Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Kadın Duyarlı Ulaşım Önceliklerinin Belirlenmesi ve Politika Üretimi: Ankara Örneği

Year 2020, Volume: 15 Issue: 23, 1993 - 2010, 31.03.2020
https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.632122

Abstract

Günümüzde, kentsel ulaşımda harcanan zaman, kent fizik mekânı açısından bakıldığında, arazi kullanımı ve ulaştırma altyapısının gelişmişliğine göre değişkenlik göstermektedir. Birey açısından bakıldığında, yolculuk süresindeki farklılığın en önemli göstergesi, cinsiyet, yaş grubu, kullanılan ulaşım türü, yolculuk zinciri ve yolculuk amacı olarak kabul edilebilir. Farklı yaş gruplarındaki kadın ve erkekler, farklı yolculuk amaçlarıyla, farklı ulaşım türlerini kullanarak, farklı sürelerde yolculuk gerçekleştirmektedir. Yerel yönetimler bu farklılıkları göz ardı ederek her bireyin benzer şekilde kent içi hareketlilikte bulunduğunu varsayarak, erkek egemen bir toplumu öncelik gözeterek belirli bir düzeyde toplu taşıma hizmeti sunmaktadırlar. Bu durum kadınların gün içi hareketliliklerini olumsuz etkilemekte ve kadının kent hayatına katılımını ve kentteki hareketliliğini kısıtlamaktadır. Bu çalışma, kentsel politika koyucuların, yerel yönetimlerin ve kentsel ulaşım alanında çalışma yapanları yönlendirecek, özellikle toplu taşıma sistemleri ve taşıtları özelinde, kadın duyarlı ulaşım önceliklerinin geliştirilmesine yönelik öneriler sunmaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında Viyana, Berlin ve Malmö kentlerindeki örneklerin incelenmesi ve Ankara’da 2013 yılında gerçekleştirilen hanehalkı anketlerinden elde edilen verilerle, bir büyükşehirde yaşayan kadın nüfusunun ulaşım davranışları değerlendirilerek, kadın duyarlı ulaşımı destekleyen önerilerin geliştirilmiştir.   

Thanks

Bu çalışmada, Gazi Üniversitesi Ulaşım Ana Planı Ofisi tarafından 31.01.2013-28.07.2017 yılları arasında hazırlanan Ankara Metropoliten Alanı ve Yakın Çevresi Ulaşım Ana Planı Projesi kapsamında toplanan hanehalkı anketi verileri kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın özeti, daha önce İzmir’de düzenlenen 2. Uluslararası Kadın Kongresinin, bildiri özetleri kitabında yer almıştır.

References

  • Aldred, R., Elliott, B., Woodcock, J., ve Goodman, A. (2017). Cycling provision separated from motor traffic: a systematic review exploring whether stated preferences vary by gender and age. Transport Reviews, 37(1), 29-55.
  • AUAP-Ankara Ulaşım Ana Planı (2014). Ankara metropoliten alanı ve yakın çevresi ulaşım ana planı hanehalkı araştırması, Ankara: Ulaşım Plan Ofisi.
  • Bosoni, M. L. (2014). “Breadwinners” or “Involved Fathers?” Men, fathers and work in Italy. Journal Of Comparative Family Studies, 45(2), 293-315.
  • Boumans, A. ve Harms, L. (2004). Part-time employment and travel patterns of women in the Netherlands. Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation Report of Conference, Volume 2: Technical Papers, 113.
  • BLS-Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003). American time use survey. U.S. Department of Labor.
  • Cao, X., ve P. Mokhtarian. (2004). How do individualsmanage their personal travel? objective and subjectiveinfluences on the consideration of travel-relatedstrategies. Presented at 83rd Annual Meeting of theTransportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
  • Chapple K, (2001). Time to work: job search strategies and commute time for women on welfare in San Francisco. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23, 155-173.
  • CIVITAS (2015) Policy Notes: Smart choices for cities gender equality and mobility: mind the gap! 25.09.2019 tarihinde https://civitas.eu/sites/default/files/civ_pol-an2_m_web.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Dunckel-Graglia, A. (2013). Rosa, el nuevo color del feminismo: un análisis del transporte exclusivo para mujeres. La Ventana. Revista de Estudios de Género, 4(37), 148-176.
  • Gordon, P., Kumar, A. ve H. Richardson. (1989). Gender differences in metropolitan travel behavior. Regional Studies, 23(6), 499–510.
  • Granville, S., ve Campbell-Jack, D. (2005). Anti-social behaviour on buses. Scottish Executive Social Research. 11.10.2019 tarihinde https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20180518065257/ http://www.-gov.scot/Publications/2005/03/20783/53886 adreslerinden erişilmiştir.
  • Helling A. (2004). Connection between travel and physical activity differences by age and gender.Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation Report of Conference, Volume 2: Technical Papers, 76-77.
  • Kaufmann V. (2002.) Re-thinking mobility. Aldershot: Ashgate.
  • Kronsell, A., Smidfelt Rosqvist, L., ve Winslott Hiselius, L. (2016). Achieving climate objectives in transport policy by including women and challenging gender norms: The Swedish case. International Journal Of Sustainable Transportation, 10(8), 703-711.
  • Law R, (1999). Beyond ‘women and transport’: towards new geographies of gender and Daily mobility” Progress in Human Geography, 23(4) 567-588.
  • Li, H. Guensler R. ve Ogle, J. (2004). Comparing women’s and men’s morning commute trip chaining in Atlanta, Georgia, by using instrumented vehicle activity data. Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation Report of Conference, Volume 2: Technical Papers, 14-20.
  • Li, H., Raeside, R., Chen, T., ve McQuaid, R. W. (2012). Population ageing, gender and the transportation system. Research in Transportation Economics, 34(1), 39-47.
  • Lu X. ve Pas E, (1998). Socio-demographics, activity participation and travel behavior. Transportation Research Part A, 33, 1-18.
  • Mejia-Dorantes, L. (2018). An example of working women in Mexico City: How can their vision reshape transport policy? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 116, 97-111.
  • Monat, J. P. (2018). Explaining natural patterns using systems thinking, American Journal of Systems Science, 6(1), 1-15.
  • Noble, B. (2000). Travel characteristics of older people. Transport Trends,2000,9-25.
  • Özkazanç, S. (2018). Analysis of urban transportation in the context of gender: The case of Ankara. Recent Researches in Science and Landscape Management içinde, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Polk, M., (2008). Gender mainstreaming in Swedish transport policy. (Uteng, T.P., Cresswell, T. Editör), Gendered Mobilities içinde (s.229-243) . Ashgate, Aldershot,
  • TÜİK (2014). Hanehalkı işgücü istatistikleri. Ankara:TÜİK Haber Bülteni.
  • Turner, J., ve Grieco, M. (2000). Gender and time poverty: the neglected social policy implications of gendered time, transport and travel. Time & Society, 9(1), 129-136.
  • UN Women, (2016). Improving women's safety in Mexico City. 11.10.2019 tarihinde https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2016/11/improving-womens-safety-in-mexico-city adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Uteng, T. P. (2011). Gender and mobility in the developing world: background paper-part i-gendered daily mobility. World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development, 4-17.
  • Vassileva, I., ve Campillo, J. (2017). Adoption barriers for electric vehicles: Experiences from early adopters in Sweden. Energy, 120, 632-641.

Determining of Women-Sensitive Transportation Approach and Policy Production: The Case of Ankara

Year 2020, Volume: 15 Issue: 23, 1993 - 2010, 31.03.2020
https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.632122

Abstract

Nowadays, the time spent in urban transportation varies from the point of view of urban physical space, depending on the development of land use and transportation infrastructure. From the individual point of view, the most important indicator of the difference in travel time can be considered as gender, age group, type of transport used, travel chain and travel purpose. Women and men of different age groups, traveling for different journeys, using different types of transportation, travels in different times. By ignoring these differences, local governments assume a similar level of urban mobility by assuming that each individual has a similar urban mobility, and they offer a certain level of public transport service with a priority for a male-dominated society. This negatively affects the daily mobility of women and restricts women's participation in urban life and the city's mobility. This study provides recommendations for the development of women-sensitive transport priorities, in particular for public transport systems and vehicles, which will guide urban policy makers, local authorities and those working in urban transport. The aim of this study is to examine the sample practices in the cities of Vienna, Berlin and Malmö, and to support the suggestions by evaluating the transportation behaviors of the women living in a metropolitan city with the data obtained from the household surveys conducted in 2013 in Ankara.

References

  • Aldred, R., Elliott, B., Woodcock, J., ve Goodman, A. (2017). Cycling provision separated from motor traffic: a systematic review exploring whether stated preferences vary by gender and age. Transport Reviews, 37(1), 29-55.
  • AUAP-Ankara Ulaşım Ana Planı (2014). Ankara metropoliten alanı ve yakın çevresi ulaşım ana planı hanehalkı araştırması, Ankara: Ulaşım Plan Ofisi.
  • Bosoni, M. L. (2014). “Breadwinners” or “Involved Fathers?” Men, fathers and work in Italy. Journal Of Comparative Family Studies, 45(2), 293-315.
  • Boumans, A. ve Harms, L. (2004). Part-time employment and travel patterns of women in the Netherlands. Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation Report of Conference, Volume 2: Technical Papers, 113.
  • BLS-Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003). American time use survey. U.S. Department of Labor.
  • Cao, X., ve P. Mokhtarian. (2004). How do individualsmanage their personal travel? objective and subjectiveinfluences on the consideration of travel-relatedstrategies. Presented at 83rd Annual Meeting of theTransportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
  • Chapple K, (2001). Time to work: job search strategies and commute time for women on welfare in San Francisco. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23, 155-173.
  • CIVITAS (2015) Policy Notes: Smart choices for cities gender equality and mobility: mind the gap! 25.09.2019 tarihinde https://civitas.eu/sites/default/files/civ_pol-an2_m_web.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Dunckel-Graglia, A. (2013). Rosa, el nuevo color del feminismo: un análisis del transporte exclusivo para mujeres. La Ventana. Revista de Estudios de Género, 4(37), 148-176.
  • Gordon, P., Kumar, A. ve H. Richardson. (1989). Gender differences in metropolitan travel behavior. Regional Studies, 23(6), 499–510.
  • Granville, S., ve Campbell-Jack, D. (2005). Anti-social behaviour on buses. Scottish Executive Social Research. 11.10.2019 tarihinde https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20180518065257/ http://www.-gov.scot/Publications/2005/03/20783/53886 adreslerinden erişilmiştir.
  • Helling A. (2004). Connection between travel and physical activity differences by age and gender.Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation Report of Conference, Volume 2: Technical Papers, 76-77.
  • Kaufmann V. (2002.) Re-thinking mobility. Aldershot: Ashgate.
  • Kronsell, A., Smidfelt Rosqvist, L., ve Winslott Hiselius, L. (2016). Achieving climate objectives in transport policy by including women and challenging gender norms: The Swedish case. International Journal Of Sustainable Transportation, 10(8), 703-711.
  • Law R, (1999). Beyond ‘women and transport’: towards new geographies of gender and Daily mobility” Progress in Human Geography, 23(4) 567-588.
  • Li, H. Guensler R. ve Ogle, J. (2004). Comparing women’s and men’s morning commute trip chaining in Atlanta, Georgia, by using instrumented vehicle activity data. Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation Report of Conference, Volume 2: Technical Papers, 14-20.
  • Li, H., Raeside, R., Chen, T., ve McQuaid, R. W. (2012). Population ageing, gender and the transportation system. Research in Transportation Economics, 34(1), 39-47.
  • Lu X. ve Pas E, (1998). Socio-demographics, activity participation and travel behavior. Transportation Research Part A, 33, 1-18.
  • Mejia-Dorantes, L. (2018). An example of working women in Mexico City: How can their vision reshape transport policy? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 116, 97-111.
  • Monat, J. P. (2018). Explaining natural patterns using systems thinking, American Journal of Systems Science, 6(1), 1-15.
  • Noble, B. (2000). Travel characteristics of older people. Transport Trends,2000,9-25.
  • Özkazanç, S. (2018). Analysis of urban transportation in the context of gender: The case of Ankara. Recent Researches in Science and Landscape Management içinde, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Polk, M., (2008). Gender mainstreaming in Swedish transport policy. (Uteng, T.P., Cresswell, T. Editör), Gendered Mobilities içinde (s.229-243) . Ashgate, Aldershot,
  • TÜİK (2014). Hanehalkı işgücü istatistikleri. Ankara:TÜİK Haber Bülteni.
  • Turner, J., ve Grieco, M. (2000). Gender and time poverty: the neglected social policy implications of gendered time, transport and travel. Time & Society, 9(1), 129-136.
  • UN Women, (2016). Improving women's safety in Mexico City. 11.10.2019 tarihinde https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2016/11/improving-womens-safety-in-mexico-city adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Uteng, T. P. (2011). Gender and mobility in the developing world: background paper-part i-gendered daily mobility. World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development, 4-17.
  • Vassileva, I., ve Campillo, J. (2017). Adoption barriers for electric vehicles: Experiences from early adopters in Sweden. Energy, 120, 632-641.
There are 28 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Operation
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Hatice Gül Önder 0000-0002-4794-6923

Publication Date March 31, 2020
Acceptance Date March 11, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020 Volume: 15 Issue: 23

Cite

APA Önder, H. G. (2020). Kadın Duyarlı Ulaşım Önceliklerinin Belirlenmesi ve Politika Üretimi: Ankara Örneği. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 15(23), 1993-2010. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.632122