DDI_WB_ARM_2008_SIHC_v01_M World Bank, Development Economics Data Group <_value> NADA Version 01: (August 2011) Sample Survey of Individual Housing Construction 2008 SIHC 2008 ARM_2008_SIHC_v01_M National Statistical Service NADA National Statistical Service Housing Construction Survey The liberalized economic system in Armenia has led to a sharp growth in individual housing construction by individuals for their own use. High rates of individual housing construction may be observed in some geographic (regional) locations. However a lack of accurate administrative registers of licences for construction, the prevalence of some constructions (built without any license), create particular difficulties in producing reliable and comprehensive statistical data collection on individual housing construction. In general, problems faced in collecting information about house construction may be separated in the following main groups: • incompleteness of indicators on volumes of individual housing construction by marz (region) breakdown, • introduction of the instruments being used in the international practice, taking into consideration peculiarities of the sphere, • lack of precise mechanisms for monitoring the process of individual housing construction, • expanding and improvement of the existing indicators set, • necessity of forming and updating of the individual housing construction register. In this context, in order to improve the statistical accounting of house construction, it is important to conduct periodical surveys and by so doing to improve the instruments available, through the development and use of state statistical reporting forms, and to obtain some broad indicators of levels of activity in at least some regions of the Country. Taking into account the above-mentioned, the main purpose of this survey was to improve statistics on individual housing construction. In particular, • ensuring the comparability of the statistical data on house construction with the methodologies and standards used in the international practice, • ensuring the comprehensiveness of the indicators by regional breakdown, • use of the sampling methods and improvements of their methodology in construction. The survey results provide: - complete and reliable information on individual housing construction in some key regions, particularly studying structure and volumes of the buildings, - and increase in the quality of information, - to complement the database on house construction within the official statistics with new indicators, - a model for a register for newly built houses which can be used to monitor periodically the level housing construction activity. The derived results enable NSSRA to improve and update its database, to expand its list of published indicators, to improve methodology, and to support more informed policy making by providing state and local selfgovernment bodies with key information. Armenia National Sample survey data [ssd] The 2008 Armenia Sample Survey of Individual Housing Construction covered the following: - Individual Housing Construction: Time construction begin, percentage completed during the interview and amount of cost so far, type of construction fund, number of storeys, availability of basement, total floor space of the building, types of roof, walls, doors and flooring, type of heating of the building, and availability of garage and swimming pool. There were two main approaches - entire and sampling - used for the conduct of the survey. Lists of the licenses for individual housing construction, which had been given since 2005 by the state government body in the urban development, served as the main information source for the survey. However there were, in some regions, serious inaccuracies and lack of availability of lists of licensed permits for individual house construction. These weaknesses, together with restrictions of available financial and human resources and the objective of receiving representative data, led to a concentration of survey resources in those regions where the individual housing construction is more prevalent and where reasonably up-to-date lists of licences are available. Yerevan and the following 4 marzes - Aragatsotn, Ararat, Armavir and Kotayk- were selected. The results of the survey therefore only apply to Yerevan and to these 4 marzes. The licenses given for individual housing construction in Yerevan city were surveyed in their entirety, but in the other marzes - by the random sampling, considering the differences between the numbers of the mentioned licenses (from 100 to 640, meanwhile 100 - in Armavir, 136 - in Aragatsotn, 304 - in Ararat, 640 -in Kotayk), based on which the sample "steps" had been determined. Overall there were 1330 licences granted, permitting individuals to construct a house for their own use. These were predominantly in Yerevan. Although the survey was aimed at 1330 houses, it was foreseen to survey also those buildings under construction in the neighbourhood of the surveyed buildings, which were out of the list of the buildings to be surveyed. Face-to-face [f2f] The whole process of data collection of individual houses (hereinafter houses) was carried out by face to face interview with 1618 owners of properties and building constructors. Interviewers were trained and given questionnaires, instructions for filling in questionnaires, and a list of the houses to be surveyed. Detailed technical explanations were given and special guidance related to the completion of questionnaires particularly when faced with full or partial non-response. To provide a high response level, a number of initiatives were undertaken to demonstrate the necessity of the research and the objectives of the survey, and to increase the interest of citizens living in those areas covered by the survey. Citizens were provided with further clarification of the importance of the survey and this helped to reduce full or partial non-response to the questionnaires. Data collection was carried out on the regional basis. To increase effectiveness of the field work the interviewing processes were monitored by supervisors, who also gave practical assistance in clarifying and solving any problems that emerged during the enumeration phase of the survey. The questionnaires completed by the interviewers were also logically and arithmetically checked and coded by the supervisors prior to their input into computers. The survey results were produced using a computer software program.