{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02175532707495157, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0020861272537624795, 'mean_word_length': 5.2670401493930905, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Distance and Labor Force Participation : Implications for Urban and Rural Women

Six explanations for differences in worktrips between men and women and among different groups of women workers are reviewed in this paper. The first argues that women’s secondary role in the labor force and the dual roles women assume (combining paid work with domestic responsibilities) reinforce their resistance to long worktrips. The second explanation is that women’s economic returns to commuting do not justify long worktrips. A third argument is that women’s jobs are more likely to be located closer to their homes than are men’s. Fourth, some have argued that spatially segmented labor markets have emerged to draw on pools of conveniently located, cheap female labor. A fifth set of arguments focuses on the relationship between home and work, arguing that it is different for women than for men, resulting in different commuting choices. A final set of arguments is based on the claim that distance imposes varied constraints on women with different levels of skills and resources. Research on each of these explanatory themes is reviewed and evaluated. The subsequent sections of the paper address the comparative position of urban and rural women, the policy implications of these research findings, and identifies future research and data needs. DISTANCE AND LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR URBAN AND RURAL WOMEN Labor force participation patterns are intimately connected to commuting behavior, but the nature of this link has been the topic of an extended debate in the literature. As women’s labor force participation patterns have changed, so too has their commuting behavior. Although there has been some convergence in the work-related travel of men and women, significant differences remain. As more women have joined the labor force, sharper differences have emerged among different groups of female workers. To what extent have commuting preferences or constraints shaped the ways women have entered employment? Alternately, have women’s available employment options dictated the patterns of worktrips they undertake? A variety of explanatory themes have been pursued in answering these questions over the past three decades. These competing (and sometimes complementary) explanations (shown in Figure 1) can be summarized as follows. Explaining the link between Employment And Commuting Commuting shapes women’s employment Employment shapes women’s commuting Explanation 6:A woman’s labor force participation may be constrained by the relative burden commuting poses for her. Explanation 2:Women’s economic returns to commuting do not justify long worktrips. Explanation 3:Women’s jobs are distributed more evenly across space than men’s. Explanation 5: Job search and accessibility may be constrained by residential location. Explanation 4:Employers locate close to residential areas to attract the desired labor supply. Explanation 1:Short work trips minimize conflicts between parenting, household and employment responsibilities. Women’s Travel Issues Proceedings from the Second National Conference 56 1. Most women are secondary or supplementary wage earners in the household. They are more likely to have part-time, intermittent or seasonal jobs, and have higher job turnover rates. Women fulfill a dual role in the household, combining wage earning with their primary role as mothers and household workers. All of these features reinforce their resistance to long worktrips. Short commuting distances make it easier to combine their conflicting time demands, and the subsidiary role that wage work plays in their lives does not encourage long worktrips. 2. Women earn less than men on average, and wage rates for typically female jobs vary less than men’s wages. Women’ economic returns to commuting do not justify long worktrips. Unlike men, they will not earn significantly more at some locations within the metro area, and might as well minimize commuting costs, thus increasing their real wages. 3. Women’s jobs are distributed more evenly across space than are men’s. The sectors in which women are more likely to work are either closely tied to consumers (such as retail, personal services, education or health) or may be decentralized to cheaper back-office locations (clerical and other white collar employment). Men on the other hand are more likely to work in producer services, higher level management or professional, or blue collar industries and occupations, which are best located in concentrations of economic activity downtown or away from residential environments. Thus, women are more likely to find employment closer to home than are men. 4. Labor markets do not operate on a cityor metropolitan-wide basis. They are spatially segmented at quite a fine scale, frequently by the race, skill-levels and gender of the labor pools they draw from. Many employers locate at least partly on the basis of local labor supply characteristics. Highly segmented local labor markets based on particular sorts of labor available constrain and shape the employment opportunities available to women. In some occupations and industries, local labor markets may operate as “ghettos” of female employment, low wage but conveniently located. 5. Home location must be considered jointly with work location if we are to understand commuting patterns adequately. Home and work are intimately entwined in a variety of ways, and these links have different consequences for women than for men. a) Residential location decisions depend on a complex set of factors. In two-earner families, two different job locations must be taken into consideration. The consumption of different amounts and quality levels of housing, and the choice of residential environments suitable for children of different ages, complicate the relationship between residential and employment location. Women’s preferences for shorter worktrips may represent an attempt to accommodate these conflicting trade-offs. b) In many employment sectors (especially those with lower skill requirements) job search areas may be significantly constrained by residential location. Job searches that depend on personal contacts (more likely for women than for men) mean that many women will choose jobs on the basis of the home location. c) Residential segregation by race and income may have a variety of effects on job search, job accessibility (depending on the available choice of transportation modes) and even employer preferences. The location of many women (especially female heads of households) in more affordable inner city neighborhoods may constrain labor force participation to a narrow range of particular job types.