Students’ Perception of Residential Satisfaction in the Level of Off-Campus Environment

Assessing Residential Satisfaction by Level of Residence in Off-Campus Environment

“…Muslim et al (2013)) The proportions of those who were strongly dissatisfied, dissatisfied and slightly dissatisfied with the attributes of the house, the attributes of the neighborhood, and the attributes of the city were 30.6 percent, 42.8 percent, and 35.3 percent respectively. These results suggested that there was not a hierarchal order to these levels.…”

“…produced thirteen factors and explained 74.623 percent of the variance. Muslim, Karim, Abdullah, and Ahmad (2013)) All 13 factors had eigenvalues of 1.00 or more and only the variables with factor loading of more than 0.500 were selected. The results showed that variables that comprised each factor were highly related, and it was not difficult to describe which level of environment each factor represented.…”

“…Table 3. Dimension of satisfaction at house level (Source: Muslim et al (2013)) Spatial issues were the most important dimension at the level of the house, whereas social were the most important dimension at the level of the neighborhood, and functional is important dimensions at the level of the city (refer to Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 respectively). These shown that certain factors are more important than others in determining satisfaction between the housing unit and the neighborhood.…”

“…Indeed, residents' satisfaction with these offcampus housing environment in relation to levels of environment was not quite the same as what was implied by the residence sociability. Muslim et al (2013)) Muslim et al (2013)) This implies that studies should not assume the levels of the environment to which residents may respond either from the configuration of the spatial environment or otherwise, but rather should identify levels through the residents' responses, especially in housing environments such as this. In addition, it suggests that studies in similar contexts as this should take account of the two levels of the environment (house and neighborhood) identified in this study as important levels along which students relate to their environment.…”

Income And Spending Behaviors In Relation To Social Life And Living Conditions Among Kenyan University Students.

“…By creating a livinglearning environment that promote collaboration, nourished cohesion, and friendly community in the campus area, it helps to develop social skills which help students become mature adults and intern it prepares them for their future life as asserted by (Cleave, 1996;Fish, 2010). Likewise, Chan et al (2011), Nugent (2012), and Muslim et al, (2013) reckoned that the focus of building on campus student housing must be deliberately thoughtful to stimulate satisfactory living condition and positively affect people-environment congruity to grant for the academic success and students' self development. It is important to take not that, failure to provide Fish, (2010) model of students housing model environment, this study reveals that despite that model provision, they perceive housing outside the campus as more private than within the campus.…”