1.0 INTRODUCTION:

Over the years, the increase enrollment of university students in Ghana has been a major challenge for university authorities as they cannot meet the supply of accommodation to these students. This on-campus accommodation shortage has necessitated students to find alternative accommodation in the private sector (Donaldson, Campbell, Benn, and de Jager, 2014), as the private sector has responded by providing accommodation to students in the form of houses of multiple occupation and purpose-built student hostels (Donaldson et al., 2014; Ackermann and Visser, 2016).

In the theory of motivation, housing is seen as one of the basic needs of human life. Therefore, every student while in school needs a housing facility. Student housing goes by many names, such as halls of residence (Amole, 2005), student dormitory (Kaya and Erkip, 2001), catered halls (Price, Matzdorf, Smith, and Agahi, 2003), and hostels (Sohail, Rajadurai, and Rahman, 2003; Dahlan, Jones, Alexander, Salleh, and Alias, 2009; Khozaei, Hassan, and Khozaei, 2010). Housing is a fundamental need of every university student and securing good, safe and affordable housing will lead to run happy life, attaining high living standards, intellectually creative and have rewarding better life (Ghani and Suleiman, 2016). Students’ housing facilities should therefore, be seen beyond shelter and should consist of other essential facilities like water supply, electricity, sewerage, bathroom, toilet, kitchenette, which permit sufficient comfort, convenience and safety that lead to a better life (Olufemi, 2014; Aluko, 2012; Khozaei, Hassan, and Razak, 2011; Garg, Gupta, and Jha, 2014; Muslim, Karim, and Abdullah, 2012a; Mohit, Ibrahim, and Rashid, 2010).

The provision of accommodation by universities all over the world is based on three major housing policies. These include the residential, non-residential and dual residential policy. Regarding the residential housing policy, the university houses all its students whereas with the dual-residential, the university houses its student population for a period of time only, probably the first and final years, while with the non – residential, universities do not offer housing facilities to its students’. These housing policies are being influenced by the university’s capacity to meeting the accommodation demands of students. The increase in student enrolment at universities has however, made student accommodation provision difficult for most universities as they lacked adequate facilities to satisfy the demand (Donaldson et al., 2014; Ackermann and Visser, 2016).

Students are always looking for a hostel in which they expect their needs and expectations to be met (Kobue, Oke, and Aigbavboa, 2017). Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess factors motivating university students’ stay in private hostels. This study will provide valuable feedback to private investors and university authorities of higher education institutions to improve and provide the necessary housing facilities in the near future.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW:

Many factors contribute to the choice of students in the selection of hostel facilities. Studies show that students accommodation preferences are linked to their demographic background, such as gender-role, family income, age, education, nature of employment organization (Wang and Li, 2006; Jabareen, 2005; Ariffin and Maghzi, 2011). Females in accommodation preference are likely to favour accommodation facilities that are safe and secured (Sammons, Moreo, Benson and Demicco, 1999). According to Oyetunji and Abidoye (2016), the location of accommodation facilities influences the student's choice of hostel, as accommodation near the campus is an important factor considered by students in search of accommodation. Thomsen (2007) further reported that students will prefer to choose a place with beautiful architecture and furniture, comfortable and appropriate.

Amole (2005) in his study on 20 university students’ accommodation in southwest Nigeria found that one of the attributes contributing to satisfaction with students’ accommodation is privacy. Further, Schenke (2008) also highlights the value students placed on access to internet connectivity, either through a network connection or Wi-Fi, in each their respective hostels. According to Leung and Fung (2005), over-crowded room have negative effect on the performance students, as they develop high stress, high blood pressure, or another type of illness; and experience dissatisfaction. Therefore, students do pay attention to room occupancy when seeking hostel accommodation.

Khozaei et al. (2010) established that students are much concern with their security. Therefore, hostel security and room safety are one of the most important factors that predict students’ choice of hostels. Lutalo (2019) further opined in his study that security forms part of the significant factors that influence hostel choice. Further, in a study conducted in Kenya by Oluoch, Ndunge and Musuya (2019), students placed a high priority of utility such as electricity and water as its availability have a positive impact on the academic performances of the students.

2.1 Research model

Figure 1: Research model.

Each motivating factor influences more or less on the students’ decision in search of hostel accommodation. Parental as well as peer influence, university housing policy, proximity, internet connectivity, security, water and electricity supply, cleanliness, comfortability, privacy, serenity and adequate room space are factors that influence students’ motivation in search of accommodation.

3.0 METHODOLOGY:

This study adopted a descriptive study design.

3.1 Study area

The study was conducted on the Mampong Campus of the Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development (AMUSTED). AMUSTED is located between latitude 7.0624^oN and longitude 1.4046^oW. The university has a total student population of 6,314 with 767 students residing in university accommodation facilities. The Amaniampong Hall is the only students’ residential facility at Mampong campus of the university. The hall is made up of the Old Block – Block 1 to 5 and the New Hostel. Block 1 – 4 are predominantly male blocks and Block 5 accommodating female students. However, the New Hostel houses both male and female students.

3.2 Sample size and sampling technique

The researchers employed the use of simple random sampling to select the sample for study as the ensures that all elements in the target population had equal chances of being selected for the study. A total sample size of 100 was used for this study.

3.3 Research instrument

Structured closed-ended questionnaire was constructed and used as the research instruments for

collecting the data from respondents. The 3-likert scale was used to assess the motivating factors as likert scale is one of the most widely used techniques to measure for descriptive survey studies.

3.4 Data collection procedure

The researchers used google forms to design the questionnaire and administered it via social media platforms to get the responses from the target population.

3.5 Data analysis

The data was cleaned, coded and entered into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 20. Descriptive analysis as well as factor analysis was conducted. Frequency tables were also used for easier understanding and presentation of analysis done.

3.6 Ethics

Ethical issues related to social sciences research were observed. The researchers considered seriously issues of confidentiality, anonymity and informed consent.

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:

The study was curried out to assess the motivating factors contributing to university students stay in private hostels. This was done using students of Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development, Asante Mampong Campus as a case study.

4.1 Socio-Demographic Characteristics

Socio- demographical features used in this study include sex, age, academic level and room occupancy. Results indicate that most of the respondents were males with a frequency of 87 (87.0%) with the remaining 13 (13.0%) being female university students. Considering the ages of respondents, result shows that students within the age group of 21 to 25, forms the majority with a frequency of 36 (36.0%). This was followed by students within the age group of 26 to 30, scoring a frequency of 34 (34.0%). Students aged 30 years and above recorded a frequency of 16 (16.0%), with those aged 20 and below scoring the least frequency of 14 (14.0%). Result from this study indicate that the majority of students (96.0%) captured for this study are pursuing their undergraduate degrees. Findings from this study concerning room occupancy show that hostel room sharing are done either through single sharing, double sharing, triple sharing, quadruple sharing, or octuple sharing. Double sharing records the highest frequency of 43 (43.0%), with the least room occupancy being octuple sharing (1.0%).

Table 1: Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

Code	Attributes	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Sex
	Male	87	87.0
	Female	13	13.0
Age
	20 years and below	14	14.0
	21 – 25	36	36.0
	26 – 30	34	34.0
	30 years and above	16	16.0
Academic level
	Undergraduate	96	96.0
	Post-graduate	4	4.0
Room occupancy
	1 (Single-sharing)	19	19.0
	2 (Double-sharing)	43	43.0
	3 (Triple-sharing)	12	12.0
	4 (Quadruple-sharing)	25	25.0
	8 (Octuple-sharing)	1	1.0

Source: Fieldwork, 2021

4.2 Factors motivating university students’ stay in private hostels

A 12 factors element was considered by students as motivating factors influencing their stay in a rented private hostel. The study constructs are measured descriptively using mean ranking. However, A 3-point likert scale was used to measure these elements. As shown in Table 2, privacy plays an important factor in influencing university students stay in private hostels (mean = 2.51). This current finding places evidence on the study of Amole (2005) in his study on 20 university students’ accommodation in southwest Nigeria found that one of the contributing factors of students stay in hostel is privacy. Further, Etikan, Bala, Babatope and Yuvali (2017) also added that most undergraduate students express a strong preference for residing in hostels which may be induced by factors such as a quest for personal privacy.

Comfortability and proximity however placed second and third respectively with a mean score of (2.46) each. Distance from students’ hotel to their respective faculties and departments is an important factor in students’ decision for renting a housing unit in off-campus. Results from this study therefore, corresponds to the findings of Oyetunji and Abidoye (2016) where students place emphasis on proximity as a factor motivating their stay in hostels. This was followed by adequate room space (mean = 2.38).

Table 2: Factors motivating university students’ stay in private hostels.

Factors	Mean	% in Agreement	S D	Mean Ranking
Parental influence	2.22	42	0.70	8^th
Peer/Friendship influence	2.07	29	0.71	11^th
University housing policy	2.34	51	0.76	6^th
Proximity/Location	2.46	58	0.70	3^rd
Internet connectivity	1.93	39	0.92	12^th
Security	2.12	43	0.86	10^th
Water/Power supply	2.16	46	0.86	9^th
Cleanliness	2.35	56	0.81	5^th
Comfortability	2.46	60	0.73	2^nd
Privacy	2.51	66	0.75	1^st
Serenity	2.34	48	0.71	7^th
Adequate space	2.38	59	0.81	4^th

Source: Fieldwork, 2021. SD:- Standred Deviation

KMO: 0.785; Chi-square: 364.830; P-value: 0.00

Cleanliness recorded a mean of (2.35). University housing policy is rank 6^th (mean = 2.34). This clearly shows that the inadequate residential facilities for students on campus to meet the increasing student population, pushes them to seek for an alternative accommodation off-campus. It is clearly shown from Table 2 that less emphasis is placed on peer or friendship influence (mean = 2.07) as well as on internet connectivity (mean = 1.93). This however, do not have any significant influence on the students. They therefore, consider them as secondary factors.

A t-test analysis in SPSS was conducted to determine how these motivating factors influence each gender’s decision in search of private accommodation. Findings as shown in Table 3 reveal that privacy (mean = 2.54), comfortability (mean = 2.51), proximity (mean = 2.45), cleanliness (mean = 2.43) and adequate space (mean = 2.43) were the leading factors that influence male students stay in private hostels. However, security (mean = 2.16), peer/friendship influence (mean = 2.09) and internet connectivity (mean=2.03) were least considered.

Table 3: Gender significance on motivating variables

Variables	Sex	Mean	Std. deviation
Parental influence	Male	2.22	0.754
Parental influence	Female	2.23	0.832
Peers/Friendship influence	Male	2.09	0.725
Peers/Friendship influence	Female	1.92	0.641
University housing policy	Male	2.34	0.760
University housing policy	Female	2.31	0.751
Proximity/location	Male	2.45	0.711
Proximity/location	Female	2.54	0.660
Internet connectivity	Male	2.03	0.921
Internet connectivity	Female	1.23	0.599
Security	Male	2.16	0.861
Security	Female	1.85	0.801
Water/Power supply	Male	2.20	0.860
Water/Power supply	Female	1.92	0.862
Cleanliness	Male	2.43	0.772
Cleanliness	Female	1.85	0.899
Comfortability	Male	2.51	0.713
Comfortability	Female	2.15	0.801
Privacy	Male	2.54	0.744
Privacy	Female	2.31	0.751
Serenity	Male	2.31	0.736
Serenity	Female	2.54	0.519
Adequate space	Male	2.43	0.816
Adequate space	Female	2.08	0.760

Source: Fieldwork, 2021

Further, regarding female university students’ proximity and serenity, all with a mean score of (2.54) and privacy (mean = 2.31) are the most leading factors influencing their stay in private hostels, whereas water/power supply (mean = 1.92), peers (mean = 1.92), cleanliness (mean = 1.85) and security (1.85) scoring the least mean. Wang and Li (2006), noted that socio-demographic characteristics including gender is significant in accommodation choices. Findings of this study therefore confirms the earlier study of Wang and Li (2006). However, the results of this study show that in search and making of accommodation choices, security as a factor of motivation is least considered. This current finding contrast with the findings of Summons et al. (1999).

5.0 CONCLUSION:

This study examines factors motivating university students’ stay in private hostels. The study reveals that privacy, comfortability, proximity, cleanliness and university housing policy are the most leading motivating factors. Whereas peers and internet connectivity have less influence on students stay in private hostels.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION:

Findings from this study recommend that students must consider security as a top priority, as it is significant for their welfare and safety. Also, university management must partner with private hostel providers in putting up hostel facilities on university campus to meet the increasing demand. It will however, be in the interest of private hostel providers to take a critical look at the factors motivating university students stay in private hostels.

7.0 LIMITATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES:

Further studies should assess the satisfaction level of students stay in private hostels. Again, there will be the need to examine why universities have not been able to provide adequate accommodation facilities on campus to meet the increasing students’ population.

8.0 REFERENCES:

1. Ackermann, A., and Visser, G. (2016). Studentification in Bloemfontein, South Africa. Bulletin of Geography Socio‐economic Series, 31, 7-17.

2. Aluko, O. (2012). The effect of land use act on sustainable housing provision in Nigeria: The Lagos State experience. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(1), 114-122.

3. Amole, D. (2005). Coping strategies for living in student residential facilities in Nigeria. Environment and Behaviour, 37, 201‐219.

4. Ariffin, A. A. M., Maghzi, A., and Aziz, N. A. (2011). Understanding hotel hospitality and differences between local and foreign guests. International Review of Business Research Papers, 7(1), 340– 349.

5. Dahlan, N., Jones, P., Alexander, D., Salleh, E., and Alias, J. (2009). Evidence base prioritisation of indoor comfort perceptions in Malaysian typical multi‐storey hostels. Building and Environment, 44(10), 2158‐2165

6. Donaldson, R., Campbell, M., Benn, J. and de Jager, A. (2014). Reshaping urban space through studentification in two South African urban centres. Urbani izziv, 25, 176-188.

7. Garg, M., Gupta, K., and Jha, R. (2014). An empirical study on market research of organized students’ housing industry in India. International Journal of ICT and Management, 2(2), 143-154

8. Ghani, Z. A., and Suleiman, N. (2016). Theoretical Underpinning for Understanding Student Housing. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 6(1), 163-176.

9. Jabareen, Y. (2005) Culture and housing preferences in a developing city. Environment and Behavior, 37(1), 134-146.

10. Kaya, N., and Erkip, F. (2001), Satisfaction in a dormitory building: the effects of floor height on the perception of room size and crowding. Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 35‐53.

11. Khozaei, F., Hassan, A. S., and Razak, N. A. (2011). Development and validation of the Student Accommodation Preferences Instrument (SAPI). Journal of Building Appraisal, 6(3), 299-313.

12. Khozaei, F., Hassan, A.S., and Khozaei, Z. (2010a). Undergraduate students' satisfaction with hostel and sense of attachment to place: case study of university sains Malaysia. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 516‐20.

13. Kobue, T., Oke, A., and Aigbavboa, C. (2017). Understanding the determinants of students’ choice of occupancy for creative construction. Procedia Engineering, 19(6), 423–428.

14. Leung, M., and Fung, I. (2005). Enhancement of classroom facilities of primary schools and its impact on learning behaviors of students. Facilities, 23(13), 585–594.

15. Lutalo, A. (2019). Factors influencing students’ choice of hostel accommodation. A case study of Makerere University. [Bachelor dissertation, Makerere University]. Institutional Repository at Makerere University. https://repository.maseno.ac.ke/bitstream/ handle/123456789/1433/THESIS.ORECH%20EMMY%20HENDRAIN-PG.MED.00137.2011-DECEMBER%202019.pdf?sequence=1andisAllowed=y

16. Mohit, M. A., Ibrahim, M., and Razita, Y. (2010). Assessment of residential satisfaction of newly designed public low-cost housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat International, 34(1), 18–27.

17. Muslim, M. H., Karim, H. A., and Abdullah, I. C. (2012a). Challenges of Off – Campus Living Environment for Non – Residential Students’ Well-Being in UiTM Shah Alam. Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50, 875-883.

18. Olufemi, A. (2014). An Assessment of Housing Satisfaction among Pre-Degree Students of Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Civil and Environmental Research, 6(8), 169-178.

19. Oluoch, D. K., Ndunge, D. M. M., and Musuya, A. W. (2019). The influence of availability of college hostel accomodation facilities on students’ academic performance in kenya medical training colleges in western kenya region. African Journal of Education and Practice, 4(1), 58–72.

20. Oyetunji, A. K., and Abidoye, R. B. (2016). Assessment of the Factors Influencing Students’ Choice of Residence in Nigerian Tertiary Institutions. Sains Humanika, 8(2), 39–47.

21. Price, I., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L., and Agahi, H. (2003), The impact of facilities on student choice of university. Facilities, 21(10), 212‐22.

22. Sammons, G., Moreo, P., Benson, L.F., and Demicco, F. (1999). Analysis of female business travelers’ selection of lodging accommodations. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 8(1), 65-83.

23. Schenke, J. (2008), Purdue students prefer to go solo. College Planning and Management, 11(6), 62-64

24. Sohail, M. S., Rajadurai, J., and Rahman, N. A (2003). Managing quality in higher education: A Malaysian case study. Int. J. Educ. Mgt., 17, 141-146.

25. Thomsen, J. (2007). Home experiences in student housing: About institutional character and temporary homes. Journal of Youth Studies, 10(5), 577–596

26. Wang, D., and Li, S. M. (2006) Socio-economic differentials and stated housing preferences in Guangzhou, China. Habitat International, 30, 305-326.

Received on 31.05.2021 Modified on 18.07.2021

Asian Journal of Management. 2021;12(4):491-495.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5763.2021.00077