examination of student housing

7/26/2019 Examination of Student Housing

1/15

FacilitiesExamination of student housing preferences, their similarities and differences

Fatemeh Khozaei Ahmad Sanusi Hassan Kheir Al Kodmany Yasser AarabArticle information:

To cite this document:Fatemeh Khozaei Ahmad Sanusi Hassan Kheir Al Kodmany Yasser Aarab , (2014),"Examination of studenthousing preferences, their similarities and differences", Facilities, Vol. 32 Iss 11/12 pp. 709 - 722Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-08-2012-0061

Downloaded on: 12 May 2016, At: 01:30 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 50 other documents.

To copy this document: [email protected]

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 708 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this artic le also downloaded:

(2008),"On the performance evaluation of sustainable student housing facilities", Journal of FacilitiesManagement, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 212-225 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14725960810885989

(2012),"Sense of attachment to place and fulfilled preferences, the mediating role of housing satisfaction",Property Management, Vol. 30 Iss 3 pp. 292-310 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02637471211233945

(2011),"Student residential satisfaction in research universities", Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 9 Is3 pp. 200-212 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14725961111148108

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:559838 [

For Authors

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelineare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-08-2012-0061http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-08-2012-0061


2/15

Examination of student housingpreferences, their similarities

and differencesFatemeh Khozaei and Ahmad Sanusi Hassan

School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia,Penang, Malaysia

Kheir Al KodmanyCollege of Urban Planning and Public Affairs,

University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA, and

Yasser Arab

School of Housing, Building and Planning, University Sains Malaysia,Penang, Malaysia

AbstractPurpose The aim of this paper is to identify theuniversity studentspreferences for some important

attributes of residence hall design. The study also attempts to highlight the differences and similarities

in students preferences.

Design/methodology/approach The survey was distributed among students who were living in

residence halls of a public university in Malaysia. A total of 752 students were recruited as participants.

Data were collected using a self-administrated questionnaire. Students were asked to indicate their

preferences rating a 4-point scale. The survey included questions concerning students preferences for

residing in traditional and suite-style residence halls, single room and double room as well as rooms in

which each students area is marked clearly. Collected data were analysed using PASW Statistics 17.

Findings The results indicated that, in total, students highly preferred residing in suite-style totraditional residence halls. Staying in a single room with shared bathroom was also preferred to

double-sharing room. The results of study also indicated that living in a room in which each students

area is marked clearly is of great interest. The study proved signicant differences in the students

preferences based on their gender, nationality and study level.

Practical implications The outcome of this study can enhance the awareness of residence hallorganizers and architects with regard to some of students priorities.

Originality/value The results give an important insight into students preferences towards their

residence hall. The study provides statistic evidence unfavourably of traditional residence halls among

thestudents of newgeneration. It alsoprovides an insightinto students greater needs and requirements

for privacy.

Keywords Students, Survey, Layout

Paper typeResearch paper

IntroductionDebates on student housing topics have become an eminent discussion for scholars inthe past few years(Poria and Oppewal, 2002;Crosset al., 2009;Flowers, 2004Dusselieret al., 2005;Brandon and Cameron, 2008;Pike, 2009;Turley, 2010;Lanasaet al., 2007;

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm

Examination ofstudent housing

preferences

709

Facilitie

Vol. 32 No. 11/12, 201

pp. 709-72

EmeraldGroupPublishing Limite

0263-277

DOI 10.1108/F-08-2012-006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-08-2012-0061http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-08-2012-0061


3/15

Araujo and Murray, 2010). In fact, research on student housing is diverse and hascovered large areas. A vast number of studies in this area are post-occupancy surveysfocusing on students perceptions of their current environment and factors that affecttheir satisfaction (Thomsen and Eikemo, 2010; Khozaei etal., 2010b; Foubert et al., 1998).

In addition, these factors are taken against the makeup of respondents, and the studentsdifferences are discussed (Najib et al., 2011). A critical review of previous studies,however, suggests that there are still less or limited discussions on student housingpreferences especially in developing countries.

Despite the importance of university accommodations and the proven effect onstudents lives, these residences are mostly seen as a transitional place for a limitedduration of time by university management. However, a residence hall is a place wherestudents have to spend at least one to four years of their young adult life. In fact, livingin a residence hall is not only about nding a shelter to live in for a few years near theirclassrooms; it becomes a particularly important phase of a students life.

When students move far from home to attend a university, they often need tominimize their spending. Residence halls have been a proven means of achieving thisgoal. Accordingly, many students prefer to reside in university residence halls. Unlike ahome owner, students rarely have the chance to choose their residence halls based ontheir ideal preferences. In fact, high demands for residence halls and a shortage ofvacancies cause further ignorance to their selected preferences. Whether a students lackof exercising personal choice is one of the reasons that studies on student housingpreferences is highly ignored by scholars compared to the vast amount of studiesconducted on housing preferences (Sirgy et al., 2005; Wang and Li, 2006; Reed and Mills,2007), the research in this area requires higher concern. Thus, it emphasizes theimportance of understanding students preferences as a base leading to an improvementof the physical and social aspects of student residences. It is clear that an accurateassessment of future student housing must be founded on an understanding of current

student preferences. The signicance of their attributes will then allow more focus onthe students to aspire towards their desired residence hall.

Literature review on student housingHow important is it to understand students housing preferences and how important isit that students preferences be fullled? A recent study provided adequate evidence toshow that if students housing preferences are fullled, they would be more satisedwith their environment and feel more attached to their residence(Khozaeiet al., 2012).Even though the importance of post-occupancy studies in a better understanding of ausers perspective as a way to improve built environments must not be overlooked, theyprovide limited information about users preferences and desires. Numerous studieshave been conducted on college and university students lives, both on- and off-campus

in the past few years (Ryan, 2003;Rinn, 2004;Bekurs, 2007;Paine, 2007;Cross et al.,2009; Khozaei et al., 2011; Najib et al., 2011). Such studies have enhanced ourunderstanding of various aspects of a students life, such as their coping strategies, andthe inuence of a residence hall on their behavior. However, our knowledge about theattributes of an ideal residence hall remains very limited.

Many universities provide students with on-campus housing which are commonlytraditional residence halls. Dormitory-style or traditional student residences allude todensely populated buildings equipping residential quarters for large numbers of

F32,11/12

710


4/15

students. Students share rooms with one or more alumni. In a typical traditionalresidence hall, the doors of the rooms open to a double-loaded long corridor and in eachwing or oor; groups of students share a washroom and other common facilities (Rodgerand Johnson, 2005). Rooms are congured for singles, doubles, triples or quads sharing

public toilets and bathrooms. They are furnished to provide both sleepingaccommodations and study spaces. Some residence halls may additionally offer someprivate rooms, with a private bathroom or private rooms with shared bathrooms.Suite-style residence halls are another type of hall where a group of students share anapartment. Depending on the layout of the apartment, one or two students can stay in aprivate bedroom and share common facilities, such as the bathroom, lounge and kitchen.

Previous research attempting to prove the disadvantages of residing in traditionalresidence halls or the benets of residing in suite-style residence halls have been tried(Gerst and Sweetwood, 1973;Valins and Baum, 1973;Devlin et al., 2008), yet traditionalhalls are constructed world-wide in developed and developing countries alike. Forinstance, unwanted interactions in overcrowded dormitories and its negative effects onstudents(Valins and Baum, 1973;Devlin et al., 2008) are proven to be a disadvantage ofresiding in traditional residence halls. The advantages and disadvantages of suite-styleapartments have also been discussed in previous literature. Suite-style apartments areclearly mentioned as having more space and privacy with opportunities for more peopleto meet(Corbett, 1973). These suites are also known to be more involving, supportive,innovative, and student controlled(Gerst and Sweetwood, 1973,p. 448). On the otherhand, disadvantages of suite-style residence halls have also been identied as having alack of privacy (as they always felt as if someone is around), which gives in to problems,such as coping with others personalities (Corbett, 1973).

Literature review on privacy and territoryA qualitative study conducted by Khozaei et al. (2010a)found that privacy, physical

facilities, comfort, security, warmth and a friendly environment were identied asfactors that make a residence hall similar to a home. This highlights the importance ofprivacy in residence halls from students points of view. Privacy is dened as openingand closing of a self in relation to others (Harris et al., 1996). It is a process that aims tocontrol transactions between individuals (Abu Gazzeh, 1997) and to a degree ofaccess(Dorst, 2005). The study of privacy has typically involved groups and settings,such as ofce environments (Haans et al., 2007), university residence halls (Khozaei etal.,2010a), hospitalized patients (Tabak and Ozon, 2004), elderly people (Schopp et al., 2003),restaurants (Robson, 2008) and Muslim residences (Al-Kodmany, 2000). Previousstudies have tried to examine the degree to which people preferred and achieved privacyin different settings and conditions. Studies have suggested that even within a family,an individuals degree of openness and privacy boundaries, sharing and interpersonal

discussion may not be the same for all other family members(Chan, 2000).Although the need for privacy is universal, regulating mechanisms can vary across

cultures (Hashim and Rahim, 2008). Different views to the concept of privacy can bederived from different personal characteristics, cultures, education levels and socialbackgrounds, genders, age, as well as economical levels (Osman and Halime, 2000; Kayaand Weber, 2003). Along these elements, it is also important to add the religious valuesto these factors. Generally, the religious rules may cause similarities between peopleacross different cultures.

711


preferences


5/15

It has been well-documented that the physical factors of a structured environmentwill affect peoples perception of privacy and crowding. A residence hall is no exception.Vinselet al.(1980)revealed that:

[] those who eventually dropped out of the university, over a year later, had fewer and lesseffective privacy mechanisms, were less satised with university life, and were less active in

various campus events (p. 1104).

Additionally, previous literature has supported the notion that students perception oftheir privacy led to an increase in the level of students satisfaction with their dormitory(Kaya and Erkip, 2001). Previous articles have also supported the gender differences ondesired privacy(Yildirim and Baskaya, 2007).

One primary concept associated with privacy is territory. In a study of territoryformation on residence hall students(Beneld, 2009), territory is positively associatedwith an individual room and overall university satisfaction, though the students mightutilize different strategies to dene their territory.Kaya and Burgess (2007)uncoveredthe students desires for dening territory in a classroom setting and how it is identied

by their preferred seat. In a classroom with rows of tables and individual seats, studentswho preferred to sit at the end of rows tended to dene their territory over those whopreferred the middle-row seats(Kaya and Burgess, 2007).

MethodologyThe data for the current study were driven from a vast study addressing studenthousing preferences in which a portion was used for the current study. The respondentsof the survey were students residing in all eight single-sex residence halls of UniversitiSains Malaysia (USM) during the rst semester 2010-2011. Probability sampling waspreferred to non-probability sampling because it was considered more representative ofthe entire population. Among the different techniques of probability sampling, stratiedrandom sampling was applied for the current study. According toSchoeld (2006):

[] a stratied random sample [is drawn], the elements of a population are divided intonon-overlapping groups-strata. Simple random samples are drawn from each of these and

together they form the total sample (p. 32).

Stratication is the process of grouping members of the population into relativelyhomogeneous subgroups before sampling.

Based on the guidelines of stratied random sampling(Schoeld, 2006), each of theeight residence halls in USM was considered as a stratum. Of the two types of stratiedsampling, proportionate and disproportionate, it was attempted to ensure equaltreatment in the survey across all residence halls. In this case, proportionate waspreferred to disproportionate stratied random sampling (seeSchoeld, 2006).

Based on the statistic provided by residence hall organizers during the rst semester

of 2010-2011, there were nearly 7,500 student residents. With reference toBartlettet al.(2001, p. 48), the appropriate sample size to present the students in a residence hall wouldbe nearly 600. However, with reference to Pett et al. (2003, p. 48), who discussed theinvolving factor analysis, the best sample size would be a minimum of 10-15 subjects perinitial items. The sample size for this study equaled 700 respondents.

A close-ended and self-administrated questionnaire was used for obtaining thestudents opinions in this study. The distribution of questionnaires commended on 4

June 2010 in the residence halls of USM reached completion on 27 August 2010 when the

F32,11/12

712


6/15

last response was collected. Approximately, 100 questionnaires were distributed to eachresidence hall.

The students were asked to complete a questionnaire inclusive of the following. Howdo you prefer the following attributes in the residence hall?

suite-style residence hall;

traditional residence hall;

clear separation of personal space among roommates;

single room with shared bathroom; and

double room.

The personal space in the room alluded to a students bed, a study table, a book shelf andother spaces in the room which are allocated to each individual. To assure that thestudents understood the differences between traditional and suite-style residence halls,two typical building plans were included in the questionnaire (see Figure 1).

The respondents were asked to choose their answer from a 4-point Likert scale (1-4)that was constructed as follows: (1) not at all; (2) very little; (3) mostly; and (4) very much.The participants were briefed on the purpose of the study. They were then providedwith a consent form giving its purpose, possible risks and benets and the rights ofrefusal to participate or withdraw. Subjects were also assured on the condentiality andanonymity of their responses.

ResultOut of 877 questionnaires distributed, 805 were returned, yet, 752 were usable whichyielded a 91.79 per cent response rate. This response was considered to be a fairly highresponse and proved acceptable when compared with previous related studiesconducted in Malaysia(Najibet al., 2011,with 82.5 per cent response rate). Data were

Figure 1Typical plans for

traditional and suite style

residence halls

713


preferences
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/F-08-2012-0061&iName=master.img-001.jpg&w=343&h=201


7/15

analysed using PASW Statistics 17. Demographic makeup of the respondents is shownin Table I. There was a preponderance of female participants (67.8 per cent) in thesample over male students (32.2 per cent). In terms of nationalities, there were 88.3 percent Malaysians, 8 per cent Indonesians, 4.4 per cent Iranians, 1.1 per cent Iraqis and 5.5

per cent from other nationalities which participated. From the total population ofrespondents, 49.1 per cent were Malays, 36.3 per cent were Chinese, 4.8 per cent wereIndians and 9.8 per cent were from other ethnic groups. Of the 752 respondents, 41 percent were between 18 and 20 years old, 44.0 per cent were between 21 and 23 years, 6.3per cent were between 24and 26 years, 3.6 per cent were between 27and 29 years and 5.2per cent were 30 years. The majority of the students (83.0 per cent) wereundergraduates, while the rest were graduate students.

Students preferencesAs stated earlier, this study tends to examine the students preferences towards someimportant aspects of their residence. It attempts to highlight how students prefer toreside in traditional versus suite-style residence halls, a single room with a sharedbathroom and a room in which each students area is clearly marked. For an

Table I.Respondent demographic

background

Variable

Valid

(%)

GenderMale 32.2

Female 67.8

NationalityMalaysian 88.3

Indonesian 0.8

Iranian 4.4

Iraqis 1.1

other 5.5

Age18-20 41.0

21-23 44.0

24-26 6.3

27-29 3.6

30 5.2

RaceMalay 49.1

Indian 4.8Chinese 36.3

other 9.8

Study levelUndergraduate 83.0

Master by research 2.5

Master course work 7.4

PhD 7.0

F32,11/12

714


8/15

interpretation of the mean values, the mean score below 1.49 is equal to Not at all; 1.50and 2.49 is equal to Very little; 2.50 and 3.49 is equal to Mostly; and the meanvalue 3.50 is equal to Very Much.

The mean and standard deviation for each residence hall are presented inTable II. It is

clear that the students preferences for residing in suite style residence halls (mean 3.42, SD0.88) is noticeably higher than the traditional residence halls (mean 2.31, SD 0.97).Indeed, the students preferences to reside in traditional residence halls rated as mostly,while thepreferencesfortraditional residence halls rated as very little.Thismaybe evidentthat residing in traditional residence halls are less popular compared to suite-style residencehalls. University organizers and designers should take this into account when planning theconstruction of new residence halls. It is interesting to note that students rated as mostlyreside in rooms in which their area is clearly separate from their roommate (mean 3.07SD 0.83), a single room with a shared bathroom (mean 2.97 SD 0.99) and a doubleroom (mean 2.82 SD 0.99). The results, however, indicated that the students preferredresiding in single rooms to double-sharing rooms.

Student differences on their preferencesStudent differences based on genderIndependent t-test samples were used to compare male and female student preferences (seeTable III). Although female students had a greater desire for living in suite-style residencehalls (mean 3.46, SD 0.88), when compared to male students (mean 3.33, SD 0.88),the difference was not statistically signicant t(750) 1.89,p 0.059. This indicates thatboth male and female students have similar opinions concerning suite-style residence halls.However, a signicant difference was found between male and female students on theirpreferences for residing in traditional residence halls t(750) 2.13, p 0.03. A greater

Table IIMean and standard

deviation (SD) for other

factors

Descriptive statistics

N Mean SD

Suite style residence hall (PR1) 752 3.42 0.88

Traditional residence hall (PR2) 752 2.31 0.97

Clearly marked individual student areas in the room (PR3) 752 3.07 0.83

Single room with shared bathroom (PR5) 752 2.97 0.99

Double room (SO1) 752 2.82 0.99

Table IIIIndependent samplet-test

Male

(n

242)

Female

(n

510) t pMean SD Mean SD

Suite style residence hall (PR1) 3.33 0.88 3.46 0.88 1.89 0.059

Traditional residence hall (PR2) 2.42 1.00 2.26 0.95 2.13 0.03

Clearly marked individual student areas in the

room (PR3) 3.17 0.76 3.01 0.86 2.28 0.023

Single room with shared bath room (privacy) (PR5) 2.95 1.00 2.97 0.98 0.312 0.755

Double room (SO1) 2.58 1.04 2.93 0.93 4.42 0.000

715


preferences


9/15

number of male students (mean 2.42, SD 1.00) preferred to live in traditional residencehalls than female students (mean 2.26, SD 0.95).

No signicant differences t(750) 3.12, p 0.755 were found between male(mean 2.95, SD 1.00) and female student (mean 2.97, SD 0.98) responses. They

were approximately the same in their preferences for living in a single room with ashared bathroom. However, a signicant difference t(430.31) 4.42,p 0.000 wasfound between male and female students on their desire for living in double rooms.Female students had signicantly higher preferences for residing in double rooms(mean 2.93, SD 0.93) than male students (mean 2.58, SD 1.04).

Finally, male and female students signicantly differed t(750) 2.28,p 0.023 onterritory preferences. Male students had a greater desire for claried separation of spacebetween them and their roommates (mean 3.17, SD 0.76) compared to femalestudents (mean 3.01, SD 0.86).

Student differences based on nationality

After close examination of student differences based on their gender, it was of interest toexamine the students differences based on their nationality and study level. The results ofthe study indicated no signicant differences among students of different nationalities ontheir preferences for suite-style residence halls [F(4.747) 1.903, p 0.108], traditionalresidence halls [F(4.747) 1.63,p 0.164] or room division potentials [F(4.747) 1.04,p 0.196]. However, a signicant difference wasdetermined among thestudents preferencesforresiding in a single shared room with a shared bathroom [F(4.747) 3.39,p 0.009] anddouble sharing room [F(4.747) 23.69,p 0.000]. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukeytest indicated that Malaysian students signicantly preferred to reside in a single room witha shared bathroom (mean 3 SD 0.038)when compared to Iranian students(mean 2.39SD 0.15). The post hoc comparisons using Tamhanes T2 test indicated that Malaysianstudents (mean 2.93, SD 0.90) had signicantly higher desires for residing in double

sharing rooms compared to Iranian students (mean 1.60 SD 0.90). The results arepresented in Table IV.

Student differences based on study levelThe results of a one-way ANOVA test revealed signicant differences in the preferencesbetween students ofdifferentstudylevels and their desireto live in suite-styleresidence halls[F(3.748) 8.81,p 0.000].Post hoccomparisonsusing Tamhanes T2 testrevealedthat themean score for undergraduate students (mean 3.49, SD 0.82) was signicantly higherthan that of PhD students (mean 2.98, SD 1.06). Interviews with the undergraduatestudents discovered that, in their opinion, students living in suite-style residence halls wereexperiencing more freedom, better facilities and the ability to cook and share meals.Consequently, the majority of undergraduate students preferred to live in suites. Students at

different study levels did not differ signicantly for their preferences concerning residing intraditional residence halls [F(3.748) 0.544,p 0.652].

The result of the one-way ANOVA test revealed a signicant difference betweenstudents study levels on their preferences for residing in a single room [F(3.748) 3.03,p 0.029]. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey test indicated that the mean score forundergraduate students (mean 3.00, SD 0.97) was signicantly higher than the PhDstudents (mean 2.60, SD 0.88). The follow up interviews with undergraduatestudents involved asking about their preferences for living in a single room. The

F32,11/12

716


10/15

students imagined themselves having more independence and personal space. Theresponses were very different among the PhD students who, in fact, had already beenresiding in single rooms with shared bathrooms. The majority of those who were

interviewed believed that living in single rooms is highly satisfactory, but were not tookeen on the idea of shared bathrooms in which problems may arise. The need tocompromise and the possibility of conicts were reasons mentioned. In fact, it was foundthat the student expectations of a shared bathroom were higher than public bathrooms.While this particular space is not public, it is not viewed as private space either. It seemsthat the higher expectation and mismatching between students preferences hadresulted in a negative perception for a shared bathroom. On the other hand,undergraduate students who had not yet experienced living in single-sharing rooms hada different perception. The areas involving student cultural backgrounds should not beignored, and future studies should be considered to further examine the roles ofpersonalities and culture differences on their preferences.

Signicant differences were found among students in the preferences for living in double

rooms [F(3.748) 48.97,p 0.000]. The mean score for undergraduate students (mean 2.97 SD 0.89) was signicantly higher than that of PhD students (mean 1.43 SD 0.77).No signicant differences were foundbetween students study levels and the preferences forroom division [F(3. 748) 0.704,p 0.550]. Results are shown in Table V.

ConclusionThe focus of this study was to achieve a better understanding of the student housingpreferences in developing countries based on a university case study in Malaysia. The

Table IV1 way ANOVA

Sum of squares df Mean square F Signicance

PR1Between groups 5.886 4 1.471 1.903 0.108

Within groups 577.641 747 0.773

Total 583.527 751


Within groups 704.650 747 0.943

Total 710.807 751


Within groups 513.645 747 0.688

Total 517.807 751

PR5

Between groups 13.042 4 3.260 3.387 0.009Within groups 719.127 747 0.963

Total 732.169 751

SO1Between groups 82.724 4 20.681 23.693 0.000

Within groups 652.040 747 0.873

Total 734.765 751

717


preferences


11/15

results of this study suggest that students prefer to live in suites compared to traditional

residence halls. These ndings were similar to Roche et al. (2010)s study conducted atLongwood university which found that the majority of students preferred to reside in

mixed-use apartment-style housing instead of traditional residence halls. Accordingly, if thearchitects had this question in mind, would traditional residence halls still be the answer?

The response remains more or less no. The results have revealed the students greatestpreferences for suite-style residence halls compared to traditional residence halls.

The students preferences for residing in single rooms with shared bathrooms and

clearly marked spaces for each reveals their demand for greater privacy. In fact, newstudent generations seem to be seeking greater privacy, larger spaces and increased

control over their personal space and privacy. These factors are, without question,dramatically reduced within the sharing bedrooms. The students demand for greater

privacy and comfort is discussed by previous studies(Phillips and Carswell, 2007).The results of the study also suggest that gender, nationality and study-level

differences lead to different patterns of preferences. Male and female students differedsignicantly with regard to preferences for traditional residence halls, double rooms andresiding in rooms where each students area is clearly marked. Male students had

signicantly higher preferences for residing in traditional residence halls as well asseparation of personal space in their rooms. Female students had signicantly higher

preferences for residing in double rooms. Results have also indicated signicantdifferences among student preferences for residing in single rooms with shared

bathrooms and double rooms. There were also signicant differences found among

Table V.1 way ANOVA

Sum of squares df Mean square F Signicance


Within groups 563.619 748 0.754

Total 583.527 751


Within groups 709.258 748 0.948

Total 710.807 751


Within groups 723.367 748 0.967

Total 732.169 751

SO1

Between groups 120.630 3 40.210 48.975 0.000Within groups 614.134 748 0.821

Total 734.765 751


Within groups 516.349 748 0.690

Total 517.807 751

F32,11/12

718


12/15

students based on their study levels for residing in suite-style residence halls, singlerooms with shared bathrooms and double rooms.

There are several studies that have addressed students housing satisfaction, butcurrently, we still lack the knowledge in regard to the students real needs andrequirements.

This may be due to the fact that in such studies, students are mainly asked to express theirideas about their current residence, not their preferred residence. Further studies on studenthousing may direct more focus on student housing preferences.

This study serves as a starting point for a better understanding of student housingpreferences in developing countries. Further studies are needed to examine the role ofstudent personalities and cultural backgrounds on their housing preferences. This aidsas a guide to recognize the diversity in student preferences.

References

Abu-Ghazzeh, T.M. (1997), Vernacular architecture education in the Islamic society of SaudiArabia: towards the development of an authentic contemporary built environment,

Habitat International, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 229-253.

Al-Kodmany, K. (2000), Womens visual privacy in traditional and modern neighborhoods inDamascus,Journal-of-Architectural-and-Planning-Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 283-303.

Araujo, P.D. and Murray, J. (2010), Estimating the effects of dormitory living on studentperformance,Economics Bulletin, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 866-878.

Bartlett, J.E., Kotrlik, J.W. and Higgins, C.C. (2001), Organizational research: determiningappropriate sample size in survey research, Information Technology, Learning, and

Performance Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 43-50.

Bekurs, G. (2007), Outstanding student housing in American community colleges: problems andprospects, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 621-636.

Beneld, J.A. (2009), A longitudinal assessment of privacy and territory establishment in a

college residence hall setting, in Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: TheSciences and Engineering, Vol. 70, ProQuest Information & Learning, Fort Collins,Colorado, p. 1380

Brandon, A., Hirt, J.B. and Cameron, T. (2008), Where you live inuences who you know:differences in student interaction based on residence hall design,The Journal of Collegeand University student housing, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 62-79.

Chan, Y.-K. (2000), Privacy in the family: Its hierarchical and asymmetric nature,Journal ofComparative Family Studies, Vol. 31 No. 1.

Corbett, J.A. (1973), Are the Suites the Answer?, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 5 No. 4,pp. 413-419.

Cross, J.E., Zimmerman, D. and OGrady, M.A. (2009), Residence hall room type and alcohol useamong college students living on campus,Environment and Behavior Volume, Vol. 41 No. 4.

Devlin, A.S., Donovan, S., Nicolov, A., Nold, O. and Zandan, G. (2008), Residence hall architectureand sense of community everything old is new again,Environment and Behavior, Vol. 40No. 4, pp. 487-521.

Dorst, M.J.V. (2005), Privacy zonning, the different layers of public space, in Turner, P. andDavenport, E. (Eds),Spaces, Spatiality and Technology, Vol. 5, Springer, Dordrecht.

Dusselier, L., Dunn, B., Wang, Y., Shelley, M. C. II, and Whalen, D.F. (2005), Personal, health,academic and environmental predictors of stress for residence hall students, Journal of

American College Health, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 15-24.

719


preferences
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0197-3975%2896%2900056-2&isi=A1997WP01400007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000168810100002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F10668920701428402http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000084207400001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000084207400001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F001391657300500403&isi=A1973S324800003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013916508328169http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013916507301128&isi=000256916100002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3200%2FJACH.54.1.15-24&isi=000230604800002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3200%2FJACH.54.1.15-24&isi=000230604800002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000084207400001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000084207400001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013916507301128&isi=000256916100002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013916508328169http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3200%2FJACH.54.1.15-24&isi=000230604800002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3200%2FJACH.54.1.15-24&isi=000230604800002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000168810100002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F001391657300500403&isi=A1973S324800003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F10668920701428402http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0197-3975%2896%2900056-2&isi=A1997WP01400007


13/15

Flowers, L.A. (2004), Effects of living on campus on African American students educational

gains in college,NASPA Journal, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 277-293.

Foubert, J.D., Tepper, R. and Morrison, D.R. (1998), Predictors of student satisfaction in

University Residence halls,Journal of college and University student housing,Vol.27No.1,

pp. 41-46.

Gerst, M.S. and Sweetwood, H. (1973), Correlates of dormitory social climate,Environment andBehavior, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 440-464.

Haans, A., Kaiser, F.G. and de Kort, Y.A.W. (2007), Privacy needs in ofce environments:

development of two behavior-based scales, European Psychologist, Vol. 12 No. 2,pp. 93-102.

Harris, P.B., Brown, B.B. and Werner, C.M. (1996), Privacy regulation and place attachment:

predicting attachments to a student family housing facility,Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 287-301.

Hashim, A.H. and Rahim, Z.A. (2008), The inuence of privacy regulation on urban Malay

families living in terrace housing,Archnet-IJAR, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 94-102.

Kaya, N. and Burgess, B. (2007), Territoriality: seat preferences in different types of classroomarrangements,Environment and Behavior, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 859-876.

Kaya, N. and Erkip, F. (2001), Satisfaction in a dormitory building: the effects of oor on the

perception of room size and crowding,Environment and Behavior, Vol. 33No.1, pp.35-53.

Kaya, N. and Weber, M.J. (2003), Territorial behavior in residence halls: a cross-cultural study,

Environment and Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 400-414.

Khozaei, F., Amole, D., Hassan, A.S. and Khozaei, Z. (2010a), Female Graduate students

perception of the relationships between the residence hall and the home, Asian SocialScience, Vol. 6 No. 10, pp. 68-76.

Khozaei, F., Ayub, N., Hassan, A.S. and Khozaei, Z. (2010b), The Factors predicting students

satisfaction with university hostels, case study, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Journal of

Asian culture and history, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 148-158.Khozaei, F., Hassan, A.S. and Ramayah, T. (2011), The students degree of preference for

residence hall facilities and amenities, study of a developing country,African Journal ofBuisness Management, Vol. 5 No. 17, pp. 7335-7341.

Khozaei, F., Ramayah, T., Hassan, A.S. and Surienty, L. (2012), Sense of attachment to place and

fullled preferences, the mediating role of housing satisfaction,Property Management,Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 292-310.

Lanasa, S.M., Olson, E. and Alleman, N. (2007), The Impact of on-campus student growth on

rst-year student engagement and success,Research in Higher Education,Vol. 48 No. 8.

Najib, N.U.M., Yusof, N.A. and Osman, Z. (2011), The relationship between students

socio-economic backgrounds and student residential satisfaction, World Academy of

Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 5 No. 8, pp. 1200-1205.Osman, D.O. and Halime, D. (2000), Privacy dimensions: a case study in the interior architecture

design studio,Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 53-64.

Paine, D.E. (2007),An Exploration Of Three Residence Hall Types And The Academic And SocialIntegration Of First Year Students, ProQuest, University of South Florida.

Pett, M.A., Lackey, N.R. and Sullivan, J.J. (2003),Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use ofFactor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research, SAGE Publications,Inc.

F32,11/12

720
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2202%2F0027-6014.1334http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F001391657300500405&isi=A1973S324800005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F001391657300500405&isi=A1973S324800005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1027%2F1016-9040.12.2.93&isi=000248679400003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1006%2Fjevp.1996.0025&isi=A1996WL95900001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1006%2Fjevp.1996.0025&isi=A1996WL95900001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013916506298798&isi=000250557200007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F00139160121972855&isi=000165616400002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013916503035003005&isi=000182351700005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5539%2Fass.v6n10p68http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5539%2Fass.v6n10p68http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5539%2Fach.v2n2p148http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5539%2Fach.v2n2p148http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000296234600020http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000296234600020http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02637471211233945http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs11162-007-9056-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs11162-007-9056-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1006%2Fjevp.1999.0148&isi=000086591000006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02637471211233945http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013916503035003005&isi=000182351700005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1006%2Fjevp.1996.0025&isi=A1996WL95900001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1006%2Fjevp.1996.0025&isi=A1996WL95900001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1006%2Fjevp.1999.0148&isi=000086591000006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2202%2F0027-6014.1334http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000296234600020http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000296234600020http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F00139160121972855&isi=000165616400002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1027%2F1016-9040.12.2.93&isi=000248679400003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5539%2Fach.v2n2p148http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5539%2Fach.v2n2p148http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013916506298798&isi=000250557200007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F001391657300500405&isi=A1973S324800005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F001391657300500405&isi=A1973S324800005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs11162-007-9056-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5539%2Fass.v6n10p68http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5539%2Fass.v6n10p68


14/15

Phillips, D.R. and Carswell, A. (2007), Analyzing off-campus housing preferences of echo boomercollege students,Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Housing Education And

Research Association, Charlotte, NC.

Pike, C.R. (2009), The differential effects of on- and off campus living arrangements on students

openness to diversity,NASPA journal, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 629-645.

Poria, Y. and Oppewal, H. (2002), Student preferences for room attributes at university halls ofresidence: an application of the willingness to pay technique,. Tourism and Hospitality

Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 116-129.

Reed, R. and Mills, A. (2007), Identifying the drivers behind housing preferences of rst-timeowners,Property Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 225-241.

Rinn, A.N. (2004), Academic and social effects of living in honors residence halls,Journal of theNational Collegiate Honors Council, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 67-79.

Robson, S.K.A. (2008), Scenes from a restaurant: privacy regulation in stressful situations,Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 373-378.

Roche, C.R.L., Flanigan, M.A., Kenneth, P. and Copeland, J. (2010), Student housing: trends,

preferences and needs, Contemporary Issues in Education Research, Vol. 3 No. 10,pp. 45-50.

Rodger, S.C. and Johnson, A.M. (2005), The impact of residence design on freshman outcomes:dormitories versus suite-style residences, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education,Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 83-99.

Ryan, M.A. (2003), Contemporary issues in student housing nance,New Directions for StudentServices, Vol. 2003 No. 103, pp. 59-71.

Schoeld, W. (2006), Survey sampling, in Sapsford, R. and Jupp, V. (Eds),Data Collection andAnalysis, 2nd ed., SAGE, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.

Schopp, A., Leino-Kilpi, H., Vlimki, M., Dassen, T., Gasull, M., Lemonidou, C., Scott, P.A.,Arndt, M. and Kaljonen, A. (2003), Perceptions of privacy in the care of elderly people inve European countries,Nurs Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 39-47.

Sirgy, M.J., Grzeskowiak, S. and Su, C. (2005), Explaining housing preference and choice: the roleof self-congruity and functional congruity,Journal of Housing and the Built Environment,Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 329-347.

Tabak, N. and Ozon, M. (2004), The inuence of nurses attitudes, subjective norms and perceivedbehavioral control on maintaining patients privacy in a hospital setting,Nursing Ethics,Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 366-377.

Thomsen, J. and Eikemo, T. (2010), Aspects of student housing satisfaction: a quantitativestudy,Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 273-293.

Turley, R.N.L. and Wodtke, G. (2010), College residence and academic performance: who benetsfrom living on campus?,Urban Education,Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 506-532.

Valins, S. and Baum, A. (1973), Residential group size, social interaction, and crowding,

Environment and Behavior, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 421-439.Vinsel, A., Brown, B.B., Altman, I. and Foss, C. (1980), Privacy regulation, territorial displays, and

effectiveness of individual functioning, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 1104-1115.

Wang, D. and Li, S.-M. (2006), Socio-economic differentials and stated housing preferences inGuangzhou, China,Habitat International, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 305-326.

Yildirim, K. and Akalin-Baskaya, A. (2007), Perceived crowding in a caf/restaurant withdifferent seating densities,Building and Environment,Vol. 42 No. 9, pp. 3410-3417.

721


preferences
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F146735840200400203http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F146735840200400203http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02637470710753611http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jenvp.2008.03.001&isi=000261503300007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.19030%2Fcier.v3i10.238http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fss.99http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fss.99http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4135%2F9781849208802.n2http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4135%2F9781849208802.n2http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1191%2F0969733003ne573oa&isi=000180526200006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs10901-005-9020-7http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1191%2F0969733004ne709oa&isi=000222593600005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs10901-010-9188-3http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0042085910372351&isi=000279894100006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0042085910372351&isi=000279894100006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F001391657300500404&isi=A1973S324800004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2Fh0077718&isi=A1980KX30300010http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.habitatint.2004.02.009&isi=000237640000009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.buildenv.2006.08.014&isi=000246650600029http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.buildenv.2006.08.014&isi=000246650600029http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4135%2F9781849208802.n2http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4135%2F9781849208802.n2http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jenvp.2008.03.001&isi=000261503300007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2Fh0077718&isi=A1980KX30300010http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1191%2F0969733004ne709oa&isi=000222593600005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fss.99http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fss.99http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F001391657300500404&isi=A1973S324800004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs10901-005-9020-7http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02637470710753611http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.buildenv.2006.08.014&isi=000246650600029http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0042085910372351&isi=000279894100006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1191%2F0969733003ne573oa&isi=000180526200006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.19030%2Fcier.v3i10.238http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.habitatint.2004.02.009&isi=000237640000009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F146735840200400203http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F146735840200400203http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs10901-010-9188-3


15/15

About the authorsFatemeh Khozaei received a PhD degree in Architecture from USM. Her PhD dissertationaddresses student housing preferences and examines the relationship between students fullledpreferences, satisfaction and sense of attachment to place. Her interest lies in topics, such as

student housing, user studies, cultural differences and peoples behaviors. Fatemeh Khozaei is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

Ahmad Sanusi Hassan is an Associate Professor in Architecture Programme at the School ofHousing, Building and Planning, USM, Penang, Malaysia. He obtained Bachelor and Master ofArchitecture degrees from University of Houston, Texas, USA, and a PhD degree focussing onsustainable architecture and urban planning development for Southeast Asia from University ofNottingham, United Kingdom. At the university, he lectures on courses related to urban design,studio architecture and history and theory of architecture. He also teaches architecture coursesusing computer-aided design and computer animation that he has emphasised in heritage andarchitectural buildings study.

Kheir Al Kodmany is Associate Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago where heteaches urban design and physical planning. He advances foundational urban design theories andintegrates multiple traditional and computerized visualization tools to create synergetic

interactive visualization environments that inform urban design practice, decision-makingprocesses and policies.Yasser Arab is a research assistant and a mastersdegree candidate in sustainable architecture

at the school of Housing, Building and Planning, USM, Penang, Malaysia. He obtained a Bachelorof Architecture from Ittihad Private University, Aleppo, Syria. His research is related to thenatural lighting in Turkish Mosques. He is registered Architect with the Syrian Engineers Union.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

F32,11/12

722
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

examination of student housing

Documents