Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 7685

Contents 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 satised students were and the factors which predicted residential satisfaction. Specically, it examined whether the morphological congurations 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 dissatised 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 conguration of the halls of residence was also found to be a predictor of satisfaction and the characteristics which appeared most signicant were the plan form and the length of the corridor. The regression model explained 65% of the variance in R2. An instructive nding was that satisfaction appeared most critical in the bedroom. 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.: 234 80 3721 1446. E-mail address: dolapoamole@yahoo.com
0272-4944/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.006

& Kangari, 2005; Wiedemann & Anderson, 1985). Satisfaction is dened 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 satised 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 inuence and signicance for design and planning professionals.

D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 7685

77

Finally, very little is known about what predicts satisfaction in students housing. Studies of residential satisfaction in this context are few (Kaya & Erkip, 2001; Spencer & Barnerji, 1985). Yet, this form of housing represents a special type of housing for a number of reasons. First students housing is a major form of accommodation for university students who are in a transitory stage of life. Very little is known about this category of users with respect to dwellings (Gifford, 1997, p. 201). Second, this type of housing has very peculiar characteristics, being different from the single-family house and the apartment for single persons which are the common forms of housing. Third, the setting of students housing is usually the campus environment rather than the urban setting. Students residences therefore constitute a peculiar type of housing with a special user group which needs to be evaluated. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to examine residential satisfaction in students housing in some university campuses in Nigeria. It examines how satised users are with their residential facilities and the factors which predict satisfaction in this context. Finally, the paper examines whether and how the morphological congurations of the residences predict satisfaction. 2. Studies of residential satisfaction There is no consensus about what type of evaluative appraisal satisfaction is. While some authors conceive satisfaction as a purely cognitive evaluation (Canter & Rees, 1982; Mandler, 1984; Oseland, 1990) others have held that it is affect (Weidmann & Anderson, 1985). However, some others (Francescato et al., 1989; Russell & Snodgrass, 1987) do not think that evaluations such as satisfaction can be neatly separated into cognition or affect. Consequently, satisfaction studies have been approached from two main perspectives. Those which conceptualize satisfaction as a measure of the degree to which the environment facilitates or inhibits the goal of the user, called the purposive approach (Canter & Rees, 1982; 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, 1987). The implication of the purposive approach is that researchers emphasize goals or associated activities in relation to the attributes of the physical environment. The purposive approach, which is rooted in a cognitive view, is useful because it enables researchers to understand the degree to which different facets and roles of users contribute to their satisfaction. However people are not only goal oriented but they have affective relations with the environment too. In addition, 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. This is the premise on which the aspiration-gap approach is based and the more common conceptual frameworks of residential satisfaction (Galster, 1987; Weidmann & Anderson, 1985) have conceived satisfaction from this perspective. However, a more robust view of satisfaction was developed by Francescato et al. (1989) who conceptualize satisfaction as an attitude and a multifaceted construct which has cognitive, affective and conative1 dimensions. They assert that this denition of satisfaction is more comprehensive and that it accounts for the low predictive strength of the construct in previous studies. Residential satisfaction is also conceptualized as a multidimensional construct. Various attributes of housing to which users respond in relation to satisfaction are categorized along a number of dimensions. 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. Generally, these attributes have been categorized in the literature as social/psychological, management/organizational and physical attributes. Social attributes include privacy, neighbours, security and safety, social densities, freedom of choice, social relations and personalization (Francescato et al., 1979; Rent & Rent, 1978; Spencer & Barneji, 1985). The management attributes usually examined are rules and regulations, maintenance, management staff and policies, participation and rents (Paris & Kangari, 2006). Physical attributes have been examined much less in the literature. They usually include the lack or presence of certain facilities, spatial density, location and size of the bedroom (Galster, 1987; Kahana et al., 2003; Peck & Stewart, 1985; Turkoglu, 1997). Other physical attributes used in the literature include the appearance of the building and the oor level (Kaya & Erkip, 2001). However, physical attributes are not so simple to measure in a way that data may be obtained about them with condence (Francescato, 2002:27). This is why very few physical characteristics have been examined in most studies of residential satisfaction. An important physical characteristic, which is not often used in evaluating satisfaction, is the morphological conguration.2 This is an important aspect of the design of buildings. However it is the type of house which has usually been examined in satisfaction studies. The type of house refers to terraces, apartments, singlefamily house or duplexes. The differences between these house types are more or less functional rather than morphological. This categorization is not useful in all contexts of housing and especially in the context of students housing where functional differences do not exist. Differences in the morphological characteristics of buildings need to be captured for the purposes of evaluation. Indeed, contrary to some studies (Day, 2000; Francescato et al., 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, there is enough evidence to suggest that the morphological conguration of the residence would signicantly affect the level of satisfaction (Davis & Roizen, 1970; Gifford, 1997, p. 204; Hourihan, 1984). For example, Baum and Valins (1977) and Baum and Davis (1980) have shown that the length of the corridor of dormitories has a signicant inuence on the perception of crowding. In addition, whenever residential satisfaction has been examined, 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. In other words, the focus has been on satisfaction with a level (or scale) of the physical environment such as the dwelling unit, the neighbourhood, the community or country of residence. Various demographic characteristics which inuence satisfaction in housing have also been found in the literature although the focus has been on adults. These characteristics include sex, age, length of residence, socio-economic status, race and ethnicity (Gifford, 1997, pp. 201202). However, as noted earlier, not much evidence is available on residential satisfaction for youths. It is not certain whether the characteristics which predict satisfaction for adults would also predict satisfaction for youths, especially university students in Nigeria.

1 The term conative refers to behavioural intentions (see Francescato, 2002:24; Francescato et al., 1989.

2 Morphological conguration is also referred to in architecture as typologies. It refers to the spatial and organizational form of the building based on certain physical characteristics. 3 Levels of environment also referred to as scales of the environment (Aragones et al., 2002:35) or levels of environmental interaction (Canter & Ress, 1982) are dened as the scales of the environment which have a hierarchical order. They refer to the different levels at which people may experience satisfaction such as the house and the neighbourhood.

78

D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 7685

A signicant issue in most of the models of residential satisfaction is how the housing attributes outlined above are measured. Two types of measurements, namely objective and subjective measures of housing attributes are found in the literature (Francescato, 2002; Wiedemann & Anderson, 1985). Objective measures refer to the actual measurements, such as the presence, the lack of, or quantities of attributes while subjective measures refer to perceptions, emotions, attitudes and intentions towards the housing attributes. The objective measures of the attributes of housing have been shown to be weaker predictors than the subjective measures (Francescato et al., 1989; Wiedemann & Anderson, 1985). Finally, it has also been common, in measuring residential satisfaction to use an index of highly correlated items rather than a single-item variable of how satised are you with your housing? In the model of satisfaction conceptualized by Francescato et al. (1989), satisfaction was measured using an index based on four questions which were: a. How satised are you with living here? b. How long do you want to live in this housing development? c. If you move again would you like to live in another place like this? d. 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. The authors conceptualized satisfaction as an attitude which has affective, cognitive and conative dimensions. However, the reason given by other authors (Carvalho et al., 1997; Wiedemann & Anderson, 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.

3.2. The setting and sampling This study is part of a larger study which evaluated students residential facilities in some Nigerian Universities. The approach to the study was quantitative and the survey method was used. Four out of the seven residential universities in this region were selected because they best represented the residential Universities system. These four universities also represented more than one half of the rst and second generation residential universities in Nigeria. It is therefore likely that the results of the study may be generalizable to all the rst and second generation universities in Nigeria. All the 20 halls of residences in these four universities were used for the study. These halls of residence had very common characteristics. Most of them (about 90%) were low-rise two-storey buildings. They had bedrooms arranged linearly along a corridor. All the halls except two, were single sex halls. In all, there were ve female halls, 13 male halls and two mixed-sex halls. Almost all the halls of residence were overcrowded. On the average, each of the bedrooms was designed to accommodate four persons but at the time of the study, they accommodated an average of six persons. The respondents were selected from each of the halls of residence using a stratied sampling procedure. The stratied sampling method ensured that all categories of students (by course of study, length of stay and sex) were selected. A sample size of 15% of the population in each hall was selected for the survey. This amounted to a total of two thousand respondents. Questionnaires were distributed to each of these 2000 respondents but 1124 responses were found useful. 3.3. The instrument The closed ended, self administered questionnaire was designed to capture all the required data. The questionnaire included ve items about the respondents demographic data, six items about the housing attributes of the halls, 12 items about attitudes towards the physical and social aspects of the halls and 49 items about satisfaction with physical, social and management attributes of housing. 3.4. Variables used in the study 3.4.1. Objective physical variables These include the morphological conguration of the hall, number of persons in the bedroom, presence or absence of reading room, common room, kitchenette and a balcony (terrace at the back of the bedroom). 3.4.2. Subjective variables These include attitudes about comfort, bedroom furnishing, number of persons in the bedroom, number of persons on the oor,

3. Approach to the study 3.1. Conceptualizing residential satisfaction This study conceptualized residential satisfaction as inuenced by objective and subjective measures of housing attributes and the demographic characteristics of the students as shown in Fig. 1. These are referred to as objective and subjective variables. Residential satisfaction was construed as the dependent variable while the objective and subjective variables as well as the demographic characteristics were the independent variables. It hypothesized that the objective variables would inuence satisfaction directly and indirectly through the subjective variables. The dependent variable, satisfaction, was construed as multifaceted; as an attitude with affective, conative and cognitive dimensions.

Objective variables
Objective measures of physical attributes

Residential satisfaction

Subjective variables
Subjective measures physical, social/psychological and management attributes Demographic characteristics
Fig. 1. Model of residential satisfaction.

D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 7685

79

privacy in bedroom, the sanitary facilities, number of persons using the sanitary facilities, the kitchenette in general, design of the hall, number of persons in the hall, location of the hall. 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). In addition, these variables included responses to how satised the users were with 49 housing attributes measured on a Likert-type scale. These attributes covered all the physical (the design and location of the hall, the kitchenette and sanitary facilities, the reading and relaxation facilities, the oor level on which the respondent lived, the bedroom, the accesses, furnishing and storage in the bedroom), social/psychological (privacy, security, social densities and place4 qualities) and management (rules and regulations, fees paid, maintenance of facilities and management staff) dimensions. 3.4.3. Demographic variables (ve in number) The demographic variables used were: sex, age, level of study (postgraduate or undergraduate), length of stay in university accommodation (in years), economic status (operationalized as amount spent on feeding). 3.4.4. Residential satisfaction This was the dependent variable. It was operationalized as an index based on the following three questions: 1. How satised are you with living here in general? 2. Do you intend to move to another accommodation in the near future? 3. 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. Responses to all the above questions were measured on a Likerttype scale. For questions 1 and 3(i), 3(ii), 3(iii), 3(iv), a score of 1 corresponded to very poor and 5 to very good. For question 2, a score of 1 was assigned to a yes answer because it implied dissatisfaction; a score of 3 for dont know and a score of 5 for no because it implied satisfaction. An index of relative satisfaction (RSAT) was computed for each respondent as the mean of their total scores on these questions.

the plan form (whether it had a linear or enclosed form). Five types (Type A Fig. 2; Type B Fig. 3; Type C Fig. 4; Type D Fig. 5; and type E Fig. 6) of morphological congurations for the halls of residence emerged and these were used in the analysis. In general, these types appeared to differ from each other by the size of the social unit6 dened around the service core. In this regard, Type C dened the largest social unit while Type B dened the smallest. The other types of morphological conguration fell within these extremes in decreasing size of social unit, in the order D, A, E. It was hypothesized that the respondents satisfaction would increase as the social units decrease in size. This hypothesis is based on the theory that higher social densities imply higher social interaction and reduced personal control and consequently dissatisfaction (Gifford, 1997:151, 153). It was therefore expected that Type B would be the most satisfying, Type C, the least satisfying and that the other types would fall in between these types. 3.6. Data analysis Five types of data analysis were performed: First of all, descriptive statistics was used to analyze the proles of the respondents. Second, a reliability test was performed on the variables which measured RSAT and thereafter, the index of RSAT was computed for each respondent. A descriptive analysis of RSAT was also performed to understand how satised the respondents were with their housing. Third, the 49 responses to satisfaction were reduced to a smaller number of factors using factor analysis. These were later used in the regression analysis. Fourth, two categorical regressions were performed on the data to identify the relative contribution of the various factors on satisfaction. The categorical7 regression technique was used because it could deal with categorical variables. The rst regression model examined the amount of variance explained (R2) by physical attributes and demographic characteristics. It also examined which of these variables were predictors of satisfaction. The second regression analysis comprised variables used in the rst regression analysis as well as the subjective variables; some of which had been reduced to fewer factors through a factor analysis. It examined the variance explained by R2 as well as the predictors of satisfaction in this model. Finally, the relationship between residential satisfaction (RSAT) and types of morphological conguration was examined through a one-way ANOVA. The mean RSAT scores for each type were computed. High RSAT scores implied high levels of satisfaction. 4. Results 4.1. Demographic proles of respondents The proles of the respondents are presented in Table 1. Most of the respondents were above 21 years of age. About a third was female while two-thirds were male. This was also representative of the gender proportions in enrollment in Nigerian universities.8 The proles showed that about a tenth was postgraduate while ninetenths were undergraduates. The proportions of students within most of the categories of length of stay in the hall were similar

3.5. The morphological conguration of halls of residence This study examined whether the morphological conguration of the residences (a physical variable in Section 3.4.1) would also predict satisfaction. Although it appeared that all the selected halls of residence were similar, they differed enough in morphology to suggest that they were likely to inuence satisfaction. For example, the length of the corridor had been shown to signicantly inuence users responses (Baum & Davis, 1980; Baum & Valins, 1977). The selected halls of residence were placed into types5 based on four morphological characteristics which were the length of the corridor, the form of the bathrooms and kitchenette (whether they were decentralized or located at a single point along the corridor), 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. Activities is a central component of place-theory (Canter, 1983). 5 This was done through a typological analysis (Amole, 1997). The halls were categorized based on the length of the corridor, 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.

6 The term social unit refers to the unit dened by those who share the services (kitchenette and bathrooms). Its size refers to the social density in relation to what is shared. A small-sized social unit is one of low social density while a large-sized social unit is one of high social density. 7 Categorical regression (also called CATREG in SPSS) is a regression family variant which can be used when there is a combination of nominal, ordinal and interval independent variables. It uses optimal scaling which quanties categorical variables and then treats them as numerical variables. 8 Saint, Hartnett and Strassner (2004)s review of Higher Education in Nigeria provides these statistics.

80

D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 7685

Long horizontal access End located service core Single loading on corridor Linear form
Fig. 2. Type A.

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.9 Most of them were average, economically.10 4.2. The index of residential satisfaction A reliability analysis was conducted for the three variables which comprised the index of satisfaction (RSAT). The results showed a high correlation (alpha 0.769) amongst the items; suggesting that the variables were internally related and measured the same concept. The proposition that satisfaction is a multifaceted construct comprising affective, cognitive and conative dimensions was therefore supported. 4.3. Satisfaction with housing How satised the respondents were was measured by the index of residential satisfaction (RSAT) for all the respondents. The results (Fig. 7) revealed that most of the respondents were not satised with their accommodation. More than half of the respondents (53.0%) were not satised (either dissatised or very dissatised) while less than half of this proportion (24%) was satised or very satised. The proportion of those who were very satised (2%) was very small compared to the proportion of those who were very dissatised (13%). Similarly, the proportion of those who were satised (22%) was about half (40%) of those who were dissatised. Before examining the factors which accounted for the low levels of satisfaction of the students, some of the subjective variables (the 49 responses to satisfaction with physical, social/physical and management attributes) were reduced through a factor analysis using the principal components and the varimax rotation method. The factor analysis performed yielded 12 factors (Table 2) and explained 62% of the variance. All the 12 factors had eigen values of 1.00 or more and only the variables with factor loadings of more than 0.5 were selected. Of the 12 factors, only the rst four of these were used in the regression model. These factors were the social and place qualities of the bedroom (factor1), the design of the hall (factor2), the social densities in the hall (factor 3) and the storage and furnishing in the bedroom (factor 4). The other factors were not used in the regression analysis because they did not signicantly improve the model. The factor analysis revealed the respondents affective dimensions to their housing. It is interesting to note that the rst affective dimension which accounted for the largest variance was related to the bedroom especially its quality as a multifunctional space. Also noteworthy is the fact that the rst ve factors specically described a level of environment within the hall of residence. Factors 2 and 3 referred to attributes of the whole hall, factors 1 and 4 to the bedroom and factor 5 to the oor level. In order to identify the factors which explained and may predict students satisfaction with their housing, two categorical regression

Fig. 3. Type B.

models were designed. In this rst model (Table 3) the relative strength of the physical attributes and the demographic characteristics on residential satisfaction (RSAT) was examined. The regression analysis showed that the amount of variance explained by these variables was 15.3% (R2 0.153, df 21, F 6.07, p < 0.000). This was a low predictive strength although it was signicant. The specic variables which were signicant predictors in this model were the morphological conguration of the hall, presence of a kitchenette, presence of a balcony, age, level of study, length of stay in university halls and the students economic status. In the second model, all the subjective variables were added to the variables in the previous model and were regressed on RSAT. This regression model (Table 4), explained 65% of the variance of residential satisfaction (R2 0.65, df 54, p < 0.000). This was more than four times the variance explained in the rst model. 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. In this second model, at least one of each of the types of variables (objective physical, demographic, and subjective) in the model was signicant in explaining residential satisfaction. Two objective physical variables which emerged as signicant predictors of satisfaction were whether they had a kitchenette or not and the morphological conguration of the hall of residence. Three demographic variables were signicant and these were the age of the student, the length of stay in university residence halls and the students economic status. The subjective variables which signicantly explained satisfaction were privacy in the bedroom, storage in the bedroom, the kitchenette, the bathrooms, the social and place qualities of the bedroom (factor 1), the social densities in the hall (factor 3) and storage and furnishing in the bedroom (factor 4). Two variables which were predictors in the rst model, namely whether there was a balcony or not and the level of study of the student, no longer appeared as predictors in this model. Of all the predictors in this second model, the strongest was the social and place qualities of the bedroom (factor 1), followed by the social densities in the hall (factor 3). The remaining predictors in decreasing order of strength were the economic status of the student, the storage, privacy in the bedroom, the presence of a kitchenette, the quality of the bathroom and kitchenette, storage and furnishing (factor 4), the morphological conguration of the hall and nally the age of the student. All these variables except the economic status of the student had a positive relationship with satisfaction. In addition,

9 In these halls on residence, although a high preference is given to rst year students, a sizeable proportion of all other students are also accommodated. 10 The economic status was operationalized as the mount spent on feeding per month. The actual range for the categories were very poor (N0N500), poor (N501N999), average (N1, 000N1, 500), above average (N1, 5001N2, 000), high (N2, 001N3, 000), very high (above N3, 000). The mean income was N1, 4929.69. At the time of this study, N1.00 was about 1.25 US cents.

Short horizontal access Centrally located service core Double loading on corridor Linear form

Fig. 4. Type C.

D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 7685 Table 1 Demographic characteristics of respondents Characteristic Age Categories 1518 1921 2225 Above 25 Male Female Postgraduate Undergraduate year years years years years and more

81

% of Respondents 3.7 26.6 42.3 27.4 69.8 30.2 10.1 89.9 21.5 24.6 26.1 20.8 7.0 13.7 18.1 34.2 17.7 11.5 4.8

Short horizontal access Double end located service core Single loading on corridor Fully enclosed form

Sex Level of study

Fig. 5. Type D.

the morphological conguration was, as hypothesized, a predictor of satisfaction. The morphological conguration which the users were most satised with was the Type C (mean score 2.9149) followed by Type B (mean score 2.2.8167), while the least satisfying was Type D (mean score 2.3602, see Table 5). The order of the types in decreasing satisfaction was Type C/Type B/Type A/Type/E/ Type D (Table 6). The results (Table 7) also support the hypothesis that the morphological congurations were signicantly different from each other in relation to satisfaction (p < 0.000, df 4, F 13.077). 5. Discussion This study has shown that students were generally dissatised with the housing provided for them. These results provide an insight into the performance of university student residences in Nigeria. 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. High levels of satisfaction have not been common in many housing schemes, especially in Nigeria (Amole & Mills-Tettey, 1998), rather it is in owner-occupied housing that relatively high levels of satisfaction have been recorded (Carvalho et al.,1997; OBrien & Ayidiya, 1991). The situation in this study does not appear to be different. The ndings here indicate that there is a very wide gap between what the users aspired to in housing and what they eventually obtained. This is probably due to very little understanding on the part of the designers and providers of the factors which predicted satisfaction in housing. In support of previous studies (Francescato, 2002; Francescato et al., 1989; Weidmann & Anderson, 1985) satisfaction was also found to be a multi-dimensional construct. Both the subjective and the objective variables were predictors of satisfaction and various types of housing attributes predicted satisfaction. To conrm this nding even further, the results of the factor analysis revealed physical, social, place and management/maintenance dimensions of housing to which users responded. Another dimension which was revealed by the factor analysis was the level of the environment. The factors which emerged could be identied with specic levels within the halls of residence; thus indicating the signicance of this dimension in responses to satisfaction with the residence. The results also showed that the variables which most strongly predicted residential satisfaction were the subjective variables. This supports previous studies (Francescato, 2002; Francescato et al.,

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. Consequently, this nding may now be generalized to other non-western contexts such as Nigeria. It appeared that most of the characteristics which predicted satisfaction in adults also emerged as predictors for students in this study. For example, this study found that as economic status increased, satisfaction decreased; thus supporting previous research which examined the relationship between economic status and satisfaction (Amole & Mills-Tettey, 1998; Gifford, 1997:201; Kellekc & Berkoz, 2006). Indeed, this is not unexpected because increasing economic status implies increasing aspirations and a decrease in satisfaction if the housing situation remains the same. Furthermore, the results of previous studies (Peck & Stewart, 1985; Rent & Rent, 1978) which have shown that length of stay in residence is a predictor of satisfaction were also corroborated by this study. The longer the students stayed the more satised they became. This is probably because with time, they adapted to the living conditions of their housing and also devised coping strategies which improved their level of satisfaction. It was also not surprising that in addition to length of stay, age was also a predictor of satisfaction. These characteristics are closely related; the longer the students spent in university accommodation, the older they became. Hence if the length of stay was a predictor, it was likely that age would also be a predictor. It is probably for this same reason that the level of study was also a predictor in the rst regression model. However, unlike some previous studies in housing (Spencer & Barnerji, 1985), sex

Long horizontal access Single end located service core Partial double loading on corridor Linear form
Fig. 6. Type E. Fig. 7. Residential satisfaction (RSAT) amongst respondents.

82

D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 7685

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) 25.4% 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) 5.96% 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 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.69 0.64 0.58 0.53 0.51 0.66 0.64 0.63 0.55 0.55 Factor Factor 6 (maintenance of the hall) 3.167% Refuse disposal in the hall Maintenance of the hall The bathrooms and toilets Factor 7 (kitchenette and bathrooms) 2.982% Location of kitchenette Kitchenette in general Location of bathroom Factor 8 (facilities in the hall) 2.884% The reading room in general The buttery in general The common room in general Factor 9 (the laundry) 2.627% The laundry in general The location of the laundry Factor 10 (the balcony) 2.480% The size of the balcony The balcony in general Factor 11 (management) 2.413% The ofcial fees paid The rules and regulations Factor 12 (location of hall) 2.347% The location of the hall Factor loading 0.80 0.72 0.54

0.73 0.70 0.67 0.72 0.72 0.71

0.78 0.76 0.77 0.77

Factor 3 (the social densities in the hall) 4.87% The number of people on this oor The number of people in this hall The number of people on this corridor Factor 4 (storage and furnishing in the bedroom) 4.13% The bedroom furniture in general The storage provided in the bedroom The bedroom furniture arrangement Factor 5 (the oor level) 3.387% The oor level on which you live Living on this oor Living in this block Total variance explained 62.797%.

0.69 0.68 0.55 0.83 0.70 0.69 0.81 0.81 0.55

0.72 0.71

0.60

did not appear as a predictor of satisfaction. The reason for this may be related to their current stage in the life cycle and the context in which they lived; where their gender identities were probably not challenged. The role of sex in user responses to the environment has not often been conclusive in the literature, hence further investigation is needed to reveal why this is so. A number of other instructive ndings about the predictors of satisfaction in this study are noteworthy. The rst 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, 2002; Francescato et al., 1989). A probable reason for this is that the rules and regulations were very few and the fees paid were insignicant; posing no real challenge to the respondents.
Table 3 Regression model 1 of residential satisfaction Variable Objective physical variables 1. Do you have a balcony? 2. Do you have a kitchenette? 3. Do you have a common room? 4. Do you have a reading room? 5. Number of persons in bedroom 6. Morphological conguration of hall Demographic variables 7. Number of years spent in university halls 8. Economic status 9. Sex 10. Age 11. Level of study *Signicant at the 0.05 level. **Signicant at the 0.005 level. ***Signicant at the 0.000 level. R 0.391, R2 0.153, df 21, F 6.07, p < 0.000. Beta .07** .07** .00 .04 .06 .15*** df 1 2 1 1 1 4 F 0.76 9.45 0.96 0.22 0.97 3.98

.18*** .10*** .037 .08** .17***

3 3 1 3 1

4.60 12.17 2.19 2.69 1.50

Second, the variables which predicted satisfaction were related to social and physical attributes of the housing; suggesting that the quality of these attributes are crucial to satisfaction. The social attributes which predicted satisfaction were social density and privacy. This was not unexpected because the halls of residence in this study were characteristically overcrowded. Indeed it has been shown consistently in the literature that high social densities, which are functions of privacy (Altman, 1975), contribute to high levels of dissatisfaction (Gifford, 1997; Kaya & Erkip, 2001; Spencer & Barneji, 1985). Hence, it is not surprising that both of these social attributes are together predictors of satisfaction. Third, the nding 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. Hence, the presence of a kitchenette became very important. Other physical facilities which predicted satisfaction were the adequacy of storage and furnishing in the bedroom and the quality of the bathrooms. It is very likely that the overcrowded conditions of living made these facilities signicant. Other facilities such as the reading room, the common room, the laundry and the balcony did not appear as predictors. It appeared that the facilities which emerged as predictors were the very basic and essential facilities for living. In addition, alternatives for these facilities did not exist whereas the student could nd alternate places for the other facilities (such as reading and socializing) which did not predict satisfaction (Amole, 2005). This brings in the issue of choice in relation to satisfaction and in this instance, it appears that where choices did not exist, satisfaction with such facilities became signicant predictors. Fourth, it was interesting to nd that the morphological conguration of the halls of residence also predicted satisfaction. The hypothesis that this attribute would predict satisfaction was conrmed contrary to the study of Day (2000), but corroborating the studies of Davis and Roizen (1970), Baum and Valins (1977),

D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 7685 Table 4 Regression model 2 of residential satisfaction Variable Objective physical variables 1. Do you have a balcony? 2. Do you have a kitchenette? 3. Do you have a common room? 4. Do you have a reading room? Number of persons in bedroom 6. Morphological conguration of hall Demographic variables 7. Number of years spent in university halls 8. Economic status 9. Sex 10. Age 11. Level of study Subjective variables 12. Rate the level of comfort of bedroom 13. How much do you like furniture arrangement? 14. How adequate is the storage? 15. How do you feel bout number of persons in bedroom? 16. How private is your bedroom? 17. How do you feel about number of persons on your oor? 18. Rate your bathroom 19. How do you feel about number of persons using the bathrooms? 20. How do you feel about kitchenette? 21. Rate the design of your hall 22. How do you feel about the location of your hall? 23. How do you feel about the number of persons in your hall? 24. Factor 1 (social and place qualities of bedroom) 25. Factor 2 (design of the hall) 26. Factor 3 (social densities in the hall) 27. Factor 4 (furnishing and storage in the bedroom) *Signicant at the 0.05 level. **Signicant at the 0.005 level. ***Signicant at the 0.000 level. R 0.807, R2 0.65, df 54, p < 0.000. Beta .05 .16*** .05 .02 .00 .12** df 1 2 1 1 1 4 F 0.76 9.45 0.96 0.22 0.97 3.98

83

.12* .19*** .08 .10* .07

2 3 1 3 1

4.60 12.17 2.19 2.69 1.50

.08 .06 .18*** .10 .18*** .04 .15** .09 .14** .09 .08 .01 .23*** .05 .20*** .14***

3 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 3 2 3 3

2.12 1.29 9.74 2.33 7.82 0.68 7.72 2.90 6.59 2.64 2.45 0.05 13.69 1.04 11.76 6.60

and Hourihan (1984). The morphological conguration emerged as a predictor in both regression models of the study; thus indicating its signicance. This signicance 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. The implication of this nding is that rst of all, the morphological conguration as dened by the study was a useful method of examining multiple physical characteristics of halls of residence. The nding also supports previous ndings that there is a relationship between physical attributes and evaluative responses and showed that people respond to different morphological and spatial qualities differently. Second, it implies that certain morphological congurations may not be as satisfactory as others or may not be appropriate in some contexts. Third, it suggests that the criteria used in this study for the denition of the

Table 5 Residential satisfaction by type of morphological conguration Type A B C D E Mean RSAT score 2.65 2.81 2.91 2.36 2.75 Standard deviation 0.79 0.66 0.75 0.73 0.70

morphological conguration are relevant with respect to satisfaction. However, that Type C, which dened that largest social unit, was the most satisfactory of the morphological congurations was unexpected because this is contrary to the ndings which relate high social densities and high levels of social interaction to dissatisfaction (Gifford, 1997:211). In addition the nding that Type D was the least satisfactory was also surprising because it had one of the smaller social unit sizes. Certainly it appears that the description of these morphological congurations based on the notion of the size of the social unit dened could not fully explain why morphological congurations were related to satisfaction in the order in which they did. It is possible that there are intervening variables which may help to explain the results, but which this study did not capture. However, it seems that of all the characteristics of the morphological conguration, a combination of the length of the corridor and the plan form appeared to have contributed to the prediction of satisfaction. This inference is made because the types of congurations which were most satisfying were the ones with short corridor lengths while those which were least satisfying were those with long corridor lengths. In addition, those which were fully or partially enclosed in plan form appeared to be less satisfying than expected. For example, Type D, despite the fact that it had a short corridor length was the least satisfying. However, Type D also had a plan form that was fully enclosed. The fully or partially enclosure plan form puts more students in full view of each other than the linear form. 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. This appeared to be the only characteristic which could have accounted for a lower level of satisfaction relative to the other types. A similar explanation may be proffered for why type B (which is partially enclosed) is less satisfying that type C. In sum, it appears that the length of the corridor and the plan form were important morphological characteristics which predicted satisfaction. 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. However, in the types which were not linear in plan form, the outdoor/nearby densities could also be perceived. This most probably accounts for the surprising responses to satisfaction in these types. Finally, 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. Hence, it appeared that the bedroom was a signicant level of environment where satisfaction was critical. This nding supports previous research (Canter, 1983; Canter & Rees, 1982; Francescato et al., 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. Most studies, however, have examined the levels of housing which are relevant to their research, namely, the housing unit and the neighbourhood (Kahana et al., 2003; Rent & Rent, 1978; Peck & Stewart, 1985). Hence, 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. In addition, this nding suggests that satisfaction in the bedroom is almost tantamount to satisfaction with the whole hall. 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. It served functions that would otherwise have been performed elsewhere if the context was a family house. Alternative places for most of the activities performed in the bedroom were not found. Constrained choice may explain the multifunctional characteristic of the bedroom and its signicance as a predictor of satisfaction.

84 Table 6 Types of halls in decreasing order of satisfaction

D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 7685

6. Summary and conclusion This paper examined residential satisfaction in the context of some students housing in Nigeria. First it was interested in understanding users satisfaction in students residences as an evaluation of the performance of these facilities. Second, it examined the factors which predicted residential satisfaction in this context, especially morphological conguration. The study showed that the students housing provided performed well below average from the users evaluations; implying that the residences did not match the aspirations and expectations of the students. It also provided an insight into the user group by revealing the user characteristics which were predictors of satisfaction. The study identied the attributes of housing which predicted satisfaction, and it was also able to show that the morphological conguration was signicant in predicting residential satisfaction. This study has shown that the results of satisfaction studies in other housing contexts cannot simply be generalized to students housing. Differences arise from the users characteristics as well as from the physical dimensions of housing. Although the characteristics of the students which predicted satisfaction were almost similar to those of adults in previous studies, the dimensions of housing they were satised with or not satised with were likely to be related to their age. There were also certain aspects of the students housing which differed signicantly from the family house. This study has specically shown the different roles which the bedroom plays in this respect. 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 conguration Source of variance Between groups Within groups Total Sum of squares 30.40 653.25 683.65 df 4 1124 1128 Mean square 7.6 0.58 F 13.07 Sig. 0.00

explain a large amount of variance in satisfaction. In addition, the specic contribution of the various subjective/objective, physical/ social/management dimensions to satisfaction emerged. 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 identied and addressed. For example, it implies that for satisfaction in housing to increase, more attention needs to be paid to the users evaluations of the residences in creating positive attitudes towards housing. In addition, it suggests that reducing social densities at all levels of the housing environment and providing more choice may signicantly increase satisfaction. However, to understand the relationships between the various dimensions other methods of analysis such as the path analysis may prove more useful. Finally, the role of morphological conguration in residential satisfaction has been shown to be signicant. It is more useful than a single physical criterion such as the loading on the corridor. Hence future studies of satisfaction should examine the attribute of morphological conguration. Morphological characteristics which improve satisfaction in different types of residential facilities can be identied for the purpose of design. However, a lot more about morphological congurations now needs to be more rigorously examined. For example, are there other criteria for dening morphological conguration which would predict satisfaction even better? What attributes of morphological conguration really explain satisfaction in this and other contexts? Answers to these questions in future evaluation research will be of immense benet to architects because what they manipulate in the process of design is the morphological conguration of buildings.

Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.006.

D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 7685

85

References
Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behaviour: Privacy, personal space, territoriality and crowding. CA: Brooks/Cole Monterey. Amole, D. (1997). An evaluation of students residential facilities in some Nigerian Universities. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Architecture, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife Nigeria. Amole, B., & Mills-Tettey, R. (1998). Income and housing satisfaction: A study of FESTAC housing estate in Lagos, Nigeria. Ife Journal of Environmental Design and Management, 1&2, 2741. Amole, D. (2005). Copying strategies in students residential facilities. Environment and Behavior, 37, 201219. Aragones, J. I., Francescato, G., & Garling, T. (2002). Evaluating residential environments. In J. I. Aragones, G. Francescato, & T. Garling (Eds.), Residential environments: Choice, satisfaction and behaviour (pp. 114). London: Bergin and Garvey. Baun, A., & Davis, G. E. (1980). Reducing stress of high-density living: An architectural intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 471481. Baun, A., & Valins, S. (1977). Architecture and social behaviour. Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum. Canter, D. (1983). The purposive evaluation of place: A facet approach. Environment and Behaviour, 15, 659699. Canter, D., & Ress, K. A. (1982). Multivariate model of housing satisfaction. International Review of Applied Psychology, 32, 185208. Carvalho, M., Goerge, V. R., & Anthony, K. H. (1997). Residential satisfaction in conominos exclusivos (gate-guarded neighborhoods) in Brazil. Environment and Behavior, 29, 734768. Davis, G., & Roizen, R. (1970). Architectural determinants of student satisfaction in college residence halls. In J. Archea, & C. Eastman (Eds.), Environmental Design and Research Association (EDRA) 2 proceedings (pp. 2844). Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University. Day, L. L. (2000). Choosing a house: The relationship between dwelling type, perception of privacy and residential satisfaction. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 265275. Eribo, F. (1996). Higher education in Nigeria: Decades of development and decline. A Journal of Opinion; Issues in African Higher Education, 24, 6467. Eyles, J. & Wilson, K. (2005). Housing and neighbourhood satisfaction and health in Hamilton: An exploratory examination of subjective measures of quality of life. Paper presented at ENHR (European Network of Housing Research) conference, Iceland, 29 June2 July 2005. Francescato, G. (2002). Residential satisfaction research: the case for and against. In J. I. Aragones, G. Francescato, & T. Garling (Eds.), Residential environments: Choice, satisfaction and behaviour (pp. 1534). London: Bergin and Garvey. Francescato, G., Weidemann, S., Anderson, J. R., & Chenoweth, R. (1979). Residents satisfaction in HUD-assisted housing: Design and management factors. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Francescato, G., Weidemann, S., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). Evaluating the built environment from the users point of view: An attitudinal model of residential satisfaction. In W. F. E. Preiser (Ed.), Building evaluation (pp. 181198). NY: Plenum Press.

Galster, G. (1987). Identifying the correlates of residential satisfaction: An empirical critique. Environment and Behaviour, 19, 539568. Gifford, R. (1997). Environmental psychology: Principles and practices. USA: Allyn and Bacon. Hourihan, K. (1984). Context-dependent models of residential satisfaction: An analysis of housing groups in cork Ireland. Environment and Behaviour, 16, 369393. Jagun, A., Brown, D. R., Milburn, N. G., & Gary, L. E. (1990). Residential satisfaction and socio-economic and housing characteristics of urban black adults. Journal of Black Studies, 21, 4051. Kahana, E., Lovegreen, L., Kahana, B., & Kahana, M. (2003). Person, environment, and personenvironment t as inuences on residential satisfaction of elders. Environment and Behaviour, 35, 434453. Kaya, N., & Erkip, F. (2001). Satisfaction in a dormitory building: The effects of oor height on the perception of room size and crowding. Environment and Behaviour, 33, 3553. Kellekc, O. L., & Berkoz, L. (2006). Mass housing; User satisfaction in housing and its environment in Istanbul, Turkey. European Journal of Housing Policy, 6, 7799. Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and body: Psychology of emotion and stress. New York: Norton. Mccrea, R., Stimson, R., & Western, J. (2005). Testing a moderated model of satisfaction with urban living using data from Brisbane-South East Queensland, Australia. Social Indicators Research, 72, 121152. Nwaka, G. (2000). Higher education, the social sciences and national development in Nigeria. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 30, 373385. OBrien, D. J., & Ayidiya, S. (1991). Neighbourhood community and life satisfaction. Journal of the Community Development Society, 22, 2137. Oseland, N. A. (1990). An evaluation of space in new homes. Proceedings of the IAPS Conference Ankara, Turkey 322331. Paris, D. E., & Kangari, R. (2005). Multifamily affordable housing: Residential satisfaction. Journal of Performance and Constructed Facilities, 19, 138145. Peck, C., & Stewart, K. K. (1985). Satisfaction with housing and the quality of life. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 13, 363372. Preiser, W. F. E. (1989). Towards a performance-based conceptual framework for systematic POES. In W. F. E. Preiser (Ed.), Building evaluation. New York: Plenum Press. Rent, G. S., & Rent, C. S. (1978). Factors related to residential satisfaction. Environment and Behaviour, 10, 459488. Russell, J. A., & Snodgrass, S. A. (1987). Emotion and environment. In D. Stokols, & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology, 1 (pp. 245280). New York: John Wiley. Saint, W., Hartnett, T. A., & Strassner, E. (2004, September/October). Higher education in Nigeria: A status report. World Education News and Reviews (WENR), 17(5). Spencer, C., & Barneji, N. (1985). Strategies for sharing student accommodation: A comparison of male and female student responses to single and shared rooms. Architecture and Behaviour, 2, 123135. Turkoglu, H. D. (1997). Residents satisfaction of housing environments: The case of Istanbul, Turkey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 39, 5567. Weidemann, S., & Anderson, J. R. A. (1985). A conceptual framework for residential satisfaction. In I. Atman, & R. Werner (Eds.), Home environments (pp. 154182). London: Plenum Press.