Studierendenwerk Rostock-Wismar

Student Accommodation Survey

Our student accommodation survey was conducted between December 3, 2019 and January 2, 2020. We were delighted that a total of 1,009 participants gave us their feedback on our accommodation. We surveyed both current and former tenants and were also interested in the opinions of those who had never lived in our student accommodation before.

The aim of the survey was to find out the image that our student accommodation has, the wishes and trends that influence the choice of accommodation type, and the role that sustainability plays in student accommodation. We were particularly interested in how our current tenants rate our living spaces, amenities, the environment of the residential complex, the community within the accommodation, and our services. 

Scores were awarded from 1 to 5 according to the German school grading system (1 = very good, 5 = unsatisfactory).

Description of the sample

Of the 1,009 participants, 52 percent (520) were current tenants; 10 percent (104) were former tenants. The number of former applicants for an accommodation place was about the same at 11 percent (109). The number of participants who neither live or used to live in one of our accommodation complexes nor applied for a place there was 27% (276).

Slightly more women (54%) than men (46%) took part in the survey. One percent of respondents indicated their gender as ‘Other.’ Most of the survey participants were between 18 and 22 years old. The second largest group was between 23 and 27 years old (37%). The majority of respondents study at the University of Rostock (75%). Three percent are Rostock University of Music and Theatre students and 21 percent study at the Wismar University of Applied Sciences at the Wismar site. A further 2 percent study at the Department of Maritime Studies and are therefore largely at the Warnemünde site. Eighty-two percent of respondents came from Germany; 18 percent of respondents are international students.


Reasons for living in student accommodation

Multiple answers were possible.

 

Accommodation trends

In terms of the preferred type of accommodation, it is clear that single apartments are in increasing demand: While in 2015, 50 percent preferred this form of living, the figure was already 63 percent in 2019. Nineteen percent of those surveyed would prefer to live in shared accommodation for two people (2015: 21%). Fourteen percent of survey participants prefer shared accommodation for three people (2015: 21%). Shared accommodation for four people (or more) is rather unpopular: This is the preferred form of accommodation for only 4 percent of survey participants (2015: 7%)

We also wanted to know how important a private bathroom and kitchen is for respondents:

Private bathroom:

Private kitchen:

Sustainability is an important issue for society as a whole. That’s why we wanted to know what it means to people in student accommodation.

Conscientious use of electricity, water and heating is important to fifty-five percent of you. This share has increased compared to the 2015 survey, when it was 45 percent. Conscientious use was rather important to 35 percent of respondents. Only eight percent consider conscientious use to be rather unimportant. Only one percent deems the conscientious use of these resources to be unimportant.

Ninety percent of you state that you consciously save electricity, water and heating.

Correct waste separation also contributes to sustainability, as this is the only way to recycle the materials concerned. Sixty-six percent of survey participants state that waste separation is important to them. Another 26 percent consider waste separation to be rather important. Five percent consider waste separation to be rather unimportant and 2 percent consider waste separation to be completely unimportant.

 

Image

Approximately four percent of respondents rate the image of the accommodation provided by Student Services as ‘very good.’ Twenty-nine percent give it a score of 2 ‘good.’ The majority rate the image as satisfactory (38%). Seventeen percent rate the image of the residential complexes as adequate and 12% thought that the image was poor.

Students at the Rostock site rate the image of the accommodation better than students at the Wismar site:

 

Students at the Rostock site

Very good

4%

Good

32%

Satisfactory

39%

Adequate

15%

Poor

9%

 

Students at the Wismar site

Very good

5%

Good

15 %

Satisfactory

32%

Adequate

23%

Poor

24%

 

If we look only at current tenants among the participants, it becomes clear that they rate the image of the student accommodation better than other respondents:

 

Very good

7%

Good

33%

Satisfactory

35%

Adequate

16%

Poor

10%

 

Key results

Satisfaction 2019

 

Overall satisfaction: 2.5

 

Living and utility spaces: 2.7

 

Communal spaces and amenities in the residential complex: 3.5

 

Environment of the residential complex: 2.2

 

Community in the residential complex: 3.0

 

Service and communication with Student Services: 2.6

 

Because of changes to the survey, only certain aspects of the key results can be compared with the results of the 2015 survey. Overall satisfaction has improved slightly (2015: 2.65) and service and communication with Student Services was also rated better (2015: 2.92). In contrast, the rating for living and utility spaces has deteriorated: In 2015 the rooms scored 1.82 and the kitchens received a score of 2.54.

The following aspects were assessed within the individual sub-areas:

Living and utility spaces:

Communal spaces and amenities:

Environment of the residential complex:

Community

Service and communication

(broken down between custodian and administrative staff)

 

Satisfaction by accommodation

Overall satisfaction Rostock: 2.5

Living and utility spaces: 2.7
Communal spaces and amenities: 3.5
Environment: 2.2
Community: 3.0
Service and communication: 2.6


Gerhart-Hauptmann-Str. 16 (Rostock)

Overall satisfaction: 2.5
Living and utility spaces: 2.7
Communal spaces and amenities: not available
Environment: 1.5
Community: 3.1
Service and communication: 2.7

Criticism: Internet, bicycle and car parking, provide communal spaces

[Comment: Student Services: It is not possible to provide communal spaces in the building. To set up a table tennis table outside, for example, you would have to do without bicycle or car parking areas.]


St.-Georg-Strasse 101 (Rostock)

Overall satisfaction: 2.0
Living and utility spaces: 2.3
Communal spaces and amenities: not available
Environment: 1.6
Community: 2.8
Service and communication: 2.6

Criticism: Internet, car parking, provide communal spaces

[Comment: Student Services: It is not possible to provide communal spaces in the building. To set up a table tennis table outside, for example, you would have to do without bicycle or car parking areas.]


St.-Georg-Strasse 104-107 (Rostock)

Overall satisfaction: 2.4
Living and utility spaces: 3.1
Communal spaces and amenities: 4.1
Environment: 2.1
Community: 3.3
Service and communication: 2.8

Criticism: Internet, cleanliness and tidiness of the accommodation complex, sanitary facilities (shared sanitary facilities)

[Comment from Student Services: There are two common rooms and two additional practice rooms in the building at St.-Georg-Strasse 104-107. The practice rooms are now equipped with pianos. The shared kitchens and bathrooms are cleaned daily by a company. The sanitary facilities have been freshly renovated and have individually lockable shower cubicles.]


Ulmenhof (Rostock)

Overall satisfaction: 1.5
Living and utility spaces: 1.4
Communal spaces and amenities: 3.5
Environment: 1.6
Community: 2.9
Service and communication: 1.8

Criticism: Internet, more washing machines and dryers


Möllner Strasse 11 (Rostock)

Overall satisfaction: 3.3
Living and utility spaces: 3.1
Communal spaces and amenities: 3.8
Environment: 3.4
Community: 3.1
Service and communication: 3.3

Criticism: Security in and around the residential complex, Internet, fixtures/fittings in kitchens, proximity to city center/university (too far away)


Albert-Einstein-Strasse 28/29 (Rostock)

Overall satisfaction: 2.5
Living and utility spaces: 2.5
Communal spaces and amenities: 2.9
Environment: 2.5
Community: 3.0
Service and communication: 2.5

Criticism: Internet, need for communal space

[Comment from Student Services: A large meeting and table tennis room is located in the basement as well as a fitness studio that is part of UNI-Sport. In front of the building there is a basketball court with seating and two barbeques.]


Erich-Schlesinger-Strasse 19 (Rostock)

Overall satisfaction: 2.3
Living and utility spaces: 2.6
Communal spaces and amenities: 3.5
Environment: 2.4
Community: 2.6
Service and communication: 2.2

Criticism: Noise levels in the residential complex, washing machines and dryers, Internet


Max-Planck-Strasse 1-5 (Rostock)

Overall satisfaction: 2.3
Living and utility spaces: 2.5
Communal spaces and amenities: 3.7
Environment: 2.0
Community: 3.1
Service and communication: 2.4

Criticism: Internet, bigger fridges


Friedrich-Barnewitz-Strasse 12 (Rostock-Warnemünde)

Overall satisfaction: 2.6
Living and utility spaces: 2.7
Communal spaces and amenities: not rated
Environment: 1.8
Community: 2.8
Service and communication: 2.4

Criticism: Internet, noise levels, proximity to city center/town


Overall satisfaction Wismar: 2.5

Living and utility spaces: 2.7
Communal spaces and amenities: 3.6
Environment: 2.2
Community: 3.0
Service and communication: 2.6


Bürgermeister-Haupt-Strasse 29 (Wismar)

Overall satisfaction: 3.2
Living and utility spaces: 3.3
Communal spaces and amenities: 3.7
Environment: 2.5
Community: 3.3
Service and communication: 2.9

Criticism: Internet, sanitary facilities, kitchen fixtures, washing machines and dryers, bicycle parking


DreiMaster (Wismar)

Overall satisfaction: 2.1
Living and utility spaces: 2.2
Communal spaces and amenities: not available
Environment: 1.8
Community: 2.4
Service and communication: 2.8

Criticism: Internet, washing machines and dryers, bicycle parking, car parking

 


Friedrich-Wolf-Strasse 25 (Wismar)

Overall satisfaction: 2.7
Living and utility spaces: 3.1
Communal spaces and amenities: 3.3
Environment: 2.4
Community: 3.0
Service and communication: 3.0

Criticism: Internet, bicycle parking, security in the vicinity of the residential complex, proximity to the city center/town

 


 What happens after the survey?

We have taken a close look at your feedback and, where possible, have already planned or begun initial responsive measures. We will create additional communal spaces for various purposes in the accommodation complexes: e.g. foosball rooms, rooms for studying or book exchanges or exchanges for household utensils. Wherever space permits, we will increase washing machine and dryer capacities. Further expansion of the WiFi network is being planned. Our custodians are already using an app for handing over rooms in order to make communication with tenants even faster and more digital. Plans are in place for contracts to be managed through an online portal on our website in the future. This may be used, for example, to upload proof of registration, change data or to submit a request to move or extend a residential contract. To improve communication between administration and residents, a building representative program in the student accommodation is also being introduced.


Your person to turn to