RELATIVE IMPORTANCE INDEX

OF SUSTAINABLE HOUSING
TECHNIQUES/PARAMETERS IN
THE PERSPECTIVE OF HOUSING
INHABITANTS AND INDUSTRY
PROFESSIONALS
PREPARED BY:
TELAN, JON ARNEL S.
POSO, FLORANTE D. JR.
ALIGNAY, ADRIAN G.
CONSOLACION, DON P.
SALMORIN, AR-JAY A.
TINGZON, STEPHEN I.
BACKGROUND
OF
THE
STUDY
 ● Philippines is one of the world’s most densely
populated countries.

● Metro Manila, a region comprising 16 cities and one

municipality, is expected to remain dominant and
absorb more people into its periphery.
BACKGROUND
OF THE STUDY ● Housing has received increasing attentions from
economic, social, and environmental factors here in
the Philippines.

● Republic Act No. 1120, the recently passed law

creating the Department of Human Settlements and
Urban Development (DHSUD), also highlights the
need to provide affordable housing.
 • According to a report conducted by the University
of Asia and the Pacific, the total housing need
estimates about 6.7 million units, a number that is
BACKGROUND
expected to rise to a staggering 12.3 million units
OF THE STUDY by 2030.
 • Sustainable development in affordable housing seeks to
achieve the three main goals.

• Several studies have analytically investigated the critical

success factors by the inclusion of various determinants
BACKGROUND of the respondent’s satisfaction as well as employing the
OF THE STUDY Relative Importance Index (RII) for ranking the
importance of the identified determinants based on the
respondent’s perception.

• Non-profit and non-governmental organizations are also

available to collaborate and support the sustainable
housing movement.
SIGNIFICANCE
OF THE STUDY
 • This study offered Critical Success Factors which
could be the main suggestive policies options to both
developers and policymakers in the Philippines for
efficient utilization of resources so that stakeholders,
SIGNIFICANCE households, and developers, could be better served.

OF THE STUDY
• Future studies could be benefited on establishing
relationships between the Critical Success Factors and
Critical Success Criteria for sustainable affordable
housing in the Philippines.
OBJECTIVES OF
THE STUDY
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
● To conduct a Relative Importance Index based on the Critical Success Factors
when building sustainable housing under the economic, environment, and
social criteria

● To differentiate the Critical Success Factors for sustainable housing based on

different stakeholder perspectives in the Philippines, namely, the Housing
Inhabitants and the Industry Professionals

● To identify the inclusion of the Critical Success Factors on the housing

programs in the Philippines
CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK
INPUT PROCESS
• Survey • Relative Importance
questionnaire Index of Critical Success
results using Factors in the Economic,
Likert scale Environment, and Social
criteria
• Analysis and comparison
of highest ranked Critical
Success Factor (of each
criteria) of the
inhabitants and
professionals
OUTPUT
• Perspectives of
inhabitants and
professionals by
analyzing highest
ranked Critical Success
Factors of each
• Incorporation of
highest ranked Critical
Success Factors in the
housing programs in
the Philippines
 FACTORS
AFFECTING
SUSTAINABLE
HOUSING
ECONOMIC
ECONOMIC

● Housing was a significant percentage of both household and public expenditure, and if it
was unaffordable, it would have generated various socio-economic issues. Affordability of
Housing Supply, Ensuring Balanced Housing Markets through Affordable Tenure Choices,
and Mobilizing Savings and Domestic Finance were fundamental economic factors that
needed particular attention from sustainable affordable housing policies in developing
countries according to O. Golubchikov and A. Badyina.
MONTHLY RENT PERCENTAGE
OF MONTHLY INCOME
• Spending too much of a person’s salary on monthly rental payments could cause
the person to fall short on other expenses, debt payment, or achieving financial
goals. The 30% rule was a traditional way of calculating how much of a person’s
income should be spent on rent. In layman’s terms, the 30% rule stated that a
person’s monthly housing expenses did not exceed 30% of his or her gross
monthly income.
HOUSING FINANCE INSTITUTION IN THE
PHILIPPINES
• Housing finance institutions enable domestic financial mobilization was an
Importance of Affordable Housing Activities for Economic Development
according to O. Golubchikov and A. Badyina

• When it came to housing loans, the Housing Development Mutual Fund

(HDMF) also known as the Pag-IBIG Fund, was one of the most well-known
and common options.
HOUSING FINANCE INSTITUTION IN THE
PHILIPPINES
Pag-IBIG
• They offered financial support to members who were looking to buy a
house
• 6 million pesos was the maximum loanable sum of Pag-IBIG
• The monthly payments were as low P2,445.30 per month and terms as long
as 30 years.
COST OF TRANSPORTATION

• Cost of transportation was a significant cost factor that had been ignored when
determining affordability.

• Neighborhoods that tended to be affordable in terms of housing costs were

certainly not affordable when transportation costs were considered.

• As a result, an affordable house was not sustainable if transportation cost and

time were high. Because of the effects of transportation cost on the affordability
of housing, Commuting Cost from the Location of Housing to Public Facilities
Critical Success Criteria (CSC) was adapted from another study based on M.
Adabre and A. Chan
SOCIAL
TRANSPORT AND
FACILITIES

• According to O. Golubchikov
and A. Badyina , Transport and
Facilities are at the Intermediate
needs level of a conceptual
representation of the social
sustainability of housing by
Ancell and Thompson-Fawcett.
NEIGHBORHOOD
QUALITY

• The tertiary needs of the model

in Figure were investigated at
the neighborhood level in terms
of overall quality and
relationships. According to R.
Chiu and K. Williams, external
noise was the common problem
listed in the literature when it
came to neighborhood quality
RELATIONSHIPS IN THE
COMMUNITY

• Another important factor is how

residents feel about potential
intensification and growth in
their neighborhood. People are
worried about the possibility of
more restructuring.
• For various reasons, majority of
residents interviewed claimed
that they did not really know
their neighbors.
ENVIRONMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT

● Common standards and considerations in terms of housing’s environmental footprint and

resilience were the whole lifecycle of houses and Energy and resource efficiency. A strategy
to enhance housing’s environmental sustainability was to reduce housing’s environmental
footprint in terms of energy
ENERGY EFFICIENCY

● Energy efficient innovations that could be implemented to provide sustainable affordable

housing without making household shelter poor had been studied.
● According to L. Pérez-Lombard, the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
system was the most energy-consuming part of a housing facility when it comes to
mechanical components.
RANKING OF
SUCCESS
FACTORS
RANKING OF SUCCESS
FACTORS

• The adequate funding provision

and affordability under the
three factors (Social, Economic
and Environmental) were
ranked as the most critical
among the list of different SFs
RANKING OF SUCCESS FACTORS

● For social housing to be called sustainable it should be affordable, particularly through

adequate funding that has a direct linkage with adequate provision.
● Under the environmental, provision of infrastructure's services is ranked as fourth in overall
ranking of CFSs.
● The economic CSFS shows that the average cumulative ranking of respondents ranked as
the highest.
METHODOLOGY
DATA GATHERING

• The instrument that the researchers used was a Likert scale-type survey through two
Google Forms, one for housing inhabitants and the other for industry professionals.

• The surveys were composed of three criteria: Economic, Environment, and Social.

• The surveys were sent to the housing inhabitants and industry professionals as target
respondents of the research.
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE INSTRUMENT

• Twenty (20) people were surveyed and the results were analyzed using Cronbach’s
Alpha formula;

𝐾𝑟
∝=
1+ 𝐾−1 𝑟
 SLOVIN’S FORMULA 𝑛=
𝑁
1 + 𝑁(𝑒 2 )
162
𝑛=
• Slovin’s Formula was used to determine 1 + 162(0.12 )
the suitable sample size from the total 𝑛 = 61.832 or 62 sample size for the
second researcher.
population.
For Housing Inhabitants:
Sample size total of 127 for the housing
inhabitants
𝑁
𝑛= For Industry Professionals:
1 + 𝑁(𝑒 2 )
185 𝑁
𝑛= 𝑛=
1 + 185(0.12 ) 1 + 𝑁(𝑒 2 )
132
𝑛 = 64. 912 or 65 sample size for the first 𝑛=
1 + 132(0.12 )
researcher. 𝑛 = 56.897 or 57 total sample size for the
industry professionals
SPSS SOFTWARE

● SPSS or Statistical Package for the Social Sciences is used for interactive, or batched,
statistical analysis.

● It is an extremely powerful tool for manipulating and deciphering survey data.

● set up and import designated variable names, variable types, titles, and value labels,
meaning that minimal legwork is required from researchers.
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE INDEX

• Relative importance index is employed as a statistical tool to rank the critical

success factors. Relative importance index is used to measure the significance of
different factors by ranking.

● The following formula is used for computing relative importance index:

σ𝑊
𝑅𝐼𝐼 % = ∗ 100 0 ≤ RII ≤ 1000
𝐴∗𝑁
W – the weight given to each attribute by the respondents ranging from 1-9.
A – the maximum weight
N – the total number of participants
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE INDEX

• It was also computed for each cause of the problem and the most significant
cause that was formulated in each criteria of the survey was identified.
RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
 4.1. Relative Importance Index – Housing Inhabitants
Critical Success Factor Frequency Relative Importance
ECONOMIC for Sustainable Housing 1 - VU 2 - SU 3-N 4 - SI 5 - VI Index
Rank

EC1 1 1 37 37 51 0.814 14
EC1.1 0 2 14 51 60 0.866 7
• For the Housing Inhabitants group, the EC1.2
EC1.3
0
1
6
2
30
18
42
58
49
48
0.811
0.836
15
11
highest rank was EC2.2. EC2 0 1 10 39 77 0.902 3
EC2.1 0 0 18 33 76 0.891 4
• “Housing Assistance for calamity EC2.2 0 0 11 33 83 0.913 1
EC2.3 1 4 18 43 61 0.850 8
victims affected by typhoons, EC3 0 1 13 43 70 0.887 5
EC3.1 0 1 19 58 49 0.844 10
landslides, earthquake, fires, and other EC3.2 0 1 9 40 77 0.904 2

natural calamities for relocation to EC4

EC4.1
0
0
2
5
12
20
44
53
69
49
0.883
0.830
6
12
safe areas.” EC5
EC5.1
0
0
1
1
19
29
55
48
52
49
0.849
0.828
9
13
• Highest Rank with RII value of 0.913.
 4.1. Relative Importance Index – Housing Inhabitants
Critical Success Factor Frequency Relative Importance
Rank
ENVIRONMENT for Sustainable Housing 1 - VU 2 - SU 3-N 4 - SI 5 - VI Index
EN6 0 2 13 44 68 0.880 4
• For the Housing Inhabitants group, the EN6.1
EN7
0
0
0
0
22
12
39
39
66
76
0.869
0.901
7
3
highest rank was EN10.2. EN7.1 0 0 29 42 56 0.843 10
EN8 0 0 20 55 52 0.850 9
• Identifying waste/garbage that can be EN8.1
EN8.2
0
0
0
3
18
17
46
35
63
72
0.871
0.877
6
5
reused and/or recycled for proper EN9 0 0 17 52 58 0.865 8
EN9.1 1 3 28 43 52 0.824 11
disposal. EN9.2 0 4 32 53 38 0.797 15
EN9.3 2 4 26 50 45 0.808 14
• Highest Rank with RII value of 0.918 EN9.4 0 3 28 52 44 0.816 13
EN9.5 2 6 40 45 34 0.762 16
EN10 1 2 27 51 46 0.819 12
EN10.1 0 0 10 40 77 0.906 2
EN10.2 0 0 10 32 85 0.918 1
 4.1. Relative Importance Index – Housing Inhabitants
Critical Success Factor Frequency Relative Importance
SOCIAL for Sustainable Housing 1 - VU 2 - SU 3-N 4 - SI 5 - VI Index
Rank

SO11 1 5 21 35 65 0.849 8
• For the Housing Inhabitants group, SO11.1 0 2 14 45 66 0.876 5
SO12 0 0 3 16 108 0.965 1
the highest rank was SO12 SO12.1 0 2 22 47 56 0.847 9
SO13 0 7 25 47 48 0.814 11
• Safety in the neighborhood” for the SO13.1 1 1 30 45 50 0.824 10
SO14 0 0 20 47 60 0.863 7
housing inhabitants SO14.1 0 0 16 41 70 0.885 4
SO14.2 0 0 7 24 96 0.940 2
• Highest Rank with RII value of SO14.3 0 0 11 38 78 0.906 3
SO14.4 0 1 21 35 70 0.874 6
0.965
 4.1. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE INDEX - INDUSTRY
PROFESSIONALS
Critical Success Factor Frequency Relative Importance
ECONOMIC for Sustainable Housing 1 - VU 2 - SU 3-N 4 - SI 5 - VI Index
Rank

EC1 1 1 10 23 22 0.825 12
• For the industry professional’s EC1.1 1 0 8 23 25 0.849 7
EC1.2 1 5 17 22 12 0.737 15
stakeholder group, the highest rank was EC1.3 0 1 14 19 23 0.825 12
EC2.2 . EC2
EC2.1
0
0
1
2
11
6
8
15
37
34
0.884
0.884
3
3

• Housing Assistance for calamity EC2.2

EC2.3
0
0
0
2
6
12
8
16
43
27
0.930
0.839
1
9
victims affected by typhoons, EC3
EC3.1
0
0
1
1
12
11
22
20
22
25
0.828
0.842
11
8
landslides, earthquake, fires, and other EC3.2 0 0 8 13 36 0.898 2
EC4 0 1 12 20 24 0.835 10
natural calamities for relocation to safe EC4.1 1 3 10 18 25 0.821 14
areas. EC5
EC5.1
0
0
0
2
8
7
17
16
32
32
0.884
0.874
3
6

• Highest Rank with RII value of 0.930.

 4.1. Relative Importance Index - Industry
Professionals
Critical Success Factor Frequency Relative Importance
ENVIRONMENT for Sustainable Housing 1 - VU 2 - SU 3-N 4 - SI 5 - VI Index
Rank

EN6 0 1 6 18 32 0.884 5
• For the industry professional’s EN6.1 0 0 11 18 28 0.860 8
EN7 0 0 3 18 36 0.916 2
stakeholder group, the highest rank was EN7.1 0 4 12 20 21 0.804 13
EN10.1. EN8
EN8.1
1
0
1
1
5
2
25
21
25
33
0.853
0.902
9
4

• “Understanding the concepts related to EN8.2

EN9
0
0
3
1
14
7
14
17
26
32
0.821
0.881
11
6
waste management: waste/garbage, waste EN9.1
EN9.2
1
1
3
2
15
19
16
17
22
18
0.793
0.772
14
15
disposal, waste segregation, EN9.3 0 2 12 22 21 0.818 12
EN9.4 1 1 9 20 26 0.842 10
biodegradable, non-biodegradable, reuse, EN9.5 5 6 22 11 13 0.674 16
reduce, recycle” EN10
EN10.1
1
0
0
0
5
4
22
13
29
40
0.874
0.926
7
1

• Highest Rank with RII value of 0.926. EN10.2 0 1 6 9 41 0.916 2

 4.1. Relative Importance Index - Industry
Professionals
SOCIAL Critical Success Factor
for Sustainable Housing 1 - VU 2 - SU
Frequency
3-N 4 - SI 5 - VI
Relative Importance
Index
Rank

• For the industry professional’s

SO11 0 3 7 24 23 0.835 8
SO11.1 1 0 6 21 29 0.870 4

stakeholder group, the highest rank SO12

SO12.1
0
1
2
2
2
12
8
23
45
19
0.937
0.800
1
10
was SO12 SO13 0 4 12 19 22 0.807 9
SO13.1 0 4 14 17 22 0.800 10

• “Safety in the neighborhood” for SO14

SO14.1
0
0
0
2
6
5
26
20
25
30
0.867
0.874
6
3
the industry professionals. SO14.2 0 0 4 15 38 0.919 2
SO14.3 0 0 6 25 26 0.870 4
• The highest rank with an RII value SO14.4 0 0 10 19 28 0.863 7

of 0.937
4.2. RII COMPARISON - ECONOMIC

EC2.2 “Housing Assistance for calamity victims affected by typhoons, landslides,

earthquake, fires, and other natural calamities for relocation to safe areas”
• Highest rank for both stakeholder groups
• Philippines is a tropical country where typhoons occurring each year are normal.
• Housing assistance being readily available for calamity victims is the priority for
both stakeholder groups.
 4.2. RII Comparison - Economic
Housing Assistance for Calamity Victims program
• low-income and informal settler families for evacuation to safe
locations
• EC2.2
• public housing program in Hong Kong
- started in 1954 as financial aid for informal settler fire victims
• Producer-Subsidy system in Hong Kong
a. sufficient subsidized housing
b. Eligibility Net
- cannot afford rents (included)
- for individuals included (could afford rents)
 4.2. RII Comparison - Environment
EN10.2 “Identifying waste/garbage that
can be reused and/or recycled for proper
disposal”
• Highest rank for housing inhabitants
EN10.1 “Understanding the concepts
related to waste management:
waste/garbage, waste disposal, waste
segregation, biodegradable, non-
biodegradable, reuse, reduce, recycle”
• Highest rank for industry professionals
• more holistic approach to waste
management which is expected of them
- in addition to recycling only
4.2. RII Comparison - Environment

Environmental Health (EH)

• theory and practice of quantifying, modifying, limiting, and avoiding environmental
factors that can negatively impact the health of current and coming generations
(Frumkin, 2005)
• EH Pollution was the most significant factor in green building management in
Malaysia (Aghili et al., 2019).
 4.2. RII Comparison - Social
SO12 “Safety in the neighborhood”
• Highest rank for both stakeholder groups
• can be anticipated as it is in the human nature to seek
security to make sure of safety and survival
• Ultimate needs were evaluated at the neighborhood
level (Ancell and Thompson-Fawcett, 2008).
- overall quality
- relationships in the community
• Neighborhood quality
- external noise was the major issue (Chiu, 2003)
and (Williams, 2000)
- revealed through interviews at Christchurch
city in New Zealand that safety is also a key aspect
(Ancell and Thompson-Fawcett, 2008)
 4.3. HOUSING PROGRAMS IN THE PHILIPPINES -
ECONOMIC
• EC2.2 “Housing Assistance for calamity victims affected by typhoons, landslides, earthquake,
fires, and other natural calamities for relocation to safe areas”

• R.A. No. 10121 or "Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010“
a. supported the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management System
b. provided for the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework
(NDRRMF)
c. implemented the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP)
- relocated calamity victims to a place that is safe and houses can withstand impacts of
calamities
 4.3. Housing Programs in the Philippines -
Environment
R.A. No. 9003 or “Ecological Solid Waste
EN10.1
Management Act of 2000” “Understanding the
concepts related to
EN10.2 “Identifying waste management:
• made sure of public health and environment waste/garbage that Ecological waste/garbage,
Solid Waste
protection can be reused Management waste disposal,
and/or recycled for Act of 2000 waste segregation,
proper disposal” biodegradable,
• set guidelines and targets for avoiding and non-biodegradable,
reuse, reduce,
reducing volume of solid waste through source recycle”
reduction and waste minimization which included
composting, recycling, re-use, recovery, and
others, before being collected, treated, and
disposed of in environmentally sound solid waste
management facilities in accordance with
ecologically sustainable development principles
 4.3. Housing Programs in the Philippines - Social
SO12 “Safety in the neighborhood”

Barangay Tanod Chapter 4, Section 391, No. 16

of the Local Government Code
• Barangay Police Officers or Barangay Public
Safety Officers (BPSO) • authorized the Punong Barangay of the
• supervised by the Barangay Chairperson Sangguniang Barangay to provide for
the organization of community
• frontliners in the event of an emergency, brigades, Barangay tanod, or
public disorder, calamities, even disasters that community service units as needed, the
threatens the security of the barangay number of which in each barangay
• Mostly lightly armed with truncheons (or shall not exceed twenty (20)
batons), roam the barangay especially at
night to ensure peace and order
5. CONCLUSION
• The Relative Importance Index of the economic, environment, and social Critical
Success Factors were conducted, and CSFs of each criterion were ranked with 1 for
the highest RII value.

• Both stakeholder groups prioritized housing assistance for calamity victims which
had the highest-ranked CSF for the economic criteria. In the environment criteria,
the highest-ranked CSFs were identifying waste to be recycled for proper disposal
for the housing inhabitants and understanding concepts related to waste management
for the industry professionals. The housing inhabitants had a practical approach, and
a holistic approach for the industry professionals in waste management. In the social
criteria, both stakeholders had safety in the neighborhood as the priority.
5. CONCLUSION

• The industry professionals had a strong basis and awareness of the interests of the
housing inhabitants given that their CSFs matched which pointed to the transparency
and reliability of the housing implementations in the Philippines as could be stated
by the program and laws that directly involved EC2.2, and EN10.1 and EN10.2,
respectively.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS

• The researchers recommend to add the government in the stakeholder groups as

housing assistance for calamity victims was of the utmost concern in the economic
criteria for sustainable housing in the Philippines. The coordination between the
government and the private sector is an important aspect in the provision of
sustainable affordable housing.
END
THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING!