Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

Residential satisfaction in students’ housingq

Dolapo Amole*
Department of Architecture, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper reports the results of a study of residential satisfaction in students’ housing in Nigeria. The
Available online 20 May 2008 study examined how satisfied students were and the factors which predicted residential satisfaction.
Specifically, it examined whether the morphological configurations of the halls of residence would
Keywords: predict residential satisfaction. Data were obtained from questionnaires distributed to a sample of 1124
Students’ housing respondents from all the halls of residences in four residential universities in Southwestern Nigeria. The
Residential satisfaction data comprised objective and subjective measures of the physical, social and management attributes of
Morphology
the halls of residence. These were analyzed using frequencies, factor analysis and categorical regression
Nigeria
models. More than half (53%) of the respondents were dissatisfied with their residences and the variables
which explained satisfaction were the social qualities of the residences, especially, the social densities;
the kitchenette, bathroom and storage facilities and some demographic characteristics of the students.
The morphological configuration of the halls of residence was also found to be a predictor of satisfaction
and the characteristics which appeared most significant were the plan form and the length of the cor-
ridor. The regression model explained 65% of the variance in R2. An instructive finding was that satis-
faction appeared most critical in the bedroom.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction & Kangari, 2005; Wiedemann & Anderson, 1985). Satisfaction is

It has become increasingly important to evaluate housing for
many reasons. First of all, housing has become the target of critics
and the media for being highly unsatisfactory even though there is
little or no empirical evidence to back these claims. Second, eval-
uating housing provides the necessary information required for
‘feed-back’ into current housing stock and ‘feed-forward’ into
future projects (Preiser, 1989). It provides the basis for taking de-
cisions about improvements in current housing stock and about the
design and development of future housing. Third, the idea that an
evaluation of the performance of housing may be conducted makes
housing managers, designers and policy makers more accountable.
To evaluate the performance of housing, however, a suitable
criterion has to be developed, and indeed, over the years, many
indicators of performance have been proposed. Amongst the vari-
ous criteria proposed, the concept of satisfaction has become the
most widely used in evaluating residential environments. It has
been used primarily to assess the performance of all types of resi-
dential environments (Aragones, Francescato, & Garling, 2002;
Francescato, Wiedemann, Anderson, & Chenoweth, 1979, 1989;
Jagun, Brown, Milburn, & Gary, 1990; Kellekc & Berkoz, 2006; Paris
q This paper was completed while the author was on sabbatical leave at the
Department of Architecture, Covenant University, Otta, Nigeria.
* Tel.: þ234 80 3721 1446.
E-mail address: dolapoamole@yahoo.com
defined as a measure of the gap between consumers’ actual and
aspired needs (Galster, 1987). It is considered a very useful criterion
in the evaluation of housing because it indicates the general levels
of success, measures the users’ affective and cognitive responses,
points out the irksome aspects of dwelling environments and
predicts user responses to future environments. It also helps to
identify the contribution of various factors to satisfaction, the dif-
ferences between different types of factors and the relationships
between various dimensions of the residential environment. In
addition, satisfaction is considered an important indicator of the
quality of life, well-being and happiness (Elyes & Wilson, 2005;
Mccrea et al., 2005).
Unfortunately, majority of the studies on residential satisfaction
have been conducted in Western countries. These studies have
examined how satisfied users are with their environments, the
factors which account for satisfaction or dissatisfaction and the
models which may explain satisfaction. However, there is very little
research to inform us whether or not the results of the studies are
generalizable to other less developed countries. Hence, more
research is needed in other contexts to test the generalizability of
the results and the models developed in Western contexts. In ad-
dition, most of the studies which examine residential satisfaction
have focused more on social and management attributes of housing
than on its physical attributes. Hence, these studies have been of
very little influence and significance for design and planning
professionals.

0272-4944/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.006
 D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85
Finally, very little is known about what predicts satisfaction in
students’ housing. Studies of residential satisfaction in this context
are few (Kaya & Erkip, 2001; Spencer & Barnerji, 1985). Yet, this
form of housing represents a special type of housing for a number
of reasons. First students’ housing is a major form of accommoda-
tion for university students who are in a transitory stage of life.
Very little is known about this category of users with respect to
dwellings (Gifford, 1997, p. 201). Second, this type of housing has
very peculiar characteristics, being different from the single-family
house and the apartment for single persons which are the common
forms of housing. Third, the setting of students’ housing is usually
the campus environment rather than the urban setting. Students’
residences therefore constitute a peculiar type of housing with
a special user group which needs to be evaluated.
The aim of this paper, therefore, is to examine residential sat-
isfaction in students’ housing in some university campuses in
Nigeria. It examines how satisfied users are with their residential
facilities and the factors which predict satisfaction in this context.
Finally, the paper examines whether and how the morphological
configurations of the residences predict satisfaction.
2. Studies of residential satisfaction
There is no consensus about what type of evaluative appraisal
satisfaction is. While some authors conceive satisfaction as a purely
cognitive evaluation (Canter & Rees, 1982; Mandler, 1984; Oseland,
1990) others have held that it is affect (Weidmann & Anderson,
1985). However, some others (Francescato et al., 1989; Russell &
Snodgrass, 1987) do not think that evaluations such as satisfaction
can be neatly separated into cognition or affect. Consequently,
satisfaction studies have been approached from two main per-
spectives. Those which conceptualize satisfaction as a measure of
the degree to which the environment facilitates or inhibits the goal
of the user, called the purposive approach (Canter & Rees, 1982;
Oseland, 1990) and those which conceive of satisfaction as a mea-
sure of the gap between consumers actual and aspired needs called
the aspiration-gap approach (Galster, 1987). The implication of the
purposive approach is that researchers emphasize goals or associ-
ated activities in relation to the attributes of the physical environ-
ment. The purposive approach, which is rooted in a cognitive view,
is useful because it enables researchers to understand the degree to
which different facets and roles of users contribute to their satis-
faction. However people are not only goal oriented but they have
affective relations with the environment too. In addition, evalua-
tions or appraisals of the environment (or any psychological object)
usually involve comparisons: comparisons between what the
respondents have and what they would like to have or have
previously experienced. This is the premise on which the aspira-
tion-gap approach is based and the more common conceptual
frameworks of residential satisfaction (Galster, 1987; Weidmann &
Anderson, 1985) have conceived satisfaction from this perspective.
However, a more robust view of satisfaction was developed by
Francescato et al. (1989) who conceptualize satisfaction as an atti-
tude and a multifaceted construct which has cognitive, affective and
conative1 dimensions. They assert that this definition of satisfaction
is more comprehensive and that it accounts for the low predictive
strength of the construct in previous studies.
Residential satisfaction is also conceptualized as a multi-
dimensional construct. Various attributes of housing to which users
respond in relation to satisfaction are categorized along a number
of dimensions. Canter and Rees (1982) referred to these attributes
as the referent of interaction while Francescato (2002) referred to
1
The term conative refers to behavioural intentions (see Francescato, 2002:24;
Francescato et al., 1989.
77
them as the domain of the environment. Generally, these attributes
have been categorized in the literature as social/psychological,
management/organizational and physical attributes. Social attributes
include privacy, neighbours, security and safety, social densities,
freedom of choice, social relations and personalization (Francescato
et al., 1979; Rent & Rent, 1978; Spencer & Barneji, 1985). The
management attributes usually examined are rules and regulations,
maintenance, management staff and policies, participation and
rents (Paris & Kangari, 2006). Physical attributes have been exam-
ined much less in the literature. They usually include the lack or
presence of certain facilities, spatial density, location and size of the
bedroom (Galster, 1987; Kahana et al., 2003; Peck & Stewart, 1985;
Turkoglu, 1997). Other physical attributes used in the literature
include the appearance of the building and the floor level (Kaya &
Erkip, 2001).
However, physical attributes are not so simple to measure in
a way that data may be obtained about them with confidence
(Francescato, 2002:27). This is why very few physical characteris-
tics have been examined in most studies of residential satisfaction.
An important physical characteristic, which is not often used in
evaluating satisfaction, is the morphological configuration.2 This is
an important aspect of the design of buildings. However it is the
‘type of house’ which has usually been examined in satisfaction
studies. The ‘type of house’ refers to terraces, apartments, single-
family house or duplexes. The differences between these house
types are more or less functional rather than morphological. This
categorization is not useful in all contexts of housing and especially
in the context of students’ housing where functional differences do
not exist. Differences in the morphological characteristics of
buildings need to be captured for the purposes of evaluation.
Indeed, contrary to some studies (Day, 2000; Francescato et al.,
1979) which found that the type of site layout (site morphology)
and the type of housing (low rise/high rise and detached/attached)
were not predictors of satisfaction, there is enough evidence to
suggest that the morphological configuration of the residence
would significantly affect the level of satisfaction (Davis & Roizen,
1970; Gifford, 1997, p. 204; Hourihan, 1984). For example, Baum and
Valins (1977) and Baum and Davis (1980) have shown that the
length of the corridor of dormitories has a significant influence on
the perception of crowding.
In addition, whenever residential satisfaction has been exam-
ined, it has usually focused on one (but rarely more than one) of the
levels of the environment3 albeit unintentionally and with very
little differentiation between the levels. In other words, the focus
has been on satisfaction with a level (or scale) of the physical
environment such as the dwelling unit, the neighbourhood, the
community or country of residence.
Various demographic characteristics which influence satisfac-
tion in housing have also been found in the literature although the
focus has been on adults. These characteristics include sex, age,
length of residence, socio-economic status, race and ethnicity
(Gifford, 1997, pp. 201–202). However, as noted earlier, not much
evidence is available on residential satisfaction for youths. It is not
certain whether the characteristics which predict satisfaction for
adults would also predict satisfaction for youths, especially
university students in Nigeria.
2
Morphological configuration is also referred to in architecture as typologies. It
refers to the spatial and organizational form of the building based on certain
physical characteristics.
3
Levels of environment also referred to as scales of the environment (Aragones
et al., 2002:3–5) or levels of environmental interaction (Canter & Ress, 1982) are
defined as the scales of the environment which have a hierarchical order. They refer
to the different levels at which people may experience satisfaction such as the
house and the neighbourhood.
78 D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85
A significant issue in most of the models of residential satis-
faction is how the housing attributes outlined above are measured.
Two types of measurements, namely objective and subjective
measures of housing attributes are found in the literature
(Francescato, 2002; Wiedemann & Anderson, 1985). Objective
measures refer to the actual measurements, such as the presence,
the lack of, or quantities of attributes while subjective measures
refer to perceptions, emotions, attitudes and intentions towards the
housing attributes. The objective measures of the attributes of
housing have been shown to be weaker predictors than the sub-
jective measures (Francescato et al., 1989; Wiedemann & Anderson,
1985).
Finally, it has also been common, in measuring residential sat-
isfaction to use an index of highly correlated items rather than
a single-item variable of ‘how satisfied are you with your housing?’ In
the model of satisfaction conceptualized by Francescato et al.
(1989), satisfaction was measured using an index based on four
questions which were:
a. How satisfied are you with living here?
b. How long do you want to live in this housing development?
c. If you move again would you like to live in another place like
this?
d. Would you recommend this place to one of your friends if they
were looking for a place to live?
The reason for this was conceptual. The authors conceptualized
satisfaction as an attitude which has affective, cognitive and conative
dimensions. However, the reason given by other authors (Carvalho
et al., 1997; Wiedemann & Anderson, 1985) who used such an index
suggests that it increases the reliability of the criterion since it would
seem that an index is intrinsically better than a single item.
3. Approach to the study
3.1. Conceptualizing residential satisfaction
This study conceptualized residential satisfaction as influenced
by objective and subjective measures of housing attributes and the
demographic characteristics of the students as shown in Fig. 1.
These are referred to as objective and subjective variables. Residen-
tial satisfaction was construed as the dependent variable while the
objective and subjective variables as well as the demographic
characteristics were the independent variables. It hypothesized
that the objective variables would influence satisfaction directly
and indirectly through the subjective variables. The dependent
variable, satisfaction, was construed as multifaceted; as an attitude
with affective, conative and cognitive dimensions.
Objective variables
Objective measures of physical attributes
Subjective variables
Subjective measures physical, social/psychological
and management attributes
Fig. 1. Model of residential satisfaction.
3.2. The setting and sampling
This study is part of a larger study which evaluated students’
residential facilities in some Nigerian Universities. The approach to
the study was quantitative and the survey method was used. Four
out of the seven residential universities in this region were selected
because they best represented the residential Universities system.
These four universities also represented more than one half of the
first and second generation residential universities in Nigeria. It is
therefore likely that the results of the study may be generalizable to
all the first and second generation universities in Nigeria. All the 20
halls of residences in these four universities were used for the
study. These halls of residence had very common characteristics.
Most of them (about 90%) were low-rise two-storey buildings. They
had bedrooms arranged linearly along a corridor. All the halls
except two, were single sex halls. In all, there were five female halls,
13 male halls and two mixed-sex halls. Almost all the halls of res-
idence were overcrowded. On the average, each of the bedrooms
was designed to accommodate four persons but at the time of the
study, they accommodated an average of six persons.
The respondents were selected from each of the halls of resi-
dence using a stratified sampling procedure. The stratified sam-
pling method ensured that all categories of students (by course of
study, length of stay and sex) were selected. A sample size of 15% of
the population in each hall was selected for the survey. This
amounted to a total of two thousand respondents. Questionnaires
were distributed to each of these 2000 respondents but 1124
responses were found useful.
3.3. The instrument
The closed ended, self administered questionnaire was designed
to capture all the required data. The questionnaire included five
items about the respondents demographic data, six items about the
housing attributes of the halls, 12 items about attitudes towards the
physical and social aspects of the halls and 49 items about satis-
faction with physical, social and management attributes of housing.
3.4. Variables used in the study
3.4.1. Objective physical variables
These include the morphological configuration of the hall, number
of persons in the bedroom, presence or absence of reading room,
common room, kitchenette and a balcony (terrace at the back of the
bedroom).
3.4.2. Subjective variables
These include attitudes about comfort, bedroom furnishing,
number of persons in the bedroom, number of persons on the floor,
Residential
satisfaction
Demographic
characteristics
 D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85
privacy in bedroom, the sanitary facilities, number of persons using the
sanitary facilities, the kitchenette in general, design of the hall, number
of persons in the hall, location of the hall. These attitudes were
measured on a Likert-type scale from very poor/very inadequate (a
score of 1) to very good/very adequate (a score of 5). In addition,
these variables included responses to how satisfied the users were
with 49 housing attributes measured on a Likert-type scale. These
attributes covered all the physical (the design and location of the
hall, the kitchenette and sanitary facilities, the reading and
relaxation facilities, the floor level on which the respondent lived,
the bedroom, the accesses, furnishing and storage in the bedroom),
social/psychological (privacy, security, social densities and place4
qualities) and management (rules and regulations, fees paid,
maintenance of facilities and management staff) dimensions.
3.4.3. Demographic variables (five in number)
The demographic variables used were: sex, age, level of study
(postgraduate or undergraduate), length of stay in university accom-
modation (in years), economic status (operationalized as ‘‘amount
spent on feeding’’).
3.4.4. Residential satisfaction
This was the dependent variable. It was operationalized as an
index based on the following three questions:
1. How satisfied are you with living here in general?
2. Do you intend to move to another accommodation in the near
future?
3. How would you rate your present bedroom for the activities of
(i) sleeping
(ii) studying
(iii) entertaining friends
(iv) relaxing
The aim was also to increase the reliability of the criterion.
Responses to all the above questions were measured on a Likert-
type scale. For questions 1 and 3(i), 3(ii), 3(iii), 3(iv), a score of 1
corresponded to very poor and 5 to very good. For question 2,
a score of 1 was assigned to a ‘yes’ answer because it implied dis-
satisfaction; a score of 3 for ‘don’t know’ and a score of 5 for ‘no’
because it implied satisfaction. An index of relative satisfaction
(RSAT) was computed for each respondent as the mean of their
total scores on these questions.
3.5. The morphological configuration of halls of residence
This study examined whether the morphological configuration
of the residences (a physical variable in Section 3.4.1) would also
predict satisfaction. Although it appeared that all the selected halls
of residence were similar, they differed enough in morphology to
suggest that they were likely to influence satisfaction. For example,
the length of the corridor had been shown to significantly influence
users’ responses (Baum & Davis, 1980; Baum & Valins, 1977). The
selected halls of residence were placed into types5 based on four
morphological characteristics which were the length of the corridor,
the form of the bathrooms and kitchenette (whether they were
decentralized or located at a single point along the corridor), the
loading on the corridor (whether it was single or double loaded) and
4 7
By ‘place qualities’ the author refers to the quality of the bedroom for per-
forming activities. Activities is a central component of place-theory (Canter, 1983).
5
This was done through a typological analysis (Amole, 1997). The halls were
categorized based on the length of the corridor, the form of the bathrooms and
kitchenette (whether they were decentralized or located at a single point along the
corridor) and the loading on the horizontal access.
79
the plan form (whether it had a linear or enclosed form). Five types
(Type A – Fig. 2; Type B – Fig. 3; Type C – Fig. 4; Type D – Fig. 5; and
type E – Fig. 6) of morphological configurations for the halls of
residence emerged and these were used in the analysis. In general,
these types appeared to differ from each other by the size of the
social unit6 defined around the service core. In this regard, Type C
defined the largest social unit while Type B defined the smallest.
The other types of morphological configuration fell within these
extremes in decreasing size of social unit, in the order D, A, E. It was
hypothesized that the respondents’ satisfaction would increase as
the social units decrease in size. This hypothesis is based on the
theory that higher social densities imply higher social interaction
and reduced personal control and consequently dissatisfaction
(Gifford, 1997:151, 153). It was therefore expected that Type B
would be the most satisfying, Type C, the least satisfying and that
the other types would fall in between these types.
3.6. Data analysis
Five types of data analysis were performed: First of all,
descriptive statistics was used to analyze the profiles of the re-
spondents. Second, a reliability test was performed on the variables
which measured RSAT and thereafter, the index of RSAT was com-
puted for each respondent. A descriptive analysis of RSAT was also
performed to understand how satisfied the respondents were with
their housing. Third, the 49 responses to satisfaction were reduced
to a smaller number of factors using factor analysis. These were
later used in the regression analysis. Fourth, two categorical
regressions were performed on the data to identify the relative
contribution of the various factors on satisfaction. The categorical7
regression technique was used because it could deal with cate-
gorical variables. The first regression model examined the amount
of variance explained (R2) by physical attributes and demographic
characteristics. It also examined which of these variables were
predictors of satisfaction. The second regression analysis comprised
variables used in the first regression analysis as well as the sub-
jective variables; some of which had been reduced to fewer factors
through a factor analysis. It examined the variance explained by R2
as well as the predictors of satisfaction in this model. Finally, the
relationship between residential satisfaction (RSAT) and types of
morphological configuration was examined through a one-way
ANOVA. The mean RSAT scores for each type were computed. High
RSAT scores implied high levels of satisfaction.
4. Results
4.1. Demographic profiles of respondents
The profiles of the respondents are presented in Table 1. Most of
the respondents were above 21 years of age. About a third was
female while two-thirds were male. This was also representative of
the gender proportions in enrollment in Nigerian universities.8 The
profiles showed that about a tenth was postgraduate while nine-
tenths were undergraduates. The proportions of students within
most of the categories of length of stay in the hall were similar
6
The term social unit refers to the unit defined by those who share the services
(kitchenette and bathrooms). Its size refers to the social density in relation to what
is shared. A small-sized social unit is one of low social density while a large-sized
social unit is one of high social density.
Categorical regression (also called CATREG in SPSS) is a regression family var-
iant which can be used when there is a combination of nominal, ordinal and in-
terval independent variables. It uses optimal scaling which quantifies categorical
variables and then treats them as numerical variables.
8
Saint, Hartnett and Strassner (2004)’s review of Higher Education in Nigeria
provides these statistics.
80 D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85
Long horizontal access
End located service core
Single loading on corridor
Linear form
Fig. 2. Type A.
implying that the survey captured all the categories of students as
designed by the systematic sampling method used.9 Most of them
were average, economically.10
4.2. The index of residential satisfaction
A reliability analysis was conducted for the three variables
which comprised the index of satisfaction (RSAT). The results
showed a high correlation (alpha ¼ 0.769) amongst the items;
suggesting that the variables were internally related and measured
the same concept. The proposition that satisfaction is a multifac-
eted construct comprising affective, cognitive and conative
dimensions was therefore supported.
4.3. Satisfaction with housing
How satisfied the respondents were was measured by the index
of residential satisfaction (RSAT) for all the respondents. The results
(Fig. 7) revealed that most of the respondents were not satisfied
with their accommodation. More than half of the respondents
(53.0%) were not satisfied (either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied)
while less than half of this proportion (24%) was satisfied or very
satisfied. The proportion of those who were very satisfied (2%) was
very small compared to the proportion of those who were very
dissatisfied (13%). Similarly, the proportion of those who were
satisfied (22%) was about half (40%) of those who were dissatisfied.
Before examining the factors which accounted for the low levels
of satisfaction of the students, some of the subjective variables (the
49 responses to satisfaction with physical, social/physical and
management attributes) were reduced through a factor analysis
using the principal components and the varimax rotation method.
The factor analysis performed yielded 12 factors (Table 2) and
explained 62% of the variance. All the 12 factors had eigen values of
1.00 or more and only the variables with factor loadings of more
than 0.5 were selected. Of the 12 factors, only the first four of these
were used in the regression model. These factors were the social
and place qualities of the bedroom (factor1), the design of the hall
(factor2), the social densities in the hall (factor 3) and the storage
and furnishing in the bedroom (factor 4). The other factors were not
used in the regression analysis because they did not significantly
improve the model. The factor analysis revealed the respondents
affective dimensions to their housing. It is interesting to note that
the first affective dimension which accounted for the largest vari-
ance was related to the bedroom especially its quality as a multi-
functional space. Also noteworthy is the fact that the first five
factors specifically described a level of environment within the hall
of residence. Factors 2 and 3 referred to attributes of the whole hall,
factors 1 and 4 to the bedroom and factor 5 to the floor level.
In order to identify the factors which explained and may predict
students satisfaction with their housing, two categorical regression
9
In these halls on residence, although a high preference is given to first year
students, a sizeable proportion of all other students are also accommodated.
10
The economic status was operationalized as the mount spent on feeding per
month. The actual range for the categories were very poor (N0–N500), poor
(N501–N999), average (N1, 000–N1, 500), above average (N1, 5001–N2, 000), high
(N2, 001–N3, 000), very high (above N3, 000). The mean income was N1, 4929.69.
At the time of this study, N1.00 was about 1.25 US cents.
Short horizontal access
Three decentralized service cores
Single loading on corridor
Partially enclosed form
Fig. 3. Type B.
models were designed. In this first model (Table 3) the relative
strength of the physical attributes and the demographic charac-
teristics on residential satisfaction (RSAT) was examined. The re-
gression analysis showed that the amount of variance explained by
these variables was 15.3% (R2 ¼ 0.153, df ¼ 21, F ¼ 6.07, p < 0.000).
This was a low predictive strength although it was significant. The
specific variables which were significant predictors in this model
were the morphological configuration of the hall, presence of a kitch-
enette, presence of a balcony, age, level of study, length of stay in
university halls and the students’ economic status.
In the second model, all the subjective variables were added to
the variables in the previous model and were regressed on RSAT.
This regression model (Table 4), explained 65% of the variance of
residential satisfaction (R2 ¼ 0.65, df ¼ 54, p < 0.000). This was
more than four times the variance explained in the first model. This
showed that the subjective variables were able to explain a signif-
icantly larger percentage of residential satisfaction than the
objective physical variables and the demographic variables. In this
second model, at least one of each of the types of variables (ob-
jective physical, demographic, and subjective) in the model was
significant in explaining residential satisfaction. Two objective
physical variables which emerged as significant predictors of sat-
isfaction were whether they had a kitchenette or not and the mor-
phological configuration of the hall of residence. Three demographic
variables were significant and these were the age of the student, the
length of stay in university residence halls and the students’ economic
status. The subjective variables which significantly explained sat-
isfaction were privacy in the bedroom, storage in the bedroom, the
kitchenette, the bathrooms, the social and place qualities of the
bedroom (factor 1), the social densities in the hall (factor 3) and
storage and furnishing in the bedroom (factor 4). Two variables
which were predictors in the first model, namely whether there was
a balcony or not and the level of study of the student, no longer
appeared as predictors in this model.
Of all the predictors in this second model, the strongest was the
social and place qualities of the bedroom (factor 1), followed by the
social densities in the hall (factor 3). The remaining predictors in
decreasing order of strength were the economic status of the student,
the storage, privacy in the bedroom, the presence of a kitchenette, the
quality of the bathroom and kitchenette, storage and furnishing (fac-
tor 4), the morphological configuration of the hall and finally the age
of the student. All these variables except the economic status of the
student had a positive relationship with satisfaction. In addition,
Short horizontal access
Centrally located service core
Double loading on corridor
Linear form
Fig. 4. Type C.
 D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85 81

Table 1
Demographic characteristics of respondents

Characteristic Categories % of Respondents

Age 15–18 3.7
19–21 26.6
Short horizontal access 22–25 42.3
Double end located service core Above 25 27.4
Single loading on corridor Sex Male 69.8
Fully enclosed form Female 30.2

Level of study Postgraduate 10.1

Undergraduate 89.9

Fig. 5. Type D. Length of stay in university accommodation 1 year 21.5

the morphological configuration was, as hypothesized, a predictor
of satisfaction.
The morphological configuration which the users were most
satisfied with was the Type C (mean score ¼ 2.9149) followed by
Type B (mean score ¼ 2.2.8167), while the least satisfying was Type
D (mean score ¼ 2.3602, see Table 5). The order of the types in
decreasing satisfaction was Type C/Type B/Type A/Type/E/
Type D (Table 6). The results (Table 7) also support the hypothesis
that the morphological configurations were significantly different
from each other in relation to satisfaction (p < 0.000, df¼ 4,
F ¼ 13.077).
5. Discussion
This study has shown that students were generally dissatisfied
with the housing provided for them. These results provide an in-
sight into the performance of university student residences in
Nigeria. It also lent credence to the cursory evaluation of higher
education in Nigeria by Eribo (1996) and Nwaka (2000) which
suggested that living conditions of the students were poor. High
levels of satisfaction have not been common in many housing
schemes, especially in Nigeria (Amole & Mills-Tettey, 1998), rather
it is in owner-occupied housing that relatively high levels of
satisfaction have been recorded (Carvalho et al.,1997; O’Brien &
Ayidiya, 1991). The situation in this study does not appear to be
different. The findings here indicate that there is a very wide gap
between what the users aspired to in housing and what they
eventually obtained. This is probably due to very little
understanding on the part of the designers and providers of the
factors which predicted satisfaction in housing.
In support of previous studies (Francescato, 2002; Francescato
et al., 1989; Weidmann & Anderson, 1985) satisfaction was also
found to be a multi-dimensional construct. Both the subjective and
the objective variables were predictors of satisfaction and various
types of housing attributes predicted satisfaction. To confirm this
finding even further, the results of the factor analysis revealed
physical, social, place and management/maintenance dimensions
of housing to which users responded. Another dimension which
was revealed by the factor analysis was the level of the environment.
The factors which emerged could be identified with specific levels
within the halls of residence; thus indicating the significance of this
dimension in responses to satisfaction with the residence.
The results also showed that the variables which most strongly
predicted residential satisfaction were the subjective variables. This
supports previous studies (Francescato, 2002; Francescato et al.,
2 years 24.6
3 years 26.1
4 years 20.8
5 years and more 7.0
Economic status Very poor 13.7
Poor 18.1
Average 34.2
Above average 17.7
High 11.5
Very high 4.8
1989) which assert that subjective measures of housing attributes
are more important than the objective measures of housing attri-
butes and the characteristics of the users. Consequently, this find-
ing may now be generalized to other non-western contexts such as
Nigeria.
It appeared that most of the characteristics which predicted
satisfaction in adults also emerged as predictors for students in this
study. For example, this study found that as economic status in-
creased, satisfaction decreased; thus supporting previous research
which examined the relationship between economic status and
satisfaction (Amole & Mills-Tettey, 1998; Gifford, 1997:201; Kellekc
& Berkoz, 2006). Indeed, this is not unexpected because increasing
economic status implies increasing aspirations and a decrease in
satisfaction if the housing situation remains the same. Further-
more, the results of previous studies (Peck & Stewart, 1985; Rent &
Rent, 1978) which have shown that length of stay in residence is
a predictor of satisfaction were also corroborated by this study. The
longer the students stayed the more satisfied they became. This is
probably because with time, they adapted to the living conditions
of their housing and also devised coping strategies which improved
their level of satisfaction. It was also not surprising that in addition
to length of stay, age was also a predictor of satisfaction. These
characteristics are closely related; the longer the students spent in
university accommodation, the older they became. Hence if the
length of stay was a predictor, it was likely that age would also be
a predictor. It is probably for this same reason that the level of study
was also a predictor in the first regression model. However, unlike
some previous studies in housing (Spencer & Barnerji, 1985), sex

Long horizontal access

Single end located service core
Partial double loading on corridor
Linear form

Fig. 6. Type E. Fig. 7. Residential satisfaction (RSAT) amongst respondents.

82 D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85

Table 2
Factor analysis of responses to satisfaction with 49 housing attributes

Factor and % variance Factor loading Factor Factor loading

Factor 1 (the social and place qualities of the bedroom) 25.4% Factor 6 (maintenance of the hall) 3.167%
Studying in this bedroom 0.74 Refuse disposal in the hall 0.80
Privacy in this bedroom 0.74 Maintenance of the hall 0.72
Sleeping in this bedroom 0.73 The bathrooms and toilets 0.54
Entertaining friends in this bedroom 0.69
Security of property in this bedroom 0.64 Factor 7 (kitchenette and bathrooms) 2.982%
Number of persons in this bedroom 0.58 Location of kitchenette 0.73
Living in this bedroom 0.53 Kitchenette in general 0.70
Ventilation in this bedroom 0.51 Location of bathroom 0.67

Factor 2 (the design of the hall) 5.96% Factor 8 (facilities in the hall) 2.884%
The design of the hall 0.66 The reading room in general 0.72
The main entrance 0.64 The buttery in general 0.72
The general appearance of the hall 0.63 The common room in general 0.71
Access between the blocks in the hall 0.55
The design of this block 0.55 Factor 9 (the laundry) 2.627%
The laundry in general 0.78
The location of the laundry 0.76

Factor 3 (the social densities in the hall) 4.87% Factor 10 (the balcony) 2.480%
The number of people on this floor 0.69 The size of the balcony 0.77
The number of people in this hall 0.68 The balcony in general 0.77
The number of people on this corridor 0.55

Factor 4 (storage and furnishing in the bedroom) 4.13% Factor 11 (management) 2.413%
The bedroom furniture in general 0.83 The official fees paid 0.72
The storage provided in the bedroom 0.70 The rules and regulations 0.71
The bedroom furniture arrangement 0.69
Factor 5 (the floor level) 3.387% Factor 12 (location of hall) 2.347%
The floor level on which you live 0.81 The location of the hall 0.60
Living on this floor 0.81
Living in this block 0.55

Total variance explained ¼ 62.797%.

did not appear as a predictor of satisfaction. The reason for this may Second, the variables which predicted satisfaction were related
be related to their current stage in the life cycle and the context in to social and physical attributes of the housing; suggesting that the
which they lived; where their gender identities were probably not quality of these attributes are crucial to satisfaction. The social
challenged. The role of sex in user responses to the environment attributes which predicted satisfaction were social density and
has not often been conclusive in the literature, hence further privacy. This was not unexpected because the halls of residence in
investigation is needed to reveal why this is so. this study were characteristically overcrowded. Indeed it has been
A number of other instructive findings about the predictors of shown consistently in the literature that high social densities,
satisfaction in this study are noteworthy. The first is that manage- which are functions of privacy (Altman, 1975), contribute to high
ment and maintenance factors did not emerge as predictors in this levels of dissatisfaction (Gifford, 1997; Kaya & Erkip, 2001; Spencer
context at all although they have been shown to be very important & Barneji, 1985). Hence, it is not surprising that both of these social
in predicting satisfaction generally (Francescato, 2002; Francescato attributes are together predictors of satisfaction.
et al., 1989). A probable reason for this is that the rules and regu- Third, the finding that the presence and quality of the kitchen-
lations were very few and the fees paid were insignificant; posing ette predicted satisfaction was not unexpected because central
no real challenge to the respondents. dining facilities were no longer operational in the universities and
the students had to provide their own meals. Hence, the presence
Table 3 of a kitchenette became very important. Other physical facilities
Regression model 1 of residential satisfaction which predicted satisfaction were the adequacy of storage and
Variable Beta df F
furnishing in the bedroom and the quality of the bathrooms. It is
very likely that the overcrowded conditions of living made these
Objective physical variables
1. Do you have a balcony? .07** 1 0.76 facilities significant. Other facilities such as the reading room, the
2. Do you have a kitchenette? .07** 2 9.45 common room, the laundry and the balcony did not appear as
3. Do you have a common room? .00 1 0.96 predictors. It appeared that the facilities which emerged as pre-
4. Do you have a reading room? .04 1 0.22 dictors were the very basic and essential facilities for living. In
5. Number of persons in bedroom .06 1 0.97
6. Morphological configuration of hall .15*** 4 3.98
addition, alternatives for these facilities did not exist whereas the
student could find alternate places for the other facilities (such as
Demographic variables reading and socializing) which did not predict satisfaction (Amole,
7. Number of years spent in university halls .18*** 3 4.60 2005). This brings in the issue of choice in relation to satisfaction
8. Economic status .10*** 3 12.17 and in this instance, it appears that where choices did not exist,
9. Sex .037 1 2.19
satisfaction with such facilities became significant predictors.
10. Age .08** 3 2.69
11. Level of study .17*** 1 1.50 Fourth, it was interesting to find that the morphological con-
figuration of the halls of residence also predicted satisfaction. The
*Significant at the 0.05 level.
**Significant at the 0.005 level.
hypothesis that this attribute would predict satisfaction was
***Significant at the 0.000 level. confirmed contrary to the study of Day (2000), but corroborating
R ¼ 0.391, R2 ¼ 0.153, df ¼ 21, F ¼ 6.07, p < 0.000. the studies of Davis and Roizen (1970), Baum and Valins (1977),
 D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85 83

Table 4 morphological configuration are relevant with respect to satisfac-

Regression model 2 of residential satisfaction tion. However, that Type C, which defined that largest social unit,
Variable Beta df F was the most satisfactory of the morphological configurations was
Objective physical variables unexpected because this is contrary to the findings which relate
1. Do you have a balcony? .05 1 0.76 high social densities and high levels of social interaction to dis-
2. Do you have a kitchenette? .16*** 2 9.45 satisfaction (Gifford, 1997:211). In addition the finding that Type D
3. Do you have a common room? .05 1 0.96
was the least satisfactory was also surprising because it had one of
4. Do you have a reading room? .02 1 0.22
Number of persons in bedroom .00 1 0.97 the smaller social unit sizes. Certainly it appears that the de-
6. Morphological configuration of hall .12** 4 3.98 scription of these morphological configurations based on the no-
tion of the size of the social unit defined could not fully explain
Demographic variables why morphological configurations were related to satisfaction in
7. Number of years spent in university halls .12* 2 4.60
the order in which they did. It is possible that there are in-
8. Economic status .19*** 3 12.17
9. Sex .08 1 2.19 tervening variables which may help to explain the results, but
10. Age .10* 3 2.69 which this study did not capture. However, it seems that of all the
11. Level of study .07 1 1.50 characteristics of the morphological configuration, a combination
of the length of the corridor and the plan form appeared to have
Subjective variables contributed to the prediction of satisfaction. This inference is
12. Rate the level of comfort of bedroom .08 3 2.12
13. How much do you like furniture .06 1 1.29
made because the types of configurations which were most sat-
arrangement? isfying were the ones with short corridor lengths while those
14. How adequate is the storage? .18*** 2 9.74 which were least satisfying were those with long corridor lengths.
15. How do you feel bout number .10 1 2.33 In addition, those which were fully or partially enclosed in plan
of persons in bedroom?
form appeared to be less satisfying than expected. For example,
16. How private is your bedroom? .18*** 3 7.82
17. How do you feel about number .04 2 0.68 Type D, despite the fact that it had a short corridor length was the
of persons on your floor? least satisfying. However, Type D also had a plan form that was
18. Rate your bathroom .15** 2 7.72 fully enclosed. The fully or partially enclosure plan form puts more
19. How do you feel about number .09 2 2.90 students in full view of each other than the linear form. It creates
of persons using the bathrooms?
20. How do you feel about kitchenette? .14** 2 6.59
a higher visual interaction amongst residents in spite of the low
21. Rate the design of your hall .09 3 2.64 physical interaction created by a short corridor and this most
22. How do you feel about the .08 2 2.45 probably resulted in an increase in perceived density and reduced
location of your hall? satisfaction. This appeared to be the only characteristic which
23. How do you feel about the .01 1 0.05
could have accounted for a lower level of satisfaction relative to
number of persons in your hall?
24. Factor 1 (social and place .23*** 3 13.69 the other types. A similar explanation may be proffered for why
qualities of bedroom) type B (which is partially enclosed) is less satisfying that type C. In
25. Factor 2 (design of the hall) .05 2 1.04 sum, it appears that the length of the corridor and the plan form
26. Factor 3 (social densities in the hall) .20*** 3 11.76 were important morphological characteristics which predicted
27. Factor 4 (furnishing and .14*** 3 6.60
storage in the bedroom)
satisfaction. The reason why the initial hypothesis about social
unit size could not fully explain satisfaction was probably due to
*Significant at the 0.05 level.
the fact that it captured only indoor densities. However, in the
**Significant at the 0.005 level.
***Significant at the 0.000 level. types which were not linear in plan form, the outdoor/nearby
R ¼ 0.807, R2 ¼ 0.65, df ¼ 54, p < 0.000. densities could also be perceived. This most probably accounts for
the surprising responses to satisfaction in these types.
and Hourihan (1984). The morphological configuration emerged Finally, the strongest predictor of satisfaction was the bedroom
as a predictor in both regression models of the study; thus in- and most of the predictor variables were related more to the bed-
dicating its significance. This significance may be related to the room than any other part of the hall of residence. Hence, it
fact that this attribute was a measure of four morphological appeared that the bedroom was a significant level of environment
characteristics of the halls of residence rather than a single one. where satisfaction was critical. This finding supports previous re-
The implication of this finding is that first of all, the morphological search (Canter, 1983; Canter & Rees, 1982; Francescato et al., 1989)
configuration as defined by the study was a useful method of which showed that there are usually differences in user responses
examining multiple physical characteristics of halls of residence. to different levels of the environment and that some levels are
The finding also supports previous findings that there is a re- more crucial than others. Most studies, however, have examined
lationship between physical attributes and evaluative responses the levels of housing which are relevant to their research, namely,
and showed that people respond to different morphological and the housing unit and the neighbourhood (Kahana et al., 2003; Rent
spatial qualities differently. Second, it implies that certain mor- & Rent, 1978; Peck & Stewart, 1985). Hence, this study has con-
phological configurations may not be as satisfactory as others tributed to the discourse on satisfaction with respect to ‘levels of
or may not be appropriate in some contexts. Third, it suggests environment’ by identifying the bedroom as a distinct level in this
that the criteria used in this study for the definition of the context. In addition, this finding suggests that satisfaction in the
bedroom is almost tantamount to satisfaction with the whole hall.
This is likely to be related to the fact that the bedroom in this
Table 5 context was a multifunctional space as revealed by the factor
Residential satisfaction by type of morphological configuration analysis and it was also the place where overcrowding was pri-
Type Mean RSAT score Standard deviation marily experienced. It served functions that would otherwise have
A 2.65 0.79 been performed elsewhere if the context was a family house.
B 2.81 0.66 Alternative places for most of the activities performed in the bed-
C 2.91 0.75 room were not found. Constrained choice may explain the multi-
D 2.36 0.73 functional characteristic of the bedroom and its significance as
E 2.75 0.70
a predictor of satisfaction.
84 D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85
Table 6
Types of halls in decreasing order of satisfaction
6. Summary and conclusion
This paper examined residential satisfaction in the context of
some students’ housing in Nigeria. First it was interested in un-
derstanding users’ satisfaction in students’ residences as an eval-
uation of the performance of these facilities. Second, it examined
the factors which predicted residential satisfaction in this context,
especially morphological configuration. The study showed that the
students’ housing provided performed well below average from
the users’ evaluations; implying that the residences did not match
the aspirations and expectations of the students. It also provided an
insight into the user group by revealing the user characteristics
which were predictors of satisfaction. The study identified the
attributes of housing which predicted satisfaction, and it was also
able to show that the morphological configuration was significant
in predicting residential satisfaction.
This study has shown that the results of satisfaction studies in
other housing contexts cannot simply be generalized to students’
housing. Differences arise from the users’ characteristics as well as
from the physical dimensions of housing. Although the character-
istics of the students which predicted satisfaction were almost
similar to those of adults in previous studies, the dimensions of
housing they were satisfied with or not satisfied with were likely to
be related to their age. There were also certain aspects of the stu-
dents’ housing which differed significantly from the family house.
This study has specifically shown the different roles which the
bedroom plays in this respect.
The conceptual model of residential satisfaction as a multi-
dimensional construct proved quite useful because it was able to
Table 7
One-way ANOVA: Residential satisfaction by type of morphological configuration
Source of variance Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Between groups 30.40 4 7.6 13.07
Within groups 653.25 1124 0.58
Total 683.65 1128
explain a large amount of variance in satisfaction. In addition, the
specific contribution of the various subjective/objective, physical/
social/management dimensions to satisfaction emerged. The
implication of this is that the irksome dimensions of students’
housing as well as those aspects which have the potential of im-
proving satisfaction may now be identified and addressed. For
example, it implies that for satisfaction in housing to increase, more
attention needs to be paid to the users’ evaluations of the resi-
dences in creating positive attitudes towards housing. In addition, it
suggests that reducing social densities at all levels of the housing
environment and providing more choice may significantly increase
satisfaction. However, to understand the relationships between the
various dimensions other methods of analysis such as the path
analysis may prove more useful.
Finally, the role of morphological configuration in residential
satisfaction has been shown to be significant. It is more useful than
a single physical criterion such as the loading on the corridor. Hence
future studies of satisfaction should examine the attribute of
morphological configuration. Morphological characteristics which
improve satisfaction in different types of residential facilities can be
identified for the purpose of design. However, a lot more about
morphological configurations now needs to be more rigorously
examined. For example, are there other criteria for defining mor-
phological configuration which would predict satisfaction even
better? What attributes of morphological configuration really
explain satisfaction in this and other contexts? Answers to these
questions in future evaluation research will be of immense benefit
to architects because what they manipulate in the process of design
is the morphological configuration of buildings.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
0.00
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.006.
 D. Amole / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 76–85 85

References Galster, G. (1987). Identifying the correlates of residential satisfaction: An empirical

critique. Environment and Behaviour, 19, 539–568.
Gifford, R. (1997). Environmental psychology: Principles and practices. USA: Allyn and
Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behaviour: Privacy, personal space,
Bacon.
territoriality and crowding. CA: Brooks/Cole Monterey.
Hourihan, K. (1984). Context-dependent models of residential satisfaction: An anal-
Amole, D. (1997). An evaluation of students residential facilities in some Nigerian
ysis of housing groups in cork Ireland. Environment and Behaviour, 16, 369–393.
Universities. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Architecture, Obafemi
Jagun, A., Brown, D. R., Milburn, N. G., & Gary, L. E. (1990). Residential satisfaction
Awolowo University, Ile-Ife Nigeria.
and socio-economic and housing characteristics of urban black adults. Journal of
Amole, B., & Mills-Tettey, R. (1998). Income and housing satisfaction: A study of
Black Studies, 21, 40–51.
FESTAC housing estate in Lagos, Nigeria. Ife Journal of Environmental Design and
Kahana, E., Lovegreen, L., Kahana, B., & Kahana, M. (2003). Person, environment, and
Management, 1&2, 27–41.
person–environment fit as influences on residential satisfaction of elders.
Amole, D. (2005). Copying strategies in students’ residential facilities. Environment
Environment and Behaviour, 35, 434–453.
and Behavior, 37, 201–219.
Kaya, N., & Erkip, F. (2001). Satisfaction in a dormitory building: The effects of floor
Aragones, J. I., Francescato, G., & Garling, T. (2002). Evaluating residential
height on the perception of room size and crowding. Environment and
environments. In J. I. Aragones, G. Francescato, & T. Garling (Eds.), Residential
Behaviour, 33, 35–53.
environments: Choice, satisfaction and behaviour (pp. 1–14). London: Bergin and
Kellekc, O. L., & Berkoz, L. (2006). Mass housing; User satisfaction in housing and its
Garvey.
environment in Istanbul, Turkey. European Journal of Housing Policy, 6, 77–99.
Baun, A., & Davis, G. E. (1980). Reducing stress of high-density living: An architec-
Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and body: Psychology of emotion and stress. New York:
tural intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 471–481.
Norton.
Baun, A., & Valins, S. (1977). Architecture and social behaviour. Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mccrea, R., Stimson, R., & Western, J. (2005). Testing a moderated model of satis-
Canter, D. (1983). The purposive evaluation of place: A facet approach. Environment
faction with urban living using data from Brisbane-South East Queensland,
and Behaviour, 15, 659–699.
Australia. Social Indicators Research, 72, 121–152.
Canter, D., & Ress, K. A. (1982). Multivariate model of housing satisfaction.
Nwaka, G. (2000). Higher education, the social sciences and national development
International Review of Applied Psychology, 32, 185–208.
in Nigeria. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 30, 373–385.
Carvalho, M., Goerge, V. R., & Anthony, K. H. (1997). Residential satisfaction in
O’Brien, D. J., & Ayidiya, S. (1991). Neighbourhood community and life satisfaction.
conominos exclusivos (gate-guarded neighborhoods) in Brazil. Environment and
Journal of the Community Development Society, 22, 21–37.
Behavior, 29, 734–768.
Oseland, N. A. (1990). An evaluation of space in new homes. Proceedings of the IAPS
Davis, G., & Roizen, R. (1970). Architectural determinants of student satisfaction in
Conference Ankara, Turkey 322–331.
college residence halls. In J. Archea, & C. Eastman (Eds.), Environmental Design
Paris, D. E., & Kangari, R. (2005). Multifamily affordable housing: Residential
and Research Association (EDRA) 2 proceedings (pp. 28–44). Pittsburgh: Carnegie
satisfaction. Journal of Performance and Constructed Facilities, 19, 138–145.
Mellon University.
Peck, C., & Stewart, K. K. (1985). Satisfaction with housing and the quality of life.
Day, L. L. (2000). Choosing a house: The relationship between dwelling type,
Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 13, 363–372.
perception of privacy and residential satisfaction. Journal of Planning Education
Preiser, W. F. E. (1989). Towards a performance-based conceptual framework for sys-
and Research, 19, 265–275.
tematic POES. In W. F. E. Preiser (Ed.), Building evaluation. New York: Plenum Press.
Eribo, F. (1996). Higher education in Nigeria: Decades of development and decline.
Rent, G. S., & Rent, C. S. (1978). Factors related to residential satisfaction.
A Journal of Opinion; Issues in African Higher Education, 24, 64–67.
Environment and Behaviour, 10, 459–488.
Eyles, J. & Wilson, K. (2005). Housing and neighbourhood satisfaction and health in
Russell, J. A., & Snodgrass, S. A. (1987). Emotion and environment. In D. Stokols, & I.
Hamilton: An exploratory examination of subjective measures of quality of life.
Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology, 1 (pp. 245–280). New
Paper presented at ENHR (European Network of Housing Research) conference,
York: John Wiley.
Iceland, 29 June–2 July 2005.
Saint, W., Hartnett, T. A., & Strassner, E. (2004, September/October). Higher education
Francescato, G. (2002). Residential satisfaction research: the case for and against. In
in Nigeria: A status report. World Education News and Reviews (WENR), 17(5).
J. I. Aragones, G. Francescato, & T. Garling (Eds.), Residential environments:
Spencer, C., & Barneji, N. (1985). Strategies for sharing student accommodation: A
Choice, satisfaction and behaviour (pp. 15–34). London: Bergin and Garvey.
comparison of male and female student responses to single and shared rooms.
Francescato, G., Weidemann, S., Anderson, J. R., & Chenoweth, R. (1979). Residents’
Architecture and Behaviour, 2, 123–135.
satisfaction in HUD-assisted housing: Design and management factors.
Turkoglu, H. D. (1997). Residents’ satisfaction of housing environments: The case of
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Istanbul, Turkey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 39, 55–67.
Francescato, G., Weidemann, S., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). Evaluating the built
Weidemann, S., & Anderson, J. R. A. (1985). A conceptual framework for residential
environment from the users point of view: An attitudinal model of residential
satisfaction. In I. Atman, & R. Werner (Eds.), Home environments (pp. 154–182).
satisfaction. In W. F. E. Preiser (Ed.), Building evaluation (pp. 181–198). NY:
London: Plenum Press.
Plenum Press.