A user research investigation into pedestrian safety perceptions, route decision-making, and the appetite for community-powered safety tools in local communities.
Walking is one of the most fundamental human activities — yet for a significant portion of people, it carries a quiet anxiety. This research set out to understand the lived experiences of everyday walkers, what makes them feel vulnerable, how they currently navigate risk, and whether a community-powered safety app could meaningfully address their needs.
"Walking safety for me includes traffic — our daily path does not have separate lanes for walking. We also have to consider chain snatchers and stray dogs."
— Survey Participant, 46–60 age group
Twenty respondents participated across age groups, walking frequencies, and use cases. The findings reveal a consistent, unmet need: walkers want safer routes, real-time alerts, and a trustworthy community layer — but they're currently navigating largely alone, relying on familiarity and intuition.
Four headline findings that define the opportunity for WalkSafe.
Three archetypal personas distilled from the survey data — each with distinct needs, concerns, and levels of tech adoption.
Walks to work or school multiple times a day. Safety isn't optional — it's essential. Has experienced harassment and relies on familiar routes out of necessity, not preference.
Walks several times a week for exercise. Less concerned with personal safety but wants scenic, quiet routes. Open to contributing to safety tools if it's low-friction.
Older walker who deeply values safety. Has felt unsafe due to traffic and poor infrastructure. Highly motivated to use an app but needs simplicity and accessibility features.
Six synthesised insights that should directly inform the product design and prioritisation.
80% of respondents felt unsafe or unsure. This is not a niche concern — it's a universal pain point. Safety features must be the core offering, not an add-on.
Poor lighting was cited in 75% of unsafe experiences — more than isolation or traffic. A "lighting layer" on route maps could be the most impactful single feature to build first.
50% rely on familiar routes only — not because they're safest, but because they're known. WalkSafe can unlock new routes by providing safety confidence data.
Real-time alerts was the #1 desired feature (80%), narrowly beating static safety ratings (75%). Users want live awareness, not just historical data snapshots.
75% trust crowdsourced reports "somewhat" or more. Only 5% distrust it outright. The data confirms appetite for a community model, but accuracy and credibility must be baked in from the start.
50% will "always" contribute. 45% will contribute "if it's quick/easy." This near-100% ceiling unlocks a rich data flywheel — but only if the reporting flow is frictionless (under 3 taps).
Lo-fi wireframe concepts for the three core app screens informed directly by survey findings.
From "I need to walk somewhere" to arriving safely — five key moments in the user journey.
User inputs destination. App loads local safety data and live alerts.
Safety-rated route options appear. User picks based on score, time, and active alerts.
Real-time alerts push en route. Lighting warnings, incident proximity, safe rest points.
User taps to report an unsafe moment anonymously in under 3 taps. Data feeds the community.
Trip summary shows route safety score. Community data improves for future walkers.
Prioritised recommendations for the WalkSafe MVP, ranked by impact and directly traceable to survey insights.
75% of "felt unsafe" responses cited poor lighting. Build a route overlay showing street lighting density — this single feature directly addresses the #1 concern and builds immediate credibility.
80% prioritised real-time alerts as the most valuable feature. Design a lightweight alert system using push notifications and an in-app feed. Prioritise recency signals and community verification to build trust.
50% only use familiar routes — limiting themselves to safety by inertia. Displaying safety scores (e.g., 9.2 / 10) on alternative routes gives users the confidence to explore new paths backed by data.
95% of users are willing to report — but only if it's fast. Design a frictionless 3-tap reporting flow (category → severity → submit). Emphasise anonymity prominently to address trust concerns, especially for harassment reports.
55% wanted scenic/quiet routes; 25% wanted accessibility info. Add filter controls (wheelchair-friendly, stroller-safe, quiet streets) to serve a broader audience — particularly older users and caregivers.
75% trust crowdsourced data "somewhat" — not fully. Design trust-building elements: time-stamped reports, community verification votes, report decay (older reports fade), and transparent data provenance to close the credibility gap.