An Analysis of Responses to Sexual Assault against Women in Public Space: Practical Gender Needs or Strategic Gender Interests?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I enjoyed reading this paper immensely. The paper is well-referenced, arguments are logical and clearly presented. I particularly enjoyed reading about the root causes of violence against women and sexual violence specifically from a different framework that I am used to. 

What I really liked:

1. Highlighting the importance of centering women's voices in the development of programmes.

2. Noting the danger of gender-neutral policies. 

3. Reinforcing the argument that social and individual transformation and addressing root causes are essential for sustainable change. A good example of this is the Candies in Hell study that showed how women's movements, shelters, improved services, supportive legislation, supportive government, etc resulted in VAW reduction, but all these gains fell away when a new conservative government came in. 

4. Reactive programmes not based on evidence, but rather in response to societal anger may be effective but do not result in structural changes.

What could be improved:

1. The VAW literature is not referenced and it could be strengthened by e.g. Heise's work on the ecological model which supports the authors' argument that to effect long-term change we must intervene across multiple levels and risk factors. And the What Works to Prevent VAWG outcomes.

2. Is there any evidence behind the programmes shared in the paper? If yes, please reference.

3. What is the role of men in the prevention of VAW? The VAW field has learned over many needs that to prevent/end VAW, we must intervene early, we must do a lot, often over a long period of time - and that programmes that work with both men and women, at both the needs and strategic level are most effective - see What Works to End VAWG programme papers and learning. 

4. In terms of the secondary data analysed there is no mention of how the various forms of violence are measured - I am curious to know if the data was comparable across studies.

5. Graph 1 - minor issue, but the graph is in Spanish.

6. You could compare the 6.5% prevalence rate for Spain with the international literature to put it in context and not that this is likely to be the 'tip of the iceberg' for all the reasons you have noted in the paper.

7. You have strong messages for the field (some I have highlighted above, eg evidence is important, need to address root causes, gender-neutral policies disappear women's needs and interests, etc.) that are not well summarised in the conclusions - the conclusion section seems rushed - this could be strengthened

Overall, the paper is great and with a few very minor edits - e.g. adding in some reference to the existing literature in the VAW field/referencing the interventions included in the analysis if the reader wants to find out more - it will be a valuable addition to the current body of knowledge.

 

 

 

Author Response

You can read our answers in the attached file.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have carefully reviewed this manuscript and below is my decision.

- The topic is quite interesting, however, the explanation of the originality of the study is insufficient. This paper needs to highlight clearly the originality of the study. Why rural population?

- How does the paper contribute to the extant literature on the subject?

-I would suggest adding to the literature and referencing it within the discussion as well.  There is a study that has examined sexual violence.

 

1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01333-1

Author Response

You can read our answers in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf