No abstract

Housing is a major concern for many international students. This is especially so in those countries where students are mostly dependent on the private market for their accommodation. Australia is one such country, and is one of the world’s major destinations for international students. This article analyses governmental failure to address problems relating to international student housing affordability and conditions. Using theory on ‘policy inaction’ to frame the analysis, we draw on 20 interviews with policy stakeholders to explain the Australian government’s reliance on: (1) market-based housing provision for international students, and (2) a longstanding policy preference not to provide support. Interviewees were widely critical of the lack of action to address international student housing problems and understood inaction in relation, rather than in opposition, to the dominance of market-based action in housing and higher education. However, analysis of stakeholder perspectives also illuminates how policy-making action benefiting some emerges as inaction for others left behind or overlooked by the status quo. The interview data points to the need for government to overhaul its policy framework, and in doing so, to collaborate with higher education providers in revising the market-based regulatory approach. The main implications for theory and policy are discussed.

Railway transitions from cut to fill are locations across which significant differential settlements may develop. Compounded by similar abrupt changes to subgrade stiffness, accelerated track movement during high speed (HS) train passage may cause tracksubstructure deterioration and instability. This paper considers a foreseeable scenario in UK rail engineering with transition from unweathered Mercia Mudstone (MMG) to MMG cohesive fill. Separate analysis of (1) differential settlement using one-dimensional oedometer consolidation methods and (2) track bed movements using a three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis (FEA) with moving load were undertaken. This included comparison of untreated and lime treated embankment fill material with parameters for each taken from laboratory and field test data. Results showed a difference in settlement of 26.6mm across the modelled cut to 8metre fill transition giving differential settlement for untreated fill that was too high to meet literature criteria of <20mm over 20m. However, 1.5% lime treatment of the fill causes significant reduction to both consolidation settlement and track movement under dynamic loading to meet the serviceability criteria. Consideration of the full settlement profile across the transition has identified that the Rate of Change (ROC) of settlement is maximum at the start of the fill zone and the ROC in settlement could be a more relevant measure of what a moving train would experience with a sudden unloading/loading action. It is concluded that future work including a coupled FEA analysis, including consolidation and then subsequent stages modelling the resulting amplification of moving loads across the settled profile would give stronger understanding of how differential settlement causes rail level movement from HS traffic. This would help confirm how best to apply differential settlement criteria in geotechnical design of transitions and whether ROC in settlement (e.g. 1mm per 1m) is more informative than a settlement range across a longer fixed distance.