FLOOD09697 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

for a particular IF factor is delermined by the scale used to measure it. A large value of Ihe IF faclor associaled with cost, IF c' means that Ihe group con- siders cost very important. Power relationships affect the value of the Im- portance Factor (IF). For example, one agency was sensitive to the desires of the governing board to which it was responsible, and the elected governing board was sensitive to Ihe desires of public groups. If public opposition to a projecl is made known, IF evaluations may be changed for the board which can influence Ihe agency in its decision. The project may thus become unacceptable although it had been pre. viously approved by the agency. Conflicl resolution may result in changes in cri- teria and behavior patlerns. Since groups vary in val- ues, an agency cannol satisfy all of them. The im- portance which an agency places on different faclors must also satisfy the funclional requiremenls of the agency; in olher words, enable the agency to do its job. All of these forces influence the criteria by which the agency judges possible solutions. The cri- teria are programmed as IF slatements in the model. They may be conceived as indicators of a steady state which may be changed by alteration of any of the forces affecting it. Normally, these forces are well- established, and the criteria are therefore stable. A large change in social concern or physical circumstances may be necessary 10 modify them. Conflict resolu- tions would result in a new equilibrium between op- posing forces, but the change would probably be small. Acceptance FWlctions A perceived characteristic of a proposal is nol considered to affect a proposal evaluation until a judgment decision, subconscious or conscious, is made of the worth of that characteristic. Combining an Imporlance Factor value or IF level wilh the value of an important variable associated wilh a flood con- trol proposal results in an "Acceptance Function. II The Acceptance Function is conceived as a simple producl of the value of the variable and the associated Imporlance Factor.2 For example, if IFi expresses the importance which a particular group 3 attaches to the ability of a flood conlrol projecl to control flood- ing and f1 is the measured value of that variable as per- 2Assumptions of linearlity in the method used here need not necessarily be retained in future applications of the model. See Chapter VIII and the section on suggested im. provements. 3In this context, a group may be an agency, socialor- ganization, population, special interest group, or individual. ceived by that group4, then multiplying IFj by fj gives the Acceptance Function for thai variable by that group for a particular flood conlrol proposal. Thus, the Acceplance Function Fi equals IF; . fi. For any particular group or population, Ihe opinion of significant others about a proposal has a very important influence upon an evaluation. Such influence is mulliplied by a numerical expression of the olher group's evaluation to obtain an Acceptance Function for the influence of the other group. Mter an initial evaluation, the decision of an agency is influenced by preceding judgments_ This is accounled for in Ihe model by Acceptance Funclion terms reflecting the influence of olher agency evalua. lions.S In the lasl evaluation made by the decision agency, an Acceptance Function is also included for Ihe evalualion of the public. It should be noted that Acceptance Functions vary from proposal to proposal, because of differences in proposal characteristics. Variations in characteris- tics of a proposal also affect the acceptance lerms which include the evaluations of "significant others." Public evaluation also conlains an acceptance term reflecting the prior evaluation of the decision agen- cy, and this also may vary from group to group. Total Evaluation of a Proposal In addition to the Acceptance Function, terms which rellect specific characteristics of a flood con. trol plan, some general attitudes will consistently in. 41n this project, proposal characteristics as perceived by agencies are considered to be the same as the engineering esti- mates of these parameters. This assumption is not JWKie for the public, and perceived proposal characteristics are used in pub- lic or population acceptance functions. In both instances (agencies and public), it is assumed that evaluations by signifi- cant others are perceived accurately. 5 A preceding evaluation by an agency has a large affect on subsequent evaluation, and this could be reflected in an Ac- ceptance Function with the value of the preceding evaluation as an input. This was not done for two reasons: I} The con- sistency of judgment reflecting the effect of a previous assess- ment would be accounted for by similarity of the calibrated equations for the two evaluations, 2) the inclusion of such an Acceptance Function would obscure the relationships be- tween other factors and an evaluation. This is because the Acceptance Functions for the effect of a preceding evaluation would include the effect of other variables as they influenced the preceding evaluations to the extent the effects are the same in the preceding and present evaluations. It can be ex- pected for social and bureaucratic reasons that judgments and justifications tend to be consistent and consequently for the effect of this type of Acceptance Function to be strong. In summary, Acceptance Functions for preceding evaluations by the same agency were not included because clarity and in- terpretability would be seriously impaired if they were and because there is no loss in effectiveness of prediction by omission of these terms. 52