Satisfaction_of_Students_Living_Environment_betwe (1)

Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 601 – 614
AicE-Bs2012 Cairo
ASIA Pacific International Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies
Mercure Le Sphinx Cairo Hotel, Giza, Egypt, 31 October 2 November 2012
-
Satisfaction of -
Campus and Off-Campus Settings: A conceptual overview
Muhammad Hilmy Muslim*, Hafazah Abdul Karim, Ishak Che Abdullah

Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam 40450, Malaysia
Abstract
Off-campus students are currently facing huge challenges associated with their living environment. Current trends of
housing development and rapid enrolment c inconvenience ways. The
objectives are: to identify the differences of living satisfaction aspects between on-campus and off-campus indicators
relevant to student housing, and to identify the factor of living satisfaction faced by this group of students. This
conceptual paper will focus on literature review on the satisfaction of living off-campus environment for university
-being in relation to their living
satisfaction.
© 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
© 2012 Published
Selection by Elsevier
and peer-review underLtd. Selection of
responsibility andthepeer-review under responsibility of the
Centre for Environment-Behaviour Centre
Studies for Environment-
(cE-Bs), Faculty of
Behaviour Studies (cE-Bs), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying,
Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.
Keywords: Living satisfaction; residential environment; student housing; on-campus and off-campus
1. Introduction
In recent decades student enrolments have grown rapidly in Malaysia. This status quo increases the
demand for student accommodation. The establishment and development of student housing is a
challenge for many universities in Malaysia as a result of the continuing extension of higher education
institutions and rising student numbers. The higher educational institution (HEI) provided
accommodation facilities in Malaysia generally have few vacancies, and each year the number of
applicants exceeds the available accommodation. The majority of the student population rents
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +6-017-223-0401.
E-mail address: hilmymuslim89@gmail.com.
1877-0428 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies (cE-Bs), Faculty of Architecture,
Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.252
602 Muhammad Hilmy Muslim et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 601 – 614
accommodation on the private housing market. Questions related to the housing situation of students have
become an issue in both public and professional considerations (Ismail, 2010). In Malaysia, the growth in
student enrolments from 664,402 to 1,134,134 persons from 2002 - 2010 (MOHE, 2011), has led to
greater interest in questions related to student accommodation.
This research refers the housing situation of students in Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), a main
university campus in Shah Alam, Malaysia. Here, out of a total population of 54 000 students, 11 677
students (21.6%) rent accommodation including the student who live in their (Non-
Resident Management Unit, 2012). Nowadays, institutionally provided student housing lies within the
responsibility of Residential College Unit and Non-Resident Management Unit supported by the Student
Affairs Division of UiTM.
Living environment can be examined from various standpoints, such as an architectural, economic,
social and cultural perspective. In recent decades, the interest in research on living environment has risen,
and various approaches, concepts and viewpoints have been applied by housing researchers from an
extensive range of disciplines. Lawrence as cited in Thomsen (2008), divides existing housing research
into two classes: Urban and housing politics and sociology, and studies of people and their surroundings.
Urban and housing politics and sociology have in general contributed to understanding the market
mechanisms of housing supply and demand, and the living conditions of different social groups. The
second category, studies of people and their surroundings have commonly focused on the viewpoints of
the individual on housing. As housing is a complex field that comprises many disciplines, Lawrence calls
for an interdisciplinary research approach that applies the knowledge from various disciplines, and thus
enabling simultaneously address interdependent factors (Thomsen, 2008).
The present work is an example of interdisciplinary research, which involved researchers from the
fields of sociology and planning. The focus is on the perspectives of the individual student residents,
contributing to studies of people and their surroundings. This conceptual paper intends to investigate the
aspects which influence the living satisfaction level of the off-campus residents.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Concept and
Student housing presents a unique opportunity for student affairs administrators to contribute to and
support the educational experience of the university student. Besides that, the student housing play a role
as a place of shelter. Strange and Banning cited in Crimmin (2008) proposed three conditions that help
make
for involvement; and an experience of neighbourhood. Banning and Kaiser cited in Crimmin (2008),
examination of the ecological perspective on the relationship between students and their environments
relationship is the responsibility of the institution to create an environment conducive to meeting the
educational needs of the population (Crimmin, 2008).
Ware and Miller cited in Frazier (2009) reviewed research trends in student life, and found that even
though there were some differences in the how the studies were conducted; student housing play an
important role in the success of university students. Student housing plays an important role in the
enrolment of students and the adequacy of facilities can add to the desire them to remain on campus. They
drew the following conclusions from several studies:
Bowman and Partin in (Frazier, 2009) conducted a study to be determine if there is a significant
difference between the academic achievement of students that lived on-campus and their off-campus
Muhammad Hilmy Muslim et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 601 – 614 603
counterparts, as measured by grade point average (GPA). Bowman and Partin stated no statistically
significant differences in grade point averages of students regardless of residence.
Thompson, Samiratedu, and Rafter in (Frazier, 2009) claimed that progress and retention were higher
among students who lived on-campus, regardless of race, gender, or condition of admittance. Students
engaged in remedial work were shown to have performed better than their off-campus counterparts.
Headershott, Wright, and Henderson in (Frazier, 2009) conducted a survey to measure the quality of
life within the university community. With regard to on-campus living environment, the study found that
students were less satisfied with university housing than with their academic or social lives. The
researchers attributed this to space limitations, lack of privacy, lack of freedom, and poor maintenance
that is commonly found in on-campus housing.
The quality of life a student has while living in on-campus housing will dictate whether or not that the
student chooses to remain in that environment. If that the student has had a quality experience they will
share that with others and encourage them to become involved with opportunities that have been
presented to them ( h, 2011).
2.1.1. On-campus living experience

Research on the impact of on-campus living satisfaction on student development has consistently
having a positive living and learning experience. Students that have a positive experience are more likely
to see their program through to completion and have increased satisfaction with their overall university
experience. The following studies demonstrate that while on-campus living may look and feel the same in
many places, the way the program is viewed and experienced by the students is not.
Popovics as cited in Thomsen (2008) that convenience, independence, security, and privacy were
perceived as advantages, although visitation restriction, rules, and noise were perceived as negative
elements of living in the on-campus environment.
Li et al. in Thomsen (2008) has conducted a research in investigating on student satisfaction with their
current living arrangements in the on-campus housing whether they plan to live on-campus and whether
they plan to move off-campus for next year. Li et al. in Thomsen (2008) found that following six items
were significant, positive predictors of returning to the on-campus housing the following year: (a) ability
to be on a dining plan; (b) leadership opportunities, (c) location close to campus, (d) ability to choose
where to live, (e) academic support available, and (f) high-speed Internet connection. Items that were
significant negative predictors were: (a) ability to cook meals, (b) length of lease/contract, (c) proximity
to campus/town, (d) private bathroom, and (e) parking accommodations, (f) ability to live with or near
friends, and (g) ability to study where you live. They also found the most significant predictors of
returning to the on-campus housing were also generally significant negative predictors of living off-
campus.
2.1.2. Off-campus living experience

Li et al. in Thomsen (2008)
off-campus. Demographic characteristics that significantly predicted a higher possibility of living off-
campus was male gender. Significant positive reasons for students intending to live off-campus were: (a)
ability to cook meals, (b) length of lease/contract, (c) proximity to campus/town, (d) parking
accommodation, (e) ability to live with or near friends, and (f) a private bathroom. Significant negative
-campus next year included: (a) the ability to be on a dining
plan, (b) leadership opportunities, (c) academic support available, (d) high speed internet options, (e)
Academic achievement is not significantly influence

uncertain nature, Dasimah et al. (2011) reported that academic achievement of off-campus students are
not influenced by the environment although living as off-campus is said to be more challenging than
staying on campus.
2.2. Brief
Living satisfaction for students has been dismissed by some researchers, since it seems that it is not
directly tied to any sort of educational outcome (Twale & Damron, 1991). Nonetheless, some universities
have been using these data better understand the university student life, change the campus
environment, and simultaneously create a campus more conducive to the development of students (Nayor,
2009; Survey Unit, 2008; Thomsen, 2008)
large public institution, utilized data provided by 5,310 respondents of student. These data revealed that
peer relationships had the strongest effect on student satisfaction (Survey Unit, 2008). The peer
relationships could be manifested in many ways, including satisfaction with the behaviour of other
(Survey Unit,
2008). Along these same lines, dissatisfaction with managerial components such as physical
surroundings; the safety and security of the residential building; and the difficulty of working with the
central office were also shown significantly impact satisfaction. Similarly, a strong relationship between
the residential advisor and the student correlates to a higher measure of satisfaction (Survey Unit, 2008).
Despite the importance universities attach to satisfaction data and the multiple ways they measure it, a
common and shared understanding of satisfaction as a construct has not yet attained. Developing an
understanding of student satisfaction is necessary in determining the effect that the living environment
has on it. Further, it will help to determine the extent to which satisfaction with the living environment
affects wellbeing.
2.3. Student housing situation in Malaysia and overseas
The matter of student housing has been addressed from a number of viewpoints. Disciplines such as
urban development and planning, geography and housing policies are concerned with issues associated to
student community, as it has been witnessed that a high concentration of student residents in specific
areas has effects for these urban neighbourhoods(Sabri & Ahmad Nazri, 2009; Smith & Denholm, 2006),
as for instance on the social cohesion. Other matters are related to questions on how to adapt students and
what is appropriate housing for these provisional residents. The type of housing, the standard and the
architectural design is important issues in this context. To understand what students consider being
suitable and satisfactory housing, shall to investigate their points of view.
Despite the reluctance to outsource student housing operations, it is evident nationwide that housing
facilities are in major disrepair and are virtually obsolete when faced with the incr
college students. On-campus dormitories built in the 1950s and 1960s is the most predominant housing
option for students, which typically consist of single rooms housing two students each in long corridors
that do not provide much, if any, privacy.
Additionally, most traditional dormitories do not have the highly-desired amenities and building
infrastructure that students and their parents now see as essential to the university experience. Such
amenities and infrastructure include fitness and recreation centres, wireless networking capabilities,
kitchens, and single bedrooms with private bathrooms. Universities are continuing to find themselves to
be competing with the off-campus private housing market as it caters to student preferences, offers a
continual supply of appealing amenities and is often close enough to campuses to allow for a reasonable
commute to classes (Survey Unit, 2008).
Furthermore, a shortage of student housing exists nationwide as the majority of university students at
-campus (Amole, 2011; Dasimah et al., 2011; Ng, 2005;
Turley & Wodtke, 2010). With increasing enrolments and many universities reserving on-campus beds
for first-year students and upper-class students are often forced into the local communities where there is
either not enough local housing to meet the demand or not enough housing that meets the local
In order to accommodate more students and attract them to campus, universities are developing and
constructing new housing facilities. However, it is important to remember that constructing new on-
campus student housing can be cost prohibitive to many universities.
3. Methodology
This paper seeks to determine the differences of living satisfaction aspects between on-campus and
off-campus indicators relevant to student housingand to ascertain how these factors of living satisfaction
are being formed.It draws on the findings from this study which involved content analysis methods. This
study involves both qualitative and quantitative description in the analysis.
3.1. Content analysis
Content analysis is a research technique for the objective, systematic, and quantitative description of
the manifest content of communication (Franzosi, n.d). The content analysis technique attempts to
characterize the meanings in a given body of discourse in a systematic and quantitative fashion (Kaplan,
1943). Thematic analysis is the most common approach in content analysis. In thematic analysis, the
coding scheme is based on categories designed to capture the dominant themes in text.
3.1.1. Coding scheme

The coding scheme is the set of all coding categories applied to a collection of texts, in which a
. The scheme is
systematically applied to all selected texts for the purpose of extracting uniform and standardized data.
The main themes adapted from the literature
neighbourhood The rich texts of data are

coded by using NVivo, a Computer Aided Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) designed to
aid the analyses of qualitative data. The themes depending on the specific type of content analysis, the
numbers are the result of counting.
satisfaction in on-campus and off-campus environment is
living satisfaction were
categorized using a residential satisfaction factor namely:
activities; community facilities and services; neighbourhood physical surroundings; cost of living; and
3.1.2. Sampling procedure

Sampling provides an efficient and cost-effective way to achieve research results. The researchers
meet to use journal sources of 20 studies from 1997 to 2012 to determine the main themes to be used to
code the data. In term of data validity of sampling frame, the various sources of 20 studies have the basic
that is trying to measure. The function of sources and
sampling frame adopted base on systematic comparative analyses.
4. Discussion and Analysis
There are numerous reasons that lead increasingly to evaluate living environment. First of all,
assessing living environment provides the basis for taking decisions about improvements in current
housing stock and about the design and development of future housing. Second, the idea that an
evaluation of the performance of housing may be conducted makes housing managers, planners, designers
and policy makers more accountable (Mohit, Ibrahim, & Rashid, 2010). A suitable criterion has to be
developed to evaluate the performance of housing, and definitely, many indicators of performance have
been proposed over the years. Amongst the various criteria proposed, the concept of satisfaction has
become the most widely used in evaluating living environments. It has been used largely to assess the
performance of all types of living environments (Adriaanse, 2007; Amole, 2009a, 2009b, 2011; Dasimah,
2008, 2009; Dasimah et al., 2011; Garrard, 2006; Hafazah, 2008; Helfrich, 2011; Mohit et al., 2010;
Nayor, 2009; ; Samuels & Luskin, 2010; M. Sirgy, Grzeskowiak, & Rahtz,
2006; Survey Unit, 2008; Thomsen, 2008; Thomsen & Eikemo, 2010; Turley & Wodtke, 2010; Wade,
2009; Xiao, Tang, & Shim, 2009; Zullig, Huebner, & Pun, 2009). Satisfaction is defined as a measure of
(Khozaei, Ramayah, Hassan, & Surienty, 2012). It
is considered a very useful norm in the evaluation of housing because it indicates the general levels of
and cognitive responses, points out the irksome aspects of living
environments and predicts user responses to future environments (Amole, 2009a). It also helps to identify
the contribution of various factors to the satisfaction, the differences between different types of factors
and the relationships between various dimensions of the residential environment. In addition, satisfaction
is considered an important indicator of the quality of life, well-being and happiness (Hafazah, 2008;
Rapley, 2003). Unfortunately, majority of studies on residential satisfaction have been conducted in
Western countries. These studies have examined how satisfied users are with their environments, the
factors which account for satisfaction or dissatisfaction and the models which may explain satisfaction.
However, there is very little research to inform us whether or not the results of the studies are
generalizable to other developing countries. Hence, more research is needed in other contexts, to test the
generalizability of the results and the models developed in Western contexts. In addition, most of the
studies which examine living satisfaction have focused more on social and management attributes of
housing than on its physical attributes. Hence, these studies have been of very little influence and
significance for design and planning professionals.
Table 1. Frequency of coded category by author/ source
(Source: Author, 2012)

The coding scheme as discussed earlier revealed interesting findings that show the frequency level of
living satisfaction aspect commonly recur (refer Table 1). The huge concerns of living satisfaction aspect
discovered by authors are Most authors highlighted that types of
accommodation; location and proximity to campus; and usability and arrangement of space are important
factors condition domain.
aspect is the second highest frequent mentioned by several authors. The
main factor fo that authors frequently stated are housemate social interaction as
well as neighbourhood interaction.
The third highest aspect being raised by the authors is community facilities and services. Most authors
often bring up aspects such as accessibility, availability and maintenance of facilities and services.
4.1. Aspect of
There is a comprehensive summary of the evidence supporting the notion that aspect of living
environment in 2.). A synthesis of
on that are contain
, community facilities and services, neighbourhood
The aspects taken into consideration were
discussed earlier in the literature review.
Table 2.
Category Specific Aspect Author/Source

Type of accommodation (Adriaanse, 2007; Ahmad Hariza, 2003; Amole,
condition 2009a; Dasimah et al., 2011; Frazier, 2009; Garrard,
Location/proximity
2006; Helfrich, 2011; Khozaei et al., 2012; Mohit et
Architectural aspects al., 2010; Nayor, 2009; Ng, 2005;
Internal dwelling facilities and features al., 2011; Survey Unit, 2008; Thomsen, 2008;
Tiirkoglu, 1997)
Usability and arrangement of space
Size and physical condition of dwelling
Dwelling densities
Storage and furniture
Maintenance
Housemate/roommate social interaction (Adriaanse, 2007; Ahmad Hariza, 2003; Amole,
activities 2009a; Dasimah et al., 2011; Garrard, 2006; Hassan,
Neighbourhood interaction
2011; Helfrich, 2011; Khozaei et al., 2012; Mohit et
al., 2010; Nayor, 2009; M. Sirgy et al., 2006;
Acceptance of student by local resident Thomsen, 2008; Tiirkoglu, 1997; Zullig et al., 2009)
neighbourhood activities
Community Accessibility to campus, city centre, health (Dasimah et al., 2011; Frazier, 2009; Hassan, 2011;
facilities and services, shopping and municipal services Helfrich, 2011; Mohit et al., 2010; Nayor, 2009; Ng,
services 2005; ; M. Sirgy et al.,
Availability and maintenance of social,
recreational and educational services 2006; Thomsen, 2008; Tiirkoglu, 1997)
Availability of public/neighbourhood facilities

Neighbourhood Personalization and identity (Adriaanse, 2007; Amole, 2009a; Dasimah et al.,
physical Privacy 2011; Khozaei et al., 2012; Mohit et al., 2010; Ng,
surroundings 2005; Thomsen, 2008; Tiirkoglu, 1997; Yu & Lee,
Security 2008)
Safety
Health
Cost of living Financial status (Amole, 2009a; Dasimah et al., 2011; Mohit et al.,
2010; Survey Unit, 2008; Xiao et al., 2009)
Financial behaviour
Living expanses
Source of information and advice in choosing (Adriaanse, 2007; Frazier, 2009; Garrard, 2006;
preference accommodation 2011; Survey Unit, 2008)
Time taken to search for accommodation
Length of lease/contract
Understanding about preference for private house
Building social network and developing friendship
Freedom to choose where to live
Preferred accommodation features
Getting connected and staying safe
4.2. Assessment of
Previous studies have introduced several models to measure living satisfaction. For example,
neighborhood and dwelling context (Adriaanse, 2007); household satisfaction index,

consists of questions on the overall satisfaction, expectations and shortcomings of the house (Survey Unit,
2008).
According to Weidemann and Anderson cited in ),living satisfaction index
sfied are you with living
behavior
Amole (2009a) modified the living satisfaction index to suit the student housing
ou with living
another accommodation in the near fu behaviour.

The basis for living satisfaction or relative satisfaction index is that satisfaction can be explained by
overall housing satisfaction and loyalty behavior(Amole, 2009a). Relative satisfaction index covers only
the bedroom in measuring student satisfaction; therefore, there is a need to develop a new index that
covers the entire off-campus living environment. Consequently, for this research, a student living
satisfaction index is developed to conceptualize student living satisfaction as a perception of student
development as a result of the student experience living in the accommodation. Anderson in Nurul
) highlights that satisfaction and loyalty levels are linked with extremely dissatisfied
customers engaged in slightly more disloyal behavior than extremely satisfied customers.
(
et al., 2011). The following describes the overall satisfaction and loyalty behaviour in greater details.
4.2.1. Overall living satisfaction by students

This item indicates the response of living satisfaction from students on the overall perception of
student housing facilities. According to Nayor (2009), this item is about a feeling response and it falls
under the affective dimension. Amole (2009a); M. Sirgy et al. (2006); M. J. Sirgy, Rahtz, Cicic, and
Underwood (1998) claim that living satisfaction will contribute to overall life satisfaction. Thomsen
(2008) argues that greater student living satisfaction can be attained through a less institutional housing
atmosphere that promotes a homelike environment. If the institutional environment is welcoming,
students will be highly satisfied with the surroundings in general (Thomsen & Eikemo, 2010).
Satisfactory environments in student housing are conceptualized where it can stimulate a silence, less
crowding, privacy and suitable room sizes (Twale & Damron, 1991). Thus, absolute living satisfaction
can be obtained when student needs are met (Khozaei et al., 2012).
4.2.2. Loyalty behaviour

The loyalty behaviour consist a duration of staying, retention and recommendation, act as a forecaster
of satisfaction. For instance, the longer students staying in dwelling, the more satisfied they become. The
criteria of loyalty behaviour are discussed as follows.
4.2.2.1. Duration of staying

Francescato et al. cited in ) signify that this item is under the cognitive
dimension where
the period of staying in the particular residence (Amole, 2009a; Parkes, Kearns, & Atkinson, 2002). The
longer the students stay in their residences, the more they are satisfied with their housing. If students are
satisfied with their housing, the students will continue to reside in the same houses in the following
semester (Khozaei et al., 2012; 11). The extended stay is likely to be due to an
adaptation with the living conditions, convenience and reasonable rental rates (Amole, 2009a; Mohit et
al., 2010; Survey Unit, 2008; Yu & Lee, 2008). Otherwise, the presence of strong social ties such as good
friendships also promotes a longer stay in a residence (Adriaanse, 2007; Dasimah et al., 2011; Helfrich,
2011; Zullig et al., 2009).
4.2.2.2. Retention
Nathanson et al. cited in ) categorize migration into a behavioural dimension.
This item reflects that satisfied persons have the tendency to find new houses that are similar to the ones
they live in before they reach a new place, or in other words, congruent to their personal past experiences
(Nayor, 2009). Song and Yan cited in ) profess that mobility is unavoidable due
to increases in income regardless of the level of enjoyment. If a person is satisfied, he/she will repurchase
the same brands they purchased in the future and the intention to change are eradicated (Survey Unit,
2008).
4.2.2.3. Recommendation
Weidemann and Anderson cited in ) refer this item as a behavioural
dimension, where satisfied individuals will have the intention to recommend a place to another. Similarly,
M. J. Sirgy, Grzeskowiak, and Su (2005)stress that when a resident has a good experience with the living
environment, they will feel encourage to promote or share their satisfaction to the people they know.
5. Recommendation
Studies on living satisfaction from the student perspective are mostly focused on factors affecting
(Nayor, 2009) and the influence of social
interaction in the living environment (Wade, 2009). There are also studies on student housing with
narrower scopes such as gender differences in user responses to students housing (Amole, 2012);
relationship of student housing environment between academic self-concept (Helfrich, 2011)
sense of attachment with a particular student housing (Khozaei et al., 2012)
behavior based on the type of student housing environment (Willoughby & Carroll, 2009); and the
relationship between satisfaction and levels of environment (Amole, 2009b). These studies offer little
guidance as to whether the students are satisfied with student living provided. Among the limited studies
Amole (2009a), Hassan (2011) and
(2011). Amole (2009a) investigates living satisfaction among students in Nigeria and the findings
indicated a low satisfaction with their living environment. Hassan (2011) researched student satisfaction
levels in Middle-East and the findings indicated a level of satisfaction with on-campus residences.
However, the studies were conducted in countries where the culture and climate are different from that
experienced in the Southeast Asia region, which is likely to affect the perceived environment of the built
environment On the other hand, ) who conducted similar studies in Malaysia
found
the studies were conducted for on-campus living environment where the living setting is different from
that experienced off-campus housing. Therefore, the results of the studies may not be relevant to the study
context.
Objective attribute of living Subjective attribute of

environment living environment
Physical Attributes
Satisfaction / Dissatisfaction
Condition with Physical Attributes
Community Facilities & impression Living

Services based on
Satisfaction
individual
Neighborhood Physical values
Surroundings Satisfaction / Dissatisfaction Satisfaction will lead
with Social/ Financial/ to:
Longer staying
Management Attributes
Management Retention in the

Social/ Financial/
Demographic same house

Activities Characteristics Recommendation
the house to others
Cost of Living
Fig. 1. Relationship between objective and subjective attributes of living environment to the determination of
satisfaction
The conceptual framework of the paper being developed based on the notion that living satisfaction is
a multiple concept of the indices of satisfaction which students perceive with living condition, social
activities, community facilities and services, neighborhood physical surroundings, living cost and
(Amole, 2009a; Mohit et al., 2010; ). According to Amole
(2009a), objective attributes of the residential environment, once they have been evaluated by the
individual become subjective giving rise to a certain degree of satisfaction. Subjective attributes are
-demographic and individual characteristics as well as his/her residential
quality pattern, a normative element whereby the individual compares his/ her real and ideal living
environment. The
housing through their socio-economic and demographic characteristics becomes subjective attributes
which can be captured into five components of off-campus housing satisfaction and these five
components together form the basis of living satisfaction of the residents. The new model is developed by
combining several relevant attribute of living environment by previous studies.
6. Conclusion
This paper has revealed some sort of

are very informative for all university stakeholders in providing the conducive living environment for
student that may increase their well-being. From the findings it can be summarized that there are many
satisfaction/dissatisfaction in some ways that will give a positive/negative effect on their studies and
student development as a whole.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledged the financial support provided by the Research Management Institute of
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia for this research under Research Intensive Faculty grant [Project
Code: 600-RMI/DANA 5/3/RIF (281/2012)].
References
Adriaanse, C. C. M. (2007). Measuring residential satisfaction: a residential environmental satisfaction scale (RESS). Journal of
Housing and the Built Environment, 22(3).
Ahmad Hariza, H. (2003). Residential Satisfaction and Social Integration in Public Low Cost Housing in Malaysia. Pertanika
Journal Social Science & Humanities, 11(1), 1-10.
Amole, D. (2009a). Residential satisfaction in students' housing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 76-85.
Amole, D. (2009b). Residential Satisfaction and Levels of Environment in Students' Residences. [Article]. Environment and
Behavior, 41(6), 866-879. doi: 10.1177/0013916508322175
Amole, D. (2011). Students' Housing Preferences In Southwestern Nigeria. [Article]. Journal of Architectural and Planning
Research, 28(1), 44-57.
Amole, D. (2012). Gender Differences in User Responses to Students Housing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 38(0),
89-99. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.328
Crimmin, N. P. (2008). An evaluation of college sophomore living environments: Traditional residence compared to a living
learning community with respect to interaction with faculty, peers, and satisfaction with living area. Ed.D. 3315767,
Johnson & Wales University, United States -- Rhode Island. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/193996728?accountid=42518 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database.
Dasimah, O. (2008). Communal Living Environment in Low Cost Housing Development in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 4(10),
98-105.
Dasimah, O. (2 Asian Social Science, 5(6), 94-102.
Dasimah, O., Faizul, A., Fatimah, Y., Hazlina, H., Naasah, N., & Ishak, C. A. (2011). The Impacts of Off-Campus Students on
Local Neighbourhood in Malaysia. [Research paper]. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology(58), 7.
Franzosi, R. (n.d). Content Analysis. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social
Science Research Methods (187-190).
Frazier, W. R. (2009). A study of themed residential learning communities at a Midwest four-year university: North Dakota State
University. Ph.D. 3362697, North Dakota State University, United States -- North Dakota. Retrieved from
Garrard, D. C. (2006). The relation between a student's choice of living arrangement and student effort, achievement and college
satisfaction. Ed.D. 3303427, The University of Texas at Austin, United States -- Texas. Retrieved from
Hafazah, A. K. (2008). The Satisfaction of Residents on Community Facilities in Shah Alam, Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 4(11),
131-137.
Hassan, K. E. (2011). Quality of College Life (QCL): Validation of a Measure of Student Well- being in the Middle East. The
International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 8(1), 12-22.
Helfrich, S. M. (2011). Understanding the relationship between undergraduate housing environments and academic self-concept.
D.Ed. 3483710, The Pennsylvania State University, United States -- Pennsylvania. Retrieved from
Ismail, A. J. (2010, 29 March 2011). MAPUM Utamakan Kualiti Kolel Kediaman Universiti, New Sabah Times. Retrieved from
http://eprints.ums.edu.my/2364/1/nc0000000279.pdf
Kaplan, A. (1943). Content Analysis and theory of signs. Philosophy of Science, 10, 230-247.
Khozaei, F., Ramayah, T., Hassan, A. S., & Surienty, L. (2012). Sense of Attachment to Place and Fulfilled Preferences, the
Mediating Role of Housing Satisfaction. [Research Paper]. Property Management, 30(3), 25.
MOHE. (2011). Statistics of Higher Education of Malaysia 2010 (P. a. R. Division, Trans.) (First ed., pp. 118). Putrajaya: Ministry
of Higher Education Malaysia.
Mohit, M. A., Ibrahim, M., & Rashid, Y. R. (2010). Assessment of residential satisfaction in newly designed public low-cost
housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat International(34), 10.
Nayor, G. J. (2009). Predictors of student persistence: Student satisfaction and aspects of the residential environment. Ph.D.
3400828, University of Virginia, United States -- Virginia. Retrieved from
Ng, S. L. (2005). Subjective Residential Environment and its Implications for Quality of Life Among University Students in Hong
Kong Social Indicators Research, 71(1-3), 467-489.
paper]. Journal of Facilities Management, 9(3), 200-212.

Parkes, A., Kearns, A., & Atkinson, R. (2002). What makes people dissatisfied with their neighbourhoods? Urban Studies, 39(13),
13-38.
Rapley, M. (2003). A Life of Quality Just What Does QOL Mean? Quality of Life Research. London: SAGE Publications.
Sabri, S., & Ahmad Nazri, M. L. (2009, 25th - 26th February). "Studentification" is it a key factor within the Residential Decision-
Making Process in Kuala Lumpur? Paper presented at the South East Asian Technical Universities
Consortium(SEATUC) - 3rd SEATUC Symposium Proceeding, Johor Bahru.
Samuels, S. L., & Luskin, E. D. (2010). Student Preferences in Housing Survey data analysis: preferred unit styles and costs (pp.
10): The Scoin Group LLC.
Sirgy, M., Grzeskowiak, S., & Rahtz, D. (2006). Quality of College Life (QCL) of Students: Developing and Validating a Measure
of Well-Being. Social Indicators Research, 80(2), 343-360. doi: 10.1007/s11205-005-5921-9
Sirgy, M. J., Grzeskowiak, S., & Su, C. (2005). Explaining housing preference and choice: The role of self-congruity and functional
congruity. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20(4), 329-347.
Sirgy, M. J., Rahtz, D. R., Cicic, M., & Underwood, R. (1998). A method for assessing residents' satisfaction with community-based
services: a quality-of-life perspective Social Indicators Research, 49(3), 279-316.
Smith, D., & Denholm, J. (2006). 'Studentification': A Guide to Opportunities, Challenges and Practice Management Guidance (pp.
54). London: Universities UK.
Nottingham.
Thomsen, J. (2008). Student Housing Student Homes? Aspects of Student Housing Satisfaction. Philosophy Doctor, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
Thomsen, J., & Eikemo, T. A. (2010). Aspects of student housing satisfaction: a quantitative study. J Hous and the Built Environ,
21.
Landscape and Urban
Planning, 39(1997), 13.
Turley, R. N. L., & Wodtke, G. (2010). College Residence and Academic Performance: Who Benefits From Living on Campus?
Urban Education, 45(4), 506 532. doi: DOI: 10.1177/0042085910372351
Twale, D. J., & Damron, J. (1991). The Quality of Residence Life at Auburn University. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED330260
Wade, J. E. (2009). The influence of collegiate living environments on social self-efficacy. Ph.D. 3351875, Saint Louis University,
United States -- Missouri. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304997861?accountid=42518 ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database.
Willoughby, B. J. P., & Carroll, J. S. P. (2009). The Impact of Living in Co-ed Resident Halls on Risk-taking Among College
Students. Journal of American College Health, 58(3), 241-246. doi: 10.1016/s0272-7358(03)00071-0.
10.1080/07448480009599305
Xiao, J., Tang, C., & Shim, S. (2009). Acting for Happiness: Financial Behavior and Life Satisfaction of College Students. Social
Indicators Research, 92(1), 53-68. doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9288-6
Yu, G., & Lee, D.-J. (2008). A Model of Quality of College Life (QCL) of Students in Korea. Social Indicators Research, 87(2),
269-285. doi: 10.1007/s11205-007-9172-9
Zullig, K., Huebner, E., & Pun, S. (2009). Demographic Correlates of Domain-Based Life Satisfaction Reports of College Students.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(2), 229-238. doi: 10.1007/s10902-007-9077-y

Satisfaction_of_Students_Living_Environment_betwe (1)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Satisfaction_of_Students_Living_Environment_betwe (1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 601 – 614

Muhammad Hilmy Muslim*, Hafazah Abdul Karim, Ishak Che Abdullah

1877-0428 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

2.1. Concept and

2.1.1. On-campus living experience

2.1.2. Off-campus living experience

Academic achievement is not significantly influence

2.3. Student housing situation in Malaysia and overseas

3.1. Content analysis

3.1.1. Coding scheme

neighbourhood The rich texts of data are

3.1.2. Sampling procedure

4. Discussion and Analysis

Table 1. Frequency of coded category by author/ source

(Source: Author, 2012)

Category Specific Aspect Author/Source

Availability of public/neighbourhood facilities

neighborhood and dwelling context (Adriaanse, 2007); household satisfaction index,

another accommodation in the near fu behaviour.

4.2.1. Overall living satisfaction by students

4.2.2. Loyalty behaviour

4.2.2.1. Duration of staying

Objective attribute of living Subjective attribute of

Community Facilities & impression Living

Management Retention in the

Demographic same house

This paper has revealed some sort of

paper]. Journal of Facilities Management, 9(3), 200-212.

You might also like