<%BANNER%>

Theft and Vandalism on Industrial and Roofing Construction Projects

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022176/00001

Material Information

Title: Theft and Vandalism on Industrial and Roofing Construction Projects
Physical Description: 1 online resource (75 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Theft and vandalism can compromise the successful performance of any construction project. To avoid or minimize such events, appropriate countermeasures must often be implemented. This study was conducted to determine the extent of theft and vandalism incidents on industrial and roofing construction project sites and also to identify methods that construction firms have employed to help curb the problem. A survey was sent out to both industrial contractors and roofing contractors to determine the types of experiences that they had had with theft and vandalism and also to identify measures that they had adopted to curb such incidents of theft and vandalism on their project sites. The analysis of the responses resulted in the following conclusions: Theft and vandalism are not unique to any particular type of firm. Theft and vandalism are a greater problem in industrial construction than in roofing construction. Tools are the highest valued items stolen from both industrial and roofing contractors. The implementation of a good jobsite security plan can be helpful in reducing the incidents of theft and vandalism on project sites.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Hinze, Jimmie W.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022176:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022176/00001

Material Information

Title: Theft and Vandalism on Industrial and Roofing Construction Projects
Physical Description: 1 online resource (75 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Theft and vandalism can compromise the successful performance of any construction project. To avoid or minimize such events, appropriate countermeasures must often be implemented. This study was conducted to determine the extent of theft and vandalism incidents on industrial and roofing construction project sites and also to identify methods that construction firms have employed to help curb the problem. A survey was sent out to both industrial contractors and roofing contractors to determine the types of experiences that they had had with theft and vandalism and also to identify measures that they had adopted to curb such incidents of theft and vandalism on their project sites. The analysis of the responses resulted in the following conclusions: Theft and vandalism are not unique to any particular type of firm. Theft and vandalism are a greater problem in industrial construction than in roofing construction. Tools are the highest valued items stolen from both industrial and roofing contractors. The implementation of a good jobsite security plan can be helpful in reducing the incidents of theft and vandalism on project sites.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Hinze, Jimmie W.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022176:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THEFT AND VANDALISM ON INDUSTRIAL AND ROOFING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS By PETER DONKOR A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Peter Donkor

PAGE 3

3 To my family.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my entire family for supporting me in all endeavors. I also thank Dr. Hinze for giving me the idea for this study and also f or his direction and support throughout the period of undertaking the study.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 14 Improving Builder Practices ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 18 Making Construction Sites a Difficult Target for Thieves ................................ ..................... 19 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 22 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 24 Roofing Cont ractors ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 24 Theft ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 25 Vandalism ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 32 Industrial Contractors ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 37 Theft ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 40 Vandalism ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 52 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS ................................ ................................ ..... 61 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 61 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 62 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER ................................ ................................ .................. 65 B JOBSITE SECURITY QUESTIONNAIRE (ROOFING CONTRACTORS) ....................... 66 C JOBSITE SECURITY QUESTIONNAIRE (INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS) ................. 69 D SAMPLE SIZE ESTIMATION TABLE ................................ ................................ ................ 72

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 74 BIOGRAPHICAL SKE TCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 75

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Measures commonly used to ensure security on the construction sites (percentages out of thirty five (35) resp onses) ................................ ................................ ...................... 31 4 2 Measures commonly used to prevent the theft of tools on construction sites (percentages out of thirty five responses) ................................ ................................ .......... 32 4 3 Measures commonly used to prevent the theft of equipment on construction sites (percentages out of thirty five responses) ................................ ................................ .......... 32 4 4 Correlation between annual volume of work performed, number of theft incidents, estimated cost of theft incidents, number of vandalism incidents, and number of stolen items recovered ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 36 4 5 Correlation between insurance deductible amount, estim ated cost of theft incidents, number of vandalism incidents, percentage of thefts assumed to be by current or former employees, and cost of theft losses per $1,000 of work done. ............................... 37 4 6 Measure s commonly used to ensure security on the construction sites (percentages out of sixty seven responses) ................................ ................................ ........................... 47 4 7 Measures commonly used to prevent the theft of tools on construction sites (per centages out of sixty two responses) ................................ ................................ ........... 47 4 8 Measures commonly used to prevent the theft of equipment on construction sites (percentages out of fifty seven responses) ................................ ................................ ......... 48 4 9 Correlation between annual volume of work performed, number of vandalism incidents, value of computers, photocopiers, printers, etc stolen, and whether equipment is secured with chains ................................ ................................ ...................... 56 4 10 Correlation between insurance deductible amount, value of vehicles stolen, value of equipment stolen, minimum value of theft reported to the police, and whether or not tracking devices are installed on equipmen t. ................................ ................................ ..... 57 4 11 Correlation between the percentage of firms projects with a gated entrance and the identity of the vandals. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 58 4 12 C percentage of theft incidents presumed to be by current or former employees, the percentage of thefts on gated projects presumed to be by current and former employees, the us e of tracking devices on equipment, and the percentage of thefts on gated projects. ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 59

PAGE 8

8 4 13 Correlation between the percentage of thefts on gated projects presumed to be by subcontractors emp loyees, type of responding firms, percentage of work that is subcontracted, and the strategic parking of large equipment. ................................ ............ 60

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 Approximate annual dollar volume of work performed (N=34) ................................ ....... 24 4 2 Percentage of work typically subcontracted (N=34) ................................ ......................... 25 4 3 Number of theft incidents experienced in the past three (3) years (N=32) ........................ 26 4 4 Estimated dollar loss resulting from theft incidents in the past three years (N=31) .......... 27 4 5 Cost of theft losses per $1000 dollars of work done (N=24) ................................ ............. 27 4 6 Number of theft incidents reported to the police (N=28) ................................ .................. 28 4 7 Deductible amount on the builders risk insurance policy (N=26) ................................ ..... 29 4 8 Percentage of theft incidents where stolen items were actually recovered ( N=29) ........... 29 4 9 Percentage of theft incidents assumed to involve current or former employees (N=27) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 30 4 10 Number of vandalism inc idents experienced in the past three years (N=32) .................... 34 4 11 Estimated dollar loss due to vandalism experienced in the past three years (N=32) ......... 34 4 12 Estimated dollar loss per $1,000 of work performed due to vandalism in the past three years ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 35 4 13 Suspected identity of vandalism ................................ ................................ ........................ 36 4 14 Approximate annual dollar volume of work performed (N=55) ................................ ....... 38 4 15 Types of projects undertaken (N=62) ................................ ................................ ................ 39 4 16 How the firm is best described (N=67) ................................ ................................ .............. 39 4 17 Percentage of work typically subcontracted (N=63) ................................ ......................... 40 4 18 Number of theft incidents experienced in the past three (3) years (N=41) ........................ 41 4 19 Estimated dollar loss resulting from theft incidents in the past three years (N=40) .......... 42 4 20 Average value of loss suffered by respondents within the three year period .................... 42 4 21 Cost of theft losses per $1,000 dollars of work done (N=30) ................................ ............ 43 4 22 Number of theft incidents reported to the police (N=40) ................................ .................. 44

PAGE 10

10 4 23 Deductible amount on the builders risk insurance policy (N=14) ................................ ..... 44 4 24 Percentage of theft incidents where stolen items were actually recovered (N=38) ........... 45 4 25 Percentage of theft incidents assumed t o involve current or former employees (N=44) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 46 4 26 Percentage of firms projects with a gated entrance (N=59) ................................ ............... 49 4 27 Percentag e of thefts on gated projects (N=36) ................................ ................................ ... 50 4 28 Percentage of thefts on gated projects presumed to have been carried out by subcontractor employees (N=31) ................................ ................................ ....................... 51 4 29 Percentage of thefts on gated projects presumed to have been carried out by own employees (N=31) ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 52 4 30 Number of vandalism incidents experienced in the past t hree years. (N=51) ................... 53 4 31 Estimated dollar loss due to vandalism experienced in the past three years (N=45) ......... 54 4 32 Estimated d ollar loss per $1,000 of work performed due to vandalism in the past three years ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 55 4 33 Suspected identity of vandals (N=51) ................................ ................................ ................ 56

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Thesis Presente d to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction THEFT AND VANDALISM ON INDUSTRIAL AND ROOFING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS By Peter Donk or May 2008 Chair: Jimmie Hinze Major: Building Construction Theft and vandalism can compromise the successful performance of any construction project. To avoid or minimize such events, appropriate countermeasures must often be implemented. This study wa s conducted to determine the extent of theft and vandalism incidents on industrial and roofing construction project sites and also to identify methods that construction firms have employed to help curb the problem. A survey was sent out to both industrial contractors and roofing contractors to determine the type s of experien ces that they had had with theft and vandalism and also to identify measures that they had adopted to curb such incidents of theft and vandalism on their project sites The analysis of t he responses resulted in the following conclusions: Theft and vandalism are not unique to any particular type of firm. Theft and vandalism are a greater problem in industrial construction than in roofing construction. Tools are the highest valued items sto len from both industrial and roofing contractors. The implementation of a good jobsite security plan can be helpful in reducing the incidents of theft and vandalism on project sites.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION According to the National Insurance Crime Bureau approximately $1 billion is lost nationwide on an annual basis due to the theft of c onstruction equipment and tools (LoJack 2003). Other estimates put the loss between 1 and 2 billion dollars annually. These figures do not include the losses incurred as a result of theft and vandalism of construction materials. The wide range of the estimates is due to a lack of accurate data on construction jobsite theft and vandalism incidents. For instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in its annual unifo rm crime report does not distinguish between construction equipment theft a nd the theft of other types of vehicles. This makes it difficult to know the percentage of vehicle or equipment thefts that are construction related. Theft and vandalism problems ex emplify the lax security that is in place on most construction sites. Some of the losses to individual construction firms as a result of theft and vandalism can lead to the failure of a project. This research was undertaken to determine the type s of experi ences that construction firms have had with theft and vandalism and also to identify measures that firms have adopted to curb the incidents of theft and vandalism on their projects. Although jobsite theft and vandalism is considered a major problem in the construction industry, little research has been conducted in the area. The objective of this research was that findings of this study would increase the understanding of the magnitude of the problem of jobsite theft and vandalism and thereby help contracto rs appreciate the importance of jobsite security. The results would be helpful to contractors when developing jobsite security plans for their projects The study would also identify those practices that have proven to be successful for

PAGE 13

13 some contractors i n tackling the issue of theft and vandalism on their project sites which would in turn help other contractors reduce the losses that are attri buted to theft and vandalism.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW According to the N ational Insurance Crime Bureau, approximately $1 billion a year is lost nationwide due to the theft of construction equipment and tools (LoJack 2003). According to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), the theft of backhoes and other heavy equi pment, tools, building materials, and appliances c osts the home building industry $ 4 billion a year and inflate s the cost of the average new home by 1.5 percent, or more than $4,000 ( The Surveying and Mapping Society, based in Tallahassee Florida, has recorded the theft of 150 surveying instruments which amounts to more than $1.3 million at an average cost of $12,400 per incident (Tudor 2007). The se figures clearly indicate the widespread nature of the theft and vandalism problem in all the different sectors of the construction industry Prior studies have targeted some sectors of the construction industry but there are some sectors that have not been researched. This means theft and vandalism losses within some sectors of the construction i ndustry are unknown Incidents of theft and vandalism on construction jobsites are not limited to the U.S. alone. Over 24,000 pieces of equipment were estimated stolen in the U.K. in 1997 alone. The stolen piec es of equipment were estimated to cost well over £66 million. This figure is based on the deprecia ted value of the equipment (Smith and Walmsley 1999). Between the years 2000 and 2007, more than £216 million of stolen equipment was reported to The National Plant and Equipment Register (TER) in the U .K. (TER, 2007). According to TER, plant and equipment theft is endemic across the UK with Home Office estimates running at £1million of equipment being stolen every week and more than £200 million of stolen equipment in circulation. In Canada, conservativ e estimates put the loss due to theft on construction sites at 200 million Canadian dollars annually but others peg the loss at 1 billion Canadian dollars (CBC News 2003).

PAGE 15

15 Previous studies in the U.S. has shown that m any construction firms do not report th e theft of items that are This has made it very difficult to know the magnitude of theft and vandalism in the construction industry. Since the value of const ruction equipment is high, such loss es are reported to the pol ice and therefore there are more accurate of statistics on equipment loss es as compared to material loss es According to LoJack, a firm that specializes in vehicle tracking systems, f rom January through December 2006, police recovere d over 18 million dollars worth of stolen construction equipment that were outfitted with a LoJack device. Since the year 2000, more than $69.7 million worth of stolen assets has been recovered as a direct result of LoJack (LoJack 2006). According to LoJac k, the equipment recovery data illustrated the mos t popular types of equipment targeted by thieves. The following is the order in which the recovered equipment were ranked: Backhoe Loaders / Skip Loaders / Wheel Loaders Skid Steers Generators / Air Compre ssors / Welders (Towable) Forklifts and Scissor Lifts Light Towers Light Utility / Work Trucks and Trailers California, Florida, Texas, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, and Louisiana were the top ten states with the highest numb er of construction eq uipment theft incidents in 2006, respectively, based on LoJack s recovery data. In 98% of the cases, the stolen equipment was recovered in the same state where the theft was reported It was either in storage or in use on a local jobsi te (LoJack 2006). A study conducted by the National Equipment

PAGE 16

16 Registry (NER), an equipment recovery database concluded that as little as 10% of the stolen equipment is recovered and the types of equipment recovered closely mirror the types most often stol en (NER 2005). In a study conducted by the NER, it was realized that the theft of heavy equipment is seen as a lucrative business because the rewards far outwe igh the risks. The report noted that heavy equipment which is often valuable and easy to sell is on sites with very little or no security. The rate of recovery of stolen equipment was also noted as be ing low and this was attributed to the following factors; The delay in theft discovery and reporting Inaccurate or non existent owner records The lack of pre purchase checks in the used equipment market Limited resources that law enforcement can dedicate to equipment theft investigations The difficulty of conducting equipment investigations due to the complexities in equipment numbering systems The lack of information available to law enforcement There is no mandated registration system for heavy construction equipment and this compounds the problem of equipment recovery. The National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) acknowledges that heavy equipment theft is a growing problem throughout North America and that organized crime rings are the primary driving force behind the thefts. The NICB also states that many of the se organized criminal rings transport stolen construction equipment to the nearest port for shipping to other countries or across the border prior to its being reported as stolen. To help combat the problem of equipment theft, equipment manufacturers adopted a standard worldwide 17 digit product identification number (PIN) system beginning with t he year 2000 models. This format is intended to help

PAGE 17

17 international law enforcement computer systems to better check, verify, and track equipment that is reported stolen. The concern about theft is not restricted to heavy equipment. In 2002, Zachry Construc tion Corp., a general contractor reported that it lost $2 million dollars in tools out of an inventory of $35 million (Tudor 2003). Since tools are very difficult to track, their loss is not easily detected and it is often very difficult to estimate accura tely the dollar value of such losses. The theft of materials is also not well documented by contractors. This makes it difficult to estimate the value of those losses. Contractors may be concerned about losses that are small, but when losses are less than their insurance deductible amounts, they generally remain unreported. This is one of the reasons why the theft of materials and tools are not well documented since There have been suggesti on s as to how to prevent or curtail jobsite theft and vandalism. One general suggestion is the development and implementation of a jobsite security plan before actual construction begins. This plan, it is suggested should be documented. It ha s also been sug gested that the execution of the plan should be supervised by a managemen t level employee. Keeping an up to date inventory of materials, tools and equipment is vital in making a jobsite security plan a success. Various organizations or associations provide their members with information on how to prevent incidents of theft and vandalism on their sites. Such information may differ from organization to organization or even differ within the same organization as a result of geographical location. According to the Problem Oriented Guides for Police Problem Specific Guides Series Guide No. 43, which was published in August 2006, the factors that contribute to theft are high construction materials cost s and lax builder practices. The publication also stated that b urglaries are committed by amateur thieves, professional thieves and insiders

PAGE 18

18 (construction workers). The followi ng were describ ed in the publication as ways of reducing theft and vandalism on single family house construction sites: Improving Builder Pract ices In order to provide meaningful supervision of construction sites, builders should limit the number of sites for which each supervisor is responsible. This will a fford supervisors a better opportunity to monitor materials, workers, and deliveries. Coor dinate the delivery of materials and appliances so that they are installed shortly after delivery. When materials are installed, they are more secured and the house will soon be occupied further reducing the exposure to theft. Whenever possible, builders should screen prospective employees and subcontractors, by conducting both criminal and financial background checks. Through training sessions, b uilders should clarify, emphasize, and enforce rules that prohibit the taking of construction tools, materials, and property that have been delivered onsite. Builders ar e encouraged to maintain a consistent workforce tha t is familiar with the company rules, practices, and attitudes toward s the misappropriation of property. Builders who use subcontractors who in tur n hire sub contractors are likely to be victims of theft Contractors are encouraged to maintain a system for tracking tools There are various tool tracking systems that can be used to reduce theft opportunities Some builders designate one person to track the use of tools, which can help instill a sense of accountability in workers and reinforce the perception that management is monitoring tool inventory.

PAGE 19

19 Lar ge builders especially are encouraged to retain the services of professional loss prevention specia lists who have expertise in preventing and solving burglaries and who can work closely with police and other builders to control burglary. The construction industry leaders regard the use of security patrols as one of the most effective means of reducing a nd preve nting construction site crime. Security patrols are a visible, proactive burglary deterrent. Many individual builders and builder associations have established hotlines that allow callers to report crime s anonymously. Construction site workers who are tempted to steal are likely to be deterred by the threat of being fired. Making Construction Sites a Difficult Target for Thieves Proper lighting can deter burglars both by illuminating security measures in place at the construction site and by increas ing the ability of passersby and police to observe suspicious activity at the site. Closed circuit television (CCTV) has been shown to be effective in deterring property crime. Evaluations of CCTV reveal that it is effective where an adequate number of cam eras cover a particular area as well as on sites with limited and controlled access points. Alarm systems can be a cost effective deterrent in high risk areas. There are a number of different alarms available, including wireless systems that can be adapted to the environment (for example, for use in onsite storage containers). Some wireless alarms can be installed at any stage of the construction, without the need for pre wiring or other electrical work.

PAGE 20

20 Properly secured storage units should be used for mat erials that are kept at construction sites overnight. These units should be equipped with wireless audible alarms and locks that cannot be accessed with conventional bolt cutters. Properly constructed and secured fences can control access to construction s ites. Temporary wire fencing may be the most appropriate and cost effective measure for larger construction sites. Marking property with identification markings helps control burglary in three ways: it warns burglars that owners are monitoring their proper ty, it discourages potential buyers of stolen property, and it increases the probability that recovered property will be returned to its rightful owner. Global positioning satellite (GPS) locator chips can be used to track and recover high end appliances a nd equipment. If the property is stolen, the chip allows the builder or the police to monitor its movement by computer. Prominently and strategically displayed signage can inform potential burglars that builders and police are working to reduce theft s on c onstruction sites. The NICB offers the following as ways to prevent heavy equipment theft: Render equipment immobile or difficult to move during after hours or on weekends by: o Not leaving equipment, such as backhoes, on lowboys when unattended; o Clustering equipment in a "wagon circle" with more easily transported equipment, such as compressors, in the middle, surrounded by larger pieces of equipment. Maintain a log that lists all equipment by serial or product identification numbers in a central location. If possible, include photos and other identifying information.

PAGE 21

21 Use hydro locks to fix articulated equipment in a curved position, preventing them from traveling in a straight line. Use sleeve locks to fix backhoe pads in an extended position, ke eping wheels off the ground. Install a system that disables the equipment's electrical or ignition system when universal keys are used. Install a tracking transmitter system in each unit designed for construction and heavy duty equipment. A construction si te cannot be said to be a hundred percent immune from theft and vandalism. Solving theft and vandalism incidents is made more difficult when these crimes are perpetuated by employees of the affected firm. From the literature reviewed, it is clear that taki ng jobsite security seriously on project sites can help reduce the losses incurred as a result of the activities of professional thieves and vandals. In combating equipment theft, joint initiatives between equipment manufacturers, rental companies, contrac tors and the police will be highly beneficial By combining better manufacturer fitted security equipment, with increased operator awareness and better police c ooperation, the number of equipment thefts can be significantly decreased

PAGE 22

22 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The primary objective of this research was to determine the magnitude of theft and vandalism losses on construction sites and also to identify methods that contractors have used to curb incidents of theft and va ndalism on their project sites. Two similar studies were done in 2003 but those focused on residential construction and commercial construction. As part of the recommendations of those studies, it was suggested that other studies be done with a focus on specific types of construction, he nce the focus on industrial contractors and roofing contractors. To conduct the study, surveys were mailed to targeted firms. The survey used was a modified version of one that had been developed by Dr. Jimmie Hinze of the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Buildi ng Construction to conduct the studies that concentrated on residential and commercial construction. Modifications were made to help capture information unique to the types of construction that were being studied. The final version of the questionnaire s (s ee appendix A and B) and a copy of the cover letter to be sent out with the questionnaires were approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB). The final questionnaires were handed out to approximately 100 industrial contractors th at were in attendance at a safety forum sponsored by Southern Company. The forum was held at Callaway Gardens, Pine Mountain, Georgia from September 26 to 27, 2007. Surveys were also faxed to about 850 roofing contractors who were members of the Florida Ro ofing Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors Association, Inc (FRSCA). Most of the firms were located in the southeast of the U.S. The roofing contractors were faxed through the FRSCA. The survey wa s structured to obtain information on the magnitude of theft and vandalism on construction sites of the surveyed firms and also find out how the firms had been able to curb incidents of theft and vandalism on their construction sites.

PAGE 23

23 A sample size of 164 was determined to be the minimum desired sample si ze to meet the requirements of the research objective (see table in Appendix D). A total of 71 questionnaires were completed and returned for the study focused on the industrial constructors and 35 questionnaires were returned for the study focused on roof ing contractors. The data gathered were analyzed using the Statistical Packa ge for Social Sciences software. Correlations that were found to be statistically significant are noted.

PAGE 24

24 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Roofing Contractors Thirty five questionnaires were com pleted and returned by the roofing contractors. The data received were analyzed by calculating the frequencies of specific responses. Responses to open ended questions were analyzed separately. The results include a summary of the theft and vandalism incid ents experienced by the firms in the past three years, the dollar losses incurred as a result of the thefts and vandalism, and an analysis of measures firms have adopted to curb the incidents of theft and vandalism on their project sites. Thirty four firm s provided information on their approximate annual dollar volume of work performed (Figure 4 1). Of these firms, four (12%) had an approximate annual dollar volume of work between $400,000 and $700,000, eight (24%) had annual dollar volumes of work between $701,000 and $1,400,000, five (15%) between $1,401,000 and $2,800,000, ten (29%) between $2,801,000 and $6,000,000, and seven (20%) firms reported an annual dollar volume of work in excess of $6,000,000. Figure 4 1: Approximate annual dollar volume of w ork performed (N=34)

PAGE 25

25 The percentage of work typically subcontracted by the firms was broken down into five categories. Fourteen (41% ) respondents did not subcontract any work. Eighteen firms (53%) subcontracted between one and twenty five percent of their work. One (3%) respondent subcontracted 100% of its work (see F igure 4 2) Figure 4 2:Percentage of work typically subcontracted (N=34) T heft This section presents i nformation on the types of t heft experienced by responding contractors along with appro aches they have adopted to curb the number of theft incidents on their project sites. Thirty two firms provided information on the number of theft incidents they had e xperienced in the past three years (Figure 4 3). Six (19% ) contractors reported that the y had experienced no theft inc idents within the last three years. Five (16%) firms reported that t hey had experienced only one theft incident within the last three years. Fifteen respondents (47%) reported having between two and five theft incidents within the past three years. Two (6% ) firms reported that they had experienced twenty theft incidents within the last three years T he mean

PAGE 26

26 number of theft incidents exper ienced within the past three years by the respondin g firms was four with the median being three Figure 4 3:Number of theft incidents experienced in the past three (3) years (N=32) Thirty one responding firms provided information on the total estimated cost of the theft incidents they had experienced within the past three years (Figure 4 4 ) Of the thirty one responses six (19%) reported losses between $100 and $2,000. Nine firms (29%) reported losses between $2001 and $5000. Six firms (19%) reported losses between $5,001 and $10,000. Two (6%) firms reported losses between $10,001 and $20, 000. Three (10%) firms reported of losses of over $20,000. The mean of the estimated cost of the losses reported by the thirty one firms was approximately $ 7 0 00. This value was made higher as a result of a $40,000 dollar loss experienced by one firm. The m edian was $4,500.

PAGE 27

27 Figure 4 4:Estimated dollar loss resulting from theft incidents in the past three years (N=31) The cost of theft losses per $1,000 of work performed was also calculated from the responses provided (Figure 4 5) Twelve firms (50%) had losses between $0.01 and $1.0 per $1,000 of work performed. Six firms (25%) had losses of between $1.1 and $2.0 per $1,000 of work performed. Three firms (13%) experienced losses of between $2.1 and $3.0 per $1,000 of work performed. Two firms (8%) experi enced losses greater than $4.0 per $1,000 of work performed. The mean was $1.56 with the median being $1.23. Figure 4 5: Cost of theft losses per $1000 dollars of work done (N=24)

PAGE 28

28 Twenty eight firms indicated the number of theft incidents reported to th e police. Nine (32%) of these firms did not report any of their losses to the police. Eight (29%) firms reported one or two theft incidents to the police. Seven (25%) firms reported between three and five theft incidents to the police while four (14%) fir ms reported between six and twenty theft incidents to the police (Figure 4 6). Figure 4 6: Number of theft incidents reported to the police (N=28) Builders risk insurance and the facility being constructed during construct ion. Benefits of such an insurance includes coverage for building materials, property of both prime and sub contractors that would be integrated into the building fabric, materials and supplies stored on the building site and those in transit to the buildin g site. The coverage includes theft and vandalism, damage or d estruction of property for which the insured has an insurable interest. The limit of insurance in some cases may be equal to the full value of the project. There are instances where coverage is made available for a loss limit. The deductable amount on such an insurance policy is the value stated in the policy that exempts the insurer from paying an initial specified amount in the event that the insured sustains a loss.

PAGE 29

29 The deductible amount for t he responding firms ranged from $100 to $10,000 (Figure 4 7). The mean was approximately $3,200 and the median $2,000. Figure 4 7: Deductible amount on the builders risk insurance policy (N=26) Most of the items stolen were never recovered. From the t wenty nine respondents to the question, twenty four (83%) reported that none of their stolen items had been recovered. Two (3%) firms reported that they had recovered 50% of the items stolen (Figure 4 8). Figure 4 8: Percentage of theft incidents where s tolen items were actually recovered (N=29)

PAGE 30

30 The survey asked respondents to speculate on the percentage of thefts carried out by current or former employees. Thirteen (48%) of the twenty seven respondents to this question thought none of their current or former employees were responsible for the thefts. Three (11%) thought that between 1% and 25% of the thefts they had experienced were carried out by current or former employees, eight (30%) thought that between 30% and 75% of thefts they had experienced we re carried out by current or former employees and three (11%) thought that all of the thefts they had experienced were carried out by either their current or former employees (Figure 4 9). Figure 4 9: Percentage of theft incidents assumed to involve cur rent or former employees (N=27) The survey had a question on measures used to ensure jobsite security on construction sites. Respondents were given a list of measures available for use by construction firms and asked to check those they employed on their project sites. The results are summarized in Table 4 1.

PAGE 31

31 Table 4 1 Measures commonly used to ensure security on the construction sites (percentages out of thirty five (35) responses) 71% Removal of unused equipment from site 68% Use of lockbox for tool s/small equipment 51% Strategic parking of large equipment 23% Posting of warning signs 20% Gated entrance 17% Use of exterior lighting on the site 14% Security fencing 9% Use worker badge system 9% Use of night security guard on site 9% Use of po lice patrols 6% Guard stationed at entry gate 3% Neighborhood watch 3% Use of security cameras 0% Use of an alarm system Some respondents provided information on other techniques they had used to reduce the number of theft incidents on their projects These responses were: Store materials behind houses or on roof tops with ladders taken away. Removing roof top access from the jobsite and leaving any tools and materials on the blind side of the roof Keep materials in a central well lighted location fo r storing in full crates and pallets as much as possible Using a just in time delivery system Using a locked cargo trailer which is taken off the site at the end of the work day As to the specific measures the surveyed firms had employed to prevent theft of tools on their project sites, Table 4 2 provides a percentage breakdown of the answers provided.

PAGE 32

32 Table 4 2 Measures commonly used to prevent the theft of tools on construction sites (percentages out of thirty five responses) 71% Minimizing tools le ft on site 66% Maintaining tool inventory 63% Maintaining a secure storage area 63% Marking tools 57% Making workers responsible for tools 49% Workers providing their own tools A question was asked to determine the measures co mmonly used to prevent the theft of equipment on construction sites. The responses are shown in Table 4 3. Table 4 3 Measures commonly used to prevent the theft of equipment on construction sites (per centages out of thirty five responses) 77% Park ing equi pment inside a fenced area 71% Securing equipment with chains and locks 69% Park ing equipment in a well lighted area at night 31% Park ing equipment at a central location/specific formation at the end of each day 23% Including additional identification on the equipment 14% Modify ing ignition or fuel lines to make it d ifficult for others to start engine 14% Install ing tracking devices on equipment 11% Using a distinctive color for equipment Vandalism Vandalism is generally defined as the willful w anton and malicious destruction of the property of others. The study examined the experiences that firms had had with regards to vandalism on their project sites. Thirty two firms provided information on the number of vandalism incidents they had experie nced in the past three years. Fourteen (44%) reported that they had not experienced any incidents of vandalism on their project sites within the past three years. Six (19%) firms reported

PAGE 33

33 that they had experienced one vandalism incident while five (16%) fi rms reported that they had experienced two incidents of vandalism within the past three years. Five (16%) firms had experienced three vandalism incidents and two (6%) firms had experienced between seven and ten vandalism incidents within the last three yea rs (Figure 4 10). Thirty two firms provided information on the estimated dollar losses resulting from the vandalism incidents they had experienced. Of the thirty two firms, fifteen experienced losses that were less than $500. The mean of the losses was $ 2,197 while the median was $500 (see Figure 4 11 ) The cost of the losses experienced as a result of vandalism per $1,000 dollars of work performed was computed from the data provided. The mean was $0.423 and the median 0.10 per $1,000 of work performed ( see Figure 4 12). The firm with the highest loss as a result of vandalism lost $2.40 per $1000 of work performed.

PAGE 34

34 Figure 4 10: Number of vandalism incidents experienced in the past three years (N=32) Figure 4 11: Estimated dollar loss due to va ndalism experienced in the past three years (N=32)

PAGE 35

35 Figure 4 12: Estimated dollar loss per $1,000 of work performed due to vandalism in the past three years As to who the respondents thought the vandals were, five (28%) thought the vandals were persons who had been on the site for some reason, four (22%) thought the vandals were neighborhood kids, four (22%) thought the vandals were strangers, three (17%) thought the vandals were disgruntled workers and one (5%) thought the vandals were fired workers (se e Figure 4 13).

PAGE 36

36 Figure 4 13: Suspected identity of vandalism The correlation between the annual volume of work performed and other variables were examined. The number of theft incidents were positively correlated with the annual volume of work performed The estimated cost of theft incidents also increased as the annual volume of work performed increased. The number of vandalism incidents experienced also went up as the annual volume of work increased (see Table 4 4). Table 4 4 Correlation between annual volume of work performed, number of theft incidents, estimated cost of theft incidents, number of vandalism incidents, and number of stolen items recovered Pearson correlation ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1 tailed). Correlation is significant at the .05 level (1 tailed). Number of theft incidents Estimated cost of theft incidents Number of vandalism incidents Numbe r of stolen items recovered Annual volume of work performed 0.717** 0.389* 0.780** 0.616*

PAGE 37

37 The correlation betwe en the insurance deductible amount, the number of vandalism incidents, the estimated cost of theft incidents, the theft losses per $1,000 of work performed and the percentage of thefts assumed to be by the contractors own or former employees were also examined. The insurance deductible amount was positively correlated with the number of vandalism incidents. The estimated cost of theft incidents also increased as the insurance deductible amount increased. The percentage of thefts assumed to be by employe es or former employees also increased as the insurance deductible amount increased. The cost of theft losses per $1,000 of work done also had a positive correlation with the insurance deductible amount (see Table 4 5). Table 4 5 Correlation between insuran ce deductible amount, estimated cost of theft incidents, number of vandalism incidents, percentage of thefts assumed to be by current or former employees, and cost of theft losses per $1,000 of work done. Pearson correlation ** Correlation is significant at the .01 leve l (1 tailed). Correlation is significant at the .05 level (1 tailed). Industrial Contractors Seventy one questionnaires were completed and returned by the contractors. The data received were analyzed by calculating the frequencies of specific responses Responses to open ended questions were analyzed separately. The results include a summary of the theft and vandalism incidents experienced by the firms in the past three years, the dollar losses incurred as a result of the thefts and vandalism, and an an alysis of measures firms have adopted to curb the incidents of theft and vandalism on their project sites. Number of vandalism incidents Estimated cost of theft incidents Percentage of thefts assumed to be by current or former employees Cost of theft losses per $1,000 of work done Insurance deductible amount 0.625 ** 0.428 0.780** 0.616*

PAGE 38

38 Fifty five firms provided information on their approximate annual dollar volume of work performed (Figure 4 14). The companies were then classified into two categories namely, small to medium sized and large companies. The small to medium sized companies were those with an annual volume of work less than $100 million and the large companies were those with an annual volume of work performed greater th an $100 million. Figure 4 14 Approximate annual dollar volume of work performed (N=55) The firms were classified according to the type of construction they perform. Thirty one firms (51%) specialized in industrial projects, twenty three (36%) specialized in utility projects, and five (8%) firms specialized in commercial projects. The three firms left specialized in either residential construction, highway construction, public buildings or other types of construction. The other types were made up of mainly health care projects (Figure 4 15).

PAGE 39

39 Figure 4 15: Types of projects undertaken (N=62) The respondents were grouped according to the type of firm, namely general contractor, subcontractor, or client/owner. Out of the sixty seven firms that responded, thir ty two (48%) were general contractors, twelve (18%) were subcontractors and twenty three (34%) were owners or clients (Figure 1 16) Figure 4 16: How the firm is best described (N=67)

PAGE 40

40 The percentage of work typically subcontracted by the firms was broken down into five categories. Ten (16% ) respondents did not subcontract any work. Thirty seven firms (59%) subcontracted between one and twenty five percent of their work. Six (9%) respondents subcontracted between twenty six and fifty percent of their work. Two respondents (3%) subcontracted between fifty one and seventy five percent of their work and eight (13%) subcontracted between seventy six and hundred percent of their work (see F igure 4 17) Figure 4 17: Percentage of work typically subcontracted (N =63) T heft This section presents i nformation on the types of t heft experienced by responding contractors along with approaches they have adopted to curb the number of theft incidents on their project sites. Forty one firms provided information on the num ber of theft incidents they had e xperienced in the past three years (Figure 4 18). Four (10% ) contractors reported that they had experienced no theft inc idents within the last three years. Twenty one (51% ) firms also reported that t hey had experienced betw een one and five theft incident s within the last three years. Seven

PAGE 41

41 respondents (17%) reported of between six and ten theft incidents within the past three years. Two (5% ) firms reported that they had experienced between eleven and fifteen theft incidents within the last three years Five (12%) firms experienced between twenty and a hundred theft incidents whiles two firms (5%) experienced over a hundred theft incidents within the past three years. T he mean number of theft incidents exper ienced within the p ast three years by the respondin g firms was twenty six with the median being four The mean was made higher as a result of two firms that had experienced four hundred and one hundred and fifty theft incidents within the past three years respectively. Figure 4 18: Number of theft incidents experienced in the past three (3) years (N=41) Forty responding firms provided information on the total estimated cost of the theft incidents they had experienced within the past three years (Figure 4 19). Sixteen ( 40% ) reported of los ses between $5 00 and $40 ,000. Eight firms (20%) reported of losses between $40,001 and $80,000. Four firms (10%) reported of losses between $80,001 and $120,000. Four (10%) firms reported of losses between $120,001 and $200,000 and thre e (7.5%) firms reported of losses of

PAGE 42

42 over $200,000. The mean of the total estimated cost of the losses reported by the forty firms was approximately $86,0 00. The median was $35,000. Figure 4 19: Estimated dollar loss resulting from theft incidents in t he past three years (N=40) The average value of tools lost by the respondents within the three year period was $71,720 which represented the highest value (Figure 4 20). The second was equipment, which had an average value of $20,357. Construction materia ls losses amounted to an average value of $10,056. The average value of licensed vehicles stolen was $7,500 while computers, fax machines, printers and copiers had an average value of $4,733. Figure 4 20: Average value of loss suffered by respondents wi thin the three year period

PAGE 43

43 The cost of losses per $1,000 of work performed was also calculated from the responses provided (Figure 4 21) Twenty one firms (70%) had losses between $0.01 and $1.0 per $1,000 of work performed. Five firms (17%) had losses of between $1.1 and $5.0 per $1,000 of work performed. Three firms (10%) experienced losses of between $5.1 and $25.0 per $1,000 of work performed. One firm (3%) experienced a loss of $60.0 per $1,000 of work performed. The mean was $3.94 with the median be ing $0.32. Figure 4 21: Cost of theft losses per $1,000 dollars of work done (N=30) Forty firms indicated the number of theft incidents reported to the police. Thirteen (33%) of these firms did not report any of their losses to the police. Ten (25%) fir ms reported one or two theft incidents to the police. Eleven (27%) firms reported between three and five theft incidents to the police whiles five (13%) firms reported between six and ten theft incidents to the police. One firm (2%) reported all the four h undred theft incidents it had experienced to the police (Figure 4 22).

PAGE 44

44 Figure 4 22: Number of theft incidents reported to the police (N=40) The insurance deductible amount for t he responding firms ranged from $1,000 to $500,000 (Figure 4 23). Six (43%) firms had an insurance deductible amount between $1,000 and $10,000. Three (21%) firms had a deductible amount of between $20,000 and $50,000. Two firms had a deductible amount of between $51,000 and $200,000 whiles three (21%) firms had an insurance ded uctible amount greater than $200,000. The mean was approximately $70,318 and the median $5,000. Figure 4 23: Deductible amount on the builders risk insurance policy (N=14)

PAGE 45

45 Most of the items stolen were never recovered. From the thirty eight responden ts to the question, twenty three (59%) reported that none of their stolen items had been recovered. One firm (3%) firm reported that it had recovered only one percent of the items stolen (Figure 4 24). Six (16%) firms reported that they had recovered five percent of the items stolen. Six (16%) firms again reported that they had recovered ten percent of the items stolen. One firm (3%) firm reported that it had recovered twenty five percent of the items stolen whiles another firm reported that it had recovere d thirty three percent of the items stolen. Figure 4 24: Percentage of theft incidents where stolen items were actually recovered (N=38) The survey asked respondents to speculate on the percentage of thefts carried out by current or former employees. F ive (11%) of the forty four respondents thought none of their current or former employees were responsible for the thefts. Six (14%) thought that between 5% and 25% of the thefts they had experienced was carried out by current or former employees, three (7 %) thought that between 26% and 50% of thefts they had experienced were carried out by current or former employees and five (11%) thought that between 51% and 75% of thefts they had experienced was carried out by current or former employees. Twenty five (5 7%) respondents

PAGE 46

46 thought that between 76% and 100% of thefts they had experienced were carried out by current or former employees (Figure 4 25). Figure 4 25: Percentage of theft incidents assumed to involve current or former employees (N=44) The survey had a question on measures used to ensure jobsite security on construction sites. Respondents were given a list of measures available for use by construction firms and asked to check those they employed on their project sites. The results are summarized in Table 4 6.

PAGE 47

47 Table 4 6 Measures commonly used to ensure security on the construction sites (percentages out of sixty seven responses) 94% Use of lockbox for tools/small equipment 85% Gated entrance 76% Security fencing 75% Use worker badge system 69% Guard stationed at entry gate 63% Use of exterior lighting on the site 61% Use of night security guard on site 52% Posting of warning signs 49% Use of security cameras 40% Removal of unused equipment from site 40% Strategic parkin g of large equipment 18% Use of an alarm system 13% Use of police patrols 3% Neighborhood watch Some respondents provided information on other techniques they had used to reduce the number of theft incidents on their projects. These responses were: Locate tool and equipment storage and issue points centrally, and provide only one way in and out. Use of electronic badges, security walk through, and limit drive through access. As to the specific measures the surveyed firms had employed to prevent theft of tools on their project sites, Table 4 7 provides a percentage breakdown of the answers provided. Table 4 7 Measures commonly used to prevent the theft of tools on construction sites (percentages out of sixty two responses) 89% Marking tools 84% Maintaining tool inventory 84% Maintaining a secure storage area 56% Making workers responsible for tools 50% Minimizing tools left on site 29% Workers providing their own tools Some respondents provided information on other techn iques they had used to prevent the theft of tools on their projects. These responses were: Using a manned tool room

PAGE 48

48 Picking up tools at the end of each shift Random gate inspection of lunch boxes Using a tool tracker with tool person to record tools hande d out A question was asked to determine the measures commonly used to prevent the theft of equipment on construction sites. The responses are shown in Table 4 8. Table 4 8 Measures commonly used to prevent the theft of equipment on construction sites (p ercentages out of fifty seven responses) 68% Parking equipment inside a fenced area 63% Parking equipment in a well lighted area at night 49% Including additional identification on the equipment 35% Parking equipment at a central location/specific forma tion at the end of each day 32% Securing equipment with chains and locks 28% Using a distinctive color for equipment 7% Installing tracking devices on equipment 5% Modifying ignition or fuel lines to make it difficult for others to start engine Out of fifty nine respondents, one (2%) firm had none of its projects with a gated entrance. Two (3%) firms had between one and twenty five percent of their projects with gated entrances. Six firms (10%) had between twenty six and fifty percent of their projec ts with gated entrances whiles another six firms (10%) had between fifty one and seventy five percent of their projects with gated entrances. Forty four (75%) firms had between seventy six and a hundred percent of their projects with gated entrances. The r esults are shown in figure 4 26.

PAGE 49

49 Figure 4 26: Percentage of firms projects with a gated entrance (N=59) Out of thirty six respondents, five (14%) firms reported of no theft incident on any of their gated projects. Ten (28%) firms reported of between one and twenty five percent of theft incidents they had experienced on gated projects. Six firms (17%) had experienced between twenty six and fifty percent of their theft incidents on gated projects whiles two firms (5%) had between fifty one and seventy five percent of their theft incidents on gated projects. Thirteen (36%) firms experienced between seventy six and a hundred percent of their theft incidents on projects with gated entrances. The results are shown in Figure 4 27.

PAGE 50

50 Figure 4 27 : Percentage of th efts on gated projects (N=36) The survey asked respondents to speculate on the percentage of thefts on their gated projects that they presumed had been carried out by subcontractor employees. Five (16%) out of the thirty one respondents thought none of the theft incidents on their gated projects were carried out by subcontractor employees. Seven (23%) thought that between 5% and 25% of the thefts they had experienced on their gated projects were carried out by subcontractor employees, ten (32%) thought that between 26% and 50% of thefts they had experienced was carried out subcontractor employees and two (6%) thought between 51% and 75% of thefts they had experienced was carried out by subcontractor employees. Seven (23%) respondents thought that between 76% and 100% of thefts they had experienced was carried out by subcontractor employees (Figure 4 28).

PAGE 51

51 Figure 4 28 : Percentage of thefts on gated projects presumed to have been carried out by subcontractor employees (N=31) Respondents were again asked to spe culate on the percentage of thefts on their gated projects that they presumed had been carried out by their own employees. Four (13%) out of the thirty one respondents thought none of the theft incidents on their gated projects were carried out by their ow n employees. Six (19%) thought that between 5% and 25% of the thefts they had experienced on their gated projects was carried out by their own employees, twelve (39%) thought that between 26% and 50% of thefts they had experienced was carried out by their own employees and one (3%) firm thought that between 51% and 75% of thefts it had experienced was carried out by its own employees. Eight (26%) respondents thought that between 76% and 100% of thefts they had experienced was carried out by their own employ ees (Figure 4 29).

PAGE 52

52 Figure 4 29: Percentage of thefts on gated projects presumed to have been carried out by own employees (N=31) V andalism Fifty one firms provided information on the number of vandalism incidents they had experienced in the past three y ears. Fourteen (27%) reported that they had not experienced any incidents of vandalism on their project sites within the past three years. Thirty three (65%) responding firms reported that they had experienced between one and twenty five vandalism incident s. Two (4%) firms reported that they had experienced between twenty six and fifty incidents of vandalism. One firm (2%) experienced hundred incidents of vandalism whiles another firm experienced one hundred and fifty incidents of vandalism within the last three years (see Figure 4 30).

PAGE 53

53 Figure 4 30: Number of vandalism incidents experienced in the past three years. (N=51) Forty five firms provided information on the estimated dollar losses resulting from the vandalism incidents they had experienced. Of th e forty five firms, two (4%) firms experienced losses between $500 and $1,000. Twelve (27%) firms experienced losses between $1,001 and $10,000. Thirteen (29%) firms experienced losses between $10,001 and $100,000. Two (4%) firms experienced losses between $100,001 and $500,000 whiles another two (4%) firms experienced losses greater than $500,000. The mean of the losses was $600,000 while the median was $5000 (see Figure 4 31).

PAGE 54

54 Figure 4 31: Estimated dollar loss due to vandalism experienced in the past t hree years (N=45) The cost of the losses experienced as a result of vandalism per $1,000 dollars of work performed was computed from the data provided. The mean value was $3.45 and the median $0.042 per $1,000 of work performed (see Figure 4 32). Thirty fi rms (81%) had losses between $0.01 and $1.0 per $1,000 of work performed. Three firms (8%) had losses of between $1.1 and $5.0 per $1,000 of work performed. Two firms (5%) experienced losses of between $5.1 and $20.0 per $1,000 of work performed. Two firms (5%) experienced losses greater than $20.0 per $1,000 of work performed.

PAGE 55

55 Figure 4 32: Estimated dollar loss per $1,000 of work performed due to vandalism in the past three years As to who the respondents thought the vandals were, nine (18%) thought the vandals were persons who had been on the site for some reason, six (12%) thought the vandals were neighborhood kids, eight (16%) thought the vandals were strangers, twenty one (40%) thought the vandals were disgruntled workers, four (8%) thought the v andals were fired workers and three (6%) thought others were responsible for the vandalism they experienced (see Figure 4 33).They however did not give an explanation of who others were.

PAGE 56

56 Figure 4 33: Suspected identity of vandals (N=51) The correlation between the annual volume of work performed and other variables were examined. The number of theft incidents were positively correlated with the annual volume of work performed. The estimated value of computers, photocopiers, printers, etc stolen increase d as the annual volume of work performed increased. The number of vandalism incidents experienced also went up as the annual volume of work increased (see Table 4 9). Table 4 9 Correlation between annual volume of work performed, number of vandalism incide nts, value of computers, photocopiers, printers, etc stolen, and whether equipment is secured with chains Pearson correlation ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1 tailed) Correlation is significant at the .05 level (1 tailed). Number of vandalism incidents Value of computers, copiers, etc, stolen Securing equipment with chains Annual volume of work performed 0.345 ** 0.7 13* 0.257

PAGE 57

57 The correlation between the insurance deductible amount, the number of vandalism incidents, the esti mated cost of theft incidents, and the percentage of thefts assumed to be by the contractors own or former employees were examined. The insurance deductible amount had a positive correlation with the number of vandalism incidents. The estimated cost of the ft incidents increased as the insurance deductible amount increased. The percentage of thefts assumed to be by employees or former employees was positively correlated with the insurance deductible amount (see Table 4 10). Table 4 10 Correlation between ins urance deductible amount, value of vehicles stolen, value of equipment stolen, minimum value of theft reported to the police, and whether or not tracking devices are installed on equipment. Pearson correlation ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1 tailed). Correlation is significant at the .05 le vel (1 tailed). The correlation between the between the percentage of firms projects with a gated entrance and the identity of the vandals was also examined. The number of vandalism incidents presumed to have been carried out by disgruntled workers and ne ighborhood kids had a positive correlation incidents presumed to have been carried out by strangers however had a negative correlation with the percentage of the firm 11). Value of vehicles stolen Value of equipment stolen Minimum value of theft reported to the police Tracking devices installed on equipment Insurance deductible amount 1.00 ** 0.864 0.583 ** 0.386

PAGE 58

58 Table 4 11 Correlation between the percentage of firms projects with a gated entrance and the identity of the vandals. Pearson correlation ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1 tailed). Correlation is significant at the .05 level (1 tailed). The correlation between the between the percentage of firms proj ects with a gated entrance, the percentage of theft incidents presumed to be by current or former employees, the percentage of thefts on gated projects presumed to be by current and former employees, the use of tracking devices on equipment, and the percen tage of thefts on gated projects was examined. The percentage of theft incidents presumed to have been carried out by current or former entrance. The percentage of theft incidents on gated projects presumed to have been carried out projects with a gated entrance. There was a negative correlation between the installation of (see Table 4 12). Disgruntled workers Strangers Neighborhood kids Percentage of firms projects wi th a gated entrance 0.366 0.425 0.366

PAGE 59

59 Table 4 percentage of theft incidents presumed to be by current or former employees, the percentage of thefts on gated projects presumed to be by current and former employees, the use of tracking devices on equipment, and the percentage of thefts on gated projects. Pearson correlation ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1 tailed). Correlation is significant at the .05 level (1 tailed). The correlation between the percentage of thefts on gated projects presumed to be by subcontra and the strategic parking of large equipment was examined. There was a positive correlation between the percentage of thefts on gated projects presumed to be by subcontra ctor employees, type of responding firms and percentage of work that is subcontracted. There was however a negative correlation between the percentages of thefts on gated projects presumed to be by ipment (Table 4 13). Percentage of thefts presumed to be by current or former employees Percentage of thefts on gated projects Percentage of thefts on gated projects presumed to be by current or former employees Tracking devices installed on equipment Percentage of firms projects with a gated entrance 0.509** 0.4 90 ** 0.420* 0.386

PAGE 60

60 Table 4 13 Correlation between the percentage of thefts on gated projects presumed to be by subcontractors employees, type of responding firms, percentage of work that is subcontracted, and the strategic parking of large equipme nt. Pearson correlation ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1 tailed). Correlation is significant at the .05 level (1 tailed). Type of firm responding Percentage of work that is typically subcontracted Strategic parking of equipment Percentage of thefts on gated projects presumed to be by subcontractor employees 0.422* 0.334 0.379*

PAGE 61

61 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECO MENDATIONS Conclusions The results obtained in this study show the extent to which theft a nd vandalism is a problem on construction sites. It is clear from the study that theft is greater a problem than vandalism on roofing construction project sites. The losses suffered by the industrial contractors as a result of theft on their project sites were not substantially different from the losses they suffered as a result of vandalism. The conclusions drawn are based on the responses from thirty five (35) roofing contractors and seventy one (71) industrial contractors. Findings that were found to be unique to each of these groups of contractors shall be treated separately. The direct losses experienced by the roofing contractors as a result of theft are estimated to be $1,560 per one million dollars of construction work performed (0.156% of constructi on put in place). The value of tools lost by the roofing contractors made up about 35% of the total theft losses with the losses due to the theft of construction materials making up about 32%. Removal of unused equipment from construction site s was the mos t common measure used by the roofing contractors to ensure security on the ir construction sites Minimizing the number of tools left on the jobsite was the most common means used by the roofing contractors to prevent tool theft. Park ing equipment inside a fenced area was also used by most roofing contractors to prevent equipment theft. The direct losses from vandalism experienced by the roofing contractors are estimated to be $423 per million dollars of construction work performed (0.0423% of construction put in place). The number of theft incidents and the estimated costs of those theft incidents experienced by the roofing contractors increased as the annual volume of work performed increased. The

PAGE 62

62 roofing contractors also experienced a higher number of va ndalism incidents as their annual volume of work performed increased. The direct losses from theft experienced by the industrial contractors are estimated to be $3,940 per one million dollars of construction work performed (0.3940% of construction put in place). The value of tools lost by the industrial contractors made up about 63% of the total losses experienced by them with the loss of construction equipment making up about 18%. The u se of lockbox es for tools/small equipment was the most common measure used by the industrial contractors to ensure security on the ir construction sites Marking tools was the most common method used by the industrial contractors to prevent tool theft on their project sites. Park ing equipment inside a fenced area was also us ed by most industrial contractors to prevent equipment theft. The direct losses from vandalism experienced by the industrial contractors were estimated to be $3,450 per million dollars of construction work performed (0.3450% of construction put in place). Thefts on the gated projects of the industrial contractors were mostly presumed to be perpetuated by their current or former employees. The industrial contractors also experienced a higher number of vandalism incidents as their annual volume of work perf ormed increased. The value of computers, photocopiers, printers, etc stolen increased as the annual volume of work performed by the industrial contractors increased. R ecommendations Results of this study show that a good jobsite security system will lead t o a reduction of the vulnerability of a construction site to theft and vandalism. In undertaking this research, it became obvious that there is a lack of adequate research in the area of theft and vandalism on construction project sites. There was commenda ble data on construction equipment theft and this

PAGE 63

63 was primarily based on construction equipment theft recoveries or reports by NER and LoJack. Further research will have to be conducted to better understand the problem and to find ways to curb it. The resp onses obtained from both surveys give an indication of the extent of theft and vandalism on construction project sites and ways contractors have sought to curb the problem. Further research conducted on a national scale would give a better overall picture of the situation. The results of such a study would lead to greater understanding of the depth of the problem and also help in the formulation of policies to address the problem nationwide. Theft and vandalism could be looked at separately in future resear ch. Theft could again be broken down into equipment theft, tool theft and material theft to provide greater detail of the effects of theft in each of these categories. Another area of research would be to look at the true costs of theft to the constructio n industry. For example, equipment theft incidents will result in added costs such as that for leasing or purchasing replacement equipment increased insurance premiums loss of business and reduction in productivity. These true costs could be estimated wit h greater accuracy. In order to curtail incidents of theft and vandalism on construction project sites, the concerted effort of a variety of groups will be need Contractors need to be preemptive when setting out jobsite security plans. Construction activi ties undertaken onsite sometimes conflict with security requirements onsite. This makes it important to develop a jobsite security plan during the planning stages of a project. Although this might add to the overall cost of a project, the potential savings that could be made as a result of such a plan could be enormous. In coming up with a jobsite security plan, issues such as the location of the project, type of equipment to be used on the project, make and age of equipment, number of subcontractors to be employed on the

PAGE 64

64 project, etc. will all have to be considered. Contacting contractors who had previously worked in the area and getting to know their experiences would also be very helpful. Contractors should not hesitate to change job site security measure s to meet security needs during the construction phase of a project. The use of perimeter fencing, secured gates, close circuit television, security guards, lockboxes and careful parking of equipment to block access to easily moved or high risk equipment when not in use are all means that can be adopted by contractors to improve security on their projects. With regards to equipment, the security of small equipment should not be ignored since they can be easily moved. Contractors will also have to keep good records of equipment and should also designate specific individuals to be responsible for equipment use. For example, making equipment to be available to any of the workforce, on the basis of need makes it difficult to have keys held by single users. This need not be the case, however, if working procedures are developed with equipment security in mind. The police can help to curtail the theft of equipment through their comprehensive database and by helping to educate contractors on the awareness of high r isk equipment. Insurance companies can also drive change by mandating some security requirements on construction equipment.

PAGE 65

65 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER To: Potential Study Participants Subject: Contractor Experiences with Jobsit e Theft and Vandalism Dear Contractor, We, the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction at the University of Florida, are conducting a study in the United States concerning theft on construction sites. The focus of the study is to examine the pa st experiences and to understand the practices that are being employed by contractors to address theft and vandalism on construction sites. The study will be conducted through a survey in which a variety of questions will be asked about ground and your experience with theft and vandalism on construction projects. There are no risks associated with participating in this study and the survey can be completed in about five minutes. A copy of the results summary will be provided to any inter ested participants. Naturally, you are asked to answer only those questions that you feel comfortable answering. Your individual responses will be kept strictly confidential to the extent provided by law. Research data will be summarized so that the iden tity of individual participants will be concealed. No compensation will be provided for your participation. You have our sincere thanks for participating in the valuable study. Sincerely, Peter Donkor Building Construction Graduate Student Phone: (352) 871 6344 Fax: (352) 392 4537 Email: donpiero@ufl.edu Dr. Jimmie Hinze Professor, Director of the Center for Construction Safety and Loss Control M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction University of Florida Phone: (352) 273 1167 Fax: (352) 392 4537 Email: hinze@ufl.edu P.S. For information about participant rights, please contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board at (352) 392 0433 or Email: IRB2@ufl.edu.

PAGE 66

66 APPENDIX B JOBSITE SECURITY QUESTIONNAIRE (ROOFING CONTRACTORS) Information about the size and type of company: How is the firm is best described? General contractor Subcontractor Vendor/supplier What is the approximate annual dollar volume of work performed by the company? $ __________. How does the dollar volume of work performed by the company breakdown by project type ? __ ___% Commercial _____% Residential _____% Public buildings _____% Other (please describe): ___________________________________________ How many pieces of rubber tired or track equipment are used on a typical construction project? _____ W hat percent of the work is ty pically subcontracted? _______ % subbed What measures are commonly used to ensure security on t he construction sites? (Check all that apply) Lockbox for tools/small equipment Strategic parking of large equipment Neighborhood watch Alarm system Gated entrance Security cam eras Warning signs posted Remove unused equipment from site Security fence Exterior lighting on the site Use worker badge system Station a guard at entry gate Night security guard on site Police patrols Other describe: __________________________ _____________________________ Vandalism The following questions pertain to the company How many vandalism incidents has the company experienced in the past 3 years? ______ What was the total estimated cost of these vandalism incidents? $ ___________ How many of these vandalism incidents were reported to the police? _____ In how many of these instances of vandalism were the vandals actually caught? ______ How many of the following typ es of vandalism has the firm experience d in the past 3 years? ____ Graffiti ____ Broken glass ____ Destruction of in place materials, fixtures, or appliances ____ Damage to licensed vehicles ____ Damage to construction equipment ____ Other: _________ ____________________________________ If known, who were the vandals? (Check all that apply) Disgruntled workers Workers who had been fired Strangers Persons who had been on the site for some reason Neighborhood kids Other: _____________________________ _____ What steps, if any, does your firm take to curtail vandalism?

PAGE 67

67 ________________________________________________________________________ ______ ______________________________________________________________________________ _. Theft The following questions pertain to the company incidents of theft: Approximate ly how many theft incidents occurred in the past 3 years? ______ What was the total estimated cost of these thefts: $ ______________ How many of the theft incidents were reported to the police ? ______ How many of the following types of theft incidents were experienced in the past 3 years? ____ Tools (hand tools and power tools), Value of Loss = $__________ ____ Licensed vehicles, Value of Loss = $__________ ____ Equipment, Value of Loss = $___________ __ __ Computers, printers, copiers, etc., Value of Loss = $__________ ____ Construction materials, Value of Loss = $__________ What has been the value of any copper stolen from your projects in the past 3 years? $__________ If applicable, giv e an example of a jobsite layout decision that has been used to discourage theft. _________________________________________ _____________________________________ ____ _______________________________ ______________________________ ____________ __ What is the mi nimum value of a theft loss that is reported to the police? $_________ What percent of the theft incidents have the stolen items actually been recovered? _____ % Wh at percent of jobsite thefts on your projects are assumed to involve employees or former employees? _______% Maintain tool inventory Mark tools Maintain s ecure storage area Make workers responsible for tools Minimize tools left on site Workers provide their own tools Other, describe: _______________________________________________ What measures does the firm take to prevent theft of machin apply) Park equipment in well lighted areas at night Modify ignition or fuel lines to make it difficult for others to start the engine Include additional identification on the equipment Use a distinctive color for the equipment Park equipment at a central location/specific formation at end of each day Install tracking devices on equipment. Secure equipment with chains and locks Park equipment inside a fenced area O ther, describe: ____________ ___ ________________________________

PAGE 68

68 What company projects are of greatest concern in regards to theft? _______________________________ What has been the most effective way used by company to reduce jobsite theft? _____________________________________ _________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________. Optional: A summary of this resear ch study will be prepared. If you would like to receive a copy of the summary report, please include your name and address below and one will be provided to you as than to get a report to you. Thank you for your participation in this research study.. Name: ____________________________________________________________ Firm: _____________________________________________________________ Street Address: ______________ _______________________________________ City: __________________________ State: ___________ Zip: ______________

PAGE 69

69 APPENDIX C JOBSITE SECURITY QUESTIONNAIRE (INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS) Information about the size and type of company: How is the firm is best described? General contractor Subcontractor Vendor/supplier What is the approximate annual dollar volume of work performed by the company? $ __________. How does the dollar volume of work performed by the company breakdown by project type ? __ ___% Commercial _____% Highway/roadwork _____% Utility _____% Residential _____% Industrial _____% Public buildings _____% Other (please describe): ___________________________________________ Ho w many pieces of rubber tired or track equipment are used on a typical construction project? _____ If a general contractor, what percent of the work is ty pically subcontracted? _______ % subbed What measures are commonly used to ensure security on t he cons truction sites? (Check all that apply) Lockbox for tools/small equipment Strategic parking of large equipment Neighborhood watch Alarm system Gated entrance Security cam eras Warning signs posted Remove unused equipment from site Security fence Exterior lighting on the site Use worker badge system Station a guard at entry gate Night security gua rd on site Police patrols Other, describe: __________________________ _____________________________ Vandalism The following questions pertain to the company How many vandalism incidents has the company experienced in the past 3 years? ______ What was the total estimated cost of these vandalism incidents? $ ___________ How many of these vandalism incidents were reported to the police? _____ In how many of these instances of vandalism were the vandals actually caugh t? ______ How many of the following types of vandalism has the firm experience d in the past 3 years? ____ Graffiti ____ Broken glass ____ Destruction of in place materials, fixtures, or appliances ____ Damage to licensed vehicles ____ Damage to const ruction equipment ____ Other: _____________________________________________ If known, who were the vandals? (Check all that apply) Disgruntled workers Workers who had been fired Strangers Persons w ho had been on the site for some reason Neighborhood kids Other: _____________________________ _____

PAGE 70

70 What steps, if any, does your firm take to curtail vandalism? _______________________________________________________________________ ______ ______________________________________________________________________________ _. Theft The following questions pertain to the company incidents of theft: Approximate ly how many theft incidents occurred in the past 3 years? __ ____ What was the total estimated cost of these thefts: $ ______________ How many of the theft incidents were reported to the police? ______ How many of the following types of theft incidents were experienced in the past 3 years? ____ Tools (hand tool s and power tools), Value of Loss = $__________ ____ Licensed vehicles, Value of Loss = $__________ ____ Equipment, Value of Loss = $___________ __ __ Computers, printers, copiers, etc., Value of Loss = $__________ ____ Construction materials, Value of L oss = $__________ What has been the value of any copper stolen from your projects in the past 3 years? $__________ If applicable, give an example of a jobsite layout decision that has been used to discourage theft. ________________________________________ _____________________________________ ____ _______________________________ ______________________________ ____________ __ What is the minimum value of a theft loss that is reported to the police? $_________ What percent of the theft incidents have the stolen items actually been recovered? _____ % What percent of jobsite thefts on your projects are assumed to involve employees or former employees? _______% What measur Maintain tool inventory Mark tools Maintain secure storage area Make workers responsible for tools Minimize tools left on site Workers provide their own t ools Other, describe: _______________________________________________ apply) Park equipment in well lighted areas at night Modify ignition or fuel lines to make it difficult for others to start the engine Include additional identification on the equipment Use a distinctive color for the equipment Park equipment at a central location/specific formation at end of each day Install tracking dev ices on equipment. Secure equipment with chains and locks Park equipment inside a fenced area O ther, describe: _______________ ________________________________

PAGE 71

71 Describe the extent that your firm tries to protect the property of the facility ow ner? We protect it as if it was our property It is not a concern of our firm What has been the most effective way used by company to reduce jobsite thef t? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ __________________ ___. Optional: A summary of this research study will be prepared. If you would like to receive a copy of the summary report, please include your name and address below and one will be provided to you as entity will not be used in any way other than to get a report to you. Thank you for your participation in this research study.. Name: ____________________________________________________________ Firm: ____________________________________________________ _________ Street Address: _____________________________________________________ City: __________________________ State: ___________ Zip: ______________

PAGE 72

72 APPENDIX D SAMPLE SIZE ESTIMATI ON TABLE Confid ence level 80% 90% 95% 99% Z value 1.28 1.64 1.96 2.59 Estimate interval (Delta) 0.02 0.0 2 0.02 0.0 2 (p) (q) Sample size 0.5 0.5 1024 1681 2401 4193 0.4 0.6 983 1614 2305 4025 0.3 0.7 860 1412 2017 3522 0.2 0.8 655 1076 1537 2683 0.1 0.9 369 605 86 4 1509 Confidence level 80% 90% 95% 99% Z value 1.28 1.64 1.96 2.59 Estimate interval (Delta) 0.03 0.0 3 0.03 0.0 3 (p) (q) Sample size 0.5 0.5 455 747 1067 1863 0.4 0.6 437 717 1024 1789 0.3 0.7 382 628 896 1565 0.2 0.8 291 478 683 1193 0.1 0.9 16 4 269 384 671 Confidence level 80% 90% 95% 99% Z value 1.28 1.64 1.96 2.59 Estimate interval (Delta) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 (p) (q) Sample size 0.5 0.5 4096 6724 9604 16770 0.4 0.6 3932 6455 9220 16099 0.3 0.7 3441 5648 8067 14087 0.2 0.8 2621 4303 6147 10733 0.1 0.9 1475 2421 3457 6037

PAGE 73

73 Confidence level 80% 90% 95% 99% Z value 1.28 1.64 1.96 2.59 Estimate interval (Delta) 0.04 0.0 4 0.04 0.0 4 (p) (q) Sample size 0.5 0.5 256 420 600 1048 0.4 0.6 246 403 576 1006 0.3 0.7 215 353 504 880 0.2 0.8 164 269 384 671 0 .1 0.9 92 151 216 377 Confidence level 80% 90% 95% 99% Z value 1.28 1.64 1.96 2.59 Estimate interval (Delta) 0.05 0.0 5 0.05 0.0 5 (p) (q) Sample size 0.5 0.5 164 269 384 671 0.4 0.6 157 258 369 644 0.3 0.7 138 226 323 563 0.2 0.8 105 172 246 429 0.1 0.9 59 97 138 241 Ref: Ostle & Malone (1988) Statistics in Research Chapter 17.4 & 17.12

PAGE 74

74 LIST OF REFERENCES Journal of Construction Engineering and Managemen t, 131(7), 826 833. Burglary at Single Family House Construction Sites Problem Oriented Guides for Police Problem Specific Guides Series Guide No. 43 < http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=1761 > (Nov. 25, 2007). CBC News (2 < http://www.cbc.ca/news /story/2003/05/20/housetheft_030520.html > (Dec. 13, 2007). City of Tempe Arizona, Crime Prevention Unit Construction Site Theft < http://www.tempe.gov/cpu/construction_site.htm > (Dec. 13, 200 7). LoJack Corporation (2003). < http://www.lojack.com/pdf/2003_Const_Theft_Study.pdf > (Nov. 25, 2007). < http://www.lojack.com/pdf/construction theft study.pdf > ( Nov. 25, 2007). < http://www.nerusa.com/includes/NER_stat_project_FINAL2004.pdf > (Nov. 25, 2007). < http://www.tereurope.org/newsite2/TER%202007%20Theft%20Report%20for%20web.p df > (Jan. 29, 2007). Jobsites. Here Are 10 Steps to Help Protect Y < http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JVJ/is_3_16/ai_n13809125 > (Dec. 13, 2007). nt of Construction Plant Theft Research Series Paper 117 < http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs117.pdf > (Jan. 29, 2007). Firms Are Using Tool Trac Engineering News Record [serial online], 251(1), 34. Available from: Academ ic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. < http://sea rch.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10300589&site=ehost live > ( Oct. 14, 2007). ard b Engineering News Record [serial online], 258(11), 31 31. Available from: Acade mic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. < http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24569228&site=ehost live > ( Oct. 14, 2007).

PAGE 75

75 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Peter Donkor was born and raised in Accra, Ghana. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in building technology at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology. Upon receiving his undergraduate degree, Peter worked for a year as a qua ntity surveyor at the Greater Accra Regional Coordinating Council, Ghana. A heavy industrial construction industry.


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 E20101203_AAAAEM INGEST_TIME 2010-12-04T00:14:53Z PACKAGE UFE0022176_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 111486 DFID F20101203_AABUIE ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH donkor_p_Page_69.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
21665298b514f0c7cc9bccf327bfd6af
SHA-1
e8d48a19c7a7be256819fec8554b8a0237b4e52d
8423998 F20101203_AABUNC donkor_p_Page_73.tif
7598c4cee2199c8fc2ab83b149ae5344
f9d51b76c68ab1d873c223dad92b08f99c7a07e1
108472 F20101203_AABUIF donkor_p_Page_70.jpg
c1dec7e1636da5b9ea6542488240b90a
1c6b61d37e8b93c1b06794ed7a85bd29b9654943
6052 F20101203_AABUDI donkor_p_Page_52thm.jpg
e1e773ae8bbce19360f0458df0ec4d2b
7a336fc2d3227de9cafcce884191cd1296cc175c
25271604 F20101203_AABUND donkor_p_Page_74.tif
14d29778543402883c51a4f975e344bd
b52404b22fccaafad6f5a92608663665464bb9b0
46227 F20101203_AABUIG donkor_p_Page_71.jpg
4a7a47339c2be7df9489982d6620960b
f2f06dc11596cf0773bb192eb10e5914bbe39d33
35007 F20101203_AABUDJ donkor_p_Page_14.QC.jpg
f0ffdb61a1d27cba91e3323205de00e0
6a24e4b290004d6dc3a288b9310a7462da5cd039
1053954 F20101203_AABUNE donkor_p_Page_75.tif
a77355e51cdf0a18277bf53f04675472
728309e845c4861b656840443890a001fb366f49
59947 F20101203_AABUIH donkor_p_Page_72.jpg
5d642ffb9488ac0cfd8425d18f633332
02302dad235cc44be67770c7df1307f9ac106ffa
F20101203_AABUDK donkor_p_Page_28.tif
5be14a4b2057defe99067dfb9ff09972
71e0a281beae05a0858a4d04e0012658df62bf80
1988 F20101203_AABUNF donkor_p_Page_01thm.jpg
52ba600237bd23287f3d1a155504303d
3ca53ca3e09072f5ca27b397d0455cd84d49dabe
42206 F20101203_AABUII donkor_p_Page_73.jpg
8786a06c600895c47a44ede5559e5fc7
7b77573a2c5fb8928fcb5e6c37b158bbb8a46e5a
1051971 F20101203_AABUDL donkor_p_Page_07.jp2
c25c6dbb7b9b73bf9c659ed11a2fc9f1
a6d38d1556998798e48c5f36772a9fa5e387708a
945503 F20101203_AABUNG donkor_p.pdf
dd80999e9b477fd976a8ec22bcd4bf0d
9a2a0b7f05c78fb35d22d7a4640924f7995f3302
136912 F20101203_AABUIJ donkor_p_Page_74.jpg
d661aa7a73c50c8586a722dd32a447ce
70c034b25db495160141051da2fa1b4d9b146e35
334328 F20101203_AABUDM donkor_p_Page_08.jp2
5ded848fce17f7e67e27d06d51d6e0ef
90dc3f82e630802ae5c7bfe56a69baee13f7f2aa
1594 F20101203_AABUNH donkor_p_Page_08thm.jpg
248d4bb4b7acd8738618ee6a1dc739e2
240caef9764acf21da8623032152c14a632e196d
28233 F20101203_AABUIK donkor_p_Page_75.jpg
1c36c4bb0ee1a4bca5212f5c1a96db94
c80b534a0a51bd1d8f1079267d6a7b577436823d
113466 F20101203_AABUDN donkor_p_Page_66.jp2
3239aaf20556cfb6ce90f3add8b268ce
0a21488eb150623894652ef7ee89e738b73bc829
18965 F20101203_AABUNI donkor_p_Page_53.QC.jpg
a1433c6731c0f35095864d78419b589a
d53197602bf61609a2d8652d2b323cc7a3cbceab
24497 F20101203_AABUIL donkor_p_Page_01.jp2
f9d3ac1b590d0cd5521d39990e48e6c0
0ee23b85bf72431af9c770daf6bdc87f77c4cdb6
13099 F20101203_AABUDO donkor_p_Page_71.QC.jpg
00dccb6b8e31c9ca1ea55eba36fbd4ff
62b6bbc8a61d71e50475fe1403a8b9cba2fbdc23
5351 F20101203_AABUNJ donkor_p_Page_49thm.jpg
d0aebee43146c7f18d922ed4d4e3e069
5395fc5be8e76937f586e7d3af279ade3154bdc1
5138 F20101203_AABUIM donkor_p_Page_02.jp2
a91ff66105a8b8d1efc1e5d2607e9818
e7ce2101ab25b27fbfd2e2056608dddd703856ed
1320 F20101203_AABUDP donkor_p_Page_13thm.jpg
37ede0a75ede6aae9384d52b06cdffcf
45e64f3a52068f9e146bce97f44fa0a239ab8b0f
7079 F20101203_AABUNK donkor_p_Page_42thm.jpg
fda5d72ae497ba44786b5e343b5767af
2be6851c78562e0e735fa8ced9d343b3b24dd6a1
4568 F20101203_AABUIN donkor_p_Page_03.jp2
55f3673129b8cedfd994eca3de05a5df
d0ddb1098273f31b238c7023d4ba2d4e393e8e70
106127 F20101203_AABUDQ donkor_p_Page_63.jpg
692f0fdc98b964ecb4740e507fcf748d
1d6094626eaf658b14c24c91e10afe4c3bc98811
26140 F20101203_AABUNL donkor_p_Page_42.QC.jpg
c9c4707334543bff60b0bfe0d4a8f0e5
047079569a3e79091bb4e34e60ea05a0db17776f
17089 F20101203_AABUIO donkor_p_Page_04.jp2
477fb90ce40d41490aa0a112fe7d40d8
bd7b42075972f7e6b0cbd235df71d88c23c53d45
6750 F20101203_AABUDR donkor_p_Page_30thm.jpg
6d93187c7b7c2b64c9064c9e2d6c6565
7f7b0a079adef02173f2eac6181b28922572a839
24123 F20101203_AABUNM donkor_p_Page_26.QC.jpg
253bae2ac2d2d42c55714139b52b3b1e
6b4d8958a3bd7b9f97c2271e2af5a4c0ef024683
1051976 F20101203_AABUIP donkor_p_Page_05.jp2
c9b4cb76518759bee8b902b8a92d5a4f
734711ab0a975d5d17aecefb3302d37684131db4
F20101203_AABUDS donkor_p_Page_09.tif
9641fd5e3d8630c98c933e8cd17af9c0
81842a508761369962f0557093540cc32b89ddb3
8193 F20101203_AABUNN donkor_p_Page_62thm.jpg
78f98829d414ed29b5e5d2c78c6ff20b
36fdf9fba55aa79e70ad69654f268eddacad4aa6
160380 F20101203_AABUIQ donkor_p_Page_06.jp2
ad9fffa0a3130158fc830d3ca7fb6678
8b97d3264ab7af571fda6cd4f68d374735d77239
29079 F20101203_AABUDT donkor_p_Page_18.QC.jpg
dc6c74097011544fd16063b0740790b5
de22a59d3e97df73249c051cf4e7156896c9c63d
28391 F20101203_AABUNO donkor_p_Page_57.QC.jpg
76b590e7c3938041c6a484cd60331e53
cdbcecae9be89e376c7ac7d78c3b8588826a8c58
1051978 F20101203_AABUIR donkor_p_Page_09.jp2
5b5ea9fba804a43313b9b6283b8784e2
3e319dc26d8dd52dede38fc049b055211f7d550e
7629 F20101203_AABUDU donkor_p_Page_19thm.jpg
9d37d48ef14d5c5f807d48562ea807fb
ed991ff89fd8eefed81ce51505aebfbe9e45101a
1051974 F20101203_AABUIS donkor_p_Page_10.jp2
e603f4dc22b0394dbfaf927c6bf21d2b
025e0b24029b0285c1efaf75a9f6ea42ac929f68
6030 F20101203_AABUDV donkor_p_Page_31thm.jpg
d8c820d3debd4ab6274eff94788d1aed
b475ff4365d8ef898f12f536e5648607f8213e3b
7537 F20101203_AABUNP donkor_p_Page_41thm.jpg
734ed16ce471a04e64ba80d26802d92e
ad7727927c392f80fe187bb10e479c05baebaec9
86556 F20101203_AABUIT donkor_p_Page_11.jp2
cb64935bc8dd99400d2764958cf146c1
2ebbc07b75021e9425c30b0261b76046972bfd20
7028 F20101203_AABUDW donkor_p_Page_57thm.jpg
f78f474449865bbe5fd55f4dd1daf73b
eeef992f9bc44861fe93d7722b37e2a44b0295f0
5826 F20101203_AABUNQ donkor_p_Page_72thm.jpg
99b007ceed85bfc9f9b3c50478bd57ba
38cb21033b8ee65ee903610c27fe4bcefc56eece
103516 F20101203_AABUIU donkor_p_Page_12.jp2
9ddda60dd373231fe7990392acbdc67e
d7b8f34fba8494c0fc8da4fb8bf7668e1b0683e2
F20101203_AABUDX donkor_p_Page_72.tif
e5b9a6b2d89d638437f2f5cf7b8e7ca2
1829ad8232315f6d58f903682cf83ef8fc801053
17374 F20101203_AABUNR donkor_p_Page_46.QC.jpg
49424d411bd0cf33e26fd3a1c96ccc81
ba80af4e5d8951581a28da3e6e7883b32aeb7bd5
14079 F20101203_AABUIV donkor_p_Page_13.jp2
a931ea1c633a07f54f2590ce3b921e30
d3b953b1d84f183db62ccd8ad203f5759887a295
469 F20101203_AABUNS donkor_p_Page_02thm.jpg
8b1fbab3e244cac1240ab7ed93efb959
b7ab6209ce703a3c806d106392414cfe2323bbb0
112517 F20101203_AABUIW donkor_p_Page_14.jp2
cbd5af0b5a4e5c978998ab0f85629c62
7ea4069e24c16a7b91f041c96579d1de754eb7c5
21413 F20101203_AABUDY donkor_p_Page_10.QC.jpg
bc8bc6470da85ecb5348e5c9eec1c7c2
02ea0bd17719aed78f60ff702a096c1fe24bad65
6415 F20101203_AABUNT donkor_p_Page_26thm.jpg
43b1e3d1c07457409b81221cc1e2bffc
9859b66207d42475825bdd3ebea7da783c3250fd
98089 F20101203_AABUIX donkor_p_Page_15.jp2
f0d2dcc377b14c7076a8d66f0234e5b1
7015cbee86fdbfbf6c269de984df36b4cbc6d7b3
17388 F20101203_AABUDZ donkor_p_Page_35.QC.jpg
984a894f57f64aad47c3c22fb4856abe
caaab674a7217f5ae4666f4e3310dc5d1a12d8b5
6958 F20101203_AABUNU donkor_p_Page_29thm.jpg
16b223ad19677e9673231f4682b13d61
b00af47f8c49b1cb95487ff40b9b8ef0ec229eab
103533 F20101203_AABUIY donkor_p_Page_16.jp2
01d272bdf7eb93a21306a98cd97f1196
b72365c03261d4aa5404bf246b3790e46f861895
5552 F20101203_AABUNV donkor_p_Page_54thm.jpg
91cd1c8561a35e2a6d3938dbff6d3cbf
869219dfdee50156d086ffffdfcd6fc0c7bb7aae
3187 F20101203_AABUGA donkor_p_Page_03.jpg
5df3dbe8794f9aef54dc3030f62fc884
0c237dd6fbcf5d1a1f4cb5b1e66485ec422a9072
116328 F20101203_AABUIZ donkor_p_Page_17.jp2
5f4a760bf341c8aba66b40e1eb8778b4
219f83cccb88a702ed1f43ed07919c2e4354b87c
6619 F20101203_AABUNW donkor_p_Page_56thm.jpg
6977950a40395ec81b665f8e1aa3b4ef
4dbf7ea267b9e3eff2431b1e933141a9145ea5df
15525 F20101203_AABUGB donkor_p_Page_04.jpg
b01e900c152ae21fe8add0866025d81e
3b332d13aa3a2b9b1d2581c62af74c13a5759a38
8072 F20101203_AABUNX donkor_p_Page_16thm.jpg
39b397e3b7c12ea2940779ca8d60fbf8
0ec907511531d13f3ed324b6de5fa18bee42b883
19077 F20101203_AABUNY donkor_p_Page_55.QC.jpg
cdd649daf059b0a46709f9ee11481863
3767eec4218145ba8f126a433ac93fda7b32493d
93056 F20101203_AABUGC donkor_p_Page_05.jpg
7a1402cc6a6268646345f446efb946d7
3cd6d4a9518cf88527e4eb1b928b97490ac516af
F20101203_AABULA donkor_p_Page_08.tif
8fe1f3a72e79cfd7f46e4cd8aa3ce1de
3345a066ebd5ef504d6dbb4c0c87c93a2067d4c1
7522 F20101203_AABUNZ donkor_p_Page_18thm.jpg
98b64d89ccf8839f2263ff61ddbaff40
eb5f7aea02be7e2c342805015d3c2d38de136117
12494 F20101203_AABUGD donkor_p_Page_06.jpg
cbacd98c7de1ad4d4ba0d1c6ff4e83ba
64c3e073e783fbfedd3831be47abdfef4b95eb21
F20101203_AABULB donkor_p_Page_10.tif
2dad36bc92c9d5563647965e88797b0e
e83dfba7d1f38de3817263be451a13c4897b8456
147774 F20101203_AABUGE donkor_p_Page_07.jpg
338d2ae45c64e1da34ce413dd9e1e96a
6fa19169b5504921fff9660bf10c91396ac048b3
3600 F20101203_AABUQA donkor_p_Page_06.QC.jpg
5bcfab56836b88e4ab881e0b3d3f5740
31f5d0cc3845c05253fdd12477bfb7e015463b8a
F20101203_AABULC donkor_p_Page_11.tif
b9819b592e80d15ea5c6df5467a349bf
9f4fd1ee78dbe595ce6caf9b2be2f5db94366185
20886 F20101203_AABUGF donkor_p_Page_08.jpg
6d70118a237ac71ea3f0f796899b064d
8cd3aaf134b1a1887f414a81f623c92781729069
5860 F20101203_AABUQB donkor_p_Page_08.QC.jpg
61edfde3404f83f10a1cc3bd2fce5758
00dfea83804bb90f25eb4163cb0af59e995347c1
F20101203_AABULD donkor_p_Page_12.tif
ee2aa85de57bced5098aee0c20c9f119
eb081e18341be6d1564411d92e5682be4758be36
125985 F20101203_AABUGG donkor_p_Page_09.jpg
125635a36a4c99b920d03a92c77af88f
77e0c38378aaf345843d07c1bfe3c84decffef80
36860 F20101203_AABUQC donkor_p_Page_09.QC.jpg
410e634c86ac27c7dbb12883fce32557
c08105bfc8cfea97a4c92fbfca5d3098d5f165a4
F20101203_AABULE donkor_p_Page_13.tif
e236f958dbaaaec29bb1551348773bb2
651d9daef4c9832898974ba3c23aa75666d56d57
75550 F20101203_AABUGH donkor_p_Page_10.jpg
7c853fec6a3dbaa9a6e158c38e3f9f17
719a77ff8a06405647c54aa015cb86a6547260b1
5066 F20101203_AABUQD donkor_p_Page_13.QC.jpg
2b1ab63daa4f740ec0aa34129ad43c50
d324e0153ea2775d3a9e0d6170b2dc6b9b4cfa31
F20101203_AABULF donkor_p_Page_15.tif
286d853a68326b30fc6fe73f197cb14e
db261504c059db42fc94fa291ebdd8530d6d10fa
98948 F20101203_AABUGI donkor_p_Page_12.jpg
70937c6b043cb66b75e2761f27f741fa
f12be995f96e1df1c644eefd3b4f7a5aac20dbca
8727 F20101203_AABUQE donkor_p_Page_14thm.jpg
0f1deac1dee240a6ead8a025810fec4f
2055d94248c3d0eae852998e99477ab456304814
F20101203_AABULG donkor_p_Page_16.tif
5ff39bb6c12bca5e10b5dcde3582d9b2
d35edc74aa9efdc60f045487ebcf00749c10535b
13562 F20101203_AABUGJ donkor_p_Page_13.jpg
3fb08dbcbbb4b5a501b14f21b3a9efd5
3b8424722af76e95be4701286078551e353de07b
F20101203_AABULH donkor_p_Page_17.tif
4e06165156d291b20e0fef6a28a62e0b
7616cd9c594df494f257204952c415988f1af8e1
90941 F20101203_AABUGK donkor_p_Page_15.jpg
22d11f4461dff0161c3c604c8bd1bb0c
fee7dde9f1e00bfa4c106601130b707df922e1f1
30520 F20101203_AABUQF donkor_p_Page_15.QC.jpg
f8a423563deab309f2afd3b591faa393
aa2432196b69bcde6e507aeed742f9dc90ae5e74
F20101203_AABULI donkor_p_Page_19.tif
2c1a5074f084c27daf8a1b5c3337b1bb
fc3a8e29224fb0afe13d1d1e9e57c9a0cb2553d8
97948 F20101203_AABUGL donkor_p_Page_16.jpg
c9ec0a787537eb4f3a1c887b169508cf
a8b18dbd4bdd141b580296599c3d3dbd259a49b4
28381 F20101203_AABUQG donkor_p_Page_19.QC.jpg
9fdc4c1b977510c43e3a03211cc07773
976de33eb7c4fd0194df41627fef50ad55fef59a
F20101203_AABULJ donkor_p_Page_21.tif
a8b45a701cdd56aefff67f3223ca7842
20d0ec68b684a54a4fa1c007bd0f4a0a41c3d961
109873 F20101203_AABUGM donkor_p_Page_17.jpg
6cd7496070769dbd032db5751cda6fe9
115e1b18f5a823f98b2cb44b8787be999329d63b
7745 F20101203_AABUQH donkor_p_Page_20thm.jpg
248007646b9ef550371d35033f353dcd
79470405068eb4cade392cf1bc075af24abdc309
F20101203_AABULK donkor_p_Page_22.tif
d5240b33e4397bbed494e1e59c760e47
81446efd31ce2665cb4c13b93e637f535ad6a8b9
87556 F20101203_AABUGN donkor_p_Page_18.jpg
67d5504ba7dfb37216d9aa8e11f0a43e
b6acb533acc8cab732ce5fbcf41567d48d4d0b74
34465 F20101203_AABUQI donkor_p_Page_22.QC.jpg
1856dd1b8fcc9a9455b20f6e6cf862a6
13dc0be3acd02bec3a3300c7f9951b9db9844947
F20101203_AABULL donkor_p_Page_23.tif
7cdf67d19f131628455a235a5418f558
47b4c8f7f3af41c3612fd8d62818ec8ea273b9ca
85952 F20101203_AABUGO donkor_p_Page_19.jpg
14f7c03a8092a5de69dd152a6ac417fd
4e889ffc1afbc2156d6272734e00851d1b578a4b
8485 F20101203_AABUQJ donkor_p_Page_22thm.jpg
a2dee433e09997d842f43b672072b024
b29de438ee80fa5ffc08f4d84fde5309abaadea9
F20101203_AABULM donkor_p_Page_24.tif
ddf635b81a047b71b786aedf2540f7a2
151eb11ab3ea8c414ea49e0e682ad2c8ff9f1abf
89937 F20101203_AABUGP donkor_p_Page_20.jpg
2d111b792853c5ae9c0a13ab4e584a6c
f5af53249f7ec809df248f806501d017b2ec8cf9
10551 F20101203_AABUQK donkor_p_Page_23.QC.jpg
7904d64d3af91594c88fd2959eaeaaed
9aabfe7d16bfba833d33d571424b9130b2dd175c
F20101203_AABULN donkor_p_Page_25.tif
cd462365d1001b53c84d0d12d5802f09
49ffe08919ba2f0e1dd64b7dd715d83ba1b295c7
67028 F20101203_AABUGQ donkor_p_Page_21.jpg
16ed92e6fba774b05fd3fc49b2f94bda
97a9639bfe232637f87e364808a59c5f1ed80974
F20101203_AABULO donkor_p_Page_26.tif
a310cad14fbb9638285c30c12ef4e13c
1aebe94cbb2cc11ed4c40d47bb1ddb188ab7a296
106949 F20101203_AABUGR donkor_p_Page_22.jpg
d43f308cb3d6b6eb1f94d5a81d584731
4cd4bbef980198d07d42914c44c99c8dc423f916
7376 F20101203_AABUQL donkor_p_Page_24thm.jpg
17860ff1130aa48b9485435ff94e5c2b
2c4c601ec91347f8fb32db95f21a280a068cc8e7
F20101203_AABULP donkor_p_Page_27.tif
258c2ebd0412cfa0e4608239af3e5f20
7a2d6c9ede574db2782a75197078a17c80a506ae
30161 F20101203_AABUGS donkor_p_Page_23.jpg
62ca445dca11bbef84e683ae0327c8e5
84a4631d9050765e7225ddd8c926c05db7c02f70
25649 F20101203_AABUQM donkor_p_Page_27.QC.jpg
2672f951ebe590d9ffc97bc4bd652484
be2de941baaf2a6f2f62d71120ed74a2ccec29c7
F20101203_AABULQ donkor_p_Page_29.tif
f66af626fa72b6e246210fcc283fd3fb
60f9634d8a151166e15a3951ea70e11fc80c6c41
69976 F20101203_AABUGT donkor_p_Page_26.jpg
113b68f5f029ac02287e39bc7268f476
390e9deab91fa0a4f4b410b5be64e3dca8aa9e91
30769 F20101203_AABUQN donkor_p_Page_28.QC.jpg
132ecbaa842f8d6d20ade5647c9bc6ed
dc0bd14103c1d907e15a939d6cafffee704f5f52
F20101203_AABULR donkor_p_Page_30.tif
e40f35b187d57b26d430ea394fa5eaf2
52d4d3469c03ee36d75fdf2e3638d760677caf03
75577 F20101203_AABUGU donkor_p_Page_27.jpg
6a42ec1245ff8dc2f68c07ad8bd8bbad
e24b012e15d883e69b47c87811d901f458054960
26018 F20101203_AABUQO donkor_p_Page_30.QC.jpg
f390cff2067eb3dc66f3d25592b164bd
3c1210d142dd2998f257722d16ab30bae6454e8e
F20101203_AABULS donkor_p_Page_31.tif
4ac16025fdfa58628f4df7e8a82564bd
704ccfee19df2598258c38c6741f46cd4ba424f3
91889 F20101203_AABUGV donkor_p_Page_28.jpg
8365b5fddb78276d612ed64f7e3b2721
51c11e92e71912450759ead0fb04e6233c1ef4ce
27953 F20101203_AABUQP donkor_p_Page_32.QC.jpg
06991dd095573b814a929872a60d062d
e60091ffa58317683dae2c2308518ce9a277ecfb
F20101203_AABULT donkor_p_Page_32.tif
a54f1525fa50cd4abeed81846cb58a40
1f410b1c60948ec4ee11f079c46344feb79a7337
76669 F20101203_AABUGW donkor_p_Page_30.jpg
133941f3e004cbf309af9859f20f85f2
8221549b9e03f341ab1969da1959a124ac79f6a4
5643 F20101203_AABUQQ donkor_p_Page_34thm.jpg
741233241d7aad492a57917c122130b1
06c0532979eff35558217f679ee2104cc52455b5
F20101203_AABULU donkor_p_Page_33.tif
6161b02651732c87676d407b8c6af0a7
b7a05844c66d14cc35cc76edc21317e1bf7aed2f
76973 F20101203_AABUGX donkor_p_Page_31.jpg
271d74786f671c6ac3938f03fe735d9a
70d545b3dba8469dda511731a08f1999579f01c7
4812 F20101203_AABUQR donkor_p_Page_35thm.jpg
1c8b4e78a0d3905b7c8c3e0708dde087
b3ad7c589eb64ad912085854f7b7a850cd98040d
F20101203_AABULV donkor_p_Page_34.tif
079b7107aa6f09bf751de8607c84b75a
b20b58002694eb507f66ebda8cc7ef089cfc32e4
89999 F20101203_AABUGY donkor_p_Page_32.jpg
a9f74177bd39e51f8165a51825eb412f
99299d3ab463096bdd3483cbe0801c7d27067f1a
24952 F20101203_AABUQS donkor_p_Page_36.QC.jpg
477135986ac14a2219e75afcf3d691ef
f83b46b675e05756b4fde88dc84519df6226f9e2
F20101203_AABULW donkor_p_Page_35.tif
314d5041edc1426f67dd90861712dd38
54669371972ac4d2045fdec774482714272deeea
92462 F20101203_AABUEA donkor_p_Page_19.jp2
e8dc3648220594bb8c93859d0e584d91
109051c5caed1e8287e54dcff27b4f385028bb97
46458 F20101203_AABUGZ donkor_p_Page_34.jpg
115ee04ffc794a10798f8ba54c8c729e
b345eb483f733b35f0433596d67b672e03ef0b51
7889 F20101203_AABUQT donkor_p_Page_37thm.jpg
73094b3332e2ebf0856f73ef5ef20e8b
d07af2c667f1f9da1ccc214bf45e3710f27c05e0
F20101203_AABULX donkor_p_Page_36.tif
651fa2de32281e49b86ca690e9fafa22
5582b55d92f674461916eacda0205d4977c7d168
F20101203_AABUEB donkor_p_Page_05.tif
cc599fc53fd6dabc6e125c6b8a550299
782af415975d5c076da11cf3083f05868a327df9
6321 F20101203_AABUQU donkor_p_Page_38thm.jpg
7b49e808d94ae02b7d1e80254658cdb4
09a16411dd80381e2da07fa1357f0284913dd1ea
F20101203_AABULY donkor_p_Page_37.tif
990d43266bf2bae7a2362330e79c89cc
a74899c3a63bbfba9209ad533c1476d7126d62dc
F20101203_AABUEC donkor_p_Page_20.tif
f46a5e4040d02547c5a02152b38b6aa3
807feadc652ba5c8c2e00facd8cee37a45089858
20811 F20101203_AABUQV donkor_p_Page_39.QC.jpg
7219a9b1e80233ee6514553d60022f6c
a311cbcb873682dbea2b1f9ef92e21f7079be2b7
F20101203_AABULZ donkor_p_Page_38.tif
6253f55e90d5c9043e5606e0b04a034e
cccb9eb74e86dfe3e7c615ce3806e870f048fdd7
29287 F20101203_AABUED donkor_p_Page_40.QC.jpg
3818c784f988e840d8b7d76144e17e1d
46483807a5f90fbb82ffd4b2ce28621ffffd662b
24453 F20101203_AABUQW donkor_p_Page_44.QC.jpg
3940322f124619d449275009c951ac2f
c55a274947aa441430e092f479c0808ec01245b9
93869 F20101203_AABUJA donkor_p_Page_18.jp2
441806934914dcdbc9d9609097c64495
a5da39a04fed94772281eea84c8113e83476a1f8
8942 F20101203_AABUEE donkor_p_Page_07thm.jpg
7c1469546b9b32d78c7a15cbd5a3c811
cf2785b5bb4aae66fb61041963ba99cdf78142cb
4864 F20101203_AABUQX donkor_p_Page_46thm.jpg
793321c4a5edea0109bf20732a6a3c93
c5aa8738116070149c0ad16b0000d9853e533a04
96103 F20101203_AABUJB donkor_p_Page_20.jp2
f32c9d7cc3482d36e915dc57ed4c4bd7
a8cac9cb02f5b1ac5994bdd221fa72813aaa1896
F20101203_AABUEF donkor_p_Page_10thm.jpg
89e39041dc346dfd23b51f7e7fe149c3
3c190a3c4b464be6c61734d63e414b7e42b9080d
5964 F20101203_AABUOA donkor_p_Page_05thm.jpg
3296c8b411fc9b40963842cc25020522
ef0c14ab3de049314f57ba87820eeb9603911f5c
6814 F20101203_AABUQY donkor_p_Page_47thm.jpg
25f652b1cdb2ccfd0bc1229a25a63ad2
5687e74bc1ad18171429f4f0c07f2cbde7da67c7
70652 F20101203_AABUJC donkor_p_Page_21.jp2
156b1f8694a13ceddc183099442ff82c
0241065db435b838d695d467fc1cbf093727db46
6873 F20101203_AABUEG donkor_p_Page_51thm.jpg
df8cb73f33ff625bb440a522220b41a1
88a05ecc52dc5909f089d565b62d65ce40eb9ba3
2802 F20101203_AABUOB donkor_p_Page_60thm.jpg
6c4bb6ab018481d2e0e25dc73ad4b6e5
793dc80aeff870805c9e65fdf18198647f83fc84
25248 F20101203_AABUQZ donkor_p_Page_48.QC.jpg
956a7e1d7d2ceb2661c82328d337cd87
1885d4c8f25b85d19ef097b692863eec5715e1f2
113864 F20101203_AABUJD donkor_p_Page_22.jp2
907060ef70a15ca199826acb46e483b1
0fcb2868b8172dd1d3e4e9b6d0d57290ed47e91e
3763 F20101203_AABUEH donkor_p_Page_02.jpg
684bba9533920fa11749fbe3a694dce3
7816c02d99ae812b67de7a9cf8934bcf70e9cea2
7603 F20101203_AABUOC donkor_p_Page_66thm.jpg
fd4d8ce615e29b86fde6bfb2abda0255
bbe4aed8300dcea7cadd21fcff05b93c4a316bb4
310655 F20101203_AABUJE donkor_p_Page_23.jp2
8146bd2860b80aeab36a40f995a16e91
e7d1bda839646868a2db6b5374ba4a684085f679
82190 F20101203_AABUEI donkor_p_Page_24.jpg
fb9aed64f7097494c42e96bbad83eecf
82fd8104e8c29cdd91b4184be69997721225921a
828204 F20101203_AABUJF donkor_p_Page_24.jp2
b12af4a45856271d4769692ddfe0d2b5
b893fad0c0523c718d01b552af1f2d862b3be186
840520 F20101203_AABUEJ donkor_p_Page_40.jp2
6139af20dd945b440001a2dc65037f3f
626d0e4b5134506ba5b55853f36bb951ef3fe0da
6807 F20101203_AABUOD donkor_p_Page_11thm.jpg
edd7de5d47b4723df08d1ab0085fa04b
bbc741a46663be1ece119587fa95e32e6441967a
830434 F20101203_AABUJG donkor_p_Page_25.jp2
a6221e70a925d56c4a058ad632a2210b
38495179613f91ddc80a1957fd801de5b30a8a5b
108220 F20101203_AABUEK donkor_p_Page_14.jpg
aa29ec8da78d0fd4ff11d740a1c29a66
2304828638780a792db9676d5657109f4dce14f4
18322 F20101203_AABUOE donkor_p_Page_72.QC.jpg
bd4d5f6f8a26c986590647b57b6c7c7b
bf2994a6f7a8e052f1314aec499adf81892da90b
693826 F20101203_AABUJH donkor_p_Page_27.jp2
4882e9644c6fc946906881a3115c1c0d
5000680b8d3f313fad829778dad6a1341a2ff500
30686 F20101203_AABUEL donkor_p_Page_70.QC.jpg
ce29648f2f5479b5acec7079d190cb91
b5689094e673ca883d6f8d7169c712f31645bec1
7084 F20101203_AABUOF donkor_p_Page_32thm.jpg
8dae0a46dd660fb713838a0038dfb33b
636b32ced25d1a6f5aea0b66f525c81def561733
908707 F20101203_AABUJI donkor_p_Page_28.jp2
1eae2dccff2c46682b13483c733aa66e
d5a8ce713f21497b377b61d40fd997211944903a
F20101203_AABUEM donkor_p_Page_61.tif
56c16153a4acc51b7e8185df958a1a3d
b2c9d75f35641272968c2db2be9eda84c061ae64
32267 F20101203_AABUOG donkor_p_Page_16.QC.jpg
9ff1171c292675b25ded09448cae4329
b74267e78b35df4696fffcc22f72a4eda833d7af
639890 F20101203_AABUJJ donkor_p_Page_29.jp2
526a555a775e8c362a30ba915b73f7c1
c2db0da10e13869539170407384b083e1c8ce4b4
53327 F20101203_AABUEN donkor_p_Page_33.jpg
eaa1247b960c480a4c150821db957497
f7e3f56ddc3700de938b0af26d35fe9b7786ecaa
7274 F20101203_AABUOH donkor_p_Page_44thm.jpg
c22b975ad1ebf87af0053e5d8abb5a30
c5b04bd4a0dfca3c046158b71c62ff82560869a0
765759 F20101203_AABUJK donkor_p_Page_30.jp2
ae5e5be90544b48695c64e6e1170cf3c
0f9ce715f381ac66369bc4e99c08f69529c2cae1
1328 F20101203_AABUEO donkor_p_Page_02.QC.jpg
2cc0f63ba125f73a437212082d210ba2
6db8fb7fce91424efb8be259ad0d27f1be42a23c
4757 F20101203_AABUOI donkor_p_Page_04.QC.jpg
36a564fa971cd9586ea55efcc1901f3c
e80db710cb315c2b96eb6ccf5f67c26c277ab1e2
79689 F20101203_AABUJL donkor_p_Page_31.jp2
1f7087eff6b32a3474e13adca3589bd1
48c2bec421ca164ecef233a68aca2762f9cb24f9
69231 F20101203_AABUEP donkor_p_Page_29.jpg
bbd50e8e938068c6464014a9b9d26db3
64531d9abf8b24e9fcbd6518399f3ea45667744e
9499 F20101203_AABUOJ donkor_p_Page_74thm.jpg
2046978f06f72879185ffe6281436a46
6c74f05dcc93d0d77abf470bed2bb330f0830694
58225 F20101203_AABUJM donkor_p_Page_33.jp2
31270dbcb372b9ab193c735c2e2babdf
03ba9d4c18612c0f8425508a376fa933a3767b6a
110025 F20101203_AABUEQ donkor_p_Page_37.jp2
1e02fa14d5585134277659233d2c533a
467ddaabe783b854931f2b056c76e8195c6a85ec
27944 F20101203_AABUOK donkor_p_Page_65.QC.jpg
70c5eaeb3c854f80a9dcc27d4852e58c
52c97e42cf52cefc3cfd0e3011511346d724a66b
380994 F20101203_AABUJN donkor_p_Page_34.jp2
8a0405a2d8b98c2f200d433c9f1ae388
b75b18abfdf367ba748ed13e3c8c00abff3f6879
F20101203_AABUER donkor_p_Page_50.tif
1f2ceda17a59f11170014e3b0c5c0866
b9caba9d42d642fc27ade2bc410bed9048ca6ba7
33169 F20101203_AABUOL donkor_p_Page_37.QC.jpg
dacee97ac0793fa653ccebe6d6ab9131
fa24b758a238c4b74b95d35375267324c0624898
443573 F20101203_AABUJO donkor_p_Page_35.jp2
fd6dcb8bc0b884e22ac37ac5b6ef101d
4b5691d9f4bd3c6aef536a7b20c849b254e28893
F20101203_AABUES donkor_p_Page_62.tif
02e65643cc52fdb25c02cb4ffa734f2b
c89a062dc75e5b7b6f912def73586c6fb79fe5c6
25300 F20101203_AABUOM donkor_p_Page_64.QC.jpg
03cd3752ca4857e7faf93a76aab926db
1735812c097b3f68f27867e836a516902db3aa50
757982 F20101203_AABUJP donkor_p_Page_36.jp2
f51fb3389b060fbd682c274949bee660
c1e5ecfd73c95d630cab18d801d2a554d54aa62d
1584 F20101203_AABUET donkor_p_Page_04thm.jpg
f8b2a299548956def0cad2564d0aea14
a9c369c89bbcd28ab4480627aea7ed104cca4c90
34276 F20101203_AABUON donkor_p_Page_63.QC.jpg
3eba3f41a1cae75cc3b60e81795c763e
cd88ac5561e86706d2731f96a774caf9e1b3a0db
693685 F20101203_AABUJQ donkor_p_Page_38.jp2
5b6ceac80f18423c86313241d51ac7b0
3c5cfe97cb8eb46d64063684c99ce81887392480
3767 F20101203_AABUEU donkor_p_Page_73thm.jpg
b8d8730b2ef71e43a80fc80305556755
5abb02d1bcf88d48de704b1f50dcf3b64431ac89
7259 F20101203_AABUOO donkor_p_Page_65thm.jpg
bb8a9496930e6f653f386b7d699cf931
f6e5fb5bcda7eaea2086c27f9be9db8830446e70
871586 F20101203_AABUJR donkor_p_Page_41.jp2
9d778b1dcbe89f15dc78bc1affad0d4e
0804439901c05f92d5b781ad4c5233a829e30960
83019 F20101203_AABUEV donkor_p_Page_25.jpg
d331d5a8ceb320e01ab253783f550b9a
9a95d177421dfce5f22276ca3fba7093bd9af094
26375 F20101203_AABUOP donkor_p_Page_43.QC.jpg
9087f3e65ea0cab9eb13f70d2cde023b
98048eb459fa9be52944744082122c78c3402bdf
766922 F20101203_AABUJS donkor_p_Page_42.jp2
a7edb09afd25e1cb011b180c80ce2d9a
7faaa496e93dacfc63285710dfedafba851d0ef1
36720 F20101203_AABUEW donkor_p_Page_60.jpg
0cbace70bc6020d414cd24de061b20f6
f552a3418ab45a1fefadd616359f9d85986df704
3021 F20101203_AABUOQ donkor_p_Page_68thm.jpg
ed126244c011b43579326b9adef9efdf
3be57ca7e633a47cc302dbb7f9a4987beb357854
760741 F20101203_AABUJT donkor_p_Page_43.jp2
26e1196c1ac80a26bd2bdafb95272f6c
d610e767f5cc0188d67204d8064c314fa2e66649
5738 F20101203_AABUEX donkor_p_Page_21thm.jpg
6c11661be0add83e2277ef242a1fc5fb
0f507ab51d1e1cca88d84394a9831074be0f6a01
2553 F20101203_AABUOR donkor_p_Page_23thm.jpg
5716b897f98aaf40c7a6c70b5d5fd70b
2118510a3d26ad7c4b5b7e6e35c9fdf21cdeff5f
653693 F20101203_AABUJU donkor_p_Page_44.jp2
2c7dc99d4002fa694e6dc8dfe89963a9
b1887446530ab7f5b6bb8f82d68eb09a4259a336
397092 F20101203_AABUEY donkor_p_Page_73.jp2
40361d6e5c313449090d568b03f8d5b1
741402457a328dfdce0a144cdb57f0f54fecf486
31174 F20101203_AABUOS donkor_p_Page_66.QC.jpg
904019a4b46886cf540877e6ada38adc
caffa31e2a306f6de709aab211b83051707c270c
954948 F20101203_AABUJV donkor_p_Page_45.jp2
0cc4ce99b632dd80e5f1ac6f0f416774
29736a920461b85c0a4188b7db3c9eccc96f554c
7245 F20101203_AABUOT donkor_p_Page_27thm.jpg
35b82a96e89822709a768426a8dc7b6b
de67aa53a1329670b87a75f88bd4ef6036c01702
456183 F20101203_AABUJW donkor_p_Page_46.jp2
115ab1b5e8760f2f5084aab8fba8f637
af60a203e69f5a9edff221491a237649fbb74360
107538 F20101203_AABUEZ donkor_p_Page_66.jpg
bf8ca32dd9cdd4fe7b240593e3adacca
7b5481af2f48931171d2229dc08a19c7111cf52f
6889 F20101203_AABUOU donkor_p_Page_43thm.jpg
df5f8d34ec1116c4faf8fb8c5c59d28e
18956a71d36b61eaf5a4b12c59f32a111b21f00d
95187 F20101203_AABUJX donkor_p_Page_47.jp2
67df4af04edc3f0d89ed70188825c2f0
104edb75ea2582ea01b9dd589ba573f322a7b29a
39048 F20101203_AABUOV donkor_p_Page_74.QC.jpg
29c59e04b96b819a250ed35b9c228a38
aee1b318997a4c08ed61c5b6a0e98ee328afeac8
84900 F20101203_AABUJY donkor_p_Page_48.jp2
720aa3cbf0537ce0eb8c0cf3d82901e4
8359cfb05013851a939f21a201702444c7490145
8118 F20101203_AABUOW donkor_p_Page_28thm.jpg
c97fb4c05700c5987273a47ce2bf0005
c975be9a8a67efcff945590d2de85305af8b16aa
49056 F20101203_AABUHA donkor_p_Page_35.jpg
017e6c0913ab7c987dc3f7a3a2b0abc8
23d541d73d950dac88b6edcda475358264656bff
570194 F20101203_AABUJZ donkor_p_Page_49.jp2
486c2e4e1a9054c4d2a5c7420f8fb56f
964d7530ed866b961f4e8ca76535d0aa7e34e59d
32270 F20101203_AABUOX donkor_p_Page_45.QC.jpg
0ac5b53b549402eda9b0890176cacb21
24b7dc80bc56a485c64e2c06eeec03b6e6c83771
77941 F20101203_AABUHB donkor_p_Page_36.jpg
ad9767c8330940c01332066d2ef52f11
380c385b524a218499d4620268dd9c4fe6be1f0d
24364 F20101203_AABUOY donkor_p_Page_29.QC.jpg
834515a914ba3fd2c2b5b3228f54c89f
99a688385adeb2e663f1132f8eea768d8b418223
104269 F20101203_AABUHC donkor_p_Page_37.jpg
690f5bd6694a0b369a4d4f0f64fd0226
0ef440c1a7db61891ea2ea27581d0017948b7ce5
F20101203_AABUMA donkor_p_Page_39.tif
6eb103387935305bcb25c8ebc41329b0
777a485abd81436325916136afc24c9807b23795
8043 F20101203_AABUOZ donkor_p_Page_01.QC.jpg
d1e5f69bb95d8a5110636175a509b675
d37fd71e4e91c899a38f4e44566de955d77a93ee
70923 F20101203_AABUHD donkor_p_Page_38.jpg
c9cf1c74c7b13b17ac46d8c3c8998e54
e063ff59be1acef2b44ca6c417aea11562fea5e3
58432 F20101203_AABUHE donkor_p_Page_39.jpg
b3a81e98c25625f1a60e8d0f97c901ab
d37c0be1b09640c9cddc4d5a43625f8d79be2251
F20101203_AABUMB donkor_p_Page_40.tif
dd2a2c63822e9540af5168b10f0c5d8b
8b7617ccef4f8a414a28e217ae2172a3503b0831
82899 F20101203_AABUHF donkor_p_Page_40.jpg
5276f65e55c2b74ca7ebf511184a17df
a598949e15d88657beb7fe2c8010a65968755c0a
6132 F20101203_AABURA donkor_p_Page_48thm.jpg
46ee7cd2f05595df496d5469a4fe9ffc
c0ced6d0104573ec2e9d7544aff3add26970c340
F20101203_AABUMC donkor_p_Page_41.tif
0a92a21413d1a59af12af6d97980376a
617d51bb453bac23e02aa690cec5cab3355b8cf4
84943 F20101203_AABUHG donkor_p_Page_41.jpg
f1ab1a10a223669e8ad534aaddd9b183
2d510823c1af0023bd4abe0a11a49182c8ac780c
19848 F20101203_AABURB donkor_p_Page_49.QC.jpg
6929d8c867c73ad871bb7ba90c38cd61
1c6c9402994d9838816125f9277eb3d975628367
F20101203_AABUMD donkor_p_Page_42.tif
ee4a3bb5d6adc79a37307818f828e076
c7892135bd3b77ee9070d2433fd138b90f12ecb7
76840 F20101203_AABUHH donkor_p_Page_42.jpg
51e828133f5476fc736d190723060958
a5e77c6352b86ebe59cca3e70f10ee8b374fcf99
24754 F20101203_AABURC donkor_p_Page_50.QC.jpg
31459fda738d416d87bb69cdbf190744
bdc48c33bce38cfbcac90dba81febb7398aa8472
F20101203_AABUME donkor_p_Page_43.tif
f4a9b638885167bdd806222d364c49de
94949650f5fa200f9e94b815389e6d738212609e
75285 F20101203_AABUHI donkor_p_Page_43.jpg
52f31786b09d7edc184522db1e314bb9
c09df9e11d1edfa2993a2d7dae0b9b17110d7d0c
6544 F20101203_AABURD donkor_p_Page_50thm.jpg
01c04d898821f12725678831e97d7230
8391daa4956d67fe0d27e02a0aae613f811fbf5d
F20101203_AABUMF donkor_p_Page_45.tif
f72e3a68bda953e7f9b3697b4bccef7d
d7abe23663ce645093aaaa913b4438fdde963158
71456 F20101203_AABUHJ donkor_p_Page_44.jpg
4df99971eaa8dc7c6c11c841ac824d34
e987518f63488eba605690e2738663742f01003b
25780 F20101203_AABURE donkor_p_Page_51.QC.jpg
33693b1e41b8a089621a9b5a4ee9e8d2
d92b31812e32a43d95e42ea1f6c1906ee243daca
F20101203_AABUMG donkor_p_Page_47.tif
ec3b08624d5fe83eec3fda2971f78f31
f6c21ea73f7b43411b5af8dc4eff05efc2a9b61f
93006 F20101203_AABUHK donkor_p_Page_45.jpg
b01c40293c661fa50ba08780484a5cf9
9fdf8cfc2bcec5f652b388591c3b39b576ee7d43
22926 F20101203_AABURF donkor_p_Page_52.QC.jpg
fb2b9c8ecddbbf85df783233ad5382e2
dba5e74fad0eee652c59d4363df18c6bf14f830f
F20101203_AABUMH donkor_p_Page_48.tif
5bad0ce600fa3eb247c64799ebaaeaa8
9bdcab41e3216c1e77026a70fff86a6d8f3dd951
49208 F20101203_AABUHL donkor_p_Page_46.jpg
53329d3d726f08a5214632da657c70c9
247f2cebf0958db09c58c6b3bbd5d2ed4460e63e
F20101203_AABUMI donkor_p_Page_49.tif
d766ba76074e7c7df0db5b992d5a2a65
68dbee9064937475caaacf882d7831d0f7a3f73a
88031 F20101203_AABUHM donkor_p_Page_47.jpg
9efec571f8fb503ef0725965e2ff1f0b
69db8bad89f1257687ba03872f338046d9605726
5143 F20101203_AABURG donkor_p_Page_53thm.jpg
ce73262d40450789da9f84fa653eb864
d616ffe1edfd3330c81e4422bc2f12e45297f82c
F20101203_AABUMJ donkor_p_Page_51.tif
c4a020b8a5ef43ae18e185a32a9f486a
b21b76ffaa22fb2edb70f0ad4151f51b70e06382
60278 F20101203_AABUHN donkor_p_Page_49.jpg
ee436b390e1548239976a3317e2cce6a
c059127627248ab95ecd4d9e2ac6126b73cbf9ed
23808 F20101203_AABURH donkor_p_Page_58.QC.jpg
9d89095385bc0329a02ba5f08f67229f
009d926f00f2db5870f7ddb9915a7c16ae464fad
F20101203_AABUMK donkor_p_Page_52.tif
a0e9758e500c17e64ac6c9ea7558e030
f3dd3cd956a31f5e49c889831e87d79deabd7e81
71968 F20101203_AABUHO donkor_p_Page_50.jpg
e181b298ebea59438e497de5633d1349
5471eb52da14e57714f14fb82463e2fd0dc3959d
5962 F20101203_AABURI donkor_p_Page_58thm.jpg
cb8a282df07e9a8a65ad56ed08c592f0
e271f369abc7132404b276557fa7e4797eb4fc4e
F20101203_AABUML donkor_p_Page_53.tif
36985c4282e2664a391ed5529746d65a
1fb162d2e96b70e819e5c5b3450b106f314c9a69
78470 F20101203_AABUHP donkor_p_Page_51.jpg
0dedda9a1ed8cd824b39df4c0704ce85
d59385a6650b7c53cccb3b9d00704e3b8fc6b827
24698 F20101203_AABURJ donkor_p_Page_59.QC.jpg
75ccc43c64750e3046fd74e32d243fb5
4d59fbc48550f4864bf06060ea5ca6a099ef444e
F20101203_AABUMM donkor_p_Page_54.tif
65cce3883a67ec21edaf42cc027edf72
5152c08daaf639ec415365c88f400e775dc8b790
65857 F20101203_AABUHQ donkor_p_Page_52.jpg
65c01584c2a937f50ae790f70cdbb404
e9214e434c79abd3ebcdcc6b79ec50cacf73564e
10802 F20101203_AABURK donkor_p_Page_60.QC.jpg
7612e80fd0900d49009d859ccdaef688
0adeabb8d5a5f26c948f6223d5dada68b71cb39a
F20101203_AABUMN donkor_p_Page_55.tif
73cca798b08224d137e78f69d338ced8
086624fe11dc3c096aeeb84726f6766470c0199c
56435 F20101203_AABUHR donkor_p_Page_53.jpg
5027ba3e636fdb4c1859905e89e0ceef
235184fdc7163c9fa60a9cbc30875410f314528e
33441 F20101203_AABURL donkor_p_Page_61.QC.jpg
9fd8dad8610ab5c39781ba14f835d815
007165fb883a887f1557698c7253457da244062b
F20101203_AABUMO donkor_p_Page_56.tif
17c38626eb81c71286819fb528d6ce53
6ad5b314832062cd0c49079390604e5e0b636226
61079 F20101203_AABUHS donkor_p_Page_54.jpg
43d50879b7e8f1f7256d694ff0c26011
020015972931357f3bb480806964889db53ac351
8190 F20101203_AABURM donkor_p_Page_61thm.jpg
7400e40ceefd8bbd350dacd2321dbe76
e2d41221f3109af48dad6fc103d3f961a8d0f5bc
F20101203_AABUMP donkor_p_Page_57.tif
6637529ad2b1e5e651e0e3361c1dc7fa
8b68529c0c1dded3febde4623b062cdc2c73612a
55677 F20101203_AABUHT donkor_p_Page_55.jpg
dee6013debe4072633c3779cea6a8eed
ecb6167fe415a32c631d5b92b967dc30a2282a92
32872 F20101203_AABURN donkor_p_Page_62.QC.jpg
e32fbbce93ece714561deb5e709eb1d4
486d569aef3649f7112e76231532dda0ed13eb21
F20101203_AABUMQ donkor_p_Page_58.tif
541be215162d04d6b6d0c282ef8f7550
3112811a397e89fbc3c16f46707da5c7c084d5ef
74889 F20101203_AABUHU donkor_p_Page_56.jpg
88c2355f00018aac715c6cfbf8c723f7
ac7a3c721500783fa1ef907f5385f8b984047dce
8736 F20101203_AABURO donkor_p_Page_63thm.jpg
dc6e85a770c28ac2a24e0c7f91aed26f
4b03fd712bbe31ab508c5d69a57a2949b217f333
F20101203_AABUMR donkor_p_Page_59.tif
81d4692fcc5010473694f83ddb0e4126
2a75cebb2901af5728b2f377b3eb7aec8c504ecf
91619 F20101203_AABUHV donkor_p_Page_57.jpg
9bc543cb1a158201e2f659b892c1c1e7
c099fa622c222066283c047117d5a2ca7dfe90bc
6091 F20101203_AABURP donkor_p_Page_64thm.jpg
75412c8851da71a0e494169e3e3aa9a2
7b5221b81d76bb7b46dd6543d81864fca1791fb1
F20101203_AABUMS donkor_p_Page_60.tif
d2e1fc5f5902baeec2d1819b1f7247c5
450cbf76ec706616cefa21f257606b2e9b3454c6
74678 F20101203_AABUHW donkor_p_Page_58.jpg
5f6f0cfd1670d708e2331c2723407080
454ade8ee079e0da2a819e691f561bfd1fef0757
29430 F20101203_AABURQ donkor_p_Page_67.QC.jpg
6efda9e4c4a2767a75fdffbc28617feb
5d27c72424eea9b999794533489c73b3615a9053
F20101203_AABUMT donkor_p_Page_63.tif
0b2f861cdcd8d0973d08c6917ef30551
70ee1931d2fc328f848d94cb94c5249fe2219253
F20101203_AABURR donkor_p_Page_67thm.jpg
838829d9bdfdb66b5a8f9a0a40cf7d91
dee12ec55ba6e367c73f8a22485769a0abf3dac6
F20101203_AABUMU donkor_p_Page_64.tif
609d7fac833d273c2ef738c0a5f290ec
8dedfa59842d46dd76a79e72c44ac51675d7bb2e
79571 F20101203_AABUHX donkor_p_Page_59.jpg
6718ff98fec80c4cce00901532588480
0a349def3d2a9730aeeeae91779cf1ebfd18c7ff
31464 F20101203_AABURS donkor_p_Page_69.QC.jpg
d8690086eaee880202790c4fc723d0a4
c9e863fb9df8ce95579ebe83fc87c30db4911ed8
F20101203_AABUMV donkor_p_Page_65.tif
3431d8179ef1506f2b50802c5a2e98cc
d34cd9eaa18b7ec66b657209c0f3d1cdda656a5e
100088 F20101203_AABUHY donkor_p_Page_61.jpg
a59daab7e99d9da6d6a38705a923ff01
ac31958f1b74a38abc27c9278d15baed5461a0de
7461 F20101203_AABURT donkor_p_Page_69thm.jpg
627ef1d8558f39daafe3299fee1470bb
4384e8c72d7e3275e3e6a794b36c68698ef0db41
F20101203_AABUMW donkor_p_Page_66.tif
08c04c66189274987b5cca8c7f831e3d
af93238cd4338786daa5cbccfa5baaae3701a3f8
F20101203_AABUFA donkor_p_Page_18.tif
aaa3f0596b6ca2535eacd3aef2017572
353bbd0ee6d683bfeb819eb2fccfb3c698d27f15
101228 F20101203_AABUHZ donkor_p_Page_62.jpg
b72dff0b6ffc884904a59ef3bc48bfa3
1915be612ea6f30aa015c1882a7997ed14bc491f
7195 F20101203_AABURU donkor_p_Page_70thm.jpg
c29e5b8d82635abad60abf2b056e7e16
50a6f7ff01c59d247f4a0627ae97a60a8b18418e
F20101203_AABUMX donkor_p_Page_67.tif
bb7c7347d52ba0aff89d8906ab75d4c6
a6e0e02bb8639a0f8bbd58a4cf251aa78095d7bb
84898 F20101203_AABUFB donkor_p_Page_11.jpg
0b932324ed10f0fa2fe9d3f6bd189627
f42bebdbc5f7f178b7e0c660df359bc8b13fb466
3285 F20101203_AABURV donkor_p_Page_71thm.jpg
6bffe5f28bbb77b55bd97e7ce205f87f
4b175f0c1b59cd0180086b4610702fef5a4fb109
F20101203_AABUMY donkor_p_Page_68.tif
ffb436ec39f3245ca9c77dd45b1b115f
fb5f7e1dcf75034ce0242929223cded48d38e857
F20101203_AABUFC donkor_p_Page_46.tif
da201d0c4c3d278fd74020c3104ad482
52ff31084d9b2ecf5b102eff664abef3fc755bb2
14294 F20101203_AABURW donkor_p_Page_73.QC.jpg
15cbad75296397cf76f141d1ef170910
b7783f5d53b5d2639c9b4afbaf8e58cab1e74e6e
705146 F20101203_AABUKA donkor_p_Page_50.jp2
8ec05fdc40a3d0ff875e8433cca8d503
c75ec3bec6855bd8e81b30c5bff1c2f83ce456b6
F20101203_AABUMZ donkor_p_Page_69.tif
9c502e23d13bf1c6eda046b7bcccf36f
59a5e0eb5ddeffbdfcbf6b6aa99a376f2a64b7d5
32325 F20101203_AABUFD donkor_p_Page_75.jp2
3da8d6c77b3c504e7aa5686d0fafa745
12531aa906dfb502a3ff040434aae1253e9c32bd
9387 F20101203_AABURX donkor_p_Page_75.QC.jpg
54b24272d1480dcd2308ea466a84af3f
513275d1cc4c784e29501bb5bff663c02ced0b05
760318 F20101203_AABUKB donkor_p_Page_51.jp2
9fff1faa2825c10bf6b431f24e695e4f
bba5badaf2a90ccbb212da9d3e6ff0fe8e9cd48e
F20101203_AABUFE donkor_p_Page_14.tif
d45043f0b3ddca439424d40bb75019a7
f39a56f78a610f3752a2e5d75d8f46d838de50d3
637318 F20101203_AABUKC donkor_p_Page_52.jp2
1fc2019290598c6f77526f83e650635e
c02920a4b3f445057c12e94c8f4c11ceab53131c
681767 F20101203_AABUFF donkor_p_Page_26.jp2
8149fa7f20429c929d120c122dde8b20
503f2dab3d8348359971f2e0730715fc5be60bb7
26922 F20101203_AABUPA donkor_p_Page_47.QC.jpg
4369c29892388a5fcbbf8e461a1fac1f
f483001631469c2c1dedb80fd1b46c194b8a0f84
540038 F20101203_AABUKD donkor_p_Page_53.jp2
a0f6aa9c04593a105be756ace00e09e8
5e23c74be338b555610b1d9a6b4e44764698f628
8909 F20101203_AABUFG donkor_p_Page_17thm.jpg
400168d7406ceb701772f606bb7370fe
70651873d85705b2a597fb0dff414c56b2aca803
5890 F20101203_AABUPB donkor_p_Page_59thm.jpg
29283b0d70a2cab53ca712f6f733740f
48ab6b11eabf5189f10b5c13e4fb97d9e71ae2d9
580029 F20101203_AABUKE donkor_p_Page_54.jp2
d5c74969909f29d7556d73a87c4b685d
f16ea0925d0da2f7b1156e2fa488d1eecbd67877
F20101203_AABUFH donkor_p_Page_01.tif
b2d221597d07e5953fa9ab8daa43c525
42e63efd6256172e312fe1f73c949ebfdd47e606
2792 F20101203_AABUPC donkor_p_Page_75thm.jpg
0d9a9844c71d4dc467d960583b69b13c
2060eb5f892bcb88cfecc1813f1b71ccdb939057
516944 F20101203_AABUKF donkor_p_Page_55.jp2
a8deaacda31a4224bee0d727c2f0a7ed
bc6c6e9bab86be861966a3c174fcf84e2e67581d
F20101203_AABUFI donkor_p_Page_07.tif
ae96b95a07577d67e92eb933bf396ead
e5d87964a0592ae93175bbc9db38ac768a432328
29706 F20101203_AABUPD donkor_p_Page_41.QC.jpg
33972aff8e10d422b79d7c5ababe3eb2
4e6f5ce972558f5ae3a28c66540613a683f3dac1
737189 F20101203_AABUKG donkor_p_Page_56.jp2
3dbc7f095f6152dc0dc6323a4883ecae
03908927e3f0e0304fb2ad827e3448d3bfaaf3d0
27985 F20101203_AABUFJ donkor_p_Page_25.QC.jpg
ac1eb771ffac5505a57202121913f02a
e1578e9c03b740731d1658f295e5f99959d6b8b9
97512 F20101203_AABUKH donkor_p_Page_57.jp2
48207fd68492e74df64f8cd12bcdb571
89db55fd6ae650bc806e4ef12f4c6dcef25f6ff7
8112 F20101203_AABUFK donkor_p_Page_45thm.jpg
b15e44ca42bfb405208b62c3154d12ff
5e1682cd825807149126601086f266389ba87d6a
1138 F20101203_AABUPE donkor_p_Page_06thm.jpg
b97cabc7a400e39a732c770965c13c37
8349c06e34638ab24cdaa367799e542787c5dd35
79358 F20101203_AABUKI donkor_p_Page_58.jp2
7b06a7719a8a94d8c3566e7fec9e8b13
1c3d104d8cb2b31ad75cb81ea930c0b6e0f16d48
8773 F20101203_AABUFL donkor_p_Page_09thm.jpg
2850c83b7268ba1e4dcee8da5d918b19
53a41b5827e26f88ca6aa8935bf8dab126216346
7704 F20101203_AABUPF donkor_p_Page_25thm.jpg
54c77b614eef299e065144134286dcba
bc45062504eb8d988f18fae73cebadd6a8d8587a
85422 F20101203_AABUKJ donkor_p_Page_59.jp2
3a5f7f51dddbc45807e513eab9965c05
ad27ee86a1c2129bab05a4a35eacf74b3fcbf774
7746 F20101203_AABUFM donkor_p_Page_15thm.jpg
8a6092a2faff5761747af1cd0b579e84
fccf61b82bf75de125a55f0433b10cecee4f2b34
24231 F20101203_AABUPG donkor_p_Page_38.QC.jpg
b39513b6dbcdac20d96e8ab4d8165c46
d7cd62264596373516ea0798e7cfd24855b9a9e3
37459 F20101203_AABUKK donkor_p_Page_60.jp2
1075e61de5c42cf2f04e19f4a95a6ee1
c7c13e53a5efd6268cb54eed63665d0f105c7a07
961 F20101203_AABUFN donkor_p_Page_03.QC.jpg
ceb2154bfb0f5a8e0c4595e80e23a08b
3f846497cd17a5cbc9da88a8e16b99f4f5a5e4da
26553 F20101203_AABUPH donkor_p_Page_11.QC.jpg
79d16f3fce097e9e52533d4a668a9117
288caba85ad259934048c34fa13b37c2f8f163c9
1051980 F20101203_AABUKL donkor_p_Page_62.jp2
8b557cb9c9b9edf6c88024b18e3e2b40
fa95137596f39b689c89fdce8ff32664df1e3a8c
17827 F20101203_AABUFO donkor_p_Page_34.QC.jpg
aa1f095fb81b29232930bffbc679e328
359128a02c852bb558d632c93a66af4cc7cce1ad
6864 F20101203_AABUPI donkor_p_Page_36thm.jpg
7f2c4cd6085cf3c36b07c2e37a935f50
a1cafb4da7d86d05b587ce312c7308bfa56f4b35
113170 F20101203_AABUKM donkor_p_Page_63.jp2
ad6b06f86685e043d7c6ceafa06287ee
35fd27b864cb1be837ebf65a7d322fa1568010b5
94091 F20101203_AABUFP donkor_p_Page_32.jp2
275c9cc9c0ba799b4ed437535d1a4dbb
5d7b8fb2eb86e3db6a250f19e12763f1662965e1
21719 F20101203_AABUPJ donkor_p_Page_21.QC.jpg
40c83fb46eb1b421b79e2778a4036256
898100be471c38b458ead35bb8d13aaac6046e72
81497 F20101203_AABUKN donkor_p_Page_64.jp2
69df673ec8fe08c8b3be8b075e52fc8c
23761fd66426482e3d9dfb446a9344a0f0b2a1bd
23580 F20101203_AABUFQ donkor_p_Page_31.QC.jpg
2457599be5603a8fc442fe1de3021499
0d7ddef8c3482f5e92fc892444518c5d81d59cec
23841 F20101203_AABUPK donkor_p_Page_56.QC.jpg
fb76b82679b5a07a4a4fdf2f5dc75e72
9059e539d341a041431f18cbc3e14cd76517b1f6
1051972 F20101203_AABUKO donkor_p_Page_65.jp2
26f62f4b725964acc9fd9cc9f0391f40
177a51c0c6cd8c6d57efab4199b70acd9f309b3d
F20101203_AABUFR donkor_p_Page_44.tif
c13b626c89ca3f76bffa8d6802de000d
077ac844af421a23d545010a3c2cf322bb1d0596
37568 F20101203_AABUPL donkor_p_Page_07.QC.jpg
5771b9cb56778285eaa7c04eb4518805
39b703c0d9cbe7a0da7bf3b8d194f323af07775d
105557 F20101203_AABUKP donkor_p_Page_67.jp2
8722989cf3d5cdbc685c80b88968d8f6
dee7b565027c2914f475571f08c318774437a181
5247 F20101203_AABUFS donkor_p_Page_55thm.jpg
1465cb266160bf20ded50b442e92a2b2
6e5b67c57f11f34ee4101149a5964122b6418923
7623 F20101203_AABUPM donkor_p_Page_40thm.jpg
37082d85dd7fcafa6ca6f2e625ce55d6
b98fd0075b53005231b9cab0fad9255122522f55
36956 F20101203_AABUKQ donkor_p_Page_68.jp2
bbd934d91eecc99ee41d045202ace947
3ad0cc4cfa9bb0a6551c4d76826a9df3b49f15fc
565144 F20101203_AABUFT donkor_p_Page_39.jp2
3d48fcab44a51364a38f5e6a6aa49227
e6684d6dc3e008faa269367a3ad1e998b3141754
11796 F20101203_AABUPN donkor_p_Page_68.QC.jpg
bb05aaa56c6ca26002c0346543b06f3e
c1ab23fb286218c7069eaa653061f9eb7e59006a
114357 F20101203_AABUKR donkor_p_Page_69.jp2
c0fd5737bbb63ab6b66e9d23f5152b03
1e5be3e7373a8b7d1b61ca41b760e873bd1b2598
81037 F20101203_AABUFU donkor_p_Page_48.jpg
a83317679b2b85533bf36503e3be329c
503f45b41e4264763a62a1f4eea361cab0671310
4414 F20101203_AABUPO donkor_p_Page_33thm.jpg
cba3ccbea2ccce2823e1b4b1f28359e0
cffe0cdb8092872b30a31859df00e98df260a081
109532 F20101203_AABUKS donkor_p_Page_70.jp2
2955129f93643a4a5fca16d31b00d6da
58f24713ed68c08d0b9f0195fa7a7b0a1c0dd667
1051962 F20101203_AABUFV donkor_p_Page_61.jp2
ed91706f8e3d11e4a4b0be16bb042cf4
45a92b50fa2193c9310b8b10de2a6e9cc62aa20a
31981 F20101203_AABUPP donkor_p_Page_12.QC.jpg
68912c681a3ea3594d71d034f877a4d7
58a2931224a110bc572e62114b2e02b7c6d28375
57324 F20101203_AABUFW UFE0022176_00001.mets FULL
a8825e4dc60701494a626db03412e132
a2a4e50ccd3df43b598058b99776ccbf67a026ed
6528 F20101203_AABUPQ donkor_p_Page_39thm.jpg
b58025986aef42cfaf1a2d9f314a3642
a803911e66ef2461d9498c227ab0d0ba82115e3b
45298 F20101203_AABUKT donkor_p_Page_71.jp2
883f5e08c1e05876836e998dd2d2cc43
e0cb421cffbf4fbd5edaf2b638c78993d5d9ecb2
29902 F20101203_AABUPR donkor_p_Page_20.QC.jpg
4674453b3ecff1c26ce9cd63f72a4339
492f28156603c5a72c773938418eacbed2e385dc
584997 F20101203_AABUKU donkor_p_Page_72.jp2
bd200d4acef7c4915db58e5a71c3c175
8d7bb19e3369fb6d3c6742dea2330caf1bf29dcc
35268 F20101203_AABUPS donkor_p_Page_17.QC.jpg
e0f8267922d5701c8a8e48db62234228
d9c2da6e74c55c7336e4dc64952fa6e8ddeb51a0
1051956 F20101203_AABUKV donkor_p_Page_74.jp2
e8426f7769244e917105cbc7456b5b19
5fab878b60b733ba7233686dbe94501e035149df
25698 F20101203_AABUFZ donkor_p_Page_01.jpg
5a6e20a927ba247d6e862c1ddb7e363d
3b051fa272a947a1381c34046f168d8493ca3304
7870 F20101203_AABUPT donkor_p_Page_12thm.jpg
a1fee9200733be50f32b5685e230edc3
18fb14616dfdeebe244fe941e33acd78e7fd1b00
F20101203_AABUKW donkor_p_Page_02.tif
60a25a7e67b6d2bebb13378aaeeebe35
bb28f63f5048de61adf177834f41d2e20c657345
20151 F20101203_AABUPU donkor_p_Page_54.QC.jpg
267ca4e457345f6dbb1cce03ff754dad
0be6e9ed93df1589c61d5d52979ba6674f687fb2
F20101203_AABUKX donkor_p_Page_03.tif
1729d60c91b35ee153a59d078ffd8afe
392e117528562533332b0fb0aa1653cc7be90e36
27441 F20101203_AABUPV donkor_p_Page_24.QC.jpg
433935d06b06761a9f9b4a7974f1fb99
7276e961b4e9de085f4aede7c5754b3023281a2c
F20101203_AABUKY donkor_p_Page_04.tif
8d246c8feb3a9873b2cc0eacc25aace6
70f5e515b5f22b81391070fd7c0ce38b4878f563
18859 F20101203_AABUPW donkor_p_Page_33.QC.jpg
21994ca541ff7de4da970123827978fe
446d54780e9729982261689679fbd077600f2da1
75868 F20101203_AABUIA donkor_p_Page_64.jpg
95ba0c186f55f1ce05e03028c0f4eff8
b6b1ce159f486f051b0e7c71dafceb908be39aa6
F20101203_AABUKZ donkor_p_Page_06.tif
1f82091cfd6b107dfbfbe8da9347ceaf
ea2a226390a1953e8b2564492072a43425b7af1c
82971 F20101203_AABUPX UFE0022176_00001.xml
37e85e7c74274ad4043144792329ab90
565dad4c7098d980e7fa2149d40a12483a3511d5
98549 F20101203_AABUIB donkor_p_Page_65.jpg
f4f61a0e66dfb6a1ca8f1f329411ad63
6150602050d89e383073bfc163e58779911f408b
F20101203_AABUNA donkor_p_Page_70.tif
8b7b5fbef44bb2f5ce7c3f1b9e282e8e
5b738c086f73faf6da19a060391582c9f7906c2e
484 F20101203_AABUPY donkor_p_Page_03thm.jpg
be44c2965c4087ba02924c8cf6c2305c
8dff90c4bd0064ff9273c9009f40de3b3221eb99
105836 F20101203_AABUIC donkor_p_Page_67.jpg
3e2f639be0ff9b21bdd6a17d5d37eb0e
913719efe1d05817096ec4cf0d655eb868488e3c
F20101203_AABUNB donkor_p_Page_71.tif
92b0f7533cccdba40373c0c058aabb28
1c7cfad8536c4d6bca375a062c254aa32a161de3
23099 F20101203_AABUPZ donkor_p_Page_05.QC.jpg
a078c7dd1ef8fb3ded6161688589ec46
350c8d2fac1b8f9e245f7af3f9f94b2f9bb908fc
36679 F20101203_AABUID donkor_p_Page_68.jpg
4b85d09d22c13e0287391525552e0729
bf422ecf4cec488cacedaf8a64e6f2c286b83e01