TABLE 12: BAR HOA BOARDS FROM REQUIRING OR LIMITING
INSTALLATION OF HURRICANE SHUTTERS OR LIMITING OPENING OR CLOSING APPROVED
SHUTTERS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KEY
FINDINGS: |
1 |
Overall 76.6% of respondents want HOA
boards barred from requiring or restricting installation of hurricane
shutters or setting time limits on opening or closing approved shutters. |
|
|
2 |
Boldfaced values in the rowd of column
YESes and Noes differ significantly from the overall average as they are at
least 3 standard deviations away from that value. The disparities are notable only within |
|
|
the respondent traits of Interest and Region. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
The percentage YES and NO responses of some
Non-owner Interest groups, notably Board Members and Other, are statistically
significantly different from the corresponding ones of Owners |
|
|
and Overall. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
Percentage YES and NO responses in the
Gender, CCFJ Membership, and Additional Remarks Made sections are not
significantly different from either the Overall figures or those for Owners. |
|
|
Only the Northern Region is
significantly more in favor of the this recommendation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
The
YES and NO percentage responses of CCFJ members are not significantly
different from one another or from those Overall or for Owmers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
None
of the respondent traits had a potentially causal relationship with
respondents' positions on this issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* * * * * * * * * * * * |
* * * * * * * * INTEREST * * * *
* * * * |
* * * * * * * * * * |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* * * * * * *
REGION [8] * * * * * * * * |
* *
ADDITIONAL REMARKS MADE * * |
|
|
|
|
|
BOARD |
|
|
|
|
|
* * * GENDER [5] * * * |
|
CCFJ
MEMBER [7] |
|
|
WEST |
EAST |
|
|
PRIORITY |
COMMENT |
|
|
|
|
OVERALL |
OWNER |
MEMBER [1] |
LAWYER |
C.A.M. [2] |
OTHER [3] |
N.A. [4] |
|
MALE |
FEMALE |
D.K. [6] |
|
YES |
NO |
|
NORTH |
CENTRAL |
COAST |
COAST |
SOUTH |
|
ONLY |
ONLY |
BOTH |
NEITHER |
OVERALL TOTALS |
|
1033 |
|
740 |
130 |
7 |
13 |
8 |
135 |
|
584 |
389 |
60 |
|
196 |
837 |
|
35 |
202 |
156 |
137 |
503 |
|
176 |
131 |
418 |
308 |
% WITHIN CATEGORY |
|
100.0% |
|
71.6% |
12.6% |
0.7% |
1.3% |
0.8% |
13.1% |
|
56.5% |
37.7% |
5.8% |
|
19.0% |
81.0% |
|
3.4% |
19.6% |
15.1% |
13.3% |
48.7% |
|
17.0% |
12.7% |
40.5% |
29.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ADJUSTED # [9] |
|
1024 |
|
740 |
125 |
7 |
12 |
8 |
132 |
|
584 |
387 |
53 |
|
190 |
834 |
|
34 |
197 |
155 |
136 |
502 |
|
173 |
131 |
416 |
304 |
# OF YESes |
|
784 |
|
567 |
87 |
4 |
9 |
5 |
112 |
|
452 |
290 |
42 |
|
150 |
634 |
|
31 |
162 |
123 |
102 |
366 |
|
133 |
98 |
327 |
226 |
# OF NOs |
|
240 |
|
173 |
38 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
20 |
|
132 |
97 |
11 |
|
40 |
200 |
|
3 |
35 |
32 |
34 |
136 |
|
40 |
33 |
89 |
78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COLUMN % YES [10] |
|
76.6% |
|
76.6% |
69.6% |
57.1% |
75.0% |
62.5% |
84.8% |
|
77.4% |
74.9% |
79.2% |
|
78.9% |
76.0% |
|
91.2% |
82.2% |
79.4% |
75.0% |
72.9% |
|
76.9% |
74.8% |
78.6% |
74.3% |
t-Test on %
YESes [11] |
|
|
0.0 |
-5.3 |
-14.7 |
-1.2 |
-10.6 |
6.3 |
|
0.6 |
-1.2 |
2.0 |
|
1.8 |
-0.4 |
|
11.0 |
4.3 |
2.1 |
-1.2 |
-2.8 |
|
0.2 |
-1.3 |
1.5 |
-1.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COLUMN % NO [10] |
|
23.4% |
|
23.4% |
30.4% |
42.9% |
25.0% |
37.5% |
15.2% |
|
22.6% |
25.1% |
20.8% |
|
21.1% |
24.0% |
|
8.8% |
17.8% |
20.6% |
25.0% |
27.1% |
|
23.1% |
25.2% |
21.4% |
25.7% |
t-Test on % NOes [11] |
|
|
|
0.0 |
5.3 |
14.7 |
1.2 |
10.6 |
-6.3 |
|
-0.6 |
1.2 |
-2.0 |
|
-1.8 |
0.4 |
|
-11.0 |
-4.3 |
-2.1 |
1.2 |
2.8 |
|
-0.2 |
1.3 |
-1.5 |
1.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 STD.
DEVIATION [12] |
1.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% YESes Row [10] |
|
100.0% |
|
72.3% |
11.1% |
0.5% |
1.1% |
0.6% |
14.3% |
|
57.7% |
37.0% |
5.4% |
|
19.1% |
80.9% |
|
4.0% |
20.7% |
15.7% |
13.0% |
46.7% |
|
17.0% |
12.5% |
41.7% |
28.8% |
% NOs Row [10] |
|
100.0% |
|
72.1% |
15.8% |
1.3% |
1.3% |
1.3% |
8.3% |
|
55.0% |
40.4% |
4.6% |
|
16.7% |
83.3% |
|
1.3% |
14.6% |
13.3% |
14.2% |
56.7% |
|
16.7% |
13.8% |
37.1% |
32.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calculated
Chi-Squared Value [13]: |
0.0194 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.6034 |
|
|
|
0.3898 |
|
|
|
0.0124 |
|
|
|
|
0.5647 |
|
|
|
Implication of
Chi-Squared Test |
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
|
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 ROWS X 4 COLUMNS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 ROWS X 4 COLUMNS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
© 2008 Cyber Citizens for Justice, Inc. Deland, FL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|