national urban upgrading program

Transcription

NATIONAL URBAN UPGRADING PROGRAM
NATIONAL URBAN UPGRADING STRATEGY
AND OVERALL INVESTMENT PLAN FOR
URBAN UPGRADING TO YEAR 2020
VIETNAM
FINAL REPORT
Volume 2 – Appendices
April 2008
List of Contents
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Organisational Structures of Local Government in Vietnam
Appendix B
List of Legal Documents Related to Urban Construction Planning and
Investment, Environment and Water Resources
Review of Government Policies and Legal Documents
Factors of Classifying Urban Centres in Vietnam as per Decree 72/2001/NDCP
Inventory of Decisions Creating Cities/Towns and Changing Administrative
Boundaries of 25 Cities/Towns
1
2
3
Appendix C
1
2
Review of Statistical Planning Documents
Statistical Reports and Administrative Atlas
National and Local Planning Documents
Appendix D
Review of Studies and Reports
Appendix E
Outline Urban Profiles
Appendix F
Methodology for the Evaluation, Prioritisation and Selection of Cities and
Towns
Background
General Methodology
Criteria for Selection and Prioritisation of 25 Cities and Towns for Initial Study
Identification of 8 Priority Cities and Towns for Detailed Evaluation
Evaluating the Upgrading Needs of Cities and Towns
1
2
3
4
5
Annex 1
Annex 2
Annex 3
Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA 5-1, MCA 5-2 and MCA 6)
Multi-Criteria Analysis - Option 5
Database and Indicators for Multi-Criteria Analysis
Appendix G
Urban Upgrading Demand and Investment Cost
Appendix H
Outline Terms of Reference for the Preparation of Pre-Feasibility Studies,
Feasibility Studies, Engineering Designs and Tender Documents for
Urban Upgrading in 8 Cities of Vietnam
Introduction and Background
Objectives
Principles, Guidelines and General Scope
Summary of Project Preparation Activities and the Required Outputs
Institutional Arrangements for Project Implementation
Detailed Scope of Work
Outputs
Inputs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Annex 1
Annex 2
Annex 3
Annex 4
Annex 5
Annex 6
Priority Cities and Towns
Outline Urban Profile
Institutional Arrangement For Project Implementation Government Agencies
Institutional Arrangements for Project Implementation Consultant
Input for Environmental Impact Assessment
Data for Resettlement Action Plan
Appendix I
1
2
3
4
5
6
Outline Terms of Reference for Preparation of Peri-Urban Area
Development Plans
Background
Objectives of Planning for Peri-Urban Development Areas and for the
Assignment
Client’s Agencies and Study Methodology
Schedule
Principles and Framework for Peri-Urban Development
Scope of Works
National Urban Upgrading Strategy & Overall Investment Plan for Urban Upgrading to Year 2020 (NUUP)
i
Annex 1
Annex 2
Annex 3
Annex 4
Annex 5
Location of Urban Centres by Province and Economic Region
Existing and Projected Built-Up Area of Selected Cities and Towns
Inputs
Outputs
Time Schedule for Personnel
ii
APPENDIX A
Organisational Structures of
Local Governments in Vietnam
APPENDIX A
Organisational Structures of Local Governments in Vietnam
1.
The tasks and authorities of the municipal People’s Committee in carrying out State Management
are stipulated in Clause 1 Chapter IV of the Law on Organisation of the People’s Council and
People’s Committee, particularly Articles 82-96. In the fields of urban construction, management
and development, the municipal People’s Committee exercises the task and authority to organise
the establishment, submission and review of regional and urban construction plans within the city’s
territory, manage architecture, construction, and building land in accordance with approved plans;
and approve plans and investment projects for construction works within its power, manage
construction and issue construction permits within the city’s territory. The Municipal People’s
Committee also exercises tasks and authorities to direct and inspect the preparation and execution
of plans and strategies for the development of the city’s transport network and make it sustainable
and in line with the master plan for transport development.
2.
Article 3 of Decree 91/CP provides that the Government performs the right of State management
over urban planning on the national scale and the People’s Committee at all levels performs the
function of urban planning in their localities. The functions included in the State urban planning and
management consist of: i) issuing regulations on urban planning management; ii) drawing up and
ratifying urban construction projects; iii) managing the transformation and building projects in
accordance with approved plans; iv) protecting the urban landscapes and living environment; v)
managing the use and exploitation of the urban technical infrastructure; and vi) settling disputes,
inspecting and handling violations of regulations on urban management.
3.
Two local organisational structures are shown to compare the urban planning organisations of two
classes of cities in Vietnam. (Figure 1 refers to the organisational chart of Hanoi which is a special
city and Figure 2 is the organisational chart of Tra Vinh which is a class IV city. In Ha Noi, the key
department and administrative unit for implementing urban upgrading are the Department of
Planning and Architecture and Steering Committee for Site Clearance. In Tra Vinh, the Urban
Management Department is responsible for urban planning functions but the Steering Committee
for Site Clearance is not shown in its organisational structure.
4.
Figure 3 shows the organisational structure of the VUUP Project Management Unit in Hai Phong
which is headed by a Director with Deputy Director and Assistant for Director and five divisions
consisting of Resettlement and Compensation Division, Planning and Bidding Division, Personnel
and Administrative Division, Technical Division and Accounting and Finance Division.
1/4
Figure 1. Organisational Chart of Hanoi City Authority
HANOI PEOPLE'S COUNCIL
HANOI PEOPLE'S COMMITTEE
Departments/Organisations
Districts
Administrative Units/
Institutions
• People’s Council Office
• Department of Culture
and Info
• Ba Dinh District
I/ UNITS
• People’s Committee
Office
• Department of Health
• Cau Giay District
• Hanoi TV and Radio
• Department of Post and
Telecommunication
• Department of
Construction
• Dong Da District
• Economy and Urban Newspaper
• Department of Industry
• City Inspection Committee
• Hai Ba Trung District
• Hanoi Arts College
• Department of Tourism
• Council of Reward and
Emulation
• Hoan Kiem District
• Hanoi Teachers’ Trainings College
• Department of Education
and Training
• Population, Family and
Children Committee
• Hoang Mai District
• Le Hong Phong College for
management cadres’ trainings
• Department of
Transportation and Civil
Engineering
• Committee for Religious
Affairs
• Long Bien District
• Economic and Social
Development and Research
Institute
• Department of Planning
and Investment
• Authority for Hanoi IPs
and EPZ
• Tay Ho District
• Steering Committee for Thang
Long 1000 year celebration
• Department of Science
and Technology
• Sub Department for
Forest Inspectors
• Thanh Xuan District
• Management Board of Ancient
Streets Conservation
• Department of Labour –
Invalids and Social
Affairs
Organisations under
coordination management
• Dong Anh District
• Steering Committee for Site
Clearance
• Department of Interior
Affairs
• Hanoi Police
• Gia Lam District
• Management Board of Public
Transportation Vehicles CC-XD
• Foreign Relations
Department
• Hanoi Taxation
Department
• Thanh Tri District
• Management Board of Tay Ho
Investment and Development
• Department of Agriculture
and Rural Development
• Hanoi Treasure
• Tu Liem District
• Management Board of Key
Projects
• Department of Planning
and Architecture
• Hanoi Statistic
Department
• Soc Son District
• Management Board of Hong River
Left Bank Infrastructure Project
• Department of
Environment, Natural
Resources, Land and
Housing
• Hanoi State Bank
• Department of Finance
• Hanoi Custom
II/ UNIONS /ASSOCIATIONS
• Hanoi Association of Arts and
Literatures
• Department of Sports and
Physical Training
• Hanoi Union of Friendship and
Peace Organisations
• Department of Trade
• Hanoi Union of Sciences and
Technical Associations
• Department of Justice
• Association of Cooperatives
• Red-Cross Association
• Hanoi Blinds Association
• Hanoi Jurisprudents Association
• Hanoi Journalists Association
• Hanoi Oriental Medicine
Association
Source: Hanoi Portal Website (Vietnamese Version), 2007.
2/4
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
W7
W8
W9
RADIO
PUBLIC ORDER
CONTROL TEAM
AGRICULTURE –
AQUACULTURE DEPT.
HEALTH CARE
DEPARTMENT
CULTURE-INFO
COMMUNICATION DEPT
POPULATION, FAMILY,
CHILDREN COMMITTEE
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
PEOPLE’S COMMITTEE OF TOWN
PROJECTS
MANAGEMENT BOARD
MARKET MANGMNT
BOARD
VOCATIONAL
TRAINING CENTRE
VERTICAL INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANISATIONS
INDUSTRY, TRADE,
SCIENCE & TECH DEPT
ENVIRONMENT & NATIURAL
RESOURCES DEPARMENT
PLANNING–FINANCE
DEPARTMENT
URBAN MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
ETHNIC AND REGION
DEPARTMENT
LABOR INVALIDS SOCIAL
AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
PEOPLE’S PROSECUTION OF TOWN
HEALTH CENTRE
STATISTICAL
DEPARTMENT
COURT EXECUTION
TEAM
SOCIAL INSUARANCE
TAX SUB
DEPARTMENT
ARMY EXECUTIVE
BOARD
POLICE STATION
PEOPLE COUNCIL OFFICE–
PEOPLE COMMITTEE
Figure 2. Organisational Chart of Tra Vinh Town Authority
PEOPLE’S COUNCIL of TOWN
PEOPLE’S COURT OF TOWN
PROFESSIONAL DEPARTMENTS WHICH BELONG TO PEOPLE’S COMMITTEE OF TRA VINH TOWN
ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANISATIONS AND PUBLIC SERVICES
WARD/COMMUNE PEOPLE COUNCILSPEOPLE COMMITTEES
DEPENDENT ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS
Commune
LD
Figure 3. Organisational Chart of VUUP PMU of Hai Phong
Director of PPMU
Assistant for
Director
Resettlement and
Compensation
Division
Planning and
Bidding Division
Deputy Director
Personnel and
Administrative
Division
Technical
Division
Accounting and
Finance
Division
Source: Hai Phong Urban Upgrading Project, 18 August 2006.
4/4
APPENDIX B
List of Legal Documents Related to
Urban Construction Planning and
Investment, Environment
and Water Resources
APPENDIX B
List of Legal Documents Related to Urban Construction Planning and Investment,
Environment and Water Resources
1.
Review of Government Policies and Legal Documents
The enunciated urban policies directed towards achieving the concept of “Sustainable Urban
Development” and to find ways to manage urban growth and service provision are somehow sidetracked
by the fast upgrading of cities/town classification lacking supplemental institutional capacity enhancement
for local authorities of the newly created or upgraded cities/towns. Improved skills and an organisational
structure which more closely relates to the tasks to be performed and a shift in emphasis from a plethora
of junior staff to a structure which contains committed senior and middle managers is likely to be the only
means of improving matters, with the aim that local governments may be the “employers” with their own
appointed staff and in close cooperation with the end-users.
Based on the current institutional framework, the process for preparation of long-term investment strategy
as well as programme or specific project for investment on construction works need to follow a rather
complicated process that involves various state agencies and governmental levels as well as related
regulations on different domains. In spite of those, the results obtained from this process could not reflect
a comprehensive desirable outcome but present only a simple combination of proposals from different
sectors.
Date of
Issuance
Document Code
Title of Legal Document
2.
8/1998/QH10
21/2000/QH10
3.
01/2002/QH11
Law on Water Resources
Law on Science and Technology recognising professional
associations as independent service organisations with
the only option available to most development NGOs.
Law on State Budget
27/12/2002
4.
13/2003/QH11
Law on Land
26/11/2003
5.
16/2003/QH11
Law on Construction
26 /11/2003
6.
21/2003/L/CTN
Law on Organisation
10/12/2003
7.
29/2005/L/CTN
Law on Environmental Protection
29/11/2005
8.
56/2005/QH11
Housing Law
29/11/2005
9.
59/2005/QH11
Investment Law
29/11/2005
10. 61/2005/QH11
Bidding Law
29/11/2005
11. 81/2006/QH11
Law on Residence
29/11/2006
12. Decree No.
91/1994/CP
Promulgating the Statute on Management of Urban
Planning
17/8/1994
13. Decree No.
175/1994/CP
Guidelines on the implementation of Law on Evironmental
Protection
18/10/1994
14. Decree No.
56/1996/CP
Provides for public service state-owned enterprises and
states that water service provision is the responsibility of
provincial or municipal Water Supply Companies
10/1996
15. Decree No.
26/1996/CP
Sanctions against administrative violations on
environmental protection
26/4/1996
Regulations on the exercise of democracy in communes
15/5/1998
Amending and supplementing a number of Articles of the
regulation on investment in forms of build-operate-transfer
contracts, build- transfer-operate contracts and build-
27/1/1999
1.
16.
Decree No.
29/1998/ND-CP
17. Decree No.
02/1999/ND-CP
20/5/1998
9/6/2000
1/10
Document Code
Date of
Issuance
transfer contracts applicable to foreign investment in
Vietnam
18. Decree No.
52/1999/ND-CP
Investment and construction regulations
8/7/1999
19. Decree No.
179/1999/ND-CP
Implementation of Water Resources Law with the primary
purpose of establishing the policies water resources
management, rights, obligations of the institutions
30/12/1999
20. Decree No.
02/2000/ND-CP
Basis of Build-Operate-Transfer Contracts, Build-Transfer
Contracts Applicable to Foreign Investment in Vietnam
15/8/2000
21. Decree No.
24/2000/ND-CP
Regulating in detail the implementation of the Law on
Foreign Investment ("FIL") in Vietnam
31/7/2000
22. Decree No.
62/2000/ND-CP
Promulgating the Regulations on Investment in the Basis
of Build-Operate-Transfer Contracts, Build-TransferOperate Contracts and Build-Transfer Contracts
Applicable to Foreign Investment in Vietnam
15/8/2000
23. Decree No.
68/2000/ND-CP
Application of the contractual regime to a number of jobs
in the State administrative agencies and public service
units
17/11/2000
24. Decree No.
17/2001/ND-CP
Regulation on the management and utilisation of Official
Development Assistance with WSS stipulated as priority
sector for ODA loans
4/5/2001
25. Decree No.
72/2001/ND-CP
Classification of urban centres and urban management
levels
5/10/2001
26. Decree No.
86/2002/ND-CP
Prescribing the functions, tasks, powers and
organisational structures of the ministries and ministeriallevel agencies
05/11/2002
27. Decree No.
91/2002/ND-CP
Specifying the mandates functions, responsibility,
authority and the organisational structure of the Ministry of
Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE)
11/11/2002
28. Decree No.
07/2003/ND-CP
Amending and supplementing a number of Articles of the
investment and construction management regulation
promulgated together with the Government's Decree No.
52/1999/ND-CP dated July 8, 1999 and Decree No.
12/2000/ND-CP dated May 5, 2000
30/1/ 2003
29. Decree No.
60/2003/ND-CP
Guidelines on the implementation of the State Budget Law
30. Decision No.
64/2003/QD-TTg
Approving the plan for thoroughly handling establishments
which cause serious environmental pollution
31. Decree No
67/2003/ND-CP
Environmental protection charges for waste water
32. Decree No.
73/2003/ND-CP
33. Decree No.
79/2003/ND-CP
34. Decree 88/2003/NDCP
35. Decree No.
162/2003/ND-CP
06/06/2003
22/4/2003
13/6/2003
Regulation on estimate consideration and Decision as well
as Local Budget Allocation and Local Budget Settlement
Approval
23/06/2003
Regulation on Exercise of Democracy in Communes
7/7/2003
Formation, operation, and state management of
associations
Regulation on collection, management, exploitation and
utilisation of water resources data and information
30/7/2003
19/12/2003
2/10
Document Code
Date of
Issuance
36. Decree No.
171/2004/ND-CP
Describing the organisation of professional agencies
under the People’s Committees of provinces or centrallyrun cities
29/07/2004
37. Decree No.
209/2004/ND-CP
Quality management of construction works
16/12/2004
38. Decree No.
181/2004/ND-CP
Providing for implementation of Law on Land
29/10/2004
39. Decree No.
188/2004/ND-CP
Method for defining land prices and price-frame of
different types of land
16/11/2004
40. Decree No.
197/2004/ND-CP
Compensation, financial assistance and resettlement
when the State recovers land
03/12/2004
41. Decree No.
08/2005/ND-CP
Construction Planning
24/01/2005
42. Decree No.
16/2005/ND-CP
Management of investment project of construction work
7/2/2005
43. Decree No.
130/2005/ND-CP
Autonomy and self-responsibility mechanism concerning
the staffing and budgeting in State organisations
17/10/2005
44. Decree No.
144/2005/ND-CP
Stipulations on the coordination among State
administrative agencies in developing and verifying the
implementation of policies, strategies, planning and plans
16/11/ 2005
45. Decree No.
159/2005/ND-CP
Classification of administrative units of Commune, Ward,
Town
27/12/2005
46. Decree No.
17/2006/ND-CP
Amendment of and addition to a number of Decrees
implementing the Law on Land and to Decree No.
187/2004/ND-CP of the Government dated 16 November
2004 on conversion of State owned companies into
shareholding companies
27/01/2006
47. Decree No.
80/2006/ND-CP
Guidelines on the implementation of the Law on
Environmental Protection
09/08/2006
48. Decree No.
81/2006/ND-CP
Sanctioning of administrative violations in the domains of
environmental protection
09/08/2006
49. Decree No.
112/2006/ND-CP
Amending, supplementing some articles of Decree No.
16/2005/ND-CP
29/6/2006
50. Decree No.
108/2006/ND-CP
Provides guidelines for implementation of a number of
articles of the Law on Investment
22/09/2006
51. Decree No.
111/2006/ND-CP
Guidelines for Implementation of Law on Tendering and
Selection of Construction Contractors Pursuant to Law on
Construction
29/9/2006
52. Decree No.
140/2006/ND-CP
Promulgation of regulations on the environmental
protection interventions in the formation, appraisal,
approval and implementation of the development
strategies, planning, plans, programs and projects
22/11/2006
53. Decree No.
99/2007/ND-CP
Guidelines on management of expenditure used for
investment project
13/6/2007
54. Decree No.
15/2007/ND-CP
Classification of provincial or district-levels administrative
units
26/1/2007
55. Decree No.
Supplementary regulations on issuance of certificate of
land use right, recovery of land, implementation of land
25/05/2007
3/10
Document Code
84/2007/ND-CP
use right, process and procedure of compensation,
financial assistance, resettlement when the State recovers
the land and resolve of complain against the land
Date of
Issuance
56. Decree No.
151/2007/ND-CP
Organisation and Activities of Collaborative Groups
10/10/2007
57. Decision of the
Prime Minister
53/1999/QD-TTg
Some measures to encourage foreign direct investments
26/3/1999
58. Decision No.
64/2001/QD- TTG
Promulgating the Regulation on the Management and
Utilisation of Aid from International Non-Governmental
Organisations
26/4/2001
59. Decision No.
35/2002/QĐBKHCNMT
Vietnam Environmental Standards
25/6/2002
Strategic Orientation for Sustainable Development in
Vietnam (Vietnam Agenda 21)
17/08/2004
Transport Sector Development Strategy to 2020
10/12/2004
62. Decision of the
Prime Minister
53/2006/QD-TTg
Promulgating the model of working regulation of
provincial/municipal People’s Committees
08/03/2006
63. Decision of the
Prime Minister
75/2006/QD-TTg
Promulgating the model of working regulation of People’s
Committees of rural/urban districts and provincial towns
and cities
12/06/2006
64. Decision of the
Prime Minister
80/2005/QD-TTg
Regulation on Investment Supervision by the Community
18/4/2005
65. Decision of the
Prime Minister
77/2006/QD-TTg
Promulgating the model of working regulation of People’s
Committees of communes, wards and district townships
13/04/2006
66. Decision of the
Prime Minister
170/2006/QD-TTg
Promulgating the Regulation on criteria and norms of
equipment and working facilities of state working offices
and state cadres and civil servants
18/ 07/2006
67. Decision of the
Prime Minister
40/2006/QD-TTg
Approving the plan for training and re-training of cadres
and civil servants in the 2006-2010 period
15/02/2006
68. Decision No.
82/2002/QD-TTg
Establishment, mandate and operations of the Viet Nam
Environment Protection Fund
26/6/2002
69. Decision No.
45/QD-TTg
Establishment of Provincial Department of Natural
Resources and Environment
2/4/2003
70. Decision No.
395/1998/QDBKHCNMT
Regulation on environmental protection in searching,
exploring, developing, exploiting, storing, transporting and
processing oil, gas and other related services
Guidelines on the implementation of the Government's
Decree No. 149/2004/ND-CP on the issuance of permits
for water resource exploration, exploitation and use, or for
discharge of wastewater into water sources
10/4/1998
Policies for the use of bare land, denuded hills, forests,
15/9/1992
60. Decision of the
Prime Minister
153/2004/QD-TTg
61. Decision of the
Prime Minister
206/2004-TTg
71. Decision No.
05-2003/QD-BTNMT
72. Decision No.
27/7/2004
4/10
Document Code
327/1992/CT-HDBT
Date of
Issuance
alluvial flats and water bodies.
73. Decision No.
860/1995/TTg
Functions, responsibilities, powers and organisation’s
machinery of Vietnam Mekong Committee
30/12/1995
74. Decision No.
299/1996/TTg
Establishment the Central Steering Committee for
prevention, combat against floods and typhoons
13/5/1996
75. Decision No.
63/1998/QD-TTg
Orientation on Water Supply Development in Urban Areas
by 2020
18/3/1998
76. Decision No.
35/1999/QD-TTg
Orientation on Drainage Development in Urban Areas by
2020
5/3/1999
77. Decision
152/1999/QD-TTg of
the Prime Minister
Approval of Solid Waste Management Strategy in Urban
Areas and Industrial Zones of Vietnam towards the year
2020
10/7/1999
78. Decision No.
155/1999/QD-TTg
Regulation on hazardous waste management (including
hazardous wastewater)
16/7/1999
79. Decision No.
67/2000/QD-TTg
Establishment of the National Water Resources Council
15/6/2000
80. Decision No.
104/2000/QD-TTG
National Strategy on Clean Water and Environmental
Sanitation in Rural Areas
25/8/2000
81. Decision No.
99/2001/QD-TTG
Regulation on organisation and operation of National
Water Resources Council
28/6/2001
82. Decision No.
357/1997/NNQLN/QD
Issuing temporary regulation of implementation of regimes
of license and permit for searching, exploring, exploiting
and drilling ground water and registration of ground water
exploitation works
13/3/1997
83. Decision No.
37/2001/ QD/BNNTCCB
Establishment of the Planning Management Council
for Cuu Long River Basin
09/4/2001
84. Decision No.
38/2001/QD/BNNTCCB
for Dong Nai River Basin
09/4/2001
85. Decision No.
39/2001/QD/BNNTCCB
for Thai Binh and Red Rivers Basin
09/4/2001
86. Decision No. 1622002-TTg
87. Decision No.
2685/VPCP-QHQT
88. Decision No.
256/2003/QD/TTg
Planning of Transportation Development to 2010 and
Orientation to 2020
Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy
(CPRGS)
Environmental Strategy 2010
12/2003
89. Decision No.
14/2005/QD-BTNMT
Defining the functions, tasks, powers and organisational
structure of the Environmental Protection Department
2/12/2005
90. Decision No.
27/2005/QD-BGTVT
Design Standard for Construction of Traffic Works
13/5/2005
91. Decision No.
305/2005/QĐ-TTg
National Statistical Indicator System (NSIS)
24/11/2005
92. Directive No.
200/1994/TTg
Ensuring the fresh clean water supply and environmental
sanitation for rural areas
29/4/1994
15/11/2002
21/5/2002
5/10
Document Code
Date of
Issuance
93. Directive No.
487/1996 TTg
Enhancement of State management of water resources
30/6/1996
94. Directive No.
36/CT-TW
Enhancing Environmental Protection in the Period of
Modernisation and Industrialisation
25/6/1998
95. Directive No.
04/2004/CT-TTg
Improvement of management over clean waster supply
and consumption
20/1/2004
96. Directive No.
23/2005/CT-TTg
Enhancing the Management of Solid Waste in Urban
Centres and Industrial Parks
21/6/2005
97. Circular No.
24/1994/BXD-KTQH
Guiding procedure for issuance of construction permits to
construction works in urban areas
16/12/1994
98. Circular No.
333/UB/LXT
Guidelines on implementation of regulations on
investment in the form of Build-Own-Operate-Transfer
contracts
28/2/1994
99. Circular No.
40/1998/CT-TTg
Strengthening urban water supply development and
management
14/12/1998
100 Circular No.
03/1999/BXD
Guidelines on pricing and authorisation to set clean water
consumption tariffs in urban and residential areas and
industrial zones
6/6/1999
101 Circular No.
06/1999/TT-BKH
Guidelines on the contents of total investment, dossiers on
investment project evaluation and investment reports
24/11/1999
102 Circular No.
12/2000/TT-BKH
Guidelines on foreign investment activities in Vietnam
15/9/2000
103 Circular No.
06/2001/TT-BKH
Guidelines on the implementation of Decree 17/2001/NDCP
20/9/2001
104 Circular No.
15/2001/TTBTCCBCP
Guidelines on the implementation of the Government’s
Decree No. 68/2000/ND-CP of November 17, 2000 on the
application of contractual regimes to a number of jobs in
State administrative agencies and pubic-service units
11/04/2001
105 Joint Circular
02/2003/TTLT-BKHBTC
Issuance of a regulation on ODA management and use
17/3/2001
106 Joint-Circular
2/2002/TTLT-BXDTCCBCP
Guidelines on classification of urban centres and urban
management levels
8/3/2002
107 Circular of MOC
06/2003/TT-BXD
Guidelines on the estimation and management of
expenditures on construction of works with capital of
international donors
14/4/2003
108 Circular of the MoF
59/2003/TT-BTC
Guidelines on the implementation the Decree No.
60/2003/ND-CP
23/06/2003
60/2003/TT-BTC
Regulation on commune budget management and other
financial activities of commune, districts and towns
23/06/2003
108/2003/TT-BTC
Financial mechanism applicable to environmental
sanitation projects funded with ODA capital sources
7/11/2003
111 Circular of MoF
116/2004/TT-BTC
Guidelines on implementation of Decree No.
197/2004/ND-CP of the Government dated 03/12/2004 on
compensation, financial assistance and resettlement when
the State recovers land
07/12/2004
6/10
Document Code
Date of
Issuance
112 Circular of MOC
12/2005/TT-BXD
Guidelines on the contents of quality management of
construction works and capacities of organisations and
individual engaged in construction activities
15/07/2005
113 Circular of MOC
15/2005/TT-BXD
Guideline for construction planning preparation, appraisal
and approval
24/01/2005
114 Circular of MoNRE
08/2006/TT-BTMMT
Guidelines for Strategic Environmental Assessment,
Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental
Protection Undertakings
08/09/2006
115 Circular of MOF
40/2005/TT-BTC
Financial mechanism applicable to clean water supply
projects by ODA
25/5/2005
116 Circular of MoF
107/2006/TT-BTC
Guiding the implementation of State budget forecast in
2007
20/11/2006
117 Joint-Circular of the
MoF and MOC No.
104/2004/TTLTBTC-BXD
Principles, methods and responsibilities for setting and
control of clean water consumption tariffs in urban areas,
industrial zones and rural population clusters
8/11/2004
118 Joint-Circular of the
Ministry of Finance
and Ministry of
Internal Affairs
03/2006/TTLT-BTCBNV
Guidelines on the implementation of Decree
No.130/2005/ND-CP
17/01/2006
Guidance of contents for: formulation, appraisal and
approval of projects on investment construction of works;
construction license and arrangement of managing
projects of investment construction of works as stipulated
in Decree No. 16/2005/ND-CP dated 07/02/2005 and
Decree No. 112/2006/ND-CP dated 29/9/2006 that issued
by the Government
14/2/2007
119 Circular of MOC
02/2007/TT-BXD
120 Resolution No.
59/2007/NQ-CP
121 1599/BXD-VP
122 1601/BXD-VP
123 Ordinance
A number of solutions to problems in construction
investment activities and reform of some administrative
procedures applicable to enterprises
Base Cost of Engineering Constrution Works
Methods and formulae to calculate cost norms
Base Cost of Engineering Constrution Works
Cost norms
Prevention, combat against floods and typhoons
30/11/2007
25/7/2007
25/7/2007
1993
124 Ordinance
Supplement and amendment ordinance on prevention,
combat against floods and typhoons
2000
125 TCVN 5942-1995
Surface water quality standard
1995
126 TCVN 5943-1995
Coastal water quality standard
1995
127 TCVN 5944-1995
Ground water quality standard
1995
128 TCVN 5945-1995
Industrial wastewater quality standard
1995
129 TCXD 188-1996
Urban effluents standard
1996
130 1329/2002/BYT/QD
Drinking water quality standards
2002
131 TCVN 6772-2000
Domestic waste water quality standard
2000
132 22TCN-211-1993
Flexible pavement design standard.
1993
7/10
Document Code
Date of
Issuance
133 22TCN-223-1995
Rigid pavement design standard.
1995
134 20TCN 104-1983
Urban road designing standard.
1983
135 TCVN 4054-1998
Car road designing standard.
1998
136 22TCN 18-1979
Bridge and sewer designing process.
1979
137 33-2006
2006
139 TCVN 51/1985
Vietnam construction standard on water supply network
and works.
Vietnam construction standard for preventing and fighting
fire of household and works.
Drainage network and works.
140 TCVN 5945/2005
Regulations for industrial wastewater
2005
141 259-2001
2001
142 5661-1992
Vietnam design standard on man-made lighting outside
public works and technical infrastructure in urban areas.
Vietnam design standard on high pressure sodium lamp.
143 1835-1994
Vietnam design standard on lighting equipment design.
1994
138 2622-1995
1995
1985
1992
8/10
2.
Factors of Classifying Urban Centres in Vietnam as per Decree 72/2001/ND-CP
Factors
Urban character
Non-agricultural
labour
Infrastructure
Population
Population density
Special Cases
1
2
3
4
*
Represents
90% of the
total labour
force or
higher
*
Represents
85% of the
total labour
force or
higher
**
Represents
80% of the
total labour
force or
higher
***
Represents
75% of the
total labour
force or
higher
****
Represents
70% of the
total labour
force or
higher
Has been or
is
synchronously
and
completely
built in
specific sector
Built basically
synchronously
and
completely
Built basically
synchronously
and
completely in
many aspects
Built in many
sectors and
becoming
synchronous
and complete
Built basically
synchronously
and
completely in
each specific
sector
1,500,000
500,000
250,000
100,000
50,000
15,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
Notes:
Grade also refers to Class (i.e. Grade 1 = Class I).
Class 5 is not included in NUUP.
*Special cases and grade 1 must be an urban centre with the function as a political, economic, cultural, scientifictechnical, tourist and service centre, a traffic hub, and a domestic and international exchange centre, and playing the role
of boosting the socio-economic development of the whole country.
**Grades 2 must be an urban centre with the function as a political, economic, cultural, scientific-technical, tourist and
service centre, a traffic hub, and a domestic and international exchange centre, and playing the role of boosting the socioeconomic development of an inter-provincial region or the whole country in several domains.
***Grades 3 must be an urban centre with the function as a political, economic, cultural, scientific-technical, tourist and
service centre, a traffic hub, and a domestic and international exchange centre, and playing the role of boosting the socioeconomic development of a province or an inter-provincial region in several domains.
****Grades 4 must be an urban centre with the function as a political, economic, cultural, scientific-technical, tourist and
service centre, a traffic hub, and a domestic and international exchange centre, and playing the role of boosting the socioeconomic development of a province or a region within a province.
9/10
3.
Inventory of Decisions Creating Cities/Towns and Changing Administrative Boundaries of 25 Cities/Towns
Cities/Towns
Decision Number
Date of Issuance
TP. Huế
209/2005/ND-CP
24 Aug 2005
TP. Huế
TP. Biên Hoà
TP. Việt Trì
TP. Việt Trì
TP. Buôn Ma Thuột
TP. Hải Dương
TP. Thái Bình
TP. Quảng Ngãi
TP. Đồng Hới
TP. Lạng Sơn
TX. Hoà Bình
TP. Điện Biên Phủ
TP. Phan Thiết
TP. Cà Mau
TP. Mỹ Tho
TX. Phủ Lý
TX. Sơn Tây
TX. Móng Cái
TX. Ninh Bình
TX. Thủ Dầu Một
TX. Cao Bằng
TX. Cam Ranh
TX. Kon Tum
TX. Sóc Trăng
TP. Cao Lãnh
TX. Vị Thanh
44/2007/ND-CP
219/TTg
180/2004/ND-CP
133/2006/ND-CP ¸
04 /2004/ND-CP ¸
88-CP
117/2004/ND-CP
112/2005/ND-CP
156/2004/ND-CP
82/2002/ND-CP
126/2006/ND-CP
110 /2003/ND-CP
81/1999/ND-CP
21/1999/ND-CP
248/2005/QD-TTg
53/2000/ND-CP
__/2006/QD-BXD
52/1998/ND-CP
19/2007/ND-CP
115/2007/QD-BXD
77 /2002/ND-CP
21/2000/ND-CP
13/2004/ND-CP
22/2007/ND-CP
10/2007/ND-CP
45/1999/ND-CP
27 March 2003
10 May 1993
14 Oct 2004
10 Nov 2006
2 Jan 2004
6 August 1997
29 April 2004
26 August 2005
16 Aug 2004
17 Oct 2002
27 Oct 2006
29 Sep 2003
25 Aug.1999
14 April 1999
7 Oct 2005
25 Sep 2000
30 May 2006
20 Jul 1998
7 Feb 2007
23 Jan 2007
4 Oct 2002
7. July 2000
8 Jan 2004
8 Feb 2007
16 Jan 2007
1 July 1999
¸
City Area
(km2)
Population
22.4531
154.67
38,8962
3
541.495
106.36
36.862
36.268
43.30
37.12
155.54
7.76935
132.7605
60.09
205.86
245.80
49.98
34.2487
113.47
515
4.836,49
88
5.523
684.435
171.79
76.1522
107.1954
111.58
168,462
299.310
143,895
143,925
133,843
130.636
106.110
95,589
70,639
186.404
176,848
215,000
70,495
110,827
78.400
130.517
158.000
47.272
191,066
47056
173,922
149,837
70,456
Other Remarks
(Number and area of wards & communes;
addition/ subtraction, etc.)
Became class I city under Thua Thien Hue
province
24 wards, 3 communes (after expanded)
23 wards, 3 communes
Became class II city
8 wards, 5 communes
8 wards, 2 communes
5 wards, 3 communes
8 wards, 6 communes
7 wards, 1 communes
15 administrative units: 8 wards & 7 communes
6 wards 9 communes
16 wards
6 wards, 6 communes
4 wards, 4 communes
5 wards, 4 communes
10 wards, 0 commune
8 wards, 7 communes
7 administrative units: 4 wards & 3 communes
Decision on city’s expansion.
added areas by division of Huong So commune into 2 new wards and division of Thuy An commune into 2 new wards
2
added population
3
Population in 2005 and 604,548 in 2007
¸
1
10/10
APPENDIX C
Review of Statistical and
Planning Documents
APPENDIX C
Review of Statistical and Planning Documents
1.
Statistical Reports and Administrative Atlas
In the preparation of data survey at the local level, the consultants reviewed some national
statistical reports pertinent to the sampling procedure and results of the Vietnam Household Living
Standard Survey (VHLSS) 1999 and 2004, particularly on demographic and household survey.
Other sources include publication of General Statistics Office of Vietnam as follows:
• Population Change and Family Planning Survey 1 April 2005, Statistical Publishing House,
Hanoi 2006.
• Socio-Economic Statistical Data of 671 districts, towns and cities under the authority of provinces
in Vietnam, Statistical Publishing House, 2006.
• Statistical Yearbook of Vietnam 2006, Statistical Publishing House, Hanoi 2007.
Among the findings were:
• The Statistical Reports usually contain demographic information, agricultural and industrial
statistics, investment budget for basic construction, data on trade, tourism, transportation,
culture, education, health sports and social affairs.
• Temporary residents who comprise a big portion of the total population, particularly in special
cities, Classes I and II cities are not clearly distinguished.
• There exists no statistics on the number of housing units at the local level. Construction statistics
does not indicate the number of structures built by type.
• Data on infrastructure are limited. In most cities/towns, there exists no inventory of roads,
drainage and sewerage systems, solid waste facilities, among others.
• Data on income were itemised as taxes from non-state owned sector (land use, house, transfer
of land us rights, fees and charges), state budget allocation and other incomes.
• Data on expenditure of cities/towns are not uniformly present. Some reports indicated that the
local expenditure was broken into expenses for economic enterprises, education, health, culture,
administrative management and budget for communes.
Also reviewed were a number of Local Statistical Reports as listed below:
• Buon Ma Thuot Statistical Year Book 2005, Dac Lac Provincial Department of Statistics, March
2006.
• Ca Mau Statistical Year Book 2005, Ca Mau Provincial Department of Statistics, July 2006.
• Cam Ranh Statistical Year Book 2005, Cam Ranh Provincial Department of Statistics, June Cao
Bang Statistical Year Book 2005, Ha Noi Publishing house of Statistics, 2006.
• Cao Lanh Statistical Year Book 2005 , Dong Thap Provincial Department of Statistics, July 2006.
• Hue Statistical Year Book 2005, Thua Thien Hue Provincial Department of Statistics, June 2006.
• Kon Tum Statistical Year Book 2005, Kon Tum Provincial Department of Statistics, 2006.
• Mong Cai Statistical Year Book 2004, Ha Noi Publishing House of Statistics, 2004.
• My Tho Statistical Year Book 2005, My Tho Department of Statistics, 2005.
• Ninh Binh Statistical Year Book 2005, Ninh Binh Provincial Department of Statistics, May 2005.
• Phan Thiet Statistical Year Book 2005, Phan Thiet Provincial Department of Statistics, 2005.
• 2006.
• Quang Ngai Statistical Year Book 2001-2005, Quang Ngai Provincial Department of Statistics,
March 2006.
• Soc Trang Statistical Year Book 2005, Soc Trang Provincial Department of Statistics, April 2006.
• Vi Thanh Statistical Yearbook 2005, Hau Giang Department of Statistics, March 2006.
• Viet Tri Statistical Year Book 2005, Viet Tri Department of Statistics, March 2005.
Also used as a major reference was Vietnam Administrative Atlas, Cartographic Publishing House,
September 2005.
1/3
2.
National and Local Planning Documents
While orientation master plans for different sectors are still produced, recent planning undertakings
have given birth to another set of planning documents which are referred to as strategies for
specified sectors such as transportation, water sector in the urban areas, solid waste management
as well as urban upgrading.
The central government also formulates regional plans for selected regions of national significance
in order to address some socio-economic development concerns (e.g., Socio-Economic
Development Orientation of the Northern Key Economic Region toward 2010 and Vision toward
2020 and Decision of Prime Minister on Socio-Economic Development of Mekong Delta Region in
the period of 2006-2010).
A number master plans, socio-economic plans and detailed urban construction plans of provinces
and cities/towns were reviewed.1 The planning documents shown by the local authorities to the
consultants are inadequate to guide the local urban managers in addressing the dynamic local
population and inadequate and deteriorating infrastructure facilities and utilities. In general, the
master plans contain a summary profile of the city or town, evaluation of the implementation of
overall plan, targets and projection and orientation of urban development. No situational analysis
was provided in the document to support the local plans which generally emanate from the central
government or provincial government. Some cities/towns had outdated master plans. A number of
cities/towns had no detailed construction plan due to lack of capacity to undertake technical
planning and inadequate resources to conduct detailed data-gathering and inventory of
infrastructure as well as generate digitised maps.2 Some local governments have urban detailed
construction plans which indicate digitised maps of proposed roads, water pipelines, drainage
pipelines, street lighting, among others. It was noticed that master plans were prepared by
cities/towns in its bid to upgrade its classification.
The list of plans reviewed are listed below:
2.1
National Plans
• The Five-Year Socio-Economic Development Plan, 2006-2010, Ministry of Planning and
Investment, Hanoi, March 2006.
• Orientation Master Plan for Urban Development 2020, Construction Publishing House, Hanoi
1999.
• Orientation for Housing Development 2001-2010, MPI Ten-Year Infrastructure Plan.
• Transportation System Development Strategy to 2020.
• Orientation for Urban Water Supply Development to 2020.
• National Orientation on Drainage Development in Urban Areas by 2020.
• Orientation for Urban Sewerage and Drainage to 2020.
• Orientation Water Resources Development Plan to 2000 and Tentative Development Plan to
2010.
• Strategy for the Management of Solid Waste in Vietnam Cities and Industrial Parks.
• National Strategy for Environmental Protection, 2001-2010.
• Water Resources Development Plan to the Year 2000 and Tentative Development Plan to the
Year 2010 (MARD, June 1998).
• Direction and Duties of Water Resources Development to the Year 2010 (MARD, September
1999).
• Strategy for Rural Agriculture Development in the Industrialisation and Modernisation Period to
the year 2010 (MARD, July 2000).
• Agriculture and Rural Development Plan (2001- 2005) (MARD, August 2000).
• National Strategy for Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (NRWSS).
• Second National Strategy and Action Plan for Disaster Mitigation and Management in Viet Nam
2001 to 2020 (MARD and Central Committee for Flood and Storm Control, December 2001.
1
Soc Trang had soft copy and hard copy of documents and digitised city maps for 6 out of 10 wards (Wards 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 combined 4
and 9). These were 12 sets of maps (i.e., residential area map, existing situation map of construction and land evaluation, existing
and proposed land use map, spatial map, architectural/structural plan, transport plan, drainage, water supply, sewerage system,
electrical system, road network and pipeline network).
2
During the Field Study done on 18 October 2007 by MOC3, it was found out that Hai Duong City only had COREL generated
maps.
2/3
• Strengthening Environmental Protection in the period of National Industrialisation and
Modernisation (Communist Party of Viet Nam, Directive No. 36/CT-TW, 1998).
• Public Administration Reform Master Program for 2001-2010, 2001.
2.2
Local Plans
• Can Tho Development Strategies, World Bank and National Institute for Urban and Rural
Planning, Ministry of Construction, 23 July 2006.
• Ha Long City’ Development Strategies, World Bank and National Institute for Urban and Rural
Planning, Ministry of Construction, 4 July 2006.
• City Development Options for Hai Phong. Charting a Path to the Year 2020, 30 July 1998.
• Summary Report on detailed land use planning to the year 2015 and the plan for land use to the
year 2010 – Him lam Ward, Dien Bien Phu City, Dien Bien Province, November 2005
• Basic Economic and Social Targets 2001-2005 of Hoa Binh Town, Hoa Binh Provincial PC,
September, 2005.
• Overall Economic and Social Development Plan of Lang Son City, period 2001-2010, Lang Son
Provincial PC, August 2001.
• Overall Economic and Social Development Plan Of Cam Ranh Town to the year 2020, Khanh
Hoa Provincial PC, September 2005.
• Overall economic and social development plan of My Tho City, period 1997-2010, My Tho City
PC, October 1997.
• Summary report on the Detailed Development Plan of Ninh Phong ward, Ninh Binh Town Ninh
Binh Province, Ninh Binh Provincial PC and Institute of Urban and Infrastructure development
Studies, December, 2005.
• Summary Report the amendment of Overall Development Plan of Hai Duong City, Hai Duong
province, period 2002-2020, MOC and Institute Of Urban Plan For Rural Areas, September, 2004
• Report the Amendment of Overall Development Plan of Son Tay Town, Ha Tay province to the
Year 2020, 2004.
• Summary Report on Detailed Land Use Planning to the year 2010, Dong Kinh Ward, Lang Son
Town, Lang Son City PC, 2006.
• Summary Report on Detailed Land Use Planning to the year 2010 of Dong Hoi City and the
Orientation for Land Use to the Year 2020, September 2006.
• Summary Report on detailed land use planning to the year 2015 and the plan for land use to the
year 2015 of Bac Nghia Ward.
3/3
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX D
1. Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy, 2002.
2. Document of the National Representative Congress of Vietnamese Communist Party No. IX, April
2001.
3. Enhancing Access of the Urban Poor and Vulnerable Groups in Vietnam to Basic Infrastructure and
Housing” was carried out as part of the Cities Alliance work in 2001-2002.
4. Enhancing Access to basic infrastructure services of the urban poor and vulnerable groups in
Vietnam. Housing and infrastructure constraints faced by the urban poor. Nguyen Thie Hien, et al.,
Hanoi, June 2002.
5. Evaluation of Community Upgrading Programs in Metro Manila by Julie G. Viloria and David Williams
in Shelter Upgrading for the Urban Poor: Evaluation of Third World Experience edited by Reinhard J.
Skinner, et al, Island Publishing House Inc. in cooperation with the United Nations Centre for Human
Settlements (Habitat) and the Institute for Housing Studies).
6. “Guidelines for Preparation of Upgrading Projects in Poor Areas with Community Participation,”
MOC/World Bank, 2004.
7. Population Change and Family Planning Survey 1 April 2005, General Statistics Office, 2006.
8. Project Operations Manual, Pre-Feasibility and Feasibility Studies for the Four VUUP Pilot Projects.
9. Task 1 Report entitled “Housing and Infrastructure, Constraints faced by the Urban Poor Surveys,”
2002.
10. Task 2 Report entitled “Review of Recent and On-Going Urban Upgrading Programs,” 2002.
11. Task 3 Report entitled “A National Strategy to Enhance Access of the Urban Poor to Basic
Infrastructure and Housing,” 2002.
12. Task 4 Report entitled “Development of a Detailed Action Plan for a Selected City (Can Tho)” by
Michael Slingsby and Do Xuan Thuy for Cities Alliance, 2002.
13. Socio-Economic Statistical Data of 671 districts, towns, and cities under the Authority of provinces in
Vietnam, General Statistics Office, Statistical Publishing House (2006) is the major source of data for
2
Multi-Criteria Analysis. Socio-economic data such as land area (km ), population, number of
students, number of classrooms, revenue and expenditure are among the data gathered and stored
in the database for NUUP.
14. Statistical Yearbook of Vietnam 2006, Statistical Publishing House, Hanoi, 2007.
15. Statistical Information Compilation of custom indicators generated from the Development Data
Platform (DDP). The DDP is a web resource for retrieving and reporting both time series and survey
data on several development topics.
16. Sub-Project Formulation of Policies for Urban Upgrading, MOC, 2004.
17. Urban Development Strategy Report: Meeting the challenges of rapid urbanisation and the transition
to a market-oriented economy, WB in Vietnam, 2006.
18. Vietnam Administrative Atlas, Cartographic Publishing House is a collection of maps with
informative tables, or textual matters on Vietnam which is used to verify location of cities/towns being
studied.
National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Overall Investment Plan for Urban Upgrading to 2020
1/3
19. Vietnam Household Living Standards Survey (VHLSS) 2002 incorporates many aspects of the 199293 and 1997-98 Vietnam Living Standards Survey (VLSS) as well as many characteristics of past
Multi-Purpose Household Survey (MPHS).
20. Vietnam Infrastructure Challenge: Infrastructure Strategy. Cross-sectoral issues. The World Bank in
Vietnam, 2006.
21. Vietnam Infrastructure Challenge: Power Strategy. Managing growth and reform. The World Bank in
Vietnam, 2006.
22. Vietnam Infrastructure Challenge: Transport Strategy. Transition, Reform and Sustainable
Management, The World Bank in Vietnam, 2006.
23. Vietnam Infrastructure Challenge: Urban Development Strategy. Meeting the challenges of rapid
urbanisation and the transition to a market-oriented economy. The World Bank in Vietnam, 2006.
24. Vietnam Infrastructure Challenge: Water Supply and Sanitation Strategy. Building on a solid
foundation, prepared by Camellia Staykova, The World Bank in Vietnam, 2006.
25. Vietnam Poverty Analysis prepared for the Australian Agency for International Development by the
Centre for International Economics, Canberra and Sydney, 9 May 2002.
26. Vietnam Urbanisation Issues Paper, July 2004.
27. VUUP – Ho Chi Minh City Sub-Project – Operational Manual, Pre-Feasibility and Feasibility Studies.
28. VUUP – Can Tho Sub-Project – Preparation of Primary and Secondary (Trunk) Infrastructure.
29. VUUP – Sub-Project – Operational Manual (OM)/Sectorial Project No. 1 (Phase I – Component I
including the tertiary infrastructure upgrading in Tan Hoa – Lo Gom basin) in Ho Chi Minh City.
30. VUUP – Sub- Project Report: Feasibility Study of Technical Assistance and Strengthening Capacity
for Project Management in Ho Chi Minh City Urban Upgrading Project.
31. VUUP – Sub-Project on Infrastructure Upgrading in Low Income Areas of Nam Dinh, Community
Upgrading Plan for Van Mieu Low Income Area (Final Version), Nam Dinh, November 2003.
32. VUUP – Sub-Project – Project Operational Manual on Infrastructure Upgrading in Low Income Areas
of Nam Dinh, October 2003.
33. VUUP – Sub-Project- Report on the Results of the Socio-Economic Survey in Van Mieu Ward.
34. VUUP - Sub-Project Report: Feasibility Study on Security on Land and House Ownership
(Component Project No. 3) in Can Tho.
35. VUUP - Sub-Project: Community Upgrading Plans An Cu Ward.
36. VUUP - Sub-Project: Community Upgrading Plans An Héi Ward.
37. VUUP - Sub-Project Report: Infrastructure Upgrading and Improving Project for Hai Phong Low
Income Areas (Feasibility Study Project No. 3: Construction of Resettlement Site and Houses for the
Low-Income).
38. VUUP - Sub-Project Report: Survey Results of Socio-Economic Conditions and Project Effects
(Component 1 in Phase 1), Hai Phong, March 2003.
39. VUUP - Sub-Project: Construction of Resettlement Site and Houses for the Low-Income.
40. VUUP – Sub-Project Report on Feasibility Study: Revolving Fund for Improvement of House
Conditions and Living Standards, Nam Dinh Project Management Board.
2/3
41. VUUP Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam for the
Urban Upgrading Project, 31 March 2004.
42. VUUP Supervision Mission, Aide Memoire for Can Tho City, 5-7 June 2006.
43. VUUP Supervision Mission, Aide Memoire for Hai Phong City, 29-30 May 2006.
44. VUUP Supervision Mission, Aide Memoire for Ho Chi Minh City, 1-3 June 2006.
45. VUUP Supervision Mission, Aide Memoire-Nam Dinh City, 24-26 May 2006.
46. VUUP Supervision Mission, Aide Memoire for Can Tho City, 11-13 January 2007.
47. VUUP Supervision Mission, Aide Memoire for Hai Phong City, 8-29 January 2007.
48. VUUP Supervision Mission, Aide Memoire for Nam Dinh City, 25-26 January 2007.
3/3
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX E
The overall national need and demand for urban upgrading heavily relies on a comprehensive database.
The evaluation of cities and towns to determine the extent of infrastructure deficiencies, LIA and periurban development areas that require urban upgrading intervention started with the preparation of a
database for each of the 95 cities/towns throughout Vietnam of Class IV status and higher. Data acquired
through a desk study, questionnaire and secondary data sources have been adequately formatted and
integrated into the database. This broad database was developed using MS Access. The database of 95
cities/towns was further improved, extended and refined by identifying representative sample of 25 cities
for field surveys and integrating the field survey results into the database. The database was further
enhanced with recently published data and developed into an Outline Urban Profile. Three typical Outline
Urban Profiles are presented in this Appendix (i.e., urban profiles of Bien Hoa City, Soc Trang and Vi
Than Town). These Outline Urban Profiles may be replicated and continually updated by the local
executives in charge of statistics and urban development offices. The data are sorted at different levels,
namely, city level, ward level and LIA level. Data at city level include population, area, land use,
infrastructure and environment, socio-economic and finance. Data at ward level consist of number of
wards, ward population and ward area. Data at LIA level comprise of LIA blocks, area, population,
households, number of substandard houses and houses in unsafe areas, households without water
supply, without septic tanks, without drainage, houses with uncollected solid waste, length of road in need
of upgrading, number and extent of flooded areas, length of road in need of streetlight upgrading.
1/17
95 CITIES AND TOWNS DATABASE _ SUMMARY
region
no. cityarea
city
km2
wardarea
km2
liaarea
km2
city
population
ward
population
lia
population
1
20
1,949
404
47
1,315,106
885,206
258,490
2
18
4,444
899
96
6,890,027
3,960,331
1,067,258
3
22
4,191
946
103
3,966,263
3,019,304
843,283
4
8
2,465
354
39
1,150,990
762,976
204,997
5
8
3,069
905
99
7,303,729
5,711,780
1,595,305
6
19
3,610
961
100
3,580,335
2,117,508
580,047
95
19,728
4,468
484
24,206,450
16,457,105
Grand Total
region
I
1
2
1
II
III
IV
2
6
12
2
11
3
S
region
H
L
1
16
4
2
1
4
8
8
3
4
2
2
4
4
5
2
3
2
6
2
8
9
3
Grand Total
2
3
14
38 38
1
2
region 1 Midland and Northern Mountainous Region
region 2 Red River Delta
region 3 Central Coast
region 4 Central Highlands
region 5 Sountheast
region 6 Mekong River Delta
4,549,380
1
8
16
2
20
1
5
8
6
19
Grand Total
25
LC
67
3
H: Highland
L: Lowland
LC: Lowland Coastal with specific adverse conditions
Vietnam National Urban Upgrading Strategy - Overall Investment Plan to 2020
Final Report
Monday, April 28, 2008
Economic Region:
Central Coast
citiestowns
province
class topo
TP. Quy Nhơn
Bình Định
II
TP. Phan Thiết
Bình Thuận
TX. Lagi
(%)
(%)
cipogrowth
ci%phhs
cihfloor
14,732
1.26
6.80
13
40,652
11,280
1.48
0.43
9.7
11,980
13,719
3,240
1.33
8.75
607,879
148,263
169,781
40,105
1.87
19,255
73,859
18,014
20,628
4,872
35,979
8,775
15,101
3,683
4,217
336,605
360,919
88,029
359,000
87,560
56.70
201,500
217,671
53,090
90,897
3.17
28.96
217,313
240,409
58,636
3.11
1.13
10.37
43,992
50,268
79.40
4.32
1.18
10.80
150,173
L
106.82
15.49
4.24
38.72
III
L
156.00
22.17
6.06
Quảng Nam
III
L
60.70
7.35
TP. Tam Kỳ
Quảng Nam
III
H
343.50
TP. Quảng Ngãi
Quảng Ngãi
III
L
TX. Đông Hà
Quảng Trị
IV
TX. Quảng Trị
Quảng Trị
TP. Thanh Hoá
ciareakm2
builtupkm2
liaareakm2
warea2005
cipo2000
cipo2005
cihhs2005
wpo2005
whhs2005
liapo
liahhs
L
216.40
99.34
21.74
198.67
242,616
258,320
63,004
223,305
54,464
62,369
III
L
206.00
4.71
1.29
11.77
192,829
207,853
50,695
145,552
41,701
Bình Thuận
IV
L
182.00
1.29
0.47
4.29
112,558
189,948
46,328
49,120
TP. Đà Nẵng
Đà Nẵng
I
LC
1,256.00
149.17
23.31
213.10
566,000
777,000
186,463
TP. Hà Tĩnh
Hà Tĩnh
III
L
56.00
4.41
1.21
11.03
61,088
78,948
TX. Hồng Lĩnh
Hà Tĩnh
IV
L
58.00
3.08
1.12
10.25
35,417
TP. Nha Trang
Khánh Hoà
II
L
251.00
39.32
8.60
78.64
TX. Cam Ranh
Khánh Hoà
IV
L
696.99
17.01
6.20
TP. Vinh
Nghệ An
II
L
64.00
14.48
TX. Cửa Lò
Nghệ An
IV
L
28.10
TP. Phan Rang - Tháp Chàm Ninh Thuận
III
L
TP. Tuy Hoà
Phú Yên
III
TP. Đồng Hới
Quảng Bình
TX. Hội An
(%)
cisubhouse
ciroden
cidr cidrkm ciwscap
(%)
(%)
(%)
ciwwater ciws
cisol
cislight
3.60
0.80
173
90
68
81
2.52
2.30
474
90
65
81
7.87
2.50
1.73
315
78
20
32
3.50
8
4.53
3.42
4,296
54
90
100
1.33
12.97
19.9
9.85
3.91
219
100
80
96
996
0.32
23.56
4.28
5.00
290
35
60
81
100,269
23,685
1.40
0.30
12.9
1.66
0.65
163
85
70
80
16,633
25,387
4,499
1.49
10.40
9.8
2.70
3.20
2,230
13
70
81
240,000
58,536
67,032
15,834
2.04
7.10
10.70
5.52
353
85
90
81
12,260
30,685
7,484
8,570
2,024
2.70
12.80
7.45
3.83
108
73
40
81
162,531
39,641
133,500
32,560
37,286
8,807
1.59
7.34
10.51
3.67
2.05
163
65
85
90
99,703
162,278
39,580
136,530
33,300
38,133
9,007
0.94
8.62
8
3.31
4.70
502
70
85
64
55.43
94,701
100,815
28,232
65,961
20,310
18,423
5,493
1.17
3.98
12.8
5.68
0.85
133
45
54
57
90
2.01
18.37
78,337
84,296
20,560
59,498
14,511
16,617
3,925
1.48
1.30
15.21
6.00
3.55
215
45
87
72
85
16.46
4.50
41.15
169,869
179,148
43,694
95,889
23,387
26,781
6,326
1.07
8.26
11
3.64
5.80
1,992
41
60
86
100
137.10
14.85
4.06
37.12
110,886
123,505
26,824
116,357
23,203
32,498
6,276
1.85
10.70
18.21
5.82
4.74
650
51
95
70
90
L
72.60
4.77
1.74
15.89
71,055
80,464
19,625
79,026
19,274
22,072
5,213
2.52
5.30
12
10.00
0.88
64
60
80
86
90
IV
L
6.40
1.92
0.70
6.40
16,096
16,980
4,141
16,630
4,056
4,644
1,097
1.08
8.45
4.73
1.26
8
45
50
81
Thanh Hoá
II
L
57.90
11.45
2.50
22.89
185,351
197,245
48,108
143,755
35,062
40,150
9,484
1.25
2.16
14.6
9.40
5.11
296
45
70
75
75
TX. Bỉm Sơn
Thanh Hoá
IV
L
66.90
12.00
4.38
40.00
53,462
55,508
13,538
43,000
10,487
12,009
2,836
0.75
9.40
30
3.04
0.78
52
100
87
35
81
TX. Sầm Sơn
Thanh Hoá
IV
L
17.90
2.46
0.90
8.20
54,806
59,914
14,613
30,690
7,485
8,571
2,024
1.80
5.00
14.8
7.45
3.83
69
10
60
60
29
TP. Huế
Thừa Thiên Hu I
L
71.00
18.89
2.95
26.98
297,666
326,264
64,385
263,070
50,726
73,475
13,721
1.94
1.94
16.5
41,257
3.82
1.77
126
78
95
90
100
3,966,263
949,476 3,019,304
722,679
843,283
195,476
244.8
126991
12,890
26
29,739
27,171
13,608
15,216
50
75
38
Summary for 'ecoregionname' = Central Coast (22 detail records)
Total
4,190.71
468.02
103.47
945.73 3,392,023
3.18
5.34
4.13
3.08
71
75
84
Final Report
Vietnam National Urban Upgrading Strategy ‐ Overall Investment Plan to 202
Economic Region:
Central Highlands
citiestowns
province
class topo
Đắc Lăk
II
TX. Gia Nghĩa
Đăk Nông
TP. Pleiku
(%)
(%)
cipogrowth
ci%phhs
cihfloor
cisubhouse
ciroden
15,077
1.45
8.15
12.6
46,542
4.25
0.74
6,929
1,636
1.33
3.50
20
3.30
31,563
36,144
8,537
1.97
1.78
12
21,613
5,271
6,036
1,425
1.33
8.86
24,078
36,029
8,787
10,062
2,376
0.99
131,983
27,473
82,924
17,566
15,062
3,015
167,709
192,568
46,967
170,200
41,512
47,537
65.00
138,546
150,010
36,587
95,069
23,187
353.72
986,444
1,150,990
282,415
762,976
189,675
ciareakm2
builtupkm2
liaareakm2
warea2005
cipo2000
cipo2005
cihhs2005
wpo2005
whhs2005
liapo
liahhs
H
377.20
50.75
11.10
101.50
295,095
317,030
83,732
202,918
55,738
56,675
IV
H
286.64
19.22
7.01
64.07
35,559
8,672
24,811
6,051
Gia Lai
III
H
260.60
6.40
1.75
16.00
190,062
46,356
129,412
TX. Ajunpa
Gia Lai
IV
H
287.01
5.18
1.89
17.28
35,058
8,550
TX. An Khê
Gia Lai
IV
H
199.90
6.44
2.35
21.45
93,959
98,720
TX. Kon Tum
Kon Tum
III
H
430.04
13.80
4.73
43.25
118,719
TP. Đà Lạt
Lâm Đồng
II
H
391.10
12.59
2.75
25.18
TX. Bảo Lộc
Lâm Đồng
IV
H
232.40
19.50
7.11
2,464.88
133.88
38.70
172,416
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
ciwwater ciws
cisol
cislight
279
65
66
82
95
2.50
717
20
60
80
50
4.35
0.40
104
34
65
90
12.5
3.00
4.00
1,148
30
65
85
85
8.68
12
5.33
2.00
400
30
21
40
85
2.14
5.50
10.68
5.67
4.00
1,720
50
70
60
80
11,229
2.80
6.40
10.9
4.50
2.33
913
100
95
80
100
26,552
6,272
1.60
10.24
4.00
2.33
542
61
74
81
204,997
49,567
21,018
cidr cidrkm ciwscap
Summary for 'ecoregionname' = Central Highlands (8 detail records)
Total
3.13
6.70
90.68
67560
4.36
2.36
5,823
44
61
72
89
Final Report
Economic Region:
Mekong River Delta
citiestowns
province
class topo
TP. Long Xuyên
An Giang
III
TX. Châu Đốc
An Giang
TX. Bac Liêu
ciareakm2
builtupkm2
liaareakm2
warea2005
cipo2000
cipo2005
cihhs2005
wpo2005
whhs2005
L
106.20
42.75
11.69
106.87
252,334
270,238
65,911
263,838
IV
L
115.03
11.62
4.24
38.72
106,959
115,067
28,065
Bạc Liêu
III
L
175.50
19.19
7.00
63.98
132,460
142,420
TX. Bến Tre
Bến Tre
IV
L
67.00
4.03
1.47
13.44
107,631
TP. Cà Mau
Cà Mau
III
L
245.00
15.39
0.74
40.00
182,401
TP. Cần Thơ
Cần Thơ
II
L
1,390.00
147.79
32.34
TP. Cao Lãnh
Đồng Tháp
III
L
107.20
12.08
3.30
30.20
TX. Hồng Ngự
Đồng Tháp
IV
L
122.16
4.87
1.77
16.22
TX. Sa Đéc
Đồng Tháp
IV
L
58.00
6.37
2.32
21.22
TX. Vị Thanh
Hậu Giang
IV
L
119.00
10.91
3.98
TX. Tân Hiệp
Hậu Giang
IV
L
564.00
6.79
TP. Rạch Giá
Kiên Giang
III
L
97.70
TX. Hà Tiên
Kiên Giang
IV
L
TX. Tân An
Long An
IV
TP. Sóc Trăng
Sóc Trăng
TP. Mỹ Tho
(%)
(%)
cipogrowth
ci%phhs
(%)
liapo
liahhs
64,350
73,690
17,406
1.38
99,033
24,154
27,660
6,533
1.47
6.42
34,736
26,074
6,359
7,282
1,720
1.46
2.68
116,407
28,391
60,144
14,669
16,798
3,967
1.58
4.38
11
202,316
40,591
120,440
23,977
26,467
5,130
2.06
2.67
11.01
295.57 1,079,891 1,134,500
276,441
507,647
123,816
141,786
33,492
0.97
8.31
149,839
31,476
81,266
16,622
22,697
4,496
0.96
1.28
10.98
64,569
15,748
29,988
7,314
8,375
1,978
1.33
2.00
97,567
102,320
24,956
80,543
19,644
22,495
5,313
0.96
36.37
67,382
71,832
14,378
41,577
7,813
11,612
2,113
2.47
22.62
253,575
269,811
65,807
31,148
7,597
8,699
23.43
6.41
58.58
189,191
207,593
50,632
189,864
46,308
88.50
9.47
3.45
31.57
37,592
42,600
10,390
28,789
L
82.00
11.62
4.24
38.73
115,549
121,363
29,600
III
L
76.50
30.60
8.37
76.50
116,023
124,049
Tiền Giang
II
L
48.30
5.98
1.64
14.95
160,841
TX. Gò Công
Tiền Giang
IV
L
32.10
1.60
0.58
5.34
TX. Trà Vinh
Trà Vinh
III
L
68.04
11.63
1.45
TX. Vĩnh Long
Vĩnh Long
III
L
47.90
8.28
3,610.13
384.39
142,986
cihfloor
cisubhouse
13.04
22,601
ciroden
cidr cidrkm ciwscap
(%)
(%)
cisol
cislight
67
60
81
81
80
81
55
90
81
2.16
3.09
329
3.96
3.05
351
3.16
3.09
543
2.82
3.09
207
55
60
75
81
0.61
0.79
194
47
66
70
81
60
80
90
81
3.50
11,530
(%)
ciwwater ciws
70
3.55
3.50
375
28
85
80
95
14
4.90
4.00
489
40
100
80
90
2.19
13.21
6.90
4.00
232
58
84
80
90
1.30
21.55
35
2.06
0.77
92
94
60
81
2,054
1.25
21.00
11.2
3.50
3.50
1,974
15
80
80
65
53,029
12,526
1.87
5.52
13.52
3.50
4.40
430
90
83
70
90
7,021
8,040
1,899
2.53
2.30
3.66
3.09
274
75
48
81
87,008
21,221
24,301
5,740
0.99
4.00
3.00
3.09
254
80
75
81
35,285
124,049
35,285
34,647
9,544
1.35
12.49
17.79
5,254
4.77
3.95
302
81
84
100
170,497
39,619
140,224
28,296
39,164
7,654
1.02
1.08
13.89
12,050
4.57
2.06
99
84
95
96
51,727
53,951
13,158
33,000
8,048
9,216
2,176
0.85
13.28
0.85
1.19
38
85
65
81
29.07
72,199
96,016
22,329
79,066
18,387
17,888
3,898
1.55
6.95
3.16
3.09
211
66
70
81
2.27
20.71
121,236
124,947
30,474
93,810
22,880
26,201
6,189
0.60
5.49
1.52
1.25
60
70
90
70
81
99.74
960.66 3,287,544
3,580,335
857,987 2,117,508
503,761
580,047
133,828
6,452
40
10,134
50
Summary for 'ecoregionname' = Mekong River Delta (19 detail records)
Total
1.72
6.95
164.6
61569
3.28
1.79
78
80
83
Final Report
Economic Region:
Midland and Northen Mountainous Region
citiestowns
province
class topo
TP. Bắc Giang
Bắc Giang
III
TX. Bắc Cạn
Bắc Kạn
TX. Cao Bằng
(%)
(%)
cipogrowth
ci%phhs
cihfloor
4,622
1.98
1.60
15.4
3.96
1.50
48
5,586
1,319
2.10
23.70
10
3.08
0.86
9,418
24,297
6,402
2.14
44,054
9,544
23,886
5,994
3.24
2.32
3,507
9,951
2,427
2,779
656
0.14
13.10
45,028
10,982
32,460
7,917
9,066
2,141
2.74
15.00
13.6
84,019
20,492
69,850
17,167
19,509
4,643
1.17
2.39
19.68
18,561
4,527
13,084
3,191
3,654
863
1.33
13.60
9.2
74,938
78,550
28,519
52,000
23,858
14,523
6,453
0.71
3.67
12
22.93
76,263
86,410
21,075
76,000
18,536
21,226
5,014
2.53
9.15
18.5
2.93
26.79
131,057
145,085
49,225
97,352
36,890
12,446
3,142
2.05
1.27
12
2.08
0.76
6.92
39,575
62,997
15,365
23,180
5,653
6,474
1,529
1.64
3.40
15
13.60
4.08
1.49
13.60
16,260
3,965
16,260
3,965
4,541
1,072
1.33
6.70
H
330.00
4.16
1.52
13.87
75,964
18,527
30,632
7,471
8,555
2,020
2.14
13.11
IV
H
10.92
3.28
1.19
10.92
9,340
2,278
9,340
2,278
2,608
616
1.33
17.00
Thái Nguyên
II
L
177.10
24.09
5.27
48.18
218,038
234,506
57,196
144,688
35,289
40,411
9,545
1.47
6.59
TX. Sông Công
Thái Nguyên
IV
H
83.60
5.43
1.98
18.11
43,244
45,410
11,075
23,725
5,786
6,626
1,565
0.98
TX. Tuyên Quang
Tuyên Quang
IV
H
43.70
1.28
0.47
4.27
53,921
57,152
13,939
26,290
6,412
7,342
1,734
TP. Yên Bái
Yên Bái
III
H
58.00
2.48
0.68
6.19
74,330
78,997
19,267
75,000
18,292
20,947
TX. Nghĩa Lộ
Yên Bái
IV
H
29.70
2.64
0.96
8.79
18,314
26,606
15,925
3,884
4,447
149.29
46.64
885,206
239,943
258,490
ciareakm2
builtupkm2
liaareakm2
warea2005
cipo2000
cipo2005
cihhs2005
wpo2005
whhs2005
L
32.20
2.78
0.76
6.94
94,025
103,685
25,289
70,059
17,087
19,567
IV
H
132.00
4.19
1.53
13.96
29,632
32,883
8,020
20,000
4,878
Cao Bằng
IV
H
55.20
7.40
5.05
22.86
43,150
53,470
13,669
35,356
Điện Biên
III
H
64.00
10.35
3.73
34.86
39,050
45,803
12,853
TX. Mường Lay
Điện Biên
IV
H
114.04
15.71
5.73
52.36
9,409
14,379
TX. Hà Giang
Hà Giang
IV
H
166.00
8.66
3.16
28.88
39,341
TP. Hoà Bình
Hoà Bình
III
H
133.00
14.38
3.93
35.95
78,155
TX. Lai Châu
Lai Châu
IV
H
70.80
4.60
1.68
15.34
TP. Lạng Sơn
Lạng Sơn
III
H
77.70
4.84
1.32
12.10
TP. Lào Cai
Lào Cai
III
H
221.50
9.17
2.51
TP. Việt Trì
Phú Thọ
II
L
71.26
17.70
TX. Phú Thọ
Phú Thọ
IV
L
64.50
TX. Mai Sơn
Sơn La
IV
H
TX. Sơn La
Sơn La
IV
TX. Mộc Châu
Sơn La
TP. Thái Nguyên
68,329
liapo
liahhs
(%)
cisubhouse
ciroden
cidr cidrkm ciwscap
(%)
(%)
(%)
ciwwater ciws
cisol
cislight
20
90
70
90
114
37
80
81
76
75
81
80
92
83
90
20
81
3.8
4,398
0.42
1.50
83
12
2,887
1.15
4.00
256
3.72
2.46
280
0.83
0.96
159
60
70
80
81
3.77
3.62
481
60
95
85
91
1.50
2.46
174
90
35
81
5.90
0.20
16
80
80
80
50
12.10
2.80
620
60
73
60
99
1.10
0.41
29
70
80
80
87
9.40
2.22
143
25
68
50
81
6,724
6,483
15,104
100
81
6.56
2.27
749
30
95
70
81
81
13.3
3.10
3.78
669
3.84
2.71
0.19
1.17
4.83
5.60
4,948
1.23
2.00
1,050
1.33
31.74
7
80
93
80
85
16
10
30
81
2.22
97
40
70
81
5.88
2.22
129
90
80
81
0.13
2.22
66
15
85
81
Summary for 'ecoregionname' = Midland and Northen Mountainous Region (20 detail records)
Total
1,948.81
403.83 1,130,771
1,315,106
339,770
65,328
3.07
6.17
161.5
35596
4.70
2.12
4,130
45
76
72
83
Final Report
Economic Region:
Red River Delta
citiestowns
province
class topo
TP. Bắc Ninh
Bắc Ninh
III
TX. Phủ Lý
Hà Nam
TP. Hà Nội
(%)
(%)
cipogrowth
ci%phhs
cihfloor
6,573
2.32
0.99
13.1
12,833
2,483
1.45
6.34
21.14
452,930
518,667
122,517
5.96
0.35
12
47,005
11,890
13,128
3,216
1.16
12.00
14.8
33,400
87,610
21,368
24,469
5,780
0.35
6.90
143,650
35,036
131,524
32,760
21,814
5,329
3.02
5.50
9
159.72 1,700,530 1,790,300
437,316
613,017
149,516
171,216
40,444
1.06
5.18
79,284
19,337
45,700
11,146
12,764
3,015
1.33
230,575
237,823
58,005
198,900
48,512
55,553
13,122
24.93
59,398
109,847
33,917
83,706
27,114
18,007
2.36
21.55
49,268
52,510
12,807
27,717
6,760
64.95
14.21
129.90
185,405
195,047
47,572
184,470
335.80
5.56
1.52
13.90
152,154
160,282
39,093
LC
515.00
8.76
3.20
29.21
70,159
75,622
IV
L
240.40
52.12
19.01
173.75
92,186
Thái Bình
III
L
42.10
5.14
1.41
12.86
TP. Vĩnh Yên
Vĩnh Phúc
III
L
50.80
5.49
1.50
TX. Phúc Yên
Vĩnh Phúc
IV
L
123.33
6.44
4,444.39
519.97
ciareakm2
builtupkm2
liaareakm2
warea2005
cipo2000
cipo2005
cihhs2005
wpo2005
whhs2005
L
26.34
7.36
2.01
18.40
75,606
111,900
27,292
99,630
24,300
27,826
III
L
34.25
2.04
0.74
6.79
71,521
82,050
17,392
45,948
9,182
Hà Nội
S
L
921.00
196.42
21.49
516,820 1,857,015
TP. Sơn Tây
Hà Tây
III
L
103.17
3.90
1.07
9.74
113,150
120,732
25,932
TP. Hà Đông
Hà Tây
III
L
32.90
3.49
0.96
8.73
97,958
136,943
TP. Hải Dương
Hải Dương
III
L
36.20
9.34
1.36
23.34
128,885
TP. Hải Phòng
Hải Phòng
I
LC
1,526.00
111.80
17.47
TX. Hưng Yên
Hưng Yên
III
L
46.80
8.06
2.20
20.15
41,709
TP. Nam Định
Nam Định
II
L
46.40
7.11
1.55
14.21
TP. Ninh Bình
Ninh Bình
III
L
48.40
15.53
2.04
TX. Tam Điệp
Ninh Bình
IV
L
106.80
6.47
TP. Hạ Long
Quảng Ninh
II
L
208.70
TX. Cẩm Phả
Quảng Ninh
III
L
TX. Móng Cái
Quảng Ninh
III
TX. Uông Bí
Quảng Ninh
TP. Thái Bình
196.42 1,586,500 3,149,800
liapo
liahhs
(%)
cisubhouse
5,292
ciroden
cidr cidrkm ciwscap
(%)
(%)
cisol
cislight
4.92
3.91
103
60
81
70
70
4.50
3.50
120
60
90
75
81
80
95
81
7.00
12,284
(%)
ciwwater ciws
3.64
4.90
505
65
95
70
100
7.38
2.39
79
60
85
70
95
2.50
1.40
51
60
85
65
100
7.33
4.20
3.60
5,494
60
80
80
80
5.80
12
3.57
2.29
107
65
72
81
0.62
6.49
9
4.40
3.97
184
40
94
80
100
4,515
1.33
2.30
24.1
4.20
3.00
145
65
85
75
87
7,741
1,828
1.28
8.80
4.40
3.97
423
25
75
81
44,992
51,522
12,170
1.02
3.34
12
5.60
4.53
945
70
90
70
100
157,082
38,312
43,873
10,363
1.05
2.22
14.97
5.60
4.00
1,343
60
85
85
90
18,786
27,283
7,039
7,620
1,904
1.53
7.59
16.57
2.40
6.15
3,167
65
26
90
68
97,824
23,859
91,524
22,322
25,562
6,038
1.19
1.41
4.40
3.97
953
74
74
81
131,761
138,088
40,093
103,325
24,904
28,858
6,736
0.75
6.74
12.59
3.50
5.50
232
85
50
95
90
13.73
70,559
122,568
29,894
109,288
26,655
11,956
2,916
2.91
4.26
12.26
2.49
2.70
137
90
85
100
100
2.35
21.46
81,316
85,757
20,916
49,587
12,094
13,849
3,271
0.81
9.42
5.60
2.22
274
85
70
81
96.45
898.78 4,938,640
2,846
4,969
9,977
26,772
Summary for 'ecoregionname' = Red River Delta (18 detail records)
Total
6,890,027 1,437,467 3,960,331
971,796 ########
252,220
6.89
3.03
190.9
62140
4.77
3.21
14,262
31
80
86
84
Final Report
Economic Region:
Southeast
citiestowns
province
TP. Vũng Tàu
Bà Rịa Vũng Tà II
TX. Bà Rịa
class topo
(%)
(%)
cipogrowth
ci%phhs
cihfloor
16,079
3.45
4.00
14.9
7.49
3.12
438
18,143
4,285
1.18
0.32
5
4.49
1.37
124
11,734
30,973
3,174
1.99
0.40
18.48
4.48
4.74
417
38,496
9,389
10,751
2,539
3.36
4.94
3.46
3.12
132,071
505,595
66,819
141,213
18,074
2.04
1.59
1.50
34,284
52,364
12,771
14,625
3,454
1.47
0.45
1,127,540 #########
305,000
2.78
7.80
4,804
4.03
2.31
ciareakm2
builtupkm2
liaareakm2
warea2005
cipo2000
cipo2005
cihhs2005
wpo2005
whhs2005
liapo
liahhs
L
140.10
41.26
9.03
82.53
216,637
256,677
62,604
243,726
59,445
68,073
Bà Rịa Vũng Tà III
L
90.60
16.72
6.10
55.74
79,790
84,607
20,635
64,960
15,843
Bình Dương
III
L
87.90
12.46
3.41
31.15
148,626
171,331
41,788
110,895
TX. Đồng Xoài
Bình Phước
IV
L
168.50
10.50
3.83
35.00
55,286
65,212
15,905
TP. Biên Hoà
Đồng Nai
II
L
154.70
67.43
14.75
134.86
488,100
541,495
TX. Long Khánh
Đồng Nai
III
L
195.00
2.67
0.73
6.68
130,675
140,566
TP. Hồ Chí Minh
Hồ Chí Minh
S
L
2,095.00
538.31
58.89
TX. Tây Ninh
Tây Ninh
IV
L
137.40
6.24
2.28
20.81
3,069.20
695.60
99.02
905.08 5,544,504
538.31 4,380,700 5,911,600
44,690
132,241
1,225,399 4,622,917
32,253
72,827
17,762
20,340
(%)
8
cisubhouse
18,003
41,460
11
ciroden
cidr cidrkm ciwscap
(%)
(%)
(%)
ciwwater ciws
cisol
cislight
83
75
81
10
80
92
100
90
20
90
81
526
50
80
81
8.20
1,269
87
80
81
8.15
4.03
786
74
95
81
4.10
0.55
1,152
85
82
81
4.00
3.12
429
70
40
81
Summary for 'ecoregionname' = Southeast (8 detail records)
Total
7,303,729 1,564,939 5,711,780
1,321,303 ########
357,409
5.67
6.68
57.38
59463
4.36
1.67
5,140
2
83
81
82
Final Report
3
OUTLINE URBAN PROFILE
Province
Typology L
Class
TP. Biên Hoà
Đồng Nai
Economic Region Southeast
Geographic Region SE
II
Urbanisation Sub-Region Southern Key Zone and Southeast
WARD/COMMUNE PROFILE
Number of Wards
click for more details
Number of Commune
LIAs PROFILE
Number of LIAs
POPULATION AND AREA
AREA KM2
City/Town
Ward
Commune
Built-up
LIAs
POPULATION 2005
HOUSEHOLD 2005
PO DENSITY 2005
154.7
541,495
132,071
3,421
134.9
505,595
66,819
3,749
19.8
35,900
67.4
14.8
141,213
18,074
LAND USE
Agriculture land
Forest land
Residential land
Intensive landuse
Water bodies
Open space
Others
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
(water bodies, rivers, cannals, wetlands...)
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT
Water supply
Drainage density
Solid waste
Road density
Housing
Street lighting
87 % hhs with water supply
8.2 km/km2
80 % of SW collected
1.5 km/km2
31 % of sub standard housing
81 % street with lighting
SOCIO ECONOMIC AND FINANCE
Poverty rate
Per person income
Eco growth rate
Annual revenue
Annual revenue
Annual expense
Annual OM expense
ODA by province
State investment
1.6 %
1,875 USD per year
14.6 %
34.3 USD Mil. period of (2002-2006)
USD Mil. period of (2002-2006) reallocated to City/Town
USD Mil. period of (2002-2006)
37 USD Mil. period of (1997-2008)
2,032 USD per capita for 5 years
Close This Data Form
Vietnam National Urban Upgrading Strategy Overall Investment Plan to 2020)
Final Database Format
WARD AND COMMUNE PROFILE
TP. Biên Hoà
name of c
area
km2
Xã Hòa An
Xã Tân Hạnh
6.06
Xã Hiệp Hoà
6.97
Sub Total
name of w
built up % LIAs %
km2
km2
8,000
11,714
19,714
13.03
area
km2
Phường Long Bình
Phường Tân Vạn
Phường Tam Hiệp
Phường Tam Hòa
Phường Tân Hòa
Phường Tân Phong
Phường Trung Dũng
Phường Hòa Bình
Phường Thanh Bình
0.36
Phường Quang Vinh
1.10
Phường Bình Đa
1.27
Phường Tân Tiến
1.31
Phường Tân Mai
1.37
Phường Quyết Thắng
1.42
Phường Thống Nhất
3.43
Phường Tân Hiệp
3.47
Phường Hố Nai
3.89
Phường Bửu Hoà
4.18
Phường Bửu Long
5.76
population
person
built up % LIAs %
km2
km2
population
person
Phường Tân Biên
6.14
Phường An Bình
10.42
Phường Long Bình Tân
11.44
Phường Trảng Dài
14.59
Sub Total
70.14
7,141
17,127
18,219
18,129
19,537
18,451
21,931
23,802
29,180
16,645
19,885
33,500
37,382
32,442
36,254
349,625
Total
83.17
369,339
household
1,601
2,690
4,291
household
poverty
%
1
2
1
poverty
%
water supply
%
40
30
33
water supply
%
1,381
3,153
3,131
2,569
1
2
0
2
3,376
4,441
4,558
6,350
3,216
3,340
6,450
6,464
6,554
7,595
62,578
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
1
1
100
99
62
85
100
100
98
80
25
86
96
20
95
74
16
66
66,869
1
64
Vietnam National Urban Upgrading Strategy Overall Investment Plan to 2020
drainage
km
drainage
km
septic tank
%
solid waste
%
earthroad
km
95
91
92
75
46
57
septic tank
%
solid waste
%
100
100
100
100
100
100
97
100
10
98
100
100
100
90
92
89
98
100
98
100
91
91
100
60
78
100
70
100
80
55
81
52.00
77.90
3,073
6,289
37,490
95
94
100
70
100
90
60
60
40
75
60
70
25
40
70
66
89
79
93.34
41,460
64
1.05
14.39
15.44
earthroad
km
0.90
1.20
4.50
0.90
12.51
5.89
substandard
housing
1,280
2,690
3,970
substandard
housing
691
2,409
2,442
2,200
668
3,903
2,443
2,900
3,216
2,741
4,515
streetlighting
%
40
55
54
streetlighting
%
Final Repo
Saturday, May 03, 200
85
Province
Typology L
Class
TP. Sóc Trăng
Sóc Trăng
Economic Region Mekong River Delta
Geographic Region MRD
III
Urbanisation Sub-Region Mekong River Delta
Number of Wards
Number of Commune
LIAs PROFILE
Number of LIAs
POPULATION AND AREA
AREA KM2
City/Town
Ward
Commune
Built-up
LIAs
POPULATION 2005
HOUSEHOLD 2005
PO DENSITY 2005
76.5
124,049
35,285
1,600
76.5
124,049
35,285
1,621
0
30.6
8.4
34,647
9,544
LAND USE
Agriculture land
Forest land
Residential land
Intensive landuse
Water bodies
Open space
Others
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
Water supply
Drainage density
Solid waste
Road density
Housing
Street lighting
4.0 km/km2
4.8 km/km2
Poverty rate
Per person income
Eco growth rate
Annual revenue
Annual revenue
Annual expense
Annual OM expense
ODA by province
State investment
12.5 %
1,377 USD per year
19.3 %
26.4 USD Mil. period of (2002-2006) reallocated to City/Town
118 USD per capita for 5 years
TP. Sóc Trăng
name of w
area
km2
built up % LIAs %
km2
km2
population
person
Phường 4
8.89
Phường 8
10.10
Phường 5
21.69
Sub Total
76.47
9,294
14,633
7,945
22,213
21,159
3,785
6,405
12,490
12,542
12,626
123,092
Total
76.47
123,092
Phường 1
0.29
Phường 6
2.17
Phường 9
5.28
Phường 3
6.17
Phường 2
6.27
Phường 10
7.53
Phường 7
8.07
household
poverty
%
water supply
%
1,566
2,777
1,571
4,622
4,395
868
1,498
12,490
0
8
12
7
7
23
12
2
2,816
32,603
28
9
100
97
91
96
67
93
65
98
96
75
90
32,603
9
90
drainage
km
septic tank
%
solid waste
%
98
93
81
86
99
92
95
94
92
86
92
100
92
51
80
69
93
100
92
earthroad
km
0.00
0.00
0.30
substandard
housing
194
streetlighting
%
67
18
44
0.88
4.88
2.00
1.11
0.00
1.49
10.66
5,254
100
97
100
98
89
76
95
100
71
75
87
44
10.66
5,254
87
304
1,300
838
1,208
1,011
399
Final Repo
82
Province
Typology L
Class
TX. Vị Thanh
Hậu Giang
IV
Number of Wards
Number of Commune
LIAs PROFILE
Number of LIAs
POPULATION AND AREA
AREA KM2
City/Town
Ward
Commune
Built-up
LIAs
POPULATION 2005
HOUSEHOLD 2005
PO DENSITY 2005
119
71,832
14,378
596
36.4
41,577
7,813
1,143
82.6
30,255
10.9
4.0
11,612
2,113
LAND USE
Agriculture land
Forest land
Residential land
Intensive landuse
Water bodies
Open space
Others
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
Water supply
Drainage density
Solid waste
Road density
Housing
Street lighting
0.8 km/km2
2.1 km/km2
Poverty rate
Per person income
Eco growth rate
Annual revenue
Annual revenue
Annual expense
Annual OM expense
ODA by province
State investment
21.6 %
553 USD per year
15.3 %
TX. Vị Thanh
name of c
area
km2
Xã Hoả Lựu
17.39
Xã Vị Tân
22.57
Xã Hoả Tiễn
42.34
Sub Total
82.30
name of w
area
km2
Phường 1
0.74
Phường 7
6.16
Phường 5
7.79
Phường 4
8.32
Phường 3
133.36
Sub Total
Total
built up % LIAs %
km2
km2
population
person
7,260
11,320
12,159
30,739
built up % LIAs %
km2
km2
population
person
household
2,588
2,526
5,114
household
poverty
%
27
14
26
poverty
%
water supply
%
11
15
21
18
water supply
%
1,367
0
156.37
6,193
7,128
7,046
11,308
6,692
38,367
1,478
2,151
1,313
6,309
12
10
29
15
100
40
95
63
40
74
238.68
69,106
11,423
20
49
drainage
km
drainage
km
septic tank
%
solid waste
%
earthroad
km
19
35
85
60
95
47
0.03
67.08
34.23
101.34
septic tank
%
solid waste
%
earthroad
km
100
65
25
10
65
44
100
95
95
94
94
96
0.43
553
665
1,478
39.25
39.68
1,451
4,147
90
35
25
10
0
3
51
74
141.02
10,134
1
0.00
substandard
housing
1,449
2,012
2,526
5,987
substandard
housing
streetlighting
%
0
0
streetlighting
%
Final Repo
APPENDIX F
Methodology for the
Evaluation, Prioritisation and
Selection of Cities and Towns
APPENDIX F
Methodology for the Evaluation Prioritisation and Selection of Cities and Towns
1.
Background
1. Viet Nam comprises 64 provinces and approximately 718 cities and towns (urban centres). The
urban centres are classified mainly on the basis of population size, in July 2006, the classification
was into 6 classes as follows:
Special class: 2 (Ha Noi and Ho Chi Minh City)
Class 1:
3 (Da Nang, Hai Phong and Hue)
Class 2:
14 (cities)
Class 3:
36 (cities and towns)
Class 4:
40 (towns)
Class 5:
595 (small towns)
_______________________________
TOTAL:
690
2. Due to population growth and migration from the rural areas to the urban centres, the cities and
towns are growing rapidly. Based on this population growth, the local administrations’ frequently
seek to have their respective urban centres reclassified to the next highest category. Some urban
centres also merge with neighbours, or expand to other’s nearby settlements and thus create a
new larger urban centre that qualifies for a higher class rating. Consequently, the number of
urban centres under each class is subject to frequent change.
3. The general objectives of the National Urban Upgrading Programme (NUUP) are to:
• Upgrade tertiary infrastructure on a multi-sector, area (rather than sector) basis;
• Alleviate poverty in urban areas by improving the living and environmental conditions of the
urban poor; and
• Promote participatory planning methods for urban upgrading that are more responsive to
people’s demands.
4. The specific objectives of this assignment are to:
• Assess the demand for urban upgrading nationwide;
• Develop a clear strategy and investment plan for NUUP to year 2020 to cover all cities and
towns of Class IV status and above (i.e. 95 cities/towns);
• Develop institutional arrangements for investment preparation and upgrading
implementation; and
• Assess the need for improved peri-urban planning and development in order to prevent the
creation of new, informal, low income-areas.
5. To achieve these objectives the following methodology has been followed:
• Carry out a desk study of all relevant data available for 95 cities and towns currently
identified as being of class IV and above and,
• In consultation with Project management Unit (PMU) select 25 towns for visits, discussions
and detailed, local data collection. The data collection will be undertaken by other
consultants working under MOC4.
• From this list of 25 towns and cities prepare a shortlist of 8 priority towns and cities for more
detailed LIA participatory mapping, data collection, information on infrastructure standards
and service levels, cost information for low income areas (LIA) . These are the likely
candidates for the next urban upgrading project.
6. As of 31 October 2006, there were 95 cities/towns identified as Class IV and above. From the
25 cities and towns were selected for the initial study. The Strategy & Investment Plan for all 95
cities and towns was developed based on the survey results. A detailed investment and
implementation plan for upgrading 8 cities and towns (2008–2015) was also prepared. This
process was undertaken through participant and technical assessments. The detailed
methodology used for evaluation, prioritisation and selection of the cities and towns is described
in this Appendix.
1/63
2.
General Methodology
7. Technical assessment methods such as analysis of the results of surveys, rapid assessment
of the ward, city/town, regional and national environment were modified to allow extensive
participation of the key stakeholders. This approach strengthens the accuracy of the final
technical analysis, as popular knowledge and expert opinion are checked against each other.
This approach also maximizes the public education benefits of assessment activities. An example
of technical assessment is the analysis tool referred to as the Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) that
assisted Government in making rational plans and policy-decisions. Examples of participant
assessment are the workshop discussions during the National Workshop and the survey and
questionnaires answered by concerned stakeholders.
8. MCA is a decision-making tool developed for complex problems. It involves a variety of
decision-making techniques that incorporate different criteria on which to base a decision, rather
than techniques based solely on one criterion. For example, the main role of financial analysis is
to deal with large amounts of complex information in a consistent way, which can otherwise
create difficulties for decision-makers. MCA techniques can be used to identify a single preferred
plan, to rank options, as short-listing tools to select options for more detailed assessment, or to
differentiate among acceptable and unacceptable plans. MCA techniques generally include the
use of weighted and scored matrices, and hence require the establishment of measurable
criteria, whether qualitative or quantitative, to assess the extent to which objectives may be
fulfilled. MCA emphasizes the judgment of the decision-making team, in the selection of the
evaluation criteria, estimating weights and in assessing the contribution of options to each
performance criterion. The associated subjectivity can be a matter of concern, but consultation is
used to debate and agree the subjective scores and weights. However, the method is
transparent because the criteria, weights and scores used are not hidden.
9. The initially recommended factors to be used for MCA to select cities and towns were:
• Cities and towns to be class IV and above
• Rate of urbanisation
• Level of poverty
• Environmental conditions
• Infrastructure deficiencies (tertiary infrastructure and primary and secondary infrastructure to
support the tertiary)
• Population density
• Vulnerability to natural calamities (different topology, e.g. lowland, coastal, highland)
10. Eventually, simple criteria for prioritizing cities/towns for upgrading were developed and
modified. Many different indicators and criteria that covered all aspects in MCA were considered
but lack of availability and incomplete data for all cities/towns was a constraint. After a number of
attempts to obtain data from general sources/references and through questionnaires, 22 sets of
data were gathered, of which 15 were indicators for the initial 7 criteria. The MCA criteria and
indicators were developed, modified and refined. The modified criteria for prioritising cities/towns
were also discussed by participants on the Workshop Discussion held on 30 October 2006:
• Option 1 (MCA1) – Based on Terms of References (7 criteria)
• Option 2 (MCA2) – MCA1 criteria plus extent of Investment in Technical/Social Infrastructure
Projects
• Option 3 (MCA3) - MCA2 criteria plus Housing Typology
• Option 4 (MCA4) - MCA3 criteria plus Significant Economic Indicators
• Option 5 (MCA5) - MCA4 criteria and other criteria cited by the Stakeholders/ Participants to
the First National Workshop
3.
Criteria for Selection and Prioritisation of 25 Cities and Towns for Initial Study
3.1.
11. Criteria for Selection and Prioritisation based on Terms of Reference (TOR) (MCA1) identified
seven factors to be considered in selecting and prioritizing cities and towns for the next urban
upgrading as follows:
a. Cities/towns to be Class 4 and above
All cities and towns pertaining to the initial list of 96 (as of 31 October 2006) are of class IV and
above and meet this criterion.
b. Rate of urbanisation
12. The rate of urbanisation describes the expansion rate of urban areas from slow to fast and
should be consistent with the “Orientation for Urban Development in Vietnam to 2020” (MOC
2/63
1998). The data used i.e. growth rate of city population provides a quick indicator on urban
expansion. For this purpose, urbanisation the rate refers to the percentage change of population
in 2000 compared with population in 2004.
c. High level of poverty
13. Despite of the country’s fast economic growth, poverty remains high with about one-third of
the population living below the poverty line in 2000. Poverty alleviation in urban areas is one of
the core objectives of the Viet Nam Urban Upgrading Programme (VUUP). The majority of the
poor in work in the informal sector and many are unregistered migrants to the cities and towns.
The poor generally live in areas where infrastructure is poor and access to municipal services and
utilities limited. The Project is expected to have a positive impact by improving the living
conditions in low-income areas. Therefore, the level of poverty in cities and towns was regarded
as the main prioritisation criteria for the upcoming urban upgrading projects.
14. Appropriate rating has been allocated to each city/town to reflect the number of household
living below the poverty line.1 The primary source of information is the recent Household Living
Standard Survey.2 The poverty levels are based on the specific poverty lines set for different
provinces. These differ from the national poverty line and have been set to match with different
living standards and costs. The purpose of this project is to reach the poverty-stricken areas
where infrastructure is poor and access to municipal services and utilities are limited. Since
NUUP is expected to have a positive impact on the living conditions in low income areas, high
level of poverty is a major prioritisation criteria at 25%.
d. Degree of environmental pollution
15. Most of the growth of Vietnam’s urban population leads to the development of low-income
areas where infrastructure and utility service investments lag behind demand. Most newly
developed areas lack formal planning, and often encroach on canals and rivers. This generates
levels of pollution in adjacent waterways. Most houses do not have sewerage connections and
flooding occurs due to inadequate drainage. Sanitation is usually poor, with toilets discharging
directly in watercourses. The poorest families mainly live along or on top of these watercourses.
Consequently, the residents are living in degraded environmental conditions and are exposed to
health hazards. Available environmental reports have limited information on the extent of waste
water and solid waste treatment to mitigate the negative effects on the environment.
16. The scoring of the various cities should have been based on environmental parameters
provided in the State-of-Environment (SOE) Report, 2005 issued by the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment. Some preliminary indicators have been derived from water quality
as measured in seven monitoring stations located in the Hong, Cam, Lam, Huong, Han, Saigon,
and Hau rivers. Additional data were also available from the SOE report for the Cau and NhueDay rivers. A scoring has been allocated to each city and town in view of the water properties in
the concerned rivers. The scoring was based on the water quality indicators (i) BOD5 (Biological
Oxygen Demand in mg/l) which is a major indicator in connection with micro-organism processes;
(ii) Nitrogen in ammonium NH4 in mg/l; (iii) TSS (Total Suspended Solid in mg/l) reflecting the
degree of turbidity of the water; and (iv) Coli-forms per 100ml. Such data from SOE Report do
not however give a conclusive description of the state-of-the environment for each of the 93
cities/towns. Thus, MCA1 applies the rate of disposed waste water and rate of solid waste
collected as indicators for this environmental criterion.
e. Infrastructure deficiencies
17. Poor areas are generally found to have deficient infrastructure, low density of roads, low
number of water supply connections, underprovided drainage system, among others. According
to the sub-project “Formulation of Policies for Urban Upgrading Final Report” (January 2004),
there are poor areas with no connection to basic infrastructure such as water supply, electric
supply, drainage water system. The report likewise cited basic infrastructures (sewer, drain, water
supply networks, electric supply, solid waste treatment and roads as criteria for determining the
poor households and urban poor areas. High priority is given to cities/towns which have
significant infrastructure deficiencies. This means that the poorer infrastructure or the greater
deficiency, the higher the ranking the city/town gets for this criterion. A rating within appropriate
scale (0-100) was assigned to each city and town to reflect the rate of infrastructure development.
This exercise requires collection of detailed data on infrastructure such as the density of
1
The poverty line standard issued by the Prime Minister and applied for period 2006-2010 is 260,000 VND per person per month in
urban area (200,000 VND per person per month in rural area).
2
2004 Household Living Standard Survey, General Statistics Office (GSO).
3/63
roadways/transportation area in percent of total land area, percentage of population having
access to an improved water source, percentage of households with sewerage, electricity and
garbage collection.
Technical Infrastructure
18. The criteria for technical infrastructure are:
• Road density (km/km2) - defined as the length or roads found in a given area of land
• Proportion of transportation area to total urban area
• Rate of households with water supply – percentage of households with water supply
• Drainage pipes density (km/km2)
• Electricity supply (KWH/person/year)
• Rate of main street lighting
• Presence/absence of landfill
19. Roads have direct and indirect impacts on population. Road networks are valuable for
accessing areas for social function (schools and hospitals), economic purpose (markets, shops,
banks), among others. Because of the overwhelming presence of roads associated with
urbanisation, it is important to include road density as an indicator. Likewise, the proportion of
transportation area to total urban area gives us measure of the land area coverage of transport
development in the cities/towns. The rate of households with water supply, drainage pipes density
(km/km2), electricity supply (KWH/person/year) and rate of main street lighting are among the
non-transport indicators which are available for analysis.
20. A landfill is a site for the disposal of waste materials. Historically, landfills have been one of
the most common methods of organized waste management in many places around the world.
Landfills may include internal waste disposal sites (where a producer of waste carries out their
own waste disposal at the place of production) as well as sites used by many producers. Many
landfills are also used for other waste management purposes, such as the temporary storage,
consolidation and transfer, or processing of waste material (sorting, treatment, or recycling). For
NUUP purpose, alleviating poverty in urban areas by improving the living and environmental
conditions of the urban poor is a paramount objective. Thus, provision of tertiary infrastructure
such as landfill for solid waste management becomes necessary. As such, high priority is given
to cities/towns without landfill.
Social Infrastructure
21. Average number of students per classroom - student population data and number of
classrooms per city are used to calculate the student: classroom ratio for the cities and towns.
22. Social infrastructure indicator only refers to the number of classrooms per number students. It
is noted that the universal standard of student per teacher is 25:1. According to an assessment
report by “Education for All in 2000”, at the elementary level, Japan has the lowest pupil-teacher
ratio at less than 20:1, followed by Malaysia and Thailand at 21:1 and 21.5:1. The closest to the
Philippines is Laos (31:1) and Vietnam (30:1). This indicator, however, does not provide a
measure of the school infrastructure requirement but a measure of the maximum number of
students which can be accommodated by one teacher without significantly hampering delivery of
the given educational program. Likewise, the number of students and number of schools ratio
does not accurately indicate school infrastructure deficiency. A closer basis is to measure the
number of students per classroom also referred to as student/classroom ratio or classroom
capacity calculation which refers to the maximum number of students which can be
accommodated in a classroom without significantly hampering delivery of the given educational
programme.
f. Population density
23. Although Vietnam currently has the lowest level of urbanisation in East Asia, with only 23% of
the population living in cities, it is anticipated that it will reach 33% by 2010 due to mechanisation
of agriculture, higher incomes available in cities and migration from the rural to the urban areas.
This is likely to bolster migration of the poor to urban areas and increase pressure on existing
low-income areas. Despite considerable progress achieved in the past decade by the
Government in improving the policy and institutional framework for housing provision, there is a
severe shortage of housing in Vietnam’s cities, with an average per capita living space of only 8
m2 and much less in low income areas otherwise lacking basic infrastructure. High population
density is an indicator of likely low-income area where urban upgrading is needed. As such,
population density combined with available floor area per person is used as a prioritisation
criterion. This criterion is measured in terms population density (person/km2) or number of
4/63
persons per given area. City/town population density indicates the concentration of the total
city/town population over the total area of the city/town.
g. Vulnerability to Natural Calamities (Towns to include those of differing typology, e.g., low lying
area, lowland and coastal, highland)
24. In some towns and cities, there are areas which are vulnerable to adverse natural calamities
that worsen the living conditions and affect the population, particularly in LIAs. For instance
coastal town in the central regions of Vietnam are exposed to typhoons and frequent flooding,
some towns of the highlands are remote from large urban centres and have lower levels of
income per capita than national average. Such cities/towns with different typology are given
special advantage in the prioritisation process. Thus such adverse natural environmental
conditions are made a prioritisation criterion rated in appropriate scale e.g., severe conditions =
100, adverse conditions =75, normal conditions = 50.
3.2
Criteria for Selection and Prioritisation based on TOR Criteria plus Quantity and Scope of Urban
Upgrading Project (MCA2)
Amount of Investment in Technical/Social Infrastructure Projects
25. The objective of the VUUP is to upgrade tertiary infrastructure to improve the living conditions
of the urban poor and alleviate poverty in urban areas. Since areas with infrastructure
deficiencies are not expected to receive many investment projects, infrastructure deficiencies
was one of the core criteria for prioritisation and selection of cities and towns for further
investigations which was already used in the first MCA. For further probing, MCA2 attempts to
use another criterion in terms of the quantity and scope of urban upgrading project in order to
reflect the overall level of development of urban infrastructure (roads, drainage, water supply,
sewerage). This criterion will be measured in terms of total cost investment projects in the
cities/towns and average investment per capita.
3.3
Criteria for Selection and Prioritisation based on MCA2 Criteria plus Housing Typology (MCA3)
Housing Typology
26. The Guidelines for Preparation, Management and Implementation of Upgrading Projects in
Poor Urban Areas with Community Participation3 provide for design standards for low-income
housing and social housing development, respectively. Housing improvements is among the
components that must be addressed by NUUP. As such, housing typology measured in terms of
percentage of population with poor housing or insufficient floor area per person becomes a
significant criterion for selection of priority cities/town. The floor area (m2/person) indicator refers
to the average floor area of the house which is rated against the design standard for urban poor
areas.
3.4
Criteria for Selection and Prioritisation based on MCA3 Criteria Plus Significant Economic
Indicators (MCA4)
27. The proliferation of urban poor areas is a consequence of many economic factors. One of
which is industrialization which creates employment and generates income for the people. A
rating within appropriate scale (0-100) was assigned to each city and town to reflect the rate of
economic indicators. This exercise uses data as follows:
• Industrial output value at current prices – total amount of industrial output value at current
prices from state and non-state industries
• Unemployment rate – percentage of unemployed person over total labour force
• Average monthly income per capita (x1000 VnD)
3.5
Criteria for Selection and Prioritisation based on MCA4 and other Criteria cited by the
Stakeholders/Participants to the First National Workshop (MCA5)
28. The results of the survey and Workshop Discussions to be conducted during the First
National Workshop will be the inputs of important stakeholders. This will help in carrying out
participative assessment which is used to involve national and local planners and other
stakeholders in the planning process for urban upgrading.
3
By Ministry of Construction/World Bank (2004) and Housing Law (2005)
5/63
29. Application of MCA thus becomes not only for technical consultants but also for the
participants in the planning process for NUUP. The weighting factor based on the responses of
the participants of the first National Workshop will be analysed and interfaced with the results of
the MCAs conducted by the technical consultants. This makes MCA an effective tool to rationally
analyse the different factors for decision-making based on the judgment of people representing
different sectors and different disciplines.
3.6
Weighting Factor for Prioritisation Criteria of Initial MCA Options 1 to 4
30. The two principle criteria used for “short-listing” were:
• Cities and towns having many LIAs in need of Urban Upgrading
• Cities and towns having no ongoing or planned projects or/and the ongoing and planned
projects do not cover all sectors or/and the whole urban area.
31. These two criteria were not part of the MCA but were used for initial screening of cities/towns.
Accordingly, the four cities with ongoing Vietnam Urban Upgrading Projects, Ho Chi Minh City,
Hai Phong City, Can Tho City and Nam Dinh, although included in the analysis, are not included
in the initial prioritisation.
32. It was recommended by PMU that the ratio of developed areas and LIAs for each city/town
would be analysed and considered. Criteria which are too general should be avoided as such can
lead to difficulties in selecting the cities/towns. Accordingly, attention was focused on the
prescribed selection criteria. The selection criteria and weighting factors are summarized in Table
1 with the corresponding calculation method. Every cities/towns have been rated for their merit in
respect of each of the criteria, in 0-100 scale. It was agreed with PMU that different sets of
weighting factors should apply to the different classes of cities/towns to balance the particular
characters attached to “big” and “small” towns. Small towns are mostly deprived of primary and
secondary infrastructure. Priority should not be governed by the availability of tertiary
infrastructure in this case, as much as in large cities where primary and secondary networks are
already in place. In similar fashion, where urbanisation rate is deemed fast in many small towns,
this criterion is not deemed as critical as in bigger cities where the scale of problems caused by
rapid urbanisation is _ a higher degree of priority. Small towns will be relatively more affected by
high urban population densities and vulnerability to natural calamities than bigger cities.
Accordingly, different “keys” of weighting factors have been devised for the different classes of
cities and towns, in accordance with PMU’s request. As MOC3 developed other MCA options,
corresponding weighting factors have been adjusted as indicated in Tables 1-4. For significant
infrastructure deficiency indicators, the following weights are given.
Technical Infrastructure
• Road density (km/km2): defined as the length or roads found in a given area of land (15%)
• Proportion of transportation area to total urban area (15%)
• Rate of households with water supply: percentage of households with water supply (20%)
• Drainage pipes density (km/km2) (15%)
• Electricity supply (KWH/person/year) (5%)
• Rate of main street-lighting (5%)
• Presence/absence of landfill (5%)
Social infrastructure
• Number of classrooms per number students (10%)
33. The lower percentages are placed upon electricity, main street lighting and landfill which are
not directly related to the components of NUUP.
34. Vulnerability to natural calamities is a factor of typology. For example, coastal towns in the
central regions of Vietnam are exposed to typhoons and frequent flooding. However, vulnerability
to natural calamities is not necessarily affected by the Class of city/town; thus a uniform weight is
placed recognizing that all classes equally need to consider the implication of being in a location
which is vulnerable to the impact of natural calamities.
35. It is important to put some weights on the amount of investment in technical/social
infrastructure projects. High consideration must be given to Class IV cities/towns which generally
lag behind in terms of infrastructure and low consideration for Class I which usually have better
infrastructure compared to other classes.
6/63
Table 1. Selection Criteria and Weighting Factors for MCA1
Criterion
Proposed Weights
City/Town Class
I
II
III
IV
0
0
0
0
a)
Class IV and above
b)
High Rate of Urbanisation
c)
High Level of Poverty
d)
High Degree of
Environmental Pollution
e)
Significant Infrastructure
Deficiencies
f)
Areas with High
Population Densities
g)
Vulnerability to Natural
Calamities
Total
20%
15%
15%
10%
25%
25%
25%
25%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
10%
10%
15%
15%
20%
20%
10%
15%
15%
20%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Method of Calculation
No weight but a criterion for
consideration
Based on the growth rate of
city/town population over the 4
years from 2000-2004
Based on the number of poor
households
Based on degree of pollution in
the rivers, lakes, canals in the
particular city/town
Based on the availability of
technical and social infrastructure
Based on the city/town population
density combined with the floor
area per person.
Based on the topology of land
(low land, highland, coastal,
exposed to severe climatic
conditions)
Notes: The proposed weights for significant infrastructure weights for Classes I to IV differ. Classes I and II have 15% while Classes III and IV have
10%. A lesser weight is placed on vulnerability to natural calamities criterion of MCA1 since it is not only attributed to typology such as lowland, coastal
or highland but many other physical factors such as geological factors, soil composition, slope, among others. Detailed data collection, however, for
indicators of such factors which make an area vulnerable to calamities would entail more time and cost.
Table 2. Selection Criteria and Weighting Factors for MCA2
Criterion
Proposed Weights
City/Town Class
I
II
III
IV
a)
Class IV and above
b)
0
0
0
0
High Rate of
Urbanisation
20%
15%
15%
15%
c)
25%
25%
25%
25%
d)
High Degree of
15%
15%
15%
15%
e)
Deficiencies
15%
15%
10%
10%
f)
Areas with High
10%
10%
15%
15%
g)
Calamities
10%
10%
10%
10%
5%
10%
10%
10%
100%
100%
100%
100%
h)
Amount of Investment in
Technical/Social
Infrastructure Projects
Total
consideration
households
Based on degree of pollution in the
rivers, lakes, canals in the particular
city/town
area per person.
Based on the topology of land (low
land, highland, coastal, exposed to
severe climatic conditions)
Based on the total cost investment
projects in the cities/towns and
average investment per capita
Notes: The weight for areas with high population densities of Classes I to IV cities/towns was reduced by 5% and vulnerability to natural calamities
was made uniform at 10% each for all Classes.
7/63
Table 3 Selection Criteria and Weighting Factors for MCA3
Criterion
City/Town Class
a)
Class IV and above
b)
Proposed Weights
II
III
I
IV
0
0
0
0
High Rate of
Urbanisation
20%
15%
15%
10%
c)
20%
20%
20%
20%
d)
High Degree of
10%
10%
10%
10%
e)
Deficiencies
15%
15%
10%
10%
f)
Areas with High
10%
10%
10%
15%
g)
Calamities
10%
10%
10%
10%
h)
Technical/Social
5%
10%
15%
15%
i)
Housing Typology
10%
10%
10%
10%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Total
consideration
households
terms of rate of solid waste
collected and waste water disposed
area per person
Based on the topology of land (low
land, highland, coastal, exposure to
Based on the total cost investment
projects in the cities/towns and
Based on the percentage of
population with poor housing or
insufficient floor area per person
Notes: The weights for the criterion high level of poverty of Classes I to IV cities/towns was reduced by five percent and the criterion
high degree of environmental pollution was made uniform at 10% each as it is deemed important to put a percentage weight on
housing typology. High level of poverty is only measured in terms of the percentage of poor households while high degree of
environmental pollution is only measured in terms of the rate of waste water disposed, solid wastes collected and area of green
trees per person. More weight is given to the amount of investment in technical/social infrastructure projects for Classes III and IV.
Housing typology is measured in terms of the percentage of population with poor housing and the insufficient floor area per person
which are considered significant indicators for analysis and decision-making. A uniform 10% is given to all City/Town Classes.
8/63
Criterion
City/Town Class
a)
Class IV and above
b)
Proposed Weights
II
III
I
IV
0
0
0
0
High Rate of
Urbanisation
20%
15%
15%
10%
c)
20%
20%
20%
20%
d)
High Degree of
10%
10%
10%
10%
e)
Deficiencies
15%
15%
10%
10%
f)
Areas with High
10%
10%
10%
15%
g)
Calamities
5%
5%
5%
5%
h)
Technical/Social
5%
10%
15%
15%
i)
Housing Typology
10%
10%
10%
10%
j)
Significant Economic
Indicators
5%
5%
5%
5%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Total
consideration
households
terms of rate of solid waste
collected and waste water disposed
density combined with the floor area
per person
Based on topology of land (low
land, highland, coastal, exposure to
Based on total cost investment
projects in the cities/towns &
Based on percentage of population
with poor housing or insufficient
floor area per person
Based on total amount of industrial
output value at current prices from
state & non-state industries,
unemployment rate and average
monthly income per capita (x1000
VnD)
Notes: The weights for the criterion high level of poverty was uniformly reduced by five percent to give weight to other significant
economic indicators such as industrial output value at current prices – total amount of industrial output value at current prices from
state and non-state industries, unemployment rate and average monthly income per capita (x1000 VnD). The amount of industrial
output indicates the extent of industrial activity, unemployment and income which can be generated in a particular city/town which
influence people’s movement, thus becoming an important criterion for selecting cities/towns for prioritization.
3.7
Weighting Factor for Prioritisation Criteria of Simplified MCA Options (after the National
Workshop)
a.
Simplified Criteria, Indicators and Ranking Method
36. After the first National Workshop, the international and national consultants, international
advisor and PMU had a brainstorming to discuss simplification of MCA based on the results of the
workshop discussion, the details of which are in the Proceedings. The criteria and indicators have
been simplified. The outcome of the MCA has been refined in line with the comments obtained
from the PMU-NUUP and the outcome from participation of the stakeholders in the first National
Workshop for NUUP which is the essence of combining technical and participative assessments.
The Workshop participants already indicated their comments on the initially developed criteria
and indicators for MCA1 to MCA4 options (section 4.5). In a brainstorming session held, PMU,
MOC1, MOC3 and MOC4 analysed the results of the three Workshop Discussions and the
responses from the participants to the questionnaires about the criteria and indicators used for
MCA. MOC3 already conferred with MOC4 to finalise data requirements and collection. The
simplification of indicators was based on brainstorming among the international and local
consultants and PMU and workshop discussions with key stakeholders during the National
Workshop. Exhausting all sources and basing on the results of Workshop Discussion and
brainstorming among technical consultants, the kind and number indicators were streamlined to
10. Table 5 shows the simplified criteria and indicators and the ranking method.
9/63
Table 5 Simplified Criteria and Indicators and Ranking Method
Criteria
Indicators
1) % of families/households living
below national poverty line;
1
Poverty
ii) % of Class 4 (Temporary) housing
in city/town
i) Road density (km/km2 of city/town
area).
Infrastructure
ii) % of H/H with piped water supply
2
Deficiencies
iii) % of drainage (pipes) per km2 of
town area
iv) Students per classroom
i) Solid waste collected as % of total
3
Environment
generated (based on Vnd standards)
i) Average annual population growth
4
Urbanisation
rate (%) between 2000 – 2004 (5
years)
i) Population Density (persons/ha) at
5
Population Density
2004
Amount of Investment
i) Total investment (Vnd millions/
6
in Technical and
population) at 2004
b.
Ranking Method
For a) and b)
higher percentages will mean
higher priority in ranking
a) High = low rank
b) High = low rank
c) High = low rank
d) High = high rank
a) High= low rank
a) High= high rank
a) High=high rank
a) High = low rank
Simplified Weighting Factor for MCA5
37. The proposed weights were adjusted based on the combined technical and participant
assessment. As a result of the Workshop discussions combined with technical assessment, the
criteria and indicators were simplified into six criteria as indicated in Table 6. A set of uniform
weight for the 6 simplified criteria for all classes of cities/towns has been placed.
Proposed
Criterion
Weights
High Rate of
Based on the growth rate of city/town population over
a)
10%
Urbanisation
the 4 years from 2000-2004
Based on the percentage of households living below
b)
25%
poverty threshold and percentage of population with
poor housing
Significant
Based on the availability of technical and social
c)
Infrastructure
30%
infrastructure
Deficiencies
Amount of Investment
Based on the average investment in technical/social
d)
in Technical/Social
10%
infrastructure projects per capita for the last past five
(2001-2005)
Areas with High
Based on the city/town population density combined
e)
10%
with the floor area per person
High Degree of
Based on degree of pollution in terms of rate of solid
f)
Environmental
15%
waste collected and waste water disposed
Pollution
Total
100%
38. The participants’ assessment gathered during the Workshop discussions resulted in
highlighting two major criteria for selecting priority cities and towns, namely poverty and
infrastructure criteria. As such, bigger weights for the poverty and infrastructure criteria were
given.
39. For simplified MCA5, it is noted that all classes of cities/towns for the 10 urbanisation regions
have uniform weighting factors regardless of their distinct character, physical attributes, regional
thrust/policies, etc. Further discussion and analysis noted that the MCA must cover not only the
typical statistical profile but also distinct character, physical attributes, regional thrusts/policies
which are significant in rationalizing MCA. Hence, MCA5 has been developed/modified further
into MCA5-1 (simplified rating of indicators based on actual figures/value and MCA5-2 (modified
rating based on standing against national average and range of data).
10/63
c.
Simplified Rating based on Statistical Merit & Weighting Factor of Indicators (MCA5-1)
40. All cities/towns have been rated for their merit in respect of each of the criteria. For
percentage of poor households, percentage of households with poor housing, percentage of solid
waste collected over total solid waste generated, average annual population growth rate (20002004), population density and total investment for infrastructure per capita, a 0-100 rating scale
was used. This means using a formula of 100/highest value of for a particular indicator. For
example, the rating scale for percentage of poor households is 100/city with the highest
percentage of poor household = 2.59. To get each city’s first round of ranking for percentage of
poor household, the formula is 2.59 multiply by the figure (percentage of poor household of that
city), that is 2.59 x 6.34 percentage of poor households in Hung Yen = 13.
41. High Level of Poverty criteria 25% for Class I and 30% for Class II to IV will be equally divided
to the two indicators: 1) percentage of households living below poverty threshold, and 2)
percentage of population with poor housing. This means that for higher percentages of
households living below the poverty threshold and household with poor housing will mean higher
priority in ranking.
42. For infrastructure, criteria are of two types, namely: 1) Significant Infrastructure Deficiencies
with a weight factor of 30% which will be distributed to four indicators, and 2) Amount of
investment in technical/social infrastructure projects per capita for the last five years with a weight
factor of 10%. It must be noted that Significant Infrastructure Deficiencies refers to the extent of
availability and adequacy of technical and social infrastructure in the cities/towns which are
measured in terms of the following indicators: 1) availability of technical and social infrastructure;
and 2) average investment in technical/social infrastructure projects per capita for the last past
five (2001-2005).
2
43. This means that cities/towns with high road density (km/km ), percentage of households with
piped water supply and percentage of drainage (pipes) per km2 of town area will have a low
ranking while cities/towns with high students per classroom ratio would have high rank. It is noted
that road density is widely available data for cities classified as Class 4 and above. It is also noted
that road density varied depending on the length of road per land area and the extent of usage.
The cities/towns located in North Coastal and Mekong Delta regions have lower road density due
to the physical nature of the area. This distinct case will be addressed in the modified rating for
MCA 5-2.
44. Student/classroom ratio as an indicator does not refer to the size of classroom. For this
purpose, student population data and number of classrooms per city were used to calculate the
student/classroom ratio for the cities/towns. Based on the available data in Vietnam, the average
number of students per classroom is 44.6. If the universal standard is 25 students per teacher, to
accommodate an average of 44.6 students per classroom has implications for delivery of the
given educational program. The highest student/classroom ratio is 70:1 (Phan Thiet City) and the
lowest 6 (Hai Phong and Can Tho).
45. The amount of investment in technical/social infrastructure projects (10%) pertains to the
amount of investment in technical/social infrastructure projects for the past five years per capita
for cities/towns. Cities/towns with high amount of investment in technical and social infrastructure
per capita for the past five years (VND millions/population at 2000-2004) would have low rank.
46. High degree of urbanisation, high degree of population densities and high degree of
environmental pollution are criteria which have lower weight in comparison with high level of
poverty and significant infrastructure deficiencies. For all classes, 10% is placed upon all
cities/town for two demographic indicators, namely: high degree of urbanisation, high degree of
population densities. Cities/towns with high urbanisation rate measured in terms of average
annual population growth rate between 2000–2004 (5 years) will have a high rank. Likewise,
cities/towns with high population density (population per total city/town area in 2004) will have
high rank.
47. For a high degree of environmental pollution, a uniform weight of 15% is assigned to all
cities/towns from Class I to IV. The degree of environmental pollution is measured in terms of the
percentage of solid waste collected over total waste generated by the city/town. Cities/towns with
high percentage of solid waste collected over total waste generated by the city/town would have
low rank.
11/63
d.
Modified Rating of Indicators based on the National Average, Midpoint and Highest Ranges and
Weighting Factor of Indicators (MCA5-2)
48. As previously mentioned, rating per city/town across all regions and classes should be
rationalised in order to include significant factors in MCA. Analysis not only focus on the outright
value of the statistical data but also consider all other significant factors such as the distinct
character, physical attributes, regional thrusts/policies which are significant in rationalising MCA.
49. The updated database shows varied ranges of data for all indicators. As such, to use rank
based on individual merit results in a wide rating gap for all indicators. This does not reflect the
geographical differences. For instance, cities/towns with high percentage of solid waste collected
tend to have a low rate for environmental criteria thus making its overall ranking low. When using
0-100 rating scale as in MCA5-1, a city which has the highest percentage of solid waste collection
gets 100% and 0 rating for high degree of environmental pollution thus making is overall ranking
low. Hence, MCA5-2 is developed/modified to reduce the rating gap which groups the cities/towns
based on its standing against the national average.
50. For percentage of poor households, percentage of households with poor housing, average
annual population growth rate (2000-2004), and population density, the rating scale and weighting
for MCA5-2 will be divided into three rating scale as follows:
• 50 for below the national average
• 75 for above the national average
• 100 for above midpoint range (arranging the national average to highest range)
51. For infrastructure deficiency such as road density, rate of household with water supply and
drainage pipes density, and percentage of solid waste collected over total solid waste generated
and total average investment on infrastructure per capita, MCA5-2 will be divided into three rating
scale as follows:
• 50 for above the national average
• 75 for below the national average
• 100 for below midpoint range (arranging the national average to lowest range)
52. Refer to Table 7 for the basis of the rating scale. A rating of 50 is given to a city which is
below the national average, 75 to a city which is above the national average and 100 for a city
above the average of midpoint and highest range.
e.
Modified Rating of Indicators based on the varied Cities/towns Classes Attributes and Regional
Location and Weighting Factor of Indicators (MCA6)
53. MCA5-1 uses the individual merit of each city/town while MC5-2 is subject to the national
average and highest range for percentage of poor households, percentage of households with
poor housing, average annual population growth rate (2000-2004), and population density, or
lowest range for infrastructure deficiency such as road density, rate of household with water
supply and drainage pipes density, and percentage of solid waste collected over total solid waste
generated and total average investment on infrastructure per capita.
54. Another method is developed to analyse in order to reflect regional setting. The weighting for
MCA6 is based on the averages of urbanisation region and class for each indicator. Table 8
shows the regional average of ten indicators. For weighting factor of MCA6, proportionate weight
is placed depending on the proportion of the regional average to the national average and
proportional cities/towns class average to the national average.
12/63
Table 7 Rating Scale Basis based on National Average
Indicators
% of families/ households living below
national poverty line
% of Class 4 (Temporary) housing
Road density (km/km2 of city/town area
% of HH with piped water supply
% of drainage (pipes) per km2 of town area
Students per classroom
Solid waste collected as % of total
generated (based on Vn standards)
Average annual population growth rate (%)
between 2000 – 2004 (5 years)
Population Density (persons/km2) at 2004
Total investment (Vnd millions/population)
(2000-2004)
National
Average
Lowest
Midpoint
Highest
12.12
1.26
23.90
35.68
28
4.4
73.1
2.95
44.6
2.50
0.13
10 %
0.19
5.78
50.50
2.28
41.55
1.57
57.12
72.86
12.10
100 %
9.30
69.61
73.5
20.00
46.77
100.00
2.9%
0.00
12.40%
21.90%
1,507
30.00
4101.48
6696.19
12
0.13
5.89
68.74
Table 8 Scale Rating and Weighting Factor Based on Urbanisation Region
Urbanisation SubRegion
Percentage of poor
households
Percentage of household
with poor housing
2
Road density (km/km )
Rate of households with
water supply
Drainage pipes density
2
(km/km )
Number of Students per
classroom
Percentage of solid waste
collected over total solid
waste generated
Average Annual Pop.
Growth Rate (2000-2004)
Population Density
(Person/Km2)
Total Investment (VnD
mil./cap.) for 5 years (2002004)
1
2
7.10
11.92
8
9
10
National
Average
3
4
5
6
7
3.81
16.57
16.44
14.51
29.00
18.43
8.77
17.14
7.51
12.12
29.70
25.44
21.46
28.93
33.51
16.19
22.08
30.31
51.22
28.14
4.40
4.75
6.67
3.72
5.60
3.72
7.45
2.77
3.60
3.08
4.42
73.65
74.05
72.81
67.33
67.88
90.00
72.83
62.14
60.73
81.17
73.11
3.97
3.12
2.92
1.40
2.22
2.46
3.83
2.99
2.33
2.96
2.95
47.18
50.10
45.81
41.28
38.96
41.01
44.77
60.33
49.00
49.17
44.62
74.36
78.14
77.38
72.14
74.44
62.00
62.86
66.67
74.29
75.09
73.54
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
1906
1422
1577
1478
1040
411
2888
1146
475
1529
1507
13.66
19.71
10.95
9.37
12.74
9.01
21.00
4.71
6.62
8.22
11.65
3.8
Results of MCA5-1, MCA5-2 and MCA6 (Prioritisation of Cities/Towns)
a.
Initial Ranking
55. The tentative results of MCA1 using the 7 criteria were already presented in the Inception
Report. MCA2 to MCA4 options were no longer processed after documenting the opinion of the
stakeholders on the indicators and criteria for selecting priority cities/tows. It was realised that a
number of the indicators were difficult to obtain and be completed for 96 cities/towns to
operationalise the ranking for corresponding criteria. Some indicators do not provide clear picture
of the state of the city/town, for instance, the absence or presence of a landfill facility do not
necessarily reflect good or deficient environmental quality.
56. For each class of city/towns, the criteria defined have been combined using weighting
coefficients reflecting the desired emphasis on each aspect (poverty, infrastructure deficiencies,
population density, etc). In so doing the MCA5-1 highlights the merits of each city/town and
produces a ranking in order of priority for the proposed set of criteria and weighting factors within
each group of cities and towns of comparable size. Table 9 shows the top 25 cities/towns using
the simplified MCA (MCA5-1).
13/63
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
H
L
L
LC
L
H
L
L
Ranking
IV
III
III
IV
IV
IV
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
III
IV
IV
IV
Overall Merit
Bình Thuận
Điện Biên
An Giang
Đồng Tháp
Phú Thọ
Tây Ninh
Bình Thuận
Bắc Kạn
Vĩnh Long
Hưng Yên
Tiền Giang
Ninh Thuận
Hà Giang
Kiên Giang
Hà Tây
f) Low in Technical & Social
Infrastructure Investment
8
6
10
10
5
2
8
4
10
1
10
8
5
10
1
e) Areas with High Population
Densities
H
H
LC
LC
H
H
H
H
LC
H
d) High Rate of Urbanisation
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
III
c) High Degree of Environmental
Pollution
Lai Châu
Điện Biên
Trà Vinh
Quảng Trị
Thái Nguyên
Yên Bái
Gia Lai
Cao Bằng
Hà Tĩnh
Gia Lai
b) Significant Infrastructure
Deficiencies
Lowland, Highland, Coastal
6
6
10
3
4
5
9
4
7
9
a) High Level of Poverty
Class
TX. Lai Châu
TX. Mường Lay
TX. Trà Vinh
TX. Quảng Trị
TX. Sông Công
TX. Nghĩa Lộ
TX. An Khê
TX. Cao Bằng
TX. Hồng Lĩnh
TP. Pleiku
TX. Lagi và Huyện Hàm
Tân
TP. Long Xuyên
TX. Cao Lãnh
TX. Phú Thọ
TX. Tây Ninh
TP. Phan Thiết
TX. Bắc Cạn
TX. Vĩnh Long
TX. Hưng Yên
TX. Gò Công
TX. Phan Rang-Tháp Chàm
TX. Hà Giang
TX. Hà Tiên
TX. Hà Đông
Province
CITY/TOWN
Urbanisation Sub-Region
Table 9. Top 25 Cities/Towns using the Simplified MCA (MCA5-1).
25% 30% 15% 10% 10% 10% 100%
76
57
65
9
5 95 56.75 1
76
59
80
0
3 74 56.4 2
67
63
30 26
26 85 53.85 3
47
66
50
4
51 92 53.75 4
34
79
70
4
10 96 53.7 5
45
78
15 49
17 94 52.9 6
47
72
60
4
6 94 52.75 7
58
67
25 25
18 97 52.35 8
67
63
40
1
12 90 51.95 9
47
76
35
9
14 87 50.8 10
30
76
40
50
38
39
30
64
42
13
41
37
53
44
18
68
58
63
69
46
55
81
70
63
61
65
68
63
57
49
80
0
0 21
40
6
20
4
50 64
60 17
30
6
20
9
30
2
28 100
35
3
15
7
20 13
51 12
30 44
12
15
49
30
19
18
19
4
50
32
32
39
5
9
81
94 50.5
99 49.9
91 49.5
93 48.9
97 48.8
98 48.55
97 48.5
69 48.2
80 47.1
80 46.95
82 46.7
99 46.4
94 46.35
84 46.25
99 46.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Notes: 4 shaded cities/towns are included in the 25 cities/towns selected for pilot survey.
57. MCA5-2 highlights the merits of each city and town against the national average and
highest/lowest range and produces a ranking in order of priority for the proposed set of criteria
and weighting factors within each group of cities and towns of comparable size. Table 10 shows
the individual merit of the top 25 cities/towns scaled against the national average and
highest/lowest range using the simplified MCA (MCA5-2). Table 11 shows the top 25 cities/towns
using the simplified MCA (MCA5-2) method.
14/63
Population Density
(person/km2)
Average Annual Population
waste generated
Classroom
(km/km2)
water supply
Road density (km/km2)
Percentage of poor
households
City/Town
Percentage of household with
poor housing
Table 10 Top 25 Cities/Towns and Corresponding Individual Merits Rated Against the National
Average and Highest/Lowest Range Using the Simplified MCA (MCA5-2).
Environment Urbanisation
Density
Poverty
Infrastructure Deficiencies
0.00
0.00
4.00
70
2.90
0
70
0.0%
0
12.00 28.00 2.28
42
1.57
30
47
3.0%
1510
2.90 50.50 0.00
0
0.00
57
0
12.0%
4100
50%
50%
25% 25%
25%
25%
100%
100%
100%
TX. Cao Bằng
TX. Quảng Trị
TX. Lai Châu
TX. Nghĩa Lộ
TX. Gò Công
TX. Cao Lãnh
TX. Hà Giang
TX. An Khê
TP. Long Xuyên
TX. Vĩnh Long
TX. Tây Ninh
TX. Sông Công
TP. Pleiku
TX. Trà Vinh
TP. Bắc Giang
TP. Phan Thiết
27.01
35.68
19.40
35.68
13.91
6.15
7.11
19.08
18.18
6.15
7.56
5.48
16.09
18.18
13.51
9.34
5.77
34.2
43.45
32.27
43.45
39.87
48.15
60.7
41.68
35.32
47.76
48.26
47.5
19.98
35.32
72.86
11.02
33.33
2.23
2.54
4.73
1.50
0.13
0.85
0.59
0.83
5.33
2.16
1.52
4.00
2.71
4.35
4.4
3.96
0.84
70
80
45
73.1
15
85
80
70
21.08
66.8
90
70
10
34
66
90
50
0.66
1.48
1.26
2.95
2.95
1.19
0.91
0.96
2
2.95
1.25
2.95
0.19
0.4
2.95
1.5
2.95
46
36
44
44.6
37
47
52
29
54
51
47
40
38
57
55
52
70
75
100
50
35
85
65
80
80
40
60
70
40
30
65
70
70
70
5.6%
4.7%
1.1%
2.9%
10.8%
0.9%
1.0%
2.9%
1.3%
1.4%
0.6%
3.7%
1.0%
2.0%
5.8%
2.0%
1.5%
959
773
2,646
262
885
1,667
1,531
264
317
2,510
2,591
925
538
715
1,351
3,158
993
TX. Phan Rang-Tháp Chàm
13.35 29.14
3.67
65
2.05
64
85
1.6%
2,015
TX. Phú Thọ
TX. Hà Đông
TX. Hà Tĩnh
12.51
9.79
22.55
32.1
8.88
25.9
9.40
7.38
9.85
73.1
85
100
2.95
2.39
3.91
37
49
44
50
70
80
14.2%
9.8%
7.3%
977
4,148
6,696
TX. Gia Nghĩa và huyện Đăk
Klong
17.01 23.93
3.30
60
2.5
39
80
10.1%
30
TX. Bắc Cạn
TP. Cà Mau
TP. Mỹ Tho
30.74 36.35
7.71 46.28
6.54 48.15
3.08
1.40
4.57
37
84
95
0.86
1.17
4.71
38
56
51
80
66.2
90
2.2%
2.1%
1.0%
244
808
3,468
15/63
Table 11 Top 25 Cities/Towns using the Simplified MCA (MCA5-2).
Scoring Scales of Criteria & Weighting
Factors
50
50
50
50
50
50
75
75
65
75
75
75 Scale
100 100
70
100 100 100
Densities
Overall Merit
Ranking
4
6
3
6
5
10
10
5
9
10
10
2
4
9
10
4
8
Cao Bằng
Điện Biên
Quảng Trị
Lai Châu
Yên Bái
Tiền Giang
Đồng Tháp
Hà Giang
Gia Lai
An Giang
Vĩnh Long
Tây Ninh
Thái Nguyên
Gia Lai
Trà Vinh
Bắc Giang
Bình Thuận
IV
III
IV
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
III
IV
IV
IV
III
IV
III
III
H
H
LC
H
H
LC
L
H
H
L
L
L
H
H
LC
L
L
87
100
75
100
75
75
75
87
75
75
75
75
62
75
87
50
62
87
75
81
68
81
87
87
81
81
75
87
68
87
87
68
81
87
50
50
70
70
50
70
50
50
70
65
70
70
70
65
65
65
65
75
75
50
50
100
50
50
50
50
50
50
75
50
50
75
50
50
50
50
75
50
50
75
75
50
50
75
75
50
50
50
50
100
50
100
100
100
100
100
75
100
100
100
100
50
100
100
75
75
100
100
77.9
77.5
76.1
75.9
75.6
75.4
74.9
73.6
73.6
73.5
72.9
72.2
72.1
72.1
71.9
71.6
71.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
10
11
12
13
13
15
16
17
8
Ninh Thuận
III
L
75
75
50
50
75
100
71.3
18
5
1
7
Phú Thọ
Hà Tây
Hà Tĩnh
IV
IV
III
L
L
LC
75
50
75
56
68
56
70
70
50
100
75
75
50
100
100
100
100
100
71.1
70.9
70.6
19
20
21
9
Đăk Nông
IV
H
62
75
50
100
50
100
70.5
22
TX. Bắc Cạn
TP. Cà Mau
TP. Mỹ Tho
4 Bắc Kạn
10 Cà Mau
10 Tiền Giang
IV
III
III
H
LC
L
87
75
75
87
87
62
50
70
50
50
50
50
50
50
100
50
50
100
70.4
70.4
69.9
23
24
25
Province
TX. Cao Bằng
TX. Quảng Trị
TX. Lai Châu
TX. Nghĩa Lộ
TX. Gò Công
TX. Cao Lãnh
TX. Hà Giang
TX. An Khê
TP. Long Xuyên
TX. Vĩnh Long
TX. Tây Ninh
TX. Sông Công
TP. Pleiku
TX. Trà Vinh
TP. Bắc Giang
TP. Phan Thiết
TX. Phan Rang Tháp Chàm
TX. Phú Thọ
TX. Hà Đông
TX. Hà Tĩnh
TX. Gia Nghĩa và
huyện Đăk Klong
City/Town
10% 100%
Pollution
10%
Deficiencies
10%
15%
30%
Class
25%
16/63
58. As mentioned in the previous discussion, the weighting factor for MCA6 attempts to put into
consideration the regional situation. Table 12 shows the average regional data for the 10
indicators, national average and weighting factor as per Table 6 (Selection Criteria and Weighting
Factors for MCA5). It is noted that the percentage for poor households in Regions 6, 7, 9, 3, 4
and 5 is much higher than the national average while it is much lower in Regions 1, 2, 8 and 10.
The percentage of households with poor housing in Regions 2, 5, 6, 8 and 10 is higher than the
national average while the rest of the Regions are lower.
Table 12 Regional Averages, National Average & Simplified MCA5 Weighting Factors
MCA5
National
Weighting
Average
Factor
Indicator 1
7.10
3.81 16.57 16.44 14.51 29.00 18.43
8.77 17.14
7.51 12.12 12.50%
Indicator 2
11.92 29.70 25.44 21.46 28.93 33.51 16.19 22.08 30.31 51.22 28.14 12.50%
Indicator 3
4.40
4.75
6.67
3.72
5.60 3.72
7.45
2.77 3.60
3.08
4.42
7.50%
Indicator 4
73.65 74.05 72.81 67.33 67.88 90.00 72.83 62.14 60.73 81.17 73.11
7.50%
Indicator 5
3.97
3.12
2.92
1.40
2.22 2.46
3.83
2.99 2.33
2.96
2.95
7.50%
Indicator 6
47.18 50.10 45.81 41.28 38.96 41.01 44.77 60.33 49.00 49.17 44.62
7.50%
Indicator 7
74.36 78.14 77.38 72.14 74.44 62.00 62.86 66.67 74.29 75.09 73.54 15.00%
Indicator 8
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.04 0.02
0.03
0.02 0.03
0.02
0.03 10.00%
Indicator 9 1906.00 1422.00 1577.17 1478.14 1040.44 411.00 2888.74 1146.14 475.14 1529.29 1506.77 10.00%
Indicator 10 13.66 19.71 10.95
9.37 12.74 9.01 21.00
4.71 6.62
8.22 11.65 10.00%
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Legend:
Indicator 1 - Percentage of poor households
Indicator 2 - Percentage of household with poor housing
2
Indicator 3 - Road density (km/km )
Indicator 4 - Rate of households with water supply
2
Indicator 5 - Drainage pipes density (km/km )
Indicator 6 - Number of students per classroom
Indicator 7 - Percentage of solid waste collected over total solid waste generated
Indicator 8 - Average annual population growth rate (2000-2004)
2
Indicator 9 - Population density (person/km )
Indicator 10 - Total investment (VND million/capita) for 5 years (2000-2004)
Table 13 MCA-6 Weighting Factors of Indicators based on Proportion of City Indicators to
National Average
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Indicator 1
7.3% 3.9% 17.1% 17.0% 15.0% 29.9% 19.0% 9.0% 17.7% 7.7%
Indicator 2
5.3% 13.2% 11.3% 9.5% 12.8% 14.9% 7.2% 9.8% 13.5% 22.8%
Indicator 3
7.5% 8.1% 11.3% 6.3% 9.5% 6.3% 12.6% 4.7% 6.1% 5.2%
Indicator 4
7.6% 7.6% 7.5% 6.9% 7.0% 9.2% 7.5% 6.4% 6.2% 8.3%
Indicator 5
10.1% 7.9% 7.4% 3.6% 5.6% 6.3% 9.7% 7.6% 5.9% 7.5%
Indicator 6
7.9% 8.4% 7.7% 6.9% 6.5% 6.9% 7.5% 10.1% 8.2% 8.3%
Indicator 7
15.2% 15.9% 15.8% 14.7% 15.2% 12.6% 12.8% 13.6% 15.2% 15.3%
Indicator 8
15.1% 8.7% 5.4% 7.6% 14.5% 6.6% 9.5% 5.3% 10.9% 5.6%
Indicator 9
12.6% 9.4% 10.5% 9.8% 6.9% 2.7% 19.2% 7.6% 3.2% 10.1%
Indicator 10
11.7% 16.9% 9.4% 8.0% 10.9% 7.7% 18.0% 4.0% 5.7% 7.1%
Legend:
Indicator 1 - Percentage of poor households
Indicator 2 - Percentage of household with poor housing
2
Indicator 3 - Road density (km/km )
Indicator 4 - Rate of households with water supply
2
Indicator 5 - Drainage pipes density (km/km )
Indicator 6 - Number of students per classroom
Indicator 7 - Percentage of solid waste collected over total solid waste generated
Indicator 8 - Average annual population growth rate (2000-2004)
2
Indicator 9 - Population density (person/km )
Indicator 10 - Total investment (VND million/capita) for 5 years (2000-2004)
17/63
59. For MCA6, the weighting factor is derived by relating the regional average to the national
average and getting its proportion to the MCA5 weighting factor which was based on the results
of combining technical assessment and participant assessment (workshop discussion and
responses to the questionnaires).
60. The formula for the MCA weighting factor is the regional average multiplied by MCA5
weighting factor divided by the national average. Hence, the weighting factor for percentage of
poor households in Region 1 is 7.35%, for Region 2 is 3.9%, Region 3 is 17.1%, Region 4 is
17.0%, Region 5 is 15%, Region 6 is 29.9%, Region 7 is 19%, Region 8 is 9%, Region 9 is
17.7%, Region 10 is 7.7%. The weighting factor for percentage of household with poor housing in
Region 1 is 5.3%, Region 2 is 13.2%, Region 3 is 11.3%, Region 4 is 9.5%, Region 5 is 15%,
Region 6 is 14.9%, Region 7 is 7.2%, Region 8 is 9.8%, Region 9 is 13.5% and Region 10 is
22.8%. The weighting factor for Indicator 3 in Region 1 7.5%, Region 2 is 8.1, Region 3 is 11.3%
and so on. Table 14 shows the weighting factors per region. It is observed in Table 14 that when
the indicators’ regional average is far below the national average the weighting factors becomes
lower. This holds true for Indicators 1 for Regions 1, 3, 8 and 10 which are lower than the national
average. Conversely, indicators with regional average which are generally higher than the
national average, the weighting average becomes higher, for example, e.g. Regions 3, 5, 6 and 7
which have higher regional average compared with the national average. As such, adjustments
were made to rationalise derivation of weighting factors and ensure that the sum of the weighting
factor should be within 100 percent. The weighting factor of indicators for particular criterions are
summed up to comprise the total weighting factor shown for MCA6 is uniform among city/town
classes within the urbanisation sub-region.
61. This weighting factor per region is used to compute the overall merit of the 96 cities/ towns.
MCA6 does not factor in difference among city /town classes it only subjects MCA to the regional
average in relation to the national average and MCA5 weighting factors. Based on MCA6, the top
25 cities/towns are indicated in Table 15. It is noted that TX. Cao Bằng, TP. Điện Biên Phủ, TX.
Cao Lãnh and TP. Phan Thiết are among the top 25 cities/towns in MCA5-1, MCA5-2 and MCA6
which are also included in the top 25 cities for pilot survey. TP. Cà Mau and TP. Hải Dương,
which also ranked in the top 25 cities/towns in MCA6 are also included in the 25 cities for pilot
survey.
62. The results of the MCA5-1, MCA5-2 and MCA6 have also been sorted by overall ranking,
urbanisation sub-regions and by class as shown in Table 5.
b.
Second Ranking Process
63. Further discussion to factor in other significant criteria will be undertaken to ensure
obtaining rational MCA results and be in accordance with national framework. In order to
be in line with national urbanisation policies and ascertain that selected priority
cities/towns represent the low income areas of all types of classification and topography
and with consideration of vulnerability to natural calamities and willingness to participate,
the MCA results will be subject to second screening in order to:
• Ensure that the selected projects are typical of the whole region and surrounding cities/
towns
• Accord with current government urbanisation/economic zoning policy
• Accord with the need of upgrading investment of cities/towns.
64. After the first ranking using the simplified criteria and indicators for MCA, a second
level of ranking would be conducted to ensure that selection of 25 cities/towns are within
the regional policy framework (i.e. urbanisation regions and class of towns), topographical
features, vulnerability of cities/towns and willingness of the cities/towns to participate in
NUUP are given paramount consideration (Table 16). The criteria in the second screening
were agreed upon by the PMU, MOC1, MOC3 and MOC4 after deliberating and assessing
the results of discussion during the first National Workshop held on 30 October 2006. It
was noted that some of the indicators and criteria suggested by some participants cannot
be measured or are irrelevant to urban upgrading such as the rate of water loss, grave
site, number of universities, among others. The results of the workshop discussions are
comprehensively presented in the Proceedings of the NUUP first National Workshop
submitted to PMU on 29 January 2007. Until revised, the ten urbanisation regions remain
a rational basis to ascertain that a city/town is selected strategically, i.e. at least 1
city/town in each sub-region. Likewise, the second level of screening considers that at
18/63
least 1 city/town is selected per class, at least 1 city/town is selected in a vulnerable area
and that all selected cities/towns are willing to participate in the NUUP.
Table 14 MCA6 Weighting Factors
Region
2
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I
12.50% 17.10% 28.00%
28.00%
27.00%
44.00%
22.00%
22.48%
32.39%
30.82%
II
12.50% 17.10% 28.00%
28.00%
27.00%
44.00%
22.00%
22.48%
32.39%
30.82%
III
12.50% 17.10% 28.00%
28.00%
27.00%
44.00%
22.00%
22.48%
32.39%
30.82%
IV
12.50% 17.10% 28.00%
28.00%
27.00%
44.00%
22.00%
22.48%
32.39%
30.82%
b) Significant Infrastructure Deficiencies
33.40% 32.00% 33.00%
I
25.00%
28.00%
28.00%
33.00%
32.45%
27.76%
29.68%
29.68%
II
33.40% 32.00% 33.00%
25.00%
28.00%
28.00%
33.00%
32.45%
27.76%
III
33.40% 32.00% 33.00%
25.00%
28.00%
28.00%
33.00%
32.45%
27.76%
29.68%
IV
33.40% 32.00% 33.00%
25.00%
28.00%
28.00%
33.00%
32.45%
27.76%
29.68%
c) High Degree of Environmental Pollution
I
15.00% 15.90% 15.00%
16.00%
15.00%
12.25%
9.00%
17.23%
16.40%
15.65%
16.00%
15.00%
12.25%
9.00%
17.23%
16.40%
15.65%
III
15.00% 15.90% 15.00%
15.00% 15.90% 15.00%
16.00%
15.00%
12.25%
9.00%
17.23%
16.40%
15.65%
IV
15.00% 15.90% 15.00%
16.00%
15.00%
12.25%
9.00%
17.23%
16.40%
15.65%
II
I
15.00% 8.70%
5.00%
9.00%
14.00%
6.25%
6.00%
8.95%
12.13%
5.98%
5.00%
9.00%
14.00%
6.25%
6.00%
8.95%
12.13%
5.98%
III
15.00% 8.70%
15.00% 8.70%
5.00%
9.00%
14.00%
6.25%
6.00%
8.95%
12.13%
5.98%
IV
15.00% 8.70%
5.00%
9.00%
14.00%
6.25%
6.00%
8.95%
12.13%
5.98%
II
e) Areas with High Population Densities
I
12.60% 9.40% 10.00%
11.00%
6.00%
2.25%
16.00%
11.23%
4.40%
10.48%
10.00%
11.00%
6.00%
2.25%
16.00%
11.23%
4.40%
10.48%
III
12.60% 9.40%
12.60% 9.40%
10.00%
11.00%
6.00%
2.25%
16.00%
11.23%
4.40%
10.48%
IV
12.60% 9.40%
10.00%
11.00%
6.00%
2.25%
16.00%
11.23%
4.40%
10.48%
f) Low in Technical & Social Infrastructure Investment
I
11.50% 16.90% 9.00% 11.00% 10.00%
7.25%
14.00%
7.66%
6.92%
7.39%
7.39%
II
II
III
IV
11.50% 16.90%
11.50% 16.90%
11.50% 16.90%
9.00%
11.00%
10.00%
7.25%
14.00%
7.66%
6.92%
9.00%
11.00%
10.00%
7.25%
14.00%
7.66%
6.92%
7.39%
9.00%
11.00%
10.00%
7.25%
14.00%
7.66%
6.92%
7.39%
19/63
Densities
Overall Merit
Ranking
H
100
75
50
75
50
100
84.2
1
6 Lai Châu
III
H
100
68
70
50
50
100
83.1
2
6 Điện Biên
IV
H
100
62
70
50
50
50
77.8
3
TX. Nghĩa Lộ
5 Yên Bái
IV
H
75
81
50
100
50
100
77.4
4
TX. Cao Bằng
4 Cao Bằng
IV
H
87
87
50
75
50
100
77.4
5
TX. Quảng Trị
3 Quảng Trị
IV
LC
75
81
70
50
75
100
77.2
6
TX. Gò Công
10 Tiền Giang
IV
LC
75
87
70
50
75
75
76.3
7
TX. Cao Lãnh
10 Đồng Tháp
IV
L
75
87
50
50
75
100
75.0
8
TX. Hà Đông
1 Hà Tây
IV
L
50
68
70
75
100
100
74.8
9
TX. Vĩnh Long
10 Vĩnh Long
IV
L
75
87
70
50
75
50
74.4
10
TX. Hà Tĩnh
7 Hà Tĩnh
III
LC
75
56
50
75
100
100
74.0
11
TX. Tây Ninh
2 Tây Ninh
IV
L
75
68
70
75
50
100
73.8
12
TP. Long Xuyên
10 An Giang
III
L
75
75
65
50
75
100
73.8
13
TX. Hà Giang
5 Hà Giang
IV
H
87
81
50
50
50
100
73.7
14
TX. An Khê
9 Gia Lai
IV
H
75
81
70
50
50
100
73.4
15
TX. Phú Thọ
5 Phú Thọ
IV
L
75
56
70
100
50
100
73.4
16
TX. Đồng Xoài
2 Bình Phước
IV
L
62
81
50
75
50
100
72.6
17
TP. Pleiku
9 Gia Lai
III
H
75
87
65
50
50
75
72.6
18
TX. Trà Vinh
10 Trà Vinh
IV
LC
87
68
65
75
50
75
72.4
19
TX. Sầm Sơn
7 Thanh Hoá
IV
LC
62
68
70
50
100
75
71.9
20
TP. Cà Mau
10 Cà Mau
III
LC
75
87
70
50
50
50
71.8
21
TP. Hải Dương
1 Hải Dương
III
L
50
87
70
50
100
50
71.7
22
TX. Sông Công
4 Thái Nguyên
IV
H
62
87
70
50
50
100
71.3
23
TP. Bắc Giang
4 Bắc Giang
III
L
50
81
65
50
100
100
71.2
24
TP. Phan Thiết
8 Bình Thuận
III
L
62
87
65
50
50
100
71.1
25
6 Điện Biên
TX. Lai Châu
TX. Mường Lay
Province
III
City/Town
Class
Deficiencies
Pollution
Table 15 Top 25 Cities/Towns using the Modified Rating of Indicators based on the varied Cities/
Towns Classes Attributes and Regional Location and Weighting Factor of Indicators (MCA6)
Table 16 Selection Criteria Second Level of Ranking
Criteria
Methodology/Consideration
No weight but a criterion for consideration
1
Urbanisation Sub-regions
At least 1 city/town in each sub-region
2
Class of city/town
At least 1 town in each of the 4 classes
3
Topography
Include at least 1 town in high, low and coastal area
No weight but a criterion for consideration. Include at least 1 town
4
Vulnerability
in a vulnerable area (exposure to natural calamities such as
severe climatic conditions, flooding, earthquake, etc.)
5
Willingness to participate
Supply of data is a measure of interest/willingness to participate
20/63
65. Vulnerability to natural calamities is given paramount consideration after getting
records of data on damages to life and property brought about by floods, typhoons, among
other calamities. For example, coastal town in the central regions of Vietnam are exposed
to typhoons and frequent flooding.
Urbanisation Regions
66. The results of MCA5-1, MCA5-2 and MCA6 show that the 10 urbanisation sub-regions
are represented by the top 25 cities/towns based on overall merit. However, the results of
MCA5-1, MCA5-2 and MCA6 do not have representation for Class I and Class II city/town
from among the top 25 cities/towns. The results of the initial ranking of MCA5-1, MCA5-2
and MCA6 also do not guarantee an equitable spread of cities/towns among the three
type of topography. Such initial ranking do not also ascertain that vulnerable areas are
included. Thus, this calls for the rejection of some cities/towns under Class III and IV
cities/towns that ranked lowest among the initially ranked top 25 cities/towns in order to
satisfy Second Ranking Criteria as stated in Table 16 (i.e. Class of cities/town,
topography, vulnerability to natural calamity and willingness to participate.
Class of City/Town
67. For MCA5-1 Class I and Class II cities are not represented in the top 25 cities as
shown in Table 5.8. TX. Hà Tiên (Class IV), a lowland area in Urbanisation Region 10,
Province of Kien Giang, which has an overall merit of 46.25 and rank 24 and TX. Hà Đông
Class IV), also a lowland area in Urbanisation Region 1, Province of Hà Tây with an
overall merit of 46.10 and rank 25 will be rejected being the lowest among the 25 top cities
using MCA5-1 to accommodate 1 Class I city and 1 Class II city. TP. Cần Thơ (Class I) of
Urbanisation Region 10 has the highest overall merit (44.1) among the Class I cities
based on MCA6 but is already a VUUP city. So then the next ranking Class I city is
considered (Annex 1), i.e. TP. Huế of Urbanisation Region 3, Province of Hue is the Class
I city which has the second highest overall merit (33.1) among the Class I cities. TP. Biên
Hoà (Class II), a lowland area in the Urbanisation Region 2, province of Đồng Nai which
gets the highest overall merit (42) among Class II cities for MCA5-1 is given consideration.
As a result the top 25 cities/towns using MCA5-1 process can be seen in Table 21.
68. For MCA5-2 Class I and Class II cities are not represented in the top 25 cities as
shown in Table 5.22. Hence, Gia Nghĩa và huyện Đăk Klong (Class IV) of Urbanisation
Region 9, Province of Đăk Nông and Bắc Cạn (Class IV) of Urbanisation Region 4,
Province of Bắc Kạn which got the lowest overall merit of the top 25 will be rejected to
include one city representing Class I and Class II. Huế of Urbanisation Region 3, Province
of Hue is the Class I city which has the highest overall merit among the Class I cities. Việt
Trì of Urbanisation Region 5, Province of Phú Thọ is the Class II city which got the highest
overall merit at 67.4 of all Class II cities.
69. For MCA6 there is no representation for Class I and Class II cities from among the top
25 cities as shown in Table 5.23. Hence, Sông Công (Class IV) of Urbanisation Region
4, Province of Thái Nguyên and Bắc Giang (Class III) of Region 4, Province of Bắc Giang
which got the lowest overall merit (71.3 and 71.2, respectively) of the top 25 will be
rejected to include one city representing Class I and Class II. Cần Thơ (Class I) of
Urbanisation Region 10 has the highest overall merit (64.3) among the Class I cities
based on MCA6 but it is already a VUUP cities. So then the next ranking Class I city is
considered, i.e. Huế of Urbanisation Region 3, Province of Hue is the Class I city which
has the second highest overall merit (59) among the Class I cities. TP. Việt Trì of
Urbanisation Region 5, Province of Phú Thọ is the Class II city which got the highest
overall merit at 66.6 of all Class II cities.
Topography
70. Basically, topography is simply classified as being in a lowland and not (highland and
coastal). Table 17 shows the class and topology of the 96 cities/towns by class. Since
only 25 cities/towns are selected for initial studies, allocation of cities/towns by topography
is stratified. Tables 18 and 19 were prepared to show the allocation of cities/towns by
topology for 25 cities/towns. The closest to the proportion of the actual number of
cities/towns for highland (24%), lowland (45%) and coastal (27%) is shown in Table 19. As
such, rejection of some cities/town which are in the top 25 cities/towns using MCA5-1,
MCA5-2 and MCA6 will be done in order to ensure an equitable allocation of cities/town
with varied topography according to the percentage allocation stated in Table 19.
21/63
Table 17. Class 4 and above Cities/Towns by Topography
Class
Highland
Lowland
Coastal
Total
Percentage
Special Cities
0
2
0
2
2.08
Class I
0
3
1
4
4.17
Class II
2
6
4
12
12.50
Class III
6
11
8
25
26.04
Class IV
16
23
14
53
55.21
Total
24
45
27
96
100.00
25.00
46.88
28.13
100.00
Percentage
Table 18 Percentage Allocation of 25 Cities/Towns for Initial Study
Topography
Figure
Percent (%)
Highland
7
28%
Lowland
12
44%
Low coastal
7
28%
TOTAL
25
100%
Table 19 Percentage Allocation of 25 Cities/Towns
Topography
Figure
Percent (%)
Highland
6
24%
Lowland
13
52%
Low coastal
6
24%
TOTAL
25
100%
MCA5-1
71. From the top 25 cities/towns based on MCA5-1 initial results, there are only 10 highland, 12
lowland and 4 low coastal areas. However, the result of MCA5-1 excluded two lowland towns Hà
Tiên in Urbanisation Region 10, Province of TX. Hà Tiên which has an overall merit of 46.25 and
rank 24 and Hà Đông in Urbanisation Region 1, Province of Hà Tây with an overall merit of 46.10
and rank 25 and included Huế, a low coastal city in Region 3, Province of Hue is the Class I city
which has the second highest overall merit (33.1) among the Class I cities and Biên Hoà (Class
II), a lowland area in the Urbanisation Region 2, province of Đồng Nai which gets the highest
overall merit (42) among Class II cities for MCA5-1. As such, the top 25 cities/towns for MCA5-1
are distributed by topography in Table 20.
72. In accordance with Matrix 11, cities/towns that belong to highland should only be 6 or 24%, 13
or 52% for lowland and 6 or 24% for low coastal. This would mean reducing 4 highland
cities/towns from the initial MCA5-1 results, adding 3 cities/towns to lowland and 1 city/town for
low coastal. The 4 cities/towns with the least overall merit as per MCA5-1 results are Pleiku, Điện
Biên Phủ, Bắc Cạn and Hà Giang. The 3 cities/towns in the lowland area to be added are the 3
cities/town with succeeding high overall merit and rank in the low land (i.e, Can Tho, Mong Cai
and Đồng Xoài). Since Can Tho is already among the 4 VUUP pilot cities, it will excluded and the
city the succeeding ranking will be selected, i.e. Bắc Giang. The low coastal city/town to be
accepted is Sầm Sơn (Class IV) of Urbanisation Region 7, Province of Thanh Hoá with an
overall merit of 45.5.
MCA5-2
73. From the top 25 cities/towns based on MCA5-2 results, there are only 10 highland, 10 lowland
and 5 low coastal areas. The result of MCA5-2 excluded two lowland Gia Nghĩa và huyện Đăk
Klong (Class IV) of Urbanisation Region 9, Province of Đăk Nông with an overall merit of 70.5
and rank 24, and Bắc Cạn (Class IV) of Urbanisation Region 4, Province of Bắc Kạn with an
overall merit of 70.4 rank 25 and included Huế, a low coastal city in Region 3, Province of Hue is
the Class I city which has the second highest overall merit (58.6) among the Class I cities and
Việt Trì of Urbanisation Region 5, Province of Phú Thọ is the Class II city which got the highest
22/63
overall merit at 67.4 of all Class II cities using MCA5-2. As such, the top 25 cities/towns for
MCA5-1 are distributed by topography as follows:
Table 20. Percentage Allocation of 25 Cities/Towns using MCA5-1
Topography
Figure
Percent (%)
Highland
10
40%
Lowland
10
40%
Low coastal
5
20%
TOTAL
25
100%
Table 21 Percentage Allocation of 25 Cities/Towns using MCA5-2
Topography
Figure
Percent (%)
Highland
8
32%
Lowland
11
44%
Low coastal
6
24%
TOTAL
25
100%
Table 22 Percentage Allocation of 25 Cities/Towns using MCA6
Topography
Figure
Percent (%)
Highland
8
32%
Lowland
10
40%
Low coastal
7
28%
TOTAL
40
100%
74. Based on Table 21, cities/towns that belong to highland should only be 6 or 24%, 13 or 52%
for lowland and 6 or 24% for low coastal. As such, 2 highland cities/towns with the least overall
merit and rank will be excluded and 2 lowland cities/towns following will be included. The 2 cities
in the highland area with the least overall merit among the top 25 and to be rejected are Sông
Công (Class IV) of the Province of Thái Nguyên and Pleiku (Class III) of the Province of Gia Lai,
both have an overall merit of 72.1 The 2 cities in the lowland area with the next high overall merit
following the top 25 and to be accepted are Đồng Xoài (Class IV) of the Province of Bình Phước
with an overall merit of 69.8 and Móng Cái (Class IV) of the Province of Quảng Ninh with an
overall merit of 69.2.
MCA6
75. From the top 25 cities/towns based on MCA6 results, there are only 8 highland, 11 lowland
and 6 low coastal areas. The result of MCA6 excluded two lowland towns Hà Tiên in Urbanisation
Region 10, Province of Hà Tiên which has an overall merit of 46.25 and rank 24 and Hà Đông in
Urbanisation Region 1, Province of Hà Tây with an overall merit of 46.10 and rank 25 and
included Huế, a low coastal city in Region 3, Province of Hue is the Class I city which has the
second highest overall merit (58.9) among the Class I cities and Việt Trì of Urbanisation Region
5, Province of Phú Thọ is the Class II city which got the highest overall merit at 66.6 among all
Class II cities using MCA6. As such, the top 25 cities/towns for MCA6 are distributed by
topography are indicated in Table 22.
23/63
)
Table 23. MCA5-1 Results for Second Level Ranking
No
Prioritisation Criteria (Weighting Factors)
City/Town, Class, Province, Region
Overall Merit
Ranking
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
H
H
LC
LC
H
H
H
H
LC
76
76
67
47
34
45
47
58
67
57
59
63
66
79
78
72
67
63
65
80
30
50
70
15
60
25
40
9
0
26
4
4
49
4
25
1
5
3
26
51
10
17
6
18
12
95
74
85
92
96
94
94
97
90
56.8
56.4
53.9
53.8
53.7
52.9
52.8
52.4
52.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
8 Bình Thuận
IV
L
30
68
80
0
12
94
50.5 10
10
10
5
2
8
10
1
10
An Giang
Đồng Tháp
Phú Thọ
Tây Ninh
Bình Thuận
Vĩnh Long
Hưng Yên
Tiền Giang
III
IV
IV
IV
III
IV
IV
IV
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
LC
40
50
38
39
30
42
13
41
63
69
46
55
81
63
61
65
40
20
50
60
30
30
28
35
6
4
64
17
6
2
100
3
49
30
19
18
19
50
32
32
91
93
97
98
97
80
80
82
49.5
48.9
48.8
48.6
48.5
47.1
47.0
46.7
8 Ninh Thuận
III
L
37
68
15
7
39
99
46.4 19
10
7
8
2
3
10
7
7
III
IV
II
II
I
IV
IV
III
LC
LC
LC
L
LC
L
LC
LC
41
31
19
19
23
43
31
67
68
52
70
69
32
47
59
34
33
40
30
25
0
0
65
20
9
12
6
9
9
6
12
32
15
64
27
67
88
11
16
26
80
85
93
52
80
88
74
94
46.0
45.5
42.9
42.0
33.1
35.4
45.4
45.2
6
6
10
3
4
5
9
4
7
Province
10% 100%
Pollution
75
58
60
16
22
83
57
54
10%
63
10%
74
81
42
21
62
89
12
87
15%
Topography: Lowland, Highland, Coastal
65
TX. Lai Châu
TX. Mường Lay
TX. Trà Vinh
TX. Quảng Trị
TX. Sông Công
TX. Nghĩa Lộ
TX. An Khê
TX. Cao Bằng
TX. Hồng Lĩnh
TX. Lagi và
Huyện Hàm Tân
TP. Long Xuyên
TX. Cao Lãnh
TX. Phú Thọ
TX. Tây Ninh
TP. Phan Thiết
TX. Vĩnh Long
TX. Hưng Yên
TX. Gò Công
TX. Phan Rang –
Tháp Chàm
TP. Cà Mau
TX. Sầm Sơn
TP. Nha Trang
TP. Biên Hoà
TP. Huế
TX. Vị Thanh
TX. Bỉm Sơn
TX. Hà Tĩnh
30%
Class
46
47
88
27
35
44
70
34
55
City/Town
MOC-4 Re. Number
25%
Lai Châu
Điện Biên
Trà Vinh
Quảng Trị
Thái Nguyên
Yên Bái
Gia Lai
Cao Bằng
Hà Tĩnh
Cà Mau
Thanh Hoá
Khánh Hoà
Đồng Nai
Huế
Hậu Giang
Thanh Hoá
Hà Tĩnh
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
72
24
25
76. According to the Table 24, cities/towns that belong to highland should only be 6 or 24%, 13 or
52% for lowland and 6 or 24% for low coastal. As such, 2 cities/towns in the highland area and 1
city/town in the coastal area with the least overall merit and rank from the top 25 cities/towns
using MCA6 will be excluded and 3 lowland cities/towns following will be included. The 2
cities/towns in the highland area to be excluded are An Khê and Pleiku of the Province of Gia Lai
with an overall merit of 73.4 and 72.6 respectively as per MCA6 result. The city in the low coastal
area to be rejected is Cà Mau with an overall merit of 71.3 as per MCA6 result. The 3 cities/towns
in the lowland area to be accepted in top 25 for MCA6 are Hưng Yên (Class IV) of Urbanisation
Region 1 with an overall merit of 70.6, Phan Rang-Tháp Chàm (Class III) of Urbanisation Region
24/63
8, Province of Ninh Thuận with an overall merit of 70.4 and Mỹ Tho (Class III) of Urbanisation
Region 8, Province of Tiền Giang with an overall merit of 69.6.
Table 24. MCA5-2 Results for Second Level Ranking
50
50
50
50
50
50
30%
15%
10%
10%
10%
100%
TX. Cao Bằng
4
Cao Bằng
IV
H
87
87
50
75
50
100
77.9
1
45
6
Điện Biên
III
H
100
75
50
75
50
100
77.5
2
27
TX. Quảng Trị
3
Quảng Trị
IV
LC
75
81
70
50
75
100
76.1
3
46
TX. Lai Châu
6
Lai Châu
III
H
100
68
70
50
50
100
75.9
4
44
TX. Nghĩa Lộ
5
Yên Bái
IV
H
75
81
50
100
50
100
75.6
5
87
TX. Gò Công
10 Tiền Giang
IV
LC
75
87
70
50
75
75
75.4
6
81
TX. Cao Lãnh
10 Đồng Tháp
IV
L
75
87
50
50
75
100
74.9
7
41
TX. Hà Giang
5
Hà Giang
IV
H
87
81
50
50
50
100
73.6
8
70
TX. An Khê
9
Gia Lai
IV
H
75
81
70
50
50
100
73.6
9
74
TP. Long Xuyên
10 An Giang
III
L
75
75
65
50
75
100
73.5
10
89
TX. Vĩnh Long
10 Vĩnh Long
IV
L
75
87
70
50
75
50
72.9
11
21
TX. Tây Ninh
2
Tây Ninh
IV
L
75
68
70
75
50
100
72.2
12
88
TX. Trà Vinh
10 Trà Vinh
IV
LC
87
68
65
75
50
75
71.9
13
31
TP. Bắc Giang
4
Bắc Giang
III
L
50
81
65
50
100
100
71.6
14
62
TP. Phan Thiết
TX. Phan Rang-Tháp
Chàm
8
Bình Thuận
III
L
62
87
65
50
50
100
71.4
15
8
Ninh Thuận
III
L
75
75
50
50
75
100
71.3
16
42
TX. Phú Thọ
5
Phú Thọ
IV
L
75
56
70
100
50
100
71.1
17
9
TX. Hà Đông
1
Hà Tây
IV
L
50
68
70
75
100
100
70.9
18
54
TX. Hà Tĩnh
7
Hà Tĩnh
III
LC
75
56
50
75
100
100
70.6
19
75
TP. Cà Mau
10 Cà Mau
III
LC
75
87
70
50
50
50
70.4
20
77
TP. Mỹ Tho
10 Tiền Giang
III
L
75
62
50
50
100
100
69.9
21
22
TP. Huế
3
Huế
I
LC
50
62
50
50
100
50
58.6
22
36
TP. Việt Trì
5
Phú Thọ
II
L
75
62
50
50
75
100
67.4
23
19
TX. Đồng Xoài
2
Bình Phước
IV
L
62
81
50
75
50
100
69.8
24
6
TX. Móng Cái
1
Quảng Ninh
IV
L
75
93
50
50
50
50
69.2
25
83
TX. Vị Thanh
10 Hậu Giang
IV
L
75
62
50
50
50
75
62.4
26
Province
MOC-4 Re. Number
63
Ranking
34
City/Town
Overall Merit
25%
Scale
f) Low in Technical & Social Infrastructure
Investment
75
100
75
100
75
100
c) High Degree of Environmental Pollution
65
70
75
100
75
100
Class
No
Typology
Scoring Scales of Criteria & Weighting Factors
25/63
Vulnerability to natural calamity
77. From 1997 to present, the northeast, central, and the Mekong delta regions have been
vulnerable to natural calamities. The 1997 storm devastated Hai Duong, Son Tay, Hoa Binh, Viet
Ri and Phu Ly. In 1998, more than 6,000 houses were destroyed in Soc Trang, Vi Thanh and My
Tho. In 2003, people were missing, lives and properties were damaged by typhoon Linda in Soc
Trang, Cam Ranh and Phan Thiet Toi. In 2003, Quang Ngai City was damaged by flood and river
overflow while Buong Me Thuot experienced loss of lives and properties. Loss of lives, damage to
roads and landslide were the results of the 2004 flooding in Cao Bang. The typhoon Damrey
affected Mong Cai, Thai Binh and Ninh Binh in 2005. Thai Binh was again affected by typhoon
Xang Sane in 2006.
100
100
100
H
H
L
LC
L
L
L
LC
L
H
100
87
75
75
50
62
75
50
50
87
75
87
87
87
87
87
62
87
68
56
50
50
50
70
70
65
50
70
50
50
75
75
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
75
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
100
100
50
50
100
100
100
100
50
84.2
77.4
75.0
71.8
71.7
71.1
70.2
69.3
68.1
68.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ranking
III
IV
IV
III
III
III
III
IV
III
IV
Overall Merit
Điện Biên
Cao Bằng
Đồng Tháp
Cà Mau
Hải Dương
Bình Thuận
Tiền Giang
Khánh Hoà
Thái Bình
Hoà Bình
City/Town
6
4
10
10
1
8
10
8
1
6
MOC-4 Re. Number
TX. Cao Bằng
TX. Cao Lãnh
TP. Cà Mau
TP. Hải Dương
TP. Phan Thiết
TP. Mỹ Tho
TX. Cam Ranh
TP. Thái Bình
TX. Hoà Bình
Scale
70
100
45
34
81
75
4
62
77
64
5
48
50
Densities
75
100
75
Pollution
50
75
Deficiencies
50
65
50
75
50
75
Class
50
Province
Scoring Scales of Criteria
No
Typology
Table 25 MCA6 Results for Second Level Ranking
6
TX. Móng Cái
1
Quảng Ninh
IV
L
75
93
50
50
50
50
67.5
11
36
25
72
86
83
16
13
8
66
22
10
TP. Việt Trì
TP. Quảng Ngãi
TX. Kon Tum
TX. Sóc Trăng
TX. Vị Thanh
TP. Biên Hoà
TX. Ninh Bình
TX. Phủ Lý
TP. Huế
TX. Sơn Tây
5
3
9
10
10
2
1
1
9
3
1
II
III
IV
IV
IV
II
IV
IV
II
I
IV
L
LC
H
LC
L
L
L
L
H
LC
L
75
62
75
62
75
50
50
62
62
50
50
62
68
75
62
62
75
56
62
68
62
68
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
70
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
100
50
50
50
50
75
100
50
75
50
100
75
75
50
100
50
100
75
50
100
75
50
50
50
75
50
75
66.6
66.6
65.0
63.6
63.1
62.7
62.7
61.7
60.6
59.0
58.9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
18
32
23
TP. Lạng Sơn
TP. Đồng Hới
2
4
3
Phú Thọ
Quảng Ngãi
Kon Tum
Sóc Trăng
Hậu Giang
Đồng Nai
Ninh Bình
Hà Nam
Đắc Lăk
Huế
Hà Tây
Bình
Dương
Lạng Sơn
Quảng Bình
IV
III
III
L
H
LC
50
62
62
68
56
62
50
50
50
50
50
50
75
50
50
50
75
50
58.1
57.6
57.3
23
24
25
26/63
78. For MCA6 in Table 25, this criterion allows the cities/towns recorded to have devastated by
strong typhoons, flood and other calamities to be accepted in the 25 selected cities/towns for the
initial study (period 2006-2020) as follows:
1) Vi Thanh Town (Class IV)
2) Cao Lãnh (Class IV)
3) Phan Thiết (Class III)
4) Mỹ Tho (Class III)
5) Cam Ranh (Class I)
6) Thái Bình (Class III)
7) Hoà Bình (Class III)
8) Móng Cái (Class IV)
9) Quảng Ngãi (Class III)
10) Kon Tum (Class IV)
11) Sóc Trăng (Class IV)
12) Biên Hoà (Class II)
13) Ninh Bình (Class IV)
14) Phủ Lý (Class IV)
15) Buôn Ma Thuột (Class II)
16) Sơn Tây (Class IV)
17) Thủ Dầu Một (Class IV)
18) Lạng Sơn (Class III)
19) Đồng Hới (Class III)
Willingness to participate
79. Willingness to participate in NUUP was raised in the discussion to be one of the criteria for
selecting 25 cities/towns. This criterion for second level of ranking is highly subjective. To
rationalize the weighting factor for this criterion would mean to get the response from the
concerned local authority with regards to their willingness to participate in NUUP. One indicative
basis could be the response of the representatives from the local authorities who responded to
the questionnaire distributed during the first National Workshop for NUUP. Hence, the general
consideration is that all the cities/towns are willing to participate in NUUP, unless otherwise a
representative from the local authority explicitly said no or not willing.
80. The response of the concerned cities/towns officials on the surveys conducted for NUUP,
attendance and participation of local authorities to the first National Workshop indicates
willingness to participate in NUUP. Thus, all cities/towns have equal weights for this criterion.
3.9
Results of Second Ranking
81. Apart from the technical consideration, consultation with the civil society and the private
sector becomes an integral part of the MCA process. Both technical assessment and participant
assessment methods were used in parallel to achieve a consensus MCA analysis. Participant
assessment exercises involved the various stakeholders represented by the national agencies,
provincial and local authorities, NGOs, academe, financing institution/donor institutions in
identifying the technical and non-technical criteria. A combination of statistical analysis, technical
researches and workshop discussions were exhausted to identify appropriate indicators and
criteria for MCA in order to select the 25 cities/towns.
82. Given the technical data deficiencies at the local (city/town) level, non-technical criteria were
also used in addition to the agreed acceptable technical criteria such as the high level of poverty,
significant infrastructure deficiencies, high degree of environmental pollution, high rate of
urbanisation, areas with high population densities, low in technical and social infrastructure
investment. Thus, the technical assessment as shown in MCA5-1 (Table 21) MCA5-2 (Table 22)
required a second level of screening using non-technical indicators considering the results of the
workshops discussion in order to ensure geographical spread in order to capture the assessment
of the participants who are important stakeholders in this planning exercise, current government
urbanisation/economic zoning policy and be in accord with the need of upgrading investment of
cities/towns..
83. The two-day brainstorming activities among the international and local consultants, advisors,
and PMU-MOC took place to reconcile the technical indicators and results of the participants’
assessment of the indicators and criteria for MCA. Many indicators proposed by the participants
were not available for all 96 cities/towns. Other indicators cited by the participants were not
relevant and meaningless for urban upgrading such as: level of accessibility of transportation,
rate or number of universities/colleges/vocational training schools, number of cemeteries, among
others. The final MCA6 applied the refined criteria and indicators mentioned in the first level of
screening and the non-technical indicators for the second level of screening including other
indicators such as sub-urbanisation region, class of cities/towns, topography and willingness to
participate.
84. Taking into account the availability and relevance of the agreed indicators and criteria, MCA
was run for the sixth time herein referred to as MCA6. MCA6 superseded the results of MCA5
27/63
which were processed using 2 iterations (MCA5-1 in Table 21 and MCA5-2 in Table 22). MCA6
results in Table 25 show the rating, overall merit and ranking and final list of selected 25
cities/towns as follows:
1) TP. Điện Biên Phủ
2) TX. Cao Bằng
3) TX. Cao Lãnh
4) TP. Cà Mau
5) TP. Hải Dương
6) TP. Phan Thiết
7) TP. Mỹ Tho
8) TX. Cam Ranh
9) TP. Thái Bình
10) TX. Hoà Bình
11) TX. Móng Cái
12) TP. Việt Trì
13) TP. Quảng Ngãi
14) TX. Kon Tum
15) TX. Sóc Trăng
16) TX. Vị Thanh
17) TP. Biên Hoà
18) TX. Ninh Bình
19) TX. Phủ Lý
20) TP. Buôn Ma Thuột
21) TP. Huế
22) TX. Sơn Tây
23) TX. Thủ Dầu Một
24) TP. Lạng Sơn
25) TP. Đồng Hới
85. Table 26 shows the class, geographical area, province and typical characteristics of the
selected 25 cities/towns for the initial NUUP study. Of the 25 cities/towns selected for the initial
study, 5 cities/towns (20%) are from the Red River Delta Region, another 5 (20%) are from the
Mekong Delta Region, 4 cities. Towns (16%) are from Mekong River Delta, 3 cities/towns (12%)
are from the central region and the remaining regions have 2 representative cities/towns in this
initial study (Table 27).
86. As shown in Table 28, the number of cities/towns selected for each Class is approximately
20%, except for Class III cities/towns, mainly provincial cities/towns under the development
process with a lot of issues, which accounts for 42%. Table 29 depicts the number of cities/towns
selected by topography selected for the initial study. There are 14 lowland cities/towns (56%), 7
highland cities/towns (28%) and 4 low coastal cities/towns (16%). Annex 1 shows the tabulated
MCA analysis of MCA 5-1, 5-2 and 6.
28/63
Table 26
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Selected 25 Cities/Towns for Initial NUUP Study (to be continued)
Geographical
Cities/Towns Class
Province Typical characteristics
area
Dien Bien city III
Northwest
Dien
Provincial city close to the northwest
Bien
border, which is internationally known for
the Dien Bien Phu Battle. Vietnam’s
decisive engagement in the first of the
Indochina wars (1946-54) that marked the
end of French involvement in Southeast
Asia
Hoa Binh
III
Northwest
Hoa
Provincial capital in the northwest
town
Binh
mountainous area with the Hoa Binh
Hydroelectricity Station; many LIAs where
resided by the old work force of the
hydroelectrical station.
Mong Cai
IV
Northeast
Quang
Border gate town in a focused economic
town
Ninh
zone and coastal area. Also known as the
“market city” having five big markets
located in the city center. With the highest
volume of trade among the border gates of
Vietnam-China.
Cao Bang
IV
Northeast
Cao
Provincial capital in the northwest border
town
Bang
area with many politically famous spots.
home to many people belonging to Home
to Vietnam's ethnic minority groups, most
notable of these are the Tay, Nung, Dao,
and Hmong.
Lang Son city III
Northeast
Lạng
Provincial city in the northwest border
Son
area, an important border gate with China.
Viet Tri city
II
Northeast
Phu Tho Provincial city with the historical spots of
Midland
the formation of the country and a number
of factories built since 1960s, causing
environmental pollution.
Phu Ly town
IV
The Red river Ha Nam
Provincial capital in the Red river delta
Delta
with a high population density and many
LIAs.
Ninh Binh
IV
The Red river Ninh
Provincial capital close to the ecological
town
Delta
Binh
tourism area of Trang An.
Son Tay town IV
The Red river Ha Tay
Provincial town with a lot of historicDelta
cultural heritage; a developing town.
Hai Duong
III
The Red river Hai
Provincial capital in the Red river delta
city
Delta
Duong
with many new developing industrial
zones; and market centre for a rich ricegrowing region; one of the most densely
populated cities.
Thai Binh city III
Red river
Thai
Provincial city in the Red river delta with a
Delta
Binh
dense population.
Dong Hoi city III
Red river
Quang
Provincial capital with many LIA’s being
Delta
Binh
covered by the urban development
strategy financed by Switzerland.
Quang Ngai
III
Central
Quang
Provincial capital in the coastal area; a
city
Ngai
developing town.
29/63
Table 26
No.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Selected 25 Cities/Towns for Initial NUUP Study (continuation)
Geographical
Cities/Towns Class
Province
Typical characteristics
area
Hue city
I
Central
Thua
Provincial city, the old capital which has
Thien
been recognized as the World Cultural
Hue
Heritage by UNESCO, with squatters
living in floating slums on the Huong river.
Phan Thiet
III
South central Binh
Provincial capital on the coastal area with
town
Thuan
many LIAs a long the coast and the river.
Cam Ranh
IV
South central Khanh
A fast developing town, host to one of the
town
Hoa
finest seaports in the world. The
continental shelf of Southeast Asia is
relatively narrow at Cam Ranh Bay;
forming many LIAs; with an international
airport.
Buon Ma
II
Highland
Dac Lac Provincial city; a fast developing city,
Thuot city
tourist attraction for natural surroundings;
forming many LIAs.
Kon Tum
IV
Highland
Kon Tum Provincial capital in the marginal area of
town
the Highland with a number of
unregistered populations near the Yaly
Hydroelectrity Station; a traditional trading
centre for hides, horses, and sesame, and
it ranks with Pleiku as one of the two most
important highland.
Thu Dau Mot
IV
Southeast
Binh
Provincial capital; many new industrial
town
Duong
zones where formed; with highest number
of schizophrenics in the Eastern
Hemisphere due to high levels of arsenic
in their water supplies (eastern medical
journal, 2001, A & C black publishers);
many areas of slums.
Bien Hoa city
II
Southeast
Dong
Provincial capital; many new industrial
Nai
zones where formed many LIAs.
Cao Lanh
IV
Mekong river Dong
Provincial capital where frequently
town
Delta
Thap
inundated; reflects 100 years of French
colonialism in architecture and civil
engineering; many LIAs.
Soc Trang
IV
Mekong river Soc
Provincial capital where the majority of the
town
Delta
Trang
Khmer reside; many LIAs.
Vi Thanh
IV
Mekong river Hau
Newly formed provincial capital; frequently
town
Delta
Giang
flooded; many LIAs.
My Tho city
III
Mekong river Tien
Provincial city with a long history of
Delta
Giang
development; starting point for tourists to
take a boat trip on the Mekong; many
LIAs.
Provincial city in the far southern pole of
Ca Mau city
III
Mekong river
Ca Mau
the country; characterized by its system
Delta
of transport canals and most goods are
transported here by boats and barges;
many LIAs.
30/63
Table 27 Number and Percentage Allocation of Selected 25 Cities/Towns by Geographical Areas
Number of Cities/
Geographical Areas
Percentage to Total
Towns Selected
Northwest
2
8
Northeast
4
16
Red River Delta
5
20
Central
3
12
South Central
2
8
South East
2
8
High Land
2
8
Mekong River Delta
5
20
Total
25
100%
Table 28 Number and Percentage Allocation of Selected 25 Cities/Towns by Classes
Number of selected
Class
Total
Percentage (%)
cities/towns
Special Class and Class I
5
1
20.00%
Class II
13
3
23.00%
Class III
24
10
42.00%
Class IV
54
11
20.40%
TOTAL
25
100.00%
Table 29 Number and Percentage Allocation of Selected Cities/Towns by Topography
Topography
Figure
Percent (%)
Highland
7
28%
Lowland
14
56%
Low coastal
4
16%
TOTAL
40
100%
4.0
Identification of 8 Priority Cities and Towns for Detailed Evaluation
4.1
Background
87. Section 3 of MOC TOR mentions the third methodology for carrying out the main part of the
study as follows:
iii)
From this selected list of about 20 a shortlist of priority towns (5 to 7) will be chosen for more
detailed LIA participatory mapping, data collection, information on infrastructure
standards/service levels, other requirements, costing information etc. These may be grouped
geographically and are likely to be candidates for the next urban upgrading project(s).
88. In a meeting that transpired during the first Interim period, it was agreed that 25 cities/towns
will be selected for the initial survey instead of 20 cities/towns only from which the 8 cities and
towns referred to in the TOR will be selected. The consultants undertook a selection process of
the 25 cities/towns as presented in Section 5 of Interim Report I. More detailed data on the 25
cities/towns, particularly at the ward level, were obtained by MOC4 and sent to MOC3 for analysis
and interpretation. Based on the results of the survey conducted by MOC4 for the selected 25
cities/towns, the consultants reviewed the extent and quality of data gathered to identify the
simplified criteria and indicators to be used in the selection of 8 cities/towns for detailed studies.
4.2
Methodology and Stratification of Selection
89. As such, the selection of 8 cities/towns takes into consideration topographic factors, suburbanisation regions and class of cities/towns. Section 5 of Interim I Report discussed in details
the simplified criteria and indicators as well as the methodology employed to select the 25
cities/towns taking into consideration the class of cities/towns, sub-urbanisation region, topology
and vulnerability to natural calamities. A two-level screening process using Multi-Criteria Analysis
(MCA) as a tool was employed in order to ensure representation among the different topologies,
regional location and classes of cities/towns. While the Orientation Master Plan remains in effect
until its revision is approved, classification of urban administrative areas and sub-urbanisations
31/63
region remains in effect and a mandated basis for urban development planning, urban upgrading
included.
90. As of 31 December 2005, there are 29 cities under provinces and 43 urban districts in
Vietnam. Of these 29 cities under provinces, 8 cities comprised of Hai Duong, Thai Binh, Lang
Son, Dien Bien Phu, Hue, Quang Ngai, Buon Ma Thuot and Ca Mau are included in the selected
25 cities/towns for initial study.
91. Table 30 shows the distribution of 96 cities/towns by topology and class, of which 48 are in
the lowland, 24 in the low coastal and 24 in the highland. Table 31, on the other hand, reflects the
distribution of 25 cities/towns by topographic factors and class, wherein 6 are highland, 14 are
lowland and 5 are coastal cities/towns. Table 32 lists the distribution of the 96 cities/towns (Class
IV) and above by urbanisation region and topology while Table 33 shows corresponding
distribution of the selected 25 cities/towns by urbanisation region and topology.
92. Table 33 refers to the distribution of 96 cities/towns (Class IV and above) selected 25
cities/towns by urbanisation regions and class.
Table 30 Distribution of 96 Cities/Towns by Topology and Class (as of May 2007)
Topographic Factors
Special Cases
Class 1
Class 2
Highland
Lowland
2
Low coastal
Total
2
Class 3
2
8
Class 4
Total
14
24
3
7
17
16
45
1
4
9
13
27
4
13
34
43
96
Table 31 Distribution of 25 Cities/Towns by Topology and Class (as of May 2007)
Topographic Factors
Special Cases
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Total
Highland
None
1
4
1
6
Lowland
None
2
9
1
14
Low coastal
None
4
1
5
17
3
25
1
Total
1
4
Table 32 Distribution of 96 Cities/Towns by Urbanisation Region and Topology
1
Special Cases
1
2
1
2
3
4
Total
1
2
8
5
17
-
2
2
2
6
3
3
0
4
2
8
4
-
1
3
3
7
5
-
1
3
4
8
6
-
0
3
4
7
7
-
2
1
4
7
8
-
2
3
2
7
-
2
2
4
8
10
9
1
1
1
5
13
21
Total
2
4
13
34
43
96
32/63
Table 33 Distribution of 25 Cities/Towns by Urbanisation Region and Class (as of May 2007)
Class 1
Class 2
1
6
2
3
Class 3
1
1
0
1
1
Total
6
2
2
4
5
Class 4
3
1
1
2
1
6
2
8
1
2
1
2
9
1
1
10
1
3
1
5
4
17
3
25
Total
1
2
93. Table 34 shows distribution of the 96 cities/towns (Class IV and above) by urbanisation region
and topology while Table 35 reflects the distribution of 25 cities/towns by class.
Urbanisation
Total Cities Highland Lowland Coastal
Regions
2
2
1
15
12
3
2
7
7
3
8
1
1
6
4
7
3
4
5
9
5
4
6
7
7
7
7
3
4
8
7
4
3
9
8
8
10
19
11
8
Total
96
24
48
24
Urbanisation
Total Cities Highland Lowland Coastal
Regions
1
6
6
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
2
2
5
1
1
6
2
2
8
2
1
1
9
2
2
10
5
3
2
Total
25
6
13
6
94. By ratio and proportion, selection of 8 cities/towns area will be stratified in accordance with
the distribution on 96 cities/towns Class IV and above and the selected 25 cities/towns. Refer to
Tables 36 to 38 which reflect the distribution of the cities/towns to be selected for LIAs. This
stratification process simplifies the selection procedure and ensures that the varied
characteristics of cities/towns and urban areas are represented. Some 7 priority cities/towns from
the initially selected 25 cities/towns will be shortlisted for inclusion in the detailed LIA participatory
mapping and data collection. The cities/towns which usually occur in the stratification process and
those which have big ward areas, ward population and number of ward households are marked
and compared.
33/63
Table 36 Distribution of Cities/Towns by Class of 96 Cities/Towns, 25 Cities/Towns and 7
Cities/Towns (Class IV and above) of 25 Cities/Towns, 1995, 2000 and 2005 (as of May 2007)
96
Cities/Towns
25
Cities/Towns
7 out of 11
Cities/Towns
Class 1
4
1
1
Class 2
12
4
1
Class 3
26+6=32
10+7=17
3+1=4
Class 4
Special
Cities
52-9=43
11-8=3
3-1=2
2
-
-
Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh
96
25
7
Hue, Buon Ma Thuot, Ca Mau, Soc
Trang, Thai Binh, Phan Thiet, Cam
Ranh and Kon Tum
Class
Total
Stratified Cities/Towns
Hue
Buon Ma Thuot, Bien Hoa, Viet Tri, My
Tho
Ca Mau, Soc Trang, Thai Binh, Phan
Thiet, Ninh Binh, Kon Tum, Son Tay,
Quang Ngai, Hai Duong, Cao Lanh,
Dien Bien Phu, Dong Hoi, Mong Cai,
Lang Son Hoa Binh, Phu Ly and Thu
Dau Muot
Cam Ranh, Vi Thanh, Cao Bang,
Notes: Between March to July 2007, 5 Class 4 cities/towns were upgraded to Class 3, subject to Decree 72/2001. This would
have some implications on the number of cities/towns to represent Class 3 and Class 4.
Table 37 Distribution of Cities/Towns by Topographic Factor of 96 Cities/Towns, 25
Cities/Towns and 8 Cities/Towns (Class IV and above)
Topology
96
Cities/Towns
25
Cities/Towns
7 out of 11
Cities/Towns
Highland
24
6
2
Lowland
48
13
4
Low coastal
24
6
1
Cam Ranh, Hue, Ca Mau ,Quang
Ngai, Dong Hoi and Soc Trang
Special
Cities
2
-
-
Total
96
25
7
Buon Ma Thuot, Kon Tum, Viet Tri,
Bien Hoa, Thai Binh, Vi Thanh and
Cam Ranh
Buon Ma Thuot, Kon Tum, Cao Bang,
Dien Bien Phu, Lang Son and Hoa
Binh
Viet Tri, Bien Hoa, Thai Binh, Vi
Thanh, Phan Thiet, Phu Ly, Hai
Duong, My Tho, Son Tay, Mong Cai,
Ninh Binh, Thu Dau Mot and Cao
Lanh
34/63
Table 38 Distribution of Cities/Towns by Sub-Urbanisation Region of 96 Cities/Towns, 25
Cities/Towns and 8 Cities/Towns (Class IV and above) of 25 Cities/Towns, 1995, 2000 and 2005
Urbanisation
Region
96
Cities/Towns
25
Cities/Towns
7 out of 11
Cities/Towns
15
6
2
2
7
2
1
Thai Binh, Ninh Binh, Son Tay, Phu
Ly, Hai Duong, and Mong Cai
Bien Hoa and Thu Dau Mot
3
8
3
1
Hue, Quang Ngai and Dong Hoi
4
7
2
1
Cao Bang and Lang Son
5
9
1
1
Viet Tri
6
7
2
1
Dien Bien Phu and Hoa Binh
7
7
-
-
none
8
7
2
1
Cam Ranh and Phan Thiet
9
8
2
1
10
19
5
2
Buon Ma Thuot and Kon Tum
Ca Mau, Soc Trang, Vi Thanh, My Tho
and Cao Lanh
Special
Cities
2
-
-
1
Total
96
25
11
Thai Binh, Ninh Binh, Bien Hoa,
Hue, Cao Bang, Vie Tri, Dien Bien
Phu, Cam Ranh, Buon Ma Thuot, Ca
Mau and Soc Trang
Notes: There are 11 highest ranking cities/towns by urbanisation region in the list. Based on the ranking method by overall merit,
the 7 highest ranking cities can be taken from the 11 cities/towns listed in Table 5.7.
4.3
Definition of Simplified Criteria and Indicators for Selecting 8 Cities/Towns
95. In order to rationalise the selection process of 8 cities/towns, MOC3 subject the 25
cities/towns to a simplified MCA as confirmed by the result of the Workshop discussions
combining technical assessment with participants’ assessment of the criteria and indicators.
Thorough scrutiny of data obtained, processed and analysed led MOC3 to conclude that the 7
criteria with 18 indicators used in the analysis are sufficient basis for ranking the 25 cities/towns in
order to assist PMU in selecting the 8 cities/towns for LIAs.
96. Despite of the country’s fast economic growth, poverty remains high with about one-third of
the population living below the poverty line in 2000. Poverty alleviation in urban areas is one of
the core objectives of the VUUP. TOR noted that a majority of the poor work in the informal sector
and many are unregistered migrants to the cities and towns. They generally live in areas where
infrastructure is poor and access to municipal services and utilities limited. The Project is
expected to have a positive impact by improving the living conditions in low-income areas.
Therefore, the level of poverty in cities and towns was regarded as the main prioritisation criteria
for the upcoming Urban Upgrading projects, thus, a relatively higher weight at 25% is placed. The
indicators used are the number of households4 living below the MOLISA5 the poverty line which is
set at VND260,000 per month.
Housing
97. Another criterion distinguished in this process is the housing aspect which relates to the three
components of urban upgrading (i.e., Component 3–Resettlement Housing; Component 4–Land
and Housing Management System; and Component 5–Housing Improvement Loans Program).
For housing criterion (10%), the four indicators which share equal weights are:
4
2004 Household Living Standard Survey, General Statistics Office (GSO)
As per Decision No. 170/2005/QD-TTg of MOLISA dated 8 July 2005 issued by the Prime Minister, the poverty line standard
applied for period 2006-2010 is 260,000 VND per person per month in urban area (200,000 VND per person per month in rural
area).
5
35/63
Average housing floor area
Number of temporary and class IV housing
Number of households in unsafe areas (landslide, flooded areas) in wards
Number of houses to be removed due to construction, infrastructure projects and urban
development in ward areas
Significant Infrastructure Deficiencies
98. Poor areas are generally found to have deficient infrastructure, low density of roads, low
number of water supply connections, underprovided drainage system, inadequate social
infrastructure such as classrooms, etc. According to the sub-project “Formulation of Policies for
Urban Upgrading Final Report” (January 2004), there were poor areas with no connection to
basic infrastructure such as water supply, drainage system and no access to good quality roads.
The report likewise cited basic infrastructures (sewer, drain, water supply networks, treatment and
roads as indicators for determining the poor households and urban poor areas). As such, high
priority is given to cities/towns which have significant infrastructure deficiencies. This means that
the poorer infrastructure or the greater deficiency, the higher the ranking the city/town gets for this
criterion.
99. For infrastructure deficiencies, the indicators used are:
Length of earth/macadam road (km2)
Number of households with water supply
Drainage pipes density (km/km2)
High Degree of Environmental Pollution
100. As a general rule the rapid growth of Vietnam’s urban population is inherent to development
of low-income areas where infrastructure and utility service investments are lagging behind
demand. The newly developed urban areas lack formal planning, often encroaching on canals
and rivers, thereby generating high levels of pollution in adjacent waterways. These areas lack
utilities and services, most houses do not have septic tanks and flooding occurs often due to
inadequate drainage. Sanitation is usually poor, with toilets discharging directly in watercourses.
The poorest families tend to live directly along or on top of these noxious watercourses. Solid
wastes are often uncollected. As a result the residents are living in poor environmental conditions
and undergo health hazards. Available environmental reports have limited information on the
extent of waste water and solid waste treatment to mitigate the negative effects on the
environment. Hence, only three indicators are used as follows:
Areas with constant stagnant waste water (ha)
Volume of uncollected waste (ton/day)
Number of households without septic tanks
101. Although the most recent statistics show that Vietnam has the lowest level of urbanisation in
East Asia with only 23.68% of the population living in the urban areas, it is anticipates that it will
reach 33% by 2010 due to mechanisation of agriculture and higher incomes available in the
urban areas. This is likely to bolster migration of the poor to urban areas increasing pressure on
existing low-income areas as well as on land. As mentioned in the previous reports, the
commonly referred to as urban areas in Vietnam as legally defined in Decree 72/2001/ND-CP are
actually not fully urbanised in terms of land attributes and pertinent infrastructure. The survey of
25 cities/towns shows that ward areas represent not more than 40% of the total land area and
more than 60% comprise commune area which are characterised by paddy fields and rural
attributes.
102. Urbanisation per se is defined as the proportion of population living in urban areas of
cities/towns. Hence, the rate of urbanisation is referred to the change (increase/decrease) in the
proportion of people living in towns and cities. As discussed in Chapter 2, the definition of urban
area in the Vietnamese context refers to the total area of the administrative boundary of a
city/town which includes both wards and communes. Agreeing that communes are highly rural,
only data of wards are included in the analysis. Understanding that extent ward population
36/63
increase in the selected 25 cities/towns were not generally due to simple birth and migration
factors but also attributed to the increase in the size (area) of wards as a result of annexation of
districts, wards and communes, the level of urbanisation is measured by correlating ward
population change with ward area change from 2000 and 2005. Hence, the 25 cities/towns were
rated based on the formula that clearly indicate the impact of population increase on urbanisation
not as a matter of inclusion of some wards or conversion of communes to wards that result in
ward area increase thus increasing the population.
103. For urbanisation criterion, the rate of urbanisation or magnitude of the change
(increase/decrease) in ward population and ward areas are measured using the following
indicators:
Average annual ward area growth rate (2000-2005)
Average annual ward population growth rate (2000-2005)
= 1 + ward population change (2000-2005)
1 + ward area change (2000-2005)
Areas with High Population Density
104. City/town population density indicates the concentration of the total city/town population over
the total area of the city/town. It is measured in terms of the number of persons per given area,
particularly in ward areas of the cities/towns. High population density is an indicator of likely lowincome area where urban upgrading is needed. Deeper probing has shown low-income areas are
spread all over the cities/towns. Since urban upgrading is only concerned with urban areas,
commune population and commune areas are not considered in the analysis. Hence, the
indicator refers to the concentration population of ward population over the total ward area (i.e.,
ward population divided by ward areas is applied) as shown in the following formula:
= ward population (2005)
ward area in km2 (2005)
= ward population density (persons/km2) for 2005
Low in Technical and Social Infrastructure Investment
105. The very objective of the VUUP is to upgrade tertiary infrastructure to improve the living
conditions of the urban poor and alleviate poverty in urban areas. Low technical and social
infrastructure investment results in significant infrastructure deficiencies. Since areas with
infrastructure deficiencies were not expected to receive many other related investment projects,
infrastructure deficiencies was one of the core criteria for prioritisation and selection of cities and
towns for further investigations which was already used in the first MCA. In order to reflect the
overall level of development of urban infrastructure (i.e. roads, drainage, water supply,
sewerage), the selection process applies another criterion in terms of the extent of urban
upgrading project funded by ODA and total investment per capita for 5 years measured in terms
two indicators as follows:
ODA Investment (US$M)
Total Investment (VNDM /capita for 5 years, 2000-2005)
106. These indicators are used to rate the 25 cities/towns in accordance with the amount of
investments on technical and infrastructure from all sources in order to ensure that funds for
investment are equitably distributed. Cities/towns with high amount of investment in technical and
social infrastructure per capita for the past five years (VND millions/population at 2000-2004)
would have low rank.
4.4
Methodological Options of Multi-Criteria Analysis and Ranking Process
107. The simplified criteria include high level of poverty, housing deficiency, significant
infrastructure deficiencies, high level of urbanisation rate (ward area and population growth rate),
high degree of environmental pollution, high rate of urbanisation, and areas with high population
density, low infrastructure investment. These 7 criteria were operationalised by different
indicators, weights, and scaling and ranking processes. Data referring/relating to the ward
37/63
population and ward areas being associated with urban areas are analysed and interpreted to
rationalise the selection process.
Option 1
108. Option 1 refers to the MCA process employing 7 criteria and 18 indicators at its real value
based on the initial survey conducted for 25 cities/towns (Table 37). The weight factor was based
on the feedback gathered from the various stakeholders during the first NUUP National
Workshop. It may be noted that the indicators were taken into account on its real value as it
relates to the criteria cited.
109. This option only uses 1 indicator for high level of poverty which is measured in terms of the
number of poor households accounting for a total of 25% of the total weight factor for all criteria.
This simply measures the extent of poor households and ranks the cities/towns based on the
number of households living below the poverty threshold as per MOLISA standard. It must be
noted that Option 1 takes into account housing deficiency as an additional criterion which is not
elaborated on the previous MCA for the selection of 25 cities/towns for initial study. The
indicators for housing are comprised of the average housing floor area per capita, number of
households in unsafe areas (landslide/flooded areas), number of temporary and class 4 housing
units, number of houses to be affected by proposed infrastructure projects and urban
development.
110. This option also has 3 additional indicators for environmental criterion (i.e., areas with
constant stagnant water, volume of uncollected solid waste and households without septic tanks).
Additional modification is the inclusion of changes in the land use from agricultural use to urban
use as additional indicator for high degree of urbanisation besides the change in urban
population. High degree of urbanisation in this option is seen as a factor in terms of conversion of
communes to ward areas and changes of urban population as a result of natural birth and
movement of people.
111. It must be noted that the figures in Option 1 were the real value of the statistical data.
Option 1 looks into the individual merit in terms of the number not rate nor percentage (e.g.,
number of poor households is used not the percentage of households which are poor).
112. Stratification process in this option is based on class, topology and urbanisation region.
113. As per Table 36, the number of cities/towns to represent by Class should be:
•
•
•
•
at least 1 city/town represent Class I;
at least 1 city/town represent Class II;
at least 3 cities/towns for Class III; and
at least 2 cities/towns for Class IV
38/63
Table 39 Selection Criteria and Weighting Factors for Option 1
Proposed
Criteria
Weight
Indicators and Method of Calculation
Factor
1) High Level of Poverty
25%
• Number of poor households (100%)
• Average housing floor area (m2) (25%)
• Number of Temporary and Class IV housing
• Number of houses in unsafe areas
2) Housing Deficiency
10%
(landslide/flooded areas) of wards (25%)
• Number of houses removed due to construction of
infrastructure projects and urban planning in ward
area (25%)
• Road density (km/km2) (30%)
• Number of households without water supply (20%)
3)
25%
Deficiencies
• Number of students per classroom (Primary, Lower
Secondary and Upper Secondary Schools) (15%)
• Areas with constant stagnant waste water (ha)
(25%)
High Degree of
4)
10%
• Volume of uncollected waste (ton/day) (50%)
• Households without septic tanks (25%)
• Average Annual Ward Area Growth Rate (20002005) over
5) High Rate of Urbanisation
10%
Average Annual Population Growth Rate (20002005)
Areas with High Population
6)
10%
• Ward population density (100%)
Densities
• ODA Investment (US$M) (50%)
Low Infrastructure
7)
10%
• Total Investment (VnDM/capita for 5 years, 2000Investment
2005) (50%)
Total
100%
Option 2
114. Based on Vietnam Household Living Standard Survey (VHSS) through which the General
Statistics Office collected on household consumption expenditure and income in 1993, 1998 and
2002, poverty mapping showing incidence and depth of poverty associated with geography
revealed that poor areas were well-served by infrastructure (i.e., fewer roads, fewer electricity
connection, and more fragile links to the rest of the country, etc.).6 This study likewise showed
that more than half of the total ethnic minority population lives in the northern uplands and
Mekong Delta. Ethnicity map and poverty map provided a striking visual evidence of the
association between being an ethnic minority and being poor. World Bank estimates showed that
by 2010, 19 percent of the total population may still live in poverty and that 42 percent of which
may be from ethnic minority groups. Figure 1 shows the maps elevation and transportation
infrastructure and density of poverty depicting that poverty is also deeper in the highland and river
delta region.
115. As such, Option 1 has been modified resulting into the formulation of Option 2 which has 7
criteria and 20 indicators. This option also puts into consideration the ethnic population in the
poverty criterion and adds the length of earth and macadam road (>6m width and 2.5-6m width)
into significant infrastructure deficiencies criterion.
6
Background paper for the PAC Conference, 24-26 November 2004 presented by Rob Swinkels and Carrie Turk, World Bank,
Vietnam.
39/63
116. Another significant feature of Option 2 is that population density is ranked in relation to its
meeting the standard set in Decree 72/2002 (i.e., 12,000 persons/km2 for Class I, 12,000
persons/km2 for Class II, 10,000 persons/km2 for Class III and 8,000 persons/km2 for Class IV).
117. The weighting factors were also modified giving higher weight on 3 criteria (i.e., high degree
of environmental pollution, infrastructure deficiencies and low infrastructure investment) and
reducing the weight factor of high level of poverty by 15% (i.e., from 25% to 10%) to increase the
weight factor of the 3 criteria by 5% each. (Table 40)
118. What makes Option 2 significantly different from Option 1 lies on its ethnic and
environmental sensitivity and responsiveness to cities/towns with high infrastructure deficiencies,
less ODA and less investment per capita, sensitivity to government policy and legal mandate on
factors for classifying urban centres, particularly on population density, and having more
indicators as basis for decision-making.
119. Similar to the second level of screening for Option 1, Option 2 employs the following terms:
By Class:
•
•
•
•
at least 1 city/town represent Class I;
at least 1 city/town represent Class II;
at least 3 cities/towns for Class III; and
at least 2 cities/towns for Class IV
40/63
By Topology
•
at least 2 cities/towns per topology (highland, lowland and coastal)
120. As per Table 36, there are more cities and towns in Region 1 and Region 10. Hence, there
should be a proportionate representation as follows:
•
Region 1 should have 2 prioritised cities/towns for detailed mapping; Region 10 should also
have 2 cities/towns; and the rest of the 3 cities/towns should be represented by at least 1
city/town per urbanisation region.
Proposed
Criteria
Weight
Factor
1) High Level of Poverty
10%
• Percentage of Ethnic Population over Total
Population (30%)
• Average housing floor area (m2) (25%)
• Number of Temporary and Class IV housing
• Number of HHs in unsafe areas
2) Housing Deficiency
10%
• Number of houses removed due to
construction of infrastructure projects and
urban planning in ward area (25%)
2
• Road density (km/km ) (25%)
• Km of earth/macadam road 2.5-6m width (25%)
• Number of households without water supply
(20%)
3)
30%
Deficiencies
• Number of students per classroom (Primary,
Lower Secondary and Upper Secondary
Schools) (10%)
(25%)
High Degree of Environmental
4)
15%
Pollution
• Percentage of households without septic tanks
over total households (25%)
• Average Annual Ward Area Growth Rate
(2000-2005) over
5) High Rate of Urbanisation
10%
Average Annual Population Growth Rate
(2000-2005)
• Rate of meeting the standard set ward
6)
10%
Density
population density in Decree 72/20027 (100%)
7) Low Infrastructure Investment
15%
• Total Investment (VnDM/capita for 5 years,
2000-2005) (50%)
Total
100%
7
Ward population density divided by the population density factor by Class as per Decree 72/2001/ND-CP.
41/63
Option 3
121. Option 3 takes into consideration that the 4 cities prioritised for VUUP belong to Class I and
II (i.e., Ho Chi Minh, Hai Phong, Nam Dinh and Can Tho) and no Class III and IV cities/towns was
included. Hence, this methodological option gives paramount consideration to Class III and IV
cities/towns by applying different weight factor depending on the classes of cities/towns. It is
premised that the proposed weights for significant infrastructure weights for Class I to IV should
be different in order to balance the particular characters attached to “big” and “small” cities/towns.
122. Small towns are mostly deprived from any primary and secondary infrastructure in this case,
as much as in large cities where primary and secondary networks are already in place. High
consideration must be given to Class III and IV cities/towns which generally lag behind in terms of
infrastructure and low consideration for Class I which usually have better infrastructure compared
to other classes. Hence, Cities of Class I and II status have 30% weight factor while Class III and
IV have 20%.
123. In similar fashion, where urbanisation rate is deemed fast in many small towns, this criterion
is not deemed as much critical as in bigger cities where the scale of problems caused by rapid
urbanisation is deemed to deserve a higher degree of priority. Small towns will be relatively more
affected by high urban population densities than bigger cities. Accordingly, different “keys” of
weighting factors have been devised for the different classes of cities and towns as shown in
Tables 41. For high rate of urbanisation and areas with high population densities, Class I and II
cities are given 10% while Class III and IV are given 15% weights.
124. Option 3 MCA process ranks the 25 cities/towns based on merit given the weight factor per
indicator and criteria stated in Table 39. A second level of screening is also undertaken in order to
ensure that from the shortlist of 25 priority cities/towns the 7 cities/towns which will be chosen for
more detailed LIA participatory mapping equitably represents the different classes of cities/towns,
topology and urbanisation region ensuring that there is a representation of: 1) at least 1 city/town
represent Class I and II; 2) at least 2 cities/towns represent Class III and IV; 3) at least 2 cities per
topology; and 4) at least 1 city/town for Regions 2-9 and at least 2 for Regions 1 and 10 with an
expectation that some regions will not be represented because there are 10 urbanisation regions
and only 7 will be selected.
125. What makes Option 3 different from Options 1 and 2 also lies on having higher priorities on
Class III and Class IV cities/towns and not putting a condition that there should be at least 1 city
representing Class I and/or II cities considering that VUUP pilot-cities come from Special, Class I
and Class II cities.
126. Similar to Option 2, there should be at least 2 cities/towns per topology (highland, lowland
and coastal).
42/63
Criteria
1)
Proposed Weight Factor
Class
Class
Class I Class II
III
IV
10%
10%
10%
10%
Indicators and Method of
Calculation
Number of poor households
(100%)
Average housing floor area
(m2 ) (25%)
Number of Temporary and
Class IV housing (25%)
2)
Housing Deficiency
10%
10%
10%
10%
Number of HHs in unsafe
areas (landslide/flooded
areas) of wards (25%)
Number of houses removed
due to construction of
infrastructure projects and
urban planning in ward area
(25%)
(30%)
Km of earth/macadam road
>6m width (10%)
Km of earth/macadam road
2.5-6m width (10%)
3)
Deficiencies
30%
30%
20%
20%
Number of households
without water supply (20%)
(km/km2) (20%)
Number of students per
classroom (Primary, Lower
Secondary & Upper
Secondary Schools) (15%)
Areas with constant
stagnant waste water (ha)
(25%)
4)
High Degree of
10%
10%
10%
10%
• Volume of uncollected waste
(ton/day) (50%)
Households without septic
tanks (25%)
Average Annual Ward Area
5)
High Rate of
Urbanisation
10%
10%
15%
15%
6)
Areas with High
Population Density
10%
10%
15%
15%
Ward population density
(100%)
ODA Investment (US$M)
(50%)
Total Investment
(VnDM/capita for 5 years,
2000-2005) (50%)
7)
Low Infrastructure
Investment
15%
15%
15%
15%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Option 4
43/63
127. Option 4 is a more complex methodology in undertaking MCA process in order to select the
7 cities/towns involving scaling factors depending on the range (lowest or highest) and midpoint
of data. The 7 criteria and 18 indicators of this option have evolved from Option 1, which do not
include the ethnic population. The indicators were at percentage basis with reference to the total
number of households in the city/town (Table 42).
Criteria
Proposed
Weight
Factor
• Percentage of Ethnic Population over Total
Population (30%)
• Average housing floor area (25%)
• Percentage of Temporary and Class IV
housing
• Percentage of houses in unsafe areas
• Percentage of houses removed due to
construction of infrastructure projects and
urban planning in ward area (25%)
2
• Road density (km/km ) (30%)
• Percentage of road width =<2.5m (10%)
• Km of earth/macadam road 2.5-6m width (10%)
• Number of households without water supply
(20%)
• Number of students per classroom (Primary,
Lower Secondary and Upper Secondary
Schools) (10%)
(25%)
• Percentage of households without septic tanks
over total households (25%)
• Average Annual Ward Area Growth Rate
(2000-2005) over
(2000-2005)
1)
20%
2)
Housing Deficiency
10%
3)
Deficiencies
30%
4)
High Degree of Environmental
Pollution
10%
5)
10%
6)
Density
10%
• Ward population density (2005)
7)
Low Infrastructure Investment
10%
• Total Investment (VnDM/capita for 5 years,
2000-2005) (50%)
Total
100%
44/63
128.
A rating within appropriate scale (0-100) was assigned to each city and town to reflect the
rate of poverty and infrastructure development depending on the highest, midpoint or lowest in the
range as follows:
Poverty Rate
6% and above = 100
1% to below 6% = 75
Below 1%
= 50
2
Average housing floor area (m /person)
>14 m2/person = 0
2
9-14 m /person = 50
2
4-9 m /person = 75
Below 4 m2/person = 100
Percentage of households with temporary and Class IV housing
Above 75% = 100 and
Below 75% = 75
Percentage of HHs in unsafe areas
(landslide/flooded areas) of wards
Above 10% = 100
Below 10% = 50
Percentage of houses removed due to
infrastructure projects and urban planning in
ward area
Above 17%
= 100
4% to below 17% = 75
1% to below 4% = 25
Above 2.5 = 100
Below 2.5 = 50
Percentage of road width =<2.5m
Percentage of earth/macadam road
Above 80 = 100
Below 280 = 50
Percentage of households without water supply
Above 30% = 100
15% to below 30% = 75
Below 15% = 50
Drainage pipes density (km/km2)
Above 4
= 50
1.5 to below 4 = 75
Below 1.5
= 100
Number of students per classroom (Primary, Lower and Upper Secondary Schools)
Above 40 = 100
Below 40 = 50
Areas with constant stagnant waste water
Households without septic tanks
Above 200 ha = 100
Below 200 ha = 50
Above 30% = 100
Below 30% = 50
Percentage of uncollected waste (ton/day)
Above 40%
= 100
25% below to 40% = 75
Below 25%
= 50
Average Annual Ward Area Growth Rate (20002005)
(2000-2005)
Above 25% = 100
8% to below 20% = 75
Below 8% = 50
10% and above = 100
>2% to <10% = 75
<2%
= 50
45/63
Ward population density (2005)
Above 5000
= 100
3000 to < 5000 = 75
Below <3000 = 50
Total Investment (VNDM/capita for 5 years,
ODA Investment (US$M) (2000-2005)
2000-2005)
Above US$25M = 100
Below US$25M = 50
Above VND25M = 100
Below VND25M = 50
129. This option did not pay so much consideration on the representation by class resulting in the
absence of representation of Class I and Class II simply because VUUP pilot-cities generally
represent the Special Cities (Ho Chi Minh), Class I (Hai Phong and Can Tho) and Class II (Nam
Dinh). Hence, the absence of representation from Class I and II should be compensated by
having additional 2 towns representing Class IV.
Option 5
130. Option 5 analysis looks into the grouping of all cities/towns to ensure an equitable
distribution of opportunities among the 96 cities/towns for urban upgrading. There are about 12
groups dividing the 96 cities by class and topology as shown in Table 43. Before undertaking the
Multi-Criteria Analysis, the grouping and class of the pilot-cities of the previous urban upgrading
projects were reviewed. It was observed that the four VUUP pilot-cities (Ho Chi Minh, Hai Phong
Can Tho and Nam Dinh) already represent the special cities, Class I and Class II. Hence, the
premise for selecting the 8 cities/towns for the next urban upgrading would give paramount
consideration to Class III and Class IV with different topologies (highland, lowland and coastal).
While there are more cities/town in the lowland, the selection process simply provides equal
distribution of cities/towns among the three topologies, i.e., at least 2 for highland, 2 for lowland
and 2 for low coastal cities/towns.
Table 43 Grouping of Cities/Towns (Class IV and above)
Description
Group
Cities/Towns (Class IV and above)
(Class/Topology)
1
Class I – Lowland
3 – Can Tho, Hai Phong and Danang
2
Class I – Low coastal
1 – Hue
3
Class II – Highland
2 – Đà Lạt and Buôn Ma Thuột
7 – Việt Trì, Thái Nguyên, Mỹ Tho, Nam Định, Biên Hoà,
4
Class II – Lowland
Vinh, Vũng Tàu,
5
Class II – Low coastal
4 - Nha Trang, Quy Nhơn, Thanh Hoá and Hạ Long
8 - Điện Biên Phủ, Lai Châu, Pleiku, Kon Tum, Yên Bái,
6
Class III – Highland
Hoà Bình, Lạng Sơn and Lào Cai
17 - Cao Lãnh, Long Xuyên, Phan Rang - Tháp Chàm, Hà
Đông, Phan Thiết, Bắc Giang, Móng Cái, Thái Bình, Ninh
7
Class III – Lowland
Bình, Tuy Hoà, Phủ Lý, Sơn Tây, Long Khánh, Thủ Dầu
Một, Vĩnh Yên, Hải Dương and Bắc Ninh
9 - Hà Tĩnh, Rạch Giá, Cà Mau, Quảng Ngãi, Tam Kỳ,
8
Class III – Low coastal
Sóc Trăng, Cẩm Phả, Đồng Hới and Hội An
14 - Lộ, Cao Bằng, Sông Công, An Khê, Hà Giang,
9
Class IV – Highland
Mường Lay,Gia Nghĩa và huyện Đăk Klong, Bảo Lộc, Bắc
Cạn, Ajunpa, Sơn La, Tuyên Quang, Mộc Châu, Mai Sơn
16 - Phú Thọ, Tây Ninh, Sa Đéc, Đồng Xoài, Lagi và
Huyện Hàm Tân, Hưng Yên, Vĩnh Long, Châu Đốc, Tân
10
Class IV – Lowland
An, Hà Tiên, Hồng Ngự, Tam Điệp, Vị Thanh, Uông Bí,
Phúc Yên and Bà Rịa
13 - Trà Vinh, Quảng Trị, Hồng Lĩnh, Bac Liêu, Gò Công,
11
Class IV – Low coastal
Sầm Sơn, Tân Hiệp và Huyện, Phụng Hiệp, Cam Ranh,
Đông Hà, Bỉm Sơn, Bến Tre, Đồ Sơn and Cửa Lò
12
Special Cities-Lowland
2 - Hồ Chí Minh and Hà Nội
131. A review of the extent and depth of poverty the five poverty maps in Figure 2. The dark
shades show the incidence of poverty for each district and commune, density, depth and severity
of poverty concentrating on Regions 1, 4, 6 and 10. This serves as a guide in the selection of
46/63
cities/towns to be prioritised of investment. These poverty maps serve as guide in the strategic
selection of cities/towns to be prioritised for the next urban upgrading project.
132. Option 5 uses the same six criteria but more simple indicators based on the available data
for the 96 cities/towns (Class IV and above) with corresponding weight factors as follows:
• High Level of Poverty – 25%
• Significant Infrastructure Deficiencies – 20%
• High Degree of Environmental Pollution – 5%
• High Rate of Urbanisation – 10%
• Areas with High Population Densities – 10%
• Low in Technical & Social Infrastructure Investment – 30%
47/63
133. The 10 indicators for the above-cited criteria include:
• Percentage of poor households – 50% of the weight factor of High Level of Poverty criterion
• Percentage of household with poor housing – 50% of the weight factor of High Level of Poverty
criterion
• Road density (km/km2) – 35% of the weight factor of Significant Infrastructure Deficiencies
criterion
• Rate of households with water supply – 25% of the weight factor of Significant Infrastructure
Deficiencies criterion
2
• Drainage pipes density (km/km ) – 20% of the weight factor of Significant Infrastructure
• Number of students per classroom – 20% of the weight factor of Significant Infrastructure
• Percentage of solid waste collected over total solid waste generated – 100% of the weight factor
of the High Degree of Environmental Pollution criterion
• Average annual population growth rate (2000-2004) – 100% of the weight factor of the High
Rate of Urbanisation criterion
• Population density (person/km2) – 100% of the weight factor of the Areas with High Population
Densities criterion
• Total investment (VND million/capita) for 5 years (2000-2004) – 100% of the weight factor of
the Low in Technical & Social Infrastructure Investment criterion
134. It must be noted that a very low weight factor is given to the percentage of solid waste
collected over total solid waste generated indicator and high degree of environmental pollution
criterion since the importance of the percentage of solid waste collected over total solid waste
generated indicator is not as heavy as the other indicators. It would be total discriminating for a
city/town to get the highest overall merit due to the high weight factor to be accorded with
percentage of solid waste collected over total solid waste generated indicator.
135. A big percentage weight is given to low technical and social infrastructure investment (30%)
compared with high level of poverty (25%) significant infrastructure deficiencies (20%) and others
with only 10% and 5% weight factors.
136. What makes Option 5 different from the four other options lies on its analysis of the 96
cities/towns characteristics together with the geographic analysis of poverty in Vietnam using GIS
generated poverty maps (Figure 2). The second level of screening for Option 5 also uses the
stratification by urbanisation region (Table 36) and equal representation by topology which should
be at least 2 cities/towns representing each topology.
Results of Five Methodological Options of MCA and Ranking Process
137. Annex 2 shows the results of the MCA ranking process which are presented the fifth option
applying different simplified criteria and indicators, scaling and weight factors from which the final
decision would be based upon.
48/63
Option 1: Top 7 Cities Ranked by Overall Individual Merit
138. By ranking based on the individual city/town merit (Table 44), the first highest 7 cities/towns
are: Cam Ranh, Thai Binh, Viet Tri, My Tho, Cao Bang, Ca Mau and Lang Son.
Table 44
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Option 1 Top 7 Cities/Towns by Overall Merit
Cities/Towns
Class
Topology
Sub-Urbanisation Region8
Cam Ranh
IV
Low coastal
Region 8
Thai Binh
III
Lowland
Region 1
Viet Tri
II
Lowland
Region 5
My Tho
III
Low coastal
Region 10
Cao Bang
III
Highland
Region 4
Ca Mau
III
Lowland
Region 10
Lang Son
III
Highland
Region 4
139. Recognising that analysis should not only focus on the outright value of the statistical data
and individual merit of the cities/towns, ranking by overall merit is further subjected to other
factors to rationalise the selection of 7 cities/towns. These factors should be in accordance with
the national framework which up to now holds on to the urban policies indicated in the Orientation
Master Plan for Urban Development to 2020 in order to be in line with national urbanisation
policies and ascertain that selected priority cities/towns represent the low income areas of all
types of classification, topology and urbanisation by regional representation.
140. Based on ranking by topology, the top 2 highest ranking city/towns for highlands are Cao
Bang and Lang Son; the top 4 highest ranking cities/towns for lowland are Thai Binh, Viet Tri, My
Tho and Ca Mau; and the top 2 highest ranking coastal cities/towns are Cam Ranh and Hue.
141. Referring to the stratification in Table 30, Class 2 should be represented by 1 city/town only.
Buon Ma Thuot (highland), Viet Tri (lowland) and Bien Hoa (lowland) represent Class II. If Buon
Ma Thuot is selected for being the highest when ranked based on individual merit and by class,
then Viet Tri and Bien Hoa are disqualified. It must be noted, however, that Viet Tri has much
higher ward density than Buon Ma Thuot. Furthermore, Buon Ma Thuot has already received so
much ODA and investments. Buon Ma Thuot only became second highest ranking in terms of
overall merit because of high level of poverty which is understandable due to its being
mountainous. Therefore, Viet Tri (lowland) is given next priority, instead of Buon Ma Thuot for
selection of 1 Class II city.
142. If there should be at least 4 cities/towns representing Class III and based on stratification in
Table 34 (ranked by Class), the 3 cities/towns should represent lowland and 2 cities/towns should
represent highland. This means that Thai Binh (lowland), Viet Tri (lowland) and Ca Mau already
satisfied the stratified number of cities/towns for lowland. While there are already 2 highland
cities (Cao Bang and Kon Tum) in Table 41, there is a need to only consider Cao Bang to
represent the highland in Region 4, another highland city must come from central Vietnam (i.e.,
Kon Tum).
143. For low coastal cities/towns, Cam Ranh and My Tho are found in the ranking by overall
merit of Option 1, thus enlisted in Table 45. According to Table 37, there should only be at least 1
low coastal city and 4 low land cities. So then, My Tho (low coastal) would have to be replaced
by a lowland area which is preferably from Region 1 to satisfy the requirements in Table 38. This
would mean considering Ninh Binh (lowland and Region 1) is in the list of 7 cities/towns in Option
1.
144. So then, there is a need to select to 2 cities/towns in highland (1 Class III and 1 Class IV).
Based on Table 37 and criteria in Table 37 of Option 1, the 2 highest ranking are Buon Ma Thuot
8
The 10 Urbanisation regions are: 1) Northe
Region 1 – North Key Zone and Red River Delta
Region 2 - Southern Key Zone & Eastern South Region
Region 3 - Central Key Zone & Central Coast Region
Region 4 - Cao Bang- Thai Nguyen-Lang Son-Bac Giang -Bac Ninh-Bac Can Region
Region 5 - Lao Cai-Yen Bai -Ha Giang -Tuyen Quang - Phu Tho-Vinh Phuc Region
Region 6 - Western North Region
Region 7 - North Central Coast Region
Region 8 - South Central Coast Region
Region 9 - Central Highland Region
Region 10 - Mekong River Delta RegionRed River Delta region; 2) North Central Coast region; 4) Cao Bang- Lang Son-Bac
49/63
and Kon Tum. However, Buon Ma Thuot is out already to give way to Viet Tri. The next step is to
choose Cao Bang (Class IV) or Dien Bien Phu (Class III).
145. It should also be noted that Buon Ma Thuot is always one step higher than Kon Tum when
ranked by topology, urbanisation region and number of ethnic population. Kon Tum, however, is
given consideration since Buon Ma Thuot has received much more ODA compared to Kon Tum.
The extent of ODA to the city, however, does not necessarily mean that for all intents and
purposes that its infrastructure deficiencies have been addressed and poverty has been
alleviated as reflected in the amount of ODA and total investment per capita for the past 5 years.
Buon Ma Thuot, as the data reveal, have the biggest number of households below the poverty
line, biggest number of temporary and Class IV housing, and third highest number of households
without water supply.
Table 45. Option 1 Top 7 Cities/Towns by Overall Merit
Rank
Cities/Towns
Class
Topology
1
Cam Ranh
IV
Low coastal
Region 8
2
Thai Binh
III
Lowland
Region 1
3
Viet Tri
II
Lowland
Region 5
4
My Tho
III
Low coastal
Region 10
5
Cao Bang
III
Highland
Region 4
6
Ca Mau
III
Lowland
Region 10
7
Lang Son
III
Highland
Region 4
Option 1: Recommended for Shortlist of Priority (5-7 Cities/Towns) for Detailed Studies
146. Table 46 shows the top 7 cities/towns based on overall merit of the cities/towns using the
simplified multi-criteria analysis with 7 criteria with 18 indicators used. This result, however, does
not give an equitable allocation of cities/towns to represent each class of cities/towns (Class 1 to
4), each topology (highland, lowland and coastal) and each urbanisation region (Regions 1 to 10).
Hence, the Consultants had to undertake a second ranking method which strategically factors in
the 3 conditions based on class, topology and urbanisation region. As indicated in Table 44, the
result of the second level of screening recommends the 7 cities/towns (Cam Ranh, Thai Binh,
Viet Tri, Cao Bang, Ca Mau, Kon Tum and Ninh Binh) for detailed studies.
Table 46. Option 1 Recommended 7 Cities/Towns for Detailed Studies
Rank
Cities/Towns
Class
Topology
1
Cam Ranh
IV
Low coastal
Region 8
2
Thai Binh
III
Lowland
Region 1
3
Viet Tri
II
Lowland
Region 5
4
Cao Bang
III
Highland
Region 4
5
Ca Mau
III
Lowland
Region 10
6
Kon Tum
IV
Highland
Region 9
7
Ninh Binh
III
Lowland
Region 1
Option 2: Top 7 Cities/Towns Ranked by Overall Individual Merit
147. The results of the MCA using the criteria and indicators in Option 2 are shown in Table 47 of
Option 2 and summarised in Table 45. Based on Option 2 ranked by overall merit, the top 7 cities
based on overall merit are Cam Ranh, Hue, Cao Bang, Viet Tri, Ca Mau, Soc Trang and Thai
Binh. Of these 7 cities, only 1 represents the highland when based on stratification by topology as
per Table 36, there should be at least 2 highland cities/towns, 3 lowland cities/towns and 1 low
coastal cities/towns. There are 48 lowland cities/towns, only 24 coastal cities/towns of the 96
cities/towns (Class IV and above). So then Soc Trang which also belongs to Region 10 and Thai
9
50/63
Binh must be replaced by the next ranking Class III or Class IV cities/towns in order to equitable
distribute representation by class, topology and urbanisation region.
148. Until revised, the ten urbanisation sub-regions remain a rational basis to ascertain that a
city/town is selected strategically and proportionately with the distribution by class, topology and
urbanisation region of 96 cities/towns. Hence, the second level of screening of Option 2 also
takes into account the following conditions:
• At least 1 city/town represents Class I and II
• At least 2 cities/towns represent each topology (highland, low land and low coastal)
• At least 1 city/town for Regions 2-9 and at least 2 for Regions 1 and 10 with an expectation
that some regions will not be represented because there are 10 urbanisation regions and only
7 will be selected.
Table 47. Option 2 Top 7 Cities/Towns by Overall Merit
Rank
Cities/Towns
Class
Topology
1
Cam Ranh
IV
Low coastal
Region 8
2
Hue
I
Low coastal
Region 3
3
Cao Bang
IV
Highland
Region 4
4
Viet Tri
II
Lowland
Region 5
5
Ca Mau
III
Lowland
Region 10
6
Soc Trang
III
Low coastal
Region 10
7
Thai Binh
I
Lowland
Region 1
149. Observing the conditions for second screening, the 7 cities/towns recommended employing
Option 2 are Cam Ranh, Hue, Cao Bang, Viet Tri, Ca Mau, Thai Binh and Dien Bien Phu as listed
on Table 48.
Table 48. Option 2: Recommended for Shortlist of Priority (5-7 Cities/Towns) for
Detailed Studies
Rank
Cities/Towns
Class
Topology
1
Cam Ranh
IV
Low coastal
Region 8
2
Hue
I
Low coastal
Region 3
3
Cao Bang
IV
Highland
Region 4
4
Viet Tri
II
Lowland
Region 5
5
Ca Mau
III
Lowland
Region 10
6
Thai Binh
III
Lowland
Region 1
7
Dien Bien Phu
III
Highland
Region 6
Option 3: Overall Individual Merit
150. The results of the MCA using the criteria and indicators of the third option are summarised
in Table 49. Based on Option 3, the top 7 cities/towns ranked by overall merit are Cam Ranh,
Thai Binh, Viet Tri, My Tho, Cao Bang, Ca Mau and Lang Son. Of these 7 cities, only 1
represents the low coastal. Hence, there is a need to replace 1 lowland city to accommodate 1
low coastal city in order to equitably distribute representation by topology while considering the
proportional distribution by class and urbanisation region. Table 50 also shows that there are 4
lowland cities in the top 7 cities/towns using Option 3 and the seventh ranking city is Lang Son
which also has similar characteristics with Cao Bang being Class III and located in Region 4.
Reviewing the total investment per capita for the past 5 years, Lang Son has received more
compared with Cao Bang; therefore, the latter is most likely to be replaced to accommodate 1
10
51/63
highland city. Likewise, 1 lowland city/town has to be replaced to accommodate 1 low coastal
city/town. Ca Mau in the sixth rank and with similar characteristics as My Tho (Class III and
located in Region 10) plus the fact that the former has received more investment per capita for
the past 5 years compared with the latter. Therefore, Ca Mau is most likely to be replaced to
accommodate 1 highland so that proportional distribution is ensured.
Table 49. Option 3: Top 7 Cities/Towns by Overall Merit
Rank
Cities/Towns
Class
Topology
1
Cam Ranh
IV
Low coastal
Region 8
2
Thai Binh
III
Lowland
Region 1
3
Viet Tri
II
Lowland
Region 5
4
My Tho
III
Lowland
Region 10
5
Cao Bang
IV
Highland
Region 4
6
Ca Mau
III
Lowland
Region 10
7
Lang Son
III
Highland
Region 4
Table 50. Option 3: Top 7 Cities/Town after Second Screening based on Class
and Topology
Rank
Cities/Towns
Class
Topology
1
Cam Ranh
IV
Low coastal
Region 8
2
Thai Binh
III
Lowland
Region 1
3
Viet Tri
II
Lowland
Region 5
4
My Tho
III
Lowland
Region 10
5
Cao Bang
IV
Highland
Region 4
6
Ca Mau
III
Lowland
Region 10
7
Hue
I
Low coastal
Region 1
151. Reviewing Option 3 MCA Results in Table 46, Hue is the next ranking low coastal city which
is located in Region 10 which rationalises the distribution by urbanisation region as per Table 38.
Reviewing the results after inclusion of Hue (Table 51), it is noted that the highland city which
should replace Ca Mau to complete the list must be Class III.
152. While Buon Ma Thuot (Class III) is the next ranking highland city, Kon Tum is given
paramount consideration because the former is a Class II city. Viet Tri (Class II) is already
considered and it would not be rational to add another Class II; hence, Kon Tum is included in the
recommended 7 cities/towns. As shown in Table 48, the recommended 7 cities/towns in Option 3
are Cam Ranh, Thai Binh, Viet Tri, My Tho, Cao Bang, Hue and Kon Tum.
Detailed Studies
Rank
Cities/Towns
Class
Topology
1
Cam Ranh
IV
Low coastal
Region 8
2
Thai Binh
III
Lowland
Region 1
3
Viet Tri
II
Lowland
Region 5
4
My Tho
III
Lowland
Region 10
5
Cao Bang
IV
Highland
Region 4
6
Hue
I
Low coastal
Region 1
7
Kon Tum
III
Highland
Region 9
11
52/63
153. Table 52 shows the top 7 cities/towns using MCA Option 4 including Kon Tum, Cao Bang,
Vi Thanh, Ca Mau, Dien Bien Phu, Cam Ranh and Dong Hoi.
154. In order to equitably and strategically distribute the cities/towns by topology based on Table
37, there should be at least 2 cities/towns from the highland, at least 3 from the lowland and at
least 2 from the low coastal areas. This would mean that from the list of top 7 cities/towns, 1
Class IV town would have to be replaced by a Class III city. Hence, Cam Ranh incurring the
lowest overall merit among the 4 Class IV cities in Table 46 will be replaced by the next ranking
Class III city (i.e., Ninh Binh as shown in Table 50 Option 4 MCA Results ranked by overall merit
and by class).
155. Table 50 shows the results of the second screening wherein Cam Ranh is replaced by Ninh
Binh to strategically satisfy the proportion of Class III cities corresponding to the distribution in
Table 36. The results, however, indicates that there is a need for another Class III city that should
come from Region 1 to completely satisfy the strategic distribution in Table 38 stating that there
should be 2 cities/towns from Region 1.
Rank
Cities/Towns
Class
Topology
1
Kon Tum
4
Highland
Region 9
2
Cao Bang
4
Highland
Region 4
3
Vi Thanh
4
Lowland
Region 10
4
Ca Mau
3
Lowland
Region 10
5
Dien Bien Phu
3
Highland
Region 6
6
Cam Ranh
4
Low coastal
Region 8
7
Dong Hoi
3
Low coastal
Region 1
156. The second level of screening shows that there are 3 Class III cities which should be at
least 5 in order to strategically distribute representation of cities/towns. This would mean that the
lowest ranking Class 4 town (i.e. Vi Thanh) should be replaced by a Class III city which should
represent Region 1 in order to strategically distribute in proportion to the distribution of 96
cities/towns by urbanisation region as per Table 38 indicating that at least 2 cities/towns should
represent Region 1. The replacement should be a Class III city in lowland and Region 1. Going
back to the MCA results in Annex 5.0-Option 4, Hai Duong fits the description of the replacement
in order to complete the list of the recommended for shortlist of priority (5-7 cities/towns) for
detailed studies. As shown in Table 53, the recommended cities/towns for a shortlist of priority 7
cities/towns for detailed studies are Kon Tum, Cao Bang, Ca Mau, Dien Bien Phu, Dong Hoi,
Ninh Binh and Hai Duong.
12
53/63
Table 53. Option 4: Top 7 Cities/Town after Second Screening based on Class and
Topology
Rank
Cities/Towns
Class
Topology
1
Kon Tum
IV
Highland
Region 9
2
Cao Bang
IV
Highland
Region 4
3
Vi Thanh
IV
Lowland
Region 10
4
Ca Mau
III
Lowland
Region 10
5
Dien Bien Phu
III
Highland
Region 6
6
Dong Hoi
III
Low coastal
Region 3
7
Ninh Binh
III
Lowland
Region 1
157. Applying the criteria and indicators for Option 5, the top 7 cities/towns using MCA Option 5
include Điện Biên Phủ, Lai Châu, Nghĩa Lộ, Cao Bằng, Trà Vinh, Quảng Trị, Hồng Lĩnh (Table
54). The details of the results of Option 5 analysis by overall merit are shown in Option 5-1
tabulation Annex 5.0. Điện Biên Phủ ranks number one by overall merit.
158. In order to avoid over representation of cities/towns from the northwest regions (Regions 5
and 6) and ensure that representation of cities/towns are based on the reliable poverty maps
(Figure 2) indicating the incidence, depth and severity of poverty, a second level of screening is
undertaken.
159. The second level of screening gives paramount consideration to the areas consistently
marked with high incidence, depth and severity of poverty are regions in the north and south (i.e.,
particularly Region 1 – North Key Zone and Red River Delta, Region 4 - Cao Bang-Thai NguyenLang Son-Bac Giang -Bac Ninh-Bac Can Region, Region 6 - Western North Region, Region 10 Mekong River Delta Region, and some portions of Region 9 - Central Highland Region). The
number of cities/towns to be selected from the identified regions are based on the stratification
analysis by urbanisation region in Table 36.
13
Rank
Cities/Towns
Class
Topology
Sub-Urbanisation Region
1
Dien Bien Phu
III
Highland
Region 6
2
Lai Châu
III
Highland
Region 6
3
Nghĩa Lộ
IV
Highland
Region 5
4
Cao Bang
IV
Highland
Region 4
5
Tra Vinh
IV
Low coastal
Region 10
6
Quảng Trị
IV
Low coastal
Region 3
7
Hồng Lĩnh
IV
Low coastal
Region 7
160. Considering the requirements of Option 5 methodology as previously discussed, a second
level of screening was undertaken to select the recommended cities/towns for prioritisation.
161. Since Dien Bien Phu (Class III-highland in Region 6 is selected already, Lai Châu and
Nghĩa Lộ which belong to Region 5 and 6 cannot be included in order to consider another
city/town from Regions 1, 4 and 10. Cao Bằng of Region 4 and Trà Vinh of Region 10 which rank
fourth and fifth by overall merit are considered to represent Group 9 (Class IV-highland) and
Group 11 (Class IV-low coastal) in Table 43.
13
Region 10 - Mekong River Delta RegionRed River Delta rgion; 2) North Central Coast region; 4) Cao Bang- Lang Son-Bac
54/63
162. Referring to the stratification analysis in Table 36, there should 2 cities/towns to represent
Region 1 and another 2 cities/towns to represent Region 10. This means that the remaining
cities/towns to be selected should be 2 cities/towns from Region 1 and 1 from Region 10 since
Trà Vinh of Region 10 is already considered. Going back to the topology aspect which requires
that at least 2 cities/towns should represent each topology, another 2 lowland cities/towns and 1
low coastal city/town from Regions 1 and 10 need to be selected considering that there are
already 2 highland cities/towns in the priority list (i.e., Điện Biên Phủ and Cao Bằng). Since there
are Trà Vinh and Cao Bằng already filled up the requirements for 2 Class IV towns and only Điện
Biên Phủ represents Class III, there is a need to select 3 cities from Class III in order to satisfy
the requirement of Table 5.7 stratifying the cities/towns to be prioritised by Class.
163. Of the 96 cities/towns (Class IV and above), there area 17 Class III-lowland cities/towns and
9 Class III-low coastal cities/towns. Further analytical probing was conducted in order to
ascertain that the lowland and low coastal Class III cities from Regions 1 and 10 to be prioritised
were in need of infrastructure upgrading. As shown in the results of the analysis of Option 5-2 in
Annex 5.0, Ca Mau ranks high among other cities belonging to Class III-low coastal in Region 10.
With Ca Mau’s inclusion in the list, the remaining cities to be selected must come from Region 1,
Class III and lowland. Mong Cai, Ninh Binh, Hai Duong Thai Binh and Ha Dong are among the
candidates. Thoroughly reviewing the results of the Option 5-2 analysis in Annex 2, it is noted
that Mong Cai slightly ranks higher in terms of significant infrastructure deficiencies but has a
lower rate of urbanisation, ward population and population density compared with Ninh Binh and
Hai Duong. A deeper probing on relevant data was done in order to ensure that alternative
benefits would be maximised in the selection process. As such, a critical decision has to be made
in order to maximise the opportunity of providing more benefits to a greater number of people
than infrastructure extent. Forgoing Mong Cai would incur more benefits per capita if the next
high ranking cities with similar characteristics (i.e., Class III-lowland in Region 1 shown in Option
5-2 tabulation) would be considered. Hence, Ninh Binh and Hai Duong are recommended to be
prioritised.
164. Option 5 selection process concludes with a recommendation to prioritise 6 cities/towns for
urban upgrading as shown in Table 55.
Detailed Studies
Rank
Cities/Towns
Class
Topology
1
Cao Bang
IV
Highland
Region 4
2
Ca Mau
III
Lowland
Region 10
3
Dien Bien Phu
III
Highland
Region 6
4
Ninh Binh
III
Lowland
Region 1
5
Hai Duong
III
Lowland
Region 1
6
Tra Vinh
III
Low coastal
Region 10
7
Viet Tri
II
Lowland
Region 5
8
Kon Tum
IV
Highland
Region 9
4.5
Some Conclusions
The Consultants have presented four MCA methodological options indicating different results.
Based on varied rationale, these four options have different indicators, weighing factors and
rating as previously explained. It must be noted that Options 1 to 3 are common in one aspect
(i.e., using the numerical or percentage value of the data which are so varied). Such
methodologies give paramount importance on individual merit without interpreting the data
considering other surrounding factors and the spread of data among the 25 cities/towns. Hence,
Option 4 has been developed to rate the cities/towns considering the highest point, midpoint and
lowest point of data.
The results of the four options ranked by overall merit are summarized as follows:
Option 1 – Cam Ranh, Thai Binh, Viet Tri, My Tho, Cao Bang, Ca Mau and Lang Son
Option 2 – Cam Ranh, Hue, Cao Bang, Viet Tri, Ca Mau, Soc Trang and Thai Binh
Option 3 – Cam Ranh Thai Binh, Viet Tri, My Tho, Cao Bang, Ca Mau and Lang Son
Option 4 – Kon Tum, Cao Bang, Vi Thanh, Ca Mau, Dien Bien Phu, Cam Ranh and Dong Hoi
Option 5 – Điện Biên Phủ, Lai Châu, Nghĩa Lộ, Cao Bằng, Trà Vinh, Quảng Trị and Hồng Lĩnh
55/63
165. After the second level of screening, the results are as follows:
Option 1 – Cam Ranh, Thai Binh, Viet Tri, Cao Bang, Ca Mau, Kon Tum and Ninh Binh
Option 2 – Cam Ranh, Hue, Cao Bang, Viet Tri, Ca Mau, Thai Binh and Dien Bien Phu
Option 3 – Cam Ranh, Thai Binh, Viet Tri, My Tho, Cao Bang, Hue and Kon Tum
Option 4 – Kon Tum, Cao Bang, Ca Mau, Dien Bien Phu, Dong Hoi, Ninh Binh, and Hai Duong
Option 5 – Điện Biên Phủ, Cao Bằng, Trà Vinh, Cà Mau, Ninh Bình, Hải Dương and Kon Tum14
166. A notable observation is that Cao Bang and Ca Mau are the consistently common cities in
the top 7 cities/towns in the four options by overall merit and second level of screening. Dien
Bien Phu appeared 3 times in the selected cities/towns to be prioritised, particularly in the final
results of Options 2, 4 and 5. Viet Tri and Ninh Binh also appeared 3 times in the selected
cities/towns to be prioritised, particularly in the final results of Options 1,2,3 and 1, 4 and 5
accordingly.
167. Of the four options, Option 4 did not put a second condition pertaining to the representation
by class but simply relied on the results of the ranking by rating scale. Option 4 ranking by overall
merit did not have Class I and II cities but simply resulted in having representation from Class III
and Class IV which can be considered since the previous VUUP pilot-cities are comprised of
Special Cities, Class I and II cities (i.e., Ho Chi Minh, Hai Phong, Nam Dinh and Can Tho). The
process employed in Option 4 rating within appropriate scale assigned to each city/town
depending on the range (highest, midpoint and lowest) reflect even values for each indicator.
168. Also similar in the results of the four options is the insufficient representation of low coastal
cities/towns and Region 10 (Mekong Delta Region). Hence, the proposed number of 8
cities/towns in the TOR is proposed to be revised adding 1 city/town in the shortlist of priority
towns to make it 8 cities/towns instead of 8 cities/towns as quoted herein below:
iii)
From this selected list of about 20 a shortlist of priority towns (5 to 7) will be chosen for more
detailed LIA participatory mapping, data collection, information on infrastructure
standards/service levels, other requirements, costing information etc. These may be grouped
geographically and are likely to be candidates for the next urban upgrading project(s).
169. Selection of the city/town to complete the recommended list in Option 4 will be based on the
MCA results by overall merit of 96 cities/towns with a condition that the selected city/town should
be low coastal and in Region 10. Reviewing the results of MCA 5-1 ranked by overall merit (Annex
1) shows that of the 96 cities/towns (Class IV and above) analysed, the highest ranking city/town
which is low coastal in Region 10 is Tra Vinh town.
170. Option 5 provides a broader range of cities/towns totaling 96 cities/towns (Class IV and
above) compared with Options 2-4 which basically analysed the 25 cities/towns initially surveyed.
Analysis and methodology for selecting cities to be prioritised are very sensitive to poverty
incidence, depth and severity giving paramount consideration to classes of cities/towns which are
not represented in the first VUUP pilot-cities (Special, Class I and Class II cities). Hence, only one
city belonging to Class II is selected. Viet Tri for consistently appearing as the only class 2 cities in
the options mentioned.
171. Therefore, the conclusive recommendation lists 8 cities/towns for a more detailed LIA
mapping including Dien Bien Phu, Tra Vinh, Cao Bang, Ca Mau, Ninh Binh, Hai Duong, Viet Tri
and Kon Tum as described in Table 56.
14
The eight city to be prioritised may be selected depending on government policy; 1 representative from the central region may be
selected. It must be noted that poverty maps in Figure 2 show that portions of Region 9 has high incidence, depth and severity of
poverty.
56/63
Table 56. Proposed List of 8 Selected Urban Centres for Detailed LIA Survey and Mapping
Cities/Towns
Province
Class
Tx Cao Bằng
Cao Bằng
IV
Tp Điện Biên
Điện Biên
III
Tp Hải Dương
Hải Dương
III
Tp Ninh Bình
Ninh Bình
III
Tx Trà Vinh
Trà Vinh
IV
Tp Cà Mau
Cà Mau
III
Viet Tri
Phu To
II
Kon Tum
Kon Tum
III
5.
Typical Characteristics
Provincial capital in the northeast border area with many politically famous spots;
home to Vietnam’s ethnic minority groups, most notable of these are the Tay,
Nung, Dao and Hmong.
Provincial city in the northwest border; Internationally known for Dien Bien Phu
Battle which is Vietnam’s decisive engagement in the first of the Indochina wars
(1946-54) that marked the end of French involvement in Southeast Asia.
Provincial capital in the Red River Delta with many developing industrial zones;
and market centre for a rich rice growing region; one of the most densely
populated cities in Vietnam.
Located in the Red River Delta, provincial capital close to the ecological tourism
area of Trang An.
Provincial capital of Tra Vinh Province located in the Mekong Delta region in
Southern part of Vietnam; Famous for Khmer pagodas due to the large number
of Cambodians who reside there.
Provincial city in the south characterised by a canal-based transport system
where most goods are transported by boats and barges. Many LIAs.
Provincial city with historical spots and location of the factories built in the 1960s.
Environmentally polluted city.
Provincial capital in the marginal area of the central highland region with a big
number of unregistered population. Located near the Yaly Hydroelectric Station;
a traditional trading centre for hides, horses, and sesame.
Evaluating the Upgrading Needs of Cities and Towns
172. The remaining 87 cities and towns have been evaluated by overall merit of development
using the key criteria and indicators applied in the MCA in order to set the direction for
investment. A selection process using the MCA was undertaken to evaluate these cities and
towns by their level of development. This analysis was used to guide the NUUP plan and
implementation strategy. The same MCA technique was applied to evaluate, group and distribute
the cities and towns by economic region and implementation tranches from 2008 to 2020. The
urban areas have been evaluated based on the level of development using the following criteria:
i) level of poverty; ii) degree of deficiency of infrastructures and services; iii) degree of
environmental pollution; iv) rate of urbanisation; v) population density; v) level of technical and
social infrastructure in terms of State investment and ODA; and vii) regional significance.
Regional significance is measured in terms of the explicit citation of priority development for cities
and towns in the Socio-Economic Development Plan prepared by the Ministry of Planning and
Investment. Infrastructure development for cities and towns mentioned in the Socio-Economic
Development Plan has financing ramifications in terms of timing for financing.
173. The percentage weights given to the various criteria were: (i) low technical and social
infrastructure investment 30%; (ii) high level of poverty (25%); (iii) significant infrastructure
deficiencies (20%); (iv) high rate of urbanisation and population density (10%) and (v) degree of
environment pollution (5%). Annex 3 shows the indicators and criteria to evaluate, group and
distribute the cities and towns by economic region and implementation tranches from 2008 to
2020.
57/63
Annex 1
MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS 5-1
CITY/TOWN PROFILE
CRITERIA FOR CITIES/TOWNS SELECTION
with poor housing
water supply
(km/km2)
Classroom
43.45
43.45
72.86
32.27
19.98
39.87
35.32
34.2
25.9
35.32
33.33
43.45
47.76
60.7
32.1
47.5
33.33
36.35
48.26
7.03
48.15
29.14
41.68
53.33
8.88
46.28
14.54
14.54
25.9
58.4
12.64
53.33
23.93
53.44
40.5
55.71
26 44
26.44
39.26
11.02
60.7
16.07
47.76
48.15
24.64
35.32
30.22
11.86
35.81
47.76
14.05
23.93
26.44
48.15
32.27
39.87
6.86
30.42
32.1
60.7
24.99
31.44
19.98
27.56
24.26
10.55
11.86
23.95
14.54
15.98
7.75
23 59
23.59
53.44
15.56
8.72
6.09
8.96
8.47
25.95
8.96
25.49
6.02
14.53
3.2
11.23
8.88
8.47
19.95
6.02
25.95
2.5
8.72
24.64
6.02
6.44
24.26
24.26
1.50
3.7
3.2
4.73
2.71
0.13
5.33
2.23
4.28
4.35
2.50
2.54
2.16
0.59
9.40
4.00
0.84
3.08
1.52
3.57
0.85
3.67
0.83
3.66
7.38
1.40
7.5
3.04
9.85
3.2
2.17
3.50
3.30
3.50
1.54
2.82
4 00
4.00
3.46
3.96
6.90
1.66
3.00
4.57
2.10
3.00
5.6
4.20
0.31
3.96
3.60
4.01
4.50
3.50
10.00
5.88
1.7
7.20
8.40
4.90
9.98
4.28
3.10
12.10
6.56
4.77
4.4
3.64
9.40
3.31
4.4
6 00
6.00
2.50
5.68
4.4
3.72
7.5
5.6
7.49
10.70
7.24
4.4
10.67
4.92
4.10
3.46
2.49
3.56
5.60
4.49
7.00
4.20
8.15
5.60
4.53
90.0
90.0
66
45
10
15
21.08
70
35
34
78
80
66.8
80
67.9
70
50
37
90
65
85
65
70
75
85
84
60
87
100
55
22
83
60
80
25.5
59.9
60.7
50
90
84.25
85
80
95
61.3
65
40
85
70
81
90
80
95
80
80
90
85
70
85
100
95
95
93
73
95
92.8
25
60
70
70
94
86 83
86.83
93.5
70
73
80
72.8
85
83
85
90
73.7
100
81.3
85.34
95
85
100
85
80
80
80
74.1
90
53.96
2.46
2.46
3.09
1.26
0.19
2.22
2
0.66
3.83
0.4
1.73
1.48
3.09
0.91
2.22
3.12
1.62
0.86
1.25
2.3
1.19
2.05
0.96
3.09
2.39
1.17
3.83
0.78
3.91
3.09
0.229
4.4
2.5
7.10
3.81
16.57
16.44
14.51
29.00
23.02
8.77
17.14
7.51
12.46
12
30
25
21
29
34
16
22
30
51
28
4.4
4.8
6.7
3.7
5.6
3.7
7.5
2.5
3.6
3.2
4.4
73.7
74.1
72.8
67.3
67.9
90.0
72.8
65.7
60.7
80.6
73.3
Density
Investment
Prioritization Criteria (Weighting Factors)
456.65
Average Annual Pop.
100%
0.02
100%
100%
3.6
4.03
4.53
3.42
41.0
59
55
44
38
37
54
46
46
57
63
36
51
52
37
40
70
38
47
47
47
64
29
48
49
56
49
41
44
52
60.3
46
39
6
55
43
54
48
52
52
60.3
47
51
63
49.0
46
40
40
46
57
48
51
48
45
41
47
39
33
49.2
54
35
40
36
34
55
37
50
45
48
36
44
41
38
58
50
42
50
56
47
37
48
55
38
8
45
42
50
55
42
7
6
51
62
7
35
20
70
50
30
85
40
75
60
65
20
100
60
80
50
40
70
80
70
72
65
85
80
48.08
70
66.2
60
35
80
90
70
70
80
90
90
75
74.2
80
70
80
70
75.0
90
75
85
70
75
90
80
67.7
80
80
80
86
80
60
36
75
80
90
85
80
60
70
72.2
75
86.25
75
85
80
72
100
80
74.4
90
40
70
75
90
100
74.4
100
70
82
90
100
90
85
92
95
80
95
70
90
4.7%
1.4%
1.0%
14.2%
3.7%
1.5%
2.2%
0.6%
21.9%
0.9%
1.6%
2.9%
2.6%
9.8%
2.1%
2.7%
2.7%
7.0%
1.5%
1.5%
1.9%
10.1%
15.0%
1.6%
1.6%
1 6%
1.6%
3.5%
2.0%
1.0%
1.4%
1.0%
1.0%
2.1%
3.1%
1.2%
16.2%
2.7%
1.5%
1.3%
1.5%
2.9%
1.3%
2.6%
1.2%
1.0%
1.5%
1.3%
1.6%
1.9%
1.2%
1.5%
2.6%
2.2%
1.4%
1.3%
1.1%
1.3%
0.9%
0.6%
1 5%
1.5%
1.3%
1.2%
2.2%
0.8%
2.8%
0.8%
3.6%
2.1%
0.7%
1.2%
2.0%
2.4%
2.9%
1.2%
3.0%
2.1%
1.1%
1.2%
6.5%
4.8%
1.5%
1.0%
1.9%
3,214
616
1,305
380
225
1,600
485
516
3,365
1,592
5,099
1 369
1,369
596
636
1,058
3,225
1,741
698
1,771
3,682
992
402
4,529
3,151
2,735
1,044
1,580
1,830
472
923
3,347
1,160
710
925
609
3.97
3.12
2.92
1.40
2.22
2.46
3.83
1.62
2.33
3.09
2.86
47.8
50.1
45.8
41.3
39.0
41.0
44.8
60.3
49.0
49.2
44.7
74.4
78.1
77.4
72.1
74.4
62.0
62.9
67.7
74.2
75.0
73.7
4.4%
2.5%
1.6%
2.2%
4.2%
2.1%
2.7%
1.4%
3.1%
1.6%
2.9%
5848.2
2904.3
2976.9
4302.4
2925.3
518.6
4266.5
5087.2
5299.1
4180.0
4293.6
1.37
3.09
2.33
3.12
1.5
4
0.65
3.09
4.71
3.12
4
2.22
3
3
3.05
0.8
2.1
2.33
3.5
0.88
2.22
1.2
9.3
2.42
4
2.05
3.62
3.78
2.8
2.27
3.95
3.97
5.8
5.11
4.7
3.97
3 55
3.55
5
3.99
3.97
6.68
3.83
2.22
3.12
5.52
1.40
3.97
5.6
3.91
0.55
4.89
2.7
3.97
4
1.37
2.1%
0.1%
5.8%
1.1%
1.0%
10.8%
1.0%
5.6%
0.3%
2.0%
1.45
Total Investment (VND
mil./cap.) for 5 years
(200-2004)
Percentage of poor
households
35.68
35.68
13.51
19.40
16.09
13.91
18.18
27.01
38.62
18.18
6.07
35.68
6.15
7.11
12.51
5.48
5.77
30.74
7.56
6.34
6.15
13.35
19.08
6.25
9.79
7.71
16.43
16.43
38.62
7.92
6.22
6.25
17.01
5.21
7.59
9.26
15 72
15.72
7.94
9.34
7.11
6.22
6.11
6.54
2.08
18.18
10.63
7.99
17.15
6.15
10.14
17.01
15.72
6.54
19.40
13.91
8.47
9.48
12.51
7.11
13.96
27.43
16.09
29.56
22.85
12.49
7.99
14.31
16.43
13.62
6.86
14 31
14.31
5.21
18.06
5.57
6.08
17.32
9.24
3.72
17.32
12.75
4.47
10.69
3.05
1.26
9.79
9.24
1.68
4.47
3.72
2.25
5.57
2.08
4.47
1.83
22.85
22.85
Percentage of solid
waste collected over total
solid waste generated
25%
Urbanization
262
179
1,351
2,646
538
885
317
959
618
715
616
773
2,510
1,531
977
925
993
244
2,591
1,672
1,667
2,015
264
469
4,148
808
3,295
824
1,376
800
210
2,085
30
808
145
1,710
635
374
3,158
1,747
1,418
1,466
3,468
3,421
1,293
2,097
307
1,127
1,179
843
479
472
1,082
1,345
3,697
2,215
1,942
3.2
17.19
10.06
5.07
2.39
3.83
4.06
1.61
6.43
8.6
3.74
0.53
5.75
4.32
1.51
0.74
1.5
20.91
13.22
13.09
11.74
0.54
3.7
10.54
0.13
13.4
9.69
17.33
3.87
5.3
4.43
7.5
5.43
8.04
13.5
32.14
3 56
3.56
1.21
2.32
2.96
4.43
7.19
4.86
32.51
7.2
20.16
21.02
12.85
1.2
4.77
9.4
1.83
4.87
8.63
13.18
43.6
14.77
1.77
2.96
6.88
17.46
2.39
28.06
13.86
1.89
0.4
2.42
21.17
13.53
22.46
25 95
25.95
8.06
16.77
14.3
3.27
68.74
15.9
35.34
19.8
6.37
1.71
13.6
29.57
22.22
7.09
26.52
20.59
1.04
35.34
26.81
14.3
12.26
34.81
14.73
5.4
5.4
25%
30%
15%
10%
10%
10%
Ranking
3,214
616
1,305
380
225
1,600
485
516
3,365
1,592
5,099
1 369
1,369
596
636
1,058
3,225
1,741
698
1,771
3,682
992
402
4,529
3,151
2,735
1,044
1,580
1,830
472
923
3,347
1,160
710
925
609
25%
10.75
Overall Merit
110,886
78,155
218,038
76,263
68,329
116,023
49,268
169,869
185,351
99,703
230,575
78 337
78,337
67,382
94,701
31,989
131,761
43,992
81,316
216,637
217,313
74,938
92,186
297,666
75,606
4,380,700
113,150
70,559
148,626
152,154
79,790
1,586,500
593,200
130,675
185,405
566,000
25%
1.00
f) Low in Technical &
Investment
1,293
2,097
307
1,127
1,179
843
479
472
1,082
1,345
3,697
2,215
1,942
50%
8.26
e) Areas with High
56,491
101,514
128,829
113,398
255,100
312,571
187,318
266,483
78,488
78,041
133,848
75,763
138,360
31,110
119,306
81,888
231,116
84,278
74,372
122,437
51,845
177,253
194,807
103,489
236,356
83 069
83,069
70,968
99,197
34,812
135,752
48,945
83,996
248,117
235,602
77,081
96,670
321,498
82,864
4,888,300
118,505
79,141
160,826
158,623
83,621
1,999,800
708,000
138,530
193,080
609,500
61,088
132,460
201,500
189,191
37,487
349,700
70,159
107,631
138 546
138,546
55,286
94,025
97,567
336,605
115,549
160,841
488,100
Environment
50%
1.37
d) High Rate of
Urbanization
262
179
1,351
2,646
538
885
317
959
618
715
616
773
2,510
1,531
977
925
993
244
2,591
1,672
1,667
2,015
264
469
4,148
808
3,295
824
1,376
800
210
2,085
30
808
145
1,710
635
374
3,158
1,747
1,418
1,466
3,468
3,421
39,050
252,334
142,986
39,575
112,893
192,829
29,632
121,236
41,709
51,727
150,173
39,341
37,592
97,958
182,401
53,921
61,639
116,206
106,959
242,616
295,095
167,709
253,575
71,055
74,330
128,723
71,521
131,496
Population Density
(Person/Km2)
Population (2004)
18,561
9,463
88,925
16,800
44,969
26,257
97,749
52,984
35,866
186,394
112,558
46,372
266,559
148,530
61,983
127,114
204,517
32,206
124,196
78,244
53,499
159,981
43,829
41,548
136,462
197,931
58,856
55,093
78,300
140,370
213,751
203,775
52,560
559,500
74,538
114,597
147 644
147,644
63,094
101,677
101,352
355,920
120,178
167,514
529,196
9,409
72,199
16,096
43,244
18,314
93,959
43,219
35,417
172,416
Indicator Rating
1.44
1.00
Criteria Rating
25%
100%
2.59
c) High Degree of
43.7
48.4
420
100.6
216.4
371
391.1
564
72.6
58
36.2
34.2
71.3
8.7874
137.1
133
177.1
221.5
330
76.5
106.8
343.5
57.9
65
46.4
60 7
60.7
119
156
32.9
42.1
28.1
120.3
140.1
64
77.7
240.4
71
26.3
2095
113.5
50.1
87.9
335.8
90.6
921
1526
195
208.7
1256
Density
b) Significant
Infrastructure
Deficiencies
70.8
53
65.8
6.4
83.6
29.7
199.9
55.2
58
260.6
182.8
60
106.2
97
63.4
137.4
206
132
47.9
46.8
32.1
79.4
166
88.5
32.9
245
17.9
66.9
56
175.5
690
97.7
1729
1390
520
67
232 4
232.4
168.5
32.2
58
251
82
48.3
154.7
Population
Population (2000)
City Area (Km2)
Lowland, Highland,
Coastal
H
H
LC
LC
H
H
H
H
LC
H
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
H
L
L
LC
L
H
L
L
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
H
L
L
LC
H
L
L
L
LC
L
L
L
H
H
L
H
L
LC
H
H
LC
LC
H
L
L
L
L
LC
H
L
H
H
LC
L
LC
LC
L
L
LC
L
LC
LC
L
LC
L
L
L
H
L
LC
L
L
L
L
L
LC
L
L
L
L
LC
L
H
H
Area
TX. Lai Châu
6
Lai Châu
III
TX. Mường Lay
6
Điện Biên
IV
TX. Trà Vinh
10
Trà Vinh
IV
TX. Quảng Trị
3
Quảng Trị
IV
TX. Sông Công
4
Thái Nguyên
IV
TX. Nghĩa Lộ
5
Yên Bái
IV
TX. An Khê
9
Gia Lai
IV
TX. Cao Bằng
4
Cao Bằng
IV
TX. Hồng Lĩnh
7
Hà Tĩnh
IV
TP. Pleiku
9
Gia Lai
III
TX. Lagi và Huyện Hàm Tân
8
Bình Thuận
IV
6
Điện Biên
III
TP. Long Xuyên
10
An Giang
III
TX. Cao Lãnh
10
Đồng Tháp
IV
TX. Phú Thọ
5
Phú Thọ
IV
TX. Tây Ninh
2
Tây Ninh
IV
TP. Phan Thiết
8
Bình Thuận
III
TX. Bắc Cạn
4
Bắc Kạn
IV
TX. Vĩnh Long
10
Vĩnh Long
IV
TX. Hưng Yên
1
Hưng Yên
IV
TX. Gò Công
10
Tiền Giang
IV
8
Ninh Thuận
III
TX. Phan Rang - Tháp Chàm
TX. Hà Giang
5
Hà Giang
IV
TX. Hà Tiên
10
Kiên Giang
IV
TX. Hà Đông
1
Hà Tây
IV
TP. Cà Mau
10
Cà Mau
III
TX. Sầm Sơn
7
Thanh Hoá
IV
TX. Bỉm Sơn
7
Thanh Hoá
IV
TX. Hà Tĩnh
7
Hà Tĩnh
III
TX. Bac Liêu
10
Bạc Liêu
IV
TX. Cam Ranh
8
Khánh Hoà
IV
TP. Rạch Giá
10
Kiên Giang
III
9
Đăk Nông
IV
TP. Cần Thơ
I
TX. Móng Cái
1
Quảng Ninh
IV
TX. Bến Tre
10
Bến Tre
IV
TX Bảo Lộc
TX.
9
Lâm Đồng
IV
TX. Đồng Xoài
2
Bình Phước
IV
TP. Bắc Giang
4
Bắc Giang
III
TX. Sa Đéc
10
Đồng Tháp
IV
TP. Nha Trang
8
Khánh Hoà
II
TX. Tân An
10
Long An
IV
TP. Mỹ Tho
10
Tiền Giang
III
TP. Biên Hoà
2
Đồng Nai
II
TX. Ajunpa
9
Gia Lai
IV
TX. Tuyên Quang
5
Tuyên Quang
IV
TX. Ninh Bình
1
Ninh Bình
IV
TX. Kon Tum
9
Kon Tum
IV
TX. Châu Đốc
10
An Giang
IV
TP. Quy Nhơn
8
Bình Định
II
9
Đắc Lăk
II
TP. Đà Lạt
9
Lâm Đồng
II
10
Hậu Giang
IV
TX. Tân Hiệp và Huyện Phụn
TX. Đông Hà
3
Quảng Trị
IV
TP. Yên Bái
5
Yên Bái
III
TP. Hải Dương
1
Hải Dương
III
TX. Phủ Lý
1
Hà Nam
IV
TP. Việt Trì
5
Phú Thọ
II
Hồng Ngự
10
Đồng Tháp
IV
TP. Quảng Ngãi
3
Quảng Ngãi
III
TX. Hoà Bình
6
Hoà Bình
IV
TP. Thái Nguyên
4
Thái Nguyên
II
TP. Lào Cai
5
Lào Cai
III
TX. Sơn La
6
Sơn La
IV
TX. Sóc Trăng
10
Sóc Trăng
IV
TX. Tam Điệp
1
Ninh Bình
IV
TX. Tam Kỳ
3
Quảng Nam
III
TP. Thanh Hoá
7
Thanh Hoá
II
TP. Tuy Hoà
8
Phú Yên
III
TP. Nam Định
1
Nam Định
II
TX Hội An
TX.
3
Quảng Nam
III
TX. Vị Thanh
10
Hậu Giang
IV
TP. Đồng Hới
3
Quảng Bình
III
TX. Đồ Sơn
1
Hải Phòng
IV
TP. Thái Bình
1
Thái Bình
III
TX. Cửa Lò
7
Nghệ An
IV
TX. Phúc Yên
5
Vĩnh Phúc
IV
TP. Vũng Tàu
2
Bà Rịa Vũng Tàu
II
TP. Vinh
7
Nghệ An
II
TP. Lạng Sơn
4
Lạng Sơn
III
TX. Uông Bí
1
Quảng Ninh
IV
TP. Huế
3
Huế
I
TP. Bắc Ninh
4
Bắc Ninh
III
TP. Hồ Chí Minh
special
TX. Sơn Tây
1
Hà Tây
IV
TX. Vĩnh Yên
5
Vĩnh Phúc
III
2
Bình Dương
IV
TX. Cẩm Phả
1
Quảng Ninh
III
TX. Bà Rịa
2
IV
TP. Hà Nội
special
TP. Hải Phòng
I
TX. Long Khánh
2
Đồng Nai
III
TP. Hạ Long
1
Quảng Ninh
II
TP. Đà Nẵng
I
TX. Mai Sơn
6
Sơn La
IV
TX. Mộc Châu
6
Sơn La
IV
Values in Dark Green = Estiamted value based on regional average
Sub-Urbanization Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Overall
National Urban Upgrading Strategy Overall Investment Plan for Urban Upgrading Strategy to Year 2020 (NUUP)
D:\NUUPMINH\Final Report\Appendix_EN_Finalreport\ApF_Annex1_MCA-5-1 15 Nov 2006.xls
Typology
Class
Province
Urbanization Sub-Region
City/Town
MOC-4 Re. Number
46
47
88
27
35
44
70
34
55
69
65
45
74
81
42
21
62
33
89
12
87
63
41
84
9
75
58
57
54
79
64
76
68
95
6
80
73
19
31
82
60
85
77
16
71
43
13
72
78
59
66
67
90
26
39
4
8
36
96
25
48
29
38
49
86
14
24
53
61
2
28
83
23
11
5
56
40
15
52
32
7
22
30
92
10
37
18
3
20
91
93
17
1
94
50
51
Population Density
(Person/Km2)
Poverty
No
FIRST ROUND OF RANKING
100%
76
76
67
47
34
45
47
58
67
47
30
76
40
50
38
39
30
64
42
13
41
37
53
44
18
41
31
31
67
50
16
44
38
43
37
50
38
37
19
50
19
40
41
19
47
34
18
46
40
22
38
38
41
47
45
15
33
38
50
35
57
34
57
46
23
18
34
31
28
14
34
43
34
13
12
28
17
22
28
33
9
23
6
9
18
17
15
9
22
4
13
19
9
6
46
46
57
59
63
66
79
78
72
67
63
76
68
58
63
69
46
55
81
70
63
61
65
68
63
57
49
68
52
59
34
65
86
51
60
49
81
61
64
64
58
47
70
57
47
69
59
63
51
63
54
63
58
54
55
48
49
63
31
41
46
44
45
49
36
43
50
62
54
40
55
44
47
47
48
57
47
46
54
50
33
47
54
32
47
46
47
56
49
51
56
43
38
47
50
45
0
0
65
80
30
50
70
15
60
25
40
35
80
0
40
20
50
60
30
20
30
28
35
15
20
51
30
33
40
65
20
10
30
30
20
10
10
25
25
20
30
20
30
24
10
25
15
30
25
10
20
32
20
20
20
14
20
40
64
25
20
10
15
20
40
30
27
25
13
25
15
20
28
0
20
25
10
60
30
25
10
0
25
0
30
18
10
0
10
15
8
5
20
5
30
10
0
0
9
0
26
4
4
49
4
25
1
9
0
21
6
4
64
17
6
9
2
100
3
7
13
12
44
9
12
12
32
6
6
8
45
68
7
7
7
16
9
4
6
4
4
9
14
5
73
12
6
5
6
13
5
11
5
4
6
5
7
8
5
6
11
10
6
5
4
5
4
2
6
6
5
10
3
12
3
16
9
3
5
9
10
13
5
13
9
4
5
29
22
6
4
8
0
0
5
3
26
51
10
17
6
18
12
14
12
15
49
30
19
18
19
4
50
32
32
39
5
9
81
15
64
16
26
15
4
40
0
15
2
33
12
7
61
34
27
28
68
67
0
25
41
6
22
23
16
9
9
21
26
72
43
38
0
63
12
25
7
4
31
9
10
65
31
100
26
11
12
20
63
34
13
34
72
19
7
88
61
53
20
30
35
9
18
65
22
13
18
11
0
0
95
74
85
92
96
94
94
97
90
87
94
99
91
93
97
98
97
69
80
80
82
99
94
84
99
80
85
74
94
92
93
89
92
88
80
53
94
98
96
95
93
89
92
52
89
70
69
81
98
93
86
97
92
87
80
36
78
97
95
89
74
96
59
79
97
99
96
69
80
67
62
88
75
79
95
0
76
48
71
90
97
80
56
67
89
61
70
98
48
60
79
82
49
78
92
92
56.8
56.4
53.9
53.8
53.7
52.9
52.8
52.4
52.0
50.8
50.5
49.9
49.5
48.9
48.8
48.6
48.5
48.2
47.1
47.0
46.7
46.4
46.4
46.3
46.1
46.0
45.5
45.4
45.2
44.8
44.6
44.5
44.2
44.1
44.0
43.9
43 8
43.8
43.6
43.3
42.9
42.9
42.8
42.3
42.0
42.0
41.9
41.9
41.8
41.8
41.3
40.7
40.6
40.4
40.2
40.1
39.9
39.9
39.6
39.5
39.5
39.1
38.9
38.8
38.2
38.2
38.2
37.7
37.4
37.3
36.6
36 2
36.2
35.4
35.1
35.0
34.7
34.4
34.2
34.1
33.6
33.6
33.1
33.1
32.8
32.1
31.5
31.5
31.4
30.9
30.6
30.1
30.0
29.7
28.9
26.2
20.7
20.7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
44
46
47
48
48
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
56
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
64
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
95
Average Values:
131.8
139.2
129.4
83.4
91.6
129.4
49.8
241.5
514.9
115.5
221.9
104,157
176,001
90,157
82,672
65,013
48,736
108,632
203,904
145,917
129,862
197,265
116,144
192,928
95,686
88,985
72,486
46,131
101,067
200,759
159,009
131,854
212,284
1,906
1,422
1,577
1,478
1,040
411
2,129
1,146
475
1,529
1,449
13.7
19.7
11.0
9.4
12.7
9.0
21.0
4.7
6.6
8.2
12
Appendix F - 58/63
Annex 1
MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS 5-2
131.8
139.2
129.4
83.4
91.6
91 6
129.4
49.8
241.5
514.9
115.5
221.9
104,157
176,001
90,157
82,672
65,013
65 013
48,736
108,632
203,904
145,917
129,862
197,265
116,144
192,928
95,686
88,985
72,486
72 486
46,131
101,160
200,759
159,009
131,854
212,291
D:\NUUPMINH\Final Report\Appendix_EN_Finalreport\ApF_Annex1_MCA-5-2 15 Nov 2006.xls
(km/km2)
Classroom
waste generated
Scoring Scales of Criteria & Weighting Factors
Investment
0
1510
4100
100%
12.00
5.89
0.00
100%
27.01
35 68
35.68
19.40
35.68
13.91
6.15
7.11
19.08
18.18
6.15
7.56
5.48
16.09
18.18
13.51
9.34
5.77
13.35
12.51
9.79
22.55
17.01
30.74
7.71
6.54
7.94
6.25
22.55
7.59
8.47
35.68
6.22
16.43
6.15
6.07
7.11
12.51
7.11
6.25
6.34
7.92
6.54
13.96
5.21
14.31
6.08
10.14
19.40
18.18
9.26
6.11
12.49
17.15
10.63
16.43
15.72
22.85
22.85
13.62
29.56
22.85
6.22
2.08
5.21
9.48
16.09
17.32
16.43
15.72
27.43
17.01
7.99
9.24
17.32
3.05
7.99
4.47
4.47
3.72
10.69
13.91
9.79
1.68
2.25
12.75
6.86
18.06
9.24
1.26
4.47
3.72
14.31
5.57
2.08
5.57
1.83
34.2
43.45
43
45
32.27
43.45
39.87
48.15
60.7
41.68
35.32
47.76
48.26
47.5
19.98
35.32
72.86
11.02
33.33
29.14
32.1
8.88
25.9
23.93
36.35
46.28
48.15
39.26
53.33
25.9
40.5
6.86
43.45
12.64
14.54
47.76
33.33
60.7
32.1
60.7
53.33
7.03
58.4
48.15
24.99
53.44
23.95
6.09
14.05
32.27
35.32
55.71
47.76
10.55
35.81
30.22
14.54
26.44
24.26
24.26
15.98
27.56
24.26
16.07
24.64
53.44
30.42
19.98
8.96
14.54
26.44
31.44
23.93
11.86
8.47
8.96
3.2
11.86
6.02
6.02
25.95
14.53
39.87
8.88
19.95
2.5
25.49
7.75
15.56
8.47
11.23
6.02
25.95
23.59
8.72
24.64
8.72
6.44
2.23
2 54
2.54
4.73
1.50
0.13
0.85
0.59
0.83
5.33
2.16
1.52
4.00
2.71
4.35
4.4
3.96
0.84
3.67
9.40
7.38
9.85
3.30
3.08
1.40
4.57
3.46
3.50
4.28
1.54
1.7
4.4
2.17
4.4
3.19
2.50
4.90
8.40
6.90
3.66
3.57
4.4
3.00
9.98
3.50
3.64
3.72
3.60
10.00
3.00
2.82
3.00
4.77
0.31
4.4
3.04
4.00
4.4
4.4
3.31
12.10
6.56
3.30
2.10
2.50
7.20
3.10
10.70
9.40
4.50
4.28
4.01
4.4
2.49
4.4
4.92
4.20
5.60
4.4
7.49
10.67
5.88
3.46
3.56
7.00
7.24
4.4
5.68
4.4
4.10
5.60
4.49
6.00
4.4
8.15
4.20
4.53
70
80
45
73.1
15
85
80
70
21.08
66.8
90
70
10
34
66
90
50
65
73.1
85
100
60
37
84
95
50
83
35
25.5
85
73.1
22
60
90.8
78
100
85
84.25
75
65
55
80
95
80
60
80
90
80
65
59.9
80
92.8
70
40
87
73.1
73.1
73.1
70
73
95
60
61.3
93.5
70
93
85
70
95
95
80
25
85
73.1
81.3
85
85
73.1
83
100
90
95
100
80
90
94
70
85
85.34
90
80
86.83
73
73.1
80
53.96
0.66
1 48
1.48
1.26
2.95
2.95
1.19
0.91
0.96
2
2.95
1.25
2.95
0.19
0.4
2.95
1.5
2.95
2.05
2.95
2.39
3.91
2.5
0.86
1.17
4.71
2.95
4.4
2.95
1.37
1.2
2.95
0.229
2.95
1.87
1.73
4
2.42
4
2.95
2.3
2.95
3.06
2.05
2.95
5.8
6.68
0.8
0.88
4
2.95
2.95
3.95
3
2.95
0.78
2.95
2.95
2.95
4.7
2.8
2.27
7.5
2.95
5
9.3
3.78
5.52
5.11
2.95
3.62
2.1
2.95
2.7
2.95
3.91
3
4
2.95
2.95
5.6
2.95
4.89
3.97
2.95
2.95
2.95
3.99
2.95
0.55
4.53
1.37
3.55
2.95
4.03
3.6
3.42
46
36
44
44.6
37
47
52
29
54
51
47
40
38
57
55
52
70
64
37
49
44
39
38
56
51
48
46
46
44.6
47
59
44.6
49
46
63
44.6
33
52
48
47
52
48
54
6
50
50
57
45
44.6
43
47
55
40
46
41
54
44.6
44.6
48
36
34
44.6
63
41
39
40
47
45
51
35
48
37
42
42
38
40
55
48
56
55
41
45
50
7
37
36
38
50
8
62
42
44
58
51
6
7
75
100
50
35
85
65
80
80
40
60
70
40
30
65
70
70
70
85
50
70
80
80
80
66.2
90
80
70
60
90
60
20
70
60
80
20
80
75
80
48.08
72
90
80
90
73.5
86.25
90
73.5
86
85
75
73.5
72.2
90
70
35
73.5
73.5
73.5
85
60
70
70
75
100
36
80
90
75
80
85
80
73.5
100
40
70
75
85
73.5
75
100
80
90
90
95
100
80
80
70
82
70
92
72
73.5
95
80
90
5.6%
4 7%
4.7%
1.1%
2.9%
10.8%
0.9%
1.0%
2.9%
1.3%
1.4%
0.6%
3.7%
1.0%
2.0%
5.8%
2.0%
1.5%
1.6%
14.2%
9.8%
7.3%
10.1%
2.2%
2.1%
1.0%
3.5%
1.9%
0.3%
1.6%
1.0%
0.1%
1.5%
2.9%
1.5%
2.9%
2.9%
1.3%
1.0%
2.6%
21.9%
1.5%
1.3%
1.9%
15.0%
1.1%
0.8%
1.3%
2.6%
2.9%
1.6%
1.0%
1.4%
2.7%
1.2%
2.9%
1.6%
2.9%
2.9%
1.9%
2.6%
2.2%
1.4%
2.1%
1.3%
1.5%
1.5%
2.1%
1.3%
2.9%
0.7%
1.5%
1.3%
3.0%
2.8%
2.4%
16.2%
1.1%
1.2%
3.6%
2.0%
1.2%
1.2%
2.1%
6.5%
0.7%
0.6%
1.2%
0.8%
2.9%
1.0%
1.2%
1.5%
2.2%
1.5%
4.8%
1.9%
959
773
2,646
262
885
1,667
1,531
264
317
2,510
2,591
925
538
715
1,351
3,158
993
2,015
977
4,148
6,696
30
244
808
3,468
374
2,085
618
145
3,697
179
210
3,295
1,127
616
3,540
1,942
1,747
469
1,672
800
472
3,214
808
516
3,225
1,179
1,082
1,507
1,710
1,466
1,600
307
1,293
824
635
1,507
1,507
1,592
380
225
1,418
3,421
596
2,215
1,305
3,682
3,365
479
616
843
485
1,580
1,741
3,151
2,097
472
402
1,771
4,529
1,345
1,044
1,830
3,347
992
5,099
636
698
2,735
925
923
1,369
1,058
710
1,160
609
1.61
0 53
0.53
5.07
3.2
3.83
11.74
4.32
3.7
4.06
5.75
13.22
0.74
2.39
8.6
10.06
2.32
1.5
0.54
1.51
0.13
3.87
5.43
20.91
13.4
4.86
1.21
7.5
6.43
13.5
43.6
17.19
4.43
9.69
1.2
3.74
2.96
1.77
2.96
10.54
13.09
5.3
4.87
6.88
8.04
2.42
3.27
4.77
8.63
7.2
32.14
7.19
1.89
12.85
20.16
17.33
3.56
5.4
5.4
13.53
28.06
13.86
4.43
32.51
8.06
14.77
2.39
19.8
21.17
1.83
17.46
9.4
0.4
26.52
68.74
29.57
21.02
1.04
1.71
35.34
13.6
13.18
7.09
20.59
26.81
6.37
22.46
16.77
15.9
22.22
34.81
35.34
25.95
14.3
12.26
14.3
14.73
1,906
1,422
1,577
1,478
1,040
1 040
411
2,889
1,146
475
1,529
1,507
7.10
3.81
16.57
16.44
14.51
14 51
29.00
18.43
8.77
17.14
7.51
12.12
12
30
25
21
29
34
16
22
30
51
28
4.4
4.8
6.7
3.7
5.6
56
3.7
7.5
2.8
3.6
3.1
4.4
73.7
74.1
72.8
67.3
67.9
67 9
90.0
72.8
62.1
60.7
81.2
73.1
3.97
3.12
2.92
1.40
2.22
2 22
2.46
3.83
2.99
2.33
2.96
2.95
47.2
50.1
45.8
41.3
39.0
39 0
41.0
44.8
60.3
49.0
49.2
44.6
74.4
78.1
77.4
72.1
74.4
74 4
62.0
62.9
66.7
74.3
75.1
73.5
4.4%
2.5%
1.6%
2.2%
4.2%
4 2%
1.9%
2.8%
1.5%
3.2%
1.6%
2.9%
1,906
1,422
1,577
1,478
1,040
1 040
411
2,889
1,146
475
1,529
1,507
13.7
19.7
11.0
9.4
12.7
12 7
9.0
21.0
4.7
6.6
8.2
12
12.12
1.26
35.68
28
2.50
72.86
4.4
0.13
12.10
73.1
10.00
100.00
2.95
0.19
9.30
44.6
5.78
69.61
73.5
20.00
100.00
2.9%
0.00
0.22
1,507
30.00
6696.19
12
0.13
68.74
50
75
100
50
75
100
50
65
70
50
75
100
50
75
100
50
75
100
Scale
25%
30%
15%
10%
10%
10%
100%
Ranking
water supply
Density
0.0%
3.0%
12.0%
100%
Overall Merit
Urbanization
70
47
0
100%
Densities
0
30
57
25%
d) High Rate of Urbanization
2.90
1.57
0.00
25%
(2002004)
70
42
0
25%
Population Density
(Person/Km2)
4.00
2.28
0.00
25%
poor housing
Environment
0.00
28.00
50.50
50%
959
773
2,646
262
885
1,667
1,531
264
317
2,510
2,591
925
538
715
1,351
3,158
993
2,015
977
4,148
6,696
30
244
808
3,468
374
2,085
618
145
3,697
179
210
3,295
1,127
616
528
1,942
1,747
469
1,672
800
472
3,214
808
516
3,225
1,179
1,082
122
1,710
1,466
1,600
307
1,293
824
635
1,196
857
1,592
380
225
1,418
3,421
596
2,215
1,305
3,682
3,365
479
616
843
485
1,580
1,741
3,151
2,097
472
402
1,771
4,529
1,345
1,044
1,830
3,347
992
5,099
636
698
2,735
925
923
1,369
1,058
710
1,160
609
Lowest
Highest
National Urban Upgrading Strategy Overall Investment Plan for Urban Upgrading to Year 2020 (NUUP)
0.00
12.00
2.90
50%
c) High Degree of
43,219
52,984
39 050
39,050
46 372
46,372
16,096
16,800
18,089
18,561
18,314
26,257
51,727
53,499
142,986
148,530
39,341
43,829
93,959
97,749
252,334
266,559
121,236
124,196
112,893
127,114
43,244
44,969
172,416
186,394
72,199
88,925
94,025
101,677
192,829
204,517
150,173
159,981
39,575
61,983
97,958
136,462
61,088
78,948
37,487
52,560
29,632
32,206
182,401
197,931
160,841
167,514
55,286
63,094
189,191
203,775
35,417
35,866
70,159
74,538
128,723
133,848
9,409
9,463
201,500
213,751
54,806
58,856
106,959
113,398
105,363
112,558
31,110
64,569
131,496
138,360
97,567
101,352
37,592
41,548
41,709
78,244
132,460
140,370
253,575
266,483
110,886
119,306
349,700
559,500
169,869
177,253
131,761
135,752
242,616
255,100
71,055
78,488
32,817
35,058
107,631
114,597
115,549
120,178
116,023
122,437
116,206
128,829
53,921
56,491
53,462
55,093
138,546
147,644
15,221
16,260
8,743
9,340
99,703
103,489
76,263
84,278
68,329
74,372
336,605
355,920
488,100
529,196
67,382
70,968
71,521
75,763
218,038
231,116
217,313
235,602
185,351
194,807
167,709
187,318
,
,
78,155
81,888
295,095
312,571
49,268
51,845
70,559
79,141
43,992
48,945
75,606
82,864
61,639
101,514
152,154
158,623
92,186
96,670
216,637
248,117
297,666
321,498
74,330
78,041
113,150
118,505
148,626
160,826
1,586,500 1,999,800
74,938
77,081
230,575
236,356
94,701
99,197
81,316
83,996
4,380,700 4,888,300
185,405
193,080
79,790
83,621
78,337
83,069
31,989
34,812
130,675
138,530
593,200
708,000
566,000
609,500
Average Values:
Density
Population Density
(Person/Km2)
Population (2004)
Population (2000)
City Area (Km2)
55.2
60 0
60.0
6.4
70.8
29.7
32.1
97.0
166.0
199.9
106.2
47.9
137.4
83.6
260.6
65.8
32.2
206.0
79.4
63.4
32.9
56.0
1729.0
132.0
245.0
48.3
168.5
97.7
58.0
520.0
36.2
53.0
690.0
17.9
100.6
182.8
122.2
71.3
58.0
88.5
46.8
175.5
564.0
137.1
1390.0
343.5
42.1
216.4
72.6
287.0
67.0
82.0
76.5
420.0
43.7
66.9
232.4
13.6
10.9
65.0
221.5
330.0
251.0
154.7
119.0
34.2
177.1
64.0
57.9
391.1
133.0
371.0
106.8
50.1
28.1
26.3
48.4
335.8
240.4
140.1
71.0
58.0
113.5
87.9
921.0
77.7
46.4
156.0
120.3
2095.0
208.7
90.6
60.7
32.9
195.0
1526.0
1256.0
Population
Deficiencies
H
H
LC
H
H
LC
L
H
H
L
L
L
H
H
LC
L
L
L
L
L
LC
H
H
LC
L
L
LC
LC
L
L
H
LC
LC
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
LC
LC
LC
L
LC
L
LC
LC
H
LC
L
LC
H
H
LC
H
H
H
L
H
H
LC
L
L
L
L
L
LC
H
H
H
L
L
LC
L
L
LC
L
L
LC
H
L
L
L
H
L
LC
L
L
LC
L
LC
LC
L
L
L
Area
TX. Cao Bằng
4
Cao Bằng
IV
TP Điện Biên Phủ
TP.
6
Điện Biên
III
TX. Quảng Trị
3
Quảng Trị
IV
TX. Lai Châu
6
Lai Châu
III
TX. Nghĩa Lộ
5
Yên Bái
IV
TX. Gò Công
10
Tiền Giang
IV
TX. Cao Lãnh
10
Đồng Tháp
IV
TX. Hà Giang
5
Hà Giang
IV
TX. An Khê
9
Gia Lai
IV
TP. Long Xuyên
10
An Giang
III
TX. Vĩnh Long
10
Vĩnh Long
IV
TX. Tây Ninh
2
Tây Ninh
IV
TX. Sông Công
4
Thái Nguyên
IV
TP. Pleiku
9
Gia Lai
III
TX. Trà Vinh
10
Trà Vinh
IV
TP. Bắc Giang
4
Bắc Giang
III
TP. Phan Thiết
8
Bình Thuận
III
8
Ninh Thuận
III
TX. Phú Thọ
5
Phú Thọ
IV
TX. Hà Đông
1
Hà Tây
IV
TX. Hà Tĩnh
7
Hà Tĩnh
III
9
Đăk Nông
IV
TX. Bắc Cạn
4
Bắc Kạn
IV
TP. Cà Mau
10
Cà Mau
III
TP. Mỹ Tho
10
Tiền Giang
III
TX. Đồng Xoài
2
Bình Phước
IV
TP. Rạch Giá
10
Kiên Giang
III
TX. Hồng Lĩnh
7
Hà Tĩnh
IV
TX. Móng Cái
1
Quảng Ninh
IV
TP. Hải Dương
1
Hải Dương
III
TX. Mường Lay
6
Điện Biên
IV
TX. Cam Ranh
8
Khánh Hoà
IV
TX. Sầm Sơn
7
Thanh Hoá
IV
TX. Châu Đốc
10
An Giang
IV
8
Bình Thuận
IV
Hồng
ồ Ngự
10
Đồng
ồ Tháp
IV
TP. Việt Trì
5
Phú Thọ
II
TX. Sa Đéc
10
Đồng Tháp
IV
TX. Hà Tiên
10
Kiên Giang
IV
TX. Hưng Yên
1
Hưng Yên
IV
TX. Bac Liêu
10
Bạc Liêu
IV
10
Hậu Giang
IV
TX. Tân Hiệp và Huyện Phụn
TP. Quảng Ngãi
3
Quảng Ngãi
III
TP. Cần Thơ
I
TX. Tam Kỳ
3
Quảng Nam
III
TP. Thái Bình
1
Thái Bình
III
TP. Quy Nhơn
8
Bình Định
II
TX. Đông Hà
3
Quảng Trị
IV
TX. Ajunpa
9
Gia Lai
IV
TX. Bến Tre
10
Bến Tre
IV
TX. Tân An
10
Long An
IV
TX. Sóc Trăng
10
Sóc Trăng
IV
TX. Kon Tum
9
Kon Tum
IV
TX. Tuyên Quang
5
Tuyên Quang
IV
TX. Bỉm Sơn
7
Thanh Hoá
IV
TX. Bảo Lộc
9
Lâm Đồng
IV
TX. Mai Sơn
6
Sơn La
IV
TX. Mộc Châu
6
Sơn La
IV
TP. Tuy Hoà
8
Phú Yên
III
TP. Lào Cai
5
Lào Cai
III
TX. Sơn La
6
Sơn La
IV
TP. Nha Trang
8
Khánh Hoà
II
TP. Biên Hoà
2
Đồng Nai
II
TX. Vị Thanh
10
Hậu Giang
IV
TX. Phủ Lý
1
Hà Nam
IV
TP. Thái Nguyên
4
Thái Nguyên
II
TP. Vinh
7
Nghệ An
II
TP. Thanh Hoá
7
Thanh Hoá
II
9
Lâm Đồng
II
TP. Đà Lạt
ạ
g
TX. Hoà Bình
6
Hoà Bình
IV
9
Đắc Lăk
II
TX. Tam Điệp
1
Ninh Bình
IV
TX. Vĩnh Yên
5
Vĩnh Phúc
III
TX. Cửa Lò
7
Nghệ An
IV
TP. Bắc Ninh
4
Bắc Ninh
III
TX. Ninh Bình
1
Ninh Bình
IV
TX. Cẩm Phả
1
Quảng Ninh
III
TX. Uông Bí
1
Quảng Ninh
IV
TP. Vũng Tàu
2
II
TP. Huế
3
Huế
I
TP. Yên Bái
5
Yên Bái
III
TX. Sơn Tây
1
Hà Tây
IV
2
Bình Dương
IV
TP. Hà Nội
special
TP. Lạng Sơn
4
Lạng Sơn
III
TP. Nam Định
1
Nam Định
II
TP. Đồng Hới
3
Quảng Bình
III
TX. Phúc Yên
5
Vĩnh Phúc
IV
TP. Hồ Chí Minh
special
TP. Hạ Long
1
Quảng Ninh
II
TX. Bà Rịa
2
IV
TX. Hội An
3
Quảng Nam
III
TX. Đồ Sơn
1
Hải Phòng
IV
TX. Long Khánh
2
Đồng Nai
III
TP. Hải Phòng
I
TP. Đà Nẵng
I
Values in dark green = estimated value based on regional average
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Overall
Typology
Class
Province
City/Town
MOC-4 Re. Number
34
45
27
46
44
87
81
41
70
74
89
21
35
69
88
31
62
63
42
9
54
68
33
75
77
19
76
55
6
4
47
64
58
78
65
96
36
82
84
12
79
90
25
95
24
5
59
26
71
80
85
86
72
43
57
73
50
51
61
38
49
60
16
83
8
29
52
53
67
48
66
14
37
56
30
13
3
7
15
22
39
10
18
91
32
2
23
40
92
1
20
28
11
17
93
94
Percentage of poor
households
Poverty
No
FIRST ROUND OF RANKING
Average Annual Pop. Growth
Rate (2000-2004)
CITY/TOWN PROFILE
87
100
75
100
75
75
75
87
75
75
75
75
62
75
87
50
62
75
75
50
75
62
87
75
75
62
75
75
75
50
100
50
62
75
62
75
75
75
75
50
75
75
62
75
62
50
50
75
75
75
75
62
75
62
62
62
75
75
62
75
75
50
50
75
62
62
62
62
62
87
62
50
50
62
50
50
50
50
50
50
75
50
50
50
62
50
62
50
50
50
50
62
50
50
50
50
87
75
81
68
81
87
87
81
81
75
87
68
87
87
68
81
87
75
56
68
56
75
87
87
62
81
68
75
93
87
62
87
68
75
75
56
62
62
68
81
68
68
68
56
75
68
81
68
68
68
68
62
75
75
75
68
56
56
75
62
62
68
75
62
62
62
62
62
62
56
68
68
68
56
56
56
62
62
62
62
56
68
68
50
56
56
62
62
62
62
68
56
62
62
50
56
50
50
70
70
50
70
50
50
70
65
70
70
70
65
65
65
65
50
70
70
50
50
50
70
50
50
70
70
50
70
70
70
70
50
70
50
50
50
70
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
70
70
50
50
50
50
70
70
65
50
50
70
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
70
70
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
70
50
65
50
50
50
50
50
50
75
75
50
50
100
50
50
50
50
50
50
75
50
50
75
50
50
50
100
75
75
100
50
50
50
75
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
100
50
50
50
100
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
75
50
50
100
50
50
75
50
50
50
50
75
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
75
50
50
50
75
50
50
75
75
50
50
75
75
50
50
50
50
100
50
75
50
100
100
50
50
50
100
50
75
50
50
100
50
50
100
50
50
100
75
75
50
75
50
50
100
50
50
100
50
50
50
75
50
75
50
50
50
50
50
50
75
50
50
50
100
50
75
50
100
100
50
50
50
50
75
75
100
75
50
50
75
100
50
50
75
100
50
100
50
50
75
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
100
100
100
100
100
75
100
100
100
100
50
100
100
75
75
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
50
50
100
100
75
75
50
50
50
100
75
100
100
100
100
100
75
50
100
100
75
75
100
100
100
75
75
50
75
100
50
50
50
100
100
100
50
50
50
100
50
75
50
100
50
50
100
50
75
100
50
50
50
50
100
100
50
50
50
75
50
50
75
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
77.9
77 5
77.5
76.1
75.9
75.6
75.4
74.9
73.6
73.6
73.5
72.9
72.2
72.1
72.1
71.9
71.6
71.4
71.3
71.1
70.9
70.6
70.5
70.4
70.4
69.9
69.8
69.7
69.3
69.2
69.1
69.1
69.1
68.9
68.8
68.5
68.1
67.4
67.4
67.2
66.8
66.7
66.7
65.9
65.6
65.5
65.4
64.3
64.2
64.2
64.2
64.2
64.1
63.8
63.5
63.5
63.4
63.1
63.1
63.0
62.9
62.9
62.7
62.5
62.4
62.1
61.6
61.6
61.6
61.6
61.1
60.9
60.4
60.4
60.3
59.8
59.3
58.6
58.6
58.6
58.6
58.1
57.9
57.9
57.5
57.3
56.8
56.6
56.6
56.1
55.9
55.4
54.8
53.6
53.6
52.5
51.8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
10
11
12
13
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
30
30
33
34
35
36
37
37
39
40
41
41
43
44
45
46
47
48
48
48
48
52
53
54
54
56
57
57
59
60
60
62
63
64
65
66
66
66
66
70
71
72
72
74
75
76
77
77
77
77
81
82
82
84
85
86
87
87
89
90
91
92
93
93
95
96
Appendix F - 59/63
MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS 6
Annex 1
95
22
93
94
36
52
53
59
16
60
29
67
66
15
2
1
45
46
54
74
69
75
4
31
62
76
63
77
5
25
24
61
38
30
37
3
39
32
23
28
17
47
44
34
27
87
81
9
89
21
41
70
42
19
88
58
35
12
68
33
64
55
78
96
65
84
48
82
6
49
79
90
50
51
80
26
72
85
71
86
43
83
57
13
73
14
8
56
7
10
18
40
20
11
91
92
TP. Cần Thơ
10
I
L
TP. Huế
3
Huế
I
LC
TP. Hải Phòng
1
I
L
TP. Đà Nẵng
3
I
L
TP. Việt Trì
5
Phú Thọ
II
L
TP. Vinh
7
Nghệ An
II
L
TP. Thanh Hoá
7
Thanh Hoá
II
LC
TP. Quy Nhơn
8
Bình Định
II
LC
TP. Biên Hoà
2
Đồng Nai
II
L
TP. Nha Trang
8
Khánh Hoà
II
LC
TP. Thái Nguyên
4
Thái Nguyên
II
L
TP. Đà Lạt
9
Lâm Đồng
II
H
9
Đắc Lăk
II
H
TP. Vũng Tàu
2
II
L
TP. Nam Định
1
Nam Định
II
L
TP. Hạ Long
1
Quảng Ninh
II
LC
6
Điện Biên
III
H
TX. Lai Châu
6
Lai Châu
III
H
TX. Hà Tĩnh
7
Hà Tĩnh
III
LC
TP. Long Xuyên
10
An Giang
III
L
TP. Pleiku
9
Gia Lai
III
H
TP. Cà Mau
10
Cà Mau
III
LC
TP. Hải Dương
1
Hải Dương
III
L
TP. Bắc Giang
4
Bắc Giang
III
L
TP. Phan Thiết
8
Bình Thuận
III
L
TP. Rạch Giá
10
Kiên Giang
III
LC
8
Ninh Thuận
III
L
TP. Mỹ Tho
10
Tiền Giang
III
L
TP. Thái Bình
1
Thái Bình
III
L
TP. Quảng Ngãi
3
Quảng Ngãi
III
LC
TX. Tam Kỳ
3
Quảng Nam
III
LC
TP. Tuy Hoà
8
Phú Yên
III
L
TP. Lào Cai
5
Lào Cai
III
H
TP. Bắc Ninh
4
Bắc Ninh
III
L
TX. Vĩnh Yên
5
Vĩnh Phúc
III
L
TX. Cẩm Phả
1
Quảng Ninh
III
LC
TP Yên Bái
TP.
5
Yên Bái
III
H
TP. Lạng Sơn
4
Lạng Sơn
III
H
TP. Đồng Hới
3
Quảng Bình
III
LC
TX. Hội An
3
Quảng Nam
III
LC
TX. Long Khánh
2
Đồng Nai
III
L
TX. Mường Lay
6
Điện Biên
IV
H
TX. Nghĩa Lộ
5
Yên Bái
IV
H
TX. Cao Bằng
4
Cao Bằng
IV
H
TX. Quảng Trị
3
Quảng Trị
IV
LC
TX. Gò Công
10
Tiền Giang
IV
LC
TX. Cao Lãnh
10
Đồng Tháp
IV
L
TX. Hà Đông
1
Hà Tây
IV
L
TX. Vĩnh Long
10
Vĩnh Long
IV
L
TX. Tây Ninh
2
Tây Ninh
IV
L
TX. Hà Giang
5
Hà Giang
IV
H
TX. An Khê
9
Gia Lai
IV
H
TX. Phú Thọ
5
Phú Thọ
IV
L
TX. Đồng Xoài
2
Bình Phước
IV
L
TX. Trà Vinh
10
Trà Vinh
IV
LC
TX. Sầm Sơn
7
Thanh Hoá
IV
LC
TX. Sông Công
4
Thái Nguyên
IV
H
TX. Hưng Yên
1
Hưng Yên
IV
L
TX. Gia Nghĩa và huyện Đăk Klong
9
Đăk Nông
IV
H
TX. Bắc Cạn
4
Bắc Kạn
IV
H
TX. Cam Ranh
8
Khánh Hoà
IV
LC
TX. Hồng Lĩnh
7
Hà Tĩnh
IV
LC
TX. Châu Đốc
10
An Giang
IV
L
Hồng Ngự
10
Đồng Tháp
IV
L
8
Bình Thuận
IV
L
TX. Hà Tiên
10
Kiên Giang
IV
L
TX. Hoà Bình
6
Hoà Bình
IV
H
TX. Sa Đéc
10
Đồng Tháp
IV
L
TX. Móng Cái
1
Quảng Ninh
IV
L
TX. Sơn La
6
Sơn La
IV
H
TX. Bac Liêu
10
Bạc Liêu
IV
LC
10
Hậu Giang
IV
LC
TX. Tân Hiệp và Huyện Phụng Hiệp
TX. Mai Sơn
6
Sơn La
IV
H
TX. Mộc Châu
6
Sơn La
IV
H
TX. Bến Tre
10
Bến Tre
IV
LC
TX. Đông Hà
3
Quảng Trị
IV
LC
TX. Kon Tum
9
Kon Tum
IV
H
TX. Tân An
10
Long An
IV
L
TX. Ajunpa
9
Gia Lai
IV
H
TX. Sóc Trăng
10
Sóc Trăng
IV
LC
TX. Tuyên Quang
5
Tuyên Quang
IV
H
TX. Vị Thanh
10
Hậu Giang
IV
L
TX. Bỉm Sơn
7
Thanh Hoá
IV
LC
TX. Ninh Bình
1
Ninh Bình
IV
L
TX. Bảo Lộc
9
Lâm Đồng
IV
H
TX. Tam Điệp
1
Ninh Bình
IV
L
TX. Phủ Lý
1
Hà Nam
IV
L
TX. Cửa Lò
7
Nghệ An
IV
LC
TX. Uông Bí
1
Quảng Ninh
IV
L
TX. Sơn Tây
1
Hà Tây
IV
L
2
Bình Dương
IV
L
TX. Phúc Yên
5
Vĩnh Phúc
IV
L
TX. Bà Rịa
2
IV
L
TX. Đồ Sơn
1
Hải Phòng
IV
LC
TP. Hà Nội
1
special
L
TP. Hồ Chí Minh
2
special
L
Values in green fonts are estimated values based on national or regional average
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Overall
131.79
139.17
129.38
83.44
91.56
129.36
129 36
49.83
241.51
514.86
115.55
221.86
104,157
176,001
90,157
82,672
65,013
48,736
48 736
108,632
203,904
145,917
129,862
197,265
116,144
192,928
95,686
88,985
72,486
46,131
46 131
101,160
200,759
159,009
131,854
212,291
1,906
1,422
1,577
1,478
1,040
411
2,889
1,146
475
1,529
1,507
PROCESS OF SCORING/FIRST ROUND OF RANKING
70
47
0
100%
0.0%
3.0%
12.0%
100%
0
1510
4100
100%
12.00
5.89
0.00
100%
(km/km2) (5)
Classroom (6)
waste generated (7)
Average Annual Pop. Growth
Rate (2000-2004) (8)
Population Density
(Person/Km2) (9)
(2002004) (10)
7.10
3.81
16.57
16.44
14.51
29.00
29 00
18.43
8.77
17.14
7.51
12.12
12
30
25
21
29
34
16
22
30
51
28
4.4
4.8
6.7
3.7
5.6
3.7
37
7.5
2.8
3.6
3.1
4.4
73.7
74.1
72.8
67.3
67.9
90.0
90 0
72.8
62.1
60.7
81.2
73.1
3.97
3.12
2.92
1.40
2.22
2.46
2 46
3.83
2.99
2.33
2.96
2.95
44
55
52
44
33
47
45
57
63
45
40
51
48
56
36
62
36
45
44
51
57
56
47
52
70
46
64
51
50
54
50
48
36
38
42
55
41
37
38
44
51
59
37
46
44
47
52
49
47
40
29
54
37
48
55
49
38
47
39
38
45
46
46
45
63
48
35
52
45
34
52
48
45
45
43
45
40
47
45
55
46
41
41
40
54
37
39
42
48
45
50
50
42
58
39
45
47.2
50.1
45.8
41.3
39.0
41.0
41 0
44.8
60.3
49.0
49.2
44.6
73.5
15.0%
100
2.0%
80
4.8%
90
1.9%
75
1.3%
90
2.1%
75
1.3%
73.5
1.3%
75
2.1%
70
1.4%
80
1.5%
80
2.9%
80
1.5%
75
3.6%
80
0.6%
70
1.0%
100
4.7%
35
2.9%
80
7.3%
60
1.4%
65
2.0%
66.2
2.1%
60
1.0%
70
2.0%
70
1.5%
70
1.9%
85
1.6%
90
1.0%
90
0.8%
90
1.9%
86.25
1.1%
85
1.9%
60
2.6%
70
2.4%
100
3.0%
85
1.1%
80
1 2%
1.2%
100
0.7%
80
1.2%
72
1.5%
95
1.5%
20
0.1%
85
10.8%
75
5.6%
50
1.1%
65
0.9%
80
1.0%
70
9.8%
70
0.6%
40
3.7%
80
2.9%
40
1.3%
50
14.2%
80
3.5%
70
5.8%
60
2.9%
30
1.0%
72
21.9%
80
10.1%
80
2.2%
70
1.5%
60
0.3%
80
1.5%
80
2.9%
20
2.9%
48.08
2.6%
85
0.7%
80
1.0%
90
1.6%
70
2.2%
90
1.5%
80
1.3%
73.5
2.9%
73.5
2.9%
75
1.6%
86
2.6%
90
2.7%
73.5
1.0%
85
2.9%
72.2
1.4%
70
1.2%
100
1.3%
35
2.9%
75
16.2%
73.5
1.6%
73.5
1.3%
36
1.5%
40
2.8%
73.5
1.2%
90
1.2%
90
2.1%
70
0.8%
92
1.2%
73.5
2.2%
95
6.5%
82
2.9%
Values in black fonts are MOC4 Survey
74.4
78.1
77.4
72.1
74.4
62.0
62 0
62.9
66.7
74.3
75.1
73.5
4.4%
2.5%
1.6%
2.2%
4.2%
1.9%
1 9%
2.8%
1.5%
3.2%
1.6%
2.9%
808
4,529
1,160
609
1,942
3,682
3,365
1,179
3,421
1,418
1,305
479
843
1,771
5,099
925
773
262
6,696
2,510
715
808
3,697
3,158
993
2,085
2,015
3,468
3,225
3,214
516
1,592
380
3,151
1,580
472
1 345
1,345
992
636
1,369
710
179
885
959
2,646
1,667
1,531
4,148
2,591
925
264
317
977
374
1,351
3,295
538
1,672
30
244
210
618
1,127
3,540
616
469
616
1,747
145
225
800
472
1,507
1,507
1,710
1,082
307
1,466
1,507
1,600
1,293
596
824
2,097
635
485
2,215
1,741
402
1,044
1,830
698
923
1,058
3,347
2,735
1,906
1,422
1,577
1,478
1,040
411
2,889
1,146
475
1,529
1,507
50
75
100
50
75
100
50
65
70
50
75
100
50
75
100
50
75
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Scale
Ranking
0
30
57
25%
Overall Merit
2.90
1.57
0.00
25%
70
42
0
25%
Densities
4.00
2.28
0.00
25%
0.00
28.00
50.50
40%
Region
c) High Degree of
0.00
12.00
2.90
60%
MATRICES OF CRITERIA WEIGHTING FACTORS
Scoring Scales of Criteria
Investment
water supply (4)
Density
Road density (km/km2) (3)
Urbanization
poor housing (2)
Environment
Percentage of poor
households (1)
Population Density
(Person/Km2)
Density
1,390.00
349,700
559,500
808
5.21
53.44
3.50
80
2.95
71.00
297,666
321,498
4,529
10.69
14.53
10.67
100
5.6
1,526.00
593,200
708,000
1,160
5.57
8.72
4.20
80
3.6
1,256.00
566,000
609,500
609
1.83
6.44
4.53
53.96
3.42
71.30
131,496
138,360
1,942
12.51
32.1
8.40
85
2.42
64.00
217,313
235,602
3,682
17.32
8.96
10.70
85
5.52
70
5.11
57.90
185,351
194,807
3,365
16.43
14.54
9.40
216.40
242,616
255,100
1,179
10.14
14.05
3.60
90
0.8
154.70
488,100
529,196
3,421
2.08
24.64
2.10
61.3
2.95
251.00
336,605
355,920
1,418
6.22
16.07
3.30
60
7.5
177.10
218,038
231,116
1,305
16.09
19.98
3.10
93
3.78
391.10
167,709
187,318
479
15.72
26.44
4.50
95
2.95
371.00
295,095
312,571
843
17.01
23.93
4.01
80
2.1
140.10
216,637
248,117
1,771
3.72
25.95
7.49
83
2.95
46.40
230,575
236,356
5,099
6.86
7.75
4.4
94
2.95
208.70
185,405
193,080
925
4.47
6.02
5.60
90
4.53
60.00
39,050
46,372
773
35.68
43.45
2.54
80
1.48
70.80
18,089
18,561
262
35.68
43.45
1.50
73.1
2.95
100
3.91
56.00
61,088
78,948
6,696
22.55
25.9
9.85
106.20
252,334
266,559
2,510
6.15
47.76
2.16
66.8
2.95
260.60
172,416
186,394
715
18.18
35.32
4.35
34
0.4
245.00
182,401
197,931
808
7.71
46.28
1.40
84
1.17
36.20
128,723
133,848
3,697
8.47
6.86
1.7
85
1.2
32.20
94,025
101,677
3,158
9.34
11.02
3.96
90
1.5
206.00
192,829
204,517
993
5.77
33.33
0.84
50
2.95
97.70
189,191
203,775
2,085
6.25
53.33
3.50
83
4.4
79.40
150,173
159,981
2,015
13.35
29.14
3.67
65
2.05
48.30
160,841
167,514
3,468
6.54
48.15
4.57
95
4.71
42.10
131,761
135,752
3,225
6.08
6.09
3.72
80
6.68
137.10
110,886
119,306
3,214
13.96
24.99
9.98
95
2.05
343.50
169,869
177,253
516
14.31
23.95
3.64
60
5.8
65.00
99,703
103,489
1,592
13.62
15.98
3.31
70
4.7
221.50
76,263
84,278
380
29.56
27.56
12.10
73
2.8
26.30
75,606
82,864
3,151
3.05
3.2
4.92
81.3
3.91
50.10
70,559
79,141
1,580
9.24
8.47
2.49
85
2.7
6.02
5.60
85
4
335.80
152,154
158,623
472
4.47
58 00
58.00
74 330
74,330
78 041
78,041
1 345
1,345
13 91
13.91
39 87
39.87
5 88
5.88
90
2 95
2.95
77.70
74,938
77,081
992
12.75
25.49
7.24
90
2.95
156.00
94,701
99,197
636
18.06
15.56
5.68
70
3.99
60.70
78,337
83,069
1,369
14.31
23.59
6.00
86.83
3.55
24.64
8.15
73.1
4.03
195.00
130,675
138,530
710
2.08
43.45
4.4
73.1
2.95
53.00
9,409
9,463
179
35.68
29.70
18,314
26,257
885
13.91
39.87
0.13
15
2.95
55.20
43,219
52,984
959
27.01
34.2
2.23
70
0.66
32.27
4.73
45
1.26
6.40
16,096
16,800
2,646
19.40
48.15
0.85
85
1.19
32.10
51,727
53,499
1,667
6.15
97.00
142,986
148,530
1,531
7.11
60.7
0.59
80
0.91
32.90
97,958
136,462
4,148
9.79
8.88
7.38
85
2.39
47.90
121,236
124,196
2,591
7.56
48.26
1.52
90
1.25
137.40
112,893
127,114
925
5.48
47.5
4.00
70
2.95
166.00
39,341
43,829
264
19.08
41.68
0.83
70
0.96
35.32
5.33
21.08
2
199.90
93,959
97,749
317
18.18
32.1
9.40
73.1
2.95
63.40
39,575
61,983
977
12.51
168.50
55,286
63,094
374
7.94
39.26
3.46
50
2.95
65.80
72,199
88,925
1,351
13.51
72.86
4.4
66
2.95
14.54
4.4
60
2.95
17.90
54,806
58,856
3,295
16.43
19.98
2.71
10
0.19
83.60
43,244
44,969
538
16.09
46.80
41,709
78,244
1,672
6.34
7.03
3.57
65
2.3
23.93
3.30
60
2.5
1,729.00
37,487
52,560
30
17.01
132.00
29,632
32,206
244
30.74
36.35
3.08
37
0.86
12.64
2.17
22
0.229
690.00
201,500
213,751
210
6.22
25.9
4.28
35
2.95
58.00
35,417
35,866
618
22.55
47.76
3.19
90.8
1.87
100.60
106,959
113,398
1,127
6.15
4.90
100
4
8.79
31,110
64,569
7,348
7.11
60.7
2.50
78
1.73
182.80
105,363
112,558
616
6.07
33.33
53.33
3.66
75
2.95
88.50
37,592
41,548
469
6.25
133.00
78,155
81,888
616
27.43
31.44
4.28
95
3.62
60.7
6.90
84.25
4
58.00
97,567
101,352
1,747
7.11
40.5
1.54
25.5
1.37
520.00
70,159
74,538
145
7.59
330.00
68,329
74,372
225
22.85
24.26
6.56
95
2.27
175.50
132,460
140,370
800
7.92
58.4
4.4
55
2.95
564.00
253,575
266,483
472
6.54
48.15
3.00
80
3.06
24.26
4.4
73.1
2.95
13.60
15,221
16,260
1,196
22.85
24.26
4.4
73.1
2.95
10.90
8,743
9,340
857
22.85
67.00
107,631
114,597
1,710
9.26
55.71
2.82
59.9
2.95
72.60
71,055
78,488
1,082
19.40
32.27
10.00
80
0.88
420.00
116,206
128,829
307
17.15
35.81
0.31
70
3
82.00
115,549
120,178
1,466
6.11
47.76
3.00
80
2.95
35.32
3.00
65
4
287.00
32,817
35,058
122
18.18
10.55
4.77
92.8
3.95
76.50
116,023
122,437
1,600
12.49
43.70
53,921
56,491
1,293
10.63
30.22
4.4
40
2.95
53.44
2.50
93.5
5
119.00
67,382
70,968
596
5.21
14.54
3.04
87
0.78
66.90
53,462
55,093
824
16.43
48.40
61,639
101,514
2,097
7.99
11.86
4.20
85
3
26.44
4.00
73.1
2.95
232.40
138,546
147,644
635
15.72
11.86
4.4
25
2.95
106.80
49,268
51,845
485
7.99
34.20
71,521
75,763
2,215
9.48
30.42
7.20
70
9.3
8.96
4.4
73.1
2.95
28.10
43,992
48,945
1,741
17.32
6.02
4.4
73.1
2.95
240.40
92,186
96,670
402
4.47
8.88
3.46
95
4.89
113.50
113,150
118,505
1,044
9.79
87.90
148,626
160,826
1,830
1.68
19.95
3.56
100
3.97
8.47
4.4
85
2.95
120.30
81,316
83,996
698
9.24
25.95
4.49
80
1.37
90.60
79,790
83,621
923
3.72
32.90
31,989
34,812
1,058
5.57
8.72
4.4
73
2.95
921.00
1,586,500 1,999,800
3,347
2.25
2.5
7.00
80
2.95
2,095.00
4,380,700 4,888,300
2,735
1.26
11.23
4.10
85.34
0.55
Values in red fonts are based on estimates and other source materials
Values in reAverage Values:
National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Overall Investment Plan toYear 2020 (NUUP)
D:\NUUPMINH\Final Report\Appendix_EN_Finalreport\ApF_Annex1_MCA -6 15-Nov-2006.xls
Population (2004)
Population
Population (2000)
Area
City Area (Km2)
Typology
Class
Province
City/Town
MOC-4 Re. Number
No
Deficiencies
Poverty
CITY/TOWN PROFILE
8.04
75
56
50
100
50
75
64.3
57
13.6
50
62
50
50
100
50
59.0
80
14.3
50
50
50
75
50
50
53.8
95
56
14.73
50
50
50
50
50
52.0
96
1.77
75
62
50
50
75
100
66.6
45
19.8
62
62
50
50
100
50
64.6
55
21.17
62
62
50
50
100
50
64.6
55
4.77
50
81
50
50
50
100
63.9
58
32.51
50
75
50
50
100
50
62.7
64
4.43
50
68
65
50
50
100
62.3
68
2.39
62
62
50
50
50
100
61.9
69
1.83
62
62
50
50
50
100
60.7
72
9.4
62
68
50
50
50
75
60.6
73
35.34
50
62
50
75
75
50
58.4
83
22.46
50
56
50
50
100
50
58.3
84
62
34.81
50
65
50
50
50
56.3
89
0.53
100
75
50
75
50
100
84.2
1
3.2
100
68
70
50
50
100
83.1
2
3.87
75
56
50
75
100
100
74.0
11
5.75
75
75
65
50
75
100
73.8
13
8.6
75
87
65
50
50
75
72.6
18
87
13.4
75
70
50
50
50
71.8
21
43.6
50
87
70
50
100
50
71.7
22
2.32
50
81
65
50
100
100
71.2
24
1.5
62
87
65
50
50
100
71.1
25
7.5
75
68
70
50
75
75
70.6
27
0.54
75
75
50
50
75
100
70.4
28
62
4.86
75
50
50
100
100
70.2
30
3.27
50
68
50
50
100
100
68.1
37
68
6.88
62
50
50
100
75
66.6
46
2.42
62
75
50
50
50
100
66.1
49
13.53
62
75
50
50
75
50
63.6
59
28.06
75
62
70
50
50
50
63.1
63
29.57
50
56
70
50
100
50
60.2
75
26.52
50
68
50
75
75
50
60.0
77
1.04
50
62
50
50
50
100
59.8
78
13 18
13.18
75
56
50
50
50
50
58 4
58.4
82
6.37
62
56
50
50
50
75
57.6
86
16.77
62
62
50
50
50
50
57.3
87
25.95
62
56
50
50
50
50
55.3
92
62
12.26
50
50
50
50
50
53.8
94
17.19
100
62
70
50
50
50
77.8
3
81
3.83
75
50
100
50
100
77.4
4
1.61
87
87
50
75
50
100
77.4
5
5.07
75
81
70
50
75
100
77.2
6
11.74
75
87
70
50
75
75
76.3
7
4.32
75
87
50
50
75
100
75.0
8
0.13
50
68
70
75
100
100
74.8
9
13.22
75
87
70
50
75
50
74.4
10
0.74
75
68
70
75
50
100
73.8
12
3.7
87
81
50
50
50
100
73.7
14
4.06
75
81
70
50
50
100
73.4
15
1.51
75
56
70
100
50
100
73.4
16
1.21
62
81
50
75
50
100
72.6
17
68
10.06
87
65
75
50
75
72.4
19
9.69
62
68
70
50
100
75
71.9
20
2.39
62
87
70
50
50
100
71.3
23
13.09
50
81
50
100
75
50
71.0
26
5.43
62
75
50
100
50
100
70.4
29
20.91
87
87
50
50
50
50
69.6
31
4.43
50
87
70
50
50
100
69.3
32
6.43
75
75
70
50
50
75
69.1
33
1.2
75
75
50
50
50
100
68.8
34
2.96
75
56
50
50
100
100
68.4
35
3.74
62
75
70
50
50
100
68.1
36
10.54
75
68
70
50
50
75
68.0
38
17.46
87
56
50
50
50
50
68.0
39
2.96
75
62
50
50
75
100
67.6
40
13.5
75
93
50
50
50
50
67.5
41
13.86
75
62
70
50
50
50
66.8
42
5.3
75
68
50
50
50
100
66.7
43
4.87
75
68
50
50
50
100
66.7
43
5.4
75
56
50
50
50
100
66.3
47
5.4
75
56
50
50
50
100
66.3
47
32.14
75
68
50
50
75
50
65.7
50
8.63
75
68
50
50
50
75
65.2
51
12.85
75
75
50
50
50
50
65.0
52
7.19
75
68
50
50
50
75
64.9
53
7.2
75
68
50
50
50
75
64.8
54
1.89
62
62
50
50
75
100
63.6
60
20.16
62
75
70
50
50
50
63.2
61
8.06
75
62
50
50
50
75
63.1
62
17.33
62
75
70
50
50
50
62.7
65
21.02
50
56
50
100
75
50
62.7
66
3.56
62
68
50
50
50
100
62.3
67
0.4
50
68
50
50
50
100
61.8
70
14.77
62
62
70
50
75
50
61.7
71
68.74
62
56
70
50
75
50
60.4
74
1.71
50
62
50
50
50
100
59.8
78
7.09
50
68
50
50
50
75
58.9
81
20.59
50
68
50
50
75
50
58.1
85
15.9
50
62
70
50
50
50
56.4
88
35.34
50
68
50
50
50
50
55.8
91
62
14.3
50
50
50
50
50
54.0
93
26.81
50
50
50
75
100
50
60.1
76
62
22.22
50
50
50
75
50
56.2
90
Cities/Town with gray highlight = 25 Cities/Towns selected by PMU, MOC-1, MOC-3, MOC-4 for initial survey
12.50%
17.10%
28.00%
I
12.50%
17.10%
28.00%
II
12.50%
17.10%
28.00%
III
12.50%
17.10%
28.00%
IV
28.00%
28.00%
28.00%
28.00%
27.00%
27.00%
27.00%
27.00%
44.00%
44.00%
44.00%
44.00%
22.00%
22.00%
22.00%
22.00%
22.48%
22.48%
22.48%
22.48%
32.39%
32.39%
32.39%
32.39%
30.82%
30.82%
30.82%
30.82%
33.40%
32.00%
I
33.40%
32.00%
II
33.40%
32.00%
III
33.40%
32.00%
IV
25.00%
25.00%
25.00%
25.00%
28.00%
28.00%
28.00%
28.00%
28.00%
28.00%
28.00%
28.00%
33.00%
33.00%
33.00%
33.00%
32.45%
32.45%
32.45%
32.45%
27.76%
27.76%
27.76%
27.76%
29.68%
29.68%
29.68%
29.68%
15.00%
15.00%
15.00%
15.00%
16.00%
16.00%
16.00%
16.00%
15.00%
15.00%
15.00%
15.00%
12.25%
12.25%
12.25%
12.25%
9.00%
9.00%
9.00%
9.00%
17.23%
17.23%
17.23%
17.23%
16.40%
16.40%
16.40%
16.40%
15.65%
15.65%
15.65%
15.65%
I
15.00% 8.70%
5.00%
II
15.00% 8.70%
5.00%
III
15.00% 8.70%
5.00%
IV
15.00% 8.70%
5.00%
9.00%
9.00%
9.00%
9.00%
14.00%
14.00%
14.00%
14.00%
6.25%
6.25%
6.25%
6.25%
6.00%
6.00%
6.00%
6.00%
8.95%
8.95%
8.95%
8.95%
12.13%
12.13%
12.13%
12.13%
5.98%
5.98%
5.98%
5.98%
I
12.60% 9.40%
10.00%
11.00%
II
12.60% 9.40%
10.00%
11.00%
III
12.60% 9.40%
10.00%
11.00%
IV
12.60% 9.40%
10.00%
11.00%
f) Low in Technical & Social Infrastructure Investment
6.00%
6.00%
6.00%
6.00%
2.25%
2.25%
2.25%
2.25%
16.00%
16.00%
16.00%
16.00%
11.23%
11.23%
11.23%
11.23%
4.40%
4.40%
4.40%
4.40%
10.48%
10.48%
10.48%
10.48%
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
I
15.00% 15.90%
II
15.00% 15.90%
III
15.00% 15.90%
IV
15.00% 15.90%
11.50%
11.50%
11.50%
11.50%
I
II
III
IV
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
33.00%
33.00%
33.00%
33.00%
Pollution
16.90%
16.90%
16.90%
16.90%
9.00%
9.00%
9.00%
9.00%
11.00%
11.00%
11.00%
11.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
7.25%
7.25%
7.25%
7.25%
14.00%
14.00%
14.00%
14.00%
7.66%
7.66%
7.66%
7.66%
6.92%
6.92%
6.92%
6.92%
7.39%
7.39%
7.39%
7.39%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
National Average & MCA-5-1, MCA-5-2 Weighting Factors of Indicators
Region
Indicator 1
Indicator 2
Indicator 3
Indicator 4
Indicator 5
Indicator 6
Indicator 7
Indicator 8
Indicator 9
Indicator 1
1
7.10
11.92
4.40
73.65
3.97
47 18
47.18
74.36
0.04
1906.00
13.66
2
3.81
29.70
4.75
74.05
3.12
50 10
50.10
78.14
0.03
1422.00
19.71
3
16.57
25.44
6.67
72.81
2.92
45 81
45.81
77.38
0.02
1577.17
10.95
4
16.44
21.46
3.72
67.33
1.40
41 28
41.28
72.14
0.02
1478.14
9.37
5
14.51
28.93
5.60
67.88
2.22
38 96
38.96
74.44
0.04
1040.44
12.74
6
29.00
33.51
3.72
90.00
2.46
41 01
41.01
62.00
0.02
411.00
9.01
7
18.43
16.19
7.45
72.83
3.83
44 77
44.77
62.86
0.03
2888.74
21.00
8
8.77
22.08
2.77
62.14
2.99
60 33
60.33
66.67
0.02
1146.14
4.71
9
17.14
30.31
3.60
60.73
2.33
49 00
49.00
74.29
0.03
475.14
6.62
10 Average Weighting Factor
7.51
12.12
12.50%
51.22
28.14
12.50%
3.08
4.42
7.50%
81.17
73.11
7.50%
2.96
2.95
7.50%
49 17
49.17
44 62
44.62
7 50%
7.50%
75.09
73.54
15.00%
0.02
0.03
10.00%
1529.29
1506.77
10.00%
8.22
11.65
10.00%
MCA-6 Weighting Factors of Indicators based on Proportion of City Indicators to National Average
Region
1
Indicator 1
7.32%
Indicator 2
5.30%
Indicator 3
7.46%
Indicator 4
7.56%
Indicator 5
10.09%
Indicator 6
7.93%
Indicator 7
15.17%
Indicator 8
15.05%
Indicator 9
12.65%
Indicator 1
11.72%
Total Weig 100.24%
2
3.93%
13.19%
8.06%
7.60%
7.95%
8.42%
15.94%
8.71%
9.44%
16.92%
100.15%
3
17.09%
11.30%
11.32%
7.47%
7.43%
7.70%
15.78%
5.38%
10.47%
9.40%
103.34%
4
16.95%
9.53%
6.31%
6.91%
3.56%
6.94%
14.72%
7.59%
9.81%
8.04%
90.35%
5
14.96%
12.85%
9.51%
6.96%
5.65%
6.55%
15.19%
14.54%
6.91%
10.93%
104.04%
6
29.91%
14.88%
6.31%
9.23%
6.25%
6.89%
12.65%
6.62%
2.73%
7.73%
103.20%
7
19.01%
7.19%
12.65%
7.47%
9.75%
7.52%
12.82%
9.50%
19.17%
18.02%
123.11%
8
9.04%
9.81%
4.70%
6.38%
7.61%
10.14%
13.60%
5.32%
7.61%
4.04%
78.24%
9
17.68%
13.46%
6.11%
6.23%
5.94%
8.24%
15.15%
10.89%
3.15%
5.68%
92.53%
10
7.74%
22.75%
5.23%
8.33%
7.53%
8.26%
15.32%
5.65%
10.15%
7.05%
98.01%
13.7
19.7
11.0
9.4
12.7
9.0
90
21.0
4.7
6.6
8.2
12
Appendix F - 60/63
MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS
Annex 2
Option 5
Option 5-2: Ranked by Class, Topology and Significant Infrastructure Deficiencies
CITY/TOWN PROFILE
National Urban Upgrading Programme and Overall Investment Plan for Urban Upgrading to 2020
D:\NUUPMINH\Final Report\Appendix_EN_Finalreport\ApF_Annex2_5_EN.xls
1,906
1,422
1,577
1,478
1,040
411
2,129
1,146
475
1,529
1,449
7.10
3.81
16.57
16.44
14.51
29.00
23.02
8.77
17.14
7.51
12.46
12
30
25
21
29
34
16
22
30
51
28
4.4
4.8
6.7
3.7
5.6
3.7
7.5
2.5
3.6
3.2
4.4
73.7
74.1
72.8
67.3
67.9
90.0
72.8
65.7
60.7
80.6
73.3
3.97
3.12
2.92
1.40
2.22
2.46
3.83
1.62
2.33
3.09
2.86
47.8
50.1
45.8
41.3
39.0
41.0
44.8
60.3
49.0
49.2
44.7
74.4
78.1
77.4
72.1
74.4
62.0
62.9
67.7
74.2
75.0
73.7
4.4%
2.5%
1.6%
2.2%
4.2%
2.1%
2.7%
1.4%
3.1%
1.6%
2.9%
5848.2
2904.3
2976.9
4302.4
2925.3
518.6
4266.5
5087.2
5299.1
4180.0
4293.6
20%
5%
10%
10%
30%
Overall Merit
2,735
3,347
885
538
244
317
959
264
635
1,293
30
mil./capita) for 5 years
(2000-2004)
Population Density
(Person/Km2)
2.9%
6.5%
10.8%
1.0%
2.2%
1.0%
5.6%
2.9%
1.6%
1.2%
10.1%
3.1%
0.1%
2.2%
25%
f) Low in Technical &
Investment
1.26
11.23
4.10
85.34
0.55
8
82
2.25
2.5
7.00
80
7
95
13.91
39.87
0.13
15
2.22
37
85
16.09
19.98
2.71
10
0.19
38
30
30.74
36.35
3.08
37
0.86
38
80
18.18
35.32
5.33
21.08
2
54
40
27.01
34.2
2.23
70
0.66
46
75
19.08
41.68
0.83
70
0.96
29
80
15.72
26.44
4.00
60.7
2.33
54
74.2
10.63
30.22
5.6
40
2.22
46
70
17.01
23.93
3.30
60
2.5
39
80
18.18
35.32
3.00
65
4
49.0
85
43.45
3.7
90.0
2.46
59
20
35.68
22.85
24.26
6.56
95
2.27
34
70
22.85
24.26
24.26
22.85
6.07
33.33
2.50
78
1.73
63
20
7.94
39.26
3.46
50
3.12
48
80
7.56
48.26
1.52
90
1.25
47
70
7.99
11.86
4.4
25
3.97
37
75
6.34
7.03
3.57
65
2.3
47
72
6.11
47.76
3.00
80
3.09
47
75.0
53.33
3.66
75
3.09
48
48.08
6.25
3.72
25.95
4.49
80
1.37
42
92
5.48
47.5
4.00
70
3.12
40
40
6.15
47.76
3.96
81
3.05
46
80
6.02
4.4
73.7
3.97
48
74.4
4.47
9.24
8.47
5.6
85
2.22
50
70
53.44
2.50
93.5
5
41
100
5.21
7.11
60.7
4.90
100
4
49.2
80
7.11
60.7
6.90
84.25
4
52
80
32.1
9.40
67.9
2.22
37
50
12.51
6.22
12.64
2.17
22
0.229
60.3
70
48.15
0.85
85
1.19
47
65
6.15
7.92
58.4
3.2
55
3.09
52
90
32.27
4.73
45
1.26
44
50
19.40
13.51
72.86
3.2
66
3.09
55
70
9.26
55.71
2.82
59.9
3.09
43
75
38.62
25.9
4.28
35
5.00
46
60
16.43
14.54
3.04
87
0.78
41
35
5.57
8.72
4.4
73
3.97
58
74.4
48.15
3.50
80
3.5
48
80
6.54
16.43
14.54
7.5
60
3.83
49
60
8.96
7.5
72.8
3.83
42
40
17.32
19.40
32.27
10.00
80
0.88
45
86
18.18
35.32
4.35
34
0.4
57
65
17.15
35.81
0.31
70
3
40
90
35.68
43.45
2.54
80
1.48
36
92
35.68
43.45
1.50
90
2.46
41
35
13.91
39.87
5.88
90
2.22
41
80
27.43
31.44
4.28
95
3.62
35
85
12.75
25.49
7.24
90
1.40
37
100
29.56
27.56
12.10
73
2.8
36
60
5.77
33.33
0.84
50
1.62
70
70
7.59
40.5
1.54
25.5
1.37
38
90
7.11
60.7
0.59
80
0.91
52
80
13.35
29.14
3.67
65
2.05
64
85
6.15
47.76
2.16
66.8
3.09
51
60
8.47
6.86
1.7
85
1.2
47
65
9.24
8.47
2.49
85
2.7
42
100
9.34
11.02
3.96
90
1.5
52
70
13.62
15.98
3.31
70
4.7
48
85
7.99
11.86
4.20
85
3
40
75
1.68
19.95
3.56
100
3.97
50
90
6.08
6.09
3.72
80
6.68
50
90
9.79
8.88
3.46
95
4.89
45
90
3.05
3.2
4.92
81.3
3.91
38
70
9.79
8.88
7.38
85
2.39
49
70
2.08
24.64
8.15
74.1
4.03
51
95
9.48
30.42
7.20
70
9.3
39
36
7.71
46.28
1.40
84
1.17
56
70
23.95
3.64
60
5.8
50
86.25
14.31
6.25
53.33
3.50
83
4.4
46
70
12.49
10.55
4.77
92.8
3.95
55
72.2
4.47
6.02
5.60
85
4
55
85
18.06
15.56
5.68
70
3.99
38
80
14.31
23.59
6.00
86.83
3.55
44
72
13.96
24.99
9.98
95
2.05
54
90
38.62
25.9
9.85
100
3.91
44
80
17.01
23.93
4.01
80
0.74
48
80
15.72
26.44
4.50
95
2.33
51
80
2.08
24.64
2.10
61.3
3.12
63
75
16.09
19.98
3.10
93
3.78
40
80
5.58
31.17
4.57
95
4.71
51
95
3.72
25.95
7.49
83
3.12
56
75
6.86
7.75
4.4
94
3.97
36
80
12.51
32.1
8.40
85
0.41
33
75
17.32
8.96
10.70
85
5.52
47
90
6.22
16.07
1.66
85
0.65
60.3
70
10.14
14.05
3.60
90
0.8
57
67.7
4.47
6.02
5.60
90
4.53
62
70
70
5.11
45
75
16.43
14.54
9.40
5.21
53.44
3.50
80
6
90
1.83
6.44
4.53
53.96
3.42
7
90
5.57
8.72
4.20
80
3.6
6
80
10.69
14.53
10.67
100
5.6
55
100
Values in red fonts are based on estimates and other source materials
Average Annual
Population Growth Rate
(2000-2004)
waste generated
Classroom
(km/km2)
with poor housing
water supply
Percentage of poor
households
50%
e) Areas with High
1,747
977
210
1,667
800
2,646
1,351
1,710
618
824
1,058
472
3,295
1,741
1,082
715
307
773
262
1,345
616
992
380
993
145
1,531
2,015
2,510
3,697
1,580
3,158
1,592
2,097
1,830
3,225
1,044
3,151
4,148
710
2,215
808
516
2,085
1,600
472
636
1,369
3,214
1,376
843
479
3,421
1,305
3,468
1,771
5,099
1,942
3,682
1,418
1,179
925
3,365
808
609
1,160
4,529
50%
Prioritisation Criteria (Weighting Factors)
d) High Rate of
Urbanization
616
374
2,591
485
1,672
1,466
469
923
925
1,127
402
698
596
1.37
c) High Degree of
2,735
3,347
885
538
244
317
959
264
635
1,293
30
122
179
225
2.59
b) Significant
TP. Hồ Chí Minh
10 Hồ Chí Minh
special
L
2095 4,380,700 4,888,300
TP. Hà Nội
1 Hà Nội
special
L
921 1,586,500 1,999,800
TX. Nghĩa Lộ
5 Yên Bái
IV
H
29.7
18,314
26,257
TX. Sông Công
4 Thái Nguyên
IV
H
83.6
43,244
44,969
TX. Bắc Cạn
4 Bắc Kạn
IV
H
132
29,632
32,206
TX. An Khê
9 Gia Lai
IV
H
199.9
93,959
97,749
TX. Cao Bằng
4 Cao Bằng
IV
H
55.2
43,219
52,984
TX. Hà Giang
5 Hà Giang
IV
H
166
39,341
43,829
TX. Bảo Lộc
9 Lâm Đồng
IV
H
232.4 138,546 147,644
TX. Tuyên Quang
5 Tuyên Quang
IV
H
43.7
53,921
56,491
TX. Gia Nghĩa và huyện Đăk Klong 9 Đăk Nông
IV
H
1729
37,487
52,560
TX. Ajunpa
9 Gia Lai
IV
H
287
32,817
35,058
TX. Mường Lay
6 Điện Biên
IV
H
53
9,409
9,463
TX. Sơn La
6 Sơn La
IV
H
330
68,329
74,372
TX. Mộc Châu
6 Sơn La
IV
H
13.60
15,221
16,260
TX. Mai Sơn
6 Sơn La
IV
H
10.90
8,743
9,340
8 Bình Thuận
IV
L
182.80
105,363 112,558
TX. Đồng Xoài
2 Bình Phước
IV
L
168.5
55,286
63,094
TX. Vĩnh Long
10 Vĩnh Long
IV
L
47.9 121,236 124,196
TX. Tam Điệp
1 Ninh Bình
IV
L
106.8
49,268
51,845
TX. Hưng Yên
1 Hưng Yên
IV
L
46.8
41,709
78,244
TX. Tân An
10 Long An
IV
L
82 115,549 120,178
TX. Hà Tiên
10 Kiên Giang
IV
L
88.5
37,592
41,548
TX. Bà Rịa
2 Bà Rịa Vũng Tàu
IV
L
90.6
79,790
83,621
TX. Tây Ninh
2 Tây Ninh
IV
L
137.4 112,893 127,114
TX. Châu Đốc
10 An Giang
IV
L
100.6 106,959 113,398
TX. Uông Bí
1 Quảng Ninh
IV
L
240.4
92,186
96,670
TX. Phúc Yên
5 Vĩnh Phúc
IV
L
120.3
81,316
83,996
TX. Vị Thanh
10 Hậu Giang
IV
L
119
67,382
70,968
TT. Hồng Ngự
10 Đồng Tháp
IV
L
8.7874
31,110
64,569
TX. Sa Đéc
10 Đồng Tháp
IV
L
58
97,567 101,352
TX. Phú Thọ
5 Phú Thọ
IV
L
63.4
39,575
61,983
TX. Cam Ranh
8 Khánh Hoà
IV
LC
690 201,500 213,751
TX. Gò Công
10 Tiền Giang
IV
LC
32.1
51,727
53,499
TX. Bac Liêu
10 Bạc Liêu
IV
LC
175.5 132,460 140,370
TX. Quảng Trị
3 Quảng Trị
IV
LC
6.4
16,096
16,800
TX. Trà Vinh
10 Trà Vinh
IV
LC
65.8
72,199
88,925
TX. Bến Tre
10 Bến Tre
IV
LC
67 107,631 114,597
TX. Hồng Lĩnh
7 Hà Tĩnh
IV
LC
58
35,417
35,866
TX. Bỉm Sơn
7 Thanh Hoá
IV
LC
66.9
53,462
55,093
TX. Đồ Sơn
1 Hải Phòng
IV
LC
32.9
31,989
34,812
TX. Tân Hiệp và Huyện Phụng Hiệp 10 Hậu Giang
IV
LC
564 253,575 266,483
TX. Sầm Sơn
7 Thanh Hoá
IV
LC
17.9
54,806
58,856
TX. Cửa Lò
7 Nghệ An
IV
LC
28.1
43,992
48,945
TX. Đông Hà
3 Quảng Trị
IV
LC
72.6
71,055
78,488
TP. Pleiku
9 Gia Lai
III
H
260.6 172,416 186,394
TX. Kon Tum
9 Kon Tum
III
H
420 116,206 128,829
6 Điện Biên
III
H
60
39,050
46,372
TX. Lai Châu
6 Lai Châu
III
H
70.8
18,561
18,561
TP. Yên Bái
5 Yên Bái
III
H
58
74,330
78,041
TP. Hoà Bình
6 Hoà Bình
III
H
133
78,155
81,888
TP. Lạng Sơn
4 Lạng Sơn
III
H
77.7
74,938
77,081
TP. Lào Cai
5 Lào Cai
III
H
221.5
76,263
84,278
TP. Phan Thiết
8 Bình Thuận
III
L
206 192,829 204,517
TX. Móng Cái
1 Quảng Ninh
III
L
520
70,159
74,538
TP. Cao Lãnh
10 Đồng Tháp
III
L
97 142,986 148,530
TP. Phan Rang - Tháp Chàm
8 Ninh Thuận
III
L
79.4 150,173 159,981
TP. Long Xuyên
10 An Giang
III
L
106.2 252,334 266,559
TP. Hải Dương
1 Hải Dương
III
L
36.2 128,723 133,848
TX. Vĩnh Yên
5 Vĩnh Phúc
III
L
50.1
70,559
79,141
TP. Bắc Giang
4 Bắc Giang
III
L
32.2
94,025 101,677
TP. Tuy Hoà
8 Phú Yên
III
L
65
99,703 103,489
TP. Ninh Bình
1 Ninh Bình
III
L
48.4
61,639 101,514
2 Bình Dương
III
L
87.9 148,626 160,826
TP. Thái Bình
1 Thái Bình
III
L
42.1 131,761 135,752
TP. Sơn Tây
1 Hà Tây
III
L
113.5 113,150 118,505
TP. Bắc Ninh
4 Bắc Ninh
III
L
26.3
75,606
82,864
TP. Hà Đông
1 Hà Tây
III
L
32.9
97,958 136,462
TX. Long Khánh
2 Đồng Nai
III
L
195 130,675 138,530
TX. Phủ Lý
1 Hà Nam
III
L
34.2
71,521
75,763
TP. Cà Mau
10 Cà Mau
III
LC
245 182,401 197,931
TP. Tam Kỳ
3 Quảng Nam
III
LC
343.5 169,869 177,253
TP. Rạch Giá
10 Kiên Giang
III
LC
97.7 189,191 203,775
TP. Sóc Trăng
10 Sóc Trăng
III
LC
76.5 116,023 122,437
TX. Cẩm Phả
1 Quảng Ninh
III
LC
335.8 152,154 158,623
TP. Đồng Hới
3 Quảng Bình
III
LC
156
94,701
99,197
TX. Hội An
3 Quảng Nam
III
LC
60.7
78,337
83,069
TP. Quảng Ngãi
3 Quảng Ngãi
III
LC
137.1 110,886 119,306
TP. Hà Tĩnh
7 Hà Tĩnh
III
LC
56
61,088
78,300
9 Đắc Lăk
II
H
371 295,095 312,571
TP. Đà Lạt
9 Lâm Đồng
II
H
391.1 167,709 187,318
TP. Biên Hoà
2 Đồng Nai
II
L
154.7 488,100 529,196
TP. Thái Nguyên
4 Thái Nguyên
II
L
177.1 218,038 231,116
TP. Mỹ Tho
10 Tiền Giang
II
L
48.3 160,841 167,514
TP. Vũng Tàu
2 Bà Rịa Vũng Tàu
II
L
140.1 216,637 248,117
TP. Nam Định
1 Nam Định
II
L
46.4 230,575 236,356
TP. Việt Trì
5 Phú Thọ
II
L
71.3 131,496 138,360
TP. Vinh
7 Nghệ An
II
L
64 217,313 235,602
TP. Nha Trang
8 Khánh Hoà
II
LC
251 336,605 355,920
TP. Quy Nhơn
8 Bình Định
II
LC
216.4 242,616 255,100
TP. Hạ Long
1 Quảng Ninh
II
LC
208.7 185,405 193,080
TP. Thanh Hoá
7 Thanh Hoá
II
LC
57.9 185,351 194,807
TP. Cần Thơ
10 Cần Thơ
I
L
1390 349,700 559,500
TP. Đà Nẵng
3 Đà Nẵng
I
L
1256 566,000 609,500
TP. Hải Phòng
1 Hải Phòng
I
L
1526 593,200 708,000
TP. Huế
3 Thừa Thiên Huế
I
LC
71 297,666 321,498
Values in green fonts are estimated values based on national or regional a Values i Average Values:
Sub-Urbanisation Region
1
131.8 104,157 116,144
2
139.2 176,001 192,928
3
129.4
90,157
95,686
4
83.4
82,672
88,985
5
91.6
65,013
72,486
6
129.4
48,736
46,131
7
49.8 108,632 101,067
8
241.5 203,904 200,759
9
514.9 145,917 159,009
10
115.5 129,862 131,854
221.9 197,265 212,284
Overall
Density
Population Density
(Person/Km2)
Population (2004)
Population
Population (2000)
City Area (Km2)
Lowland, Highland,
Coastal
Class
Province
Area
SECOND ROUND OF RANKING
92
91
44
35
33
70
34
41
73
43
68
71
47
49
51
50
65
19
89
14
12
85
84
20
21
78
7
40
83
96
82
42
64
87
79
27
88
80
55
57
11
90
58
56
26
69
72
45
46
39
48
32
38
62
6
81
63
74
4
37
31
61
13
18
5
10
30
9
17
8
75
24
76
86
3
23
28
25
54
66
67
16
29
77
15
2
36
52
60
59
1
53
95
94
93
22
Topology
City/Town
MOC-4 Re. Number
No
Environ UrbanInvestDensity
ment
isation
ment
Indicator Rating
8.26
1.00
10.75
1.44
1.00
456.65
0.02
1.45
Criteria Rating
35%
25%
20%
20%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Poverty
18
5
15
70
20
60
25
20
25
30
20
15
80
30
0
0
80
20
30
25
28
24
51
8
60
20
25
30
0
20
20
50
30
35
10
50
30
25
40
65
25
20
40
60
14
35
10
8
65
20
15
0
40
30
10
20
15
40
35
0
30
15
25
10
10
10
30
30
5
64
30
13
30
27
15
20
28
10
20
20
20
25
20
5
25
20
25
10
30
32
30
25
10
10
20
0
13
29
49
4
9
4
25
13
7
5
45
14
0
10
0
0
0
16
2
5
100
4
12
5
17
6
5
3
6
7
4
64
6
3
6
4
26
7
1
12
10
5
12
12
11
9
12
21
0
5
5
3
11
6
7
4
7
6
4
13
9
4
73
9
3
5
10
44
6
6
9
4
8
6
4
5
6
8
32
6
13
9
6
4
16
2
5
9
6
5
4
5
68
8
22
9
53
65
17
10
4
6
18
5
12
25
0
0
3
4
0
0
12
7
50
9
32
28
9
18
18
22
7
13
11
0
34
19
4
32
15
51
26
33
12
16
20
9
64
34
21
14
6
15
5
26
12
19
7
19
2
30
39
49
72
30
61
31
41
35
63
20
61
81
13
43
15
10
40
31
9
12
26
63
26
16
9
67
25
68
34
100
38
72
27
23
18
65
15
11
22
88
67
60
94
96
69
94
97
94
94
70
92
89
74
79
92
92
94
98
80
99
80
89
84
48
98
98
97
76
88
95
95
97
93
82
92
92
85
53
90
74
79
92
85
0
87
87
81
99
95
80
74
90
59
97
80
93
99
91
36
61
96
80
69
70
95
89
56
99
82
78
80
96
89
97
98
75
62
89
94
86
97
52
96
92
48
67
97
71
93
93
49
69
88
78
79
80
39.3
36.9
63.0
58.2
53.0
58.0
62.6
57.5
53.5
46.4
54.8
52.6
57.1
46.5
39.1
39.1
54.3
54.8
54.0
49.5
54.1
52.7
52.3
33.8
56.7
54.0
44.6
40.6
48.9
51.9
54.8
57.6
51.4
53.5
55.7
60.4
61.6
46.1
59.3
47.8
42.6
51.5
52.7
23.4
50.2
56.7
51.3
64.5
63.1
48.8
48.1
46.3
41.8
56.8
50.1
59.0
57.7
57.8
36.7
38.3
53.5
46.5
48.1
39.7
48.4
43.8
36.3
57.4
40.1
46.2
51.8
50.6
54.4
49.9
43.5
43.3
40.7
50.7
57.8
50.5
52.2
43.2
51.6
51.5
35.4
43.8
52.8
42.7
51.3
50.0
30.5
44.1
56.2
36.9
40.6
45.1
22.22
9
47
26.81
4
41
3.83
45
81
2.39
34
80
20.91
64
70
4.06
47
70
1.61
58
67
3.70
53
66
3.56
38
63
20.16
34
62
5.43
38
61
7.20
47
60
179
17.19
76
58
225
13.86
46
42
5.40
46
0
5.40
46
0
616
3.74
30
67
3.5%
374
1.21
37
64
0.6%
2,591
13.22
42
64
1.3%
485
0.40
18
63
21.9%
1,672
13.09
13
61
1.0%
1,466
7.19
40
58
2.6%
469
10.54
44
57
1.2%
923
35.34
22
56
3.7%
925
0.74
39
55
1.5%
1,127
1.20
40
54
1.2%
402
1.71
9
54
0.8%
698
15.90
17
52
1.3%
596
8.06
43
50
1.6%
2.96
50
46
1.0%
1,747
2.96
50
45
14.2%
977
1.51
38
41
1.5%
210
4.43
16
85
0.9%
1,667
11.74
41
67
1.5%
800
5.30
50
65
1.1%
2,646
5.07
47
65
5.8%
1,351
10.06
67
63
1.6%
1,710
32.14
50
62
0.3%
618
6.43
67
61
2.7%
824
17.33
31
59
2.2%
1,058
14.30
13
57
1.3%
472
4.87
41
56
2.7%
3,295
9.69
31
49
2.8%
1,741
68.74
28
44
2.6%
1,082
8.63
47
42
2.0%
715
8.60
47
74
2.7%
307
12.85
46
66
4.7%
773
0.53
76
59
262
3.20
76
59
0.0%
1.2%
1,345
13.18
45
47
1.2%
616
17.46
57
46
0.7%
992
6.37
33
44
2.6%
380
28.06
57
30
1.5%
993
1.50
30
81
1.6%
145
13.50
37
77
1.0%
1,531
4.32
50
71
1.6%
2,015
0.54
37
67
1.4%
2,510
5.75
40
65
1.0%
3,697
43.60
15
64
3.0%
1,580
26.52
17
57
2.0%
3,158
2.32
19
57
0.9%
1,592
13.53
28
56
16.2%
2,097
21.02
18
51
2.1%
1,830
20.59
15
50
0.8%
3,225
3.27
12
49
1.2%
1,044
7.09
18
48
2.4%
3,151
29.57
6
47
9.8%
4,148
0.13
18
46
1.5%
710
12.26
19
43
1.5%
2,215
14.77
33
32
2.1%
808
13.40
41
68
1.1%
516
2.42
34
56
1.9%
2,085
7.50
44
52
1.4%
1,600
1.89
23
50
1.1%
472
1.04
9
49
1.2%
636
16.77
34
48
1.5%
1,369
25.95
34
45
1.9%
3,214
6.88
35
38
7.0%
1,376
3.87
67
30
1.5%
843
9.40
38
60
2.9%
479
1.83
38
52
2.1%
3,421
32.51
19
70
1.5%
1,305
2.39
34
51
1.0%
3,468
4.86
28
47
3.6%
1,771
35.34
22
46
0.6%
5,099
22.46
14
45
1.3%
1,942
1.77
38
43
2.1%
3,682
19.80
28
29
1.4%
1,418
4.43
19
69
1.3%
1,179
4.77
22
61
1.0%
925
34.81
9
49
1.3%
3,365
21.17
31
37
15.0%
808
8.04
43
51
1.9%
609
14.73
6
48
4.8%
1,160
14.30
13
41
2.0%
4,529
13.60
23
28
Values in black fonts are MOC4 Survey
13.7 Ranking based on available data as of date of study.
19.7
11.0
9.4
12.7
9.0
21.0
4.7
6.6
8.2
12
Appendix F - 62/63
100%
Annex 3
Database and Indicators for Multi-Criteria Analysis
4 Bắc Giang
TP. Bắc Giang
III
4 Bắc Kạn
TX. Bắc Cạn
IV
4 Cao Bằng
TX. Cao Bằng
IV
Điệ Biên
Biê
TX Mường
M ờ Lay
L
6 Điện
TX.
IV
6 Điện Biên
III
5 Hà Giang
TX. Hà Giang
IV
6 Hoà Bình
TP. Hoà Bình
III
6 Lai Châu
TX. Lai Châu
IV
4 Lạng Sơn
TP. Lạng Sơn
III
5 Lào Cai
TP. Lào Cai
III
5 Phú Thọ
TX. Phú Thọ
IV
5 Phú Thọ
TP. Việt Trì
II
6 Sơn La
TX. Sơn La
IV
6 Sơn La
TX. Mộc Châu
IV
6 Sơn La
TX. Mai Sơn
IV
4 Thái Nguyên
TX. Sông Công
IV
4 Thái Nguyên
TP. Thái Nguyên
II
5 Tuyên Quang
TX. Tuyên Quang
IV
5 Yên Bái
TX. Nghĩa Lộ
IV
5 Yên Bái
TP. Yên Bái
III
4 Bắc Ninh
TP. Bắc Ninh
III
1 Hà Nam
TX. Phủ Lý
IV
1 Hà Nội
TP. Hà Nội
S
1 Hà Tây
TP. Sơn Tây
III
1 Hà Tây
TP. Hà Đông
III
1 Hải Dương
TP. Hải Dương
III
1 Hải Phòng
TP. Hải Phòng
I
1 Hưng Yên
TX. Hưng Yên
IV
1 Nam Định
TP. Nam Định
II
1 Ninh Bình
TX. Tam Điệp
IV
1 Ninh Bình
TP. Ninh Bình
III
1 Quảng Ninh
TX. Cẩm Phả
III
1 Quảng Ninh
TP. Hạ Long
II
1 Quảng Ninh
TX. Uông Bí
IV
1 Quảng Ninh
TX. Móng Cái
III
1 Thái Bình
TP. Thái Bình
III
5 Vĩnh Phúc
TX. Phúc Yên
IV
5 Vĩnh Phúc
TP. Vĩnh Yên
III
8 Bình Định
TP. Quy Nhơn
II
8 Bình Thuận
TX. Lagi
IV
8 Bình Thuận
TP. Phan Thiết
III
3 Đà Nẵng
TP. Đà Nẵng
I
7 Hà Tĩnh
TX. Hồng Lĩnh
IV
7 Hà Tĩnh
TP. Hà Tĩnh
III
8 Khánh Hoà
TX. Cam Ranh
IV
8 Khánh Hoà
TP. Nha Trang
II
7 Nghệ An
TX. Cửa Lò
IV
7 Nghệ An
TP. Vinh
II
8 Ninh Thuận
TP. Phan Rang - Tháp Chàm
III
8 Phú Yên
TP. Tuy Hoà
III
3 Quảng Bình
TP. Đồng Hới
III
3 Quảng Nam
TX. Hội An
III
3 Quảng Nam
TP. Tam Kỳ
III
3 Quảng Ngãi
TP. Quảng Ngãi
III
3 Quảng Trị
TX. Quảng Trị
IV
3 Quảng Trị
TX. Đông Hà
IV
7 Thanh Hoá
TX. Sầm Sơn
IV
7 Thanh Hoá
TX. Bỉm Sơn
IV
7 Thanh Hoá
TP. Thanh Hoá
II
3 Thừa Thiên Huế TP. Huế
I
9 Đắc Lăk
II
9 Đăk Nông
TX. Gia Nghĩa
IV
9 Gia Lai
TX. An Khê
IV
9 Gia Lai
TX. Ajunpa
IV
9 Gia Lai
TP. Pleiku
III
9 Kon Tum
TX. Kon Tum
III
9 Lâm Đồng
TX. Bảo Lộc
IV
9 Lâm Đồng
TP. Đà Lạt
II
2 Bà Rịa Vũng Tàu TX. Bà Rịa
III
2 Bà Rịa Vũng Tàu TP. Vũng Tàu
II
2 Bình Dương
III
2 Bình Phước
TX. Đồng Xoài
IV
2 Đồng
Đồ Nai
N i
TX L
TX.
Long Khá
Khánh
h
III
2 Đồng Nai
TP. Biên Hoà
II
10 Hồ Chí Minh
TP. Hồ Chí Minh
S
2 Tây Ninh
TX. Tây Ninh
IV
10 An Giang
TX. Châu Đốc
IV
10 An Giang
TP. Long Xuyên
III
10 Bạc Liêu
TX. Bac Liêu
III
10 Bến Tre
TX. Bến Tre
IV
10 Cà Mau
TP. Cà Mau
III
10 Cần Thơ
TP. Cần Thơ
II
10 Đồng Tháp
TX. Sa Đéc
IV
10 Đồng Tháp
TX. Hồng Ngự
IV
10 Đồng Tháp
TP. Cao Lãnh
III
10 Hậu Giang
TX. Vị Thanh
IV
10 Hậu Giang
TX. Tân Hiệp
IV
10 Kiên Giang
TX. Hà Tiên
IV
10 Kiên Giang
TP. Rạch Giá
III
10 Long An
TX. Tân An
IV
10 Sóc Trăng
TP. Sóc Trăng
III
10 Tiền Giang
TX. Gò Công
IV
10 Tiền Giang
TP. Mỹ Tho
II
10 Trà Vinh
TX. Trà Vinh
III
10 Vĩnh Long
TX. Vĩnh Long
III
Estimated value based on regional average as calculated below:
94,025
103,685
3,220
1.60
11.02
3.96
90
29,632
32,883
249 23.70
36.35
3.08
37
43,150
53,470
969 10.08
32.17
0.42
76
9 409
14 379
13 10
43 45
3 85
68 25
9,409
14,379
126 13.10
43.45
3.85
68.25
39,050
45,803
716
5.78
28.06
1.70
67
39,341
45,028
271 15.00
41.68
0.83
70
78,155
84,019
632
2.39
32.81
3.77
95
18,089
18,561
262 13.60
43.45
1.50
68.25
74,938
78,550
1,011
3.67
22.73
5.90
80
76,263
86,410
390
9.15
27.56
12.10
73
39,575
62,997
977
3.40
32.10
9.40
68.25
131,057
145,085
2,036
1.27
30.68
1.10
80
68,329
75,964
230 13.11
24.26
6.56
95
8,743
9,340
855 17.00
24.26
3.85
68.25
15,221
16,260
1,196
6.70
24.26
3.85
68.25
43,244
45,410
543
3.84
19.98
2.71
10
218,038
234,506
1,324
6.59
19.98
3.10
93
53,921
57,152
1,308
4.83
30.22
3.85
40
18,314
26,606
896 31.74
39.87
0.13
15
74,330
78,997
1,362
2.00
39.87
5.88
90
75,606
111,900
4,248
0.99
3.20
4.92
81
71,521
82,050
2,396
6.34
4.57
4.50
90
2,739,200 3,149,800
3,417
0.35
2.50
7.00
80
113,150
120,732
1,170 12.00
47.37
3.64
95
97,958
136,943
4,162
6.90
8.88
7.38
85
128,885
143,650
3,968
5.50
8.12
2.50
85
1,694,400 1,790,300
1,173
5.18
8.72
4.20
80
41,709
79,284
1,694
5.80
7.03
3.57
65
230,575
237,823
5,125
6.49
7.75
4.39
94
49,268
52,510
492
8.80
11.86
4.39
25
59,398
109,847
2,270
2.30
14.65
4.20
85
152,154
160,282
477
2.22
6.02
5.60
85
185,405
195,047
935
3.34
6.02
5.60
90
92,186
97,824
407
1.41
6.02
4.39
75.65
70,159
75,622
147
7.59
53.11
2.40
26
131,761
138,088
3,280
6.74
66.77
3.50
50
81,316
85,757
695
9.42
8.47
4.39
85
,
,
,
70,559
122,568
2,413
4.26
8.47
2.49
85
242,616
258,320
1,194
6.80
14.05
3.60
90
105,363
112,558
616
8.75
1.62
2.50
78
192,829
207,853
1,009
0.43
58.66
2.52
90
703,500
777,000
619
3.50
6.44
4.53
54
35,417
35,979
620 23.56
25.90
4.28
35
61,088
78,948
1,410 12.97
25.90
9.85
100
201,500
217,671
312 10.40
51.18
2.70
13
336,605
360,919
1,438
0.30
16.07
1.66
85
43,992
50,268
1,789 12.80
8.96
5.07
71.30
217,313
240,409
3,756
7.10
8.96
10.70
85
150,173
162,531
2,047
7.34
29.14
3.67
65
99,703
162,278
1,519
8.62
15.98
3.31
70
94,701
100,815
646
3.98
48.20
5.68
54
78,337
84,296
1,389
1.30
23.59
6.00
87
169,869
179,148
522
8.26
23.95
3.64
60
110,886
123,505
901 10.70
56.73
5.82
95
16,096
16,980
2,653
8.45
32.27
4.73
45
71,055
80,464
1,108
5.30
32.27
10.00
80
54,806
59,914
3,347
5.00
14.54
5.07
60
53,462
55,508
830
9.40
14.54
3.04
87
185,351
197,245
3,407
2.16
14.54
9.40
70
297,666
326,264
4,595
1.94
64.08
3.82
95
295,095
317,030
840
8.15
55.58
4.25
66
33,286
35,559
124
3.50
23.93
3.30
60
93,959
98,720
494
8.68
35.32
5.33
21
32,817
35,058
122
8.86
35.32
3.00
65
172,416
190,062
729
1.78
35.32
4.35
34
118,719
131,983
307
5.50
76.50
5.67
70
138,546
150,010
645 10.24
26.44
4.00
58.73
167,709
192,568
492
6.40
26.44
4.50
95
79,790
84,607
934
0.32
25.95
4.49
80
216,637
256,677
1,832
4.00
25.95
7.49
83
148,626
171,331
1,949
0.40
43.08
4.48
20
55,286
65,212
387
4.94
39.26
3.46
50
130 675
130,675
140 566
140,566
721
0 45
0.45
24 64
24.64
8 15
8.15
67 76
67.76
488,100
541,495
3,500
1.59
31.39
1.50
87
5,226,100 5,911,600
2,817
7.80
11.23
4.10
85
44,690
132,241
962
2.31
47.50
4.00
70
106,959
115,067
1,000
6.42
47.76
3.96
81
252,334
270,238
2,545
6.15
47.76
2.16
67
132,460
142,420
812
2.68
58.40
3.28
55
107,631
116,407
1,737
4.38
55.71
2.82
60
182,401
202,316
826
2.67
55.68
0.61
66
1,079,891 1,134,500
809
8.31
34.50
3.50
80
97,567
102,320
1,764
2.19
60.70
6.90
84
31,110
64,569
529
2.00
60.70
4.90
100
142,986
149,839
1,398
1.28
36.63
3.55
85
67,382
71,832
604 21.55
70.48
2.06
94
253,575
269,811
478 21.00
48.15
3.50
80
37,592
42,600
481
2.30
53.33
3.66
75
189,191
207,593
2,125
5.52
53.33
3.50
83
115,549
121,363
1,480
4.00
47.76
3.00
80
116,023
124,049
1,622 12.49
14.89
4.77
81
51,727
53,951
1,681 13.28
48.15
0.85
85
160,841
170,497
3,530
1.08
30.41
4.57
84
72,199
96,016
1,411
6.95
72.86
3.16
66
121,236
124,947
2,608
5.49
48.26
1.52
90
Data in red fonts are data based on the Statistical Yearbook of Vietnam, 2006.
1.50
0.86
1.50
1 99
1.99
1.04
0.96
3.62
1.99
1.99
2.80
1.99
0.41
2.27
1.99
1.99
0.19
3.78
1.99
1.99
1.99
3.91
3.50
3.68
4.90
2.39
1.40
3.60
2.29
3.68
3.68
3.00
4.00
4.53
3.68
6.15
5.50
3.68
2.70
0.80
1.73
2.82
3.42
2.82
3.91
3.20
0.65
2.82
5.52
2.05
4.70
0.85
3.55
5.80
4.74
1.26
0.88
2.82
0.78
5.11
1.77
0.74
2.50
2.00
4.00
0.40
4.00
2.27
2.27
1.37
2.67
4.74
2.67
4 03
4.03
2.67
0.55
2.67
3.05
2.71
2.71
2.71
0.79
2.71
4.00
4.00
3.50
0.77
3.50
2.71
4.40
2.71
3.95
1.19
2.06
2.71
1.25
52
38
46
59
36
29
35
39.65
37
36
37
33
34
39.65
39.65
38
40
46
37
41
38
39
39
45
49
47
52
47
36
37
40
55
62
48
38
50
50
42
57
63
70
44
46
44
49.44
49.44
42
47
64
48
38
44
50
54
44
45
49
41
45
55
48
39
54
49.00
57
40
54
51
42
56
50
48
51
63
45
40
46
51
52
43
56
44
52
48.87
52
41
48
48
46
47
55
47
51
55
47
70
80
75
20
54
80
85
35
80
60
50
80
70
67.89
67.89
30
80
70
85
80
70
75
95
70
70
65
80
72
80
78.88
75
85
70
78.88
90
95
70
100
68.39
20
65
90
60
80
70
70
40
90
85
85
57
72
86
70
50
86
60
35
75
90
82
80
40
85
65
60
70.29
80
92
75
90
80
95
80
82
40
80
60
90
75
70
73.97
80
80
80
60
80
48
70
73.97
84
65
95
70
70
1.99
3.68
2.82
2.27
2.67
2.71
2.77
39.65
45.21
49.44
49.00
49.43
48.87
46.53
67.89
78.88
68.39
70.29
79.25
73.97
72.46
Economic
Significance
Investment
2.0
3,220
2.32
2.1
249
20.91
2.1
969
1.61
01
17 19
0.1
126
17.19
3.2
716
0.53
2.7
271
3.70
1.2
632
17.46
1.3
262
3.20
0.7
1,011
6.37
2.5
390
28.06
1.6
977
1.51
2.1
2,036
1.77
2.1
230
13.86
1.3
855
5.40
1.3
1,196
5.40
1.0
543
2.39
1.5
1,324
2.39
1.2
1,308
20.16
1.3
896
3.83
1.2
1,362
13.18
2.3
4,248
29.57
1.5
2,396
14.77
6.0
3,417
26.81
1.2
1,170
7.09
0.4
4,162
0.13
3.0
3,968
43.60
1.1
1,173
14.30
1.3
1,694
13.09
0.6
5,125
22.46
1.3
492
0.40
1.3
2,270
21.02
1.0
477
1.04
1.0
935
34.81
1.2
407
1.71
1.5
147
13.50
0.7
3,280
3.27
0.8
695
15.90
,
2.9
2,413
26.52
1.3
1,194
4.77
1.3
616
3.74
1.5
1,009
1.50
1.9
619
14.73
0.3
620
6.43
1.3
1,410
3.87
1.5
312
4.43
1.4
1,438
4.43
2.7
1,789
68.74
2.0
3,756
19.80
1.6
2,047
0.54
0.9
1,519
13.53
1.2
646
16.77
1.5
1,389
25.95
1.1
522
2.42
1.8
901
6.88
1.1
2,653
5.07
2.5
1,108
8.63
1.8
3,347
9.69
0.8
830
17.33
1.3
3,407
21.17
1.9
4,595
13.60
1.4
840
9.40
1.3
124
5.43
1.0
494
4.06
1.3
122
7.20
2.0
729
8.60
2.1
307
12.85
1.6
645
3.56
2.8
492
1.83
1.2
934
35.34
3.5
1,832
35.34
2.0
1,949
20.59
3.4
387
1.21
15
1.5
721
12 26
12.26
2.0
3,500
32.51
2.8
2,817
22.22
4.0
962
0.74
1.5
1,000
1.20
1.4
2,545
5.75
1.5
812
5.30
1.6
1,737
32.14
2.1
826
13.40
1.0
809
8.04
1.0
1,764
2.96
1.3
529
2.96
1.0
1,398
4.32
1.3
604
8.06
1.2
478
4.87
2.5
481
10.54
1.9
2,125
7.50
1.0
1,480
7.19
1.4
1,622
1.89
0.8
1,681
11.74
1.0
3,530
4.86
1.6
1,411
10.06
0.6
2,608
13.22
Priority cities and towns for urban upgrading.
Regional Significance Rank
Population Density 2005
(Person/Km2)
waste generated
Classroom
(km/km2)
water supply
with poor housing
ODA Investment by Province
(US$M)
EnvironUrbanDensity
ment
isation
Poverty
Percentage of poor
households
Density
Population Density
(Person/Km2)
32.2
132.0
55.2
114 0
114.0
64.0
166.0
133.0
70.8
77.7
221.5
64.5
71.3
330.0
10.9
13.6
83.6
177.1
43.7
29.7
58.0
26.3
34.3
921.8
103.2
32.9
36.2
1,526.0
46.8
46.4
106.8
48.4
335.8
208.7
240.4
515.0
42.1
123.3
50.8
216.4
182.8
206.0
1,256.0
58.0
56.0
697.0
251.0
28.1
64.0
79.4
106.8
156.0
60.7
343.5
137.1
6.4
72.6
17.9
66.9
57.9
71.0
377.2
286.6
199.9
287.0
260.6
430.0
232.4
391.1
90.6
140.1
87.9
168.5
195 0
195.0
154.7
2,098.7
137.4
115.0
106.2
175.5
67.0
245.0
1,401.6
58.0
122.2
107.2
119.0
564.0
88.5
97.7
82.0
76.5
32.1
48.3
68.0
47.9
Population 2005
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
H
H
H
H
L
H
H
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
LC
LC
L
L
L
L
L
LC
L
L
L
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
L
L
L
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
LC
LC
LC
L
L
L
L
L
LC
L
LC
L
LC
LC
L
LC
L
Population
Population 2000
City Area (Km2)
Class
City/Town
Province
Economic Region
Vietnam 3 Major Regions
North
Centre (North Central Coast, South Central Coast and Central Highlands)
South
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Area
Topology
mil./capita) for 5 years
(2000-2004)
MCA for 95 Cities and Towns (Class I and above)
187.44
6.14
7.56
0 12
0.12
0.12
4.22
10.64
8.90
5.95
6.94
5.09
5.09
7.12
7.12
7.12
17.72
17.72
14.29
7.64
7.64
47.15
2.26
707.15
13.07
13.07
657.21
229.45
59.41
70.09
46.88
46.88
172.25
172.25
172.25
172.25
41.35
27.62
27.62
81.18
439.03
439.03
102.13
12.66
12.66
128.62
128.62
25.24
25.24
35.13
110.68
28.99
47.92
47.92
67.41
21.44
21.44
16.86
16.86
16.86
121.19
23.91
0.07
10.58
10.58
10.58
2.60
108.10
108.10
568.79
568.79
3.60
1.98
37 17
37.17
37.17
449.11
18.69
22.01
22.01
16.14
13.20
4.31
236.93
11.79
11.79
11.79
0.00
0.00
6.42
6.42
5.68
2.04
29.64
29.64
5.98
27.50
Economic Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
Overall
9.25
5.31
7.23
6.64
2.73
6.83
6.78
29.96
16.17
26.71
39.36
31.13
49.76
31.61
3.85
4.39
5.07
4.30
4.71
3.28
4.23
68.25
75.65
71.30
58.73
67.76
78.75
71.96
1.64
1.62
1.48
1.70
2.54
1.34
1.62
928.63
2137.19
1623.93
469.33
1637.81
1444.19
1442.79
8.56
16.11
12.46
6.62
20.03
8.21
11.63
Regional significance ranking if the city or town in mentioned in the Socio-Economic Development Plan
Special Cities = 5
Class I City = 4
Class II City = 3
Class III City = 2
Class IV City/Town = 1
Not mentioned = 0
National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Overall Investment Plan for Urban Upgrading to 2020 (NUUP)
5/3/2008
Appendix F - 63/63
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
2
0
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
5
0
2
2
4
0
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
4
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
APPENDIX G
Urban Upgrading Demand and
Investment Cost
APPENDIX G
Urban Upgrading Demand and Investment Cost
This provides the tabulations of demand and investment cost for upgrading of primary, secondary and
tertiary infrastructure, house and resettlement of the six economic regions in Vietnam, excluding the 8
priority cities and towns. The six economic regions are as follows:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
Region 1 - Northern midlands and mountain areas (Northwest and Northeast);
Region 2 - Red River Delta and Northern key economic region;
Region 3 - Northern Central area, Central coastal area and Central key economic region;
Region 4 - Central Highlands;
Region 5 - Southeastern and Southern key economic region; and
Region 6 - Mekong River Delta.
Table 1 Region 1 Urban Upgrading Demand
Table 7 Cost Estimates for Region 1
Table 13 Estimated Cost and Investment Programme (2008-2020), High Level of Service
Cost estimate based on 2007 real prices
Table 14 Estimated Cost and Investment Programme (2008-2020), High Level of Service
Cost estimate based on 2007 escalated prices
1/15
Item(s)
Unit
Geographical Region
Class
TP. Bắc Giang
Northeast
TP. Hoà Bình
Northwest
III
III
TP. Lạng Sơn
Northeast
III
TP. Lào Cai TP. Thái Nguyên
Northeast
Northeast
III
II
TP. Yên Bái
Northeast
TX. Bắc Cạn
Northeast
III
TX. Hà Giang TX. Lai Châu TX. Mai Sơn TX. Mộc Châu TX. Mường Lay
Northeast
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
IV
IV
III
IV
IV
IV
TX. Nghĩa Lộ TX. Phú Thọ TX. Sơn La TX. Sông Công
Northeast
Northeast
Northwest
Northeast
IV
IV
IV
IV
TX. Tuyên Quang
Northeast
IV
DEMAND ANALYSIS
Primary & Secondary Infrastructure
Water
Total water demand for 2020
Capacity of present water supply system
Incremental requirement of water supply system for 2020
Primary Water Supply Infrastructure
Secondary Water Supply Infrastructure
Drainage
Volume of wastewater need treatment (2020)
Wastewater treatment capacity
Incremental volume of wastewater for treatment 2020
Primary Drainage
Secondary Drainage
Solid waste
Required capacity of landfill
Capacity of existing landfill
Required net capacity of landfill
Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
LIAs Tertiary Infrastructure
Water
Households without water supply in LIAs (2005)
Distribution line
Service connection
Sanitation
Number of households without septic tank
Drainage
Total length of drainage need upgrading
Solid waste
Volume of uncollected solid waste (2005)
Roads
Length of earth road (width >= 6m)
Length of earth road (width between 2.5-6m)
Length of earth road (below 2.5)
Length of asphalt road (width >= 6m)
Length of asphalt road (width between 2.5-6m)
Length of asphalt road (below 2.5)
Length of macadam road (width >= 6m)
Length of macadam road (width between 2.5-6m)
Length of macadam road (below 2.5)
Length of concrete road (width >= 6m)
Length of concrete road (width between 2.5-6m)
Length of concrete road (below 2.5)
Total length of road in need of upgrading
Streetlight
Road length without streetlight
Urbanised Tertiary Infrastructure
Water
Households without water supply in urbanised area (2005)
Distribution line
Service connection
Sanitation
Drainage
Existing drainage pipeline
Length of drainage backlog of urbanised area (2005)
Solid waste
Road
Streetlight
Road without streetlight
Urban Expansion Tertiary Infrastructure
Water
HHs needing water supply (2020)
Distribution line
Service connection
Drainage
Length of drainage for built-up area (2020)
Solid waste
Volume of solid waste to be collected (2020)
Roads
Total length of road for new construction
Streetlight
Construction of new street lighting (2020)
Resettlement
Number of houses in unsafe areas
Housing
Estimated number of sub-standard housing to be upgraded
Estimated number of HHs opting for housing loan (60% of substandard housing)
D:\NUUPMINH\Final Report\Appendix_EN_Finalreport\ApG_Tables1-12_Investmentcost_ Basic_EN.xls 5/3/2008
cmd
cmd
cmd
km
km
9,395
12,131
2
4
8,321
19,000
1
2
5,780
15,000
1
1
11,055
8,200
2,855
3
5
18,001
28,351
4
5
9,003
9,242
2
2
2,733
1,582
1,152
1
1
4,867
4,097
770
2
2
1,595
1,647
0
0
1,982
1,442
540
0
1
1,139
829
310
0
0
1,017
1,276
0
0
1,942
519
1,423
0
1
2,957
5,589
1
1
4,209
9,381
1
2
2,747
590
2,157
0
1
3,131
2,972
159
1
1
cmd
cmd
cmd
km
km
3,382
3,382
2
4
2,995
2,995
1
2
2,081
2,081
1
1
3,980
3,980
3
5
6,480
25
6,455
4
5
3,241
3,241
2
2
984
984
1
1
1,752
1,752
2
2
574
574
0
0
714
714
0
1
410
410
0
0
366
366
0
0
699
699
0
1
1,065
1,065
1
1
1,515
1,515
1
2
989
989
0
1
1,127
1,127
1
1
T/d
T/d
ha
3
3
3
2
1
km
km
2
4
HH
km
HH
4
-
4
6
25
4
4
1
2
1
1
3
5
995
2.49
995
499
1.25
499
2,779
6.95
2,779
pcs
2,263
2,273
km
5
2
T/day
2.7
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
0.7
0.8
1.4
0.7
0.8
1.4
0.7
0.8
1.4
0.7
0.8
1.4
11.6
-
3
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
0
-
1
-
3
-
4
-
6
-
4
-
1
-
3
1
2
1
1
0
1
3
4
6
4
1
4
5
2
2
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
2,915
7.29
2,915
1,438
3.60
1,438
1,065
2.66
1,065
1,790
4.48
1,790
1,383
3.46
1,383
185
0.46
185
2,309
5.77
2,309
1,327
3.32
1,327
140
0.35
140
1,923
4.81
1,923
1,057
2.64
1,057
217
0.54
217
3,033
7.58
3,033
2,241
5.60
2,241
3,160
2,455
4,674
2,422
646
1,048
422
525
301
321
514
748
989
766
849
14
15
7
5
9
7
1
12
7
1
10
5
1
15
11
2.2
3.1
2.3
6.1
2.1
0.9
1.2
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.9
1.6
2.0
1.2
1.5
0.7
0.8
1.5
0.7
0.8
1.5
0.7
0.8
1.5
0.7
0.8
1.5
11.6
0.9
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.1
2.0
16.1
0.7
0.8
1.6
0.7
0.8
1.6
0.7
0.8
1.6
0.7
0.8
1.6
12.5
1.4
1.6
3.0
1.4
1.6
3.0
1.4
1.6
3.0
1.4
1.6
3.0
23.9
0.7
0.8
1.5
0.7
0.8
1.5
0.7
0.8
1.5
0.7
0.8
1.5
12.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
3.3
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
5.4
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
2.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
2.7
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.5
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.6
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
2.6
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
3.8
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
5.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
3.9
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
4.3
km
3
3
4
3
5
3
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
HH
km
HH
713
1.78
713
359
0.90
359
1,992
4.98
1,992
2,089
5.22
2,089
1,032
2.58
1,032
764
1.91
764
1,283
3.21
1,283
992
2.48
992
134
0.34
134
1,656
4.14
1,656
951
2.38
951
102
0.26
102
1,378
3.45
1,378
759
1.90
759
156
0.39
156
2,174
5.44
2,174
1,606
4.02
1,606
pcs
5,750
5,777
8,028
6,237
11,875
6,156
1,641
2,664
1,074
1,334
767
817
1,307
1,903
2,514
1,947
2,158
km
km
7
4
12
13
8
10
52
10
158
5
11
4
9
6
19
5
30
1
9
8
7
5
102
1
15
7
12
4
25
1
12
11
7
8
T/p
4.9
0.9
2.7
6.2
5.3
1.8
0.7
1.0
2.5
3.5
2.0
2.4
2.4
6.0
3.6
6.6
2.7
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
2.9
3.2
0.2
0.4
2.6
0.2
68.0
3.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
79.2
1.6
6.8
0.5
0.2
0.3
1.9
2.1
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
23.0
37.6
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
3.1
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
6.0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
3.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.1
km
0.7
9.3
4.1
0.7
1.4
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
HH
km
HH
5,589
13.97
5,589
4,988
12.47
4,988
6,468
16.17
6,468
6,576
16.44
6,576
10,708
26.77
10,708
5,356
13.39
5,356
1,626
4.06
1,626
2,895
7.24
2,895
949
2.37
949
1,179
2.95
1,179
677
1.69
677
605
1.51
605
1,155
2.89
1,155
1,759
4.40
1,759
2,504
6.26
2,504
1,634
4.09
1,634
1,862
4.66
1,862
6.12
km
29.13
16.41
13.30
42.13
43.08
18.33
8.94
19.77
3.50
4.34
2.50
0.26
4.26
7.79
13.97
4.57
T/p
5.6
5.0
6.5
6.6
10.7
5.4
1.6
2.9
0.9
1.2
0.7
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.5
1.6
1.9
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
0.60
0.90
0.90
0.60
0.90
0.90
0.60
0.90
0.90
0.60
0.90
0.90
9.56
0.33
0.50
0.50
0.33
0.50
0.50
0.33
0.50
0.50
0.33
0.50
0.50
5.34
0.14
0.22
0.22
0.14
0.22
0.22
0.14
0.22
0.22
0.14
0.22
0.22
2.32
0.86
1.30
1.30
0.86
1.30
1.30
0.86
1.30
1.30
0.86
1.30
1.30
13.82
1.10
1.32
1.32
1.10
1.32
1.32
1.10
1.32
1.32
1.10
1.32
1.32
15.01
0.38
0.56
0.56
0.38
0.56
0.56
0.38
0.56
0.56
0.38
0.56
0.56
6.01
0.18
0.27
0.27
0.18
0.27
0.27
0.18
0.27
0.27
0.18
0.27
0.27
2.93
0.41
0.61
0.61
0.41
0.61
0.61
0.41
0.61
0.61
0.41
0.61
0.61
6.48
0.07
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.11
0.11
1.15
0.09
0.13
0.13
0.09
0.13
0.13
0.09
0.13
0.13
0.09
0.13
0.13
1.43
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.82
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.09
0.13
0.13
0.09
0.13
0.13
0.09
0.13
0.13
0.09
0.13
0.13
1.40
0.16
0.24
0.24
0.16
0.24
0.24
0.16
0.24
0.24
0.16
0.24
0.24
2.56
0.29
0.43
0.43
0.29
0.43
0.43
0.29
0.43
0.43
0.29
0.43
0.43
4.58
0.09
0.14
0.14
0.09
0.14
0.14
0.09
0.14
0.14
0.09
0.14
0.14
1.50
0.13
0.19
0.19
0.13
0.19
0.19
0.13
0.19
0.19
0.13
0.19
0.19
2.01
0.50
km
2.39
1.34
0.58
3.46
4.42
1.50
0.73
1.62
0.29
0.36
0.20
0.02
0.35
0.64
1.15
0.37
HH
376
1,456
201
408
776
402
106
174
70
86
50
52
84
124
164
126
140
HH
HH
1,387
832
1,393
836
1,936
1,162
1,504
903
2,864
1,718
1,484
891
396
237
642
385
259
155
322
193
185
111
197
118
315
189
459
275
606
364
470
282
520
312
2/15
Item(s)
Unit
Geographical Region
Class
TP. Bắc Ninh
Red Delta
III
TP. Hà Đông
Red Delta
TP. Hạ Long
Red Delta
III
TP. Hà Nội
Red Delta
II
I
TP. Hải Phòng TP. Nam Định TP. Sơn Tây TP. Thái Bình TP. Vĩnh Yên TX. Cẩm Phả TX. Hưng Yên
Red Delta
Red Delta
Red Delta
Red Delta
Red Delta
Red Delta
Red Delta
I
II
III
III
III
III
TX. Móng Cái TX. Phủ Lý
Red Delta
Red Delta
III
IV
IV
TX. Phúc Yên
Red Delta
IV
TX. Tam Điệp
Red Delta
IV
TX. Uông Bí
Red Delta
IV
DEMAND ANALYSIS
Water
Drainage
Primary Drainage
Secondary Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Water
Distribution line
Service connection
Sanitation
Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Streetlight
Road length without streetlight
Water
Distribution line
Service connection
Sanitation
Drainage
Solid waste
Road
Streetlight
Water
Distribution line
Service connection
Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Streetlight
Resettlement
Housing
cmd
cmd
cmd
km
km
14,050
11,826
2,223
4.09
6.13
9,237
15,132
0.48
0.71
21,478
22,820
3.41
4.55
442,451
550,000
320.94
385.12
71,856
160,000
13.19
15.83
21,825
29,062
2.18
2.90
5,591
20,000
0.89
1.34
11,556
40,000
1.22
1.83
12,540
13,543
4.39
6.58
18,363
17,711
652
2.65
3.98
5,572
6,699
1.00
1.50
3,424
5,400
0.70
1.04
5,703
25,000
1.11
1.66
5,600
9,476
0.64
0.96
3,356
1,707
1,649
0.58
0.88
10,937
9,621
1,316
1.78
2.68
cmd
cmd
cmd
km
km
5,058
5,058
4.09
6.13
3,325
3,325
0.48
0.71
7,732
7,500
232
3.41
4.55
159,282
363,000
320.94
385.12
25,868
70,000
13.19
15.83
7,857
7,857
2.18
2.90
2,013
2,013
0.89
1.34
4,160
4,160
1.22
1.83
4,514
4,514
4.39
6.58
6,611
6,611
2.65
3.98
2,006
2,006
1.00
1.50
1,233
1,233
0.70
1.04
2,053
2,053
1.11
1.66
2,016
2,016
0.64
0.96
1,208
1,208
0.58
0.88
3,937
3,937
1.78
2.68
ha
ha
ha
19.23
19.23
12.64
12.64
29.40
15.90
13.50
605.60
20.00
585.60
98.35
64.00
34.35
29.87
64.00
-
7.65
14.00
-
15.82
2.00
13.82
17.16
5.00
12.16
25.13
25.13
7.63
7.63
4.69
1.00
3.69
7.81
0.41
7.40
7.66
7.66
4.59
4.59
14.97
14.97
km
km
4.09
6.13
0.48
0.71
3.79
4.55
320.94
385.12
13.19
15.83
2.42
2.90
0.89
1.34
1.22
1.83
4.39
6.58
2.65
3.98
1.00
1.50
0.70
1.04
1.11
1.66
0.64
0.96
0.58
0.88
1.78
2.68
HH
km
HH
2,647
6.62
2,647
1,867
4.67
1,867
2,620
6.55
2,620
52,772
131.93
52,772
17,420
43.55
17,420
1,695
4.24
1,695
346
0.87
346
7,210
18.03
7,210
-
3,347
8.37
3,347
2,272
5.68
2,272
3,054
7.64
3,054
534
1.34
534
1,056
2.64
1,056
2,953
7.38
2,953
3,425
8.56
3,425
pcs
3,218
2,830
5,959
59,990
19,803
6,425
1,574
3,298
-
5,074
1,476
932
1,216
1,601
895
2,956
km
11
7
10
211
70
7
1
29
-
13
9
12
2
4
12
14
T/day
2.9
3.6
5.1
55.3
46.8
6.2
2.8
2.0
3.2
4.2
2.1
1.9
1.9
2.2
1.4
2.6
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
0.94
1.11
2.05
0.94
1.11
2.05
0.94
1.11
2.05
0.94
1.11
2.05
16.43
0.83
0.98
1.81
0.83
0.98
1.81
0.83
0.98
1.81
0.83
0.98
1.81
14.45
1.75
2.05
3.80
1.75
2.05
3.80
1.75
2.05
3.80
1.75
2.05
3.80
30.43
17.61
20.67
38.29
17.61
20.67
38.29
17.61
20.67
38.29
17.61
20.67
38.29
306.29
5.81
6.82
12.64
5.81
6.82
12.64
5.81
6.82
12.64
5.81
6.82
12.64
101.11
1.89
2.21
4.10
1.89
2.21
4.10
1.89
2.21
4.10
1.89
2.21
4.10
32.81
0.46
0.54
1.01
0.46
0.54
1.01
0.46
0.54
1.01
0.46
0.54
1.01
8.04
0.97
1.14
2.11
0.97
1.14
2.11
0.97
1.14
2.11
0.97
1.14
2.11
16.84
0.42
0.49
0.91
0.42
0.49
0.91
0.42
0.49
0.91
0.42
0.49
0.91
7.29
1.49
1.75
3.24
1.49
1.75
3.24
1.49
1.75
3.24
1.49
1.75
3.24
25.91
0.43
0.51
0.94
0.43
0.51
0.94
0.43
0.51
0.94
0.43
0.51
0.94
7.54
0.27
0.32
0.60
0.27
0.32
0.60
0.27
0.32
0.60
0.27
0.32
0.60
4.76
0.36
0.42
0.78
0.36
0.42
0.78
0.36
0.42
0.78
0.36
0.42
0.78
6.21
0.47
0.55
1.02
0.47
0.55
1.02
0.47
0.55
1.02
0.47
0.55
1.02
8.18
0.26
0.31
0.57
0.26
0.31
0.57
0.26
0.31
0.57
0.26
0.31
0.57
4.57
0.87
1.02
1.89
0.87
1.02
1.89
0.87
1.02
1.89
0.87
1.02
1.89
15.10
km
3.78
3.32
7.00
70.45
23.26
7.55
1.85
3.87
1.68
5.96
1.73
1.09
1.43
1.88
1.05
3.47
HH
km
HH
1,897
4.74
1,897
1,338
3.35
1,338
1,879
4.70
1,879
37,814
94.54
37,814
12,483
31.21
12,483
1,215
3.04
1,215
248
0.62
248
5,167
12.92
5,167
10,698
26.74
10,698
2,399
6.00
2,399
1,629
4.07
1,629
2,190
5.48
2,190
384
0.96
384
758
1.90
758
2,117
5.29
2,117
2,455
6.14
2,455
pcs
8,178
7,191
15,141
152,422
50,316
16,325
4,002
8,381
20,300
12,893
3,751
2,369
3,090
4,070
2,275
7,512
km
km
63
9
16
7
523
9
883
189
495
62
49
6
551
1
55
-
8
15
49
12
36
8
19
-
39
15
13
4
75
11
601
12
T/p
5.3
6.4
9.2
-
40.7
5.4
5.0
-
(3.2)
1.7
3.3
-
2.5
4.0
1.8
3.6
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
0.24
0.28
0.51
0.24
0.28
0.51
0.24
0.28
0.51
0.24
0.28
0.51
4.11
0.21
0.24
0.45
0.21
0.24
0.45
0.21
0.24
0.45
0.21
0.24
0.45
3.61
0.44
0.51
0.95
0.44
0.51
0.95
0.44
0.51
0.95
0.44
0.51
0.95
7.61
4.40
5.17
9.57
4.40
5.17
9.57
4.40
5.17
9.57
4.40
5.17
9.57
76.57
1.45
1.71
3.16
1.45
1.71
3.16
1.45
1.71
3.16
1.45
1.71
3.16
25.28
0.47
0.55
1.03
0.47
0.55
1.03
0.47
0.55
1.03
0.47
0.55
1.03
8.20
0.12
0.14
0.25
0.94
0.14
0.17
0.12
0.14
0.25
0.12
0.14
0.25
2.75
0.24
0.28
0.53
1.60
0.28
9.93
0.24
0.28
0.53
0.24
0.28
8.10
22.54
0.10
0.12
0.23
0.10
0.12
0.23
0.10
0.12
0.23
0.10
0.12
0.23
1.82
0.37
0.44
0.81
0.37
0.44
0.81
0.37
0.44
0.81
0.37
0.44
0.81
6.48
0.11
0.13
0.24
0.11
0.13
0.24
0.11
0.13
0.24
0.11
0.13
0.24
1.88
0.07
0.08
0.15
12.63
0.08
11.65
0.07
0.08
0.15
0.07
0.08
0.15
25.24
0.09
0.10
0.19
0.09
0.10
0.19
0.09
0.10
0.19
0.09
0.10
1.94
3.30
0.12
0.14
0.26
0.12
0.14
0.26
0.12
0.14
0.26
0.12
0.14
0.26
2.04
0.07
0.08
0.14
0.07
0.08
0.14
0.07
0.08
0.14
0.07
0.08
0.14
1.14
0.22
0.25
0.47
0.22
0.25
0.47
0.22
0.25
0.47
0.22
0.25
0.47
3.77
km
1
1
2
18
6
2
1
2
0
1
0
13
0
0
0
1
HH
km
HH
8,358
20.90
8,358
5,494
13.74
5,494
12,776
31.94
12,776
626,216
1,565.54
626,216
42,745
106.86
42,745
12,983
32.46
12,983
3,449
8.62
3,449
6,793
16.98
6,793
10,698
26.74
10,698
10,923
27.31
10,923
3,314
8.29
3,314
2,154
5.39
2,154
2,780
6.95
2,780
3,331
8.33
3,331
1,996
4.99
1,996
6,506
16.26
6,506
21.76
km
49.84
5.80
36.96
3,131.08
128.70
23.60
11.26
14.74
53.49
32.37
12.21
8.97
11.07
7.82
7.12
T/p
8.4
5.5
12.8
626.2
42.7
13.0
3.4
6.8
10.7
10.9
3.3
2.2
2.8
3.3
2.0
6.5
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
1.02
1.53
1.53
1.02
1.53
1.53
1.02
1.53
1.53
1.02
1.53
1.53
16.35
0.12
0.18
0.18
0.12
0.18
0.18
0.12
0.18
0.18
0.12
0.18
0.18
1.90
0.95
1.14
1.14
0.95
1.14
1.14
0.95
1.14
1.14
0.95
1.14
1.14
12.88
80.23
96.28
96.28
80.23
96.28
96.28
80.23
96.28
96.28
80.23
96.28
96.28
1,091.18
3.30
3.96
3.96
3.30
3.96
3.96
3.30
3.96
3.96
3.30
3.96
3.96
44.85
0.60
0.73
0.73
0.60
0.73
0.73
0.60
0.73
0.73
0.60
0.73
0.73
8.23
0.22
0.33
0.33
0.22
0.33
0.33
0.22
0.33
0.33
0.22
0.33
0.33
3.56
0.31
0.46
0.46
0.31
0.46
0.46
0.31
0.46
0.46
0.31
0.46
0.46
4.89
1.10
1.64
1.64
1.10
1.64
1.64
1.10
1.64
1.64
1.10
1.64
1.64
17.54
0.66
1.00
1.00
0.66
1.00
1.00
0.66
1.00
1.00
0.66
1.00
1.00
10.62
0.25
0.38
0.38
0.25
0.38
0.38
0.25
0.38
0.38
0.25
0.38
0.38
4.01
0.17
0.26
0.26
0.17
0.26
0.26
0.17
0.26
0.26
0.17
0.26
0.26
2.78
0.28
0.42
0.42
0.28
0.42
0.42
0.28
0.42
0.42
0.28
0.42
0.42
4.43
0.16
0.24
0.24
0.16
0.24
0.24
0.16
0.24
0.24
0.16
0.24
0.24
2.56
0.15
0.22
0.22
0.15
0.22
0.22
0.15
0.22
0.22
0.15
0.22
0.22
2.34
0.45
0.67
0.67
0.45
0.67
0.67
0.45
0.67
0.67
0.45
0.67
0.67
7.14
km
4
0
3
273
11
2
1
1
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
HH
534
470
990
9,976
3,292
1,068
900
242
87
842
244
154
288
266
148
490
HH
HH
1,972
1,183
1,734
1,040
3,651
2,191
36,755
22,053
12,133
7,280
3,937
2,362
965
579
2,021
1,212
875
525
3,109
1,865
905
543
571
343
745
447
981
589
548
329
1,811
1,087
3/15
Cost
Unit
TP. Đà Nẵng
TP. Đồng Hới
TP. Hà Tĩnh
TP. Huế
I
III
III
I
Class
TP. Nha Trang han Rang - Tháp TP. Phan Thiết
II
III
III
TP. Quảng Ngãi
TP. Quy Nhơn
TP. Tam Kỳ
TP. Thanh Hoá
TP. Tuy Hoà
TP. Vinh
TX. Bỉm Sơn
TX. Cam Ranh
TX. Cửa Lò
TX. Đông Hà
TX. Hội An
TX. Hồng Lĩnh
TX. Lagi
TX. Quảng Trị
TX. Sầm Sơn
III
II
III
II
III
II
IV
IV
IV
IV
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
DEMAND ANALYSIS
Water
Drainage
Primary Drainage
Secondary Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Water
Distribution line
Service connection
Sanitation
Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Streetlight
R d without
Road
ith t streetlight
t tli ht
Water
Distribution line
Service connection
Sanitation
Drainage
Solid waste
Road
Streetlight
Water
Distribution line
Service connection
Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Streetlight
Resettlement
Housing
cmd
cmd
cmd
km
km
80,243
53,628
26,615
12.37
14.84
7,849
28,000
1.25
1.88
9,005
10,263
1.62
2.43
35,116
76,000
11.01
13.21
44,255
39,882
4,374
9.40
12.53
16,925
13,734
3,191
3.57
5.36
18,149
24,000
3.59
5.39
15,310
2,000
13,310
3.67
5.51
26,953
30,223
5.20
6.93
11,248
13,973
1.66
2.49
17,324
17,949
3.32
4.42
15,701
14,767
934
2.05
3.07
32,495
26,565
5,929
9.56
12.74
4,813
6,278
0.51
0.77
11,342
6,000
5,342
2.25
3.38
4,578
4,659
1.51
2.26
11,476
8,368
3,108
3.57
5.36
7,413
9,515
1.46
2.20
1,583
1,637
0.07
0.11
5,989
19,260
1.08
1.61
1,953
993
959
0.29
0.43
4,010
4,673
0.94
1.41
cmd
cmd
cmd
km
km
28,887
80,000
12.37
14.84
2,826
2,826
1.25
1.88
3,242
3,242
1.62
2.43
12,642
12,642
11.01
13.21
15,932
15,932
9.40
12.53
6,093
6,093
3.57
5.36
6,534
6,534
3.59
5.39
5,512
5,512
3.67
5.51
9,703
9,703
5.20
6.93
4,049
4,049
1.66
2.49
6,237
6,237
3.32
4.42
5,652
5,652
2.05
3.07
11,698
11,698
9.56
12.74
1,733
1,733
0.51
0.77
4,083
4,083
2.25
3.38
1,648
1,648
1.51
2.26
4,131
4,131
3.57
5.36
2,669
2,669
1.46
2.20
570
570
0.07
0.11
2,156
2,156
1.08
1.61
703
703
0.29
0.43
1,443
1,443
0.94
1.41
ha
ha
ha
109.83
50.00
59.83
10.74
16.30
-
12.33
12.33
48.07
2.50
45.57
60.57
60.57
23.17
23.17
24.84
37.00
-
20.96
20.96
36.89
36.89
15.40
15.40
23.71
4.20
19.51
21.49
4.00
17.49
44.48
44.48
6.59
6.59
15.52
3.00
12.52
6.27
6.27
15.71
15.71
10.15
10.15
2.17
2.17
8.20
8.20
2.67
1.00
1.67
5.49
5.49
km
km
12.37
14.84
1.25
1.88
1.62
2.43
11.01
13.21
10.44
12.53
3.57
5.36
3.59
5.39
3.67
5.51
5.78
6.93
1.66
2.49
3.69
4.42
2.05
3.07
10.62
12.74
0.51
0.77
2.25
3.38
1.51
2.26
3.57
5.36
1.46
2.20
0.07
0.11
1.08
1.61
0.29
0.43
0.94
1.41
HH
km
HH
39,765
99.41
39,765
5,442
13.61
5,442
-
1,477
3.69
1,477
7,651
19.13
7,651
6,638
16.60
6,638
2,429
6.07
2,429
675
1.69
675
3,172
7.93
3,172
5,449
13.62
5,449
6,127
15.32
6,127
5,819
14.55
5,819
5,114
12.79
5,114
794
1.99
794
8,468
21.17
8,468
1,184
2.96
1,184
2,245
5.61
2,245
1,113
2.78
1,113
1,394
3.49
1,394
1,535
3.84
1,535
1,299
3.25
1,299
1,744
4.36
1,744
pcs
19,637
2,690
2,385
6,718
11,597
4,312
5,523
3,073
7,213
3,097
4,643
4,410
7,753
1,389
2,203
991
2,552
1,921
487
1,586
537
991
km
159
22
-
6
31
27
10
3
13
22
25
23
20
3
34
5
9
4
6
6
5
7
T/day
19.9
3.0
2.1
6.9
9.4
4.2
5.4
2.9
6.7
4.7
5.1
4.2
6.3
1.4
5.7
1.3
2.1
2.2
0.9
5.0
0.4
1.6
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
5.8
6.8
12.5
5.8
6.8
12.5
5.8
6.8
12.5
5.8
6.8
12.5
100.3
0.8
0.9
1.7
0.8
0.9
1.7
0.8
0.9
1.7
0.8
0.9
1.7
13.7
0.7
0.8
1.5
0.7
0.8
1.5
0.7
0.8
1.5
0.7
0.8
1.5
12.2
2.0
2.3
4.3
2.0
2.3
4.3
2.0
2.3
4.3
2.0
2.3
4.3
34.3
3.4
4.0
7.4
3.4
4.0
7.4
3.4
4.0
7.4
3.4
4.0
7.4
59.2
1.3
1.5
2.8
1.3
1.5
2.8
1.3
1.5
2.8
1.3
1.5
2.8
22.0
1.6
1.9
3.5
1.6
1.9
3.5
1.6
1.9
3.5
1.6
1.9
3.5
28.2
0.9
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.1
2.0
15.7
2.1
2.5
4.6
2.1
2.5
4.6
2.1
2.5
4.6
2.1
2.5
4.6
36.8
0.9
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.1
2.0
15.8
1.4
1.6
3.0
1.4
1.6
3.0
1.4
1.6
3.0
1.4
1.6
3.0
23.7
1.3
1.5
2.8
1.3
1.5
2.8
1.3
1.5
2.8
1.3
1.5
2.8
22.5
2.3
2.7
4.9
2.3
2.7
4.9
2.3
2.7
4.9
2.3
2.7
4.9
39.6
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.9
7.1
0.6
0.8
1.4
0.6
0.8
1.4
0.6
0.8
1.4
0.6
0.8
1.4
11.2
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
5.1
0.7
0.9
1.6
0.7
0.9
1.6
0.7
0.9
1.6
0.7
0.9
1.6
13.0
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.6
0.7
1.2
9.8
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
2.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
8.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
2.7
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
5.1
k
km
23
3
HH
km
HH
28,495
71.24
28,495
3,900
9.75
3,900
-
pcs
49,894
6,834
km
km
622
142
7
T/p
-
-
3
8
14
5
6
4
8
4
5
5
9
2
3
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
1,059
2.65
1,059
5,483
13.71
5,483
4,758
11.90
4,758
1,741
4.35
1,741
485
1.21
485
2,274
5.69
2,274
3,905
9.76
3,905
4,391
10.98
4,391
4,171
10.43
4,171
3,666
9.17
3,666
569
1.42
569
6,069
15.17
6,069
849
2.12
849
1,609
4.02
1,609
798
2.00
798
999
2.50
999
1,100
2.75
1,100
931
2.33
931
1,250
3.13
1,250
6,063
17,071
29,466
10,957
14,033
7,808
18,329
7,870
11,800
11,206
19,698
3,529
5,597
2,518
6,487
4,884
1,240
4,032
1,365
2,519
38
98
15
51
27
17
24
157
9
31
14
128
11
218
20
106
22
162
21
145
18
26
3
153
30
35
4
10
8
56
4
46
5
5
6
5
5
27
6
9
2
17
2
12
5
14
1
7
2
7
10
6
1
4
3
32
2
4
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
1.4
1.7
3.1
1.4
1.7
3.1
1.4
1.7
3.1
1.4
1.7
3.1
25.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
2.3
5.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
3.0
0.5
0.6
1.1
20.3
0.6
57.7
0.5
0.6
1.1
0.5
0.6
1.1
85.0
0.9
1.0
1.9
0.9
1.0
1.9
0.9
1.0
1.9
0.9
1.0
1.9
14.8
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
5.5
0.4
0.5
0.9
5.3
0.5
8.4
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.9
19.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
64.7
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
25.0
92.7
0.5
0.6
1.2
0.5
0.6
1.2
0.5
0.6
1.2
0.5
0.6
1.2
9.2
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
4.0
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
5.9
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
5.6
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.6
0.7
1.2
9.9
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.8
0.2
0.2
0.4
21.5
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
24.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
3.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.3
km
6
1
1
22
3
1
7
1
2
1
1
1
2
0
22
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
HH
km
HH
47,735
119.34
47,735
5,895
14.74
5,895
5,357
13.39
5,357
16,515
41.29
16,515
26,326
65.82
26,326
10,068
25.17
10,068
12,682
31.71
12,682
7,446
18.62
7,446
16,034
40.08
16,034
6,691
16.73
6,691
10,306
25.76
10,306
9,340
23.35
9,340
19,330
48.33
19,330
2,863
7.16
2,863
5,062
12.65
5,062
2,723
6.81
2,723
6,827
17.07
6,827
4,410
11.02
4,410
942
2.35
942
3,562
8.91
3,562
1,161
2.90
1,161
2,385
5.96
2,385
43.58
17.85
0.89
13.13
3.53
11.47
-
-
km
237.26
19.29
19.74
84.93
101.89
43.59
51.48
36.64
56.38
20.23
35.96
24.97
103.59
6.25
20.60
18.41
T/p
48
5
13
626
43
13
3
7
11
11
3
2
3
3
2
7
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
3.09
3.71
3.71
3.09
3.71
3.71
3.09
3.71
3.71
3.09
3.71
3.71
42.04
0.31
0.47
0.47
0.31
0.47
0.47
0.31
0.47
0.47
0.31
0.47
0.47
5.01
0.40
0.61
0.61
0.40
0.61
0.61
0.40
0.61
0.61
0.40
0.61
0.61
6.48
2.75
3.30
3.30
2.75
3.30
3.30
2.75
3.30
3.30
2.75
3.30
3.30
37.44
2.61
3.13
3.13
2.61
3.13
3.13
2.61
3.13
3.13
2.61
3.13
3.13
35.51
0.89
1.34
1.34
0.89
1.34
1.34
0.89
1.34
1.34
0.89
1.34
1.34
14.30
0.90
1.35
1.35
0.90
1.35
1.35
0.90
1.35
1.35
0.90
1.35
1.35
14.38
0.92
1.38
1.38
0.92
1.38
1.38
0.92
1.38
1.38
0.92
1.38
1.38
14.70
1.44
1.73
1.73
1.44
1.73
1.73
1.44
1.73
1.73
1.44
1.73
1.73
19.65
0.41
0.62
0.62
0.41
0.62
0.62
0.41
0.62
0.62
0.41
0.62
0.62
6.64
0.92
1.11
1.11
0.92
1.11
1.11
0.92
1.11
1.11
0.92
1.11
1.11
12.53
0.51
0.77
0.77
0.51
0.77
0.77
0.51
0.77
0.77
0.51
0.77
0.77
8.19
2.65
3.19
3.19
2.65
3.19
3.19
2.65
3.19
3.19
2.65
3.19
3.19
36.10
0.13
0.19
0.19
0.13
0.19
0.19
0.13
0.19
0.19
0.13
0.19
0.19
2.05
0.56
0.84
0.84
0.56
0.84
0.84
0.56
0.84
0.84
0.56
0.84
0.84
9.01
0.38
0.57
0.57
0.38
0.57
0.57
0.38
0.57
0.57
0.38
0.57
0.57
6.04
0.89
1.34
1.34
0.89
1.34
1.34
0.89
1.34
1.34
0.89
1.34
1.34
14.29
0.37
0.55
0.55
0.37
0.55
0.55
0.37
0.55
0.55
0.37
0.55
0.55
5.85
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.29
0.27
0.40
0.40
0.27
0.40
0.40
0.27
0.40
0.40
0.27
0.40
0.40
4.31
0.07
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.11
0.11
1.16
0.24
0.35
0.35
0.24
0.35
0.35
0.24
0.35
0.35
0.24
0.35
0.35
3.76
0.94
-
-
-
-
km
10.51
1.25
1.62
9.36
8.88
3.57
3.59
3.67
4.91
1.66
3.13
2.05
9.03
0.51
2.25
1.51
3.57
1.46
0.07
1.08
0.29
HH
3,266
636
396
900
1,928
716
918
215
1,198
514
772
732
1,288
230
255
164
424
318
80
262
88
164
HH
HH
12,032
7,219
1,648
989
1,462
877
4,116
2,470
7,106
4,263
2,642
1,585
3,384
2,030
1,883
1,130
4,420
2,652
1,898
1,139
2,845
1,707
2,702
1,621
4,750
2,850
851
510
1,350
810
607
364
1,564
938
1,178
707
299
179
972
583
329
197
607
364
National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Overall Investment for Urban Upgrading to 2020
D:\NUUPMINH\Final Report\Appendix_EN_Finalreport\ApG_Tables1-12_Investmentcost_ Basic_EN.xls5/3/2008
4/15
Cost
Unit
Class
TP. Đà Lạt
TP. Pleiku
TX. Ajunpa
TX. An Khê
TX. Bảo Lộc
TX. Gia Nghĩa
II
II
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
DEMAND ANALYSIS
Water
Drainage
Primary Drainage
Secondary Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Water
Distribution line
Service connection
Sanitation
Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Streetlight
Water
Distribution line
Service connection
Sanitation
Drainage
Solid waste
Road
Streetlight
Water
Distribution line
Service connection
Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Streetlight
Resettlement
Housing
cmd
cmd
cmd
km
km
25,178
49,000
5.50
7.33
25,766
23,782
1,984
9.84
13.12
17,335
8,401
8,934
4.39
6.59
2,635
2,962
0.47
0.71
4,179
2,705
1,473
0.58
0.86
12,068
11,453
615
2.56
3.84
3,025
2,773
252
0.54
0.82
cmd
cmd
cmd
km
km
9,064
9,064
5.50
7.33
9,276
9,276
9.84
13.12
6,241
6,241
4.39
6.59
949
949
0.47
0.71
1,504
1,504
0.58
0.86
4,344
4,344
2.56
3.84
1,089
1,089
0.54
0.82
ha
ha
ha
34.46
52.00
-
35.27
35.27
23.73
23.73
3.61
3.61
5.72
5.72
16.52
16.52
4.14
4.14
km
km
6.11
7.33
10.93
13.12
4.39
6.59
0.47
0.71
0.58
0.86
2.56
3.84
0.54
0.82
HH
km
HH
11,039
27.60
11,039
1,208
3.02
1,208
12,135
30.34
12,135
1,074
2.69
1,074
4,039
10.10
4,039
5,304
13.26
5,304
1,409
3.52
1,409
pcs
7,382
5,498
4,180
698
1,163
3,071
801
km
55.20
6.04
60.68
4.30
16.16
21.22
5.64
T/day
8.96
5.02
4.96
0.91
2.58
3.91
0.93
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
2.2
2.5
4.7
2.2
2.5
4.7
2.2
2.5
4.7
2.2
2.5
4.7
9.4
1.6
1.9
3.5
1.6
1.9
3.5
1.6
1.9
3.5
1.6
1.9
3.5
7.0
1.2
1.4
2.7
1.2
1.4
2.7
1.2
1.4
2.7
1.2
1.4
2.7
5.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.9
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
1.5
0.9
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.1
2.0
3.9
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
1.0
km
9
6
5
1
1
4
1
HH
km
HH
7,911
19.78
7,911
867
2.17
867
8,696
21.74
8,696
770
1.93
770
2,895
7.24
2,895
3,802
9.51
3,802
1,011
2.53
1,011
pcs
18,757
13,970
10,622
1,773
2,957
7,803
2,036
km
km
24
46
4
10
43
60
4
32
14
119
19
128
5
-
T/p
6
4
11
0
12
6
1
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
0.5
0.6
1.2
10.5
0.6
1.2
0.5
0.6
1.2
0.5
0.6
1.2
19.4
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.9
7.0
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
5.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
3.9
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.0
km
12
2
1
0
0
1
0
HH
km
HH
16,868
42.17
16,868
15,328
38.32
15,328
10,312
25.78
10,312
1,567
3.92
1,567
2,486
6.21
2,486
7,179
17.95
7,179
1,799
4.50
1,799
6.63
km
67.11
106.66
53.58
5.78
7.02
31.23
T/p
17
15
10
2
2
7
2
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
1.53
1.83
1.83
1.53
1.83
1.83
1.53
1.83
1.83
1.53
1.83
1.83
20.77
2.73
3.28
3.28
2.73
3.28
3.28
2.73
3.28
3.28
2.73
3.28
3.28
37.17
1.10
1.65
1.65
1.10
1.65
1.65
1.10
1.65
1.65
1.10
1.65
1.65
17.58
0.12
0.18
0.18
0.12
0.18
0.18
0.12
0.18
0.18
0.12
0.18
0.18
1.89
0.14
0.22
0.22
0.14
0.22
0.22
0.14
0.22
0.22
0.14
0.22
0.22
2.30
0.64
0.96
0.96
0.64
0.96
0.96
0.64
0.96
0.96
0.64
0.96
0.96
10.24
0.14
0.20
0.20
0.14
0.20
0.20
0.14
0.20
0.20
0.14
0.20
0.20
2.18
km
5.19
9.29
4.39
0.47
0.58
2.56
0.54
HH
464
914
694
116
192
510
132
HH
HH
4,523
2,714
3,369
2,021
2,561
1,537
428
257
713
428
1,882
1,129
491
294
5/15
Cost
Unit TP. Biên Hoà TP. Hồ Chí Minh TP. Vũng Tàu TX. Bà Rịa TX. Đồng Xoài
Southeast
Southeast
Southeast
Southeast
Southeast
II
Class
I
II
IV
IV
TX. Long Khánh
Southeast
III
TX. Tây Ninh TX. Thủ Dầu Một
Southeast
Southeast
IV
III
DEMAND ANALYSIS
Water
Drainage
Primary Drainage
Secondary Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Water
Distribution line
Service connection
Sanitation
Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Streetlight
Water
Distribution line
Service connection
Sanitation
Drainage
Solid waste
Road
Streetlight
Water
Distribution line
Service connection
Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Streetlight
Resettlement
Housing
Estimated no. of HHs opting for housing loan (60% of substandard housing)
cmd
cmd
cmd
km
km
68,463
36,000
32,463
20
27
cmd
cmd
cmd
km
km
24,647
0
24,647
20
27
697,381
2,000,000
294
353
40,538
27,695
12,843
18
24
7,745
8,799
1
2
6,318
4,239
2,079
2
4
6,518
12,382
1
2
13,180
12,034
1,147
6
9
14,907
21,600
4
6
251,057
150,600
100,457
294
353
14,594
14,594
18
24
2,788
2,788
1
2
2,274
2,274
2
4
2,346
2,346
1
2
4,745
4,745
6
9
5,367
5,367
4
6
ha
ha
ha
93.7
15.0
78.7
954.5
35.8
918.7
55.5
100.0
-
10.6
10.6
8.6
8.6
8.9
8.9
18.0
18.0
20.4
20.4
km
km
22.4
26.9
293.9
352.6
20.2
24.2
1.2
1.9
2.5
3.7
1.3
1.9
5.9
8.8
3.8
5.7
HH
km
HH
5,254
13.14
5,254
96,295
240.74
96,295
5,886
14.72
5,886
1,845
4.61
1,845
2,734
6.84
2,734
1,930
4.83
1,930
3,103
7.76
3,103
5,502
13.76
5,502
pcs
8,850
149,343
7,873
2,098
1,243
1,691
2,352
1,554
km
21
385
24
7
11
8
12
22
T/day
14.1
131.1
6.7
2.2
1.7
3.3
3.5
2.9
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
2.6
3.0
5.6
2.6
3.0
5.6
2.6
3.0
5.6
2.6
3.0
5.6
45.2
43.8
51.5
95.3
43.8
51.5
95.3
43.8
51.5
95.3
43.8
51.5
95.3
762.5
2.3
2.7
5.0
2.3
2.7
5.0
2.3
2.7
5.0
2.3
2.7
5.0
40.2
0.6
0.7
1.3
0.6
0.7
1.3
0.6
0.7
1.3
0.6
0.7
1.3
10.7
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.8
6.3
0.5
0.6
1.1
0.5
0.6
1.1
0.5
0.6
1.1
0.5
0.6
1.1
8.6
0.7
0.8
1.5
0.7
0.8
1.5
0.7
0.8
1.5
0.7
0.8
1.5
12.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
7.9
km
10
175
9
2
1
2
3
2
HH
km
HH
3,766
9.42
3,766
69,002
172.51
69,002
4,219
10.55
4,219
1,323
3.31
1,323
1,960
4.90
1,960
1,384
3.46
1,384
2,225
5.56
2,225
3,943
9.86
3,943
pcs
22,486
379,444
20,005
5,331
3,160
4,298
5,977
3,948
km
km
1,038
19
2,421
345
216
21
48
7
92
10
24
7
55
11
132
20
T/p
12
89
9
1
0
16
2
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
12.6
1.4
0.6
0.8
29.4
0.6
0.8
1.4
0.6
0.8
49.1
11.0
12.9
23.8
11.0
12.9
23.8
11.0
12.9
23.8
11.0
12.9
23.8
190.6
0.6
0.7
1.3
0.6
0.7
1.3
0.6
0.7
1.3
0.6
0.7
1.3
10.0
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
2.7
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.6
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
2.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
2.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
3.9
km
2
44
2
1
0
0
1
0
HH
km
HH
22,068
55.17
22,068
414,860
1,037.15
414,860
24,115
60.29
24,115
4,607
11.52
4,607
3,758
9.40
3,758
3,877
9.69
3,877
7,840
19.60
7,840
3,847
9.62
3,847
20.20
km
118.31
2,866.94
197.14
15.23
30.10
15.62
71.92
T/p
22
415
24
5
4
4
8
4
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
5.59
6.71
6.71
5.59
6.71
6.71
5.59
6.71
6.71
5.59
6.71
6.71
76.09
73.47
88.16
88.16
73.47
88.16
88.16
73.47
88.16
88.16
73.47
88.16
88.16
999.13
5.05
6.06
6.06
5.05
6.06
6.06
5.05
6.06
6.06
5.05
6.06
6.06
68.70
0.31
0.47
0.47
0.31
0.47
0.47
0.31
0.47
0.47
0.31
0.47
0.47
5.00
0.62
0.93
0.93
0.62
0.93
0.93
0.62
0.93
0.93
0.62
0.93
0.93
9.87
0.32
0.48
0.48
0.32
0.48
0.48
0.32
0.48
0.48
0.32
0.48
0.48
5.13
1.47
2.21
2.21
1.47
2.21
2.21
1.47
2.21
2.21
1.47
2.21
2.21
23.59
0.95
1.43
1.43
0.95
1.43
1.43
0.95
1.43
1.43
0.95
1.43
1.43
15.27
km
19
250
17
1
2
1
6
4
HH
1,470
24,838
1,308
348
206
280
390
258
HH
HH
5,422
3,253
91,500
54,900
4,824
2,894
1,286
771
762
457
1,036
622
1,441
865
952
571
6/15
Cost
Unit
Class
TP. Cần Thơ
TP. Cao Lãnh TP. Long Xuyên
TP. Mỹ Tho
TP. Rạch Giá
TP. Sóc Trăng
TX. Bac Liêu
TX. Bến Tre
TX. Châu Đốc
TX. Gò Công TX. Hà Tiên
TX. Hồng Ngự TX. Sa Đéc
TX. Tân An
TX. Tân Hiệp TX. Vị Thanh
TX. Vĩnh Long
Mekong River Delta
Mekong River Delta
Mekong River Delta
Mekong River Delta
Mekong River Delta
Mekong River Delta
Mekong River Delta
Mekong River Delta
Mekong River Delta
Mekong River Delta
Mekong River Delta
Mekong River Delta
Mekong River Delta
Mekong River Delta
Mekong River Delta
Mekong River Delta
Mekong River Delta
II
III
III
III
III
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
III
DEMAND ANALYSIS
Water
Drainage
Primary Drainage
Secondary Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Water
Distribution line
Service connection
Sanitation
Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Streetlight
Water
Distribution line
Service connection
Sanitation
Drainage
Solid waste
Road
Streetlight
Water
Distribution line
Service connection
Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Streetlight
Resettlement
Housing
Estimated number of HHs opting for housing loan(60% of substandard housing)
cmd
cmd
cmd
km
km
58,693
117,874
9
12
9,373
15,000
1
2
32,408
23,467
8,941
6
9
16,332
40,000
3
3
25,083
22,399
2,684
6
9
15,178
22,000
3
4
3,241
10,183
1
1
7,609
9,064
2
2
12,331
12,117
214
2
4
3,744
5,961
0
1
4,190
4,153
36
1
2
3,656
8,394
1
1
9,290
11,207
1
2
10,082
12,621
1
2
3,752
28,060
1
1
5,050
5,000
50
1
1
10,269
14,618
1
1
cmd
cmd
cmd
km
km
21,129
21,129
9
12
3,374
3,374
1
2
11,667
11,667
6
9
5,879
5,879
3
3
9,030
9,030
6
9
5,464
5,464
3
4
1,167
1,167
1
1
2,739
2,739
2
2
4,439
4,439
2
4
1,348
1,348
0
1
1,508
1,508
1
2
1,316
1,316
1
1
3,344
3,344
1
2
3,629
3,629
1
2
1,351
1,351
1
1
1,818
1,818
1
1
3,697
3,697
1
1
ha
ha
ha
19.59
19.59
2.62
3.90
-
44.36
44.36
22.35
5.00
17.35
34.33
34.33
20.78
6.00
14.78
4.44
4.44
10.41
2.70
7.71
16.88
16.88
5.12
5.12
5.73
5.73
5.00
5.00
12.72
12.72
13.80
13.80
5.14
5.14
6.91
6.91
14.06
14.06
km
km
9.91
11.89
1.25
1.87
6.02
9.04
2.89
3.46
6.10
9.15
2.77
4.16
0.63
0.95
1.59
2.39
2.43
3.64
0.44
0.67
1.31
1.97
0.66
0.99
1.24
1.85
1.38
2.07
0.64
0.96
0.89
1.34
0.89
1.33
HH
km
HH
14,426
36.07
14,426
1,452
3.63
1,452
12,445
31.11
12,445
2,559
6.40
2,559
4,585
11.46
4,585
3,938
9.85
3,938
1,666
4.17
1,666
3,426
8.57
3,426
2,673
6.68
2,673
703
1.76
703
1,022
2.56
1,022
-
1,801
4.50
1,801
2,472
6.18
2,472
884
2.21
884
295
0.74
295
1,332
3.33
1,332
pcs
16,399
2,201
8,523
3,747
6,133
4,673
842
1,942
3,199
1,065
929
968
2,601
2,810
1,006
1,034
3,030
km
58
6
50
10
18
16
7
14
11
3
4
7
10
4
1
5
T/day
29.6
3.4
7.1
2.0
5.4
3.8
3.7
3.0
3.0
1.4
1.1
1.7
2.7
3.2
7.0
1.5
3.3
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
4.8
5.7
10.5
4.8
5.7
10.5
4.8
5.7
10.5
4.8
5.7
10.5
83.7
0.6
0.8
1.4
0.6
0.8
1.4
0.6
0.8
1.4
0.6
0.8
1.4
11.2
2.5
2.9
5.4
2.5
2.9
5.4
2.5
2.9
5.4
2.5
2.9
5.4
43.5
1.1
1.3
2.4
1.1
1.3
2.4
1.1
1.3
2.4
1.1
1.3
2.4
19.1
1.8
2.1
3.9
1.8
2.1
3.9
1.8
2.1
3.9
1.8
2.1
3.9
31.3
1.4
1.6
3.0
1.4
1.6
3.0
1.4
1.6
3.0
1.4
1.6
3.0
23.9
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
4.3
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.6
0.7
1.2
9.9
0.9
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.1
2.0
16.3
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
5.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
4.7
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
4.9
0.8
0.9
1.7
0.8
0.9
1.7
0.8
0.9
1.7
0.8
0.9
1.7
13.3
0.8
1.0
1.8
0.8
1.0
1.8
0.8
1.0
1.8
0.8
1.0
1.8
14.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
5.1
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
5.3
0.9
1.0
1.9
0.9
1.0
1.9
0.9
1.0
1.9
0.9
1.0
1.9
15.5
km
19
32
113
16
62
81
68
14
41
6
33
17
22
41
24
38
22
HH
km
HH
10,337
25.84
10,337
1,041
2.60
1,041
8,919
22.30
8,919
1,835
4.59
1,835
3,287
8.22
3,287
2,822
7.06
2,822
1,195
2.99
1,195
2,456
6.14
2,456
1,916
4.79
1,916
504
1.26
504
733
1.83
733
-
1,292
3.23
1,292
1,772
4.43
1,772
635
1.59
635
212
0.53
212
956
2.39
956
pcs
41,667
5,594
21,655
9,523
15,584
11,874
2,140
4,937
8,128
2,709
2,363
2,462
6,611
7,142
2,556
2,630
7,700
km
km
1,034
52
26
5
277
45
82
17
228
16
264
14
166
6
35
12
99
10
4
3
82
4
57
74
6
100
9
68
3
24
1
15
5
T/p
-
-
-
-
3
19
-
10
2
4
3
3
4
1
2
4
6
4
6
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
1.4
2.6
1.2
1.4
2.6
1.2
1.4
2.6
1.2
1.4
2.6
19.7
11.0
0.2
0.4
4.8
0.2
46.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
64.0
0.6
0.7
1.4
0.6
0.7
1.4
0.6
0.7
1.4
0.6
0.7
1.4
10.8
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
4.7
0.1
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
7.5
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
39.9
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
44.9
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
2.5
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
3.8
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
3.1
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
3.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.2
0.1
0.2
20.9
0.1
4.8
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
26.7
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
3.6
km
4.81
5.28
2.50
1.10
1.80
1.37
0.25
0.57
0.94
0.31
0.27
0.28
0.76
0.83
0.30
21.09
0.89
HH
km
HH
34,915
87.29
34,915
4,676
11.69
4,676
19,279
48.20
19,279
8,038
20.09
8,038
14,921
37.30
14,921
10,530
26.33
10,530
1,928
4.82
1,928
4,526
11.32
4,526
7,335
18.34
7,335
2,227
5.57
2,227
2,492
6.23
2,492
2,175
5.44
2,175
5,526
13.82
5,526
5,997
14.99
5,997
2,232
5.58
2,232
2,314
5.79
2,314
6,109
15.27
6,109
10.83
km
96.69
12.74
73.47
23.30
74.35
39.44
7.72
19.44
29.60
5.42
15.98
8.02
15.07
16.84
7.77
8.38
T/p
34.92
4.68
19.28
8.04
14.92
10.53
1.93
4.53
7.34
2.23
2.49
2.17
5.53
6.00
2.23
2.31
6.11
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
km
2.48
2.97
2.97
2.48
2.97
2.97
2.48
2.97
2.97
2.48
2.97
2.97
33.69
0.31
0.47
0.47
0.31
0.47
0.47
0.31
0.47
0.47
0.31
0.47
0.47
4.98
1.51
2.26
2.26
1.51
2.26
2.26
1.51
2.26
2.26
1.51
2.26
2.26
24.10
0.72
0.87
0.87
0.72
0.87
0.87
0.72
0.87
0.87
0.72
0.87
0.87
9.81
1.52
2.29
2.29
1.52
2.29
2.29
1.52
2.29
2.29
1.52
2.29
2.29
24.39
0.69
1.04
1.04
0.69
1.04
1.04
0.69
1.04
1.04
0.69
1.04
1.04
11.09
0.16
0.24
0.24
0.16
0.24
0.24
0.16
0.24
0.24
0.16
0.24
0.24
2.53
0.40
0.60
0.60
0.40
0.60
0.60
0.40
0.60
0.60
0.40
0.60
0.60
6.38
0.61
0.91
0.91
0.61
0.91
0.91
0.61
0.91
0.91
0.61
0.91
0.91
9.71
0.11
0.17
0.17
0.11
0.17
0.17
0.11
0.17
0.17
0.11
0.17
0.17
1.78
0.33
0.49
0.49
0.33
0.49
0.49
0.33
0.49
0.49
0.33
0.49
0.49
5.24
0.16
0.25
0.25
0.16
0.25
0.25
0.16
0.25
0.25
0.16
0.25
0.25
2.63
0.31
0.46
0.46
0.31
0.46
0.46
0.31
0.46
0.46
0.31
0.46
0.46
4.94
0.35
0.52
0.52
0.35
0.52
0.52
0.35
0.52
0.52
0.35
0.52
0.52
5.52
0.16
0.24
0.24
0.16
0.24
0.24
0.16
0.24
0.24
0.16
0.24
0.24
2.55
0.22
0.33
0.33
0.22
0.33
0.33
0.22
0.33
0.33
0.22
0.33
0.33
3.57
0.22
0.33
0.33
0.22
0.33
0.33
0.22
0.33
0.33
0.22
0.33
0.33
3.55
0.89
km
8.42
1.25
6.02
2.45
6.10
2.77
0.63
1.59
2.43
0.44
1.31
0.66
1.24
1.38
0.64
0.89
HH
2,726
398
1,416
40
1,020
3,008
140
322
532
176
154
160
432
466
166
172
504
HH
HH
10,048
6,029
1,349
809
5,222
3,133
2,296
1,378
3,758
2,255
2,863
1,718
516
310
1,190
714
1,960
1,176
653
392
570
342
593
356
1,594
956
1,722
1,033
616
370
634
380
1,857
1,114
7/15
National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Overall Investment Plan to 2020
Table 7 Cost Estimates for Economic Region 1
Basic Level of Service
Base cost 2007 prices
Cities/Towns
Class
Water Management
Wastewater Management
Drainage
Solid Waste Management
Roads
Sub-total
Water
Sanitation
Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Streetlight
Sub-total
Water
Sanitation
Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Streetlight
Sub-total
Water
Drainage
Solid waste
Roads
Streetlight
Sub-total
Resettlement of HH Living in Unsafe Areas
Housing Loan for LIA
Capacity Building
Total VnDM
Total US$M
preliminary estimates as of 7 March 2008.
TP. Bắc Giang
III
TP. Hoà Bình
III
TP. Lạng Sơn
III
TP. Lào Cai TP. Thái Nguyên TP. Yên Bái
III
II
III
TX. Bắc Cạn
IV
TX. Hà Giang TX. Lai Châu TX. Mai Sơn TX. Mộc Châu TX. Mường Lay
IV
III
IV
IV
IV
TX. Nghĩa Lộ TX. Phú Thọ TX. Sơn La TX. Sông Công
IV
IV
IV
IV
TX. Tuyên Quang
IV
Total Investment Cost
VnDMillion
US$Million
15,229
23,675
35,832
9,409
16,554
100,698
8,514
20,968
20,033
3,897
9,255
62,666
3,697
14,565
8,699
10,889
4,019
41,868
44,866
27,859
51,827
11,071
23,944
159,567
23,644
45,188
55,634
26,927
151,393
9,584
22,688
22,550
9,017
10,418
74,256
13,888
6,888
11,000
2,737
5,082
39,595
16,494
12,265
24,318
4,875
11,235
69,186
1,828
4,020
4,301
1,597
1,987
13,732
6,591
4,995
5,345
1,985
2,469
21,385
3,785
2,870
3,071
1,140
1,419
12,284
137
2,562
323
4,174
149
7,345
13,606
4,893
5,235
7,972
2,419
34,125
4,074
7,452
9,585
12,142
4,428
37,681
7,305
10,607
17,189
17,284
7,941
60,325
19,645
6,923
5,622
11,281
2,597
46,069
4,467
7,889
7,523
3,135
3,475
26,489
197,354
226,305
288,081
112,605
134,317
958,663
12.33
14.14
18.01
7.04
8.39
59.92
3,731
4,526
29,850
130
24,573
3,189
66,000
1,871
4,546
14,970
105
24,685
3,204
49,381
10,421
6,320
83,370
146
34,308
4,453
139,018
10,931
4,910
87,450
108
26,657
3,460
133,516
5,393
9,348
43,140
294
50,747
6,586
115,507
3,994
4,844
31,950
99
26,306
3,414
70,607
6,713
1,292
53,700
41
7,013
910
69,668
5,186
2,096
41,490
56
11,383
1,477
61,689
694
844
5,550
23
4,588
595
12,295
8,659
1,050
69,270
20
5,699
740
85,438
4,976
602
39,810
12
3,275
425
49,100
525
642
4,200
18
3,488
453
9,325
7,211
1,028
57,690
43
5,582
725
72,279
3,964
1,496
31,710
79
8,129
1,055
46,433
814
1,978
6,510
95
10,739
1,394
21,530
11,374
1,532
90,990
57
8,320
1,080
113,353
8,404
1,698
67,230
72
9,219
1,196
87,819
94,860
48,752
758,880
1,398
264,713
34,355
1,202,958
5.93
3.05
47.43
0.09
16.54
2.15
75.18
2,674
11,500
21,390
234
6,143
797
42,739
1,346
11,554
75,030
42
108,504
11,129
207,606
7,470
16,056
59,760
127
72,266
4,978
160,658
7,834
12,474
62,670
296
6,664
865
90,803
3,870
23,750
30,960
255
12,687
1,647
73,169
2,865
12,312
22,920
86
6,577
854
45,613
4,811
3,282
38,490
36
1,753
228
48,600
3,720
5,328
29,760
49
2,846
369
42,072
503
2,148
4,020
118
1,147
149
8,084
6,210
2,668
49,680
170
1,425
185
60,338
3,566
1,534
28,530
98
819
106
34,653
383
1,634
3,060
117
872
113
6,178
5,168
2,614
41,340
116
1,396
181
50,814
2,846
3,806
22,770
290
2,032
264
32,008
585
5,028
4,680
172
2,685
348
13,498
8,153
3,894
65,220
315
2,080
270
79,932
6,023
4,316
48,180
129
2,305
299
61,251
68,025
123,898
608,460
2,650
232,200
22,782
1,058,016
4.25
7.74
38.03
0.17
14.51
1.42
66.13
20,957
174,780
268
21,917
2,867
220,788
28,952
26,623
24,290
510,090
31.88
18,703
98,460
239
12,253
1,603
131,258
112,112
26,744
29,488
619,256
38.70
24,254
79,800
310
5,320
696
110,381
15,445
37,169
25,227
529,767
33.11
24,660
252,780
316
31,700
4,146
313,602
31,416
28,881
37,889
795,675
49.73
40,156
258,450
514
36,386
5,298
340,804
59,752
54,979
39,780
835,384
52.21
20,084
109,980
257
13,792
1,804
145,917
30,954
28,500
19,792
415,640
25.98
6,097
53,640
78
6,728
880
67,423
8,162
7,597
12,052
253,097
15.82
10,858
118,620
139
14,874
1,945
146,436
13,398
12,332
17,256
362,369
22.65
3,558
20,970
46
2,630
344
27,548
5,390
4,971
3,601
75,621
4.73
4,420
26,040
57
3,269
428
34,214
6,622
6,175
10,709
224,879
14.05
2,540
14,970
33
1,878
246
19,666
3,850
3,548
6,155
129,256
8.08
2,267
1,560
29
197
26
4,079
4,004
3,779
1,736
36,446
2.28
4,331
25,530
55
3,202
419
33,537
6,468
6,048
10,164
213,434
13.34
6,595
46,740
84
5,863
767
60,049
9,548
8,807
9,726
204,252
12.77
9,389
83,820
120
10,513
1,375
105,217
12,628
11,635
11,242
236,076
14.75
6,128
27,420
78
3,439
450
37,515
9,702
9,014
14,779
310,364
19.40
6,983
36,690
89
4,601
602
48,966
10,780
9,988
12,265
257,557
16.10
211,981
1,430,250
2,713
178,562
23,894
1,847,401
369,183
286,790
286,151
6,009,162
375.57
13.25
89.39
0.17
11.16
1.49
115.46
23.07
17.92
17.88
375.57
2/15
Cities/Towns
TP. Bắc Ninh
TP. Hà Đông
TP. Hạ Long TP. Hà Nội
TP. Hải Phòng TP. Nam Định TP. Sơn Tây TP. Thái Bình TP. Vĩnh Yên TX. Cẩm Phả TX. Hưng Yên TX. Móng Cái TX. Phủ Lý TX. Phúc Yên TX. Tam Điệp TX. Uông Bí
III
III
II
S
I
II
III
III
III
III
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
Class
Water treatment facilities
43,842
3,031
20,285
1,800,452
74,009
12,955
5,674
7,799
27,961
22,135
6,385
4,433
7,065
4,087
16,915
21,901
Wastewater treatment facilities
35,406
23,276
1,623
55,000
14,088
29,121
31,600
46,274
14,040
8,628
14,372
14,111
8,456
27,560
Drainage
61,304
7,133
47,730
4,236,359
174,138
30,483
13,350
18,350
65,790
39,818
15,024
10,431
16,623
9,617
8,759
26,763
Solid waste disposal facilities
57,692
37,927
40,492
1,756,812
103,057
41,451
36,491
75,402
22,878
11,059
22,188
22,994
13,779
44,908
Roads
28,322
3,295
23,102
1,957,198
80,452
14,754
6,168
8,477
30,395
18,396
6,941
4,819
7,680
4,443
4,046
12,365
74,662
133,233
9,750,821
431,654
113,191
39,280
105,197
192,237
202,024
65,269
39,370
67,927
55,252
51,955
133,497
Sub-total
226,566
Water
9,926
7,001
9,825
197,895
65,325
6,356
1,298
27,038
12,551
8,520
11,453
2,003
3,960
11,074
12,844
Sanitation
6,436
5,660
11,918
119,980
39,606
12,850
3,148
6,596
10,148
2,952
1,864
2,432
3,202
1,790
5,912
Drainage
63,528
44,808
62,880
1,266,528
418,080
40,680
8,304
173,040
80,328
54,528
73,296
12,816
25,344
70,872
82,200
Solid waste
140
172
244
2,654
2,246
298
133
96
154
201
99
90
89
107
66
122
30,730
64,703
651,372
215,024
69,764
17,098
35,812
15,503
55,096
16,029
10,123
13,201
17,391
9,719
32,102
Roads
34,946
Streetlight
4,535
3,988
8,397
84,537
27,906
9,054
2,219
4,648
2,012
7,150
2,080
1,314
1,713
2,257
1,261
4,166
Sub-total
119,512
92,359
157,967
2,322,965
768,187
139,002
32,200
247,230
17,669
165,474
84,209
98,139
32,254
52,261
94,782
137,346
Water
7,114
5,018
7,046
141,803
46,811
4,556
930
19,377
40,116
8,996
6,109
8,213
1,440
2,843
7,939
9,206
Sanitation
16,356
14,382
30,282
304,844
100,632
32,650
8,004
16,762
40,600
25,786
7,502
4,738
6,180
8,140
4,550
15,024
40,140
56,370
1,134,420
374,490
36,450
7,440
89,490
71,970
48,870
91,980
22,740
63,510
73,650
Drainage
56,910
Solid waste
253
309
441
1,952
259
240
(154)
81
161
119
194
88
171
Roads
8,736
7,682
16,176
162,843
53,756
17,441
6,480
27,077
3,876
13,774
4,007
47,067
4,781
4,348
2,430
8,025
Streetlight
1,134
997
2,099
21,134
6,977
2,264
1,541
2,794
503
1,788
520
15,398
428
564
315
1,042
Sub-total
90,503
68,528
112,414
1,765,044
584,618
93,620
24,636
66,009
174,432
122,394
67,169
75,415
104,929
38,828
78,832
107,118
20,604
47,911
2,348,310
160,295
48,688
12,934
25,474
40,116
40,963
12,428
8,079
10,423
12,491
7,485
24,396
Water
31,343
Drainage
299,040
34,770
221,730
18,786,480
772,200
141,600
67,530
88,440
320,927
194,220
73,260
53,820
66,420
46,890
42,720
130,530
Solid waste
401
264
613
30,058
2,052
623
166
326
513
524
159
103
133
160
96
312
Roads
37,496
4,363
31,217
2,644,739
108,713
19,936
8,166
11,223
40,240
24,354
9,189
6,380
10,167
5,882
5,357
16,370
Streetlight
4,904
571
3,864
327,355
13,456
2,468
1,068
1,468
5,263
3,185
1,202
834
1,330
769
701
2,141
305,335
24,136,943
1,056,716
213,315
89,863
126,932
407,060
263,247
96,238
69,217
88,474
66,192
56,359
173,749
Sub-total
373,184
60,571
41,118
36,190
76,230
768,152
253,484
82,236
69,300
18,640
6,736
64,834
18,788
11,858
22,176
20,482
11,396
37,730
37,860
33,293
70,099
705,698
232,957
75,583
18,524
38,799
16,796
59,691
17,366
10,967
14,302
18,841
10,529
34,779
Capacity Building
44,437
18,280
42,764
1,972,481
166,381
35,847
13,690
30,140
40,746
43,883
17,452
15,248
16,503
12,593
15,193
31,211
Total VnDM
933,180
383,883
898,042
41,422,104
3,493,998
752,795
287,493
632,948
855,676
921,548
366,492
320,214
346,565
264,449
319,045
655,430
Total US$M
58.32
23.99
56.13
2,588.88
218.37
47.05
17.97
39.56
53.48
57.60
22.91
20.01
21.66
16.53
19.94
40.96
VnDMillion
US$Million
2,078,929
323,555
4,781,668
2,287,131
2,210,851
11,682,135
129.93
20.22
298.85
142.95
138.18
730.13
387,068
234,494
2,477,232
6,911
1,288,612
167,239
4,561,556
24.19
14.66
154.83
0.43
80.54
10.45
285.10
317,516
636,432
2,168,430
4,115
388,499
59,497
3,574,489
19.84
39.78
135.53
0.26
24.28
3.72
195.15
2,851,940
21,340,577
36,505
2,983,794
370,579
27,583,396
1,539,350
1,396,086
2,516,851
52,853,862
3,303.37
178.25
1,333.79
2.28
186.49
23.16
1,723.96
96.21
87.26
157.30
3,303.37
3/15
Cities/Towns
TP. Đà Nẵng
TP. Đồng Hới
TP. Hà Tĩnh TP. Huế
TP. Nha Trang TP. Phan Rang TP. Phan Thiết TP. Quảng Ngãi TP. Quy Nhơn TP. Tam Kỳ TP. Thanh Hoá TP. Tuy Hoà TP. Vinh
TX. Bỉm Sơn TX. Cam Ranh TX. Cửa Lò TX. Đông Hà TX. Hội An TX. Hồng Lĩnh TX. Lagi
TX. Quảng Trị TX. Sầm Sơn
I
III
III
I
II
III
III
III
II
III
II
III
II
IV
IV
IV
IV
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
Class
282,293
7,989
10,320
61,773
90,915
48,314
22,911
129,909
30,945
10,575
19,739
20,524
104,296
3,270
57,087
9,623
47,648
9,330
465
6,863
9,520
5,996
19,780
22,692
88,492
111,523
42,650
45,736
38,582
67,923
28,344
43,657
39,566
81,886
12,129
28,581
11,537
28,920
18,682
3,989
15,091
4,920
10,104
Drainage
163,233
18,797
24,282
145,349
131,593
53,618
53,909
55,121
72,811
24,882
46,445
30,719
133,788
7,694
33,777
22,643
53,606
21,954
1,095
16,149
4,343
14,109
179,497
36,976
136,695
181,723
69,496
62,868
110,677
46,186
58,538
52,472
133,431
19,763
37,571
18,798
47,125
30,441
6,501
24,591
5,017
16,464
Roads
75,414
8,684
11,218
67,151
63,691
24,771
24,906
25,466
35,240
11,495
22,479
14,192
64,754
3,554
15,605
10,461
24,766
10,143
506
7,461
2,006
6,518
Sub-total
700,437
55,249
105,488
499,460
579,445
238,849
147,461
311,946
317,596
121,482
190,860
157,473
518,154
46,409
172,621
73,061
202,064
90,550
12,556
70,155
25,806
53,192
Water
149,119
20,408
5,539
28,691
24,893
9,109
2,531
11,895
20,434
22,976
21,821
19,178
2,978
31,755
4,440
8,419
4,174
5,228
5,756
4,871
6,540
Sanitation
39,274
5,380
4,770
13,436
23,194
8,624
11,046
6,146
14,426
6,194
9,286
8,820
15,506
2,778
4,406
1,982
5,104
3,842
974
3,172
1,074
1,982
Drainage
954,360
130,608
35,448
183,624
159,312
58,296
16,200
76,128
130,776
147,048
139,656
122,736
19,056
203,232
28,416
53,880
26,712
33,456
36,840
31,176
41,856
S lid waste
Solid
t
958
145
99
331
452
204
260
138
324
224
247
203
301
70
273
63
101
106
45
238
21
75
Roads
213,221
29,204
25,902
72,949
125,923
46,823
59,971
33,367
78,324
33,633
50,422
47,886
84,183
15,078
23,919
10,761
27,715
20,868
5,295
17,226
5,832
10,761
Streetlight
27,672
3,790
3,362
9,467
16,343
6,077
7,783
4,330
10,165
4,365
6,544
6,215
10,925
1,957
3,104
1,397
3,597
2,708
687
2,236
757
1,397
Sub-total
1,384,604
189,535
34,133
137,170
378,227
245,932
146,465
62,712
191,261
195,626
236,524
224,602
252,829
41,916
266,689
47,058
98,816
58,409
45,685
65,467
43,732
62,610
Water
106,856
14,625
3,971
20,561
17,843
6,529
1,819
8,528
14,644
16,466
15,641
13,748
2,134
22,759
3,184
6,034
2,993
3,746
4,125
3,491
4,688
Sanitation
99,788
13,668
12,126
34,142
58,932
21,914
28,066
15,616
36,658
15,740
23,600
22,412
39,396
7,058
11,194
5,036
12,974
9,768
2,480
8,064
2,730
5,038
Drainage
854,850
87,930
164,490
142,740
52,230
81,750
68,220
117,150
131,730
125,130
109,980
17,070
182,070
25,470
48,270
23,940
29,970
33,000
27,930
37,500
Solid waste
438
86
816
82
591
249
653
64
330
82
353
492
290
31
171
123
1,541
78
206
Roads
53,305
8,912
6,476
121,147
31,481
11,706
35,052
83,447
19,581
8,408
12,606
11,972
21,046
3,769
65,028
2,690
6,929
5,217
1,324
4,306
1,458
2,690
Streetlight
6,918
948
840
26,180
4,086
1,519
7,878
1,083
2,541
1,091
1,636
1,554
2,731
489
26,338
349
899
677
172
559
189
349
Sub-total
1,121,718
38,590
19,528
273,370
280,365
195,803
130,345
183,963
136,181
157,097
186,368
176,790
186,901
30,873
307,880
37,019
75,137
42,765
37,815
51,595
35,877
50,470
Water
179,007
22,105
20,087
61,931
98,724
37,754
47,558
27,924
60,127
25,090
38,647
35,025
72,488
10,735
18,981
10,212
25,601
16,537
3,531
13,358
4,355
8,944
Drainage
1,423,530
115,740
118,440
509,550
611,340
261,540
308,880
219,810
338,250
121,350
215,760
149,820
621,540
37,500
123,600
110,430
261,480
107,070
5,340
78,750
21,180
68,820
Solid waste
2,291
264
613
30,058
2,052
623
166
326
513
524
159
103
133
160
96
312
Roads
101,906
11,497
14,852
90,740
86,065
32,795
32,973
33,714
47,620
15,219
30,376
18,789
87,501
4,706
20,660
13,849
32,788
13,428
670
9,878
2,656
8,630
Streetlight
12,613
1,504
1,943
11,231
10,653
4,289
4,313
4,410
5,894
1,991
3,760
2,457
10,830
615
2,702
1,811
4,288
1,756
88
1,292
347
1,129
Sub-total
1,719,347
151,109
155,935
703,511
808,833
337,002
393,890
286,184
452,405
164,174
288,702
206,195
792,493
53,716
166,039
136,615
324,157
138,791
9,629
103,278
28,539
87,523
251,482
48,972
30,492
69,300
148,456
55,132
70,686
16,577
92,246
39,578
59,444
56,364
99,176
17,710
19,633
12,628
32,648
24,486
6,160
20,174
6,776
12,628
231,005
31,640
28,063
79,033
136,426
50,728
64,973
36,150
84,856
36,438
54,628
51,880
91,204
16,335
25,914
11,658
30,027
22,608
5,737
18,662
6,319
11,658
Capacity Building
270,430
25,755
18,682
88,092
116,588
56,172
47,691
44,877
63,727
35,720
50,826
43,665
97,038
10,348
47,939
15,902
38,142
18,880
5,879
16,467
7,352
13,904
Total VnDM
5,679,022
540,850
392,320
1,849,936
2,448,339
1,179,619
1,001,511
942,408
1,338,272
750,115
1,067,352
916,969
2,037,795
217,308
1,006,715
333,942
800,991
396,490
123,462
345,799
154,401
291,986
Total US$M
354.94
33.80
24.52
115.62
153.02
73.73
62.59
58.90
83.64
46.88
66.71
57.31
127.36
13.58
62.92
20.87
50.06
24.78
7.72
21.61
9.65
18.25
National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Overall Investment for Urban Upgrading to 2020
D:\NUUPMINH\Final Report\Appendix_EN_Finalreport\ApG_Tables1-12_Investmentcost_ Basic_EN.xls5/3/2008
VnDMillion
US$Million
990,307
764,784
1,129,912
1,274,830
530,481
4,690,314
61.89
47.80
70.62
79.68
33.16
293.14
410,753
191,416
2,628,816
4 875
4,875
1,039,264
134,878
4,410,002
25.67
11.96
164.30
0 30
0.30
64.95
8.43
275.63
294,383
486,400
2,361,420
6,675
518,549
89,027
3,756,453
18.40
30.40
147.59
0.42
32.41
5.56
234.78
838,722
5,829,720
38,395
711,311
89,918
7,508,066
1,190,747
1,125,942
1,134,076
23,815,601
1,488.48
52.42
364.36
2.40
44.46
5.62
469.25
74.42
70.37
70.88
1,488.48
4/15
Cities/Towns
I
Class
49,059
95,172
Drainage
115,434
Roads
55,870
Sub-total
315,536
Water
62,094
Sanitation
22,146
Drainage
496,755
Solid waste
645
Roads
120,237
Streetlight
15,605
Sub-total
717,482
Water
44,499
Sanitation
56,271
Drainage
Solid waste
440
Roads
71,560
Streetlight
21,867
Sub-total
194,637
Water
94,883
Drainage
603,945
Solid waste
1,214
Roads
75,497
Streetlight
9,345
Sub-total
784,884
53,628
86,844
Capacity Building
107,651
Total VnDM
2,260,661
Total US$M
141.29
TP. Đà Lạt
TX. Bảo Lộc
TX. Gia Nghĩa
III
I
II
III
III
111,624
97,395
206,622
158,702
100,005
674,348
149,230
65,527
98,863
106,773
45,675
466,068
4,530
9,960
10,658
16,230
4,924
46,302
23,189
15,796
12,958
25,739
5,986
83,668
31,861
45,615
57,614
74,328
26,617
236,036
8,219
11,434
12,236
18,631
5,653
56,173
377,713
340,900
514,384
400,404
244,731
1,878,131
23.61
21.31
32.15
25.03
15.30
117.38
6,795
16,494
54,360
362
89,550
11,622
179,183
68,259
12,540
546,075
357
68,081
8,836
704,149
6,041
2,094
38,664
66
11,364
1,475
59,704
22,719
3,489
145,404
185
18,948
2,459
193,205
29,835
9,213
190,944
282
50,018
6,492
286,784
7,926
2,403
50,724
67
13,047
1,693
75,860
203,670
68,379
1,522,926
1,964
371,246
48,181
2,216,366
12.73
4.27
95.18
0.12
23.20
3.01
138.52
4,877
41,910
39,015
315
22,387
2,906
111,409
48,915
31,866
391,320
811
17,020
2,209
492,141
4,331
5,319
34,650
26
2,841
369
47,537
16,284
8,871
130,275
855
4,737
615
161,637
21,386
23,409
171,090
397
12,505
1,623
230,409
5,687
6,108
45,495
58
3,262
423
61,033
145,980
173,754
811,845
2,902
134,312
30,011
1,298,804
9.12
10.86
50.74
0.18
8.39
1.88
81.18
86,218
959,895
1,104
135,136
16,727
1,199,078
105,567
64,679
116,713
2,450,978
153.19
58,005
482,220
742
60,469
7,909
609,346
80,157
49,173
120,052
2,521,085
157.57
8,816
51,975
113
6,519
853
68,276
13,398
8,208
12,171
255,596
15.97
13,982
63,180
179
7,926
1,037
86,303
22,176
13,686
28,034
588,708
36.79
40,379
281,025
517
35,239
4,609
361,770
58,905
36,127
60,502
1,270,532
79.41
10,121
59,670
130
7,484
979
78,383
15,246
9,423
14,806
310,924
19.43
312,403
2,501,910
3,999
328,270
41,457
3,188,039
349,077
268,140
459,928
9,658,483
603.66
19.53
156.37
0.25
20.52
2.59
199.25
21.82
16.76
28.75
603.66
III
TP. Pleiku
TX. Ajunpa
TX. An Khê
VnDMillion
US$Million
5/15
Cities/Towns
TP. Biên Hoà TP. Hồ Chí Minh TP. Vũng Tàu TX. Bà Rịa TX. Đồng Xoài TX. Long Khánh TX. Tây Ninh TX. Thủ Dầu Một
Class
I
III
III
I
II
III
III
III
379,547
1,648,561
210,952
7,962
32,366
8,168
46,769
24,337
172,527
703,199
102,157
19,517
15,921
16,425
33,214
37,566
Drainage
281,982
3,878,967
254,610
18,735
37,022
19,220
88,463
57,263
236,127
2,756,219
31,803
25,942
26,763
54,121
61,212
Roads
136,479
1,792,083
123,231
8,656
17,104
8,879
40,870
26,455
Sub-total
1,206,661
10,779,029
690,950
86,673
128,354
79,455
263,437
206,832
Water
19,703
361,106
22,073
6,919
10,253
7,238
11,636
20,633
Sanitation
17,700
298,686
15,746
4,196
2,486
3,382
4,704
3,108
Drainage
126,096
2,311,080
141,264
44,280
65,616
46,320
74,472
132,048
Solid waste
678
6,293
321
106
82
158
166
137
Roads
96,092
1,621,557
85,485
22,782
13,499
18,363
25,541
16,875
Streetlight
12,471
210,450
11,095
2,957
1,752
2,383
3,315
2,190
Sub-total
272,740
4,809,172
275,984
81,239
93,687
77,844
119,833
174,991
Water
14,123
258,758
15,821
4,961
7,350
5,190
8,344
14,786
Sanitation
44,972
758,888
40,010
10,662
6,320
8,596
11,954
7,896
Drainage
112,980
2,070,060
126,570
39,690
58,800
41,520
66,750
118,290
Solid waste
590
4,295
430
71
19
763
77
Roads
86,031
405,389
21,371
5,695
3,375
4,591
6,385
5,809
Streetlight
2,338
52,613
2,774
739
438
596
829
548
Sub-total
261,033
3,550,002
206,976
61,748
76,354
60,511
95,025
147,407
Water
82,756
1,555,726
90,433
17,277
14,093
14,538
29,401
14,427
Drainage
709,830
17,201,610
1,182,840
91,380
180,570
93,720
431,490
121,170
Solid waste
1,059
19,913
1,158
221
180
186
376
185
Roads
184,423
2,421,621
166,521
11,459
22,644
11,756
54,108
35,025
Streetlight
22,827
299,738
20,611
1,499
2,962
1,538
7,077
4,581
Sub-total
1,000,895
21,498,609
1,461,562
121,836
220,449
121,737
522,452
175,387
113,190
1,912,526
100,716
26,796
15,862
21,560
30,030
19,866
104,106
1,756,800
92,615
24,682
14,625
19,895
27,671
18,282
Capacity Building
147,931
2,215,307
141,440
20,149
27,467
19,050
52,922
37,138
Total VnDM
3,106,557
46,521,445
2,970,243
423,122
576,797
400,053
1,111,371
779,902
Total US$M
194.16
2,907.59
185.64
26.45
36.05
25.00
69.46
48.74
VnDMillion
US$Million
2,358,663
1,100,525
4,636,259
3,192,187
2,153,757
13,441,391
147.42
68.78
289.77
199.51
134.61
840.09
459,559
350,008
2,941,176
7,940
1,900,194
246,612
5,905,489
28.72
21.88
183.82
0.50
118.76
15.41
369.09
329,333
889,298
2,634,660
6,244
538,647
60,874
4,459,056
20.58
55.58
164.67
0.39
33.67
3.80
278.69
1,818,649
20,012,610
23,279
2,907,557
360,833
25,122,928
2,240,546
2,058,676
2,661,404
55,889,490
3,493.09
113.67
1,250.79
1.45
181.72
22.55
1,570.18
140.03
128.67
166.34
3,493.09
6/15
Cities/Towns
Unit
TP. Cần Thơ
TP. Cao Lãnh TP. Long Xuyên TP. Mỹ Tho
TP. Rạch Giá
TP. Sóc Trăng TX. Bac Liêu TX. Bến Tre TX. Châu Đốc TX. Gò Công TX. Hà Tiên TX. Hồng Ngự TX. Sa Đéc
TX. Tân An
TX. Tân Hiệp TX. Vị Thanh TX. Vĩnh Long
II
III
III
III
III
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
III
Class
53,069
7,943
109,931
15,457
69,389
20,332
4,644
10,165
17,187
2,832
9,942
4,190
7,877
8,803
4,673
7,002
5,662
147,906
23,619
81,668
41,155
72,691
43,987
9,392
19,174
31,073
9,435
12,141
10,595
23,411
25,406
10,874
14,635
25,878
Drainage
124,869
18,690
90,363
36,368
105,168
47,841
10,928
23,918
36,410
6,663
22,610
11,338
18,534
20,712
10,995
15,392
15,320
58,782
133,075
52,061
118,447
50,975
15,304
23,144
50,633
15,375
19,784
15,013
38,147
41,398
17,719
23,847
42,167
Roads
60,437
8,635
41,748
17,602
48,588
22,103
5,049
11,050
16,821
3,078
10,446
4,555
8,563
9,569
5,080
7,111
6,155
Sub-total
445,064
58,887
456,785
162,644
414,283
185,238
45,317
87,451
152,123
37,383
74,923
45,692
96,531
105,887
49,340
67,987
95,182
Water
54,098
5,445
46,669
9,596
19,773
16,983
7,185
12,848
10,024
2,636
4,407
6,754
9,270
3,812
1,272
4,995
Sanitation
32,798
4,402
17,046
7,494
14,106
10,748
1,937
3,884
6,398
2,130
2,137
1,936
5,202
5,620
2,314
2,378
6,060
Drainage
346,224
34,848
298,680
61,416
126,546
108,689
45,982
82,224
64,152
16,872
28,207
43,224
59,328
24,398
8,142
31,968
Solid waste
1,420
162
338
95
299
208
205
146
144
68
61
81
128
152
389
85
156
Roads
178,063
23,903
92,540
40,693
76,585
58,353
10,516
21,091
34,733
11,569
11,611
10,516
28,247
30,517
12,558
12,919
32,904
Streetlight
23,109
38,362
135,751
18,993
85,573
111,750
93,461
17,072
49,184
6,783
46,117
20,603
26,955
49,197
33,043
53,129
26,307
Sub-total
635,712
107,121
591,025
138,287
322,881
306,730
159,285
137,264
164,635
40,058
92,540
33,136
110,510
154,084
76,514
77,925
102,391
Water
38,764
3,904
33,446
6,881
14,175
12,170
5,153
9,210
7,185
1,890
3,161
4,845
6,645
2,738
914
3,585
Sanitation
83,334
11,188
43,310
19,046
35,843
27,310
4,922
9,874
16,256
5,418
5,435
4,924
13,222
14,284
5,879
6,049
15,400
Drainage
310,110
31,230
267,570
103,230
113,402
97,359
41,228
73,680
57,480
15,120
25,289
38,760
53,160
21,908
7,314
28,680
Solid waste
141
927
539
96
195
125
154
236
70
111
203
338
233
282
Roads
32,838
162,291
22,672
8,999
15,142
50,198
3,866
4,996
6,405
2,134
2,141
1,939
5,209
5,628
2,316
73,167
6,068
Streetlight
5,777
6,334
3,003
1,320
2,485
1,893
341
684
1,127
375
377
341
916
990
407
29,110
1,068
Sub-total
470,823
215,087
370,928
139,476
181,586
189,027
55,510
98,639
88,579
25,090
36,639
7,275
63,064
80,910
33,586
116,787
55,083
Water
130,933
17,534
72,295
30,142
64,348
45,411
8,313
16,973
27,507
8,352
10,747
8,156
20,723
22,489
9,625
9,981
22,908
Drainage
580,110
76,440
440,790
139,770
512,981
272,136
53,268
116,640
177,600
32,490
110,262
48,090
90,390
101,010
53,613
57,822
64,980
Solid waste
1,676
224
925
386
824
581
106
217
352
107
138
104
265
288
123
128
293
Roads
81,667
11,432
55,271
23,786
64,326
29,262
6,684
14,629
22,270
4,075
13,829
6,031
11,336
12,668
6,725
9,415
8,148
Streetlight
10,108
1,495
7,229
2,944
8,413
3,827
874
1,913
2,913
533
1,809
789
1,483
1,657
880
1,231
1,066
Sub-total
804,494
107,125
576,510
197,027
650,891
351,217
69,245
150,373
230,641
45,557
136,784
63,170
124,197
138,112
70,966
78,577
97,395
209,902
30,646
109,032
3,080
90,321
266,358
12,397
24,794
40,964
13,552
13,637
12,320
33,264
35,882
14,699
15,231
38,808
192,914
25,897
100,259
44,087
72,150
54,973
9,907
22,850
37,630
12,534
10,938
11,393
30,603
33,062
11,831
12,171
35,649
Capacity Building
137,945
27,238
110,227
34,230
86,606
67,677
17,583
26,069
35,729
8,709
18,273
8,649
22,908
27,397
12,847
18,434
21,225
Total VnDM
2,896,854
572,002
2,314,766
718,832
1,818,718
1,421,222
369,245
547,440
750,301
182,883
383,734
181,635
481,077
575,334
269,784
387,110
445,732
Total US$M
181.05
35.75
144.67
44.93
113.67
88.83
23.08
34.21
46.89
11.43
23.98
11.35
30.07
35.96
16.86
24.19
27.86
VnDMillion
US$Million
359,098
603,041
616,119
715,870
286,588
2,580,715
22.44
37.69
38.51
44.74
17.91
161.29
215,766
126,589
1,380,900
4,137
687,319
835,388
3,250,099
13.49
7.91
86.31
0.26
42.96
52.21
203.13
154,667
321,694
1,285,518
3,651
406,010
56,550
2,228,090
9.67
20.11
80.34
0.23
25.38
3.53
139.26
526,434
2,928,392
6,738
381,554
49,165
3,892,283
964,887
718,848
681,746
14,316,668
894.79
32.90
183.02
0.42
23.85
3.07
243.27
60.31
44.93
42.61
894.79
preliminary estimates as of 7 March 2008
marked with yellow use 15% factor
7/15
Table 13 Estimated Cost and Investment Programme for Urban Upgrading (2008-2020)
High Level of Service
Cost estimate based on 2007 real prices
2007 Real Prices
Planning Period
Province
3
2
8 Priority Pilot Cities/Towns
TX. Cao Bằng
TX. Trà Vinh
TP. Cà Mau
TP. Ninh Bình
TP. Hải Dương
TP. Việt Trì
TX. Kon Tum
Điện Biên
Cao Bằng
Trà Vinh
Cà Mau
Ninh Bình
Hải Dương
Phú Thọ
Kon Tum
Class
4
III
III
IV
III
IV
III
II
III
Investment Cost 2007
6
2008
27
2009
2011
2012
30
29
2013
2014
33
32
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
35
36
37
38
39
1,191,658
147,138
127,604
117,384
133,501
143,207
184,336
212,642
125,846
1,787,487
220,707
191,405
176,076
200,252
214,811
276,504
318,962
188,769
31
2,979,145
367,845
319,009
293,460
333,753
358,018
460,840
531,604
314,616
2,383,316
294,276
255,207
234,768
267,002
286,414
368,672
425,283
251,693
1,787,487
220,707
191,405
176,076
200,252
214,811
276,504
318,962
188,769
34
834,161
102,997
89,322
82,169
93,451
100,245
129,035
148,849
88,092
6,220,078
32,846
54,743
181,945
366,292
650,742
852,259
1,174,542
1,237,179
6,521
2,435
7,715
11,101
1,149
3,925
10,868
4,059
12,858
18,502
1,914
6,541
21,736
8,118
25,716
37,005
3,828
13,082
32,605
12,177
38,574
55,507
5,743
19,623
54,341
20,296
64,290
92,512
9,571
32,705
43,473
16,236
51,432
74,010
7,657
26,164
32,605
12,177
38,574
55,507
5,743
19,623
15,215
5,683
18,001
25,903
2,680
9,158
9,474
6,828
6,313
26,077
7,853
15,916
15,789
11,380
10,521
43,461
13,088
26,526
31,579
22,760
21,042
86,922
26,175
53,052
47,368
34,141
31,563
130,384
39,263
79,578
78,946
56,901
52,604
217,306
65,438
132,630
63,157
45,521
42,083
173,845
52,350
106,104
47,368
34,141
31,563
130,384
39,263
79,578
22,105
15,932
14,729
60,846
18,323
37,136
12,257
22,359
27,109
41,960
31,811
3,482,907
24,513
44,718
54,218
83,920
63,621
5,826,010
36,770
67,077
81,327
125,880
95,432
8,464,738
61,283
111,795
135,545
209,801
159,054
12,320,350
49,027
89,436
108,436
167,841
127,243
9,639,575
36,770
67,077
81,327
125,880
95,432
6,978,400
11,916,580
1,471,381
1,276,036
1,173,842
1,335,011
1,432,071
1,843,361
2,126,416
1,258,463
357,497
44,141
38,281
35,215
40,050
42,962
55,301
63,792
37,754
28
595,829
73,569
63,802
58,692
66,751
71,604
92,168
106,321
62,923
2010
Total Project
Identification
40
357,497
44,141
38,281
35,215
40,050
42,962
55,301
63,792
37,754
North Group (Regions 1 & 2) 33 Cities/Towns
Region 1 (17 cities/towns)
1st Tranche (6 Cities/Towns with ranking)
904,278
575,558
189,694
Yên Bái
Lai Châu
Bắc Kạn
Hà Giang
Điện Biên
Sơn La
IV
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
217,363
81,182
257,161
370,049
38,284
130,822
Thái Nguyên
Sơn La
Phú Thọ
Thái Nguyên
Tuyên Quang
Bắc Giang
IV
IV
IV
II
IV
III
315,786
227,604
210,417
869,224
261,752
530,521
TX. Sơn La
TP. Yên Bái
TP. Lạng Sơn
TP. Lào Cai
TP. Hoà Bình
Sơn La
Yên Bái
Lạng Sơn
Lào Cai
Hoà Bình
IV
III
III
III
III
245,133
447,181
542,180
839,203
636,215
52,489,927
84,418
140,697
458,768
7,354
13,415
16,265
25,176
19,086
2,030,619
TP. Thái Bình
TP. Sơn Tây
TP Hà Đông
TP. Nam Định
TX. Tam Điệp
TX. Móng Cái
2nd Tranche (5 Cities/Towns with ranking)
Thái Bình
Hà Tây
Hà Tây
Nam Định
Ninh Bình
Quảng Ninh
III
III
III
II
IV
IV
663,574
298,101
407,534
791,215
326,013
327,493
19,907
8,943
12,226
23,736
9,780
9,825
33,179
14,905
20,377
39,561
16,301
16,375
66,357
29,810
40,753
79,121
32,601
32,749
99,536
44,715
61,130
118,682
48,902
49,124
165,894
74,525
101,883
197,804
81,503
81,873
132,715
59,620
81,507
158,243
65,203
65,499
99,536
44,715
61,130
118,682
48,902
49,124
46,450
20,867
28,527
55,385
22,821
22,924
TP. Bắc Ninh
TX. Hưng Yên
TX. Phủ Lý
TP. Vĩnh Yên
TP. Hải Phòng
3rd Tranche (5 Cities/Towns with ranking)
Bắc Ninh
Hưng Yên
Hà Nam
Vĩnh Phúc
City under Central Gov.
III
III
III
III
DB
998,811
382,053
358,602
596,541
3,576,482
29,964
11,462
10,758
17,896
107,294
49,941
19,103
17,930
29,827
178,824
99,881
38,205
35,860
59,654
357,648
149,822
57,308
53,790
89,481
536,472
249,703
95,513
89,650
149,135
894,120
199,762
76,411
71,720
119,308
715,296
149,822
57,308
53,790
89,481
536,472
69,917
26,744
25,102
41,758
250,354
TX. Phúc Yên
TP. Hà Nội
TX. Uông Bí
TX. Cẩm Phả
TP. Hạ Long
Central Group (Regions 3 & 4) 29 Cities/Towns
TP. Huế
TX. Quảng Trị
TX. Hồng Lĩnh
TX. Cam Ranh
TP. Phan Rang Tháp Chàm
Vĩnh Phúc
Quảng Ninh
Quảng Ninh
Quảng Ninh
IV
DB
IV
III
II
275,481
40,826,510
677,881
1,002,385
981,252
8,264
1,224,795
20,336
30,072
29,438
13,774
2,041,325
33,894
50,119
49,063
27,548
4,082,651
67,788
100,239
98,125
41,322
6,123,976
101,682
150,358
147,188
68,870
10,206,627
169,470
250,596
245,313
55,096
8,165,302
135,576
200,477
196,250
41,322
6,123,976
101,682
150,358
147,188
19,284
2,857,856
47,452
70,167
68,688
3,372,741
2,216,252
793,438
Huế
Quảng Trị
Hà Tĩnh
Khánh Hoà
Ninh Thuận
Quảng Bình
Quảng Ngãi
Thanh Hoá
I
IV
IV
IV
III
III
III
IV
1,936,428
158,354
126,391
1,030,778
1,256,213
555,769
1,012,477
300,751
TP. Quy Nhơn
TP. Nha Trang
TP. Phan Thiết
TX. Đông Hà
TX. Bỉm Sơn
TP. Hà Tĩnh
TP. Tam Kỳ
TP. Đà Nẵng
TP. Tuy Hoà
TX. Lagi
TP. Vinh
TX. Hội An
TX. Cửa Lò
TP. Thanh Hoá
1st Tranche (4 cities/towns with ranking)
Bình Định
Khánh Hoà
Bình Thuận
Quảng Trị
Thanh Hoá
Hà Tĩnh
Quảng Nam
II
II
III
IV
IV
III
III
1,430,538
2,647,013
1,037,080
827,541
226,759
422,054
780,861
Phú Yên
Bình Thuận
Nghệ An
Quảng Nam
Nghệ An
Thanh Hoá
DB
III
IV
II
III
IV
II
5,901,713
985,621
358,578
2,187,546
417,374
344,815
1,139,174
10,105,180
TP.Buôn Ma Thuột
TX. An Khê
TP. Pleiku
TP. Đà Lạt
TX. Ajunpa
TX. Bảo Lộc
TX. Gia Nghĩa
South Group (Regions 5 & 6) 25 Cities/Towns
Đắc Lăk
Gia Lai
Gia Lai
Lâm Đồng
II
IV
III
II
2,334,442
601,470
2,640,871
2,634,845
Gia Lai
Lâm Đồng
Đăk Nông
IV
IV
IV
263,827
1,309,348
320,377
58,637,774
179,507
Tây Ninh
Bình Phước
Bình Dương
Đồng Nai
IV
IV
IV
II
1,145,370
592,379
823,455
3,422,379
34,361
17,771
24,704
102,671
Đồng Nai
DB
III
II
IV
48,664,259
418,429
3,132,530
438,974
14
14,988,960
988 960
Hậu Giang
An Giang
Hậu Giang
Tiền Giang
Kiên Giang
IV
III
IV
IV
III
399,202
2,460,033
278,824
190,291
1,950,958
Bạc Liêu
Vĩnh Long
An Giang
Kiên Giang
Tiền Giang
Đồng Tháp
IV
IV
IV
IV
II
IV
377,137
472,661
776,358
394,973
763,146
499,637
Long An
Bến Tre
Đồng Tháp
Sóc Trăng
Đồng Tháp
IV
IV
IV
III
DB
III
595,568
563,731
189,746
1,469,976
3,017,460
589,260
TX. Nghĩa Lộ
TX. Lai Châu
TX. Bắc Cạn
TX. Hà Giang
TX. Mường Lay
TX. Mộc Châu
TX. Sông Công
TX. Mai Sơn
TX. Phú Thọ
TP. Thái Nguyên
TX. Tuyên Quang
TP. Bắc Giang
TP. Đồng Hới
TP. Quảng Ngãi
TX. Sầm Sơn
2nd Tranche (7Cities/Towns with ranking)
TX. Tây Ninh
TX. Đồng Xoài
TP. Biên Hoà
TP. Hồ Chí Minh
TX. Long Khánh
TP. Vũng Tàu
TX. Bà Rịa
R
Region
i 6 (17 cities/towns)
iti /t
)
TX. Vị Thanh
TP. Long Xuyên
TX. Tân Hiệp và Phụng Hiệp
TX. Gò Công
TP. Rạch Giá
TX. Bac Liêu
TP. Vĩnh Long
TX. Châu Đốc
TX. Hà Tiên
TP. Mỹ Tho
TX. Sa Đéc
TX. Tân An
TX. Bến Tre
TX. Hồng Ngự
TP. Sóc Trăng
TP. Cần Thơ
TP. Cao Lãnh
25,083,828
-
-
191,315
318,858
858,871
1,665,211
2,898,216
3,514,691
4,499,759
4,754,476
58,093
4,751
3,792
30,923
37,686
16,673
30,374
9,023
96,821
7,918
6,320
51,539
62,811
27,788
50,624
15,038
193,643
15,835
12,639
103,078
125,621
55,577
101,248
30,075
290,464
23,753
18,959
154,617
188,432
83,365
151,871
45,113
484,107
39,589
31,598
257,694
314,053
138,942
253,119
75,188
387,286
31,671
25,278
206,156
251,243
111,154
202,495
60,150
290,464
23,753
18,959
154,617
188,432
83,365
151,871
45,113
135,550
11,085
8,847
72,154
87,935
38,904
70,873
21,053
42,916
79,410
31,112
24,826
6,803
12,662
23,426
71,527
132,351
51,854
41,377
11,338
21,103
39,043
143,054
264,701
103,708
82,754
22,676
42,205
78,086
214,581
397,052
155,562
124,131
34,014
63,308
117,129
357,635
661,753
259,270
206,885
56,690
105,513
195,215
286,108
529,403
207,416
165,508
45,352
84,411
156,172
214,581
397,052
155,562
124,131
34,014
63,308
117,129
100,138
185,291
72,596
57,928
15,873
29,544
54,660
295,086
49,281
17,929
109,377
20,869
17,241
56,959
2,242,262
590,171
98,562
35,858
218,755
41,737
34,481
113,917
1,926,358
885,257
147,843
53,787
328,132
62,606
51,722
170,876
1,705,132
1,475,428
246,405
89,644
546,887
104,344
86,204
284,794
953,524
1,180,343
197,124
71,716
437,509
83,475
68,963
227,835
284,033
885,257
147,843
53,787
328,132
62,606
51,722
170,876
132,549
246,349
410,581
877,969
177,051
29,569
10,757
65,626
12,521
10,344
34,175
1,326,422
70,033
18,044
79,226
79,045
116,722
30,074
132,044
131,742
233,444
60,147
264,087
263,485
350,166
90,221
396,131
395,227
583,611
150,368
660,218
658,711
466,888
120,294
528,174
526,969
350,166
90,221
396,131
395,227
163,411
42,103
184,861
184,439
7,915
39,280
9,611
13,191
65,467
16,019
26,383
130,935
32,038
39,574
196,402
48,057
65,957
327,337
80,094
52,765
261,870
64,075
299,179
2,177,984
3,530,247
6,761,315
9,094,845
14,061,085
10,949,689
57,268
29,619
41,173
171,119
114,537
59,238
82,346
342,238
171,805
88,857
123,518
513,357
286,342
148,095
205,864
855,595
229,074
118,476
164,691
684,476
171,805
88,857
123,518
513,357
80,176
41,467
57,642
239,567
158
158,379
379
263
263,965
965
1,459,928
12,553
93,976
13,169
626
626,448
448
2,433,213
20,921
156,627
21,949
1
1,148,864
148 864
4,866,426
41,843
313,253
43,897
1,969,505
1 969 505
7,299,639
62,764
469,880
65,846
2,191,022
2 191 022
12,166,065
104,607
783,133
109,743
2,576,735
2 576 735
9,732,852
83,686
626,506
87,795
2,632,769
2 632 769
11,976
73,801
8,365
5,709
58,529
19,960
123,002
13,941
9,515
97,548
39,920
246,003
27,882
19,029
195,096
59,880
369,005
41,824
28,544
292,644
99,800
615,008
69,706
47,573
487,739
79,840
492,007
55,765
38,058
390,192
59,880
369,005
41,824
28,544
292,644
27,944
172,202
19,518
13,320
136,567
11,314
14,180
23,291
11,849
22,894
14,989
18,857
23,633
38,818
19,749
38,157
24,982
37,714
47,266
77,636
39,497
76,315
49,964
56,571
70,899
116,454
59,246
114,472
74,945
94,284
118,165
194,089
98,743
190,787
124,909
75,427
94,532
155,272
78,995
152,629
99,927
56,571
70,899
116,454
59,246
114,472
74,945
26,400
33,086
54,345
27,648
53,420
34,975
17,867
16,912
5,692
44,099
90,524
17,678
29,778
28,187
9,487
73,499
150,873
29,463
59,557
56,373
18,975
146,998
301,746
58,926
89,335
84,560
28,462
220,496
452,619
88,389
148,892
140,933
47,437
367,494
754,365
147,315
119,114
112,746
37,949
293,995
603,492
117,852
89,335
84,560
28,462
220,496
452,619
88,389
39,574
196,402
48,057
17,159
31,303
37,953
58,744
44,535
3,063,446
413,120
68,994
25,100
153,128
29,216
24,137
79,742
-
18,468
91,654
22,426
3,685,793
7,299,639
62,764
469,880
65,846
1,777,735
1 777 735
3,406,498
29,290
219,277
30,728
1,193,735
1 193 735
-
449,802
449 802
41,690
39,461
13,282
102,898
211,222
41,248
Total Preparation
41
Total
Implementation
42
TOTAL
INVESTMENT
COST VNDM
44
595,829
73,569
63,802
58,692
66,751
71,604
92,168
106,321
62,923
10,963,254
1,353,671
1,173,953
1,079,934
1,228,210
1,317,505
1,695,892
1,956,303
1,157,786
43
11,916,580
1,471,381
1,276,036
1,173,842
1,335,011
1,432,071
1,843,361
2,126,416
1,258,463
1,761,300
186,602
2,935,500
311,004
54,013,205
5,722,472
58,710,005
6,220,078
3,669.38
388.75
6,521
2,435
7,715
11,101
1,149
3,925
10,868
4,059
12,858
18,502
1,914
6,541
199,974
74,688
236,588
340,446
35,221
120,356
217,363
81,182
257,161
370,049
38,284
130,822
13.59
5.07
16.07
23.13
2.39
8.18
9,474
6,828
6,313
26,077
7,853
15,916
15,789
11,380
10,521
43,461
13,088
26,526
290,523
209,396
193,583
799,686
240,812
488,079
315,786
227,604
210,417
869,224
261,752
530,521
19.74
14.23
13.15
54.33
16.36
33.16
7,354
13,415
16,265
25,176
19,086
1,574,698
12,257
22,359
27,109
41,960
31,811
2,624,496
225,523
411,407
498,805
772,066
585,317
48,290,733
245,133
447,181
542,180
839,203
636,215
52,489,927
15.32
27.95
33.89
52.45
39.76
3,280.62
19,907
8,943
12,226
23,736
9,780
9,825
33,179
14,905
20,377
39,561
16,301
16,375
610,488
274,253
374,931
727,918
299,932
301,293
663,574
298,101
407,534
791,215
326,013
327,493
41.47
18.63
25.47
49.45
20.38
20.47
29,964
11,462
10,758
17,896
107,294
49,941
19,103
17,930
29,827
178,824
918,906
351,489
329,913
548,818
3,290,363
998,811
382,053
358,602
596,541
3,576,482
62.43
23.88
22.41
37.28
223.53
8,264
1,224,795
20,336
30,072
29,438
1,055,670
752,515
13,774
2,041,325
33,894
50,119
49,063
1,759,450
1,254,191
253,442
37,560,389
623,651
922,194
902,751
32,373,887
23,077,122
275,481
40,826,510
677,881
1,002,385
981,252
35,189,008
25,083,828
17.22
2,551.66
42.37
62.65
61.33
2,199.31
1,567.74
58,093
4,751
3,792
30,923
37,686
16,673
30,374
9,023
96,821
7,918
6,320
51,539
62,811
27,788
50,624
15,038
1,781,513
145,686
116,280
948,315
1,155,716
511,308
931,479
276,691
1,936,428
158,354
126,391
1,030,778
1,256,213
555,769
1,012,477
300,751
121.03
9.90
7.90
64.42
78.51
34.74
63.28
18.80
42,916
79,410
31,112
24,826
6,803
12,662
23,426
71,527
132,351
51,854
41,377
11,338
21,103
39,043
1,316,095
2,435,252
954,113
761,338
208,618
388,290
718,392
1,430,538
2,647,013
1,037,080
827,541
226,759
422,054
780,861
89.41
165.44
64.82
51.72
14.17
26.38
48.80
177,051
29,569
10,757
65,626
12,521
10,344
34,175
303,155
295,086
49,281
17,929
109,377
20,869
17,241
56,959
505,259
5,429,576
906,772
329,892
2,012,542
383,984
317,229
1,048,041
9,296,766
5,901,713
985,621
358,578
2,187,546
417,374
344,815
1,139,174
10,105,180
368.86
61.60
22.41
136.72
26.09
21.55
71.20
631.57
70,033
18,044
79,226
79,045
116,722
30,074
132,044
131,742
2,147,687
553,353
2,429,601
2,424,058
2,334,442
601,470
2,640,871
2,634,845
145.90
37.59
165.05
164.68
7,915
39,280
9,611
2,208,802
1,759,133
13,191
65,467
16,019
3,681,337
2,931,889
242,721
1,204,600
294,747
67,736,595
53,946,752
263,827
1,309,348
320,377
73,626,734
58,637,774
16.49
81.83
20.02
4,601.67
3,664.86
34,361
17,771
24,704
102,671
57,268
29,619
41,173
171,119
1,053,740
544,989
757,579
3,148,589
1,145,370
592,379
823,455
3,422,379
71.59
37.02
51.47
213.90
1,459,928
12,553
93,976
13,169
449,669
449 669
2,433,213
20,921
156,627
21,949
749,448
749 448
44,771,118
384,954
2,881,928
403,856
13
13,789,843
789 843
48,664,259
418,429
3,132,530
438,974
14,988,960
14 988 960
3,041.52
26.15
195.78
27.44
936.81
936 81
11,976
73,801
8,365
5,709
58,529
19,960
123,002
13,941
9,515
97,548
367,266
2,263,230
256,518
175,068
1,794,881
399,202
2,460,033
278,824
190,291
1,950,958
24.95
153.75
17.43
11.89
121.93
11,314
14,180
23,291
11,849
22,894
14,989
18,857
23,633
38,818
19,749
38,157
24,982
346,966
434,848
714,249
363,375
702,095
459,666
377,137
472,661
776,358
394,973
763,146
499,637
23.57
29.54
48.52
24.69
47.70
31.23
17,867
16,912
5,692
44,099
90,524
17,678
5,383,270
29,778
28,187
9,487
73,499
150,873
29,463
547,922
518,633
174,566
1,352,378
2,776,063
542,119
595,568
563,731
189,746
1,469,976
3,017,460
589,260
37.22
35.23
11.86
91.87
188.59
36.83
11,215.15
8,972,116
165,086,941
179,442,327.09
11,215.15
Total Cost of Investment for Implementation in US$M
Total Cost of Investment for Implementation for Urban Population of Special Cities and Class I-IV Cities/Towns in
TOTAL
INVESTMENT
COST USD
744.79
91.96
79.75
73.37
83.44
89.50
115.21
132.90
78.65
8 priority cities/towns for WB funding
Cities/Towns to be funded by other financing institutions
Project
Project
Identification Preparation
Period
Period
2008
Notes:
1) Inflation Rate:
Inflation Factor
2) Percentage of
Present Cost:
2009
1.00
Implementation Period
2010
1.00
2011
1.00
2012
1.00
Period
Period
3%
3) Exchange Rate : US Dollar (US$) 1 = Vietnam Dong (VnD)
4) Projected Urban Population of Class I to IV Cities/Towns by 2020
5) Projected Total Population of Vietnam by 2020
5%
1
10%
2
15%
16,000
24,701,225
104,013,228
2013
1.00
2014
1.00
Year of Implementation Period
3
4
25%
20%
2015
1.00
5
15%
2016
1.00
2017
1.00
2018
1.00
1.00
2019
1.00
2020
1.00
6
7%
23.75%
100%
14/15
Table 14 Estimated Cost and Investment Programme for Urban Upgrading (2008-2020)
High Level of Service
Cost estimate based on 2007 escalated prices
2007 Real Prices
Planning Period
Province
3
2
8 Priority Pilot Cities/Towns
TX. Cao Bằng
TX. Trà Vinh
TP. Cà Mau
TP. Ninh Bình
TP. Hải Dương
TP. Việt Trì
TX. Kon Tum
Class
4
III
III
IV
III
IV
III
II
III
Điện Biên
Cao Bằng
Trà Vinh
Cà Mau
Ninh Bình
Hải Dương
Phú Thọ
Kon Tum
Investment Cost 2007
6
2008
27
2009
29
2011
2012
30
2013
32
2014
33
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
35
36
37
38
39
1,452,698
179,370
155,556
143,098
162,745
174,578
224,716
259,222
153,414
2,288,000
282,507
245,001
225,379
256,324
274,960
353,928
408,275
241,627
31
4,004,000
494,388
428,751
394,414
448,567
481,179
619,374
714,481
422,847
3,363,360
415,286
360,151
331,307
376,796
404,191
520,274
600,164
355,191
2,648,646
327,037
283,619
260,905
296,727
318,300
409,716
472,629
279,713
34
1,273,116
157,196
136,326
125,408
142,627
152,996
196,937
227,177
134,449
6,220,078
32,846
54,743
181,945
366,292
650,742
852,259
1,174,542
1,237,179
6,521
2,435
7,715
11,101
1,149
3,925
10,868
4,059
12,858
18,502
1,914
6,541
21,736
8,118
25,716
37,005
3,828
13,082
32,605
12,177
38,574
55,507
5,743
19,623
54,341
20,296
64,290
92,512
9,571
32,705
43,473
16,236
51,432
74,010
7,657
26,164
32,605
12,177
38,574
55,507
5,743
19,623
15,215
5,683
18,001
25,903
2,680
9,158
9,474
6,828
6 828
6,313
26,077
7,853
15,916
15,789
11,380
11
380
10,521
43,461
13,088
26,526
31,579
22,760
22
760
21,042
86,922
26,175
53,052
47,368
34,141
34 141
31,563
130,384
39,263
79,578
78,946
56,901
56 901
52,604
217,306
65,438
132,630
63,157
45,521
45 521
42,083
173,845
52,350
106,104
47,368
34,141
34 141
31,563
130,384
39,263
79,578
22,105
15,932
15 932
14,729
60,846
18,323
37,136
12,257
22,359
27,109
41,960
31,811
3,482,907
24,513
44,718
54,218
83,920
63,621
5,826,010
36,770
67,077
81,327
125,880
95,432
8,464,738
61,283
111,795
135,545
209,801
159,054
12,320,350
49,027
89,436
108,436
167,841
127,243
9,639,575
36,770
67,077
81,327
125,880
95,432
6,978,400
11,916,580
1,471,381
1,276,036
1,173,842
1,335,011
1,432,071
1,843,361
2,126,416
1,258,463
385,203
47,562
41,248
37,944
43,154
46,292
59,587
68,736
40,680
28
691,761
85,414
74,074
68,142
77,498
83,132
107,008
123,439
73,054
2010
North Group (Regions 1 & 2) 33 Cities/Towns
Yên Bái
Lai Châu
Bắc Kạn
Hà Giang
Điện Biên
Sơn La
IV
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
217,363
81,182
257,161
370,049
38,284
130,822
Thái Nguyên
S
Sơn L
La
Phú Thọ
Thái Nguyên
Tuyên Quang
Bắc Giang
IV
IV
IV
II
IV
III
315,786
227
227,604
604
210,417
869,224
261,752
530,521
TX. Sơn La
TP. Yên Bái
TP. Lạng Sơn
TP. Lào Cai
TP. Hoà Bình
Sơn La
Yên Bái
Lạng Sơn
Lào Cai
Hoà Bình
IV
III
III
III
III
245,133
447,181
542,180
839,203
636,215
TP. Thái Bình
TP. Sơn Tây
TP Hà Đông
TP. Nam Định
TX. Tam Điệp
TX. Móng Cái
Thái Bình
Hà Tây
Hà Tây
Nam Định
Ninh Bình
Quảng Ninh
TP. Bắc Ninh
TX. Hưng Yên
TX. Phủ Lý
TP. Vĩnh Yên
TP. Hải Phòng
TX. Phúc Yên
TP. Hà Nội
TX. Uông Bí
TX. Cẩm Phả
TP. Hạ Long
Central Group (Regions 3 & 4) 29 Cities/Towns
TP. Huế
TX. Quảng Trị
TX. Hồng Lĩnh
TX. Cam Ranh
TP. Phan Rang Tháp Chàm
TX. Nghĩa Lộ
TX. Lai Châu
TX. Bắc Cạn
TX. Hà Giang
TX. Mường Lay
TX. Mộc Châu
TX. Sông Công
TX Mai
TX.
M i Sơn
S
TX. Phú Thọ
TP. Thái Nguyên
TX. Tuyên Quang
TP. Bắc Giang
TP. Đồng Hới
TP. Quảng Ngãi
TX. Sầm Sơn
2nd Tranche (7Cities/Towns with ranking)
TP. Quy Nhơn
TP. Nha Trang
TP. Phan Thiết
TX. Đông Hà
TX. Bỉm Sơn
TP. Hà Tĩnh
TP. Tam Kỳ
TP. Đà Nẵng
TP. Tuy Hoà
TX. Lagi
TP. Vinh
TX. Hội An
TX. Cửa Lò
TP. Thanh Hoá
TP.Buôn Ma Thuột
TX. An Khê
TP. Pleiku
TP. Đà Lạt
TX. Ajunpa
TX. Bảo Lộc
TX. Gia Nghĩa
South Group (Regions 5 & 6) 25 Cities/Towns
TX. Tây Ninh
TX. Đồng Xoài
TP. Biên Hoà
TP. Hồ Chí Minh
TX. Long Khánh
TP. Vũng Tàu
TX. Bà Rịa
TX. Vị Thanh
TP. Long Xuyên
TX
TX. Tâ
Tân Hiệ
Hiệp và
à Ph
Phụng Hiệp
Hiệ
TX. Gò Công
TP. Rạch Giá
TX. Bac Liêu
TP. Vĩnh Long
TX. Châu Đốc
TX. Hà Tiên
TP. Mỹ Tho
TX. Sa Đéc
TX. Tân An
TX. Bến Tre
TX. Hồng Ngự
TP. Sóc Trăng
TP. Cần Thơ
TP. Cao Lãnh
904,278
575,558
189,694
52,489,927
84,418
140,697
458,768
7,354
13,415
16,265
25,176
19,086
2,030,619
III
III
III
II
IV
IV
663,574
298,101
407,534
791,215
326,013
327,493
19,907
8,943
12,226
23,736
9,780
9,825
33,179
14,905
20,377
39,561
16,301
16,375
66,357
29,810
40,753
79,121
32,601
32,749
99,536
44,715
61,130
118,682
48,902
49,124
165,894
74,525
101,883
197,804
81,503
81,873
132,715
59,620
81,507
158,243
65,203
65,499
99,536
44,715
61,130
118,682
48,902
49,124
46,450
20,867
28,527
55,385
22,821
22,924
Bắc Ninh
Hưng Yên
Hà Nam
Vĩnh Phúc
III
III
III
III
DB
998,811
382,053
358,602
596,541
3,576,482
29,964
11,462
10,758
17,896
107,294
49,941
19,103
17,930
29,827
178,824
99,881
38,205
35,860
59,654
357,648
149,822
57,308
53,790
89,481
536,472
249,703
95,513
89,650
149,135
894,120
199,762
76,411
71,720
119,308
715,296
149,822
57,308
53,790
89,481
536,472
69,917
26,744
25,102
41,758
250,354
Vĩnh Phúc
Quảng Ninh
Quảng Ninh
Quảng Ninh
IV
DB
IV
III
II
275,481
40,826,510
677,881
1,002,385
981,252
8,264
1,224,795
20,336
30,072
29,438
13,774
2,041,325
33,894
50,119
49,063
27,548
4,082,651
67,788
100,239
98,125
41,322
6,123,976
101,682
150,358
147,188
68,870
10,206,627
169,470
250,596
245,313
55,096
8,165,302
135,576
200,477
196,250
41,322
6,123,976
101,682
150,358
147,188
19,284
2,857,856
47,452
70,167
68,688
3,372,741
2,216,252
793,438
Huế
Quảng Trị
Hà Tĩnh
Khánh Hoà
Ninh Thuận
Quảng Bình
Quảng Ngãi
Thanh Hoá
I
IV
IV
IV
III
III
III
IV
1,936,428
158,354
126,391
1,030,778
1,256,213
555,769
1,012,477
300,751
Bình Định
Khánh Hoà
Bình Thuận
Quảng Trị
Thanh Hoá
Hà Tĩnh
Quảng Nam
II
II
III
IV
IV
III
III
1,430,538
2,647,013
1,037,080
827,541
226,759
422,054
780,861
Phú Yên
Bình Thuận
Nghệ An
Quảng Nam
Nghệ An
Thanh Hoá
DB
III
IV
II
III
IV
II
5,901,713
985,621
358,578
2,187,546
417,374
344,815
1,139,174
10,105,180
246,349
Đắc Lăk
Gia Lai
Gia Lai
Lâm Đồng
II
IV
III
II
2,334,442
601,470
2,640,871
2,634,845
70,033
18,044
79,226
79,045
Gia Lai
Lâm Đồng
Đăk Nông
IV
IV
IV
263,827
1,309,348
320,377
58,637,774
179,507
Tây Ninh
Bình Phước
Bình Dương
Đồng Nai
IV
IV
IV
II
1,145,370
592,379
823,455
3,422,379
34,361
17,771
24,704
102,671
Đồng Nai
DB
III
II
IV
48,664,259
418,429
3,132,530
438,974
14,988,960
Hậu Giang
An Giang
Hậu
Hậ Giang
Gi
Tiền Giang
Kiên Giang
IV
III
IV
IV
III
399,202
2,460,033
278
278,824
824
190,291
1,950,958
Bạc Liêu
Vĩnh Long
An Giang
Kiên Giang
Tiền Giang
Đồng Tháp
IV
IV
IV
IV
II
IV
377,137
472,661
776,358
394,973
763,146
499,637
Long An
Bến Tre
Đồng Tháp
Sóc Trăng
Đồng Tháp
IV
IV
IV
III
DB
III
595,568
563,731
189,746
1,469,976
3,017,460
589,260
25,083,828
-
-
191,315
318,858
858,871
1,665,211
2,898,216
3,514,691
4,499,759
4,754,476
58,093
4,751
3,792
30,923
37,686
16,673
30,374
9,023
96,821
7,918
6,320
51,539
62,811
27,788
50,624
15,038
193,643
15,835
12,639
103,078
125,621
55,577
101,248
30,075
290,464
23,753
18,959
154,617
188,432
83,365
151,871
45,113
484,107
39,589
31,598
257,694
314,053
138,942
253,119
75,188
387,286
31,671
25,278
206,156
251,243
111,154
202,495
60,150
290,464
23,753
18,959
154,617
188,432
83,365
151,871
45,113
135,550
11,085
8,847
72,154
87,935
38,904
70,873
21,053
42,916
79,410
31,112
24,826
6,803
12,662
23,426
71,527
132,351
51,854
41,377
11,338
21,103
39,043
143,054
264,701
103,708
82,754
22,676
42,205
78,086
214,581
397,052
155,562
124,131
34,014
63,308
117,129
357,635
661,753
259,270
206,885
56,690
105,513
195,215
286,108
529,403
207,416
165,508
45,352
84,411
156,172
214,581
397,052
155,562
124,131
34,014
63,308
117,129
100,138
185,291
72,596
57,928
15,873
29,544
54,660
410,581
877,969
177,051
29,569
10,757
65,626
12,521
10,344
34,175
1,326,422
295,086
49,281
17,929
109,377
20,869
17,241
56,959
2,242,262
590,171
98,562
35,858
218,755
41,737
34,481
113,917
1,926,358
885,257
147,843
53,787
328,132
62,606
51,722
170,876
1,705,132
1,475,428
246,405
89,644
546,887
104,344
86,204
284,794
953,524
1,180,343
197,124
71,716
437,509
83,475
68,963
227,835
284,033
885,257
147,843
53,787
328,132
62,606
51,722
170,876
132,549
116,722
30,074
132,044
131,742
233,444
60,147
264,087
263,485
350,166
90,221
396,131
395,227
583,611
150,368
660,218
658,711
466,888
120,294
528,174
526,969
350,166
90,221
396,131
395,227
163,411
42,103
184,861
184,439
7,915
39,280
9,611
13,191
65,467
16,019
26,383
130,935
32,038
39,574
196,402
48,057
65,957
327,337
80,094
52,765
261,870
64,075
299,179
2,177,984
3,530,247
6,761,315
9,094,845
14,061,085
10,949,689
57,268
29,619
41,173
171,119
114,537
59,238
82,346
342,238
171,805
88,857
123,518
513,357
286,342
148,095
205,864
855,595
229,074
118,476
164,691
684,476
171,805
88,857
123,518
513,357
80,176
41,467
57,642
239,567
158,379
263,965
1,459,928
12,553
93,976
13,169
626,448
2,433,213
20,921
156,627
21,949
1,148,864
4,866,426
41,843
313,253
43,897
1,969,505
7,299,639
62,764
469,880
65,846
2,191,022
12,166,065
104,607
783,133
109,743
2,576,735
9,732,852
83,686
626,506
87,795
2,632,769
11,976
73,801
8,365
8
365
5,709
58,529
19,960
123,002
13,941
13
941
9,515
97,548
39,920
246,003
27,882
27
882
19,029
195,096
59,880
369,005
41,824
41
824
28,544
292,644
99,800
615,008
69,706
69
706
47,573
487,739
79,840
492,007
55,765
55 765
38,058
390,192
59,880
369,005
41,824
41 824
28,544
292,644
27,944
172,202
19,518
19 518
13,320
136,567
11,314
14,180
23,291
11,849
22,894
14,989
18,857
23,633
38,818
19,749
38,157
24,982
37,714
47,266
77,636
39,497
76,315
49,964
56,571
70,899
116,454
59,246
114,472
74,945
94,284
118,165
194,089
98,743
190,787
124,909
75,427
94,532
155,272
78,995
152,629
99,927
56,571
70,899
116,454
59,246
114,472
74,945
26,400
33,086
54,345
27,648
53,420
34,975
17,867
16,912
5,692
44,099
90,524
17,678
29,778
28,187
9,487
73,499
150,873
29,463
59,557
56,373
18,975
146,998
301,746
58,926
89,335
84,560
28,462
220,496
452,619
88,389
148,892
140,933
47,437
367,494
754,365
147,315
119,114
112,746
37,949
293,995
603,492
117,852
89,335
84,560
28,462
220,496
452,619
88,389
39,574
196,402
48,057
17,159
31,303
37,953
58,744
44,535
3,063,446
413,120
68,994
25,100
153,128
29,216
24,137
79,742
-
18,468
91,654
22,426
3,685,793
7,299,639
62,764
469,880
65,846
1,777,735
3,406,498
29,290
219,277
30,728
1,193,735
449,802
41,690
39,461
13,282
102,898
211,222
41,248
Total Project
Identification
40
385,203
47,562
41,248
37,944
43,154
46,292
59,587
68,736
40,680
Total Preparation
41
Total
Implementation
42
TOTAL
INVESTMENT
COST VNDM
44
691,761
85,414
74,074
68,142
77,498
83,132
107,008
123,439
73,054
15,029,821
1,855,784
1,609,404
1,480,511
1,683,786
1,806,203
2,324,944
2,681,949
1,587,240
43
16,106,786
1,988,761
1,724,726
1,586,597
1,804,438
1,935,627
2,491,538
2,874,124
1,700,974
1,761,300
186,602
2,935,500
311,004
54,013,205
5,722,472
58,710,005
6,220,078
3,669.38
388.75
6,521
2,435
7,715
11,101
1,149
3,925
10,868
4,059
12,858
18,502
1,914
6,541
199,974
74,688
236,588
340,446
35,221
120,356
217,363
81,182
257,161
370,049
38,284
130,822
13.59
5.07
16.07
23.13
2.39
8.18
9,474
6,828
6 828
6,313
26,077
7,853
15,916
15,789
11,380
11 380
10,521
43,461
13,088
26,526
290,523
209,396
209 396
193,583
799,686
240,812
488,079
315,786
227,604
227 604
210,417
869,224
261,752
530,521
19.74
14.23
14 23
13.15
54.33
16.36
33.16
7,354
13,415
16,265
25,176
19,086
1,574,698
12,257
22,359
27,109
41,960
31,811
2,624,496
225,523
411,407
498,805
772,066
585,317
48,290,733
245,133
447,181
542,180
839,203
636,215
52,489,927
15.32
27.95
33.89
52.45
39.76
3,280.62
19,907
8,943
12,226
23,736
9,780
9,825
33,179
14,905
20,377
39,561
16,301
16,375
610,488
274,253
374,931
727,918
299,932
301,293
663,574
298,101
407,534
791,215
326,013
327,493
41.47
18.63
25.47
49.45
20.38
20.47
29,964
11,462
10,758
17,896
107,294
49,941
19,103
17,930
29,827
178,824
918,906
351,489
329,913
548,818
3,290,363
998,811
382,053
358,602
596,541
3,576,482
62.43
23.88
22.41
37.28
223.53
8,264
1,224,795
20,336
30,072
29,438
1,055,670
752,515
13,774
2,041,325
33,894
50,119
49,063
1,759,450
1,254,191
253,442
37,560,389
623,651
922,194
902,751
32,373,887
23,077,122
275,481
40,826,510
677,881
1,002,385
981,252
35,189,008
25,083,828
17.22
2,551.66
42.37
62.65
61.33
2,199.31
1,567.74
58,093
4,751
3,792
30,923
37,686
16,673
30,374
9,023
96,821
7,918
6,320
51,539
62,811
27,788
50,624
15,038
1,781,513
145,686
116,280
948,315
1,155,716
511,308
931,479
276,691
1,936,428
158,354
126,391
1,030,778
1,256,213
555,769
1,012,477
300,751
121.03
9.90
7.90
64.42
78.51
34.74
63.28
18.80
42,916
79,410
31,112
24,826
6,803
12,662
23,426
71,527
132,351
51,854
41,377
11,338
21,103
39,043
1,316,095
2,435,252
954,113
761,338
208,618
388,290
718,392
1,430,538
2,647,013
1,037,080
827,541
226,759
422,054
780,861
89.41
165.44
64.82
51.72
14.17
26.38
48.80
177,051
29,569
10,757
65,626
12,521
10,344
34,175
303,155
295,086
49,281
17,929
109,377
20,869
17,241
56,959
505,259
5,429,576
906,772
329,892
2,012,542
383,984
317,229
1,048,041
9,296,766
5,901,713
985,621
358,578
2,187,546
417,374
344,815
1,139,174
10,105,180
368.86
61.60
22.41
136.72
26.09
21.55
71.20
631.57
70,033
18,044
79,226
79,045
116,722
30,074
132,044
131,742
2,147,687
553,353
2,429,601
2,424,058
2,334,442
601,470
2,640,871
2,634,845
145.90
37.59
165.05
164.68
7,915
39,280
9,611
2,208,802
1,759,133
13,191
65,467
16,019
3,681,337
2,931,889
242,721
1,204,600
294,747
67,736,595
53,946,752
263,827
1,309,348
320,377
73,626,734
58,637,774
16.49
81.83
20.02
4,601.67
3,664.86
34,361
17,771
24,704
102,671
57,268
29,619
41,173
171,119
1,053,740
544,989
757,579
3,148,589
1,145,370
592,379
823,455
3,422,379
71.59
37.02
51.47
213.90
1,459,928
12,553
93,976
13,169
449,669
2,433,213
20,921
156,627
21,949
749,448
44,771,118
384,954
2,881,928
403,856
13,789,843
48,664,259
418,429
3,132,530
438,974
14,988,960
3,041.52
26.15
195.78
27.44
936.81
11,976
73,801
8,365
8 365
5,709
58,529
19,960
123,002
13,941
13
941
9,515
97,548
367,266
2,263,230
256,518
256 518
175,068
1,794,881
399,202
2,460,033
278,824
278 824
190,291
1,950,958
24.95
153.75
17.43
17 43
11.89
121.93
11,314
14,180
23,291
11,849
22,894
14,989
18,857
23,633
38,818
19,749
38,157
24,982
346,966
434,848
714,249
363,375
702,095
459,666
377,137
472,661
776,358
394,973
763,146
499,637
23.57
29.54
48.52
24.69
47.70
31.23
17,867
16,912
5,692
44,099
90,524
17,678
5,410,976
29,778
28,187
9,487
73,499
150,873
29,463
547,922
518,633
174,566
1,352,378
2,776,063
542,119
595,568
563,731
189,746
1,469,976
3,017,460
589,260
37.22
35.23
11.86
91.87
188.59
36.83
11,477.03
9,068,049
169,153,509
183,632,532.92
11,477.03
Total Cost of Investment for Implementation in US$M
Total Cost of Investment for Implementation for Urban Population of Special Cities and Class I-IV Cities/Towns in
TOTAL
INVESTMENT
COST USD
1,006.67
124.30
107.80
99.16
112.78
120.98
155.72
179.63
106.31
8 priority cities/towns for WB funding
Cities/Towns to be funded by other financing institutions
Project
Project
Period
Period
Notes:
1) Inflation Rate:
Inflation Factor
2008
7.75%
1.08
2009
7.75%
1.16
Implementation Period
2010
5.00%
1.22
2011
5.00%
1.28
1
10%
2
15%
Period
Period
2) Percentage of
Present Cost:
3%
3) Exchange Rate : US Dollar (US$) 1 = Vietnam Dong (VnD)
4) Projected Urban Population of Class I to IV Cities/Towns by 2020
5) Projected Total Population of Vietnam by 2020
5%
16,000
24,701,225
104,013,228
2012
5.00%
1.34
2013
5.00%
1.41
Year of Implementation Period
3
4
25%
20%
2014
5.00%
1.48
5
15%
2015
3.00%
1.53
2016
3.00%
1.57
2017
3.00%
1.62
2018
3.00%
1.67
2019
3.00%
1.72
2020
3.00%
1.77
6
7%
23.75%
100%
183,632,533
D:\NUUPMINH\Final Report\Appendix_EN_Finalreport\ApG_Table13&14_Investmentcost_ High_EN.xls5/3/2008
15/15
Appendix H
Outline Terms of Reference
for the Preparation of
Pre-Feasibility Studies,
Feasibility Studies,
Engineering Designs and
Tender Documents for
Urban Upgrading
in 8 Cities of Vietnam
Appendix H
Outline Terms of Reference for the Preparation of Pre-Feasibility Studies, Feasibility Studies,
Engineering Designs and Tender Documents for Urban Upgrading in 8 Cities of Vietnam
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. The economic growth resulting from the Government’s economic liberalisation policies is driving the
rapid population growth of Vietnam’s cities and towns. Most urban centres have been growing rapidly for
the last 10 to 15 years and this trend is expected to continue for the foreseeable future as mainly poor,
rural migrants flood into the cities in search of better employment and livelihood opportunities. The urban
growth is caused by national population growth of about 1.2% per annum and migration from the rural
areas to the urban centres of about 6.5% per annum. In 1999 the population of Vietnam was 76.6 million
with 18.1 million (24%) living in urban centres. It is forecast that by 2020 the national population will be
104 million and 41.6 million (40%) will be living in urban centres. Despite the rapid population growth and
increased demand for utilities and facilities that this growth has created, the rate of provision of
infrastructure, utility services and housing has lagged. Most cities are now suffering from severe
infrastructure deficiencies in vital areas like water supply, sanitation, drainage, solid waste management,
roads and housing. Low income areas (LIA) have developed and continue to develop in most cities. Many
LIA are characterised by unplanned and uncontrolled development, inadequate or non-existing
infrastructure, low living standards, poor environmental conditions and sub-standard housing. These
conditions will continue to proliferate unless the Government intervenes with innovative, low cost
approaches for urban upgrading.
2. The Government has received donor assistance to prepare a national urban upgrading strategy and
programme. In 2000 the Cities Alliance provided assistance to prepare a National Urban Upgrading
Programme. The World Bank provided support for the Vietnam Urban Upgrading Project (VUUP) to
upgrade low income communities in four cities including Ho Chi Minh, Hai Phong, Nam Dinh and Can
Tho. An important component of the VUUP was the preparation of the National Urban Upgrading Strategy
and Overall Investment Plan for Urban Upgrading to 2020 (NUUP). The NUUP preparation was
completed in 2008 and covers the 95 cities and towns throughout Vietnam that are classified as Class IV
or higher. The Government is planning to implement the NUUP between 2008 and 2020 and is seeking
international donor assistance to help implement the strategy. The Government intends to appoint a
national consulting firm (the Consultant) to assist with the identification, preparation and design of the first
package of 8 cities and towns in accordance with the following terms of reference (TOR).
SECTION 2 - OBJECTIVES
3. The major objectives of urban upgrading are to:
(i) Raise the living standards of poor families living in low income urban areas,
(ii) Improve the environmental conditions in depressed and low income urban areas,
(iii) Plan, manage and guide the development of the rapidly expanding urban fringe (peri-urban) areas to
accommodate population growth and immigration to year 2020 and prevent the formation of unplanned,
un-serviced and uncontrolled residential areas with poor living standards and degraded environmental
conditions, and
(iv) Introduce participatory planning approaches and methodologies for urban upgrading that enable full
community participation in the preparation and implementation of community upgrading plans that are
affordable and responsive to the priority needs of the people.
SECTION 3 - PRINCIPLES, GUIDELINES AND GENERAL SCOPE
4. The NUUP adopted by the Government of Vietnam in 2008 has set out a programme to upgrade the
basic municipal infrastructure and improve the living standards and urban environmental conditions for
the urban poor living in the approximately 95 towns and cities nationwide that are classified as Class IV
and above. A representative sample of 8 towns and cities including (i) Cao Bang, (ii) Dien Bien Phu, (iii)
Hai Durong, (iv) Ninh Binh, and (v) Viet Tri, in the North Region and (vi) Kon Tum, (vii) Tra Vinh and (viii)
Ca Mau in the Central and South Region have been identified and packaged together to form the First
1/48
Phase of the Overall Investment Plan for Urban Upgrading to 2020. These terms of reference apply to the
preparation of pre-feasibility studies, feasibility studies, engineering designs and tender documents for
priority urban upgrading components for each of the 8 cities. The location of the 8 cities is shown on the
map in Annex 1. The remaining 87 cities and towns throughout the country have been packaged
according to infrastructure deficiencies and grouped on a regional basis. These cities and towns are
programmed for urban upgrading in tranches, phased between 2008 and 2020 and are not included in
this scope of work.
5. An outline urban profile has been compiled for each city based on survey data, census results,
statistical records and other sources. The profiles provide basic information about each city and town on
population, land use, infrastructure, housing and socio-economic conditions, among others. The outline
urban profiles contain a preliminary identification of the built up area and the location and size of the
urban low income areas (LIA). The profiles indicate the overall level of infrastructure deficiency in each
city. The information contained in the outline urban profiles is based on field surveys undertaken for the
preparation of NUUP. However the urban profiles are not comprehensive or exhaustive and should be
treated as indicative only. The information and data contained in the outline urban profiles must be
subjected to rigorous verification, updating and refinement by the Consultant before it is used to design
the project. The Outline Urban Profile for each of the 8 cities’ is given in Annex 2.
6. The consultant should derive lessons from previous and on-going urban upgrading projects in Vietnam
such as the Tan Hoa-Lo Gom pilot project; VUUP; the Da Nang upgrading project and others and
incorporate the lessons learned into the project design. The consultant should also consider international
best practice for urban upgrading and apply, to the project design, those best practices that are
appropriate in the Vietnam context. The Cities Alliance has produced a range of reports on urban
upgrading and the consultant should refer to these for guidance and assistance with best practices for the
project design.
7. In the context of the project, urban upgrading means the repair, rehabilitation and improvement of
existing infrastructure and the provision and expansion of new essential, basic infrastructure and
services, in-situ, with the minimum relocation of houses, minimum resettlement of people and minimum
disruption of the community. Urban upgrading follows a multi-sector, integrated and comprehensive
approach to bring about overall improvements to services and facilities on an area wide basis that result
in improved living standards and better environmental conditions within the community. Urban upgrading
projects are likely to include municipal infrastructure components like water supply, sanitation, drainage,
solid waste management, roads, footpaths and street lights. The particular upgrading components for
each community will depend on the existing condition and status of infrastructure available within the
community and the priorities, preferences and willingness to pay of the community, the local government
and other concerned stakeholders. In addition, urban upgrading projects may include micro-credit
facilities to help promote income generation and livelihood activities within the community and home
improvement loans to enable house owners to improve and repair their homes. Upgrading may also
include social infrastructure like schools, health centres and public markets.
8. Urban upgrading focuses mainly on improving the existing and providing new tertiary level
infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of people at the community level. Upgrading may also include
elements of primary and secondary level infrastructure that are necessary to support the tertiary
infrastructure at the community level. The elements of primary and secondary infrastructure that may be
considered on a case-by-case and as needed basis include (i) water extraction, treatment, storage,
transmission and distribution; (ii) sewage collection, treatment and disposal; (iii) main and collector drains;
(iv) solid waste transfer, treatment and disposal and (v) primary and secondary roads.
9. Urban upgrading aims to maintain the social fabric and cohesion of the community. An important basic
principle of urban upgrading is that the affected communities must be enabled to become fully engaged
and actively involved in all stages of project identification, planning, preparation and implementation. All
residents should be entitled to participate in, and benefit from the upgrading project, without regard to
their registration status. Similarly, non-government organisations (NGO), community based organizations
(CBO), civic groups, mass organizations and other concerned stakeholders should also be encouraged
and enabled to assist communities and participate in the planning, preparation and implementation
process of urban upgrading projects. For maximum impact the urban upgrading should be comprehensive
and holistic and cover clearly defined low income, urban upgrading areas. Integrated packages of urban
upgrading interventions should be designed that meet the needs of the community, are affordable and will
create a high visibility impact that will encourage residents to improve their houses using their own
resources.
2/48
10. For each of the 8 target cities and towns the consultant, with the full participation of the affected
communities and in close consultation with the local government and ward authorities, utility companies,
NGO, CBO, mass organisations and other concerned stakeholders, will assist the communities’ to
prepare Community Upgrading Plans (CUP). The CUP will set out the physical layout and details of the
proposed multi-sector infrastructure intervention and will describe the participation process, community
organisation, community management structures, estimated costs and proposed cost recovery
arrangements. The CUP will be presented to the local government authorities’ for review and approval for
funding. The consultant will also prepare the peri-urban area development plans following similar
consultative and participatory processes. Due account will be taken of the city’s master plan and local
area plans. For some cities’ where the size and cost of the upgrading task is too large, an incremental
approach may be appropriate. In such cases more than one upgrading intervention may be needed to
bring the city infrastructure up to the desired standard.
11. For each city the consultant will identify, prepare and design an investment sub-project that will
upgrade the city infrastructure, improve living standards and environmental conditions and manage the
development of the peri-urban areas based on the approved CUP and peri-urban area development
plans. Communities’ will be expected to contribute to both the capital cost of infrastructure and the
recurrent operating and maintenance (O&M) costs of providing services. An example of a capital cost is
payment for a water connection. An example of O&M costs is the payment of consumer charges for
services like water, sewage and solid waste management. The implications of community contributions to
costs must be fully discussed so that householders understand their financial obligations under different
upgrading scenarios. The householders’ ability and willingness to pay for services will be a significant
factor in determining the appropriate levels of service and design standards to be adopted for the
upgrading schemes. The size of the sub-project will be determined by what the various stake holders can
afford and are willing to pay for. Account will also be taken of the stakeholders experience with and
capacity for implementing similar types of projects.
12. The designs will be based on the forecast population in 2020, the Government’s infrastructure service
delivery standards for each class of city and town and the communities’ needs and ability and willingness
to pay for services. The consultant will also identify potential environmental impacts and prepare
appropriate environmental impact assessment reports. The Scope of Work includes the preparation of
pre-feasibility studies (project identification); feasibility studies (project preparation); detailed engineering
designs, cost estimates, tender documents, resettlement plans and environmental impact assessments.
The sub-projects for each of the 8 cities and towns will be consolidated into an overall investment project
suitable for consideration for financing by an international donor agency like the World Bank.
SECTION 4 - SUMMARY OF PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES AND THE REQUIRED OUTPUTS
13. Each city will be regarded as a sub-project of the overall project. The specific elements of
infrastructure within each city will be known as components. The preparation of sub-projects will follow
three stages:
4.1 Stage 1
14. During the identification and pre-feasibility stage the consultant will, for each city (i) identify and
confirm the location, extent and upgrading needs of all LIA and rapidly developing peri-urban areas
identify the components and prepare the scope of each sub-project; (ii) prepare the pre-feasibility study
for each sub-project and develop an overall project package for the 8 cities that could be supported by the
World Bank; (iii) undertake community consultations and prepare the preliminary Community Upgrading
Plans (CUP) and (iv) prepare the Stage 1 Report summarising, for each city and the overall project, the
work undertaken during this stage.
4.2 Stage 2
15. When the Programme Management Unit (PMU) has approved the Stage 1 work and the city
authorities’ have reviewed and approved the preliminary CUP and peri-urban area development plans the
consultant will (i) prepare the final CUP in consultation with the concerned communities’, prepare the final
peri-urban area development plans, undertake preliminary engineering designs and cost estimates and
prepare draft tender documents for proposed contract packages; (ii) prepare the Operational Manual for
each city; (iii) collect data for the Environmental Impact Assessment for each city; (iv) collect data for the
Resettlement Action Plan for each city; (v) prepare the Feasibility Study Report for each city and the
3/48
overall project covering the primary, secondary and tertiary infrastructure in accordance with Government
procedures and (vi) prepare the Stage 2 Report summarising, for each city and the overall project, the
work undertaken during this stage.
4.3 Stage 3
16. When PMU has approved the Stage 2 work and the city authorities’ and other stakeholders have
reviewed and approved the final CUP and final peri-urban area development plans the consultant will (i)
prepare the detailed engineering designs and cost estimates and final tender documents for the agreed
contract packages and (ii) prepare the Stage 3 Report summarising, for each city and the overall project,
the work undertaken during this stage.
SECTION 5 - INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
17. The Executing Agency for the project is the Ministry of Construction (MOC). MOC will establish a
Project Management Unit (PMU) headed by the Programme Director to be responsible for the day to day
supervision and management of the project and coordination with the participating cities, the international
funding agency and the Consultant. The Consultant will report to the Programme Director. Each
participating city will establish a Project Implementation Unit (PIU) staffed with key personnel from the city
administration who have responsibility for urban development, upgrading and delivery of municipal
services in the city. One key staff will be nominated as the PIU Head. The PIU will coordinate with the
PMU and the Consultant and will facilitate the consultants work in the city by (i) providing access to
available and relevant data, reports, maps, surveys and other useful information; (ii) discussing, with the
consultants, the city’s problems and priorities with regard to urban upgrading, identification of LIA and
emerging peri-urban areas and ongoing and planned infrastructure projects in the city; (iii) arranging
meetings with key people; (iv) facilitating community participation and (v) review and approve the CUP
and peri-urban area development plans prepared by the Consultant. The institutional arrangements for
the Government Agencies’ are shown in Annex 3
18. Because of the wide geographic spread of the participating cities throughout Vietnam the consultant
should set up a Project Management Team to oversee the entire project, a North Region Team to be
responsible for the 5 northern cities (Dien Bien Phu, Cao Bang, Viet Tri, Hai Durong and Ninh Binh) and a
Central and South Regional Team to be responsible for the 3 remaining cities (Kon Tum, Tra Vinh and Ca
Mau). The Project Management Team and the North Region Team should be located in Hanoi with easy
access to the PMU and the northern cities. The Central and South Regional Team should be located in
Ho Chi Minh City with reasonable access to the 3 central and south cities. The proposed institutional
arrangements for the consultant are shown in Annex 4.
SECTION 6 - DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK
19. The Consultant shall refer to all relevant reports prepared by other consultants’ working for MOC,
World Bank and Cities Alliance on urban upgrading studies and projects. Particular attention should be
given to the National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Overall Investment Plan for Urban Upgrading to
2020, prepared in March 2008 and to the Surveys, Investigations and Data Collection to Assist in
Demand Assessment and Support for Preparation of National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Investment
Plan for Urban Upgrading to 2020, also prepared in 2008; this report is sometimes referred to as NUUP
Surveys.
6.1 Stage 1
20. For each city confirm the identification, location, extent and upgrading needs of all LIA and peri-urban
areas, identify the components and outline the scope of the sub-projects and consolidate into a project
that could be supported by the World Bank. For each city undertake the following tasks:
(a) Check and confirm the potential for community involvement and willingness to participate in the subproject. Analyse existing community based organisations like the Women’s Union and youth groups and
community experience of working together. Determine the project stages where community participation
will be critical and the level of participation that will be required, including community involvement in
decision making, contribution to cost and direct participation in construction. For communities and local
governments develop information tools like leaflets, rapid appraisal techniques, interviews with key
representatives and public hearings, for determining communities’ needs, also develop indicators for
future project monitoring.
4/48
(b) Update and refine the urban profile and LIA maps to identify all houses and buildings. For each
owner/occupier list the registration category and status of their Building Occupancy and Land Use
Certificate (BOLUC).
(c) Determine appropriate standards and service levels for tertiary level infrastructure components in LIA
and peri-urban development areas. Indicate differences between current city standards and proposed
standards, discuss the proposed standards with the appropriate city authorities’.
Based on the appropriate standards identified, calculate unit costs for each tertiary infrastructure
component (water supply, drainage and sanitation; solid waste management, roads, footpaths and
streetlights). For “area sensitive” components such as storm-water drainage networks, water supply
networks and roads this should be on a per hectare basis. For “population sensitive” components such as
sanitation, this may be on a per capita, or per household basis. Based on these unit costs, prepare a cost
estimate ( +/- 15% accuracy margin) for a multi-year, city wide Urban Upgrading Programme for
improving tertiary level infrastructure in all LIA and developing peri-urban areas, city wide.
(d) Social infrastructure: Make a rapid assessment in the identified low income communities of the
coverage (per 100 households) of primary schools, primary health care clinics and markets;
(e) Identify possible financing options with cost sharing among the communities’, the ward and cities
authorities’ and external funding such as the World Bank. This should take account of affordability at all
levels to contribute to both capital costs and subsequent operation and maintenance costs for water,
wastewater, solid waste collection and general taxation. As a general principle, each sub-project should
be designed to match what is affordable for the concerned communities’ and city authorities.
21. For each city, prepare a Pre-Feasibility Study and consolidate the subproject studies into a PreFeasibility Study for the World Bank supported project as a whole.
22. Carry out the community sensitization and participation exercise for all low income communities in the
selected districts and wards. From this, assist the respective communities to prepare simple Preliminary
CUP with inputs from ward officials and NGOs. These will be presented to city authorities for final
selection. Because the communities are dispersed it will be necessary to also cover some other adjacent
areas in the sub-project for infrastructure efficiency. In preparing CUP, consultants should take account
of, for example, drainage catchment areas and water supply zones.
23. The specific tasks for preparing CUP, tertiary infrastructure and community upgrading plans include:
(i) Identify about 2-3 focus groups and/or “ad-hoc” committees (planning groups) in each community,
including district and ward officials, local cell leaders, Women’s and Youth groups, and NGOs. Organise
training in the community based approach to planning and upgrading best practices for all local
stakeholders.
(ii) Facilitate focus groups/ ad-hoc committee discussions to determine the possible role of a planning
group representing all stakeholders in planning, implementation, and operation and maintenance of
proposed upgrading components and work with these planning groups to analyse results of surveys and
discuss reports throughout the preparation exercise.
(iii) Carry out a sample of household socio-economic surveys and carry out in-depth interviews with key
people in each community and hold public hearings to assess needs and demands for tertiary
infrastructure (water supply, drainage etc) and social infrastructure (primary schools, health clinics etc).
From this information determine the service levels and standards that communities can afford and
contribution that they could make towards capital costs. If there is some unavoidable resettlement
required, assess whether the communities will be able to reach consensus on this, for example, by
allocating land within the community to those who have to move. If it is not possible to achieve
consensus, propose alternative methods for resettling the affected people, preferably close to where they
currently reside and in such a way that they will not be worse off after moving.
(iv) Confirm the general land use/occupancy rights situation (i.e BOLUC) in the communities in the
districts and wards selected and key land issues (if any) to be addressed prior to, or during, the project.
(v) Prepare Preliminary CUP, in conjunction with, and representing the consensus of, the communities
and other stakeholders (as appropriate) in the selected district and wards, and present these in a
5/48
consistent format to city authorities to enable them to review the plans and confirm or otherwise their
inclusion in the Stage 2 design exercise.
24. Primary and secondary infrastructure: Carry out a preliminary assessment and preliminary estimate of
critical primary and secondary infrastructure needs to serve the low income communities and peri-urban
development areas. Obtain information on all infrastructure projects underway, or planned, over the next
five years. Identify data and mapping gaps and make recommendations, if necessary, on how to fill them
to enable project preparation to be carried out.
6.2. Stage 2
25. Following review and approval by the city authorities of preliminary CUP prepare: (i) final CUP, in
conjunction with communities, preliminary engineering designs and draft bid documents for proposed
contract packages for tertiary infrastructure components; (ii) prepare the Operational Manual; (iii) collect
data for Environmental Impact Assessment; (iv) collect data for Resettlement Action Plan; (v) prepare a
Feasibility Study for each city covering primary, secondary and tertiary infrastructure in accordance with
Government procedures; (iv) the Stage 2 work will be summarised in a Stage 2 report; (vii) following
submission of the Stage 2 draft report, the consultant will arrange a workshop to present their findings
and recommendations to the city authorities and representatives of the participating communities and to
obtain their feedback.
26. Stage 2 will start when the city authorities’ have reviewed the preliminary CUP and decided which
areas may be included and approved. The Consultants shall work with the community planning groups
established in Stage 1 and the ward and city authorities. The consultants will engage in further
discussions with the planning groups to provide more detailed information on the feasible technical
options to upgrade the tertiary infrastructure and the associated costs of these options. This should
include full information on the capital and recurrent costs (water charges etc). Based on the information
provided, the communities will make their final informed decisions and the consultants will prepare final
CUP representing community consensus. The CUP will then be submitted to the city authority for review
and approval. At the time of approval the community will commit to providing an agreed share of the
capital cost and to meet recurrent costs. For it’s part the city authority will commit to providing an agreed
share of the capital costs and to maintain the infrastructure for which it is responsible.
27. Prepare final CUP in conjunction with communities’ and prepare preliminary engineering designs and
draft tender documents for proposed contract packages. The specific tasks for each city will include:
(i) Carry out any additional engineering surveys, depending on the level of detail available from existing
base maps, and where necessary, in conjunction with relevant authorities, update base maps using GIS.
(ii) Prepare technical options for the tertiary infrastructure. This should be carried out in consultation with
the responsible ward and city authorities and utility companies. There should be a clear understanding of
the roles and responsibilities with regards to the future operations and maintenance of the infrastructure
services provided.
(iii) Prepare preliminary engineering designs for the technical options with all necessary calculations and
data presentation including all surveys, soil investigations, drainage systems survey and inventory,
identification of catchment areas, assessment and development of appropriate access and drainage
design criteria, water usage and demand, assessment of existing water reticulation systems, assessment
of existing sanitation systems including both human and solid waste, assessment of existing electricity
supply systems and street-lighting. All civil, hydraulic, and structural design calculations should be carried
out in accordance with normal civil engineering practice.
(iv) Present the technical options and related costs to the community planning groups so that they clearly
understand the associated capital and recurrent costs and can make an informed choice.
(v) After the communities and their planning groups have reached a decision on the tertiary infrastructure
to be adopted, prepare final CUP for submission to the cities’ authorities’. These shall incorporate
drawings to appropriate scales in accordance with normal practice to enable tendering and construction.
Subsequently prepare tender/contract documentation including bills of quantities; specifications;
conditions of contract; conditions of tender; and all necessary information to a standard appropriate for
national competitive bidding using national bid documents (also possibly to cover community contracting),
which are satisfactory to the World Bank, all in draft form. It is envisaged that contracts would be
arranged on a community area basis and include most sectoral investments (e.g. water supply,
6/48
drainage/sewerage, access and streetlighting). Standards and levels of service should be appropriate and
functional as agreed during Stage 1;
(vi) Prepare a detailed assessment and cost estimate of any complementary primary and secondary
infrastructure associated with the Community Upgrading Plans for the Phase 1 areas.
(vii) Finalise sub-project proposals with cost estimates and prepare detailed total sub-project cost tables
by component and year. Consolidate the city sub projects into an overall project cost estimate.
28. Operational Manual, Prepare an Operational Manual to serve as a detailed guide for the subsequent
LIA and peri-urban areas upgrading. The manual will set out the process followed in the identification,
community participation, planning and engineering of the project as well as setting out the necessary
approval procedures.
29. Collection of data for Environmental Impact Assessment, Refer to Annex 5 for detailed list of tasks
30. Information for a Resettlement Action Plan Refer to Annex 6 for detailed list of tasks
31. Feasibility Study The Consultant will prepare the Feasibility Study for each city, including primary,
secondary and tertiary infrastructure of each sub-project and a consolidated Feasibility Study for the
project as a whole, according to Vietnamese government requirements for submission to the Prime
Minister.
32. Workshop: Organise a workshop (the cost of the workshop shall be included in the financial proposal)
to present the findings and recommendations of Stage 2 to the cities’ Authorities’ and representatives of
the participating communities and to obtain their feedback. The feedback will be incorporated into the
Stage 2 final report.
6.3. Stage 3
33. Following review and approval of Stage 2 outputs including CUP, by the city authorities and other
stakeholders prepare detailed engineering, and final tender documents for the agreed contract packages
Stage 3. The following tasks will be undertaken:
(i) Incorporate any reasonable technical modifications to the proposals that may be requested by the city
and ward authorities and prepare and seek final agreement on the CUP from the community planning
groups and relevant departments and utility companies;
(ii) Prepare detailed engineering designs and final cost estimates (to an accuracy within +/- 10%) for
agreed contract packages and verify or modify the previous sub-project cost estimate;
(iii) Prepare final bid document packages using standard documents acceptable to the World Bank for
National Competitive Bidding and, if appropriate, community based contracting, in packages to cover all
work proposed in CUP.
7/48
SECTION 7 - OUTPUTS
34. The consultant will prepare the reports, manuals and tender documents and undertake workshops in
accordance with the schedule in Table 1. All documents will be prepared in both English and Vietnamese
languages; 30 hard copies and 3 electronic copies of each document will be delivered to the PMU.
Table 1. Schedule of Reports and Outputs
Report
Delivery
Time
(months after commencement)
Stage 1:
Inception Report
Draft Summary Report for Stage 1.
Preliminary Community Upgrading Plans (for 8 sub-projects)
Preliminary Peri-Urban Area Development Plans (for 8 sub-projects)
Pre-Feasibility Studies (for 8 sub-projects)
Consolidated Pre-Feasibility Study Report
Final Summary Report for Stage 1.
Stage 2:
Draft Summary Report for Stage 2
Final Community Upgrading Plans (for 8 sub-projects)
Final Peri-Urban Development Plans (for 8 sub-projects)
Operational Manuals (for 8 sub projects)
Data for Environmental Impact Assessments (for 8 sub-projects)
Data for Resettlement Action Plans (for 8 sub-projects)
Feasibility Studies (for 8 sub-projects)
Consolidated Feasibility Study Report
Draft Tender Documents (for 8 sub-projects)
Workshop to Discuss Stage 2 Output
Final Summary Report for Stage 2
Stage 3:
Draft Summary Report for Stage 3
Final Tender Documents (for 8 sub-projects)
Final Summary Report for Stage 3.
1.5
3
3
3
3
3
4
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8.5
9
11
11
12
8/48
SECTION 8 - INPUTS
Table 2. Indicative Professional Disciplines and Estimated Level of Input
Professional Discipline
Estimated Input
(person months)
A. Key Professional Staff (Project Management Team)
Project Manager/Municipal Engineer
Senior Municipal Finance Specialist/Economist
Senior Community Participation Specialist
12
12
12
Sub Total A
36
B. Supporting Professional Staff
B1. North Region Core Team (Dien Bien Phu; Cao Bang; Viet Tri; Hai Durong;
Ninh Binh)
Urban Planner/Team Leader
Water and Sanitation Engineer
Drainage Engineer
Community Development/Resettlement Specialist
10
10
10
10
B2. Central and South Region Core Team (Kon Tum; Tra Vinh; Ca Mau)
Urban Planner/Team Leader
Water and Sanitation Engineer
Drainage Engineer
Community Development/Resettlement Specialist
8
8
8
8
B3. Specialist Staff (Assigned to both teams on an “as needed” basis)
Solid Waste Management Specialist
Road Engineer
Mechanical and Electrical Engineer
Low Cost Housing Specialist
Institutional Development Specialist
Environment Specialist
Municipal Finance Specialist
Cost Estimator
Contract Document/Procurement Specialist
Unallocated Specialists
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Sub Total B
152
C. Technical Support Staff
C1. North Team
GIS Specialist
CAD Operator
Social Survey Team (4 people for 5 months)
Land Survey Team (4 people for 5 months)
Geotechnical Survey Team (4 people for 5 months)
10
10
20
20
20
C2. Central and South Team
GIS Specialist
CAD Operator
Social Survey Team (4 people for 3 months)
Land Survey Team (4 people for 3 months)
Geotechnical Survey Team (4 people for 3 months)
8
8
8
12
12
Sub Total C
128
Total A+B+C
316
(Total excludes administrative support staff)
35. The consultant shall provide fully equipped and furnished office space in Hanoi to accommodate the
Project Management Team and the North Region Core Team and a similar Office in Ho Chi Minh City to
accommodate the Central and South Team. The consultant shall be responsible for providing transport
and accommodation for its team members. The costs of providing office space, accommodation and
transport will be included in the financial proposal.
SECTION 9 - INPUTS FROM THE CLIENT
The client will provide, free of charge, one set of all reports, maps, surveys, drawings and other existing
data and documents relevant to the National Urban Upgrading Programme and the identified low income
areas within each project city.
9/48
74
Province
Typology L
Class
TP. Cà Mau
Cà Mau
III
Number of Wards
Number of Commune
LIAs PROFILE
Number of LIAs
POPULATION AND AREA
AREA KM2
City/Town
Ward
Commune
Built-up
LIAs
POPULATION 2005
HOUSEHOLD 2005
PO DENSITY 2005
245
202,316
40,591
808
40.0
120,440
23,977
3,011
205.0
81,779
15.4
0.7
26,467
5,130
LAND USE
Agriculture land
Forest land
Residential land
Intensive landuse
Water bodies
Open space
Others
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
Water supply
Drainage density
Solid waste
Road density
Housing
Street lighting
0.8 km/km2
0.6 km/km2
Poverty rate
Per person income
Eco growth rate
Annual revenue
Annual revenue
Annual expense
Annual OM expense
ODA by province
State investment
2.7 %
826 USD per year
11.9 %
TP. Cà Mau
name of c
Xã Tắc Vân
area
km2
22.27
Xã Lý Văn Lâm
24.08
Xã Hoà Thành
31.07
Xã Hoà Tân
32.41
Xã Tân Thành
35.01
Sub Total
58.16
208.24
name of w
area
km2
Phường 2
0.26
Phường 4
1.88
Phường 5
2.18
Phường 7
3.10
Phường 1
3.62
population
person
13,044
8,538
9,204
10,102
9,635
12,799
18,554
81,876
5.25
Xã Định Bình
Xã An Xuyên
built up % LIAs %
km2
km2
built up % LIAs %
km2
km2
population
person
Phường 9
7.10
Phường 8
10.17
Phường 6
12.43
Sub Total
40.74
7,708
11,070
21,232
13,875
11,199
11,277
21,631
22,448
120,440
248.98
202,316
Total
household
poverty
%
2,512
1,745
2,209
1,901
2,002
3
7
3
13
6
3,581
13,950
6
7
household
poverty
%
water supply
%
54
10
0
10
0
0
99
38
water supply
%
2,082
4,175
3,001
2
3
1
2,994
3,754
4,310
20,316
3
2
1
3
100
100
100
98
85
100
99
98
99
34,266
5
74
drainage
km
drainage
km
septic tank
%
solid waste
%
earthroad
km
substandard
housing
77
100
65
40
83
45
78
74
54
10
0
0
0
0
11
12.04
26.72
23.32
26.10
41.47
3.88
49.11
182.63
septic tank
%
solid waste
%
earthroad
km
100
100
100
82
90
100
98
88
94
98
65
93
73
10
75
80
65
76
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.53
0.46
2.32
3.37
299
1,370
2,869
1,997
915
2,027
2,188
1,817
13,482
95
85
80
15
60
25
31
60
53
86
50
186.01
22,601
11
1,286
1,623
1,127
717
1,756
1,264
1,346
9,119
substandard
housing
streetlighting
%
0
10
0
0
0
0
1
streetlighting
%
Final Report
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
LIAsDatabase
ID LIAs
ward
TP. Cà Mau
block
(LIA infrastructure deficiencies and housing need)
area
km2
polulation household substandard relocated water supply %
person
housing housing
hhs
drainage %
hhs
drainage septic tank
km
hhs
%
solid waste %
hhs
<2.5 m
total
1 LIA 01
P1
K2
0.07
1,518
316
280
0
93
29
166
53
0.94
49
16
82
26
0.9
2 LIA 02
P1-P9
K3,4(P1)-K1(P9)
0.05
2,406
493
214
0
47
10
167
34
3.62
107
22
141
29
3.6
3 LIA 03
P9
K1,2,3
0.03
1,597
254
18
0
10
4
140
55
0.53
15
5.9
0
0
1.1
4 LIA 04
P4-P9
K1,3(P4)-K5(P9)
0.04
2,602
561
325
0
90
16
561
100
0.33
310
55
91
16
5 LIA 05
P4
K1,5
0.02
1,714
327
131
0
89
27
327
100
1.22
55
17
92
6 LIA 6A
P5
K3
0.01
515
111
40
0
31
28
36
32
0.33
16
14
7 LIA 6B
P5
K4
0.01
524
108
43
0
28
26
33
31
0.27
41
8 LIA 6C
P5
K6
0.01
537
108
39
17
27
25
64
59
0.17
9 LIA 07
P5
K1,2
0.02
1,233
238
98
0
5
2
34
14
10 LIA 08
P6
K2,3
0.10
1,380
321
128
0
21
7
321
11 LIA 09
P6
K4
0.04
1,150
238
208
0
150
63
12 LIA 10
P6
K5
0.06
1,082
213
12
0
213
13 LIA 11
P7
K4,5,6
0.05
2,751
549
60
0
14 LIA 12
P7
K7
0.03
1,000
204
47
15 LIA 13
P6
K1
0.02
1,114
153
16 LIA 14
P7
K1,2
0.01
740
17 LIA 15
P8
K1,2
0.14
18 LIA 16
P2
K5
19 LIA 17
TẮC VÂN
Ấp 1&2
Summary for 'citiestowns' = TP. Cà Mau (19 LIAs)
Total LIAs
poor
total
poor
flooded
km2
>6 m
total
% streetlighting
km
poor
0.0
0.0
0.06
85
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.04
80
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.00
0
1.2
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.03
80
1.3
28
1.0
0.3
0.0
0.01
40
1.3
41
37
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.00
30
0.3
38
33
31
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.00
30
0.3
35
32
27
25
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.01
70
0.3
0.98
51
21
56
24
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
32
1.0
100
0.65
0
0
41
13
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.07
73
1.3
238
100
0.3
129
54
238
100
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
3
1.0
100
213
100
0.5
113
53
213
100
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.02
34
2.0
331
60
549
100
0
50
9.1
0
0
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.02
39
1.9
0
187
92
204
100
0
126
62
204
100
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
18
1.0
53
0
12
8
153
100
0
9
5.9
26
17
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.00
1
0.5
165
20
0
63
38
165
100
0
42
25
0
0
0.00
28
0.6
2,818
433
165
0
73
17
433
100
0
16
3.7
255
59
4.2
0.01
668
109
19
0
3
3
0
0
0
4
3.7
3
2.8
0.2
0.03
1,118
229
82
0
229
229
100
0
74
32
229
100
1.1
0.74
26,467
5,130
1,982
17
1,702
4,033
79
10
1,242
24
1,772
35
23
100
33
0.3
road km
2.5-6 m
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.02
11
4.2
0.1
0.0
0.00
0
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.00
0
1.1
1
0
0
0.29
40
24
Final Report
Friday, March 07, 2008
Photo Documentation of Field Study on Urban Upgrading of Ca Mau City ×Consultation Meeting with Local Authorities ×Housing in unsafe areas ×Road foor upgrading ×House for upgrading ×Water supply for upgrading ×Drainage for upgrading National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Overall Investment Plan for Urban Upgrading to 2020
44
Province
Typology H
Class
Điện Biên
Economic Region Midland and Northen Mountainous Regio
Geographic Region NW
III
Urbanisation Sub-Region Northwest
Number of Wards
Number of Commune
LIAs PROFILE
Number of LIAs
POPULATION AND AREA
AREA KM2
City/Town
Ward
Commune
Built-up
LIAs
POPULATION 2005
HOUSEHOLD 2005
PO DENSITY 2005
64
45,803
12,853
773
34.9
44,054
9,544
1,263
24.7
1,749
10.4
3.7
23,886
5,994
LAND USE
Agriculture land
Forest land
Residential land
Intensive landuse
Water bodies
Open space
Others
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
Water supply
Drainage density
Solid waste
Road density
Housing
Street lighting
4.0 km/km2
1.2 km/km2
Poverty rate
Per person income
Eco growth rate
Annual revenue
Annual revenue
Annual expense
Annual OM expense
ODA by province
State investment
2.3 %
650 USD per year
16.0 %
name of c
area
km2
Xã Thanh Minh
24.89
Sub Total
24.89
name of w
area
km2
0.86
Phường Tân Thanh
1.27
Phường Mường Thanh
1.72
Phường Nam Thanh
4.72
Phường Thanh Trường
6.01
built up % LIAs %
km2
km2
population
person
1,749
1,749
built up % LIAs %
km2
km2
population
person
Phường Noong Bua
18.00
Sub Total
38.75
4,696
8,038
9,102
6,480
4,900
7,785
3,053
44,054
Total
63.64
45,803
Phường Him Lam
6.17
household
367
367
household
poverty
%
12
12
poverty
%
water supply
%
0
0
water supply
%
1,116
1,951
2,396
1,738
1
1
0
3
2,065
2
9,266
2
98
100
90
54
15
59
23
79
9,633
2
76
drainage
km
drainage
km
septic tank
%
solid waste
%
earthroad
km
40
40
0
0
septic tank
%
solid waste
%
90
70
60
70
5
39
16
63
70
50
80
50
20
60
30
62
1.80
351
1.81
19.98
1.20
8.39
320
416
75
80
70
38
33.18
838
551
2,476
0
0
44
62
60
50.10
2,887
35
16.92
16.92
earthroad
km
substandard
housing
streetlighting
%
411
411
substandard
housing
streetlighting
%
Final Report
LIAsDatabase
ID LIAs
ward
block
area
km2
person
housing housing
hhs
drainage %
hhs
km
hhs
%
solid waste %
hhs
<2.5 m
total
1 LIA 01
Tân Thanh
0.36
2,559
636
6
0
1,213
191
1,213
191
0
364
57
2 LIA 02
Tân Thanh
0.03
1,417
397
4
3 LIA 03
Tân Thanh
0.06
1,084
180
4 LIA 04
Mường Thanh
0.06
738
5 LIA 05
Mường Thanh
0.06
6 LIA 06
Thanh Bình
7 LIA 07
121
397
100
397
100
0
119
30
61
45
180
100
180
100
0
54
30
221
42
0
0
0
54
24
1
651
166
53
10
166
100
98
59
0.72
49
30
58
0.17
652
173
5
25
10
6
173
0
3.45
113
65
Thanh Bình
0.11
1,311
328
27
12
24
7
328
100
5.96
108
8 LIA 08
Him lam
0.14
1,104
290
163
18
105
36
290
100
0
9 LIA 09
Him lam
0.35
1,666
390
164
55
125
32
390
100
10 LIA 10
Nam Thanh
0.25
2,505
642
365
2
302
47
450
11 LIA 11
Nam Thanh
0.60
4,439
1,179
623
0
639
54
12 LIA 12
Noong Bua
0.20
663
145
60
0
145
13 LIA 13
Noong Bua
0.15
897
195
50
0
14 LIA 14
Noong Bua
0.25
556
111
37
15 LIA 15
Thanh Trương
0.19
346
120
16 LIA 16
Thanh Trương
0.19
750
17 LIA 17
Thanh Trương
0.13
18 LIA 18
Thanh Trương
19 LIA 19
20 LIA 20
poor
total
poor
% streetlighting
km
1.2
0.6
3.5
2.9
0.00
0
4.7
0.0
1.4
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.00
0
1.8
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.9
0.5
0.0
1.1
1.1
0.4
35
0.0
0.0
2.4
150
87
0.0
0.0
4.2
33
142
43
8.5
5.0
0.4
0.0
163
56
290
100
8.0
7.5
0.0
0.0
0
166
43
390
100
0.0
0.0
3.4
3.0
8.0
70
2.6
392
61
460
72
0.0
0.0
12.6
9.3
3.4
825
70
3.12
689
58
679
58
0.2
1.9
100
145
100
0
145
100
145
100
0.3
195
100
195
100
0
195
100
195
100
2.0
0
111
100
111
100
0
111
100
111
100
2.4
38
0
120
100
120
100
0
103
86
120
100
169
16
0
166
98
169
100
0
169
100
169
730
199
59
0
199
100
199
100
0
182
91
182
0.16
517
133
36
0
43
32
133
100
0
119
89
2.7
Thanh Trương
0.15
677
157
36
0
157
100
157
100
0
137
87
0.0
1.5
1.2
0.0
Thanh Trương
0.12
624
163
28
0
0
0
163
100
0
107
66
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.4
0.2
3.73
23,886
5,994
1,873
288
4,297
72
5,790
97
17
3,485
58
19
12
28
18
180
190
total
flooded
km2
>6 m
0.0
Summary for 'citiestowns' = TP. Điện Biên Phủ (20 LIAs)
Total LIAs
1213
poor
road km
2.5-6 m
100
0
4,484
0.0
0.04
63
1.6
0.5
0.7
0.02
14
4.2
8.9
0.0
11.5
1.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1.2
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.8
0.0
0.0
2.4
100
0.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
1.8
91
0.0
4.2
3.1
0.0
5.0
75
26
1.1
17
1.1
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.08
50
0.9
0.8
0.13
4
59
Final Report
Photo Documentation of Field Study on Urban Upgrading in Dien Bien Phu City ×Consultation Meeting with Local Authorities ×Road and houses for upgrading ×Water supply for upgrading ×Drainage for Upgrading ×Water supply for upgrading ×Toilet for upgrading National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Overall Investment Plan for Urban Upgrading to 2020
8
Province
Typology L
Class
TP. Hải Dương
Hải Dương
Economic Region Red River Delta
Geographic Region RRD
III
Urbanisation Sub-Region North Key Zone and Red River Delta
Number of Wards
Number of Commune
LIAs PROFILE
Number of LIAs
POPULATION AND AREA
AREA KM2
City/Town
Ward
Commune
Built-up
LIAs
POPULATION 2005
HOUSEHOLD 2005
PO DENSITY 2005
36.2
143,650
35,036
3,697
23.3
131,524
32,760
5,635
12.9
8,322
9.3
1.4
21,814
5,329
LAND USE
Agriculture land
Forest land
Residential land
Intensive landuse
Water bodies
Open space
Others
9.47 km2
0 km2
4.76 km2
4.67 km2
0 km2
2.69 km2
14.7 km2
Water supply
Drainage density
Solid waste
Road density
Housing
Street lighting
1.4 km/km2
2.5 km/km2
Poverty rate
Per person income
Eco growth rate
Annual revenue
Annual revenue
Annual expense
Annual OM expense
ODA by province
State investment
5.5 %
977 USD per year
14.5 %
TP. Hải Dương
name of c
area
km2
Xã Việt Hoà
6.15
Xã Tứ Minh
6.75
Sub Total
12.90
name of w
area
km2
Phường Phạm Ngũ Lão
0.08
Phường Trần Hưng Đạo
0.39
Phường Nguyễn Trãi
0.58
Phường Trần Phú
0.61
Phường Lê Thanh Nghị
0.84
Phường Quang Trung
0.86
Phường Cẩm Thượng
2.55
Phường Hải Tân
2.69
Phường Bình Hàn
3.42
5.48
Phường Ngọc Châu
6.34
built up % LIAs %
km2
km2
population
person
7,652
10,391
18,043
built up % LIAs %
km2
km2
population
person
Sub Total
23.84
11,854
5,881
9,899
8,836
8,156
13,427
8,192
8,468
16,200
22,410
18,201
131,524
Total
36.74
149,567
household
1,839
2,848
4,687
household
poverty
%
9
8
8
poverty
%
water supply
%
100
0
39
water supply
%
3,211
1,331
2,565
1,906
2
2
2
2
2,578
3
2,320
4,857
2
1
5,033
23,801
10
5
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
98
100
100
86
97
28,488
5
87
drainage
km
drainage
km
septic tank
%
solid waste
%
earthroad
km
20
30
26
90
50
66
septic tank
%
solid waste
%
100
97
100
95
100
90
95
65
89
84
75
87
100
100
90
95
100
89
80
100
78
85
30
78
2.13
8.74
12.85
352
1,410
75
80
0
100
45
10
35
7
5
25
77
76
23.91
2,846
18
10.82
0.24
11.06
earthroad
km
0.00
0.02
1.24
0.71
substandard
housing
724
712
1,436
substandard
housing
85
156
104
133
15
150
133
101
181
streetlighting
%
0
0
streetlighting
%
100
Final Report
LIAsDatabase
ID LIAs
ward
TP. Hải Dương
block
area
km2
person
housing housing
hhs
drainage %
hhs
km
hhs
%
solid waste %
hhs
<2.5 m
total
1 LIA 01
Tứ Minh
Lộ Cương
0.01
1,081
311
108
0
311
100
311
100
2.10
73
23
311
100
1.4
2 LIA 02
Tứ Minh
Đồng Tranh
0.01
332
105
47
0
105
100
105
100
1.64
85
81
105
100
1.6
3 LIA 03
Tứ Minh
Đỗ Xá
0.01
351
117
18
0
96
82
96
82
1.75
72
62
117
100
4 LIA 04
Tứ Minh
Thượng Đạt
0.01
345
115
45
0
115
100
115
100
0
78
68
115
5 LIA 05
Việt Hòa
Chí Hòa
0.32
2,836
717
216
0
653
91
717
100
1.15
610
85
6 LIA 06
Việt Hòa
Hàn Trung
0.21
1,183
258
78
0
233
90
226
88
1.05
232
7 LIA 07
Việt Hòa
Đồng Niên
0.16
3,425
781
273
0
694
89
781
100
0.5
8 LIA 08
Thanh Bình
Khu 9
0.12
370
107
86
0
37
35
70
65
9 LIA 09
Thanh Bình
Khu 13
0.08
980
247
130
0
123
50
247
10 LIA 10
Cẩm Thượng
Khu 5
0.05
750
150
54
0
48
32
11 LIA 11
Bình Hàn
Khu 16
0.03
947
259
97
0
57
12 LIA 12
Bình Hàn
Khu 12
0.04
669
159
75
0
13 LIA 13
Nguyễn Trãi
Khu 1
0.01
448
128
40
14 LIA 14
Phạm Ngũ Lão Khu 5
0.02
1,022
223
15 LIA 15
Phạm Ngũ Lão Khu 6
0.03
727
16 LIA 16
Hải Tân
Khu 9
0.02
17 LIA 17
Hải Tân
Khu 5
18 LIA 18
Ngọc Châu
19 LIA 19
poor
road km
2.5-6 m
total
flooded
km2
>6 m
poor
total
% streetlighting
km
poor
0.9
0.0
0.00
0
2.3
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.00
33
1.6
1.8
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.00
11
1.8
100
1.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.00
0
1.0
665
93
5.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.21
65
5.0
90
212
82
3.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.16
75
3.4
703
90
117
15
3.7
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.13
82
3.7
0.18
96
90
107
100
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.2
0.04
35
1.9
100
0.37
222
90
247
100
0.9
0.2
0.6
0.0
0.03
45
1.5
67
45
0.95
33
22
48
32
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.2
0.02
39
0.9
22
259
100
0.32
187
72
259
100
0.9
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.03
80
1.0
91
57
159
100
0.54
152
96
159
100
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.03
80
0.5
0
40
31
40
31
0.99
40
31
40
31
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.00
20
0.3
75
0
69
31
95
43
1.55
73
33
83
37
2.5
2.4
0.3
0.0
0.01
40
2.4
207
72
0
81
39
198
96
0.62
71
34
68
33
2.9
2.9
0.2
0.0
0.03 100
3.1
467
197
68
0
121
61
197
100
0.04
120
61
190
96
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.00
24
0.6
0.09
600
190
72
0
83
44
190
100
0
125
66
190
100
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.0
0.00
4
1.4
Khu 17
0.01
703
229
92
0
190
83
183
80
0
172
75
183
80
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
Ngọc Châu
Khu 9
0.01
528
142
50
0
92
65
106
75
0
100
70
142
100
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
20 LIA 20
Ngọc Châu
Khu 16
0.02
1,608
102
46
0
77
75
82
80
0
92
90
102
100
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
21 LIA 21
Ngọc Châu
Khu 3
0.01
1,390
305
105
0
125
41
213
70
0
244
80
305
100
1.2
0.5
0.0
1.7
22 LIA 22
Hải Tân
Khu 6
0.03
440
110
47
0
61
55
110
100
0.84
90
82
110
100
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.00
15
0.5
23 LIA 23
Thanh Bình
Khu 18
0.08
612
170
63
0
60
35
72
42
0.6
71
42
0
0
0.9
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.05
62
1.1
1.36
21,814
5,329
1,957
0
3,562
67
4,639
87
15
3,741
70
3,875
73
33
17
6
0
0.75
55
38
Summary for 'citiestowns' = TP. Hải Dương (23 LIAs)
Total LIAs
0.6
0.0
0.1
0.2
1
Final Report
106°17'30"E
106°18'0"E
106°18'30"E
106°19'0"E
106°19'30"E
106°20'0"E
106°20'30"E
106°21'0"E
µ
22°0'0"N
104°0'0"E
108°0'0"E
TP. Hanoi
112°0'0"E
22°0'0"N
106°17'0"E
TP. Hai Duong
Bình Hàn
d
20°57'0"N
Natio
Phu
Roa
LIA 06
18°0'0"N
na l H
ig h W
ay 5
A
10°0'0"N
Location
104°0'0"E
nB
ie n
LIA 07
TP. Ho Chi Minh
20°57'0"N
LIA 21
C?m Thu?ng
Vi?t Hoà
14°0'0"N
18°0'0"N
LIA 10
LIA 05
10°0'0"N
Water Plant
20°57'30"N
Area of map
14°0'0"N
20°57'30"N
106°16'30"E
108°0'0"E
106°18'0"E
Die
106°16'0"E
112°0'0"E
106°20'0"E
Administrative Area
on g Ba
Nguy en Lu
LIA 23
ng Aven ue
h Way 5A
Natio na l Hig
Ng u
Lao
Ro a
20°58'0"N
Vi?t Hoà
Ng?c Châu
LIA 14.15
C?m Thu?ng Bình Hàn
Quang Trung
Nguy?n Trãi
Ng?c Châu
Tr?n Hung Ð?o
Ph?m Ngu Lão Tr?n Phú
Thanh Bình Lê Thanh Ngh?
T? Minh
20°56'0"N
LIA 19
20°56'0"N
LIA 18
20°56'30"N
ad
Ro
H?i Tân
Bach Dang Road
Ph?m Ngu Lão
Provincial Hospital
un
o
Tr?n Hung Ð?o
PC
d
nH
a
gD
20°54'0"N
Ph a
m
Water Plant
a
Tr
Ro ad
Th anh Nien
LIA 12
Quang Trung
o ad
ig h
A
y5
Wa
LIA 13
Nguy?n Trãi
u an g R
Hon g Q
t
Na
H
al
io n
LIA 11
R oa d
u ye n
Ngo Q
20°56'30"N
Park
Area of map
Tr?n Phú
Park
106°16'0"E
106°18'0"E
106°20'0"E
Nh
R
at
Legend
Kim
LIA 03
LIA 01
administrative boundaries
Low Income Area
water bodies (rivers, lakes)
Park
Lê Thanh Ngh?
Thanh Bình
LIA 09
oad
Chinh R
Truo ng
Sa
t
R
20°56'0"N
g
on
d
oa
iv
er
S on
Rive r
LIA 20Kim Lai Resettlement Area
20°55'30"N
en ue
H?i Tân
Traditional Hospital
LIA 02
o
Ng
20°55'30"N
Th
oad
Binh R
30 -10 Av
T? Minh
LIA 04
Th anh
ad
h Ro
Roa d
Tan Tr ao
in
Tu M
20°56'0"N
Commercial Centre
Bus Station
t
Ye
Qu
ad
Ro
ad
Ro
eu
Ki
n
ye
Le Thanh Nghi Road
LIA 16
LIA 08
20°55'0"N
20°55'0"N
LIA 17
LIA 22
0
500
1,000
2,000 Meters
1:25,000
106°16'30"E
106°17'0"E
106°17'30"E
106°18'0"E
T P .
106°18'30"E
H a i
D u o n g :
L o c a t i o n
106°19'0"E
o f
106°19'30"E
L o w
I n c o m e
106°20'0"E
106°20'30"E
106°21'0"E
106°21'30"E
106°22'0"E
Revised:
Issued:
A r e a s
Drawing No.
V i e t n a m
N a t i o n a l
U r b a n
U p g r a d i n g
S t r a t e g y
&
O v e r a l l
I n v e s t m e n t
P l a n
t o
2 0 2 0
Photo Documentation of Field Study on Urban Upgrading in Hai Duong City ×Consultation meeeting with Local Authorities ×Poor housing for upgrading ×Drainage and road for upgrading
×Road for upgrading ×Houses in unsafe areas
×House for upgrading National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Overall Investment Plan for Urban Upgrading to 2020
16
Province
Typology L
Class
TP. Ninh Bình
Ninh Bình
Economic Region Red River Delta
Geographic Region RRD
III
Urbanisation Sub-Region North Key Zone and Red River Delta
Number of Wards
Number of Commune
LIAs PROFILE
Number of LIAs
POPULATION AND AREA
AREA KM2
City/Town
Ward
Commune
Built-up
LIAs
POPULATION 2005
HOUSEHOLD 2005
PO DENSITY 2005
48.4
109,847
33,917
2,097
24.9
83,706
27,114
3,357
23.5
18,442
15.5
2.0
18,007
4,515
LAND USE
Agriculture land
Forest land
Residential land
Intensive landuse
Water bodies
Open space
Others
23.4 km2
0.79 km2
4.85 km2
15.6 km2
0 km2
3.71 km2
0 km2
Water supply
Drainage density
Solid waste
Road density
Housing
Street lighting
3.0 km/km2
4.2 km/km2
Poverty rate
Per person income
Eco growth rate
Annual revenue
Annual revenue
Annual expense
Annual OM expense
ODA by province
State investment
2.3 %
570 USD per year
17.2 %
USD Mil. period of (2002-2006) reallocated to City/Town
ad changed,(NĐ 16/2004/ND-CP, Decree 58/2005/ND-CP and Decree 19/2007/DN-CP)
TP. Ninh Bình
name of c
area
km2
Xã Ninh Sơn
4.70
Xã Ninh Tiến
5.20
Xã Ninh Phúc
6.29
Xã Ninh Nhất
7.26
Sub Total
name of w
built up % LIAs %
km2
km2
8,305
4,324
7,692
5,820
26,141
23.45
area
km2
population
person
built up % LIAs %
km2
km2
population
person
Sub Total
21.64
9,098
6,882
10,460
6,650
8,866
9,828
8,699
7,357
7,660
8,206
83,706
Total
45.09
109,847
Phường Vân Giang
0.36
Phường Phúc Thành
1.03
Phường Tân Thành
1.74
Phường Đông Thành
1.77
Phường Nam Bình
1.86
Phường Nam Thành
1.91
Phường Bích Đào
2.22
Phường Ninh Khánh
5.36
Phường Ninh Phong
5.39
household
2,187
1,293
1,683
1,640
6,803
household
poverty
%
3
8
3
5
5
poverty
%
1,877
2,547
1,676
1,998
2,293
8,769
1,817
1,988
1,904
24,869
1
2
2
2
1
0
1
3
2
1
31,672
2
water supply
%
drainage
km
septic tank
%
solid waste
%
60
40
33
4
36
80
80
20
85
66
septic tank
%
solid waste
%
100
100
100
95
96
90
90
70
90
86
97
70
100
90
100
80
100
100
95
39
30
53
50
48
60
47
75
80
100
59
0.04
46
44
61
30
58
10
5
24
water supply
%
drainage
km
earthroad
km
5.88
0.48
0.00
6.35
earthroad
km
substandard
housing
1,274
500
483
2,257
substandard
housing
673
0.03
0.09
0.24
0.10
165
255
403
streetlighting
%
20
0
50
0
10
streetlighting
%
50
70
30
20
90
60
0.00
0.49
155
502
299
260
2,712
30
48
6.85
4,969
33
70
Final Report
LIAsDatabase
ID LIAs
ward
TP. Ninh Bình
block
area
km2
person
housing housing
hhs
drainage %
hhs
km
hhs
%
solid waste %
hhs
<2.5 m
total
1 LIA 01
Bích Đào
Đông Hồ
0.15
1,489
360
155
0
252
70
252
70
0.57
60
17
0
0
0.2
2 LIA 02
Bích Đào
Bắc Sơn
0.11
1,320
293
106
70
170
58
170
58
0.74
83
28
0
0
1.1
3 LIA 03
Bích Đào
Đông Sơn 1
0.03
550
146
102
0
44
30
0
0.9
76
52
0
0
0.6
4 LIA 04
Phúc Thành
Phúc Nam
0.06
616
141
22
0
2
1
141
100
1.60
57
40
0
0
5 LIA 05
Phúc Thành
Phúc Tân
0.03
702
172
4
0
19
11
172
100
0.27
76
44
0
6 LIA 06
Phúc Thành
Phúc Hưng
0.05
609
163
4
32
0
0
163
100
0.54
35
21
7 LIA 07
Ninh Sơn
Đông Thịnh
0.15
859
185
138
20
185
100
185
100
0.27
145
8 LIA 08
Ninh Sơn
Thiện Trạo
0.08
746
162
128
0
158
98
158
98
1.25
9 LIA 09
Ninh Sơn
Bich Đào
0.08
608
156
106
0
86
55
0
10 LIA 10
Ninh Phong
Nam Phong
0.08
505
131
96
26
131
100
131
11 LIA 11
Ninh Phong
An Hòa
0.22
1,053
258
153
101
258
100
12 LIA 12
Ninh Phong
Phúc Lai
0.09
489
126
90
0
126
13 LIA 13
Ninh Phong
Phúc Lâm
0.04
540
126
111
70
14 LIA 14
Ninh Phong
Đa Lộc
0.04
630
144
116
15 LIA 15
Nam Thành
Phúc Hòa
0.04
840
241
16 LIA 16
Nam Thành
Phúc Trì
0.09
706
17 LIA 17
Nam Thành
Phúc Chỉnh I
0.04
18 LIA 18
Nam Thành
Phúc Chỉnh II
19 LIA 19
Nam Thành
20 LIA 20
poor
total
flooded
km2
>6 m
poor
total
1.2
0.6
0.0
2.1
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.1
0.9
0
0.7
0.2
0.7
0
0
0.4
0.2
78
74
40
2.7
123
76
6
3.7
0.7
106
68
0
100
0.97
131
100
258
100
2.3
138
100
126
100
0.8
126
100
126
100
24
144
100
12
7
16
7
196
38
0
6
206
49
15
0
0.09
971
242
30
Minh Khai
0.05
375
97
Ninh Khánh
Trung Thành
0.07
617
21 LIA 21
Ninh Khánh
Hợp Thành
0.09
22 LIA 22
Ninh Khánh
Biình Hòa
23 LIA 23
Ninh Khánh
23 LIA 24
23 LIA 25
% streetlighting
km
poor
12
1.4
0.11 100
2.2
0.0
0.00
0
1.4
0.3
0.4
0.02
29
1.6
0.2
0.0
0.01
33
1.5
1.0
0.0
0.02
44
1.4
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.02
16
1.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.00
0
1.6
0
1.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.00
0
1.1
0
0
0.3
0.7
0.0
0.03
38
53
0
0
2.0
1.8
0.8
0.0
0.05
22
2.8
126
100
0
0
0.9
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.02
27
1.7
1.17
126
100
0
0
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.03
68
0.4
0
1.58
124
86
0
0
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.01
27
211
88
0.2
49
20
24
10
1.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.00
11
1.2
3
196
100
0
131
67
76
39
2.1
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.00
0
2.1
0
0
49
100
0
9
18
4
8.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.00
0
0.5
0
10
4
30
12
0.1
22
9.1
42
17
3.7
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.00
2
3.6
31
5
0
0
97
100
0.07
0
0
0
0
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.00
0
0.7
157
80
0
157
100
157
100
0
103
66
12
7.6
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.00
0
1.1
524
130
55
0
66
51
130
100
0
59
45
15
12
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.00
1
0.9
0.14
797
230
81
0
180
78
230
100
0
105
46
1
0.4
1.8
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.00
0
1.8
Bình Yên Tây
0.09
865
232
42
0
81
35
232
100
0
83
36
22
9.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.00
0
0.6
Ninh Khánh
Bình Yên
0.08
676
184
71
0
154
84
184
100
0
59
32
42
23
0.7
0.7
1.2
0.0
0.01
13
1.9
Ninh Khánh
Bình Chương
0.07
714
194
76
0
139
72
194
100
0
85
44
31
16
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.0
0.01
7
0.8
2.04
18,007
4,515
1,862
355
2,510
56
3,592
80
14
2,111
47
349
8
25
11
11
0.36
18
32
Summary for 'citiestowns' = TP. Ninh Bình (25 LIAs)
Total LIAs
0.2
road km
2.5-6 m
0.2
1
3
0.02
1.5
2
Final Report
105°57'0"E
105°57'30"E
µ
105°58'0"E
105°58'30"E
105°59'0"E
105°59'30"E
106°0'0"E
106°0'30"E
106°1'0"E
106°1'30"E
106°2'0"E
106°2'30"E
106°3'0"E
106°3'30"E
108°0'0"E
112°0'0"E
22°0'0"N
22°0'0"N
104°0'0"E
TP. Hanoi
Area of map
18°0'0"N
TP. Ninh Binh
LIA 25
20°16'30"N
P.Ninh Kh¸nh
14°0'0"N
10°0'0"N
14°0'0"N
LIA 24
TP. Ho Chi Minh
10°0'0"N
20°17'0"N
LIA 22
LIA 23
20°17'30"N
105°56'30"E
Location
104°0'0"E
108°0'0"E
105°57'0"E
112°0'0"E
20°17'0"N
105°56'0"E
20°16'30"N
105°55'30"E
18°0'0"N
20°17'30"N
105°55'0"E
106°0'30"E
LIA 21
P.Ninh Kh¸nh
Area of map
20°15'0"N
LIA 03
Bus Station
105°57'0"E
Nat
ion a
LIA 19
l Hig
h
Way
10
LIA 02
nH
ue
LIA 17 LIA 18
P.BÝch §µo
Legend
railway
LIA 01
river
Ng
uye
LIA 09
existing primary roads
P.Nam B×nh
P.Nam Thµnh
106°0'30"E
20°14'30"N
P. Thanh b×nh
20°11'30"N
P.V©n Giang
Hospital
20°14'30"N
20°15'30"N
1
Ninh S¬n
Le Hong Phong High School
LIA 04 LIA 06
P.Phóc Thµnh
Ninh Phóc
P.Ninh Phong
Rong Market
LIA 05
College
Da
iH
ay
hW
Secondary School
Secondary School
High School
P.Nam ThµnhP.Nam B×nh
Ninh TiÕn
Le
ig
lH
na
anh
t io
Cemetery
PC
P.§«ng Thµnh
P.T©n Thµnh
P.V©n Giang
P. Thanh b×nh
P.Phóc Thµnh
P.BÝch §µo
20°15'0"N
Na
P.T©n Thµnh
20°15'30"N
Ninh NhÊt
Primary School
20°15'0"N
P.§«ng Thµnh
Ninh NhÊt
20°15'0"N
20°16'0"N
20°16'0"N
Administrative Area
LIA 20
Low Income Area
important urban facilities
LIA 07
Ninh TiÕn
LIA 10
LIA 13
Ninh S¬n
P.Ninh Phong
20°13'30"N
20°13'30"N
Ninh Phóc
LIA 14
LIA 16
LIA 08
20°13'0"N
20°13'0"N
20°14'0"N
20°14'0"N
LIA 15
LIA 11
0
LIA 12
1,000
2,000
4,000 Meters
LIA 12
1:40,000
105°55'0"E
105°55'30"E
105°56'0"E
105°56'30"E
105°57'0"E
T P .
105°57'30"E
N i n h
105°58'0"E
B ì n h :
105°58'30"E
L o c a t i o n
105°59'0"E
o f
L o w
105°59'30"E
I n c o m e
106°0'0"E
106°0'30"E
106°1'0"E
106°1'30"E
106°2'0"E
106°2'30"E
106°3'0"E
106°3'30"E
Revised:
Issued:
A r e a s
Drawing No.
V i e t n a m
N a t i o n a l
U r b a n
U p g r a d i n g
S t r a t e g y
&
O v e r a l l
I n v e s t m e n t
P l a n
t o
2 0 2 0
Photo Documentation of Field Study on Urban Upgrading in Ninh Binh City ×Drainage for upgrading
×Road for upgrading
×Road for Upgrading ×Water supply for upgrading ×Housing for Upgrading ×Housing for upgrading National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Overall Investment Plan for Urban Upgrading to 2020
35
Province
Typology L
Class
TP. Việt Trì
Phú Thọ
Geographic Region NE
II
Urbanisation Sub-Region Lao Cai-Yen Bai-Ha Giang- Tuyen Quang-Phu Tho-Vin
Number of Wards
Number of Commune
LIAs PROFILE
Number of LIAs
POPULATION AND AREA
AREA KM2
City/Town
Ward
Commune
Built-up
LIAs
POPULATION 2005
HOUSEHOLD 2005
PO DENSITY 2005
71.26
145,085
49,225
1,942
26.8
97,352
36,890
3,633
44.5
47,733
17.7
2.9
12,446
3,142
LAND USE
Agriculture land
Forest land
Residential land
Intensive landuse
Water bodies
Open space
Others
30.6 km2
0.98 km2
7.43 km2
21 km2
0 km2
2.04 km2
9.17 km2
Water supply
Drainage density
Solid waste
Road density
Housing
Street lighting
0.4 km/km2
1.1 km/km2
Poverty rate
Per person income
Eco growth rate
Annual revenue
Annual revenue
Annual expense
Annual OM expense
ODA by province
State investment
1.3 %
928 USD per year
13.5 %
TP. Việt Trì
name of c
area
km2
Xã Minh Phương
3.16
Xã Phượng Lâu
5.27
Xã Sông Lô
5.36
Xã Trưng Vương
5.71
Xã Minh Nông
5.87
Xã Vân Phú
9.24
Xã Thụy Vân
9.86
Sub Total
built up % LIAs %
km2
km2
6,188
4,043
4,268
6,807
7,953
7,355
11,119
47,733
44.47
name of w
area
km2
Phường Vân Cơ
1.00
Phường Thọ Sơn
1.01
Phường Tân Dân
1.37
Phường Nông Trang
1.93
Phường Gia Cẩm
1.94
Phường Thanh Miếu
2.08
Phường Bến Gót
3.11
Phường Tiên Cát
3.55
Phường Bạch Hạc
4.51
population
person
built up % LIAs %
km2
km2
population
person
Sub Total
26.79
4,794
6,061
7,631
13,794
16,254
9,646
7,268
15,925
7,157
8,822
97,352
Total
71.26
145,085
Phường Dữu Lâu
6.31
household
poverty
%
982
16
1,810
2,003
2,069
2,684
9,548
5
4
5
7
9
household
poverty
%
water supply
%
drainage
km
47
0
0
50
80
36
19
39
water supply
%
drainage
km
septic tank
%
solid waste
%
50
5
8
20
30
30
5
19
50
60
30
22.48
5.85
14.07
20
20
70
34
6.00
15.00
63.41
septic tank
%
solid waste
%
1,407
1,531
1,580
4,348
16,524
2,467
1,680
3,612
1,594
2,147
36,890
3
4
2
4
1
5
2
4
10
10
3
97
100
96
90
98
95
95
98
0
75
91
72
90
81
80
90
65
70
59
41
45
77
90
100
100
30
100
75
91
100
30
40
83
46,438
4
80
65
73
earthroad
km
earthroad
km
4.82
substandard
housing
streetlighting
%
1,150
931
887
1,770
1,391
10
0
20
0
20
2,016
8,145
7
10
substandard
housing
streetlighting
%
4.71
0.78
2.66
1.33
42.60
59.80
374
198
215
1,014
300
1,247
211
748
1,403
1,249
6,959
10
75
44
20
20
70
50
100
0
0
16
123.21
15,104
14
2.73
0.18
Final Report
LIAsDatabase
ID LIAs
ward
TP. Việt Trì
block
area
km2
person
housing housing
hhs
drainage %
hhs
km
hhs
%
solid waste %
hhs
<2.5 m
total
poor
road km
2.5-6 m
total
poor
flooded
km2
>6 m
total
% streetlighting
km
poor
1 LIA 01
Thanh Miéu
0.01
325
102
4
0
4
4
102
100
4
3.9
0
0
0.00
0
0.7
2 LIA 02
Thanh Miéu
0.05
455
118
5
0
0
0
118
100
83
70
71
60
0.00
0
1.1
3 LIA 03
Bạch Hạc
0.12
867
241
2
0
106
44
241
100
221
92
241
100
0.01
6
1.7
4 LIA 04
Bến Gót
0.02
270
67
12
0
0
0
67
100
47
70
0
0
0.00
0
0.6
5 LIA 05
Bến Gót
0.03
329
94
13
0
8
9
84
89
74
79
94
100
0.00
13
0.6
6 LIA 06
Thọ Sơn
0.03
323
197
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
12
0
0
0.00
0
0.0
7 LIA 07
Thọ Sơn
0.03
1,877
457
0
0
0
0
0
0
182
40
0
0
0.00
0
0.0
8 LIA 08
Gia Cẩm
0.04
475
122
64
0
0
0
105
86
82
67
72
59
0.00
0
0.0
9 LIA 09
Tân Dan
0.03
823
214
76
0
106
50
214
100
55
26
110
51
0.00
0
1.8
10 LIA 10
Nông Trang
0.04
846
183
153
7
148
81
183
100
148
81
35
19
0.01
34
1.3
11 LIA 11
Nông Trang
0.07
1,180
203
103
0
140
69
203
100
140
69
203
100
0.02
22
2.2
12 LIA 12
Nông Trang
0.07
980
192
115
0
112
58
192
100
112
58
192
100
0.04
51
1.4
13 LIA 13
Dữu Lâu
0.20
673
162
7
0
90
56
162
100
145
90
162
100
0.00
0
4.1
14 LIA 14
Dữu Lâu
0.16
625
189
12
5
144
76
189
100
182
96
189
100
0.00
0
2.8
15 LIA 15
Dữu Lâu
0.14
607
147
11
0
9
6
147
100
132
90
147
100
0.00
0
3.1
16 LIA 16
Dữu Lâu
0.04
660
166
5
0
12
7
166
100
132
80
147
89
0.00
0
2.1
17 LIA 17
Dữu Lâu
0.03
455
124
5
0
70
56
124
100
74
60
74
60
0.00
0
1.0
18 LIA 18
Dữu Lâu
0.06
676
164
3
0
18
11
164
100
146
89
164
100
0.00
0
1.4
1.16
12,446
3,142
590
12
967
31
2,461
78
1,982
63
1,901
61
0.07
6
26
Summary for 'citiestowns' = TP. Việt Trì (18 LIAs)
Total LIAs
Final Report
Photo Documentation of Field Study on Urban Upgrading in Viet Tri City ×Consultation Meeting with Viet Tri People’s Commitee
×Houses in Lam Thang LIA in Ward N«ng Trang
×Drainage for Upgrading
×Drainage for upgrading ×Water tank of a household ×Place to shower and wash clothes National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Overall Investment Plan for Urban Upgrading to 2020
33
Province
Typology H
Class
TX. Cao Bằng
Cao Bằng
Geographic Region NE
IV
Urbanisation Sub-Region Cao Bang-Thai Nguyen-Lang Son- Bac Giang-Bac Nin
Number of Wards
Number of Commune
LIAs PROFILE
Number of LIAs
POPULATION AND AREA
AREA KM2
City/Town
Ward
Commune
Built-up
LIAs
POPULATION 2005
HOUSEHOLD 2005
PO DENSITY 2005
55.2
53,470
13,669
959
22.9
35,356
9,418
1,546
32.6
18,994
7.4
5.0
24,297
6,402
LAND USE
Agriculture land
Forest land
Residential land
Intensive landuse
Water bodies
Open space
Others
835 km2
5150 km2
47.5 km2
99.8 km2
3.13 km2
519 km2
0 km2
Water supply
Drainage density
Solid waste
Road density
Housing
Street lighting
1.5 km/km2
0.4 km/km2
Poverty rate
Per person income
Eco growth rate
Annual revenue
Annual revenue
Annual expense
Annual OM expense
ODA by province
State investment
%
563 USD per year
11.0 %
ad changed in 2003
LIAsDatabase
ID LIAs
ward
TX. Cao Bằng
block
area
km2
person
housing housing
hhs
drainage %
hhs
km
hhs
%
solid waste %
hhs
<2.5 m
total
poor
road km
2.5-6 m
total
flooded
km2
>6 m
poor
total
% streetlighting
km
poor
1 LIA 1
Sông Bằng
tổ 2, 3, 4, 5
0.34
1,658
421
160
13
130
31
421
100
0
167
40
157
37
6.0
5.0
2.1
0.5
0.0
0.01
1
8.2
2 LIA 2
Sông Bằng
tổ 6, 7, 8
0.22
785
213
92
1
69
32
213
100
0
77
36
79
37
1.5
1.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.00
0
1.8
3 LIA 3
Sông Bằng
tổ 13,15,17,18,19,23,24
0.43
1,962
511
178
1
157
31
511
100
0
116
23
157
31
1.9
1.4
0.8
0.6
0.0
0.01
1
2.9
4 LIA 4
Tân Giang
tổ 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11
0.84
3,911
990
503
0
19
2
990
100
0
532
54
371
37
3.5
2.0
2.0
0.6
1.5
0.02
2
4.8
5 LIA 5
Tân Giang
tổ 15,16,17,18,19,20,21
0.66
1,905
557
399
10
170
31
557
100
0
254
46
322
58
4.0
2.8
1.8
1.2
1.6
0.02
2
7.4
6 LIA 6
Hợp Giang
Tổ 1,2,3,4,5,8,10
0.12
2,651
669
249
230
7
1
383
57
1
135
20
98
15
1.4
1.3
0.3
0.0
0.02
13
2.3
7 LIA 7
Hợp Giang
Tổ 11 đến 20, 23 đến 26
0.36
4,258
1,212
315
126
0
0
699
58
0.9
50
4.1
37
3.1
3.3
2.9
0.6
0.3
2.6
0.03
8
4.2
8 LIA 8
Sông Hiến
tổ 1 đến 13
1.62
3,798
953
391
36
48
5
902
95
0
431
45
533
56
7.0
5.6
3.8
0.9
3.1
0.4
0.06
4
11.0
9 LIA 9
Sông Hiến
tổ 14 và 16 đến 26
0.47
3,369
876
289
45
9
1
744
85
0
176
20
429
49
4.6
2.0
2.7
2.0
2.1
0.0
0.00
0
7.9
5.05
24,297
6,402
2,576
462
609
10
5,420
85
2
1,938
30
2,183
34
33
24
14
6
11
0
0.15
3
50
Summary for 'citiestowns' = TX. Cao Bằng (9 LIAs)
Total LIAs
Final Report
106°15'0"E
106°15'30"E
106°16'0"E
106°16'30"E
106°17'0"E
104°0'0"E
22°0'0"N
Area of map
112°0'0"E
TX. Cao Bang
18°0'0"N
TP. Hanoi
Ngäc Xu©n
14°0'0"N
18°0'0"N
water plant location
108°0'0"E
10°0'0"N
22°40'30"N
TP. Ho Chi Minh
10°0'0"N
LIA 08
22°41'0"N
106°14'30"E
22°0'0"N
µ
106°14'0"E
22°40'30"N
106°13'30"E
14°0'0"N
22°41'0"N
106°13'0"E
Location
§Ò Th¸m
104°0'0"E
LIA 02
108°0'0"E
106°12'30"E
112°0'0"E
106°15'0"E
106°17'30"E
22°42'30"N
LIA 01
LIA 07
LIA 06
P. S«ng HiÕn
22°40'0"N
P. Hîp GiangP. S«ng B»ng
Hoµ Trung
P. T©n Giang
Area of map
22°37'30"N
LIA 09
P. S«ng HiÕn
22°40'0"N
P. S«ng B»ng
§Ò Th¸m
22°40'0"N
22°40'0"N
P. Hîp Giang
Ngäc Xu©n
DuyÖt Trung
22°37'30"N
§Ò Th¸m
Administrative Area
LIA 03
106°12'30"E
106°15'0"E
106°17'30"E
22°39'30"N
22°39'30"N
Legend
administrative boundary
water plant
cao bang roads
water plant location
primary road in need of upgrading
planned roads
LIA 04
planning roads
existing roads
Hoµ Trung
Low Income Area
P. T©n Giang
500
22°38'30"N
0
LIA 05
DuyÖt Trung
1,000
2,000 Meters
1:20,000
106°13'0"E
106°13'30"E
106°14'0"E
T X
106°14'30"E
C a o
B a n g :
L o c a t i o n
106°15'0"E
o f
L o w
I n c o m e
106°15'30"E
106°16'0"E
106°16'30"E
106°17'0"E
Revised:
Issued:
A r e a s
Drawing No.
V i e t n a m
N a t i o n a l
U r b a n
U p g r a d i n g
S t r a t e g y
&
O v e r a l l
I n v e s t m e n t
P l a n
t o
2 0 2 0
22°38'30"N
22°39'0"N
22°39'0"N
water bodies (rivers)
Photo Documentation of Field Study on Urban Upgrading in Cao Bang City
×Consultation Meeting with Local Authorities of Cao Bang City
×Public Consultation with the community
×Drainage for upgrading
×Road for upgrading
×Existing dumping site in Cao Bang
×House for upgrading
71
Province
Typology H
Class
TX. Kon Tum
Kon Tum
Economic Region Central Highlands
Geographic Region CH
III
Urbanisation Sub-Region Central Highlands
Number of Wards
Number of Commune
LIAs PROFILE
Number of LIAs
POPULATION AND AREA
AREA KM2
City/Town
Ward
Commune
Built-up
LIAs
POPULATION 2005
HOUSEHOLD 2005
PO DENSITY 2005
430.0
131,983
27,473
307
43.2
82,924
17,566
1,917
386.8
51,625
13.8
4.7
15,062
3,015
LAND USE
Agriculture land
Forest land
Residential land
Intensive landuse
Water bodies
Open space
Others
996 km2
6630 km2
50.0 km2
136 km2
0 km2
1860 km2
0 km2
Water supply
Drainage density
Solid waste
Road density
Housing
Street lighting
4.0 km/km2
5.7 km/km2
Poverty rate
Per person income
Eco growth rate
Annual revenue
Annual revenue
Annual expense
Annual OM expense
ODA by province
State investment
5.5 %
475 USD per year
14.0 %
TX. Kon Tum
name of c
area
km2
Xã Ngok Bay
18.62
Xã Vinh Quang
21.76
Xã Đoàn Kết
22.66
Xã Đăk Rơva
25.23
Xã Chử Heng
30.47
Xã Kroong
32.76
Xã Đăk Blà
41.93
Xã Đăk Cấm
43.43
Xã Hoà Bình
60.22
Xã Gia Chiêm
Sub Total
89.72
area
km2
Phường Quyết Thắng
1.20
Phường Quang Trung
3.59
Phường Trần Hưng Đạo
3.68
Phường Lê Lợi
3.87
Phường Thống Nhất
4.55
Phường Thắng Lợi
4.64
Phường Nguyễn Trãi
4.80
Phường Trường Chinh
5.19
Phường Duy Tân
5.50
Sub Total
Total
population
person
4,594
5,945
3,657
2,727
2,419
3,766
5,383
3,598
5,584
11,386
49,059
386.79
name of w
Phường Ngô Mây
built up % LIAs %
km2
km2
built up % LIAs %
km2
km2
population
person
household
poverty
%
795
40
759
529
20
45
890
1,011
851
1,111
22
29
18
14
5,946
37
household
poverty
%
water supply
%
drainage
km
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
1
water supply
%
septic tank
%
solid waste
%
drainage
km
12
0
7
5
25
2
50
10
16
85
20.39
7.87
8.32
14.18
19.86
19.36
20
12
43.07
133.05
septic tank
%
solid waste
%
earthroad
km
75
43.25
2,134
3,278
1,278
1,144
1,833
2,287
805
1,841
2,647
319
17,566
2
5
5
13
9
6
6
9
5
5
6
55
70
0
0
48
28
0
30
30
0
36
97
100
20
30
80
76
95
83
85
60
79
100
70
0
50
73
80
0
60
50
0
60
430.04
131,983
23,512
14
27
63
48
substandard
housing
streetlighting
%
33
13,182
15,039
5,689
5,469
10,941
9,706
3,861
7,029
10,372
1,636
82,924
6.23
earthroad
km
0.46
13.50
3.50
30.95
9.80
5.62
757
527
479
794
903
852
28
2,369
6,742
substandard
housing
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
streetlighting
%
29.76
12.26
5.23
111.07
1,555
2,443
1,175
1,108
1,407
1,587
402
1,776
2,536
287
14,276
56
5
1
1
50
20
30
52
5
17
244.13
21,018
10
Final Report
LIAsDatabase
ID LIAs
ward
TX. Kon Tum
block
area
km2
person
housing housing
hhs
drainage %
hhs
km
hhs
%
solid waste %
hhs
<2.5 m
total
poor
road km
2.5-6 m
total
poor
flooded
km2
>6 m
total
% streetlighting
km
poor
1 LIA 01
Ngô Mây
Tổ 1
0.02
391
102
90
0
102
100
102
100
42
102
102
100
0.00
0
1.6
2 LIA 03
Quyết Thắng
Tổ 13, 15 ( khu Lò Heo)
0.02
1,190
263
68
0
263
100
263
100
33
121
181
69
0.00
0
0.9
3 LIA 04
Quyết Thắng
Tổ 11,16 ( Khu Chùa Bác
0.02
1,436
207
57
0
207
100
207
100
26
176
207
100
0.01
38
0.3
4 LIA 05
Lê Lợi
Làng Pleirơhai I
0.06
470
94
14
0
94
100
94
100
39
90
94
100
0.01
17
0.9
6 LIA 06
Thắng Lợi
Thôn Kontumkbăng
0.07
810
150
17
0
150
100
150
100
37
150
150
100
0.00
0
0.9
7 LIA 07
Thắng Lợi
Thôn Konklor
0.03
510
98
6
0
98
100
98
100
52
98
98
100
0.00
0
0.6
8 LIA 09
Thắng Lợi
Konrơwang
0.04
500
104
18
0
104
100
104
100
34
104
104
100
0.00
0
0.7
9 Lia 10
Thống Nhất
KonHrachốt
0.10
1,353
209
85
9
209
100
209
100
22
124
209
100
0.06
57
1.5
10 LIA 11
Thống Nhất
Kontumkơnâm
0.07
1,148
203
98
0
203
100
203
100
80
143
203
100
0.01
14
0.7
11 LIA 12
Quang Trung
Pleitơngia
0.04
1,031
157
70
0
157
100
157
100
50
137
157
100
0.00
0
1.5
12 LIA 13
Quang Trung
Pleiđôn
0.08
877
148
50
0
148
100
148
100
63
143
148
100
0.00
0
1.9
13 LIA 14
Duy Tân
Tổ 1 (một phần)
0.02
510
120
48
0
120
100
120
100
34
89
70
58
0.00
0
0.4
14 LIA 15
Duy Tân
0.01
484
121
40
0
121
100
121
100
43
89
121
100
0.00
0
0.4
15 LIA 16
Duy Tân
Tổ 2
0.03
565
140
48
0
140
100
140
100
127
92
140
100
0.00
0
0.4
16 LIA 17
Duy Tân
Tổ 7
0.06
560
140
56
0
108
77
140
100
66
83
70
50
0.00
0
1.7
17 Lia 18
Duy Tân
Tổ 8, tổ 9
0.06
1,048
250
85
0
195
78
250
100
107
195
100
40
0.00
0
1.2
18 LIA 19
Trường Chinh
0.04
376
100
0
0
100
100
100
100
96
50
100
100
0.01
17
1.1
19 LIA 20
Trường Chinh
Thôn Konsơlam I
0.07
600
117
18
0
117
100
117
100
117
77
117
100
0.01
10
1.3
20 LIA 21
Trường Chinh
Thôn Konsơlam II
0.07
442
102
1
0
102
100
102
100
154
52
102
100
0.01
8
1.2
21 LIA 22
Nguyễn Trãi
Tổ 3
0.06
421
105
105
0
105
100
105
100
180
105
105
100
0.02
34
0.9
22 LIA 23
Nguyễn Trãi
Tổ 5
0.06
340
85
85
0
85
100
85
100
160
85
85
100
0.06 100
1.1
1.02
15,062
3,015
1,059
9
2,928
1,562
52
2,663
88
0.18
21
Summary for 'citiestowns' = TX. Kon Tum (21 LIAs)
Total LIAs
97
3,015
100
18
Final Report
Photo Documentation of Field Study on Urban Upgrading in KonTum Town ×Consultation meeeting with Local Authorities ×Road for upgrading ×House for upgrading ×Water supply for upgrading ×Poor housing and water supply ×Drainage for upgrading National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Overall Investment Plan for Urban Upgrading to 2020
87
Province
Typology L
Class
TX. Trà Vinh
Trà Vinh
III
Number of Wards
Number of Commune
LIAs PROFILE
Number of LIAs
POPULATION AND AREA
AREA KM2
City/Town
Ward
Commune
Built-up
LIAs
POPULATION 2005
HOUSEHOLD 2005
PO DENSITY 2005
68.04
96,016
22,329
1,351
29.1
79,066
18,387
2,719
39.1
17,617
11.6
1.5
17,888
3,898
LAND USE
Agriculture land
Forest land
Residential land
Intensive landuse
Water bodies
Open space
Others
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
km2
Water supply
Drainage density
Solid waste
Road density
Housing
Street lighting
3.1 km/km2
3.2 km/km2
% of sub standard housing
Poverty rate
Per person income
Eco growth rate
Annual revenue
Annual revenue
Annual expense
Annual OM expense
ODA by province
State investment
7.0 %
535 USD per year
15.2 %
ad changed in 2002(Decree 70/2002/NĐ-CP)
LIAsDatabase
ID LIAs
ward
TX. Trà Vinh
block
area
km2
person
housing housing
hhs
drainage %
hhs
km
hhs
%
solid waste %
hhs
<2.5 m
total
poor
road km
2.5-6 m
total
poor
flooded
km2
>6 m
total
% streetlighting
km
poor
1 LIA 01
P1
Tổ 1,2-k2
0.05
907
165
77
0
53
32
165
100
0
42
25
100
61
1.2
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.02
45
1.2
2 LIA 02
P2
Tổ 1,2-k1
0.03
669
150
47
0
51
34
150
100
0.31
33
22
52
35
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.01
31
0.6
3 LIA 03
P4
k5
0.02
534
101
67
0
27
27
101
100
0.36
26
26
31
31
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.00
13
0.5
4 LIA 04
P4
k6
0.01
397
107
71
0
18
17
107
100
0.44
39
36
37
35
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
50
0.3
6 LIA 06
P5
k1,2
0.09
567
163
85
0
35
21
163
100
2.67
37
23
90
55
2.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.03
32
2.0
7 LIA 07
P5
k2,3,
0.04
916
229
118
0
73
32
229
100
0.79
52
23
73
32
1.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.03
63
1.4
8 LIA 08
P6
k8
0.08
660
110
34
0
15
14
34
31
0.9
34
31
40
36
0.3
0.3
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.01
6
0.8
9 LIA 09
P6
k9
0.06
642
107
33
9
15
14
33
31
0.84
22
21
34
32
0.5
0.1
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.01
16
0.7
10 LIA 10
P7
k1,2,3
0.07
1,541
343
81
0
86
25
343
100
0
80
23
149
43
0.9
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.01
7
0.9
11 LIA 11
P7
k7
0.07
848
200
85
0
82
41
150
75
0.19
50
25
102
51
0.9
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.0
0.01
9
1.6
12 LIA 12
P7
k8
0.10
1,470
253
63
0
75
30
253
100
1.15
63
25
116
46
2.1
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.0
0.00
3
2.9
13 LIA 13
P7
k9
0.04
480
120
59
0
32
27
120
100
0
34
28
51
43
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.01
13
1.0
14 LIA 14
P7
k4,5,6
0.07
619
173
43
0
43
25
173
100
0.1
43
25
84
49
1.9
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.02
29
1.9
15 LIA 15
P7
k10
0.08
1,582
316
116
0
127
40
316
100
0
127
40
146
46
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.0
0.02
18
2.1
16 LIA 16
P8
k8
0.04
422
103
43
0
103
100
103
100
0
66
64
103
100
0.0
1.0
0.8
0.0
0.02
59
1.0
17 LIA 17
P8
k6
0.06
776
141
110
0
101
72
141
100
0
107
76
141
100
0.0
1.9
1.9
0.0
0.04
59
1.9
18 LIA 18
P8
k2
0.08
657
153
102
0
120
78
153
100
0
96
63
153
100
1.5
0.0
0.02
30
1.5
19 LIA 19
P8
k7
0.08
868
181
133
0
117
65
181
100
0
117
65
181
100
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.02
24
1.5
20 LIA 20
P8
k5
0.11
852
213
154
0
213
100
213
100
0
154
72
213
100
0.0
1.2
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.04
37
1.8
21 LIA 21
P9
k1
0.08
720
180
83
0
171
95
180
100
0
180
100
180
100
0.7
1.1
1.1
0.0
0.08 100
1.8
22 LIA 22
P9
k1
0.10
640
160
91
0
146
91
160
100
0
160
100
160
100
0.0
2.2
2.2
0.0
0.10 100
2.2
23 LIA 23
P9
k2,4
0.09
1,121
230
161
0
230
100
230
100
0
230
100
230
100
0.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.09 100
3.0
1.45
17,888
3,898
1,856
9
1,933
3,698
95
8
1,792
46
2,466
63
17
15
13
1
0.57
33
Summary for 'citiestowns' = TX. Trà Vinh (22 LIAs)
Total LIAs
50
1.5
6
0.0
1
40
Final Report
µ
106°21'0"E
106°21'30"E
Ph?m H?
W.3
Phùng
ng Thái
Minh Tri School
LIA 12
22°0'0"N
18°0'0"N
18°0'0"N
LIA 07
Supper Market
Area of map
Phan Ðì nh
Tr?n Phú
9°56'0"N
Ng hia
LIA 06
10°0'0"N
W.2
LIA 02
Tôn
Lý Th u? ng
Nam K?
Kh? i
Lê L? i
Lê Th ánh
14°0'0"N
19 - 5
Post Office
Ly Tu Trong Secondary School
Provincial PC of Tra Vinh
14°0'0"N
?nh
Lý T? Tr
?ng
W.4
B?c h Ð
?ng
LIA 01
Church
Theatre
Location
104°0'0"E
LIA 11
108°0'0"E
106°18'0"E
?n Ðá
ng
9°59'0"N
h? n
h? N
nT
Kiê
i
ha
K
h
in
?M
Th
Ng
uy
?n
W.6
Ngu y
Administrative Area
Ð?n g Kh?i
Ði?n Biên Ph?
LIA 10
112°0'0"E
106°21'30"E
W.5
LIA 15
9°55'30"N
TP. Ho Chi Minh
TX. Tra Vinh
LIA 14
W.7
112°0'0"E
TP. Hanoi
LIA 03LIA 04
u Chin h
Ki ?t
stadium
Phan Ch
Tô Th ? Hu
W.1
Ph?m Ng
u Lão
Quang Trung
108°0'0"E
22°0'0"N
104°0'0"E
9°56'30"N
106°20'30"E
10°0'0"N
106°20'0"E
9°56'0"N
106°19'30"E
9°59'0"N
106°19'0"E
Long Ð?c
9°55'30"N
106°18'30"E
Nguy?n Th
ái H? c
W.4
Bus Station
W.1
Tra Vinh High School
9°55'30"N
W.2W.3
LIA 18
Area of map
W.7
W.6
9°55'30"N
9°56'30"N
106°18'0"E
W.5
W.8
Airport
W.9
106°18'0"E
106°21'30"E
9°55'0"N
LIA 13
9°55'0"N
Legend
LIA 21
W.8
concrete roads (width < 2.5 m)
earth roads
Primary School of W.8
existing primary road
n
at io
al H
igh
Wa
0
y6
important urban facilities
LIA 17
substandard housing
N
LIA 20
9°54'30"N
LIA 16
polluted area
LIA 19
Low Income Area
LIA 22
Cemetery
W.9
?N
h?
n
Low Income Area Boundary
9°54'30"N
flooded area
LIA 16
Ki
ên
Th
administrative boundary
water bodies (rivers, canals)
9°54'0"N
9°54'0"N
LIA 23
0
500
1,000
2,000 Meters
1:22,000
106°18'0"E
106°18'30"E
106°19'0"E
106°19'30"E
T X .
T r a
V i n h :
106°20'0"E
L o c a t i o n
106°20'30"E
o f
L o w
I n c o m e
106°21'0"E
106°21'30"E
Revised:
Issued:
A r e a s
Drawing No.
V i e t n a m
N a t i o n a l
U r b a n
U p g r a d i n g
S t r a t e g y
&
O v e r a l l
I n v e s t m e n t
P l a n
t o
2 0 2 0
Photo Documentation of Field Study on Urban Upgrading in Tra Vinh Town ×Consultation meeting with Local Authorities ×Road and drainage for upgrading ×Solid waste concern ×Solid waste and water supply concerns ×Drainage for upgrading ×Road and streetlight upgrading National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Overall Investment Plan for Urban Upgrading to 2020
Annex 3
Institutional Arrangement For Project Implementation
Government Agencies
PIU = Project Implementation Unit
43/48
Annex 4 Institutional Arrangements for Project Implementation
Consultant
PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM
(Located in Hanoi)
• PROJECT MANAGER / MUNICIPAL ENGINEER
• SENIOR MUNICIPAL FINANCE SPECIALIST
• SENIOR COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
SPECIALIST
SPECIALIST STAFF
(Assigned to both regional teams as needed)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST
ROAD ENGINEER
MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
LOW COST HOUSING SPECIALIST
INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
ENVIRONMENT SPECIALIST
MUNICIPAL FINANCE SPECIALIST
CONTRACT DOCUMENT/PROCUMENT
SPECIALIST
NORTH REGION TEAM
(Located in Hanoi)
CENTRAL & SOUTH REGION TEAM
(Located in Ho Chi Minh City)
CORE TEAM
• URBAN PLANNER / TEAM LEADER
• WATER & SANITATION ENGINEER
• DRAINAGE ENGINEER
• COMMUNITY
DEVPMNT/RESETTLEMENT
SPECIALIST
CORE TEAM
• URBAN PLANNER / TEAM LEADER
• WATER & SANITATION ENGINEER
• DRAINAGE ENGINEER
• COMMUNITY
DEVPMNT/RESETTLEMENT
SPECIALIST
TECHNICAL SUPPORT STAFF
• GIS SPECIALIST
• CAD OPERATOR
• SOCIAL SURVEY TEAM
• GEOTECHNICAL SURVEY TEAM
• LAND SURVEY TEAM
TECHNICAL SUPPORT STAFF
• GIS SPECIALIST
• CAD OPERATOR
• SOCIAL SURVEY TEAM
• GEOTECHNICAL SURVEY TEAM
• LAND SURVEY TEAM
44/48
Annex 5
Input for Environmental Impact Assessment
1. Overview
Prepare inputs for the relevant Environmental Assessment documentation that responds to the
requirements of the Government of Vietnam and the World Bank. The outputs will consist of: (1)
Community Environmental Management Plans for sub-projects, prepared as part of the Community
Upgrading Plan and; (2) Environment Section of the Operational Manual.
2. Scope of Work
Community Environmental Management Plans (CEMPs)
The purpose of these plans are to ensure that the infrastructure improvement proposals are
environmentally sound and sustainable. The preparation of these plans should be done as part of the
CUP process and follow a participatory process. The consultant should work with the community
organizations in the preparation of these plans.
Specifically, each plan should detail the following:
a) propose guidelines that the community can use as part of the CUP participatory process;
b) describe the environmental conditions and identify the environmental problems faced by the
community, and based on a participatory process they should be ranked;
c) evaluate alternatives for addressing these problems and finding solutions;
d) propose mitigation actions that need to be implemented at the community-level and any adjustments
that may need to be made to the city infrastructure and basic services, so as to support these
mitigation actions. These actions should be reflected and costed in the engineering design and
feasibility study;
e) propose the institutional arrangements at the community-level, for construction, operation and
maintenance of the sub-project including the environmental mitigation actions;
f) prepare a monitoring program that will involve communities;
g) in the event of resettlement or relocation, environmental conditions of the new site should be
assessed before a decision is made on the suitability of this site;
h) propose an environmental education and public hygiene awareness program; and
i) compile the above in the form of a community environmental management plan for the sub-project
and integrate it to the CUP. Individual CEMPs should be prepared for each beneficiary community.
Environment Section of the Operational Manual
The purpose of the Manual is three-fold: (i) establish the appropriate institutional arrangement at the
PIU(s) to manage the environmental assessment process; (ii) guide the development of sub-projects in
Phases 2 and 3; (iii) catalogue the “typical” environmental mitigation measures that need to be
incorporated in the engineering design of trunk infrastructure. The preparation of this section should be
closely aligned to the drafting of the resettlement and compensation framework for the project.
Specifically, the Manual should include the following:
a) the process to prepare the CEMPs
b) institutional arrangements for identifying, appraising, evaluating and monitoring CEMPs at the cityPIU and community level;
c) Interface with Department of Science and Technology (DoSTE) and integration of their processes in
project appraisal and evaluation
d) checklist and guidelines to be used for sub-projects, including a summary of relevant planning,
building and environmental codes and standards of Government;
e) formats for CEMPs
f) guidelines for project appraisal;
g) guidelines for trunk infrastructure;
h) overall monitoring and evaluation framework; and
i) capacity building program for environmental assessment in the different PIU(s) and at the communitylevel
45/48
3. Public Disclosure
All the above documents should be disclosed. CEMPs at the community-level, and Operational Manual
at the city-level. Record of consultation and disclosure should be maintained and reported in the
Executive Summary.
46/48
Annex 6
Data for Resettlement Action Plan
TASKS
1. Preliminary Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Report
(a) Background: This report will provide the necessary data for later preparation of a full Resettlement
Action Plan by other consultants. The main principles for RAP preparation will be:
(i) To minimize as much as possible land acquisition and resettlement and;
(ii)To carry out compensation/resettlement tasks so as to guarantee the improvement or, at least,
the maintenance of the Project Affected Families (PAF) pre-project standards of living.”
To comply with principle (ii.) land and house/buildings compensation will be delivered with replacement
housing, or in cash at replacement/market1 rates. The RAP will also provide compensation for income
losses (including business losses), incurred by the PAFs during the resettlement process. Finally the RAP
will include rehabilitation measures such as: i.) allowances for relocation expenses (transport
costs/transition-period subsistence); ii.) subsidies for service connection fees and special vulnerable
groups, and; iii.) income restoration provisions including training, employment and credit assistance.
According to World Bank policy/practice all PAFs
whether legal or not legal are entitled to
compensation/rehabilitation measures, providing that they are listed in the tallies of the PAF inventory
(see below). However, as long as the basic rehabilitation principle is maintained, distinctions in
compensation percentages may be made between legal and illegal settlers. To be included among the
PAF are also families that may be indirectly affected by the resettlement process itself e.g. occupiers of
land required for resettlement sites.
The RAP will be prepared for each sub-project and will include the following data collection activities: i.)
an inventory of the PAFs and their losses, and ii.) a socio-economic census. The inventory will provide an
identification of all PAFs and their physical/financial losses. The socio-economic census will provide
benchmark data to measure the achievement of the rehabilitation objective following the implementation
of the RAP. Information to be collected for the socio-economic census includes the parameters shown in
Table 1 below. The RAP shall be prepared on the basis of the best information available on the technical
designs. If additional data gathering and analysis is required, this should be clearly stated and a detailed
schedule provided linking this to any further design and the planned construction schedule.
1
By replacement cost is meant the amount of money needed to buy land or houses of equal standard in a similar location.
47/48
Table 1 Information Required for Resettlement Plan
Household composition: by sex, age, education,
occupation, and skills
Household Assets and Services
Household standards of Living
Special needs of Vulnerable Groups
Resident Status of Each Person
Legal Status of Land
Legal Status of House
Category of Structure (I,II,III,IV)
Housing space in m
2
Use of business site with or without license
Household Members Eligible for Special Income or
Treatment
Number and Category of Wage-Earners and
Location of Work
Present Monthly Household Income and
Expenditures
Preference Among Options for Resettlement
Package
Preference for replacement housing Location and
Style
Arrival date and Length of occupancy Period
Significant consumption goods in each household
(b) Principal Duties and responsibilities: The consultant will be responsible for a wide range of activities,
many of which will be carried out in collaboration with the city/province counterpart agencies. Where
necessary the consultant shall train the local counterparts and survey interviewers in techniques required.
The duties include:
i. Modifying project designs so as to minimize project impacts as much as possible.
ii. Preparing relevant maps, in collaboration with counterpart agencies.
iii. Supervising the identification of project impacts on land, houses and incomes; and of the number of
both individuals and PAFs. The resettlement specialist will prepare a PAFs/impacts inventory,
covering 100% of the PAFs, based on surveys to be carried out by local counterpart agencies.
iv. Preparing a socio-economic census based on a 100% sample of the PAFs that will outline the PAFs’
main pre-project demographic and socio-economic features (these include: household composition by
sex, age, education and occupation; Train the local counterpart and the interviewers.
v. Preparing a description of the form of land tenure in the project area and assessing market prices and
substitution costs for land and houses.
vi. Organising and supervising consultation/participation meetings to provide PAF’s input in project
design. The meetings’ outcomes, including needed changes in project design, will be reflected in the
RAP.
vii. Preparing public information posters and pamphlets.
viii. Preparing a detailed cost assessment of the RAP program based on unit compensation costs and
unit values for subsidies/allowances defined by the consultant.
(c ) Proposed table of contents for the Preliminary RAP Report: The report will include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Executive summary.
Project description. This chapter will provide maps of the project and will deal with the following: a)
purposes of the project; b) spatial and administrative context; c) project components; and d)
alternatives studied and mitigation measures.
Base-line information. This chapter will describe: a) when and how the data gathering process was
initiated and concluded; b) the total and per component amount of land affected; c) the total and per
component number of Families and people affected, d) the total and per component number/area of
houses/buildings affected (the houses/buildings data-base will be divided by house type.)
Compensation for Land and houses. This chapter will present data on replacement land and will
indicate available areas, locations, and preparation work is needed. A map of the replacement land
areas, will be added as an appendix to the RAP.
Information, Consultation, Participation and Monitoring. This chapter shall describe: a) the preimplementation information campaign, b) how the RAP will be disclosed to the PAFs; c) consultation
and participation activities carried out during project preparation; d) description of the meetings and of
the issues that emerged from them, and e) will detail the monitoring program to be carried out during
project implementation.
Costs and Finances This chapter will detail the procedures for the identification of
replacement/substitution costs, will list unit compensation rates and will provide a comprehensive
assessment of the costs of the resettlement program.
48/48
APPENDIX I
Outline Terms of Reference
for Preparation of
Peri-Urban Area Development Plans
APPENDIX I
Outline Terms of Reference for Preparation of Peri-Urban Area Development Plans
SECTION 1 – BACKGROUND
1.1
Vietnam is urbanising rapidly and, as the economy develops and grows, this trend is expected to
continue for the foreseeable future. Data published by the General Statistics Office (GSO) and
other sources including Ministry of Construction (MOC), World Bank (WB) and United Nations
Population Fund (UNPF) show that the population of Vietnam at the 1999 Census was 76.6
million, with 18.1 million (24%) living in urban areas and 58.5 million (76%) living in rural areas.
Ten years earlier, in 1989, the population was 64.8 million with 12.9 million (20%) living in urban
areas. The UNPF population forecast predicts that by 2010 the population will be about 89.0
million with approximately 28.5 million (32%) living in urban areas. By 2020 the population is
forecast to exceed 100 million with 40.0 million (40%) living in urban areas. The national
population growth rate of Vietnam is expected to be 1.38% per annum between 2000 and 2010;
and 1.17% per annum between 2010 and 2020. However, the urban population is expected to
increase at the rate of 8.9% per annum in the years to 2010 and by 6.5% per annum between
2010 and 2020.
1.2
From these figures it can be seen that the cities and towns have experienced considerable
population growth during the past 15 years and will continue to grow due to natural population
increase and migration from the rural areas to the urban areas over the next 15 to 20 years. Most
of the migrants are classified as poor and many are unregistered. The migrants tend to settle in
areas with inadequate infrastructure and housing and a considerable backlog of unsatisfied
demand for urban infrastructure and services has built up. The continued urban population
growth creates further demand for all types of urban services and facilities including land,
housing, water supply, sanitation, drainage, solid waste management, roads, transport and social
infrastructure like schools and health centres. Most of the cities and towns have rapidly growing
population, and infrastructure and utility service investments are generally lagging behind
demand. Low-income areas have developed within urban areas and peripheries in an
uncontrolled and unplanned manner with little infrastructure and services. This has created, and
is continuing to create, environmental and health hazards for their residents and the cities and
towns at large. New, innovative and low cost approaches are thus required to address Vietnam’s
increasing urban development challenges.
1.3
This TOR is concerned with the 95 Class IV and above cities and towns throughout Vietnam
shown on the map in Annex 1. The cities and towns are categorised into five classes1, based
mainly on population size, plus Hanoi, the capital, and Ho Chi Minh, the largest city, in a separate
special category. The numbers of cities and towns in each class are:
Special Class: 2 (Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh)
National Cities (Class 1 Cities): 3 (Hai Phong, Da Nang and Hue);
Regional Cities (Class 2 Cities): 142
3
Provincial Cities (Class 3 Cities): 38
District Towns (Class 4 Towns): 38.
1.4
Spill over in the urban fringe area is a consequence of rapid urbanisation. In Vietnam, the
phenomenon of high population growth rate transpires in the newly established urban districts.
Informal construction and creation of informal settlement has also become prevalent in the
peripheral districts since land is scarce and land prices are high and house rent in the inner city is
very high. Many people also opted to live in the urban fringe where land is available, cheaper and
regulation is lax.
1
Decree 72/2001/ND-CP classifies urban centres based on urban character, percentage of non-agricultural labor, infrastructure,
population and population density.
2
The 13 Class II cities under the provinces are: Viet Tri, Thai Nguyen, Nam Dinh, Ha Long, Nha Trang, Quy Nhon, Da Lat, Buon Ma
Thuot, Thanh Hoa, Vinh, Bien Hoa, Vung Tau and, My Tho. Can Tho is also Class II but under the central government.
3
The 33 Class III cities/towns are composed of: Cẩm Phả, Hải Dương,Thái Bình, Móng Cái, Phủ Lý, Hà Đông, Sơn Tây, Hưng Yên,
Ninh Bình, Long Khánh, Thủ Dầu Một, Bà Rịa, Đồng Hới, Tam Kỳ, Quảng Ngãi, Hội An, Bắc Ninh, Bắc Giang, Lạng Sơn, Vĩnh Yên,
Lào Cai, Yên Bái, Điện Biên Phủ, Hoà Bình, Hà Tĩnh, Tuy Hoà, Phan Thiết, Phan Rang - Tháp Chàm, Pleiku, Kon Tum, Long
Xuyên, Cà Mau, Rạch Giá, Bac Liêu, Cao Lãnh, Sóc Trăng, Trà Vinh and Vĩnh Long.
1/11
1.5
Vietnam lost an annual average of 10,000 hectares of agricultural land due to peri-urban
development. Hanoi is recorded to have lost an average of 268 hectares of rural land annually
due to land conversion. Annex 2 show the extent of land projected to become built-up in selected
30 cities and towns by 2020. On the average, a city built-up area will grow by 14 km2 by 2020.
Based on its annual population growth rate for the past 5 years, the ward area of Danang, Can
Tho and Thu Dau Mot will not be sufficient to accommodate the projected population by 2020.
This would consequently lead to peri-urban development. Hue, Viet Tri and Son Tay are also
expected to have urban expansion as a result of growing population which may not be
accommodated within the existing ward area.
1.6
Whether or not the cities adopt a high density policy by allowing high-rise development to
accommodate the growing population, the natural environment is unavoidably affected. Likewise,
growth of residential construction at the peri-urban areas of the cities will have impact on the
environment. Cities and towns with environmentally critical or crucial soil like the mountainous
areas and coastal areas with high liquefaction are vulnerable to environmental catastrophe.
1.7
In many cities the peri-urban growth is taking place in unplanned and uncontrolled manner and
there is an urgent need to develop systematic approach to urban expansion. In 2008 with
assistance of the World Bank (WB) and Japan Policy and Human Resource Development
(JPHRD) unit, the National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Overall Investment Plan for Urban
Upgrading to 2020 (NUUP 2020) was prepared. The NUUP sets the goals, targets and
investment cost for urban upgrading to improve the living standards and environmental conditions
by upgrading the basic infrastructures and essential municipal services to provide access to
facilities, particularly the urban poor. The NUUP also provides an assessment of the peri-urban
planning needs with respect to the following: 1) Major issues caused by peri-urban growth with
regard to infrastructure, services and housing provision, particularly with regard to low income
areas; 2) Institutional and regulatory weaknesses of current planning, development control
arrangements in peri-urban areas (SWOT analysis); 3) Current policies/procedures for converting
rural land to urban land, their weaknesses and critical areas where improvement to
policies/procedures is necessary; 4) Current institutional arrangements and weaknesses in the
current management arrangements in peri-urban areas; and 5) Strengths, weaknesses and
opportunities for addressing peri-urban growth in City Development Strategies (CDS).
1.8
The Government of Vietnam is seeking assistance with the preparation of Peri-Urban Area
Development Plan to enhance the work of NUUP. This Outline Terms of Reference describes
scope of work, inputs, outputs and associated activities. The assignment requires the services of
an International Consulting Firm in association with a National Consulting Firm (referred to as the
“Consultants”) to mobilise a multi-disciplinary group of consultants to carry out the assignment.
The PMU, its Advisors, MOC and other relevant Ministries and the World Bank will review
progress on the preparation of the guidelines at key stages.
1.9
Peri-Urban Development Planning, as an offshoot of the National Urban Upgrading Programme
(NUUP), is concerned with the 95 cities and towns of Class 1 to 4 and the Special Cities. The
classification of the cities and towns is dynamic and there is a tendency for reclassification
upwards at frequent intervals as the population grows. Much of the growth is due to migration
from rural areas but towns can also grow by merging with nearby towns or absorbing adjacent
rural villages and communes into the urban area. In most towns the urbanised area is limited to
the inner wards and the outer parts of the administrative area remain rural in character.
SECTION 2 - OBJECTIVES OF PLANNING FOR PERI-URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREAS AND FOR
THE ASSIGNMENT
2.1
The overall objectives of planning for peri-urban area development, as articulated in the NUUP,
are to:
a) Prepare, in the context of the City Development Strategy (CDS), plans for peri-urban area
development that will enable cities to grow and expand. The peri-urban area development
plans will include land use and land management plans, zoning ordinances and infrastructure
investment plan for primary, secondary and tertiary levels of essential utilities and services.
b) Promote orderly urban growth and expansion in the peri-urban areas that contribute to
poverty alleviation by providing access to good living and environmental condition for the
poor.
c) Promote participatory planning methods for peri-urban development which is responsive to
the needs of the people.
2/11
d) For the new peri-urban development areas, provide plans for new tertiary level infrastructure
that is integrated on a multi-sector, area-wide basis and the necessary primary and
secondary infrastructure to support the tertiary level.
The specific objectives are to provide guidelines for local government units to enable them to
prepare and implement their:
City Development Strategy
Land Use Plan and Land Management Plans
Zoning Ordinance
Local Peri-Urban Area Development Plans
Infrastructure Development Plans
Residential Area Development Plan.
2.2
The objectives of the assignment are to:
a). Identify the current status of urban plan preparation and the need for improved urban
planning techniques and procedures among the 95 cities and towns of Class IV and higher,
particularly with respect to: (i) city development strategy; (ii) land use plans; (iii) zoning
ordinance; (iv) local peri-urban area development plan; (v) infrastructure development plans;
and (vi) residential area development plans.
b). Analyse the existing urban policies, laws, regulations, circulars and make recommendations
for an improved, coordinated and integrated framework of urban planning policy and
regulation.
c). Analyse the existing institutional structure for urban planning at the national and local levels
and make recommendations for the improved, coordinated and integrated institutional
framework with clearly defined areas of responsibility and decision-making authority for the
national and local planning agencies.
d). Develop detailed urban planning guidelines to assist national and local planning agencies to
prepare: (i) city development strategy; (ii) land use plans; (iii) zoning ordinance; (iv) local
peri-urban area development plan; (v) infrastructure development plans; and (vi) residential
area development plans.
e). Identify 10 priority cities and towns that are experiencing rapid urban growth and expansion
through peri-urban area development, and through application of the urban planning
techniques, methods and procedures developed under this study, assist them to prepare, as
appropriate, city specific: (i) city development strategy; (ii) land use plans; (iii) zoning
ordinance; (iv) local peri-urban area development plan; (v) infrastructure development plans;
and (vi) residential area development plans.
SECTION 3 – CLIENT’S AGENCIES AND STUDY METHODOLOGY
3.1
The executive agency for the technical assistance is the Ministry of Construction (MOC). The
MOC will establish the Programme Management Unit to be responsible for the day-to-day
management of the technical assistance. The Consultant will report to the PMU. In carrying out
the assignments the Consulting Firm will need to liaise with various other departments of MOC,
provincial and city authorities and relevant donors. Important contacts include:
• For infrastructure generally, the Urban Technical and Infrastructure Department of MOC
and the Architecture and Planning Department of MOC
• Other relevant agencies to be consulted include Department of Planning and Statistics,
International Cooperation Department (MOC), functional departments of MOC, MPI,
MONRE, MARD, MOT, MOI and the World Bank.
3.2
In developing the guidelines, it will not be possible for the consultants to visit and talk to officials
and representatives of community groups in all 95 cities and towns and 64 provinces of Vietnam.
However it is envisaged that about 25 cities/towns (Class 4 and above) across the country will be
visited and studied in more depth to provide a representative sample (about 25%). Provincial, city
and district officials and utility company/department officials should generally be interviewed. The
cities/towns should be rapidly urbanising, lacking properly prepared urban development plans,
have acute poverty and infrastructure deficiencies and should not be receiving many other related
investment projects. The selected cities and towns should include those of differing typology
(e.g. low lying, coastal, mountainous, old, newer etc). They should be selected in agreement with
the PMU. The consultants should develop simple criteria to assist in identification of priority
cities/towns for assistance in developing plan for peri-urban area development, for discussion and
3/11
agreement with MOC. Paragraph 6.2.3 of the TOR outlines factors to be considered in
developing and implementing the selection criteria.
3.3
The overall methodology for carrying out the main part of the study may thus be summarised as
follows:
i)
The consultants will carry out a desk study of all relevant data available on the status of
urban planning, plan preparation and capability and capacity for the 95 cities and towns and
update the overall database.
ii)
A total of about 25 towns will then be selected (i.e. by PMU and Consultants, others) for
visits, discussions and collection of more detailed, local data.
iii) From 95 cities and towns (class IV and above), 10 cities or towns will be selected for
provision of assistance in developing their city development strategy, land use plans, zoning
ordinance, local peri-urban area development plan, infrastructure development plans, and
residential area development plans to be initiated by the local authorities.
SECTION 4 – SCHEDULE
4.1
It is anticipated that the assignment will start in early 2009 and take about 18 months to complete.
The required areas of expertise and extent of inputs are indicated in Annex 3. The schedule for
delivery of outputs is included in Annex 4 of this contract. Refer to Annex 5 for the Tentative Work
Schedule.
SECTION 5 - PRINCIPLES AND FRAMEWORK FOR PERI-URBAN DEVELOPMENT
5.1
The most important principle is the active participation by the key stakeholders in all stages of
guidelines preparation and implementation. The involvement of the local authorities, NGOs and
mass organisations should also be encouraged to assist communities in the participatory
exercise envisaged in the process.
5.2
A multi-disciplinary, rather than a strictly sectoral approach will be adopted i.e. including, for
example, socio-economic planning, physical planning (land use, infrastructure, environmental),
institutional planning and development control. Experience shows that the various sectoral
groups representing the different stakeholders at the local level, if organised and involved in the
planning process, enhance the appropriateness of interventions, foster ownership and sustained
support for plan implementation. Planning when undertaken in a comprehensive, integrated and
rational manner is more effective. It also creates a highly visible and rapid impact. It also ensures
continuous flow of gains and benefits.
5.3
The lessons learned from past upgrading projects, particularly the VUUP pilot cities’ sub-projects,
shall be taken into consideration in the planning process. The consultants will also examine
international best practice and apply what is appropriate to the Vietnam situation.
5.4.
Planning standards, service levels and principles should be discussed with relevant departments
so that only appropriate functional standards are decided upon for the infrastructure planning and
land use planning. Infrastructure plans for Peri-Urban Area Development should provide new
infrastructure to appropriate functional standards that are affordable and responsive to
community demands.
5.5
Due account shall be taken of city or town master plans and local detailed area plans where they
exist, and these will be further developed, improved and refined. However, the local planning
process is best carried out gradually and incrementally.
5.6
Where necessary, complementary primary and secondary infrastructure should be identified in
the peri-urban area development plan to ensure the tertiary infrastructure at the community level
can function satisfactorily to meet the demands of the communities and ensure that these are
linked with improvements in the existing urban areas.
5.7
The consultants will assist the concerned national authorities in preparing the guidelines for: (i)
city development strategy; (ii) land use plans; (iii) zoning ordinance; (iv) local peri-urban area
development plan; (v) infrastructure development plans; and (vi) residential area development
4/11
plans. The plans will not only set out the physical layout and details of the proposed physical
interventions proposed, but will describe in detail the participation process, the community
organisations and urban management structures. During preparation of the guidelines, the
consultants will also work closely with NGOs and utility companies in addition to the communities.
The guidelines will be presented to appropriate authorities for proper coordination, review and
approval.
5.8
The consultants will assist the local authorities in developing the guidelines for the preparation of:
(i) city development strategy; (ii) land use plans; (iii) zoning ordinance; (iv) local peri-urban area
development plan; (v) infrastructure development plans; and (vi) residential area development
plans spearheaded by the local government. The guidelines will not only cover the physical
planning aspects but will describe in detail the participation process, the community organisations
and urban management structures. During plan preparation, the consultants will also work closely
with ward authorities, NGOs and the city infrastructure departments and utility companies in
addition to the communities. The local plans will be presented to the city or town authorities for
review and approval for funding.
SECTION 6 - SCOPE OF WORKS
6.1
The Consultant’s scope of works has been divided into 5 main tasks corresponding to the
assignment objectives. These tasks are:
A) Assess the need for improved peri-urban planning and development in order to minimise the
creation of new, informal, low income-areas of Class 4 and above cities/towns nationwide
B) Development of strategies for peri-urban development for inclusion in the revised Orientation
Urban Development Plan to 2030.
C) Develop guidelines for peri-urban area development planning, land use planning and zoning,
infrastructure planning and residential area development planning.
D) Develop regulatory instruments for peri-urban development land use planning and zoning,
infrastructure planning and residential area development planning.
E) Develop institutional arrangements for land use planning and zoning, peri-urban development
monitoring.
F) Develop monitoring strategies, enforcement mechanisms and communication plan.
The detailed requirements for each task are set out below.
6.2
Task A - Assess the need for improved peri-urban planning and development in order to
minimise the creation of new, informal, low income-areas of Class 4 and above
cities/towns nationwide
6.2.1
Identify, collect and study all previous relevant reports, documents, aerial photographs, maps,
including the Government’s revised Orientation for Urban Development to 2020; other relevant
government reports, policies and legislation regarding/affecting urban development and housing
particularly urban upgrading of low income areas; National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Overall
Investment Plan to 2020; Decree No. 08/2005/ND-CP (Construction Planning); Law on
Residential Housing (2005);National Orientation on Water Supply Development in Urban Areas
by 2020; Guidelines on the implementation of Law on Environmental Protection (2005); World
Bank and other multi-lateral and bilateral donors reports on urban infrastructure and/or CPRGS
initiatives.
6.2.2
Identify/confirm ongoing and proposed peri-urban development or related projects in cities and
towns.
6.2.3
Develop/modify simple criteria for identifying cities and towns for detailed study on peri-urban
development. The factors to be considered are:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Cities/Towns to be Class 4 and above
High rate of urbanisation (urban population change, including migration)
High level of agricultural land conversion to urban land
Significant infrastructure requirements
Areas with high environmental threat
Towns to include those of differing typology (e.g. low lying, coastal, hilly, old, newer)
Towns without prepared urban plans
5/11
In 1998 MOC carried out an exercise to identify areas that were urbanising rapidly and thus a
priority for construction development investment. This exercise, “Orientation for Urban
Development in Vietnam to 2020”, approved by the Prime Minister, divided the country into 10
“urbanisation regions” taking account of the physical development or lack of it. The Consultants
should consider selecting 2 cities/towns from each of these 10 urbanisation regions and at least
1 of the 6 economic regions to ensure adequate geographic spread. Cognizance should also be
taken of the document presented to the congress of the Communist Party in 2001 which divided
the country into 6 economic zones.
6.24
Prepare/modify data requirements to be collected from relevant ministries and agencies to assist
in identifying all towns and cities (Class 4 and above) with high requirements for peri-urban area
development;
6.2.4
Present a comprehensive data base on urban population, migration, households, housing units,
land use change, infrastructure need for new urban expansion areas of identified towns and cities
to assist in developing a prioritised program using the data gleaned by the national consultants.
6.2.5
From data gleaned from desk reviews and supported by city visits and sampling,
determine/update the peri-urban demand of the 95 cities and towns (Class IV and higher).
6.3
Task B - Development of strategies for peri-urban development for inclusion in the revised
Orientation Urban Development Plan to 2030.
6.3.1
Considering that the national government, through the Ministry of Construction is in the process
of updating the Master Orientation Plan for Urban Development to 2020, the consultants will
assist in developing strategies for peri-urban development for inclusion in the revised Orientation
Urban Development Plan to 2030.
6.3.2
The consultants will participate in activities concerning the revision of the Master Orientation Plan
for Urban Development to 2020, particularly on discussion concerning peri-urban development
issues.
6.4
Task C - Develop guidelines for peri-urban area development planning, land use planning
and zoning, infrastructure planning and residential area development planning).
6.4.1
From the above studies and field work develop/modify draft guidelines for discussion with all
relevant authorities at national, provincial and local government levels and with NGOs,
community groups and the private sector.
6.4.2
Prepare a report on the studies, data collected, feedback from workshops and develop and the
final draft Guidelines for: i) Comprehensive Land Use Planning and Zoning; ii) Peri-Urban Area
Development Planning; iii) Infrastructure Planning; and iv) Residential Area Development
Planning for approval of the appropriate authorities.
6.4.3
Prepare contents and programs of regional and national consultation workshops to present the
guidelines for comprehensive land use planning and zoning and local consultation workshops to
present the city/town land use plan, zoning and plan for urban expansion areas for consideration
and inclusion in the local development plan.
6.5
Task D - Develop regulatory instruments for peri-urban development, land use planning
and zoning, infrastructure planning, residential area development planning
6.5.1
Review relevant reports, legislation etc. affecting/related to peri-urban development, land use
planning and zoning.
6.5.2
Study experiences to date on implementation of urban upgrading projects including the
experience to date of the four cities participating in the VUUP1 and 8 cities participating in the
VUUP2. Following the lessons learned of the VUUP pilot cities and towns, propose other models
and tools (if deemed necessary) for physical and non-physical interventions.
6.5.3
In a sample of 25 cities and towns with new urban expansion areas, carry out further surveys and
investigations and hold discussions with local officials and community groups, NGOs etc. to
broaden the understanding of peri-urban development and to assist in drafting guidelines or
6/11
regulation for peri-urban area development, land use planning and zoning activities, including
land conversion.
6.5.4
Prepare contents and programs of regional and national consultation workshops to present the
regulatory framework for land use planning and zoning and local consultation workshops to
present the city/town land use plan, zoning and plan for urban expansion areas for consideration
and inclusion in the local development plan.
6.5.5
Assist selected 10 cities and towns in the preparation of their city development strategy, land use
plan, zoning and peri-urban area development plan, infrastructure plan and residential area plan
for consideration and inclusion in the Local Development Plan.
6.6
Task E - Develop institutional arrangements for land use planning and zoning, peri-urban
development monitoring
6.6.1
Whereas the development of a national program (overall investment plan) is being managed at
the central level, the actual city/town investment projects will be subsequently planned, designed
and implemented in detail by provincial and/or city authorities with government assistance
dependent on the Class of city/town, all in accordance with the “Grass Roots Democracy
Decree”. Central government, from which part of the funding would be required, will have a role
in oversight and overall monitoring, coordination and evaluation of the NUUP.
6.6.2
The Consultants will thus propose institutional arrangements for project investment preparation,
management, implementation including defining linkages, dependencies for decision making,
management, funds flows, procurement, approvals etc from central government (e.g. MOF, MPI,
MOC, MONRE) through province/city/town/small town People’s Committees down to grass roots
level (e.g. community groups, ward and/or district authorities). It is envisaged that a significant
multi-disciplinary, capacity building component of the investment plan, at different levels of
government, will be required and the consultants should develop such a component. This will
consist of longer term capacity building/institutional strengthening initiatives as well as
implementation support for the city plans themselves.
6.6.3
A regulatory framework/mechanism for land use planning and zoning will be prepared for
inclusion in the guidelines and local zoning ordinances.
6.7
Task E - Develop a monitoring strategies, enforcement strategies and communication
plan
6.7.1
The consultants will propose monitoring and enforcement strategies to ensure that peri-urban
goals and objectives are achieved and that regulations for peri-urban development are enforced.
6.7.2
In particular, the consultants will provide framework for incentive and penalties for ensuring that
peri-urban development are in accordance with existing laws and policies.
6.7.3
The consultants will provide Communication Action Plan for information and education of
communities on the guidelines for peri-urban development planning and the local plans to be
implemented.
7/11
Annex 1
MAP : Location of Urban Centres by Province and Economic Region
8/11
Annex 2 – EXISTING AND PROJECTED BUILT-UP AREA OF SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS
Cities/Towns Region Class
Hai Phong
2
1
Da Nang
3
1
Hue
3
1
Can Tho
6
2
Bien Hoa
5
2
Buon Ma Thuot
4
2
Viet Tri
1
2
Ca Mau
6
3
Cao Lanh
6
3
Dien Bien Phu
1
3
Dong Hoi
3
3
Hai Duong
2
3
Hoa Binh
6
3
Lang Son
1
3
Mong Cai
2
3
My Tho
6
3
Ninh Binh
2
3
Phan Thiet
3
3
Quang Ngai
3
3
Soc Trang
6
3
Son Tay
2
3
Thai Binh
2
3
Cam Ranh
3
4
Cao Bang
1
4
Kon Tum
4
4
Phu Ly
2
4
Thu Dau Mot
5
4
Vi Thanh
6
4
Tra Vinh
6
4
Total
Average
Ward
Population
2005
613,017
607,879
263,070
507,647
505,595
202,918
97,352
120,440
81,266
44,054
65,961
131,524
69,850
52,000
27,283
140,224
83,706
145,552
116,357
124,049
47,005
103,325
90,897
35,356
82,924
45,948
110,895
41,577
79,066
4,636,737
159,887
Ward
Ward
Built-Up
Built-Up
Population Area km2
Area km2 Area km2
2020
2005
2005
2020
718,555
159.72
73
84.98
854,308
204.97
170
238.92
351,160
26.98
20
26.85
1,189,585
295.57
156
365.56
684,631
134.86
76
103.05
234,308
101.50
33
38.27
132,078
26.79
18
24.01
163,623
40.70
15
20.91
93,726
30.20
7
8.30
71,089
34.86
10
16.70
78,492
55.85
32
37.82
23.34
9
14.74
205,544
83,205
132.75
18
21.10
57,799
11.79
9
9.66
34,237
28.22
5
6.30
163,315
17.68
7
8.55
102,053
16.98
16
18.93
181,491
71.21
21
25.86
153,104
24.43
13
17.68
151,783
76.15
3
3.92
55,905
9.74
8
8.98
115,558
12.86
7
8.24
28.70
113,415
58.16
23
48,544
22.86
7
9.94
113,939
45.94
14
18.96
57,030
6.79
4
5.34
149,070
30.86
27
36.44
50,500
36.37
18
22.32
99,654
29.07
12
14.66
6,507,701
1,767
831.75
1,246
224,403
60.94
28.68
42.95
Built-up Area
Increase (2005- % Increase of
2020)
Built-Up Area
12.48
68.92
6.74
209.56
26.95
5.13
6.31
5.52
1.10
6.35
6.04
5.31
3.39
0.97
1.28
1.21
3.40
5.12
4.24
0.72
1.43
0.87
5.70
2.70
5.16
1.04
9.33
3.94
3.03
414
14.27
17.22
40.54
33.49
134.33
35.41
15.47
35.67
35.85
15.33
61.37
19.00
56.28
19.12
11.15
25.49
16.47
21.92
24.69
31.58
22.36
18.93
11.84
24.77
37.30
37.40
24.12
34.42
21.46
26.04
909.02
31.35
Remaining
Non-BuiltUp 2020
74.74
(33.95)
0.13
(69.99)
31.81
63.23
2.78
19.79
21.90
18.16
18.03
8.60
111.65
2.13
21.92
9.13
(1.95)
45.35
6.75
72.23
0.76
4.62
29.46
12.92
26.98
1.45
(5.58)
14.05
14.41
521.52
17.98
Annex 3 – INPUTS
Expertise
A. INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS
1. Project Manager/Urban Development Specialist
2. Urban Planning Specialist
3. Planning Policy and Regulation Specialist
4. Planning Institutions Specialist
5. Urban Infrastructure Specialist
Sub-Total
B. NATIONAL CONSULTANTS
1. Urban Planner/Deputy Project Manager
2. Land Use Planner
3. Social Specialist
4. Infrastructure Engineer
5. Legal/Institutional Specialist (Planning Legislation and Regulation)
6. Environmental Specialist
7. GIS Specialist
8. Autocad Specialist
9. Data Management Specialist
10.Research Assistants (6 persons x 6 months)
11.Support Staff (2 persons x 18 months)
Sub-Total
Total
Input
(person months)
12
12
6
6
6
42
18
12
12
12
6
6
18
18
18
36
36
42
234
9/11
Annex 4 - OUTPUTS
Reports
1. Inception Report
2. Recommendations for Urban Planning Policy and
Regulations
3. Recommendations for Institutional Arrangements for Urban
Planning
4. Current Status of Urban Plan Preparation
5. Urban Planning Guidelines for:
a) City Development Strategy
b) Land Use Plan
c) Zoning Ordinance
d) Local Peri-Urban Area Development Plan
e) Infrastructure Development Plan
f) Residential Area Development Plan
6. City Specific Urban Plans for 10 Priority Cities
a) City Development Strategy
b) Land Use Plan
c) Zoning Ordinance
d) Local Peri-Urban Area Development Plan
e) Infrastructure Development Plan
f) Residential Area Development Plan
7. Project Completion Report
Months after the start
Draft
Final
1.5
3
6
3
6
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
12
12
12
12
12
12
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
18
10/11
Annex 5 - TIME SCHEDULE FOR PERSONNEL
Position
Months
1
A.
2
3
2009
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2010
13
14
15
16
17
18
Number of
Months
INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS
1
Project Manager/Urban Development Specialist
12.00
2
Urban Planning Specialist
12.00
3
Planning Policy and Regulation Specialist
6.0
4
Planning Institution Specialist
6.0
5
Urban Infrastructure Specialist
6.0
B. NATIONAL CONSULTANTS
1
Urban Planner/Deputy Project Manager
18.0
2
Land Use Planner
12.0
3
Social Specialist
12.0
4
Infrastructure Engineer
12.0
5
Institutional/Legal Specialist
6.0
6
Environmental Specialist
6.0
7
GIS Specialist
18.0
8
Autocad Specialist
18.0
9
Database Specialist
18.0
C. RESEARCH STAFF
1
Research Assistant 1
2
6.0
6.0
3
6.0
4
6.0
5
6.0
6
6.0
D. SUPPORT STAFF
2
Bilingual Secretary
3
Clerk
18.0
18.0
Total (B)
Reports
Inception
1st Report
2nd Report
3rd Report
Draft Final
234.0
Final
Surveys
Workshops
National Workshop
2nd National Workshop
Full Time
ri-Urban Area Development Plan to 2020
3 Regional Workshops
Final National Workshop

national urban upgrading program

Transcription

Similar documents

Catalog – Power Tools 2012

BIEN DONG DAN SO tieng anh.indd