IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/urbpla/v9y2024a7711.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Going Back to School: Reflecting on School Space as “Shared Space” to Shape Cities and Communities

Author

Listed:
  • Jua Cilliers

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa / Faculty of Design, Architecture, and Building, University of Technology Sydney, Australia)

  • Shanaka Herath

    (Faculty of Design, Architecture, and Building, University of Technology Sydney, Australia)

  • Sumita Ghosh

    (Faculty of Design, Architecture, and Building, University of Technology Sydney, Australia)

Abstract

There has been a growing interest in Australia for public schools to share their facilities (space) with local communities, driven by the understanding that these substantial public investments have the potential to yield additional social, environmental, and economic benefits to their immediate neighbourhoods. Yet, there is limited critical research on this topic, particularly from an urban planning perspective. This article reflects on schools within the broader spatial environment to understand how outdoor recreational and green spaces of schools can be enhanced to optimize their role within the city and to advance “schools beyond schools.” This study deviates from prior research by examining the conceptual progress in urban planning that envisions educational institutions not merely as pedagogical entities but as pivotal urban nodes capable of enhancing the socio-spatial dynamics of shared spaces. Through a systematic review, this article exposes the concept of “shared space” in reference to educational spaces (school grounds). It draws on the Share Our Space program of the New South Wales Department of Education to provide an in-depth understanding of the “shared space” framework, analysing both the inherent advantages and potential challenges in the future evolution of this model. The findings revealed a prevalence of academic studies on shared use or joint use agreements as the primary approach for granting community access to school facilities. In these agreements, the main challenges to sharing school spaces with communities or partner organizations were managerial and legal considerations. The research emphasized the need for a collective reimagining of school facilities and a comprehensive re-evaluation of shared school space within the broader urban context, which is particularly vital in the pursuit of resilient urban futures. This will require addressing gaps in collaboration between education and planning disciplines, the participation of the communities they serve, and developing a frame of reference to guide the dialogue. Local planning authorities are crucial in facilitating and implementing such a multi-disciplinary approach to reposition school spaces as the focal point of sustainable city and community development.

Suggested Citation

  • Jua Cilliers & Shanaka Herath & Sumita Ghosh, 2024. "Going Back to School: Reflecting on School Space as “Shared Space” to Shape Cities and Communities," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v9:y:2024:a:7711
    DOI: 10.17645/up.7711
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/7711
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/up.7711?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2021. "Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 871-906, January.
    2. Mildred E. Warner & Xue Zhang, 2023. "Joint use between communities and schools: unpacking dimensions of power," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(4), pages 496-511, July.
    3. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas, 2016. "Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 787-804, February.
    4. Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2021. "Correction to: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 907-908, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Gusenbauer, 2022. "Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2683-2745, May.
    2. Shir Aviv-Reuven & Ariel Rosenfeld, 2023. "A logical set theory approach to journal subject classification analysis: intra-system irregularities and inter-system discrepancies in Web of Science and Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 157-175, January.
    3. Steve J. Bickley & Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in the field of economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2055-2084, April.
    4. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    5. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    6. Weishu Liu & Meiting Huang & Haifeng Wang, 2021. "Same journal but different numbers of published records indexed in Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection: causes, consequences, and solutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4541-4550, May.
    7. Rui Liang & Xichuan Zheng & Po-Hsun Wang & Jia Liang & Linhui Hu, 2023. "Research Progress of Carbon-Neutral Design for Buildings," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-50, August.
    8. Mehdi Toloo & Rouhollah Khodabandelou & Amar Oukil, 2022. "A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Fractional Programming (1965–2020)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-21, May.
    9. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Alternative medicines worth researching? Citation analyses of acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, and osteopathy 1996–2017," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8731-8747, October.
    10. Sam Arts & Nicola Melluso & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2023. "Beyond Citations: Measuring Novel Scientific Ideas and their Impact in Publication Text," Papers 2309.16437, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.
    11. Anting Wang & Mohd Nizam Osman & Megat Al-Imran Yasin & Nurul Ain Mohd Hasan & Ying Cui, 2024. "Tracing Evolution and Communication Dynamics in Chinese Independent Documentary Films (2012-2022): A Systematic Review of Genre, Censorship, Culture, and Distribution," Studies in Media and Communication, Redfame publishing, vol. 12(1), pages 368-381, March.
    12. Christopher Hansen & Holger Steinmetz & Jörn Block, 2022. "How to conduct a meta-analysis in eight steps: a practical guide," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 1-19, February.
    13. Elena Andriollo & Alberto Caimo & Laura Secco & Elena Pisani, 2021. "Collaborations in Environmental Initiatives for an Effective “Adaptive Governance” of Social–Ecological Systems: What Existing Literature Suggests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-29, July.
    14. Tessmann, R. & Elbert, R., 2022. "Multi sided platforms in competitive B2B networks with varying governmental influence – a taxonomy of Port and Cargo Community System business models," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 132320, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    15. Kelly Gerakoudi-Ventouri, 2022. "Review of studies of blockchain technology effects on the shipping industry," Journal of Shipping and Trade, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, December.
    16. da Fonseca, André Luís A. & Campos, Roberta D., 2021. "The cultural intertwining of consumption and entrepreneurship: A selective review of qualitative studies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 149-162.
    17. John Yang & Sang-Uk Jung, 2024. "Harnessing FinTech for Sustainable Finance in Developing Countries: An Integrated SWOT–Multi-Level Perspective Analysis of Mongolia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-24, May.
    18. Philip Hallinger & Sujitra Jayaseelan & Mark W. Speece, 2024. "The Evolution of Educating for Sustainable Development in East Asia: A Bibliometric Review, 1991–2023," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-23, October.
    19. Zhang, Yang & Wang, Yang & Du, Haifeng & Havlin, Shlomo, 2024. "Delayed citation impact of interdisciplinary research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    20. Alejandro Valencia-Arias & Juana Ramírez Dávila & Wilmer Londoño-Celis & Lucia Palacios-Moya & Julio Leyrer Hernández & Erica Agudelo-Ceballos & Hernán Uribe-Bedoya, 2024. "Research Trends in the Use of the Internet of Things in Sustainability Practices: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-23, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v9:y:2024:a:7711. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.