Int. J. Environment, Workplace and Employment, Vol. 4, No.

4, 2018 269

Environmental satisfaction at work of university

administrative staff and integration of the university
in the town

Eva Moffat*
Département de Psychologie,
Université Paris Nanterre,
Nanterre, 92001, France
Email: eva.moffat@live.fr
*Corresponding author

Dalel Bouzid
Université Paris13,
Villetaneuse, France
Email: dalel.bouzid@univ-paris13.fr

Liliane Rioux
Département de Psychologie,
Université Paris Nanterre,
Nanterre, 92001, France
Email: lrioux@parisnanterre.fr

Abstract: The aim of our study is to evaluate the satisfaction of university staff
with their work environment as a function of relationships of the university
with its host town. The ESET (a scale of satisfaction with the work
environment) was administered to 342 administrative staff working in three
French universities. When compared with data collected from an inventory
assessing the university’s role in the local community, our results, while
needing to be qualified, show that staff show greater satisfaction with their
work environment when the university is less integrated in the town.

Keywords: environmental satisfaction; occupational psychology;

environmental psychology; university staff; integration in the town.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Moffat, E., Bouzid, D. and
Rioux, L. (2018) ‘Environmental satisfaction at work of university
administrative staff and integration of the university in the town’, Int. J.
Environment, Workplace and Employment, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.269–287.

Biographical notes: Eva Moffat has a Doctorate in Environmental Psychology

and is an assistant at the University of Paris Nanterre (France). She is an
Environmental and Organisational Psychologist. Her work focuses on
environmental satisfaction in the workplace and comfort at work.

Copyright © 2018 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

270 E. Moffat et al.

Dalel Bouzid has a Doctorate in Environmental Psychology and is a Lecturer at

the University of Paris 13 (France). Her research focuses on employees’
comfort at work, linked to the integration of their organisation within the local
community.

Liliane Rioux is a Professor of Environmental and Occupational Psychology

at the University of Paris Nanterre. Her work comes mainly within the
organisational framework and concerns the processes of workplace
appropriation, pro-environmental behaviour, and comfort and nuisance factors
at work.

1 Overview

In recent years, the number of students attending university in France has grown
considerably. In 2010, there were 2.3 million students in higher education including
1.4 million at university (MENESR-SIES, 2011); in 2015, there were more than
2.5 million, with nearly 1.6 million at university (MENESR-DEPP, 2016). The number of
students in higher education has increased for the seventh year running.
This has clearly had an impact on the economy and urban development of university
towns. In addition to the beneficial economic impact on the town of the presence of
university personnel, teachers/researchers and students, the local authorities also
frequently organise the town around the university infrastructures (Bourdin and
Campagnac, 2014). In return, more and more universities are committed to public
engagement locally, notably in the cultural domain.
Encouraged by government bodies through incentives such as the Campus plan,
universities are taking an active role in their towns, creating partnerships and cooperative
relationships with different urban organisations (regional authorities, institutions and
companies). They have become essential hubs of the knowledge economy (education,
training, human capital, research and development) and are thus becoming key players in
local economic development in their own right (Shattock, 2004).
However, in spite of the growing number of students and the increasingly central role
played by universities in the local community, little research has been conducted on their
personnel, and notably their environmental satisfaction. Our study thus examines the
administrative staff’s satisfaction with their university, seen as a system of specific
interacting environments (work station, office, university and neighbourhood).

1.1 The university and the town, long-standing links

The first French universities were created by Napoleon I in 1896. Higher education was
then organised around two types of faculty: the first provided courses required for certain
careers (e.g., law, medicine and pharmacy) and had students; the second trained the elites
needed by the State (e.g., administrators, officers and engineers) and did not have
students. This was notably the case of the faculties of arts and sciences (lettres et sciences
in French), which were not places for teaching and research, but for examination juries.
Thus, the town only benefited occasionally from the presence of the candidates.
 Environmental satisfaction at work of university administrative staff 271

These faculties gradually started accepting students, shifting from conferring degrees
to teaching and then research. This phenomenon accelerated with the decree of 1889
granting faculties a budget that included student tuition fees. This saw the start of a real
system of higher education, although not universities as such.
In 1890s, the Republican government, at the instigation of Liard, decided to create
universities, defined as institutions that included all the faculties and had more than 500
students (Prost, 2012). However, this was met by strong opposition from the elected
representatives of towns whose faculties would not become universities, and who were
very conscious of the development and economic advantages of having a university in
their town. The government capitulated, and a law was passed in 1896 whereby a
university could be created wherever a faculty existed.
From that time on, links were created between the town and its university.
Companies, Chambers of Commerce or municipalities subsidised the work of research
laboratories (e.g., chemistry, applied physics and industrial electricity). However, in no
way did this foster a type of community life as in the American/British tradition; instead
it was based more on the German model, notably by creating teaching and research
seminars.
The university system set up by the Republican reformers lasted until 1968, the year
that the Edgar Faure Law was promulgated. By administrative reform of the university
and notably the creation of a ‘University Council’ that included not only university staff
and teachers but also student delegates and other prominent figures, the Edgar Faure Law
met the demand for joint management arising from the May 1968 movement, while
encouraging closer ties between the functioning of the universities and that of the urban
institutions on which they depended.
Since then, indirectly at least, university reforms have continuously systematised the
links between town and university, such as a law passed in July 2013 for the autonomy of
higher education and research. In addition to their traditional mission of teaching and
research, universities now have a mission to transfer and share knowledge in the local
community (Lebeau and Vadelorge, 2014).

1.2 University actions in the town

Dang Vu (2011, 2014) constructed a typology of six types of university action in the
town. Based on a cross-country study of universities, combining documentary work, site
visits and interviews with building-stock managers and people responsible for relations
with local communities, she identified six profiles of universities as urban stakeholders:
(a) builder university, whose main characteristic is to construct new university buildings
in the town (e.g., Edinburgh, Scotland); (b) developer university, characterised essentially
by profit-making urban development activities (UQAM, Canada), (c) outreach provider,
the profile of all North American universities, which are involved with local communities
and vulnerable populations, (d) neighbourhood developer, such as Manchester University
(UK), which contributes to the well-being of its region and makes the university
accessible to the local community, (e) metropolitan strategist, playing a leading role in
the development of the urban area [e.g. Oxford University, and the Research and Higher
Education Centre (PRES) in Lyon] and finally (f) planning university, typified by the
Catholic University of Louvain (UCL, Belgium), which created the new town of
Louvain-la-Neuve from scratch, and manages and develops it. These profiles only
272 E. Moffat et al.

constitute a trend and overlap, features that are predominant in some figuring to a lesser
extent in others.
In France, universities are clearly encouraged to develop partnerships with their local
towns, supported by framework documents such as the Schémas de développement
universitaire (SDU – university development plans) at the metropolitan level, or local
plans for higher education and research (Enseignement Supérieur Recherche, 2013).
These plans can be very varied, but are mainly based on a commitment to foster links
between town and university, at economic, social and technological levels.

1.3 Environmental satisfaction at work of university staff

Environmental satisfaction at work can be seen as the result of how individuals
evaluate their work-space. Their evaluation depends both on personal characteristics
(sociodemographic and cultural, and environmental preferences) and on differences
between their perceived and ideal work place (Fleury-Bahi and Marcouyeux, 2011).
There has been growing interest in this research topic over the last 20 years. Some studies
have looked at satisfaction with the overall work environment (e.g., Aries et al., 2010;
Carlopio, 1996; Fischer et al., 2004; Fleury-Bahi and Marcouyeux, 2011; Fornara et al.,
2013; Newsham et al., 2009; Rioux and Fouquereau, 2004; Veitch et al., 2011;
Wagner et al., 2007), while others have looked at satisfaction with a specific aspect of the
work environment, such as organisational culture (Gossauer et al., 2006; Raffaello and
Mass, 2002; Sundstrom and Sundstrom, 1986; Vischer, 1996) or workspace layout
(Aries et al., 2007; Brill et al., 2001; Veitch et al., 2007). However, as far as we know,
there has been no research on the satisfaction of university staff with their work
environment. The great majority of studies have taken a very restricted view of the
organisational framework, without taking into account the surrounding neighbourhood.
In contrast, Moffat et al. (2016) considered the organisation as an entity that cannot be
separated from its environment. Based on Moles’ theory of the shell (Moles, 1977; Moles
and Rohmer, 1998) and Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) systemic approach to the environment,
they described the workplace as a system of specific interacting environments: the
work-station, the office space, the organisation and the neighbourhood.
Our research extends these studies by exploring the links between the level of
integration of three French universities in medium-sized towns and the environmental
satisfaction of their staff. Our work is based on Santamaria’s (2000) definition of a
medium-sized town in terms of size (population of between 20,000 and 200,000) and
functional role (between local centre and regional metropolis). We chose universities
established in medium-sized towns because they are the most numerous in France (Levy
et al., 2015).

2 Method

2.1 The study site and participants

Our research was conducted in three French campus universities in medium-sized towns
(115,000–145,000 inhabitants). The academic disciplines they teach are Law,
Technological Sciences and Natural Sciences. The student population ranged between
~20,000 and 25,000.
 Environmental satisfaction at work of university administrative staff 273

Our sample comprised 342 administrative staff, aged 22–62 (M = 36.18; SD = 9.38),
63% female. There were 114 participants in university U1, 121 in university U2, and 107
in university U3. In terms of job status, 24% were Grade A (senior managers), 49% were
Grade B (middle managers) and 27% were Grade C (office workers). They had worked at
the university for between 1 and 36 years (M = 7.34; SD = 5.86) and in their current post
for between 1 and 28 years (M = 5.58; SD = 4.65). Fewer than 3% of the participants
lived more than 30 km from the university town. A more detailed analysis shows that
there was no significant difference at 0.05 between the three universities for any of these
variables.

2.2 Material
We used two tools: (a) an inventory assessing the quality of use of a university
establishment, and (b) a scale of environmental satisfaction at work.
a The inventory assessing the quality of use of a university establishment (Bouzid and
Rioux, 2016) was used to determine the integration of each university in the local
town. It has three parts: (i) ‘Proximity to urban infrastructure’, which is subdivided
into two sections, ‘Proximity to urban facilities’ (34 items) and ‘Local transport
facilities’ (5 items); (ii) ‘Partnerships with local organisations’ which includes
‘Events organised by local organisations and supported by the university’ (5 items)
and ‘Events organised in partnership with local organisations’ (5 items); (iii) ‘Use of
the university by the local community’, subdivided into ‘Community access to the
university’ (16 items), ‘Actual presence of non-university people during normal
study times’ (16 items) and ‘Actual presence of non-university people outside
normal study times’ (16 items). The inventory thus has a total of 97 items (see
Appendix 1). It was tested at three French universities (Nabli-Bouzid, 2015),
with intra-judge agreement (inventory completed by the same assessor at the three
universities at 1-month intervals) of over 90%, and very satisfactory inter-judge
reliability (inventory completed by two separate assessors at the three universities)
(from 78% to 89%).
b We chose the short version of the ESET, a scale of environmental satisfaction at
work (Moffat, 2016), which identifies satisfaction with work spaces: the work
station, the office, the organisation and the surrounding neighbourhood. The tool has
30 items covering 10 dimensions: layout (3 items), safety (3 items), quiet (3 items),
transport (3 items), sociability (3 items), shops (3 items), alienation (3 items),
neighbourhood attractiveness (3 items), green spaces (3 items) and company
attractiveness (3 items). Responses are made on a five-point Likert scale. The tool
was validated among office workers in the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors
(Moffat et al., 2016) and has satisfactory psychometric properties (Cronbach Alphas
of 0.70 to 0.91 for different dimensions, test-retest index at 3-week intervals of 0.75).
This scale was adapted for university administrative staff, substituting ‘university’
for ‘company’.

2.3 The procedure

The two parts of the inventory evaluating the quality of use of a university were
completed as follows:
274 E. Moffat et al.

• Factual data were gathered from our observations and from information obtained on
each university site and/or from meetings with administrative managers. The minutes
of the Administrative Council of each university for the previous year also provided
invaluable material.
• Evaluations for the two sub-sections of ‘Use of the university by the local
community’ were carried out at each university during the month of March, on a
Thursday (for ‘Actual presence of non-university people during normal study times’)
or Saturday (for ‘Actual presence of non-university people outside normal study
times’), between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. Three occupational psychologists, one in each
university, on the same day and at the same time, counted the number of people in
the structures that the university authorities had set aside for activities for the local
community. This procedure enabled us to evaluate the sessions that were open to the
public in relation to the number of people actually present.
For the scale of satisfaction with the work environment, we went from office to office
and asked the administrative staff to complete the form. We should stress that the
questionnaire, which aimed to elicit the opinion of the staff about their workplace, had
been drawn up by teacher-researchers who did not belong to the same university.
Participants were informed that their responses would be anonymous. After they had
given their consent, they completed the questionnaire individually and in our presence.
The refusal rate was < 8% in the three universities, which appears entirely satisfactory.

3 Results

3.1 The inventory evaluating the quality of use of a university

The three universities differed significantly at 0.05 on their overall scores of local
integration, from 5.73 for U1 to 8.18 for U3. They also differed significantly on each
dimension.
However, a more detailed analysis of the results reveals that the university with the
highest integration score (U3) is not the one that is geographically closest to the urban
infrastructure, but it has the closest ties with local organisations. Thus, while U3 had the
lowest average score for ‘Proximity to urban infrastructure’ (2.79) and for its two
sub-dimensions, ‘Proximity to urban facilities’ (2.59) and ‘Local transport facilities’
(3.00), it has more partnerships with local organisations than U1 and U2 and opens its
facilities to the local community more.

3.2 Environmental satisfaction at work

The skewness and kurtosis indexes were between − 1 and + 1, indicating suitable
univariate normality of the items. The Mardia index evaluating multivariate normality
was 754, below the threshold value of 960. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) coefficient
measuring sampling adequacy of the items is adequate (0.866, P < 0.001).
Principal components analysis was then used for exploratory factor analysis of the
responses to the environmental satisfaction at work questionnaire. It revealed a
ten-dimension structure explaining 67.06% of the variance. The results are presented in
Table 1. Eigenvalues ranged from 1.12 to 10.58 and Cronbach alphas from 0.76
(‘neighbourhood attractiveness’) to 0.84 (‘green spaces’).
 Environmental satisfaction at work of university administrative staff 275

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the 10 ESET dimensions and their intercorrelations

276 E. Moffat et al.

We examined the matrix of inter-dimension correlations. Most correlations were

positive (p < 0.05) and moderate, although some were low. The weakest correlations
were between ‘quiet’ and ‘sociability’ and between ‘quiet’ and ‘environmental
alienation’.
The overall average of environmental satisfaction at work was 3.34, with a standard
deviation of 0.99. More precisely, the mean scores ranged from 2.40 (SD = 0.85) for
‘safety’ to 3.81 (0.87) for ‘quiet’.

3.3 Links between local integration of the university and environmental

satisfaction of the university staff
Comparison of the mean scores obtained on the ESET shows that environmental
satisfaction at work is highest at U1 (M = 3.60; SD = 0.92) and lowest at U3 (M = 3.07;
SD = 0.91) (see Table 2).
Analysis of each dimension (see Table 3) reveals that U1 also had the highest
mean score for ‘Neighbourhood attractiveness’ (M = 3.72; SD = 0.69) and ‘attractiveness
of the university’ (M = 3.92; SD = 0.97). In contrast, it had the lowest mean score
for ‘shops’ (M = 2.58; SD = 0.66). There was no significant difference at 0.05
between the three universities for the ‘layout’, ‘quiet’ and ‘environmental alienation’
dimensions.

Table 2 Integration of the three universities in the town

University
U1 U2 U3 Integration
Proximity to urban infrastructure
Proximity to urban facilities* 2.65 3.62 2.59 U3 = U1 < U2
Local transport facilities 3.4 4.2 3 U3 < U1 < U2
Mean 3.02 3.91 2.79 U3 < U1 < U2
Partnerships with local organisations
Events organised by local organisations and 1.6 2.6 2.6 U1 < U2 = U3
supported by the university
Events organised in partnership with local 1.6 2 3 U1 < U2 < U3
organisations
Mean 1.6 2.3 2.8 U1 < U2 < U3
Use of the university by the local community
Community access to the university 1.23 1.45 3.72 U1 < U2 < U3
Actual presence of people not studying at 0.97 0.97 0.82 U3 < U1 = U2
university
Mean 1.1 1.21 2.27+ U1 < U2 < U3
Mean integration score 1.91 2.47 2.62 U1 < U2 < U3
Overall local integration score 5.73 7.32 8.18 U1 < U2 < U3
*Reverse-scored items.
 Environmental satisfaction at work of university administrative staff 277

Table 3 Relationships between the universities’ integration in the town and the ESET

University
ESET dimensions U1 (N = 114) U2 (N = 121) U3 (N = 107)
Layout 3.88 (0.73) 3.76 (0.81) 3.69 (0.95) U3 = U1 = U2
Safety 2.62 (0.89) 2.54 (0.88) 2.02 (0.74) U3 < U2 = U1
Quiet 3.80 (0.92) 3.81 (0.82) 3.83 (0.86) U3 = U1 = U2
Transport 3.95 (0.86) 3.54 (0.88) 2.62 (0.90) U3 < U2 = U1
Sociability 3.86 (1.09) 2.99 (1.05) 2.96 (1.21) U1 > U2 = U3
Alienation 3.66 (0.77) 3.63 (0.84) 3.63 (0.91) U1 = U2 = U3
Shops 2.58 (0.66) 2.98 (0.51) 3.64 (0.52) U1 < U2 < U3
Neighbourhood attractiveness 3.72 (0.69) 3.13 (0.62) 2.63 (0.66) U3 < U2 < U1
Green spaces 4.04 (0.67) 3.98 (0.68) 3.06 (0.97) U3 < U2 = U1
Attractiveness of university 3.92 (0.97) 2.95 (0.93) 2.68 (0.97) U3 < U2 < U1
ESET 3.60 (0.92) 3.33 (0.87) 3.07 (0.91) U3 < U2 < U1

4 Discussion

The overall local integration scores of the three universities differed, from 5.73 for
U1 to 8.18 for U3. This significant difference highlights the discriminative validity of
our tool.
The university with the lowest overall score for local integration was U1, but it also
had the highest score for ‘Proximity to urban infrastructure’ and was thus geographically
closest to the town. However, it had the lowest scores on “partnerships with local
organisations” and “use of the university by the local community”. In contrast, U3 had
the lowest mean score for ‘Proximity to urban infrastructure’ but the highest score for
‘Partnerships with local organisations’ and ‘Use of the university by the local
community’. In other words, proximity to urban infrastructure, as measured by proximity
to urban facilities and local transport facilities, does not seem to be a sufficient criterion
to evaluate the university’s integration in the town. The latter is linked not only to
distance in terms of space (proximity to urban facilities) or time (local transport facilities)
but also to its perceived distance from the local urban system. In contrast, the social and
economic links between local organisations and the university (i.e., shops and urban
services) seem to play an important role in the university’s integration. However, further
research is needed to validate this hypothesis.
It should also be noted that the university that opens its doors most to the local
community is U3, but that at the time of our observation it had the lowest number of non-
university people actually present. In other words, it is not because a university has
developed partnerships with local organisations that the local community uses its
facilities. Clearly, physical distance can be a barrier, particularly if local transport
facilities are poor, as is the case for U3. However, sociocultural barriers, notably
individuals’ relationships to their own schooling and access to university education,
should not be overlooked. The staff’s environmental satisfaction at work was evaluated
using the ESET (Moffat et al., 2016). Mean overall score was 3.24 (SD = 1.18), thus
above the theoretical mean of 3 (on a five-point Likert scale). This mean score is
278 E. Moffat et al.

statistically similar to the findings of Moffat (2016) with office workers employed in the
retail and health sectors (M = 3.40; SD = 1.28), and in the banking, insurance and finance
sector (M = 3.35; SD = 1.29) (p > 0.05). Generally, people working at the university
were thus moderately satisfied with their work environment. This was notably the case
for ‘quiet’ (M = 3.80; SD = 0.67), ‘Neighbourhood Attractiveness’ (M = 3.76; SD = 0.59)
and ‘green spaces’ (M = 3.69; SD = 0.59), which had the highest mean scores.
In contrast, mean score for ‘safety’ (M = 2.63; SD = 0.56) was below 3. This reflects a
common issue for French people highlighted in surveys in the last 10 years, and which
has probably increased since the terrorist attacks of January 2015, namely a perceived
lack of safety of persons and property (Brouard and Foucault, 2015).
As described above, the main aim of our research was to explore the links between
the university’s integration in the town and the staff’s satisfaction at work. First, our
results seem to indicate that the greater the university’s integration in the town, the lower
the staff’s environmental satisfaction at work. This is shown by comparison of mean
scores on the ESET and those obtained for ‘Neighbourhood attractiveness’ and
‘attractiveness of the university’. However, this finding should be qualified, as no
significant difference (at 0.05) was observed between the universities on the ESET
dimensions of ‘layout’, ‘quiet’ or ‘environmental alienation’. We can note that these three
dimensions specifically concern workspaces in the university and the staff’s professional
activities. In other words, satisfaction with the work-related environment is similar in all
types of university. In contrast, mean scores for ‘neighbourhood attractiveness’
(M = 2.63; SD = 0.66), ‘Transport’ (M = 2.62; SD = 0.93), ‘Green spaces’ (M = 3.06;
SD = 0.97) and particularly ‘Safety’ (M = 2.01; SD = 0.69), were all significantly lower
at U3. These dimensions are all linked to the environment outside the university. It is as if
the advantages of the neighbourhood (satisfaction with shops) and its disadvantages
(dissatisfaction with transport, green spaces, safety, etc.) are felt within the university.
This is supported by the low score for ‘attractiveness of the university’ (M = 2.68;
SD = 0.97), which could also explain why environmental satisfaction at work is lowest at
the university that has developed the closest ties with the town.

5 Conclusion

The main result of this study, probably counter-intuitive, seems to indicate that the more
the university is integrated locally, the lower the staff’s environmental satisfaction at
work. However, this finding should be seen in relation to the particular aspects of
environmental satisfaction involved. For example, while the dimensions that enable the
staff to carry out their core professional activities obtained similar scores in the three
universities, those that concern the negative aspects of the town yielded significantly
lower scores of satisfaction in the university with the highest score for local integration.
Currently, universities are strongly encouraged to form close links with their local town,
but overlooking their staff’s environmental satisfaction at work can only be
counter-productive, both for the employees themselves and for the university as a whole.
Indeed, environmental satisfaction at work (Daniel-Lacombe and Zetlaoui-Léger, 2012;
Menif, 2016) plays a role in the quality of use of an organisation, defined as the way that
quality is perceived and conceived, based not only on techniques and standards, but also
in relation to how it meets the users’ needs and expectations (Cerema-Centre d’études et
d’expertise sur les risques, 2015). However, like all research, certain limitations must be
 Environmental satisfaction at work of university administrative staff 279

noted. This study was based on only three universities, which clearly limits its scope.
From a methodological point of view, in order to collect all the data on the same day and
at the same time in the three universities, several observers were required. This raises the
question of inter-individual variability of the observers; it would have been better to carry
out these observations in pairs in order to evaluate this possibility.
The results of this study suggest two avenues for future research. First, our research
was exploratory as it investigated only three campuses. It would be interesting to extend
it to other campuses in order to refine our results and particularly to encourage the
participation of workers who may be concerned about the confidentiality of their
responses. Indeed, the participants frequently stressed the fact that the partnerships
between the university and the local town were very specific, making it fairly easy to
recognise the university. Moreover, by comparing our results with those obtained from
people working in the two other types of French university structure, those which are
town-based and autonomous establishments (Rioux, 2004), it would be possible to
understand in more depth the elements of the university’s integration that lead to the
workers’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Secondly, it would be interesting to analyse the extent to which personological
variables (psychosocial and/or sociodemographic and/or organisational) mediate the links
between satisfaction with the internal work environment and satisfaction with the
external urban environment; in other words, to identify employee profiles that have an
impact on the results.

References
Aries, M.B.C., Veitch, J.A. and Newsham, G.R. (2007) ‘Physical and psychological discomfort in
the office environment’, Proceedings of Symposium of the Dutch Light and Health Research
Foundation, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, pp.45–50.
Aries, M.B.C., Veitch, J.A. and Newsham, G.R. (2010) ‘Windows, view, and office characteristics
predict physical and psychological discomfort’, Journal of Environmental Psychology,
Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.533–541.
Bourdin, A. and Campagnac, E. (2014) ‘Éditorial’, Espaces et sociétés, Vol. 159, pp.7–15.
Bouzid, D. and Rioux, L. (2016) ‘The elaboration of an inventory of evaluation of the quality of
usage of an academic establishment’, Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov, Vol. 9,
No. 58, pp.9–18.
Brill, M., Weidemann, S., Allard, L., Olson, J. and Keable, E. (2001) Disproving widespread myths
about workplace design. Jasper: Kimball International.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments By Nature and
Design, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Brouard, S. and Foucault, M. (2015) ‘Après l’événement, l’impact des attentats de janvier 2015 sur
l’opinion’, Fondation Jean-Jaurès, Vol. 262, pp.1–13.
Carlopio, J. (1996) ‘Construct validity of a physical work environment satisfaction questionnaire’,
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.330–344.
Cerema-Centre d’études et d’expertise sur les risques, l’environnement, la mobilité et
l’aménagement (2015) La qualité d’usage des bâtiments Mars. Vers une approche globale des
enjeux spatiaux, fonctionnels et humains. Récupéré de : http://www.developpement-
durable.gouv.fr/IMG/Certu%20CEREMA%20Fiche%20qualit%C3%A9%20usage_batiments
_n_1_1.pdf
Dang Vu, H. (2011) L’action immobilière des universités mondialisées. Le plan campus au regard
des expériences américaines, britanniques et belges, Thèse de doctorat, Université Paris Est.
280 E. Moffat et al.

Dang Vu, H. (2014) ‘Les grandes universités face aux enjeux de la production urbaine’, Espaces et
sociétés, Vol. 159, pp.17–35.
Daniel-Lacombe, E. and Zetlaoui-Léger, J. (2012) L’aménagement des sites universitaires en
France, Quelle qualité d’usage, urbanistique et paysagère ? Récupéré de : http://www.let.
archi.fr/spip.php?article10950.
Enseignement Supérieur Recherche (2013) Les pratiques des villes et communautés, Volet 2
Université et stratégie urbaine, Récupéré de : http://www.letudiant.fr/static/uploads/
mediatheque/EDU_EDU/6/2/129162-etude-esr-volet-2-strategie-urbaine-colloque-avuf-10-
dec-2013-original.pdf
Fischer, G-N., Tarquinio, C. and Vischer, J. (2004) ‘Effects of the self-schema on perception of
space at work’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 24, pp.131–140.
Fleury-Bahi, G. and Marcouyeux, A. (2011) ‘Évaluer la satisfaction envers l’espace de travail:
développement d’une échelle et première validation’, Psychologie du travail et des
organisations, Vol. 17, pp.376–392.
Fornara, F., Bonaiuto, M. and Bonnes, M. (2013) ‘Les attentes du personnel hospitalier envers son
lieu de travail’, in Rioux, L., Le Roy, J., Rubens, L. and Le Conte, J. (Eds.): Le confort au
travail: Que nous apprend la psychologie environnementale?, Presses Universitaires de Laval,
Laval (Quebec, Canada), pp.225–244.
Gossauer, E., Leonhardt, R. and Wagner, A. (2006) ‘A survey on workplace occupant satisfaction -
a study in sixteen German office buildings’, 27th AIVC and 4th Epic Conference
‘Technologies & Sustainable Policies for a Radical Decrease of the Energy Consumption in
Buildings’, 20–22 November, 2006, Lyon, France.
Lebeau, B. and Vadelorge, L. (2014) ‘Les scenarii contradictoires du retour en ville : le cas de
l’université Paris XIII’, Espaces et sociétés, Vol. 159, pp.95–110.
Levy, R., Sodano, C. and Cuntigh, P. (2015) L’université et ses territoires: dynamismes des villes
moyennes et particularités de sites, Presses universitaires de Grenoble, Grenoble.
MENESR-DEPP, Ministère de l’Education Nationale, de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la
Recherche, Direction de l’évaluation, de la prospective et de la performance- (2016) Repères
et références statistiques sur les enseignements, la formation et la recherche. Rapport de
recherche, Ministère de l’éducation nationale, Direction de la programmation et du
développement.
MENESR-SIES, Ministère de l’Education Nationale, de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la
Recherche, Sous-direction des systèmes d’information et des études statistiques (2011) Les
effectifs d’étudiants dans le supérieur en 2010 : l’augmentation se poursuit, Récupéré de :
http://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid58454/les-effectifs-d-etudiants-dans-le-
superieur-en-2010-l-augmentation-se-poursuit.html
Menif, I. (2016) Le confort du personnel soignant. Etude comparative dans deux hôpitaux
tunisiens, Thèse de doctorat, université Paris Ouest, France.
Moffat, E. (2016) Validation de la version courte de l’Échelle de Satisfaction Environnementale au
Travail, Séminaire de recherche du Groupe de Recherches Environnementales de Paris Ouest
Nanterre-GREPON, Université de Nanterre.
Moffat, E., Rioux, L. and Mogenet, J.L. (2016) ’Développement et validation d’une Echelle de
Satisfaction Environnementale au Travail’, Psychologie française, Vol. 61, pp.196–206.
Moles, A. (1977) La psychologie de l’espace, Casterman, Paris.
Moles, A. and Rohmer, E. (1998) Psychosociologie de l’espace, textes rassemblés et présentés par
Schwach, V, L’Harmattan., Paris.
Nabli-Bouzid, D. (2015) ‘Elaboration d’une grille d’évaluation de la qualité d’usage d’un
établissement universitaire’, Poster présenté au 5ème colloque de l’Association pour la
Recherche en Psychologie Environnementale-ARPEnv « Transition écologique : de la
perception à l’action », Nanterre, 11–12 June, pp.11–12.
 Environmental satisfaction at work of university administrative staff 281

Newsham, G.R., Brand, J., Donnelly, C., Veitch, J.A., Aries, M.B.C. and Charles, K. (2009)
‘Linking indoor environment conditions to job satisfaction: a field study’, Building Research
& Information, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp.129–147.
Prost, A. (2012) ‘Les universités françaises de 1808 à 1968’, Commentaire, Vol. 137,
pp.156–160.
Raffaello, M. and Maas, A. (2002) ‘Chronic exposure to noise in industry’, Environment and
Behavior, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp.651–671.
Rioux, L. (2004) ‘Types de sites universitaires et appropriation de l’espace. Etude dans une
population d’étudiants d’IUT’, Psychologie Canadienne, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp.103–110.
Rioux, L. and Fouquereau, E. (2004) ‘Satisfaction de vie professionnelle et satisfaction liée aux
espaces de travail’, in Gangloff, B. (Ed.): La personne et ses rapports au travail, L’Harmattan,
Paris, pp.43–50.
Santamaria, F. (2000) ‘La notion de “ville moyenne” en France, en Espagne et au Royaume-Uni’,
Annales de géographie, Vol. 613, pp.227–239.
Shattock, M. (2004) ‘Politiques et gestion de l’enseignement supérieur’, Revue du programme sur
la gestion des établissements d’enseignement supérieur, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.1–166.
Sundstrom, E. and Sundstrom, M.G. (1986) Work Places: The Psychology of the Physical
Environment in Offices and Factories, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Veitch, J., Stokkermans, M. and Newsham, G.R. (2011) ‘Linking lighting appraisals to work
behaviors’, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp.198–214.
Veitch, J.A., Charles, K.E., Farley, K.M.J. and Newsham, G.R. (2007) ‘A model of satisfaction
with open-plan office conditions: COPE field findings’, Journal of Environmental Psychology,
Vol. 27, pp.177–189.
Vischer, J.C. (1996) Workspace Strategies: Environment as a Tool for Work, Chapman and Hall,
New York.
Wagner, A., Gossauer, E., Moosmann, C., Gropp, T. and Leonhart, R. (2007) ‘Thermal comfort
and workplace occupant satisfaction: results of field studies in German low energy office
buildings’, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 39, No. 7, pp.758–769.

Appendix

Appendix 1: Inventory of university’s integration in the town

1 Proximity to urban infrastructures

1.1 Proximity to urban facilities (tick only one answer per item)
1. Within the university
2. Less than 100 m
3. Less than 500 m
4. Approximately 1 km
5. More than 1 km
Public institutions
City hall 1 2 3 4 5
Police station 1 2 3 4 5
Post office 1 2 3 4 5
Préfecture 1 2 3 4 5
282 E. Moffat et al.

Hospital 1 2 3 4 5
Train station, subway station, bus or tram station 1 2 3 4 5
Another higher-education establishment 1 2 3 4 5
Another education establishment 1 2 3 4 5
Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
Shops and services
Restaurant 1 2 3 4 5
Hotel 1 2 3 4 5
Petrol station 1 2 3 4 5
Health centre, clinic 1 2 3 4 5
Dry Cleaning, Laundrette 1 2 3 4 5
Pharmacy 1 2 3 4 5
Bookshop 1 2 3 4 5
Bistro, café 1 2 3 4 5
Food Store 1 2 3 4 5
Boutique 1 2 3 4 5
Bank, ATM 1 2 3 4 5
Other_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
Professional services
Lawyer 1 2 3 4 5
Health specialist (doctor, dentist, therapist, nurse, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5
Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5

1.1 Proximity to urban facilities (tick only one answer per item) (continued)
1. Within the university
2. Less than 100 m
3. Less than 500 m
4. Approximately 1 km
5. More than 1 km
Cultural activities
Library 1 2 3 4 5
Museum, art gallery 1 2 3 4 5
Concert hall, theatre 1 2 3 4 5
Cinema 1 2 3 4 5
Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
Sports facilities
Stadium 1 2 3 4 5
Swimming pool 1 2 3 4 5
Gym 1 2 3 4 5
 Environmental satisfaction at work of university administrative staff 283

Dojo 1 2 3 4 5
Outdoor facilities (Climbing wall, fitness trail, playground) 1 2 3 4 5
Other_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
Public natural spaces
Public garden/park 1 2 3 4 5
Woodland 1 2 3 4 5
Lake, pond, river 1 2 3 4 5
Reservoir 1 2 3 4 5
Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5

1.2 Getting around (tick only one answer per item)

1. Very difficult
2. Difficult
3. Possible
4. Easy
5. Very easy
On foot 1 2 3 4 5
By car 1 2 3 4 5
By public transport 1 2 3 4 5
By bike 1 2 3 4 5
Car-sharing 1 2 3 4 5
Other_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5

2 Partnerships with local organisations

2.1 Events organised by local organisations and supported by the university

(tick only one answer per item)
1. Never
2. Occasionally (or weekend)
3. Once or twice a week
4. From 3 to 5 times a week
5. All week (including the weekend)
Sports activities 1 2 3 4 5
Volunteering activities 1 2 3 4 5
Cultural activities 1 2 3 4 5
Educational activities 1 2 3 4 5
Social activities 1 2 3 4 5
Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
284 E. Moffat et al.

2.2 Events organised in partnership with local organisations

(tick only one answer per item)
1. Never
2. Occasionally (or weekend)
3. Once or twice a week
4. From 3 to 5 times a week
5. All week (including the weekend)
Sports activities 1 2 3 4 5
Volunteering activities 1 2 3 4 5
Cultural activities 1 2 3 4 5
Educational activities 1 2 3 4 5
Social activities 1 2 3 4 5
Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5

3 Use of the university by the local community

3.1 Community access to the university (tick only one answer per item)
1. Never
2. Occasionally (or weekend)
3. Once or twice a week
4. From 3 to 5 times a week
5. All week (including the weekend)
Sports activities
Stadium 1 2 3 4 5
Swimming pool 1 2 3 4 5
Gym 1 2 3 4 5
Dojo 1 2 3 4 5
Outdoor facilities (Climbing wall, fitness trail, playground) 1 2 3 4 5
Other_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
Cultural activities
Auditorium 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom 1 2 3 4 5
Foyer 1 2 3 4 5
Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
Volunteering activities
Auditorium 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom 1 2 3 4 5
 Environmental satisfaction at work of university administrative staff 285

Foyer 1 2 3 4 5
Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
Educational activities
Classroom 1 2 3 4 5
Lecture theatre 1 2 3 4 5
Other_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
Social activities
Green spaces 1 2 3 4 5
Hall 1 2 3 4 5
Lecture hall 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom 1 2 3 4 5
Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5

3.2 Actual presence of people not students of the university

3.2.1 During normal study times (tick only one answer per item)
1. Nobody
2. One or two
3. From 3 to 20
4. From 21 to 50
5. More than 50
Sports activities
Stadium 1 2 3 4 5
Swimming pool 1 2 3 4 5
Gym 1 2 3 4 5
Dojo
Outdoor facilities (Climbing wall, fitness trail, playground) 1 2 3 4 5
Other_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
Cultural activities
Auditorium 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom 1 2 3 4 5
Foyer 1 2 3 4 5
Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
Volunteering activities
Auditorium 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom 1 2 3 4 5
Foyer 1 2 3 4 5
Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
286 E. Moffat et al.

Educational activities
Classroom 1 2 3 4 5
Lecture theatre 1 2 3 4 5
Other_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
Social activities
Green spaces 1 2 3 4 5
Foyer 1 2 3 4 5
Lecture theatre 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom 1 2 3 4 5
Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5

3.2.2 Outside normal study times (including weekend)

(Tick only one answer per item)
1 Nobody
2. One or two
3. From 3 to 10
4. From 11 to 20
5. More than 20
Sports activities
Stadium 1 2 3 4 5
Swimming pool 1 2 3 4 5
Gym 1 2 3 4 5
Dojo 1 2 3 4 5
Outdoor facilities (Climbing wall, fitness trail, playground) 1 2 3 4 5
Other_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
Cultural activities
Auditorium 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom 1 2 3 4 5
Foyer 1 2 3 4 5
Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
Volunteering activities
Auditorium 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom 1 2 3 4 5
Foyer 1 2 3 4 5
Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
Educational activities
Classroom 1 2 3 4 5
Lecture theatre 1 2 3 4 5
Other_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
 Environmental satisfaction at work of university administrative staff 287

Social activities
Green spaces 1 2 3 4 5
Foyer 1 2 3 4 5
Lecture theatre 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom 1 2 3 4 5
Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5
*Reverse-scored items.