Y. (2017). Gender, urban space, and the right to everyday life. Journal of Urban Affairs, 39(3), 323-334.
3. Carver, A.ve Veitch, J. (2020). Perceptions and patronage of public transport–are women different from men?. Journal of Transport & Health, 19, 100955.
4. Chidambaram, B. ve Scheiner, J. (2020). Understanding relative commuting within dual-earner couples in Germany. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 134, 113-129.
5. Connell , R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge : Polity Press.
6. Dimitriou, H.T. 1992: Urban transport planning: a developmental approach. London: Routledge. ETC, 2020: Conference Papers 2020: Papers (aetransport.org)
7. Gilbert, M. R. (1998). “Race,” space, and power: The survival strategies of working poor women. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88(4), 595-621.
8. Habermas, J. (2012). “Reasonable” versus “True,” or the Morality of Worldviews. In Habermas and Rawls (pp. 92-113). Routledge.

9. Han, B., Kim, J. ve Timmermans, H. (2020). Turn taking behavior in dual earner households with children: a focus on escorting routines. Transportation, 47, 203-222.
10. Hanson, S. (2010). Gender and mobility: new approaches for informing sustainability. Gender, Place & Culture, 17(1), 5-23.
11. Holz-Rau, C. ve Scheiner, J. (2019). Land-use and transport planning–A field of complex cause-impact relationships. Thoughts on transport growth, greenhouse gas emissions and the built environment. Transport Policy, 74, 127-137.
12. Kilic, S. (2016). Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient. Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 6(1), 47.
13. Kronsell, A. (2005). Gendered practices in institutions of hegemonic masculinity: Reflections from feminist standpoint theory. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(2), 280-298.
14. Law, R. (1999). Beyond ‘women and transport’: towards new geographies of gender and daily mobility. Progress in human geography, 23(4), 567-588.
15. McGuckin, N., Zmud, J. ve Nakamoto, Y. (2005). Trip-chaining trends in the United States: understanding travel behavior for policy making. Transportation Research Record, 1917(1), 199-204.
16. Meloni, I., Bez, M. ve Spissu, E. (2009). Activity-Based Model of Women's Activity–Travel Patterns. Transportation research record, 2125(1), 26-35.
17. Özdamar, K. (2002). Paket programlar, istatistiksel veri analizi. (4. Baskı, sy: 661-73) Eskişehir: Kaan Kitapevi.
18. Pazy, A., Salomon, I. ve Pintzov, T. (1996). The impacts of women's careers on their commuting behavior: A case study of Israeli computer professionals. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 30(4), 269-286.
19. 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.
20. Reichert, A., Holz-Rau, C. ve Scheiner, J. (2016). GHG emissions in daily travel and long-distance travel in Germany–Social and spatial correlates. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 49, 25-43.
21. Rossi, A. S. (1980). Life-span theories and women's lives. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 6(1), 4-32.
22. Scheiner, J. (2014). Gendered key events in the life course: effects on changes in travel mode choice over time. Journal of Transport Geography, 37, 47-60.
23. Scheiner, J. ve Holz-Rau, C. (2012). Gendered travel mode choice: a focus on car deficient households. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 250-261.
24. Timmermans, H. ve Van der Waerden, P. (2008). Synchronicity of activity engagement and travel in time and space: descriptors and correlates of field observations. Transportation Research Record, 2054(1), 1-9.
25. Tivers, J. (1978). How the other half lives: the geographical study of women. Area, 302-306. Topluma Ötekileştirilen ’Kadın’ın Konumu. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(4), 103-126.
26. Turner, J. ve Fouracre, P. (1995). Women and transport in developing countries. Transport Reviews, 15(1), 77-96.
27. Turner, T. ve Niemeier, D. (1997). Travel to work and household responsibility: new evidence. Transportation, 24, 397-419.
28. Üste, R. B. (2015). Hegel–Rousseau, Mill ve Hayek’in Değerlendirmelerinde
29. Van den Berg, P., Arentze, T. ve Timmermans, H. (2010). Location-type choice for face-to-face social activities and its effect on travel behavior. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(6), 1057-1075.