Multidimensional Safety Practices and School Safety Governance in Ajman: An Integrated Analysis of Physical, Psychological, Digital, And Environmental Domains

School safety in rapidly developing education systems requires coordinated governance of physical, psychological, digital, and environmental risks; however, evidence from Ajman remains limited. This mixed-methods study examined the associations between four safety-practice domains and school safety governance in public and private schools. Quantitative data were obtained from 110 teachers, administrators, counsellors, safety officers, and information-technology staff; qualitative evidence came from 15 semi-structured interviews and policy-document analysis. Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, Pearson correlations, and simultaneous multiple regression. Mean scores for all domains were high (M = 3.582–3.870). The four-predictor model was significant and explained 86.4% of the variance in school safety governance. Environmental safety management showed the largest positive unique coefficient (B = .781, p < .001), followed by digital safety governance (B = .275, p = .025). Physical and psychological safety were positively correlated with governance but did not retain significant unique coefficients when the highly intercorrelated domains were entered simultaneously. Interview and policy evidence indicated shared responsibility, policy alignment, and continuing needs in monitoring, staff capability, infrastructure, and digital awareness. The findings are consistent with an integrated systems interpretation while identifying environmental and digital practices as priorities for distinctive capability development. Because the design was cross-sectional and multicollinearity was substantial, the results should be interpreted as associative and exploratory rather than causal.

School safety governance; Physical safety; Psychological safety; Digital safety

1. Bacak, J., Martin, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Polly, D., & Wang, W. (2022). Elementary educator perceptions of student digital safety based on technology use in the classroom. Computers in the Schools, 39(2), 186–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2022.2071233 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Botana Martinez, M. P., Vyas, P. D., Walsh, K. H., Main, L., Bolton, L., Yuan, Y., Yajima, M., & Fabian, M. P. (2025). Rethinking heat in thousands of school classrooms through continuous monitoring and novel exposure metrics. Indoor Environments, 2(3), Article 100105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indenv.2025.100105 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Buonanno, G., Ricolfi, L., Morawska, L., & Stabile, L. (2022). Increasing ventilation reduces SARS-CoV-2 airborne transmission in schools: A retrospective cohort study in Italy’s Marche region. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, Article 1087087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1087087 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Ferrari, S., Blázquez, T., Cardelli, R., De Angelis, E., Puglisi, G., Escandón, R., & Suárez, R. (2023). Air change rates and infection risk in school environments: Monitoring naturally ventilated classrooms in a northern Italian urban context. Heliyon, 9(9), Article e19120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19120 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education Sector. (2022). Comprehensive School Safety Framework 2022–2030 for child rights and resilience in the education sector. https://gadrrres.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/The-Comprehensive-School-Safety-Framework-2022-2030-for-Child-Rights-and-Resilience-in-the-Education-Sector.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Goldberg Zacharia, M., & Yablon, Y. B. (2022). School bullying and students’ sense of safety in school: The moderating role of school climate. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 37, 903–919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-021-00567-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hoke, A. M., Keller, C. M., Grimm, C. L., Lehman, E. B., & Sekhar, D. L. (2024). Impact of wellness policy review, wellness council activity, and student health objectives on overall school wellness climate. Journal of School Health, 94(3), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13324 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Jones, L. M., Mitchell, K. J., & Beseler, C. L. (2024). The impact of youth digital citizenship education: Insights from a cluster randomized controlled trial outcome evaluation of the Be Internet Awesome curriculum. Contemporary School Psychology, 28, 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-023-00465-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Khanal, S., & Guha, P. (2023). Exploring the relationship between school-based management and school climate using PISA data. Asia Pacific Education Review, 24(4), 617–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-023-09846-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Masekela, N. A., Ngobeni, E. T., & Sepeng, P. (2024). Implementation of school safety policy in primary and secondary schools. Research in Educational Policy and Management, 6(1), 11–31. https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.2024.2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Mattebo, M., Östlund, G., & Elfström, M. L. (2022). Availability of attachment relations and safe school environment are associated with subjective well-being in 15-year-olds with girls reporting less well-being and less equality. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 3, 100145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100145 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Ministry of Education. (2020). Ministerial Resolution No. (659) of 2020 on the child protection policy in educational institutions. https://www.moe.gov.ae/en/about-us/legislations/Pages/child-protection-policy-educational-institutions-ministerial-resolution-659-2020.aspx [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Moyo, A., Tsokota, T., Ruvinga, C., & Chipfumbu Kangara, C. T. (2022). An e-safety framework for secondary schools in Zimbabwe. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27, 1133–1153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09545-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Pearce, N., Monks, H., Alderman, N., Hearn, L., Burns, S., Runions, K., Francis, J., & Cross, D. (2024). ‘It’s all about context’: Building school capacity to implement a whole-school approach to bullying. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 6, 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00138-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Safari, M., Afkhami, R., Amerzadeh, M., & Zaroushani, V. (2025). Simulation of fire emergency evacuation in a primary school based on Pathfinder software. Buildings, 15(1), Article 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15010090 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Savolainen, T. (2023). A safe learning environment from the perspective of Laurea University of Applied Sciences safety, security and risk management students and staff. Heliyon, 9(3), e12836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12836 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Shree, V., Kaur, H., Mehra, K. S., Goel, V., & Goel, H. (2024). A comprehensive assessment of IAQ role in ensuring environment quality and health in schools and plan for future school environment: A systematic review. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 17, 2461–2490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-024-01585-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Waasdorp, T. E., Fu, R., Clary, L. K., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2022). School climate and bullying bystander responses in middle and high school. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 80, 101412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2022.101412 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Walsh, K., Pink, E., Ayling, N., Sondergeld, A., Dallaston, E., Tournas, P., Serry, E., Trotter, S., Spanos, T., & Rogic, N. (2022). Best practice framework for online safety education: Results from a rapid review of the international literature, expert review, and stakeholder consultation. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 33, 100474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100474 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Widowati, E., Koesyanto, H., Istiono, W., Sutomo, A. H., & Sugiharto, S. (2023). Disaster preparedness and safety school as a conceptual framework of comprehensive school safety. SAGE Open, 13(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231211209 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste - Case Study in Cai Rang District, Can Tho City, Vietnam
• Youth Activism, Intentional Integration of Policies to Raise Awareness on Climate Change Action among the Youth
• Breathing Spaces: Environmental & User Experience in Dhanmondi and Zigatola Multistoried Apartments, Dhaka, Bangladesh
• Effects of Solid Waste Disposal on Soil Quality in Makurdi Metropolis, Benue State, Nigeria
• Environmental Impact of Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining in Borgu Local Government Area