Safe in the City? Public-Space Design and Women’s Perceived Safety in Kolkata
CASE STUDY 48
Qualitative evidence on visibility, activity and the negotiation of urban space
Prepared by Digital Catalyzt | Research and product-design draft | 29 October 2026
1. Abstract / Executive Summary
This case study reviews qualitative research on women’s perceptions and negotiation of public spaces in Kolkata. The study used focus-group discussions, in-depth interviews and visual surveys. It describes how street activity, visibility, the presence of purposeful users and repeated harassment experiences can shape perceived safety. These findings provide contextual insight for urban design, but do not quantify city-wide prevalence or prove that any single design change prevents violence.
2. Keywords
Kolkata; urban design; public space; visibility; perceived safety; qualitative research
3. Introduction and Research Question
How do the characteristics and everyday use of public spaces shape women’s perceptions of safety and their freedom to move through the city?
4. Methods and Evidence Selection
Secondary review of the peer-reviewed article abstract and institutional repository record. The underlying study used focus-group discussions, in-depth interviews and visual surveys, followed by transcription, coding and thematic analysis. This report does not claim to have conducted interviews or to have replicated the thematic analysis.
5. Case / Research Context
Women’s access to public space can be shaped by both actual incidents and the expectation of harassment. The Kolkata study focuses on how people, street conditions and social interactions influence perceptions of safety, and how women adapt their routes and behaviours in response.
6. Findings and Evidence
- The study identifies crowding and incidents of harassment as factors that can influence perceived safety.
- Participants described busy roads and lively spaces with purposeful activity, including commuters, hawkers and shopkeepers, as comparatively safer in some contexts.
- The research describes women negotiating unsafe conditions through avoidance, protection and prevention, rather than always being able to reclaim or freely use public spaces.
- Qualitative themes offer context and mechanisms, not numerical prevalence estimates or proof that busier spaces are always safer.
7. Discussion and Interpretation
Urban design should avoid simplistic rules such as assuming that more people or more lighting automatically guarantees safety. Design choices need local audits, inclusive consultation and maintenance. A space can be busy yet unsafe; informal surveillance can help but may also reproduce exclusion or victim-blaming. Women should not carry sole responsibility for adapting their behaviour.
8. Legal / Policy Context
Municipalities and transport agencies can conduct participatory safety audits, improve visibility and maintenance, ensure accessible routes, support purposeful street activity and establish responsive reporting channels. Evaluations should include women with disabilities, older women, adolescents and those travelling at off-peak hours.
9. Implications for VETRIPEN
Potential product hypotheses: optional route and check-in tools; user-selected trusted contacts; a way to record a location-specific concern without publishing a precise victim location; and accessibility testing. Any crowd-sourced map should guard against false reports, retaliation, doxxing and the exposure of survivors.
10. Recommendations and Evaluation Metrics
Assess perceived safety before and after carefully designed environmental changes, route accessibility, use at different times, maintenance response, incident reports and displacement effects. Use participatory methods and protect participant identities.
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
The study is qualitative and based in Kolkata. It can illuminate experiences and mechanisms but cannot estimate prevalence or establish causal effects of specific design interventions. This report relies on article summaries rather than a new field study.
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.
- Cities journal article — Safe in the City?
- Manipal University institutional repository record
- Related research on street visibility in Kolkata
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.