<%BANNER%>

Comparing Human and Social Resources Accumulated through Participation with Habitat for Humanity in Scattered Sites and ...

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110331_AAAABO INGEST_TIME 2011-03-31T13:44:59Z PACKAGE UFE0013770_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 51312 DFID F20110331_AABLBI ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH zhu_y_Page_194.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
a902b1fafc3a7e617aa498f09c1698a8
SHA-1
28b36f4c7ec4a1b0d48aeda7bad84a3976dcb13f
102518 F20110331_AABLAU zhu_y_Page_176.jpg
756df95c4457d4e9e224f37c2ef91edf
af992c9413986f04edc9028f3448c3acb792381f
102794 F20110331_AABKWC zhu_y_Page_020.jpg
05e25f4aa105076ef5efa1099db1ca3c
b03eaf28fd9073f8f7c9c4581e4531086be41052
4843 F20110331_AABKVO zhu_y_Page_003.jpg
f8e369edd50bcf9476ca9f881d9207cd
dbd27d632004bb7e2eeb7a1b12528b8b69a19f29
104569 F20110331_AABJRX zhu_y_Page_178.jpg
b3e8c11347e3795820d324ed35118a3c
c117fa2a8616cc2e14a1b8aae3159c841b7744e0
13684 F20110331_AABKUZ zhu_y_Page_195.pro
6ee65e5f1c5e4d0fed35c58f4eb6ee1a
18d581cc0876e6b275b97623a18c341110dfb438
8423998 F20110331_AABJTA zhu_y_Page_191.tif
3c53f1698c117bb7534c80f7e3121d80
4c1c5c513de278600cb63dde8d84413fc86325ba
397548 F20110331_AABJSM zhu_y_Page_011.jp2
c8066d89aeb00ac1df5ed6a33f081641
fa1ae921424d1ff3d02c070d9a51422404c56b0a
26645 F20110331_AABLBJ zhu_y_Page_195.jpg
49aacb654e5af13625480a14bf2c38dc
b53763637bbf15fe0638c555c57507eed8c037a5
97605 F20110331_AABLAV zhu_y_Page_177.jpg
487c7b13302c413d5f3b186dd959acea
431831f80ab9f081f981b10087f78d721357b2cc
104832 F20110331_AABKWD zhu_y_Page_021.jpg
e8daa12363d98e7fb325f231b3780649
dd9f11aa70ae9c3c08920d94359d1e6a9e4e9929
57290 F20110331_AABKVP zhu_y_Page_005.jpg
fef9880c571f9aca9386041200f521d6
2b61052b922ad1300076f6902e56fdb8513bb355
2042 F20110331_AABJRY zhu_y_Page_133.txt
c84c2515a80b5425c177b18e472f4e17
670241b554f61cc9e5082e3eee2b8dbf6475285d
1053954 F20110331_AABJTB zhu_y_Page_039.tif
51c9138d2b3572c3bf0fb636a184f67b
94a3f94724bda2b9d570e1f5d86a456eb34647ba
105574 F20110331_AABJSN zhu_y_Page_065.jpg
8ed556da591e694987936ac2ae8cdb3f
6939422664b9fcbd42315aabe1a158848d0d4e3b
60472 F20110331_AABLBK zhu_y_Page_196.jpg
8369c478ec7a71e9a08f4375ad180c6f
1c6d47baecc7bd4f1fc6e6fbb4ecec3e52465f3f
105586 F20110331_AABLAW zhu_y_Page_179.jpg
4b75c056d7cd796f27ed48006e69aedb
7aefa26e968003861088537555ea8273c407081f
108051 F20110331_AABKWE zhu_y_Page_022.jpg
97bc012d440d2340340e6155945cd318
4cf0a34b3f6c7cb2d44cabbe3002c83f7a1e0021
99784 F20110331_AABKVQ zhu_y_Page_006.jpg
0651d8e7093da2a17eb151567d09547b
22804cb0df8a899c0ff4d42c3f8d0814d0d8cb02
51039 F20110331_AABJRZ zhu_y_Page_072.pro
e4c3a5cab7f22d79ced2650c7bfe0efc
e38cff10aa295ab27bc67d41f91b6d2183cd9a52
95036 F20110331_AABJTC zhu_y_Page_095.jpg
2a4c56bf54ae706721c896163b19c69f
cedaca1ee4986339547095a43b988a2804ac501e
103984 F20110331_AABJSO zhu_y_Page_097.jpg
1b8c2d1e6f12c3b64cf4b7fc06566311
8eef85ae23de153c662c072484aedd957617810b
22377 F20110331_AABLBL zhu_y_Page_197.jpg
ea9bd5cddcf63aa985f9921732dbc7fe
aa281d455c2865247a1891f7320a13c776fb620e
104298 F20110331_AABLAX zhu_y_Page_180.jpg
cc715a6e459b71d7d9b90c9660e46d13
19824b6a04c45b1f0941d37c2dca05f173f7687d
102183 F20110331_AABKWF zhu_y_Page_023.jpg
33a400d45745151954eb4c426b95b65b
eada340cb1d4586a0901271015fe59b991003efd
29022 F20110331_AABKVR zhu_y_Page_008.jpg
6a06afae90e0f1a46c125f4b6b63a8c3
66d013aec11f5bd7b4b0d8ec1419f582db491da0
52820 F20110331_AABJTD zhu_y_Page_179.pro
85b0a4dbbe27ad25c52552e2f56cd246
98954b655ad24b7fe9bbebc20858454eb6aa1980
92445 F20110331_AABJSP zhu_y_Page_004.jpg
f1560519d143fd43935e6eb498980a9c
054315c46568637e8ee3ff50fffe1d241d9e6ad2
5871 F20110331_AABLCA zhu_y_Page_003.jp2
fc0aac9d615ff51b59590030fb83dfd7
cd83f0f3760f97ba39d855004fbcc2a36ded97f1
93955 F20110331_AABLBM zhu_y_Page_198.jpg
e1d7725c42ed717e5762847fe5812e19
1ce1eaf8f47cb77dd298608e45acf91d432e99a6
100107 F20110331_AABLAY zhu_y_Page_182.jpg
2173c28b3756b26c6caaada21dbb04d9
f5f98f911ae0501204398b9cdd545bb184a8b0f0
104695 F20110331_AABKWG zhu_y_Page_024.jpg
9e5836d691baf86d8d08d949d73af911
835ed1ed2438dc13d9d50da4f9bad9db1aaefd5f
8025 F20110331_AABJTE zhu_y_Page_046thm.jpg
792de3c6d98f0a3f6869ecaca2b4c037
51794cf5bafd7d7bb05c5600659584960f8cced4
97665 F20110331_AABLCB zhu_y_Page_004.jp2
759fda79e5df08010d44be8e837461bd
038341d9d7d478124e75dc2a5fd759c3867a9588
114796 F20110331_AABLBN zhu_y_Page_200.jpg
f4ee4ca3a8f96df1c01ea0acb299c8da
e41429b9cd3e5ba3abddab00d3bd7f5c7ea4f807
87703 F20110331_AABLAZ zhu_y_Page_183.jpg
d2b87d01f4a3002e4bc901bd63a1027e
ab1b7f9415a7b5b9c444fd6a8f51a5314906df54
103738 F20110331_AABKWH zhu_y_Page_025.jpg
a58e731acac4d41126c898112ffd37e0
e407a98f7bc420a8e72519ee49a68fdb862f6759
90258 F20110331_AABKVS zhu_y_Page_009.jpg
ceba42300259493c33ba0bedfe103c73
7e601e3ffe19aac6c0383f65621692340e176bf7
111974 F20110331_AABJTF zhu_y_Page_179.jp2
8a611583614de8fe78ecce54321aa7e2
65d69d488d75fed9829705d795fab887fd97d870
8314 F20110331_AABJSQ zhu_y_Page_081thm.jpg
c570f7e24851218026174ee851043590
8908189cabb1acaccf03c2cb7e6681343cab4347
60424 F20110331_AABLCC zhu_y_Page_005.jp2
db24f8dd3d5a5a18daf94504a8245360
4557adbef3feca56a365d8962ab13336edbc56bd
108656 F20110331_AABLBO zhu_y_Page_201.jpg
1972fe44dd2e6887c9a70d9674846fef
6ee410880c5cb2444aac63ae1efbe2831b82f778
108238 F20110331_AABKWI zhu_y_Page_026.jpg
05d374586c1b6ab660573ff2b3af5fef
447f624c00d8170d2414f45dea70c5fbaeee4d5f
107853 F20110331_AABKVT zhu_y_Page_010.jpg
ac8e0e8cb04c8689144ec7a2e34f71b4
66548a2569689e92cee8a563942c1fafe94880b7
2571 F20110331_AABJTG zhu_y_Page_120.txt
051758e25c99405df0bbd599c1a02786
a35d1cb0cc501e9335026f581bcfa03933e13b38
7230 F20110331_AABJSR zhu_y_Page_168thm.jpg
e719fe8f37b97cfa4812bee60aac4407
8c6ea23cf75545fc1ed0b7aef68f624c097e1152
1051977 F20110331_AABLCD zhu_y_Page_006.jp2
02c9de95f515002e872d833658852d94
76b547ec5283f30949a109c26b96f8dbb58dc4f3
114131 F20110331_AABLBP zhu_y_Page_203.jpg
07d94820333de7c1f8a18ac3b01c1ee3
49b7ec6cced8f6f18dd0ec6452ce20fdcef3df58
91293 F20110331_AABKWJ zhu_y_Page_027.jpg
2fe93953928c8cacaebb6e8f99bce9d5
4b22e5141b2fc13033908742be2bf83387acd18d
22891 F20110331_AABKVU zhu_y_Page_011.jpg
1690c28d71ff8dad2a644e34872c58ec
4255b2d9f5c442d2a77d3ec2be6fa427853be6f1
42033 F20110331_AABJTH zhu_y_Page_185.pro
87912f7eb86a8c3a2ded5e5b1178eee5
5b802357acd6b4a29660cc1231063c6ae3564ee0
114173 F20110331_AABJSS zhu_y_Page_165.jpg
c13d7af9ad97d0c8ceddbbab6f476b80
e68f14b1a47628cd1b490c33d908af76877b12e7
1051974 F20110331_AABLCE zhu_y_Page_007.jp2
406b813fdf09b76a2abdba8e2eb27068
d2fce8d4dc6ae33bd8c4de2baf036b69f1f934df
116129 F20110331_AABLBQ zhu_y_Page_204.jpg
7054898fcc92b4665c6355321103f5f7
cb820a1e5a9bf136e758377bdd6ab5c179d3fe56
104884 F20110331_AABKWK zhu_y_Page_028.jpg
d86745f748707b83089123120fb2ce46
3a0e97461181b769c32f3d5aa72097912cd4dce1
85682 F20110331_AABKVV zhu_y_Page_012.jpg
4d97337ddb5b0253123abf42cdb372a3
774b5e1d7890c846e305edb93da668a084455f5a
103333 F20110331_AABJTI zhu_y_Page_117.jp2
b7182ebf8876e8526f894c65b5e59e87
a09a8311fdc20a46d2c6ac584e559d1f5d5a2d1f
33374 F20110331_AABJST zhu_y_Page_019.QC.jpg
b0f37e43e5283b51cde75e45304e8b3e
80e4259275935f2593baac68a3b314d2e5ea08ca
461259 F20110331_AABLCF zhu_y_Page_008.jp2
bd9a873d87281f583b01a337e8afa845
85dd2d7e88566a26b7d1be6b683636729186dab7
111453 F20110331_AABLBR zhu_y_Page_205.jpg
53faf95825db7539e8b8b85dcf074de3
5ddacf14659f60aacdd13b1d41b03f2ff30d1b37
109473 F20110331_AABKWL zhu_y_Page_030.jpg
2cb802e836da7d2f1ae1a46a4caf7ec6
ad3b1b71b32148971dc46ef7fe2b8f996d681d26
81095 F20110331_AABKVW zhu_y_Page_013.jpg
f6338469a14570b4930f8027222c7cdd
d0da1db6f4a44e3643930d40787240076102ecb1
45894 F20110331_AABJTJ zhu_y_Page_096.pro
8ea7d03d17803d183a7270faf8a60d68
db32ca1e7a37b29800885b8f0eeb548d0ce0fd79
2387 F20110331_AABJSU zhu_y_Page_151.txt
f221771a8d63aac4aca5de9426946d9a
7da6d113ef180cb06dcd880dd5d06c07f246db8f
1051980 F20110331_AABLCG zhu_y_Page_009.jp2
2a8a10e28985435e8f4edaec1512415c
8fae748012e70b5d1ced07e2e337a9e84e570c8c
121820 F20110331_AABLBS zhu_y_Page_206.jpg
05411daf5ff0c0c4aff90c2184ce9477
d6d8d8917f1aeb3269893e7a7c5207307eb451b3
103776 F20110331_AABKXA zhu_y_Page_048.jpg
5f4303f02fb7191530a046eb144ca61f
2443164d1fff670e17e47c67879615acb2710293
99190 F20110331_AABKWM zhu_y_Page_032.jpg
bbf40cd3dd3762b988ef4c00d99921e8
2fd3ccf98844c93de825e476203f613914924573
89800 F20110331_AABKVX zhu_y_Page_014.jpg
82ab2a7af105d40422ab7666ec54b876
fdd3ad9936d3f6995213f8ab45feb5e11fe4fe90
32810 F20110331_AABJTK zhu_y_Page_084.QC.jpg
4d400a40e0b476491cf3164eeedec228
b2b94f58d0a9f368db1233dd4aef4f1da5345cb3
8436 F20110331_AABJSV zhu_y_Page_176thm.jpg
80b239882a93afd66ac80b1ba65faf72
f9196f6005e1b42a9d4fbd2e6d922203f1175b0b
F20110331_AABLCH zhu_y_Page_010.jp2
61286e8c475c7124db313915cba7fe07
364f709345a3f7c3100d6e4fab97d453f7b96b28
114939 F20110331_AABLBT zhu_y_Page_207.jpg
367d6648d126b475fdd2ee8e0d368003
14b9c027c4a52e0946b8c3dc8ea88c102fba6497
107766 F20110331_AABKXB zhu_y_Page_050.jpg
2e46e4ef6b6d608e2ba353d66bceb2f2
95c3dd3c7a3402ab0bf41ac9c982bf21385fa26c
94198 F20110331_AABKWN zhu_y_Page_033.jpg
8874992ed9e29f5aab37ef96265e25a1
235626cd3c1aebc01d5df55df260ff8ce3237046
103206 F20110331_AABKVY zhu_y_Page_016.jpg
1f75adcc2cf6ba60914321b5deb235a5
c32d488594eb264a30618441171c0d4a27e4bec3
66637 F20110331_AABJTL zhu_y_Page_196.jp2
87c18a55cef1695258a0d15af251fde5
f88cf85dc301f623024c5bc3cea4e2086d668b49
1831 F20110331_AABJSW zhu_y_Page_112.txt
cca1e56e962c61a8c654bbe07f95535c
ee6f6f4c4a165826fa2d7cccbcbd45ae620c285a
86724 F20110331_AABLCI zhu_y_Page_012.jp2
a1cc0ce2305610b4845434ab164ff58e
57593b90a162055d35b3a7e32293f465360f3209
137613 F20110331_AABLBU zhu_y_Page_208.jpg
0a708956045812136775ef71636a6df7
b031517594a86440b2bc8fb10c7f9d2a568ac808
103204 F20110331_AABKXC zhu_y_Page_052.jpg
d0cc8f10810ac2973470dd34dcdda1fa
9ba6e9b964e0fa613bc32fe6cafa9c44a8ac9160
89662 F20110331_AABKWO zhu_y_Page_035.jpg
371bc8a6a488fc190051946bd0762a56
596513a553232ebee464e72e57eacd826b7255df
103944 F20110331_AABKVZ zhu_y_Page_017.jpg
6e66b5ac42a1bea7026212e288e74d47
2d54b81839ae1d4a6f38d628bf1dd7279c137a7c
8081 F20110331_AABJUA zhu_y_Page_069thm.jpg
02ad85734e702b8c2ad7b778235583ae
ce95e690ea9e31d85dd91eb6e6dc82fe6626e695
21840 F20110331_AABJTM zhu_y_Page_102.jpg
cc5896e25effda56988767a5d73c1e87
5944e3760c6e3fe09aaae6f91ffd64d2579125d7
87304 F20110331_AABJSX zhu_y_Page_041.jpg
51128447d5379706e817aa62ddbd9015
a00b89be3f8e2d2436fd6cc72664dd3952fd89b9
88137 F20110331_AABLCJ zhu_y_Page_013.jp2
bcea1052ba2724a8b9f501e9c3f0d89c
5055acddf9887d3ff70dd6c3eb3159636caf0c2a
136842 F20110331_AABLBV zhu_y_Page_209.jpg
32d0f6b3faa724bcfa11966e37f9afe6
f128039fb741e227d408659aafe436d366c207a5
96864 F20110331_AABKXD zhu_y_Page_054.jpg
9d1ae50c5eac0bf3070be941a2003185
499d4700e5620a96f7459be7a639ab9d4c86a2fb
99620 F20110331_AABKWP zhu_y_Page_036.jpg
8c0b4859f42211458e54626780ef6fc9
7c3f1333367dc52470a6c9a1ca9a61517097f7b5
81728 F20110331_AABJUB zhu_y_Page_103.jpg
91a9f3c366b337b7a4f7d00933c1d20d
5a893cb07e7277fd0e9c4f4c6696c46c49b1576f
119301 F20110331_AABJTN zhu_y_Page_087.jpg
3f16d35dc86acc26e6848e82b65400f5
2b3b0ced459e32fa102bad8d5ab796ca64cb6792
F20110331_AABJSY zhu_y_Page_094.tif
48fe8b733ad7f9e6353359d3268639df
774ac03532723d96a343842963aec02c4ee7a1ec
93627 F20110331_AABLCK zhu_y_Page_014.jp2
730bc2a9eb1f9fa2d69c8170eea9e881
f918915c90074825a2eb818703af2e85c3e71380
97581 F20110331_AABLBW zhu_y_Page_210.jpg
d55145dc7aa145a0bf13608e0aa2e4c2
c71caa043e5d844e9e2de2d64fe60afc8fd4a31b
95817 F20110331_AABKXE zhu_y_Page_055.jpg
9f76f5e0634531fca3ba1d886c33cf8b
ee59ab837a0e92512b0b96c68b17825077a0ccc4
104742 F20110331_AABKWQ zhu_y_Page_037.jpg
365dde5dcbf12c2766a28ff279b44a84
5e7345692ffff7a4acea24b6d3adbc899280df13
15350 F20110331_AABJUC zhu_y_Page_142.pro
ce7d5a6d475950aafccc9fda0d5bceea
fd1c97fa82aa3caf29719415eee3d2961399324c
1935 F20110331_AABJTO zhu_y_Page_048.txt
1f317229a92f9dc91704319b7f99e744
31a54b13228e467c10aabd50aee06849166fc423
85016 F20110331_AABJSZ zhu_y_Page_142.jpg
22642bfb9b806dd0aebec7f0c1cf709e
cfc31a0d73c071ddc850c2416c2745e6e7c952cc
111550 F20110331_AABLCL zhu_y_Page_015.jp2
711b9a6ace93f7c90164fb0c823a77e2
3e6a8bae7257e396fe727bf36ec501bf681a2a98
60942 F20110331_AABLBX zhu_y_Page_212.jpg
578c861218be9154376f19145442193a
8acb3908fdb50102b46bd712d34398e40abf5a3e
101536 F20110331_AABKXF zhu_y_Page_056.jpg
51427ef3bc7971cb48dd4a7124065610
df640a8b30ce0ea2c6becc6cdd7abda328b4ce42
99921 F20110331_AABKWR zhu_y_Page_038.jpg
75efda58e2218f9c65c512af2ce398ab
9db30ca3c32c14d8e5e0903a2522a1d9d1fb97e1
4870 F20110331_AABJUD zhu_y_Page_149.pro
09d14a57cbe86c5bcbfe764aadd20f25
fa4430c56dfb0f821dfa70173831c3e9d472b3ea
1986 F20110331_AABJTP zhu_y_Page_051.txt
85ae8e24ff2cda21139c66cb1a1d42f6
62b9c55a1ad131f38978a3ced3c191c6549c341c
101851 F20110331_AABLDA zhu_y_Page_033.jp2
0319d79589812a00ea5b58a8495094cb
094bd477a4c7c683bcd25c16b2e388a9518c94e9
108958 F20110331_AABLCM zhu_y_Page_016.jp2
d4f6d5cc0d25f60a37fb67fd68a6ca36
a9e8799b8f98c5f503c80c29a26ab7dfc1239942
28164 F20110331_AABLBY zhu_y_Page_001.jp2
8aeeb6b20116db8993dd2f1ca8bf4c4d
5f1c2be56040c7d99fe2b9a532416c3e26e8054b
106109 F20110331_AABKXG zhu_y_Page_057.jpg
950a0e79e399235517639eccdc53964c
0ab477b32538d5a488523cfccef4dea55f79fc0d
104409 F20110331_AABKWS zhu_y_Page_039.jpg
c6aecf03ce9a0d6fb25fc4bfe4365403
974392b180d05c0d6a421c3506192121382a96a1
8475 F20110331_AABJUE zhu_y_Page_163thm.jpg
e199bd03f47407d7e36d4ae3ceae4fc8
72b02557ad8a3d60c97b63d65f1efd92d302d673
2064 F20110331_AABJTQ zhu_y_Page_015.txt
9bb1fd7ae91c48bf2e9adfaa3bd75242
a10df2940ca12051b02d48902638bbafead6a394
31246 F20110331_AABLDB zhu_y_Page_034.jp2
af497d44731a10a321416b239d891ec4
0f740bbe0a771091d4b05f451a5424e6e5e31219
110130 F20110331_AABLCN zhu_y_Page_017.jp2
d7ba22d7732ca093b3c1fb683fd26f40
63b037bf38931894fd561884de4d1a85e8ba8b42
5190 F20110331_AABLBZ zhu_y_Page_002.jp2
5c914dd25f79b4a5296bc519a92ee08b
7cdfeb16104b08be62e33adabf72dea6b36fdd19
102418 F20110331_AABKXH zhu_y_Page_058.jpg
70631b35ff89e2c325b918ad3ee0d336
e2ab8e20d03582bc3708902bc830614bfc4aebd4
F20110331_AABJUF zhu_y_Page_209.tif
416316a35a6c38b386fd20411be42eda
fd959fb40deaf2355cb016b807fb98d8df815676
93557 F20110331_AABLDC zhu_y_Page_035.jp2
fed6dfa5a1224f71c22b1a1a2b8a4aa3
7e58ab4d941001977ad4621e54e1ce062bad05f0
109443 F20110331_AABLCO zhu_y_Page_018.jp2
2d6232c91a2e08033fe6fa7ff62f7842
509f151dda7273cb1cbb649f4c101b1d0633f90e
104614 F20110331_AABKXI zhu_y_Page_059.jpg
8d0ac3a72599ed69f925ce8f1de7558a
e84917752e637afea583f3510d69402f44fe9392
98506 F20110331_AABKWT zhu_y_Page_040.jpg
9af8b5f554aed486b11c4d785cd6bdad
eefce27d6e65e4bde6a63c8b983f4d5757f39f16
99266 F20110331_AABJUG zhu_y_Page_122.jp2
2e2db540cba02718991f3a8ca6d1eaef
676c0a8bb80e3c432aec57796795531198ee077d
62046 F20110331_AABJTR zhu_y_Page_199.pro
b38372931ac2abdada639185bbf77cd9
14349b15cd32e2fe18634c8c129511a853b5eddc
F20110331_AABKAA zhu_y_Page_019.tif
00496ac0219aef5b3aee5708c7afc609
6e78142b514eadc0f5e8f95a41cb545896efa524
111260 F20110331_AABLDD zhu_y_Page_037.jp2
bcf0d7720c25ed30cb5029dca5731548
dfde3a78a7f2fd52c4496331ce7f19ccb30fbd75
107966 F20110331_AABLCP zhu_y_Page_019.jp2
2cc658091416822b68f12f167e99d057
ba71696d5c162dbf42f19e0682c03f224ec44c25
105675 F20110331_AABKXJ zhu_y_Page_061.jpg
e4b17ac5abe30c51184492cdd71950b6
50607f2bcd4f9cf9e97deecd095eb2a242c2ce94
85358 F20110331_AABKWU zhu_y_Page_042.jpg
a0ca2cab3bcb2a08c04036c9cb46f63b
a6be9b42303f7e0a92a828e175c5c78cd733a062
40301 F20110331_AABJUH zhu_y_Page_188.pro
5f181de8c6957506e909082746aa91db
cce916e652f837cb5785ad10d879be3e0bc478f2
99933 F20110331_AABJTS zhu_y_Page_070.jpg
159ef007a35d0c7b757064e4b4efd5ef
ce5d5525ef1be949d8939d11b65aec5028990442
F20110331_AABKAB zhu_y_Page_147.tif
2a0b46ef61501aacb02414f1e1af9170
884995955a8714c4ed1475aaea964c436b980533
108664 F20110331_AABLDE zhu_y_Page_038.jp2
5d2362bf7a33a347198bf77e2a038ce2
89ed4216413bd0ad49beb0a0bd2f800394be4021
108750 F20110331_AABLCQ zhu_y_Page_020.jp2
e4422ab5685c3a006e79b87c4e65b21f
71daa7eb46a333b6ee61706fd3be1d977726d3ed
101031 F20110331_AABKXK zhu_y_Page_062.jpg
f6f643abe33b7af9a8558c94fbcec904
92d788b50875986ff793f11d1e8847e4e189bffe
98711 F20110331_AABKWV zhu_y_Page_043.jpg
9267eb53ce325c7293e8b09e452eb3bb
a6251d218a3a3855e4e71c24f8c050191b8ac202
2112 F20110331_AABJUI zhu_y_Page_008thm.jpg
d062b1df9f78cde2c7349d386e648724
2a752e7b58fed79da9c89c39e7b7082d6b23ecaa
51391 F20110331_AABJTT zhu_y_Page_063.pro
8a85194fa478a77f89ff92a065c54a11
26bf90dae018a696fbf899e942d9422c0cfa55c9
F20110331_AABKAC zhu_y_Page_161.tif
f62786b93471af7f75e5b9d78305ad1f
2336530fab692d3852641f02ab25c0566bfacef6
111807 F20110331_AABLDF zhu_y_Page_039.jp2
1484ad9168cee699f25e2fb16f445223
719a6ae4d0e32dae8051644354d4c46e6caeca86
111517 F20110331_AABLCR zhu_y_Page_021.jp2
68ee5d6abb4870a9748fef857d9ac26f
4539ee1415a17d03302821545658900835f70011
103470 F20110331_AABKXL zhu_y_Page_064.jpg
10cd3dc4334f55d3b5985aef6eb0bf59
e56823c25913104667a37b12f536a16f0602a9d6
101901 F20110331_AABKWW zhu_y_Page_044.jpg
ebcc6e9db305b38703547a137442bd97
d827d3b41d8e8936ab947d739afd4c8c18f8167b
43458 F20110331_AABJUJ zhu_y_Page_211.pro
9a5885d6866a3299a729adbb19d6107a
083da8ac6d02a5754501ce6ab33a012935c0ef40
48314 F20110331_AABJTU zhu_y_Page_040.pro
674afec9c94319cc8bacf3a8f3a9162d
dcfbbfdb0ec9f170aaae32b29b6503f008dda12f
100155 F20110331_AABKAD zhu_y_Page_167.jpg
1b0476363ba3c0a68bba7a2b90ac3b18
18687b714e27ef5757b2d2ac2807f1157d6ea426
105539 F20110331_AABLDG zhu_y_Page_040.jp2
4438a8d8d475e222c98b729c2eb37483
bfebc8899709435f76ac908ca78e2014f1b565e9
112168 F20110331_AABLCS zhu_y_Page_024.jp2
613d19f47aaf2e71c1d0199ed17fc83e
16106e784dd8a371820456bf813c631bb1a40e94
96768 F20110331_AABKYA zhu_y_Page_089.jpg
c2f7f24c349b0b6a3fb5d1912fc22862
4e49bec3b278fdbed4c264dccf2b33bd5030c605
103690 F20110331_AABKXM zhu_y_Page_067.jpg
3b4800f232b216d29e494afc6ca74201
bca050b0038f21b19c8033e399071e7dcce09952
101343 F20110331_AABKWX zhu_y_Page_045.jpg
898f2f6782a33e8baab8c785ba41f2ed
5af77f0f77654bbb71817fd13bca5d92781d0c0e
52487 F20110331_AABJUK zhu_y_Page_155.pro
cb65728612a2b9aec0b094d6d41e0ed8
2e1f9d522d877a24fdc43626b02b9d5afb77a237
2446 F20110331_AABJTV zhu_y_Page_121.txt
08ce99096fe606b842bf9d2fb690787c
0254f755647a19194d0c281d1e689424b48158a1
8107 F20110331_AABKAE zhu_y_Page_136thm.jpg
7f5f0b83adac202d6c16875164a16efc
f6b33b4fcf5ed47b1c6a2cf5937221f7cedbb714
87140 F20110331_AABLDH zhu_y_Page_041.jp2
b78a5d47c6759d0832c2f4e99a1af65d
be228b6c48e547fee14d4727945471686fb97609
110849 F20110331_AABLCT zhu_y_Page_025.jp2
9f1a4c361e3e77ca3d0a3add39d7274a
5b8e91e42e8c269669cde16d570d24db6423a96a
92805 F20110331_AABKYB zhu_y_Page_090.jpg
223f7770e5b9b1600f35a37513ec6a3a
bd940108ac8bd6549c43485f5a191a3c2d786db0
99638 F20110331_AABKXN zhu_y_Page_069.jpg
264af90a8890a5db1452f49688fe66ea
e01de3b2a78a1d7b07acba830d73ab64dd44a48e
100149 F20110331_AABKWY zhu_y_Page_046.jpg
da73e5ae114777af00dbc25c2bf6e5a3
45101386c19cf3b6da95b2fc4f784bf1cb01fee7
F20110331_AABJUL zhu_y_Page_137thm.jpg
0ba8fc742c132d250c8e89fe83e7908a
808fe2983849365e695976ac9b86e977a11a3fa2
92317 F20110331_AABJTW zhu_y_Page_083.jpg
02e8ebb5fcab5b73bf5f43a4d0d5fc1a
033b626c40a0f1ece4bb27de449f5d518e6ed1a5
99432 F20110331_AABKAF zhu_y_Page_096.jp2
d12b1c476a02d70d22a1a5ff95829735
3cd9ef1b356daed2004c54e4705a9649b50e701b
105658 F20110331_AABLDI zhu_y_Page_043.jp2
3b01e6df1652f0b5e5adff10354ceade
b2d42e4cced41f44e96b812790bb887bc33597b8
114648 F20110331_AABLCU zhu_y_Page_026.jp2
c2d56f20a77a5376ef02bedb51f8f9ce
6e743d94e3e2781917f5ff0d7313596338b9b8f9
101976 F20110331_AABKYC zhu_y_Page_091.jpg
5240e6552e3a16cd6f138fcaed5d04dd
eb5038b37e3df547a1fb2ac26dd61d09e0314cbf
103724 F20110331_AABKXO zhu_y_Page_072.jpg
f9892ee580cd5eee41eb6e34b9bc31b4
20d5498e4a0c66fc827d75c25ff7cd4e5e71ca11
102344 F20110331_AABKWZ zhu_y_Page_047.jpg
91e5e8d4307febf03a429a3e764a2b36
721f7b3cbdf7a1ab5eb30e99e1e78f5a7a614436
91117 F20110331_AABJTX zhu_y_Page_211.jpg
08cf59447f7ddb28ef194a9e1b74a694
5de57d59bde20490b6a4e9ec811aa2c63c736ac9
8090 F20110331_AABKAG zhu_y_Page_038thm.jpg
702edf2279249ad4dcf81d2dc02f5b2d
c75c3b6d4e7faba8cc7766d2681f0de79bd9780b
7766 F20110331_AABJVA zhu_y_Page_094thm.jpg
28edef494466938bf968d66d8793fd71
61273854898b11905611c694dd220bba9d976c20
113250 F20110331_AABJUM zhu_y_Page_063.jp2
15d3866871508ef162b457c1688794df
7c5cf6f53dcf1812dac6b96f004ec7cab623222f
110215 F20110331_AABLDJ zhu_y_Page_044.jp2
59ab724833dc1ddfa71d63a050a61ab7
6b6613c377b02c10f2612bd16ffd3459ac9293a1
97742 F20110331_AABLCV zhu_y_Page_027.jp2
fb5d31351fcc7f522c0802ca8c8ee79e
b363c4d2e1e1a9deec2a1fc16d7df27eb137fb37
99532 F20110331_AABKYD zhu_y_Page_092.jpg
bd6d4c7996310b3b4367a9c8f50c2a0f
ad831b13eabc17fc2d40696d5fe21c3d2d7fcd9e
103671 F20110331_AABKXP zhu_y_Page_073.jpg
2a38c45a48a21f163f7e69a7062386be
2905488481c851d5be09479e8205b8b12f5ce1e7
49557 F20110331_AABJTY zhu_y_Page_023.pro
b89877b7efa424532723400f25f5ff89
5def9114510f4806e371e22df32c9f66c069d7d1
33637 F20110331_AABKAH zhu_y_Page_101.QC.jpg
7699d2fee652bd6a859d13ddc656d02b
2994495b04bc99709a1b29721f60560d421dd01e
8159 F20110331_AABJVB zhu_y_Page_092thm.jpg
e0d6d7a6df5bb8d8eb4edf16fed1ad1a
e0b71d30c8ff5bb5367e03089e64aa6a262d1c69
8364 F20110331_AABJUN zhu_y_Page_056thm.jpg
35160bbf4a19fa12b4248344d808e9b8
fad6169e9ad23c60f649c02cbd889abce58c3461
106539 F20110331_AABLDK zhu_y_Page_045.jp2
1ab025e8e9d3187ae1838cc8d4a1ab9a
88ecf21665af714951a8b5ae43ae497fd7a0de82
111654 F20110331_AABLCW zhu_y_Page_028.jp2
28af123a44a748bdfdb8c4e6ad79dcd0
d08dc497dc5ef9a218980566a7c38f3af67e026c
88492 F20110331_AABKYE zhu_y_Page_093.jpg
ed15df5d505b9ba81c9ecfb51c39cef4
18046d8a2dbc9a3b3cb2ab06595f694514d7bec9
96531 F20110331_AABKXQ zhu_y_Page_074.jpg
f39579abac74cf494beb6524d3028d11
1eafeec4aa436d44b2fcb63445d3c5b2003c248d
89248 F20110331_AABJTZ zhu_y_Page_123.jp2
8c13dc4f90aad7a16346936f6bc99a9e
acd1123b72b886ef137969045f76644aff278f36
5734 F20110331_AABKAI zhu_y_Page_190.QC.jpg
e2510ca7ad465fb653c797edf4fd7bc5
b052497795caeae42c1ec344a5823e546712d1ab
108594 F20110331_AABJVC zhu_y_Page_085.jp2
930184fde72e7595c9e0519dc6857526
2c9341c56d66a89a072238cf9a7723cd91424e83
106233 F20110331_AABJUO zhu_y_Page_060.jpg
781ffc6e90607c52b1a24343ac9db32a
baad6160305b77a253d11e1f2642d1345738177b
106940 F20110331_AABLDL zhu_y_Page_046.jp2
12c334e474848437bd9b3b3763ff724e
b7f538d8be8483ac89adab5a25582b16b268af8d
110288 F20110331_AABLCX zhu_y_Page_029.jp2
4d5b02ce66d05bf34478324ff22ccc07
6c27623d7dec20fec9d79a420e778aa59c365e69
96140 F20110331_AABKYF zhu_y_Page_094.jpg
ab02275365e4102129e929ab941521ef
59917d93c579ffc36f290ab2ab5f170563f9f213
103969 F20110331_AABKXR zhu_y_Page_075.jpg
4733a7c46d20ea12ba765e33e769c2e8
f6f1aa329a4b0c65d662435ea76946fc090baa22
1982 F20110331_AABKAJ zhu_y_Page_152.txt
a5b56aa1e0d7ed72d904cec17a812d6e
f75fecc17d0f7f737e2e4932a6beff589db93970
51529 F20110331_AABJVD zhu_y_Page_076.pro
abc6989fb92eb50a4e7b571170973bdf
085f1b38efbe30f9405e0aee340a79386a039e30
8884 F20110331_AABJUP zhu_y_Page_208thm.jpg
23c391eeee9a01a8698c9aa42e28ce40
7f21fc3e6bd2cfb81a618d22b89675bcf42af513
108121 F20110331_AABLEA zhu_y_Page_062.jp2
2e3afeae5f8037c32b94512a98720450
7cc58ce8538267144f6f0b402acc7614e6c5e2cd
108628 F20110331_AABLDM zhu_y_Page_047.jp2
7cb4b86438da7b00a825abc7a659221f
2296c23794a8dd28f40d0e2d02cfb0233bc92c5a
114627 F20110331_AABLCY zhu_y_Page_030.jp2
65ca702ddf6f6dc436936dab01730211
374fff5bb2909dee3b95c32dcd537591e9ed62c2
102695 F20110331_AABKYG zhu_y_Page_098.jpg
dc332758517759c331f8a6231242aef7
5b3d166aab54524190a514f00dfb91f0d1f94b21
103616 F20110331_AABKXS zhu_y_Page_076.jpg
d764bed4ce01b6a0eafe41c2a7bea1fa
f1ec4b68814c6a8532d89b7517dfc225bfa1a956
F20110331_AABKAK zhu_y_Page_012.tif
fc38dfb98f18c0a4107ff2f2d528aa36
8063428b59d38439b6954647fdf4cdf115751b13
111400 F20110331_AABJVE zhu_y_Page_180.jp2
475a5d52e181d3013d57c73924c70591
e1c6cfa5f67f9ac816ddc51393df231f0db3c05c
8537 F20110331_AABJUQ zhu_y_Page_047thm.jpg
ec15d2c4da4285b75053f74b2f0f9e75
8f2e63746b14a958e356977c061402ab53f8bd25
110660 F20110331_AABLEB zhu_y_Page_064.jp2
c8558fc78b4454b187a8215976df66ac
7ca4cbd83d5fbcc0f45877f5ddedda2efa78da14
108473 F20110331_AABLDN zhu_y_Page_048.jp2
24ff0c35bd35039582d483bdd5831824
5b33abc31b7b7c8dd6efe023227596ca24335866
106475 F20110331_AABLCZ zhu_y_Page_032.jp2
821df0e9305f2171dce82acb45bca59d
157a89cf1688091ff1eb17742a31c365560ca7ff
104345 F20110331_AABKYH zhu_y_Page_099.jpg
51c19a553d90c948b288fb773bc83f20
60a2a0ebd3299e9712f2cf363a7ed38e387923f6
93057 F20110331_AABKXT zhu_y_Page_078.jpg
2d9e337ffcdce25c0b413e5672d13b52
ab22a02119909e222c837913ebf3e033ac192d29
351 F20110331_AABKAL zhu_y_Page_190.txt
f37592f57fab64a0573d5407acba5460
1be8077cbc4e1742b374343883675e043b2da548
1440 F20110331_AABJVF zhu_y_Page_138.txt
1207e3e649849adb7c6330c156820279
f4e47e7bf440c498b3a70bcbd68267c0cb440bfd
8229 F20110331_AABJUR zhu_y_Page_028thm.jpg
c6e5f6474a7b71ee2fe047bc858513bc
5ae89b46cc454dc7f296c5c588255b6f407f43b6
113449 F20110331_AABLEC zhu_y_Page_065.jp2
319be79ac318fafacd86d94f4aa8edd8
73cf9442c37b248e4be43103e63d916c364d8667
108221 F20110331_AABLDO zhu_y_Page_049.jp2
0c42092040592b04c9b4fe22b30ef318
d80ffbf17ffa1445572ccfff5cd8ab5a878b3e76
106230 F20110331_AABKYI zhu_y_Page_100.jpg
64e107e54ee0b4ff799dc5ec2e91cf1a
661dffbb1164538e561139ad911945bb1ad0b973
F20110331_AABKBA zhu_y_Page_069.tif
52e8650d38a4ff2e2c1fb66571b66622
f4cf8f237353d43f40d81af8ef0b7cdfbfa6f8b5
2897 F20110331_AABKAM zhu_y_Page_006.txt
e212f90b55cbad6bd115c726b4a7f3e9
0b13727008681a9d5d5fd63314d18455f84465e4
109011 F20110331_AABJVG zhu_y_Page_081.jp2
f81bb0f57db8840cae60ed72ff78fa8c
25ee416b659898bfff84952d8ff73d78bdf6bd1c
103964 F20110331_AABLED zhu_y_Page_066.jp2
8b4963173d9d4969a950c89428eba36f
282259fc6fb4a766e34ae5a7fa9668a083fe3ec3
113565 F20110331_AABLDP zhu_y_Page_050.jp2
4312ffd8e235153cf5dd3536b65681f9
8b265472c0721ea6f9d440a77f46713040582e90
103522 F20110331_AABKYJ zhu_y_Page_101.jpg
002e5223e080906243a7b90466f0f137
f18115f7546bdefdf4d815933a19e10d9adf3d10
93352 F20110331_AABKXU zhu_y_Page_080.jpg
5512a3697666ae17179462fdb6b4713c
605e5f20eaba6a4a1dd271d833fc6223e424df2b
106178 F20110331_AABKBB zhu_y_Page_068.jpg
e94ecb47f6c4abfac95fae0a1888f65d
e5d63a34d6c67577cc66a674db2de199985d8a06
42697 F20110331_AABKAN zhu_y_Page_139.pro
8c2a324d216c2207c781f0fbc36fefa9
2735e953342e97a33c3d0d38e92a3e41cd19135f
31178 F20110331_AABJVH zhu_y_Page_148.pro
9e52962ba15c0d83a73df351e7faf661
a7d28b8cf1a9a4d2e3ede67d717e5b093828d67d
30075 F20110331_AABJUS zhu_y_Page_077.jpg
096cb92a5346bf2f5f920f6d7fd83c4f
00b0a17a87a8d6e48cce2cd568f03e2aea420a73
111217 F20110331_AABLEE zhu_y_Page_067.jp2
d888b2c97ea8d9ea272555e26c5db3e7
fcfb5454b71f3ef6578a11329ec2d365fda27ab1
109333 F20110331_AABLDQ zhu_y_Page_051.jp2
14035706a5c6e4b225c7f39ce45c539f
1e4d6b6db5b153c1b630d7dec3fbd7765968ef6d
74567 F20110331_AABKYK zhu_y_Page_104.jpg
0c3b8c63911260edf5d75c15641e3bfb
04212a7b27dc94125784a1dbf5a79f265fc67ec9
102437 F20110331_AABKXV zhu_y_Page_081.jpg
24d48f3a841da4b4bd163f6b1e7823c0
7dbf81b77c8219e92f02be156bf9c76b6af7a788
244452 F20110331_AABKBC UFE0013770_00001.mets FULL
1f3cfe71148208abb70a71650262e2b5
f9eb007a7a85074384d00c775a646aa3dbc7c83e
81806 F20110331_AABKAO zhu_y_Page_188.jpg
571d4503d7dd3495f219aea4e666b38c
cb29941844e69ad03e8fa9158621e3bdf90af86a
F20110331_AABJVI zhu_y_Page_148.jp2
26c8f8bded3a1d12d471b45fc1b98e44
2f681b90139c7ef502610ed7bc13831eec3ceba4
31371 F20110331_AABJUT zhu_y_Page_134.QC.jpg
8cdad0094aa63336d11e989d1ab7052f
9ad3677d9b60575524f0340719f9e25badec273a
113863 F20110331_AABLEF zhu_y_Page_068.jp2
f58441eea5ee06830b040f867a26173c
685fdb5ce4b7220f73f283e41d31fbbc60f1ebd5
109275 F20110331_AABLDR zhu_y_Page_052.jp2
fef1916b12580f1b9ee7b2985e5df7c0
99c3e95c3cc85323101c62e10b5c7c7580546982
105975 F20110331_AABKYL zhu_y_Page_106.jpg
d0c226b8558c32848abc6ea20a25569d
9ea6fa41cde0075384df09e22c8cb98b7ef748fe
105478 F20110331_AABKXW zhu_y_Page_082.jpg
c84847b3533d445bd2df768750c8622b
720cd9452ec33abb5fecdc3723cd20d2d0bc6f5a
52129 F20110331_AABKAP zhu_y_Page_039.pro
000ae3127b9aae0172de3ccea07a9f6e
f7db12e7d643c2bd0c79b218e17c8977d3f84341
7343 F20110331_AABJVJ zhu_y_Page_093thm.jpg
55099a9baac69f02e7d32bc678e460fd
084691a059e25a5e23f3c264481654f31f58dede
F20110331_AABJUU zhu_y_Page_045.tif
8470b112bc274f8ebf6bfe73096ec02d
34ef75b1632dcaea7a7f7cdb72ba213525b8ee75
108125 F20110331_AABLEG zhu_y_Page_069.jp2
16fb3d6b8cb39038dbaf02a637d915e6
d523cb8b9aa907a157368814050e6c823b0e418d
105197 F20110331_AABLDS zhu_y_Page_053.jp2
547856914f178165b10f1762d7605c84
e9c7622e9d2930de71637753b04ee8f35a47a87c
89683 F20110331_AABKZA zhu_y_Page_121.jpg
dacba50f97def4774c646117d314762e
8479c519f77da2ec09b6dd49d08829d043bbf295
99182 F20110331_AABKYM zhu_y_Page_107.jpg
7124a61470b98914581c64d0cbb8ec2d
74ea1c942d778aea03b87cdc0f8e6bd1902e212a
102555 F20110331_AABKXX zhu_y_Page_085.jpg
892c83bfea323e15ebb472921364e180
7e49e6caf50378d2cdfba29477fe0224b674c83e
8381 F20110331_AABKAQ zhu_y_Page_072thm.jpg
a4c5bbab67ab1b8dde9f6855b2341747
d65602e6f162d500963d05ab751eab8d663d6ddc
100566 F20110331_AABJVK zhu_y_Page_105.jpg
d7d797e8e4096311ad78e25cdb838ea8
00d625b859b0ff75ce7ae4ff15e33040dbe320a5
1911 F20110331_AABJUV zhu_y_Page_140.txt
8454e4bee1bbb7a1577d4e22cf544fad
9a99ac1aab685d80f5fb8c830ac34f92516e7664
110440 F20110331_AABLEH zhu_y_Page_071.jp2
20ee24c4c986c0b2a1bc1de01e116949
010d02ea1276c66bc5e0e286ac41a80f06593f56
103448 F20110331_AABLDT zhu_y_Page_054.jp2
1ddc7012cf9b7527c6a001b6979080f5
36761b4b6c427d0abca2cdff7b1cc904bc712297
93042 F20110331_AABKZB zhu_y_Page_122.jpg
53abcfbf751032ba649fc6cf95d8d208
f8726242da0ab2aefb628eea94ed13253e50f0c7
101154 F20110331_AABKYN zhu_y_Page_108.jpg
b7db5e46a6b7752be962429c5852e9ef
956749bf784fecd8ea7e7a67c351f3bd583dcda8
83243 F20110331_AABKXY zhu_y_Page_086.jpg
1e83ae0f0f8d4d9554654f7e994655a9
1dd7004108659d9ad996f3fc36e71fc108f5c006
F20110331_AABKBF zhu_y_Page_001.tif
87539b335483241582541b9d5043c4b6
c596227272f8add3076857f2130d4b73b731673a
6605 F20110331_AABKAR zhu_y_Page_012thm.jpg
6f77cff79e3435f6c97e7d12cc33fcf4
962a92efd5e2322f2f5916612973724e2b2ecf6b
89137 F20110331_AABJVL zhu_y_Page_086.jp2
7e0e753c790f1ccb1ffa2863ed648c88
372d6d9b22488d55056ff3b325275954faf801d6
48862 F20110331_AABJUW zhu_y_Page_032.pro
d23a5862335a47c3211ed5c610dbc479
66e757718bf20e12e1ff1ad368b193b3545c6d4f
112192 F20110331_AABLEI zhu_y_Page_072.jp2
8633ca7836ef731855ed8bbdeae08a48
be19c7cc27fc4bea573bbf0c6807539d2c18aaa0
104196 F20110331_AABLDU zhu_y_Page_055.jp2
83842d027169ef3444d27f2936ebe689
6f3cc5b68e3a92300338247f8d99e2342a698b81
83757 F20110331_AABKZC zhu_y_Page_123.jpg
af69538e8b40f8362d389f7511407415
1b5a0e3206846201eff80456be60e2b049ea595f
98266 F20110331_AABKYO zhu_y_Page_109.jpg
89630d78f713719d41f6a6c6603049fc
bea6212889f90ad3fd07f322ae27430d262964c4
104749 F20110331_AABKXZ zhu_y_Page_088.jpg
e8157753f244e5d71aa9bc89572a7265
63f6c26b1b7261139e28d4fba48161dec7b83729
F20110331_AABKBG zhu_y_Page_002.tif
e31a4063403be700b294d878d2883458
f05c02a946f5490104306e7f32da2f7244a369a1
120840 F20110331_AABJWA zhu_y_Page_199.jpg
02a1814cd1337631fdfab1268c50ece9
b6b491d0d4d87134e1bb86b4a92067d50ee41b0b
25271604 F20110331_AABKAS zhu_y_Page_087.tif
47b79aaedd7e3fbddaa4c00aff68a49c
e69172be507e5b4950d3e55496cfcac2a08e90fa
2054 F20110331_AABJVM zhu_y_Page_210.txt
8b6e9e407b659997007e531e0eab97df
8c91ec503cd79ec9558ec581b0f6741a860904de
58096 F20110331_AABJUX zhu_y_Page_204.pro
c8673c26be541fd1e62a61c9453dce75
f1c922db80a0e2b6e267db7696305894de948a5f
113167 F20110331_AABLEJ zhu_y_Page_073.jp2
4acf69813a96299cbe97b4cf3b4d9af6
9554143f84d4fce9b46aa1bd7672082749cda94d
108194 F20110331_AABLDV zhu_y_Page_056.jp2
cc643c23dea698a03df31dda5f1c09e5
3d6716d0acbc63bc15d0f87ca39e8d12f0ba5a9c
104363 F20110331_AABKZD zhu_y_Page_124.jpg
f6b8a552c035cf3ecb7937c9b2a8b0e4
91c5ef6af82c34e2e466517e1af43cd187742f41
100351 F20110331_AABKYP zhu_y_Page_110.jpg
08ffea79cbf596a3348550d7a4a7b5b1
3158a30c29b97b55b0f1e01f3d21bc46ba86163a
F20110331_AABKBH zhu_y_Page_004.tif
4ec8b2ce5756bdda3329a68fc0cfd106
eec9ab184643768ea9ac6741b1addff4c5df1b51
33013 F20110331_AABJWB zhu_y_Page_056.QC.jpg
816f44977fb9c4aa62b84825f08fe829
cd7028973dd0d4afe7dd796773286cd52c766771
F20110331_AABKAT zhu_y_Page_022.tif
d62c34857e5f0386889fd6e1865363ae
aa9353f521ab58711da2bafb5e1febc74af2e471
F20110331_AABJVN zhu_y_Page_151.tif
41d10702fa7cee4069cb1817a91136c9
d9c3ab95980bfc6f7f35b8d0722726544adf53cf
112053 F20110331_AABJUY zhu_y_Page_061.jp2
d06bda4cbae418fc75852a3567bbd459
476307a2cf862db56e4da87e53fc15ce5fdc8877
103463 F20110331_AABLEK zhu_y_Page_074.jp2
e106b3c967436b39bc364aa07e0e14b9
c6518f0eeac24c26aba60d92de49b249ff115e86
112356 F20110331_AABLDW zhu_y_Page_057.jp2
2938aa826684a3f8eed3fadac5e19204
319cb1ef0803932281275a4588173a875fc1c598
90920 F20110331_AABKZE zhu_y_Page_126.jpg
6d1652b2b2852c86d89af2d9bf0b70c8
cbc80b6a9cff2b86e7efc6c3e4ee73c8d2a2d0ea
95601 F20110331_AABKYQ zhu_y_Page_111.jpg
7101cade604df0457d7e114e1506acd1
f455e13901618e42e65cc9f13600bff8c6f1771c
F20110331_AABKBI zhu_y_Page_005.tif
25cbba1d2366b018acd2adc158665c72
c23ac3886fb6d422591dcf9482328b5083b7d69a
32813 F20110331_AABJWC zhu_y_Page_129.QC.jpg
058d70397da23eefbc8a8ab3f3b8cbd5
5334bac53f098280f993739d504e55034187151c
48584 F20110331_AABKAU zhu_y_Page_046.pro
fa63360eb18d392370b46bd20d010f85
7ce8863d2c525aa24b5ee6db805bb052df027f3a
29054 F20110331_AABJVO zhu_y_Page_007.QC.jpg
1fd652d60c1c8ea6a6ba63e4e4c60e05
dd8860f832bb088323514463947de8ce433f0a2d
31717 F20110331_AABJUZ zhu_y_Page_001.jpg
2d877394ed22e1413a4ea62f313b292d
6325d07502977d67fa2cecb007801b7e131b8601
95270 F20110331_AABLFA zhu_y_Page_093.jp2
cf937d46d5c01e25155abfc5c7b2299e
573706984adf8cbf8bc5c2e45e92016cc90c2c0c
112143 F20110331_AABLEL zhu_y_Page_075.jp2
b6ef44295fae6d4bc62567d4c0891261
84e90efed1eb8a9d809a7d8471f93ab385829220
109652 F20110331_AABLDX zhu_y_Page_058.jp2
0c4c6f7ad7f49f5ab2cfbbed2d3ce4c1
d0180bf925e2e5a1db17c72488efc21c9070a3c5
97163 F20110331_AABKZF zhu_y_Page_127.jpg
cd94239b95546e392ea280301cfe9650
1c796620d2b330ba41abfb12a90e54043b24c4da
94742 F20110331_AABKYR zhu_y_Page_112.jpg
72bbe6db8fe422eea7cafd4670d10db6
1b72bd63c587b4ca481f09abee4c9ef0f159b37c
F20110331_AABJWD zhu_y_Page_121.tif
457330c81eaa2dba55fc59aac9ca8474
0b163408b4339a5f3e61bd8441f63141f86baed5
F20110331_AABKAV zhu_y_Page_131.tif
7f6bfdbdbe077d1abcd52f4da8be1faf
bc5569be4e197527973b7aad88242f37c094a21a
2433 F20110331_AABJVP zhu_y_Page_034thm.jpg
4919115c0738d7d9992cbe078a6869a7
b18b3cebc94f57d409c9d9f6c900850503173799
F20110331_AABKBJ zhu_y_Page_006.tif
495f226f678820f9f9aebfb308ccf698
7e254ad3ec58416eeb7ef2c512eaf40bb6be395d
111948 F20110331_AABLEM zhu_y_Page_076.jp2
b1a0d0262126f7e0234eb21f12590fa6
c407db16d0c72fd085b3aa3f50f3c82b75332a90
112531 F20110331_AABLDY zhu_y_Page_059.jp2
160a316563918f8a64422678b4a8b969
3e1b44b263972494f56d3be3654f53554e608c22
99343 F20110331_AABKZG zhu_y_Page_128.jpg
23c5eda86b1253833119ddd9266801ea
089ab522c83be6ce0a1f6611581dd1f4621bed12
78883 F20110331_AABKYS zhu_y_Page_113.jpg
96783f1c42a83550cace0755e6b44427
3a74e8c92986fa63b605e7593a8d519a0be32d25
106124 F20110331_AABJWE zhu_y_Page_079.jpg
877fe5521c76c3c8d0f01a888287d611
6ecb14320626d68ab437ee01cdcd1f5e4cf8acc7
47145 F20110331_AABKAW zhu_y_Page_033.pro
b94294c2d6bd79d8652a5929c3db188b
f45a22a36db9137a0fe676c55850313f7edc5684
F20110331_AABJVQ zhu_y_Page_104.jp2
d84bf781e2fd94289ad1bb311e25f8a6
b8e5f8a51e98a2ffe13229c03685bdefebbd1671
F20110331_AABKBK zhu_y_Page_007.tif
88b1614be28d788ac77b7cf00d3daed5
a98d3f4631c1410845d1ad4b73587b48237b9d94
102501 F20110331_AABLFB zhu_y_Page_094.jp2
37169994a08462c80aad0c9c962164a7
2f23b51cfc97fab0bd7f5323b37e8add5f0e8675
32205 F20110331_AABLEN zhu_y_Page_077.jp2
0decf5eec66a8049d0ad3e5dd8d49859
5ac14ffbc29e1ab989f7b342b66d6dbac4214966
113828 F20110331_AABLDZ zhu_y_Page_060.jp2
0defe89a6888cdb9611e2e9a3533afac
0b367e0aa7167162a44ac20104d9284f13b0ee9e
102646 F20110331_AABKZH zhu_y_Page_129.jpg
fa046d9f5564025d05e4ed92c64a504c
6dd4bd1fa309b6cdf0448d0ab8b11d51b1f2fac0
105409 F20110331_AABKYT zhu_y_Page_114.jpg
07d9595d218e6fe3e0e87254e129cf12
834536342ee81aee084535f8fc48b0764eb532e2
1993 F20110331_AABJWF zhu_y_Page_069.txt
5d03d580c4b5098b319be60a6e6d42d2
5275d804dbd777c5f03588e5141f6f6ecca59378
32209 F20110331_AABKAX zhu_y_Page_107.QC.jpg
c20a7f81a3b8f1b478d7cda84b85ae1c
dd1ec6ebe7d4ae63601bd2855cf168fd5fc76101
111697 F20110331_AABJVR zhu_y_Page_153.jp2
76976027701b9cd6e3d0c6a92d414a13
d143979214e6c1d89931b838ede2352601bb9575
F20110331_AABKBL zhu_y_Page_008.tif
395fc02e410d457afd1431becded6486
55466c995d2a13dc878344c9b4079b567ce43b37
103009 F20110331_AABLFC zhu_y_Page_095.jp2
af4146169c066951237febf154ced04f
0927e236020b6a1fe1f862c84a36cfd12f4991cc
99052 F20110331_AABLEO zhu_y_Page_078.jp2
57d41ab3e362e4b4747c0d04fec39661
a0cb439bd069491f0dd27afa74d8eb7d9469c535
99101 F20110331_AABKZI zhu_y_Page_130.jpg
351d4f1e4df38755fff312c224c93f21
5f9d4ee25f8217eb27e4ef54feae6d7a6e4336f5
104365 F20110331_AABKYU zhu_y_Page_115.jpg
16b6fd2f5d625f73e2929d0054cf5bd0
daff97b25718d0638aa2c4eb918dd07ce75dfed6
107924 F20110331_AABJWG zhu_y_Page_031.jp2
985d9243bccc3acf667bb61e08aefd2c
42a55506bd7fefa57acd3e0ee34c778841a1c7ad
8264 F20110331_AABKAY zhu_y_Page_084thm.jpg
6f89fda19bf6988d819e2d0e813fe63c
99e47cb1327f4feb785b238f78262721d3dd944f
F20110331_AABJVS zhu_y_Page_070thm.jpg
24ea607ce70e6f01194254a26a17564f
5a01c024ca95d796860fe6f96965884c9ec61489
F20110331_AABKCA zhu_y_Page_027.tif
a36b1b3891edd901de4875564394d328
eb3dd2aa1e9d64f9c4441f6b3a8f986c28a03b5a
F20110331_AABKBM zhu_y_Page_010.tif
5eaf9121ae757fc7f0e74dede5ba1fb0
3a5ce5b970707c6be122afb2160624099c8d8a47
110768 F20110331_AABLFD zhu_y_Page_097.jp2
0ca30ac58bdf50515be8fafafe8c9a01
1ced54eac17a2b1d90a87fe28cb2189cfc98564a
111651 F20110331_AABLEP zhu_y_Page_079.jp2
c8736fcd5160d10199016302d3b61054
95b5da374b4803a871c3deb75cc97d5565bb0d2b
98792 F20110331_AABKZJ zhu_y_Page_131.jpg
f4ff235694ec307c5257a905745ebd74
f2ec7e9f457ab128a9dc70a1a0166fd07e1e1c0d
32465 F20110331_AABJWH zhu_y_Page_128.QC.jpg
6004207bc31c10d1815e68198ea2cb29
14dbaac9b5cbe400589c99314569624ab087bd80
49404 F20110331_AABKAZ zhu_y_Page_045.pro
31bfb4fc71b553ba8922f05921498118
2c943f9d9a978bae175ff359db8bab399a7c0867
F20110331_AABKCB zhu_y_Page_028.tif
9e85f3c5abaa525e13ae9aa1df714517
17fc0f51eaa3d14a0ec856e13a685e2e16c7c3f0
F20110331_AABKBN zhu_y_Page_011.tif
2a4c91384940833e0372dfd8f0bcd3a9
6e8a790b49c9f51d8cc59ac76f0dd0f01d5a6e67
111764 F20110331_AABLFE zhu_y_Page_098.jp2
1e27f96d41eaa4d730cba040ac1d8c5d
500288efd9dccb95aacf64fce459f9de9642d8a0
96364 F20110331_AABLEQ zhu_y_Page_080.jp2
0445cfde5c2fbbb2e0c7ed1abfebf2a2
d113bcdfc1c6c1af87490e6d1966fca17f5c23d7
105983 F20110331_AABKZK zhu_y_Page_133.jpg
4fd165b0305f30324c49dc7d2f268fa1
3f87f3390ca9de76517b8d39ef1c140f7d66a4dc
108951 F20110331_AABKYV zhu_y_Page_116.jpg
80a0f92ef2ee73f6023fc633f77174f8
d3e5410212cf618d00e9b4859817d530cc576ef5
F20110331_AABJWI zhu_y_Page_194.tif
64edfaf810c8a6ca45d983546f63dc0a
3dd22b950e0442c9ebfb194a8ec813f28957b502
107983 F20110331_AABJVT zhu_y_Page_107.jp2
59f85b8bbbcfc9ced20b6c1cdff303c7
f24ed5f748e7dd6be362dedf58f6ff7e8574b318
F20110331_AABKCC zhu_y_Page_029.tif
54e2a72cf3eb01944b4b65268fa82002
06013d98fc6268229e0016336cdd5b979b6bc9a2
F20110331_AABKBO zhu_y_Page_013.tif
e1042089c36327353a5da72d94ae8d77
adb9dce6eaef47b8756f6c1e80c4c07b997dcae9
112894 F20110331_AABLFF zhu_y_Page_100.jp2
959fb28f8c3dab90ad3204daf2593dd5
38df67d8661ebb83a905918869aca213d835f2fa
112793 F20110331_AABLER zhu_y_Page_082.jp2
a05346c6d3033a92b06119dff1d4656c
281b34449a7d09c3af2c309c3eb27b771e68d8dd
97209 F20110331_AABKZL zhu_y_Page_134.jpg
d52155431c000646057772256647d255
aa9e21fe5676629efa57ab759892a71363ef0955
96976 F20110331_AABKYW zhu_y_Page_117.jpg
8c867f8b4b822f8c10c9693d8333eedc
093abc8cfbb47b1cb9010f424d661cfafa9d4e9b
1920 F20110331_AABJWJ zhu_y_Page_137.txt
434436a25692314569f1d0729d7a906c
c140a21d9945dd25e7c9c8c63631b09f30368ba3
9800 F20110331_AABJVU zhu_y_Page_034.QC.jpg
4ea2102b0f3f4286f72c4793e7f5aaeb
7f0c32e694534588c55b3e69e0c931e4a24ca48a
F20110331_AABKCD zhu_y_Page_030.tif
d1a06267c72bd5ff78a6fffe52b9cba5
76f3507751883e477897c469b515c1c03a57fb69
F20110331_AABKBP zhu_y_Page_014.tif
cc220036e8655deb3f6babcc0aaad25b
352c1f7623f260533051a3f456093d9995cf004f
111234 F20110331_AABLFG zhu_y_Page_101.jp2
2ad6524e9d9c71cc160c4798d6b36483
4d1cd78b627e188677d4c3c3cff57a8b25ad3b39
99025 F20110331_AABLES zhu_y_Page_083.jp2
d29b2c0ac3a5fd52bfc98dcc4a743c3e
694b1dcd93f23fd4b293f655f87766921829aece
106317 F20110331_AABKZM zhu_y_Page_135.jpg
a6f8e966aaee905fe4b3dfcdfa5251cd
26741f56c1ef4dc7659455d0a22c7a51405068b7
100951 F20110331_AABKYX zhu_y_Page_118.jpg
e96bfe51e35345b3f190729c15c916c4
9aa4764785f37d9e0eb2bfcd17258c826680d7a8
F20110331_AABJWK zhu_y_Page_009.tif
5c52e0f29e0ef3b65e5473bbfdebf958
c121dbdb11a529cd1909e5cf9d5357b94e73521c
2040 F20110331_AABJVV zhu_y_Page_029.txt
da0dd821cb3be17357a9e29dfd4b313a
515281f92023229a86c4b9126f034ddbd8963d4a
F20110331_AABKCE zhu_y_Page_031.tif
96ee57fa9b6fe34636241743faa40563
bd116df06ac0c365f30dbd66bab5c45da16bf0fc
F20110331_AABKBQ zhu_y_Page_015.tif
b8c31206901cd2cb4cdd02f001f60555
c3391debbdc656b4b6c12912eb6fb66ad2b7e8e3
23171 F20110331_AABLFH zhu_y_Page_102.jp2
a2517edc9ac59aff64b91fc18e4af494
f9605c70032592e1065529fc39169739ebfc2ac8
108425 F20110331_AABLET zhu_y_Page_084.jp2
78744e9585be58fcbce5f6c47cb1464a
c5ca6486b8dfdde286e999068963c1bd9a8e5024
100467 F20110331_AABKZN zhu_y_Page_136.jpg
9065f283e1b5322c7be2eaeff4bd239a
ad9fade68519f96f8f16a85b185420a225357e3f
101764 F20110331_AABKYY zhu_y_Page_119.jpg
0043ad50e3897d1d0ec1ceaf0da3c4fe
916e7b8d6c165233df970b176521a3d00acb13eb
49451 F20110331_AABJWL zhu_y_Page_110.pro
eba8264da8e3b03d9c7b540b6d06aa47
6dc4a8d935d25f4c9f0a5713185a4a313931689e
F20110331_AABJVW zhu_y_Page_122.tif
2f28d8ae5c3b0c435883e4f33e8d8bd1
2d8bfc21200560263bbcdd2937ef67b6f9980aa2
F20110331_AABKCF zhu_y_Page_033.tif
024b131c8702da707feed8bfb3efa67d
e32dd5d3313f3ea1f4e4d41a118d2a0b96bd23e5
F20110331_AABKBR zhu_y_Page_016.tif
d0746208b112342483da5e3cabb8263e
880f101bfbaf594340c88dfb398a6765fc6bf08b
86479 F20110331_AABLFI zhu_y_Page_103.jp2
6c8cf0810d7f1433b456bc2e5691f4d4
042989baf933e1a521c296b0469bfd507f4ebdb3
1051710 F20110331_AABLEU zhu_y_Page_087.jp2
c5b02bac1db08826633f6718fc7254f4
db30a162021ad72fd9a3fda4c1d267f96305abf3
100909 F20110331_AABKZO zhu_y_Page_137.jpg
48b74758fa9a897fba0a4c631f6353ee
7291dc71ebefbc8bdef36aef3792d177370141f1
96012 F20110331_AABKYZ zhu_y_Page_120.jpg
718e784b2d65a8fee5268aeb17c506bc
5c215004554a1fbff4dd1a4ad785288c7e91cba1
589 F20110331_AABJWM zhu_y_Page_195.txt
b346b37f2959d0fd4cef08f1da70caf1
4a5aee23098c5642b249e9c7b4f54d1206cb5ea0
1772 F20110331_AABJVX zhu_y_Page_168.txt
52504b8a88d962f16304d26cd07b94a1
b98d07f34a964b45388a9e158c69347091f67f81
F20110331_AABKCG zhu_y_Page_034.tif
857e7eb0a6ab6be68f52ff48f3e88631
d6527357ccca33fe9737fb54bfd63c5194baa227
8662 F20110331_AABJXA zhu_y_Page_173thm.jpg
53cb9bd24efed579bf26728028dcfda7
49f7d0f7acb6e1336ddf611cb6c8ffe7b4585be5
F20110331_AABKBS zhu_y_Page_017.tif
6d0c6b1f9d52ff7209a91e6a3fbdcd22
70c256fce24f9c6b7a87a3af7bac534cb0844076
107057 F20110331_AABLFJ zhu_y_Page_105.jp2
109d7b6e787744a0506ceb0853d66784
39b928eed1e646f62369f57fca5740e7a5feb116
111040 F20110331_AABLEV zhu_y_Page_088.jp2
103eb3a554065544ecfdcf79ea5dd0c1
86e5d2d877b963f3cf0f44f203c6dcb7774053ba
73083 F20110331_AABKZP zhu_y_Page_138.jpg
26705f9d77bf0e0eb8590b6f204e9ac0
446fb8fc24372cd8af0f689227567dbd9f6ea180
8061 F20110331_AABJWN zhu_y_Page_019thm.jpg
8975944fcba803961009d68bf705ac36
6d1aab2e6ee6e3915228aebaf054f025b7567ab4
8886 F20110331_AABJVY zhu_y_Page_165thm.jpg
34cf0b9d9fe1133d9bc6d78bbaf74366
3c81134490299aa9db4128fc01fd39935c2e1e4c
F20110331_AABKCH zhu_y_Page_035.tif
0cb4695c01c820741ba2739829deedf9
067dc8a1e485e0deabaa71458f3e1373ef958292
51756 F20110331_AABJXB zhu_y_Page_101.pro
0e683054cc07cebd1cdba1ad593eef3f
c4bc1d12716ba8f14fc95267b516947fdda30b8b
F20110331_AABKBT zhu_y_Page_018.tif
1e5278371fb5eaff8a5ac830a634429b
2c337aa77c8b247550afb8855d8f97d0d165d898
111689 F20110331_AABLFK zhu_y_Page_106.jp2
c1795c0a4439ed91ad8039dea0b9c6ce
065be69a04e11b6569d3cda0fa4680ec7c746d4a
103885 F20110331_AABLEW zhu_y_Page_089.jp2
3822c39b01045e99c85370bb1170c3d0
753641ac53a1334364397cbbf69b8e19ae13ab3b
86308 F20110331_AABKZQ zhu_y_Page_139.jpg
9d1064a2376b33e128b7c7b33d23985d
e414c087005bbc6dd363cc06bdd73f8505fefb03
1299 F20110331_AABJWO zhu_y_Page_003.QC.jpg
30bfccab8cc135918025f87435e62f7e
709b5481d34031bb80f81c2401b9592d55302597
1813 F20110331_AABJVZ zhu_y_Page_126.txt
7011d5b4b6c15dd1e8f36c1b16548c0f
87d58e2ac1ed243ccc545805958cf60d6c2e3e5b
F20110331_AABKCI zhu_y_Page_036.tif
d8a7c690b84206ebafcdc398cd828e41
d5381476f35f468f477f35c8781a9b1cd4497d37
35543 F20110331_AABJXC zhu_y_Page_022.QC.jpg
7f0875702a5aef697f11076e85fe0a75
429780f50879ae78e4f4027cec060ef95933e29f
F20110331_AABKBU zhu_y_Page_020.tif
bcfca173816d3efda1fa5abbddd3880e
4db8306e22b0cbeb237eb622480ea7411563115c
99333 F20110331_AABLGA zhu_y_Page_126.jp2
e86c16bd8ab110b8e67455c0276d6596
3b9fdfdd608810f800bfa81e4654f25072584abd
110400 F20110331_AABLFL zhu_y_Page_108.jp2
d2be8d88fa19d69513201beb13cc165e
ca0bd3688d73d3b9224d58f849b2e1c2b579d0b8
99074 F20110331_AABLEX zhu_y_Page_090.jp2
ddf464318594697257e5e8b1fb151c97
61d474fb166bdbd21bc55035653a3a92ce3de142
94024 F20110331_AABKZR zhu_y_Page_140.jpg
bb7edf20247823c9fbcf2655e0095626
5e0ecd58ad593a5df3c2e053ef37fffe30eab08f
51979 F20110331_AABJWP zhu_y_Page_143.pro
3bce1bc959ce428ad2a745d1efd8a226
65fbeccaf1b7e288a5248df4075e697f0a5a0c83
F20110331_AABKCJ zhu_y_Page_037.tif
077623de7e3ff664021cc788d3170448
9474a3d5fa48bd4d2291b81553715d3d3d71525c
32316 F20110331_AABJXD zhu_y_Page_062.QC.jpg
1acad1f43bb53629618e5d811f47393d
c6fa51da1b065fad0d7aa4fdb2f3d34717f0ffe7
F20110331_AABKBV zhu_y_Page_021.tif
56c63c5ec2ec721b3be06b5654a23c88
1d3ebdf48cc31fbad4f407018c9fac7f0b572e6b
106057 F20110331_AABLGB zhu_y_Page_127.jp2
7f8ba84bc7b86c895a0993df4b1c2bcb
5db73be510cdf60bed2f816e7687a7026b7c84cc
105344 F20110331_AABLFM zhu_y_Page_109.jp2
7d5347b027732e0bad458dcee39bcfc6
e933be5391b715777fbb56fcdeea5193a53b15dc
109417 F20110331_AABLEY zhu_y_Page_091.jp2
50cd98298c02aea73dd9ede8728ab0fc
50fe15b69a0c077f4bc931bc7744c7b4dd66adfc
103184 F20110331_AABKZS zhu_y_Page_143.jpg
bb6bc5b6c4ce559d0e8499500b74db61
a7deffa40847f4be68b9a8503acaeb3e61547bba
102351 F20110331_AABJWQ zhu_y_Page_125.jpg
8c900d4c1d245bf8ede91f629c6e235c
25ec3a70ceed489fb996b5aa23d75ab4edc52f81
F20110331_AABKCK zhu_y_Page_038.tif
dd4e3e021b731f6b31daaa09310e6cef
d37490f6f35d8a08f1d2f49fb516f17e1c3a864b
F20110331_AABJXE zhu_y_Page_003.tif
89d0d3a2bfb9b0b0981a8b9c71b91e7b
f90e138db873a9a1e8cb9cbedd0ca000d3f99c38
F20110331_AABKBW zhu_y_Page_023.tif
b77517cb3f0c9e3beb6a4645ad199558
4370a597bf4cc6be20f66685aa999ffbf301aef7
107941 F20110331_AABLFN zhu_y_Page_110.jp2
29d494ce114c8a710ae8cbc95df1ead3
d53cc64b223263cd3dae11daa1ed897c2c6cf288
108472 F20110331_AABLEZ zhu_y_Page_092.jp2
4afea2c9d3a9fa87823e40fd06c341d6
2a846fbe7232c410ca27fe503a7549958a8f8496
F20110331_AABKZT zhu_y_Page_144.jpg
5b150b265a530b8344e816473693cb9c
03e64ff79f54b0120c1f307062d02312ae365b49
7673 F20110331_AABJWR zhu_y_Page_186thm.jpg
cb7f7da4c8d469ecd9d47a0cf67c1714
89bb6a9c7b1405020816c046b2bd43ce554cd0a3
F20110331_AABKCL zhu_y_Page_040.tif
c879dfa5b679416fc121f71040a9e763
5544da9e8e6bc8c9a80d766cd4270bf916966486
1707 F20110331_AABJXF zhu_y_Page_093.txt
bf509d4e80e392e03161e7a139c86b98
80546bd88bee5119299bc2cbac72c7e33310cf63
F20110331_AABKBX zhu_y_Page_024.tif
d1f7fd9c68d78a43f1e3252806f5667c
71beddb2b00cb7837e269e670f307bd6ebbcb7a2
108100 F20110331_AABLGC zhu_y_Page_128.jp2
1a9c5090c30d7066cf3226543abd0d1e
f9932571b5286fc0e8885914b369817fe7bb8ed5
105240 F20110331_AABLFO zhu_y_Page_111.jp2
09cf0105295bb4a28a21e062b6a2f31f
77a4570bb2eebee9097c95c1a717a0103630878e
102878 F20110331_AABKZU zhu_y_Page_145.jpg
2d97afe055abcfbab21fcc8552484926
8022f5cbf76d0859a0c606122d487c6e934b60d1
103014 F20110331_AABJWS zhu_y_Page_029.jpg
31331188c1a4765895731a6dd71f0199
f1ff0b7dfd469ff81e94d15c4df310a5f966d4c3
F20110331_AABKDA zhu_y_Page_056.tif
34d1ff55e9710dc56710fda0ec7acb1e
4c54d1fd7e9805a3e050e97092da19f13d2e85e6
F20110331_AABKCM zhu_y_Page_041.tif
9b1bfe708ae6fed029b33669f7e88ba6
60768bf3636852554a51ea9aba1c82df7d99ae73
8325 F20110331_AABJXG zhu_y_Page_157thm.jpg
94307c00338ccdd2c94828f1bb850087
8e7e4233bbde398c316c2393f6c1a322405c05da
F20110331_AABKBY zhu_y_Page_025.tif
e38c7bc55bdcfff744d9d231a6e14203
dfb7b6804bd75a7d5bedf4f649db8eefd046cc08
110069 F20110331_AABLGD zhu_y_Page_129.jp2
8b2226786cce46932c5675cd8595a5d5
987235c783aaabd7f816e22ac63cb3dfb02da646
101193 F20110331_AABLFP zhu_y_Page_112.jp2
51b1b2cd03440c2dc4b3371387032c4e
58796a0e3bdd750da1b5e3f72a2a70d7c0a64de5
97135 F20110331_AABKZV zhu_y_Page_146.jpg
887cb8106c5e64029926063d90915012
ae491000a5365eaba784ed74165372a312563e13
98658 F20110331_AABJWT zhu_y_Page_132.jpg
9eabc22e94833edf53c7f79fa7469b92
cfbbe6487ba6a45b1e35d80427e57029b16d602e
F20110331_AABKDB zhu_y_Page_057.tif
5ff4695f83ade3197daf7fb506258b23
032b36ef2ccae2256f7054da892fe7ce56cc804c
F20110331_AABKCN zhu_y_Page_042.tif
82fdf4efd32aadcd545cffe2d181d7f7
2aa80402ce9c51cf0553b3fd12d2f6e630a2bd35
F20110331_AABJXH zhu_y_Page_032.tif
d614d8ba007a0d36c3d5484b5cd25063
8a8884791e78aff18769f2cb6cbb55cefa5b52b0
F20110331_AABKBZ zhu_y_Page_026.tif
1f13c02fa11251f0004a07a2a9f2cafd
19ca550191296e23cbd613a29d56ba84ca20168e
108169 F20110331_AABLGE zhu_y_Page_130.jp2
d29e767187bef2d9777fd31a6189f94f
9318885dbefbae9a097f9b12b9b44c2fc3597176
80402 F20110331_AABLFQ zhu_y_Page_113.jp2
a72e09e5c1530342e6edb05e32c895a6
9d35901da771ca5cf7c4b072ef3c22cbb001b150
F20110331_AABKDC zhu_y_Page_058.tif
f7a67e8ea05d0eb9b4afc80a492edc27
3c501273e397e1591f315c6af881d681f011971d
F20110331_AABKCO zhu_y_Page_043.tif
80bba25ed06ba092675600131d54a88e
0cf05867ee5da53cc630b4824cb7a6eccd999fd2
101047 F20110331_AABJXI zhu_y_Page_031.jpg
8d016fd3a9e273c33cbf58088732a7f2
4f8165e5a87906910779a7f56b9b9752cd21128a
107234 F20110331_AABLGF zhu_y_Page_132.jp2
d4c6c3794d330c65b844e4e827a48751
a6afce05eb1a5434bf03740c93a02854c07b6c6b
114330 F20110331_AABLFR zhu_y_Page_114.jp2
c0c41cfed3bf7b0975adfd28557f09af
97d315a224b560b72aba6821b771b5b60dda0b39
109582 F20110331_AABKZW zhu_y_Page_147.jpg
b640c6cf34e141af38d3ea6f8d269c03
a425e3d3225d1fdbdaca9e07ff53dcd6c68d5d84
112926 F20110331_AABJWU zhu_y_Page_099.jp2
de4f1833538ad83caac82f64540231c1
1bdcce61a85e59779eb4a7adc7545d9e3ae300c8
F20110331_AABKDD zhu_y_Page_059.tif
4ca4d6aa8c534e2e661b3acf2e4431da
abd45cc68220b71e9c8c0ee1d787ec2660cfb3f4
F20110331_AABKCP zhu_y_Page_044.tif
3c2ac2cb154cbf7430aef46696901ad4
027c3a489166819160e488671f5a7b2e5092d5d9
49738 F20110331_AABJXJ zhu_y_Page_047.pro
d9309640bdeb84d826a368529f87df92
ac8b8cb720395ada067ff611795a91f5fd74b317
113939 F20110331_AABLGG zhu_y_Page_133.jp2
e85692af4888ae9893997524d968456a
8ab27d036b8f8ddd019921b2c1e7d4c0fcd1d2ec
111346 F20110331_AABLFS zhu_y_Page_115.jp2
0301799d43a24f107a2faacd03846c1e
af999a74181e248f41144cc4e3cd8b1cc2fc2bc0
107929 F20110331_AABKZX zhu_y_Page_148.jpg
a78fca0e1f827c5a6a9fe335a559d6c1
05cda9baa551088ad915c335c8bb6f2164e8a497
51723 F20110331_AABJWV zhu_y_Page_153.pro
72fe6d311377c6ceaca0da910be72c3c
9b4b794513a89132606949cda8d5c441e57e2c69
F20110331_AABKDE zhu_y_Page_060.tif
4e31c5df1c5fcaae87a91cfa08627c00
efd2835bc5425923687c3ba90705d49785b84cde
F20110331_AABKCQ zhu_y_Page_046.tif
ed024af9fb541f8c926485b0a4789442
ce0aed63f8e7b6c685703546726c6f551e0aba4e
51971 F20110331_AABJXK zhu_y_Page_057.pro
0c5b9cf6a0c127eddd69778c1ed2f83c
393b1c49d05cf395ac9474a74e442e6fd65c66ec
103203 F20110331_AABLGH zhu_y_Page_134.jp2
f4feb886d47c4e13ccc7cd6fde810862
67b46818b383ec3b1a3be215ce7d3e7a01e72695
1051946 F20110331_AABLFT zhu_y_Page_116.jp2
a4ca76a94d6f9560fe8992ec1a9ae063
a01a61b51249a470e53e7b492360c2697fb556cf
71912 F20110331_AABKZY zhu_y_Page_149.jpg
03d420a43c4d5dc9350527fc644bdc4f
58006eb4352ae8c8a73b95fc3aa855d9d7738b3e
8489 F20110331_AABJWW zhu_y_Page_099thm.jpg
83d9ec8dc72cf99e8621522d8d88bb39
e7e847bc52b5ca421cf3fe07017c98ccb99d73ed
F20110331_AABKDF zhu_y_Page_061.tif
4c2a087e063a0be7410c16fa21bce168
0e0e6aedfb8d9372015e1cc5375603347a1b06be
F20110331_AABKCR zhu_y_Page_047.tif
1f320159a68e23a437ee28cffc504c88
8a9466aff7e67dfc07aab2d898e01779681a1936
113347 F20110331_AABJXL zhu_y_Page_022.jp2
d9c9324cbc67d6266ae356d5461f3d5a
af434aa8019d1f757fb3931e6afe23f75da49258
112808 F20110331_AABLGI zhu_y_Page_135.jp2
63008749b19cbea52d86b3e9d08e4f2c
bb4217c7a70a9c44c64488abd2e111b9b1cf43ac
109646 F20110331_AABLFU zhu_y_Page_118.jp2
214a607ee8fd4fb8e9a2d85a121f7172
a1070e0b8ab61a3b5457f2cf6c973af5f33f44d5
79026 F20110331_AABKZZ zhu_y_Page_150.jpg
ff5bb67683e32099a066e9e9d2dc65ff
01c41f546c4b4eda077e35a126cb96d4165c1521
2113 F20110331_AABJWX zhu_y_Page_026.txt
d803b0109423fca30ffd8d7c606c9853
22b11a8a215328e5e4ad73e00f812686861a501a
F20110331_AABKDG zhu_y_Page_062.tif
90a3576440f2eaaa705abcb708f40569
04d9c5d0e51d3750c33b04455d83bf871c437069
F20110331_AABJYA zhu_y_Page_080.tif
634d96fe996e250ecdef53f79a6fb2bf
307836ecd2ed11d6aacba471a3e8322b2b42e9f8
F20110331_AABKCS zhu_y_Page_048.tif
54ea9dc9ed9964b649f0e9619c141fa0
2a773954262648bdba6f0751703019d607bc1950
8112 F20110331_AABJXM zhu_y_Page_053thm.jpg
11cd615da205d7e65e56685587458f14
df3c30606c063d79919d0ed5fe18cd437c350929
108711 F20110331_AABLGJ zhu_y_Page_136.jp2
1bb686de5ab473b2646d2c2c617a2b03
2ea555c3b05399037417c4a0d3f5e29dfdd918a2
107518 F20110331_AABLFV zhu_y_Page_119.jp2
4f6a4b589effb5779f5d4a4ccc853d2c
3dc00a457080d1837db30f0c0b1dec82eba5fa09
31906 F20110331_AABJWY zhu_y_Page_038.QC.jpg
b9013f847bff74e8744bc24733a4612f
9aad0970a5d28148267c53defec253ed72302a99
F20110331_AABKDH zhu_y_Page_064.tif
4bd04733863fa1b893573360a996517d
a87682351fa74b9978bb30494c9e0f007360c22a
33182 F20110331_AABJYB zhu_y_Page_148.QC.jpg
779ff4f3a85ca3d62a88307d9832ecd2
3fc8f504498d9fbc79d66a2b4b51b8bbc2fcbf1f
F20110331_AABKCT zhu_y_Page_049.tif
ed224744c65a49b0fc865104f001ce4b
86d55ccc3ecc081167d527396c6a15f57b354df8
106469 F20110331_AABJXN zhu_y_Page_131.jp2
06a4d7a3920c0a8af4420e46a3d38a6b
4b545f83cddbc753610b4fd0120892e9b655ea95
109943 F20110331_AABLGK zhu_y_Page_137.jp2
b3286db212b22deefc4a9543dd78fd2b
d782e100588f34f900324b9b4e3597febe18e0f9
101937 F20110331_AABLFW zhu_y_Page_120.jp2
b030069cc96f5f8c391972bc97d82591
1391461b770dd71c6202f5e04c3c142045bab395
F20110331_AABJWZ zhu_y_Page_077.tif
f687504017bcc05d332d21ac106235f1
90ddeb7169ef5b4e5fbf0f9de796d6d34bd95538
F20110331_AABKDI zhu_y_Page_065.tif
47c09b0a34c7db05d2f3f82a4e57151e
a08c20ce181077a1566f9c5c682fee5b326116bf
35437 F20110331_AABJYC zhu_y_Page_050.QC.jpg
1100e00933a03dab6e90b50b889094b6
641972142a0156614d50e8424272a60af108747d
F20110331_AABKCU zhu_y_Page_050.tif
ae52ccce7c3487d6e7efd0556517fbdf
2e844fe24f8e690c82d7a51bcad8d961b9ae5d12
103610 F20110331_AABJXO zhu_y_Page_051.jpg
88f273b7a8dfef0566c44c697d22cb4c
f1bd9e5ace6dbefa50bf6f933c6159529c56ff20
105655 F20110331_AABLHA zhu_y_Page_156.jp2
c954cf6fc028641f233b43a9fe789397
dc509acf4e63cfd8530bd7efe5ae8b5f5a776fa4
79999 F20110331_AABLGL zhu_y_Page_138.jp2
d1f6a93724f3f44f6b6a26b9bd07a163
9255d42e8a835bb60b96167461282aecc94acee6
97375 F20110331_AABLFX zhu_y_Page_121.jp2
0e4f72657eed5ddc4c7534e473d8f8b3
c33a552a63e17b6d377bf293f5b4b05718b07695
F20110331_AABKDJ zhu_y_Page_066.tif
964c72031edccc3d8d5422ed2d97247e
ff3a6a8d1883b56ca1aae7dc7ed911f3ce8311b2
8592 F20110331_AABJYD zhu_y_Page_143thm.jpg
c88e3ff80001619af067b9847c922849
05bd39c86c42f752ee40988f6fef05d5356fd74e
F20110331_AABKCV zhu_y_Page_051.tif
e5ac59ac9681b5de9f99c0d5ed6f9880
68af65ee14fe0ca96a4dfd30c92facaa277ad81c
48687 F20110331_AABJXP zhu_y_Page_053.pro
3b5064dd2ce1a216f7f857703695147b
91d3cd81e26b609243f9755e20773fe542c5dc84
111105 F20110331_AABLHB zhu_y_Page_157.jp2
45047a22c0c5ec02699a5edfeb1966f9
114d952d5c506bfc7a9161941266f901f432b389
93684 F20110331_AABLGM zhu_y_Page_139.jp2
2780907c33bd8778cddf0d8bf2e8e3c0
f5715b24f05c40311e217c2b52d8ffae52dfae03
117538 F20110331_AABLFY zhu_y_Page_124.jp2
da0c273233cf7c5b772da0c6bd8e61ee
0906b38bd87d19f1a69ffbbce5401f99a889aba9
F20110331_AABKDK zhu_y_Page_067.tif
207854379df82b19ebbdfd565f02cd48
e696e3d639cded8db86266be4506606a320130d4
106267 F20110331_AABJYE zhu_y_Page_173.jpg
fe0f1ebcc94390955add5bf02922e127
ff2e84485a8f6d932397fc68a55f992d0d9815d6
F20110331_AABKCW zhu_y_Page_052.tif
e4707b19ddf7231dac110b1d74d4efa6
c5967ac3e25054c54fe3779860aafe68a33f0661
1757 F20110331_AABJXQ zhu_y_Page_041.txt
8d601fa52b75c36d0d6f3b1bfac6cd47
2f9b3beb91f41f0288eaf4b9120a3118859ec13e
121695 F20110331_AABLHC zhu_y_Page_158.jp2
ee527975e9d7991e75cf0bdafe051e5e
29b62d635279725a2f1809f21eaf99cf0904a597
1010862 F20110331_AABLGN zhu_y_Page_140.jp2
9504a3db2e50823c6249781f24e59701
b83ecee3e4cd44f4cd1ef7996b920f169ff17492
107409 F20110331_AABLFZ zhu_y_Page_125.jp2
c44864b3f93b6357069720460f50459e
b8cf3acde0115991b05d015a729e7124cf2c691a
F20110331_AABKDL zhu_y_Page_068.tif
0d02e2cf7cb18d24059a65c2409814ad
8b12778cfc59eafe2e8451be411a1403dd4a461e
1849 F20110331_AABJYF zhu_y_Page_111.txt
dc43d6c68e5597a1118bf7c35cae586a
2dcfe8832df3f085437ea04ab61a23fecd3ffbb0
F20110331_AABKCX zhu_y_Page_053.tif
fe40e5bff4225c4a4bc9071e1bee48d7
41b9b19d3b4ba7697b3c7188dcc1568edfd85d47
1788 F20110331_AABJXR zhu_y_Page_083.txt
638f5fa7c33bfa77513042e48bcd2e5a
73f106acb2fa49f5703536ba8c6bde7af1c347e8
F20110331_AABKEA zhu_y_Page_089.tif
cd7c3d8dfb876420c60437be78e896c5
586b2df5b2ca7a0b6692f76d18f4438df5e2ff89
1051975 F20110331_AABLGO zhu_y_Page_141.jp2
a64c61b912474fe9c04cb6a32eba50c8
f5d875317c8956e9fee6d9c666880ed593142c2b
F20110331_AABKDM zhu_y_Page_070.tif
9bfedde7b5e925910f512fc8ef5fadb3
51731c4bdc4e8baf34b680b49634055d7a9a950e
113326 F20110331_AABJYG zhu_y_Page_141.jpg
61ba32d867831d70200c96c5c96d54ee
995589d08e907c3e02a01629c9b9254adba1478b
F20110331_AABKCY zhu_y_Page_054.tif
7c56299dae1a346d559e72f33adbf45b
cc166cf1b2880c8734a2fd6d7840c3a1e87ff1a0
2029 F20110331_AABJXS zhu_y_Page_061.txt
a4513ea2f53efbfe1cf4599c478436a8
d0ba3a27734c643a617536966edad7022fecd524
103417 F20110331_AABLHD zhu_y_Page_159.jp2
97675cf1039158a32ead7b2a15d2e597
a2448433b6c63cc56098dfe0b248feb949f9c2a3
F20110331_AABLGP zhu_y_Page_142.jp2
c31c34e2b7ef508fcfaca541dd7f97e9
d9491adb0281f7189c50c12a9e3110f479385195
F20110331_AABKDN zhu_y_Page_071.tif
62ebe60a7df2c41440ef1b214a4c0020
9379e2eaa092f6f9baaed9847f9ac25eb06ea086
102612 F20110331_AABJYH zhu_y_Page_172.jpg
839daeed5c742db88753be6c197024bd
f48cdbfe30cba133038f324070529f666129916c
F20110331_AABKCZ zhu_y_Page_055.tif
0a671a8cc52ca9ce6484419f38187012
8897cc88618e07dd60c5cce312ee47d2a1b30f62
87760 F20110331_AABJXT zhu_y_Page_042.jp2
e40ad78300b931027dd7bba9eda20232
f19e5609d4e0e73444199ad2c3574f33171070f4
F20110331_AABKEB zhu_y_Page_091.tif
301d6c5b525cc377b77a133364ecbce9
e7b90f2cb15e3996c7253cc711b974f8f66daff1
108492 F20110331_AABLHE zhu_y_Page_160.jp2
90bbe79bbe991d9664656975b1796b2f
067ca352f67b4299bbd4cbcf8b4520c088d57a39
109968 F20110331_AABLGQ zhu_y_Page_143.jp2
cf6395332c8267de541adda8e37ff377
0528a5d5f0a56fa73e5659854f80760764daffaa
F20110331_AABKDO zhu_y_Page_072.tif
a06bbd8055679e3f6650c976a4c8997a
879c0ac6896df40fdd6a32f83b0f37ef567c39a7
29852 F20110331_AABJYI zhu_y_Page_111.QC.jpg
7d6ad65004e6a28d156550fb3298bdad
498a0ae82356b661ba06aef4ec1467d205d2ba90
2010 F20110331_AABJXU zhu_y_Page_020.txt
dd507157050bea96ea8467f6f2a87ec6
d5469c62a80d34fa0ee0db9b460523954dc954d5
F20110331_AABKEC zhu_y_Page_092.tif
360a7cc5aff6da2512281e1fc91e7a63
37af50195f7e48828770713d54506a4ee5abc37d
114862 F20110331_AABLHF zhu_y_Page_161.jp2
f11dbaf7dd2486332a392fc1b79f15f1
34cf7645df96f6556d0a1e7477cda29b1c58d647
109872 F20110331_AABLGR zhu_y_Page_145.jp2
327a2e36e2d657fc7f129b7df6fca1d9
c5ae543af93e3fea27d73c525ef4741f77a8a2af
F20110331_AABKDP zhu_y_Page_073.tif
f33b175740fa25a9fc5e4fdc32197d70
5dfa297738298ffed5605def2c779746176737ef
122972 F20110331_AABJYJ zhu_y_Page_202.jpg
a1235324cb5c90b2326efe4e4b204c80
8fd81609efbc0e69fdb3b8d6a180552f9f04c9bd
F20110331_AABKED zhu_y_Page_093.tif
bc1e820f0b9986f6dafac64e0464511b
06cbdf24b10e521fa50a94da38bda6e0c3c09c9c
112765 F20110331_AABLHG zhu_y_Page_162.jp2
1e8015f1e0aa5add5e8216f8184c8ed8
b7c4f97964628ac3898efb85940cf364f58b24cf
1043764 F20110331_AABLGS zhu_y_Page_146.jp2
bb80607c6e5d403190c44ef985fcbb3f
13c4e54d32b1a1bf32f7e17c3ac46542c6770d15
F20110331_AABKDQ zhu_y_Page_074.tif
285b3b6de6afe532958deaa12ce09cca
d69dd9836b808659a5dbf933c0f2668bb4dc31b5
107497 F20110331_AABJYK zhu_y_Page_036.jp2
7af6ca31f90c7fd731d96933e96c1b78
8c2ad8fb9f40e73f223e77c180ab94af6d1b932b
101120 F20110331_AABJXV zhu_y_Page_049.jpg
58efce0922ca509e700ec337e56592bd
3a06ea40bd5b0241c18737f21df694ee69393708
F20110331_AABKEE zhu_y_Page_095.tif
c1cc002bb351d7d192c2d2ba0f06c4fb
376eb3bdbfb1c57555e09438a4775af7923341d9
113736 F20110331_AABLHH zhu_y_Page_163.jp2
189a042087dc4a465d92f9810d5fd898
1e29f4a8555604f39666fc2c99aa8ed3c76577a9
116277 F20110331_AABLGT zhu_y_Page_147.jp2
f21ad880dd11cae2d1c57c6b19a7d1d0
c493f0dafab36b73b41f594c3a5f056f14cd00ec
F20110331_AABKDR zhu_y_Page_075.tif
04d9dfe21bec8de0c0ec1007ce8a5781
7a657e16a5049c7248bafd6f1225f3f35285edab
8443 F20110331_AABJYL zhu_y_Page_073thm.jpg
7bd332640507e9f812f231fa2f916d70
f5ecaa40672d001c4de2e7899d96bb311537bd73
95924 F20110331_AABJXW zhu_y_Page_066.jpg
a4b277656aed64ff7d6f4551c1431bb6
c970d40a54ebe51d2f639152fdf334b9d568c575
F20110331_AABKEF zhu_y_Page_096.tif
ccd97108041920d530e1bf22dc78a77c
02d5038660f6a3eded3b88420d50f735d31e6152
F20110331_AABLHI zhu_y_Page_164.jp2
32b30421ea0be62d0b30933ed16446ec
58d3d9a69cba79dc54f4973ed0e5c8e53ca7000c
1051984 F20110331_AABLGU zhu_y_Page_149.jp2
9b5224571c3ca1b1daff545421c3b7a3
6b68e1c7f0a73b0a8c3a3b107552b2ea9fc00b4c
31895 F20110331_AABJZA zhu_y_Page_146.QC.jpg
32b86066559fd2ac3212c5c2aa8eb1cf
67b9a0c6a5741586be9577db4bb7abc38afd181a
F20110331_AABKDS zhu_y_Page_076.tif
b74b37197856e97504f53aa5360abeca
2982a097606a90d3104e9f1d3250492270997693
49894 F20110331_AABJYM zhu_y_Page_069.pro
f5ad8e743395e80bfc7be4377d9d9f6b
b249da3d6ea56dd6d58c9952db4eb6776ab82022
14825 F20110331_AABJXX zhu_y_Page_187.QC.jpg
119d43fd33353246970f440edc060177
d7ff34deabfff152b3da236771d1ad6c8055c4c6
F20110331_AABKEG zhu_y_Page_097.tif
cd182e5bcf7421284d1675457242c150
9d965a85d7718e096586bf5780cb5001bb615e83
1051962 F20110331_AABLHJ zhu_y_Page_165.jp2
176a03a2fbbd271130ba045c44c0a514
11d23ee796b6f028535ff9459276ce0957be17ef
1051972 F20110331_AABLGV zhu_y_Page_150.jp2
d207e732e15ed1936834a25cc081ab8b
f001d966d0e4482cec50865af901767bf0c35053
2047 F20110331_AABJZB zhu_y_Page_172.txt
c780ec0f514b38816803f150e5a7756b
c857ff2d7fdf61416596ad9ac266e3ddd806174f
F20110331_AABKDT zhu_y_Page_078.tif
1968edeb3be6005f80a1107bbe731529
bbff52ef63beda49c557ae1e127b47b2e3fd84f5
1927 F20110331_AABJYN zhu_y_Page_171.txt
a7c79a765361a4baa77e3be6b565163a
e4359bb0cebedf3c61d476588c411739936ce50d
8301 F20110331_AABJXY zhu_y_Page_048thm.jpg
645c3d60629024139212efbb47b953aa
00f4666673b4259adc18f0c250b487124b103622
F20110331_AABKEH zhu_y_Page_098.tif
8d07f004137c70c33ee4c30887fdec18
da7c156847125ec6bb1e0bd518d26b003174cf81
1051865 F20110331_AABLHK zhu_y_Page_166.jp2
1fb8fdf1d27b8cd2e0ca5370c9262f8f
5208f7fa8bf7e7e54d2f065dda1b87cab633de56
124875 F20110331_AABLGW zhu_y_Page_151.jp2
14864a25d1301a6288f460ba0e95e61d
7421e577252ad2c0bd9916417bba9e7b6d0d67f4
F20110331_AABJZC zhu_y_Page_205.tif
7116f3e8eb56591a51319ca03254612c
ffc99adafdca03924af312eeca82ead1d24f3818
F20110331_AABKDU zhu_y_Page_079.tif
b748c85d3741af73d4c1a5758cfd7280
21f98f12d787fe21d675c8706069c35efa9970e5
F20110331_AABJYO zhu_y_Page_063.tif
454152003fe247af6700214faba74dea
f75b7dca9760e026f00d3ba46100aafe1d2a0291
1969 F20110331_AABJXZ zhu_y_Page_129.txt
6b72011bca21e4e606bcd6be0037a2aa
611a886ca4a33aabfb4aba2477e8c50c05abddc4
F20110331_AABKEI zhu_y_Page_099.tif
2e6060b16a176b445b5b1e3e7f32e197
5fb955aaf0f3c272b51d1a5abded232179341529
508605 F20110331_AABLIA zhu_y_Page_187.jp2
7cac1c9fc18f638289992d7309bf0d52
a6ab26748f6fe2aaaff2d3bc3e2ffe10b00a0aab
107806 F20110331_AABLHL zhu_y_Page_167.jp2
7ea5a3d605a7132d6fa4205cc625c866
cf32e101b80b500038ca9cd141fd770aac6cec0e
108721 F20110331_AABLGX zhu_y_Page_152.jp2
b1c791c0fe0b60034601cdb4c24e1593
e989a6a91e3448b51a5952878a733ef7afe8acad
19475 F20110331_AABJZD zhu_y_Page_212.QC.jpg
64899d10665e5068c834e8cb63fab6fe
cb1bfca1925af69c5f4757fa37da72e4d51c350d
F20110331_AABKDV zhu_y_Page_082.tif
b57331eaaac3cc670ee4def2981d5a3e
cafa86842914608f19b2d170d9186773a62365bd
34342 F20110331_AABJYP zhu_y_Page_065.QC.jpg
cf3823838cbfbe8867058a5a73b1c17d
b6ec34606ad32da0819bee5a2c47deab9661cf80
F20110331_AABKEJ zhu_y_Page_100.tif
af2ed3686fec66819859bd37db2a9c27
bd9297f9732f94a565d3facbc2d31a4363ca62f5
790670 F20110331_AABLIB zhu_y_Page_188.jp2
468cbec6e7c251bf0bb3f0494753dc06
d1284a8d2167eb23da7e08b396097972d9871444
94875 F20110331_AABLHM zhu_y_Page_169.jp2
507a9684da1913a7b573aad0df34414f
4f5ff3b021f8b4417e85ec4fcbce36cab1880d0c
112106 F20110331_AABLGY zhu_y_Page_154.jp2
b46adf55cf19fdda3b5a04446e1f93e3
e42ff839453322f0da6943d5058d19aca85acbdf
7953 F20110331_AABJZE zhu_y_Page_018thm.jpg
b0a9f9c8d225ee8135402a17c8d40ff3
0b2ca7eb2d024ffa4089b1f853e979e1a6ab12e4
F20110331_AABKDW zhu_y_Page_083.tif
c2a9352ad1279c5c426bb7c465bfb9de
3b79740a65068113030e9585626baf0a8f7c58ec
8501 F20110331_AABJYQ zhu_y_Page_179thm.jpg
a30096d0f81524a65d29e5dcf107bf39
27a127658217ace166cd012551244a0effa7503a
F20110331_AABKEK zhu_y_Page_101.tif
0c75aba594b81a9be886d7856213a010
4b568ba869ea1d6fdabd36cf83aa8e7d2ce6f7e9
1051965 F20110331_AABLIC zhu_y_Page_189.jp2
267d33d54adec87522c2873fba117a97
5fd5beee281971240876a294457636f4d7d5a85d
112140 F20110331_AABLHN zhu_y_Page_170.jp2
f3b902efe38e717cb035eb72841e67b7
21532cfe795d349b50928cf555976e7d8dc593e5
113692 F20110331_AABLGZ zhu_y_Page_155.jp2
4d529b646a02ea99e6e8886b36d73e9a
3d650da1dcb563a8c7ce799ad84eac0a1fbc196b
36235 F20110331_AABJZF zhu_y_Page_158.QC.jpg
4b074e2c712c0b066cf94fcc93400790
33a869f73f9b6f28bbe36ddea9b937b882baf400
F20110331_AABKDX zhu_y_Page_084.tif
bcc62f5696eb5082033a382623cf9be5
92d8d63b584f49a8c2d48733bf943b92d0e24a27
33350 F20110331_AABJYR zhu_y_Page_119.QC.jpg
bb57eeeb9e2e0941f3a9b67d24104a96
32f32ec48ce492ae11042ec64010a3a0b21e7b43
F20110331_AABKFA zhu_y_Page_117.tif
9b15200f35fa33e6d309d4f568a103d7
0265089c9a51d10a6e9ff4f97cfbd173ea76ed70
F20110331_AABKEL zhu_y_Page_102.tif
5949690d6fe7f85bfd2db766a3de1ab8
694591e631b3af913eb1980e304337837254c043
18693 F20110331_AABLID zhu_y_Page_190.jp2
ec6f1815407e1958473b625924852be2
67f5dc694c544c8444daed3974d1b6a5cf547244
107694 F20110331_AABLHO zhu_y_Page_171.jp2
bf3b0e0f3bc08068039efbe90b9417f8
a45fd60d0cdad64840b22a4aba2cf89a7d90be11
28615 F20110331_AABJZG zhu_y_Page_014.QC.jpg
3dbe9160e0f2c5216340eef6fef6b9cb
007f52b293f9a07ce8d1f36b591725dcdea180fa
F20110331_AABKDY zhu_y_Page_086.tif
c3d09f3a448bc7ca3ead1719e01591bd
a73f7a95ed889ef63ca511c50157da89fcaac5fe
1732 F20110331_AABJYS zhu_y_Page_012.txt
c1303359ee8132e8b449225d3867acc1
ca21d1298569f89551586d0c37e48486231dea0b
F20110331_AABKFB zhu_y_Page_118.tif
aa96ecf1caeb8dbfcb45d8ef4e0e633a
b2797447b5594003a0e00b18e7bd2e2a5f9d5b72
F20110331_AABKEM zhu_y_Page_103.tif
cc75ac0277e2285acf855ecd3b1dd407
bad4fc33a40eee0191e4f621d68607c073014ea4
110071 F20110331_AABLHP zhu_y_Page_172.jp2
e583a8972601c6057d0e9d8dbeefcace
d0e5c5bad9b2b54d4ff98d81cd39187c3926eabf
32055 F20110331_AABJZH zhu_y_Page_033.QC.jpg
fbcde237b2d07dc3ec0eaa1178c00e11
0d4b41e514bca1564e1bcf0b42e20fff1b89e9e9
F20110331_AABKDZ zhu_y_Page_088.tif
a9273a42ae97a4bbc2f9680a411c54b9
d2de71ef662fab79b23c9e43d9ae576d8be8e08d
6890 F20110331_AABJYT zhu_y_Page_149thm.jpg
3dabd033b3c3e62d2cf308f21b385975
96b50fc64f153b5f5a2b75d61ef5020020988352
F20110331_AABKEN zhu_y_Page_104.tif
aade8c84fa172193c1ef4e842ef9f685
d28629301dd30e8c5efa4e8253d6dea6cbf9cc70
F20110331_AABLIE zhu_y_Page_191.jp2
4b588e0f38d80e25855062c28ad0e5aa
bd0ab8217f2a8d2f07049da5e296570c530b97a0
113144 F20110331_AABLHQ zhu_y_Page_173.jp2
95818ff194a5e3754f3123fa6d5f0a52
3827feeef34bd2167ac555ac4bd397c7956901f0
1217 F20110331_AABJZI zhu_y_Page_194.txt
f9335c4bae16fef219ba2d472104e806
a1bdac178c8f574ed028ef4eb1d7e07a117b7992
98894 F20110331_AABJYU zhu_y_Page_053.jpg
1a0f07c612b8bc5a50a7df1b6e8bfc2a
eb0f2733451b2af5957c909fd3d0eb23886c23fc
F20110331_AABKFC zhu_y_Page_120.tif
1b6bebb142642d03f21d426aee61aa3f
bcd5ed586bb3ac7a049db7c72103b2f1a00af059
F20110331_AABKEO zhu_y_Page_105.tif
eaf837073764193af6b9ced6b60921d8
45d62ec0814525181ac906e06ee73fb11bd30336
14031 F20110331_AABLIF zhu_y_Page_192.jp2
7e0e07b44dc1967391e63f07a0e56ca1
8fb0470b6e8112d395692ae975749f2e98825fd6
111264 F20110331_AABLHR zhu_y_Page_174.jp2
1c6e1172c61676ac1ee6f05f11efa2dd
5e06f7e19095a8202d99c0f2540cfb7c99bb8b6c
93353 F20110331_AABJYV zhu_y_Page_096.jpg
450ee081fd2afea9e0001df6dc24009a
1a8465e256018027cb7d25d51010a38ce697d66b
F20110331_AABKFD zhu_y_Page_123.tif
3be3dc76988aca8a0ef5d4c0ce113401
98577484e810a9038ff11e0f2de7369165a1be8e
F20110331_AABKEP zhu_y_Page_106.tif
1ab277de76212dd1b29c7e1b52512cb2
d0caafd3698d7e326bcf56722beaff01735cd5b1
34197 F20110331_AABJZJ zhu_y_Page_020.QC.jpg
bfbc9fad6791be4c2349fbcfaf275314
79ea947ec0fc9f63e29fa1d157acedff59476de4
53951 F20110331_AABLIG zhu_y_Page_193.jp2
bbd9ce45abe57279cf171cdbdac0dfab
54f5674b2aeeb77c082e929d2bccf943ba74ea9f
112466 F20110331_AABLHS zhu_y_Page_175.jp2
a9ce986f6a73abf5835206023dbc3282
f5fc6d134f4eba263ec4a7b7d327015387eb920c
F20110331_AABKFE zhu_y_Page_124.tif
f11fa557b756229634e11176dbf8955a
dedeca829bf5bd509ff868b77b159d3bb06a66a8
F20110331_AABKEQ zhu_y_Page_107.tif
f7d482e6f5c11c020bfff717c8a39b16
1935f40ac35ca2bc01a096f7bba0b3350d290a15
32929 F20110331_AABJZK zhu_y_Page_200.QC.jpg
3166ddbcb186da5192a8755919473525
8f83066637a437d51cddb6ce56f8128af0b7c2eb
58081 F20110331_AABLIH zhu_y_Page_194.jp2
cb04c464bb1252b53719a6ffdca814c9
f27a14cac3d53da74d4e0e2eb36b2750ed863b79
110676 F20110331_AABLHT zhu_y_Page_176.jp2
cfc2507a4fd2a8d634c89ec1b5f61d1d
e5a76e9ee48ddd60944cf9129efd7eca79f8e15f
31796 F20110331_AABJYW zhu_y_Page_053.QC.jpg
9417d31a5ff3970e8287c6e8ab97671d
7ace9b5ddebe2c68bff684837cdb61179a0380a9
F20110331_AABKFF zhu_y_Page_125.tif
02efce9c6d02c01b73b41bf7f5a49a40
74ff6c71ff4e920fee94b7eb5f84e40aa803651b
F20110331_AABKER zhu_y_Page_108.tif
2af1a78c6a9080584fd289e38c53c91a
43b555fede49f40b74ab1085268d3142ea68ab74
F20110331_AABJZL zhu_y_Page_207.tif
d95a9c274e5a4fdefc22880485b1a4e8
1d6463408b457e28865f214a7ea515e7eb6503c0
30804 F20110331_AABLII zhu_y_Page_195.jp2
802dec69c32ffc8f2bee8e9516b82cf5
4c13d174f21eaf4147f00897dff9459415769545
104672 F20110331_AABLHU zhu_y_Page_177.jp2
b9905d2d1152ec6f898dad958c196484
8f78c5f56b2943f624cb361f772b2855740b239d
50994 F20110331_AABJYX zhu_y_Page_071.pro
6f88a0ddf4d91a4167d78124a2269e13
592144930ff541c82e2e48799c7bd1396b0c786c
F20110331_AABKFG zhu_y_Page_126.tif
2d7e1cce40deeef83aac9958287315eb
dd8dd712fc023b33888838a801d369c399c2889b
F20110331_AABKES zhu_y_Page_109.tif
e885dc8481e7e0736deb1243de615f7c
dd964216244cf4953ae53a123f4feaacaab77f76
105470 F20110331_AABJZM zhu_y_Page_015.jpg
c0fd87d57373cfc660cba838049b1201
d50ab81ec1eb838f95b06717d26b9d11cef31f13
25208 F20110331_AABLIJ zhu_y_Page_197.jp2
20b8760873e2541dbb9b3760c8433586
8338e7b4ca51c0ed8709eda5d762fac62750e7d6
112336 F20110331_AABLHV zhu_y_Page_178.jp2
e48c66ee5714b3480018772c4b8b3f4c
868ae1cb36611543894c724e12bf73ad181c3277
48656 F20110331_AABJYY zhu_y_Page_036.pro
fbebb603e77c83d7b3c4d1f0aac459b9
dfe89533e2b43073a3f64fc724d889446a1c0d63
F20110331_AABKFH zhu_y_Page_127.tif
e72642618d43b49dff366f8aaa002e94
5e6a0aef3f1c1ff4df50a8553fa84f33e69b983c
F20110331_AABKET zhu_y_Page_110.tif
a9082a7992282a2148b7f3d2757d832d
cfb7ae39431254475487a0b00b67fce4fe23b315
28925 F20110331_AABJZN zhu_y_Page_122.QC.jpg
c47445a829e0795b093a117a4fdf4d25
dc7f3000d7857271ce5214881d3d8fec745f33b4
107946 F20110331_AABLIK zhu_y_Page_198.jp2
56dd3d46587fdfd1370a79108c3d4024
9d19ff5b4c1300f505d3e9cb24c9bef0007b35df
108033 F20110331_AABLHW zhu_y_Page_181.jp2
d7b9df9f3ebbebb31bf801c8c6a8b3f5
131c088d001049ece40ff74f8607c782c2eb09ab
110126 F20110331_AABJYZ zhu_y_Page_023.jp2
31ca6f0eb0cdd887dbb914bc0cab7ce8
1984017c57f79f2b14e844e66d829f989a2acc7e
F20110331_AABKFI zhu_y_Page_128.tif
a411dc8704c94444e31ebea22104b55e
aeee6eaec9f3eb4d639c79217786f0bea0b46e0e
F20110331_AABKEU zhu_y_Page_111.tif
11960959647c4e5e2c6eede6837b7c1a
f61863285b825c98b81a5a1b39c6018b078e7a39
28533 F20110331_AABJZO zhu_y_Page_212.pro
87561ecd89c268127ef4571a763a2d13
303bf9d23fdb308e49204c05ec82ab21bc06d47c
27621 F20110331_AABLJA zhu_y_Page_086.QC.jpg
e33f5f72ed7c69bb4361bdc156105b83
2f9194b1844fd02276769512a55fc2e655c04b13
135364 F20110331_AABLIL zhu_y_Page_199.jp2
b32f0006ca69d0a35028b69aa1c3cff0
923d93431395f9f316393ff43147b8ee161c192c
93412 F20110331_AABLHX zhu_y_Page_183.jp2
2d9a169c2c03370dc25b3f2b43624361
618133a23540290801c833658408d9e1eadd04b2
F20110331_AABKFJ zhu_y_Page_129.tif
6023d1ebd3acb37c04d46b00ff1ccc15
4e33dc8badce24188c51fa056d0433598a8e6f02
F20110331_AABKEV zhu_y_Page_112.tif
05e78f0e897f989c931b9161dbf7fca3
7315457a51c0bec67f557af4ac764521b0fd02ab
8439 F20110331_AABJZP zhu_y_Page_065thm.jpg
87b835b2bd70ca210994c77e9713aa2b
ae2ba051cdbd024ff112ba9ac8f47f135b0aca8b
33215 F20110331_AABLJB zhu_y_Page_203.QC.jpg
a03c2f015fec860a1be2ce29ccf5cae3
daff683f48ae47853876dc685aaac9985e29c090
120981 F20110331_AABLIM zhu_y_Page_200.jp2
bac1bf6f36deae2f52c59c8e8164e85b
5960b9e4f8483f842b115c5ef3d417690ebf0c59
23226 F20110331_AABLHY zhu_y_Page_184.jp2
ffeddaa06d081e28165a02fb2994453f
0c66402d8d79e0fd75eccea76a2281c13696437b
F20110331_AABKFK zhu_y_Page_130.tif
c5ed2b7042cae5feb9f34fe32d05f4fc
c3aff86ca895240014425e6be5360006ce00e09f
F20110331_AABKEW zhu_y_Page_113.tif
20617779eb0a337f9ac117477d86693f
ed593b8f0300fc19ca8f0839230e9dd70772bafd
1968 F20110331_AABJZQ zhu_y_Page_062.txt
ce52f0764ff875cb10843823f7dc4971
044f39e112e1cb0d449625735b1eaddf64c56c01
10199 F20110331_AABLJC zhu_y_Page_077.QC.jpg
766622e5c5b18518f6d5095d223ee9d4
83bc4ce1b29c9045c28c22cdb726c86cd968effb
131489 F20110331_AABLIN zhu_y_Page_202.jp2
63c4f29a9ef352b31d099801713514c5
91848ad2d11ec04097ae52fb697223252a9926b2
924536 F20110331_AABLHZ zhu_y_Page_185.jp2
82dbb3a1fd0ffbdb456bbbcb03bf6064
1cfdb22473702505087380733f25d21efb9c10b2
F20110331_AABKGA zhu_y_Page_149.tif
79dc7cff928295914ad8d91afa8554de
ff8c16b3e548b06dfbd08382bb97d4800746ff4f
F20110331_AABKFL zhu_y_Page_132.tif
4b05d6cab4bbf3a5a77d585401880d6b
ebd6fba995f46390f54af9cb040bb8c38814541d
F20110331_AABKEX zhu_y_Page_114.tif
1dc89af8170d81681e3254b09ea0ee1a
724ae9c3f9dc2b921aa907e081462ce0c32d3729
34802 F20110331_AABJZR zhu_y_Page_037.QC.jpg
77c25dcaaa782d8ddd4a96921343be68
5bff4282be99ae59bd8ec9e0f068122f0253311b
6881 F20110331_AABLJD zhu_y_Page_183thm.jpg
51a0c92aab33ee472e94d30011e2f296
17c42e602f73e9febab31ec92407f89be2420714
125840 F20110331_AABLIO zhu_y_Page_204.jp2
3fb396049a04f8585d8791a16d80caba
c5cc608b551124d7522423e53692ac6841a9ce77
F20110331_AABKGB zhu_y_Page_150.tif
375897663f0e0ddeedef8f62a9c3b961
b462b506e22fc9eecadbfc2444006a1b4ad49074
F20110331_AABKFM zhu_y_Page_133.tif
f16a787297aa9e5a9c3104c38739437c
f3d752226c324eb6652023463c10f20c2dd51d3b
F20110331_AABKEY zhu_y_Page_115.tif
f61cf378560e6534b393cd65dff71742
6ccce63f66f6b876821e514b7db2207ac593e2a0
33712 F20110331_AABJZS zhu_y_Page_044.QC.jpg
c65edbee6687cd4d435931bdb9ba71c5
4ac51fa9a6826846e01b7848f6b6452f791f6b3c
8539 F20110331_AABLJE zhu_y_Page_021thm.jpg
2310ca94b068647699e3e289eb402a59
0069a4d762db57b74a6d2361d06f6e8391a1b6a4
127445 F20110331_AABLIP zhu_y_Page_205.jp2
93fd84889fb357a9bfcaf639294b55bd
e157d67a94308106b701d61a2206399554e3f84f
F20110331_AABKGC zhu_y_Page_152.tif
1a6b568d231d7cc567b2648fb79fd41a
80ef178d425006c9ff43faab71e2c2f8b2d74cd1
F20110331_AABKFN zhu_y_Page_134.tif
3a30846ba830f8c94fc68606319521f0
ffee79f0a3c101b601d4cae2d125b52d053f7465
F20110331_AABKEZ zhu_y_Page_116.tif
e374ec1681aa2bb5129d3d288c82fc61
c70f646a05242859c793814f16fe32cfe83b293d
1141 F20110331_AABJZT zhu_y_Page_212.txt
38fccf3875bba50826a9e6bcfcc121b3
553e337b6c078adac4c7dda0519dfebde48a6355
136289 F20110331_AABLIQ zhu_y_Page_206.jp2
d1f36e2ef971e4030cb6bcd940e1ba4c
0e7d50b96e5d2c42f50f06acf8be5b30bb2a30ab
F20110331_AABKFO zhu_y_Page_136.tif
1c9686e140f31c67b6549eb1bd2989f5
95aa50928c3bd7024513853129d08d8b238565f8
102107 F20110331_AABJZU zhu_y_Page_181.jpg
35b9e9f6f8e51ffaa8f50b1a4f3899f0
ef7d3aaaa376aa018064d7e8fe0be002ff378a1e
8015 F20110331_AABLJF zhu_y_Page_177thm.jpg
996a1506951cbb4060850c03e74a60da
3336b8c668d216d11ebc7bf3374ab8916e050702
130221 F20110331_AABLIR zhu_y_Page_207.jp2
d40ef82e7c69e1b479bf451fc5337391
a754f85818bbb8f279057ebb5958c53745dcdb96
F20110331_AABKGD zhu_y_Page_153.tif
9fcc6a83dac1e1216afc5d4898f496bb
3e3be5f729fac69b38562434b91b295730ed15ef
F20110331_AABKFP zhu_y_Page_137.tif
7be14ebdf0d09cac38014ab201e08625
41caf11b456a42f003205c44ca10c71f9278a84c
101463 F20110331_AABJZV zhu_y_Page_084.jpg
2cc145b1a768ba6963befc4339ff62c6
f1eb2cd6bce9f6f6fc8e6015f495e314432a371b
22810 F20110331_AABLJG zhu_y_Page_138.QC.jpg
4be65b1ed56119fd1c85bcc46100e4dc
9d16638f0eb7ebbe7796ae893f1f1d986348bfb9
149073 F20110331_AABLIS zhu_y_Page_208.jp2
2e5e565d7541ace6cfdc1b6e74fce4a2
8b35ebb30e3c9c3ecdd1bec0aa1c8609bbc8b96e
F20110331_AABKGE zhu_y_Page_154.tif
766a274fa101305480a6d76da81563fd
f3c7b90258c421906e426e8d14d44378857ad91f
F20110331_AABKFQ zhu_y_Page_138.tif
2fe00fee54aa6c0726a304dac2a0c5f2
f5b2ee7ccb544cd0177811e1948d2634633269a6
37954 F20110331_AABJZW zhu_y_Page_209.QC.jpg
af5b305cb12814747da192a95035b365
1990d9018e8bc86ce6991bbc4411a7c3250f39cb
4934 F20110331_AABLJH zhu_y_Page_212thm.jpg
57e69243e75336031cd4dfbd18934d1f
d116709d44910fc1c23999450f281a57d71eeed4
147094 F20110331_AABLIT zhu_y_Page_209.jp2
92c992dbd886363c24e45a09e6464a99
6dcd0369d5af28be5826ff5c15e783d941ebb961
F20110331_AABKGF zhu_y_Page_155.tif
550f930fc0833b4aa367d994d9c51bd1
bd46774e5729c88d6eb2f9e6a28dab28878802f9
F20110331_AABKFR zhu_y_Page_139.tif
40090feb06510c307f8ef23123e35a25
b4d35970494887ab3981110e4bb7ccd8aea83560
9213 F20110331_AABLJI zhu_y_Page_001.QC.jpg
e941a0dc45cfbc9d3fc37127793f6ec2
5039a4fb9ee4d963ba1a20b23e19ce106f40508d
95075 F20110331_AABLIU zhu_y_Page_211.jp2
6a45cddf33149f7c3c55b70b12d4ccad
7a44ab084c3a3ab89a20bfac521f071b2c1c38fd
F20110331_AABKFS zhu_y_Page_140.tif
edf372ce20f10f3335e8906e1fede29b
388b76ae5d82d4b211d468914ca56a166bb3c6ea
103707 F20110331_AABJZX zhu_y_Page_063.jpg
bbb3220594dc0e07a623b2d07b76165a
da03fe4998c04b2a9ac0700b01e0dc7e39dc29ab
F20110331_AABKGG zhu_y_Page_156.tif
3dc57a7644eb2efd4b7944d14f2fa87b
57e8671f2b11a0fedc093d78eb5e4db3d0c3292c
33387 F20110331_AABLJJ zhu_y_Page_052.QC.jpg
57d4874661dd5f95162e16fceed380de
97511943476eab71defb9b10aeb6117509edfa2a
65010 F20110331_AABLIV zhu_y_Page_212.jp2
9c8c128253ddd660399f8a30a1f531e5
091fa83a25f988132323b3a81ccf7e2e400a7404
F20110331_AABKFT zhu_y_Page_141.tif
b740b3ed4bd7b893ec46a2143673f3a5
a0101128a2312eb050cb9defd188df5003dc6f5f
29044 F20110331_AABJZY zhu_y_Page_034.jpg
038ddbe627a1122bb719191c8ec739e9
51a6020f1506301b7e379b95d5474432726c90a1
F20110331_AABKGH zhu_y_Page_157.tif
7ce115fc1324ebc68f43c341be1fabad
10c77705546bb9f0d37226e48c9708eb8776d1cc
8079 F20110331_AABLJK zhu_y_Page_108thm.jpg
dd0bdf63343838c2e3a4dc683a8f47bb
aab7a4c7805e9e7bf873681063e3c6e4696bdcc9
8343 F20110331_AABLIW zhu_y_Page_026thm.jpg
aafd5f7f3211f93fb292526c064751d6
75b7ad50602a97dd8eb0ce95f21d1d3817d0489e
F20110331_AABKFU zhu_y_Page_142.tif
603e2575dc0989f5ff39619a4de2f4d2
e5699e4fd4c7050885162214b9f5938479ac0e00
108516 F20110331_AABJZZ zhu_y_Page_182.jp2
24de8cbece3e9c2c85543c1afe4a3baa
68d4a4dafb53e750b46eff7d48375d5c39fe4652
F20110331_AABKGI zhu_y_Page_158.tif
d2eb7f1844fb54cc029b84ab1c923342
9c26f85aa41dcbb3d4a84c5133068b9fc7069827
7965 F20110331_AABLKA zhu_y_Page_089thm.jpg
7c494eb2b80ea671d7662ac4aa03475e
e0b04720a4502bfe20751f336da293562af24bd4
33721 F20110331_AABLJL zhu_y_Page_017.QC.jpg
195db301593a9ae8802eb87b34de3f92
f8a16c1d0a0c53c48e91fc768e5a1b98b5d5bb43
8516 F20110331_AABLIX zhu_y_Page_129thm.jpg
f5073a228626b315da61c1dcc6c1c61f
68002274c893059b61c5aa7fd4d344cf6b91827f
F20110331_AABKFV zhu_y_Page_143.tif
17603b46d8ef7dc37c2aa1f16c533229
305cd8e4409cada587a9e172b27384a824a82701
F20110331_AABKGJ zhu_y_Page_159.tif
6886c02b43427be45a9008b5bbc3922c
a89358aef4f530a3445c281497338272d962f5ac
8316 F20110331_AABLKB zhu_y_Page_079thm.jpg
8751eb1de37aa42b5b77c21f536f5864
c7fae6245b2e7fe2ab3618d8f6be27dc33816090
18954 F20110331_AABLJM zhu_y_Page_196.QC.jpg
dd5d35dea182cc203eaedfd1d4efc673
295d083e3452b3a006c6b8eb6992309d43ebd83c
33469 F20110331_AABLIY zhu_y_Page_058.QC.jpg
20eaf98472dbb5b6033f9392014c7206
c2e81632f9862ddc83eb54687299c76684193fdf
F20110331_AABKFW zhu_y_Page_144.tif
3beb5526eca89d2d42df91c799dc113f
43c84d09bb41def4deda6e07b27ac6da59111e49
F20110331_AABKGK zhu_y_Page_160.tif
ecdb4cd355c3bdab19d76854de0c277a
555e8848c67c1cc8fe610a86e8d62e9250e66dd2
21281 F20110331_AABLKC zhu_y_Page_149.QC.jpg
d1ee3220b411f74f03933efa6a159520
69dd355c2de2db3155e9c62b71f003b04c04994e
26631 F20110331_AABLJN zhu_y_Page_123.QC.jpg
d6a486cddd4605a46a12fa18a7003e60
90114b2f9116fa1c4cfbe1b18e98d2f7bdc341e4
8194 F20110331_AABLIZ zhu_y_Page_036thm.jpg
b7dc912479b3df4ee91cafca2e3a24f5
1885cd82f69930a53253e23ed89b99fd78ca8113
F20110331_AABKFX zhu_y_Page_145.tif
853963af732c0fc7d76a0b481ed85600
80f11d8066491293acdee37170ef61eda832988f
F20110331_AABKHA zhu_y_Page_178.tif
6d309555f053d2b332520eae9f33d127
aa655c6d3626329b8cdbc3898be3e7e63687583f
F20110331_AABKGL zhu_y_Page_162.tif
35becc603b0af9f8a6c5cd4b125459bb
b9881f8594b6f6658e0ca8574f7365c19919b997
8404 F20110331_AABLKD zhu_y_Page_085thm.jpg
5f7d971d7d87808ad3ccd8ec980e9911
f1a4220885b15fea6786db775681ad343018dcde
8363 F20110331_AABLJO zhu_y_Page_075thm.jpg
ff7886b4dc43d4885c926949ec848184
7f203e9d305dd26c41d9d093732600f70240042e
F20110331_AABKFY zhu_y_Page_146.tif
e9241918fddee1836846476dcae56248
cd46cddcb7abc74fad10fc5b5a1ecfac9e91472d
F20110331_AABKHB zhu_y_Page_179.tif
cbeaedf14e3cefe924bfd49c49d29674
a4c656418091b92de7905a52e92c49f3a5cc2eab
F20110331_AABKGM zhu_y_Page_164.tif
ada53e77072ac86eed489390558c1bc5
98a9be45348a4432c8fb2e8a94a0f0469d8cdc4a
26898 F20110331_AABLKE zhu_y_Page_103.QC.jpg
448a9efabcd4596cbecf74caca6ffa93
457ca63d8570d8fee67fef52a9f0d2692d5f0614
33461 F20110331_AABLJP zhu_y_Page_147.QC.jpg
28c42340c384df5790696104beb7154b
1887299f71feeddcb58f988ae910d092d6c1925e
F20110331_AABKFZ zhu_y_Page_148.tif
e39921a27f53256c057d7aa077b7113f
3cc78cd064b11ab4815c4dca5a3effc89b3b0daf
F20110331_AABKHC zhu_y_Page_180.tif
9b7bd645d734cd6f301c4baf028fb5f2
e146c9558ae3046b7b87728bae2601f84741e00c
F20110331_AABKGN zhu_y_Page_165.tif
6381340fdfa528c18c504935d2e30466
cebc397e8d2f6212bf487fab3a2cecc36a1bba16
34340 F20110331_AABLKF zhu_y_Page_057.QC.jpg
26cddb8743ece4bb3d96855e13af83f8
2dda0ec90b3cbfb24ee62cdffb2ba6957e830b47
6065 F20110331_AABLJQ zhu_y_Page_138thm.jpg
91b80713be840fe2f3d4878ae62703ac
2b75eec62c0e7a5ad87ee24b264a24d84ad7b38c
F20110331_AABKHD zhu_y_Page_181.tif
f341790295b666f92c9a037a8ab88c2a
f847e6b80cbc8ad55e7a993a44bebc9f9fb3bab4
F20110331_AABKGO zhu_y_Page_166.tif
01c8829e6b6a74f1a62082b3f141c4dc
a8c1a88f93403befc5346d8a5af58964038cf51b
28450 F20110331_AABLJR zhu_y_Page_183.QC.jpg
3045091c146c7eff66dcd328f3642a41
608dba5ca33738e250d622f55a81f89c37cef0eb
F20110331_AABKGP zhu_y_Page_167.tif
a5b013c0ff627e1347f92f2a841c05fc
2de012161a97861dd3ba37d055bc16b8863a42d4
3751 F20110331_AABLKG zhu_y_Page_187thm.jpg
b314e9e0c42d7c4893a8c2a9d111e123
635fbbdd163c1ed41c075588ec31f6e9aae9cdb4
31221 F20110331_AABLJS zhu_y_Page_089.QC.jpg
7954b905fa3f74210f9e959d42685631
95e6b5d05519ba340e9d6b6ad460acc8ba117056
F20110331_AABKHE zhu_y_Page_182.tif
1c2753b891a40a3ef916cef0456037f3
bc5888df9a24ab89446d759245ba65bbe8085bc7
F20110331_AABKGQ zhu_y_Page_168.tif
52c2f2c665c8ce14f3af134d051ba589
c71e1a1c80025037082a705d14c7396890a9398a
23854 F20110331_AABLKH zhu_y_Page_150.QC.jpg
75bc4f72f61713bdd667699a021f23e3
36c62c6c4aefd55c33306d533b87e1cedaf2ba43
7370 F20110331_AABLJT zhu_y_Page_004thm.jpg
8267eaa2786d8a6b48257711ebfb9c9f
f051e34f06bb26fd3b7abfe600fd52ab88f9e838
F20110331_AABKHF zhu_y_Page_183.tif
24f73e10e33fc5fddc545df0f084a512
7b1405927e1047ddd3895887209dc6e62338d3a9
F20110331_AABKGR zhu_y_Page_169.tif
37713329947eea1e9350eefcbb369fec
7f650d2e8f074145cedfcadb0c9fb78d2a99883b
2414 F20110331_AABLKI zhu_y_Page_001thm.jpg
afd3e61430ead9a465184c697438f8f6
1d1c6f6a569944ccd0aa69cb7f5ea38bbb022913
1888 F20110331_AABLJU zhu_y_Page_011thm.jpg
f357013811aee5d373f56775801d3aab
876899a5101e021316c29a61c238160afb65aa87
F20110331_AABKHG zhu_y_Page_184.tif
553c43dcf6a91d8691ce07cee59bbd18
9ed3bcfecc8289d5ffd8634ce4061d9a784c3b44
F20110331_AABKGS zhu_y_Page_170.tif
752e91db129b3c0dd37f2389aa98c700
96461bf1a016e822059314cecab43e66baeeb339
32327 F20110331_AABLKJ zhu_y_Page_177.QC.jpg
f63bb42288b18ee8e46566aedd26a566
c1ef31acf713c2b5484aa4bd639303db200fec94
6440 F20110331_AABLJV zhu_y_Page_013thm.jpg
6e14b754bb9a764c49ce79a3e7c4a0ec
baea8553b8b4ba037b9cebcac3754348391d7c96
F20110331_AABKHH zhu_y_Page_185.tif
8d21cc323926d09311441db4fdcaecf3
956fbfc0f25220fe33e0bca1da6e1b659da57f8c
F20110331_AABKGT zhu_y_Page_171.tif
ffa62b41edc168a60c7a51046669a4e7
8e9cee6aa986ff338a14d0d52a58a51b57ec060b
6566 F20110331_AABLKK zhu_y_Page_007thm.jpg
1941e1edf37a31c515e8df1b81765ee6
f2d57d524bc93b498dc1d51609f031afdf711932
8126 F20110331_AABLJW zhu_y_Page_111thm.jpg
28efbee820412daffaa39b37419dab20
2a97d81f1ef4158931cd4130381b9711d2a09a3e
F20110331_AABKHI zhu_y_Page_186.tif
b0d4d6f87a9065f19f78f0959778e327
db957e14b62ec1b5f361336c51e94f0642c4ae89
F20110331_AABKGU zhu_y_Page_172.tif
4567e2a4947ca05301c07222daa428aa
9c88b6e7cef1d1335ffebc27e9335fae09839597
30435 F20110331_AABLLA zhu_y_Page_126.QC.jpg
fddd3942aa49f67f042ad5232e224258
7894e46459c82cbca280d06c20b5eda4c8935047
33696 F20110331_AABLKL zhu_y_Page_097.QC.jpg
87f1601eb1cdf3b4d14d0f01e631cf5e
afb2ad43c5c5ec9efae92f4f34287939a55c152e
34199 F20110331_AABLJX zhu_y_Page_155.QC.jpg
de01d11b36cedb4de018e7dda0c58637
91ba2f8192066f9261c564321ecfdbfb46dd3a9c
F20110331_AABKHJ zhu_y_Page_187.tif
c4465bfa8677803f0bd0ad89b25c773f
90338f6a6489ec7b6b4102f1d960649a16e71415
F20110331_AABKGV zhu_y_Page_173.tif
17a3403bb6b436d4ea80ecc70f0ed27a
031b98632c2aaa01adb5969b5c43c6af419617e6
8395 F20110331_AABLLB zhu_y_Page_153thm.jpg
f2b36054c733ac7978220a48652e094f
129b4d245ec596a6c541a82b0efb35828dff8ae6
7280 F20110331_AABLKM zhu_y_Page_211thm.jpg
2ee6f95392987e6d15ce0164d9d477df
e0470263bbf09141f92a84d3d265a4de923797f4
8011 F20110331_AABLJY zhu_y_Page_132thm.jpg
fa9d7f133165138840d91f5e44e7987e
30d666e87b8b357c4e49159767964f301cbff2b0
F20110331_AABKHK zhu_y_Page_188.tif
d7bcf0a3177c8cecad43fed587ea6266
7d66b7220a0146b734de51bd831898198c6b921c
F20110331_AABKGW zhu_y_Page_174.tif
7ae3cd1b6c273d58bb010e321d988624
617b04ab532ebd7aeb0b0e5155449ce57cc3679f
29800 F20110331_AABLLC zhu_y_Page_096.QC.jpg
8cab938766381234a2975b9d655380c1
643519dae6ed49d906c9ed9d59cc80303ebe844e
33908 F20110331_AABLKN zhu_y_Page_067.QC.jpg
cbc0dfe4983b188145ed14c4c61fb0ec
0b0e0d714af4ee11212a685f83d92825d148775f
8482 F20110331_AABLJZ zhu_y_Page_061thm.jpg
f0c4f963da3e189055eff30e1845a294
9541a5e20fa9ded97e588e15bea95a8c3e3bdafb
F20110331_AABKIA zhu_y_Page_208.tif
a58065fc836442d9db7f5b172eba3ac1
a3f4ed5dcd468424abd16ebe298a8b4425871fd6
F20110331_AABKHL zhu_y_Page_189.tif
6907dac9da94f5b57644d1fa40cf8a3c
51dc390c4801b10b7070b4c52cc756b309d26b1a
F20110331_AABKGX zhu_y_Page_175.tif
ac51865c9a35f67590428fc0999dab2c
61e7132a1ff149e85aa709fab49df791bc07f0a8
34687 F20110331_AABLLD zhu_y_Page_175.QC.jpg
b5a0e5888bc6105f30792922aa7034d9
5bc4367d6b460b0d1c3400110b0a68f8c68bb03a
6714 F20110331_AABLKO zhu_y_Page_103thm.jpg
03ef54cd03c20e0319ed9c55b2ca487b
a89b951d23cba497534204765e9c271a04953c4c
F20110331_AABKIB zhu_y_Page_210.tif
5aaa803d6baa168b7c546c3da722ce63
76edd9294f28b3c5ae4c553e6cdf41af79178036
F20110331_AABKHM zhu_y_Page_190.tif
e97b4c060fb962bb859c81aeece1949d
bc38fce7e5b4c91719dce5078b6c59c7956d1e54
F20110331_AABKGY zhu_y_Page_176.tif
7d555086dd56b841e2620449022fc08a
055b8cefb724dc44488a32a4dfe554fb331e5ce5
32457 F20110331_AABLLE zhu_y_Page_167.QC.jpg
27ab25ddc58819634d9de867f22c7eca
336c4482b46a000e643a5133938009fe33becdf7
8786 F20110331_AABLKP zhu_y_Page_199thm.jpg
91615e7e40c4ad1c92f9d63f9833dd79
d18f54c20af7632e574196aa07df4f39ef70cf67
F20110331_AABKIC zhu_y_Page_211.tif
96f01cc4303c05227cafb52fbd7e1f40
61799e94d697019d7b759f51d76112403b631a48
F20110331_AABKHN zhu_y_Page_192.tif
8d3551627a21a5db48742a7519cb8ed0
2b114031083f889d8cf07a619af9ebef884a0614
F20110331_AABKGZ zhu_y_Page_177.tif
98c2c023dfec511c3ad760eb88707fb8
9bab5898a2da58fc7ba8c27ead12331dbe8d553d
33792 F20110331_AABLLF zhu_y_Page_088.QC.jpg
bcc0ea3baefa9ab01b774384dda472d6
2fe1b41a15fab211a21008bc0c0b8f94ec603bbb
7319 F20110331_AABLKQ zhu_y_Page_126thm.jpg
edcf6a651c680a4db4286eda8a87cdc1
fdc0767443e686eff2b2ef98d0a8e9949165fa5a
F20110331_AABKID zhu_y_Page_212.tif
7c3279be016bff7ba883920cf88ca523
c2dc1027b46a197aa27e2f4b563e1674e1ea6ffb
F20110331_AABKHO zhu_y_Page_193.tif
1caaf1b5b4f799ba81dd350c63cd859a
769511ee3c2b8076f18311454a9d2fce46bddbdf
7583 F20110331_AABLLG zhu_y_Page_008.QC.jpg
87d8f4dcbbc57ba4b3d7af5909edec80
ce823f4f1dfae694c341dbe82b824e4fd64545db
7823 F20110331_AABLKR zhu_y_Page_117thm.jpg
24a259709fc5cbe69e9f1869acd14216
db0dfb0dfb1563b4ad41771ca25b9df60eee3376
525 F20110331_AABKIE zhu_y_Page_001.txt
069b9a32ec376b6fed40539df0a7effc
6229fdf081961780d0b6cc60571556378ce1ff37
F20110331_AABKHP zhu_y_Page_195.tif
f4b7a3826358079a46f33c14bc06fb9a
93de2c947f6bb16c0ed28a4bf4bd597b2a5a6964
6913 F20110331_AABLKS zhu_y_Page_185thm.jpg
e8460d96a1b9cc14a25401493400cf7f
ccfe77afb9b53579668ea0890347b375d55be636
F20110331_AABKHQ zhu_y_Page_196.tif
7dadbcf7e4eec503334011bc0b822206
1b5de090bd9410e7bb32d624f96653836d9234f3
33755 F20110331_AABLLH zhu_y_Page_165.QC.jpg
965988d71d5cc379138d93e5f3533707
827295c278715710febace159a66824144b0cdad
32137 F20110331_AABLKT zhu_y_Page_055.QC.jpg
bfb1b9cc6f5c05e29e2687922c013c7f
bad87653f4340ceb8320e37ab965f14804046e09
96 F20110331_AABKIF zhu_y_Page_002.txt
12f63b543f3b64bf7c84b360a895b428
b9015a6b05b2e978f5a12df457060f12e721ea9c
F20110331_AABKHR zhu_y_Page_197.tif
ae091ef4e14a1a4c10a91764a041e8ba
80d14e963ac0db07f3315188af90cc984c6a0f6c
33033 F20110331_AABLLI zhu_y_Page_176.QC.jpg
f914e5df778134d7abb83adb5d45f7c2
75c514b09d38b5fe598b0fa549fd280ed05329b9
8684 F20110331_AABLKU zhu_y_Page_030thm.jpg
e09221c90b8a775f7109572112671ee2
a0326d6ef6c587fbb79bc1a47a51ab1b993e4206
105 F20110331_AABKIG zhu_y_Page_003.txt
fa2642e2170652f65b804ffb93f46bdd
198ba3fd499d44d52219d8ddd1975b96510518d4
F20110331_AABKHS zhu_y_Page_198.tif
8fa086995dd94976f29cc15bb17225b8
69a79dcaca1a4219f6eedc111f7f3d23c822709c
F20110331_AABLLJ zhu_y_Page_080.QC.jpg
ab4d637cf92e41f6cf16de3ee3285157
a009a73856b7d2e429b1d5c57671c73ce34b6c9b
8496 F20110331_AABLKV zhu_y_Page_059thm.jpg
549470de858ccc787ff8a4e291c39116
9b89a80b985a1dd54bac65eae9fbb372cb4edf89
1799 F20110331_AABKIH zhu_y_Page_004.txt
651fcc0a200104b21b08d66c7f8d9470
32a75b1fadd6692611df0f2e54497f08e2a4ac3b
F20110331_AABKHT zhu_y_Page_199.tif
a87078ea0fffa5849379fc50426e2633
2e3b4384afd2cde0ef8642046aeb91f1341622ba
22761 F20110331_AABLLK zhu_y_Page_104.QC.jpg
35edfa51d75624b514a7f3b1d8182c0f
870a7e3785a2b6f9dcf48a18b56025ca1790cc9f
30254 F20110331_AABLKW zhu_y_Page_140.QC.jpg
1ba9e57766c76a5d7f49c4b72935b567
d0cb562c26c58cce38fc8bd26eeaac64aaa2ef7f
1079 F20110331_AABKII zhu_y_Page_005.txt
65703fb42085b6f7db1376cc55fe784f
8ab277ec231fc79dffdbbbbcc3dcc37f9ece172a
F20110331_AABKHU zhu_y_Page_200.tif
a9769a430268652d405ecef74378ad96
3a1ea11042390c549dc04dba0bbb5f9364ea78d1
7862 F20110331_AABLMA zhu_y_Page_033thm.jpg
ec5b8efc3e09daaabab4147841898351
57f59bf1129243e5a6ebe0ac5f01ae11088ed8e8
7506 F20110331_AABLLL zhu_y_Page_027thm.jpg
f599c98bcfd3bd1f90cfe5b6a5bce9af
15edd5659d967e383623e0636387c0964555e9f9
7588 F20110331_AABLKX zhu_y_Page_080thm.jpg
e8ee5a5e86d06135fd4e826580a2ca9f
3985a3891473465519a04bdf3bc87c1e7d92300f
4460 F20110331_AABKIJ zhu_y_Page_007.txt
88780546406a8d3fcefadf8dc45da24c
188f22d64b2b74097b07d98071af67e3935dde01
F20110331_AABKHV zhu_y_Page_201.tif
dd9a9a27f98ab9fd16a5880600ec55bb
2c501bfc07cfc58d92e941fe463c92636998fefd
8392 F20110331_AABLMB zhu_y_Page_180thm.jpg
979792796c8d2c77a5641d5c678399a0
0786a76de27e183ee24d4eb3f88ab528e38dbf43
33554 F20110331_AABLLM zhu_y_Page_085.QC.jpg
720fd9d153453e4466e4c3208bac9d33
7c4f54961d5027e774d46730e8176bc221127617
7087 F20110331_AABLKY zhu_y_Page_169thm.jpg
3c70b838b164433febd6745a768dc3af
77c2276442943241a10eca178102bf4f32765038
835 F20110331_AABKIK zhu_y_Page_008.txt
9e2daefb696ff2dd5d08a24647caf974
f54614db0d4ba6febc8f2c05cb16575f32585138
F20110331_AABKHW zhu_y_Page_202.tif
402ab5b64138b3ea421de36c1ecafd9a
4f6e425eb8b6a15e1731eef14844ec718731e36c
33433 F20110331_AABLMC zhu_y_Page_125.QC.jpg
6d8b068cb02760d35625ee620fd8db26
8edb48c07d522fb9b7067be0360a75747075aba6
8272 F20110331_AABLLN zhu_y_Page_064thm.jpg
7bf77d6769eb54289125a7137c525056
40395ab8c66e0a50ace75d378940082f5a6b746f
6553 F20110331_AABLKZ zhu_y_Page_113thm.jpg
46ce5f36c74d2f9fe7995868314dc2ba
af4c38157c55db7580caad1f0571d1f987a8c090
1938 F20110331_AABKIL zhu_y_Page_009.txt
f75e26f02c7fd014e7e252d2dc9e5caa
b1ed22016e0321b504aeed78b285abac4cda6d8b
F20110331_AABKHX zhu_y_Page_203.tif
1e693b79645e592750d6efa0486006e1
d48ea48ff3235f3b2ab90c5b40d60889eb507cf3
2107 F20110331_AABKJA zhu_y_Page_028.txt
b62d12dc7f1edf2585277d732ff52e39
ec4d39d497612ffb483f2f6fbc3720698e211425
8191 F20110331_AABLMD zhu_y_Page_119thm.jpg
1a0927815ea658683d1e3160e55016b1
f49cae3c9d14e71ccad1d416d1045dd24e6bcff7
33851 F20110331_AABLLO zhu_y_Page_051.QC.jpg
6b459f43be253d1d37df5f2129ac1d11
c7261def20bec49889a6c7e90e6e8e1b45711b5f
2326 F20110331_AABKIM zhu_y_Page_010.txt
7b3325aa178cfdfe5748c279b7e111b5
989dd0c0e177d64883a43099e30b59388f028f9c
F20110331_AABKHY zhu_y_Page_204.tif
aab2b6de6aa29a7637ac4d3cc05531bd
8668181c4566260d59c78bb9042106ff7bd5f29d
2177 F20110331_AABKJB zhu_y_Page_030.txt
5d01bf90716a3ea35e40718804fbe771
17e69c2b885b723234d379fcece7211ca8a541b2
33138 F20110331_AABLME zhu_y_Page_091.QC.jpg
6320119b4d69616f09b07429e5ae4da6
13e1f1322bcdf5d8e836c8534945f92e4bcd7740
1534 F20110331_AABLLP zhu_y_Page_190thm.jpg
2fc8774cb4c0766abd75f942340be6d3
203c9bccb91dd2bb767ee25a7c31e3e637c85e01
377 F20110331_AABKIN zhu_y_Page_011.txt
b1990d2119d214d63e5213ed37c8eeb7
481f0129206e6a4b7d00c44a0d14a6bad5de650d
F20110331_AABKHZ zhu_y_Page_206.tif
02fe654b787ed31592774339157f3516
f58f673b44b073c487c4df3d5c46ee35a3ed966e
1953 F20110331_AABKJC zhu_y_Page_031.txt
cfce61c7fce6ab31a66ac80449e870f0
6ad6dc3e421f730ffee950e35537dc5100a4a624
28478 F20110331_AABLMF zhu_y_Page_093.QC.jpg
2ed9ff96351e2ca0b45f88e1d23119f4
fc4c312d9f62b95461250f6c7ad8b5528165d4ab
8423 F20110331_AABLLQ zhu_y_Page_058thm.jpg
0bc2ccdaa92cb78f388dcbbef40f6f1f
30e232f4f46f34c9765a7376579fec1bba009d60
1564 F20110331_AABKIO zhu_y_Page_013.txt
cc4491b5dc0d58d2b2c3b0a9a0bda337
5124cfe0c29ed3ebe6da6c1b4ae939568473c63c
1960 F20110331_AABKJD zhu_y_Page_032.txt
2c5a9e663c6133a040f6bc9ee8bdeaa2
9ae18bf0d8f239508578575bbf63e01e7dd35c8d
33546 F20110331_AABLMG zhu_y_Page_039.QC.jpg
d3f04d313139d0de137fea49012ea4c4
ed15617d6e96690c0f12ab38a43cbc96ae6e935d
8293 F20110331_AABLLR zhu_y_Page_025thm.jpg
7877b9c6e706a443817148b5d67542a4
1b9761525470314d650b268d5066b8dadf30e311
1882 F20110331_AABKIP zhu_y_Page_014.txt
97296de4b2a0f101d4f0bd8bfe6f6d98
5d800807ae45788b590884c15a451eff44455dd4
F20110331_AABKJE zhu_y_Page_033.txt
f54ebf2d8b92c5292dd4ec2f607efdeb
ff8af5aef17b5dac777bc7623e5620de64bdcbd0
7924 F20110331_AABLMH zhu_y_Page_107thm.jpg
b5de809da6012ad99e6fb3eb7be4e89a
e972a204056ab21021979190b98c8e495c7ee480
8740 F20110331_AABLLS zhu_y_Page_158thm.jpg
2da42c00762f172f18938de13dc48c1a
f63ae7034557bb6864f6de9397920b2389a3fe14
1951 F20110331_AABKIQ zhu_y_Page_016.txt
40a5dd7715d7c91cf19f78f0ea20e071
96aca71412ef322d5f43cfbb756f00b1434ea72b
561 F20110331_AABKJF zhu_y_Page_034.txt
4016bc939150cc8dc630082b636df891
29f36832ac124fa8f0716b82bbf14e1896d0114e
8990 F20110331_AABLLT zhu_y_Page_209thm.jpg
2f2415edf0aabb315828928c6cf2687a
eb4a1dd5ad331bd12423cfa75ddc81947c6b1185
1984 F20110331_AABKIR zhu_y_Page_017.txt
a528a1650bdff1d05b6b33393505ad6f
35d774408a5aedad952dc77a0194d6736d4d6fa4
8370 F20110331_AABLMI zhu_y_Page_016thm.jpg
69a9abddefc9b04788392f33c7c3e790
ab4c2b6a9c5c86c91b839b1bcdca93f1bc05bab8
22111 F20110331_AABLLU zhu_y_Page_006.QC.jpg
93d23bc18a924d714b3ee3b096ab91a5
4ea2beae088e57074faeedd51b99d578cb30389e
1988 F20110331_AABKIS zhu_y_Page_018.txt
efb8867e4f78559818df6f456c6ef3fc
da7d98b48e92106e8600b96896a910c041831503
1783 F20110331_AABKJG zhu_y_Page_035.txt
a673cfd3053b139d9422aa6cab7a5f38
4df978252dc0f48647b8bd9aadf0f80b04a40992
31967 F20110331_AABLMJ zhu_y_Page_087.QC.jpg
876195192c0b8efc207a15378b7d38ec
1bb990c8852ae1165b832a5230401d00373fec55
8043 F20110331_AABLLV zhu_y_Page_101thm.jpg
04da9961df42aaf992f0ca68eac7830d
3c467a018dd2e544613c2fdc07aec32a2693577f
1956 F20110331_AABKIT zhu_y_Page_019.txt
60269adc9cf20fa4d55067fc99721a02
64490272f26a4ed1edd8247fb2959851f437e8be
1917 F20110331_AABKJH zhu_y_Page_036.txt
09a83b88f30485eb582035c5d64e16aa
73af596a37c44438059020702070d78a69369163
6622 F20110331_AABLMK zhu_y_Page_011.QC.jpg
8f426309e52b3e7ad933d1bf0620f92b
f68841c17379c2ec875ddf7cb3c251d3276a9e53
34174 F20110331_AABLLW zhu_y_Page_015.QC.jpg
91919d51583fc6690d748a589d4dbd14
72aa97d9135de83c4d4a8b5fce5930435bc1254e
2033 F20110331_AABKIU zhu_y_Page_021.txt
6e2e114c49c6a8214cd569cb2bdd066f
3419daa39636f54235edbf7027baa9cc88460d67
2023 F20110331_AABKJI zhu_y_Page_037.txt
f24c34eddbb8c5233d54c1c1aec50912
68bb19e3a9f8cd06a1418ba090fd8a331bc31d53
34016 F20110331_AABLNA zhu_y_Page_180.QC.jpg
0be652a27aec1c38d9350b87f4229dbf
19d217aef82489bbf89de3ffc8136e6ec27884ed
8909 F20110331_AABLML zhu_y_Page_141thm.jpg
eab04f21a951ed2c07ad3b585078673f
95252c386da4db999641555e67d074583b178b2b
8128 F20110331_AABLLX zhu_y_Page_131thm.jpg
0969bbc26caad6cba64929b46fd1cce6
ed97b82bcd1b2ab1ce5f222966861420f10b451d
2095 F20110331_AABKIV zhu_y_Page_022.txt
f1491d7f6f7b1488843423fa37fc03f3
047fc3ad54b6fed79a447128baa2bae95e474719
1957 F20110331_AABKJJ zhu_y_Page_038.txt
ba4ff521bee6967d811c86163e603e91
a7ca7706b50bd5580a8e2ff40ac4aa265addec05
7703 F20110331_AABLNB zhu_y_Page_042thm.jpg
c9f4e38d581be52af6e56f615ba97486
5f58f788c1784ccce7ec95daa8c4679bdc00ff8a
5471 F20110331_AABLMM zhu_y_Page_196thm.jpg
2c4a3599d9b5e984836bcb86efdb5925
cb09c08819ffc27b4827ba68eb042707e26297c7
8298 F20110331_AABLLY zhu_y_Page_091thm.jpg
97e7fa751877d5a74ed7961623551776
2ac4e434b26292a657b91b4926f960958640b0a1
1952 F20110331_AABKIW zhu_y_Page_023.txt
299f88b6c02b1378974cd8e5ec471afe
0359c6929ab1c2adb3c956e09c59668b13fa9189
2050 F20110331_AABKJK zhu_y_Page_039.txt
80375b4bd9b6cfbb443c18f9a8709375
b34a17dfe3bb48dd6aa3575a5237258593415a79
8378 F20110331_AABLNC zhu_y_Page_170thm.jpg
0a232deced9b702533efe63c0723b3f4
56be5a7673f27e9823086d9bd8c43f105d1f3ebe
34699 F20110331_AABLMN zhu_y_Page_026.QC.jpg
2ea55c0a811bb2e13a46dd03aba2051c
6b4dbc77977b58f31883f97d98d96692d6135453
32387 F20110331_AABLLZ zhu_y_Page_040.QC.jpg
9a72a6bee5f8f34130d4231526fd13d0
65ac866cdce1200e1b8bd5eeb20d6ae78636b08f
2026 F20110331_AABKIX zhu_y_Page_024.txt
47861911e5ad02f1a5260e97926f0a3a
39187b65e9d3d7bd50b082ddfc69ce8b4c1700bb
1996 F20110331_AABKKA zhu_y_Page_059.txt
755b8ee45fc441b0dc30de5e2a659439
49164c766468ff872d2a4210f6fff923e7474780
F20110331_AABKJL zhu_y_Page_042.txt
80ddd11a83ae1bce03a94bc5eb5a5856
c68b3c7a5d518e79c171d91d17950aadb56d1afa
7132 F20110331_AABLND zhu_y_Page_014thm.jpg
56d6e9983e824a41c6b83d42df555402
ebe86a00ff559937cf81a74d07e3cf59284f32a1
7936 F20110331_AABLMO zhu_y_Page_156thm.jpg
ef6c66482471d62571d92512ecc49df9
f39c6616fcb2ce3c0fb00ea04dc9ad86f6e8098a
2022 F20110331_AABKIY zhu_y_Page_025.txt
29e6cbe48d726a2a239e57aa5c3d2bf9
fc386735ca58c2a31425d99aab6a135217bd1d6c
2016 F20110331_AABKKB zhu_y_Page_060.txt
4b460e6ab2531a92122107a1aece6861
9c406d9cfa6a6d889db213880e8c167cde929242
F20110331_AABKJM zhu_y_Page_043.txt
fc3e80c1aef730551c2ecf84cfe4fb62
f51bf713d66f8f0c856040b74bb4020b86a23065
33569 F20110331_AABLNE zhu_y_Page_166.QC.jpg
e02fa7c080a8782165015a097114eb16
33f26b9e3c4e5dfc1d143cb0e7cd57ac80ccd3fb
34056 F20110331_AABLMP zhu_y_Page_174.QC.jpg
8b6bc8364bf6bc5ef3308c17fb246179
fc69d0a692d2c3f8c06e89d8b2b33845dca42952
1752 F20110331_AABKIZ zhu_y_Page_027.txt
77cf4ea55886d61ddc6e2e7294bbfd65
e2429eb4f29b477903e5da72261e49a5123d6240
2017 F20110331_AABKKC zhu_y_Page_063.txt
6fb6e4d8f5314cb969122e92bd70ee19
a2aa953c85d178922a00539f44c9cffe5205e682
1977 F20110331_AABKJN zhu_y_Page_044.txt
a8109e254858a3083ae10945cb8c3e55
8967a95b2eca74b570f4c9a034ed9fa473ad02bb
37504 F20110331_AABLNF zhu_y_Page_208.QC.jpg
5df5d40f44e5fc59405aeadf36bf313e
7243f409a4522cd92118067f2942c310f1086822
8131 F20110331_AABLMQ zhu_y_Page_147thm.jpg
6899f31aa5c17493e7801222b27b2f33
d6466f50274e4fbcb42766f789d22231f9599dfd
F20110331_AABKKD zhu_y_Page_064.txt
7528105352688f07d1dbbacf163e4391
21789f0b6f38b64ed1e2aec106286f25fd7e4788
1946 F20110331_AABKJO zhu_y_Page_045.txt
512c3ae24af3ff1a9dba8c11c81d9679
f5872a73c5cac95e4676a5e30c5d9ef76855386b
7640 F20110331_AABLNG zhu_y_Page_010thm.jpg
744e0816dc68f53e6ed881e5a2585fe5
7c3ae9d9e7a92bf2a38dc6e005668531174b59fe
8193 F20110331_AABLMR zhu_y_Page_152thm.jpg
b8a35d86f011f5c2a65eba577a46a2ba
3f7e1a9b79c5f2c1b1294eab024f6037701fca10
2014 F20110331_AABKKE zhu_y_Page_065.txt
41eb2378307d511491536fda584919de
10b4fa3e08432f3187ab80db686efda56123b817
1926 F20110331_AABKJP zhu_y_Page_046.txt
b0b3294cb39459a5e170e6d4dda62753
28c149d811ee480aa625851390d4a02e3b1f3203
F20110331_AABLNH zhu_y_Page_017thm.jpg
d8a0823ab81c1abfca539bcecabe8ec8
2c16fef0b15ab61958c066ec2bb1b1b9c0194029
6224 F20110331_AABLMS zhu_y_Page_009thm.jpg
3f99668d2a3a545297fb82009a9c6bd7
d97f30bb66a1502d0e87e2ed429cc6c181e9c8e0
1869 F20110331_AABKKF zhu_y_Page_066.txt
9e08a20acb0589e41fb1db5094ce5382
010dcb84b5c956ded4a72ed0f4acc383c361c279
1959 F20110331_AABKJQ zhu_y_Page_047.txt
e4cf9c9971f880a11d0f36179a909a24
459a43149522ef0807bae56112056e78112e9bd1
33497 F20110331_AABLNI zhu_y_Page_048.QC.jpg
c32cf4db19660acc280c2ef844a23779
52f74d1ec776caa3636a7520be93e1ce9b8ca3f6
8382 F20110331_AABLMT zhu_y_Page_203thm.jpg
be3f0ffd1087690ac11ee8d43b2711d6
a664399896373b1f331bbf99398f057b24d3d9d1
2008 F20110331_AABKKG zhu_y_Page_067.txt
5bc9bc5468a5ffb83c998b4cf702f34d
d241aa8b1fb8dcd89db13f5c88436a957f955122
1948 F20110331_AABKJR zhu_y_Page_049.txt
ca79fea5c3a55f121b76aea6036edde2
3787ae04e6db79097a01425949f4647fb0a78d5a
33760 F20110331_AABLMU zhu_y_Page_099.QC.jpg
c702cb6723a4781db850343afa5bdf93
067358e249439eccb27ad109113ad351893562bf
2083 F20110331_AABKJS zhu_y_Page_050.txt
d40c69868adb8e28d5f203c5ab502b69
dda80ead884e74915abf5a8d5c02ac78efad8ab7
31313 F20110331_AABLNJ zhu_y_Page_116.QC.jpg
2770e5dc339587fb97cb897f15109e89
1ce4feb19eb10affc55ccc2299c9ec9da4d11791
32348 F20110331_AABLMV zhu_y_Page_132.QC.jpg
96fd7c813c2210b9f0393303609ca8a8
1fb64ec85d752ce059fec84708a2330d38ee0691
2057 F20110331_AABKKH zhu_y_Page_068.txt
83bd58dbdc40875c09fe8ef4ef439be0
8fae0189ba0e1620856f18cac62a175172fdb8cc
2000 F20110331_AABKJT zhu_y_Page_052.txt
5e1659f3185ae74350ce539cfad973ec
8ab50df471d092eb1e4be55d004e5bed55b92da8
8119 F20110331_AABLNK zhu_y_Page_067thm.jpg
57161d399bb4b026ec1425715d07e7aa
4e12e062a3645acb0937b03bcf8815cd24395d18
7539 F20110331_AABLMW zhu_y_Page_078thm.jpg
fca7ecc2139cacf882a529b98d301222
9c19434d7b118932b98ebad50078a7dde574dd28
1892 F20110331_AABKKI zhu_y_Page_070.txt
a5478483121f6a92f4472e523bb4280e
cf6a4fed95a093b1f9387b7f14d2c795f862742e
1919 F20110331_AABKJU zhu_y_Page_053.txt
a8a41a506e390fd53cfe4876e6785a3a
73b2c3b4c4cd5c79cda44f8aec9186e1dab51226
8287 F20110331_AABLOA zhu_y_Page_128thm.jpg
c68990d5cb9c8962ffcde737c7d19725
563914cfef2724531e219579fbce3a69dc954b69
32102 F20110331_AABLNL zhu_y_Page_081.QC.jpg
55c5de08d50bab5f150ba9cb8ffd8aa5
fc7107c41943adbf409217833017dd60ff9a7f67
33133 F20110331_AABLMX zhu_y_Page_046.QC.jpg
e8e632fd2c6f2cd82a1f482a11e1ec95
48301d784b7bb9dabc1020f6250fe50a2a5728cb
F20110331_AABKKJ zhu_y_Page_071.txt
db224e21c3a5d16ebc7f55d494df72e5
628a4c7be9dbd1d8b758e5f7db6c500aced79cd4
1903 F20110331_AABKJV zhu_y_Page_054.txt
5777def2d743df991df182535e1a0620
30cc8b7a4a4cf99ef0ec9e08626aa7f8485961eb
8147 F20110331_AABLOB zhu_y_Page_146thm.jpg
785633503108094c078250475f79cfff
bb5030ab70b68821b7a324b52954d39b9ca5eaac
8761 F20110331_AABLNM zhu_y_Page_148thm.jpg
a211dfd3bf95236eed41fafc15c3d38a
346a773e28b5471104d63ef8d41e35c1a2363edf
8271 F20110331_AABLMY zhu_y_Page_082thm.jpg
4e7c31aeb0b3ea44ef91edfdfc507e90
b1e44b88f69ac7b5c86685f756a886713e950538
2003 F20110331_AABKKK zhu_y_Page_072.txt
a81f197a399d044706d3557db508b21b
955ebc6886205568105f08760ed9115e25151611
F20110331_AABKJW zhu_y_Page_055.txt
602df9894155713b9830f9fb4cae9298
63a2c3bade54192100f7c757b09a2a73a516979e
5143 F20110331_AABLOC zhu_y_Page_006thm.jpg
1e2a1e80c5007f65e322d285eca00813
1f8cd0b9f317c6057720367fe628d1de96cdf1a6
8670 F20110331_AABLNN zhu_y_Page_151thm.jpg
f2c568f461e7a4ed2bf2d3d37edfe2d8
fd5c4be12c125bcc52ed85159c5473620b0efa14
31419 F20110331_AABLMZ zhu_y_Page_131.QC.jpg
b213025a5e340200752e45ad5533c17d
d82201b1d1ba8b66ac9aecf5ee9532958213fbab
1922 F20110331_AABKLA zhu_y_Page_092.txt
287574a63bbb805df6f3d7e102386205
baf5f455748cdf06b963cdaca1f954849a659043
F20110331_AABKKL zhu_y_Page_073.txt
22aa4da236c42b8b2377d34a7d16296a
608318c720d6cfcfc709ad9a80e030aff3156d14
1961 F20110331_AABKJX zhu_y_Page_056.txt
b0e250f51dd86df9befc5907d94aae3f
ec5bbb0003ee97172dbd226f7e2a67b03d7933af
31666 F20110331_AABLOD zhu_y_Page_130.QC.jpg
0bcdc57e863cc9375bab33aa07d2b761
789786469683a7194fe305149fe843e40b97ef01
33947 F20110331_AABLNO zhu_y_Page_207.QC.jpg
9766af6c51ba92efa60b16978ea40f3a
401f08752d2a3d2aca2656acbcf9483875ce15ec
1847 F20110331_AABKLB zhu_y_Page_094.txt
eb2761840731d48c3edcfbaff9f6535e
7c02002290e831f9e626557a02059cdd5ef013d7
1837 F20110331_AABKKM zhu_y_Page_074.txt
92b09455ff49b0d42b989716bd2ba28c
0d823a3fcb2da4b8fe7d9f40ba69bce08403e3f3
F20110331_AABKJY zhu_y_Page_057.txt
fe8ce1e9013a0b4376e628f8056711c4
3e7d900f21a327d3b43dbffdf8969a34ee141038
6388 F20110331_AABLOE zhu_y_Page_104thm.jpg
69911f5788d1d32cfb7c2a7fa7c3def2
d8b8feb788ccea1359d3245aedc0a03137af9a11
34486 F20110331_AABLNP zhu_y_Page_202.QC.jpg
58c9c7b6319d822f21fd3e9537ebcb8a
4c8ba2c2cbdf2278957944dbcb73ee41ec9f8768
1868 F20110331_AABKLC zhu_y_Page_095.txt
674625dbb64dced72378a4a326aeefd9
fc6c1af3913d06eb7b7aaf8fb1782ed2bd1259c3
2012 F20110331_AABKKN zhu_y_Page_075.txt
75482d6403135407511f84980cad34e4
c04ad1547786c429111c7e2f690153700761f2aa
F20110331_AABKJZ zhu_y_Page_058.txt
f46630072a8ec2936a8827326123f8f1
6e5311f82464639f13c4d9ded51f2422007a3898
2554 F20110331_AABLOF zhu_y_Page_077thm.jpg
f379dba6089ca219da85e17035db0f59
ed26305b30128cb0c3f810e387eadbf113f114e4
7853 F20110331_AABLNQ zhu_y_Page_140thm.jpg
36625099fd9b1f2396a2cc5eadac2e2c
3241985d840518b27028a904a49ae57e99dcdafc
F20110331_AABKLD zhu_y_Page_096.txt
12f1b530992b1b7a3f2e1803e8676ecf
ec7b6d2bc4ee12e236a2caca26f808dd9378c1af
2060 F20110331_AABKKO zhu_y_Page_076.txt
1da360292581c4bb4707ce1b69146b17
6bd0886a44bfdb74b25a3941e1e97ebdb3be8449
8094 F20110331_AABLOG zhu_y_Page_167thm.jpg
394e631d9f6e0db3a71153707bea1540
8546464de6e0d8b6d8583b7225daa19ef50e323f
33664 F20110331_AABLNR zhu_y_Page_069.QC.jpg
f53b853e66239078f686c0d6b69070e4
750f6ea66b2d0aca9cb28682b086ca294d4cc7ee
1880 F20110331_AABKKP zhu_y_Page_078.txt
031761551fd6df78a2bfd8b48458609d
0a6ed4607c5476903ab9a55c827422b17b87755e
2058 F20110331_AABKLE zhu_y_Page_097.txt
301f5e60ae39539155872908d4609ec8
4e6e131fefa07b3718f9d4d3212b407768062ee0
8309 F20110331_AABLOH zhu_y_Page_031thm.jpg
fac18955fd731959b92291253e3b8a13
cf9a5fb011945271d93cd3819419f2f31f2410e3
14921 F20110331_AABLNS zhu_y_Page_194.QC.jpg
7a98dc538c69967fb2f2aa34957f2a19
7ee00920fc7ad299710f9ede726ebf48dd1f6351
F20110331_AABKKQ zhu_y_Page_079.txt
4322328ade4adfb59f7cad8da7ff3d67
2253fc483a271f6329ed4d3b3688a5ee2be3a690
2061 F20110331_AABKLF zhu_y_Page_098.txt
821b7d9f2243ab65da18073e9699b404
17befcf71af1935204cd35dc0a897f10fc184a02
F20110331_AABLOI zhu_y_Page_108.QC.jpg
e906354e5e00fe99d645abd64ef64ea4
2530507b7601e57f23f9747080b86313274bf272
7970 F20110331_AABLNT zhu_y_Page_040thm.jpg
424a51e53e6a4a7d746502f335ba3a98
86760940ca16b4150f518604d689430472de01ec
2020 F20110331_AABKKR zhu_y_Page_080.txt
4008fa59f9ac4351f8c4e7343576e9c9
8ec1ebf24a0fc68a3fb6bf555f46551dcfc4530d
2039 F20110331_AABKLG zhu_y_Page_099.txt
9d6e81b5a36295fed25458c1e27348e7
2e3c6cf0ca908c43ab8c32a61da004fa75742dd9
37057 F20110331_AABLOJ zhu_y_Page_151.QC.jpg
afb998af2fa656276abd99daf0f14ef1
00d522a5d09606036acca5557d2783b47a24920a
24530 F20110331_AABLNU zhu_y_Page_188.QC.jpg
a1d7377c7393792152eb4c7aed980324
fac0c849a39d839c744ab537c6ede53524c8629d
2009 F20110331_AABKKS zhu_y_Page_081.txt
b704de2e78af8a9063fddfa4783e75d4
4b562aa683d81a04249acaceb3bef71390d39579
2124 F20110331_AABKLH zhu_y_Page_100.txt
b7a7699986a3aac230c40cb733631b88
00f53616b52ad37bbae757f891eda17bdb5022a0
34042 F20110331_AABLNV zhu_y_Page_136.QC.jpg
ade7c406910321f8fca2c684f501bfd6
a408de73f0028edc3ee75a700c18be017d2b0d1d
2151 F20110331_AABKKT zhu_y_Page_082.txt
b8a142c4934e673ba517c610d912bd48
ded62d77ac159656c933737c2a72f59fbf1c3a08
8505 F20110331_AABLOK zhu_y_Page_057thm.jpg
20f566e48d9360b4dc5e7c311ac7522c
1841e9e1b495df7e96e9025290cf85b32083083f
7645 F20110331_AABLNW zhu_y_Page_074thm.jpg
25d8352fd798af6dbe6007b0c1321702
91d9b84e43d512f381529395cb209224c6cd2b24
1997 F20110331_AABKKU zhu_y_Page_084.txt
9f7300ba62978fbd85ecfbaac1ba2afe
d6fdea72913d5adef30a43d9db84035847461e26
2078 F20110331_AABKLI zhu_y_Page_101.txt
711c20b592bbc57cc8602302049bb89e
326e5be1042755242044ca088b27ece0b9547559
4801 F20110331_AABLPA zhu_y_Page_005thm.jpg
875275c01e9e33cbc59a0a1fee0a3d44
e51b2faf2178aa9ff810711d5755700ed54bdd6a
33422 F20110331_AABLOL zhu_y_Page_059.QC.jpg
050d2ea515dafc5de5d8768c1c41d4fb
6585fd3c586820569a5b10e5bd78de71f83c090c
32526 F20110331_AABLNX zhu_y_Page_049.QC.jpg
3caeaf4d48dde08cf6b762208db66694
662a6aef125d078f5ccfdcb2fb6c4358d1d0f55f
F20110331_AABKKV zhu_y_Page_085.txt
96fee83e3628d21ba5ebd383fe5bcb31
ec2a6e7d31b1d9fd797c040dd52452b2a8ee2580
412 F20110331_AABKLJ zhu_y_Page_102.txt
62652ee281317a0f0a3e5ce0af1c387d
a74800968bce789a37a8c1ef42e2d4c2ef8e03ad
8186 F20110331_AABLPB zhu_y_Page_191thm.jpg
dbae3f8c5dc69a7df9ddc31f16db42a5
24dcc9b85533f128d90e4e5bb3742e81a4654fbb
25775 F20110331_AABLOM zhu_y_Page_113.QC.jpg
356048a073f6a16c67750faf8bc71b53
7cf186bf0339bf49ac00e1f1ff4eb3023cd0b274
33973 F20110331_AABLNY zhu_y_Page_170.QC.jpg
ea3977973552c02386f3a489cc5fd83f
fa900fbad60c16576fe62bec2529b63e29fd9a27
2041 F20110331_AABKKW zhu_y_Page_088.txt
5d57af1780ac20f89e4e96f69655aea0
4e375eeda368c671e13c40289b693b47278e782e
1681 F20110331_AABKLK zhu_y_Page_103.txt
6549522d2e133ac2f2cf800f83c2a180
878eae726cc95eaf67c5d74a989d61819366acfa
3825 F20110331_AABLPC zhu_y_Page_193thm.jpg
43359b7dfe9c584b567467ed5b466e63
6b45a0b3dcecb7d68847669b993beef79fa8e63f
8426 F20110331_AABLON zhu_y_Page_205thm.jpg
ffa9dc37c20926c7d5b3bbcb7201e1a1
a61d371364bf7308d0dc9fdab9be4b8a8d5512ed
7033 F20110331_AABLNZ zhu_y_Page_102.QC.jpg
eec56f75552b4a3b72a019c039eeaabf
abd5ef0e88f3cd06297b3e684364eb0be711ed49
F20110331_AABKKX zhu_y_Page_089.txt
a90499104af395653b452670cff740f4
f0582003135e10d533568b3c8d0f5f5fc9e3e731
3630 F20110331_AABKMA zhu_y_Page_124.txt
f21cdb4fb86831d56fc508ad974c039d
bf8afcfde2da520f2ba6e403fc743d1fd2deee4c
2418 F20110331_AABKLL zhu_y_Page_104.txt
591558345376e6a82f0f693c4b4478c3
95266d84a1624d06a82ac1d8a13b2e4c941627df
31616 F20110331_AABLPD zhu_y_Page_127.QC.jpg
f1e07615f9151d43ec46cdda0e1a6f32
f7fc5f2bbb784e885130b1beb01716e4a5bf0f97
1076 F20110331_AABLOO zhu_y_Page_192thm.jpg
32717b097061628efcc45b349d6fe35b
08bed80abe9ffaa7cf755e5b2ec6aa2d06609bcf
1852 F20110331_AABKKY zhu_y_Page_090.txt
3f75a31662b4444b00f009fa71d2661f
7a287fa43766a4b6d94faddb4368c5ff930cb79a
2320 F20110331_AABKMB zhu_y_Page_125.txt
b939905c686c6a5624d63cddec76da48
bb2e39e988d940ca152ecb19ec95e35bff2d9c3e
1909 F20110331_AABKLM zhu_y_Page_105.txt
0e31a48ec71ba3a6e5757b1131c6fa05
5c7240c4c0704b83c15fcccd5c087cb0737fbde3
33331 F20110331_AABLPE zhu_y_Page_157.QC.jpg
3ea27520bebc231367f67e38958ba09b
c6b81b8af17825d4865b40a48294d26e98b595d4
28677 F20110331_AABLOP zhu_y_Page_169.QC.jpg
cd6f4b32733bf120799c48d411fe03c5
7fe887482f875c89ecc0f92bbfa1623335ce3725
F20110331_AABKKZ zhu_y_Page_091.txt
e808b20daa7418de760fc2313d15faf4
c813e891047b7f7e31e54e7644bd31998408da6f
1842 F20110331_AABKMC zhu_y_Page_127.txt
aee462707b8f9028de10e82075270ab4
30cabac125871235e99f02467da99a944e2f0bac
2055 F20110331_AABKLN zhu_y_Page_106.txt
f659931f708df1c56a9cd79215722fa5
72dcbd06aa3e2df2f0d409cbdcb18117024075a7
34691 F20110331_AABLPF zhu_y_Page_199.QC.jpg
c40bf6e55d66d140fe8412b5fa02e4a7
892fd239e83143c6224f2548a51afdaa29aa01cc
35569 F20110331_AABLOQ zhu_y_Page_133.QC.jpg
e8f3944f5435225c640790be30315dd9
46ebcfbcf3387ff2e0bb37599f3925ebc032a683
1921 F20110331_AABKMD zhu_y_Page_128.txt
2a10da2f79c121422bb9d75f06a6792e
d970c53477a840f8fd329cb11d3846721ec48dbf
1881 F20110331_AABKLO zhu_y_Page_107.txt
5abf5c700520b39de62c1350d3d40b37
2184951fc2340ecd8a96951925a8c71a7c4cfd99
8578 F20110331_AABLPG zhu_y_Page_144thm.jpg
339ea1c99c2ce1f51d8236b5fcb91954
8cd916615faeec71fd40dc9a0e6c886a3ac957ed
34200 F20110331_AABLOR zhu_y_Page_204.QC.jpg
5e5dfb6178b500c753f80b965441faf3
b2772886f020afc4cb533633c0ccd6398327612f
1901 F20110331_AABKME zhu_y_Page_130.txt
27953ff7c473fb9157b5dcb27b28bd20
aa3016f158b7e56703be2d4b44fc136eb17f95c1
1894 F20110331_AABKLP zhu_y_Page_108.txt
9c5481535694746c58e4649dfb9219be
74ff5844cd4428763cfa7234bdbe6c9a5ef3785d
33025 F20110331_AABLPH zhu_y_Page_137.QC.jpg
f41595a8127b1a3843bcfffd38d3ffb7
9726c970eb7e0125b50322733168d74b7a02701b
F20110331_AABLOS zhu_y_Page_044thm.jpg
41a1394aeac299bcbfa80ab243470c65
34ab12d7a9d1beeeaf941d37284250c8fc290e61
F20110331_AABKMF zhu_y_Page_131.txt
5c8fa9841eade820975acbdad2f17af6
df5b66669720383b66293028dd9555371ce9c2a0
F20110331_AABKLQ zhu_y_Page_109.txt
3c083a62ff2a04ddcc2a011b55e54957
45dae46c013dc92812229d083d7b1967ecfaea57
29585 F20110331_AABLPI zhu_y_Page_120.QC.jpg
a85468fcb060f3d980f1656abde56134
c1d064e0e61292b5d7fce0bce5f892fa04202f7f
8267 F20110331_AABLOT zhu_y_Page_020thm.jpg
cdd10326aad68ea64dc52adf20b6edfc
7c5d42ab070f81beafa542671c03740cf1631cc8
1907 F20110331_AABKMG zhu_y_Page_132.txt
40bcf8bba7e22cc3c92f7d7068a13509
96f5b47f2c527c12be4fa607e8d1f3824a21ecae
1973 F20110331_AABKLR zhu_y_Page_110.txt
7fe7d28fdb3fefd0d2a3555d24c654ec
b42ff8878b02bc7b07502f94c88c090e529df496
8682 F20110331_AABLPJ zhu_y_Page_166thm.jpg
b3a8f83d3fd6d96dccaf2d11e497f5ab
3dd9b3173d2ea7e9d3f82594726ce95921b3b5e9
8169 F20110331_AABLOU zhu_y_Page_134thm.jpg
ba722878f7028df84d901c1ff46e06f1
de0a4e985d2c96b26da60e9dc2e0f58f9b6621f3
1874 F20110331_AABKMH zhu_y_Page_134.txt
cdc628376e596da0fead0cf7f5fb1332
8591cfa0a541cb8ef01de72da6315556888e4aa8
1995 F20110331_AABKLS zhu_y_Page_113.txt
d1af4c7996f8c2c3d3bdfcf278f5bf14
daad6c186ad74d077544946880a5d6dec7e061b8
8335 F20110331_AABLPK zhu_y_Page_172thm.jpg
02b20b636d07f542defef5fd5f4ffa40
0d323e2590dd31cb7fcc79370518bb4af8f58126
575 F20110331_AABLOV zhu_y_Page_002thm.jpg
684df25a1b536ab0577d08b3595bbe57
262a38e27ee7c5f18065883614ed81f52de37e6c
2051 F20110331_AABKMI zhu_y_Page_135.txt
b08ef945e11b52e58b9c43a2a331b908
a0fccd3ed69e416a530fdaf9dbfaa5d3a985be40
3182 F20110331_AABKLT zhu_y_Page_114.txt
c5713f67bc1013c24df8e8adf7598170
8177acc89d8754ae31644725ab94381b40e90459
32990 F20110331_AABLOW zhu_y_Page_023.QC.jpg
a86eabbe754b057edceae34b4d12bf8c
2df8e41d35ab18f6d36fc30f020c12d13182017d
1778 F20110331_AABKLU zhu_y_Page_116.txt
71e28b2f3368df749090d3c0929262a4
ea4db688407ff81b09dc6802d4d30c46dd0c4d2d
28856 F20110331_AABLQA zhu_y_Page_041.QC.jpg
3d1acfcbc7a43b72fa1bae97da0589d6
4b81f1ae88426e65311442885cf45d7ecd84c3b6
32707 F20110331_AABLPL zhu_y_Page_182.QC.jpg
03079e8cf7c55b00e13f222c6bab8fcf
ef85873bba0f2af2dffbbe67ff097358423f5a14
32417 F20110331_AABLOX zhu_y_Page_152.QC.jpg
08becf1701e7a0187b3189eea133ddc9
a98235478a4c119f4f8f7fe174712fe9552983c9
F20110331_AABKMJ zhu_y_Page_136.txt
cd2cf58fe5687adf86917476b561d074
fbe971bab35e0906723296732088365697ff8f84
1815 F20110331_AABKLV zhu_y_Page_117.txt
b7b1deb39753fac782563d638c47194d
09ee7759d72b4f93434e943f7aa153ca2c90a4a6
8594 F20110331_AABLQB zhu_y_Page_207thm.jpg
441a4a9a5e26791f91e5b95443e60d17
a093232fd92c260ffa1c7413bb95b30fd21b0848
8406 F20110331_AABLPM zhu_y_Page_100thm.jpg
1e776cbc5ae9df1cf37af5d2e812f052
fc6bf5893071ef2018135dc36fd9134f752680a0
7484 F20110331_AABLOY zhu_y_Page_041thm.jpg
fb7573eae70ce06940a42546dc88375d
9904e9f934122c889646052a28180b397ba2a7b6
1797 F20110331_AABKMK zhu_y_Page_139.txt
a2d3685c925be5ac693db23b3e55d24a
7a8435c2486e36fc7523402dadfa39ed989d5d32
2887 F20110331_AABKLW zhu_y_Page_118.txt
a34053352c54a77d81189582fbb81930
707f5738f085953acff825b34b7167cad47d1bb4
8082 F20110331_AABLQC zhu_y_Page_071thm.jpg
b03333f7e124f758b575e4ad73bd967a
95effec6c70fa6e23149e752e1b25faeec2d2eb7
8313 F20110331_AABLPN zhu_y_Page_110thm.jpg
c19ab6742edd3e65c33bb12868381c44
b4625d9d0d1001533ae023df277b0976938f0b90
7937 F20110331_AABLOZ zhu_y_Page_118thm.jpg
fc03754e5ed58c8bbcfed0e96c368975
4d7567bd3c0dcc394efebe1d3d10a58b5837d17e
1991 F20110331_AABKNA zhu_y_Page_160.txt
38c832130b433dba58b28c9f4aa2c9e3
fcbe13c67238b1e5af08fc250c9f8989ecc43204
1211 F20110331_AABKML zhu_y_Page_141.txt
22dbda3f0e7ceb69a67cda475644937d
aee7134d687242798ef5707715d3e64ee735baa1
F20110331_AABKLX zhu_y_Page_119.txt
74242c678b60232ce2c2ef6def8c0b03
09e7781633635232ba4c736a15dc334bd665da36
31299 F20110331_AABLQD zhu_y_Page_186.QC.jpg
646d2f833342641bdc8719f674a74c40
d0a97fe03ec3a409a639425fdc2419a27215e6f2
34223 F20110331_AABLPO zhu_y_Page_024.QC.jpg
e988665c621ddf82ecdcac52551c895b
fc0daa675fa7a3d90d2f6496211b473f13404944
2081 F20110331_AABKNB zhu_y_Page_161.txt
dd5c287c902a9a3da2b817403b705c02
8ee92eb72ce37b79fe1c17c9f2b17c24d7641593
664 F20110331_AABKMM zhu_y_Page_142.txt
497844585279f0d8ccde9e286335e864
d9ad1d4683768c07f2aed9dbede236be9e8a057a
2542 F20110331_AABKLY zhu_y_Page_122.txt
b6e5bcaa1fd1e007c3244d8ff393b538
c1e251a1a48d67837c73e9b50297af7ff2bb540e
31448 F20110331_AABLQE zhu_y_Page_070.QC.jpg
c5e06792a280c51733496244387aa744
bf8217a1f1ad851693073440c6a3047a5d11e395
31356 F20110331_AABLPP zhu_y_Page_094.QC.jpg
afb54cdd7c9592f00d9357fdc852a3c1
5e00ea9bcf6c555a072a956c4cc7a91a5f9eb995
F20110331_AABKNC zhu_y_Page_162.txt
38fe90eaae3ff1f080f6ca6a1508ee06
209f802ad8aa71ef020d2903034828b53eb82c26
2038 F20110331_AABKMN zhu_y_Page_143.txt
3b8866b0c992dde78db2e332d1fab2bb
c6cc7b721e09ce9d4cf93f81666b79f1d5f87361
2174 F20110331_AABKLZ zhu_y_Page_123.txt
f937eedddb8ee65073b57667c2bb3d03
9527b9b8e518981ad0d247d9d01b027601dfe44b
8259 F20110331_AABLQF zhu_y_Page_023thm.jpg
4491d6c7b3ac931b72426b75b7988ff7
b63dab7cc6cdafbf6e7b8cde191c680e67c70349
8345 F20110331_AABLPQ zhu_y_Page_195.QC.jpg
671e7145d492208833c277268e0598e6
1c589b8d72ec5a011d6ae5a8c6c04b205c26e2ca
2059 F20110331_AABKND zhu_y_Page_163.txt
56e08cc43a3581a6d19ba05a87f6734c
d66f6fa3f1e2ae28e719c34f7d3e2b61c500f64a
2267 F20110331_AABKMO zhu_y_Page_144.txt
28848a49cb6bdfb4d73ab92ea92d5093
3a128d0a4022f7ab60e5bf8a69c25c3825b7daed
1251791 F20110331_AABLQG zhu_y.pdf
3ca3e6dfce0249280a992c0582212fa1
03a04c5c3f940454da80598054bb275b97be9a52
7078 F20110331_AABLPR zhu_y_Page_139thm.jpg
450edfbaec9193214094e69585d1bd13
dbd4ed2640cca16bccbf60004707f8895b470984
1644 F20110331_AABKNE zhu_y_Page_164.txt
42215fc778a1a5192dd77f5f928385d4
60e67002af00215a6355a736ccbc5edd2b366dd9
F20110331_AABKMP zhu_y_Page_146.txt
f3eac81a0dce4bfddb816bbded3539eb
3d3b5e47674a24fe1316de495a760e675cb14d98
33856 F20110331_AABLQH zhu_y_Page_143.QC.jpg
d8b49b2c42ff6d62e1734f6b662c992d
08df7d19a7c733b8edb1aa87fd6ff14910d16c5c
8498 F20110331_AABLPS zhu_y_Page_106thm.jpg
13180c205fb3013cd6097ff64ae6ac6b
7d7feecb4ee6572a9c3c483053d7019f81f971b4
1327 F20110331_AABKNF zhu_y_Page_165.txt
03b394faac819fe966293c9bb6da5b0c
d8a071e7a2c3a9bb65759f67d09d3e3752f33018
2219 F20110331_AABKMQ zhu_y_Page_147.txt
05d2077f44babd6849dbede419a2d04e
1609de4a49d22c2a0cad7c294cb705be78e79449
31078 F20110331_AABLQI zhu_y_Page_112.QC.jpg
f20d726e19fa52527d822a853df7e9f1
143df2680eed90f60a62ff0a5bba1c1fd7997ef5
33608 F20110331_AABLPT zhu_y_Page_105.QC.jpg
eaeb5937018d0a8e01d06efb08639998
2b59663306d8e3130d9d7c1e0da54b680f094e33
1375 F20110331_AABKNG zhu_y_Page_166.txt
4864680e3e57ced5bd40a58ceb02c85e
1872554e6c14ea25a188b9ef94931c399de86353
1313 F20110331_AABKMR zhu_y_Page_148.txt
154588fbc99f380fe9f76541481b2108
8ef360063df7c493e1414417f4bec68b78809340
7544 F20110331_AABLQJ zhu_y_Page_198thm.jpg
b7828dd34e3909cccc2ab8bcb1571143
5ed9abfac805194813f18b0c9cc67beaa0a84204
8451 F20110331_AABLPU zhu_y_Page_162thm.jpg
65e2591aecd77c2c8d7bd846349ee66d
ce398c24c02af74d95cc57574abe4504b3b95977
F20110331_AABKNH zhu_y_Page_167.txt
a138d0fd48f0df4b56717eaa5654cf9a
9817d9cfd550f081597f2fc7a488d7280b5b570f
241 F20110331_AABKMS zhu_y_Page_149.txt
40960fb42564583a110eabe2a129dc93
e399a44b23b6415ba08358ccfff3effbdc813350
34604 F20110331_AABLQK zhu_y_Page_173.QC.jpg
66e3f39f53b2a6dbd1c32730b1016299
c8c30f6f9e8172ee3b64187f69e849e30b7412f6
33672 F20110331_AABLPV zhu_y_Page_153.QC.jpg
a50584337843c140ad7b96274dbf2fa6
ff325ad4b5650df2b817661f40b8889be8d3cc9e
1808 F20110331_AABKNI zhu_y_Page_169.txt
e7997bfe0f2edc5cbd9cb09ab2189d43
e46af2543fe10d2591d3934862c921db716c73b2
193 F20110331_AABKMT zhu_y_Page_150.txt
773e907890ccceed9f5e831d5dd4bb90
37130710414dec66eedd4b990bb3e672327c7172
28426 F20110331_AABLQL zhu_y_Page_164.QC.jpg
efeeda24437d0b9f2a02efbca51efdbe
98c01aba842490e815c124b1b9a348e64d15dcf0
7271 F20110331_AABLPW zhu_y_Page_035thm.jpg
255f77b5ecb93c6e9f67dc9cf4a55a24
1cc7ce940907ef08e003b4c03252aa8ffb1750c5
2092 F20110331_AABKNJ zhu_y_Page_170.txt
a6e4c43fb4a69ba21ef807483a9838ad
44b02f44a30d0ab4f594e631d38cfa0a2f2f56c3
2024 F20110331_AABKMU zhu_y_Page_153.txt
37c7e4135e6b6791ae6921bd9aa7e7c6
09df90ae44ed89e73b906c4d1e57ff29f04ea310
35506 F20110331_AABLRA zhu_y_Page_144.QC.jpg
0d86c4114a89d11982035f442d8359f8
8b65c2a2aadc1c901de97b9a7118c05cc0c26fbc
8217 F20110331_AABLPX zhu_y_Page_024thm.jpg
ee40a661fdefc230fad2266962cbface
66aa7a5bcda510b2bb518f90f16bb4afac80e12c
2073 F20110331_AABKMV zhu_y_Page_154.txt
f2524674aa328372b48d0c53059d3093
f8f19b06f81ae1b9387d361aeae435c24a7a59cb
8457 F20110331_AABLRB zhu_y_Page_178thm.jpg
0006a2e5f3a8aec289be76296cac3b38
e7953bdf59900f812c9009766a5e16a9f043922c
32264 F20110331_AABLQM zhu_y_Page_031.QC.jpg
f2d4d5c9d969bbfe4d85f1394eb087eb
f1f33c021109688a31c8a2ff2b7111c6f106bcd8
32807 F20110331_AABLPY zhu_y_Page_045.QC.jpg
aba412bfe4031eb2d7c33ac87f8b56ab
73813e3c76617fc70a6cf56c63548aab981692f4
2087 F20110331_AABKNK zhu_y_Page_173.txt
0221c78eef8acfb717123a212055d7c9
aafbec51489df7b14393771dfaf3e8d4596a57d4
2053 F20110331_AABKMW zhu_y_Page_155.txt
7101072cd215971e134b130b53418f39
d56a320f6fd699db64d87e36bafb4d1d9c36c0f8
35130 F20110331_AABLRC zhu_y_Page_075.QC.jpg
ce36f21827434b39baeed3c0c4e1b799
24b844c5e4e349530156eca1e3ef27e7eae1b812
8308 F20110331_AABLQN zhu_y_Page_063thm.jpg
70765dc69a1ec99752daf39a472a3271
ab17b29bc4e8f29789756c52df4075769030e489
F20110331_AABLPZ zhu_y_Page_114thm.jpg
31793ca5b52d2c7c0bf01b54afd194ff
4620ba116c86d900fb317b4188a20201f6fb2c8d
1989 F20110331_AABKNL zhu_y_Page_174.txt
e79ddab5881fb5ed9a467e53b1e7f596
bdfbca2d5543339d19d35b6570ce37b1b2530493
F20110331_AABKMX zhu_y_Page_156.txt
963ecf081d76f63c99d2b22501f84595
bd019dfb1540bae1e721bae4b8d2be807287b9bc
2744 F20110331_AABKOA zhu_y_Page_189.txt
d04046bce31edaf28c571c7a5d6d385a
37503ac2f1a9af48544fbddeaddcbe0ea6b49e3a
6904 F20110331_AABLRD zhu_y_Page_150thm.jpg
1314d58c3f91063fb6eab6e36fbb108a
3c86f3a547b48b67d27e7a8b2e7d3ae86b562528
8609 F20110331_AABLQO zhu_y_Page_050thm.jpg
10f05e9dfe9febafbd8d207fe2d82656
9e121a1ba213688159c78172860ffab6e030d19f
2045 F20110331_AABKNM zhu_y_Page_175.txt
f9b43489273e0b01b4d568377107520c
199e8ccafd110d283a46a210496f3bd87ab81b6d
2005 F20110331_AABKMY zhu_y_Page_157.txt
503d71eca04e4293348f1e5ca2558de4
4eb421a5d28b229cca72df319427bb0edf37c3c6
3056 F20110331_AABKOB zhu_y_Page_191.txt
b5b09bd00f5dea59f4257b8f025b6120
ae0c098dce3211bae4bc0577af27242812423d45
33112 F20110331_AABLRE zhu_y_Page_064.QC.jpg
8d05e3a7cc5376ae4c16a62cc2facc25
79d987e50e8d1dd4563852c7361daf4b2f6b1bac
7262 F20110331_AABLQP zhu_y_Page_121thm.jpg
a57505fb6ede1f8d1f8e01117a4ecd24
594d77791b3783cfbb39c1b290a1c94e348d4e45
2027 F20110331_AABKNN zhu_y_Page_176.txt
15ac6b74b30fd4e9e9585795b3079fb9
b0af15f04de0925d3b1f878413df0827bedb2d3e
1893 F20110331_AABKMZ zhu_y_Page_159.txt
3302d9a19f00629c2358fe5690a006e7
07f4d347563fb32dbfed229fc529eb0a3ad80f78
256 F20110331_AABKOC zhu_y_Page_192.txt
c229cbf4b7c419281b2d31c16e431164
5d395ede205a5fd1a93163c98a345636a8bdc381
F20110331_AABLRF zhu_y_Page_049thm.jpg
f9351f6f64c011069efe0f46d323bd9c
7364820713ce6eb3df365daf1977a0c5a93a3fe2
F20110331_AABLQQ zhu_y_Page_096thm.jpg
6a0d6fc339af2515331b86066906c69d
cbf4a1555bdebe36503d37fae3dbe5fba203b68a
1937 F20110331_AABKNO zhu_y_Page_177.txt
22c0ca4cd84949b90c40c4c1db77e221
99c4a84476bbb89bc50ffdfc3465b6e47f5a0327
1148 F20110331_AABKOD zhu_y_Page_193.txt
7b8716bb32ce1a15e89894866d63a6d9
a3215ccebb115bb7d873787621913a27d0ca6377
4296 F20110331_AABLRG zhu_y_Page_192.QC.jpg
95ec4f8980c100f9c3a39eb065884ae1
28537d44142db4f1ae1c760b765659c18a70082d
7674 F20110331_AABLQR zhu_y_Page_142thm.jpg
862121b905c8d9c0998348c2a35259bc
3c80c3f28f41901ec2ead6f848e2b88ed629397c
2048 F20110331_AABKNP zhu_y_Page_178.txt
7d519effcc319b09f86d055e9ccc8b22
0b9ad6a6fff287ebefc2c839ecf01d2686c7eb02
1380 F20110331_AABKOE zhu_y_Page_196.txt
cdac95f0cb106e36bfaf4a56e597d810
106bd8d27a44d98cc29e90e3d82c369f05ce802e
F20110331_AABLRH zhu_y_Page_189thm.jpg
f859291d31a09af47fab0c53a58c0774
ab1ca9bcfc34c3eb4b886829969124084156230c
33802 F20110331_AABLQS zhu_y_Page_115.QC.jpg
ed6cf8b45b17e9950cabeaffca99e71a
d6f0d6fac5cb20f50d6ec32b4209842f7c9b52e7
2080 F20110331_AABKNQ zhu_y_Page_179.txt
abb11ee648bc6d28a6f49f7f43cc6ff0
6adf85e08a6be5120564a4e802fa62439942cd51
549 F20110331_AABKOF zhu_y_Page_197.txt
0473537f1f3c8372b1242a9e6a4aabbf
2cfaab08e18076b544ad20c1c8686211f36dbf1d
25880 F20110331_AABLRI zhu_y_Page_012.QC.jpg
92a0588f65a1d7b01e13d589f27c013a
6fd5ad150319ed94381298ce34a5536e04cd1b2d
7849 F20110331_AABLQT zhu_y_Page_054thm.jpg
1ddb4ec87eb3349039f60044e3453021
c863b3ffd1022a10bd74cdd901843ea7aecb1044
F20110331_AABKNR zhu_y_Page_180.txt
3d2c38cad8625de101a6093d61490b21
87547516185133fde598941e14610ead35aa8ec8
1998 F20110331_AABKOG zhu_y_Page_198.txt
8b2f849783eca480e3f2240a6f9ff37f
cd3ffb696373944365c0e72a37c8933ff44f8313
29856 F20110331_AABLRJ zhu_y_Page_027.QC.jpg
457cc5440418cfdb789db625771cd855
25f93e3218faa4a1a413407b407fe41da195e999
36086 F20110331_AABLQU zhu_y_Page_189.QC.jpg
a9005964fb89185ffce8618515cdc240
185fc7890c238b4c6c7ecfbef901e9ec5cf1685d
F20110331_AABKNS zhu_y_Page_181.txt
53c09e959c813b912168da6025547420
648432cb3babc6ddbf2cfcdf6c668863808a7daa
2506 F20110331_AABKOH zhu_y_Page_199.txt
6bc03fdc19376e777f4756ec0d01514c
a12e907bc3ea30a0ab980e311ce318dc34af36ca
33909 F20110331_AABLRK zhu_y_Page_162.QC.jpg
212429f4285bbe2208d90b5e498a8601
2ca5d1c6a66c745a49501f2e2498c0a555999fae
7503 F20110331_AABLQV zhu_y_Page_122thm.jpg
26c61c3b8338d26b5957cc985926669e
7719e4bc60c8c418df37418087d6ad04474545d0
1971 F20110331_AABKNT zhu_y_Page_182.txt
a7bad88a46514a7d997d500b6ae9ca90
ef5957f6d7bebc4ac0dd640661d139d58e0c0e88
2235 F20110331_AABKOI zhu_y_Page_200.txt
8ca03f02e5d5d6c395d883a0185692a5
a33f1e35c8b02c2a24285dd387e843f23da68ee3
33959 F20110331_AABLRL zhu_y_Page_060.QC.jpg
fd3a8942cea2b93bb0e0923f4a616ba2
c06fab4febceef5f6944345c58777e8ed70a9161
31188 F20110331_AABLQW zhu_y_Page_159.QC.jpg
69127ebf2aca786b6bcb82503d8979b7
13fc347c46fa8a27ac844476e96b793646279ee2
1674 F20110331_AABKNU zhu_y_Page_183.txt
d3765495cb99dc81f6f3836b736c4eb9
239005b2367646bf9871c273515a19e9deeec9a8
2245 F20110331_AABKOJ zhu_y_Page_201.txt
5fa4c177c389f04589a08cbbe6fa3455
6b35b55ddbd8cf97f081f41ae5003fb39796938c
35503 F20110331_AABLSA zhu_y_Page_191.QC.jpg
f452f8e8d270285e7dc1d05f71fbbfc6
239cfa90f75938b18cb52064ac9c6c306602d767
34803 F20110331_AABLRM zhu_y_Page_161.QC.jpg
e1c68440411bfb48e68b1b9228d3f468
a70e5fb6eaf457b7a7a66fdec28790e2414bc329
8432 F20110331_AABLQX zhu_y_Page_115thm.jpg
8539f50a3d79d90c5ed97155e4ade717
8ffac846efd0ebee343c43670fc8a847477640f4
648 F20110331_AABKNV zhu_y_Page_184.txt
cff79b79215a09a7f81ec3a6b4f9ac20
17c7edd3efb4021bcb689bf0ba15b428220d0ae8
2369 F20110331_AABKOK zhu_y_Page_202.txt
d8be3f444222683895f7f73156db2333
a97518f16e1dc0f7b1ab98acd7b5137feecaf240
29846 F20110331_AABLSB zhu_y_Page_078.QC.jpg
2167d4767f8fad190e4619486aaeb4e0
9a3ebca6a32cd1652f1b5cd5fa57664d9f9b14bd
8534 F20110331_AABLQY zhu_y_Page_052thm.jpg
c5f2dbd2d0e7fbbee74383187cd7fcd5
8115f90dcfc1990a897f1150a802068dc56853e3
1835 F20110331_AABKNW zhu_y_Page_185.txt
50bc2ec3d25effa5b5e287b65867e7c6
3d892048cde318cb769c4480396d78f60bc1304b
8279 F20110331_AABLSC zhu_y_Page_037thm.jpg
7b0d9fc08f27bff9742e397709d9de5a
87be9d6f5dd9890e67d2c59d584114f4fc7fcb4b
31316 F20110331_AABLRN zhu_y_Page_054.QC.jpg
b646b3f58695952e2e3a8590efe92810
bd783b1d834e411912607fa5481f76bc97493a55
34254 F20110331_AABLQZ zhu_y_Page_061.QC.jpg
affcf3b00a88bfa98bb10543c66fa15c
3b61071c818879eb1776e180ddc8b5e9e45e7fec
F20110331_AABKNX zhu_y_Page_186.txt
153d6d82c372134db136c99db8d8dd41
309664499ec194b117fe25eacf9198c4c21d30ae
17519 F20110331_AABKPA zhu_y_Page_008.pro
053c88dd8740481c52fb54a3daaa2a26
3ac2e0d98755faf9ccffcf78bc0783fc80fcf0f9
2354 F20110331_AABKOL zhu_y_Page_203.txt
f22eaa80e3a053da6a71dd47881ed2a7
af380be4ac99af18572eb8bad1db0c4cfb0172bb
34567 F20110331_AABLSD zhu_y_Page_073.QC.jpg
54d6b383d624f5bde12e855e9cca97f3
013319af3a1a6bd2ac1f08ce9ea733f60252c2f6
8172 F20110331_AABLRO zhu_y_Page_200thm.jpg
cf5f8fe0861a1dca1ed9bf9853b38cf3
f75f4f2ac59af31884b72a252898798adc77f9e6
1205 F20110331_AABKNY zhu_y_Page_187.txt
407f7ba0acd683a4825b013156032f61
30c4f7240ba89db17dbfb1d8c2f9f699ed051d34
47865 F20110331_AABKPB zhu_y_Page_009.pro
998ab92aca383a15e2b231e5d173b305
e844ea077c31b74aa716d47a04a5bae3911406c7
2367 F20110331_AABKOM zhu_y_Page_204.txt
919f9cb885caff85f9933cb11872bd3d
4b1ce3dc4e58d30c4a3b3e8c659bf3a04865f1e1
7789 F20110331_AABLSE zhu_y_Page_124thm.jpg
847750704dc714289d4dbce09790f55d
f3058f19473e0a943dffd88fcc0cbbdc77404adc
19029 F20110331_AABLRP zhu_y_Page_005.QC.jpg
28631051c56c7f664ca31dfe27b491e9
5d99eed4736443694c58bf99e7da2ddd5460a73e
2224 F20110331_AABKNZ zhu_y_Page_188.txt
1a66d3154681d02f0d92a52cc9a4ca7e
f51259fad924c645fab49d502f9e79a201ef3564
57539 F20110331_AABKPC zhu_y_Page_010.pro
24112b43fd39a2c90719ebdc38ace7f8
5761e76592640abc1e19c008c6782c21c708b7b0
2353 F20110331_AABKON zhu_y_Page_205.txt
811b9131fa5c820b78d2dc395846204f
ae8bc5f9bb5fbcf0cdaf80a8ce76e2521de2cf9b
30867 F20110331_AABLSF zhu_y_Page_095.QC.jpg
b7d1631dbdbe47b190ef4b7ab827307d
2afc901d217c263b968240eee672c0adaa7a841f
31537 F20110331_AABLRQ zhu_y_Page_124.QC.jpg
b7adf664eb749881900e0dba45efcd3d
ce6347bed8cdd88a76375f4008bad560f39fc3ac
9260 F20110331_AABKPD zhu_y_Page_011.pro
cfe89b56e49217abc937ed9446e24def
074c30db2ac074b80bb1e5ae5947df8e87897176
2560 F20110331_AABKOO zhu_y_Page_206.txt
b85194402d08ebd248dd0fc74a8c8175
b2c7fbcde64d0e7d71dcc4f8ec15f37ae5d23c41
8262 F20110331_AABLSG zhu_y_Page_154thm.jpg
d71ffd840e45824adf074c32795db599
d38f6bdbcb1f8825286b7a72e5125da4780b9014
32914 F20110331_AABLRR zhu_y_Page_047.QC.jpg
252313c0c382c895dc2ecc0d19b99193
156d6aaeb3aa377cb8e4279965ae7e498d0e1a06
39115 F20110331_AABKPE zhu_y_Page_012.pro
6d80c9afc7f849afbd0365824ae38dec
ce4852a7dcc1d3022a284e3e5426ca243e43aa62
2357 F20110331_AABKOP zhu_y_Page_207.txt
4f976d6e6c282484ab7f24945201a27e
f015d9f6fc9c7f9f41c600967de2fd4be163dccb
27836 F20110331_AABLSH zhu_y_Page_035.QC.jpg
13f3eeb9b21597fa6a9ca172e187addc
abc0201c5e93393138cde30776ecbfd077cd1697
7956 F20110331_AABLRS zhu_y_Page_112thm.jpg
60fc6163eb40fef89737adfda0b03bf6
ba3a1bb48a1c5054545810bfc1e70b029f75dee4
38904 F20110331_AABKPF zhu_y_Page_013.pro
436537c2dc43a0103b84a4b4e111bd02
e5684b23bb12f63a1820086529134ef44e31d88f
2765 F20110331_AABKOQ zhu_y_Page_208.txt
0ea98436c7d2dc018f05155664302c07
ca8ca0cdfa51653758b004677c8b8fe270d800f4
7011 F20110331_AABLSI zhu_y_Page_123thm.jpg
b1c2cb1edfc0f4a20ceaa7bd8c628576
ff6fea1f93d80998afb29c10be9c26c1ddbd52a9
31439 F20110331_AABLRT zhu_y_Page_074.QC.jpg
d2f3d0ebb66cb29e67c551a3ddcca177
d10349a0cec02b34632dd52cbea85b982376b1ce
44862 F20110331_AABKPG zhu_y_Page_014.pro
6f4ed14c2a61f5e883c32574185a7add
b66644d8151fccecc2a48f995d6a3fef01138c8b
2720 F20110331_AABKOR zhu_y_Page_209.txt
0b2b8b370dc37bad236a6cddc73824a7
7a423db93b76564c9ae8b1ef07403e4cce95a877
29786 F20110331_AABLSJ zhu_y_Page_004.QC.jpg
0c28507459835248d00f9563da31442a
04f39965fe5206af55dbf4c0fbf2131b8fad6694
8050 F20110331_AABLRU zhu_y_Page_066thm.jpg
d82326b4e0065869b6bfa5d281b62a1f
368dc93f00f6fa9f46370b7540623d27a6f92ef6
51814 F20110331_AABKPH zhu_y_Page_015.pro
7fc88112842bec47c47803f3ee9cf77d
ff2bb8bc75ec703178221334681f4d410eb4cdcf
F20110331_AABKOS zhu_y_Page_211.txt
4056d309834d9af71f9790e8dfb6003e
9932f46167423fde80bc5f4be228a3de5da733e8
31390 F20110331_AABLSK zhu_y_Page_066.QC.jpg
94dd731aceca304180802dacb5c863d4
23f14add830a0fa62d647b4912a441d05a7143f0
6996 F20110331_AABLRV zhu_y_Page_184.QC.jpg
20e63158229bfc311df52bf46f0540cb
9e37acf2dff0158aaaa6ac8eed2a16cbb2f0e33a
49680 F20110331_AABKPI zhu_y_Page_016.pro
bf97a374a89bc53f9c495b2d9c643bd8
523712890f867ab2fa071830f8b67b004fb4e9fa
9575 F20110331_AABKOT zhu_y_Page_001.pro
6994c33f8f6b58d2e2b83ba30910bb22
703475032046f156e69723be782f5dacd3d8b72d
32932 F20110331_AABLSL zhu_y_Page_032.QC.jpg
8707791faf88a6c3194b936717166892
c5749260457b4f9379ef9087d2881660f1d1976c
35364 F20110331_AABLRW zhu_y_Page_100.QC.jpg
ec2ef9200e4ffae10c08ce25d41dd0df
2234cbc1b60de69360603a133c3643d9580c96ae
50523 F20110331_AABKPJ zhu_y_Page_017.pro
946dfe48b73b459d0eebbe2ce354ad89
e37276d788a35995d0b1a221a0e17c75355f8cc7
963 F20110331_AABKOU zhu_y_Page_002.pro
60cdd09abd7b3521e72658a16f359c7b
6a995507f26b81c12c38144860c4f93f237f7e3d
8336 F20110331_AABLTA zhu_y_Page_039thm.jpg
ff16c68c331dffe33b892bb3c9fa5a20
e6db1abc77f7d29f6ea8eac301559a6a1c833bd9
8524 F20110331_AABLSM zhu_y_Page_022thm.jpg
7d0cf4992cfe4940e174764c83f7f555
b7a6ac65afe406e5f8bcc7e76eb71284cb280cb5
8410 F20110331_AABLRX zhu_y_Page_145thm.jpg
2a9579e3ab78d0e35d5d01850edae9a3
37cf910e26de081b1b6c0869e8bcf1aeffaa9b15
50505 F20110331_AABKPK zhu_y_Page_018.pro
492ee22bc034da57edb74f8600122854
6a980f41ff5ea7b739ed309fe70f49a5657a4d21
1323 F20110331_AABKOV zhu_y_Page_003.pro
bd5a7ac6a264285cf0f831e40c1d6333
7254ff89657b165bd806a7b810070254f049b69f
7821 F20110331_AABLTB zhu_y_Page_055thm.jpg
6c81476f1add4dd4deac5749f6774ef8
4e413343e5456c557c1cbdba5a77806f1abf8075
2032 F20110331_AABLSN zhu_y_Page_102thm.jpg
ca01303a6cc9379f2002c953b5f201e6
cd906a0816c6f0ae99f5523243779548d15c668e
33322 F20110331_AABLRY zhu_y_Page_025.QC.jpg
ea1b0e97f1ab97e4fd23f749e320a090
bab05741c04818e2e7202238125c54838b1409af
49656 F20110331_AABKPL zhu_y_Page_019.pro
b8fbe6225f1b9d6ae575fb2dc6a7d9c5
68a336c136b6d74ba91aa143921b994fbd670373
44638 F20110331_AABKOW zhu_y_Page_004.pro
7cfd23ac2c85b646af30d735b1e0efbb
483e3ac36cb774138840b3ecbdeaa794a1576b52
8448 F20110331_AABLTC zhu_y_Page_175thm.jpg
5789cbd5ace7b07b97dd5db66dbac0b1
770e074330e5b69543641db8debd7730e4cdd996
533 F20110331_AABLRZ zhu_y_Page_003thm.jpg
03d935be501f58b88fea18c95a666ae5
8f49905684bfefc6696febcafd49eba56d1d3145
49689 F20110331_AABKQA zhu_y_Page_038.pro
20a154ecde717ef67e8f24fe2befd836
4303d4b90e26f7f66bf86ad64cef95e4d866588a
26828 F20110331_AABKOX zhu_y_Page_005.pro
ef32f40d04fcd16d11e775bd38cd43e4
763059a12ebbf548dcbad3626c6e2854ffe61071
32971 F20110331_AABLTD zhu_y_Page_016.QC.jpg
eece8e6358cad1f0887ba1157cf021ec
6371d12b1b1e5d3aaf491589e6ac68e894abbf75
32725 F20110331_AABLSO zhu_y_Page_181.QC.jpg
716cca83e2b3cfe67e563eece7959b8a
af751ab55bf16aa6b52815ff7a89ed206bbadac7
51011 F20110331_AABKPM zhu_y_Page_020.pro
66451ee38057326f36c0b9f5147b5947
44248bf58c7d3f57bfa46c20b57fc8ecbdad1f77
82291 F20110331_AABKOY zhu_y_Page_006.pro
c346c3f9aabf2765c56fa38f88f9c9ec
f610b62f82773a6db7d0171b60813e53c5fec1f4
38622 F20110331_AABKQB zhu_y_Page_041.pro
e3e5670d6d5936b8c88f760fddb8d0a0
62b8f67dd1bb7ea6b63fa4f794b4cf59055d20f7
29867 F20110331_AABLTE zhu_y_Page_083.QC.jpg
9053314177eb470046a704c43d242a28
69b12124b550ce2276243efdb3d69d29f7d0160a
32460 F20110331_AABLSP zhu_y_Page_036.QC.jpg
eb40c56ae339f4156a8dc60d6049249a
d0c893e3b2ff2efb1749782925d157d621335ba6
51661 F20110331_AABKPN zhu_y_Page_021.pro
9534e8b155be11eaba06c8d8dd3a99c3
faa2b39d7223825bbbf3cccf7aab8d409540ba44
110958 F20110331_AABKOZ zhu_y_Page_007.pro
d45458b4a77dd666dd77d91d53163a32
b67ef05cec6b824966104b462c0fc881a92df82d
43590 F20110331_AABKQC zhu_y_Page_042.pro
85028f6abfa5cfdfca0d87ee17e43904
9285cd9293e6de0de9465203c76d54db39d0d3d3
29731 F20110331_AABLTF zhu_y_Page_211.QC.jpg
3d2a3f57e8b32c523a374d93733f20a5
0462f1bc95c835509b3ea14fba2d5e051a266110
8362 F20110331_AABLSQ zhu_y_Page_116thm.jpg
4071e9ba168325dc8b5d8586c6d2ca0a
0e247225aedb3937f0b922b70b5ecc34bd6b0cd1
53207 F20110331_AABKPO zhu_y_Page_022.pro
03f317566803da5b011263de2a12267b
15a8f4d119c6bce7f604742c1973ed3341c3aedb
49601 F20110331_AABKQD zhu_y_Page_043.pro
5764c0022584177a64977f2dd4d1bf1a
9e148fdd3d7cec1a90ca4858c0d65a5665050aea
33889 F20110331_AABLTG zhu_y_Page_163.QC.jpg
b1d72a7152f0120dea5722812f89b2bf
3b2b51e45d30fb55560af59da0ba63e5715113ef
8063 F20110331_AABLSR zhu_y_Page_090thm.jpg
70781f8a4a6ef33df4515f4d52d39ec4
c3fdedcc4c80763f28b967cb0838af2754b50acb
51578 F20110331_AABKPP zhu_y_Page_024.pro
a34a72eaeac0611bd6c46036cf55cc4d
272505c69dc13251fbe565036acf916274549f47
50218 F20110331_AABKQE zhu_y_Page_044.pro
d92abe898ac278f9ed950f0ee3ea777e
0d1faff2c4162418601eee5af39f935fe5e160b5
7568 F20110331_AABLTH zhu_y_Page_083thm.jpg
f4310de3b6d98ac16173f56f71da07b9
c2fc874d564d32e6ed2becf75688c73e7203210b
8388 F20110331_AABLSS zhu_y_Page_125thm.jpg
009e54f0b96a71f5ebb71b0cb90559b3
06f662e8ec76ad9ae5848b106a40ad72a248a8ac
51458 F20110331_AABKPQ zhu_y_Page_025.pro
ac1ec0d0e44f5fd1e714018d56de51f3
3fa3dc4a6476614fcbd26d233fcfb28a9d22c642
49132 F20110331_AABKQF zhu_y_Page_048.pro
138f704f75ab2ee880f76d2c66a252ce
ae605e03d50a04dcc4cb734a03e2b3bd25657cb3
28878 F20110331_AABLTI zhu_y_Page_042.QC.jpg
8bd835d10e5c348678c48520c8d907eb
e3e970f953b6858f04ae2040b9316019a02dfe75
30363 F20110331_AABLST zhu_y_Page_210.QC.jpg
bb2043645de41589872bfc5d5b9fd8a7
8a718cc8927c06b4b1672ae2d085caf1583af224
53130 F20110331_AABKPR zhu_y_Page_026.pro
edc8c73d248ef60630f5b8a9944a9e23
c02589ce88275c279eea638340d9d5eebd5e03d5
49614 F20110331_AABKQG zhu_y_Page_049.pro
a3c8213d6d7b799cf658f01103bddfe0
fc58f7db737b5526986fcd13d2adec78629661db
7901 F20110331_AABLTJ zhu_y_Page_210thm.jpg
3ce86dea5835fe03a2fdbb0d64652c77
6ac2f5110c9034ead6eb6b99357e4074792cb079
7934 F20110331_AABLSU zhu_y_Page_095thm.jpg
3a68ab2282f44f4afd414d349cd973e3
abd42e6bb635d89ffc27b77bbd8a896d575b79b7
44089 F20110331_AABKPS zhu_y_Page_027.pro
42df95f31713e25a5d76c54f8cde7a6b
84b60a79070f42d059481175293a51d5e7b57edc
53071 F20110331_AABKQH zhu_y_Page_050.pro
6ae41297423315b201a1ba8c98da749e
b6d2cb878d70f7d99ba847cac15f1e870a8a612f
7959 F20110331_AABLTK zhu_y_Page_098thm.jpg
a30c5e2d3154f6df7e99acc2cf0f568d
c2a2f960d0f004782c7a55ff50b24d9baa43ba90
34674 F20110331_AABLSV zhu_y_Page_079.QC.jpg
52ee6fc6c1757fee1619bc975dc3af1d
70cb317992a54b813fb03eb842ed5738cf7f2643
52981 F20110331_AABKPT zhu_y_Page_028.pro
bd0a8b146526be4f1532520da91dd7fd
9c91b6f5b6a60a806b39cbdf2704bde74ae51f78
50361 F20110331_AABKQI zhu_y_Page_051.pro
3910ab7475f981d494c07d9f9d7bddc8
3d7c177a1ec684f48b3d4cf7e50905d8cc8f642d
8413 F20110331_AABLTL zhu_y_Page_060thm.jpg
09f9481b1202b8ccd478cc88d9c8640a
39acd630a116235f2214b8bb90afa3de06ca4d7a
34011 F20110331_AABLSW zhu_y_Page_029.QC.jpg
44040d9f7c8f17f99bdc689082a6855e
00945da7aada79a6b6ac8150b3feba50c097ffe6
51348 F20110331_AABKPU zhu_y_Page_029.pro
72d2c50ed77f7f8009e70344ccb70f6d
ebe25bda46542eea3c447669dcadd0c1e4efa0f0
50773 F20110331_AABKQJ zhu_y_Page_052.pro
8cff1c85f02f4b9b08d1aca3f18dbf28
aea38a926e7e0092fdf8907d947f0d7d365c131d
8438 F20110331_AABLUA zhu_y_Page_068thm.jpg
c417f99ee4a69e7d1a0b68c507564073
a5a3b28954bfefdabb02d36febe21da31bebce85
35402 F20110331_AABLTM zhu_y_Page_030.QC.jpg
6b384249979a2cfa66dcacf6bd25499d
48878a0b1a396553fe6465e27ed5efd6ed508ddc
28131 F20110331_AABLSX zhu_y_Page_198.QC.jpg
bb30b7ee51e7a6e6d619d20d204f8c26
f24c9b2d72741fdea04fef5415d2ef57791fee85
54712 F20110331_AABKPV zhu_y_Page_030.pro
0cfc727b83605e3418ded6cfaf171c15
23a0217a10234c12e434536abe96c0aa68c14a47
48150 F20110331_AABKQK zhu_y_Page_054.pro
c7191e74d86c38201e0655eeb14e6ec2
4d2ffaf6e31280e19ad294bea838e32d748193ef
7852 F20110331_AABLUB zhu_y_Page_127thm.jpg
3f073f8b1251b9b594a671699a369969
a38e1d063703c6b2a7c56b3a9cc68c2755cc78cb
32964 F20110331_AABLTN zhu_y_Page_205.QC.jpg
83874a3c2a7c92789c4a0e4c66a00ae2
f4fd5d136d348f2e4a213a8133e96066d8092a7d
8207 F20110331_AABLSY zhu_y_Page_201thm.jpg
ee68cb3fc85d98d0e759479859c4865c
84c6dba49f4d3872f1591f2b7ab7283a747c6f36
49623 F20110331_AABKPW zhu_y_Page_031.pro
ad5462eeb7fc7756ba3cc04f49eabb9b
9f6896865a5be9b0b94bbd1c6b7cf9aefe451c02
47476 F20110331_AABKQL zhu_y_Page_055.pro
6c22ce4d672d9126d3977b658e6a6a47
4794c780963c7574662c89eb0760cfe4bfc1073d
33970 F20110331_AABLUC zhu_y_Page_021.QC.jpg
9ea308b949373522d58725e5f663971b
e6ad509d66c801106dcdf0284a99846735b6289c
F20110331_AABLTO zhu_y_Page_028.QC.jpg
a9533022a75aa6a742625013c4d36364
e90fd55cad1bbc62ae87c24bd7d2b1e5cd6a0d9b
33586 F20110331_AABLSZ zhu_y_Page_098.QC.jpg
26c915f3f586295f4d633683a9ce0644
fbc90a5f4be2d0bc3b0cce901d02447f30cfc315
13080 F20110331_AABKPX zhu_y_Page_034.pro
fb4814047dacdb717be42f5839cbbe7a
7c444099c5fb77c59067bd03ff0d17baa1e6e2b9
51063 F20110331_AABKRA zhu_y_Page_075.pro
4ad3ac5cc237048e5e04beb56127ccc0
a5c5471c171c686834706aa74eab618363ad9f5d
49789 F20110331_AABKQM zhu_y_Page_056.pro
941f4565d542167861e56d25bc4ff42f
9075c0eeb343f2edcdf8f08fc7a887f970c28c36
34184 F20110331_AABLUD zhu_y_Page_106.QC.jpg
51dd3d592066f3137a71c2cb9aab1dc2
a277c9a8008ae8464ec206d2d7f9fe79f116d4b9
42182 F20110331_AABKPY zhu_y_Page_035.pro
ca3acd263be542aedf41ccf03543871b
b46d7c10c9a917a45ee1e4b7d654fe7a7ab3614b
13626 F20110331_AABKRB zhu_y_Page_077.pro
7ff829e688db3dd0fff7e8f2be8efdd3
93551b21d5e9b0ef689e499de2bc1f91c7a013d1
8241 F20110331_AABLUE zhu_y_Page_105thm.jpg
cfb0ef007b2ee64424c0acf4a9b14302
f2028f6bfe1454d08132917d8b087328b9e12d9a
7889 F20110331_AABLTP zhu_y_Page_043thm.jpg
d6a8d4b8861013bb31bad5a2c4d4dc1a
e66a37b3ed6fcf40e407106027cb509a7fc01058
51331 F20110331_AABKPZ zhu_y_Page_037.pro
a6ab40164f784e72b9e743cde6f9de7d
2c76d932de530c11a65e9990ff0f6a314a9dc190
45185 F20110331_AABKRC zhu_y_Page_078.pro
7f009851aaef87be54c1817bf6d47db8
7b96fdc1854aa05d2ec8df8e411c7e0a7c599025
50449 F20110331_AABKQN zhu_y_Page_058.pro
f67fcd6a4a7f6473768b9c6008fa1ae1
837f3966f35339d5a320c43dc953151ff9f9717d
8330 F20110331_AABLUF zhu_y_Page_181thm.jpg
9967dc217b55eb53cd9f4e6ce8c5c856
f59d65134182ca2149b0c3daca93ee335a5ea160
8218 F20110331_AABLTQ zhu_y_Page_109thm.jpg
255639eff4738ae4c90d92b51195bcad
5a852c92a67c37a8a14be0675555a281f9a231d4
52511 F20110331_AABKRD zhu_y_Page_079.pro
e7422849eb86d70854a99bec8e50f355
b4428ddbd67b533ff922e3c513ef8b05b3032a7d
50870 F20110331_AABKQO zhu_y_Page_059.pro
5f42041d08d78acd64a4341d12642af9
ab32b0b424e45e9f7ee4ec2fd976033086509a45
34429 F20110331_AABLUG zhu_y_Page_135.QC.jpg
38027f0df10269c08614690911fedb5a
27f1f39c57a164724aa4536b50f56f1fc2b18285
32555 F20110331_AABLTR zhu_y_Page_092.QC.jpg
7a5858e63056e6c33e2db26519dc5e50
54071e2aa77b689843f38d813c35b440c32e0c64
47230 F20110331_AABKRE zhu_y_Page_080.pro
162b661175cf43a6ebb4c39aa8540abb
008058043c7e522d34e4317f40de79413645ea75
51386 F20110331_AABKQP zhu_y_Page_060.pro
0836774bdc2bdc7cf8e9578fef07b8e6
e1d9a44af2997106abc6079031db965ef0082bd0
F20110331_AABLUH zhu_y_Page_202thm.jpg
d5fbfc6c926031df7149d202f1acf20e
c816ea0b2ad4d9a1d066557ee54bdc2ebdbfda28
F20110331_AABLTS zhu_y_Page_087thm.jpg
5e927daf8ca2a8076e808c716e4874c7
8564d280c1f6db95c297178fea52a735315c4321
50645 F20110331_AABKRF zhu_y_Page_081.pro
cb026eb1ec7b3cba82754abc5c58455b
9041f5bca8ae79fbf03b7294c265abf30f0547a9
51560 F20110331_AABKQQ zhu_y_Page_061.pro
ac9c7ba1d0cefff2666fc288beb949d1
c33bbc1ef334942e0142a89e29adc29a1c61a3d0
F20110331_AABLUI zhu_y_Page_197thm.jpg
ff2755cd4d40f0636426d9599a1c6758
fa0ce519cb428d53f4264af969a1330c5ac6e98f
26795 F20110331_AABLTT zhu_y_Page_142.QC.jpg
66e33de6aef6a611c000e5debbf3fc18
6cd3999de80aadfe6e72d169028f7a9c3ddb263f
54631 F20110331_AABKRG zhu_y_Page_082.pro
c2571da578deef2c5f3a226a398f08b4
99ef4003a0a9d0cc50fea61441a2093409f82ee6
49881 F20110331_AABKQR zhu_y_Page_062.pro
5849ece4eaa60961506befc047bcd6db
62c503278007446487e2af3ef88be3729821ce6d
34068 F20110331_AABLUJ zhu_y_Page_076.QC.jpg
2e6750fb567e1ddd1ae8c6ee526bd29f
a019f2c3d53c9af2dea484759e1d0e44195588ab
7964 F20110331_AABLTU zhu_y_Page_032thm.jpg
95a35e97ef50a3bc84544b61f682d331
1555ab2d1996fcbfbad24e8000feed053aaf8927
44904 F20110331_AABKRH zhu_y_Page_083.pro
89ff008bda4df66979fd95d717d71cc2
736ec0956353e49f248789f795bd928349898be2
50496 F20110331_AABKQS zhu_y_Page_064.pro
f25ced0039d9451093c04f35c8934d1b
81e4d2e175fca8f85bb3c3e2e52c919f98aa040f
32848 F20110331_AABLUK zhu_y_Page_110.QC.jpg
4e0eac3ff68f1fdc7d033fce7581e28a
338a93ca01ebcf299ea811f9c0834e01ea6d520e
32211 F20110331_AABLTV zhu_y_Page_109.QC.jpg
a281053f2f1271d7d9a3af72867112c5
0ce4fc88e2013b5eb7fde9a473fdff79bdc3b694
49764 F20110331_AABKRI zhu_y_Page_084.pro
716601a9f33812c90dcdf05fc924ccaa
5dc264ed0fc7c1efd5a5324ab857d231baf2f131
51349 F20110331_AABKQT zhu_y_Page_065.pro
49262b543f0cefab1a13ebd9651061e0
4fcc4dd785246c818070a0d4a5a8ad8bda64851e
8149 F20110331_AABLUL zhu_y_Page_045thm.jpg
1a61e30524809cd43e9ed1f7152aaffb
95abf24879c8f0f8c2a1f7f28363a432c1f5998b
8346 F20110331_AABLTW zhu_y_Page_088thm.jpg
954b79a6747daadef926ef4a0fce3857
4d7d345d002a8652e4b4c73a85d8117b2aa5a4fa
50725 F20110331_AABKRJ zhu_y_Page_085.pro
03b9bd8de686709621a34fa06467abe2
f00529c112216759377a726c0136d53562807923
47301 F20110331_AABKQU zhu_y_Page_066.pro
f56a99d9ff5a01a67514769318a9a1a2
fe8ad71ebe2388a707daee2e7d4fb3a04302ad1a
32675 F20110331_AABLVA zhu_y_Page_114.QC.jpg
a436ffbe27c55640bc31d9d61b44f338
c7f1cba8615889544adaecbb5ad97ac20d311dda
33223 F20110331_AABLUM zhu_y_Page_145.QC.jpg
99cc7f5e27b2305f60ad0a97f262ff46
99d366e571cbdbb9acbc16d42257bb46bc54fc23
F20110331_AABLTX zhu_y_Page_133thm.jpg
02a83c668eac04280be1a5a9b5254c11
94bb91f702c2988bb181d77af07619ddb0cf8448
39912 F20110331_AABKRK zhu_y_Page_086.pro
dd021dd13b6c1ee07be1585ff50d3036
ea5d67582e979861e8e61c0525642eb8c0820085
50794 F20110331_AABKQV zhu_y_Page_067.pro
74c28b7f945f7b330d2fc1fe07a34804
0d4ef2f16e1b90a15954dd3c66d1462ab3a3f3f6
F20110331_AABLVB zhu_y_Page_117.QC.jpg
73aabd9e1152c8f81074abd2bfdab2b4
f6107d603551a04c9d7842b36b1b489d470b162c
4429 F20110331_AABLUN zhu_y_Page_194thm.jpg
cf1cfd07be84f0c9b60aeedc7f45abcb
0c8e7c2f34db7e9021d3b0b5c2365305d456bba2
7550 F20110331_AABLTY zhu_y_Page_164thm.jpg
309373aa0af093bdc673333c130a806d
7fea67ae0959fd386acb4bc24429a1d1c461b4c7
45567 F20110331_AABKRL zhu_y_Page_087.pro
8853e4533a031c66221492b4c1cb966b
bdf7aea8ad04e0f98c3f8154ece5201353af73b2
52407 F20110331_AABKQW zhu_y_Page_068.pro
d660d2002af343af27e0cc35492dd3d1
0508dc1f030ac93e61f086ff6577e91bf1a9b168
32792 F20110331_AABLVC zhu_y_Page_118.QC.jpg
c74736f5bd640614eb65fbb50b1c070f
5ea5364763c19cc944ae776f12ff4d09b71e55da
336790 F20110331_AABLUO UFE0013770_00001.xml
9e828822ddc6ee4f0b638dc41eefe33d
a9b9039a64712673df8a6c3aee125dfbf7d232d3
8174 F20110331_AABLTZ zhu_y_Page_174thm.jpg
109e34417796b78f5c217d0a5b331546
156fedfd9a78aa8909a610506d8f34f57d989779
48188 F20110331_AABKSA zhu_y_Page_104.pro
c01be0d86b9103730d39c953bc7b2f94
b68423beab3f41833b4e33bfca5bdf42c8fa759b
51837 F20110331_AABKRM zhu_y_Page_088.pro
40fd4f05c8231e04d4da1cec26517eef
02329962073467bd4b0853a3570d697c568b647b
47968 F20110331_AABKQX zhu_y_Page_070.pro
3723621fa3c9f9fea83804e745af304f
b417269d08358406784a2b148adc050a15795f2f
28517 F20110331_AABLVD zhu_y_Page_121.QC.jpg
cdfc78ede66927f05743977f29a839bd
335c9c7f477417fe9e1e21b3f1f6685be4a445a3
1476 F20110331_AABLUP zhu_y_Page_002.QC.jpg
93d80ffe2285f35d25a4e7dac0af2efb
1e50636f2d8c769f175e899e4a61d02f6af9e9b3
47997 F20110331_AABKSB zhu_y_Page_105.pro
1c7ca4c96de32f39d6aec5443f89e2b8
dadb866b43c9c5669029d4ac6eea1bfde4f8d7b9
47754 F20110331_AABKRN zhu_y_Page_089.pro
49502d5b87f11b1b58953a21d772c3b5
984ed48c3d0aacce7887cc4b2fd2ccc33ea104e7
51957 F20110331_AABKQY zhu_y_Page_073.pro
a41240a650783a5a65f0205701f3ac59
98b8ad0d9d06617a7318082aaf56bb2d86b10632
27495 F20110331_AABLVE zhu_y_Page_139.QC.jpg
848f611ef76292431c77d77e820cc379
7c834b77494b84d2be920047a2bec6a22bd708ea
52391 F20110331_AABKSC zhu_y_Page_106.pro
7823968f1853687352e1f15bc5f6ce25
81c76a34596261c075bfe2ade6df5aff17c27023
46506 F20110331_AABKQZ zhu_y_Page_074.pro
bf144df5fe540264edf36d2c13da608d
bea9d5d769c7189a143deef4899eb1da15d710e7
35153 F20110331_AABLVF zhu_y_Page_141.QC.jpg
9abaa01fd302f70a9253821d4fe923c1
1b8cffdb9be433e7bbf25a781f94230a0a24a2d7
25181 F20110331_AABLUQ zhu_y_Page_009.QC.jpg
82ee5dc2c85f1060c7dbce9d4fc61f79
697142f9ddc8e580373df395ef74a3da79c3a5f3
47624 F20110331_AABKSD zhu_y_Page_107.pro
b34f55627d3fec09d31e5e6afbebc9f5
05b03ae243335690f088633364c7e49f2a054c17
46262 F20110331_AABKRO zhu_y_Page_090.pro
7fea068cb6a1dab36d4f38a671bd02ba
d877a0bc8ebe15f94c24f45f4b6e021065d8e8a4
33933 F20110331_AABLVG zhu_y_Page_154.QC.jpg
9a18bd0d9d282183d027e4b2a7b0b260
92fe58b96376c4cc9cb3ccd60267d79e85879a33
30841 F20110331_AABLUR zhu_y_Page_010.QC.jpg
277a19c6908a727513dde0d621c3726a
3fcaa8c4b575a5012b157de4976b872713747e66
47876 F20110331_AABKSE zhu_y_Page_108.pro
c46269b454e0479686e1ead935995680
288a9942c76b4960b63b0a97f0c7d88eab82f960
50909 F20110331_AABKRP zhu_y_Page_091.pro
0dee7b47aea75bb515bb38412a71e398
6054f8fd4fc69cf5a6b0206b6d242e9da996cebc
31480 F20110331_AABLVH zhu_y_Page_156.QC.jpg
96459596d45a3697c62556056d786938
3d44a72c306572073ad4c184114544a420718567
26630 F20110331_AABLUS zhu_y_Page_013.QC.jpg
115dc82934dfcffc8440e614365cd23b
6ebd32a3a8f5d8f4e1f176c6a2103bd0dc94e4a9
48173 F20110331_AABKSF zhu_y_Page_109.pro
34e8e7cefdaa8cdf26ef9b688570218b
a6f0fbf9eff409766064a77e669af6465918da2a
48644 F20110331_AABKRQ zhu_y_Page_092.pro
81be97e324d7418918470f9176771cdb
234f60e80193710a76b4d191bfc60943708b187b
32246 F20110331_AABLVI zhu_y_Page_160.QC.jpg
8231e2515a913e2ab7f41045f8c866af
c3d25df287e57e7fbf2869f5561be9ffca111e9e
33330 F20110331_AABLUT zhu_y_Page_018.QC.jpg
ba89d293c279b85d3f6012f4c75db0ae
f2478cb79a49d3f89ecf2c430551254779d670aa
45765 F20110331_AABKSG zhu_y_Page_112.pro
1a3d34ddcc1fa0f0cf82bc72053a063e
d7d9150bd0e81efe56be2e601e22a9a274ace160
42467 F20110331_AABKRR zhu_y_Page_093.pro
4f3f3f1d10def411b763001a696a234c
b65ec08fcf346a9105fe9d36b09afe8bf066629e
29047 F20110331_AABLVJ zhu_y_Page_168.QC.jpg
a12ed82be14694edceba80aa7e22a3e2
e3b496f1154c744c4eb878fddb147d7a2e63ee9e
33268 F20110331_AABLUU zhu_y_Page_043.QC.jpg
60300d6662316b32128093fecefe957c
74f03a7f823997d4e70c779a644df410a9c33a57
44062 F20110331_AABKSH zhu_y_Page_113.pro
7530e4ce112087cadb65bf5d8e564f7a
1718c87ef3432a51183c493607ee1bfd31961609
46697 F20110331_AABKRS zhu_y_Page_094.pro
ef73471778db59bdff5fdda46482fe5f
f052d79df4b8869804649b1821baae1064f36e14
31159 F20110331_AABLVK zhu_y_Page_171.QC.jpg
2fed3928278ffdc03dc7eefb4708d8cd
f502a088b56024833e5c53b773d31f7e25cdfd2b
33729 F20110331_AABLUV zhu_y_Page_063.QC.jpg
f49d87b137264343be2906b516ce11e9
9ec9d824eaa62453436ab4487d1b637b69646b74
69375 F20110331_AABKSI zhu_y_Page_114.pro
6e2790a0e27f90ae6ed4f127a40a7cc4
1c9dde2c642f95cc46fa1f515535a06da951545f
47020 F20110331_AABKRT zhu_y_Page_095.pro
ac19e3d93e5526eb3ae6a944c4e68fb9
422d31d3fcaac08763dba46536f56488739ccec4
33682 F20110331_AABLVL zhu_y_Page_172.QC.jpg
ca59a952a7e559f56166132afee99d15
6841e346f2502cc3e8de9968409bcc04d488998e
34288 F20110331_AABLUW zhu_y_Page_068.QC.jpg
7f10a7eb9f5e0d7f3fddada07371fb7c
bb46bee4e81a8b38f14cf0541787e16dd2d4b6aa
51421 F20110331_AABKSJ zhu_y_Page_115.pro
e4ec486360857b4f3319ce3df218dc2d
60fbf234ee32063736c541c07a0721ff99190381
51282 F20110331_AABKRU zhu_y_Page_097.pro
ff43852c216ec730b0f50fe47e2cd366
c537439a5a4642849ef860302abd1508730e00dc
8573 F20110331_AABLWA zhu_y_Page_135thm.jpg
cc2cf278a8dcbd64cc8dad051d20ce1d
1787f285a7cf7891239fae0af7e2d87e1618ef4d
35107 F20110331_AABLVM zhu_y_Page_179.QC.jpg
e67d98251d2d61e9901432f7060603fd
dbc8d0be0d5c63e9435a9dc93adae98e1dd890bf
33321 F20110331_AABLUX zhu_y_Page_072.QC.jpg
5cacc49fd36a49a2ad92e87abca8af41
01309e28fedb5eb49ef5ec0f2ea341b0317fb32b
40851 F20110331_AABKSK zhu_y_Page_116.pro
cd55e44e14a9c6ad400fa4d359fa6dd6
bbdb290184975efd07c4885bf0ab7d399d7a55e4
51721 F20110331_AABKRV zhu_y_Page_098.pro
9353f4ac3a48083dcee1c2342166f7d1
86064f2ef6bbd72fd9e9f71d10fc6b19aa232332
8506 F20110331_AABLWB zhu_y_Page_155thm.jpg
9c75c10acf5e1e2f1bad89cef56d94ec
4e2997075666cefe036af156688bb38ef9b1c8ea
26693 F20110331_AABLVN zhu_y_Page_185.QC.jpg
262b5a1cef6c18c10f49638f95ffa111
1eef47d9a08f3b421314ac87ee5db5892e364491
33650 F20110331_AABLUY zhu_y_Page_082.QC.jpg
8971f77c7c308b7f1473b3c4344ab266
ee66b5157e7b40359f5497365bc4a79e28c3e68d
45654 F20110331_AABKSL zhu_y_Page_117.pro
47e428e2e755fe2b7bf35c264a5a5f6a
799ea45675feac62e8daa02752b9d5fcb3ca9973
51784 F20110331_AABKRW zhu_y_Page_099.pro
63f849a396fa39666842a7911d1deb84
bb1db9978c0f4fe7bb0a4f59ed73fd89765ac77e
8499 F20110331_AABLWC zhu_y_Page_161thm.jpg
b1ad7363de796254b679e2f2bd691c85
eb6cab92c40f77a6c9f3dc4a661e79d6fbe194a2
14158 F20110331_AABLVO zhu_y_Page_193.QC.jpg
74a5a6671fe08be657d70bbe259b7000
8a655c2bc4dea7aaf9912d1a02269f673e47eb3a
29784 F20110331_AABLUZ zhu_y_Page_090.QC.jpg
bd9fbd287947128fde5efe3fc106d12a
1ba3f464fd76d5bb7e74f689f0190fc9b5082ba3
61179 F20110331_AABKSM zhu_y_Page_118.pro
5d65eeb6521457df6e13d64351904b8b
c7b0c7cbae061c212b25d0fc2c3e5890925985a7
53391 F20110331_AABKRX zhu_y_Page_100.pro
4403880d565aea3139f4893a794a7311
62a495a7a2218f680191520fbb0efe247bea5c7e
F20110331_AABKTA zhu_y_Page_132.pro
3629d65101cc4abf26c6f91482dbca53
3c1be1e111346fa343d7f29215fb6a8be4f119c0
7896 F20110331_AABLWD zhu_y_Page_171thm.jpg
3b30a9ee75340a8e2df58677d2486376
7212f11fb46d56e932f5d4701045dc386a490a54
6769 F20110331_AABLVP zhu_y_Page_197.QC.jpg
0000a0b936f427d50ab0756f1f7bbcf9
464e355320098a765fd276230d577c2ca8c6510a
50066 F20110331_AABKSN zhu_y_Page_119.pro
cf86f3d309755fe1abe6ac0d972a5ca7
67ac2660e470037ad61182145baddc6c2d25faf2
9306 F20110331_AABKRY zhu_y_Page_102.pro
2500b271425ad98328d60ea641eb16fe
c6a4e691bd40f16620e5ff95775aa71c6e63f709
51829 F20110331_AABKTB zhu_y_Page_133.pro
468adaaedc6e61e9058a4a636a7efed3
98e538e823616791d231527b2783e743052a5b12
8042 F20110331_AABLWE zhu_y_Page_182thm.jpg
b8b513b698c8b12225019a13bff5fe3c
236e0c9bcf2559cfe86be4eac1d387774c989e38
32163 F20110331_AABLVQ zhu_y_Page_201.QC.jpg
ec9e52d31216a1cb84cf76ec84e2c481
636d47ff0635cfd2b996e69f04db38613fb73cd2
57833 F20110331_AABKSO zhu_y_Page_120.pro
be51465f147575fa102788a0cddbb7b5
36e6bce736b4ef82c1651fc999f313f08e825c29
39894 F20110331_AABKRZ zhu_y_Page_103.pro
f58fe1b7546cf20ccb6a6b96fdba30cc
59cc585bfa6cef6c4953a0e1d816005f1cb581c9
47254 F20110331_AABKTC zhu_y_Page_134.pro
4acb47aeb9b551b6e22281bdbe83ff87
52602094e2819050809ea59b17324706502729e5
1958 F20110331_AABLWF zhu_y_Page_184thm.jpg
98d2fdff4dfd36a78d888a014ac11e9f
997d151197fa6ac26bad08bfa5681d21cd441549
52168 F20110331_AABKTD zhu_y_Page_135.pro
1c7081c7abcbceac787a7f59943d9b0a
fb087a441ea9e6e3da8284d7ca39b7e2ed6b68e4
2710 F20110331_AABLWG zhu_y_Page_195thm.jpg
d077a54660b7e365eb15519c999532d7
5a67b848263d727da398b4922b4e5a2f4ca76c5a
34558 F20110331_AABLVR zhu_y_Page_206.QC.jpg
687d409b8a9c21785473fbc70ae28e3a
54905515c1f18b5c47054c9e8d17902a272bd70e
54946 F20110331_AABKSP zhu_y_Page_121.pro
914d390ea06693236a0f185c9c48d69f
f01bb531b32ce14bfec58077f61e7d8e11a268f6
49518 F20110331_AABKTE zhu_y_Page_136.pro
83a290e4319507007a1fb581ae2bef53
43af39f0554ea5a240aa3e55e9d506955edf5c50
8606 F20110331_AABLWH zhu_y_Page_204thm.jpg
9eabd9f3137e814d1a8f70d8686580aa
922e8219634e453db69679b29098ae7ad53ce8b4
8249 F20110331_AABLVS zhu_y_Page_015thm.jpg
70c587dc63adfa9674cfcc1deb5093c5
ca8ee00691c7d0512e78c3adede8010548c01b4f
55873 F20110331_AABKSQ zhu_y_Page_122.pro
550809eb68d2a9508a46f9ddf3c89a73
ca3a01aea3582bb55072d0f8fbfa0c6d5598ac38
48778 F20110331_AABKTF zhu_y_Page_137.pro
ad082096c40196d163972cd7354ca258
26b6888ab021baaba3891146177adf36b31a217a
8622 F20110331_AABLWI zhu_y_Page_206thm.jpg
9ddf729214768c6d60113033349d9454
4f32cd6e59e9113d62803f647ef0471a5639e71b
F20110331_AABLVT zhu_y_Page_029thm.jpg
d132a3f2ab4d2c09db92c1a4e7396a16
24ab7c04340dc30d429d0e246d58e99040c18a07
49412 F20110331_AABKSR zhu_y_Page_123.pro
49998699870e97cd355fd42999c8c05d
a6a5778af2e598e59d3e154e88366278cee686a0
34781 F20110331_AABKTG zhu_y_Page_138.pro
57e74fde3c78700966cd3e4c7b555eee
375c2e3effe45bffbbef44d663659a0cff6e3e0e
8409 F20110331_AABLVU zhu_y_Page_051thm.jpg
54d3f0ebe815fa3dd8f87a3a785e5c77
87a82abb1786b94cd4be11b454475573f2981e07
71073 F20110331_AABKSS zhu_y_Page_124.pro
9a591abc4171c3949876d48f59595fe2
d3870d898da2160875c90fd3867f8a9bcbd0a203
40081 F20110331_AABKTH zhu_y_Page_140.pro
0e79c4a1c6e4c62fbd85e3510f3bfa29
5f04000cf4327a2643c4680ca3031832e9ed84ba
8211 F20110331_AABLVV zhu_y_Page_062thm.jpg
5dea8361262ed451de315a363fc6012a
69231852e24f1e4df435de12eaf1bea0d2ae9e94
53212 F20110331_AABKST zhu_y_Page_125.pro
ff97736548440e8d91ad22fe526de565
ae67a015a78b808598360cc8d9fca58201ed438c
30273 F20110331_AABKTI zhu_y_Page_141.pro
fe95c7f9c985eabc442cb2138477c3e5
df9609ef86bd1842f1883463c85c8e1df04af3ea
8276 F20110331_AABLVW zhu_y_Page_076thm.jpg
acb3502d4751e0c3d60bce7887ff12ca
c4935e6b76fa03f41f5d0ad32086ab9c4361c131
44824 F20110331_AABKSU zhu_y_Page_126.pro
a7d54116ba851fdaff74873771f43621
be0d14a05d4abc222535995ab55713e861fe79f1
57357 F20110331_AABKTJ zhu_y_Page_144.pro
ca9a4eadc760db262dfbfeef91fcc91f
5d626899cdcda6acc56502422edeaf8a2bcb02ec
8016 F20110331_AABLVX zhu_y_Page_097thm.jpg
b5c58b8bf5423662cfaa361260d54de0
75133c4ed7b2d4f5e20128ae5fed9f690ef463a3
46570 F20110331_AABKSV zhu_y_Page_127.pro
8095942de8830d634fe3c58b9d6c2175
62280fafafb881187eb0ddf1d87024fd9694d9ed
50904 F20110331_AABKTK zhu_y_Page_145.pro
d7d9c050a98dfc9720451b20ff600ac4
3cbc05435e167c009365eb998e66f6b1f74b494a
7560 F20110331_AABLVY zhu_y_Page_120thm.jpg
d753d9fe9f218ee58eed941d01b57e31
5275e124d2eb27e9daee49c849bd19d603be05aa
48596 F20110331_AABKSW zhu_y_Page_128.pro
54a7a6623e480d7f94050e764ee1ef18
323973943e4c949368fac3fd3402880d37e28897
46566 F20110331_AABKTL zhu_y_Page_146.pro
55d2ace29045c1da1baee61d06ff3e81
ff34950d6533a6d90d4b63388fe5cdddba571f94
7929 F20110331_AABLVZ zhu_y_Page_130thm.jpg
dc9d884167cf97cc251f3a4f1598f466
2d1f75184545b9ff868c5bc0a2d370dcd77c18b6
50017 F20110331_AABKSX zhu_y_Page_129.pro
2b87ff713008955be6aa5160abe0f40d
1abad51ac37751c12931527ba409c75f40e52061
34113 F20110331_AABKUA zhu_y_Page_166.pro
80982932edf633a6dda41f35f42fdf11
44a5e748d9406dfd7436130f00a1228a3cb31d78
55578 F20110331_AABKTM zhu_y_Page_147.pro
31dc471e8c18e2cc14dc0095226b8924
5ce6708e7102850b70145eee76c308b31e719710
48078 F20110331_AABKSY zhu_y_Page_130.pro
0ed51b7e8ca65e35462361bfe9692cb6
3c5249ba1259b83871706ef4d7cb656317351269
49442 F20110331_AABKUB zhu_y_Page_167.pro
083889b621f60df1ef589ede9a1a0ccb
6fb315a15f74572d6911ea27462dc5e0eef02069
3777 F20110331_AABKTN zhu_y_Page_150.pro
69dcee46779c62aeba049cce05fbe418
0abef416df90ac6225f0a03df72939b154aa3126
43650 F20110331_AABKUC zhu_y_Page_168.pro
620bdc4ed8b00f7b198114cfaa414ad7
36bcd11f09e0a38285914f5e6f882e8e78ba6b79
60244 F20110331_AABKTO zhu_y_Page_151.pro
942d5e12dedf6c80fe7cb1d5ef48c196
48a2fcca82f8299db3b085c9b4619685c7732bdc
48706 F20110331_AABKSZ zhu_y_Page_131.pro
c5e1346446252e044e8d796ae3302052
20d311174a91a6e82d1939431c977a363f8d1932
42885 F20110331_AABKUD zhu_y_Page_169.pro
3115db05e7d8d0a24ba2c3e01680c747
e33c3d8270d5d1ad1daa515586391a8566e03318
50161 F20110331_AABKTP zhu_y_Page_152.pro
26207b699951227786965a16c662656a
8b89d2c9d9a49364411fafbb8a05275dbec176c6
F20110331_AABJRC zhu_y_Page_085.tif
227c1d3a9e2e79f0bd97c2194c002cef
268dad286114c67c6d85c1f4f293ac8f0c5f594c
52696 F20110331_AABKUE zhu_y_Page_170.pro
24f7342ec65d5808afdc85f80ec93244
9a394bfad99d9f5a43672598accfeff86e9988fe
F20110331_AABJRD zhu_y_Page_081.tif
454d31d89d5f9fa2a988241d2452409a
5acff90c61c1283c3f3434ab676ab085ca17adb2
48629 F20110331_AABKUF zhu_y_Page_171.pro
991894722c5018fe6f022171c4494cf9
8b0b915b1adba39e21c5c715fdfee69b62d08698
52042 F20110331_AABKTQ zhu_y_Page_154.pro
3cebaf61e8e35361be584506b7c2a2de
0009015d99cb8b683fc75ef4453ace2931151ec8
118865 F20110331_AABLAA zhu_y_Page_151.jpg
5f3cf9f287131777f9ca78dbbd2cd4bc
a1508e8617cf23baab4d05da57cf97e7eda4ecde
6754 F20110331_AABJRE zhu_y_Page_086thm.jpg
17cce01e07080d453208f66cb0a8c0a5
4d960d0671b188e4f2d56bd3aa9206973d9322ec
51158 F20110331_AABKUG zhu_y_Page_172.pro
bd48d636f26592bb6e52567208b1c827
dca0241207c0c90124e37fa3dc8e7f85f984b3db
48346 F20110331_AABKTR zhu_y_Page_156.pro
987a5ad65ec29f5b20e8e847bf0de623
0365f78ff4c74504e5d577a3fef7fce69a69d692
101139 F20110331_AABLAB zhu_y_Page_152.jpg
ac8c9a2f3262a854e64449b495ab9f76
fb973ced2dbc5caec91920e98fba85a3abc8c8a4
46742 F20110331_AABJRF zhu_y_Page_111.pro
4993adb88cb14b3798a2720bf30c4b13
251400f178880e6148b7e33441fadc58142e9ccc
53250 F20110331_AABKUH zhu_y_Page_173.pro
4afdf5742917ba662b8cdfe9408d6838
b7adaf8f64d2a61c6ec08c83a6acca735fc8a58b
50945 F20110331_AABKTS zhu_y_Page_157.pro
7320a72d8012312c9ddbf0446197ba8e
1f217547957a194a60eb6ededa32be520d679d92
103939 F20110331_AABLAC zhu_y_Page_153.jpg
638f82dca0f8d9f803ba847dc982bd3c
e5af9178764e09ecac0d5d675e681658df78dcfa
F20110331_AABJRG zhu_y_Page_135.tif
1843a2e39e55f51cd81664b572ab6f35
27df418c4e86aed8be2317dba08c38cd0743df61
50518 F20110331_AABKUI zhu_y_Page_174.pro
16499a929d53ec6e7d90b86e19f98cf3
45e1a20fcda458f1cbd878e8ffcf64c35fe0f84b
57654 F20110331_AABKTT zhu_y_Page_158.pro
6e43db0fe1e495276ade248b78afb63f
ed1a0ea0f2da642ff26f1ad31ca0ba495117c0c1
105877 F20110331_AABLAD zhu_y_Page_154.jpg
fdf5f5d2cbd9f3408cc5379f02f3fb91
0613f445fa23a533de99f4dbcbd7b113f76d29ae
115374 F20110331_AABJRH zhu_y_Page_158.jpg
62390273248555ff86be35dfffbc1de9
11aad8a8d35ce45163d851d416ac3440062806f9
52226 F20110331_AABKUJ zhu_y_Page_175.pro
0d51a3557616e9656a020679c30f34fb
d36f018a7151a51184e2e413d65f50f758c687a5
46962 F20110331_AABKTU zhu_y_Page_159.pro
10fc192484959bcf445b3ee7ca182624
d042714fafed5b7820bb49a9ae794a106e553977
106738 F20110331_AABLAE zhu_y_Page_155.jpg
3683198280d6e0042b46ee92ffb60106
816574ad43193459e9389d8161acf579e533ca65
109853 F20110331_AABJRI zhu_y_Page_186.jpg
ca583878dcc595be45d9fc3ef13f07b8
95e0d63d45197194358b0c42ee4dfefd4aa60df2
51311 F20110331_AABKUK zhu_y_Page_176.pro
e12e03eff3e8a034e56faa96dd4070e4
336d4a566d247e849212fcb84f37de02e8c05535
50589 F20110331_AABKTV zhu_y_Page_160.pro
0ce305503aec3b5c19f34b10601ed755
f7dbddb830c46f84003133cba73298cf2d7f87c5
99350 F20110331_AABLAF zhu_y_Page_156.jpg
c06a6f0d1b94d5ac44bb9c6e787a6384
d127c191d4bffa3efb1dc72d539a232d7a0e0bfe
121657 F20110331_AABJRJ zhu_y_Page_201.jp2
9a4462f0c15e35a5a63a1e4dd6b42e7d
94259647f05285b1775d13f14353aaa9608859b9
48260 F20110331_AABKUL zhu_y_Page_177.pro
a9c778ad866a983134d322f2506441b0
4d2d5ff076160c9ec953483e4aee3c04f58a66be
52150 F20110331_AABKTW zhu_y_Page_162.pro
276ccdeee7ae33bc190447f77e5db3a2
9d38c4a6783c7708f8f51c89e66131ba1631cbf2
104154 F20110331_AABLAG zhu_y_Page_157.jpg
33f979c1a2aea748823da90e17b438d5
f1af6efef07b9493ae572f2d9a76eea9248e5712
582 F20110331_AABJRK zhu_y_Page_077.txt
0898ef39e4067ed3fa3674ca9ab7e429
547c552defa24b2199d23275ba191445eafb18dd
51857 F20110331_AABKUM zhu_y_Page_178.pro
35a4ddc431b45c3566abde8474e9e3aa
7fa04ef1ca34bc972706c197b9c68bf4f970e5ae
52488 F20110331_AABKTX zhu_y_Page_163.pro
3c6d98690c61eb47d763237f70eb7d12
26ab56d91f3425d47f8e0e89df5788f361a21456
31562 F20110331_AABKVA zhu_y_Page_196.pro
d99af1fe93cee71172672a95bb981a0b
9209f0fa5bdcf4e77a6c822f7fc79795639ff4db
96533 F20110331_AABLAH zhu_y_Page_159.jpg
b88729b08a9562c7d5987447e64292d1
9ece608af1626cd3bd9b24a71d698c333fe2e340
F20110331_AABJRL zhu_y_Page_087.txt
ae909a1a1b9d7aaa993da2df8dc185be
c7cbfead3b453be7b8db78db0ef5c3bd1d66c450
52000 F20110331_AABKUN zhu_y_Page_180.pro
3f6893f8fc05fb35e79401c63c49b436
8e8f6ec92e978118ef81d1680c1a2b79397a8a3f
40543 F20110331_AABKTY zhu_y_Page_164.pro
018c20edfb7cbca826569eba0953137c
c5d9c3cbd9a803bd7f12756bb8b71bfc65ec31a9
11954 F20110331_AABKVB zhu_y_Page_197.pro
943838b75cf0b732a9ac5041bfd10c3d
f7068d92ab261216eaa06f29b73385eb00ab91de
101777 F20110331_AABLAI zhu_y_Page_160.jpg
68e0b82c2ec20d6db848ec1ecb7a176e
07c962e10256dd937020d9e7a79fe01261d55926
126752 F20110331_AABJRM zhu_y_Page_203.jp2
3dd9c7be1c33b156c46683e5faa54bee
1b85a4fd28b9ac041ea15539148d6af4a8dbee54
49969 F20110331_AABKUO zhu_y_Page_181.pro
f884a3e77d5233fc450597644d209c05
a84d4af43cadc4cb042208b173ea5250431f7b16
32651 F20110331_AABKTZ zhu_y_Page_165.pro
09ed9d912c241b393ed3d4e56235c533
a999580751bc7bdc39125f6f0add8a7928a282ca
F20110331_AABJSA zhu_y_Page_145.txt
fce0cd1ee5379d52eca3c8d75dd96651
a7a9b61223b288545b31df65376733ad7f8b2021
48176 F20110331_AABKVC zhu_y_Page_198.pro
0f45f401c61b18fb9135d76833b5091d
f31852098e646a9e9af5eb1d0801974a0fbda7a7
106870 F20110331_AABLAJ zhu_y_Page_161.jpg
6016b4e59f408821a545b2f1cb8a4524
40fa10566c07de35e7e5819e5331070d041e7413
97043 F20110331_AABJRN zhu_y_Page_168.jp2
b76f0188ad8f848fc0b7dd0b7597adc8
1038f5f95bd54735566438859752fc6cde15a5fc
50174 F20110331_AABKUP zhu_y_Page_182.pro
0461a587490992fe7c03524e5c180587
7b2f037e837cba47feb594209cb9a3dbfd846cb5
F20110331_AABJSB zhu_y_Page_040.txt
c1293f08516106276cbb558a28e88b04
7c898be876443130c560feecf6ac60f79bc9f415
54956 F20110331_AABKVD zhu_y_Page_200.pro
121833283f787be889220992c2847efc
bad0737a0aadebaa44cb2fa878df13750c171029
105774 F20110331_AABLAK zhu_y_Page_162.jpg
2d4bd05acc066cd875b5e624b6e136d2
4a83c5ab025189a1b573653e13f3df198aa7b232
112716 F20110331_AABJRO zhu_y_Page_210.jp2
3a3112c44d166c824805bf984b1ed647
06a97b4491051568405950eeb790ec4789e6160d
42232 F20110331_AABKUQ zhu_y_Page_183.pro
95fc70999bccdbc5de8cf220648b582d
6ea4e5e85aab004caad5c5869c4d57a153754f4d
2288 F20110331_AABJSC zhu_y_Page_158.txt
5b93e12e0b3fde9830d6e290f88cec18
27de86265b9791fa852b5c0e3fe950c37b85d345
55314 F20110331_AABKVE zhu_y_Page_201.pro
b7804ed1a59734ec2c56c8f9ff1f6fd5
7159bac12ea1a5543c7615602fcc7b49a138978f
105180 F20110331_AABLAL zhu_y_Page_163.jpg
551625fb27df7a79141b5730e334abe5
a8a0dda6ea6775a87187242aa6a4e34dc90e19bd
F20110331_AABJSD zhu_y_Page_163.tif
7f098bb108e49979a334e270114ad96a
fcf13cbfccc21e23a2a9ee11f533070e36dca309
58531 F20110331_AABKVF zhu_y_Page_202.pro
c42f7aa2662c4325a7a547ce961305f4
b74876df09408972274c593f07ceee9d1ce0f580
22189 F20110331_AABLBA zhu_y_Page_184.jpg
ab11bde9f40f3eaff687df58eb4661ca
b58677e1047407ea6f432c5b526f45befe4f99f0
97534 F20110331_AABLAM zhu_y_Page_164.jpg
59e9424ee2fb071af140147b435f1ece
1402263ac9d3c372b4f62ef70a45e8f8d2e47b19
8242 F20110331_AABJRP zhu_y_Page_160thm.jpg
af7c4f1000e5e8124313d65cb2bdcd0e
7136150d87f3858abf21a336998007d1cfb1363c
8468 F20110331_AABKUR zhu_y_Page_184.pro
9c623cc9c5d491cfaf65d0a2864df369
4c79066ea850b730e75bad44f94baf53821acdc2
105271 F20110331_AABJSE zhu_y_Page_070.jp2
b30cd690f4fea3378c8a5296894394b4
426115a627dbf88469a392d58bbde7c9b5dc2c27
58022 F20110331_AABKVG zhu_y_Page_203.pro
003944cb66e3404f364ab8d8eac862f7
ef283aa267f64bcbdf8330863fa941b2f3a8fb3d
91779 F20110331_AABLBB zhu_y_Page_185.jpg
142217d0944ffef1fe1812b2b65a63e9
4585542ac9677fe1ac88972e35fa39661d19ce5e
109082 F20110331_AABLAN zhu_y_Page_166.jpg
795d65451203849b124dd50e84dfcbad
dd967b39431f352039f9a24e22dff1537a8698be
2031 F20110331_AABJRQ zhu_y_Page_115.txt
11c76622fd6a446a608918c5625abb01
6e6190925b7bacba47014ee8e53724ab3abd018e
55134 F20110331_AABKUS zhu_y_Page_186.pro
6a27c91a7f49c10b72615dc6a11e84d7
c320a80c40f7770c13ceff6484292c09775a4b35
103633 F20110331_AABJSF zhu_y_Page_071.jpg
b92938b440164b8ff74815ce388f7188
b5f59e95903c8166688c9a405f5b0f955efb6e69
57275 F20110331_AABKVH zhu_y_Page_205.pro
acd7623519a18261a0636a39caf74525
cd8f358b676e6697c6dba213d8f8f235a3a5e9a5
51116 F20110331_AABLBC zhu_y_Page_187.jpg
31cd65deec9c9c2efdb59a0ec4d6101d
45cb270ba920b4fa37aa0f688f306e32eab66664
89626 F20110331_AABLAO zhu_y_Page_168.jpg
e639aeed8311539ba705fd72ea5253b4
1e716f55c6b092402ea07a8c47b7e61fd0e1b857
62949 F20110331_AABKVI zhu_y_Page_206.pro
ebf9a4984533553abde58672c5e67b93
2bbaf2b77b86c42f67509515ac5b06610c78659a
6572 F20110331_AABJRR zhu_y_Page_188thm.jpg
76977c798e9fe810d7881026dcf46dc4
25c83bc47a64ab810e0713e7ddb2e513e1ba8db6
26584 F20110331_AABKUT zhu_y_Page_187.pro
60d7909d88dae6abc5ae2f43af9bf6c6
21f0216d2c939a593811af8775c2d52f5ed54e40
7875 F20110331_AABJSG zhu_y_Page_159thm.jpg
e922e73ec0af9c743fe6163ff1d3bdd8
992cd9742066da39670a7698d9bca261ccf8928c
127075 F20110331_AABLBD zhu_y_Page_189.jpg
d749686445757c042188c067c09321ed
8b57e6465b67e0797a10c4384ba909d9e60b4363
89678 F20110331_AABLAP zhu_y_Page_169.jpg
02b5fb0c76f23a600be2785d1f0452b1
0fef925dc71a9338554f9e7f4cdf1e6d59633e1b
58320 F20110331_AABKVJ zhu_y_Page_207.pro
f5d39def18d9bcb8b33c38b2acc92b56
2c3d8186925e1b3d5cf039097c08b93ace7d3b41
33677 F20110331_AABJRS zhu_y_Page_178.QC.jpg
8ac3c20f76e530790f4f93af491a011c
37f2cb1851b124d487c430281c9933fee94f615f
7773 F20110331_AABKUU zhu_y_Page_190.pro
6b8cfa911218b7210e73791a56ddb63e
0f07140a2cc3395681067c7a04823d666581976c
33766 F20110331_AABJSH zhu_y_Page_071.QC.jpg
31d01f67112db06ccc6fcd0143fd7815
d76297665242fc552be0ce1e69fb5a23f695aaae
17104 F20110331_AABLBE zhu_y_Page_190.jpg
abbea5ae102da50c0f8f536e8de50113
48dd5ac11a0b762bc326da2d98443bba6b7de57d
103751 F20110331_AABLAQ zhu_y_Page_170.jpg
32a672094d4a83b902808d617e06fb11
1e79228b6837620c9d952b43bf4f50c1a28847e5
68602 F20110331_AABKVK zhu_y_Page_208.pro
376ea0c9e5669afd43214b3316f41e04
028a09100a9af1cf54dad96be15bbcffc7454f62
67118 F20110331_AABJRT zhu_y_Page_189.pro
642f25cd28a91c6a1c2b66526e03a786
df7cd94a45bdd7f570aec5cf8f82e99f7c5a76d0
66612 F20110331_AABKUV zhu_y_Page_191.pro
062926d4e0dda8fd5038b280884c2542
813335fbb014352dfd94ed21ce27098313d37eb5
F20110331_AABJSI zhu_y_Page_090.tif
3221f3ad25257bdd9c9de42cf0db53fb
b9952c54581605e3545f133ab6260c8b9a3ad014
128523 F20110331_AABLBF zhu_y_Page_191.jpg
e031f87324e85ac7eecb0f519f08df37
e8a8eabe44825ecd65375ba7cf4b7c215188b477
98202 F20110331_AABLAR zhu_y_Page_171.jpg
24eab22b6416d930c5c989f2fb40877a
ff6d488a298191ee5a0eebb18e43dcc40477d28f
67639 F20110331_AABKVL zhu_y_Page_209.pro
37a406ad17709d32fb8531757cbc81fb
0ad500a7025c2ba86212850a02cec93c2ef00e94
1621 F20110331_AABJRU zhu_y_Page_086.txt
9b4ca11ae8a82758e6a2e00e071073c2
7ec902ab15bdf1f27340d2bfee7de4d03bd3c36a
5467 F20110331_AABKUW zhu_y_Page_192.pro
8b25fe3e1139ac014ad4ee734b329f4f
f853a9acdc87dc2b608d9330384b994be3f317c3
133740 F20110331_AABJSJ zhu_y_Page_007.jpg
28c7b3b65c0b4c1f5a6bab49abc5c677
d8ae63a67982aa8d81607d305bd8f61843ccd14e
14165 F20110331_AABLBG zhu_y_Page_192.jpg
8ec893da58a3b03effcc52127931a0bb
d5289d96bdfc9f7e6f235486bb0065d88a621d1f
103894 F20110331_AABLAS zhu_y_Page_174.jpg
2d5880651d22d686cbd03d42863a9ed7
2798bc673ff95f89c41f1803d162bcec10108167
103762 F20110331_AABKWA zhu_y_Page_018.jpg
7f0cca965981244d428e87ce77f8b360
281c5f5de74c2adfd573ae27172a55fbe1048092
49358 F20110331_AABKVM zhu_y_Page_210.pro
f56418dbcd2bd6596d776835a0b5b868
9ca83b13d2716322fd97990de22e512e1dd47d29
F20110331_AABJRV zhu_y_Page_119.tif
b61de246b879082b3bac28512c098664
7f569809af27e1dee5ffc88cd2cc6d3ba16941a4
25798 F20110331_AABKUX zhu_y_Page_193.pro
c84f543fafa6039bed309e061ec41844
a4023e8887fd4b9f0ee08548acae988ddc0675b3
118535 F20110331_AABJSK zhu_y_Page_144.jp2
89fee49c52ad71a3eec8def311559867
23220685dc43cae756c1a0bd941bd63cc5dcdbe9
49113 F20110331_AABLBH zhu_y_Page_193.jpg
552b8f1dd449a896b4abb4e5d4fe7187
dcce4d20321339342fada3defab4ed44c843a0ca
106464 F20110331_AABLAT zhu_y_Page_175.jpg
c9cff9531c59df81043501c986740f82
e49da3cc1e58f06d24de17b518fe73ad51d90033
101843 F20110331_AABKWB zhu_y_Page_019.jpg
bc9ff0de9e4fa8a3098e9902c8a2ad3f
82179e0d595411859ece9218812c59cbb75e3dde
4049 F20110331_AABKVN zhu_y_Page_002.jpg
6d9f7444b1d342efacc3c5fb0d3dffd2
6379be4e54d28e0a0cb3ed5605b1b91244754e91
53074 F20110331_AABJRW zhu_y_Page_161.pro
856b1d28de41e8b42de47dc534dae638
84ac02978d59c98ba7724a0fe3cb3dd0ff0b1886
28523 F20110331_AABKUY zhu_y_Page_194.pro
e1c0b7d0fdae6361fc87e33a2ae5f162
26338c2d799c1733244acf9087f947ddc1506c53
1051852 F20110331_AABJSL zhu_y_Page_186.jp2
519be5128a0c7ab3b9e65ee57a485cfa
8966b067de2231f8e6f84b8a5f1e846bc60005ba



PAGE 1

COMPARING HUMAN AND SOCIAL RESOURCES ACCUMULATED THROUGH PARTICIPATIO N WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IN SCATTERED SITES AND HABITAT NEIGHBORHOODS By YUN ZHU A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Yun Zhu

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to my family.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS No one lives on an island, nor did this study. Several institutes, organizations, and individuals provided financial, physical, and academic supports that contributed to the success of this Habitat study. First, the Un iversity of Florida College of Design, Construction and Planning fully supported th is study by providing tuition waivers and stipends through graduate assistance. The Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing financially supported the rese archer with traveling expe nses among three cities. In addition, the Dean’s Office, the Ph. D. Program and Shimberg Center together sponsored compensations for participation during th e most difficult time of the research. Second, I would like to thank the director s of the three Habitat for Humanity affiliations, Dave Feather, Joe Honeycu tt, and Brad Nimmo, who showed immense support since the beginning of the study and provided information to help the study continue. Carrier Reppert, Gregory Stacey, and Mary Kay O’Rourke from Habitat offices continued to provide detailed info rmation as the study progressed. Finally I would like to acknowledge the support, advice, encouragement, and friendship offered during the six years by my advisors, family, and friends. My deepest thank goes to my committee chair, Dr. Ma ry Jo Hasell, who is an inspiring and extraordinary mentor as well as a great friend. Her profound knowledge, practical advice, understanding patience, and cr itical critiques helped me go through the process with much more confidence. As the director of Shimberg Center, Associate Dean, and a committee member, Dr. Robert Stroh gave me tremendous help with excellent advice on

PAGE 5

v research methods and statistics. In add ition, I am grateful to the other committee members Dr. John Scanzoni and Dr. Tracy Johns who contributed to the overall process. I also want to thank Dr. John P. Marsden, w ho helped me explore the topic, and worked with me through the proposal stage. This study would not had been finished wit hout the help of my dear finance, Jing Lan, who accompanied me through the neighborhoods and gave me great mental support when I was upset about some unpredictable i ssues during data collection. My parents were always there, encouraging me to finish the research. And above all, all my sincere thanks go to the participants in the study. Without their enthusiasm to help others, there would be no study at all. Some participants gave me tremendous mental support during the study and encouraged me to continue through all difficulties. Their valuable insights toward their neighborhoods and their houses are priceless, which confirms this research is a mutual learning experience.

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................x ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................x ii CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM...........................................................................................................1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................2 Sweat Equity as Participation................................................................................5 Sweat Equity as a Learning Process......................................................................6 Sweat Equity as a Sharing Process........................................................................7 Habitat Neighborhoods versus Scattered Sites......................................................9 Sweat Equity as Design Participation..................................................................11 Significance of the Study............................................................................................13 Assumptions and Delimitati ons Underlying the Study..............................................15 General Research Hypotheses....................................................................................16 Definitions and Operational Terms............................................................................19 Summary.....................................................................................................................20 2 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................22 Theoretical Background..............................................................................................22 Learning by Doing...............................................................................................22 Generalized Social Exchange..............................................................................24 Conceptual Framework.......................................................................................27 General Background Information...............................................................................29 Sweat Equity as Participation..............................................................................30 Sweat Equity as Learning and Sharing................................................................42 Physical Settings..................................................................................................49 Design participation.............................................................................................54 Variable Measures......................................................................................................56 Sweat Equity........................................................................................................57

PAGE 7

vii Human Resources................................................................................................58 Social Resources..................................................................................................60 Design participation.............................................................................................62 Summary.....................................................................................................................63 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...............................................................................65 Case Study Paradigm..................................................................................................65 Research Setting.........................................................................................................66 Sampling and Data Collection....................................................................................71 Operational Definitions and Measures.......................................................................73 Analytical Techniques................................................................................................84 Validity and Reliability...............................................................................................85 Limitations of This Study...........................................................................................87 Summary.....................................................................................................................88 4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY......................................................................................90 Characteristics of Sample...........................................................................................90 Demographic Characteristics...............................................................................90 Sweat Equity........................................................................................................92 Human and Social Resource Development.........................................................95 Results of Statistical Analyses..................................................................................100 Results of Content Analyses.....................................................................................113 Reasons to Participate in Sweat Equity.............................................................114 Meanings of Sweat Equity.................................................................................114 Advantages and Disadvantag es about Sweat Equity.........................................115 Neighborhood and Involvement........................................................................119 Helping Behaviors.............................................................................................120 Design Participation..........................................................................................123 Summary...................................................................................................................125 5 DISCUSSION...........................................................................................................126 Sweat Equity as Doing, Learning, and Sharing........................................................126 Habitat Neighborhoods versus Scattered Sites.........................................................141 Design Participation..................................................................................................146 Summary...................................................................................................................155 6 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................156 Summary of the Study..............................................................................................156 Conclusions...............................................................................................................159 Sweat Equity as Participation, Learning, and Sharing......................................159 Habitat Neighborhoods versus Scattered Sites..................................................161 Design Participation..........................................................................................162 Implications..............................................................................................................164 Suggestions for Designers.................................................................................164

PAGE 8

viii Suggestions for Habitat.....................................................................................166 Suggestions for Further Research......................................................................169 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENTS.....................................................................................171 B INTERVIEW QUESTIONS.....................................................................................180 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................185 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................198

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Distribution of Sweat Equity H ours in Three Habitat Affiliates..............................67 4-1 Demographic Characteris tics of the Respondents....................................................91 4-2 Factor Analysis: Rotated Component Matrix.........................................................101 4-3 Multivariate Analyses of Covariances Examining Dependent Variables after Controlling for Education.......................................................................................105 4-4 Significant Results from the Between -subjects Effects Examining Dependent Variables.................................................................................................................105 4-5 Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable SKILLS............................................107 4-6 Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable ATT-H.............................................107 4-7 Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable DESIGN..........................................108 4-8 Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable SELF................................................108 4-9 Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable MAINT............................................108 4-10 Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable SEG-E..............................................109 4-11 Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable SEG-R..............................................110 4-12 Univariate Model for Dependent Variable SUP....................................................110 4-13 Nonparametric Correlations Am ong Variables: Kendall’s tau-b...........................111 4-14 Results of Two Multiple Regression Analyses Examining Human and Social Resource Developments.........................................................................................112

PAGE 10

x LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Simplified model from Gifford’s framework of conceptualizing personenvironment relations in learning settings (2002)....................................................28 2-2 Simplified Gifford’s model for ur ban environmental psychology (2002)...............28 2-3 Conceptualized framework for sw eat equity in a Habitat context...........................29 3-1 Conceptual framework for the doing, learning, and sharing process of sweat equity within the context of Hab itat for Humanity International.............................74 4-1 Hierarchical cluster analysis : Dendrogram using Ward Method...........................100 4-2 Modified conceptual framew ork for statistical analyses........................................103 5-1 Simplified multivariate results...............................................................................127 5-2 An inviting entrance was created by using landscaping and outdoor furniture.....128 5-3 This was a living room with various decorations and displays. The homeowner tried to match the colors as well.............................................................................129 5-4 The outside wooden handrails at the b ack entrance needed to be repaired............129 5-5 Simplified statistical results for human and social resources.................................133 5-6 The TV display in a living room illustrated the cultural preference of the homeowner.............................................................................................................135 5-7 The color blue was used in this bedroom...............................................................136 5-8 The playful primary colors were used on the walls, curtains, and the ceiling fan in a kid’s room........................................................................................................136 5-9 The decoration in a bathroom also was carefully considered................................137 5-10 This front yard needed better landscaping.............................................................137 5-11 The new bathroom was built by the ho meowner herself after she moved in.........151

PAGE 11

xi 5-12 This was a multi-functional backyard. The backyard functioned as the garden, gym, picnic area, kid’s pl ayground, gathering place, a nd utility storage space.....152 5-13 This picture showed thre e Habitat houses. The exteri or of these houses looked similar.....................................................................................................................153

PAGE 12

xii Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy COMPARING HUMAN AND SOCIAL RESOURCES ACCUMULATED THROUGH PARTICIPATIO N WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IN SCATTERED SITES AND HABITAT NEIGHBORHOODS By Yun Zhu May 2006 Chair: Mary Joyce Hasell Major Department: Design, Construction and Planning Habitat for Humanity uses sweat equity to help lowand very low-income families build affordable houses in both scattere d sites and Habitat neighborhoods. Families participate in the construction of their own houses and others’ as well However, sweat equity has not been clearly defined within a Habitat context. Nor has the impact of sweat equity been systematically m easured in terms of human and social resource development. It is unclear whether or not these resources are maintained differently in Habitat neighborhoods and scattered sites. Families ma ke design choices about colors, finishes, and landscape for their houses. However, not a ll affiliates count this participation as sweat equity hours. Dewey’s learning-by-doing theory explains why participating in sweat equity builds human and social resour ces: the individual skills in relation to house construction and maintenance, and the community skill s in relation to neighborhood maintenance, respectively. Levi-Strauss’s generalized soci al exchange theory shows why helping and

PAGE 13

xiii being helped during sweat equ ity activities provide the prem ises of the continuum of reciprocity even after families move into their homes. Since participation is context-specific, a case study explored the sweat equity process as participation, l earning-by-doing, and sharing wi th African-American female heads of Habitat households. It was hypothesized that 1) sw eat equity contributed to human and social resource development; 2) Habitat neighborhoods contributed to the maintenance of resources; and 3) design participation was a ssociated with house satisfaction. A pilot study with eight families tested the research instruments and procedures in a local Habitat affiliate. The principal study was conducted in three Southeast United States Habitat affiliates. Convenience sampling a nd volunteerism identified 49 respondents. Significant quantitative and qualitative findi ngs indicated that sweat equity and design participation have positive effects on human and social resource development in these settings. Also, Habitat neighborhoods he lped eliminate the perception of economic segregation, compared to Habita t houses in scattered sites. Th ese findings suggest that the learning-by-doing and sharing—s weat equity—are practical and efficient processes to create human and social resources with lowincome families. These findings enrich the studies of learning-by-doing a nd generalized social exchange theories and address the gap between theory and design practice.

PAGE 14

1 CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM Introduction Habitat for Humanity International is a pr ivate non-profit housi ng organization that helps lowand very-low income people to achieve the “American Dream” of a singlefamily house and livable environment. Habita t for Humanity (Habitat) helps individuals to achieve this goal through a distinctive “swe at equity” process that requires people to build their houses together. More specifically, partner families1 commit hundreds of hours, consisting of various activities, to the construction of other families’ houses and in turn, receive help with th eir own houses (Vincent, 2002) During the sweat equity process, partner families may acquire hu man resources including house building and maintenance skills, budgeting skills for fina ncial responsibility, a nd a sense of selfesteem. They also may build social resour ces related to mutual support, neighboring activities, sense of obligation, and trust among Habitat partner families. However the persistence of human and so cial resources accu mulated through sweat equity may vary in different types of Ha bitat settings. Some houses are located in scattered lots “where there are no other Habi tat homes on the homeowner’s street.” Other houses are located in clusters “where th e homeowner’s block includes other Habitat households but is not exclusiv ely developed with Habitat homes” or subdivisions “where the homeowner is surrounded on the street only by homes built by Habitat” (Mitchell & 1 The relationship between Habitat International affiliate s and the families are partners, so the families are called “partner families” or “Habitat families” instead of homeowners in this study.

PAGE 15

2 Warren, 1998, IV-27). The degree of segrega tion imposed by the Habitat context may make it easier for families to maintain the human and social resources they have acquired through sweat equity. Research has shown that Habitat families who live in clusters or subdivisions are more satisfied than familie s who live in scattered homes. Yet, a major objective of the U.S. Department of Housi ng and Urban Development’s (HUD) Strategic Plan is to reduce geographic segregation (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD], 2000) for lo w-income and poor families. This study serves four research purposes: 1) it defines “sweat equity” as a process that involves participation, expe riential learning, and sharing in a Habitat context; 2) it explores the relationship between sweat equity and human and social resource developments; 3) it compares how human and social resources that are acquired through sweat equity may vary in relation to the Habitat c ontext (i.e., subdivisions versus scattered Habitat houses); and 4) it explores the role of us er participation in the house design process during sweat equity. Since a cl uster consists of 2% to 99% of Habitat homeowners in one block, and this is a bi g range of variation, the term Habitat neighborhood will be used in this study to de scribe areas that are considered a larger cluster or a subdivision. The following sect ion provides background information related to the objectives of the study a nd identified research hypotheses. Statement of the Problem Sweat equity is a self-help building pro cess when an owner takes control in the planning, building, and managing of his or her own home. Th e activities of self-help building range from supervising the worksite to months of hard labor (Grindley, 1972). The first significant public se lf-help housing effort was c onducted by the County Relief Board of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, in the 1930s. The participants of the

PAGE 16

3 program were unemployed coal miners who built self-sufficient communities together. By 1940, participants completed approxima tely 250 homes (Spohn, 1972). In the 1960s, the Housing and Home Finance Agency, the predecessor of HUD, solicited proposals for new ways to improve low-income housing, pa rticularly “the study of self-help in the construction, rehabilitation, and maintenan ce of housing for low income persons and families and the methods of selecting, invol ving, and directing such persons and families in self-help activities” (Spohn, 1972, pp. 2324). In the 1970s, HUD provided less support for self-help projects and only the Mu tual Self-Help Housi ng program retained the sweat equity requirement. Currently, Rural Housing and Community Development Services in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) provide technical support for the Mutual Self-Help Housing Progr am. Qualified families in a group of 5 to 12 complete 65% of the work on their own homes. Group members work on each other's homes and move in when all the homes are completed. The average price of a Mutual Self-Help house is about $80,000 with a low-in terest Single-Family Housing Direct Loan. Federal efforts for self-help housing dimi nished after Eugene R. Gulledge was appointed as the Assistant Secretary for Produc tion, HUD, in the 1960s. It is believed that the HUD structure of mass production also contri buted to the low profile of HUD in selfhelp programs because the self-help housi ng production was only a fraction of the housing market (Spohn, 1972). However, non-pr ofit organizations including Habitat realized that even if th e housing production of self-h elp programs might not be significant to the housing market each house built with sweat e quity changed the lives of the homeowners significantly, especially lo w-income families. Established in 1976 by

PAGE 17

4 Millard and Linda Fuller, Habitat for Huma nity International currently has over 1,500 affiliates in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and about 400 overseas groups in 83 countries. According to Habitat for Humanity International 2002 Fiscal Repor t (Habitat for Humanity [Habitat], 2002), Habitat has produced a total of 44,617 lowincome homes in the United States and 133,641 homes worldwide. The average cost is $46,000 per house nationwide and $800 worldwide. Habitat affiliates are responsib le for raising funds, obtaining planning and building permissions, selecting partner families, and coordinating volunteers and construction. Habitat is unique due to its use of sweat equity, interest-free loan, volunteerism, and donations from local resour ces. The Habitat homeowners have some control over the designing (e.g., choosing the si te, colors, and finishes of their homes) and building processes of their houses a nd full control and responsibility for home maintenance and management. Former president Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) and Jack Kemp, former secretary of Housing a nd Urban Development (1989-1993), actively supported Habitat Internati onal and brought it both nationwide and international recognition. Former president Bill Clinton ( 1993-2001) praised it as the most successful community service project in the United States (Finn, 1994). Since the establishment of Habitat, res earchers and practitioners have developed increasing interests in many as pects of Habitat, such as building techniques (Florida Power & Light Company, 2000; Partnershi p for Advancing Technology in Housing, 2002; U.S. Department of Energy, 1999), imp act of physical environment on mental conditions (Sanwu, Haberl, & Kim, 1999; Wells, N.M., 2000), financial assistance, religion and volunteerism (Ba ggett, 1998; Thurman, 1991), buildi ng social capital related

PAGE 18

5 to Habitat organizations (Hays, 2002), and the impact of Habitat houses on property value (Habitat, 2003). Importa ntly, HUD funded the Applied Real Estate Analysis (AREA), Inc. to examine the general financ ial and social benefits of homeownership from the Habitat families’ points of view (Mitchell & Warren, 1998). Finn (1994) detailed the Habitat experiences (includi ng sweat equity) as a dynamic process of empowerment in one Habitat community. Usi ng open-ended questions, she asked partner families to recall all their expe riences with Habitat after liv ing in the Habitat houses for one year. However, no studies have been found that explore sweat equity as a participatory process. How are human and so cial resources actual ly accumulated through the sweat equity process? In addition, pr evious studies have not compared Habitat families in scattered sites with those in neighborhoods to assess whether or not the human and social resources developed through the sw eat equity process persist over time. No studies have examined the role of Habitat families’ participation in the house design and planning process of their own houses. This research examines sweat equity as a process of participation, learning by doing, and sharing. Sweat equity is a holistic and dynamic process that changes the lives of partner families. This study will examine the acquisition of human and social resources in scattered sites and Habitat neighborhoods. The role of user participation in the design process will also be explored. Sweat Equity as Participation The World Bank (2002) defines partic ipation as “a process through which stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them.” The defi nition of participation by the World Bank is close to the definition of sweat equity within th e context of Habitat. Fi rst, sweat equity is

PAGE 19

6 a process which usually takes months for th e major stakeholders to accomplish. Second, during the sweat equity activities, partner families make some decisions about their houses. Finally, partner families take actions co llectively to realize th e dream of owning a home. Sweat equity in this study is the partic ipation of partner families with Habitat. Even though the World Bank’s definition explains the social influences of participation, it does not provide empirical information about participation. For example, what process gives the most control to stak eholders and over which decisions? As a selfhelp participatory pro cess, the definition of sweat equ ity in Habitat needs to address specific activities in which families take control of and are involved in planning and decision-making. What activities are included in sweat equity? What does sweat equity mean to Habitat families when they help ot hers? What does sweat e quity mean to them when they help themselves? Sweat Equity as a Learning Process According to Dewey (1913), the doing experiences often involve a learning process. He claims that learning experiences “cover all the doings that involve growth of power—especially of power to realize the meaning of what is done” (1913, p. 66). Interacting with one’s physical or social environment is nece ssary in order to acquire new skills and knowledge (Roth, 1962). Once new skills are learned, they become a part of human resources. Human resources include hum an abilities, knowle dge, skills, health, and appreciation that are accumulated either consciously by formal education and task training, or unconsciously th rough experiences (Green & Haines, 2002; Ostrom, 2000; Putnam, 2000). Human resources in this st udy refer to the knowledge and skills one acquires or sharpens through tr aining and experiential learning at the individual level.

PAGE 20

7 Is there a relationship between sweat e quity (training, construction, and public activities) and human resources ? Specifically, do they lear n maintenance and financing skills? How do they perceive their skills? How often do they practice those skills on their own? Do Habitat families learn the appropria te skills during sweat equity to accomplish all the maintenance and repairs on their own houses? If the sweat eq uity experiences did not teach Habitat families all the skills to main tain their homes, will they be able to learn how to do it by themselves when there is a ne ed? If the maintenance or repair is too complicated to be done by the family members, will they get physical or financial assistance from other Habitat nei ghbors rather than asking for he lp from Habitat? Is selfresponsibility of maintaining one’s home accu mulated or increased during sweat equity in addition to necessary sk ills and social support? Sweat Equity as a Sharing Process As part of the Habitat agenda, partner families contribute hundreds of sweat equity hours to work on other Habitat houses. In tu rn, they receive th e same help from volunteers and other partner families to bu ild their own houses. During the giving and receiving interactions, sweat equity may build the social connections or the ties among partner families. In the 1920s, L. Judson Hanifan coined the term social capital to describe the social relationships that “count for most in the daily lives of people: good will, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among the individuals and families who make up a social unit” (cited in Putnam & Gross, 2002, p. 4). Social capital generally refers to connections among individuals, in cluding social relationships and bonds that facilitate collective action in the community (Bourdieu, 1983; Coleman, 1988; Green & Haines, 2002; Hanifan, 1916; Jacobs, 1961; Putnam, 2000; Putnam & Gross, 2002). In

PAGE 21

8 the course of achieving and maintaining coll ective actions, people build social networks, norms of reciprocity, and trustworthiness, which are necessary to the development of social resources (Putnam, 2000; World Bank, 2002). In this study, social resources refer to mutual support, neighbori ng activities, neighborhood att achment, sense of obligation, and trust among the Habitat partner families at the neighborhood level. Turner (1977) believes that the real value of building and maintaining a house lies in the relationships develope d among stakeholders. Turner’s belief coincides with what Habitat believes: skills and relationships ar e the important result or outcome developed through building a physical shelter (Habitat, 2003). One fundamental basis of social capital is the generalized recipr ocity or generalized social exchange. Helping behaviors are categor ized into two main streams: one advocates that helping behaviors are performed in order to achieve for one’s own benefits (egoistic); and the othe r claims that behaviors aimed for the general benefits of all are possible (altruistic) (Allop, Fi field, & Seiter, 2002). Generali zed reciprocity includes not only intra-group but also inter-group favoriti sm. Intra-group favoritism is the mutual commitment among participants within a group: I do it for you now, expecting you or others in the same group will do something similar in turn sometime. The inter-group favoritism includes mutual commitment between group members and members outside the group: I do it for your now, expecting you or others inside or out side the group will do something in turn sometime. The idea of generalized recipr ocity supports the generalized social exchange theory. The gene ralized social exchange occurs when an individual feels obligated to give back—not directly re warding his benefactors—but other actors in a chain of social exchange (Ekeh, 1974). In Habitat, partner families first

PAGE 22

9 help other partner families and then receive direct help from other partner families, volunteers, and donors. The people a family help ed to build their houses may not be the same who come to help the family later. Ther efore, the sharing proce ss of sweat equity is characterized by generalized social exchange. In this way, trust is built (Putnam & Gross, 2002). Frequent interactions te nd to reinforce the norm of r eciprocity. Therefore, social resources originate from doing something fo r someone else. Cohen and Prusak (2001) assert that a sense of equitable participati on is embedded in the development of social capital, and as a result, a highe r level of social capital i nvites genuine participation. In Habitat, partner families help each other with house construction. Is there a relationship between sweat equity and social resources? Will this sharing process contribute to building social bonds among part ner families? To what extent do partner families know their neighbors’ names and have informal interactions? To what extent do they trust their neighbors? Afte r they move into their new houses, will they continue the mutual support for each other when there is a need, such as lending a tool, giving a car ride, babysitting for a neighbor, or giving a hand for house repairs? Why do families help their neighbors and why do they receive help? Does sweat equity help partner families realize their obligation to their neighborhoods, such as at tending activities to maintain and improve their neighborhoods in addition to their own houses? According to Mitchell and Warren (1998), the Habitat families do take pride in having helped to build their homes and feel a sense of belonging. Does th e commitment of sweat equity help partner families build a sense of community? Habitat Neighborhoods versus Scattered Sites Habitat homes may be built in scattered lots or neighborhoods. Since most partner families have lowor very lowincomes, single-parent families with similar education

PAGE 23

10 levels and ethnic backgrounds, greater segreg ation occurs in Habitat neighborhoods as compared with houses in scattered lots. Many scholars (Denton, 1999; Martinez, 2000) criticized the segregation that occurred when low-income, and often minority, families were displaced in the urban renewal programs of the 1950s. The 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act addressed the fair accessibility and afford ability of homeownership for minorities and low-income families in mobility programs a nd assisted housing programs. The Gautreaux Demonstration Project in the 1970s was the best-known mobility program, which relocated some low-income families into a racially balanced middle-class neighborhood. The participants in the demonstration showed higher satisfaction with their neighborhoods than residents with similar fi nancial status in racially unbalanced lowincome neighborhoods (Peroff, Davis, & J ones, 1979). Reducing segregation by race and income therefore has become a standard obj ective in HUD’s Strategic Plan (HUD, 2000). However, the success of the re location seemed only short-term because the integrated neighborhoods tended to re-seg regate (Carr, 1999; Farle y, Steeh, Jackson, Krysan, & Reeves, 1993; Stuart, 2002). Can housing pr oblems be solved exclusively by betterlooking physical environments or mixed-income neighborhoods? In 1997, Habitat International and 19 aff iliates collaborated with Applied Real Estate Analysis (AREA), Inc., a real estate and policy-planning corporation, to conduct a HUD study on the experiences of Habitat homeo wners. Habitat families felt safe and secure when their neighbors were other Habitat families. Although no statistical significance was found, families who live in clus ters or subdivisions expressed greater neighborhood satisfaction than t hose who live in scat tered homes. Given that safety was a

PAGE 24

11 major concern in recent Habitat projects, clusters or subdivisions were accepted development patterns (Mitchell & Warren, 1998) In other words, Habitat programs are building more segregated lowand very low-income neighborhoods when they have enough available land. Habitat families perceived clusters or subdivisions as a means to revitalize their neighborhoods, ra ther than as segregati ons (Mitchell & Warren, 1998). The high satisfaction rate of Habitat families raises suspicions about the significance of integrated race and income as appropria te for all groups in every context. Do human and social resources accumu lated through sweat equity differ in scattered sites and neighborhood settings? Are there differences between Habitat families in scattered lots and neighborhoods in how of ten they use the maintenance skills on their own houses? Will partner families in Habitat neighborhoods tend to help each other more often than families in scattered lots? In Habitat neighborhoods, will the homogeneous neighborhoods lead to segregation? Do ho meowners perceive racial and economic segregation? Sweat Equity as Design Participation Design participation refers to the extent th at a family participates in the design and planning activities of their houses and takes control over th e design and planning features of their homes. The design and planning activit ies include but are not limited to: choosing the lot, selecting the exterior and interior colors, materials, and finishes, picking layout designs and elevations, and changing design details to satisfy users’ needs. Design participation is assumed to promote contro l and the satisfaction of the end-users. However, normative statements rather than empi rical research dominate the literature to advocate the necessity of user particip ation. The World Bank (1995) stated that participation in the planning and implementati on stages of development efforts enhances

PAGE 25

12 these efforts’ impact and increases sustai nability. Finn (1994) cl aimed that choosing colors and decorations by Habitat home owners was empowering. Since she did not measure sweat equity or design participati on empirically, the findings could not help Habitat to improve the design or design pa rticipation process. In 2000, Reis (2000) examined the relationship between user part icipation and satisfaction with mass housing design in Brazil. He claimed that low-income groups wished to participate in the design process and the participation was associated with user satisfaction. However, Reis excluded other physical and social factors (e.g., neighborhood quality, neighbors, trust, and safety) that may explain user satisfaction or other influences us er participation has (e.g., pride, house maintenance, and neighborhood satisfaction). Before the actual building of one’s own hous e, Habitat allows pa rtner families to select from a minimum of the architectural f eatures (e.g., lot, layout, colors, and finishes of cabinets and walls). Not al l Habitat affiliates count thes e activities as sweat equity hours. This study explores the relationship be tween user participation in the house design and planning and satisfaction with the resu lts. What is the relationship between the number of types of design activ ities in which a family participates during sweat equity and design satisfaction, house sati sfaction, and design participat ion satisfaction? Is design participation related to the maintenance of human and social resources? How important is design participation to Habitat families? How do partner families evaluate their concurrent houses in terms of interior, exterior, and landscape design of their houses? Should Habitat expand their theory of sweat e quity and include the design participation in addition to the training, construction and mana gement processes? What other activities should be included in sweat equity?

PAGE 26

13 Significance of the Study Habitat for Humanity provides decent, sa fe, and affordable low-income housing by organizing local resources and users’ particip ation in the construction of their own houses as well as other families’ houses. Empirically defining sweat equity in the Habitat context may encourage other housing programs such as HUD to reconsider their current policies and to emulate the participatory approach to solve low-income housing problems in the United States. This study contri butes to a better understandin g of the roles of the sweat equity process to the users. Although sweat equity is context specific, a general understanding of sweat equity can help local offices to improve the sweat equity process so that low-income families may benefit more from this unique experience. Exploring the relationship between sweat equity and human and social resource development from a learning and sharing pers pective helps Habitat to solve long-term maintenance problems. As a house ages, maintenance and repair contributes to the housing problem in the long run. In studying the phenomenon of Habitat empowerment, Finn (1994) found that house maintenance a nd responsibility were problematic. The AREA (Mitchell & Warren, 1998) study also sh owed that Habitat would encounter general maintenance problems in the near future However, Habitat states that there is no maintenance problem because the maintena nce should be the partner families’ own responsibilities (Nimmo, B., personal comm unication, June 11, 2003). By examining the relationship between sweat equity and resource development, this study seeks solutions to the maintenance problems from a learning a nd sharing perspective of the sweat equity phase. As a learning process, it is theoretical ly interesting and pragmatically imperative to explore what families learn, how families share with their nei ghbors, and if and how these experiences influence their behaviors. As a sharing process, this study explores the

PAGE 27

14 generalized social exchange theory as th e basis for building and transferring social resources from sweat equity’s mutual help into neighboring experi ences after Habitat families move in their houses. This study also contributes to Habitat st rategies of house planning. No study has been found by this researcher to discuss the ma intenance of resources within two settings: scattered sites and Habitat neighborhoods. Ha bitat neighborhoods are more likely to promote residential segregation. However, the generalized social exchange theory indicates that neighborhoods ma y better maintain and use social resources. By comparing the resource maintenance and the perception of segregation within di fferent settings, the knowledge about the roles of physical settings may be useful for other low-income housing programs as well, such as HUD and USDA Rural Development housing programs. Finally, this study aims to provide evid ence of a sense of control and housing satisfaction when low-income users particip ate in their house designs within a Habitat context. Currently, Habitat families can change a minor part of the design, such as colors, finishes, and materials of certain elements Exploring the relationship between design participation and satisfaction enables a be tter understanding of the roles of design participation and efficient ways to satisfy lo w-income users’ needs. By exploring what improvements Habitat families want for their homes, this study will reveal imperative information for better and more satisf ying house and neighborhood designs. The implementation of low-income user participa tion will also be discussed within a Habitat context.

PAGE 28

15 Assumptions and Delimitations Underlying the Study Several basic assumptions are made for the research design of sweat equity as a doing, learning, and sharing process. Theoreticall y, it is assumed that the strength of the relationships between sweat equity and the skills that Habitat families learn over the entire process of participation can be a ssessed. The reciprocal relationship between people and their social and phys ical surroundings can also be studied through individual perceptions and behaviors. Tec hnically five assumptions are e ssential in this study. First, the sweat equity policies of th e participating Habitat affili ates are representative of Habitat International. Second, participating partner families are representative among all local Habitat families. Third, research participants’ self-report survey and open-ended questions are sufficient to measure the variab les. Fourth, the partner families tell the truth. Fifth, the information obtaine d is accurate, valid, and reliable. The strength of this case st udy is the quality of the deta iled information revealed by individual participants. Paired with survey measures, the im pacts of sweat equity can be quantified and then compared within two physical set tings—Habitat neighborhoods and scattered sites. However, the sweat equity experiences are practical ly related to local Habitat policies, such as the number of required hours. The lim itation in this study is that a large sample was outside the funding and time constraints of this researcher. Therefore, this study addresses only major aspects of sweat equity and its influences within three regional settings. However, w ith these findings in hand, opport unities for future research exist. The delimitation is determined by the nature of the Habitat context. This study is supported by three Habitat affiliates in north ern Florida. These affiliates differ in the amount of sweat equity hours, details of activities, and hous ing styles. But all affiliates

PAGE 29

16 want to improve their design and sweat equity process, and respect the input from the families. The sample is delimited to those who are available and are willing to help during the research period. Because the majo rity of the partner families are female African American, only female householders are included. Race is not considered as a factor in the selection of th e convenience sample. Instrument s are designed specifically to measure sweat equity, human resource devel opment, and social resource development within a Habitat context. General Research Hypotheses This study explores low-income users’ par ticipation in the pro cess of building both their own and other families’ Habitat houses. However, sweat equity needs to be redefined before testing any hypotheses. Habitat simply refers to sweat equity as the labor invested in building houses and time in self-improvement (Lassman-Eul, 2001). This definition gives only a vague idea about how to measure or operationalize sweat equity. Since house planning, construction, and mainte nance are long-term processes, should activities related to the planning and mainte nance phases be considered sweat equity? Should activities contributing to future neighborhood building be considered sweat equity as well? Although Habitat uses the amount of time to record sweat equity, there are no assigned amounts of time allocated among the va rious activities. In addition, Habitat’s definition does not specify what activities are qualified as self-impr ovement in a Habitat context. Therefore, local sweat equity policies differ in the number of hours, the types of activities, and the proportion of hours distri buted among different activities. Lacking more precise definitions, it is difficult to explain whether or not the Habitat sweat equity hours are reasonable, and what t ypes of activities benefit families most in terms of house planning, building, and maintenance.

PAGE 30

17 From a participation perspective, sweat eq uity is empirically defined as the number hours Habitat families work during sweat equity and the number of types of activities included in sweat equity. Based on the new concept of sweat equity, learning by doing and generalized social exchange theories, th ree propositions are gene rated as following: 1. Sweat equity contributes to the human and social resource development. 2. A difference exists in the maintenance of human and social resources within two different physical environments—scatte red sites and Hab itat neighborhoods. 3. A relationship exists between users’ participation in house design and the satisfaction with the results of their participation. Hypothesis 1: Sweat equity contributes to resource building as learning and sharing Because Habitat is a “hand up, not a hand out” (Fuller, 1993, p. 149) program, partner families must be actively engaged in the building pro cess of their houses. Building a house requires certain construction sk ills. For most partner families, they need to learn these skills in order to help themselves as well as others. These skills, knowledge, and perceptions one acquires or sharpens th rough training and learning are a part of ‘human resources.” By participating in th e learning-by-doing process, partner families may accumulate human resources at the individual level. Habitat also requires partner families to contribute hundreds of hours to work on other Habitat houses during the sweat equity pha se. In turn, these partner families receive the same help from volunteers and other partner families to build their own houses. During the giving and receiving interactions, partner families may build the social connections or ties at the community leve l. These are part of “social resources.” Based on learning-by-doing theory, it is hypot hesized that a) the number of sweat equity hours is associated with the amount of human and social resources accumulated through sweat equity; and b) the number of type s of activities a family participates in

PAGE 31

18 sweat equity is associated with the amount of human and social resources accumulated through sweat equity. Hypothesis 2: Resource maintenance in two settings Habitat families build houses in two types of settings: scattered lots and Habitat neighborhoods. Greater segregation occurs in Habitat neighborhoods than in scattered sites because it is likely that the percenta ge of very-low income families in Habitat neighborhoods is higher than th at in scattered sites. Howe ver, the AREA study (Mitchell & Warren, 1998) reported that Habitat families w ho lived in clusters or subdivisions were more satisfied than families who lived in sca ttered homes. This finding indicates that the physical settings of the houses may contribute to the maintenance of human and social resources acquired through sweat equity. Since the sweat equity process is structured on generalized social exchange it is hypothesized that a) a Habitat neighborhood, as opposed to houses in scattered sites, helps to build and preserve the human and social resources built through sweat equity; and b) families living in Habitat neighborhoods, as opposed to families living in scattered sites, do not feel segregated. Hypothesis 3: Sweat equity as design participation Habitat families do not have complete control over the design and planning phases. The design participation is limited to se lection from a few de sign options. Without addressing design participati on, it is unknown whether or not these selections meet and satisfy the needs of the families. Reis (2000) empirically related successful mass housing design to user participation. A ccordingly, it is hypothesized tha t: a) there is an association between the number of designrelated activities and satisfaction with the design solution; b) the number of types of design participati on is associated with house satisfaction and

PAGE 32

19 neighborhood satisfaction; and c) design partic ipation is related to the maintenance of human and social resources. Definitions and Operational Terms A conceptual framework is developed to incorporate the doing, learning, and sharing experiences of sweat equity and the impact of sweat equity on Habitat families’ lives. The framework (see Figure 2-3) is s hown and further explained in Chapter 2. Detailed information about individual variable s is available in Chapter 3. This framework is modified from Gifford’s learning m odel (Gifford, 2002, p. 299) and community psychology model (2002, p. 265). In this conceptual framewor k, participation or sweat equity is positioned as the driving factor bui lding human and social resources. This model provides theoretical guidance for exploring th e reciprocal interact ions between persons and their physical and social environments. Sweat equity refers to the extent to wh ich partner families invest in their houses, including the total number of sweat equity hours, the number of types of sweat equity activities (training, construction, public activ ities, and design participation), and the meanings of sweat equity. Human resources refer to the skills and house-related behaviors and the perceptions about the individual’s house itself. Human resources incl ude house maintenance skills, financing skills, frequency of house maintenance, pride in skills, confidence in skills, pride in house, house attachment, self-res ponsibility, self-estee m, house satisfaction, design solution satisfaction, and de sign participation satisfaction. Social resources refer to the social behaviors within the neighborhood and the perceptions of neighbors and the neighborhood. Social resources in clude neighboring, social support, neighborhood involvement, pr ide in neighborhood, satisfaction with

PAGE 33

20 neighborhood, safety, neighborhood attachment, se nse of community, trust in neighbors, reciprocity, sense of oblig ation, and segregation. Scattered sites refer to the locations wh ere there are no other Habitat homes on the same street, or where a few Habitat houses ar e on the same street but there are less than ten Habitat houses in the same block. Habitat neighborhoods refer to the locations where ten or more Habitat houses are clustered, or where Habitat houses are surrounded only by homes built by Habitat in the same block. Design participation is the extent to whic h Habitat families participate in the design and planning process of their houses. Design participation is measured by the number of types of activities related to design and planning of a house, including choosing interior colors, finishes, and layouts; exterior colo rs, finishes, and yard; selecting the lot and taking part in the neighb orhood public space planning. House satisfaction, design solution satis faction, and neighborhood satisfaction refer to the fulfillment of the house, design, and neighborhood of Habitat families’ desires or needs, respectively. See Appendix A: Survey Instruments and Appendix B: Interview Questions for detailed measures. Summary Habitat for Humanity has executed sweat equi ty to help lowand very low-income families build affordable houses in two different settings: scattered sites or Habitat neighborhoods. During the sweat equity phase families must participate in the construction of their own houses as well as the construction of ot her houses. This study first redefines sweat equity in the Habitat context. Then th is study explores if and how this participation helps the families to build human resources to maintain their houses and

PAGE 34

21 social resources to maintain their ne ighborhoods. Next, it compares which setting provides a more supporting environment for low-income families to maintain their human and social resources acq uired during the sweat equity Finally, it explores design implications from the low-income homeowner s’ point of view. Since participation is context-specific, a case study is appropriate to explore the particip atory process and the impact of sweat equity in nei ghborhoods and sca ttered sites.

PAGE 35

22 CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION The study of sweat equity, human resources and social resources is complex in nature and specific in context. There has been li ttle attention in the literature to establish a comprehensive framework to study the links between sweat equity and resources built into the housing process. The dynamic and indi vidualized sweat equity process requires an extensive literature review from multiple dimensions. This chapter introduces a new conceptualized framework built upon the theo ry of learning-by-doing and generalized social exchange. From the doing perspective, this chapter reviews th e literature of sweat equity, participation in housing, and se lf-help. From the learning and sharing perspectives, this chapter inve stigates human and social resource developments. From the design perspective, this chapter examines th e history of user participation in design process. Research approaches and instruments are discussed as well. Theoretical Background Habitat sweat equity provides low-income families a chance to change their lives. But why does Habitat help people to build a house through sweat equity instead of providing them with a house? How is sweat equity different? Dewey’s “learning-bydoing” explains sweat equity from a learni ng perspective. And the generalized social exchange theory provides a theoretical basis fo r sweat equity from a sharing perspective. Learning by Doing According to Dewey (1980), human action was a transaction between the person and the environment, during which the person wa s not just a passive vessel but also an

PAGE 36

23 actor who changed the environment. The experience connected the action with its consequences. To Dewey, learning experiences “cover all the doings that involve growth of power—especially of power to realize the meaning of what is done” (1939, p. 607). Dewey (1939) believed that the doing experi ences contain the learning process when the experiences result in personal growth. The achievement of personal growth comes not only from the experience but also the meaning constructed from it (Miettinen, 2000). In accordance with this school of thought, Rodge rs (2002) distinguished routine actions from educative actions, depending on whether or not one realizes the meanings of the action. Deweyan learning by doing inspired multiple perspectives of learning experiences, such as adult learning (Marsick & Watkins, 2001), social intera ctions during learning (Nowotny, Scott, & Gibbons, 2001; Roschelle & Clancey, 1992), problem-based learning (Argyris, 1997; Savery & Duffy, 2001), a nd experience-based learning (Andersen, Boud, & Cohen, 2000). From examining the organizat ional development in social housing and tenant participation in Britain, Reid a nd Hickman (2002) pointed out that tenant participation transformed the housing organi zation into a learning organization. The topdown participation resulted in single-loop learning, but the bottom-up participation promoted mutual learning, which potentially improved the housing organization itself (Blantern & Belcher, 1994). According to the learning-by-doing theory, sweat equity is a doing process that allows families to learn skills to build thei r houses. In Habitat, knowing how to build a house is the first task for most families who have never used a hammer. However, this know-how is not learned in a classroom. L earning is achieved th rough building a house

PAGE 37

24 and working with other persons. The personal growth can refer to human resources (knowledge, technical skills, perceptions, and so forth) and social resources (social skills, trust, network, sense of community, and so forth). Since families help others first and receive help from volunteers in return, sweat equity may i nvolve social learning through this mutual sharing process. All activities in sweat equity require Habitat families to partner with others to do something for other people as well as for themselves, such as working in a Habitat office, babysitting for other families’ children, and building houses together. The families have a chance to learn and share something, and they can use these learned experiences for personal growth. Dewey’s pragmatic learning-by-doing theo retically guides th is study of sweat equity as a learning process. The logic of these sharing experiences may be supported by the generalized social exchange theory. Generalized Social Exchange The learning-by-doing occurs when indivi duals interact with their physical and social environment. Proper social interactions or exchanges in a social environment will encourage the learning experiences (Dewey, 1939). The concept of social exchange is derived from the belief that people construct and maintain sufficient social interactions because “no man is an island” (Schroeder, Penner, Dovidio, & Piliavin, 1995, p. 219). People are interdependent rather than independent, and colla borative social exchange is necessary for human survival and self-advance. Two social exchange theories, the British individualistic and French collectivistic or ientations, were developed based on whether behaviors were explained by self-interests or norms and obligations (Ekeh, 1974). Homans used the cost and reward concepts to explain social exchange behaviors between two parties for both economic and psychological needs. His individualistic

PAGE 38

25 social exchange theory was built upon the self-interest theory, that society resulted from the needs required by individua ls or subgroups (Ekeh, 1974). Levi-Strauss explained the collective so cial phenomena as the result of the collective unconscious of the human mind (Ekeh, 1974). Levi-Strauss coined the term generalized exchange to describe a social system th at needed equality, partnerships, credit, and trust for the continuity of interact ions. The generalized so cial exchange occurs when an individual feels obligated to give back to any actors in the chain of social exchange. Ekeh (1974) distinguished tw o forms of generalized exchange: groupgeneralized exchange and network-genera lized exchange. In the group-generalized exchange, individuals pool their economic, physical, or human resources and receive benefits generated by the collaborative activit ies. In the network-generalized exchange, a person who helps others does not expect return benefits directly from the same person. Instead, an individual receives a ssistance or benefits from the others whom he or she may not even know. Similar, Allop, Fifiel d, and Seiter (2002) used the term intra-group favoritism and inter-group favoritism to distinguish generalized reciprocity or exchange, depending on whether or not the mutual commitment is limited only to the group. This network-based relationship or the inter-group favorit ism encourages individuals to be more active, and it involves mo re interactions and responsib ilities (Yamagishi & Cook, 1993). Mutual trust and the norm of reciproc ity are the basis for constructing and maintaining a continuing social exchange ne twork, which, in turn, promotes mutual trust and reinforces reciprocity (Ekeh, 1974). Netw ork-based community participation is built upon the norms of reciprocity: I do it for you now, and I expect you or others will do

PAGE 39

26 something similar in turn sometime for me In this way, trust is built along with the development of social cap ital (Putnam & Gross, 2002). Fr equent intera ctions among a diverse set of people tend to produce a nor m of generalized reci procity. Based on the mutual obligations, it benefits not only the participants but also outsiders as well. Once the social exchange system is normalized, it becomes the norm of reciprocity. Social relations create values th rough generalized social inte ractions (Putnam, 2000). Sweat equity requires families to build a house along with those who are in need. This participation involves th ree stages of social excha nges: 1) learning construction skills from Habitat staff or other families; 2) helping others in Habitat offices, thrift stores, or others families’ houses; and 3) be ing helped when volunteers come to build one’s own house. This participatory process requ ires one to help others first and accepts assistance from the same person or other person s sometime in the near future. In other words, this sweat equity process contains ge neralized social exchanges that may promote human and social skill development. Requiring partner families to help others first before receiving help eliminates the possibility of “free riders” th at take the benefits without giving back to the common good in this sweat equity exchange. Partner families meet new people and work together to solve their housing problems. This social exch ange is generalized rather than on a one-toone basis. Therefore, it is assumed that the trust and the giving-taki ng pattern persist after sweat equity is completed because these gene ralized social exchanges are network-based. Families may feel obliged to give back to their neighbors and neighborhoods after receiving help from volunteers. By setting up the norm of giving-receiving by Habitat, it is expected that this norm of reciprocity a nd the trust built through sweat equity will be

PAGE 40

27 maintained better if Habitat families live together in one neighborhood rather than live sparsely in scattered sites. During the network-based generalized so cial exchanges in sweat equity, doing, learning, and sharing enable Habitat families to solve their housing problems collectively. However, there have been no existing m odels within Habitat studies that have incorporated all three aspects of sweat equity. The literatur e shows that the research on participation is inadequate and inconsiste nt in definition and measures (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Perkins, Brown, & Ta ylor, 1996; Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman, & Chavis, 1990; Prestby, Wande rsman, Florin, Rich, & Chavis, 1990). A new conceptual framework that involves part icipation, learning by doing, and sharing is critical to understanding what sweat equity is and the imp act of sweat equity to the residents. Conceptual Framework The conceptual model of learning by doing in a Habitat context (see Figure 2-1) is adapted from Gifford’s informal learning mode l and cognitive and behavioral model in a physical community. Gifford (2002) defined le arning as “a relatively permanent change in behavior that occurs as [a] result of experience” (p. 299). Gifford proposed a general framework (2002, p. 299) to describe how student s learn in formal learning settings. In his learning model, the personal charac teristics of students interact with the physical and social setting, and these inter actions produce learning attitudes and learning behaviors. However, he did not incorporate the doing as a pr ocess in his model. Gifford also did not specify the process of lear ning or the outcomes of learning. Without emphasizing the learning as a process, it wa s challenging to identif y what people learned and how to improve the learning experience.

PAGE 41

28 Figure 2-1. Simplified model from Gifford’s framework of conceptualizing personenvironment relations in learning settings (2002). In another model that explai ned residents’ cognitive a nd behavioral responses to their physical community, Gifford (2002, p. 265) included the learning outcomes and regarded design as an essential part of the environment-psychology cycle (see Figure 22). But in this model residents were static and passive players, and he ignored the interaction between persons and their physical environment. Figure 2-2. Simplified Gifford’s model fo r urban environmental psychology (2002). A new model was needed to fit the learni ng experience in a low-income residential setting with very special background: homes built by the homeowners who were organized by Habitat for Humanity. After extensive readings about participation, housing, human and social resources, a new model (see Figure 2-3) was proposed. The new model positions learning-by-doing (sweat eq uity as participation) as the driving force, and considers outcomes in terms of human and social resour ce building. Physical Personal characteristics of learners Physical features of the learning setting Social-organizational climate Learning-related attitudes Learning behaviors Resident characteristics Physical community Community cognitions Behavior in the community Urban planning

PAGE 42

29 settings and residents’ charac teristic may influence the outcomes as well. In comparison to Gifford’s models, this framework expl ores the learning as a process. Learning activities, residents’ character istics, and physical settings to gether influence the physical and social outcomes or resources. Therefore, residents are regarded as active learners rather than passive recipients. Since the literature review was intensive, the new framework was introduced as a guiding framework for the literature review. Based on the conceptualized framework, the following sections review sweat equity as housing participati on, investigate human and social resource developments, and evaluate the impact of geographic segreg ation on housing. User’s involvement in the design process will be addressed as design participation. Research approaches and instruments are also discussed. Figure 2-3. Conceptualized framework for sweat equity in a Habitat context. General Background Information Habitat for Humanity partners with volunteers, churches, local businesses, foundations, governments, organizations, and people in need. Government funding is Participation Sweat Equity For example: Learn to help/build Build with sharing Participate in design Outcomes For example: Human Resource Development Social Resource Development Residents’ Characteristics For example: Age Education Income Physical Settings For example: Houses in scattered sites Habitat neighborhoods

PAGE 43

30 used to acquire land and construct infrastructure such as streets, side walks, and utilities, but federal funding is prohibited from build ing and renovating or for administrative purposes. Though Habitat is a Christian organiza tion, it welcomes everyone regardless of race, color, or creed. Houses are financed w ith interest-free loans. Although sweat equity is a required commitment of Habitat families, it is broadly defined as the willingness to work. The work Habitat families do includes a variety of activities, such as working in a thrift store, babysitting for others, painting one’s house, and attend ing training courses. The partner families must meet certain requirements for income and concurrent living conditions and be willing to commit sweat e quity on other families’ houses as well as their own. Sweat equity starts after families ar e identified as being eligible for the Habitat program and ends when they move into th eir new homes. The required sweat equity hours usually range from 300 to 500 hours. Local Habitat affiliates decide how to distribute the hours among i ndividual activities. Sweat Equity as Participation Completing the minimum sweat equity hour s is mandatory in a Habitat program. During these sweat equity hours, families part icipate in the proce ss of building other families’ houses as well as their own houses. Most people use the term sweat equity or participation without a clear understanding about what it is and what it means to the residents. This section traces user particip ation in housing, self-help housing as a special type of user participation in housing, and sweat equity as a unique means in Habitat selfhelp housing. Participation The concept of participation is ope n and context-specific. The term participation first appeared in the 14th century, referring to “the act of participating” or “the state of

PAGE 44

31 being related to a larger whole” (Merriam-Webster, 2003). Synonyms of participation include citizen involvement cooperation, and self-decisi on. Generally participation implies the presence of the users and taking co ntrol in defining the problem, elaborating the solution, and evalua ting of the results. Housing, in this study, is regarded as a meaningful process ra ther than a product (Turner, 1977). In addition to the house’s phys ical forms and market value, the meanings or values are added to a house through th e users’ participation in the planning and designing, building, and maintaining processes of their houses. Accord ingly, participation in housing should be understood in each of these three stages. Many researchers emphasized citizen participation in the pla nning stage (Cressey, Ma rtino, Bal, Treu, & Traynor, 1987), such as consulting and public hearings, and in the maintenance stage, such as volunteerism, voting, a nd community meetings (Langton, 1978). Some scholars addressed participation in the design pr ocess (Reis, 2000; Sanoff, 1992b). The World Bank (2002) addressed the importance of c ontrol and decision-making and defined participation as “a process th rough which stakeholders infl uence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them.” According to the World Bank’s definition, user participat ion has been mostly ignored in the lowincome housing history of the United States. Federal low-income housing agencies a nd programs in the United States were established to relieve the depressed economic and social conditions during the 1920s and 1930s. During the early period of subsidized housing history, the Housing Division of the Public Works Administration (PWA) aimed to revitalize business di stricts by preventing the middle-class from fleeing to suburbs and by stimulating larg e-scale building in

PAGE 45

32 downtown areas. The low-qualit y, low-income housing in cen tral cities was seen as a threat to the business district s and an economic burden to ta xpayers. Slum-clearance and new construction of public housing brought c ities immediate economic benefits and social relief from urban sprawl (Coulibaly, Green, & James, 1998). In 1937, the U.S. Housing Authority (US HA) replaced PWA to provide financial and technical assistance to local Public Housing Authorities (PHA), addressing unemployment problems and the shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary units for lowincome families. Under the “equivalent elim ination” that require d building a new public housing unit with each destroyed unit, local authorities could decide where and how much public housing to build. During urban re newal, low-income families from central areas were displaced. The low-income families had no control over where to move. As a result, the number of low-income families (mostly minorities) living in substandard housing increased. Often, relocation created ra cial and income segregation within lowincome housing. Low-income housing policies in the United States do not directly respond to the needs of the low-income families, but instead to the economic and social needs of the mainstream of the society. Federal low-in come housing programs focus on the rental market rather than homeownership, and recipi ents get direct subsidies with no means to influence the housing process until they m ove in. Even though currently the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developmen t (HUD) requires citi zen participation at the state level in the Consolidated Plan fo r community development, participation is usually regarded as the outcome or byproduct at the community level rather than an influential drive at the individual level. De bates have occurred over the effectiveness of

PAGE 46

33 this “top-down” citizen participation. Green and Haines (2002) criticized such models and declared that there was no power for th e low-income residents to make critical decisions. Consequently, user pa rticipation is only superficial when and if there is any in low-income housing policies. Although HUD currently keeps a low profile on promoting genuine user participation in low-income housing, resear chers advocated participation because it was beneficial to the well-being of homeowners as well as to their neighborhoods and to society (Bruin & Cook, 1997; Florin & Wandersman, 1990; Pe rkins et al., 1996; Perkins et al., 1990; Rohe & Basolo, 1997; Rohe & Stegman, 1994b; Schmidt, 1998; Taggart, 1995). But in these studies, participation was regarded either as the number of organizations or neighborhood meetings a pers on attended or as a byproduct of other social factors. Finn (1994) identified sweat equity as a process of empowerment among Habitat homeowners. However, she did not have quantitative data to support her statements. Participation needs to be positio ned as a dynamic yet measurable input from the end-users rather than being a static number of organizations or meetings. Reis (2000) found that resident s prefer user participati on in the design process to user remodeling after the construction is complete. But federal housing programs seem reluctant to give up the control over the housing processes (Hase ll & Scanzoni, 2000). Compared to HUD programs, non-profit self-help housing programs incorporate participation into daily practice. Self-help housing Self-help housing (SHH) is a special type of partic ipation in housing that minimizes costs for housing through individu al sweat equity. Margolis and Turner (Harms, 1982) identified three types of SHH in the United St ates: independent SHH, in

PAGE 47

34 which users decide what and how to build without external help; organized SHH, in which users enter a program and become i nvolved in a part of decision-making; and employed SHH, in which users enter a progr am and receive minimum pay. Harms (1982) defined self-help housing as “housing produced directly by the users, individually or collectively” (p. 45). In colonial America, self-help housing was the most common practice for housing provision, which involved the families’ own sweat and the help from friends, neighbors, and local craftsmen. The house planning and design usually satisfied users’ needs. As the society shifted from farms to cities and indus try with an increasing division of labor and organizations, houses were produced and distri buted in an increasin gly complex process for the accumulation of profit. Controlled by the relationship between supply and demand, housing production became a capital istic commodity exchange, and housing distribution facilitated stratifi cation of a society according to income levels, not to needs (Harms, 1982). Yet in capitalistic societie s, SHH recurs whenever and wherever capitalism is weak and affordable housing is not available, such as in developing countries or rural areas in developed countries. The United States uses a filtering process to stratify housing needs. When a natural filtering process cannot keep up with the gr owing demands, government intercedes. The first federal attempt was employed during the Great Depression. In the 1930s, the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) and U.S. Housing Aut hority (USHA) were created to assist the urban poor. Federal assistance was only able to shelter less than 10% of the eligible lowincome population (Coulibaly et al., 1998). Since federal re sources were completely inadequate given the scale of the problem, self-help became a popular form of social

PAGE 48

35 support and behavior change (Cherniss & Ch erniss, 1987). The first significant public SHH effort was conducted by the County Relief Board of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania in 1933. Unemployed coal miners built self-sufficient communities together. By 1940, participants complete d approximately 250 homes (Harms, 1982; Spohn, 1972). In the 1940s, Puerto Rico set up a mutual-help program to resettle those who lost job or lands in a huge crisis of unemployment. Under political and racial pressures in the late 1960s, federal housing ag encies felt the need for alternatives to provide low-income housing without increasi ng the public burden. In 1968, the Housing and Home Finance Agency, the predecessor of HUD, conducted a study on the self-help phenomenon “in the construction, rehabilita tion, and maintenance of housing for low income persons and families and the methods of selecting, involvi ng, and directing such persons and families in self-help activities” (Spohn, 1972, pp. 23-24). The study showed that SHH could reduce construction costs through unpaid labor, management, and volunteerism. However, HUD was ultimately not interested in SHH because HUD was structured to serve the hous ing industry, not individuals (Grindley, 1972; Harms, 1982; Spohn, 1972; Turner, 1977). After the HUD Act of 1970 repealed self-help demonstration projects for managerial reasons, HUD kept a low profile in SHH by providing limited technical assistance and funding to non-profit organizations. The only direct involvement of HUD is in the Mu tual Self-Help Housing program by Rural Housing and Community Development Services in U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Spohn, 1972). Self-help discussions during the 1960s and 1970s were oriented to squatter housing and substandard housing in developing countries. Advocates considered it SHH a positive

PAGE 49

36 solution to housing and social problems because housing was constructed, and it encouraged an individual’s independence fr om political, economic, and historical contexts (Turner, 1977). Turner (1977) be lieved that taking control over decisionmaking, self-building, and managing became the key factors for a better physical environment, higher satisfaction, and great er self-responsibility. Arizmendi (2003) asserted that SHH gave low-income people an opportunity to rec ognize that they could change their homes, their community, and thei r lives. In a comparis on study of a self-help rehabilitation program and other subsidiz ed housing programs, self-help had more positive impact on residents and their livi ng environment (Turner, 1977). The “bottomup” user participation is th e key factor of SHH during wh ich housing democratizes and empowers. The SHH approach, however, received critic ism for its short-term benefits and nontheoretical implications to the society. The opponents questioned whether or not SHH was an adequate basis for low-income housi ng for political, economical, and ideological reasons (Burgess, 1982). The criticism was focused on management (lack of quality control, services, and endur ance), the government’s low commitment to long-term solutions, and the social inequality caus ed by extensive unpaid labor of unskilled homeowners (Harms, 1982; Ward, 1982). In other words, SHH solved low-income housing problems “at the expense of the user s, while capital accumulation processes are kept intact” (Harms, 1982, p. 51). However, the opponents of SHH ignored the social gains through self-help housi ng: empowerment at the indivi dual level and local level (Tait, 1997; Turner, 1982). Tait ( 1997) suggested that SHH could be more effective if the SHH approach involved the neighbors, as we ll as local and state planners. Although the

PAGE 50

37 SHH approach could not provide mass hous ing production as HUD policies aimed at, it significantly changes the lives of the self-helpers who take control over the planning, designing, and building proce sses of their own houses w ith their sweat equity. Sweat equity in Habitat In general, sweat equity incorporates both the doing behavior and value of the labor. In dictionaries, sweat equ ity is defined as “equity in a property resulting from labor invested in the improvements that increas e its value” or “the labor so invested” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2003). Th e American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000) claims that ow nership is a part of sweat equity. In the housing industry, sweat equity is often related to homeownership and control over one’s living space. The tenant-landlor d relationship discourages sweat equity because it is difficult to determine the owners hip of the equity added through a tenant’s sweat (Harris, 2003). Long before “do-it-yourse lf” (DIY) was coined, owners built equity into their houses by investi ng their own labor. The houses may start from scratch or sometimes homeowners buy an unfinished “she ll” and decorate the interiors (Harris, 2003). Since the late 19th and early 20th centuries, building regulations in citi es set stricter requirements for health and safety consider ations. For example, electric equipment and plumbing should be installed by union labor. It became difficult for future amateur homeowners to have all the necessary skills to build a new home. Industrialization also discourages the sweat equity approach by shifting housing provisi ons and distribution into the hands of a free housing market and the filtering process. Established in the 1930s, the FHA and USHA intervened in the low-income housing process by providing low-rent public housing and federal government insurance of individual home mortgages at market interest rate. After World War II, the prevailing needs of housing for returning

PAGE 51

38 veterans and the ever-expanding urbanism accelerated the gap between what government intervention and the free market produced a nd the housing needs (United Nations Center for Human Settlements [UNCHS], 1999). In the 1950s and 1960s, sweat equity again showed the potential to solve a part of the housing problems. Habitat for Humanity was an innovation of sweat equity by a legendary figure in the 1970s. Millard Fuller, a young millionaire, found that the expanding affluence could not give him health, integrity, and a solution to his marriage crisis. After re-evaluating his life, Fuller and his wife Linda gave away all their wealth and starte d over (Baggett, 2003; Giri, 2002). In December 1965, the Fullers first visited Koinonia Farms, an interracial, self-sufficient Christian farming community in southwestern Georgia. About two and a half years later, Fuller and C. Jordan, the Founder of Koinonia Farms, initiated a program called Koinonia Partners addressing partnership farmi ng, partnership industries, and partnership housing. The partnership housing pr ogram helps to build non-profit houses on the basis of a partnership between the Ko inonia Farms and the homeowners. Families invested their own sweat into their houses with volunteers. Families paid no-interest loans with which more houses could be bui lt. The partnership housing later became the primary focus of Koinonia Partners Other than working within Koinonia Farms, the Fullers tested the sweat equity model in Za ire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) for three years. When they came back to Koinonia Farms in 1976, Fuller summoned a three-day conference with 27 committed frie nds during which the Habitat for Humanity was born (Baggett, 2003). Habitat refers to sweat equity as the “labor that Habitat homeowners expend in building their houses and the houses of their neighbors, as well as the time they spend

PAGE 52

39 investing in their own self-improvement” (L assman-Eul, 2001). Defi ned by Ocala Habitat for Humanity, sweat equity is “the physical labor the partner family put under [into] building of their home to replace the traditio nal monetary down payment” (Nimmo, B., personal communication, June 11, 2003). These de finitions emphasize the physical labor in relation to building houses, but they ignore the activities in relati on to building social relations and a sense of community. Since Habi tat does not specify in detail the nature of the labor activities in which a family shoul d participate and how the family’s time should be divided among different activities, Habitat families do different tasks even within one affiliate. The above definition does not explain the term self-improvement clearly, and it does not indicate what values sweat equity adds. Fuller (2000) asserted that Habitat “build pride and confidence by involving families in the construction of their own ho mes and encouraging them to help other families become Habitat homeowners” (p. 31). He emphasized the importance of partnership because it generate d sharing of many resources in addition to homes (Giri, 2002, p. 50). In a report of community build ing, Torjman (1998) claimed that sweat equity was a form of human capital with whic h to create affordable housing. But he did not regard sweat equity as a form of social capital for the homeowners. Commissioned by HUD in 1997, the Applied Re al Estate Analysis (AREA), Inc. worked with Habitat for Humanity Interna tional and local affilia tes to conduct a study about Habitat homeownership experiences. Th e AREA study conclude d that Habitat was “structured to nurture families and break the poverty cycle—not just provide an affordable house” (Mitchell & Warren, 1998, p. VI-4 ). It indicated that sweat equity allowed Habitat families to gain resources or values other than just physical

PAGE 53

40 environments. Since the AREA study measured neither the sweat equity nor the results of sweat equity, it was unable to empirically defi ne the specific impact of sweat equity to the families. According to the nature of activities a family may encounter, sweat equity in Habitat is then re-defined as the time and e ffort in which partner families invest through learning by doing to collectively build and main tain their physical resources, as well as human and social resources. The physical resources, or physical capital, include individual houses and neighborhoods. Human resources include knowledge, construction and maintenance skills, commitment, self-e steem, perceptions of skills, and so forth. Social resources include soci al connections, trust, a sens e of community, and so forth. Both human and social resour ces are necessary for homeowners to act collectively and maintain their houses and neighborhoods. Th e new definition first emphasizes sweat equity 1) as a process by setting the ti me requirement; 2) as participation through investing one’s own effort; 3) as an enlightening process th rough learning by doing; 4) as a sharing experience by doing coll ectively; and 5) as a resource development process to reflect the idea of self-improvement. Although the concept does not specify individual activities in sweat equity, it in dicates that all activities in relation to the building and maintaining of one’s physical, human, and social resources could account for sweat equity. Sweat equity is also used by other non-pr ofit organizations to eliminate substandard housing. For example, the Self-Help Opport unity Program, Mutual Self-Help Program, and USDA Rural Development all use sweat equ ity. Examining what sweat equity is and what it means to the homeowners potential ly contribute to al l low-income housing

PAGE 54

41 programs that are using or have the potential to use sweat equity as a means to build affordable and decent homes. In sum, building a Habitat home is an organized self-help process. Habitat affiliates raise funds, obtain planning and building permits select partner families, and coordinate volunteers and construction. A low-income fa mily enters the program and becomes the major stakeholder who helps other families build their homes. Although Habitat is not a self-run organization by the people in need, partner families do have some control over the designing, building process of their homes, and full control and responsibility for the completed home’s maintenance and manage ment. Through the sweat equity process, Habitat not only provides low-income people w ith the financial and technical assistance, but also shows these families the housing process. Although building a house is a onetime project, a home is a long-term project in te rms of maintenance, re pairs, redecoration, and financial management. In this study, sweat equity is the partic ipation of Habitat partner families. Sweat equity usually takes months for the partner families to accomplish. During the sweat equity process, partner families make some design-related decisions about their houses. They learn new skills, work hundreds of hours on their houses and the houses of others, pay for their houses, and take the responsibility to maintain it. Fuller believed that sweat equity built pride and a sense of respons ibility, which was reflected in the good maintenance and care given to Habitat houses. The key factors to understand sweat equity as a participation process in clude: 1) how many hours sweat equity requires; 2) what types of activities families do during sweat equity; and 3) what sweat equity means to the users.

PAGE 55

42 As participation, sweat equity directly contributes to the construction of physical houses and infrastructure. Since families learn new skills and interact with other people during sweat equity, exploring what fam ilies learn is necessary for a holistic understanding of sweat equity. Sweat Equity as Learning and Sharing In addition to physical houses, the other re sources that families may acquire include human and social capital (reso urces), which together influe nce the physical environment (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2001). Some effects of human and social capital on econom ic and physical capital may take longer to emerge. When partner families learn new skills and work with other people to build their respective houses, the sweat equity process en courages human and social capital building in addition to the development of physical houses. Human resource development New skills and knowledge are acquired through interacting with one’s physical or social environment (Dewey, 1939; Roth, 1962). These acquisitions are a part of human resources. Human resources include human abilities, knowledge, skills, health, appreciation, and other talent s. Researchers also refer to human resources as human capital to emphasize the productivity of hu man resources (Cassidy & Jake, 2002; Green & Haines, 2002). Human resource or capital is a relatively new concept. La bor, land, physical capital, and social capital were the four basic f actors of production in economics. Beginning in the early 1960s, the quality of labor aroused large-scale a ttention. It was believed that through education and training, workers’ productivity would be improved, and consequently the earning-based investment in human capital could be returned. Ostrom

PAGE 56

43 defined human capital as “the required knowledge and skills that an individual brings to an activity” (2000, p. 175). The Organi zation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2001) defined human capital in a broader sense as the “knowledge, skills, competencies and attributes embodied in individuals that facilitate the creation of personal, social and economic well-being.” The knowledge and skills can be acquired from formal educati on and training and informal l earning in daily interactions. In many housing programs, human resources are invested in th e form of social services and adult education (Torjman, 1998). Habitat beli eves that the learned construction skills encourage individuals to stand on their own feet in terms of taking care of their homes. The term human resource instead of human capital is used in this study to address the skills and perceptions one immediately acq uires or sharpens to build and maintain one’s house and neighborhood through learning by doing. Habitat families need to build and take care of their houses. These skills can be accumulated either consciously by seminar and task training or unconsciously through field experiences. Through formal training, Habitat families learn about house hold budgeting and how to be a homeowner. The unconscious investments in human re sources continue in the building and volunteering process. Human resource is f undamental to building and maintaining the environment. Some researchers (Barro, 2001; Cohe n & Prusak, 2001; Cohen, 1988) were interested in human resources at the organi zational level rather than at the individual level. For example, according to the United Nations Center for Human Settlements (UNCHS), capacity building included human resources and leadership development, training, institutional reform, organizational a nd managerial development at three levels:

PAGE 57

44 policy, institution, and community (UNCHS, 1999). When Nye and Glickman (2000) studied organizations, resources, networks programs, and political capacity among community partners, they r ealized the importance of l earning to the non-profit organizations, but not to th e residents. There is an emerging need to study human resources from the user’s perspective. The AREA study reported that Habitat families rated the training through the Habitat program as being helpful or very helpful (Mitchell & Warren, 1998). But the study did not identify what families learned from training and failed to recognize the informal “learning-by -doing” during the daily interactions with their physical and social environments. Social resource development By working with volunteers and other partner families, Habitat families may develop certain social resour ces that are essential for th e maintenance of a neighborhood. Social resources, also known as social capital refer to the social connections (network) among individuals or the ties that facilitate collective action, build trust, self-esteem, a sense of community, and mutual support in the community (Bourdieu, 1983; Coleman, 1988; Green & Haines, 2002; Putnam 2000; Putnam & Gross, 2002). In the 1920s, L. J. Hanifan coined the term social capital to describe the tangible social resources in the daily life of ordi nary people: good will, friendship, sympathy, and social interaction (Putnam & Gross, 2002). Si nce then, social capital was used in the analysis of city neighborhoods (Jacobs, 1961), the labor market (Loury, 1987), the relationship with human capital (Coleman, 1988), and the social capital at different levels (Fukuyama, 1995; Putnam, Leonardi, & Nanetti, 1993). In the literature, discussions were focused on what qualified as social capital rath er than what constitu ted it (Uphoff, 2000). Uphoff (2000) suggested rigorous analysis of social capital in participation. He used

PAGE 58

45 structural social capital to define the tangible social orga nizations and related rules, networks, and procedures. Cognitive social capit al was used to describe intangible mental processes, such as trust, cooperation, norms, values, attitudes, and beliefs. Putnam (2000) used the informal and formal infrastructure of an organization to de scribe the relationship between insiders and outsiders. The formal pattern of connections included being a member of an organization and attending meeti ngs at church, unions, or political parties. The informal social connections referred to interactions among peopl e, such as having coffee with family members, playing baseba ll with friends, and lending a tool to a neighbor (Putnam, 2000). Since social resource development is cont ext-specific, social sciences, community psychology, and community development have di fferent emphases on certain aspects of social resources in the setting. In the social sciences, scholars favor norms, networks, trust, and levels of engagement or interaction in social activ ities (Hays, 2002; OECD, 2001; Putnam, 2000). Kleit (2001) compared the social ties for l ooking for a job between female public housing residents living in small clusters in a non-poor area and those in a dispersed housing pattern. She found that disperse d residents had neighborhood soci al networks with greater diversity, although they used their neighbors less frequently to look for a job than people living in clusters. The dispersed residents did not feel close to their neighbors, compared to residents in clusters. Although Kleit em phasized job-hunting, her study indicated that the clusters promoted a sense of closene ss among low-income residents, which might contribute to a better nei ghborhood. Saegert, Winkel, and Swartz (2002) surveyed 487 buildings in New York and identified three co mponents of social capit al that were related

PAGE 59

46 to crime prevention. These components were ba sic participation in tenant association activities, norms, and formal participati on in building leadership, management, and maintenance. The informal neighboring activ ities were found not significant to crime prevention. Homeownership, build ing characteristics, and hou sing policy might influence the effectiveness of social capital. In community psychology, scholars addresse d the psychological aspects of social capital, such as sense of community (Cha vis, Hogge, McMillan, & Wandersman, 1986; Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Cochrun, 1994; McMillan, 1996; McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Perkins et al., 1990; Pretty, 1990); co mmunity attachment (John, Austin, & Baba, 1986; Riger, 2001); neighborhood attachment (Crenshaw & John, 1989; Wells, 2000; Woolerver, 1992); residentia l attachment (Fried, 1982) ; and neighborhood cohesion (Buckner, 1988; Litwak, 1961). Temkin a nd Rohe (1998) studied the relationship between social capital and the stabil ity of a neighborhood. Acknowledging the few efforts to measure social capital at a nei ghborhood level, they used voting, resident volunteerism and presence of neighborhood or ganization to examine the institutional infrastructure. They used affective attachment facilities for social interaction, a sense of community and neighboring activities (visiting, helping, and borrowing items) to measure the social-cultural milieu of a neighborhood. Th ey found that loyalty and attachment to neighborhood explained stability while neighboring and spatial distribution of residents’ friends and relatives were not significant to predict stability. They pointed out, however, that their study could not respond to how to build social capital in neighborhoods. Prezza and Costantini (1998) explored the relati onship between sense of community, life satisfaction, self-esteem, perceived social support and satisfact ion with community

PAGE 60

47 services in a small town, a small city, and a ci ty in Italy. The results showed that sense of community and life satisfaction were higher in the small town as compared with in the larger communities. Although Chavis and ot her researchers (1986) expected that homeownership and living in the community for years would encourage a higher sense of community, Prezza and Costantini’s study did no t find that association, which might be explained by the cultural differe nces of the specific setting. In community development, social resources were explored through the relationships among homeownership, neighbor hood, and satisfacti on. The literature indicates that homeownership plays a role in house maintenance and repairs (Galster, 1983; 1987; 2003; Mayer, 1981), an d homeowners may acquire do it yourself skills for house repair, negotiating with c ontractors and plumbers, and seeking refinancing (Boehm & Schlottman, 1999; Green & White, 1997). Home owners are more likely to participate in informal social participation (Hunter, 1975; Jeffers & Dobos, 1984), in commitment to neighborhood (Austin & Baba, 1990), and in investing more in building positive relationships and helping networks am ong neighbors (Coleman, 1988; Coleman, 1990). Ellen and Turner (1997) investigated how neighborhood conditions impact families and children through a literature re view and census tracts. Altho ugh the results showed that neighborhoods mattered, they suggested usi ng both qualitative and quantitative methods to capture the true mean ing of life experiences an d how neighborhoods influence people’s lives. Greenberg (1999) collected 309 su rvey responses to study the relationship between rating neighborhood quali ty and neighborhood attribut es and personality. He found that associations existed between poor neighborhood quality and crime, vandalism and physical decay, mistrust of authority, ne gative emotions, pessimism, and a lack of

PAGE 61

48 control. But he did not addr ess intervention. Should people improve the quality of the neighborhood to address crime and vandalism, or does taking control br ing trust, prevent physical decay, and thus impr ove the neighborhood quality? Within a Habitat context, Baggett (2003) and Giri (2002) explored the religion aspects and the social capital of Habitat at the organizational level. Hays (2002) studied qualitatively citizen involvement in commun ity housing as a faith-based expansion of social capital within nine Habitat affiliates, focusing on volunteers and paid staff. He found that the created one-on-one linkage between the volunteers and the families contributed little to the overall neig hborhood. Habitat empowered families by giving them more control over their housing situa tion and developing building and maintenance skills. But Habitat failed to promote the co llective actions among low-income families to deal with their community housing problems. Since Hays interviewed only the volunteers and the paid staff, these findings represente d only the perception of the organization, not how families actually feel about themselv es and their neighborhoods. Wells (2000) examined the relationship between house quality and psychological well-being among Habitat families. Even though Wells found pos itive results, she admitted that other factors might influence the psychological well-being for Habitat families, such as sweat equity participation, homeownership, and neighborhood characteristics. Based on generalized social exchange theo ry and the social resource development in Habitat, it is assumed that Habitat neighborhoods—instead of scattered Habitat houses—better support the resources built th rough sweat equity. In the AREA study (Mitchell & Warren, 1998), families reported feel ing safe by living close to other partner families. The finding indicated that the trust to other partner families persisted after

PAGE 62

49 families move into their homes. Geogra phical proximity may facilitate supportive interactions among Habitat families who alr eady have built trust with each other. Noticing that Habitat homeowners are families with low and very low incomes, would the geographical proximity of Habitat homes co mpared to houses in scattered sites have a negative impact as well as a positive impact? Physical Settings Habitat houses are built on avai lable lands, acquired at a lo w price. Usually the lots are disconnected so Habitat houses are separa ted from each other. When Habitat acquires a bigger lot that can accomm odate more houses, a Habitat cluster or neighborhood is formed. According to the AREA study (M itchell & Warren, 1998), houses are built in scattered lots “where there are no other Habi tat homes on the homeow ner’s street” (p. IV27). Other houses are built in clusters “w here the homeowner’s block includes other Habitat households but is not exclusively de veloped with Habitat homes” or subdivisions “where the homeowner is surrounded on the street only by homes built by Habitat” (Mitchell & Warren, 1998, p. IV-27). “Scattered sites” refers to the locations where there are no other Habitat homes on the same street, or where a few Habitat houses are on the same street but there are less than ten Habitat houses in the same bl ock. “Habitat neighborhoods” refers to the locations where ten or more than ten Hab itat houses are clustere d, or where Habitat houses are surrounded only by homes built by Habitat in the same block. Since Habitat householders are normally singl e-parent minorities with low and very low incomes, building a Habitat neighbor hood raises questions about segregation. Although often used in sociology, politics, and social sciences, there is little agreement about definitions and measures of segr egation (Duncan & Duncan, 1955; Massey &

PAGE 63

50 Denton, 1988; White, 1983). Residential segreg ation considers the racial and ethnic location patterns in minority groups (Massey & Denton, 1988). The index of dissimilarity and the minority proportion had been the standa rd measures of segr egation. However, these methods fail to distinguish in what ways one group differentiates from the other. Massey and Denton (1988) proposed a multidimensional concept for residential segregation. Based on extensive literature research and James and Taeuber’s models (Carr, 1999), their measures included evenne ss of segregation, expos ure, concentration, centralization, and cl ustering. Accordingly, a group of residents “that is highly centralized, spatially concentrated, unevenly distributed, tightly clustered, and minimally exposed to majority members is said to be residentially ‘segregated’” (Massey & Denton, 1988, p. 283). But these dimensions regard the residents as static numbers and address observed segregation rather than perceived se gregation. These dimensions fail to identify whether or not the segregation is formed by choice. The segregation problem symbolizes a ba ttle of controlling resources and power. With the end of the American Civil War, the Whites, who had dominated almost all resources, tried to segregate the Blacks in every aspect of life. Personal preference, income distribution, and classdivision were the popular explanations for physical separation. With the excuse that residential se gregation helped to reduce racial conflicts, landlords and developers provided segregated white communities for higher profits. Since the Great Depression of the 1930s, subs idized low-income housing in the United States has been characterized to serve the needs for central business district redevelopment, industrial mob ilization of World War II, and the private housing market (Coulibaly et al., 1998). The urban renewal and substandard housing clearance programs

PAGE 64

51 resulted in racially and economically segregat ed residents. As the Blacks gained higher socioeconomic status, researchers in the 1960s found that the impact of integration on property value was minimal. This finding unde rmined the financial rationale for housing segregation. In the 1980s, declining air qua lity and increasing noise problems in residential areas drove higher-income peopl e out of the areas around factories where segregated working-class distri cts were built. Implicitly or explicitly, segregation is assumed as “a manifestation of generalized white prejudice resulting in discrimination against racial minorities, often mediated through an imperfect market mechanism” (Coulibaly et al., 1998, p. 1). The Civil Right s Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 aimed to remedy the inequalities re sulting from segregation and racial discrimination. However, these two acts have had only minor impact, and segregation remains a serious and enduring fact in the United States. Coulibaly, Green, and James (1998) stated that racial and income segregation had been “an integral element of the feral housing policy from its inception” (p. 2). Integration of race, ethnicity, and income within different groups is assumed to help in job growth, improve education, deve lop healthy and adequa te housing supply, and alleviate residential segregation (Frey & Myers, 2002). As a result of a series of lawsuits against the housing policie s by the Chicago Housing Authority and HUD, the first mobility program—the Gautreaux Program (1967-1998)—was born. It provided financial and social assistance to relocate segregat ed minority public housing residents into middle-income predominantly non-Hispanic white suburb communities. Given the success of the Gautreaux program, in 1994 HUD funded more Moving to Opportunity demonstration programs to relocate public housing families to low poverty

PAGE 65

52 neighborhoods. The initial research studies of the Gautreaux program showed that minority households had positive experiences of improved quality of life. However, the newly integrated neighborhoods tended to re-s egregate (Carr, 1999). In another study of suburban segregation, Farley (1993) confirmed that white households tended to flee integrated neighborhoods as the number of minor ity residents increases. After the Whites left their old neighborhoods, the integr ated neighborhoods became predominantly minority or segregated. Stuart (2002) also concluded in his study of six metropolitan areas in Chicago that although efforts to mix minorities with non-Hispanic white neighbors had some effect in moderating segregation, this integration was only temporary. Subsidies, mobility programs, Fair Housing access, enhancing city service, and other programs had only a modest effect on segregation. These improvements were slight and the pace was slow (Carr, 1999; Denton, 1999). Instead of trying to eliminate segregati on with minimum results, some scholars (Brophy & Smith, 1997; Fischer, 1975; 1982; Schawrtz & Tajbakhsh, 1996; Suttles, 1972; Ward, LaGory, & Sherman, 1985) explored the benefits of segregation in certain cases. For instance, segregation by choice may he lp residents to preserve their traditions and culture, build self -respect, and provide social networ ks for a better job (Fischer, 1982). The residents’ perspective became important in these segregation studies. Sabatini, Caceres, and Cerda (2001) suggested incorporating subjective perceptions into objective measures for segregation. Since she us ed census data rather than field data, she could not include subjective pe rceptions in her model. In a recent study of residential segregation, Squires, Friedman, and Saidat (2002) collected reside nts’ opinions about discrimination in housing. He asked the resident s’ preferences to race within an ideal

PAGE 66

53 neighborhood, but he did not address the pe rceived segregation by the same minority residents after living in thei r concurrent neighborhoods over a period of time. Therefore, there is a need to address th e perception of segregation of minority residents who live in a segregated condition. If segregated living promotes more benef its than problems, should segregation be eliminated in every case? Is there a way to fight the negativ e social pathologies caused by segregation rather than the form of spa tial separation? In d eciding whether or not segregation occurs, which is more importan t: the observed segregat ion by figures or perceived segregation by the residents? Habitat families live in a segregated c ondition by definition. They differ only in levels of segregation. The low-income Habitat families could only afford houses on available and usually inexpens ive lots within or near ex isting low-income neighborhoods. All surrounding neighbors probably shar e similar financial backgrounds, race composition, and education levels. Because a large number of Habitat families are within a very-low income category, in a Habitat ne ighborhood, as compared to scattered sites, the poverty level is higher and the segregat ion is assumed greater. Although research (Mitchell & Warren, 1998) showed that Habi tat families who lived in clusters or subdivisions were more satisfied than families who lived in scattered homes, Habitat affiliations, HUD city governors, and planners feel the pressure for integration. Some Habitat affiliates try to mix Habitat familie s from different low-income levels, even though the created “mixed-income” neighborhood is still, by definition, economically and racially segregated to some degree. Since Habitat families participate in the building

PAGE 67

54 process of the neighborhood, perhaps the reside nts in a racially segregated neighborhood will not perceive segregation. By comparing the human and social res ources preserved in Habitat neighborhoods and scattered sites, the results may help Ha bitat to understand the planning strategies. These findings may be useful for other lo w-income housing programs, such as HUD, USDA Rural Development housing progr ams, and non-profit programs. Design participation For affordability considerations, the desi gn standards of Habitat houses are set by Habitat for Humanity International. However, neither the architects nor Habitat decisionmakers are low-income householders. In a study that compared the preferences of planners, architects, and laypersons, Jeffrey and Reynolds (1999) found that architects developed different aesthetical cr iteria from the planners and the public. It is possible that the mismatch of the physical forms and the us er needs exists in a Habitat house design. Sanoff (1992b) defined participation as th e “face-to-face interact ion of individuals who share a number of values im portant to all, that is to say [,] a purpose for them being together” (p. 55). Reis (2000) described design participation as “user control over aspects of mass housing design, either in the design process or after construction” (p. 1). Design participation may not only provide satisfyi ng design solutions, but also empower the users who take control of th eir lives (Sanoff, 2000). A participatory design approach engaging the user body in the conceptual design stage has been advocated by many scholar s (Birdsey, McKinney, & Stouffer, 1998; Hasell & Zhu, 2001; 2003; Sanoff, 1992a; 2000) The public had been viewed as a passive patient who needed help from the outside “experts.” With little local knowledge, the experts presented the designs to a restri cted group of decision-makers (Barrow, 2000).

PAGE 68

55 The World Bank (1995) stated that particip ation in the design and implementation of development efforts could enhance these effort s’ impact. Becker (1977) related residents’ participation in the development process to a better-maintained physical environment, greater public spirit, more user satisfacti on, and significant change s. Dluhosch (1978) asserted that habitable space design could be responsive and effec tive if it included the user in the design process. Sanoff believes (2000 ) that “genuine participation occurs only when people are empowered to control act ion taken” (p. 9). In a study of user participation in passive social housing design, McLain-Kark (1986) identified the positive relationship between design and owner-built participation and housing satisfaction. However, he oversimplified the measure of participat ion, failed to identify participation as a process, and did not e xplore the meaning of participation to the residents. In 1994, Finn identified the selection of site, dcor, and sometimes designs as one of many empowering experiences of Ha bitat homeowners (Finn, 1994). But she did not address how to improve the physical design. In 2000, Reis (2000) evaluated the relationship between user participation a nd satisfaction with mass housing design across three housing estates in Brazil. The evaluation showed positiv e evidence for the need of user participation, and participation in the design process was preferred, as compared to participation after construction. Since sati sfaction with mass housi ng design may involve many social and physical factors, such as neighborhood conditions and skills for upkeep, Reis’s study did not provide a holis tic view of design participation. Since Habitat is organized self-help hous ing, families have only limited control in the planning and designing stage. They can choose within availa ble lots, options of layouts, interior and exterior colors, materials, and fini shes. These design-related

PAGE 69

56 activities begin before they start to build their own houses. The time spent in design participation may or may not be counted as sweat equity hours according to individual Habitat policies. Families’ special needs may or may not be addressed if the design does not satisfy their needs. Empirical evidence is needed to suppor t design participation within a Habitat context. The quantitative ev idence may relate to satisfaction with the house, satisfaction with design, and satisfacti on with design particip ation. The qualitative evidence may include users’ opinions and s uggestions about design of their concurrent houses. The literature review of sw eat equity as participati on, human and social resource development, impact of physical settings, and design participation re veal several themes. First, these concepts are im portant and need be defined in context. Second, normative rather than empirical studies dominate the li terature because of the complexity of the phenomena. Third, no consensus has been reache d to measure these concepts. Fourth, the lack of previous studies that explore how sw eat equity influence families’ lives in terms of human and social resource development in a Habitat cont ext requires an in-depth exploratory study. Variable Measures This research aims to gain a detailed understanding of the sw eat equity process, explore the relationship between sweat eq uity and human and social resource developments, compare the impact of sweat e quity in two physical settings, and identify the role of design participation during the sw eat equity process. The complexity of the study, the lack of a prior research model and an existing database, and also an available resource for a large-scale approach require d an in-depth case study. According to Yin (2003), a case study can incorporate both qualita tive and quantitativ e data collections.

PAGE 70

57 Documentation review and arch ival analysis help to build a sound research background. Statistics focus on the questions of quantif iable measures, such as who, where, how much, how many, and how often. Qualitative methods explore the how and why questions (Yin, 2003). Using multiple methods in one case study provides a holistic view of sweat equity. Since the literature shows little consensu s of measuring sweat equity, human and social resources, and design participation, this study needed to incor porate existing scales or design new instruments for this specific Ha bitat context. The criterion for choosing or designing the instruments is wh ether or not the va riables contribute to solving the longterm house and neighborhood maintenance problems in Habitat. Sweat Equity Habitat uses the number of hours that family members contribute to their houses as well as other families’ houses to record sweat equity. However, no one tests whether or not the measure is appropriate. Although sweat equity is regarded as a part of the monetary down payment, the AREA st udy (Mitchell & Warren, 1998) found that the most common benefit to the families was not the financial savings but the pride and stability, and about 20% of the families felt inadequately prepared for homeownership. Since the AREA study did not specify what fa milies did during sweat equity specifically, it could not answer the question of how to get families better prepared, or why pride and stability are more important than financia l savings. When Finn (1994) identified sweat equity as an empowerment process in Hab itat, she did not specify which activities empowered the homeowners. Without empirical measures, both studies could not build the relationship between sweat equity and a sense of home ownership or empowerment.

PAGE 71

58 In this study, sweat equity is measured by the number of types of individual activities, the meaning of sweat equity to the families, and the number of hours. The list of activities (see Appendix 1) is developed from bac kground research and personal communications with local Habitat affiliates. The meaning of sweat equity is measured by two questions concerning participants’ f eelings about the sweat equity on other families’ houses and on their own houses. Human Resources In the literature, human resources are de fined as knowledge, skills, health, time, interest, and commitment (Torjman, 1998). Sk ill levels, academic learning (OECD, 2001), skill training (Torjman, 1998), and the rate s of return on investments (Barro, 2001; Hanushek & Kimko, 2000) are the common m easures of human resources. But these measures do not fit in a Habitat context. For families with limited resources, these life skills or academic or job training may not contribute directly to one’s house and neighborhood. Finn (1994) found that the hous e maintenance and management process was not empowering because some families believed that Habitat should be responsible for those problems, but Habitat disagreed. W ithout quantitative analyses and comparison, Finn addressed only the responsibil ity issues and failed to look at other possibilities for home maintenance problems: families lack th e skills, confidence, and resources for home maintenance so if the house needs repa ir, they could rely only on Habitat. The other challenge in meas uring human resources is to develop the appropriate scales to measure the intangible psychologi cal feelings. Self-esteem is one of the common measures of psychological feelings in human resources. Self-esteem is defined as how one values, approves, and likes oneself (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). Selfesteem is believed to explai n socioeconomic and psycholog ical and social phenomena,

PAGE 72

59 such as poverty, well-being, stress, locus of control, depression, and competitiveness (Lever, Pinol, & Uralde, 2005; Twenge & Camp bell, 2002). More than 200 scales have been developed to measure self-esteem. Th e Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) and the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inve ntory (Coopersmith, 1981) are two of the most popular scales. But the scales were de veloped to study the se lf-esteem of children. They do not fit the profile of the low-in come residents. Scheff and Fearon (2004) reviewed the development of self-esteem measurements and found that although studies about self-esteem tended to report positive results, these results were not consistent. Because of its interrelationship with race, gender, ethnicity, social connections, and socioeconomic status, the instrument design seldom met the requirement for each context (Scheff & Fearson, 2004). Sometimes self-estee m was used to measure social resources. Form example, Cohen, Mermelstein, Kama rck, and Hoberman (1985) included selfesteem to measure social support, emphasizi ng the availability of a positive comparison when one compares him or herself with others. Place attachment, or the person-place relationship, is believed to have a positive impact on one’s socio-physical environmen t. Measures of home-based attachment include positive evalua tions, rootedness, safety, a sense of belonging, activities, and identity (Harris, Brown, & Werner, 1996). Ha rris, Brown, and Werner (1996) examined the relationship between privacy and place attachment to re ntal housing. They measured attachment, satisfaction with the building, and feelings of rootedness. They also addressed why people were attached, such as safety, connection, and identity. Although they found positive results in the study, th ey suggested that ties to neighborhood, aesthetic and functional charac teristics of the setting, past experiences with the place

PAGE 73

60 should be incorporated for a better unde rstanding of the dynamic phenomenon of place attachment. Vaske and Kobrin (2001) found that place attachment was related to environmental responsible behaviors among students working in a natural-resource program. They measured place attachment by place dependence and place identity, such as satisfaction, importance of the place, and personal connection. However these measures were chosen to examine connections with environment-friendly behaviors in a natural park, not a place that people own a nd live everyday. Wells ( 2000) is conducting a Habitat study that examines the well-being of the Habitat residents in relation to physical housing conditions. She included place attach ment, contentment, and privacy as the environment scale. Since attachment is not her major research question, Wells uses a simple 5-item scale to measure both home attachment and neighborhood attachment. Other related measures about human resour ces include, but are not limited to, pride, confidence, self-responsibilit y, and satisfaction. These intang ible indicators are closely related to how one feels about the self, the skills, or th e physical house one possesses. These may be incorporated in other scales such as sense of community or place attachment, or defined differently in the setting (Rossi & Weber, 1996). Social Resources Social resources refer to th e social connections among i ndividuals, such as social networks, the norms of reciprocity, and trustworthiness (Putnam, 2000). Different disciplines have different emphases on social resources. The litera ture has shown that consensus has not been reached on the universal scales to measure social resources, and the studies of social capital often concentrat e on organizations rather than individuals. The psychological aspects of social re sources were explored through various emphases, including sense of community (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; McMillan,

PAGE 74

61 1996; Perkins et al., 1990); attachment (R iger, 2001; Wells, 2000; Woolerver, 1992); neighborhood cohesion (Buckner, 1988); and trust (Fukuyama, 1995; Narayan & Pritchett, 1997). McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) Sense of Community Index (SCI) instrument is often preferred to as a ba sic measure of a community. It measures membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and shared emotional connection. Other researchers often adapt thei r instruments from th e SCI to measure the social capital for a certain context. Social support, the resour ces provided by other persons, is believed to prevent individuals from the pathogenic effects of stress (Cohen et al., 1985). Cohen and his colleagues developed the Interpersonal S upport Evaluation List (ISEL) to measure tangible support, appraisal support (trust), self-esteem support, and belonging support. The appraisal support or trus t in the ISEL can be adapte d in a neighborhood setting by redefining the setting in the scales. Since they studied stress related support, the tangible and belonging scales are too general in a neighborhood setting. U ngers and Wandersman (1983) used a 10-item scale to measure the neighboring activities. Respondents were asked the social contact and w illingness to exchange goods a nd services with neighbors. Rather than measuring nei ghboring activities, Unger and Wandersman’s scale measures social support in a neighborhood. The measur es of neighboring activ ities, however, are better designed in Skjaeveland and Gar ling’s (1997) Multidimensional Measure of Neighboring in an attempt to examine the eff ects of interactional space on neighboring. The 14-item scale included th e weak social ties (frequent contacts), social support, attachment, and annoyance.

PAGE 75

62 Pride, neighborhood satisfaction, and safety ar e also related to how individuals feel about their neighborhood (Basolo & Strong, 2002; Rohe & Stegman, 1994a). These indicators should be incorporat ed into the instruments as well. Reciprocity occurs when one helps others after receiving help. Habitat families help other families to build houses and then receive help to build their own. Ho wever it is unknown after receiving the help, whether or not and why they would continue to help in building a Habitat house, or help neighbors and the neighborhood. In the latter case, reci procity is reflected in a sense of obligation to the neighborhood. Although no study has focused on segregation issues in Habita t, the AREA study (Mitchell & Warren, 1998) showed that Habita t families in clusters or neighborhoods felt more satisfied compared to those who lived in scattered sites. This finding contradicts general beliefs about the negative pathology of segregation. Segregation is usually measured by Massey and Denton’s (1988) diss imilarity index. Using administrative records or census data, scholars (Abr amson, Tobin, & VanderGoot, 1995; Farley, Fielding, & Krysan, 1997; Van Ryzin & Genn, 1999) usually confirm or compare the changes of residential segregat ion level. However there is an emerging need to address the perception of segregation from the residents’ points of view. Design participation The literature has shown that the physi cal design contribut ed to neighborhood development and social activities (Bothwell, Gindroz, & Lang, 1998; Torres-Antonini, 2001). Basolo and Strong (2002) examined th e relationship between house conditions and satisfaction in New Orleans. The result s howed that housing conditions and safety—but not social contact—were important to expl ain neighborhood satisfacti on. On the contrary, Torress-Antonini (2001) found th at social contact was as important as the physical

PAGE 76

63 common house design in co-housing. They both focused on design features and overlooked whether the residents had the social skills or needed to develop those social skills that were necessary for social contact. Finn (1994) found that participating in the design process was empowering to Habitat hom eowners but she did not provide measures of design participation. Design participation needs to be identified at three stages: planning, exterior design, and interi or design in a Habitat context. The literature provides a pool of instruments that may help to measure sweat equity, human and social resources, and desi gn participation within a Habitat context. This case study addresses how and whether or not partner families accumulate social resources through sweat equity within a Hab itat context. Accordi ng to the research questions listed in the foll owing section, maintenance and financing skills, self-esteem, perceptions of skills, satisfacti on, attachment to homes, fre quency of maintenance, and a sense of obligation are appropriate for measuring human resource development. Neighboring, social support, neighborhood involvement, sense of community, trust, attachment to neighborhood, and segregation seem appropriate for social resource measurement in this case study. The measures of the perception of segregation and design participation need be developed ac cording to the specific setting. Summary Sweat equity as participation or sel f-help has contributed to solving housing problems for centuries. However, it was seldom studied as a learning and sharing process. Habitat defines sweat equity as the number of hours a family contributes, and does not specify individual activities. The impacts of sweat equity are claimed with normative statements rather than empirical studies. De sign participation is not specified during the sweat equity process. Unlike HUD’s emphasi s strictly on the physical environment,

PAGE 77

64 Habitat integrates the concepts of doing, learning, and sharin g to solve both physical and social problems for partner families. The comp lexity of the sweat equity process and the variety of resources that families accumulate during sweat equity require an in-depth case study. Sweat equity is dynamic, multi-dimensi onal, and context-specific. The instruments in this study are exclusively selected and designed to measure sweat equity and human and social resource development in the local Habitat context.

PAGE 78

65 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This research responds to a perceived absen ce in the litera ture of empirical studies of sweat equity from Habitat partner families’ points of view. Due to the complexity of the sweat equity process with in a Habitat context, a case study will serve as a foundation to understand sweat equity as a holistic le arning-by-doing and sharing process. This research explores the relationships between sweat equity and huma n and social resource development, compares resource maintenance between families in Habitat neighborhoods versus families in scattered sites, and examin es design participation in a Habitat context. This chapter explains the logic for the resear ch design, introduces th e research settings, presents the implementation of the research pr ocesses, defines the instruments as well as the analytical methods, and recogni zes the limitations of this study. Case Study Paradigm A case study is “an empirical inquiry th at investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context” (Yin, 2003, p. 13). According to Yin (2003), a case study is preferred for contemporary phenomena in which the researcher has little control over the conditions and seeks what how and why questions for a complete understanding of the phenomena. The case study inquiry explores yetto-be-identified indicators, copes with a huge number of variables, and incorporates multiple sources of evidence. Although eminent for its power of qualitative analysis, a case study is a research paradigm rather than a qualitative method for data co llection (Berg, 2001). For Yin, a case study “comprises an all-encompassing method—coveri ng the logic of design, data collection

PAGE 79

66 techniques, and specific approaches to data analysis” (2003, p. 14). Therefore, the case study methodology allows investigators to “retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events” (Yin, 2003, p. 2). Habitat for Humanity International is a unique self-help housing administration that partners with caring people and those who are in need. Local Habitat for Humanity (Habitat) affiliates develop th eir own organizational structures to satisfy their respective community needs. Partner families have diffe rent experiences even within the same affiliate. The scope of the causal links between sweat equity and the outcomes is too complex for experiments or surveys. The study of Habitat sweat equi ty and its impact on families’ lives explores what how and why questions. For example, what skills do Habitat families learn during sweat equity? W hy do partner families help their neighbors? How do partner families feel about design part icipation? The needs for exploring yet-tobe-identified indicators and an alyzing numerous vari ables require an in -depth case study. Research Setting Because of time and resource constrai nts, a case study was conducted among three regional Habitat affiliates in northern Florida: Alachua Habitat for Humanity (Alachua Habitat) in Alachua County, Fl orida; Habitat for Humanity of Jacksonville (HabiJax) in Jacksonville, Florida; and Habitat for Human ity for Greater Ocala (Ocala Habitat) in Ocala, Florida. A pilot study was conducte d in the Alachua Habitat in order to preliminarily explore the sweat equity proces s and refine the research instruments. A principal study was carried out in all three affiliates. The three affiliates were incorporated with Habitat In ternational in the late 1980s or early 1990s, focusing on new construction. Almost all new construction is in low-income neighborhoods that are in disrepair. More Habitat houses ar e planned in scattered sites th an those in st rictly Habitat

PAGE 80

67 neighborhoods. The majority of partner families are single-parent families (more than 75.00%). Although the general guidelines are sim ilar, these affiliates have their own requirements for sweat equity. They differ in the minimum hours, what activities are included, how families are prepared in tr aining, how they are involved in design participation, and the strategies for maintenance and community problems. Sweat equity Alachua Habitat regards sweat eq uity as the willingness to be a partner family (Feather, D., personal co mmunication, May 12, 2003). HabiJax expands sweat equity as the willingness to help with ot her families’ houses as well as their own houses, to abide by the HabiJax rules, a nd to become involved in their neighborhood. Ocala Habitat (Nimmo, B., personal communica tion, June 11, 2003) defines sweat equity as “the physical labor the part ner family puts into building of their home to replace the traditional monetary down payment.” Table 3-1. Distribution of Sweat Equity Hours in Three Habitat Affiliates Mutual Help Self-help Hours on Public and Training Hours on Other Families’ Houses Hours on One’s Own House Total Hours Alachua Habitat 50 150 200 400 HabiJax N/A 200 100-300 300-500 Ocala Habitat 150 100 250 500 Table 3-1 shows how sweat eq uity hours are distributed in the three affiliates. Alachua Habitat required 100 hours during th e early 1990s. Currently, Alachua Habitat requires 400 sweat equity hours, 150 of which contribute to building other families’ houses and 50 hours to other public activities before they bui ld their own homes. Sweat equity includes the work a partner family puts on construction, working for the Habitat office, and training.

PAGE 81

68 HabiJax requests 200 hours on other fam ilies’ houses and at least 100 hours on one’s own house. The standard 300 hours is th e target for families between 30% and 50% of area median income (AMI). HabiJax is considering more hours for families between 50% and 80% of AMI.1 In turn, the houses are more e xpensive with better designs. The additional hours include leader ship training, participation in neighborhood organizations, and leading volunteers. Three hundred hours are required in the surveyed neighborhood. Ocala Habitat requires a minimum of sweat equity hours of 500. Out of the 500 hours, 100 hours are delegated to community services in other non-profit organizations, 50 hours in the classroom, 100 hours working on someone else’s home, and 100 hours on their own home. Another 150 hours are required on construction work, but they can be completed either by friends or family members. Training In Alachua Habitat, training c ourses include budget, home maintenance and repair, and issues about legal homeownership and in surance. These courses are available on a regular basis. Families must fini sh these courses before they finish building their own houses. HabiJax has similar training content ex cept for one experimental component— leadership. Families have a chance to learn to be a “leader” in certain fields so that these families can become special players either on the construction sites or in neighborhood activities. However, no leader ship training was provided in the surveyed neighborhood. In Ocala Habitat, the weekly provided training includes: concepts of Habitat; budget; home maintenance and repair; appliance repair; credit improvement; landscaping; neighboring skills (neighborhood maintenance) ; mortgage; and closing papers. 1 Habitat provides affordable housing to very lowand low-income families. Their incomes range from 30% to 80% of the area median income.

PAGE 82

69 Design participation During the early years of partnering with families, designers in Alachua Habitat worked with families fo r customized design details. As Habitat evolved, families retained multiple options in such areas as layout designs, colors, and finishes for interiors and exteriors, but they seldom could change the structure, size of rooms, or add any opening. Families can choose the design after completing 200 hours. When HabiJax families finish at least 100 hour s, they can choose their houses from different floor plans and elevations. Families can pick the colors for carpet, shudders, and siding from color brochures, and choose either stucco or brick as an exterior finish material. Usually choices of matching colors are provided by paint companies. Fairway Oaks was built in a 17-day community blitz.2 Planning and design work were done before family selection started. The exterior colors were determined by the location of the lot. In Ocala Habitat, once a family complete s 50% of the community service hours and 50% of the classroom hours (a total of 175 hour s), the family is assigned a house. Partner families can choose the color for their siding. The color of shutters and front doors will complement the siding color, and the color of carpet/vinyl and color of countertop will be complementary. Families cannot choose among materials or change the layout design. However, they can influence their landscap ing through workshops and choosing different plants provided by the Master Gardeners prog ram in the county Agriculture Extension Office. Selecting colors occu rs during the 50 classroom hours, or design participation is counted as sweat equity in Ocala Habitat. 2 A blitz build in Habitat refers to building a group of houses at a concentrated period of time. Volunteers and families work together everyday until houses are finished. Among the Habitat houses investigated in this study, only families in HabiJax had a blitz build. Other houses were built only during weekends and the process took months to finish.

PAGE 83

70 Problems Finn (1994) found that some home maintenance and repair problems were caused by volunteers’ unprofessional work Families thought that since they paid for the house, Habitat was responsible for th e quality of their houses. However, Habitat argued that a house needed regular maintena nce and would encounter repair problems when the house aged, and that Habitat s hould not be responsible for long-term maintenance and repair problems. In this study, some Habitat homeowners asked Habitat affiliates for financial and technical help in maintenance and repair Alachua Habitat collects a $20 maintenance escrow each month. When families have some maintenance or repair problems, they can use the money for material or professional se rvices. Since a superv isor is assigned to ensure the quality of the proj ects, Habitat assert s that there is no complaint about the quality of those well-constructed houses. HabiJax usually sends families who request financial assistance to other organizations. Although maintenance escrows ar e collected in Habi Jax, the response to the requests for assistance with home main tenance and repair is based on needs. For example, volunteers and other homeowner s respond to those requests submitted by disabled homeowners and the elderly. Ocala Habitat does not require a maintena nce escrow. Approximately 20% to 25% of Habitat homeowners ask for assistance with home maintenance and repair. Eight regular volunteers respond to maintenance and repair needs. Requesting such assistance often occurs during the first year of homeownership. After living one year in their new houses, according to Ocala Habitat, most partner families are self-sufficient.

PAGE 84

71 The other challenge Habitat faces is th e architectural integrity within the community. Habitat’s limited resources do not permit much variety in floor plans and elevations. As the number of Habitat houses has increased over years of effort, the limitation on house styles and concentration of low-income families raised some adverse comments in the city and some neighborhoods. For example, some city community leaders and politicians objected to the homogenous low-income population, repetitive designs, and less diverse architectural styl es in HabiJax neighborhoods. Responding to the challenges, HabiJax is seeking more de sign styles and to mi xing families from 30% of the area median income (AMI) with families from 80% of the AMI. Sampling and Data Collection Different from large-scale surveys or experiments, case studies use in-depth evidence to explore unidentified indicators and relationships. Samp ling is employed for an unbiased selection of partic ipants rather than statistical generalization. The description of the sampling methods serves to facilita te future case studies within a similar theoretical framework. This research had two steps: a pilot study and a principal study. Since gender plays a role in the informal network (Moore, 1990), gender differences were avoided by interviewing only female householders. Sampling was based on convenience and volunteerism. The two-step research procedur es were similar except that respondents in the pilot study were interviewed twice (bef ore and during receiving help from others), and in the principal study res pondents were interviewed once. When the pilot study started in Alachua Habitat in September 2002, 11 eligible families were working on other families’ houses. All 11 families were invited to participate in the pilot study. A total of eight participants re sponded to the first wave of

PAGE 85

72 data collection. Since the construction proce ss was slower than th e schedule, retaining participants during the second wave became difficult. Four of the eight respondents completed the second wave of this study. The pilot study served as the tests for instruments and the protocol. The principal study began after the first wa ve of the pilot study. As of April 2003, more than 1,000 Habitat families live in Habi Jax, 60 families in Alachua Habitat, and 88 families in Ocala Habitat. Since Alachua Habi tat is in the process of building its first Habitat neighborhood, the other two affiliates pr ovided initial contact information for families living in a neighborhood setting. Alachua Habitat provided contact information for families living in scattered sites. From the lists of contact information, each family was assigned a random number generated by the computer. Sorted by the random numbers, the top 30 families on each list were contacted. If any of the top 30 families declined to participate, the following name on the random list was contacted. Once identified through Habitat affiliates, potential respondents were sent an introductory letter, consent form, and self-adm inistered survey eith er through mail or in person. The survey took 10 to 20 minutes to co mplete. Within two weeks, the researcher contacted the homeowners by phone and set up the interview time for the willing respondents. The interviews consisted of close-ended and open-ended questions. With permission from participants, the interviews were tape-recorded. The consent form and survey were collected during the interview. Each interview took 30 to 40 minutes. No compensation was provided for the initial pr otocol. However, many interviews were missed because some families would not contact the researcher when they rescheduled. To solve the problem, the College of Design, Construction and Planning at the University

PAGE 86

73 of Florida sponsored the researcher so th at each participant could get up to $20 as compensation. The compensation increased the re sponse rate. If a part icipant wanted to see the report on the stud y, a brief was provided. In the principal study, a total of 49 part ner families were recruited from May 2003 to November 2004. Participants in neighbor hoods were identified through HabiJax and Ocala Habitat. Twenty-eight responses were collected in these neighborhoods. Participants in scattered s ites were identified through the Alachua Habitat office, and 21 responses were collected in scattered sites. Operational Definitions and Measures The operational definitions and measures are organized within a detailed conceptual framework, as shown in Figure 3-1. Participation or sweat equity is positioned as the independent variables include: 1) the total number of sweat equity hours; 2) the number of types of sweat equity activities (training, construction, public activities, and design participation); and 3) the qualitative measures of sweat equity. The dependent variables are divided into gr oups of human resource and so cial resource indicators, categorized under two physical settings —scattered sites and Habitat neighborhoods, respectively. Both human and social res ources consist of tang ible and intangible measures. Tangible measures are practical or re alistic measures that are usually recorded with numbers or described with facts. Intangible measures re fer to psychological feelings and perceptions.

PAGE 87

74 Figure 3-1. Conceptual framework for the doi ng, learning, and sharing process of sweat equity within the context of Hab itat for Humanity International. Qualitative measures of sweat equity Human Resources Social Resources Neighboring Social support Neighborhood involvement Independent Variables Dependent Variables Number of types of sweat equity activities Lecture training Learning by doing and sharing o Public activities o Construction o Design participation Demographics Age Education Economic level Length of residency Marital status Total number of sweat equity hours Maintenance skills Financing skills Frequency of house maintenance Pride in skills Confidence in skills Pride in house House attachment Self-responsibility Self-esteem House satisfaction Design solution satisfaction Design participation satisfaction Pride in neighborhood Satisfaction with neighborhood Safety Neighborhood attachment Sense of community Trust in neighbors Reciprocity Sense of obligation Segregation Scattered sites Neighboring Social support Neighborhood involvement Maintenance skills Financing skills Frequency of house maintenance Neighborhoods Pride in neighborhood Satisfaction with neighborhood Safety Neighborhood attachment Sense of community Trust in neighbors Reciprocity Sense of obligation Segregation Pride in skills Confidence in skills Pride in house House attachment Self-responsibility Self-esteem House satisfaction Design solution satisfaction Design participation satisfaction Legend Tangible measures Intangible measures Control Variables

PAGE 88

75 In Figure 3-1, tangible measures are indica ted with a solid color, and intangible measures are indicated with diagonal shad ing. Human resources refer to the skills, behaviors, and individual s’ perceptions of the self and the house. Social resources refer to the behaviors in the neighborhood and th e perceptions of neighbors and the neighborhood. The arrows indicate the theoreti cal relationships betw een factors that is being tested in this study. See Appendix A: Survey Instruments and Appendix B: Interview Questions for detailed measur es. Individual operational definitions and measures are explained along with the review of the res earch hypotheses. Hypothesis 1: Sweat equity contributes to human and social resource development. Sweat Equity Sweat equity refers to the time and effort in which partner families invest to collectively build and maintain th eir houses, as well as human and social resources. Quantitatively, sweat equity is measured by the number of hours respondents completed and the number of types of activi ties in which they become involved. A higher score indicates a higher level of partic ipation. The activitie s are grouped into training, public activities construction, and design participation Since design part icipation is not counted as sweat equity in every Habitat, desi gn participation will be explored separately. Training refers to the percep tion of the training courses. On a 4-point Likert scale, respondents are asked to rate the organizati on, depth, and usefulness of training, and their desire to learn more househol d repairs. Two open-ended questions are used to explore what families would like to learn. Public participation is measured by Yes or No to whether or not families have participated in certain public activities during sweat equity. Construction participation is measured by Yes or No to whether or not they have performed certain construction activitie s and for whom (self or others).

PAGE 89

76 Sweat equity is also qualit atively measured by the meaning of sweat equity: what Habitat sweat equity affords Habitat families. Four sets of open-ended questions are used to explore: 1) why families choose to work with Habitat; 2) how they feel about helping others and self-helping; 3) what the advantages in sweat equity are (See Appendix B: Interview Questions for detailed measures); and 4) what the drawbacks of sweat equity are and suggestions for a change. Human resource development Human resources refer to the skills and houserelated behaviors and perceptions of the in dividuals and the house. Human resources include: house maintenance skills; financi ng skills; frequency of house maintenance; pride in skills; confidence in skills; pride in house; house attachmen t; self-responsibility; self-esteem; house satisfaction; design solu tion satisfaction; and design participation satisfaction. Maintenance skills are the skills that a family needs to keep a house in good condition by regular maintenance and repair wh en appropriate. On a 4-point Likert scale, maintenance skills are measured by the per ception of the skill le vels. Respondents are asked to rate 15 statements about how skilled they feel in doing the listed maintenance and repair tasks. A higher score indicates more maintenance skills. Financing skills refer to the ability to pa y mortgages in time. On a 4-point Likert scale, respondents are asked to rate two statements a bout their budgeting and on-time payment. A higher score indica tes stronger financing skills. House maintenance consists of activities one performs in order to keep a house in good condition. House maintenance is measured by the frequency of home maintenance and repair performance during the past si x months. A higher score indicates more

PAGE 90

77 frequent house maintenance. Two questions are used to explore whether or not they could maintain and repair the house by themselves; if not, from whom would they ask for assistance and why. Pride in skills refers to the pleasure or sa tisfaction taken in an achievement. On a 4point Likert scale, respondent s are asked to rate one statem ent about their pride in selfaccomplishment. A higher score indicates greater pride in skills. Confidence in skills refers to one’s self-a ssurance in the ability to maintain a house. On a 4-point Likert scale, respondents are asked to rate one statement about their confidence with future home maintenance a nd repairs. A higher score indicates greater confidence in skills. Pride in house refers to the pleasure or satisfaction taken in one’s house. On a 4point Likert scale, respondent s are asked to rate one statem ent about their pride in the house. A higher score indicates a greater pride in the house. House attachment is the emotional tie to one’s house. House attachment is measured by two items in regard to persona l connection and a home-like feeling (Wells, 2000). A higher score indicates a str onger attachment to one’s house. Self-responsibility is the att itude one has toward house maintenance and repair. On a 4-point Likert scale, respondents are as ked to rate the st atement about their responsibility for home maintenance and repa ir. A higher score indi cates a stronger selfresponsibility for house ma intenance and repair. Self-esteem refers to how one perceives one self compared to others (Cohen et al., 1985). Self-esteem is measured by a 10-item scale, adapted from a subscale of the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) (Cohen et al., 1985). Cohen, Mermelstein,

PAGE 91

78 Kamarck, and Hoberman used ISEL to measur e perceived availabili ty and quality of potential social support. The 40-item ISEL scale measures: appraisal support (trust); belonging support (availability of people to share with); tangible support (instrumental help); and self-esteem support (positive comparison when comparing oneself with others). In a study of the bu ffering effect of ISEL on stress appraisal and self-esteem significantly contributed to accounted variance independent ly (Cohen et al., 1985). The self-esteem and appraisal scales are more suitable to measure support in a neighborhood than belonging and tangible sc ales that measure general so cial support. The ISEL selfesteem subscale is correlated with th e Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale at 0.74. House satisfaction is the fulfillment of the house toward one’s desires or needs. On a 4-point Likert scale, responde nts are asked to rate one stat ement about satisfaction with the overall house. A higher score indicates a greater satisfaction with one’s house. Design solution satisfaction refers to the fulfillment of the house design to a family’s desires or needs. The house design includes: interior colors, finishes, and layouts; exterior colors, finishes, and yard ; lot selection; and public space planning. Regarding each design phase, participants choose Yes No or Not know to the question “Are you satisfied with the current design?” On a 4-point Likert sc ale, overall design solution satisfaction is rated on two items: how a respondent is satisfie d with their present house and neighborhood. A higher score indicates greater satisfaction with the design of the house. Design participation satisfaction refers to the fulfillment of design participation to satisfy one’s desires or needs. On a 4-point Li kert scale, participants are asked to rate their satisfaction with the le vel of involvement in the de sign process for their house and

PAGE 92

79 also the satisfaction of selecting color a nd finishes for their house. A higher score indicates greater satisfaction with design participation. Social resource development Social resources refer to the social behaviors within the neighborhood and the perceptions of neighbors and the neighborhood. Social resources include: neighboring; social support; neighborhood involvement; pride in neighborhood; satisfaction with the nei ghborhood; safety; neighborhood attachment; a sense of community; trust in neighbors; reciprocity; a sense of obligation; and segregation. Neighboring refers to the informal daily in teractions or social network activities among residents. In order to better define th e concept of a “neighbor” from a resident’s perspective, respondents are fi rst asked how many neighbors they have. Then they are asked the number of neighbors they greet (Skjaeveland & Garli ng, 1997), the number of neighbors they consider close friends (Unger & Wandersman, 1983), the number of neighbors they visit and the number of times they visit their neighbors (Skjaeveland & Garling, 1997). Higher numbers indi cate more frequent neighboring. Social support refers to the behavioral supportive system that provides individuals with socioemotional and material aids when neighbors frequently interact with one another informally (Unger & Wandersman, 1983). Social support is measured by eight items. On a 4-point Likert scale, respondent s are asked to rate the statements about borrowing for cooking (Skjaeveland & Garling, 1997), helping with ot her Habitat houses, and asking family members rather than neighbor s to help with repair problems. Adapted from Unger’s Neighboring Activities respondents are then aske d the number of neighbors from whom they would seek assistance, such as borrowing tools, watching the house,

PAGE 93

80 helping with house repair, needing a ride (Unger & Wa ndersman, 1983), and watching children. Unger’s scale has an alpha reliabil ity coefficient of 0.88 and a Spearman-Brown reliability coefficient of 0.89. A higher sc ore indicates better social support. Neighborhood involvement refers to the extent to which a Habitat family participates in activities th at contribute to neighborhood building. Respondents are asked whether or not they are involved in neighborhood associations and neighborhood activities, such as cr ime watch or cleanups. A higher scor e indicates greater involvement in the neighborhood. Pride in neighborhood is the pleasure or sa tisfaction taken into being part of a neighborhood. On a 4-point Likert scale, res pondents are asked to rate the statements about shame in the neighborhood. A higher score indicates a lower pride in the neighborhoods. Satisfaction with neighborhood refers to th e fulfillment or gratification one has toward her neighborhood. On a 4-point Likert scale, respondents ar e asked to rate one statement about satisfaction with the ove rall neighborhood. A highe r score indicates a lower satisfaction with the neighborhood. Safety is the feeling of being protected from danger in one’s neighborhood. On a 4point Likert scale, respondent s are asked to rate two statem ents about feeling safe during the daytime and nighttime. A higher score in dicates a higher sense of safety in the neighborhood. Neighborhood attachment refers to the emotional ties to one’s neighborhood. Neighborhood attachment is measured by three items in relation to comfort, belonging

PAGE 94

81 (Wells, 2000), and personal contact (Skjaev eland & Garling, 1997). A higher score indicates a stronger attachme nt to one’s neighborhood. A sense of community is defined by McMillan and Chavis (1986) as “a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members' needs will be met through their commitment to be together” (p. 9). A sense of community is measured by a 12-item scale, adapted from McMillan and Chavis’ Sense of Commun ity Index (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). The Sense of Community Index (SCI) measur es: membership (bel onging), influence (community cohesiveness), integration and fulfillment of needs (common needs, goals, and values), and shared emotional connection. Th e overall reliability of SCI of an adult in a neighborhood setting was 0.66 (Chipuer & Pr etty, 1999). A higher score indicates a greater sense of community. An open-ended ques tion is used to explore the qualities of a good neighborhood. Trust refers to the “perceiv ed availability of confidan ts to talk to about one’s difficulties” (Cohen et al., 1985, p. 74). During sweat equity, Habitat families usually develop trust in Habitat partne rs in general, and trust in neighbors contributes to the growth of a neighborhood. The 9-item scale of trust in neighbors is adapted from the appraisal subscale of the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) (Cohen et al., 1985). Cohen, Mermelstein, Kamarck, and Hoberman (1985) reported the internal reliability of ISEL ranged from 0.77 to 0.86 in general, and 0.77 to 0.92 for appraisal. Respondents are asked to choose True or False to the statements in relation to their trust in neighbors. A higher score indicates greater trust in one’s neighbors.

PAGE 95

82 Reciprocity refers to the dedication to mu tual commitment and the ability to help. On a 4-point Likert scale, respondents are asked to rate one statement about their willingness to help others to build houses after their own houses were completed. A higher score indicates greater willingness to help as well as having the skills to help. Four sets of open-ended questions are used to e xplore why people do or do not help each other. These four questions include: 1) why they ask a neighbor for help; 2) whether or not they can maintain and repair their houses and if not, whom would they ask for assistance and why; 3) whether or not they would help nei ghbors and why; and 4) whether or not they care about receiving help from neighbors first a nd expect to receive assistance in return from the same person. A sense of obligation refers to bonding to one’s neighborhood through actions or the involvement in a neighborhood associati on. Respondents are asked whether or not they have a homeowner association in their neighborhoods. If the answer is Yes respondents are asked how often the associa tion holds meetings and how often they attend meetings. A sense of obligation is also explored as to why they would or would not attend these meetings and their suggestions for the existing or future organization. Segregation refers to the perception of being segregated for families living in a place “that is highly centralized, spatially co ncentrated, unevenly distributed, tightly clustered, and minimally exposed to majority members” (Massey & Denton, 1988, p. 283). On a 4-point Likert scale, respondent s are asked to rate two statements about perception of economic segregation and raci al segregation. A higher score indicates a stronger feeling of being segregated.

PAGE 96

83 Hypothesis 2: A difference exists in the ma intenance of the resource developments in Habitat neighborhoods versus scattered sites. Scattered sites refer to locations where no other Habitat homes exist on the same street, or where few Habitat houses exist on the same street—with less than 10 Habitat houses on the same block. Habitat neighborhoods refer to locations where 10 or more Habitat houses are clustered, or where Habitat houses are surrounded only by homes built by Habitat on the same block. Hypothesis 3: A relationship exists between users’ participation in house design and the satisfaction with the results of their participation. Design participation means the extent to which the homeowners participate in the decision-making during the desi gn process of their own houses Design participation is measured by two parts: 1) Yes or No to the question whether or not families have taken part in design activities for the following ei ght areas; and 2) the number of sweat equity hours a respondent completed when she began the design-related processes. The design activities include: selecting the lot; choosing interior and exterior colors and finishes; and taking part in the interior layout design, yard design, a nd public space planning. The higher total number of the types of design activities wi th which a family becomes involved indicates greater desi gn participation. The meaning of design participation is explored through an open-ended question, “H ow do you feel about selecting interior colors and finishes for your house?” Responde nts are also asked whether or not they would like to have more influence over the de sign of their houses and to specify their suggestions for both interiors and exteriors.

PAGE 97

84 Analytical Techniques Due to the complexity of the data, multiple methods were used to analyze data. The self-administered survey responses were code d, transferred to a computer spreadsheet, verified for accuracy, and input into statisti cal models. The open-ended interviews were transcribed as narratives fo r content analysis. Since it wa s a multi-factor study with a small sample size, the assumption of norma l distribution and e qual variance within groups were needed for statistical analysis. Quantitative data were described by their mean, median, range, and standard deviation. Crosstab statistics, hierarchical cluster analys is (Dendrogram), and factor analysis were used to analyze data prelim inarily. Controlled by such variables as education, income, age, and employment, the ne w generated data were analyzed using the General Linear Model, Univar iate model, Multivariate m odel, Kendall’s correlation, and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Once inte raction effects were found, no individual effects were explored furthe r. The alpha or level of significance was set at 0.05. For qualitative data, content analysis is a common analytic method to draw replicable and valid inferences on the basis of the absence or presence of attributes in texts for cultural, social, psychological, and behavioral stud ies (Holsti, 1969; Krippendorf, 1980; Weber, 1990). Content anal ysis helps to quantify and analyze the presence, meanings, and relationships of inte rview responses within the Habitat context. It also allows the researcher to cro ss-validate findings obtained by surveys. After interview responses were transcribe d verbatim, the data frequency counts and data mining generated the broad categories. Since the interviews were semi-structured, the responses in relation to psychological fe elings were recoded as ordinal scales to reveal the prominence of the attributes. The identified themes were then examined by

PAGE 98

85 conceptual analysis or relationship analys is for the presence of concepts and the relationships between the concepts and da ta obtained from survey. A common coding frame was devised in order to allow for co mparison for responses across questions. The results of content analysis were reported in tabulation and narrativ es. Since data were recoded manually, the researcher recoded the same responses twice over a period of one month. Validity and Reliability Since case studies are context-specific, th e criticism of case studies is focused on the qualities of case studies, including valid ity, reliability, and difficulties to build a cause-and-effect relationship and generalize the findings. Compared to secondary data analysis, survey research, and field experime nts, case studies may not build strong causeimpact correlations and apply generalization la ws. But case studies ha ve the advantage to explore complex phenomena when ot her methods are not applicable. The criteria for judging the quality of a cas e study have different constructs from quantitative research. For a pos itivist paradigm, the construc ts include: objectivity; reliability; internal validity (rigor and/or causal relationships); external validity (generalization); and construct validity (c orrect operational m easures) (Kidder & Judd, 1986; Yin, 2003). Validity tests the degree to which a study assesses accurately the research concept. The validity of case studi es can be improved by using multiple methods for data collections, such as documents, arch ival records/protocol analyses, open-ended interviews, focus group interviews, structured in terviews and surveys, field studies, direct observations, and participant observations (M arshall & Rossman, 1999). Reliability tests the extent to which an experiment, instrument or procedure yields the same result over time. Reliability is also concerned with wh ether two items measure identical concepts,

PAGE 99

86 the precision between the obser vers or of the instruments, and the consistency of the implementation of a rating system. For a natu ralistic paradigm, schol ars suggested using credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability to judge qualitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Merriam, 1985). This research follows the positivist paradigm because it contains both qualitative and quantitative methods to collect and analy ze data. The methods adopted in this study were derived from Yin’s (2003) suggestions for building the validity and reliability in case studies: using multiple sources of evid ence and multiple cases; following case study protocol; developing a database; and guiding by theory or logic models. The validity of this case study was strengt hened by multiple sources of information, including documents, archival records, personal communication with Habitat affiliates, interviews with residents, and structured su rveys. A triangulation was formed in seeking evidence from a wide range of different, inde pendent sources and by different means. For a better understanding for part icipants, these quantitative measures were categorized under sweat equity, feelings about themselv es, their house, their neighbors, and their neighborhood. The interview questions mainly addressed how families felt about sweat equity and why they helped their neighbors. Additional sources of data included newsletters, flyers, training booklets, copies of policy stat ements, Habitat International online resources, Habitat World magazine, and observations at the local Habitat Board of Trustees meeting and construction sites. Based on the learning-by-doing theory and the generalized social exchange theory, the theoretical framewor k (see Figure 3-1) helped to construct the external validity. If replicating the logic in multi ple cases is available in the future, the external validity will be reinforced.

PAGE 100

87 It is possible that a causal factor was not accounted for regarding the relationships between sweat equity and human and social re source development. Th e internal validity was considered by constructing patterns and e xplanations from the extensive literature review. With the help from research professionals and Habitat affiliates, a research protocol was developed and submitted to th e Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Florida. Any changes in the re search protocol were reported to the IRB. The reliability of this study was taken into account in conducting a p ilot study to test the measures and procedures. The pilot study prot ocol was also approve d by IRB. It was conducted in a local Habitat whose families we re in the middle of their sweat equity hours. Although the responses might be diffe rent from those in principal study that engaged Habitat homeowners, the pilot study sh owed that the procedures were operative and families understood the instruments. The pilot study also helped the researcher control the interview time and enhanced interview skills. Since the pilot study was successful, the principal study followed simila r procedure and instruments with minor changes appropriate for homeowners ra ther than potential homeowners. Limitations of This Study The limitations of this study reside in the nature of the study and external constraints imposed by time and resources. Since sweat equity policies in Habitat affiliates are different from one another and partner families are pre-selected to enter this program, it is possible that opinions of the pa rticipants in this st udy are different from those in other affiliates or those who quit the program during the sweat equity process. The volunteerism sampling strategy may separate the participants who volunteered in this study and those who did not want to participate. Because of the scale of this case study, it is unwise to generalize the results to othe r housing programs. As Yin (2003) indicated,

PAGE 101

88 any single scientific investiga tion contributed to theoretical explanations rather than generalization on a single case. Only addi tional cases following similar theoretical framework could test the truth within a larger population. Assumptions have to be made about th e accuracy of a self-report method. Although personal information and opinions provided by pa rticipants are exclusively confidential, Habitat families may feel obliged to comment positively to Habitat and its policies. Using both pro and con statements for certain questi ons increases the objectivity of the data. Other constraints in this st udy include time, cost, and location. Time and cost shape the scope of the research and the range of activities undertaken. Within a certain timeframe and limited financial resources, the tr ade-offs are set on th e depth and scope of the questions, the modes of data collection, th e numbers of respondents, and the extent of the analyses. Location is anot her constraint. The location of the researcher limits the accessibility to a larger pool and th e continuity of data collection. Summary The methodology adopted for this study wa s derived from an anthropological classification of case studies, as described by Yin (1994). This research explores sweat equity and its impact on low-income families’ lives. Since the researcher had little control over the conditions, and the focus was on contemporary phenomena, a case study was chosen accordingly, which incorporated multip le data collection methods. Documents, literature review, and personal communica tion built a solid background for the sweat equity process. The self-administrated survey questionnaire included quantitative measures of sweat equity, human resour ces, and social resources. The open-ended interview questions were focused on the mean ing of sweat equity and the impact of deciding colors and material to Habitat hom eowners. Statistics were used to analyze

PAGE 102

89 survey responses in two different physical settings of Habitat houses, and content analyses extracted the meanings emerged from the interview responses. Although the study was limited by both internal and external constraints, it genera ted valid and reliable information for a holistic unders tanding of sweat equity in the context of Habitat.

PAGE 103

90 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY This chapter reports the results of the research. The first section details the demographic characteristics of the respondents, shows th e central tendency (mean and median) and measures of variability (variance s2, standard deviation s and range) of sweat equity and the human and social resour ces developed during sweat equity. Scores 1 to 4 were assigned to each response on Li kert-type items as follows: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agr ee, and 4 = strongly agree for most items; or 1 = unskilled, 2 = somewhat skilled, 3 = skilled, and 4 = very skilled for maintenance skill selfevaluation. Binomial responses we re coded as 1 or 0. Other data collected were scored as described in the previous disc ussion of measures. An alpha level of 0.05 was used for all statistical tests unless specified. The second section reports the results of the statistical tests for each of the three hypotheses. The thir d section reports the re sults of the content analyses. Characteristics of Sample Demographic Characteristics A total of 49 families from three Habita t for Humanity (Hab itat) affiliations— Alachua Habitat, HabiJax, and Ocala Habitat— were recruited in the principal study. Out of the 49 participants, 14 we re from HabiJax, 14 were from Ocala Habitat, and 21 were from Alachua Habitat. HabiJax and Ocala partne r families (a total of 28) lived in Habitat neighborhoods, and Alachua partner families (a to tal of 21) lived in scattered sites. Since

PAGE 104

91 the majority of the householders were female only female householders’ responses were included. Categorical demographics for the res pondents are shown in Table 4-1. Among all 49 respondents who participated in the survey and interview, two respondents would not provide information about their income and one would not reveal he r age. Information concerning race, marital status, education, em ployment, and income was collected in a categorical format, and information about ag e, the number of children, and length of time in a Habitat home was collect ed in a numerical format. Table 4-1. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents Respondents n % Race (n = 49) Black 46 93.88 White 2 4.08 Spanish 1 2.04 Marital Status (n = 49) Married Couple 10 20.41 Single, Never Married 19 38.78 Single, Divorced 18 36.73 Single, Separated or Engaged 2 4.08 Education (n = 49) Less than High School 5 10.20 High School 15 30.61 College 28 57.15 Graduate Degree 1 2.04 Employment (n = 49) Employed 41 83.67 Unemployed or Retired 8 16.33 Income (n=47) <$20,000 26 55.32 $20,000-$25,000 10 21.28 $25,000-$30,000 3 6.38 $30,000-$35,000 3 6.38 >$35,000 5 10.64 The majority (93.88%) of the 49 participants were Black, only two families were White, and one was Spanish. Among all the participants, only 10 (20.41%) were married. Among the 39 singles, 38.78% were never married, 36.73% were divorced, and 4.08% were separated.

PAGE 105

92 Five out of the 49 respondents, or 10.20% of the sample, did not finish their high school education. Approximately 30.61% fini shed their high school education, 57.15% had one to four years of higher education, and one respondent held a graduate degree. Also, 83.67% of the participants were em ployed and eight families were either unemployed or retired. Only 47 participants re ported their income ranges. The majority or 55.32% of these families’ annual income was less than $20,000; 21.28% had an annual income between $20,000 and $25,000. Only three families (6.38%) earned between $25,000 and $30,000 and $30,000 and $35,000, respectively. Five families earned more than $35,000 a year, representing 10.64% of the total sample. The median income fell in the lowest category—less than $20,000 ( M = 1.96, SD = 1.37). Forty-eight participants reported thei r ages, which ranged from 25 to 76. The average age of a particip ant was 44.52 years old ( Mdn = 42, SD = 11.99) and the median age was 44. The number of children in a family ranged from 0 to 7 ( M = 2.90, Mdn = 3, SD = 1.76). The average length a Habitat family lived in a Habitat house ranged from 4 months to 15 years ( M = 5.62, Mdn = 4, SD = 4.46). The one-way ANOVA showed that the length of time a family lived in a Habitat house was correlated to the physical settings, F (1, 48) = 59, p < 0.00. Families in scattered sites lived in their homes longer than families in the neighborhoods. Other demographic features between families in neighborhoods and those in scattered sites remained similar. The two groups are consid ered homogenous for the purpose of this study. Sweat Equity The sweat equity hours reported ranged fr om 100 to 2000 hours, with a mean of 428 hours and a median of 500 hours ( SD = 275.67). During these hours, one respondent

PAGE 106

93 (2.04%) did not participate in any of the de sign-related activities, and seven respondents (14.29%) participated all eight activities. The median number of design activities in which a family participated was 6 ( M = 5.1, SD = 2.3). The numbers of sweat equity hours when families started design participa tion ranged from 50 to 800. The percentage of the sweat equity requirement finished when families started their design participation, compared to the total hours ranged fro m 8.50% to 100.00%. Approximately 16.33% of the partner families started their design participation when they finished less than onethird of all required sweat equity hours. Approximately 57.15% of the activities started during one-third to two-thirds of all requi red hours, and 26.53% of these design activities started after a family finished two-thirds of all the required hours. The median respondent finished half of her sweat equity hours when she chose her house lot. All 49 respondents reported what they did during the sweat equity hours: public activities, construction for ot hers, or construction for themselves. The number of public activities in which a family participated ranged from 0 to 9. One family did not participate in any of the public activities, such as working in the thrift store or public speaking for Habitat; two families participat ed in all public activities that Habitat provides. The mean score of the number of public activities in which a family participated was 5.45, and the median score of the public duty was 6 ( SD = 2.24). Everyone participated in her own house’s c onstruction. Three out of the 49 families (6.12%) participated in at least two type s of construction work, and three families participated in all types of constructi on work. The average number of types of construction in which a family participated was 5.49, and the median value of the types of construction in which a family participated was 5 ( SD = 2.13). A total of four families

PAGE 107

94 (8.16%) reported not having any training duri ng sweat equity. The evaluation a family gave for training ranged from 4 to 12 ( M = 8.80, Mdn = 9, SD = 3.25), where the higher number meant more satisfaction with traini ng experiences. Regarding the statement that the contents of the training courses were well organized, seven out of the 45 respondents (15.56%) either strongly disa greed or disagreed, and 38 (84.44%) either agreed or strongly agreed. Concerning the statement that the contents of the training courses were thorough, nine (20.00%) disagreed and 36 (80.00%) either agreed or strongly agreed. Regarding the statement that the information presented in the traini ng courses was useful, seven (15.56%) either disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 38 (84.44%) either agreed or strongly agreed. Ten out of the 49 (20.41%) re spondents would not like to continue to learn how to do household repairs after they fi nished the required sweat equity hours, and 39 (79.59%) would like to learn more household repairs. The most common practice in public activ ities was attending the groundbreaking of other participants’ homes (85.71%, n = 49), followed by attending homeowner courses (77.55%), budget courses (65.31%), working in a Habitat office or thrift store (61.22%), attending a maintenance course (55.10%), and taking insurance courses (48.98%). Approximately 36.73% of the families attende d fundraising events and worked with a family supporter on household management respectively. About 32.65% engaged in public speaking for Habitat, and 26.53% attende d leadership courses. Only 14.29% of the families babysat for other families, and three fa milies (6.12%) participated in other public activities, such as attending groundbreaking, working in a Thrift store, and babysitting for others.

PAGE 108

95 The most common construction job in whic h a family participated was painting (91.84%, n = 49), followed by landscaping a yard (87.76%), trimming an interior (79.59%), siding a framed house (71.43%), laying a foundation (53.06%), roofing (38.78%), installing fl oor tile (38.78%), working on dr ywall (34.69%), and installing windows or doors (30.61%). Only 14.29% reporte d participating in utility piping, and four families (8.16%) reported more constr uction work, such as laying a foundation, siding a house, painting, or landscaping. Human and Social Resource Development Almost all 49 families responded to the questions about their human and social resources unless specified. Participants felt mo st confident in their skills in decorating their houses (77.55%) and cleaning the yard (77.55%), followed by painting (73.47%), repairing lighting fixtures (32.65%), fixing a door (32.65%), replacing flooring (28.57%), repairing wallboard (22.45%) and kitche n appliances (22.45 %), fixing a window (20.41%), repairing air-conditio ning or heating systems (18.37%), repairing plumbing (16.33%), and repairing either roofing, porches or steps (14.29%). One family reported confidence in house cleaning (2.04%). However, the frequency of maintenance did not match confidence in maintenance skills. The most frequent house maintenan ce was cleaning the yard (81.63%, n = 49), followed by decorating the house (77.55%), painting a room (44.90%), fixing a door (30.61%), repairing a lighti ng fixture (24.49%), and repl acing the flooring (20.41%). Less common maintenance pr actices included fixing a wi ndow (14.29%) during the past six months, repairing wallboard and plum bing (12.2%), repairing air-conditioning or heating systems (10.20%), repair ing roofing (6.12%), porches (4.08%), or steps (2.04%).

PAGE 109

96 The majority of the families (77.55%, n = 49) either agreed or st rongly agreed that they had no problem in keeping their budge t under control. Sim ilarly, the majority (79.59%) either agreed or strongly agreed that they could manage their bill payments on time. The total financing skills scores ranged from 2 to 8, with a mean of 6.33 (n = 49, SD = 1.59), which indicated that approximately 79.15% of the families had good financing skills. The majority of the families (69.39%, n = 49) had confidence with future home maintenance and repairs. Three families (6.12 %) expressed the least confidence in their skills, and 24.49% had less confidence in their skills. However, more families (89.80%) were proud of what they could achieve with their own hands, but they might not all be conf ident about their maintenance skills. The majority or 95.92% of the 49 families reporte d feeling proud of their houses and their neighborhoods. Two persons strongly disagree d with the statement about pride in the house and two disagreed with the statem ent about pride in the neighborhoods. The self-esteem scores ranged from 5 to 10. The mean value was 8.65 ( SD = 1.36). Most participants (87.76%) had a self-esteem score equal to or hi gher than 8, indicating that most families had relatively high self-esteem. Home attachment scores ranged from 2 to 8, with a mean value of 7.41 ( SD = 1.34, n = 49). Only 6.12% of the respondents did no t feel personal connect ions to the house, but 93.88% felt personal connect ions to the house. About 4.08% of the respondents did not feel that their house was like a home, and 95.92% felt their house was like a home. Neighborhood attachment scores ranged from 3 to 12, with a mean of 9.29 ( SD = 2.25, n = 49). Although the majority felt att ached to their ne ighborhoods, about 16.33%

PAGE 110

97 of respondents did not feel comfortable w ith their neighborhoods, 24.49% did not feel a part of their neighborhoods, and 20.41% felt that they could have better contact with friends or families if they lived in another part of town. Based on a 4-point Likert scale where the higher score indicate d higher satisfaction, the mean score of house satisfaction was 3.47 ( SD = 0.74, n = 49), and the mean of neighborhood satisfaction was 2.98 ( SD = 1.01). Although the majority was satisfied with their houses and neighborhoods, 10.20% of the respondents were generally not satisfied with their house, and 26.53% were not sa tisfied with their neighborhoods overall. On a 4-point Likert scale wh ere higher scores indicated stronger feelings of being segregated, the mean of the perceptio n of financial segregation was 1.90 ( SD = 0.94), and the mean of the perception of racial segregation was 1.78 ( SD = 0.74). About 77.55% (n = 49) of respondents did not f eel financially segregated by living in their neighborhoods, and 85.71% did not feel r acially segregated. About 93.88% (n = 49) of the respondent s felt safe in their neighborhoods during daytime, and 85.71% felt safe during nighttime. The majority (93.88%, n = 49) felt strong re sponsibility for house maintenance and repair. Only three respondents felt less res ponsibility for house maintenance and repair. The scores of trust for their neighbors ra nged from 0 to 9, where higher scores indicated higher trust. The mean va lue of trust in neighbors was 5.88 ( SD = 2.83, n = 49). The median value was 7, indicating a good sense of trust in neighbors overall. Out of a total of eight types of design activities in which a family could become involved, one respondent did not have a ny design particip ation experience. Approximately 10.20% (n = 49) of the participants were involved in one or two activities,

PAGE 111

98 32.65% were involved in three to five activitie s, and 55.10% participat ed in six to eight activities. For each design ac tivity, 77.55% of the respondents selected interior colors, 69.39% selected interior fini shes, 55.10% selected inte rior layout, 79.59% selected exterior colors, 65.31% selected exterior finishes, 73.47% took pa rt in yard design, 61.22% selected their lots, 22.45% participated in public space planning, and 6.12% took part in other activities. The most satisfied design solution was th e exterior colors (100% satisfaction, n = 49), followed by exterior finishes (95.92%), in terior finishes (91.84 %), interior colors (89.80%), layouts (83.67%) and lot selec tion (83.67%), yards (77.55%), and neighborhood planning (57.15%). One respondent chose Not know to neighborhood planning. About 93.75% of the 48 respondents expresse d satisfaction with the overall design participation experience, and 97.92% expresse d satisfaction with se lecting colors and finishes with their house design. One out of the 49 respondents did not answer the question. Of the 49 respondents, 34 respondents or 69.39% of the sample would borrow something from a neighbor for cooking, 45 or 87.76% agreed that they would like to help others build their houses afte r their own houses were finished, 18 or 36.73% would rather call a family member than a neighbor for a re pair problem. The mean and median scores of the number of neighbors fr om whom a respondent felt comf ortable in borrowing a tool were 3.37 ( SD = 3.37) and 2, respectively. The mean and median scores of the number of neighbors a participant felt comfortable in as king a neighbor to watch her house when she was away were 2.73 ( SD = 3.25) and 2, respectively. The mean and median scores of the

PAGE 112

99 number of neighbors a participant felt comf ortable in asking a ne ighbor to watch her children when she was away were 1.57 ( SD = 3.01) and 1, respectively. The mean and median scores of the number of neighbors a part icipant felt comfortable in asking to help with house repairs were 2.12 ( SD = 3.29) and 1, respectively. The mean and median scores of the number of neighbors a participan t felt comfortable in asking for a ride were 2.73 ( SD = 4.01) and 2, respectively. Approximately 46.94% (n = 49) reported taking part in neighborhood association activities in their ne ighborhoods (obligation). But only about half of respondents were aware of an existing neighborhood association in their area. The scores of sense of community ranged from 19 to 44 ( M = 34.5, Mdn = 35, SD = 5.68), where the higher scores indicate d a stronger sense of community. The number of neighbors surrounding a part icipant had ranged from 1 to 136 ( M = 13.43, Mdn = 5, SD = 25.54, n = 49); the number of neighbors one said hello to ranged from 0 to 85 ( M = 11.04, Mdn = 6, SD = 18.32). The number of neighbors one considered as close friends ranged from 0 to 20 ( M = 2.76, Mdn = 2, SD = 4.06). The number of the neighbors one visited now and then ranged from 0 to 10 ( M = 1.76, Mdn = 1, SD = 2.17), and the monthly frequency in which a responde nt visited her neighbors ranged from 0 to 30 ( M = 3.37, Mdn = 1, SD = 6.56). Approximately 87.76% (n = 49) would like to help others build their houses after their own houses were finished, in dicating a sense of reciprocity. The majority of the respondents (91.84%, n = 49) believed that they could do regular maintenance by themselves, and ar ound 79.59% would ask others for help in household repair work.

PAGE 113

100 Results of Statistical Analyses Responses to all items were coded, transf erred to the Statisti cal Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), and ve rified for accuracy. The Hier archical Cluster Analysis (Dendrogram) was first employed to plot stat istical clusters among dependent variables (see Figure 4-1). The plot illustrated that several clusters or interactions existed. Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25 Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ ATTH 3 PRDH 4 SATH 16 PRDS 1 RES 2 REC1 5 FINA 6 CONF 7 SEM 8 SUPB 13 NEING 14 SUPA 12 TRUST 19 OBG1 20 DENS 15 DENPS 18 SOC 11 SATN 17 SAF 10 ATTN 23 SELF 21 PRDN 9 SEMF 22 Note. Out of 49 cases, 48 were valid, 1 was missing. Squared Euclidean Distance was used. Figure 4-1. Hierarchical cluster anal ysis: Dendrogram using Ward Method. The nonparametric statistical test, Factor An alysis, was then conducted to detect the clusters of variables and to reduce a to tal of 23 dependent va riables into seven statistically uncorrelated variables, or the se ven factors of Factor Analysis. In Table 4-2, seven factors were generated through the Prin cipal Component Analys is. The first factor included the following dependent variables: pride in skills; se lf-responsibility; house attachment; pride in house; reciprocity; fi nancial skills; confidence in skills; and maintenance skills. A further factor analysis was employed within this first factor and two new factors were generated. Pride in sk ills, financial skills, maintenance skills,

PAGE 114

101 confidence in skills, and reciprocity describe d an individual’s perception of skills, which was named as SKILLS. Pride in house, hous e attachment, and self-responsibility described a respondent’s psychological feelin gs about her house, which was named as attachment to house (ATT-H). Pride in ne ighborhood, safety, neighborhood attachment, satisfaction with neighborhood, and sense of community depicted a respondent’s perception of the community. The term Generalized Sense of Community (GSOC) was used to describe the new factor. The numeri cal measures of social support (SUP-N) and neighboring formed the new factor support (S UP). Design satisfacti on, satisfaction with house, and design participation satisfac tion formed the new factor design-house satisfaction (DESIGN). The categorical meas ures of social support (SUP-C) and trust formed the new factor TRUST. Obligation and self-esteem formed the new factor SELF. Table 4-2. Factor Analysis: Rotated Component Matrix Component 1 234567 PRDS 0.88 0.17-0.03-0.030.010.09-0.03 RES 0.81 0.110.130.27-0.020.160.18 ATTH 0.77 0.200.090.260.34-0.260.11 PRDH 0.74 0.110.080.300.33-0.270.13 REC1 0.71 0.290.030.020.160.09-0.07 FINA 0.68 0.070.23-0.12-0.340.090.04 CONF 0.57 0.130.020.17-0.09-0.02-0.16 SEM 0.56 0.090.44-0.150.120.040.10 PRDN 0.12 0.710.00-0.110.09-0.080.06 SAF 0.57 0.700.00-0.010.050.040.03 ATTN 0.25 0.69-0.010.35-0.040.26-0.07 SATN 0.22 0.680.420.210.100.140.09 SOC 0.18 0.660.340.310.250.240.05 SUP-N 0.12 0.190.84-0.07-0.080.03-0.05 NEING 0.09 -0.020.790.170.20-0.01-0.05 DEN-S -0.09 0.260.060.72-0.260.17-0.02 SATH 0.38 0.120.100.660.19-0.270.28 DENPS 0.22 -0.08-0.020.60-0.020.02-0.32 SUP-C 0.20 0.120.06-0.150.840.12-0.13 TRUST -0.18 0.290.36-0.050.620.43-0.01 OBG -0.11 -0.010.090.160.320.79-0.01 SELF 0.36 0.34-0.07-0.12-0.100.730.15 SEMF 0.05 0.07-0.07-0.08-0.120.070.90 Note The extraction method was the Principal Component Analysis, the rotation method was the Varimax with Kaiser Normalization, and the rotation converged in 15 iterations.

PAGE 115

102 Maintenance frequency (MAINT) remained as a factor by itself. Numerical values were generated for each new factor. The only dependent variable that was not in the Factor Analysis was segregation because it was of special interest in this study. Therefore, a total of eigh t factors and economical segr egation (SEG-E) and racial segregation (SEG-R) were therefore used in the following statistical tests. The new factors were incorporated into the co nceptual framework (see Figure 4-2). Because doing, learning, and sharing were closely connected in the sweat equity process, sometimes the boundary of human and social resources was subtle. For example, reciprocity and obligation seems to fit in th e social rather than human resource category. However, helping requires one to have certain human skills rather than mere willingness or a supporting social environment. A family ma y not help others because of the lack of skills rather than not willi ng to help. People may report a strong sense of obligation but do nothing to improve the neighborhood. B ecause this study was structured under learning by doing, the focus was placed on whethe r or not a person had the skills to help and what this person did. The same reas on may explain why reciprocity was grouped with perception of skills and sense of obligation was corre lated with self-esteem. The reciprocal behaviors could be performed only if a responde nt knew how to perform the favors. Thus an individual needs certain skills to perform generalized reciprocity. Similarly, the sense of obligation to ones’ neighborhood also needs certain skills to do something for the neighborhood, not just good will. The more one could help a neighborhood, the more skills one has, and the stronger one’s own self-esteem is. Besides dependent variables, Factor Analysis also generated new factors for independent variables. Data, which were re lated to construction activities during sweat

PAGE 116

103 equity, were named construction (CONST); data related to public activities were named public (PUBLIC). The number of design re lated activities in which a respondent participated remained unchanged for special re search interest. The training experiences families had during sweat equity also remain unchanged. In statistical analyses, design participation was named as DENP, and training was named as SET. Figure 4-2. Modified conceptual fr amework for statistical analyses. Qualitative measures of SE Human Resources Social Resources Social support (SUP) Dependent Variables Number of types of SE activities Lecture training (SET) Learning by doing and sharing o Public activities (PUBLIC) o Construction (CONST) o Design participation (DENP) Demographics Age Education Economic level Length of residency Marital status Total number of SE hours Frequency of house maintenance (MAINT) Generalized Sense of Community (GSOC) Trust (TRUST) Segregation (SEGE, SEG-R) Scattered sites Social support (SUP) Frequency of house maintenance (MAINT) Neighborhoods Generalized Sense of Community (GSOC) Trust (TRUST) Segregation (SEGE, SEG-R) Perception of skills (SKILLS) Attachment to house (ATT-H) Self-esteem (SELF) Design-house satisfaction (DESIGN) Legend Tangible measures Intangible measures Control Variables Perception of skills (SKILLS) Attachment to house (ATT-H) Self-esteem (SELF) Design-house satisfaction (DESIGN) Independent Variables

PAGE 117

104 Hypothesis 1. Sweat equity contributes to human and social resource development. According to the modified conceptual fr amework (see Figure 4-2), Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANCOVA) was conduc ted to explore the impact of physical settings and sweat equity on human and soci al resource development, controlled for education. If the multivariate model could not explain all dependent variables, bivariate correlation coefficients were reported to de scribe how variables were related. If no significant correlation was found between variab les, Univariate Analysis of Variance tests were reported for the effect of categor ical variables for each unexplained dependent variable, controlling for continuous covariates. The physical locations (LOCA)—neighborhood (n = 27) and scattered sites (n = 21)—were the between-subject factors. The independent variables were: construction (CONST); public activities (PUBLIC); trai ning (SET); hour squared (HOURS2); and design participation (DENP). Education (EDU) served as the control covariate. The dependent variables were: perception of skills (SKILLS); house attachment (ATT-H); design and house satisfaction (DESIGN); self -esteem and obligation (SELF); frequency of maintenance (MAINT); generalized se nse of community (GSOC); social support (SUP); trust (TRUST); economical segregation (SEG-E), and raci al segregation (SEG-R). Concerning the multivariate general linea r model, Tables 4-3 showed that significant main effects existed for constr uction (CONST), public activities (PUBLIC), hour squared (HOURS2), design participati on (DENP), education (EDU), and locations (LOCA). In other words, sweat equity ha d significant effects on human and social resource development.

PAGE 118

105 Table 4-3. Multivariate Analyses of Covari ance Examining Dependent Variables after Controlling for Education Effect Pillai's Trace F Hyp df Error df p 2 Intercept* 0.463 2.674 10 31 0.017 0.46 CONST** 0.549 3.767 10 31 0.002 0.55 PUBLIC* 0.489 2.968 10 31 0.010 0.49 HOURS2** 0.491 2.996 10 31 0.009 0.49 DENP* 0.475 2.800 10 31 0.014 0.48 EDU* 0.432 2.361 10 31 0.033 0.43 SET 0.294 1.288 10 31 0.279 0.29 LOCA** 0.522 3.388 10 31 0.004 0.52 Note. p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; 2-tailed significance. The between-subjects effects in Table 4-4 specified how individual independent variables significantly contributed to depende nt variables in the multivariate analyses. Table 4-4. Significant Results from the Betw een-subjects Effects Examining Dependent Variables Independent Variable Dependent Variable Type III SS df MS F p CONST ATT-H* 2.865 1 2.865 5.691 0.022 DESIGN* 3.885 1 3.885 6.256 0.017 MAINT** 7.002 1 7.002 8.111 0.007 PUBLIC SKILLS* 4.889 1 4.889 6.805 0.013 SEG-E** 5.589 1 5.589 9.572 0.004 SEG-R** 3.626 1 3.626 8.311 0.006 DENP ATT-H* 2.393 1 2.393 4.753 0.035 EDU DESIGN** 6.044 1 6.044 9.732 0.003 SET DESIGN* 2.578 1 2.578 4.150 0.048 SEG-E* 2.414 1 2.414 4.134 0.049 SEG-R* 1.967 1 1.967 4.509 0.040 HOURS2 DESIGN** 9.483 1 9.483 15.268 0.000 LOCA SELF* 4.161 1 4.161 4.460 0.041 SEG-E** 6.071 1 6.071 10.397 0.003 Note p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; 2-tailed significance. Specifically, construction was rela ted to attachment to house ( = 0.267, t = 2.386, p < 0.05), design-house satisfaction ( = 0.311, t = 2.501, p < 0.05), and maintenance frequency ( = 0.417, t = 2.848, p < 0.01). Public activity duri ng sweat equity was related to perception of skills ( = 0.741, t = 2.609, p < 0.05), economical segregation ( = 0.792, t = 3.094, p < 0.01) and racial segregation ( = 0.638, t = 2.883, p < 0.01). The square of the sweat equity hours was relate d to design-house satisfaction ( = -8.204E-07, t = 3.907, p < 0.01). Design participation was re lated to attachment to house ( = -0.125, t = -

PAGE 119

106 2.180, p < 0.05). Education was related to design-house satisfaction ( = -0.256, t = 3.120, p < 0.01). Training was related to design-house satisfaction ( = 0.165, t = 2.037, p < 0.05), perception of economical ( = -0.159, t = -2.033, p < 0.05), and racial segregation ( = -0.144, t = -2.123, p < 0.05). Location was related to self-esteem and obligation ( = 0.746, t = 2.112, p < 0.05) and perception of economical segregation ( = -0.901, t = -3.224, p < 0.01). Two statistically signifi cant relationships were different from the hypothesized directions. It was expected that when families participated in more public activities, they would have more social resources, which helped reduce the perception of segregation. Fi nn (1994) found that selecting colors and designs was empowering. Therefore, it was expected that when families participated in more designrelated activities, they would ha ve more control over their hou ses and feel more attached to the houses. However, Habitat families tended to perceive more segregation when they participated in more public activities; and they felt less attached to their houses as design participation increased. Within the multivariate models, univariate analysis of variance for each dependent variable was provided. Therefore, the multivaria te tests also revealed the strength of the models for the following dependent vari ables: SKILLS, ATT-H, DESIGN, SELF, MAINT, SEG-E, and SEG-R (s ee Tables 4-5 through 4-11). Table 4-5 explained the multivariate mode l for dependent variable SKILLS. The multivariate model significantly contri buted to the perception of skills, F (7, 40) = 2.989, p < 0.05. Among the predictors, public activities significa ntly contributed to the perception of skills. Public activities explaine d 14.5% of the variability in SKILLS. The model explained approximately 34.3% of the variance of SKILLS.

PAGE 120

107 Table 4-5. Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable SKILLS Independent Variables SE t p Intercept -0.415 1.624 -0.256 0.800 CONST 0.106 0.134 0.795 0.431 PUBLIC* 0.741 0.284 2.609 0.013 DENP -0.108 0.069 -1.578 0.122 EDU 0.144 0.088 1.634 0.110 SET -9.594E-02 0.087 -1.105 0.276 HOURS2 2.662E-07 0.000 1.179 0.245 LOCA -0.319 0.310 -1.030 0.309 F (df1, df2) 2.989 (7, 40) R2 0.343 Adjusted R2 0.229 Note p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; 2-tailed significance. The multivariate model for dependent variable ATT-H was listed in Table 4-6. Although the overall F value for the model was not significant to explain ATT-H, construction and design particip ation significantly contributed to the attachment to the house. Construction explained 12.5% of the va riance in ATT-H and design participation explained 10.6% of the variance. Approximate ly 24.5% of the varian ce in the attachment to the house was explained by the model. Table 4-6. Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable ATT-H Independent Variables SE t p Intercept 0.377 1.359 0.278 0.783 CONST* 0.267 0.112 2.386 0.022 PUBLIC -1.254E-02 0.238 -0.053 0.958 DENP* -0.125 0.057 -2.180 0.035 EDU -2.154E-03 0.074 -0.029 0.977 SET 5.900E-02 0.073 0.811 0.422 HOURS2 1.202E-07 0.000 0.636 0.529 LOCA -0.280 0.259 -1.079 0.287 F (df1, df2) 1.855 (7, 40) R2 0.245 Adjusted R2 0.113 Note p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; 2-tailed significance. The multivariate model for dependent variable DESIGN was listed in Table 4-7. The overall model was significant to predic t house satisfaction, de sign satisfaction, and design participation satisfaction, F (7, 40) = 5.096, p < 0.00. Approximately 47.1% of the variance in design-house satisf action was explained by the m odel. Construction, training, sweat equity hour squared, and education si gnificantly contributed to the design-house

PAGE 121

108 satisfaction (DESIGN). The hour squared expl ained approximately 27.6% of the variance in DESIGN, followed by education (19.6%), co nstruction (13.5%), a nd training (9.4%). Table 4-7. Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable DESIGN Independent Variables SE t p Intercept 2.098 1.510 1.390 0.172 CONST* 0.311 0.124 2.501 0.017 PUBLIC -0.363 0.264 -1.374 0.177 DENP -1.976E-03 0.064 -0.031 0.975 EDU** -0.256 0.082 -3.120 0.003 SET* 0.165 0.081 2.037 0.048 HOURS2** -8.204E-07 0.000 -3.907 0.000 LOCA 1.945E-02 0.288 0.068 0.947 F (df1, df2) 5.096 (7, 40) R2 0.471 Adjusted R2 0.379 Note p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; 2-tailed significance. Although SELF was not significantly explai ned by the multivariate model, location significantly contributed to se lf-esteem, as listed in Tabl e 4-8. Approximately 20.6% of the variance of self-esteem (SELF) was explained by the model. Table 4-8. Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable SELF Independent Variables SE t p Intercept* -3.819 1.850 -2.064 0.046 CONST -0.183 0.152 -1.204 0.236 PUBLIC -0.121 0.324 -0.373 0.711 DENP 0.136 0.078 1.740 0.090 EDU 0.195 0.100 1.945 0.059 SET 2.665E-02 0.099 0.269 0.789 HOURS2 -3.322E-07 0.000 -1.291 0.204 LOCA* 0.746 0.353 2.112 0.041 F (df1, df2) 1.484 (7, 40) R2 0.206 Adjusted R2 0.067 Note p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; 2-tailed significance. Table 4-9 showed the multivariate model for the frequency of house maintenance (MAINT). The overall F value was not significant, but construction was significantly correlated to house maintenance, contributing to approximately 27.6% of the variance in MAINT. Construction explained approximately 16.9% of variance in house maintenance, and the entire model explained 26.5% of the variance.

PAGE 122

109 Table 4-9. Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable MAINT Independent Variables SE t p Intercept 2.007 1.780 1.128 .266 CONST** .417 .146 2.848 .007 PUBLIC 4.078E-02 .311 .131 .896 DENP -.149 .075 -1.975 .055 EDU -6.934E-02 .097 -.718 .477 SET -6.452E-02 .095 -.678 .502 HOURS2 3.086E-07 .000 1.247 .220 LOCA .280 .340 .826 .414 F (df1, df2) 2.063 (7, 40) R2 0.265 Adjusted R2 0.137 Note p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; 2-tailed significance. The multivariate model listed in Table 4-10 significantly predicted the perception of economic segregation (SEG-E), F (7, 40) = 3.578, p < 0.01. Public activities, training, and location significantly contributed to SEG-E. Location explained approximately 20.6% of the variance in SEG-E, followed by public activities ( 19.3%), and training (9.4%). The entire model explained 38.5% of the variance in pe rception of economic segregation. Table 4-10. Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable SEG-E Independent Variables SE t p Intercept** 5.531 1.464 3.779 0.001 CONST 0.122 0.120 1.012 0.318 PUBLIC** 0.792 0.256 3.094 0.004 DENP -8.690E-02 0.062 -1.403 0.168 EDU -9.988E-02 0.079 -1.257 0.216 SET* -0.159 0.078 -2.033 0.049 HOURS2 -1.007E-07 0.000 -0.495 0.624 LOCA** -0.901 0.279 -3.224 0.003 F (df1, df2) 3.578 (7, 40) R2 0.385 Adjusted R2 0.277 Note p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; 2-tailed significance. The multivariate model for the perception of racial segregation (SEG-R) was significant, F (7, 40) = 2.473, p < 0.05. In Table 4-11, public activities and training significantly contributed to SE G-R. Public activities expl ained approximately 17.2% of the variance in SEG-R, and training explaine d approximately 10.1% of the variance. The entire model explained 30.2% of the vari ance in perception of racial segregation.

PAGE 123

110 Although location did not show si gnificant influence in the model, the model indicated that families living in Habitat neighborhoods te nded to perceive less racial segregation ( p = 0.055). Table 4-11. Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable SEG-R Independent Variables SE t p Intercept* 3.268 1.265 2.583 0.014 CONST -0.112 0.104 -1.072 0.290 PUBLIC** 0.638 0.221 2.883 0.006 DENP 2.288E-02 0.054 0.427 0.671 EDU -5.436E-03 0.069 -0.079 0.937 SET* -0.144 0.068 -2.123 0.040 HOURS2 -1.529E-07 0.000 -.869 0.390 LOCA -0.477 0.241 -1.977 0.055 F (df1, df2) 2.473 (7, 40) R2 0.302 Adjusted R2 0.180 Note p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; 2-tailed significance. The multivariate model was not significant for the dependent variables generalized sense of community (GSOC), social support (S UP), and trust (TRUST ). Therefore, the Univariate General Linear Model was used to test the effects of the independent variables on them. The univariate model in Table 4-12 show ed that social support was significantly explained by public activities, design participation, and location, F (3, 44) = 3.797, p < 0.05. The model explained approximately 20.6 % of the variance in SUP. However, GSOC and TRUST were not sign ificantly explained using a Univariate General Linear Model. Table 4-12. Univariate Model for Dependent Variable SUP Independent Variables SE t p Intercept -0.656 0.340 -1.926 0.061 PUBLIC* 0.316 0.140 2.261 0.029 DENP* 0.146 0.070 2.095 0.042 LOCA -2.48 0.319 -0.777 0.441 F (df1, df2) 2.935 (3, 44) R2 0.206 Adjusted R2 0.152 Note p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; 2-tailed significance.

PAGE 124

111 Although the multivariate or univariate models did not explain the individual effect on the factors of generalized sense of comm unity (GSOC) and trust, the nonparametric correlation coefficient test (Kendall’s taub) showed interrelationships among these variables (see Table 4-13). The GSOC was significantly related to SET—training experiences ( t = 0.27, p < 0.05), DENTP—the proportion of the sweat equity hours one finished compared to the total sweat equity hours when the individual participated in house design and planning ( t = -0.22, p < 0.05), and also PUBLIC—the number of the public activities one particip ated during sweat equity ( t = 0.23, p < 0.05). Trust was significantly related to design participation ( t = -0.21, p < 0.05) and attachment to the house ( t = 0.38, p < 0.01). In addition to trust, attachment to house was significantly related to perception of skills ( t = -0.21, p < 0.05). Table 4-13. Nonparametric Correlations Among Variables: Kendall’s tau-b Kendall’s tau-b DENPDENTPSETCONSTPUBLIC SKILLSATTH GSOCSUPDESIGNTRUSTSELFMAINT DENP 1-0.04 (49) -0.11 (49) 0.20 (49) 0.01 (49) -0.05 (49) -0.10 (49) .00 (48) 0.12 (48) 0.00 (48) -0.21* (48) 0.07 (48) -0.24* (48) DENTP 1-0.10 (49) 0.02 (49) -0.09 (49) -0.10 (49) -0.00 (49) -0.22* (48) 0.06 (48) 0.04 (48) -0.08 (48) -0.10 (48) -0.02 (48)SET 1-0.07 (49) 0.62** (49) 0.29** (49) 0.07 (49) 0.27* (48) 0.11 (48) 0.15 (48) 0.03 (48) 0.04 (48) -0.12 (48)CONST 10.04 (49) 0.16 (49) 0.05 (49) -0.07 (48) 0.06 (48) 0.18 (48) -0.01 (48) -0.06 (48) 0.17 (48)PUBLIC 10.28** (49) 0.02 (49) 0.23* (48) 0.18 (48) 0.06 (48) -0.01 (48) -0.05 (48) -0.09 (48)SKILLS 1-0.21* (49) 0.10 (48) 0.05 (48) -0.03 (48) -0.17 (48) 0.10 (48) -0.03 (48)ATT-H 10.12 (48) -0.14 (48) 0.25* (48) 0.38** (48) -0.15 (48) 0.06 (48)GSOC 1-0.06 (48) 0.01 (48) -0.01 (48) -0.02 (48) -0.03 (48)SUP 10.00 (48) 0.12 (48) 0.01 (48) 0.01 (48)DESIGN 10.00 (48) -0.01 (48) 0.00 (48)TRUST 1-0.01 (48) -0.00 (48)SELF 1-0.01 (48)MAINT 1 Note p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; 2-tailed significance, numbers in parentheses were the number of cases for which valid data were available. Since these dependent variables had interact ions with one another, the alternative analysis was to combine all dependent variable s that were related to human resources as

PAGE 125

112 one factor and all variables th at were related to social re sources as the other factor. Therefore, the dependent variables under human resources were regarded as one factor HUMAN, and dependent variables under social resources were regarded as one factor SOCIAL. Multiple regression analyses (stepwise) were employed to examine the new factors: HUMAN and SOCIAL. The results ar e shown in Table 4-14. Human resource development (HUMAN) was significantly corre lated with construction (CONST) and the design participation (DENP). Approximate ly 26.9% of the variance in the human resources was explained by construction a nd design participation. Social resource development (SOCIAL) was significantly co rrelated to public activities (PUBLIC) and design participation. About 27.9% of the varian ce in social resour ces was explained by public activities and de sign participation. Table 4-14. Results of Two Multiple Regressi on Analyses Examining Human and Social Resource Developments Independent Variable Standardized Beta Coefficient T p HUMAN; F (2, 45) = 8.289, p = 0.001, R2 = 0.269 (0.257) CONST** 0.493 3.732 0.001 DENP* -0.338 -2.558 0.014 SOCIAL; F (2, 45) = 8.703, p = 0.001, R2 = 0.279 (0.247) PUBLIC ** 0.440 3.474 0.001 DENP 0.278 2.193 0.034 Note p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; 2-tailed significance. Hypothesis 2. A relationship exists in the maintenance of the resource developments in Habitat neighborhoods v ersus scattered sites. The impact of location on human and soci al resource maintenance was tested in multivariate analyses. Location was significantly related to self-esteem and obligation ( = 0.746, t = 2.112, p < 0.05) and the respondents’ per ception of economi cal segregation ( = -0.901, t = -3.224, p < 0.01). In neighborhood settings, families had higher selfesteem and a higher sense of obligation than those who lived in scattered sites. Also,

PAGE 126

113 families felt less economically segregated by li ving in Habitat neighborhoods than they did by living in scattered sites. Hypothesis 3. A relationship exists between users’ participation in house design and the satisfaction with the results of their participation. Although the multivariate tests showed that the number of design-related activities was related to the attachme nt of the house, no significant effect was found between design participation and the design-house satisf action (satisfaction w ith the house, design, and design participation). The effect of desi gn participation on design-house satisfaction might be difficult to identify di rectly through statistical analys es due to small sample size, so the effect was explored again in the inte rview, which will be discussed in the content analysis. However, as previously discusse d, design participation had negative effects on human resources, while construction had pos itive effects on human resources, when human resource development was consid ered as one factor HUMAN. HUMAN decreased as the number of design-related activities increased. Design participation, along with public activities, significantly contributed to the accumulation of social resource development when social resources were considered as one factor SOCIAL. Results of Content Analyses The semi-structured interview questionnaires addressed the following concerns: 1) reasons to participate in sweat equity; 2) meanings of sweat equity when participants helped others and when they helped themselv es; 3) advantage and disadvantage of sweat equity; 4) neighborhood involvement and reasons for involvement; 5) helping behaviors; and 6) design participation.

PAGE 127

114 Reasons to Participate in Sweat Equity The reasons why a respondent participates in sweat equity with Habitat were explored by asking her why she worked with Habitat to get a house. Most of the respondents worked with Habitat because: 1) it helped to get homeownership (44.90%); 2) the Habitat program was a good housing prog ram (26.53%); 3) they could help build houses (24.49%); 4) it was a learning expe rience (20.41%); and 5) they could afford it (16.33%). About 12.24% of the respondents chos e Habitat because they could offer their input, but 12.24% reported that they did so because other housing programs turned them down. About 10.20% felt that participating in sweat equity gave them a chance to meet other people. Two respondents (4.08%) beli eved that sweat equity added house appreciation, and one (2.04%) mentioned the pride and attachment obtained through sweat equity. One respondent chose Ha bitat because the house was in a good neighborhood. Meanings of Sweat Equity The meanings of sweat equity were expl ored in two stages: when a respondent spent sweat equity hours in helping others before starti ng her own house, and when a respondent spent sweat e quity on her own house. Sweat equity had different meanings to Habitat families when they helped other families build a house and when they built their own houses. Only one respondent thought negatively about sweat equity experi ences, and all others (97.96%, n = 49) enjoyed the sweat equity helping others, but several of th em expressed some downside of sweat equity. Six respondents (12.24%) complained about the difficulty of sweat equity, and three (6.12%) did not lik e the weather. Two responde nts (4.08%) thought working only once a week made this process too long.

PAGE 128

115 Six themes appeared from the positive responses. The first theme was sharing. A total of 30 responses referred to meeti ng new people, helping others, having good communications, and generating bonds among other Habitat homeowners. The second theme was learning. A total of 21 responses referred to learning construction and maintenance skills and decorating ideas. The third theme was activities. Nineteen respondents enjoyed all the sweat equity processes, such as building and running public activities. The fourth theme was empowermen t. Nine respondents felt that by helping others they could see the build ing process, could give their input into the process, and could take control of some part of thei r houses. The fifth theme (14 responses) was physical or psychological rewa rd, including pride, apprecia tion, the physical house, and the exchange of help when needed. The sixth theme was demand. Four respondents felt that the reason for them to help others was because it was required. The analysis of the self-hel ping process showed five themes. During this stage of sweat equity, most people emphasized the phys ical and psychological reward. Twenty responses focused on homeownership, a nd 20 responses focused on psychological feelings, including love, joy, pr ide, and appreciation. Learning ranked second, with a total of 13 responses. Sharing, doing, and empowerm ent ranked third, with 11 responses each, respectively. Advantages and Disadvantages about Sweat Equity The advantages and disadvantages about sw eat equity were e xplored through a set of inquiries: the advantages of sweat equity when compared to gett ing a house without it; descriptions about the best pa rt of the sweat equity; five questions concerning skills, neighbors, and neighborhood were explored if a respondent believed that there was no

PAGE 129

116 advantage; drawbacks from participating w ith Habitat; and suggestions for Habitat, including general suggestions and learning experiences. Comparing participation in sweat equity or getting a house without putting in any effort, eight respondents (16.33% n = 49) felt that there was no advantage in sweat equity, one (2.04%) did not know, and 40 resp ondents (81.36%) believed there were advantages in the sweat equity. For these ni ne respondents who did not think or did not know whether or not there was advantage, fi ve probing questions were asked about their learning, pride, relationship with neighbor s, and attachment to the house and the neighborhood. Four respondents answered positiv ely to all five questions, three were positive about four of the five questions, one felt positive about three questions, and only one was negative about four questions. The most frequent negative feeling (33.33%, n = 9) was the attachment to neighborhood and clos e relationship with ne ighbors, then learn new skills (22.22%), and were proud to use new skills to build the house (11.11%). And for these nine respondents, the best part of sweat equity was the doi ng experiences, then the pride attached to the sw eat equity, homeownership, and finally the co ntrol one had during sweat equity. For the 40 respondents who thought that th ere were advantages, five themes emerged from content analysis. The most fr equently mentioned theme was participation or empowerment. Twenty-six respondents belie ved that the advantag es included seeing the building process, knowing what was going on in their houses, th e doing experiences themselves, and having personal input and cont rol in their houses. The second theme was the psychological rewards. Tw elve respondents believed that the advantages were in the joy, pride, feeling safe and stable, and a ppreciation added through sweat equity. The

PAGE 130

117 learning and sharing both ranked third. Ten re spondents claimed that the advantage of sweat equity was being able to learn building skills that contribute to future maintenance. And 10 respondents claimed that meeting ne w people, building bonds or connections among people, and helping and giving help were the advantages. Obtaining the homeownership ranked last in th e five themes. Only six respondents asserted that being a homeowner and saving money were advantages compared to a house obtained with no sweat equity or a given house. Among the 40 respondents who believed that there were advantages in the sweat equity, as compared to a given house, five categories emerged from analyzing the best part of sweat equity: homeow nership, learning, participation, sharing, and psychological reward. Twelve out of 40 respondents (30.00%) regarded homeownership as the best part of sweat equity. Ten respondents (25.00%) beli eved that the best part was the learning experience. Eight respondent s (20.00%) listed the doing proc ess and the sharing process as the best parts, respectively. Only two respondents (5.00%) listed the psychological rewards as the best part of sweat equity. Out of 49 respondents, only five (10.20 %) felt that there were drawbacks from participating with Habitat. The drawbacks included not e nough control in the decision making process, too many time-consuming activi ties, promises not kept by Habitat, and problems in the family selection process. Out of 49 respondents, 35 homeowners ( 71.43%) suggested certain issues that could help Habitat improve its program. Th ree categories emerged from a total of 54 suggested items. The first category (23 suggestions) was focused on the design and planning stage, including location, layout, size of rooms, landscaping, and so on. The

PAGE 131

118 second category (18 suggestions) was focused on the Habitat organization, including the family selection process, prep aration of construction sites, personnel, quality inspection, allowing more support for each partner family, and religion. The third category (13 suggestions) was focused on the sweat equity process, including the hours, frequency of sweat equity, more involvement in the desi gn process, and more involvement in the general process and also in the community. Concerning future workshops from Hab itat, nine respondents (18.37%, n = 49) expressed no interest to attend. The reasons for not attending were related to knowing how to maintain and repair the houses ( 44.44%, n = 9), health r easons (33.33%), and busy schedule (22.22%). Of the 49 participants, 40 homeowners ge nerated a total of 207 items that they would like to learn at the Ha bitat workshop. Seven categories emerged from these items: 1) repair; 2) maintenance; 3) home improveme nt; 4) building and desi gn skills; 5) social skills; 6) financing skills; and 7) other skills. About 100 items were related to home repair, including plumbing, fl ooring, fixing appliances, fi xtures, interior walls and openings, exterior siding and r oof, electricity, and furniture. Twenty-five items related to maintenance, including general maintenan ce, upkeep, and painting. Twenty-one items related to home improvement, including upgr ading current house, adding additions, landscaping, and fencing. Twelve respondents we re interested in more building skills and decorating skills. Seven respondents wanted to learn more social skills. Seven respondents wanted to learn financing skills. In the seventh cate gory, one respondent was interested in learning computer skills, and another res pondent was interested in learning whatever information Habitat had to provide.

PAGE 132

119 When asked how they felt about learni ng some leadership skills during sweat equity, five respondents (10.20% n = 49) felt no need for leadership skills, while 41 respondents (83.67%) expressed some interest and three (6.12%) di d not answer the question. When asked how they felt about learning some design and decorating skills during sweat equity, four respondents (8.16%, n = 49) felt it was not necessary, and 45 (91.84%) showed strong interest in learning. The most popular design skill was related to interior design (29 responses), including color, texture, layout, bathro om and kitchen design, and general interior design. The next most popular design skill was rela ted to decoration (15 responses), including using pictures to deco rate walls, art craft, curtains, and adding personal touches to the rooms. Home im provement was the third design skill (9 responses), including flooring, carpeting, a dding additions, and refinishing cabinets. Eight respondents were intere sted in learning landscaping. One respondent was interested in lighting. Neighborhood and Involvement The attitude toward neighborhood involve ment was explored by the following inquiries: whether respondents would attend a neighborhood association, their suggestions about the neighborhood associ ation, their satisf action with their neighborhood, and their ideal qua lities regardi ng a good neighborhood. Twenty-three of the 49 respondents (46.94%) reported attending neighborhood association meetings. However, during the interview, only 12 admitted attending the meetings. Referring to the suggestions of the neighborhood, five categories were generated from 53 pieces of suggestions. The fi rst concern was about safety. Twenty-one respondents wanted to discuss speed control, crime prevention, safety issues caused by

PAGE 133

120 animals, and unsafe physical environments. Facility improvement and neighborhood association both ranked second. Nine res ponses referred to a playground, road improvement, a recreational par k, and enclosure of properties. Nine respondents wanted to have neighborhood newsletter s, change the schedule of association meetings, have training classes, and become more involved. Neighbors and neighborhood concerns both ranked fourth place. Seven respondents want ed the neighborhood association to address how neighbors get along, help each other, and look out for children. Seven respondents wanted the association to address neighborhood cleanups, nois e control, and schools. Thirteen out of the 49 res pondents (26.53%) in the surveys were dissatisfied with their neighborhood. The quality of a good ne ighborhood therefore was explored. Four categories resulted from 154 features that qualified a neighborhood. The first category concerned people. Eight-two features were about the neighbors, in cluding getting along with one another, helping each other, knowing your neighbors, respect, honest, independence, good communication, cooperation, interactivity, and so on. The next category was about the neighborhood. Thirty-four features were relate d to the physical or social aspects of the neighborhood, including house appearances, quiet hours, privacy, having an association, eliminating segreg ation, and so forth. The third category concerned safety. Twenty-four responses were re lated to less traffic, speed control, crime watch, and drug free zones. The final categor y was about the facility. The fourteen features related to the facil ity included having a convenien ce store, church, recreational center, park, playground, schools, streetlights, and so forth. Helping Behaviors The helping behaviors among Habitat familie s were explored by four questions: 1) why or why not a respondent asked for assi stance from a neighbor; 2) when a neighbor

PAGE 134

121 needed assistance from the respondent; would she be able to help; 3) when she helped the neighbor, would it matter to the respondent wh ether or not the neighbor had previously helped her; and 4) whether th e respondent expected return a ssistance from the neighbor. In the survey, 15 out of the 49 responde nts (30.61%) did not ask for a neighbor’s help, and 69.39% asked for help. During the inte rview, the reason why they did or did not ask for help was explored. Some respondents ex plained that the reas ons they did not ask for help included maintaining their independe nce and privacy, their personality, family education, easy support from family member s or nearby facilities, or no dependable neighbors around. For those who asked for help, they cited the friendship and trust with their neighbors, expected reciprocal help, ac knowledged the capability of their neighbors, or no other ways to get help. Concerning whether or not a respondent c ould maintain her house, 45 respondents (91.84%, n = 49) were positive, and only four were negative. Among the four respondents who could not maintain their hous es, three had immediate family members who could help, and one had health problems. Concerning whether or not a respondent c ould repair her house when needed, only 10 respondents (20.41%, n = 49) were posit ive and 39 were negative. Among the respondents who could not repair their houses 19 would call professionals, 16 would call an able family member, 10 would ask a nei ghbor for help, nine would call Habitat, and three would call a friend. Among the 10 res pondents who would ask a neighbor for help, three emphasized that they would ask male neighbors for help. The reasons for asking neighbors for assistance were mainly rela ted to whether or not the neighbors had

PAGE 135

122 dependable skills to complete the tasks. Th e reasons for not asking a neighbor for help were related to not knowing the neighbors, distrust, self-independence, and gender. Concerning whether or not and why a respondent would aid a neighbor with maintenance or repair, nine respondents (18.37% n = 49) would not help their neighbors. Four out of these nine respondents had health problems, two did not want to mingle with neighbors, two did not know how to help a ne ighbor, and one claimed that she did not know her neighbors. Forty respondents (81.63%) would like to help their neighbors if they could. The top reason for helping the ne ighbors was because th ey had the skills and abilities to maintain and repair houses. Eight respondents claimed that it was part of their personality to help others. Seven respondents did help their neighbors because friendship existed between them. Five respondents expect ed reciprocal help from others someday. Four respondents helped because the neighbor s needed their aid. Four respondents helped their neighbors out of moral values. Tw o did so because it saved money for the neighbors, and two limited their help only to advice. Only two out of the 49 respondents (4.08 %) were positive when asked the question if it mattered whether or not th e neighbor had previously help ed them. They claimed that this was the way to build trust among neighbors. The ma jority (95.92%) did not care whether or not the neighbors needed to help them before the respondents decide to help the neighbors. Three categories emerged from the reasons. The first category was about self. Twenty-three respondents thought that they helped from the goodness of their hearts, or it was their personality, moral values, i ndependence, and religion. The second category concerned social relations. Tw elve respondents did not need the neighbors to help them first because the neighbors were also frie nds. These respondents trusted their neighbors,

PAGE 136

123 and the teamwork that should exist among neighbor s; some expected returned help in the future. The third category was related to sk ills. Three respondents thought that their neighbors lacked the skil ls to help others. Concerning whether or not the respondents e xpect to get return assistance from the neighbors they helped, 16 respondents ( 32.65%, n = 49) were positive, and 67.35% did not expect any return. The reasons for not expecting returns were related to religion, personality, and moral values. Design Participation Design participation was explored by the following three questions: 1) How would a respondent feel about selecti ng interior colors a nd finishes for her house? 2) Would she want more influence on the design process of her house, such as changes about the interior and exterior and the yard? 3) Would she be satisf ied with the involvement of design process and selecti ng colors and finishes? About selecting colors and finishes for their own houses, eight respondents (16.33%, n = 49) had certain negative fee lings, and 83.67% had positive responses. The negative feelings were caused by not enough design choices, inexperience in selecting colors and finishes, and unqualified personne l in helping to make choices. One respondent was not happy because she needed a bathroom that abided by Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines but did not get it. One respondent thought that colors and finishes were not important because owning a house was important. Among the positive responses, four categories emerge d. Twenty-one responses were related to personalization. Respondents liked to have pers onal touches, customize their houses, and make their own decisions. Eleven responses were related to partic ipation. They enjoyed the power and control that th e selecting process gave them, and they had the right to

PAGE 137

124 decide the colors and finishes becaus e these houses belonged to them. Eleven respondents thought that the selecting proce ss was very important because they would live with each decision. Six res pondents expressed the self-s atisfaction with the design choices they made. When respondents were asked whether or not they wanted more influence in the design process, 17 respondents (34.69%, n = 49) were negative, a nd 65.31% wanted more influence. However, when asked to give so me suggestions about the interior design, 12 out of the 17 respondents—who did not wa nt more influence—wanted to change something in their interiors in addition to all other respondents who wanted more design influence. Among the 106 suggestions about improving interior design, three themes emerged. The most concentrated theme was interior design, including size or rooms (44.71%, n = 85), individual room design, such as the living room, kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom (18.82%, n = 85), openings ( 8.24%), adjacencies (7.06%), material (7.06%), color (5.88%), fixtures (5.88%), upgr ading appliances (2.35% ), and height of rooms (2.35%). The second theme concerned additions. Seventeen suggestions were about adding more rooms, adding more deco rations, installing an air conditioner, and enclosing the porch or backdoor The last theme was choices. Four respondents wanted more design choices, such as la youts, colors, and materials. When respondents were asked whether or not they wanted more changes in the exterior or yard, 11 respondents (22.45%, n = 49) were negative, and 77.55% of the respondents wanted some changes. Two themes were generated from a total of 68 suggestions. The first theme concerned the yar d. Forty-six suggestions were related to the yard, including landscaping, fencing, drainage, a driveway, accessibility, a deck, distance

PAGE 138

125 between two houses, and so on. The second theme concerned the exterior building. Twenty-two suggestions were about th e porch, color, garage, and siding. When respondents were asked to rate thei r satisfaction level with involvement in the design process of their houses, 33 responde nts (67.35%, n = 49) were satisfied or very satisfied, five respondents (10.20%) were dissa tisfied or very dissatisfied, and one respondent (2.04%) did not know how to answer. When respondents were asked to rate their sa tisfaction level with selection of colors and finishes for their houses, 47 respondents (95.92%, n = 49) were satisfied or very satisfied, and only two respondents (4.08%) we re dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Summary The statistical analyses of the survey results and the content analyses of the interview responses showed interesting patterns. Some patterns seemed to complement one another, such as the re lationship between sweat equity and resource building, and between statistical re sults and interview responses. Bu t some patterns showed some discrepancies between what was expected from the theories and what was obtained from the results, such as what families claimed to do and what families actually did for their houses, neighbors, and neighborhood. Detailed di scussions will be presented in Chapter 5.

PAGE 139

126 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This chapter covers the hypotheses tested in statistical analyses of survey responses, and relates the quant itative analyses with cont ent analyses of interview responses. It also reflects the theoretical explanations revealed through discussions. The purpose of this study was three-fold: 1) to explore the relationship between sweat equity in the Habitat program as participation—doing, l earning, and sharing—and human and social resources building; 2) to compare the human and social resources maintained in two settings: Habitat neighbor hoods versus scattered sites; and 3) to investigate the roles of design participation in sweat equity. The re search was guided by a conceptual model presented earlier, which wa s generated from the theories of learningby-doing and generalized social exchange. Accordingly, I predicted that sweat equity contributed to human and social resource development. I wanted to show a differen ce in the maintenance of human and social resources within two settings: scattered site s and Habitat neighborhoods. I also wanted to demonstrate that a user’s participation in house design increased the satisfaction with the results. The overview of the guiding theori es provided a framework for the following discussion of the results. Sweat Equity as Doing, Learning, and Sharing The multivariate tests (see Figure 5-1) showed that certain activities in sweat equity had statistically significant effects on some aspects of both human a nd social resources. The activities in sweat equity were categorized into publ ic activities (PUBLIC), training

PAGE 140

127 (SET), design participation (DENP), and c onstruction (CONST). The square of sweat equity hours was symbolized as HOURS2. Th e significantly impact on human resources and social resources in Figure 5-1 included attachment to the house (ATT-H), frequency of house maintenance (MAINT), design-hous e satisfaction (DESIGN), self-esteem (SELF), perception of economic segregation (S EG-E), perception of racial segregation (SEG-R), and perception of skills (SKILLS). Figure 5-1. Simplified multivariate results. Construction was positively related to the following three factors: house attachment; design-house satisfaction;1 and the frequency of house maintenance. The more activities respondents participated in during the constructi on of their houses, the more attached those persons became to the house and the more pride they had in the house, thus developing more self-responsibil ity. Also, the more activities in which respondents participated regard ing the construction of their houses, the more satisfaction those persons had with the house concerni ng the design and desi gn participation. The 1 The satisfaction a respondent had with her house had multiple dimensions, including house satisfaction in general, house design, and design participation. CONST LOCA PUBLIC EDU SET HOURS2 ATT-H MAINT DESIGN SEG-E SEG-R SKILLS DENP SELF Legend: Independent variables Dependent variables p < 0.05 p < 0.01

PAGE 141

128 more activities those respondents took part in during the construction of their houses, the more respondents maintained their houses fr equently. According to the learning-by-doing theory, Habitat families learned building skills during this process, which resulted in more frequent maintenance to the houses Because the homeowner s built their houses, they knew every stage of the house constructi on and contributed to every dimension of the house. One participant direct ly stated the relationship be tween sweat equity and home maintenance: It [sweat equity] helps you maintain your house, and you appreciate the value of the house. You know, when you are hammering and nailing, you are doing your own home, it helps you to appreciate. It helps you to want to keep it up. With the permission of respondents, some pictur es were taken from the inside and outside of their Habitat houses. Figure 5-2 illustra ted a well-maintained entrance with outdoor furniture and landscaping. Figure 5-3 showed a living room that was well decorated and maintained. Figure 5-2. An inviting entran ce was created by using landsca ping and outdoor furniture.

PAGE 142

129 Figure 5-3. This was a living room with various decorations and displays. The homeowner tried to match the colors as well. Although construction was positively associated with the frequency of maintenance, families did not learn all the maintenance sk ills they needed. They preferred learning more repair and maintenance from Habita t workshops. Figure 5-4 showed the wooden handrails that needed repair but the respondent did not know how to do it herself. Figure 5-4. The outside wooden handr ails at the back entrance needed to be repaired.

PAGE 143

130 Even though families may not learn all maintenance skills during the construction process, the more that families worked on the construction of their houses, the more attachment they had to their houses and the mo re satisfied they were with their houses, as well as the design. The multivariate tests showed that public activities were positively related to the factor of perception of skills. The more public activities in which Habitat families participated, the more pride and confidence they developed in other maintenance and repair skills, as well as their financial skills This confidence resulted in doing reciprocal favors for one another with house constructi on. It was interesting to find that public activities rather than construction activities we re related to the perception of skills. It may be explained by the fact that families coul d only participate in certain activities in construction, such as painting, yard work, siding, and so on. Few could work on roofing, and none was allowed to help with plumbing. Therefore, families learned similar skills during the construction activities. However, the public activities in which Habitat families participated might differ radically from one another, such as working in a thrift store, helping out in the Habitat office, public speaking for Habitat, and so on. These social activities may have increased awar eness of the public good, which encourages a respondent to maintain her house in her ne ighborhood. Also, the learned social skills might generally enhance the maintenance and re pair skills learned through sweat equity. The nonparametric tests also s howed that public ac tivities were positiv ely related to a generalized sense of community. In other word s, when families became more involved in public activities, they had more pride in th eir neighborhood. They also felt safer and more attached to their neighborhood, and they had higher satisfaction with their neighborhood

PAGE 144

131 and developed a stronger sense of commun ity. The positive relationship between public activities and a generaliz ed sense of community supported the hypothesis. The square of the sweat e quity hours was related to the design-house satisfaction. The design-house satisfaction (s atisfaction with the house, house design, and design participation) increased first and then d ecreased when Habitat families worked their sweat equity hours. During the first few hundr ed hours, families participated in public activities and helped other Habitat families with their houses. During this preparation stage, learning how to build th eir house was the primary task. After this initial stage, families started selecting the lots, colors, a nd finishes for their houses. They began the design participation and started to visu alize their own houses. After this design participation, they just had to come up with the design. During the building process, families still offered personal input into the house, but it was not as strong as in the beginning when they first saw how a house wa s built and how their houses might look. In other words, they had less control in the de sign of their houses but still had some control in the building process of their houses. Th is might explain the decreased design-house satisfaction. As many families expressed in the interview, sweat equity was hard because the majority of them were single-parent mo thers. The longer the families worked, they might feel frustration because of the added pr essure of sweat equity in their lives. One respondent expressed “worn out” as her fee ling towards the end of her sweat equity. Another single parent described the hardship for her and her child during sweat equity: I work full-time, and I [am] also invol ved in religious, volunteering, and other things. I had no-sleep nights. I not only he lp others but also work. I helped to prepare the brochure needed for the ne xt day, the logo, beyond my own job. It [sweat equity] is not only my time, bu t also time from my daughter, because mommy is working. I have no time to keep my house quite neat, fix the car, or even do the laundry.

PAGE 145

132 In addition to the intense work efforts n ear the completion of their houses, respondents may realize how difficult it is to change anyt hing in their house even if they are not satisfied with the original design decisions. Training was related to de sign-house satisfaction and pe rception of economic and racial segregation, and generalized sense of community. The more training families had during sweat equity, the more sa tisfied they felt with the de sign and design participation and overall quality of their houses. Also, the more training they had, the less likely they felt they were living in economic or racial se gregation, and they felt a greater generalized sense of community. These findings suppor ted the hypothesis because training was definitely a learning experience. The more respondents learned a bout their houses and their neighborhoods, such as taking care of their houses and neighborhood, the more likely they enjoyed their new houses and nei ghborhoods. In other word s, appreciation of their houses and neighborhoods could be le arned during training in addition to the learning-by-doing process. According to Dewe y (1939), the learners should be able to identify the meaning of actions during the process of learning-by-doing. However, the meanings could not be easily identified during the learning-by -doing process. For example, families perceive or do not perceive segregation after living in the neighborhoods for a certain period of time. And at this time, the sweat equity process, or the learning-by-doing, already ends so that it may be difficulty for families to relate the two together. But during traini ng, the meanings of actions, or certain activities during sweat equity, could be revealed to fam ilies directly, such as building trust among neighbors, social support, and responsibility of house maintenance and repair. Therefore, families learn to appreciate their houses more.

PAGE 146

133 When all aspects of human resources were considered as one factor, the statistical results showed that the human resources factor was signifi cantly correlated to construction and the design participation. The simplified correlations for human and social resources were shown in Figure 5-5. Figure 5-5. Simplified stat istical results for human and social resources. The finding in relation to construction was consistent with the multivariate test when human resources were considered as a se parate individual factor. But the impact of public activities, training, and sweat equity hours was not si gnificant if human resources were combined as one factor. It seemed in evitable that the more dependent variables a factor presented, the more inaccurate the cl assification of human resources and social resources might become. Because doing, learning, and sharing were closely connected in the sweat equity pro cess, sometimes the boundary of human and social resources was vague. For example, reciprocity and obligation s eem to fit in the social resource category rather than in the human resource category in the original conceptual framework. But being able to return a favor to a neighbor requires certain skills rather than a mere willingness to help. For this reason, recipr ocity and obligation were therefore placed under human resources as the statistical anal yses showed. Reciproc ity was grouped with perception of skills, and a sense of obligation was correlated with self-esteem. The grouping of reciprocity and perception of sk ills was consistent with the interviews DE N P PUBLIC CONST HUMAN SOCIAL Legend: Independent variables Dependent variables p < 0.05 p < 0.01

PAGE 147

134 findings. Most Habitat families would like to help their neighbors only if they had the skills needed to assist. Thus an individual needs certain skills to perform reciprocity. Similarly, the sense of obligation to a neighbor hood also requires cert ain skills, not just good will. The more skills one could contribute to the neighborhood, the stronger obligation one feels to the environment. Th e more value one sees in the neighborhood, the more value one sees in one’s own self-image as well. The finding that design participation was negatively related to human resources was inconsistent with the hypothesis. It was hypothesized that as a pa rt of sweat equity, the number of design-related activities in which families participated was positively related to human resources. The deviation may be explained by the fact that design participation is not counted formally as a part of sweat equity. According to Deweyan learning-by-doing theory, learni ng is the critical part in stead of just doing. In the interview, Habitat families expressed the importance of design participation. For example, one participant explained why desi gn participation was important to her: Because you get to see the materials that is being used. You also get to see something that is done not to your taste. You can stop it before it is completed. Just say for example, the carpet. The carpet was donated from different companies. Even though I will have burgundy, there are di fferent types of texture that you can choose from. So if I had not been here, I would’ve got the shaggy type, which I didn’t like. So I was able to choose th is type, which is more… [searching for words] when you sweep it or v acuum it, it doesn’t tear. But some families also expressed the frustrat ion in the design participation because they do not know how to choose colors, layouts, and finishes. Most families would like to learn basic design skills duri ng sweat equity. When a par ticipant was asked about the necessity of learning these skills during sweat equity, she gave a very positive answer and explained as the following:

PAGE 148

135 Because all of the homes from the beginni ng looked just alike. So therefore you need those types of skills because you wa nt to differentiate your house from the neighbor’s house. Because some people don’t know [design and decoration], some people, especially when you always live in an apartment. But when you get a house, you get to explore different thi ngs. Some people just don’t know how because they haven’t had that experience. Figures 5-6 through 5-9 illustrated how responde nts personalized thei r houses with colors and decorations. Although the ex teriors of these houses looked similar, the personalized interiors really made respondents felt lik e home. But not all families knew how to personalize their houses with in terior designs and decorations They did not learn design and decorating skills during their previous ap artment experiences, and they did not learn these skills during sweat equi ty. The lack of design and d ecorating skills usually were reflected through similar yards and plain interior s. Figure 5-10 showed a yard that needed better landscaping. Figure 5-6. The TV display in a living room illustrated the cultural preference of the homeowner.

PAGE 149

136 Figure 5-7. The color blue was used in this bedroom. Figure 5-8. The playful primary colors were us ed on the walls, curtains, and the ceiling fan in a kid’s room.

PAGE 150

137 Figure 5-9. The decoration in a bathroom also was carefully considered. Figure 5-10. This front yard needed better landscaping.

PAGE 151

138 Since families lacked of necessary design skills and they did not learn skills in the design participation process, it was difficult for design participation to contribute to human resources in general. When families realized their lack of design skills and that they might not make the right decision for their houses, this might impact their self-esteem, satisfaction with house design, design particip ation, and confidence in skills, which all were a part of human resources Therefore, lack of learni ng during design participation may explain the negative relationship between design participation a nd human resources. Although the analyses between sweat equity activities and individual social factors did not show significant correlations, the multiple regression analyses showed that the social resources factor was significantly correlated to public activities and design participation when all aspects of social resour ces were considered as one factor. In other words, the social resources in general in creased as the public activities and design participation during sweat equity increas ed. This finding was supported by content analyses because the majority of the particip ants claimed that during completion of public activities and helping other families build their houses, sweat equity meant meeting new people, helping others, having good communi cations, and building neighborly bonds. These activities helped build social resources for families, as one participant articulated the meaning of sweat equity in the interview: I think it [sweat equity] is wonderful; it is a wonderf ul experience. I really do. Because you learn how to build your own house, you learn how to help people, you come together with other people, and you m eet people. I think it is wonderful. I like the idea that you learn how a house is built. You get to see where your electric is going. You get to see how your walls come up. You get to know how to build stuff, how to put a door together. I would have never known any of this. I would have never had any desire to know any of it. Regarding design participation, when responde nts started choosing their lot, colors, and finishes for their houses, they began to think about their neighbor s and the colors of

PAGE 152

139 their neighbors’ houses. If th e neighbors were also Habitat homeowners, they might get to know each other and discuss design ideas befo re they actually moved into the house. In this way, design participation might help fa milies get along with the neighbors, develop trust, create interactions, all of which were the foundation for social resources. The content analyses from interview res ponses supported the proposition that sweat equity contributed to human and social re sources. Homeownership was the ultimate goal of sweat equity for Habitat families, but the sharing and learning experiences made the participants believe that sweat equity help ed them meet other pe ople. The helping and being helped experiences crea ted bonds with each other, and it afforded them learning skills necessary for building a nd maintaining their houses. Alt ogether these skills added appreciation for the physical goal of sweat equity—the hous e. This appreciation could not be obtained from getting a house without sw eat equity. Therefore, sweat equity for Habitat families helped to build both hu man resources and social resources. Since most families believed that sweat e quity was a learning process, they would like to learn more from Habitat in addition to the skills they lear ned during sweat equity. These suggestions focused on skills in relation to repair, maintenance, home improvement, construction, design, social rela tions, and finance. When asked about learning some leadership skills and design and decorating skills, most respondents were interested. Although the findings previously discu ssed supported the hypothesis, one statistically significant rela tionship was different from the hypothesized direction. Families in this study tended to perceive mo re segregation when they participated in more public activities. It wa s theorized that the more fa milies participated in public

PAGE 153

140 activities, the more social resources they bui lt, and then they perc eived less segregation. In fact, the Kendall’s tau-b tests showed a correlation be tween public activities and a generalized sense of community. The more pub lic activities a responde nt participated in, the prouder she was of her ne ighborhood. She felt safer a nd more attached to the neighborhood, was more satisfied with her neighborhood, and had a stronger sense of community. The generalized sense of comm unity was also correlated to racial segregation. The more generalized sense of community a respondent had, the less segregation she perceived. The negative linka ge between public activ ities and segregation may exist in the nature of the Habitat program. Although Habitat allows families to choose the location of their hous e, the choices are limited to the available lots in a normally low-income area, and the majority of Habitat families are African American. Residential segregation seemed inevitable in this case. However, those who participated in more public activities might be more activ e in their social life and establish more social interactions with others. They theref ore might expect more from their neighbors and want more control in terms of location, neighbors, and house. During these social interactions, families may have chances to know more about other Habitat houses, locations, and facili ties within the neighborhoods. Wh en they saw the differences between their own houses or neighborhoods and better houses or neighborhoods, they might become unsatisfied with what Habita t could provide them, which would lead to less attachment to their hous es. During the interview, a few respondents mentioned that the drawbacks for participating in the Habitat program included the location of Habitat houses, less choices, and small rooms. This mi ght partially explain that the more public activities a respondent attended, th e more she felt segregated.

PAGE 154

141 The other unusual finding in the nonparame tric tests was the negative correlation between the dependent variable s of perception of skills and attachment to the house. The more that the respondents became attached to their houses, the less confident they felt in having the skills to maintain and repair thei r houses. However, attachment to the house was positively correlated to trust. The more trust respondents had in their neighbors, the more attached they were to their houses. Mo re investigation was ne eded to explain this finding. Did families need more skills? What types of skills could contribute to house attachment? Since the sample was small, th e correlations among th e dependent factors also indicated that the testing re sults might not be conclusive. Habitat Neighborhoods versus Scattered Sites The statistical tests regarding physical se ttings showed signi ficant effects of location on self-esteem, oblig ation to the neighborhood, a nd perception of economic segregation. Families living in a Habitat neighborhood reported higher self-esteem, and they did more for the neighborhood than familie s living in scattered sites. Families living in a Habitat neighborhood perceived less econom ic segregation. These findings indicated that families living in a Habitat neighborhood, which was assumed to have more segregation than families living in scattered sites, better maintained some aspects of the human and social resources. Although not sta tistically significant, families living in a Habitat neighborhood tended to perceive less ra cial segregation than families living in scattered sites ( p = 0.055). However, it was expected that more human and social resources could be maintained better in Habitat neighborhoods, such as perceptions of skills, satisfaction, a generalized sense of community, social suppor t, design, trust, and frequency of home maintenance. The explanations for the lack of relationships among these factors might

PAGE 155

142 exist in several interview e xplorations. For example, concerning social support (helping behaviors), most respondents w ould assist their neighbors only if they knew how to help. Many respondents would not ask for assistan ce from their neighbors, but would like to help their neighbors if they were asked. The dilemma here was that no one would like to ask for help first. So within the ne ighborhoods, actual social support was minimal because of the dilemma. Another reason for the lack of social support was that respondents claimed that they did not know the neighbors well. The neighborhoods in this study were newly built compared with houses in scattered sites. Therefore, Habitat families living in scattered sites might reside longer in the area, and they know more about their neighbors during year s of interaction. This might also explain the lack of a relationship between location of the house and social support. Ellen and Turner (1997) found that neighborhood conditions impact famili es and their childre n. Because this study was interested in the formation of neighbor hoods (neighborhoods versus scattered sites), other physical features of the neighborhood were ignor ed, including the size of neighborhood, physical facilities of the neighborhood, and qualities of the surrounding houses. In the interviews, respondents ranked having good neighbors first among the many qualities of a good neighborhood. The lack of interaction among neighbors may also explain why some social resources in Habitat neighbo rhoods were not significantly different from those social resources in sc attered sites. Anothe r interesting phenomenon was that when asking respondents to c ount how many neighbors they had, most respondents counted only the ones living close to their houses, but some counted the ones living on the same street; only a few c ounted everyone in the neighborhood. This response indicated that the formation of sm all groups of houses might encourage more

PAGE 156

143 neighboring activities than flat rows of houses lined up in a big neighborhood. Perception of skills may be better explained by the le arning experience, marital status, income, employment, training, and public activities. Th e nonparametric tests indicated that the frequency of maintenance may be better explai ned by other factors, such as employment, age, and hours, as shown in the nonparametri c tests. Comparing these factors, location may not be an influential factor for pe rception of skills and frequency of home maintenance. Segregation, which was usually related to location, also was related to training. The more training one had during sweat equit y, the less was one’s perception of economic and racial segregation. This was exciting news for many low-income neighborhoods. The historic and economic reasons for the form ation of low-income neighborhoods made segregation undesirable. Eliminating segregati on has been one target of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development hous ing policies (HUD, 2000). Mixed-income neighborhoods seemed a possible way to solve this problem, but it also seemed a shortterm solution (Carr, 1999). One of the Habitat affiliates that participated in the study is trying to mix very low-income families with low-income families, but they are still lowincome in order to qualify for this Habitat program. This research compared families living in scattered sites to families living in Habitat neighborhoods. The results showed that those respondents living in Habita t neighborhoods perceived less economic segregation than those in scattered sites. It showed also that increasing the training during sweat equity would decrease th e perception of both economic and racial segregation. This finding might also provide some insight for other low-income housing programs.

PAGE 157

144 However, this study also found that pub lic activities were related to economic segregation and racial segregation. The more public activities in which Habitat families participated, the more segregated they fe lt economically and racially. As discussed earlier, this might be explai ned by the higher expectation of houses and neighborhoods of those who participated more in public activitie s, especially those w ho found that others families had better choices. From another perspective, Habitat seldom helps homeowners face segregation problems—if such problems ex ist. In addition to skills training during sweat equity, Habitat may address segregation problems with Habitat families instead of ignoring the potential proble ms during sweat equity. Besi des a possible perception of segregation, as previously discussed, the bot tom line was that the majority of Habitat families did not report experiencing either ec onomic or racial segregation. This study tried to help Habitat understand more about th e families and their needs in order to serve them better and to provide a better founda tion for the organization’s decision-making process. Concerning the relationship between locat ion and obligation to the neighborhoods, respondents’ capabilities might be a reason, as previously discussed; but other issues about neighborhoods will be further addresse d. How much a responde nt would do for her neighborhood also depended on what the ne ighborhood could do for the respondent. In the interview, fewer respondents reported a ttending neighborhood association meetings than those reported in the survey. The reason for this difference in data collection might be that some respondents in the survey mi sunderstood neighborhood association meetings with other meetings at other levels, such as church activities a nd crime watch programs organized at a higher level. Some par ticipants living in a neighborhood with an

PAGE 158

145 association did not know of its existence, and some living in a neighborhood without an association believed that they had one but th ey just never attended it. The inaccurate perception of neighborhood association may affe ct the participation in the association meetings. The president of one neighbor hood association claimed that not many homeowners participated in the meetings, so the association did not have enough votes to make certain decisions. The association therefor e had little influence or hope to change or improve the neighborhood. Two respondents were very surprised to l earn that in their neighborhood there was an association that held regular meetings. They stated that if they had known, they would attend those meetings. Th erefore, improving the efficiency of the association seemed important. On e participant suggested that: They [Habitat] would have a meeting about more about how you have to get involved with the homeowner associati on. You know, you have to get involved with that, you have to take care of your neighborhood. It’s like that should be one of the requirements of a Habitat house. On ce people get their houses, they tend to forget. And they tend to stop doing what they want to do. And it harms other people who are taking care of the house. Other suggestions for the neighborhood asso ciation were mainly focused on safety, physical facilities, and a more efficient a ssociation. For many res pondents, no association existed in their neighborhoods. It was cl ear that the neighborhoods were not well organized, and neighbors interacted with one another basically on an individual basis. Little chance therefore exis ted for a respondent to do a nything for her neighborhood. But the interview also showed th at if they had a chance, th ey would like to support their neighborhoods. Also, the length of time living in a house may matter: the longer families lived in their homes, the more sense of ob ligation they developed to their neighborhoods. Even though families living in Habitat neighbo rhoods lived a shorter time in their homes, compared to those living in sc attered sites, they held a great er sense of obligation for their

PAGE 159

146 neighborhoods. So Habitat neighborhoods helped maintaining certain social resources better than scattered sites. In the ideal image of a good neighborhood, neighboring was the most important feature for many Habitat families, followe d by the physical qualities such as house appearance, quiet hours, privacy, an associa tion, no segregation, safety, and the physical facilities. Since location wa s not listed as one of the qualities of a good neighborhood, it might explain why location did not show much influence in the social resource maintenance. Rather, neighboring was th e most important feature of a good neighborhood. In a Habitat neighborhood, all ne ighbors participated in sweat equity—no matter where the house was built, but they did not learn or learn enough how to be neighborly and support each ot her—even after moving in. Th is finding was consistent with the study that Hays (2002) conducte d among volunteers and Habitat staff. Hays found that Habitat empowered families by giving them control over their housing situation and skill development, but failed to promote collective actions among families to deal with neighborhood problems. If the neighborhood association took actions effectively and actively, it seemed more likely that more neighborly activities would be encouraged. The neighbors would thus be ab le to address other issues such as the physical qualities, safety, and facilities. Increasing the awaren ess of the neighborhood would be as important as enha ncing the leadership skills for the president and other active players in the association. Design Participation Although the whole sweat equi ty process was a process of participation that included doing, learning, and sharing, the role s of participation in the design and planning

PAGE 160

147 stage were not fully recognized in Habitat. Some Habitat families did not count the time spent on design participation as sweat equity hours. No statistical significant relationship was found between the number of designrelated activities in which families particip ated and satisfaction with the results of participation, including satisfaction with the house, house design, and design participation. This finding was different from the study conducted by McLain-Kark (1986). McLain-Kark found positive relati onship between design and owner-built participation and housing satisfaction. Ra ther than asking families to rank housing satisfaction in general, this st udy specified satisfacti on with the results of participation as the satisfaction with the quali ty of the house, house design, and design participation. The three types of satisfaction were highly correlated in this study Therefore, it might explain the lack of relationship between the number of design-related activities in which families participated and satisfaction with the results of participation. Families might respond differently to the question concerning housi ng satisfaction and the specified design-house satisfaction. Other than the different measures of satisfaction in McLain-Kark’s study, design participation was also different in this Hab itat study. Design particip ation in Habitat was limited to certain areas, such as choosing colo rs, finishes, and layouts within the provided options. Habitat families did not have the complete control as normal owner-built participation as McLain-Kart studied. Duri ng design participation, families were shown with two-dimensional drawings and small wa ll color samples. It would be difficult for them to visualize the actual space and de sign choices they had. Once their houses were built, families began to visualize what the rooms and colors looked like. If the look was

PAGE 161

148 not as good as what they expected from the dr awings and small samples, they might get disappointed with their design choices and get more disappointed when they realized that they could not make any changes in design. Ed ucation also had nega tive effect on designhouse satisfaction. The more education one has, the higher expectation they might have for their lives and houses, including the design of their house. Consid ering the fact that design participation takes up only a few hours, ac tivities that take long er but also allows families to have personal input (such as construction) may have more influence on satisfaction. The amount of time spent on sweat equity that indicated how long respondents could actively be i nvolved in their own houses would also impact the designhouse satisfaction. The lack of relationship between design participation and designhouse satisfaction also indicated that the meas ures of design partic ipation also needed improvement. Currently design participati on was measures by the number of designrelated activities ca tegorized into eight simple groups, su ch as interior layout, interior color, and yard. However this study was unable to specify the level of participation for each category. For example, did families choose a layout or did they change some design of the layout? If they just c hose an existing layout, was ther e only one layout or several layouts to choose from? If they changed the design, which part of the house did they change? It was assumed that a more comp rehensive measure of design participation would be necessary for further investigati on of the roles of de sign participation. Although no significant relationship was found between the number of designrelated activities and designhouse satisfaction, the univariat e test showed that design participation and public activit ies significantly contributed to social support. The more design-related activities and public activities in which families participated, the more

PAGE 162

149 likely they would support one another in th eir neighborhoods. Cons istent with this finding, the nonparametric tests also showed a significant difference between the time when a respondent started design participation and a generalized sense of community. If a respondent started design part icipation earlier, she would e xperience more pride in her neighborhood, feel safer, become more attached to the ne ighborhood, be more satisfied with her neighborhood, and have a stronger sens e of community. The ea rlier a respondent started design participation, the more in-dep th she could think a bout the design of her house and neighborhood. The thoroughness of de sign considerations might result from carefully comparing the design of a respondent ’s own house with those of the neighbors’ houses. By examining a neighbor’s house desi gn, the respondent might notice how well her neighbor’s house was maintained or the taste of the neighbor which represented some aspects of the personality of the ne ighbors. The more a respondent considers a neighbor’s house design, the more she w ould regard herself as a part of the neighborhood. This might help explain why th e earlier one particip ated in the design process of her house, the more generalized sense of community sh e experienced later. Also in the interview, some families expre ssed that they would like to know earlier the location of their lots and the appearance of their houses. One respondent claimed that one of the advantages of participating with Ha bitat was that she coul d choose her neighbors. Families may not directly realize the importan ce of starting design participation earlier, but they wanted more particip ation in the design process. If social resources were considered as one factor, social resources would increase as the number of design-relate d activities in which a responde nt participated increased. This finding indicated that de sign participation was not only related to skills or self-

PAGE 163

150 esteem, but also to social means that had a continuing impact on people. It was also consistent with the finding that design pa rticipation was positively related to the generalized sense of community, which was di scussed earlier. Design participation can involve interior, exterior, yard, lot, and neighborhood planning. The more design activities in which a responde nt became involved, the more perspectives she had to consider her individual house, as well as the entire neighborhood. The way neighbors decorated their yards, the co lors chosen for the roof and siding, and the way neighbors maintained their houses and yards might also impact future neighboring activities. During the design participation, families could disc uss all design concerns with designated personnel or volunteers, which also helped fam ilies build trust with others and feel that they were being helped. The indebtedness might also contribute to further social resource developments. Therefore, even though the re lationships between design participation and individual aspects of social resources were difficult to find in this case study, it was interesting to see how design participation impacted the overall social resources. However, some findings in the relatio nship between design participation and certain human and social resources deviated from the general beliefs about participation. For example, the multivariate tests showed that design participation was negatively related to house attachment (t he pride, attachment, and se lf-responsibility to the house) and human resources in general. This findi ng contradicted the co mmon expectations. It was expected that a positive relationship ex isted between design pa rticipation and house attachment. The negative relationship between design participation and house attachment may be explained by the small sample size or inadequate measures of design participation. However, in the content anal yses, most respondents were very positive

PAGE 164

151 about design participation, and they wanted more influence in the design process of their houses. The majority believed th at participating in sweat equi ty gave them a chance to have personal input and cont rol over the house, le arn skills, and build connections with other people. One respondent expressed he r passion for design participation: I think it [design participation] is wonderf ul. Well, me being a female, I like stuff that looks pretty. So to learn something about it, how I can do little things that make stuff look different, I think it is wonderful. I think how you like your house can make it different than other houses, and stuff—have your personal touch on it. So I think it is really good. I probably would like to learn some designs or something…. I think I like that I think it is wonderful. I think people get more excited because their being able to put pe rsonal touch, and their being able to say “Oh, we can change this, we can put this, and we can learn this.” And then we can add more ideas to Habitat… This is some thing I am gonna to be in for 30 years, 20 years. I wanna at least like it. Families suggested that Habitat improve the design and overall planning, including location, layout, size of rooms, landscapi ng, and so on. Some families already improved the design of their houses or yards by themse lves. Figures 5-11 and 5-12 indicated certain design expectations that some families had for their homes. Figure 5-11. The new bathroom was built by th e homeowner herself after she moved in.

PAGE 165

152 Figure 5-12. This was a multi-functional backyard. The backyard functioned as the garden, gym, picnic area, kid’s pla yground, gathering place, and utility storage space. Figure 5-11 showed that after moving in, th e respondent built a new bathroom with different choices of materials and colors fr om the other bathrooms Habitat designed for her. Figure 5-12 showed a respondent’s crea tive use of the backyard: a multi-functional space. It was a garden, gym, picnic area, ki d’s playground, gathering place, as well as utility storage space. These pictures also i ndicated that current Habitat house design did not consider how families used their space. On the one hand, the design suggestions confirmed that the design of the house was not exactly what families wanted. On the other hand, the design suggestions indicated that design partic ipation needed skills to become involved in the design process. Families could choose matching colors and finishes, read the layout, and get a sense of scale from blueprints, but families might also be frustrated if they knew nothing about th e basic design skills and acknowledged that they had to live with their decisions. Actua lly, most families were very interested in

PAGE 166

153 learning some design and decorating skill s during sweat equity. Concerning the possibility that a participant needed to lear n some design skills in order to participate effectively in the design process, it might partially explain that the more design participation a respondent had, the less attach ment, less pride, and less self-responsibility she felt. One respondent complained about th e similar interior and exterior design of Habitat houses. Figure 5-13 showed the simila rity of three Habitat houses. The exception included the exterior color and landscaping. Figure 5-13. This picture showed three Hab itat houses. The exteri or of these houses looked similar. When human resources were considered as one factor, the multiple regression analyses showed that design participati on was negatively associated with human resources. As previously discussed, families did not have a lot of choices regarding the activities in relation to design participation. The families could select the lot within the designated areas, choose the layou t within the limite d blueprints, and decide the colors and finishes among the ones donated by others. If they were not totally satisfied with the layout, they could seldom make small chan ges in the design. This was understandable

PAGE 167

154 when affordability was considered, but it also meant that when the blueprint was designed, no homeowners were consulted. Af ter listing some inappropriate designs for her house, one respondent said, “Designers’ at titude is to take what you get. But why don’t you ask me, the current homeowners?” If design participation gave families the empowerment to influence their houses, the empowerment was limited because the degree of design participation was limited. When families realized the limitations in the design participation, the human resources fact or might decrease since some of the socalled “participation” was superficial. Design participation was also negatively re lated to trust in neighbors. The more design involvement a participant had, the less she tended to trus t her neighbor. This finding was unexpected. But considering the st rong correlation th at existed between house attachment and trusting neighbors, the negative relationship between design participation and trust might simply be a side product of the negative relationship between design participati on and house attachment. The nonparametric tests also showed that design part icipation was negatively related to the frequency of house maintenance and repair. This finding might be explained by the small sample of this study. Since most respondents lived in the Habitat houses for less than five years, most houses were still in very good shape at the time of the research. In addition to maintenance ski lls, the age and health conditions of the homeowners really mattered when it came to maintenance and repair. A few respondents expressed directly that because they were old or had health problems, they did not maintain the houses well as they would like to. Also, employment may impact the frequency of maintenance as well. Many res pondents, who were sing le-parent mothers,

PAGE 168

155 had to work (sometimes double jobs or 12-hour shifts) while taking care of their children by themselves. This situation would leave them less time a nd energy to take good care of their houses. Mayer (1981) and Galster (1983, 1987) found a significant relationship between homeownership and home maintenance and repair when compared to rental housing. And this study found that construction was positively related to the frequency of home maintenance and repair. Summary Two of the three study hypotheses were suppor ted by the statistical analyses for the survey and content analyses for the interv iew. The two supported hypotheses are: 1) Sweat equity contributes to building or incr easing the human and soci al resources; and 2) A difference exists in the maintenance of human and social resources between physical settings of houses—Habitat ne ighborhoods and scattered s ites. The third hypothesis—a relationship exists between design particip ation and satisfaction of the results of participation—was not supported. Howeve r, evidence was found to support the hypothesis that design participation had an impact on building social resources. The analyses also showed that some results were unexpected from the study hypotheses. These results indicated that se veral possible problems might exist. For example, a small sample limited the accuracy of the results. Some factors such as physical features of the neighborhoods and personality of the respondents were not considered in this study. The adequacy of the measures needed verification. The intertwined relationships among human and social resources might also cause the unexpected results.

PAGE 169

156 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS Summary of the Study This final chapter reviews the problem, re search procedures, and specific research hypotheses, and also examines the results, co nclusions, and implications. Since this study was built upon learning by doing and generalized social exchange theories, the conclusion attempts to integrate the findings with the theoretical rationale of this research. The implications and recommendations of this study will be discussed from the points of view of the researchers, designers, a nd Habitat for Humanity (Habitat) affiliates. Statement of the conceptual theory The conceptual theory or framework was built upon Gifford’s (2002) informal learning model and cognitive and behavioral model in a physical community (see Figures 2-1 and 2-3). Accord ing to Deweyan learning-bydoing and Levi-Strauss’s generalized excha nge theory, a new model (see Figure 3-1) incorporated Gifford’s concerns for personal characteristics, physical settings, behaviors, cognitions, and design/planning in a Habitat c ontext. The new model added sweat equity as a predictor for a broader range of outcome s that included human and social resource developments of the low-income families. Statement of the problem This research investigated the sweat equity process and its impact on Habitat families’ lives from th ree aspects: 1) the relationship between sweat equity and human and social resource deve lopment; 2) the maintenance of resource development in Habitat neighborhoods versus scattered sites; and 3) the relationship between design participation and satisfaction of the families.

PAGE 170

157 Statement of the procedures After extensive background research, this research was designed in two parts. A pilot study was conducted to preliminarily test the survey and interview instruments and the procedur es among families who were in the sweat equity process in a local Habitat aff iliate. The principal study was conducted among female householders in three regional Habitat affiliates. Initial contact information was obtained through Habitat. Convenience sampling and volunteerism were used to identify potential participants who were sent an introduction letter, a consent form, and a survey questionnaire by mail or in person. The willing participants were in terviewed within two weeks after they were first contacted. The consent forms and survey responses were collected during the interview. Research hypotheses The Three specific hypotheses were: 1. Sweat equity contributes to the human and social resource development. 2. A difference exists in the maintenance of the resource developments in Habitat neighborhoods versus scattered sites. 3. A relationship exists between users’ participation in house design and the satisfaction with the results of their participation. Discussion Hypothesis 1 was supported by the stat istical analyses for the survey and content analyses for the interview: Sweat equity contributes to both human and social resource development. Specifically, c onstruction had a positive impact on house attachment (pride in house, attachment to the house, and self-r esponsibility), designhouse satisfaction (satisfaction with the house, the design, an d design participation), and the frequency of house maintenance. Public activities had a pos itive impact on skills (pride in skills, financial skill s, confidence in skills, and ma intenance skills, reciprocity) and generalized sense of community (pride for neighborhood, safety, attachment to the neighborhood, satisfaction with neighborhood, and sense of community). The design-

PAGE 171

158 house satisfaction increased and then decrea sed as the sweat equ ity hours increased. Training had a positive impact on satisfacti on with the house, house design, and design satisfaction. Perception of economic and ra cial segregation decreased as training activities increased. Considered as one factor human resources increased as construction increased. Human resources decreased as desi gn participation increased. Considered as one factor, social resources increased as public activities and design participation increased. Hypothesis 2 was supported by the findings: A difference exists in the maintenance of the resource developments in Habita t neighborhoods versus scattered sites. Specifically, families living in Habitat neighbo rhoods had higher self-esteem, a stronger sense of obligation to the neighborhoods, and a perception of less economic segregation. Hypothesis 3 was not supported by the anal yses: No statisti cally significant relationship exists between users’ participat ion in house design and the satisfaction with the results of their particip ation. However, the research found evidence to support that design participation had an impact on social resources. Specifically, the earlier the families started design participation, the mo re they developed generalized sense of community, including pride in the neighbor hood, safety, attachment to the neighborhood, satisfaction with their neighborhoods, and a se nse of community. Soci al resources would increase as the number of design-related ac tivities in which a respondent participated increased. However, a few analysis results differed from the three hypotheses. For example, people who participated in more public activit ies perceived more se gregation. A negative correlation existed between perception of skills and attachment to the house and between

PAGE 172

159 design participation and house attachment, tr ust, and frequency of house maintenance. And the negative relationship existed between the number of designrelated activities and the satisfaction with house, house design, and design participation. These discrepancies indicated possible problems in the theory, in the research questions, or methods, such as the sample and sampling, uncounted control f actors, inadequacy of the measures, the correlation among human and soci al resources, and so on. Conclusions Sweat Equity as Participation, Learning, and Sharing Sweat equity is a holistic process of doing, learning by doing, and sharing. Participation takes place in all sweat equity ac tivities when a partner family learns skills, builds houses, and helps other families at th e individual level and the neighborhood level. Although Habitat refers particip ation exclusively to the cons truction and management of houses, the effects of being able to play a pa rt in the design proce ss (i.e., choosing colors and materials) are significant to families, and the participatory process in the Habitat selfhelp program is empowering. Sweat equity teaches Habitat families the skills to build and maintain their homes and what they can achieve by supporting each ot her. Habitat partner families are required to take formal seminars to learn about how to budget, how to be good neighbors, and how to control their lives. These training contents are only a small part of the learning-bydoing experiences. Partner families learn how to build and maintain a house from working side by side with others. Learning from housing experiences and making do with what is at hand can ease low-income families from these skill-based long-term tasks, and families appreciate the learning experience fr om Habitat. It is the learning-by-doing process that makes the particip ant feel proud of her own accomp lishment. It is also a part

PAGE 173

160 of the self-help process in te rms of increasing the human re sources. Therefore, the human resources are developed through a learning-by -doing process of sweat equity. However, the learning experiences or learned skills are insufficient for all the needs that families must have for house maintenance or repair in the long run. Habitat partner families participate in other families’ construction work, as well as their own house construction. Together they no t only construct new houses, but they also build a new social network, friendship, and tr ust. Everyone is both a giver and a taker. First, the required sweat equity hours that address both helping and being helped ensure no free rider in Habitat, which helps to bu ild and maintain trust and reciprocity. In Habitat, the norms are set by a Habitat affilia te and each partner family must agree to commit to them. Activities and sweat equity hours are recorded in the Habitat office. Anyone who violates the norm (i.e., not commit to sweat equity hours or volunteer labor) could be asked to withdraw from this pr ogram. No one gets a free ride during sweat equity with Habitat. Second, it is a generalized social ex change because most families help others regardless of whether or not the neighbors have previously helped them, and they do not expect to receive help from the same neighbors they assi sted. Therefore, it is also a network-based generalized exchange. Ev eryone in the sharing pr ocess is a critical link to the entire supportive system. During th e sharing process, partner families meet other people, get to know thei r neighbors, and build friend ship and bonds with volunteers and neighbors. The process creates a sense of responsibility, belonging, pride, and trust. When partner families visualize all these mean ings of helping and being helped in their houses, this entire process is empowering, and the learning-by-doi ng process advances people from taking care of their houses to caring for their neighbors and neighborhoods.

PAGE 174

161 Hence, the sharing process of sweat equ ity builds social resources development. However, the mutual support network is not effective because the neighboring activities are spontaneous and limited to a few neighbors. During the learning ex perience, families do not learn enough skills about neighboring or getting i nvolved in their neighborhood. Instead, they would view s eeking support as losing th eir independence although they would like to help others if they knew how. Habitat Neighborhoods versus Scattered Sites According to the generalized social exch ange theory, Habitat neighborhoods may make it easier for Habitat families to maintain their human and social resources than being in scattered lots because they ca n trust their neighbors who also invested themselves through sweat equity. This st udy therefore showed that in Habitat neighborhoods, families had higher self-esteem and perceived less economic segregation. Considering the low price of Habitat houses compared to those on the housing market, Habitat homeowners have lower incomes than their neighbors who can afford the same houses at the market price. So Habitat neighborhoods should be more segregated economically. However, families living in Habitat neighborhoods perceive less economic segregation than those living in scattered sites, which in reality would be considered economically less segregated. This study indica ted that perceived segregation might be different than the segregation defined by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In the case of Habitat, ne ighborhoods actually help to eliminate the perception of economic segregation. The norm of generalized reciprocity is not maintained just because Habitat families live close to one another in the same nei ghborhood. The norm of generalized reciprocity is established during sweat equity. After moving into a Habitat neighborhood, without

PAGE 175

162 proper organizing and neighboring, families live their own lives and do not know how to maintain reciprocity. They would like to continue to help other families build a Habitat house but because of the time and energy, they seldom go out and help. They would like to help their neighbors with maintenance and repair problems, but the families who need help would not ask for assistance. They re gard “neighbors” as only those who live close them, regardless of how many Habitat neighbo rs they really have in the neighborhood. Habitat neighborhoods, compared to scattered sites, have only the physical form of neighborhoods. How to run the neighborhoods as the ideal places for Habitat families to live out their dreams needs more study. Design Participation In addition to the constructi on skills, maintenance skills, and social skills, this participatory housing process enables Habitat partner families to acquire personal control as well as social resources. The sense of control is far beyond building and repairing skills. Although Habitat does not fully unders tand the roles of de sign participation, it increases the development of social resour ces. Design participation allows families to personalize their homes and empowers them to make design decisions for their own houses, which most homeowners in other housing programs do not have. However, the level of design participation that Habitat families execute is limited. A higher level of design participation needs the full unders tanding among the designers, homeowners, Habitat, and the donors. The feedback from homeowners indicated a gap between current house design and planning and Habitat familie s’ needs. For example, some respondents preferred a bigger backyard to a bigger front yard because they needed to look out for their kids while they were working in the ki tchen. This indicated th at designers lacked social perspective of the residents: lo w-income single moms with small kids.

PAGE 176

163 This study first contributes to completi ng Gifford’s learning model in a Habitat setting. Compared with personal characteristics and physical setting, the results show that the sweat equity process contri butes to human and social re source developmen t. In other words, participation as a process is a drivi ng force for resource building rather than a byproduct. The learning-by-doing process should not be ignored in theoretical models. Since the learner plays an active role in the l earning process, it allows the researcher to identify which activities contribute to what le arning results. Therefore it also provides an opportunity to improve the learning process. The study also explores quantitative and qualitative methods to test the generalized so cial exchange theory. These methods enrich the studies of generalized social exchange theory and fill the gap of theory and practice in the literature. In addition to theoretical c ontribution, the study is signifi cant in terms of presenting the importance of learning-by-doing during sweat equity, and providing evidence that supports Habitat neighborhood planning and desi gn participation. The findings enrich the body of knowledge of participation in a Habita t context. The study or iginally ap plies both quantitative and qualitative measures to sweat equity, which allow more investigation of the learning-by-doing process. The application of subjectiv e perception of economic and racial segregation also fulfills Sabatini a nd other researchers’ (2001) proposition of a more comprehensive measure of segregation. The results indicate that a gap exists between the subjective and obj ective measures of segrega tion. Therefore, including subjective perception of segregati on is essential and necessary. In general, sweat equity is not just an instrument to deliver a low-cost housing product, but a process th at allows people to learn, to sh are, and therefore to change. Due

PAGE 177

164 to these special swea t equity experiences, Habitat nei ghborhoods are not perceived as segregated. Design participati on is important to families, but requires more confirmative recognition from Habitat. Since this is a small-sample case study, the results are not conclusive in order to generalize the findings. Although the main interests of this res earch are built upon extensive literature review and theoretical development, this study explores new ideas and suggestions from Habitat partner families that would inspire further research and Habitat improvement. The homeowners’ input is valuable not only to the researcher and local Habitat affiliates, but also to other low-inco me housing programs in terms of strategies and design improvement. The following implications are su ggested for designers, Habitat, and future research. Implications Suggestions for Designers Currently, designers of Habitat houses do not work with Habitat homeowners in the design process. The designers may be volunteers at Habitat and have contact with Habitat families, but have no active design involvement. Most Habitat families would like to have more influence in the design of th eir houses. A few families do not want more influence because when they had their houses built, they worked with designers to discuss their layouts and furniture arrangement. One Habitat affiliate pa rticipating in this study had active designer-homeowner coopera tion during the beginni ng stage, but the organization lost this tradition as Habitat has evolved in scale and efficiency. I suggest that having small seminars with potential homeowners who are working on other families’ homes could help designers bett er understand families’ needs. Instead of customizing each house design, designers coul d achieve both efficiency and more

PAGE 178

165 customized design. At the same time, designe rs can teach potential homeowners how to read drawings, understand budget limitations, and di scuss their priorities such as size of rooms, materials and finishes, and yard la ndscaping. The results of the seminar can be sent out as fliers to other pot ential homeowners in case they have more insightful input. Finding the proper opportunity to work with Habitat families is difficult in some circumstances. The following suggesti ons from this study concerning design improvement may offer customized design ideas for low-income, single-parent families. Adjacency of master bedrooms and children’s rooms does not seem appropriate for privacy. Placing closets or bathrooms between the partition walls may ease the problem. Living rooms and dining areas should be se parated if possible. Design bedrooms with a little more space so that a study area can be set up in the bedrooms. Keep the laundry room closer to the bedrooms and bathrooms instead of the kitche ns because it is the bedroom and bathroom where di rty clothes are generated. The kitchen and closet spaces in current house designs are not big enough fo r most families. Instead of having a big closet, divide the same square footage into several smaller closets. Some families prefer tiles on the floor due to easy maintenance; so me families prefer a carpet for its comfort touch. If no additional bathroom is financia lly available, a bigger bathroom with tub instead of shower may offer a good solution. Many families want a front porch for their houses, and most families with a front porch want to enclose the space because of the heat from a southern exposure and insects in the summer. Concerning the yard, fencing the surrounding property is necessary to protect the families’ ownership boundaries. Prepare more landscaping design choices for families. Besides the exterior colors on their houses, landscaping shows a family’s personal touch

PAGE 179

166 from the outside. In addition to fences and better yards, families with small children need more space in the back yard than space in the front yard. Since most of the Habitat householders are single parents, the pare nt—just the mother—often needs to do the household work while watching the children playi ng in the yard. For safety issues, a back yard is preferred to a front yard for children to play safely. If the lo t size is limited, design a shared park or a recreational center as a so lution for small individua l lots. The park or the recreational center (common room) can provide a safe space for both children and adults to gather, and it can become the symbol of the neighborhood. Other than design features, design communi cation with Habitat families should also be considered. One difficult task for families is to visualize the three dimensions of their houses. The two-dimensional drawings and sm all pieces of wall color samples make it difficult for untrained eyes of the families. Sketches of the interior perspectives and mock-up models with movable furniture may help families to understand their design choices. Using a computer model may simplif y the rendering process for the designers. Families could then visualize the same room from different perspectives and with different colors or different furniture arra ngements. Design students in interior design, architecture, and landscape may be a good source of workshop leaders. Suggestions for Habitat Habitat is playing an active role in terms of providing low-income housing. However, this study showed that the program could benefit families more if Habitat could improve certain stages in its current process. These suggestions con cern the sweat equity process, participation, part nership, outreach, and actio n-orientated research. Concerning the amount of time contributed in sweat equity, families believe that the more time they put into th eir house, the more appreciation they have in their house.

PAGE 180

167 Some families think that 300 to 400 hours are reasonable and preferable, and 500-plus are too much for single-parent family—although families who finished 500 or more hours had no regrets. However, the researcher beli eves that defining the hours (for example, 200 hours) for public activities, training, and helping other families is more important than the total hours because families usually do whatever it takes to finish their own houses; they lose count of the sweat equity hours for their own houses. Since families need to work half or more of their sweat equity hours on public activities or on other families’ houses, they want to complete their own houses as soon as possible. They therefore prefer to arrange th e building activities twice a week instead of one day a week. Concerning the learning experience, Habitat may consider adding or strengthening the following skills as the training sweat equity: neighboring, mainte nance, repair, leadership skills, and design. This study showed eviden ce that learning these skills during sweat equity could benefit families in the long run. Although the sweat equity process is empowe ring in theory, families could not feel the empowerment until they participated in the planning, designing, and building process of their own house. Although Ha bitat addresses participati on in the building process throughout the entire process, participati ng in the planning and design stages is uncommon. Having a full-time design staff may help to coordinate the entire participation process. Although the difficu lty to organize open planning and designing participation is understandable, a small effort of change can make a big impact on the participating families. For example, Habitat should be encouraging families to participate in the board meetings, should be having sma ll seminars to explain available choices (location, design, donation, and so on), and should be recruiting designe rs or builders to

PAGE 181

168 work with families directly. Changing this process also needs local donors’ cooperation. With the donors’ understanding of how they can help families more efficiently, families may have more choices regarding plan, layout, colors, materials, and finishes. In this way, Habitat is solving problems with the families instead of solving problems for the families. During the sweat equity process, Habitat partners with families. However, after families move in, Habitat has difficulty in describing its relationship with Habitat homeowners. Instead of being a parent to families, Habitat would rather encourage a family’s independence via a homeownership association. Habita t annually inspects Habitat houses to encourage house maintenance. Although families built physical and social skills during sweat equity, this st udy showed that families did not learn enough skills for taking care of their houses in the l ong run. It is suggested that Habitat build a long-term partnership (not parent, but coach or mentor relationship) with families by providing the following needed informati on or skill learning: continuing learning experiences in the form of workshops or a video of workshops for both potential homeowners, as well as existing homeown ers. The workshop should address both physical maintenance skills and social mainte nance skills. The schedule of the workshops or learning experiences should be adaptable for both the facilita tors (volunteers and skilled Habitat homeowners) and the learners (participating families). The continuity of sweat equity enables families to build the so cial power in addition to physical skills that they need for a better life beyond the improved physical environment. Another way to help families build th eir neighborhood—in addition to houses—is to establish or enforce a f unctioning neighborhood associatio n. The effectiveness of the

PAGE 182

169 neighborhood depends on several issues, such as the organizer’s leadership skills, neighboring skills, a sense of obligation, a sense of community of families, and the proper neighborhood activities (such as child care and upkeep). All these issues would increase the awareness of the neighborhood. The associa tion could strengthen the generalized social exchange by encouragi ng neighboring activities and network-based reciprocal favors. The final suggestion for Habitat is to conduct action-oriented research where stakeholders are actively i nvolved in both problem identif ication and problem solving processes. The outcomes of the research include not only a re port for the decision makers, but also an action plan that is to be carried out by the st akeholders. Although the resources for Habitat are limited, Habitat can wo rk with schools and universities or other nonprofit groups to conduct resear ch that addresses certain issues that they need to investigate. For example, volunteer student s with a design background and/or social science background do not have to contribute to the hammer ing process. These students can contribute better with their design skills or social research skills. Habitat can also get periodic feedback from homeowners by sending anonymous surveys. In doing this, Habitat can examine its program, its policy, design of the houses, and better serve the families’ needs. Suggestions for Further Research Although this research found interesting pa tterns, the findings are not conclusive for several reasons. First, some dependent va riables are correlated. Although it is natural to think about the close relationship between human and social resources, the statistical analyses need independent variables. After this exploratory study, future research could focus on fewer and more controllable dependent variables with a larger sample size.

PAGE 183

170 Second, the measures could have been impr oved by adding more statements about the participants rather than other people’s opini ons. For example, the self-esteem scale from Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (C ohen et al., 1985) emphasizes the positive comparison when comparing oneself with others. However, many families do not understand why their self-esteem has anythi ng to do with what other people think. Therefore, more direct stat ements about oneself would he lp participant understand the scale better. Third, because of the complexity of the research, some extraneous variables were not considered or measured. For example, the physical features of the neighborhoods in which families live, personal ity, lifestyle or prior experiences of the respondents, and house characteristics may also have an impact on the dependent variables, such as satisfaction with th e house, design, and neighborhoods. But conducting a full-scale study at this depth needs more in terdisciplinary input, and more physical and social resources. Although this study provide d valuable information and interesting results, the conclusions cannot be generalized to all low-in come housing cases because of the small sample included in this case study. Multiple case studies with a larger sample are needed for generalization if they follow th e same procedure with the same theoretical framework. Although the findings ar e not conclusive and could not be generalized due to some reasons, the understandings of sweat equity and its impact on families’ lives sheds new light for other low-income housing programs to follow.

PAGE 184

171 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENTS Comparing Human and Social Resources Accumulated th rough Participation with Habitat for Humanity in Scattere d Sites and Habitat Neighborhoods Research Survey By Yun Zhu College of Design, Construction & Planning University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 (352) 392-0252 ext. 426

PAGE 185

172 Section 1: Sweat Equity As a Partner family of Habitat for Humanity (H FH), you have taken part in many activities with Habitat. I’d like to ask you to recall which activities you have done during your sweat equity hours. Have you done it? Activities Yes N o Have you ever attended groundbreakings of other homes? Have you ever worked in a HFH office or Thrift Store? Have you ever baby-sat for other partner families? Have you ever attended budgeting courses? Have you ever attended home maintenance courses? Have you ever attended homeownership courses? Have you ever attended insurance courses? Have you ever attended leadership courses? Have you ever worked on fundraising events? Have you ever engaged in public speaking for HFH? Have you ever worked with a family supporter on household management? Other (Please give examples) The following questions are related to sweat e quity hours for construction of a HFH house. Please recall whether or not you have done these activities, and indicate whether the hours were done for you or other Habitat partner families. Have you done it? For whom? Activities Yes N o Me Others Have you laid a foundation? Have you ever roofed a house? Have you ever sided a framed house with vinyl siding? Have you ever trimmed the interior? Have you ever painted? Have you ever landscaped a yard? Have you ever worked on drywall? Have you ever installed linoleum or floor tile? Have you ever installed utility pipes? Have you ever installed windows/doors? Other (Please give examples)

PAGE 186

173 Next I will ask you some questions about home maintenance during the past 6 months First please indicate your confidence in your home maintenance skills using a scale from 1 to 4 where 1 means you are unskilled and 4 means you are very skilled. Then please check Yes or No to indicate whether or not you have done any home maintenance tasks, and how many times you have done each activity. 1 = unskilled, 2 = somewhat unskilled, 3 = skilled, 4 = very skilled How skilled are you in doing each home repair? Have you ever done any of the following home repairs? Activities 1 2 3 4 Yes No How many times? Paint rooms Replace flooring Repair wall board Repair roofing Repair porches Repair steps Repair plumbing (pipes) Repair kitchen appliance Repair lighting fixtures Repair AC or heater Fix a door Fix a window Decorate my house Clean my yard Other (Please give examples) Besides the skills learned from building a house, Habitat also provides some training courses for homeownership. Please rate the following statements using a scale from 1 to 4 where 1 means you strongly disagree and 4 means you strongly agree with these statements. 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree 1 The contents of the training courses were well organized. 1 2 3 4 2 The contents of the training courses were thorough. 1 2 3 4 3 The information presented in the training courses was useful. 1 2 3 4 4 I would like to continue to learn how to do household repairs after my required sweat equity hours are completed. 1 2 3 4 5 I am confident with future home maintenance and repairs. 1 2 3 4 6 I am proud of what I can accomplish with my own hands. 1 2 3 4 7 I have no problem keeping my budget under control. 1 2 3 4 8 I have no problem paying my bills on time. 1 2 3 4 Thank you. Please turn to the next section about feelings about yourself on the next page.

PAGE 187

174 Section 2: Feelings about Yourself The following statements concern how you feel about yourself in the past 6 months For each statement, please indicate whether it is True or False for you (Circle one). 1 Most people I know think highly of me. T F 2 Most of my friends are more successful at making changes in their lives than I am. T F 3 I am closer to my friends than most other people. T F 4 I have a hard time keeping pace with my friends. T F 5 In general, people don’t have much confidence in me. T F 6 I am more satisfied with my life than most people are with theirs. T F 7 Most of my friends are more interesting than I am. T F 8 I have someone who takes pride in my accomplishments. T F 9 I am able to do things as well as most other people. T F 10 I think that my friends feel that I’m not very good at helping them solve problems. T F Thank you. The next page will discu ss your feelings about your house.

PAGE 188

175 Section 3: Feelings about Your House The following statements reflect how you feel about your house. Please rate the following statements using a scale from 1 to 4 where 1 means you strongly disagree and 4 means you strongly agree with the statements. 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree 1 I feel a personal connection to this house. 1 2 3 4 2 This house really feels like a home. 1 2 3 4 3 I am proud of my house. 1 2 3 4 4 I am very satisfied with my present house overall. 1 2 3 4 5 I feel strong responsibility for hou se maintenance and repair. 1 2 3 4 Design involvement refers to participating in a pa rt of the design process of your own house, such as choosing sites, colors, and finishes for your house. Please check Yes or No to indicate which activities you participated in, when you did it (for example, I selected my paint colors when I began my 160th sweat equity hour), and whether you are satisfied with the current design. Are you satisfied with the current design? Have you taken part in design activities for the following areas? Yes No When did you do it? # of sweat equity hour Yes No Not known Colors Finishes Interior Layout Colors Finishes Exterior Yard Lot selection Neighborhood Public space planning Other Thank you. The next page will discuss your feelings about your neighbors.

PAGE 189

176 Section 4: Feelings about Your Neighbors This section contains 3 parts: how you trust your neighbors, supportive neighborhood interactions, and how close you and your neighbors are. 1. Please circle T for True or F for False to indicate whether you agree with the following statements. 1 There is at least one person in th is neighborhood I know whose advice I really trust. T F 2 There is really no one in this ne ighborhood I can trust to give me good financial advice. T F 3 There is really no one in this neighborhood who can give me objective feedback about how I’m handling my problems. T F 4 When I need suggestions for how to deal with a personal problem I know there is someone I can turn to. T F 5 There is someone in this neighborhood who I feel comfortable going to for advice about intimate problems. T F 6 There is someone in this neighborhood I can turn to for advice about handling hassles over household responsibilities. T F 7 I feel that there is no one in this neighborhood with whom I can share my most private worries and fears. T F 8 If a family crisis arose almost no one in this neighborhood would be able to give me good advice about handling it. T F 9 There is someone in this neighborhood I could turn to for advice about changing my job or finding a new one. T F 2. The following statements explore supportive interactions between you and your neighbors. Please rate these statements with 1-4 scale to indicate how much you agree with them. 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree 1 If I don’t have something I need for my cooking, I can borrow it from a neighbor. 1 2 3 4 2 I would like to help others to build their houses after my house is finished. 1 2 3 4 3 If I have a repair problem, I would rather call a family member than a neighbor for help. 1 2 3 4 3. Please tell me how many of your neighbors you feel close to to do the following activities. Please fill in a number in the blank. How many neighbors do you have? ___________ How many of your neighbors do you say hello to when you see them? ___________ How many of your neighbors do you consider close friends? ___________ How many of your neighbors would you feel comfortable asking to borrow a tool? ___________ How many of your neighbors would you feel comfortable asking to watch your house while you’re away? ___________ How many of your neighbors would you feel comfortable asking to watch your children while you’re away? ___________ How many of your neighbors would you feel comfortable asking to help you with a house repair? ________

PAGE 190

177 How many of your neighbors would you feel comfortable asking for a ride when your car is not working? ___________ How many of your neighbors do you visit now and then? __________ How often do you visit your neighbors? _______ times a month Thank you. The last page is about yo ur feelings about your neighborhood.

PAGE 191

178 Section 5: Feelings about Your Neighborhood Now I would like you to rate your current neighborhood. Please use a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 means you strongly disagree and 4 means you strongly agree, to indicate how much you agree with the following statements. 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree 1 I am satisfied with my present neighborhood overall. 1 2 3 4 2 I think my neighborhood is a good place for me to live. 1 2 3 4 3 People in this neighborhood do not share the same values. 1 2 3 4 4 My neighbors and I want the same thing from this neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5 I can recognize most of the people who live in my neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 6 I feel at home in this neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 7 Very few of my neighbors know me. 1 2 3 4 8 I care about what my neighbors think of my actions. 1 2 3 4 9 I have no influence over what this neighborhood is like. 1 2 3 4 10 If there is a problem in this neighborhood, people who live here get it solved. 1 2 3 4 11 It is very important to me to live in this neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 12 People in this neighborhood generally don’t get along with one another. 1 2 3 4 13 I expect to live in this neighborhood for a long time. 1 2 3 4 14 I feel comfortable in my neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 15 I do feel that I belong in this neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 16 I am ashamed of my neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 17 I feel safe in my neighborhood during the daytime. 1 2 3 4 18 I feel safe in my neighborhood during the nighttime. 1 2 3 4 19 I would have better contacts with frie nds or family if I lived in another part of town. 1 2 3 4 20 I feel segregated by living in this neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 The next question is about your neighborhood association. Please check Yes or No to indicate whether you have a homeowner association in your neighborhood and if yes, whether it holds regular meetings. Yes No Do you have a homeowner association in your neighborhood? If yes, does your neighborhood hold homeowner association meetings? If your neighborhood holds homeowner associati on meetings, please check a category that describes the frequency your homeowner associa tion holds meetings and the frequency you attend those meetings. Once a month Twice a month Once a week Twice a week How often does your homeowner association hold meetings? How often do you attend neighborhood meetings?

PAGE 192

179 That is it! Thank you again! Please use th e pre-paid envelop to send back the signed Consent Form and the survey you just finishe d. I will call you to se t up the interview time within two weeks.

PAGE 193

180 APPENDIX B INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Address: __________________________ Zip c ode: _________ Subject ID: _____ I’d like to ask you how you feel about participating in sweat equity. Please use your own words or stories. 1.1 Not everyone chooses to work on his or her own house. Why did you choose to work with Habitat? (Habitat helps people purch ase a house by putting in several hundreds of sweat equity hours of work. Why did you choose to obtain your house with Habitat?) 1.2 How do you feel about the sweat equity hours that must be spent helping others before building your own house? (Can you give me examples of what you liked or disliked?) 1.3 How do you feel about the sweat equity hours that must be spent building your own house? (Can you give me examples of what you liked or disliked?) 1.4 Are there advantages in building your own house instead of having a house without making any effort to build it? ___Yes ___ No a. If yes, what are these advantages? b. What is the best part of the sweat equity?

PAGE 194

181 c. If no, i. Do you learn new skills in construc tion and home maintenance? What did you learn? ii. Do you feel attached to your home? __ Yes __No iii. Are you proud of using your new skills to build your house? __ Yes __No iv. Are you and your neighbors keeping close relations? __Yes __No v. Do you feel attached to your ne ighborhood? __Yes __No 1.5 Are there drawbacks from participating with Habitat? ___Yes ___No If yes, what are the drawbacks? 1.6 Imagine that you could change any part of the process in Habitat for Humanity. Can you suggest one or two things that would help to improve the process? 1.7 Do you like future workshops or training c ourses from Habitat? ___Yes ___No What would you like to learn? 1.7.1 Leadership skills are skills that infl uence and negotiate among people, and facilitate collaborative actions to impr ove the overall community. Basically it is about team building and interpersonal skills. How do you feel about including leadership skills in sweat equity? 1.7.2 How do you feel about learning design and decorating skills during sweat equity?

PAGE 195

182 1.8 If you would like to continue to learn househol d repairs after your required sweat equity hours, what types of repair do you want to learn? 1.9 Why do (don’t) you attend the neighborhood association meetings? Do you have any suggestions for the neighborhood association? 1.10 You are (are not) satisfied with your current neighborhood. What are the qualities of a good neighborhood? 1.11 When you need some advice or something (a tool or food), why do (don’t) you ask a neighbor for help? Thank you.

PAGE 196

183 Next I would like to ask some questions about your house. 2.1 If your house needs regular maintenan ce (for example, changing the AC filter), can you do this yourself? ___Yes ___No If no, would you ask someone else for help? Who are they? Why? 2.2 If your house needs repairs (for example, fixing a leaking pipe or roof), can you do this yourself? ___Yes ___No If no, would you ask someone else for help? Who are they? Why? 2.3 If a neighbor asks for your help with their home repairs, would you be able to help? __Yes ___No Why? Does it matter to you whether the neighbor helped you before or not? Why? Do you expect that he or she may someday help you back? Why? Design involvement refers to pa rticipating in a pa rt of the design process of your house. The next five questions are about your feelings about designing your house. 3.1 How do you feel about selecting interior colors and finishes for your house? 3.2 Would you like to have more influence over the design of your house? Can you suggest two changes that you like to make to yo ur interiors? What are these changes? 3.3 Are there any particular changes you would lik e to make to the exterior? What are these changes?

PAGE 197

184 3.4 Using the following scale (show the card), pl ease rate your satisfaction with level of involvement in the design process for your house. 1= very unsatisfied, 2= unsatisfied, 3= satisfied, 4= very satisfied 999= don’t know 3.5 Using the following scale (show the card), pl ease rate the usefulness of selecting color and finishes for your house. 1= very unsatisfied, 2= unsatisfied, 3= satisfied, 4= very satisfied 999= don’t know

PAGE 198

185 LIST OF REFERENCES Abramson, A. J., Tobin, M. S., & Vandergoot M. R. (1995). The changing geography of metropolitan opportunity: The segregation of the poor in U.S. metropolitan areas, 1970 to 1990. Housing Policy Debate, 6 (1), pp. 45-72. Allop, K., Fifield, K., & Seiter, J. S. (2002) Empathy and generalized reciprocity in compliance with requests for help. Psychological Reports, 91 (1), pp. 241-242. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (2000, Fourth Edition). Retrieved 3/25, 2004, from http://www.bartleby.com/cgibin/texis/webinator/ahdsearch?searc h_type=enty&query=sweat+equity&db=ahd Andersen, L., Boud, D., & Cohen, R. (2000). Experience-based learning. In G. Foley (Ed.), Understanding adult education and training (2nd ed., pp. 225-239). Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Argyris, C. (1997). Learning and teaching: A theory of action perspective. Journal of Management Education, 21 (1), pp. 9-27. Arizmendi, D. (2003). Beyond self-help: A new beginning for Colonia residents. Rural Voices, 8 (3), pp. 21-22. Austin, M., & Baba, Y. (1990). Social de terminants of neighborhood attachments. Sociological Spectrum, 10 pp. 59–78. Baggett, J. P. (1998). Between private homes and public re ligion: Habitat for Humanity's new American dream. Doctoral dissertation, Grad uate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA. Baggett, J. P. (2003). Habitat for Humanity: Building private homes, building public religion Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Barro, R. J. (May 2001). Human capital and growth. American Economic Review, 91 (2), pp. 12-17. Barrow, C. J. (2000). Social impact assessmen t: An introduction London: Oxford University Press. Basolo, V., & Strong, D. (2002). Understand ing the neighborhood: From residents' perceptions and needs to action. Housing Policy Debate, 13 (1), pp. 83-105.

PAGE 199

186 Becker, F. (1977). Housing messages Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden Hutchinson & Ross. Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Birdsey, T., Mckinney, J., & Stouffer, J. (1998). Driving residence-hall design. American School & University, 70, pp. 66d-66f. Blantern, C., & Belcher, J. (1994). Participati on in the learning company. In J. Burgoyne, M. Pedlar & T. Boydell (Eds.), Towards the learning company (pp. 895-918). London: McGraw-Hill. Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (Vol. 1). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Boehm, T., & Schlottman, A. (1999). Does home ownership by parents have an economic impact on their children? Journal of Housing Economics, 8 pp. 217–232. Bothwell, S. E., Gindroz, R., & Lang, R. E. (1998). Restoring community through traditional neighborhood design: A case study of Diggs Town public housing. Housing Policy Debate, 9 (1), pp. 89-114. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. C. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press. Brophy, P. C., & Smith, R. N. (1997). Mixed-income housing: Factors for success. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 3 (2), pp. 3-31. Bruin, M. J., & Cook, C. C. (1997). Understand ing constrains and re sidential satisfaction among low-income single-parent families. Environment and Behavior, 29 pp. 532553. Buckner, J. C. (1988). The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16 (6), pp. 771-791. Burgess, R. (1982). Self-help housing advocacy: a curious form of radicalism. A critique of the work of John F. C. Turner. In P. M. Ward (Ed.), Self-help housing: A critique (pp. 55-97). London: Mansell Publishing Limited. Carr, J. H. (1999). The complexity of segr egation: Why it conti nues 30 years after the enactment of the Fair Housing Act. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 4 (3), pp. 139-146. Cassidy, L., & Jake, S. (2002). Evaluating the national outc omes: Program outcomes for communities Retrieved 5/31, 2002, from http://ag.arizona.edu/fcr/ fs/nowg/cd_litrev.html

PAGE 200

187 Chavis, D. M., Hogge, J. H., Mcmillan, D. W., & Wandersman, A. (1986). Sense of community through Brunswik's lens: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 14 pp. 24-40. Chavis, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (1990) Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for particip ation and community development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18 (1), pp. 55-81. Cherniss, C., & Cherniss, D. S. (1987). Profe ssional involvement in self-help groups for parents of high-risk newborns. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15 (4), pp. 435-444. Chipuer, H. M., & Pretty, G. M. H. (1999). A review of the sense of community index: Current uses, factor structure, re liability, and further development. Journal of Community Psychology, 27 (6), pp. 643-658. Cochrun, S. E. (1994). Understanding and enhancing neighborhood sense of community. Journal of Planning Literature, 9 pp. 92-99. Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company: How social capital makes organizations work Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Cohen, J. M. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Supplement), pp. S95-120. Cohen, S., Mermelstein, R., Kamarck, T., & Hoberman, H. M. (1985). Measuring the functional components of social support. In I. G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research and applications (pp. 73-94). The Hague, Holland: Martinus Nijhoff. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94 pp. S95-S120. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Coopersmith, S. (1981). The antecedents of self-esteem. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Coulibaly, M., Green, R. D., & James, D. M. (1998). Segregation in federally subsidized low-income housing in the United States. Westport, CT: Praeger. Crenshaw, E., & John, C. S. (1989). The Organizationally Dependent Community: A Comparative Study of Neighborhood Attachment. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 24 (3), pp. 412-434.

PAGE 201

188 Cressey, P., Martino, V. D., Bal, M. B. D., Treu, T., & Traynor, K. (1987). Participation review: A review of foundation studies on participation Ireland: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Denton, N. A. (1999). Half empty or half fu ll: Segregation and segregated neighborhoods 30 years after the Fair Housing Act. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 4 (3), pp. 107-122. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education Boston, NY: Houghton Mifflin company. Dewey, J. (1939). Intelligence in the modern world: John Dewey's philosophy New York: Modern Library. Dewey, J. (1980). Art as Experience New York: Perigree Books. Dluhosch, E. (1978). The support-infill concep t as a methodology for user participation in mass housing projects. In W. F. Preiser (Ed.), Facility programming methods and applications (pp. 85-106). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowd en, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc. Duncan, O., & Duncan, B. (1955). A methodolog ical analysis of se gregation indices. American Sociological Review, 20 pp. 210-217. Ekeh, P. P. (1974). Social exchange theory: The two traditions Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ellen, I. G., & Turner, M. A. (1997). Do es neighborhood matter? Assessing recent evidence. Housing Policy Debate, 8 (4), pp. 833-866. Farley, R., Fielding, E. L., & Krysan, M. ( 1997). The residential preferences of blacks and whites: A four-metropolis analysis. Housing Policy Debate, 8 (4), pp. 763-800. Farley, R., Steeh, C., Jackson, T., Krysan, M., & Reeves, K. (1993). Continued racial residential segregation in Detroit: Choc olate city, Vanilla suburbs revisited. Journal of Housing Research, 4 pp. 1-39. Finn, C. M. (1994). Empowerment in Habitat for Hu manity housing: Individual and organizational dynamics. Doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. Fischer, C. (1975). Toward a subcultural theory of urbanism. American Journal of Sociology, 80 pp. 1319-1341. Fischer, C. (1982). To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

PAGE 202

189 Florida Power & Light Company. (2000). Saving customers' money is "top" priority for FPL Energy Efficient Roof Study [Online News]. Retrieved February 12, 2003, from http://www.fpl.com/news/2000/contents/00087.shtml#TopOfPage Florin, P., & Wandersman, A. (1990). An intr oduction to citizen pa rticipation, voluntary organizations, and community development: Insights for empowerment through research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18 (1), pp. 41-54. Frey, W. H., & Myers, D. (2002). Neighborhood segregation in single-race and multirace America: A census 2000 st udy of cities and metropolitan areas (Working paper). Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation. Fried, M. (1982). Residentia l Attachment: Sources of Residential and Community Satisfaction. Journal of Social Issues, 38 (3), pp. 107-119. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: Social virtues and the creation of prosperity New York: Free Press. Fuller, M. (1993). Habitat for Humanity: Chan ging the world one house at a time. In J. Lederman (Ed.), Housing American: mobilizing bankers, builders and communities to solve the Nation's affordable housing crisis (pp. 145-157). Chicago, IL: Probus Publishing Co. Fuller, M. (2000). More than houses: How Habitat for Humanity is transforming lives and neighborhoods Nashville, TN: Word Publishing. Galster, G. C. (1983). Empirical eviden ce on cross-tenure differences in home maintenance and conditions. Land Economics, 59 pp. 107–113. Galster, G. C. (1987). Homeowners and neighborhood reinvestment Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Galster, G. C. (2003). Investigating behavi oural impacts of poor neighborhoods: Towards new data and analytic strategies. Housing Studies, 18 (6), pp. 893-914. Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). Canada: Optimal Books. Giri, A. K. (2002). Building in the margins of shacks : The vision and projects for Habitat for Humanity New Delhi: Orient Longman Private Limited. Green, G. P., & Haines, A. (2002). Asset building and community development Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Green, R., & White, M. (1997). Measuring th e benefits of homeowning: Effect on children. Journal of Urban Economics, 41 pp. 441-61.

PAGE 203

190 Greenberg, M. R. (1999). Improving neighbor hood quality: A hier archy of needs. Housing Policy Debate, 10 (3), pp. 601-624. Grindley, W. C. (1972). Owner-builder: Survi vors with a future. In F. Turner & R. Fichter (Eds.), Freedom to build (pp. 3-21). New York: Macmillan Company. Habitat for Humanity. (2002). Fiscal report Retrieved August 23, 2002, from http://www.habitat.org/giving/ report/2002/AffiliateHouseNos_02.pdf Habitat for Humanity. (2003). Working with God's peopl e in need: Fact sheet Retrieved 1/20/03, from http://habitat.org/scri pt/link.asp?url=www%2E alachuahabitat%2Eorg Hanifan, L. J. (1916). The rural school community center. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 67 pp. 130-138. Hanushek, E. A., & Kimko, D. D. (2000). Sc hooling, labor-force quality, and the growth of nations. American Economic Review, 90 (5), pp. 1184-1208. Harms, H. (1982). Historical perspectives on the practice and purpose of self-help housing. In P. M. Ward (Ed.), Self-help housing: A critique (pp. 17-53). Bronx, NY: Mansell Publishing Limited. Harris, P. B., Brown, B. B., & Werner, C. M. (1996). Privacy regulation and place attachment: Predicting attachments to a student family housing facility. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16 pp. 287-301. Harris, R. (2003). The suburban wo rker in the history of labor. International Labor and Working-Class History, 64 pp. 8-24. Hasell, M. J., & Scanzoni, J. (2000). C ohousing in HUD: Problems and Prospects. The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17 pp. 133-145. Hasell, M. J., & Zhu, Y. (2001). Action Programming: A Holistic Design Approach. Paper presented at the South/East Regi onal Conference of the Interior Design Educators Council, Atlanta. Hasell, M. J., & Zhu, Y. (2003). Creating Habitable Spaces: Pa rticipation, Inquiry and Practice. Paper presented at the 2003 Nati onal Conference of Interior Design Educators Council, San Diego. Hays, R. A. (2002). Habitat for Humanity: Bu ilding social capital through faith based service. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24 (3), pp. 247-69. Holsti, O. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

PAGE 204

191 Hunter, A. (1975). The loss of community: An empirical test through replication. American Sociological Review, 40 (5), pp. 537-551. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities New York: Random books. Jeffers, L., & Dobos, J. (1984). Comm unication and neighborhood mobilization. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 20 pp. 97–112. Jeffrey, D., & Reynolds, G. (1999) Planners, architects, the public, and aesthetics factor analysis of preferences for infill developments. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 16 (4), pp. 271-288. John, C. S., Austin, D. M., & Baba, Y. (1986). The question of community attachment revisited. Sociological Spectrum, 6 pp. 411-431. Kidder, L., & Judd, C. M. (1986). Research methods in social relations (5th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Kleit, R. G. (2001). The role of neighborhood social networks in scattered-site public housing residents' search for jobs. Housing Policy Debate, 12 (3), pp. 541-573. Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis: An intr oduction to its methodology (Vol. 5). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Langton, S. (1978). Citizen participation in America Lexington, MA: Lexington. Lassman-Eul, M. (2001). Sweat equity: la bor of hope, investment for tomorrow [Electronic version]. Habitat World, August/September Lever, J. P., Pinol, N. L., & Uralde, J. H. (2005). Poverty, psyc hological resources and subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 73 pp. 375-408. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Litwak, E. (1961). Voluntary Asso ciations and Neighborhood Cohesion. American Sociological Review, 26 (1), pp. 258-271. Loury, G. (1987). Why should we care about group inequality? Social Philosophy and Policy, 5 pp. 249-271. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89 pp. 25-34. Martinez, S. C. (2000). The Housing Act of 1949: Its place in the realization of the American dream of homeownership. Housing Policy Debate, 11 (2), pp. 467-487.

PAGE 205

192 Massey, D., & Denton, N. A. (1988). The di mensions of residential segregation. Social Forces, 67 (2), pp. 281-315. Mayer, N. (1981). Rehabilitation decisions in rental housing. Journal of Urban Economics, 10 pp. 76–94. Mclain-Kark, J. H. (1986). User participation in pa ssive solar housing design. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Mcmillan, D. W. (1996). Sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 24 (4), pp. 315-325. Mcmillan, W. D., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Se nse of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14 pp. 6-23. Merriam, S. B. (1985). The case study in e ducational research: A review of selected literature. Journal of Educational Thought, 19 (3), pp. 204-217. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2003) Retrieved from http://www.m-w.com/cgibin/dictionary?book=Dic tionary&va=sweat+equity Miettinen, R. (2000). The concept of experien tial learning and John Dewey’s theory of reflective thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19 (1), pp. 54-72. Mitchell, M. V., & Warren, S. P. (1998). Making home ownership a reality: Survey of Habitat for Humanity In ternational (HFHI), Inc. homeowners and affiliates (Survey report). Chicago, IL: Applied Real Estate Analysis (AREA), Inc. Moore, G. (1990). Structural determinants of men’s and women’s personal networks. American Sociological Review, 55 (5), pp. 726-735. Narayan, D., & Pritchett, L. (1997). Cents and sociability: Household income and social capital in rural Tanzania. (Policy Research Working Paper No. 1796). Washington, DC: World Bank, Social De velopment and Development Research Group. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty Cambridge: Polity Press. Nye, N., & Glickman, N. J. (2000). Worki ng together: Building cap acity for community development. Housing Policy Debate, 11 (1), pp. 163-198. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2001). The welling-being of nations: The role of human and social capital Retrieved January 28, 2003, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/36/40/33703702.pdf

PAGE 206

193 Ostrom, E. (2000). Social capital: A fad or a fundamental concept? In P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social capital: A multifaceted perspective (pp. 172-214). Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Partnership for Advancing T echnology in Housing. (2002). Schenectady Habitat for Humanity home: Schenectady, New York Retrieved March 2, 2003, from Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing http://www.toolbase.org/tertiaryT.as p?TrackID=&DocumentID=2731&CategoryID =1092 Perkins, D. D., Brown, B. B., & Taylor, R. B. (1996). The ecology of empowerment: Predicting participation in community organizations. Journal of Social Issues, 52 (1), pp. 85-110. Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C ., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. M. (1990). Participation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and community context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18 (1), pp. 83-115. Peroff, K. A., Davis, C. L., & Jones, R. (1979). Gautreaux housing demonstration: An evaluation of its impact on participating households Unpublished manuscript, Washington DC. Prestby, J. E., Wandersman, A., Florin, P., Ric h, R. C., & Chavis, D. M. (1990). Benefits, costs, incentive management and particip ation in voluntary organizations: A means to understanding and promoting empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18 (1), pp. 117-149. Pretty, G. (1990). Relating psychological sense of community to social climate characteristics. Journal of Community Psychology, 18 pp. 60-65. Prezza, M., & Costantini, S. (1998). Sens e of community and life satisfaction: Investigation in three diffe rent territorial contexts. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 8 pp. 181-194. Putnam, R., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community New York: Simon & Schuster. Putnam, R. D., & Gross, K. A. (2002). Introduction. In R. D. Putnam (Ed.), Democracies in flux: The evolution of social capital in contemporary society (pp. 3-21). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc. Reid, B., & Hickman, P. (2002). Are hous ing organisations becoming learning organisations? Some lessons from the management of tenant participation. Housing Studies, 17 (6), pp. 895-918.

PAGE 207

194 Reis, A. (2000). Assessment of the de sign participation school of thought. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17 (1), pp. 1-15. Riger, S. (2001). Transforming community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29 (1), pp. 69-81. Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: A nother look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104 (4), pp. 842-866. Rohe, W. M., & Basolo, V. (1997). Long-term effects of homeownership on the selfperceptions and social interac tions of low-income persons. Environment and Behavior, 29 pp. 793-799. Rohe, W. M., & Stegman, M. A. (1994a). Th e effects of homeow nership on the selfesteem, perceived control and life satisfaction of low-income people. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60 (2), pp. 173-184. Rohe, W. M., & Stegman, M. A. (1994b). Th e impact of homeownership on the social and political involvement of low-income people. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 30 (1), pp. 152-172. Roschelle, J., & Clancey, W. J. (1992) Learning as social and neural. The Educational Psychologist, 27 (4), pp. 435-453. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rossi, P. H., & Weber, E. (1996). The soci al benefits of homeownership: Empirical evidence from national surveys. Housing Policy Debate, 7 (1), pp. 1-35. Roth, R. J. (1962). John Dewey and self-realization Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Sabatini, F., Caceres, G., & Cerda, J. (2001). Residential segregati on pattern changes in main Chilean cities: Scale shifts and increasing malignancy. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Se gregation in the City. Saegert, S., Winkel, G., & Swartz, C. (2002) Social capital and crime in New York City's low-income housing. Housing Policy Debate, 13 (1), pp. 189-226. Sanoff, H. (1992a). Integrating programming, evaluati on and participation in design Hampshire, England: Avebury, Ashgate Publishing Limitd. Sanoff, H. (1992b). Integrating programming, evaluation and participation in design: A theory Z approach Aldershot, England: Avebury. Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

PAGE 208

195 Sanwu, V. K., Haberl, J. S. H., & Kim, B. (1999). Comfort conditions in a Habitat for Humanity house in central Texas. Paper presented at the Twelfth Symposium on Improving Building Systems in Hot and Humid Climates, San Antonio, TX. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework (CRLT Technical Report No. 16-01). Bloomington, IN: Center for Research on Learning and Technology, Indiana University. Schawrtz, A., & Tajbakhsh, K. (1996). Mixe d-income housing: Unanswered questions. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 3 (2), pp. 71-92. Scheff, T. J., & David S. Fearson, J. (2004). Cognition and emotion? The dead end in self-esteem research. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 34 (1), pp. 73-90. Schmidt, F. (1998). Citizen Participation: An essay on application of citizen participation to extension programming Center for Rural Studies, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Vermont. Retrieved November 25, 2002, from Center for Rural Studies, College of Agriculture a nd Life Sciences, University of Vermont http://ag.arizona.edu/fcr/fs/nowg/cd_essay.html Schroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A., Dovi dio, J. F., & Piliavin, J. A. (1995). The psychology of helping and altruism: Problems and puzzles New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Skjaeveland, O., & Garling, T. (1997). E ffects of interacti onal space on neighbouring. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17 pp. 181-198. Spohn, R. B. (1972). The owner-builder: Legisl ative analysis and recommendation. In J. F. C. Turner & R. Fichter (Eds.), Freedom to build: Dweller control of the housing process New York, NY: The Macmillan Company. Squires, G. D., Friedman, S., & Saidat, C. E. (2002). Experiencing residential segregation: A contemporary study of Washington, D.C. Center for Washington Area Studies: The George Washington University. Stuart, G. (2002). Integration or resegregation: Metr opolitan Chicago at the turn of the new century (For The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University): Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Suttles, G. D. (1972). The social construction of communities Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Taggart, W. H. J. (1995). Neighborhood participation: an exami nation of the relationship between participation, housing tenure, scale of development and community. Doctoral dissertation, York University, Canada. Tait, J. (1997). From self-help housing to sustainable settlement: Capita list development and urban planning in Lusaka, Zambia Aldershot, England: Avebury.

PAGE 209

196 Temkin, K., & Rohe, W. M. (1998). Social capital and neighbo rhood stability: An empirical investigation. Housing Policy Debate, 9 (1), pp. 61-88. Thurman, J. A. (1991). Providing adequate housing in the "courts" section of Harvard, Nebraska by starting a Hab itat for Humanity affiliate. Unpublished D.MIN. dissertation, Drew Univ ersity, Madison, NJ. Torjman, S. (1998, October 15-16). Strategies for a caring society. Paper presented at the Investing in the whole community: Stra tegies for a caring society, Toronto. Torres-Antonini, M. (2001). Our common house: Using the built environment to develop supportive communities. Doctoral dissertation, Univers ity of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Turner, J. F. C. (1977). Housing by people New York: Pantheon Books. Turner, J. F. C. (1982). Issues in self-hel p and self-managed housing. In P. M. Ward (Ed.), Self-help housing: A critique (pp. 99-113). London: Mansell Publishing Limited. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell., W. K. (2002). Self-esteem and socioeconomic status: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6 (1), pp. 59–71. Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1983). Neighboring and its role in block organizations: An exploratory report. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11 pp. 291-300. United Nations Center for Human Settlements. (1999). Informal settlement upgrading-the demand for capacity building in six pilot cities: Amman, Ankara, Caracas, Concepcin, Ibadan, and Nkayi Nairobi, Kenya: UNCHS (H abitat) United Nations Center for Human Settlements, Settlement Upgrading Programme. U.S. Department of Energy. (1999). The Galloway family home: Energy-efficient Habitat for Humanity house uses 30 percent less energy [Online report]. Office of building technology, state and community programs. Retrieved 2/11, 2003, from Office of building technology, state and community programs www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/documents/pdfs/25096b.pdf U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2000). US HUD fiscal year 2000: Annual performance plan. Updated March 17, 2003. Retrieved April 14, 2003, from US HUD http://www.huduser.or g/Publications/pdf/fy2001app.pdf Uphoff, N. (2000). Understanding social capital: Learning from the analysis and experience of participation. In P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social capital: A multifaceted perspective (pp. 215-249). Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Van Ryzin, G. G., & Genn, A. (1999). Neighborh ood change and the city of New York's ten-year housing plan. Housing Policy Debate, 10 (4), pp. 799-838.

PAGE 210

197 Vaske, J. J., & Kobrin, K. C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32 (4), pp. 16-21. Vincent, L. (2002). Habitat for Humanity: "Sweat-Equity" transfor ms receivers into givers. Compassion and Culture (September), pp. 1-8. Ward, P. M. (Ed.). (1982). Self-help housing: A critique Bronx, New York: Mansell Publishing Limited. Ward, R. A., Lagory, M., & Sherman, S. R. (1985). Neighborhood and network age concentration: Does age homoge neity matter for older people? Social Psychology Quarterly, 48 (2), pp. 138-149. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Wells, N. M. (2000). Housing and well-being: A longitudi nal investigation of low-income families transitioning to new dwellings. Doctoral dissertati on, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Wells, N. M. (2000, June 26-30). Housing quality & women's mental health: A threewave longitudinal study. Paper presented at the Housing in the 21st Century, Gavle, Sweden. White, M. J. (1983). The measur es of spatial segregation. American Journal of Sociology, 88 (5), pp. 1008-1018. Woolerver, C. (1992). A contextual approach to neighborhood attachment. Urban Studies, 29 (1), pp. 99-116. World Bank. (1995). Investing in people: The World Bank in action Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. World Bank. (2002, October 10). What is social capital? PovertyNet. Retrieved November 25, 2002, from PovertyNet http://www.worldbank.org/pove rty/scapital/whatsc.htm Yamagishi, T., & Cook, K. S. (1993). Gene ralized exchange and social dilemmas. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56 (4), pp. 235-248. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed. Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

PAGE 211

198 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Yun Zhu, M. Arch., is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Interior Design, College of Design, Construction and Planning (CDCP), University of Florida. Ms. Zhu earned her Bachelor of Architecture at Tsi nghua University in Beijing, China, in 1997. She obtained a Master of Architecture at the Beijing Institute of Civil Engineering and Architecture. She started her doctoral study at the College of De sign, Construction and Planning, University of Florida, in 2000. During her studies at CDCP, she received funding from the Dean’s Office and the Depart ment of Interior Design. Ms. Zhu received the following awards: five consecutive acad emic excellence awar ds; two scholarships from the Central Florida Builders Exchange a nd the University of Florida; a Graduate Student Travel Grant from Student Governme nt Council; the Presidential Recognition for Outstanding Student (University of Florida); and the Doct oral Award for Outstanding Service (Department of Interior Desi gn at the University of Florida). Ms. Zhu began her academic career as a te aching assistant at Beijing Institute of Civil Engineering and Architecture. She advan ced her teaching experience as a graduate assistant with the Department of Interior Desi gn at the University of Florida. The courses she taught included studios, theory, desi gn communication, furniture design, and detailing. While at the University of Florid a, she participated in the Foundation for Interior Design Education Research accredita tion process in 2004, a ssisted with selfexamination, documentation of courses provide d by the department, and the initial design

PAGE 212

199 of the display gallery. She ha s been a member of Interior Design Educator’s Council since 2005. Ms. Zhu’s undergraduate study focused on the relationship between the forms, mass, and contrast of housing exteriors a nd the surrounding environment. The graduate study of housing and residential design enab led her to investig ate the relationship between residents’ behaviors and their lig hting environments. However, the housing study did not explore the social aspects that al so might impact reside nts’ behaviors. Ms. Zhu became interested in the social environm ents, as well as the physical environments, and their impact on human behaviors. Her doctoral study was focused on sweat equity and the impact of this participatory process on human and social resource development in the context of Habitat for Humanity. Her curre nt research interest s include: environmentbehavior design in color, sp ecial populations, and personal sp ace; social design in the workspace, public space planning, cohousing, and design methods; and design participation among designers and stakeholders.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0013770/00001

Material Information

Title: Comparing Human and Social Resources Accumulated through Participation with Habitat for Humanity in Scattered Sites and Habitat Neighborhoods
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0013770:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0013770/00001

Material Information

Title: Comparing Human and Social Resources Accumulated through Participation with Habitat for Humanity in Scattered Sites and Habitat Neighborhoods
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0013770:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












COMPARING HUMAN AND SOCIAL RESOURCES
ACCUMULATED THROUGH PARTICIPATION WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
IN SCATTERED SITES AND HABITAT NEIGHBORHOODS















By

YUN ZHU


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006





























Copyright 2006

by

Yun Zhu

































This document is dedicated to my family.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

No one lives on an island, nor did this study. Several institutes, organizations, and

individuals provided financial, physical, and academic supports that contributed to the

success of this Habitat study. First, the University of Florida College of Design,

Construction and Planning fully supported this study by providing tuition waivers and

stipends through graduate assistance. The Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing

financially supported the researcher with traveling expenses among three cities. In

addition, the Dean's Office, the Ph. D. Program, and Shimberg Center together sponsored

compensations for participation during the most difficult time of the research.

Second, I would like to thank the directors of the three Habitat for Humanity

affiliations, Dave Feather, Joe Honeycutt, and Brad Nimmo, who showed immense

support since the beginning of the study and provided information to help the study

continue. Carrier Reppert, Gregory Stacey, and Mary Kay O'Rourke from Habitat offices

continued to provide detailed information as the study progressed.

Finally I would like to acknowledge the support, advice, encouragement, and

friendship offered during the six years by my advisors, family, and friends. My deepest

thank goes to my committee chair, Dr. Mary Jo Hasell, who is an inspiring and

extraordinary mentor as well as a great friend. Her profound knowledge, practical advice,

understanding patience, and critical critiques helped me go through the process with

much more confidence. As the director of Shimberg Center, Associate Dean, and a

committee member, Dr. Robert Stroh gave me tremendous help with excellent advice on









research methods and statistics. In addition, I am grateful to the other committee

members Dr. John Scanzoni and Dr. Tracy Johns, who contributed to the overall process.

I also want to thank Dr. John P. Marsden, who helped me explore the topic, and worked

with me through the proposal stage.

This study would not had been finished without the help of my dear finance, Jing

Lan, who accompanied me through the neighborhoods and gave me great mental support

when I was upset about some unpredictable issues during data collection. My parents

were always there, encouraging me to finish the research.

And above all, all my sincere thanks go to the participants in the study. Without

their enthusiasm to help others, there would be no study at all. Some participants gave me

tremendous mental support during the study and encouraged me to continue through all

difficulties. Their valuable insights toward their neighborhoods and their houses are

priceless, which confirms this research is a mutual learning experience.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS



ACKNOW LEDGM ENTS ........................................ iv

LIST OF TABLES ....................... ........ .......................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................. ...............x

ABSTRACT................................. .............. xii

CHAPTER

1 THE PROBLEM..... ......... ........ .. .. .. .. ..........................

Introduction ................... .. ........ ..................1......
Statement of the Problem.................. .................. ........2
Sweat Equity as Participation................................... ...................5
Sw eat Equity as a Learning Process.............. .................................. ...............6
Sweat Equity as a Sharing Process...........................................................7
Habitat Neighborhoods versus Scattered Sites.......... ........................................9
Sweat Equity as Design Participation...................................................11
Significance of the Study........................................................ .... ........13
Assumptions and Delimitations Underlying the Study ......................................... 15
General Research Hypotheses ................. ...............................16
Definitions and Operational Term s ................................ ............... 19
Sum m ary ..................................................................................... 20

2 IN TR O D U C TIO N ..................................... ................................................................ 22

Theoretical B ackground................................................. 22
Learning by Doing..................... ...................22
G eneralized Social Exchange ..................................................................... 24
C onceptual F ram ew ork .................................................................................. 27
General Background Inform ation...................................................................... 29
Sw eat Equity as Participation................................................................... 30
Sweat Equity as Learning and Sharing....... ..........................................42
Physical Settings..................... ..................... 49
Design participation................................... .......... 54
V variable M measures ............................. .................56
Sweat Equity ............... ................... .............. .57









Hum an Resources .................. .......................... .. ....... ................. 58
Social R esources......... ............................................................ .. .... ...... 60
Design participation...................... ........ ............................... 62
S u m m a ry ............................................................................................................... 6 3

3 RESEARCH M ETHODOLOGY ........................................ .......................... 65

Case Study Paradigm ............. .. ............. .......... ...... ...... .. ............... 65
Research Setting .................... .....................................66
Sam pling and D ata Collection ...................... .... ......... .................... ............... 71
Operational D efinitions and M measures ............................................ ............... 73
A analytical Techniques .............................................. .. .. .... .. .. ....... .... 84
V alidity and R liability .......... ..... ......................................................... ... .... ....... 85
L im itation s of T his Stu dy ........................................ ............................................87
S u m m a ry ...................... .. ............. .. .....................................................8 8

4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY ...................... ..................................... ............... 90

C characteristics of Sam ple ........................................ ............................................90
Demographic Characteristics.................... ....... ........................... 90
Sweat Equity ................. ......... ................ .................... 92
Human and Social Resource Development................ .... .... ...............95
R results of Statistical A nalyses....................................................... ............... 100
R results of C ontent A nalyses...................... .. .. ......... ................. ... ................... 113
Reasons to Participate in Sweat Equity ........................................... 114
M earnings of Sweat Equity......................... .................. 114
Advantages and Disadvantages about Sweat Equity.............. ..................115
Neighborhood and Involvement.............. ........... ...... .................119
H helping B ehaviors ....... ............................ .. .. ....... .... ... ............ 120
D esig n P articip ation ............................................... ..................................... 12 3
S u m m ary ...................... .. .. ......... .. .. .................................................12 5

5 DISCUSSION ......... ................................... .. .. .................. 126

Sweat Equity as Doing, Learning, and Sharing ............................................ 126
Habitat Neighborhoods versus Scattered Sites........... ...... .............. 141
D design Participation ................................. .... ........ ...... .................. .....146
S u m m a ry ...................... .. ............. .. .....................................................1 5 5

6 CONCLU SION S ................................ .. .. ......... .. .............156

Sum m ary of the Stu dy ...................................................................... ..................156
C o n c lu sio n s..................................................... .........................................................1 5 9
Sweat Equity as Participation, Learning, and Sharing .....................................159
Habitat Neighborhoods versus Scattered Sites ..........................................161
D esign P articip ation ............................................... ..................................... 162
Im p lic atio n s ..............................................................................................................1 6 4
Suggestions for D designers ...................................................................... 164









Suggestions for H habitat .................................. ............... ............... 166
Suggestions for Further Research................................................................ 169

APPENDIX

A SURVEY IN STRUM EN TS ............................................. ............................ 171

B INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ......................................................... ............... 180

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ........................................................................ ................... 185

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................. ...............198











































viii
















LIST OF TABLES


Table p

3-1 Distribution of Sweat Equity Hours in Three Habitat Affiliates............................67

4-1 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents..............................................91

4-2 Factor Analysis: Rotated Component M atrix....................................................... 101

4-3 Multivariate Analyses of Covariances Examining Dependent Variables after
Controlling for Education ......................................................... .............. 105

4-4 Significant Results from the Between-subjects Effects Examining Dependent
V a riab le s ..................................................... ................ 1 0 5

4-5 Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable SKILLS................ ............... 107

4-6 Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable ATT-H............................................107

4-7 Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable DESIGN ....................................... 108

4-8 M ultivariate M odel for Dependent Variable SELF...............................................108

4-9 Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable MAINT ................. ... ..................108

4-10 Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable SEG-E.............................................109

4-11 Multivariate Model for Dependent Variable SEG-R .............................................110

4-12 Univariate M odel for Dependent Variable SUP ...................................................110

4-13 Nonparametric Correlations Among Variables: Kendall's tau-b.................1......111

4-14 Results of Two Multiple Regression Analyses Examining Human and Social
R source D evelopm ents .............................................................. ..................... 112
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2-1 Simplified model from Gifford's framework of conceptualizing person-
environment relations in learning settings (2002).................................................28

2-2 Simplified Gifford's model for urban environmental psychology (2002) ............28

2-3 Conceptualized framework for sweat equity in a Habitat context ........................29

3-1 Conceptual framework for the doing, learning, and sharing process of sweat
equity within the context of Habitat for Humanity International.............................74

4-1 Hierarchical cluster analysis: Dendrogram using Ward Method .........................100

4-2 Modified conceptual framework for statistical analyses........................... 103

5-1 Sim plified m ultivariate results ........................................................ 127

5-2 An inviting entrance was created by using landscaping and outdoor furniture .....128

5-3 This was a living room with various decorations and displays. The homeowner
tried to match the colors as well ................................ ...................... ....129

5-4 The outside wooden handrails at the back entrance needed to be repaired........129

5-5 Simplified statistical results for human and social resources..............................133

5-6 The TV display in a living room illustrated the cultural preference of the
homeowner ................... ................... .................................... 135

5-7 The color blue was used in this bedroom.......................................................136

5-8 The playful primary colors were used on the walls, curtains, and the ceiling fan
in a kid's room.................................... ......... 136

5-9 The decoration in a bathroom also was carefully considered ..............................137

5-10 This front yard needed better landscaping ........................................137

5-11 The new bathroom was built by the homeowner herself after she moved in.........151


-11 The new bathroom was built by the homeowner herself after she moved in.........151









5-12 This was a multi-functional backyard. The backyard functioned as the garden,
gym, picnic area, kid's playground, gathering place, and utility storage space.....152

5-13 This picture showed three Habitat houses. The exterior of these houses looked
sim ila r ....................................................................... 1 5 3















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

COMPARING HUMAN AND SOCIAL RESOURCES
ACCUMULATED THROUGH PARTICIPATION WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
IN SCATTERED SITES AND HABITAT NEIGHBORHOODS

By

Yun Zhu

May 2006

Chair: Mary Joyce Hasell
Major Department: Design, Construction and Planning

Habitat for Humanity uses sweat equity to help low- and very low-income families

build affordable houses in both scattered sites and Habitat neighborhoods. Families

participate in the construction of their own houses and others as well. However, sweat

equity has not been clearly defined within a Habitat context. Nor has the impact of sweat

equity been systematically measured in terms of human and social resource development.

It is unclear whether or not these resources are maintained differently in Habitat

neighborhoods and scattered sites. Families make design choices about colors, finishes,

and landscape for their houses. However, not all affiliates count this participation as

sweat equity hours.

Dewey's learning-by-doing theory explains why participating in sweat equity

builds human and social resources: the individual skills in relation to house construction

and maintenance, and the community skills in relation to neighborhood maintenance,

respectively. Levi-Strauss's generalized social exchange theory shows why helping and









being helped during sweat equity activities provide the premises of the continuum of

reciprocity even after families move into their homes.

Since participation is context-specific, a case study explored the sweat equity

process as participation, learning-by-doing, and sharing with African-American female

heads of Habitat households. It was hypothesized that 1) sweat equity contributed to

human and social resource development; 2) Habitat neighborhoods contributed to the

maintenance of resources; and 3) design participation was associated with house

satisfaction.

A pilot study with eight families tested the research instruments and procedures in a

local Habitat affiliate. The principal study was conducted in three Southeast United States

Habitat affiliates. Convenience sampling and volunteerism identified 49 respondents.

Significant quantitative and qualitative findings indicated that sweat equity and

design participation have positive effects on human and social resource development in

these settings. Also, Habitat neighborhoods helped eliminate the perception of economic

segregation, compared to Habitat houses in scattered sites. These findings suggest that the

learning-by-doing and sharing-sweat equity-are practical and efficient processes to

create human and social resources with low-income families. These findings enrich the

studies of learning-by-doing and generalized social exchange theories and address the

gap between theory and design practice.















CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM

Introduction

Habitat for Humanity International is a private non-profit housing organization that

helps low- and very-low income people to achieve the "American Dream" of a single-

family house and livable environment. Habitat for Humanity (Habitat) helps individuals

to achieve this goal through a distinctive "sweat equity" process that requires people to

build their houses together. More specifically, partner families1 commit hundreds of

hours, consisting of various activities, to the construction of other families' houses and in

turn, receive help with their own houses (Vincent, 2002). During the sweat equity

process, partner families may acquire human resources including house building and

maintenance skills, budgeting skills for financial responsibility, and a sense of self-

esteem. They also may build social resources related to mutual support, neighboring

activities, sense of obligation, and trust among Habitat partner families.

However the persistence of human and social resources accumulated through sweat

equity may vary in different types of Habitat settings. Some houses are located in

scattered lots "where there are no other Habitat homes on the homeowner's street." Other

houses are located in clusters "where the homeowner's block includes other Habitat

households but is not exclusively developed with Habitat homes" or subdivisions "where

the homeowner is surrounded on the street only by homes built by Habitat" (Mitchell &


1 The relationship between Habitat International affiliates and the families are partners, so the families are
called "partner families" or "Habitat families" instead of homeowners in this study.









Warren, 1998, IV-27). The degree of segregation imposed by the Habitat context may

make it easier for families to maintain the human and social resources they have acquired

through sweat equity. Research has shown that Habitat families who live in clusters or

subdivisions are more satisfied than families who live in scattered homes. Yet, a major

objective of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Strategic

Plan is to reduce geographic segregation (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development [HUD], 2000) for low-income and poor families.

This study serves four research purposes: 1) it defines "sweat equity" as a process

that involves participation, experiential learning, and sharing in a Habitat context; 2) it

explores the relationship between sweat equity and human and social resource

developments; 3) it compares how human and social resources that are acquired through

sweat equity may vary in relation to the Habitat context (i.e., subdivisions versus

scattered Habitat houses); and 4) it explores the role of user participation in the house

design process during sweat equity. Since a cluster consists of 2% to 99% of Habitat

homeowners in one block, and this is a big range of variation, the term Habitat

neighborhood will be used in this study to describe areas that are considered a larger

cluster or a subdivision. The following section provides background information related

to the objectives of the study and identified research hypotheses.

Statement of the Problem

Sweat equity is a self-help building process when an owner takes control in the

planning, building, and managing of his or her own home. The activities of self-help

building range from supervising the worksite to months of hard labor (Grindley, 1972).

The first significant public self-help housing effort was conducted by the County Relief

Board of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, in the 1930s. The participants of the









program were unemployed coal miners who built self-sufficient communities together.

By 1940, participants completed approximately 250 homes (Spohn, 1972). In the 1960s,

the Housing and Home Finance Agency, the predecessor of HUD, solicited proposals for

new ways to improve low-income housing, particularly "the study of self-help in the

construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of housing for low income persons and

families and the methods of selecting, involving, and directing such persons and families

in self-help activities" (Spohn, 1972, pp. 23-24). In the 1970s, HUD provided less

support for self-help projects and only the Mutual Self-Help Housing program retained

the sweat equity requirement. Currently, Rural Housing and Community Development

Services in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) provide technical

support for the Mutual Self-Help Housing Program. Qualified families in a group of 5 to

12 complete 65% of the work on their own homes. Group members work on each other's

homes and move in when all the homes are completed. The average price of a Mutual

Self-Help house is about $80,000 with a low-interest Single-Family Housing Direct

Loan.

Federal efforts for self-help housing diminished after Eugene R. Gulledge was

appointed as the Assistant Secretary for Production, HUD, in the 1960s. It is believed that

the HUD structure of mass production also contributed to the low profile of HUD in self-

help programs because the self-help housing production was only a fraction of the

housing market (Spohn, 1972). However, non-profit organizations including Habitat

realized that even if the housing production of self-help programs might not be

significant to the housing market, each house built with sweat equity changed the lives of

the homeowners significantly, especially low-income families. Established in 1976 by









Millard and Linda Fuller, Habitat for Humanity International currently has over 1,500

affiliates in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin

Islands and about 400 overseas groups in 83 countries. According to Habitat for

Humanity International 2002 Fiscal Report (Habitat for Humanity [Habitat], 2002),

Habitat has produced a total of 44,617 low-income homes in the United States and

133,641 homes worldwide. The average cost is $46,000 per house nationwide and $800

worldwide. Habitat affiliates are responsible for raising funds, obtaining planning and

building permissions, selecting partner families, and coordinating volunteers and

construction. Habitat is unique due to its use of sweat equity, interest-free loan,

volunteerism, and donations from local resources. The Habitat homeowners have some

control over the designing (e.g., choosing the site, colors, and finishes of their homes)

and building processes of their houses and full control and responsibility for home

maintenance and management. Former president Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) and Jack

Kemp, former secretary of Housing and Urban Development (1989-1993), actively

supported Habitat International and brought it both nationwide and international

recognition. Former president Bill Clinton (1993-2001) praised it as the most successful

community service project in the United States (Finn, 1994).

Since the establishment of Habitat, researchers and practitioners have developed

increasing interests in many aspects of Habitat, such as building techniques (Florida

Power & Light Company, 2000; Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing,

2002; U.S. Department of Energy, 1999), impact of physical environment on mental

conditions (Sanwu, Haberl, & Kim, 1999; Wells, N.M., 2000), financial assistance,

religion and volunteerism (Baggett, 1998; Thurman, 1991), building social capital related









to Habitat organizations (Hays, 2002), and the impact of Habitat houses on property

value (Habitat, 2003). Importantly, HUD funded the Applied Real Estate Analysis

(AREA), Inc. to examine the general financial and social benefits of homeownership

from the Habitat families' points of view (Mitchell & Warren, 1998). Finn (1994)

detailed the Habitat experiences (including sweat equity) as a dynamic process of

empowerment in one Habitat community. Using open-ended questions, she asked partner

families to recall all their experiences with Habitat after living in the Habitat houses for

one year. However, no studies have been found that explore sweat equity as a

participatory process. How are human and social resources actually accumulated through

the sweat equity process? In addition, previous studies have not compared Habitat

families in scattered sites with those in neighborhoods to assess whether or not the human

and social resources developed through the sweat equity process persist over time. No

studies have examined the role of Habitat families' participation in the house design and

planning process of their own houses.

This research examines sweat equity as a process of participation, learning by

doing, and sharing. Sweat equity is a holistic and dynamic process that changes the lives

of partner families. This study will examine the acquisition of human and social resources

in scattered sites and Habitat neighborhoods. The role of user participation in the design

process will also be explored.

Sweat Equity as Participation

The World Bank (2002) defines participation as "a process through which

stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions

and resources which affect them." The definition of participation by the World Bank is

close to the definition of sweat equity within the context of Habitat. First, sweat equity is









a process which usually takes months for the major stakeholders to accomplish. Second,

during the sweat equity activities, partner families make some decisions about their

houses. Finally, partner families take actions collectively to realize the dream of owning a

home. Sweat equity in this study is the participation of partner families with Habitat.

Even though the World Bank's definition explains the social influences of

participation, it does not provide empirical information about participation. For example,

what process gives the most control to stakeholders and over which decisions? As a self-

help participatory process, the definition of sweat equity in Habitat needs to address

specific activities in which families take control of and are involved in planning and

decision-making. What activities are included in sweat equity? What does sweat equity

mean to Habitat families when they help others? What does sweat equity mean to them

when they help themselves?

Sweat Equity as a Learning Process

According to Dewey (1913), the doing experiences often involve a learning

process. He claims that learning experiences "cover all the doings that involve growth of

power-especially of power to realize the meaning of what is done" (1913, p. 66).

Interacting with one's physical or social environment is necessary in order to acquire new

skills and knowledge (Roth, 1962). Once new skills are learned, they become a part of

human resources. Human resources include human abilities, knowledge, skills, health,

and appreciation that are accumulated either consciously by formal education and task

training, or unconsciously through experiences (Green & Haines, 2002; Ostrom, 2000;

Putnam, 2000). Human resources in this study refer to the knowledge and skills one

acquires or sharpens through training and experiential learning at the individual level.









Is there a relationship between sweat equity (training, construction, and public

activities) and human resources? Specifically, do they learn maintenance and financing

skills? How do they perceive their skills? How often do they practice those skills on their

own? Do Habitat families learn the appropriate skills during sweat equity to accomplish

all the maintenance and repairs on their own houses? If the sweat equity experiences did

not teach Habitat families all the skills to maintain their homes, will they be able to learn

how to do it by themselves when there is a need? If the maintenance or repair is too

complicated to be done by the family members, will they get physical or financial

assistance from other Habitat neighbors rather than asking for help from Habitat? Is self-

responsibility of maintaining one's home accumulated or increased during sweat equity

in addition to necessary skills and social support?

Sweat Equity as a Sharing Process

As part of the Habitat agenda, partner families contribute hundreds of sweat equity

hours to work on other Habitat houses. In turn, they receive the same help from

volunteers and other partner families to build their own houses. During the giving and

receiving interactions, sweat equity may build the social connections or the ties among

partner families.

In the 1920s, L. Judson Hanifan coined the term social capital to describe the

social relationships that "count for most in the daily lives of people: good will,

fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among the individuals and families who

make up a social unit" (cited in Putnam & Gross, 2002, p. 4). Social capital generally

refers to connections among individuals, including social relationships and bonds that

facilitate collective action in the community (Bourdieu, 1983; Coleman, 1988; Green &

Haines, 2002; Hanifan, 1916; Jacobs, 1961; Putnam, 2000; Putnam & Gross, 2002). In









the course of achieving and maintaining collective actions, people build social networks,

norms of reciprocity, and trustworthiness, which are necessary to the development of

social resources (Putnam, 2000; World Bank, 2002). In this study, social resources refer

to mutual support, neighboring activities, neighborhood attachment, sense of obligation,

and trust among the Habitat partner families at the neighborhood level.

Turner (1977) believes that the real value of building and maintaining a house lies

in the relationships developed among stakeholders. Turner's belief coincides with what

Habitat believes: skills and relationships are the important result or outcome developed

through building a physical shelter (Habitat, 2003).

One fundamental basis of social capital is the generalized reciprocity or generalized

social exchange. Helping behaviors are categorized into two main streams: one advocates

that helping behaviors are performed in order to achieve for one's own benefits

(egoistic); and the other claims that behaviors aimed for the general benefits of all are

possible (altruistic) (Allop, Fifield, & Seiter, 2002). Generalized reciprocity includes not

only intra-group but also inter-group favoritism. Intra-group favoritism is the mutual

commitment among participants within a group: I do it for you now, expecting you or

others in the same group will do something similar in turn sometime. The inter-group

favoritism includes mutual commitment between group members and members outside

the group: I do it for your now, expecting you or others inside or outside the group will

do something in turn sometime. The idea of generalized reciprocity supports the

generalized social exchange theory. The generalized social exchange occurs when an

individual feels obligated to give back-not directly rewarding his benefactors-but

other actors in a chain of social exchange (Ekeh, 1974). In Habitat, partner families first









help other partner families and then receive direct help from other partner families,

volunteers, and donors. The people a family helped to build their houses may not be the

same who come to help the family later. Therefore, the sharing process of sweat equity is

characterized by generalized social exchange. In this way, trust is built (Putnam & Gross,

2002). Frequent interactions tend to reinforce the norm of reciprocity. Therefore, social

resources originate from doing something for someone else. Cohen and Prusak (2001)

assert that a sense of equitable participation is embedded in the development of social

capital, and as a result, a higher level of social capital invites genuine participation.

In Habitat, partner families help each other with house construction. Is there a

relationship between sweat equity and social resources? Will this sharing process

contribute to building social bonds among partner families? To what extent do partner

families know their neighbors' names and have informal interactions? To what extent do

they trust their neighbors? After they move into their new houses, will they continue the

mutual support for each other when there is a need, such as lending a tool, giving a car

ride, babysitting for a neighbor, or giving a hand for house repairs? Why do families help

their neighbors and why do they receive help? Does sweat equity help partner families

realize their obligation to their neighborhoods, such as attending activities to maintain

and improve their neighborhoods in addition to their own houses? According to Mitchell

and Warren (1998), the Habitat families do take pride in having helped to build their

homes and feel a sense of belonging. Does the commitment of sweat equity help partner

families build a sense of community?

Habitat Neighborhoods versus Scattered Sites

Habitat homes may be built in scattered lots or neighborhoods. Since most partner

families have low- or very low- incomes, single-parent families with similar education









levels and ethnic backgrounds, greater segregation occurs in Habitat neighborhoods as

compared with houses in scattered lots.

Many scholars (Denton, 1999; Martinez, 2000) criticized the segregation that

occurred when low-income, and often minority, families were displaced in the urban

renewal programs of the 1950s. The 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act

addressed the fair accessibility and affordability of homeownership for minorities and

low-income families in mobility programs and assisted housing programs. The Gautreaux

Demonstration Project in the 1970s was the best-known mobility program, which

relocated some low-income families into a racially balanced middle-class neighborhood.

The participants in the demonstration showed higher satisfaction with their

neighborhoods than residents with similar financial status in racially unbalanced low-

income neighborhoods (Peroff, Davis, & Jones, 1979). Reducing segregation by race and

income therefore has become a standard objective in HUD's Strategic Plan (HUD, 2000).

However, the success of the relocation seemed only short-term because the integrated

neighborhoods tended to re-segregate (Carr, 1999; Farley, Steeh, Jackson, Krysan, &

Reeves, 1993; Stuart, 2002). Can housing problems be solved exclusively by better-

looking physical environments or mixed-income neighborhoods?

In 1997, Habitat International and 19 affiliates collaborated with Applied Real

Estate Analysis (AREA), Inc., a real estate and policy-planning corporation, to conduct a

HUD study on the experiences of Habitat homeowners. Habitat families felt safe and

secure when their neighbors were other Habitat families. Although no statistical

significance was found, families who live in clusters or subdivisions expressed greater

neighborhood satisfaction than those who live in scattered homes. Given that safety was a









major concern in recent Habitat projects, clusters or subdivisions were accepted

development patterns (Mitchell & Warren, 1998). In other words, Habitat programs are

building more segregated low- and very low-income neighborhoods when they have

enough available land. Habitat families perceived clusters or subdivisions as a means to

revitalize their neighborhoods, rather than as segregations (Mitchell & Warren, 1998).

The high satisfaction rate of Habitat families raises suspicions about the significance of

integrated race and income as appropriate for all groups in every context.

Do human and social resources accumulated through sweat equity differ in

scattered sites and neighborhood settings? Are there differences between Habitat families

in scattered lots and neighborhoods in how often they use the maintenance skills on their

own houses? Will partner families in Habitat neighborhoods tend to help each other more

often than families in scattered lots? In Habitat neighborhoods, will the homogeneous

neighborhoods lead to segregation? Do homeowners perceive racial and economic

segregation?

Sweat Equity as Design Participation

Design participation refers to the extent that a family participates in the design and

planning activities of their houses and takes control over the design and planning features

of their homes. The design and planning activities include but are not limited to: choosing

the lot, selecting the exterior and interior colors, materials, and finishes, picking layout

designs and elevations, and changing design details to satisfy users' needs. Design

participation is assumed to promote control and the satisfaction of the end-users.

However, normative statements rather than empirical research dominate the literature to

advocate the necessity of user participation. The World Bank (1995) stated that

participation in the planning and implementation stages of development efforts enhances









these efforts' impact and increases sustainability. Finn (1994) claimed that choosing

colors and decorations by Habitat homeowners was empowering. Since she did not

measure sweat equity or design participation empirically, the findings could not help

Habitat to improve the design or design participation process. In 2000, Reis (2000)

examined the relationship between user participation and satisfaction with mass housing

design in Brazil. He claimed that low-income groups wished to participate in the design

process and the participation was associated with user satisfaction. However, Reis

excluded other physical and social factors (e.g., neighborhood quality, neighbors, trust,

and safety) that may explain user satisfaction or other influences user participation has

(e.g., pride, house maintenance, and neighborhood satisfaction).

Before the actual building of one's own house, Habitat allows partner families to

select from a minimum of the architectural features (e.g., lot, layout, colors, and finishes

of cabinets and walls). Not all Habitat affiliates count these activities as sweat equity

hours. This study explores the relationship between user participation in the house design

and planning and satisfaction with the results. What is the relationship between the

number of types of design activities in which a family participates during sweat equity

and design satisfaction, house satisfaction, and design participation satisfaction? Is design

participation related to the maintenance of human and social resources? How important is

design participation to Habitat families? How do partner families evaluate their

concurrent houses in terms of interior, exterior, and landscape design of their houses?

Should Habitat expand their theory of sweat equity and include the design participation in

addition to the training, construction and management processes? What other activities

should be included in sweat equity?









Significance of the Study

Habitat for Humanity provides decent, safe, and affordable low-income housing by

organizing local resources and users' participation in the construction of their own houses

as well as other families' houses. Empirically defining sweat equity in the Habitat context

may encourage other housing programs such as HUD to reconsider their current policies

and to emulate the participatory approach to solve low-income housing problems in the

United States. This study contributes to a better understanding of the roles of the sweat

equity process to the users. Although sweat equity is context specific, a general

understanding of sweat equity can help local offices to improve the sweat equity process

so that low-income families may benefit more from this unique experience.

Exploring the relationship between sweat equity and human and social resource

development from a learning and sharing perspective helps Habitat to solve long-term

maintenance problems. As a house ages, maintenance and repair contributes to the

housing problem in the long run. In studying the phenomenon of Habitat empowerment,

Finn (1994) found that house maintenance and responsibility were problematic. The

AREA (Mitchell & Warren, 1998) study also showed that Habitat would encounter

general maintenance problems in the near future. However, Habitat states that there is no

maintenance problem because the maintenance should be the partner families' own

responsibilities (Nimmo, B., personal communication, June 11, 2003). By examining the

relationship between sweat equity and resource development, this study seeks solutions to

the maintenance problems from a learning and sharing perspective of the sweat equity

phase. As a learning process, it is theoretically interesting and pragmatically imperative

to explore what families learn, how families share with their neighbors, and if and how

these experiences influence their behaviors. As a sharing process, this study explores the









generalized social exchange theory as the basis for building and transferring social

resources from sweat equity's mutual help into neighboring experiences after Habitat

families move in their houses.

This study also contributes to Habitat strategies of house planning. No study has

been found by this researcher to discuss the maintenance of resources within two settings:

scattered sites and Habitat neighborhoods. Habitat neighborhoods are more likely to

promote residential segregation. However, the generalized social exchange theory

indicates that neighborhoods may better maintain and use social resources. By comparing

the resource maintenance and the perception of segregation within different settings, the

knowledge about the roles of physical settings may be useful for other low-income

housing programs as well, such as HUD and USDA Rural Development housing

programs.

Finally, this study aims to provide evidence of a sense of control and housing

satisfaction when low-income users participate in their house designs within a Habitat

context. Currently, Habitat families can change a minor part of the design, such as colors,

finishes, and materials of certain elements. Exploring the relationship between design

participation and satisfaction enables a better understanding of the roles of design

participation and efficient ways to satisfy low-income users' needs. By exploring what

improvements Habitat families want for their homes, this study will reveal imperative

information for better and more satisfying house and neighborhood designs. The

implementation of low-income user participation will also be discussed within a Habitat

context.









Assumptions and Delimitations Underlying the Study

Several basic assumptions are made for the research design of sweat equity as a

doing, learning, and sharing process. Theoretically, it is assumed that the strength of the

relationships between sweat equity and the skills that Habitat families learn over the

entire process of participation can be assessed. The reciprocal relationship between

people and their social and physical surroundings can also be studied through individual

perceptions and behaviors. Technically five assumptions are essential in this study. First,

the sweat equity policies of the participating Habitat affiliates are representative of

Habitat International. Second, participating partner families are representative among all

local Habitat families. Third, research participants' self-report survey and open-ended

questions are sufficient to measure the variables. Fourth, the partner families tell the

truth. Fifth, the information obtained is accurate, valid, and reliable.

The strength of this case study is the quality of the detailed information revealed by

individual participants. Paired with survey measures, the impacts of sweat equity can be

quantified and then compared within two physical settings-Habitat neighborhoods and

scattered sites. However, the sweat equity experiences are practically related to local

Habitat policies, such as the number of required hours. The limitation in this study is that

a large sample was outside the funding and time constraints of this researcher. Therefore,

this study addresses only major aspects of sweat equity and its influences within three

regional settings. However, with these findings in hand, opportunities for future research

exist.

The delimitation is determined by the nature of the Habitat context. This study is

supported by three Habitat affiliates in northern Florida. These affiliates differ in the

amount of sweat equity hours, details of activities, and housing styles. But all affiliates









want to improve their design and sweat equity process, and respect the input from the

families. The sample is delimited to those who are available and are willing to help

during the research period. Because the majority of the partner families are female

African American, only female householders are included. Race is not considered as a

factor in the selection of the convenience sample. Instruments are designed specifically to

measure sweat equity, human resource development, and social resource development

within a Habitat context.

General Research Hypotheses

This study explores low-income users' participation in the process of building both

their own and other families' Habitat houses. However, sweat equity needs to be

redefined before testing any hypotheses. Habitat simply refers to sweat equity as the labor

invested in building houses and time in self-improvement (Lassman-Eul, 2001). This

definition gives only a vague idea about how to measure or operationalize sweat equity.

Since house planning, construction, and maintenance are long-term processes, should

activities related to the planning and maintenance phases be considered sweat equity?

Should activities contributing to future neighborhood building be considered sweat equity

as well? Although Habitat uses the amount of time to record sweat equity, there are no

assigned amounts of time allocated among the various activities. In addition, Habitat's

definition does not specify what activities are qualified as self-improvement in a Habitat

context. Therefore, local sweat equity policies differ in the number of hours, the types of

activities, and the proportion of hours distributed among different activities. Lacking

more precise definitions, it is difficult to explain whether or not the Habitat sweat equity

hours are reasonable, and what types of activities benefit families most in terms of house

planning, building, and maintenance.









From a participation perspective, sweat equity is empirically defined as the number

hours Habitat families work during sweat equity and the number of types of activities

included in sweat equity. Based on the new concept of sweat equity, learning by doing

and generalized social exchange theories, three propositions are generated as following:

1. Sweat equity contributes to the human and social resource development.

2. A difference exists in the maintenance of human and social resources within two
different physical environments-scattered sites and Habitat neighborhoods.

3. A relationship exists between users' participation in house design and the
satisfaction with the results of their participation.

Hypothesis 1: Sweat equity contributes to resource building as learning and sharing

Because Habitat is a "hand up, not a hand out" (Fuller, 1993, p. 149) program,

partner families must be actively engaged in the building process of their houses.

Building a house requires certain construction skills. For most partner families, they need

to learn these skills in order to help themselves as well as others. These skills, knowledge,

and perceptions one acquires or sharpens through training and learning are a part of

'human resources." By participating in the learning-by-doing process, partner families

may accumulate human resources at the individual level.

Habitat also requires partner families to contribute hundreds of hours to work on

other Habitat houses during the sweat equity phase. In turn, these partner families receive

the same help from volunteers and other partner families to build their own houses.

During the giving and receiving interactions, partner families may build the social

connections or ties at the community level. These are part of "social resources."

Based on learning-by-doing theory, it is hypothesized that a) the number of sweat

equity hours is associated with the amount of human and social resources accumulated

through sweat equity; and b) the number of types of activities a family participates in









sweat equity is associated with the amount of human and social resources accumulated

through sweat equity.

Hypothesis 2: Resource maintenance in two settings

Habitat families build houses in two types of settings: scattered lots and Habitat

neighborhoods. Greater segregation occurs in Habitat neighborhoods than in scattered

sites because it is likely that the percentage of very-low income families in Habitat

neighborhoods is higher than that in scattered sites. However, the AREA study (Mitchell

& Warren, 1998) reported that Habitat families who lived in clusters or subdivisions were

more satisfied than families who lived in scattered homes. This finding indicates that the

physical settings of the houses may contribute to the maintenance of human and social

resources acquired through sweat equity. Since the sweat equity process is structured on

generalized social exchange, it is hypothesized that a) a Habitat neighborhood, as

opposed to houses in scattered sites, helps to build and preserve the human and social

resources built through sweat equity; and b) families living in Habitat neighborhoods, as

opposed to families living in scattered sites, do not feel segregated.

Hypothesis 3: Sweat equity as design participation

Habitat families do not have complete control over the design and planning phases.

The design participation is limited to selection from a few design options. Without

addressing design participation, it is unknown whether or not these selections meet and

satisfy the needs of the families. Reis (2000) empirically related successful mass housing

design to user participation. Accordingly, it is hypothesized that: a) there is an association

between the number of design-related activities and satisfaction with the design solution;

b) the number of types of design participation is associated with house satisfaction and









neighborhood satisfaction; and c) design participation is related to the maintenance of

human and social resources.

Definitions and Operational Terms

A conceptual framework is developed to incorporate the doing, learning, and

sharing experiences of sweat equity and the impact of sweat equity on Habitat families'

lives. The framework (see Figure 2-3) is shown and further explained in Chapter 2.

Detailed information about individual variables is available in Chapter 3. This framework

is modified from Gifford's learning model (Gifford, 2002, p. 299) and community

psychology model (2002, p. 265). In this conceptual framework, participation or sweat

equity is positioned as the driving factor building human and social resources. This model

provides theoretical guidance for exploring the reciprocal interactions between persons

and their physical and social environments.

Sweat equity refers to the extent to which partner families invest in their houses,

including the total number of sweat equity hours, the number of types of sweat equity

activities (training, construction, public activities, and design participation), and the

meanings of sweat equity.

Human resources refer to the skills and house-related behaviors and the perceptions

about the individual's house itself. Human resources include house maintenance skills,

financing skills, frequency of house maintenance, pride in skills, confidence in skills,

pride in house, house attachment, self-responsibility, self-esteem, house satisfaction,

design solution satisfaction, and design participation satisfaction.

Social resources refer to the social behaviors within the neighborhood and the

perceptions of neighbors and the neighborhood. Social resources include neighboring,

social support, neighborhood involvement, pride in neighborhood, satisfaction with









neighborhood, safety, neighborhood attachment, sense of community, trust in neighbors,

reciprocity, sense of obligation, and segregation.

Scattered sites refer to the locations where there are no other Habitat homes on the

same street, or where a few Habitat houses are on the same street but there are less than

ten Habitat houses in the same block.

Habitat neighborhoods refer to the locations where ten or more Habitat houses are

clustered, or where Habitat houses are surrounded only by homes built by Habitat in the

same block.

Design participation is the extent to which Habitat families participate in the design

and planning process of their houses. Design participation is measured by the number of

types of activities related to design and planning of a house, including choosing interior

colors, finishes, and layouts; exterior colors, finishes, and yard; selecting the lot and

taking part in the neighborhood public space planning.

House satisfaction, design solution satisfaction, and neighborhood satisfaction refer

to the fulfillment of the house, design, and neighborhood of Habitat families' desires or

needs, respectively. See Appendix A: Survey Instruments and Appendix B: Interview

Questions for detailed measures.

Summary

Habitat for Humanity has executed sweat equity to help low- and very low-income

families build affordable houses in two different settings: scattered sites or Habitat

neighborhoods. During the sweat equity phase families must participate in the

construction of their own houses as well as the construction of other houses. This study

first redefines sweat equity in the Habitat context. Then this study explores if and how

this participation helps the families to build human resources to maintain their houses and






21


social resources to maintain their neighborhoods. Next, it compares which setting

provides a more supporting environment for low-income families to maintain their

human and social resources acquired during the sweat equity. Finally, it explores design

implications from the low-income homeowners' point of view. Since participation is

context-specific, a case study is appropriate to explore the participatory process and the

impact of sweat equity in neighborhoods and scattered sites.














CHAPTER 2
INTRODUCTION

The study of sweat equity, human resources, and social resources is complex in

nature and specific in context. There has been little attention in the literature to establish a

comprehensive framework to study the links between sweat equity and resources built

into the housing process. The dynamic and individualized sweat equity process requires

an extensive literature review from multiple dimensions. This chapter introduces a new

conceptualized framework built upon the theory of learning-by-doing and generalized

social exchange. From the doing perspective, this chapter reviews the literature of sweat

equity, participation in housing, and self-help. From the learning and sharing

perspectives, this chapter investigates human and social resource developments. From the

design perspective, this chapter examines the history of user participation in design

process. Research approaches and instruments are discussed as well.

Theoretical Background

Habitat sweat equity provides low-income families a chance to change their lives.

But why does Habitat help people to build a house through sweat equity instead of

providing them with a house? How is sweat equity different? Dewey's "learning-by-

doing" explains sweat equity from a learning perspective. And the generalized social

exchange theory provides a theoretical basis for sweat equity from a sharing perspective.

Learning by Doing

According to Dewey (1980), human action was a transaction between the person

and the environment, during which the person was not just a passive vessel but also an









actor who changed the environment. The experience connected the action with its

consequences. To Dewey, learning experiences "cover all the doings that involve growth

of power-especially of power to realize the meaning of what is done" (1939, p. 607).

Dewey (1939) believed that the doing experiences contain the learning process when the

experiences result in personal growth. The achievement of personal growth comes not

only from the experience but also the meaning constructed from it (Miettinen, 2000). In

accordance with this school of thought, Rodgers (2002) distinguished routine actions

from educative actions, depending on whether or not one realizes the meanings of the

action.

Deweyan learning by doing inspired multiple perspectives of learning experiences,

such as adult learning (Marsick & Watkins, 2001), social interactions during learning

(Nowotny, Scott, & Gibbons, 2001; Roschelle & Clancey, 1992), problem-based learning

(Argyris, 1997; Savery & Duffy, 2001), and experience-based learning (Andersen, Boud,

& Cohen, 2000). From examining the organizational development in social housing and

tenant participation in Britain, Reid and Hickman (2002) pointed out that tenant

participation transformed the housing organization into a learning organization. The top-

down participation resulted in single-loop learning, but the bottom-up participation

promoted mutual learning, which potentially improved the housing organization itself

(Blantern & Belcher, 1994).

According to the learning-by-doing theory, sweat equity is a doing process that

allows families to learn skills to build their houses. In Habitat, knowing how to build a

house is the first task for most families who have never used a hammer. However, this

know-how is not learned in a classroom. Learning is achieved through building a house









and working with other persons. The personal growth can refer to human resources

(knowledge, technical skills, perceptions, and so forth) and social resources (social skills,

trust, network, sense of community, and so forth). Since families help others first and

receive help from volunteers in return, sweat equity may involve social learning through

this mutual sharing process. All activities in sweat equity require Habitat families to

partner with others to do something for other people as well as for themselves, such as

working in a Habitat office, babysitting for other families' children, and building houses

together. The families have a chance to learn and share something, and they can use these

learned experiences for personal growth.

Dewey's pragmatic learning-by-doing theoretically guides this study of sweat

equity as a learning process. The logic of these sharing experiences may be supported by

the generalized social exchange theory.

Generalized Social Exchange

The learning-by-doing occurs when individuals interact with their physical and

social environment. Proper social interactions or exchanges in a social environment will

encourage the learning experiences (Dewey, 1939). The concept of social exchange is

derived from the belief that people construct and maintain sufficient social interactions

because "no man is an island" (Schroeder, Penner, Dovidio, & Piliavin, 1995, p. 219).

People are interdependent rather than independent, and collaborative social exchange is

necessary for human survival and self-advance. Two social exchange theories, the British

individualistic and French collectivistic orientations, were developed based on whether

behaviors were explained by self-interests or norms and obligations (Ekeh, 1974).

Homans used the cost and reward concepts to explain social exchange behaviors

between two parties for both economic and psychological needs. His individualistic









social exchange theory was built upon the self-interest theory, that society resulted from

the needs required by individuals or subgroups (Ekeh, 1974).

Levi-Strauss explained the collective social phenomena as the result of the

collective unconscious of the human mind (Ekeh, 1974). Levi-Strauss coined the term

generalized exchange to describe a social system that needed equality, partnerships,

credit, and trust for the continuity of interactions. The generalized social exchange occurs

when an individual feels obligated to give back to any actors in the chain of social

exchange. Ekeh (1974) distinguished two forms of generalized exchange: group-

generalized exchange and network-generalized exchange. In the group-generalized

exchange, individuals pool their economic, physical, or human resources and receive

benefits generated by the collaborative activities. In the network-generalized exchange, a

person who helps others does not expect return benefits directly from the same person.

Instead, an individual receives assistance or benefits from the others whom he or she may

not even know. Similar, Allop, Fifield, and Seiter (2002) used the term intra-group

favoritism and inter-group favoritism to distinguish generalized reciprocity or exchange,

depending on whether or not the mutual commitment is limited only to the group. This

network-based relationship or the inter-group favoritism encourages individuals to be

more active, and it involves more interactions and responsibilities (Yamagishi & Cook,

1993).

Mutual trust and the norm of reciprocity are the basis for constructing and

maintaining a continuing social exchange network, which, in turn, promotes mutual trust

and reinforces reciprocity (Ekeh, 1974). Network-based community participation is built

upon the norms of reciprocity: I do it for you now, and I expect you or others will do









ii'lluilig similar in turn sometimefor me. In this way, trust is built along with the

development of social capital (Putnam & Gross, 2002). Frequent interactions among a

diverse set of people tend to produce a norm of generalized reciprocity. Based on the

mutual obligations, it benefits not only the participants but also outsiders as well. Once

the social exchange system is normalized, it becomes the norm of reciprocity. Social

relations create values through generalized social interactions (Putnam, 2000).

Sweat equity requires families to build a house along with those who are in need.

This participation involves three stages of social exchanges: 1) learning construction

skills from Habitat staff or other families; 2) helping others in Habitat offices, thrift

stores, or others families' houses; and 3) being helped when volunteers come to build

one's own house. This participatory process requires one to help others first and accepts

assistance from the same person or other persons sometime in the near future. In other

words, this sweat equity process contains generalized social exchanges that may promote

human and social skill development.

Requiring partner families to help others first before receiving help eliminates the

possibility of "free riders" that take the benefits without giving back to the common good

in this sweat equity exchange. Partner families meet new people and work together to

solve their housing problems. This social exchange is generalized rather than on a one-to-

one basis. Therefore, it is assumed that the trust and the giving-taking pattern persist after

sweat equity is completed because these generalized social exchanges are network-based.

Families may feel obliged to give back to their neighbors and neighborhoods after

receiving help from volunteers. By setting up the norm of giving-receiving by Habitat, it

is expected that this norm of reciprocity and the trust built through sweat equity will be









maintained better if Habitat families live together in one neighborhood rather than live

sparsely in scattered sites.

During the network-based generalized social exchanges in sweat equity, doing,

learning, and sharing enable Habitat families to solve their housing problems collectively.

However, there have been no existing models within Habitat studies that have

incorporated all three aspects of sweat equity. The literature shows that the research on

participation is inadequate and inconsistent in definition and measures (Chavis &

Wandersman, 1990; Perkins, Brown, & Taylor, 1996; Perkins, Florin, Rich,

Wandersman, & Chavis, 1990; Prestby, Wandersman, Florin, Rich, & Chavis, 1990). A

new conceptual framework that involves participation, learning by doing, and sharing is

critical to understanding what sweat equity is and the impact of sweat equity to the

residents.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual model of learning by doing in a Habitat context (see Figure 2-1) is

adapted from Gifford's informal learning model and cognitive and behavioral model in a

physical community. Gifford (2002) defined learning as "a relatively permanent change

in behavior that occurs as [a] result of experience" (p. 299). Gifford proposed a general

framework (2002, p. 299) to describe how students learn in formal learning settings.

In his learning model, the personal characteristics of students interact with the

physical and social setting, and these interactions produce learning attitudes and learning

behaviors. However, he did not incorporate the doing as a process in his model. Gifford

also did not specify the process of learning or the outcomes of learning. Without

emphasizing the learning as a process, it was challenging to identify what people learned

and how to improve the learning experience.










Personal characteristics
of learners Learning-related
attitudes

Physical features of the
Learning behaviors


Social-organizational
climate

Figure 2-1. Simplified model from Gifford's framework of conceptualizing person-
environment relations in learning settings (2002).

In another model that explained residents' cognitive and behavioral responses to

their physical community, Gifford (2002, p. 265) included the learning outcomes and

regarded design as an essential part of the environment-psychology cycle (see Figure 2-

2). But in this model residents were static and passive players, and he ignored the

interaction between persons and their physical environment.



Resident Community cognitions Behavior in the
characteristics community


Physical Urban planning
community

Figure 2-2. Simplified Gifford's model for urban environmental psychology (2002).

A new model was needed to fit the learning experience in a low-income residential

setting with very special background: homes built by the homeowners who were

organized by Habitat for Humanity. After extensive readings about participation,

housing, human and social resources, a new model (see Figure 2-3) was proposed. The

new model positions learning-by-doing (sweat equity as participation) as the driving

force, and considers outcomes in terms of human and social resource building. Physical


building. Physical










settings and residents' characteristic may influence the outcomes as well. In comparison

to Gifford's models, this framework explores the learning as a process. Learning

activities, residents' characteristics, and physical settings together influence the physical

and social outcomes or resources. Therefore, residents are regarded as active learners

rather than passive recipients. Since the literature review was intensive, the new

framework was introduced as a guiding framework for the literature review.

Based on the conceptualized framework, the following sections review sweat

equity as housing participation, investigate human and social resource developments, and

evaluate the impact of geographic segregation on housing. User's involvement in the

design process will be addressed as design participation. Research approaches and

instruments are also discussed.


Participation Outcomes
For example:
Sweat Equity Human Resource
For example: Development
Learn to help/build Social Resource
Build with sharing Development
Participate in design




Residents' Characteristics Physical Settings
For example: For example:
Age Houses in scattered sites
Education Habitat neighborhoods
Income


Figure 2-3. Conceptualized framework for sweat equity in a Habitat context.

General Background Information

Habitat for Humanity partners with volunteers, churches, local businesses,

foundations, governments, organizations, and people in need. Government funding is









used to acquire land and construct infrastructure, such as streets, sidewalks, and utilities,

but federal funding is prohibited from building and renovating or for administrative

purposes. Though Habitat is a Christian organization, it welcomes everyone regardless of

race, color, or creed. Houses are financed with interest-free loans. Although sweat equity

is a required commitment of Habitat families, it is broadly defined as the willingness to

work. The work Habitat families do includes a variety of activities, such as working in a

thrift store, babysitting for others, painting one's house, and attending training courses.

The partner families must meet certain requirements for income and concurrent living

conditions and be willing to commit sweat equity on other families' houses as well as

their own. Sweat equity starts after families are identified as being eligible for the Habitat

program and ends when they move into their new homes. The required sweat equity

hours usually range from 300 to 500 hours. Local Habitat affiliates decide how to

distribute the hours among individual activities.

Sweat Equity as Participation

Completing the minimum sweat equity hours is mandatory in a Habitat program.

During these sweat equity hours, families participate in the process of building other

families' houses as well as their own houses. Most people use the term sweat equity or

participation without a clear understanding about what it is and what it means to the

residents. This section traces user participation in housing, self-help housing as a special

type of user participation in housing, and sweat equity as a unique means in Habitat self-

help housing.

Participation

The concept of participation is open and context-specific. The term participation

first appeared in the 14th century, referring to "the act of participating" or "the state of









being related to a larger whole" (Merriam-Webster, 2003). Synonyms of participation

include citizen involvement, cooperation, and self-decision. Generally participation

implies the presence of the users and taking control in defining the problem, elaborating

the solution, and evaluating of the results.

Housing, in this study, is regarded as a meaningful process rather than a product

(Turner, 1977). In addition to the house's physical forms and market value, the meanings

or values are added to a house through the users' participation in the planning and

designing, building, and maintaining processes of their houses. Accordingly, participation

in housing should be understood in each of these three stages. Many researchers

emphasized citizen participation in the planning stage (Cressey, Martino, Bal, Treu, &

Traynor, 1987), such as consulting and public hearings, and in the maintenance stage,

such as volunteerism, voting, and community meetings (Langton, 1978). Some scholars

addressed participation in the design process (Reis, 2000; Sanoff, 1992b). The World

Bank (2002) addressed the importance of control and decision-making and defined

participation as "a process through which stakeholders influence and share control over

development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them." According to

the World Bank's definition, user participation has been mostly ignored in the low-

income housing history of the United States.

Federal low-income housing agencies and programs in the United States were

established to relieve the depressed economic and social conditions during the 1920s and

1930s. During the early period of subsidized housing history, the Housing Division of the

Public Works Administration (PWA) aimed to revitalize business districts by preventing

the middle-class from fleeing to suburbs and by stimulating large-scale building in









downtown areas. The low-quality, low-income housing in central cities was seen as a

threat to the business districts and an economic burden to taxpayers. Slum-clearance and

new construction of public housing brought cities immediate economic benefits and

social relief from urban sprawl (Coulibaly, Green, & James, 1998).

In 1937, the U.S. Housing Authority (USHA) replaced PWA to provide financial

and technical assistance to local Public Housing Authorities (PHA), addressing

unemployment problems and the shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary units for low-

income families. Under the "equivalent elimination" that required building a new public

housing unit with each destroyed unit, local authorities could decide where and how

much public housing to build. During urban renewal, low-income families from central

areas were displaced. The low-income families had no control over where to move. As a

result, the number of low-income families (mostly minorities) living in substandard

housing increased. Often, relocation created racial and income segregation within low-

income housing.

Low-income housing policies in the United States do not directly respond to the

needs of the low-income families, but instead to the economic and social needs of the

mainstream of the society. Federal low-income housing programs focus on the rental

market rather than homeownership, and recipients get direct subsidies with no means to

influence the housing process until they move in. Even though currently the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires citizen participation at

the state level in the Consolidated Plan for community development, participation is

usually regarded as the outcome or byproduct at the community level rather than an

influential drive at the individual level. Debates have occurred over the effectiveness of









this "top-down" citizen participation. Green and Haines (2002) criticized such models

and declared that there was no power for the low-income residents to make critical

decisions. Consequently, user participation is only superficial when and if there is any in

low-income housing policies.

Although HUD currently keeps a low profile on promoting genuine user

participation in low-income housing, researchers advocated participation because it was

beneficial to the well-being of homeowners, as well as to their neighborhoods and to

society (Bruin & Cook, 1997; Florin & Wandersman, 1990; Perkins et al., 1996; Perkins

et al., 1990; Rohe & Basolo, 1997; Rohe & Stegman, 1994b; Schmidt, 1998; Taggart,

1995). But in these studies, participation was regarded either as the number of

organizations or neighborhood meetings a person attended or as a byproduct of other

social factors. Finn (1994) identified sweat equity as a process of empowerment among

Habitat homeowners. However, she did not have quantitative data to support her

statements. Participation needs to be positioned as a dynamic yet measurable input from

the end-users rather than being a static number of organizations or meetings.

Reis (2000) found that residents prefer user participation in the design process to

user remodeling after the construction is complete. But federal housing programs seem

reluctant to give up the control over the housing processes (Hasell & Scanzoni, 2000).

Compared to HUD programs, non-profit self-help housing programs incorporate

participation into daily practice.

Self-help housing

Self-help housing (SHH) is a special type of participation in housing that

minimizes costs for housing through individual sweat equity. Margolis and Turner

(Harms, 1982) identified three types of SHH in the United States: independent SHH, in









which users decide what and how to build without external help; organized SHH, in

which users enter a program and become involved in a part of decision-making; and

employed SHH, in which users enter a program and receive minimum pay. Harms (1982)

defined self-help housing as "housing produced directly by the users, individually or

collectively" (p. 45).

In colonial America, self-help housing was the most common practice for housing

provision, which involved the families' own sweat and the help from friends, neighbors,

and local craftsmen. The house planning and design usually satisfied users' needs. As the

society shifted from farms to cities and industry with an increasing division of labor and

organizations, houses were produced and distributed in an increasingly complex process

for the accumulation of profit. Controlled by the relationship between supply and

demand, housing production became a capitalistic commodity exchange, and housing

distribution facilitated stratification of a society according to income levels, not to needs

(Harms, 1982). Yet in capitalistic societies, SHH recurs whenever and wherever

capitalism is weak and affordable housing is not available, such as in developing

countries or rural areas in developed countries.

The United States uses a filtering process to stratify housing needs. When a natural

filtering process cannot keep up with the growing demands, government intercedes. The

first federal attempt was employed during the Great Depression. In the 1930s, the Federal

Housing Authority (FHA) and U.S. Housing Authority (USHA) were created to assist the

urban poor. Federal assistance was only able to shelter less than 10% of the eligible low-

income population (Coulibaly et al., 1998). Since federal resources were completely

inadequate given the scale of the problem, self-help became a popular form of social









support and behavior change (Cherniss & Cherniss, 1987). The first significant public

SHH effort was conducted by the County Relief Board of Westmoreland County,

Pennsylvania in 1933. Unemployed coal miners built self-sufficient communities

together. By 1940, participants completed approximately 250 homes (Harms, 1982;

Spohn, 1972). In the 1940s, Puerto Rico set up a mutual-help program to resettle those

who lost job or lands in a huge crisis of unemployment. Under political and racial

pressures in the late 1960s, federal housing agencies felt the need for alternatives to

provide low-income housing without increasing the public burden. In 1968, the Housing

and Home Finance Agency, the predecessor of HUD, conducted a study on the self-help

phenomenon "in the construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of housing for low

income persons and families and the methods of selecting, involving, and directing such

persons and families in self-help activities" (Spohn, 1972, pp. 23-24). The study showed

that SHH could reduce construction costs through unpaid labor, management, and

volunteerism. However, HUD was ultimately not interested in SHH because HUD was

structured to serve the housing industry, not individuals (Grindley, 1972; Harms, 1982;

Spohn, 1972; Turner, 1977). After the HUD Act of 1970 repealed self-help

demonstration projects for managerial reasons, HUD kept a low profile in SHH by

providing limited technical assistance and funding to non-profit organizations. The only

direct involvement of HUD is in the Mutual Self-Help Housing program by Rural

Housing and Community Development Services in U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) (Spohn, 1972).

Self-help discussions during the 1960s and 1970s were oriented to squatter housing

and substandard housing in developing countries. Advocates considered it SHH a positive









solution to housing and social problems because housing was constructed, and it

encouraged an individual's independence from political, economic, and historical

contexts (Turner, 1977). Turner (1977) believed that taking control over decision-

making, self-building, and managing became the key factors for a better physical

environment, higher satisfaction, and greater self-responsibility. Arizmendi (2003)

asserted that SHH gave low-income people an opportunity to recognize that they could

change their homes, their community, and their lives. In a comparison study of a self-help

rehabilitation program and other subsidized housing programs, self-help had more

positive impact on residents and their living environment (Turner, 1977). The "bottom-

up" user participation is the key factor of SHH during which housing democratizes and

empowers.

The SHH approach, however, received criticism for its short-term benefits and non-

theoretical implications to the society. The opponents questioned whether or not SHH

was an adequate basis for low-income housing for political, economical, and ideological

reasons (Burgess, 1982). The criticism was focused on management (lack of quality

control, services, and endurance), the government's low commitment to long-term

solutions, and the social inequality caused by extensive unpaid labor of unskilled

homeowners (Harms, 1982; Ward, 1982). In other words, SHH solved low-income

housing problems "at the expense of the users, while capital accumulation processes are

kept intact" (Harms, 1982, p. 51). However, the opponents of SHH ignored the social

gains through self-help housing: empowerment at the individual level and local level

(Tait, 1997; Turner, 1982). Tait (1997) suggested that SHH could be more effective if the

SHH approach involved the neighbors, as well as local and state planners. Although the









SHH approach could not provide mass housing production as HUD policies aimed at, it

significantly changes the lives of the self-helpers who take control over the planning,

designing, and building processes of their own houses with their sweat equity.

Sweat equity in Habitat

In general, sweat equity incorporates both the doing behavior and value of the

labor. In dictionaries, sweat equity is defined as "equity in a property resulting from labor

invested in the improvements that increase its value" or "the labor so invested"

(Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2003). The American Heritage Dictionary of the

English Language (2000) claims that ownership is a part of sweat equity.

In the housing industry, sweat equity is often related to homeownership and control

over one's living space. The tenant-landlord relationship discourages sweat equity

because it is difficult to determine the ownership of the equity added through a tenant's

sweat (Harris, 2003). Long before "do-it-yourself' (DIY) was coined, owners built equity

into their houses by investing their own labor. The houses may start from scratch or

sometimes homeowners buy an unfinished "shell" and decorate the interiors (Harris,

2003). Since the late 19th and early 20th centuries, building regulations in cities set stricter

requirements for health and safety considerations. For example, electric equipment and

plumbing should be installed by union labor. It became difficult for future amateur

homeowners to have all the necessary skills to build a new home. Industrialization also

discourages the sweat equity approach by shifting housing provisions and distribution

into the hands of a free housing market and the filtering process. Established in the

1930s, the FHA and USHA intervened in the low-income housing process by providing

low-rent public housing and federal government insurance of individual home mortgages

at market interest rate. After World War II, the prevailing needs of housing for returning









veterans and the ever-expanding urbanism accelerated the gap between what government

intervention and the free market produced and the housing needs (United Nations Center

for Human Settlements [UNCHS], 1999). In the 1950s and 1960s, sweat equity again

showed the potential to solve a part of the housing problems.

Habitat for Humanity was an innovation of sweat equity by a legendary figure in

the 1970s. Millard Fuller, a young millionaire, found that the expanding affluence could

not give him health, integrity, and a solution to his marriage crisis. After re-evaluating his

life, Fuller and his wife Linda gave away all their wealth and started over (Baggett, 2003;

Giri, 2002). In December 1965, the Fullers first visited Koinonia Farms, an interracial,

self-sufficient Christian farming community in southwestern Georgia. About two and a

half years later, Fuller and C. Jordan, the Founder of Koinonia Farms, initiated a program

called Koinonia Partners, addressing partnership farming, partnership industries, and

partnership housing. The partnership housing program helps to build non-profit houses on

the basis of a partnership between the Koinonia Farms and the homeowners. Families

invested their own sweat into their houses with volunteers. Families paid no-interest

loans with which more houses could be built. The partnership housing later became the

primary focus of Koinonia Partners. Other than working within Koinonia Farms, the

Fullers tested the sweat equity model in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo)

for three years. When they came back to Koinonia Farms in 1976, Fuller summoned a

three-day conference with 27 committed friends during which the Habitat for Humanity

was born (Baggett, 2003).

Habitat refers to sweat equity as the "labor that Habitat homeowners expend in

building their houses and the houses of their neighbors, as well as the time they spend









investing in their own self-improvement" (Lassman-Eul, 2001). Defined by Ocala Habitat

for Humanity, sweat equity is "the physical labor the partner family put under [into]

building of their home to replace the traditional monetary down payment" (Nimmo, B.,

personal communication, June 11, 2003). These definitions emphasize the physical labor

in relation to building houses, but they ignore the activities in relation to building social

relations and a sense of community. Since Habitat does not specify in detail the nature of

the labor activities in which a family should participate and how the family's time should

be divided among different activities, Habitat families do different tasks even within one

affiliate. The above definition does not explain the term self-improvement clearly, and it

does not indicate what values sweat equity adds.

Fuller (2000) asserted that Habitat "build pride and confidence by involving

families in the construction of their own homes and encouraging them to help other

families become Habitat homeowners" (p. 31). He emphasized the importance of

partnership because it generated sharing of many resources in addition to homes (Giri,

2002, p. 50). In a report of community building, Torjman (1998) claimed that sweat

equity was a form of human capital with which to create affordable housing. But he did

not regard sweat equity as a form of social capital for the homeowners.

Commissioned by HUD in 1997, the Applied Real Estate Analysis (AREA), Inc.

worked with Habitat for Humanity International and local affiliates to conduct a study

about Habitat homeownership experiences. The AREA study concluded that Habitat was

"structured to nurture families and break the poverty cycle-not just provide an

affordable house" (Mitchell & Warren, 1998, p. VI-4). It indicated that sweat equity

allowed Habitat families to gain resources or values other than just physical









environments. Since the AREA study measured neither the sweat equity nor the results of

sweat equity, it was unable to empirically define the specific impact of sweat equity to

the families.

According to the nature of activities a family may encounter, sweat equity in

Habitat is then re-defined as the time and effort in which partner families invest through

learning by doing to collectively build and maintain their physical resources, as well as

human and social resources. The physical resources, or physical capital, include

individual houses and neighborhoods. Human resources include knowledge, construction

and maintenance skills, commitment, self-esteem, perceptions of skills, and so forth.

Social resources include social connections, trust, a sense of community, and so forth.

Both human and social resources are necessary for homeowners to act collectively and

maintain their houses and neighborhoods. The new definition first emphasizes sweat

equity 1) as a process by setting the time requirement; 2) as participation through

investing one's own effort; 3) as an enlightening process through learning by doing; 4) as

a sharing experience by doing collectively; and 5) as a resource development process to

reflect the idea of self-improvement. Although the concept does not specify individual

activities in sweat equity, it indicates that all activities in relation to the building and

maintaining of one's physical, human, and social resources could account for sweat

equity.

Sweat equity is also used by other non-profit organizations to eliminate substandard

housing. For example, the Self-Help Opportunity Program, Mutual Self-Help Program,

and USDA Rural Development all use sweat equity. Examining what sweat equity is and

what it means to the homeowners potentially contribute to all low-income housing









programs that are using or have the potential to use sweat equity as a means to build

affordable and decent homes.

In sum, building a Habitat home is an organized self-help process. Habitat affiliates

raise funds, obtain planning and building permits, select partner families, and coordinate

volunteers and construction. A low-income family enters the program and becomes the

major stakeholder who helps other families build their homes. Although Habitat is not a

self-run organization by the people in need, partner families do have some control over

the designing, building process of their homes, and full control and responsibility for the

completed home's maintenance and management. Through the sweat equity process,

Habitat not only provides low-income people with the financial and technical assistance,

but also shows these families the housing process. Although building a house is a one-

time project, a home is a long-term project in terms of maintenance, repairs, redecoration,

and financial management.

In this study, sweat equity is the participation of Habitat partner families. Sweat

equity usually takes months for the partner families to accomplish. During the sweat

equity process, partner families make some design-related decisions about their houses.

They learn new skills, work hundreds of hours on their houses and the houses of others,

pay for their houses, and take the responsibility to maintain it. Fuller believed that sweat

equity built pride and a sense of responsibility, which was reflected in the good

maintenance and care given to Habitat houses. The key factors to understand sweat equity

as a participation process include: 1) how many hours sweat equity requires; 2) what

types of activities families do during sweat equity; and 3) what sweat equity means to the

users.









As participation, sweat equity directly contributes to the construction of physical

houses and infrastructure. Since families learn new skills and interact with other people

during sweat equity, exploring what families learn is necessary for a holistic

understanding of sweat equity.

Sweat Equity as Learning and Sharing

In addition to physical houses, the other resources that families may acquire include

human and social capital (resources), which together influence the physical environment

(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2001). Some

effects of human and social capital on economic and physical capital may take longer to

emerge. When partner families learn new skills and work with other people to build their

respective houses, the sweat equity process encourages human and social capital building

in addition to the development of physical houses.

Human resource development

New skills and knowledge are acquired through interacting with one's physical or

social environment (Dewey, 1939; Roth, 1962). These acquisitions are a part of human

resources. Human resources include human abilities, knowledge, skills, health,

appreciation, and other talents. Researchers also refer to human resources as human

capital to emphasize the productivity of human resources (Cassidy & Jake, 2002; Green

& Haines, 2002).

Human resource or capital is a relatively new concept. Labor, land, physical capital,

and social capital were the four basic factors of production in economics. Beginning in

the early 1960s, the quality of labor aroused large-scale attention. It was believed that

through education and training, workers' productivity would be improved, and

consequently the earning-based investment in human capital could be returned. Ostrom









defined human capital as "the required knowledge and skills that an individual brings to

an activity" (2000, p. 175). The Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) (2001) defined human capital in a broader sense as the

"knowledge, skills, competencies and attributes embodied in individuals that facilitate the

creation of personal, social and economic well-being." The knowledge and skills can be

acquired from formal education and training and informal learning in daily interactions.

In many housing programs, human resources are invested in the form of social services

and adult education (Torjman, 1998). Habitat believes that the learned construction skills

encourage individuals to stand on their own feet in terms of taking care of their homes.

The term human resource instead of human capital is used in this study to address

the skills and perceptions one immediately acquires or sharpens to build and maintain

one's house and neighborhood through learning by doing. Habitat families need to build

and take care of their houses. These skills can be accumulated either consciously by

seminar and task training or unconsciously through field experiences. Through formal

training, Habitat families learn about household budgeting and how to be a homeowner.

The unconscious investments in human resources continue in the building and

volunteering process. Human resource is fundamental to building and maintaining the

environment.

Some researchers (Barro, 2001; Cohen & Prusak, 2001; Cohen, 1988) were

interested in human resources at the organizational level rather than at the individual

level. For example, according to the United Nations Center for Human Settlements

(UNCHS), capacity building included human resources and leadership development,

training, institutional reform, organizational and managerial development at three levels:









policy, institution, and community (UNCHS, 1999). When Nye and Glickman (2000)

studied organizations, resources, networks, programs, and political capacity among

community partners, they realized the importance of learning to the non-profit

organizations, but not to the residents. There is an emerging need to study human

resources from the user's perspective. The AREA study reported that Habitat families

rated the training through the Habitat program as being helpful or very helpful (Mitchell

& Warren, 1998). But the study did not identify what families learned from training and

failed to recognize the informal "learning-by-doing" during the daily interactions with

their physical and social environments.

Social resource development

By working with volunteers and other partner families, Habitat families may

develop certain social resources that are essential for the maintenance of a neighborhood.

Social resources, also known as social capital, refer to the social connections (network)

among individuals or the ties that facilitate collective action, build trust, self-esteem, a

sense of community, and mutual support in the community (Bourdieu, 1983; Coleman,

1988; Green & Haines, 2002; Putnam, 2000; Putnam & Gross, 2002).

In the 1920s, L. J. Hanifan coined the term social capital to describe the tangible

social resources in the daily life of ordinary people: good will, friendship, sympathy, and

social interaction (Putnam & Gross, 2002). Since then, social capital was used in the

analysis of city neighborhoods (Jacobs, 1961), the labor market (Loury, 1987), the

relationship with human capital (Coleman, 1988), and the social capital at different levels

(Fukuyama, 1995; Putnam, Leonardi, & Nanetti, 1993). In the literature, discussions were

focused on what qualified as social capital rather than what constituted it (Uphoff, 2000).

Uphoff (2000) suggested rigorous analysis of social capital in participation. He used









structural social capital to define the tangible social organizations and related rules,

networks, and procedures. Cognitive social capital was used to describe intangible mental

processes, such as trust, cooperation, norms, values, attitudes, and beliefs. Putnam (2000)

used the informal and formal infrastructure of an organization to describe the relationship

between insiders and outsiders. The formal pattern of connections included being a

member of an organization and attending meetings at church, unions, or political parties.

The informal social connections referred to interactions among people, such as having

coffee with family members, playing baseball with friends, and lending a tool to a

neighbor (Putnam, 2000).

Since social resource development is context-specific, social sciences, community

psychology, and community development have different emphases on certain aspects of

social resources in the setting.

In the social sciences, scholars favor norms, networks, trust, and levels of

engagement or interaction in social activities (Hays, 2002; OECD, 2001; Putnam, 2000).

Kleit (2001) compared the social ties for looking for a job between female public housing

residents living in small clusters in a non-poor area and those in a dispersed housing

pattern. She found that dispersed residents had neighborhood social networks with greater

diversity, although they used their neighbors less frequently to look for a job than people

living in clusters. The dispersed residents did not feel close to their neighbors, compared

to residents in clusters. Although Kleit emphasized job-hunting, her study indicated that

the clusters promoted a sense of closeness among low-income residents, which might

contribute to a better neighborhood. Saegert, Winkel, and Swartz (2002) surveyed 487

buildings in New York and identified three components of social capital that were related









to crime prevention. These components were basic participation in tenant association

activities, norms, and formal participation in building leadership, management, and

maintenance. The informal neighboring activities were found not significant to crime

prevention. Homeownership, building characteristics, and housing policy might influence

the effectiveness of social capital.

In community psychology, scholars addressed the psychological aspects of social

capital, such as sense of community (Chavis, Hogge, McMillan, & Wandersman, 1986;

Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Cochrun, 1994; McMillan, 1996; McMillan & Chavis,

1986; Perkins et al., 1990; Pretty, 1990); community attachment (John, Austin, & Baba,

1986; Riger, 2001); neighborhood attachment (Crenshaw & John, 1989; Wells, 2000;

Woolerver, 1992); residential attachment (Fried, 1982); and neighborhood cohesion

(Buckner, 1988; Litwak, 1961). Temkin and Rohe (1998) studied the relationship

between social capital and the stability of a neighborhood. Acknowledging the few

efforts to measure social capital at a neighborhood level, they used voting, resident

volunteerism and presence of neighborhood organization to examine the institutional

infrastructure. They used affective attachment, facilities for social interaction, a sense of

community and neighboring activities (visiting, helping, and borrowing items) to measure

the social-cultural milieu of a neighborhood. They found that loyalty and attachment to

neighborhood explained stability while neighboring and spatial distribution of residents'

friends and relatives were not significant to predict stability. They pointed out, however,

that their study could not respond to how to build social capital in neighborhoods. Prezza

and Costantini (1998) explored the relationship between sense of community, life

satisfaction, self-esteem, perceived social support and satisfaction with community









services in a small town, a small city, and a city in Italy. The results showed that sense of

community and life satisfaction were higher in the small town as compared with in the

larger communities. Although Chavis and other researchers (1986) expected that

homeownership and living in the community for years would encourage a higher sense of

community, Prezza and Costantini's study did not find that association, which might be

explained by the cultural differences of the specific setting.

In community development, social resources were explored through the

relationships among homeownership, neighborhood, and satisfaction. The literature

indicates that homeownership plays a role in house maintenance and repairs (Galster,

1983; 1987; 2003; Mayer, 1981), and homeowners may acquire do it yourself skills for

house repair, negotiating with contractors and plumbers, and seeking refinancing (Boehm

& Schlottman, 1999; Green & White, 1997). Homeowners are more likely to participate

in informal social participation (Hunter, 1975; Jeffers & Dobos, 1984), in commitment to

neighborhood (Austin & Baba, 1990), and in investing more in building positive

relationships and helping networks among neighbors (Coleman, 1988; Coleman, 1990).

Ellen and Turner (1997) investigated how neighborhood conditions impact families and

children through a literature review and census tracts. Although the results showed that

neighborhoods mattered, they suggested using both qualitative and quantitative methods

to capture the true meaning of life experiences and how neighborhoods influence

people's lives. Greenberg (1999) collected 309 survey responses to study the relationship

between rating neighborhood quality and neighborhood attributes and personality. He

found that associations existed between poor neighborhood quality and crime, vandalism

and physical decay, mistrust of authority, negative emotions, pessimism, and a lack of









control. But he did not address intervention. Should people improve the quality of the

neighborhood to address crime and vandalism, or does taking control bring trust, prevent

physical decay, and thus improve the neighborhood quality?

Within a Habitat context, Baggett (2003) and Giri (2002) explored the religion

aspects and the social capital of Habitat at the organizational level. Hays (2002) studied

qualitatively citizen involvement in community housing as a faith-based expansion of

social capital within nine Habitat affiliates, focusing on volunteers and paid staff. He

found that the created one-on-one linkage between the volunteers and the families

contributed little to the overall neighborhood. Habitat empowered families by giving

them more control over their housing situation and developing building and maintenance

skills. But Habitat failed to promote the collective actions among low-income families to

deal with their community housing problems. Since Hays interviewed only the volunteers

and the paid staff, these findings represented only the perception of the organization, not

how families actually feel about themselves and their neighborhoods. Wells (2000)

examined the relationship between house quality and psychological well-being among

Habitat families. Even though Wells found positive results, she admitted that other

factors might influence the psychological well-being for Habitat families, such as sweat

equity participation, homeownership, and neighborhood characteristics.

Based on generalized social exchange theory and the social resource development

in Habitat, it is assumed that Habitat neighborhoods-instead of scattered Habitat

houses-better support the resources built through sweat equity. In the AREA study

(Mitchell & Warren, 1998), families reported feeling safe by living close to other partner

families. The finding indicated that the trust to other partner families persisted after









families move into their homes. Geographical proximity may facilitate supportive

interactions among Habitat families who already have built trust with each other.

Noticing that Habitat homeowners are families with low and very low incomes, would

the geographical proximity of Habitat homes compared to houses in scattered sites have a

negative impact as well as a positive impact?

Physical Settings

Habitat houses are built on available lands, acquired at a low price. Usually the lots

are disconnected so Habitat houses are separated from each other. When Habitat acquires

a bigger lot that can accommodate more houses, a Habitat cluster or neighborhood is

formed. According to the AREA study (Mitchell & Warren, 1998), houses are built in

scattered lots "where there are no other Habitat homes on the homeowner's street" (p. IV-

27). Other houses are built in clusters "where the homeowner's block includes other

Habitat households but is not exclusively developed with Habitat homes" or subdivisions

"where the homeowner is surrounded on the street only by homes built by Habitat"

(Mitchell & Warren, 1998, p. IV-27).

"Scattered sites" refers to the locations where there are no other Habitat homes on

the same street, or where a few Habitat houses are on the same street but there are less

than ten Habitat houses in the same block. "Habitat neighborhoods" refers to the

locations where ten or more than ten Habitat houses are clustered, or where Habitat

houses are surrounded only by homes built by Habitat in the same block.

Since Habitat householders are normally single-parent minorities with low and very

low incomes, building a Habitat neighborhood raises questions about segregation.

Although often used in sociology, politics, and social sciences, there is little agreement

about definitions and measures of segregation (Duncan & Duncan, 1955; Massey &









Denton, 1988; White, 1983). Residential segregation considers the racial and ethnic

location patterns in minority groups (Massey & Denton, 1988). The index of dissimilarity

and the minority proportion had been the standard measures of segregation. However,

these methods fail to distinguish in what ways one group differentiates from the other.

Massey and Denton (1988) proposed a multi-dimensional concept for residential

segregation. Based on extensive literature research and James and Taeuber's models

(Carr, 1999), their measures included evenness of segregation, exposure, concentration,

centralization, and clustering. Accordingly, a group of residents "that is highly

centralized, spatially concentrated, unevenly distributed, tightly clustered, and minimally

exposed to majority members is said to be residentially 'segregated'" (Massey & Denton,

1988, p. 283). But these dimensions regard the residents as static numbers and address

observed segregation rather than perceived segregation. These dimensions fail to identify

whether or not the segregation is formed by choice.

The segregation problem symbolizes a battle of controlling resources and power.

With the end of the American Civil War, the Whites, who had dominated almost all

resources, tried to segregate the Blacks in every aspect of life. Personal preference,

income distribution, and class-division were the popular explanations for physical

separation. With the excuse that residential segregation helped to reduce racial conflicts,

landlords and developers provided segregated white communities for higher profits.

Since the Great Depression of the 1930s, subsidized low-income housing in the United

States has been characterized to serve the needs for central business district

redevelopment, industrial mobilization of World War II, and the private housing market

(Coulibaly et al., 1998). The urban renewal and substandard housing clearance programs









resulted in racially and economically segregated residents. As the Blacks gained higher

socioeconomic status, researchers in the 1960s found that the impact of integration on

property value was minimal. This finding undermined the financial rationale for housing

segregation. In the 1980s, declining air quality and increasing noise problems in

residential areas drove higher-income people out of the areas around factories where

segregated working-class districts were built. Implicitly or explicitly, segregation is

assumed as "a manifestation of generalized white prejudice resulting in discrimination

against racial minorities, often mediated through an imperfect market mechanism"

(Coulibaly et al., 1998, p. 1). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act of

1968 aimed to remedy the inequalities resulting from segregation and racial

discrimination. However, these two acts have had only minor impact, and segregation

remains a serious and enduring fact in the United States. Coulibaly, Green, and James

(1998) stated that racial and income segregation had been "an integral element of the

feral housing policy from its inception" (p. 2).

Integration of race, ethnicity, and income within different groups is assumed to

help in job growth, improve education, develop healthy and adequate housing supply, and

alleviate residential segregation (Frey & Myers, 2002). As a result of a series of lawsuits

against the housing policies by the Chicago Housing Authority and HUD, the first

mobility program-the Gautreaux Program (1967-1998)-was born. It provided financial

and social assistance to relocate segregated minority public housing residents into

middle-income predominantly non-Hispanic white suburb communities. Given the

success of the Gautreaux program, in 1994 HUD funded more Moving to Opportunity

demonstration programs to relocate public housing families to low poverty









neighborhoods. The initial research studies of the Gautreaux program showed that

minority households had positive experiences of improved quality of life. However, the

newly integrated neighborhoods tended to re-segregate (Carr, 1999). In another study of

suburban segregation, Farley (1993) confirmed that white households tended to flee

integrated neighborhoods as the number of minority residents increases. After the Whites

left their old neighborhoods, the integrated neighborhoods became predominantly

minority or segregated. Stuart (2002) also concluded in his study of six metropolitan

areas in Chicago that although efforts to mix minorities with non-Hispanic white

neighbors had some effect in moderating segregation, this integration was only

temporary. Subsidies, mobility programs, Fair Housing access, enhancing city service,

and other programs had only a modest effect on segregation. These improvements were

slight and the pace was slow (Carr, 1999; Denton, 1999).

Instead of trying to eliminate segregation with minimum results, some scholars

(Brophy & Smith, 1997; Fischer, 1975; 1982; Schawrtz & Tajbakhsh, 1996; Suttles,

1972; Ward, LaGory, & Sherman, 1985) explored the benefits of segregation in certain

cases. For instance, segregation by choice may help residents to preserve their traditions

and culture, build self-respect, and provide social networks for a better job (Fischer,

1982). The residents' perspective became important in these segregation studies.

Sabatini, Caceres, and Cerda (2001) suggested incorporating subjective perceptions into

objective measures for segregation. Since she used census data rather than field data, she

could not include subjective perceptions in her model. In a recent study of residential

segregation, Squires, Friedman, and Saidat (2002) collected residents' opinions about

discrimination in housing. He asked the residents' preferences to race within an ideal









neighborhood, but he did not address the perceived segregation by the same minority

residents after living in their concurrent neighborhoods over a period of time. Therefore,

there is a need to address the perception of segregation of minority residents who live in a

segregated condition.

If segregated living promotes more benefits than problems, should segregation be

eliminated in every case? Is there a way to fight the negative social pathologies caused by

segregation rather than the form of spatial separation? In deciding whether or not

segregation occurs, which is more important: the observed segregation by figures or

perceived segregation by the residents?

Habitat families live in a segregated condition by definition. They differ only in

levels of segregation. The low-income Habitat families could only afford houses on

available and usually inexpensive lots within or near existing low-income neighborhoods.

All surrounding neighbors probably share similar financial backgrounds, race

composition, and education levels. Because a large number of Habitat families are within

a very-low income category, in a Habitat neighborhood, as compared to scattered sites,

the poverty level is higher and the segregation is assumed greater. Although research

(Mitchell & Warren, 1998) showed that Habitat families who lived in clusters or

subdivisions were more satisfied than families who lived in scattered homes, Habitat

affiliations, HUD city governors, and planners feel the pressure for integration. Some

Habitat affiliates try to mix Habitat families from different low-income levels, even

though the created "mixed-income" neighborhood is still, by definition, economically and

racially segregated to some degree. Since Habitat families participate in the building









process of the neighborhood, perhaps the residents in a racially segregated neighborhood

will not perceive segregation.

By comparing the human and social resources preserved in Habitat neighborhoods

and scattered sites, the results may help Habitat to understand the planning strategies.

These findings may be useful for other low-income housing programs, such as HUD,

USDA Rural Development housing programs, and non-profit programs.

Design participation

For affordability considerations, the design standards of Habitat houses are set by

Habitat for Humanity International. However, neither the architects nor Habitat decision-

makers are low-income householders. In a study that compared the preferences of

planners, architects, and laypersons, Jeffrey and Reynolds (1999) found that architects

developed different aesthetical criteria from the planners and the public. It is possible that

the mismatch of the physical forms and the user needs exists in a Habitat house design.

Sanoff (1992b) defined participation as the "face-to-face interaction of individuals

who share a number of values important to all, that is to say [,] a purpose for them being

together" (p. 55). Reis (2000) described design participation as "user control over aspects

of mass housing design, either in the design process or after construction" (p. 1). Design

participation may not only provide satisfying design solutions, but also empower the

users who take control of their lives (Sanoff, 2000).

A participatory design approach engaging the user body in the conceptual design

stage has been advocated by many scholars (Birdsey, McKinney, & Stouffer, 1998;

Hasell & Zhu, 2001; 2003; Sanoff, 1992a; 2000). The public had been viewed as a

passive patient who needed help from the outside "experts." With little local knowledge,

the experts presented the designs to a restricted group of decision-makers (Barrow, 2000).









The World Bank (1995) stated that participation in the design and implementation of

development efforts could enhance these efforts' impact. Becker (1977) related residents'

participation in the development process to a better-maintained physical environment,

greater public spirit, more user satisfaction, and significant changes. Dluhosch (1978)

asserted that habitable space design could be responsive and effective if it included the

user in the design process. Sanoff believes (2000) that "genuine participation occurs only

when people are empowered to control action taken" (p. 9). In a study of user

participation in passive social housing design, McLain-Kark (1986) identified the

positive relationship between design and owner-built participation and housing

satisfaction. However, he oversimplified the measure of participation, failed to identify

participation as a process, and did not explore the meaning of participation to the

residents. In 1994, Finn identified the selection of site, decor, and sometimes designs as

one of many empowering experiences of Habitat homeowners (Finn, 1994). But she did

not address how to improve the physical design. In 2000, Reis (2000) evaluated the

relationship between user participation and satisfaction with mass housing design across

three housing estates in Brazil. The evaluation showed positive evidence for the need of

user participation, and participation in the design process was preferred, as compared to

participation after construction. Since satisfaction with mass housing design may involve

many social and physical factors, such as neighborhood conditions and skills for upkeep,

Reis's study did not provide a holistic view of design participation.

Since Habitat is organized self-help housing, families have only limited control in

the planning and designing stage. They can choose within available lots, options of

layouts, interior and exterior colors, materials, and finishes. These design-related









activities begin before they start to build their own houses. The time spent in design

participation may or may not be counted as sweat equity hours according to individual

Habitat policies. Families' special needs may or may not be addressed if the design does

not satisfy their needs. Empirical evidence is needed to support design participation

within a Habitat context. The quantitative evidence may relate to satisfaction with the

house, satisfaction with design, and satisfaction with design participation. The qualitative

evidence may include users' opinions and suggestions about design of their concurrent

houses.

The literature review of sweat equity as participation, human and social resource

development, impact of physical settings, and design participation reveal several themes.

First, these concepts are important and need be defined in context. Second, normative

rather than empirical studies dominate the literature because of the complexity of the

phenomena. Third, no consensus has been reached to measure these concepts. Fourth, the

lack of previous studies that explore how sweat equity influence families' lives in terms

of human and social resource development in a Habitat context requires an in-depth

exploratory study.

Variable Measures

This research aims to gain a detailed understanding of the sweat equity process,

explore the relationship between sweat equity and human and social resource

developments, compare the impact of sweat equity in two physical settings, and identify

the role of design participation during the sweat equity process. The complexity of the

study, the lack of a prior research model and an existing database, and also an available

resource for a large-scale approach required an in-depth case study. According to Yin

(2003), a case study can incorporate both qualitative and quantitative data collections.









Documentation review and archival analysis help to build a sound research background.

Statistics focus on the questions of quantifiable measures, such as who, where, how

much, how many, and how often. Qualitative methods explore the how and why questions

(Yin, 2003). Using multiple methods in one case study provides a holistic view of sweat

equity.

Since the literature shows little consensus of measuring sweat equity, human and

social resources, and design participation, this study needed to incorporate existing scales

or design new instruments for this specific Habitat context. The criterion for choosing or

designing the instruments is whether or not the variables contribute to solving the long-

term house and neighborhood maintenance problems in Habitat.

Sweat Equity

Habitat uses the number of hours that family members contribute to their houses as

well as other families' houses to record sweat equity. However, no one tests whether or

not the measure is appropriate. Although sweat equity is regarded as a part of the

monetary down payment, the AREA study (Mitchell & Warren, 1998) found that the

most common benefit to the families was not the financial savings but the pride and

stability, and about 20% of the families felt inadequately prepared for homeownership.

Since the AREA study did not specify what families did during sweat equity specifically,

it could not answer the question of how to get families better prepared, or why pride and

stability are more important than financial savings. When Finn (1994) identified sweat

equity as an empowerment process in Habitat, she did not specify which activities

empowered the homeowners. Without empirical measures, both studies could not build

the relationship between sweat equity and a sense of homeownership or empowerment.









In this study, sweat equity is measured by the number of types of individual

activities, the meaning of sweat equity to the families, and the number of hours. The list

of activities (see Appendix 1) is developed from background research and personal

communications with local Habitat affiliates. The meaning of sweat equity is measured

by two questions concerning participants' feelings about the sweat equity on other

families' houses and on their own houses.

Human Resources

In the literature, human resources are defined as knowledge, skills, health, time,

interest, and commitment (Torjman, 1998). Skill levels, academic learning (OECD,

2001), skill training (Torjman, 1998), and the rates of return on investments (Barro, 2001;

Hanushek & Kimko, 2000) are the common measures of human resources. But these

measures do not fit in a Habitat context. For families with limited resources, these life

skills or academic or job training may not contribute directly to one's house and

neighborhood. Finn (1994) found that the house maintenance and management process

was not empowering because some families believed that Habitat should be responsible

for those problems, but Habitat disagreed. Without quantitative analyses and comparison,

Finn addressed only the responsibility issues and failed to look at other possibilities for

home maintenance problems: families lack the skills, confidence, and resources for home

maintenance so if the house needs repair, they could rely only on Habitat.

The other challenge in measuring human resources is to develop the appropriate

scales to measure the intangible psychological feelings. Self-esteem is one of the

common measures of psychological feelings in human resources. Self-esteem is defined

as how one values, approves, and likes oneself (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). Self-

esteem is believed to explain socioeconomic and psychological and social phenomena,









such as poverty, well-being, stress, locus of control, depression, and competitiveness

(Lever, Pinol, & Uralde, 2005; Twenge & Campbell, 2002). More than 200 scales have

been developed to measure self-esteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg,

1965) and the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (Coopersmith, 1981) are two of the

most popular scales. But the scales were developed to study the self-esteem of children.

They do not fit the profile of the low-income residents. Scheff and Fearon (2004)

reviewed the development of self-esteem measurements and found that although studies

about self-esteem tended to report positive results, these results were not consistent.

Because of its interrelationship with race, gender, ethnicity, social connections, and

socioeconomic status, the instrument design seldom met the requirement for each context

(Scheff & Fearson, 2004). Sometimes self-esteem was used to measure social resources.

Form example, Cohen, Mermelstein, Kamarck, and Hoberman (1985) included self-

esteem to measure social support, emphasizing the availability of a positive comparison

when one compares him or herself with others.

Place attachment, or the person-place relationship, is believed to have a positive

impact on one's socio-physical environment. Measures of home-based attachment

include positive evaluations, rootedness, safety, a sense of belonging, activities, and

identity (Harris, Brown, & Werner, 1996). Harris, Brown, and Werner (1996) examined

the relationship between privacy and place attachment to rental housing. They measured

attachment, satisfaction with the building, and feelings of rootedness. They also

addressed why people were attached, such as safety, connection, and identity. Although

they found positive results in the study, they suggested that ties to neighborhood,

aesthetic and functional characteristics of the setting, past experiences with the place









should be incorporated for a better understanding of the dynamic phenomenon of place

attachment. Vaske and Kobrin (2001) found that place attachment was related to

environmental responsible behaviors among students working in a natural-resource

program. They measured place attachment by place dependence and place identity, such

as satisfaction, importance of the place, and personal connection. However these

measures were chosen to examine connections with environment-friendly behaviors in a

natural park, not a place that people own and live everyday. Wells (2000) is conducting a

Habitat study that examines the well-being of the Habitat residents in relation to physical

housing conditions. She included place attachment, contentment, and privacy as the

environment scale. Since attachment is not her major research question, Wells uses a

simple 5-item scale to measure both home attachment and neighborhood attachment.

Other related measures about human resources include, but are not limited to, pride,

confidence, self-responsibility, and satisfaction. These intangible indicators are closely

related to how one feels about the self, the skills, or the physical house one possesses.

These may be incorporated in other scales such as sense of community or place

attachment, or defined differently in the setting (Rossi & Weber, 1996).

Social Resources

Social resources refer to the social connections among individuals, such as social

networks, the norms of reciprocity, and trustworthiness (Putnam, 2000). Different

disciplines have different emphases on social resources. The literature has shown that

consensus has not been reached on the universal scales to measure social resources, and

the studies of social capital often concentrate on organizations rather than individuals.

The psychological aspects of social resources were explored through various

emphases, including sense of community (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; McMillan,









1996; Perkins et al., 1990); attachment (Riger, 2001; Wells, 2000; Woolerver, 1992);

neighborhood cohesion (Buckner, 1988); and trust (Fukuyama, 1995; Narayan &

Pritchett, 1997). McMillan and Chavis' (1986) Sense of Community Index (SCI)

instrument is often preferred to as a basic measure of a community. It measures

membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and shared emotional

connection. Other researchers often adapt their instruments from the SCI to measure the

social capital for a certain context.

Social support, the resources provided by other persons, is believed to prevent

individuals from the pathogenic effects of stress (Cohen et al., 1985). Cohen and his

colleagues developed the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) to measure

tangible support, appraisal support (trust), self-esteem support, and belonging support.

The appraisal support or trust in the ISEL can be adapted in a neighborhood setting by

redefining the setting in the scales. Since they studied stress related support, the tangible

and belonging scales are too general in a neighborhood setting. Ungers and Wandersman

(1983) used a 10-item scale to measure the neighboring activities. Respondents were

asked the social contact and willingness to exchange goods and services with neighbors.

Rather than measuring neighboring activities, Unger and Wandersman's scale measures

social support in a neighborhood. The measures of neighboring activities, however, are

better designed in Skjaeveland and Garling's (1997) Multidimensional Measure of

Neighboring in an attempt to examine the effects of interactional space on neighboring.

The 14-item scale included the weak social ties (frequent contacts), social support,

attachment, and annoyance.









Pride, neighborhood satisfaction, and safety are also related to how individuals feel

about their neighborhood (Basolo & Strong, 2002; Rohe & Stegman, 1994a). These

indicators should be incorporated into the instruments as well. Reciprocity occurs when

one helps others after receiving help. Habitat families help other families to build houses

and then receive help to build their own. However it is unknown after receiving the help,

whether or not and why they would continue to help in building a Habitat house, or help

neighbors and the neighborhood. In the latter case, reciprocity is reflected in a sense of

obligation to the neighborhood.

Although no study has focused on segregation issues in Habitat, the AREA study

(Mitchell & Warren, 1998) showed that Habitat families in clusters or neighborhoods felt

more satisfied compared to those who lived in scattered sites. This finding contradicts

general beliefs about the negative pathology of segregation. Segregation is usually

measured by Massey and Denton's (1988) dissimilarity index. Using administrative

records or census data, scholars (Abramson, Tobin, & VanderGoot, 1995; Farley,

Fielding, & Krysan, 1997; Van Ryzin & Genn, 1999) usually confirm or compare the

changes of residential segregation level. However there is an emerging need to address

the perception of segregation from the residents' points of view.

Design participation

The literature has shown that the physical design contributed to neighborhood

development and social activities (Bothwell, Gindroz, & Lang, 1998; Torres-Antonini,

2001). Basolo and Strong (2002) examined the relationship between house conditions and

satisfaction in New Orleans. The result showed that housing conditions and safety-but

not social contact-were important to explain neighborhood satisfaction. On the contrary,

Torress-Antonini (2001) found that social contact was as important as the physical









common house design in co-housing. They both focused on design features and

overlooked whether the residents had the social skills or needed to develop those social

skills that were necessary for social contact. Finn (1994) found that participating in the

design process was empowering to Habitat homeowners but she did not provide measures

of design participation. Design participation needs to be identified at three stages:

planning, exterior design, and interior design in a Habitat context.

The literature provides a pool of instruments that may help to measure sweat

equity, human and social resources, and design participation within a Habitat context.

This case study addresses how and whether or not partner families accumulate social

resources through sweat equity within a Habitat context. According to the research

questions listed in the following section, maintenance and financing skills, self-esteem,

perceptions of skills, satisfaction, attachment to homes, frequency of maintenance, and a

sense of obligation are appropriate for measuring human resource development.

Neighboring, social support, neighborhood involvement, sense of community, trust,

attachment to neighborhood, and segregation seem appropriate for social resource

measurement in this case study. The measures of the perception of segregation and design

participation need be developed according to the specific setting.

Summary

Sweat equity as participation or self-help has contributed to solving housing

problems for centuries. However, it was seldom studied as a learning and sharing process.

Habitat defines sweat equity as the number of hours a family contributes, and does not

specify individual activities. The impacts of sweat equity are claimed with normative

statements rather than empirical studies. Design participation is not specified during the

sweat equity process. Unlike HUD's emphasis strictly on the physical environment,






64


Habitat integrates the concepts of doing, learning, and sharing to solve both physical and

social problems for partner families. The complexity of the sweat equity process and the

variety of resources that families accumulate during sweat equity require an in-depth case

study. Sweat equity is dynamic, multi-dimensional, and context-specific. The instruments

in this study are exclusively selected and designed to measure sweat equity and human

and social resource development in the local Habitat context.














CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research responds to a perceived absence in the literature of empirical studies

of sweat equity from Habitat partner families' points of view. Due to the complexity of

the sweat equity process within a Habitat context, a case study will serve as a foundation

to understand sweat equity as a holistic learning-by-doing and sharing process. This

research explores the relationships between sweat equity and human and social resource

development, compares resource maintenance between families in Habitat neighborhoods

versus families in scattered sites, and examines design participation in a Habitat context.

This chapter explains the logic for the research design, introduces the research settings,

presents the implementation of the research processes, defines the instruments as well as

the analytical methods, and recognizes the limitations of this study.

Case Study Paradigm

A case study is "an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon

within its real-life context" (Yin, 2003, p. 13). According to Yin (2003), a case study is

preferred for contemporary phenomena in which the researcher has little control over the

conditions and seeks what, how and why questions for a complete understanding of the

phenomena. The case study inquiry explores yet-to-be-identified indicators, copes with a

huge number of variables, and incorporates multiple sources of evidence. Although

eminent for its power of qualitative analysis, a case study is a research paradigm rather

than a qualitative method for data collection (Berg, 2001). For Yin, a case study

"comprises an all-encompassing method-covering the logic of design, data collection









techniques, and specific approaches to data analysis" (2003, p. 14). Therefore, the case

study methodology allows investigators to "retain the holistic and meaningful

characteristics of real-life events" (Yin, 2003, p. 2).

Habitat for Humanity International is a unique self-help housing administration that

partners with caring people and those who are in need. Local Habitat for Humanity

(Habitat) affiliates develop their own organizational structures to satisfy their respective

community needs. Partner families have different experiences even within the same

affiliate. The scope of the causal links between sweat equity and the outcomes is too

complex for experiments or surveys. The study of Habitat sweat equity and its impact on

families' lives explores what, how, and why questions. For example, what skills do

Habitat families learn during sweat equity? Why do partner families help their neighbors?

How do partner families feel about design participation? The needs for exploring yet-to-

be-identified indicators and analyzing numerous variables require an in-depth case study.

Research Setting

Because of time and resource constraints, a case study was conducted among three

regional Habitat affiliates in northern Florida: Alachua Habitat for Humanity (Alachua

Habitat) in Alachua County, Florida; Habitat for Humanity of Jacksonville (HabiJax) in

Jacksonville, Florida; and Habitat for Humanity for Greater Ocala (Ocala Habitat) in

Ocala, Florida. A pilot study was conducted in the Alachua Habitat in order to

preliminarily explore the sweat equity process and refine the research instruments. A

principal study was carried out in all three affiliates. The three affiliates were

incorporated with Habitat International in the late 1980s or early 1990s, focusing on new

construction. Almost all new construction is in low-income neighborhoods that are in

disrepair. More Habitat houses are planned in scattered sites than those in strictly Habitat









neighborhoods. The majority of partner families are single-parent families (more than

75.00%).

Although the general guidelines are similar, these affiliates have their own

requirements for sweat equity. They differ in the minimum hours, what activities are

included, how families are prepared in training, how they are involved in design

participation, and the strategies for maintenance and community problems.

Sweat equity. Alachua Habitat regards sweat equity as the willingness to be a

partner family (Feather, D., personal communication, May 12, 2003). HabiJax expands

sweat equity as the willingness to help with other families' houses as well as their own

houses, to abide by the HabiJax rules, and to become involved in their neighborhood.

Ocala Habitat (Nimmo, B., personal communication, June 11, 2003) defines sweat equity

as "the physical labor the partner family puts into building of their home to replace the

traditional monetary down payment."

Table 3-1. Distribution of Sweat Equity Hours in Three Habitat Affiliates
Mutual Help Self-help Total Hours
Hours on Public Hours on Other Hours on One's
and Training Families' Houses Own House
Alachua Habitat 50 150 200 400
HabiJax N/A 200 100-300 300-500
Ocala Habitat 150 100 250 500

Table 3-1 shows how sweat equity hours are distributed in the three affiliates.

Alachua Habitat required 100 hours during the early 1990s. Currently, Alachua Habitat

requires 400 sweat equity hours, 150 of which contribute to building other families'

houses and 50 hours to other public activities before they build their own homes. Sweat

equity includes the work a partner family puts on construction, working for the Habitat

office, and training.









HabiJax requests 200 hours on other families' houses and at least 100 hours on

one's own house. The standard 300 hours is the target for families between 30% and 50%

of area median income (AMI). HabiJax is considering more hours for families between

50% and 80% of AMI.1 In turn, the houses are more expensive with better designs. The

additional hours include leadership training, participation in neighborhood organizations,

and leading volunteers. Three hundred hours are required in the surveyed neighborhood.

Ocala Habitat requires a minimum of sweat equity hours of 500. Out of the 500

hours, 100 hours are delegated to community services in other non-profit organizations,

50 hours in the classroom, 100 hours working on someone else's home, and 100 hours on

their own home. Another 150 hours are required on construction work, but they can be

completed either by friends or family members.

Training. In Alachua Habitat, training courses include budget, home maintenance

and repair, and issues about legal homeownership and insurance. These courses are

available on a regular basis. Families must finish these courses before they finish building

their own houses.

HabiJax has similar training content except for one experimental component-

leadership. Families have a chance to learn to be a "leader" in certain fields so that these

families can become special players either on the construction sites or in neighborhood

activities. However, no leadership training was provided in the surveyed neighborhood.

In Ocala Habitat, the weekly provided training includes: concepts of Habitat;

budget; home maintenance and repair; appliance repair; credit improvement; landscaping;

neighboring skills (neighborhood maintenance); mortgage; and closing papers.

1 Habitat provides affordable housing to very low- and low-income families. Their incomes range from
30% to 80% of the area median income.









Design participation. During the early years of partnering with families, designers

in Alachua Habitat worked with families for customized design details. As Habitat

evolved, families retained multiple options in such areas as layout designs, colors, and

finishes for interiors and exteriors, but they seldom could change the structure, size of

rooms, or add any opening. Families can choose the design after completing 200 hours.

When HabiJax families finish at least 100 hours, they can choose their houses from

different floor plans and elevations. Families can pick the colors for carpet, shudders, and

siding from color brochures, and choose either stucco or brick as an exterior finish

material. Usually choices of matching colors are provided by paint companies. Fairway

Oaks was built in a 17-day community blitz.2 Planning and design work were done before

family selection started. The exterior colors were determined by the location of the lot.

In Ocala Habitat, once a family completes 50% of the community service hours and

50% of the classroom hours (a total of 175 hours), the family is assigned a house. Partner

families can choose the color for their siding. The color of shutters and front doors will

complement the siding color, and the color of carpet/vinyl and color of countertop will be

complementary. Families cannot choose among materials or change the layout design.

However, they can influence their landscaping through workshops and choosing different

plants provided by the Master Gardeners program in the county Agriculture Extension

Office. Selecting colors occurs during the 50 classroom hours, or design participation is

counted as sweat equity in Ocala Habitat.




2 A blitz build in Habitat refers to building a group of houses at a concentrated period of time. Volunteers
and families work together everyday until houses are finished. Among the Habitat houses investigated in
this study, only families in HabiJax had a blitz build. Other houses were built only during weekends and the
process took months to finish.









Problems. Finn (1994) found that some home maintenance and repair problems

were caused by volunteers' unprofessional work. Families thought that since they paid

for the house, Habitat was responsible for the quality of their houses. However, Habitat

argued that a house needed regular maintenance and would encounter repair problems

when the house aged, and that Habitat should not be responsible for long-term

maintenance and repair problems.

In this study, some Habitat homeowners asked Habitat affiliates for financial and

technical help in maintenance and repair. Alachua Habitat collects a $20 maintenance

escrow each month. When families have some maintenance or repair problems, they can

use the money for material or professional services. Since a supervisor is assigned to

ensure the quality of the projects, Habitat asserts that there is no complaint about the

quality of those well-constructed houses.

HabiJax usually sends families who request financial assistance to other

organizations. Although maintenance escrows are collected in HabiJax, the response to

the requests for assistance with home maintenance and repair is based on needs. For

example, volunteers and other homeowners respond to those requests submitted by

disabled homeowners and the elderly.

Ocala Habitat does not require a maintenance escrow. Approximately 20% to 25%

of Habitat homeowners ask for assistance with home maintenance and repair. Eight

regular volunteers respond to maintenance and repair needs. Requesting such assistance

often occurs during the first year of homeownership. After living one year in their new

houses, according to Ocala Habitat, most partner families are self-sufficient.









The other challenge Habitat faces is the architectural integrity within the

community. Habitat's limited resources do not permit much variety in floor plans and

elevations. As the number of Habitat houses has increased over years of effort, the

limitation on house styles and concentration of low-income families raised some adverse

comments in the city and some neighborhoods. For example, some city community

leaders and politicians objected to the homogenous low-income population, repetitive

designs, and less diverse architectural styles in HabiJax neighborhoods. Responding to

the challenges, HabiJax is seeking more design styles and to mixing families from 30%

of the area median income (AMI) with families from 80% of the AMI.

Sampling and Data Collection

Different from large-scale surveys or experiments, case studies use in-depth

evidence to explore unidentified indicators and relationships. Sampling is employed for

an unbiased selection of participants rather than statistical generalization. The description

of the sampling methods serves to facilitate future case studies within a similar

theoretical framework.

This research had two steps: a pilot study and a principal study. Since gender plays

a role in the informal network (Moore, 1990), gender differences were avoided by

interviewing only female householders. Sampling was based on convenience and

volunteerism. The two-step research procedures were similar except that respondents in

the pilot study were interviewed twice (before and during receiving help from others),

and in the principal study respondents were interviewed once.

When the pilot study started in Alachua Habitat in September 2002, 11 eligible

families were working on other families' houses. All 11 families were invited to

participate in the pilot study. A total of eight participants responded to the first wave of









data collection. Since the construction process was slower than the schedule, retaining

participants during the second wave became difficult. Four of the eight respondents

completed the second wave of this study. The pilot study served as the tests for

instruments and the protocol.

The principal study began after the first wave of the pilot study. As of April 2003,

more than 1,000 Habitat families live in HabiJax, 60 families in Alachua Habitat, and 88

families in Ocala Habitat. Since Alachua Habitat is in the process of building its first

Habitat neighborhood, the other two affiliates provided initial contact information for

families living in a neighborhood setting. Alachua Habitat provided contact information

for families living in scattered sites. From the lists of contact information, each family

was assigned a random number generated by the computer. Sorted by the random

numbers, the top 30 families on each list were contacted. If any of the top 30 families

declined to participate, the following name on the random list was contacted.

Once identified through Habitat affiliates, potential respondents were sent an

introductory letter, consent form, and self-administered survey either through mail or in

person. The survey took 10 to 20 minutes to complete. Within two weeks, the researcher

contacted the homeowners by phone and set up the interview time for the willing

respondents. The interviews consisted of close-ended and open-ended questions. With

permission from participants, the interviews were tape-recorded. The consent form and

survey were collected during the interview. Each interview took 30 to 40 minutes. No

compensation was provided for the initial protocol. However, many interviews were

missed because some families would not contact the researcher when they rescheduled.

To solve the problem, the College of Design, Construction and Planning at the University









of Florida sponsored the researcher so that each participant could get up to $20 as

compensation. The compensation increased the response rate. If a participant wanted to

see the report on the study, a brief was provided.

In the principal study, a total of 49 partner families were recruited from May 2003

to November 2004. Participants in neighborhoods were identified through HabiJax and

Ocala Habitat. Twenty-eight responses were collected in these neighborhoods.

Participants in scattered sites were identified through the Alachua Habitat office, and 21

responses were collected in scattered sites.

Operational Definitions and Measures

The operational definitions and measures are organized within a detailed

conceptual framework, as shown in Figure 3-1. Participation or sweat equity is positioned

as the independent variables include: 1) the total number of sweat equity hours; 2) the

number of types of sweat equity activities (training, construction, public activities, and

design participation); and 3) the qualitative measures of sweat equity. The dependent

variables are divided into groups of human resource and social resource indicators,

categorized under two physical settings-scattered sites and Habitat neighborhoods,

respectively. Both human and social resources consist of tangible and intangible

measures. Tangible measures are practical or realistic measures that are usually recorded

with numbers or described with facts. Intangible measures refer to psychological feelings

and perceptions.










Independent Variables



Total number of sweat
equity hours



Number of types of
sweat equity activities
* Lecture training
* Learning by doing
and sharing
o Public activities
o Construction
o Design
participation


Qualitative measures of
sweat equity










Control Variables



Demographics
* Age
* Education
* Economic level
* Length of residency
* Marital status


Dependent Variables


Human Resources


Social Resources


* Maintenance skills Neighboring
* Financing skills Social support
* Frequency of house Neighborhood
maintenance involvement


* Pride in skills
* Confidence in skills
* Pride in house
* House attachment
* Self-responsibility
* Self-esteem
* House satisfaction
* Design solution
satisfaction
* Design participation
satisfaction


Maintenance skills
Financing skills
Frequency of house
maintenance


* Pride in skills
* Confidence in skills
* Pride in house
* House attachment
* Self-responsibility
* Self-esteem
* House satisfaction
* Design solution
satisfaction
* Design participation
satisfaction


* Pride in
neighborhood
* Satisfaction with
neighborhood
* Safety
* Neighborhood
attachment
* Sense of
community
* Trust in neighbors
* Reciprocity
* Sense of
obligation
* Segregation


Neighboring
Social support
Neighborhood
involvement


* Pride in
neighborhood
* Satisfaction with
neighborhood
* Safety
* Neighborhood
attachment
* Sense of
community
* Trust in neighbors
* Reciprocity
* Sense of
obligation
* Segregation


Legend
I I Tangible measures
I | Intangible measures


Figure 3-1. Conceptual framework for the doing, learning, and sharing process of sweat
equity within the context of Habitat for Humanity International.









In Figure 3-1, tangible measures are indicated with a solid color, and intangible

measures are indicated with diagonal shading. Human resources refer to the skills,

behaviors, and individuals' perceptions of the self and the house. Social resources refer to

the behaviors in the neighborhood and the perceptions of neighbors and the

neighborhood. The arrows indicate the theoretical relationships between factors that is

being tested in this study. See Appendix A: Survey Instruments and Appendix B:

Interview Questions for detailed measures. Individual operational definitions and

measures are explained along with the review of the research hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: Sweat equity contributes to human and social resource development.

Sweat Equity. Sweat equity refers to the time and effort in which partner families

invest to collectively build and maintain their houses, as well as human and social

resources. Quantitatively, sweat equity is measured by the number of hours respondents

completed and the number of types of activities in which they become involved. A higher

score indicates a higher level of participation. The activities are grouped into training,

public activities, construction, and design participation. Since design participation is not

counted as sweat equity in every Habitat, design participation will be explored separately.

Training refers to the perception of the training courses. On a 4-point Likert scale,

respondents are asked to rate the organization, depth, and usefulness of training, and their

desire to learn more household repairs. Two open-ended questions are used to explore

what families would like to learn. Public participation is measured by Yes or No to

whether or not families have participated in certain public activities during sweat equity.

Construction participation is measured by Yes or No to whether or not they have

performed certain construction activities and for whom (self or others).









Sweat equity is also qualitatively measured by the meaning of sweat equity: what

Habitat sweat equity affords Habitat families. Four sets of open-ended questions are used

to explore: 1) why families choose to work with Habitat; 2) how they feel about helping

others and self-helping; 3) what the advantages in sweat equity are (See Appendix B:

Interview Questions for detailed measures); and 4) what the drawbacks of sweat equity

are and suggestions for a change.

Human resource development. Human resources refer to the skills and house-

related behaviors and perceptions of the individuals and the house. Human resources

include: house maintenance skills; financing skills; frequency of house maintenance;

pride in skills; confidence in skills; pride in house; house attachment; self-responsibility;

self-esteem; house satisfaction; design solution satisfaction; and design participation

satisfaction.

Maintenance skills are the skills that a family needs to keep a house in good

condition by regular maintenance and repair when appropriate. On a 4-point Likert scale,

maintenance skills are measured by the perception of the skill levels. Respondents are

asked to rate 15 statements about how skilled they feel in doing the listed maintenance

and repair tasks. A higher score indicates more maintenance skills.

Financing skills refer to the ability to pay mortgages in time. On a 4-point Likert

scale, respondents are asked to rate two statements about their budgeting and on-time

payment. A higher score indicates stronger financing skills.

House maintenance consists of activities one performs in order to keep a house in

good condition. House maintenance is measured by the frequency of home maintenance

and repair performance during the past six months. A higher score indicates more









frequent house maintenance. Two questions are used to explore whether or not they could

maintain and repair the house by themselves; if not, from whom would they ask for

assistance and why.

Pride in skills refers to the pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement. On a 4-

point Likert scale, respondents are asked to rate one statement about their pride in self-

accomplishment. A higher score indicates greater pride in skills.

Confidence in skills refers to one's self-assurance in the ability to maintain a house.

On a 4-point Likert scale, respondents are asked to rate one statement about their

confidence with future home maintenance and repairs. A higher score indicates greater

confidence in skills.

Pride in house refers to the pleasure or satisfaction taken in one's house. On a 4-

point Likert scale, respondents are asked to rate one statement about their pride in the

house. A higher score indicates a greater pride in the house.

House attachment is the emotional tie to one's house. House attachment is

measured by two items in regard to personal connection and a home-like feeling (Wells,

2000). A higher score indicates a stronger attachment to one's house.

Self-responsibility is the attitude one has toward house maintenance and repair. On

a 4-point Likert scale, respondents are asked to rate the statement about their

responsibility for home maintenance and repair. A higher score indicates a stronger self-

responsibility for house maintenance and repair.

Self-esteem refers to how one perceives oneself compared to others (Cohen et al.,

1985). Self-esteem is measured by a 10-item scale, adapted from a subscale of the

Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) (Cohen et al., 1985). Cohen, Mermelstein,









Kamarck, and Hoberman used ISEL to measure perceived availability and quality of

potential social support. The 40-item ISEL scale measures: appraisal support (trust);

belonging support (availability of people to share with); tangible support (instrumental

help); and self-esteem support (positive comparison when comparing oneself with

others). In a study of the buffering effect of ISEL on stress, appraisal and self-esteem

significantly contributed to accounted variance independently (Cohen et al., 1985). The

self-esteem and appraisal scales are more suitable to measure support in a neighborhood

than belonging and tangible scales that measure general social support. The ISEL self-

esteem subscale is correlated with the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale at 0.74.

House satisfaction is the fulfillment of the house toward one's desires or needs. On

a 4-point Likert scale, respondents are asked to rate one statement about satisfaction with

the overall house. A higher score indicates a greater satisfaction with one's house.

Design solution satisfaction refers to the fulfillment of the house design to a

family's desires or needs. The house design includes: interior colors, finishes, and

layouts; exterior colors, finishes, and yard; lot selection; and public space planning.

Regarding each design phase, participants choose Yes, No, or Not know to the question

"Are you satisfied with the current design?" On a 4-point Likert scale, overall design

solution satisfaction is rated on two items: how a respondent is satisfied with their present

house and neighborhood. A higher score indicates greater satisfaction with the design of

the house.

Design participation satisfaction refers to the fulfillment of design participation to

satisfy one's desires or needs. On a 4-point Likert scale, participants are asked to rate

their satisfaction with the level of involvement in the design process for their house and









also the satisfaction of selecting color and finishes for their house. A higher score

indicates greater satisfaction with design participation.

Social resource development. Social resources refer to the social behaviors within

the neighborhood and the perceptions of neighbors and the neighborhood. Social

resources include: neighboring; social support; neighborhood involvement; pride in

neighborhood; satisfaction with the neighborhood; safety; neighborhood attachment; a

sense of community; trust in neighbors; reciprocity; a sense of obligation; and

segregation.

Neighboring refers to the informal daily interactions or social network activities

among residents. In order to better define the concept of a "neighbor" from a resident's

perspective, respondents are first asked how many neighbors they have. Then they are

asked the number of neighbors they greet (Skjaeveland & Garling, 1997), the number of

neighbors they consider close friends (Unger & Wandersman, 1983), the number of

neighbors they visit and the number of times they visit their neighbors (Skjaeveland &

Garling, 1997). Higher numbers indicate more frequent neighboring.

Social support refers to the behavioral supportive system that provides individuals

with socioemotional and material aids when neighbors frequently interact with one

another informally (Unger & Wandersman, 1983). Social support is measured by eight

items. On a 4-point Likert scale, respondents are asked to rate the statements about

borrowing for cooking (Skjaeveland & Garling, 1997), helping with other Habitat houses,

and asking family members rather than neighbors to help with repair problems. Adapted

from Unger's Neighboring Activities, respondents are then asked the number of neighbors

from whom they would seek assistance, such as borrowing tools, watching the house,









helping with house repair, needing a ride (Unger & Wandersman, 1983), and watching

children. Unger's scale has an alpha reliability coefficient of 0.88 and a Spearman-Brown

reliability coefficient of 0.89. A higher score indicates better social support.

Neighborhood involvement refers to the extent to which a Habitat family

participates in activities that contribute to neighborhood building. Respondents are asked

whether or not they are involved in neighborhood associations and neighborhood

activities, such as crime watch or cleanup. A higher score indicates greater involvement

in the neighborhood.

Pride in neighborhood is the pleasure or satisfaction taken into being part of a

neighborhood. On a 4-point Likert scale, respondents are asked to rate the statements

about shame in the neighborhood. A higher score indicates a lower pride in the

neighborhoods.

Satisfaction with neighborhood refers to the fulfillment or gratification one has

toward her neighborhood. On a 4-point Likert scale, respondents are asked to rate one

statement about satisfaction with the overall neighborhood. A higher score indicates a

lower satisfaction with the neighborhood.

Safety is the feeling of being protected from danger in one's neighborhood. On a 4-

point Likert scale, respondents are asked to rate two statements about feeling safe during

the daytime and nighttime. A higher score indicates a higher sense of safety in the

neighborhood.

Neighborhood attachment refers to the emotional ties to one's neighborhood.

Neighborhood attachment is measured by three items in relation to comfort, belonging









(Wells, 2000), and personal contact (Skjaeveland & Garling, 1997). A higher score

indicates a stronger attachment to one's neighborhood.

A sense of community is defined by McMillan and Chavis (1986) as "a feeling that

members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the

group, and a shared faith that members' needs will be met through their commitment to

be together" (p. 9). A sense of community is measured by a 12-item scale, adapted from

McMillan and Chavis' Sense of Community Index (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). The

Sense of Community Index (SCI) measures: membership (belonging), influence

(community cohesiveness), integration and fulfillment of needs (common needs, goals,

and values), and shared emotional connection. The overall reliability of SCI of an adult in

a neighborhood setting was 0.66 (Chipuer & Pretty, 1999). A higher score indicates a

greater sense of community. An open-ended question is used to explore the qualities of a

good neighborhood.

Trust refers to the "perceived availability of confidants to talk to about one's

difficulties" (Cohen et al., 1985, p. 74). During sweat equity, Habitat families usually

develop trust in Habitat partners in general, and trust in neighbors contributes to the

growth of a neighborhood. The 9-item scale of trust in neighbors is adapted from the

appraisal subscale of the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) (Cohen et al.,

1985). Cohen, Mermelstein, Kamarck, and Hoberman (1985) reported the internal

reliability of ISEL ranged from 0.77 to 0.86 in general, and 0.77 to 0.92 for appraisal.

Respondents are asked to choose True or False to the statements in relation to their trust

in neighbors. A higher score indicates greater trust in one's neighbors.









Reciprocity refers to the dedication to mutual commitment and the ability to help.

On a 4-point Likert scale, respondents are asked to rate one statement about their

willingness to help others to build houses after their own houses were completed. A

higher score indicates greater willingness to help as well as having the skills to help. Four

sets of open-ended questions are used to explore why people do or do not help each other.

These four questions include: 1) why they ask a neighbor for help; 2) whether or not they

can maintain and repair their houses and if not, whom would they ask for assistance and

why; 3) whether or not they would help neighbors and why; and 4) whether or not they

care about receiving help from neighbors first and expect to receive assistance in return

from the same person.

A sense of obligation refers to bonding to one's neighborhood through actions or

the involvement in a neighborhood association. Respondents are asked whether or not

they have a homeowner association in their neighborhoods. If the answer is Yes,

respondents are asked how often the association holds meetings and how often they

attend meetings. A sense of obligation is also explored as to why they would or would

not attend these meetings and their suggestions for the existing or future organization.

Segregation refers to the perception of being segregated for families living in a

place "that is highly centralized, spatially concentrated, unevenly distributed, tightly

clustered, and minimally exposed to majority members" (Massey & Denton, 1988, p.

283). On a 4-point Likert scale, respondents are asked to rate two statements about

perception of economic segregation and racial segregation. A higher score indicates a

stronger feeling of being segregated.









Hypothesis 2: A difference exists in the maintenance of the resource developments in
Habitat neighborhoods versus scattered sites.

Scattered sites refer to locations where no other Habitat homes exist on the same

street, or where few Habitat houses exist on the same street-with less than 10 Habitat

houses on the same block.

Habitat neighborhoods refer to locations where 10 or more Habitat houses are

clustered, or where Habitat houses are surrounded only by homes built by Habitat on the

same block.

Hypothesis 3: A relationship exists between users' participation in house design and
the satisfaction with the results of their participation.

Design participation means the extent to which the homeowners participate in the

decision-making during the design process of their own houses. Design participation is

measured by two parts: 1) Yes or No to the question whether or not families have taken

part in design activities for the following eight areas; and 2) the number of sweat equity

hours a respondent completed when she began the design-related processes. The design

activities include: selecting the lot; choosing interior and exterior colors and finishes; and

taking part in the interior layout design, yard design, and public space planning. The

higher total number of the types of design activities with which a family becomes

involved indicates greater design participation. The meaning of design participation is

explored through an open-ended question, "How do you feel about selecting interior

colors and finishes for your house?" Respondents are also asked whether or not they

would like to have more influence over the design of their houses and to specify their

suggestions for both interiors and exteriors.









Analytical Techniques

Due to the complexity of the data, multiple methods were used to analyze data. The

self-administered survey responses were coded, transferred to a computer spreadsheet,

verified for accuracy, and input into statistical models. The open-ended interviews were

transcribed as narratives for content analysis. Since it was a multi-factor study with a

small sample size, the assumption of normal distribution and equal variance within

groups were needed for statistical analysis.

Quantitative data were described by their mean, median, range, and standard

deviation. Crosstab statistics, hierarchical cluster analysis (Dendrogram), and factor

analysis were used to analyze data preliminarily. Controlled by such variables as

education, income, age, and employment, the new generated data were analyzed using the

General Linear Model, Univariate model, Multivariate model, Kendall's correlation, and

analysis of variance (ANOVA). Once interaction effects were found, no individual

effects were explored further. The alpha or level of significance was set at 0.05.

For qualitative data, content analysis is a common analytic method to draw

replicable and valid inferences on the basis of the absence or presence of attributes in

texts for cultural, social, psychological, and behavioral studies (Holsti, 1969;

Krippendorf, 1980; Weber, 1990). Content analysis helps to quantify and analyze the

presence, meanings, and relationships of interview responses within the Habitat context.

It also allows the researcher to cross-validate findings obtained by surveys.

After interview responses were transcribed verbatim, the data frequency counts and

data mining generated the broad categories. Since the interviews were semi-structured,

the responses in relation to psychological feelings were recorded as ordinal scales to

reveal the prominence of the attributes. The identified themes were then examined by









conceptual analysis or relationship analysis for the presence of concepts and the

relationships between the concepts and data obtained from survey. A common coding

frame was devised in order to allow for comparison for responses across questions. The

results of content analysis were reported in tabulation and narratives. Since data were

recorded manually, the researcher recorded the same responses twice over a period of one

month.

Validity and Reliability

Since case studies are context-specific, the criticism of case studies is focused on

the qualities of case studies, including validity, reliability, and difficulties to build a

cause-and-effect relationship and generalize the findings. Compared to secondary data

analysis, survey research, and field experiments, case studies may not build strong cause-

impact correlations and apply generalization laws. But case studies have the advantage to

explore complex phenomena when other methods are not applicable.

The criteria for judging the quality of a case study have different constructs from

quantitative research. For a positivist paradigm, the constructs include: objectivity;

reliability; internal validity (rigor and/or causal relationships); external validity

(generalization); and construct validity (correct operational measures) (Kidder & Judd,

1986; Yin, 2003). Validity tests the degree to which a study assesses accurately the

research concept. The validity of case studies can be improved by using multiple methods

for data collections, such as documents, archival records/protocol analyses, open-ended

interviews, focus group interviews, structured interviews and surveys, field studies, direct

observations, and participant observations (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Reliability tests

the extent to which an experiment, instrument, or procedure yields the same result over

time. Reliability is also concerned with whether two items measure identical concepts,









the precision between the observers or of the instruments, and the consistency of the

implementation of a rating system. For a naturalistic paradigm, scholars suggested using

credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability to judge qualitative research

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Merriam, 1985).

This research follows the positivist paradigm because it contains both qualitative

and quantitative methods to collect and analyze data. The methods adopted in this study

were derived from Yin's (2003) suggestions for building the validity and reliability in

case studies: using multiple sources of evidence and multiple cases; following case study

protocol; developing a database; and guiding by theory or logic models.

The validity of this case study was strengthened by multiple sources of information,

including documents, archival records, personal communication with Habitat affiliates,

interviews with residents, and structured surveys. A triangulation was formed in seeking

evidence from a wide range of different, independent sources and by different means. For

a better understanding for participants, these quantitative measures were categorized

under sweat equity, feelings about themselves, their house, their neighbors, and their

neighborhood. The interview questions mainly addressed how families felt about sweat

equity and why they helped their neighbors. Additional sources of data included

newsletters, flyers, training booklets, copies of policy statements, Habitat International

online resources, Habitat World magazine, and observations at the local Habitat Board of

Trustees meeting and construction sites. Based on the learning-by-doing theory and the

generalized social exchange theory, the theoretical framework (see Figure 3-1) helped to

construct the external validity. If replicating the logic in multiple cases is available in the

future, the external validity will be reinforced.









It is possible that a causal factor was not accounted for regarding the relationships

between sweat equity and human and social resource development. The internal validity

was considered by constructing patterns and explanations from the extensive literature

review. With the help from research professionals and Habitat affiliates, a research

protocol was developed and submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the

University of Florida. Any changes in the research protocol were reported to the IRB.

The reliability of this study was taken into account in conducting a pilot study to test the

measures and procedures. The pilot study protocol was also approved by IRB. It was

conducted in a local Habitat whose families were in the middle of their sweat equity

hours. Although the responses might be different from those in principal study that

engaged Habitat homeowners, the pilot study showed that the procedures were operative

and families understood the instruments. The pilot study also helped the researcher

control the interview time and enhanced interview skills. Since the pilot study was

successful, the principal study followed similar procedure and instruments with minor

changes appropriate for homeowners rather than potential homeowners.

Limitations of This Study

The limitations of this study reside in the nature of the study and external

constraints imposed by time and resources. Since sweat equity policies in Habitat

affiliates are different from one another and partner families are pre-selected to enter this

program, it is possible that opinions of the participants in this study are different from

those in other affiliates or those who quit the program during the sweat equity process.

The volunteerism sampling strategy may separate the participants who volunteered in this

study and those who did not want to participate. Because of the scale of this case study, it

is unwise to generalize the results to other housing programs. As Yin (2003) indicated,