Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
Inclusion of Gender Views for the Evaluation and Mitigation of
Urban Vulnerability: A Case Study in Castellón
Patricia Huedo 1,2, María JoséRuá1,2,3,* , Laura Florez-Perez 4and Raquel Agost-Felip 3,5
Citation: Huedo, P.; Ruá, M.J.;
Florez-Perez, L.; Agost-Felip, R.
Inclusion of Gender Views for the
Evaluation and Mitigation of Urban
Vulnerability: A Case Study in
Castellón. Sustainability 2021,13,
10062. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su131810062
Academic Editor: Fred Krüger
Received: 1 July 2021
Accepted: 3 September 2021
Published: 8 September 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Department of Mechanical Engineering and Construction, Campus Riu Sec, School of Technology and
Experimental Sciences, Jaume University, 12071 Castellóde la Plana, Spain; huedo@uji.es
2Campus Riu Sec, Universitary Institute of Feminist and Gender Studies, Jaume University,
12071 Castellóde la Plana, Spain
3Campus Riu Sec, Interuniversitary Institute of Local Development, Jaume University,
12071 Castellóde la Plana, Spain; ragost@uji.es
4Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
l.florez@ucl.ac.uk
5
Departament of Developmental, Educational and Social Psychology and Methodology, Faculty of Humanities
and Social Sciences, Campus Riu Sec, Jaume University, 12071 Castellóde la Plana, Spain
*Correspondence: rua@uji.es
Abstract:
The inclusion of gender views in every field and, especially, in urbanism, has become crucial
for urban planning. Considering both men’s and women’s interests in an integrated gender equality
perspective provides better results that improve the quality of public spaces and engenders a more
sustainable society. However, to realize such benefits, efforts are required not only to understand
the needs and preferences of urban residents but also to shape policies and develop strategies to
mitigate vulnerability with population involvement. In order to help decision makers at the urban
level evaluate vulnerability with the inclusion of gender views, this study proposes a model that
incorporates the specificities of urban fabric users that face adverse conditions. The model is based on
a structured and standardized checklist of key topics that could be applied to any urban development.
From this checklist, a list of categories, subcategories, and indicators were proposed and validated
using the inter-judge agreement technique. To illustrate this model, this paper presents the case study
of Castellón (Spain) in which deprived neighborhoods were analyzed, updating a previous model
intended only to detect vulnerability. The results help link policy making to social vulnerability and
indicate strategies to reach inclusive neighborhoods via a gender equality approach.
Keywords:
gender views; indicators; urban planning; distressed areas; social inclusion; vulnerabil-
ity evaluation
1. Introduction
According to the World Organization Prospects of 2018, Europe had nearly three-
quarters of its population living in urban areas in 2018, and this is expected to reach 80%
in 2040 and nearly 85% in 2050. The United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by UN Member
States in 2015, embody a roadmap for progress that is sustainable and leaves no one behind.
The 11th SDG focuses on sustainable communities and cities and calls for action to make
cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. The 11th SDG also
states that taking into account gender views is crucial to developing sustainable urban
environments to minimize inequality. The 5th SDG, specifically centers on gender equality
and calls for urgent action to eliminate the many root causes of discrimination that still
limit women’s rights in private and public spheres. These two goals are not the only ones
that include gender equality as an integral part of inclusive and sustainable development.
Achieving gender equality is transversally included in all 17 SDGs. The UN recognizes
that only by ensuring gender equality, will there be justice and inclusion, economies that
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810062 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 2 of 23
work for all and leave no one behind, and a sustained and shared environment for present
and future generations [1].
The New Urban Agenda (NUA) [
2
] is aligned with the SDGs and states that urbaniza-
tion is a driving force for sustained and inclusive economic growth, social, and cultural
development and protection of the environment. Consequently, special attention should
be paid in urban areas to people in vulnerable situations (women, children, people with
disabilities, and the elderly) by developing programs for regenerating distressed and in-
adequate areas such as slums. It is clear that urbanism in the 21st century needs to adapt
to sustainable development, searching for inclusive and person-centered models, greener
and more physically active areas, and spaces that are resilient to climate change through
the reconfiguration of urban and transport structures [
3
–
5
]. Moreover, urban areas need
to look for more social-oriented models promoting inclusion of vulnerable people and a
commitment for gender equality, aligned with gender views.
Gender views are necessary for urban planning, as stated by the SDGs and NUA.
However, the inclusion of gender views in urban planning policies (gender mainstreaming
in urbanism, GMU) is limited [
3
]. Recently, it was found that, even in the Global North, the
5th and 11th SDGs have not been appropriately included in the urban planning of cities
and towns. Specifically, government and private institutions (at all levels and processes)
have not considered gender views from the urban population as well as gender experts.
This needs to advance so that changes can last through time and can reach inclusive neigh-
borhoods [
6
]. A strategy towards including GMU involves the integration of a gender
perspective in the preparation and content of policies and an appropriate representation
of gender across the decision-making process [
3
,
7
]. In addition to gender, other factors,
such as age, mobility levels, socio-economic backgrounds, and social roles, must be taken
into account [
8
]. Physical and social interaction must also be analyzed, for instance, how
different social groups acquire public spaces and how they utilize them. Therefore, a more
inclusive urban planning model could contribute to reduce inequalities by planning safer
public spaces and adequate mobility chains, more facilities to support reproduction and
care work, spatial structures that encourage new forms of collective self-organization, and
safe and convenient transportation means among other factors [
4
,
9
–
11
]. This is especially
relevant in areas where a higher index of vulnerable populations are concentrated. Ur-
ban vulnerability can be defined as the process produced by the combination of many
disadvantaged dimensions in which any possibility of upward social mobility, and over-
coming social condition exclusions, is extremely hard to achieve [
12
]. Usually, the more
vulnerable and distressed areas lack basic services and have a higher number of obso-
lete buildings, unfavorable social characteristics, vulnerable people, and more prominent
gender differences [
12
,
13
]. Since economic resources are limited, vulnerable areas should
be prioritized to undertake urban interventions, as they have more problems and more
urgent needs. In the 1960s, Henri Lefebvre highlighted that many urban processes had
been a contributing source of inequality and injustice. This was due to the consideration of
the space, such as a simple container of buildings and population, while he argued that
space was constituted by social relations and that all groups should have a “right to the
city”. Since then, other authors have focused on this aspect, as it was analyzed by Susan
Fainstein in [
14
]. Fainstein pointed out the role of urban policies to benefit disadvantaged
social groups by implementing programs to enhance equity and to promote diversity,
ending discriminatory zoning. GMU reflects all these issues perfectly and, as a result, a
more inclusive model can be achieved by adopting this view [
15
–
21
]. The inclusion of
GMU and gender mainstreaming in policy making is a transformative approach that has
great potential for social development and change [
22
]. However, current literature in
urban planning is scattered and lacks a standard method that may help decision makers
evaluate vulnerability with a gender equality perspective, while, at the same time, looking
at accommodating diversity, variation in geomorphological features, historical evolution,
and particularities of urban environments.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 3 of 23
This article proposes a model that improves urban planning for vulnerable areas with
the inclusion of gender perspectives. The model is a set of indicators that help decision
makers evaluate vulnerability in urban areas where residential and social unfavorable
conditions concur. In addition, the indicators point out practical strategies that can be
adapted by urban cities that aim to mitigate vulnerability and maximize gender inclusion
in all aspects of a city.
To develop the indicators, an extensive list of structured and standardized key topics
(extracted from the literature and complemented with real practices) was identified, which
incorporate the gender perspective in urban planning. From this list, categories and
subcategories were developed. The categories and subcategories are comprehensive and
universal, so that any city that wants to include gender views can use these, ensuring
that all aspects related to gender urban planning are included. From the categories and
subcategories, a set of measurable indicators was proposed that help assess the extent of
vulnerability in a city and the inclusion of gender. In this particular case, a set example
of indicators was proposed for the city of Castellón (Spain). The set of indicators was
reviewed and validated by experts with extensive experience in urbanism, architecture,
and planning. Note that indicators are flexible and can be adapted to the specificities of any
urban environment, while considering the availability of information. The ones proposed
here can be a starting point for any city with similar conditions or re-adapted depending
on the context of each city. The validated indicators were grouped into an Advanced and
Inclusive Model (AIM) that helps decision makers evaluate vulnerability, include gender
perspectives, and adopt measures with an integrated approach for sustainability in urban
planning. To illustrate the operation of the AIM, the vulnerable areas in Castellón (Spain)
were analyzed and discussed.
Background
Early studies in gender inclusion date back to the 1960s and contribute to visualizing
the lack of attention paid so far to women’s needs and requirements at the urban scale.
In 1962, during a conference on urban planning in Berlin, Elena Arregui Cruz-López
collected evidence related to housing and urban planning from the perspective of women
in the report entitled “Participation of Women in Housing Problems” edited in 1964 by the
Ministry of Housing [
23
]. Hayden (1980) identified the need to consider women’s activities
and how these fit into the environments of home, neighborhood, and city [
24
]. With this
new perspective, in the 1980s and onwards, theoretical interest towards gender equality
increased as scholars recognized that progress was slow and sector based. This work
resulted in a relevant step to advance gender equality by increasing the social visibility of
groups that had been particularly neglected during the planning process [
25
]. The concept
of gender mainstreaming was first introduced at the 1985 Nairobi World Conference on
Women (UN, 1985). It was established as a strategy in international gender equality policy
through the Beijing Platform for Action, adopted at the 1995 Fourth United Nations World
Conference on Women in Beijing, as a tool to promote gender equality at all levels (UN,
1995). In 1997, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) defined gender
mainstreaming as: “The process of assessing the implications for women and men of
any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all
levels. The ultimate goal is to achieve gender equality”. In 1998, the Council of Europe
defined gender mainstreaming as “The (re)organisation, improvement, development, and
evaluation of policy processes, so that a gender equality perspective is incorporated in all
processes by the actors normally involved in policy-making”.
Following the efforts from the Council of Europe, the EU adopted the concept of
gender mainstreaming in the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999) as a policy that placed the
contribution of both men and women at the center of attention for development [
19
].
According to Valdivia, the first GMU studies [
26
] were crucial for increasing the theoretical
interest in the connections between planning and gender and establishing the link between
gender roles and spatial divisions. Greed emphasized the role of street layout, building
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 4 of 23
density, alongside the design of houses in social issues such as crime, security, childcare,
traffic problems, and accessibility [
27
]. Larsson identified the imbalance between public–
private, reproduction–production, and paid work–unpaid work in relation to the various
levels of planning [
28
]. Carrasco analyzed the design of public space from the perspective
of car users, resulting in a progressive loss of urban space for pedestrians and unsafe,
congested, and noisy streets [
29
]. Sánchez de Madariaga argued that the care crisis entails
a great opportunity to make a structural critique of the socioeconomic system and to
incorporate gender as a central category of economic discourse [
30
]. Gender mainstreaming
has now been widely recognized as a strategy that improves neighborhood and housing
industry planning, creates suitable urban patterns, reliable transportation systems, and
better structures of social services by increasing the participation of users, both men and
women, in the planning and design of urban environments.
The Vienna City Council was a pioneer in gender mainstreaming applied to urban
planning. In the 1990s, the Vienna Municipality introduced the gender perspective in
public spaces and social housing and developed a set of actions resulting in many beneficial
results [
5
,
31
]. By considering all users of public spaces, not only from a gender perspective
but also from a social-, ethnic-, and health-related perspective, the city was able to better
meet the needs and demands of all its citizens and thereby improve the quality of public
services. Benefits included greater accessibility to cemeteries for the elderly, better lighting
for increased safety in public spaces, and gender-sensitive education in day care centers to
avoid traditional gender roles, among others. The Manual for Gender Mainstreaming in
Urban Planning and Urban Development, published by Vienna’s City Council in 2013, is
a testament to this. It states that gender mainstreaming should be viewed as a “vertical
issue” that supports the overall consideration of gender-sensitive aspects in all steps of the
planning process to ensure high-quality planning [
32
]. Another successful implementation
of gender mainstreaming into urban planning was the Women in Cities International work,
initiated in Montreal in the early 1990s and widely adopted in gender-sensitive space
design across Canada [
33
]. It aimed to increase the capacity of being seen in the public
space by encouraging women’s route choices within urban environments and an increase
in activity in the streets [
34
]. Other successful examples of gender mainstreaming applied
to urbanism include the cities of Dortmund in Germany [
7
], Thiva in Greece [
35
], Caracas
in Venezuela [
8
], Bristol in the UK [
36
], and Blantyre in Malawi [
37
]. The inclusion of
gender equality is an opportunity to find theoretical and political convergences between
feminist economists and other schools of critical economists. Major structural changes
in societies, such as the need for support services for families and dependent people, the
recognition of care work for people, transportation and accessibility, and safer spaces, pose
new challenges to urban planning, and GMU can practically guide these changes.
2. Materials and Methods
This research study was developed in various stages to answer the four research
questions (RQ1 to RQ4) stated in Figure 1. Next to the research questions, the methodology
employed in each stage is identified (seen in blue) as well as the main results obtained
(seen in yellow).
The first stage was to build the theoretical framework to answer RQ1: what are the
main gender issues in gender planning?
A literature review on gender views was undertaken to determine a structured and
standardized list of key topics. The gender perspective derived from the review of academic
sources was mainly linked to social sciences and health issues. An initial search in Scopus
was performed using the keywords “Gender AND Urban Planning”, and this led to
1584 references
. The list was reduced to 175 references (including articles, books, and
reviews) when the area of application was narrowed to urban studies. The same procedure
in WOS resulted initially in 2035 references, and it was reduced to 110 references after the
area of application was defined. Since there have been numerous studies around gender
mainstreaming in urbanism within the Spanish context, the Spanish database Dialnet
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 5 of 23
was used, introducing the Spanish keywords “Perspectiva de Género y Urbanismo”, and
limiting the sample to journal articles, with an outcome of 541 references. These references
were reduced by deleting those not directly connected to the topic. The review was
supported by growing international policy-based literature (not reflected in the academic
literature), which offered a good notion of the application of gender-sensitive practices to
urban planning. Some general handbooks and guidelines from international organizations
and from regional governments and municipalities, reflecting some successful practices and
recommendations, were also reviewed. Particularly, the innovative examples of the cities
of Montreal and Vienna. These two examples were useful sources on how to successfully
integrate the gender perspective to urban planning and for considering that the city, or
perhaps the neighborhood in bigger cities, can be the operative unit for urban planning.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 25
Figure 1. Stages and methodology.
The first stage was to build the theoretical framework to answer RQ1: what are the
main gender issues in gender planning?
A literature review on gender views was undertaken to determine a structured and
standardized list of key topics. The gender perspective derived from the review of aca-
demic sources was mainly linked to social sciences and health issues. An initial search in
Scopus was performed using the keywords “Gender AND Urban Planning”, and this led
to 1584 references. The list was reduced to 175 references (including articles, books, and
reviews) when the area of application was narrowed to urban studies. The same proce-
dure in WOS resulted initially in 2035 references, and it was reduced to 110 references
after the area of application was defined. Since there have been numerous studies around
gender mainstreaming in urbanism within the Spanish context, the Spanish database Di-
alnet was used, introducing the Spanish keywords “Perspectiva de Género y Urbanismo”,
and limiting the sample to journal articles, with an outcome of 541 references. These ref-
erences were reduced by deleting those not directly connected to the topic. The review
was supported by growing international policy-based literature (not reflected in the aca-
demic literature), which offered a good notion of the application of gender-sensitive prac-
tices to urban planning. Some general handbooks and guidelines from international or-
ganizations and from regional governments and municipalities, reflecting some success-
ful practices and recommendations, were also reviewed. Particularly, the innovative ex-
amples of the cities of Montreal and Vienna. These two examples were useful sources on
how to successfully integrate the gender perspective to urban planning and for consider-
ing that the city, or perhaps the neighborhood in bigger cities, can be the operative unit
for urban planning.
From the review, it was found that gender perspective in urban planning research
has typically focused on safety [38–41], women’s participation in urban planning [42–44],
accessibility [45,46], care services [47], transport [48,49], and housing [50]. Research on
site-specific problems has also considered its link to different views (in particular cultural
contexts and environments) [39,51] but rarely included criteria of gender views in urban
design with a holistic approach aimed at improving conditions in vulnerable areas. The
Figure 1. Stages and methodology.
From the review, it was found that gender perspective in urban planning research
has typically focused on safety [
38
–
41
], women’s participation in urban
planning [42–44]
,
accessibility [
45
,
46
], care services [
47
], transport [
48
,
49
], and housing [
50
]. Research on
site-specific problems has also considered its link to different views (in particular cultural
contexts and environments) [
39
,
51
] but rarely included criteria of gender views in urban
design with a holistic approach aimed at improving conditions in vulnerable areas. The
latter was the basis to propose a model of indicators that include gender views in urban
planning in distressed areas. Consideration of this holistic approach is important because
a factor of vulnerability related to underrepresentation may be addressed by including
gender aspects. In other words, efforts are required to understand the needs and preferences
of urban residents, both men and women. Equally, one gender aspect may assist in
developing another aspect, and this will help shape policies and develop strategies to
mitigate vulnerability with population involvement. These considerations enrich research
by offering insights into the interplay between vulnerability, gender, and urban planning.
The second stage was to develop a checklist with all of the key concepts identified in
the review to systematically apply gender views into urban planning. This stage answers
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 6 of 23
RQ2: How can the issues be grouped in a systematic and practical way? Once the review
was completed and the key topics were identified, these were organized into the categories
of vulnerability (from the previous model) while considering research studies on vulnera-
bility [
52
]. The categories were then divided into subcategories that matched the key topics
in gender. The subcategories are comprehensive and universal, so that any city that wants
to include gender views in the evaluation of vulnerability can use these.
As shown in Figure 1, from the review, 20 key topics for evaluating gender-sensitive
urban design were identified. The key topics include gender views, are grounded, and
standardized, that is, they are practical and can be systematically used in different urban
contexts.
The third stage was the application of the categories and subcategories to evaluate
gender views using a case study. This responds to RQ3: How can the key topics be
translated into quantifiable metrics?
As urban planning is inevitably dependent on the specificities of the physical layout
and the socio-economic features of each context, for clarity it was necessary to organize the
key topics in categories and subcategories. From the categories and subcategories, measur-
able indicators were proposed that could be used to evaluate vulnerability with a gender
perspective, especially in vulnerable areas. In order to validate the indicators, the initial list
was subjected to an evaluation from experts. The purpose of the experts’ assessment was to
determine whether the set of indicators was comprehensive and in agreement with actual
and local needs. The selection of the experts was based on the following criteria: indepen-
dent, knowledge in gender perspective in the urban environment, similar educational and
cultural background, and more than 10 years of experience in architecture, urbanism, and
planning [
53
]. A group of nine experts evaluated the model through a survey in May 2021.
The experts held the following positions (number of years of experience are in parenthesis):
Head of the Valencian Institute of Building (25); Professor at University of Zaragoza and
Director of “Cátedra Zaragoza Vivienda” in the School of Architecture funded by the
Zaragoza Housing Municipal Society (22); Professor and expert in Gender Mainstreaming
in University of Seville (20); President of the Professional Association of Architects in
Castellón (21); Head of the Department of Social Services in the Municipality of Castellón
(35); two PhD architects conducting research (Polytechnic University of Valencia (20) and
University of Seville (12)); two architects–urbanists from professional studios (both with 15
of professional experience). Initially, there were
12 people
in the group of experts, but three
surveys were not included because the expertise did not exceed 10 years of professional
career. The final group consisted of 7 women and 2 men, representing researchers and
experts from the academic, professional, and institutional world in order to have a broader
perspective. They were selected because of their knowledge with the topic and on the
particularities of the case study.
The evaluation from the experts was performed in line with the inter-judge agreement
technique [
54
,
55
]. This is an expert consultation technique based on the agreement among
different people with similar expertise and knowledge in a particular field. The experts
were asked to respond to a survey to evaluate the relevance of the proposed indicators,
using a five-point Likert scale, (1—not important (NI), 2—slightly not important (SNI),
3—not important nor important (NNI), 4—important (I), and 5—very important (VI)).
The survey also had open-ended questions, where experts were required to suggest new
indicators not included in the initial list and to make suggestions for the model. With
the responses from the experts, each indicator that reached a minimum level of 50%
agreement value (from the experts) was accepted. As the level of agreement measured the
perceived importance of the indicators, it was used as a weight factor of each indicator.
The aggregated weights were used in order to obtain a global index.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 7 of 23
To obtain the global index, the values of the indicators had to be standardized. To
do so, the interval linear scaling technique was used to obtain synthetic indices with
comparable levels among all the different indicators [
56
]. The standardized value Ivul
i
was
calculated according to two scenarios:
Here is a direct relation between the index and the indicator. For example, the
percentage of dwellings with lack of accessibility conditions is directly linked to the number
of users. This is calculated using Equation (1):
Ivuli= (vi −vith)/(vimax −vith ) (1)
In Equation (1), Ivul
i
= vulnerability for indicator i, vi = estimated value for indicator i,
vi
th
= threshold value indicating vulnerability for indicator i, and vi
max
= maximum value
observed for indicator i.
There is a reverse relation between the index and the indicator. For example, the
greener area, the less vulnerability. The calculation is made using Equation (2):
Ivuli = (vi −vith)/(vith −vimax ) (2)
In Equation (1), Ivuli = vulnerability for indicator i, vi = estimated value for indicator
i, vi
th
= threshold value indicating vulnerability for indicator i, and vi
min
= minimum value
observed for indicator i.
This standardization resulted in dimensionless indicators, with values in the interval
[0,1], where 0 represents no vulnerability, and 1 represents maximum vulnerability. In
other words, the closer the indicator was to 1, the higher the vulnerability. As the number
of indicators (n) can vary from one category to another, and in order to assign the same
weight to each category, the index of vulnerability for each category Ivul
j
was calculated,
using Equation (3):
Ivulj=∑fi×Ivuli/n (3)
In Equation (3), Ivul
j
= index for category, f = weight according to experts for indicator
i, Ivuli = estimated value for indicator i, and n = number of indicators in category j.
The global index was then obtained, representing the sum of the indexes of all cate-
gories, which allowed for the detection of the highest vulnerability from an integrated view.
The equation for the global index is the sum of all categories as defined by Equation (4):
IGvul = Ivulj/m (4)
where IGvul is the global index of vulnerability, and Ivul
j
is the index of vulnerability for
category j; m: number of categories.
This global index (see Equation (4)) is a combination of categories and indicators that
are used to evaluate the gender view in any urban intervention. To illustrate the model, a
case study of Castellón is presented below.
Since this model includes the vulnerability aspect (from the previous model) and the
inclusion of gender views, the answer to RQ4 is stated, i.e., the contribution of this new
model is described and stated in the Discussion and Conclusion sections.
3. Results
3.1. Key Topics for Gender-Sensitive Urban Design
From the desk review of the literature, 40 references were selected because these
offered a comprehensive approach to achieving gender-sensitive urban design (see Table 1).
From the references, 20 key topics for the applicability of gender views in urban planning
were identified:
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 8 of 23
1.
Compactness is connected to the form and arrangement of urban areas including
spatial design, distribution of land-use subcategories, and transportation networks. A
compact city makes it considerably easier to reconcile the requirements of work and
family life [57];
2.
Public open space includes parks and reserves; sport fields; riparian zones, such
as streams and riverbanks; greenways and trails; community gardens; street trees;
nature conservation areas [
58
]. These spaces are available for users and where the
public life of the city plays out and civic identity is defined [59];
3.
Mobility and public transport is often framed as a vital component to developing
sustainable cities [
3
,
60
]. A well-designed and citizen-friendly transportation system
improves the compatibility of work life and daily tasks [61];
4.
The perception of safety in public spaces promotes the feeling of security in public
spaces, and special attention must be paid to provide adequate lighting in walking
paths for pedestrians and walls, fences, and stairs that create hidden corners with
difficult accessibility. According to Chestnutt, linking buildings to outdoor spaces
can create amenity value and ensure sufficient options for the appropriation of public
spaces [62];
5.
Walkability and accessibility: The goal is to create infrastructure, urban spaces, and
equipment tailored for people’s needs in order to ease pedestrian and autonomous
mobility. This refers to wide sidewalks, with differentiation of materials, colors, and
textures, railings and ramps in sloped areas, differentiated pedestrian crossings with
traffic lights, and benches with shadows. This not only supports people with reduced
mobility but also facilitates people’s lives with caregiving and family responsibili-
ties [63];
6.
Mixed-use planning in terms of urban development where residential, commercial,
cultural, institutional, or entertainment uses are physically and functionally integrated
and provide pedestrian connections. The goal lies in preserving and/or developing a
decentralized distribution of facilities based on measures that promote public service
and infrastructure facilities close to public transport stops [64];
7.
Care facilities and equipment supply is expanded when society recognizes, assumes,
and values work derived from gender roles. The goal is to create or improve access
to care facilities for dependent people, the elderly, or children, ensuring accessible
and affordable services. Additionally, it enables people with care responsibilities to
balance these with their work activities;
8.
Visibility of women: Gendered stereotypes can have the effect of promoting fixed
ideas about what women can become and their needs [
65
]. The aim is to make
women visible in cities with measures such as placing names of prominent women in
history to streets and squares in the city, promoting equal urban signs, and controlling
discriminatory adverts;
9.
Housing design to improve affordability: Currently, there are different types of
families, so housing must be designed according to the particular needs of each family.
Various funding and development models as well as different types of housing all
guarantee a high level of potential for assimilation of the diversity of user groups [
62
];
10.
Energy-efficient housing: The deterioration and lack of insulation in many homes
results in higher costs to keep them at a suitable temperature, which is not affordable.
The urban agenda of the EU partnership on housing has found that women and,
especially low-income and vulnerable groups of women, are more likely to experience
energy poverty [66];
11.
Accessible housing should be seen as a way to facilitate greater autonomy for depen-
dent people, guaranteeing universal accessibility to and inside houses [67];
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 9 of 23
12.
Quality housing: Marginalized women are also likely to be impacted by the lack of
quality housing. This results in temporary or precarious accommodation [68];
13. Disaggregated statistical data by gender are of interest to sociologists and social work-
ers to determine actual statistical results [
69
]. Information should be disaggregated
based on sex to compare and contrast the situation that men and women, and boys
and girls, experience in terms of accessibility, opportunities, roles, and responsibilities;
14.
Violence and security: Violence against women is a violation of human rights. Mu-
nicipal plans could be revised to include steps to limit violence against women by
providing shelter and refuge and support for organizations offering special assistance
to women [
3
]. Security, related to the influence of police interventions on human
safety and other factors contributing to the well-being of neighborhoods, should be
incremented [70,71];
15.
Social housing involves ensuring allocation and other resources based on balanced
social priorities. Women with low incomes are disproportionately represented, as
they are often the head of households in single-parent families. Thus, poor women
and single parents are more reliant on social housing than men [72];
16.
Paid and unpaid work: Urban planning strategies are often based on a unilateral
vision of the economy; that is, it only measures the paid work of employed people
who drive a car to get to work and during regular working hours. In most cases, care
responsibilities or unpaid work are not taken into account. Plans should include aid
for unpaid work [73];
17.
Social subsidies: Economic aid is available for basic needs (food, hygiene, and school
canteens), housing expenses (rent, energy poverty, water, electricity, and gas supply),
other expenses (nursery schools, glasses, appliances), and job training. Data regarding
beneficiaries of social service aid inclusion indicate there is a vulnerable population
of women who take care of dependent people and do not have access to these aid
programs [66];
18. Level of education: Urbanization involves major changes in the way people work and
live. It offers opportunities for improved standards of living, higher life expectancy,
and higher literacy levels [
73
]. Certain groups of women are particularly vulnerable,
especially those with low levels of education and skills.
19. Housing market: The cost of accommodation in inadequate and overcrowded housing
takes up a disproportionate part of low-income people’s earnings [
73
]. Housing is a
major factor in urban poverty affecting women;
20.
Women’s and men’s participation in formal and informal decision making is uneven.
Gender equality must be guaranteed at all levels, because women are underrepre-
sented not only in the political scene but also in decision making within their villages,
the private sector, and in civil society (OCDE, 2020).
Once the 20 key topics were identified, they were then grouped into categories and
subcategories for the implementation of gender mainstreaming for urban planning.
Table 1
presents the main references on gender and urban planning that were reviewed and
synthetized, tagging the identified key topics. The last row in Table 1presents the frequency
(as a percentage) of each topic. Note that women’s role in decision making (key topic 20) is
present in most of the references (69%), followed by public open space (key topic 2) (67%),
care facilities (key topic 7) (62%), and mobility–public transport (key topic 3) (56%). This is
in contrast to two key topics, energy efficiency and social subsidies (key topics 10 and 17),
which are named in only 9% of the references, followed, surprisingly, by women’s level of
education (key topic 11) (11%).
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 10 of 23
Table 1. Final selection of references from the desk review and identification of key topics.
Topics
References, Year, Country, Type of Document 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Jacobs, 1961 [74], US, (B)
x x
Hayden, 1980 [23], US, (A)
x x
x
Kennedy, 1981 [75], Germany, (A)
x x
Sarmento and Pareja, 2002 [76], Brazil, (A)
Sánchez de Madariaga, 2004 [30], Spain, (A)
x x x x x x
x
Venturi and Scott, 2004 [77], US, (B)
x
García-Ramón et al., 2004 [17], Spain, (A) x x
Federation Canadian Municipalities, 2004 [78], Canada, (R)
x x x x x
x x x
Sánchez de Madariaga et al., 2005 [68], Spain, (A)
x x x x x x
x
x
x
Cucurella et al., 2006 [79], Spain, (A)
x x
x x x
Amin 2006 [
80
], Afghanistan, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Palestine
(Gaza), Qatar, Syria, Uzbekistan (B) x
Sweet and Ortiz, 2010 [8], Mexico, US, (A)
xxxxx
x
Curran, 2010 [81], US, (A)
x x
x x x
Muxíand Giocoletto, 2011 [64], Spain, (A)
x x x x x x
x
Muxíet al., 2011 [82], Spain, (A)
x x x x x x x x
x
Turner, 2011 [83], UK, (A)
x x x
Gutiérrez, 2011 [84], Spain, (A)
x x x x
x
Tacoli, 2012 [73], UK, (R)
x
x x x x
x
Ciocoletto, 2012 [85], Spain (R)
x x x
x
Tummers, 2013 [86], Italy (A)
x
x
Kneeshaw & Norman, 2014 [65], US, (R)
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x
Gregorio, 2014 [31], Spain, (A)
x
Ciocoletto, 2014 [87], Spain, (DT)
x x x
x
Tummers, 2015 [88], France, (A)
x x x x x
x
x
x
Majedi, 2015 [89], India, (A)
x
x x
Sánchez de Madariaga and Neuman, 2016 [11], Spain, (A)
x x
x
González, 2016 [66], Spain, (R)
x
x x
x x
x
Schreiber and Carius, 2016 [90], Spain, (BC)
x x x x
x x
x
x
Mateo-Cecilia, 2016 [91], Spain, (A)
x
x
Jazmin, 2016 [92], Argentina, (A) x
Beebeejaun, 2017 [93], UK, (A)
x x x
x
Atehortua, 2017 [8], Venezuela, (BC)
x x x x
Martin, 2017 [94], Spain (BC) x
Valdivia, 2018 [21], Spain (A)
x x x x x
x x x
Álvarez and Gómez, 2018 [69], Spain, (R)
xxxxxxxxx
x x
Arora, 2018 [95], Saudi Arabia, (R)
x x x x x
x x x x x
x
Thi-Thanh-Hien, 2019 [96], Vietnam, (A)
x x x x
Gargiulo et al., 2020 [38], Spain (A)
x x
Arefian and Moeini, 2020 [97], Switzerland, (B)
x x
Sepe, 2020 [10], Italy, (A)
x x x x x
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 25
(A): Article; (B): book; (BC): book chapter; (R): report; (DT): PhD thesis.
3.2. Case Study
This case study was based on the city of Castellón, Spain. Castellón de la Plana is a
medium-sized Mediterranean coastal city with approximately 170,000 inhabitants located
in east Spain. A study undertaken by Alcañiz and Fuertes showed that, despite the ad-
vances implemented in the last few years to include vulnerable people in urban planning,
women are still underrepresented. In fact, they point out that there is a clear feminization
of poverty despite the fact that the city’s population of women is approximately 50% [98].
The complexity of negative phenomena in poor neighborhoods overlaps with the already
multidimensional phenomenon [99]. The recently developed Urban Land Plan of Castel-
lón identified vulnerable areas in the city and a previous model was used to assess vul-
nerability [52]. This previous model was validated by a user-assisted methodology (par-
ticipatory processes), where ad hoc indicators were selected according to the features of
the city and the information available. The previous model was organized into four cate-
gories: urban (U), building (B), socio-demographic (SD), and socio-economic (SE).
As Castellón continues to grow, there are still vulnerable people (and especially
women) that are not included in urban planning. Vulnerable areas that could benefit from
the inclusion of GMU were selected for this study. These areas are called renewal, regen-
eration, and rehabilitation (ARRU) according to Spanish regulations (LOTUP, 2014). Table
2 shows the ARRUs and Figure 2 presents their location. Note that the ARRU must be
defined to prioritize the interventions to undertake the renovation and regeneration of the
urban environment and to grant subsidies to citizens to improve their dwellings and to
contribute to the city’s sustainable development. The selection of these areas was based
on the recently developed Land Plan of the city [100]. With the use of the categories and
subcategories an initial set of indicators was developed. The validation of the initial set of
indicators was conducted with the input from nine experts considering the specificities of
the city of Castellón. Weights applied to the indicators were inferred from the inter-agree-
ment technique and the experts’ responses in order to obtain results that were more accu-
rate. The validated set of indicators constitute the advanced and improved model (AIM).
To showcase the capability of the AIM, the results from the analysis of the city are pre-
sented and discussed.
Table 2. The 17 ARRUs.
ARRU
Name
ARRU
Name
1
Castalia-La Guinea
10
Catorce junio-Grapa
2
Alcalde Tarrega
11
Plaza Toros
3
Tombatossals
12
Constitucion
4
San Agustin-San Marcos
13
Sequiol
5
Farola-Ravalet
14
Rafalafena
6
Cremor
15
Grao
7
Carretera la Alcora
16
San Lorenzo
8
Gran Via
17
Perpetuo Socorro-La Union
12345678910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Percentage topic 33% 67% 56% 49% 53% 51% 62% 42% 40% 9% 22% 33% 38% 16% 18% 24% 9% 11% 13% 69%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
(A): Article; (B): book; (BC): book chapter; (R): report; (DT): PhD thesis.
3.2. Case Study
This case study was based on the city of Castellón, Spain. Castellón de la Plana is a
medium-sized Mediterranean coastal city with approximately 170,000 inhabitants located
in east Spain. A study undertaken by Alcañiz and Fuertes showed that, despite the ad-
vances implemented in the last few years to include vulnerable people in urban planning,
women are still underrepresented. In fact, they point out that there is a clear feminization
of poverty despite the fact that the city’s population of women is approximately 50% [98].
The complexity of negative phenomena in poor neighborhoods overlaps with the already
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 11 of 23
multidimensional phenomenon [
99
]. The recently developed Urban Land Plan of Castellón
identified vulnerable areas in the city and a previous model was used to assess vulnerabil-
ity [
52
]. This previous model was validated by a user-assisted methodology (participatory
processes), where ad hoc indicators were selected according to the features of the city and
the information available. The previous model was organized into four categories: urban
(U), building (B), socio-demographic (SD), and socio-economic (SE).
As Castellón continues to grow, there are still vulnerable people (and especially
women) that are not included in urban planning. Vulnerable areas that could benefit
from the inclusion of GMU were selected for this study. These areas are called renewal,
regeneration, and rehabilitation (ARRU) according to Spanish regulations (LOTUP, 2014).
Table 2shows the ARRUs and Figure 2presents their location. Note that the ARRU must
be defined to prioritize the interventions to undertake the renovation and regeneration of
the urban environment and to grant subsidies to citizens to improve their dwellings and to
contribute to the city’s sustainable development. The selection of these areas was based
on the recently developed Land Plan of the city [
100
]. With the use of the categories and
subcategories an initial set of indicators was developed. The validation of the initial set of
indicators was conducted with the input from nine experts considering the specificities
of the city of Castellón. Weights applied to the indicators were inferred from the inter-
agreement technique and the experts’ responses in order to obtain results that were more
accurate. The validated set of indicators constitute the advanced and improved model
(AIM). To showcase the capability of the AIM, the results from the analysis of the city are
presented and discussed.
Table 2. The 17 ARRUs.
ARRU Name ARRU Name
1 Castalia-La Guinea 10 Catorce junio-Grapa
2 Alcalde Tarrega 11 Plaza Toros
3 Tombatossals 12 Constitucion
4 San Agustin-San Marcos 13 Sequiol
5 Farola-Ravalet 14 Rafalafena
6 Cremor 15 Grao
7 Carretera la Alcora 16 San Lorenzo
8 Gran Via 17 Perpetuo Socorro-La Union
9 Parque del Oeste
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 25
Figure 2. ARRUs in Castellón (according to the Land Plan).
To develop the AIM, the previously selected indicators [52] were reviewed, and a
new structure of categories, subcategories, and indicators were proposed. Table 3 shows
the proposed AIM. The columns on the left present the structure by categories, subcate-
gories, and the indicators, with a brief definition, equation for their estimation, and source
of information. The newly added items are highlighted in bold. The characteristics of the
new model are presented below:
Table 3. Evolution from the previous model to the AIM, through desk review and inter-judge agreement validation.
Category Subcategory Indicator Definition; Calculation; Source
Judges Evalu-
ation
Agree-
ment
Mean σ I+VI
U. Urban
public
space
U1. Compact-
ness 1. Building density Dwellings per hectare on urban land; number
of dwellings/total Has; (5) 4.2 0.9 88.9%
U2. Urban
public space
2. Green areas Green areas per inhabitant on urban land; m
2
green areas/number inhabitants in area; (2, 5) 4.6 0.5 100.0%
3. Day sound level
Percentage of the population exposed to noise
levels higher than 55 decibels for the day pe-
riod. (Population exposed to >55 dBA/total
population) × 100; (2)
3.7 1.0 66.7%
4. Night sound level
Percentage of the population exposed to noise
levels higher than 45 decibels for the day pe-
riod. (Population exposed to >45 dBA/total
population) × 100; (2)
4.0 1.0 66.7%
5. Abandoned build-
ings
Buildings’ potential buildability abandoned or
in poor conditions; number of abandoned
buildings; (3, 4)
4.3 0.8 77.8%
U3. Mobility–
Public
transport
6. Proximity to public
transport
Percentage of population with coverage to
one or more public transport stops and a cy-
clist network (300 m to urban bus, tram, taxi,
4.8 0.4 100.0%
Figure 2. ARRUs in Castellón (according to the Land Plan).
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 12 of 23
To develop the AIM, the previously selected indicators [
52
] were reviewed, and a new
structure of categories, subcategories, and indicators were proposed. Table 3shows the
proposed AIM. The columns on the left present the structure by categories, subcategories,
and the indicators, with a brief definition, equation for their estimation, and source of
information. The newly added items are highlighted in bold. The characteristics of the new
model are presented below:
Table 3. Evolution from the previous model to the AIM, through desk review and inter-judge agreement validation.
Category Subcategory Indicator Definition; Calculation; Source
Judges
Evaluation Agreement
Mean σI+VI
U. Urban
public space
U1.
Compactness
1. Building
density
Dwellings per hectare on urban land; number of
dwellings/total Has; (5) 4.2 0.9 88.9%
U2. Urban
public space
2. Green areas Green areas per inhabitant on urban land; m2green
areas/number inhabitants in area; (2, 5) 4.6 0.5 100.0%
3. Day sound
level
Percentage of the population exposed to noise levels
higher than 55 decibels for the day period. (Population
exposed to >55 dBA/total population) ×100; (2)
3.7 1.0 66.7%
4. Night sound
level
Percentage of the population exposed to noise levels
higher than 45 decibels for the day period. (Population
exposed to >45 dBA/total population) ×100; (2)
4.0 1.0 66.7%
5. Abandoned
buildings
Buildings’ potential buildability abandoned or in poor
conditions; number of abandoned buildings; (3, 4) 4.3 0.8 77.8%
U3. Mobility–
Public transport
6. Proximity to
public transport
Percentage of population with coverage to one or more
public transport stops and a cyclist network (300 m to
urban bus, tram, taxi, or bike stops); (m2of urban land
without coverage/total area) ×100; (2, 4)
4.8 0.4 100.0%
U4. Perception
of security
7. Unsafe
perceived sites
Area of unsafe perceived sites due to the lack of lighting,
vegetation density, or existence of hidden spots (m2of
unsafe perceived sites/total area) ×100; (2, 3)
4.8 0.4 100.0%
8. Vacant lots Percentage of total vacant lots of urban area; m2vacant
lots/total area) ×100; (3, 4) 4.2 0.7 77.8%
U5.
Accessibility
9. Accessibility
in public space
Percentage of accessible footpath, meaning width
≥1.80 m, in the area; (m non-accessible footpaths/m
accessible footpaths) ×100; (2, 3)
4.0 0.9 55.6%
U6. Mixed-use
planning
10. Residential-
commercial
activity
Commercial units in relation to the total number of
residential units in the area; (Commercial
units/Residential units) ×100; (1)
4.0 0.6 77.8%
11. Balance of
mixed-uses
Balance among building uses; Dm = 1
n∑n
i=1|xi−x|,
being n: total number, i: x
i
value for building use i, and
x
mean value; (1)
4.1 0.7 77.8%
U7. Care
facilities
12. Children
care facilities
Number of vacancies for childcare for 2 year olds;
number of vacancies in the area; (4) 4.8 0.6 88.9%
13. Elderly care
facilities
Number of vacancies in care centers for elderly people,
number of vacancies in the area; (4) 4.8 0.6 87.5%
14. Disabled
care facilities
Number of vacancies in care center for
disabled-dependent people; number of vacancies in the
area; (4)
4.7 0.6 88.9%
U8. Visibility of
women
15. Women
street names
Percentage of gender imbalance in city street names;
(Number of streets with women’s names/Total streets in
the area) ×100; (3, 4)
3.2 1.1 33.3%
16. Inclusive
signage
Percentage of inclusive signposting in the area; (Number
of inclusive signposting/Total sign postings in the area)
×100; (3, 4)
3.8 1.0 55.6%
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 13 of 23
Table 3. Cont.
Category Subcategory Indicator Definition; Calculation; Source
Judges
Evaluation Agreement
Mean σI+VI
B. Buildings
B1. Housing
design
17. Housing
variety
Balance among housing typologies;
Dm =
1
n∑n
i=1|xi−x|
,being n: total number, i: x
i
value for
housing typology i, and x mean value; (2)
3.6 0.9 44.4%
B2. Energy
efficiency
18. Energy
performance
Percentage of buildings with no thermal insulation in
their thermal envelope; (Number of buildings built before
1979/Total number of buildings) ×100; (1, 8)
4.0 1.2 66.7%
19. Renewable
energy
Percentage of buildings with no renewable energies;
(Number of buildings built before 2006/Total number of
buildings) ×100; (1, 8)
3.3 1.3 44.4%
B3.
Accessibility in
housing
20. Building
Accessibility
Percentage of buildings with no elevator; (Number of
buildings 4–5 floors built before with no elevator/Total
number of buildings) ×100; (1, 3, 8)
4.9 0.3 100.0%
21.
Accessibility
in housing
Percentage of non-accessible dwellings (1) (Number of
buildings built before 1991/Total number of buildings)
×
100; (1, 8)
4.3 0.6 88.9%
B4. Quality
housing
22. Buildings
conservation
Percentage of buildings in a ruinous and deficient state;
(Number of buildings in a ruinous and deficient
state/Total number of buildings) ×100; (1)
3.9 0.8 77.8%
23. Buildings
constructive
quality
Percentage of low-quality buildings; (Number of
buildings with quality 7, 8, 9, according to Cadastre
scale/Total number of buildings) ×100; (1)
3.7 1.0 66.7%
24. No acoustic
quality
Percentage of buildings with no acoustic quality;
(Number of buildings built before 1989/Total number of
buildings) ×100; (1, 8)
3.9 0.9 66.7%
25.
Overcrowding
Average number of inhabitants per dwelling; (Number of
total inhabitants/Number of total dwellings); (5) 4.3 0.8 77.8%
SD. Socio-
demographic
SD1.
Demographic
data
disaggregated
by genre
26. Population
over 65
Percentage of population aged over 65; (Number of
inhabitants over 65 years of age/Number of total
inhabitants) ×100; (5)
4.4 0.6 88.9%
27. Women
over 65
Percentage of women aged over 65; (Number of women
over 65 years of age/Number of total inhabitants)
×100; (5)
4.6 0.6 88.9%
28. Immigrants Percentage of immigrant population; (Number of
immigrant/number of total inhabitants) ×100; (5) 4.1 0.8 88.9%
29. Women
immigrant
Percentage of immigrant women; (Number of immigrant
women/Number of total inhabitants) ×100; (5) 4.2 0.6 88.9%
30. Population
under 15
Percentage of population aged under 15; (Number of
inhabitants under 15 years of age/Number of total
inhabitants) ×100; (5)
4.1 0.9 87.5%
31. Women
under 15
Percentage of women aged under 15; (Number of women
under 15 years of age/Number of total inhabitants)
×100; (5)
3.6 0.9 33.3%
32. Aging
65/15
Percentage of population ratio aged over 65 years and
aged under 15 years; (Number of inhabitants aged over
65/Number of inhabitants younger than 15 years)
×100; (5)
3.3 1.2 44.4%
33. Women
Aging 65/15
Percentage of population ratio aged over 65 and aged
under 15; (Number of women aged over 65
years/Number of women younger than 15 years)
×100; (5)
3.3 1.2 44.4%
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 14 of 23
Table 3. Cont.
Category Subcategory Indicator Definition; Calculation; Source
Judges
Evaluation Agreement
Mean σI+VI
SD2. Violence
and security
34. Gender
violence
Percentage of police interventions due to the fact of
gender violence; (6) 4.6 0.6 88.9%
35. Police
interventions in
housing
Percentage of police interventions due to the fact of
housing issues; (Interventions of police for Housing/100
inhabitants); (6)
4.3 1.0 77.8%
36. Police
interventions in
streets
Percentage of police interventions due to street issues;
(Interventions of police in streets/100 inhabitants); (6) 4.0 1.0 66.7%
37. Police
interventions in
traffic
Percentage of police interventions due to the fact of traffic
issues; (Interventions of police for traffic/
100 inhabitants); (6)
3.2 1.1 44.4%
38. Police
interventions others
Percentage of police interventions due to the fact of other
issues; (Interventions of police for other/
100 inhabitants); (6)
2.9 1.2 33.3%
39. Children
vulnerability
Percentage of vulnerable children in the area; (Number of
vulnerable children in the area/Number of children in
the area) ×100; (4)
4.6 0.6 88.9%
40. Noise
complaints
Percentage of police interventions due to the fact of noise
issues; (Interventions of police for other/
100 inhabitants); (6)
3.4 0.9 66.7%
SD3. Social
housing
41. Municipality’s
social Housing
Percentage social housing in the area property of the
Municipality; (Number of social housing of the
Municipality/Number of total housing units) ×100; (4)
3.9 0.9 66.7%
42. Government’s
social Housing
Percentage of social housing properties of the Regional
Administration in the area; (Number of social housing of
the of the Regional Administration/Number of total
housing units) ×100; (7)
3.9 0.9 66.7%
SE. Socio-
economic
SE1. Paid or
unpaid work
43. Unemployment
rate
Percentage of unemployment in the area; (Number of
unemployed people/Total population) ×100; (5) 4.0 0.9 77.8%
44. Women
unemployment
rate
Percentage of unemployment of women in the area;
(Number of unemployed women/tTotal population) ×
100; (5)
4.4 0.6 88.9%
SE2. Social
Subsidies and
assistance
45. Social subsidies Percentage of social subsidies in the area; (Social
subsidies/Number of inhabitants) ×100; (4) 4.0 0.9 77.8%
46. Dependence
subsidies
Percentage of dependence subsidies; (Dependence
subsidies/Number of inhabitants) ×100; (4) 4.3 0.8 77.8%
47. Social services
assistance
Percentage of social services assistance; (Interventions of
police for social service assistance/100 inhabitants); (7) 4.3 1.0 77.8%
SE3. Level of
education
48. Level of
education
Percentage of illiterate population who did not complete
primary education in the area; (Number of inhabitants
with no studies/Number of total inhabitants) ×100; (5)
4.0 0.9 77.8%
49. Level of
education in
women
Percentage of illiterate women who did not complete
primary education in the area; (Number of women with
no studies/Number of total inhabitants) ×100; (5)
4.3 0.6 88.9%
50. Absenteeism
from school
Percentage of students registered for absenteeism from
school in the area; (Number of cases of absenteeism from
school/Number of inhabitants) ×100; (4)
4.1 0.9 77.8%
51. Children
education
Percentage of interventions linked to children education;
(Interventions of police for children education/100
inhabitants); (7)
4.1 0.9 77.8%
SE4. Housing
market
52. Tax base Taxable base of the real estate tax; (€/built m2, in the
area); (1) 3.6 1.2 66.7%
53. Cadastral value Property’s cadastral value; (€/built m2, in the area); (1) 3.4 1.2 55.6%
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 15 of 23
Table 3. Cont.
Category Subcategory Indicator Definition; Calculation; Source
Judges
Evaluation Agreement
Mean σI+VI
CC. Cross-
curricula
CC1. Women’s
participation in
decision
making
54. Women
participation in urban
planning
Presence of women designing the Use Land Plan;
(yes/no response); (4) 4.1 0.9 77.8%
55. Citizen’s open
participatory processes
Existence of participatory processes for citizens
in urban planning; (yes/no response); (4) 4.4 0.9 88.9%
56. Participatory
process for vulnerable
group of population
Existence of participatory processes for
vulnerable populations in urban planning;
(yes/no response); (4)
4.3 1.0 77.8%
Sources: (1) Cadastral Office; (2) Land Use Plan; (3) visual inspection; (4) municipality; (5) National Statistics Office; (6) police; (7) regional
government; (8) Regulations on Buildings.
Of the five categories, the previously defined urban (U) category was renamed as
urban public space (U). The other three categories, building (B), socio-demographic (SD),
and socio-economic (SE) categories, were kept with the same name. A new fifth category
was added “cross-curricula” (CC). This new category aims to include the representation
of women in the political scene and in decision making. This new category has three new
indicators to ensure that women take part in decision making either in a systematic way
or through practical implementation and involvement. These three indicators are binary;
that is, the vulnerability value will be zero when the indicator is included and one if its
absent. The key topics were introduced as either new categories or subcategories and the
pre-existent indicators were reorganized accordingly. The indicators that already measured
a subcategory in the previous model were maintained.
Answers to the survey are shown in Table 3. The columns present the average mark
that each expert conferred to every indicator, from one to five. The agreement value was
calculated by the percentage according to Cohen’s Kappa coefficient [
53
,
54
], being: 0, poor;
0–20%, slight; 21–40%, fair; 41–60%, moderate; 61–80% substantial; 81–99.99% almost
perfect; 100%, perfect. The selected indicators were those with an inter-rater agreement, for
the sum of I and VI categories, of at least 50%. According to the experts, this sum ranged
from 0.33 to 1, meaning that the inter-rater reliability of assessment varied from fair to
perfect. The AIM has 48 indicators in total.
There are a few things to consider:
•
Seventeen new quantifiable indicators (in bold) were added because no specific indi-
cators considered gender explicitly in the previous model [52].
•
Four new indicators were added (“unsafe perceived sites”, “accessibility in hous-
ing”, and “gender violence” in subcategories U4, U6, and B3 and SD2, respectively).
These indicators, for instance, will help detect unsafe places due the lack of lighting,
vegetation density, or hidden spots in public spaces.
•
Six new indicators linked with demographic issues were added, because disaggre-
gated data by genre were perceived as essential (indicators in subcategories SD1 and
SE1 and SE3, accounting specifically for women (according to the key topic 1). For
instance, “population over 65 years” was replaced with the new indicator “women
over 65 years”.
•
Seven new specific gender-sensitive indicators were proposed to incorporate three
subcategories that had not been included in the previous model [
52
]: U7, U8, and
B1, (represented in 62%, 42%, and 40% in the analyzed literature, respectively). For
instance, subcategory U7 “care facilities”, includes the indicators “children care facili-
ties”, “elderly care facilities”, and “disabled care facilities”.
The level of agreement reached by the experts was accounted for as the perceived
importance of the indicators. Only a level of agreement perceived I or VI over 50% was
accepted. As a result of the evaluation of the experts:
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 16 of 23
•
Eight indicators under 50% of agreement were rejected. These are highlighted in
the shaded cells (see Table 2): U8.15. Women street names; B1.17 Housing variety;
B2.19. Renewable energy; SD1.31. Women under 15; SD1.32. Aging rating 65/15;
SD1.33. Women aging rating 65/15; SD2.37. Police interventions in traffic; SD2.38.
Police interventions others. Indicator B1.17, representing the subcategory Housing
design, was inferred from the literature but did not result in importance according to
the experts.
•
Some indicators reached a perfect agreement (100%): U2.2. Green areas; U3.6. Proxim-
ity to public transport; U4.7. Unsafe perceived sites; B3.20. Building accessibility.
•
From the response to the open question, Judge number 7 suggested to include “Light-
ing”. This aspect had already been included in subcategory U4. Perception of security,
specifically in the indicator “Perception of unsafe sites”.
3.3. Evaluating the Applicability of the Model
The standardization of the values of the indicators was performed with 45 out of the 48
proposed indicators. Three indicators were not included due to the unavailability, disaggre-
gated, and/or unquantifiable data. For instance, information for indicator SD2.29—Gender
violence was not obtained due to the fact of data protection considerations; information for
SE1.36—Unemployment rate and SE1.37—Women unemployment rate were not available
as information for these rates exist only for the whole city and are not disaggregated to
the census section level. The evaluation of the index of vulnerability for each category is
shown in Figure 3.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 25
(represented in 62%, 42%, and 40% in the analyzed literature, respectively). For in-
stance, subcategory U7 “care facilities”, includes the indicators “children care facili-
ties”, “elderly care facilities”, and “disabled care facilities”.
The level of agreement reached by the experts was accounted for as the perceived
importance of the indicators. Only a level of agreement perceived I or VI over 50% was
accepted. As a result of the evaluation of the experts:
• Eight indicators under 50% of agreement were rejected. These are highlighted in the
shaded cells (see Table 2): U8.15. Women street names; B1.17 Housing variety; B2.19.
Renewable energy; SD1.31. Women under 15; SD1.32. Aging rating 65/15; SD1.33.
Women aging rating 65/15; SD2.37. Police interventions in traffic; SD2.38. Police in-
terventions others. Indicator B1.17, representing the subcategory Housing design,
was inferred from the literature but did not result in importance according to the
experts.
• Some indicators reached a perfect agreement (100%): U2.2. Green areas; U3.6. Prox-
imity to public transport; U4.7. Unsafe perceived sites; B3.20. Building accessibility.
• From the response to the open question, Judge number 7 suggested to include “Light-
ing”. This aspect had already been included in subcategory U4. Perception of secu-
rity, specifically in the indicator “Perception of unsafe sites”.
3.3. Evaluating the Applicability of the Model
The standardization of the values of the indicators was performed with 45 out of the
48 proposed indicators. Three indicators were not included due to the unavailability, dis-
aggregated, and/or unquantifiable data. For instance, information for indicator SD2.29—
Gender violence was not obtained due to the fact of data protection considerations; infor-
mation for SE1.36—Unemployment rate and SE1.37—Women unemployment rate were
not available as information for these rates exist only for the whole city and are not dis-
aggregated to the census section level. The evaluation of the index of vulnerability for
each category is shown in Figure 3.
The results shown in Figure 3 allow for the comparison off the 17 ARRUs defined for
the city of Castellón in the new AIM. Note that Figure 3 shows the differences in the eval-
uation of categories depending on the ARRU.
Figure 3. Evaluation of vulnerability by category in each ARRU in the AIM.
Figure 3. Evaluation of vulnerability by category in each ARRU in the AIM.
The results shown in Figure 3allow for the comparison off the 17 ARRUs defined
for the city of Castellón in the new AIM. Note that Figure 3shows the differences in the
evaluation of categories depending on the ARRU.
Figure 3shows the evaluation of vulnerability using the proposed indicators, where
AIM IvuIU indicates urban public space vulnerability, AIM IvuIB indicates building vul-
nerability, AIM IvuSD indicates socio-demographic vulnerability, AIM IvuSE indicates
socio-economic vulnerability, and AIM IvuCC indicates cross-curricula vulnerability. The
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 17 of 23
model shows that the values for each category of vulnerability vary in each ARRU. For
instance, the highest value of urban vulnerability was detected in ARRU 17, while the
least level was detected for ARRU 1. This is an expected result given that ARRU 17 is in a
peripheral zone which is far from the city center, while ARRU 1 is located in the northeast
part of the city close to numerous roads that facilitate communication and transport.
Building vulnerability had the highest value in ARRU 3, given that ARRU 3 has
obsolete buildings that were built more than 50 years ago. The minimum value in ARRU 14
was expected, as this zone has new completed projects, projects under development, and
rehabilitation projects for social housing. In addition, note that socioeconomic vulnerability
was non-existent in ARRU 8 and ARRU 10, and it reached the highest value in ARRU 4.
This was due to the fact that in ARRU 4 there is less investment in social and women’s
programs and an elevated number of low cadastral values. This is the opposite case for
ARRU 8 and ARRU 10. Sociodemographic vulnerability had the highest value in ARRU
12, given that there is a high number of elderly people and immigrants in addition to the
number of reported incidents reported by police. The minimum value for this indicator
was obtained for ARRU 10, which is a zone with predominantly young people and very
few cases of school absenteeism. Lastly, for the cross-curricula category, no ARRU showed
vulnerability, as was discussed previously. Furthermore, the results shown in Figure 3
indicate that the global vulnerability (the sum of all the categories) was the highest for
ARRU 3 and the lowest for ARRU 15.
The comparison between the previous model and the new model (AIM) when cate-
gories, subcategories, and global indexes were calculated, shows some logical differences
due to the presence of two main factors. Firstly, new gender indicators in each pre-existent
category were included, which will enrich the decision-making process by considering
women’s and men’s interests in an integrated gender equality perspective. This addition
not only provides better results that improve the quality of public spaces but helps achieve
a more sustainable society. Note that in developing the new model, the experts’ opinions
helped to refine the existing indicators and the new indicators by rejecting those for which
the level of agreement did not reach at least 50%. Secondly, the inclusion of weights
extracted from the experts’ agreement shows a different scenario as can be observed in
Figure 4.
The maximum difference of the level of vulnerability between the two models corre-
sponds to ARRU 16, where global vulnerability increased by 35%. This result was mainly
due to the urban public space category (U), where seven new indicators were added in
the AIM. With this category, the urban public space vulnerability was 177% higher as a
result of the values obtained with indicators such as “unperceived sites”, “accessibility in
public spaces”, and “elderly care”, among others. The level of vulnerability in the building
category and socio-demographic category also increased because of the evaluation of indi-
cators “accessibility in housing” and “level of education in women”, respectively. ARRU 16
area is a peripheral neighborhood located in the southwest of the city (San Lorenzo) with
predominantly low-income population and an itinerant way of life. This is aggravated
by the high presence of immigrants and women that live in this area that are heads of
households, with no education and many children, which makes them vulnerable. Note
that with the AIM, only four out of the 17 ARRUs decreased their global index values
compared to the values obtained in the previous model. This decrease, despite the inclusion
of new indicators, was mainly due to the weights. The maximum level of decrease was
reached in ARRU 4, with a global index value of 9% compared to the previous model. This
was mainly due to the socio-economic category and the weights applied to the indicators
that are linked with social housing.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 18 of 23
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 25
Figure 4. Comparison of previous model and the AIM.
The maximum difference of the level of vulnerability between the two models corre-
sponds to ARRU 16, where global vulnerability increased by 35%. This result was mainly
due to the urban public space category (U), where seven new indicators were added in
the AIM. With this category, the urban public space vulnerability was 177% higher as a
result of the values obtained with indicators such as “unperceived sites”, “accessibility in
public spaces”, and “elderly care”, among others. The level of vulnerability in the building
category and socio-demographic category also increased because of the evaluation of in-
dicators “accessibility in housing” and “level of education in women”, respectively.
ARRU 16 area is a peripheral neighborhood located in the southwest of the city (San Lo-
renzo) with predominantly low-income population and an itinerant way of life. This is
aggravated by the high presence of immigrants and women that live in this area that are
heads of households, with no education and many children, which makes them vulnera-
ble. Note that with the AIM, only four out of the 17 ARRUs decreased their global index
values compared to the values obtained in the previous model. This decrease, despite the
inclusion of new indicators, was mainly due to the weights. The maximum level of de-
crease was reached in ARRU 4, with a global index value of 9% compared to the previous
model. This was mainly due to the socio-economic category and the weights applied to
the indicators that are linked with social housing.
The new AIM model confirmed the vulnerability of the ARRU areas defined in the
Land Plan. Most importantly, the AIM improves the evaluation of vulnerability because
it includes specific indicators related to gender that can be used to implement policies that
include women (an underrepresented sector of the population). Additionally, these can
further be used to apply economic, urban, and building regulations that consider a
broader perspective on gender issues (this is the integrated focus of gender mainstream-
ing). Note that the assessment obtained with the indicators can be further extended with
the values for categories and subcategories depending on the specific conditions of the
intervention area. For instance, if there are funds available to regenerate buildings, these
could be allocated to a zone that has a higher level of vulnerability in buildings (after the
assessment) rather than a zone with no vulnerability in this category. Likewise, funds
Figure 4. Comparison of previous model and the AIM.
The new AIM model confirmed the vulnerability of the ARRU areas defined in the
Land Plan. Most importantly, the AIM improves the evaluation of vulnerability because it
includes specific indicators related to gender that can be used to implement policies that
include women (an underrepresented sector of the population). Additionally, these can
further be used to apply economic, urban, and building regulations that consider a broader
perspective on gender issues (this is the integrated focus of gender mainstreaming). Note
that the assessment obtained with the indicators can be further extended with the values for
categories and subcategories depending on the specific conditions of the intervention area.
For instance, if there are funds available to regenerate buildings, these could be allocated to
a zone that has a higher level of vulnerability in buildings (after the assessment) rather than
a zone with no vulnerability in this category. Likewise, funds could be allocated to build a
center for the elderly where there is a high level of vulnerability for the elderly or, similarly,
funds could be allocated to build a police station in a zone that has high levels of violence.
Even though the cross-curricula category did not show any level of vulnerability in the
ARRUs (see Figure 3), these were included as the review showed these were needed for
an integral analysis. The weight analysis was another important addition to the AIM. The
weights help to determine the value of the indicators with more precise indices, according
to the importance given by the experts. Lastly, the other addition to the AIM was the
global index. This index allows for the comparison of vulnerable areas to support decision
making when the council or the city is planning to make applied interventions.
4. Conclusions
The literature review conducted in this study allowed for the organization of the
myriad of information that was scattered regarding GMU. More than 50% of the analyzed
references included topics linked to public space, care facilities and transport, and women’s
participation in decision making. Aspects connected with thermal comfort and accessibility
in the private space were not so frequent. Indicators connected to economic issues, such
as social subsidies or level of education, were included in less than 10% of the references.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 19 of 23
This is a comprehensive list that includes all the concepts found in the reviewed literature
related to gender views in urban planning.
From the review of the references, key concepts were identified, and a list of categories,
subcategories, and indicators were developed. The subcategories corresponded to the key
topics, so they are comprehensive and universal; thus, any city that wants to make applied
interventions and include gender can use these. The set of measurable indicators (outlined
here for the specific case of Castellón) can be used to assess the extent of vulnerability in
a city and the inclusion of gender. The indicators used in this study were adapted to the
specific context of Castellón as well as the information that was available. Note that the
indicators are flexible and can be adapted to the specificities of any urban environment
while considering the availability of information. The ones proposed here can be a starting
point for any city with similar conditions or can be readapted to another city, although it is
advised that new indicators include the key topics proposed in this study. Equally, new
indicators could be included in future studies if required. The group of indicators, which
are the AIM, help decision makers evaluate vulnerability, include gender perspectives, and
adopt measures with an integrated approach for sustainability in urban planning. They
constitute a standard model that may help decision makers evaluate vulnerability with a
gender equality perspective while, at the same time, looking at accommodating diversity,
variation in geomorphological features, historical evolution, and particularities of urban
environments. This makes the AIM comprehensive, as the indicators can be practically
applied to urban plans where gender perspective needs to be included at the level of the
neighborhood, municipality, or city.
The case study shows that the updated prior model, named AIM, is a more compre-
hensive model with an integrated approach that includes the gender perspective. The
results showed the level of vulnerability in each ARRU according to each category and
subcategory. The values of vulnerability (determined by the indicators) can also be used
to prioritize strategies and policies that can be implemented in specific areas of the city
to mitigate vulnerability. For the case of Castellón, the AIM can support authorities and
the social services of the City Council to adopt measures that improve accessibility, trans-
port systems, and the state of buildings (interior accessibility and conservation). Equally,
the AIM can support urban environments to avoid population flows and improve the
quality of life of people by compensating for existing inequalities in certain areas and
transforming cities into inclusive urban spaces. This is aligned with the concept of the
just city stated by Fainstein [
14
], as we consider the contribution of the political–economic
processes and, specifically, how local policy decisions on housing, transport, public spaces,
etc., could contribute to enhance the quality of life for people. In this sense, the AIM
focuses on vulnerable neighborhoods in the city, where groups of disadvantaged people
usually live, contributing to the social equality of citizens. The results of the case study
showed the importance of accessibility and roads to minimize vulnerability. Likewise, the
results showed that new developments and rehabilitation projects increase the well-being
of people and must be implemented, especially in areas with low housing development.
The case study also showed that interventions need to be prioritized, as the budget can
determine the success of regeneration projects, many of which are abandoned due to the
lack of sufficient funds or by tackling non-pressing needs. The results demonstrate that
prioritizing areas with specific needs, such as social programs and women’s programs, may
lead to a significant decrease in vulnerability. Women have typically relied on the family
structure for economic development and on less stable jobs; thus, including indicators
that measure these aspects and point out areas where jobs for women can be increased
may help mitigate vulnerability. One key consideration for any city intending to apply the
AIM is to look at available information, specificities of the city, population, and vulnerable
areas so that indicators can better reflect actual conditions. The inclusion of gender views
is a transformative approach and has a great potential for social change, focusing on the
circumstances that aggravate the situation of vulnerability.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 20 of 23
Note that the structure of the categories and subcategories used to develop the AIM
for Castellón can be applied to any urban context, but a previous detailed diagnosis must
be performed in order to adequately incorporate gender mainstreaming and the needs and
perspectives of the population.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, P.H. and M.J.R.; methodology, all authors.; software, P.H.
and M.J.R.; validation, all authors; formal analysis, all authors; investigation, all authors; resources,
P.H. and M.J.R.; data curation, P.H., R.A.-F. and M.J.R.; writing—original draft preparation, P.H. and
M.J.R.; writing—review and editing, L.F.-P.; visualization, L.F.-P.; supervision, all authors; project
administration, L.F.-P.; funding acquisition, L.F.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study did not receive any external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments:
We thank the Municipality of Castellón de la Plana, who provided the data for
research purposes.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
United Nations. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, A/RES/70/1: Transforming Our World:
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/70/1 (accessed on 30 June
2021).
2.
United Nations. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 23 December 2016, A/RES/71/256: New Urban Agenda.
Available online: https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/71/256 (accessed on 30 June 2021).
3.
Miralles-Guasch, C.; Martínez Melo, M.; Marquet, O. A gender analysis of everyday mobility in urban and rural territories: From
challenges to sustainability. Gend. Place Cult. 2015,23, 398–417. [CrossRef]
4.
Huning, S. From feminist critique to gender mainstreaming—And back? The case of German urban planning. Gend. Place Cult.
2020,27, 944–964. [CrossRef]
5.
Irschik, E.; Kail, E. Vienna: Progress towards a fair shared city. In Fair Shared City; Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2013;
Chapter 12; p. 38. [CrossRef]
6.
Sánchez de Madariaga, I.; Novella, I. Chapter 7: A new generation of gender mainstreaming in spatial and urban planning under
the new international framework f policies for sustainable development. In Gendered Approaches to Spatial Development in Europe.
Perspectives, Similarities, Differences; Zibell, B., Damyanovic, D., Sturm, U., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2019;
pp. 181–203.
7.
Sweet, E.; Ortiz, S. Planning Responds to Gender Violence: Evidence from Spain, Mexico and the United States. Urban Stud.
2010
,
47, 2129–2147. [CrossRef]
8.
Sanchez de Madariaga, I.; Roberts, M. Fair Shared Cities: The Impact of Gender Planning in Europe; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames,
UK, 2013. [CrossRef]
9.
Atehortua, J.V. Barrio Women’s Gendering Practices for Sustainable Urbanism in Caracas, Venezuela. Women, urbanization and
sustainability: Practices of survival, adaptation and resistance. In Gender Development and Social Change Series; Lacey, A., Ed.;
Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2017; pp. 67–89. [CrossRef]
10. Sepe, M. Regenerating places sustainably: The healthy urban design. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2020,15, 14–27. [CrossRef]
11. Sánchez de Madariaga, I.; Neuman, M. Mainstreaming Gender in the city. Town Plan. Rev. 2016,87, 493–504. [CrossRef]
12.
Alguacil, J. Instrumentos para el análisis y políticas para la acción. In Proceedings of the Foro de Debates: Ciudad y Territorio.
Jornada La Vulnerabilidad Urbana en España, Madrid, Spain, 30 June 2011; Ministerio de Fomento: Madrid, Spain, 2011.
13.
Antón, F.; Cortés, L.; Martínez, C.; Navarrete, J. La exclusión residencial en España. In Políticas y Bienes Sociales. Procesos de
Vulnerabilidad y Exclusión Social; Arriba González, A., Ed.; Fundación Foessa: Madrid, Spain, 2008; pp. 219–229.
14. Fainstein, S. The just city. Int. J. Urban Sci. 2014,18, 1–18. [CrossRef]
15.
Scala, F.; Paterson, S. Stories from the Front Lines: Making Sense of Gender Mainstreaming in Canada. Politics Gend.
2018
,14,
208–234. [CrossRef]
16.
Moser, C.; Levy, C. A Theory and Methodology of Gender Planning: Meeting Women’s Practical and Strategic Needs; Development
Planning Unit (DPU), University College: London, UK, 1986.
17.
García-Ramón, M.D. Para no excluir del estudio a la mitad del género humano. Un desafío pendiente geografía humana. Bol.
Asoc. Geogr. Esp. 1989,9, 27–48.
18. Sabaté, A.; Rodríguez, J.; Díaz, M.A. Mujeres, Espacio y Sociedad. Hacia Una Geografía del Género; Síntesis: Madrid, Spain, 1995.
19. Mc Dowell, L. Género, Identidad y Lugar. Un Estudio de las Geografías Feministas; Cátedra: Madrid, Spain, 2000.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 21 of 23
20.
Bondi, L.; Rose, D. Constructing gender, constructing the urban: A review of Anglo-American feminist urban geography. Gend.
Place Cult. 2003,10, 229–245. [CrossRef]
21.
Levy, C. Ciudad y género. Una ciudad más justa: El género y la planificación. In La Ciudad Inclusiva; Balbo, M., Jordán, R.,
Simioni, D., Eds.; Cuadernos de la CEPAL 88; Nacionales Unidas: Santiago de Chile, Chile, 2003; pp. 237–258. Available online:
https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/27814/S2003002_es.pdf;jsessionid=8341F69732A246CA61 (accessed on 2
December 2020).
22.
Horelli, I. Engendering urban planning in different contexts–successes, constraints and consequences. Eur. Plan. Stud.
2017
,25,
1779–1796. [CrossRef]
23.
Carreiro, M.; López, C. Parametrizar y Sistematizar, o cómo Incorporar la Perspectiva de Género en el Diseño Urbano. 2015. Avail-
able online: https://ruc.udc.es/dspace/bitstream/handle/2183/17452/mccl_IIIXUGX_150602.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
(accessed on 2 December 2020).
24.
Hayden, D. What would a non-sexist city be like? speculations on housing, urban design, and human work. Signs
1980
,5,
170–187. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3173814 (accessed on 2 December 2020). [CrossRef]
25.
Carpio-Pinedo, J.; de Gregorio, S.; Sánchez de Madariaga, I. Gender mainstreaming in urban planning: The potential of geographic
information systems and open data sources. Plan. Theory Pract. 2019,20, 221–240. [CrossRef]
26. Valdivia, B. Del urbanismo androcéntrico a la ciudad cuidadora. Habitat Soc. 2018,11, 65–84. [CrossRef]
27.
Greed, C. Género y planificación del territorio¿Un mismo tema? In Forúm Internacional de Planificación del Territorio Desde una
Perspectiva de Género; FundacióMaria Aurèlia Capmany: Barcelona, Spain, 1997.
28.
Larsson, A. From equal opportunities to gender awareness in strategic spatial planning: Reflections based on Swedish experiences.
Town Plan. Rev. 2006,77, 507–530. [CrossRef]
29.
Carrasco, C. Estadístiques sota Sospita: Proposta de Nous Indicadors des de l’Experiència Femenina; Institut Catalàde les Dones:
Barcelona, Spain, 2007. Available online: https://dones.gencat.cat/web/.content/03_ambits/docs/publicacions_eines07.pdf
(accessed on 2 February 2020).
30. Sánchez de Madariaga, I. Infraestructuras para la vida cotidiana y calidad de vida. Ciudades 2004,8, 101–133. [CrossRef]
31.
Gregorio, S. Factores relevantes en la introducción del urbanismo con perspectiva de género en Viena. In La Ciudad Viva, Derecho a
la Vivienda, Derecho a la Ciudad; Consejeria de Fomento y Vivienda: Junta de Andalucía, Spain, 2014; Volume 7, pp. 17–35.
32.
Damyanovic, D.; Reinwald, F.; Weikmann, A. Gender Mainstreaming in Urban Planning and Urban Development; Irschik, E., Kail,
E., Klimmer-Pöllentzer, A., Nuss, A., Poscher, G., Schönfeld, M., Winkler, A., Eds.; Vienna City Council: Vienna, Austria, 2013.
Available online: https://www.wien.gv.at/stadtentwicklung/studien/pdf/b008358.pdf (accessed on 29 June 2021).
33.
Whitzman, C.; Canuto, M.; Binder, S. Women’s Safety Awards 2004: A Compendium of Good Practices. Available online:
www.femmesetvilles.org (accessed on 29 June 2021).
34.
Nguyen, T.M.; van Nes, A. Identifying the spatial parameters for differences in gender behaviour in built environments: The
flâneur and flâneuse of the 21st century. TRIA 2013,10, 163–172. [CrossRef]
35.
Christodoulou, A. Gender mainstreaming, urban planning and design processes in Greece. In Engendering Cities: Designing
Sustainable Spaces for All; Sánchez de Madariaga, I., Neuman, M., Eds.; Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group: London, UK, 2020.
36. Davis, W. What to Do about Women’s Safety in Parks: From A to Y; Greig, C., Ed.; Women’s Design Service: London, UK, 2007.
37.
Liam Riley, L. Malawian urbanism and urban poverty: Geographies of food access in Blantyre. J. Urban. Int. Res. Placemaking
Urban Sustain. 2020,13, 38–52. [CrossRef]
38.
Gargiulo, I.; Garcia, X.; Benages-Albert, M.; Martinez, J.; Pfeffer, K.; Vall-Casas, P. Women’s safety perception assessment in an
urban stream corridor: Developing a safety map based on qualitative GIS. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020,198, 103779. [CrossRef]
39.
Gutiérrez-Rivera, L. A safer housing agenda for women: Local urban planning knowledge and women’s grassroots movements
in Medellín, Colombia. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2020, 1–9. [CrossRef]
40.
Sandberg, L.; Rönnblom, M. ‘I don’t think we’ll ever be finished with this’: Fear and safety in policy and practice. Urban Stud.
2015,52, 2664–2679. [CrossRef]
41.
Whitzman, C. Stuck at the front door: Gender, fear of crime and the challenge of creating safer space. Environ. Plan. A
2007
,39,
2715–2732. [CrossRef]
42.
Ortiz Escalante, S.; Gutiérrez Valdivia, B. Planning from below: Using feminist participatory methods to increase women’s
participation in urban planning. Gend. Dev. 2015,23, 113–126. [CrossRef]
43.
Reeves, D.; Zombori, E. Engendering cities: International dimensions from Aotearoa, New Zealand. Town Plan. Rev.
2016
,87,
567–587. [CrossRef]
44. Bosman, C.; Grant-Smith, D.; Osborne, N. Women in planning in the twenty-first century. Aust. Plan. 2017,54, 1–5. [CrossRef]
45.
Greed, C.H. Planning for women and other disenabled groups, with reference to the provision of public toilets in Britain. Environ.
Plan. A 1996,28, 573–588. [CrossRef]
46.
Milan, B.F.; Creutzig, F. Lifting peripheral fortunes: Upgrading transit improves spatial, income and gender equity in Medellin.
Cities 2017,70, 122–134. [CrossRef]
47.
Moussié, R. Childcare services in cities: Challenges and emerging solutions for women informal workers and their children 21.
Environ. Urban. 2021. [CrossRef]
48.
Mejía-Dorantes, L.; Soto Villagrán, P. A review on the influence of barriers on gender equality to access the city: A synthesis
approach of Mexico City and its Metropolitan Area. Cities 2020,96, 102439. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 22 of 23
49. Levy, C. Travel choice reframed: “deep distribution” and gender in urban. Environ. Urban. 2013,25, 47–63. [CrossRef]
50.
Vestbro, D.U.; Horelli, L. Design for gender equality: The history of co-housing ideas and realities. Built Environ.
2012
,38, 315–335.
[CrossRef]
51.
Zaman, M.F. Segregated from the City: Women’s Spaces in Islamic Movements in Pakistan. City Soc.
2019
,31, 55–76. [CrossRef]
52.
Ruá, M.J.; Huedo, P.; Civera, V.; Agost-Felip, R. A simplified model to assess vulnerable areas for urban regeneration. Sustain.
Cities Soc. 2019,46, 101440. [CrossRef]
53. Peter, J.; Lauf, E. Reliability in Cross-national Content Analysis. J. Mass. Commun. Q. 2002,79, 815–832. [CrossRef]
54.
Cremades, R. Validación de un instrumento para el análisis y evaluación de webs de bibliotecas escolares mediante el acuerdo
interjueces. Investig. Bibl. 2017,31, 127–149. [CrossRef]
55.
Dubé, J.E. Evaluación del acuerdo interjueces en investigación clínica. Breve introducción a la confiabilidad interjueces. Rev.
Argent. Clin. Psicol.
2008
,1, 75–80. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2819/281921796008.pdf (accessed on 29 June
2021).
56.
Actis di Pasquale, E.; Balsa, J. Interval Linear Scaling Technique: Proposal for Standardization Applied to the Measurement of
Social Well-Being Levels. Rev. Métodos Cuantitativos Para Econ. Empresa
2017
,23, 164–193. Available online: https://www.upo.es/
revistas/index.php/RevMetCuant/article/view/269 (accessed on 2 December 2020).
57.
Abdullahi, S.; Pradhan, B. Urban compactness assessment. In Spatial Modeling and Assessment of Urban Form; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2017; Chapter 5. [CrossRef]
58.
Wolch, J.; Byrne, J.; Newell, J. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just
green enough. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014,125, 234–244. [CrossRef]
59.
Haq, U.; Shah, A. Urban Green Spaces and an Integrative Approach to Sustainable Environment. J. Environ. Prot.
2011
,2, 601–608.
[CrossRef]
60.
Miller, P.; de Barros, A.G.; Kattan, L. Public transportation and sustainability: A review. KSCE J. Civ. Eng.
2016
,20, 1076–1083.
[CrossRef]
61.
Sánchez de Madariaga, I.; de Gregorio, S.; Novella, I. Perspectiva de Género en las Directrices de Ordenación Territorial (DOT)
del País Vasco. Propuestas de Acción 2019. Departamento de Medio Ambiente y Política Territorial del Gobierno Vasco. Available
online: https://www.euskadi.eus/contenidos/informacion/revision_dot/es_def/adjuntos/Perspectiva%20de%20G%C3%A9
nero%20en%20las%20DOT%20(ISdM).pdf (accessed on 2 December 2020).
62.
Chestnutt, R.; Ganssauge, K.; Willecke, B.; Baranek, E.; Bock, S.; Huning, S.; Schröder, A. Gender Mainstreaming in Urban
Development; Christiane Droste: Berlin, Germany, 2011.
63.
Muxí, Z.; Ciocoletto, A. La Ley de Barrios en Cataluña: La perspectiva de género como herramienta de planificación. Feminismo/s.
2011,17, 131–153. [CrossRef]
64. Raman, R.; Kumar, U. Taxonomy of urban mixed land use planning. Land Use Policy 2019,88, 102–104. [CrossRef]
65. Kneeshaw, S.; Norman, J. Gender Equality Cities URBACT III; URBAC: Paris, France, 2014.
66.
González-Pijuán, I. Desigualdad de Género y Pobreza Energética. Un Factor de Riesgo Olvidado; L’AssociacióCatalana d’Enginyeria
Sense Fronteres: Barcelona, Spain, 2016; Available online: https://esf-cat.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ESFeres17-
PobrezaEnergeticaiDesigualdadGenero.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2020).
67.
Serrano, B. Género y Política Urbana. Available online: http://www.five.es/descargas/archivos/urbanismo/genero_y_politica_
urbana_2017.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2020).
68.
Sánchez de Madariaga, I.; Casado, E.; Gómez, C. Los Desafíos de la Conciliación Entre Vida Laboral y Vida Familiar en el Siglo XXI;
Fundación Ortega y Gasset, Biblioteca Nueva: Madrid, Spain, 2005; pp. 261–268.
69.
Álvarez, E.; Gómez, C.J. La incorporación de la perspectiva de género en el Plan General Estructural de Castelló: Objetivos,
método, acciones y hallazgos. Hábitat Soc. 2018,11, 201–219. [CrossRef]
70.
Affleck, R.T.; Gardner, K.; Aytur, S.; Carlson, C.; Grimm, C.; Deeb, E. Sustainable Infrastructure in Conflict Zones: Police Facilities’
Impact on Perception of Safety in Afghan Communities. Sustainability 2019,11, 2113. [CrossRef]
71.
Collectiu Punt 6. The Everyday Life of Women Nightshift Workers in the Barcelona Metropolitan Area. The Night Mobility in the
Barcelona Metropolitan Area. Available online: http://www.punt6.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Nocturnas (accessed on
27 June 2020).
72.
Kneeshaw, S.; Norman, J. Gender Equal Cities. URBACT Knowledge Hub. 2019. Available online: https://urbact.eu/sites/
default/files/urbact-genderequalcities-edition-pages-web.pdf (accessed on 29 June 2021).
73.
Taccoli, C. Urbanisation, Gender and Urban Poverty. Paid Work and Unpaid Carework in the City. International Insti-
tute for Environment and Development 2012. (IIED, London) and United Nations Population Fund (UNPF, New York).
Urbanization and Emerging Population Issues. Working Paper 7. Available online: http://pubs.iied.org/10614IIED.
htmlInclusiveandsustainableUrbanplanning (accessed on 29 June 2021).
74. Jacobs, J. Muerte y Vida en las Grandes Ciudades, 2nd ed.; Capitán Swing: Madrid, Spain, 2011.
75.
Kennedy, M. Towards a rediscovery of feminine principles in Architecture and Planning. Womens Stud. Int. Quart.
1981
,4, 75–81.
[CrossRef]
76.
Sarmento, D.P.G.; Bankhardt, F.A. Inclusive cities for women: From women’s history to transformations in the city space. NODO
2002,14, 86–102.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10062 23 of 23
77.
Venturi, R.; Scott Brown, D. Architecture as Signs and Systems: For a Mannerist Time; Belknap Press of Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014.
78.
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and the City of Montreal (Femmes et Ville Program). A City Tailored to Women.
The Role of Municipal Governments in Achieving Gender Equality. 2004. Available online: https://fcm.ca/sites/default/files/
documents/resources/guide/a-city-tailored-to-women-the-role-of-municipal-governments-in-achieving-gender-equality-
wilg.pdf (accessed on 27 June 2020).
79.
Cucurella, A.; Garcia-Ramon, M.D.; Baylina, M. Gender, age and design in a new public space in a mediterranean town: The Parc
dels Colors in Mollet del Valles (Barcelona). Eur. Spat. Res. Policy 2006,13, 181–194.
80. Amin, A. The good city. Urban Stud. 2006,43, 1009–1023. [CrossRef]
81. Curran, W.; Breitbach, C. Notes on women in the global city: Chicago. Gend. Place Cult. 2010,17, 393–399. [CrossRef]
82.
Muxí, Z.; Casanovas, R.; Ciocoletto, A.; Fonseca, M.; Gutiérrez, B. ¿Quéaporta la Perspectiva de Género al Urbanismo? Feminismo/s
2011,17, 105–129. [CrossRef]
83.
Turner, J. Urban mass transit, gender planning protocols and social sustainability. The case of Jakarta. Res. Transp. Econ.
2011
,34,
48–53. [CrossRef]
84.
Gutiérrez-Mozo, M.E. Arquitectura y el Urbanismo con Perspectiva de Género. Feminismo/s; Universidad de Alicante: Alicante, Spain,
2011.
85.
Ciocoletto, A. Estudios Urbanos, Género y Feminismo. Teorías y Experiencias; Generalitat de Catalunya, Institut Catalàde les Dones:
Barcelona, Spain, 2012.
86.
Tummers, L. Urbanism of proximity: Gender-expertise or shortsighted strategy? Re-introducing Gender Impact Assessments in
spatial planning. TRIA 2013,6. [CrossRef]
87.
Ciocoletto, A. Urbanismo Para la Vida Cotidiana. Herramientas de Análisis y Evaluación Urbana a Escala de Barrio Desde la
Perspectiva de Género. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, 2014.
88. Tummers, L. Gender stereotypes in the practice of urbanism. Trav. Genre Soc. 2015,33, 67–83. [CrossRef]
89.
Majedi, H.M.; Alireza, A.; Mehrabi, Z.; Mosharzadeh, Z. Identifying effective factors of women’s participation in urban
development projects. Bagh E Nazar 2015,12, 107–116.
90.
Schreiber, F.; Carius, A. Ciudades inclusivas: Planeamiento urbano para la diversidad y la cohesión social. In La Situación del
Mundo 2016: Informe Anual del Worldwatch Institute sobre Progreso Hacia una Sociedad Sostenible; Icaria Ediciones: Vilassar de Dalt,
Spain, 2016; pp. 293–314.
91.
Mateo-Cecilia, C.; Rubio-Garrido, A.; Serrano-Lanzarote, B. Some notes on how to introduce the gender perspective in urban
policies. The case of the Valencian community (Spain). TRIA 2016,17, 187–201. [CrossRef]
92.
Jazmín, M. Metropolitan dynamics in the XXIst century: Some elements to think about gender and sexuality in urban spaces.
TRIA 2015,16, 135. [CrossRef]
93. Beebeejaun, Y. Gender, urban space, and the right to everyday life. J. Urban Aff. 2017,39, 323–334. [CrossRef]
94.
Martin, S.M. Human building. Settlements for and from People. Conclusions on Six Case-Studies. Kultur
2017
,4, 235–263.
[CrossRef]
95.
Arora, A. Mainstreaming Gender in Urban Planning Gender and Mobility, Velo-City, Access to Life. Kapsarc. 2018. Available
online: https://ecf.com/sites/ecf.com/files/Arora_A._Mainstreaming_Gender_in_Urban_Planning.pdf (accessed on 2 December
2020).
96.
Thi-Thanh-Hien, P.; Danielle Labbé, D.; Lachapelle, U.; Étienne Pelletier, E. Perception of park access and park use amongst youth
in Hanoi: How cultural and local context matters. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019,189, 156–165. [CrossRef]
97.
Arefian, F.F.; Moeini, S.H.I. Urban Heritage Along the Silk Roads. A Contemporary Reading of Urban Transformation of Historic Cities in
the Middle East and Beyond; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [CrossRef]
98. Alcañiz-Moscardó, M.; Fuertes, I. La feminización de la pobreza; Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I: Castellón, Spain, 2020.
99.
Grabowska, I. Quality of life in poor neighborhoods through the lenses of the capability approach—A case study of a deprived
area of Łód´z City centre. Sustainability 2021,13, 7185. [CrossRef]
100.
García-Bernal, D.; Huedo, P.; Babiloni, S.; Braulio, M.; Carrascosa, C.; Civera, V.; Ruá, M.J.; Agost-Felip, M.R. (INPRU-CS). Estudio
y Propuesta de Áreas de Rehabilitación, Regeneración y Renovación Urbana, con Motivo de la Tramitación del Plan General
Estructural de Castellón de la Plana. Available online: https://s3-eu- west-1.amazonaws.com/urbanismo/TOMO_I.pdf;https:
//s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/urbanismo/TOMO_II.pdf;https://s3-eu- west-1.amazonaws.com/urbanismo/TOMO_III.pdf;
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/urbanismo/TOMO_IV.pdf (accessed on 2 December 2020).
