ThesisPDF Available

Gender inequality of innovative and sustainable mobility solutions: development of measures to bridge the gender mobility gap to overcome socially constructed gender-typical obstacles by means of free-floating e-carsharing in urban areas

Authors:
  • AEM Institute

Abstract

The research reveals that urban women's mobility needs are complex due to their involvement in household tasks and work-related travel, resulting in frequent but shorter trips. Despite these needs, current FFECS users are predominantly male, highlighting a gender disparity in the adoption of sustainable mobility solutions. The literature suggests that women's pragmatic view of cars could favour the uptake of shared electric mobility. This mixed-methods research explores urban women's preferences for innovative mobility solutions, specifically focusing on free-floating electric carsharing (FFECS). The study investigates the motivations behind urban women's usage of FFECS and identifies measures to address potential barriers. This dissertation adopts a mixed-method approach, integrating qualitative and quantitative research to examine how urban women can be effectively targeted for multimodal and intermodal mobility services. The research comprises three empirical stages: 1. Analysing a sample of early female adopters of e-carsharing in Berlin to understand their characteristics compared to male early adopters. 2. Extending this characterization to a representative sample of urban dwellers in Germany to explore gender differences in mobility access, perceptions, and attitudes, particularly towards sustainable transport. 3. Employing qualitative interviews and GPS-tracking to investigate gender-specific preferences and the practicality of e-carsharing for women. Findings indicate distinct acceptance levels and attitudes among women regarding mobility. Four social constructs were identified that impede women's adoption of FFECS, providing a basis for recommendations aimed at enhancing service models and policies to better cater to urban women's mobility needs.
Gender Inequality
of Innovative and Sustainable Mobility Solutions
Development of measures
to bridge the gender mobility gap
to overcome socially constructed gender-typical obstacles
by means of free-floating e-carsharing in urban areas
vorgelegt von
M.A., Dipl.-VerwW.
Ines Kawgan-Kagan
an der Fakultät V – Verkehrs- und Maschinensysteme
der Technischen Universität Berlin
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades
Doktorin der Ingenieurwissenschaften
- Dr.-Ing. -
Promotionsausschuss:
Vorsitzender: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Henning J. Meyer
Gutachterin: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Christine Ahrend
Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Christian Hoffmann
Tag der wissenschaftlichen Aussprache:
Berlin 2020
i
Preface
This cumulative PhD thesis contains the manuscripts of the following publications:
[1] Early adopters of carsharing with and without BEVs with respect to gender
preferences
Ines Kawgan-Kagan
Technical University Berlin, Germany
European Transport Research Review, 7(4), 1-11, 2015
doi:10.1007/s12544-015-0183-3
Springer ISSN: 1866-8887 (electronic version), Journal no. 12544
[2] Are Women greener than Men? A preference analysis of women and men from
major cities in Germany over sustainable urban mobility
Ines Kawgan-Kagan
Technical University Berlin, Germany
Transportation Research Part F, 2020 submitted
Elsevier, ISSN: 13698478
[3] Sustainability and Gender: a mixed-method analysis of urban women’s mode
choice with particular consideration of e-carsharing
Ines Kawgan-Kagan1, Mareike Popp2
1Technical University Berlin, Germany, 2University of Applied Sciences Coburg,
University of Bamberg, Germany
Transportation Research Procedia 31 (2018) 146–159, European Transport
Conference 2017
Elsevier, ISSN: 2352-1465
ii
Abstract
This mixed-methods research provides insights about gender preferences of urban
women regarding innovative urban mobility solutions analysing the use of and the
attitudes towards free-floating e-carsharing in urban areas from a gender perspective.
This work provides the answer to the research question, what motivates urban women
to use free-floating e-carsharing, and what measures can help to overcome potential
obstacles.
Findings from previous literature showed that women take over more often household-
related tasks besides accompanying family members partially in addition to making
work-related trips. They, therefore, travel considerably more, but shorter trips on
average in terms of distance and time. According to the current daily tasks of urban
women, their mobility behaviour is more complex than that of men, and mode choice
especially differs for new innovative mobility solutions. In addition, previous studies
reported that several factors hint towards women showing a higher (at least higher than
now) affinity towards sustainable shared e-mobility: This pragmatic, functional and
less emotional anticipation of cars of women should, therefore, speak for a high
potential of the use of electric vehicles in combination with carsharing. Nevertheless,
these findings are not sufficient when it comes to the internationally visible
phenomenon of early adopters of innovative and sustainable mobility services such as
free-floating carsharing with battery electric vehicles (FFECS): Current users of these
services are mostly male.
This dissertation project introduces mobility planning as an enhanced form of transport
planning due to a distinction between mobility and transport, according to Ahrend et
al. (2013). Inline, this study uses a mixed-method approach of empirical social
research combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to answer the question of
how women can be addressed as a target group for multimodal or intermodal mobility
in urban areas, with the focus on the use of free-floating carsharing in combination
with electric vehicles.
iii
The first empirical part aims for understanding the picture of women who are already
using e-carsharing at a very early stage of its market diffusion. A sample of users from
Berlin is analysed to gain insights about whether female early adopters have the same
characterisation as the internationally homogeneous groups of male early adopters. In
a second empirical step, the resulting characterisation is then transferred to a group
representative of urban dwellers from urban areas in Germany and differences between
men and women, both with and without children, are examined with regard to access
to resources, perception and use of different modes and attitudes towards different, but
especially sustainable modes of transport. In the last empirical part, the use of modes
of transport in a gender-appropriate research design combining qualitative interviews
and GPS-tracking data. The corresponding requirements for e-carsharing are examined,
and concrete advantages and disadvantages for women are worked out. The results of
the quantitative and qualitative studies show the acceptance of women and their
different attitudes towards mobility-related aspects. Four social constructs were
identified that hinder women from adopting free-floating e-carsharing. These four
social constructs build the foundation for developing recommendations for improving
the services for urban women regarding policy and service model.
Keywords: mobility planning, gender differences, measure development, sustainable
e-mobility, attitudes, urban mobility, heteronormativity
iv
v
Table of contents
Preface ...................................................................................................................... i
Abstract ................................................................................................................... ii
Table of contents ....................................................................................................... v
List of tables ............................................................................................................. x
List of figures...........................................................................................................xi
List of abbreviations ............................................................................................. xiii
PART A ................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 A Need for sustainable urban mobility ............................................................. 1
1.2 The phenomenon of male users of innovative sustainable mobility .................. 2
1.3 Is Free-floating E-carsharing not suitable for urban women? ............................ 4
1.4 Research question ............................................................................................ 5
1.5 Introducing mobility planning as a frame of this work ..................................... 6
1.6 Structure of this work .................................................................................... 10
2. Sustainable Urban Mobility and E-Carsharing ..................................................... 12
2.1 Carsharing ..................................................................................................... 12
2.1.1 Carsharing a systematic approach to a definition .................................. 12
2.1.2 Differentiation to other forms of mobility ................................................ 15
2.2 Free-floating E-carsharing in the context of this work .................................... 19
2.3 General usage motives and acceptance issues of FFECS ................................ 21
2.4 Free-floating E-carsharing as a part of urban e-mobility ................................. 23
3. Gendered perspectives and their implications in mobility research ...................... 26
3.1 Gender in the context of the work .................................................................. 26
3.2 Gendered daily mobility ................................................................................ 29
3.2.1 The Impact of gender on daily mobility ................................................... 29
3.2.2 Gender and sustainable mobility .............................................................. 32
3.2.3 Gender and collection of mobility data .................................................... 33
vi
4. A mixed-method research design......................................................................... 35
4.1 Splitting the over-all question ........................................................................ 36
4.2 Three sub-studies ........................................................................................... 37
4.2.1 Characterisation of female early adopters of E-carsharing ....................... 37
4.2.2 Sustainable mode choice of urban women ............................................... 38
4.2.3 Free-floating E-carsharing from female perspectives ............................... 39
4.3 Summary and measure development .............................................................. 39
5. References PART A ............................................................................................ 41
PART B ................................................................................................................. 48
PART B: Manuscript 1: .......................................................................................... 49
PART B: Manuscript 2............................................................................................ 61
Abstract .................................................................................................................. 62
Keywords................................................................................................................ 63
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 64
2. Gender and sustainable urban mobility state of the field ...................................... 65
2.1 Gendered urban mobility patterns .................................................................. 66
2.2 Impact of gendered access to resources .......................................................... 67
2.3 Gendered attitudes towards innovative, sustainable electric mobility ............. 68
2.4 A gender-based perspective on innovative and sustainable urban mobility is
necessary ............................................................................................................. 70
3. Research design .................................................................................................. 72
3.1 Sample .......................................................................................................... 72
3.2 Questionnaire ................................................................................................ 73
3.3 Analysis......................................................................................................... 75
4. Results ................................................................................................................ 75
4.1 Access to resources ........................................................................................ 76
4.1.1 Descriptive overview ............................................................................... 76
4.1.2 Driving licences ...................................................................................... 77
4.1.3 Car and bicycle availability ..................................................................... 79
4.2 Perception of cars, of driving, and car ownership ........................................... 81
vii
4.2.1 Meaning of cars for personal mobility and car ownership ........................ 82
4.2.2 Reach of destinations .............................................................................. 83
4.2.3 Reasons for dispensing ............................................................................ 84
4.3 Mode choice .................................................................................................. 85
4.3.1 Primary mode .......................................................................................... 86
4.3.2 Preferred mode of transport ..................................................................... 88
4.3.3 Active car driving or being a passenger ................................................... 89
4.4 Acceptance of sustainable and innovative mobility ........................................ 90
5. Discussion and conclusion .................................................................................. 93
6. References .......................................................................................................... 96
PART B: Manuscript 3.......................................................................................... 101
PART C ............................................................................................................... 116
9. Advantages and disadvantages of free-floating E-carsharing ............................. 116
9.1 Answers to the different research questions ................................................. 116
9.1.1 Research Question 1: Characterisation of female early adopters of E-
carsharing ...................................................................................................... 116
9.1.1.1 Socio-demographics .................................................................. 117
9.1.1.2 Preferences regarding other modes of transport, usage, and evaluation
of (e-) carsharing .................................................................................. 119
9.1.1.3 Attitudes relevant to mobility issues .......................................... 119
9.1.1.4 Conclusions for the next research parts ..................................... 120
9.1.2 Research Question 2: Decisive factors of gendered sustainable mobility 121
9.1.2.1 Gendered access to resources .................................................... 122
9.1.2.2 Gendered perception of cars, of driving, and car ownership ...... 122
9.1.2.3 Gendered meaning of sustainable urban transport...................... 123
9.1.2.4 Conclusion and research recommendation ................................. 123
9.1.3 Research Question 3: Using free-floating E-carsharing from a female
perspective ..................................................................................................... 126
9.1.3.1 Women’s role in daily life with family responsibilities .............. 126
9.1.3.2 Practical issues due to usual mode choice .................................. 127
viii
9.1.3.3 Conclusion ................................................................................ 128
9.2 Obstacles of FFECS for women in urban areas ............................................ 129
9.2.1 Obstacles due to social construct of masculine mobility ........................ 129
9.2.2 Obstacles due to the social construct of active and passive driving ........ 130
9.2.3 Obstacles due to attitudes towards technology and innovation ............... 131
9.2.4 Obstacles due to gender-typical task division ........................................ 132
9.2.5 What aspects are not problematic for women using FFECS? ................. 134
9.2.6 Summarising the findings of the problem analyses ................................ 134
10. Measures to overcome gender imbalance in FFECS ........................................ 136
10.1 Systematic approach to developing measures to overcome the obstacles with
FFECS .............................................................................................................. 136
10.2 Measures addressing the social construct of masculine mobility................. 138
10.2.1 Empower and encourage women to ideate, develop and implement
mobility solutions .......................................................................................... 138
10.2.2 Gender in transportation and mobility research .................................... 139
10.2.3 Mobility as a diverse and gender-neutral topic in early education ........ 140
10.3 Measures addressing lack of active driving in urban traffic ........................ 142
10.3.1 Empowering women to drive actively in urban traffic.......................... 142
10.3.2 Substitute the need for active driving in urban traffic ........................... 144
10.3.3 Reduced and safer urban traffic ........................................................... 146
10.4 Measures addressing social constructs of masculine technology and
innovation ......................................................................................................... 147
10.4.1 Standardised and pragmatic FFECS services ....................................... 147
10.4.2 Gender-sensitive content and communication channels........................ 148
10.5 Measures addressing gender-typical task division ...................................... 150
10.5.1 Family-friendly FFECS services .......................................................... 150
10.5.2 Information regarding benefits of FFECS for families ......................... 152
10.6 Summary of Measures ............................................................................... 153
10.7 Assessment of measures ............................................................................ 155
10.7.1 Consistency of measures ..................................................................... 155
10.7.2 Secondary effects on other groups of people ........................................ 156
10.7.3 General effect on urban traffic and spaces ........................................... 157
ix
11. What motivates urban women to use free-floating e-carsharing, and what
measures can help to overcome potential obstacles? .............................................. 159
12. Evaluation of the research design .................................................................... 162
12.1 Quality criteria of scientific work ............................................................... 163
12.2 Framework of this cumulative dissertation ................................................. 163
12.3 Quantitative empirical research of this project ........................................... 165
12.4 GPS-data in combination with qualitative interviews ................................. 167
12.5 Development of measures .......................................................................... 170
12.6 Conclusion................................................................................................. 172
13. Open questions and future research recommendations ..................................... 173
14. Summary and conclusion ................................................................................ 176
15. References Part C ............................................................................................ 176
16. References combined including the three manuscripts ..................................... 186
x
List of tables
Table 1 Sample description (German major cities, n=2,400, subsamples and
Germany) ................................................................................................................73
Table 2 Mobility-related attitudes, Indices generated by Hinkeldein et al. (2015) ....74
Table 3 Descriptive overview (Socio-demographics, mobility-related items, German
major cities, n=2,400) .............................................................................................77
Table 4 Comparison of socio-demographic characteristics – (n=492, Berlin) ......... 118
xi
List of figures
Figure 1 Concepts of mobility and transport ............................................................. 8
Figure 2 Mobility planning process based on the transport planning process by FSGV
(2001) ...................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3 Dimensions and characteristics of carsharing ............................................15
Figure 4 Dimensions and characteristics of carsharing after comparing to other
shared transport options ..........................................................................................18
Figure 5 Dimensions and characteristics of carsharing in the context of this research
...............................................................................................................................20
Figure 6 Shift from monomodal mobility to sustainable e-mobility .........................25
Figure 7 Law's framework of gendered daily mobility (1999) .................................30
Figure 8 Exemplary visualisation of travel behaviour comparing women and men ..31
Figure 9 Overview of this research in mobility planning .........................................40
Figure 10 Sample distribution in Germany, n=2,400 ................................................72
Figure 11 Differences in distribution of driving licences of urban dwellers, n=2,400
...............................................................................................................................79
Figure 12 Distribution of cars and bicycles of urban dwellers, n=2,400 ...................80
Figure 13 Availability of cars and bicycles as driver of urban dwellers, n=2,400 .....81
Figure 14 Agreement to statements regarding cars, driving, and ownership, n=2,400
...............................................................................................................................83
Figure 15 Frequency of car use for daily trips, n=2,400 ...........................................84
Figure 16 Reasons for car dispensing of urban dwellers, n=532...............................85
Figure 17 Primary mode of daily trips of urban dwellers, n=2,400 ..........................87
Figure 18 Preferred mode of transport of urban dweller, n=2,400 ............................88
Figure 19 Active and passive car use of urban dwellers, n=2,400 ............................89
Figure 20 Deviation of z-standardized indeces regarding sustainable and innovaite
mobility, n=2,400 ....................................................................................................92
Figure 21 Attitudinal differences of women and men from urban areas (N=2400) and
early adopters (N=495) ......................................................................................... 125
xii
Figure 22 Goals, objectives and measures: Empower and encourage women to ideate,
develop and implement mobility solutions ............................................................ 139
Figure 23 Goals, objectives and measures: Gender in transportation and mobility
research ................................................................................................................ 140
Figure 24 Goals, objectives and measures: Mobility as a diverse and gender-neutral
topic in early education ......................................................................................... 141
Figure 25 Goals, objectives and measures: Measures addressing lack of active
driving in urban traffic .......................................................................................... 143
Figure 26 Level of automation according SAE-International (2018) ...................... 145
Figure 27 Goals, objectives and measures: Substitute the need for active driving in
urban traffic .......................................................................................................... 146
Figure 28 Goals, objectives and measures: Reduced and safer urban traffic ........... 147
Figure 29 Goals, objectives and measures: Standardised and pragmatic FFECS
services ................................................................................................................. 148
Figure 30 Goals, objectives and measures: Gender-sensitive content and
communication channels ....................................................................................... 149
Figure 31 Goals, objectives and measures: Family-friendly FFECS services ......... 151
Figure 32 Goals, objectives and measures: Information regarding benefits of FFECS
for families ........................................................................................................... 152
Figure 33 Overview combines all the goals and measures according to the identified
social constructs that hinder women to adopt FFECS ............................................ 154
xiii
List of abbreviations
approx. ............................................................................................. approximately
BEV .................................................................................... battery electric vehicle
BMWi ........................................... Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Energie
CS ..........................................................................................................carsharing
CSO .................................................................................. carsharing organisation
EV .................................................................................................. electric vehicle
FFECS ........................................................................... free-floating e-carsharing
FSGV ........................ Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen e.V.
GMA ................................................................... General Morphological Analysis
ICEV ............................................................... internal combustion engine vehicle
OEM ................................................................... original equipment manufacturer
PHEV ...................................................................... plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
PT ................................................................................................. public transport
STEM ....................................... science, technology, engineering and mathematics
PART A: 1.1 A Need for sustainable urban mobility
1
PART A
1. Introduction
1.1 A Need for sustainable urban mobility
Urban areas are increasingly facing problems due to heavy traffic caused by
motorised individual mobility. This mobility culture that is dominated by private car
ownership with an internal combustion engine (Flade, 2007) leads to problems such as
air pollution, high noise emissions, space scarcity, and traffic congestion lower the
quality of urban living. Mainly, air pollution because of nitrogen oxides and fine dust
emissions are being discussed in the media to cause severe problems for humans and
the environment.
The German government supports e-mobility as it promises excellent economic
and social opportunities for Germany with the potential to increase the quality of life,
especially in urban (BMWi, 2017). In 2018, there were almost a hundred thousand
electric vehicles with 53.861 vehicles with pure electric drive (battery electric vehicles,
BEV) and 44.419 plugin hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) (Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt,
2018c). The number of BEVs increased by nearly 70 % compared to July 2017.
Nevertheless, the share of electric vehicles remains below 0.12 % of the overall
passenger cars in Germany (Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt, 2018b), which is nowhere near up
to the Government’s goal of one million electric cars on the roads of Germany by 2020
(BMWi, 2018). The German government has adopted a package of measures to support
the development of electromobility by promoting measures and research to overcome
problems that BEVs can bring (BMWi, 2017). High initial costs (Lim, Mak, & Rong,
2015; Mock & Yang, 2014) and range issues (Daubitz & Kawgan-Kagan, 2015;
Nilsson, 2011) are frequently cited problems. From a transport planning perspective,
carsharing in urban areas implementing battery electric vehicles (e-carsharing) offers
a promising solution to these issues (Kumar & Bierlaire, 2012; Wappelhorst, Graff,
Steiner, & Hinkeldein, 2013): It offers e-mobility without the initial costs in urban
PART A: 1.2 The phenomenon of male users of innovative sustainable mobility
2
areas for typically short trips. Carsharing makes e-mobility more visible and
experienceable on the streets, which are essential factors in the market adoption of
BEVs (Bühler, Cocron, Neumann, Franke, & Krems, 2014).
Flexible car sharing, in which vehicles are booked at the roadside and can be
parked at the destination at the end of the journey, has the potential to significantly
improve urban mobility by supporting multimodal and intermodal travel behaviour,
locally emission-free traffic and solve parking issues (Rid, Parzinger, Grausam, Müller,
& Herdtle, 2018; Wappelhorst, Sauer, Hinkeldein, Bocherding, & Glaß, 2014). The
original equipment manufacturer (OEMs) are particularly important as providers of
carsharing because they offer a high potential to make BEVs visible and tangible on
the roads: OEMs had a share of 18% BEVs compared to 3% of other forms of
carsharing (Kawgan-Kagan, 2015b). Although the membership data of carsharing with
and without battery electric vehicles increases in Germany with 2.110.000 registered
members across 165 German Carsharing providers in January 2018 (BCS, 2018) and
4.842.162 in the Americas in January 2017 (Shaheen, Cohen, & Jaffee, 2018), only a
small share of the population take the opportunity to use of e-carsharing. Unfortunately,
the number of BEVs in carsharing fleets in Germany decreased from 18 % in 2015 to
13 % in 2018 (BCS, 2015, 2018). This share is still very high and more than 110 times
higher as electrification of all passenger cars in Germany (0.12 %) (Kraftfahrt-
Bundesamt, 2018b).
1.2 The phenomenon of male users of innovative sustainable mobility
Based on Rogers' Market Diffusion approach (Rogers, 2003), the term early
adopter is often used to describe people who already use new products or services at
the beginning of the market launch and represent only a small part of the population.
Several studies regarding carsharing reveal a higher frequency of use of men
than of women (Barthel, 2012; Borchardt, 2012; Franke, 2001; Harms, 2003).
Especially early adopters of battery electric vehicles and carsharing show an
PART A: 1.2 The phenomenon of male users of innovative sustainable mobility
3
unbalanced relationship between women and men, as repeatedly reported in numerous
international studies (Bjerkan, Nørbech, & Nordtømme, 2016; Globisch, Schneider,
Peters, Roser, & Wietschel, 2013; Jarass, Frenzel, & Trommer, 2013; Kawgan-Kagan,
2015b; Wappelhorst et al., 2013). Haustein and Jensen (2018), for example, revealed
a 95 % share of male users of BEVs in Sweden; a study about the potential of electric
carsharing by Wappelhorst et al. (2014) included 96 % male users in their sample of
Berlin e-carsharing users. A detailed analysis of literature on the phenomenon of early
adopters follows in the first of the three articles, in Part B in the second manuscript of
this work. At this point, however, it can already be stated that early adopters are a
remarkably homogeneous group of people (Kawgan-Kagan, 2015b). This
phenomenon is quite known in the literature, but not addressed accordingly.
Sonnberger and Carrera (2014a) point it out as one of the existing obstacles and refer
to it as subordinate. The fact that this phenomenon has not changed over the years and
is still existing in 2019 calls for a detailed investigation. Therefore, the homogenous
group of early adopters of free-floating e-carsharing (FFECS) builds the cornerstone
of this work, and the low acceptance of women becomes the linchpin of this research.
Some researchers report that women use sharing services much more frequently,
which contradicts the phenomenon described above (Loose, 2016; Röhr, Alber, &
Göldner, 2018). For instance, Loose (2016) reports that 44 % of German car sharers
are women and noted that this is not consistent with findings from scientific studies on
free-floating carsharing. Unfortunately, this major discrepancy is not being further
investigated by the author and interpretation is up to the reader. Röhr et al. (2018) write
that in France, more women than men use carsharing citing Delhomme and Gheorghiu
(2016). Their study, though, investigated a different form of sharing a car than the
subject of the other studies revealing the gender mobility gap: Their research subject
is carpooling, which they distinguish clearly from carsharing at the beginning of their
work. Differences arise from an indistinct definition of what kind of sharing a car was
analysed. Therefore, this term must be precisely differentiated and defined to provide
reliable results. The fact that carsharing does not mean one specific form of sharing a
vehicle becomes apparent when different dimensions of carsharing are examined.
PART A: 1.3 Is Free-floating E-carsharing not suitable for urban women?
4
Section 2. Sustainable Urban Mobility and E-Carsharing of this work elaborates the
different dimensions of carsharing and provides a definition of carsharing for this work.
1.3 Is Free-floating E-carsharing not suitable for urban women?
Even though men are currently identified as the primary users of FFECS, as
the manuscript 2 in Part B will show in details, women offer a promising research area
for the future: Konrad (2016) found increasing use of cars analysing panel data from
Germany covering more than 30 years. Among young adults, the gender gap in car
ownership has almost disappeared (ifmo, 2011). Nevertheless, there is a huge
difference in car ownership: In Germany in January 2019, merely 34.2 % of the car
holder are female (Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt, 2019). Although Konrad identified a
convergence of mobility between women and men, she confirmed a persisting gender
mobility gap resulting from different social roles in our society mostly due to
differences in daily tasks for women and men (Konrad, 2016). In everyday life of
women, mobility often means more than considering one individuum: Women often
shape not only their mobility but also the mobility of children, which they take more
care of than men (Konrad, 2016; Law, 1999; Nobis & Lenz, 2005). This direct
influence includes a direct function as a role model for future generation (Limbourg,
Flade, & Schönharting, 2000; Tully & Baier, 2011). In order to make this sustainable
effect usable, women's preferences and requirements for the use and FFECS must also
be uncovered and appropriately served.
Besides accompanying family members and making paid work-related trips,
women take over more often household tasks and, therefore, travel considerably more,
but shorter trips on average in terms of distance and time (Konrad, 2016; Rosenbloom,
2000). According to the current living situation of women, their mobility behaviour is
more complex than that of men (Konrad, 2016). Notably, in urban areas, some of these
trips could be covered by FFECS when a car is needed as an alternative to private car
ownership and a supplement to public transport and walking and cycling.
PART A: 1.4 Research question
5
A generally higher environmental awareness of women (Umweltbundesamt,
2012) indicates a higher acceptance of sustainable transport of women. Also, cars are
seen less as a status symbol (Balkmar, 2012; Lumsden, 2010); functionality is crucial;
high speeds and performance play a subordinate role (Delhomme, Chaurand, & Paran,
2012; Vick, 2003) and this view on cars as a status symbol correlates negatively with
the willingness to use carsharing (Becker, Ciari, & Axhausen, 2017). So, the question
arises, why women are so reluctant to use electric vehicles? In the early twentieth-
century in the US, passenger car manufactures even advertised gas cars being suitable
for men and electric vehicles for women: Due to EVs being quieter, less complicated,
more comfortable, cleaner, they were popular among women who wanted to increase
their mobility. The short and infrequent trips of women were supposed to be easily
covered by an EV (Scharff, 1992).
In conclusion, several factors hint towards women showing a higher (at least
higher than now) affinity towards sustainable shared e-mobility: This pragmatic,
functional and less emotional anticipation of cars of women should, therefore, speak
for a high potential of the use of electric vehicles in combination with carsharing.
1.4 Research question
Many visions of future mobility concepts are seeing people as a sum of rational
choices regarding usage (Bergman, Schwanen, & Sovacool, 2017). Those visions need
to see people as more than that, though: People are complex, and choices are made
based on various factors as many studies in transport psychology and mobility research
have proven (Flade, 2013). The active or passive decision for a specific mode has been
researched with identifying a range of factors such as infrastructure, accessibility,
attitudes and values and of course socio-demographic factors, for instance, gender
(Hunecke, 2015). Gender-specific mobility conditions lead to gender-specific mobility
requirement (Law, 1999). In most of the studies about acceptance of different modes,
gender plays a minor role, although it is often found to be leading to significant
PART A: 1.5 Introducing mobility planning as a frame of this work
6
differences. It is treated as a control variable without questioning the meaning behind
this factor, especially when researching factors influencing the acceptance of battery
electric vehicles. This work lifts the factor gender above being a mere control variable.
No research has been done on the topic of a female perspective on free-floating
carsharing with battery electric vehicles until now. For this reason, this dissertation
project refers to the willingness of women to use FFECS in urban areas. The question
arises as to what moves women to make use of FFECS services and what measures
can be derived and implemented from it.
What motivates urban women to use free-floating e-carsharing, and what
measures can help to overcome potential obstacles?
Besides promoting FFECS and addressing a specific market segment, it is
essential to consider other groups beyond the current type of user and identify probably
different requirements for implementing FFECS into their mobility. At this point in the
market stage, it is crucial to understand requirements and preferences to develop
measures to overcome possible obstacles. Accordingly, those measures can help to
provide services that do not exclude women in the first place and make is available for
this massive part of the urban population. The intention of this dissertation is not to
develop measures that merely change the service of FFECS; it intends to provide
measures that aim at the issue of socially constructed underlying issues and needs a
unique approach to achieve this goal.
1.5 Introducing mobility planning as a frame of this work
PART A: 1.5 Introducing mobility planning as a frame of this work
7
This work is a cumulative dissertation
1
in the field of sociology and integrated
transport planning containing a frame (Part A introduction: section 1. – 5. and Part C
end part: section 9. – 12.) and three peer-reviewed articles (Part B). As the aim of this
research project is to provide specific measures to achieve a defined objective as
presented in section 1.4 Research question, and is, therefore, based on the process of
an adapted form of transport planning according to process given by FSGV
Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen e.V. (2001) as presented in
Figure 2. Therefore, this frame (Part A and Part C) not only introduces the topic and
summarises the findings from the respective articles; furthermore, it contains the
development and discussion of measures.
The transport planning process is used to plan for a change in the location of
individuals or good in a transport system. It provides information to build new or
change existing transport systems and future demands of transport and infrastructure.
In contrast, this research uses a sociological focus on a heteronormative socially
constructed meanings of mobility-related topics to identify the actual problems. Due
to this sociological nature, the original transport planning process needs modifications
summarised in this section.
Ahrend et. al (2013) elaborated a distinction between transport and mobility
that I like to use in my research: Whereas transport means the actual, physical
movement of objects, subjects, data or information, mobility comprises a cognitive
scope of all transport possibilities of a subject. Mobility is a kind of plan of which an
individual can decide from for the actual movement in space, the actual transport
1
A cumulative dissertation is described as a doctoral thesis, which consists of
several scientific articles combined to answer a research question.
PART A: 1.5 Introducing mobility planning as a frame of this work
8
(Figure 1). Therefore, mobility happens in an individual’s mind, and transport happens
in time and space.
In this research, the focus lies on the perception of a specific mode of transport
(free-floating carsharing with battery electric vehicles) from a sociological point of
view and the measures are designed to include this mode of transport into this plan of
which individuals chose their actual mode of transport in a specific situation. The
measures are not developed to induce more use of FFECS, but to include it into the
mindset. The long-term idea is that women (and other urban dwellers) move their
mobility towards a sustainable, multi-
2
and intermodality
3
and away from the focus on
private car-ownership with vehicles with internal combustion engines. This distinction
between transport and mobility calls for a change in the planning process, beginning
with giving it a new name:
Mobility Planning
2
Multi-modality describes the combination of different modes in general.
3
Inter-modality describes the combination of different modes on one trip.
Figure 1 Concepts of mobility and transport
PART A: 1.5 Introducing mobility planning as a frame of this work
9
Mobility planning means pre-orientation, problem analysis, investigation of
measures, consideration, and decision as well as implementation and impact
monitoring to make specific forms of transport thinkable for individuals. In contrast to
transport planning, mobility planning does not focus on changing physical aspects such
as capacity demand or transport route planning; it aims at measures to achieve that
individuals consider a mode of transport or a combination of modes for their individual
cognitive plan of mobility options.
In mobility planning, the perceived defects can be of a psychological or societal
nature and are delimited by societal aspects but not locally delimitable in a transport
system. Regarding sociological topics, this could be an observed phenomenon; in this
work, it is an internationally observable phenomenon of male early adopters of FFECS.
Accordingly, the problem analysis needs a broader assessment of the situation
by using methods of empirical social sciences. Goals and guides aim at the mobility -
plan of transport options of individuals and, inline, developed measures focus on the
perception of individuals rather than on infrastructural aspects of transportation. These
measures can be of educational and informative nature. Nevertheless, measures aiming
at services directly have the potential to make those more attractive and potentially
become part of the mobility of individuals.
The following picture describes the single steps of mobility planning:
Figure 2 Mobility planning process based on the transport planning process by FSGV
(2001)
PART A: 1.6 Structure of this work
10
1.6 Structure of this work
According to the describes frame of mobility planning, this dissertation
consists of:
PART A:
The first part of the framework serves as an introduction to the topic, describing
the observed phenomenon and defines relevant terms in addition to the research
question formulated above. This research question will be split into sub-questions, and
the respective methods to answer the sub-questions are being introduced, and their
approaches are discussed in the overall context of the work.
PART B:
The peer-reviewed articles present the empirical and main part of this
dissertation the problem analysis, which combines manuscripts of three studies
published or submitted for publication in scientific journals relevant to the subject.
Each article covers a sub-question of the overall research project, while they are
building upon another. These articles contain detailed literature review for the
respective subjects. Therefore, the introductory part of the framework briefly touches
these topics.
and PART C:
The last part summarises the answers to the sub-questions and combines them
to understand the problem. Then, the findings are summarised and grouped into
practical issues according to specific social constructs. In another step, the practical
issues based on these social constructs will be addressed with goals and detailed
objectives and measures will be developed aiming at the respective goals and to
overcome the obstacles. The suggested measures, then are grouped, and their
consistency will be assessed, their secondary effects and effect on urban mobility, in
general, is assessed in a narrative forecast. Finally, the evaluation of the chosen
PART A: 1.6 Structure of this work
11
approach of this research, including its empirical methods, findings and conclusions
are being discussed, and an outlook on future research and a summary is provided to
close this work.
This research project cannot cover all steps of mobility planning, because this
would go beyond the scope of this dissertation; it will end with a discussion of the
effects of the developed measures and leave the decision and implementation to future
projects to evaluate and eventually adopt the suggested measures.
PART A: 2.1 Carsharing
12
2. Sustainable Urban Mobility and E-Carsharing
In this section, relevant terms are elaborated, and their understanding of this
research is presented. As mentioned in the introduction, there is the necessity of a clear
definition of carsharing. First, a definition of carsharing is systematically derived, and
the definition of carsharing with BEVs in the context of this work is being presented.
Besides, the impact of FFECS is summarised, and its acceptance according to the
current state of literature is presented.
2.1 Carsharing
A frequently used definition of carsharing is the organised form of using one
or more vehicles together by multiple users (Sonnberger & Carrera, 2014b).
Carsharing is not a single concept, but rather an idea of detaching the actual use of
several persons of a vehicle from ownership of this vehicle of one natural or legal
entity (Kiermasch, 2013). Different kinds of carsharing have emerged over time
(Kawgan-Kagan et al., 2018; Shaheen, Chan, & Micheaux, 2015) and differ in their
characteristics. According to their respective form, they attract different users with
different needs and requirements (Becker et al., 2017; Namazu, 2017).
2.1.1 Carsharing – a systematic approach to a definition
In order to define carsharing and determine a definition for this work, an
approach is used called General Morphological Analysis (GMA) by Fritz Zwicky in
1969 (Álvarez & Ritchey, 2015; Ritchey, 2017). GMA is used to understand multi-
dimensional, non-quantifiable problems, for instance, in policy fields and for
PART A: 2.1 Carsharing
13
developing futures scenarios (Ritchey, 2017). In this case, a set of different dimensions
of characteristics is set into relation to show possible configurations of carsharing to
reduce its complexity. The characteristics are extracted from several definitions of
carsharing via a literature review, and relevant values or parameters are assigned.
Schneider and Hilgert (2017) define carsharing as a flexible rent of a car by
several individuals for a short period where the vehicle has to be picked up and
returned at fixed stations or within a business area of a provider. Sonnberger and
Carrera (2014b) differentiate carsharing into station-based and free-floating, as
commercial services on the one hand and into private peer-to-peer carsharing on the
other hand. Therefore, there can be done a distinction depending on who provides a
carsharing service. In the case of private car sharing, either one person, as it is, for
instance, regulated by German law, is or a group of persons are the owner of a car and
make it available to use to others for example via an online platform. A commercial
provider – so-called Carsharing Organisation (CSO) is holding the vehicle and usually
lending it out for a fee to a private person or a company that provides carsharing to
others - their employees for instance (Borchardt, 2012). A particular type of CSO is a
form where an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) provides vehicles to a wholly-
owned subsidiary providing carsharing services. DriveNow, for instance, is wholly
owned by BMW offering their car models. Private or peer-to-peer carsharing is defined
as the privately organised, joint use of a car, whereby the user pays the car owner a fee
for the provision of the vehicle (Sonnberger & Carrera, 2014b). Another concept of a
CSO is their role as the connection between car holder and user; in which case, the
CSO acts as an intermediate. Carsharing is usually internet-based and available via
websites or apps (Sonnberger & Carrera, 2014b). Usually, it is necessary to become a
member of a CSO to use their vehicles with registration and validation of the driver’s
licence (Kiermasch, 2013).
Besides the provider who offers the use of a vehicle, another factor for
differentiation is the circle of users: Users can be limited to friends and family
members but also to an affiliated group that is subject to a kind of admission criterion.
This limitation could be a membership for a commercially provided carsharing service
PART A: 2.1 Carsharing
14
or being part of a group that has permission to use the car (Borchardt, 2012). The
reason why a person uses a shared vehicle leads to another distinction: On the one
hand, trips using a shared car can be due to private reasons like getting to a party in
the evening or a family trip. On the other hand, there are professional reasons like daily
work trips, for instance, for a nursing service (Wappelhorst et al., 2013).
Carsharing offers are additionally differentiated into free-floating and station-
based services (Sonnberger & Carrera, 2014b), whereas the latter requires a reservation
some days in advance and for a beforehand defined period. After the use, the car must
be brought back to the same place where it has been picked up. The more flexible free-
floating carsharing, on the other hand, comprises no fixed place for the cars. Within a
business area, a vehicle can be booked spontaneously from the roadside, usually via
apps or webpages. Afterwards, the car can be freely parked anywhere within the
business area and is available to the next user. Another form is one-way carsharing,
where users can pick up a car a fix station and returns it afterwards at any station of
the respective provider. Also, and due to considerable differences between the
requirements in rural and urban areas, this distinction is to be introduced here as
another form of differentiation. The vehicles can be parked at points of interest, at
decentral locations or, in the case of free-floating carsharing, without any specific
location within a specific area (Anthrakidis et al., 2013).
The time for reservation differs between the types of carsharing: for
commercial station-based and private car sharing, there are longer reservation times;
whereas, for free-floating carsharing, there is usually a 15 minutes reservation time for
a vehicle. Paying for carsharing usually include membership or admission fees
(sometimes even both). The actual use of the cars can be either covered with a fixed
fee or can be paid per minute or per distance.
Finally, carsharing can comprise a single car that can be used or a pool or fleet
of different cars and even different models. The type of propulsion represents a further
differentiation dimension as for all vehicles in general. There are internal combustion
engine vehicles, but also vehicles that run on autogas or hydrogen. Electric vehicles
PART A: 2.1 Carsharing
15
are more common in commercial carsharing than in services. EVs can be distinguished
into plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs).
Kiermasch (2013) analysed several carsharing concepts and introduced a
distinction into categories that are used in this work as well to cluster the characteristics
into the categories booking, use, payment and return of vehicles. The following Figure
3 summarises the dimensions and characteristics of carsharing. Please note that not all
combinations are neither actual available nor possible.
2.1.2 Differentiation to other forms of mobility
At this point, it is necessary to make a distinction between carsharing and other
forms of mobility that involve sharing of vehicles:
Unlike carsharing, taxis have a driver and make it obsolete to actively drive for
users or even hold a driving licence. Also, users are either picked up from the desired
position when ordering a taxi or they have the option of spontaneously boarding a taxi
that either cross the path or waits at one of the designated taxi ranks. The rates for taxi
trips are different and much more complex to the ones of commercial CS: Besides
various surcharges such as for reservation or large luggage, taxi prices in Germany
Figure 3 Dimensions and characteristics of carsharing
PART A: 2.1 Carsharing
16
consists of a general fee for each trip and the driven kilometres as well as waiting time
for instance in heavy traffic.
A similar concept is peer-to-peer ridesharing offered, for instance, by Uber
4
. A
designated private person functions as a driver picking up users with their own, but
this time private car. Due to this similarity to taxi services and their regulations in
Germany, Uber is currently only active in Germany as an intermediary for journeys
with drivers who have official passenger transport permit. Therefore, Uber is not a
private peer-to-peer service in Germany.
Ridesharing or carpooling in its original form means that mainly private people
share a ride that the owner of the car must take in any way. There are several platforms
where people can offer to take others with them on the internet in the app-stores.
Car rental as the more classical approach usually includes renting a car for one
or several days and returning it to one of the few designated stations mostly at places
with great significance for non-residents. In addition, it includes a new market
segment: Drivers whose car is not available due to car accidents rent a car for the
limited time it takes to fix the private car. The onetime use in contrast to frequent use,
which leads to another difference between car rental and carsharing: Car rental makes
it usually necessary to conclude a new contract every time someone rents a car.
Finally, public transportation needs to be mentioned as the most traditional way
to share vehicles, where people share a different type of vehicle, i.e. bus with a driver
on a predefined bus route according to a fixed schedule. New services such as MOIA
5
in Hamburg and Bremen or BerlKönig
6
in Berlin offer an individual way of public
transport in smaller vehicles: Via an app, it possible to be picked up at nearly any
4
Uber’s core service is developing technology that connects drivers and riders on
demand.
5
MOIA is a ride-sharing provider in German cities offering services including a
driver.
6
BerlKönig is a ride-sharing service offered by the LPT provider offering services
including a driver.
PART A: 2.1 Carsharing
17
location where stopping is permitted within a specific area of operation by a minivan
to share the trip with other passengers. Customers usually enter an origin and a
destination so that an algorithm calculates a shared route to pick up and transport as
many passengers as possible. This way, there is no fix bus route with stations and
people can enter the vehicles close to where they want to start and leave close to their
final destination. Taxis start to adapt this concept and offer shared trips as well. This
characterisation can be distinguished into serial use and parallel use, according to
Borchardt (2012).
Public transport and taxis have a transportation obligation that leads to a
general duty to transport a person if possible, with some restriction, however.
According to these other forms of sharing vehicles or cars, two more dimensions and
some new parameters are to be added to the previous characterisations.
These other forms lead to the additional characterisations or additional values
to the previously identified characterisations:
Contract form - Admission/ Membership
Models of vehicles – Busses
Reasons to use, market segment
Way of booking Spontaneously
Time for reservation Spontaneously
Duration – Long term
Area of Service – Everywhere, places of interest
Form of service – Fix lines, on-demand
Payment units – combination of time and travelled distance
Sharing at the same time
Driver included
Duty to transport
Adding these parts to the Zwicky Box, the following picture emerges:
PART A: 2.1 Carsharing
18
Figure 4 Dimensions and characteristics of carsharing after comparing to other shared
transport options
PART A: 2.2 Free-floating E-carsharing in the context of this work
19
2.2 Free-floating E-carsharing in the context of this work
As mentioned before, there are partially contradicting results when it comes to
analysing the acceptance of CS with and without BEVs. It is crucial to understand the
differences worked out in the previous section. To enable a profound analysis and to
sufficiently limit the research subject, the scientific question of the present research
project is limited to urban free-floating carsharing with battery electric vehicles by
commercial providers such as Car2go
7
or Multicity
8
. Members of these services use
them for private and professional reasons, and members usually pay an admission fee
and are charged by the minute. Some providers offer a variation of cars in their fleet
(DriveNow
9
, Car2go), others only one type of vehicle (Multicity). Due to economic
reasons, this service can only be found in urban areas within a company-specific
business area, which is usually the denser city area. The focus on free-floating
carsharing with BEVs results from a similar phenomenon of attracting a homogenous
group of (potential) BEV users and buyers as carsharing does and this phenomenon is
elaborated in the first of the following manuscripts of this work. Besides, the positive
effect of electric vehicles on urban quality of life calls for the use of BEVs in carsharing
services. OEMs have the highest potential to introduce BEVs into the market, which
is why one of this research focusses lies on commercial carsharing by OEMs (Kawgan-
Kagan, 2015b). Also, it focusses on free-floating services because their use requires
more flexibility due to their premise of a short-term reservation and builds a contrast
to round-trip services.
7
Car2go was an international free-floating carsharing provider including BEVs
besides ICEVs in their fleet. It merged in 2019 eith DriveNow.
8
Multicity was a frre-floating charshring provider including only BEVs in their
fleet.
9
DriveNow was an international free-floating carsharing provider including BEVs
besides ICEVs in their fleet. It merged with Car2go in 2019 now called ShareNow.
PART A: 2.2 Free-floating E-carsharing in the context of this work
20
The following lines and marked characteristics in the Zwicky-box demonstrate
the definition of FFECS in the context of this research project:
Figure 5 Dimensions and characteristics of carsharing in the context of this research
PART A: 2.3 General usage motives and acceptance issues of FFECS
21
2.3 General usage motives and acceptance issues of FFECS
As the previous section shows, there are very many different forms of
carsharing. Literature is partly contradicting concerning the characterisation of
(potential) users of carsharing, which is also due to the different market segments of
the respective carsharing forms and lack of clear definition what carsharing with and
without BEVs in research studies. Many of the studies explored the advantages and
issues of several forms of carsharing services. This section provides a summary of
identified aspects that influence the acceptance of carsharing in general. The main
distinction between free-floating and station-based carsharing schemes is that latter
used for longer trips in terms of time and distance, whereas free-floating carsharing is
more used for shorter urban trips (Nobis, 2019). Schaefers (2013) identified usage
motives of carsharing value-seeking, convenience, lifestyle, and environmental
motives. A detailed analysis of attitudes towards specific aspects of mobility follows
in the first manuscript (Early adopters of E-carsharing with and without BEVs with
respect to gender preferences). Many studies shed light on acceptance issues that result
from sharing a vehicle instead of owning a car:
Although carsharing is becoming more visible in urban spaces, it is not yet
really perceptible (Barthel, 2012) and people tend not to engage with the issue of daily
mobility as it is highly routinised (Ahrend, 2009; Anthrakidis et al., 2013; S. Harms,
2002). However, this is a basic prerequisite for changing mobility: a new form of
transport must be incorporated into the cognitive possibilities space and integrated into
existing routines or completely replace them (Ahrend, 2009; Canzler & Knie, 1998;
Knie, Kramer, Scherf, & Wolter, 2012). The image of cars themselves and their
emotional role as a status symbol lead to lower acceptance of carsharing (Sonnberger
& Carrera, 2014a), whereas carsharing is seen as part of a specific lifestyle of people
attracted by technologies and who like to experiment (Anthrakidis et al., 2013).
A certain pressure is put on customers due to per-minute pricing of carsharing
use (Wappelhorst et al., 2013) and generally high costs for use are mentioned in the
PART A: 2.3 General usage motives and acceptance issues of FFECS
22
literature (Barthel, 2012), whereby insufficient knowledge of the actual costs of a
private car also leads to a failure to look for alternatives such as carsharing (Loose,
2010; Sonnberger & Carrera, 2014b). This issue, again, indicates a lack of willingness
to deal with the issue of mobility as described above. In addition to this low individual
appreciation of sustainable alternatives, public appreciation of carsharing as a
sustainable alternative also plays a role here (Loose, 2010).
Greater flexibility concerning parking facilities for shared cars (designated
parking spaces, which should also be free of illegal parking (Barthel, 2012; Sonnberger
& Ruddat, 2014), an increase in one-way carsharing options (Kiermasch, 2013), the
combination of different providers (Sonnberger & Ruddat, 2014)) as well as reliability
in finding a vehicle are other important aspects, particularly at peak times (Sonnberger
& Carrera, 2014a) and the possibilities of reservation options (Anthrakidis et al., 2013;
Kiermasch, 2013) play an important role for acceptance of carsharing. In order to
increase plannability and promote multimodality, station-based car sharing should be
linked to public transport (Anthrakidis et al., 2013; Sonnberger & Ruddat, 2014).
Traue (2010) draws attention to the fact that carsharing offers different types
of vehicle, which also results in a different driving experience; and Anthrakidis et al.
(2013) conclude that intuitive operation plays an enormously important role, especially
for infrequent drivers, which calls for minimalistic systems for use and simple pricing
schemes (Barthel, 2012; Kiermasch, 2013) and for uncomplicated access to vehicles
(Anthrakidis et al., 2013). Especially when combined with electric vehicles, range
anxiety, and the fear of complicated and unknown charging processes continue to
inhibit acceptance (Anthrakidis et al., 2013; Barthel, 2012). The sharing of the car with
strangers and hygiene aspects also represent an essential barrier regarding privacy
issues (Anthrakidis et al., 2013; Barthel, 2012; Sonnberger & Carrera, 2014a). Another
important aspect is the availability of child seats (Schneider, 2018; Schneider & Hilgert,
2017), whereby different child seat options are also available for different age and
weight ranges. This point, in particular, seems to play a significant role for women,
since, as the next section 3.2 Gendered daily mobility will show, they are statistically
more often responsible for accompanying children.
PART A: 2.4 Free-floating E-carsharing as a part of urban e-mobility
23
From the current state of literature, there is no sufficient answer that could
explain the gender gap when it comes to using FFECS. This dissertation focusses on a
societal meaning of mobility in a gendered setting and investigates practical issues that
result from this gendered meaning. Therefore, it adds to the list of issues that need to
be addressed in order to make it more attractive for urban women to use FFECS. Some
of the factors indicate that free-floating e-carsharing is more attractive to men than
women, but they have not been researched from a gender perspective whether they
have the power to explain the striking disproportion of male and female users of
FFECS.
2.4 Free-floating E-carsharing as a part of urban e-mobility
The question arises why a way of transport should be promoted that includes
bringing more cars on urban streets. This section provides a brief argumentation about
the benefits of free-floating carsharing from current literature. From a transport
planning point of view, FFECS services must not be considered separately but as one
of the components of multimodal or intermodal e-mobility meaning a way of mobility
that comprises the use of different, sustainable modes of transport. The idea is that
FFECS provides a car when it is needed and reduces the individual need for private
car ownership. In the long run, this potentially leads to less private cars in urban areas,
because PT or bicycles can be used, and affordable trips with cars can be possible
whenever trips need a car. By now, there is a vast number of works of literature about
carsharing with and without battery electric vehicles, their expected effects, market
diffusion and factors that are crucial to their acceptance. At this point, the concept of
e-mobility is presented, and the impact of FFECS on urban transport is discussed
according to current literature.
E-Mobility is a form of mobility that includes a sustainable combination of
different electrically powered modes of transport. It is often mistaken for a mere
substitution of ICEVs with (B)EVs, although it is essential to consider it as a shift from
PART A: 2.4 Free-floating E-carsharing as a part of urban e-mobility
24
private ICEV ownership to a multimodal or intermodal way of transport including
vehicles with electric propulsion (Kawgan-Kagan, 2015b). Electrification and
sustainable mobility combine the different sustainable modes of transport local and
long-distance public transportation with trains and buses, cycling and walking as well
as private electric cars and sharing electric cars and bicycles.
Electromobility comprises a higher quality of life in urban areas due to less
noise emission, air pollution and promises an increase in energy efficiency (Nischler,
Gutschi, Beermann, & Stigler, 2011; Rid et al., 2018; Wappelhorst et al., 2014). For
private car owners or fleet operators, electric vehicles can have economic advantages
in comparison to vehicles with internal combustion engines: Exceeding an annual
mileage of approx. 23.000 kilometres leads to a lower total cost of ownership (Rid et
al., 2018). Lower maintenance costs lead to compensation of the still higher initial
costs of BEVs. Other benefits of battery electric vehicles are their potential to
contribute to grid stability as mobile storage units and the possibility of reducing
dependence on petroleum-based fuels (BMWi, 2017; Rid et al., 2018). Large scale
carsharing with BEVs covers a multimodal or intermodal aspect of mode choice leads
to more space in urban areas and less private cars leading to less driving in general,
because the comfort of owning a car is correlated with a higher frequency of driving
(Wappelhorst et al., 2014). Combining this effect with the key benefits of vehicle
electrification, quality of life in urban areas can be massively improved. The problem
with fine particulates and nitrogen oxides in larger cities could be addressed, and more
space could be available where now parking cars block places (Loose, 2016). The
implementation of carsharing in urban areas already changed lead to designated
parking spaces for carsharing vehicles, some of which provide charging stations for
BEVs.
The combination of free-floating carsharing with battery electric vehicles as a
fundamental part of sustainable urban mobility promises a long-term solution for urban
residents, municipalities, and the environment (Barthel, 2012). Therefore, access to
FFECS services needs to be given to a wide range of the urban population in order to
shift it from a niche product to a form of mobility for widespread use. Its promotion
PART A: 2.4 Free-floating E-carsharing as a part of urban e-mobility
25
does not aim at more driving cars in urban areas; rather than proving services in
combination with other sustainable modes of transport, which make private car
ownership redundant. This shift means a decreased number of private car ownership
with internal combustion engines to a multimodal or intermodal, electrified and shared
combination of sustainable modes of transport as visualised in Figure 6.
Figure 6 Shift from monomodal mobility to sustainable e-mobility
PART A: 3.1 Gender in the context of the work
26
3. Gendered perspectives and their implications in mobility research
This work analyses urban, free-floating carsharing with BEVs from a gender
perspective. The term gender has always been the subject of a controversial debate,
and its definitions vary widely and it, therefore, calls for a detailed explanation and
definition as well. At this point, the concept of gender in the context of this work is
being presented, and its significance for mobility is being discussed.
3.1 Gender in the context of the work
The question of women's needs concerning free-floating carsharing with
electric cars in urban areas calls for a clarification of concepts, through their implied
comparison to an opposition (or several opposites). Thus, the issue is part of women's
and gender studies, besides mobility research and transport planning.
Gender is repeatedly used as a synonym, especially in outside women’s and
gender studies, for the biological sex and the (supposed) differences between women
and men as it promises an analysis beyond the physiological sex of an individual.
Nevertheless, the term gender is still too often used in studies, without appropriate
definition or reflection of the meaning behind this term. Partly, this can be explained
with the lack of a uniform definition. In women's and gender studies, though, there is
a far more complicated debate about the terms gender and biological sex. Because
these terms are crucial for this work, at this point, they are reviewed in the context of
literature, and their use in this work is defined.
As mentioned above, there is no uniform definition of the terms gender and sex
as they are still the subject of partly controversial discussions even within gender
studies (Butler, 2004; Ebeling, 2006; Hagemann-White, 1988). It can be said that a
general distinction needs to be made between the biologically defined sex, which is
based on physical appearance and right on from the point of being born and the so-
PART A: 3.1 Gender in the context of the work
27
called social sex - gender, which is a social construct of identity or role (Ebeling, 2006).
Although there are modern concepts that include several different gender forms, this
work focusses on the heteronormative meaning of aspects of mobility and transport
and, therefore, does not include transgender and other categories despite their
recognised meaning in gender studies. This work focusses on societal aspects, its focus
lais on the heteronormativity of male and female and resulting issues due to this
gender-typical distinction.
Different streams of women's and gender studies use different approaches to
derive definitions: In the English-speaking world, the social construction of bisexuality
is being discussed heavily. Some theorists assume that differences between the sexes
are exclusively due to social attributions and norms (Hagemann-White, 1988), up to
the point that Butler (2004) argues that the biological sex is a purely social construction
as well and depending on the individual physical possibilities of an individual. This
view, known as the null-hypothesis (Hagemann-White, 1988), is particularly
widespread in the English-speaking world.
Naturalisation, or biologism, is defined as the return of socially predetermined
behaviours to a supposedly biologically founded cause and the justification of unequal
social treatment with biological differences. Reference is often made to an alleged
naturalness, which should result from different biological conditions (Hagemann-
White, 1988). A well-known example of this is the assumption that women, because
of their ability to give birth, are virtually by nature better suited to taking on household
or nursing tasks (Ebeling, 2006). According to Hagemann-White (2002), the women's
movement in the German context is often recognisable by the difference or the
opposition of the (two) sexes. The biological sex serves as the basis for differences,
which remains untouched (as far as possible) (Bem, 1981). Inequality of opportunities
because of an individual’s sex must be eliminated through targeted measures as they
are supposed to overcome inequality resulting from the heteronormativity of women
and men.
Another central theory is the concept of Doing Gender (Gildemeister, 2010;
West & Zimmerman, 1987): Gender roles are constantly re-established and thus
PART A: 3.1 Gender in the context of the work
28
consolidated through social interaction between individuals and in social situations
(e.g. public space, use of local traffic). This process is inevitable and integrates every
individual and all social structures every day (Ebeling, 2006; Gildemeister, 2010) and
means that gender is understood as a complex knowledge system (Hirschhauer, 1996),
which is composed of various influences (e.g. experiences or so-called common
knowledge, images conveyed by the media or scientific knowledge, to name but a few).
This knowledge system is often called up subconsciously in everyday situations in
order to be able to classify and assess other people with the help of the category of
gender (Scott, 1994).
The gender is independent of the (individual) actions of individuals and
continuously reproduced anew every day (Gildemeister, 2010). By the assignment of
gender directly after being born and based on physical characteristics, this gender must
be seen as symbolic code for social order and needs to be presented to address other
individuals’ expectations (Hagemann-White, 1988). Law (1999) also uses the term
symbolic code in her work and its use as a cultural category to understand mobility
rather than predicting it. Law’s theoretical framework of gendered daily mobility is
presented in more details in the second manuscript of this dissertation.
Gender, in this work, is defined as a socially constructed distinction between
women and men, whereby the assignment is imminent due to a biological sex. The
socially constructed differences can be statistically observed in numerous ways, such
as the division of labour, childcare, related access to resources. It also stands for the
assignment of bisexual code (feminine and masculine) for particular objects, such as
private cars being masculine and the feminine public transport (Schmucki, 2002).
Targeted measures need to be developed to overcome inequality because of the socially
constructed order of gender. Therefore, this work aims to develop measures to
overcome gender inequality. This aim includes approaches that aim for providing
better services of FFECS that compensate for the existing obstacles due to the
symbolic code of transport and mobility and, measures that aim for a reduction of the
recreation of gender-stereotypes before they can lead to practical obstacles. Breaking
PART A: 3.2 Gendered daily mobility
29
up gender-stereotypes is a long-term learning process and, needs to start in early
childhood and cannot be focusing on adults only.
3.2 Gendered daily mobility
Understanding gender and mobility-related issues have been part of research
and transport planning since the early seventies as Robin Law points it out in her article
Beyond ‘women and transport’: towards new geographies of gender and daily
mobility(Law, 1999). The topic of gendered daily mobility is part of all of the articles
of this work and respectively elaborated in each literature review of the manuscripts
and, therefore, here only briefly introduced.
3.2.1 The Impact of gender on daily mobility
As mentioned before, Law (1999) developed a framework for gendered daily
mobility showing the relation of gender and daily mobility producing gender variations
regarding aspects of transport and mobility. The following image summarises her
approach, describing the effect of gender on day to day travelling. Law elaborates the
different effects of gender on labour and household divisions, access to resources,
subject identity, as well as the meaning of different mobility related objects, practices,
and settings. At this point, there is a brief overview of this framework, because the
second article contains a detailed review of the subject (Figure 7).
PART A: 3.2 Gendered daily mobility
30
Although this framework comprises more than the two factors, the focus in
mobility research has been on safety issues and on differences between requirements
for travelling due to gendered daily activities and task divisions (Law, 1999). In
conclusion, women spend more time on childcare and household tasks, eventually
besides being (part-time) employed, while men tend to work fulltime more often. This
division leads to different travel pattern between women and men as many scientific
studies show (Best & Lanzendorf, 2005; Nobis & Lenz, 2005; Rosenbloom, 2000;
Schneebaum & Mader, 2013). Additionally to different daily tasks, different access to
resources such as car availability or holding a driver’s license lead to observable
differences mode choice as well (Lang, 2008; Rosenbloom, 2000; Stiewe & Krause,
2012). Figure 8 illustrates these different destinations and differences in trip-chaining
and manuscript 3 in Part B elaborates more on the meaning of trip changing and
FFECS.
PART A: 3.2 Gendered daily mobility
31
The two aspects (gendered activities and access to resources) have been the
subject of many studies throughout mobility research. Moreover, their significant
effects can be found in literature from all over the globe.
10
The subject identity and the
symbolic code as a binary term of female and male from Law’s gendered daily mobility
framework has hardly been analysed in transport research but has been covered in
science and technology studies. Cars and driving are associated with masculinity,
whereas public transport is connected to femininity (Balkmar, 2012; Lumsden, 2010;
Schmucki, 2002). Besides that, more research on the transport requirements of women
while they take care of others (children, elderly people) is needed as well (Law, 1999).
10
A summary of European gender inequality is summarized by Hasson &
Polewoy (2011). For gender inequality in developing countries see Uteng (2012).
Figure 8 Exemplary visualisation of travel behaviour comparing women and men
PART A: 3.2 Gendered daily mobility
32
3.2.2 Gender and sustainable mobility
So far, there is little research on gender and innovative, sustainable transport.
Most of it focusses on the use of public transport and bicycles (European Parliament,
2012; Hasson & Polevoy, 2011; Polk, 2003). As described in part 3.2.1, this research
has focussed on safety issues (Gardner, Cui, & Coiacetto, 2017) and the gendered
access to modes of transport (Polk, 2005). This (lack of) access has been discussed as
an opportunity for social inclusion and participation, especially in developing
countries (Carruthers, Dick, & Saurkar, 2005; Fernando & Porter, 2002). Results vary
between two approaches to explain the inequalities: First, from issues due to lower
incomes, over the social order of gender and a gap in decision-making structure within
households (Bauhardt, 1999). Second, Polk (2003) argues that women are more
environmentally conscious than men, and that is resulting in women being more
attracted to public transport.
A study about families and their acceptance of innovative shared mobility
solution (Schneider & Hilgert, 2017) and another about the perception of battery
electric vehicles of families (Schneider, 2013) missed the opportunity to include a
gender perspective. Battery electric vehicles have been researched once by Prakash,
Kapoor, Kapoor, and Malik (2014) with the unsatisfying outcome not only because of
a poor method: Neither did they discuss any of their findings nor did they draw
conclusions with any distinction between women and men. Li, Chen, and Wang (2017)
falsely deny the impact of gender on electric vehicle demands and exclude this factor
from their panel studies covering 14 countries. Zwick (2013) designates the special
usage behaviour of mothers in his work about in predeterminants regarding carsharing
but does not go into further detail on this problem. So far, there has been no research
regarding the female perspective not only on free-floating carsharing with battery
electric vehicles but on all forms of carsharing.
Especially the meaning of sustainable and innovative modes as a
heteronormative symbolic code has been predominantly neglected, although the early
PART A: 3.2 Gendered daily mobility
33
stage of FFECS as mobility as a service and the shift towards e-mobility call for a
detailed analysis of the impact of gender on the attitudes and use of such. Therefore, a
particular focus lies on this dissertation project is focusing on the attitudes towards
FFECS asking for the difference between women and men besides the potential
different daily tasks and access to resources. This focus is part of the second study of
this dissertation (second manuscript in Part B: Are Women greener than men? A
preference analysis of women and men from major German cities over sustainable
urban mobility).
3.2.3 Gender and collection of mobility data
While analysing gender differences in mobility research, another crucial issue
is the efficient availability of data from a gendered perspective. Especially, for
empirical studies about innovative mobility forms, there is a gap between women and
men being represented in samples, which is similar to and probably the result of the
low share of female users of these mobility forms. This lack of women in samples
leads to a recreation of derived measure to support FFECS only for early adopters and
only a few women. The obstacles for women need a particular focus on female samples
to find gender-specific solutions to promote this sustainable form of mobility.
Another problem results from the so-called I-methodology issue as described
by Oudshoorn, Rommes, and Stienstra (2004). This issue in the development of
technologies, especially, in male-dominated fields such as transportation (Duchène,
2011; Polk, 2009; Stiewe & Krause, 2012), leads to a perspective that excludes users
that are not similar to the developers of this technology. Besides a potentially male
designed service in general, this problem has an impact in transportation research: Men
already develop biased sets of questions and aspects they want to research and do not
reach users in all their diversity (Stiewe & Krause, 2012). Due to these two issues
underrepresentation of women in samples and I-methodology, it is necessary to pay
special attention to collect enough and, even more critical, sufficient data to understand
PART A: 3.2 Gendered daily mobility
34
innovative mobility and the specific gender differences. This male perspective on daily
mobility and gender-appropriate data collection is part of the third and fourth
manuscripts of this research (Sustainability and gender: A mixed-method analysis of
urban women’s mode choice with particular consideration of E-carsharing). The third
paper presents the results of this study and the fourth paper elaborates the benefits of
a gender-sensitive data collection in transportation and mobility research.
PART A: 4. A mixed-method research design
35
4. A mixed-method research design
This section introduces the empirical research to understand the problem as
part of the mobility planning process. Based on the previous considerations, the subject
areas (Transport Planning, Gender Studies, Social Science, mainly Sociology and
Science and Technology Studies) need to be considered together and from which
measures are developed to promote the use of free-floating e-carsharing for urban
women. In contrast to other empirical research, most of which focus on transport
psychology, this work is conducted in a societal context and thus in the transport
sociology. More precisely, the focus on this research project is not on individual
characteristics as in traffic psychology, but preferably on the social constructs of
femininity and mobility.
Crucial is that gender in the context of this work means a heteronormative
distinction between feminine and masculine. This distinction includes gender-typical
daily tasks and attitudes towards specific aspects of daily mobility. Femininity means
typically taking over more responsibilities for household and children, which leads to
different daily tasks. This is a massive discrepancy but by far not the only one. Mothers
show different tasks and trip chains, but this is due to the social construct of women
being mainly responsible for childcare. Focussing on the group of mothers only would
sheds light on the practical aspects due to heavy trip chaining but would not give
enough space to attitudinal differences between women and men in general. Therefore,
the subject of this study are women as the result of gender-typical social constructs of
the heteronormativity and includes mothers as a sub-group with a significant profile
of tasks and, therefore, daily mobility.
This dissertation project uses a mixed-method approach to answer the research
question of how women can be addressed as a target group for multimodal or
intermodal mobility in urban areas, with the focus on the use of free-floating carsharing
in combination with electric vehicles. A mixed-method approach is used because it
combines the advantages of different methods and has the potential to cancel out
disadvantages as well (Kelle, 2014). In addition, it is necessary to subdivide the
PART A: 4. A mixed-method research design
36
question into more precise sub-questions accordingly. These different sub-questions
are answered by research designs that are cut to size, combining quantitative and
qualitative methods combining respective advantages. These sub-studies are covered
in four corresponding scientific articles, which not only addresses the intermediate
results but build on each other in an adaptive over-all method. These sub-studies, their
interaction and the final synthesis of results are elaborated in the following section.
What motivates urban women to use free-floating e-carsharing, and what
measures can help to overcome potential obstacles?
4.1 Splitting the over-all question
In order to investigate the topic of this work appropriately, it is necessary to go
a understand the underlying factors that are crucial to the acceptance of free-floating
carsharing with battery electric vehicles. To be able to make meaningful and reliable
statements about the possibility and effective measures for women to use FFECS in
urban areas, the following sub-questions need to be answered.
1. How can female early adopters of e-carsharing
be characterised compared to male early
adopters?
2. Are the identified factors decisive for this
phenomenon of a low share of women using
EFFCS and potentially positive evaluation
of free-floating e-carsharing services?
3. Which practical factors are decisive for the
evaluation of women to use free-floating e-
carsharing?
PART A: 4. A mixed-method research design
37
4.2 Three sub-studies
The single sub-questions call for each different research approaches and are
briefly presented here, as the respective research design is described in more detail in
each of the manuscripts in Part B. These manuscripts do not only answer the respective
sub-questions but build upon each other, providing input for the respectively next part.
Through the different research steps, the matter of free-floating e-carsharing
services from a female perspective is analysed in great detail, and underlying causes
are to be understood. In contrast to more classical approaches, in which first qualitative
exploration and then quantitative confirmation is carried out, this work begins with an
explorative quantitative part, followed by another quantitative but confirmative part,
and subsequently refined employing a qualitative part.
There has been done much work covering attitudes and mode choice, more
specific carsharing and battery electric vehicles. Different kind of data has been
already collected to understand sustainable urban mobility. Nevertheless, this data has
not been used to examine the differences between women and men. Fortunately, two
sets of data can be analysed for this research project: The first covers a sample
containing early adopters, the other a presentative data set of urban women and men.
The third study requires a new data set based on the results of the two previous studies
to complete the picture.
4.2.1 Characterisation of female early adopters of E-carsharing
1. How can female early adopters of e-carsharing be characterised
compared to male early adopters?
This first question aims for understanding a picture of females who are already
using e-carsharing at a very early stage of this service market diffusion. From the
PART A: 4. A mixed-method research design
38
literature, it is examined whether female early adopters have the possibility of the same
characterisation in comparison to the internationally homogeneous groups of current
users according to the current literature. Data from 492 users of carsharing schemes
with and without BEVs in Berlin are examined for a consistent type of female early
adopter with regard to gender aspects. Data on socio-demographic and socio-economic
factors, respondents' attitudes, including environmental concerns, innovation, and
technology as well as the use of means of transport and the intention to use electric
cars and carsharing will be evaluated to characterise women who are still pioneers in
the use of e-vehicles and e-vehicle-based services in carsharing. Furthermore, the
evaluation of carsharing with electric cars is investigated. The result is the elaboration
of characterisation of one or more groups of potential users of e-carsharing in urban
areas and contrast to other parts of the female urban population.
4.2.2 Sustainable mode choice of urban women
2. Are the identified factors decisive for this phenomenon of a low share
of women using EFFCS and potentially positive evaluation of free-floating e-
carsharing services?
In order to discuss the potential of female FFECS users, the results of the first
research part will be adapted into the second study. A sample of 2400 respondents
being representative for German urban population is examined, first, to confirm the
previous finding and, second, to identify more factors influencing the use of
sustainable modes of transport of urban female dwellers. The basis for this analysis is
the socio-demographic and attitudinal characterisations from the first analysis. In
addition to the analysis of the previously developed factors, a focus is put on subgroups
differentiated into women and men of different age categories and respectively, with
and without children.
PART A: 4. A mixed-method research design
39
4.2.3 Free-floating E-carsharing from female perspectives
3. Which practical factors are decisive for the evaluation of women to use
free-floating e-carsharing?
In the last sub-study, the use of means of transport in a gender-appropriate
survey format and the corresponding requirements for FFECS are examined, and
concrete advantages and disadvantages for women concerning these requirements are
worked out to understand what hinders women from using carsharing. Women using
free-floating e-carsharing besides other carsharing forms and women that have not
used any carsharing services are interviewed. Light is shed on their evaluation of the
services, including advantages and disadvantages. A gender-sensitive data-collection
provides the basis for understanding the requirements of urban women’s daily mobility.
The evaluation is carried out in combination with an analysis of GPS data that record
the movement patterns of the urban women over five days. In the first of two articles
about this study, crucial criteria for the use of electric vehicles in carsharing are
identified and discussed. The second article provides insights into the applied research
design and how the combination of GPS-tracking data and qualitative interviews can
close the gender gap in mobility data collection.
4.3 Summary and measure development
In the end part of this work, the results relevant to answer the respective sub-
questions are drawn up and brought together into the framework of this research
project. The results of the individual analysis steps are used to develop
recommendations for improving the services for females. The results of the
quantitative and qualitative studies show the meaning of FFECS for women regarding
their different life situations and thus the potential of the use of free-floating e-
PART A: 4. A mixed-method research design
40
carsharing. Measures for improvement are developed systematically, and their
potential effect on urban mobility will be discussed with a narrative forecast.
Summarising, the following Figure 9 gives an overview of the just described
research steps based on the mobility planning framework with the pre-orientation as
Part A and Part C as the investigation of measures. Whereas the respective manuscripts
contain a more detailed methodological discussion, the overall scientific approach of
this work including the single research steps are discussed in Part C.
Figure 9 Overview of this research in mobility planning
PART A: 5. References PART A
41
5. References PART A
11
Ahrend, Daubitz, Schwedes, Böhme, & Herget. (2013). Kleiner Begriffskanon der
Mobilitätsforschung. Discussion Paper.
Ahrend, C. (2009). Spotlights. Zukünfte in Mobilitätsroutinen. In R. Popp & E. Schüll
(Eds.), Zukunftsforschung und Zukunftsgestaltung. Beiträge aus Wissenschaft
und Praxis (pp. 307-312). Berlin, Heidelberg.
Álvarez, A., & Ritchey, T. (2015). Applications of General Morphological Analysis:
From Engineering Design to Policy Analysis (Vol. 4).
Anthrakidis, A., Jahn, R., Ritz, T., Schöttler, M., Wallenborn, R., & Warmke, G.
(2013). Urbanes eCarSharing in einer vernetzten Gesellschaft: Steinbeis-
Edition.
Balkmar, D. (2012). On men and cars: an ethnographic study of gendered, risky and
dangerous relations. Linköping studies in arts and science(558).
Barthel, S. (2012). Elektromobilität im Carsharing: Chancen und Herausforderungen
für ein nachhaltiges Mobilitätsmodell aus Sicht der
Carsharingorganisationen: AV Akademikerverlag.
Bauhardt, C. (1999). Bürgersteige und Straßenbahnen für die Frauen den Männern
ICE und Transrapid? In S. Collmer, P. Döge, & B. Fenner (Eds.), Technik,,
Politik, Geschlecht. Bielefeld: Kleine Verlag.
Becker, H., Ciari, F., & Axhausen, K. W. (2017). Comparing car-sharing schemes in
Switzerland: User groups and usage patterns. Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice, 97, 17-29. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.01.004
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing.
Psychological review, 88(4), 354-364. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.88.4.354
Bergman, N., Schwanen, T., & Sovacool, B. K. (2017). Imagined people, behaviour
and future mobility: Insights from visions of electric vehicles and car clubs in
the United Kingdom. Transport Policy, 59, 165-173.
Best, H., & Lanzendorf, M. (2005). Division of labour and gender differences in
metropolitan car use: An empirical study in Cologne, Germany. Journal of
Transport Geography, 13(2), 109-121.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.04.007
Bjerkan, K. Y., Nørbech, T. E., & Nordtømme, M. E. (2016). Incentives for promoting
Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) adoption in Norway. Transportation Research
Part D: Transport and Environment, 43, 169-180.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.12.002
BMWi. (2017). Elektromobilität - Baustein einer nachhaltigen und klima- und
umweltverträglichen Mobilität. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und
Energie (BMWi).
11
The following reference list contains the addresses of WWW pages. Readers are warned, however, that these
links existed as of the date of publication but are not guaranteed to be working thereafter. Also, the contents of webpages m ay
change over time.
PART A: 5. References PART A
42
BMWi. (2018). Elektromobilität in Deutschland. Retrieved from
https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/elektromobilitaet.html
Borchardt, M. (2012). Mobilität vs. Nachhaltigkeit: Car-Sharing als Lösung? :
Diplomica Verlag.
BCS. (2015). Carsharing in Zahlen. Retrieved from http://www.carsharing.de/alles-
ueber-carsharing/carsharing-zahlen
BCS. (2018). Carsharing in Zahlen. Retrieved from http://www.carsharing.de/alles-
ueber-carsharing/carsharing-zahlen
Bühler, F., Cocron, P., Neumann, I., Franke, T., & Krems, J. F. (2014). Is EV
experience related to EV acceptance? Results from a German field study.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 25, Part
A(0), 34-49. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2014.05.002
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing Gender. New York: Psychology Press.
Canzler, W., & Knie, A. (1998). Möglichkeitsräume: Grundrisse einer modernen
Mobilitäts- und Verkehrspolitik. Wien: Böhlau.
Carruthers, R., Dick, M., & Saurkar, A. (2005). Affordability of public transport in
developing countries.
Daubitz, S., & Kawgan-Kagan, I. (2015). Integrated charging infrastructure: cognitive
interviews to identify preferences in charging options. European Transport
Research Review, 7(4), 35.
Delhomme, P., Chaurand, N., & Paran, F. (2012). Personality predictors of speeding
in young drivers: Anger vs. sensation seeking. Transportation Research Part
F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15(6), 654-666.
Delhomme, P., & Gheorghiu, A. (2016). Comparing French carpoolers and non-
carpoolers: Which factors contribute the most to carpooling? Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 42, 1-15.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.10.014
Duchène, C. (2011) Gender and Transport. Discussion Paper 2011-11. Leipzig.
Ebeling, K. S. (2006). De/Konstruktion von Geschlecht und Sexualität. In K. S.
Ebeling & S. Schmitz (Eds.), Geschlechterforschung und Naturwissenschaften
Einführung in ein komplexes Wechselspiel (pp. 281296). Wiesbaden: VS
Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
European Parliament, P. D. C. (2012). The Role of Women in the green Economy - the
Issue of Mobility.
Fernando, P., & Porter, G. (2002). Balancing the load: women, gender and transport:
Zed books.
Flade, A. (2007). Die sozialen Kosten des Verkehrs. In O. Schöller, W. Canzler, & A.
Knie (Eds.), Handbuch Verkehrspolitik (pp. 490-509). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag
für Sozialwissenschaften.
Flade, A. (2013). Der rastlose Mensch - Konzepte und Erkenntnisse der
Mobilitätspsychologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen e.V. (2001). Leitfaden für
Verkehrsplanungen.
Franke, S. (2001). Car Sharing: Vom Ökoprojekt zur Dienstleistung: Berlin: edition
sigma.
PART A: 5. References PART A
43
Gardner, N., Cui, J., & Coiacetto, E. (2017). Harassment on public transport and its
impacts on women’s travel behaviour. Australian Planner, 54(1), 8-15.
doi:10.1080/07293682.2017.1299189
Gildemeister, R. (2010). Doing Gender Handbuch Frauen-und Geschlechterforschung
(pp. 137-145): Springer.
Globisch, J., Schneider, U., Peters, A., Roser, A., & Wietschel, M. (2013). Early
adopter unter der Lupe. Elektroautos - wer ist jetzt schon e-mobil und wer kann
sich vorstellen, eines zu kaufen? Internationals Verkehrswesen(65 (2)), 4649.
Hagemann-White, C. (1988). Wir werden nicht zweigeschlechtlich geboren ... In C.
Hagemann-White & M. Rerrich (Eds.), Frauen Männer Bilder. Männer und
Männlichkeit in der feministischen Diskussion (pp. 224-235). Bielefeld: AJZ-
Verlag.
Hagemann-White, C. (2002). Geschlechtertheoretische Ansätze. In H.-H. Krüger & C.
Grunert (Eds.), Handbuch Kindheits- und Jugendforschung (pp. 143-163).
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Harms, S. (2002). Besitzen oder Teilen. Vom Routinehandeln zur bewusst-rationalen
Wahl zwischen Mobilitätsalternativen: Wann steigen Autobesitzende auf das
Car Sharing um?, . Zürich: Rügger Verlag.
Harms, S. (2003). Besitzen oder Teilen: Sozialwissenschaftliche Analyse des Car
Sharing.
Hasson, Y., & Polevoy, M. (2011). Gender Equality Initiatives in Transportation
Policy - A Review of the Literature.
Haustein, S., & Jensen, A. F. (2018). Factors of electric vehicle adoption: A
comparison of conventional and electric car users based on an extended theory
of planned behavior. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 1-
13. doi:10.1080/15568318.2017.1398790
Hirschhauer, S. (1996). Wie sind Frauen, wie sind Männer Zweigeschlechtlichkeit
als Wissenssystem. In C. e. a. Eifert (Ed.), Was sind Männer? Was sind
Frauen? Geschlechterkonstruktionen im historischen Wandel (pp. 240-256).
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Hunecke, M. (2015). Mobilitätsverhalten verstehen und verändern: Psychologische
Beiträge zur interdisziplinären Mobilitätsforschung (Aufl. 2015 ed.).
Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
ifmo. (2011). Mobilität junger Menschen im Wandel multimodaler und weiblicher
(978-3-86680-192-9). Retrieved from München:
Jarass, J., Frenzel, I., & Trommer, S. (2013). Early Adopter der Elektromobilität in
Deutschland. Internationales Verkehrswesen(66 (2)), 7072.
Kawgan-Kagan, I. (2015b). Neue Mobilitätsdienstleistungen für alle - Genderaspekte
in der Mobilitätsforschung am Beispiel E-Carsharing. In H. Berlin (Ed.),
Nachhaltige Mobilität, Energiewende und Industrie 4.0. Berlin: Knaut,
Matthias.
Kawgan-Kagan, I., Hinkeldein, D., Schoenduwe, R., Graff, A., Wappelhorst, S., &
hoffmann, C. (2018). Different Carsharing Services - Different Carsharing
Users? The Effect of Attitudes on different Types of Carsharing of Users from
Berlin, Germany. European Transport Research Review, forthcomming.
PART A: 5. References PART A
44
Kelle, U. (2014). Mixed Methods. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden der
empirischen Sozialforschung (pp. 153-166). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien
Wiesbaden.
Kiermasch, C. (2013). Carsharing mit Elektroautos: Welches Mobilitätskonzept eignet
sich für Großstädte? : disserta Verlag.
Knie, A., Kramer, S., Scherf, C., & Wolter, F. (2012). E-Carsharing als Bestandteil
multimodaler Angebote. Internationales Verkehrswesen, 64(1).
Konrad, K. (2016). Mobiler Alltag im Wandel des Geschlechterverhältnisses.
Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt. (2018b). Neuzulassungsbarometer im Juni 2018 [Press
release]. Retrieved from
https://www.kba.de/DE/Statistik/Fahrzeuge/Neuzulassungen/MonatlicheNeuz
ulassungen/2018/201806_GV1monatlich/201806_nzbarometer/201806_n_ba
rometer.html?nn=653844
Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt. (2018c). Bestand an Kraftfahrzeugen und
Kraftfahrzeuganhängern nach Zulassungsbezirken, 1. Januar 2018 [Press
release]. Retrieved from www.kba.de
Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt. (2019). Bilanz des Fahrzeugbestandes am 1. Januar 2019
[Press release]. Retrieved from www.kba.de
Kumar, P., & Bierlaire, M. (2012). Optimizing locations for a vehicle sharing system.
Lang, J. (2008). Women and Transport. Urban Policy and Research, 10(4), 14-25.
doi:10.1080/08111149208551529
Law, R. (1999). Beyond ‘women and transport’: towards new geographies of gender
and daily mobility. Progress in Human Geography, 23(4), 567-588.
Li, X., Chen, P., & Wang, X. (2017). Impacts of renewables and socioeconomic factors
on electric vehicle demands Panel data studies across 14 countries. Energy
Policy, 109, 473-478. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.021
Lim, M. K., Mak, H.-Y., & Rong, Y. (2015). Toward Mass Adoption of Electric
Vehicles: Impact of the Range and Resale Anxieties. Manufacturing & Service
Operations Management, 17(1), 101-119. doi:10.1287/msom.2014.0504
Limbourg, M., Flade, A., & Schönharting, J. (2000). Mobilität im Kindes- und
Jugendalter: Leske + Budrich.
Loose, W. (2010). Aktueller Stand des Car-Sharing in Europa. Endbericht D, 2, 34-
114.
Loose, W. (2016). Mehr Platz zum Leben wie CarSharing Städte entlastetErgebnisse
des bcs‐Projektes „CarSharing im innerstädtischen Raum eine
Wirkungsanalyse“. Berlin.
Lumsden, K. (2010). Gendered performances in a male-dominated subculture:‘Girl
Racers’, car modification and the quest for masculinity. Sociological Research
Online, 15(3), 1-11.
Mock, P., & Yang, Z. (2014). Driving electrification. A global comparison of fiscal
incentive policy for electric vehicles.(White Paper). Washington, DC.
Namazu, M. (2017). The evolution of carsharing : heterogeneity in adoption and
impacts. (Text). Retrieved from
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/24/items/1.0343460
PART A: 5. References PART A
45
Nilsson, M. (2011). Electric vehicles: The phenomenon of range anxiety. ELVIRE,
Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France, ELVIRE Consortium FP7CICT-2009C4-
249105.
Nischler, G., Gutschi, C., Beermann, M., & Stigler, H. (2011). Auswirkungen von
Elektromobilität auf das EnergiesystemThe impacts of e-mobility on the
energy system. e & i Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik, 128(1-2), 53-57.
Nobis, C. (2019, 29.11.2019). Was wissen wir über die Nutzer neuer Mobilitätsangebote und
ihr Verhalten? Paper presented at the UBER, BerlKönig, VOI und Co:
Individualisierte öffentliche Verkehrsangebote Wie sollte der regulatorische
Rahmen gestaltet werden?, Berlin.
Nobis, C., & Lenz, B. (2005). Gender Differences in Travel Patterns. Research on
Women’s Issues in Transportation, 114.
Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E., & Stienstra, M. (2004). Configuring the user as
everybody: Gender and design cultures in information and communication
technologies. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29(1), 30-63.
Polk, M. (2003). Are women potentially more accommodating than men to a
sustainable transportation system in Sweden? Transportation Research Part
D: Transport and Environment, 8(2), 75-95.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(02)00034-2
Polk, M. (2005). Integration of gender equality into transport policy and practice in
Sweden. Paper presented at the Conference Proceedings 35, Research on
Women’s Issues in Transportation.
Polk, M. (2009). Gendering climate change through the transport sector. Kvinder, Køn
& Forskning(3-4).
Prakash, N., Kapoor, R., Kapoor, A., & Malik, Y. (2014). Gender Preferences for
alternative energy transport with focus on electric vehicle. Journal of Social
Sciences, 10(3), 114.
Rid, W., Parzinger, G., Grausam, M., Müller, U., & Herdtle, C. (2018). Potenziale von
(E-)Carsharing Carsharing in Deutschland: Potenziale und
Herausforderungen, Geschäftsmodelle und Elektromobilität (pp. 21-44).
Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Ritchey, T. (2017). General Morphological Analysis as a Basic Scientific Modelling
Method.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition: Free Press.
Röhr, U., Alber, G., & Göldner, L. (2018). Gendergerechtigkeit als Beitrag zu einer
erfolgreichen Klimapolitik: Forschungsreview, Analyse internationaler
Vereinbarungen, Portfolioanalyse. Zwischenbericht. Dessau-Roßlau.
Rosenbloom, S. (2000). Trends in women's travel patterns. Paper presented at the
Women's Travel Issues Second National Conference.
Schaefers, T. (2013). Exploring carsharing usage motives: A hierarchical means-end
chain analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 47, 69-
77. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.10.024
Scharff, V. (1992). Taking the wheel: Women and the coming of the motor age: UNM
Press.
Schmucki, B. (2002). On the Trams:Women, Men and Urban Public Transport in
Germany. The Journal of Transport History, 23(1), 60-72.
doi:10.7227/tjth.23.1.7
PART A: 5. References PART A
46
Schneebaum, A., & Mader, K. (2013). The gendered nature of intra-household
decision making in and across Europe. In W. V. U. o. E. a. Business (Ed.),
Department of Economics Working Paper Series (Vol. 157). Vienna.
Schneider, U. (2013). Familien in Städten: Ihre Tägliche (Auto-)Mobilität und
Wahrnehmung von Elektromobilität. Paper presented at the 4. Pegasus
Jahrestagung, Frankfurt.
Schneider, U. (2018). Abschließende Ergebnisdarstellung und Ausblick. 247-264.
doi:10.1007/978-3-658-19349-2_7
Schneider, U., & Hilgert, T. (2017). Urbane Familienmobilität im Wandel: Wie sind
Familien im Alltag mobil und wie bewerten sie neue Mobilitätskonzepte?
Scott, J. W. (1994). Gender: eine nützliche Kategorie der historischen Analyse Selbst
Bewußt : Frauen in den USA (pp. 27-75). Leipzig: Reclam.
Shaheen, S., Chan, N. D., & Micheaux, H. (2015). One-way carsharing’s evolution
and operator perspectives from the Americas. Transportation, 42(3), 519-536.
doi:10.1007/s11116-015-9607-0
Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., & Jaffee, M. (2018). Innovative Mobility: Carsharing
Outlook.
Sonnberger, M., & Carrera, D. G. (2014a). Die Zukunft des kollektiven
IndividualverkehrsErgebnisse aus Stakeholder-und Experteninterviews.
Teilen statt besitzen: Analysen und Erkenntnisse zu neuen Mobilitätsformen,
43.
Sonnberger, M., & Carrera, D. G. (2014b). Konzepte des kollektiven
IndividualverkehrsEin Literaturbericht. Teilen statt besitzen: Analysen und
Erkenntnisse zu neuen Mobilitätsformen, 10.
Sonnberger, M., & Ruddat, M. (2014). Was tun? Strategien zur Förderung des
kollektiven Individualverkehrs. Teilen statt besitzen: Analysen und
Erkenntnisse zu neuen Mobilitätsformen, 164.
Stiewe, M., & Krause, L. (2012). Geschlechterverhältnisse und MobilitätWelchen
Beitrag leisten Mobilitätserhebungen?, Schwechat.
Traue, R. (2010). To EV or not to EV - Incorporating Electric Vehicles. Paper
presented at the momo-workshop, Dublin.
Tully, C., & Baier, D. (2011). Mobilitätssozialisation. In O. Schwedes (Ed.),
Verkehrspolitik. Eine interdisziplinäre Einführung (pp. 195-211). Wiesbaden:
VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Umweltbundesamt. (2012). Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland, Ergebnisse einer
repräsentativen Bevölerungsumfrage. Retrieved from Berlin, Marburg.
Uteng, T. P. (2012). Gender and mobility in the developing world. Retrieved from World Bank
Washington DC: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7735
Vick, M. (2003). Danger on roads: masculinity, the car, and safety. Youth Studies
Australia, 22(1), 32.
Wappelhorst, S., Graff, A., Steiner, J., & Hinkeldein, D. (2013). New Car Sharing
Offers and Customer Groups: Implications for a Growing and Diversifying
Market. Paper presented at the European Transport Conference 2013,
Frankfurt, Germany.
http://abstracts.aetransport.org/paper/index/id/107/confid/1
PART A: 5. References PART A
47
Wappelhorst, S., Sauer, M., Hinkeldein, D., Bocherding, A., & Glaß, T. (2014).
Potential of electric carsharing in urban and rural areas. Transportation
Research Procedia, 4, 374-386.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & society, 1(2), 125-
151.
Zwick, M. (2013). Umweltbewusstsein oder Lebenslage? Prädeterminanten des
Verkehrsverhaltens am Beispiel des Carsharing. Teilen statt besitzen. Analysen
und Erkenntnisse zu neuen Mobilitätsformen, 91-118.
PART B
48
PART B
This section of this work contains the three manuscripts each covering a study
according to their respective research question:
[1] Early adopters of carsharing with and without BEVs with respect to gender
preferences
Ines Kawgan-Kagan
Technical University Berlin, Germany
European Transport Research Review, 7(4), 1-11, 2015
doi:10.1007/s12544-015-0183-3
Springer ISSN: 1866-8887 (electronic version), Journal no. 12544
[2] Are Women greener than Men? A preference analysis of women and men from
major cities in Germany over sustainable urban mobility
Ines Kawgan-Kagan
Technical University Berlin, Germany
Transportation Research Part F, 2020 submitted
Elsevier, ISSN: 13698478
[3] Sustainability and Gender: a mixed-method analysis of urban women’s mode
choice with particular consideration of e-carsharing
Ines Kawgan-Kagan1, Mareike Popp2
1Technical University Berlin, Germany, 2University of Applied Sciences Coburg,
University of Bamberg, Germany
Transportation Research Procedia 31 (2018) 146–159, European Transport
Conference 2017
Elsevier, ISSN: 2352-1465
PART B: Manuscript 1
49
PART B: Manuscript 1:
[1] Early adopters of carsharing with and without BEVs with respect to gender
preferences
Ines Kawgan-Kagan
Technical University Berlin, Germany
European Transport Research Review, 7(4), 1-11, 2015
doi:10.1007/s12544-015-0183-3
Springer ISSN: 1866-8887 (electronic version), Journal no. 12544
PART B: Manuscript 1
50
PART B: Manuscript 1
51
PART B: Manuscript 1
52
PART B: Manuscript 1
53
PART B: Manuscript 1
54
PART B: Manuscript 1
55
PART B: Manuscript 1
56
PART B: Manuscript 1
57
PART B: Manuscript 1
58
PART B: Manuscript 1
59
PART B: Manuscript 1
60
PART B: Manuscript 2
61
PART B: Manuscript 2
[2] Are Women greener than Men? A preference analysis of women and men from
major cities in Germany over sustainable urban mobility
Ines Kawgan-Kagan
Technical University Berlin, Germany
Transportation Research Part F, 2020 submitted
Elsevier, ISSN: 13698478
PART B: Manuscript 2: Abstract
62
Abstract
Travel patterns in daily life differ greatly between women and men, and
differences in socialisation substantially impact travel mode choice. The literature has
demonstrated a higher affinity towards local public transportation and sustainability
for women. Men, by contrast, show a higher affinity towards cars, technology, and
innovation. However, sex and gender factors have not been considered when
examining innovative, sustainable urban mobility so far. A gender-sensitive
perspective, therefore, is necessary to increase the possibility of using sustainable
modes of transportation, including carsharing with battery-powered electric vehicles
and, therefore, improve the quality of life in larger cities.
This article closes this research gap with an analysis of a representative sample
of 2,400 respondents from four major cities in Germany based on Robin Law’s
theoretical framework of gendered daily mobility from 1999. In addition to socio-
demographic, economic, and mobility-related factors, attitudes towards transport
modes and the preferences for e-carsharing services are analysed to provide deeper
insights into gender differences of urban dwellers.
Grouped by age and gender, the presence of a child in the household leads to
different changes in preferences for specific modes of transport for women and men.
Although I prove that urban women are more concerned about environmentally-
friendly mobility in general and use cars less often than men, more women than men
prefer going by car if there is a child under the age of 14 years in the household. There
is unequal access to resources in mobility, which leads to financial aspects being the
main reason against car ownership for urban women. Parenthood has a positive effect
on the acceptance of carsharing with battery-powered electric vehicles for women and
men. In conclusion, gender differences result from different daily tasks, but there are
also significant differences beyond this aspect that show a socially constructed
gendered meaning of sustainable urban mobility.
This research improves the understanding of sustainable urban mobility
regarding gender differences, that is, the increase of car use of women with children,
PART B: Manuscript 2: Keywords
63
and the rejection of women of new mobility services. Only when gender differences
are considered in planning processes, it will be possible to improve the quality of living
in urban areas by reducing urban space scarcity, local and global emissions, and noise
exposure.
Keywords
Sustainable urban mobility; Gender differences; E-Carsharing; Attitudes
PART B: Manuscript 2: 1. Introduction
64
1. Introduction
New mobility trends such as carsharing concepts with battery-powered electric
vehicles (BEVs) promise an innovative approach to start the transition towards
sustainable urban mobility. Nevertheless, changing behaviour towards more
sustainable transport requires an understanding of preferences and perception of
respective facets. Urban mobility is becoming increasingly more flexible, including a
trend towards single-passenger transport. This development considers the consistently
small or even decreasing numbers of car passengers (Infas, 2018; Truong, De Gruyter,
Currie, & Delbosc, 2017). However, it categorically excludes individuals on the move
together with others and individuals unable to operate a vehicle, for instance, children,
elderly individuals, or individuals without a valid driving licence. Women, even in
urban areas, more often are responsible for others and have, accordingly, daily tasks
that lead to various requirements for transport (Kawgan-Kagan & Popp, 2018; Nobis
& Lenz, 2005). The uptake of the mobility trends is more preferred by men than by
women; in particular, the use of BEVs in carsharing attracts male consumers (Kawgan-
Kagan, 2015a). However, is the responsibility for children the key factor for this
phenomenon? To address the new developments, this study investigated discriminating
factors to eliminate them and prevent a gender mobility gap in sustainable urban
mobility at a point in time when services and products can be shaped accordingly.
A gender mobility gap has been observed in transport research (Law, 1999;
Rosenbloom, 2000). Nevertheless, this gap has been repeatedly rediscovered in almost
every quantitative analysis of mobility behaviour, wherever it was included in the
analysis, and often without further suitable consideration. Different social roles
manifest statistically in significantly divergent traffic behaviour: On the one hand,
differences in traffic patterns have long been known because of different daily tasks
for women and men (Best & Lanzendorf, 2005; Gordon, Kumar, & Richardson, 1989;
Nobis & Lenz, 2005); on the other hand, car use and the use of public transport (PT)
have been historically developing in significantly different ways (Konrad, 2016).
Gender analyses of sustainable mobility have thus far focused on using PT in terms of
PART B: Manuscript 2: 2. Gender and sustainable urban mobility state of the field
65
women using PT and, more often than not, have hastily concluded women are more
sustainable in transport without knowing women’s actual preferences (European
Parliament, 2012).
The importance of general attitudes affecting an individual’s intention and has
been elaborated by Ajzen (1991) to predict and explain behaviour. Nevertheless,
attitudes directly related to the field of respective products or services of specific target
groups must be understood (Hinkeldein, Schoenduwe, Graff, & Hoffmann, 2015). This
work, therefore, is devoted to differences between women and men with and without
children to show the impact of gender in terms of driving licences and car availability
and to reveal the gendered meanings of mobility that reflect distinct perceptions and
attitudes. Preferences of urban women and men with and without children regarding
sustainable mobility are explored. The following questions are raised: How is urban
sustainable mobility shaped by gender? How does the perception of sustainable
mobility change when children live in the household?
To answer these questions, the focus of this study is the attitudes towards
various aspects of electric mobility to reveal a gender-based meaning of urban mobility.
Besides, the emphasis is on sustainable mobility beyond comparing PT to car use. To
understand the differences between women and men, the effect of gender on various
aspects of shared electric mobility is presented using profound correlation and
significance testing. Instead of using gender as one of the variables, this research uses
it to show significant differences that have not been analysed before.
2. Gender and sustainable urban mobility state of the field
This research is based on the framework of gendered daily mobility by Robin
Law (1999) combined with current mobility trends in urban areas. In the following,
the current state of research is presented to understand the relation of gendered daily
mobility and sustainable mobility.
PART B: Manuscript 2: 2. Gender and sustainable urban mobility state of the field
66
Law (1999) conceptualised a gender-aligned approach of ‘gender and daily
mobility,’ completing the picture of how gender influences these aspects:
Activity patterns in time and space;
Access to resources of time, money, skills, technology;
Experience of embodiment;
Meaning of mobility practices, settings, things (masculinity, femininity); and
Environment of land use, infrastructure, services, public space.
These aspects lead to gender differences in daily mobility, namely, mode
choice, travel behaviour, perception, and experiences of mobility.
Regarding gendered experiences of embodiment and gendered environment
of land use, services, and public space, the research has mainly focused on health and
safety topics. Later, for instance, the research included female or pregnant crash test
dummies or psychological aspects of PT stations and vehicle design (Ellaway,
Macintyre, Hiscock, & Kearns, 2003; Hamilton & Jenkins, 2000; Rupp, 2001;
Ulfarsson & Mannering, 2004). The present study focusses on the influence of
gendered activity patterns, access to resources, and gendered meaning of mobility
shaping daily mobility, which is elaborated in detail in this section.
2.1 Gendered urban mobility patterns
The differences between women and men in travel patterns have been
researched frequently, beginning with the question that whether gender differences are
observed in travel behaviour. Although gender roles have emerged in terms of labour
participation, women continue to be responsible for tasks resulting from household
work and child care (Best & Lanzendorf, 2005; European Parliament, 2012; Konrad,
2016). In less traditional urban areas, women without children work full-time as often
as men do; nevertheless, women work part-time more often and are responsible for the
PART B: Manuscript 2: 2. Gender and sustainable urban mobility state of the field
67
household as soon as they have a child (Berlin-Brandenburg, 2017; Dribe & Stanfors,
2009; Nitsche & Grunow, 2016; Schneebaum & Mader, 2013). These (additional) tasks
lead to significantly different travel patterns of women and men: In contrast to men,
women show complex trip chains with shorter partial routes in a rather radial area
closer to their residence (Bauhardt, 1999; Kawgan-Kagan, 2015a; Knoll, Szalai,
Steininger, & Urbanek, 2009; Nobis & Lenz, 2005; Scheiner, 2016). In total, the
travelled distances are smaller despite the greater number of trips (Sovacool, Kester,
Noel, & de Rubens, 2018). Household and childcare-related tasks are usually closer to
the residence than workplaces (Fan, 2017). Because of the longer distances to work
and because more men with children work full-time than childless men, they cover
longer distances on average (Crane, 2007; Kawgan-Kagan, 2015a). These differences
are subject to different stages of life and, therefore, occur for individuals at an age
when childbirth as a key event in life is most likely (Lanzendorf, 2010; Scheiner, 2016;
Scheiner & Holz-Rau, 2017; Stiewe & Krause, 2012).
2.2 Impact of gendered access to resources
A gender mobility gap has been observed in often but not only in less developed
countries because of a gendered access to resources (Carruthers, Dick, & Saurkar,
2005; Clarke, 2012). Both genders show higher rates of car use when they work.
Women work less often, especially full-time, which leads to a smaller income. Because
of the higher financial restriction, women, therefore, have less access to paid mobility
options: Women cannot afford cars, bicycles, and public transport, especially in poorer
countries, compared with men. Even in urban areas in developed countries, women
earn less on average than men (Behr & Theune, 2018; Fortin, Bell, & Böhm, 2017).
Parenthood has a substantial impact on financial resources in Western societies:
Women with a child but without a partner have the highest risk of poverty (Damaske,
Bratter, & Frech, 2017; Hübgen, 2018). Similarly, Best and Lanzendorf (2005) showed
that having children leads to less car use for women but more car use for men; however,
car use increased over the past 30 years in Germany for women with children (Konrad,
PART B: Manuscript 2: 2. Gender and sustainable urban mobility state of the field
68
2016). Notably, access to a car or holding a driving licence has been observed to be a
key factor of social inclusion and employment of women (Angell et al., 2018; Dobbs,
2005). Ownership of driving licences, although its acquisition is relatively expensive
in Germany and, therefore, not uncorrelated to access to financial resources, grants
access to carsharing schemes. In Germany, the share of driving licences remains
unequal for women and men in general; nevertheless, the is expected to continue
aligning because of aligned acquisition rates for young women and men (Konrad,
2016), presumably indicating a closing gender mobility gap in Germany.
In addition to financial restriction, Bauhardt (1999) argued that there is a power
gap within a household that leads to men being the person to use a car; thus, women
are forced to use other modes, mostly public transport. At first glance, this thought
seems harsh and old-fashioned; nevertheless, it has historically evolved as has been
described, for instance, by Fan (2017) or Scharff (1992). Empirical data shows that in
Berlin, women use public transport more and cars less (Ahrens, 2014). A study from
Cologne, Germany, by Scheiner and Holz-Rau (2012) could not, however, find
evidence for this power gap and restriction of access within a household due to
different financial resources. They found no evidence for a gender-affected connection
between car use and participation in paid and unpaid work, contradicting many studies
asserting the existence of this gap (Adeel, Yeh, & Zhang, 2017; Liu, Sun, Chen, &
Susilo, 2018). Although a study from Stockholm covering data from 1985 to 2015
showed that the gender gap in car use and cycling ‘closed completely’ in the inner city
of Stockholm, this gap continues to exist the outer areas (Bastian & Börjesson, 2018)
and has been evident in many other global studies (Abasahl, Kelarestaghi, & Ermagun,
2018; European Parliament, 2012; Sovacool et al., 2018).
2.3 Gendered attitudes towards innovative, sustainable electric mobility
Gender differences resulting from gender-typical households and child care
divisions as well as differences in the access to resources cannot explain the current
PART B: Manuscript 2: 2. Gender and sustainable urban mobility state of the field
69
differences in urban mobility, especially in travel mode choice. Scheiner and Holz-Rau
(2012) argued that there must be more behind the different social roles affecting car
use than intrahousehold differences. Robin Law’s framework includes the gendered
meaning of mobility practices, settings, and things (Law, 1999). Notably, the gendered
meaning of cars has been studied in science and technology studies describing the
ascription of masculinity to private car use and femininity to the use of public transport
(Lee, 2017; Samuelsson, 2014). Historically, other ascriptions were evolving during
the beginning of the automobile era: Women were supposedly limited to the feminine
private, domestic sphere, whereas the public space was occupied by men (Ellaway et
al., 2003; Scharff, 1992), that is, men alone was supposed to be mobile. This public
masculinity was then supplemented with individual automobiles. If women needed to
go somewhere, they were driven by their men and also, the private femininity was
broadened by the use of public transport, and these origins continue to shape the
attitudes towards and perception of mobility (Polk, 2009). The combination of publicly
available and privately used cars in carsharing, however, thwarts the assignment of
feminine public transport and masculine private car use. Due to the historical
ascription, most of the studies revealing gender differences in the perception, meaning
of, and attitudes towards modes have focused on the use of two opposites: cars and
public transport.
Much research has been conducted on the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs)
and carsharing. It has revealed that environmental awareness, affinity towards
technology, and innovation as lifestyle are the main factors influencing the acceptance
of new sustainable mobility including one-way carsharing and e-mobility (Li, Chen,
& Wang, 2017; Rezvani, Jansson, & Bodin, 2015; Shaheen, Chan, & Micheaux, 2015).
Li et al. (2017) listed gender in their literature review of 40 studies as a socio-
demographic factor influencing the intention to adopt an EV in addition to age and
education, although without further consideration. Rezvani et al. (2015)
comprehensively reviewed up-to-date studies about influencing attitudes and factors
and elucidated their effects on the acceptance of plug-in EVs. Notably, wherever
included in the analysis, gender was observed to be a crucial factor.
PART B: Manuscript 2: 2. Gender and sustainable urban mobility state of the field
70
Nevertheless, neither Rezvani et al. (2015) nor the authors of the original
studies conclude that a gender-based perspective is necessary to identify obstacles and
barriers against consumer adoption of plug-in EVs. Based on numbers such as 95%
being male users of BEVs in Sweden (Haustein & Jensen, 2018) or 84% male users of
carsharing in Berlin (Kawgan-Kagan, 2015a, 2015b), this is clearly an understatement
of the importance of this factor. Because of the more frequent use of PT, women are
sometimes presumed to be more concerned about sustainable mobility than men. Other
studies have provided the respective evidence: Women are willing to pay more for
environmentally-friendly mobility and to change their travel behaviour (Matthies,
Kuhn, & Klöckner, 2002; Polk, 2009). Studies about acceptance of technology have
observed a much higher openness to innovation for males than for females (Bain &
Rice, 2006; Venkatesh, Morris, & Ackerman, 2000).
A study from 2015 of early adopters of carsharing with and without BEVs
revealed that female users are significantly more attracted to bicycle use than male
users. However, female users show a much lower affinity towards technology and are
less open to innovations (Kawgan-Kagan, 2015a). Also, the results show that male
users are more interested in the excitement of driving, and women use e-carsharing
more pragmatically. A complimenting study of urban women and their daily mobility
preferences from 2018 confirms these findings and reveals active driving practice as
another principal factor for the adoption of carsharing services and rejection of too
many technical gimmicks, especially in EVs (Kawgan-Kagan & Popp, 2018). The
gender differences of parenthood on sustainable and electric mobility-related attitudes
have yet to be researched.
2.4 A gender-based perspective on innovative and sustainable urban mobility is
necessary
Gender is evident in almost all studies about sustainable mobility as a
significant variable and must be raised above the status of a control variable because
PART B: Manuscript 2: 2. Gender and sustainable urban mobility state of the field
71
of its striking potential for differences in daily and electric mobility. In addition to the
well-known important aspects, gender differences in daily mobility have been
rediscovered and instead of being explained them beyond financial and safety topics
and different daily tasks. New forms of sustainable mobility have not been analysed
regarding gender aspects; thus far, literature has asserted that women use less BEVs
and commercial carsharing and are more concerned about the environment in general.
Further gender-specific differences in attitudes towards sustainable urban mobility
have received little attention in the literature, although their importance has been
proven for the past decade. This work fills this gap in the research and feeds Law’s
framework with evidence regarding sustainable urban daily mobility considering e-
mobility. The potential for sustainable mobility in urban areas is to be discussed in a
gender-equitable manner. The perception of (electric) mobility and individual’s
behaviour must be understood including their underlying psychological processes
(Schlag & Schade, 2007). In the current state of the introduction of new mobility forms,
it is important to understand (potential) users from the start of the market entry to avoid
established obstacles and barriers.
PART B: Manuscript 2: 3. Research design
72
3. Research design
This section provides insights into the method used to understand gendered
urban, sustainable mobility.
3.1 Sample
The effects of differences in attitudes and mode
choice according to gender requires a quantitative
approach with representative samples for urban areas. In
this case, four major cities from Germany are included in
a sample of 2,400 respondents from the centres and the
outer conurbation areas of Berlin (n = 987), Hamburg (n =
548), Frankfurt (n = 450), and Munich (n = 415) (Figure
10). All these cities have satisfactory PT coverage.
The survey was conducted by Infas, in 2012,
through computer-aided telephone interviews (CATI).
Table 1 shows the details of the respective subsamples
and, as a reference, the average of Germany. Urban inhabitants have a degree from a
university or a technical college. More individuals from the subsamples work full-time
than the German average. The differences between the cities remain small, except for
the occupation status and a high discrepancy of almost 400 in the net equivalent
household income. On average, the total sample has a similar income to the German
average.
Figure 10 Sample
distribution in Germany,
n=2,400
PART B: Manuscript 2: 3. Research design
73
Table 1 Sample description (German major cities, n=2,400, subsamples and Germany)
Total,
n=2,400
Berlin,
n=987
Hamburg,
n=548
Frankfurt,
n=450
Munich,
n=415
Average
Germany,
in 2012*
Females
51.5%
51.5%
53.4%
50.8%
50.1%
51.0%
Average
age in
years
48.0
49.0
47.6
47.6
46.6
44.1
Child <14
in
household
23.9%
23,9%
19,9%
27,0%
25,2%
--
Graduated
from
university
or
technical
college
35.4%
36.6%
30.2%
33,9%
32,5%
14.2%
Full-time
occupation
39.3%
36.6%
36.2%
40.8%
47.0%
31.3%
Part-time
occupation
12.3%
11.2%
13.2%
11.5%
14.4%
11.7%
Net
equivalent
household
income
per month
in €
1827
1667
1824
1932
2042
1835
* (Statistisches-Bundesamt, 2018)
3.2 Questionnaire
Socio-demographical, socio-economical questions, as well as questions
regarding travel behaviour, were included in the questionnaire. Another set of
questions focussed on availability of cars and bicycles within a household, with and
PART B: Manuscript 2: 3. Research design
74
without battery-electric drive. Also, different items were asked regarding mode choice
the actually used modes and the preferred modes of transport; the acceptance of
electric mobility was covered as well. Based on the excessive research about the
impact of attitudes on mobility by Hinkeldein et al. (2015), a battery of items with a
6-point Likert-scale was included in the questionnaire to collect data about
environmental concerns and attitudes towards several aspects related to mobility. The
benefit of these indices is their relation to mobility, instead of covering a rather abstract
variable, for instance, environmental awareness. Table 2 contains examples of the
questions used to generate the indices.
Table 2 Mobility-related attitudes, Indices generated by Hinkeldein et al. (2015)
Index
Item example loading most highly on the index
Car affinity
I find driving an easy way to get around.
Bike affinity
I find cycling an easy way to get around.
PT affinity
I reach my destination without stress when using public
transport.
Long-distance train
affinity
I find using the train an easy way to get around.
Mobility service
affinity
The use of mobility services allows me to reach all my important
destinations.
Owning a car affinity
I am dependent on my car in my daily life.
Mobility-related
environment affinity
Environmental protection is crucial for me in my choice of
transport.
Technology affinity
I am quickly able to figure out unknown electronic devices.
Innovator scale
Other individuals often discover new travel ideas thanks to me.
PART B: Manuscript 2: 4. Results
75
3.3 Analysis
To give an answer to the research question elaborated in section 1, the literature
review in section 2 is combined with topics from Law’s gendered daily framework:
access to resources, mode choice and mode preferences, perception of cars and car
ownership, and acceptance of e-mobility. For each of these topics, various variables
are analysed to compare women and men. In particular, the relation of the affinity
towards cars and public transport is of strong interest because strong differences have
been observed in the literature, as described in subsection 2.3.
To generate reliable results, women and men must be juxtaposed, and age and
the presence of children in the household must be considered as variables to distinct
separate samples of women and men. Therefore, age categories are generated in steps
of 10 years beginning at 18 years, and a variable was generated representing children
below the age of 14 years living in the household of the respondents. Indices were
generated to obtain variables that represent specific attitudes. Differences are tested to
be significant, and results are discussed in the context of gendered sustainable mobility.
Finally, conclusions are drawn from the results and provide insights into gender
differences regarding sustainable urban mobilities.
4. Results
This section provides the results of the analysis covering the topics of access
to mobility-related resources, differences in mode choice and mode preferences,
perception of car ownership and attitudes towards environmental topics, and
technology and innovation.
PART B: Manuscript 2: 4. Results
76
4.1 Access to resources
4.1.1 Descriptive overview
At first, Table 3 provides detailed information about the respondents’ socio-
demographics and other variables that relate to access to resources regarding mobility.
The employment status is correlated with income and indirectly provides insights
about the household division. With nearly 30%, most of the women without a child
work in full-time, and with 88%, the majority of women with a child under age 14
years in the household work part-time. For male respondents, more than three quarters
have a child and work full-time, and only a few respondents work part-time (3%). The
net equivalent household income of female respondents is smaller than that of males.
Children in the household lead to a decreased income for women and men. Parenthood
increases the work-related distances for only men, which is in line with the literature
(Nobis & Lenz, 2005; Skora, 2018).
PART B: Manuscript 2: 4. Results
77
Table 3 Descriptive overview (Socio-demographics, mobility-related items, German major
cities, n=2,400)
4.1.2 Driving licences
Most of the individuals obtain their driving licences at an age when they do not
have children yet. Therefore, there is no difference for respondents with and without
children expected. Figure 11 shows the share of car driving licences across age
categories and differentiated according to gender. In Table 3, the percentage of men
Women
Men
Total
No
Child
Child
in HH
Total
No
Child
Child
in HH
Total
No
Child
Child
in HH
Total
Age
52.4
37.0
48.7
49.8
38.8
47.8
51.1
37.9
48.0
Full-time
28.8
19.1
26.5
45.9
75.4
52.9
37.2
46.1
39.3
Part-time
14.3
38.1
20.1
3.4
6.5
4.1
9.0
23.0
12.3
Universit
y degree
31.0
27.7
30.2
37.7
37.4
37.6
34.3
32.3
33.8
HH net
equivalent
income
1,745
1,514
1,690
2,025
1,745
1,957
1,888
1,633
1,827
Driving
licence
78.5
80.9
79.0
88.5
88.0
88.0
83.4
84.3
83.6
Car HH
72.9
77.8
74.0
78.6
92.4
81.9
75.6
84.8
77.8
Car km/a
10,784
10,749
10,773
13,778
18,243
14,804
12,405
14,541
12,921
Work-
home
distance
16.0
13.3
15.2
20.1
19.1
19.8
18.2
16.6
17.7
% sample
39%
12%
52%
37%
11%
49%
76%
24%
100%
N
939
297
1,236
889
275
1,164
1,822
572
2,400
PART B: Manuscript 2: 4. Results
78
holding a driving licence is higher than the percentage of women. For men, the share
is lowest, with almost 77.9%, in the youngest category and increases up to 94.4% for
men aged between 58 and 67 years. The distribution of driving licences for female
respondents also differs: Although the distribution increases with the lowest share in
the youngest group, it is not as consistent for men and decreases from the maximum
of 90.4% between 38 and 47 years to 73% for women older than 68 years. As data
from the Federal Motor Transport Authority of Germany show, young women and men
started to align with the share of driving licences, and the gap continues to increase
with advancing age of the respondents; this is because, in the past, fewer women
obtained driving licences and were reprimanded (Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt, 2018).
Our data show that for young adults, the highest difference between women
and men is 17.7%. This result contradicts the findings for the whole of Germany, where
for individuals aged between 18 and 27 years, similar numbers of men have a driving
licence compared to women (Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt, 2018). For the next age category
(28 to 37), the difference has nearly vanished. For individuals aged older than 58 years,
the gap increases again to almost the same difference and increases again for
respondents older 68 years. The variation within the sample of male respondents is
approximately 16.4%, and for women, the variation within the sample is almost twice
as high, at 30.2%.
PART B: Manuscript 2: 4. Results
79
4.1.3 Car and bicycle availability
Another relevant variable representing access to resources is the availability of
cars and bicycles within a household. As presented in section 2, traditionally, men have
a higher availability of cars in the household than women. Figure 12 shows the number
of cars and bicycles available in a household. Approximately half of the respondents
have one car in the household, and the values for women and men are similar. More
women have no car in the household than men. Considering the differences in living
together with a child below age 14 years for the whole sample, a shift of 10% towards,
respectively, one more car is evident. The share of individuals with no car in the
household decreases from 27% for women with children to 22% for women without
children. The share of individuals with no car in the household for men decreases from
Figure 11 Differences in distribution of driving licences of urban dwellers, n=2,400
PART B: Manuscript 2: 4. Results
80
21% with children to 8% without children. Women with children more often have no
car or two cars in the household than men, and only a few men with a child have no
car. Studies showed that the first car in the household is usually for the male member,
and the second car is used by the female household member (Scheiner & Holz-Rau,
2012). This result is compatible with the higher share of 12% of mothers living alone
compared with the 2% of single fathers living with their child. Regarding bicycles, the
distribution is similar for women and men: Nearly half the respondents have one
bicycle in the household, and one-fifth of the respondents do not have a bicycle in the
household. Respondents with a child have one bike significantly more often, with a
plus of 10%, and accordingly, less often no bike in the household. This effect is
stronger for female respondents, indicating that women might use more bicycles than
men when they have children.
To understand these differences, the actual possibility of driving a car or
bicycle must be analysed. Figure 13 shows how often respondents holding a driving
licence have access to a car or bicycle as a driver or rider. There is no evidence for
differences between women and men with or without children in the availability of
bicycles. Regarding cars, significantly, fewer women responded that they (almost)
Figure 12 Distribution of cars and bicycles of urban dwellers, n=2,400
PART B: Manuscript 2: 4. Results
81
always have access to them. In essence, 81% of the male respondents have the
possibility to drive a car daily, whereas 10% fewer women have the same opportunity.
Within the subsamples, a child leads to higher availability, with a plus of
approximately 10%.
4.2 Perception of cars, of driving, and car ownership
The use of cars is less frequent in urban areas compared with Germany in
general, especially in rural areas (Herget, 2013). This result is related to the satisfactory
PT coverage, the affordability and efficiency of the PT, and that everyday destinations
are much closer to one another in urban areas. Nevertheless, cars continue to shape the
cityscape, and many dwellers have retained their private cars. This section covers what
urban residents think of cars and car ownership and how they perceive travelling by
this mode with respect to gender differences.
Figure 13 Availability of cars and bicycles as driver of urban dwellers, n=2,400
PART B: Manuscript 2: 4. Results
82
4.2.1 Meaning of cars for personal mobility and car ownership
Figure 14 shows the agreement to several mobility-related statements
comparing women and men with and without children. Approximately half of the male
and female respondents stated that they could easily go to important destinations by
car, with a marginal difference of men agreeing more than women. A child below age
14 years in the household does not lead to differences between women and men.
Nevertheless, more women than men, especially with a child, state that they do not
need a car to be flexible. This result is surprising, because children, especially,
represent a factor that leads to the need for a car for spontaneous events (Dowling,
2000; Schneider & Hilgert, 2017). Agreements to the statement of only being able to
manage life with a car in the household differ for women and men with and without
children. More women with a child than without, but fewer men with a child than
without agreed to the necessity of a car for their daily mobility. One-quarter of women
said that it was true that they would not be able to manage their daily life without a car,
and more women without a child disagreed with this statement.
Regarding the perception of driving, more women compared with men agreed
to use a car as an uncomplicated manner of travelling. A young child in the household
has a positive impact on the evaluation of this item. In the case of women with a child,
significantly more women stated that driving is more than fun than childless women.
Men show the opposite effect and perceived driving to be less fun. Being asked about
the stress they experience while driving, women with and without a child and men
without a child answered nearly in a similar manner. Men with a child consider driving
to be significantly more stressful. For more women than men, it is important not to
have to share their car with anyone. For women with a child, the disagreement
decreased by 4.4%, and for men with a child, the percentage increased from 31.0% to
39.5%.
PART B: Manuscript 2: 4. Results
83
4.2.2 Reach of destinations
To understand the perception of cars of urban dwellers, respondents were asked
how many of their daily trips can be covered only by car (Figure 15). Approximately
the same share of women and men without a young child stated that almost all of their
trips must be taken by car. 55.8% of the female respondents without a child stated that
they do not necessarily need a car or do not have access to a car compared with 46.1%
of the respective male group. The strongest difference is observed for respondents with
a child younger than age 14 years: None of the male respondents stated that they never
have access to a car, and 36.1% of the male respondents said that they would not need
a car. 7.5%, respectively, 44% of the women answered in this way. Correspondingly,
significantly more men with a child compared with mothers said that a car is needed
Figure 14 Agreement to statements regarding cars, driving, and ownership, n=2,400
PART B: Manuscript 2: 4. Results
84
for almost all their daily trips. Women with children said that the car is not as needed,
similar to what women without a child stated.
4.2.3 Reasons for dispensing
The ratio between women and men without their own car is uneven: 24% for
women to 17% for men. The reasons why an individual renounces a car are manifold.
The interviewees were provided five possible reasons and asked for their agreement
regarding each statement (Figure 16).
More than half of the women said that the high acquisition costs or
maintenance costs are a reason why they do not want their own car, and 100 of the
carless men named this reason. Unequal access to resources is one reason why women
have fewer cars than men (section 2). This result is reflected in the financial aspects
being the main reason against car ownership for urban women. For most men, however,
a car is not necessary to be mobile, although more women than men cited this reason
(142 women cited this reason). The discrepancy in terms of access to resources in the
Figure 15 Frequency of car use for daily trips, n=2,400
PART B: Manuscript 2: 4. Results
85
form of costs is reflected in these numbers: While in relation, the conscious
renunciation or the renunciation because of environmental awareness is important for
more men than women, more women than men renounce their own vehicle for health
reasons.
4.3 Mode choice
The access to different modes and the perception of cars provide indications
about only the actual travel behaviour and use of specific modes. However, they
provide the frame for daily mobility. To understand mode choice regarding gender
aspects, it is important to correlate the preferences for a specific mode of respondents
with and without a child, respectively, across different age categories.
Figure 16 Reasons for car dispensing of urban dwellers, n=532
PART B: Manuscript 2: 4. Results
86
4.3.1 Primary mode
Respondents were asked about the mode they use the most for their daily trips
(Figure 17). In general, most of the respondents stated that cars are their main mode of
transport. Female respondents with a child in the household use cars significantly more
often in their daily lives and less public transport than female respondents without a
child. For men, in general, hardly any difference is observed in their primary mode
choice with or without a child, indicating that their mode choice is not affected by this
factor. For women, walking is more important in their daily mobility when they have
a child. Other modes do not show a significant difference between all women and men.
Notably, this result changes when subgroups according to age categories are
generated: For men between age 18 and 27 years, there is a significantly increased use
of cars by 20%, and the use of public transport, at 28%, is half as high for men without
a young child in the household. Walking plays a bigger role for men between age 18
and 27 years as well, with an increase from 3% to 16%. For respondents aged between
18 and 27 years, the relation to the child in the household is not clear; therefore, a
gender-typical caretaking division cannot be assumed. Nonetheless, literature shows
that girls more often take care of their younger brothers and sisters than boys (Wikle,
Jensen, & Hoagland, 2018). For women between 18 and 27, the main mode of transport
for most of their daily trips is public transport, that is, greater than 50%.
For men aged between 28 and 37 years, the same shift from public transport to
car use can be observed, although public transport is less important than that for
younger men. For 40% of the women with a young child in the household, the car is
the primary mode of transport. This value increases by 15% for women and 16.3% for
men, and public transport as the main mode decreases from 42.7% to 19.5% for women
and from 33.3% to 15.3% for men. Men with children use a bicycle less often when
they live with a child, and this share remains nearly unaffected. Women with a child
walk significantly more across all age categories. For the next two age categories of
women and men, the share of respondents using cars for most of their daily trips shows
PART B: Manuscript 2: 4. Results
87
an opposite effect: 15.8% (38–47 years) and 21.1% (48–57 years) less car use. This
decrease is balanced by more use of public transport and bicycles. Women aged