Print
Version
BUILDING GENDER EQUALITY IN URBAN LIFE
GENDER EQUALITY AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT: BUILDING BETTER COMMUNITIES FOR ALL
Monika Jaeckel and Marieke van Geldermalsen
Introduction
When looking at cities from a gender perspective, one of
the main differences affecting the use of urban space is in terms of
female and male care-giving roles and responsibilities. Due to the
gender-specific division of labor, women do most of the direct
care-giving work within families and communities. As such, women are
central to urban planning and development, both as key users of urban
space in their role as home managers, and as key producers of
residential environments in their role as community leaders and
initiators of neighborhood networks.
The current development of urban infrastructure and the
built environment needs to be redesigned to promote greater gender
equality in the use and benefits of urban space. Many of the past and
present trends in urban planning and development reflect the male
perspective regarding the role of women as primary caregivers. Viewing
families, communities, towns, cities, and regions from a gender
perspective requires a radical shift both in thinking and in actions.
This article summarizes basic principles that can inform
urban planning, policies, and programs in the process of redesigning and
redeveloping urban areas to be more gender-sensitive, inclusive, and
responsive to everyone’s needs.
Reclaiming Public Space for Daily Life
Decades of a fragmented approach in urban planning has
led to segregated urban environments where residences, workplaces,
shopping districts, and leisure environments constitute separate spheres
linked by extensive motorways and public transportation systems. In
this approach traffic has become dominant, relegating all other
functions to compressed and de-linked pockets of urban life amidst a
vast landscape of infrastructure and technology.
Caregivers needing to deal simultaneously deal with many
varied aspects of everyday life find even the technocratic efficiency of
mono-cultural urban environments to be counterproductive. They need
multifunctional urban spaces to match the balancing of their
multi-tasking daily realities. Complete neighborhoods of mixed uses
with short travel distances and close proximity to work, childcare, and
schools, plus extensive availability of stores and services, along with
safe pedestrian environments and frequent and easily accessible public
transportation systems
—
these constitute some of the main elements of a urban life that fits the
needs of women as caregivers.
Urban Life is for
Everyone
The structure of urban space often poses more difficult
challenges for residents with lower mobility, such as children, older
people, and people with disabilities. People in these and similar
categories have become marginalized and relegated to segregated spaces
that specifically target their special needs. Often they are not
welcome in the mainstream of urban life. Mobility and a “footloose”
society have created residential environments lacking in community
atmosphere because the inhabitants engage in social activities outside
of their own neighborhood. The Internet and other new forms of
information and telecommunications technology are reinforcing these
trends.
Since automobile traffic now makes it too dangerous for
children to play on their local streets, the scope in which they can
autonomously explore their home environments is becoming increasingly
limited. Youth are becoming increasingly dependent on parents and other
adults to drive and escort them to those places that specifically cater
to their needs, including parks and playgrounds.
As residential neighborhoods and their inhabitants grow
older and less mobile, homogeneity becomes a problem. In view of the
demographic challenges of an aging society, economically, socially, and
ethnically, and age-diverse communities are better equipped to suit the
needs of what will soon become the majority of the population.
The Power of Presence
Neighborhoods are sustainable if they have a genuine mix
of population in terms of different kinds of interests and needs, as
well as in different kinds of assets that residents have to contribute
to their neighborhood. These assets include time, care, skills,
culture, and social capital, as well as money. “Gentrification”
often changes neighborhoods into economically mono-cultural
environments. A common criticism of newly built or redeveloped
residential communities is that they are beautiful, but boring. Their
inhabitants spend a lot of their time outside the neighborhood. These
neighborhoods lack spirit and vitality.
In order for neighborhoods to be safe and lively they
depend on people who are able and willing to invest time, energy,
creativity, their presence, and their social networks in improving and
enlivening local conditions. If neighborhoods are to be safe and
supportive environments for children and other dependents, neighbors
need to know and watch out for each other and feel a basic
responsibility for their environment. There needs to be social cohesion
and mutual understanding. This kind of situation cannot any longer
simply be assumed or taken for granted. Creating or reviving such
circumstances takes conscious and active citizen effort combined with
public and private sector policies designed to reconstruct both the
physical and social qualities of our urban environments. Different
kinds of people in different phases of their lives have different things
to offer each other in their neighborhoods. From this perspective,
urban planning needs to focus on providing structures and opportunities
for a lively local interchange of a wide variety of different capital
assets to be mixed together within communities.
The Importance of the Local
Creating inclusive neighborhoods, towns, and cities that
are also more accommodating to women’s needs and female lifestyles
involves reclaiming the “local” in urban spatial planning and land uses,
in economic and community development, in civic engagement, and in
cultural integration.
We are living in times of rapid social and demographic
change. Family size is declining, single person households are
increasing, and older people are increasingly removed from family and
kinship-based care. Traditional social networks that have weaved
together the bonds of society
—
including extended families, religious congregations, and charitable
organizations —
are losing ground, thus generating the need for new ways to create
social and community cohesion. The local spatial dimension in urban
neighborhoods carries important potential for developing new forms of
social solidarity and community networks.
The rapid spreading during the past two decades of the
Mother Centers International movement clearly demonstrates the historic
need for community support and a widening of the social space with
regard to family care and parental responsibilities. The proverbial
expression that “It takes a village to raise a child” is a striking
reminder that caring for the next generation of children and youth is a
task that requires more than just the existing capacity of nuclear
families. The “local” comprises a bridging function between private and
public, and between informal and formal, that lends itself well to
supporting care-giving tasks. Local neighborhood networks create
qualities of an “urban village” that provide greater opportunities for
wider sharing within the community of the vital tasks of caring for
children and older adults. This modern “urban village” concept and
corresponding spatial and social arrangements offers urgently needed
support for family caregivers while helping maintaining the good quality
of family care. The “local” represents a new vision of
multigenerational living neighbors helping provide quality care and with
accessible community services that avoid the limitations of overly
institutionalized and centralized systems. It enables older people to
continue living in familiar surroundings, close to family, friends,
relatives, longtime neighbors, and an actively thriving network of
services, shops, and social relations.
Re-integrating the Culture of Care into
Public Life
Opening up nuclear family structures to local support
networks in urban neighborhoods brings a shift towards more collective
responsibility and organization of reproductive tasks and a
reintegration of family care into public life. This also opens up the
potential for adjusting the gender-based division of labor and burden of
care-giving within families and communities. Various studies of
parental self-help initiatives have concluded that men tend to get more
easily involved in family care-giving responsibilities when these tasks
are “socialized” in a more public and collective setting.
Public space in the context of family and neighborhood
networks remains personal, yet at the same time giving access to
community recognition and visibility. The Mother Centers, as
self-managed local meeting spaces for families and children in
neighborhoods, have been called “public living rooms” which is a good
way of characterizing this special quality. Children experience an
introduction and integration into public life in protected surroundings,
while older people continue to be visible participants in
multigenerational society and active participants in mixed-age
communities.
Urban neighborhoods are “switchboards” for the exchange
of local information, culture, and knowledge. They can be very
effective buffer zones for many of the most difficult economic, social,
cultural, and personal challenges of contemporary society, helping to
overcome isolation and alienation.
Civic Engagement and Integration
The “local” also plays an important role in generating
civic participation and social inclusion. When public spaces in
neighborhoods are designed to support contact and communication they
provide natural places for people to meet, get to know each other, and
create common understanding as well as common activities. Small-scale
physical and social spaces reinforce the sustainability of mutual
support networks. The informal and basically safe familiarity of these
community spaces enables citizens to actively contribute their skills
and resources and participate in local governance to a much greater
extent than within the more formal, institutionalized, and large-scale
structures of public life. Significantly, women are frequently the most
actively engaged as leaders and participants at the smaller scale
community level of public spaces and social networks.
This type of community cohesion is also essential for
successfully managing multicultural diversity and fostering social
peace. For a variety of reasons today, workplaces no longer function as
the primary urban location for social integration. Rather it is now
primarily in neighborhoods that immigrants coming to host countries as
refugees or as spouses are exposed to local culture and institutions,
often through interaction with their children in relating to friends,
families, teachers, and other key community members. The “local”
therefore has great importance for social cohesion, especially
concerning women’s involvement in community life.
Local Economic and Social Development
Industrialization, globalization, technology, and
economic competition have created a duality between a highly productive
and skilled workforce working increasingly longer hours, and those
excluded from the formal economy, spawning conflicts related to social
exclusion. Reviving the “local” dimension of community-based economic
development can play a key role in bridging this gap. Local economic
development can fully utilize all of the assets and resources within the
community, regardless of their level of formal productivity or official
qualifications. Further, it creates opportunities for the improvement
of people’s abilities and talent, and for greater education and training
to upgrade their job skills. Community economic development can
validate informal employment and informal sector entrepreneurship,
especially for women, who generally contribute enormous amounts of
unpaid work to their families, communities, and society, even if they
also work long hours at formally paid jobs.
Localizing economic and social development also can
contribute to community improvement. A neighborhood developed by its
inhabitants is a very local product with a local identity that is truly
distinct from other communities. Indeed, locally generated and directed
urban development will be different from anything that professional
planners and property developers can create on their own. Having a
distinctive local identity and profile is something that is increasingly
influential in marketing the image and value of neighborhoods.
Urban Development from the Bottom up
Neighborhood Initiatives
—
the Example of the Mother Centers
The Mother Centers
International Network for Empowerment (MINE) is a grassroots self-help
movement originating in Germany and spreading to 15 countries during the
past two decades. In these Mother Centers, women join forces together
to improve the lives of their families and communities, connect with
families from different social and cultural backgrounds, reclaim public
spaces for their communities, gain long overdue acknowledgment for their
everyday life experience and expertise, and actively participate in
community and civic governance. The Mother Centers function as focal
points for the development of “close-to-home” services including
childcare, eldercare, meal services, janitorial services, thrift shops,
and toy libraries. As such, they provide highly animated meeting points
within their respective neighborhood. To date more than 750 Mother
Centers exist worldwide. They recreate family and neighborhood
structures where they have been weakened by the forces of modernization,
(Western Europe, North America), by formerly communist regimes (Czech
Republic, Bulgaria), by war and civil conflict (Bosnia, Rwanda), by
poverty and HIV/AIDS (Kenya), or by internal migration (Philippines).
The Mother Centers International Network for Empowerment
(MINE) connects and supports the 750 Mother Centers currently existing
in 15 countries. (www.mine.cc).
MINE has been designated as a “Best Practice” by the United Nations
Human Settlement Program (UN-Habitat), and was selected by UN-Habitat in
2002 as a winner of the Dubai International Award for Best Practices to
Improve the Living Environment. This international recognition was
given to MINE for “strengthening of the capacity of civil society to
revitalize local neighborhoods and revive community life.”
Women and Child-Friendly
Cities
One of the major lessons of the Mother Centers
International movement is that it takes more than parents to raise
children. It takes a supportive and accommodating community
environment. Children and parents need family-friendly situations not
only inside but also outside the walls of their homes and not only
inside but also outside the walls of the Mother Centers. One of the
advocacy issues that Mother Centers typically engage in is working to
create women and child-friendly cities and urban communities.
During 2004 we co-authored a study on behalf of MINE for
the Netherlands Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning, entitled “Not
the Chicken, Not the Egg, But the Nest!” In this report we applied the
lessons learned and success stories of the Mother Centers movement to
housing and urban planning issues in general. The focus of our research
was developing social structures to accompany physical planning for
urban development and regeneration projects. Our purpose was to
identify and describe effective methods of stimulating civic engagement
and community governance of the urban environment where public space is
increasingly being taken over by market forces. Property developers
view urban communities primarily in terms of financial investments and
the design, construction, and sale or lease of buildings and spaces. In
most cases, issue of social cohesion and community participation are not
part of the economic calculations. The Nest! Approach is intended to
reconcile the social with the physical in urban development and
management, by building communities through building “community” whereby
urban planning and social cohesion become integral elements of strategic
economic development.
‘The
Learning City’
Communities, towns, cities, and regions work the best
when the knowledge, resources, and skills of all residents inform public
decisionmaking. Both the hardware and the software of urban space need
to be shaped with a gender-sensitive perspective continuously at the
forefront. This is especially true of the so-called “orgware”
—
meaning how the planning and governance processes are organized.
The best plans are made when those with a vital interest,
namely the residents, play an active role in creating such plans. When
a neighborhood is planned and developed through a community-based
process, rather than as an engineering product from a drafting table or
a policymaker’s office, the results are far superior, particularly for
women. Women generally spend many more hours working in and near their
homes and communities than do most men. Based on their everyday
experience, women acquire deep and insightful knowledge of what is
needed in and for the built environment, such as the design of public
space, infrastructure, and services to meet the needs of all members of
the community. In order for this knowledge to be mobilized and made
productive for urban governance and development, neighborhoods and local
governments must find ways of organizing themselves as learning
organizations. They should create a framework of opportunities for the
active participation of residents in the development of their
neighborhoods, towns, cities, and regions. They need to establish an
enabling context for identifying and assessing local capacities and for
linking formal with informal knowledge.
MINE has developed the concept of Neighborhood Academies
as a knowledge-building methodology for generating community
participation and involvement through organizing neighborhoods as
learning communities. The Academy has both an internally oriented task
of structuring internal communication and community building, as well as
an external task of partnership building linked to public decisionmaking
(the details are available on our website at: www.nest.cc).
New Approaches to Urban Governance
In some urban centers, community problems may be the
result of institutional dominance rather institutional weakness.
Sometimes too much structural capacity can be its own worst enemy. In
the Netherlands for example, it is exactly because of the depth and
success of formal urban planning that there is an institutional
blindness to a much wider array of necessary and available stakeholders
and community resources. This situation has prompted growing calls for
“deinstitutionalization” and the strengthening of self-help and citizen
involvement, along with a shift in the role of all levels of government
from being key decisionmakers and service providers to being
facilitators of a community-based governance process. In this new type
of governance, community residents articulate their interests, mediate
their differences, and contribute their skills and resources. Concepts
currently under discussion like the “network society” or the “creative
class” need to be matched by innovative participatory policymaking with
regard to spatial development planning. Appropriate “urban orgware”
requires creating governance models based on social inclusion and
community networking, along with more responsive and accountable public
management systems.
Engaging in co-production and co-development with civil
society is an entirely new and nontraditional role for local
governments, which necessitates formally recognizing the human
experience of “everyday life” as generating a type of urban expertise
that is equal in importance to formal higher education, professional
qualifications, and institutional experience. Making these substantial
reforms will require finding new channels of civic participation outside
of formal decisionmaking agencies and procedures. It requires creating
organizing and supporting equitable and sustainable partnerships, and
making radical adjustments in the professional culture and relations
that normally guide urban development. Ultimately it means the end of
“business as usual” with a major re-balancing of economic and political
influence, policymaking authority, and the flow of resources and power.
The resulting process of respectful collaboration
involves learning at all levels by encouraging citizenship skills and
capacities such as self-initiative, collective responsibility, and
active participation. Designing and implementing these new governance
models for local governments will involve public officials “leading by
stepping back” because they will need to learn to foster and collaborate
with constructive and sustainable partnerships between multiple
stakeholders across all segments and aspects of urban society.
Women’s participation and leadership is absolutely
necessary for this learning and new governance process to succeed. Long
term development is more likely to be holistic and sustainable when
women are not only actively involved but are playing a central role.
Globally, the experience of women’s involvement and leadership in local
governance has generally represented significant advances in social
inclusiveness and political effectiveness, because women leaders tend to
take the perspectives and needs of all groups in the community into
consideration, not just the views and interests of the quick, the
articulate, the powerful, and the influential members of society. Women
often also take the lead in building bridges and alliances across
social, cultural, and ethnic divisions and conflicts within their
communities.
Conclusion
In recent international debates on the issues of
urbanization and urban planning and development, the best methods of
addressing major challenges are increasingly seen in the strengthening
of social resources and human capital, rather than by building physical
structures. Strategies of urban regeneration, preventing violence, and
securing social peace, increasingly focus on the social instead of the
physical ecology of cities and neighborhoods through promoting social
cohesion, civic engagement, and active community participation. People
may be part of the problem, but they also are the only viable solution
to the problems, because they are most abundant and powerful economic,
social, political, and cultural asset that any community, town, city, or
region possesses.
This new governance approach limits the power of property
developers and physical designers and engineers have urban planning
decisions, programs, and investments. Neighborhoods need to come alive
through a process of resident involvement and community building. In
this perspective citizens are seen not primarily as consumers or
beneficiaries of policies but as the real producers of urban
development.
Demolishing and renovating the built environment as the
primary strategy for developing and upgrading urban neighborhoods needs
to be complemented and balanced with strategies for strengthening and
maintaining social networks and community participation. Typically,
billboards and advertisements of property developers and real estate
agents depict those elements of attractive community life that they
cannot provide simply by constructing or marketing even high quality
urban space and structures, amenities and services: people, atmosphere,
community, and identity. Only the neighborhood residents, workers, and
entrepreneurs can contribute these substantive missing elements, if they
are given the proper opportunity and respect as formally acknowledged
and dignified partners in the process of urban development and
management.
Recommendations
Participatory and gender-sensitive urban environments can
be supported by the following policies:
-
Mixed use of
space, integration of the functions of work, commerce, living,
caregiving and recreation
-
Equal attention
to and investment in the hardware, software, and “orgware” of
communities
-
Supporting
community residents to provide for their own needs and develop their
own solutions
-
Providing for
self-managed meeting spaces for community residents
-
Public
infrastructure that welcomes and includes in public life: children
and youth, older people, and people with disabilities, as well as
other dependents
-
Allowing for the
multiple and flexible use of public space by community residents
-
Enabling
conditions for the preservation and development of local economic
activity, including community-based businesses and locally owned
small and medium-sized enterprises
-
Creating
experimental spaces in communities to allow for the development of
bottom-up creativity and innovation
-
Supporting and
enabling community-based initiatives such as the Mother Centers and
the Neighborhood Academies
-
Channeling
greater public resources to grassroots community actions
-
Acknowledging
residents of local communities as important partners and
stakeholders in urban development
-
Promoting and
supporting women’s participation and leadership in urban governance
and community development.
Monika Jaeckel
is a Senior Researcher at the German Youth Institute in Munich, Germany,
founder and Chair of the Mother Centers International Network for
Empowerment (MINE) and the Grassroots Women’s International Academy (GWIA),
Chair of the Our Best Practices Campaign for the Huairou Commission, and
a member of the Board of Directors of Global Urban Development, serving
as Co-Chair of the GUD Program Committee on Building Gender Equality in
Urban Life. Her books include
The Learning City,
The GWIA Handbook, Engendering Governance and Development, Challenging
Development, and Not the Chicken, Not the Egg, But the Nest!
Marieke van Geldermalsen is a Principal of M&M: Coaching and
Research in Social Innovation, located in Arnhem, Netherlands. She is
co-author of Not the Chicken, Not the Egg, But the Nest!
Return to top |