FLOOD09697 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cy itself. The announced attitude of the decision agency toward a proposal is an importanl variable in determining the attilude of the public. Perceived vs. real characteristics of a proposal Agencies are assumed to have a more realistic view of the characteristics of proposals than the pub. lic because of their access 10 teclmical information. The information used in the model to predict public attitudes toward a proposal are the "perceived" char- acteristics of the proposal. These perceptions are qualitative and vary because complele information is not available to Ihe public and because perceplions are influenced by personal faclors and in terests. James et al. (1971: 28-29) studied the decision choices made by people who chose 10 move inlo a flood plain area. They explored the attitudes and perceptions characterislic of people who would or would nol choose to locate in a flood plain, they did nol analyze public choices of means of flood control. They assumed that, "Perceived flood hazard must be distinguished from scienlifically measured flood haz- ard in order to model successfully human response to flooding." This distinction is also used in this model as the basis for the Distortion Factors. Function of predisposed public attitudes Factors other than the characteristics of a parti- cular flood corrlrol proposal may also influence people favorabiy or negatively toward flood control in gen- eral. In such a case, a particular project proposal would have to overcome this influence in order to be rejected or accepted, as the case may be. Experience with flood control, for instance, might influence one favorably toward a flood control proposal, but a per- son wilhout such experience might still be predis- posed to be favorable toward a project he perceives as "doing something" to solve flood problems which is doing something" good. " Non-proposal related factors affecting attitudes Other personal factors and demographic char- acteristics also can influence attitude toward flood control actions. From preliminary surveys, 22 addi- tional factors from Table 2.1 were statistically signifi- cant. These are shown in Table 4.2. Most of these are not directly related 1.0 Ihe proposal for flood con- trol. It is believed that because of Ihe weight a de. cision has within an agency once it is approved, and the legitimacy that agencies have in public affairs that the attitudes of the general public could be negative 10 a moderate degree and that a proposal previously ap- proved by the decision agency would still be imple- mented. Opposition would need to be strong enough to overcome favorable agency factors of approval. Table 4.2. Significant variables for attitudes toward flood actions. 1) Knowledge of local flood control projects 2) General concern about flooding 3) Length of residence in present home 4) Condition of home, yard and neighborhood 5) Social class 6) Natural feature beauty score 7) Group membership 8) Perceived level of local taxes 9) Income 10) Occupation 11) Discussed flooding problems with others 12) Stream proximity 13) Knowledge of recent flooding 14) Education 15) Perceived likelihood of flooding at present residence 16) Daily newspaper received 17) Man-made feature beauty score 18) Home ownership 19) Main source of information 20) Length of residence in local area 21) Perceived adequacy of local parks 22) Awareness of local flooding problems Since, as indicated by the surveys in this research, the average person has little knowledge and limited interest in flood control proposals in non.crisis condi- tions, the attitude of Ihe general public is not consid- ered likely 10 be either strongly negative or positive. Rather persons and groups with particular concerns, "special interest groups," are more likely to have strong feelings, voice their opinions, and consequently influence the final decision. For example, the data gathered for this sludy described a project proposal which would channelize and line certain streams to reduce future flood dam- age. Being teclmically feasible the proposal was rec- ommended by the planning agency and approved by the decision agency. When particular individuals in the public learned of the proposal, their lalenl per- sonal inlerest was actuated and Ihey actively opposed il on the basis of a perceived adverse effecl upon Ihe aeslhetic qualities of the area. This attitude of indiv- iduals expanded into an organized effort to influence the decision agency. The effort was successful, and another proposal, nol nearly as effective for flood control bul acceplable on aesthelic grounds, was pro- posed and accepled. fu other words, the additional information from the population indicated by Ihe feedback loop in the flow chari changed the evalua- tion of Ihe projecl by the decision agency. The con- ceplual model assumes Ihat the decision agency is 49