original scientific article	UDC 711.47:37.091.8(497.4Ljubljana+521.27)
received: 2014-08-05
SPATIAL ORGANIZATION AND YOUTH PARTICIPATION: CASE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA AND TOKYO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
Matjaž URŠIČ
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Research Centre for Spatial Sociology, Kardeljeva pl. 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia,
e-mail: matjaz.ursic@fdv.uni-lj.si
Karien DEKKER
RMIT University, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, Department of Strategic Urban Planning, 411 Swanston Street,
Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia e-mail: karien.dekker@rmit.edu.au
Maša FILIPOVIČ HRAST
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Kardeljeva pl. 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia e-mail: masa.fi lipovic@fdv.uni-lj.si
ABSTRACT
Modern society is occupied with the problem of decreasing civic engagement—an important civic virtue. In this context, higher educational institutions are important settings where participation can be learned and fostered. This article seeks to emphasize the importance of spatial organisation in higher education institutions in influencing youth participation. Namely, spatial organisation can foster or hinder civic virtues, such as civic participation and interpersonal trust. In an explorative case study of two universities, the University of Ljubljana and Tokyo Metropolitan University, we wish to illustrate the importance of place in stimulating participation. In our analysis of examples of spatial organisation from the two universities, we pay special attention to the following elements: physical organisation (e.g., building design, design of public spaces) and social/functional organisation (e.g., commercial facilities, recreational facilities). The result is a set of spatial maps indicating the frequency and nature of the use of (public) spaces. To conclude, we discuss spatial characteristics in the context of the increasing consumerism and privatisation of (public) spaces within universities.
Key words: participation, young, public space, University of Ljubljana, Tokyo Metropolitan University, higher
education, consumerism
INFLUSSO DELL'ORGANIZZAZIONE DELLO SPAZIO SULLA PARTECIPAZIONE DEI GIOVANI: GLI ESEMPI DELL'UNIVERSITÄ DI LUBIANA E DELL'UNIVERSITÄ
METROPOLITANA DI TOKIO
SINTESI
Una delle domande cruciali nella societä moderna riguarda il problema della diminuzione della partecipazione civica e della partecipazione degli individui, soprattutto dei giovani. Le universitä sono istituzioni sociali importanti, nell'ambito delle quali gli individui possono studiare e vivere i valori civici, tra i quali c'e anche la partecipazione. Nell'articolo ci occupiamo della questione legata all'organizzazione dello spazio delle universitä come fattore im-portante che pud influire sulla partecipazione dei giovani. L'organizzazione dello spazio, infatti, puö aumentare o ostacolare i valori civici, quali la partecipazione e la fiducia tra le persone. Nell'articolo presentiamo la ricerca esplo-rativa di due studi di fattispecie, ovvero l'Universitä di Lubiana e l'Universitä di Tokio, con i quali vogliamo presen-tare l'importanza dello spazio per la partecipazione dei giovani. Abbiamo analizzato l'organizzazione dello spazio di ambedue le universitä, focalizzandoci soprattutto sull'organizzazione fisica e funzionale/sociale dello spazio. Il risultato sono mappe che mostrano la natura e la frequenza dell'utilizzo di spazi pubblici. Nel dibattito tocchiamo anche la presenza dei trend di consumo e della privatizzazione degli spazi pubblici nell'ambito delle universitä e riflettiamo sulle loro conseguenze per la partecipazione dei giovani.
Parole chiave: partecipazione, giovani, spazio pubblico, universitä, istruzione
INTRODUCTION
Modern society is occupied with the problem of decreasing civic engagement—an important civic virtue. Especially influential in this field has been Putnam's (2000) thesis of civic disengagement and diminishing community activities. In recent years, there seems to have been a general decline in political participation, which is especially evident among young people (see Deželan and Kustec Lipicer, 2014). Additionally, in some countries, the democratic culture of participation seems to be less developed. Central and Eastern European countries are often labelled as having poorer democratic virtues (see Deželan, 2012), lower trust and lower citizen participation (Badescu and Uslaner, 2003). These trends appear to be true, not only at the national level, but also at the local community level (see Dekker and Van Kempen, 2008; Deželan et al., 2014).
One of the important functions of the educational process is to provide the necessary tools for citizens to perform their roles in a competent manner. In this context, universities play a particularly vital role in the political socialisation and shaping of virtuous citizens (Pavlin et al., 2013). The influence of universities is linked, not only to university curricula and the effect of achieving higher education, but also to participation in the 'university community' itself (Deželan and Maksuti, 2014). Participation in a university community can socialize individuals to become politically engaged, as well as provide them the skills to function as part of the public (Glaston, 2001, in Pavlin et al., 2013, 14).
Universities serve as sites for political and democratic action and participation, which can be influenced also by the spatial organisation of universities. As community and neighbourhood research has clearly indicated, spatial organisation and spatial characteristics significantly influence the participation of community members in community activities and local organizations (Kim and Kaplan, 2004; Pendola and Gen, 2008; Youngentob and Hostleter, 2005).
In this article, we discuss the impact of the physical and social aspects of universities on their potential to foster the participative behaviour of students. Public spaces today face several negative trends, such as privatization, regulation and consumerism (see Ryan, 2011; White, 2001); thus, we observe how these trends are visible in the context of higher education institutions. The research questions that we seek to answer are whether universities are spatially organised in a way that may stimulate youth participation and whether there exists, within universities' (public) spaces, a trend toward privatization, consumerism or regulation. To accomplish this goal, we present an explorative descriptive analysis of two case study universities: the University of Ljubljana and Tokyo Metropolitan University. In the discussion, we link the spatial organisation of universities to the trends of privatization and marketisation of higher
education and discuss implications for participation and community involvement.
PARTICIPATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION
Participation and civic engagement form a significant portion of the notion of good citizenship. In modern research, participation is often considered to be an important dimension of social capital. Social capital is linked to the notions of organizing the participation of citizens or local-level community resident in collective action for mutual benefit (see Coleman, 1998; Putnam, 1995). In this context, an important condition for building social capital and increasing participation is the establishment of social networks and a culture of (generalised) trust. Authors have distinguished between bonding and bridging social capital (see Putnam 1995; also, Burt, 2001; Lin 2005). Bonding social capital can be found in generally homogenous groups, while bridging capital can be found in more heterogeneous networks. In higher education institutions, students come from diverse backgrounds. We therefore expect that by bringing together people with different views and skills, who can cooperate in the achievement of mutual goals, universities might foster bridging social capital.
Young people, participation and higher education
The ways in which young people participate in civic society seems to be changing. Authors have noted that traditional political participation (e.g., voting) is declining among young people; however, this does not necessarily imply that young people are becoming disengaged. Instead, they seem to be participating more in other forms of (unconventional) participation (such as signing petitions, joining demonstrations and boycotts, etc.) (see Deželan and Kustec-Lipicer, 2014).
In the context of encouraging youth participation, the role of higher education seems to be obvious. Since increasing numbers of youth participate in higher education, universities could serve as fertile grounds for stimulating civic virtues. An overview of how higher education institutions are linked to civic engagement can be found in Pavlin et al. (2013). Based on their overview, we briefly summarize how universities foster civic virtues:
•	Through the study of specific programmes and through curriculums that emphasize civic engagement and promote democratic values;
•	Through engagement in associational activities, participation in student governance, community engagement and engagement in active, problem-based learning that stimulates practical (community) work; and
•	Through the wider societal influence of universities, such as their development of critical traditions of thought, their functions as cultural custodians and their diffusion of practical wisdom
and moral and ethical values and standards into society.
The present article is interested solely in the second point: The idea that participation in a university community can provide individuals with a social environment that fosters political engagement, while also providing them with the skills for public functioning (Glaston, 2001, in Pavlin et al., 2013, 14). Active participation in student activities or various university organizations is linked to the establishment of social networks. Such networks can also be stimulated by the spatial organization of universities, as community research has indicated. Therefore, in this article, we would like to emphasize how the spatial organization of universities can further stimulate student participation in associational activities and student governance.
Participation and space
Research shows how local communities can stimulate the participation of community members and how, among other factors, the spatial organization of communities is important to such participation (Altman & Low, 1992; Blokland, 2000; Dekker, 2007; Geidne et al., 2012). The spatial characteristics that enable the formation of social networks and a sense of community also stimulate active participation in the community (e.g., Kim and Kaplan, 2004; Pendola and Gen, 2008; Youngentob and Hostlet-er, 2005). Previous studies have shown the relevance of open public spaces (which can function as meeting areas), of green recreational areas and of the 'walkability' of an area (i.e., the ability to reach primary services on foot). In general, open public places, parks and green areas have positive influences on participation, since they function as meeting areas where social networks can be formed and trust among community members can be built.
The provision of free civic spaces for organized and unorganized youth to engage in deliberation is deemed important to stimulate the participation and civic engagement of the youngsters (Deželan and Lipicer, 2014). However, young people are discouraged from using public spaces, since such use can be seen as a threat (e.g., by resulting in vandalism or another anti-social behaviour). This discouragement can occur through the removal of benches, the offering of commercial-only seating in coffee shops, or surveillance practices (for a further discussion on this, see Dee, 2008). Consequently, when observing public spaces and their suitability for youth, one should observe three important dimensions (Hollander, 2011):
•	physical environment: specific sites and their physical effects on feelings of safety;
•	social environment: different users, including specific groups, security personnel, and different
uses (e.g., commercial, recreational, as a meeting space); and
• regulatory environment: protocols, security rules, and staff.
Public universities can be observed as a form of public space, where youth can spend time, discuss and exchange experiences and views and form social networks—all of which are relevant to the formation of social capital and which stimulate participation in the (university) community.
IMPORTANCE OF SPACE
The influence of physical space on participation and social capital was, for a long time, unjustifiability neglected in the spatial planning discourse of the 20th century. Historical examples of this discourse can be found, for example, in the writings of Le Corbusier (1927/1998), who was one of the most important figures of modernistic architecture1. Conceptions that focus primarily on the aesthetic value of space are potentially problematic, since they assign the built environment the role of an 'independent variable' (Knox, 1987, 355) without taking into account the functioning of social networks in the area. Through the prism that sees space as an independent variable, free of the networks of social activities, a space can be designed according to a planner's own preferences, and vice versa: that is, 'space can be configured as a designer of social relations' (Imrie, 1999, 28), which, as a side effect, often promotes unexpected ways of behaviour that diminish deliberation.
The history of urban planning is filled with cases in which the specific design of a space had unpredicted effects on its users, producing situations that were unexpected by the architects, the urban planners or the city authorities2. This expectation that individuals will behave according to the principles set by an authority is, in psychology, (see Rosenthal, Jacobsen, 1968/1992) often described as the 'Pygmalion effect'. As in the story of the mythical sculptor Pygmalion, who, according to Ovid's poem, fell in love with his own artwork and expected a stone statue to come to life, the consequences of Pygmalion effect can, in the case of spatial planning, result in misconceived design and architectural ideas based on the concept that people have uniform needs and wishes.
When we analyse the influence of space on participation, it is necessary to stress that physical (i.e., spatial) influences come only in combination with other socio-cultural factors, which, together, produce effects on the behaviours of users of specific places. This synergy of social and spatial effects can be analysed through the ways in which various groups use and appropriate the spaces offered to them by other parties. This interplay between
1	Le Corbusier's concept of 'house as a living machine' (1927/1998, 4) illustrates the diminished role of the individual and his/her social networks in the designing of spaces (for more, see Uršič, 2008).
2	For discussion on traditional role of architecture and public space/parks see e.g. Obad Ščitaroci and Bojanič Obad Ščitaroci (2014).
spatial users and spatial planners (i.e., architects, urban-ists, designers and other authorities) often results in the production of a completely new space, with its own rules and types of appropriate behaviours3. As Lefebvre (1974, 1991) describes, it is impossible to overlook how the unique 'spatial practices, representations of space, spaces of representation' and other collective experiences of space over time produce new spaces that confound simple definitions of standardized spaces. Through this relationship, each public space can be seen as a locality with a unique set of layers of memories, accumulated over days, months and years and reflected in the social networks of its users.
The so-called 'production of space' (Lefebvre, 1974, 1991) involves various strategies through which individuals and groups attempt to build or, more accurately, invest social capital into physical spaces. One such mechanism is the 'personalization of space' (Imrie, 1999) that represents a form of resistance to attempts by various authorities to prescribe certain forms of behaviour to certain spaces. By investing time, memories, emotions and social networks into spaces, groups and individuals produce their own rules for how to behave in a space. This form of influence can vary in intensity and is different from escapism (i.e., simply avoiding spaces where rules are set by other parties) or the partial adaptation of space (i.e., partially transforming a space through the installation of new practices, rituals, or movements) because it involves an actual, physical transformation of space, such that groups or individuals insert new physical elements into a space to change its symbolic and functional meanings. By doing so, a space's users seek to heighten the level of social capital in the space and to provide a platform for enhancing the participation of group members.
The personalization of space may contrast with formally expected forms of behaviour, and is often perceived by authorities (e.g., architects, city authorities, university administration officials, institutional representatives, etc.) as a form of vandalism, aggression, or destruction of aesthetic value, which supposedly has no cultural basis or origin in actual human needs. In fact, the balance between the socially accepted forms of behaviour in a space and any deviation is very delicate. In some cases, the resistance to a prescribed behaviour in a space may not have any legal basis, but may be supported by a large enough group to assure the its legitimacy. The borders between legality and legitimacy differ from society to society, such that one act can be severely sanctioned in one society and fully tolerated in other (and vice versa).
According to some authors (Zukin, 2011), the globalization of economies and the expansion of consumerism are drastically affecting opportunities for enhancing partitions and social capital through the personalization of space. Not only are public spaces becoming similar in their offerings of services and consumption activities,
but, due to the standardization of planning procedures, the actual physical spaces are also being built on similar bases, becoming more resistant to personalization. The standardization of planning processes allows for quick urban development and commodification, but it also creates a vast number of 'non-spaces' (Auge, 1995) that do not possess a great deal of social capital or distinguished cultural identities and are poorly connected to local communities. Even more significantly, with regard to standardization processes, improvements in surveillance technology have allowed authorities to implement higher standards of control leading to the diminishment of diversity in space. By implementing higher standards of control, such authorities have become able to distinguish between 'acceptable' and 'non-acceptable' elements on the basis of dominating standards, usually set by the owners or other type of authority in a space.
In this article, we try to analyse specific aspects of this micro-interplay between users (student youth) and the physical spaces of universities that are regulated by various socio-cultural factors and formal authorities, such as laws and their (e.g., university, city, regional, national) representatives. We believe that Slovenian and Japanese students (i.e., the users of university spaces) adopt similar techniques, appropriations and uses of space, which can, as a result, be found in both locations. In this sense, the following analysis could show, not only how the construction of physical space similarly influences forms of participation and engagement in social activities in both countries, but also that the elements of global consumption, consumerism and standardization in space are present in both societies, regardless of their social or cultural differences and history.
PARTICIPATION AND UNIVERSITIES: THE TWO CASE STUDIES
Methodology
This study's methodological approach was based on a 'perceptual analysis' (Lynch, 1960, 1972, 1990) of selected case studies. The combination of case studies and the perceptual analysis of space facilitates the observation of certain phenomena in their real-life contexts (Yin, 2009). The data gathering methods for a case study can vary from qualitative to quantitative. We have limited ourselves to observation (i.e., the forming of notes) and the collection of photographic material, followed by a subsequent analysis of that material. The study was completed during the summer of 2014. The specific case studies were selected in order to study public spaces and student participation, as well as how trends of global consumerism, privatisation and homogenisation of space are evident in different parts of the world (i.e., Japan and Slovenia). The cases are comparable due
3 For an example of changes in use of spaces see Uršič (2012).
to similar funding structures, since both universities are publicly funded (e.g., by city or national governments) and, thus, are supposed to have similar representative functions in their communities as typical public institutions open to diverse social groups.
We sought to identify the spatial characteristics that could stimulate or hinder the building of communities and the participation of students, as well as to examine potential similarities in terms of the expanse of consumerism and the changing landscapes of public spaces (Zukin, 2011). For this purpose, we have followed in the analysis the dimensions of spatial design, as defined by Carmona et al. (2003), with special regard to the specific elements of perceptual analysis proposed by Lynch (1972, 1990). Carmona et al. (2003) define six dimensions of spatial design: namely, the morphological dimension, the perceptual dimension, the social dimension, the visual dimension, the functional dimension and the temporal dimension. In this article, we analyse two of these dimensions (i.e., physical and social) that can influence participation within communities, as presented in the previous section (as defined by Hollander, 2011); that is:
•	Morphological dimension and physical organisation (e.g., organisation of buildings, building design, design of public space, etc.)
•	Social organisation and functional dimension (e.g., commercial facilities, recreational facilities, comfort, relaxation, use of public space, etc.)
All of the enlisted dimensions of spatial design are 'filtered' by individuals who use the presupposed spaces. The perceptual analysis of space is usually constructed on the basis of individual perceptual inputs from a collection of spatial users. In our case, we followed an alternative path, such that our analysis was constructed on the basis of so-called 'behavioural maps' (Marcus, 1990; Larson et al., 2005). In this approach, the researcher's extended presence on-site allowed him to measure the intensity (i.e., power, dynamics, frequency, number of activities, performances, movements of specific groups and changes) in specific spatial phenomena in the spaces of interest. By combining observations from various time periods and identifying fluctuations in the intensity of phenomena during the observation period, the researcher was able to construct a coherent picture of the main perceptual spatial phenomena in selected locales.
The use of this methodology had specific advantages, since it reduced the influence of the subjective spatial perceptions of individual spatial users and allowed us to evaluate spaces that might have otherwise been excluded or overlooked (i.e., defined as unimportant by specific groups). The method also allowed us to construct a more precise general snapshot of the main 'hot' and 'cold' spots of spatial activities in selected locales.
On the basis of the observations, a map of the following elements was constructed:
•	Nodes of activities (spaces where various functions and movements accumulate: that is, crossroads of multiple functions that usually include heightened mobility and flows of people and activities)
•	Type of function (spaces were divided according to specific function: for example, privatized spaces, spaces of consumption, recreation spaces, study areas, public spaces, etc.)
•	Controlled spaces (spaces where certain limits to activities are imposed by various factors, such as security, university staff, university rules and specific building designs)
•	Transient spaces (spaces of intense transitory movement, migration flows and mobility)
•	Appropriated spaces (spaces adapted to the frequent use of various groups and individuals that surpass, break, ignore or mold the rules set by university authorities)
Additionally, the intensity of each element or activity present in the university campus is noted (see the map of case studies). Using this method, it was possible to identify the hot and cold spots of activities in the university campus. The existing research serves as a basis for debate regarding the influence of spatial organization in universities and raises issues that seem to be neglected. In doing so, it potentially stimulates further and more robust research into these issues.
Case of Tokyo Metropolitan University
Tokyo Metropolitan University (TMU) was established in 1949. In 2005, the University was enlarged through integration with Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Technology, Tokyo Metropolitan University of Health Sciences and Tokyo Metropolitan College. TMU is a public university composed of 4 faculties, 28 divisions, 6 graduate schools and 30 departments. In 2014, approximately 9300 students were enrolled in TMU. The University is composed of various campuses (e.g., Mi-nami-Osawa, Hino, Arakawa, etc.), which are distant from one another and vary according to size. The biggest and most central to the functioning of the university is the Minami-Osawa campus, while the others function as additional, supplemental units to the main one. For the purpose of our research, we focus only on the larger Minami-Osawa campus, which, due to its magnitude, allowed us to perform a focused case study of spatial significance and organization.
In the case of Tokyo Metropolitan University, we observe, over a period of two weeks4, the structure of
In a period of two weeks (one week in August and one week in September), various locations in the university campus were cyclically observed for several hours. The cycle of observation included morning, afternoon and evening periods in order to construct an accurate picture of activity zones.
Pictures 1 and 2: Socially accessible ^primary' and ^secondary' spaces.
Map 1: Representation of different types of activities in Tokyo Metropolitan University
activities in various locations around the university campus. The analysis shows that some spaces in the university campus not only include more functions, but also are very socially accessible. These spaces are composed of various layers of functions and activities and are frequented by a wide array of groups and individuals. Such spaces are mainly connected to necessary everyday activities that are hard for individuals to avoid (e.g., university dining halls, university cafeterias, university food shops). These spaces combine various functions with public locations and represent the most inclusive and frequently used spaces in the campus (see Picture 1). These spaces also include various symbolic representations from a variety of groups (e.g., graffiti, posters, notices, etc.) and represent the 'neuralgic' centres of activity on campus. These 'primary' spaces are connected to various 'secondary' spaces, which are more selective in relation to access by specific groups and usually exist in close proximity to primary spaces. In the case of the TMU campus, a good representation of a secondary space is a huge corridor that connects a primary space with administrative offices and is partly occupied (i.e., barricaded) by a group of motorcyclists that use the space as a form of garage (see Picture 2). Another example of a secondary space is the student studios,
which are assigned to specific groups (e.g., artists, musicians, reading groups, clubs, etc.) and are highly accessible and appropriated (i.e., adapted) to the uses of group members. In this sense, these secondary spaces represent the second tier of activities inside the network of spaces, which is cantered by the primary spaces. Due to the high intensity and heterogeneity of functions and users, primary spaces are very rare; usually, a maximum of two to three primary spaces exist in a whole campus (see Map 1).
While many of the university's spaces serve their functions well, it is also possible to see, from the analysis of the university campus, that some of the spaces designed to enhance the level of activities and attract various groups and individuals (see Picture 3) do not function appropriately. There are various reasons such spaces may not function the way they were meant to. Factors in the failure of a space range from a low intensity of individual mobility flows to a non-appealing, overly formal, hygienic5 outlook (i.e., design of the space) (see Picture 4). Excessive attention to aesthetic monu-mentalism over the provision of (functional and social) heterogeneity or the informal spatial character of the place may result in low space attractiveness. Another factor contributing to low heterogeneity and low infor-
5 A high level of space standardization, which presupposes clean and formal spaces without any trace of chaos or informal activities, may also result in a low attraction of these spaces for various groups and users (see Jacobs, 1994; James, 1999; Sennet, 1996).
Pictures 3 and 4: Public spaces with limited activity intensity
mality of spaces may be found in the frequent security checks that implement precise controls in select campus spaces. The high level of control over university activities and spaces diminishes the informality of spaces and prevents the occurrence of unpredicted activities in the campus space. Due to the precise designation of spaces for specific functions, students prefer to use stairs and faculty or studio entrances for informal activities, rather than the benches and sitting areas that were provided by the architect in the open public spaces (see Picture 5).
In the case of the TMU campus, it is clear that the organization of space does not inherently include a large number of consumption spaces. The university campus is, in this sense, physically organized as an independent entity. However, although the university campus is organized as a physical entity, it is highly embedded in the wider functional system of the area, which includes a large number of consumption areas and multifunctional shopping malls (see Map 1). Moreover, the most frequently used connections between the university campus and the main public transport station (i.e., the Minami-Osawa station) pass through a specially designed consumption zone (i.e., Mitsui outlet village) before entering either the university campus or the public transport station. In this sense, the only walking connection between the university campus and the area's only subway station, which is used by the majority of commuters6 (e.g., students, university staff, population in the vicinity) is a specially designed shopping street (i.e., outlet village) that copies the architectural design of French provincial villages (see Picture 6).
The structure of the wider area of the campus follows the principles of spatial 'zoning' (Pacione, 2001), such that regulations are imposed to separate specific functions and to deliberately preserve or promote the character of a specific area. Even though zoning tries to preserve specific spatial identities in the area of Minami-Osawa, where the university campus is located, it nevertheless creates new, exclusive spatial situations, which may deform the previous university character of the area through the intensification of consumption or changes to aesthetic appearances that may occur immediately after the exit from the university. The consumption spaces directly outside the campus, due to the high importance of the subway public transport network in the Tokyo metropolitan region, function as complementary spaces that integrate with the area of the university into one functional, synergic, interdependent space.
Case of University of Ljubljana
Univerza v Ljubljani (UL) was established in 1919. It is a large university, with 23 faculties and 3 arts acad-
emies. The faculties are mainly scattered within the wider centre of Ljubljana and, consequently, do not facilitate the undertaking of a focused case study of spatial significance and organisation. Consequently, we have narrowed down our focus to four faculties that are located near one another and, therefore, form a larger entity that is relatively distinct from the surrounding area. These faculties are: the Faculty of Social Sciences, the Faculty of Economics, the Faculty of Administration and the Faculty of Education. The Faculty of Social Sciences (FSS), established in 1961 (and existing as a faculty since 1970), is one of the largest members of the University of Ljubljana. Likewise, the Faculty of Economics, with 6000 students, also represents one of the largest faculties. The Faculty of Administration is one of the youngest members of the University of Ljubljana, with approximately 2000 students. The faculties are located in direct proximity to one another in the northern part of Ljubljana (Bežigrad). Over a period of three weeks, we observed the structure of activities in various locations throughout this defined area. In addition to the faculties, the campus facilities (i.e., student rooms) are also located in this area.
Within its morphological organization of the buildings, the organization allows many open spaces, some of which are clearly framed to enable the flow of students and the creation of meeting points. In the southern part of the campus, the faculties are adjacent to a walking path, which is wide and allows for a good connection between the Faculties, the main road and the bus stations (on the west and east side of the campus). On the north side of the campus, the three faculties border a street and parking lot; north of that, the Faculty of Education is located on a street with denser traffic. Consequently, this street functions as a border that partly disconnects the faculty from the rest of the campus.
We have identified the spaces that represent nodes of activity and gathering spaces for students. The concentration of activities is most evident in the commercial areas linked to the daily activities and necessities of student life, such as eating (e.g., dining halls, cafes) (see Picture 7) and student work (e.g., photocopying, library). These spaces are mainly privately owned, and their intensity of use is the highest among all the spaces. However, their commercial nature limits and regulates the use of these spaces and, consequently, their potential to function as important factors in stimulating youth participation. The cafes are, however, sometimes used for social gatherings of larger student groups (e.g., first year students or students of specific programs).
High concentrations of social activity can also be found in all faculty entrances (on the outside and inside) (see Map 2). All the faculties have a wide-open
The majority (more than 85%) of commuter movements in Tokyo are performed using sustainable transport modes. The exact modal split for Tokyo is as follows: 23% walking, 14% cycling, 51% public transport (e.g., rail, light rail, monorail, subway, metro) and only 12% private motor vehicle (LTA, 2011).
Pictures 5 and 6: Public space with limited activity intensity in university campus and consumption space in shopping village close to university campus
Pictures 7 and 8: Socially accessible spaces with high activity intensities
Map 2: Representation of different types of activities in the University of Ljubljana
space in front of their entrances, often with benches, which allows students to gather. In some cases, there is a lack of benches or other seating areas outside; however, this can be compensated by seating areas inside (see Picture 8). When extended use of these open spaces is enabled (through seating options), we can see that the use of these spaces increases (e.g., through student meetings and discussions, working on computer, etc.). These areas are also used for civil initiatives (e.g., students helping to gather food and clothes for victims of natural disasters), for campaigns during student elections, for presentations of individual clubs, for associations and for other activities organized by students and/ or student organisations. However, the presence of security guards/receptionists in some of these spaces, as well as the constant presence of teaching staff, adds a regulatory dimension to the use of these spaces, which might decrease their broader functionality and limit their potential to stimulate youth participation. However, it should be noted that the corridors and entrances, which were not designed to stimulate student participation and activity, often function in just such a way. These can therefore be seen as appropriated spaces. In contrast, some seating areas are deserted, due to their
positions in highly regulated environment (e.g., in a corridor in front of the Dean's office, in the Faculty of Social Sciences).
The outside paths and the corridors inside the buildings link the faculties, as well as the bus stations. These paths do not only offer transition pathways, but also often serve as places to meet. Even though sitting areas in these spaces are infrequent or entirely absent, students can be seen using floors and staircases. However, the lack of sitting places, as well as the partly neglected look of some outer spaces, might discourage prolonged use of such spaces (e.g., in the southern path, which connects the faculties to bus station) (see Picture 9). Consequently, these spaces have little potential to stimulate the formation of networks, the gathering of youth or various participative activities.
There are also some spaces that represent cold spots. The use of these spaces is minimal, even though they were designed as transition points. One example is the bridge between the Faculty of Social Sciences and the Faculty of Administration, which is 'cold' as a result of the closed entrance to the latter. Consequently, this path is infrequently used diminishing the link between the two institutions.
Picture 9: Public spaces with limited activity intensity
This case has shown that numerous open spaces are used by the students; however, the most commonly used spaces are the commercial areas. This finding is further debated in the next and concluding section.
Short discussion regarding the influence of the identified spatial features in selected case studies on social capital and participation
The analysis of the case studies identified several important spatial and social features that influence the social capital and participation of youth in public spaces. In both cases, we identified primary and secondary spaces that represent the backbones of the social network that exist in selected locales. The primary spaces represent important nodes of activity where social capital has accumulated over time and participation is best seen through the various forms of the social and cultural expression of student youth. However, such places are rare, and the forms of expression are also limited—or, more accurately, channelled and controlled by various formal procedures (e.g., security service, cameras, cam-
pus rules, etc.) that exist to supervise public participation in the spaces. In this sense, secondary spaces represent an important form of support for primary spaces. Secondary spaces are the areas where temporary, limited, informal activities can take place. Although these secondary spaces do not posses the same 'public quality' or accumulated social capital as primary spaces, they undoubtedly represent spaces where youth's concepts, ideas and potential originate. Thus, primary spaces are places where participation is implemented, whereas secondary spaces, through their informality and semiprivate, non-formal, individually expressive character, provide the initial impulses for the movement to participate in a public space.
The third type of space noted in both case studies was the 'cold spots', which have the potential to develop into primary or secondary spaces, but lack specific qualities that would enhance their functions. Such spaces have the character of transitory spaces, used only for limited times or to move from one part of campus to another, or they exist in regulated environments that de-stimulate the active participation of youth. These spac-
es, which are common in both case studies, best show the spatial influence on the diminishment of public participation and social capital. However, the general walkability found in both case studies indicates that this important spatial condition for building social capital is fulfilled.
For universities that wish to stimulate the active participation of youth and to form social capital within their campuses, an understanding of how spaces function in a university is vital. Furthermore, the findings of this study also suggest that campus authorities can, through increasing or reducing the number of primary and secondary spaces, directly influence the level of social capital and public participation. By increasing the number of primary and secondary spaces, universities can enhance the level of participation and possible accumulation of social capital on their campuses, which could result in positive effects on deliberation and on society in general. Here, there seems to be potential in the present (unused) green public spaces, the recreational areas and the transitory spaces (e.g., in the Slovenian case study).
However, it is important to note that the potential to develop additional primary and secondary spaces is strongly influenced by the consumption of spaces and the marketization of lifestyles, which promote specific forms of social engagement and leisure activities within the vicinity of or inside student campuses. These processes additionally diminish the participative potential of student youth and disperse social capital across smaller groups of students. Furthermore, the homogeneity of these places and the nature of their use can diminish the formation of bridging social capital, which is linked to more heterogeneous practices and users of space.
CONCLUSIONS
One of the functions of educational institutions is to provide students with the tools necessary to be responsible citizens. In this article, we discussed the spatial aspects of universities in relation to their potential to foster participative virtues in students, which have been identified as important by spatial and participation studies.
We have illustrated how (public) spaces are organised and used in two public universities in Slovenia and Japan. In doing so, we have focused on the physical dimensions and social/functional dimensions of the organisation of space, with additional emphasis on the regulation and control of space.
First, the physical (morphological) dimension of space differs significantly between the two case studies. This difference is caused by the architectural designs of the campuses: Ljubljana is a scattered campus with no common design, while Tokyo has a uniform design. Both have open public spaces, although they seem to be used to different degrees in each case. The use (or not) of benches is such an example. In the Slovenian case, benches are frequently used, whereas, in Tokyo, they
are often empty. The cause for this difference is the location of the benches: In Slovenia the benches are located near entrances and main buildings, whereas, in Tokyo, they are also present in more isolated, open spaces.
In observing the social and functional dimension, we identified some significant similarities between the campuses. In both case studies, the commercial areas seemed to be the focal points of activity and deeply affected the flows and movements of campus users. The two case studies exposed the different ways in which universities are affected by the process of the commercialization of space. Further, in our analysis, we inventoried the extent to which the processes of marketisation and commodification affect the organisation of activities in universities. To do so, we explored our observations of the daily lives, mobility patterns, movements and flows of students. The movements between university spaces and consumption spaces are, in the case of Tokyo, literally integrated into the necessary daily paths of students, whilst, in the case of Ljubljana, some privatized commercial areas are part of the university buildings, making them unavoidable parts of the university space. Other spaces that would enable meeting and communication among students seemed to be less numerous or unused (as shown by the example of Tokyo). Furthermore, commercial spaces, which are the focus of activity, might exclude use by specific groups that do not possess the necessary economic resources (e.g., those with lower incomes) or limit student activities due to the nature and regulatory dimensions of such environments (e.g., their specifically defined use, the presence of personnel).
Variation can also be found between the two case studies with regard to the social and functional dimension of spaces. One of the clearest differences between the two universities was the existence of appropriated spaces. In Tokyo, there are specific appropriated spaces open to the free use of students (e.g., student group studios), while, in Ljubljana, such spaces are almost nonexistent. Furthermore, the regulatory environments of the universities are also different, which causes differences in student use and participative potential. In the Slovenian case study, the most commonly used spaces (i.e., entrances, corridors and cafes) were regulated areas, partly due to their nature (i.e., also frequented by educational staff) and partly due to the presence of control personnel (such as receptionists/security guards). This regulation reduces the use of these public spaces by students as meeting places. In the Tokyo case, the whole space of the university campus is guarded by a security service, and each place is designed to fulfil a specific function. However, this regulatory environment is 'softened' by a mix of highly appropriated group spaces and collective public spaces, where various functions coincide and which are frequented by all campus users.
It is important to note that the materials used in this study were mainly gathered for illustrative purposes, to present the issues linked to the spatial organisation
of selected universities and their (spatial) potential to stimulate civic participation. In a more comprehensive research study, it would be possible to provide more detailed and elaborated data for the study of spatial phenomena. For example, in the future, the number of case studies could be increased to include several different cultural contexts in diverse environments and to examine more variables concerning the perceptual dimensions of locations.
With this explorative study, we wished to stress the neglected issue of spatial organisation of universities, as well as to illustrate how university spaces can be used to stimulate youth participation and, therefore, to strengthen students' capabilities as citizens. However, our analysis indicated high commercialization, thus confirming the assumption that public spaces, even within universities, face trends of privatization and consumerism (see Ryan, 2011; White, 2001; Zukin, 2011). A proper expose of the effects of interweaving university spaces and consumption spaces, including their marketisation and influences on various groups, would require more research. Most importantly, further research should include the views of the users of these spaces—a perspective that is lacking in the present study. However, we conclude that the present study, which focused primarily on the analysis of physical spaces and movements (i.e.,
flows of users in the wider university environment), sufficiently exposes the connections among specific spatial uses, their functions and their roles in the daily life cycles of students. The study not only revealed the increasing importance of the marketisation and commodifica-tion of spaces, but also pointed to the insufficient and inappropriate use of existing university spaces originally designed to enhance user participation. The reasons for the non-optimal use of such spaces include inappropriate design, bad location, excessive control and others. However, by pointing out specific 'cold' spots in university environments, this study creates the possibility to reuse these spaces for public participation in the future. The possibility of reuse will depend greatly on the way in which university authorities approach the problem and envision the future role of these 'publicly noneffective' spaces. In historical terms, university spaces have always been among the most society progressive, inclusive and deliberating places in existence, and they have served as the breeding grounds for countless new ideas and civil and cultural movements. In recent years, this role of universities as public spaces has been diminished—or, at least, greatly transformed. It may be time to re-evaluate the public participation potential of university spaces once again and to enhance their deliberative roles in today's consumption-oriented society.
VPLIV PROSTORSKE ORGANIZACIJE NA PARTICIPACIJO MLADIH: PRIMERA UNIVERZE V LJUBLJANI IN METROPOLITANSKE UNIVERZE V TOKIJU
Matjaž URŠIČ
Univerza v Ljubljani, Center za prostorsko sociologijo, Kardeljeva pl. 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija
1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia e-mail: matjaz.ursic@fdv.uni-lj.si
Karien DEKKER
RMIT Univerza, Šola za globalne, urbane in družbene študije, Oddelek za strateško urbano načrtovanje, 411 Swanston Street,
Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Avstralija e-mail: karien.dekker@rmit.edu.au
Maša FILIPOVIČ HRAST
Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Kardeljeva pl. 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija e-mail: masa.fi lipovic@fdv.uni-lj.si
POVZETEK
Eno ključnih vprašanj v sodobni družbi je problem zmanjševanja civilnega udejstvovanja in participacije posameznikov, še posebno med mladimi. Univerze so pomembne družbene inštitucije, v okviru katerih se lahko posamezniki učijo ter udejanjajo državljanske vrednote, med katere spada tudi participacija. V članku tako naslovimo vprašanje prostorske organizacije univerz kot pomembnega dejavnika, ki lahko vpliva na participacijo mladih. Organizacija prostora namreč lahko povečuje ali pa ovira državljanjske vrednote, kot sta participacija in zaupanje med ljudmi. V prispevku predstavljamo eksplorativno raziskavo dveh študij primerov, in sicer Univerze v Ljubljani in Univerze v Tokiju, s katerima želimo ilustrirati pomen prostora za participacijo mladih. Analizirali smo prostorsko organiziranost obeh univerz, pri čemer smo se posebej osredotočili na fizično in funkcionalno/družbeno organizacijo prostora. Rezultat so zemljevidi, ki kažejo naravo in pogostost uporabe javnih prostorov. V diskusiji se navežemo na prisotnost trendov potrošništva in privatizacije javnih prostorov v okviru univerz ter razmišljamo o njihovih posledicah za participacijo mladih.
Ključne besede: participacija, mladi, javni prostor, univerza, izobraževanje, Univerza v Ljubljani,
Univerza v Tokiju
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) and The Japan Foundation (JF) for support during the research process.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Auge, M. (1995): Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London, Verso.
Badescu, G., Uslaner, E. (2003): Social Capital and the Transition to Democracy. London, New York, Rou-tledge.
Blokland, T. (2000): Unravelling three of a kind: Cohesion, community and solidarity. Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences, 36, 1, 56-70.
Burt, S. R. (2001): Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In: Lin, N., Cook, S. K., Burt, S. R. (Eds.): Social capital: theory and research. New York, Hawthorne: Aldine de Grnyter.
Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., Tiesdell, S. (2003): Public places, Urban Spaces. The dimensions of urban design. Oxford: Elsevier .
Dekker, K. (2007): Social capital, neighbourhood attachment and participation in distressed urban areas. Housing Studies, 22, 3, 359-383.
Dekker, K., Van Kempen, R. (2008): Places and Participation: Comparing Resident Participation in Post-WWII Neighborhoods in Northwest, Central and Southern Europe. Journal of Urban Affairs, 30, 1, 63-86.
Deželan, T. (2012): In the name of the nation or/and Europe? Determinants of the Slovenian citizenship regime. Citizenship studies, 16, 3/4, 413-429.
Deželan, T., Kustec-Lipicer, S. (2014): Governance: Formal Mechanisms of Youth Political Participation. OSCE/ODIHR Youth Forum, Warsaw, 16-17. June 2014.
Deželan, T., Maksuti, A. (2014): The relevance of higher education in Slovenia for creating virtuous citizens and a working democracy : an underexploited source?. In: Laker, J. A. (ed.): Citizenship, democracy and higher education in Europe, Canada and the USA, (Palgrave studies in global citizenship, education and democracy). Basingstoke, New York, Palgrave Macmil-lan, 147-172.
Deželan, T., Maksuti, A., Uršič, M. (2014): Capacity of local development planning in Slovenia: strengths and weaknesses of local sustainable development strategies. Lex localis, 12, 3, 547-573.
Geidne, J., Fröding, K., Montin, S., Eriksson, C. (2012): Implementation Structure and Participation at Neighbourhood Level-A Multiple Case Study of Neighbourhood Development in Sweden. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 25, 4, 305-322.
Hollander, E. L. (2011): Civic education in research universities: leaders or followers? Education & Training, 53, 2/3, 166-176.
Imrie, R. A. (1996): Disability and the City: International Perspectives. London, New York: Paul Chapman Publishing, St Martin's Press.
Jacobs, J. (1994): The Death and Life of Great American Cities. St. Ives: Penguin Books Ltd.
James, D. (1999): Imagining the Modern City. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kim, J., Kaplan, R. (2004): Physical and psychological factors in a sense of community. New urbanist Ken-tlands and nearby Orchard Village. Environment and behavior, 36, 3, 313-340.
Pendola, R., Gen, S. (2008): Does "Main Street" Promote Sense of Community. A comparison of San Francisco Neighborhoods. Environment and behavior, 40, 4, 545-574.
Knox, P. (1987): The Social Production of the Built Environment - Architects, Architecture, and the Postmodern City. Progress in Human Geography, 11, 3, 354-378.
Larson, J. S., Bradlow, E., Fader, P. (2005): An exploratory look at supermarket shopping paths. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22, 4, 395-414.
Lefebvre, H. (1974, 1991): The production of space. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell.
Lin, N. (2005): A network theory of social capital. In: Castiglione, D. et al. (Eds.): Handbook on social capital. Oxford: Oxford university press.
LTA - Land Transport Authority (2011). Passenger Transport Mode - Shares in World Cities. Journeys. Land Transport Authority, Singapore Governement. Available on: http://app.lta.gov.sg/ltaacademy/doc/J11Nov--p60PassengerTransportModeShares.pdf (12.8.2014)
Lynch, K. (1960): The Image of the City. Cambridge MA, MIT Press.
Lynch, K. (1972): What Time is this Place? Cambridge MA, MIT Press.
Lynch, K., City Sense, City Design (1990): Writings and Projects of Kevin Lynch. Cambridge MA, London, MIT Press.
Marcus, C. C. (1990): From the pragmatic to the spiritual. In: Altman, I., Christensen, K. (Eds.): Environment and behavior studies: Emergence of intellectual traditions. New York, Plenum Press, 111-140.
Obad Ščitaroci, M, Bojanič Obad Ščitaroci B., (2014): Public parks in Croatia in 19th Century within a European context. Annales, Series historia et sociologia, 24, 1, 95-112.
Pacione, M. (2001): Urban Geography - A Global Perspective. New York, London, Routledge.
Pavlin, S., Deželan, T., Svetlik, I. (2013): Challenges of Citizenship in higher education. Shifting visions, roles and outcomes. Wien, Echoraum.
Putnam, R.D. (1995): Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 1, 65-78.
Putnam, R. D. (2000): Bowling Alone, the Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, Touchstone.
Rosenthal, R., Jacobson, L. (1992): Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Irvington.
Ryan, M. (2011): Productions of space: Civic participation of young people at university. British Educational Research Journal, 37, 6, 1015-1031.
Sennett, R. (1996): Flesh and Stone - The Body and the City in Western Civilization. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Uršič, M. (2008): Arhitekture bolečine - izkustvo bolečine in uveljavljanje telesu neprilagojenih družbeno-prostorskih estetskih praks. Družboslovne razprave, 24, 57, 59-77.
URŠIČ, M. (2012): Avtomobilizacija in spreminjanje urbanih prostorov potrošnje na slovenski obali : od "me-
sta pešcev" k "mestu avtomobilskih potrošnikov". Annales, Series historia et sociologia, 22, 1, 261-276.
White, R. (2001): Youth participation in designin public spaces. Youth studies Australia, 20, 1, 19-26.
Yin, R. K. (2009): Case study research. Design and Methods. London: Sage .
Youngentob, K., Hostetler, M. (2005): Is a new urban development model building greener communities? Environment and behavior, 37, 6, 731-759.
Zukin, S. (2011): Naked City - The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. New York: Oxford University Press.