Retrofitting Single Family Home to Reduce Vulnerability ...mitigate.be.uw.edu/thesis.doc · Web...

Using Home Retrofit to Strengthen Vulnerable Homes from Earthquake Damage: An assessment of the first 16 months of the

Seattle Project Impact Home Retrofit ProgramSponsored 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.

Institute For Hazards Mitigation Planning And ResearchDept. of Urban Design and Planning

University of WashingtonSeattle, WA 98195

2

3. Homeowner classes for do-it-yourselfers

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



3

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.

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



4

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.

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.



5

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.

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.



6

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.

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.

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 project. (19%)



7

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

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.

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. Insurancea. 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



8

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

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



9

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)

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



10

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.

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 longer-term residents more committed to their neighborhoods and homes.



11

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.

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



12

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.



13

Appendix 1Survey Package



14

U N I V E R S I T Y O F W A S H I N G T O NHome Retrofit Assessment Survey

March 31, 2000

Rob WillisUniversity of WashingtonBox 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 [email protected]. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Robert A. WillisUniversity of [email protected]



15

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

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?

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?



16

Could do the work myself

SECTION I: HOME RETROFIT QUESTIONS

Safety of family/occupants

Protect Investment

Timing coincided with a remodel

Found a contractor to retrofit

Possibly qualify for earthquake insurance

Other (please explain):_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Safety of family/occupants

Protect Investment

Can coincide with a remodel

Can save money and do it myself

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?

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:



17

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Need more information

Don't think it's necessary

Cost

Haven't found a contractor

Home doesn't fit standard

Need an engineer

Other (please explain):

To possibly qualify for earthquake insurance

Other (please explain):____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SECTION II: PARTICIPANT PROFILE QUESTIONS:

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

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.


Instructions for questions 11-23: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 High Risk

12. AIDS? No Risk Slight Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

13. Drinking Alcohol? No Risk Slight Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

14. Nuclear Power Plants? No Risk Slight Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

15. Medical X-rays? No Risk Slight Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

16. Crime & Violence? No Risk Slight Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

17. Windstorms? No Risk Slight Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

18. Street Drugs? No Risk Slight Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

19. Large Dams? No Risk Slight Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

20. Cancer? No Risk Slight Risk Moderate Risk High RiskInstitute For Hazards Mitigation Planning And Research

Dept. of Urban Design and PlanningUniversity of Washington

Seattle, WA 9819518

21. Flooding? No Risk Slight Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

22. Commercial Air Travel? No Risk Slight Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

23. Fire? No Risk Slight Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

Instructions for questions 24-35: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 BlackAleutAsian American/Pacific Islander (please

specify)___________________CaucasianEskimoMixed 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 CollegeGrade School Professional or Technical DegreeSome High School College GraduateHigh School Graduate Post Graduate



19

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

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:

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



20



21

Appendix 2Spatial Distribution



22



23



24



25



26



27



28



29



30

Appendix 3Demographic Profile



31

DATA LEGENDName Value DescriptionAge Numeric Actual Age of RespondentHousehold Income 1 0-19999Household Income 2 20000-29999Household Income 3 30000-39999Household Income 4 40000-49999Household Income 5 50000-74999Household Income 6 75000-99999Household Income 7 100000-124999Household Income 8 125000 or GreaterEducation 3 Some High SchoolEducation 4 High School GraduateEducation 5 Some CollegeEducation 6 Professional or Technical

DegreeEducation 7 College GraduateEducation 8 Post GraduateRace 1 African American or BlackRace 3 Asian AmericanRace 4 CaucasianRace 6 Mixed EthnicityRace 7 Native AmericanRace 8 Spanish/HispanicYears in Residency Numeric Actual years in ResidencyRent or Own 1 RentRent or Own 2 OwnYears in State Numeric Actual Years in StateEarthquake 0 Have not felt EQEarthquake 1 Have felt EQIndividuals in Household Numeric Actual Household Size

GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS

StatisticsAGE Household

IncomeEducation RACE Years in

ResidencyRent or

OwnYears in

StateEarthquak

eIndividuals

in HH N 530 482 533 473 466 548 539 557 533

Mean 47.94 5.16 7.08 3.99 11.01 1.95 26.53 .96 2.40 Median 46.50 5.00 7.00 4.00 8.00 2.00 22.00 1.00 2.00

Mode 53 5 8 4 2 2 10 1 2 Std. Deviation 11.71 1.76 1.12 .59 10.46 .22 17.66 .21 1.08



32

Variance 137.15 3.09 1.25 .35 109.41 4.69E-02 312.00 4.29E-02 1.16 Minimum 23 1 3 1 1 1 1 0 1

Maximum 86 8 8 8 70 2 81 1 8

FREQUENCIES

AGEFrequency Percent Valid

PercentCumulative Percent

Valid 23 1 .2 .2 .227 2 .4 .4 .629 3 .5 .6 1.130 7 1.3 1.3 2.531 8 1.4 1.5 4.032 14 2.5 2.6 6.633 14 2.5 2.6 9.234 12 2.2 2.3 11.535 15 2.7 2.8 14.336 18 3.2 3.4 17.737 11 2.0 2.1 19.838 9 1.6 1.7 21.539 21 3.8 4.0 25.540 17 3.0 3.2 28.741 17 3.0 3.2 31.942 24 4.3 4.5 36.443 20 3.6 3.8 40.244 15 2.7 2.8 43.045 18 3.2 3.4 46.446 19 3.4 3.6 50.047 20 3.6 3.8 53.848 12 2.2 2.3 56.049 15 2.7 2.8 58.950 23 4.1 4.3 63.251 15 2.7 2.8 66.052 16 2.9 3.0 69.153 27 4.8 5.1 74.254 15 2.7 2.8 77.055 11 2.0 2.1 79.156 7 1.3 1.3 80.457 8 1.4 1.5 81.958 9 1.6 1.7 83.659 7 1.3 1.3 84.960 8 1.4 1.5 86.461 3 .5 .6 87.062 5 .9 .9 87.963 4 .7 .8 88.7



33

64 4 .7 .8 89.465 4 .7 .8 90.266 6 1.1 1.1 91.367 6 1.1 1.1 92.568 4 .7 .8 93.269 4 .7 .8 94.070 5 .9 .9 94.971 2 .4 .4 95.372 2 .4 .4 95.773 3 .5 .6 96.274 4 .7 .8 97.075 2 .4 .4 97.477 3 .5 .6 97.978 2 .4 .4 98.379 2 .4 .4 98.780 1 .2 .2 98.981 3 .5 .6 99.483 1 .2 .2 99.684 1 .2 .2 99.886 1 .2 .2 100.0

Total 530 95.0 100.0

HOUSEHOLD INCOMEFrequency Valid

PercentCumulative

Percent Valid 1 13 2.7 2.7

2 32 6.6 9.33 38 7.9 17.24 63 13.1 30.35 133 27.6 57.96 89 18.5 76.37 65 13.5 89.88 49 10.2 100.0

Total 482 100.0

EDUCATIONFrequency Valid

PercentCumulative

Percent Valid 3 5 .9 .9

4 11 2.1 3.05 53 9.9 12.96 37 6.9 19.97 188 35.3 55.28 239 44.8 100.0

Total 533 100.0



34

RACEFrequency Valid

PercentCumulative


3 26 5.5 6.64 427 90.3 96.86 11 2.3 99.27 2 .4 99.68 2 .4 100.0

Total 473 100.0

YEARS IN RESIDENCYFrequency Valid

PercentCumulative


2 59 12.7 19.7 3 48 10.3 30.0 4 29 6.2 36.3 5 19 4.1 40.3 6 18 3.9 44.2 7 23 4.9 49.1 8 24 5.2 54.3 9 16 3.4 57.7

10 18 3.9 61.6 11 14 3.0 64.6 12 13 2.8 67.4 13 8 1.7 69.1 14 13 2.8 71.9 15 14 3.0 74.9 16 19 4.1 79.0 17 5 1.1 80.0 18 3 .6 80.7 19 3 .6 81.3 20 14 3.0 84.3 21 2 .4 84.8 22 3 .6 85.4 23 5 1.1 86.5 24 3 .6 87.1 25 13 2.8 89.9 26 2 .4 90.3 27 7 1.5 91.8 29 3 .6 92.5 30 8 1.7 94.2 31 1 .2 94.4 32 2 .4 94.8 33 2 .4 95.3 34 2 .4 95.7 35 3 .6 96.4 37 2 .4 96.8



35

38 3 .6 97.4 39 2 .4 97.9 40 2 .4 98.3 43 1 .2 98.5 44 1 .2 98.7 45 3 .6 99.4 47 1 .2 99.6 48 1 .2 99.8 70 1 .2 100.0

Total 466 100.0

RENT OR OWNFrequency Valid

PercentCumulative


2 521 95.1 100.0Total 548 100.0

YEARS IN STATEFrequency Valid

PercentCumulative

Percent Valid 1 1 .2 .2

2 8 1.5 1.73 11 2.0 3.74 5 .9 4.65 13 2.4 7.16 13 2.4 9.57 13 2.4 11.98 17 3.2 15.09 15 2.8 17.8

10 28 5.2 23.011 15 2.8 25.812 16 3.0 28.813 11 2.0 30.814 11 2.0 32.815 19 3.5 36.416 6 1.1 37.517 12 2.2 39.718 5 .9 40.619 7 1.3 41.920 27 5.0 46.921 9 1.7 48.622 12 2.2 50.823 11 2.0 52.924 7 1.3 54.225 9 1.7 55.8



36

26 5 .9 56.827 7 1.3 58.128 6 1.1 59.229 2 .4 59.630 16 3.0 62.531 4 .7 63.332 12 2.2 65.533 10 1.9 67.334 6 1.1 68.535 5 .9 69.436 3 .6 69.937 7 1.3 71.238 2 .4 71.639 5 .9 72.540 20 3.7 76.341 6 1.1 77.442 4 .7 78.143 5 .9 79.044 13 2.4 81.445 7 1.3 82.746 8 1.5 84.247 4 .7 85.048 5 .9 85.949 6 1.1 87.050 10 1.9 88.951 8 1.5 90.452 7 1.3 91.753 4 .7 92.454 4 .7 93.155 5 .9 94.156 1 .2 94.257 3 .6 94.858 3 .6 95.460 6 1.1 96.561 2 .4 96.862 1 .2 97.063 1 .2 97.264 1 .2 97.465 1 .2 97.667 2 .4 98.070 4 .7 98.775 4 .7 99.476 1 .2 99.677 1 .2 99.881 1 .2 100.0

Total 539 100.0

EARTHQUAKE



37

Frequency Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid 0 25 4.5 4.51 532 95.5 100.0

Total 557 100.0

INDIVIDUALS IN HOUSEHOLDFrequency Valid

PercentCumulative


2 273 51.2 66.63 91 17.1 83.74 63 11.8 95.55 18 3.4 98.96 5 .9 99.88 1 .2 100.0

Total 533 100.0

Demographics Bar Graphs

AGE

AGE

83797572696663605754514845423936333023

Perc

ent

6

5

4

3

2

1

0



38



39



40



41



42



43

Appendix 4Program Review



44

DATA LEGEND

Variable Name Value DescriptionRetrofit 1 Respondent has RetrofittedRetrofit 2 Respondent has NOT RetrofittedPlan Retrofit 1 Respondent plans to RetrofitPlan Retrofit 0 Respondent does NOT plan to RetrofitPermit 0 Respondent has NOT permittedPermit 1 Respondent has permittedRetrofit Class 1 Respondent has attended retrofit classRetrofit Class 2 Respondent has NOT attended retrofit classContractor 0 Respondent has NOT contacted contractorContractor 1 Respondent has contacted contractorInstructor Effective 1 Respondent feels instructor was effectiveInstructor Effective 2 Feels instructor was NOT effectiveMaterial Effective 1 Respondent feels class materials were effectiveMaterial Effective 2 Feels class materials were NOT effectiveTool Lending Library 0 Plans NOT to use the tool lending libraryTool Lending Library 1 Plans to use the tool lending libraryDCLU Process 0 Does NOT know about the DCLU permit processDCLU Process 1 Does know about the DCLU permit processRetrofit Yourself 0 Plans not to retrofit the home themselvesRetrofit Yourself 1 Plans to retrofit the home themselves

GENERAL PROGRAM STATISTICSRetrofit Plan

RetrofitPermit Retrofit

ClassContractor Instructor

EffectiveMaterial Effective

Tool Lending Library

DCLU process

Retrofit Yourself

N 548 382 558 557 558 472 442 243 256 285 Mean 1.71 .79 .15 1.11 .37 1.01 1.01 .72 .69 .67

Median 2.00 1.00 .00 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Mode 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1

Std. Deviation

.46 .41 .36 .32 .48 .12 .11 .45 .46 .47

Range 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Minimum 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0

Maximum

2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1

FREQUENCIES

RETROFIT



45

Frequency Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid 1 160 29.2 29.22 388 70.8 100.0

Total 548 100.0

PLAN RETROFITFrequency Valid

PercentCumulative


1 301 78.8 100.0Total 382 100.0

PERMITFrequency Valid

PercentCumulative


1 85 15.2 100.0Total 558 100.0

RETROFIT CLASSFrequency Valid

PercentCumulative


2 64 11.5 100.0Total 557 100.0

CONTRACTORFrequency Valid

PercentCumulative


1 204 36.6 100.0Total 558 100.0

INSTRUCTOR EFFECTIVEFrequency Valid

PercentCumulative


2 7 1.5 100.0Total 472 100.0



46

MATERIAL EFFECTIVEFrequency Valid

PercentCumulative


2 5 1.1 100.0Total 442 100.0

TOOL LENDING LIBRARYFrequency Valid

PercentCumulative


1 176 72.4 100.0Total 243 100.0

DCLU PROCESSFrequency Valid

PercentCumulative


1 177 69.1 100.0Total 256 100.0

RETROFIT YOURSELFFrequency Valid

PercentCumulative


1 190 66.7 100.0Total 285 100.0

Program Review Bar Graphs



47



48



49



50

Institute For Hazards Mitigation Planning And Research

Dept. of Urban Design and PlanningUniversity of Washington

Seattle, WA 9819551



52



53

Appendix 5Bibliography



54

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. PsychologicalReview, 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.



55

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 ofsubjective probability. Psychological Review, 101, 547–567.

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



56

Appendix 6Data Dictionary



57

Field Name

Survey Question Number Data Type Field Description

Auto Number NumberThis number is the unique record identifier

Last Name Text Participant's Last NameFirst Name Text Participant's First NameProperty Value Number Property Value in DollarsMiddle Initial Text Participant's Middle Initial(s)Street Address Text Participant's Street AddressCity Text Participant's CityState Text Participant's StateZip Code Text Participant's Zip CodePhone Number Text Participant's Telephone NumberE-mail Address Text Participant's E-mail Address

RD Number

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

Age 24 Number Participant's age in years

Household Income

25

Number

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

Race

27

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

Education

28

Number

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

Years in Residency

29

Number

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



58

Rent or Own

30

Number

Does participant Rent or Own the property where they reside 1=rent 2=own

Years in State31

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

Previous Cities33

NumberHave you ever lived in California 1= yes 0= no

Previous Cities A33a

TextIf yes to Previous Cities, what cities

Previous Cities B33b

TextIf yes to Previous Cities, what years

Earthquake32

NumberHas respondent ever felt an EQ? 1=Yes 2=No

Retrofit

3

Number

Has Participant Retrofitted(regardless of Permit 1=yes 2=no 9=Missing Case

Retrofit A 3a Text If yes to retrofit, why

Retrofit B3b

TextIf yes to retrofit, did you do it yourself

Plan Retrofit4

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

Plan Retrofit A 4a Text If yes to Plan Retrofit, why

Plan Retrofit B4b

TextIf yes to Plan Retrofit, will you do it yourself

Plan Retrofit C4c

TextIf yes to Plan Retrofit, Tool Lending Library

Plan Retrofit D 4d Text If yes to Plan Retrofit, DCLU

No Retrofit5

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

Permit NumberDoes Participant have a Permit, 1=Yes 2=No 9=Missing Case

Application Date Date/TimeWhen did the participant apply for the permit

Permit Date Date/Time Date that permit was receivedRetrofit Amount Number Cost of Retrofit on Permit

Project Number NumberWhat is the Permit Project Number

Disaster Sat/Wed Attendence

Number

Has Participant attended a disaster Saturday/Wednesday 1=yes 2=no



59

Date Disaster Sat/Wed Date/TimeDate of Disaster Saturday/Wednesday attendence

OH Grant Applicant NumberHas participant applied for a OH grant 1=yes 2=no

Grant Application Number Number Grant Application Number

Grant Recipient NumberHas participant recieved a OH grant 1=yes 2=no

Grant Amount CurrencyThe retrofit cost for the grant recipient

Grant Process TextWere in the process the indivdual is as of 9/99

Percent of Median Income NumberPercent of Median (household) Income

Individuals in HH26

NumberNumber of individuals in household

Males Number Number of Males in HouseholdFemales Number Number of Females in Household

Retrofit Class1

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

Retrofit Class A 1a Number Instructor Effective 1=Yes 0=No

Retrofit Class B1b

NumberClass Materials Effective 1=Yes 0=No

Date Retrofit Class Date/TimeThe date the participant attended the retrofit class

Contractor Number

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

Both TextParticipant has attended a retrofit class and has permitted

Retrofit Location Text

p= Phinney, w=west seattle, cc= Sunset Hills Community Center, r= Ranier Beach, c=St Peters church

Introduced TextHow was the Respondent Introduced to the Program?

10 yr EQ PS

6

Number

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



60

Lifetime EQ PS

7

Number

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

Harmed Loved Ones

8

Number

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

City and Community Lessen

9

Number

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

Scientists Don't know shit10

NumberI am skeptical of scientists to predice earthquakes

Motor Vehicles 11 Number Motor VehiclesAIDS 12 Number AIDSDrinking Alcohol 13 Number Drinking AlcoholNuclear Power Plants 14 Number Nuclear Power PlantsMedical X-rays 15 Number Medical X-RaysCrime & Violence 16 Number Crime & ViolenceWindstorms 17 Number WindstormsStreet Drugs 18 Number Street DrugsLarge Dams 19 Number Large DamsCancer 20 Number CancerFlooding 21 Number FloodingCommercial Air Travel 22 Number Commercial Air TravelFire 23 Number FireEQ Insurance 34 Number Do you carry EQ insuranceComments 35 Memo Additional Comments



61



62

Retrofitting Single Family Home to Reduce Vulnerability ...mitigate.be.uw.edu/thesis.doc · Web...

Documents

Transcript of Retrofitting Single Family Home to Reduce Vulnerability ...mitigate.be.uw.edu/thesis.doc · Web...