Gender Culture Public Space by Merve Ünlü

- j:. 1 . ·-r:-,. .1,. ,,,·,.:.'-·,..�- .. :�

_, .·ı_ -_ ;, :':Af f ·<{ . . ... ! . . . .. . J 1

r-L·, ·i 1

;

J.·-

:1.r -_· "·.·-,�·-1ju ..� .

��

. ;_

' .· 1

·.-:'-

•

:- •

1 -.

ı· .

.• �

� .�

ı 1

-. 1

·,.'

••

. 1

··�::··

� ı

·,

. 1

REFLECTIONS OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ON GENDERED USE OF PUBLIC SPACES CASE STUDY: AMSTERDAM AND ISTANBUL

Sustainable Architecture of Multiscale Design School of Architecture and Society Politecnico di Milano Supervisor: Prof. Eugenio Morello

Abstract - This thesis study aims to comprehend the gendered use of public spaces in different cultural environments, by setting out a sequence of surveys and observations, qualitative interviews, mappings of the tracks and activities of the users. The thesis study first makes a literary review of gendered spaces, perceived insecurity in different cultures, gender mainstreaming and safe city approaches. The Netherlands and Turkey are compared based on demographic data and are demonstrated as different cultural environments for women and girls despite being located in the same geographical area. Two case studies (public parks) from each country are chosen to make qualitative research (interviews with female users, surveys and analysis) and a design proposal based on the results of the research. The parks are chosen from respectively similar (based on population density, socio-economic level, scale) cities: Amsterdam and Istanbul. Properties of the parks such as scale, function, accessibility, the socio-economic level of the users and neighborhood are considered to be similar to each other in order to investigate the cultural reflections on the behavior of the users. In Amsterdam, the research was conducted in Westerpark, and in Istanbul it was conducted in Moda Waterfront. The strategy and design is proposed in Moda, Istanbul where the users described more anxiety and perceived insecurity based on the research outcomes. The most used route is outlined and developed by designing fragments of public spaces.

Keywords â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Gendered Space, Gender Mainstreaming, Cultural Differences, Gender and Public Space, Freedom of Loitering, Women and Public Space, Participated Design, Gender Mainstreaming, Safe City

Acknowledgement Several people have contributed in this work work whom I’d like to thank at this point. First of all I’d like to thank my supervising professor Eugenio Morello, who has been very supportive throughout my journey. Especially, during the research phase he has always been encouraging and available for my doubts and questions. I also would like to thank my external consultants from Delft, where I spent three months of the thesis period for the research. I especially thank Cristina Murphy, who made it possible for me to start this journey of research and has been a supportive consultant throughout the thesis study. I thank Lidewij Tummers from TU Delft who gave me inspiring directions about constructing the structure of the thesis study, Alper Semih Alkan from TU Delft and Sevinç Goral Alkan who helped me with methodology and research design, contacts and encouraged me with their supportive words. I would like to thank my friend Alev Cansu Ovalı for her support and energy and Ece Selin Temel for helping me to shape my thesis structure. Lastly, I thank my loving family who has been always there for me, supported me with every decision I made along the way and believed in me unconditionally. I especially thank my mother Fatma Ünlü, who has been my rock throughout the last and most stressful months of the thesis.

Table of Contents Abstract Acknowledgement 1.Introduction 1.1.Aim of the Study 1.2.Methodology 2.Literary Review on Gendered Use of Public Spaces 2.1.Sexed and Gendered Spaces 2.3.Cultural Reflections on Behavior in Public Space 3.Take Action! Architectural and Political Interpretations 3.1.Women’s Participation in the Urban Life : Problems and Consequences 3.2.Safe Cities for Women and Girls 3.3.Gender Mainstreaming 3.4.Gender Sensitive Actions and Projects 3.5.What planners can do 4.Case Studies: Westerpark (Amsterdam) and Moda Waterfront (Istanbul) .. 4.1.Comparison of the Netherlands and Turkey over Demographic Data 4.2.Gender Mainstreaming 4.2.1.Gender Mainstreaming in the Netherlands 4.2.2.Gender Mainstreaming in Turkey

1 2 8 9 10 13 16 18 22 22 25 27 29 32 37 37 41 41 42

4.3.Case Study: Westerpark 4.3.1.Qualitative Research Methodology and Results 4.4.Case Study: Moda Waterfront 4.4.1.Qualitative Research Methodology and Results 5.Conclusions 6.Rethinking of Fragmented Public Spaces Bibliography Appendix

47 49 54 56 63 67 86 91

1.INTRODUCTION

1.Introduction When we speak of gender and architecture, social sustainability and roles in communities, it is impossible not to mention culture. The question about gender roles in public space is directly related to the culture, hence the space where the cultural behavior takes place. In order to investigate the occupation of public space by women and men, and women’s physical access to public space, the priority should be to understand the variables of this occupation or the lack of it. It’s no news that women’s access to public spaces is more restricted compared to men’s. But what are the main reasons of this? In order to answer this question one needs to know about concrete examples. Where are the no-go places in a city for women and why? Is it the fear of sexual and physical assault which keeps them out of certain urban spaces, or is it just the stereotypes which makes women avoid 'hanging out' in public spaces? This thesis study investigates the cultural reflections on the use of public spaces in terms of gender by reviewing literature, choosing and analyzing case studies, and making qualitative research with the users of the two chosen case studies (Westerpark, Amsterdam and Moda Waterfront, Istanbul). Based on the outcomes of the analysis, research, and interviews the case study which demonstrates more problems (Moda Waterfront, Istanbul) in terms of gender and insecurity is detailly analyzed and designed for increasing its publicness, safety and accessibility for its users. The design is aimed to have a social impact on the place in order to make it more safe and participated by small changes. When people feel they are heard on decision making process of shaping the cities they live in, they participate in it more which makes a city a safer place. “Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by

everybody.” Jane Jacobs (1961) summarizes how a city should be non-discriminative by all means in a nutshell. In order to develop the space in a socially sustainable way, the outcomes of the interviews and personal observations are taken into consideration. 1.1.Aim of the Study I experienced living abroad when I was 20 years old for the first time. I was a young Turkish woman, an architect intern in Turin, Italy for three months during the summer of 2010. I was familiar with fear and need of self protection in the public spaces, having to avoid dark corners and shortcuts. I had already normalized not being able to take a walk in a park in the middle of the night or seeming to have “too much fun”. I realized that I didn’t feel any fear or stress when I was walking and standing arbitrarily next to the River Po where there is a continuous traffic and a small sidewalk for pedestrians. To be able to loiter in a public space, and not getting verbally harassed by the drivers passing by was a new experience for me. As I had more experiences of living abroad in Italy and in other European countries, I started to have a broader perspective on public spaces. Even though infrastructure and light play a huge role for the perceived insecurity, I felt more comfortable in public places where I didn’t perceive any judgement, including the places that can be remarkably less adequate for escape in case of any assault. So what are the indicators of safety, and what gives women the freedom to loiter in public spaces? As a designer, and a Turkish woman who has been dealing with such problems throughout her life, I feel the social responsibility to search how to improve women's access to public space. In order to accomplish my mission, I would need to ask how it would be possible to improve women’s physical

access to public spaces and the quality of the time they spend there, and to decrease the risk of using public spaces for them. I aim to comprehend the gendered use of public spaces, and womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perception of safety and freedom of loitering in public spaces in different cultural environments, and to develop an architectural commentary by rethinking of the chosen public space which is more problematic for women, informed by the user participations in the surveys and interviews in ostensibly same case studies in different cultural environments. 1.2.Methodology Firstly, the current literature about gender, and its relation to use of public space, architecture and policy making is reviewed. Two case studies from Europe which are presumed as different cultural environments are chosen: the Netherlands and Turkey. In order to compare possible cultural effects on gender, the demographic data (land use, population development, socio-economic index, education, violence and crime rates) and gender mainstreaming approach of the Netherlands and Turkey are reviewed. In a smaller scale Amsterdam and Istanbul are chosen as they are the fast growing, most diverse and metropolitan cities of the chosen cases. The demographic data for each city is presented within the demographic context of the country in order to prove their comparability. Then, Westerpark from Amsterdam and Moda Waterfront from Istanbul are chosen as the representative public spaces where I further make analysis, have interviews with their female users, make surveys and observations. The cases are carefully chosen based on their similarity of user profile, socio-economic level of the

surrounding neighborhoods, liveliness, functions and accessibility. 20 female users from Westerpark, and 17 female users from Moda Waterfront are interviewed. Based on the results of the whole research, Moda Waterfront from Istanbul is chosen to develop a design proposal. Even though the case study itself was a successful public space and its users emphasized that they feel safe at the specific area, they showed more anxiety and insecurity about the place from certain points, staying there at night, and showing purpose while loitering . reaching Therefore, a common route where people shop, walk and reach the waterfront is analyzed. Fragments of public spaces which are frequently used but has security challenges from the chosen route are zoomed in, analyzed in detail, and developed.

2.LITERARY REVIEW ON GENDERED USE OF PUBLIC SPACES 12

2.Literary Review on Gendered Use of Public Spaces 2.1.Sexed and Gendered Spaces Spaces, both private and public, are hierarchically ordered through various inclusions and exclusions, and as important markers of segregation they reinforce social power structures. Here the term, ‘space’ refers to a complex construction and production of an environment- both real and imagined; influenced by socio-political processes, cultural norms and institutional arrangements which provoke different ways of being, belonging and inhabiting. This space simultaneously also impacts and shapes the social relations that contributed to its creation (Phadke 2012 referring to De Certeau 1984, Lefebvre, 1991, Sennett 1994). Experiencing a space has different outcomes on every individual. Therefore, observation and participation methods should be carefully chosen and applied depending on the targeted users. As social theorists (Harvey 1990, Lefebvre 1991, Soja 1989) have argued, not only are material and social constructions of space in a dialectic relationship with each other, but space itself is an inherently embodied experience. Different bodies experience the space differently depending on their gender, class, age, sexuality and physical ability, because the access to socio-culturally determined by these differences (Ranade 2007). Feminist analyses (Massey 1994, Spain 1992, Rose 1993, Groaz 1995) of the ‘production of space’ have pointed out the ways in which gender mediates in the production and structuring of space. Their

work raises a host of questions pertaining to how gender relations are manifested in space, and in turn, how spatial relations influence the construction of gender (Phadke 2007). Anthropologists discuss the link between gender and space, and that it is defined through power relations. Anthropology was one of the first disciplines that suggested the link between gender and space (Rendell 2000), and effected many that took interest in spatial boundaries and have been influential and critical to feminism, urbanism and history. Jane Rendell (2000) summarizes the relationship between gender and space in two questions, given its social, cultural, anthropological constructions: “How are gender relations manifest in space?” and “How are spatial relations manifest in constructions of gender?” In order to differentiate the indicators and their effects on the study, I first need to discuss the meaning of the terms “gender” and “space”. "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" According to Butler (1986), Simone de Beauvoir's formulation “distinguishes sex from gender and suggests that gender is an aspect of identity ” gradually acquired. Butler (1990) expresses the meaning of gender as “a strategy of survival within compulsory systems, gender is a performance with clearly punitive consequences,” and emphasizes that “because there is no ‘essence’ that gender expresses or externalizes nor an objective ideal to which gender aspires, and because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender create the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all.” Therefore, gender can change or disappear over time and circumstances, and vary between and within cultures whereas “sex” is a biological term that is determined by birth. Accordingly, spaces can be “sexed” or “gendered”. Male dominated public spaces are ‘segregated’ from women because of the assigned ‘gender’ roles. Kitchen, for instance, is a gendered private space in most cultures because the activity of cooking is assigned to women, just as taking care of the child. The lack of women’s participation in the public space -outdoors-, therefore, is because of their

responsibilities in the private space -indoors- as well as the lack of the right infrastructure, and the safety in the public spaces. Public toilets, on the other hand, are segregated based on the sex of the user, but they are in fact an important indicator of gender based discrimination. While men can have access to public toilets easily, women always find it difficult as they have more specific sanitary needs, and more space to urinate than men do. Therefore, men have more units per square meter than do women, and clearly more access to them by night. Shortage of public toilets, specially locking of it at night is an irrational and discriminative aspect of urban life. PUKAR (Partners for Urban Knowledge Action Research), an Indo-Dutch funded research organization calls public toilets as the most tangible symbol of male privilege (Gender and Space Project by PUKAR 2011). “Toilets are one of the last gender frontiers in terms of gender equality. In Britain, for example, men have normally about twice more provision than women. However, if you look at the world as a whole, it’s much worse. This is very much of a gender issue. Sanitation is a bigger issue for women. Toilets are designed by men for men, women are already seen awkward nuisance which is why women always end up queuing. If you want to know the true position of women in the society, look at the queuing in front of the toilets,” Dr. Clara Greed (2013) says on the Women of the World Festival Weekend in Britain. The assumption of women’s lack of participation in the urban life especially at night reflects on everything and every place we experience on our everyday life: public transport, parks, squares, etc. In any given day, public spaces are the setting for a myriad of gendered social interactions. As a result of these interactions, public spaces themselves become gendered. For example, in a schoolyard, young girls may gather together under a certain tree and watch young boys play soccer in a field. As this process continues, the space under the tree will become understood as a girls’ space‖and the soccer field will

become understood as a boyâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s space. This can be problematic because public space should belong to everyone, and everyone should have right to use it. Girls should feel free to use the soccer field, and boys should feel free to sit under the tree. Thus, planning and designing safe public spaces for women and girls also means analysing the various uses of public spaces, who uses them, when, and for how long. This kind of planning and design also focuses on who does not use a particular public space, when, and why. This is because when certain groups, like women or girls, do not use a space, it is usually an indication that the space feels insecure to members of that group (Safe Cities 2010). How do spaces become gendered? While there are universally applied separation of spaces which indicates the sex of their users like public toilets, what is the reason of them becoming gendered? In order to comprehend the cultural impacts on the use of space in terms of gender, it is important to review examples and literature from different cultural environments. 2.2.Perceived Insecurity and Freedom of Loitering The false binary of public (read dangerous) versus private (read safe) hides the fact of domestic violence and sexual assault by family and neighbours. The suggestion that women are safe inside their homes erases reports in regard to the violence faced by women in their own homes. Safety then is only from the outsider or the stranger, but protection from the insider is not just unavailable, but it is also considered irrelevant (Phadke, 2012). By accepting the necessity of staying inside to feel safe from the unpredictable, suspicious outsiders; women become weaker and more vulnerable even inside their safe homes.

Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s demeanor in public is almost always full of a sense of purpose. The underlying assumption is that if women have no work to be accomplished that necessitates their presence in the public space they should return to the spaces where they really belong, that is, the domestic spaces where doubtless there will be some work they need to do towards the maintenance of home and family. In many ways, womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s entry and acceptance into public space is often conditional upon them appearing to have a specific task or activity to accomplish (Phadke, 2012). During the 1970s, when the second wave of the Women's Liberation Movement was at its height, a number of "Reclaim the Night" marches were organised. The aim was to give women the confidence to go out into urban public spaces after dark. One of the popular chants was â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;However we dress, wherever we go, Yes means Yes and No means No!' These demonstrations helped to push the agenda of women's safety forward, but recently the marches have been revived by the London Feminist Network because the pace of change has been too slow. Women's fear of going out alone after dark means that, in northern Europe, they confine themselves indoors from 4 pm onwards during the winter months. This has a huge impact on women's ability to engage in employment, adult education, civic and community participation, and social and leisure activities. Women consistently express greater fears for their personal safety in urban environments than men. Statistics demonstrate that, conversely, young men are the most vulnerable to actual attack in towns and cities, while women are more likely to be attacked in their own homes by someone they know well. However, these figures are possibly skewed by the fact that if women are afraid to go out on the streets alone they are less likely to become victims of crime in the urban environment.

Research by Women's Design Service reveals that it is the fear of sexual assault which underlies women's anxiety. Women have been at risk from male sexual assault through history and across cultures, a situation often legitimated by a concept of women's inherent inferiority to men. Furthermore, they are rarely treated as innocent victims of assault. Where rape cases are brought to law, the woman often ends up ‘more accused than the accused' (Joyce Maluleke, Gender Coordinator, South African Justice Department). In the UK today only 7.5% of reported rapes result in a conviction, and it is widely thought that 90% of rapes go unreported.

2.3.Cultural Reflections on Safety and Behaviour in Public Space Safety defined in relation to public space is not just physical safety, but also the feeling of being safe and a lack of anxiety about public space and an uncontested claim to the space that one inhabits (Phadke 2012). The feeling of safety can be related to the risk factors (lighting, safe infrastructure, escape chance in case of an assault, etc.) and fear of crime based on known facts and visible indicators, but it can also be related to cultural behaviors. Anyone feels anxious while being stared at and judged, which makes her behave limitedly in public space. Walking down a street at night, using shortcuts, spending time on own become inconvenient as one cannot behave freely. Cultural indicators from general concepts such as socio-economical levels, education levels, crime rates to more specific demographics such as women’s empowerment policies, equality in parental leave, etc. then become reflectors of how public space is used and perceived differently by women and men. For example, according to Phadke’s (2009) research in Mumbai, older men interestingly demonstrated greater anxiety about accessing public space than older women because especially middle

class older men who had been used to not thinking about the consequences of the access at all face it for the first time women internalized the need to strategize safety in public space since they were young. Women face risk of harassment and sexual assault in public space and feel the need of negotiation to access public space more than men do. Although the range of perceived insecurity and risk varies in different countries and cultural environments, there is no doubt that women have more specific needs to feel more free and comfortable in public spaces. A case study conducted in a neighborhood in San Jos é , Costa Rica shows that public and private spaces are used differently by women and men, because of the division of labour after interviewing with 300 households. Women’s activities are more related to reproduction and carried out in the private space and men are more related to productive activities and thereby to public space. “Even though the public space of the neighborhood at present is of low quality and not used by anyone, be they men or women, still men and boys carry out more social and economic activities in public space” (Grundstörm 2005). According to the research of Shilpa Phadke, in Mumbai, women in public space feel the explicit or implicit pressure to ‘perform purpose’ when they access public space. Women perform purpose in a variety of ways by carrying large bags, walking quickly in a goal oriented manner, using bus-stops as places to wait, and in general sense not appearing ever to loiter in public space (Phadke 2009). Because of their triple roles of productive, reproductive and community managing work, women often have a more complex relation to the built environment, and are often mentioned as a vulnerable group (Grundström 2005). Women spatially inhabit a city differently from men. They/we not only negotiate the city differently but also perceive it differently. This difference lies in the strategies women use to produce safety as also in the mind-maps that women carry in their heads of the city (Phadke 2012). According to a quantitative cross-cultural study (2002) between United States and Hungary about wayfinding strategies; one factor that may contribute to gender differences in wayfinding strategy

and anxiety is differences in early wayfinding experiences. A number of findings indicate that girls are given less freedom to explore the outside environment than boys during childhood and early adolescence. Boys range further from home in their neighborhoods than do girls (Lawton and Kallai 2002). Finally, researchers indicate theories about wayfinding difficulties. In studies with German adolescents and adults, Schmitz (1997, 1999) found that women preferred to include landmark information when finding or describing way and this preference was associated with anxiety about getting lost.

3.TAKE ACTION! ARCHITECTURAL AND POLITICAL INTERPRETATIONS

3.Take Action! Architectural and Political Interpretations 3.1.Women’s Participation in the Urban Life : Problems and Consequences Historically and to this day, cities have been planned, designed, and governed without the equal engagement of women and girls in cities. The exclusion of women from urban planning means women’s daily lives and perspectives do not shape urban form and function. In other words, city planning overlooks the specific challenges and concerns that women and girls face, underlining the fact that the city is not inclusive and equitable in its design, infrastructure, facilities, and services (UNHabitat 2012). There are various factors that impede women from being active in public spaces and urban life. When women find their environment threatening, they become limited to use public spaces around them. As a result men and boys use public spaces more than women and girls, and this only contributes to the issue to become even more dramatic. The stereotyping of gender relations universalizes women’s needs as unchanging and, therefore, creates building standards which trap women in the roles assigned to them. Recognizing the specificity of women’s physiology and psycho-social experience will help neutralize women’s isolation and exclusion from the centers of power, thereby maximizing their productive potentials (Lico, G.R.A. 2001). In societies where it is difficult for citizens to participate in public decisions, and women in particular are excluded, it is unlikely that women‘s needs and ideas will be considered. Violence against women and girls affects their human rights, freedoms, health and self-esteem, and limits their possibilities and opportunities for improving their lives. In cases of home and street robbery, women are often targets. Female victims of crime generally experience greater violence and sexual abuse than male victims.

For many women, poverty and inequality results in increased exposure to insecurity and the risk of experiencing violence. Moreover, poverty increases women‘s isolation, weakening their social networks and thus the support they are able to receive in situations of violence and attacks. The combination of poverty, unemployment, inadequate wages, social exclusion and racism can lead to frustration among men and boys and vulnerability for women and girls, particularly if they are on the street (Plan International 2010). In societies where people are discriminated against because of their race or ethnicity, sexual orientation or age, women are doubly discriminated against because these discriminations are added to gender discrimination. Poor quality or non-existent health, police/security, emergency shelter, and/or legal services, poor quality or non-existent housing are some of the other reasons that violence occurs. Women are affected financially by having to pay for taxis, alarm systems, locks and living in a ‘safer’ neighborhood in order to feel safer. All of these problems, caused by neglect, culture or lack of policy making are a part of public violence against minorities and vulnerable groups in society. Public violence can cause women and girls to feel ashamed of their bodies, gender, race, age, culture, ability, sexual orientation and other status, afraid of and avoid certain places, afraid of and avoid leaving home alone, isolated from the larger community unable to participate in public life inadequate compared to other (male) users of public space distrust towards others in the public sphere, including neighbours unable to access public services, education and support schemes for unemployment (Cowichan Women Against Violence Society 2002). In Cairo, Giza and Qalubiya, Egypt, for instance, 83% of Egyptian women and 98% of foreign women surveyed reported experiencing sexual harassment; while 62% of the men surveyed admitted to perpetrating harassment (Egyptian Centre for Women‘s Rights, 2008). In Montreal, Canada, an opinion poll conducted in 2000 revealed that nearly 60% of women are afraid of walking alone in their

neighbourhood at night as opposed to only 17% of men (Michaud 2003). In Argentina, in 2002, of the total reported crimes against sexual integrity and honour (including rapes, crimes against honour, other crimes against sexual integrity), 83% of the victims were women (CISCSA 2005). A global survey found that %95 of women experienced street harassment in forms of whistling or honking, %82 vulgar gestures , %81 sexually explicit comments, %72 following, %57 sexual touching, %37 public masturbation, and %27 assault (Kearl 2008). In New York, United States, a 2007 survey found that 63 percent of respondents reported being sexually harassed and one-tenth had been sexually assaulted on the subway or at a subway station (Stringer 2007). Often, when essential services are badly planned or missing, women and girls bear the brunt of the insecurity that accompanies such situations. After 11 pm, girls are usually forbidden from going to the fields unless they are accompanied by an elder (Plan International 2010:56). There are precautions taken in everyday life of women in order to protect them from sexual harassment and violence in public space. Even worse, as a quicker solution to the problems women face in everyday life, some policies isolate women from the public space by providing services that allows access only to women such as public transportations, taxis, parks and recreational areas, divided beaches and pools where womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bodies are considered as targets. This approach does not only isolate women from public spaces, but also legitimizes the male domination and public violence against women. It does not prevent violence against women either in public spaces nor in their private lives, it only encourages the idea of women being vulnerable and having to be protected by men from men. Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s voice and specific needs should be heard and taken into consideration on decision making process by local organizations and planners.

3.2.Safe Cities for Women The “Safe City” approach is based on public participation in determining the ways of improving the welfare of individuals and communities. It is based upon two basic premises: first on concentrating on where people fear crime, improving these places, and treating people as experts in the problems of their community and how they can be fixed;second, on increasing urban safety through planning and development improvements. The approach focuses on the quality and management of public urban space and of the activities taking place within it: street trading, parking and public transport, street lights and how recreational areas and parks can be reorganized to positively contribute to urban safety. What is interesting in these attempts to make cities safer for women is how women’s subjective sense of safety is recognised and shows how appropriate design and an effective use of the built environment can lead to reduction in the fear and the incidence of crime (McCarthy 2014). Accordingly, A safe city is one that promotes the elimination of gender-based violence, while at the same time promoting equal opportunities for men and women in all the spheres of social, economic, cultural and political life (access to employment, education, political participation, resources and leisure, etc.). In general, those cities whose public spaces are more intensely used by diverse citizens conducting different activities at different hours of the day are safer for all, and particularly for women. This is because variety and diversity tend to promote tolerance and peace among citizens. In addition, if there are more people present on the street during the day, there are more eyes on the street‖, which can make it more difficult for an assault or robbery to occur (Safe Cities 2010). In order to create safer cities for women; planners and decision makers must understand women’s differences of perception and their special needs in public spaces, work environments, private homes, transportation, etc. Planning safety programmes should be based on an understanding that men

and women have different experiences of living and working in the city (some based on gender inequality), work to actively include women and girls in every step of the process and should make connections with women’s organizations and focus on creating gender-based/gender-mainstreamed policies and programmes (Safe Cities 2010). Programming on safe cities for women should be based on a clear understanding that making cities safer for women makes cities safer for everyone. Some of the areas and actors that have important roles to play in the creation of safe cities for women ar governments at different levels (local, regional, national), education (education policies, non-discriminatory curricula), urban planning (design, regulations, housing, transportation), health (policies for care of victims, training of professionals to respond to survivors), justice (access to justice, legislation, specialized courts), services (water, sanitation, emergency services, etc), community organizations, women‘s and feminist organizations, youth groups, concerned men‘s groups, faith-based groups, human rights organizations, police, community police and other security personnel, private sector (transportation and construction companies among others), local residents (ensuring diverse representation -disabled, elderly, young, immigrant,indigenous, gay or lesbian, sex workers and others), researchers and academics, and mass media. Individual actors tend to focus on different aspects of women‘s and girls‘ safety based on their own particular skills and interests. For instance, the police might focus primarily on crime prevention strategies, while a grassroots women‘s organization might concentrate on raising awareness. Action in all areas is very important for creating safe cities for women, but if actions are not connected to each other, it is difficult to make an overall impact on cities and communities. In order to collect enough information at a specific place to design for a better, safer public space, it is important to conduct a safety audits with women. Safety audits encourage local and context-specific solutions to issues of insecurity promote partnerships and joint solutions between

women and their local governments. The questions about visibility (during day and night), possibility to get help (to be heard easily, to be around possible help such as security, police, public buildings etc.), sufficient signage and knowledge of the surrounding, design and maintenance, social and cultural activities in the area should be asked to gather perception from each user groups. Also their proposals should be included in the decision making and design. It is important to conduct the research with different groups of users, refugees, elders, minorities, etc. 3.3.Gender Mainstreaming According to the Council of Europe, “Gender mainstreaming is the (re)organisation, improvement, development and evaluation of policy processes, so that a gender equality perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels and at all stages, by the players normally involved in policy-making.” The aim is to incorporate, dimensions of equal opportunities and gender equality for women and men in all the policies and activities of the European Community. On a political level, gender mainstreaming refers to the contextual and expert realisation of programmes, action plans, tasks and allocation of funds. This means that projects that are funded by the EU, have to prove that they meet the principles of gender mainstreaming (Blickhauser and von Bargen 2007). Gender mainstreaming means, thinking about the way labour markets work and their impact on women’s and men’s employment, considering family structures parental roles, and domestic labour, analyzing gender dynamics in private and public institutions to form recommendations on how to mainstream gender-sensitive policies and practices across all sectors, reshaping the systems at large rather than adding small-scale activities, responding to the root causes of inequality and putting

remedial action in motion, building partnership between women and men to ensure both participate fully in society’s development and benefit equally from society’s resources, ensuring that initiatives respond to gender differences as well as work to reduce gender inequality and discrimination, asking the right questions to see where limited resources should be best diverted, and increasing attention to men and their role in creating a more equal society that is empowering and inclusive of women and girls (UNHabitat 2012). Gender Mainstreaming is an interdisciplinary and inclusive process. Preparatory phase is about identifying the gender implications of new urban planning initiatives, policies or the redevelopment of certain areas of the city. Once the analysis and scoping is completed, implementation phase begins. It is important to build holistic partnership to hold diverse local authorities and actors accountable for decision making. This phase requires technical and women’s rights-based trainings for all actors included in the process. Inclusive, gender sensitive city making should include all women from local to the nation level, and also should offer interventions for women’s and girls’ empowerment. Monitoring and Evaluation phase is necessary in order to measure the impact of the programme. There are various gender mainstreaming strategies and tools. Conducting gender analysis, campaigns, and organizations, contacting local organizations for identifying the issues and gathering information, conducting researches are influential methods. Today, women’s safety audits are widely considered a ‘best practice’ tool by various international organizations, including the World Bank, the European Union, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, UN-Habitat, UN Women, the World Health Organization, the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime, and the European Forum for Urban Safety (Women in Cities International 2008).

3.4.Gender Sensitive Actions and Projects In an architecture course and workshop called “Teaching Gender, Framing Architecture,” Pukar (2005) investigated the negotiation of men and women with the city and how they differ from each other by giving the students a neighborhood map (See Figure 1) and ask them how they would prefer to go from point A to point B. A majority of the female students said that they would choose to walk on the residential edge however messy it may be, because it seemed safer. Gender Mainstreaming was the approach taken when Vienna’s network of public parks commissioned a study to see how men and women use park space. The study, which took place from 1996 to 1997, showed that after the age of nine, the number of girls in public parks dropped off dramatically, while the number of boys held steady. Researchers found that girls were less assertive than boys. If boys and girls would up in competition for park space, the boys were more likely to win out. City planners wanted to see if they could reverse this trend by changing the parks themselves and began a redesign of two parks. Footpaths were added to make the parks more accessible and volleyball and badminton courts were installed to allow for a wider variety of activities. Landscaping was also used to subdivide large, open areas into semi enclosed pockets of park space. Almost immediately, city officials noticed a change. Different groups of people girls and boys began to use the parks without any one group overrunning the other (McCarthy 2014). The movement to incorporate gender in public policy decisions in Vienna can be traced to a photography exhibit titled "Who Owns Public Space : Women’s Everyday Life in the City" which was organized by Eva Kail and a group of city planners in 1991. "It depicted the daily routines of a diverse group of women as they went about their lives in the Austrian capital," explains Claire Forlan. "Each woman tracked a different route through the city. But the images made clear that safety and ease of

movement were a priority for all of them." "Gender mainstreaming began as a way to look at how men and women use city space differently. Today, however, mainstreaming has evolved into a much broader concept. It’s become a way of changing the structure and fabric of the city so that different groups of people can coexist." Women in Cities International is coordinating the programme Gender Inclusive Cities. Different methodologies, such as focus groups and women‘s safety audits, are used in each city to help women identify the problems they face with regards to their own safety. As a result of their actions within the programme, women are encouraged to engage with different sets of stakeholders including governments, non-profit organizations, citizen groups, and the community in general, in order to design and implement strategies that can bring about significant measurable change in women‘s safety and right to the city. Recently, UNIFEM and UN-HABITAT have promoted the implementation of a global programme on safe cities for women and girls, which is to carry out strategic safe cities for women actions in different countries worldwide (Safe Cities 2010). The housing project “Frauen-Werk-Stadt” is a first step to implement the everyday experience and requirements of women on a larger scale (See Figure 2). A piece of the city will be designed exclusively by women architects and planners as part of the urban expansion programme in Vienna. Soon after, the city green lit a series of mainstreaming pilot projects. One of the first to be carried out was an apartment complex designed for and by women in the city’s 21st district. In 1993, the city held a design competition for the project, which was given the name Frauen-Werk-Stadt or Women-Work-City. Planners also run the run the risk of reinforcing stereotypes in attempting to characterize how men and women use city space. To distance themselves from this, city officials have begun to shy away from the term gender mainstreaming, opting instead for the label 'Fair Shared City.'

Figure 1: Map from “Teaching Gender, Framing Architecture” Course, PUKAR

Figure 2: Frauen-Werk-Stadt, Vienna (source: www.wien.gv.at)

3.5.What planners can do “If architects and urban designers were to recognize all employed women and their families as a constituency for assumptions about ‘women’s place’ in the home, what could we do? Is it possible to build non-sexist neighborhoods and design non-sexist cities? What would they be like?” Dolores Hayden questions the designers’ and planners’ role in creating non-sexist, welcoming, safe cities for women in 1980 for the first time. Women’s and girls’ unpaid work in the home, such as domestic work and care work, has not been taken into consideration when planning and managing cities. Urban planning and design largely ignores gender-specific experiences, needs, and concerns, particularly with respect to poor women and girls (ActionAid 2012). Women’s access to public space is dependent not only on the ‘permission’ to be in public but also critically on the availability of actual material facilities which make it possible to access these spaces. In other words, it’s not just the ideologies around women and sexuality that prevent women from accessing public space, but also, quite literally, the availability of public space or lack thereof, as well as the infrastructure and design in the city (Phadke 2012). The availability of public toilets, safe public transportation during day and night, safe infrastructure, lighting, safe and comfortable sideways and streets are the key factors the planners should pay attention to. An inadequate city planning marginalizes poor women, disabled women, women with strollers and all the already marginalized groups. The planning and design of a space has the potential to either reinforce gender inequality or to advance gender equality. For this reason, the planning and design process is a crucial facet of creating safe cities for women and girls (Safe Cities 2010). NGO Jagori conducted safety audits in various parts of

Delhi. They concluded that poor lighting, poor signage, poor infrastructure, deserted and derelict places and macho behaviour contributed significantly to women’s lack of safety in the city (Phadke 2012). Gender and Space Project (2011) in India, intends to explore ways by which women experience public space on day to day basis, accessing them devising strategies to ensure safety and to avoid risk, and thereby transforming the very nature of urban life in the process. Their mapping technique showed that women often resort to ‘zig-zagging’, instead of taking straight routes to avoid unsafe and uncomfortable situations. In that case, women’s choices of accessing public space are strongly related to well designed infrastructures, street lighting and adequate public transport. In London, a group called the Women’s Design Service, was constituted in 1987 by women architects, designers and planners with a vision for a future where all buildings, transport systems, streets, parks and open spaces are designed to incorporate the needs of women (Phadke 2012). A study with groups of women to produce safety audits on a number of London parks ( WDS 2007 ) showed that better lighting and maintenance of clear sight lines by cutting back or re-locating shrubs and planting were common recommendations, but all the women were keen to retain a green environment. Some suggested giving pedestrians priority over traffic, and in particular removing pedestrian subways. Clear signage was another issue, since ‘knowing where you are' is very important from a safety perspective. Signs of physical neglect such as poor maintenance of buildings and street furniture, inadequate street cleaning, litter and dog mess made women feel that the area was uncared for, and in consequence that nobody would be looking after them either. The factor that contributed most highly to women's sense of safety was ‘a variety of / lots of other people about'; often they would add ‘smiling people', ‘happy people', ‘the sound of children laughing'. WDS therefore does not support the current mainstream approach to community safety. Designers and decision-makers need to think more about how to attract a wide range of different people

to come and enjoy themselves in the public spaces of towns and cities. One way of achieving this is simply through making such places beautiful - a concept rarely discussed in the context of safety. It is this quality above all which will draw people out of their homes and cars to occupy and enjoy a sense of well-being in public urban space (WDS 2007). During the “Teaching Gender, Framing Architecture” course which Pukar organized in 2005, in multiple cases, women students realised that they regularly took longer routes to get from one point to another when far shorter routes were available. A comparative analysis of the two routes would reveal that there was a substantial difference in the material construction of these spaces-the opacity/transparency of the enclosing edges, the height to width ratio of the street, numbers of possible entry/exit points along the path, the number of ‘eyes’ that surveyed the street, obstructions that impaired the line sight along the street, lighting and so on (Time Space & People 2005). While planning and designing safe public spaces for women, planners, designers and architects place special focus on lighting, landscaping, visibility, motorized traffic, pedestrian traffic, urban furniture, potential hiding spots, signage, security personnel, proximity to other public spaces, proximity to emergency services, and access to public transportation. Each of these areas is given particular consideration from the perspective of the women and girls who use public spaces. It is a necessarily participatory process whereby community members (especially women) work together to create spaces that accommodate strong social relations. In order to be successful, planners and designers must pay attention to how people express themselves in, and interact with, public space (Safe Cities 2010).

4.CASE STUDIES:WESTERPARK (AMSTERDAM) AND MODA WATERFRONT(ISTANBUL) 35

4.Case Study: Westerpark (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Moda Waterfront (Istanbul, Turkey) 4.1.Comparison of the Netherlands and Turkey over Demographic Data The Netherlands is a very densely populated country with a population density of 406 people per km², 497 if water is excluded. It was one of the first countries in the world to have an elected parliament , and since 1848 it has been governed as a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy , organised as a unitary state . The Netherlands has a long history of social tolerance and is generally regarded as a liberal country, having legalised abortion , prostitution and euthanasia , while maintaining a progressive drugs policy . In 2001 it became the world's first country to legalize same-sex marriage . The Netherlands is a founding member of the EU , Eurozone , G-10 , NATO , OECD , WTO and a part of the trilateral Benelux economic union. In 2013, the United Nations World Happiness Report ranked the Netherlands as the fourth happiest country in the world based on indicators such as social support, freedom to make life choices, perception of corruption, life expectancy, and unemployment rate. Turkey made 77th on the list. Amsterdam is the capital city and most populous city of the Kingdom of the Netherlands . Its status as the Dutch capital is mandated by the Constitution of the Netherlands though it is not the seat of the Dutch government, which is The Hague . Amsterdam has a population of 813,562 within the city proper , 1,112,165 in the urban area and 1,575,263 in the metropolitan area. Turkey is a candidate country for European Union Membership. It has a population of 81,619,392 (July 2014 est.), and it is a very young country with the median age of 29.6. The population growth rate is %1.12 and the birth / date ratio is over 2 (CIA World Factbook 2014). Istanbul is the largest city in Turkey and the heart of the country. It is also one of the largest agglomerations in Europe and the fifth largest city in the world in terms of population within city limits. 37

Interestingly, Istanbul is a transcontinental city as it is located on the Bosphorus waterway in northwest Turkey between the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara. This means the commercial center is in Europe while the rest of the city is in Asia . In 2014, Istanbul has an estimated population of 14.2 million. Istanbul's population density of 2,523 people per square kilometer (6,530/mi2) far exceeds Turkey's 102 people per square kilometer (264/mi2). The most densely populated areas tend to lie to the northwest, west, and southwest of the city center, on the European side; the most densely populated district on the Asian side is Üsküdar. Only 28% of the Istanbul's dweller are originally from Istanbul. All the rest has migrated from other cities. the Netherlands

Turkey

Member of Council of Europe: 1949 Member of European Union: 1952 CEDAW ratified: 1991 CEDAW Optional Protocol ratified: 2002 CoE Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence: signed: 14 November 2012 ratified: No

Member of Council of Europe: 1949 Member of European Union: No CEDAW ratified: 1985 CEDAW Optional Protocol ratified: 2002 CoE Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence: signed: 11 May 2011 ratified: 14 March 2012

Table 1: Comparison of the Netherlands and Turkey over their European Profiles (source:Wave 2012)

According to the survey about violence against women country report on the Netherlands, more than 9% of the Dutch population has been victim of obvious acts of domestic violence in the past five years, 60% of the victims were female and intimate partner violence accounts for 60 - 65% of domestic violence according to a survey published in 2010. National criminal statistics on domestic violence are not publically available, nor is data on national criminal justice statistics on domestic violence. No information is available on whether data on medical interventions related to domestic violence or intimate partner violence is collected in the Dutch healthcare system. There is no national women’s helpline in Netherlands and there are 96 women’s shelters in the Netherlands. No information is available on the existence of women’s centers or centers for women survivors of sexual violence in Netherlands (Women Against Violence Europe, 2012). The same survey about Turkey shows that since the age of 15, 39% of ever-married women have experienced physical violence, 15% have experienced sexual violence and 44% have experienced psychological violence, according to a survey published in 2009. In the last 12 months, 10% of ever-married women have experienced physical violence, 7% have experienced sexual violence and 25% have experienced psychological violence. National criminal statistics on domestic violence are not publicly available in Turkey, nor are national criminal justice statistics. Data on medical interventions related to domestic violence or intimate partner violence is not collected in Turkey’s healthcare system. There are two national women’s helplines in Turkey, one is run and fully funded by the State and the other is run by an independent women’s NGO and fully funded by private donations. There are 103 women’s shelters and approximately 38 women’s centers in Turkey. There are no centers for women survivors of sexual violence in Turkey (Women Against Violence Europe, 2012)

Overall

Economic

Educational

Health

Rank

Participation and Opportunity Rank

Attainment Rank

Survival Rank

and

Political Empowerment Rank

Netherlands

Turkey

120

127

104

103

Table 2 : Global Gender Gap Index 2013 rankings

Overall Rank

Gender

Inequality

Index

Gender Inequality Index

Value

Rank

Netherlands

0.57

Turkey

0.36

Table 3 : Global Gender Inequality 2012 Index

4.2.Gender Mainstreaming 4.2.1.Gender Mainstreaming in the Netherlands Gender Mainstreaming is not a new strategy in the Dutch policy making circles when dealing with gender equality and women’s emancipation. Since the 1970s, when “the women’s issue” was prompted onto the national policy agenda, the government chose to follow a two-track approach in dealing with emancipation matters. the Netherlands played an important role in promoting the strategy of gender mainstreaming at the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. At the time it was one of the few countries that already had developed a mainstreaming instrument (Verloo and Roggenband 1994), and in fact it was the only one applying it (Verloo and Lamoen 2003). The style of policy making in the Netherlands can be described as open. In particular the ministries are relatively open organizations, not only populated by civil servants, but also connected to many external consultants and scientists who contribute enthusiastically to policy making and legislation proscribed. This policy style -with its strong accent on consultation and consensus buildinghas gained international attention as Dutch polder model (Verloo and Lamoen 2003). Since the late 1980s the Dutch government made repeated efforts to spread responsibilities for implementing emancipation policies over all departments. It remains to be seen whether these efforts will be successful. At first sight some good initiatives have been developed, such as the implementation of several gender impact assessments within ministerial departments (EER-pilots), the adoption of an Action Plan or Emancipation Tasks of Departments (1998-2002), and the publication of a Manual on Gender Mainstreaming for civil servants (2000). But the government’s strong emphasis on the organizational aspects of gender mainstreaming seems to have overshadowed the need for well-founded,

coherent policy concepts. Illustrative in this respect is the entire absence of any problem definition in the government’s latest strategic plan on gender mainstreaming (2001). After the turn of the millennium, the Dutch situation altered partly because of a closure of national political opportunities. The Dutch Ministry for Development Cooperation stopped prioritizing its women and development programme and gradually withdrew its financial support to women’s projects and programmes. In this period of backlash, it became increasingly difficult to keep GM on the organizational agenda. The Dutch case of GM shows that GM is an ongoing struggle. On the one hand, Dutch development organizations rapidly and extensively adopted GM strategies, developed a broad range of innovative methods and tools and created new expertise and commitment at different levels and in new areas. Yet, on the other hand, the adoption of integrationist GM policies and practices also resulted in a depoliticization and demobilization of earlier feminist networks that had been the motor behind these changes. Moreover, a voluntaristic GM approach gradually sidelined gender experts, who needed most of their energies for processes within their organizations (motivating, lobbying, monitoring and evaluating), at the cost of their engagement and links with women’s rights organizations, peers and other alliance partners (Roggeband 2013). 4.2.2.Gender Mainstreaming in Turkey In 2004 Turkey entered into the EU accession process with consequent demands for reforms towards meeting EU, including reforms on human rights, equality and a democratic judiciary. Despite the numerous advancements, particularly in the Constitution, the Criminal Code, the Civil Code and the Labour Act, the implementation and de facto realization of these rights, is still a challenge, which is also 42

reflected in the basic development indicators for women, that are far behind to comparable MICs and much further behind the EU member states. Currently, according to the United Nations data on Human Development Indicators , Turkey has a Gender Inequality Index value of 0.366, ranking 68th out of 148 countries in 2012. With regards to participation to governance, only 14.2 percent of parliamentary seats are held by women in Turkey. Also, in means of education level, 26.7 percent of adult women have reached a secondary or higher level of education compared to 42.4 percent of their male counterparts in 2012 (UNDP Turkey). UNDP Turkey extends its intervention in the field of gender equality and women empowerment can be summarized the following: Promote enabling environment for greater accountability to women (and men) by strengthening the national gender equality machinery and by strengthening the institutional capacities of the structures, ensure gender is mainstreamed in legislation and policymaking processes, subsequently translated into full-fledged implementation, regularly monitored, evaluated and, if necessary, adjusted. Some crucial data on womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s status and empowerment in Turkey include: %57.2 of women are working in the agriculture sector and %50 of the women working in agriculture are part of family work force without wage. One out of every three women is a victim of violence, %63 of women between the ages of 15 and 19 approve violence against women. The share of women legislators, senior officials and managers in workforce is %10 (See Table 4).

Education Level

Total

Male

Female

Gender Pay Gap %

Primary school and below

12.237

12.594

10.519

16.5

Primary and Secondary School

12.192

12.571

10.470

16.7

High School

15.117

15.531

13.969

10.1

Vocational High School

18.759

19.442

15.647

19.5

High Education

31.486

33.574

28.184

16.1

Table 4: Gender pay gap by educational attainment 2010 (source: TUİK) Domestic violence is widespread in certain parts of Turkey and is an ongoing problem impacting gender policy in Turkey. According to Ministry of Justice reports, there is a substantial increase in women slayings from 2002 to 2009 (TBMM Tutanak Dergisi 2010). In 2002, 66 women, in 2003 83 women, in 2004 164 women, in 2005 317 women, in 2006 663 women, in 2007 1011 women, in 2008 806 women and in the first seven months of 2009, 953 women were murdered, these include all the slayings of women in Turkey. Gender based violence has been on the public agenda in Turkey both with increased media coverage and the state officials’ emphasis on this issue (European Parliament 2012). Civil society has played an important role in peacebuilding and is historically the platform that

threaded the strongest ties between women and mediation particularly at the grassroots level. To encourage and strengthen these efforts, the UN established a high-level Civil Society Advisory Group (CSAG) on Women, Peace and Security to serve in a consulting role and provide strategic perspective on the advocacy of gender equality and women’s empowerment. As a show of good faith, for example, Turkey was the first country to sign The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence11 , in May 2011. Article 41 (entered into force in October 2001) and The New Civil Code (entered into force in January 2002) both reinforced gender equality within the family. On May 2004, Article 10 of Turkey’s Constitution was amended to give supremacy of international conventions related to basic rights and freedoms over national law. This amendment included CEDAW. Many women’s organizations, however, were dissatisfied with these amendments and even against the referendum in 2010, claiming that changes made to the Constitution were merely cosmetic and not far-reaching enough Law on the Protection of the Family with Law 6248, passed on July 8, 2013 were deemed as a major success for the Turkish women’s movement. The provision of this law now entitles all women, regardless of their marital status, from the violence of abuse. Additionally, a major criticism leveled at the KSGM is that they still have not been allocated a specific gender budget under the Ministry of Family and Social Policies. Between 2006 and 2010 a coordinated effort between the United Nations Joint Program (UNJP) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF) worked through various other UN and aid agencies on the Women Friendly Cities Project. While the government tends to focus efforts on traditional women’s questions such as the prevention of domestic violence, women’s organizations and platforms are working on issues of gender equality. They are attempting to provoke a general shift in societal values in which women’s human rights are more fully exercised and expected.

Currently, a civil society watchdog organization is being developed through the Gender Equality Monitoring Association (CEID). It has received approval by the Ministry of Family and Social Policies and funding from the European Union with the goal of launching in 2014. In summary, research and interviews conducted for this project overwhelmingly indicates that civil society organizations perceive the process of gender mainstreaming as being driven from the bottom-up instead of by the initiative of the government. To date there has been little consistent dialogue between the centers and the government on policy issues, and graduates of Women’s Studies rarely find employment in their field of expertise in Turkey. Their demands include the creation of a truth commission investigating crimes against women during conflict, equal representation of women in all commissions created for peace including the Parliament, gender based security reform, and constitutional change so that discrimination against women in general and Kurdish women in particular will stop. Women in Turkey continue to face gender inequities and rights violations. Although women’s civil society initiatives, organizations and platforms are actively engaged in attempting to shape domestic policy, there needs to be a mechanism in place whereby the knowledge and experiences of these institutions are combined to elicit more awareness for the need to implement a gender perspective in all departments of the government; and collaborate on the development of gender frameworks, policies, and practices. At the national level, while Turkey’s long-standing commitment to constitutional and democratizing reforms appear to run parallel with its gender equality provision, in reality, women’s legal protections still lack force in both implementation and practice.

4.3.Case Study: Westerpark | Amsterdam

Westerpark is a public urban park located in West Amsterdam. It is 20 minutes away from the train station on foot. It is a 1 km long park along the canal. There is a former gas factory ( Westergasfabriek) , now an event center in the center of the park. The original park has been established in 1891. It served this quiet, working class area of Amsterdam, which bears the same name Westerpark. Located behind the park was a gas factory built in 1883 by British Imperial Continental Gas Association. Both the park and the factory were located at the straight road leading to Harlem Haarlemmerweg. The gas factory became obsolete in 1960s. After being occupied by young anarchist groups for years , in 1989 old red brick buildings received the status of industrial monuments. The whole area of the municipal gas and water installations has been remodeled, trees planted and in 2003 Westergasfabriek has been opened to the public. The area derives its name from the eponymous park, which combines expansive greenery with the Westergasfabriek ’s wealth of cultural goings-on. Located at the heart of the park, the Westergasfabriek is a former gasworks that has been completely renovated and now houses a brilliant selection of cafés, charming eateries with plenty of outdoor space, regular food and design markets, an art-house cinema and a variety of small creative businesses. Many large cultural events, festivals and club nights take place here throughout the year, and some of the buildings can be hired for events.

4.3.1.Qualitative Research Methodology and Results In the light of the research and analysis of the case studies, I decided that in order to receive a personal and insider point of view from the users of Westerpark, I needed to conduct a qualitative research. After discussing with professionals about the methodology and the research design, I decided to prepare a questionnaire based on the properties of Westerpark. Therefore, I analyzed the park myself first in order to see the possible problems, which might help to prepare the questions. In addition to that, I decided to add a quantitative information to my knowledge; so I prepared a survey about perceived safety in Westerpark and its stand in general gender and safety perception of Amsterdam. After preparation of the questionnaire and survey, I went to Westerpark for 3 days to interview with 20 female users of different age groups, occupations and ethnicity. The majority of the interviewees were Dutch citizens with various ethnic backgrounds. Since there were public buildings such as THNK (Creative Leadership Academy), an administration office, offices for event organizations at Gasfabriek and outdoor festivals, I chose to conduct some of the interviews with women who work in those offices in Westerpark. In addition to that, there are also bars, cafes and restaurants in the park, so it was useful to have the point of view from women who are customers, and women who are personnels of the place. The occupations of the interviewees varied from office personnels to managers, designers, business owners, and freelance workers. For instance, I interviewed 6 women who were drinking or eating inside the bar, and the barmaid from the same bar. While the customers expressed less anxiety about safety, the barmaid mentioned she had problems with drunk customers who disturbed her. However, she also added that she generally does not perceive any judgement or insecurity.

The weather was a challenge for interviewing women outside. People were either cycling, running, or just passing by the park as it is also a good passage between the residential area to the city center and train station. I intentionally talked with the regular users of the park, even if they use the park only by passing there for work or school. In the end, I interviewed with 11 women indoors and with 9 women outdoors. General activities preferred by the interviewees were quite dependent on the season. There are festivals and concerts during summer at the event area of Westerpark, and Gasfabriek holds public or private events. With the weather effect included, there are much more people outside in summer than winter. However the park is still frequently used during winter thanks to the renovated buildings which are being reused as bars, restaurants and cafes inside the park. In addition to that, general activities were running, walking with kids, dogs, and family, cycling, cultural activities, leisure and sports. In respect to safety and gender, women in Westerpark generally expressed confidence about their gender. The responses to the questions about gender itself were in general positively received. “I feel strong when I’m by myself and if you don’t seem vulnerable, I believe you protect yourself. Of course you can’t be naive, but if you are strong and seem strong, no one really approaches you.” (45 years old, shop owner at Westerpark) In Westerpark, there is an obvious distinction between the greenery and leisure. Inside the park, where there is a small lake and trees, there are also small paths which people use during the day for a nice walk or running. However, almost all the interviewees expressed that they feel insecure about going inside the park late at night as there is no lighting there and homeless people stay at some benches during the night. What I found interesting was that most of the women did not feel threatened because

of their gender or were afraid of harassment, but because of factual elements of the park such as lighting, lack of security staff and accessibility. For most of the interviewees, the area where there are bars and nightlife was expressed as more preferable because there are always people there. “If i’m inside the park, i don’t go alone in the night too far because it’s too dark and also in this part, there are always people around and there is security at each bar. I think i’m more vulnerable as a woman.” (29 years old, unemployed) In terms of freedom of loitering, I can easily say it is still a problem even in a positive example like Westerpark. Women tend to check their mobile phones, walk around, or call somebody. However, most of the interviewees expressed that their need of showing purpose while loitering was not necessarily because of the risk of harassment or judgement, but it was more like a self-protection from conversations or being misunderstood for staring at people. The minority of the respondents accepted that they feel more vulnerable because of their gender and they do show purpose because they do not want to seem available. The majority of the interviewees expressed that they never received judgement or judged a woman for the outfit or behavior, because of gender stereotypes. “I always have the feeling that i need to do something. I used to be a smoker, so i used to smoke when i was loitering. Not anymore...I feel like people might think i am staring at them. I try not to do it anymore, but it’s hard. I think i use it sometimes intentionally just to avoid conversations. At night, i do that more often; i call my friends or do something to look busy.” (29 years old, program manager at THNK)

“When i’m around here in the night, there are a lot of people everywhere and i’d like to be accompanied by a man because i feel safer.” (20 years old, student) In conclusion, it is possible to say that Westerpark is a genuinely safe park for women and girls in terms of its user profile, functions that bring liveliness in it, and services it offers. In comparison to Amsterdam’s general safety profile, all the interviewees expressed the same amount of perceived safety. Westerpark is safe, just as Amsterdam is safe. It is hard to say that the women’s perceived insecurity is mostly caused by cultural restrictions. The overall research shows that women mostly feel unsafe based on their knowledge of recent criminal activities, lack of security staff and lighting. It goes without saying that criminal activities happen often, like everywhere; however the ratio of gender based violence is much less compared to the second case study, Istanbul. (See Table 5) the Netherlands : More than 9% of the Dutch population has been victim of obvious acts of domestic violence in the past five years, 60% of the victims were female and intimate partner violence accounts for 60 - 65% of domestic violence according to a survey published in 2010. Turkey: Since the age of 15, 39% of ever-married women have experienced physical violence, 15% have experienced sexual violence and 44% have experienced psychological violence, according to a survey published in 2009. Table 5: Gender based violence by partner or non-partner perpetrators in the Netherlands and Turkey (source: Wave Country Report)

4.4.Case Study: Moda Waterfront|Istanbul

Moda waterfront is located in KadÄąkoy, one of the 39 districts of Istanbul. Moda neighborhood is on a foreland. Although the foreland is directly connected to Kadikoy ferry station, Moda is harder to access by means of transportation. There is a tram line which goes around the neighborhood, however people generally prefer walking to the waterfront after reaching Kadikoy. The waterfront area consists of a walking and cycling path, and many small paths surrounding playgrounds and fields. The path itself starts from Moda pier and goes along the shore until the end of Yogurtcu Park. It is a continuous path and bike road which is 1.5 km, and would be twice longer if there wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t a disrupter between Kadikoy Waterfront would meet Moda Pier. There are private organizations or shipyards at some points of the waterfront of Istanbul, therefore a continuous waterfront walk is not possible. However Moda Waterfront offers a calm, green, scenic park. The seashore-land boundary is drawn by rocks where people tend to sit there to watch the sunset and take a picture. In a good weather day, it is possible to see many people sitting on the grass, playing, drinking, and relaxing. There is not any closed space along the park, and since it is on sea level it is not very easy to reach a shop, or cafe. Even though they are very close, there is 20 meters of height distance between the sea level and where the urban area starts. In order to climb up to the urban area,

or climb down to the park, there are three public stairs along the park area. One is the ramp-like Moda street that reaches the Moda Pier from the main route. The second one consists of an old stone wall and stairs coming down from the corner tea garden which has a potential of a nice scenic space. The third one is a large colorful public stairs which people tend to prefer, because it is more open and well-lit at night. There are some old abandoned buildings located in the green area, however they are surrounded by fences and the access is restricted. There is an arbour at the shore and a lot of benches. Although in a nice weather, people prefer to sit on the grass. There is security staff and a public wc along the park. 4.4.1.Qualitative Research Methodology and Results In order to keep the objectivity of the research, the same questionnaire and survey were used for interviewing women at Moda, except for minor changes concerning the properties of the park and neighborhood. I first went around the neighborhood to get to know it better from a gender-sensitive perspective. The whole neighborhood is continuously sloped. There are thematic â&#x20AC;&#x2039; streets which shaped up their functions throughout years. For instance, there is one street with antique sellers,one with bars, one with shops et cetera. Beginning from Kadikoy ferry station, there are several route options to get to the waterfront; however the direct waterfront access from Kadikoy to Moda is interrupted at Moda Pier. One would have to climb back up from the sloped street to Moda neighborhood and down to the Moda Pier and waterfront park. Therefore, passing from the neighborhood through its colorful streets is a must. Because of that, I made several trips to the neighborhood for 3 weeks to comprehend better the obstacles â&#x20AC;&#x2039; on the way to the waterfront. Since the waterfront park and urban area has about 20 meters 56

height difference, there are several tea gardens with scenic view of the sea up in the neighborhood. For example, Moda Park is located upper next to the waterfront, and consists a playground and a large tea garden. I perceive all the neighborhood as a whole because of the complex physical relationship of the waterfront and the neighborhood. During the three weeks of investigation and observation of the parks, public spaces and waterfront area of Moda, I discovered risks and potentials of the neglected spaces as well. I made 17 interviews with women from different age, social status, and city of origin, not only at the waterfront, but also at Moda Park and on the way to the waterfront for 5 days. Though I was careful to chose interviewees from regular users of the waterfront. The respondents are of ages between 18-60 and the average age is 28. The occupation groups vary from architects, students, lawyers to office employees. It was a challenge to keep the same ratio of intervieweesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; city of origin as it was in Amsterdam. Especially students were from all over the country. The perception of safety is definitely affected by the city of origin as there are a lot of cultural differences between cities in Turkey. A woman who is from a small city may easily feel threatened and unsafe in Istanbul whereas locals of Moda or Kadikoy are very proud of the neighborhood in terms of safety and public services. Although most of the interviewees including the ones who are not from Istanbul expressed great confidence about being at the Moda Waterfront even alone or at night. Half of the interviewees said the park was very safe, and the other half said that the park was moderately safe. There were not much negative comments about the park itself in terms of services and safety. The problems like not having a closed up space for escape or asking for help in case of risk of assault, presence of dark corners between the trees and fences, lack of immediate access to the urban area were mentioned. Apart from the insides of the park, the main path along the waterfront is always

crowded and well-lit, therefore in case of perceived insecurity, women tend to get into the crowd and in the worst case, to ask for help. “I feel unsafe when there are groups of men approaching, or when I am passing a dark street. In a case that I feel unsafe because of someone who is disturbing me, I would shelter in a place where I think there are more women than men, or I would walk with a group.” (24 years old, IT adviser) “If i feel like there is someone following me, I would pick up my phone and try to look like I am talking with someone. Here at the park, I would walk next to a group or a couple.” (27 years old, architect) There is a security cabinet in the middle of the park, which most of the interviewees expressed that it makes them feel safer. However, most of the interviewees said that the first thing they would think of while being disturbed or feeling risk of harassment, they would just go and sit next to a group of young people, or a couple which consists a man. Most of the respondents mentioned that they would use their phones as self protection from seeming available. All of the interviewees said that they feel the need to show a purpose while loitering. Only 5 of the interviewees said that they would meet their friends somewhere nicer, and some of them mentioned they would meet directly at the place where they will go; however that was irrelevant to the data I was looking for. The majority of the interviewees prefer to meet at Boga square, because there, everybody knows you are expecting someone.

Most of the interviewees expressed that they feel safe at Moda, but they don’t feel safe at the rear streets of Kadikoy or Istanbul in general as it is more complex and the user profile is more mixed, where in Moda the whole neighborhood and user profile is more refined. That is why I asked the interviewees whether they would prefer to remove the interruption between Kadikoy waterfront and Moda waterfront. Merely asking this question, I received immediately positive replies as it would me more convenient to walk to Moda directly from the shore with a nice view. However when I repeated the question including the user profile indicator, they rethought about it and most of them, especially locals of Moda changed their mind as they wanted to keep Moda refined . Another interesting outcome at Moda research was women’s reaction to the questions about harassment and judgement. For me, it held a mirror to the stereotyping and shaming problems. For instance, some interviewees said no when I asked them if they have ever experienced harassment in a way as if someone would judge them and with the stress on the question “Why would I?” Answering the question about whether they ever feel judged for their outfit or behavior because of gender stereotypes, they also responded as if they were already receiving judgement for being judged. Why would people judge them or harass them? They wouldn’t wear anything revealing that might cause that. This kind of dishonesty and learned behavior was expected from my side as this kind of response affect the results quantitatively, and that was another reason to conduct a qualitative research. It is saddening to see how women judge themselves and accept the stereotypes that are forced on them. However this challenge applied only for the minority of the interviewees, and I manipulated the questions in a way that they can still be the same questions but women would not get offended by them, simply by changing the subject of the question from first person to third person. In conclusion, Moda Waterfront users demonstrated positive views about it in terms of safety, services and lighting. They even didn’t complain about not having direct access to the urban area as it

keeps the park calmer and less crowded. The general user profile is consist of young people between the age of 18-30, groups of families, friends. One person even asked me if I was from the municipality and wanted to change something in the park, terrifiedly as if I would build a hotel or a chain restaurant in the middle of it. Moda and Moda waterfront, as upper class as it is, is one of the remaining well organized, well used, well public waterfronts of Istanbul. Most of the coastal areas are rented or sold to big companies and in Moda, the tea gardens which have the scenic view of the sea are still quite affordable and simple, and there is no exchange of money along the Moda Waterfront as there are no shops, no cafes, no kiosk at the waterfront itself. The whole area is far from being commercialized. In one sense, the shops provide a certain perceived safety to women, but on the other side having the waterfront completely public prevents the segregation of the users and leaves the area public. In addition to all these, the interviewees expressed perceived insecurity about the surroundings of the waterfront such as dark streets, accessing it by night from the unlit stairs, dark corners of the park et cetera. The safety graph of the Moda Waterfront is much less than Westerpark, not because of the park itself or the services it offers, but the context it is in.

5.CONCLUSIONS

5.Conclusions This thesis study explored the extent of cultural limitations on female body â&#x20AC;&#x2039; outdoors by comparing two

case studies from Amsterdam and Istanbul. Firstly, they are proven to be different from each other in terms of demographic data which provides the base of gender policies. Then, gender mainstreaming policies from each country are reviewed and results showed that Turkey, indeed had a long way to go as the Netherlands was one of the frontiers of gender mainstreaming to begin with. In order to compare two public spaces, in terms of gendered use, I needed to find two case studies which have the same properties both physically and demographically. In Amsterdam, I chose Westerpark as it was one of the most important urban parks, but not as crowded and mixed as Vondelpark. In Istanbul, it was a challenge to find the comparable case study. Because in Istanbul, it is hard to find a place with certain type of user profile and consistency of the results. The choice of Moda Waterfront was for both its services and physical amenities, and the context it is in in terms of socio-cultural, socio-economical, and educational index. In Amsterdam, the weather was challenging to find interviewees, but mostly all the women I asked to interviewed with, agreed and has been helpful with side informations about the park and the neighborhood. In Istanbul, the challenge was that some women were not volunteer to answer personal questions, or they were suspicious about my intentions of asking them. The perceived judgement and learned stereotyping was usually the case during the interviews. I made interviews not only at the park, but also in the neighborhood, and used them for results as long as they were regular users of the park. The results showed that both parks are safe in terms of its services, infrastructure and maintenance. The difference of the level of perceived safety showed up in general questions about how

women use public spaces. For instance, in Moda case, all the respondents said that in general, they feel the need to show purpose while loitering and they do not feel safe while passing from dark streets. The insecurity reasons in Westerpark were mostly about lighting, presence of certain incidents that occurred recently, and etc; whereas in Moda the reasons varied from physical elements of the park to the perception of the user depending on her cultural background, personal experiences, and internalization of the need of self protection at all times. As expected, both of the parks were received positively in terms of gendered use, because they were intentionally chosen as good examples of public spaces with similar qualities. However, Moda case was received less safe in terms of the context it is in. The respondents expressed more anxiety and perceived insecurity about getting there rather than being there. Moda neighborhood is quite isolated in terms of public transportation despite its central location on the Asian side. People either walk through the always lively streets of Kadikoy and reach Moda, or take the circular tram. The three access points to the waterfront level are not well-lit at night, and the viewpoint is quite limited. It becomes more convenient to stay in the urban level and hang out at the bar streets rather than taking the walk down to the waterfront from sloped streets of Moda. I realized the reason my research showed that Moda case was less safe for women and more gendered in terms of use of public space, was not the park’s design itself. It was the fragmented public spaces which needed connections along the way. I decided to find out the connectors of the neighborhood and analyzed the streets which form certain walking routes. Therefore, after 3 weeks of data collection, I decided to focus on one commonly used walking routes which consist of meeting points, shops, cafes, bars and ends with the second access point (public stairs) to Moda Waterfront. I took out three challenging, but very important points along the way and made a design for increasing its publicness, hence increasing its safety. The main goal was to create pocket public spaces from its

potential, with small changes which does not change the characteristics of the space, but form spaces to socialize, wait, read, relax, and etc. The streets are reconsidered as extensions of the public space, and the stairs are thought as public spaces. In this thesis study and design project, I tried to look for solutions to the perceived insecurity and improve the freedom of loitering firstly by accepting the cultural routes and not denying the cultural reflection on public space use in terms of gender stereotyping, and perceiving these problems as potential solutions for them. I am all for the plannersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and designersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; impact on changing these stereotypes both in private homes and in the city. Though, I deny that architects and planners can achieve this by ignoring and feeding the problem by only female access designs or gender stereotype inspired designs. I think we can only accept and use these problems in order to improve womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s safety in public spaces as architects and planners, and create a bridge between policy makers and public voice in order to design public spaces for all.

6.RETHINKING OF FRAGMENTED PUBLIC SPACES

Figure 3: Historical Layers of Istanbul (source: Superpool Mapping Istanbul)

Figure 4: Population Density Istanbul

(source: Superpool Mapping Istanbul)

Figure 5: Land Use Istanbul

(source: Superpool Mapping Istanbul)

Figure 6: â&#x20AC;&#x2039; Potentials and Challenges (image source: Gehl Architects) 75

BIBLIOGRAPHY ActionAid. 2012. Young Women: Life Choices and Livelihoods in Poor Urban Areas . Action Aid UK Alkan, A. 2009. Cins Cins Mekan . Varlık Yayınları. Blickhauser, A.and von Bargen, H. 2007. Fit for Gender Mainstreaming . Berlin. Butler, J. 1990. “Subversive Bodily Acts” from Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Carro, D., Valera S. and Vidal T. 2008. Perceived insecurity in the public space: personal, social and environmental variables . Springer Science Bussiness Media. . Princeton Papers on Architecture. Colomina, B. 1992. Sexuality and Space Colomina, B. 1996. Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media . MIT Press. Danze, E. and Coleman, D. 1996. Architecture and Feminism . Princeton Architectural Press. European Institute for Gender Equality. 2013. Gender Equality Index Country Profiles . European Parliament. 2012. Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Gender Equality in Turkey.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2014. Violence Against Women an EU-wide Survey . Greed, C. 2003. Inclusive Urban Design: Public Toilets . Taylor & Francis Architectural press. . LUND University. Grundström, K. 2005. Gender and use of public space Heynen, H. and Baydar, G. 2005. Negotiating Domesticity: Spatial Productions of Gender in Modern Architecture . Routledge. Kee, T and Miazzo F. 2014. We Own the City Enabling Community Practice in Architecture and Urban Planning . University of Hong Kong. . Random House New York. Jacobs, J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities Lambrick, M. and Rainero, L. 2010. Safe Cities. UNIFEM. Lawton, C.A., and Kallai, J. 2002. Gender Differences in Wayfinding Strategies and Anxiety About Wayfinding : A Cross-Cultural Comparison . Sex Roles. Lico, G.R.A. 2001. Architecture and Sexuality : The Politics of Gendered Space . Humanities Diliman. Lefebvre, H. 1991. The Production of space . Wiley.

Massey, D. 1994. Space, Place and Gender . University of Minnesota Press. McCarthy, H. 2014. Reclaiming the City: Urban Design and Female safety . Trinity College. Murphy, T. and Vibe, M.C. 2013. Gender Mainstreaming: Turkey’s Policies and Practices in Peacebuilding Initiatives . IPC-Mercator Policy Brief, Sabanci University. Phadke, S. 2013. Unfriendly Bodies, Hostile Cities: Reflections on Loitering and Gendered Public Space. Economical and Political Weekly. Phadke, S. 2012. “ Gendered Use of Public Spaces Case Study: Mumbai ” from The Fear That Stalks: . Zubaan. Gender-Based Violence in Public Spaces Ranade, S. and Phadke, S. 2005. Teaching Gender, Framing Architecture. Time space & People. Ranade, S. 2007. The Way She Moves the Everyday Production of Gender-Space . Economic and Political

Weekly.

Rendell, J. 2000. Gender Space Architecture an Interdisciplinary Introduction . Routledge. Roggeband, C. 2013. Gender Mainstreaming in Dutch Development Cooperation: The Dialectics of Process. Journal of International Development.

Spain, D. 2005. The Importance of Urban Gendered Spaces for the Public Realm . University of Virginia. Tacoli, C. and Mabala, R. 2010. Exploring mobility and migration in the context of rural-urban linkages: why gender and generation matter. Environment & Urbanization. TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Ankara Şubesi. 2010. dosya 19: Cinsiyet ve Mimarlık . TMMOB. , UN Habitat. UN Habitat. 2012. Gender Issue Guide Urban Planning and Design United Nations. 2013. World Happiness Report . United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Verloo, M. and van Lamoen, I. 2003. Policy Frames and Implementation Problems: the Case of Gender . University of Nijmegen. Mainstreaming, State of Art and Mapping of Competences in the Netherlands Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE). 2012. Country Reports. Wave. .UN Habitat Safe Women in Cities International. 2008. Women’s Safety Audits : What Works and Where? Cities Programme Kenya. Women’s Design Service. 2007. What to do about Women’s Safety in Parks . UK

http://www.pps.org/blog/multicultural_places/ http://www.publicspace.org/en/text-library/eng/b003-collective-culture-and-urban-public-space http://www.genderandpublicspace.org/ http://genderedspace.blogspot.nl/2006/04/publications-from-pukar-gender-space.html http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/09/how-design-city-women/6739/ http://gendersite.org/case-studies/safety-in-public-urban-space-the-work-of-women-s-design-service.html http://www.wds.org.uk/ http://www.wave-network.org/

Appendix List of Tables Table 1: Comparison of the Netherlands and Turkey over their European Profiles (source:Wave 2012) Table 2 : Global G ender Inequality 2012 index Table 4: Gender pay gap by educational attainment 2010 (source: TUİK) Table 5: Gender based violence by partner or non-partner perpetrators in the Netherlands and Turkey (source: Wave Country Report) List of Figures Figure 1: Map from “Teahing Gender, Framing Architecture” Course, Pukar Figure 2: Frauen-Werk-Stadt Vienna (source: www.wien.gv.at) Figure 3: Historical Layers of Istanbul (source: Superpool Mapping Istanbul) Figure 4: Population Density Istanbul (source: Superpool, Mapping Istanbul) Figure 5: Land Use Istanbul (source: Superpool Mapping Istanbul) Figure 6: Potentials and Challenges (image source: Gehl Architects) Questionnaire Preferences 1.What do you use the park for? 2.How often do you use the park?

3.What time of the day? Why? 4.Do you prefer to be accompanied or to be alone? By whom? Why? 5.Which means of transportation do you use to access the park? 6.Which paths do you prefer to use to access from the railways to the center? (use the map) Design 1.Are you happy with the parkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transformation? What services do you use the most? 2.Is there sufficient lighting in the park during the night? 3.Would you say the public transportation is sufficient at all times to Westerpark / Moda Waterfront? 4.Do the dark corners and the railway infrastructure cause any danger? 5.What can be improved in the park by designers and planners in general? and in order to improve safety? 6.What are the factors to determine the time of departure from the park? (Nightfall, transportation etc.) Perception | Safety and Loitering 1.What are the socio-economic status of the surrounding neighborhoods? Do you feel any difference? 2.Who uses the park most often and in which period of the week? 3.Do you feel the lack of accessibility in any park of the park? Why? 4.Do you ever feel unsafe? If so, where in the park? What causes the perceived insecurity? 5.Have you ever experienced any hostile behavior, harassment or assault in the park? 6.What do you think would be better changed in sake of womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s freedom in public spaces? (Physically or mentally) 7.Do you ever perceive judgement or discrimination in public spaces because of the activity youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re doing or your outfit? 8.What do you think the respectability in public spaces is based on in the Netherlands / Turkey?

9.Do you feel the need to show purpose while loitering? How do you demonstrate purpose? Survey Age: Country of citizenship: Place of Residence: Occupation: Marital Status: 1- Do you think Westerpark/Moda Waterfront is safe for women compared to Amsterdam/Istanbulâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s average level of safety? 1( ) Agree Strongly

2( )

3( )

4( )

5( ) Disagree Strongly

2- Do you think Amsterdam/Istanbul is safe for women compared to Netherlandsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; average level of safety? 1( ) Agree Strongly

2( )

3( )

4( )

5( ) Disagree Strongly

3- Do you generally feel safe and comfortable in Westerpark/Moda Waterfront? 1( ) Agree Strongly

2( )

3( )

4( )

5( ) Disagree Strongly

4- Do you think women and men have the equal access and freedom of loitering (remaining in an area for no obvious reason) in Westerpark/Moda Waterfront? 1( ) Agree Strongly

2( )

3( )

4( )

5( ) Disagree Strongly

5- Have you ever felt any risk of harassment or assault in Westerpark/Moda Waterfront? 1( ) Agree Strongly

2( )

3( )

4( )

5( ) Disagree Strongly

6- As a woman, have you ever perceived judgement towards your actions or outfits in Westerpark/Moda Waterfront? 1( ) Agree Strongly

2( )

3( )

4( )

5( ) Disagree Strongly

7- Have you ever judged a woman for their actions or outfits? 1( ) Agree Strongly

2( )

3( )

4( )

5( ) Disagree Strongly

POL I T E CNI CODI MI L ANO2015