by Nourhan Bassam PhD (the Feminist Urbanist, and CEO + Co-founder of The Gendered City)

​We are living through an era of layered crises from climate emergencies, housing insecurity, rising authoritarianism, and a deepening mental health epidemic. Cities, instead of being places of refuge and possibility, have become battlegrounds for survival. These crises disproportionately affect women, gender-diverse communities, racialized people, and migrants. Yet the prevailing responses to these challenges often rely on top-down, technocratic fixes that maintain the very systems causing harm.
​
At the same time, we’re witnessing the widespread co-optation of feminist and participatory language. Words like “inclusive,” “safe,” and “resilient” are plastered on urban development agendas, stripped of their radical roots and repurposed to fit status quo planning logics. This calls for a re-grounding in feminist urbanism  -  a practice rooted in care, justice, and community power.

1. Feminist urbanism as counter-system beyond “Add Women and Stir”
​​​
Understanding what it means to be gender-sensitive in life begins with recognizing how gender structures everyday experiences, not as a personal attribute, but as a powerful social force. Over time, theoretical frameworks have increasingly revealed gender not simply as a binary or identity, but as a key organizing principle of society. Gender has been conceptualized as an axis of oppression (Lorde, 1984; King, 1988; Crenshaw, 1989; Collins, 1990), a system of stratification (Connell, 1987; Lorber, 1994; Risman, 1998; Martin, 2004), and more recently, as a deeply embedded social structure (Lorber, 1994; Risman, 1998; Martin, 2004; Risman, 2004).

Barbara Risman, in her foundational work with Davis (2013), frames gender as a multi-level structure operating across three domains: the individual, the interactional, and the institutional. Individually, gender is shaped through lifelong processes of socialization, shaping behavior and self-perception. At the interactional level, societal expectations about gender roles produce cognitive and cultural biases that routinely advantage men and marginalize those outside dominant gender norms. Institutionally, this translates into policy frameworks, urban planning, resource allocations, and legal norms that are often organized around male-centric models of productivity, mobility, and safety - typically excluding the needs and experiences of those engaged in unpaid care work, domestic responsibilities, or vulnerable forms of labor.

It is this persistent neglect and asymmetry that gave rise to feminist urbanism. As cities became the epicenters of inequality, the need to apply gender-sensitive lenses to urban life became critical. Feminist urbanism emerges not just from a critique of patriarchal structures, but from the urgent necessity to reimagine cities as spaces that champion care, equity, and embodied lived experiences. It challenges dominant urban paradigms that privilege infrastructure over intimacy, efficiency over empathy, and profit over people. 

As such, gender is a complex, socially embedded system that shapes lived experiences far beyond binary classifications. This study analyzes textbook definitions of gender to assess whether they conflate gender with sex and to evaluate the scope and depth of their treatment of gender as a multifaceted construct.

At its core, feminist theory constitutes a critical framework for examining gender-based asymmetries and power dynamics. As Kolmar and Bartkowski (2010) describe, feminist theories aim to explain the conditions of women, interrogate gender inequality, and analyze the systemic distribution of privilege and power through the lens of gender. Chafetz (1988) emphasizes the normative dimension of feminist theory, positioning it as a tool to challenge and transform societal structures that marginalize or devalue women.

Charlotte Bunch (1979) proposed a foundational model for feminist theorizing, outlining four essential stages: describing women’s oppression, analyzing its root causes, envisioning alternative realities, and identifying strategies for achieving transformative change. Chafetz (1988) further delineates three defining criteria of feminist theory: gender must be central to the theoretical inquiry; gender relations must be recognized as problematic; and these relations should not be seen as natural or unchangeable.

However, feminist theory has undergone significant evolution, particularly in response to critiques of essentialism. The unifying category of "woman" came under scrutiny during the second and third waves of feminism, as scholars increasingly questioned its universal applicability (Alcoff 1988; Riley 1988; Butler [1990] 2006). This critique led to the diversification of feminist thought, prompting calls for more inclusive and intersectional approaches that account for differences across race, class, sexuality, and gender identity (Lugones & Spelman 1983; hooks 1989; Butler [1990] 2006).

The emergence of intersectionality, as articulated by Crenshaw (1991), marked a pivotal shift in feminist scholarship. Rather than focusing solely on patriarchy, contemporary feminist theory analyzes how multiple axes of identity and power - such as race, class, gender, and sexuality - interact to shape experiences of oppression. In line with this broadened scope, Chafetz’s (1997) updated conceptualization of feminist theory reflects its dual commitment to explaining gender-based disparities and engaging with broader systems of inequality through a sociological lens.

Feminist urbanism is not about adding women to existing structures. It’s about reshaping the very systems of urban governance, planning, and design. It calls for:

• Redistribution of power in decision-making and space allocation
• Recognition of care as foundational to urban life
• Resistance to extractive economies that devalue life and labor

It redefines what counts as infrastructure  -  placing care centers, safe public spaces, accessible transport, and green community hubs alongside traditional “hard” infrastructure like roads and housing.
Examples include:
​

• Bogotá’s Care Blocks, integrating health, childcare, and support services
• Barcelona’s Climate Shelters, gender-aware green spaces for health and heat resilience
• The Gendered City's “Women After Dark” project (and soon-to-be-released book), confronting urban safety as a multidimensional issue-moving beyond surveillance to address the psychological, physical, and embodied toll of nighttime urban environments on women.

2. Co-optation and the hollowing of participation
​
​Too often, “participatory” urbanism becomes a checklist: one public consultation, one token appointment, one report. Feminist urbanism critiques how participation without power reinforces exclusion. The current systems:

• Tokenize gender inclusion without redistributing resources
• Frame women's safety as a matter of individual behavior, not urban form
• Celebrate smart city tech while ignoring lived knowledge
  ​

Feminist urbanism insists on deep engagement, redistribution of resources, and collective authorship of cities.

3. Health, crisis, and the urban body
​
Urban health extends far beyond access to medical infrastructure and sanitation services; it encompasses the embodied experiences of individuals within the urban environment - how they move, interact, breathe, and navigate daily life. Feminist urbanism draws critical attention to how systemic spatial inequalities are deeply intertwined with public health outcomes, particularly for women and other marginalized groups.
​

• Mental Health: Urban environments that are perceived as unsafe, over-policed, or socially alienating contribute to chronic stress, anxiety, and social isolation. The lack of psychological safety in public space disproportionately affects women, gender-diverse people, and youth, influencing both their mobility and sense of urban belonging.
• Physical Health: Gendered mobility patterns - such as trip chaining for unpaid care work - expose women to cumulative physical stressors, including air pollution, inadequate pedestrian infrastructure, and poorly lit or unsafe transport routes. These patterns contribute to fatigue, physical burnout, and elevated health risks over time.
• Social Health: Structural disconnection from social infrastructure - such as accessible public spaces, community networks, and care institutions - impairs social cohesion and access to healing environments. Marginalized groups are frequently excluded from urban areas that foster emotional and cultural well-being, resulting in a form of infrastructural marginalization.
  
  

Feminist urban design promotes:

• Safe, inclusive green spaces for recovery and play
• Collective housing that reduces isolation
• Community-run clinics and support centers
• Urban forms that champion healing, not efficiency

4. A feminist future for cities is not a Utopia   
​
A feminist future for cities is not a utopia  -  it’s a radical necessity. It centers the voices and knowledge of those most excluded. It challenges financial models that prioritize profit over survival. It demands that disaster risk, climate adaptation, and health resilience reflect the priorities of those most affected.
​
Key priorities:

• Institutionalizing gender-responsive planning and budgeting
• Funding grassroots, women-led resilience projects
• Recognizing Indigenous, feminist, and community knowledge
• Creating governance structures with shared power

5. Cities as collective care systems 
​
Transforming Urban Systems  
In response to the co-optation of feminist and participatory discourses in contemporary urban policy, a critical intervention is needed to reassert feminist urbanism not merely as a design ethos, but as a transformative framework for urban governance and infrastructural planning. This approach reframes the city as a collective care system - a spatial and political construct oriented toward equity, interdependence, and wellbeing:

A. Reconceptualizing Infrastructure Through a Care Lens
Traditional urban infrastructure prioritizes mobility, commerce, and growth, often sidelining the essential infrastructures of social reproduction. A feminist approach demands a systemic shift that redefines infrastructure to include health systems, caregiving networks, communal spaces, and emotional safety as core components of the urban fabric. This includes:
​

• Distributed care hubs that integrate childcare, eldercare, health services, and psychosocial support within accessible distances.
• Green, healing-oriented public spaces are designed through inclusive participatory processes and gender-responsive safety audits.
• Infrastructure for relationality - such as collective housing models, co-living arrangements, and public kitchens - to address social isolation and labor imbalances.
  
  

B. Embedding Gender-Responsive Planning in Governance Structures
Urban systems must institutionalize gender equity through gender-responsive planning, budgeting, and impact assessment tools. This includes:

• Systematic gender-disaggregated data collection to inform planning.
• Participatory mechanisms that give decision-making power to marginalized groups, particularly women, LGBTQ+ individuals, racialized communities, and informal sector workers.
• Inclusive metrics of urban success, such as wellbeing indices, caregiving equity, and safety perception surveys, in contrast to GDP-centric growth metrics.
  
  

C. Decentralizing Power and Investing in Grassroots Resilience
Urban governance should devolve planning authority and resources to community-based organizations, particularly those led by women and marginalized groups. This enables locally embedded solutions that are contextually responsive, culturally grounded, and democratically accountable. Priority actions include:

• Long-term, flexible funding mechanisms for grassroots resilience projects, including those addressing climate adaptation, health, food security, and care infrastructure.
• Recognition and integration of indigenous, feminist, and informal knowledges into city planning processes.
• Co-production models in which communities and municipalities share ownership of planning, implementation, and monitoring.
  ​

E. Centering Interdependence and Ecological Justice
A feminist urban care system recognizes the interconnectedness of human and ecological health. This entails moving beyond extractive and technocratic models of urban development toward regenerative approaches that:

• Support climate-adaptive urban ecosystems (e.g., cooling corridors, decentralized water harvesting, community gardens).
• Mitigate environmental burdens disproportionately borne by marginalized communities.
• Frame the urban as an ecological system where care for people is inseparable from care for the planet.

Conclusion

To conclude, cities are not merely physical spaces; they are living, contested contexts where power, identity, and survival intersect. In the face of compounding crises - ecological, political, economic, and psychological - the urgency to reimagine urban life is not aspirational but existential. Feminist urbanism offers not just a critique of the failures of conventional planning but a transformative vision rooted in care, equity, and collective power.

This is not about making cities “better” in abstract terms - it is about fundamentally shifting whose lives are valued, whose knowledge is centered, and whose needs are built into the very fabric of urban space. It calls us to confront how normalized systems of exclusion, extraction, and surveillance shape our built environments - and to dismantle them.

Reclaiming the radical roots of participation, care, and justice, feminist urbanism reframes the city as a collective care system where interdependence is infrastructure, and resilience is grounded in community, not control. It centers those who have been historically pushed to the margins and insists on a redistribution of power, resources, and voice.

To imagine feminist cities is to ask: What if safety meant thriving, not just surviving? What if infrastructure nurtured relationships rather than restricted movement? What if planning were a practice of healing rather than harm?
​
These are not utopian questions. They are practical, necessary, and urgent. Feminist urbanism does not offer a blueprint - it offers a compass. And in a world increasingly shaped by crisis, it points us toward justice, toward dignity, and toward a city that belongs to all of us.

​References
Alcoff, L. (1988). Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 13(3), 405–436. https://doi.org/10.1086/494426

Bartkowski, F., & Kolmar, W. (2010). Feminist theory: A reader (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Bunch, C. (1979). Feminism and education: Not by degrees. Quest: A Feminist Quarterly, 5(2), 27–32.

Butler, J. (2006). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity (Routledge Classics ed.). Routledge. (Original work published 1990)

Chafetz, J. S. (1988). Feminist theory and sociology: Underutilized contributions for mainstream theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.000525

Chafetz, J. S. (1997). Feminist theory and sociology: Towards a better dialogue. In R. Adams & N. T. Roscigno (Eds.), Social problems: Readings with four questions (pp. 24–33). Wadsworth Publishing.

Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.

Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford University Press.

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
hooks, b. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking Black. South End Press.

King, D. K. (1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of a Black feminist ideology. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14(1), 42–72.

Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Crossing Press.

Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. Yale University Press.

Lugones, M., & Spelman, E. V. (1983). Have we got a theory for you! Feminist theory, cultural imperialism and the demand for “the woman’s voice”. Women’s Studies International Forum, 6(6), 573–581.

Martin, P. Y. (2004). Gender as social institution. Social Forces, 82(4), 1249–1273. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2004.0081

Riley, D. (1988). Am I that name? Feminism and the category of "women" in history. Macmillan.

Risman, B. J. (1998). Gender vertigo: American families in transition. Yale University Press.

Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18(4), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265349
​
Risman, B. J., & Davis, G. (2013). From sex roles to gender structure. Current Sociology, 61(5-6), 733–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113479315

​By: Hadiya J. Khuwaja

In the global conversation about urban parks and mental health, one dimension often remains understated: how women perceive and navigate safety in public parks.

While parks are celebrated for their restorative benefits - offering peace, stress relief, and a vital connection to nature - for many women, especially in culturally complex contexts like Islamabad, Pakistan, parks are not unconditionally accessible havens. They are contingent spaces, where the promise of well-being is unbalanced by persistent concerns about safety, visibility, and belonging.
​
Islamabad, the capital city of Pakistan, is nestled at the foothills of the Margalla Hills and offers a unique urban backdrop. It is the country’s only purpose-built city, designed by Greek architect Constantinos Doxiadis, who envisioned it as a series of zones with quadrilateral residential sectors carefully integrated with public parks and green spaces. At its heart lies Fatima Jinnah Park – commonly known as F-9 Park – a sector-wide green space envisioned as Islamabad’s central hub for public recreation and leisure.​

Compared to other cities in Pakistan, Islamabad enjoys a relatively abundant provision of parks and natural areas. Yet, as is common across much of South Asia, public spaces remain predominantly male-dominated. The city’s formal planning, while orderly and green, cannot fully insulate women from the social and environmental dynamics that continue to shape their experiences of urban parks.

Drawing on my recent research – a mixed-methods study examining park access and mental well-being in Islamabad (part of my graduate thesis research at NUST Islamabad) – a layered reality emerges: women’s engagement with parks is deeply intertwined with spatial justice, emotional security, and the right to public space.
​
The study, conducted with 354 participants across Islamabad’s major urban development zones, revealed notable gender imbalances. Only 26% (n=91) of respondents were female, while 74% (n=263) were male (Graph 1).

​Among all respondents, approx. 10% (n=34) cited safety and security concerns as barriers to park visitation. Strikingly, 70% (n=24) of those who raised safety concerns were women, compared to just 30% (n=10) men, highlighting how safety is not just a design issue, but a lived gendered experience that restricts equitable access to parks (Graph 2).

​This sharp disparity underscores not only women’s heightened vulnerability within public spaces but also their limited engagement with them. The low proportion of female participants may itself reflect broader structural barriers – social norms, safety fears, and mobility restrictions – that systematically discourage women’s active presence in urban parks.

Parks as Potential Sanctuaries – If Safe
​
This tension between the potential and the reality of parks came into sharp focus in early 2023, when a woman was assaulted by two armed men in Islamabad’s Fatima Jinnah or F-9 Park - one of the largest and, ostensibly, safest public parks in the city. Despite interventions such as linking over 200 park cameras to the Safe City Authority and increasing police patrols, another deeply unsettling event occurred in early 2025. Late in the evening, a mother and daughter were assaulted and mugged in the same park. The suspects attacked the women, robbed them, and warned they “shouldn’t be in the park at this hour” - a chilling reminder of the gendered boundaries imposed in Pakistan’s male-dominated public spaces.

In my study, respondents consistently emphasized that parks hold significant potential to enhance mental health – offering relaxation, optimism, and emotional restoration. Yet, this potential was not unconditional. Safety concerns were not peripheral; they were central.

Key concerns included:

• Fear during evening hours due to inadequate lighting
• Anxiety over harassment and mobile phone snatching, especially in dark, unpatrolled areas
• Family-imposed restrictions, particularly for young women, reflecting broader societal anxieties about public visibility

​For many women, parks were not simply spaces of leisure, but carefully navigated environments – where each visit was weighed against perceived risks. These patterns point to a deeper structural issue: the design and governance of our cities often fail to prioritize gendered experiences.

Spatial Justice and Gendered Access

This raises a critical question:

If parks theoretically exist for all, but practically exclude women, can we truly call them equitable urban spaces?

In Islamabad, safety issues are less about isolated incidents and more about chronic structural neglect – embedded in physical design, maintenance, and governance. These gaps manifest in several ways:
​

• Inadequate street lighting and secure pathways

Many parks lack proper lighting, especially along jogging tracks, entrances, and inner paths – a basic feature that significantly affects women’s comfort and safety after sunset.

​​Even larger parks like F-9 Park, often seen as vibrant in daylight, experience a dramatic shift after dusk: 

​During the day, families and individuals use its open paths and shaded walks, showcasing its potential as an inclusive public space. 

But after sunset, dim (or no) lighting and dense tree cover create poorly visible zones, making the park feel fragmented and unsafe, particularly for women and solo visitors. 

​The central pavilion called Baradari glows in the distance as surrounding areas remain dimly lit, highlighting uneven illumination and the contrast between formal landmarks and underused open spaces at night.
​

• Minimal or absent security personnel, signs of neglect and informal exclusion

In many neighborhood (or sector-level) parks, the lack of visible security presence – guards, community monitors, or police – amplifies the risk of isolation and assault. Structural neglect also manifests in subtle forms of exclusion – such as lack of basic amenities like greenery and shaded sitting spaces.

Mental Health: The Uneven Promise

When women felt safe, parks provided a multitude of mental health benefits: calmness, rejuvenation, clarity of thought, and a rare reprieve from daily pressures.
When they felt unsafe, the very same spaces became sources of anxiety, exclusion, and compounded stress.
This paradox - parks as both healing spaces and sites of tension - is not unique to Islamabad. From London’s night-time public realm debates to Mexico City's pink public transport initiatives, gendered safety concerns shape how women globally engage with urban environments.
Islamabad’s experience mirrors a broader global urban challenge: When parks are designed without a gendered understanding of safety, they risk reinforcing inequality, even as they aspire to promote public health and well-being.
 
Toward Solutions: Designing for Women's Safety and Inclusion

Several design and policy interventions are urgently needed to reclaim parks as inclusive, healing spaces:

• Enhance lighting along pathways, entrances, and communal areas to extend safe access into evening hours.
• Ensure clear sightlines through strategic landscaping - beauty must not compromise visibility.
• Embed community surveillance, combining security personnel, CCTV, and participatory neighborhood watch initiatives.
• Create women-centered spaces within parks, such as fitness zones, family-friendly gathering areas, and culturally sensitive programming that encourages women's presence without isolation.
• Engage women directly in the design, planning, and ongoing governance of parks, ensuring they are active co-creators, not passive users.
  
  

In Islamabad - and across the Global South - reclaiming public parks as inclusive, restorative spaces for women is not a luxury. It is a long-overdue right. Parks must be places where all citizens, regardless of gender, can feel safe, seen, and free. Public parks are not just places of leisure - they are essential to mental well-being, social inclusion, and equitable urban life. Yet for many women, the simple act of walking, jogging, or sitting alone in a park remains fraught with risk and social scrutiny. Safety, dignity, and freedom of movement in public spaces must be non-negotiable. Making parks genuinely accessible to women means rethinking not just security infrastructure, but also challenging the deep-rooted norms that dictate when, where, and how women should exist in public. It is about transforming parks from contested terrains into spaces of healing, visibility, and belonging.

Final Reflection

In her book Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs - ahead of her time - emphasized that urban safety relies not on isolated security measures but on "eyes upon the street" - organic, community-driven oversight.

Drawing from examples of several city parks, Jacobs stressed that parks must be busy, lively spaces to feel safe and inviting. Empty or poorly used parks, no matter how beautifully designed, often become areas of danger and neglect. Successful parks, Jacobs explained, share key traits: they offer a diversity of uses, are bordered by active streets and buildings, and attract a mix of users throughout the day. In contrast, parks that are isolated, monotonous, or serve a narrow demographic tend to fail, lacking the continuous, casual surveillance provided by a vibrant community.

Islamabad’s parks often lack this vibrancy, leaving safety fragile and access unequal, particularly for women. Poor lighting, disconnected layouts, and minimal passive surveillance contribute to parks becoming isolated, especially during critical evening hours. In a city where women’s presence in public spaces is already constrained by cultural and social barriers, the absence of "eyes on the park" heightens their sense of vulnerability.

To truly realize parks as safe and inclusive spaces, urban planners must move beyond installing security cameras and posting guards. Instead, they must design environments that naturally encourage diverse, everyday use - families picnicking, elderly people strolling, teenagers playing sports. It is this constant, pluralistic presence that weaves an invisible yet powerful net of safety, embodying the vision Jacobs laid out for truly vibrant and secure public spaces.
 
Public parks are powerful equalizers - but only when they are truly public.

When women must navigate these spaces with fear or restraint, the health and social benefits that parks promise become unevenly distributed, undermining their fundamental purpose.

As we reimagine healthier, more inclusive cities, the everyday safety and dignity of women must shift from being a peripheral concern to a central design priority.
​
Because the right to safety, serenity, and joy in public space should not depend on one’s gender - it should be guaranteed.

Cities should always be planned and designed based on the needs of their users. On International Women's Day, let's think for a moment about the movement towards designing cities that empower women as much as they do men. With women comprising at least half of urban populations, many have pointed out that the disciplines of urban planning and design have historically been dominated by men and consequently, by the male perspective. This is a big topic. This is just a brief overview.

Thinking about designing cities 'for' women runs the risk of reinforcing all sorts of unhelpful gender stereotypes. But this isn't about superficial, potentially patronising projects. Effective city design needs to take into account the different patterns that emerge about what different people do in the city, and what they need. In  many cases, women and men have similar needs. But research also tells us that males and females do use cities differently, all over the world, and that certain factors associated with being female tend to restrict freedom of movement within the city. Many of these needs gaps, such as caring responsibilities and work patterns, will likely narrow as society moves towards gender equality. But right now around the world, certain urban design and planning factors can create challenges to women's self-esteem and belongingness, and can restrict their likelihood of accessing healthy opportunities in the urban environment, such as access to nature, exercise, or positive social interactions.

As such, this is  a matter of social justice that affects women's ability to engage in public life. It is fundamental that cities integrate the female perspective in design and planning process, and ensure that genders can benefit equally from services such as transportation, exercise venues, parks, health and social care facilities, and all other aspects of the city. So what's currently stopping them?

According to the research, factors associated with gender in urban design and planning seem to be largely divided into two main challenges: accessibility (psychological and physical); and safety. Some examples include:

Psychological and physical accessibility

• Negotiating use of space: Women are less likely than men to negotiate and assert their legitimate use of spaces. For example, girls have been found to be  less likely to use parks when they feel they have been 'taken over' by boys.
• Caring: Women are still statistically more likely than men to be carers, particularly for children and older relatives, and often more likely to run household errands. This brings about specific needs around maneuvering prams and wheelchairs around the city, and needs for public transport to efficiently cover times and places outside the city's standard 'rush hour' plan.
  
• Toilets: Women tend to need to use toilets more frequently than men, for a range of reasons, including: menstruation, menopause, more susceptibility to urine infections due to anatomical differences, more susceptibility to urinary incontinence associated with the complications of previous childbirth, and increased risk of disorders like irritable bowel syndrome. In addition women are more likely than men to be caring for children or older people who have increased toilet needs. And transgender women may, depending on their location, may feel like they have no access to public toilets.

Safety

• All genders fear crime, but studies show that women are more likely to fear crime. Women who are caregivers may also be particularly afraid of other threats to their charges, such as traffic danger. Such safety fears limit women's psychological freedom of movement, which may affect places they feel able to use in the city.

How this all affects mental health

Exclusion, anxiety, fear and marginalisation are detrimental to our mental health. Good design helps people feel included and valued, prevents isolation, and empowers us to access places that can have a protective effect on mental health, such as health facilities, natural parks, places to exercise, or settings to socialise. Feeling able to use the city also helps create feelings of community belongingness and social cohesion.

A To-do List starter for cities to deliver urban design that empowers females as it does males

1. Women should be involved at all stages of urban design and planning processes.
2. The female perspective should be an integral part of urban design and planning decisions.
   
3. Sidewalks, public transport and access points should be designed to welcome prams and wheelchairs.
4. Public transit should be safe and invest in diverse schedules beyond the standard office rush hour.
5. Pedestrian, cycle and public transit routes should incorporate natural surveillance, good lighting, and good stewardship and maintenance, and reduce the risk of unwanted interactions.
6. Consideration could be given to subdividing some public places like parks so that one group is less likely to take over the whole space, and sections feel hospitable for different people's needs.
7. Public toilets, and places welcoming for baby changing and feeding, should be plentiful, accessible and safe.

Note: gender, urban design and mental health is a challenging intersection. This op-ed cannot hope to fully cover its many facets but is intended to inspire thought about the opportunities to design more inclusive and empowering cities. If you want to examine a different angle, please submit to this blog.