POLICY BRIEF AUGUST 2021 WOMEN’S EMPLOYMENT AND SAFETY PERCEPTIONS: EVIDENCE FROM LOW-INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS OF DHAKA, BANGLADESH Tanima Ahmed1 and Aphichoke Kotikula1 SUMMARY This brief uses the 2018 Dhaka Low-Income Area Gender, Inclusion, and Poverty (DIGNITY) survey to assess the gender gap in safety perceptions and analyze the correlation between women’s safety perception and their labor market outcomes. The analysis shows that women are significantly less likely than men to feel safe in the low-income neighborhoods of Dhaka. While the percentage of women who reported feeling safe increased with age, living standard, and the availability of streetlights, the percentage of women who reported feeling safe decreased with education and concern of eviction. The analysis further shows that this gender gap in safety perception disproportionately hurt women’s labor market outcomes. Women who feel safe are much more likely to be economically active, work outside their neighborhoods, and explore economic opportunities. INTRODUCTION Globally, women regularly encounter violence and harassment rights. The harassment of women in public spaces includes in public spaces, compelling many of them to adapt to such a wide range of actions, from unwanted insults and sexual behavior as an unpleasant fact of life. An estimated 84 comments to capturing and sharing inappropriate images, to percent of women routinely experience insults or sexual touching and groping, to rape. Violence and harassment in comments while in public spaces in Bangladesh (ActionAid public spaces threaten women’s lives, restrict their mobility, 2016). The 2015 National Survey on Violence against and deter them from working, socializing, and equally Women by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics reports that participating in urban activities. Violence and harassment in 18.3 percent of women in Bangladesh identify public space public spaces prevent women from living their lives the way (vehicles, roads, streets) as a place where sexual violence they desire. In many cases, parents, especially poor parents, occurs. Public spaces in Bangladesh lack safety measures withdraw their young girls from attending schools and marry to address such violence and harassment not only failing to them off at a young age, which seems an attractive choice take account of women’s needs but also denying them the to protect their daughters from street harassment (Verma, opportunity to fully take advantage of the public investment Sinha, and Khanna 2013; Talboys et al. 2017; Human Rights and enjoy its maximum benefit. Bangladeshi cities do not Watch 2018). These young married girls experience social have adequate streetlights or transportation and toilets that isolation as they retract from social spaces for adolescents are safe and suitable for women. The cities also lack law and concentrate on household duties and child-rearing. enforcement officers attuned to women’s safety issues and They may also experience deterioration in their mental well- trained to ensure their safety. being from hopelessness, fear, anger, anxiety, and their mere inability to be independent (Talboys et al. 2016; Talboys et al. The social costs of violence and harassment go far beyond 2017; Beattie et al. 2019). psychological and physical injuries. Violence and harassment are forms of gender discrimination and violate basic human Harassment in public spaces profoundly hinders women’s free movement and constrains them from participating in 1 World Bank the labor market, leading to their loss of income. Fear of harassment is thus a block to women escaping poverty. It policy decisions on the importance of street safety in limits them from exploring their career prospects, impeding increasing FLFP in Bangladesh. This assessment is vital now their progress and access to better income-earning while Bangladesh is experiencing a rise in reported gender- capabilities. based violence, when rapid intervention to address violence against women is critical (BRAC 2020; Human Rights Watch This note examines the association between women’s 2020; Al Mamun, Hosen, and Mamun 2021; United Nations perception of safety and their labor market outcomes in the Population Fund et al. 2021). low-income neighborhoods of Dhaka. Female labor force participation (FLFP) in Bangladesh is significantly lower In the DIGNITY survey, the safety/security module provides than male labor force participation. Only 36 percent of information on individuals’ safety perception. For this brief, women participated in the labor market in 2017 compared safety perceptions are defined as follows: to 80.6 percent of men (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics • Individuals are considered to feel safe (=1) if they report 2018). Although FLFP has increased steadily in Bangladesh, feeling physically safe all the time in the streets on which since 2010, the overall increase has been driven by rural their homes are located, or they feel physically safe all the growth. In contrast, FLFP in urban areas has declined from time when on their own outside their communities. 34.5 percent in 2010 to 30.8 percent in 2017 (Bangladesh • Individuals are considered to feel unsafe (=0) if they do not Bureau of Statistics 2018). A study by Kotikula, Hill, and Raza go outside their communities, if they report only feeling (2019) shows that sexual harassment or feeling less secure physically safe in the daytime, or they do not at all feel reduces women’s economic activities. The impacts of safe in their streets or going outside their communities. safety perceptions on women’s labor market choices may lead to further decline in urban FLFP, specifically during the Because this brief analyzes the relationship between safety current COVID-19 pandemic when reports of gender-based perception and female labor market outcomes, the sample violence have been increasing in Bangladesh (BRAC 2020; is restricted to working-age individuals (15–64 years old). Human Rights Watch 2020; Al Mamun, Hosen, and Mamun This selection limits the sample for analysis to 1,235 women 2021; United Nations Population Fund et al. 2021). for whom all the data relating to safety perception, labor market outcomes, individual characteristics, household composition, and regional information are available. A DATA AND SAMPLE sample of 1,077 men is also used to understand the gender gap in safety perceptions. This brief uses the 2018 Dhaka Low-Income Area Gender, Inclusion, and Poverty (DIGNITY) survey to analyze the gender gap in safety perceptions and examine the GENDER GAP IN SAFETY PERCEPTIONS correlation between women’s safety perception and their labor market outcomes. The World Bank’s Gender Group Violence and harassment directed at women and girls remain and the Poverty Global Practice carried out the survey, among the most prevalent social and economic problems in which is partly funded by the Umbrella Facility for Gender Bangladesh. A deep-rooted patriarchal culture and strong Equality (UFGE), a World Bank Group multi-donor trust religious beliefs drive societal attitudes and acceptance of fund. The survey follows a two-stage stratification design. discrimination against women in a country where men have It is representative of low-income areas and slums of the the authority to discipline women in society. A study by Dhaka City Corporations (North and South) and a low- Naved et al. in 2011 finds that about 10 percent of urban income site from the Greater Dhaka Statistical Metropolitan Bangladeshi men in their study sample perpetrated sexual Area (Kotikula, Hill, and Raza 2019). violence against women in their lifetime. Alarmingly, the study reveals that among those who perpetrated sexual The DIGNITY survey includes detailed individual-level violence, 77 percent, cited “sexual entitlement” as their information on time use, employment, attitudes and motivation and 57 percent committed sexual violence perceptions of work and safety, and women’s economic against women for “fun.” empowerment indicators. The data also provide information on the demographic and sociodemographic characteristics The analysis of the DIGNITY survey data confirms that in the of the surveyed households. Unlike traditional surveys, low-income urban neighborhood of Dhaka, women are 27 which interview heads of the households, the DIGNITY percentage points less likely than men to feel safe (Figure 1). survey collects economic data directly from household Only 69 percent of women surveyed reported feeling safe, members. Analysis of the DIGNITY survey data can inform compared to 96 percent of men. This significant difference 2 | POLICY BRIEF in safety perception by women and men implicates the more educated are likely to report having experienced more patriarchal social structure in Bangladesh (Cain, Khanam, violence (Krug et al. 2002; El Feki, Barker, and Heilman 2017). and Nahar 1979; Chowdhury 2009). Almost universally, women and men from comparatively well-off families have some freedom to choose safer modes Figure 1. Safety Perceptions of Women and Men of transport and avoid unsafe locations. Hence, women and men living in relatively well-off households feel safer than their counterparts in less well-off households. The findings confirm that women are 19 percentage points more likely to report feeling safe with a 1-point increase in the living standard index (Appendix, Table 1). The safety perception Figure 2. Percent of Women and Men Reported Feeling Safe by their Age, Marital Status, and Education Source: The 2018 DIGNITY survey data. N=1,235 (women), N=1,077 (men), N=2,312 A. Age and Marital Status (all). Survey weights applied. Moreover, in low-income urban neighborhoods of Bangladesh, traditional gender roles often make younger girls highly vulnerable to harassment in public spaces. The findings suggest that the percentage of women who feel safe increases as they get older. In the 15–24 age group, only 62 percent of women report feeling safe, but 78 percent of women in 55–64 age group report feeling safe (Figure 2A). In contrast, almost all men feel safe across all age groups. Women consistently report feeling less safe than men of all ages. The gender gap in safety perceptions is highest at younger ages. While women in the 15–24 age group are 35 percentage points less likely to feel safe than men, the B. Education gender gap in safety perceptions shrinks by 16 percentage points for the 25–54 age group and by 19 percentage points for the 55–64 age group. Interestingly, there is an inverse relationship between women’s perception of safety and their educational attainment. Seventy-two percent of women with no education feel physically safe in the streets versus 60 percent of women with a Secondary School Certificate (SSC) and above (Figure 2B). The gender gap in safety perceptions also increases with women’s educational attainment. While women with no education are 24 percentage points less likely Source: The 2018 DIGNITY survey data. N=1,235 (women), N=1,077 (men). Survey weights applied. than men to feel safe, women with an SSC and above are an additional 12 percentage points less likely than men to feel safe. There is a sharp fall in women reporting to feel safe after of men also increases significantly with the rise in living completing primary education. For women who completed standard index. Ninety-four percent of men in quantile 1 less than primary education, 71–72 percent reported feeling of the living standard index feel safe relative to 99 percent safe. In contrast, only 60–63 percent of women with more of men in quantile 4 (Figure 3A). A 1-point increase in the than primary education reported feeling safe. The global living standard index raises men’s feeling of safety by 7.6 literature on violence also indicates such inverse relationship percentage points (Appendix, Table 1). The rise in wealth between education and women’s safety—women who are also reduces the gender gap in safety perceptions by 10 AUGUST 2021 | 3 percentage points (Figure 3A). In quantile 1 of the living feeling of safety by 3.3 percentage points (Appendix, Table standard index, women are 30 percentage points less likely 1). This suggests that women living in a household with more than men to feel safe, which drops to 20 percentage points members than others might have someone to accompany in quantile 4. them when they need to go outside. Although poor women have fewer options to navigate, the fear of harassment may not prevent them from going Figure 4. Percent of Women and Men Reported Feeling outside altogether. Women tend to organize their daily Safe by their Settlements activities with others to facilitate mobility; they feel safe from abuse in the street, especially at night, in the company A. Living Areas of other people. The need for company to enable mobility is likely inconvenient and curbs women’s freedom to go out as they desire. The findings in this brief suggest that an increase in household size by a member boosts women’s Figure 3. Percent of Women and Men Reported Feeling Safe by their Living Standard and Household Size A. Household Living Standardarda B. Years in the Community and Eviction B. Number of Household Members Source: The 2018 DIGNITY survey data. N=1,235 (women), N=1,077 (men). Survey weights applied. An individual’s living situation is also a critical influence on a Log of key household expenditure per capita calculated using: Key household their safety perception. People residing in urban slums live expenditure per capita = [(Value of rice, milk, milk products, eggs, fish, and meat in unhealthy conditions and are exposed to a high degree consumed in last week)*52 + Spend on children’s clothing and shoes in the last of violence, crime, and unstable housing. According to the 12 months]/HH size; (and) Living standard index (normalized) using Principle Component Analysis (PCA) is calculated with: stove used (electric/gas=1, 0 2014 Census of Slum Areas and Floating Population by the otherwise), wall of the house (tin/wood/brick/cement=1, 0 otherwise); roof of the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Dhaka has 13,935 slums, house (tin/tally/brick/cement=1, 0 otherwise); toilet used (sanitary pit latrine=1, 0 otherwise); toilet shared (no=1, 0 otherwise); Source of drinking water (supply=1, 0 with a population of 2.2 million people. However, the otherwise); and source of light (metered electricity=1, 0 otherwise). DIGNITY survey analysis indicates no significant differences in women’s safety perception by the areas they live (Figure Source: The 2018 DIGNITY survey data. N=1,235 (women), N=1,077 (men). Survey weights applied. 4A). Instead, the high degree of violence and crime in urban 4 | POLICY BRIEF Figure 5. Percent of Women and Men Reported Feeling Safe by their Responses to Improvements They Desire in Their Neighborhood Streets Source: The 2018 DIGNITY survey data. N=1,235 (women), N=1,077 (men). Survey weights applied. slums affects men’s sense of safety—men living in slums feel less safe on the street at night (Rahm, Sternudd, and are 3.6 percentage points less likely to feel safe than those Johansson 2020; Ceccato, Langefors, and Näsman 2021). not living in slums (Appendix, Table 1). However, with the Adequate streetlighting increases visibility and is crucial for significant influence of living conditions on men’s safety women to feel safe. In the DIGNITY survey, among women perception, there is not much variation in the gender gap who desired improvement in neighboring streetlights, only of safety perceptions by area (Figure 4A), indicating that 65 percent report feeling safe (Figure 5). In comparison, women’s safety is lower than men in all locations. This among women who did not include neighboring streetlights implies that instead of norms, higher levels of crime and in their desire for improvement, 72 percent of them report violence influence men’s perceptions of safety. While, for feeling safe. For women, the desire to have improvements women, the violence that is condoned by norms makes in neighborhood streetlights decreases their likelihood of them feel unsafe in all locations. feeling safe by 7.8 percentage points compared to those who feel streetlights require no improvement (Appendix, Regardless of socioeconomic background and living area, Table 1). Likewise, for men, the desire to have lighting access to secure and stable housing is a necessity for safety, improvements is associated with a decrease in the likelihood especially for women. The DIGNITY survey suggests that of feeling safe by 2.3 percentage points compared to those eviction concerns significantly reduce the perception of who did not select streetlights for improvements. Twenty- safety for women, but not so much for men. Only 56 percent nine percentage points fewer women feel secure than of women concerned about eviction feel safe, compared men who desire streetlight improvements. In contrast, the with 73 percent of women who have no eviction concern gender gap in safety perception drops to 25 percentage (Figure 4B). Concerns about eviction reduce women’s sense points when women and men believe their neighborhood of safety by 17.9 percentage points relative to those with streetlights are adequate (Figure 5). no eviction concern (Appendix, Table 1). Concern about eviction also increases the gender gap in safety perception by 16 percentage points (Figure 4B). Women are 39 percentage points less likely to feel safe than men when FEMALE LABOR SUPPLY AND SAFETY worried about eviction, compared to 23 percentage points PERCEPTION less likely to feel safe than men when not worried about eviction. Women’s perception of safety impacts their labor market outcomes disproportionately relative to men in a traditional Another crucial determinant of safety perception is the society like Bangladesh, where males are considered availability of streetlights. Existing literature indicates that breadwinners and females caregivers. Concerns about darkness significantly reduces the presence of people in safety and security hinder women’s mobility and hurt them the street, especially women, and is a critical reason people economically, while men retain responsibility for providing AUGUST 2021 | 5 a livelihood irrespective of their safety perceptions.1 The data Figure 7. Women’s Occupation, and Terms of Job Contracts from the DIGNITY survey show that 61 percent of women in the Last 30 Days (Conditional on Worked) by their Safety who feel safe, versus 50 percent of women who feel unsafe, Perceptions either worked or were available to work (economically active) A. Occupation in the last 30 days (Figure 6). Women who feel safe are 8.3 percentage points more likely to be economically active in the last 30 days than women who feel unsafe after controlling for individual, household, and regional characteristics (Appendix, Table 2). Similarly, 52 percent of women who feel safe worked in the last 30 days as opposed to 44 percent of women who feel unsafe, which again implies an increase in women’s probability of working when they feel safe (Figure 6). A positive safety perception helps women switch from low- paid garment work or self-employed family occupations to service sector occupations. Women who feel unsafe are significantly more likely to work in the garment sector (32 percent) than those who feel safe (19 percent) (Figure 7A). For women, feeling safe relates to a 12.1 percentage point reduced likelihood of working as a garment worker than those who feel unsafe (Appendix Table 3). The likelihood B. Terms of Job Contracts of self-employment or working a family businesses also declines somewhat among women who feel safe (12 percent) compared to those who feel unsafe (16 percent) (Figure 7B).2 Figure 6. Percent of Women Economically Active or Worked in the Last 30 Days by their Safety Perception Source: The 2018 DIGNITY survey data. N=641 (women who worked). Survey weights applied. Although the garment industry employs large numbers of women and has been a driving force in increasing female employment in Bangladesh, these jobs often lack security, healthy working conditions, and decent pay and are widely condemned by society (Kabeer 2002; Kabeer and Mahmud Source: The 2018 DIGNITY survey data. N=1,235 (women). Survey weights applied. 2004; Alam, Blanch, and Smith 2011). In comparison, service sector occupations, such as teaching, are much more respected for women in Bangladesh (James, Kabeer, 1 The analysis of men’s safety perception and being economically active or working shows that all men who feel unsafe were economically active in the last 30 days. Also, of the men and Mahmud 2018). The analysis suggests that 13 percent who feel unsafe, 99.2 percent of them worked in the last 30 days. of women who feel safe work in the service sector versus 7 2 The multinomial probit estimates show that women who feel safe are 3.6 percentage points less likely to work in family enterprises than those who feel unsafe, but the estimate is not percent of women who feel unsafe (Figure 7A). For women, statistically significant (Appendix, Table 4). Instead, women who feel safe are significantly 7.9 percentage points more likely to work in contractual jobs than those who feel unsafe. feeling safe relates to 8.2 percentage point greater probability 6 | POLICY BRIEF of working in service occupations relative to those who feel percent of women who feel safe, revealing that those who unsafe (Appendix Table 3). feel unsafe stay close to their workplaces and avoid using public transportation (Figure 8B). There is a significant 6.3 An increased sense of security also helps women explore percentage points reduced likelihood of women walking economic opportunities outside their communities. to work when they feel safe than those who feel unsafe Women who feel unsafe are constrained to working only (Appendix, Table 5). in their communities and lack the option to look for better opportunities with more desirable working conditions elsewhere. The findings show that only 28 percent of women CONCLUSION go outside their community to work when they feel unsafe, compared to 38 percent of women who go outside their In Bangladesh, FLFP is relatively low and hovered around 36 community when they feel safe (Figure 8A). The positive percent from 2010 to 2017 (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics feeling of safety leads to a 9.8 percentage point increase in 2018). Although FLFP has remained steady overall since women’s mobility outside their community for work reasons 2010, urban FLFP has declined. Over the years, gender- (Appendix, Table 5). In comparison, 90 percent of women based violence in Bangladesh has remained persistently who feel unsafe are likely to walk to work compared to 86 high, which puts the country at risk of further declining FLFP in urban areas (Al Mamun, Hosen, and Mamun 2021). The findings in this brief suggest that women living in the Figure 8. Women’s Location of Work, and Mode of low-income neighborhoods of Dhaka are more likely to feel Transportation to Work in the Last 30 Days (Conditional on unsafe than men, disproportionately hurting women’s labor Worked) by their Safety Perceptions market outcomes. The results show that women who feel confident and safe are much more likely to work outside A. Location of Work their neighborhoods and explore economic opportunities. The unsafe environment effectively excludes women from society and opportunities; it also heightens women’s actual and perceived vulnerability to violence. Providing women equal access to thrive by establishing an environment in which women feel safe is necessary to achieve economic development. Providing women equal access to thrive by establishing an environment in which women feel safe is necessary to achieve economic development. B. Walk to Work Several interventions can be adopted to make public spaces safer for women. An immediate measure could be to ensure adequate streetlights throughout the city, which would help everyone feel safer since dark neighborhoods are susceptible to crimes. Another immediate undertaking could be to provide gender-sensitive training to law enforcement and security officers who can be of instant help to women in public spaces. In addition, city surveillance systems can be made widely available to law enforcement officers, including security cameras in public spaces and panic buttons can be installed along key routes to help women who are being Source: The 2018 DIGNITY survey data. N=641 (women who worked). Survey assaulted or harassed to call for immediate help. As for long- weights applied. term measures, policymakers and urban planners need to AUGUST 2021 | 7 ensure the active participation of women in planning and Cain, Mead, Syeda Rokeya Khanam, and Shamsun Nahar. designing new urban developments. Policymakers also need 1979. “Class, Patriarchy, and Women’s Work in Bangladesh.” to ensure women’s participation in formulating laws to Population and Development Review: 405–438. address gender-based violence. In addressing gender-based violence, extra attention must be given to the less educated, Ceccato, Vania, Linda Langefors, and Per Näsman. 2021. disadvantaged population, which has a lower probability “Young people’s victimization and safety perceptions along of reporting violence than others. In addition, awareness- the trip.” Nordic Journal of Criminology: 1–20. building programs and advocacy campaigns against violence Chowdhury, Farah Deeba. 2009. “Theorising patriarchy: the and harassment in public spaces need to be undertaken Bangladesh context.” Asian Journal of Social Science 37(4): widely via print, broadcast, and social media. Finally, it is 599–622. essential to promote a respectful attitude toward women in educational institutions, workplaces, and families, promoting El Feki, S., B. Heilman, and G. Barker, Eds. 2017. Understanding a cultural shift to remove discriminatory views. Masculinities: Results from the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES)–Middle East and North Africa. UN Women and Promundo-US. REFERENCES Heintz, James, Naila Kabeer, and Simeen Mahmud. 2018. ActionAid. 2016. “Freedom to Move: Women’s Experience “Cultural norms, economic incentives and women’s labour of Urban Public Transport in Bangladesh, Brazil and Nigeria, market behaviour: empirical insights from Bangladesh.” and How Lost Tax Revenues Can Pay to Improve It.” https:// Oxford Development Studies 46(2): 266–289. actionaid.org/sites/default/files/178622_2786.pdf Human Rights Watch. 2018. Shall I Feed My Daughter, or Alam, Khorshed, Laia Blanch, and Anna Smith. 2011. Stitched Educate Her? Barriers to Girls’ Education in Pakistan. https:// Up: Women Workers in the Bangladeshi Garment Sector. www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/pakistan1118_ War on Want. https://waronwant.org/sites/default/files/ web2.pdf Stitched%20Up.pdf Human Rights Watch. 2020. I Sleep in My Own Deathbed: Al Mamun, Firoj, Ismail Hosen, and Mohammed A. Mamun. Violence against Women and Girls in Bangladesh: Barriers 2021. “Sexual violence and rapes’ increment during the to Legal Recourse and Support. https://www.hrw.org/sites/ COVID-19 pandemic in Bangladesh.” EClinicalMedicine 34. default/files/media_2020/10/bangladesh1020_web.pdf Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. 2015. Census of Slum Areas Kabeer, Naila. 2002. The power to choose: Bangladeshi and Floating Population 2014. Government of the People‘s women and labor market decisions in London and Dhaka. Republic of Bangladesh. Verso. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. 2016. Report on Violence Kabeer, Naila, and Simeen Mahmud. 2004. “Globalization, Against Women Survey 2015. Government of the People‘s gender and poverty: Bangladeshi women workers in export Republic of Bangladesh. and local markets.” Journal of International Development 16(1): 93–109. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. 2018. Report on Labour Force Survey (LFS) 2016–17. Government of the People’s Kotikula, Aphichoke, Ruth Hill, and Wameq Azfar Raza. 2019. Republic of Bangladesh. What Works for Working Women? Understanding Female Labor Force Participation in Urban Bangladesh. World Bank. Beattie, Tara S., Ravi Prakash, April Mazzuca, Leslie Kelly, Prakash Javalkar, T. Raghavendra, Satyanarayana Ramanaik et Krug, Etienne G., Linda L. Dahlberg, James A. Mercy, Anthony al. 2019. “Prevalence and correlates of psychological distress B. Zwi, and Rafael Lozano (Ed.) 2002. “The world report on among 13–14 year old adolescent girls in North Karnataka, violence and health.” World Health Organization. https://apps. South India: A cross-sectional study.” BMC public Health 19, who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42495/9241545615_ 1: 1–12. eng.pdf BRAC. 2020. Data underscores that gender-based violence Naved, Ruchira Tabassum, Hamidul Huque, Subrina Farah, is rising with COVID-19. https://www.brac.net/latest-news/ and Muhammad Mizanur Rashid Shuvra. 2011. “Men’s item/1298-data-underscores-that-gender-based-violence- Attitudes and Practices Regarding Gender and Violence is-rising-with-covid-19 Against Women in Bangladesh: Preliminary Findings.” 8 | POLICY BRIEF ICDDR,B Special Publication No. 135. http://www. partners4prevention.org/resource/mens-attitudes-and- practices-regarding-gender-and-violence-against-women- bangladesh-0 Rahm, Johan, Catharina Sternudd, and Maria Johansson. 2020. “In the evening, I don’t walk in the park: The interplay between street lighting and greenery in perceived safety.” Urban Design International: 1–11. Talboys, Sharon L, Manmeet Kau, James VanDerslice, Lisa H. Gren, Haimanti Bhattacharya, A. K. Sandhu, and Stephen C. Alder. 2016. “Is Eve teasing a public health problem? Public sexual harassment in rural India and its association with common mental disorders and suicide ideation among young women ages 15–24.” Annals of Global Health 82(3). Talboys, Sharon L., Manmeet Kaur, James VanDerslice, Lisa H. Gren, Haimanti Bhattacharya, and Stephen C. Alder. 2017. “What is Eve teasing? A mixed methods study of sexual harassment of young women in the rural Indian context.” Sage Open January-March 2017: 1–10. Verma, Ravi, Tara Sinha, and Tina Khanna. 2013. “Asia child marriage initiative: Summary of research in Bangladesh, India and Nepal.” International Journal Center for Research on Women: 35–46. United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), UN Women, International Labour Organization (ILO), Quilt.AI (2021). Covid-19 and Violence against Women: The Evidence Behind the Talk: Insights from big data analysis in Asian countries. https://asiapacific.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/ covid-19_and_vaw_insights_from_big_data_analysis_final. pdf STAY CONNECTED We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Umbrella Facility for Gender Equality (UFGE). The UFGE is a multi-donor trust fund administered by the World Bank to advance gender equality and women’s empowerment through experimentation and knowledge creation aimed at helping The research highlighted in this brief is forthcoming as a journal article: “Effects of a Multi-Faceted Education Program on Enrollment, Learning and Gender Equity: Evidence from India”, Delavallade, Clara; Alan Griffith; and Rebecca Thornton. World Bank Economic Review, forthcoming. governments and the This brief was produced private sector in collaboration focus policies with researchers andBank’s at the World programs on scalable Africa Gender Innovationsolutions with Lab (AFRGIL), SARGENDERLAB@WORLDBANK.ORG which conducts impact evaluations of development interventions and leads policy sustainable research onoutcomes. gaps inhas The UFGE how to close gender received earnings, generous productivity, assets, contributions from and agency. For more Australia, information, Canada, visit: http://www.worldbank.org/africa/gil Denmark, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, the Republic of Latvia, Spain, Sweden, WORLDBANK.ORG/SARGENDERLAB Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. APPENDIX Table 1. Marginal Estimates of Probit Models: Determinants of Women’s and Men’s Safety Perceptions (1) (2) Women’s safety percep�on Men’s safety percep�on Feel safe=1 Feel safe =1 Married=1 0.001 0.022 (0.077) Feel safe=1 (0.018) Age 0.011 0.001 (0.011) (0.004) Age-squared -0.00002 0.00002 (0.0001) (0.0001) Ref: No education Class 1 to 5 0.042 -0.011 (0.042) (0.038) Class 6 to 8 -0.058 0.048 (0.056) (0.038) Class 9 -0.013 0.025 (0.088) (0.039) SSC and above 0.030 0.002 (0.078) (0.036) Has any kind of group membership=1 0.065 -0.020 (0.090) (0.026) Age of head -0.005** -0.001 (0.002) (0.001) Head is female=1 -0.005 0.047 (0.065) (0.032) Head’s education – Ref: No education Class 1 to 5 0.007 0.011 (0.042) (0.039) Class 6 to 8 -0.009 -0.048 (0.052) (0.035) Class 9 -0.126 0.002 (0.081) (0.039) SSC and above -0.103 0.013 (0.073) (0.044) Household owns the dwelling=1 0.035 -0.003 (0.053) (0.022) Individual concern to be evicted=1 -0.179*** -0.010 (0.037) (0.018) Log of key household expenditure per capita 0.053 0.005 (0.037) (0.014) Normalized living standard index using PCA 0.190** 0.076** (0.083) (0.031) Household size 0.033*** 0.005 10 | POLICY BRIEF (0.012) (0.004) Lives in Dhaka City Corpora�on (DCC)=1 0.015 0.025** SSC and above -0.103 0.013 (0.073) (0.044) Household owns the dwelling=1 0.035 -0.003 (0.053) (0.022) Individual concern to be evicted=1 -0.179*** -0.010 (1) (2) (0.037) (0.018) Women’s safety percep�on Men’s safety percep�on Log of key household expenditure per capita 0.053 Feel safe=1 0.005 Feel safe =1 (0.037) (0.014) ducation Head’s education – Ref: No e0.022 Married=1 0.001 Normalized living standard index using PCA 0.190** (0.077) 0.076** Feel safe=1 (0.018) (0.083) (0.031) Age 0.011 0.001 Household size 0.033*** (0.011) 0.005 (0.004) Age-squared (0.012) -0.00002 (0.004) 0.00002 Lives in Dhaka City Corpora�on (DCC)=1 0.015 (0.0001) 0.025** (0.0001) (0.034) Ref: No education (0.012) into Lives 1 Class Slum=1 5 -0.022 0.042 -0.036** -0.011 (0.040) (0.042) (0.015) (0.038) Number Class 8 years living in the community 6 toof 0.001 -0.058 0.000 0.048 (0.002) (0.056) (0.001) (0.038) Desire Class 9 neighboring street improvement: Ligh�ng=1 -0.078** -0.013 -0.023* 0.025 (0.034) (0.088) (0.013) (0.039) Desire SSC andneighboring above street improvement: Space to walk/sit=1 0.056 0.030 -0.005 0.002 (0.040) (0.078) (0.014) (0.036) Desire neighboring street improvement: Cover holes or control -0.021 -0.002 Has any kind of group membership=1 0.065 -0.020 motorized traffic=1 (0.050) (0.024) (0.090) (0.026) Region of birthplace: Ref: Central Age of head -0.005** -0.001 Northern -0.054 (0.002) 0.011 (0.001) (0.058) (0.021) Head is female=1 -0.005 0.047 Eastern -0.003 (0.065) -0.014 (0.032) (0.051) (0.023) Head’s education – Ref: No education Southern Class 1 to 5 0.050 0.007 -0.034** 0.011 (0.042) (0.016) (0.042) (0.039) Observa�ons Class 6 to 8 1,235 -0.009 1,077 -0.048 Note: The 2018 DIGNITY survey; *** 1%, ** 5%, and * 10% level of significance. Survey weights applied. (0.052) (0.035) Class 9 -0.126 0.002 (0.081) (0.039) SSC and above -0.103 0.013 (0.073) (0.044) Household owns the dwelling=1 0.035 -0.003 (0.053) (0.022) Individual concern to be evicted=1 -0.179*** -0.010 (0.037) (0.018) Log of key household expenditure per capita 0.053 0.005 (0.037) (0.014) Normalized living standard index using PCA 0.190** 0.076** (0.083) (0.031) Household size 0.033*** 0.005 (0.012) (0.004) Lives in Dhaka City Corpora�on (DCC)=1 0.015 0.025** (0.034) (0.012) AUGUST 2021 | 11 Lives in Slum=1 -0.022 -0.036** Table 2. Marginal Estimates of Probit Models: Relationship between Safety Perception and Women being Economically Active, or Worked in the Last 30 Days (1) (2) Economically ac�ve = 1 Worked = 1 Feel safe=1 0.083** 0.053 (0.037) (0.038) Married=1 -0.111 -0.112 (0.083) (0.084) Age 0.046*** 0.044*** (0.011) (0.011) Age-squared -0.001*** -0.001*** (0.0001) (0.0001) Ref: No education Class 1 to 5 -0.084* -0.100** (0.045) (0.045) Class 6 to 8 -0.077 -0.065 (0.057) (0.058) Class 9 -0.057 -0.065 (0.085) (0.088) SSC and above -0.019 0.003 (0.081) (0.081) Has any kind of group membership=1 0.038 -0.085 (0.086) (0.085) Wears burkha when go outside in street community=1 -0.108*** -0.139*** (0.037) (0.037) Age of head 0.001 0.001 (0.003) (0.002) Head is female=1 0.213*** 0.215*** (0.066) (0.065) Head’s education – Ref: No education Class 1 to 5 -0.093** -0.115** (0.044) (0.045) Class 6 to 8 -0.078 -0.120** (0.054) (0.054) Class 9 0.048 -0.018 (0.080) (0.089) SSC and above -0.107 -0.122 (0.076) (0.076) Household owns the dwelling=1 -0.062 -0.124** (0.052) (0.051) Individual concern to be evicted=1 -0.001 -0.009 (0.041) (0.042) 12Log of key | POLICY household BRIEF expenditure per capita 0.042 0.009 (0.039) (0.042) (0.054) (0.054) Class 9 0.048 -0.018 (0.080) (0.089) SSC and above -0.107 -0.122 (1) (0.076) (2) (0.076) Household owns the dwelling=1 -0.062 Economically ac�ve = 1 -0.124** Worked =1 Feel safe=1 (0.052) Head’s (0.051) education – Ref: No education 0.083** 0.053 Individual concern to be evicted=1 -0.001 (0.037) -0.009 (0.038) Married=1 (0.041) -0.111 (0.042) -0.112 Log of key household expenditure per capita 0.042 (0.083) 0.009 (0.084) Age (0.039) 0.046*** (0.042) 0.044*** Normalized living standard index using PCA 0.271*** (0.011) 0.198** (0.011) Age-squared (0.087) -0.001*** (0.084) -0.001*** Household size -0.010 (0.0001) -0.013 (0.0001) (0.012) Ref: No education (0.013) Lives in Class 5 City Corpora�on (DCC)=1 Dhaka 1 to -0.036 -0.084* -0.008 -0.100** (0.037) (0.045) (0.037) (0.045) Lives in Class slum=1 6 to 8 0.016 -0.077 0.009 -0.065 (0.042) (0.057) (0.041) (0.058) Number Class 9 of years living in the community -0.003 -0.057 -0.002 -0.065 (0.002) (0.085) (0.002) (0.088) Desire SSC andneighboring above street improvement: Ligh�ng=1 -0.007 -0.019 0.016 0.003 (0.036) (0.081) (0.037) (0.081) Desire Has anyneighboring street kind of group improvement: Space to walk/sit=1 membership=1 0.131*** 0.038 0.119*** -0.085 (0.044) (0.086) (0.043) (0.085) Desire neighboring Wears burkha when street improvement: go outside Cover holes or in street community=1 0.011 -0.108*** 0.028 -0.139*** control motorized traffic=1 (0.053) (0.037) (0.056) (0.037) Age of head Region of birthplace: Ref: Central 0.001 0.001 Northern 0.088 (0.003) 0.091 (0.002) Head is female=1 (0.071) 0.213*** (0.072) 0.215*** Eastern -0.036 (0.066) -0.043 (0.065) (0.055) (0.056) education – Ref: No education Head’s Southern Class 1 to 5 0.052 -0.093** 0.036 -0.115** (0.044) (0.044) (0.044) (0.045) Observa�ons Class 6 to 8 1,235 -0.078 1,235 -0.120** Note: The 2018 DIGNITY survey; *** 1%, ** 5%, and * 10% level of significance. Survey weights applied. (0.054) (0.054) Class 9 0.048 -0.018 (0.080) (0.089) SSC and above -0.107 -0.122 (0.076) (0.076) Household owns the dwelling=1 -0.062 -0.124** (0.052) (0.051) Individual concern to be evicted=1 -0.001 -0.009 (0.041) (0.042) Log of key household expenditure per capita 0.042 0.009 (0.039) (0.042) Normalized living standard index using PCA 0.271*** AUGUST 2021 | 13 0.198** (0.087) (0.084) Table 3. Marginal Estimates of Multinomial Probit Model: Relationship between Women’s Safety Perception and Occupation in the Last 30 days (Conditional on Worked) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Garments Business Service Porter/ Maid/ Others day servant laborer Feel safe=1 -0.121*** -0.028 0.082*** 0.092*** -0.040 0.014 (0.039) (0.029) (0.028) (0.031) (0.046) (0.022) Married=1 -0.094 -0.015 0.036 0.051 0.091 - 0.070** (0.070) (0.051) (0.050) (0.052) (0.082) (0.029) Age 0.002 -0.006 -0.010 0.006 0.014 -0.006 (0.012) (0.010) (0.009) (0.009) (0.015) (0.006) Age-squared -0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 -0.0001 -0.0001 0.00003 (0.0002) (0.0001) (0.0001) (0.0001) (0.0001) (0.0001) Ref: No education Class 1 to 5 0.027 0.094** -0.018 -0.045 -0.080 0.022 (0.044) (0.039) (0.033) (0.031) (0.051) (0.021) Class 6 to 8 0.119* 0.153*** 0.009 -0.081 - 0.067** 0.268*** * (0.062) (0.050) (0.047) (0.055) (0.074) (0.024) Class 9 -0.101 0.289*** 0.188*** 0.008 - 0.153** 0.537*** * (0.107) (0.069) (0.071) (0.084) (0.137) (0.045) SSC and above 0.099 0.438*** 0.462*** - 0.151 0.213** 1.363*** * (0.103) (0.090) (0.075) (0.170) (0.181) (0.049) Has any kind of group membership=1 0.036 -0.143** 0.134** -0.103* 0.114 -0.038 (0.124) (0.068) (0.063) (0.057) (0.151) (0.062) Wears burkha when go outside in street 0.047 -0.038 0.071** -0.012 - 0.053** community=1 0.120*** * (0.039) (0.031) (0.030) (0.025) (0.046) (0.020) Age of head 0.003 -0.002 0.004* 0.000 - 0.003** 0.009*** (0.003) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.003) (0.001) Head is female=1 -0.044 0.034 0.057 0.028 -0.076 0.001 (0.058) (0.050) (0.047) (0.044) (0.072) (0.025) Head’s education – Ref: No education Class 1 to 5 0.085* 0.071* -0.078** 0.021 -0.121** 0.022 (0.046) (0.036) (0.034) (0.032) (0.057) (0.023) Class 6 to 8 0.080 0.042 -0.123** 0.020 -0.020 0.002 (0.059) (0.041) (0.049) (0.045) (0.073) (0.036) Class 9 0.434*** 0.197** 0.067 - 0.400*** 0.093** 1.191*** (0.110) (0.090) (0.063) (0.158) (0.136) (0.044) SSC and above 0.154* -0.116 -0.135** 0.146 -0.132 0.083** (0.085) (0.077) (0.062) (0.096) (0.150) (0.040) 14 | POLICY BRIEF Household owns the dwelling=1 -0.166* 0.054 0.043 0.034 -0.032 0.067** (0.058) (0.039) (0.050) (0.029) (0.047) (0.028) (0.044) (0.031) (0.072) (0.046) (0.025) (0.022) Married=1 -0.094 0.036 – Ref: No Head’s education -0.015 education0.091 0.051 - Class 1 to 5 0.085* 0.071* -0.078** 0.021 -0.121** 0.070** 0.022 (0.070) (0.046) (0.051) (0.036) (0.050) (0.034) (0.052) (0.032) (0.082) (0.057) (0.029) (0.023) Age Class 6 to 8 0.002 0.080 -0.006 0.042 -0.010 -0.123** 0.006 0.020 0.014 -0.020 -0.006 0.002 (1) (0.012) (2) (0.010) (3) (0.009) (4) (0.009) (5) (0.015) (6) (0.006) (0.059) Garments (0.041) Business (0.049) Service (0.045) Porter/ (0.073) Maid/ (0.036) Others Age-squared Class 9 -0.0001 0.434*** 0.0001 0.197** 0.0001 0.067 -0.0001 - -0.0001 0.400*** 0.00003 0.093** day servant (0.0002) (0.0001) (0.0001) 1.191*** (0.0001) (0.0001) laborer (0.0001) Feel safe=1 (0.110) -0.121*** (0.090) -0.028 (0.063) (0.158) Ref: No education 0.082*** (0.136) 0.092*** -0.040 (0.044) 0.014 SSC and Class above 1 to 5 0.154* 0.027 (0.039) -0.116 0.094** (0.029) -0.135** -0.018 (0.028) 0.146 -0.045 (0.031) -0.132 -0.080 (0.046) 0.083** 0.022 (0.022) Married=1 (0.085) (0.044) -0.094 (0.077) (0.039) -0.015 (0.062) (0.033) 0.036 (0.096) (0.031) 0.051 (0.150) (0.051) 0.091 (0.040) (0.021) - Household Class 6 to 8owns the dwelling=1 -0.166* 0.119* 0.054 0.153*** 0.043 0.009 0.034 -0.081 -0.032 - 0.067** 0.070** 0.067** (0.070) (0.098) (0.051) (0.047) (0.050) (0.051) (0.052) (0.040) (0.082) 0.268*** (0.029) (0.080) * (0.030) Age Individual concern to be evicted=1 (0.062) 0.002 -0.014 (0.050) -0.006 0.011 (0.047) -0.010 0.031 (0.055) 0.006 0.048* (0.074) 0.014 -0.032 (0.024) -0.006 -0.045* Class 9 -0.101 (0.012) (0.053) 0.289*** (0.010) (0.037) 0.188*** (0.009) (0.036) 0.008 (0.009) (0.028) - (0.015) (0.056) 0.153** (0.006) (0.025) Log of key household expenditure per Age-squared 0.041 -0.0001 0.093*** 0.0001 0.022 0.0001 -0.071** -0.0001 0.537*** -0.076 -0.0001 * -0.010 0.00003 capita (0.107) (0.069) (0.071) (0.084) (0.137) (0.045) (0.0002) (0.0001) (0.0001) (0.0001) (0.0001) (0.0001) SSC and above 0.099 (0.044) 0.438*** (0.031) (0.034) 0.462*** - (0.032) 0.151 (0.050) 0.213** (0.018) Ref: No education 1.363*** * Normalized living standard index using PCA -0.066 -0.133 0.045 0.034 0.088 0.031 Class 1 to 5 0.027 (0.103) 0.094** (0.090) -0.018 (0.075) -0.045 (0.170) -0.080 (0.181) 0.022 (0.049) (0.091) (0.081) (0.078) (0.073) (0.112) (0.044) Has any kind of group membership=1 (0.044) 0.036 (0.039) -0.143** (0.033) 0.134** (0.031) -0.103* (0.051) 0.114 (0.021) -0.038 Household size -0.051*** 0.017* -0.015 0.014 0.025* 0.009 Class 6 to 8 0.119* (0.124) 0.153*** (0.063) (0.068) 0.009 -0.081 (0.057) - (0.151) 0.067** (0.062) (0.015) (0.009) (0.012) (0.009) (0.014) (0.006) Wears burkha when go outside in street 0.047 -0.038 0.071** -0.012 0.268*** - * 0.053** Lives in Dhaka City Corpora�on (DCC)=1 0.126** (0.062) -0.019 (0.050) -0.016 (0.047) -0.027 (0.055) 0.006 (0.074) - community=1 0.120*** (0.024) * Class 9 -0.101 0.289*** (0.030) 0.188*** 0.008 - 0.070** 0.153** (0.039) (0.031) (0.025) (0.046) (0.020) * Age of head 0.003 -0.002 0.004* 0.000 0.537*** - * 0.003** (0.050) (0.031) (0.033) (0.026) (0.048) (0.020) (0.107) (0.069) (0.071) (0.084) 0.009*** (0.045) (0.137) Lives in slum=1 0.046 -0.028 0.012 -0.064* -0.021 0.055** SSC and above 0.099 (0.003) 0.438*** (0.002) (0.002) 0.462*** - (0.002) 0.151 (0.003) 0.213** (0.001) * Head is female=1 -0.044 0.034 0.057 1.363*** 0.028 -0.076 * 0.001 (0.042) (0.103) (0.039) (0.090) (0.039) (0.075) (0.036) (0.170) (0.052) (0.181) (0.021) (0.049) Number of years in the community livingmembership=1 (0.058) -0.004* (0.050) 0.003** (0.047) 0.001 (0.044) 0.003** (0.072) -0.003 (0.025) 0.001 Has any kind of group 0.036 -0.143** 0.134** -0.103* 0.114 -0.038 (0.002) Head’s (0.001) education (0.001) – Ref: No e (0.001)ducation (0.002) (0.001) (0.124) (0.068) (0.063) (0.057) (0.151) (0.062) Class Desire1 neighboring to 5 street improvement: 0.085* -0.081** 0.071* -0.021 -0.078** -0.004 0.021 0.019 -0.121** 0.080* 0.022 0.007 Wears burkha when go outside in street 0.047 -0.038 0.071** -0.012 - 0.053** Ligh�ng=1 community=1 (0.046) (0.036) (0.034) (0.032) (0.057) 0.120*** (0.023) * Class 6 to 8 (0.038) 0.080 (0.039) (0.029) 0.042 (0.031) (0.029) -0.123** (0.030) (0.026) 0.020 (0.025) (0.044) -0.020 (0.046) (0.020) 0.002 (0.020) Desire Age of neighboring head street improvement: -0.121** (0.059) 0.003 -0.002 (0.041) -0.002 0.023 (0.049) 0.004* 0.001 (0.045) 0.000 0.054 (0.073) - 0.046* (0.036) 0.003** Space to walk/sit=1 (0.050) (0.042) (0.041) (0.036) (0.057) 0.009*** (0.027) Class 9 0.434*** 0.197** 0.067 - 0.400*** 0.093** Desire neighboring street improvement: (0.003) 0.037 (0.002) -0.040 (0.002) 0.088* (0.002) (0.003) 1.191*** -0.128** 0.074** (0.001) -0.030 Coveris Head holes or control motorized traffic=1 female=1 (0.110) -0.044 (0.053) (0.090) 0.034 (0.041) (0.063) 0.057 (0.047) (0.158) 0.028 (0.038) (0.136) -0.076 (0.059) (0.044) 0.001 (0.025) SSC and above 0.154* (0.058) -0.116 (0.050) -0.135** (0.047) 0.146 (0.044) Region of birthplace: Ref: Central -0.132 (0.072) 0.083** (0.025) Northern (0.085) 0.172*** (0.077) (0.062) Head’s education 0.014 - – Ref:(0.096) No (0.150) education 0.003 -0.023 (0.040) -0.008 Household Class 1 to 5owns the dwelling=1 -0.166* 0.085* 0.054 0.071* 0.043 0.157*** -0.078** 0.034 0.021 -0.032 -0.121** 0.067** 0.022 (0.058) (0.098) (0.046) (0.050) (0.047) (0.036) (0.053) (0.051) (0.034) (0.035) (0.040) (0.032) (0.070) (0.080) (0.057) (0.035) (0.030) (0.023) Eastern Individual Class concern to be evicted=1 6 to 8 -0.017 -0.014 0.080 0.088** 0.011 0.042 0.023 0.031 -0.123** -0.027 0.048* 0.020 -0.035 -0.032 -0.020 -0.032 -0.045* 0.002 (0.061) (0.053) (0.059) (0.042) (0.037) (0.041) (0.042) (0.036) (0.049) (0.037) (0.028) (0.045) (0.067) (0.056) (0.073) (0.032) (0.025) (0.036) Log of key household expenditure per Southern 0.041 0.124*** 0.093*** -0.018 0.022 0.004 -0.071** -0.026 -0.076 -0.078 -0.010 Class 9 0.434*** 0.197** 0.067 - 0.400*** -0.006 0.093** capita (0.045) (0.036) (0.033) (0.037) (0.058) (0.025) 1.191*** (0.044) (0.034) (0.031) (0.032) (0.050) (0.018) Observa�ons (0.110) 641 (0.090) 641 (0.063) 641 (0.158) 641 (0.136) 641 (0.044) 641 Normalized living standard index using PCA -0.066 -0.133 0.045 0.034 0.088 0.031 The above SSC and Note: 0.154* 2018 DIGNITY survey; *** 1%, ** 5%, and * 10% -0.116 Survey level of significance. -0.135** 0.146 weights applied. -0.132 0.083** (0.091) (0.081) (0.078) (0.073) (0.112) (0.044) (0.085) (0.077) (0.062) (0.096) (0.150) (0.040) Household size -0.051*** 0.017* -0.015 0.014 0.025* 0.009 Household owns the dwelling=1 -0.166* 0.054 0.043 0.034 -0.032 0.067** (0.015) (0.009) (0.012) (0.009) (0.014) (0.006) (0.098) (0.047) (0.051) (0.040) (0.080) (0.030) Lives in Dhaka City Corpora�on (DCC)=1 0.126** -0.019 -0.016 -0.027 - | 15 0.006 AUGUST 2021 Individual concern to be evicted=1 -0.014 0.011 0.031 0.048* -0.032 -0.045* 0.070** Table 4. Marginal Estimates of Multinomial Probit Model: Relationship between Women’s Safety Perception and Terms of Job Contracts in the Last 30 days (Conditional on Worked) (1) (2) (3) (4) Permanent Temporary/ Contractual Self- casual (freelance) employed/ worked in family enterprise Feel safe=1 0.016 -0.060 0.079*** -0.036 (0.051) (0.050) (0.027) (0.030) Married=1 -0.091 0.128 -0.023 -0.014 (0.085) (0.083) (0.036) (0.041) Age 0.001 0.001 -0.001 -0.001 (0.015) (0.015) (0.007) (0.010) Age-squared -0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 (0.0002) (0.0002) (0.0001) (0.0001) Ref: No education Class 1 to 5 -0.046 0.002 -0.017 0.062 (0.062) (0.060) (0.032) (0.041) Class 6 to 8 0.093 -0.201** -0.079** 0.188*** (0.082) (0.081) (0.040) (0.049) Class 9 0.038 -0.422*** 0.000 0.384*** (0.144) (0.142) (0.057) (0.075) SSC and above 0.027 -0.159 -0.034 0.166** (0.120) (0.139) (0.052) (0.084) Has any kind of group membership=1 0.085 0.057 -0.002 -0.139** (0.165) (0.178) (0.043) (0.067) Wears burkha when go outside in street -0.054 0.042 0.008 0.004 community=1 (0.054) (0.053) (0.028) (0.033) Age of head -0.003 0.002 0.002 -0.000 (0.003) (0.004) (0.001) (0.002) Head is female=1 0.010 -0.031 -0.002 0.024 (0.076) (0.076) (0.036) (0.035) Head’s education – Ref: No education Class 1 to 5 0.005 -0.096 0.050* 0.040 (0.067) (0.064) (0.030) (0.038) Class 6 to 8 -0.194** 0.107 0.086*** 0.001 (0.084) (0.079) (0.033) (0.043) Class 9 0.434*** 0.388*** -0.882*** 0.059 (0.133) (0.150) (0.137) (0.096) SSC and above 0.020 -0.018 0.071 -0.074 (0.114) (0.132) (0.046) (0.068) Household owns the dwelling=1 -0.067 0.094 -0.045 0.018 (0.081) (0.082) (0.035) (0.044) Individual concern to be evicted=1 -0.004 -0.069 0.048* 0.024 16 | POLICY BRIEF (0.060) (0.059) (0.026) (0.035) Log of key household expenditure per capita 0.050 -0.061 -0.059** 0.070** Class 1 to 5 0.005 -0.096 0.050* 0.040 (0.067) (0.064) (0.030) (0.038) Class 6 to 8 -0.194** 0.107 0.086*** 0.001 (0.084) (0.079) (0.033) (0.043) Class 9 (1) 0.434*** (2) 0.388*** (3) -0.882*** (4) 0.059 Permanent Temporary/ Contractual Self- (0.133) (0.150) (0.137) (0.096) casual (freelance) employed/ SSC and above 0.020 -0.018 0.071 -0.074 in worked (0.114) (0.132) (0.046) (0.068) family Household owns the dwelling=1 -0.067 0.094 -0.045 enterprise 0.018 Feel safe=1 (0.081) 0.016 (0.082)education – Head’s -0.060 (0.035) (0.044) Ref: No education 0.079*** -0.036 Individual concern to be evicted=1 -0.004 (0.051) -0.069 (0.050) 0.048* (0.027) 0.024 (0.030) Married=1 (0.060) -0.091 (0.059) 0.128 (0.026) -0.023 (0.035) -0.014 Log of key household expenditure per capita 0.050 (0.085) -0.061 (0.083) -0.059** (0.036) 0.070** (0.041) Age (0.055) 0.001 (0.053) 0.001 (0.030) -0.001 (0.034) -0.001 Normalized living standard index using PCA 0.404*** (0.015) -0.147 (0.015) -0.134** (0.007) -0.123 (0.010) Age-squared (0.124) -0.0001 (0.129) 0.0001 (0.063) 0.0001 (0.080) 0.0001 Household size -0.005 (0.0002) -0.011 (0.0002) 0.001 (0.0001) 0.016* (0.0001) (0.017) (0.017) (0.009) (0.009) Ref: No education Lives Class in 5 City Corpora�on (DCC)=1 Dhaka 1 to -0.079 -0.046 0.060 0.002 0.033 -0.017 -0.014 0.062 (0.053) (0.054) (0.029) (0.034) (0.062) (0.060) (0.032) (0.041) Class in Lives slum=1 6 to 8 -0.057 0.093 -0.034 -0.201** 0.029 -0.079** 0.063* 0.188*** (0.059) (0.058) (0.026) (0.034) (0.082) (0.081) (0.040) (0.049) Number Class 9 of years living in the community 0.004 0.038 -0.005** -0.422*** -0.001 0.000 0.003* 0.384*** (0.002) (0.002) (0.001) (0.001) (0.144) (0.142) (0.057) (0.075) Desire SSC andneighboring above street improvement: Ligh�ng=1 0.027 0.027 -0.013 -0.159 -0.005 -0.034 -0.009 0.166** (0.050) (0.050) (0.022) (0.029) (0.120) (0.139) (0.052) (0.084) Desire Has anyneighboring street kind of group improvement: Space to membership=1 -0.090 0.085 0.063 0.057 0.030 -0.002 -0.003 -0.139** walk/sit=1 (0.065) (0.064) (0.030) (0.043) (0.165) (0.178) (0.043) (0.067) Wears neighboring Desire burkha when street improvement: go outside in street Cover holes 0.021 -0.054 0.030 0.042 0.066 0.008 -0.117*** 0.004 or control motorized traffic=1 (0.071) (0.072) (0.042) (0.036) community=1 (0.054) (0.053) (0.028) (0.033) Age of head -0.003 Region of 0.002 birthplace: Ref: Central 0.002 -0.000 Northern 0.104 (0.003) -0.078 (0.004) -0.040 (0.001) 0.014 (0.002) Head is female=1 (0.088) 0.010 (0.089) -0.031 (0.043) -0.002 (0.047) 0.024 Eastern -0.084 (0.076) 0.079 (0.076) -0.005 (0.036) 0.011 (0.035) (0.080) (0.078) (0.037) (0.039) Head’s education – Ref: No education Southern Class 1 to 5 0.116* 0.005 -0.087 -0.096 -0.035 0.050* 0.005 0.040 (0.060) (0.061) (0.030) (0.037) (0.067) (0.064) (0.030) (0.038) Observa�ons Class 6 to 8 641 -0.194** 641 0.107 641 0.086*** 641 0.001 (0.084) Survey weights Note: The 2018 DIGNITY survey; *** 1%, ** 5%, and * 10% level of significance. (0.079)applied. (0.033) (0.043) Class 9 0.434*** 0.388*** -0.882*** 0.059 (0.133) (0.150) (0.137) (0.096) SSC and above 0.020 -0.018 0.071 -0.074 (0.114) (0.132) (0.046) (0.068) Household owns the dwelling=1 -0.067 0.094 -0.045 0.018 (0.081) (0.082) (0.035) (0.044) Individual concern to be evicted=1 -0.004 -0.069 0.048* 0.024 (0.060) (0.059) (0.026) (0.035) Log of key household expenditure per capita 0.050 -0.061 -0.059** 0.070** (0.055) (0.053) (0.030) (0.034) AUGUST 2021 | 17 Normalized living standard index using PCA 0.404*** -0.147 -0.134** -0.123 Table 5. Marginal Estimates of Multinomial Probit and Probit Models: Relationship between Women’s Safety Perception, their Location of Work and Mode of Transportation to Work in the Last 30 days (Conditional on Worked) Mul�nomial probit Probit (1) (2) (3) (4) Home Neighborhood Outside the Walked to community work=1 Feel safe=1 -0.072* -0.026 0.098* -0.063* (0.043) (0.052) (0.051) (0.037) Married=1 0.082 -0.103 0.021 -0.019 (0.069) (0.088) (0.080) (0.057) Age -0.020 0.017 0.004 0.013 (0.013) (0.016) (0.015) (0.010) Age-squared 0.0002 -0.0002 -0.00001 -0.0001 (0.0002) (0.0002) (0.0002) (0.0001) Ref: No education Class 1 to 5 0.041 0.019 -0.060 -0.038 (0.050) (0.061) (0.056) (0.042) Class 6 to 8 0.148** 0.095 -0.242*** 0.008 (0.069) (0.089) (0.086) (0.058) Class 9 0.403*** -0.303* -0.100 -0.230*** (0.121) (0.174) (0.157) (0.088) SSC and above 0.210** -0.218 0.008 0.048 (0.097) (0.149) (0.131) (0.072) Has any kind of group membership=1 -0.073 -0.370** 0.443*** 0.177** (0.092) (0.167) (0.150) (0.080) Wears burkha when go outside in street 0.014 0.006 -0.020 0.048 community=1 (0.044) (0.056) (0.053) (0.035) Age of head 0.002 -0.002 -0.000 -0.004* (0.002) (0.004) (0.003) (0.002) Head is female=1 0.081 -0.118 0.037 -0.110* (0.059) (0.079) (0.073) (0.057) Head’s education – Ref: No education Class 1 to 5 0.105** -0.086 -0.019 -0.080* (0.053) (0.066) (0.062) (0.042) Class 6 to 8 -0.048 -0.056 0.104 -0.041 (0.067) (0.086) (0.080) (0.057) Class 9 -0.101 0.194 -0.094 0.130 (0.120) (0.141) (0.149) (0.092) SSC and above -0.109 0.264** -0.155 -0.069 (0.093) (0.131) (0.123) (0.075) Household owns the dwelling=1 0.161** -0.041 -0.120 0.016 (0.067) (0.094) (0.084) (0.048) Individual concern to be evicted=1 -0.018 0.045 -0.027 -0.052 (0.048) (0.062) (0.059) (0.045) Log of key household expenditure per capita -0.047 -0.051 -0.031 18 | POLICY BRIEF (0.047) (0.056) (0.053) (0.035) (0.053) (0.066) (0.062) (0.042) Class 6 to 8 -0.048 -0.056 0.104 -0.041 (0.067) (0.086) (0.080) (0.057) Class 9 -0.101 0.194 -0.094 0.130 (0.120) (0.141) Mul�nomial probit (0.149) (0.092) Probit SSC and above -0.109 0.264** -0.155 -0.069 (1) (2) (3) (4) (0.093) Home (0.131) Neighborhood (0.123) Outside the (0.075) Walked to Household owns the dwelling=1 0.161** -0.041 -0.120 community 0.016 work=1 Feel safe=1 (0.067) -0.072* Head’s education (0.094) -0.026 – Ref: No (0.084) 0.098* e ducation (0.048) -0.063* Individual concern to be evicted=1 -0.018 (0.043) 0.045 (0.052) -0.027 (0.051) -0.052 (0.037) Married=1 (0.048) 0.082 (0.062) -0.103 (0.059) 0.021 (0.045) -0.019 Log of key household expenditure per capita (0.069) -0.047 (0.088) -0.051 (0.080) -0.031 (0.057) Age (0.047) -0.020 (0.056) 0.017 (0.053) 0.004 (0.035) 0.013 Normalized living standard index using PCA -0.209** (0.013) 0.295** (0.016) -0.086 (0.015) 0.069 (0.010) Age-squared (0.105) 0.0002 (0.125) -0.0002 (0.121) -0.00001 (0.086) -0.0001 Household size 0.018 (0.0002) -0.011 (0.0002) -0.007 (0.0002) -0.006 (0.0001) (0.015) (0.018) (0.016) Ref: No education (0.011) Class in Lives 5 City Corpora�on (DCC)=1 Dhaka 1 to 0.006 0.041 -0.015 0.019 0.009 -0.060 -0.031 -0.038 (0.043) (0.050) (0.053) (0.061) (0.053) (0.056) (0.038) (0.042) Class in Lives slum=1 6 to 8 0.027 0.148** -0.174*** 0.095 0.146*** -0.242*** -0.019 0.008 (0.049) (0.069) (0.059) (0.089) (0.054) (0.086) (0.039) (0.058) Class 9 of years living in the community Number 0.004** 0.403*** -0.003 -0.303* -0.001 -0.100 -0.000 -0.230*** (0.002) (0.121) (0.003) (0.174) (0.003) (0.157) (0.002) (0.088) Desire SSC andneighboring above street improvement: Ligh�ng=1 0.056 0.210** -0.133*** -0.218 0.078 0.008 -0.035 0.048 (0.040) (0.097) (0.050) (0.149) (0.048) (0.131) (0.032) (0.072) Desire Has anyneighboring street kind of group improvement: Space to membership=1 -0.041 -0.073 0.024 -0.370** 0.017 0.443*** -0.070* 0.177** walk/sit=1 (0.058) (0.069) (0.073) (0.042) (0.092) (0.167) (0.150) (0.080) Wears neighboring Desire burkha when street improvement: go outside in street Cover holes -0.151*** 0.014 0.031 0.006 0.120 -0.020 0.043 0.048 or control motorized traffic=1 community=1 (0.054) (0.076) (0.075) (0.041) (0.044) (0.056) (0.053) (0.035) Age of head 0.002 Region of birthplace: Ref: -0.002 Central -0.000 -0.004* Northern 0.007 (0.002) 0.064 (0.004) -0.071 (0.003) 0.065 (0.002) Head is female=1 (0.066) 0.081 (0.079) -0.118 (0.078) 0.037 (0.053) -0.110* Eastern 0.080 (0.059) -0.101 (0.079) 0.020 (0.073) 0.064 (0.057) (0.060) Head’s (0.076) (0.072) education – Ref: No education (0.045) Southern Class 1 to 5 -0.022 0.105** 0.014 -0.086 0.008 -0.019 0.056 -0.080* (0.050) (0.053) (0.063) (0.066) (0.061) (0.062) (0.043) (0.042) Observa�ons Class 6 to 8 641 -0.048 641 -0.056 641 0.104 641 -0.041 (0.067) Survey weights Note: The 2018 DIGNITY survey; *** 1%, ** 5%, and * 10% level of significance. applied. (0.086) (0.080) (0.057) Class 9 -0.101 0.194 -0.094 0.130 (0.120) (0.141) (0.149) (0.092) SSC and above -0.109 0.264** -0.155 -0.069 (0.093) (0.131) (0.123) (0.075) Household owns the dwelling=1 0.161** -0.041 -0.120 0.016 (0.067) (0.094) (0.084) (0.048) Individual concern to be evicted=1 -0.018 0.045 -0.027 -0.052 (0.048) (0.062) (0.059) (0.045) Log of key household expenditure per capita -0.047 -0.051 -0.031 (0.047) (0.056) (0.053) (0.035) Normalized living standard index using PCA -0.209** 0.295** -0.086 0.069 AUGUST 2021 | 19 (0.105) (0.125) (0.121) (0.086)