1 Department of Environmental Science, SaiGon University;

2 Department of Environmental Science, SaiGon University;

3 Department of Construction, The People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam;

*Corresponding author:; Tel.: +84−938914769


Research on people's evaluations and expectations for the living environmental quality has been conducted by many studies. In Vietnam, assessing people's opinions about the quality of the living environment, especially in densely areas, are still limited. However, people's judgments about the quality of the living environment have been considered as one of the assessing methods for the regional environmental protection results, approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment in 2019. Therefore, this research was carried out to provide the evaluation and expectations of the people about the quality of their living environment in District 1, Ho Chi Minh City. The study used Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), a multivariate evaluation method, to group the surveyed answers that best express the respondents' evaluations and expectations. From 07 proposed groups and 26 initial variables, the analysis results have been reduced to 3 evaluation groups with 18 variables; and 2 expectation groups with 18 variables. The analysis results of influencing factors including age, survey’s location, and gender showed that although there is no difference in the two groups of gender, the age groups and respondents of 10 wards of District 1 revealed significantly different answers. The results of this pilot evaluation can therefore be applied as a premise to expand more in−depth studies on a larger scale and broader scope, and also an important reference for managers in designing regional environmental management options and plans, particularly in terms of age and location.


Cite this paper

Thu, N.T.M.; Hang, N.T.T.; Hai, P.T. Application of Exploratory Factor Analysis on assessment of the community – based survey on environmental quality in Distric 1, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. VN J. Hydrometeorol. 2022, 13, 90-104. 


1. World Health Organization WHO. WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life, 2021. Available online:

2. European Union EU. Quality of life: Facts and views. Luxembourg, 2015, 268p.

3. Murgas, F.; Klobucnik, M. Quality of life in the city, Quality of urban life or well−being in the city: Conceptualization and case study. Sciendo 2018, 37(2), 183−200.

4. Alibegović, D.J.; de Villa, Ž.K. The role of urban indicators in city management: a proposal for Croatian cities. Transition Studies Rev. 2008, 15, 63–80.

5. Wang, H.; Zou, X.; Lai, K.; Luo, W.; He, L. Does Quality of Life Act as a Protective Factor against Believing Health Rumors? Evidence from a National Cross−Sectional Survey in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4669.

6. Seashore, S.E.Al. Indicators of environmental quality and quality of life. United Nations Educational. Scientific and Cultural Organization, France. 1978, ISBN: 92-3-101539-7.

7. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy YCELP Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). 2005.

8. Organisation for Economic Co−operation and Development OECD. OECD Key Environmental Indicators. Paris, France, 2008. 

9. Dalia, S. Comparative assessment of environmental indicators of quality of life in Romania and Lithuania. Econ. Sociol. 2014, 7(1), 11−21.

10. Dalia, S. Environmental indicators for the assessment of quality of life. Intellectual Econ. 2015, 9, 67−79.

11. Chiara, G.; Valentina, M.P. Evaluating Urban Quality: Indicators and Assessment Tools for Smart Sustainable Cities. Sustainability 2018, 10, 575.

12. Vanessa, K.S. Amaury Labenne, and Tina Rambonilaza. Using ClustOfVar to Construct Quality of Life Indicators for Vulnerability Assessment Municipality Trajectories in Southwest France from 1999 to 2009. Soc. Indic. Res. 2017, 131, 973–997.

13. Rafael, M.; Mohammad, K.; Najjar, A.; Hammad, W.A.; Assed, H.; Elaine, V. Urban Development Index (UDI): A Comparison between the City of Rio de Janeiro and Four Other Global Cities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 823.

14. Musa, P.; Saeed, Z.S.; Niloofar, K.; Sirio, C.; Matteo, C.; Luca, S. Factors Underlying Life Quality in Urban Contexts: Evidence from an Industrial City (Arak, Iran). Sustainability 2020, 12, 2274.

15. Arif, A.; Muhammad, A.; Alias, B.A.; Ihtisham, A.M.; Anwar, K.; Tengku, A.A.T.H.; Faridullah, M.M.K.; Hina, Z.; Khalid, Z. Environmental quality indicators and financial development in Malaysia: unity in diversity. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 8392–8404.

16. Chuan, T.; Wen−Hu, Y.; Baohong Hou. Developing an Environmental Indicator System for Sustainable Development in China: Two Case Studies of Selected Indicators. Environ Manage. 2006. 38, 688–702. 10.1007/s00267−004−0352−y

17. Chien−Tat, Low.; Robert, Stimson.; Si, Chen.; Ester, C.; Paulina Pui−Yun, W.; Poh−Chin, L. Personal and Neighbourhood Indicators of Quality of Urban Life: A Case Study of Hong Kong. Soc. Indic. Res. 2018, 136, 751–773.

18. Nam, X.V.; Trung, Q.V. Somtip Watanapongvanich, Nopphol Witvorapong. Measurement and Determinants of Quality of Life of Older Adults in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Social. Indic. Res. 2019, 142, 1285–1303.

19. Van, T.D.; Jianming, W.; Wilson, V.T.D. An Integrated Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach to Assess Sustainable Urban Development in an Emerging Economy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2902.

20. Vietnam Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Decision No. 2782/QD/BTMT on promulgating a set of indicators for assessing environmental protection results of provinces and central cities. 2019. Available from (Date accessed 2021 Jun 3).

21. Sreejesh, S.; Sanjay, M.; Sanjay, M.R.A. Questionnaire Design. 2014, pp. 143–159.

22. Shathy, S.T.; Reza, M.I.H. Sustainable Cities: A Proposed Environmental Integrity Index (EII) for Decision Making. Front. Environ. Sci. 2016, 4, 82.

23. Pazhuhan, M.; Shahraki, S.Z.; Kaveerad, N.; Cividino, S.; Clemente, M.; Salvati, L. Factors Underlying Life Quality in Urban Contexts: Evidence from an Industrial City (Arak, Iran). Sustainability 2020, 12, 2274. 

24. Fehr, M.; Sousa, K.A.; Pereira, A.F.N.; Pelizer, L.C.  Proposal of Indicators to Assess Urban Sustainability in Brazil. Environ. Dev. Sustainability 2004, 6, 355–366.

25. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD. OECD Key Environmental Indicators, France, 2008.

26. Silva, L.T.; Mendes, J.F.G. City Noise−Air: An environmental quality index for cities. Sustainable Cities Soc. 2012, 4, 1−11.

27. Garau, C.; Pavan, V.M. Evaluating Urban Quality: Indicators and Assessment Tools for Smart Sustainable Cities. Sustainability 2018, 10, 575.

28. Sarmento, R.; Zorza, F.M.B.; Serafim, A.J.; Allmenroedr, L.B. Urban environmental quality indicator. WIT Trans. Eco. Environ. 2000, 39, 8.

29. Shawn, L.; Talip, G. Chapter: Exploratory Factor Analysis and Principal Components Analysis. In: Luke Plonsky, Advancing Quantitative Methods in Second Language Research, 1st edition. Routlede 2015, pp. 378.

30. Marley, W.W. Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice. J. Black Psychol. 2018, 44(3), 219–246.

31. Horst, T.; Peter, F. Exploratory factor analysis revisited: How robust methods support the detection of hidden multivariate data structures in IS research. Infor. Manage, 2010, 47(4), 107−207.

32. Field, A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage, 2009.

33. Anna, B.C.; Jason, W.O. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2005, 10(7), 1-9.

34. Mundfrom, D.J.; Shaw, Dale, G.; Ke, Tian, Lu. Minimum Sample Size Recommendations for Conducting Factor Analyses. Int. J. Testing 2005, 5(2), 159–168.

35. Keith, S.T. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res. Sci. Edu. 2017, 48, 1273–1296. 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.

36. Robin, K.; Henson, J.; Kyle Roberts. Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Published Research Common Errors and some Comment on Improved Practice. Edu. Psychol. Meas. 2006, 66, 393−416.

37. Jim, C.; Allen, H. Organizational Research Methods: A Review and Evaluation of Exploratory Factor Analysis Practices in Organizational Research. SAGE, 2003, 6(2), 147−168.

38. Osborne, J.W. What is Rotating in Exploratory Factor Analysis? Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2015, 20(2), 1-8.

39. Osborne, J.W. Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis. 2014.

40. Scotts, V. CA: Create Space Independent Publishing, 2014. ISBN-13: 978-1500594343, ISBN-10:1500594342.

41. Zeynivandnezhad, F.; Rashed, F.; Kaooni, A. Exploratory Factor Analysis for TPACK among Mathematics Teachers: Why, What and How. Anatolian. J. Edu. 2019, 4(1), 59−76.

42. Laura, L.S.; Jason, W.B.; Muriel, J.B. Factor Analysis as a Tool for Survey Analysis Using a Professional Role Orientation Inventory as an Example. Phys. Ther. 2004, 84(9), 784−99.