The ‘I’ in Sustainable Planning: Constructions of Users Within Municipal Planning for Sustainable Mobility

  • Malin HenrikssonEmail author


An important quest for a feminist transport agenda is that policy and practice reflect a diverse set of experiences. This chapter explores how professionals understand sustainable mobility and how their understandings are linked to gendered relations. The analysis shows that professionals use their own experiences of travelling as a source of knowledge. Their understandings of sustainable mobility are built on their own middle-class and family-oriented experiences. Sustainable mobility is thus constructed as something desirable but difficult for families to choose since car offers a flexibility that cycling and public transport don’t. This understanding excludes users who lack resources such as car. The chapter concludes with a suggestion for expanding professionals’ knowledge bases, which can support a future feminist transport agenda.


  1. Akrich, M. (1992). The description of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Akrich, M. (1995). User representations: Practices, methods and sociology. In A. Rip, T. J. Misa, & J. Schot (Eds.), The approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Bacchi, C. L. (1999). Women, policy and politics. The construction of policy problems. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Böhm, S., Jones, C., Land, C. & Paterson, M. (eds.), 2006. Against automobility. Malden/Oxford/Carlton: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Bradley, K. (2009). Just environments: Politicising sustainable urban development. Dissertation, KTH/Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  7. Cupples, J., & Ridley, E. (2008). Towards a heterogeneous environmental responsibility: Sustainability and cycling. Area, 40(2), 254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Czarniawska, B. (2002). A tale of three cities: Or the glocalization of city management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies, A. R., Fahy, F., & Rau, H. (2014). Challenging consumption: Pathways to a more sustainable future. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doan, P. (2011). Why question planning assumptions and practices about queer places? In P. Doan (Ed.), Queering planning: Challenging heteronormative assumptions and reframing planning practices. Tallahassee: Florida State University.Google Scholar
  11. Domosh, M., & Seager, J. (2001). Putting women in place: Feminist geographies make sense of the world. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  12. Feinstein, S., & Servon, L. (2005). Introduction: The intersection of gender and planning. In S. Feinstein & L. Servon (Eds.), Gender and planning: A reader. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Friberg, T. (1993). Everyday life: Women’s adaptive strategies in time and space. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Building Research.Google Scholar
  14. Friberg, T. (2006). Towards a gender conscious counter-discourse in comprehensive physical planning. GeoJournal, 65, 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friman, M., Larhult, L., & Gärling, T. (2013). An analysis of soft transport policy measures implemented in Sweden to reduce private car use. Transportation, 40, 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grange, K. (2010). Mellan skrå och profession. Om de svenska arkitekt- och ingenjörsutbildningarnas framväxt och hur ett dominerande kunskapsideal har tagit form [Between guild and profession. On the emergence of Swedish educational programmes for architects and engineers and how a dominant ideal of knowledge have taken shape]. FORMakademisk – Research Journal of Design and Design Education, 3(2), 26–38.Google Scholar
  17. Greed, C. (1994). Women and planning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Greed, C. (Ed.). (1999). Social town planning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Heisserer, B. (2013). Curbing the consumption of distance? A practice-theoretical investigation of an employer-based mobility management initiative to promote more sustainable commuting. Dissertation, National University of Ireland, Galway.Google Scholar
  20. Henriksson, M. (2014). Att resa rätt är stort, att resa fritt är större. Kommunala planerares föreställningar om hållbara resor. Dissertation, Linköping University Press, Linköping.Google Scholar
  21. Henriksson, M. (2017). Lived experience as a source of knowledge when planning for public transit: The case of region Västra Götaland. Proceedings. Regions in Transitions, NoRSA, 9–10 March 2017, Karlstad, Sweden.Google Scholar
  22. Hjorthol, R. (2000). Same city different options: An analysis of the work trips of married couples in the metropolitan area of Oslo. Journal of Transport Geography, 8, 213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holmberg, T., & Ideland, M. (2009). Transgenic silences: The rhetoric of comparisons and the construction of transgenic mice as ‘ordinary treasures. Biosocieties, 4(2), 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holth, L., & Mellström, U. (2011). Revisiting engineering, masculinity and technology studies: Old structures with new openings. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 3(2), 313–329.Google Scholar
  25. Hrelja, R., & Antonsson, H. (2012). Handling user needs: Methods for knowledge creation in Swedish transport planning. European Transport Research Review, 4(3), 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hrelja, R., Isaksson, K., & Richardson, T. (2013). Choosing conflicts on the road to sustainable mobility: A risky strategy for breaking path dependency in urban policy making. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 49, 195–205.Google Scholar
  27. Koglin, T. (2013). Vélomobility: A critical analysis of planning and space. Dissertation, Lunds Universitet, Lund.Google Scholar
  28. Koskela, H., & Pain, R. (2000). Revisiting fear and place: Women’s fear of attack and the built environment. Geoforum, 31(2), 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Larsson, A., & Jalakas, A. (2008). Jämställdhet nästa! Samhällsplanering ur ett genusperspektiv. Stockholm: SNS förslag.Google Scholar
  30. Levy, K. (2013). Travel choice reframed: ‘Deep distribution’ and gender in urban transport. Environment and Urbanization, 25, 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marsden, G., & Rye, T. (2010). The governance of transport and climate change. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(6), 669–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (2008). User-technology relationships: Some recent developments. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 541–565). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E., & Stienstra, M. (2004). Configuring the gendered user as everybody: Gender and design cultures in information and communication technologies. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29(1), 30–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paterson, M. (2008). Automobile politics: Ecology and cultural political economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Paterson, M., & Stripple, J. (2010). My space: Governing individuals’ carbon emissions. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28, 341–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sandercock, L. (1998). Towards cosmopolis. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Sandercock, L., & Forsyth, A. (2005). A gender agenda: New direction for planning theory. In S. S. Fainstein & L. J. Servon (Eds.), Gender and planning: A reader. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A, 42, 1273–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Snyder, M. G. (1995). Feminist theory and planning theory: Lessons from feminist epistemologies. Berkeley Planning Journal, 10(1), 91–106.Google Scholar
  41. Star, S. L. (1991). Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 26–55). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Törrönen, J. (2002). Semiotic theory on qualitative interviewing using stimulus texts. Qualitative Research, 2(3), 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Uteng, T. P., & Cresswell, T. (Eds.). (2008). Gendered mobilities. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  44. Valentine, G. (1989). The geography of women’s fear. Area, 21(4), 385–390.Google Scholar
  45. Vigar, G. (2017). The four knowledges of transport planning: Enacting a more communicative, trans-disciplinary policy and decision-making. Transport Policy, 58, 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Woolgar, S. (1991). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 57–99). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VTILinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations