In this response to Lynch et al.'s article on Studentification, Revington and Wray look into the implications of students in the private rented sector and how this affects their health and wellbeing.
We thank Lynch et al. 1 for their excellent essay that ascribes importance to postsecondary student perspectives in scholarship on housing and health. We found their critique of the common framings of students as the ‘problem’ with studentification to be a position of strength in their reflections. They raise numerous challenges associated with this stage of the life course, proposing several lines of inquiry about housing conditions, physical health, mental wellbeing, social connectedness, and place attachment. We concur that postsecondary students are often exposed to considerable risk that is directly related to the inadequacy of their accommodations in the private rental sector as well as the poor condition of the built environments surrounding these housing units. In short, they have identified a critical research gap.
We aim to provide further reflections on Lynch et al’.s 1 essay that will clarify the potential lines of inquiry to address the individual and socio-environmental determinants of student health as it relates to housing and the built environment. Student housing forms one axis of town-gown praxis, or the interactions between postsecondary institutions and their host communities in theory and practice. Other axes include transportation, servicing, social capital, and economic development. Geographic, political science, and public health scholarship and practice predominantly feature in this area. As an urban geographer (Revington) and health geographer (Wray) working in town-gown praxis, we are distinctively positioned to provide these reflections.
Studentification is a process of urban change resulting in the concentration of postsecondary students, predominantly in shared private rentals, in particular neighbourhoods that are usually in proximity to higher education institutions, 2 along with the specialisation of retail and services to cater to this demographic. 3 This process may be related to, but is not always found with, the poor housing conditions and neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation that students may encounter during their studies.
Studentification is not caused solely by increases in enrolment in higher education in the absence of adequate provision of residence halls by universities. It is also shaped by landlords and property developers, letting agents, institutions, and urban planning regulations deliberately or inadvertently directing students to certain segments of the housing market for various reasons. These range from perceptions that students may cause property damage or engage in antisocial behaviours, to unintended consequences of institutional practices.4–7 How students experience this steering process could impact their health or wellbeing and is clearly a product of studentification. So, too, is the ontological security of living among other students – as Lynch et al. 1 mention – that could be supported by residing in a studentified neighbourhood. It is less obvious that other housing-related health risks facing students (such as overcrowding, dampness, or under-maintenance) are directly related to studentification. Poor housing conditions can occur anywhere, and the quality of housing available to students varies tremendously.
Indeed, some of the greatest housing challenges may face students outside of studentified areas. Students who cannot afford to live close to campus have been shown to have lengthier commutes than other demographics, impacting the time they are able to dedicate to study and participation in on-campus social activities. 8 The studentification process may even drive increases in overall neighbourhood rent through the creation of desirable luxury purpose-built student accommodation that in turn contribute to driving poorer students out of these neighbourhoods. 9 The most cost-sensitive students are also the most likely to both broaden their housing search beyond studentified areas in search of cheaper accommodations and to accept poorer conditions that may impact their mental and physical health. 10 These other neighbourhoods may have cheaper housing but may also have fewer amenities and worse multiple deprivation scores. 11 We can reasonably hypothesise that this disparity may affect student health and wellbeing. These students may also develop ‘less extended interest in the area’ 1 from their poor experiences living in these neighbourhoods, with long-term health implications and spillover effects to broader measures of neighbourhood social capital. Another widespread but often hidden issue with important ramifications for health and wellbeing is student homelessness. 12
Health and wellbeing impacts of studentification on students may also extend beyond questions of housing and home. Commercial changes due to studentification may alter the availability of healthy food and recreational substances such as alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco, for instance. A critical mass of students living close to campus may favour active mobility such as walking or cycling, and the provision of supporting infrastructure, which may also influence overall population health and wellbeing. A public health lens is essential to investigating these questions.
We strongly believe that multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary perspectives are required to better understand how student health is affected by (1) the process of studentification, (2) experiences of (poor) housing conditions, and (3) the quality of the neighbourhood-scale built environment. These elements should not be conflated, although there may be causal links between them. We propose that future investigations of student experiences while in their host postsecondary communities should consider the following:
What proportion of students live in studentified versus non-studentified neighbourhoods? How do these students’ experiences differ from each other, and from other types of tenants?
What amenities, services, and transportation connections are available in neighbourhoods where students choose to live? How does the process of studentification support or undermine the locating of amenities and services necessary to support positive health and wellbeing for students? To what extent are student perspectives accounted for in planning and development decisions within their host communities?
What are the individual sociodemographic features of students who live in the poorest housing, or in the neighbourhoods with the worst multiple deprivation scores? What structural factors constrain them to these segments of the housing market?
How do poor housing conditions and poor built environment quality during a student’s studies affect academic performance, postgraduation placement success and location, and long-term health and wellbeing measures?
The research outlined above would provide crucial evidence to inform the design of interventions, policies, and practices that can address the socio-ecological determinants of health for postsecondary students.
Footnotes
ORCID iDs: N Revington 
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5165-4440
Contributor Information
N Revington, Assistant Professor, Urbanisation Culture Société, Institut national de la recherche scientifique, Montréal, QC H2X 1E3, Canada.
A Wray, Department of Geography and Environment, Western University, London, ON, Canada; Town and Gown Association of Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
References
- 1. Lynch Z, Page RK, Dhesi S, et al. Studentification: shining a light on students’ experiences of living among the private rented sector: impacts on wellbeing and study. Perspect Public Heal. Epub ahead of print 2023 June 29. DOI: 10.1177/17579139231180808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Smith DP. ‘Studentification’: the gentrification factory? In: Atkinson R, Bridge G. (eds). Gentrification in a global context: the new urban colonialism. New York: Routledge; 2005. pp. 72–89. [Google Scholar]
- 3. Zasina J. The student urban leisure sector: towards commercial studentification? Local Econ 2021;36(5):374–90. [Google Scholar]
- 4. Fincher R, Shaw K. The unintended segregation of transnational students in central Melbourne. Environ Plan A 2009;41:1884–902. [Google Scholar]
- 5. Miessner M. Studentification in Germany: how investors generate profits from student tenants in Goettingen and the impacts on urban segregation. Eur Urban Reg Stud 2021;28(2):133–54. [Google Scholar]
- 6. Revington N. Age segregation, intergenerationality, and class monopoly rent in the student housing submarket. Antipode 2021;53(4):1228–50. [Google Scholar]
- 7. Revington N, Wray AJD. Land-use planning approaches to near-campus neighborhoods and student housing development patterns in Ontario, Canada. Hous Policy Debate. Epub ahead of print 2022 July 27. DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2022.2093939. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Allen J, Farber S. How time-use and transportation barriers limit on-campus participation of university students. Travel Behav Soc 2018;13:174–82. [Google Scholar]
- 9. Revington N, August M. Making a market for itself: the emergent financialization of student housing in Canada. Environ Plan A 2020;52(5):856–77. [Google Scholar]
- 10. Sotomayor L, Tarhan D, Vieta M, et al. When students are house-poor: urban universities, student marginality, and the hidden curriculum of student housing. Cities 2022;124:103572. [Google Scholar]
- 11. Fisher LM, Pollakowski HO, Zabel J. Amenity-based housing affordability indexes. Real Estate Econ 2009;37(4):705–46. [Google Scholar]
- 12. Weissman E, Waegemakers J, Schiff R. Post-secondary student homelessness (PSSH) and Canadian youth: stigma and institutional responses to student homelessness. Parity 2019;32(8):32–4. [Google Scholar]