Gender and individual access to urban opportunities: A study using space–time measures

Professional Geographer

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 210-227

  Kwan, Mei Po ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Accessibility; Gender; Space time constraints; Urban opportunities

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002671071     PISSN: 00330124     EISSN: 14679272     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/0033-0124.00158     Document Type: Article

References (98)

1. Adams, Paul C. 1995. A reconsideration of personal boundaries in space-time. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 85(2):267-85.
2. Aitken, Stuart C. 1998. Family Fantasies and Community Space. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
3. Arentze, Theo A., AloysW.J. Borgers, and Harry J.P. Timmermans. 1994. Geographical information systems and the measurement of accessibility in the context of multipurpose travel: A new approach. Geographical Systems 1:87-102.
4. Bianco, Martha, and Catherine Lawson. 1996. Tripchaining, childcare, and personal safety: Critical issues in women’s travel behavior. In Women’s Travel Issues: Proceedings from the Second National Conference, 122-143.Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
5. Blumen, Orna. 1994. Gender differences in the journey to work. Urban Geography 15(3):223-45.
6. Brun, J., and J. Fagnani. 1994. Lifestyles and locational choices-trade-offs and compromises: A case study of middle-class couples living in the Ile-de-France region. Urban Studies 31:921-34.
7. Burnett, Patricia, and Susan Hanson. 1982. The analysis of travel as an example of complex human behavior in spatially-constrained situations: Definition and measurement issues. Transportation Research 16A(2):87-102.
8. Burns, Lawrence D. 1979. Transportation, Temporal, and Spatial Components of Accessibility. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
9. City of Columbus. 1993. Growth Statement 1993. Columbus, OH: Development Department, City of Columbus.
10. Cullen, Ian, Vida Godson, and Sandra Major. 1972. The structure of activity patterns. In Patterns and Processes in Urban and Regional Systems, A.G. Wilson, 281-96. London: Pion.
11. Dyck, Isabel. 1989. Integrating home and wage workplace: Women’s daily lives in a Canadian suburb. Canadian Geographer 33(4):329-41.
12. Dyck, Isabel. 1990. Space, time, and renegotiating motherhood: An exploration of the domestic workplace. Environment and Planning D 8:459-83.
13. Dyck, Isabel. 1996. Mother or worker? Women’s support networks, local knowledge and informal child care strategies. In Who Will Mind the Baby?, Kim England, 123-40. London: Routledge.
14. England, Kim. 1993. Suburban pink collar ghettos: The spatial entrapment of women? Annals of the Association of American Geographers 83:225-42.
15. England, Kim. 1994. Reply to Susan Hanson and Geraldine Pratt. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 84(3):502-4.
16. England, Kim. 1996a. Who will mind the baby? In WhoWill Mind the Baby?, Kim England, 3-19. London: Routledge.
17. England, Kim. 1996b. Mothers, wives, workers: The everyday lives of working mother. In WhoWill Mind the Baby?, Kim England, 109-22. London: Routledge.
18. Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. by Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books.
19. Fuss, Diana. 1989. Essentially Speaking: Feminism, Nature and Difference. New York: Routledge.
20. Gatrell, Anthony C. 1994.Density estimation and the visualization of point patterns. In Visualization in Geographic Information Systems, H.M. Hearnshaw and D.J. Unwin, 65-75. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
21. Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
22. Gilbert, Melissa R. 1997. Feminism and difference in urban geography. Urban Geography 18(2):166-79.
23. Gilbert, Melissa R. 1998. “Race,” space, and power: The survival strategies of working poor women. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 88(4):595-621.
24. Giuliano, Genevieve. 1988. Commentary: Women and employment. Urban Geography 9(2):203-8.
25. Golledge, Reginald G., and Robert J. Stimson. 1997. Spatial Behavior:AGeographic Perspective.NewYork: Guilford.
26. Golledge, Reginald G., Mei-Po Kwan, and Tommy Gärling. 1994. Computational process modeling of household travel decisions using a geographical information system. Papers in Regional Science 73(2):99-117.
27. Gregory, Derek. 1985. Suspended animation: The stasis of diffusion theory. In Social Relations and Spatial Structures, Derek Gregory and John Urry, 296-336. London: Macmillan.
28. Gregory, Derek. 1994. Geographical Imaginations. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
29. Gregson, Nicky, and Michelle Lowe. 1993. Renegotiating the domestic division of labour? A study of dual career households in north-east and south-east England. Sociological Review 41(3):475-505.
30. Grosz, Elizabeth. 1990. Inscriptions and body-maps: Representation and the corporeal. In Feminine, Masculine and Representation, Terry Threadgold and Anne Cranny-Francis, 62-74. London: Allen and Unwin.
31. Grosz, Elizabeth. 1994. Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
32. Hägerstrand, Törsten. 1970. What about people in regional science? Papers of the Regional Science Association 24:7-21.
33. Handy, Susan L., and Debbie A. Niemeier. 1997. Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A 29(7):1175-94.
34. Hanson, Susan. 1980. The importance of the multipurpose journey to work in urban travel behavior. Transportation 9:229-48.
35. Hanson, Susan, and Perry Hanson. 1981. The impact of married women’s employment on household travel patterns: A Swedish example. Transportation 10:165-83.
36. Hanson, Susan, and Geraldine Pratt. 1990. Geographic perspectives on the occupational segregation of women. National Geographic Research 6(4):376-99.
37. Hanson, Susan, and Geraldine Pratt. 1994. On suburban pink collar ghettos: The spatial entrapment of women? by Kim England. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 84(3):500-4.
38. Hanson, Susan, and Geraldine Pratt. 1995. Gender, Work, and Space. London: Routledge.
39. Hanson, Susan, and Margo Schwab. 1987. Accessibility and intraurban travel. Environment and Planning A 19:735-48.
40. Harvey, David. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
41. Hayden, Dolores. 1984. Redesigning the American Dream: The Future ofHousing, Work and Family Life. New York:W.W. Norton.
42. Helling, Amy. 1998. Changing intra-metropolitan accessibility in the U.S.: Evidence from Atlanta. Progress in Planning 49(2):55-107.
43. Ihlanfeldt, Keith R. 1993. Intra-urban job accessibility and Hispanic youth employment rates. Journal of Urban Economics 33:254-71.
44. Ihlanfeldt, Keith R., and David L. Sjoquist. 1990. Job accessibility and racial differences in youth employment rates. American Economic Review 80:267-76.
45. Immergluck, Daniel. 1998. Job proximity and the urban employment problem: Do suitable nearby jobs improve neighborhood employment rates? Urban Studies 35(1):7-23.
46. Ingram, D.R. 1971. The concept of accessibility: A search for an operational form. Regional Studies 5, 101-7.
47. Janelle, Donald G., and Michael F. Goodchild. 1983. Space-time diaries and travel characteristics for different levels of respondent aggregation. Environment and Planning A 20(7):891-906.
48. Johnston-Anumonwo, Ibipo. 1992. The influence of household type on gender differences in work trip distance. Professional Geographer 44:161-69.
49. Johnston-Anumonwo, Ibipo. 1997. Race, gender, and constrained work trips in Buffalo, NY, 1990. Professional Geographer 49(3):306-17.
50. Kitamura, Ryuichi, Kazuo Nishii, and Konstadinos Goulias. 1990. Trip chaining behavior by central city commuters: A causal analysis of time-space constraints. In Developments in Dynamic and Activity-Based Approaches to Travel Analysis, P. Jones, 145-70. Aldershot: Avebury.
51. Kobayashi, Audrey. 1997. The paradox of difference and diversity (or, why the threshold keepsmoving). In Thresholds in Feminist Geography: Difference, Methodology, Representation, John P. Jones III, Heidi J. Nast, and Susan M. Roberts, 3-9. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
52. Kwan, Mei-Po. 1998. Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: A comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geographical Analysis 30(3):191-217.
53. Kwan, Mei-Po. 1999a. Gender, the home-work link, and space-time patterns of non-employment activities. Economic Geography, in Press.
54. Kwan, Mei-Po. 1999b. Gender differences in space-time constraints and their impact on activity patterns. Manuscript. Ohio State University.
55. Kwan, Mei-Po. 1999c. Measuring individual accessibility in everyday life: Methodological and operational issues. Manuscript. Ohio State University.
56. Kwan, Mei-Po, and Xiao-Dong Hong. 1998. Network-based constraints-oriented choice set formation using GIS. Geographical Systems 5:139-62.
57. Landau, Uzi, JosephN. Prashker, and Bernard Alpern. 1982. Evaluation of activity constrained choice sets to shopping destination choice modelling. Transportation Research A 16:199-207.
58. Laws, Glenda. 1997. Women’s life courses, spatial mobility, and state policies. In Thresholds in Feminist Geography: Difference, Methodology, Representation, John P. Jones III, Heidi J. Nast, and Susan M. Roberts, 47-64. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
59. Lawson, Victoria. 1995. The politics of difference: Examining the quantitative/qualitative dualism in post-structuralist feminist research. Professional Geographer 47(4):449-57.
60. Lenntorp, Bo. 1976. Paths in Time-Space Environments: A Time Geographic Study of Movement Possibilities of Individuals. Lund: Royal University of Lund, Department of Geography.
61. Levinson, David M. 1998. Accessibility and the journey to work. Journal of Transport Geography 6(1):11-21.
62. McDowell, Linda. 1983.Towards an understanding of the gender division of urban space. Environment and Planning D 1:59-72.
63. McDowell, Linda. 1993. Space, place and gender relations: Part II. Identity, difference, feminist geometries and geographies. Progress in Human Geography 17(3):305-18.
64. McLafferty, Sara. 1995. Counting for women. Professional Geographer 47(4):436-42.
65. McLafferty, Sara, and Valerie Preston. 1996. Spatial mismatch and employment in a decade of restructuring. Professional Geographer 48(4):420-31.
66. McLafferty, Sara, and Valerie Preston. 1997. Gender, race, and the determinants of commuting: New York in 1990. Urban Geography 18(3):192-212.
67. Michelson, William. 1985. From Sun to Sun: Daily Obligations and Community Structure in the Lives of Employed Women and Their Families. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
68. Michelson, William. 1988. Divergent convergence: The daily routines of employed spouses as a public affairs agenda. In Life Spaces: Gender, Household, Employment, Caroline Andrew and Beth M. Milroy, 81-101. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
69. Miller, Harvey J. 1991. Modelling accessibility using space-time prism concepts within geographic information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 5(3):287-301.
70. Miller, Harvey J. 1999. Measuring space-time accessibility benefits within transportation networks: Basic theory and computational procedures. Geographical Analysis, 31(1):1-26.
71. Miller, Roger. 1982. Household activity patterns in nineteenth-century suburbs:Atime-geographic exploration. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 72:355-71.
72. Miller, Roger. 1983. The Hoover in the garden: Middleclass women and suburbanization, 1850-1920. Environment and Planning D 1:73-87.
73. Morris, J.M., P.L. Dumble, and M.R. Wigan. 1979. Accessibility indicators for transport planning. Transportation Research 13A, 91-109.
74. Myers-Jones, Holly J., and Susan R. Brooker-Gross. 1996. The journey to child care in a rural American setting. In WhoWill Mind the Baby?, Kim England, 77-92. London: Routledge.
75. O’Kelly, Morton E., and Eric J. Miller. 1983. Characteristics of multistop multipurpose travel: An empirical study of trip length. Transportation Research Record 976:33-9.
76. Pain, Rachel. 1991. Space, sexual violence, and social control: Integrating geographical and feminist analysis of women’s fear of crime. Progress in Human Geography 15(4):415-31.
77. Palm, Risa. 1981. Women in nonmetropolitan areas: A time-budget survey. Environment and Planning A 13(3):373-78.
78. Pickup, Laurie. 1984. Women’s gender-role and its influence on their travel behavior. Built Environment 10:61-8.
79. Pickup, Laurie. 1985. Women’s travel need in a period of rising female employment. In Transportation and Mobility in an Era of Transition, G.R.M. Jansen, P. Nijkamp, and C.J. Ruijgrok, 97-113. Amsterdam: North Holland.
80. Pirie, Gordon H. 1979. Measuring accessibility: A review and proposal. Environment and Planning A 11:299-312.
81. Pratt, Geraldine, and Susan Hanson. 1991. Time, space, and the occupational segregation of women: A critique of human capital theory. Geoforum 22(2):149-57.
82. Pratt, Geraldine, and Susan Hanson. 1993. Women and work across the life course: Moving beyond essentialism. In Full Circles: Geographies of Women over the Life Course, Cindi Katz and Janice Monk, 27-54. New York: Routledge.
83. Preston, Valerie, and Sara McLafferty. 1993. Gender differences in commuting at suburban and central locations. Canadian Journal of Regional Science 16(2):237-59.
84. Richardson, A.J., and W. Young. 1982. A measure of linked-trip accessibility. Transportation Planning and Technology 7:73-82.
85. Rose, Gillian. 1993. Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
86. Rose, Gillian. 1997. Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography 21(3):305-20.
87. Saegert, Susan. 1981. Masculine cities and feminine suburbs: Polarized ideas, contradictory realities. In Women and the American City, Catherine R. Stimpson, Elsa Dixler, Martha J. Nelson, and Kathryn B. Yatrakis, 93-108. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
88. Staeheli, Lynn A., and Victoria A. Lawson. 1995. Feminism, praxis, and human geography. Geographical Analysis 27(4):321-38.
89. Talen, Emily. 1997. The social equity of urban service distribution: An exploration of park access in Pueblo, Colorado, and Macon, Georgia. Urban Geography 18(6):521-41.
90. Talen, Emily, and Luc Anselin. 1998. Assessing spatial equity: An evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A 30:595-613.
91. Tivers, Jacqueline. 1985. Women Attached: The Daily Lives of Women with Young Children. London: Croom Helm.
92. Tivers, Jacqueline. 1988. Women with young children: Constraints on activities in the urban environment. In Women in Cities: Gender and the Urban Environment, Jo Little, Linda Peake, and Pat Richardson, 84-97. New York: New York University Press.
93. Valentine, Gill. 1989. The geography of women’s fear. Area 21:385-90.
94. Villoria, Olegario G. Jr. 1989. An Operational Measure of Individual Accessibility for Use in the Study of Travel-Activity Patterns. Ph.D. diss., Graduate School of the Ohio State University.
95. Wachs, Martin, andT. GordonKumagai. 1973. Physical accessibility as a social indicator. Socio-economic Planning Science 7:437-56.
96. Weisman, Leslie K. 1992. Discrimination by Design: A Feminist Critique of the Man-Made Environment.Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
97. Wyly, Elvin K. 1996. Race, gender, and spatial segmentation in the Twin Cities. Professional Geographer 48(4):431-44.
98. Young, IrisM. 1989. Throwing like a girl:Aphenomenology of feminine body comportment, motility, and spatiality. In The Thinking Muse: Feminism and Modern French Philosophy, Jeffner Allen and Iris M. Young, 51-70. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.