The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0263-7472.htm

A post-occupancy evaluation of PoE of

students’ halls
students’ halls of residence in of residence

Obafemi Awolowo University,

Ile-Ife, Nigeria 163
Ayodele Samuel Adegoke, Cyril Ayodele Ajayi, Received 9 January 2020
Revised 3 June 2020
Timothy Tunde Oladokun and Timothy Oluwafemi Ayodele 27 July 2020
Accepted 16 September 2020
Department of Estate Management, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

Abstract
Purpose – Students are the hub of activities in an academic environment, and their satisfaction with the
performance of educational facilities cannot be overemphasised. Therefore, this study evaluated the
post-occupation of students’ halls of residence in Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife, Nigeria with a
view to enhancing effective management of educational facilities.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from 245 students who were selected using simple
random sampling technique. The study adopted descriptive statistical tools such as mean, standard deviation
and Relative Importance Index (RII); the inferential statistical tools adopted were independent-samples t-test
and Kendall Tau’s correlation.
Findings – The results revealed that both genders were fairly satisfied with physical attributes, indoor
environmental quality (IEQ) and social factors; while the female students were also fairly satisfied with the
supporting service, the male students were fairly dissatisfied. Also, supporting services and IEQ influenced the
levels of satisfaction of both genders.
Practical implications – This study provides information which can help the management of the University
and other comparative educational institutions in the proper management of students’ halls of residence.
Originality/value – This study has provided insight into the satisfaction of student occupants with halls of
residence based on gender differentiation.
Keywords PoE, Students’ satisfaction, Halls of residence, Student occupants, Perceived satisfaction, Expected
satisfaction
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Students’ halls of residence are important buildings on campuses because of the key role they
play in ensuring that students attain the requisite level of intellectual competence, personal
characters, patterns of behaviour, improved thoughts and imaginations (Hassanain, 2008).
The responsibility of every institution of higher learning is to provide sufficient and
sustainable halls of residence for their students. In other words, the buildings must be able to
perform in ways that satisfy the present and future needs of the students. However, this is not
the case with many Nigerian universities which are constantly faced with problems ranging
from lack of cleanliness, irregular power and lack of potable water supply to overpopulation
(Adewunmi, 2012; Oladiran, 2013). All these, put together, can negatively impact on the
academic performance of students. Therefore, a time-to-time post-occupancy evaluation
(PoE) of the buildings to ascertain whether or not they still perform the function they are built
for is essential.
PoE is the process of evaluating buildings in a systematic manner after they have been Property Management
occupied for some time (Preiser, 2002). It is a building performance evaluation (BPE) method Vol. 39 No. 2, 2021
pp. 163-179
which considers three aspects: first, the physical or technical nature of the building or space, © Emerald Publishing Limited
0263-7472
second, the functional requirements of its specific use and third, the behavioural aspects of DOI 10.1108/PM-01-2020-0003
PM the occupants (Bernard Williams Associates, 2002). PoE involves the gathering of data to
39,2 evaluate project delivery, particularly after they have been in use. Vischer (2009) perceived
that the rationale behind it is to consider the extent to which a building meets the needs of its
end-users and also to recognise ways in which design, performance and fitness for purpose
can be improved. Depending on the area of study and intended use of results, POE data can be
obtained by interviewing or administering questionnaire on stakeholders connected to the
building, or by carrying out physical measurement and laboratory analysis of the building
164 (Bordass et al., 2010). A PoE was first adopted within architectural practice and included in
the first handbook published by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) in 1965.
However, PoE has been used recently in many contexts across a variety of sectors including
health, education and commercial buildings with varying degrees of success (Riley, 2013).
Nonetheless, Nawawi and Khalil (2008) averred that PoE is very effective and helpful in
determining the satisfaction level of occupants and in providing the needed information for
improving building performance.
Extant PoE studies have been conducted on educational buildings like scientific and
administrative buildings (Mustafa, 2017; Ojile et al., 2016), faculty buildings (Olatunji,
2013), on-campus students’ halls of residence (Agyekum et al., 2016; Akinluyi, 2013; Lai,
2013; Najib et al., 2011; Oladiran, 2013), etc. Although students’ halls of residence are seen as
important buildings on campus, less attention has been given to the satisfaction of students
thereon, especially from the perspective of gender differences. Sufficient attempts have not
been made to compare the satisfaction levels of male and female students with their halls.
Since halls of residence on the campus of Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) were
constructed purposely for undergraduate students based on gender differentiation, an
examination of the students’ level of satisfaction on an aggregated basis will not provide
the expected gendered variation in the student population. Therefore, to assist in the
formulation of policy for the effective management of the halls, the present study examines
the expected and perceived levels of satisfaction of students with facilities in the
selected halls.
The findings of this study will provide the University stakeholders with feedback on the
performance of the students’ halls of residence as this could prevent the replication of failure
in future designs and construction. Private developers or corporate organisations who may
be ready to join students’ housing provision arrangement will need the findings of the study
to develop accommodation units that will meet the students’ expectations. Relevant
government stakeholders will also find the results of the study useful in that it will trigger its
interest towards the rejuvenation of existing deteriorating facilities and the development of
new ones that will satisfy future users. The findings can also serve as a reference for further
research in other comparative areas.
The paper is structured as follows: the paper is introduced in the first section. The review
of literature is done in the second section. The third and fourth sections focus on the research
method adopted and results and discussion, respectively. In the fifth section, the study is
concluded appropriately.

2. Literature review
Past studies have focused on the PoE of educational buildings among which students’ hostels
are gaining wide attention (Liu et al., 2013). These studies (e.g. Agyekum et al., 2016; Ajayi
et al., 2015; Akinluyi, 2013; Mustafa, 2017; Ning and Chen, 2016; Phillip et al., 2018; etc.)
evaluated the performance of the buildings by investigating the satisfaction of occupants or
users of the buildings. Details of the review of each of these studies are provided
subsequently.
 Akinluyi (2013) carried out a PoE of a male student hall of residence in OAU. PoE of
The indicators considered in the study relate to the facilities and services provided within the students’ halls
hall. The study adopted structured questionnaires on the student occupants and found that
most of the rooms did not function well and were not supportive in design aspect such as
of residence
ventilation, size of the room, the arrangement of fixtures and furniture number per room,
conformability, ease of movement and privacy required by individual students. Also, the
study found that adequate ventilation, a good drainage system and lack of regular waste
disposal, lack of good water supply, poor management and maintenance were major issues 165
highlighted by the students as issues they are dissatisfied with. Although the finding of the
study appeared to have provided useful information to the University, the study considered
small sample size (10% of the sampling frame of 750 students) and concluded with
frequencies rather than mean scores. Also, the study is limited in the area of gender-based
comparison of students’ satisfaction as it focused on a hostel where only male stale students
reside.
Lai (2013) evaluated the post-occupancy of students’ hostel facilities of a university in
Hong Kong. The study was conducted in two stages with a focus on a typical hostel.
A research model was designed at the first stage based on the existing literature. Apart from
reviewing existing literature, the researcher also conducted a focus group discussion with
end-users of the hostels and administered questionnaire during the survey. Also, in the
second stage, a face-to-face interview was conducted to obtain data from end-users on what
they expected the performance of the building to be. Questions on the perceived level of
satisfaction were structured to cover six aspects of facilities which included air-conditioning,
lighting, Internet, acoustics, fire safety and hygiene. The study found that lighting and fire
safety were the only two aspects which were given a satisfaction level higher than the
respective expectation level. A wide gap was also found between the expected and actual
levels of satisfaction in the air-conditioning aspect with a Spearman rank correlation
coefficient of 0.829, which indicates the existence of a strong but imperfect positive
correlation. However, the study considered a hostel building that houses both genders rather
than more than one hostel where the genders are housed separately.
Oladiran (2013) studied PoE of students’ hostel accommodations in the University of
Lagos (UNILAG), Nigeria. Students and facilities managers were considered for the study.
The study concentrated on eleven (two postgraduate and nine undergraduate) hostels using
random sampling technique in the selection of a sample of 179 students. The indicators
considered include noiselessness, indoor temperature, natural lighting, ventilation, water
supply, electrical fittings, space, cleanliness and comfortability. The study found that there
was meagre availability of laundry, pantry and meeting room in some of the hostels and that
the users’ satisfaction with the hostels’ accommodation was good in terms of noiselessness
(mean 5 3.36), indoor temperature (mean 5 3.34), natural lighting (mean 5 3.27), ventilation
(means 5 3.23) and water supply (means 5 3.07). It was fair in terms of electrical fittings
(mean 5 2.77), space (mean 5 2.74), cleanliness (mean 5 2.60) and comfort (mean 5 2.56).
The consideration of male and female hostels indicates the heterogeneity of the students but
the study did not compare their levels of satisfaction.
Sawyer and Yusof (2013) studied students’ satisfaction with hostel facilities in Nigerian
Polytechnics. The study employed cluster sampling technique in the distribution of 250
survey questionnaire. The study rated students’ overall satisfaction based on physical and
social characteristics, and the data obtained were analysed with the aid of descriptive
statistics including mean and standard deviation. It was indicated from the result of the study
that the students were generally dissatisfied with the hostel facilities with a mean score of
2.42 which represented 66.6 %dissatisfaction level on a 5-point Likert scale. However, with
the use of cluster sampling technique, students with similar views concerning questions may
have been considered, thereby causing skewness in the result.
PM Ajayi et al. (2015) studied the satisfaction of students with hostel facilities in the Federal
39,2 University of Technology, Akure (FUTA). The study adopted stratified random sampling
technique in the administering of the questionnaire to a total of 322 students; Relative
Satisfaction Index (RSI) was employed in the determination of the students’ satisfaction with
the facilities. RSIs of 0.76, 0.73 and 0.70 were derived for electricity, water supply and the
availability of standby generator respectively. The students were also found to be
dissatisfied with toilets (0.48) and laundry (0.44). Although the study provided salient
166 information on the inadequate state of hostel facilities, the study concluded as though gender
is homogenous.
Agyekum et al. (2016) conducted a PoE of two postgraduate students’ hostel facilities and
services on Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) Campus.
Regard was given to services rendered by functionality, environmental friendliness and
management. The study adopted a structured questionnaire which was administered on 70
postgraduate students (residing in the hostels) who were selected through convenience
sampling. The data collected was analysed using RSI and mean aggregate RSIs. It was found
that occupants were highly satisfied with the television room, bedroom, kitchen, bathroom,
meeting room, support services and lobbies and indecisive about their satisfaction with
laundry room and management of the hostels. However, the use of a non-probability
sampling like convenience cannot allow appropriate generalisation. In addition, information
on how each gender varies with satisfaction was not addressed.
Mustafa (2017) conducted a PoE of building performance using the building of
architecture and software engineering department in Salahaddin University-Erbil in Iraq.
The study correlated building performance and users’ satisfaction using 40 indicators
categorised into four: design quality, indoor environmental quality (IEQ) and quality of
building support services. A survey questionnaire based on a 5-point Likert scale was
employed. A total number of 120 copies of the questionnaire were distributed but 78% (that is
94) valid response rate was recorded and considered for the study. The study adopted
Kendall’s tau correlation in the analysis of the data collected from the respondents and a high
coefficient of 0.811 was produced. The result of the study showed that 88% of building
performance attributes highly correlated users’ satisfaction. However, this study was
conducted on educational building other than students’ halls of residence, and its findings
cannot be applicable.
Philip et al. (2018) conduct a PoE of students’ hostel facilities in Federal Universities in the
North Central region of Nigeria. The study adopted questionnaire and observation schedule
in the collection of data and SPSS software in the analysis of the data. It was found that
overcrowding, inadequate spaces, non-availability of recreational spaces and lack of Internet
services were challenges faced by the students. Khajehzadeh and Vale (2016) also found that
students had problems regarding circulation, interaction, privacy, security, noise, access
hierarchy, storage spaces, territory definition and use of rooms. Like most studies mentioned
earlier, the use of general satisfaction level to conclude leaves a gap unfilled.
Buba et al. (2019) carried out a PoE of female students’ hostel at Waziri Umaru Federal
Polytechnic, Birnin Kebbi, in the Northwestern part of Nigeria. The buildings evaluated had
been in use for almost two decades. The study adopted indicators such as accessibility and
circulation, space performance, cleaning and maintenance of the hostel, occupation density
and proximity to essential facilities in the Polytechnic. Data were collected through
interviews and structured questionnaires which were administered randomly to student
occupants on every floor and wing of the hostel. The levels of satisfaction of the students were
analysed using RSI, and results showed that the students on both ground and upper floors
were dissatisfied with facilities and services, occupation density, cleaning and maintenance
and proximity to essential facilities. However, the study, in the determination of students’
level of satisfaction, also left a gap in that the heterogeneity of gender was not considered.
 Generally, the various indicators that were used in the reviewed studies can be grouped PoE of
into four factors: physical attributes of buildings, IEQ, social factors and supporting facilities, students’ halls
all of which were considered in our analysis of data. The previous studies reviewed on
students’ halls of residence (or hostels) provided important information on the satisfaction of
of residence
students. However, the question of how each gender differs in their levels of satisfaction
remains unanswered.
167
3. Research method
Data were collected for the study with the use of a questionnaire. From the pilot survey, there
were 2,000 fresh undergraduate students in Angola and Mozambique halls of residence; the
Angola and Mozambique halls of residence are respectively the halls of residence for the male
and female freshmen. Out of this total, 880 reside in the former and 1,120 reside in the latter.
The choice of fresh students was borne out of the fact that, unlike the stales, they had not
acclimatised to the condition of the residence halls which is more or less different from homes
they were from.
A total of 250 copies of questionnaire were administered on student occupants of Angola
Hall and Mozambique Hall. Out of this total, 110 male students were considered in Angola
Hall, while the remaining 140 female students were from Mozambique Hall. The selection of
the students was based on a student per room using simple random technique. With this
technique, each of the students who represented the rooms was selected at random provided
they reside in the rooms. The questionnaire typically considered key dimensions of a
building’s performance in terms of factors such as the physical attributes of buildings, IEQ,
social factors and supporting facilities.
The data elicited from field survey were presented and analysed using frequency and
percentage distribution tables, mean, standard deviation, Relative Importance Index (RII),
independent-samples t-test and Kendall Tau’s correlation.
The satisfaction levels of each gender were measured using a modified version of the scale
developed by earlier studies (see Hassanain, 2008; Najib et al., 2011).
Less than 1.50 5 very dissatisfied
1.50–1.99 5 dissatisfied
2.00–2.49 5 fairly dissatisfied
2.50–2.99 5 fairly satisfied
3.00–3.49 5 satisfied
Above 3.49 5 very satisfied

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Perceived level of satisfaction of the students
The examination of the students’ perceived and expected levels of satisfaction with the
facilities in the halls of residence based on their gender differences is shown in Table 1.
The mean scores represent the students’ level of satisfaction. Mean scores of above 2.5
indicate that the students were satisfied with the indicators considered, while those less than
2.5 indicate dissatisfaction. The indicators are grouped into four different categories: the
physical attributes, IEQ, social factors and supporting services as shown in the table.
Under physical attributes, the male students were satisfied with the proximity of the room
to the canteen, proportions and dimensions and ceiling height of the rooms, the proximity of
PM PoE indicators Male students (N 5 108) PoE indicators Female students (N 5 137)
39,2
Physical Std. Mean Physical Std. Mean
attributes Mean Dev. Result Rank attributes Mean Dev. Result Rank

Proximity of room 3.57 1.01 VS 1st Quality of open 3.25 1.21 S 1st
to the canteen space design
168 (walkways)
Proportions and 3.56 1.23 VS 2nd Proportions and 3.15 1.18 S 2nd
dimensions and dimensions and
ceiling height of ceiling height of
the rooms reading rooms
Proximity of room 3.25 1.15 S 3rd Spatial 3.15 1.46 S 3rd
to TV/common configuration and
room size of rooms
Spatial 3.17 1.36 S 4th Availability of 3.12 1.09 S 4th
configuration and adequate
size of rooms sidewalks
between buildings
Availability of 3.03 1.18 S 5th Proportions and 3.09 1.22 S 5th
adequate dimensions and
sidewalks ceiling height of
between buildings the rooms
Adequacy of 3.02 1.43 S 6th Spatial 3.05 1.07 S 6th
horizontal configuration, size
circulation routes of canteen
in the building
(ease of moving
about on the floor)
Quality of open 2.97 1.31 FS 7th Adequacy of 3.04 1.3 S 7th
space design horizontal
(walkways) circulation routes
in the building
(ease of moving
about on the floor)
Sanitation of the 2.97 1.37 FS 8th Spatial 2.98 1.03 FS 8th
surrounding of configuration, size
the room of TV room
Overall quality of 2.91 1.21 FS 9th Proportions and 2.98 1.21 FS 9th
layout for dimensions and
accommodation ceiling height of
building the TV room
Proportions and 2.91 1.32 FS 10th Location of the 2.97 1.25 FS 10th
dimensions and bathroom from
ceiling height of your room
the TV room
Location of the 2.88 1.39 FS 11th Sanitation of the 2.94 1.42 FS 11th
bathroom from surrounding of
your room the room
Proportions and 2.86 1.1 FS 12th Proximity of room 2.87 1.64 FS 12th
dimensions and to shuttle bus
ceiling height of stops (public
Table 1. the canteen transportation)
Students’ mean levels
of satisfaction (continued )
PoE indicators Male students (N 5 108) PoE indicators Female students (N 5 137)
PoE of
students’ halls
Physical Std. Mean Physical Std. Mean of residence
attributes Mean Dev. Result Rank attributes Mean Dev. Result Rank

Overall quality of 2.81 1.28 FS 13th Quality and 2.85 1.32 FS 13th
layout for TV presentation of
room landscaping and 169
pavements
around the
buildings
Proximity of room 2.79 1.22 FS 14th Adequacy of 2.83 1.25 FS 14th
to health facilities opening design
(doors and
windows) in the
spaces
Proximity of room 2.78 1.48 FS 15th Proportions and 2.82 1.08 FS 15th
to shuttle bus dimensions and
stops (public ceiling height of
transportation) the canteen
Proportions and 2.69 1.2 FS 16th Spatial 2.82 1.31 FS 16th
dimensions and configuration, size
ceiling height of of reading rooms
reading rooms
Overall quality of 2.58 1.09 FS 17th Overall quality of 2.81 1.39 FS 17th
layout for canteen layout for
building accommodation
building
Quality and 2.48 1.17 FD 18th Overall quality of 2.79 1.03 FS 18th
presentation of layout for TV
landscaping and room
pavements
around the
buildings
Quality, 2.47 1.33 FD 19th Overall quality of 2.78 1.15 FS 19th
appearance and layout for reading
presentation of rooms
the buildings’
interior finishes,
furniture,
materials and
colours
Spatial 2.44 1.25 FD 20th Overall quality of 2.77 1.12 FS 20th
configuration, size layout for canteen
of TV room building
Overall quality of 2.41 1.12 FD 21st Quality of doors 2.69 1.03 FS 21st
layout for reading and windows, key
rooms to doors and
lockers
Quality and 2.4 1.15 FD 22nd Quality and 2.67 1.07 FS 22nd
presentation of presentation of
exterior finishes interior finishes in
in all spaces all spaces
Spatial 2.39 1.11 FD 23rd Proximity of room 2.67 1.27 FS 23rd
configuration, size to lecture rooms
of canteen

(continued ) Table 1.
PM PoE indicators Male students (N 5 108) PoE indicators Female students (N 5 137)
39,2
Physical Std. Mean Physical Std. Mean
attributes Mean Dev. Result Rank attributes Mean Dev. Result Rank

Quality of doors 2.33 1.22 FD 24th Proximity of room 2.64 1.55 FS 24th
and windows, key to places of
170 to doors and worship
lockers
Adequacy of 2.31 1.09 FD 25th Quality and 2.53 1.18 FS 25th
opening design presentation of
(doors and exterior finishes
windows) in the in all spaces
spaces
Quality and 2.27 1.07 FD 26th Proximity of room 2.53 1.53 FS 26th
presentation of to TV/common
interior finishes in room
all spaces
Spatial 2.21 1.09 FD 27th Proximity of room 2.50 1.45 FS 27th
configuration, size to the market
of reading rooms place
Proximity of room 2.17 1.38 FD 28th Proximity of room 2.41 1.14 FD 28th
to places of to the canteen
worship
Proximity of room 2.16 1.12 FD 29th Quality, 2.40 0.92 FD 29th
to lecture rooms appearance and
presentation of
the buildings’
interior finishes,
furniture,
materials and
colours
Proximity of room 2.05 1.13 FD 30th Proximity of room 2.39 1.23 FD 30th
to the market to health facilities
place
Number of people 1.97 1.25 D 31st Number of people 1.90 1.14 D 31st
you share you share
bathroom and bathroom and
toilet with toilet with
Mean of mean 2.67 Mean of mean 2.79
scores scores
Indoor environmental quality (IEQ)

Adequacy and 3.26 1.33 S 1st Quality of air in 3.5 1.08 VS 1st
quality of natural the lobby,
lighting levels in common spaces
all spaces and corridors
Adequacy and 3.11 1.36 S 2nd Adequacy and 3.45 1.04 S 2nd
quality of quality of
artificial lighting artificial lighting
levels in all spaces levels in all spaces
Quality of air in 2.94 1.1 FS 3rd Adequacy and 3.31 1.13 S 3rd
canteen quality of natural
(smelliness and lighting levels in
dryness) all spaces

Table 1. (continued )
PoE indicators Male students (N 5 108) PoE indicators Female students (N 5 137)
PoE of
students’ halls
Physical Std. Mean Physical Std. Mean of residence
attributes Mean Dev. Result Rank attributes Mean Dev. Result Rank

Quality of air in 2.84 1.26 FS 4th Quality of air in 2.97 0.94 FS 4th
the lobby, canteen
common spaces (smelliness and 171
and corridors dryness)
Noise from 2.75 1.32 FS 5th Quality of air in 2.85 1.22 FS 5th
lighting fixtures reading room
(bulbs and lamps) (smelliness and
dryness)
Noise from 2.65 1.19 FS 6th Quality of air in 2.68 1.18 FS 6th
outside the TV room
buildings (smelliness and
dryness)
Quality of air in 2.53 1.17 FS 7th Quality of air in 2.64 1.14 FS 7th
the lobby, the lobby,
common spaces common spaces
and corridors and corridors
Quality of air in 2.47 1.14 FD 8th Quality of thermal 2.64 1.19 FS 8th
rooms (smell and comfort (natural
dryness) and artificial) in
the buildings
Quality of thermal 2.46 1.23 FD 9th Quality of air in 2.39 1.25 FD 9th
comfort (natural rooms (smell and
and artificial) in dryness)
the buildings
Noise from people 2.44 1.31 FD 10th Noise from 2.34 1.25 FD 10th
in rooms of the lighting fixtures
building (bulbs and lamps)
Quality of air in 2.37 1.06 FD 11th Quality of air in 2.01 1.01 FD 11th
reading room washrooms and
(smelliness and toilets
dryness)
Quality of air in 2.19 1.07 FD 12th Noise from 2.00 0.97 FD 12th
TV room outside the
(smelliness and buildings
dryness)
Quality of air in 2.15 1.18 FD 13th Noise from people 1.72 1.08 D 13th
washrooms and in rooms of the
toilets building
Mean of mean 2.64 Mean of mean 2.65
scores scores
Social factors

Entertaining of 3.14 1.41 S 1st Number of 2.91 1.54 FS 1st

friends in the persons in the
room room
Relaxing, resting 3.06 1.26 S 2nd Relaxing, resting 2.87 1.44 FS 2nd
and sleeping in and sleeping in
the room the room

(continued ) Table 1.
PM PoE indicators Male students (N 5 108) PoE indicators Female students (N 5 137)
39,2
Physical Std. Mean Physical Std. Mean
attributes Mean Dev. Result Rank attributes Mean Dev. Result Rank

Number of 2.72 1.3 FS 3rd Studying in the 2.86 1.29 FS 3rd

persons in the room
172 room
Level of privacy 2.03 1.25 FD 4th Entertaining of 2.75 1.25 FS 4th
in the room friends in the
room
Studying in the 2.02 1.07 FD 5th Level of privacy 2.05 1.24 D 5th
room in the room
Mean of mean 2.59 Mean of mean 2.69
scores scores
Supporting services

Availability and 4.14 1.19 VS 1st Availability and 4.03 1.32 VS 1st
quality of quality of
electricity electricity
Quality and 2.88 3.21 FS 2nd Quality and 2.99 1.18 FS 2nd
cleanliness of cleanliness of
health facilities health facilities
Availability and 2.48 1.47 FD 3rd Availability and 2.61 0.87 FS 3rd
quality of water quality of support
supply services for
disabled persons
Availability and 2.39 1.24 FD 4th Quality and 2.56 1.32 FS 4th
quality of support adequacy of
services for security and fire
disabled persons safety in the
building
Quality, size, 2.31 1.11 FD 5th Quality, size, 2.55 1.03 FS 5th
colour and colour and
distribution of distribution of
furniture in all furniture in all
spaces spaces
Quality and 2.27 1.18 FD 6th Quality and 2.18 1.28 FD 6th
cleanliness of cleanliness of
washroom bathroom and
facilities toilet facilities
Quality and 2.17 1.26 FD 7th Availability and 2.06 1.17 FD 7th
cleanliness of quality of water
bathroom and supply
toilet facilities
Quality and 2.06 1.22 FD 8th Quality and 1.96 0.99 D 8th
adequacy of cleanliness of
security and fire washroom
safety in the facilities
building

Table 1. (continued )
PoE indicators Male students (N 5 108) PoE indicators Female students (N 5 137)
PoE of
students’ halls
Physical Std. Mean Physical Std. Mean of residence
attributes Mean Dev. Result Rank attributes Mean Dev. Result Rank

Availability and 1.61 1.04 D 9th Availability and 1.57 1.08 D 9th
quality of study quality of study
table and chair, table and chair, 173
capacity of capacity of
wardrobe, towel wardrobe, towel
railings, dressing railings, dressing
mirror, socket mirror, socket
Mean of mean 2.48 Mean of mean 2.50
scores scores
Note(s): N represents the number of respondents, VS- Very Satisfied, S- Satisfied, FS- Fairly Satisfied,
FD-Fairly Dissatisfied, D- Dissatisfied Table 1.

rooms to TV/common room, spatial configuration and size of the rooms and availability of
adequate sidewalks between buildings. However, they were dissatisfied with the proximity of
rooms to the place of worship, lecture rooms and market place and the number of people they
share toilets with. The fact that the male students incur additional cost to visit these facilities,
some of which they visited nearly daily to enhance their spiritual and academic growth and
sustenance could be responsible for their level of dissatisfaction. At the same time, with an
official allocation of eight students to a room designed for four students as a result of a large
intake of students into the University, shared toilet facilities were overstressed and subjected
to constant indiscriminate use, thereby leading to dissatisfaction. This corroborates the
finding of Ajayi et al. (2015) and Buba et al. (2019) which also found students’ dissatisfaction
with toilets and proximity to facilities, respectively.
The female students, on the other hand, were satisfied with the quality of open space
design (walkways), proportion and dimensions of the ceiling height of the reading room,
spatial configuration and size of rooms, availability of adequate sidewalks between buildings
and proportions and dimensions and ceiling height of the rooms. However, they were
dissatisfied with the proximity of canteen; quality, appearance and presentation of the
building interior finishes; and proximity to health facilities. The time it takes to get to the
health facility, especially during emergencies often resulted in avoidable casualties. This
result is in line with the findings of Buba et al. (2019) which also found students’
dissatisfaction with proximity to facilities. Since the interior parts are not often redecorated,
interior finishes were easily regarded as old fashioned, hence the reason for the
dissatisfaction.
Under IEQ, the male students were satisfied with the adequacy and quality of natural
lighting levels in all spaces and the adequacy and quality of artificial lighting levels in all
spaces. However, they were dissatisfied with the quality of air in reading rooms (smell and
dryness), quality of air in the TV room (smell and dryness) and quality of air in washrooms
and toilets. With overcrowding as a result of having more people than what the TV room,
washrooms and toilets were originally designed for, air and light inlet into the various spaces
appeared too small for the current usage. Equally, improper response to management and
maintenance of faulty lighting fittings, as also found by Akinluyi (2013), could be responsible
for the male students’ dissatisfaction.
On the other hand, the female students were satisfied with the quality of air in the lobby,
common spaces and corridors, adequacy and quality of artificial lighting levels in all
PM spaces and adequacy and quality of natural lighting levels in all spaces. They were,
39,2 however, dissatisfied with noise from outside the buildings and from people in rooms of
the building. The different backgrounds the students were from and the large number of
students the halls accommodated could be reasons for their dissatisfaction. This result is
similar to Khajehzadeh and Vale’s (2016) finding that students were dissatisfied
with noise.
Under social factors, the male students were satisfied with entertaining of friends in the
174 room and relaxing, resting and sleeping in the room. The female students, on the other hand,
were satisfied with the number of persons in the room, relaxing, resting and sleeping in the
room, studying in the room and entertaining of friends in the room. However, while the male
students were dissatisfied with studying in the room, both genders were dissatisfied with the
level of privacy in the room. The fact that eight persons share a room prevents the students’
from having privacy. Also, the interests of students living in the same room cannot be the
same and these could be responsible for the students’ dissatisfaction. This finding is in
line with Khajehzadeh and Vale (2016) who also found that students were dissatisfied with
the level of privacy in their rooms.
Lastly, under supporting services, both genders were satisfied with the availability and
quality of electricity and the quality and cleanliness of health facilities. However, the male
students were dissatisfied with the quality and cleanliness of bathroom and toilet facilities;
quality and adequacy of security and fire safety in the building; availability and quality of
study table and chair, the capacity of the wardrobe, towel railings, dressing mirror and
socket. Toilet facilities not neatly used by the students because of overcrowding resulted
in discomfort when they were used. Unrestricted movements into the hall especially
during visiting hours and the carelessness of some of the students made the hall
susceptible to theft and fire risk and this could be responsible for their dissatisfaction. On
the other hand, the female students were dissatisfied with the quality and cleanliness of
washroom facilities; and availability and quality of study table and chair, capacity of the
wardrobe, towel railings, dressing mirror and socket. The students had lived to see
sophisticated facilities, furniture and fittings and not the old ones, which had not been
replaced in many years. This could be responsible for the students’ levels of
dissatisfaction.
Generally, the respective overall mean satisfaction levels of the male and female
students indicate that the female students were more satisfied than the male students
(physical attributes: male 5 2.67, female 5 2.79; IEQ: male 5 2.64, female 5 2.65; social
factors: male 5 2.59, female 5 2.69; supporting services: male 5 2.48, female 5 2.50). The
results showed that although both genders were satisfied with the physical attributes, IEQ
and social factors, the females were more satisfied than the male. With the supporting
services in the halls of residence, the female students were satisfied while the males were
dissatisfied. The consideration of the susceptibility of female students to infections in the
day to day maintenance of the physical structure of their hostel and its environment and
the provision of social and supporting facilities could be responsible for their levels of
satisfaction. This result did not agree with the finding of Lai (2013) that services such as
lighting and fire safety (services) were the two important aspects of students’
expectations.

4.2 Independent sample T-test of perceived and expected levels of satisfaction

A further test is done to ascertain the significance of the mean differences in the students’
perceived and expected levels of satisfaction. The result produced by the
independent-samples t-test shows the significance of the relationship between categorical,
independent variables (gender) and continuous, dependent variable (level of satisfaction) at PoE of
5% level of significance. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 2. students’ halls
The result of the independent-samples t-test shows that there was no significant difference
between the male students’ level of satisfaction (mean 5 82.806, SD 5 17.488) and female
of residence
students’ level of satisfaction (mean 5 86.380, SD 5 20.883); t (243) 5 1.457, p 5 0.146,
two-tailed, on the physical attributes of the halls, with a p-value greater than the required cut-
off of 0.05. The magnitude of the difference in the means (mean difference 5 3.57, 95% Cl:
8.51 to 1.36) was very small (eta squared 5 0.009) meaning only 0.9% of the variance in the 175
factor is explained by gender.
For the IEQ, there was no significant difference between the male students’ level of
satisfaction (mean 5 34.157, SD 5 7.513) and female students’ level of satisfaction
(mean 5 34.489, SD 5 8.597); t (243) 5 0.317, p 5 0.752, two-tailed; having a p-value greater
than the required cut-off of 0.05. The magnitude of the difference in the means (mean
difference 5 0.33, 95% Cl: 2.39 to 1.73) was very small (eta squared 5 0.0004) meaning
only 0.04% of the variance in the factor is explained by gender.
For social factors, there was no significant difference between the male students’ level of
satisfaction (mean 5 12.963, SD 5 3.806) and female students’ level of satisfaction
(mean 5 13.438, SD 5 5.902); t (243) 5 0.762, p 5 0.447, two-tailed. This is because the
p-value is greater than the required cut-off of 0.05. The magnitude of the difference in the
means (mean difference 5 0.47, 95% Cl: 1.70 to 0.75) was very small (eta squared 5 0.002)
meaning only 0.2% of the variance in the factor is explained by gender.
Lastly, for supporting services, there was also no significant difference between the male
students’ level of satisfaction, at p 5 0.801 two-tailed. (mean 5 22.315, SD 5 6.476) and female
students’ level of satisfaction (mean 5 22.511, SD 5 5.670); t (243) 5 0.252. The magnitude
of the difference in the means (mean difference 5 0.20, 95% Cl: 1.73 to 1.33) was very small
(eta squared 5 0.0003) meaning only 0.03% of the variance in the factor is explained by
gender.
The results show that the students shared the same view on their satisfaction level.
These results could be because of the recent renovation of the buildings in the halls and
perhaps because of similar demographic shared by the students.
As shown in Table 3, the students’ expectations on the physical attributes, IEQ, social
factors and supporting services in the building which they were asked to rank on a 5-point
scale (1- Not important At All to 5- Very important). Given that almost all the mean values
above 4.0 (Important), this means that the students had high expectations for the factors
considered.

PoE performance Mean Std. Mean

indicators Gender N aggregate Dev. difference F T p-value

Physical attributes Male 108 82.806 17.488 3.574 4.967 1.457 0.146
Female 137 86.38 20.883
IEQ Male 108 34.157 7.513 0.332 1.111 0.317 0.752
Female 137 34.489 8.597
Social factors Male 108 12.963 3.806 0.475 61.979 0.762 0.447 Table 2.
Female 137 13.438 5.902 Independent sample T-
Supporting Male 108 22.315 6.476 0.196 0.845 0.252 0.801 Test to compare means
services Female 137 22.511 5.67 of students’ perceived
Note(s): Std. Dev.- Standard Deviation level of satisfaction
PM Std. Mean
39,2 Indicators Gender N Mean Dev. difference F T p-value

Physical attributes

Building design and layout Male 108 4.51 5.00 0.509 3.995 1.049 0.297
Female 137 4.00 0.74
176 Interior and exterior Male 108 4.04 0.99 0.037 10.198 0.331 0.741
aesthetics Female 137 4.00 0.70
Accessibility Male 108 4.28 0.75 0.183 3.18 1.636 0.103
Female 137 4.09 0.95
IEQ

Lighting and ventilation Male 108 4.49 0.72 0.06 1.213 0.601 0.548
Female 137 4.43 0.82
Thermal comfort Male 108 4.49 0.69 0.067 1.165 0.744 0.458
Female 137 4.42 0.71
Indoor air quality Male 108 4.46 0.81 0.127 0.142 1.228 0.221
Female 137 4.34 0.80
Acoustic comfort Male 108 4.06 0.98 0.096 0.477 0.862 0.389
Female 137 4.16 0.76
Social factors

Students’ privacy in the Male 108 4.61 0.62 0.364 0.279 2.772 0.006
room Female 137 4.39 0.76
Number of heads per room Male 108 4.59 0.89 0.302 10.218 3.198 0.002
Female 137 4.47 0.66
Cleanliness Male 108 4.51 0.73 0.022 2.666 0.259 0.796
Female 137 4.03 0.80
State of building’s Male 108 4.17 0.98 0.109 0.775 1.139 0.256
surrounding Female 137 3.80 1.05
Supporting services

Security and Fire safety Male 108 4.43 0.79 0.217 5.236 2.452 0.015
Table 3. Female 137 4.12 0.66
Independent sample Adequacy and quality of Male 108 4.52 0.59 0.125 0.006 1.266 0.207
T-Test to compare services (water and Female 137 4.50 0.72
means of students’ electricity)
expected level of Quality of other services Male 108 4.48 0.72 0.48 0.061 4.832 0.000
satisfaction Female 137 4.37 0.77

Under the physical factors, the results show that there are no significant differences between
the expectations of the male and female students on the interior and exterior aesthetics,
building design and layout and accessibility since p-values are above 0.05. However, the level
of similarity in their satisfaction for interior and exterior aesthetics is far higher than those of
building design and layout and accessibility. This could mean that the recent repainting of
the halls manifests significantly on their aesthetics than their design and accessibility.
Under the IEQ, there are no significant differences in the expectations of the male and
female students on lighting and ventilation, thermal comfort, indoor air quality and acoustic
comfort since p-values are above 0.05. The reason for this could be because of the
appropriateness of the building designs, construction and orientation.
Under the social factors, there are significant differences between the means of the two
genders in the aspects of students’ privacy in the room and the number of heads per room;
p-values are below 0.05. This could be due to conflict of interests among the students which do PoE of
not affect the students the same way. Conversely, no significant differences exist between students’ halls
their mean values on cleanliness and state of building’s surrounding since p-values are above
0.05. The reason for this could be because both halls are given the same attention in terms of
of residence
routine maintenance.
Lastly, under supporting services, the result shows that there are significant differences in
the means of the two genders on security and fire safety and quality of other services;
p-values are below 0.05. This difference could be because the halls are not served by the same 177
security personnel and certain services like firefighting are not often needed except in the
event of a fire outbreak. On the other hand, no significant difference exists in their responses
on the adequacy and quality of services (water and electricity) with p-values above 0.05. The
reason for this could be because of the regular power supply of electricity and distribution of
water to the various water tanks which are located at strategic points in the halls.

4.3 Correlation between students’ expectations and perceived satisfaction

The correlation between the expectations of the students and their perceived satisfaction was
tested using Kendall’s tau-b correlation. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 4.
In the male category as shown in Table 4, there is a weak and imperfect positive
correlation between their expected and perceived levels of satisfaction with physical
attributes (0.108). There are also weak and imperfect negative correlations between their
expected satisfaction and perceived satisfaction with IEQ, social factors and supporting
services ( 0.023, 0.15 and 0.121, respectively). On the other hand, in the female students’
category, there are weak and imperfect positive correlations between their expected and
perceived levels of satisfaction with physical attributes, IEQ and social factors (0.347, 0.222
and 0.180, respectively). Also, there is a weak and imperfect negative correlation between
their expected satisfaction and perceived satisfaction with supporting services ( 0.139).
The result shows that both the male and female students were satisfied beyond their
expectations with the physical attributes of the halls, but their expectations were not met on
the IEQ, social factors and supporting services of the halls. This result could be because of the
appreciation that the students might have had for the aesthetics of the University when they
first got on Campus.

Male Female
Mean aggregate Correlation Mean aggregate Correlation
PoE Kendall’s Kendall’s
indicators Expected Perceived tau-b p-value* Expected Perceived tau-b p-value**

Physical 53.13 82.81 0.108 0.126 50.11 86.38 0.347 0.000

Attributes
IEQ 72.54 34.16 0.023 0.743 71.88 34.45 0.222 0.001
Social 72.89 12.96 0.150 0.039 69.58 13.44 0.180 0.006
Factors
Supporting 56.81 22.31 0.121 0.105 53.41 22.51 0.139 0.034
Services
Note(s): *There is a significant difference between male students’ expectations and their perceived Table 4.
satisfaction with social factors at a 5% level of significance. Conversely, there are no significant differences Kendall’s tau-b
between their expectations and their perceived satisfaction with physical attributes, IEQ and supporting correlation between
services, **On the other hand, the responses of the female students showed that there are significant students’ expectation
differences between their expectations and perceived satisfaction with the physical attributes, IEQ, social and perceived
factors and supporting services satisfaction
PM 5. Conclusion
39,2 The state of halls of residences in Nigerian universities calls for urgent attention but this will
not succeed without the ascertaining of the satisfaction of the end-users (students). In this
study, students’ level of satisfaction has been measured based on gender differentiation. This
was thought out of the fact that an understanding of the gendered differences with respect to
the level of satisfaction will aid proper management of students’ halls of residence in
universities. This study, therefore, examined the expected and perceived levels of satisfaction
178 of students with facilities in two halls of residence in OAU, Nigeria. The results show that the
female students were satisfied with the physical attributes, IEQ, social factors and supporting
services of the hall. On the other hand, the male students were also satisfied with the physical
attributes, IEQ and social factors but dissatisfied with the supporting services. In general,
both genders were satisfied beyond their expectations with the physical attributes of the
halls, but their expectations were not met on the IEQ, social factors and supporting services of
the halls. This result did not agree with Lai (2013) on the note that services such as lighting
and fire safety were the two important aspects of students’ expectations. This result has been
attributed to the appreciation that the students might have had for the aesthetics of the
University when they first got on Campus.
Although this study has provided valuable information which could help the University in
formulating policy for the effective management of existing hostel facilities in order to
improve their performance, it is not without some limitations. In term of its scope, the study
focused only on one university in Nigeria. Adequate caution should, therefore, be taken when
applying its results to similar problems especially in other emerging countries like Nigeria.
Nonetheless, the result of the study provides a direction for further research where more
educational institutions can be considered to allow an appropriate generalisation.

References
Adewunmi, F. (2012), Student Accommodation in Nigeria– an Opportunity for Investors, How We
Made it in Africa, Business Articles.
Agyekum, K., Ayarkwa, J. and Amoah, P. (2016), “Post-occupancy evaluation of postgraduate
students’ hostel Facilities and Services”, Journal of Building Performance, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 97-104, available at: http://spaj.ukm.my/jsb/index.php/jbp/index.
Ajayi, M., Nwosu, A. and Ajayi, Y. (2015), “Students’ satisfaction with hostel facilities in federal
university of Technology, Akure, Nigeria”, European Scientific Journal, Vol. 11 No. 34,
pp. 402-415, available at: http://www.eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/6739.
Akinluyi, M.L. (2013), “Post-occupancy evaluation of on-campus students’ hall of residence, A case
study of Obafemi Awolowo hall of residence”, Greener Journal of Science, Engineering and
Technology Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-11, available at: http://www.gjournals.org.
Bernard Williams Associates (2002), Facilities Economics UK, 2nd ed., Building Economics Bureau,
Bromley.
Bordass, B., Leaman, A. and Stevenson, F. (2010), “Building evaluation: practice and principles”,
Building Research and Information, Vol. 38, pp. 564-577, doi: 10.1080/09613218.2010.495217.
Buba, I., Damina, G.B., Ka’ase, E.T. and Ojile, P. (2019), “Post-occupancy evaluation of female students’
hostel at Waziri Umaru federal polytechnic, Birnin Kebbi, North-West Nigeria”, Journal of
Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology, Vol. 13 No. 12, pp. 6-11, available at:
http://www.iosrjournals.org.
Hassanain, M. (2008), “On the performance evaluation of sustainable student housing facilities”,
Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 6, pp. 212-225, doi: 10.1108/14725960810885989.
Khajehzadeh, I. and Vale, B. (2016), “Shared student residential space: a Post-Occupancy Evaluation”,
Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 14, pp. 102-124, doi: 10.1108/JFM-09-2014-0031.
Lai, J.H.K. (2013), “Post-occupancy evaluation of university student hostel facilities: a case study in PoE of
Hong Kong”, available at: http://www.irbnet.de>daten>icondapdf.
students’ halls
Liu, D., Guan, X., Du, Y. and Zhao, Q. (2013), “Measuring indoor occupancy in intelligent buildings
using the fusion of vision sensors”, Measurement Science and Technology, Vol. 24 No. 7,
of residence
pp. 1-13, available at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258295002_Measuring_indoor_
occupancy_in_intelligent_buildings_using_the_fusion_of_vision_sensors.
Mustafa, A.F. (2017), “Performance assessment of buildings via post-occupancy evaluation: a case study of
the building of the Architecture and Software Engineering Departments in Salahaddin University- 179
Erbil, Iraq”, Frontiers of Architectural Research, Vol. 6, pp. 412-429, doi: 10.1016/j.foar.2017.06.004.
Najib, N.U., Yusof, N.A. and Osman, Z. (2011), “The influence of socio-economic backgrounds towards
satisfaction with student housing facilities”, International Journal of Social, Behavioral,
Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 10, pp. 1245-1250,
available at: http://www.waset.org.
Nawawi, A.H. and Khalil, N. (2008), “Post-occupancy evaluation correlated with building occupants’
satisfaction: an approach to performance evaluation of government and public buildings”,
Journal of Building Appraisal, Vol. 4, pp. 59-69, doi: 10.1057/jba.2008.22.
Ning, Y. and Chen, J. (2016), “Improving residential satisfaction of university dormitories through
post-occupancy evaluation in China: a Socio-Technical System Approach”, Sustainability, Vol. 8,
pp. 1-13, doi: 10.3390/su8101050.
Ojile, P., Buba, I., Damina, G.B. and Ka’ase, E.T. (2016), “Post occupancy evaluation of new college of
environmental studies buildings at Gesse campus, Waziri Umaru federal polytechnic, Birnin
Kebbi”, Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology, Vol. 10 No. 12,
pp. 65-59.
Oladiran, O.J. (2013), “A Post-occupancy evaluation of students’ hostels accommodation”, Journal of
Building Performance, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 33-43, available at: http://spaj.ukm.my/jsb/index.php/
jbp/index.
Olatunji, A.A. (2013), “Post-occupancy evaluation of Lagos State Polytechnic facilities: a user-based
system”, Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 229-236, available at: http://jeteas.scholarlinkresearch.org.
Philip, A., Ileanwa, A.C. and El-Hussain, A.M. (2018), Post-occupancy Evaluation of Students’ Hostel
Facilities in Federal Universities in North Central, Nigeria, Scientific and Academic Publishing,
Vol. 8, pp. 123-128, doi: 10.5923/j.arch.20180804.02.
Preiser, W.F.E. (2002), Improving Building Performance, National Council of Architectural Registration
Board, Washington, DC.
Riley, M. (2013), Developing a Model for the Application of Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) as a
Facilities Performance Enhancement Tool in the Higher Education Sector, Doctoral dissertation,
Liverpool John Moores University, LJMU research online, available at: http://www.
reseachoonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/6192/.
Sawyer, P.T. and Yusof, N. (2013), “Student satisfaction with hostel facilities in Nigerian polytechnics”,
Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 11, pp. 306-321, doi: 10.1108/jfm-08-2012-0041.
Vischer, J.C. (2009), “Applying knowledge on building performance: from evidence to intelligence”,
Intelligent Buildings International, Vol. 1, pp. 239-248, doi: 10.3763/inbi.2009.SI02.

Corresponding author
Ayodele Samuel Adegoke can be contacted at: ayodeleadegoke08@yahoo.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com