The background of participants is shown in Figure 2. The 9 households (35 people) were from Hanoi City with high incomes of at least 1500 - 2000 USD/month, and the highest income household was 100,000 USD/month. In terms of gender, there were comparable numbers of men and women. The majority of households were a family of four of a couple and children, and two households were a couple and relatives. All the households were dual income, and no one was a fulltime homemaker. About 30% were in their 30s, the largest

group, and the ages were distributed from 10 to over 60. In Vietnam, it is common to retire at 60, and all those over 60 were unemployed.

The hot and cold water usage amount for each household is shown in Table 2. In the experiment, the commencement of the room stay was about 18:00 and leaving was mostly the following morning around 08:00. Although the stays were short at up to 13 hours, each person used per day 100 - 150 L of water and the average was 117.8 L. The shower used in this experiment was a water-saving shower with a 35% water-saving effect, and as the majority of households did not use the washing machine during their stay, it was assumed that the hot and cold water amount used by the households at home would be much greater than the value shown in Table 2. The reason for B-3 having a small amount of 60.5 L is because their stay was particularly short and breakfast preparation and laundry was not carried out. Also, C-1 is excluded from analysis as there was a data deficiency.

Excluding B-3, B-2 had the lowest level of water usage per person, and C-2 had the highest level: their hot and cold water usage profiles are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively. In B-2, at 23:00 the family bathed consecutively, however, in C-2, water was used continuously. According to the action record, in C-2, the dishwasher and washing machine was used, so it is likely that this is why water was continuously used. On the other hand, B-2 did not use either appliances.

The average hot and cold water usage profile of the 9 households is shown in Figure 5. It was found that there were peaks in use around 18:00 when entering the room, before sleeping around 23:00 and after waking around 06:00.

A representative of each household (total 9 people) used the existing shower in the serviced apartment and the flow rate used when showering normally at home was measured. A rate of 10 - 13.5 L/min was recorded. The average was 12 L/min and it was found that they were showering at a stronger flow rate than the assumed optimum flow rate of 10 L/min of the existing shower.

The distribution of shower flow rate, after changing to a water-saving shower (optimum flow rate 6.5 L/min, water-saving effect 35%), is shown in Figure 6. The average value, and median value were both 6.6 L/min, the same level as optimum flow rate. The water-saving effect in this experiment (12 → 6.6 L/min) was 45%, however, after interviewing the representatives of each household, all stated “I did not realize I was saving water. I was able to wash plentifully”.

We heard that the project device (water-saving shower) provided both water-saving and comfort.

The frequency of showering in one day is shown in Figure 7. As about 50% had numerous showers in one day, each showering’s flow rate and time was analyzed and is shown in Figure 8. There was no correlation found between shower frequency and flow rate.

Regarding the showering time, the higher the frequency, the longer the showering time, however, for the people who had numerous showers, with each shower the time became shorter. Therefore, it was decided that it was valid to set in the shower use model “showering time per day (total value)”, rather than “frequency of showering per day × time per shower”.

The showering time per person per day is shown in Figure 9. Many people showered for 8 - 9 minutes, and the average value was 9.7 minutes.

Figure 10 shows the distribution of hot and cold water used showering. Most were 30 L but there was wide distribution and the average value was 45.6 L. and the median value was 39.2 L.

Each household’s toilet usage frequency (in this report, this refers to toilet flush frequency) is shown in Table 3. As the time of entering and leaving the room differs for each participant, the toilet usage frequency was also widely distributed and the average was 4.5 times (person/day). Regarding toilet usage frequency and participant’s background, one type was quantified and a correlation analysis was undertaken, which showed a loose correlation of 0.4 related to occupation (Table 4). Similar to the previous study that focused on Japanese people [11] , because of a high correlation between occupation and time spent at home, it is likely that there is a high correlation between occupation and household toilet use frequency. For example, workers use the home toilet less because their time spent at home is short, and the unemployed or homemakers have a longer time spent at home, and so their home toilet use is more frequent. Table 5 shows the toilet usage frequency according to occupation. For the unemployed, their normal period of time spent at home is considered to be longer than the time they were present during the experiment, and thus time spent at home was numerically corrected to 24 hours.

Although it is thought that a four-person household is typical, in Vietnam the number of people per household in 2002 was 4.44 and in 2012 it was 3.85 people (data from General Statistics Officer of Vietnam) and it is showing a slight declining trend. Also, in this study, as all the households were dual income, the average Vietnamese household model was a 4 person family with a dual-income couple, a student and an unemployed person. In this model, each person’s household toilet usage frequency was 5.25 times/(person・day), and this was similar to a 2012 study [14] which showed a Hanoi model of 5.3 times/(person・day).