Abstract

The term ‘studentification’ is used to describe the socio-spatial implications of students occupying
housing in the suburbs near the universities. Our paper looks at how studentification is managed in
South Africa, where rising student numbers have caused conflict with other residents. We show that
despite a history of segregation and low densities in South African cities, policymakers seldom
consider the role that studentification plays in desegregation and in creating higher densities but
focus instead on its negative impacts and how to regulate it. Hidden interests and a rigid planning
framework focusing on control are underlying to this response. On the one hand, the planners need
to take the concerns from existing landowners seriously. On the other hand, planners’
embeddedness in the history of planning as a tool to control as opposed to a more facilitating role is
central to an understanding of the situation. We use evolutionary governance theory to show that
this focus is mostly the result of path dependencies, goal dependencies and conflicts associated with
interdependencies. The focus on norms and standards largely ignores the fact that about 70% of the
students at the University of the Free State, the site of our case study, live in unregulated
accommodation. We recommend that policymakers should consider alternatives such as pro-active
upzoning and using rates and taxes as a way to bring about change.

Introduction

With the worldwide expansion of access to tertiary education over the past 40 years, universities
have struggled to cope with student housing. The social character of suburbs near the universities
has been changed by the influx – a process that has been dubbed ‘studentification’ (Smith, 2002).
Some universities have set up public-private partnerships to provide student housing; others have
left it entirely to the private sector. Studentification of the suburbs is largely the result of overflow
from insufficient on-campus accommodation.

The term ‘studentification’ was coined by Smith (2002, p. 6) to describe the ‘contradictory social,
cultural, economic and physical changes’ resulting from students pouring into privately rented
housing in some neighbourhoods of Leeds in the UK. Since then, research on studentification has
grown worldwide, though mostly in the Global North. Studentification changes the social geography
of cities and neighbourhoods (Macintyre, 2003, Moos et al., 2019, Sage et al., 2012). The
consequences are both positive and negative. On the negative side, studentification tends to drive
families with children away from neighbourhoods and causes seasonal depopulation because of
academic holidays (Bailey, 2009). Concerns have been expressed about the long-term sustainability
of childless and transient populations in such neighbourhoods (Duke-Williams, 2009). Students in
these suburbs often openly disregard the existing cultural norms and values (Chatterton, 1999).
Among the social problems of studentification are overcrowding, night partying and traffic
congestion, and even crime in the form of theft, hooliganism and street fighting (Omar et al., 2011,
Weiss, 2013, Woldoff and Weiss, 2018). Other residents’ sense of place attachment can be disrupted
(Macintyre, 2003, Sage et al., 2013). Studentification can create segregation between the student
population and the neighbourhood residents (Munro et al., 2009). On the positive side,
studentification can add value to a community’s cultural and social mix (Smith, 2008).
Studentification affects the quality of the built environment. A range of negative consequences has
been reported. In the UK and parts of Europe, the student influx initially contributed to an upgrading
of the housing stock but this was later followed by downgrading of the area, with streets and
gardens becoming neglected (Smith, 2019). Studentification has caused traffic and parking problems,
inconveniencing other residents, and other problems such as untended gardens, accumulation of
rubbish and vandalism (Hubbard, 2008). On the positive side, research from the Global North shows
that studentification through commercial student housing can serve as a gentrifier (Davidson, 2008,
Hubbard, 2009). Davidson and Lees (2010) argue that the gentrifying effect is best when planners
distribute the student population across the university town rather than concentrating it in specific
suburbs. According to Stewart and Taylor (1995), effective local management of studentification by
local authorities can contribute to integration, empowerment and sustainability.

As regards the effect of studentification on the property markets, on the negative side there is a
tendency for large investors to buy up family housing and convert it into large scale student housing
estates, destroying the original look and ambience of the neighbourhood (Charbonneau et al., 2006,
Evans-Cowley, 2006, Garmendia et al., 2012, Hubbard, 2008, Rugg et al., 2002, Smith, 2005,
Thomsen and Eikemo, 2010). In some cases property prices decline (Sage et al., 2013). On the
positive side, there are profits to be made for local landlords who gain by repurposing housing to
accommodate students. Residents in lower-income neighbourhoods can make much-needed extra
income by letting rooms to students. Studentification can create a robust student housing market
attracting premium rents (Hubbard, 2009, Smith, 2005) and some suburbs have reported an increase
in property prices because of studentification (Sage et al., 2012).

In economic terms, a larger number of students can have positive local economic benefits. The local
retail and services sectors usually benefit the most, and some studies have reported improved
taxation income for local authorities (Allinson, 2006, Kenna, 2011, Sage et al., 2012).

Studentification requires appropriate policy responses. The research points to a variety of

collaborative regulatory and non-regulatory approaches between local government, community
residents, private developers, students and universities (Doumani, 2011, Moos et al., 2019, Munro
and Livingston, 2012). In Canada, regulatory responses have included land-use regulations, licensing,
owner-occupancy certification, property standards, and by-laws for zoning, noise control and parking
(Doumani, 2011). In some cases the direct goal was to prevent the neighbourhood becoming
transformed by studentification (Moos et al., 2019). Most cities in the UK have restrained the
uncontrolled conversion of family houses into student housing and prevented the concentrated
development of student housing (thus preventing ghettos) (Hubbard, 2008, Smith, 2008). Some
cities have actively tried to de-studentify neighbourhoods (Kinton et al., 2016, Powell, 2016). The
notion of student villages has been less popular because it places students in one area rather than
integrating them into the city (Smith and Hubbard, 2014).

Non-regulatory approaches entail collaborative strategies and negotiation between universities,

municipalities, private developers and neighbourhoods (Doumani, 2011). In many cities, task teams
manage day-to-day neighbourhood problems like noise and traffic. Collaborative management
between the university and the city council has been suggested as a suitable strategy to satisfy both
parties (Ruiu, 2017), but there have been instances of police enforcing law and order (Woldoff and
Weiss, 2018). The strategy can create a platform for students, local communities and local
authorities to discuss the spatial distribution of students across the city and improve mutual
understanding. In China, rental housing management offices have been set up in various
municipalities to inspect and register rental housing for students (He, 2015).

There is only a small body of work available on studentification in South Africa (Gregory and
Rogerson, 2019a). This research includes extensive work in Johannesburg (Gregory, 2020, Gregory
and Rogerson, 2019a, Gregory and Rogerson, 2019b) and research on studentification in
Stellenbosch (Donaldson et al., 2019; Visser and Kisting, 2019) and Bloemfontein (Ackermann and
Visser, 2016; Donaldson et al., 2019; Marais, 2021). Key themes from this work include the nature
and scale of neighbourhood change (often portrayed negatively), the consequences for the housing
market, the role of landlords and investors in student housing, student housing needs, student
lifestyles, the dependence of the student housing market on government bursary support and the
creation of student lifestyle areas.

South African student numbers have increased rapidly since the demise of apartheid in the early
1990s: from 360,000 in 1994 to 1 million in 2017. Increasing access to university for black students
has been a central goal of the post-apartheid government’s higher education policy. The National
Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) in 2017 caused another spike in student numbers. In 2018,
the universities enrolled 70,000 more students than in the previous year (Stats, 2018). Catering
historically for small numbers of mainly white students, the housing facilities could not cope with the
increase and many students had to find housing in nearby suburbs Gregory, 2020). The University of
the Free State (UFS) in Bloemfontein (part of the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality) is a typical
example (Ackermann and Visser, 2016, Donaldson et al., 2014). At the end of the 1980 s the UFS had
about 8,000 students. Today it hosts about 32,000 students on its main and south campuses and
about 28,000 of these require housing in the city.1 The UFS also has a third campus, the QwaQwa
campus 450 km northeast of Bloemfontein. The historically white suburbs surrounding the main
campus UFS (Brandwag, Park West, Universitas and Willows) have experienced a rapid increase in
single houses being rented to students and high-density off-campus student housing. Fig. 1 shows
the results of our land use survey of student housing and the location of UFS on-campus and off-
campus housing accredited by the UFS.

Our study differs from the international context in being set in a context of weak local government.
Our study also differs from the existing South African research that predominantly explains the
planning consequences of studentification. In this paper, we evaluate the planning approach
towards studentification. We make two main arguments in the paper. First, we argue that the
current approach to governing studentification is the result of historical and contemporary
dependencies, resulting in a rigid planning approach. The rigid planning approach also means that
the progressive policy approach taken since the dawn of democracy does not receive adequate
attention. For example, post-apartheid urban policies promote higher densities and desegregation
(Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, 2016) while the existing planning
approach does not value the role studentification can play in achieving these aims but instead
emphasise norms and standards. Norms and standards should be part of the debate, but we argue
that taking only this approach is counterproductive, as it does not help to manage the social change
that studentification brings. Secondly, we argue in favour of more progressive policies that can help
to manage the character change of the area.

Section snippets

Evolutionary governance theory

Evolutionary governance theory provides a framework for understanding the evolving nature of
governance (Beunen et al., 2016, Van Assche et al., 2014, Van Assche et al., 2016). It is different from
other theoretical approaches to governance as it emphasises non-linear causality, views elements of
governance as evolving, not static, and highlights power play. It draws on a wide array of other
theories, including biological evolutionary theory, social systems theory, post-structuralism,

Methods

Our study used a sequential mixed-method design. Ethical approval was obtained from the General
Human Research Ethics Committee and gatekeeper permission from the Vice-Rector for Research
and Internationalisation. We started with an online survey sent to students’ university email
addresses during September 2019,2 using REDCap. The questionnaire was completed by 1638
students on the main, south and QwaQwa campuses (3.9% of the

Policy responses and UFS studentification profile

The first government reference to student housing came in 1997 when the White Paper on Higher
Education identified overcrowding as the primary student housing problem. Fourteen years later,
the Ministerial Committee for the Review of the Provision of Student Housing at South African
Universities evaluated the situation and again identified overcrowding as a concern (Department of
Higher Education and Training, 2011). The Committee also emphasised the creation of learning
environments and the

Governing studentification in Bloemfontein

Here we use the concept of dependencies (drawn from evolutionary governance theory) to explain
the conflicts that exist around planning student housing in Bloemfontein. We show how these
dependencies create rigidity in the planning system and prevent the consideration of more
progressive approaches to planning and a change in the narrative to accommodate the character
change in these neighbourhoods. Historical beliefs associated with segregation and low densities
continue to dominate the

Conclusion

The governance of studentification in the Global South is somewhat more complex than in the
North. For one thing, local governments and educational institutions are weaker and far more
dependent on national role players, goal dependencies are common and path dependencies alive.
Although there are valuable lessons to be learnt from the international experience, care should be
taken not to think that these experiences can be easily replicated in our case study area.

We argue that some of the

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Dr. Job Taiwo Gbadegesin: writing; Lochner Marais: Writing; Stuart Denoon-Stevens: Data curation,
writing; Jan Cloete: Data curation; Data analysis; writing; Anita Venter: Data curation; writing;
Kholisa Rani: Data curation; writing; Molefi Lenka: Data Curation; Malene Campbell: Data curation;
writing; Quintin Koetaan: Conceptualization.

Dr. Job Taiwo Gbadegesin is a post-doctoral fellow at the Centre for Development Support,
University of the Free State. He is an expert in property studies, including housing system policy,
land institution, sustainable built environment, and infrastructure governance. He earned his Ph.D.
from OTB-Research for the Built Environment, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

References (65)

V. Watson

‘The planned city sweeps the poor away…’: urban planning and 21st-century urbanisation

Prog. Plan.

(2009)

P. Chatterton

University students and city centres – the formation of exclusive geographies: the case of Bristol, UK

Geoforum

(1999)

Ackermann, A., Visser, G., 2016. Studentification in bloemfontein, South Africa, Bulletin of
Geography, Socio-economic...

J. Allinson

Over-educated, over-exuberant and over here? The impact of students on cities

Plan. Pract. Res.

(2006)

A. Bailey
Population geography: life-course matters

Prog. Hum. Geogr.

(2009)

R. Beunen et al.

Evolutionary Governance Theory

(2016)

P. Charbonneau et al.

Characteristics of university student housing and implications for urban development in mid-sized
cities

Can. J. Urban Res.

(2006)

Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

Integrated Urban Development Framework: A New Deal for South African Cities and Towns

(2016)

M. Davidson

Spoiled mixture: where does state-led positive gentrification end?

Urban Stud.

(2008)

M. Davidson et al.

New-build gentrification: its histories, trajectories, and critical geographies

Popul. Space Place

(2010)

View more references

Cited by (4)

Towards plush new digs in Toronto’s in-between city: the changing governance of student housing in
Canada

2023, Urban Geography

Student housing design implications for single-room occupancy during COVID-19 in Ghana

2022, Open House International

Student Housing Satisfaction at a South African University

2022, Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice

An easy target: studentification, crime and safety of students in Johannesburg

2022, South African Geographical Journal