Despite growing access to motorized mobility across Europe, significant gender disparities remain in transport use, with women more reliant on walking and public transport, while men dominate car usage. Although the gender gap in driving license ownership has narrowed in some countries—especially among younger generations—unequal access and usage patterns persist, often influenced by cultural norms and socioeconomic factors. Women’s mobility tends to involve complex travel chains and greater reliance on varied modes of transport, resulting in higher time demands and limited access to opportunities, especially without a car. Additionally, persistent stereotypes and masculine car culture reinforce men’s dominance on the road, shaping mobility patterns and limiting the perceived competence and autonomy of women drivers.

Gender norms significantly shape how women experience and navigate social and urban spaces, reinforcing traditional roles that confine them to domestic responsibilities and restrict their spatial and temporal freedom. Despite increasing female participation in the workforce, women continue to bear the brunt of unpaid care work, which heavily influences their mobility patterns by necessitating shorter, fragmented, and more complex journeys often tied to household and caregiving duties. This “care mobility” results in women making more frequent, shorter, and multi-purpose trips, often under time pressure and with limited transportation options—especially for low-income women who rely more on public transport. Yet, mainstream mobility surveys often fail to capture this reality, highlighting the urgent need to incorporate gender-sensitive approaches into urban planning and public transport infrastructure design.

Public spaces are deeply gendered, shaped by societal norms that privilege men and marginalize women. These spaces reflect male dominance through symbolic markers—such as the naming of streets—and through physical structures that prioritize male-oriented activities. While men are seen as naturally belonging in public spaces, women often face scrutiny, harassment, and social judgment, which limits their freedom of movement and reinforces patriarchal power structures. Everyday acts like staring, catcalling, or unsolicited comments—though not always criminal—function as a form of social control, making women constantly negotiate their presence in public. From a young age, especially during puberty, girls are socialized to be cautious and self-regulating, inheriting restrictive gender norms that shape their spatial behavior. Concepts like the “male gaze,” “reputation,” and “invisible walls” underscore how internalized social expectations and fear of judgment confine women to certain areas and behaviors, perpetuating unequal access and use of public spaces.

Women’s mobility in urban spaces is heavily influenced by a persistent feeling of insecurity, particularly the fear of gender-based violence. While not always rooted in personal experience, this fear is deeply internalized and shapes daily behavior, leading women to adopt various strategies of avoidance and self-protection—especially in unfamiliar, male-dominated, or poorly lit areas, and during nighttime. These “risk avoidance” practices significantly limit women’s freedom of movement and often determine their travel routes, times, and modes of transport. For example, while cars and taxis are perceived as safer, public transport—especially at night—can feel threatening, with fear rising sharply after dark. This anxiety, embedded in the socio-spatial structure of cities, leads to constrained mobility patterns that reinforce gender inequality in public space use. Despite being acknowledged in some policy discussions, these concerns are often misunderstood, reduced to blaming women’s behavior rather than addressing the structural and environmental causes of their insecurity.

Public transport is a frequent site of gender-based violence, with studies in France revealing that all female users have experienced some form of sexist harassment or sexual assault. LGBTQIA+ individuals, particularly transgender and gender non-conforming people, face heightened exposure to violence, often encountering cissexist behaviors that intensify feelings of fear and anxiety during travel. Such violence tends to occur in stations during waiting periods and within overcrowded vehicles, especially during peak hours. These experiences reflect broader systems of oppression tied to gender and sexuality, as seen in cases of harassment against lesbian women, “gaytrification” of certain areas, and violence against trans individuals. Even transport staff and victim-reporting processes can contribute to oppressive dynamics. As a result, many adopt hypervigilance and coping strategies to navigate and normalize this persistent violence.

Distance from urban centers significantly impacts women’s mobility, especially as they shoulder most domestic responsibilities. Women often engage in “over-mobility,” making numerous trips for unpaid tasks like shopping and childcare, particularly in suburban or rural areas. This can lead to time and cost burdens, especially for low-income women, and sometimes results in giving up leisure activities. Unlike men, who may enjoy commuting as a break, women often see mobility as a constraint. Their travel is typically more localized, supported by nearby family networks that offer informal help, especially for those without access to cars. However, childless, higher-income women are more likely to maintain active ties with urban centers, showing that rural and suburban life for women is diverse and not solely defined by dependence on cities.

The intersection of gender, class, and living space strongly influences women’s autonomy, employment access, and personal time, especially in rural and peri-urban areas where job opportunities are limited. Women in these areas are often overrepresented in caregiving roles, which are low-paying and lack material autonomy, contributing to job insecurity. These women face challenges balancing work and domestic responsibilities due to irregular work hours and limited local services, including childcare. In addition, women in rural areas are more likely to experience precarious employment, with part-time work being common. The distance from central services, including healthcare, further exacerbates women’s mobility and accessibility issues, as they are often responsible for household errands, which require significant travel and time management. This limited access to essential services, coupled with the growing digitalization of administrative tasks, increases women’s daily constraints and contributes to their overall precariousness.

Women living in rural and peri-urban areas face significant challenges in accessing health care and support for sexual and gender-based violence due to geographical isolation, limited mobility, and the scarcity of specialized services. This invisibility of their distress is compounded by the distance to legal and social resources, such as the police and courts, and the underrepresentation of women in local politics. Similarly, LGBTQIA+ individuals in small cities or rural areas often struggle with invisibility and exclusion due to conservative local cultures, and their mobility is affected by violence, especially for queer women. While larger cities may offer more opportunities for LGBTQIA+ expression, they also present challenges, such as the need for concealment and adaptation to avoid violence. Both in rural and urban settings, LGBTQIA+ individuals, especially women, navigate spaces of resistance and survival, balancing visibility and safety through strategies like disidentification or participation in LGBTQIA+ events, though even these spaces are not free from exclusion or segregation.

Women, who are the primary users of public transport, remain underrepresented in the transport sector, with services often designed by and for men. This results in public transport systems that do not cater to the diverse needs of their users, especially women. Public transport infrastructure is primarily planned based on commuter traffic models, which prioritize work-related journeys, while neglecting off-peak, non-work trips, which women are more likely to make. Additionally, informal and home-based work, largely occupied by women, is poorly connected by public transport, causing long and distressing commutes. The gender bias in transport planning leads to inadequate services for women and others who do not fit the dominant male, able-bodied commuter norm.

Active mobility, including walking and cycling, is increasingly promoted for environmental sustainability and health benefits, with public policies in many EU countries encouraging these modes of transport. However, walking and cycling experiences are gendered, with women using these modes more often, especially for non-work-related trips. Walking, while a common mode for women, can be restrictive due to concerns about safety and visibility, particularly for women and gender minorities, who may face violence in public spaces. Cycling, on the other hand, remains more popular among men, influenced by cultural and gender norms. Women, especially mothers, face barriers to cycling due to safety concerns, inadequate infrastructure, and the gendered division of labor. To reduce gender inequalities in mobility, it’s essential to consider the preferences and needs of female cyclists in transportation planning, particularly by improving infrastructure and safety. Research also suggests that urban design, with features like walkability and bikability, can contribute to more equitable mobility experiences for both genders.

Mobility is essential for professional and social integration, providing access to employment and urban resources. However, its lack, whether due to physical limitations or poverty, is seen as a disability that public policies must address. While mobility can enhance “network capital,” it is not always a benefit and can be forced or imposed, especially in professional contexts. The rise of car usage since the mid-20th century has spurred urban sprawl, with lower-income households often relocating to suburbs or rural areas due to rising property costs and a loss of local services. Mobility practices are marked by significant inequalities, particularly in terms of income, gender, and race. Women, who shoulder most domestic tasks, experience more complex mobility patterns than men, often traveling shorter distances but making more trips. In rural areas, this complexity can force women to reduce working hours or abandon work altogether. Additionally, public harassment and violence limit mobility for women and minorities. As mobility increasingly becomes a justice issue, debates are growing around inequality and the moral right to mobility, especially for marginalized groups.

Justice broadly refers to the recognition and respect of individual rights and adherence to moral principles or laws. Social justice specifically addresses how these principles are applied within a society. There are various theories of justice, such as the utilitarian approach by Jeremy Bentham, which aims to maximize overall well-being without focusing on how benefits are distributed, and John Rawls’ theory, which advocates for equal access to primary goods and distributive justice that favors the disadvantaged. Amartya Sen critiqued Rawls’ egalitarian approach, emphasizing the importance of addressing individual needs, particularly those shaped by physical condition and gender, and focusing on real rights and capabilities rather than formal ones. Feminist theories of justice, including those by Fraser and Young, highlight the need for recognition and procedural fairness, while intersectionality, as defined by Crenshaw, examines how multiple forms of inequality intersect and create compounded disadvantages, urging a deeper understanding of power dynamics in social inequalities.

The growing focus on transport and mobility justice highlights the increasing public and political concerns about inequality and the right to mobility. Scholars have expanded the discussion beyond individual and urban mobility issues to broader, national, and international scales, prompting various approaches to justice in transport. “Transport equity” emphasizes integrating ethical principles into transport policy and infrastructure evaluation, critiquing the utilitarian approach that disregards the distribution of benefits. “Transport justice” broadens the scope by incorporating power dynamics and social justice issues, drawing on feminist, critical race, and environmental justice theories to address recognition, participation, and procedural justice. “Mobility justice” explores how political power and socio-technical systems shape mobility, emphasizing the need for an intersectional approach that connects urbanization, migration, and climate change. This research calls for a sustainable mobility system that balances equity and social justice, particularly in addressing the mobility challenges faced by women and marginalized groups.