Laserfiche WebLink
<br />used. Allhough the emergency situation is shown in <br />Figure 4.3, il will not be considered furlher in a mod. <br />el designed to apply to flood control plans formulated <br />under normal conditions. <br /> <br />Evaluating non-emergency <br />flooding solutions <br /> <br />Mter examining government agencies in the <br />study area, steps in their decision process were identi- <br />fied as shown in Figure 4.3, bul the specific sequence <br />may vary. The steps are described by Table 4.1. The <br />major points are identification of important factors <br />that determine agency action, all of which must be <br />positive 1.0 some degree for action 10 occur. Resolu. <br />tion of problems will occur if no function is negative; <br />otherwise, no action or an alternative action will oc- <br />cur. <br /> <br />Alternative actions to decrease the seriousness <br />of a flooding problem are often possible. However, <br />the solutions available 10 a particular agency are limit- <br />, ed by the lechnological, economic, policy, and olher <br />capabilities that conslrain the agency. In addition 10 <br />these constraints, a solution selected for implemenla- <br />tion is also a resull of social factors. These social fac- <br />tors may be organizalional, individual, or public. <br /> <br />Action decisions are made under internal and ex- <br />ternal controls and constraints. Internal constraints <br />are due 10 the characteristics of the agency, and exter. <br />nal constraints come from other social systems and <br />existing agency relalionships with those systems. Soc- <br />ial power is importailt since a strong external influ- <br />ence can greatly affect the decisions which are made <br />by a parlicular agency. <br /> <br />Agency characteristics or modes of thinking <br />(Reich, 1962) act as a screen which eliminates certain <br />solulions from polential use in conlrolling flooding <br />and water problems. For this reason, the assumption <br />is made in the model that each agency has a finite <br />repertoire of solutions available for use. The number <br />of solutions considered for each flooding problem is <br />limited by the characteristics of the agencies seeking <br />solutions. <br /> <br />Distortion Factors (DF) <br /> <br />A discrepancy between an actual value of a char- <br />acterstic or altitude and what a group perceives it to <br />be is referred to as a "Distortion Factor. II "Distor- <br />tion Factors" (DF) provide for differences between <br />aclual sirualions and the perception of these silua. <br />tions by officials of an agency. These biases or diff- <br />erences occur because of incomplele knowledge and <br />because perception of information is dislorted. If il <br />could be assumed that an agency or olher group had <br />perfecl knowledge about the attitudes of the public <br /> <br />Table 4.1. Components of a decision in flood con- <br />trol action shown by Figure 4.3. <br /> <br />Decision blocks: <br /> <br />1. Is emergency action needed to protect endangered <br />property, person, highways, waterways? <br /> <br />2. Can the action be technologically implemented in <br />the situation? <br /> <br />3. Will the action provide a solution to the current <br />flooding problem? <br /> <br />4. Will the action prevent fuhue problems (flood con- <br />trol potential)? <br /> <br />5. Is the action economically acceptable? <br /> <br />6. Is the action acceptable from aesthetic, recreational, <br />and ecological standpoints? <br /> <br />7. Is the action the best usable solution under existing <br />conditions? <br /> <br />8. Is action in harmony with the key authorizing agen- <br />cy, i.e., no action-blocking conflict with key govern. <br />ment authority exists? <br /> <br />9. Is action in harmony with other agencies, Le., no <br />action-blocking conflict of other government agen- <br />ciesexist? <br /> <br />10. Is action in harmony with the public, Le., no action- <br />blocking conflict from the population exist? <br /> <br />Emergency actions: <br /> <br />11. Can the agency technologically implement the a~ <br />tion? <br /> <br />12. Will the action protect property, person, highway. <br />waterway for the emergency period? <br /> <br />13. Is the action the best usable solution under exist. <br />ing conditions? <br /> <br />14. Are there no action blocking conflicts (economic, <br />technological, aesthetic, recreational, or ecological)? <br /> <br />and of other agencies and about the characteristics of <br />proposed flood controi actions, Ihere would be no <br />need for a Distortion Factor. However, since no agen- <br />cy has perfect knowledge, an agency may misinterpret <br />the situation and make decisions that become non- <br />acceptable to those with more complete knowledge. <br />The means to account for these distortions is built <br />inlo the model. <br /> <br />Section Four: Public Reaction <br /> <br />This section models the public reaction to the <br />plan proposed and "recommended" by Ihe decision <br />agency. Public attitudes toward flood control pro- <br />posals are Ihought to be based on similar considera- <br />tions to those of agencies; although, often with very <br />different imporlance attached to these considerations. <br />These considerations are as before flood control abil. <br />ity, cost, aesthetics, recreation, ecology and the atti- <br />tudes of significanl others. The most "significanl <br />other 11 in this case (Le. group or person influencing <br />the public attilude) is believed to be the decision agen- <br /> <br />47 <br />