Implementing incentives for climate resilient housing among the urban poor in Vietnam – Evaluation Report with preliminary findings

Rapport 2018/16

Haakon Vennemo, Sofie Skjeflo, Tran Huu Tuan, Tran Van Giai Phong, Tran Tuan Anh, Nina Bruvik Westberg og Jens Furuholmen

Implementing incentives for climate resilient housing among the urban poor in Vietnam – Evaluation Report with preliminary findings

Kategori	Rapporter
Underkategori(er)	Klima og det grønne skiftet
År	2018
Rapportnummer	16
Forfatter(e)	Haakon Vennemo Sofie Skjeflo Tran Huu Tuan Tran Van Giai Phong Tran Tuan Anh Nina Bruvik Westberg Jens Furuholmen
Last ned	file_download (1.9 MB)
Les i nettleser	find_in_page

Report 2018/	16	 	
 	 	
 	
Implementing incentives for climate resilient housing among the 
urban poor in Vietnam	 – Evaluation Report with preliminary findings	 	
 
 
 
For the Nordic Development Fund	 	
 
 
Haakon Vennemo, Sofie Waage Skjeflo, Tran Huu Tuan, Tran Van Giai Phong, Tran Tuan Anh, 
Nina Bruvik Westberg and Jens Furuholmen

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	2 	
 
Document details	 	
Title	 	Implementing 	incentives for climate resilient housing among the urban poor in Vi-	
etnam 	– Evaluation report with preliminary findings	 	
Report number	 	2018/	16 	
ISBN	 	978	-82	-8126	-369	-7 	
Authors	 	Haakon Vennemo, Tran Huu Tuan, Tran Van Giai Phong, Tran Tuan Anh, 
Sofie Waage Skjeflo, Nina Bruvik Westberg and Jens Furuholmen	 	
Project manager	 	Haakon Vennemo	 	
Quality assurance	 	John Skjelvik	 	
Client	 	The 	Nordic Development Fund	 	
Date of completion	 	May 18, 2018	 	
Availability	 	Public	 	
Keywords	 	Climate adaption, resilience, incentives, poverty, Vietnam	 	
About 	Vista Analysis	 	
Vista Analysis is a social science consultancy with its main emphasis on economic research, policy analysis and advice, 
and evaluations. We carry out projects to the 	highest professional standards, with independence and integrity. Our 	
key thematic areas include climate change, energy, transport, urban planning and welfare issues.	 	
Our employees have high academic credentials and broad experience within consulting. When 	needed we utilise an 	
extensive network of companies and resource persons nationally and internationally. The company is fully employee	-	
owned.

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	3 	
 
Preface	 	
The project “Implementing incentives for climate resilient housing among the urban poor in Vietnam” is fun	ded by 	
the Nordic Development Fund and implemented by Vista Analysis in cooperation with ISET Vietnam, Hue College of 
Economics at Hue University, and Women’s Union of 	Da Nang	, Vietnam. The project started in late April 2016 and is 	
scheduled to run 	to 	Octo	ber 31	st, 2018. 	 	
This is a	n evaluation report of the incentive packages that have been implemented and tested among poor and near	-	
poor households	. 	
 
 
May 18, 2018	 	
Haakon Vennemo	 	
Project Manager	 	
Vista Analysis

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	4 	
 
Contents	 	
1 	Introduction	 ................................	................................	................................	................................	..........................	 5 	
2 	Impact assessment 	of implementation of incentive packages 1 and 2	 ................................	................................	 7 	
2.1	 	Take	-up of package 1 and 2 and types of improvements made	 	8 	
2.2	 	Impacts of incentive packages 1 and 2 on investment in climate resilient housing	 	9 	
2.3	 	Prel	iminary results of impact assessment	 	14	 	
2.4	 	Summary of preliminary findings for packages 1 and 2	 	17	 	
3 	Impact assessment of implementation of incentive package 3	 ................................	................................	.........	 19	 	
References	 ................................	................................	................................	................................	................................	.. 29	 	
A 	Annex Questionn	aire and follow	-up survey	 	30	 	 
Figures	 	
Figure 2.1	 	Map of wards and communes in Da Nang allocated to 	Package 1, Package 2 and control 	
group	 ................................	................................	................................	................................	................	 8 	
Figure 2.2	 	Resilience checklist from survey	 ................................	................................	................................	.....	 12	 	
Figure 2.3 	 	Share of households with different types of improvements among those that accepted	 ..............	 14	 	
Figure 2.4	 	Components of subjective resilience index from survey	 ................................	................................	 16	 	
Figure 	3.1	 	Location of Hoa Minh Ward (left) and Vinh Trung Ward (right) in Da Nang City	 ............................	 20	 	
Figure 3.2	 	Focus group discussions in Vinh Tru	ng and Hoa Minh Ward	 ................................	..........................	 21	 	
Figure 3.3	 	Six households visited in the survey	 ................................	................................	...............................	 22	 	
Figure 3.4	 	Statistical figures of 6 households surveyed	 ................................	................................	...................	 23	 	
Figure 3.5	 	Correlation between local source loan and family contribution	 ................................	.....................	 24	 	
Figure 3.6	 	Correlation between construction cost and	 family contribution	 ................................	....................	 24	 	
Figure 3.7	 	Focus group discussion in Vinh Trung Ward, Thanh Khe District, Da Nang on April 3, 2018	 ..........	 25	 	
Figure 3.8	 	Outside and inside one surveyed house	 ................................	................................	.........................	 26	 	 
Tab	les	 	
Table 1.1	 	Contents of incentive packages (amounts in VND)	 ................................	................................	...........	 5 	
Table 1.2	 	Take	-up of incentive packages 1 and 2	 ................................	................................	.............................	 9 	
Table 1.3	 	Housing improvements in 2017/2018 in control group versus each of the treatment groups
 ................................	................................	................................	................................	........................	 10	 	
Table 1.4	 	Ho	using resilience elements in control group versus each of the treatment groups	 .....................	 12	 	
Table 1.5	 	Impact of offering each of the 	incentive packages on various housing improvement 	
outcomes	 ................................	................................	................................	................................	........	 15	 	
Table 1.6	 	Impact of offering each incentive package on various 	indicators of the household’s 	
economic situation	 ................................	................................	................................	.........................	 16	 	
Table 1.7	 	Impact of offering each incentive package on indicators and elements	 of subjective 	
resilience	 ................................	................................	................................	................................	.........	 17

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	5 	
 	
1	 	Introduction	 	
This report 	presents 	our evaluation of the incentives that have been implemented and tested in Da Nang, 	
Vietnam. 	Three incentive packages for investment in climate resilient housing have been designed and 	
tested. Two of the packages are targeted to near	-poor households, while the third package is targeted to 	
poor households without the income generating capacity to r	epay a loan. 	Table 	1.1 summarizes the con-	
tents of each incentive package. 	 	
Table 	1.1 	Contents of incentive packages (am	ounts in VND)	 	
 	Package 1	 	Package 2	 	Package 3	 	
Loan size	 	30 000 000 	 	20 000 000	 	0 	
Monthly interest	 	0.0075	 	0.0075	 	 	
Repayment period 
(months)	 	
40 	40 	 	
Monthly loan payments 
by hhs	 	
870 905	 	580 603	 	 	
Technical assistance	 	1 000 000	 	1 000 000	 	1 000 000	 	
Grant	 	 	10 000 000	 	25 000 000	 	
Co-financing	 	Cash and in	-kind contribu-	
tions by households	 	
Cash and in	-kind contribu-	
tions by households	 	
Matching funds from other 
donors, cash and in	-kind 	
contributions by house-
holds if possible	 	
 
All three packages supply technical assistance to the households, including technical designs of the new 
house or retrofit, and technical assistance by local architects and local builders trained through the program 
to ensure that the technical design is c	orrectly implemented. Package 1 offers a loan of maximum 30 million 	
VND (about 1100 Euros), at a monthly interest of 0.75 % (about 9 % per year) and a repayment period of 
40 months. Package 2 offers a maximum of 20 million VND loan, but in addition, a 10 m	illion VND grant. 	
Package 3 does not contain any loan, since it is targeted at households that do not have the capacity to 
repay a loan, but rather offers a larger grant of on average 25 million VND. This package relies on contribu-
tions from other programs	 targeted at the poor to co	-finance the construction costs, and all three packages 	
rely heavily on cash and in	-kind contributions by the households themselves. 	The total costs of house ret-	
rofitting or reconstruction are recorded as part of the monitoring a	nd evaluation of the program, as are the 	
sources of co	-financing.	 The design of incentive mechanisms and the procedure for selecting eligible house-	
holds are further described in the Incentive mechanisms 	report 	(Vista Analysis, 2016	b) and Monitoring re-	
port 	1 (Vista Analysis, 2017)	. 	
This report presents the results from the evaluation of impacts of the implementation of the three incentive 
packages. The report is also a summary of the results from the workshop held in Da Nang in April 2018 to 
discuss prelimin	ary results. We first present an assessment of impacts of the two incentive packages aimed

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	6 	
 
at near	-poor households, consisting of combinations of information, technical assistance, microloans and 	
grants. The assessment of the impacts of these two packages 	is based on a randomized control trial, further 	
described in the next section. We then present a qualitative impact assessment of the implementation of 
the third incentive package aimed at poor households, including information, technical assistance and a 
grant. This evaluation is based on in	-depth interviews with six households and focus group discussions with 	
participants in the program as well as other stakeholders.

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	7 	
 	
2	 	Impact assessment of implementa-
tion of incentive packages 1 and 2	 	
The assessment of impac	ts of incentive packages 1 and 2 are based on a randomized control trial, where a 	
total of 306 households nominated by the Women’s Union in 49 wards and communes in Da Nang were 
randomly allocated to three groups: A control group, treatment group 1 that re	ceived Package 1, and treat-	
ment group 2 that received Package 2. To avoid problems of information spill	-over and to ease implemen-	
tation, we randomized the allocation to the three groups at the ward level rather than the individual house-
hold level. Prior to	 the allocation into the three groups, a baseline survey was conducted of all 306 house-	
holds, collecting data on housing conditions, socioeconomic conditions, perceptions of resilience, risk pref-
erences, life satisfaction and social capital. The evaluation	 approach and preliminary results from the base-	
line survey and tentative take	-up rates are shown in Monitoring report 1 	(Vista Analysis, 2017)	, and the 	
draft paper “Demand for climate resilient housing 	– Experimental evidence from Vietnam” 	(Skjeflo et al.,	 	
2017)	. 	
Figure 	2.1 shows the geographic distribution of the wards allocated to each of the three groups.

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	8 	
 
Figure 	2.1 	Map of wards and communes in Da Nang allocated to Package 1, Package 2 and control 
group	 	
 	
The procedure for implementing the incentive packages is described in detail in Monitoring report 1	 (Vista 	
Analysis, 2017).	 Following the implementation, a survey of	 all households was conducted in March and 	
April 2018, collecting data on the same variables as in the baseline data, as well as the cost and sources of 
funding for housing improvements made by the households throughout the implementation period. The 
quest	ionnaire for the follow	-up survey is attached in Annex 	A. 	
At the time of the follow	-up survey, eight households had sold their house and moved. One of these house-	
holds has received support from the program through package 1 and retrofitted their house, but	 subse-	
quently sold their house and moved. This household and two other households have not yet been surveyed 
at the time of writing this evaluation report but will be surveyed by mid May 2018. The remaining seven 
households that moved will not be surveyed.	 We are also aware that there may be minor data entry errors 	
that will be discovered when doing the final analyses of the data in the next reporting period of the project. 
The results presented here are therefore preliminary.	 	
2.1	 	Take	-up of package 1 and 2 and	 types of improvements made	 	
Final take	-up of the two packages, defined as accepting the offer from the Women’s Union, is presented in 	
Table 	2.1. As shown in the table,	 14 of the households that were offered both a loan and a grant chose to

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	9 	
 
only take the grant. The rate of take	-up is about 21 percent for package 1 and about 46 percent for package 	
2. Keeping in mind that the only difference between the two packages is tha	t 10 million VND (or 367 Euro 	
at the current exchange rate) of the 30 million VND loan from package 1 is offered as a grant in package 2, 
we find the difference in take	-up to be surprisingly large. We also find that the households that accept 	
either one of	 the packages are able to mobilize a large amount of co	-financing, both cash and in	-kind from 	
other sources. 	 	
Table 	2.1 	Take	-up of incentive packages 1 and 2	 	
 	Package 1 	 	
(30 mill. VND loan)	 	
Package 2	 	
(10 mill.	 VND grant and 20 mill. VND loan)	 	
Total	 	
Grant and loan	 	
 	
Grant only	 	
Number of households 
accepting 	 	
21 	35 	14 	70 	
Number of households 
not accepting	 	
81 	67 	148	 	
 	
2.2	 	Impacts of incentive packages 1 and 2 on investment in climate resilient 
housing	 	
2.2.1	 	Housing 	construction (new construction and retrofit)	 	
The purpose of the incentive packages is to give households an incentive to invest in climate resilient hous-
ing. We are therefore not only interested in whether the households accepted the offer of loans and/or 
grants and the technical assistance, we are also interested in what kind of investments the households 
made to improve the resilience of their homes. The survey includes retailed registration of the type of 
improvements made, the presence of key resilience	 elements, as well as sources of funding and types of 	
co	-funding. To assess the impact of each incentive package on the decision to invest in climate resilience, 	
we need to compare the investments made in the “treatment groups” with the control group. 	 	
The	 strength of our approach with randomly selecting which wards would be offered each package is that 	
on average, the households in the control group should have the same characteristics as the households in 
each of the treatment groups. We can therefore exp	ect that the investment in housing resilience we see in 	
the control group represents a credible counterfactual to what the households in each of the treatment 
groups would do had they not been offered support through the program. It is, however, important 	to keep 	
in mind how the households were selected 	– the Women’s Union were asked to nominate near	-poor house-	
holds in each ward that were “near poor, with a need for house retroﬁtting or reconstruction to ensure 
storm resilience, and with the wish to carry o	ut such retroﬁtting or reconstruction starting from March 	
2017”. The control group thus does not represent an average near	-poor household in Da Nang, but rather

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	10	 	
 
households that are eligible for taking part in the Women’s Union revolving fund program for re	silient 	
housing based on these criteria. We must keep this in mind when interpreting the results of the assessment 
of impact, since the results represent the impact of offering each incentive to this particular group of house-
holds. If either one of the inc	entive packages is rolled out to households selected for instance only by 	
choosing random near	-poor households, we cannot expect the same impact as we see from the evaluation 	
of our pilot experience. This issue, the external validity of our results, will b	e further discussed below.	 	
Table 	2.2 presents the share of households in each of the three groups that did various types of housing 	
improvements. Columns (1) 	– (3) sh	ow the shares in the control group, the group offered package 1 and 	
the group offered package 2, respectively. Note that this is the share of all households in each group, not 
only the households that accepted, and each household can do more than one impro	vement. Column (4) 	
presents the shares of all households. 	 	
Table 	2.2 	Housing improvements in 2017/2018 in control group versus each of the treatment groups	 	 	
(1) 	
Control	 	
(2) 	
Treatment 	
1 	
(3) 	
Treatment 	
2 	
(4) 	
Overall	 	
(1) vs. (2), p	-	
value	 	
(1) vs. (3), p	-	
value	 	
(2) vs. (3), p	-	
value	 	
New house constructed	 	0.143	 	0.098	 	0.189	 	0.144	 	0.340	 	0.393	 	0.063	 	
 	(0.037)	 	(0.030)	 	(0.038)	 	(0.020)	 	
 	 	 	
Add an extra level	 	0.000	 	0.039	 	0.085	 	0.043	 	0.057	 	0.004	 	0.175	 	
 	(0.000)	 	(0.019)	 	(0.027)	 	(0.012)	 	
 	 	 	
Elevate the house	 	0.022	 	0.029	 	0.009	 	0.020	 	0.747	 	0.476	 	0.297	 	
 	(0.015)	 	(0.017)	 	(0.009)	 	(0.008)	 	
 	 	 	
Reinforce roof	 	0.044	 	0.108	 	0.047	 	0.067	 	0.099	 	0.915	 	0.102	 	
 	(0.022)	 	(0.031)	 	(0.021)	 	(0.014)	 	
 	 	 	
Replace roof	 	0.077	 	0.088	 	0.160	 	0.110	 	0.777	 	0.075	 	0.117	 	
 	(0.028)	 	(0.028)	 	(0.036)	 	(0.018)	 	
 	 	 	
Reinforce walls	 	0.011	 	0.069	 	0.066	 	0.050	 	0.045	 	0.051	 	0.941	 	
 	(0.011)	 	(0.025)	 	(0.024)	 	(0.013)	 	
 	 	 	
Replace walls	 	0.011	 	0.000	 	0.000	 	0.003	 	0.291	 	0.282	 	
 	
 	(0.011)	 	(0.000)	 	(0.000)	 	(0.003)	 	
 	 	 	
Replace or 	install solid 	
posts, beams for support	 	
0.000	 	0.000	 	0.009	 	0.003	 	
 	
0.355	 	0.328	 	
 	(0.000)	 	(0.000)	 	(0.009)	 	(0.003)	 	
 	 	 	
Other improvements	 	0.088	 	0.078	 	0.104	 	0.090	 	0.813	 	0.709	 	0.528	 	
 	(0.030)	 	(0.027)	 	(0.030)	 	(0.017)

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	11	 	
 
We see that as many as 14 percent of the households in the control group have built a new house since the 
baseline survey was conducted. This sounds like a very high share, but again, we must keep in mind that all 
households selected as eligible for the pr	ogram are households that expressed an interest for improving 	
the storm resilience of their home, and that had a wish for starting the improvements from March 2017. 
The corresponding shares in the group of households that were offered package 1 and package	 2 are about 	
10 percent and 20 percent, respectively. The three final columns of the table show the p	-values from t	-	
tests comparing the shares in the three groups. We see that the difference in the share of households that 
have built a new house between th	e control group and each of the treatment groups is not statistically 	
significant at a five percent level of significance. The difference between the two treatment groups is mar-
ginally significant, with the share of households building a new house larger i	n treatment group 2 than 	
treatment group 1, at 7,4 percent level of significance. 	 	
For the rest of the improvements, we see that the share of households in treatment group 1 that reinforced 
their walls is significantly higher than in the control group, and	 the share is marginally significant (with p	-	
values between 5 and 10 percent) for adding an extra level to the house and reinforcing the roof. The 
results are similar when comparing the shares of improvements in the control group and the group that 
was off	ered package 2, however for this group the share of households that have replaced the roof is sig-	
nificantly higher than in the control group, while the difference is not statistically significant for the share 
that has reinforced the roof.	 	
2.2.2	 	Housing resilien	ce	 	
Finding that a high share of households in the control group have done housing improvements does not 
necessarily imply that these households have obtained the same level of housing resilience as in the groups 
that were offered technical and financial su	pport through the program. The household survey includes 	
detailed registration of “resilience components” of the houses, before and after the program was intro-
duced, through photographs and a checklist. The resilience checklist part of the survey is shown 	in 	Figure 	
2.2.

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	12	 	
 
Figure 	2.2 	Resilience checklist from survey	 	
 	
The purpose of the checklist is to be able to assess the physical resilience of the house. Each element on 
the checklist gives an indication of how resilient the house is to strong winds. Whether or not the household 
has a “solid room” is perhaps the most 	important resilience element, since this room acts as a safe shelter 	
for the household members in case of a very strong storm. The ring beams at the foundation and at the 
roof level, and the reinforced concrete (RC) pillars are all important for the overal	l stability of the house. 	
When it comes to the roof, an RC roof is considered to be very resilient, whereas a corrugated steel sheet 
roof or a clay tile roof is vulnerable to strong winds unless combined with roof bracings. 	 	
Table 	2.3 shows the share of households in each of the three groups that have each of the elements on the 	
resilience checklist. 	 	
Table 	2.3 	Housing res	ilience elements in control group versus each of the treatment groups	 	 	
Control	 	Treatment 
1 	
Treatment 
2 	
Overall	 	(1) vs. (2), 
p-value	 	
(1) vs. (3), 
p-value	 	
(2) vs. (3), 
p-value	 	
Solid room	 	0.231	 	0.267	 	0.385	 	0.297	 	0.562	 	0.021	 	0.074	 	
 	(0.044)	 	(0.044)	 	(0.048)	 	(0.027)	 	
 	 	 	
Ring beam foundation	 	0.176	 	0.218	 	0.327	 	0.243	 	0.468	 	0.016	 	0.080	 	
 	(0.040)	 	(0.041)	 	(0.046)	 	(0.025)	 	
 	 	 	
Ring beam roof	 	0.154	 	0.188	 	0.221	 	0.189	 	0.532	 	0.234	 	0.560	 	
 	(0.038)	 	(0.039)	 	(0.041)	 	(0.023)

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	13	 	
 
RC pillars	 	0.165	 	0.260	 	0.365	 	0.268	 	0.111	 	0.002	 	0.106	 	
 	(0.039)	 	(0.044)	 	(0.047)	 	(0.026)	 	
 	 	 	
RC roof	 	0.121	 	0.178	 	0.126	 	0.142	 	0.270	 	0.911	 	0.303	 	
 	(0.034)	 	(0.038)	 	(0.033)	 	(0.020)	 	
 	 	 	
Roof: clay tiles	 	0.067	 	0.059	 	0.123	 	0.084	 	0.838	 	0.189	 	0.116	 	
 	(0.026)	 	(0.024)	 	(0.032)	 	(0.016)	 	
 	 	 	
Corrugated steel roof	 	0.846	 	0.851	 	0.798	 	0.831	 	0.918	 	0.385	 	0.317	 	
 	(0.038)	 	(0.036)	 	(0.040)	 	(0.022)	 	
 	 	 	
Roof bracings	 	0.066	 	0.267	 	0.471	 	0.277	 	0.000	 	0.000	 	0.002	 	
 	(0.026)	 	(0.044)	 	(0.049)	 	(0.026)	 	
 	 	 	
For the rest of the improvements, we see that the only improvement for which there is a statistically sig-
nificant difference between the control group and the group that was offered package 1, is for roof bracings. 
About 7 percent of the households in the 	control group invested in roof bracings, while the corresponding 	
shares in the two treatment groups is about 27 percent and 47 percent, respectively. 	 	
When comparing the shares of households with each resilience element in the control group and the group 
that was offered package 2, we see a clearer difference. A higher share of households in treatment group 
2 have a solid room, a ring beam at the foundation, RC pillars and roof bracings. Given that we did not see 
a statistically significant difference betwe	en the share of households that have constructed a new house in 	
the control group and treatment group 2, these results indicate that the households that were offered 
support from the program more frequently incorporated resilience elements in their housing	 improve-	
ments. The lack of differences between the control group and the group of households offered package 1 
can largely be explained by the low take	-up in this group (21 percent versus 46 percent in treatment group 	
2). 	 	
Looking more closely at the house	holds that did accept the incentive packages, we see that there are some 	
differences in terms of what type of improvements the households in the two groups did. 	Figure 	2.3 shows 	
the share of households that undertook different types of improvements, among the households that ac-
cepted each of the two incentive packages. The results indicate that the households t	hat accepted the 	
more generous package 2 on average invested in more costly improvements. About 37 percent of these 
households constructed a new house, while about 15 percent of those that accepted package 1 did the 
same. We also see that a higher share of	 households that accepted package 1 reinforced their roofs, while 	
among those that accepted package 2, a higher share replaced their roof.

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	14	 	
 
Figure 	2.3 	Share of households with different types of improvements	 among those that accepted	 	
 	
2.3	 	Preliminary results of impact assessment	 	
As outlined in the Inception 	report 	(Vista Analysis, 2016a)	 the	 empirical a	nalysis of the implementation of 	
the test of incentive packages aims to answer two main research questions:	 	
R3:	 What incentives are needed in order to enable (poor and) near poor households to invest in storm 	
resilient housing?	 	
R4: What are the short	-run impacts of investing in storm resilient housing?	 	
We have already touched upon the first question in the previous	 section of this report. As shown in the 	
descriptive analysis, the take	-up of the first incentive package is less than half of the take	-up of the second 	
incentive package. We also see that a substantial share of the households in the control group have und	er-	
taken housing improvements since the baseline survey. On the other hand, the results indicate that the 
households in the control group have to a lesser extent invested in housing elements that are important 
for enduring storm resilience. Looking at the i	mpact of being offered either package 1 or package 2 (the 	
intention to treat effect	1) on various housing improvement outcomes confirms this impression. 	Table 	2.4 	
shows	 the impact of being offered each package on the probability of doing any kind of housing improve-	
ment, on building a new house and on the number of resilience elements, defined as having a solid room, 
 	 	 	
1 The intention to treat effect is the impact of offering the program to eligible households. The size of the effect thus depen	ds on 	
the take	-up of the program, where the effect is lower the lower the take	-up. 	 0.150	
0.000
0.000	
0.250
0.250	
0.450	
0.050	
0.150
0.150	
0.143	
0.020
0.000	
0.122	
0.306	
0.102	
0.000	
0.184	
0.367	
0	.1	.2	.3	.4	.5	0	.1	.2	.3	.4	.5	
Treatment 1	Treatment 2	
New house constructed	Add an extra level	
Elevate the house	Reinforce roof	
Replace roof	Reinforce walls	
Replace walls	Solid posts or support beams	
Other improvements	
Graphs by Treatment group

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	15	 	
 
ring beam at foundation level, ring beam at roof level,	 RC pillars, RC roof and roof bracings. The number of 	
resilience elements for each household thus varies from to 5. 	 	
Table 	2.4 	Impact of offering each of the incentive packages on various housing improvement	 out-	
comes 	 	
 	Housing improvement	 	New house constructed	 	Number of resilience ele-	
ments (0	-5) 	
Package 1	 	 	0.013	 	-0.045	 	0.395	 	
 	(0.083)	 	(0.055)	 	(0.377)	 	
 	 	 	 	
Package 2	 	0.208	* 	0.046	 	0.945	** 	
 	(0.090)	 	(0.053)	 	(0.293)	 	
Observations	 	299	 	299	 	299	 	
Standard errors in 	parentheses	 clustered at ward level	. * p < 0.05, 	** p < 0.01, 	*** p < 0.001	 	
We see that households that were offered the second incentive package have a 21 percent higher proba-
bility of doing any kind of housing improvement than the households in the contr	ol group. We find no 	
impact of being offered package 1. We do not find any impact of being offered either package on the prob-
ability of building a new house. However, we find a positive and significant impact of being offered package 
2 on the number of res	ilience elements present in the house. Again, there is no significant impact of being 	
offered package 1.	 	
In line with our plan for analysis outlined in the inception report, we have also looked at impacts on monthly 
household expenditures excluding loan re	payments, monthly savings (note that the savings data likely in-	
cludes some data entry errors and will be checked before the final analysis), the number of habitable rooms 
in the house, and on the probability of feeling that there is enough room for the fam	ily in the house. As 	
shown in 	Ta	ble 	2.5, we do not find any statistically significant impact of being offered either package on 	
any of these outcomes. 	 	
Our hypothesis 	was that the housing investment would decrease available expenditures for other goods, 	
implying that the short run impact of the investment on consumption is negative. We will also investigate 
whether this hypothesis holds for investment in other assets, i	ncluding investments in human capital 	
through education. The preliminary results here show no significant impact (although the coefficient has 
the expected sign), but we will further investigate this after checking for data entry errors and controlling 
for	 baseline expenditures. 	 	
Regarding savings, on the one hand one could expect decreased savings in the short run because of the 
investment costs related to the housing improvements. On the other hand, the WU loan program includes 
a small amount of compulsor	y savings. In the short run, it is perhaps as expected that we do not find any 	
impact, but this result also has to be considered preliminary. We also checked whether we could detect an 
impact on the number of rooms in the house, whether the households took	 the opportunity to improve 	
the house in other ways than ensuring storm resilience. The preliminary results do not show any impact, 
and there is also no impact on the probability of considering that there is sufficient room for the family in 
the house.

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	16	 	
 
 
Ta	ble 	2.5 	Impact of offering each incentive package on various indicators of the household’s eco-
nomic situation	 	
 	Monthly expenses ex-
cluding loan repayments	 	
Monthly savings (1000 
VND) assuming missing 	
is zero	 	
Number of habitable 	
rooms	 	
Enough room for family	 	
Package 1	 	-281.106	 	146.143	 	0.298	 	0.157	 	
 	(605.566)	 	(98.943)	 	(0.242)	 	(0.094)	 	
 	 	 	 	 	
Package 2	 	-263.862	 	43.738	 	0.033	 	0.175	 	
 	(649.192)	 	(76.214)	 	(0.263)	 	(0.104)	 	
Observations	 	295	 	299	 	298	 	293	 	
Standard errors 	in parentheses	 clustered at ward level	. * p < 0.05, 	** p < 0.01, 	*** p < 0.001	 	
Finally,	 we are interested in the overall resilience of the households, not just their housing resilience. There 	
are several approaches to assessing overall resilience, and this	 is a topic we will investigate further in the 	
next phase of the project. Through the baseline and follow	-up survey, we have information about several 	
indicators of resilience, including subjective resilience and an index of life satisfaction. 	Figure 	2.4 shows the 	
questions that are included in the index of subjective resilience. The index is based on the household’s 
assessment of several aspects of res	ilience, including housing resilience, capacity to recover, capacity to 	
adapt, financial resilience, social capital and government support.	 	
Figure 	2.4 	Components of subjective resilience index from survey	 	
 	
Table 	2.6 shows the results from estimating the impact of being offered each of the incentive packages on 	
the first statement in the resilience index d	escribed above, which is related to housing resilience. Here we

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	17	 	
 
do se a positive and statistically significant impact of both package 1 and package 2, with a larger impact of 
package 2. However, we cannot rule out that the households felt obligated to give	 a positive response to 	
this statement since they were responding to the Women’s Union who had offered them support. For the 
index of overall life satisfaction, we only see a positive impact from being offered package 2, which is more 
in line with the resu	lts we have seen for actual housing improvements made. The fact that there is no 	
significant impact of being offered either package on the overall resilience index (a simple average of the 
score on the five statements above) could be due to overall resilie	nce consisting of several different com-	
ponents. Through the program that we have tested, we have only affected housing resilience, while the 
financial resilience may have been negatively impacted in the short run due to the investment cost. The 
financial b	enefits of the investment (the avoided storm damage) is only realized once a storm has taken 	
place, and the household avoids the costs of repairs and loss of property from the storm damage. In the 
longer run, we therefore expect a positive impact on overal	l resilience. 	 	
Table 	2.6 	Impact of offering each incentive package on indicators and elements of subjective resili-
ence	 	
 	Feeling of safety from 
storms and floods (1	-5) 	
Overall life satisfaction 
(1-5) 	
Index of 	subjective resili-	
ence	 	
Package 1	 	0.455	* 	0.207	 	1.375	 	
 	(0.211)	 	(0.158)	 	(1.757)	 	
 	 	 	 	
Package 2	 	0.613	** 	0.288	* 	2.075	 	
 	(0.195)	 	(0.141)	 	(1.826)	 	
Observations	 	292	 	296	 	242	 	
Standard errors in parentheses	. * p < 0.05, 	** p < 0.01, 	*** p < 0.001	 	
2.4	 	Summary of 	preliminary findings for packages 1 and 2	 	
We have shown that the take	-up of package 2 is more than twice as high as package 1, even though the 	
only difference is that 10 million VND of the total support of 30 million is a grant in package 2, whereas the 
wh	ole amount is a loan in package 1. The households that accepted package 1 on average do less expensive 	
improvements to their house, e.g. retrofitting rather than replacing the roof, and doing other types of ret-
rofits rather than building a new house.	 	
We al	so see that a significant share of the households in the control group, i.e. the households that were 	
not offered any support through the program, also did improvements and reconstructed their homes. For 
instance, there is no difference between the control	 group and the two treatment groups in the likelihood 	
of doing any kind of improvement or the likelihood of constructing a new house in the period since the 
baseline survey. We should interpret these results in light of how eligible households were recruit	ed: these 	
are near	-poor households that already had an interest in improving their home in the time	-period the pro-	
gram was implemented. It is therefore not likely that we would see an equally high rate of housing im-
provements in a randomly selected group o	f near	-poor households in Da Nang. However, comparing the

Vista 	Analysis	 | Re	port 2018/16	 	18	 	
 
control group and the treatment groups does show us the impact of offering each package to households 
that are recruited in the same way as in this pilot test. 	 	
Because of the low take	-up in the gro	up that was offered package 1, and perhaps also because of the more 	
limited investments made by these households, we do not find any impact of offering package 1 to this 
type of households on most of the outcome variables we have looked at. Our preliminary	 conclusion is that 	
package 1 is too limited in terms of the financial support offered, and that the households do need in in-
centive in the form of a subsidy of a certain size to be willing to invest in resilient housing. This may be due 
to several factors	. 	
The time horizon of the households may be short	. Several studies have shown the poverty and the need to 	
meet basic needs, makes the planning horizon of poor households shorter than non	-poor households (they 	
discount future income more than non	-poor hous	eholds). 	 	
Households may lack information about the probability of future storm damage	. If households underesti-	
mate the likelihood that they will suffer storm damages in the future, they may need an additional financial 
incentive (a subsidy) to be willing 	to invest in storm resilient housing. 	 	
For some of the households that do not accept, the investment is not profitable	. Maybe they live in an area 	
that is less exposed to typhoons, or they have other investment needs that have a greater return (for in-
stanc	e investment in income generating activities) that they rightly prioritize. These are issues we hope to 	
investigate further if we get the opportunity to follow the households over time. 	 	
For the households that were offered a grant in addition to a loan, 	the results are more promising. We find 	
a positive impact on investment in resilience elements for these households, indicating that the households 
in the control group that for instance built a new house, were not able to improve their housing resilience 
to the extent of the households that were offered package 2. This is despite that less than half of the house-
holds accepted the package. We also find a positive impact of being offered package 2 on subjective hous-
ing resilience (how safe the household feel	s), and on overall life satisfaction. 	 	
In the final stage of the project we will revise this preliminary analysis. This will allow us to better under-
stand the reasons for choosing not to accept and which households could be reached by scaling up the 
curren	t program. This is important information that will feed into the ongoing discussion of how the 	
Women’s Union revolving fund will be used in the future. It is also likely to affect the design of similar 
programs that are being introduced in other coastal ci	ties in Vietnam.

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	19	 	
 	
3	 	Impact 	assessment of implementa-	
tion of incentive package 3	 	
From 3 to 4 of April 2018, the Institute for Social and Environmental Transition (ISET) in collaboration with 
Hue University of Economics conducted an assessment to examine the ef	ficiency of storm	-resilient houses 	
to the resilience and development of beneficiary households and communities. These houses were built in 
Da Nang City, Vietnam under the Package 3 of the project “	Implementing Incentives for Climate Resilient 	
Housing Among	 the Urban Poor in Vietnam	” funded by the Nordic Development Fund (NDF) through the 	
city Women’s Union channel. Up to now, there are total 65 poor households in Da Nang receiving the grant 
from NDF to renovate or reconstruct their homes in accordance with 	climate resilience requirements. 24 	
houses were newly built, and 41 houses were retrofitted. The NDF project provided a grant of 30 million 
VND per newly built house and 20 million VND per retrofitted house.	 	
The assessment focused on two wards of Da Nang, 	Vinh Trung and Hoa Minh Ward, where the NDF project 	
has supported many poor households in reconstructing and retrofitting their homes. The assessment con-
sisted of two focus group discussions (FGD), fifteen participants per group, and six in	-depth household	 in-	
terviews. The FGDs saw the participation of a wide range of local stakeholders, from the ward people’s 
committee leadership board, cadastral (land) unit, and fatherland front committee, to women’s union, 
quarter heads, local builders and beneficiary hou	seholds.

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	20	 	
 
Figure 	3.1 	Location of Hoa Minh Ward (left) and Vinh Trung Ward (right) in Da Nang City	 	
 	
Source: Google Maps	 	
Geographically, Hoa Minh Ward belongs to Lien Chieu	 District, and is located next to the sea where tropical 	
storms originate and land in Da Nang. The Vinh Trung Ward, belonging to Thanh Khe District, is more inland 
than Hoa Minh and closer to the city center. Proportion of poor households in Hoa Minh is hi	gher than in 	
Vinh Trung and nearly 70 % land of Hoa Minh is used for relocation/resettlement purposes while most of 
residential land in Vinh Trung is the long	-standing existing residential areas. Due to being located near the 	
sea, many households in Hoa Mi	nh are highly exposed to storm hazards and make housing of the poor in 	
Hoa Minh, in general, more vulnerable to climate hazards compared to their counterparts in Vinh Trung 
Ward.

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	21	 	
 
Figure 	3.2 	Focus group discu	ssions	 in Vinh Trung and Hoa Minh Ward	 	
Focus group discussion in Vinh Trung Ward	 	
(conducted on 3 Apr 2018	, morning	) 	
Focus group discussion in Hoa Minh Ward	 	
(conducted on 	4 Apr 2018	, morning	) 	
 
 	
 
 	
In the FGDs, most of participants 	have 	highly appreciated the importance and necessity of the NDF 	project 	
in supporting the poor within the ward in having	 a better 	and safer accommodation	, particularly in the 	
context of climate change where storm and flood risks are forecasted to be worsen 	in t	he future	. As high-	
lighted by them, the NDF project is one of the pioneer projects in Da Nang to integrate compulsory technical 
demands for risk reduction into housing construction alongside the financial support by grant provision. 
The cost of construction/renovation	 per house ranges from 30 to 125 million VND, dependent on the size 	
of the house and the type of materials used by homeowners. The disbursement of the NDF grants to the 
poor households, even with a small amount of grant, has motivated a contribution of som	e additional local 	
financial sources to fully cover the house construction expense. Forms of these contributed sources are 
diverse within the surveyed households, from grant to loan as seen in 	Figure 	3.4 Statistical figures of 6 	
households surveyed	.

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	22	 	
 
Figure 	3.3 	Six households visited in the survey	 	
In Vinh Trung Ward, Thanh Khe District	 (Photos taken on 3 Apr 2018	, afternoon	) 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
Household 	1 	
Nguyen Thi Bach Tuyet	 	
Household 	2 	
Nguyen Thi Hoi 	 	
 	
Household 3	 	
Huynh Thi Lieu	 	
In Hoa Minh Ward, Lien Chieu District	 (Photos taken on 	4 Apr 2018	, afternoon	) 	
 	
 	
 	 	
Household 	4 	
Tran Thi Kim Hoa	 	
Household 	5 	
Luu Thi Sim	 	
Household 	6 	
Phan Thi Khanh Linh

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	23	 	
 
The three households in Vinh Trung Ward, beside the NDF grant, received an additional amount of 5	-6 	
million VND per household from the ward Fatherland Front for their housing improvement. Meanwhile, 
the three households in Hoa Minh Ward have not received t	he financial support from the ward Fatherland 	
Front because the NDF project was implemented later than the time of selecting beneficiary households 
by the ward Fatherland Front, as explained by the ward WU representative. Instead, one household in Hoa 
Minh	 had received the grant of 10 million VND from a local enterprise (5 million), the quarter WU (3), and 	
the ward Veteran (2) to combine with the NDF grant for covering construction cost. It means that the Pack-
age 3 of the project has mobilized a variety of 	local sources to match with the NDF grant for helping the 	
poor in having a better (more resilient) house.	 	
Figure 	3.4 	Statistical figures of 6 households surveyed	 	
 	
It was also found that the family’s cash 	contribution is quite modest since they are economically poor and 	
seems to have no saving for this purpose. Their contribution amount ranges from to 8 million VND, except 
for one household adding about 30 million VND to the house construction thanks to t	heir relative’s financial 	
assistance. There seems to be a correlation between the local source loan and the family contribution in 
which the higher family contribution the larger amount of loan the family could borrow from local sources 
(i.e. from relative	s, brothers, sisters, friends, neighbours) (	Figure 	3.5). Similarly, there is a linkage between 	
construction cost and family contribution where the higher family contr	ibution the higher the construction 	
cost of the house (	Figure 	3.6).

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	24	 	
 
Figure 	3.5 	Correlation between local source loan an	d family contribution	 	
 	
Figure 	3.6 	Correlation between construction cost and family contribution	 	
 	
The FGD in Vinh Trung Ward shows that there is a good policy issued by the involved district government 
(Than	h Khe district) in 2016 in which poor households could receive free assistance from the district urban 	
management department and ward cadastral (land) unit in preparing housing design drawing files for ap-
plying building permit. Cost of applying building pe	rmit may be also exempted for the poor if they are as-	
sessed to be extremely difficult without financial capacity, as said by the ward	-level cadastral unit repre-	
sentative. This policy is really meaningful to the poor in helping them improve their houses. Ho	wever, this 	
policy has been unknown to local Women’s Union so that this resource was not mobilized in the NDF pro-
ject where part of beneficiary households is the poor and each household still received one million VND for 
technical design/assistance. Meanwh	ile, this policy has not been initiated in Lien Chieu District, as deduced 	
from the FGD in Hoa Minh.

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	25	 	
 
Figure 	3.7 	Focus group discussion	 in Vinh Trung Ward, Thanh Khe District, Da Nang on April 3, 2018	 	
 	 	
The 	above finding indicates that some districts in Da Nang have released pertinent policies to support the 	
poor in upgrading their homes and escaping from poverty. However, the issue of information exchange and 
sharing at the local levels, particularly amongst	 local administrative units, are not really effective so that 	
such resources were easy to be not known and, thus, not used in low	-income housing construction projects. 	
In cases that this resource was mobilized, the cost of technical support per household w	ould be reduced 	
and, therefore, the project had more financial resource to invest in other purposes, such as extending the 
grant size for household, adding more safety	-related measures, or purchasing risk/damage insurance. This 	
reduced cost is also signifi	cant to safe housing microfinance programs for the poor and low income if pref-	
erential credit schemes are operated in combination with technical assistance.	 	
The NDF project is	 the only one project up to now requiring the compulsory use of safety	-related st	andards 	
in housing construction in Thanh Khe District. This is the feature that makes the NDF project different from 
previous housing projects for the poor within the district area. In previous housing programs, financial as-
pects were paid more attention t	han technical ones, even in the areas prone to climate hazards (i.e. ty-	
phoon, flood), as said by the district WU representative. In previous housing projects for the poor, infor-
mation/guidelines for housing design were usually disseminated to in	-need house	holds through quarter 	
heads and local mass organizations such as Women’s Union. In most cases, safety	-related measures are 	
encouraged but not required to follow in housing construction. This makes housing of the poor in these 
two wards particularly 	- and i	n Da Nang generally 	- still at	-risk to future climate hazards. 	 	
As recommended by the FGD participants, there should be a requirement of using safety	-related measures 	
in housing construction when providing the poor with financial grant/loan, to ensure that	 their rebuilt/ren-	
ovated houses are able to cope with future climate hazards. As said by the homeowners	 interviewed, there 	
have been not many houses of the poor within their neighborhood	 integrating safety	-related measures (i.e. 	
storm shelter inclusion, wall and roof consolidation elements) in their house structure. Explained by them, 
it is mainly because of lacking technical requirements right from the beginning, lacking easy	-to-understa	nd 	
and locally applicable technical guidelines, and lack of specific mechanisms for construction monitoring and 
construction quality control during the implementation.	 	
In the six surveyed houses built by the NDF project for climate resilience enhancement, 	the most common 	
technical principles used for these houses is (1) the construction of a “storm shelter” by upgrading an ex-
isting room inside the house (	Figure 	3.8), (	2) the wall reinforcement by adding reinforced concrete posts

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 201	8/16	 	26	 	
 
and beams inside walls, and (3) the roof protection by anchoring roof frames to the walls underneath and 
roof covers to roof frames. Within the inclusion of these elements, it generally generate	s an increase of 15	-	
25% of total construction cost, as stated by the interviewed homeowners. Affirmed by them, these tech-
nical principles are really necessary to their house durability, easy to understand and, thus, easy to be in-
corporated/applied in housi	ng construction if these guidelines are explained of how to use from the begin-	
ning (through training or information sessions). During the construction time, Women’s Union in collabo-
ration with Fatherland Front Committee had visited 2	-3 times per house to c	heck whether the construction 	
was ongoing and, more importantly, safety	-related measures were incorporated in construction. In addi-	
tion, quarter heads also occasionally visited the house to capture the situation, construction progress, any 
problems happene	d during construction time, and report to ward authority, if needed.	 	
Figure 	3.8 	Outside and inside one surveyed house	 	
 	
 	 	
There is a portion of poor population 	in the two wards surveyed 	who has no 	land certificate	, locally known 	
as the 	red book (s	ổ đỏ). This will affect the process of building permit application that is required for resi-	
dential housing construction or renovation within the urban areas. In 	regulation, building	 permit is only 	
granted to the land that have the 	red book	. However, there is a flexibility in the building permit granting 	
process to help the poor households without 	red book	 be able to get building permit. Specifically, the ward 	
cada	stral unit will check the legality of their land, whether its location is conformed to the city/district’s 	
current planning, and grant a written agreement letter to confirm the residential status of the land. The 	
Storm 	Shelter	 	
(bedroom in normal time	)

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	27	 	
 
district urban management department, the b	ody granting building permit, will base on this letter to double 	
check and grant building permit for the poor households who have no 	red book	. 	
The support from local governments for the poor is also spreading to other works relating to construction 
activi	ties. Housing of the poor living in the central business districts such as the Thanh Khe is usually located 	
in densely constructed areas with narrow lanes/alleys and the transportation of materials to the site is quite 
difficult and easy to disturb neighbo	ring households. In some cases, the ward urban rule team, locally called 	
“đội quy t	ắc đô th	ị”, 	will check construction activities and if the transportation of materials affects the 	
public, the household will be fined or, more heavily, stop the construct	ion. However, for the poor group, 	
the local authority had worked with these urban rule teams before to ask their assistance in allowing the 
construction of poor people’s houses. In addition, the ward fatherland front committee also works with 
local materia	l shops (e.g. steel, cement, brick sellers)	2 to ask them to offer a cheaper cost for poor people’s 	
housing construction. In most cases, local material shops are willing to offer a lower price than the market 
price for this group, as said by one ward author	ity representative. Also, if any poor households want to 	
develop economy alongside housing improvement, the ward authority will work with the Vietnam Bank for 
Social Policies to ask them to offer preferential loans for people’s livelihood/economic developm	ent. 	 	
The household	 interviews saw the strong engagement of family members, family’s relatives, and friends in 	
housing construction work. 5 out of 6 houses visited received a ‘free’ labor contribution from the owners’ 
brothers, sons and relatives and, thus	, help reduce the labor cost significantly. All the surveyed households 	
feel more secure in next rainy and stormy seasons since they have a safer home to live and protect their 
family. Thanks to having a better/more durable accommodation, the family member	s (e.g. sons, daughters) 	
who have worked in other cities/provinces have sent money back to support their parents in purchasing 
more valuable items such as TV, computer, fridge, or kitchen appliances. It can be claimed that the overall 
target of housing sup	port for the poor is not only the provision of the house itself but also the facilita-	
tion/enabling of other forms of assistance to fully help the family escape from poverty, improve living con-
ditions and reach a sustainable development. 	 	
Migrant househo	lds who have moved from other places can be considered as local residents if they live 	
within the ward for more than 6 months. Local authority is responsible for checking these households and 
help them gradually legalize their inhabitation if they want to 	live permanently in the ward. Social security 	
policies, including housing	-related support, will be applied to these households as the local ones who have 	
the family record book issued by the city government. In the long term, the family record book of thes	e 	
migrant households will be issued by the city government to recognize them as the city citizens. The 6 
households surveyed are not belonged to the migrant group.	 	
In short, this assessment survey has indicated that, helping the poor in housing improvement	 is a multi	-	
dimensional approach in which financial support should be incorporated with technical and institutional 
assistances to fully support them in building climate	-resilient houses and, more importantly, sustaining 	
their savings/investment for other 	wellbeing/development purposes of the family. The incentive package 	
provided in Package 3 (grant + technical support), even with a small number of beneficiary households, has 
generated valuable contributions of local sources, from the cash contribution by 	the ward fatherland front 	
committee, quarter WU, Veteran and local business enterprises, to the free	-of-charge assistance of local 	
 	 	 	
2 These shops have been known by the ward fath	erland front committee in the previous housing programs with similar helps.

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	28	 	
 
authority in applying building permit, construction monitoring and asking a cheaper price from local mate-
rial shops.

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	29	 	
 
Referenc	es	 	
Skjeflo, Sofie; Tuan Huu Tran, Phong Van Giai Tran, Tuan Anh Tran, Haakon Vennemo, Nina Bruvik Westberg 
and Henrik Lindhjem (2017): Demand for climate	-resilient housing	: Experimental evidence from Vietnam. 	
Working paper. 	 	
Vista Analysis	 (2016 a): Implem	enting incentive for climate resilient housing among the urban poor in Vi-	
etnam: Inception report. 	Report 2016/38. By Henrik Lindhjem, Tran Huu Tuan, Sofie Skjeflo, Haakon Ven-	
nemo, Tran Van Giai Phong and Tran Tuan Anh.	 	
Vista Analysis	 (2016 b): Incentive me	chanisms and plan for implementation. 	Report 2016/57. By Sofie 	
Skjeflo, Tran Huu Tuan, Tran Van Giai Phong, Tran Tuan Anh, Haakon Vennemo and Henrik Lindhjem.	 	
Vista Analysis (2017	): Implementing incentives for climate resilient housing among the urban poor	 in Vi-	
etnam 	– Monitoring report 1. Report 2017/23. By 	Sofie Waage Skjeflo, Tran Huu Tuan, Tran Van Giai Phong, 	
Tran Tuan Anh, Haakon Vennemo, Nina Bruvik Westberg and Jens Furuholmen	.

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	30	 	
 	
A	 	Annex 	 	
Questionnaire and follow	-up survey

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	32	 	
 	
Date:………./……………/201	8 	
 
Start time:………..:…………..	 	
 
Finish time:………:…………..	 	
Checked by:	 	
 
……………………………..	 	
 
Approved: 	 	
 
…………………………......

Disclaimer cell 	– this must be set to BOTTOM MARGIN 	– set paragraph markers in 	
the footer 	 	
so that it’s high enough for the disclaimer to fit and so that the ToC table breaks 
properly across the next page (paragraph markers are needed for 2010 only)	 	
Footer box 	– THIS IS NOT FLOATING ANYMORE 	34	 	
Module 1 	Household 	background 	characteristics	 	
A. Household members:	 Fill in 	columns A1	-A3 from baseline survey. Add names 	in column A4 	if new members have joined the household.	 	
Member 	
ID 	
Name of 
household 
member	 	
Make a complete	 	
list of all individu-
als who normally 
live and eat their 
meals together in 
this household, 
and have stayed 
in the house more 
than 3 months 
during the past 12 
months, starting 
with the head of 
the household*	 	
A1	 	
Sex	 	
1=Male 
2=Female	 	
A2	 	
Age	 	
A3	 	
 
 
 
 	
Change in 
ho	usehold	 	
1=Member still 
present	 	
2=New member	 	
3=Member 	
moved/left house-	
hold	 	
4=Member died	 	
5=Other (specify)	 	
A4	 	
Relationship 
with HH head	 	
1=Head 2= Hus-
band 3= Wife 4	= 	
Son 4=Daughter 
5=Grandchild 
6=Brother 7=Sister 	
8=Niece 9= 	
Nephew 10=Other 
relatives 	(specify)	 	
A5	 	
Marital status	 	
1=Married 	
2=Widowed 3=Di-
vorced 4= Sepa-
rated 5=Never 	
married	 	
A6	 	
Education	 	
Main occu-
pation	 	
0=none 	1= agri-	
culture, aqua-
culture or fish-
ing 2=salaried 
work	 3=non	-	
farming self 
employed busi-
ness 	4=pension 	
5=schooling 
6=u	nemployed	 	
7=informal, 
self	-employ-	
ment,	 8=home-	
maker, 9	=other 	
(specify)	 	
A11	 	
Is [NAME] 
currently 
in school? 
(School 
year	 	
2017	-18)	 	
1=Yes	 	
2=No	 	
If No, move to 	
A9 
A7	 	
What grade is 
[NAME] at-
tending?	 	
1-12= Primary (1	-	
12 yrs)	 	
13= 1 year univer-	
sity	 	
14=2 yrs uni	 	
15=3 	yrs uni	 	
16= 4 yrs or more 	
uni 	
18= 1 year college	 	
19= 2 years col.	 	
20 = 3 years or 
more of college	 	
 
A8	 	
Did 
[NAME] 
attend 
school 
last 
school 
year 
(2016	-	
17)?	 	
1=Yes	 	
2=No	 	
A9	 	
What is the 
highest 
grade com-
pleted by 
[NAME]?	 	
1-12: Primary 
(1-12 yrs)	 	
13-17: Univer-
sity (1	-4 yrs)	 	
18= 1 year col-	
lege	 	
19= 2 years col-	
lege	 	
20 = 3 years or 
more of college	 	
A10	 	
01 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
02 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
03 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
04 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
05

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	35	 	
 	
06 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
07 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
08 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
*Mak	e sure that the household head listed here is the same as on the front page of the survey.

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	37	 	
 	
3.9 	07 	3.10	 	Pension	 	
 	 	
3.11	 	08 	3.12	 	Remittance from family members or relatives 	(not loans)	 	
 	 	
3.13	 09 
3.14	 Other (specify) 	 	
3.15	 (do not add any loans here, they will be asked about later)	: 	
 	 	
3.16	 	
 	 	 	
3.17	 	
 	 	 	
3.18	 	
 	 	 	
3.19	 	
 	 	 	
3.20	 	
 	 	 	
3.21	 	
Total 	- please add up and check with respondent if total seems roughly ok

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	39	 	
 	
 
 
 	
05 	
Telephone	 	 	 	 	 
 
 
 	
3.28	 	06 
3.29	 	Mobile phone 	 	
 	 	 	 
 
 
 	
07 	
Television

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	40	 	
 	
3.30	 	08 
3.31	 	Computer	 	
 	 	 	 
 
 
 	
3.32	 	09 
3.33	 	Gas Stove	 	
 	 	 	 
 
 
 	
3.34	 10 3.35	 Livestock	 	
 	 	 	 
 
 
 	
3.36	 11 3.37	 Farm equipment	 	
 	 	 	 
 
 
 	
3.38	 12 3.39	 Boat	 	
 	 	 	 
 
 
 	
3.40	 13 3.41	 Equipment for non	-farming self	-	employment business

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	41	 	
 	
 	
3.42	 14 	3.43	 	 Others (specify):	 	
 	 	 	 	
3.44	 	3.45	 	
 	 	 	 	
3.46	 	3.47	 	
 	 	 	 	
3.48	 	3.49	 	
 	 	 	 	
3.50	 	3.51

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	43	 	
 
12 	Taxes for income, property etc.	 	 	
13 	Household durables (tv, computer, refrigerator, kitchen equipment, furniture), car, motorbike, bicycle	 	 	
14 	Livestock or agricultural inputs, equipment	 	 	
15 	Input for business activities (non	-farming self employment business)	 	 	
16 	Savings (incl. to savings group in Women’s Union’s program)	 	 	
17 	Loan repayments (incl. repayments to Women’s Union’s loan program)	 	 	
18 	Others, please specify 	 	
(do not 	include 	repairs or building equipment for the house, will also be asked about later	)

Disclaimer cell 	– this must be set to BOTTOM MARGIN 	– set paragraph markers in 	
the footer 	 	
so that it’s high enough for the disclaimer to fit and so that the ToC table breaks 
properly across the next page (paragraph markers are needed for 2010 only)	 	
Footer box 	– THIS IS NOT FLOATING ANYMORE 	44	 	
E. Debt and access to credit	 	
E1 Number of loans the household had in Dec. 2016/Jan. 2017 [Fill in from baseline survey by counting number of 	loans in E1]: _______	 	
E2 Has anyone in the household taken up a new loan after the last time we visited you and conducted the survey? (in 	2017	 and 2018)	: 1=Yes	, 2=No	 IF 2 PROCEED TO E	8 	
 
Loan 
nr 	
How much did you bor-
row in 	2017	/2018	? 	
(1000 VND)	 	
E3 	
How much	 do you have left 
to repay?	 	
(1000 VND)	 	
E4 	
What is the purpose of the loan	 	
1=House construction/retrofitting/repairs	 2=Pur-	
chasing land 	3=Business activities	 4=Education ex-	
penses 5=Health expenses 6=Consumption expenses 	
7=Other, specify	 	
E5 	
Who did you borrow	 from	 	
1=Commercial bank 2=VBSP 3=Micro-
credit provider 4=Friends or family 
5=Black market	 6=Women’s Union, 	 	
7=Other, specify	 
E6 	
Could you borrow 
more from this source 
if you wanted to? 	1=Yes	, 	
2=No	, 3=Don’t know	 	
IF 2	 OR 	3 PROCEED	 TO E	8 	
E7 	
01 	 	 	 	 	 	
02 	 	 	 	 	 	
03 	 	 	 	 	 	
04 	 	 	 	 	 	
05 	 	 	 	 	 	
06 	 	 	 	 	 	
 	 	 	 	 	 	
 
E8 	Why did you not take up any 	
new loans? 	 	
1=No need	, 2=No access	 because of bad debt history, 3= No access because of lack of collateral (e.g. 	
no legal land tenure, red book etc.), 4= No access because not a prioritized household for accessing

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	45	 	
 
loans from e.g. VBSP, 5	=Access, but repayment conditions or interest rate do	 not fit 	6=Wait to fully repay previous loan (currently in debt) before borrowing new loan,	 , 7=Other, specify 	 	
IF 1 (no need for loan), PROCEED TO F1

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	48	 	
 
 	
 	Do you feel that you 
have enough room for 
all household mem-
bers to live in the 
house at the same 
time? 	1=yes	, 2= no, 	
3=don’t know	 	
 
F6 	
The walls of the house 
are predominately 
made of what materi-	
als?	 	
1=wood, 2=bricks, 3=ce-
ment block, 4=concrete, 	
5=other, specify	 	
F7 	
The roof of the house is pre-
dominately made of what 	
materials?	 	
1=metal sheets, 2=concrete, 
3=clay tile, 4=fibrocement, 	
5=other, specify	 	
F8 	
Does the household have 	
pip	ed water?	 	
1=yes, inside the house	 	
2= yes, outside the house	 	
3=no 	
CAN GIVE MORE THAN ONE 	
ANSWER	 	
 F9 	
What is the main toilet 
facility in the house?	 	
1=outside latrine,	 	
2=pour flush toilet,	 	
3=flush toilet,	 	
4=other, specify	 	
F10 	
[Fill in answer from baseline 	survey]	 	 	 	 	 	 	
[Check with respondent if information 
from baseline survey is still correct 	- if 	
there has been a change since baseline 
(Dec. 2016/Jan. 2017), fill in respond-
ent’s new answer]

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	50

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	52	 	
 	
 	 	 	 	
Outside	 	Inside	 	Roof	 	Veranda

Disclaimer cell 	– this must be set to BOTTOM MARGIN 	– set paragraph markers in 	
the footer 	 	
so that it’s high enough for the disclaimer to fit and so that the ToC table breaks 
properly across the next page (paragraph markers are needed for 2010 only)	 	
Footer box 	– THIS IS NOT FLOATING ANYMORE 	53	 	
 	
Have	 you in 2017 and/or in 	
2018 done any improvements 	
to your home to make it 
stronger in case of storms 
(winds and/or flooding)?	 	
CAN GIVE MORE THAN ONE 	
ANSWER	 	
1=rebuild entire home, 2=add an 
extra level, 3=elevate the house, 	
4=reinforce roof,	 	
5=replace	 roof, 6=reinforce walls 	
7=replace walls, 8=replace or in-
stall solid posts, beams for support, 	
9=other, specify, 10=no	 	
I1 	
How mu	ch time was spent on 	
doing these improvements?	 	
 	
How mu	ch money was spent on 	
doing these improvements?	 	
(1000 VND)	 	
I4 	
What were the sources of the 	
money spent?	 	
CAN GIVE MORE THAN ONE 	
ANSWER	 	
1=own cash, 2=savings, 3=loan 
from friends, family, 4=loan from 
VBSP or other bank, 5=loan f	rom 	
black market, 6= Women’s Union 
NDF program, 7=others, specify	 	
I5 	
 
 	
 	
Why have you not done any 	
such improvements?	 	
1=no need, already strong enough	 	
2=no need, not exposed to storms, 
3=priority on other housing im-
provements, 4=no money for 
housing improvements, 5=other, 	
specify	 	
I6 	
by you or any 
household 
members	 	
(days of work, 
where one day 
is 8 hours)	 	
I2 	
by friends, 
family etc.	 	
(days of work, 
where one day 
is 8 hours)	 	
I3 	
Improvement 
number	 	
01 	
 	 	 	 	 	
02 	 	 	 	 	 	
03 	 	 	 	 	 	
IF NO TO I1	 	
IF ANSWER 1	-9 IN 	
PREVIOUS QUESTION	 	
IF ANSWER 1	-9 IN 	
QUESTION I1	 	
IF ANSWER 1	-9 IN 	
QUESTION I1

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	54	 	
 
04 	 	 	 	 	 	
05 	 	 	 	 	 	
06 	 	 	 	 	 	
07 	 	 	 	 	 	
08 	 	 	 	 	 	
 
When did you start making improve-
ments to your house?	 	
When did you finish making improve-
ments to your house?	 	
What is the total cost 
of the improvements? 	 	
Please indicate the amount of funding from each source [zero if 
no 	funding from this source]	 	
I7 	
 
Year	 	
 
1=2017	 	
2=2018	 	
I8 	
 
Month	 	
 
1=January, 2=February, 
3=March, 4=April, 
5=May, 6=June, 7=July, 
8=August, 9=Septem-
ber, 10=October, 
11=November, 12=De-
cember	 	
I9 
 
Year	 	
 
1=2017	 	
2=2018	 	
 	
I10	 	
 
Month	 	
 
1=January, 2=February, 
3=March, 	4=April, 5=May, 	
6=June, 7=July, 8=August, 
9=September, 10=October, 
11=November, 12=Decem-
ber, 13=not finished	 	
I11	 	
(1000 VND)	 	
I12 	
Grant from 	
WU	 	
(1000 VND)	 	
I13 	
Loan from 	
WU	 	
Loan from 
(1000 VND)	 	
I14 	
Household 
contribu-
tion (cash 
and in	-kind, 	
e.g. labor	 	
input from 
hh mem-
bers, family 	
and 
friends)	 	
(1000 VND)	 	
I15 	
Vietnam fa-
therland 
front, local 
donors, do-
nations	 	
(1000 VND)	 	
I16	 	
Borrowed 
from other 
sources	 	
(1000 VND)

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	55	 	
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other housing repairs and 	maintenance	 	
 	
In 2017 and 2018, did you 
do 	any other major im-	
provements to your house 
(other than the improve-
ments listed above)?	 	
1=yes, 2=no	 	
If no move to J1	 	
 	
 	
 	
What type of improvement did you do?	 	
CAN GIVE MORE THAN ONE ANSWER	 	
1=new plumbing, kitchen or sanitary facili-
ties, 2=new electrical 	system, 3=adding 	
room(s), additional floor or other new parts 
to the house, 4=new roof, 5=wall repaint-	
ing/recovering, 6=others, specify	 	
I18	 	
In 2017 and 2018, how much time 
was spent on other repairs and 
maintenance of your house	 	
How much money was spent 
on	 these other repairs and 	
maintenance of your house?	 	
(1000 VND)	 	
I21	 	
What were the sources of the 	
money spent?	 	
CAN GIVE MORE THAN ONE 	
ANSWER	 	
(1=own cash, 2=savings, 3=loan 
from friends, family, 4=loan 
from VBSP or other bank, 5=loan 
from black market, 6=loan	 from 	
local mass organizations (WU, 
Fatherland Front, etc.), 7=oth-	
ers, specify)	 	
I22	 	
by you or any 
household mem-	
bers	 	
(days of work, 
where one day is 8 	
hours)	 	
 
 	
by friends, fam-
ily, relatives, 
neighbors etc.	 	
(days of work, 
where one day is 	
8 hours)	 	
I20

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	56	 	
 	
 
I17 	
I19

Disclaimer cell 	– this must be set to BOTTOM MARGIN 	– set paragraph markers in 	
the footer 	 	
so that it’s high enough for the disclaimer to fit and so that the ToC table breaks 
properly across the next page (paragraph markers are needed for 2010 only)	 	
Footer box 	– THIS IS NOT FLOATING ANYMORE 	57	 	
Module 4 Life satisfaction, social capital and resilience	 	
J Life satisfaction:	 	
The following question asks how satisfied you feel, on a scale from 	1 to 	5. 	
1: not 	at all satisfied	, 2: 	partly 	satisfied	, 3: satisfied, 4: 	more than	 satisfied, 5: 	very	 satisfied, 6: don’t know 	 	
(don’t give them	 the “don’t know”	 option, only if they really need to use it. Try to get an answer first)	 	
 	
Overall, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days? 	[1-5] 	
J1 
 
 	
 
The following questions ask how satisfied you feel about specific aspects of your life, on a scale from 	1 to 	5. 1: not 	at all satisfied	, 2: 	partly 	satisfied	, 3: satisfied, 4: 	more than	 	
satisfied, 5: 	very	 satisfied, 6: don’t know (don’t give them	 the “don’t	 know”	 option, only if they really need to use it. Try to get an answer first)	 	
How satisfied 
are you with 
your standard 
of living? 	 	
[1-5] 	
J2 	
How satisfied 
are you with 
your health? 	
[1-5] 	
J3 	
How satisfied 
are you with 
what you are 
achieving in 	
life? 	 	
[1-5] 	
J4 	
How satisfied 
are you with 
your personal 
relationships? 	
[1-5] 	
J5 	
How satisfied 
are you with 
how safe you 
feel	 from be-	
ing affected by 
storms and 
floods	? 	
How satisfied 
are you with 
feeling part of 
your commu-
nity? 	[1-5] 	
J7 	
How satisfied 
are you w	ith 	
your future se-	
curity? 	 	
[1-5] 	
J8 	
How satisfied 
are you with 
the amount of 
time you have 
to do the 	
things that you 
like doing? 	 	
How satisfied 
are you with 
the quality of 
your local en-
vironment? 	[1-	
5] 	
J10 	
For respond-
ents who are 
employed 
only:	 	
How satisfied 
are you with 
your job?

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	58	 	
 	
[1-5] 	
J6 	
[1-5] 	
J9 	
[1-5] 	
J11

Disclaimer cell 	– this must be set to BOTTOM MARGIN 	– set paragraph markers in 	
the footer 	 	
so that it’s high enough for the disclaimer to fit and so that the ToC table breaks 
properly across the next page (paragraph markers are needed for 2010 only)	 	
Footer box 	– THIS IS NOT FLOATING ANYMORE 	60	 	
L Index of resilience: 	Please rate the following statements on scale ranging from 	1 to 5. 	1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Neither	 agree nor disagree 4: Agree	 5: Strongly Agree	 	
6: don’t know (don’t give them the “don’t know” option, only if they really need to use it. Try to 	get an answer first)	 	
If a 	storm such as Nari in 2013 oc-	
curred	 in my area tomorrow, my 	house 	
would be safe	. 	
[1-5] 	
L1 	
If a 	storm such as Nari in 2013 occurred	 in 	
my area tomorrow, my household would 
be able to fully recover from the damage 
caused by the 	storm	 within 6 months.	 	
[1-5] 	
L2 	
If the frequency and intensity of storms	 	
was to significantly increase in the next 5 
years, my household would have the abil-
ity to successfully adapt to the chan	ging 	
threats posed by the storms	, even if this 	
required us to c	ompletely change our way 	
of life.	 	
[1-5] 	
L3 	
If a storm	 such as Nari in 2013	 occurred in 	
my area tomorrow, my household would 
have access to sufficient financial resources 
to ensure that we fully recover from	 the 	
threats posed by the storm	. 	
[1-5] 	
L4 	
 	 
 	 	
 	
 
 	
If a storm	 such as Nari in 2013	 oc-	
curred in my area tomorrow, my 
household would be able to draw on 
the support of family and friends to 
ensure that we fully recover from	 the 	
damages caused by the storm	. 	
[1-5] 	
L5 	
If a storm	 such as Nari in 2013	 occurred 	
in my area tomorrow, my household 
would 	get sufficient support from the 	
government to recover from the threats 	
posed by the storm	. 	
[1-5] 	
L6 	
My household has learned consid-	
erably from how	 we have dealt with 	
past storm	 events. This knowledge is 	
crucial in successf	ully dealing with fu-	
ture storm	 events.	 	
[1-5] 	
L7 	
If a storm 	such as Nari in 2013 	was to oc-	
cur in my area tomorrow, my household 
would have access to early	-warning infor-	
mation to ensure that we are fully pre-
pared	 for the threats posed by the 	storm.	 	
[1-5] 	
L8

Vista 	Analysis	 | Report 2018/16	 	61

Vista Analyse	 | Report 2018/16	 	62	 	
 
M Perception of risk and risk preferences:	 	
 	
Do you think the 	frequency	 of the following natural 	
phenomenon has been changing compared to 10 	
years ago?	 	
1=No change, 2=decreasing, 	3=increasing, 4=don’t know	 	
Do you think the 	intensity	 of the following natural 	
phenomenon has been changing compared to 10 	
years ago?	 	
1=No change, 2=decreasing, 3=increasing, 4=don’t know	 	
Flood	 	
M1	 	
Storm	 	
M2	 	
Drought	 	
M3	 	
Flood	 	
M4	 	
Storm	 	
M5	 	
Drought	 	
M6	 	
 	 	 	
 	 	 	
 	
 
 	
 	
How would you rate your willingness to take risks in general?	 	
1= Completely unwilling to take risks, 2=partly unwilling to take risks, 3=	somewhat 	unwilling to take risks, 4= neither will-	
ing or unwilling/in between, 5=	somewhat	 willing to take risks, 6=partly willing to take risks, 7=Completely willing to take 	
risks	 	
M7	 	
 	
 
 	
 	
Signature of Interviewee

Vista Analyse	 | Report 2018/16	 	63	 	
 
 	
 
 
 	
Vista Analysis	 	
Meltzersgate 4	 	
0257 Oslo	 	
 
post@vista	-analyse.no	 	
vista	-analyse.no	/en