Sustainability Assessment and Development Direction - High-rise Residential Complexes in New Urban...
-
Upload
chi-huu-truong -
Category
Documents
-
view
210 -
download
0
Transcript of Sustainability Assessment and Development Direction - High-rise Residential Complexes in New Urban...
Sustainability Assessment and Development Direction
High-rise Residential Complexes in New Urban Areas
In Hanoi, Vietnam
By
TRUONG HUU CHI
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the regulations for the
Degree of March Design in the University of Nottingham
2008 – 2009
September 2009
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Mr John Edmonds, for giving me the best support and guidance.
I would like to thank my friends in Hanoi, for giving me an enourmous help in sending
questionnaires and collecting invaluable informations.
I would like to express my great appreciation to my family, for their unlimited support and
encouragement throughout all the years of my studies, and show my respect for their
financial and emotional support.
ii
ABSTRACT
Thanks to the recently rapid economic growth and the deeper integration into the
international universal, the urbanization in all Vietnam’s territory, in general, and in Hanoi,
the capital, in particular, is changing significantly and entirely in all urban aspects, in which
residential section is remarkable. The reformation of urban, the mechanical increasing of
population, the limited land, the significant increasing of the citizens’ demand for a higher
quality living space are only some of main factors leading to a vital need for a large
reformation and redevelopment in the residential section as an indispensible process of
urbanization. Consequently, many new urban areas, in which high-rise residential complexes
dominated, have been planned and invested in Hanoi. In general, the strong development of
new high-rise residential complexes has gained relatively many achievements. However, the
initial research shows that the new high-rise residential complexes’ design seems contained
many disadvantages in terms of sustainable development, which officially announced at the
World Commission on Environment and Development Conference, 1987. For instance, the
infrastructure system and public service facilities in many high-rise residential complexes
seem to be not adequate or not synchronous, or issues of energy saving and water saving
seems not to be carefully considered in design. Thus, the presented paper will try to
examine preliminarily the sustainability of current high-rise residential complexes in Hanoi’s
new urban areas, followed by trying to find out the directions for improvement, and finally
contribute some solutions to increase the sustainability of existing and future high-rise
residential complexes in the urbanization of Hanoi.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... i
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Content ............................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... v
List of Illustrations ........................................................................................................... vi
Chapter I: Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Research Back ground, Aims and Objectives ............................................................ 1
1.2. Research Scope and Methodology ............................................................................ 2
1.3. Structure of the thesis ................................................................................................ 2
Chapter II: Literature Review ......................................................................................... 5
2.1. The definition and key dimensions of sustainability .................................................... 5
2.2. Sustainability in Human Settlement ........................................................................... 6
2.3. City and Sustainability ............................................................................................... 7
2.4. Sustainability in Project level ..................................................................................... 9
2.5. Sustainability and Housing ......................................................................................... 9
2.6. Assessment Sustainability in Built Environment ....................................................... 11
2.7. Sustainability and High-rise Building ...................................................................... 13
2.8. High-rise Residential Complexes in Hanoi context ................................................... 16
2.8.1. City of Hanoi ................................................................................................... 16
2.8.2. High-rise Residential Complexes in Hanoi’s new urban areas ........................ 20
2.9. Research Questions ................................................................................................ 21
Chapter III: Survey Methodology and Implementation ........................................... 22
3.1. Deriving Indicators for Sustainability Assessment .................................................. 22
3.2. Samples Selection ................................................................................................. 24
3.3. Survey Content and Implementation ...................................................................... 27
iv
Chapter IV: Result analysis and Discussion ............................................................ 27
4.1. Demographical Characteristics ................................................................................ 27
4.2. Result in Case A (LINH DAM Complex) .................................................................. 28
4.2.1. Result of Satisfaction / Concern in case A ...................................................... 28
4.2.2. Result of Importance in case A ....................................................................... 30
4.2.3. Improvement priority index in case A .............................................................. 32
4.3. Result in Case B (TRUNG HOA - NHAN CHINH Complex) ..................................... 34
4.3.1. Result of Satisfaction / Concern in Case B ..................................................... 34
4.3.2. Result of Importance in Case B ...................................................................... 36
4.3.3. Improvement priority index in Case B ............................................................. 38
4.4. Analysis of difference between the two cases.......................................................... 39
4.4.1. Comparison of Satisfaction ............................................................................. 39
4.4.2. Comparison of Importance ............................................................................. 40
4.5. Discussion ............................................................................................................... 41
4.5.1. Discussion based on the survey’s result ......................................................... 41
4.5.2. Extension Discussion ..................................................................................... 46
Chapter V: Conclusion and Recommendation ................................................................ 48
5.1. Recommendation .................................................................................................... 48
5.2. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 51
Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 54
Appendix .......................................................................................................................... 62
Figures (4 – 15) ................................................................................................................... 63
Questionnaire ..................................................................................................................... 72
LIST OF TABLES
v
Table Page
1 Indicators for assessing the sustainability ................................................................ 23
2 Satisfaction by area and item in case A (LD) ........................................................... 29
3 Importance by areas and items in case A (LD) ........................................................ 31
4 Improvement priority index by area in case A (LD) .................................................. 33
5 Improvement priority index by items in case A (LD) ................................................. 33
6 Satisfaction by areas and items in case B (THNC ................................................... 35
7 Importance by areas and items in case B (THNC) ................................................... 37
8 Improvement priority index by areas in case B (THNC) .......................................... 39
9 Improvement priority index by items in case B (THNC) ........................................... 39
LIST OF FIGURES
vi
Figure Page
1 The Structure of Thesis .................................................................................. 4
2 The layout and standard floor plan of case A (LD) ....................................... 26
3 The layout and standard floor plan of case B (THNC) .................................. 26
4 Comparison of average satisfaction by area in case A (LD) ......................... 63
5 Comparison of average importance by area in case A (LD) ......................... 63
6 Improvement priority index by area in case A (LD) ....................................... 64
7 Improvement priority index by item in case A (LD) ....................................... 66
8 Comparison of average satisfaction by area in case B (THNC) .................... 65
9 Comparison of average importance by area in case B (THNC) .................... 65
10 Improvement priority index by area in case B (THNC) ................................. 64
11 Improvement priority index by item in case B (THNC) .................................. 67
12 Result of survey on comparison between satisfaction in case A (LD)
and in case B by area (THNC) ...................................................................... 68
13 Result of survey on comparison between satisfaction in case A (LD)
and in case B by item (THNC) ...................................................................... 69
14 Result of survey on satisfaction in case A (LD) and case B (THNC) ............ 70
15 Result of survey on importance in case A (LD) and case B (THNC) ............. 71
1
Chapter I: Introduction
1.1. Research Back ground, Aims and Objectives
Sustainability and sustainable development have been becoming a global issue, which
was officially announced for the first time at the World Commission on Environment
and Development (WECD) conference in 1987 and then in several key international
conferences such as UN Conference on Environment and Development (1992) or
Johannesburg Earth Summit Sustainable Development (2002). Although the definition
of sustainable or sustainable development is still in debate, it basically refers to a
development which is “meet present needs without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their needs” (Our Common Future: Report of the World
Commission on Environment and Development [The Brundtland Report], 1987). The
concept can be applied to all aspects in human life such as economic aspects, social
aspects or environmental aspects, and has a crucial impact to human future. In terms
of human settlement and housing in particular, especially in urban areas, sustainable
development has been also becoming an urgent issue due to the rapidly increasing of
the world population. In addition, to ensure the sustainability in such term, several
emerging sustainability assessment systems have been developed which can be
applied to from huge projects to individual buildings since the 1990s.
At the same time, high-rise residential buildings have been emerging as a new favorite
type of housing in many cities all around the world due to the significant need of
efficient use of urban land in response to the rapidly increasing demand of
accommodation for exploded citizens while still providing a comfort living condition.
Several other advantages of high-rise residential buildings in improving convenience of
residency such as better view, increasing direct sunlight, more green space etc, have
also impulsed the development of such type of housing. Cities as Hong Kong, New
York, Chicago, Miami, Dubai and Seoul are typical representatives for high-rise
developed cities.
Remarkably, five out of top ten countries having highest number of high-rise
apartments are in Asia, showing the steady trend of high-rise development in Asian
countries which have been characterized by population explosion and remarkable high
density in urban areas (Kang Bu-seong, 2005, cited in Kyunin Lee,, 2007). Hanoi, as a
typical Asian city, has been facing with imperative housing demand, which is one of
the main reasons leading to the appearance of high-rise residential buildings recently.
2
However, high-rise residential buildings do not only have advantages but also contain
many problems such as high maintenance expenses, high risk in earthquake,
complicated construction etc, which need to be considered. Whether the advantages
can be over the disadvantages, or are the advantages in the long-term?
Considering all the situations mentioned above, it could be said that whether high-rise
residential building will be the future type of housing, or on the other words, how much
is sustainability of such type of building is a question, which needs to be examined
carefully. Thus, the present paper study tried to contribute to the answer by assessing
the sustainability of high-rise residential complexes in Hanoi’s new urban areas
through the survey of residents’ viewpoint and extended by the author’s viewpoint.
1.2. Research Scope and Methodology
Given the lack of an assessment system of sustainability in Vietnam, to assess the
sustainability of high-rise residential complexes from the residents’ viewpoint, the study
used a specific-built set of sustainability assessment indicators. The set of indicators
was built based on state-of-art researches in such term and several advanced
sustainability assessment systems and green building certification systems from
developed countries such as the UK, the U.S, Germany, etc and neighborhood Asian
countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, and Malaysia etc. The set of
indicators was built in consideration to the specific context of Hanoi and Vietnam.
To carry out the survey, the set of indicators was applied to two selected high-rise
residential complexes, which are typical representative of such type of buildings in
Hanoi. The two complexes have many similar characters but also differences, which
helped to make a critical view to specific aspects of sustainability.
1.3. Structure of the thesis
The paper will be divided into five chapters including introduction, literature review,
survey methodology and implement, result analysis and discussion, conclusion and
recommendation. The structure of the research is given as follow:
Chapter I is Introduction, presenting the background, aims and objectives, scope,
methodology of the research as well as the structure of the thesis.
3
Chapter II is Literature Review, discussing the definition of sustainability or
sustainable development, sustainability in human settlement, city with sustainability,
sustainability in project level, sustainable housing, sustainable high-rise residential
building, sustainability assessment, high-rise residential complexes in Hanoi, and
research questions.
Chapter III is Methodology and Implementation, presenting the process of adopting
indicators for the sustainability assessment, selected samples, and the content and
method of survey.
Chapter IV is Result, Analysis and Discussion, reporting the findings of the survey, the
analysis results, and the discussion based on the results and mentioned research.
Chapter V is Conclusion and Recommendation, drawing the conclusions of the
research and recommendation based on the findings, analyses and discussions.
The structure of the research is illustrated in Figure 1 as follow:
4
Research Background, Aims and Objectives
Scope and methodology
Structure of the thesis
Chapter I: Introduction
Sustainability in human settlement
Deriving Indicators for Sustainability
Samples selection
Chapter III: Methodology
Definition and dimensions of sustainability
Chapter II: Literature review
City with Sustainability
Sustainability in project level
Sustainable housing
Sustainable high-rise residential building
Discussion
Chapter IV: Result Analysis and Discussion
Survey Content and Implementation
Recommendation
Chapter V: Conclusion and recommendation
Assessment sustainability
High-rise residential complexes in Hanoi
Research Questions
Conclusion
Result analysis
Figure 1: The Structure of Thesis
5
Chapter II: Literature Review
2.1. The definition and key dimensions of sustainability
Literally, sustainability refers to the capacity to endure (Longman Dictionary). In
general, however, the term “sustainability” is usually to be understood as “sustainable
development” or on the other way, sustainability is an ideal state, which people attempt
to archive during a sustainable development process (Virginia MacLaren, 1996). In this
study, the “sustainability” can be understood as “sustainable development”.
In addition, meaning of “sustainability” or ““sustainable development” is various and
malleable. It can be said that the most popular definition of “sustainable development”
is firstly mentioned in the Brundtland Report, in which sustainable development is
defined as those that “meet present needs without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their needs” (Our Common Future: Report of the World
Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). In the UK, the definition of
sustainable development is “ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for
generations to come” (DETR, 1999). However, there are also at least seventy other
definitions of sustainable development (Holmberg & Sandbrook, 1992, cited in John
Glasson, et al, 2005).
In overall, most definitions mention about the relationship between humans and the
resources used in human developing process with three main dimensions: economic
dimension, social dimension and environmental dimension, which naturally interact to
each other (Johannesburg Earth Summit Sustainable Development, 2002). Social
dimension includes a variety of social areas such as population, education, health,
human settlement, etc. Environmental dimension contains areas such as
environmental management, nature resource management, human consumption
management etc. Economic dimension covers areas as economic growth, nature as
economic externality, reducing poverty etc, (Johannesburg Earth Summit on
Sustainable Development, ibid).
However, the approaches to sustainability also can be priority toward to specific
dimensions or aspects of sustainability in real practice, for instances, dominant product
sustainability, dependent social system, human benefit sustainability etc. (Gale and
Cordray, 1994).
6
As the purpose of the research, the presented paper used the Brundtland
Commission’s definition as general definition of sustainable development, but prior
examined the concept of sustainable development in terms of human settlement and
housing, which will be reviewed in following sections.
2.2. Sustainability in Human Settlement
In general, based on the Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainable
development, the concept of sustainable human settlements can be refer to “Ibeing
able to meet the many needs arising from the current and mounting challenges of
rapid urbanization without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs” (Anna K. Tibaijuka, 2008, p. 1). The “many needs” in the definition can be
understood as needs of “Iphysical components of shelter and infrastructure; and
services to which the physical elements provide support” such as education, health,
culture, welfare, recreation and nutrition” (UN ESCAP, Vancouver Declaration on
Human Settlements, 1976).
In more detail, sustainable human settlement in urbanizing world can be understood as
a sustainable process which must belong to developing societies, efficient using of
resources within the carrying capacity of ecosystems, giving to all people, equal
opportunities for a healthy, safe and productive life in harmony with natures, culture
heritage and spiritual, cultural values, ensuring economic and social economic with
environment protection (UN-HABITAT, 1996).
In terms of implementation, sustainable human settlement development can be
achieved in various ways, but should be in three main steps (Anna K. Tibaijuka,
op.cit.). In first step or the highest level, it is ensuring the sustainability in society and
environment of cities, towns and villages along to the increasing robustness and
effectiveness of urban governance systems. The second step of the process is to
promote the sustainability in land-use planning and providing sustainable and
“inclusive settlement-wide” infrastructure and services. In the next level, individual
household level, the underline item that must be mentioned is housing (shelter), which
at the same time are both needs and means of sustainable development in human
settlement.
Moreover, although the challenges of human settlements are global but there are
7
different problems for different countries and regions which need specific solutions
(UN-HABITAT, op.cit.).
2.3. City and Sustainability
Cities have held a crucial role in achieving sustainability in human settlement
development process, as the starting point (Anna K. Tibaijuka, op.cit.). The reasons
are cities and towns play a role of “centres of civilization, generating economic
development and social, cultural, spiritual and scientific advancement” (UN_HABITAT,
op.cit.), and living spaces of a majority of the world’s population (reaching to 50
percent by the end of 2008) (United Nations report, 2008). Furthermore, cities have a
biggest responsibility to sustainability for their high consumption of resources (Jennifer
A. Ellioot, 1999, p. 137).
Sustainable cities, as from the Istanbul Declaration, “Imust be places where human
beings lead fulfilling lives in dignity, good health, safety, happiness and hope.” To
achieve this purpose, the cities’ development must be based on three pillars including
environmental, economic and social (Anna K. Tibaijuka, op.cit.). It means that urban
areas must be economically and socially built while reserve the resources for future
generations, or on the other words, if the developing process in urban does not
increase employment and decrease poverty, and does not count poor people, a
majority of urban citizens in decision – making, the development is unsustainable.
In term of urban design and planning, there are a number of recent movements, which
hold the purpose to increase the sustainability in environmental, social and economical
making new urban areas. For instance, in United State, there is New Urbanism, which
advocate to high quality design of communities in the strong link with the place,
reducing sprawl and protecting environment. Other movements are The Smart Growth,
which claims the need to reduce the environmental impacts from urban sprawl; The
Environment Justice, which targets to a higher social equity in responsibility to
environmental impacts; or Green Urbanism, which aims to protect and improve the
natural system in urban environment (Wheeler, 2004, as cited in Siobhan Watson,
2008, p. 11),. In the European, the idea of the “compact city” was encouraged and
becomes the potential paradigm in sustainable urban planning all over the world
(European Commission, Green Paper on the Urban Environment, 1991), which the
has improved to “Green Compact City” by integrating more “green structure”
8
(European Union Expert Group on the Urban Environment, 2004, p. 3). In the case of
many developing countries, where the urban area rapidly expanding , the “compact
city” idea also may help to solve transportation problems, losing agricultural land, and
benefit in reducing development cost, saving energy which help to archive a more
sustainable development (Anthony Gar-on Yeh, Xia Li, 2000, p. 73).
In the situation of many Asia countries, characterized by a high population with a major
part living in urban areas with the highest density level all over the world, urban
restructuring has become a major strategy to achieve sustainability (Rod Burgess, the
Compact City Debate, 2000, p. 21). The authors commented that improving in built
environment, urban mobility systems, co-ordination of land use and transport planning,
and harmonisation of built environment and natural environment is the way to increase
sustainability. The most popular four adopted urban models were listed: The first is
high-rise, high density redevelopment (especially in South East Asia) which
characterizes by very high density, high accessibility to services, short travel to work
place, mass transportation, self-contained new towns and settlements, sufficiency of
public space, although facing to high air pollution level. The second widely used model
is “concentrated decentralisation” urban structure, which attempt to transfer from a
mono-centric to a polycentric urban structure with sub-centres connected by high-
speed transport and development corridors. The third is the Curitiba linear “transit-
oriented development”, intending to drive urban growth along selected structural axes
of mass transport routes and interchange node, which lead to reducing of transport
energy using by discouraging the need of travel and private car using. The final one is
traditional in-fill, densification and intensification used regenerated purpose in core
areas, history centres and other land. Hanoi, as a typical South East Asia city, seems
emerged transfer following the first and second model by building new urban areas in
urban sprawl areas, which are dominated by high-rise residential complexes (Dinh Duc
Thang, 2005).
In general, achieving sustainability in urbanization is a very difficult and complicated
task, which requires a huge and careful understanding in term of unique social,
environmental, economical and cultural context to each specific case that there is not a
ready-made, easy solution. However, a suggested future forms for sustainable cities
may be expected to have polycentric forms belong with good public transportation
systems; develop to a high density but in a appropriate way and responsive to culture
and urban context; obtain benefit from advance sustainable technology such as using
solar energy, wind energy etc. which help to increase the life cycle of the development;
9
and ensure the available of accessibility and sustainable behaviour (Mike Jenks and
Nicola Dempsey, 2005, p. 417).
2.4. Sustainability in Project level
“Our commitment to contribute to a more sustainable world is resolute. However,
the ongoing implementation challenge is very real and highly demanding - our
success or failure lies in the hands of our people at project level.” (SAKANSKA,
2008)
Achieving sustainability at project level has played a crucial role in ensuring
sustainability in urbanization. While development strategies and urban plans provide
board visions, major principles and goals, direction and guidelines for sustainable
development, achieving such sustainability goals needs to be translated into specific
development projects dealing to specific urban context carried out by politicians,
planners, developers, managers and designers. On the other words, projects translate
strategies and policies into action and therefore to be the implementation phases
(Semida Silveira, 2005, p. 230).
In addition, it is crucial to implement projects in the relation with citywide context.
Individual projects should accomplish with the urban planning in citywide level and
contribute to the citywide environmental concerns (Anne Spirn, 1984, as cited in
Siobhan Watson, op.cit. p. 15). Urban projects also can play a role as a tool in urban
integration and disintegration, which can be used to increase the life and space’ quality
but also may create potential problems if it not carried out in a sensitive and careful
way (Gülşen Özaydın, 2006, p. 1). The writer stated that projects need to be
considered in the interrelation between self-enclosed urban areas and their impacts
and contribution to city life as well as in the relation to other projects, or otherwise
cause many new problems such as social and physical. Earl Kessler, 2000,
contributed that a “good urban project” will included being a system of service delivery
managed by and/or for a city, ensuring affordability, including both formal and informal
communities of a city in its service system.
2.5. Sustainability and Housing
10
Housing has a crucial responsibility and contribution to sustainability for its large
consuming of resources for construction, maintenance and use; its significant
contribution of greenhouse gas emission and carbon dioxide, its long-life lasting and
the central role to quality of life, which can affect transport, health employment and
community (Communities Scotland, The Sustainable Housing Design, 2007). In
addition, houses have an indispensible role in ensuring a sustainable urbanization.
While urban form and structure play a crucial role in delivering sustainable
urbanization, such work will be an illusion if building itself is not sustainable (Mike
Jenks and Nicola Dempsey, op.cit. p. 416).
In general, “sustainable building” can be understood as the result of building structures
and using processes which focus to increasing environmental responsibility and
efficiency of using resource while reducing impacts on human health during the whole
building’s life-time including through improving sitting, design, construction, operation,
maintenance, renovation and deconstruction, expanding and complementing the
traditional concerns of economy, utility, durability, and comfort (US Environmental
Protection Agency, 2009).
Concerning housing, the definition of “sustainable housing” was released in European
Housing Ministers conference, Belgium, 2002, comprising three key perspectives
including construction perspective, social and economic perspective, and eco-
efficiency perspective. The construction perspective refers to the quality of the
construction including two main elements as life span and adaptability. The social and
economic perspective refers both to the viability of accommodation for the occupier
and to the importance of housing for social cohesion including: affordability, access to
housing, accessibility for the disabled and aged, indirect costs, impacts of housing,
psychological and social function of the housing and the residential environment,
improving the viability of the housing areas and urban areas, supporting mixed housing
through policies. The eco-efficiency perspective aim for an improvement in the quality
of life and control of the quality and the use of resources, based on elements including
rational and efficient use of natural non-renewable resources, land use, energy,
construction materials and whole buildings, water, ways to produce housing as
ecological as possible, achieving increases in comfort with less additional resources
(EU Ministers, 2002).
In conclusion, it can be said that the relationship between the housing and
sustainability can be considered as a two-way relationship, in which the applying
11
general sustainability’s principles into housing development, maintenance and
refurbishment will improve the ability of archiving general sustainability goals and also
increase the housing’s quality, durability and cost effectiveness. For instances, the
benefits from sustainable development to housing are reducing fuel poverty and
improve poorer tenants’ income, improving flexibility, healthiness and comfort of
homes, creating more cohesive, mixed communities, improve higher money’s value
and lower maintenance and management cost in the long term. On the other hand,
housing contributes to sustainability by reducing pollution, waste, resources use and
gas emission while improves sustainable communities (Communities Scotland, The
Sustainable Housing Design, op.cit.).
2.6. Assessment Sustainability in Built Environment
There are a number of methods, standards and tools to measure the sustainability of
house introduced by several government offices, organizations or experts. It is can be
listed as BEEAM in the United Kingdom; DGNG in Germany; HQE in France; LEED,
Living Building Challenge in the United States; Green-globes in CANADA, GBAS in
China; Green Mark in Singapore; KHBEEM in Hong Kong ; GBI in Malaysia, etc. The
section will examine several systems to find useful information for building the
assessment method in the survey.
Firstly, BER Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) is using a widely
environment assessment method for building in the United Kingdom and all around the
word, addressing a wide range of environmental issues and setting the standard to
achieve the best sustainable design and measure the buildings environmental
performance (BER Global, 2009). The broad range of environmental impacts in
building including areas of Management, Health and Wellbeing, Energy, Transport,
Water, Material and Waste, Land-use and Ecology, and Pollution. In each of areas,
assessing credits point will base on a set of indicators, then adding together to an
overall score of five levels: Pas, Good, Very Good, Excellent and Outstanding in
environmental performance. Based on the general principles of BREEAM building, the
Code of Sustainable Home is a new environment assessment method for assessment
of new housing in England, including seven key areas of Energy Efficiency/CO2,
Water efficiency, Surface water Management, Site Waste Management, Use of
materials, Lifetime Homes; and contain a scoring system of 6 levels, higher is better.
The Code is carried out in two stage, design stage review and post construction review
(BER Global, op.cit.).
12
In addition, in the US, LEED developed by US Green building Council (USGBC) have
been being used as a nationally and internationally recognized green building
certification system. The system which assess the performance of building’s or
community’s design in all matter-most areas including sustainable sites, locations and
linkages, energy saving, water efficiency, CO2 emission reduction, indoor
environmental quality, awareness and education, innovation design, regional priority,
material and stewardship of recourse and sensitivity to the impacts (USGBC, 2009).
According to the website, LEED can be applied to all building types including
residential buildings, working throughout the building life cycle from design stage to
construction process, operations, maintenance, tenant fit-out and retrofit. In addition, a
version of LEED called LEED for Neighborhood Development was extended as
integrating the principles of smart growth, urbanism and green building into a system
for neighborhood design.
Another sustainability measuring system used in US is Living Building Challenge
introduced by International Living Building Institute (ILBI), which has become one of
the most advantage green building scoring systems in the world (ILBI, 2009). The
system also focuses on the same sustainable key areas as BEEAR and LEED,
including site, energy, material, water, indoor quality but adds more the area of beauty
and inspiration.
In Asia, several neighborhood countries of Vietnam have developed their own
sustainability measuring system such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia, and
have achieved potential results. In Singapore, BCA Green Mark system was released
by National Environment Agency, which is a green building rating system to evaluate
the environmental impact and performance of building, both new and existing, with the
purpose to promote sustainable design, construction and operations in building
process. The key areas of the BCA Green Mark system are energy efficiency, water
efficiency, environmental protection, indoor environmental quality and other green
feature and innovation (National Environment Agency, 2009). In Hong Kong, HK-
BEEM Society established HK-BEEM system as a tool to measure, improve, certify
and label the environmental sustainability of buildings in whole life. The system
contains a comprehensive standard, which covers all type of buildings and helps to
assess and improve performance throughout life cycle of building as planning, design,
construction, commission, operation and management. The rating system includes
four levels of Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum which result from the performance
measurement in several key areas such as hygiene, health, comfort, amenity, land
13
use, site impacts and transport, use of materials, recycling, waste management, water
quality, water conservation and recycling, energy use, efficient systems and
equipment, and energy management (HK-BEEM, 2009).
In the Malaysia, Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (PAM) and the Association of Consulting
Engineers Malaysia (ACEM) released GIB system toward to a promotion in
sustainability in the built environment. The system also intends to raise awareness
among professional participants such as Developers, Architects, Engineers, Planners,
Designers, Contractors and the Public about environmental issues. In general, the
system rates on 6 key areas, including energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality,
sustainable site planning management, materials and resources, water efficiency and
innovation. Compared to the Singapore’s Green Mark designed for Singapore context
and priority issues such as energy saving or water use, the Malaysia’s one focus on
the country’s issues as public transport system and suit with its socio-economical
context (PAM & ACEM, 2009).
From systems mentioned above, it can be said that almost national and international
sustainability measuring systems care to the same main environmental issues such as
Energy, Water, Site, Land, Human well-being, Built and Ecological Environment,
Waste and Recycling, Emission and CO2, Pollution, Awareness, Resources, and
Management. All of the issues will be considered in building a sustainable measuring
method using for this study in Vietnam, which will be presented in the Methodology
section. Given the lack of such system in Vietnam, the systems of Malaysia, Singapore
and Hong Kong might be the good references as considering to the similarities in
location, culture and urban characters.
2.7. Sustainability and High-rise Building
There is a no doubt that today high-rise buildings have become an inevitable building
form and play an important role in the urban plan and landscape due to the exploding
of population, rapidly increase of density in urbanization and economic reasons.
Therefore, the question is not about the need of high-rise buildings but about how to
build them sustainably.
Firstly, it is need to define what a high-rise building or a tall building is. There is not an
exact definition as it depends on the specific built environment context. The high-rise
buildings are usually regarded to building with over 20 storeys, but a 10 storey can be
14
considered tall in an area of a majority of 3-4 storeys while in some location such as
Chicago or Hong Kong, a tall building is 40 plus storeys high (Alison Crompton & Ant
Wilson, n.d.). In this paper, give to the context of Vietnam in general and Hanoi city in
individual, and according to the Vietnam construction Law, high-rise building or tall
building is the building with 12 plus storeys.
In regard to concept of “sustainable high-raise building”, it can be understood that is
mentioned “sustainable building” which in high-rise form, or may be in a more simple
way as one which pollution-free and emission-free to air, land, water and is
economically used throughout its cycle life while contributing positively to its
surrounding socio-economic environment (Alison Crompton & Ant Wilson, op.cit.).
For achieving sustainable high-rise building, there are a number of impacted factors
which need to be carefully considered including location, economic growth and
employment, land-use, ecology and pollution, energy demand, energy sources,
operational and embodied energy, waste, transport, social and ethical issues, health
and well-being (Alison Crompton & Ant Wilson, op.cit.). Firstly, according the authors,
location is crucial in achieving sustainability of high-rise building, having important
impacts on all economic issues such as availability of land, cost of land, building cost,
cost of energy supplies etc; environmental issues such as quality of land, biodiversity,
transport links, materials, air quality etc; and social issues such as health and safety,
quality of indoor environment, impact on neighborhoods, impact on the community, etc
(Alison Crompton & Ant Wilson, ibid.). Secondly, in terms of economic growth and
employment, the economic viability of the building is the first issues as a new building
can attract employer and help to generate a sustainable community (Alison Crompton
& Ant Wilson, ibid.). Thirdly, in terms of land use, ecology and pollution, the author
mentioned that tall building is a preferred choice for dense urban areas because of the
minimizing of use of land. Remarkably, developing in brown-field site is more
sustainable than in green-field site unless the lost of green replaced by other
significant advantages as improving mix-use, opportunities for use renewable energy
and water treatment etc. At the same time, the pollution to air, land and water such as
CO2, solid waste materials or spills and water run-off must be carefully avoided or
minimized (Alison Crompton & Ant Wilson, ibid.). Fourthly, in regard to energy
demand, reduction in building energy demand will contribute to obtaining sustainability
and in the case of high-rise buildings, daylight potential is an advantage factors while
vertical transport is disadvantage (Alison Crompton & Ant Wilson, ibid.). Fifthly, with
energy sources, generating energy on site is a great potential to contribute to
15
sustainability and gave credits to high-rise building with more opportunities to use wind
energy and the maximum of solar gain, but warned that noise and less space to install
a rooftop solar array are drawbacks (Alison Crompton & Ant Wilson, ibid.).
Other important factors need to be considered are operational and embodied energy. It
is stated that the energy annually use for service and operation of buildings as lighting,
heating, electrical equipment are almost ten times as much as energy use for
production and assembly of new buildings which can deduce by a number of
solutions such as use thermal mass and natural ventilation (Will Pank et al. 2002).
However, when buildings improve in energy-efficiency, the “embodied energy”
becomes a significant part of total to count. “Embodied energy”, according Will Pank et
al (2002), is all the energy required to extract, manufacture and transport, assemble
and “finish” a building’s materials. Timber is the lowest embodied energy, followed by
brick, concrete, plastic, glass, steel and aluminium, but added that timber and brick is
less preferred structure for high-rise building than steel, concrete, glass and aluminium
(Alison Crompton & Ant Wilson, op.cit.). Although need more researches to answer the
question whether a embodied energy of materials is really the best environmental
indicators for selection of material but both authors agreed that reducing distance
travelled to site, encouraging on-site manufacture, use standard modular components
are some of several ways to reduce waste in energy and material use.
For term of waste, the UK government’s waste hierarchy promotes including reduction,
re-use and recycling is a good paradigm, and in high-rise development segregation
and compaction of waste at ground level are likely prior than recycling in building
(Alison Crompton & Ant Wilson, op.cit.). In addition, good solid management based on
the hierarchy and the impact on local sewerage is crucial with sustainable high-rise
development (Will Pank et al. 2002).
Transport is another important debate to high-rise building, in which the debate seems
between rural and urban rather than between high-rise with low-rise (Alison Crompton
& Ant Wilson, op.cit.). The important issue is the movement of building occupants and
visitors, and Alison Crompton & Ant Wilson (n.d) raised a question if a town centre site
with good public transport system of 50 miles radius can be more sustainable than a
green-field with individual transport vehicles, or even with potential providing liquid
petroleum gas (LPG) station, of only 5 miles a day? Will Pank et al. (2002) however,
gave the answer by refer to a research of Newman and Kenworthy which shows that
dense and high-rise cities such as Hong Kong and Singapore are among the most
16
transport-efficient cities in the world. In addition, Alison Crompton & Ant Wilson (n.d)
agreed that being in a town centre benefits to high-rise buildings as increasing the
combining journeys and giving more free time, but that advantages can be achieved
only if the new high-rise development is located close to public transport as Will Pank
et al. (2002) mentioned. Finally, the amount of transport by relevant building activities
and builders during construction phase is significant to be considered (Alison
Crompton & Ant Wilson, ibid.).
Furthermore, sustainable communities are the heart and unavoidable dimension of
sustainability and sustainable development (Alison Crompton & Ant Wilson, op.cit.).
The authors declared that a new building development needs to provide opportunities
to improve neighborhood’s communities during both construction phase and running
phase; and suggested that it can be new work placement, local workforce training,
children education etc. In the case of high-rise building, identifying a new center with
excellent services as catering, banking, sport facilities, good transport links and
amenity are some advantages.
Finally, health and well-being are always the important issues for all type of
developments including high-rise development. Firstly, a high-rise development may
take longer in construction time leading to the unrest to neighborhoods (Alison
Crompton & Ant Wilson, op.cit.). In addition, the authors also mentioned about other
risks to health and safety of occupants, visitors and to neighborhood such as
construction accidents of falls from building, escape from threat of fire, earthquake,
terrorism’s acts or extreme weather condition caused by not only the height of building
but also the high number of people in the same place at one time. The perception of
risk may also, together with the lack of open-able windows due to the need of safety
grounds and wind effects, disadvantage high-rise buildings on the sense of well-being
whereas day-lighting and good view out are advantages.
In conclusion, “tall buildings can be totally sustainable; the barriers are principally
economic and social rather than technological. Economic barriers include capital costs
for renewable energy sources and market acceptability, whilst social considerations
include visual impact, novelty and safety” (Alison Crompton & Ant Wilson, op.cit.).
2.8. High-rise residential building in Hanoi context
2.8.1. City of Hanoi
17
Hanoi city used to be the capital of Vietnam under many dynasties during thousand
years of history and from 1945 is the political, cultural, socio-economic and commercial
centre of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The city, with 920km2 of administrative
area the population of 3,183,000 inhabitants (surveyed data in 2005), is situated in the
middle of the Red River delta in the North of Vietnam, at from 20025’ to 21023’ North
latitude and from 05044’ to 106002’ East longitude, on low-lying land with an elevation
of 5m to 10m above the sea level (HAIDEP, 2007, p. 3-9). Due to the rapid
transformation of Vietnam, Hanoi has developed continuously and rapidly in all
economic, social, and environmental aspects.
Firstly, Hanoi urban area have expanded and densified significantly during the period
of last few decades. City extended from total area of only 70 km2 (two urban districts
and one suburban district) in 1950s to total area of roughly 300 km2 (four urban core
districts and five urban fringe districts) by 2007. Before Doi Moi (a socio-economical
innovation) in 1986, the urbanization in Hanoi only centralized on the Ancient Quarter
and French Quarter, and well blocked by To Lich River and city’s ring roads with the
population constantly under one million. The period also witnessed a dominance of
Soviet-Union-style architecture of uniform high-rise apartment blocks and other
residential blocks. However, after Doi moi, urbanization in Hanoi increased rapidly with
a significant migration from other provinces and cities and between rural area and
urban area. During the period, the city’s population increased to over three millions in
2005 (increasing above 3.0 percent/year including about 50,000 in-migrated
persons/year and 63% living in urbanized areas); and the built-up area in the center
has roughly doubled from around 57 km2 to 107km2. As a result, such urbanization
led to a remarkable high density in Hanoi’s compact urban areas. In 2005, the density
in resident areas in four urban core districts (total area of only 35km2) was 399
persons/ha and in urban fringe districts was 111 persons/ha. In addition, an intensive
growth still occurred in the urban core despite of its already high density while the
growth in rural areas in moderate rate and pressure. Furthermore, the rapid population
growing occurred more significantly in urban fringe districts leading to a large urban
expansion even spilling to suburban areas (HAIDEP, 2007, op.cit.).
In term of land-use, although occurred on very small area, the urban core districts
contained a major part of the main economic and social functions. Of the total area of
921km2, rural areas account for 626.2 km2 (68%). In urbanized areas, residential land
is 62.5km2 (6.8%), commercial land is 3.6km2 (0.4%), institutional land is 23.9km2
(2.6%), industrial land is 16.8km2 (1.8%), park land is 2.6km2 (0.3%) and land for
18
urban facilities is 34.9km2 (3.8%)., and other areas occurred 16.3% (HAIDEP, 2007,
op.cit.).
In terms of socio-economic conditions, there is a substantial improvement since Doi
Moi in 1985, especially during the last decade, with a significant growth in economy, a
remarkable reduction in poverty (62.7% in 1993, 29.3 % in 1998 and 22.4% in 2002).
In addition, per capita GRDP increased by 11% per year and reached to 1,350 US$ in
2005, 84% of households owning motorbikes, employment opportunities expanding
and 100% of enrolment in primary and secondary education. The strong and stable
development of Hanoi has been one of main reasons to attract a constant im-migration
of people from neighborhood areas, which contributed to the city’s growth but at the
same time caused problems with the need for adequate economic and social
infrastructure and services (HAIDEP, 2007, op.cit.).
In terms of profile of households, the average household has 4.3 members with
average income of VND 2.7 million per month (around 100 BGP) and 89% of
households have land-use rights while 92% own houses, which are mostly detached.
Interestingly, 83% of households own motorbikes in which 40% have more than two
ones and only 2% own car (HAIDEP, 2007, op.cit.). The paper also stated that the
ratio of apartment and high-rise residents is low and only high-income households can
afford.
In terms of households’ types, there are four types including single households, shared
households, nuclear households and multi-households (HAIDEP, 2007, op.cit.). Single
households, mainly comprised by elderly living alone (80% at 50s ages, 60% in 60s
ages & 60% are female), have the lowest average income and lower than average
vehicle and goods ownership, but have the highest average living areas per capita of
61m2 and 24% of all houses are in apartment type (average is 12%). Shared
households, dominated by students and workers and partly elderly, have average
income and per capita average floor area. Nuclear household, popular by 30-40 ages,
have average level of house and living condition in general, but there is a part
comprised by single parent and children is under average line. Multi-households,
comprised by member in more than two generations and accounting for 61% of city’s
households (in which 58% with children and 42 without), stay in a slightly higher level
than average of socio-economic condition but in the lowest in per capital floor areas as
18-21m2 (HAIDEP, 2007, op.cit.).
19
In term of housing stock, as mentioned above, 90% of households own housing which
was mostly provided by government before “Doi Moi”. According to HAIDEP report,
after Doi Moi, there is a significant change in the Vietnam’s housing policies as
government has changed from “all provided with subsidy” to “all provided through
market”. The reason was the old policies was unable to satisfy the huge increasing in
housing demand of the exploded population, especially of the low-income group, as
well as the need of rebuilding a large number of substandard housing stocks. In 2003,
Hanoi’s total housing floor areas increased 35%, reaching to 20 million m2 from 15
million m2 in 1999, in which 11.7 million m2 is in Hanoi’s urban areas (60% increasing
from 7.5 million m2). The document shows that the most typical houses in the city is
detached houses, including Ancient Quarter’s “tube” traditional house, shop-house
along streets and rural houses, and high-rise apartment in new urban areas and sub-
urban areas (HAIDEP, 2007, op.cit.).
In addition, the HAIDEP team pointed out that while there is a constant increase in the
housing stocks during the last 5 years, housing standard have not improved
significantly. In more detail, ownership, floor areas per capita and houses’ physical
condition have improved (e.g. using more durable materials) but the floors spaces are
still not sufficient (10.9 m2 per capita compared to the target of 18m2) which leads to a
very high dissatisfaction with living condition rating of 25% of Hanoi residents and one
third of urban core residents. Moreover, people concern in the order of priority on
house’s space and airflow, sunlight, location and structure; and almost people prefer
detached houses (HAIDEP, 2007, op.cit.).
In term of housing supply, there is an increase of 2.8 million m2 in 2003-2005, while
the figure in 2001-2003 is 2.2 million m2 and in 1999-2001 is 1.4 million m2; and in
which a continuously increasing number of 60% of new building is from project-type
development while the rest from self-built development (decreasing from 69% in 1999
to only 33% in 2004) (HAIDEP, 2007, op.cit.). In more detail, the report stated the
three mains types of the project-type development. The most significant one is which
undertook by SOE developers under the ministries, for instances LINH DAM Peninsula
new urban area project by HUD, TRUNG HOA NHAN CHINH new urban area project
by VINACONEX, etc. The second type includes a range of small to medium projects
with less than one hectare of land and the third type is city government’s housing
projects for special conditions holders. In addition, in term of future need for housing,
HAIDEP team predicted that there will be a large demand of a total of about 500,000
units with 46 to 54 million m2 of floor area by 2020, or average about 33,000 units with
20
3.1 to 3.6 million m2 of floor area annually. The demand is composed of new building
as well as rebuilding of old and small house, and due to resettlement as well as im-
migrating households (HAIDEP, 2007, op.cit.).
In terms of people affordability for adequate, it is unreachable to supplied housing
stocks in the market for average households as the price for all type of sold houses are
5 to 10 times more than their annual incomes while the price for rental houses are 20%
more than their monthly incomes (even still high for higher-income households)
(HAIDEP, 2007, op.cit.). The HAIDEP’s forecast also shows that the trend of low
affordability level may continue although expected to improve in the long term, as in
2005, 77% of households could not afford to rent 30m2- houses at the market price
(expected to decrease to 38% in 2020) and 95% of households could not afford to by
30m2- houses at the market price (expected to decrease to 69% in 2020). Migrated
households are impacted the most by such issue as they don’t own houses as Hanoi’s
“original” households.
Furthermore, in terms of living conditions, comprising five factors as defines by WHO
including convenience, safety and security, health and well-being, amenity and
capacity, the people’s satisfaction is relative high, but in fact the living condition
assessment’s results in Hanoi are relative low (HAIDEP, 2007, op.cit.).
In conclusion, it can be said the HAIDEP’s report is result of a comprehensive
research in Hanoi context in a wide range of fields, in which housing and living
condition were assessed deeply and carefully. The report showed that there has been
significant needs of satisfying the increasingly high demand of accommodation and
improving the living condition of Hanoi people. Building high-rise residential complexes
in new urban areas has been used as a efficient solution of the city government (Dinh
Duc Thang, 2006). However, researching into important issues such as sustainability
of a new housing projects or sustainable living in new high-rise residential buildings
was not cared appropriately, which will be studied in the presented paper.
2.8. High-rise residential complexes in Hanoi’s new urban areas
Due to the high demand of housing stocks, there are more and more housing projects
have been built in Hanoi, in both urban areas and suburban areas, of which a major
part are characterized by dominant high-rise residential developments built in “new
urban areas” (HAIDEP, 2007, op.cit.). Up to 2005, the number of “new urban area”
21
projects in Hanoi reaches to number of 131 (Nguyen To Lang, 2007), and 288 in
Vietnam up to 2008 (Tan Thuan, 2008).
Firstly, it is need to make a clear about the definition of “new urban area” and “high-
rise building” in Hanoi context. The concept of “new urban area” in Vietnam is quite
new, referring to new urban areas which are “implemented by developers with
synchronized infrastructure system (road, sewage, water supply, electricity, etc.) and
public facilities (sub-district committee, police station, kindergarten, market, healthcare
centre, etc.)”, mainly for residential land and housing (Decree no.02/2006/ND-CP of
January 5 2006 of Vietnam government, sited in Dinh Duc Thang, op.cit.). In addition,
high-rise building in Viet Nam refers to buildings with having 12 plus storeys (National
Assembly of Vietnam, 2003)
In general, new high-rise apartment in new urban areas have many advantages and
have overcomed weaknesses of old Soviet-style apartments in the pass. The
advantages, for instance, were higher ratio of floor per capita, more comprehensive
infrastructure systems, open spaces, etc; contributing to the city’s modernization,
looking features, and stabilizing society, satisfying urgently high social housing
demand, improved living environment; decreased transportation density, etc (Nguyen
To Lang, op.cit.). On the other hand, such type of housing in Hanoi also has many
disadvantages, especially in terms of sustainability, such as lack of green open spaces
in many cases, inadequate infrastructure systems and public facilities, inadaptable
house model, unaffordable for low-income households, etc (Nguyen To Lang, op.cit.,
Dinh Duc Thang, op.cit.). However, there have not been many careful assessments
about the sustainability of such type of housing development in Hanoi context and
Vietnam. Given to the fact that high-rise residential building have been the prior
housing prototype in Hanoi for the current and next decades (Housing Development
program of Hanoi from 2000-2010, cited in Dinh Duc Thang, op.cit.), it is the right time
to carry out serious assessments about the sustainability of high-rise residential
buildings in the city, which will help to improve the future projects.
2.9. Research question
Considering all situations mentioned above, the present study will try to be one of very
first assessments about sustainability of high-rise residential building in Hanoi and
Vietnam. Given to the very broad context and various related aspects of such issue as
well as the lack of a sufficient assessment system, the study will only focus on the
22
high-rise residential complexes in new urban areas in Hanoi context with a priority to
aspects, which can be possible to assess by residents and writer. The research
questions are following:
How much is sustainability of high-rise residential complexes in new urban areas in
Hanoi from the viewpoint of residents?
How much is sustainability of high-rise residential complexes in new urban areas in
Hanoi in other aspects that are not mentioned from the viewpoint of residents?
What are unsustainable areas and of high-rise residential complexes in existing new
urban areas in Hanoi which need to be urgently improved?
What are the reasons (Why) leading to such unsustainable aspects of high-rise
residential complexes in new urban areas in Hanoi?
What are solutions to improve sustainability of existing high-rise residential complexes
in Hanoi’s new urban areas?
What are solutions to build more sustainable high-rise residential complexes in new
urban areas in Hanoi in the future?
Chapter III: Survey Methodology and Implementation
3.1. Deriving Indicators for Sustainability Assessment
Measuring sustainability is never a simple task and in each specific case needs to use
suitable measuring system to the context. The following section will introduce the
process of driving a set of indicators for assessing the sustainability of high-rise
residential building from the view of residents in Hanoi context base on existing
advance measure systems in the world and areas and the definition of “sustainable
housing” of EHMC as mentioned above. The general principle to driving indicators
process is choosing the prior and suitable indicators to the current development level
and deal with significant issues of Hanoi and Vietnam as well as available to carry out
with residents. Eight selected areas were Land Use and Transportation; Energy Use;
Water Use, Ecological Environment; Indoor Environment; Material, Waste and
23
Resources Use; Safety and Disaster Prevention; Public Facilities. The detailed
indicators for each area was selected as following and illustrated in Table 1:
Firstly, in area of Land Use and Transportation, given the context of Hanoi and the
availableness with survey participants, three indicators were selected including
vehicular accessibility; public transportation accessibility; and home view.
Areas Indicators
Land Use & Transportation 1. Vehicular accessibility
2. Public transportation accessibility
3. Home view
Energy Use 4. Energy-saving electric facilities
5. Insulation and air tightness
6. Natural daylight
7. Natural ventilation in common areas
Water Use 8. Water quality & water supplying adequacy
9. Water saving facilities
Ecological Environment 10. Conditions of outdoor ecological landscape and green areas
Indoor Environment 11. Healthiness of room’s air quality
12. Wet area’s air flow quality
13. Noise level
14. Consideration of weak, old and disabled persons
15. Size of indoor planting spaces
Material, Waste & Resource 16. Flexible and adaptable layout
17. Durable and human-friendly interior materials
18. Waste disposal facilities
Safety & Disaster Prevention 19. Safety and alarms systems
20. Security systems
Public Facilities 21. Sports and healthcare facilities for residents
22. Cultural facilities for residents
23. Space for community's activities
24. Education facilities
25. Commercial and leisure facilities
26. Parking spaces
Table 1: Indicators for assessing the sustainability
24
Secondly, in area of Energy Use, given the issues of energy consumption is emerging
in Vietnam for both economic development and people’s use, four indicators were
selected including energy saving electric facilities; anti-heat and air-tightness; natural
daylight; and natural ventilation in common areas.
Thirdly, in area of Water Use, given the emerging water consumption and supplying
issue in urban areas in Hanoi, two indicators were selected including water quality and
water supplying adequacy; and water-saving fittings.
Fourthly, in area of Ecological Environment, give to the lack of green land and
reducing quality of ecological environment in Hanoi, one selected indicator was
condition of outdoor ecological landscape and area of green land.
Fifthly, in area of Indoor Environment which impacts directly to human well-being,
given the most Hanoi’s residents’ concern of air flow and sunlight, five indicators were
selected including healthiness of rooms’ air quality; wet areas’ air quality; noise level;
condition of weak, old and disable persons; and size of indoor planting spaces.
Sixthly, in area of Material, Waste and Resources Use, given the characters of high-
rise buildings, three indicators were selected including flexible and adaptable layout;
durable and human-friendly interior materials; and waste disposal facilities.
Seventhly, in area of Safety and Disaster Prevention, given the high concern in such
area to high-rise building, two indicators were selected including safety and alarm
systems; and security systems.
Finally, in area of Public Facilities, given the insufficiency of services system in Hanoi’s
new urban areas, six indicators were selected including sports and healthcare
facilities; cultural facilities; spaces for community’s activities; education facilities;
commercial and leisure facilities; and parking space.
3.2. Samples Selection
Subjects examined in this study were through the following procedure.
25
First, the researcher examined through new urban areas in Hanoi, which characteized
by high-rise residential buildings and has been completed and occupied by residents
as of August 2009.
Second, among the examined urban areas, the researcher selected two ones, which
contain the typical characters of “new urban areas” in Hanoi and possibly analyze by
provided design drawing, LINH DAM Peninsula New Urban Area (LD) and TRUNG
HOA - NHAN CHINH New Urban Area (THNC).
Third, in each urban area, the researcher selected one typical residential complex,
Case A in LINH DAM Peninsula New Urban Area (LD) and B in TRUNG HOA - NHAN
CHINH New Urban Area (THNC), those hold the typical characters of each new urban
area. The survey executed with residents in the two complexes with the set of
indicators derived above.
Introduction of Case A in LINH DAM Peninsula New Urban Area (LD)
The A case in LINH DAM complex is chosen for several reasons. First, the complex
situated in the first “new urban area” in Hanoi and Vietnam. Built in 1994 by HUD with
area of 184 ha, in which 74 ha is natural lake and water frontage area, LINH DAM
Peninsula Residential Complex is the pioneer in applying high-rise apartment in Hanoi
in individual and Vietnam in general (HUD, 2009). The project is the start point to
change the bad stereotyped thinking of Hanoi people about apartment, which is
resulted from the bad experience with dominantly old Soviet style apartment in the
1970s. It is also the first time there is a big scale residential project built with quite
comprehensive infrastructure system, service system and ecological system such as
road system, separated drainage and sewage, underground power supply cable etc.
Second, as the first paradigm, LINH DAM project have encouraged and modeled
significantly many later built new urban areas in Hanoi and Vietnam. Third, LINH DAM
new urban area is one of only two new urban areas that are recognized as “the model
new urban area” by Vietnam Construction Ministry (HUD, op.cit.). The layout and
standard floor plan of case A (LD) was showed in Figure 2.
26
Figure 2: The layout and standard floor plan of case A(LD)
Introduction of Case B in TRUNG HOA NHAN CHINH New Urban Area (THNC)
On the other hand, the case B in TRUNG HOA NHAN CHINH complex, built in 2000
with 30ha by VINACONEX, was selected for its high market-appraised building layout,
new construction technology, high quality technical system and first-time design of
large service basement and pedestrian-square. For instances, all bed rooms in any
high-rise apartment is available to receive direct daylight which is not always used to
be in other ones designed before. The new technology, including slip-form stiff core;
pre-stressed and pre-fabricated concrete floor slabs with in-situ topping-up layer, and
pre-fabricated wall panels, was applied first time in Vietnam, which helps to reduce the
one third of construction time and investment. The project also introduced a large area
of basement floors and a large pedestrian-square, which have been pioneer in
Vietnam at the time (VINACONEX, 2009). The layout and standard floor plan of case B
(THNC) was showed in Figure 3.
Figure 3: The layout and standard floor plan of case B (THNC)
27
3.3. Content and method of survey
Generally, the survey was conducted basing on eight areas of sustainability, which are
mentioned above. Questionnaires survey was conducted for each group with
understandable assessment items to residents, base on a 7-point scale from ‘Very
satisfactory’ (1 point) to ‘Very unsatisfactory’ (7 point).Collecting data and analyzing
data was carried out by a data analysis software and showing the result in figure tables
and chart to analysis.
The questionnaire of survey lasted 20 days from 28th of June to 29th of July 2009 due
to the difficulty of far distance from the UK of the two samples, in Hanoi Vietnam. In the
survey, 60 questionnaires document were sent to occupancies in the two residential
complexes, 30 for LINH DAM case and 30 for TRUNG HOA case. The questionnaires
were sent and collected directly by collaborators in Hanoi. Thank to the dedication of
collaborators, the percentage number of returned questionnaires are 100 percent.
In term of analysis, data after collected was analyzed by Excel software. Socio-
demographic factors were analyzed by frequency and percentage method while
satisfaction/concern and importance were analyzed by frequency method.
Chapter IV: Result analysis and Discussion
4.1. Demographical Characteristics
Of the respondents, 37.4% were female, and 62.6% were male. By age, 37.2% were in
age of 40s, 25.7% were in age of 50s, 18.8% were in age of 60s and over, and 18.3%
were in age of 30s and under. Regard to the number of family members, 36.3% had
four family members and 96.6% have from two to four family members, showing the
trend of nuclear family. By occupation, 36.7% were specialist, followed by self-
employed (27.8), and office workers (25.4%). With regard to income, the responding
was insufficient, which may be because of the concerning of participants about the
information security. However, from comparing the average price of a high-rise
apartment flats with the average income of households in Hanoi, it can conclude that
only very high-income household can afford the price (HAIDEP, op.cit.).
28
With regard to type of ownership, 100% owned the unit, showing the dominant trend of
owning property over renting. In terms of the year of move, the first was above five
years (70.9%), followed by from two to five years (23.5%), and less than two years
(5.6%). As for unit size, 95.7% of respondents in case A were living in a unit size of 60-
110m2; and 87.9% of respondents in case B were living in a unit size of 75-125m2. As
for the floor, the highest floor was the 11th in case A, and the 24th in case B. Before
moving to the high-rise residential complexes, 89.3% respondents lived in detached
houses, and 7.8% lived in old Soviet Union style apartment, showing the emerging
appearance of trend of living in high-rise apartment.
4.2. Result in Case A (LINH DAM Complex)
4.2.1. Result of Satisfactory / Concern in case A
First, according to the result of analyzing the assessment, the mean score of all the
items was 4.93, showing that satisfaction was not too high. Thus, it concluded that
from the residents’ point of view, the high-rise residential complex is not highly
sustainable.
As for satisfaction with each area, satisfaction with ecological environment was highest
(6.40 points on the average) as in Table 2 and Figure 4, followed by safety and
disaster prevention (5.73); energy use (5.14). Areas with satisfaction lower than five
points were material, waste and recourses use (4.93); public facilities (4.80); land use
and transportation (4.74); indoor environment (4.67); and water use (4.32).
Analyzing satisfaction by detailed item (Table 2), in the area of land use and
transportation, the satisfaction was highest with home view (6.03), followed by
vehicular access (4.13); and public transportation accessibility (4.07), showing the
issue in transportation.
In areas of energy use, satisfaction with natural ventilation was highest (6.03), followed
by natural daylight (5.93), insulation and air-tightness (5.03); and energy saving
electric facilities (3.57), showing high power consumption.
29
In area of water use, while satisfaction with water quality and water supplying
adequacy was medium (5.03), the satisfaction with water saving facilities was low
(3.60), showing the high water consumption.
Areas Indicators Means Means
Land Use & Transportation Vehicular accessibility 4.13 4.74
Public transportation accessibility 4.07
Home view 6.03
Energy Use Energy-saving electric facilities 3.57 5.14
Insulation and air tightness 5.03
Natural daylight 5.93
Natural ventilation in common areas 6.03
Water Use Water quality & water supplying adequacy 5.03 4.32
Water saving facilities 3.60
Ecological Environment Conditions of outdoor ecological landscape
and green areas
6.40 6.40
Indoor Environment Healthiness of room’s air quality 5.80 4.67
Wet area’s air flow quality 4.97
Noise level 5.43
Consideration of weak, old and disabled 3.73
Size of indoor planting spaces 3.43
Material, Waste &
Resource
Flexible and adaptable layout 4.73 4.93
Durable and human-friendly interior
materials
4.93
Waste disposal facilities 5.13
Safety & Disaster
Prevention
Safety and alarms systems 5.40 5.73
Security systems 6.07
Public Facilities Sports and healthcare facilities for residents 5.13 4.80
Cultural facilities for residents 4.47
Space for community's activities 3.77
Education facilities 4.37
Commercial and leisure facilities 5.20
Parking spaces 5.87
Table 2: Satisfaction by area and item in case A (LD)
In area of water use, while satisfaction with water quality and water supplying
adequacy was medium (5.03), the satisfaction with water saving facilities was low
(3.60), showing the high water consumption.
30
In areas of ecological, satisfaction was high (6.40), showing a good condition of
outdoor ecological landscape and green areas.
In area of indoor environment, satisfaction was highest with healthiness of room’s air
quality (5.80), followed by noise level (5.43). The figures in all the rest are lower 5.0
points including wet areas’ air quality (4.97); consideration of weak, old and disable
persons (3.73); and size of indoor planting space (3.47), showing the lack in
accommodation’s design.
In area of material, waste and resources use, only satisfaction with waste disposal
facilities was highest (5.13) while the satisfaction with durable and human friendly
interior material (4.93) and flexible and adaptable layout (4.73) was generally low.
In area of safety and disaster prevention, the satisfaction with security (6.07), and
safety and alarms system (5.40) was generally high.
In area of public facilities, residents showed a high satisfaction with parking space
(5.87); commercial facilities (5.20); and sports facilities for residents (5.13), but lower
with cultural facilities (4.47); education facilities (4.37), and spaces for community’s
activities (3.77), showing an inadequacy in the complex’s public services system.
4.2.2. Result of Importance in case A
First, according to the result of analyzing the assessment, the mean score of all the
items was 5.88, showing that importance was higher than satisfaction. Thus, it
concluded that residents recognize highly the importance of items related to the
sustainability of the high-rise residential complex.
As for importance with each area, importance with safety and disaster prevention was
highest (6.50 points on the average), followed by energy use (6.16); land use and
transportation (6.09); public facilities (5.97); indoor environment (5.53); material, and
waste and recourses use (5.64); water use (5.53) and ecological environment (5.40)
(Table 3 and Figure 5), showing high importance in general.
31
Analyzing importance by detailed item (Table 3), in the area of land use and
transportation, importance was highest with vehicular accessibility (6.53), followed by
home view (6.27) and public transport (5.47), generally high.
Areas Questionnaires for Important Means Means
Land Use & Transportation Vehicular accessibility 6.53 6.09
Public transportation accessibility 5.47
Home view 6.27
Energy Use Energy-saving electric facilities 6.03 6.16
Insulation and air tightness 5.87
Natural daylight 6.47
Natural ventilation in common areas 6.27
Water Use Water quality & water supplying adequacy 6.50 5.53
Water saving facilities 4.57
Ecological Environment Conditions of outdoor ecological landscape
and green areas
5.40 5.40
Indoor Environment Healthiness of room’s air quality 6.40 5.53
Wet area’s air flow quality 6.13
Noise level 5.80
Consideration of weak, old and disabled
persons
5.57
Size of indoor planting spaces 3.93
Material, Waste &
Resource
Flexible and adaptable layout
5.33 5.64
Durable and human-friendly interior
materials 5.73
Waste disposal facilities 5.87
Safety & Disaster
Prevention
Safety and alarms systems
6.57 6.50
Security systems 6.43
Public Facilities Sports and healthcare facilities for residents 5.63 5.97
Cultural facilities for residents 5.40
Space for community's activities 5.67
Education facilities 6.33
Commercial and leisure facilities 6.40
Parking spaces 6.37
Table 3: Importance by areas and items in case A (LD)
In areas of energy use, importance with natural daylight was highest (6.47), followed
by natural ventilation in common areas (6.27), energy-saving electric facilities (6.03)
and insulation and air-tightness (5.87), showing the relative high sensitive to energy
32
consumption but also the important impact of natural daylight and natural ventilation in
saving energy.
In area of water use, the most important item with residents was water quality and
water supplying adequacy (6.50) while the figure of water saving facilities (4.57) was
quite low, showing the lack of residents’ concerning to the need of saving water.
In areas of ecological, importance with condition of outdoor ecological landscape and
green areas showed quite high (5.53), showing a positive opinion of residents to the
role of ecological environment in sustainability of housing.
In area of indoor environment, importance was generally high. The highest importance
was healthiness of rooms’ air quality (6.40), followed by wet areas’ air quality (6.13),
noise level (5.80) and consideration of weak, old and disable persons (5.57). Only
figure of size of indoor planting space (3.93) was low, showing a low level in residents’
demand of a large indoor garden.
In area of material, waste and resource, importance with waste disposal facilities
(5.87) was highest, followed by durable and human friendly interior material (5.73) and
flexible and adaptable layout (5.33), showing generally high importance.
In area of safety and disaster prevention, importance with both of safety and alarms
system (6.57) and security systems (6.43) was very high, showing a high residents’
concerning of being safe.
In area of public facilities, residents showed a high importance with commercial
facilities (6.40), parking space (6.37), education facilities (6.33), space for community’s
activities (5.67), sports and healthcare facilities (5.63) and cultural facilities (5.40),
showing a high residents’ interest in living services and community’s activities.
4.2.3. Improvement priority index in case A
Calculating improvement priority index was by diving the importance score by the
satisfaction score for each area and item. By area, according to the results as in Table
4 and Figure 6, the highest priority index was in area of land use and transportation
(1.283), followed by water use (1.282), public facilities (1.243), energy use (1.198),
indoor environment (1.183), material, waste and resource (1.144), safety and disaster
33
prevention (1.134), and ecological (0.844). It concluded that almost every area needs
improvement, especially urgent in the first five areas, except for area of ecological
environment in which maintenance is priority than improvement.
Priority Area Importance/Satisfaction
1 Land Use & Transportation 1.283
2 Water Use 1.282
3 Public Facilities 1.243
4 Energy Use 1.198
5 Indoor Environment 1.183
6 Material, Waste & Resources Use 1.144
7 Safety & Disaster Prevention 1.134
8 Ecological Environment 0.844
Table 4: Improvement priority index by area in case A (LD)
Priority Area Item Importance/Satisfaction
1 Energy Use Energy saving facilities 1.692
2 Land use &
Transportation
Vehicular accessibility 1.581
3 Public Facilities Space of community's
activities
1.504
4 Public Facilities Consideration of weak,
old & disable person
1.491
5 Public Facilities Education facilities 1.450
6 Land use &
Transportation
Public transportation
accessibility
1.344
7 Water use Water quality & water
supplying adequacy
1.291
8 Water use Water saving facilities 1.269
9 Indoor Environment Wet areas’ air quality 1.235
10 Public Facilities Commercial and leisure
facilities
1.231
Table 5: Improvement priority index by items in case A (LD)
As for improvement priority index by detailed item, as in Table 5 and Figure 7, it
showed the ten items which most urgently need to improve. It concludes energy-
saving facilities (1.692), vehicular accessibility (1.581), space of community’s activities
(1.504), consideration of weak, old and disable person (1.491), education facilities
34
(1.450), public transportation accessibility (1.344), water quality and water supplying
adequacy (1.291), water saving facilities (1.269), wet areas’ air quality (1.235), and
commercial and leisure facilities (1.231).
4.3. Result in Case B (TRUNG HOA - NHAN CHINH Complex)
4.3.1. Result Satisfactory / Concern in case B
First, according to the result of analyzing the assessment, the mean score of all the
items was 4.97, showing that satisfaction was not too high. Thus, it concluded that
from the residents’ point of view, the high-rise residential complex is not highly
sustainable.
As for satisfaction with each area, satisfaction with safety and disaster prevention was
highest (6.13 points on the average) as in Table 6 and Figure 8, followed by land use
and transportation (5.72), material, waste and recourses use (5.43), energy use (5.23).
Areas with satisfaction lower than five points were indoor environment (4.76), public
facilities (4.62); ecological environment (3.93) and water use (3.73).
Analyzing satisfaction by detailed item (Table 6), in the area of site and land use,
satisfaction was highest with vehicular accessibility (6.17), followed by home view
(5.80), and public transportation accessibility (5.20), generally high.
In area of energy use, satisfaction with natural ventilation in common areas was
highest (5.90), followed by natural daylight (5.77), insulation and air-tightness (5.17)
and energy saving electric facilities (4.10), showing high power consumption issue.
In area of water use, satisfaction with all items was relatively low including water
quality and water supplying adequacy (4.03), and water saving facilities (3.23),
showing the residents’ high concern about water quality and high water consumption
issue.
In areas of ecological, satisfaction is quite low (3.93), showing a low condition of
outdoor ecological landscape and green areas.
35
In area of indoor environment, satisfaction was highest with healthiness of room’s air
quality (5.53), followed by wet areas’ air quality (5.20). The figures of all the rest are
lower 5.0 points including consideration of weak, old and disable (4.87), noise level
(4.43), and especially size of indoor planting space of only 3.57, showing the lack in
accommodation’s design.
Areas Indicators Means Means
Land Use & Transportation Vehicular accessibility 6.17 5.72
Public transportation accessibility 5.20
Home view 5.80
Energy Use Energy-saving electric facilities 4.10 5.23
Insulation and air tightness 5.17
Natural daylight 5.77
Natural ventilation in common areas 5.90
Water Use Water quality & water supplying adequacy 3.23 3.73
Water saving facilities 4.03
Ecological Environment Conditions of outdoor ecological landscape
and green areas
3.93 3.93
Indoor Environment Healthiness of room’s air quality 5.53 4.76
Wet area’s air flow quality 5.20
Noise level 4.43
Consideration of weak, old and disabled 4.87
Size of indoor planting spaces 3.57
Material, Waste &
Resources use
Flexible and adaptable layout 4.97 5.43
Durable and human-friendly interior
materials
5.57
Waste disposal facilities 5.77
Safety & Disaster
Prevention
Safety and alarms systems 5.80 6.13
Security systems 6.47
Public Facilities Sports and healthcare facilities for residents 5.17 4.62
Cultural facilities for residents 3.77
Space for community's activities 3.37
Education facilities 4.93
Commercial and leisure facilities 4.97
Parking spaces 5.53
Table 6: Satisfaction by areas and items in case B (THNC)
36
In area of material, waste and resources use, satisfaction with waste disposal facilities
was highest (5.77), followed by durable and human friendly interior material (5.57) and
flexible and adaptable layout (4.97).
In area of safety and disaster prevention, satisfaction with security (6.47), and safety
and alarms systems (5.80) was generally high.
In area of public facilities, residents showed a high satisfaction with parking space
(5.53), and sports facilities (5.17), but lower 5.0 points with commercial facilities (4.97),
education facilities (4.93), cultural facilities (3.77) and space for community’s activities
(3.37), showing an inadequacy in the complex’s public services system.
4.3.2. Result of Importance in case B
First, according to the result of analyzing the assessment, the mean score of all the
items was 6.12, showing that importance was higher than satisfaction. Thus, it
concluded that residents recognize highly the importance of items related to the
sustainability of the high-rise residential complex.
As for importance with each area, importance with safety and disaster prevention was
highest (6.60 points on the average), followed by energy use (6.28), public facilities
(6.12), land use and transportation (6.10), material, and waste and recourses use
(5.91), indoor environment (5.87), water use (5.66) and ecological environment (5.23)
(Table 7 and Figure 9), showing high importance in general.
Analyzing importance by detailed item, in the area of land use and transportation,
importance was highest with vehicular accessibility (6.63), followed by home view
(6.33) and public transport (5.33), generally high.
In area of energy use, importance with natural daylight was highest (6.50), followed by
natural ventilation in common areas (6.40), energy-saving electric facilities (6.30) and
insulation and air-tightness (5.90), showing the relative high sensitive to energy
consumption but also the important impact of natural daylight and natural ventilation in
saving energy.
37
In area of water use, the most important item with residents was water quality and
water supplying adequacy (6.77) while the figure of water saving facilities (4.97) was
quite low, showing the lack of residents’ concerning to the need of saving water.
In area of ecological environment, importance with condition of outdoor ecological
landscape and green areas showed relatively high (5.23), showing a positive opinion
of residents to the role of ecological environment in sustainability of housing.
Areas Questionnaires for Important Means Means
Land Use & Transportation Vehicular accessibility 6.63 6.10
Public transportation accessibility 5.33
Home view 6.33
Energy Use Energy-saving electric facilities 6.30 6.28
Insulation and air tightness 5.90
Natural daylight 6.50
Natural ventilation in common areas 6.40
Water Use Water quality & water supplying adequacy 6.77 5.66
Water saving facilities 4.97
Ecological Environment Conditions of outdoor ecological landscape
and green areas
5.23 5.23
Indoor Environment Healthiness of room’s air quality 6.47 5.87
Wet area’s air flow quality 6.43
Noise level 6.40
Consideration of weak, old and disabled
persons
5.90
Size of indoor planting spaces 4.47
Material, Waste &
Resources Use
Flexible and adaptable layout 5.57 5.91
Durable and human-friendly interior
materials
5.97
Waste disposal facilities 6.20
Safety & Disaster
Prevention
Safety and alarms systems 6.63 6.60
Security systems 6.57
Public Facilities Sports and healthcare facilities for residents 5.83 6.12
Cultural facilities for residents 5.60
Space for community's activities 5.87
Education facilities 6.43
Commercial and leisure facilities 6.50
Parking spaces 6.47
Table 7: Importance by areas and items in case B (THNC)
38
In area of indoor environment, importance was generally high. The highest importance
was healthiness of rooms’ air quality (6.47), followed by wet areas’ air quality (6.43),
noise level (6.40) and consideration of weak, old and disable persons (5.90). Only
figure of size of indoor planting space (4.47) was relatively low, showing a low
residents’ demand of a large indoor garden.
In area of material, waste and resource, importance with waste disposal facilities
(6.20) was highest, followed by durable and human friendly interior material (5.97) and
flexible and adaptable layout (5.57), showing generally high importance.
In area of safety and disaster prevention, importance with both of safety and alarms
system (6.63) and security systems (6.57) was very high, showing a high residents’
concerning of being safe.
In area of public facilities, residents showed a high importance with commercial
facilities (6.50), parking space (6.47), education facilities (6.43), space for community’s
activities (5.87), sports and healthcare facilities (5.83) and cultural facilities (5.60),
showing a high residents’ interest in living services and community’s activities.
4.3.3. Improvement priority index in case B
Calculating improvement priority index was by diving the importance score by the
satisfaction score for each area. By area, according to the results as in Table 8 and
Figure 10, the highest priority index was in area of water use (1.515), followed by
ecological environment (1.331), public facilities (1.323), indoor environment (1.233),
energy use (1.199), material, waste and resources use (1.088), safety and disaster
prevention (1.076), land use and transportation (1.066). It concluded that all areas
need improvement, especially urgent in the first five areas.
As for improvement priority index by detailed item, as in Table 9 and Figure 11, it
showed the ten items which most urgently need to improve. It concludes water quality
and water supplying adequacy (2.093), space for community’s activities (1.743),
energy saving facilities (1.537), cultural facilities (1.487), noise level (1.444), condition
of outdoor ecological landscape and green areas (1.331), commercial and leisure
facilities (1.309), education facilities (1.304), size of indoor planting space (1.252), and
wet areas’ air quality (1.237).
39
Priority Area Importance/Satifaction
1 Water Use 1.515
2 Ecological Environment 1.331
3 Public Facilities 1.323
4 Indoor Environment 1.233
5 Energy Use 1.199
6 Material, Waste & Resources Use 1.088
7 Safety & Disaster Prevention 1.076
8 Land Use & Transportation 1.283
Table 8: Improvement priority index by areas in case B (THNC)
Priority Area Item Importance/Satifaction
1 Energy Use Water quality & water
supplying adequacy
2.093
2 Public Facilities Space of community's
activities
1.743
3 Energy Use Energy saving facilities 1.537
4 Public Facilities Cultural Facilities 1.487
5 Indoor Environment Noise level 1.444
6
Land use &
Transportation
Condition of outdoor
ecological landscape &
green areas
1.331
7 Public Facilities Commercial and leisure
facilities
1.309
8 Public Facilities Education facilities 1.304
9 Indoor Environment Size of indoor planting
space
1.252
10 Indoor Environment Wet areas’ air quality 1.237
Table 9: Improvement priority index by items in case B (THNC)
4.4. Analysis of difference between the two cases
4.4.1. Comparison of Satisfaction
Comparative index was by calculating percentage of difference of satisfaction between
the two cases, case A (LD) and case B (THNC). The formula was ((b-a)/a*100)), in
which “a” was the score in the case A (LD); “b” was the score in case B (THNC).
40
Positive number of result shows the higher satisfaction in case B (THNC) compared to
in case A (LD). The negative number of result shows the lower satisfaction in case B
(THNC) compared to in case A (LD).
By the area, according to the result in Figure 12, the satisfaction in case B (THNC)
higher than that in case A (LD) in five areas including land use and transportation
(21%), material, waste and resources use (10%), safety and disaster prevention (7%),
energy use (4%) and indoor environment (2%). On the other hand, the satisfaction of
case B (THNC) lower than of case A (LD) in three areas including ecological
environment (39%), water use (14%) and public facilities (8%).
By the detailed items, as in Figure 13 and Figure 14, satisfaction in case B was higher
than in case A in fourteenth items including vehicular accessibility (49%), consideration
of weak, old and disable (30%), public transportation accessibility (28%), energy
saving facilities (15%), durable and human-friendly interior materials (13%), education
facilities (13%), water saving facilities (12%), insulation and air tightness (12%), water
saving facilities (12%), safety and alarms system (7%), security system (7%), wet
areas’ air quality (5%), flexible and adaptable layout (5%), and size of indoor planting
space (4%).
On the other hand, satisfaction in case B was lower than in case A in twelve items,
including condition of outdoor ecological landscape (39%), water quality and water
supplying adequacy (36%), cultural facilities (21%), noise level (18%), sports and
healthcare facilities (18%), space for community’s activities (11%), parking space
(6%), healthiness of room’s air quality (5%), commercial and leisure facilities (4%),
home view (4%), natural daylight (3%), natural ventilation in common areas (2%).
4.4.2. Comparison of Important
According to the line charts of important in both cases as in Figure 15, it concluded
that the trend was quite similar between the two cases with a slight. In overall, the
figure in case B (THNC) is slightly higher in case A (LD). By areas, the maximum
difference is in indoor environment (6.23%), and the minimum difference is in land use
and transportation (0.18). By items, the maximum difference is in size of indoor panting
space (13.6%) and the minimum difference is in natural daylight (0.5%).
41
4.5. Discussion
4.5.1. Discussion based on the survey’s result
The section will discuss about the potential reasons why the figure of satisfaction and
importance from residents’ viewpoint in some sustainability’s areas and items are high
while in some others are lower in both case A (LD) and case B (THNC).
Firstly, there is a big difference of satisfaction in area of ecological between the two
cases. According the result analysis above, it stated that residents were very
satisfactory with condition of outdoor ecological landscape and green area in the case
A (LD) (6.40), while the figure in case B (THNC) (3.93) was 39% lower. The difference
in the figures seems to result from the significant difference between the ratio green
areas, water surface and ecological environment in the two complexes. While in case
A (LD), the green and water surface areas per capita is around 13m2 with 74ha of lake
(HUD, op.cit.), in the case B (THNC) the green areas per capita is only 1.39m2 and
lack of water surface areas (VINACONEX R&D, 2006). The case A (LD) was built in a
formerly low dense suburban area while case B (THNC) was built in a high dense
developing area can be one reason. Another reason may come from the difference of
investors’ policy. In the case A (LD), as the first new urban and high-rise resident
project built in Hanoi, and due to the lack of general design standards, the investor
(HUD) tried to design based on the design theories and design standards from develop
countries such as the United States or Singapore. The investors also need to build a
new high quality model of residential accommodation to change the bad stereotype
and experience of Hanoi’s residents with the last Soviet Union style apartments
dominated in 1970s. On the other hand, the case B (THNC) was built by VINACONEX
three years later and got benefit from the Hanoi people‘s emerging favor with new
model of high-rise apartments, and therefore prior focused on making as much floor
areas as possible for selling and gaining more benefit illustrated by a much higher
density in urban design (Luong Tu Quyen, Do Kim Thanh, 2009). It can be said that
the general reasons were from the lack of management and vision from the city’s
government such as lack of detailed design guideline, assessment systems etc.; and
the lack of the investors’ understanding of sustainable development. The residents
may partly understand that “good accommodation” is not only the quality of house itself
but also its surrounding environment as they show in the quite high importance rating
of ecological environment, but the high demand of accommodation and the lack of
supplying sources resulted in a very limited option.
42
Secondly, according the result of analysis, there is a remarkable difference of
residents’ satisfaction between the both cases in items of vehicular accessibility, public
transportation accessibility, and noise level, in which the case B (LD) achieved better
than case A (LD) in the first two items but worse than in the last one. In terms of
vehicular accessibility, the reasons may partly come from the difference of distance to
the cities center, where the city’s main working and service facilities, governor offices,
hospitals etc concentrating in (HAIDEP, op.cit.). The distance from case B (THNC) is
only 4km, while that number in case A (LD) is more than 7 km (HUD, op.cit,
VINACONEX, op. cit.). In addition, it is more difficult and taking more time to travel to
city center from case A (LD) as all the main link routes are also the main traffic belt
roads of the city with a very high density of traffic and often congestions. Moreover, the
overload or insufficiency of road systems also affected to the efficiency of public
transportation systems in the case A (LD) (Tien Phuc, 2009). However, the issue of
traffic and traffic system is not only of the new urban areas, but rather than that, of the
all city (Ha Le, 2007). In term of noise level, the reasons for the difference of
satisfaction may come from the difference in planning of the two urban areas. In the
case A (LD) while buildings stayed quite far from main traffic roads and had a noise
insulation by plant ranges, all buildings in case B (THNC) stayed beside the main
traffic roads (partly drove by the residents’ subconscious preference of “facing-street”
house in Vietnam’s cities).
Thirdly, sustainable water use seems not an easy task for high-rise buildings in
Hanoi’s new urban areas. The water quality and water supplying ability in the case B
(THNC) seems to be a big issue illustrated by very low satisfaction (3.23) compared to
very high important in the both cases (6.5 and 6.77). One of the reasons for the low
satisfaction was the inadequately supplying water and the under standard water
quality. A test in 2007 showed that the residential daily-used water in the TRUNG HOA
– NHAN CHINH urban area (case B) contained a high nitrite content of 12.3 mg/l, four
times higher than the government standard (3.00 mg/l), failed in Coliform test, and
especially a high content of a seriously fatal chemical, arsenic (Vietnamese
Department of Health, 2007). A new clean water-supplying source was only provided
in late August 2009 (Tien Chinh, 2008). In addition, although the case A (LD) obtained
a 36% higher satisfaction compared to case B (THNC) (5.03 compared to 3.23), the
figure actually did not show the high water quality and water supplying adequacy in the
LINH DAM case. In fact, a test in 2003 revealed that the residential daily-used water in
the case A (LD) contained a high ammoniac content of 10.0 mg/l (standard of 1.5
43
mg/l), iron content of 0.7 mg/l (standard of 0.5 mg/l); oxygenation of 6.40 mg/l
(standard of 2.00 mg/l), which only have improved recently (Quoc Phuong, 2003).
Given the both case having a good technical water supplying system, therefore the
reason may be the lack of clean water resources in the city scale as following a
prediction of Hanoi Water Supply Company, in 2010 Hanoi will lack water of
300.000m3/day (Chinh Chung, 2008). Another reason is the lack of synchronization
between of water supplying system of the new developed urban project with the
existing city’s water system (Nguyen To Lang, op.cit.). Regard to water saving, the
satisfaction was relatively low in both cases, which may caused by that the lack of pre-
intention in technical and architectural design, as well as the high price or
disappearance in the market of suitable equipments. Moreover, the opinion of
residents about the importance of saving water issue, that definitely has a huge impact
to water consumption, was not very high in the both cases illustrated by the low
important rating. The reason may come from the currently low price of clean water and
the lack of education about such issue. It can be said that the sustainability in water
use is a big concern in Hanoi’s new high-rise apartments in new urban areas in
particular and in all city in general.
Fourthly, Hanoi’s high-rise apartments also need to improve significantly in their
sustainability in items of energy saving facilities, wet areas’ air quality, size of indoor
planting, space for the resident’s autonomy and participant, sports and healthcare
facilities, cultural facilities, commercial and leisure facilities and education facilities,
which were illustrated by the low or not very high satisfaction, and the high difference
between importance and satisfaction in the both cases. In terms of energy saving, the
lack of specific design standards and norms, the poor option of energy-saving
equipments in the market or high price existing ones, as well as the lack of concerning
about such issue of designers and investors may be the main reasons (Le Thi Bich
Thuan, cited in Tung Thu, 2008). Fortunately, the residents have a positive opinion
about the issue illustrated by the high importance rating, which seems to be resulted
from the currently very high price of electric rather than from the government’s
propaganda and education. In term of wet areas’ air quality, in the both cases the
major ventilation in wet areas is mechanical ventilation, which did not always work well
(Doan Loan, 2006). The small and closed areas of wet rooms without direct contact to
outside space, showed in plan drawings, made the problem more seriously. In terms of
indoor planting space, the low satisfaction may caused by the limited area of flats
(maximum of around 100m2 in case A (LD) and 150m2 in case B (THNC)), which must
prior contribute to main function spaces as bedrooms or living rooms in layout design.
44
The importance rating in such item was low in the both cases (3.93 and 4.47) showing
that residents did not consider indoor garden as a high priority. In terms of space for
community’s activities, the problem lied on the management. While spaces for such
purpose appeared in the design drawings of the both cases, in fact the spaces have
been using for different purposes such as renting shops or stores, which bring more
benefit to investors (Tran Truong, 2007). The conflict between residents and
investors/manager in such issue has been increasing recently but unsolved due to the
lack of specific guidance from government (Y Linh, 2009). In terms of cultural facilities,
educational facilities, and commercial and leisure facilities, the reasons leading to the
low satisfaction addressed on the insufficiency of the structure in the two new urban
areas. There were not any school and only a small kindergarten in the LINH DAM
urban area (case A) while the schools and kindergarten in TRUNG HOA NHAN CHINH
urban area (case B) have an unaffordable tuition fee for almost its residents (KT&DT,
2008). It was also not hard to see the disappearance of cultural facilities in the both
urban areas, that although appeared on design drawings, caused by the delay in
carrying out by investors as these facilities are not as beneficiary as selling apartments
(TienPhong, 2006). The lack of government control over investors is an obviously
reason caused the situation. In addition, commercial and leisure facilities were also
insufficient as there were only one small supermarket and few restaurants in TRUNG
HOA NHAN CHINH urban area (case A) with high price and there was not any
popularly affordable-price traditional market (TienPhong, ibid). Children must play on
the road due to the lack of play ground is a good illustration for this problem
(TienPhong, ibid). The same situation happened in the LINH DAM urban areas (case
A) (TienPhong, ibid). Beside the delay of investors in carrying on designed facilities
and the lack of government’s control, another reason is the difference in planning
opinion as the some planners thought that traditional market does not fit with new
urban areas’ structure and will cause untidiness in urban images, but did not give the
alternative solution.
On the other hand, Hanoi’s high-rise apartments have achieved good results in several
areas including natural daylight, natural ventilation in common areas, home view,
healthiness of room’s air, safety and alarm systems, and especially security, illustrated
by high satisfaction of residents. In terms of natural daylight, the high satisfaction may
achieved from shadow-free from neighborhood buildings and the good layout design of
the both case such as all bedrooms possibly receiving directly natural daylight and
partly with almost common areas. Residents also considered natural daylight as one of
the most important issue in high-rise building apartments (6.47 in case A and 6.50 in
45
case B). In terms of natural ventilation in common room, the gap between importance
and satisfaction was not too large showing the partly success of the high-rise
apartment design (6.03 satisfaction / 6.27importance in case A; 5.90 satisfaction / 6.40
importance in case B). The result may achieved from the good designing layout of flats
as all common areas were designed in free-diving style and contacted directly to
outside, and benefited from increasing wind flow following increasing height of the
buildings. Together with natural daylight, natural ventilation in common areas is
significant important with customers illustrated by the high importance rating. In
addition, the height of buildings also brought benefit to the home view which earned
much satisfaction from residents, a definitely benefit of high-rise buildings and it also
an important factor to consider for flats buyer. In terms of healthiness of rooms’ air, the
rooms’ direct contact with outside in layout design, good natural ventilation and height
of buildings, especially given the condition of hot and humid weather and polluted air in
urban area in Hanoi, were the main reasons leading to the quite high satisfaction. In
terms of safety and alarm systems, the satisfaction was quite high, partly resulted from
the quite comprehensive safety and alarm systems of the both case according to
design drawings. However, compared to the very high concern of residents, and given
several problems in safety design such as an accident of a child falling down from
eleven-storey in the case A (LD) caused by the incorrectness of handrail design (Huy
Phuc, 2007), or the dangerous design of windows in case B (THNC) (TT, 2006), it still
needs a significant improvement in such area. Regard to security, it seems the most
successful area in high-rise apartments in Hanoi illustrated by very high scores in
residents’ satisfaction, just slightly lower than importance scores (6.07 / 6.43 in case A;
6.47 / 6.57 in case B). The reasons are the low risk of being stolen due to the high-rise
building’s character of good protection against access from outside, and a
comprehensive security system including security staffs in the both case and plus
security cameras in the case B in every common areas (HUD, op.cit. and VINACONEX
R&D op.cit.). In terms of healthcare and sports facilities, the satisfaction is responded
relatively high from quite adequate facilities in the both complexes such as branch
hospitals or surgeries providing healthcare service for residents, as well as good
sports facilities such as swimming pools and gyms. High service price, however, was
one of the main reasons preventing residents’ accessibility.
Finally, there is a striking feature is that the satisfaction in the cases B is higher that in
the case A in several areas of specific building’s design including consideration of
weak, old and disable person, flexible and adaptable layout, durable and human-
friendly interior material, and waste disposal system. The feature might show a positive
46
meaning that the design of buildings in next generation of high-rise residential
complexes which case B (THNC) is a representative have had some improvements
compared to the first one, represented by case A (LD).
4.5.2. Extension discussion
This section will examine about several other aspects of the sustainability of high-rise
residential complexes in new urban areas in Hanoi, which are low possible to see from
viewpoint of residents.
Firstly, in terms of construction technology, almost high-rise residential buildings in
housing project ( e.g. case A) in Hanoi use the popularly traditional construction
technology such as concrete beams and columns structure systems cashed on site,
brick walls built by workers on site, etc, which is normally not to be considered as high
sustainable technology. However, there has been an emerging change as more
advance and sustainable construction technologies have been used in high-rise
construction. For instances, in case B, all high-rise residential buildings were built with
a new technology including slip-form stiff core; pre-stressed and pre-fabricated
concrete floor slabs with in-situ topping-up layer, and pre-fabricated wall panels, which
help to decrease the one third of construction time (VINACONEX R&D, op.cit.).
Consequently, the technology not only reduced the construction cost but also reduced
the air pollution, noise pollution, CO2 emission, embodied energy, save material use,
and decreased other environment impacts.
Secondly, quality of construction is another important issue in high-rise residential
buildings in the both cases in particular and in all Hanoi’s new urban areas in general.
There were several problems involved to building’s construction’s quality such as
ceiling-coating mortar and interior finishing layers peeling off, or leaking of water pile
system, etc, in the both case A (LD) (Nguyen Hung, 2009) and B (THNC) (Binh Minh,
2008), and several other high-rise residential buildings in Hanoi. There has been also
a serious concern about the control of construction’s quality during the building
process after several uncovered negative cases of loss or theft of building materials
(Kieu Minh, 2005). Although such problem has been a generally unsolved problem in
Vietnam’s construction environment, it more seriously affects the construction’s quality
of high-rise buildings, given the high-required standards of such type of building.
47
Thirdly, there were shortcoming in terms of maintenance and selection of materials in
high-rise residential buildings in Hanoi. Because of the high-rise building’s characters,
it is difficult to maintain the external façade of buildings, and therefore it is priority to
use durable coating materials such as ceramic bricks or metal panels, etc. However,
due to the low ratio of investment per floor areas, external façade of high-rise
residential buildings in Hanoi were generally coated by mortar and paint, which fast
reduce the quality after a short time caused by harsh weather in Hanoi.
Fourthly, design for safety, especially for fire rescue, is an essential issue in high-rise
residential complexes in Hanoi in particular and in Vietnam in general. The current
ability of firefighting in high-rise buildings of Hanoi’s firefight force has been very
limited due to the lack of specific equipments, and the design of high-rise residential
complexes have also contained a lot of problems in such issue. For instance, in a fire
fighting rehearse in case B (THNC), the fire- stair of the best fire-engine could reach
only to the 20th storey of a 34-storey building (Hieu Anh, 2009) while the ground floor
which also the ceiling of the basement floor was not designed to carried the weight of
bigger fire-engine (Hieu Anh, 2009). In addition, there was a lack the architectural
elements in ground floor as barriers to prevent dropped things from higher storeys in
all high-rise residential buildings in the both surveyed cases and many others in new
urban areas in Hanoi. Given that many residents’ activities often happen in ground
floor around the buildings, it is right time to concern more and improve design
standards in such issue.
Fifthly, the consideration of local weather, local living habits and local architecture style
was quite limited in design of high-rise building in the both cases. There was not any
place of worship, which is very important in Vietnamese cultural life, in flats’s plan in
the both surveyed cases in individual and in almost other existing high-rise residential
buildings in Hanoi. There was also a lack of consideration in using solar shading
systems to deal with the usually baking sun of Hanoi’s weather in summer. The
architectural language of high-rise residential building has been monotone, unclear,
formalistic, patchy or imitative with random use of material and color.
Sixthly, there is a lack of good urban design in the both surveyed cases and others.
There was not specific design for social spaces, pedestrian routes, landmarks, or so
on in the both cases, or not efficient in real use. The case B (THNC) has a “Pedestrian
Square” in its design, which unfortunately has been used as parking place rather than
a social place.
48
Seventhly, adoptability has been a noticeable issue in high-rise development in
Hanoi’s new urban areas. It is not only the problem with unaffordable price of flats
compared to average income of household, but also the unreasonable service fees,
including maintain fee, parking fee and other fee. The non-negotiable service fees led
to many conflicts between residents and buildings’ management agencies in the both
surveyed cases (TienPhong, ibid).
Another issue, which needs to be considered in sustainable high-rise residential
development in Hanoi, is the model of management. One of the most concerned
issues is the unclear about who will have responsibility to manage the complexes
during running time (Y Linh, op.cit.).
Finally, lossing agriculture land and agricultural work of famer heve been an issue
during the prosess of building new urban areas in suburban areas or rural areas, which
need a comprehensively socio-economic solution from the city’s govement. (Luong Tu
Quyen and Do Kim Thanh, op.cit.).
Chapter V: Recommendation and Conclusion
5.1. Recommendation
It significantly needs to improve the high-rise residential complexes in new urban areas
in Hanoi in many areas of sustainability. Contributions and proposed solutions for
existing complexes and for future projects will be mentioned and discuss in this
section.
Firstly, location and transportation are crucial factors because of their large impacts to
success of projects, which need a careful consideration in planning and designing
future high-rise residential complexes. It is difficult to change once selecting location
and building projects. From the survey result and given the Hanoi’s context, it can be
stated that new high-rise residential complexes should be located in new urban areas
which have comprehensive urban infrastructures rather than in existing urban areas
near city centre which are highly dense, lack or/and overloaded of infrastructure and
have high price of land. Building new urban areas should be in suburban sprawls or
brown-field lands that will encourage redevelopment or regeneration of the whole
49
areas and surrounding regions, increase the efficiency of land uses and valuable of
land, and create new concentrated residential areas, which will help to decrease the
pressure of accommodation in city center area. The mentioned LINH DAM new urban
area and TRUNG HOA NHAN CHINH new urban area are convincing successful
examples. However, selecting location of new high-rise residential projects and new
urban areas projects needs to be in a careful consideration with traffic issue such as
capacity of road system, acceptable traveling time to work places etc. Planning a new
urban area far from city centre can adopt more land area with lower land price but also
faces the traffic problem due to the lack or/and low capacity of road system and public
transport system as illustrated in the survey results. In conclusion, building new urban
areas with comprehensive urban and service infrastructure, dominant high-rise
residential complexes, locating in semi-urban areas, urban sprawls or brown-field
lands, and connecting well with city centre by high capacity road system and massive
public transport system will be a potential paradigm for Hanoi’s new settlement.
Rapidly increasing number of urban projects recently has proved such trend. On the
other hand, for existing new urban areas, improving the capacity of road system and
public transportation system seems to be the only solution, which needs to carry out in
the city scale.
Secondly, ecological environment is a key issue, which needs serious consideration in
designing future high-rise residential complexes in Hanoi new urban areas. As mention
in literature review section, one benefit of high-rise development is providing more land
on the ground for green areas and other ecological features. The first generation of
high-rise complexes such as LINH DAM residential complex did well in such issue
while the second generation, which TRUNG HOA NHAN CHINH complex is a typical
one, lost the necessary interest. To ensure that future new high-rise residential
complexes in Hanoi can bring to residents benefit from ecological environment, it
suggests that government authorities need to release a detailed design norm together
with a strong quality control and assessment. The number of green area per capita of
7m2 in LINH DAM urban area, which received high satisfaction from residents, may be
a good reference. For the exiting high-rise residential complexes, which lack of
greenery, solutions are quite limited such as improve available roof gardens, indoor
greenery or use moveable parterre etc.
The third focusing issue for future high-rise residential complexes is the
synchronization between the complexes’ technical infrastructure system with city’s one
and the comprehensive investment in public service facilities. Future high-rise
50
residential complexes should be comprehensively ready-use before the inhabitants
move in. Any new development needs to learn carefully from the lessons of water
issues and the lack of social service systems such as schools, markets, cultural
spaces, community’s spaces etc. in the both surveyed cases. Noticeably, space for
community’s activities is the easiest one of being forgotten in the design or being used
for wrong purpose, which need to be focused on. Moreover, issue of parking space
has been becoming more seriously following to the rapidly increasing number of car
uses, which lead to a need to have a good prediction and vision for future high-rise
residential developments from developers. Building new urban areas with high-rise
residential complexes with sufficient parking space will help to solve such problem in
the whole city. Moreover, it needs to have serious discussions about the relation
between traditional market and the urban structure of new urban areas, which should
find the best way to bring the benefits of such popular type of market to new urban
areas but not harmfully affect to urban images. For the existing high-rise residential
complexes and new urban areas, urgently completing designed inherent facilities and
restoring the spaces and facilities used in wrong purposes in terms of public service,
and improving quality of service supply are impressing.
Fourthly, in term of individual buildings’ design, new high-rise residential complexes
should adopt all the achievements of existing ones but also need to improve
significantly in drawback areas. The current achievements such as security,
healthiness of room’s air quality, high speed and high capacity vertical access, good
natural daylight and natural ventilation, and home view need to be maintained and
improved through design in the balance with residents demands. On the other hand, it
needs a perfecting safety’s design standards and prescribing specifically in
construction norms, as well as seriously carrying out in real practice (e.g. using safe
glass etc.). In addition, it needs to improve seriously and significantly design standards
in term of consideration to weak; old and disable persons from insufficiently current
construction norms. Furthermore, it needs to improve waste disposal system to reduce
the negative effects such as smell or insanitariness, and plan for applying clarifying
and recycling system in the future. In addition, interior material should be selected
base on the durableness and human friendliness such as wood floor, safe paint etc.
Moreover, design of layout of flats needs to be flexible to adapt to the variety of
residents’ demand such as increase of family’s members, change of rooms’ functions,
change in layout of furniture etc. One of solutions is using column -free and walls-free
structure. Besides, it needs to improve anti-heat insulation, noise insulation and air-
tightness through design of architectural details and materials use such as solar
51
shading systems, high insulated windows etc. In addition, saving energy (e.g. low
energy consuming light, high capacity electric wire etc.) and water facilities (e.g. tap
fitting, saving-flush toilet etc.) should be prior considered in design depend on the
invested ability. Use of solar panels and solar water heating may maximize the benefit
of Vietnam’s long sunny weather. Finally, it should be applying advance construction
technologies such as slip-form stiff core; pre-stressed and pre-fabricated floor slabs
with in-situ topping-up layer, and pre-fabricated wall panels, pre-fabricated windows
and glazing panels, etc, in high-rise buildings’ construction.
Finally, design of future and complexes should include specific urban design,
concerning amenity and beauty of public and social space. In addition, design of new
high-rise residential buildings need to consider to the local weather, local life-culture
and local architecture.
5.2. Conclusion
The present study assessed the sustainability of high-rise residential complexes from
residents’ viewpoint and the researcher’s viewpoint. Conclusions drawn from the
research are as follows.
First, in regard to satisfaction, overall score was 4.93 in case A (LD) and 4.97 in case
B (THNC), which are not high, revealing that the residents did not very highly assess
the sustainability of current high-rise residential complexes.
Secondly, as satisfaction by the areas, it can be concluded that high-rise residential
complexes have achieved relatively high satisfaction in area of safety and disaster
prevention, and the complexes of the second generation have an improvement in
several areas including site and land use; material, waste and resources but
remarkably declined in ecological environment which need to seriously recover. In
addition, such type of housing complexes still need to improve in the rest areas,
especially in public facilities and water use.
Thirdly, as satisfaction by the Items, in area of site and land use, the key issue is to
improve the public transportation accessibility and ensuring the vehicular access by a
comprehensive and high capacity road system. In area of energy, it is important to
reduce the power consumption by improving use of energy saving facilities and
ensuring the high performance of insulation and air tightness. In area of water use,
52
critical items are upgrading the water quality and water supplying ability as well as
reducing the water consumption by applying water saving facilities. In area of
ecological environment, it is crucial to expand green zone ratio and maintain a natural-
friendly living environment. In area of indoor environment, it is need to have an
increasing in size of indoor planting space and more considering of old, weak and
disable person in design. In area of public facilities, the most important things are
adequately providing spaces for community’s activities as well as other essential living
services including education facilities, cultural facilities, and sport and healthcare
facilities, and caring about the parking space for exploding number of cars in the
future.
Fourthly, in regard to importance, overall score was 5.88 in case A (LD) and 6.12 in
case B (THNC), which are not high level, revealing that the residents considered the
importance of the sustainability of the high-rise residential complexes higher than their
satisfaction with them, and showing an general requirement of improvement.
Fifthly, regard to the direction of improving high-rise residential complexes, according
to the result of comparing satisfaction with importance by area (Table 4 and 8), the
residents’ importance is higher than the satisfaction in almost areas, showing a need
of improvement in all areas, especially significant in areas of water use, public facilities
and energy use. It is also important to improve the ecological environment condition in
new high-rise residential complexes as well as the residents’ concerning in such area,
as the importance figure was not too high. In addition, site and land use area need to
improve in complexes locating in suburban areas such as case A (LD), due to the
overloading of the city’s transportation system.
Sixthly, as presented in the Table 5 and 9, the survey showed the priority items
needed to improve in the two high-rise residential complexes. In general, it included
vehicular accessibility, public transportation accessibility, energy saving facilities, water
quality and water supplying adequacy, water saving facilities, size of indoor planting
space, wet areas’ air quality, space for community’s activities, cultural facilities,
commercial and leisure facilities, education facilities, and consideration of weak, old
and disable person. In addition, it needs to improve in items of noise level, and
condition of outdoor ecological landscape and green areas in high-rise residential
complexes with “facing-street” planning style and high density such as case B (THNC).
53
In the research, the assessment of the sustainability of high-rise residential complexes
in new urban areas in Hanoi used two typical cases. However, it is necessary to
extend the research to cases with various conditions and in larger number of cases. In
addition, the study was limited to high-rise residential complexes in new urban areas
and it is desirable to include such type of complexes built in ordinary residential
districts.
54
Bibliography
Anh, H., (2009). Chữa cháy tại nhà cao tầng: Hạ tầng không đồng bộ.
ANNINHTHUDO, [internet] 26 May. Available at:
http://www.anninhthudo.vn/Tianyon/Index.aspx?ArticleID=49249&ChannelID=92
[Accessed September 1, 2009].
Anh, H., (2009). Chữa cháy tại nhà cao tầng: Bài toán khó! ANNINHTHUDO, [internet]
25 May. Available at:
http://anninhthudo.vn/tianyon/Index.aspx?ArticleID=49199&ChannelID=92 [Accessed
September 1, 2009].
Anna K. Tibaijuka, (2008). Promoting Socially and Environmentally Sustainable
Human Settlements. [internet] Available at:
http://www.upu.int/congress/general_debate/01_ensuring_a_sustainable_and_inclusiv
e_globalization/en/gallery/07_nicholas_you_un-habitat_en.pdf [Accessed September
1, 2009].
BER Global, (2009). What is BREEAM? [internet] Available at:
http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=66 [Accessed September 1, 2009].
Burgess, R., (2000). The compact City Debate. In Jenks, Mike., Burgess, Rod., ed.
Compact Cities : Sustainable Urban Forms for Developing Countries. London, GBR:
Spon Press, 2000. p 21. [internet] Available at:
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uon/Doc?id=10062752&ppg=34 [Accessed September 1,
2009].
Chinh, T., (2008). Nước sạch sông Đà cung cấp cho Hà Nội đảm bảo tiêu chuẩn.
ANNINHTHUDO, [internet] 07 Oct. Available at:
http://www.anninhthudo.vn/tianyon/Index.aspx?ArticleID=33900&ChannelID=5
[Accessed September 1, 2009].
Chung, C., (2008). Nước sông Đà đã về tới cửa ngõ Hà Nội. ANNINHTHUDO ,
[internet] 20 Mar. Available at:
http://www.antd.vn/Tianyon/Index.aspx?ArticleID=20422&ChannelID=20 [Accessed
September 1, 2009].
55
Communities Scotland, (2007). Sustainability and Housing. In: The Sustainable
Housing Design Guide for Scotland. [internet] Available at:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1125/0085461.pdf [Accessed September 1,
2009].
Crompton, A., Wilson, A., (n.d.). Sustainable Tall Buildings – Fact or Fiction? [internet]
Available at: http://www.cibse.org/pdfs/Ant%20Wilson.pdf [Accessed September 1,
2009].
DETR, (1999a). A Better Quality of Life: a strategy for sustainable development for the
UK. May 1999.
Elliott, Jennifer A. (1999). Introduction to Sustainable Development, 2nd ed.
Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, p. 137 . [internet] Available at:
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uon/Doc?id=10035305&ppg=224 [Accessed September 1,
2009].
EU Ministers, (2002). Final communiqué of the 3rd European Ministers conference on
Sustainable Housing. [internet] Available at:
http://www.sharedspaces.nl/docs/internationaal/comm3.pdf [Accessed September 1,
2009].
European Commission, (1991). Green Paper on the Urban Environment. [internet]
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/policy_initiatives.htm [Accessed
September 1, 2009].
European Union Expert Group on the Urban Environment, (2004). Urban Design for
Sustainability, p 3. [internet] Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/pdf/0404final_report.pdf [Accessed September
1, 2009].
Gale, R.P., Cordray, S.M., (1994). Making sense of sustainability: nine answers to
"What should be sustained?". Rural Sociology, Vol. 59, N2, pp. 311-332.
Glasson, J., Therivel, R., Chadwick, A., (2005) Introduction to environmental impact
Assessment – [internet] Google Books. Available at:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7cZ6Sxd9gR4C&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=(Holm
berg+and+Sandbrook+1992&source=bl&ots=oKZ3Y1B5IZ&sig=4klfA3PTcGnTyYmsfw
56
OFXj72WIk&hl=en&ei=io2dSuC3ItWZjAeWlbWeBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&r
esnum=5#v=onepage&q=(Holmberg%20and%20Sandbrook%201992&f=false
[Accessed September 1, 2009].
HAIDEP, (2007, p 3-9). Final Report Summary. In: The Comprehensive Urban
Development Programme in Hanoi Capital City of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
Final. [internet] Available at:
http://lvzopac.jica.go.jp/servlets/library?func=function.opacsch.mmdsp&view=view.opa
csch.mmindex&shoshisbt=1&shoshino=0000172053&volno=0000000000&filename=1
1856093_01.pdf&seqno=1 [Accessed September 1, 2009].
HK-BEEM, (2009). BEAM information leaflet. [internet] Available at: http://www.hk-
beam.org.hk/fileLibrary/HK-BEAM_E.pdf [Accessed September 1, 2009].
HUD, (2009). Linh Dam Lake services & Urban Area, HaNoi. [internet] Available at:
http://www.hud.com.vn/Default.aspx?language=en&Index=1&ID=14216&SubID=121&
act=detailnews&CatID=121 [Accessed September 1, 2009].
Hung, N., (2009) Sập vữa trần chung cư Trung Hòa Nhân Chính. Vnexpress, [internet]
13 Jul. Available at: http://www.dothi.net/News/Tin-tuc/Doi-song-do-
thi/2009/07/3B9AE61A/ [Accessed September 1, 2009].
Huy, P., ( 2007). Thiết kế chung cư cao tầng sao cho an toàn? TUOITRE, [internet] 03
Aug. Available at:
http://www.tuoitre.com.vn/Tianyon/Index.aspx?ArticleID=213639&ChannelID=3
[Accessed September 1, 2009].
ILBI, (2009). Living Building Challenge Version 1.3. [internet] Available at:
http://ilbi.org/the-standard/version-1-3 [Accessed September 1, 2009].
Jenks, M., Dempsey, N., (2005). Future forms and design for Sustainable Cities.
Architectural Press - An imprint of Elsevier, Oxford, p 417.
Johannesburg Earth Summit Sustainable Development, (2002). Governance for
Sustainable Development: Outcomes from Johannesburg. [internet] Available at:
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/issues/Governance/wssdgovernanceoutcomes.pdf
[Accessed September 1, 2009].
57
Kessler, E. (2000). Getting Started: Project Context, How does the Project/Program fit
into the Broader Development Context? [internet] Available at:
http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/upgrading/issues-tools/issues/broader-
devel.html#Anchor-45656 [Accessed September 1, 2009].
KT&DT, (2008). New urban areas lacking state-owned schools. VIETNAMNET,
[internet] 26 Nov. Available at: http://english.vietnamnet.vn/education/2008/11/815538/
[Accessed September 1, 2009].
Lang, T.N., (2007). Sustainable Settlement in Urban Development of Hanoi,
Vietnam. [internet] Available at: http://www.asiasustainabilitynet.upc.edu/pdf/U005.pdf
[Accessed September 1, 2009].
Lee, K., (2007). Sustainability Assessment and Development Direction of Super High–
rise Residential Complexes from the Viewpoints of Residents. Journal of Asian
Architecture and Building Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 1 pp.127-134, [internet] Available at:
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jaabe/6/1/6_127/_article [Accessed September 1,
2009].
Le, H., (2007). Hà Nội: Đường kẹt xe, ngõ tắc suốt tuần. VIETNAMNET, [internet] 10
Sep. Available at: http://www2.vietnamnet.vn/xahoi/2007/09/739123/ [Accessed
September 1, 2009].
Linh, Y., (2009) Hết chuyện chung - riêng, lại “lăn tăn” mô hình quản lý. HANOIMOI ,
[internet] 07 Aug. Available at: http://www.hanoimoi.com.vn/vn/14/216108/ [Accessed
September 1, 2009].
Loan, D., (2006). Hạ tầng "tạm bợ" ở các khu đô thị mới. VIETNAMNET, [internet] 17
Sep. Available at: http://www.vnexpress.net/GL/Xa-hoi/2006/09/3B9EE4DB/ [Accessed
September 1, 2009].
Quyen, L.T., Thanh, D.K., (2009). Mô hình hợp lý cho các khu đô thị mới ở Hà Nội.
Ashui, [internet] 05 Jul. Available at:
http://mag.ashui.com/index.php/chuyenmuc/batdongsan/69-batdongsan/1253-mo-
hinh-hop-ly-cho-cac-khu-do-thi-moi-o-ha-noi.html [Accessed September 1, 2009].
MacLaren, V.W. (1996) "Urban Sustainability Reporting". Journal of the American
Planning Association 62 (2):184-202
58
Minh, B., (2008) Sập trần nhà chung cư Bắc Linh Đàm. NGOISAO, [internet] 21 Jul.
Available at: http://www.ngoisao.net/news/thoi-cuoc/2008/10/3b9c6f4b/ [Accessed
September 1, 2009].
Minh, K., (2005). Vì sao công trình kém chất lượng? VIETNAMNET, [internet] 04 Dec.
Available at: http://www3.vietnamnet.vn/kinhte/chinhsach/2005/12/518737/ [Accessed
September 1, 2009].
National Assembly of Vietnam (2003). Construction Law. Hanoi.
National Environment Agency, (2009). BCA Green Mark Scheme. [internet] Available
at: http://www.bca.gov.sg/GreenMark/green_mark_buildings.html [Accessed
September 1, 2009].
Özaydın, G. (2006). Role of Urban Projects as a tool in Urban Integration and
Disintegration, p. 1. [internet] Available at:
http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/817.pdf [Accessed September 1, 2009].
PAM & ACEM, 2009). Green Building Index. [internet] Available at:
http://www.greenbuildingindex.org/green_building_index.htm [Accessed September 1,
2009].
Pank, W., Girardet, H., Cox, G., (2002).Tall Building and Sustainability. [internet]
Available at: http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/08A4077B-3199-442E-
B4D1-E7F9F2C68E15/0/SUS_tallbuildings.pdf [Accessed September 1, 2009].
Phuc, T., (2009). Về dự án đường giao thông quanh hồ Linh Đàm giai đoạn 1.
ANNINHTHUDO, [internet] 03 Sep. Available at:
http://www.anninhthudo.vn/Tianyon/Index.aspx?ArticleID=49452&ChannelID=5
[Accessed September 1, 2009].
Phuong, Q., (2003). Chất lượng nuớc khu Linh Đàm bao giờ khá hơn? VIETNAMNET
, [internet] 08 Jun. Available at: http://vietnamnet.vn/xahoi/2003/6/14759/ [Accessed
September 1, 2009].
59
SAKANSKA, (2008). Sustainability. [internet] Available at:
http://www.skanska.com/en/About-Skanska/Sustainability [Accessed September 1,
2009].
Silveira, S. (2005). Bioenergy: realizing the potential. Elsevier Science, p. 230.
Thang, D.D, (2006). New Urban Area Projects: A Major Solution for Housing
Development in Hanoi. [internet] Available at:
http://www.hdm.lth.se/fileadmin/hdm/alumni/papers/ad2001/ad2001-20.pdf [Accessed
September 1, 2009].
Thuan, T., (2008). Các khu đô thị mới còn nhiều bất cập. VIETNAMNET, [internet] 27
Jun. Available at:
http://www3.vietnamnet.vn/chinhtri/2008/06/790631/ [Accessed September 1, 2009].
Thu, T., (2008). Cần các giải pháp mới trong xây dựng nhà cao tầng. BAOXAYDUNG,
[internet] 30 Dec. Available at:
http://www.baoxaydung.vn/Main.aspx?MNU=1158&Style=1&ChiTiet=13462 [Accessed
September 1, 2009].
TienPhong, (2006). Khu đô thị mới : Chưa hoàn thiện đã lỗi thời. VIETNAMNET,
[internet] 18 Sep. Available at: http://www3.vietnamnet.vn/xahoi/dothi/2006/09/612971/
[Accessed September 1, 2009].
Truong, T., (2007). Chung cư Linh Đàm đang bị 'xẻ thịt'. CAND, [internet] 19 Jan.
Available at: http://ca.cand.com.vn/News/PrintView.aspx?ID=96076 [Accessed
September 1, 2009].
TT (06/06/2006), Cửa sổ nhà chung cư không... song sắt. VNMEDIA, [internet], 06 Jin.
Available at: http://www.vnmedia.vn/NewsDetail.asp?NewsId=54047&Catid=50
[Accessed September 1, 2009].
UN ESCAP, (1976). Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlements. [internet]
Available at: http://www.unescap.org/huset/whatis.htm [Accessed September 1, 2009].
UN-HABITAT, (1996) The Istanbul Declaration on Human Settlements. [internet]
60
Available at: http://ww2.unhabitat.org/declarations/Istanbul.asp [Accessed September
1, 2009].
United Nations, (2008). Half of global population will live in cities by end of this year,
predicts UN. [internet] Available at:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25762&Cr=population&Cr1
[Accessed September 1, 2009].
United Nation, (1992). ‘A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I) Report of the United Nations
conference on Environment and Development’. [internet] Available at:
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm [Accessed
September 1, 2009].
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (2009). Green Building: Basic
Information. [internet] Available at: http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/about.htm
[Accessed September 1, 2009].
USGBC, (2009). What LEED is? [internet] Available at:
http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1988 [Accessed September 1,
2009].
Vietnamese Department of Health, (2007). Khu đô thị Trung Hòa - Nhân Chính: Kinh
hoàng nước sinh hoạt nhiễm khuẩn E.Coli. Sức Khỏe & Đời Sống,. [internet] 29 Nov.
Available at: http://suckhoedoisong.vn/8356p0c61/khu-do-thi-trung-hoanhan-chinh-
kinh-hoang-nuoc-sinh-hoat-nhiem-khuan-ecoli.htm [Accessed September 1, 2009].
VINACONEX, (2009). Khu đô thị Trung Hòa - Nhân Chính. [internet] Available at:
http://www.vinaconex.com.vn/index.php?id=592 [Accessed September 1, 2009].
VINACONEX R&D, (2006). Executive Summary of 34T Apartment Building’s Design.
Ha Noi
Watson, S., (2008). Sustainability at the project level: the case of Willets Point,
Queens, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Urban Studies & Planning,
Master Thesis, p 11. [internet] Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/44349
[Accessed September 1, 2009].
61
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our common future.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987 p. 43.
Yeh, G.A. & Li, X. (2000). The Need for Compact Development in the FastGrowing
Areas of China: The Pearl River Delta. In Jenks, Mike., Burgess, Rod., ed. Compact
Cities : Sustainable Urban Forms for Developing Countries. London, GBR: Spon
Press, 2000. p 73. [internet] Available at:
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uon/Doc?id=10062752&ppg=34 [Accessed September 1,
2009].
62
Appendix
63
Figure 4: Comparison of average satisfaction by area in case A (LD) (x - Items / y - Score)
Figure 5: Comparison of average importance by area in case A (LD) (x - Items / y - Score)
6.40
5.73
5.144.93 4.80 4.74 4.67
4.32
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Ecological Environment Energy Use Public Facilities Indoor Environment
Satisfaction in case A by Areas
6.506.16 6.09 5.97
5.53 5.64 5.53 5.40
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Safety & Disaster
Prevention
Land Use &
Transportation
Indoor Environment Water Use
Importance in case A by Area
64
Figure 6: Improvement priority index by area in case A (LD) (x - Items / y - Score)
Figure 10: Improvement priority index by area in case B (THNC) (x - Items / y - Score)
1.2831.198
1.282
0.844
1.183 1.144 1.1341.243
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
Importance/Satisfaction in Case A
1.0661.199
1.515
1.3311.233
1.088 1.076
1.323
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
1.600
Importance / Satisfaction in Case B by Areas
65
Figure 8: Comparison of average satisfaction by area in case B (THNC) (x - Items / y - Score)
Figure 9: Comparison of average importance by area in case B (THNC) (x - Items / y - Score)
6.13
5.725.43
5.23
4.76 4.62
3.933.73
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Safety & Disaster
Prevention
Material, Waste &
Resources Use
Indoor Environment Ecological Environment
Satisfaction in case B by Areas
6.506.16 6.09 5.97
5.53 5.64 5.53 5.40
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Safety & Disaster
Prevention
Land Use &
Transportation
Indoor Environment Water Use
Importance in case B by Area
66
Figure 7: Improvement priority index by item in case A (LD) - (x - Items / y - Score)
1.58
1.34
1.69
1.29 1.271.23
1.49
1.22 1.21
1.501.45
1.23
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
Ve
hic
ula
r a
cce
ssib
ilit
y
Pu
bli
c tr
an
spo
rta
tio
n a
cce
ssib
ilit
y
Ho
me
vie
w
En
erg
y-s
av
ing
ele
ctri
c fa
cili
tie
s
Insu
lati
on
an
d a
ir t
igh
tne
ss
Na
tura
l d
ay
lig
ht
Na
tura
l v
en
tila
tio
n i
n c
om
mo
n a
rea
s
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty &
wa
ter
sup
ply
ing
ad
eq
ua
cy
Wa
ter
sav
ing
fa
cili
tie
s
Co
nd
itio
ns
of
ou
tdo
or
eco
log
ica
l la
nd
sca
pe
an
d g
ree
n a
rea
s
He
alt
hin
ess
of
roo
m’s
air
qu
ali
ty
We
t a
rea
’s a
ir f
low
qu
ali
ty
No
ise
le
ve
l
Co
nsi
de
rati
on
of
we
ak
, o
ld a
nd
dis
ab
led
pe
rso
ns
Siz
e o
f in
do
or
pla
nti
ng
sp
ace
s
Fle
xib
le a
nd
ad
ap
tab
le l
ay
ou
t
Du
rab
le a
nd
hu
ma
n-f
rie
nd
ly i
nte
rio
r
ma
teri
als
Wa
ste
dis
po
sal
faci
liti
es
Sa
fety
an
d a
larm
s sy
ste
ms
Se
curi
ty s
yst
em
s
Sp
ort
s a
nd
he
alt
hca
re f
aci
liti
es
for
resi
de
nts
Cu
ltu
ral
faci
liti
es
for
resi
de
nts
Sp
ace
fo
r co
mm
un
ity
's a
ctiv
itie
s
Ed
uca
tio
n f
aci
liti
es
Co
mm
erc
ial a
nd
le
isu
re f
aci
liti
es
Pa
rkin
g s
pa
ces
Land Use &
Transportation
Energy Use Water Use Eco-
Env
iron
ment
Indoor Environment Material, Waste &
Resource
Safety &
Disaster
Prevention
Public Facilities
Important/Satisfactory
67
Figure 11: Improvement priority index by item in case B (THNC) - (x - Items / y - Score)
1.537
2.093
1.2311.331
1.237
1.444
1.212 1.252
1.487
1.743
1.304 1.309
1.200
1.400
1.600
1.800
2.000
2.200V
eh
icu
lar
acc
ess
ibil
ity
Pu
bli
c tr
an
spo
rta
tio
n a
cce
ssib
ilit
y
Ho
me
vie
w
En
erg
y-s
av
ing
ele
ctri
c fa
cili
tie
s
Insu
lati
on
an
d a
ir t
igh
tne
ss
Na
tura
l d
ay
lig
ht
Na
tura
l v
en
tila
tio
n i
n c
om
mo
n a
rea
s
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty &
wa
ter
sup
ply
ing
ad
eq
ua
cy
Wa
ter
sav
ing
fa
cili
tie
s
Co
nd
itio
ns
of
ou
tdo
or
eco
log
ica
l la
nd
sca
pe
an
d g
ree
n a
rea
s
He
alt
hin
ess
of
roo
m’s
air
qu
ali
ty
We
t a
rea
’s a
ir f
low
qu
ali
ty
No
ise
le
ve
l
Co
nsi
de
rati
on
of
we
ak
, o
ld a
nd
dis
ab
led
pe
rso
ns
Siz
e o
f in
do
or
pla
nti
ng
sp
ace
s
Fle
xib
le a
nd
ad
ap
tab
le l
ay
ou
t
Du
rab
le a
nd
hu
ma
n-f
rie
nd
ly i
nte
rio
r
ma
teri
als
Wa
ste
dis
po
sal
faci
liti
es
Sa
fety
an
d a
larm
s sy
ste
ms
Se
curi
ty s
yst
em
s
Sp
ort
s a
nd
he
alt
hca
re f
aci
liti
es
for
resi
de
nts
Cu
ltu
ral
faci
liti
es
for
resi
de
nts
Sp
ace
fo
r co
mm
un
ity
's a
ctiv
itie
s
Ed
uca
tio
n f
aci
liti
es
Co
mm
erc
ial a
nd
le
isu
re f
aci
liti
es
Pa
rkin
g s
pa
ces
Land Use &
Transportation
Energy Use Water Use Eco-
Env
iron
ment
Indoor Environment Material, Waste &
Resource
Safety &
Disaster
Prevention
Public Facilities
Importance / Satisfaction in Case B by Items
68
Figure 12: Result of survey on comparison between satisfaction in case A (LD) and in case B (THNC) by area (x - Items / y - Score)
Site & Land Use Energy Use Water UseEcological
Environment
Indoor
Environment
Material, Waste
& Resource
Safety &
Disaster
Prevention
Public Facilities
Comparison of satisfaction by Areas 21 2 -14 -39 2 10 7 -4
21
2
-14
-39
2
10
7
-4
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
69
Figure 13: Result of survey on comparison between satisfaction in case A (LD) and in case B (THNC) by item - (x - Items / y - Score)
49 28
-4
15 3
-3 -2 -36
12
-39 -5
5
-18
30 4 5 13 12 7 7 1
-16 -11
13
-4 -6
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Ve
hic
ula
r a
cce
ssib
ilit
y
Pu
bli
c tr
an
spo
rta
tio
n a
cce
ssib
ilit
y
Ho
me
vie
w
En
erg
y-s
av
ing
ele
ctri
c fa
cili
tie
s
Insu
lati
on
an
d a
ir t
igh
tne
ss
Na
tura
l d
ay
lig
ht
Na
tura
l v
en
tila
tio
n i
n c
om
mo
n a
rea
s
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty &
wa
ter
sup
ply
ing
ad
eq
ua
cy
Wa
ter
sav
ing
fa
cili
tie
s
Co
nd
itio
ns
of
ou
tdo
or
eco
log
ica
l la
nd
sca
pe
an
d g
ree
n a
rea
s
He
alt
hin
ess
of
roo
m’s
air
qu
ali
ty
We
t a
rea
’s a
ir f
low
qu
ali
ty
No
ise
le
ve
l
Co
nsi
de
rati
on
of
we
ak
, o
ld a
nd
dis
ab
led
Siz
e o
f in
do
or
pla
nti
ng
sp
ace
s
Fle
xib
le a
nd
ad
ap
tab
le l
ay
ou
t
Du
rab
le a
nd
hu
ma
n-f
rie
nd
ly i
nte
rio
r
ma
teri
als
Wa
ste
dis
po
sal
faci
liti
es
Sa
fety
an
d a
larm
s sy
ste
ms
Se
curi
ty s
yst
em
s
Sp
ort
s a
nd
he
alt
hca
re f
aci
liti
es
for
resi
de
nts
Cu
ltu
ral
faci
liti
es
for
resi
de
nts
Sp
ace
fo
r co
mm
un
ity
's a
ctiv
itie
s
Ed
uca
tio
n f
aci
liti
es
Co
mm
erc
ial a
nd
le
isu
re f
aci
liti
es
Pa
rkin
g s
pa
ces
Comparison of satisfaction by Items
70
Figure 14: Result of survey on satisfaction in case A (LD) and case B (THNC) - (x - Items / y - Score)
4.13 4.07
6.03
3.57
5.03
5.93 6.03
5.03
3.60
6.40
5.80
4.97
5.43
3.733.43
4.734.93 5.13
5.40
6.07
5.134.47
3.77
4.37
5.20
5.876.17
5.20
5.80
4.10
5.17
5.775.90
3.23
4.03 3.93
5.535.20
4.434.87
3.57
4.97
5.575.77 5.80
6.47
5.17
3.773.37
4.93 4.97
5.53
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00V
eh
icu
lar
acc
ess
ibil
ity
Pu
bli
c tr
an
spo
rta
tio
n a
cce
ssib
ilit
y
Ho
me
vie
w
En
erg
y-s
av
ing
ele
ctri
c fa
cili
tie
s
Insu
lati
on
an
d a
ir t
igh
tne
ss
Na
tura
l d
ay
lig
ht
Na
tura
l v
en
tila
tio
n i
n c
om
mo
n a
rea
s
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty &
wa
ter
sup
ply
ing
ad
eq
ua
cy
Wa
ter
sav
ing
fa
cili
tie
s
Co
nd
itio
ns
of
ou
tdo
or
eco
log
ica
l la
nd
sca
pe
an
d
gre
en
are
as
He
alt
hin
ess
of
roo
m’s
air
qu
ali
ty
We
t a
rea
’s a
ir f
low
qu
ali
ty
No
ise
le
ve
l
Co
nsi
de
rati
on
of
we
ak
, o
ld a
nd
dis
ab
led
pe
rso
ns
Siz
e o
f in
do
or
pla
nti
ng
sp
ace
s
Fle
xib
le a
nd
ad
ap
tab
le l
ay
ou
t
Du
rab
le a
nd
hu
ma
n-f
rie
nd
ly i
nte
rio
r m
ate
ria
ls
Wa
ste
dis
po
sal
faci
liti
es
Sa
fety
an
d a
larm
s sy
ste
ms
Se
curi
ty s
yst
em
s
Sp
ort
s a
nd
he
alt
hca
re f
aci
liti
es
for
resi
de
nts
Cu
ltu
ral
faci
liti
es
for
resi
de
nts
Sp
ace
fo
r co
mm
un
ity
's a
ctiv
itie
s
Ed
uca
tio
n f
aci
liti
es
Co
mm
erc
ial a
nd
le
isu
re f
aci
liti
es
Pa
rkin
g s
pa
ces
Land Use &
Transportation
Energy Use Water Use Eco-
Env
iron
ment
Indoor Environment Material, Waste &
Resource
Safety &
Disaster
Prevention
Public Facilities
Indicators
Case A-Satisfaction Case B-Satisfaction
71
Figure 15: Result of survey on importance in case A (LD) and case B (THNC) - (x - Items / y - Score)
6.53
5.47
6.276.03
5.87
6.47 6.27 6.50
4.57
5.40
6.406.13
5.805.57
3.93
5.33
5.73 5.87
6.57 6.43
5.63
5.40
5.67
6.33 6.406.376.63
5.33
6.33 6.30
5.90
6.50 6.40
6.77
4.975.23
6.47 6.436.40
5.90
4.47
5.57
5.976.20
6.63 6.57
5.835.60 5.87
6.43 6.506.47
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00V
eh
icu
lar
acc
ess
ibil
ity
Pu
bli
c tr
an
spo
rta
tio
n a
cce
ssib
ilit
y
Ho
me
vie
w
En
erg
y-s
av
ing
ele
ctri
c fa
cili
tie
s
Insu
lati
on
an
d a
ir t
igh
tne
ss
Na
tura
l d
ay
lig
ht
Na
tura
l v
en
tila
tio
n i
n c
om
mo
n a
rea
s
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty &
wa
ter
sup
ply
ing
ad
eq
ua
cy
Wa
ter
sav
ing
fa
cili
tie
s
Co
nd
itio
ns
of
ou
tdo
or
eco
log
ica
l la
nd
sca
pe
an
d
gre
en
are
as
He
alt
hin
ess
of
roo
m’s
air
qu
ali
ty
We
t a
rea
’s a
ir f
low
qu
ali
ty
No
ise
le
ve
l
Co
nsi
de
rati
on
of
we
ak
, o
ld a
nd
dis
ab
led
pe
rso
ns
Siz
e o
f in
do
or
pla
nti
ng
sp
ace
s
Fle
xib
le a
nd
ad
ap
tab
le l
ay
ou
t
Du
rab
le a
nd
hu
ma
n-f
rie
nd
ly i
nte
rio
r m
ate
ria
ls
Wa
ste
dis
po
sal
faci
liti
es
Sa
fety
an
d a
larm
s sy
ste
ms
Se
curi
ty s
yst
em
s
Sp
ort
s a
nd
he
alt
hca
re f
aci
liti
es
for
resi
de
nts
Cu
ltu
ral
faci
liti
es
for
resi
de
nts
Sp
ace
fo
r co
mm
un
ity
's a
ctiv
itie
s
Ed
uca
tio
n f
aci
liti
es
Co
mm
erc
ial a
nd
le
isu
re f
aci
liti
es
Pa
rkin
g s
pa
ces
Land Use &
Transportation
Energy Use Water Use Eco-
Env
iron
ment
Indoor Environment Material, Waste &
Resource
Safety &
Disaster
Prevention
Public Facilities
Indicators
Case A-Importance Case B-Importance
Research Questionnaire – Sustainability Assessment
72
Part A: Basic information
In order to facilitate the research, please declare some following basic information about you and your accommodation:
Age < 30 30 - 40 40 – 50 50-60 > 60
Gender Male Female
Type of ownership Owned Leased
Unit size 50-75 m2 75-100 m2 100-125 m2 >125 m2
Number of years living in < 2yrs 02 – 05 yrs > 05 yrs
Number of households 1 2 – 4 > 4
Monthly family Income < 10 ml (VND) 10 ml – 20 ml > 20 ml
Occupation Specialists Self- employed Office workers Other
Type of former house Detached house Soviet Union-style apartment Other
Research Questionnaire – Sustainability Assessment
73
Part B: Questions for Satisfactory/Concern
The questions are divided into 8 groups including Land Use & Transportation; Energy Use; Water Use, Ecological Environment; Indoor Environment; Material, Waster
and Resource Use; Safety and Disaster Prevention; Public Facilities. Please answer these questions by ticking into the appropriate box.
Question
Very Unsatisfactory <----------------------> Very Satisfactory
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lan
d U
se &
Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
1. Are you satisfactory with the home’s vehicular accessibility?
2. Are you satisfactory with public transportation assessibility of the home’s site?
3. Are you satisfactory with the home’s view?
En
erg
y
Use
4. Are your satisfied with the transportation ability by private vehicle form and to your areas?
5. Are your satisfied with the public transportation systems (bus, train…) link to your areas?
6. Are you satisfied with the pedestrian passages in the area?
4. Are you satisfactory with the home’s energy-saving electric facilities?
5. Are you satisfactory with the home’s insulation and air tightness?
6. Are you satisfactory with the home’s natural daylight?
7. Are you satisfactory with the home’s natural ventilation in common areas?
Research Questionnaire – Sustainability Assessment
74
Question
Very Unsatisfactory <----------------------> Very Satisfactory
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W
ate
r U
se
8. Are you satisfactory with the home’s quality and water supplying adequacy?
9. Are you satisfactory with the home’s water saving facilities?
Eco
log
ica
l
En
vir
on
me
nt
10. Are you satisfactory with the conditions of outdoor ecological landscape and green areas?
Ind
oo
r E
nv
iro
nm
en
t
11. Are you satisfactory with the home’s healthiness of room’s air quality?
12. Are you satisfactory with the home’s home’s wet areas’ air quality?
13. Are you satisfactory with the home’s noise level?
14. Are you satisfactory with the home’s design in consideration of weak, old and disabled persons?
15. Are you satisfactory with the home’s size of indoor planting space?
Research Questionnaire – Sustainability Assessment
75
Question
Very Unsatisfactory <----------------------> Very Satisfactory
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 M
ate
ria
l, W
ast
e
& R
eco
urs
e U
se
16. Are you satisfactory with the home’s flexible and adaptable layout?
17. Are you satisfactory with the home’s durable and human-friendly interior material?
18. Are you satisfactory with the home’s waste disposal facilities?
Sa
fety
& d
isa
ste
r
pre
ve
nti
on
19. Are you satisfactory with the home’s safety and alarms system?
20. Are you satisfactory with the home’s security system?
Pu
bli
c fa
cili
tie
s
21. Are you satisfactory with the complex’s sports and healthcare facilities for residents?
22. Are you satisfactory with the complex’s cultural facilities for residents (e.g. libraries)?
23. Are you satisfactory with the complex’s space for community’s activities ?
24. Are you satisfactory with the complex’s education facilities (e.g. kindergartens & schools, etc)?
25. Are you satisfactory with the complex’s commercial and leisure facilities (e.g. supermarkets and
shops)?
26. Are you satisfactory with the complex’s parking space?
Research Questionnaire – Sustainability Assessment
76
Part C: Questions for Importance
The questions are divided into 8 groups including Land Use & Transportation; Energy Use; Water Use, Ecological Environment; Indoor Environment; Material, Waster
and Resource Use; Safety and Disaster Prevention; Public Facilities. Please answer these questions by ticking into the appropriate box.
Question
Very Unimportant <----------------------> Very Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lan
d U
se &
Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
1. How much important you think the home’s vehicular accessibility is?
2. How much important you think public transportation accessibility of the home’s site is?
3. How much important you think the home’s view is?
En
erg
y
Use
4. Are your satisfied with the transportation ability by private vehicle form and to your areas?
5. Are your satisfied with the public transportation systems (bus, train…) link to your areas?
6. Are you satisfied with the pedestrian passages in the area?
4. How much important you think the home’s energy-saving electric facilities are?
5. How much important you think the home’s insulation and air tightness are?
6. How much important you think the home’s natural daylight is?
7. How much important you think the home’s natural ventilation in common areas is?
Research Questionnaire – Sustainability Assessment
77
Question
Very Unimportant <----------------------> Very Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W
ate
r U
se
8. How much important you think with the home’s water quality and water supplying adequacy are?
9. How much important you think the home’s water saving facilities are?
Eco
log
ica
l
En
vir
on
me
nt
10. How much important you think the conditions of outdoor ecological landscape and green areas
are?
Ind
oo
r E
nv
iro
nm
en
t
11. How much important you think the home’s healthiness of room’s air quality is?
12. How much important you think the home’s healthiness of wet areas’ air quality is?
13. How much important you think the home’s noise level is?
14. How much important you think the home’s design in consideration of weak, old and disabled
persons is?
15. How much important you think the home’s size of indoor planting space is?
Research Questionnaire – Sustainability Assessment
78
Question
Very Unimportant <----------------------> Very Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 M
ate
ria
l, W
ast
e
& R
eco
urs
e U
se
16. How much important you think the home’s flexible and adaptable layout is?
17. How much important you think the home’s durable and human-friendly interior material is?
18. How much important you think the home’s waste disposal facilities are?
Sa
fety
& d
isa
ste
r
pre
ve
nti
on
19. How much important you think the home’s safety and alarms systems are?
20. How much important you think the home’s security system is?
Pu
bli
c fa
cili
tie
s
21. How much important you think the complex’s sports and healthcare facilities for residents are?
22. How much important you think the complex’s cultural facilities for residents (e.g. libraries) are?
23. How much important do you think the complex’s space for community’s activities is?
24. How much important do you think the complex’s education facilities (e.g. kindergartens & schools,
etc) are?
25. How much important do you think the complex’s commercial facilities such (e.g. supermarkets and
shops) are?
26. How much important do you think the complex’s parking space is?