Evaluation of on-campus student housing facilities security and safety performance

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a guide for managing the provision of on-campus student housing facilities (SHFs) security and safety measures. Design/methodology/approach This study adopted a mixed-method approach; the questionnaire was used as an instrument to collect quantitative data, whereas the interview was used to collect qualitative data. Descriptive and inferential statistics and importance-performance analysis models were used to analyse the quantitative data, whereas content analysis was used for the qualitative data. Findings This study found that students rated the satisfaction of all the SHFs safety and security measures below the level of importance. Three categories of performance level (i.e. poor, average and good) were determined. It also became evident that most of the measures were performing averagely, quite a number were poorly performing and few were performing well. Research limitations/implications Data was collected from only one university; therefore, the findings of the research may not be generalised. A study that expands the number of participating universities is recommended. Practical implications The guide developed can be used by the facility and/or hostel managers to ensure appropriate management of SHFs security and safety measures. The guide can also assist to ensure that all the essential safety measures are provided when designing, constructing or upgrading SHFs. It would also aid in the development of policy frameworks for SHFs security and safety. Originality/value Although several studies have been conducted on SHFs, studies that mainly focussed on prioritising SHFs security and safety measures are lacking. With this paper, the authors also demonstrate the practicality of the use of the IPA model to aid the process of developing improvement priorities.

Benefits and challenges of wearable safety devices in the construction sector

“…The questions for the questionnaire survey for the benefits of using wearable safety technologies were captured on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 5 strongly disagree; 2 5 disagree; 3 5 neither agree nor disagree; 4 5 agree; 5 5 strongly agree, whilst the questions for the barriers to the adoption of wearable safety technologies were captured on a 4-point Likert scale where 1 5 , not a barrier; 2 5 slightly a barrier; 3 5 somewhat a barrier; 4 5 a serious barrier. Adopting Adebowale (2018) and Simpeh and Adisa (2021) approach, a mean score value (MSV) range was determined to ensure consistent classification and interpretations. Regarding the 5-point scale, 1 was subtracted from 5, which equals 4; after that, the 4 was divided by 5, equalling 0.8, which becomes the MSV range.…”

Awareness and adoption of wearable technologies for health and safety management in the Nigerian construction industry

“…Consequently, the MS range for "never" becomes >1.00 ≤ 1.80; "rarely" becomes >1.80 ≤ 2.60; "sometimes" becomes >2.60 ≤ 3.40; "often" becomes >3.40 ≤ 4.20 and "always" becomes >4.20 ≤ 5.00. This approach was also adopted by Adebowale (2018) and Simpeh and Adisa (2021).…”

Development of design quality indicators for public school facilities

“…Especially, safety in school buildings is a major issue. Safety and security measures include fire extinguisher, smoke detectors, sprinkler systems, closed-circuit TV (CCTV), security guards, escape door, escape route, access control with smart cards, weapon detectors, emergency helpline, notice board, written policy prohibiting vandalism, emergency protocol poster on walls and security signs (Xu et al , 2020; Simpeh and Adisa, 2021). Additionally, the building design should support the evaporation of smoke and heat produced through accidental fires, as well as the egress of occupants during emergencies (Hassanain et al , 2022).…”