Retrofitting Single Family Home to Reduce Vulnerability from

Using Home Retrofit to Strengthen Vulnerable Homes from

Earthquake Damage

:

An assessment of the first 16 months of the

Seattle Project Impact Home Retrofit Program

Sponsored by the Seattle Project Impact Initiative

By BOB FREITAG AND ROBERT WILLIS

ABSTRACT

This study provides an assessment of the Seattle Project Impact Home Retrofit program. The

Program provides a package of incentives intended to encourage homeowners to reduce their vulnerability for earthquakes. The vulnerability is reduced by reinforcing sheer walls and bolting their existing homes to their foundations.

The study suggests a consistent, but low-key, earthquake awareness strategy whereby homeowners would remain sufficiently cognizant of the earthquake risk so they incorporate retrofitting into other home improvement or do-it-yourself home projects.

The Home Retrofit program addresses the needs of and is strongly supported by a specific segment of the Seattle population. The program participants are highly educated, long-term residents Seattle’s north end neighborhoods. The program might be made available to a more diverse population if it can target these individuals within all neighborhoods throughout the city and if marketed through professional and trade organizations.

Opportunities also exist with insurance companies taking a more active role in marketing the program to their policyholders, particularly those having earthquake insurance. Insurance companies could also encourage their customers to obtain building permits by structuring this as an incentive in their policies.

INTRODUCTION

This is a study of Seattle residents who participated in the Project Impact Home Retrofit Program between 1997-1999. The study was conducted to assess consumer behavior, consumer interest, recommend market incentives, and offer suggestions that may assist this and other Project Impact

Communities.

The objective of the Home Retrofit program is to reduce earthquake vulnerability of homes in

Seattle. The Home Retrofit program targets 125,000 homes that were built before the seismic building code was changed in 1970. These homes were not anchored and bolted the their foundations, consequently, these homes have greater likelihood of structural failure during a major seismic event. A vast majority of these homes could be described as bungalow types, with basements and having a simple rectangular concrete wall foundation with a poured footing.

Project Impact was a FEMA initiative and Seattle, as a pilot city, assembled resources to improve on existing mitigation efforts that were occurring within the city. The Home Retrofit Program, one of the programs created under Seattle Project Impact, included the following components at the time of the study:

1.

A “fast-track” building permit process that established generic seismic, structural retrofit solutions for wood-frame homes vulnerable to earthquake damage.

2.

Professional training for builders and contractors about the new standards and permit procedures.

3.

Homeowner classes for do-it-yourselfers

Institute For Hazards Mitigation Planning And Research

Dept. of Urban Design and Planning

University of Washington

Seattle, WA 98195

2

4.

Tool lending library

5.

Technical assistance from the City staff and non-profit neighborhood improvement organizations.

A majority of program participants are incentive driven and expected to find their own resources to retrofit their homes. However, the city staff and Project Impact Steering committee were concerned that the low-income residents would financially be unable to take advantage of the program. Accordingly, funds were given to the Seattle Office of Housing to make grant monies available to low-income homeowners so they could structurally seismically retrofit their homes.

These funds came from Project Impact and the City of Seattle.

METHODOLOGY

The study consisted of five phases:



Project Scoping



Data Collection



Data Analysis



Focus Group Collaboration and



Report Development

Project Scoping

The project-scoping phase involved obtaining University of Washington Human Subjects Review approval, development of methodological approach, existing data collection and creation of the data collection instrument. An oversight team representing the University of Washington Institute for Hazards Mitigation Planning and Research, City of Seattle Emergency Management Staff,

University of Washington Geophysics program and representatives of the retrofitting community assisted in the development of the survey instrument.

The survey is designed to be answered by an English-speaking adult who had contacted the

Seattle Project Impact Home Retrofit Program. Participants were selected if they had either attended a Home Retrofit class, obtained a Project Impact related building permit, had called for information regarding the program or had applied for a low-income grant through the Office of

Housing prior 12-31-99. The total number of records was 1077. Though more people than this have attended the homeowner classes, the names were obtained from class rosters that were not always complete. Many names had phone numbers but did not include addresses. 32 of these were identified through a reverse directory search. A total of 943 records were complete and used as the survey population

The survey instrument was divided into three sections. The first section contained questions that obtained information about why or why not a person chose to retrofit as well as their comments and suggestions about the Home Retrofit Program. The second section of the survey was structured to obtain attitudes about earthquakes and other risks. The final section collected general demographic information. A copy of the survey instrument is found in the appendix.




Seattle, WA 98195

3

Data Collection

A pretest of the survey occurred in February 2000. The pretest included 19 telephone interviews that lasted about 1-2 hours apiece. 15 of the people pretested had only attended the retrofit class but had not retrofitted, 3 had permitted and retrofitted and one person was a low-income grant applicant.

Following a final revision of the survey, 943 surveys were mailed in late March. Initially, 45% of the surveys were returned. A second mailing took place in May and the response rate was increased to 64%. Of the returned surveys 6% were not complete rendering the unusable.

Existing data was collected throughout the project scoping and data collect phase. This information includes property value, retrofit class attendance and permit information.

Data Analysis

The data analysis phase of the project was carried out in three steps. The first step was a spatial analysis to determine the extent of the participation and to identify patterns and trends in participation. The next phase, temporal analysis, was used to identify patterns and trends between permitting, class attendance and earthquake occurrence. The final phase of the data analysis used the information gathered in the survey. This analysis included a binomial logistic regression of risk and demographic variables against the degree of participation in the program.

Focus Group

Upon completion of the study the results were presented to three focus groups, Seattle Project

Impact staff, contractors and trainers, and residents who had retrofitted their home. The input of these groups proved invaluable in interpreting the results of the survey.

RESULTS

The study identified three types of homeowner customers:

 “Turnkey” homeowners who use contractors for retrofitting their homes



Homeowners who work with contractors in completing the job. The homeowner does the basement demolition and the contractors do the retrofit and major remodeling effort.



Do-it-yourselfers homeowners that do all the work themselves.

The sample under represented the “turnkey” customer population. While some homeowners who attended the homeowner retrofit class contacted and used a contractor, a significant number of homeowners who did not take a homeowner class still retrofitted their homes through a contractor and benefited from the expedited permit process created by Seattle Project Impact Home Retrofit

Program. Below is a summary of the results.

1.

Those retrofitting are white, middle aged, highly educated with an upper middle class income. They are predominately longtime residents of Seattle’s north end neighborhoods without children living at home.




Seattle, WA 98195

4

a.

The average family size of respondents is 2.4 individuals per household. b.

Of the respondents that did not receive low-income grants 90% were white, 0.4%

Hispanic and 1.1% black.

This percentage is consistent for both those who have retrofitted and are planning to retrofit. c.

97% of all participants as well as those who actually retrofitted their homes had some college or a professional degree. 90% of those who retrofitted had completed college, a postgraduate or professional degree.

(1) For all participants; 44.8% have a post graduate education, 35.3% have a college degree, 10% some college and 7% a professional degree

(2) For retrofitters; 52.9% have a post graduate education, 33.1% have college degree,

4.1% have a professional degree and 7.4% have some college education.

(3) Percentage for those who plan and did retrofit; 45.1% have post graduate education,

34.9% have a college degree, 9.1% have some college, 7.6% have a professional or technical degree. d.

The modal household income for those having retrofitted is $50,000 - $75,000 per year.

This income figure is higher, but not statistically significant, than the population planning to retrofit. The retrofitter and those planning to retrofit had higher incomes, though again not statistically significantly significant, than those deciding not to retrofit. e.

Participants who planned to retrofit and those who actually retrofitted their homes lived in their homes for an average of 11 years and in the state 27 and 25 years respectively.

2. Phinney Ridge Neighborhood Association sponsored Homeowner Home Retrofit classes were highly praised. a.

The principal instructor of the self-help workshops, Roger Faris, provided an extremely positive impact on the program.

99% of the respondents felt Roger Faris was an effective instructor. Furthermore, an open-ended question was included at the end of the survey and individuals frequently wrote specific instances in which Roger was of assistance. Please see the typical comments section for specific examples. b.

Participants overwhelmingly, 98.9%, found the class material helpful. c.

There were a few specific recurring suggestions that participants felt would help the program.

Participants felt it would be helpful to have class materials readily available prior to attending the class. This would allow the participants to examine their basements, bring photos and allow them to constructively participate in the class. Many responses also indicated that it would be helpful to have a separate class that dealt with homes that did not fit the prescriptive plan set and provide other alternatives.




Seattle, WA 98195

5

3.

The tool lending library was considered a valuable resource and important to those individuals planning to retrofit.

For the individuals who plan to retrofit their homes themselves, 70% indicated they would likely use the Tool Lending Library. a.

Residents did not take full advantage of a building permit retrofitting program that was significantly streamlined and redesigned. The numbers below were derived from a combination of survey responses and permit information from the Department of Design,

Construction and Land Use (DCLU).

4.

b.

31% of the Do-it-yourself homeowners who retrofitted had, at the time of the survey, obtained permits. c.

62.5% of the respondents who answered that a contractor had performed the retrofit had, at the time of the survey, obtained a permit. d.

Some respondents indicated the permit is too expensive and/or difficult to obtain.

A few respondents pointed to the permitting process as a deterrent while other simply ignored the requirement. Please see the Typical Comments section for a more detailed description. e.

33% of the individuals who indicated they are planning on retrofitting had not heard of the “fast track” permit process offered by the Department of Design, Construction and

Land Use (DCLU). f.

Those doing the work themselves appeared not to be getting permits because they didn’t want to be pressured into completion deadlines.

When the focus groups were presented with this information, some thought that a significant reason many of the do-it-yourselfers don’t get permits is that they did not want to place themselves under added pressure to complete the job and/or have the building inspector see other work that has been completed on the home that did not meet building codes.

5.

A substantial portion of those contacting the Home Retrofit program, most of which attended a self-help workshop, had contacted contractors.

40% of respondent’s contacted contractors, while only 6 % of those who responded and had retrofitted had used a contractor. Respondents feel that the contractor referral list is helpful but would like to have recommendations about specific contractors that are known to be honest and do quality work.

6.

Those who have experienced an earthquake were less likely to retrofit. a.

95% of all participants indicated they have felt an earthquake.




Seattle, WA 98195

6

b.

70.5% of those respondents who retrofitted said they felt an earthquake. c.

90.3% of those who plan to retrofit had felt an earthquake.

7.

The location of the homeowner training appeared to have minimum significance.

The Seattle Project Impact Steering Committee is adamant in their commitment to make the program accessible by all residents. Homeowner workshops were held in various locations throughout the City and information was widely distributed.

There is no correlation between location of attendee’s residence and the location of the homeowner classes.

8.

The vast majority of those planning to retrofit were doing so for a variety of reasons, but the most frequently reasons given were those related to their perception of risk such as a need to protect their investment or make their home safer. On the survey, respondents were asked to indicate all the reasons why they were planning to retrofit. Few were motivated by a single reason. It is important to note that this question was not open-ended; consequently the results are likely to contain a degree of bias. a.

About 80% stated that they were concerned about protecting their investment and in making their home safer for their families and/or occupants. b.

36% said they were planning to retrofit because they wanted to do the work themselves,

27% said that they were motivated by an insurance requirement, and 16% said they are thinking of a remodel and retrofitting may be an element of a larger project.

9.

Of those who retrofitted, almost all cited only one reason for taking action. Most desired a meaningful do-it-yourself home improvement project and performed the retrofit in conjunction with a remodel or an insurance requirement a.

51% took action because they wished to reduce risk – 32% cited making their homes safe for their families and occupants and 19% wished to protect their investment. project. (19%)

10.

Most often the respondents stated the cost of retrofitting is why they have chosen not to retrofit. b.

49% took action as the result of a triggering coincident objective, such as an insurance requirement (6%), remodel (18%) or the desire to have a meaningful home improvement a.

53% of this population gave “too costly” as their reason for not planning to retrofit.

For those choosing not to retrofit, the average household income is lower than the retrofitters. The average retrofitter and class participant had a household income of between $50,000 - $75,000 and the non-retrofitter an average household income of

$40,000 - $50,000.




Seattle, WA 98195

7

b.

15% said that they were not going to retrofit because their home did not fit the project's prescriptive model and as a result was too complicated to retrofit. Please see the Typical

Comments section for a detailed description of participant comments. c.

10% said they did not see a reason for retrofitting.

11. Insurance a.

About 33% of the participants who retrofitted also have earthquake insurance.

This is an extremely important finding. Partnering with insurance companies to take a more active role in promoting the home retrofit program is mutually beneficial. Please see the typical comments section for supporting anecdotal evidence from respondents.

TYPICAL COMMENTS

Most comments are taken from the survey and are offered to give additional meaning to the aforementioned percentages. The final question in the survey is an open-ended question inviting participants to add any comments they feel are pertinent; the comments recorded below are taken from this question. The comments recorded at the focus group meetings are appropriately identified. While reviewing the responses we focused on identifying why people are NOT retrofitting. We have synthesized the comments and presented the patterns discovered in the responses. Next to each subheading, if appropriate, is a number in parentheses; this number corresponds to the analogous discussion in the results section.

1.

People are not retrofitting because home doesn’t fit standard. (10C)

 Retrofit is way too complicated for me to do it myself. Can’t quite bring myself to make it a priority – may move in a few years.



Contractor said home was unable to be retrofitted, retrofitted home in California.

 No Earthquake insurance because it isn’t available for tile roofs.



Live in Condo – no help for condos?

 Options for people with basement windows and who don’t want to hire an engineer would be helpful.



My home has a post and pier foundational and though this type of home was not the focus of the retrofit class, still learned enough to identify the work that had already been done on my home. I passed the information on to my sister and she is considering retrofitting.

2.

People are not retrofitting because they don’t think it is necessary. (10D)

 Even though I may consider something a moderate risk doesn’t mean I don’t take it seriously. I do a very good job of protecting myself and my son – but I don’t lose sleep over things over which I have not control. Like mother nature. I use common sense w/o going to extremes. I have extra food, water, etc. on hand just in case. My house is 90 years. Old. I think the chances of it withstanding an earthquake are pretty strong.



We are planning to move and will consider retrofitting our new house




Seattle, WA 98195

8

3.

People are not retrofitting due to cost. (10A)

 I just don’t have the money to re-enforce the foundation of my house.



Please give financial assistance.

4.

Department of Design, Construction and Land Use and why people aren’t permitting and/or retrofitting. (4C, 4E)



I believe that many retrofitters did not get a permit because they thought that involving

DCLU in retrofitting would trigger an interest/inspection in their remodel. (focus group comment)



The greatest disincentive to doing this myself is not money, tools, etc. -- it is the permit process. Somehow, this needs to be simplified or assistance provided.



The forms to fill out for the permitting process are a little daunting and it is expensive to have the contractor to it for you. Probably the single more reason I have continued to procrastinate on this.



Too much RED TAPE. DCLU forms alone could paper an entire home! The permit cost is a deterrent.

5.

Comments regarding insurance.

 Program was good. I just couldn’t afford the time or money to retrofit our home. We were in the midst of an ongoing remodel project and I had to weigh the costs and benefits. I figured this house survived the ’65 quake and when I found out I could get EQ insurance coverage through a national company as opposed to local, I decided not to do the work.



I have EQ insurance and am afraid of losing it (reason for retrofit). Going to try to do it myself.



Spouse lived through major EQ in 1971 - destroyed home in San Fernando, my family had damage to home in EQ in Whittier CA 1987. We could not qualify for reasonable

EQ coverage unless our house was retrofitted; our house was built in 1916. We may be the only one in our neighborhood who has had their home retrofitted despite the fact most of the houses have a wood from on concrete foundation. Most were built in the 1910-30's

6.

Why people are retrofitting, protect investment. (8A, 9A)



Our house has appreciated considerably and represents the bulk of our net worth. We cannot afford to not protect our investment.



I am delighted we were able to get our home retrofitted before a major EQ hit. I have been impressed by how many people put off this sort of remodel - perhaps you should reach out to home inspectors to educate people about the need to integrate retrofitting into remodeling plans and perhaps to groups for new parents – Helps to remind people they need to assure a new child a safe home. It was a baby that made us retrofit our house.

7.

Phinney Ridge (2A, 2B, 2C, 3)




Seattle, WA 98195

9



High marks to Project Impact and the Phinney Neighborhood Center for their helpfulness. It would have been a lot harder to take on this project without their assistance.



Great Workshop – Need More Tools



Tool Library -- have only used it once; but the tool library could be staffed to be open more and facilitate organized check out and return I have the tools and the skill to perform the work myself. Our home doesn't fit the standard for your program. Even if it did, I wouldn't get a permit for the work. In the future when the program is industry wide and if my house fit the standard I probably will retrofit.



We only have positive comments. It has been a HUGE amount of work, but everyone involved has been very helpful to us. It would have been helpful to have access to the

Phinney NA tool lending office for limited hours weeknights but I think there probably aren’t' too many do-it-yourselfers out there. We would be interested to know how many people are actually doing this. We must be nuts.

8.

General suggestions:



Give landlords the incentives to retrofit without making them think they are losing money, i.e. onetime tax break. Why? Because something like 50% of people in Seattle are renters. That would be a lot of homeless after a quake.



Better advertising of the potential hazard and ease of basic steps to reduce risks. Provide

Tax incentives to homeowners who hire DCLU listed (certified) contractors.



Maintain website for general reference and retrofit design questions. Offer 'refresher' course at discount to past participants. Maintain contact with graduates who express interest in receiving updates etc from project. Inform graduates of tool libraries that open up/expand/close over time.



Have a good way of hooking people up with other people. Have a list of people that feel confident doing the work and people who don’t but are willing to work. As a team they could do bother peoples houses



Have a workshop where participants fill out the application to the city. Have field demonstration at homes where retrofit is happening to get first hand experience and be able to ask questions. Thanks for making this training possible



Make it easier to get the supplies. Work with Home Depot to get packs of hardware ready to buy off the shelf. With a checklist of parts needed at the store. Consider subsidy or rebate to qualified homeowner residents. My home does not quite fit the standard but

I hope to do the retrofit anyway for what it offers. May upgrade the rest of the structure at that time as well.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This effort was conducted to assess consumer behavior and interest, recommend market incentives and offer suggestions that may assist other Project Impact Communities.




Seattle, WA 98195

10

Consumer behavior

Homeowner classes were held throughout the city and residents of very diverse neighborhoods were contacted. Despite these efforts by the City and the Seattle Project Impact Steering

Committee to bring the program to all neighborhoods and segments of the population, the survey results indicate that only a specific segment of the population participated in the program.

The homeowners that retrofitted are highly and formally educated. They are typically from the north end neighborhoods and have made a commitment to remain in their home and neighborhood. Traditionally defined they are middle-class/upper middle class, white and cognizant of the earthquake risk. An anomaly this study cannot explain is why educated, upper middle-class minorities who have made a commitment to remain in their home and neighborhood have not retrofitted. This anomaly poses a tremendous challenge to the city and researchers to discover a solution. A potential strategy is, if middle-class citizens who have made a commitment to their home and neighborhood are most likely to retrofit, then target minorities who have these characteristics. The new census information will give this type of information, in a fine enough resolution, to allow you to design a program to target these individuals.

Two groups took action. The first group expressed interest most often resulting in attendance of a homeowner workshop. The second group are those who retrofitted their home themselves or with the help of a contractor. Both groups are highly motivated, concerned and aware of the earthquake risk. Those in the second group, however, seemed to have an objective that triggered the retrofit. Most often it appears that the trigger was the decision to remodel the basement and retrofitting could be implemented concurrently. Some are also home hobbyists that like working on their home and determined a seismic retrofit to be a meaningful project.

Recommendations for marketing and communities developing a Home Retrofit Program

1.

Build upon interested community sectors – Interest was largely concentrated among the more financially secure, north end, educated professional community, and those longerterm residents more committed to their neighborhoods and homes.



Consider marketing the program specifically to middle-class, educated, individuals in under represented neighborhoods. The decennial census, by zip code and census block will have race, education and length in residency statistics. This will allow targeted marketing.



Consider marketing program through the professional and trade groups in areas of the city that are underrepresented. An example would be Community Capital

Development; the individuals they serve are primarily minority small business owners. These small business owners live in their communities, are leaders in their communities and would be excellent stewards for their communities.



Take advantage of those having retrofitted through publicizing case studies at home shows, neighborhood “Tupper-ware” type parties, or possibly promote through neighborhood volunteers.




Seattle, WA 98195

11



Continue to search for financial incentives to support retrofitting activity for low and moderate-income households especially in under represented neighborhoods.

2.

Posture program to take full advantage of opportunities. Maintain program availability -- many retrofits are triggered by coincident objectives principally a remodel or responding to an insurance notice. Accordingly the location of the training is not important. More important is the availability of the training when a potential retrofitter was ready to act.



Attendance at homeowner and contractor retrofitting classes appear to be event driven. After major publicized earthquake events, interest in the homeowner classes increases dramatically. (Roger Faris, instructor at the Phinney Ridge Neighborhood

Association)



Market the program throughout the home remodeling community i.e. trade shows, hardware stores and contractors.



Implement marking approaches that could build upon increased interest in energy conservation.



The Home Retrofit Program package of incentives should be reassessed to determine if it is sufficiently flexible to be made available to homeowners when they are motivated to action.

3.

Involve the Department of Design, Construction and Land Use in the larger process.

Many of the survey comments, as they pertained to the permitting process, often referred to how tedious they felt the permitting process was. Compiling a list of FAQ’s and examples of successfully completed permit applications available to homeowners might aid in getting the permit applications completed accurately and timely.



The Department of Design, Construction and Land Use should consider participating in homeowner classes and continue their participation in contractor’s workshops.

This would highlight the effort that the DCLU has already made and may abate participant discontents concerning the permitting process.

4.

Increase insurance industry involvement in program



Consider creating an insurance working group possible through the State Insurance

Commissioner. This group would research the possibility of marketing the program to those already holding earthquake policies. This working group could also consider strengthening their permitting policy.

5.

Keep the subject before the public.



In light of the recent Nisqually earthquake, earthquake awareness should continue to be consistent and straight forward and never alarmist or apocalyptic in nature .




Seattle, WA 98195

12

Appendix 1

Survey Package




Seattle, WA 98195

13

U N I V E R S I T Y O F W A S H I N G T O N

Home Retrofit Assessment Survey

March 31, 2000

Rob Willis


Box 355650

Seattle, WA 98195-1650

Dear Rob,

The University of Washington is conducting an assessment of the Seattle Project Impact

Home Retrofit program. The research study is being carried out in conjunction with the

Phinney Neighborhood Association (PNA) and the City of Seattle. We need your assistance in this effort.

The purpose of this study is to understand who is participating in the program and how the program can be improved. Section I asks you to answer specific questions about the

Home Retrofit program. Section II asks you to give your opinions about risks. This information is important as the program expands throughout the Pacific Northwest and into other cities across the country.

Enclosed are a short survey and a stamped & addressed return envelope. To help with our study, we simply ask that you complete the survey and return it as soon as possible.

The survey will take approximately ten minutes to complete and you do not have to answer every question. Your participation is completely voluntary. All information is anonymous and will be used only after being grouped with the other respondents in this study.

If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at (206) 685-8180 or email me at rwillis@geophys.washington.edu. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Willis

University of Washington rwillis@geophys.washington.edu




Seattle, WA 98195

14

U N I V E R S I T Y O F W A S H I N G T O N

Home Retrofit Assessment Survey

Instructions : Participation in this study is completely voluntary. All information you provide is anonymous. You do not have to answer every question. Please circle the appropriate answer or fill in the blanks. Thank you for your time.

SECTION I: HOME RETROFIT QUESTIONS

1. Have you attended a Project Impact Home Retrofit Class? YES or NO

1a. If YES, was the instructor(s) effective? YES or NO

1b. If YES, were the class materials helpful? YES or NO

2. Have you ever consulted a contractor about a seismic retrofit of your home? YES or

NO

3. Is your residence retrofitted to prevent earthquake damage? YES or NO

3a. If YES, why did you choose to retrofit your home?

Safety of family/occupants Timing coincided with a remodel

Protect Investment Found a contractor to retrofit

Could do the work myself Possibly qualify for earthquake insurance

Other (please explain):

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

3b. If YES, did you perform the retrofit yourself? YES or NO

4. If NO to question 3, are you planning to retrofit your home? YES or NO

4a. If YES, why do you want to retrofit your home?

Safety of family/occupants Can coincide with a remodel

Protect Investment Can save money and do it myself

To possibly qualify for earthquake insurance




Seattle, WA 98195

15


___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

4b. If YES, will you perform the retrofit yourself? YES or NO

4c. If YES, will you borrow tools from the Tool Lending Library? YES or NO

4d. If YES, do you know of the building department's expedited permit process?

YES or NO

5. If NO to question 4, why have you decided not to retrofit your home?

Haven't found a contractor

Need more information

Don't think it's necessary Home doesn't fit standard

Cost Need an engineer


________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

SECTION II: PARTICIPANT PROFILE QUESTIONS:

6. In your opinion, how likely it is a major earthquake will occur sometime in the next ten years in the Seattle area?

Very Likely Likely Unlikely Very Unlikely Don't Know

7. In your opinion, how likely it is there will be a major earthquake in the Seattle area within your lifetime?

Very Likely Likely Unlikely Very Unlikely Don't Know

Instructions for questions 8-10:

For the next three statements do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree.




Seattle, WA 98195

16

8. There is little I can do to prevent harm to my loved ones and me during a major earthquake.

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don't Know

9. If an earthquake is going to occur, there is not much my city or community can do to lessen its effects.


10. I am skeptical of the ability of scientists to predict earthquakes.



Below is a list of social and environmental conditions that may concern people. We would like to know more about your concerns. For each of the following conditions, please tell us how you see the risk of death, serious injury, or illness to you and your loved ones.

11. Motor Vehicles No Risk Slight Risk Moderate Risk

12. AIDS?

13. Drinking Alcohol?

No Risk

No Risk

Slight Risk

Slight Risk

Moderate Risk

Moderate Risk

14. Nuclear Power Plants?

15. Medical X-rays?

No Risk

No Risk

Slight Risk

Slight Risk

Moderate Risk

Moderate Risk

16. Crime & Violence?

17. Windstorms?

18. Street Drugs?

19. Large Dams?

20. Cancer?

21. Flooding?

No Risk

No Risk

No Risk

No Risk

No Risk

No Risk

Slight Risk

Slight Risk

Slight Risk

Slight Risk

Slight Risk

Slight Risk

Moderate Risk

Moderate Risk

Moderate Risk

Moderate Risk

Moderate Risk

Moderate Risk

High Risk

High Risk

High Risk

High Risk

High Risk

High Risk

High Risk

High Risk

High Risk

High Risk

High Risk




Seattle, WA 98195

17

22. Commercial Air Travel? No Risk

23. Fire? No Risk

Slight Risk

Slight Risk

Moderate Risk

Moderate Risk


For the final set of questions please fill in the blank or circle the appropriate answer.

24. What is your age? ____

25. Which of the following includes your annual household income?

$0 - $20,000

$20,000 - $29,999

$30,000 - $39,999

$40,000 - $49,999

$50,000 - $74,999

$75,000 - $99,999

$100,000 - $124,999

$125,000 or greater

26. Including yourself, how many people live in your household? ____

27. Ethnic Information (optional)

African American or Black

Aleut

Asian American/Pacific Islander (please specify)___________________

Caucasian

Eskimo

Mixed Ethnicity/Other (please specify)_____________________

Native American (please specify)_______________________

Spanish/Hispanic (please specify)_______________________

28. What was the highest grade of school or college you completed?

No school Some College

Grade School

Some High School

High School Graduate

Professional or Technical Degree

College Graduate

Post Graduate

29. How many years have you lived at your current residence? _____




Seattle, WA 98195

18

High Risk

High Risk

30. Are you the owner of your current residence? YES or NO

31. How many years have you lived in Washington State? ____

32. Have you ever felt an earthquake? YES or NO

33. Have you ever lived in California? YES or NO

33a. If YES, what city(s):

33b. If YES, from years:

_________________________

19_____ to 19_____

34. Do you carry earthquake insurance? YES or NO

35. Please use the following space, or an additional sheet of paper, for any comments.

Please include any suggestions how the Seattle Project Impact Home Retrofit program may be improved:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________




Seattle, WA 98195

19

Appendix 2

Spatial Distribution




Seattle, WA 98195

20




Seattle, WA 98195

21




Seattle, WA 98195

22




Seattle, WA 98195

23




Seattle, WA 98195

24




Seattle, WA 98195

25




Seattle, WA 98195

26




Seattle, WA 98195

27




Seattle, WA 98195

28

Appendix 3

Demographic Profile




Seattle, WA 98195

29

DATA LEGEND

Name

Age

Household Income

Household Income

Household Income

Household Income

Household Income

Household Income

Household Income

Household Income

Education

Education

Education

Education

3

4

5

6

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Value

Numeric

1

Description

Actual Age of Respondent

0-19999

20000-29999

30000-39999

40000-49999

50000-74999

75000-99999

100000-124999

125000 or Greater

Some High School

High School Graduate

Education

Education

Race

Race

Race

Race

Race

Race

Years in Residency

Rent or Own

3

4

6

7

7

8

1

8

Numeric

1

Some College

Professional or Technical

Degree

College Graduate

Post Graduate

African American or Black

Asian American

Caucasian

Mixed Ethnicity

Native American

Spanish/Hispanic

Actual years in Residency

Rent

Rent or Own

Years in State

Earthquake

Earthquake

2

Numeric

0

1

Own

Actual Years in State

Have not felt EQ

Have felt EQ

Individuals in Household Numeric Actual Household Size

GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS

Statistics

N

Mean

Median

Mode

AGE Household

Income

Education

530

47.94

46.50

53

Std. Deviation 11.71

Variance 137.15

482

5.16

5.00

5

1.76

3.09

533

7.08

7.00

8

1.12

1.25

RACE Years in

Residency

473

3.99

466

11.01

Rent or

Own

548

1.95

Years in

State

Earthquak e

Individuals in HH

539

26.53

557

.96

533

2.40

4.00

4

8.00

2

2.00

2

22.00

10

1.00

1

.59 10.46 .22 17.66 .21

.35 109.41 4.69E-02 312.00 4.29E-02

2.00

2

1.08

1.16




Seattle, WA 98195

30

Valid

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

59

60

61

62

63

64

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

23

27

29

30

31

32

33

34

Minimum

Maximum

FREQUENCIES

AGE

23

86

1

8

Frequency Percent

3

8

1

8

1

70

15

16

27

15

11

7

8

9

20

15

18

19

20

12

15

23

7

8

3

5

4

4

15

18

11

9

21

17

17

24

8

14

14

12

1

2

3

7

3.8

2.3

2.8

4.3

2.8

3.0

5.1

2.8

4.0

3.2

3.2

4.5

3.8

2.8

3.4

3.6

Valid

Percent

Cumulativ e Percent

.2

.4

.6

1.3

.2

.6

1.1

2.5

1.5

2.6

2.6

2.3

2.8

3.4

2.1

1.7

4.0

6.6

9.2

11.5

14.3

17.7

19.8

21.5

2.1

1.3

1.5

1.7

1.3

1.5

.6

.9

.8

.8

79.1

80.4

81.9

83.6

84.9

86.4

87.0

87.9

88.7

89.4

53.8

56.0

58.9

63.2

66.0

69.1

74.2

77.0

25.5

28.7

31.9

36.4

40.2

43.0

46.4

50.0

2.7

2.9

4.8

2.7

2.0

1.3

1.4

1.6

3.6

2.7

3.2

3.4

3.6

2.2

2.7

4.1

1.3

1.4

.5

.9

.7

.7

2.7

3.2

2.0

1.6

3.8

3.0

3.0

4.3

.2

.4

.5

1.3

1.4

2.5

2.5

2.2




Seattle, WA 98195

31

1

2

1

81

0

1

1

8

73

74

75

77

78

79

80

81

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

83

84

86

Total

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Frequency

1

1

1

530

2

2

1

3

3

4

2

3

4

5

2

2

4

6

6

4

Valid

EDUCATION

5

6

7

8

Total

1

2

3

4

13

32

38

63

133

89

65

49

482

Frequency

.2

.2

.2

95.0

.4

.4

.2

.5

.5

.7

.4

.5

.7

1.1

1.1

.7

.7

.9

.4

.4

Valid Cumulative

Percent

2.7

Percent

2.7

6.6

7.9

13.1

27.6

9.3

17.2

30.3

57.9

18.5

13.5

10.2

100.0

76.3

89.8

100.0

.2

.2

.2

100.0

.4

.4

.2

.6

.6

.8

.4

.6

.8

1.1

1.1

.8

.8

.9

.4

.4

RACE

Valid

7

8

Total

3

4

5

6

5

11

53

37

188

239

533

Valid

Percent

.9

2.1

9.9

6.9

35.3

44.8

100.0

Cumulative

Percent

.9

3.0

12.9

19.9

55.2

100.0

Frequency Valid Cumulative




Seattle, WA 98195

32

96.2

97.0

97.4

97.9

98.3

98.7

98.9

99.4

90.2

91.3

92.5

93.2

94.0

94.9

95.3

95.7

99.6

99.8

100.0

Valid

7

8

Total

1

3

4

6

5

26

427

11

2

2

473

Percent Percent

1.1 1.1

5.5

90.3

6.6

96.8

2.3

.4

.4

100.0

99.2

99.6

100.0

YEARS IN RESIDENCY

Frequency

Valid 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

37

38

39

40

Valid Cumulative

33

59

48

29

19

18

23

24

16

18

14

13

8

13

14

19

5

3

3

14

2

3

5

3

13

2

7

3

8

1

2

2

2

3

2

3

2

2

Percent

7.1

12.7

10.3

6.2

4.1

3.9

4.9

5.2

3.4

3.9

3.0

2.8

1.7

2.8

3.0

4.1

1.1

.6

.6

3.0

.4

.6

1.1

.6

2.8

.4

1.5

.6

1.7

.2

.4

.4

.4

.6

.4

.6

.4

.4

Percent

7.1

19.7

30.0

36.3

40.3

44.2

49.1

54.3

57.7

61.6

64.6

67.4

69.1

71.9

74.9

79.0

80.0

80.7

81.3

84.3

84.8

85.4

86.5

87.1

89.9

90.3

91.8

92.5

94.2

94.4

94.8

95.3

95.7

96.4

96.8

97.4

97.9

98.3




Seattle, WA 98195

33

43

44

45

47

48

70

Total

1

1

466

1

1

3

1

.2

.2

.6

.2

.2

.2

100.0

98.5

98.7

99.4

99.6

99.8

100.0

RENT OR OWN

Valid

Valid

YEARS IN STATE

1

2

Total

Frequency

27

521

548

Valid Cumulative

Percent

4.9

Percent

4.9

95.1

100.0

100.0

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

5

6

7

8

1

2

3

4

Frequency

12

5

7

27

9

12

11

7

9

5

7

6

2

15

28

15

16

11

11

19

6

1

8

11

5

13

13

13

17

2.0

1.3

1.7

.9

1.3

1.1

.4

3.5

1.1

2.2

.9

1.3

5.0

1.7

2.2

Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

.2

1.5

.2

1.7

2.0

.9

2.4

2.4

3.7

4.6

7.1

9.5

2.4

3.2

2.8

5.2

2.8

3.0

2.0

2.0

11.9

15.0

17.8

23.0

25.8

28.8

30.8

32.8

52.9

54.2

55.8

56.8

58.1

59.2

59.6

36.4

37.5

39.7

40.6

41.9

46.9

48.6

50.8




Seattle, WA 98195

34

EARTHQUAKE

54

55

56

57

58

60

61

62

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

63

64

65

67

70

75

76

77

81

Total

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

Frequency

3

6

2

1

4

5

1

3

10

8

7

4

8

4

5

6

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

539

2

5

20

6

4

5

13

7

16

4

12

10

6

5

3

7

Valid 0

1

Total

25

532

557

Valid Cumulative

Percent

4.5

Percent

4.5

95.5

100.0

100.0

.6

1.1

.4

.2

.7

.9

.2

.6

1.5

.7

.9

1.1

1.9

1.5

1.3

.7

.7

.7

.2

.2

.2

.2

.2

.4

.2

100.0

.4

.9

3.7

1.1

.7

.9

2.4

1.3

3.0

.7

2.2

1.9

1.1

.9

.6

1.3

93.1

94.1

94.2

94.8

95.4

96.5

96.8

97.0

84.2

85.0

85.9

87.0

88.9

90.4

91.7

92.4

97.2

97.4

97.6

98.0

98.7

99.4

99.6

99.8

100.0

71.6

72.5

76.3

77.4

78.1

79.0

81.4

82.7

62.5

63.3

65.5

67.3

68.5

69.4

69.9

71.2




Seattle, WA 98195

35

INDIVIDUALS IN HOUSEHOLD

Frequency

Valid

5

6

8

Total

1

2

3

4

82

273

91

63

18

5

1

533

Demographics Bar Graphs

Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

15.4

51.2

15.4

66.6

17.1

11.8

3.4

.9

.2

100.0

83.7

95.5

98.9

99.8

100.0

6

AGE

5

4

3

2

1

0

23 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 79 83

AGE




Seattle, WA 98195

36

30

Household Income

20

10

0

1 2

Household Income

3 4 5 6 7 8

50

Education

40

30

20

10

0

3

Education

4 5 6 7 8




Seattle, WA 98195

37

100

RACE

80

60

40

20

0

RACE

1 3 4 6 7 8

120

Rent or Own

100

80

60

40

20

0

1 2

Rent or Own




Seattle, WA 98195

38

6

Years in State

5

4

3

2

1

0

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 62 67 77

Years in State

120

Earthquake

100

80

60

40

20

0

0 1

Earthquake




Seattle, WA 98195

39

60

Individuals in HH

50

40

30

20

10

0

1 2

Individuals in HH

3 4 5 6 8




Seattle, WA 98195

40

Appendix 4

Program Review




Seattle, WA 98195

41

DATA LEGEND

Variable Name

Retrofit

Retrofit

Plan Retrofit

Plan Retrofit

Permit

Permit

Retrofit Class

Retrofit Class

Contractor

Contractor

Instructor Effective


Material Effective

Material Effective

2

0

1

1

2

1

2

0

0

1

1

Value Description

1 Respondent has Retrofitted

2

1

Respondent has NOT Retrofitted

Respondent plans to Retrofit

Respondent does NOT plan to Retrofit

Respondent has NOT permitted

Respondent has permitted

Respondent has attended retrofit class

Respondent has NOT attended retrofit class

Respondent has NOT contacted contractor

Respondent has contacted contractor

Respondent feels instructor was effective

Feels instructor was NOT effective

Respondent feels class materials were effective

Feels class materials were NOT effective

Tool Lending Library


DCLU Process

DCLU Process

0

1

0

1

Plans NOT to use the tool lending library

Plans to use the tool lending library

Does NOT know about the DCLU permit process

Does know about the DCLU permit process

Retrofit Yourself

Retrofit Yourself

0

1

GENERAL PROGRAM STATISTICS

Plans not to retrofit the home themselves

Plans to retrofit the home themselves

Retrofit Plan

Retrofit

548

1.71

2.00

2

.46

382

.79

1.00

1

.41

Permit

558

.15

.00

0

.36

Retrofit

Class

Contractor Instructor

Effective

557

1.11

1.00

1

.32

558

.37

.00

0

.48

472

1.01

1.00

1

.12

Material

Effective

442

1.01

1.00

1

.11

Tool

Lending

Library

243

.72

1.00

1

.45

DCLU process

256

.69

1.00

1

.46

N

Mean

Median

Mode

Std.

Deviation

Range

Minimum

Maximum

1

1

2

FREQUENCIES

RETROFIT

1

0

1

1

0

1

Frequency

1

1

2

1

0

1

Valid Cumulative

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

0

1

1

0

1




Seattle, WA 98195

42

Retrofit

Yourself

285

.67

1.00

1

.47

1

0

1

Valid

PLAN RETROFIT

1

2

Total

160

388

548

Frequency

Valid

PERMIT

0

1

Total

81

301

382

Frequency

Percent Percent

29.2 29.2

70.8

100.0

100.0

Valid

Percent

21.2

78.8

100.0

Cumulative

Percent

21.2

100.0

Valid 0

1

Total

RETROFIT CLASS

473

85

558

Frequency

Valid

Percent

84.8

15.2

100.0

Cumulative

Percent

84.8

100.0

Valid

CONTRACTOR

1

2

Total

493

64

557

Frequency

Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

88.5

11.5

88.5

100.0

100.0

Valid 0

1

Total

354

204

558

INSTRUCTOR EFFECTIVE

Frequency

Valid

Percent

63.4

36.6

100.0

Cumulative

Percent

63.4

100.0

Valid 1

2

Total

465

7

472

MATERIAL EFFECTIVE

Frequency

Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

98.5

1.5

100.0

98.5

100.0

Valid Cumulative




Seattle, WA 98195

43

Valid 1

2

Total

437

5

442

TOOL LENDING LIBRARY

Frequency

Valid

DCLU PROCESS

0

1

Total

67

176

243

Frequency

Percent Percent

98.9 98.9

1.1

100.0

100.0

Valid Cumulative

Percent

27.6

Percent

27.6

72.4

100.0

100.0

Valid 0

1

Total

79

177

256

RETROFIT YOURSELF

Frequency

Valid

Percent

30.9

69.1

100.0

Cumulative

Percent

30.9

100.0

Valid 0

1

Total

95

190

285

Program Review Bar Graphs

Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

33.3

66.7

100.0

33.3

100.0




Seattle, WA 98195

44

80

RETROFIT

60

40

20

0

RET ROFIT

1

100

Plan Retrofit

80

60

40

20

0

Plan Retrofit

0 1

2




Seattle, WA 98195

45

100

PERMIT

80

60

40

20

0

PERMIT

0

100

Retrofit Class

80

60

40

20

0

Retrofit Class

1 2

1




Seattle, WA 98195

46

20

10

0

40

30

70

Contractor

60

50

0

Contractor

120


100

80

60

40

20

0

1


2

1




Seattle, WA 98195

47

120

Material Effective

100

80

60

40

20

0

Material Effective

1

80


60

40

2

20

0

0


1




Seattle, WA 98195

48

80

DCLU process

60

40

20

0

DCLU process

0 1

20

10

0

50

40

30

70

Retrofit Yourself

60

0

Retrofit Yourself

1




Seattle, WA 98195

49

Appendix 5

Bibliography




Seattle, WA 98195

50

References

Abercrombie, M. L. J., The Anatomy of Judgement (Penguin Books, New York, 1979).

Camerer, C., Kunreuther, H., “Decision Processes for Low Probability Events: Policy

Implications”,

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 8 (4) (1989), 565-592.

Douglas, M., Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences (Russell Sage

Foundation, New York,

1985).

Flynn, J., Final Report, City of Portland Earthquake Risk Survey (Decision Research,

Portland, 1986).

Hammond, K. R., Human Judgement and Social Policy (Oxford University Press, New

York, 1996).

Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., Kim, J., “Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute

Information on Persuasion: An Accessibililty-Diagnosticity Perspective”, Journal of

Consumer Research, 17 (1991),

454-462.

Hogarth, R. M., Judgement and Choice (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1980).

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty:

Heuris-tics and biases. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.

Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological

Review, 103, 582–591.

Kunruether, H., Are People Willing to Pay for Risk Reduction Over Time?

(Wharton Risk

Management and Decision Processes Center, Philadelphia, 1994), working paper

.Kunruether, H., The Economics of Protection Against Low Probability Events

(International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria, 1981).

Kunreuther, H., Doherty, N., Kleffner, A., “Should Society Deal With the Earthquake

Problem?”, Regulation, 15 (2) (Spring 1992), 60-68.




Seattle, WA 98195

51

Kunreuther, H., Slovic, P. (eds.), Challenges in Risk Assessment and Management , The

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Volume 545, May

1996.

Macgill, S. M., “Risk Perception and ‘The Public’, Working Paper, School of Geography,

Universityof Leeds, September 1986.

Miller, D. C., Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement (Sage

Publications, Newbury

Park, 1991).

Rottenstreich, Y., & Tversky, A. (1997). Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory. Psychological Review, 104, 406–415.

.

Slovic, P., “Informing and Educating the Public About Risk”,

Risk Analysis , 6 (4) (1986),

403-415.

Smith, V. K., Desvousges, W. H., Johnson, F. R., Fisher, A., “Can Public Information

Programs Affect Risk Perceptions?”,

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 9 (1)

(1990), 41-59.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.

Science, 185, 1124–1131. [24]

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.

Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994). Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review, 101, 547–567.

Yates, J. F., Judgement and Decision Making (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1990)




Seattle, WA 98195

52

Appendix 6

Data Dictionary




Seattle, WA 98195

53

Field Name

Auto Number

Last Name

First Name

Property Value

Middle Initial

Street Address

City

State

Zip Code

Phone Number

E-mail Address

RD

Age

Household Income

Race

Education

Years in Residency

Survey

Question

Number Data Type Field Description

Number

This number is the unique record identifier

Text Participant's Last Name

Text Participant's First Name

Number Property Value in Dollars

Text Participant's Middle Initial(s)

Text Participant's Street Address

Text Participant's City

Text Participant's State

Text Participant's Zip Code

Text Participant's Telephone Number

Text Participant's E-mail Address

Number

If participants information was obtained by reverse directory search. 1=yes

24 Number

25

Number

Participant's age in years

Participant's Household Income

1= 0-20k 2= 20-29k 3= 30-39.9k

4= 40-49.9k 5= 50-74.9 6= 75-

99.9k 7= 100-124.9k 8= >125k

99= No Answer

27

28

Number

Number

Participant's Race, 1= African

American/Black 2=Aleut 3=Asian

4=Caucasian 5= Eskimo 6= Mixed

Ethnicity 7= Native American 8=

Spanish/Hispanic 99=DNA

Highest completed level of education, 1= No School 2=

Grade School 3= Some High

School 4= High School Graduate

5= Some College 6= Professional or Techincal Degree 7= College

Graduate 8= Post Graduate

99=DNA

29

Number

How Long, in years, has the participant lived in their current




Seattle, WA 98195

54

home

Rent or Own

Years in State

Previous Cities

Previous Cities A

Previous Cities B

Earthquake

Retrofit

Retrofit A

Retrofit B

Plan Retrofit

Plan Retrofit A

Plan Retrofit B

Plan Retrofit C

Plan Retrofit D

No Retrofit

Permit

Application Date

Permit Date

Retrofit Amount

Project Number

30

31

33

33a

33b

32

3

3a

3b

4

4a

4b

4c

4d

5

Number

Number

Number

Text

Text

Number

Number

Text

Text

Does participant Rent or Own the property where they reside 1=rent

2=own

How long, in years, has the participant lived in Washington

Have you ever lived in California

1= yes 0= no

If yes to Previous Cities, what cities

If yes to Previous Cities, what years

Has respondent ever felt an EQ?

1=Yes 2=No

Has Participant

Retrofitted(regardless of Permit

1=yes 2=no 9=Missing Case

If yes to retrofit, why

If yes to retrofit, did you do it yourself

If No to Retrofit, are you planning on retrofitting 1= Yes 0= No

If yes to Plan Retrofit, why

Number

Text

Text

Text

Text

If yes to Plan Retrofit, will you do it yourself

If yes to Plan Retrofit, Tool

Lending Library

If yes to Plan Retrofit, DCLU

Text

If no to Plan Retrofit, Why aren't you going to retrofit

Does Participant have a Permit,

1=Yes 2=No 9=Missing Case Number

Date/Time

When did the participant apply for the permit

Date/Time Date that permit was received

Number

Number

Cost of Retrofit on Permit

What is the Permit Project




Seattle, WA 98195

55

Disaster Sat/Wed Attendence

Date Disaster Sat/Wed

OH Grant Applicant

Grant Application Number

Grant Recipient

Grant Amount

Grant Process

Percent of Median Income

Individuals in HH

Males

Females

Retrofit Class

Retrofit Class A

Retrofit Class B

Date Retrofit Class

Contractor

Both

Retrofit Location

Introduced

26

1

1a

1b

Number

Date/Time

Number

Number

Number

Currency

Text

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Has Participant attended a disaster Saturday/Wednesday

1=yes 2=no

Date of Disaster

Saturday/Wednesday attendence

Has participant applied for a OH grant 1=yes 2=no

Grant Application Number

Has participant recieved a OH grant 1=yes 2=no

The retrofit cost for the grant recipient

Were in the process the indivdual is as of 9/99

Percent of Median (household)

Income

Number of individuals in household

Number of Males in Household

Number of Females in Household

Has the participant attended a retrofit class 1=Yes 2=No

Instructor Effective 1=Yes 0=No

Class Materials Effective 1=Yes

0=No

The date the participant attended the retrofit class Date/Time

Number

Has the respondent ever consulted a contractor about retrofitting 1= Yes 0= No

Text

Text

Participant has attended a retrofit class and has permitted p= Phinney, w=west seattle, cc=

Sunset Hills Community Center, r= Ranier Beach, c=St Peters church

Text

How was the Respondent

Introduced to the Program?




Seattle, WA 98195

56

6

10 yr EQ PS Number

7

Lifetime EQ PS Number

8

Harmed Loved Ones

9

City and Community Lessen

Scientists Don't know shit

Motor Vehicles

AIDS

Drinking Alcohol

Nuclear Power Plants

Medical X-rays

Crime & Violence

Windstorms

Street Drugs

Large Dams

Cancer

Flooding

Commercial Air Travel

Fire

EQ Insurance

Comments

10

17

18

19

20

11

12

13

14

15

16

21

22

23

34

35

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Memo

How likely it is a major earthquake will occur sometime in the next ten years in the Seattle Area?

How likely it is there will be a major earthquake in the Seattle area within your lifetime

There is little I can do to prevent harm to my loved ones and I during a major EQ

There is not much my city or community can do to lessen it's effects

I am skeptical of scientists to predice earthquakes

Motor Vehicles

AIDS

Drinking Alcohol

Nuclear Power Plants

Medical X-Rays

Crime & Violence

Windstorms

Street Drugs

Large Dams

Cancer

Flooding

Commercial Air Travel

Fire

Do you carry EQ insurance

Additional Comments




Seattle, WA 98195

57




Seattle, WA 98195

58

Retrofitting Single Family Home to Reduce Vulnerability from

Using Home Retrofit to Strengthen Vulnerable Homes from

Earthquake Damage

An assessment of the first 16 months of the

Seattle Project Impact Home Retrofit Program

Appendix 1

Survey Package

Appendix 2

Spatial Distribution

Appendix 3

Demographic Profile

Demographics Bar Graphs

AGE

Household Income

Education

RACE

Rent or Own

Years in State

Earthquake

Individuals in HH

Appendix 4

Program Review

RETROFIT

Plan Retrofit

PERMIT

Retrofit Class

Contractor

Instructor Effective

Material Effective

Tool Lending Library

DCLU process

Retrofit Yourself

Appendix 5

Bibliography

Appendix 6

Data Dictionary

Related documents

Products

Support

Retrofitting Single Family Home to Reduce Vulnerability from

Using Home Retrofit to Strengthen Vulnerable Homes from

Earthquake Damage

An assessment of the first 16 months of the

Seattle Project Impact Home Retrofit Program

Appendix 1

Survey Package

Appendix 2

Spatial Distribution

Appendix 3

Demographic Profile

Demographics Bar Graphs

AGE

Household Income

Education

RACE

Rent or Own

Years in State

Earthquake

Individuals in HH

Appendix 4

Program Review

RETROFIT

Plan Retrofit

PERMIT

Retrofit Class

Contractor

Instructor Effective

Material Effective

Tool Lending Library

DCLU process

Retrofit Yourself

Appendix 5

Bibliography

Appendix 6

Data Dictionary

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib