Student accommodation: who cares?

Ike, Nnenna ; Baldwin, Claudia ; Lathouras, Athena 等

For universities, there are gains in reputation and, as university provided housing can serve as a tool for student recruitment, in income from tuition.

INTRODUCTION

IN MANY COUNTRIES GLOBALLY, higher education institutions such as universities serve as major economic enterprises (Marmolejo et al. 2007). This is a result of the role they play in teaching and research and their openness to sharing knowledge internationally (Marginson and Van der Wende 2007). Further, changing times and the advent of globalization (such as increased mobility of people, information, knowledge, and products) make it almost mandatory for universities to be even more "international" in their academic and business approaches and relationships (Altbach and Knight 2007). Nowadays, the emphasis is on universities engaging in knowledge transfer directed toward meeting the needs of the business community and the region (Newby 2003). Knowledge today is increasingly mobile in keeping with the digital age, and the nature and methods of teaching have also changed (Barr 2004). What has changed even more is that unlike in the past when higher education was the preserve of the elite, it is now becoming increasingly accessible to the masses. It is also not unusual for students to go to universities outside their region, home state, or even country, and these students require a place to live while they carry out their studies (Rowley and Constable 2014). While teaching and research remain the university's core competencies (Goddard and Kempton 2011), increasing competition implies a need to seek alternative and innovative means to attract and retain prospective students. This is especially so as students, more than ever before, are offered an array of university options from which to choose and have the tools (online real-time information) to enable them to do so (Macintyre 2003). Thus, to achieve their core competencies of teaching and research, universities must determine (1) how to attract and retain students and (2) how to fulfill a duty of care to ensure safe and secure accommodation.

Students have different accommodation options to choose from; for example, they can choose to live at home with their parents, access the private rental market through shared housing, or live in university provided housing (UPH) on campus (Rowley and Constable 2014). Although there are advantages associated with living in any of these accommodation types, the studies discussed below identify benefits linked to UPH for both students and the university. Students accessing accommodation via UPH achieve better educational outcomes and are more likely to graduate (Riker and Decoster 2008; Schudde 2011; Tinto 1996). In addition, UPH increases a university's ranking potential and its attractiveness to prospective students and their families (Kwiatkowski 2013; Reynolds and Cain 2006) as it provides them with a greater sense of safety and security (Paltridge 2009). The positive outcomes and compelling evidence associated with living in UPH suggest that it is beneficial for universities (alone or in partnership with private bodies) to consider student accommodation more seriously. Further on, we use an analysis of our own data to expand on the Australian student housing situation and then make suggestions about how universities may address the current and future need.

ADVANTAGES OF UPH FOR STUDENTS AND UNIVERSITIES

Before further expanding on the advantages of UPH, it is essential to define the terms used in this study. The terms UPH/student residences/student housing/student accommodation refer to all forms and types of housing provided by a university, religious group, and/or private body for the sole purpose of housing the students of a particular institution. As such, UPH herein is considered to be any accommodation offered to students irrespective of location (on or off campus) and ownership/management provided that it is dedicated to accommodating only students of the institution. This clarification is necessary as it is difficult to assess the true (or effective) supply of accommodation available to students if non-students alike can access those bed spaces. As such, this study attempts an approach different from other recent studies (McDonald et al. 2015; Rowley and Constable 2014) by assessing the true supply of dedicated student bed spaces linked to a particular university, thus attributing a sense of duty of care and "ownership" to the institution.

STUDENT ACADEMIC OUTCOMES

Extensive research has been carried out on the positive impact of UPH on students' academic outcomes (Foubert, Tepper, and Morrison 1998; Li, Sheely, and Whalen 2005; Macintyre 2003; Schroeder, Mable, and Associates 1994; Tinto 1996). Two studies in Australia, for example, investigated the effect that housing circumstances can have on educational outcomes, and the research findings attest that students with access to settled, safe, and affordable housing tend to graduate with higher results than those with less settled housing (Macintyre 2003; Monash University 2014). The study carried out by Monash University (which has Australia's largest student population) shows a higher pass rate for students living in university accommodation over the five-year period from 2008 to 2012 (figure 1).

Other studies carried out in the United States found that first-year students living in university accommodation maintained higher cumulative grade point averages than first-year students not living in university accommodation in every semester from fall 2003 to 2007 (Gasser 2008). A meta-analysis of nine studies in the United States from 1966 through 1987 on the academic performance of students who lived in university accommodation found that they performed significantly better than students living in other forms of accommodation (Blimling 1999).

STUDENT RETENTION

Studies carried out in the United States show that 30 to 40 percent of college students drop out in their first year, accounting for almost 57 percent of the total number of withdrawals from a four-year degree program (Consolvo 2002; Tinto 1996). The view argued by a number of scholars on student retention is that students living in university accommodation are more likely to persist to graduation than those who live in private rentals or commute. In a study of 26,000 students in Australia, a positive correlation was found between students living outside university accommodation and non-completion of their degree after enrollment (Coates and Ransom 2011; Parameswaran and Bowers 2012). A study by Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) carried out between 1989 and 2002 suggested that the engagement of residential students in campus activities may account for their 12 percent higher retention rate when compared with other students. These studies suggest that there are several factors that contribute to this higher retention rate, including the various forms of academic support provided in the residence by staff members who serve as community advisors and academic resource coordinators. These staff members are usually residents who serve as mentors, provide answers to academic questions, and assist students with academic-related issues (Li, Sheely, and Whalen 2005).

STUDENT WELL-BEING

A large number of students may be new to the university or region, and their safety should be of primary concern (Macintyre 2003; Paltridge 2009). Moving to a new environment can impact anyone's sense of security, and for newly arrived students, especially traditional first-year students (young and recently graduated from high school) and students from outside the university's region (overseas students), this is often the case (Jones Lang LaSalle 2012; Macintyre 2003; Obeng-Odoom 2012; Paltridge 2009; Paltridge, Mayson, and Schapper 2010). These students may have left home for the first time, leaving behind a familiar environment and severely affecting their sense of security as their support system of family, friends, and community is lost (Nyland, Forbes-Mewett, and Marginson 2010; Paltridge, Mayson, and Schapper 2010). This shift in their sense of security suggests that newly arrived students may find themselves in "'relational deficit,' if not social isolation, at a time when they need more than the usual support" (Sawir et al. 2008, p. 149). Furthermore, newcomers to a region or country may be inexperienced in the private rental market and therefore more susceptible to leasing off-campus housing that presents environmental (building quality and hygiene) and security concerns (Johnson, Cole, and Merrill 2009). Living in UPH among other students and peers can be advantageous as most of these accommodations are located either on campus or in close proximity and benefit from the presence of security patrols and well-lit areas. The sense of physical security afforded by a location within the immediate vicinity of campus reduces other factors that may affect students' social and psychological security (Obeng-Odoom 2012; Paltridge, Mayson, and Schapper 2010). There are also the social supports (friendships and relationships) formed through living in UPH that aid in students' well-being: the presence of common rooms and shared facilities increases the chances of coincidental meetings that in turn create interpersonal bonds and friendships among the residents (Dishno 2010; Easterbrook and Vignoles 2014; Skahill 2002; Wilcox, Winn, and Fyvie-Gauld 2005).

STUDENT CHOICE OF UNIVERSITY

Universities also benefit from UPH. Although there are inconsistencies in the findings, studies (Christie, Munro, and Rettig 2002; Easthope 2004; Jones Lang LaSalle 2012; Macintyre 2003; Reynolds and Cain 2006) suggest that UPH plays an important role for students and their families in their choice of institution to attend. This is especially so for students leaving home for the first time who prefer to live in university housing or whose parents are keen to secure university accommodation for their children as a means of providing them "protection" in their transition from home to the real world (Christie, Munro, and Rettig 2002). Also, students from outside the area in which the university is located (including those from overseas) consider UPH as valuable in providing them with a better university experience (Paltridge 2009). For other students, while the expected academic and related outcomes were their primary reason for choosing a particular institution, a significant number noted that they had rejected some institutions because facilities like student accommodation, which they considered important, were missing (Reynolds and Cain 2006). However, a study in the United Kingdom by Price et al. (2003) presents a different picture. Across 16 factors influencing why students chose a particular university, availability of accommodation ranked 14th, with students indicating that their choice was based on the availability of the courses they wanted, the availability of computers, and the quality of the library. While this finding is inconsistent with the studies described previously, the authors discovered that this outcome was found in institutions with a higher proportion of mature students (Price et al. 2003). As such, as the student population becomes more heterogeneous and diverse, it is acceptable to reason that students' wants and preferences will also be more diverse. For example, what might be preferred by new high school graduates will vary from what is preferred by mature students with responsibilities for families and jobs.

The above discussion illustrates that appropriate student housing influences students' choice of university, increases their academic success and well-being, and promotes retention. This makes a convincing argument for universities to pay attention to the provision of student housing, even if it is simply to fulfll a duty of care in providing students a safe place to live, which should be of paramount importance. However, universities are faced with the dilemma of dealing with reduced access to government funds and increasing demand for accountability in the use of public funds while still meeting students' expectations (Greenaway and Haynes 2003; La Roche, Flanigan, and Copeland, Jr. 2010). One result of governmental budget cuts is that universities prefer to direct their expenditures to projects more central to their core competencies of research and teaching and the related physical infrastructure such as new technology centers or upgraded laboratories (Liang, Lei, and Zhang 2011; Macintyre 2003; Parameswaran and Bowers 2012). This article juxtaposes the financial limitations faced by universities with the benefits of UPH for students.

THE AUSTRALIAN HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT

Historically, universities provided only for the educational experiences of students, who lived in independent arrangements or lodgings such as halls or hostels (Black 2002; Frederiksen 1993; Lucas 1994). But over time it became necessary to set aside certain houses or halls exclusively for students for their comfort and convenience, as happened in Australia. However, it is suggested that students in Australia are far less mobile than their U.S. counterparts (figure 2). Statistics show they tend to study close to home and continue to live with their parents (37 percent) or a partner (27 percent) for the duration of their studies (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013; Hobsons 2014). For those students living with their parents, it is largely unknown whether they prefer to live at home or must live there because of limited UPH options. Rowley and Constable (2014, p. 27) suggest that If there was an increase in the supply of affordable student accommodation, in particular offering options cheaper than the private rental sector, there is little doubt this accommodation would be in huge demand and would give students the option of moving out of the parental home and accessing the type of services available in dedicated student accommodation.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

While Australian students tend to be less mobile than their American counterparts and, as shown in figure 2, there has not been a major shift in student living arrangements over a 10-year period, the makeup of the student population is shifting, particularly as the number of overseas students increases. It is predicted that by 2020 over seven million students will study outside their home country (primarily from developing Asian economies such as China and India) (Jones Lang LaSalle 2014). The Australian higher education sector has undergone significant changes over the past six decades as enrollments by both domestic and overseas students increased from 30,000 in 1950 to 1.2 million in 2010 (Norton 2012). One reason advanced for this growth is the introduction of a demand-driven funding system, which allowed higher education providers to actively seek and enroll a wider range of students (Bradley et al. 2008). Other reasons include the strategic review of the student visa program and a favorable migration policy targeted at international students, along with the strategic marketing of Australia as a desirable destination by both universities and the government (Knight 2011). Currently, Australia (7 percent) is the third-largest provider of international education services in English-speaking countries behind the United States (18 percent) and the United Kingdom (10 percent) (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013; Knight 2011). Growth in the higher education sector implies a greater need for housing for students while they undertake their studies. However, only 5 percent of the over one million students in Australia's member universities access university-provided student accommodation (Earp 2010; Universities Australia 2014). This figure is low compared to countries such as the United Kingdom (24 percent) and the United States (42 percent). One might argue from the foregoing that the United Kingdom and United States have a greater percentage of mobile students and therefore are keener to provide them with a place to live; however, the evidence shows that this figure is rising in Australia. For example, of the 1,313,776 students in 2013, 361,861 (24 percent) are considered to be "mobiles," that is, students whose permanent home address "is no longer within a reasonable daily commuting distance of campus" (McDonald et al. 2015, p. 20). These students require a place to live during the academic term.

These points aside, it is also salient to note that funding by the Australian government directed at teaching and learning through infrastructure and student support has fallen over the years since the Commonwealth assumed full responsibility for university funding in 1973. A base funding review in 2011 found that per student funding had deteriorated since 1994 (Noonan 2015). A further proposed 20 percent cut to university funding (an average of $32 million per university) in 2015-2016, at a time when the higher education system is already under funding pressure, will significantly erode universities' ability to take full advantage of the student demand-driven system, grow student numbers, and contribute to increasing higher education participation (Australian Government Department of Education and Training 2016; Noonan 2015; Regional Universities Network 2013; Universities Australia 2016). A balance of the benefits of UPH (for both universities and students) and a reduction in the funds available to provide this service makes it imperative to seek alternative solutions. Therefore, to assess the demand, current availability, and access to UPH by students, this study investigated the number of bed spaces offered by 30 universities in Australia.

METHODOLOGY

Data were collected between November 2014 and March 2015. A semi-structured questionnaire was e-mailed to the housing officers/housing unit of Australia's 39 member universities requesting the total number of bed spaces in UPH available to students (based on the study definition) across their campus locations. The data collected also included the total on-campus student population. This study defines on-campus students as those who undertake most of their study physically on campus and excludes students studying externally via distance education and online students. (1) This is because on-campus students are more likely to require accommodation and therefore be affected by the (non) supply of UPH. The surveys were supplemented as necessary by telephone interviews of the student housing officers to maximize the return rate. Thirty universities (77 percent) responded to the questionnaire and/or phone interview. Considering that the universities were not compelled to respond to the survey, a 77 percent response rate is an acceptable outcome. Descriptive statistics (frequency and cross-tabulation tables) were then employed to identify the level of UPH supply and the relationship between the number of bed spaces available to students and the student population (figures 3 and 4). Regression analysis was also used to test for correlations (relationships) and make predictions.

Furthermore, two other factors, the age of the university (the date it was established) and its location (urban or regional), were assessed to see if any trends could be seen in the data. The average age of the universities in the sample (adjusted to 45 years for a balanced ratio) was used as a benchmark to assess whether a significant relationship exists between university age and available bed spaces. Although there is no consensus in the higher education sector regarding the definition of an urban or regional university (as a result of the multiplicity in campus locations), a preferred approach is to base classification at the campus level rather than the university level (see McDonald et al. 2015). This approach has been adopted in this study using the location of the university's primary or main campus aligned with how the university describes itself. Based on this definition, 24 of the responding universities (80 percent) are termed "urban" and 6 (20 percent) "regional."

RESULTS

As shown in figure 3, using 2012 data, the on-campus student population was 762,127. There were a total of 42,365 university-provided bed spaces across Australia, accommodating 5.6 percent of the on-campus student population. In other words, less than 6 percent of the on-campus student population can access UPH, which confirms previous studies on low bed space availability in Australia (Earp 2010; McDonald et al. 2015; Rowley and Constable 2014; Universities Australia 2014).

The Pearson table (figure 5) shows that there is a significant relationship between the number of bed spaces provided and student population [r (30) = .39, p < .05]. Not surprisingly, universities with more students provided a greater number of bed spaces than those with fewer students. No significant relationship was found [r (30) = -.26, p = .08] in the assessment of universities located in particular areas (urban/metropolitan or regional) nor was there any visible pattern in the number of bed spaces available to students. In other words, among the 30 Australian universities examined, neither location showed a strong trend for providing more bed spaces comparatively. However, the age of the university showed a significant relationship [r (30) = .50, p < .05]. Older, established universities provided more bed spaces than newer universities.

DISCUSSION

A critical finding of this study is the low supply of UPH available to students nationally despite the growth in student numbers in recent decades. This finding aligns with the results of previous studies showing that a majority of students studying in Australia access accommodation outside UPH, which could be due to its low availability. But Rowley and Constable (2014) suggest that while the available number of UPH bed spaces in Australia can accommodate students wanting to access them, this may not be an affordable option. Their study of seven universities across four Australian states showed that UPH is "largely unaffordable without considerable financial support" (Rowley and Constable 2014, p. 27). This statement on the unaffordability of UPH therefore negates the previous statement on its availability, since it is simply not an option for students who want to access it but cannot afford it. Outside the fact that UPH confers certain benefits to students, one of the primary reasons for choosing this accommodation type is its typically favorable location and convenient services. The conveniences found in most UPH, such as proximity to campus, available Internet connection, security, and even dining plans, contribute in significant measure to this choice (Bekurs 2007; de Araujo and Murray 2010; Li, Liu, and Rojas-Mendez 2013; Li, Sheely, and Whalen 2005). As such, if UPH is available (meaning also affordable), it is reasonable to suggest that this will be a likely choice for most students as they prefer to live close to campus. To support this view, Universities Australia (2014) surmises that in both regional and urban areas it is often difficult for students to find affordable housing within a reasonable distance of campus. Furthermore, findings from the International Student Barometer (ISB) survey show that the availability of accommodation in close proximity to campus is consistently rated poorly by overseas students (Honeywood 2014). The unintended effects of over 94 percent of students commuting daily from of campus (from home or the private rental market) include the increased need for transport (public and private) and parking spaces and the greater travel time and traffic congestion around the campus. There is also the loss of benefits associated with pastoral support (living-learning programs such as mentoring and buddy systems and sports) provided in most UPH. According to Rowley and Constable (2014, p. 27), "if there is a positive link between academic outcomes and on-campus living then an increase in such accommodation should be a priority."

If university provided housing is available (meaning also affordable), it is reasonable to suggest that this will be a likely choice for most students.

It can be said that universities with a higher student population had more bed space to accommodate their student numbers and/or ease the pressure for accommodation. But it is not illogical to suggest that they also use UPH as a tool for recruitment. This is significant as the majority of students studying in Australia begin their course directly or relatively soon after finishing secondary school. In 2011, around three in five (59 percent) tertiary students were aged 15 to 24 years, while 41 percent were aged 25 to 64 years (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013). Again, this supports the previous discussion on the demography of students, who may want to live in UPH to get a "university experience," and their parents, who may consider this form of accommodation as important in transitioning their children to a new life away from home (Christie, Munro, and Rettig 2002; Paltridge 2009).

Furthermore, for regional universities seeking to grow their student numbers, UPH is a tool that can be useful in attracting students. Although it has been suggested that regional universities have more mature students who are not as likely to require UPH, the provision of such accommodation can be a pull factor for overseas and intra/interstate students who may wish to experience life away from the city. The benefits of UPH include the broader positive economic stimulus that students bring to the region. The money they spend on food, accommodation, leisure, and travel in those regional areas where education providers are among the main employers has a multiplier effect on the local economy (Knight 2011). Student spending creates positive spin-off businesses and activities, such as restaurants, grocery stores, clubs, pubs, sporting events, and other facilities, that bring commercial vibrancy and buzz to neighborhoods during term period.

Another critical finding of this study is that older and more established universities have a higher number of bed spaces compared to newer universities. One explanation for this might be that providing students with a place to live while they studied was historically seen as part of providing them with the university experience, and during times past universities had more access to funds for this purpose. But given that the projected number of students (at least in terms of overseas students) is expected to increase by 30 percent by 2020 (Australian Government 2009), the argument for greater supply of UPH still holds. While it is up to today's students to determine what form of accommodation they prefer and want to access, an adequate and affordable supply of UPH provides them with more valid choices. One of the critical arguments against UPH has always been its unaffordability due to the conveniences and amenities offered to residents such as swimming pools and court facilities (tennis, basketball) as well as services such as dining, Internet, and telephone. As such, Rowley and Constable (2014, p. 27) finds that most often in UPH, the lowest priced accommodations are filled quickly, leaving the pricier options that most students simply cannot afford. A solution may be to provide different "levels" or "grades" of accommodation based on students' needs/preferences and their financial capabilities; for example, some students may want to access facilities like a swimming pool (and, as expected, pay for it) whereas others might not want to pay for this convenience.

A further finding from this study shows that there is no visible trend in the accommodation provided by universities based on location. This is inconsistent with a study by McDonald et al. (2015) that found that regional universities offered fewer bed spaces than their metropolitan counterparts. A possible explanation for this is the lower response rate in this study from regional universities (20 percent). Regardless, the argument remains that universities, whether regionally based or in urban settings, are restricted by the funds available to them, though Sanseviro (2010) suggests that universities located in urban areas are more likely to be faced with greater financial challenges. This is a result of high land acquisition costs compared to regional areas where land may be cheaper and as yet undeveloped. All the same, the results of this study indicate that expenditures for student accommodation are a low priority for most universities regardless of location.

If one agrees that UPH is an important factor in higher education, then alternative options are needed to increase its supply and make it more affordable for students. One such option is for universities to form partnerships with private entities. This is referred to as a public-private partnership (PPP) as a form of Build-(Own)-Operate-Transfer (B(O)OT) (Davis, Renfrew, and Sanseviro 2005; McDonald et al. 2015). This is an agreement/scheme between the university and a private entity in which the university partners with private and/or not-for-profit developers to build new or upgrade existing student accommodation with an agreed output, such as a given number of rooms and services. This may be on university land or land in an adjoining neighborhood. In this way, the university is not burdened by the cost and demands of construction or maintenance and in return guarantees a minimum level of occupancy that provides a sustained source of income to the developer or owner (Jones Lang LaSalle 2014; Macintyre 2003; MacroPlan Australia 2006). The arrangement usually lasts between 21 and 40 years before the right to operate the building reverts to the university (McDonald et al. 2015). PPPs can eliminate some of a university's concerns about finding large capital resources, managing cash flow, and providing sufficient operational ability, all of which distract from its main educational purposes (Jefferies 2006). However, a major concern with the PPP model is that the priorities and interests of the private sector and those of the university or its students may not always align. For the university, the key priority is to provide adequate quality housing that attracts potential students while providing services and stimulating retention (Parameswaran and Bowers 2012). The private investor, however, is commercially motivated to acquire the highest possible return on the investment at minimal cost (Macintyre 2003; Parameswaran and Bowers 2012), thereby raising the price point and affecting affordability. In this regard, a critical factor in ensuring the success of a PPP approach to student housing supply and affordability is to ensure that all stakeholders involved (developers, university representatives, investors, accommodation managers) have a clear understanding of the goal of the project, which should be to provide suitable and affordable accommodation for students to enhance recruitment and retention. To achieve this goal through UPH, all stakeholders must be involved throughout the process of designing, selecting, developing, building, and managing the residences (Sanseviro 2010).

Another option to increase UPH supply involved the now defunct National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS). Established in 2008 by the Australian government and ended in 2014, the scheme offered tax incentives to private and community sectors to provide affordable rental housing at 20 percent below market price (Australian Government Department of Social Services 2014). Several Australian universities such as the University of Western Australia, Monash University, and Edith Cowan University used this scheme (McDonald et al. 2015; Rowley and Constable 2014). Although overseas students at present are not eligible to access accommodation through NRAS, there is no doubt that this type of scheme would reduce the number of mobile students seeking accommodation and take pressure off the private rental market. It is also salient that some states like Western Australia that accepted the scheme gave priority to indigenous students when allocating NRAS places. It has been reported that indigenous students in those residences had higher academic progression and retention rates than indigenous students who did not live on campus (McDonald et al. 2015). This further highlights the role of UPH in student retention and academic success. However, it is debatable whether a rental price of 20 percent below market price is affordable to students given that "such accommodation is typically new to the market and tends to attract a premium" (Rowley and Constable 2014, p. 8). Therefore, if an NRAS-type of scheme is reintroduced, market prices should be a factor in the model to ensure affordability for students.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND AREAS OF FUTURE RESEARCH

This study looked at the number of bed spaces available to students studying in Australia and confirmed recent studies carried out by McDonald et al. (2015) and Rowley and Constable (2014). However, this study did not include factors such as the vacancy and occupancy rates of existing offerings to further the argument on availability. That is, it would be useful to examine if all the UPH bed spaces are taken up by students or if there are high vacancy rates. The latter would suggest that students prefer non-UPH although the affordability of the offerings compared to other options (private rental market/living at home) would need to be determined to draw concrete conclusions. This presents a further area for research.

Given that some universities took advantage of the now defunct NRAS incentive as a means to boost their student housing supply, this scheme should be evaluated in terms of its success and considered again as a possible viable option for increasing UPH.

A further possible area of research is to investigate students' housing preferences with respect to where they want to live during their academic career. Past studies show students prefer to live in close proximity to campus; however, the current heterogeneous student population suggests this may not be the case considering there are more mature students who may prefer to live closer to employment.

CONCLUSION

As enrollments in Australia continue to increase, UPH offers benefits to both students and universities if used strategically in line with institutional mission (Levin and Bohannon 2013). For students, this takes the form of academic success. For universities, there are gains in reputation and, as UPH can serve as a tool for student recruitment, in income from tuition. Furthermore, the federal government of Australia imposes a legal duty of care on universities to provide students with safe accommodation. This requires universities to become more concerned about where and how their students live. This concern will only increase as the intent is to further grow the Australian student housing sector. While this sector presents a niche market that can be further developed, particularly for overseas students, it is also important to recognize that successful UPH is about more than simply increasing the quantity of bed spaces. For example, Obeng-Odoom (2012, p. 212) asserts that A more serious weakness in the prevailing policies on solving the housing question ... is the thinking that it is only a shortage of accommodation issue, solutions to which require the provision of more (quantity) houses. Providing more affordable University-owned and strictly regulated private rental would be welcome.

Therefore, any additional accommodation provided by universities and their partners should both meet the needs and preferences of today's students and be affordable (Obeng-Odoom 2012; Rowley and Constable 2014).

(1) For the purpose of this study, students studying externally and online students are categorized together. Although it is recognized that students from either category may attend short courses on campus, this study focuses on full semester or year-round student accommodation requirements.

REFERENCES

Altbach, P. G., and J. Knight. 2007. The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and Realities. Journal of Studies in International Education 11 (3-4): 290-305.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2013. Hitting the Books: Characteristics of Higher Education Students. Australian Social Trends, July 2013. Released 25/07/2013.

Australian Government. 2009. Transforming Australia's Higher Education System. Canberra: Australian Government.

Australian Government Department of Education and Training. 2016. Funding. Retrieved June 2, 2016, from the World Wide Web: www.education.gov.au/funding.

Australian Government Department of Social Services. 2014. National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS). Retrieved June 13, 2016, from the World Wide Web: www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/fles/documents/03_2014/about_nras_factsheet.pdf.

Barr, N. 2004. Higher Education Funding. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 20 (2): 264-83. Bekurs, G. 2007. Outsourcing Student Housing in American Community Colleges: Problems and Prospects. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 31 (8): 621-36.

Black, B. R. 2002. Student Housing in University Towns: A Case Study of Sackville, New Brunswick. Master of urban and rural planning thesis, Dalhousie University.

Blimling, G. S. 1999. A Meta-Analysis of the Influence of College Residence Halls on Academic Performance. Journal of College Student Development 40 (5): 551-61.

Bradley, D., P. Noonan, H. Nugent, and B. Scales. 2008. Review of Australian Higher Education, Final Report. Canberra: Australian Government. Retrieved June 2, 2016, from the World Wide Web: www.mq.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/135310/bradley_review_of_australian_higher_education.pdf.

Christie, H., M. Munro, and H. Rettig. 2002. Accommodating Students. Journal of Youth Studies 5 (2): 209-35.

Coates, H., and L. Ransom. 2011. Dropout DNA, and the Genetics of Effective Support. AUSSE Research Briefings 11. Camberwell, VIC: Australasian Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved June 2, 2016, from the World Wide Web: http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=ausse.

Consolvo, C. 2002. Building Student Success through Enhanced, Coordinated Student Services. Journal of College Student Development 43 (2): 284-87.

Davis, J. S., M. Renfrew, and M. Sanseviro. 2005. More Revenue: Are You Competing with Off-Campus Housing? Paper presented at the annual Auxillary Services Officers Meeting, Augusta, GA.

de Araujo, P., and J. Murray. 2010. Estimating the Effects of Dormitory Living on Student Performance. Economics Bulletin 30 (1): 866-78.

Dishno, A. S. 2010. Development and Validation of the University Student Housing Application and Student Matching and Placement Methodology. Ed.D. diss., La Sierra University.

Earp, M. 2010. Keynote address presented at the Inaugural Student Housing Summit, Melbourne, Australia, September 7.

Easterbrook, M. J., and V. L. Vignoles. 2014. When Friendship Formation Goes Down the Toilet: Design Features of Shared Accommodation Influence Interpersonal Bonds and Well-Being. British Journal of Social Psychology. Online version.

Easthope, H. 2004. A Place Called Home. Housing, Theory and Society 21 (3):128-38.

Foubert, J. D., R. Tepper, and D. Morrison. 1998. Predictors of Student Satisfaction in University Residence Halls. Journal of College and University Student Housing 27 (1): 41-46.

Frederiksen, C. F. 1993. A Brief History of Collegiate Housing. In Student Housing and Residential Life, ed. R. B. Winston, Jr., S. Anchors, and Associates, 167-84. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gasser, R. 2008. Educational and Retention Benefits of Residence Hall Living. White paper, University of Idaho.

Goddard, J., and L. Kempton. 2011. Connecting Universities to Regional Growth: A Practical Guide. Seville, Spain: European Commission, Joint Research Centre. Retrieved June 2, 2016, from the World Wide Web: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/presenta/universities2011/universities2011_en.pdf.

Greenaway, D., and M. Haynes. 2003. Funding Higher Education in the UK: The Role of Fees and Loans. Economic Journal 113 (485): F150-66.

Hobsons. 2014. Student Engagement and Retention: The Behavioural and Circumstantial Factors of Student Attrition Unpacked. N.p.: National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education.

Honeywood, P. 2014. Student Housing Shortage Damaging Our Reputation. The Australian, March 19. Retrieved June 3, 2016, from the World Wide Web: www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/student-housing-shortage-damaging-our-reputation/story-e6frgcjx-1226858410787.

Jefferies, M. 2006. Critical Success Factors of Public Private Sector Partnerships: A Case Study of the Sydney SuperDome. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 13 (5): 451-62.

Johnson, E., E. C. Cole, and R. Merrill. 2009. Environmental Health Risks Associated with Off-Campus Student-Tenant Housing. Journal of Environmental Health 71 (6): 43-49.

Jones Lang LaSalle. 2012. Student Housing: A New Global Asset Class. N.p.: Jones Lang LaSalle. Retrieved June 3, 2016, from the World Wide Web:Error! Hyperlink reference not valid..

--. 2014. JLL Australian Student Accommodation Market Update. N.p.: Jones Lang LaSalle. Retrieved June 3, 2016, from the World Wide Web: www.jll.com.au/australia/en-au/Research/Australian_Student_Accommodation_Market_Update_June_2014.pdf.

Knight, M. 2011. Strategic Review of the Student Visa Program 2011 Report. Canberra: Austraian Government. Retrieved June 3, 2016, from the World Wide Web: www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/reviews-and-inquiries/2011-knight-review.pdf.

Kwiatkowski, K. C. 2013. University Housing: Its Effect on Universities' Rankings and Students' Post-College Earnings. Master of public policy thesis, Georgetown University.

La Roche, C. R., M. A. Flanigan, and P. K. Copeland, Jr. 2010. Student Housing: Trends, Preferences and Needs. Contemporary Issues in Education Research 3 (10): 45-50.

Levin, C., and M. Bohannon. 2013. Assessing the True Cost of Student Housing for Community Colleges. Planning for Higher Education 41 (4): 1-5.

Li, J., F. Liu, and J. I. Rojas-Mendez. 2013. How International Students Select Offshore Programs: The Influence of Image, Attitude, Subject Norm, and Perceived Behavioral Control. Asia Pacific Education Review 14 (3): 381-90.

Li, Y., M. C. Sheely, II, and D. F. Whalen. 2005. Contributors to Residence Hall Student Retention: Why Do Students Choose to Leave or Stay? Journal of College and University Student Housing 33 (2): 28-36.

Liang, Y., Z. Lei, and Y. Zhang. 2011. The Research of Financing Higher Education in the Context of Financial Crisis. In Information Computing and Applications, ed. C. Liu, J. Chang, and A. Yang, 686-94. N.p.: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Lucas, C. J. 1994. American Higher Education: A History. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Macintyre, C. 2003. New Models of Student Housing and Their Impact on Local Communities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 25 (2): 109-18.

MacroPlan Australia. 2006. Student Accommodation Study. Report prepared for City of Whitehorse. Sydney/Melbourne: MacroPlan Australia. Retrieved June 3, 2016, from the World Wide Web: www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/docs/Student%20Accommodation%20Study%202006.pdf.

Marginson, S., and M. Van der Wende. 2007. Globalisation and Higher Education. OECD Education Working Papers, no. 8. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Marmolejo, F., R. Gonzalez, N. Gersberg, S. Nenonen, and P. C. Calvo-Sotelo. 2007. Higher Education Facilities: Issues and Trends. PEB Exchange, Programme on Educational Building, no. 2007/01. Paris: OECD Publishing.

McDonald, P., D. Hay, I. Gecan, M. Jack, and S. Hallett. 2015. National Census of University Student Accommodation Providers 2014. Subiaco,Western Australia: University Colleges Australia. Retrieved June 3, 2016, from the World Wide Web: http://universitycollegesaustralia.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2015-05-27_uca_census_2014_report_final_lowres_sec.pdf.

Monash University. 2014. Monash Residential Services: Pass Rates. Retrieved May 26, 2014, from the World Wide Web: h t t p : // m r s . m o n a s h .edu.au/pass-rates.html.

Newby, H. 2003. The Management of Change in Higher Education. Higher Education Management and Policy 15 (1): 9-22.

Noonan, P. 2015. Building a Sustainable Funding Model for Higher Education in Australia--A Way Forward. Melbourne: Mitchell Institute for Health and Education Policy. Retrieved June 3, 2016, from the World Wide Web: www.mitchellinstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Building-a-sustainable-funding-model-for-higher-education-in-Australia1.pdf.

Norton, A. 2012. Mapping Australian Higher Education. Melbourne: Grattan Institute. Retrieved June 3, 2016, from the World Wide Web: http://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/122_mapping_higher_education.pdf.

Nyland, C., H. Forbes-Mewett, and S. Marginson. 2010. The International Student Safety Debate: Moving Beyond Denial. Higher Education Research & Development 29 (1): 89-101.

Obeng-Odoom, F. 2012. Far Away from Home: The Housing Question and International Students in Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 34 (2): 201-16.

Paltridge, T. 2009. The Effect of University Accommodation on International Students' Socio-Cultural Adjustment. Honours thesis, Monash University.

Paltridge, T., S. Mayson, and J. Schapper. 2010. The Contribution of University Accommmodation to International Student Security. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 32 (4): 353-64.

Parameswaran, A., and J. Bowers. 2012. Student Residences: From Housing to Education. Journal of Further and Higher Education 38 (1): 57-74.

Pascarella, E. T., and P. T. Terenzini. 2005. How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Price, I., F. Matzdorf, L. Smith, and H. Agahi. 2003. The Impact of Facilities on Student Choice of University. Facilities 21 (10): 212-22.

Regional Universities Network. 2013. Funding Cuts Will Hurt Australia's Regional Universities and Students. News release, April 13. Retrieved June 3, 2026, from the World Wide Web: www.run.edu.au/resources/13April2013.pdf.

Reynolds, G. L., and D. Cain. 2006. Final Report on the Impact of Facilities on the Recruitment and Retention of Students. Alexandria, VA: APPA Center for Facilities Research.

Riker, H. C., and D. A. Decoster. 2008. The Educational Role in College Student Housing. Journal of College and University Student Housing 35 (2): 80-85.

Rowley, S, and A. Constable. 2014. The Cost and Availability of Student Accommodation. Report for the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education, Australia.

Sanseviro, M. L. 2010. Public-Private Partnerships for On-Campus Housing. Journal of College & University Student Housing 37 (1): 60-71.

Sawir, E., S. Marginson, A. Deumert, C. Nyland, and G. Ramia. 2008. Loneliness and International Students: An Australian Study. Journal of Studies in International Education 12 (2): 148-80.

Schroeder, C. C., P. Mable, and Associates. 1994. Realizing the Educational Potential of Residence Halls. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schudde, L. T. 2011. The Causal Effect of Campus Residency on College Student Retention. Review of Higher Education 34 (4): 581-610.

Skahill, M. P. 2002. The Role of Social Support Network in College Persistence Among Freshman Students. Journal of College Student Retention 4 (1): 39-52.

Tinto, V. 1996. Reconstructing the First Year of College. Planning for Higher Education 25 (1): 1-6.

Universities Australia. 2014. Affordable Housing. January 20. Retrieved June 3, 2016, from the World Wide Web: www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/uni-participation-quality/students/Affordable-Housing.

--. 2016. Uni Funding Cuts No Answer to Higher Education Financial Sustainability. News release, April 7. Retrieved June 3, 2016, from the World Wide Web: www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Media-and-Events/media-releases/Uni-funding-cuts-no-answer-to-higher-education-financial-sustainability#.VxgYQUxcRBc.

Wilcox, P., S. Winn, and M. Fyvie-Gauld. 2005. "It Was Nothing to Do with the University, It Was Just the People": The Role of Social Support in the First-Year Experience of Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education 30 (6): 707-22.

by Nnenna Ike, Claudia Baldwin, and Athena Lathouras

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

NNENNA IKE is a doctoral candidate in the Sustainability Research Centre at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia. As a social scientist, she engages in action research addressing practical social issues such as student housing and energy provision in developing countries.

CLAUDIA BALDWIN, PH.D., is an associate professor in regional and urban planning at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Her research interests focus around engaging communities for change. She specializes in using participatory and visual methods to research institutional and social-environmental change on topics as diverse as water allocation, coastal planning, and climate change adaptation as well as affordable housing and age-friendly communities.

ATHENA LATHOURAS, PH.D., is a lecturer in the social work program of the School of Social Sciences at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia. She engages in participatory action research projects exploring community development and citizen-led social movements that work for social justice and human rights. Figure 1 Pass Rate Data by Accommodation Permanent home location Average pass rate over a five year period from 2008 to 2012 AUSTRALIAN STUDENTS Living in Monash Residential Services (MRS) managed on-site accommodation NOT living in MRS managed on-site accommodation 86.79 difference 4.76 INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS Living in MRS managed on-site accommodation 89.7 NOT living in MRS managed on-site accommodation 86 difference 3.76 Note: Adapted from Monash Residential Services pass rate data (Monash University 2014). Figure 3 Available Bed Spaces across 30 Australian Universities Student University ID Location (Regional/Urban) Age of University Population 1 Urban 23 22,248 2 Regional 20 8,823 3 Regional 60 4,438 4 Urban 65 47,735 5 Urban 49 27,289 6 Urban 63 26,886 7 Urban 164 49,920 8 Urban 25 38,544 9 Regional 20 11,806 10 Urban 50 32,006 11 Urban 56 56,728 12 Urban 161 47,785 13 Urban 24 24,614 14 Regional 22 8,730 15 Urban 43 38,663 16 Urban 44 18,113 17 Urban 25 40,101 18 Urban 105 44,143 19 Regional 47 6,660 20 Regional 20 8,261 21 Urban 48 17,682 22 Urban 140 24,719 23 Urban 23 27,028 24 Urban 32 20,886 25 Urban 39 18,953 26 Urban 25 9,282 27 Urban 103 24,924 28 Urban 68 19508 29 Urban 47 15,462 30 Urban 124 20,190 Total 762,127 Dedicated students' bed University ID space % 1 150 0.7 2 464 5.3 3 1,685 38.0 4 2,639 5.5 5 1,700 6.2 6 1,908 7.1 7 2,600 5.2 8 1,591 4.1 9 1,030 8.7 10 2,263 7.1 11 2,013 3.5 12 2,533 5.3 13 533 2.2 14 329 3.8 15 950 2.5 16 1,464 8.1 17 - - 18 3,430 7.8 19 425 6.4 20 1,100 13.3 21 560 3.2 22 594 2.4 23 64 0.2 24 850 4.1 25 867 4.6 26 170 1.8 27 2,000 8.0 28 4,800 24.6 29 2,230 14.4 30 1,423 7. 0 Total 42,365 5.6 Figure 4 Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Bed space 1412.1667 1106.28415 30 Age (date of establishment of university) 57.8333 42.25790 30 Population (on-campus student population) 25256.43 14602.540 30 Figure 5 Correlations Bed space Age Location Population Pearson Correlation Bed space 1.000 .499 -.264 .391 Age .499 1.000 -.317 .442 Location -.264 -.317 1.000 -.623 Population .391 .442 -.623 1.000 Sig. (1-tailed) Bed space . .002 .080 .016 Age .002 . .044 .007 Location .080 .044 . .000 Population .016 .007 .000 . N Bed space 30 30 30 30 Age 30 30 30 30 Location 30 30 30 30 Population 30 30 30 30