Fig. 1.1.Boundaries and Configuration of Bogotá Region.18
Fig. 1.2.Income Distribution and Average Motorised Travel Times in Bogotá.20
Fig. 1.3.Generated and Attracted Non-Mandatory Walking Daily Trips.22
Fig. 1.4.Potential Accessibility to Employment and Education Opportunities by Transport Mode.23
Fig. 1.5.Differences in Potential Accessibility to Employment and Education by Transport Mode.24
Fig. 1.6.Average Generalised Travel Cost for Non-Mandatory Activities by Mode.25
Fig. 2.1.Conceptual Framework.37
Fig. 2.2.Immobility (Including Constrained Mobility) by Gender and Other Sociodemographic Indicators (Percentages).39
Fig. 2.3.Average Travel Time and Distance by Gender.40
Fig. 2.4.Travel Mode by Gender (Percentages).41
Fig. 2.5.Access to Mobility Resources by Gender (Percentages).41
Fig. 2.6.Purpose of the Trip (Excluding Trips to Home) by Gender (Percentages).42
Fig. 2.7.Trips Related to Domestic/Care Activities, by Mode and Gender (Population Older than 18 Years).43
Fig. 2.8.Female Contributions to Care and Work-oriented Trips by Transport Mode; Population Older than 18 Years (Percentages).43
Fig. 2.9.Female Contribution to the Amount of Minutes Allocated to Care-oriented Trips; Population Older than 18 Years (Percentages).44
Fig. 2.10.Itinerary: Home–Work–Home; Population between the Ages of 18 and 64 (32% of Men and 26% of Women).45
Fig. 2.11.Itinerary: Home–Care Activity–Home; Population between the Ages of 18 and 64 (4% of Men and 8% of Women).46
Fig. 2.12.Itinerary: Home–Activity 1–Activity 2–Home; Population between the Ages of 18 and 64 (9% of Men and 13% of Women).47
Fig. 2.13.Itinerary: Home–Work–Activity–Home; Population between The Ages of 18 and 64 (5% of Men and 8% of Women).48
Fig. 2.14.Itinerary: Home–Activity 1–Activity 2–Activity 3–Home; Population between the Ages of 18 and 64 (22% of Men and 23% of Women).50
Fig. 2.15.Itinerary: Home–Work–Activity 2–Activity 3–Home; Population between the Ages of 18 and 64 (11% of Men and 9% of Women).51
Fig. 2.16.Itinerary: Home–Activity 1–Activity 2–Work–Home; Population between the Ages of 18 and 64 (7% of Men and 4% of Women).52
Fig. 3.1.Route Motivation of Men of Rmbh.67
Fig. 3.2.Route Motivation of Women of Rmbh.68
Fig. 3.3.Route Motivations of Men Responsible for the Household.68
Fig. 3.4.Route Motivations of Women Responsible for The Household.69
Fig. 3.5.Influence of the Age of Cohabiting Children on the Mobility of the Care of Adults in Charge of Household.71
Fig. 3.6.Influence of the Educational Level and Age of Cohabiting Children in the Mobility of Care.73
Fig. 3.7.Modes – General Population.73
Fig. 3.8.Modes – Household Heads.74
Fig. 3.9.Influence of Cohabiting Children in Non-motorised Mode.75
Fig. 3.10.Influence of Cohabiting Children in Collective Mode.75
Fig. 3.11.Influence of Cohabiting Children in Motorised Individual Mode.75
Fig. 3.12.Influence of the Level of Education in Transport Mode.76
Fig. 3.13.Influence of the Age of Cohabiting Children and Level of Education in Non-motorised Use.77
Fig. 3.14.Influence of the Age of Cohabiting Children and Level of Education in Non-motorised Use.77
Fig. 3.15.Influence of the Age of Cohabiting Children and Level of Education in Motorised Individual Use.78
Fig. 4.1.Interlocutors’ Residence-Work Journeys and Modes of Transportation.91
Fig. 5.1.Three Different Views of ‘Equality’ and ‘Equity’ Illustrate the Wicked Problem Behind Terms Many People Take for Granted. In Transportation, Walking and Walkability are Often Neglected in Both Planning and Research, Despite Their Crucial Interactions with Gender, Equity, Health, Road Safety and Urban Security Issues.107
Fig. 5.2.Spatial Distribution and Population of the Comunas, with the Poorest Spread Through Most of the City, with the Jurisdictions in the Centre (San = Santiago Centre; Pro = Providencia) Having More Mixed Incomes, and Four Towards the City’s Eastern Edge (LB = Lo Barnechea, VI = Vitacura, Lco = Las Condes and LR = LaReina) Posting Very High Incomes.110
Fig. 5.3.Distribution of Walking Trips in General (Above) and Walking Trips Made Mainly by Women (Below), Revealing the High Dependence on Walking as a Major Transport Mode in Low-Income Comunas. Moreover, Women Account for a Disproportionately High Percentage of Those Trips.113
Fig. 5.4.Sexual Harassment Reported by Women is Remarkably Consistent Across Modes, Including Walking Trips (Access/Egress) Related to Public Transit. Metro is the Only Part of the Travel Chain Covered by a Security System.119
Fig. 8.1.Conditions That Create Playability Poverty.172
Fig. 8.2.Photo Shooting Tour. Capetillo, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 2016.178
Fig. 8.3.Children Drawing on Map of Their Community and Final Map. Capetillo, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 2016.178
Fig. 8.4.Drawing with Chalks on the Sidewalk and Street, Capetillo, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 2016.179
Fig. 8.5.Río Piedras Neighbourhood and its Eight Sub-Barrios, San Juan, Puerto Rico 2015 [Map]. 1:7,500.179
Fig. 8.6.Map of Capetillo Sub-Barrio and Critical Sites for Play in Capetillo from the Perspective of Children. San Juan, Puerto Rico, 2015.180
Fig. 8.7.Children Forming Barriers for Traffic Calming on the North and South Sides Corners of the Street. Capetillo, San Juan, Puerto Rico 2016.182
Fig. 9.1.Mobility at the Transitory Hospital.198
Fig. 10.1.Percentage Distribution of Persons With and Without Disabilities by Age in the City of Belo Horizonte.220
Fig. 10.2.Percentage Distribution of Per Capita Income in Minimum Wages of People with Disabilities.221
Fig. 10.3.Number of Trips per Day per Person in Belo Horizonte According to the Disability Type.222
Fig. 10.4.Percentage Distribution of Modes of Transport of People with Disabilities in Belo Horizonte.223
Fig. 10.5.Percentage Distribution of the Demands of the Participants of the Focus Group Regarding the Mobility for People with Disabilities in Belo Horizonte, by Thematic Axes.225
[ViewLarge]
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal