Women's safety and sexual harassment in public transport

INTRODUCTION

Public transport is one of the urban settings in which women most often experience sexual harassment, a form of gender-based violence that spans staring, verbal abuse, unwanted touching and assault. The problem entered the global policy agenda after the gang rape and murder of a woman on a bus in Delhi in 2012, an event that forced transport authorities and researchers to treat safety in transit as a gendered condition of access rather than a neutral by-product of service quality. Between 2013 and 2015, the first empirical studies quantified the problem in Latin America, South Asia and Europe, and by 2017 international agencies had consolidated harassment in public spaces as a priority of the safe cities agenda.( 1,2)

From that point onward, the field moved from prevalence descriptions toward two harder questions: how harassment changes the way women travel, and whether interventions actually reduce it.( 3) Between 2018 and 2025 the empirical record expanded sharply, and the balance of studies shifted from single city prevalence surveys toward comparative and design oriented designs.

The scale reported by individual studies leaves little room for treating harassment as a marginal concern. Across the European Union, one in two women reported having experienced sexual harassment at least once since the age of 15, with a substantial share of episodes occurring in or around transport.( 2)

Comparable or higher figures appear in the global South, where harassment concentrates in buses, minibuses and informal paratransit.( 4,5)

Early surveys in the United States likewise showed that women's fear of victimisation in transportation settings was widespread and systematically higher than men's, a gap that planners had long ignored and that shaped the first generation of transit safety programmes.( 6) The evidence therefore indicates that harassment is a structural feature of women's experience of public transport, not the pathology of a few unsafe lines.( 7)

The consistency of these figures across independent surveys, from the European Union to the global South, indicates that the problem is not confined to any single region or level of development.( 4)

The consequences extend well beyond the incident itself. Women who fear harassment alter the time, mode and route of their trips, avoid travelling after dark and sometimes forgo travel altogether, which reduces access to employment, education and services.( 4,8)

The burden is not distributed equally: women with low incomes often remain captive users of the very modes where harassment is most frequent, while women with disabilities face additional invisible barriers that compound their exposure.( 9)

Transit safety is therefore inseparable from mobility justice, and the absence of safe transport operates as a daily tax on women's participation in urban life.( 5)

This framing has moved gender sensitive transport from the margins of planning to the centre of debates on equitable cities, and has made safety a criterion against which transport investment is judged.( 10)

The economic dimension is increasingly documented as well, because the foregone trips and constrained labour participation that follow from harassment carry measurable costs for women and for the cities that depend on their work.( 5)

Part of the difficulty in responding to the problem is measurement. Prevalence estimates depend on how harassment is defined, whether the recall window covers the past month or the whole life course, and whether the denominator is all women, students or public transport users, so figures that appear contradictory often reflect different instruments rather than different realities.( 2)

Studies also mix experienced victimisation with perceived fear, two constructs that are correlated but distinct, and underreporting means that official records capture only a fraction of incidents.( 3)

The absence of a shared definition has practical consequences: agencies cannot benchmark their systems against one another, and interventions cannot be judged against a common baseline. A synthesis therefore has to read prevalence, behaviour and interventions together, and has to state explicitly what each study measured, before it can say what the field actually knows.

Existing syntheses have addressed parts of this picture but not the whole. Reviews published through 2023 summarised transit crime and sexual violence at the level of cities and stations, or focused on single regions, single modes or single outcomes.( 3,11)

Methodological reviews examined fear of crime in transit but did not isolate sexual harassment from property crime or general insecurity.( 12)

None combined, within one PRISMA framework, the three questions that policy makers ask together: how common harassment is, how it shapes women's travel, and what works to prevent it. The rapid growth of open access studies between 2018 and 2025 made such a synthesis feasible for the first time, because the relevant empirical record is now large enough to support systematic comparison.

Our objective was to synthesise the evidence on sexual harassment against women in public transport, its consequences for women's travel behaviour and the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent it. The review question, framed with the PECO scheme, was: among women who use public transport, what is the prevalence of sexual harassment, how does it affect their travel choices, and what is the effectiveness of interventions?

METHODS

This systematic review followed the PRISMA 2020 statement for reporting.( 13) Studies were eligible when they reported primary data on sexual harassment, sexual violence or women's safety in public transport and were published between 1 January 2013 and 01 June 2025. The population comprised women and girls who use public transport, including bus, bus rapid transit, rail, metro, auto rickshaw, ride hailing and para transit. The exposure of interest was the use of public transport and the experience or perception of sexual harassment.

Outcomes were the prevalence and forms of harassment, the effects of harassment on travel behaviour and the effectiveness of interventions; interventions could be physical, such as women only carriages or design changes, operational, such as staff presence or surveillance, or institutional, such as reporting systems, campaigns and legal reform. Eligible designs were cross sectional surveys, cohort studies, qualitative studies, mixed methods studies and intervention or policy evaluations.

Editorials, opinion pieces, conceptual proposals, secondary reviews and studies without an extractable sample were excluded. No language restriction was applied at the search stage, but full text screening was limited to reports available in open access and written in a language the reviewer could read, namely English, Spanish, Portuguese or Indonesian with an English abstract. Studies were considered irrespective of the sex of respondents, but only findings referring to women and girls were extracted, in keeping with the PECO question, and studies of mixed populations were retained when they reported results for women separately.

Four bibliographic databases were searched: Scopus, OpenAlex, Crossref and Semantic Scholar. Six core strings combined field codes with a publication year filter; the first was TITLE-ABS-KEY("sexual harassment" AND ("public transport" OR "public transit" OR transit)).

The remaining five varied the terms for women's safety, fear of crime, gender based violence and women only services: TITLE-ABS-KEY("sexual harassment" AND (transit OR bus OR metro OR train) AND women), TITLE-ABS-KEY(("women's safety" OR "women safety") AND (transit OR "public transport")), TITLE-ABS-KEY("fear of crime" AND (transit OR "public transport") AND (women OR gender)), TITLE-ABS-KEY(("gender-based violence" OR "sexual violence") AND ("public transport" OR transit)) and TITLE-ABS-KEY("women-only" AND (transit OR transport OR car)).

Extraction was recorded in a structured table keyed to each study, and the same fields were used for every design so that quantitative and qualitative findings could be placed side by side. Risk of bias was assessed with the JBI critical appraisal checklists for cross sectional and qualitative studies, which evaluate sampling, measurement, completeness of reporting and generalisability.( 14) Studies were rated low, moderate or high risk of bias. No study was rated low in the absence of supporting methodological information; convenience sampling, unvalidated instruments and missing non response information all raised the rating, while probabilistic sampling and objective outcome measures lowered it.

Findings were synthesised narratively by outcome domain and ordered chronologically within each domain, with publication years used as explicit temporal markers in line with the review question. The chronological ordering within each domain also makes visible the inflection points at which the literature changed emphasis, which is a secondary aim of this synthesis. Study level estimates are reported in the text only when their denominators and definitions were reported clearly enough to be meaningful, and qualitative findings are reported as themes rather than as counts. Where a study reported both prevalence and behavioural outcomes, both were extracted and reported under their respective domains.

RESULTS

Study selection

The searches returned 806 records, of which 240 were duplicates, leaving 566 records screened at title and abstract. The identified records were distributed across the four sources as follows: 256 from Scopus, 300 from OpenAlex, 150 from Crossref and 100 from Semantic Scholar. After screening, 160 reports were sought for retrieval and 125 could not be retrieved because no open access full text was available, so 35 reports were assessed for eligibility.

Eleven reports were excluded at full text: seven because of ineligible design, two because their bibliographic identifiers could not be verified, one because the full text was not usable and one because of language. In total, 24 studies were included in the review (Figure 1).

Characteristics of included studies

The included studies were published between 2018 and 2025, with a concentration in 2023 and 2025 (Figure 2).

They covered four continents, with the largest share from South Asia (Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Nepal) and Southeast Asia (Indonesia), followed by Latin America, Europe and Africa (Table 1). Fifteen studies used cross sectional surveys, six used qualitative designs and three combined quantitative and qualitative methods. Sample sizes ranged from 10 interviewees in a study of commuter line users in Jabodetabek to 13,323 university students across 18 cities, and one study linked a national survey to mobile phone mobility records for 418,624 users in Santiago, Chile.( 15)

Study	Country	Design	Sample	Main finding
Mishra and Lamichhane 2018(24)	Nepal	Cross sectional	396 female students	Prevalence 79.6%; physical forms most common
Sham et al. 2018(36)	Malaysia	Cross sectional	About 300 women	Fear higher at night and in younger women
Orozco-Fontalvo et al. 2019(19)	Colombia	Cross sectional	500 BRT users	More than 60% victimised in BRT
Kebede et al. 2020(26)	Ethiopia	Cross sectional	199 women and girls	50.8% experienced violence
Ceccato and Loukaitou-Sideris 2020(16)	18 cities	Cross sectional	13,323 students	Harassment common and underreported
Kim 2021(37)	United Kingdom	Qualitative	31 women	Design attributes shape fear
King et al. 2021(34)	Bangladesh	Mixed methods	200 women	Captive travellers restrict travel
Karki et al. 2021(27)	Nepal	Cross sectional	422 students	Prevalence 92%; physical 59%
Tabassum and Suhail 2022(17)	Pakistan	Cross sectional	105 women	Harassment frequent; passengers main offenders
Sumbal 2022(21)	Pakistan	Cross sectional	50 women	Harassment common; women avoid transit
Yasir et al. 2022(29)	Bangladesh	Cross sectional	452 users	Gender differences; smaller cities worse
Kaygan et al. 2023(38)	Turkey	Qualitative	32 women	Vehicle design mediates harassment
Kabir and Islam 2023(33)	Bangladesh	Mixed methods	255 respondents	Legal framework inadequate
Athuman 2023(30)	Tanzania	Qualitative	30 women	Unwanted contact and touching common
Ismawati et al. 2023(25)	Indonesia	Cross sectional	215 women	Insecurity feeds fear of crime
Duri 2023(18)	South Africa	Qualitative	Ride hailing users	Drivers' misconduct and near kidnap
Martinez and Romero 2024(35)	Spain, UK, France	Cross sectional	417 users	Prior harassment increases route change
Himel et al. 2024(31)	Bangladesh	Qualitative	20 students	Harassment common; none reported it
Govindaraj et al. 2024(28)	India	Cross sectional	270 women	Harassment linked to poorer mental health
Gomez and Becerra 2025(20)	Ecuador	Qualitative	Policy documents and interviews	Policies exist but continuity weak
Stephanie et al. 2025(22)	Indonesia	Cross sectional	100 women	Women only facilities not yet effective
Contreras et al. 2025(15)	Chile	Cross sectional	418,624 users	Insecurity lowers mobility, more in women
Fatima et al. 2025(32)	Pakistan	Cross sectional	384 users	Harassment frequent in para transit
Gupta et al. 2025(23)	India	Mixed methods	Survey and interviews	Fear of harassment top safety concern

Note: BRT = bus rapid transit; KRL = commuter line electric rail; N = sample size.

The dominant population was female students and young working women, who make the highest number of daily trips and are the group most exposed to harassment; working women and housewives were also represented in several South Asian samples.( 16,17)

Bus based and informal modes were overrepresented relative to rail, which reflects both the geography of the literature and the concentration of harassment in high occupancy road transport, while ride hailing appeared as a distinct exposure in one South African study.( 18)

The designs also reflect the maturation of the field: the earliest included studies were single site prevalence surveys, the middle period added comparative and qualitative designs, and the most recent studies combined survey data with objective mobility or policy records.( 15,19,20)

DISCUSSION

Returning to the review question, the evidence supports three conclusions. Harassment in public transport is widespread, with a prevalence at or above one half of women in nearly every setting and close to universal in several South Asian samples. Its effect on travel behaviour is consistent and structural, operating through route alteration, avoidance and reduced mobility rather than through isolated incidents. The effectiveness of interventions remains uncertain, because most evaluations are descriptive, small and short term. Together these findings reframe transit safety as a barrier to mobility rather than a concern limited to crime prevention.( 4)

Read as a whole, the certainty of the evidence is moderate for the prevalence of harassment and for the direction of its behavioural effects, and low for the effectiveness of interventions. The prevalence and behaviour conclusions rest on a large number of independent studies that point in the same direction despite different instruments, which is the pattern expected when the underlying phenomenon is real. The intervention conclusions rest on a much smaller set of descriptive evaluations, several of them at high risk of bias, and would change if controlled studies appeared.

The prevalence figures we found align with, and extend, earlier city studies. Estimates between 50.8% and 92% match the 60 to 90% range reported for Latin American capitals before 2017 and the near universal figures documented in Bangladesh.( 6,8)

They diverge from European population surveys, which place lifetime harassment around 50%, a gap explained by differences in definitions, recall windows and the modes surveyed rather than by any lower underlying risk.( 2)

The included studies also confirm that harassment concentrates in buses and informal modes and that fellow passengers are the most common offenders, a pattern consistent with the criminology of crowded, unsupervised spaces.( 11,39)

The finding that smaller cities can be as unsafe as capitals is a reminder that the problem is not confined to the largest systems.( 29)

One apparent discordance deserves mention: a minority of respondents in the included studies reported feeling safe on the systems surveyed, and women only spaces were experienced as safe even when their provision was judged insufficient. Safety perceptions and victimisation can therefore diverge, and both must be measured rather than assumed to move together.( 22,23)

The effects on travel choices are the finding with the clearest practical implication. The association between prior harassment and route alteration documented in Madrid, London and Paris reproduces the avoidance behaviours reported in earlier qualitative work in Mexico City and in the São Paulo metro, where women adapt their journeys to protect themselves.( 8,35)

The Santiago result adds an objective dimension: perceived insecurity reduces measured mobility, and the effect is larger for women, which confirms with behavioural data what surveys had long suggested.( 15) This converges with the shadow of sexual assault hypothesis, in which fear of sexual victimisation drives women's avoidance even when reported victimisation is low.( 12)

The consistency of the direction across qualitative, survey and mobile data designs is itself informative, because it reduces the risk that the association is an artefact of any single method.( 15)

Where our synthesis departs from some transport studies is the emphasis on captivity: low income women often cannot switch modes and instead restrict trips, which converts harassment into foregone activity rather than into a different journey.( 34,40)

Work in Metro Manila frames the same finding as a deficit in psychological empowerment, because women who perceive high transit risk report lower confidence in their own mobility, which compounds the objective constraints.( 40)

The intervention evidence is weaker than the problem it addresses. Women only carriages, the most visible measure, are only partially effective because supply does not meet demand and mixed spaces remain threatening, a conclusion consistent with the Indonesian experience reported in the literature.( 22)

The one qualification is that users of segregated spaces reported feeling safe inside them, so the measure is incomplete rather than useless.( 22)

Reporting campaigns and incident data systems are widely recommended but were not evaluated with controlled designs in any included study, so their contribution rests on plausibility rather than demonstration.( 41)

Policy analyses add a governance explanation: even well designed programmes lose continuity across administrations, which suggests that sustainability, not the initial design, is the binding constraint.( 20)

The most plausible path forward combines environmental design, staff presence and reporting channels, an approach consistent with reviews of transit crime prevention.( 3,37)

A dissenting view in the transport literature treats harassment primarily as a matter of enforcement and penalties rather than of design and service. The evidence in this review does not support that view as the main response, because enforcement depends on reporting and reporting is the weakest link in the chain documented here.

The studies that measured reporting found that few victims reach a formal complaint, which suggests that deterrence alone cannot close the gap.( 16,39)

Several sources of heterogeneity limit direct comparison. Definitions of harassment ranged from verbal abuse alone to any sexualised contact, recall windows from the past month to the lifetime, and denominators from students to all women, which produced the wide prevalence band.

Sampling was rarely probabilistic, and the geographic centre of gravity in South and Southeast Asia reflects both the severity of the problem there and the concentration of open access studies from that region. The chronological pattern, with all included studies published between 2018 and 2025, is an artefact of retrieval rather than of the underlying literature, because several seminal studies from 2013 to 2017 were paywalled. Perceived insecurity also has triggers beyond harassment, such as crowding and poor visibility, which means that safety interventions must target the environment rather than the incident alone.( 42)

The geographic distribution of the evidence also defines the research agenda. Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia are underrepresented relative to South and Southeast Asia and Latin America, and the studies from these regions that do exist tend to be small and cross sectional.

This skew matters for policy, because the balance of modes, the degree of formalisation and the legal context differ across regions, and interventions that work in one setting may not transfer to another. The absence of longitudinal and quasi experimental designs is a second gap: the literature describes the problem well but has rarely measured change over time. Both gaps follow from the same source, which is that harassment in transit has been studied with the tools of descriptive social science rather than with the tools of evaluation.

Transport agencies that measure harassment with standardised items and evaluate each intervention with a before and after design would generate the evidence that this review shows is still missing.( 5,10)

Agencies can begin with the conditions documented repeatedly in the included studies, namely lighting, staffing and crowding, and can build the measurement systems that will let them learn from their own interventions.(37) For research, the priority is a minimum shared definition of harassment, a common recall window and a standard set of travel behaviour outcomes, which would turn the current collection of local estimates into a comparable global evidence base and allow future reviews to pool results quantitatively rather than narratively.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of sexual harassment against women in public transport is high across settings and reaches near universal levels in several South Asian cities, with physical contact, verbal abuse and staring as the dominant forms, and with risk concentrated at stops, in crowded vehicles and at night. Harassment consistently increases route alteration, travel avoidance and reduced daily mobility, and its burden falls hardest on women who lack alternative modes. Interventions such as women only facilities and reporting campaigns show partial and mostly unverified effectiveness, and policy continuity remains a recurring weakness.

Transit safety should therefore be treated as a condition of women's access to the city rather than as a secondary aspect of service quality. Standardising how harassment is measured and evaluating prevention strategies with comparative designs are the two steps most likely to turn a well documented problem into an evidence based response. Until those steps are taken, the persistent gap between the scale of the problem and the strength of the response will continue to fall on the women who depend on public transport every day. The alternative, treating safety as a by-product of service design rather than a design objective in its own right, is what the last decade of evidence has shown to be insufficient.

References

1. 1 UN Women. Safe cities and safe public spaces: global results report [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2017/10/safe-cities-and-safe-public-spaces-global-results-report
2. 2 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Violence against women: an EU-wide survey. Main results report [Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/violence-against-women-eu-wide-survey-main-results-report
3. 3 Levin L. Transit crime and sexual violence in cities: international evidence and prevention. Secur J. 2023;36(3):589-591. doi: 10.1057/s41284-022-00345-2
4. 4 Lubitow A, Abelson MJ, Carpenter E. Transforming mobility justice: Gendered harassment and violence on transit. Journal of Transport Geography. 2020;82:102601. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102601
5. 5 Sweet EL. Addressing violence against women in cities. Nat Cities. 2024;1(6):394-395. doi: 10.1038/s44284-024-00078-w
6. 6 Loukaitou-Sideris A, Fink C. Addressing Women's Fear of Victimization in Transportation Settings. Urban Affairs Review. 2009;44(4):554-587. doi: 10.1177/1078087408322874
7. 7 Spicer V, Song J. The impact of transit growth on the perception of crime. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2017;54:151-159. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.09.002
8. 8 Moreira GC, Ceccato VA. Gendered mobility and violence in the São Paulo metro, Brazil. Urban Studies. 2021;58(1):203-222. doi: 10.1177/0042098019885552
9. 9 Iudici A, Bertoli L, Faccio E. The ‘invisible’ needs of women with disabilities in transportation systems. Crime Prev Community Saf. 2017;19(3-4):264-275. doi: 10.1057/s41300-017-0031-6
10. 10 Pervez A, Marazi NF, Majumdar BB, Ruizhi M, Lee J, Sahu PK. Investigating Indian Commuters’ Perceived Crime Risk on Autonomous Public Buses and Ride-Pooling Services. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2025;2679(1):1159-1172. doi: 10.1177/03611981241257514
11. 11 Strandbygaard SK, Jensen LMB, Grönlund B, Nielsen OA, Jones AKS, Flower M. Understanding passengers’ fear of crime at train stations through neighbourhood types: a typological study of the Copenhagen metropolitan area. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability. 2022;15(1):17-38. doi: 10.1080/17549175.2020.1828145
12. 12 Yavuz N, Welch EW. Addressing Fear of Crime in Public Space: Gender Differences in Reaction to Safety Measures in Train Transit. Urban Studies. 2010;47(12):2491-2515. doi: 10.1177/0042098009359033
13. 13 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
14. 14 JBI. JBI critical appraisal tools [Internet]. 2024. Available from: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
15. 15 Contreras H, Candia C, Rodriguez-Sickert C, Ferres L, Troncoso R. Feelings of insecurity as a gender-specific constraint on urban mobility. EPJ Data Sci. 2025;14(1):71. doi: 10.1140/epjds/s13688-025-00589-z
16. 16 Ceccato V, Loukaitou-Sideris A. Sexual Harassment in Transit Environments among College Students in the #MeToo Era: Reporting Evidence from Six Continents. Am J Crim Just. 2021;46(1):107-129. doi: 10.1007/s12103-020-09583-9
17. 17 Tabassum S, Suhail K. Sexual harassment on public transport: a survey study of Rawalpindi, Pakistan. J Humanit Soc Manag Sci. 2022;3(1):258-266. doi: 10.47264/idea.jhsms/3.1.18
18. 18 DURI B. SAFETY AND SECURITY OF WOMEN ON TRANSPORT: A CASE OF RIDE-HAILING SERVICES IN GAUTENG, SOUTH AFRICA. SJSUTST. 2023;121:77-87. doi: 10.20858/sjsutst.2023.121.6
19. 19 Orozco-Fontalvo M, Soto J, Arévalo A, Oviedo-Trespalacios O. Women's perceived risk of sexual harassment in a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system: The case of Barranquilla, Colombia. Journal of Transport & Health. 2019;14:100598. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2019.100598
20. 20 Flores G, Becerra Peña AC. ¿Protegidas en Movimiento? Un análisis crítico de las políticas contra el acoso sexual en el Distrito Metropolitano de Quito. JFGWS. 2025;(18):1-26. doi: 10.15366/jfgws2025.18.001
21. 21 Sumbal S. Harassment of Women in University and Public Transport. ESJ. 2022;18(10):39. doi: 10.19044/esj.2022.v18n10p39
22. 22 Stephanie K, Kurniawan P, Sarwono L. ANALISIS KENYAMANAN DAN EFEKTIVITAS FASILITAS KHUSUS PEREMPUAN PADA ANGKUTAN PUBLIK. JTrans. 2025;24(2):101-112. doi: 10.26593/jtrans.v24i2.8480.101-112
23. 23 Gupta AM, Ashtt P()R, Monga P()A. Perceived Safety of Women in Public Spaces: Analyzing Challenges and Policy Interventions in the NCT of Delhi. Int J Environ Sci. 2025:761-768. doi: 10.64252/t4zpe440
24. 24 Mishra D, Lamichhane J. Experience of sexual harassment in public transport among female health science students: A cross sectional study of Kathmandu, Nepal. J Manmohan Memorial Inst Health Sci. 2018;4(1):20-32. doi: 10.3126/jmmihs.v4i1.21134
25. 25 Ismawati I, Saut H. Hutahaean E, Fahrudin A. Feeling Unsafe Among Female Users of Crowded Public Transportation. KESANS. 2023;3(1):38-46. doi: 10.54543/kesans.v3i1.236
26. 26 Kebede ET. Women and Girls Safety and Security in Public Transport. RHSS. 2020. doi: 10.7176/rhss/10-9-06
27. 27 Karki U, Maharjan A, Nepal S, Tandukar R. Sexual Harassment among College Students using Public Transportation in Kathmandu Metropolitan City. One Health J Nep. 2021;1(01):57-60. doi: 10.3126/ohjn.v1i01.69031
28. 28 Govindaraj S, VM AE, P S, R U, Sekhar MA, Priscilla SE, et al. Public Transport or a Landmine: Insecurities, Harassment and its Effect on Mental Health in Women Using Public Transport System in Chennai District, Tamil Nadu. J Epidemiol Public Healt. 2024;9(4):502-514. doi: 10.26911/jepublichealth.2024.09.04.10
29. 29 Yasir S, Ahmad T, Enam A. An analysis of the harassments and challenges faced by the public transport users in a developing country of South Asia. Front Built Environ. 2022;8:1049121. doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2022.1049121
30. 30 Athumani A. Exploration of sexual harassment practices among women using bus rapid transport service in Dar Es Salaam Tanzania. IJRBS. 2023;12(4):374-382. doi: 10.20525/ijrbs.v12i4.2623
31. 31 Himel MR, Ahmed M, Jannat R. Riding in Fear: Female Students’ Lived Experiences of Sexual Harassment in CNG Auto Rickshaws in Sylhet City. MJSA. 2024;18(2024):223-248. doi: 10.22452/mjsa.vol18no2024.10
32. 32 Fatima M, Nasir M, Iqbal MA. Gendered Mobility Constraints in Semi-Formal Urban Transport Systems: An Empirical Study of Para-Transit in Lahore. JAABE. 2025;8(2):61-78. doi: 10.32350/jaabe.82.03
33. 33 Kabir H, Islam S. Sexual Harassment in Public Transport in Dhaka City: A Socio-legal Assessment. AJSSLS. 2023:31-42. doi: 10.34104/ajssls.023.031042
34. 34 King J, King M, Edwards N, Carroll JA, Watling H, Anam M, et al. Exploring Women’s Experience of Gender-Based Violence and Other Threats to Safety on Public Transport in Bangladesh. Int J for Crime, Justice & Social Democracy. 2021;10(4):158-173. doi: 10.5204/ijcjsd.2086
35. 35 Paz Martínez M, Jiménez Romero M. Sexual harassment on public transport and its impact on women. Investig fem. 2024;15(2):287-299. doi: 10.5209/infe.98223
36. 36 Sham R, Khalifah Soltani SH, Sham M, Mohamed S. Travel Pattern and Fear of Crime among Women Commuters. jABs. 2018;3(7):131-139. doi: 10.21834/jabs.v3i7.266
37. 37 Kim H. Service design for public transportation to address the issue of females’ fear of crime. Transportation. 2021;48(1):167-192. doi: 10.1007/s11116-019-10043-5
38. 38 Kaygan P, Kaygan H, Özgür Keysan A. Gendered Interactions Mediated by Design: Sexual Harassment on Public Transport. Design and Culture. 2023;15(3):345-366. doi: 10.1080/17547075.2022.2141159
39. 39 Ceccato V, Paz Y. Crime in São Paulo’s metro system: sexual crimes against women. Crime Prev Community Saf. 2017;19(3-4):211-226. doi: 10.1057/s41300-017-0027-2
40. 40 Jabar MA, Yabut HJ, Biana HT, Domingo R. Psychological empowerment among women commuters in Metro Manila, Philippines: perceived transit risks, attitudes, and self-protective strategies. J Transp Secur. 2024;17(1):17. doi: 10.1007/s12198-024-00288-2
41. 41 Torrao G, Htait A, Wong SHS. Perceptions of Women’s Safety in Transient Environments and the Potential Role of AI in Enhancing Safety: An Inclusive Mobility Study in India. Sustainability. 2024;16(19):8631. doi: 10.3390/su16198631
42. 42 Stjernborg V. Triggers for feelings of insecurity and perceptions of safety in relation to public transport; the experiences of young and active travellers. Applied Mobilities. 2025;10(3):269-289. doi: 10.1080/23800127.2024.2318095