The City Through Her Eyes: Gender-Based Harassment in Public Spaces in Urban India
CASE STUDY 45
Evidence from public-space surveys in New Delhi and Bengaluru
Prepared by Digital Catalyzt | Research and product-design draft | 29 October 2026
1. Abstract / Executive Summary
This case study examines a 2026 working paper on women’s experiences of harassment and fear in public spaces in New Delhi and Bengaluru. The paper reports a survey of more than 4,000 women recruited in public spaces and highlights that harassment affects both direct experiences and decisions about work and mobility. It is a working paper, and the recruitment approach means its estimates should not automatically be treated as population-representative city prevalence.
2. Keywords
public-space harassment; urban mobility; fear; New Delhi; Bengaluru; measurement; VETRIPEN
3. Introduction and Research Question
How do direct experiences of harassment and fear of harassment shape women’s access to public space and work, and what can a safety product responsibly support without overstating its protective effect?
4. Methods and Evidence Selection
Secondary evidence review of the NBER working-paper summary and the affiliated Northwestern University Institute for Policy Research summary. No new participant recruitment, fieldwork, or independent statistical reanalysis was conducted for this report.
5. Case / Research Context
The study examines gender-based harassment in public spaces and its direct and indirect effects. The authors report that over 4,000 women were surveyed after being recruited in public spaces in New Delhi and Bengaluru. The paper also discusses how questionnaire design can affect measured prevalence, particularly where experiences are less common or less recent.
6. Findings and Evidence
- The paper reports past-year public-space harassment among 65% of surveyed women in New Delhi and 29% in Bengaluru. These are study estimates, not automatically representative estimates for every woman in either city.
- It reports past-year groping, stalking, or sexual assault at 41% in New Delhi and 14% in Bengaluru within the surveyed sample.
- Roughly 70% of women in both cities reportedly said fear of harassment affected whether they work, indicating that perceived risk can influence opportunity even where city-level incident rates differ.
- The authors note that questionnaire design can change measured prevalence; cross-study comparisons require attention to definitions, recall periods, recruitment and question wording.
7. Discussion and Interpretation
The findings support treating safety as more than incident counting. Avoidance, anxiety and changes to work or travel can impose costs even when an incident is not reported to police. However, a survey recruited in public spaces may under-represent women who avoid those spaces most strongly. Differences between cities should not be attributed to a single cause without further analysis.
8. Legal / Policy Context
Use this study as evidence for the importance of public-space safety and careful measurement, not as a standalone city ranking. Urban authorities and researchers should publish clear definitions, sampling frames, uncertainty and disaggregated results.
9. Implications for VETRIPEN
Potential product hypotheses: optional trip check-ins; user-controlled trusted-contact sharing; discreet SOS entry; clear cancellation and false-trigger handling; and post-trip user feedback that can be aggregated only with consent and privacy safeguards. The app must not imply that check-ins prevent harassment or that absence of an SOS means a trip was safe.
10. Recommendations and Evaluation Metrics
Track opt-in completion rates, failed/late check-ins, user-reported usability, accidental-trigger rate, accessibility completion, contact-notification delivery status, and user-reported confidence. Do not use raw SOS volume as a proxy for incidence or safety.
Recommended implementation safeguards: consent by default; minimal data collection; clear sharing status; no unapproved emergency-service integration; accessibility testing; incident-response procedures; and a documented process for reviewing failures.
11. Limitations
This report reviews summaries rather than a complete independent replication of the working paper. The study is observational survey research; reported experiences are sensitive to definitions and recall. Public-space recruitment limits representativeness. Results from two cities do not establish a national prevalence estimate or causal effect of a particular app.
12. Conclusion
The evidence reviewed here supports a cautious, user-centred approach to women’s safety: make risks and support pathways understandable, preserve user choice, and evaluate actual outcomes rather than assuming that technology or a single intervention guarantees safety. Findings must remain tied to the study populations, definitions and methods cited.
13. References and Source Notes
The links below are the source records consulted for this report. A source link is not a claim that every detail has been independently verified against the complete underlying dataset or full text.
- NBER Working Paper 35738 — The City Through Her Eyes
- Northwestern University Institute for Policy Research — Working Paper summary
14. Declarations
Research status: secondary-source synthesis; not a new field study. Funding and conflicts: no external research funding or formal peer review is represented in this document. Product relationship: VETRIPEN implications are design hypotheses for evaluation, not validated intervention outcomes.
15. Disclaimer
DISCLAIMER — INDEPENDENT RESEARCH DOCUMENT. Prepared privately by Digital Catalyzt as part of an independent research and product-design programme related to women’s safety and the proposed VETRIPEN service. For research, education, discussion and preliminary product planning only. Unless expressly stated and documented, this document has not undergone independent peer review and is not a journal publication, government statement, legal opinion, medical or psychological assessment, or formal investigation. Claims are limited to the sources and scope stated; sources may contain limitations, errors, incomplete data or later revisions. Hypothetical examples must not be represented as real events or interviews. Legal and policy discussion is general information, not legal advice. Proposed VETRIPEN features are design hypotheses unless independently evaluated. This document does not guarantee prevention of harm, emergency response, message delivery, confidentiality in every circumstance or any particular outcome. Readers should assess cited evidence, limitations and local context independently.