Blair Wilkinson1, Andrew Ivsins2. 1. Department of Sociology, University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Rd, Victoria, British Columbia V8P 5C2, Canada. Electronic address: wilkinb@uvic.ca. 2. Department of Sociology, University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Rd, Victoria, British Columbia V8P 5C2, Canada; Centre for Addictions Research of British Columbia, 2300 McKenzie Ave, Victoria, British Columbia V8N 5M8, Canada. Electronic address: aivsins@uvic.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This article extends the risk environment framework to understand the factors that universities identify as influencing university students' risky drinking behaviours and universities attempts at managing risky alcohol use on their campuses. METHODS: This article examines data collected as part of qualitative fieldwork on university corporate security services, and others involved in university alcohol policy implementation (e.g., residence services), conducted at five Canadian universities. Interviews (n=56), fieldnotes from 246h of observations of university corporate security personnel, and university policy documents (i.e., codes of student behaviour, residence policies) were analysed to understand the influence of risk environments on high-risk alcohol use. RESULTS: We identify three risk environments on university campuses in relation to the use and regulation of alcohol: the physical, social, and policy environments. Residence buildings and abutting spaces (physical risk environment) and the university "party" culture (social risk environment) are principal contributors to risk within their risk environments. University policies and practices (policy risk environment) attempt to modify these environments in order to manage risky alcohol use. CONCLUSION: We suggest current approaches to regulating student alcohol use may not be the best approach to preventing harms (e.g., health problems, legal troubles) to students. Given university policies and practices have the potential to shape and influence risky alcohol use and associated harms we argue it is necessary for university administrators to adopt the best practices of "harm reduction" and seek new ways to address on-campus alcohol use.
BACKGROUND: This article extends the risk environment framework to understand the factors that universities identify as influencing university students' risky drinking behaviours and universities attempts at managing risky alcohol use on their campuses. METHODS: This article examines data collected as part of qualitative fieldwork on university corporate security services, and others involved in university alcohol policy implementation (e.g., residence services), conducted at five Canadian universities. Interviews (n=56), fieldnotes from 246h of observations of university corporate security personnel, and university policy documents (i.e., codes of student behaviour, residence policies) were analysed to understand the influence of risk environments on high-risk alcohol use. RESULTS: We identify three risk environments on university campuses in relation to the use and regulation of alcohol: the physical, social, and policy environments. Residence buildings and abutting spaces (physical risk environment) and the university "party" culture (social risk environment) are principal contributors to risk within their risk environments. University policies and practices (policy risk environment) attempt to modify these environments in order to manage risky alcohol use. CONCLUSION: We suggest current approaches to regulating student alcohol use may not be the best approach to preventing harms (e.g., health problems, legal troubles) to students. Given university policies and practices have the potential to shape and influence risky alcohol use and associated harms we argue it is necessary for university administrators to adopt the best practices of "harm reduction" and seek new ways to address on-campus alcohol use.
Authors: Christina Mair; Jessica Frankeberger; Paul J Gruenewald; Christopher N Morrison; Bridget Freisthler Journal: Curr Epidemiol Rep Date: 2019-09-13
Authors: Simone Pettigrew; Claire Hafekost; Michelle Jongenelis; Hannah Pierce; Tanya Chikritzhs; Julia Stafford Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2018-07-31
Authors: Andrea Pastor; Irene Molina de la Fuente; María Sandín Vázquez; Paloma Conde; Marina Bosque-Prous; Manuel Franco; Niamh Shortt; Xisca Sureda Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 3.390