Transcription

*Transcipt was generated automatically, its accuracy may vary.

0:12

Welcome to the Feminist Park podcast.

I'm Kwame.

And I'm Leilani.

It's great to be kicking off this journey with you all today.

Yeah.

We're diving into work that's really closely tied to the vision behind the Feminist Park project, which was founded by Hussain Stuck.

That project's goal is pretty ambitious, isn't it?

0:28

Imagining these truly equitable public spaces, starting with the idea for an intersectional feminist park right here in Berlin.

Exactly.

And this podcast, well, it's kind of an extension of that.

We're going to be digging into the academic research that, you know, supports and informs that kind of vision.

0:46

We'll be taking these dense, sometimes quite academic papers and really pulling out the core and insights.

And looking at them through specific lenses.

Things like environmental justice, intersectionality, anti colonial thought, queer theory.

All the stuff that helps us think critically about space.

1:03

We're actually starting with some background research that Hussein came across early on, and it highlighted something, well, frankly quite jarring that the benefits we think we all get from urban green spaces, you know, parks and squares and thing like physical and mental well-being, they're often deeply gendered.

1:19

Meaning women and also gender diverse people.

They just don't get the same access or experience those benefits in the same way men do.

Right.

Less equitable access, fewer benefits.

It seems almost counter intuitive, doesn't it?

A park is just a park open to everyone.

1:36

Today we're exploring the world of urban spaces, the scene, and maybe more importantly, the unseen ways they shape our daily lives.

Think about something simple like riding a bike.

That feeling, you know when your hair freedom movement, it's such an iconic image of liberation, right?

1:52

Just pure spontaneous autonomy.

But here's a question to kick things off.

What if that feeling, that simple act, is actually what, profoundly different depending on who you are?

What if cycling isn't the same experience for everyone?

We know cycling is great for health, the environment, cutting down traffic, all that good stuff.

2:09

Yet participation rates, especially for women, are honestly shockingly low in many places.

Like look at parts of Australia.

There's this huge gap.

And that gap, that disparity is exactly where we need to focus, because urban environments, our streets, our paths, our infrastructure, they're not neutral canvases.

2:26

They are incredibly gendered.

Actually, historically, the design process is often, maybe without meaning to, completely overlooked the specific needs, the different routines, even the fundamental safety worries of various groups.

So it's not just about convenience, it's deeper than that.

Oh, much deeper.

2:43

It leads to real differences in access, in comfort, and ultimately in freedom of movement.

So today we're going to unpack some of those specific, often hidden barriers, the things that stop people, especially women, from jumping on a bike.

We'll be using some really important recent research to shine a light on these unseen challenges.

3:00

We want to understand why that picture perfect image of cycling freedom just isn't the reality for so many.

OK, so our mission today is pretty clear.

We're going to pull out the most critical insights from a really rigorous academic article, one that meticulously unpacks these gender differences in cycling.

3:16

We're basically giving you the shortcut to understanding how urban design could be truly liberating for everyone.

Moving past that one-size-fits-all approach, it's really about designing for actual human experience, isn't it?

Exactly.

It's about people, not just pavement.

All right, let's introduce the main source for today's deep dive.

3:33

We're focusing on a study called What a Girl Wants, a mixed method study of gender differences in the barriers to and enablers of riding a bike in Australia.

Really insightful title too.

It's by Lauren Pearson, Sandy Reader, Belinda Gab and Benbeck.

Published in 2023.

3:49

It appeared in Transportation Research, Part F, Psychology and Behavior, and it's really making waves in the field.

It is, and the core argument is well, it's crystal clear and incredibly important.

Basically it says if we genuinely want to plan our cities better, if we want to create interventions that actually work to promote active transport like cycling for everyone, we absolutely must understand the specific, sometimes subtle differences in needs and experiences between genders.

4:17

It's non negotiable.

So not just assuming everyone wants or needs the same thing from a bike lane.

Precisely, The researchers point out that while we all know cycling is beneficial globally, we actually have a very limited grasp on what women who aren't riding yet but want to really need.

4:33

And that's a crucial group to understand.

It signals this huge untapped potential for planners and policy makers.

Right, it's not about forcing people onto bikes.

No.

It's about enabling those who are already interested who are saying yes, but it's about fixing the but making the conditions right for them.

4:49

That's a great way to put it, Fixing the butt.

And what makes the study so solid, so useful is the way they did it right, their methodology.

They used something called a mixed method, Sequential explanatory design.

Sounds complex, but.

It just means they tackled it in two stages, which is really smart.

5:05

First, the quantitative part.

A big online survey they started with over 900 people got full responses from 717.

This gave them the numbers, the scale.

It helped quantify what the barriers and enablers were according to a broad group of people.

5:20

The big picture stuff.

So like percentages of people worried about traffic, that kind of thing.

Exactly getting that statistical baseline.

But then, and this is key, they didn't stop there.

The second phase was qualitative.

This is where they really dug deep.

They did 40 details, build semi structured interviews, 20 with women, 20 with men and crucially they spoke to people who fit into this category called interested but concerned writers.

5:45

OK, what does that mean exactly?

Interested but concerned.

It's a specific group identified in transport research.

These are people who want to ride.

They see the benefits, but they'll only do it if there's physical separation from cars.

They need protected infrastructure.

OK, so focusing on them gives you insights into why they aren't writing yet despite wanting to.

6:04

Precisely.

It gets beyond the surface numbers to the personal stories, the reasoning, the anxieties behind those survey responses.

It's this combination, the broad data and the deep stories, that makes the findings so rich and, frankly, so actionable.

6:20

And geographically, this was all focused on Greater Melbourne in Australia.

That's right, Melbourne, a major city.

You'd think it would be more bike friendly, but.

But the numbers tell a different story.

Only 1.9% of trips by bike?

That's tiny.

It is tiny, and within that tiny percentage, there's that stark gender gap, roughly 2 men riding for every one woman.

6:41

Wow, that ratio alone says so much.

It really does.

But here's the real kicker, the statistic that just jumps out and highlights the potential we were talking about.

Despite the low numbers, despite the barriers, an incredible 77% of women in Melbourne said they're interested in riding a bike. 77%, that's huge.

6:58

Isn't it?

It's a massive majority and this huge gap between nearly everyone being interested and almost no one actually doing it.

That's what the study really focuses it's.

Like a whole market of potential cyclists just waiting.

Exactly.

Waiting for the right conditions, the right infrastructure, the right support.

7:15

The desire is clearly there.

The enabling environment, not so much.

OK, so this study really is, as you said, a master class in how gender shapes our urban experience.

Let's start digging into that feminist and gender lens.

What did the data show right off the bat?

7:31

Well, the quantitative data immediately flags some really significant differences.

Hard numbers, for instance, women were way more likely to say they didn't want to ride on the road of cars.

That was a 61.1% of women compared to 44.7% of men.

7:46

That's a big difference, almost 17 percentage points.

Substantial and you see similar gaps elsewhere.

Concerned about injury from a collision, nearly 59% of women versus 43% of men.

Fear of aggressive drivers. 55% of women worried about that, compared to just under 45% of men.

8:03

So these aren't just slight preferences, these are significant anxieties.

Deeply filled anxieties, Yeah.

They fundamentally change how women perceive the road environment and whether they feel safe engaging with it on a bike.

It points to this pervasive sense of vulnerability.

Seeing the numbers is one thing, but you mentioned the interviews really got into the why what came out there?

8:20

Oh, this is where it gets really interesting.

The interview views revealed a major barrier that was almost exclusively reported by women, this profound lack of knowledge and confidence related to cycling.

Knowledge and confidence in what way?

8:36

They covered everything from the very start, like how do you even buy the right bike?

What questions to ask all the way to basic maintenance, like what happens if something goes wrong when you're out riding?

And men just didn't report this.

Not in the same way at all.

If men mentioned maintenance, it was often framed differently.

8:51

Like oh I enjoy tinkering, you know?

It wasn't presented as a barrier or a source of anxiety.

So what does that tell us?

Is it about actual ability or something else?

It's really not about innate ability, it's much more about how society subtly, or sometimes not so subtly, genders objects and activities.

9:12

Bikes, tools, mechanics.

They often fall into that male domain stereotype, so women in the study talked about feeling unsupported in bike shops, often staffed by men feeling like they weren't serious cyclists because they didn't know the jargon.

Feeling intimidated maybe.

9:27

Exactly.

Feeling out of place, judged even.

There's this powerful quote from a woman 5564 years old, she said.

I didn't have a clue.

I sort of felt that they had more serious cyclist to deal with and I was just a girlie who wanted a bike.

Wow, just a girlie who wanted a bike.

9:43

Yeah, she continues.

I don't know that they saw it that way, but that's how I thought they saw it.

That feeling, that perceived judgement is a huge psychological hurdle.

It stops women even starting or feeling OK asking for help.

And it wasn't just buying the bike, you said maintenance was a big one too.

9:59

Huge A really paralyzing concern for many women.

They worried intensely about things going wrong mechanically when they were riding alone.

Like getting a flat tire miles from home.

Exactly that fear of being stranded, helpless.

Another woman, 4554, talked about needing just some basic knowledge around bike maintenance.

10:17

That confidence that if you get stranded somewhere, you're not necessarily going to fall to pieces.

That vulnerability is palpable.

It really is.

And then you contrast that with a young man in this study, 2534, who said maintenance was no problem.

I enjoy the process of taking them apart and rebuilding.

10:35

It's such a stark difference, a practical, ingrained knowledge gap that directly impacts women's confidence and independence on a bike.

It's fundamental.

It's not just a fun skill.

It's tied to feeling safe, reliable, independent, and it's clearly gendered.

10:51

Did women talk about how they'd like to learn this stuff?

Yes, and that was revealing too.

Many specifically said they'd prefer women only maintenance workshops.

Why women only?

They mentioned a fear of asking stupid questions in front of men in mixed groups.

They wanted a space where they felt safe to learn without judgement, without feeling like they had to live up to some serious cyclist image.

11:12

So it points to needing different kinds of support systems, not just assuming a standard bike shop class works for everyone.

Absolutely.

It shows that true inclusivity means creating environments that address these specific social and psychological needs, meeting people where they actually are.

11:29

It's also fascinating you mentioned how even when men and women shared a concern, the reasons behind it could be different, like speed differences.

Yeah, that was a great example.

Both men and women found varying speeds on paths or roads stressful, but the why was different.

For women, it was often tied to their confidence in their own physical ability.

11:49

They worried about holding people up, about causing stressful passing events for faster cyclists.

There was this self consciousness.

A feeling of being a nuisance, almost.

Sort of, yeah.

Whereas men tended to frame it more as an annoyance that disrupted the pleasant sensory experience of their ride.

12:06

It broke their flow, but wasn't necessarily tied to self doubt in the same way.

That's a subtle but really significant difference in the psychological load.

It is, and connects to another really novel finding from the study, something that helps explain this deeper anxiety for women, the concern about needing space to fall.

12:26

Space to fall?

What does that mean?

It's not metaphorical.

It's the literal visceral fear of falling off the bike and ending up in the path of oncoming cars, or falling onto a busy path right in front of faster cyclists who might not react in time.

Oh wow, that's, yeah, that's a very specific physical fear.

12:45

Very specific.

One young woman, 1824, put it starkly.

I'm probably concerned if I stop suddenly or like like fell off the bike I was going to end up in oncoming traffic.

So it's not just about the risk of collision while riding normally, but the risk if something goes wrong, if you wobble or lose balance.

Exactly.

13:00

It's this constant background calculation of needing a safety buffer and escape zone, and this was something women reported but men didn't.

It highlights a critical need for infrastructure design that provides that buffer that feeling of safety, even if you're not the most confident rider.

It really changes how you think about the width of a bike lane, doesn't it?

13:18

It's not just about about fitting the bike.

Not at all.

It's about mental comfort, psychological safety just as much as physical protection.

And this ties back to the quantitative data showing women were more worried about aggressive drivers.

Too Right Interviews dug into that.

13:34

They did.

Women talked about witnessing road rage incidents while driving cars and then transferring that fear, the fear that this aggression could be targeted at them if they were on a bike, more exposed, more vulnerable.

That's chilling.

Like that quote you mentioned earlier.

Yeah, the 5564 year old woman asking herself who's out to kill me this week when she thought about riding.

13:55

That transforms the road from a neutral space into, well, a potentially hostile environment.

Exactly.

It's not just about traffic rules, it's about the perceived social climate on the road.

This feeling that the road can be aggressive, especially towards women, is a massive barrier that often gets overlooked.

14:14

We focus on infrastructure but the social environment matters hugely.

It's like the whole context feels unsafe, not just specific actions.

Precisely.

It speaks to broader societal issues of aggression and vulnerability in public space, just manifesting acutely on the roads for potential cyclists.

14:31

And incredibly, even the weather became gendered in this study.

How did that work?

Yeah, that was surprising, but revealing.

Both men and women said bad weather put them off riding, but again, the reasoning differed.

Women often frame things like heavy rain or strong wind as safety issues.

14:47

They worried rain would reduce driver visibility, making them less safe, or that strong wind could literally blow them off balance in a narrow lane, blow them into.

Traffic.

Exactly, that was a specific fear, mentioned, one woman, 4554 said.

If a gust of wind blows me over, I'll just get, you know, rammed into a car or something like that.

15:05

That's far beyond just not wanting to get wet.

Absolutely.

It's a calculation of increased risk, increased danger.

Men, in contrast, mostly talked about weather in terms of discomfort.

Too cold, too wet, unpleasant.

So women are internalizing environmental factors as potential threats in a way men generally aren't.

15:23

It seems so.

It points to this broader heightened sense of vulnerability that shapes their decisions.

A windy day isn't just inconvenient, it's potentially dangerous in a way that adds another layer of complexity to choosing to cycle.

And what about women riding with children?

15:39

That added another dimension I imagine.

A huge dimension for women with kids.

The need for safe protected infrastructure became almost absolute non negotiable.

They didn't just want off road paths, they needed connected networks of bike friendly streets.

15:55

They talked about the frustration of safe paths just ending.

Right, forcing you onto dangerous roads or making detours and possibly long for little legs.

Exactly, making what should be a simple active trip completely impractical.

It basically forces families back into cars.

16:11

And since women often to handle more childcare logistics.

It disproportionately impacts their mobility choices.

It shows how infrastructure designed mainly for commuting being adults fails families and particularly mothers.

Cities need to be designed for caregiving trips too, not just point A to point B commutes.

16:27

Designing for families really is designing for women's liberation in that sense.

It truly is.

OK, one more specific barrier from the interviews.

Lighting.

Both genders liked good lighting, but again, a difference in emphasis.

Critical difference While good lighting was seen as positive by everyone in the survey, in the interviews, women specifically cited it in relation to personal safety.

16:49

Meaning fear of crime or harassment, not just seeing the path.

Precisely.

They talked about actively choosing not to ride at night or avoiding specific unlit areas like utter passes because they felt unsafe from other people.

This directly limits their ability to use bikes for commuting, especially outside standard nine to five hours.

17:08

Men simply didn't report personal safety fears related to lighting.

So again, safety means different things.

For women, it includes security from potential assault, not just traffic accidents.

Exactly.

And it's not just about having any light.

Other research cited in the study shows the quality of light matters.

17:24

The color, the uniformity help make space feel.

It requires a much more nuanced approach than just sticking up bright lights.

It's about creating genuinely welcoming, secure feeling environments.

OK, so the study paints a really detailed picture of gendered barriers for cisgender women, but it also acknowledged some limitations, some areas it couldn't fully explore right, like through a queer theory lens.

17:47

Yes, and it's important they acknowledge that while they did have 11 non binary or gender diverse participants in the survey phase, the number was just too small for separate robust analysis.

So we know the findings are strong for CIS women, but we can't necessarily assume they capture the full picture for say, non binary cyclists.

18:07

Exactly.

Their experiences in public space, their safety concerns, their interactions with infrastructure could be very different.

There might be additional layers of visibility concerns or discrimination fears that this study just wasn't equipped to capture due to the sample size.

It leaves a question mark there for future work.

18:23

A vital 1.

The article even mentions other research suggesting non binary and gender diverse people might deliberately take longer routes or use more expensive transport options specifically to manage personal safety risks.

So it's a critical area needing dedicated research and design attention.

18:40

And similarly, for a migrant or racial justice perspective, the study had limitations there too.

It did.

Again, due to data collection constraints in the qualitative phase, they couldn't do a deep intersectional analysis looking at how ethnicity might interact with gendered cycling experiences.

18:58

So the barriers we've discussed, like confidence, safety, fears, might play out differently or be amplified for women of color or migrant women.

It's very likely they might face additional layers of prejudice, different cultural expectations around cycling, or specific safety concerns related to racism in public spaces.

19:16

We need to be really mindful that women are not a monolithic group.

So this study gives us a crucial piece of the puzzle, the gender piece, but we need more research to see how it connects with race and migration status.

Absolutely.

The study itself sites other work pointing this out.

It's a call for more intersectional research to get the full complex picture.

19:35

What about class or socioeconomic status?

Did that come into play?

Well, indirectly.

The study noted that the quantitative survey sample actually skewed towards higher incomes compared to the general Melbourne population.

About 36% of participants earned over $78,000 AUD, whereas that's only true for 16% of the wider population there.

19:56

OK.

So the findings might reflect the views of more affluent people more strongly.

Potentially, yeah.

It's an important nuance.

It means some barriers might be less relevant or some solutions more feasible for this group compared to those on lower incomes.

Like if a solution involves buying expensive gear.

20:13

Exactly.

The article mentions E bikes for example.

They could be great for overcoming fitness or confidence barriers for some women, but they're expensive.

So without subsidies or other support, E bikes might mainly help wealthier women, potentially widening the gap.

That's the concern raised.

It highlights the need to think about economic accessibility when proposing solutions.

20:33

Otherwise, even well-intentioned ideas can reinforce existing inequalities.

And finally, the disability justice perspective.

Was that covered?

Not explicitly analyzed, no.

The study noted the small percentage of participants unable to ride due to injury or medical condition, but it didn't delve into the specific systemic barriers people with disabilities face in cycling or what truly inclusive design would look like from that perspective.

20:57

So another crucial area where we need more focused research to make sure active transport really is for everyone.

Definitely designing for universal access means considering the full spectrum of abilities and needs.

OK, we've really unpacked a lot of granular detail about these gendered experiences.

21:14

Let's connect it all back now.

What does the study mean for the whole concept of the Feminist Park?

It feels like it lays down the groundwork, validates the need almost.

It absolutely does.

This research is incredibly foundational for the Feminist Park.

It provides the empirical evidence, the why behind creating spaces specifically designed to tackle these gendered inequities and mobility.

21:35

It demolishes the idea that just building standard infrastructure is enough.

If that infrastructure ignores women's specific fears and needs, the ones this study documents so clearly, then it's not truly equitable.

It validates the need for intentional feminist design principles.

21:52

And it points to very specific design features, doesn't it?

Like the absolute priority of physically separated infrastructure to address that core fear of traffic.

Fair amount.

It's not a nice to have for many women.

It's the baseline requirement for even considering cycling.

A feminist park would embody that principle, creating a haven from traffic anxiety.

22:10

And that amazing finding about space to fall that gives a direct design mandate, right?

Not just separation, but width and buffer zones within the path itself.

Exactly.

It's a concrete requirement.

Protected lanes need enough room to mitigate that fear of wobbling into traffic or into faster riders.

It's about designing for psychological comfort, not just physical separation.

22:30

A feminist park would big that forgiving design right in.

Then there's the confidence and knowledge gap.

How could a feminist park tackle that?

Directly by providing dedicated supportive spaces within the park for learning.

Imagine easily accessible, maybe woman LED bike repair workshops, confidence building courses where you feel safe asking anything.

22:51

Challenging that idea of bikes being gendered objects.

Precisely making cycling feel accessible, empowering and normal for everyone, regardless of background or perceived skill level.

Building practical skills and dismantling stereotypes at the same time.

And the personal safety aspect, especially lighting a feminist park.

23:08

Wouldn't just add lights, it would Co design the lighting and the layout of potentially sensitive areas like underpasses with women using quality lighting principles to create spaces that genuinely feel safe and welcoming, day or night.

Addressing the fear of harassment, not just the need to see.

23:24

Extending the parks usability and accessibility Absolutely.

And for families, the park could be a game changer, providing those connected, safe routes.

Yes, creating those cycle friendly networks within and around the park, making it possible for mothers for caregivers to ride safely and joyfully with their children.

23:43

Removing that logistical nightmare of disconnected paths and dangerous Rd.

Crossings supporting those crucial caregiving trips.

So fundamentally, this study provides the evidence, the justification for why a feminist park isn't just a concept, but a necessary intervention.

24:00

Exactly, It shows how traditional planning has failed women, creating systemic barriers, and it validates the feminist park approach, starting with the needs of marginalized users, Co designing solutions and aiming for truly inclusive environments.

It's a blueprint for a more equitable urban future.

24:16

It's been such a rich deep dive.

It really shows how detailed we need to get to understand mobility justice.

It's so much more than just bike lanes.

It's confidence, safety perceptions, cultural gendering.

It's complex, absolutely, but what's also incredibly striking is the potential.

Remember that 77%?

24:32

77% of women interested in writing despite all these barriers.

It's huge.

It tells us there's this massive latent demand just waiting to be unlocked.

We don't need to convince people cycling is good, we need to remove the things stopping them.

So for you listening, maybe take a moment to think about your own environment.

24:51

Are there spaces in your daily life?

Parks, paths, roads, even shops that might unintentionally create these kinds of gendered barriers?

Dimly lit shortcuts you avoid?

Paths where you feel crowded or unsafe.

Shops where you felt dismissed?

25:08

Just noticing is a powerful first step.

And it raises bigger questions for planners and advocates beyond the essential separated lanes.

How do we build that supportive culture?

How do we share knowledge about things like maintenance?

How do we build confidence in ways that feel safe and inclusive, recognizing these gender differences?

25:23

Community workshops, mentoring programs, baby.

What kinds of initiatives could really tackle those less tangible but equally real barriers?

And critically, how do we ensure future research, future projects don't repeat the limitations of this study?

How do we actively bring in the experiences of non binary people, people of color, people with disabilities, different socioeconomic groups?

25:46

Getting that full intersectional picture is vital if we want solutions that work for everyone.

OK, let's end with a provocative thought, something to Mull over.

Consider this.

What if we deliberately designed our cities, our transport networks, starting with the needs of those who currently face the most barriers, in this case women, particularly those facing multiple disadvantages.

26:08

If we designed for their safety, their confidence, their needs, don't we almost by definition create environments that are better, safer, more accessible and more pleasant for absolutely everyone?

Designing for the margins to benefit the center.

Exactly.

Could that be the most effective shortcut to truly liberatore urban design for all?

26:26

Something to think about.

This knowledge is a tool really, a tool for seeing your city differently and potentially for helping to change it.

It's been a really insightful deep dive.

I think this document provides such a vital framework, especially for projects like the Feminist Park Project that are trying to build something fundamentally different.

26:44

It shows just how interlinked urban design and social justice are.

It really does, but it also shows the scale of the challenge right?

It requires sustained effort, real commitment and a genuine willingness to shift power dynamics in how cities get made and managed.

Definitely see.

27:01

Think about how we ensure those voices, the ones that have been excluded, are actually heard and centered.

There's another quote from Sarah Ahmed in the Handbook that feels relevant here.

Go on, she says.

If you have to shout to be heard, you are heard as shouting.

27:18

That's powerful.

It makes you ponder, doesn't it?

How can the design of public space itself work differently?

How can it amplify the voices of those who've been historically silenced, ensuring their needs are met without them having to shout just to be noticed?

How can design itself listen?

That's a really provocative thought to end on a.

27:35

Lot to think about.

Indeed, thanks for joining us for this deep dive.