European Inst itute for Gender Equalit y
(1) Alpha Res earch, Amazone, BraRöster, CEM -Institute Vox meter, Centre for Equa lity Advan cement, Delos Ricerche, D itmeijers
Research, Emprou SARL., Estonia n Human Right s Centre, GFK, ICF Consulting Serv ices, In forma Co nsultants, IRS  I stituto per
la Rice rca Sociale, Milieu Co nsulting SPRL , Norsta t LT, OQ Cons ulting & NETSHEILA , Oxford Consulting Sweden, Ox ford Researc h
Denmark, Target ltd, TNS CSOP, TNS Ilres, Turu-uuringute AS, Weave Consulting.
(2) This sele ction is bas ed on previous analyses of the subject (Alarcón and C olino, 2012, 2013 and 2015). Bot h physical in frastructure
(footpaths and pavements, parks, green areas and stre et light s) and social infrastruct ure (nurser y sch ools, hea lth ser vices a nd
medical centres, centres for older an d dependent p eople and pub lic transpor t) have been studied.
(3) Mandatory school age v aries in the EU-28 from 4 to 7 years.
In 2015-2016, the European Institute for Gender
Equality (EIGE) conducted a restricted sur vey in
the 28 EU Member States (EU-28) on the benets
of gender-sensitive infrastructure. The EIGENET
framework of contractors was engaged in the
survey implementation, involving 23 organisa-
tions and consortia (1). The analysis of the sur-
vey was carried out by a research group led by
the Universit y of Murcia, Spain.
The survey asked 5 378 European women and
men about nine infrastruc ture services (2), and
covered seven ac tivities of daily life.
Figure 1. Infrastructure services and daily
activities covered by the survey
Infrastructure services Activity domains
1. Nur series 0-3 years
2. Nur series 3+ ye ars (until
mandatory school age) (3)
3. Health serv ices and medical
4. Ca re for older persons
5. Ca re for person s with long -term
6. Pub lic transpor t
7. Footpaths
8. Par ks
9. Str eet lights
1. Mo bili ty
2. Education
3. Physical and mental
4. Leisure
5. Employment
6. Do mestic and care
7. Social relations
The survey aimed to collect direct information
on the importance of existing infrastructure
services for everyday activities, and the level of
well-being that public infrastructure provides.
The theoretical framework of this study stems
from the well-being theory that developed in
the late 20th and early 21st century. Well-be-
ing theory replaced the prevailing perspective
of the mid-20th century that saw the progress
and development of countries indicated by their
economic development and measured by mac-
roeconomic variables such as the gross domes-
tic product (GDP) and per capita income. By
contrast, well-being theory argues that people
and their capabilities should be the ultimate cri-
teria for assessing the development of a Mem-
ber St ate.
This rationale underpins the European  Beyond
GDP initiative (4), whose main objective is to
develop indicators that are as clear and appeal-
ing as GDP, but are more inclusive of the envi-
ronmental and social aspects of progress. The
initiative also seeks to address some of the
global challenges of the 21st century, such as
climate change, poverty, resource depletion,
health and quality of life.
Their residents well-being is becoming a goal
for the governments of many developed coun-
tries in general and the EU in particular. The
challenge is to nd a useful method of meas-
uring well-being and generating indicators,
a methodological challenge similarly experi-
enced by this study.
According to the prevailing theories of the 20th
century, expenditure on public infrastruc ture is
related to investments in physical capital, and
its convenience is assessed in terms of produc-
tivity or rate of return. Thus, infrastructure gen-
erating economic produc tion and consumption
is prioritised, while infrastruc ture related to care
of people is regarded as unproductive in terms

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT