Residential Students and Ecology BRENDAN GREANEY and SHANNON

Residential Students and Ecology BRENDAN GREANEY and SHANNON L. NORTON

Overview • • • Gender Neutral Housing Non-traditional Housing Sustainability “Green” Housing New Amenities in Housing How these relate to ecology?

GOALS • Gain insight on four big trends in campus housing • Discuss pros and cons of these trends • Relate them to campus ecology

Gender Neutral Housing • Trend started in 2006 with the National Genderblind Student Campaign • Sought to offer gender neutral housing options primarily for transgender & gay/lesbian students.

Pros of Gender Neutral Housing • Easy to integrate into existing housing complexes • Students can opt in or our of gender neutral housing • Easy to integrate on a larger scale with new buildings

Cons of Gender Neutral Housing • Hard to integrate into Greek housing • Can be a difficult education process with administration and parents.

Non-traditional Housing • Non-traditional includes undergraduate, and postgraduate students. • Becoming a big trend in higher education as displaced workers are returning to college and more undergrads are matriculating to graduate school due to lack of career options.

Pros of Non-traditional Housing • Can attract these students to on-campus housing. • Offers affordable on-campus housing option. • Allows students with families options for on-campus housing.

Cons of Non-traditional Housing • Can be difficult to integrate into existing facilities as it requires more space. • Facilities will sacrifice beds to accommodate larger, apartment-like layouts. • Can be a small, niche-like population.

Sustainable “Green” Housing • LEEDS (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) buildings • Environmental living and learning communities • Energy and water conservation • Recycling

Pros of Sustainable Housing • Save money over the long run • Conserve resources and the environment • Create habits to carry throughout life • Educate the residential community as well as entire campus and local community

Cons of Sustainable Housing • Higher up-front costs • Only approximately 20 percent of students come to campus with ecological mindset • Need dedication from entire campus and community for complete success • Need strong educational component for success

New Amenities in Housing • Students have higher expectations of residential housing • 90% of first-year students have never shared a room • Students want privacy, security, kitchens, game rooms, pools, internet and electronic access • Learning communities

Pros of New Amenities • Retain students in on-campus housing • Promote community and social interaction • Makes day to day activities more convenient • Increase overall college retention and graduation rates • Increased academic support

Cons of New Amenities • More expensive to live on-campus • Learning communities may limit diverse interactions • Limited opportunities to live near or with friends • May create environment that students never want to leave

Group Activity • Break into Four groups 1. Gender Neutral Housing 2. Non-tradition Housing 3. Sustainable “Green” Housing 4. New Amenities in Housing • Each Group will answer the following questions? 1. How would you implement this new housing type into Wright State Campus? 2. Would you use current facilities? Renovate? 3. How would you incorporate new facilities? 4. How would you foster the success and development of these communities?

How These Relate to Ecology • Attractive residential housing will increase enrollment • Campus planning needs to keep these trends in mind when developing • Faculty and staff need to work together to create an overall environment for learning • Address theory of “meeting students where they are”

QUESTIONS?

References Abramson, P. (2010). Living on campus 2010 college housing report: More than just beds, new residence halls offer amenities and sustainability, College Planning and Management Magazine, Special Report. Retrieved from EBSCO host. Agron, J. (2003). Close to home. American School & University, 75(10), 58. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Agron, J. (2004). Taking up residence. American School & University, 76(11), 28 B-28 H. Retrieved from EBSCO host. Agron, J. (2007). 18 th annual residence hall construction report. American School & University, 79(11), 42 -45. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Angelo, J. , & Rivard, N. (2003). If you build it, will they come? . University Business, 6(5), 24. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Dunkel, N. W. (2009). Green residence halls are here: Current trends in sustainable campus housing. Journal of College & University Student Housing, 36(1), 10 -23. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Kennedy, M. (2002). Trends shaping housing design. American School & University, 74(5), 34. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. La. Nasa, S. , Olson, E. , & Alleman, N. (2007). The impact of on-campus student growth on first year student engagement and success. Research in Higher Education, 48(8), 941966. doi: 10. 1007/s 11162 -007 -9056 -5 Li, Y. , Sheely II, M. C. , & Whalen, D. F. (2005). Contributors to residence hall student retention: Why do students choose to leave or stay? . Journal of College & University Student Housing, 33(2), 28 -36. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Mc. Cluskey-Titus, P. (2009). Letter from the editor. Journal of College & University Student Housing, 36(1), 6 -9. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. On-campus living. (2006). American School & University, 79(1), 18. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Pellow, J. P. , & Anand, B. (2009). The greening of a university. Change, 41(5), 8 -15. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Shimm, J. (2001). Sustainable campus housing. American School & University, 73(12), 142. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Stassen, M. A. (2003). Student Outcomes: The impact of varying living-learning community models. Research in Higher Education, 44(5), 581. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Whiteman, D. (2009). Creating a "Green Bubble" on campus: A model for programming in a green living-learning community. Journal of College & University Student Housing, 36(1), 38 -47. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.