Use of Space and Safety Perceptions from a Gender Perspective: University Campus, Student Lodging, and Leisure Spots in Concepción (Chile)

Abstract

This paper explores the different perceptions of safety of male and female university students, analyzing the gendered construction of space across three key settings of student life. The study employs a qualitative methodology based on 20 in-depth interviews conducted with both male and female students on the main campus of the Universidad de Concepción (Chile). The results show that female students adopt avoidance and precautionary strategies when navigating university and leisure spaces. These strategies limit their freedom of movement and contrast with the more unconstrained spatial behaviors reported by male students. The findings also reveal a perceived loss of safety as spaces become more communal and less private, particularly for female participants. This research underscores the need to better understand how gendered perceptions of safety shape everyday spatial practices within academic environments.

1. Introduction

Student geographies have become increasingly important in recent years, linking the arrival of university students to specific neighborhoods with processes of gentrification (Smith and Holt 2007), urban financialization, or segregation (Alamel 2021). A number of studies have been conducted from this perspective, with a particular focus on the issue of fear of crime on university campuses (Day 1999; Starkweather 2007). Other research has explored the issue of purpose-built student accommodation from a gender perspective (Revington 2022). However, a lacuna exists concerning other spaces with an inherent focus on students, such as off-campus housing or recreational facilities. This paper aims to explore the aforementioned gap in the existing literature by articulating the three most relevant spaces for students (housing, university campus, and leisure spaces) with the construction of space from a gender perspective, emphasizing the gendered differences concerning feelings of insecurity within these spaces. To this end, we engage with a relatively novel research area, given that research into studentification in Latin America remains incipient (Prada-Trigo 2019). This subject is relevant both academically and socially, as it explores university students’ perceptions of security from a gender perspective, a central topic in urban geography in the context of security perception (Larreche and Cobo 2021). The choice of a case within the Latin American context is also important due to the region’s specific social dynamics and urban challenges (Deere et al. 2012). This context allows for significant advancements in addressing gender inequalities in university spaces.

Based on 20 in-depth interviews with students, our research aims to demonstrate how there is a different perception of safety along these three axes, and a social construction of space from a gender perspective. Although contemporary understandings of gender increasingly move beyond a binary framework, in this study, all participants reported a coincidence between their gender identity and biological sex. While this approach reflects the parameters of the current research design, it does not dismiss the notion that gender exists beyond the male–female dichotomy. In response to a reviewer’s suggestion, the authors recommend further reading on gender as a spectrum to deepen this perspective (Monro 2005). This refers to how spaces acquire meaning and structure through social interactions and cultural practices, influencing their use and perception (Massey 1994). In this sense, our contributions focus on the fact that, although student housing is generally perceived as a safe space by both genders, this sense of security diminishes when students move beyond the boundaries of intimate spaces. We have observed a significant disparity in the fear perception and danger based on gender, with female students being more likely to identify hazards in shared spaces. We recognize a loss of the sense of safety as spaces become more communal and less private, which in turn affects how students perceive and use these places, leading to gender-based differences in their experiences.

We now present the theoretical framework for this study, based on a literature review considering student geographies with a gender focus and the fear of crime from a gender perspective. We then detail the methodology applied in this study and present the main findings, which have been structured along the three aforementioned axes (housing, university campus, and leisure spaces), attempting to analyze and interpret the similarities and differences between male and female students. The article concludes by highlighting the main findings, the first relates to the specific situation of Latin American non-binary students, both in their safety perceptions and the mechanisms they use to construct collective self-care networks. The second concerns female students’ unequal economic capacities, which can result in differences in housing choices, transportation methods, and preferred leisure spaces. Income is an element that can provide a further nuance to these gender differences. In summary, this manuscript contributes to the literature on student geographies and gender studies by bringing these debates into a Latin American context, thus expanding a field traditionally focused on Anglo-Saxon experiences. Based on an analysis situated in the city of Concepción, the study provides empirical evidence of how university students’ perceptions of safety are shaped differently according to gender, revealing everyday inequalities in access to, use of, and appropriation of urban spaces. Furthermore, it offers a critical reading of the studentification process from a gender perspective, showing how this urban phenomenon reproduces exclusionary logic and reinforces pre-existing asymmetries in the university environment.

1.1. Student Geographies and Gender Focus

Studentification constitutes a neologism that refers to the social, physical, economic, and cultural impacts which take place in certain residential neighborhoods as a consequence of the increase and concentration of the student population in them (Smith 2004). While the bulk of these studies have been conducted within the United Kingdom, others have progressively emerged from different locations, including Canada (Revington 2021), Poland (Murzyn-Kupisz and Szmytkowska 2015), South Africa (Gbadegesin et al. 2021) or Chile (Prada-Trigo 2019). The studentification process has been connected from the beginning with other urban phenomena, including gentrification, with students being considered as potential or marginal gentrifiers (Smith 2004; Smith and Holt 2007). From this perspective, studentification would be assimilated to the deregulation of urbanism, increased involvement of private agents in the housing market, and, as a consequence of the arrival of students, the emergence of processes of reappropriation and displacement in the context of the right to the city (Prada-Trigo 2019).

Some studies (Ackermann and Visser 2016; Allinson 2006) indicate a connection between antisocial behavior, such as noise, excessive alcohol consumption, and minor crimes, particularly in relation to parties. This behavior is often associated with ‘lad culture’, characterized by sport, heavy drinking, casual sex, and sexist jokes, which is normalized within student communities (Phipps 2018; Hubbard 2013). There is a need for further micro-scale research on studentification to understand students’ perceptions of their environment, considering aspects like gender, social class, and sexuality. Revington (2022) highlighted that studentification is linked to gender, reinforcing traditional gender roles in areas like security and space usage, but also noted a lack of gender-focused studies on studentification.

Gender studies have examined campus safety and crime fears through a gendered lens, considering both male and female perspectives (Day 1999; Woolnough 2009; Roberts et al. 2022). Pain (2001) and Bondi (1998) have emphasized the unique challenges women encounter in public spaces like university campuses, including restrictions on their movements at certain times (Tomisch et al. 2011) and limitations in using public transportation (Yavuz and Welch 2010). Some studies on student geographies with a gender focus have explored differences in students’ daily commutes to campus (Holton and Finn 2018), strategies to mitigate feelings of insecurity beyond gender binaries (Starkweather 2007), and challenges faced by international students regarding feelings of attachment and safety (Walton-Roberts 2015).

The studies mentioned primarily focus on on-campus student housing as spaces where issues of belonging, discrimination based on gender and social class, and the reproduction of traditional gender roles occur (Holton 2016; Moss and Richter 2010). While Revington (2022) broadened the scope to include off-campus housing, other student-centric spaces like leisure areas remain under-studied in terms of gender and studentification. There is a promising area for research in student geographies, particularly in leisure spaces and off-campus housing. This research could explore safety perceptions at these micro-scales and integrate considerations of both public and private spaces, as suggested by authors like Listerborn (2016) and Pain (2001).

Finally, most of the studies, including those with a gender perspective, have come from Anglo-Saxon countries, such as the United Kingdom (Holton and Finn 2018), Canada (Revington 2022), or the USA (Starkweather 2007). In this sense, some authors, such as Prada-Trigo (2019) or Revington (2022), have made calls to expand the horizons of student geographies into new spatial environments. In this respect, Latin America is a context with strong inequities in gender matters (Deere et al. 2012) and is a region which has seen rapid university population growth. In this context, this article aims to expand the focus towards a region with very few studentification studies, while also approaching the gender question from its role in reinforcing and reproducing unequal urban processes between men and women (Day 2001), which constitutes a novel topic in studentification studies at the Latin American level.

1.2. Fear of Crime from a Gender Perspective

The urban experiences of men and women in cities show significant differences. This has reproduced gender stereotypes within cities, in turn leading to implications for daily life management and the personal experience of using urban public spaces (Jaeckel and Van Geldermalsen 2006). In this context, the feeling of insecurity shapes much of the difference in the experiences of men and women in the city. The various forms of violence that women face in public spaces also permeate the physical, psychological, or sexual dimensions, and are different from the experiences of men (Valentine 1989). This shapes the urban spaces of fear, permeated by gender inequality and thus affecting access and mobility (Koskela 1997; Pain 2001; Ruddick 1996), as well as conditioning women’s spatial experiences and constraining their full participation in urban spaces and spatial freedom (Day 1994; Haskell and Randall 1998; Keane 1998; Pain 1991). In this sense, we can assert that social-gender relations are expressed and constituted within urban spaces, which in turn repeatedly reproduce them (McDowell 1983; Spain 2014; Beebeejaun 2017).

These differences, based on fear, are often related to the ongoing experience of danger that women face in public spaces (such as harassment or sexual violence), shaping their perceptions of insecurity in public spaces (Fisher et al. 2000). On this basis, gender-based fear management strategies emerge as a resistance to the historical city-organizing style; one that tends towards diversity and aims to create a more egalitarian urban environment (Haskell and Randall 1998). Some authors, such as Starkweather (2007) and García-Carpintero et al. (2022), identify three strategies for fear and safety management in urban spaces. First, there is avoidance, which involves not walking in certain neighborhoods or dark, sparsely populated areas. These types of strategies entail behavioral changes (Pain 2001) and are considered ‘passive’ as they reduce the opportunities to become a victim of aggression (Woolnough 2009). Second, García-Carpintero et al. (2022) highlight confronting strategies, based on precaution, such as carrying a mobile phone or being accompanied most of the time by peers, something also mentioned by Roberts et al. (2022) in their work. Third, they emphasize empowerment strategies, which include the self-affirmation that there is no reason to fear, asserting the person’s right to the city, and reclaiming or appropriating space through its active use (Starkweather 2007; García-Carpintero et al. 2022). These are underscored by Bondi (1998) when discussing the necessity for women to confront their fear of using public spaces, which may even involve carrying devices for self-defense against potential aggressors (Woolnough 2009).

In this context, it is important to mention that men also report feelings of insecurity. The difference lies in the fact that men mainly identify fears associated with criminality (such as theft or physical violence from another man), but a hostile perception of urban space is not identified, as is the case with women (García-Carpintero et al. 2022). Considering this, new focuses are needed in urban planning that can consider the limitations which urban life presents for women (Tummers and Heidrun 2020). Additionally, some researchers indicate the need to address other risk factors that exacerbate this gender inequality gap in the urban experience, such as lifestyle, alcohol consumption, and the norms regarding harassment and sexual abuse (Phipps and Smith 2012). The problems of insecurity and marginalization of women from being able to live a full urban life thus fall into the hands of women themselves, when they should instead be dealt with as political and spatial matters. This leads us to question the need to live in a community with equal conditions (Massey 1994). With the understanding that studentification is an urban process that has increased the presence of women in university environments within most societies in recent decades (Dyhouse 2006), we can thus see the need for an analysis of gender relations grounded in a social construction of space focused on gender beyond the traditional focus of college campuses.

It is important to highlight that the Latin American context has particularities regarding gender constructions that distinguish it from Anglo-Saxon contexts where most research on student geographies has been developed. In Latin America, gender conceptions are influenced by deeply rooted patriarchal traditions. As Lugones (2008) and Segato (2016) point out, the coloniality of gender in Latin America has created specific configurations where women’s experiences are shaped not only by gender but also by race, ethnicity, and social class. These intersections are particularly relevant in university environments, where access to higher education has historically been marked by class and race privileges that have excluded large sectors of the population. In this context, studying perceptions of safety from a gender perspective implies recognizing these complexities and the way different identity markers configure differentiated experiences of space (Mingo 2010).

The growing openness toward more fluid and diverse understandings of gender is also reflected in Latin American student movements, where feminist and LGBTIQ+ organizations have driven significant transformations in university policies in recent decades (Pecheny and De la Dehesa 2014). However, these transformations coexist with conservative resistance and persistent structural inequalities that affect the spatial experience, particularly in terms of safety and freedom of movement.

2. Materials and Methods

This paper was developed on the basis of primarily qualitative work within the framework of a research project on student dynamics funded by the National Research and Development Agency of Chile, and applied on the campus of the Universidad de Concepción, in Chile. Concepción is the center of the second largest urban area of Chile, with over a million residents, 500 kilometers south of Santiago. The Universidad de Concepción, which is considered the third most important in the country, was founded in 1919 with the goal of decentralizing the training of qualified human capital, which up to then had been entirely centralized within the capital city. The campus was laid out with a unique structure, different from other Chilean universities, and was integrated with the urban grid of the city. Some streets were extended into the university campus (Figure 1).

The campus has no physical borders or any built-up edges which separate it from the city; instead, its presence is diluted into the urban environment occupying adjacent buildings. This gave rise to the ‘University Neighborhood’ as one more sector within the city. Thus, the oldest part of the Universidad de Concepción (the central axis along the forum area) is currently a public space used by the population as a leisure, sporting, and walking area. The University itself has contributed to this, since it holds various cultural and sporting activities open to the community throughout the year that help to fully integrate the University Campus within the city. In turn, the presence of over 25,000 students, along with urban integration, has favored the rise of a recreational zone around the college, with businesses and restaurants taking root that focus on the student market, along with the occupation of public spaces by the students (Prada-Trigo 2019).

The University of Concepción offers an open and expansive campus, well integrated into the city’s sociocultural dynamics, along with a large and vibrant student community and a surrounding “student neighborhood” where leisure spaces catering to university students are concentrated. Moreover, there is existing literature addressing student-related themes. Taken together, these elements make the University of Concepción a suitable case for advancing a gender perspective within student geographies.

Between September and November 2022, 20 in-depth interviews were carried out with students at the Universidad de Concepción. The choice of in-depth interviews as a qualitative tool for data collection was based on it being an intimate, flexible, and open form of interaction (King and Horrocks 2009) which has been used in other studies on fear of crime among students (Day 1999; Roberts et al. 2022). The aim was to identify a finite group of cases that would allow for generalization; so the interviews were conducted using a ‘snowball’ technique, which progressively expands the social network of the subjects to be considered. We sought to interview 10 male and 10 female students between 20 and 29 years of age, belonging to 10 different majors distributed across the entire campus, and who were actively matriculated.

The interviews resulted in a sufficient sample size to reach a point of data saturation, where no new information was being retrieved and thus became redundant. The interviewer was the youngest female researcher on the team, which helped to break down age and gender barriers with the students. The recruiting of the participants began with a collective of female students from the Faculty of Architecture, Urbanism, and Geography. Through snowball sampling, the other participants were recruited through direct solicitation, a technique similar to that used by Day (1999).

In the interviews, we considered perceptions of safety and insecurity which students experienced in their homes, on the college campus, and in the leisure places they visited. We sought to find motivations, causes, and interpretable explanations along gender lines, using a set of scripted questions, but also allowing the students free expression and greater depth for other aspects as they wished. Our goal was to interpret the social construction of space and the sense of insecurity which this could cause from a gender perspective. In doing so, emphasis was placed on the idea that, beyond the ‘objective’ characteristics of space, the perception of safety and fear holds different meanings for male and female students. This is because violence against the latter both conditions and influences spatial behavior and avoidance strategies (Woolnough 2009; García-Carpintero et al. 2022).

In order to favor a freer expression of opinions, we decided to maintain anonymity when transcribing parts of the interviews in the manuscript and offered a code with the initial and the number of the interview, followed by identification of male or female students, as well as the age of each interviewee for their use in this study. Regarding gender categories, we have asked participants about, and we have used the participants’ own identifications. In all cases, gender identification coincided with biological sex.

While we recognize gender identities as a spectrum beyond the traditional binary, our sample included only students who identified as male or female. This reflects the limitations of our unintentional and snowball sampling method rather than conceptual constraints. We acknowledge the need for future research on the spatial experiences of students with diverse gender identities. For the analysis of information, we used content analysis, which involves an open coding process, generating emergent categories, as proposed by Charmaz and Belgrave (2015). This deductive analysis allowed us to identify recurring patterns in the interviews and organize them around the three spatial axes studied (housing, campus, and leisure spaces). The transcripts were analyzed line by line to identify themes related to perceptions of safety, protection strategies, and gender-differentiated spatial behaviors. The resulting categories were subsequently contrasted with existing literature to generate an interpretation of the social construction of university space from a gender perspective. The main themes that emerged from the interviews structured the three lines of analysis for the results, including some significant quotes to illustrate each category.

3. Results

3.1. Housing Safety and Social Construction

The analysis of the results was conducted on the basis of three structural axes for the interviews: housing, college campus, and leisure spaces. For each axis, our aim was to identify similarities and gender-based differences that influenced the social construction of the student space, connecting them with the literature.

For the first axis, housing, male and female students had a general sense of safety within private spaces. This sense was increased by the presence of safety measures, such as security cameras, bars, and wires or watchmen, as well as by living in apartment buildings (which were generally considered safer than private individual homes).

For relations with the broader housing environment, male and female students were generally concerned about the neighborhood where their home was located, valuing its social perception (as safe or dangerous) when renting. To a lesser degree, they also considered it important for the street where they lived to be well-trafficked, to have direct access to public transportation, and to be well-lit, in line with what Yavuz and Welch (2010) mentioned concerning gender differences in reaction to safety measures. These elements, which were ‘external’ to housing per se, contributed to an increased sense of safety among both male and female students. We also found a preference for renting spaces close to the university, but this proximity could be given up for economic reasons. In this case, the priorities were the neighborhood’s image and strong public transportation connections to the campus. This makes environmental security a key element in choosing where to live, distinguishing between those who can access it and those who cannot.

When considering safety perceptions from a gender dimension, we found that one major difference was the fears which male and female students faced. The former declared that they feared the possibility of being mugged, being threatened with a knife during theft, or getting caught up in a fight. However, for female students, the main fears, along with muggings, consisted of the risk of being raped or of being groped or suffering other types of sexual aggression.

On this basis, and from the viewpoint of social relations, all the students preferred to rent from people who they knew, whether directly or through a friend or family member. Similarly, both male and female students preferred living with other students rather than with workers and families with generational, sociocultural, and safety concerns all simultaneously involved in the decision, as noted in other works on studentification (Allinson 2006; Holton and Riley 2013). While male students had no clear preference for their housemates’ gender, female students clearly preferred to share lodgings with women due to safety concerns, which also constituted a relevant difference, given how it limited their options for finding a rental. As three interview respondents said:

2G, female university student, 23 years old: [I’m glad that the place has] a front door concierge, good lighting, and transportation which can leave me near the apartment, so I don’t have to walk so much and risk myself. I think the neighbors are important too.

9J, female university student, 29 years old: First, the gate needs to stay closed. Or else, if it’s in a condo complex, where there’s a space where you can have more control over who can come nearby. That, more than anything.

4L, male university student, 21 years old: The location, being in a neighborhood that’s considered safe, more than anything else I go by what people say […] For example, near the university I feel safer, because I know that there are always students, and that most of the population is young. Things like that. By contrast, in a place that’s too far away which I don’t really know and where the streets are too deserted, I feel less secure there.

In conclusion, housing is perceived as a relatively safe and controllable micro-space by students of all genders. As a private sphere, largely determined by individual and family decisions—such as the choice of neighborhood, type of housing, or the people who live with them—it allows for a degree of autonomy that contrasts with the insecurities of public space. However, upon crossing the threshold of their homes, gender-specific fears and vulnerabilities emerge, even in the immediate surroundings of their neighborhoods.

These patterns must be understood within the framework of broader urban dynamics, where security is reconfigured as a commodified asset. Therefore, security becomes an asset for the student market, as Revington (2022), integrated into the logic of neoliberal planning (Harvey 2000). By not being considered a universal right, security becomes a differentiated good; it is not a mere perception, but the result of an unequal material and symbolic organization of space (Soja 2013), which influences how students navigate and evaluate their urban environment.

3.2. University Campus and Security Perceptions

In the case of the second axis, referring to the university campus, it is generally perceived as only a partially safe space by both male and female students, which is an initial difference with housing. This is due to a lesser degree of control over the space, with no chance of influencing the material conditions (lighting, location, hours) or the social conditions (pedestrian traffic, space use). The study identified that this sense of partial safety is related to four main elements. The first is the time when students arrive on campus. The hours with the lowest traffic flow (early and late) were generally associated with fewer people and vehicles, which was linked to a heightened sense of insecurity, as Roberts et al. (2022) also noted. The second, which is related to the previous one to some degree, is tied to lighting, whether due to the hour (times during the day without natural light) or because the area has bad artificial lighting. All those interviewed associated dim lighting with greater insecurity, an aspect widely mentioned in other studies on the sense of fear on university campuses (Day 1999; Tomisch et al. 2011).

The third factor was the area of the campus where they were located. Since the campus is 140 hectares, there were some areas which, due to being more distant and having less traffic, were considered insecure. Woolnough’s research (Woolnough 2009) has also identified the tendency to avoid rarely frequented places, while Day (1999) observes the trend of avoiding places frequented by individuals outside the university community. Finally, familiarity with the various campus sectors constituted the fourth most important factor when explaining greater or lesser feelings of security. The faculties and study spaces (such as libraries) peculiar to each student were linked with greater closeness, with contact with other students who they knew, and with greater security, establishing more confidence, also mentioned by Day (1999).

Within the insecurity that the university campus caused, all the students, regardless of gender, mentioned the risk of suffering assaults and robberies, something which they frequently mentioned had happened to other people from their milieu. However, along with this fear, female students also added the fear of suffering sexual harassment, setting them apart from their male classmates, as this was their principal fear vis-à-vis the four previously mentioned campus experience elements. Female students mentioned that they took the precaution of moving in groups, especially during times with lower pedestrian traffic (early or very late) and in more dimly lit spaces, avoiding moving around campus alone (Starkweather 2007; Roberts et al. 2022). Another measure they mentioned was sending their real-time GPS position to someone that they knew, along with carrying pepper spray to defend themselves if needed.

By contrast, male students talked more about corporeal elements, such as walking quickly, maintaining a confident posture, or moving in a determined and decisive way, as García-Carpintero et al. (2022) also pointed out as self-affirmation strategies. While they also preferred to move around with companions, they did not consider it to be as much of a significant aspect as among female students. As three respondents said:

9J, female university student, 29 years old: In the morning, when I have to come in (to university) earlier, I ask my partner to bring me to the stop, because when it’s really late or really early in the morning, it’s very dangerous.

8D, female university student, 23 years old: The most dangerous ones are, of course, the ones that are furthest out, like going to the waterfall, because out there you have less security, like fewer guards. […] Generally, the more open spaces. For example, in Los Patos lake, I feel like over there, sometimes there’s some dangerous situations. […] there aren’t many guards and there aren’t any buildings with lots of people around, like the faculties.

10J, female university student, 21 years old: I try to avoid walking alone so late on the street, so the earlier the better. I dunno, not taking my cell phone out on the street, to avoid those things. [Saying where I am] with my friends and my boyfriend.

In conclusion, the campus constitutes a space that offers a partial sense of security for the students. During the main hours of the day, the more heavily trafficked spaces and well-known places are thought to be safer, while other moments of the day with lower pedestrian traffic or lighting, specific campus areas, or the presence of people from outside the university milieu all tend to increase insecurity among both male and female students. While the principal fear for all of them is being assaulted, female students also face the fear of harassment (Fisher et al. 2000; Phipps and Smith 2012). In this case, while they opt for more collective strategies, such as sharing their location or moving with companions, male students favor strategies with a more personal component, tied to concrete physical expressions. This leads to a loss of autonomy for female students, as it is given up to obtain a greater feeling of safety, which other authors have mentioned in different contexts (McDowell 1983; Starkweather 2007).

3.3. Leisure Spaces and Security Perceptions

The final axis, referring to leisure spaces, presents three fundamental differences between residences and the campus. The first is that there is a wider range of options, with three categories being primarily mentioned: party spaces, open spaces within the college campus understood as leisure spaces, and shopping malls. The second is that the sense of security is much lower compared to the other two axes, for both male and female students. This may be because they are totally open spaces, not restricted to students, without a defined timeframe, and are less well-known. While the presence of security guards, police, security cameras, or visible exits and escape paths may ameliorate this sense, a certain feeling of insecurity is never totally absent. The third difference is that this axis presents a great number of differences between male and female students, unlike what happens in the other two axes, where the similarities, while not complete, were more evident.

The first difference between male and female students lies in the type of place which they frequent. While they all visit the same spaces, their evaluations of the experience differ. Female students prefer more intimate and familiar spaces where relationships of trust prevail, increasing their perceived security. They mentioned friends’ or acquaintances’ houses as places that inspired greater security, along with places which they had already been to and which transmitted a sense of confidence to them, as mentioned by García-Carpintero et al. (2022). In contrast, male students had a greater preference for going to ‘standard’ leisure sites such as bars and discos. For female students, some less tangible elements were also highlighted, such as the appearance of the place (having a nice ambiance or not being too masculinized); while for male students more material matters predominated, including table distribution, the size of the locale, or having escape paths in case of an emergency. In some way, the interviews reproduced Hubbard’s (2013) idea that university party venues perpetuate predatory masculine sexuality where women have a more passive or victimized role, which is why they prefer more intimate settings with trusting relationships.

The second difference between male and female students was over the transportation method to reach the leisure sites. While most male students walked or took the bus to go, and quite often to return as well (with a greater preference for using apps such as Uber to return); for most female students, using Uber and going out with a companion were the best options for going out and coming back. Female students had normally developed some strategies, such as automatically sharing their location with various people they knew or photographing the license plate of the car. In this sense, we can infer that, for transportation, the experience among male students remained at an individual level, while for females, movement in leisure spaces is a mainly collective process, resulting in a loss of privacy, as noted by Roberts et al. (2022). Consequently, adopting prevention strategies becomes customary, leading to changes in behavior, as also noted by Ratnayake (2017) in an Australian context and by García-Carpintero et al. (2022) in a Spanish one.

Finally, the third significant difference between male and female students in leisure spaces was related to the feeling of insecurity itself. For the latter, this feeling was associated with issues such as the invasion of their personal space, experiencing sexual harassment, unwanted touching, or encountering violence, axes of the ‘lad culture’ mentioned by Phipps (2018). To this end, they mentioned such strategies as protecting their cup to avoid having any drugs dropped into their drink, always going accompanied in leisure spaces, or watching how they dressed. In contrast, for male students, the sense of insecurity came from the nocturnal ambiance, the possibility of fights, alcohol overconsumption, or a festive environment, which could generate problems. The difference in this regard is that, for female students, this insecurity stemmed from the fact of being female themselves, which they considered left them more vulnerable. Several male students also mentioned this fact, reinforcing previous studies that confirm that the fear of male students is linked to fights or physical violence, while the fear of female students is related to sexual harassment (Ratnayake 2017; García-Carpintero et al. 2022).

As a result, while female students prefer to be accompanied and establish networks for protection and support among themselves, male students see no issue in being alone and recognize that female students may need care and protection, a point that several respondents mentioned. It is paradoxical that the only disadvantage which some male students found in being males was having to wait in line at certain leisure places and paying a higher entry fee than females. Finally, both cases coincided in feeling less secure in places with people who struck them as dangerous (violent, overconsuming drugs or alcohol, with a dangerous appearance). As three interviewees said:

5M, male university student, 20 years old: [Leisure spaces should have some] type of guard. I think that the influence is that I can feel safer, but I usually don’t think a lot about that because I don’t go around thinking that something bad’s going to happen to me.

3A, female university student, 22 years old: Yes, totally [being a woman has an impact]. Because you know that something can happen to you, or someone’s going to have, you know, could have bad intentions with you. And well, particularly people that you don’t know. You’re predisposed to avoid doing things or unwinding so much in places where you don’t feel safe. […] They [men] go like, with a role that they have to look after their female friends, or at least people, the men I’ve spent time with, have taken care of that. So they also assume that something could happen to us women.

19F, female university student, 21 years old: I share my location with my mom who’s in San Carlos, but that’s still good. I send a message to my friends like ‘I’m in’ or ‘I’m here’. Or ‘come and get me together’ or stuff like that. There’s pepper spray too, especially.

Leisure spaces thus constitute spaces beyond students’ routines, open to a broader public, and facing greater risks due to their nocturnal hours and environment. While both male and female students recognize this, it is evident that for females, moving into these places, staying within them, and the possibility of interacting with strangers, represent risk factors. This is not the same for male students, who even affirmed and recognized the existence of greater vulnerability among female students for gender reasons. This idea can be connected to previous studies that mention a ‘conscious risk’ among female students when going to nighttime leisure spaces, as opposed to ‘common sense’, which has traditionally placed the responsibility for their own safety on each individual (Bondi 1998; Listerborn 2016).

In conclusion, the perception of safety in leisure spaces, both semi-public and private, reveals more notable gender disparities compared to the previously reviewed axes. In these contexts, female students report greater self-reported vulnerability, leading them to develop self-care strategies for themselves and their groups, sometimes including support from male friends. They emphasize preferences for closed environments (friends’ houses) or those they already know. In contrast, male students display greater confidence when moving around the city and accessing diverse leisure spaces. In both cases, all value visible safety measures such as surveillance cameras, security personnel, and accessible exits in entertainment venues.

4. Discussion

Throughout this text, we have emphasized the importance of incorporating gender focus into student geographies and studentification processes (Revington 2022; Prada-Trigo 2019). This premise is grounded in the differentiated experiences of male and female students within the city (Spain 2014; Larreche and Cobo 2021), which raises questions about the gender dimension in urban studentification processes. After exploring the dimensions of student housing, college campuses, and student leisure spaces within a Latin American context (Deere et al. 2012) and from a gender perspective, we have identified significant differences that arise from the experience and perception of spaces, and consequently, the appropriation of spaces.

Student housing was identified as a safe space by both male and female students. This sense of safety is primarily based on the control that can be exerted over these spaces, emphasizing such aspects as security, materiality, and proximity to the university when choosing where to live. In this sense, we can identify a certain degree of agency as a starting point in the appropriation of a space indicated as personal (Smith 2005). However, after crossing the domestic perimeter of intimate space, this sense of security decreases, and there is a fear perception and danger based on gender, where female students identify more hazards.

Secondly, considering the case of student experiences regarding the Universidad de Concepción, the campus can be considered a partially safe space, as the interviews have shown. The feelings of safety perceived by male and female students vary according to their gender, with the latter mentioning higher levels of insecurity. At the same time, a consensus was identified regarding the correlation between safety and lighting in various locations, traffic flow, and the time when people frequented different places. Nighttime was perceived as the least safe moment, which is similar to conclusions from other studies on the geographies of security (Day 1999; Yavuz and Welch 2010; Ratnayake 2017). Here, the presence of elements from beyond the college community, “the other”, constitutes the main source of insecurity.

Finally, leisure spaces are perceived by a strong majority of participants as not very safe places. This perception fundamentally arises from a lack of familiarity among male and female students with these places, and their lack of control over these types of spaces, which translates into constant exposure to danger. Once again, it is female students who declare that fear and insecurity are a constant factor, leading them to adopt different strategies to enhance their sense of safety, in line with what Starkweather (2007) and García-Carpintero et al. (2022) have mentioned. This is even recognized by male students and constitutes a social construction of space based on gender (Preston and Ustundag 2005), which this article expands upon through an exploration of private, semi-public, and public spaces.

In summary, along the axes of housing, leisure, and the campus, we can recognize the loss of a sense of safety as spaces become more collective and less private. In other words, the less familiar the space, the less secure it will be for all students; although, among women, the causes have more to do with gender than with any objective conditions in these spaces. Despite sharing the same perceptions of safe spaces (the importance of choosing a good neighborhood, avoiding certain times of the day, etc.), students exhibit differences based on multiple identities, as noted by Scraton and Watson (1998). This research has highlighted the differences between male and female students, which lead to different responses in each of the three axes analyzed. These differences can be linked to asymmetric power relations (Pain 2001), where mechanisms of exclusion are continually being reproduced based on gender.

On this basis, we can recognize strategies which are also constructed from a gender dimension, particularly from the logic of safety. There is a constant sense of fear emphasized by female students in this study, which, as mentioned by Valentine (1989), arises from the differences between men and women during their lifetimes. Among females, this mainly leads to generating strategies based on a logic of more collective care (Starkweather 2007). These strategies unfold as collaborative networks mediated by alerts, where males often participate to increase the sense of security, especially in leisure spaces considered to be more insecure. This element helps to strengthen security, but at the cost of sacrificing autonomy in the spatial interactions of females.

In this sense, as previously mentioned, as greater insecurity is perceived and as spaces are perceived to be less familiar, there will be greater use of collective resistance strategies to seek full use of the said spaces (Haskell and Randall 1998), where both male and female students frequently participate. However, this is mainly a demand from female students, who highlight and recognize their limits in the full use of the urban space. It thus appears relevant to install relations between gender and studentification, from a Latin American context, understanding that urban and social inequalities are reproduced from this dialogue (McDowell 1983; Spain 2014; Beebeejaun 2017), and which aims at a better approach to future studentification processes. It is necessary to remember the importance of urban planning with a gender perspective, aimed at safer cities for women.

It is crucial to recognize that the Latin American context has particularities regarding gender constructions that distinguish it from Anglo-Saxon contexts where most research on student geographies has been developed. In Latin America, gender conceptions are influenced by deeply rooted patriarchal traditions. As Lugones (2008) and Segato (2016) point out, the coloniality of gender in Latin America has created specific configurations where women’s experiences are shaped not only by gender but also by race, ethnicity, and social class. These intersections are particularly relevant in university environments, where access to higher education has historically been marked by class and race privileges that have excluded large sectors of the population.

Comparing our findings with research conducted in Anglo-Saxon contexts, we identified similarities in general safety perceptions but significant differences in adopted strategies. A notable distinction is the greater prevalence of collective protection strategies among Latin American female students compared to what is reported in British, American, or Canadian studies. While studies by Starkweather (2007) and Woolnough (2009) primarily document individual self-protection strategies among American and Canadian students, our interviewees more frequently emphasized developing collective support networks, including shared alert systems through geolocation applications, coordinating group movements, and mutual safety verifications.

This difference may reflect cultural aspects of Latin American contexts, where community and family ties tend to be stronger than in more individualistic Anglo-Saxon societies. It could also relate to an adaptive response to perceptions of higher risk or lower trust in formal protection institutions. As Roberts et al. (2022) note, coping strategies against insecurity are not universal but culturally situated and respond to specific contexts of vulnerability and available resources.

Our study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the intersection between students, gender, and urban space in Latin America, revealing how studentification processes reproduce and reinforce pre-existing gender inequalities, particularly regarding freedom of movement and access to public space. This research has highlighted the differences between male and female students, which lead to different responses in each of the three axes analyzed. These differences can be linked to asymmetric power relations (Pain 2001), where mechanisms of exclusion are continually being reproduced based on gender. Our findings problematize simplistic narratives about studentification as a gender-neutral phenomenon, demonstrating their gendered nature and participation in reproducing spatial asymmetries (Revington 2022). This underscores the necessity of developing theoretical approaches that consider the specificities of Latin American contexts and their configurations of gender, class, and urban space.

5. Conclusions

This study has contributed to an interpretation of the use of student space from a gender perspective, providing evidence on the differences between male and female students, consistent with the theoretical frameworks consulted, primarily from English-language literature.

Of the defined axes, the general sense of security of students in intimate and private spaces stands out, linked to their choice of housing. Beyond the security that housing (apartment or house) can provide, the interviews revealed that, given the impossibility of living near the university, due to its excessive value, aspects such as direct access to public transport and public lighting prevail in the choice of neighborhoods, as factors that contribute to the perception of security, in line with what Listerborn (2016) mentions in the context of security as a commodity within neoliberal planning. Regarding gender differences, it is worth highlighting that both groups face similar insecurities, mainly focused on the fear of being raped, but female students add the fear of suffering sexual aggression, highlighting it as a differentiating perception compared to other studies such as those of Ratnayake (2017), Phipps and Smith (2012) and Tomisch et al. (2011), highlighting it as a differentiating perception compared to other studies such as those of Ratnayake (2017), Phipps and Smith (2012) and Tomisch et al. (2011), who apply it to the context of public spaces and university campuses, respectively, but not to the place of residence.

Within the second analytical axis, a finding that diverges from the existing literature is the perception of insecurity associated with the spatial configuration of the University’s open campus. The large extension and dispersion of its facilities create areas that are often sparsely populated and traversed by individuals not necessarily affiliated with the university. While Woolnough (2009) highlights the tendency to avoid isolated spaces, and Day (1999) notes the reluctance to frequent areas shared with non-university individuals, it is uncommon for both avoidance strategies to coexist simultaneously—yet this was precisely the case observed in our study. Thus, the characteristics of the campus reveal underlying tensions between its institutional condition as a private space and its physical openness, as it is embedded within the broader urban fabric of the city. This duality renders it porous and positions it as a microcosm of neoliberal urban logic.

The findings of the third axis of analysis, associated with leisure venues, do not differ significantly from the literature reviewed. However, it is worth noting, as a novelty, that some male students mention perceived discrimination when accessing nightlife venues, where women are often prioritized.

On the other hand, the study reinforces the notion that, despite the apparent presence of formal control mechanisms in leisure environments—whether public, private, or semi-private (such as parks, bars, or shopping centers)—these spaces often evoke greater feelings of insecurity compared to other areas. Overall, the findings suggest that perceived risk is not primarily shaped by formal security measures, but rather by social familiarity and spatial legibility. This supports the argument that, within neoliberal urban contexts, visibility and surveillance do not necessarily translate into a heightened sense of safety.

It should be noted that this study has some limitations that point to two future lines of research. The first is related to the concrete situation of sexual minorities (the LGBTQI+ population), both in their safety perceptions and their mechanisms to construct collective self-care networks. The second line connects with female students’ unequal economic capacities, which can produce differences in choosing housing with more safety measures, transportation methods to leisure sites and the university campus, as well as in the types of leisure favored. Income is an element that can provide a nuance to these gender differences. Both limitations are simultaneously understood as potential opportunities to strengthen this research, as they provide information that allows for a deeper understanding of the different experiences that intersect with space and its security gradient.