ARE ?

SUBWAYS (UNDERGROUND PATHWAYS)

ACROSS MUMBAI & THANE

SAFE FOR WOMEN?
 DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS

UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that

DEVEN BHOSLE

SUNETRA JOGAL

RUPESH KHANEKAR

SAYALI PARKAR

NITIN PAWAR

AMRUTA PRADHAN

ADITYA SAWANT

RAHUL SINGH
Have satisfactory completed the Group Project entitled ARE SUBWAYS
(UNDERGROUND PATHWAYS) ACROSS MUMBAI & THANE SAFE FOR WOMEN?
towards partial fulfillment of the Post Graduate Diploma in Applied Statistics with
Software as laid by University of Mumbai.

Dr.(Mrs) M.R Satam Dr.(Mrs) M.R Satam

Project Guide Coordinator (PGDASS)
Department Of Statistics
 CONTENT

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

2. INTRODUCTION

3. OBJECTIVES

4. METHODOLOGY

5. QUESTIONNAIRE

6. TECHNIQUESUSED

7. ANLYSIS

i) GRAPHSSHOWINGCOMMUTINGPREFER,GENDER,AGE
HARRESMENTFACED

ii) VENNDIAGRAM

iii) PARETOCHARTS

iv) CHISQUARETESTOFINDEPENDANCE

v) NONPARAMETRICTEST

vi) MULTIPLELOGISTICREGRESSION


8. OVERALLCONCLUSIONANDRECOMMENDATIONS

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
 1) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to express our deep gratitude to Prof. Dr.Mrs M.R.

Satam, Coordinator (PGDASS) and our project guide for her
patient guidance and support. Her willingness to give us time,
advice and assistance throughout the process of the research work
is very much appreciated.

We would also like to thank all the professors and the entire
support staff of the Department of Statistics for their constant
help, support and encouragement.

And finally we wish to thank all the respondents for providing us

with valuable information, their precious time, co-operation and
constructive recommendations.
 INTRODUCTION

Mumbaiisthecitywhichneversleeps.Itisthecitywhichisoccupiedbydiverse
setsofpeoplewithdiverseneeds.Thequalityofthecityisjudgedbywhatit
offers to the people living here. For instance, the right to live, right to move
aroundwithdignityandsafety.Millionsofpeoplehereusepublictransporton
adailybasis.Morethan80%ofpeopleinMumbaitravelthroughtrains.

There are many subways (or underground tunnels) that have been located in
thevicinityofrailwaystations.Thesesubwaysareusedbyalmost75%ofthe
people travelling through trains and by many other people who find it less
distant.

The first task of the Project was to explore the issue that whether these
subways are safe enough for commuters. The Project looked for any
informationthatcouldbefoundonwomen'ssafety,howitrelatedtosubways
and what had been done by public bodies such as councils and police, to
improve it.Women's safety involves strategies, practices and policies which
aim to reduce gender based violence or violence against women, including
womensfearofcrime.Womenandgirlsarefrequentlysubjecttoviolenceand
abuse from physical and verbal harassment to assault and rape on city
streets, public transportation or in their own neighborhoods. It is rarely
acknowledged but can have serious long term effect such as depression,
anxietyandalostsenseofsafety.
Many women have lived with feeling unsafe while commuting through
subways at certain times of the day. Commuters have become absolutely
discontentedwiththesesubways.Gettingthroughthesubwayswithoutvisual
or physical harassment during peak hours or when it is crowded is more of a
challengetogirlsandwomencommuters.

Over80%ofwomenexperiencegenderbasedharassmentfromunknownmen
in public including whistling, sexuallyexplicit comments, staring, etc. Such
dailyoccurrenceslimittherightsandfreedomsofwomenasequalcitizensto
enjoytheirneighborhoodsandcities.

Though violence is now widely recognized as a human right violation,

harassmentinpublicplacesstillremainsaneglectedissuewithafewlawsor
policiestoaddress
 OBJECTIVES

1) To analyze the problems faced by the commuters using subway

and accessing the impact of these problems.

2) To evaluate factors that should be improvised for betterment of

the commuters.

3) To find who addresses safety the most.

 4)

METHODOLOGY
The following are the steps involved in the research process:

1) FORMULATION OF THE OBJECTIVE

2) DESIGNING OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire was designed in accordance to the

objective. All the questions were close-ended. The types of
questions included:

Multiple choice questions

Rating question

The questionnaire can be broadly classified into the following

sections:

Demographics
Preferences and comparisons
Awareness

3) PILOT SURVEY

A pilot survey of sample size of 25 was conducted

 which led to the improvisation and finalisation of the
questionnaire.

4) DATA COLLECTION
A sample of 667 was collected from across Mumbai and
Thane. For analysing, data was categorised area wise, into
eastern suburbs, western suburbs and thane city.

5) TABULATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA.

6) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

7) FINAL REPORT
 QUESTIONNAIRE

ARE SUBWAYS (UNDERGROUND PATHWAYS) ACROSS MUMBAI & THANE SAFE FOR WOMEN?

The following questionnaire is designed to study the problems faced by commuters using subways

We ensure that the data provided will be kept strictly confidential.

Gender :- Male [ ] Female [ ]

AGE GROUP

16-20 [ ] 21-30 [ ] 31-40 [ ] 41-60 [ ] 60 and above [ ]

Martial Status :- Married [ ] Unmarried [ ]

Occupation :- Business [ ]
Service [ ]
Housewife [ ]
Student [ ]
Unemployed [ ]
Retired [ ]

Income (Yearly in Rs.) :- Below 1 Lac [ ]

1 to 3 Lac [ ]
3 to 5 Lac [ ]
Above 5 Lac [ ]
Your mobile operator :- Vodafone [ ]
Loop [ ]
Airtel [ ]
Reliance [ ]
Idea [ ]
Docomo [ ]
Dolphin [ ]

Others __________________

1) Which out of the two given options do you prefer?

a) Subways [ ]
b) Overhead Bridges [ ]

If Subways, then why?

a) Less Crowded [ ]
b) Compartment you prefer is close by [ ]
c) Less Distance [ ]
d) Safe Enough [ ]

If Overhead Bridges, then why?

a) Safe Enough [ ]
b) Preferable to check the train status [ ]

2) How often do you commute using subways?

a) Everyday [ ]
b) Only Weekdays [ ]
c) Only Weekends [ ]

3) What Kind of harassment have you faced or seen?

a) Verbal (Comments, Whistling) [ ]
b) Physical (Touching) [ ]
c) Visual (Staring, Gesticulating) [ ]
d) Never faced [ ]
4) Whom have you approached if at all you were harassed?
a) Vendors [ ]
b) Passerby [ ]
c) Railway Police Force [ ]
d) Relatives / Friends [ ]

5) Did you receive any form of help from the

commuters passing by?
a) Yes [ ]
b) No [ ]

6) Have you ever helped / taken any action when someone

was being harassed/Teased ?
a) Yes [ ]
b) No [ ]

7) What will be your reaction when you see girls/women being harassed?
a) Oppose the culprit [ ]
b) Call the police [ ]
c) Support the victim [ ]
d) Get public support [ ]
e) Prefer not to get involved [ ]

8) Do you get network connectivity while in subway?

a) Yes [ ]
b) No [ ]
c) Depends [ ]

9) Do you feel the necessity of a canteen in the Subway?

a) Yes [ ]
b) No [ ]

10) According to you , is there a requirement of some form of SAFTY ALARM

inside the subway?
a) Yes [ ]
b) No [ ]
11) Rate the following on a 5 point scale, 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest. (
1 not at all satisfied 2-unsatisfied 3-neutral 4-satisfied 5-very much
satisfied)

a) Lighting [ ]
b) CCTV Cameras [ ]
c) Security [ ]
d) Public Phones [ ]
e) Dustbins [ ]

12) Who do you think can play a vital role in addressing safety to the common masses?
a) Police [ ]
b) Political Parties [ ]
c) NGOs [ ]
d) Yuvak Sangh [ ]
e) Street Plays [ ]

13) What kind of changes in the society would make you feel safer in the near future?
Suggest your views. (Optional)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
 TABULATION AND ANLYSING

1) GRAPHS OF DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE

GENDER
MALE 119 17.84%

FEMALE 548 82.16%

TOTAL 667 100.00%

CONCLUSION: - Our sample consists of 119, i.e 17.84% of males and 548 i.e 82.16% of
females.
 2) GRAPH OF DISTRIBUTION OF AGE-GROUP

AGE GROUP
AGE TOTAL Frequency
16-20 116 17%
21-30 314 47%
31-40 150 22%
41-60 87 13%
TOTAL 667 100%

CONCLUSION:- Most of our sample i.e 47.08% of crowed lies in the age group 21.30
3) DISTRIBUTION OF OCCUPATION

OCCUPTION
OCCUPTION TOTAL FREQUENCY
BUSINESS 69 10.38%
UNEMPLOYED 11 1.65%
RETIRED' 5 0.75%
SERVICE 370 55.64%
STUDENT 160 24.06%
HOUSEWIFE 50 7.52%
TOTAL 665 100.00%

CONCLUSION :- 55.64% of our sample is working Profession

 4.Income
INCOME
INCOME COUNT FREQUENCY
BELOW 1 LAC 156 29.32%
1 TO 3 LAC 198 37.22%
3 TO 5 LAC 111 20.86%
ABOVE 5 LAC 67 12.59%
TOTAl 532 100.00%

Income

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

BELOW1LAC
1TO3LAC
3TO5LAC
ABOVE5LAC

FREQUENCY

Conclusion:37.22%ofoursampleearnsintherangeof1lakh3lakhs.
 5) GRAPHICL REPRESENTATION OF MOBILE OPERATOR

MOBILE OPERATOR COUNT FREQUENCY

VODAFONE 232 32.18%
LOOP 77 10.68%
AIRTEL 163 22.61%
RELIANCE 93 12.90%
IDEA 57 7.91%
DOCOMO 56 7.77%
DOLPHIN 26 3.61%
OTHERS 17 2.36%
TOTAL 721 100.00%

CONCLUSION :- 32.18% of our sample use Vodafone as their service provider,

which means amongst all other networks, Vodafone has the best network.
 6) COMMUTING REPRESENTATION

COMMUTING PREFER TOTAL FREQUENCY

SUBWAY 476 69.69%

OVERHEADBRIDGE 207 30.31%

TOTAL 683 100.00%

CONCLUSION :- Almost 70% of our sample prefers SUBWAY over OVERHEAD BRIDGES.
 7) CommutingmeansMale

MALE TOTAL FREQUENCY

SUBWAY 84 68.29%

OVERHEADBRIDGE 39 31.71%

TOTAL 123 100.00%

Conclusion:68.29%ofMalecrowduseSubway.

 8) CommutingmeansFemale

FEMALE TOTAL FREQUENCY
SUBWAY 392 70.00%

OVERHEADBRIDGE 168 30.00%

TOTAL 560 100.00%

CONCLUSION:- 70% of Female prefers SUBWAY.

 9) ReasonforpreferringSubway.

REASON FOR PREFERRING SUBWAY
RESONS Total FREQUENCY
LESS CROWDED 167 26.01%
COMP.PREFER IS CLOSE BY 105 16.36%
LESS DISTANCE 196 30.53%
SAFE ENOUGH 174 27.10%
TOTAL 642 100.00%

ReasonOfCommutingSubway

SAFEENOUGH

LESSDISTANCE

COMP.PREFERISCLOSEBY

LESSCROWDED

0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%

LESSCROWDED COMP.PREFERISCLOSEBY LESSDISTANCE SAFEENOUGH

frequency 26.01% 16.36% 30.53% 27.10%

Conclusion:30.53%ofoursamplesfeelthatSubwaysarelessdistane
whereas27.10%ofoursamplefeelthatSubwaysaresafeenough.

 10) Reasons for Preferring subways (Male)

MALE
RESONS COUNT FREQUENCY
LESS CROWDED 39 34.82%

COMP.PREFER IS CLOSE BY 29 25.89%

LESS DISTANCE 27 24.11%
SAFE ENOUGH 17 15.18%
TOTAL 112 100.00%

CONCLUSION :- 34.82% of Male feels that Subways are less crowded.

 11) ReasonforpreferringSubwayFemale

FEMALE
RESONS COUNT FREQUENCY
LESS CROWDED 128 24.15%
COMP.PREFER IS CLOSE BY 76 14.34%
LESS DISTANCE 169 31.89%
SAFE ENOUGH 157 29.62%
TOTAL 530 100.00%

ReasonsOfCommutingSubway
(FEMALE)

LESSCROWDED
SAFEENOUGH 24%
30%

COMP.PREFERIS
CLOSEBY
14%

LESSDISTANCE
32%

Conclusion:31.89%ofFemalespreferSubwaysbecausetheyareless
crowded
 12) Graphical representation of frequency of using subways

CONCLUSION:- 66.27% of our MALE sample & 62.051% of our Female sample use Subways
Every day. 21.69% & 22.051% respectively MALE & FEMALE sample use subways on
weekdays. 12.05% of Male sample & 15.897% of Female sample use subways on weekends.
 13) HARRESMENT FACED BY FEMALES

FEMALE
TYPES OF HARRESMENT FACED COUNT FREQUENCY
VERBAL 245 33.06%
PHYSICAL 138 18.62%
VISUAL 202 27.26%
NEVER FACED 156 21.05%
TOTAL 741 100.00%

CONCLUSION :- 33.06% of Females have experienced Verbal, 18.62% Physical and

27.36% of them have experienced Visual type of Harassment.
 14)TypesofMeasurestakenwhenharassedFEMALE.
FEMALE
APPROCHED COUNT FREQUENCY
VENDORS 96 18.22%
PASSERBY 226 42.88%
RAILWAY POLICE FORCE 89 16.89%
RELATIVES / FRIENDS 116 22.01%
TOTAL 527 100.00%

Conclusion:42.88%ofFemalesapproachtopeoplenearbytoseekhelp
whenharassed
 15 )SeekingHelpFemale
FEMALE
RECEIVED HELP COUNT FREQUENCY
YES 306 63.62%
NO 175 36.38%
TOTAL 481 100.00%

Conclusion:63.62%ofFemaleshavereceivedhelpwhenaskedfor.

 16)HelpMALE
MALE
EVER HELPED COUNT FREQUENCY
YES 66 62%
NO 41 38%
TOTAL 107 100.00%

EverHelped(Male's)
YES NO

38%

62%

Conclusion:62%ofMalehavehelpedthepeoplewhowereorarebeing
harassed.
 17)HelpFEMALE
FEMALE
EVER HELPED COUNT FREQUENCY
YES 337 63.58%
NO 193 36.42%
TOTAL 530 100.00%

EverHelped(Female's)
YES NO

36%

64%

Conclusion:63.58%ofFemaleshavehelpedthepeoplewhowereorarebeing
harassed.

18)ReactionwhenharassedMALE.
MALE
REACTION COUNT FREQUENCY
OPPOSE THE CULPRIT 35 21.47%
CALL THE POLICE 46 28.22%
SUPPORT THE VICTIM 37 22.70%
GET PUBLIC SUPPORT 29 17.79%
PREFER NOT TO GET INVOLVED 16 9.82%

Conclusion:28.22%ofMalehaveapproachedPoliceForcetoseekhelp
from,22.07%ofthemhavesupportedthevictimwhereas21.47%ofthem
haveopposedthevictim

19)ReactionwhenharassedFEMALE.
FEMALE
REACTION COUNT FREQUENCY
OPPOSE THE CULPRIT 115 14.268%
CALL THE POLICE 197 24.442%
SUPPORT THE VICTIM 276 34.243%
GET PUBLIC SUPPORT 177 21.960%
PREFER NOT TO GET INVOLVED 41 5.087%
TOTAL 806 100.000%

Conclusion: 34.243% of Females have supported the victim when harassed
whereas 24.442% of them seek help from Police Force
20)ServiceProviderMALE.
MALE
NETWORK COUNT FREQUENCY
YES 48 9.11%
NO 44 8.35%
DEPENDS 29 5.50%
TOTAL 121 22.96%

Conclusion:39.67%ofMalesreceivegoodnetworkaccesswhileinSubways
36.36%ofthemsaytheydonotgetnetworkwhereas23.97%malessay
thattheymayormaynotgetgoodnetworkwhileinSubway.
 21)ServiceProviderFEMALE.
FEMALE
NETWORK COUNT FREQUENCY
YES 185 33.82%
NO 222 40.59%
DEPENDS 140 25.59%
TOTAL 547 100.00%

Conclusion:33.82%ofFemalesreceivegoodnetworkaccesswhileinSubways
40.59%saythattheydonotgetnetworkwhereas25.59%ofthemsaythey
mayormaynotgetgoodnetworkwhileinSubway.

22)NeedofSafetyAlarm.

NEED OF SAFTEY ALARM

SAFTY ALARM TOTAL FREQUENCY
YES 626 94%
NO 38 6%
TOTAL 664 100.00%

SafetyAlarm
YES NO

6%

94%

Conclusion:94%ofoursamplefeelsthatthereisaneedofSafetyAlarmin
SubwayssoastoensureSecurity

23)NeedofCanteen.

NEED OF CANTEEN
CANTEEN TOTAL FREQUENCY
YES 419 63.68%

NO 239 36.32%
TOTAL 658 100.00%

Canteen
YES NO

36%

64%

Conclusion:64%ofoursamplefeelhatthereisaneedofCanteenin
Subwayssoastokeepitcrowdedallthetime.
 24) GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF ADDRESSING SAFTY

WHO ADDRESSING SAFTY MOST

ADDRESSING SAFTY FREQUENCY
POLICE 30.443%
POLITICAL PARTIES 13.680%
NGO'S 31.888%
YUVAK SANGH 13.391%
STREET PLAYS 10.597%
TOTAL 100.000%

CONCLUSION :- 31.88%ofoursamplefeelsthatNGOsplayavitalrolein
addressingsafety.
 4) VENN DIAGRAM

A Venn diagram or set diagram is a diagram that shows all possible

logical relations between a finite collection of sets. Venn diagrams were
conceived around 1880 by John Venn. They are used to teach elementary
set theory, as well as illustrate simple set relationships in probability,
logic, statistics, linguistics and computer science.

BOTH
2.70%
OVERHEADBRIDGE
USER
SUBWAY USER
28.49%
68.81%

CONCLUSION:

We can see that more than half the population i.e. 68.81% prefer commuting through
subways while a relatively smaller section of 28.49% prefers overhead bridges 2.70% are
comfortable with both i.e. subways as well as overhead bridges
 3) Pareto Analysis
Introduction:

A Pareto chart is used to graphically summarize and display the relative importance of the
differences between groups of data.The Pareto Chart is a very simple but effective tool for
prioritizing problem causes.

Pareto Analysis aims at highlighting those elements which demand attention and should be
examined first. It conveys that, tackle the Vital Few and ignore the Trivial Many.

It is essentially a special form of a vertical bar chart that puts items in order (from the highest to the
lowest) relative to some measurable effect of interest such as frequency, cost or time. The Pareto
principle describes a phenomenon in which 80 percent of variation observed can be explained by a
mere 20 percent of the causes of that variation.

The Pareto Chart also include a line graph that indicates the cumulative percentage of occurrences
at each bar of the bar graph. This line graph, referred to as the 'cumulative percentage line', is used
to determine which of the bars belong to the 'vital few' and which ones are relegated to the 'trivial
many.'

The Pareto curve makes it clear as to where effort must be concentrated so as to give maximum
effect.

We have used Pareto Analysis for two things;

1) To find major kind of harassment faced by female commuters.
2) To observe who approached to help them.

1st Use : Now , to find the major kind of harassment faced by female commuters while
commuting through subway, we applied Pareto analysis . We calculated the frequency of all
the commuters who have faced harassment while commuting through subway.
 FEMALE

TYPES OF HARRESMENT FACED COUNT FREQUENCY

VERBAL 245 41.88%

PHYSICAL 138 23.59%

VISUAL 202 34.53%

TOTAL 585 100.00%

Pareto Chart of TYPES OF HARRESMENT FACED

600
100

500
80

400
60

Percent
COUNT

300

40
200

20
100

0 0
TYPES OF HARRESMENT FACED VERBAL VISUAL PHYSICAL
COUNT 245 202 138
Percent 41.9 34.5 23.6
Cum % 41.9 76.4 100.0

CONCLUSION :-

The first two factors contribute nearly 80% of the harassment faced.

The first major type of harassment that is faced by women is verbal which includes whistling,
commenting etc. Women feel that they face such kind of harassment very often.
The second major type of harassment faced by women is visual which includes starring,
gesticulating etc.
2nd Use of Pareto :-

To find the most trustable authorities according to sample collected from female
commuters.

We calculated the frequency of the female commuters who have approached for help from
authorities while facing harassment.

FEMALE

APPROCHED COUNT FREQUENCY

VENDORS 96 18.22%

PASSERBY 226 42.88%

RAILWAY POLICE FORCE 89 16.89%

RELATIVES / FRIENDS 116 22.01%

TOTAL 527 100.00%

Pareto Chart of APPROCHED

600
100
500
400 80
Percent
COUNT

300 60

200 40

100 20

0 0
APPROCHED Y S S
RB CE
E END DOR OR
SS RI N F
PA /F VE CE
LI
ES PO
IV
LA
T AY
W
RE IL
RA
COUNT 226 116 96 89
Percent 42.9 22.0 18.2 16.9
Cum % 42.9 64.9 83.1 100.0
CONCLUSION :-

The first three factors contribute to more than 80% of the sample who approached.

The first major help is from Passerby. When women are alone and they face harassment, they seek
help from people passing by.

The second major help is from Relatives & friends. Women seldom call up their friends and
relatives when they face harassment.

The Third major help is from Vendors. Many times women feel that the vendors in the subway can
help them in some or the other way when they are being harassed.
4) CHI-SQUARE TEST OF INDEPENDENCE
The Chi Square Test of Independence compares frequencies (counts) of
nominalorordinalleveldatafortwosamplesacrosstwoormoresubgroups
displayed in a crosstabulation table. This test is more common and more
flexiblethanztestsofproportions.

Assumptions:
1.Independentrandomsampling.
2.Nominal/Ordinalleveldata.
3.Noemptycells

i)Genderv/sPreferredmodeofcommuting:
ATTRIBUTES:

ATTRIBUTE1:GENDER

ATTRIBUTE2:PREFFREDMODEOFCOMMUTING

HYPOTHESIS:

NULL(Ho):Thereisanassociationbetweenattribute1and2.

ALTERNATE(H1):Thereisnoassociationbetweenattribute1and2.

TheTestStatistic:

2=((oijeij)2/eij)
i,j=1,2.

WhereOi=anobservedfrequencyofithgroup.

Ei=anexpected(theoretical)frequencyforithgroup.

K=totalnumberofobservations.

Thechisquarestatisticcanthenbeusedtocalculateapvaluebycomparing
thevalueofthestatistictochisquaredistribution.Thenumberofdegreesof
freedomisequalto(c1)*(r1)where,candrarethelevelsoftwoattributes.

SettheRejectionCriteria:
Achisquaredprobabilityoflessthanorequalto0.05(orthechisquared
statisticbeingatorlargerthanthe0.05criticalpoint)leadstorejectionof
thenullhypothesisH0infavourofH1.

CHECKINGASSOCIATIONBETWEEN:

GENDERANDPREFERREDMODEOFCOMMUTING

CROSSTABULATIONOFGENDERANDPREFRRED

MODEOFCOMMUTING

GENDER SUBWAYS OVERHEADBRIDGES

FEMALE 392 168

MALE 84 39

TOTAL 476 207

ChiSquareTest:SUBWAYS,OVERHEADBRIDGES

OVERHEAD
SUBWAYSBRIDGES Total
1392 168560
390.28169.72
0.0080.017

28439123
85.7237.28
0.0350.080

Total476207683

ChiSq=0.139,DF=1,PValue=0.709

Thepvalue=0.709>0.05.i.eitislarge

Hencewedonotrejectthenullhypothesis.

Thusgenderandpreferredmodeofcommutingthroughsubwayare
independent.

CONCLUSION:

Thusweseefromchisquareteststhatpreferredmodeofcommutingis
independentofgender.

ii)ReasonsofCommutingthroughsubwaysv/sGender:

ATTRIBUTES:

Attribute1:CommutingReasons

Attribute2:Gender

HYPOTHESIS:

NULL(Ho):Thereisanassociationbetweenattribute1and2.

ALTERNATE(H1):Thereisnoassociationbetweenattribute1and2.

TheTestStatistic:

2=((oijeij)2/eij)
i,j=1,2.

WhereOi=anobservedfrequencyofithgroup.

Ei=anexpected(theoretical)frequencyforithgroup.

K=totalnumberofobservations.

Thechisquarestatisticcanthenbeusedtocalculateapvaluebycomparing
thevalueofthestatistictochisquaredistribution.Thenumberofdegreesof
freedomisequalto(c1)*(r1)where,candrarethelevelsoftwoattributes.

SettheRejectionCriteria:
Achisquaredprobabilityoflessthanorequalto0.05(orthechisquared
statisticbeingatorlargerthanthe0.05criticalpoint)leadstorejectionof
thenullhypothesisH0infavourofH1.


CHECKINGASSOCIATIONBETWEEN:

GENDERANDREASONSOFCOMMUTINGTHROUGHSUBWAYS

CROSSTABULATIONOFGENDERANDREASONS
OFCOMMUTINGTHROUGHSUBWAYS:

REASONFORPREFERRINGSUBWAY
RESONS Total

LESSCROWDED 167
COMP.PREFERISCLOSEBY 105
LESSDISTANCE 196

SAFEENOUGH 174

TOTAL 642

ChiSquareTest:GENDER,REASONS

malefemaleTotal
lesscrowded39128167
29.13137.87
3.3410.706

Comp.prefer
iscloseby2976105
18.3286.68
6.2291.316

Lessdistance27169196
34.19161.81
1.5130.320

Safeenough17157174
30.36143.64
5.8761.242

Total112530642

ChiSq=20.543,DF=3,PValue=0.000

Thepvalue=0.00<0.05

Hence,werejectthenullhypothesis.

Thusgenderandreasonsofcommutingthroughsubwayaredependent.

CONCLUSION:

Thusweseefromchisquareteststhatmodeofcommutingthroughsubway
dependsgender.

iii)ReasonsofCommutingthroughoverheadbridgesv/sGender:

ATTRIBUTES:

Attribute1:Reasonsofcommutingthroughoverheadbridges

Attribute2:Gender

HYPOTHESIS:

NULL(Ho):Thereisanassociationbetweenattribute1and2.

ALTERNATE(H1):Thereisnoassociationbetweenattribute1and2.

TheTestStatistic:

2=((oijeij)2/eij)
i,j=1,2.

WhereOi=anobservedfrequencyofithgroup.
Ei=anexpected(theoretical)frequencyforithgroup.

K=totalnumberofobservations.

Thechisquarestatisticcanthenbeusedtocalculateapvaluebycomparing
thevalueofthestatistictochisquaredistribution.Thenumberofdegreesof
freedomisequalto(c1)*(r1)where,candrarethelevelsoftwoattributes.

SettheRejectionCriteria:
Achisquaredprobabilityoflessthanorequalto0.05(orthechisquared
statisticbeingatorlargerthanthe0.05criticalpoint)leadstorejectionof
thenullhypothesisH0infavourofH1.

CHECKINGASSOCIATIONBETWEEN:

GENDERANDREASONSOFCOMMUTINGTHROUGHOVERHEADBRIDGES.

REASONSFORCOMMUTINGSUBWAYS

RESONS COUNT FREQUENCY

SAFEENOUGH 150 59.29%
TOCHECKTRAINSTATUS 103 40.71%

TOTAL 253 100.00%

CROSSTABULATIONOFGENDERANDREASONS

OFCOMMUTINGTHROUGHOVERHEADBRIDGES:


malefemaleTotal
safeenough30120150
29.05120.95
0.0310.007

Tocheckthe
trainstatus1984103
19.9583.05
0.0450.011

Total49204253

ChiSq=0.094,DF=1,PValue=0.759

Thepvalue=0.759>0.05.i.eitislarge

Hencewedonotrejectthenullhypothesis.

Thusgenderandreasonofcommutingthroughoverheadbridgeare
independent.

CONCLUSION:

Thusweseefromchisquareteststhatreasonofcommutingthrough
overheadbridgeisindependentofgender.

 5) NON PARAMETRIC TEST

Parametric tests are either based on a normal distribution or on,

e.g., t,t or 2 distributions, which are related to and can be derived from normal-
theory-based procedures. That is, the parametric tests require that a
sample/group analyzed is taken from a population that meets the normality
assumption Non-parametric tests are used when assumptions required by the
parametric counterpart tests are not met or are questionable. All tests involving
ranked data are non-parametric.

Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test

Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Signed-Ranks Test

Spearman's Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient (Spearman's )

Kendall's Rank Correlation Coefficient (Kendall's )

Mann-Whitney U Test (Wilcoxon Ranks Sum Test)

Kruskal-Wallis Test

Friedman Two-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for a Single Sample

Tableofresponsesonthefacility:

Responses Reaction Facility

83 NotAtallSatisfied Lighting
295 Unsatisfied Lighting
302 Neutral Lighting
300 Satisfied Lighting
VeryMuch
242 Satistfied Lighting
118 NotAtallSatisfied CCTv
85 Unsatisfied CCTv
118 Neutral CCTv
110 Satisfied CCTv
VeryMuch
150 Satistfied CCTv
142 NotAtallSatisfied Security
80 Unsatisfied Security
76 Neutral Security
103 Satisfied Security
VeryMuch
114 Satistfied Security
Public
162
NotAtallSatisfied Phones
Public
76 Unsatisfied Phones
Public
78 Neutral Phones
Public
98 Satisfied Phones
VeryMuch Public
80 Satistfied Phones
151 NotAtallSatisfied Dustbin
122 Unsatisfied Dustbin
85 Neutral Dustbin
46 Satisfied Dustbin
VeryMuch
70 Satistfied Dustbin
 NORMALITY TEST

ANDERSON DARLING TEST

Summary for Responses

A nderson-D arling N ormality Test
A -S quared 2.11
P -V alue < 0.005

M ean 131.44
S tDev 74.56
V ariance 5559.26
S kew ness 1.47560
Kurtosis 1.16658
N 25

M inimum 46.00
1st Q uartile 80.00
M edian 110.00
3rd Q uartile 150.50
50 100 150 200 250 300 M aximum 302.00
95% C onfidence Interv al for M ean
100.66 162.22
95% C onfidence Interv al for M edian
83.40 138.04
95% C onfidence Interv al for S tD ev
9 5 % C onfidence Inter vals
58.22 103.72
Mean

Median

80 100 120 140 160

AsthePvalueislessthan0.05,hencethenormalitytestdoesnothold,thereforewecannotproceed
furtherforparametrictest.HencewewilluseNonParametricTesti.eFriedmanTest

FriedmanTest:

Friedman test is a nonparametric analysis of a randomized block experiment, and thus provides an
alternativetotheTwowayanalysisofvariance.Thehypothesesare:

H0:alltreatmenteffectsarezeroversusH1:notalltreatmenteffectsarezero

Randomizedblockexperimentsareageneralizationofpairedexperiments,andtheFriedmantestisa
generalization of the paired sign test. Additivity (fit is sum of treatment and block effect) is not
requiredforthetest,butisrequiredfortheestimateofthetreatmenteffects.
Output
Minitabprintstheteststatistic,whichhasanapproximatelychisquaredistribution,andtheassociated
degreesoffreedom(numberoftreatmentsminusone).Iftherearetieswithinoneormoreblocks,the
averagerankisused,andateststatisticcorrectedfortiesisalsoprinted.Iftherearemanyties,the
uncorrectedteststatisticisconservative;thecorrectedversionisusuallycloser,butmaybeeither
conservativeorliberal.Minitabdisplaysanestimatedmedianforeachtreatmentlevel.Theestimated
medianisthegrandmedianplusthetreatmenteffect.

Hypothesis:

H0:Facilityeffectsaredifferentfrom0.

against

H1:Facilityeffectsarenotdifferentfrom0.

Friedman Test: Responses versus Facility blocked by Reaction

S = 4.96 DF = 4 P = 0.291

Est Sum of
Facility N Median Ranks
CCTv 5 100.0 17.0
Dustbin 5 85.0 13.0
Lighting 5 277.6 21.0
Public Phones 5 84.8 12.0
Security 5 84.6 12.0

Grand median = 126.4

Result:

Theteststatistic,S,hasapvalueof0.291,unadjustedforties,Foralevels0.05or0.10,thereis
insufficientevidencetorejectH0becausethepvalueisgreaterthanthealphalevel.ThereforeWe
concludethatthedatadonotsupportthehypothesisthatanyofthefacilityeffectsaredifferentfrom
zero.

 6) MULTIPLE LOGISTIC REGRESSION

Logistic regression is useful for situations in which we want to predict the
presenceorabsenceofacharacteristicoroutcomebasedonvaluesofaset
ofpredictorvariables.Itissimilartoalinearregressionmodelbutissuitedto
cases where the dependent variable is dichotomous. Logistic regression
coefficientscanbeusedtoestimateoddsratiosforeachoftheindependent
variablesinthemodel.Logisticregressionisapplicabletoabroaderrangeof
researchsituationsthandiscriminantanalysis.

BinaryLogisticRegression:

Binary logistic regression is a form of regression which is used when the

dependent variable is binary and the independent variables are of any
type.Thegoalofananalysisusinglogisticregressionmethodistofindthe
best fitting and most reasonable model to describe the relationship
between an outcome(dependent or response variable) and a set of
independent(predictororunderstandtheimpactofexplanatory)variables
and to determine the percent of variation in the dependent variable
explainedbytheindependentvariables,toranktherelativeimportanceof
independents, to assess interaction effects and to covariate control
variables.

TheBinarylogisticregressionmodelis,

(X)=

Where,

(X):conditionalprobabilitythattheoutcomeispresent.

i.e.Pr(Y=1|X)

Y:responsevariable,

X:vectorofindependentvariables.

Weusethetransformationcalledlogit,whichforcesthepredictionequation
topredictvaluesbetween0and1.

Logittransformationofabovemodel:

g(x)=0+jXj

where,

g(x):logittransformationoftheprobabilityoftheevent.

0:interceptoftheregressionline

j:slopeoftheithregressionline

I. ProceduretocarryoutBinaryRegressionAnalysis:

i. Globaltesting:

Global testing is used to test whether or not, at least one of the

independentvariablesinfluencethedependentvariablei.e.atleastone
oftheindependentvariablesissignificant.

ii. Stepwiseselectionprocedure:

Itbeginswithnovariablesintheequationandsubsequentlyincreases
thenumberofvariablesinthemodeluntilthemodelissatisfactory.
The order of the variables to be included in the model is determined
basedonpartialcorrelationcoefficientwhichmeasurestheimportance
ofthevariablesnotyetintheequation.Itispossiblethatonevariable
whichwasincludedinthemodelatearlierstageisremovedduetoits
relationshipwithothervariablesinthemodel.
Ateachstepanappropriatestatisticaltestforeachvariablecurrentlyin
the model will be performed to determine whether the variable has
significantcontributiontothemodel.
Anegativeresultmaysuggesttheremovalofthevariable.
When no variables in the current model can be removed and no new
variables are suggested to be added to the model, the selecting
procedurestops.
ANALYSIS
Dependentvariable:

Thedependentvariableisbinary
Y=1;Yes(Femalecommuterswhohavefacedharassment)
Y=0;No(Femalecommuterswhohavenotfacedharassment)

Independentvariables:
 X1:Maritalstatus
X2:Occupation
X3:MobileOperator
X4:ReceivedHelpfromanyone
X5:Haveyoueverhelpanyone
X6:NetworkConnectivity
X7:NecessityofCanteen
X8:SafetyAlarm
X9:Lighting
X10:CCTV
X11:Security
X12:PublicPhones
X13:Dustbins

SASprogramforbinarylogisticregression:

odshtml;
proclogisticdata=surveydescending;
classmarital_status(ref="1")occupation(ref="1")mobile_operator(ref="1")
received_help_from_anyone(ref="1")ever_help(ref="1")
network_connectivity(ref="1")necessity_canteen(ref="1")
safety_alarm(ref=1)lighting(ref=1)cctv(ref=1)security(ref=1)public_
phones(ref=1)dustbins(ref=1)
/param=ref;
modelreg=marital_statusoccupationmobile_operator
received_help_from_anyoneever_helpnetwork_connectivity
necessity_canteensafety_alarmlightingcctvsecuritypublic_phones
dustbins/ctable
selection=stepwise
lackfitdetailssle=0.1sls=0.1;
outputout=survey1p=prreschi=resi1;
run;

/*codeforclassifyingthepredictedprobabilities*/

datapred;
setsurvey1;
ifpr>0.05thenpredicted="1";
elseifpr<0.05thenpredicted="0";
run;

/*codefortheclassificationtable*/

procfreqdata=pred;
tableHarresment*predicted/chisq;
run;
Logisticregressionmodel:

g(x)=0+jXj(j=1,2..)

where,
g(x):logittransformationoftheprobabilityoftheevent.
0:interceptoftheregressionline
j:slopeoftheithregressionline(j=1,2..13)

Designvariables:

Theindependentvariablesareconvertedtodesignvariable.

Class Level Information

Class Value Design Variables
Occuption 1 0 0 0 0 0

2 1 0 0 0 0

3 0 1 0 0 0

4 0 0 1 0 0

5 0 0 0 1 0

6 0 0 0 0 1

Mobile_Operator 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Class Level Information
Class Value Design Variables
2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Network_connectivity 1 0 0

2 1 0

3 0 1

0 1 0 0 0 0

Lighting 1 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 1 0 0 0

3 0 0 1 0 0

4 0 0 0 1 0

5 0 0 0 0 1

Cctv 1 0 0 0 0

2 1 0 0 0

3 0 1 0 0

4 0 0 1 0

5 0 0 0 1
 Class Level Information
Class Value Design Variables
Security 1 0 0 0 0

2 1 0 0 0

3 0 1 0 0

4 0 0 1 0

5 0 0 0 1

public_phones 0 1 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 1 0 0 0

3 0 0 1 0 0

4 0 0 0 1 0

5 0 0 0 0 1

Dustbins 1 0 0 0 0

2 1 0 0 0

3 0 1 0 0

4 0 0 1 0

5 0 0 0 1

Note: The design variables are automatically constructed by the

SAS software.
Global Testing:

Hypothesis:

H0: 1=2==13=0 versus H1: not H0

Test Statistic = (L1-L2) ~ 29

Where,
L1 = -2 log L for model without the independent variables
L2 = -2 log L for model with all the independent variables
L is the Likelihood Function.
Decision Criterion:

Reject Ho if p-value < 0.05

Testing Global Null Hypothesis: BETA=0

Test Chi-Square DF Pr > ChiSq
Likelihood Ratio 57.8543 1 <.0001

Score 57.1743 1 <.0001

Wald 54.2529 1 <.0001

As p-value is less than 0.05, we reject Ho.
Hence, there is at least one of Xi is significant.

Stepwise Selection Procedure:

Stepwise method is a process of building a model by successively

adding or removing variables. Any stepwise procedure for
selection or deletion of variables from a model is based on
statistical algorithm which checks for the importance of
variables, and either includes or excludes them on the basis of a
fixed decision rule. The importance of the variable is defined in
terms of a measure of the statistical significance of the
coefficient for the variable. The significance is accessed via
likelihood ratio chi square test. Thus, at any step in the procedure
the most important variable, in statistical terms, will be the one
that produces the greatest change in the log-likelihood relative to
a model not containing the variable (i.e., the one that would result
in the largest likelihood ratio statistic).

For the stepwise selection procedure, we kept sle and sls criteria
at 10.%. The summary of stepwise selection procedure is as
follows:
 Summary of Stepwise Selection

Effect Score Wald

Number Chi- Chi- Variable
Step Entered Removed DF In Square Square Pr > ChiSq Label

1 received_help_from 1 1 57.1743 <.0001 received

male help from
anyone

2 public_phones 5 2 31.6962 <.0001 public

phones

3 Mobile_Operator 7 3 17.6609 0.0136 Mobile

Operator

4 Security 4 4 10.2368 0.0366 security

5 necesity_of_canteen 1 5 4.3975 0.0360 necessity of

canteen

6 public_phones 5 4 9.0654 0.1065 public

phones

7 Network_connectivity 2 5 7.4795 0.0238 Network

connectivity

8 dustbins 4 6 9.4741 0.0503 dustbins

In stepwise logistic regression procedure, the variable Public

Phone is removed.
 iii) Residual chi-square

Ho: The remaining independent variables are not significant

H1: not Ho

Chi-Square DF Pr > ChiSq

14.9843 21 0.8237

Since p-value is > 0.05, we do not reject H0.

Hence the left out variables are insignificant and we proceed

with the 7 variables given by the Stepwise procedure.

Hence the reduced model is,

g(x)=0+3iX3i+4iX4i+6iX6i+7i X7i+11iX11i+12i
X12i+13iX13i

where,
 X3: Mobile Operator
X4: Received Help from anyone
X6: Network Connectivity
X7: Necessity of Canteen
X11: Security

X12: Public Phones

X13: Dustbin

WALD Statistics (individual testing):

The hypotheses are:

H0: i = 0 ; i = 3,4,6,7,11,12,13

H1: not H0

Test statistic: Under Ho the test statistic follows standard

normal distribution.

Test Criteria: Reject H0 if p value < 0.05

Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates

Standard Wald
Parameter DF Estimate Error Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq
Intercept 1 2.6664 0.4723 31.8771 <.0001

Mobile_Operator 2 1 -0.2036 0.3180 0.4098 0.5221

Mobile_Operator 3 1 0.0726 0.2636 0.0758 0.7830

 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates
Standard Wald
Parameter DF Estimate Error Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq
Mobile_Operator 4 1 -0.00504 0.3229 0.0002 0.9876

Mobile_Operator 5 1 -0.8631 0.3711 5.4075 0.0201

Mobile_Operator 6 1 0.4725 0.4065 1.3508 0.2451

Mobile_Operator 7 1 -0.8854 0.5560 2.5358 0.1113

Mobile_Operator 8 1 -1.7256 0.6251 7.6206 0.0058

received_help_from_a 1 -1.1991 0.1973 36.9283 <.0001

Network_connectivity 2 1 0.1986 0.2189 0.8226 0.3644

Network_connectivity 3 1 0.7477 0.2617 8.1645 0.0043

necesity_of_canteen 1 -0.4518 0.1958 5.3264 0.0210

Security 2 1 0.0574 0.2593 0.0490 0.8248

Security 3 1 1.3115 0.4156 9.9583 0.0016

Security 4 1 0.5881 0.3600 2.6682 0.1024

Security 5 1 0.5758 0.3483 2.7326 0.0983

Dustbins 2 1 0.3218 0.2525 1.6244 0.2025

Dustbins 3 1 0.1747 0.2782 0.3944 0.5300

Dustbins 4 1 1.2078 0.4227 8.1627 0.0043

Dustbins 5 1 0.0485 0.3394 0.0204 0.8864

Conclusion :

Since the p-values of mobile_opreator 5, received_help ,

Network_Connectivity 3, necessity_of_canteen,Security 3 and Dustbins
are less than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis & conclude that these
variables are significant.
 iv) Odds Ratio:

Odds Ratio is a measure of association. It approximates how

much more likely it is for the outcome to be present among
those with x=1 than among those with x=0.

Independent
variable X

X=1 X=0

Outcome Y=1 (1) (0)

Variable Y
Y=0 1- (1) 1- (0)

Total 1 1

Odds of (1)/1-(1) (0)/1-

Outcome (0)
being Present

ln [] = ln (1)/1-(1) = g(1) g(0),

(0)/1-(0)

which is also known as log it difference

 = exp (0+ 1) = exp (1)
exp (0)

Odds Ratio Estimates

95% Wald
Effect Point Estimate Confidence Limits
Mobile_Operator 2 vs 1 0.816 0.437 1.521

Mobile_Operator 3 vs 1 1.075 0.641 1.803

Mobile_Operator 4 vs 1 0.995 0.528 1.873

Mobile_Operator 5 vs 1 0.422 0.204 0.873

Mobile_Operator 6 vs 1 1.604 0.723 3.558

Mobile_Operator 7 vs 1 0.413 0.139 1.227

Mobile_Operator 8 vs 1 0.178 0.052 0.606

received_help_from_a 0.301 0.205 0.444

Network_connectivity 2 vs 1 1.220 0.794 1.873

Network_connectivity 3 vs 1 2.112 1.265 3.528

necesity_of_canteen 0.636 0.434 0.934

security 2 vs 1 1.059 0.637 1.760

security 3 vs 1 3.712 1.644 8.382

security 4 vs 1 1.801 0.889 3.647

security 5 vs 1 1.779 0.899 3.520

dustbins 2 vs 1 1.380 0.841 2.263

dustbins 3 vs 1 1.191 0.690 2.055

dustbins 4 vs 1 3.346 1.461 7.663

 Odds Ratio Estimates
95% Wald
Effect Point Estimate Confidence Limits
dustbins 5 vs 1 1.050 0.540 2.042

Hoshmer and Lemeshow Goodness of Fit Test:-

H0 : Model is a good fit.

H1 : Not H0

Where,

nk : Total number of respondents in the kth group

ok: Total number of respondents in the kth group for whom Y=1.

k : Average estimated probability of the kth group.

Decision Criteria:

Reject H0 for large values of Chi Square i.e. if p value < 0.05

Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness-of-Fit

Test

Chi-Square DF Pr > ChiSq

4.0862 8 0.8493

CONCLUSION:

Since p-value > 0.05

Hence we do not reject Ho.

Thus, the model is a good fit for our data.

We obtain the logit function as follows:

g(x) = 2.664-1.7256(X3)-1.1991(X4) + 0.7477(X6)- 0.4518(X7)+

0.5758(X11)+0.0485(X13)
Where

X3: Mobile Operator

X4: Received Help from anyone

X6: Network Connectivity

X7: Necessity of Canteen

X11: Security

X13: Dustbins
 v) Classification Table:-

The classification table is a cross tabulation of observed &

predicted frequencies for dependent variable(Y). The final model

is use to obtain the predicted values of Y. if predicted Y >= 0.5

then we assign Y=1, otherwise Y=0.

These observed and predicted Y values are cross tabulated to get

the Classification table as follows:

Running short Predicted Total

0 1

Observed 0 133 70 207

1 70 386 456

Total 203 456 659

The overall predicted model is 69.20% correct.

CONCLUSION :-

Harassment faced while commuting through subway & overhead

bridge depends upon 6 Factors:

1) Mobile Operator
2) Received Help from anyone
3) Network Connectivity
4) Necessity of Canteen
5) Security
6) Dustbins

7. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions:

1. In spite of the problems faced by the commuters while traveling

through subway, they still prefer to use them as they find it safe
enough as well as they are less distant as compared to overhead
bridges. Also there are many problems such as harassment in terms
of verbal ,physical ,visual etc faced by women commuters on which
they take some action more of which is seeking help from passerby.

2. There are many factors that should be improvised so as to make

subways a better place to commute through. Safety alarm is the most
essential thing that should be brought into the subway. Also there is
a need of canteen in every subway. Besides these, CCTV cameras
should be installed in the subways whose projector is in the nearest
police station. Security is also one of the crucial things that should
be kept in the subways.

3. When women approach to some units for seeking help, NGOs are
the ones who address safety and make an attempt to take some
action. Also police force, political parties are some others who
address safety.

 Recommendations:

Culprits should be aware of the consequences that the victim

has to face in near future.

During the peak hours, the security should be vigilant to ensure

that the commuters are not facing any harassment.

Women commuters should be taken care of so as to make them

feel safer while commuting through subways.

There should be a public phone booth in every subway.

Immediate action should be taken on the culprits.

Subways must be kept clean for avoiding the diseases that can
spread.

 8.BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS REFERRED TO :-

1. APPLIED LOGISTIC REGRESSION

(DAVID W HOSMER, STANLEY LEMESHOW)
2. APPLIED MULTIVARIATE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
(JOHNSON & WICHERN)

WEBSITES REFERRED TO :-

GOOGLE.COM

WIKIPEDIA.COM

SOFTWARES USED :-

1) MINITAB

2) SAS (Statistical analysis software)

3) Microsoft Excel
 PROJECT BY:
DEVEN BHOSLE
SUNETRA JOGAL
RUPESH KHANEKAR
SAYALI PARKAR
NITIN PAWAR
AMRUTA PRDHAN
ADITYA SAWANT
RAHUL SINGH