Residential Satisfaction in Students Housing

Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Environmental Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep Residential satisfaction in students’ housingq Dolapo Amole* Department of Architecture, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Available online 20 May 2008 Keywords: Students’ housing Residential satisfaction Morphology Nigeria a b s t r a c t This paper reports the results of a study of residential satisfaction in students’ housing in Nigeria. The study examined how satisfied students were and the factors which predicted residential satisfaction. Specifically, it examined whether the morphological configurations of the halls of residence would predict residential satisfaction. Data were obtained from questionnaires distributed to a sample of 1124 respondents from all the halls of residences in four residential universities in Southwestern Nigeria. The data comprised objective and subjective measures of the physical, social and management attributes of the halls of residence. These were analyzed using frequencies, factor analysis and categorical regression models. More than half (53%) of the respondents were dissatisfied with their residences and the variables which explained satisfaction were the social qualities of the residences, especially, the social densities; the kitchenette, bathroom and storage facilities and some demographic characteristics of the students. The morphological configuration of the halls of residence was also found to be a predictor of satisfaction and the characteristics which appeared most significant were the plan form and the length of the corridor. The regression model explained 65% of the variance in R2. An instructive finding was that satisfaction appeared most critical in the bedroom. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction It has become increasingly important to evaluate housing for many reasons. First of all, housing has become the target of critics and the media for being highly unsatisfactory even though there is little or no empirical evidence to back these claims. Second, evaluating housing provides the necessary information required for ‘feed-back’ into current housing stock and ‘feed-forward’ into future projects (Preiser, 1989). It provides the basis for taking decisions about improvements in current housing stock and about the design and development of future housing. Third, the idea that an evaluation of the performance of housing may be conducted makes housing managers, designers and policy makers more accountable. To evaluate the performance of housing, however, a suitable criterion has to be developed, and indeed, over the years, many indicators of performance have been proposed. Amongst the various criteria proposed, the concept of satisfaction has become the most widely used in evaluating residential environments. It has been used primarily to assess the performance of all types of residential environments (Aragones, Francescato, & Garling, 2002; Francescato, Wiedemann, Anderson, & Chenoweth, 1979, 1989; Jagun, Brown, Milburn, & Gary, 1990; Kellekc & Berkoz, 2006; Paris q This paper was completed while the author was on sabbatical leave at the Department of Architecture, Covenant University, Otta, Nigeria. * Tel.: þ234 80 3721 1446. E-mail address: [email protected] 0272-4944/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.006 & Kangari, 2005; Wiedemann & Anderson, 1985). Satisfaction is defined as a measure of the gap between consumers’ actual and aspired needs (Galster, 1987). It is considered a very useful criterion in the evaluation of housing because it indicates the general levels of success, measures the users’ affective and cognitive responses, points out the irksome aspects of dwelling environments and predicts user responses to future environments. It also helps to identify the contribution of various factors to satisfaction, the differences between different types of factors and the relationships between various dimensions of the residential environment. In addition, satisfaction is considered an important indicator of the quality of life, well-being and happiness (Elyes & Wilson, 2005; Mccrea et al., 2005). Unfortunately, majority of the studies on residential satisfaction have been conducted in Western countries. These studies have examined how satisfied users are with their environments, the factors which account for satisfaction or dissatisfaction and the models which may explain satisfaction. However, there is very little research to inform us whether or not the results of the studies are generalizable to other less developed countries. Hence, more research is needed in other contexts to test the generalizability of the results and the models developed in Western contexts. In addition, most of the studies which examine residential satisfaction have focused more on social and management attributes of housing than on its physical attributes. Hence, these studies have been of very little influence and significance for design and planning professionals. Francescato et al. Peck & Stewart. social densities. Spencer & Barneji. security and safety. The aim of this paper. Consequently. Yet. p. The purposive approach. the neighbourhood.. This is the premise on which the aspiration-gap approach is based and the more common conceptual frameworks of residential satisfaction (Galster. Turkoglu. The management attributes usually examined are rules and regulations. 1987. First students’ housing is a major form of accommodation for university students who are in a transitory stage of life. Various demographic characteristics which influence satisfaction in housing have also been found in the literature although the focus has been on adults. Finally. Social attributes include privacy.. 2002:24. these attributes have been categorized in the literature as social/psychological. Very little is known about this category of users with respect to dwellings (Gifford. 1979) which found that the type of site layout (site morphology) and the type of housing (low rise/high rise and detached/attached) were not predictors of satisfaction. 1984). very little is known about what predicts satisfaction in students’ housing. satisfaction studies have been approached from two main perspectives. 201–202). is to examine residential satisfaction in students’ housing in some university campuses in Nigeria. The ‘type of house’ refers to terraces.. Russell & Snodgrass. is useful because it enables researchers to understand the degree to which different facets and roles of users contribute to their satisfaction. 1979. While some authors conceive satisfaction as a purely cognitive evaluation (Canter & Rees.. Indeed. 1 The term conative refers to behavioural intentions (see Francescato. 2002:27). They refer to the different levels at which people may experience satisfaction such as the house and the neighbourhood. Students’ residences therefore constitute a peculiar type of housing with a special user group which needs to be evaluated. 1978. 2001). maintenance. Third. It examines how satisfied users are with their residential facilities and the factors which predict satisfaction in this context. participation and rents (Paris & Kangari. age. Hourihan. Studies of residential satisfaction There is no consensus about what type of evaluative appraisal satisfaction is. 1987) do not think that evaluations such as satisfaction can be neatly separated into cognition or affect. 1987). Physical attributes have been examined much less in the literature. race and ethnicity (Gifford. 1997. In addition. They usually include the lack or presence of certain facilities. 1985. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85 77 Finally. singlefamily house or duplexes. Oseland. 1990) and those which conceive of satisfaction as a measure of the gap between consumers actual and aspired needs called the aspiration-gap approach (Galster. 2002:3–5) or levels of environmental interaction (Canter & Ress. 2. social relations and personalization (Francescato et al. 3 Levels of environment also referred to as scales of the environment (Aragones et al. Residential satisfaction is also conceptualized as a multidimensional construct. the setting of students’ housing is usually the campus environment rather than the urban setting. location and size of the bedroom (Galster. the paper examines whether and how the morphological configurations of the residences predict satisfaction. Various attributes of housing to which users respond in relation to satisfaction are categorized along a number of dimensions. especially university students in Nigeria. p. 1987. it has usually focused on one (but rarely more than one) of the levels of the environment3 albeit unintentionally and with very little differentiation between the levels. Baum and Valins (1977) and Baum and Davis (1980) have shown that the length of the corridor of dormitories has a significant influence on the perception of crowding. These characteristics include sex. However. some others (Francescato et al. Oseland. freedom of choice. which is rooted in a cognitive view. called the purposive approach (Canter & Rees. whenever residential satisfaction has been examined. Rent & Rent. the community or country of residence. Canter and Rees (1982) referred to these attributes as the referent of interaction while Francescato (2002) referred to them as the domain of the environment. 1982. which is not often used in evaluating satisfaction. Kahana et al. 2003. (1989) who conceptualize satisfaction as an attitude and a multifaceted construct which has cognitive. 1997). They assert that this definition of satisfaction is more comprehensive and that it accounts for the low predictive strength of the construct in previous studies. It is not certain whether the characteristics which predict satisfaction for adults would also predict satisfaction for youths. An important physical characteristic.D. this type of housing has very peculiar characteristics. Other physical attributes used in the literature include the appearance of the building and the floor level (Kaya & Erkip. In other words. 2001. neighbours. contrary to some studies (Day.. The implication of the purposive approach is that researchers emphasize goals or associated activities in relation to the attributes of the physical environment. Those which conceptualize satisfaction as a measure of the degree to which the environment facilitates or inhibits the goal of the user. the focus has been on satisfaction with a level (or scale) of the physical environment such as the dwelling unit. The differences between these house types are more or less functional rather than morphological. 1997. Studies of residential satisfaction in this context are few (Kaya & Erkip. However people are not only goal oriented but they have affective relations with the environment too.2 This is an important aspect of the design of buildings. It refers to the spatial and organizational form of the building based on certain physical characteristics. 1985). 204. 1982. spatial density. as noted earlier. affective and conative1 dimensions. apartments. 1970. there is enough evidence to suggest that the morphological configuration of the residence would significantly affect the level of satisfaction (Davis & Roizen. pp. this form of housing represents a special type of housing for a number of reasons. 2 Morphological configuration is also referred to in architecture as typologies. This is why very few physical characteristics have been examined in most studies of residential satisfaction. management/organizational and physical attributes. Francescato et al. Mandler. 1984. 1985). Spencer & Barnerji. In addition. therefore. not much evidence is available on residential satisfaction for youths. management staff and policies. socio-economic status. is the morphological configuration. Gifford. physical attributes are not so simple to measure in a way that data may be obtained about them with confidence (Francescato. 1985) have conceived satisfaction from this perspective. 2006). 1997. 201). Second. 1985). However. evaluations or appraisals of the environment (or any psychological object) usually involve comparisons: comparisons between what the respondents have and what they would like to have or have previously experienced. 1990) others have held that it is affect (Weidmann & Anderson. Weidmann & Anderson. . However. 2000. length of residence. being different from the single-family house and the apartment for single persons which are the common forms of housing. 1989. For example. Differences in the morphological characteristics of buildings need to be captured for the purposes of evaluation. This categorization is not useful in all contexts of housing and especially in the context of students’ housing where functional differences do not exist. Generally. 1982) are defined as the scales of the environment which have a hierarchical order. However it is the ‘type of house’ which has usually been examined in satisfaction studies. a more robust view of satisfaction was developed by Francescato et al. 1989.. However. 3. It hypothesized that the objective variables would influence satisfaction directly and indirectly through the subjective variables. attitudes and intentions towards the housing attributes. Conceptualizing residential satisfaction This study conceptualized residential satisfaction as influenced by objective and subjective measures of housing attributes and the demographic characteristics of the students as shown in Fig. All the halls except two. Model of residential satisfaction.. If you move again would you like to live in another place like this? d. length of stay and sex) were selected. Wiedemann & Anderson. presence or absence of reading room. Almost all the halls of residence were overcrowded. . Two types of measurements. The approach to the study was quantitative and the survey method was used.2. Most of them (about 90%) were low-rise two-storey buildings. number of persons on the floor. All the 20 halls of residences in these four universities were used for the study. Objective measures refer to the actual measurements. 1985). A sample size of 15% of the population in each hall was selected for the survey. They had bedrooms arranged linearly along a corridor. number of persons in the bedroom. there were five female halls. 1. Objective physical variables These include the morphological configuration of the hall. How satisfied are you with living here? b. It is therefore likely that the results of the study may be generalizable to all the first and second generation universities in Nigeria. number of persons in the bedroom. the lack of. 13 male halls and two mixed-sex halls. The authors conceptualized satisfaction as an attitude which has affective. On the average. These are referred to as objective and subjective variables. bedroom furnishing. Objective variables Objective measures of physical attributes Residential satisfaction Subjective variables Subjective measures physical. 1985) who used such an index suggests that it increases the reliability of the criterion since it would seem that an index is intrinsically better than a single item. Finally. The stratified sampling method ensured that all categories of students (by course of study. cognitive and conative dimensions. satisfaction. satisfaction was measured using an index based on four questions which were: a. six items about the housing attributes of the halls. However. self administered questionnaire was designed to capture all the required data. (1989). were single sex halls. conative and cognitive dimensions. or quantities of attributes while subjective measures refer to perceptions. in measuring residential satisfaction to use an index of highly correlated items rather than a single-item variable of ‘how satisfied are you with your housing?’ In the model of satisfaction conceptualized by Francescato et al.4. emotions.4. Variables used in the study 3.1. 3. Wiedemann & Anderson. 3. it has also been common. This amounted to a total of two thousand respondents. social/psychological and management attributes Demographic characteristics Fig. Wiedemann & Anderson. The setting and sampling This study is part of a larger study which evaluated students’ residential facilities in some Nigerian Universities. as an attitude with affective. The dependent variable. each of the bedrooms was designed to accommodate four persons but at the time of the study. 1985). Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85 A significant issue in most of the models of residential satisfaction is how the housing attributes outlined above are measured. 12 items about attitudes towards the physical and social aspects of the halls and 49 items about satisfaction with physical. How long do you want to live in this housing development? c. Questionnaires were distributed to each of these 2000 respondents but 1124 responses were found useful. In all. 3.4. 3. Would you recommend this place to one of your friends if they were looking for a place to live? The reason for this was conceptual. they accommodated an average of six persons. Four out of the seven residential universities in this region were selected because they best represented the residential Universities system..78 D. The objective measures of the attributes of housing have been shown to be weaker predictors than the subjective measures (Francescato et al.1. The questionnaire included five items about the respondents demographic data. Approach to the study 3. 2002. was construed as multifaceted. namely objective and subjective measures of housing attributes are found in the literature (Francescato. Subjective variables These include attitudes about comfort.2. 1997. 1. such as the presence. The respondents were selected from each of the halls of residence using a stratified sampling procedure. 1989. Residential satisfaction was construed as the dependent variable while the objective and subjective variables as well as the demographic characteristics were the independent variables. common room. the reason given by other authors (Carvalho et al. kitchenette and a balcony (terrace at the back of the bedroom). The instrument The closed ended. social and management attributes of housing. These four universities also represented more than one half of the first and second generation residential universities in Nigeria. 3. These halls of residence had very common characteristics. number of persons using the sanitary facilities. 3. Most of the respondents were above 21 years of age. These were later used in the regression analysis. Its size refers to the social density in relation to what is shared. Demographic variables (five in number) The demographic variables used were: sex.D. a reliability test was performed on the variables which measured RSAT and thereafter. It was hypothesized that the respondents’ satisfaction would increase as the social units decrease in size. For question 2. 5.1) would also predict satisfaction. How satisfied are you with living here in general? 2. 8 Saint. location of the hall. the relationship between residential satisfaction (RSAT) and types of morphological configuration was examined through a one-way ANOVA. The first regression model examined the amount of variance explained (R2) by physical attributes and demographic characteristics.5. the least satisfying and that the other types would fall in between these types. 5 This was done through a typological analysis (Amole. Five types (Type A – Fig. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85 79 privacy in bedroom. For example. Data analysis Five types of data analysis were performed: First of all. In this regard. Demographic profiles of respondents The profiles of the respondents are presented in Table 1. Type B – Fig. and type E – Fig. Baum & Valins. The morphological configuration of halls of residence This study examined whether the morphological configuration of the residences (a physical variable in Section 3. the 49 responses to satisfaction were reduced to a smaller number of factors using factor analysis. the bedroom. Hartnett and Strassner (2004)’s review of Higher Education in Nigeria provides these statistics.4. Although it appeared that all the selected halls of residence were similar. the index of RSAT was computed for each respondent. 1997). It examined the variance explained by R2 as well as the predictors of satisfaction in this model.4. furnishing and storage in the bedroom). Type C – Fig. In addition. How would you rate your present bedroom for the activities of (i) sleeping (ii) studying (iii) entertaining friends (iv) relaxing The aim was also to increase the reliability of the criterion. It was operationalized as an index based on the following three questions: 1. the reading and relaxation facilities. 4. A. the floor level on which the respondent lived. the loading on the corridor (whether it was single or double loaded) and 4 By ‘place qualities’ the author refers to the quality of the bedroom for performing activities. 4. The proportions of students within most of the categories of length of stay in the hall were similar 3. 3. the form of the bathrooms and kitchenette (whether they were decentralized or located at a single point along the corridor) and the loading on the horizontal access. The selected halls of residence were placed into types5 based on four morphological characteristics which were the length of the corridor. Type D – Fig. Responses to all the above questions were measured on a Likerttype scale. An index of relative satisfaction (RSAT) was computed for each respondent as the mean of their total scores on these questions. The categorical7 regression technique was used because it could deal with categorical variables. These attributes covered all the physical (the design and location of the hall. The other types of morphological configuration fell within these extremes in decreasing size of social unit. The mean RSAT scores for each type were computed. 3. 7 Categorical regression (also called CATREG in SPSS) is a regression family variant which can be used when there is a combination of nominal. 2. About a third was female while two-thirds were male. Do you intend to move to another accommodation in the near future? 3. number of persons in the hall. Type C defined the largest social unit while Type B defined the smallest. E. these types appeared to differ from each other by the size of the social unit6 defined around the service core. 3(ii). in the order D. Finally. the sanitary facilities. This was also representative of the gender proportions in enrollment in Nigerian universities. It also examined which of these variables were predictors of satisfaction. For questions 1 and 3(i). The halls were categorized based on the length of the corridor. ordinal and interval independent variables. they differed enough in morphology to suggest that they were likely to influence satisfaction. The second regression analysis comprised variables used in the first regression analysis as well as the subjective variables. High RSAT scores implied high levels of satisfaction. the length of the corridor had been shown to significantly influence users’ responses (Baum & Davis. maintenance of facilities and management staff) dimensions. Second. economic status (operationalized as ‘‘amount spent on feeding’’).4. 6 The term social unit refers to the unit defined by those who share the services (kitchenette and bathrooms). security. 1977). Results 4. These attitudes were measured on a Likert-type scale from very poor/very inadequate (a score of 1) to very good/very adequate (a score of 5).3.1.6. A descriptive analysis of RSAT was also performed to understand how satisfied the respondents were with their housing. social/psychological (privacy. Type C. 6) of morphological configurations for the halls of residence emerged and these were used in the analysis. length of stay in university accommodation (in years). 3(iv). a score of 3 for ‘don’t know’ and a score of 5 for ‘no’ because it implied satisfaction. the kitchenette and sanitary facilities. the form of the bathrooms and kitchenette (whether they were decentralized or located at a single point along the corridor). some of which had been reduced to fewer factors through a factor analysis. Residential satisfaction This was the dependent variable. descriptive statistics was used to analyze the profiles of the respondents. fees paid. 1980. Third. social densities and place4 qualities) and management (rules and regulations. A small-sized social unit is one of low social density while a large-sized social unit is one of high social density. level of study (postgraduate or undergraduate). 3(iii).4. the kitchenette in general. It was therefore expected that Type B would be the most satisfying. the plan form (whether it had a linear or enclosed form). age. In general. This hypothesis is based on the theory that higher social densities imply higher social interaction and reduced personal control and consequently dissatisfaction (Gifford. a score of 1 was assigned to a ‘yes’ answer because it implied dissatisfaction. 153). a score of 1 corresponded to very poor and 5 to very good. the accesses. 1997:151. Fourth. . Activities is a central component of place-theory (Canter. two categorical regressions were performed on the data to identify the relative contribution of the various factors on satisfaction. 3. these variables included responses to how satisfied the users were with 49 housing attributes measured on a Likert-type scale. design of the hall.8 The profiles showed that about a tenth was postgraduate while ninetenths were undergraduates. 1983). It uses optimal scaling which quantifies categorical variables and then treats them as numerical variables. 2. storage and furnishing (factor 4). 001–N3. explained 65% of the variance of residential satisfaction (R2 ¼ 0. the length of stay in university residence halls and the students’ economic status.07. followed by the social densities in the hall (factor 3).9 Most of them were average. presence of a balcony. Type A.0%) were not satisfied (either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied) while less than half of this proportion (24%) was satisfied or very satisfied. Type C. N1. Of all the predictors in this second model. Satisfaction with housing How satisfied the respondents were was measured by the index of residential satisfaction (RSAT) for all the respondents. Factors 2 and 3 referred to attributes of the whole hall. The other factors were not used in the regression analysis because they did not significantly improve the model. Also noteworthy is the fact that the first five factors specifically described a level of environment within the hall of residence. length of stay in university halls and the students’ economic status. 000–N1. presence of a kitchenette. F ¼ 6. More than half of the respondents (53. no longer appeared as predictors in this model. demographic. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85 Long horizontal access End located service core Single loading on corridor Linear form Fig. Short horizontal access Centrally located service core Double loading on corridor Linear form Fig. Of the 12 factors. 7) revealed that most of the respondents were not satisfied with their accommodation.2. 000). at least one of each of the types of variables (objective physical.3% (R2 ¼ 0. The proposition that satisfaction is a multifaceted construct comprising affective. 000). the proportion of those who were satisfied (22%) was about half (40%) of those who were dissatisfied. In order to identify the factors which explained and may predict students satisfaction with their housing. the bathrooms.000).80 D. df ¼ 54. It is interesting to note that the first affective dimension which accounted for the largest variance was related to the bedroom especially its quality as a multifunctional space. At the time of this study.5 were selected. In this second model. . all the subjective variables were added to the variables in the previous model and were regressed on RSAT. The proportion of those who were very satisfied (2%) was very small compared to the proportion of those who were very dissatisfied (13%). high (N2. 4. All these variables except the economic status of the student had a positive relationship with satisfaction. although a high preference is given to first year students. 3. The factor analysis revealed the respondents affective dimensions to their housing. level of study. suggesting that the variables were internally related and measured the same concept. above average (N1. cognitive and conative dimensions was therefore supported. the morphological configuration of the hall and finally the age of the student. factors 1 and 4 to the bedroom and factor 5 to the floor level. the presence of a kitchenette. average (N1.10 4. 5001–N2. In the second model. only the first four of these were used in the regression model. the quality of the bathroom and kitchenette. age. two categorical regression Fig. The remaining predictors in decreasing order of strength were the economic status of the student. a sizeable proportion of all other students are also accommodated. 9 In these halls on residence. p < 0. 000). This regression model (Table 4). Type B.153. the social and place qualities of the bedroom (factor 1). Two variables which were predictors in the first model.69. very high (above N3. the design of the hall (factor2). The results showed a high correlation (alpha ¼ 0. In this first model (Table 3) the relative strength of the physical attributes and the demographic characteristics on residential satisfaction (RSAT) was examined. models were designed.00 was about 1. poor (N501–N999). some of the subjective variables (the 49 responses to satisfaction with physical. This was a low predictive strength although it was significant. privacy in the bedroom.3. The specific variables which were significant predictors in this model were the morphological configuration of the hall. The subjective variables which significantly explained satisfaction were privacy in the bedroom. The results (Fig. 4. Similarly. the storage. The actual range for the categories were very poor (N0–N500). This was more than four times the variance explained in the first model. The factor analysis performed yielded 12 factors (Table 2) and explained 62% of the variance. 4929. All the 12 factors had eigen values of 1. Three demographic variables were significant and these were the age of the student. Before examining the factors which accounted for the low levels of satisfaction of the students. namely whether there was a balcony or not and the level of study of the student. The mean income was N1.00 or more and only the variables with factor loadings of more than 0. economically. the social densities in the hall (factor 3) and the storage and furnishing in the bedroom (factor 4). storage in the bedroom. p < 0. The regression analysis showed that the amount of variance explained by these variables was 15. The index of residential satisfaction A reliability analysis was conducted for the three variables which comprised the index of satisfaction (RSAT). Short horizontal access Three decentralized service cores Single loading on corridor Partially enclosed form implying that the survey captured all the categories of students as designed by the systematic sampling method used. df ¼ 21. the strongest was the social and place qualities of the bedroom (factor 1). and subjective) in the model was significant in explaining residential satisfaction.000). social/physical and management attributes) were reduced through a factor analysis using the principal components and the varimax rotation method. These factors were the social and place qualities of the bedroom (factor1).65.25 US cents.769) amongst the items. Two objective physical variables which emerged as significant predictors of satisfaction were whether they had a kitchenette or not and the morphological configuration of the hall of residence. 10 The economic status was operationalized as the mount spent on feeding per month. This showed that the subjective variables were able to explain a significantly larger percentage of residential satisfaction than the objective physical variables and the demographic variables. the kitchenette. the social densities in the hall (factor 3) and storage and furnishing in the bedroom (factor 4). 500). In addition. see Table 5). This is probably because with time. Hence if the length of stay was a predictor. Furthermore. they adapted to the living conditions of their housing and also devised coping strategies which improved their level of satisfaction.8 7. Weidmann & Anderson. Kellekc & Berkoz.5 4. These results provide an insight into the performance of university student residences in Nigeria. 1985. this finding may now be generalized to other non-western contexts such as Nigeria.4 69.2 17. thus indicating the significance of this dimension in responses to satisfaction with the residence.2 10.D. 2006). These characteristics are closely related.7 26. Length of stay in university accommodation 1 2 3 4 5 Economic status Very poor Poor Average Above average High Very high 1989) which assert that subjective measures of housing attributes are more important than the objective measures of housing attributes and the characteristics of the users. age was also a predictor of satisfaction. place and management/maintenance dimensions of housing to which users responded. 5. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85 Table 1 Demographic characteristics of respondents Characteristic Age Categories 15–18 19–21 22–25 Above 25 Male Female Postgraduate Undergraduate year years years years years and more 81 % of Respondents 3. 1985).0 13.8 Short horizontal access Double end located service core Single loading on corridor Fully enclosed form Sex Level of study Fig. the results of previous studies (Peck & Stewart. The findings here indicate that there is a very wide gap between what the users aspired to in housing and what they eventually obtained.2. It is probably for this same reason that the level of study was also a predictor in the first regression model. sex Long horizontal access Single end located service core Partial double loading on corridor Linear form Fig. the morphological configuration was. High levels of satisfaction have not been common in many housing schemes. For example. satisfaction decreased.077). The factors which emerged could be identified with specific levels within the halls of residence. It was also not surprising that in addition to length of stay..3 27. This is probably due to very little understanding on the part of the designers and providers of the factors which predicted satisfaction in housing. 1997:201. this study found that as economic status increased.7 11. 1998. while the least satisfying was Type D (mean score ¼ 2. O’Brien & Ayidiya.000. the results of the factor analysis revealed physical. 7. Residential satisfaction (RSAT) amongst respondents. 1978) which have shown that length of stay in residence is a predictor of satisfaction were also corroborated by this study. thus supporting previous research which examined the relationship between economic status and satisfaction (Amole & Mills-Tettey.. unlike some previous studies in housing (Spencer & Barnerji. The order of the types in decreasing satisfaction was Type C/Type B/Type A/Type/E/ Type D (Table 6).. The results also showed that the variables which most strongly predicted residential satisfaction were the subjective variables. it was likely that age would also be a predictor. Francescato et al.6 26. especially in Nigeria (Amole & Mills-Tettey.9149) followed by Type B (mean score ¼ 2. the older they became.1 20.6 42.7 18.8 30. rather it is in owner-occupied housing that relatively high levels of satisfaction have been recorded (Carvalho et al. The situation in this study does not appear to be different. 2002.3602. To confirm this finding even further. 1985) satisfaction was also found to be a multi-dimensional construct. 5. social. Francescato et al. Type D.5 24. 1989. Indeed. However.1 34.8167). df¼ 4. 6. 1991). the longer the students spent in university accommodation. It also lent credence to the cursory evaluation of higher education in Nigeria by Eribo (1996) and Nwaka (2000) which suggested that living conditions of the students were poor. this is not unexpected because increasing economic status implies increasing aspirations and a decrease in satisfaction if the housing situation remains the same. The morphological configuration which the users were most satisfied with was the Type C (mean score ¼ 2. In support of previous studies (Francescato. This supports previous studies (Francescato. It appeared that most of the characteristics which predicted satisfaction in adults also emerged as predictors for students in this study.1 89. The longer the students stayed the more satisfied they became. Type E. 2002. Rent & Rent. Gifford. Another dimension which was revealed by the factor analysis was the level of the environment. as hypothesized. F ¼ 13. . 1998). The results (Table 7) also support the hypothesis that the morphological configurations were significantly different from each other in relation to satisfaction (p < 0. a predictor of satisfaction. Both the subjective and the objective variables were predictors of satisfaction and various types of housing attributes predicted satisfaction.1997.9 21. Discussion This study has shown that students were generally dissatisfied with the housing provided for them. Consequently. Fig. Economic status 9.72 0. Number of years spent in university halls 8.51 0. Level of study *Significant at the 0.07** À.64 0.387% The floor level on which you live Living on this floor Living in this block Total variance explained ¼ 62.58 0.391.69 1.87% The number of people on this floor The number of people in this hall The number of people on this corridor Factor 4 (storage and furnishing in the bedroom) 4.037 .69 0. 2002.153.00 À.74 0.67 0. Do you have a reading room? 5.83 0. This was not unexpected because the halls of residence in this study were characteristically overcrowded. F ¼ 6. The social attributes which predicted satisfaction were social density and privacy. The first is that management and maintenance factors did not emerge as predictors in this context at all although they have been shown to be very important in predicting satisfaction generally (Francescato.96 0.167% Refuse disposal in the hall Maintenance of the hall The bathrooms and toilets Factor 7 (kitchenette and bathrooms) 2. posing no real challenge to the respondents. which are functions of privacy (Altman. Hence.22 0.797%. Spencer & Barneji. it appears that where choices did not exist.97 3. 1985).55 0. the finding that the presence and quality of the kitchenette predicted satisfaction was not unexpected because central dining facilities were no longer operational in the universities and the students had to provide their own meals. the presence of a kitchenette became very important. 1997. **Significant at the 0.82 D. The role of sex in user responses to the environment has not often been conclusive in the literature. df ¼ 21. The reason for this may be related to their current stage in the life cycle and the context in which they lived. it was interesting to find that the morphological configuration of the halls of residence also predicted satisfaction. The hypothesis that this attribute would predict satisfaction was confirmed contrary to the study of Day (2000).17*** 3 3 1 3 1 4.19 2. It is very likely that the overcrowded conditions of living made these facilities significant.69 0.347% The location of the hall Factor loading 0. Hence.76 9. Do you have a kitchenette? 3.07** À.98 . A probable reason for this is that the rules and regulations were very few and the fees paid were insignificant. satisfaction with such facilities became significant predictors. Francescato et al.45 0.55 0.81 0. alternatives for these facilities did not exist whereas the student could find alternate places for the other facilities (such as reading and socializing) which did not predict satisfaction (Amole.005 level.884% The reading room in general The buttery in general The common room in general Factor 9 (the laundry) 2.66 0.60 did not appear as a predictor of satisfaction. Table 3 Regression model 1 of residential satisfaction Variable Objective physical variables 1. . p < 0. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85 Table 2 Factor analysis of responses to satisfaction with 49 housing attributes Factor and % variance Factor 1 (the social and place qualities of the bedroom) 25. In addition.73 0.000.55 0.. Baum and Valins (1977). Indeed it has been shown consistently in the literature that high social densities. 0.13% The bedroom furniture in general The storage provided in the bedroom The bedroom furniture arrangement Factor 5 (the floor level) 3.72 0.73 0. but corroborating the studies of Davis and Roizen (1970). Do you have a common room? 4. suggesting that the quality of these attributes are crucial to satisfaction.77 0.68 0.69 0.81 0.55 Factor Factor 6 (maintenance of the hall) 3. 1975). contribute to high levels of dissatisfaction (Gifford. Fourth.53 0. R ¼ 0. Beta À.000 level.77 Factor 3 (the social densities in the hall) 4. Age 11. the variables which predicted satisfaction were related to social and physical attributes of the housing.4% Studying in this bedroom Privacy in this bedroom Sleeping in this bedroom Entertaining friends in this bedroom Security of property in this bedroom Number of persons in this bedroom Living in this bedroom Ventilation in this bedroom Factor 2 (the design of the hall) 5.627% The laundry in general The location of the laundry Factor 10 (the balcony) 2. R2 ¼ 0.72 0.18*** À.78 0.982% Location of kitchenette Kitchenette in general Location of bathroom Factor 8 (facilities in the hall) 2. hence further investigation is needed to reveal why this is so.70 0.05 level.10*** .50 Second. Sex 10.64 0. Third.15*** df 1 2 1 1 1 4 F 0. Morphological configuration of hall Demographic variables 7.72 0. the laundry and the balcony did not appear as predictors. ***Significant at the 0. Number of persons in bedroom 6. Other physical facilities which predicted satisfaction were the adequacy of storage and furnishing in the bedroom and the quality of the bathrooms. the common room.76 0.07.413% The official fees paid The rules and regulations Factor 12 (location of hall) 2.480% The size of the balcony The balcony in general Factor 11 (management) 2.08** . it is not surprising that both of these social attributes are together predictors of satisfaction.54 0.96% The design of the hall The main entrance The general appearance of the hall Access between the blocks in the hall The design of this block Factor loading 0. where their gender identities were probably not challenged.71 0.71 0. A number of other instructive findings about the predictors of satisfaction in this study are noteworthy.60 12. This brings in the issue of choice in relation to satisfaction and in this instance.17 2. It appeared that the facilities which emerged as predictors were the very basic and essential facilities for living. 2005).70 0.06 .74 0. 2001.63 0.80 0. 1989). Other facilities such as the reading room. Do you have a balcony? 2. Kaya & Erkip.04 . It creates a higher visual interaction amongst residents in spite of the low physical interaction created by a short corridor and this most probably resulted in an increase in perceived density and reduced satisfaction.65. this study has contributed to the discourse on satisfaction with respect to ‘levels of environment’ by identifying the bedroom as a distinct level in this context.96 0.29 9.17 2. This is likely to be related to the fact that the bedroom in this context was a multifunctional space as revealed by the factor analysis and it was also the place where overcrowding was primarily experienced.19 2. it appears that the length of the corridor and the plan form were important morphological characteristics which predicted satisfaction.05 À.14*** 3 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 3 2 3 3 2.90 6. R2 ¼ 0. The morphological configuration emerged as a predictor in both regression models of the study. In addition the finding that Type D was the least satisfactory was also surprising because it had one of the smaller social unit sizes.18*** À. Morphological configuration of hall Demographic variables 7. but which this study did not capture. Level of study Subjective variables 12.14** . Factor 4 (furnishing and storage in the bedroom) *Significant at the 0.02 . This most probably accounts for the surprising responses to satisfaction in these types.10 .07 2 3 1 3 1 4. How do you feel about the location of your hall? 23.75 Standard deviation 0. R ¼ 0. The reason why the initial hypothesis about social unit size could not fully explain satisfaction was probably due to the fact that it captured only indoor densities.000 level. However.75 0.05 13.36 2. it seems that of all the characteristics of the morphological configuration. the morphological configuration as defined by the study was a useful method of examining multiple physical characteristics of halls of residence. namely.00 . Rent & Rent. How do you feel about the number of persons in your hall? 24. Canter & Rees.66 0. it implies that certain morphological configurations may not be as satisfactory as others or may not be appropriate in some contexts. 2003. a combination of the length of the corridor and the plan form appeared to have contributed to the prediction of satisfaction.20*** .98 83 . the housing unit and the neighbourhood (Kahana et al. Number of years spent in university halls 8. **Significant at the 0. However.. The finding also supports previous findings that there is a relationship between physical attributes and evaluative responses and showed that people respond to different morphological and spatial qualities differently.23*** À.45 0. Factor 1 (social and place qualities of bedroom) 25.08 .08 À.59 2. Do you have a common room? 4. This appeared to be the only characteristic which could have accounted for a lower level of satisfaction relative to the other types. Alternative places for most of the activities performed in the bedroom were not found. This inference is made because the types of configurations which were most satisfying were the ones with short corridor lengths while those which were least satisfying were those with long corridor lengths.12* À. In sum.18*** .81 2. However. Constrained choice may explain the multifunctional characteristic of the bedroom and its significance as a predictor of satisfaction.97 3. 1978.91 2. In addition.10* .74 2. Finally..82 0. .33 7. Rate the level of comfort of bedroom 13. Second. Type D.79 0. Sex 10.22 0.04 . 1997:211). Factor 2 (design of the hall) 26. Peck & Stewart. Type D also had a plan form that was fully enclosed. 1989) which showed that there are usually differences in user responses to different levels of the environment and that some levels are more crucial than others. It is possible that there are intervening variables which may help to explain the results. This finding supports previous research (Canter.65 2.06 .19*** .08 À. it appeared that the bedroom was a significant level of environment where satisfaction was critical. Factor 3 (social densities in the hall) 27. the outdoor/nearby densities could also be perceived. A similar explanation may be proffered for why type B (which is partially enclosed) is less satisfying that type C.69 1. In addition.50 . despite the fact that it had a short corridor length was the least satisfying. Hence. Do you have a balcony? 2.09 .05 level.72 2. 1982. It served functions that would otherwise have been performed elsewhere if the context was a family house. however. Rate your bathroom 19.04 11. However. was the most satisfactory of the morphological configurations was unexpected because this is contrary to the findings which relate high social densities and high levels of social interaction to dissatisfaction (Gifford.60 and Hourihan (1984). How much do you like furniture arrangement? 14. df ¼ 54. that Type C. How private is your bedroom? 17. Most studies.76 6. Age 11. Do you have a reading room? Number of persons in bedroom 6.16*** À. The implication of this finding is that first of all. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85 Table 4 Regression model 2 of residential satisfaction Variable Objective physical variables 1.01 . The fully or partially enclosure plan form puts more students in full view of each other than the linear form. those which were fully or partially enclosed in plan form appeared to be less satisfying than expected. it suggests that the criteria used in this study for the definition of the Table 5 Residential satisfaction by type of morphological configuration Type A B C D E Mean RSAT score 2. Third.69 1. thus indicating its significance.73 0. Francescato et al.05 .64 2. Certainly it appears that the description of these morphological configurations based on the notion of the size of the social unit defined could not fully explain why morphological configurations were related to satisfaction in the order in which they did.76 9. ***Significant at the 0. How adequate is the storage? 15.12** df 1 2 1 1 1 4 F 0. Do you have a kitchenette? 3.09 À.60 12.005 level.05 . Economic status 9. How do you feel about number of persons on your floor? 18. which defined that largest social unit.12 1.15** . Beta . this finding suggests that satisfaction in the bedroom is almost tantamount to satisfaction with the whole hall. the strongest predictor of satisfaction was the bedroom and most of the predictor variables were related more to the bedroom than any other part of the hall of residence. 1985). For example.807. Rate the design of your hall 22.45 0. 1983.70 morphological configuration are relevant with respect to satisfaction. p < 0.68 7. How do you feel about kitchenette? 21. Hence.D. This significance may be related to the fact that this attribute was a measure of four morphological characteristics of the halls of residence rather than a single one.000. How do you feel bout number of persons in bedroom? 16. in the types which were not linear in plan form. have examined the levels of housing which are relevant to their research. How do you feel about number of persons using the bathrooms? 20. The study showed that the students’ housing provided performed well below average from the users’ evaluations. at doi:10. are there other criteria for defining morphological configuration which would predict satisfaction even better? What attributes of morphological configuration really explain satisfaction in this and other contexts? Answers to these questions in future evaluation research will be of immense benefit to architects because what they manipulate in the process of design is the morphological configuration of buildings. the dimensions of housing they were satisfied with or not satisfied with were likely to be related to their age.2008. Morphological characteristics which improve satisfaction in different types of residential facilities can be identified for the purpose of design. For example.07 Sig. it examined the factors which predicted residential satisfaction in this context. implying that the residences did not match the aspirations and expectations of the students. This study has shown that the results of satisfaction studies in other housing contexts cannot simply be generalized to students’ housing. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found. The conceptual model of residential satisfaction as a multidimensional construct proved quite useful because it was able to Table 7 One-way ANOVA: Residential satisfaction by type of morphological configuration Source of variance Between groups Within groups Total Sum of squares 30. in the online version. the role of morphological configuration in residential satisfaction has been shown to be significant. Second. Finally. and it was also able to show that the morphological configuration was significant in predicting residential satisfaction. 0. In addition. It is more useful than a single physical criterion such as the loading on the corridor. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85 6.05. However.jenvp.6 0. it implies that for satisfaction in housing to increase. There were also certain aspects of the students’ housing which differed significantly from the family house.00 explain a large amount of variance in satisfaction. a lot more about morphological configurations now needs to be more rigorously examined. For example. it suggests that reducing social densities at all levels of the housing environment and providing more choice may significantly increase satisfaction. especially morphological configuration.40 653.1016/j. Hence future studies of satisfaction should examine the attribute of morphological configuration. The study identified the attributes of housing which predicted satisfaction. physical/ social/management dimensions to satisfaction emerged. the specific contribution of the various subjective/objective.006.84 Table 6 Types of halls in decreasing order of satisfaction D. The implication of this is that the irksome dimensions of students’ housing as well as those aspects which have the potential of improving satisfaction may now be identified and addressed.58 F 13. Although the characteristics of the students which predicted satisfaction were almost similar to those of adults in previous studies.65 df 4 1124 1128 Mean square 7. However. . This study has specifically shown the different roles which the bedroom plays in this respect. In addition. to understand the relationships between the various dimensions other methods of analysis such as the path analysis may prove more useful. It also provided an insight into the user group by revealing the user characteristics which were predictors of satisfaction. Summary and conclusion This paper examined residential satisfaction in the context of some students’ housing in Nigeria. Appendix A. First it was interested in understanding users’ satisfaction in students’ residences as an evaluation of the performance of these facilities. Differences arise from the users’ characteristics as well as from the physical dimensions of housing.25 683. more attention needs to be paid to the users’ evaluations of the residences in creating positive attitudes towards housing. Unpublished Ph. & Wilson. W. & Stewart. I. Francescato. 734–768. (1978). 77–99.). 72. A. Nigeria. Choosing a house: The relationship between dwelling type. Peck. L. 38. Canter. The purposive evaluation of place: A facet approach. Mandler. L. Testing a moderated model of satisfaction with urban living using data from Brisbane-South East Queensland. Hilldale. (1990). S. & Ayidiya... F. & Anderson. Washington. Altman (Eds.. Issues in African Higher Education. CA: Brooks/Cole Monterey. 37. 39. 471–481. (1996). T. Residential satisfaction in conominos exclusivos (gate-guarded neighborhoods) in Brazil. Proceedings of the IAPS Conference Ankara.). DC: U. Residential environments: Choice. An evaluation of students residential facilities in some Nigerian Universities. I. (1987). Francescato. Handbook of environmental psychology. Gifford.. J. W. & Berkoz. Goerge. & Mills-Tettey. Journal of Performance and Constructed Facilities. & Snodgrass. 40–51.. Anderson. Factors related to residential satisfaction. K. Social Indicators Research. 121–152. & Rent. & Kangari.. Building evaluation (pp. B. G. New York: Norton. 21. & Davis. A. In W. Francescato. L. D. New York: John Wiley. I. R. 15–34). Spencer. 434–453.. 185–208. Ile-Ife Nigeria. (2006). S. and person–environment fit as influences on residential satisfaction of elders. Neighbourhood community and life satisfaction. Turkey.. A. 64–67. (1985). Higher education. & R. satisfaction and behaviour (pp.. R. D. D. 10. (1980). Journal of Planning Education and Research. Residents’ satisfaction of housing environments: The case of Istanbul. Reducing stress of high-density living: An architectural intervention. 35–53.. Francescato. Rent. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal.. Multivariate model of housing satisfaction. & Western. J.. (2002). I.. K. G. 15. & Strassner. Aragones. Kaya. Income and housing satisfaction: A study of FESTAC housing estate in Lagos.). Oseland.. Weidemann. J. Eribo. NY: Plenum Press. (1997). Identifying the correlates of residential satisfaction: An empirical critique. & Erkip. R. & Barneji. G. E. G. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education. & T. E. D. Amole. & C. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Baun.. J. R. Francescato. 138–145. (1982). (2000). Hourihan. (1989). 1–14). C. D. In J. Kahana. Emotion and environment. perception of privacy and residential satisfaction. 30. Russell. A. Jagun. Turkey 322–331.. C. R. Mind and body: Psychology of emotion and stress. London: Plenum Press. 35. 19. Environment and Behaviour.. 245–280).. (1975). Architecture and social behaviour. D. & Gary. (1984). the social sciences and national development in Nigeria. territoriality and crowding. N.. D. H. Mass housing. Satisfaction in a dormitory building: The effects of floor height on the perception of room size and crowding. Multifamily affordable housing: Residential satisfaction. Residential satisfaction and socio-economic and housing characteristics of urban black adults. Preiser (Ed. International Review of Applied Psychology. R. In I. Environment and Behaviour.. T.). & Ress. Eastman (Eds. A. O’Brien. R. S. & I. S. 459–488. S. S. M. 22. Higher education in Nigeria: Decades of development and decline. (1985). 6. Preiser. (1997). (2000). (2001). Iceland. Day. (2005). Davis. L. & T. Thesis. Canter. E.. 29 June–2 July 2005. Weidemann. C.S. R. Architectural determinants of student satisfaction in college residence halls. G. Obafemi Awolowo University. Department of Housing and Urban Development. N. (1997). Landscape and Urban Planning. F. K. Atman. (2004. (1979). J. Hartnett. G. In J. 123–135. Brown. 21–37. 363–372.. 27–41. Environment and Behavior. Evaluating residential environments. 55–67. & Chenoweth. G. J. Journal of the Community Development Society. R. M. (1984). Person. A. (1983). G. 28–44). Towards a performance-based conceptual framework for systematic POES. 19. Building evaluation. September/October). Environment and Behavior. Housing and neighbourhood satisfaction and health in Hamilton: An exploratory examination of subjective measures of quality of life. E. Journal of Black Studies.D. Environment and Behaviour. 539–568. G. (1998). E. 33. 24. An evaluation of space in new homes. Satisfaction with housing and the quality of life. Werner (Eds. Francescato. A Journal of Opinion.). Mccrea. G.. & Kahana. G. Ife Journal of Environmental Design and Management. E. NJ: Erlbaum. (2002). A conceptual framework for residential satisfaction. N. E. (2005). B. (1991). K. V. Eyles. N. Environment and Behaviour. F. (1997). Architecture and Behaviour. G. Stimson. 1&2. (1977). (1990).. D. A.). Turkey. 13. Nwaka. Australia. & Anthony. Paris. L.. H.. R. Environment and Behaviour. (1970). & Valins. European Journal of Housing Policy. 369–393. Stokols. Residents’ satisfaction in HUD-assisted housing: Design and management factors. & Anderson. (1989). Higher education in Nigeria: A status report. (2003). Strategies for sharing student accommodation: A comparison of male and female student responses to single and shared rooms. 2. R.. World Education News and Reviews (WENR). USA: Allyn and Bacon. L. Kahana. Lovegreen. Aragones. Amole. (1987). G. Department of Architecture. Environmental Design and Research Association (EDRA) 2 proceedings (pp.. Baun. Home environments (pp. F. 16. The environment and social behaviour: Privacy. Aragones. Environmental psychology: Principles and practices. 373–385. Carvalho. 17(5). & Roizen. satisfaction and behaviour (pp. 659–699. K.. Galster. Garling (Eds.D.. Weidemann. Residential satisfaction research: the case for and against. (2005). 1 (pp. & Garling. Environment and Behaviour. A. Milburn. . environment. In D. A. J. O. Copying strategies in students’ residential facilities. Garling (Eds. Archea. 29. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University. User satisfaction in housing and its environment in Istanbul. (2005). 32. Amole. New York: Plenum Press. In J. 154–182). Paper presented at ENHR (European Network of Housing Research) conference. Evaluating the built environment from the users point of view: An attitudinal model of residential satisfaction. London: Bergin and Garvey. E.). Saint... K. London: Bergin and Garvey. 201–219. 181–198). Preiser (Ed. Kellekc. Context-dependent models of residential satisfaction: An analysis of housing groups in cork Ireland. Residential environments: Choice.. R. 19. Turkoglu. J. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85 85 References Altman. (1985). 265–275. F. personal space. In W. S. S.