大学生住宿满意度和学生住房外文文献翻译中英文

外文文献翻译原文及译文标题：大学生的住宿满意度：对学生住房的研究外文文献翻译中英文2019文献出处：Moore H P , Carswell A T , Worthy S , et al. Residential Satisfaction among College Students: Examining High-End Amenity Student HousingJ. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 2019, 47(3):260-275.译文字数：4500多字原文Residential Satisfaction among College Students: Examining High-End Amenity Student HousingHaley Pierce Moore, Andrew T. Carswe,Sheri Worthy, Robert NielsenAbstractCompared to previous generations of students, todays college-bound students have found that their housing situation offers demonstrably more amenities. These amenities can be offered either through university-provided housing or through private student housing providers specializing in high-amenity housing. This study is based on research on residential satisfaction, housing adjustment theory, and housing careers to help understand the effects that these amenities have on the students overall well-being. The sample is extracted from a database collected by a private student housing provider covering multiple university settings across the United States. The results of data analysis suggest that while amenities such as resort-style pools and fast Internet speed increase housing satisfaction, other amenities such as computer rooms and coffee shops have a negative effect. However, several variables measuring quality of customer service have positive effects on housing satisfaction. The results suggest that the students experiences in these environments may help form their housing norms as they leave college.Keywords: student housing; housing adjustment theory; housing norms; residential satisfactionSince the mid-2000s, there has been an emphasis on improving the residential housing stock for Americas college students. While other sectors of the housing industry languished during the great Housing Recession of 20072012, the student housing sector was thriving (Campus Housing Solutions, 2008; Texas Construction, 2009). This construction boom has been broad-basedtouching all regions of the United States in equal magnitude (Hegeman, 2014). The pressures causing this growth to occur are both demand- and supply-driven. Demand is expected to increase due to rising enrollment across campuses nationwide (Balogh, Price, Day, & Moser, 2010; Wotapka, 2012). With the development of student housing real estate investment trusts in 2007, this real estate sector gained more legitimacy within the investment community (Wotapka, 2012). Concurrently, many campuses are finding that, due to age, their residence halls have degraded, necessitating building new residential buildings for incoming students (Schemine & Earhart, 2010). Colleges and universities have begun to embrace the concept of sustainable design within student housing construction projects (Balogh et al., 2010; Dougherty, 2010; Dunkel & Deninger, 2012; Hopkins, 2016; Torres-Antonini & Dunkel, 2009), perhaps further symbolizing norm shifts among younger peoples housing choices. Still, there is no guarantee that colleges and universities will meet the expected increase in housing demand, which opens up more possibilities for private developers of student housing to fill this void.At this stage of their lives, college students are entering adulthood and forming opinions about residential satisfaction, housing quality, and the amenities that are most appealing to them. Colleges and universities have used the quality of student housing upgrades as part of their promotional materials. The new amenities include tanning salons, hot tubs, mixed-use retail establishments, audio-visual technology, granite kitchen countertops, walk-in closets, and state-of-the-art grilling accommodations (Brown, 2011; Newton, 2014; Stephey, 2008; Wotapka, 2012). However, this attention to amenities has drawbacks. Sometimes these capital improvements come at the expense of funding for more traditional expenses such as instructional resources (Carlson, 2013). While it is generally understood that housing quality has become more important to students, residential satisfaction as it pertains to college students is usually ignored by the research community. This paper is based on two streams of housing research: residential satisfaction and student housing. Specifically, the research examines the role that upgrades in student housing have on students satisfaction levels; this is similar to satisfaction surveys conducted in other segments of the housing market. Next, there is an examination of the construct of residential satisfaction considering two theories and methods commonly employed in housing research of this nature: the housing adjustment theory and the examination of individuals “housing careers.”REVIEW OF LITERATUREResidential Satisfaction Residential satisfaction has been used as a barometer for households happiness within their built environment which includes the unit where they reside, neighborhoods, and proximity to commerce and other services. It can also be a good indicator of residents well-being. Residential satisfaction can be more extensive than simply measuring residents overall happiness or utility of their residential conditions. Galster (1987) equated satisfaction as being the gap between housing needs and aspirations. Amole (2009) observed that current residential satisfaction surveys could help predict adaptation to future living environments. Goss and Dagwell (1992) showed that college-aged students are considering housing amenities they would prefer after they graduate, even if they are not experiencing these norms in their current student housing environment. It is important to note that housing is a multidimensional construct because of its numerous attributes, features, aesthetics, and dynamics. Because of this, the most effective residential satisfaction surveys separate these various dimensions of the residential environment (Amole, 2009).One of the more helpful housing theories most associated with the notion of residential satisfaction is Morris and Winters (1975) housing adjustment theory (HAT). According to this theory, households judge their housing by agreed upon and culturally derived housing norms. Thus, household members use these norms to evaluate their current circumstances as they relate to things such as structure type, space, and quality of both the unit and the surrounding neighborhood. Failure to comply with housing norms means the household will make up for the housing deficit by either upgrading their conditions through remodeling or moving to a location that meets the standards. Similar to Morris and Winter, geographers Clark and Dieleman (1996) advanced the notion of individuals housing “careers,” which comprises a historical record of ones housing situation. This strain of research has been expanded by other academics within the field of family and consumer sciences regarding housing vouchers, which allow residents greater choice with regard to their housing situations (Skobba, Bruin, & Carswell, 2013).Most of this research has ignored the college students housing experience as part of that housing career process. This oversight is unfortunate, given improvements in housing norms, which have occurred within society over the past several decades that have now become norms passed down from those who have made the households housing decisions. Given the increasing housing demands of new students and the provision of amenities by student housing developers, student housing remains a segment that should be included within ones housing career (Newton, 2014). Thus, extending housing satisfaction research to include those housing situations occurring during the college years would confirm that these periods are important to a segment of this populations formative experiences regarding housing.There may be other reasons the built environment can play a role in residential satisfaction. Research suggests the design of the built environment has a profound influence on mental health (Evans, 2003); this has a tie-in with overall satisfaction. Research on residential satisfaction has applications within the student housing environment. James (2007) showed the correlation between a number of multifamily housing characteristics and resident satisfaction, but he also pointed out the various disamenities living in a high-density environment can bring to overall residential satisfaction. These included such aspects as noise from nearby neighbors and clamor from periodic maintenance. It is because of the friction caused by such dense environments that multifamily resident satisfaction lags behind homeowner satisfaction, even controlling for amenities (Elsinga & Hoekstra, 2005). Still, higher density provides opportunities for more social interactions among students and more opportunities for building social capital. This is a factor that newer generations of college students value more highly than students from previous generations (Johnson, Gutter, Xu, Cho, & DeVaney, 2016).Also, the service role inherent in managing multi-unit environments should not be downplayed. Research supporting the claim that the services provided by employees of the private rental sector are important predictors of residential satisfaction (James & Carswell, 2008) appears to hold true for the student housing sector (Li, Maximova, Saunders, Whalen, & Shelley, 2007). However, Li et al. (2007) minimized the importance of the built environment by stating, “interaction with other students, more than facilities, is what maximizes housing satisfaction” (p. 51). Dazkir (2018) states that students need a sense of place and place attachment while in college. In other words, Dazkir stressed the importance of place to the students overall life satisfaction. Also, having satisfactory housing experiences translates into better academic performance records (Aitken, 1982), which can translate into greater earning opportunities. Housing aesthetics, separate from tangible amenities, may also play a role in satisfaction levels. Brandon, Hirt, and Cameron (2008) explored the differences in layout and the effect it has on housing using student interaction as an intervening variable. They found that traditional dorm environments provided more interaction opportunities than the more amenityfilled suite arrangement.Student Housing The literature on student housing is centered on dormitory-type environments. Khozaei, Hassan, Al Kodmany, and Aarab (2014) pointed out that while residence hall living is a transitional housing situation for young people, it can create an impression that represents their first experience of living independently. Thus, it is important to study. Paine (2007) examined the effect differentiations in type of residence hall can have on the acculturation of young people during their critical first years of college. Her findings showed no appreciable difference in grade point averages and academic persistence rates between freshman living in traditional residence halls and different styles of offcampus living situations. While the lack of a statistically significant difference may not seem noteworthy, this finding is counter to beliefs traditionally held among campus administrators (Frederiksen, 1993; Paine, 2007). History of Student HousingModern-day student housing concepts have their roots in late 19th and early 20th century America. During this time, student affair units were developed within American colleges and universities, and the administration of university housing became one of the areas that fell under these offices purview (Palmer, Broido, & Campbell, 2008). Eventually, the responsibility became so huge that specialized housing managers became necessary for this unique niche. In addition, a professional organization for university housing officers came into existence in the United States during the mid-1950s (Frederiksen, 1993). With rapid societal changes in postwar America, universities abandoned the traditional concept of in loco parentis, or in place of parents. One of the changes was the shift from same-sex to mixed-gender dorms some time toward the end of the 20th century (Willoughby, Carroll, Marshall, & Clark, 2009). It has been estimated that college and university students spend around 70% of their time in their residence hall environment (Schroeder & Jackson, 1987). The dimensions and amenities attached to student housing have undergone a dramatic transformation over time as many of the Generation Y students have expected amenities that once were considered luxuries (such as private bathrooms, lounges, and walk-in closets) to be standard options for prospective residents (Earhart & Fields, 2012). Thus, according to Morris and Winter (1975), it can be argued that students have upward-shifting housing norms just as the nonstudent population does.Large student residence units have become a selling point for schools experiencing flat to declining enrollment (Saffron, 2013). Recent headlines suggest students have experienced these increases in housing expectations and norms just as consumers have over time (Brown, 2011; Stephey, 2008). Indeed, university administrators have to compete fiercely with private operators, who have recognized the trend among students who seek higher-quality housing and have responded by building high-amenity communities that “operate more like resorts than apartment communities which offers lavish swimming pools, private bathrooms for every bedroom, and high-speed Internet” (Fields, 2011, p. 14). Other features associated with the upgraded on-campus buildings help to both reassure parents and appeal to students. Enhanced security features in these newly constructed buildings allow students to use some of the same technology that many middle- and upper-class households now enjoy (Hegeman, 2014).Still, on-campus housing is deemed important because of its connections to academic performance; thus, administrators value its importance. It has been reported that administrators associate this higher expectation of housing quality with higher retention and graduation rates, along with a willingness to stay connected to the area after graduation (Hegeman, 2014; Schudde, 2011). Meanwhile, the quality disparities between the new and old student housing stock have created a situation involving price disparities driven by demand and inequity between the two types of residents (Hegeman, 2014). While off-campus student housing is widely touted as an important growth market for builders and developers, the most recent US recession has exposed cracks in the demand for private housing as many families cannot pay the high rents associated with off-campus housing. This is especially true for those located farther from the center of campus (Tucker, 2009). Thus, the option of affordable on-campus housing can be a welcome benefit for some.With some of the types of upgrades that are now available to students in off-campus housing, we feel that there are several opportunities to enhance the overall college experience of young adults. Given certain features that are made available for students of off-campus housing such as workstations and business centers, we believe that these features can have a salient effect on students academic performance in particular. Provides a conceptual model for student housing features and their effect on residential satisfaction, which could have further effects on the overall student experience.译文大学生的住宿满意度：对学生住房的研究Haley Pierce Moore, Andrew T. Carswe,Sheri Worthy,Robert Nielsen摘要与前几代学生相比，如今的上大学的学生发现他们的住房条件显然比以前更好了，并且更便利了。这些便利设施可以通过大学提供的住房，也可以通过专门提供高舒适性住房的私人学生住房提供商来提供。这项研究基于对居住满意度，住房调整理论和住房职业的研究，以帮助了解这些便利设施对学生的整体幸福感的影响。该样本是从一个私人学生住房提供者收集的数据库中提取的，该数据库涵盖了美国的多个大学环境。数据分析的结果表明，虽然度假胜地式泳池和快速的互联网速度等设施提高了住房满意度，但其他设施（例如计算机房和咖啡店）却具有负面影响。但是，衡量客户服务质量的几个变量对住房满意度有积极影响。结果表明，学生在这些环境中的经历可能有助于他们离开大学后形成住房规范。关键词：学生住房；住房调整理论；住房规范；居住满意度自2000年代中期以来，重点一直放在改善美国大学生的住房存量上。在2007-2012年严重的房屋衰退期间，房屋行业的其他部门陷入困境，而学生房屋部门却在蓬勃发展（校园住房解决方案，2008；德克萨斯建筑，2009）。这场建筑热潮已经广泛开展，触及了美国所有地区（Hegeman，2014年）。导致这种增长发生的压力既是需求驱动的，也是供应驱动的。由于全国各地校园的入学人数增加，需求预计会增加（Balogh，Price，Day和Moser，2010年； Wotapka，2012年）。随着2007年学生住房房地产投资信托基金的发展，房地产行业在投资界获得了更多合法性（Wotapka，2012年）。同时，许多校园发现，由于年龄的增长，其宿舍楼已经退化，因此有必要为即将到来的学生建造新的住宅楼（SchemineEarhart，2010）。高校已经开始在学生公寓建设项目中采用可持续设计的概念（Balogh等，2010； Dougherty，2010； DunkelDeninger，2012； Hopkins，2016； Torres-AntoniniDunkel，2009），也许还有更多象征着年轻人的住房选择之间的规范转变。尽管如此，仍不能保证大学能满足住房需求的预期增长，这为学生住房的私人开发商打开了填补这一空白的更多可能性。在他们的生活的这个阶段，大学生正在进入成年期，并就居住满意度，住房质量和最吸引他们的便利设施形成意见。高校已将学生住房升级的质量用作促销材料的一部分。新设施包括日光浴沙龙，热水浴缸，综合用途零售店，视听技术，花岗岩厨房台面，步入式壁橱和最先进的烧烤设施（布朗，2011；牛顿，2014； Stephey ，2008； Wotapka，2012）。然而，这种对便利设施的关注具有缺点。有时，这些资本改进是以牺牲诸如教学资源等传统费用的资金为代价的（卡尔森，2013年）。尽管人们普遍认为住房质量对学生而言变得越来越重要，但研究社区通常忽略了与大学生相关的住房满意度。本文基于住房研究的两个方面：住房满意度和学生住宿。具体来说，该研究考察了学生住房升级对提升学生满意度的作用；这类似于在房地产市场其他领域进行的满意度调查。接下来，将对住房满意度的构成进行考察，其中考虑了在这种性质的住房研究中通常采用的两种理论和方法：住房调整理论和个人“住房职业”的检验。文献综述居住满意度居住满意度已被用作衡量家庭在其建筑环境中幸福感的晴雨表，其中包括他们居住的单位，社区以及与商业和其他服务的距离。它也可以很好地表明居民的福祉。居住满意度可以比简单地衡量居民的整体幸福感或居住条件的实用性更为广泛。 Galster（1987）将满足感等同于住房需求和期望之间的差距。 Amole（2009）观察到，当前的居住满意度调查可以帮助预测对未来居住环境的适应性。戈斯和达格韦尔（Goss and Dagwell，1992）指出，即使在目前的学生居住环境中没有经历过这些规范，大学生仍在考虑毕业后希望获得的住房便利。重要的是要注意，住房是多维结构，因为它具有众多的属性，特征，美观性和动态性。因此，最有效的居住满意度调查将居住环境的这些各个方面分开（Amole，2009年）。与住房满意度概念最相关的最有用的住房理论之一是莫里斯和温特（1975）的住房调整理论（HAT）。根据这一理论，家庭通过商定的和文化衍生的住房准则来判断其住房。因此，家庭成员使用这些规范来评估他们当前的状况，因为它们与诸如房屋和周围社区的结构类型，空间和质量之类的事物有关。不遵守住房规范意味着家庭将通过改建改善住房条件或搬迁到符合标准的地点来弥补住房短缺。与莫里斯（Morris）和温特（Winter）相似，地理学家克拉克（Clark）和迪勒曼（Dieleman）（1996）提出了个人住房“职业”的概念，其中包括有关住房状况的历史记录。有关住房券的家庭和消费者科学领域的其他学者已经扩大了这一研究范围，这使居民可以根据自己的住房状况进行更多选择（Skobba，Bruin和Carswell，2013年）。这项研究大部分都忽略了大学生的住房经历，这是该职业生涯过程的一部分。鉴于过去几十年来社会内部住房标准的改进，这种监督是不幸的，现在这些标准已从那些做出住房决策的人那里继承下来。鉴于新学生对住房的需求不断增长，以及学生住房开发人员提供的便利设施，学生住房仍然是应计入其住房职业的细分市场（Newton，2014年）。因此，将住房满意度研究扩展到包括大学期间发生的住房状况，将证实这些时期对于该人群在住房方面的形成性经历中的一部分很重要。可能还有其他原因使建筑环境对居住满意度产生影响。研究表明，建筑环境的设