Analyzing Women’s Security in Public Transportation in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Lahore City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comment:

This paper investigates the security challenges women face using public transportation in Lahore, Pakistan. Using a user perception survey and exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the study identifies key latent variables related to harassment, safety perceptions, and transport accessibility. Despite many respondents reporting a general sense of security, the findings highlight prevalent concerns, particularly regarding nighttime travel, overcrowded buses, and insufficient lighting.

The study provides a valuable contribution by addressing women's security concerns within a peculiar socio-cultural context marked by restrictive gender norms. However, several critical aspects require further clarification and elaboration before publication. I therefore recommend a major revision. Please see the specific comments below for detailed suggestions.

Specific Comments

Comment 1 – Terminology Appropriateness

One of the main concerns is the consistent and appropriate use of terminology. The authors appear to conflate the terms safety and security, which are distinct in the transport context. Safety generally refers to protection from unintentional harm (e.g., accidents), while security refers to protection from intentional acts (e.g., harassment, theft). Since harassment constitutes an intentional criminal act, security is the more appropriate term for this study (e.g., see https://doi.org/10.3390/su13074007; https://doi.org/10.1080/21650020.2022.2027268).

I strongly recommend that the authors revise the paper's title and narrative to reflect this distinction, to avoid potential misinterpretation.

Comment 2 – Questionnaire Administration

The paper would benefit from a clearer description of how the questionnaire was administered. Please specify:

• The year and duration of the survey activities
• The season and time(s) of day when surveys were conducted
• Whether the survey timing and respondents were selected randomly or targeted

These elements could significantly influence the sample composition and the results. For instance, the overrepresentation of younger and more highly educated respondents may reflect a survey timing biased toward working days and peak hours, when students and professionals are more likely to travel. Clarification on these aspects would help in interpreting the findings more accurately.

Comment 3 – Dataset Characteristics

Additional details are needed on the dataset used in the analysis. Please clarify:

• The criteria for selecting the variables (e.g., literature-based, expert-driven, empirical)
• Units of measurement where applicable (e.g., income—no monetary unit is specified)
• Descriptive statistics not only for socio-economic variables, but also those relating to safety perceptions and experiences of harassment

A comprehensive overview of the dataset will enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the study.

Comment 4 – Future Developments

The current study uses descriptive and factor analysis techniques, which provide valuable insights. However, I suggest that the authors consider extending this research through modelling approaches. For example, developing a risk model that incorporates the frequency, exposure, and severity of harassment events could offer predictive insights and guide targeted interventions.

Similar methodologies have been successfully applied in other areas of transportation research (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105615; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.05.016; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2024.110003; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2024.101238). Including a brief discussion of this potential direction, supported by recent literature, would strengthen the paper's contribution and highlight meaningful pathways for future research.

Author Response

attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to investigate the safety challenges confronted by women within the public transportation system in the city of Lahore, Pakistan. A user perception survey was designed to focus on women's safety during travel and relevant socioeconomic factors. The collected responses were analyzed using descriptive analysis and factor analysis methods. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed seven latent variables, each encapsulating distinct aspects of women's safety within public transport environments. The research is meaningful. There are several suggestions to this research.

• The abstract and the conclusion part are too long, which are should be more concise.
• In the literature review, the research effect should be analyzed, especially their research influence to the field of Women's Safety.
• The Dimension of consideration to the questionnaire design should be more detailed described in the section 3.2 “Questionnaire Design and Survey Instrument”.
• In section 4.2, a flowchart of how to process the collected data should be provided.
• A separate section for Recommendations could be provided. Please sperate it with the conclusion part.
• In Table. 1, the correlation of variables could be further analyzed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The Quality of English Language is OK.

Author Response

attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses a significant issue—women’s safety in public transportation—with a focused case study in Lahore, Pakistan. The topic is timely, socially relevant, and contextually important for developing regions. The study employs a structured questionnaire and exploratory factor analysis to assess women's perceptions of safety, identifying key latent variables related to harassment, reactions, and infrastructural concerns.

While the topic is meaningful and the methodology is generally appropriate, the manuscript requires significant revision before it can be considered for publication. The primary concerns relate to the novelty, depth of analysis, and methodological rigor. The following detailed suggestions are intended to enhance the academic quality and policy relevance of the work:

1. Incorporate a well-defined theoretical framework (e.g., CPTED, Feminist Urbanism, Routine Activity Theory) to guide the study’s conceptual foundation.

2. Expand the sample demographic to ensure inclusivity, especially among older women, women with lower education levels, differently-abled individuals, and those from marginalized socioeconomic backgrounds.

3. Consider broadening the geographic scope by including data or comparisons with other urban contexts to enhance generalizability.

4. Integrate mixed-methods data collection by including observational or qualitative elements (e.g., interviews, focus groups) and secondary sources such as police reports or transit records.

5. Provide greater transparency in the EFA methodology, including justification for the number of factors retained and the choice of rotation method.

6. Confirm whether the questionnaire was piloted prior to deployment and report any refinements made based on pilot feedback.

7. Address potential social desirability bias in responses by explaining how anonymity or response privacy was ensured.

8. Shift the literature review from being largely descriptive to more critically analytical, identifying theoretical, empirical, and methodological gaps.

9. Apply an intersectional lens by exploring how gender interacts with other identity categories like class, age, or disability in shaping transit safety.

10. Model or simulate the potential impacts of recommended interventions (e.g., improved lighting, surveillance systems) on reducing harassment.

11. Strengthen the practical implications by providing specific, actionable, and cost-sensitive recommendations that consider local infrastructure and resource constraints.

12. Include behaviorally rich survey components, such as vignettes or situational judgment items, to capture respondents' real-world responses and decisions.

13. Incorporate spatial or infrastructural data (e.g., GIS mapping of transit areas, lighting zones, reported harassment hotspots) to add empirical depth.

14. Evaluate the feasibility of recommendations in terms of budgetary and institutional constraints relevant to developing countries like Pakistan.

15. Critically assess existing safety initiatives such as the Punjab Safe Cities Authority and Women’s Safety App with user feedback or performance metrics.

16. Discuss the potential role of community engagement or participatory design processes in developing safer transport environments.

17. Clarify how this study contributes new knowledge or diverges from existing research on women’s safety in public transportation, especially in South Asia.

18. Acknowledge the limitations of relying solely on perception-based data and propose follow-up studies using longitudinal or actual incident data.

Overall, the study addresses a pressing and under-researched issue, but it currently lacks the theoretical, analytical, and empirical depth expected in a high-quality academic publication. Addressing these concerns will significantly improve the contribution and impact of the manuscript.

Author Response

attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines the security of women in public transportation in developing countries. Lahore city is used as a case study. The paper is interesting, but requires the following clarification:

Abstract: The abstract, while descriptive, fails to present any concrete statistical evidence or quantitative findings, rendering it unpersuasive for an academic audience. For a study on the security of women in public transportation, it is imperative to include at least indicative figures (e.g., reported incident rates, survey percentages, or comparative benchmarks) to convey the scale and urgency of the issue. Without such data, the abstract risks appear anecdotal rather than evidence-based.

Introduction: The introduction is inadequately developed and lacks a clear articulation of the study’s precise aims, research questions, and scope. As currently written, it does not establish a compelling rationale for undertaking this research. For a paper seeking to address a critical urban and gendered safety concern, a more rigorous contextualisation, supported by relevant statistical indicators and theoretical framing, is essential to position the study within the broader discourse.

Literature Review: The literature review is methodologically weak. It summarises prior studies without critically interrogating them and fails to identify a clearly defined research gap. A robust literature review should not only describe what has been done but also synthesise trends, contradictions, and deficiencies in existing work. The absence of an articulated gap undermines the subsequent justification for the study and results in a disconnect between Sections 2 and 6.

Methodology: The methodology section is insufficiently rigorous and lacks transparency. The narrative description is fragmented and fails to convincingly establish the robustness or replicability of the approach. A structured flowchart mapping each stage of the methodological process is essential to clarify sequencing, decision points, and analytical procedures. Furthermore, the methodological justification is weak; there is little explanation of why specific methods were selected, how validity and reliability were addressed, or how potential biases were mitigated.

Results: The results are presented in a disjointed manner, with inadequate integration between the visual data (figures and tables) and the textual explanation. Several figures, notably Figure 5, are insufficiently explained. As Figure 5 represents the output model central to the study, its interpretation must be comprehensive, covering the theoretical underpinnings, operationalisation of variables, implications for women’s security, and limitations stemming from error margins. Failure to do so leaves the model’s credibility and applicability in doubt.

Discussion (Section 6): The discussion lacks analytical depth and fails to critically engage with either the results or the literature. It reads as a superficial summary rather than a substantive interpretation of the findings. Most notably, it does not explicitly connect the study’s results to the research gap purportedly addressed in Section 2. Without this link, the discussion is both thematically and logically incomplete. A rigorous discussion should interrogate the implications of the findings, challenge assumptions, and assess the extent to which the study advances knowledge in this domain.

Conclusion (Section 7): The conclusion is weak, both in synthesis and in contribution. Sections 6 and 7 must be rewritten to provide a coherent narrative arc from the literature gap, through results, to implications. The conclusion should critically reflect on methodological limitations, acknowledge uncertainties, and outline specific avenues for further inquiry. As written, it neither consolidates the study’s contribution nor convincingly communicates its relevance to policy, practice, or scholarship.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor grammar editing is required to improve he readability.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewers’ Comments
Reviewer 4:
Sr.No.	Comments	Reply
1.	Abstract: The abstract, while descriptive, fails to present any concrete statistical evidence or quantitative findings, rendering it unpersuasive for an academic audience. For a study on the security of women in public transportation, it is imperative to include at least indicative figures (e.g., reported incident rates, survey percentages, or comparative benchmarks) to convey the scale and urgency of the issue. Without such data, the abstract risks appear anecdotal rather than evidence-based.	Thank you for your valuable feedback. Authors appreciate that you have highlighted this point. The suggested changes are incorporated in the revised manuscript (line no. 30-33)
2.	Introduction: The introduction is inadequately developed and lacks a clear articulation of the study’s precise aims, research questions, and scope. As currently written, it does not establish a compelling rationale for undertaking this research. For a paper seeking to address a critical urban and gendered safety concern, a more rigorous contextualisation, supported by relevant statistical indicators and theoretical framing, is essential to position the study within the broader discourse.	Authors sincerely appreciate your thoughtful observation. The point you raised has been carefully considered and is incorporated in section 1 line no. 42-101.
3.	Literature Review: The literature review is methodologically weak. It summarises prior studies without critically interrogating them and fails to identify a clearly defined research gap. A robust literature review should not only describe what has been done but also synthesise trends, contradictions, and deficiencies in existing work. The absence of an articulated gap undermines the subsequent justification for the study and results in a disconnect between Sections 2 and 6.	Authors sincerely appreciate your thoughtful observation. The point you raised has been carefully considered and is incorporated (line no. 103-187).
4.	Methodology: The methodology section is insufficiently rigorous and lacks transparency. The narrative description is fragmented and fails to convincingly establish the robustness or replicability of the approach. A structured flowchart mapping each stage of the methodological process is essential to clarify sequencing, decision points, and analytical procedures. Furthermore, the methodological justification is weak; there is little explanation of why specific methods were selected, how validity and reliability were addressed, or how potential biases were mitigated.	Thank you for your valuable feedback. Methodology is improved by incorporating the mentioned points (line no 190-257).
5.	Results: The results are presented in a disjointed manner, with inadequate integration between the visual data (figures and tables) and the textual explanation. Several figures, notably Figure 5, are insufficiently explained. As Figure 5 represents the output model central to the study, its interpretation must be comprehensive, covering the theoretical underpinnings, operationalisation of variables, implications for women’s security, and limitations stemming from error margins. Failure to do so leaves the model’s credibility and applicability in doubt.	Thank you for your valuable comment. Explanation based on figure 5 has been improved (line no. 488-545)
6.	Discussion (Section 6): The discussion lacks analytical depth and fails to critically engage with either the results or the literature. It reads as a superficial summary rather than a substantive interpretation of the findings. Most notably, it does not explicitly connect the study’s results to the research gap purportedly addressed in Section 2. Without this link, the discussion is both thematically and logically incomplete. A rigorous discussion should interrogate the implications of the findings, challenge assumptions, and assess the extent to which the study advances knowledge in this domain.	Thank you for your valuable comment.  Section 6 is improved by incorporating the needful comments (line no. 613-654).
7.	Conclusion (Section 7): The conclusion is weak, both in synthesis and in contribution. Sections 6 and 7 must be rewritten to provide a coherent narrative arc from the literature gap, through results, to implications. The conclusion should critically reflect on methodological limitations, acknowledge uncertainties, and outline specific avenues for further inquiry. As written, it neither consolidates the study’s contribution nor convincingly communicates its relevance to policy, practice, or scholarship.	Thank you for your valuable feedback. Authors appreciate that you have highlighted this point. Section 6 and section 7 have been rewritten (line no. 613-696).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed almost all of my comments. Green light

Author Response

Thank you!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version is acceptable for publication.

Author Response

Thank you!

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has rectified my concerns.