Estates &
Facilities
Analysis
2009
The aim of the research was to investigate study, general and social facilities that are liked or
disliked the most; this would help indicate the areas in need of further development or change.
Safina Tai
(Marketing & Communications)
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3
Aims and Objectives................................................................................................... 4
Profile of Participants ................................................................................................. 5
Staff ........................................................................................................................ 5
Existing Students .................................................................................................... 7
Education Liaison Students/Potential Students ...................................................... 8
Limitations of the study............................................................................................... 9
Methodology ............................................................................................................. 10
Results ..................................................................................................................... 11
Campus ................................................................................................................ 11
Sustainable workplace .......................................................................................... 19
Work-place Practices ............................................................................................ 22
Safety and Security............................................................................................... 24
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 28
Action Plan ............................................................................................................... 29
2
December 2009
Estates & Facilities Analysis 2009
Introduction
Recent research conducted amongst applications to the university highlighted that
‘study facilities’ and ‘friendly campus feel’ are important factors in informing the
application process 1 . Friendly Campus feel was the 5th most important factor
considered by Acceptors when choosing to accept the University of Bradford’ offer
and had increased from 22.5% in 2008 to 25.7% in 2009. Study Facilities although
not rated as highly had increased from 14.5% to 15.5%.
According to research carried out in early 20082, campus facilities are considered
very important by more than a third of students who were interested in the university
of Bradford and competitor universities.
Good learning
resources (e.g.
computers and…
Good sporting facilities
Good student union
Good social life
Good quality
accommodation
46%
37%
13%
10%
18%
10%
15%
26%
18%
29%
Good learning
resources (e.g.
computers and…
43%
32%
Good sporting
facilities
18%
20%
Good student union
15%
18%
UofB students
Good social life
13%
23%
Our competitors'
students
Good quality
accommodation
12%
27%
Guaranteed
accommodation in a
hall of residence
30%
35%
Guaranteed
accommodation in a
hall of residence
Campus facilities
overall
33%
37%
Campus facilities
overall
38%
51%
38%
38%
Bases: Those with an opinion on importance – Bradford students (67), competitor students (112);
those with an opinion on performance – Bradford students (60), competitor students (103).
Question: How important were each of these factors in your decision about which university to
choose?
The importance of campus facilities in informing the application process highlighted
the need to undertake further research, to understand and improve the Universities’
attractiveness to potential and actual applicants.
1
2
Accepters and Decliners Questionnaire Analysis, 2009
Higher Expectations 2007/08
3
December 2009
Aims and Objectives
The aim of the research was to investigate study, general and social facilities that
are liked or disliked the most; this would help indicate the areas in need of further
development or change. In addition there was a need to clarify what campus facilities
mean to potential and existing students.
In order to fulfil the above aim, the following objectives were set:
 To identify areas on campus that potential and existing students/staff like the
most
 To identify areas on campus that potential and existing students/staff dislike the
most
 To identify the social facilities/areas that potential and existing students/staff like
the most
 To identify the social facilities/areas that potential and existing students/staff
dislike the most
 Investigation of what campus facilities mean to potential and existing students
and staff
 Identification of any other estates issues that are important to students and staff
 To identify how potential students view their future university and what this is
made up of
4
December 2009
Profile of Participants
In total 651 participants took part in the research. Three groups were used within the
research: staff, existing students and potential students (education liaison). The
profile breakdown of each sample group is shown below.
Staff
Staff - Gender Profile
Area/Academic School
Learner Support Services:
80
School of Life Sciences:
School of Engineering, Design and
Technology:
70
School of Social and International Studies:
60
50
%
20.7%
17.1%
8.1%
8.1%
Academic Administration:
8.1%
School of Health Studies:
6.3%
School of Management:
5.4%
%
40
Estates and Facilities:
30
Financial and Commercial Services:
20
Offices of the VC:
School of Computing, Informatics and Media:
10
Human Resources:
0
Female
Male
School of Lifelong Education and
Development:
Research and Knowledge Transfer Support:
Strategic Programmes (Ecoversity &
Escalate):
5.4%
5.4%
5.4%
3.6%
2.7%
1.8%
0.9%
0.9%
5
December 2009
Employment Category
35
30
25
%
20
15
10
5
0
All ethnicities other than White (92.5%) are underrepresented within the staff sample.
The group was made up of 17.5% part time and 82.5% full time staff.
How long have you been with the University of Bradford?
25
20
%
15
10
5
0
Less than a
year
1-2 years
3-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years 16-20 years More than
20 years
6
December 2009
Existing Students
In total 354 Students took part in the research.
undergraduate and 27% postgraduate.
They were made up of 73%
Existing Students - Academic School
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Life Sciences
SSIS
Health
Management
SCIM
SLED
SEDT
Ethnic Origin of Existing Students
80
60
40
20
0
White
Asian or
Black or Other ethnic
Asian British Black British background
Mixed
How long have you been with the University?
50
%
40
30
20
10
0
Less than a 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years More than
year
10 years
Chinese
Existing Students - Gender
Profile
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Male
Female
7
December 2009
Education Liaison Students/Potential Students
A total of 176 Education Liaison took part in completing hard copy surveys. Of these
62.9% were male and 37.1% were female.
Education Liaison - Ethnicity Profile
60
50
%
40
30
20
10
0
White
Asian or Asian Black or Black Other ethnic
British
British
background
Mixed
Chinese
75.7% of education liaison students were aged 16 years, 23.7% over 16 years and
0.6% was less than ten years old.
8
December 2009
Limitations of the study
As the purpose of the research was to investigate and identify areas that staff and
students consider important and suggest improvements, this kind of research is best
achieved through the collection of quantitative and qualitative information which, by
nature, is conducted with a large sample at quantitative stage and broken down to a
limited sample number at the qualitative stage. Due to the limited sample
generalisations to the whole student body and staff cannot be made. Instead this
research provides a useful investigation into what opinions staff and students have of
various facilities and areas on campus.
The profile of participants is not wholly representative of the university student and
staff profile, and again results cannot be generalised to the entire staff and student
population. Low numbers of staff from some schools from the research may bias the
identification of some areas for improvement to departments of the participants,
which should be considered when reading the results; a key factor to also consider is
the time a staff member or student has been on campus.
Other limitations include:



Due to last minute cancellations, the focus group for Junior University did not
go ahead
Education liaison students completed hard copy surveys and some of these
respondents knew each other, and may have influenced each other’s choices
when completing the survey.
Potential students have been identified as those who were on campus as part
of an education liaison activity. These students are restricted to the time they
spend on campus and will not have the opportunity to experience campus
facilities like existing students.
9
December 2009
Methodology
This project planned was a combination of qualitative and quantitative research,
although only the quantitative stage took place.
Variations of the same survey were available online for staff, existing students and
potential students. The survey took less than ten minutes to complete. All existing
students and staff had the opportunity to provide details to opt-in for further research,
which may be used at a later date if the research requires further depth.
Compact Students were provided a hard copy of the survey as this was the only way
they could take part. Approximately 400 Education Liaison students were on campus
from 4th September, but due to other educational activities they didn’t have the
opportunity to access a computer whilst onsite and undertake the survey. Students
took study skills work and experienced study facilities before being taken on a
Campus tour. The survey was completed once they returned from the tour.
Children’s University - The proposed focus group did not take place: A focus group
was designed for younger children. A 40minute focus group will be conducted with 510 students from students attending Children’s University, to discuss opinions of
current areas and facilities, identify areas for improvement and how they imagine
their future university.
The group leader had been briefed on the value of the data from such a young age
group, students who will not be considering university for at least another 8-10years.
However this activity is not only being undertaken for the Estates & Facilities
research but also to formulate an exciting activity for Children’s University. The data
from this respondent group will be kept separate to the other groups, where
comparisons will be possible these will be stated clearly in the report. The
Photography exercise has been removed from this section as the same data is
captured via a focus group and a tour round the campus. Asking students to take
photos and to come back to them at a later date could result in very vague
responses, as children from such a young age group may forget and therefore it is
better to capture the data whilst they see the facility on campus.
10
December 2009
Results
Campus
Can you remember your initial opinion of the campus and of the buildings and
the facilities when you first came here?
2.4
All
45
13.7
38.9
10.2
Potential students
32.4
3.4
Positive & Negative
2
Existing Students
Negative
41.1
8.7
48.1
3.4
Staff
10
20
30
Positive
56.4
28.2
12
0
Don’t Know
54
40
50
60
As shown above, a large percentage of respondents had mixed views and chose the
positive and negative option. Staff were much more negative (28.2%) about their
initial opinions than any other respondent groups. Initial opinions from staff were
negative whereas for students they were a mixture of positive and negative and for
potential students they were positive. Key themes for initial opinions by staff,
students and potential students are stated below:









Old fashioned/dated
Buildings appeared dated
Dark and poor lighting
A mix of modern and dated buildings
Nice buildings
Nice people
Richmond is the only building that looks decent
Some areas in need of improvement
Atrium looks amazing
11
December 2009
Has your opinion changed since then to be more positive, negative,
unchanged or don’t know?
6.8
All
46
11.4
35.7
15.1
Potential students
45.9
4.1
Unchanged
4.4
Existing Students
15
1.7
Staff
10
Negative
52.2
Positive
28.4
28.2
12
0
Don't know
34.9
58.1
20
30
40
50
60
70
Opinions for staff had changed the most to positive. All staff that had stated negative
as their initial opinion of the university campus 73% had changed this to positive. 40%
of students had changed their opinion from negative to positive and 50% of those
students who had initially stated negative had changed their opinion to positive.
Key reasons for opinion changes included:









Demolition of residences
More care over green space with open aspects (less hidden corners) so feels
safer.
Richmond Building improved
Good internal refurbishments
Many new works increasing aesthetic nature and lighting
Teaching areas still require attention
Renovations and new build has improved campus
The new Gym and Modernized buildings look good
Mish mash of styles but getting better
Most of the negative opinions came from students and these included opinions such
as not much has changed, and improvement is taking place but a lot more is to be
done. It is important to note here that the majority of students who took part in the
survey had been at the university less than a year and had not been involved in
seeing the changes that have taken place over the years.
12
December 2009
Is there anything that excites you about coming to the campus?
Green areas, peace garden and trees were very much appreciated by staff. They
were also keen to know about new developments and excited about the changes
over the next five years. Also mentioned was the sports centre being a great new
facility in addition to the Atrium and Richmond building
Similar responses were received by existing and potential students who felt friends,
reputation, good teaching facilities, nice atmosphere, green space, good facilities,
new sports centre, clean impressive and modern buildings would excite them to
come to the campus.
Is there anything that could be improved (e.g. corridors; areas between
buildings; decoration; colours; technology?
Respondents made suggestions for facilities/buildings they would like to improve.
These have been categorised into the 15 categories below















Chesham building requires refurbishment
Décor requires updating, brighter and more colourful
More greening of the campus
Protective walkways between buildings
Signage
Lifts require upgrade as well as adding additional lifts
Upgrading of toilet facilities
Brighter, cleaner look
Improved eating facilities
More CCTV in car parks
Improved car parking facilities
Corridors require refurbishment
More places to eat/drink on campus/ water fountains
Improved ventilation/heating/Air conditioning
More seating in the atrium
13
December 2009
Identify and rank your top 5 facilities for importance
This question has not been combined for the whole sample, as staff and students all
have individual needs. Table 1 below outlines top five important faculties for staff,
the key ones being attractive campus area, Lecture rooms equipped with up to date
technological equipment, Central areas to sit and chat where food/ drink can be
bought, attractive green areas (e.g. Peace garden) and Workshop/lab areas with up
to date technological equipment. The responses differed for students Table 2) and
the key facilities which were ranked the most in the top five are: Attractive green
areas (e.g. Peace garden), Central areas to sit and chat, and where food/drink can
be bought, Access to computer facilities, Areas for quiet study/work, Lecture rooms
equipped with up to date technological equipment. Attractive campus area did not
feature as frequently for students as it did for staff.
Table 1: Rankings by Staff on top five facilities
Ranked 1
Ranked 3rd
Ranked 2nd
Attractive
Campus Area
13.3%
Lecture
rooms
equipped
with up to
date
technological
equipment
11.4%
Central areas
to sit and
chat
where
food/
drink
can
be
bought
Workshop/lab
areas with up
to
date
technological
equipment
Areas
in
departments
to sit and
chat,
and
where food
and drink can
be bought
Ranked 4th
Ranked 5th
Lecture
rooms
equipped
with up to
date
technological
equipment
Central areas
to sit and
chat
where
food/
drink
can
be
bought
12.4%
Attractive
Campus Area
11.4%
Attractive
Campus
Area
12.6%
Attractive
green
areas
(eg
Peace
garden)
20.2%
9.5%
Central areas
to sit and
chat
where
food/
drink
can
be
bought
11.4%
11.7%
Attractive
Campus Area
10.1%
8.6%
Attractive
campus area
9.5%
Modern
seminar
rooms
9.5%
Central
areas to
sit
and
chat
where
food/
drink can
be
bought
Areas for
group
work
10.7%
9.1%
7.6%
Workshop/lab
areas with up
to
date
technological
equipment
7.6%
Workshop/lab
areas with up
to
date
technological
equipment
8.6%
10.7%
6.7%
Modern
seminar
rooms
7.6%
Areas
in
departments
to sit and
chat,
and
where food
and drink can
be bought
7.6%
Attractive
green
areas
(eg
Peace
garden)
Areas for
group
work
Areas
in
departments to
sit and chat,
and
where
food and drink
can be bought
Access to cash
machines on
campus
Central areas
to sit and chat
where
food/
drink can be
bought
7.1%
10.7%
14
December 2009
8.1%
Table 2: Rankings by students on top five facilities
Ranked 1
Ranked 3rd
Ranked 2nd
Lecture
rooms
equipped
with up to
date
technological
equipment
Areas
for
quiet
study/work
14.9
Modern
lecture
rooms
Central
areas to sit
and
chat,
and where
food/drink
can
be
bought
Areas
in
departments
to sit and
chat,
and
where
food/drink
can
be
bought
9.0
11.9
7.2
6.9
Lecture
rooms
equipped
with up to
date
technological
equipment
Access
to
computer
facilities
10.4
Areas
for
quiet
study/work
Modern
lecture
rooms
Areas
in
departments
to sit and
chat,
and
where
food/drink
can
be
bought
Ranked 4th
Ranked 5th
Central
areas to sit
and
chat,
and where
food/drink
can
be
bought
Access
to
computer
facilities
10.8
Access
to
computer
facilities
10.5
Attractive
green
areas (eg
Peace
Garden)
11.8
9.9
Areas
in
departments
to sit and
chat,
and
where
food/drink
can
be
bought
7.8
Attractive
Campus
area
7.9
8.7
Areas
for
quiet
study/work
9.0
7.8
Areas
for
group work
8.1
Areas for
quiet
study/work
Access to
cash
machines
on
campus
7.6
8.7
Attractive
Campus
area
Areas
for
quiet
study/work
7.5
Lecture
rooms
equipped
with up to
date
technological
equipment
7.2
Central
areas to sit
and
chat,
and where
food/drink
can
be
bought
7.5
Access to
computer
facilities
6.3
9.0
7.8
6.9
Staff and students were then asked to state their satisfaction with each facility. A
table of findings is presented in Table 3; however Figure 1 & 2 shows a clearer
breakdown for staff and students, showing facilities with poor and average
satisfaction.
15
December 2009
Table 3: Rate the University on your satisfaction with this facility:
Staff
Students
Poor
Average
Good
Very
good
Have
not
used
facility
8.2
13.5
30.6
15.6
3.8
28.2
Areas in departments to sit and chat, but where no
food/drink can be bought
Areas in departments to sit and chat, and where
food/drink can be bought
Central areas to sit and chat, but where no food/drink
can be bought
Central areas to sit and chat, and where food/drink can
be bought
Large lecture rooms
17.0
25.0
24.1
9.8
0.9
Have
not
used
facility
23.2
12.6
27.0
12.60
9.9
0.9
36.9
8.6
16.0
24.9
24.0
8.6
17.8
8.9
25.9
27.7
9.8
1.8
25.9
7.4
13.1
29.8
18.2
4.5
27.1
4.5
9.8
47.3
32.1
5.4
0.9
4.5
12.0
29.7
34.2
15.6
3.9
0.9
15.1
44.3
21.7
4.7
13.2
1.8
9.0
32.4
35.4
18.9
2.4
Lecture rooms equipped with up to date technological
equipment
Modern lecture rooms
3.7
9.2
39.4
27.5
6.4
13.8
2.4
11.6
21.7
39.2
22.0
3.3
0.9
23.1
36.1
20.4
5.6
13.9
2.7
10.5
27.8
35.3
18.0
5.7
Up to date sports facilities
0
2.8
9.3
31.5
37.0
19.4
1.5
3.0
10.8
30.0
27.6
27.0
Cheap to use sports facilities
5.5
7.3
21.8
30.9
14.5
20.0
6.8
7.4
15.7
27.0
16.3
26.7
Access to cash machines on campus
3.7
10.1
36.7
36.7
8.3
4.6
6.9
8.8
24.8
29.6
19.6
10.3
Workshop/lab areas with up to date technological
equipment
Modern seminar rooms
2.8
6.5
22.4
16.8
1.9
49.5
2.1
6.6
18.7
30.8
13.6
28.1
4.5
22.7
30.0
20.0
0.9
21.8
2.1
11.1
29.9
31.7
10.5
14.7
Large seminar rooms
5.6
25.0
27.8
17.6
1.9
22.2
2.4
10.5
29.1
33.3
10.8
14.1
Attractive campus area
8.2
20.9
40.9
28.2
0.9
0.9
5.4
14.8
29.5
35.2
13.3
1.8
Access to computer facilities
0.9
12.5
33.9
39.3
7.1
6.2
5.7
11.4
31.2
34.5
14.7
2.4
Areas for group work
7.4
28.7
34.3
12.0
0.9
16.7
8.8
18.4
25.7
23.6
7.9
15.7
Areas for quiet study/work
11.8
27.3
33.6
13.6
0.9
12.7
8.3
15.1
26.6
26.0
17.5
6.0
Areas for research
5.5
21.1
32.1
11.0
0.9
29.4
4.8
12.5
25.0
25.6
14.0
18.2
Areas for obtaining reference material
1.9
13.0
35.2
30.6
4.6
14.8
4.8
7.8
31.1
30.8
17.4
8.1
Attractive green areas (e.g. Peace Garden)
3.5
20.4
34.5
32.7
7.1
1.8
5.1
13.7
26.9
29.6
12.8
11.9
Facility
Very
poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very
good
Very
poor
16
December 2009
The categories have then been combined for a clearer view of those facilities which have been rated with poor satisfaction or above
average satisfaction:
Figure 1: Staff Satisfaction on University Facilities
Attractive green areas (e.g. Peace Garden)
23.9
Areas for obtaining reference material
74.3
14.9
Areas for research
70.4
26.6
Areas for quiet study/work
14.8
44
29.4
39.1
Areas for group work
48.1
36.1
Access to computer facilities
29.1
Large seminar rooms
30.6
6.2
70
0.9
47.3
27.2
22.2
50.9
9.3
21.8
41.1
Access to cash machines on campus
13.8
Cheap to use sports facilities
12.8
very poor + poor
49.5
81.7
4.6
67.2
Up to date sports facilities 2.8
19.4
24
Lecture rooms equipped with up to date technological equipment
12.9
Large lecture rooms
16
Central areas to sit and chat, and where food/drink can be bought
14.3
Central areas to sit and chat, but where no food/drink can be bought
62.1
13.8
70.7
13.2
84.8
Areas in departments to sit and chat, and where food/drink can be…
39.6
Areas in departments to sit and chat, but where no food/drink can…
42
10
13.9
73.3
34.8
20
0.9
39.3
25.9
23.4
36.9
34.8
30
40
average +good+ very good
Have not used facility
20
77.8
Modern lecture rooms
0
16.7
80.3
Attractive campus area
Workshop/lab areas with up to date technological equipment
12.7
47.2
13.4
Modern seminar rooms
1.8
50
60
23.2
70
80
90
100
17
December 2009
Figure 2: Student Satisfaction on University Facilities
Attractive green areas (e.g. Peace Garden)
18.8
Areas for obtaining reference material
69.3
12.6
Areas for research
79.3
17.3
Areas for quiet study/work
Areas for group work
18.2
70.1
27.2
6
57.2
17.1
Attractive campus area
8.1
64.6
23.4
Access to computer facilities
11.9
15.7
80.4
2.4
78
1.8
20.2
Large seminar rooms
12.9
73.2
14.1
Modern seminar rooms
13.2
72.1
14.7
Workshop/lab areas with up to date technological equipment
8.7
63.1
Access to cash machines on campus
15.7
Cheap to use sports facilities
14.2
74
13.2
Lecture rooms equipped with up to date technological equipment
14
Large lecture rooms
10.8
81.1
Areas in departments to sit and chat, and where food/drink can…
2.4
79.5
3.9
52.5
27.1
57.5
21.7
0
3.3
86.7
24.6
Areas in departments to sit and chat, but where no food/drink…
17.8
50
20
40
Have not used facility
5.7
82.9
20.5
average +good+ very good
27
16.5
Central areas to sit and chat, but where no food/drink can be…
26.7
68.4
Modern lecture rooms
very poor + poor
10.3
59
Up to date sports facilities 4.5
Central areas to sit and chat, and where food/drink can be bought
28.1
28.2
60
80
100
18
December 2009
Sustainable workplace
Of the specific campus facilities looked at, a focus on sustainable development was
more likely to attract staff and students than state-of-the-art, well equipped buildings
and advanced technology. Conversely, a focus on sustainable development was less
Likely than the other facilities to be considered important.
State of the Art, well equipped Buildings
I didn’t know such
facilities existed here
47.7
3.6
All
45.7
I don't consider this all
that important
Potential students
3.2
49.7
44.5
Existing Students
4.2
45.5
46.4
I would expect this of all
universities
51.3
45.2
This would make me
consider the University
more positively
2.6
Staff
0
20
40
60
Advanced Technology, eg a wireless well-enabled
campus, virtual lectures
All
4.5
48.9
43.7
Potential studnets
3.9
44.5
51
Existing Students
4.5
46.1
45.2
Staff
5.3
20
40
I don't consider this all
that important
I would expect this of all
universities
63.2
29.8
0
I didn’t know such
facilities existed here
60
This would make me
consider the University
more positively
80
19
December 2009
A focus on sustainable development e.g minimising waste and
carbon emissions, creating a green environment, constructing
eco-friendly campus buildings
14.6
All
39.7
43.5
16.9
Potential students
37
14
Existing Students
37.7
13.4
Staff
43.5
45.6
40.2
46.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
I didn’t know such facilities
existed here
I don't consider this all that
important
I would expect this of all
universities
This would make me
consider the University more
positively
How important are environmental issues and how ‘green’ a university is in
your overall impressions of a university?
How important are environmental issues and how 'green' a
university is in your overall impressions of a university?
8.3
All
12.1
46.5
29.5
4.3
Potential students
Not important at all
10.6
55.9
24.8
Neither
9.5
12.2
Existing Students
Very important
10.3
13.8
44.8
25.9
0
10
20
30
Fairly important
42.6
33
Staff
Not very important
40
50
60
Overall environmental issues and how green a university is were seen as fairly
important (46.5%) and Very important (29.5%). Findings did not vary too much on
separate respondent groups.
20
December 2009
Do you think the university is green?
Do you think the University is green?
23
All
77
12.4
Potential students
87.6
No
22.6
Existing Students
Yes
77.4
38.7
Staff
61.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
Over two-thirds of respondents felt the University of Bradford was green.
On what have you based this decision on?
Green areas, Ecoversity activities, estates work, recycling on campus and
communication of eco-friendly options were very much appreciated, although it was
also thought that the campus could benefit from more plants and the ability to control
lighting, heating and ventilation. A mix of positive and negative opinions were
provided, although a large number of respondents did feel that the message was
getting across but there was still al long way to go. Majority of existing and potential
students felt that having recycling bins contributed to their decision although some
areas required more bins and comments were made on other how apart from
recycling bins other areas should also be looked into. Generally it was felt that much
improvement could be made to ensure ethical practices on campus. Suggestions
included:








Why do we still have water coolers
Too much paper is used
Heating and lighting could be greener
Encourage use of public transport, not to allow students car parking facilities
Insufficient understanding of what green means
Lack of ability to control temperatures
Lighting, Heating and Ventilation need to be addressed
Poor insulation levels, single glazing
21
December 2009
Work-place Practices
A high percentage of staff and existing students felt that the university had attempted
to implement the following:




Recycling (staff: 99.1% & students: 90.4%)
Raising awareness (staff: 93.8% & students: 77.6%),
Promoting environmental travel options (staff: 85% & students: 57.7%)
Controlling paper use (staff: 50.4% & 60.7%)
Areas which still require attention are:



Systems for ensuring that heating and electrical equipment are only on at
appropriate times
Upgrading or replacing inefficient machines/equipment
Energy efficient lighting and appliance
Staff: Do you feel the university has attempted to implement the following workplace
practices?
Microgeneration (eg solar panels on buildings)
21.2
Promoting biodiversity
29.2
6.2
A carbon reduction plan, with targets for reduction
51.8
3.5
47.8
Assessing major purchases according to their
environmental impact
17.7
22.1
Systems for ensuring that heating and electrical
equipment are only on at appropriate times
58.4
15.9
Don't know
Upgrading or replacing inefficient
machines/equipment
45.1
14.2
Controlling paper use
Yes
35.4
Raising awareness
No
50.4
2.7
93.8
Energy efficient lighting and appliances
38.9
33.6
Promoting environmental travel options
9.7
Recycling
85
0
0
99.1
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
22
December 2009
Existing students: Do you feel the university has attemoted to implement the
following work-place practices?
Microgeneration (eg solar panels on buildings)
20.5
22.9
Promoting biodiversity
8.2
A carbon reduction plan, with targets for reduction
8.2
Assessing major purchases according to their
environmental impact
52
33.8
10.9
19.8
Systems for ensuring that heating and electrical
equipment are only on at appropriate times
24.8
26.6
Don't know
Upgrading or replacing inefficient
machines/equipment
23.8
26.8
Controlling paper use
No
Yes
21
Raising awareness
60.7
10
Energy efficient lighting and appliances
77.6
16.5
Promoting environmental travel options
41.2
19.3
Recycling
57.7
3.6
0
10
90.4
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
23
December 2009
Safety and Security
Nearly all respondents felt safe on campus during the day, mainly due to the number
of people around, any fears of unsafety were during out-of-hours. Although there
was a feeling of security being an issue amongst the participants, no student had
experienced any security threat first hand, either to themselves or to someone they
knew. Some staff and students also commented that they found the groups of youths
standing alongside streets and along Great Horton Rd and in the hallways daunting.
There were mixed views on security staff where some felt that more security staff
would make one feel more reassured and some felt that the presence of security
staff on campus was sufficient, again the availability of security staff out of hours was
mentioned as an area that could be improved on.
How safe do you feel on campus?
4.9
18.5
All
0.6
Potential students
Unsafe
8
6.6
32.4
30.9
9.6
6.1
10
Very safe
Extremely safe
6.1
Staff
Somewhat safe
Safe
20.4
Existing Students
46.6
29.4
15.3
0
38.1
28
10.5
27.8
42.6
17.4
20
30
40
50
What is it that makes you feel this way?
A small percentage of respondents felt unsafe on campus, key reasons provided for
this included:




Lack of lighting
More security staff would make one feel reassured
Students lacking respect and groups of youths on campus
Non- students on campus
Reasons for feeling safe included:




Barriered car parks
Swipe card access to buildings
Plenty of security and CCTV
Always students around
24
December 2009
Are there any areas where you feel unsafe on campus?
Are there any areas where you feel unsafe on campus?
68.9
All
31.1
81.9
Potential students
18.1
No
66.2
Existing Students
Yes
33.8
58.7
Staff
41.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Please name the area and explain why you feel unsafe
Area
Reason
Car parks
Remoteness from buildings, dark,
Sunken car park
Dark and not enough security guards
Side streets
Have large groups of people around
Campus at night
Fewer people working
Between buildings
Dark
Between School of Health and Main Campus
Dark
Phoenix Building
Feels isolated
Walkway from Library to Chesham Building
Poor lighting
Do you feel there are enough security staff on campus?
Do you feel there are enough security staff on campus?
42.3
All
57.7
32.4
Potential students
67.6
44.5
Existing Students
No
Yes
55.5
49
51
Staff
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
25
December 2009
What could the University do to improve safety and security?





Better lighting
CCTV
Encourage more people on campus after hours
Have security based in various areas on campus rather than in one building
only
More visible security patrols
What do you think of the departmental facilities (teaching; recreation; research;
buildings)





Has improved after the refurbishment
Teaching areas need to be bigger and have PCs set in the rooms so that lap
tops don’t have to be carried about.
Number of teaching areas should be increased
Some office need re-doing
Require updated meeting rooms
Students felt that the facilities were above average and to an acceptable standard.
Comments were made on overcrowded lecture theatres and upgrading of existing
equipment
How could departmental facilities be improved?







Improved and modern equipment
Better insulation/heating facilities
Decoration and more active involvement in department planning
Larger offices
Meeting rooms
Upgraded toilet facilities
Large lecture rooms
To what extent do you think your views about the University of Bradford are
influenced by the surrounding areas?
Views of staff varied and there were a mix of responses. Although some suggested
that the university was greatly making positive changes and at the same time the city
was getting worse.
26
December 2009
Is there anything missing on campus that you would like to see?










Places to eat and drink
More social space
Access to food and drink out of hours
Vending machines across buildings
More green space
An area for worship/prayer rooms
Cash machines (School of Health specifically mentioned)
Larger car parks
Quiet seating areas
Water fountains
Have you been to any other university campuses that had something you
thought was good and should also be available at the University of Bradford?
University
Should be Available at the UofB
Brunel (West London), Lancaster University; Shops for students
Newcastle
Leeds Met; York; St John; Oxford; University Green Space
of Surrey; Leeds University ; UEA
UEA
Large new look buildings
Queens; Manchester
Oxfam shops; Cafes
Leeds Met
Small computer space
University of Surrey; Hull
Up-to-date visual facilities in lecture rooms
University of Leeds; Leicester (De Montfort); Union Building
Sheffield
York
Better car parking
Oxford college
Set up is safer and secure
Leeds University
Up to date signage
Leeds University
Disabled Access Routes
Loughborough
Security at entrance
Huddersfield; Anglia Ruskin University
Library entrance and library facilities
Leeds Metropolitan University
Second hand book shop
Leeds University
Areas to sit and eat own food
Huddersfield
State of the art children’s ward (Health)
Nyenrode University Netherlands
Canals; Scenery
Leeds University
Prayer room
Individual findings for each respondent group can be found in Appendix 1
(Staff), Appendix 2 (Existing students) and Appendix 3 (potential students)
27
December 2009
Conclusion
This research has highlighted some areas for improvement, and has provided
valuable insight into staff and student priorities, in relation to estates issues.
It is suggested that this research is carried out on a regular basis, in order to ensure
that staff and student needs are continually met. It should also be considered to
carry out research with specific projects in mind, in order to ensure that any new
plans are discussed with those who will eventually use them.
As the nature of the research was to investigate the reasons behind liking or disliking
facilities on campus, some areas for improvement fall outside the scope of the
estates office, and therefore this report will be circulated to all concerned.
Due to the large percentage of improvements suggested by respondents falling into
small facility change, or decoration categories, many of the suggestions that follow
involve low investment changes. However, there are also some other changes that
could be made that require a larger resource investment.
28
December 2009
Action Plan
Survey Statistics
Suggestion
Responsibility
Communicating
Estates Plans
Staff raised a number of communications issues as key priorities for them. The need to be informed and kept up to Estates
date on departmental changes, and more importantly, on motivations for making changes was paramount, and
there is evidence to suggest that estates could review the way in which they communicate changes to staff. One
way that this could be tackled could be the inclusion of staff in some projects, to reduce the ‘them and us’ attitude.
Controlling paper-use
There is a need to investigate the possibility of making double-sided printing a standard option, and to ensure that All Staff
all staff and students are aware that this should be used where appropriate. Ideally departments could ask for
double-sided printing in assignments, which would create positive publicity for the university. In addition to this
publications from staff ‘seed’ should be made available online.
Upgrading
areas
of
Increased
space
toilet Some areas are in need of upgrading toilet facilities, especially those based in Chesham Building
green The importance that staff and students place on green initiatives such as the green areas, peace garden, all give
the campus a unique character, which could also act as a pull to potential students when visiting the university.
Estates
Estates
Catering
A number of catering issues were mentioned during the research, specifically around the opportunity of having a Catering
larger variety of catering outlets on the campus, catering to be available out of hours and vending machines to be
placed in all buildings.
Modern Buildings
Both staff and students felt that although some areas of the university had made improvements on buildings there
was still a long way to go, and investment should be made to have all buildings at the same standard, this would
definitely attract potential students who were very impressed with the sports centre and the atrium
Estates
Areas to sit and chat Increase in the areas that staff and students can sit, currently this only includes the atrium and the eating outlets Estates
where food can and within the campus. Students also felt a need to have an increased number of areas where they could sit and
cannot be purchased
purchase food.
Ventilation (Heating, Both staff and students showed concern for variable temperatures within teaching facilities and offices across the Estates
air conditioning)
university. It is necessary to invest in individual heating control within rooms so that heating is only on at
appropriate times of the year.
Decoration
Rooms, corridors and offices to have a brighter cleaner look. The Chesham building was specifically mentioned
Estates
Water Fountains
These are to be placed within each building so that they can be used instead of purchasing plastic water bottles, or
have the facility to have existing water bottles refilled.
Estates /
Catering
Lighting in Car parks
Increased lighting in cap parks, specifically for staff who work out of hours and need to walk to the sunken car park
Estates
29
December 2009
30
December 2009