- Email: [email protected]
Building up a System of Indicators to Measure Social Housing Quality in Vietnam
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Procedia Engineering 142 (2016) 115 – 122
Sustainable Development of Civil, Urban and Transportation Engineering Conference
Building up a System of Indicators to Measure Social Housing Quality in Vietnam Lan Huong Lea,*, Anh Dung Taa, Hoang Quyen Danga a
Faculty of Architecture and Planning, National University of Civil Engineering (NUCE), 55 GiaiPhong Road, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam
Abstract Development of social housing is an important and urgent issue that needs the attention of the Government as well as the entire construction industry to meet the welfare needs of regular citizens and to achieve social stability. There always appear two sides of a coin in the development of housing projects: “quality” and “price”. Both of the two elements are important, however cost reduction seems to be of utmost importance to social housing projects rather than quality factor. In fact, the role of construction quality is sometimes considered redundant, which leads to long-term effects for users, and this addresses the reason why people gradually lose faith in social housing provisions. Therefore, it is necessary to set up a system of a workable set of indicators to measure social housing quality. The assessing system is not only beneficial for investors, consultants to apprehend their housing products, but also for regular citizens to make a better choice in buying themselves an apartment, and this is the aim of our research. © 2016 2016The TheAuthors. Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © Published by Elsevier Ltd. This (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CUTE 2016. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CUTE 2016 Keywords: Assessing system of housing quality; housing quality indicators
1. Social circumstances and research question Vietnam is in the process of rapid urbanization, and the need of housing is not an issue that can be ignored any longer. Although the Government has issued policies that offer tax deductions, provide loans for investors as well as allocate land for social housing to promote the supply of affordable housing market However, in parallel with the development of social housing to meet the required quantity, housing quality is
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 0084986699698; E-mail address: [email protected]
1877-7058 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CUTE 2016
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.02.021
116
Lan Huong Le et al. / Procedia Engineering 142 (2016) 115 – 122
also something that we need to keep in mind. Many social housing projects invested inconsistently have been handed over and put into use. As the result, these projects that lack infrastructure services and social infrastructure reveal the shortcomings in the design, construction and management, and cause severe long-term effects for users. So as to provide people of middle and low income with access to housing, it is crucial to think a way to reduce housing cost. However to achieve that goal, many social housing projects have been situated too far away from the centre, with a lack of proper infrastructure, equipment, design and quality manipulation. This raises a question of how to distinguish cheap projects with poor quality from affordable projects that minimize the cost on the one hand, yet still assure the quality on the other hand? It is clearly seen that price for sale/rent can not be used as a reasonable measure to evaluate social housing quality, and thus it is essential to set up a measurement and assessment tool to evaluate housing on the basis of quality rather than simply of cost. Therefore, the research team has developed “a system of indicators to measure social housing quality" with the desire to contribute an authentic and more concrete perspective about the current situation of social/ affordable housing projects in Vietnam. This is the content of our research proposal that was funded by National University of Civil Engineering and was commissioned in 2014 with rave reviews. 2. Literature review: An overview of housing quality systems in some nations and lessons learned 2.1. Some housing quality systems studied Assessment criteria for housing quality was firstly established in France then rapidly developed in European countries and in the US, in the past few decades. Since then many Asian countries have been following by setting up distinct systems to measure housing quality. The criteria system can be varied at distinct levels to meet the demands of different organizations that could be governmental departments and agencies or even (just) a team project. France France established a housing evaluating system called Qualitel in 1974 by Qualitel Association. The Qualitel Association defined a series of criteria evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 corresponds to the minimum standard and 5 is a comprehensive design solution. Qualitel profile is simple, straightforward and easily understandable by non-technicians [1]. Switzerland SEL method - Système d'Évaluation of Logements based on a federal law in 1974 was established in Switzerland. The analyzed components including 39 indicators that have currently been using up to now are, entirely, in the architecture's domain. The rating scale of the SEL method, as the Qualitel method, has 5 levels of evaluation ranging from 0 to 4. Each criterion is given a weighting value, and the final grade is the sum of each mark in each criterion. The weighting values that were established by a team of 7 researchers who are deeply knowledgeable about the housing needs are periodically reviewed.
(1) (VU: final grade, P: weighting value, n: criterion) The United Kingdom Since 1996, the Housing Corporation [2], in collaboration with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), has been establishing the development of Housing Quality Indicators (HQI). The HQI system is a measurement and assessment tool designed to evaluate housing projects on the basis of quality rather than simply of cost. The HQI covers ten indicators: 1. Location, 2. Master plan of the building, 3. Open space; 4. Traffic, 5. Unit (Apartment)’s size, 6. Unit (Apartment)’s layout, 7. Noise and light manipulation, 8. Accessibility, 9. Sustainability, 10. Vision for life. Each indicator contains a series of questions for both investors and clients. The information from the HQI form is transferred to a spreadsheet that is used to calculate the final score (aggregate result). It is the profile of the ten different indicators that gives the most useful information about the strengths and weaknesses of a housing
Lan Huong Le et al. / Procedia Engineering 142 (2016) 115 – 122
scheme. Portugal This method was developed by J. M. Costa [1]. Just as the SEL method, MC.FEUP provides a system whose main purpose is to assess dwelling's quality. Each indicator includes three parts: a general description of the objective, a proposed evaluation procedure and directives on how to apply. In this method, the satisfaction level in the various evaluation criteria is measured on a scale of 0 to 4. In the same way as SEL, the final result of the method is the sum of all indicators with their weighting points. This weighting point was obtained by consulting a set of experts, architects and engineers from different expertises implemented by the Swiss Federal Office of Housing. India In a survey in India [3], a research team proposed SMSM method to evaluate housing’s quality in the state of Kerala. After detailed discussions with experts in the related field, 47 factors for assessing the quality of housing is built up, then divided into 7 indicators: Location, Infrastructure, Design, Material, Construction technology, Sustainability and Concept. A questionnaire was proposed on a five point scale, that is, 1. Not important, 2. Fairly important, 3. Important, 4. Very important, 5. Extremely important. The middle income group was taken as the target population. The data were finally collected and analyzed by software called SPSS 9.0. South Korea According to a study on assessment of the housing market carried out by Institute of South Korean Real Estate in 2011 [4], so as to determine housing quality, a quality evaluation system that is comprised of 4 major elements: indoor residential environment, environment of inner complex, environment of surroundings, services and other factors was set up. Regarding the method, the way that the system conducts quality assessment is similar to the British High Quality Image and Swiss SEL. Especially in this study, the quality models are matched with the price based on the PIF (Perfect Information Frontier), which is a mean that has been applying for years to assess other commodity products. PIF currently is being applied in many studies on housing in South Korea, Hongkong and Sigapore. In addition, the research team also refers to several studies in Vietnam such as: a research project funded by Ministry of Construction: "Evaluating indicators and method to assess quality of multi – storey buildings” [5]. 2.2. Lessons learned to build up the system of quality indicators to measure social housing quality in Vietnam a) The necessity to set up the system So as to provide the people of middle and low income with access to housing, it is crucial to think a way to reduce housing cost. However, so as to obtain the goal, there should be a system of criteria for assessing the quality of construction solutions. On the one hand, this system assists investors, consultants in understanding and then completing their housing products properly, on the other hand, it provides a tool for regular citizens to make a better choice in buying themselves an apartment. The development of social housing, therefore, will be gradually more competitive and transparent. The assessing system needs to separate the quality from the cost, in other words, cost factor should be regarded as a different axis when comparing and choosing housing products. b) How to set up the assessment system Although each nation establishes a different housing assessment system, these systems contain many similarities. Basically, the process of setting up an evaluation system includes: x Set up quality indicators and their component factors. x Based on experts’ study to determine crucial indicators with weighting points for each indicator as well as each component factor. x Supplement the system with the current standards and other evaluation systems. The evaluation process:
117
118
Lan Huong Le et al. / Procedia Engineering 142 (2016) 115 – 122
x Choosing housing products to evaluate. The evaluators may be experts and regular citizens who are currently practicing their daily lives in those social housings. x Establish the satisfaction level that is measured on a scale of 1 to 5 or ranked on 3 scales: Pass, Fair, Good to evaluate each component factor in each indicator. x Calculate the total points of each indicator based on the weighting values (points) of the component factors. x Calculate the total points of housing products based on the points of all quality indicators. x Comparison and conclusion. c) Quality indicators The quality indicators can be varied based on different economic, social and cultural conditions of distinct regions or nations. In India, technical infrastructure indicator that includes several component factors such as: public water supply system, public drainage system, common waste disposal facilities, garbage disposal facility, and independent well is considered as the most important. On the other hand, in developed countries, other indicators are “put upon the pedestal”, for example, in South Korea, security indicator seems to be the most important one, while in Britain, building a vision for life is what people pay the most attention. With the current situation of Vietnam, we propose the 3 following major quality indicators, each of which contains several component factors listed in tables below: x Location: Location demonstrates the ability to connect the building and its residents with urban life. For those with low income, social housing that is away from the downtown will increase the difficulties in accessing employment and social infrastructure. x Master plan of the building: Quality of living space is not only reflected in the area (m2) of apartments, but also in outdoor public spaces such as gardens, footpaths and other public facilities. For social housing, the area of each apartment is not big, thus outdoor spaces should be designed to increase the quality of life for residents by opening up possibilities for people to connect with nature and enhancing social community. x Architecture: Architecture is one of the most important indicators to evaluate the use value of a building. Using the word architecture here, we mean not only the design of private apartments but also common zones such as technical zone, corridors, stairs, etc. For social housing’s apartments, people concern much about the number of rooms, the flexibility of spaces and the microclimate in apartments rather than just the total area. In addition, building infrastructure including electricity and water supply system, elevator, fire fighting system, garbage disposal facility also plays an important role. 3. Building up a system of a workable set of indicators to measure social housing quality in Vietnam Step 1: Determine the quality indicators and prepare questionnaire for experts Identifying the indicator bases on: x Studying several housing quality assessment systems currently used in other nations (United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Portugal, India, South Korea) x Legal, economic, technical frameworks for social housing; current forms of social housing and their construction solutions. x Experts’ assessments Step 2: Make a list of experts and conduct interviews The list of experts includes professionals in many different majors including architecture, civil engineering, economy, etc. The scope of activities is in the fields of management, education, construction, etc. The architects and engineers who were interviewed have at least 5 years’ experience in the field of construction, and the majority of those experts have over 12 years’ experience. The interviewing method is both direct interview and questionnaires sent over the network. Besides the 60 experts in the field of construction, we also conducted a survey of 150 families currently living in social housing projects that include Dang Xa, Sai Dong, Viet Hung, Dai Mo and Kien Hung projects, and more than
119
Lan Huong Le et al. / Procedia Engineering 142 (2016) 115 – 122
80 individuals or households who are eligible beneficiaries of social housing policies. Testimonials and aspirations of the interviewed citizens were taken into consideration to adjust the quality indicators as well as their weighting points. Step 3: Data processing The aim of the questionnaire is to evaluate the importance of quality indicators with their component factors that the research team proposed. However, it is also possible for interviewed experts and citizens to suggest additional quality indicators and factors. If additional factors overlap in at least 3 votes, the team will consider adding them. The weighting points of all factors indicated by the interviewed experts from the questionnaire (ranging from 0 to 4) were used to calculate the percentage of the importance of each factor with conventional overall value of 100. A quality indicator includes n component factors. For example, the total point of the 1st factor is X1, the 2nd factor is X2, the 3rd factor is X3… according to the experts. If this group (indicator) accounts for 100%, the weighting point of factor Xi in the indicator would be:
(2)
4. A summary of the social housing quality indicators Besides a summary of the quality factors, the team also guided people to understand how to assess, how to define a factor as: Pass, Fair and Good as well as how to score each factor. Particularly, the level of satisfaction is divided into: Good, Fair, Pass and Fail. The ground given for the level of assessment bases on the principles, standards and rules related architecture and urban planning. Some factors that have no specific criteria (such as "vision for future", "community cohesion, “culture", etc) are considered to be judged on the popular conception or other specific characteristics. So as to make the assessment easier for both experts and regular citizens, the team came up with the table called: "Quality indicators to assess social housing quality". The table was given out to simplify the assessment process. There are 4 levels of satisfaction: Good (100%), Fair (75%), Pass (50%) and Fail. Points would be rounded to 0.25, and the evaluators are able to use the guidelines as a tool to score social housing projects. Table 1. 12 indicators proposed by the research team No.
Indicators
1
Location
2
3
4
Component factors
Distance to the center Distance to the working areas From the building to external transportation systems Evaluation of the neighbourhoods The potential of the location in future development Distance to the current Distance to the market social facilities Distance to the shopping mall Distance to the kindergarten Distance to the primary school. Distance to the secondary/ high school Distance to the cultural center Distance to the sport center Distance to the medical center Distance to the park, open spaces Evaluation of the master Features of the site Index of urban planning articles plan of the building Infrastructure Building’s direction External services Landscape General issues in terms of The height of each storey “building design” Structural span The layout of the building
Levels of satisfaction Fail Pass Fair 0 0,75 1,5 0 1,25 1,75
Good 1,75 2,5
0
1,5
2,25
2,75
0/-1
1
1,5
2
0
1
1,5
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
0,75 0,75 0,75 0,5 0,25 0,75 0,75 0,5 0,75 0,75 1 1 0,5 0,75 0,75 1,25 1,25 1,25
1,25 1,25 1 0,75 0,5 1 1 0,75 1,25 1 1,5 1,5 0,75 1,25 1,25 1,75 1,75 1,75
1,5 1,5 1,25 1 0,75 1,25 1,25 1 1,5 1,25 2 1,75 1 1,5 1,5 2,5 2,5 2,5
Score
11
11
9
9,5
120
Lan Huong Le et al. / Procedia Engineering 142 (2016) 115 – 122
No.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Indicators
Component factors
Suitable for industrializing Movement inside the Elevator building Stair Corridor Fire escape Public spaces of the Lobby building Communal spaces Other spaces (such as: parking area) Technical areas Electricity and water supply Technical storey Waste collection The total area and the Total area (m2) Quantity of bedrooms, bathrooms number of rooms in apartments/ units Flexibility Structure of spaces inside Space’s layout, its form and dimension. each apartment/ unit Movement Position of walls and partitions. Apartment’s Ventilation microclimate Illumination Sun-proof Noise-proof Apartment’s equipments Electronic equipment Bathroom equipment Kitchen equipment Fire alarm equipment Ventilation equipment Others Sustainable solution Rational expenses Accessibility for disabled Security Community Ability of building management TOTAL SCORE
Levels of satisfaction Fail Pass Fair 1 1,5 2 2,5 1 1,5 1,25 1,75 1,25 1,75 1 1,5 1 1,5 0,75 1,25 1 1,5 0,75 1,25 1 1,5 2 3 1,75 2,5 0 1,75 2,5 1 1,5 1 1,5 1 1,5 0 1 1,5 0 1 1,5 0 1 1,5 0 1 1,5 0,75 1 0,75 1 0,75 1 0,75 1 0,75 1 0 0,75 1 0,75 1,25 0 0,75 1 0 0,75 1 0 0,75 1 0,75 1,25 50 75
Good 2 3 2 2,25 2,25 2 2 1,5 2 1,5 2 4 3,5 3,5 2 2 2 2 2 1,75 1,75 1,5 1,25 1,25 1,25 1,25 1,25 1,5 1,25 1,25 1,25 1,5 100
Score
9,5
5,5
5,5
11
6
7,5
6,5
8
100
5. Case study Hanoi now has more than 10 social housing projects currently being in use. To serve the objective of the study, the team selected three social housing projects in high-rise format as case studies. The selected projects are: Building CT6 - Dang Xa, Sai Dong - Housing for low-income people and Viet Hung social housing.
Fig. 1. Summary of quality indicators in Dang Xa, Sai Dong and Viet Hung projects
Lan Huong Le et al. / Procedia Engineering 142 (2016) 115 – 122
Remark The quality assessment system of social housing helps investors, regular citizens and consultants be aware of the strengths as well as the weaknesses of their social housing products, which paves the way for upgrading social housing quality in the future. By comparing the total score among different projects, regular citizens are able to make a better choice when they buy or rent an apartment. Besides, they are also able to consider all 12 indicators and 55 specific component factors to determine the most suitable place for them. For example, if there appear 2 social housings that have the same total scores, a family with children would be more likely to choose the one that has a higher score in “Distance to the primary school” factor.
Fig. 2. Comparisons between the quality and price of the 3 social housing projects: Dang Xa, Sai Dong, Viet Hung
Fig. 3. Perfect Information Frontier based on prices and quality marks of social housing projects in Hanoi.
Fig. 4. Comparing the 3 social housing projects in term of urban planning and architecture (according to 12 indicators)
The quality assessment system plays a crucial role in quantifying the quality of social housing projects. By applying the system, people now have a multi-dimensional view of housing. At the same time, social housing
121
122
Lan Huong Le et al. / Procedia Engineering 142 (2016) 115 – 122
investors are able to realize the true value of their products in the market. During the study, the research group figured out that some factors would be improved or changed in a near future, while others would make a long-term influence on people who are currently living in the area. These longterm factors should be carefully studied at the first stage of designing, for it will be not easy to repair, renovate or upgrade them later. The table below is taken to refer to the level of influences of the 12 quality indicators. Table 2. Indicators’ impact. Quality indicators
Impact Levels Short term
Medium term
Long term
Location Distance to the current social facilities The master plan of the building General issues in terms of “building design” Movement inside the building Public spaces of the building Technical areas The total area and the number of rooms in apartments Structure of spaces inside each apartment Apartment’s microclimate Apartment’s equipments Others
6. Conclusion All in all, there should be a quality assessment system to develop social housing in Vietnam. In this research, the system was built up base on a serious study and credible figures. The quality assessment system includes 12 indicators and 55 specific component factors that well cover almost aspects of Vietnamese social housing. What we have done is just the first stage to establish the system, and it is necessary to standardize and upgrade the system step by step. It is also essential to make the system popular to all people involved in social housing. As the result, everyone would apprehend and bring the system into use. The system can be digitalized in order to become more convenient for users. Before applying the quality assessment system, it would be better to consider distinct characteristics of different areas. In this study, we already proposed the first version of standard assessment system, which is suitable for mega cities in Vietnam. Based on the former system, each area should add or subtract evaluating factors to create another system that is more proper for the characteristics, culture or lifestyle of the zone. The quality assessment system should be updated periodically (5-year-period or 10-year-period) so as to suit policy’s changes, new design standards, neo construction technology or lifestyle, etc. Measuring social housing’s quality must be reassessed periodically to improve the efforts of investors, management boards and communities, in other words, reassessing would revitalize the quality of social housing. References [1] Jorge Moreira da Costa, Maria Francisca Sampaio, User Information in the housing market, World Congress on Housing October 26 – 29, Santander, Spain, 2010. [2] Harrison, “A. Housing Quality Indicators”. DEGW plc, London, 1999. [3] Dr. Sudhi Mary Kurian & Dr. Ashalatha Thampuran, Assessment of Housing Quality, Institute of Town Planners, India Journal, 2011, 74–85. [4] Jae Soon Lee & Dong-Hoon Oh, Housing quality evaluation and housing choice using PIF: A case of the Bundang New Town housing market in Korea, International Journal of Urban Sciences, 2012, 63-83. [5] Pro. The Phong Ngo, “Evaluating indicators and method to measure quality of multi-storey buildings”, ISBN: RD-05-02, 2004.
ScienceDirect Procedia Engineering 142 (2016) 115 – 122
Sustainable Development of Civil, Urban and Transportation Engineering Conference
Building up a System of Indicators to Measure Social Housing Quality in Vietnam Lan Huong Lea,*, Anh Dung Taa, Hoang Quyen Danga a
Faculty of Architecture and Planning, National University of Civil Engineering (NUCE), 55 GiaiPhong Road, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam
Abstract Development of social housing is an important and urgent issue that needs the attention of the Government as well as the entire construction industry to meet the welfare needs of regular citizens and to achieve social stability. There always appear two sides of a coin in the development of housing projects: “quality” and “price”. Both of the two elements are important, however cost reduction seems to be of utmost importance to social housing projects rather than quality factor. In fact, the role of construction quality is sometimes considered redundant, which leads to long-term effects for users, and this addresses the reason why people gradually lose faith in social housing provisions. Therefore, it is necessary to set up a system of a workable set of indicators to measure social housing quality. The assessing system is not only beneficial for investors, consultants to apprehend their housing products, but also for regular citizens to make a better choice in buying themselves an apartment, and this is the aim of our research. © 2016 2016The TheAuthors. Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © Published by Elsevier Ltd. This (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CUTE 2016. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CUTE 2016 Keywords: Assessing system of housing quality; housing quality indicators
1. Social circumstances and research question Vietnam is in the process of rapid urbanization, and the need of housing is not an issue that can be ignored any longer. Although the Government has issued policies that offer tax deductions, provide loans for investors as well as allocate land for social housing to promote the supply of affordable housing market However, in parallel with the development of social housing to meet the required quantity, housing quality is
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 0084986699698; E-mail address: [email protected]
1877-7058 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CUTE 2016
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.02.021
116
Lan Huong Le et al. / Procedia Engineering 142 (2016) 115 – 122
also something that we need to keep in mind. Many social housing projects invested inconsistently have been handed over and put into use. As the result, these projects that lack infrastructure services and social infrastructure reveal the shortcomings in the design, construction and management, and cause severe long-term effects for users. So as to provide people of middle and low income with access to housing, it is crucial to think a way to reduce housing cost. However to achieve that goal, many social housing projects have been situated too far away from the centre, with a lack of proper infrastructure, equipment, design and quality manipulation. This raises a question of how to distinguish cheap projects with poor quality from affordable projects that minimize the cost on the one hand, yet still assure the quality on the other hand? It is clearly seen that price for sale/rent can not be used as a reasonable measure to evaluate social housing quality, and thus it is essential to set up a measurement and assessment tool to evaluate housing on the basis of quality rather than simply of cost. Therefore, the research team has developed “a system of indicators to measure social housing quality" with the desire to contribute an authentic and more concrete perspective about the current situation of social/ affordable housing projects in Vietnam. This is the content of our research proposal that was funded by National University of Civil Engineering and was commissioned in 2014 with rave reviews. 2. Literature review: An overview of housing quality systems in some nations and lessons learned 2.1. Some housing quality systems studied Assessment criteria for housing quality was firstly established in France then rapidly developed in European countries and in the US, in the past few decades. Since then many Asian countries have been following by setting up distinct systems to measure housing quality. The criteria system can be varied at distinct levels to meet the demands of different organizations that could be governmental departments and agencies or even (just) a team project. France France established a housing evaluating system called Qualitel in 1974 by Qualitel Association. The Qualitel Association defined a series of criteria evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 corresponds to the minimum standard and 5 is a comprehensive design solution. Qualitel profile is simple, straightforward and easily understandable by non-technicians [1]. Switzerland SEL method - Système d'Évaluation of Logements based on a federal law in 1974 was established in Switzerland. The analyzed components including 39 indicators that have currently been using up to now are, entirely, in the architecture's domain. The rating scale of the SEL method, as the Qualitel method, has 5 levels of evaluation ranging from 0 to 4. Each criterion is given a weighting value, and the final grade is the sum of each mark in each criterion. The weighting values that were established by a team of 7 researchers who are deeply knowledgeable about the housing needs are periodically reviewed.
(1) (VU: final grade, P: weighting value, n: criterion) The United Kingdom Since 1996, the Housing Corporation [2], in collaboration with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), has been establishing the development of Housing Quality Indicators (HQI). The HQI system is a measurement and assessment tool designed to evaluate housing projects on the basis of quality rather than simply of cost. The HQI covers ten indicators: 1. Location, 2. Master plan of the building, 3. Open space; 4. Traffic, 5. Unit (Apartment)’s size, 6. Unit (Apartment)’s layout, 7. Noise and light manipulation, 8. Accessibility, 9. Sustainability, 10. Vision for life. Each indicator contains a series of questions for both investors and clients. The information from the HQI form is transferred to a spreadsheet that is used to calculate the final score (aggregate result). It is the profile of the ten different indicators that gives the most useful information about the strengths and weaknesses of a housing
Lan Huong Le et al. / Procedia Engineering 142 (2016) 115 – 122
scheme. Portugal This method was developed by J. M. Costa [1]. Just as the SEL method, MC.FEUP provides a system whose main purpose is to assess dwelling's quality. Each indicator includes three parts: a general description of the objective, a proposed evaluation procedure and directives on how to apply. In this method, the satisfaction level in the various evaluation criteria is measured on a scale of 0 to 4. In the same way as SEL, the final result of the method is the sum of all indicators with their weighting points. This weighting point was obtained by consulting a set of experts, architects and engineers from different expertises implemented by the Swiss Federal Office of Housing. India In a survey in India [3], a research team proposed SMSM method to evaluate housing’s quality in the state of Kerala. After detailed discussions with experts in the related field, 47 factors for assessing the quality of housing is built up, then divided into 7 indicators: Location, Infrastructure, Design, Material, Construction technology, Sustainability and Concept. A questionnaire was proposed on a five point scale, that is, 1. Not important, 2. Fairly important, 3. Important, 4. Very important, 5. Extremely important. The middle income group was taken as the target population. The data were finally collected and analyzed by software called SPSS 9.0. South Korea According to a study on assessment of the housing market carried out by Institute of South Korean Real Estate in 2011 [4], so as to determine housing quality, a quality evaluation system that is comprised of 4 major elements: indoor residential environment, environment of inner complex, environment of surroundings, services and other factors was set up. Regarding the method, the way that the system conducts quality assessment is similar to the British High Quality Image and Swiss SEL. Especially in this study, the quality models are matched with the price based on the PIF (Perfect Information Frontier), which is a mean that has been applying for years to assess other commodity products. PIF currently is being applied in many studies on housing in South Korea, Hongkong and Sigapore. In addition, the research team also refers to several studies in Vietnam such as: a research project funded by Ministry of Construction: "Evaluating indicators and method to assess quality of multi – storey buildings” [5]. 2.2. Lessons learned to build up the system of quality indicators to measure social housing quality in Vietnam a) The necessity to set up the system So as to provide the people of middle and low income with access to housing, it is crucial to think a way to reduce housing cost. However, so as to obtain the goal, there should be a system of criteria for assessing the quality of construction solutions. On the one hand, this system assists investors, consultants in understanding and then completing their housing products properly, on the other hand, it provides a tool for regular citizens to make a better choice in buying themselves an apartment. The development of social housing, therefore, will be gradually more competitive and transparent. The assessing system needs to separate the quality from the cost, in other words, cost factor should be regarded as a different axis when comparing and choosing housing products. b) How to set up the assessment system Although each nation establishes a different housing assessment system, these systems contain many similarities. Basically, the process of setting up an evaluation system includes: x Set up quality indicators and their component factors. x Based on experts’ study to determine crucial indicators with weighting points for each indicator as well as each component factor. x Supplement the system with the current standards and other evaluation systems. The evaluation process:
117
118
Lan Huong Le et al. / Procedia Engineering 142 (2016) 115 – 122
x Choosing housing products to evaluate. The evaluators may be experts and regular citizens who are currently practicing their daily lives in those social housings. x Establish the satisfaction level that is measured on a scale of 1 to 5 or ranked on 3 scales: Pass, Fair, Good to evaluate each component factor in each indicator. x Calculate the total points of each indicator based on the weighting values (points) of the component factors. x Calculate the total points of housing products based on the points of all quality indicators. x Comparison and conclusion. c) Quality indicators The quality indicators can be varied based on different economic, social and cultural conditions of distinct regions or nations. In India, technical infrastructure indicator that includes several component factors such as: public water supply system, public drainage system, common waste disposal facilities, garbage disposal facility, and independent well is considered as the most important. On the other hand, in developed countries, other indicators are “put upon the pedestal”, for example, in South Korea, security indicator seems to be the most important one, while in Britain, building a vision for life is what people pay the most attention. With the current situation of Vietnam, we propose the 3 following major quality indicators, each of which contains several component factors listed in tables below: x Location: Location demonstrates the ability to connect the building and its residents with urban life. For those with low income, social housing that is away from the downtown will increase the difficulties in accessing employment and social infrastructure. x Master plan of the building: Quality of living space is not only reflected in the area (m2) of apartments, but also in outdoor public spaces such as gardens, footpaths and other public facilities. For social housing, the area of each apartment is not big, thus outdoor spaces should be designed to increase the quality of life for residents by opening up possibilities for people to connect with nature and enhancing social community. x Architecture: Architecture is one of the most important indicators to evaluate the use value of a building. Using the word architecture here, we mean not only the design of private apartments but also common zones such as technical zone, corridors, stairs, etc. For social housing’s apartments, people concern much about the number of rooms, the flexibility of spaces and the microclimate in apartments rather than just the total area. In addition, building infrastructure including electricity and water supply system, elevator, fire fighting system, garbage disposal facility also plays an important role. 3. Building up a system of a workable set of indicators to measure social housing quality in Vietnam Step 1: Determine the quality indicators and prepare questionnaire for experts Identifying the indicator bases on: x Studying several housing quality assessment systems currently used in other nations (United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Portugal, India, South Korea) x Legal, economic, technical frameworks for social housing; current forms of social housing and their construction solutions. x Experts’ assessments Step 2: Make a list of experts and conduct interviews The list of experts includes professionals in many different majors including architecture, civil engineering, economy, etc. The scope of activities is in the fields of management, education, construction, etc. The architects and engineers who were interviewed have at least 5 years’ experience in the field of construction, and the majority of those experts have over 12 years’ experience. The interviewing method is both direct interview and questionnaires sent over the network. Besides the 60 experts in the field of construction, we also conducted a survey of 150 families currently living in social housing projects that include Dang Xa, Sai Dong, Viet Hung, Dai Mo and Kien Hung projects, and more than
119
Lan Huong Le et al. / Procedia Engineering 142 (2016) 115 – 122
80 individuals or households who are eligible beneficiaries of social housing policies. Testimonials and aspirations of the interviewed citizens were taken into consideration to adjust the quality indicators as well as their weighting points. Step 3: Data processing The aim of the questionnaire is to evaluate the importance of quality indicators with their component factors that the research team proposed. However, it is also possible for interviewed experts and citizens to suggest additional quality indicators and factors. If additional factors overlap in at least 3 votes, the team will consider adding them. The weighting points of all factors indicated by the interviewed experts from the questionnaire (ranging from 0 to 4) were used to calculate the percentage of the importance of each factor with conventional overall value of 100. A quality indicator includes n component factors. For example, the total point of the 1st factor is X1, the 2nd factor is X2, the 3rd factor is X3… according to the experts. If this group (indicator) accounts for 100%, the weighting point of factor Xi in the indicator would be:
(2)
4. A summary of the social housing quality indicators Besides a summary of the quality factors, the team also guided people to understand how to assess, how to define a factor as: Pass, Fair and Good as well as how to score each factor. Particularly, the level of satisfaction is divided into: Good, Fair, Pass and Fail. The ground given for the level of assessment bases on the principles, standards and rules related architecture and urban planning. Some factors that have no specific criteria (such as "vision for future", "community cohesion, “culture", etc) are considered to be judged on the popular conception or other specific characteristics. So as to make the assessment easier for both experts and regular citizens, the team came up with the table called: "Quality indicators to assess social housing quality". The table was given out to simplify the assessment process. There are 4 levels of satisfaction: Good (100%), Fair (75%), Pass (50%) and Fail. Points would be rounded to 0.25, and the evaluators are able to use the guidelines as a tool to score social housing projects. Table 1. 12 indicators proposed by the research team No.
Indicators
1
Location
2
3
4
Component factors
Distance to the center Distance to the working areas From the building to external transportation systems Evaluation of the neighbourhoods The potential of the location in future development Distance to the current Distance to the market social facilities Distance to the shopping mall Distance to the kindergarten Distance to the primary school. Distance to the secondary/ high school Distance to the cultural center Distance to the sport center Distance to the medical center Distance to the park, open spaces Evaluation of the master Features of the site Index of urban planning articles plan of the building Infrastructure Building’s direction External services Landscape General issues in terms of The height of each storey “building design” Structural span The layout of the building
Levels of satisfaction Fail Pass Fair 0 0,75 1,5 0 1,25 1,75
Good 1,75 2,5
0
1,5
2,25
2,75
0/-1
1
1,5
2
0
1
1,5
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
0,75 0,75 0,75 0,5 0,25 0,75 0,75 0,5 0,75 0,75 1 1 0,5 0,75 0,75 1,25 1,25 1,25
1,25 1,25 1 0,75 0,5 1 1 0,75 1,25 1 1,5 1,5 0,75 1,25 1,25 1,75 1,75 1,75
1,5 1,5 1,25 1 0,75 1,25 1,25 1 1,5 1,25 2 1,75 1 1,5 1,5 2,5 2,5 2,5
Score
11
11
9
9,5
120
Lan Huong Le et al. / Procedia Engineering 142 (2016) 115 – 122
No.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Indicators
Component factors
Suitable for industrializing Movement inside the Elevator building Stair Corridor Fire escape Public spaces of the Lobby building Communal spaces Other spaces (such as: parking area) Technical areas Electricity and water supply Technical storey Waste collection The total area and the Total area (m2) Quantity of bedrooms, bathrooms number of rooms in apartments/ units Flexibility Structure of spaces inside Space’s layout, its form and dimension. each apartment/ unit Movement Position of walls and partitions. Apartment’s Ventilation microclimate Illumination Sun-proof Noise-proof Apartment’s equipments Electronic equipment Bathroom equipment Kitchen equipment Fire alarm equipment Ventilation equipment Others Sustainable solution Rational expenses Accessibility for disabled Security Community Ability of building management TOTAL SCORE
Levels of satisfaction Fail Pass Fair 1 1,5 2 2,5 1 1,5 1,25 1,75 1,25 1,75 1 1,5 1 1,5 0,75 1,25 1 1,5 0,75 1,25 1 1,5 2 3 1,75 2,5 0 1,75 2,5 1 1,5 1 1,5 1 1,5 0 1 1,5 0 1 1,5 0 1 1,5 0 1 1,5 0,75 1 0,75 1 0,75 1 0,75 1 0,75 1 0 0,75 1 0,75 1,25 0 0,75 1 0 0,75 1 0 0,75 1 0,75 1,25 50 75
Good 2 3 2 2,25 2,25 2 2 1,5 2 1,5 2 4 3,5 3,5 2 2 2 2 2 1,75 1,75 1,5 1,25 1,25 1,25 1,25 1,25 1,5 1,25 1,25 1,25 1,5 100
Score
9,5
5,5
5,5
11
6
7,5
6,5
8
100
5. Case study Hanoi now has more than 10 social housing projects currently being in use. To serve the objective of the study, the team selected three social housing projects in high-rise format as case studies. The selected projects are: Building CT6 - Dang Xa, Sai Dong - Housing for low-income people and Viet Hung social housing.
Fig. 1. Summary of quality indicators in Dang Xa, Sai Dong and Viet Hung projects
Lan Huong Le et al. / Procedia Engineering 142 (2016) 115 – 122
Remark The quality assessment system of social housing helps investors, regular citizens and consultants be aware of the strengths as well as the weaknesses of their social housing products, which paves the way for upgrading social housing quality in the future. By comparing the total score among different projects, regular citizens are able to make a better choice when they buy or rent an apartment. Besides, they are also able to consider all 12 indicators and 55 specific component factors to determine the most suitable place for them. For example, if there appear 2 social housings that have the same total scores, a family with children would be more likely to choose the one that has a higher score in “Distance to the primary school” factor.
Fig. 2. Comparisons between the quality and price of the 3 social housing projects: Dang Xa, Sai Dong, Viet Hung
Fig. 3. Perfect Information Frontier based on prices and quality marks of social housing projects in Hanoi.
Fig. 4. Comparing the 3 social housing projects in term of urban planning and architecture (according to 12 indicators)
The quality assessment system plays a crucial role in quantifying the quality of social housing projects. By applying the system, people now have a multi-dimensional view of housing. At the same time, social housing
121
122
Lan Huong Le et al. / Procedia Engineering 142 (2016) 115 – 122
investors are able to realize the true value of their products in the market. During the study, the research group figured out that some factors would be improved or changed in a near future, while others would make a long-term influence on people who are currently living in the area. These longterm factors should be carefully studied at the first stage of designing, for it will be not easy to repair, renovate or upgrade them later. The table below is taken to refer to the level of influences of the 12 quality indicators. Table 2. Indicators’ impact. Quality indicators
Impact Levels Short term
Medium term
Long term
Location Distance to the current social facilities The master plan of the building General issues in terms of “building design” Movement inside the building Public spaces of the building Technical areas The total area and the number of rooms in apartments Structure of spaces inside each apartment Apartment’s microclimate Apartment’s equipments Others
6. Conclusion All in all, there should be a quality assessment system to develop social housing in Vietnam. In this research, the system was built up base on a serious study and credible figures. The quality assessment system includes 12 indicators and 55 specific component factors that well cover almost aspects of Vietnamese social housing. What we have done is just the first stage to establish the system, and it is necessary to standardize and upgrade the system step by step. It is also essential to make the system popular to all people involved in social housing. As the result, everyone would apprehend and bring the system into use. The system can be digitalized in order to become more convenient for users. Before applying the quality assessment system, it would be better to consider distinct characteristics of different areas. In this study, we already proposed the first version of standard assessment system, which is suitable for mega cities in Vietnam. Based on the former system, each area should add or subtract evaluating factors to create another system that is more proper for the characteristics, culture or lifestyle of the zone. The quality assessment system should be updated periodically (5-year-period or 10-year-period) so as to suit policy’s changes, new design standards, neo construction technology or lifestyle, etc. Measuring social housing’s quality must be reassessed periodically to improve the efforts of investors, management boards and communities, in other words, reassessing would revitalize the quality of social housing. References [1] Jorge Moreira da Costa, Maria Francisca Sampaio, User Information in the housing market, World Congress on Housing October 26 – 29, Santander, Spain, 2010. [2] Harrison, “A. Housing Quality Indicators”. DEGW plc, London, 1999. [3] Dr. Sudhi Mary Kurian & Dr. Ashalatha Thampuran, Assessment of Housing Quality, Institute of Town Planners, India Journal, 2011, 74–85. [4] Jae Soon Lee & Dong-Hoon Oh, Housing quality evaluation and housing choice using PIF: A case of the Bundang New Town housing market in Korea, International Journal of Urban Sciences, 2012, 63-83. [5] Pro. The Phong Ngo, “Evaluating indicators and method to measure quality of multi-storey buildings”, ISBN: RD-05-02, 2004.