FLOOD09697 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

planning agency and decision agency functions are performed by the same organization, inclusion of an acceptance function for the planning evaluation in the inilial decision agency evaluation wouid mean thai the other terms of the equation would oniy be needed to account for changes in the evaluations by that organi- zation. Such changes may be reused by differenl re- view processes or time-lags between the evaluations. In the model, rejection of a plan at any poinl requires that the planning agency develop another plan ("No" arrows to Ihe left on Figure 5.1). "Yes" indicates acceptability, and Ihe process of evaluation continues.!? An equation just calibrated for an initial evalua- tion by the decision agency is obtained by substilut- ing the mean values listed in Table 5.4 of the decision agency for variables X2 to X5 into Ihe unstandardized Equation III as follows: y " -.241- .305XI- .0695 (3.25)X9 + 8.43(3.25/XIO + .00568(2.875)Xll + .136(2.125)X12 +.228(2.0)X13 = .241- .305Xl - .226X9 + 27.398/XIO + .016Xll + .289X12 + .456X13 . (5.12) The results can be compared with Equation 5.11. IFstatementsBI toB3 The only way that a plan can be rejected at this point is for subsequent evaluation to become negative. However, a plan can have some undesirable character- istics with respect 10 flood conlrol and still be approved if oth~r characteristics are strong enough. In order to identify the strong and weak aspects of a proposal, it is desirable 10 stipulate criteria and test whether a flood-controi proposal meets lhem. This is the func- tion ofIF statements Bl, B2, and B3. IF slatement BI (for cost of proposai): IF XIO .;; Cm continue. (5.13) where XlO the cost of the proposal Cm = maximum acceptable cost of a proposal IF statement B2 (for effectiveness of proposal): IF XI7 ;;. F, continue . . . (5.14) 17The mean public evaluation may be slightly negative and the process continue. where XI7 = the flood recurrence inlerval in years used in the proposed design Fs = the lowesl flood recurrence interval acceptabie in a flood control plan IF statement B3 (for benefit-cost ratio): IF X9 ;;. Bs, continue . . (5.15) where X9 = the benefit-cost ratio of the flood con- trol proposal BS = the smallest benefit-cost ratio accept- able in a flood control proposal (norm- ally 1.0) The benefit-cost ratio is figured internally in the model from information required for IF slatements Bl and B2 and from the present value of the average annual flood control benefit. Equation IV: Intermediate evaluations Un standardized form: , (I) (2) (3) Y = -.206XI - .00585X2~ + 1.85X2(1/XIO) (4) (5) (6) + .00125X3Xll + .108X4X12 - .01 89X5X13 (8) + .442X7X15 . (5.16) Slandardized form: (I) (2) (3) Y = +.491 - .156Xl - .0533X2X9 + .0795X2(1/XIO) (4) (5) (6) + .248X3XII + .231X4X12 - .0455X5X13 (8) + .777X7XI5 . (5.17) . The r2 of Equation IV (5.16) is .823. Tables 5.2 and 5.3 define the variables and terms. The only difference in the terms of this and Equation UI is in the addition of the interaction term (# 8 in Table 5.5), "Importance of Other Agency Opinion and Other Agency Opinion of a Proposal." 'This Type IV lerm allempts to account for the effect of the evaluation of another agency on the agency whose evaluation is being predicted and turns out to be far the most important single term in Equation 5.16. It is important to note the elastic effect which the addition of this influence had on the other coeffi- cients because of the great importance of this variable and because of an overlapping causal relationship with the other factors in the equation. The prominence of the Type IV term can be ascertained immediately 69