Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue on STAAUH, November (2022) 156 - 164

© School of Engineering, Taylor’s University

LIVING IN OFF-CAMPUS STUDENT HOUSING:

ANALYSIS ON THE SATISFACTION LEVEL RELATED
TO ENVIRONMENTAL AND PHYSICAL ASPECTS

BONG YING1,*, MYZATUL AISHAH KAMARAZALY1,

FILZANI ILLIA IBRAHIM1 & HASMAWATI HARUN2
1School of Architecture, Building and Design, Taylor's University, Taylor's

Lakeside Campus, No. 1 Jalan Taylor's, 47500, Subang Jaya, Selangor DE, Malaysia
²Quantity Surveying Centre of Studies, College of Built Environment Universiti
Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Abstract
Malaysian Higher Education Institution has faced a high population growth of
students in recent years and increasing demand for off-campus student housing
due to the lack of supply of on-campus accommodation. Consequently, the
environment of off-campus student housing differs from the on-campus student
housing in terms of environmental and physical aspects, facilities provided and
neighbourhood surroundings. There is limited research on students' perceptions
of living off-campus in Malaysia. Thus, this study aimed to assess the conditions
of off-campus student housing in terms of environmental and physical aspects.
The target population was students and hostel managers in an off-campus
condominium in the Subang Jaya. The quantitative method was used in this study
using survey questionnaires. Surprisingly most students were satisfied with their
off-campus student housing in Subang Jaya. It was suggested that hostel
management create a user-friendly complaint system to manage student
complaints and establish rules and regulations on the facilities used better and
efficiently. This study offers insight for students seeking off-campus
accommodations and hostel management with the factors influencing satisfaction
levels and the appropriate methods to improve satisfaction levels in the off-
campus condominium.
Keywords: Environmental factors, Off-campus living, Physical factors, Student
accommodation, Student housing.

156
 Living in Off-Campus Student Housing: An Analysis on the Satisfaction . . . . 157

1. Introduction
Malaysia is becoming a hotspot for international universities that would like to
open a branch as its student population is much higher. Based on Malaysia
Education Statistics [1], there are about 560,000 enrolments in public universities
in Malaysia. However, Higher Education Institutions (HEI) find accommodating
all students in their existing housing facilities difficult. Some students would have
to go for the second choice, the outside private student housing provided by off-
campus developers.
Off-campus student accommodation is not the same as on-campus student
housing. It is open to choosing the most favourable type of housing from most
family housing, including apartments, condominiums, terraced, semi-detached, and
detached houses [2]. According to Wong [3], in Klang Valley, owners have
established numerous off-campus student housing in cities such as Shah Alam,
Subang Jaya, and Cyberjaya. These benefits students who prefer off-campus
accommodation due to the non-availability of on-campus student accommodation.
However, the environment between on-campus and off-campus is much different.
The quality of living will depend on its satisfaction level. Therefore, it is essential
to identify the satisfaction level towards off-campus student housing in Malaysia.

1.1. Problem statement

The condition of the off-campus student housing differs from the on-campus
student housing. Living off-campus is more challenging than living on campus.
These issues would take several forms, such as facilities provided, housing
characteristics, tenancy conditions, and the neighbourhood environment as cited by
Thomsen and Eikemo [4], resulting in varying degrees of satisfaction between on-
campus and off-campus housing.
There are many studies carried out on living off-campus. However, the results
of the studies are significantly different between Malaysia and other countries. In
one research project in Shah Alam, Malaysia, students living off-campus had low
satisfaction with their environment [5]. On the other hand, the Trondheim, Norway
study showed that students had a high satisfaction level with their off-campus living
[4]. It was difficult to determine the general condition of off-campus living in both
studies mentioned above due to uncontrollable variables such as house type,
neighbourhood environment, and living habits, which cannot be compared. In
addition, it was discovered that very little research was conducted on off-campus
living compared to on-campus living. This study examined the environmental and
physical aspects of off-campus student accommodation in Malaysia. The
condominium typology of off-campus accommodation was focused on in the study.

1.2. Aim and Objectives

This paper aimed to assess the conditions of off-campus student housing in terms
of environmental and physical aspects. The objectives of this research are: 1) to
identify the student satisfaction level on off-campus student housing; 2) to identify
the environmental and physical factors influencing the satisfaction level of the off-
campus student housing, and 3) to suggest the appropriate ways to improve the
satisfaction level for the off-campus student housing.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

158 B. Ying et al.

2. Literature Review
Students’ Residential Satisfaction (SRS) is students' overall experience or
perception towards student housing’s living environment [6, 7]. Higher satisfaction
levels will only be achieved when students' expectations are met [8]. Several studies
were carried out on the SRS level; for instance, Najib et al. [9] measured the
satisfaction level of student housing facilities at a university in Malaysia. Khozaei
et al. [8] studied the factors predicting the SRS in student housing by comparing
on-campus and off-campus, while Muslim et al. [5] studied the satisfaction of
students in UiTM Shah Alam living off-campus. The overall results are generally
positive for the on-campus only as fewer studies regarding off-campus
accommodation exist. On the other hand, this study only focused on the satisfaction
of the physical and environmental factors by referring to the model provided by
Muslim et al. [6] which consists of students' living conditions, community facilities
and services and neighbourhood physical surroundings.

2.1. Physical and environmental factors influencing the SRS

Many aspects can be identified to investigate the SRS level. According to Muslim
et al. [6] there are four (4) aspects: (i) physical attributes, (ii) social attributes, (iii)
financial attributes and (iv) management attributes. This study's focus was limited
to physical attributes, including factors of students' living conditions, community
facilities and services and neighbourhood physical surroundings.

2.2. Challenges faced by students living off-campus.

The proximity to campus or other community facilities is one of the challenges faced
by off-campus student housing [10]. Off-campus students live miles from campus and
must commute, adding to high transportation costs and additional costs such as
electricity, water, internet, and other essential utilities. Besides, insecurity is also one of
the problems faced. Off-campus locations are more likely to be the primary focus of
crime than on-campus locations. This is because off-campus students are not protected
by university security. Overcrowding is a problem faced by both on-campus and off-
campus students [10]. Space constraints are the primary cause of overcrowding
difficulties. In addition, the exorbitant rental is one of the disadvantages of off-campus
housing. Ghani et al. [11] confirmed this assumption by asserting that off-campus
housing costs are considerably higher than on-campus housing costs.

2.3. Appropriate ways to improve SRS

In terms of student housing satisfaction, hostel management is a critical factor. An
efficient complaint system can expedite identifying the source of the issue [12].
The authors highlighted that strict rules and regulations on the amenities used
would be one method to help hostel management provide better maintenance and
services. Tenancy Agreement is also one of the effective ways to prevent poor
governance [13]. The collaboration between universities and private developers can
be applied to improve or solve the inadequate fund problem for facilities used in
student housing [14]. Besides, the participation of higher education institutions
(HEI) involved with the laws and regulations regarding off-campus
accommodation is one of the appropriate solutions.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

 Living in Off-Campus Student Housing: An Analysis on the Satisfaction . . . . 159

3. Research Methodology
The quantitative research method was used in this research. The target population
for this study was the students living in an off-campus condominium in Subang
Jaya. The target sample size for students was 363. The online survey questionnaires
were conducted using Google Forms. The data obtained from the survey were
analysed using frequency distribution for the demographic information collected;
relative satisfaction index (RSI) for the satisfaction level of the students.
Descriptive analysis was used to rank the factors influencing the SRS and
appropriate ways for improving the SRS level.
According to Olukolajo and Mbazor [15], the RSI formula is
(5n5+4n4+3n3+2n2+1n1) /5N. In addition, where a variable is assessed based on
sub-constructs, the mean aggregate of RSI (MRSI) is determined. Based on
Olukolajo and Mbazor [15], the RSI values for each of the variables of analysis
were interpreted as follows.
1 –20 % represents “Very dissatisfied (VD)”,
21 –40 % represents “Dissatisfied (D)”,
41- 60 % representing “Fairly Satisfied (FS)”,
61 -80 % indicating “Satisfied (S)” and
81 –100” representing “Very satisfied (VS)”.
∑𝑛𝑖=1(𝑋𝑖 ∗ 𝑊𝑖 )
𝑊𝑀𝑆𝑖 =
∑𝑛𝑖−1 𝑊𝑖
where: 𝑤𝑖= the allocated weighted value , 𝑥𝑖= the observed value

Research framework
Figure 1 shows the overall framework of this research. Assessing the satisfaction
and significance of environmental and physical factors is necessary to study the
overall condition of off-campus housing. Besides, overall recommendation on the
appropriate ways to improve the SRS level of student housing is also essential to
analyse the overall condition off-campus.

4. Key Findings and Discussions

There were 104 responses received from students via online survey questionnaires.
The number of valid responses was 74 after data cleaning. Twenty-five (25)
students were from DK Senza Residence, 13 from D'Latour, 11 from Pangsapuri
Apartment SS15/6, 10 from Sunway Geo Residence, 5 from Nadayu 28 Residences
and 10 from other off-campus condominiums. Table 1 shows the SRS level in
students’ living conditions.
Hence, Table 1 shows the SRS level is students' living conditions compared to other
broad categories, 'Location of student housing/proximity to campus' received the
highest RSI score (80%). The result opposed the findings of Olukulajo and Mbazor
[15] which indicated that students were displeased with this aspect. This
demonstrates that most off-campus condominium students in Subang Jaya reside
near campus. Moreover, Chepkener [10] opined that students faced commuting
difficulties, contributing to increased transportation expenditures. Furthermore, the
results of this study also showed that most of the students were satisfied with the

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

160 B. Ying et al.

size of the space, which also contradicted the findings of Muslim et al. [5], which
showed that off-campus students were not comfortable with the spaces provided in
the accommodation, felt less privacy and insecure. Maintenance, on the other hand,
scored the lowest overall RSI, with 68.38%. This was unexpected as none of the
previous studies showed that students were dissatisfied with this maintenance of
the off-campus living accommodations.

Fig. 1. Research framework.

Table 1. SRS level in students' living conditions.
Broad Category Items RSI (%) Rank Mean
Location of student Academic facilities 78.9 1 4.324
housing/proximity to Sports facilities 75.7 2 3.973
campus University clinic 72.7 3 4.041
Architectural of Size 75.1 2 3.973
student housing Shape 72.7 3 3.716
Façade design 70.5 6 3.757
Type of door used 70.5 6 3.784
Type of window 72.2 5 3.797
Type of wall 68.1 8 3.919
Type of flooring 76.8 1 3.811
Space differences 72.4 4 3.865
Usability and Floor plan 75.4 2 4.054
arrangement of space Daily circulation 72.7 3 3.932
Usability 75.7 1 4.014

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

 Living in Off-Campus Student Housing: An Analysis on the Satisfaction . . . . 161

Internal facilities Bedroom 78.4 1 4.311

Bathroom 71.6 7 4.122
Toilet 71.1 8 4.081
Laundry 71.1 8 4.054
Kitchen 72.7 5 4.041
Living room 72.7 5 4.081
Dining area 73.2 4 4.108
Wi-Fi 78.1 2 4.324
Washing machine 73.2 3 4.068
Cable TV 60.3 11 3.581
Amenities 66.2 10 3.892
Size and physical Size of bedroom 75.4 1 4.149
condition Size of bathroom 71.9 3 3.919
Size of toilet 71.1 7 3.932
Size of laundry 71.6 6 3.730
Size of kitchen 71.9 3 3.770
Size of living room 72.7 2 3.986
Size of dining area 71.6 5 3.838
Ventilation 71.1 7 4.243
Number of socket 70.3 9 4.081
Densities In sharing space 74.9 2 4.054
In condominium 72.9 3 4.014
On the floor you live 75.4 1 3.743
Waiting time 70.2 4 4.135
Storage and furniture Space of the storage 71.6 1 4.081
provided Furniture provided 69.7 2 4.041
Maintenance Cleanliness 71.0 3 4.284
Water supply 75.4 1 4.257
Electrical supply 74.8 2 4.189
Waste disposal 70.2 4 4.149
Types of Rules and regulations 74.0 1 4.081
accommodation Options of types 72.4 2 4.014
Overall Satisfaction Location/Proximity 80.0 1 4.203
with Students' Living Architectural aspect 74.3 5 3.797
Conditions Facilities and features 74.8 3 4.081
Usability 76.2 2 4.108
Physical condition 72.4 7 4.027
Densities 73.2 6 3.892
Storage and furniture 71.6 8 4.095
Maintenance 68.3 9 4.081
Types of
74.5 4 3.973
accommodation

Results in Table 1 also showed that the broad category with the highest mean
score of 4.203 was the ‘Location/proximity of student housing to campuses. Most
of the respondents prefer student housing near university academic facilities.
Results also showed that the least important category is the ‘Architectural aspect,’
with a mean score of 3.797. Khozaei et al. [8] agreed with this finding stating that
architectural aspects such as the hostel exterior and materials used in the building
are not significant criteria in choosing accommodation on-campus or off-campus.
On the contrary, the architectural aspect, availability and maintenance of social,
recreational, educational services and health are less important broad categories to
students. It was found that the duration used to travel to the campus from student

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

162 B. Ying et al.

housing is the most crucial criterion, which obtained the highest SRS level and level
of importance score. This means that the students were very satisfied with the most
critical factors. Students were most dissatisfied with the TV cable in their housing,
which only obtained an RSI of 60.27 %. The less important factor is the availability
of public phones which obtained a mean score of 3.500. On the other hand, it is
interesting to find out the discrepancy between the reality and expectation in the
broad category of 'Health' of which the respondent rated the items in 'Health' as
'Very Important' but rated 'Health' in overall importance section as the lowest score.
Furthermore, this study also found that the condition of the off-campus in
Subang Jaya is within a reasonable range. The overall students' residential
satisfaction level is high, which means the students are generally satisfied with the
environmental and physical aspects. The students were satisfied with the location
of student housing/proximity to campus, accessibility to campus, city centre, health
services, shopping and municipal services and security. However, they were
dissatisfied with the maintenance in the off-campus condominium and the
availability of public/neighbourhood facilities and privacy. In addition, the results
revealed that all of the factors were significant for the students living off-campus.
For them, the location/proximity of student housing to college, campus
accessibility, city centre, health services, retail and municipal services, and privacy
were the most critical categories.
It is important to note that individual preferences and expectations varied
among students, and factors influencing satisfaction may differ based on personal
circumstances. Additionally, external factors beyond the scope of this study, such
as rental costs and management responsiveness, could also influence student
satisfaction in off-campus housing. Based on the findings, several
recommendations can be made to enhance the satisfaction levels of students in off-
campus student housing. First, housing providers should consider the proximity of
housing units to campus and public transportation options to increase convenience
for students. Ensuring safety measures and promoting a positive neighbourhood
environment are also crucial to enhancing student satisfaction. Regarding physical
aspects, it also should prioritize the maintenance and cleanliness of units, ensuring
that amenities are functional and meet the needs of students. Creating comfortable
living spaces with ample storage options can significantly contribute to student
satisfaction. Regular inspections and prompt resolution of maintenance issues are
also essential to maintaining high satisfaction levels.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

In conclusion, the findings of this research provide valuable insights for both
university administrations, hostel managers and property owners. Enhancing the
satisfaction level of students in off-campus student housing requires attention to
both environmental and physical aspects. By focusing on creating safe, well-
maintained, and strategically located accommodations, universities and property
owners can contribute significantly to the overall well-being and academic success
of their students.
As with any research, there are limitations to consider. The study's scope was
confined to a specific geographic area and a particular student demographic, which
may limit the generalizability of the results. Additionally, the research primarily
relied on self-reported data, which might be subject to response biases and

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

 Living in Off-Campus Student Housing: An Analysis on the Satisfaction . . . . 163

subjective interpretations. Future studies could incorporate a more diverse sample

and employ objective measures, such as objective housing assessments and
observational data, to strengthen the research's validity.
Overall, this research provides valuable insights into the factors influencing
students' satisfaction in off-campus student housing. By addressing the identified
aspects, universities and property owners can work collaboratively to improve the
overall living experience of their students, fostering a positive and supportive
environment conducive to academic achievement and personal growth.

5.1. Contribution of the study

This study contributes to the decision-making process for students living off-
campus by determining the overall condition of the off-campus condominium in
the Subang Jaya based on the perceptions of the off-campus students regarding the
level of satisfaction with the overall environment and physical aspects.
Furthermore, the off-campus management will also be able to improve their
services, and this study has also indicated the appropriate ways to improve the SRS
level in off-campus condominiums from hostel managers' perception, which may
help students to get a more convenient off-campus life.

5.2. Recommendation
This research focused exclusively on the condominium student housing type.
Therefore, it is recommended to investigate other off-campus student housing
types, such as terraced houses, apartments, and shophouses. Finally, future studies
can also be made on the challenges faced by the off-campus student hostel
management.

References
1. Malaysia Educational Statistics. (2020). Quick facts 2020. Ministry of
Education Malaysia. Retrieved July 23, 2021, from https://www.moe.gov.my
/muat-turun/penerbitan-dan-jurnal/terbitan/buku-informasi/3719-quick-facts-
2020/file
2. Muslim, M.H.; Karim, H.A.; and Abdullah, I.C. (2012a). Challenges of off-
campus living environment for non-resident students’ well-being in UiTM
Shah Alam. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50, 875-883.
3. Wong, K.W. (2018). Cover story: growing demand for student housing. The
Edge Malaysia Weekly. Retrieved July 10, 2021, from https://www.theedge
markets.com/article/cover-story-growing-demand-student-housing-0
4. Thomsen, J.; and Eikemo, T.A. (2010). Aspects of student housing satisfaction: a
quantitative study. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25(3), 273-293.
5. Muslim, M.H.; Karim, H.A.; and Abdullah, I.C. (2018). Well-being of UiTM
Shah Alam students living in off-campus environment. Asian Journal of
Environment-behaviour Studies, 3(8), 221-228.
6. Muslim, M.H.; Karim, H.A.; and Abdullah, I.C. (2012b). Satisfaction of
students’ living environment between on-campus and off-campus settings: A
conceptual overview. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 68, 601-614.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

164 B. Ying et al.

7. Navarez, J.C. (2017). Student residential satisfaction in an on-campus housing

facility. DLSU Research Congress, De La Salle University, Manila,
Philippines.
8. Khozaei, F.; Ayub, N.; Hassan, A.S.; and Khozaei, Z. (2010). The factors
predicting students’ satisfaction with university hostels, case study, Universiti
Sains Malaysia. Asian culture and history, 2(2), 148-158.
9. Najib, N.U.M.; Yusof, N.A.; and Osman, Z. (2011b). Measuring satisfaction
with student housing facilities. American. Journal of Engineering and Applied
Science, 4(1), 52-60.
10. Chepkener, J.J. (2018). Factors influencing undergraduate students’ level of
satisfaction with on- and off-campus accommodation at Moi University main
campus, Kenya. Doctoral Dissertation, Moi University.
11. Ghani, Z.A.; Sulaiman, N.; and Mohammed, M.I. (2020). Challenges of
students housing provision in Malaysia. Path of Science: International
Electronic Scientific Journal, 6 (11), 2001-2012.
12. Kenneth, E.C.; and Chukwunwike, E.C. (2020). Analysis of challenges in
managing students’ hostel facilities in Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka
Anambra State, Nigeria. Iconic Research and Engineering Journals, 3(7), 80-92
13. Wanie, C.M.; Oben, E.E.E.; Molombe, J.M.; and Tassah, I.T. (2017). Youth
advocacy for efficient hostel management and affordable university students’
housing in Buea, Cameroon. International Journal of Housing Markets and
Analysis, 10(1), 81–111.
14. Waruru, M. (2014, September 19). Universities find innovative ways to
finance hostels. University World News. Retrieved March 31, 2022, from
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20140918170257172
15. Olukolajo, M.A.; and Mbazor, D.N. (2021). Evaluation of occupants’
satisfaction with on-campus private hostel in a Nigerian University. Journal
of Building Performance, 12(1), 110.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023