Sustainability Assessment and Development Direction - High-rise Residential Complexes in New Urban Areas in Hanoi, Vietnam

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


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



Home view 6.27








and green areas

5.40 5.40



Noise level 5.80

Consideration of weak, old and disabled

persons

5.57


Material, Waste &

Resource

Flexible and adaptable layout

5.33 5.64


materials 5.73


Safety & Disaster

Prevention

Safety and alarms systems

6.57 6.50







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


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



Home view 5.80








and green areas

3.93 3.93



Noise level 4.43

Consideration of weak, old and disabled 4.87


Material, Waste &

Resources use



materials

5.57


Safety & Disaster

Prevention








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


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



Home view 6.33








and green areas

5.23 5.23



Noise level 6.40

Consideration of weak, old and disabled

persons

5.90


Material, Waste &

Resources Use



materials

5.97


Safety & Disaster

Prevention








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


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:


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


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


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


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/


Lang, T.N., (2007). Sustainable Settlement in Urban Development of Hanoi,

Vietnam. [internet] Available at: http://www.asiasustainabilitynet.upc.edu/pdf/U005.pdf


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


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/


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


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


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


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


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:


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


Env

iron

ment


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


Env

iron

ment


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


Env

iron

ment


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


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?


74

Question


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?


75

Question


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?


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?


77

Question


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?


78

Question


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?

Documents

Sustainability Assessment and Development Direction - High-rise Residential Complexes in New Urban Areas in Hanoi, Vietnam