1. Exploring Current Preferences and Perceptions of Residence Hall Construction Standards
- Author
-
Daniel Sheets
- Abstract
This dissertation explored the current perceptions and preferences for residence hall construction lifespan standards among campus master planners and housing administrators in higher education. Historically, universities have built residence halls with the intention of spanning many decades (Guckert & King, 2004). However, there has been a recent trend for housing departments to design and build new residence halls with the intent to tear them down in a much shorter time frame, perhaps 30 years or even less. Several factors have played into this developing trend, such as financial constraints, delivery deadlines, perceptions of flexibility, and consumer expectations. Beyond just how a college or university campus is built, this topic also contributes to the framework of how higher education administrators view the role and impact of campus residence halls. One of the theoretical concepts at play in this study is campus ecology, which can be described as the transactional processes in which environments promote growth and development for participants. Some theorists focus not only on the environment, but also the participants' perceptions of it (Evans et al., 2010). This study was conducted using both a quantitative survey tool as well as qualitative interviews. In total, 92 people from 46 institutions across the 10 states included in the SEAHO (Southeast Association of Housing Officers) region were surveyed. Another criteria of institutional involvement were select factors of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. The total survey response rate was 53%, with a usable response rate of 45%. From there, three qualitative interview participants were selected from the survey participants. There were several key findings. Only one-third of survey participants indicated that the intended building lifespan of their last-constructed residence hall was over 50 years old. A quarter of respondents indicated their school has intentionally built a residence hall with a shorter lifespan. Seventy one percent of participating schools have not done a P3 project. For the 13 schools who have done a P3, only four selected construction standards intended to have that facility last longer than 50 years. Participants were asked to share what key factors they believe played a role in the decision to intentionally build residence halls with shorter lifespans. First costs, speed of delivery, P3 projects, and projecting the need to replacing buildings sooner due to the changing needs of students, and perception of flexible design were the responses. There was division on whether flexible design was best achieved through short- or long-lifespan buildings. Another salient point was the need for key decision makers and designers to understand and apply how residence halls differ from other spaces on campus. The conversation around P3s revealed significant hesitation for a variety of reasons, but one interviewer gave strategies for their campus attempts to mitigate many of these concerns. Fifty five percent of participants indicated they preferred building residence halls to last at least 50 years. There is a strong desire to be aware of students' wants, needs and perceptions. There is also concern about how the residence halls will adapt and over time with these changes of student desire. Most of the interview discussions did not favor the strategy of shorter lifespan buildings, citing factors such as lack of trust that both financial resources and campus footprint would be available 20-30 years in the future. A variety of financing strategies were indicated, but bonding was overwhelmingly the avenue being used. About 60% of respondents said that financial capacity has at least a significant amount of influence on determining the construction design standards for new residence halls. In the interviews, the lack of available institutional debt capacity was cited as a major factor for both shorter-lifespan buildings as well as alternate funding/delivery methods. Another challenge is that some schools are directing their revenue-producing operations (like housing) to pursue external funding methods to keep that debt off the institution's books, reducing the school's debt capacity and potentially creating more capacity for other campus projects. An interviewee positively commented that using a P3 delivery method shortened the time frame for securing funding versus going through a more traditional bonding process. While this mixed methods study explores administrators' current practices, perceptions, and preferences, it also points towards more. In short, these factors set the tone and affect the environment in which students live, study, and engage. If these settings are perceived to be unreliable, reduced, or not tailored to their intended audience (residents), the institution will miss the mark on providing intentional spaces for student growth and development. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]
- Published
- 2024