Evaluating the Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with Design and Construction of Resilient Houses in Vietnam

Abstract

At the end of the year 2021, all 4000 resilient houses that are under the project “Improving the resilience of vulnerable coastal communities to climate change-related impacts in Vietnam” were completed. However, the project sponsor and implementor need to be aware of the level of satisfaction of the stakeholders of these resilient houses, especially for local beneficiaries. This study is carried out to answer several practical questions such as what are the strengths and weaknesses of the project house designs, focusing on the basic needs of beneficiaries. Or, are the beneficiaries satisfied with the house constructed with support from the project, and what are their suggestions to improve either the relevant procedures and processes or future houses to be built by the project or other stakeholders. The findings show several aspects of design and construction of resilient houses such as utilization effectiveness, satisfaction of beneficiaries, and participation of local communities. However, several practical limitations of this phase have been identified, namely, the approved designs do not fully reflect the needs of beneficiaries, the designs lack some essential and basic functionalities, some technical shortcomings exist in design drawings, and support funding is limited. On the basis of that, the authors recommended several valuable measures for effective and sustainable designing and constructing resilient houses.

1. Introduction

This project “Improving the resilience of vulnerable coastal communities to climate change-related impacts in Viet Nam” (the project) is funded by the Green Climate Fund (the donor) as a grant project through the United Nations Development Programme (the implementor) [1]. The main objective of the project is to increase the resilience of vulnerable coastal communities to climate change-related impacts in Vietnam. The project comprises three components: (i) Component 1: support to build storm and flood-resistant houses (resilient homes); (ii) Component 2: mangrove restoration; and (iii) Component 3: enhanced access to disaster risk information. Since 2017, the resilient housing component has been implemented in the five coastal provinces in Vietnam, namely QuangNgai, QuangNam, ThuaThien-Hue, QuangBinh, and ThanhHoa (Figure 1), building on an existing protection programme to provide housing for the poor and marginalized. Making housing safe and resilient to disasters can help protect lives and livelihoods from disasters and build sustainable communities. Therefore, this project aims to strengthen storm and flood resilient design features in 4000 new houses for poor and highly disaster-exposed people in coastal areas.

As of December 2021, all 4000 resilient houses were completed. Construction progress is shown in

Table 1. Results of the resilient housing component of the project as of 31 December 2021.

No.	Province Name	Target in Project Document	Year					Total	% Completed
			2017	2018	2019	2020	2021
1	Thanh Hoa	1403		340	403	410	250	1403	100
2	Quang Binh	897		145	372	188	192	897	100
3	Hue	581		135	230	180	36	581	100
4	Quang Nam	436		130	220	77	9	436	100
5	Quang Ngai	683	77	334	132	127	13	683	100
	Total	4000	77	1084	1357	982	500	4000	100

. Furthermore, according to a survey which was conducted by the Ministry of Construction of Vietnam, the demand for resilient houses in coastal districts in the 28 coastal provinces in Vietnam is enormous, exceeding 25,000 houses [2]. Therefore, the resilient housing component is expected to be replicated more widely. A resilient home is one that has the ability to resist, recover, and adapt to adverse conditions of climate change or natural disasters. For this, housing projects must be located in such a way as to minimize exposure to possible threats from the environment. To improve the quality of the remaining houses to be built for the project as well as for future projects, it is necessary to derive lessons from the design and construction of the built houses through the evaluation of the degree of satisfaction of beneficiaries and partners involved in the project. The evaluation will review the design and construction of the built houses and proposes feasible engineering solutions that consider the needs of beneficiaries in terms of engineering measures, focusing on further improving design and construction.

2. Literature Reviews

There is a relationship between climate change and housing, specifically in developing countries where housing is regarded as one of the most valuable assets of residents (Ahmed, 2011) [3]. Housing usually represents the highest losses due to natural disasters, that have placed huge demands on providing long-term resilient housing (UNEP and SKAT, 2007) [4], specifically in developing countries. In developing countries, despite national governments and humanitarian agencies efforts to carry out plenty of recovery actions, most affected households still receive limited assistance (Lyons, 2009 [5]; Suarez et al., 2008 [6]). Moreover, many factors related to climate resilient housing, such as hazard resistant capacity, functional and spatial organisation, or livelihood development, have been addressed in several studies and projects (Boen and Jigyasu, 2005 [7]; Barenstein, 2006 [8]; Alexander et al., 2006 [9]; Steinberg, 2007 [10]; Minamoto, 2010 [11]; Moayedi and Le Van, B, 2022 [12]).

Stakeholder satisfaction is a critical aspect of the design and construction of resilient houses. The satisfaction of stakeholders in the construction process can impact the success and sustainability of a project, and it is essential to consider their opinions and needs in the planning and implementation phases. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in understanding stakeholders’ satisfaction with the design and construction of resilient houses, with the goal of improving the overall quality of the built environment. The first aspect of stakeholders’ satisfaction with the design and construction of resilient houses is related to the design process. Many studies have found that stakeholders’ satisfaction with the design process is influenced by their level of involvement in the process and the extent to which their needs and preferences are considered (Brown et al., 2018) [13]. In particular, stakeholders are often more satisfied with the design process when they are able to provide input on the design, and when they feel that their opinions and needs have been heard and addressed. The second aspect of stakeholders’ satisfaction with the design and construction of resilient houses is related to the construction process. Studies have shown that stakeholders’ satisfaction with the construction process is influenced by several factors, including the quality of workmanship, the timeliness of completion, and the overall level of communication between stakeholders and the construction team (Kam et al., 2016) [14]. In particular, stakeholders are often more satisfied with the construction process when the work is completed on time, and when they feel that the construction team is transparent and communicative about the project progress. The third aspect of stakeholders’ satisfaction with the design and construction of resilient houses is related to the finished product. Studies have found that stakeholders’ satisfaction with the finished product is influenced by several factors, including the overall quality of the construction, the level of functionality of the finished house, and the extent to which the design and construction process met the stakeholders’ needs and expectations (Qiao et al., 2019) [15]. In particular, stakeholders are often more satisfied with the finished product when the construction is of high quality and when the finished house meets their functional and aesthetic needs.

Moreover, according to a study by Nguyen et al. (2019) [16], stakeholders’ satisfaction is influenced by various factors such as design, construction quality, and cost. The study found that the design of resilient houses in Vietnam is perceived to be appropriate for the local context, and the construction quality is generally high. However, the cost of construction was found to be a major concern for some stakeholders, with some suggesting the need for cost-effective solutions to be implemented. Another study by Hoang et al. (2020) [17] evaluated the satisfaction of homeowners with resilient houses in Vietnam. The study found that the majority of homeowners were satisfied with the design, construction quality, and functionality of their homes. Additionally, they found that homeowners valued the ability of the houses to withstand natural disasters and provide a safe living environment. However, some homeowners expressed concerns about the durability of the materials used in the construction, and the need for maintenance. A study by Tran et al. (2021) [18] investigated the satisfaction of local communities with the design and construction of resilient houses in Vietnam. The study found that the communities were generally satisfied with the design and construction of the houses, but expressed concerns about the long-term maintenance and sustainability of the houses. They also suggested the need for increased community involvement in the design and construction processes to ensure that the houses meet their needs and preferences.

Climate change and its effects are seen as some of the biggest obstacles to development in Vietnam. Climate change intensifies climate-related disasters such as floods and typhoons which hinder efforts to eliminate poverty in this country (CARE, 2009; Luu, 2013) [19,20]. Most urban populations in Vietnam are located in coastal areas, which are frequently subject to floods and cyclones (Hoang, 2011; Tran et al., 2014) [21,22]. In addition, Vietnamese people believe that housing can reflect the economic prosperity of families and families often invest more money in housing construction. This makes housing one of their most valuable assets. However, design faults such as the lack of reinforced walls and roofs are likely to undermine these investments and potentially lead to unexpected housing damage in future disasters (Wisner et al., 2004) [23]. Poorly constructed houses and inappropriate construction methods are considered to be the main causes of uncontrolled housing damage (Davis, 1978 [24]; Chantry and Norton, 2008 [25]; Charlesworth, 2011 [26]). In Vietnam, there is a rising trend in housing damage due to climate-related disasters despite efforts by local governments, agencies, and affected communities to implement disaster risk reduction strategies. Several studies had been carried out on the resilience of vulnerable coastal communities to climate change-related impacts in Vietnam. Tran et al. (2012) [27] had reviewed housing vulnerability in the central area of Vietnam that apply for climate resilient houses. The conclusion is that several typical designs and construction approaches for resilient houses against natural disasters are needed. Lee and Lee (2017) [28] studied the disaster resilience of low-cost houses that are located in a central province of Vietnam. In these studies, the design and construction of individual houses are normally carried out by the homeowners or their relatives, using their own experiences from observing their neighbourhood houses. Additionally, they try to utilize local materials that are available in their vicinity at a low cost such as bamboo, wood or stone, in order to reduce the construction costs as much as possible. However, these low-quality resilient houses cannot suffer severe typhoons and floods. Hence, housing design and construction is one of the key interventions to climate resilience for vulnerable communities. Approaches to climate resilient housing are usually different in how they engage and consult with communities, depending on cultural and political constraints (Davidson et al., 2007 [29]; Sliwinski, 2010 [30]). Several research findings have highlighted an increasing concern over problems related to community participation and consultation in housing design and construction (Lawther, 2009 [31]; Davidson et al., 2007 [32]; Barenstein, 2006 [8]) and the effectiveness of community engagement (Sliwinski, 2010 [33]; Davidson et al., 2007 [29]; Pearce, 2003 [32]) in building resilient housing. In the field of people‘s satisfaction, Hai and Quyet (2021) [33] evaluate the level of people’s satisfaction with current transportation infrastructure for rural areas in Vietnam. However, studies for evaluating the level of people’s satisfaction with the resilient design and construction of safe houses in Vietnam are very few currently. Therefore, the authors consider this study is one in a few in the field in order to understand what extent local residents are fulfilled and satisfied with their newly-built resilient houses.

3. Research Methodology

The authors’ main research questions that need to be answered are as follows: (1) Did the project-supported houses withstand storms and floods as expected?; (2) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the project-developed house designs, focusing on the basic needs of beneficiaries?; (3) What are the current regulations and procedures in the project that can incorporate the requirements of the beneficiaries during the process of the construction?; (4) Are the beneficiaries satisfied with the house constructed with support from the project, and what are their suggestions to improve either the relevant procedures and processes or future houses to be built by the project or other stakeholders?; and (5) What are the recommendations and suggestions in terms of engineering measures, focusing on further improving design and construction for future projects?

Based on these research questions, two sets of interview checklists are designed for local authorities and project households separately. These interview checklists are used to collect stakeholders’ opinions on their satisfaction on the design and construction of resilient houses. In addition, this research includes three main tasks as: first, perform a desk review of the approved designs of the built resilient houses, the survey form developed by the Vietnam Women’s Union, and relevant documents from MoC and Provincial Project Management Units (PPMUs) relating to procedures that take into account the needs of beneficiaries during the process of design and construction; second, conduct interviews with sample households (15–20 households/province), Provincial Project Management Units (PPMUs), and Departments of Construction (DoCs) in five project provinces to collect data at the provincial level, focusing on regulations and procedures that take into account the needs of beneficiaries during the process of design and construction; and third, conclude all key findings related to the quality of resilient houses and satisfaction of beneficiaries, as well as recommend on the designs and procedures that consider the needs of the beneficiaries of the project’s remaining houses and future/similar projects. In addition, the final findings and conclusions should reflect the feedback received from a consultation meeting that combined all key project stakeholders.

Based on the main tasks and research questions, specific tasks have been developed and divided into three groups: (i) desk review; (ii) interviews with beneficiaries and key people from PPMUs and DoCs; and (iii) writing and presenting the findings and conclusions (

Table 2. Main tasks of the research.

Desk Review	Interviews/Field Visits	Reporting
Task 1: Review the approved designs, reports, and procedures that consider and incorporate the requirements of beneficiaries; Task 2: Review questionnaires developed by Vietnam Women’s Union; Task 3: Prepare tools (survey form and questionnaires) and plan for site visits;	Task 4: Meet and discuss with local authorities; Task 5: Interview sample project households; Task 6: Summarize and analyze collected information and interview results;	Task 7: Conclude findings; Task 8: Prepare materials for consultation meeting and gather feedback from all project key stakeholders; Task 9: Finalize the findings based on feedback from the consultation meeting.

).

4. Data Analysis and Findings

4.1. Effectiveness of Resilient Houses

The project houses were designed and built with the purpose of a safe shelter against storms and floods. When storms come, people can use the first floor as a safe shelter (the mezzanine, made of reinforced concrete, is strong enough against strong winds) and use the mezzanine as a safe shelter when high floods come. The effectiveness of resilient houses has been recognized and proven by the local people and authorities due to the following reasons:

• The project houses saved thousands of lives during the severe floods and typhoons in September and October of 2020 in the Central Region of Vietnam, especially in QuangBinh province. This was confirmed by the leaders of HongThuy, DuyNinh, and HienNinh communes in LeThuy district, QuangBinh province. With the project houses, poor households can live in safe houses where they do not need to worry about dangers to their safety caused by high water levels or the collapse of ruined houses which would previously occur during typhoons and floods.
• The project houses not only save lives in the event of floods and typhoons, but are also used for daily living activities and accommodation. Therefore, the idea of a safe shelter was already copied by another funded project, The Vietnamese Heart Foundation in Thua Thien-Hue province and replicated by local people themselves in Hong Thuy commune in Le Thuy district, Quang Binh province after the historically high flood in 2020 (Figure 2). The model of the project house may continue to be replicated by many organizations or individuals in other provinces in Vietnam due to its practicality and effectiveness.
• The project houses do not only help to improve the safety and quality of household life, but also help local government authorities to reduce losses from disasters and achieve higher levels of living standards for rural areas in Vietnam. This result has been recorded in the annual report of provinces involved in the project. For example, the summary report of Thua Thien-Hue province in 2020 assessed “the effectiveness of the project in implementing Government Policy 48 has been proved by consecutively withstanding against strong storms and severe floods in September, October and November 2020”.
• In addition, the government’s policy on flood-resistant housing in the Decision No. 48/2014/QD-TTg [34] is not to support individuals, but to support households so that many people can get its benefit. In case the main beneficiary of the project dies, the house will continue to be used to protect the lives of other members, demonstrating the humanity of Policy 48 and of the government’s safe house project.
• According to the Ministry of Construction of Vietnam [35], after the historically high flood in 2020, the demand for resilient houses in coastal districts of 28 provinces in Vietnam coastal areas has increased immensely, up to more than 25,000 houses.

4.2. Beneficiaries of the Project Houses

The beneficiaries of the project houses are the poor who meet the criteria set in the Decision 48/2014/QD-TTg [36], with higher priority given to the elderly, lonely, and those experiencing illness. The maximum budget each household can receive ranges from VND 50–70 million, including VND 39 million (approximately USD 1700) from the project and VND 12–16 million from the government. They can also apply for a premium loan of VND 15 million from the Vietnam Bank for Social Policies. Besides the support from the project, some households may receive additional support from relatives and local organizations and donors in terms of funding and/or labour and expertise.

Although most of beneficiaries are the poor, elderly, lonely or ill, the household survey shows some differences in the characteristics of beneficiaries between provinces, which are summarized below (

Table 3. Characteristics of beneficiaries surveyed by the authors.

No	Characteristics of Household	Thanh Hoa	Quang Binh	Thua Thien—Hue	Quang Nam	Quang Ngai
1	Average age of house owner	45	63	69	68	70
2	Household has disable people	13%	27%	30%	29%	35%
3	Household has elderly (over 60 years old) and/or lonely people	60%	60%	60%	71%	74%
4	Total income of household—less than 1 million VND/month (very low income)	20%	53%	25%	95%	95%
5	Total income of household—1–3 million VND/month (low income)	20%	40%	25%	0%	5%
6	Total income of household—3–5 million VND/month (medium income)	20%	7%	45%	0%	0%
7	Total income of household—5–10 million VND/month (good income)	40%	0%	5%	5%	0%
8	Total income of household—above 10 million VND/month (high income)	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
9	GCF house has built area of less than 15 m2	0%	40%	35%	85%	0%
10	GCF house has built area of 15–25 m2	0%	20%	65%	10%	15%
11	GCF house has built area of 25–40 m2	7%	40%	0%	4%	80%
12	GCF house has built area of more than 40 m2	93%	0%	0%	1%	5%
13	Largest built area (m2)	68	40	21	44	58

):

• Households in ThanhHoa province are young families, with an average age of 45 years old, and relatively few of them have disabled members (13%). By comparison, the rest of the provinces have an average household age that exceeds 60 years old and about 30% of households have disabled members.
• Households in ThanhHoa province have higher income than the other provinces. For example, 40% of households in ThanhHoa have a total income that ranged from VND 5–10 million per month, while only 5% of households in the other provinces have this level of income. More than 90% of households in QuangBinh, QuangNam, and QuangNgai provinces have very low total household income of less than VND 3 million per month (or less than USD 5 per day). About 50% of households in Thua Thien-Hue province also have very low total household income of less than VND 3 million per month, and 50% have an income which ranges from VND 3–10 million per month.
• Households in QuangBinh, Thua Thien-Hue, and QuangNam provinces have a trend to select the design with a small built area of less than 25 m² (60% in Quang Binh province, 100% in Thua Thien-Hue province, and 85% in QuangNam province), while in Thanh Hoa and QuangNgai provinces households tend to select designs with a larger built area (QuangNgai provinces select the design with a built area of 25–40 m², while it is more than 40 m² in Thanh Hoa province with 93% of households). These differences can be explained by the fact that households in ThanhHoa and QuangNgai provinces use the project houses as their main accommodation and their existing houses were demolished completely, while households in QuangBinh, Thua Thien-Hue and QuangNam provinces still use their existing houses as their main accommodation and use the project houses as both a safe shelter (in case of high floods and typhoons) and as additional living space. Another reason for these differences is that many households in QuangBinh, Thua Thien-Hue, and QuangNam provinces are elderly and lonely, and therefore they do not have a high demand or enough income for a large living space.

4.3. The Designs of the Project Houses

DoCs in each province provide six optional design models, except in QuangNam province, which has ten design models. A household can select one model that is the best fit for their possible financial budget (including support from the project) and demand for living area. Generally, the structure of a resilient house includes one base floor and one mezzanine, with the following items:

• Main structure (column and beams): made of reinforced concrete with grade 200#;
• Mezzanine: reinforced concrete with grade 200# is used and in some cases, wood is also applied; area is 10 m² at a minimum and at least 1.5 m higher than the highest flooding level recorded in the locality;
• Foundation: independent foundation structure made of reinforced concrete with grade 200#;
• Ground floor: area is about 12 m² at a minimum;
• Walls: made of brick with a thickness of 110–220 mm;
• Doors and windows: reinforced with firm doorknobs, latches, fasteners, or locks in order to protect against strong winds; and
• Roofs: there are three options: (i) option 1: reinforced concrete; (ii) option 2: terracotta or cement tiles with wood structure reinforced by a concrete bar along the roof to protect against strong winds; or (iii) option 3: wavy corrugated iron with a thickness of 0.4 mm, reinforced by steel bar V30 × 30 × 3 mm along the roof to protect against strong wind.

All designs follow the instructions in the decision 48/2014/QD-TTg [28] on policy for the poor households to build houses against typhoons and floods in the coastal areas and the guidance of No. 51 of the Ministry of Construction of Vietnam [29]. The above resilient features aim to ensure that housing, the most valuable asset of people in the project areas, is built in a safe location and can withstand not only the impacts of the current adverse climate conditions and disasters, but also the expected extreme conditions for many years to come.

In total, 34 innovative storm and flood-resilient housing designs were selected and officially used in the project. Among them, there are only nine designs that renovated the existing houses, while 25 remaining designs involved building entirely new houses (details in

Table 4. Classifications and number of designs.

No	Type of Design	Thanh Hoa	Quang Binh	Thua Thien—Hue	Quang Nam	Quang Ngai	Total
1	Newly built designs	6	6	1	6	4	23
2	Renovated designs based on the existing house			5		2	7

). There is no renovated design in ThanhHoa or QuangBinh, which means that beneficiaries in these two provinces have no choice but to build new resilient houses under the project. Comparatively, Thua Thien-Hue province has only one newly designed model (the Model No. 3), and so beneficiaries’ choices are limited in the event that they want to build new resilient houses. The results of the household survey show that most of households (13/20 households, accounting for 65%) in Thua Thien-Hue province selected the design Model No. 3 which is the only new design model.

The built ground area (not including the mezzanine area) and estimated cost for each design model is presented in

Table 5. Design area (ground floor) and estimation cost.

Name of Province	Design No. 1	Design No. 2	Design No. 3	Design No. 4	Design No. 5	Design No. 6	Minimum Design Area (m2)	Maximum Design Area (m2)	Maximum Area in HH Survey (m2)	Minimum Design Cost (mil. VND)	Maximum Design Cost (mil. VND)
Thanh Hoa	35 m2; 135 mil VND	51 m2; 128 mil VND	29 m2; 91 mil VND	33 m2; 95 mil VND	33 m2; 93 mil VND	24 m2; 126 mil VND	24	51	80	93	135
Quang Binh	13 m2; 52 mil VND	29 m2; 95 mil VND	48 m2; 132 mil VND	33 m2; 107 mil VND	26 m2; 78 mil VND	33 m2; 103 mil VND	13	48	40	52	132
Hue	14.5 m2; 59 mil VND	14.26 m2; 64 mil VND	14.85 m2; 59 mil VND	13.5 m2; 56 mil VND	16.4 m2; 83 mil VND	11.9 m2; 54 mil VND	11.9	16.4	21	54	83
Quang Nam	19.8 m2; 81 mil VND	16.5 m2; 87 mil VND	15.0 m2; 74 mil VND	13.5 m2; 80 mil VND	40.0 m2; 112 mil VND	32.5 m2; 97 mil VND	13.5	40.0	40	80	120
Quang Ngai	15 m2; 97 mil VND	14.44 m2; 66 mil VND	10 m2; 85 mil VND	12 m2; 67 mil VND	10.25 m2; 58 mil VND	12.25 m2; 69 mil VND	10.25	15	70	58	97

Note: area in Table 5 refers to area of the ground floor only, not including the mezzanine area.

. It is clear that Thanh Hoa province has larger design areas compared to the other provinces. The minimum built ground area in other provinces is around 12 m² and the minimum cost estimation is around VND 51–55 million, while these same metrics are 24 m² and more than VND 90 million, respectively, in ThanhHoa province. The maximum built ground area (not including the mezzanine area) in Thua Thien-Hue and QuangNgai is about 16 m² and 27 m², respectively. However, according to the household survey, many households decided to build larger areas than the maximum designed ones. For example, the maximum built area in Thua Thien-Hue province is 21 m² and in QuangNgai province it is 58 m². In ThanhHoa and QuangBinh province, there are many options with large design areas.

In terms of purpose of use, the design models of the project houses can be divided into two groups:

• Design group 1: Besides functioning as a safe shelter, the project houses is used as an extra living space, while the existing house is still used as the main living space. With this purpose, the project houses is rather small with a built floor area less than 25 m². It is typical in Thua Thien-Hue province, with 100% of designs having built areas less than 25 m²;
• Design group 2: The project houses are used as the main living space and the resilience function (the existing house is totally demolished). This group of designs is characterised by a built area of more than 25 m². This group of designs is typical in ThanhHoa and QuangBinh provinces, with more than 80% of designs having built areas larger than 25 m². These houses are large enough to arrange basic functions of an independent house such as a toilet, a guest room, a bedroom and a kitchen.

After reviewing all 34 designs, some disadvantages have been recognized:

• Many newly built designs do not have a kitchen inside; there are only 5/34 designs that have a kitchen, accounting for 15% (refer to

  Table 6. Living areas (m²) and kitchen availability in the designs of safe houses.

  Province	Design No. 1	Design No. 2	Design No. 3	Design No. 4	Design No. 5	Design No. 6	Design No. 7	Design No. 8	Design No. 9	Design No. 10
  Thanh Hoa	24 m2	35 m2	29 m2	32 m2	31 m2	24 m2
  Quang Binh	13 m2	29 m2	48 m2	33 m2	26 m2	33 m2
  Thua Thien—Hue	15 m2	14 m2	15 m2	14 m2	16 m2	12 m2
  Quang Nam	20 m2	17 m2	15 m2	14 m2	40 m2	33 m2	24 m2	24 m2	13 m2	12 m2
  Quang Ngai	27 m2	14 m2	25 m2	12 m2	10 m2	12 m2
  	K	Have kitchen in the design

  for more details), although the design areas are large enough to include these functions (design group 2, where the area is at least 25 m² to include about 3 m² for a toilet and kitchen). It is typical in Thanh Hoa province that all the designs do not include a kitchen;
• A toilet is altogether excluded from all housing designs, including newly built designs with large areas. This may cause inconveniences for beneficiaries who want to use the project house as their main living space;
• For QuangBinh, Thua Thien-Hue, and QuangNam provinces where floods occur sometimes at high water levels within a year and last for a long time (i.e., 5–7 days), sanitation (toilet and clean water) becomes very important and necessary. However, no design in any of these three provinces has a toilet and clean water in the mezzanine. This is of particular concern for households with disabled and elderly members, or those that are densely populated;
• The roof with wavy corrugated iron becomes very hot in the summer, which can lead to uncomfortable living conditions. Solutions to reduce the heat in the summer are required;
• There are only 13 designs (accounting for 38%) that have detailed drawings of a ladder to the mezzanine (

  Table 7. Detailed drawing of ladder to mezzanine in the designs.

  Province	Design No. 1	Design No. 2	Design No. 3	Design No. 4	Design No. 5	Design No. 6	Design No. 7	Design No. 8	Design No. 9	Design No. 10
  Thanh Hoa	24 m2	35 m2	29 m2	32 m2	31 m2	24 m2
  Quang Binh	13 m2	29 m2	48 m2	33 m2	26 m2	33 m2
  Thua Thien—Hue	15 m2	14 m2	15 m2	14 m2	16 m2	12 m2
  Quang Nam	20 m2	17 m2	15 m2	14 m2	40 m2	33 m2	24 m2	24 m2	13 m2	12 m2
  Quang Ngai	27 m2	14 m2	25 m2	12 m2	10 m2	12 m2
  	K	Have detail drawing of ladder to mezzanine						Renovated design

  );
• Some designs do not have evacuation windows on the mezzanine (QuangNgai province).

These inconveniences have already been confirmed by house owners in the on-site interviews. It is clear that there are still some mismatches between the real needs of households and the project designs. One of the main reasons is that due to budgetary constraints, the design teams focused on the resilient features rather than on the full needs of beneficiaries.

4.4. Construction of the Project Houses

There have been no complaints regarding the construction of the project houses. The results of the household interviews and consultations with local authorities show that many households made some modifications to the selected design model during the construction of the house, such as increasing the built area, adding a kitchen and/or toilet, and additional changes to the structure and details of the house (e.g., size of window, door, ladder, etc.). Many households also replaced construction materials with those of better quality. The main reason is that DoCs applied minimum standards of quality in their designs to reduce construction costs, whereas households prioritized quality and larger living areas as much as possible with any additional funding they were able to provide themselves or mobilize from their relatives. All of their requirements were considered and approved quickly in cases where there was no conflict with the project regulations.

4.5. Procedures to Consider and Incorporate the Needs of Beneficiaries

There have no complaints or comments on the procedure of incorporating the needs of beneficiaries so far. According to the document 51/BXD-QLN dated 27/3/2018 [37] issued by MoC, households were provided with the project’s resilient house models before they filled out the registration form and commenced the construction works. During construction, beneficiaries have the right to adjust the construction area to better suit their needs and interests with approval from the PPMU and the commune’s People’s Committee.

Some advanced management techniques such as SeeTell and Snapture were applied in the early stages in order to keep an effective communication channel with the beneficiaries, as well as to receive timely feedback and comments from them. However, these techniques proved to be too advanced and not suitable for poor people in rural areas. Therefore, the best communication channel is through PPMU staff and local authorities. In many cases, house owners directly phoned PPMU staff at all hours of the day to reflect on and discuss several issues that occurred during construction. In fact, it has already been proven as the best unofficial procedure for incorporating the needs of beneficiaries during the process of constructing the project houses. The unlimited support from PPMU staff and local authorities should be highly appreciated.

4.6. Satisfaction with the Project Houses of Beneficiaries

All households that participated in the household survey agreed that they are very happy and highly satisfied with their project houses because it provides them with a safe shelter and a comfortable living space. The project’s approach is to give people the right to decide by themselves, including the ability to choose a design model, a construction team, and supervising approaches. This have helped them build their dream house as they wish. It is noted that before having the project houses, beneficiaries’ houses were ruined, deemed degraded and unsafe, and could not be used as a safe shelter in the event of high floods or typhoons. Most beneficiary households are very poor without stable income and many of them have elderly, lonely and/or disabled members. Without the effective support from the donor and implementor, both financial and technical, they would not have the capacity to repair, upgrade or build a new resilient house to protect them from disaster events. Furthermore, the simplified and quick administrative procedures (especially disbursement) during the construction of the project have greatly benefited the people, increasing the satisfaction of the beneficiaries. In addition, households are also very pleased with the project housing initiative since they received active, effective, and unlimited support from PPMU staff and local authorities, as well as from their relatives, local organizations, companies, and individuals.

4.7. Satisfaction with the Project Houses of Local Authorities and Officers

Local authorities in all provinces and officials directly involved in the project are very satisfied with the project because of the humanity and practical effectiveness of the project houses that was clearly proven after the historical flood in 2020. Safe houses have not only helped poor, elderly, and lonely households have a safe and stable place to live without having to worry about storms and floods, but it also helps local authorities reduce the burden on social security. At the same time, it also helps to renew the rural face of the provinces, ensuring better social justice. The local government wants safe house model to be continued in the coming years.

4.8. Participation of Local Communities

One of the important factors creating the success of the safe house project is the active participation of family members, relatives, friends, organizations, and local enterprises. These contributions can be both in spirit or in other formats: for example, labour (work days); cash; construction materials such as heat-resistant roofing sheets, corrugated iron, purlins, windows, doors, cement, etc.; contributing ideas on design options; or assisting in quality supervision and material management throughout the construction process. For example, a donor enterprise supported roof heat-resistant panels (ThanhHoa, QuangBinh, and QuangNgai provinces), the Red Cross Association of Thua Thien-Hue province supported corrugated iron and purlins, and a private firm supported cement (Thua Thien-Hue). In addition, the local government and local building material store owners provide guarantees for households to buy construction materials in case they do not have money to pay timely. The participation and support of the community demonstrates the spirit of solidarity, the solidarity of the village, the close attachment of family members and clans, and the trust and companionship between the government, organizations, and enterprises. This is extremely valuable and characteristic of people in rural Vietnam in general and the central region in particular. Local authorities should continue to promote this spirit of solidarity.

4.9. Using Technology in Construction Supervision for Safe Houses

KoBo software has been set up and used by the project to track and monitor the construction process. This software helps remote monitoring with a large number of houses and construction work happening at the same time to be controlled quickly and easily. Stakeholders are provided with an account and password on the KoBo system, so they can access it to remotely monitor and timely support the construction process of the project house. In addition, the KoBo system will store the entire project’s house construction information for later service when it is necessary to get the project’s house construction information. As a result, KoBo software has helped the project in ensuring the construction quality and progress of 4000 resilient houses as planned in the five project provinces.

5. Practical Limitations of the Project and Potential Solutions for Future Projects

Besides the achievements, the author has identified some the project’s major limitations and potential solutions as listed below:

5.1. Approved Designs Do Not Fully Reflect the Needs of Beneficiaries

The design models, issued by the Department of Construction in each province, do not reflect well the needs of the beneficiaries in terms of the purpose of use (for example, the project houses are used as a safe shelter only while still using the existing houses as the main living space, or to be used as the main living space while the existing houses will be demolished), as well as in terms of construction area (multi-generation households need larger areas while single or elderly households just need a small area), or design options of new construction or renovation, etc. That limits the choices of the beneficiaries which is the best fit with their needs and financial conditions.

Through field surveys and discussions, there is a proposal for this limitation to increase the number of design options. As mentioned, the design formats still do not reflect well the real needs of beneficiaries given the fact that the multi-generational households require larger living areas, while elderly and lonely households require smaller living areas. Therefore, DoCs in each province should have more design options that are based on a household survey on the needs of beneficiaries. A matrix of the project houses’ design which is based on household size and purpose of use is presented in

Table 8. Classification of the project houses’ design.

No.	Type of House	Household Size
		Simple HH (1–2 Persons)	Single HH (3–4 Persons)	Complex HH (5–6 Persons)
1	An independent new resilient house is built next to but separated from the exiting house (which is mainly used as safe shelter in case of floods and typhoons only);	15–18 m2
2	Renovated cases: The existing house is renovated with a mezzanine (which is used as safe shelter in case of floods and typhoons and a part of living space only);	18–25 m2
3	A resilient house is newly built and used as main living space.	18–30 m2	30–50 m2	50–75 m2

Notes: In case the project’s safe house is used as the main living space, it is necessary to ensure that the house area is at least 30 m² and 18 m² for single households as prescribed in the Circular 01/2022/TT-BXD [9] and in the Document No. 2307/BXD-QHKT [10]. For areas that have no floods, the item of mezzanine can be removed to reduce construction costs. The PMU of each province should coordinate with the Department of Construction to decide this issue based on the local context; minimum floor area of mezzanine is 10 m².

. According to this matrix, each province should have at least seven designs, including one design of independent project houses (a safe shelter which is next to but separate from the existing house), three renovated designs, and three newly built designs.

5.2. The Designs Are Lacking of Some Essential and Basic Functionalities

Kitchen, clean water, and toilet are the minimum requirements in case the project house is used as the main living space. However, many designs do not cover these functions in the drawings (only 5 among the 34 designs have a kitchen design and none have a toilet layout). These functions (particularly clean water and toilets) are not only important for the normal daily activities of the beneficiary, but they have become essential on the mezzanine in the flood-zone areas that can last for several days such as in LeThuy district, QuangBinh province.

Therefore, a beneficiary’s basic needs should have been considered previously in the project preparation phase. As mentioned above, some basic needs, including a kitchen and toilet, should be considered and incorporated into designs in cases in which the project house is used as the main living space.

5.3. Some Technical Shortcomings in Design Drawings

Some technical shortcomings in the designs such as no detailed drawings of ladder to mezzanine (only 13 out of 34 designs have detailed drawings of ladder to mezzanine, accounting for 38%), no handrails and escape window on the mezzanine, etc. In addition, some designs have a distance from the mezzanine to the lowest point of the roof of less than 1.5 m, causing an inconvenience in carrying goods on the mezzanine as well as causing heat in the summer (which is marked in grey in

Table 9. Height of the GCF house and its components.

Province	Position	Design No. 1	Design No. 2	Design No. 3	Design No. 4	Design No. 5	Design No. 6	Design No. 7	Design No. 8	Design No. 9	Design No. 10
Thanh Hoa	Ground floor (from ground to mezzanine, 2.5 m at least)	3.0 m	2.5 m	1.9 m	1.9 m	1.9 m	3.0 m
	Min height of mezzanine (from mezzanine to the top of the wall, 1.6 m at least)	3.0 m	0.5 m	1.2 m	1.2 m	1.8 m	2.5 m
	Max height of mezzanine (from mezzanine to the top of the roof, 3.0 m at least)	4.65 m	2.3 m	3.1 m	2.9 m	3.7 m	4.25 m
	Total height	7.65 m	4.8 m	5.1m	4.9 m	5.7 m	7.25 m
Quang Binh	Ground floor (from ground to mezzanine, 2.5 m at least)	2.75 m	2.75 m	3.1 m	2.95 m	3.4 m	2.95 m
	Min height of mezzanine (from mezzanine to the top of the wall, 1.6 m at least)	2.4 m	1.3 m	3.0 m	1.35 m	0.4 m	2.8 m
	Max height of mezzanine (from mezzanine to the top of the roof, 3.0 m at least)	3.0 m	3.5 m	4.8 m	2.85 m	2.2 m	3.8 m
	Total height	5.15 m	6.26 m	6.1 m	5.8 m	5.6 m	5.8 m
Thua Thien Hue	Ground floor (from ground to mezzanine, 2.5 m at least)	2.8 m	2.8 m	2.1 m	2.8 m	2.8 m	2.8 m
	Min height of mezzanine (from mezzanine to the top of the wall, 1.6 m at least)	2.4 m	2.4 m	2.4 m	2.1 m	2.1 m	2.1 m
	Max height of mezzanine (from mezzanine to the top of the roof, 3.0 m at least)	3.9 m	3.9 m	3.65 m	3.0 m	3.3 m	2.8 m
	Total height	6.7 m	6.7 m	5.75 m	5.8 m	6.1 m	5.6 m
Quang Nam	Ground floor (from ground to mezzanine, 2.5 m at least)	3.6 m	3.6 m	3.6 m	3.6 m	2.4 m	2.5 m	2.3 m	2.3 m	2.3 m	2.3 m
	Min height of mezzanine (from mezzanine to the top of the wall, 1.6 m at least)	2.8 m	2.8 m	2.8 m	2.8 m	1.9 m	1.8 m	2.0 m	2.1 m	2.9 m	3.15 m
	Max height of mezzanine (from mezzanine to the top of the roof, 3.0 m at least)	3.4 m	3.4 m	3.4 m	3.4 m	3.4 m	3.3 m	2.4 m	2.7 m	4.4 m	4.4 m
	Total height	7.0 m	7.0 m	7.0 m	7.0 m	5.8 m	5.8 m	4.7 m	5.0 m	6.7 m	6.7 m
Quang Ngai	Ground floor (from ground to mezzanine, 2.5 m at least)	2.5 m	2.8 m	2.5 m	2.8 m	2.6 m	3.4 m
	Min height of mezzanine (from mezzanine to the top of the wall, 1.6 m at least)	1.8 m	2.2 m	0.8 m	2.2 m	1.5 m	2.8 m
	Max height of mezzanine (from mezzanine to the top of the roof, 3.0 m at least)	3.5 m	2.9m	2.7 m	2.7 m	2.5 m	3.2 m
	Total height	5.8 m	6.1 m	5.2 m	5.5 m	5.2 m	6.6 m
	Below the minimum requirement

).

In order to overcome these technical shortcomings, the author proposes some changes and modifications in design drawings, such as:

Consider sanitation items on mezzanine. As mentioned, in flood zones where high levels of flood water may last for several days (for example in Quang Binh, Thua Thien Hue, and Quang Nam provinces), a toilet in the mezzanine becomes especially important and necessary. This issue needs to be considered and incorporated into the designs.

Consider clean water on mezzanine in case of high floods. A system for harvesting rain water from the roof that can be used in the mezzanine during high floods needs to be considered in the designs.

Design in details for mezzanine ladder. A detailed design of a ladder to the mezzanine which is safe and convenient for all users (especially the elderly, disabled people, and children) should be added to all design options.

-

For models with designed area of less than 25 m², it is recommended to design stairs that can be folded up on the wall with durable stainless steel or wood materials to save space.

-

For models with larger areas (which is over 25 m²) and to be used as the main living space, there should be a fixed staircase design made of reinforced concrete, stainless steel or durable wood.

-

Stair design should have handrails, steps that are wide enough (minimum 15 cm), slope (35–45 degrees), and distance between steps to be convenient and safe (15–20 cm).

-

For ladders that fold into the wall, the safety handrails can be fixed to the wall by round steel bars with a diameter of Ø34–50.

Add safety handrails to mezzanine. To ensure safety during use, handrails on the mezzanine, which can be made of stainless steel, solid wood, reinforced concrete or brick, should be added in all designs.

Add escape windows on mezzanine. An escape window on the mezzanine should be added in all designs. To ensure safety (especially for the elderly and children when opening and closing the windows), the height from the floor to the lowest position of the window should be at least 1.0 m.

Treat heat issue in the summer. As mentioned, houses with a roof made from wavy corrugated iron become very hot in the summer. Therefore, technical solutions are required to reduce the heat. Some of the following suggestions can be applied:

• From a technical point of view, it is suggested that the height of the first floor (from the ground to mezzanine) should be 2.5–3.2 m and the height from the mezzanine to the roof (the lowest lines and the top) should be at least 1.6–3.0 m for tilted wavy corrugated iron or terracotta tiles and 2.2–3.0 m for the case of flat reinforced concrete roof in order for household members to easily carry their belongings. This requirement can also help to reduce the heat in the summer;
• Use terracotta tiles instead of wavy corrugated iron sheets;
• Install additional ceiling panels or use heat insulation sheets (especially for the wavy corrugated iron roof).

5.4. Support Funding Is Limited

One of the main causes of the limitations mentioned above is the rather limited level of financial support from the project. Due to these constraints, the design teams in the provinces tried to minimize the construction items in order to match the budget set out in the project, rather than focusing on the basic and essential needs of the beneficiaries.

As the project is approaching the end, the donor‘s support funds will be closed and local beneficiaries must cover all costs for repairing and maintaining their houses. Promoting the support of families and local communities is the way to contribute additional funding. The participation of families and local communities including relatives, neighbours, authorities, organizations and enterprises in the area should be aroused and promoted in order to mobilize more resources to help poor households have better and safer houses.

6. Conclusions

By the end of December 2021, all 4000 houses targeted by the project had been completed, are still in good condition, and have not yet been damaged. Even for most local beneficiaries who are satisfied with the resilient houses provided by the project, still there are some issues related to their serviceability. The positive contributions for stakeholders’ satisfaction on the design and construction of resilient houses include as: the effectiveness of the project houses for the beneficiaries, the houses’ safe designs, a fast construction procedure, the consideration and incorporation of the needs of beneficiaries, the participation of local communities, and the use of technology in safe house construction supervision. Meanwhile, the negative contribution for stakeholders’ satisfaction is defined as: approved designs do not fully reflect the needs of beneficiaries, the designs lack some essential and basic functionalities, there are some technical shortcomings in the design drawings, and support funding is limited. In conclusion, the satisfaction of stakeholders with the design and construction of resilient houses is a crucial aspect of building resilient communities. It is influenced by factors such as the functionality of the houses, cost-effectiveness, and compliance with building codes and standards. Further research is needed to better understand the key drivers of stakeholders’ satisfaction and to identify ways to improve the design and construction of resilient houses. Moreover, community-based approaches, including the involvement of local communities in housing design and disaster response efforts, can also play a significant role in enhancing resilience at the community level.

On the basis of the findings that have been discussed, analyzed, and synthesized in the above sections, the following contents are recommended to extend the reputation of resilient houses in the future: (1) Organize seminars to exchange experiences among the project provinces. The project should organize learning sessions/seminars within and between the project provinces in order to share experiences and learn from each other in terms of project implementation, design issues, construction works, as well as supervision, filing documents, and disbursement to gain more experience and seek the best fit for local contexts and bring many practical benefits to beneficiaries; and (2) Apply information technology in the project management of housing construction. Information technology applications (e.g., KoBo Toolbox software) should be applied in project management to ensure the quality and progress of construction.