Transcript: 

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

So for our first deep dive, 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.

1:20

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 counterintuitive, doesn't it?

A park is just a park open to everyone.

1:37

Imagine, if you will, you're alone in the woods.

The light is fading, and you suddenly realize you might encounter someone on the path.

You have two choices for who that might be, a bear or a man.

You don't know.

Which do you choose?

Now, this isn't just some quirky philosophical thought experiment.

1:52

You know, something you might ponder idly over coffee.

This exact hypothetical question recently just exploded across social media, became this huge viral phenomenon, captured global attention, sparked some really intense debate.

And on the surface, it seems almost absurdly simple, right?

2:08

Get for many, particularly women, its implications are incredibly profound.

They really touch on deep seated fears and live realities.

Yeah, what's truly fascinating here, and actually deeply unsettling, is that for a really significant portion of our society, this isn't a joke.

It's not just some fleeting social media trend.

2:24

For many women, it's a stark and often frankly painful reflection of their daily lived experience.

It's like this unconscious calculation they have to perform way too often.

So today, we're taking a deep dive into this viral moment.

We're exploring not just the popular conversation it ignited, but also the serious, rigorous academic research that scientifically unpacks why this choice is so telling.

2:46

You know, telling for women safety and their sense of freedom and public spaces, especially natural environments.

We'll be drawing from two key sources here.

First, a really compelling USA TODAY article, which brilliantly captured the pulse of the public debate, really gave voice to these visceral reactions.

And then we're going even deeper into a crucial scientific study from Borneoli and Gators Lubin.

3:06

The title kind of says it all, man or bear, how gender effects experiences of natural environments and so on.

Our mission today is pretty clear.

We want to understand the intricate science behind these gendered safety perceptions in natural environments.

And critically, we want to explore how these powerful insights can directly inform the design of truly liberating public spaces.

3:27

You know, a vision exemplified by projects like the Feminist Park.

OK.

So when we bring these these really potent sources together, what's the core message?

What does this all ultimately mean for how we understand public safety?

Well, both the viral debate, like the one captured so vividly in that USA TODAY piece, and the rigorous academic research by Borneoli and Gator Slieben.

3:49

They point to a consistent and frankly, quite unsettling truth, which is that women disproportionately experience fear and perceive significant risks when they're in natural environments.

And here's the crucial distinction.

This fear is primarily due to social threats.

4:05

Meaning the fear of other people.

Exactly.

The fear of other people, particularly unknown men.

Rather than say, environmental hazards like getting lost or animal encounters, borneoli and Gators leave in central argument is crystal clear on this.

Gender profoundly impacts not only how safe people feel, but also how they appraise and interact with natural environments.

4:26

Women's consistently report being more fearful, especially in dense, overgrown environments, and overwhelmingly when they perceive the presence of social danger threats.

And you're saying this isn't just a subjective feeling, it's measurable?

Precisely.

It's a measurable, statistically significant difference in experience that shapes their entire engagement with the natural world.

4:46

Right.

It's not just anecdotal or based on a viral trend as you said.

Exactly.

Borneoli and Gatorsleven embarked on this meticulously designed research program to scientifically test these widespread perceptions.

They conducted 3 distinct experiments, mostly with adults in the UK over a period of time, specifically to build a really robust body of empirical evidence.

5:08

Their methodology was sophisticated, you know, carefully designed to rigorously evaluate how gender, the density of vegetation, and different types of danger threats interact, how they shape people's experiences and feelings of safety in natural settings.

So they had specific predictions hypothesis.

5:24

They did.

They formulated specific hypothesis to guide their research, aiming to uncover precise patterns.

For instance, their first main hypothesis predicted that women would generally feel less safe across all the environments they tested and therefore would express higher levels of fear, perceive greater overall risks, and rate the likelihood of encountering perceived dangers, especially social ones, significantly higher than men.

5:48

OK, that makes sense based on the viral debate.

Then their second hypothesis suggests so that the effect of vegetation density, how thick the woods are basically on these feelings of fear and risk would be stronger for women, more pronounced.

So denser woods feel even more threatening to women than to men.

6:04

That was the prediction.

And finally, hypothesis 3 aimed to show that the impact of specific danger types, particularly social threats, would have a greater and more negative influence on women's experiences compared to men's.

And the importance of this multi study approach.

You know, where findings are replicated and variables are carefully manipulated across three separate experiments.

6:24

It really can't be overstated.

It provides an exceptionally strong scientific validation for these deeply felt, yet often dismissed, gendered experiences of fear in nature.

OK, so we've laid out the academic framework, the scientific rigor behind these findings.

But what truly brings this data to life?

6:41

I think are the real voices, the raw human experiences captured by that man or bear phenomenon.

This is where the academic paper gets its, well, it's emotional punch, right where the science validates a lived reality.

Let's revisit those viral responses because they tell a story that's far more profound than just a social media trend.

7:02

That USA TODAY piece really captured the visceral nature of this debate through direct quotes from women.

There was this tick tock account screenshot HQ that ignited the conversation by asking that exact question.

Would you rather run into a man you didn't know or a bear in the forest?

7:17

And here's the kicker.

As they reported, out of seven women interviewed for that segment, only one picked a man.

Only one, Yeah.

And the reasons they gave are incredibly revealing.

They paint this stark, almost heartbreaking picture of the pervasive fear many women carry in their daily lives.

Those quotes are, just, as you said, incredibly powerful because they articulate a fear that's often unspoken yet widely understood among women.

7:41

One woman just responded simply there.

Man is scary.

It's blunt, almost childlike, but it's profoundly clear in its message.

Absolutely.

But others went deeper, revealing the layers of anxiety underneath.

Someone online username at Celeste, Julie Stunning articulated a sentiment that just resonated deeply with millions.

8:01

They wrote.

No one's going to ask me if I led the bear on or give me a pamphlet on bear attack prevention tips.

Wow, that cuts right to the heart of it, doesn't it?

Victim blaming.

Immediately, it speaks to that infuriating tendency to scrutinize a woman's actions, her clothing, her choices, her demeanor when she experiences harm, rather than focusing solely on the perpetrators responsibility.

8:21

The implicit message is, yeah, if a bear attacks you, it's a tragedy.

If a man attacks you, society might ask what you did to provoke it.

It's a truly devastating insight into that unfair burden placed on victims.

That's a crucial distinction, and it speaks to this fundamental breach of trust in society and that layering of mistrust.

8:38

It's culpable.

And other responses, too, Another woman plainly stated.

I know a bears intentions.

I don't know a man's intentions, no matter how nice they are.

It is.

That's a chilling insight into the constant vigilance women often maintain, that invisible calculus they perform every single time they encounter men they don't know, even in seemingly benign situations like walk in the park.

9:00

It speaks volumes of better pervasive sense of unpredictability, this deeply unsettling understanding that a potential threat can emerge from someone who appears on the surface totally harmless.

This isn't just about physical safety.

It's about a profound erosion of trust in the social contract.

9:15

Indeed.

But maybe the most poignant and devastating reason, the one that truly encapsulates the systemic issue, came from Diana's sister-in-law, as recounted in that USA TODAY article, she explained.

I would rather it be a bear, because if the bear attacks me and I make it out of the woods, everybody's going to believe me and have sympathy for me.

9:33

But if a man attacks me and I make it out, I'm going to spend my whole life trying to get people to believe me and have sympathy for me.

Oh wow, that just stops you in your tracks.

It does.

This isn't just about the immediate physical safety from an attack.

It's about the profound and systemic issue of disbelief, victim blaming, and the arduous, often traumatizing process of seeking justice and validation that women so often face after experiencing violence.

9:58

It highlights a deeply ingrained societal problem where women's accounts of trauma are frequently met with skepticism, scrutiny, and often an implicit assignment of responsibility to the victim.

So the core devastating insight here is that for many women, the fear of an attack is tragically compounded by the fear of not being believed afterwards.

10:16

The double trauma.

Exactly.

A double trauma that our societal systems often impose, making the choice between a bear and a man not just about immediate survival, but about the validation of your very experience, your very truth.

That is absolutely staggering and frankly deeply unsettling.

10:33

But I'm curious for anyone listening who might still be thinking, OK, a bear is a physical threat, a man is a physical threat.

What's the fundamental psychological difference?

Why is the social danger so uniquely potent and terrifying for women compared to, say, encountering a wild animal?

10:50

That's a crucial distinction to make.

The bears intentions, while dangerous, are, well, primal.

They're predictable in a biological sense and devoid of malice in the way humans understand it.

A bear attacks for hunger, perceived threat to its young territorial defense.

These are understandable, if terrifying, biological imperatives.

11:07

Right.

There's no judgment involved.

Exactly.

A man's intentions, however, in the context of gendered violence, are filtered through layers of societal power dynamics, objectification, and often a chilling sense of control and violation that goes beyond mere physical harm.

11:23

The fear isn't just of the physical act, it's of the dehumanization, the disregard for autonomy, and, as we just discussed, the aftermath of disbelief.

And what's particularly striking is the USA TODAY article also points out is that some men were utterly flabbergasted by these responses.

11:39

That reaction itself highlights a significant and painful disconnect in understanding doesn't.

It it absolutely does.

It underscores how profoundly different men's and women's lived realities and experiences of fear in public spaces can be.

Many men might potentially never have to consider such a calculation in their own lives, perhaps truly struggling to grasp the depth of this pervasive fear.

12:01

And you're absolutely right about the disconnect.

This popular culture phenomenon is, as you said, not just social commentary.

It's backed by powerful empirical data.

Borneoli and Gator Slieben's research provides that scientific validation for these deeply felt fears.

Across all three of their studies, they consistently found women expressed more fear, perceived higher risks, and rated the likelihood of encountering social dangers significantly higher than men.

12:27

This isn't just a feeling, it's a statistically significant difference, clearly confirming their first main set of hypotheses, 1A1B and 1C, which predicted these very outcomes.

Can you walk us through some of that specific evidence from their studies again, especially the statistical findings?

You mentioned medium effect sizes and something called Cohen's D.

12:45

What does that actually mean for us listening?

Absolutely so.

In studies one and two, which both meticulously examined perceptions in woodland environments with varying levels of density, women consistently reported higher levels of fear and perceived risk compared to men.

More critically, they also expressed greater concern about social dangers like harassment or assault.

13:06

And these differences weren't just tiny blips.

They were significant enough to show a clear, measurable divide between how men and women experience these places.

That's what researchers call medium effect sizes.

To put that in perspective, think of the difference between a slight unease and a really noticeable impactful distinction between genders.

13:24

That's the kind of magnitude we're talking about.

OK, so a clear difference.

A clear difference and the fact that they saw the same pattern replicated in both studies really strengthens the reliability of these findings.

But study three really sharpened the focus and I think solidified the core argument.

13:40

This experiment manipulated the presence of different dangerous scenarios.

They included social threats like encountering an aggressive stranger, physical threats like the risk of tripping, animal threats, even the threat of getting lost.

And the results were stark.

They truly illuminated the central issue.

The presence of social danger signs made women significantly more fearful and far less willing to engage with the environment than men.

14:01

Significantly more.

Hugely more.

This effect was so pronounced that the impact on women's fear was enormous.

Measured using something called Cohen's D, the value is 1.580.

Now, to give you a real world picture, a Cohen's D of .2 is considered small, .5 is medium, and .8 is large.

14:20

A value of 1.5, A zero, is exceptionally large.

Yeah, think of the difference between slight unease and a profound, almost paralyzing fear.

That's the magnitude of impact they observed for women facing social threats.

And strikingly for men, these social danger threats did not significantly impact their experiences, which just highlights this profound and disturbing gender gap in safety perception.

14:44

That's not just sobering, that's almost a revelation for anyone who doubted the intensity of this fear.

It really shines a spotlight on why so many women exercise such intense caution that invisible calculus every time they step into a public space.

It really does.

These findings must resonate with broader societal statistics too, I imagine.

15:03

Indeed they do.

These scientific findings connect powerfully with broader societal statistics, painting a very consistent picture.

For instance, in the UK, official statistics reported that a staggering 4 out of five women feel unsafe walking alone in urban green spaces.

Compare that to just two out of five men.

15:19

Four out of five, two out of five.

That's huge.

It's a massive difference.

This isn't a minor discrepancy.

It's a deeply embedded, systemic gendered experience of public space where half the population feels this constant low level hum of anxiety that the other half largely doesn't.

15:36

And globally, the situation is similarly dire regarding sexual harassment in public spaces.

Reports indicate that up to 89% of women report such experiences in some cities, based on other research and reports from groups like Action Aid.

So the Man or bear debate, far from being some kind of exaggeration, is actually a concise and urgent articulation of this widespread reality of gender based violence and the profound, debilitating fear it instills in women globally.

16:02

Beyond these social threats, the study also touched on how the physical environment itself plays a role right, Specifically, vegetation density.

What do they find there?

How does the environment itself contribute to that perceived threat, particularly for women?

That's a fantastic point, because the physical characteristics of natural environments, particularly vegetation density, basically how much cover there is, also play a significant role, though often it's in conjunction with gender.

16:25

It's not just about the threat, but how the setting might amplify or mitigate that threat.

Now both men and women generally find dense overgrown environments less safe, which aligns with the well established Prospect Refuge theory.

Prospect Refuge.

Can you explain that quickly?

16:41

Sure, it's the idea that humans instinctively prefer spaces that offer clear sight lines or prospect, allowing us to observe our surroundings and potential threats.

But we also like having opportunities to hide or retreat if needed, offering refuge.

Dense vegetation by its very nature can drastically reduce that prospect, making it harder to see what's ahead or around you, while at the same time it increases potential hiding spots or refuge for an aggressor.

17:07

This combination makes people generally feel more vulnerable.

OK, makes sense.

However, and this is crucial, Hypothesis 2 of the Borneoli and Gators Lieben study was confirmed.

The effect of density on fear, perceived risk and intentions to engage with the environment was significantly stronger for women.

17:24

This means that while everyone might feel a bit more uneasy in a very dense, overgrown area, dense settings amplify women's fear disproportionately.

It isn't just a linear increase, the impact is far more severe.

It creates A heightened sense of vulnerability that others simply don't experience to the same degree.

17:41

So the environment acts like a magnifier for the fear.

Exactly.

It could explain findings from other research too, like one study where women's visual assessment of campus spaces focus not just on the path they were walking, but also meticulously scanned adjacent areas like bushes and dark spots.

17:56

It indicates A heightened vigilance, a more expansive, almost hyper aware threat assessment compared to men.

For women, the density of the environment becomes a magnifier for that underlying social fear.

It can transform what should be a relaxing walk in nature into an exhausting exercise and threat detection.

18:12

So it really crystallizes that it's not simply the presence of a threat, but how the environment itself interacts with that perceived threat, creating a significantly different, more terrifying experience for women.

And the take away here is vital, right?

It really underscores that women are not primarily worried about getting lost or encountering wild boar.

18:32

Not primarily, no.

They are fundamentally concerned about encountering men they don't know and the potential for gender based violence.

Precisely, and the take away here is absolutely vital.

What emerged as truly crucial from the Borneoli and Gator slave and discussion is that social threats, not animal dangers or physical dangers like tripping, emerged as the key barrier for women's enjoyment of nature.

18:54

This isn't to say other threats don't exist, of course, but they are secondary.

This directly addresses the underlying fear articulated in the man or bear scenario.

It makes it clear women are fundamentally concerned about encountering an unknown man and the potential for gender based violence.

This insight really underscores the necessity for targeted interventions in public space design.

19:13

This isn't about minor adjustments.

It's about fundamentally rethinking how we design, manage, and maybe even program our public natural spaces to address this pervasive social threat.

This raises an important question though.

Why this profound gender difference?

Why is the fear of a social threat, specifically a man, so much more potent for women than for men, even compared to the physical ginger of an animal?

19:35

Is there a theoretical framework that helps us understand this deeper psychological and societal mechanism?

That's an excellent and indeed the most critical question.

The author suggests objectification theory as a powerful lens through which to understand this profound gender disparity.

19:52

Objectification theory isn't just academic jargon.

It's a powerful, deeply impactful idea.

It posits that women living in a society that often reduces them to their physical appearance are conditioned to see themselves through the male gaze.

OK, the male gaze.

It means they're constantly, perhaps unconsciously, aware that their bodies can be judged, scrutinized, objectified, or even violated.

20:14

This constant self surveillance creates a deep seated anxiety, a feeling of hypervulnerability, and a constant concern for their physical integrity.

This self objectification can lead to chronic anxiety and avoidance behaviors.

Other research supports this framework directly explains why a social threat, the presence of an unknown man, is far more potent and deeply unsettling than an animal one, and why, tragically, women might prefer a bear.

20:40

A bears intentions are primal, predictable, devoid of those societal layers of control and violation that can accompany human threats.

A man's however, filtered through societal norms of objectification and potential violence are often unknown and deeply feared, triggering that self objectification anxiety in a really visceral way.

20:58

That's a powerful framework connecting individual psychology to broader societal pressures.

And I imagine this isn't just about individual psychology, but also deeply rooted in how we socialize girls and boys from a very young age, shaping their relationship with public spaces and perceived safety.

You're absolutely right.

It extends far beyond individual psychology and is profoundly shaped by societal expectations and gender stereotypes.

21:20

The studies also touch upon the profound impact of these deeply ingrained societal norms.

Women are often overtly and subtly discouraged from visiting nature alone or at night, not just by explicit warnings, but by a pervasive cultural narrative.

The public discourse frequently depicts women as passive users of natural spaces, maybe admiring scenic views or pushing a stroller.

21:41

Right, not necessarily exploring or being adventurous.

Exactly.

Rather than as active explorers, adventurers, or skilled navigators, these deeply ingrained stereotypes affect how women perceive and engage with nature, making them feel less entitled to these spaces or less capable of navigating them safely on their own.

21:59

And this socialization begins incredibly early, almost imperceptible.

Research consistently shows that girls and boys display vastly different behaviors in natural settings.

Girls often exhibit more limited movements or activities and parks compared to boys, according to some park watch groups.

22:14

Parents, often unconsciously and with good intentions, discourage girls from engaging in more physically active or rough and tumble play, steering them towards calmer activities.

While boys are often encouraged to explore.

Precisely conversely, boys are frequently encouraged in outdoor literacy, exploration and even what's considered dangerous play from a young age.

22:35

Think of boys being encouraged to climb trees, explore deep into the woods or build forts, while girls are more often told to be careful, stay close or don't get dirty.

These disparities create a profound comfort gap.

Boys grow up with a sense of entitlement and mastery over outdoor spaces, a feeling that these environments are theirs to explore, while girls are often taught caution, confinement and a constant awareness of potential vulnerability.

23:02

That makes a little sense.

And it's also worth speculating on the other side of the coin, men's reporting of safety concerns.

The discussion section of the Borneoli and Gator Slavin paper touches on the possibility that men's self reported fear might be influenced by masculine ideals.

Several studies indicate that men are often reluctant to seek health services or help, often due to societal expectations that men should not seek help and should be tough.

23:25

Right, that pressure to seem invulnerable.

Exactly.

While there's less direct evidence on how this effects reporting fear in public spaces, it's entirely possible that men might experience similar underlying concerns as women in some instances, but are socialized to suppress or under report these fears to maintain that image of invulnerability.

23:44

This highlights the inherent complexity of measuring and truly understanding perceived safety across all genders, and the need for future research to really untangle how deeply ingrained gender stereotypes influence not just the experience of fear, but also its expression and acknowledgement.

24:00

That's a powerful and frankly unsettling picture of gendered fear, shaped by both personal experience and these deep societal norms.

But as with any scientific inquiry, we have to ask, whose experiences are we not yet fully capturing?

Because fear, like identity, it's never a monolith, right?

24:16

The authors themselves raised this point, asking us to consider who else might be disproportionately affected by these very same issues, and where.

This research, while groundbreaking, has its limitations.

That's a critical point for any robust academic work, and Borneoli and Gaiters Laban are commendably transparent about their studies.

24:32

Acknowledged limitations.

While their findings are groundbreaking for understanding cisgender women's experiences, they do note that due to low numbers, non minor participants were excluded from some analysis and study too.

This is a significant limitation because it means we don't yet have the same empirical depth on the experiences of gender minorities.

24:52

That's a broad term encompassing people like trans individuals, non binary people, anyone whose gender identity falls outside traditional binary norms.

These groups, other research shows, often face unique and heightened risks to their safety, including discrimination, harassment and violence.

25:08

Their experiences in public spaces, particularly natural environments, would likely introduce even more complex layers of vulnerability and fear.

It's a crucial area for future research.

OK, so gender identity is one key area.

What else?

They also make a crucial point about the demographic makeup of their samples.

25:25

They note that their participants tended to be highly educated and of white race.

This means we need further studies to verify if these trends generalize to more diverse socio demographic groups.

For example, migrant and racialized communities may face additional layers of vulnerability due to racial discrimination, xenophobia, language barriers, or even heightened scrutin or surveillance in public spaces.

25:48

Right.

Those factors can intersect with gender.

Absolutely.

They intersect to create unique safety challenges that go beyond what a predominantly white, highly educated sample might reveal.

Other researchers strongly highlight that various personal factors can play a role, with vulnerable groups or minorities being at higher risk of fearing for their safety, often compounded by historical marginalization and present day systemic biases.

26:11

That Action Aid report, which found similar high rates of sexual harassment in cities in India, Thailand and Brazil, strongly hints at this broader intersectional challenge.

It suggests that while the gendered fear might be universal, its manifestations and contributing factors can differ based on cultural, socioeconomic and racial context, demanding a more nuanced lens.

26:32

So while the gender perspective is incredibly strong here, we're reminded that other identity markers profoundly shape experiences of safety.

What about other perspectives like class or disability?

How might those layers of identity affect how people experience or even access public natural spaces?

26:48

You've hit on vital areas that the Borneoli and Gators live and studies didn't specifically address, but which are undeniably crucial for a comprehensive understanding.

Socio economic status or class, for instance, can profoundly influence not only access to safe, well maintained green spaces, as these are often concentrated and wealthier areas, but also the types of social threats individuals might face.

27:11

Those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds might encounter different forms of social tension, maybe feel less empowered to report incidents, or simply have fewer alternatives for safe recreation.

The quality of public spaces can also vary drastically by neighborhood, impacting who uses them and how safe those users feel.

27:27

And disability.

Similarly, an ableism or disability justice perspective would highlight how urban design and public spaces often create physical or systemic barriers for people with disabilities.

This can further exacerbate feelings of unsafety or exclusion, irrespective of other demographic factors.

27:43

Imagine someone with a mobility impairment navigating uneven pass or a lack of accessible facilities in a park, or someone with a sensory processing disorder finding a natural environment overwhelming.

These are layers of vulnerability that compound the existing gendered fears.

These unexamined aspects mean that while the study gives us a powerful lens, it also encourages critical thinking.

28:04

It reminds us that while gender is a powerful predictor of safety perceptions, it's just one crucial piece of a complex puzzle of identity, experience, and systemic privilege or disadvantage that profoundly shapes how people interact with and feel in public spaces.

This deep dive into limitations actually strengthens the research, I think, by pointing to the necessity of further, more inclusive including.

28:25

OK, so we've gone deep into the man or bear phenomenon, exploring its viral impact, its scientific validation, and its broader societal implications, including who might be left out.

But what does this all ultimately mean?

For a concept like the Feminist Park, this deep dive provides an incredibly strong evidence based argument for why such spaces aren't just, you know, a good idea or a niche concept for a specific demographic, but an absolute necessity.

28:52

The research doesn't just validate the feelings, it provides concrete, measurable data on the specific challenges such a park would actively address, moving from theory to tangible, liberating design.

Precisely, the research by Borneoli and Gator Slavin doesn't just validate the philosophical need for the feminist park.

29:08

It provides an invaluable evidence based road map for its fundamental design principles and overarching goals.

It tells us precisely what challenges such a park aims to overcome and what specific human needs it must address to create truly inclusive, restorative, and liberating natural environments.

29:24

Well, first and foremost, the consistent findings of heightened fear and reduced engagement among women in natural environments due to pervasive safety concerns.

That clearly underscores that current neutral urban planning often fails to provide universally positive and restorative experiences.

29:41

When we know that four out of five women feel unsafe in urban green spaces, compared to only two out of five men, that's a clear and frankly damning indictment of existing designs.

It's a systemic failure, not just individual discomfort.

Exactly.

A feminist park explicitly seeks to rectify this imbalance by deliberately prioritizing the safety and comfort of those who are currently excluded or marginalized by fear.

30:04

It ensures that nature's profound well-being benefits, mental restoration, physical activity, community connection are genuinely accessible to all, especially those currently held back by concerns for their safety.

It moves beyond A1 size fits all approach to design which often defaults to male experiences towards a truly inclusive needs based approach.

30:23

So it's about actively designing spaces that counter those ingrained fears, not just passively hoping people feel safe.

It's about engineering liberation, almost.

Exactly.

And the most impactful insight from the research is that social dangers are the key barrier for woman's enjoyment of nature.

Therefore, the feminist parks design has to move beyond conventional, often superficial safety measures.

30:44

It must prioritize proactive, robust measures against harassment and assaults, making the space demonstrably safer from gender based violence.

This goes far beyond merely installing more lighting, although good, intelligently placed lighting is certainly part of a comprehensive safety strategy.

31:00

It involves fundamentally rethinking and re engineering the social environment itself.

Can you give some examples of what that might look like?

Sure, imagine pathways designed with varying widths, creating comfortable space for groups, but also offering wider, more visible routes for solo visitors, eliminating that feeling of being boxed in.

31:18

Perhaps strategically placed well at community hubs within the park, gathering points with clear sight lines and comfortable seating.

Or even designated safe haven points visibly marked with direct lines to park staff or local support, providing immediate reassurance.

We could even think about innovative programming that fosters collective oversight and shared responsibility, like regularly scheduled walking clubs or community cleanup days specifically designed to activate areas traditionally perceived as unsafe, making them feel less isolated and more collectively owned.

31:49

And crucially, it would require robust, transparent and accessible reporting mechanisms for any incidents, fostering an environment of genuine security and trust where women know their concerns will be heard and acted upon immediately, directly counteracting that systemic disbelief highlighted so powerfully in The Man or Bear.

32:06

Debate and thinking back to the vegetation density findings, where dense environments amplified women's fear disproportionately, that has direct concrete implications for landscaping choices, doesn't it?

It's not just about aesthetics, it's about psychological safety.

32:21

Absolutely.

The studies show that open and medium density environments were preferred by all genders and critically, women's fear was significantly amplified in dense overgrown settings.

This directly informs park landscaping.

It's about thoughtful, safety conscious natural design, not just clear cutting everything.

32:39

It means creating spaces that offer clear prospect, expansive views, long sight lines with fewer refuge opportunities for potential offenders, while still maintaining ecological value and natural beauty.

For example, instead of dense continuous thickets right alongside pathways, intelligent landscape architecture could use multi layered planting that offers rich ecological benefits.

33:01

But maintains clear sight lines at human height along primary pedestrian routes.

So careful design, not just removal.

Right.

Tall, dense thickets might be strategically placed away from core high traffic areas or designed with internal safe clearings visible from multiple angles, ensuring no truly hidden or unmonitored areas exist near common paths.

33:22

It's about creating a sense of openness and visibility without sacrificing the restorative power of nature.

The goal is to provide the psychological benefits of nature without inadvertently creating spaces that amplify fear for a significant portion of the population.

And what about the deeper societal stereotypes that the research touched on?

33:39

The idea of women as passive users or discouraging solo visits?

How can a park actively challenge those deeply ingrained narratives and empower women to reclaim their right to these spaces?

This is where the Feminist Park can have a truly transformation, informative, almost revolutionary impact, going beyond physical design to cultural change.

33:57

It's an unparalleled opportunity to actively counteract those negative gender stereotypes that depict women as passive users of nature or discourage solo visits.

By being intentionally designed for liberation, it can implement what Borneoli and Gator Sliven referred to as soft measures to promote women's empowerment in parks.

34:16

This could manifest in various incredibly innovative ways.

Imagine programming that encourages active exploration, adventure, and physical activity specifically for women and girls.

Guided orienteering workshops, tree climbing clinics, nature photography expeditions, or even women's self-defense classes conducted in the open spaces.

34:34

It could involve creating prominent spaces for women to gather, lead outdoor activities, or simply relax without vigilance, free from the male gaze.

Imagine public art installations that don't just affect nature, but specifically celebrate women's strength, active engagement, and historical connection with nature.

34:51

Or even storytelling circles where women share their experiences of joy and mastery and outdoor spaces, actively creating a new empowering narrative that challenges traditional gender roles in these environments.

By visibly and intentionally designing for women's active engagement and agency, it works to normalize and encourage their presence, fostering A profound sense of belonging and ownership over these natural spaces, fundamentally reshaping who is seen as belonging in nature and.

35:18

Critically, it directly addresses that heartbreaking quote we heard earlier, the systemic disbelief women face after an attack.

This park isn't just about preventing attacks, it's about believing and validating women's experiences.

You've hit on perhaps the most profound and emotionally resonant connection by explicitly prioritizing women's safety and experiences.

35:38

By stating unequivocally, through its design and mission, that women's fear is legitimate and demands response, the Feminist Park inherently tackles that profound issue of systemic disbelief highlighted so starkly in the Man or bear debate.

It's a space where a woman's fear is not questioned or trivialized, but understood as a legitimate response to societal realities and actively designed out of the environment as much as humanly possible.

36:03

This fosters an environment of empathy, justice, and profound trust.

It sends a clear message that women's safety is paramount, that their experiences are valid, and that the responsibility for violence lies solely with the perpetrator, not the victim.

This in itself can be a deeply healing and empowering aspect of the park's mission, creating a space where women can finally feel seen, heard and protected.

36:25

So it's more than just a safe space.

It's a powerful, tangible statement, a living manifesto for liberation.

It is indeed.

Ultimately, the Feminist Park becomes a tangible, living embodiment of that urgent policy challenge identified by the researchers to to address gender based violence in public spaces and beyond.

36:41

It transforms urban environments into truly inclusive, restorative and empowering places for everyone by deliberately designing for the safety and liberation of those who have historically been made to feel unsafe and unfree.

It's about ensuring that the restorative benefits of nature, often touted as universal, actually become universal in practice, rather than being selectively accessible based on gender or other identity markers.

37:05

It shifts the paradigm from merely designing for hypothetical universal user who is often implicitly male, to intentionally designing for the most vulnerable, thereby creating a better, safer, more liberating experience for all.

What an incredible deep dive we've taken today, just really understanding how our environments profoundly shape our experiences, especially when it comes to fundamental issues of safety and freedom.

37:28

The Manor Bear debate, originally That viral social media trend, has revealed itself to be so much more than a fleeting moment.

It's a powerful, concise and incredibly visceral expression of a deeply researched reality of gendered fear in public spaces.

The academic work we've discussed today gives us the data to back up those gut feelings, to understand the precise mechanisms of play, and to ultimately point us towards solutions.

37:51

And this deep dive into the research illuminated by that USA TODAY article raises an important question for you, our listener, to consider long after this discussion concludes.

How might public spaces, not just parks, but streets, plazas, even public transport, be differently designed if the default user was not assumed to be a man?

38:11

Or fear, particularly gendered Fear, was universally acknowledged as a legitimate and absolutely design responsive factor, rather than something to be overlooked, rationalized away, or blamed on the individual.

What changes, big or small, concrete or programmatic, could you advocate for in your local parks, green spaces, or urban environments to make them truly welcoming, genuinely safe, and truly liberating for everyone, particularly those whose safety is disproportionately threatened?

38:38

Because knowledge is most valuable not just when it's understood, but when it's applied to create real, tangible change in the world around us.

Think about that the next time you step into.

A public this knowledge is a tool, really.

A tool for seeing your city differently and potentially for helping to change it.

38:54

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.

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

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

39:11

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

Definitely.

It makes you 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.

39:30

Go on, she says.

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

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?

39:50

How can design itself listen?

That's a really provocative thought to end on.

A lot to think about.

Indeed, thanks for joining us for this deep dive.