Shipboard Habitability in the U.S. Navy

Abstract

Studies of sailor quality of life (QOL) reveal that shipboard life is one among several work and non-work factors that help explain retention plans and behavior (Schwerin, Kline, Olmsted, & Wilcove, 2006; Wilcove, Schwerin, & Wolosin, 2003). The study of factors affecting satisfaction with shipboard life lacks serious exploration, with most of the research on shipboard habitability being conducted 25 years ago. In the present study, data from the 2002 Navy QOL Survey were analyzed to reveal the facets of shipboard habitability viewed as most and least satisfying, to create habitability subscales, and to apply those subscales in a multiple regression to better understand satisfaction with shipboard life. Results are related to the larger discipline of environmental psychology (Gifford, 2002). Implications of study findings on policy and research, study limitations, and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Notes

¹The percentages presented here on dissatisfaction with shipboard life are the result of analyzing a single 7-point satisfaction/dissatisfaction item. These percentages differ from those reported in Wilcove and Schwerin (2002). In that study, the second author devised a way of combining several types of items into a single score—overall satisfaction with shipboard life (one item), overall feeling toward that domain (one item; Andrews & Withey, 1976), and satisfaction with aspects of that domain (22 items).

²The authors viewed this measure as representing the subjective reaction of sailors to the number of people in the room.

³The authors viewed this measure as representing the subjective reaction of sailors to the size of the room.

⁴Other studies examine shipboard habitability aboard specific platforms, primarily submarines (i.e., Barton & Weybrew, 1957; Harris, 1971; Kinsey, 1952, 1953; Nichols & Kinsey, 1959; Porter, 1979; Ritch, 1948; Shobe et al., 2003).

⁵“Deployed” was defined as 60 days or more for submariners and 90 days or more for others.

^aThe number of Chief Warrant Officers completing the survey was too low (n = 55) to provide meaningful results.

^aEnlisted “satisfied” percentages have a margin of error of ±3 points; “neutral” percentages ±4 points; and “dissatisfied” percentages ±3 points.

^bAll officer percentages in this table have a margin of error of ±3 points.

⁶Only minor variations were found when factor analyses were conducted separately for enlisted and officers. For enlisted, Onboard Social Needs also included single items on satisfaction with the working area and amount of room in working area. For officers, there was no separate Privacy factor. Privacy items (single items on privacy and room in berthing area) loaded on the Berthing Area factor. Two small, new officer factors emerged also: basic needs (single items on the mess area, food, and drinking water) and bed (single items on pillows, bed linens, and mattresses).

^aAll enlisted percentages in this table have a margin of error of ±3 points.

^b“Satisfied” percentages for officers have a margin of error of ±4 points; “neutral” percentages ±3 points; and “dissatisfied” percentages ±4 points.

⁷SUDAAN was used to conduct the t-tests.

^a p < 0.01.