Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | National Benefits of Improved Sanitation and HygieneWhile this chapter reports the results from a survey conductedunder ESI, another similar survey conducted in2005 is noted briefly. As part of a survey of 8,300 touristson their perceptions of environment, sanitation and health,it was found that 74% considered Vietnam’s environmentto be clean and beautiful and 66% of respondents said thatthey were satisfied with the sanitation facility in their accommodation(Source: GSO, 2006).Table 39 presents the background characteristics of touristrespondents from the ESI survey. Among 300 touristsinterviewed, the highest percentage was visitors from NorthAmerica and Europe (49%), Australia and New Zealand(15%). However, Asian tourists are coming back to thecountry more often (making 2.4 previous trips), and stayingfor longer periods (130 days). This is because Vietnamreceives more businessmen and workers from Asian countrieswho may combine their business trip with tourism activities,while a greater proportion of visitors from otherregions come to Vietnam purely as tourists. Tourists preferto visit more than two places (62% – 71% among touristsfrom Asia, Australia and New Zealand, North America).Table 40 describes tourists’ assessment of tourist locations.General scores of 3 to 5 reflect a positive attitude towardVietnam. The highest scores are for historical/temple sites(4.0) and natural/forest sites (4.1). Most scores are similaramong tourists across different hotel cost brackets, travelingwithin Vietnam attracted high scores (4.0 and 4.1) fromtourists staying at hotels in the US$1-29 and US$150+ costbrackets. A possible reason for this is that tourists living in$1-29 hotels are mostly backpackers who do not considercomfort the most important factor of a good trip, whiletourists living in $150+ hotels are provided with luxuryservices and may not face many instances of poor sanitationand hygiene when traveling in Vietnam. For those fewtourists who gave a low score of 1 or 2, the main reasonsincluded traffic jams, no fixed price for foreigners, garbageeverywhere, irresponsible public security (police), dangerousroad crossings and air pollution.TABLE 39: BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTSVariable Asia Australia/NZNorth Americaand EuropeSouthAmericaNo. of tourists interviewed 76 45 146 33 300Average no. of previous trips to country (times) 2.4 0.8 1.6 0.2 1.5Average length of stay of this trip (days) 129.6 20.2 40.3 0.6 58.6All figures in Percentage (%)Gender (%) Male 52.6 42.2 61.0 39.4 53.7Female 47.4 57.8 39.0 60.6 46.3Purpose of visit (%) Tourist 48.7 77.8 78.1 100.0 73.0Business 51.3 22.2 21.9 0 27.0Hotel bracket (%)(nightly tariff in US$)Free1-29 34.2 46.7 45.9 3.0 38.330-59 19.7 35.6 32.2 3.0 26.360-89 18.4 0 8.2 0 8.790-119 21.1 11.1 8.2 0 11.0120-149 5.3 2.2 3.4 3.0 3.7150 + 1.3 4.4 2.0 90.9 12.0Total 100 100 100 100 100Places visited North 32.9 15.6 18.5 0 19.7Central 0 0 2.7 0 1.3South 5.3 13.3 11.0 63.6 15.7> 1 place 61.8 71.1 67.8 36.4 63.3Total 100 100 100 100 100www.wsp.org67Total