No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a guide for managing the provision of on-campus student housing facilities (SHFs) security and safety measures. Design/methodology/approach This study adopted a mixed-method approach; the questionnaire was used as an instrument to collect quantitative data, whereas the interview was used to collect qualitative data. Descriptive and inferential statistics and importance-performance analysis models were used to analyse the quantitative data, whereas content analysis was used for the qualitative data. Findings This study found that students rated the satisfaction of all the SHFs safety and security measures below the level of importance. Three categories of performance level (i.e. poor, average and good) were determined. It also became evident that most of the measures were performing averagely, quite a number were poorly performing and few were performing well. Research limitations/implications Data was collected from only one university; therefore, the findings of the research may not be generalised. A study that expands the number of participating universities is recommended. Practical implications The guide developed can be used by the facility and/or hostel managers to ensure appropriate management of SHFs security and safety measures. The guide can also assist to ensure that all the essential safety measures are provided when designing, constructing or upgrading SHFs. It would also aid in the development of policy frameworks for SHFs security and safety. Originality/value Although several studies have been conducted on SHFs, studies that mainly focussed on prioritising SHFs security and safety measures are lacking. With this paper, the authors also demonstrate the practicality of the use of the IPA model to aid the process of developing improvement priorities.

PurposeThis paper compares the provision and risk associated with the lack of safety measures in the student accommodations of a university in the Western Cape province, South Africa, with the aim of developing a guide to improve the provision of the safety measures.Design/methodology/approachThe study adopted a case study research strategy. A questionnaire was used as an instrument to collect quantitative data, whereas an interview was conducted to collect qualitative data. Both descriptive (mean score) and inferential (paired t-test) statistics were used to analyse the quantitative data, whereas a content analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data.FindingsAlthough most of the measures were provided, few critical measures were not adequate or not provided at all. Moreover, the mean scores obtained indicated that there were statistically significant differences between the provision and risk of non-provision of most of the measures. Weapon detector, closed-circuit television (CCTV), water sprinkler system, lift for disabled students, disabled toilet facility, burglar bar on doors, first aid box, medically trained personnel on post and accident logbook were identified as measures requiring urgent attention.Research limitations/implicationsData were collected only from one university; therefore, the findings of the research study may not be generalised. Thus, a study that can expand the number of participating universities is recommended.Practical implicationsThe facilities department and safety unit can use the recommendations provided to improve the safety of the student accommodations. Policymakers could also benefit from the findings of the study.Originality/valueThere is dearth of studies focussing mainly on student accommodation security and safety measures from the infrastructure point of view. Thus, this article contributes to the body of knowledge in this area.

Security lapses have been identified as a problem in most on-campus Student Housing Facilities (SHFs) in South Africa. Thus, this paper investigates the security measures provided in the SHFs of two South African universities with the aim of identifying areas where improvements are required. The study adopted both qualitative and quantitative survey approach. Qualitative data was collected from the university health, safety, and environment officers of both universities whilst the quantitative data was collected by means of questionnaire from the students. Descriptive (mean score) statistics was used to analyse the quantitative data whereas thematic analysis was used for the qualitative data. The study found that the security measures provided in the SHFs of University B were better than those provided in the SHFs of university A. Although university B had a better provision, some lapses were identified such as inadequate Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) and absence of weapon detector. In addition to these two lapses identified in university B, university A had lapses in the provision of access control, security patrol, electronics coded locks on door, and security alarm in most of the residences. Thus, security lapses identified in both institutions were inadequate CCTV and absence of weapon detector. The study provides empirical information that can help the university health and safety officers and facility managers to improve the SHFs security measures.

No abstract