Ostrowski 1999) and elsewhere, it is clear that economically and ecologically sound combinations of central and decentral measures will be a part
of future designs. Yet, present approaches, other than traditional combined
sewer systems, are limited because of use of existing planning tools, technologies, and stormwater-balance and pollution-load models.
Finally, changes in personnel are quite frustrating to the implementation
of models in a decision-making process. Often, it seems that just as one
supervisor, sponsor, or client becomes knowledgeable about a modeling
process and is comfortable with adapting it to particular issues, a new
person or organizational structure is put in place, and the learning process
must begin all over again or, even worse, is curtailed together. For example,
in the 1980s the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) stopped
work on modeling of integrated assessment as part of the investigation into
acidic deposition because a change in leadership caused the elimination of
several programs, including the one that supported this type of modeling.
But retrospective analysis of the National Acidic Precipitation Analysis
Program (NAPAP) targeted the lack of integrated assessment as one of its
key flaws (Russell 1992). The ongoing need to reiterate the value of models
is necessary within an organization, especially when changes in personnel
or structure occur.
Existing rules, regulations, and statutes of institutions often focus
environmental decision making on concerns that may differ from the ones
a model would examine. The concept that a model provides clarity in
addressing ecological issues may be contrary to the philosophy that existing rules, regulations, and statutes provide the best means for an institution
to deal with its resource management concerns. Thus, current procedures
are sometimes a barrier to the use of models in brainstorming. Finally, there
are often jurisdictional and cross-boundary issues that impede the use of
models. For example, a model developed by one agency may not be adopted
by another agency, not because it is a poor or inappropriate model, but just
because it was not homegrown. Such jurisdictional boundaries often mean
that the best modeling tools are not widely adopted.
6.2.3 Risk Aversion
Whether an institution or individuals who are leaders in the institution
are likely to use models partially depends on how adverse they are to risk.
The natural aversion of humans to risk is a barrier to the use of models in
decision making. This avoidance is particularly strong when the risk seems
to be near at hand in space or time. The not in my back yard (NIMBY)
attitude is so pervasive that it is now part of the lingo of siting of waste
(Rabe 1994). It is a part of human nature that people want to reduce or
avoid risky situations. On the surface, the use of models seems to imply
taking a risk for those who are unfamiliar with the tools. However, just the
112
Virginia H. Dale et al.
of future designs. Yet, present approaches, other than traditional combined
sewer systems, are limited because of use of existing planning tools, technologies, and stormwater-balance and pollution-load models.
Finally, changes in personnel are quite frustrating to the implementation
of models in a decision-making process. Often, it seems that just as one
supervisor, sponsor, or client becomes knowledgeable about a modeling
process and is comfortable with adapting it to particular issues, a new
person or organizational structure is put in place, and the learning process
must begin all over again or, even worse, is curtailed together. For example,
in the 1980s the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) stopped
work on modeling of integrated assessment as part of the investigation into
acidic deposition because a change in leadership caused the elimination of
several programs, including the one that supported this type of modeling.
But retrospective analysis of the National Acidic Precipitation Analysis
Program (NAPAP) targeted the lack of integrated assessment as one of its
key flaws (Russell 1992). The ongoing need to reiterate the value of models
is necessary within an organization, especially when changes in personnel
or structure occur.
Existing rules, regulations, and statutes of institutions often focus
environmental decision making on concerns that may differ from the ones
a model would examine. The concept that a model provides clarity in
addressing ecological issues may be contrary to the philosophy that existing rules, regulations, and statutes provide the best means for an institution
to deal with its resource management concerns. Thus, current procedures
are sometimes a barrier to the use of models in brainstorming. Finally, there
are often jurisdictional and cross-boundary issues that impede the use of
models. For example, a model developed by one agency may not be adopted
by another agency, not because it is a poor or inappropriate model, but just
because it was not homegrown. Such jurisdictional boundaries often mean
that the best modeling tools are not widely adopted.
6.2.3 Risk Aversion
Whether an institution or individuals who are leaders in the institution
are likely to use models partially depends on how adverse they are to risk.
The natural aversion of humans to risk is a barrier to the use of models in
decision making. This avoidance is particularly strong when the risk seems
to be near at hand in space or time. The not in my back yard (NIMBY)
attitude is so pervasive that it is now part of the lingo of siting of waste
(Rabe 1994). It is a part of human nature that people want to reduce or
avoid risky situations. On the surface, the use of models seems to imply
taking a risk for those who are unfamiliar with the tools. However, just the
112
Virginia H. Dale et al.