policy analysis (Essay Sample)

Title Coping with Wildfire Menace Name Institution Date Coping with Wildfire Menace Wildfires in Johnson county have been a constant menace with devastating outcome to the residents and authorities. This paper will explore the different ways in which the process of evacuation can be carried out in a way that would be convenient and acceptable to both the residents and the authorities. To be able to come up with long-lasting solutions, there are several important questions that need to be considered. These questions include why the pets and livestock are very important to the people, should people be restricted against coming up with their own mechanisms of security from evacuation and why constant evacuation has led to heightened aggression among the affected people. These three questions are important in trying to resolve the stalemate of evacuation in the Johnson county. The first questions explore the importance of the livestock and pets to the affected people. This question is important mainly because many people have endangered their lives trying to save the lives of this property. It is therefore of utmost importance to consider that if there could be a better way of keeping these people with their animals, the number of casualties recorded as people sneak back to the restricted areas would drop. Some of these people earn a livelihood from this livestock, therefore, as much as they are to be assisted, it is prudent that the agency does not disregard the pets. The second question inquires into why some of the affected people prefer to have their own protective measures to secure their property, even when these measures are not strong enough to withstand the raging fires. This question is important because it provides an insight into why these people do not trust the techniques applied by the county governments to secure their property. The question helps to relate the benefits and disadvantages of such an approach to solving the menace in the whole county. The third question is also an important ingredient in trying to find a solution for the menace since aggressive people hardly accept changes. Therefore, if it can be possible to establish the exact causes of aggression, they can be eliminated, making it easier to convince the residents to accept evacuation. In this section, the paper will outline different hypotheses to the research questions mentioned above. For the first question, the following would be the hypotheses. First, a huge proportion of people in this county are physically challenged and rely on their pets for company and direction while pursuing their daily activities("Johnston County - Animal Services", 2016). Therefore, when they lose these pets they seemingly lose control of their lives. As a result, these people find it very difficult to part with their pets, the only true companion they have known for almost all their lives. In this hypothesis, the independent variable is the physical challenge of the people while the dependent variable is the quality of living with help from their pets. Second, people with pets and a lot of livestock are seen to be more financially stable compared to those without. In this hypothesis, the independent value is the number of pets while the financial stability is the dependent value. This is because pets such as dogs, doves, and cattle for livestock are generally expensive to acquire, let alone to maintain, and can only be handled by people who are well up. Third, people with animals as livestock have a better security for the future than those who have none. Here the security depends on the presence of animals. This is because in future these animals can be sold and the money raised used for productive purposes. This can be seen from statistics which show that people in the county are reluctant to sell their animals unless there is an urgent need("Johnston County - Animal Services", 2016). In order to make people willing to get evacuated and to assure them that their life after evacuation is catered for, the people should be allowed to carry their pets to their makeshift residence. This should be acceptable unless it is proven that the presence of this animals will endanger their lives more due ti sanitation or other ways. In the second question querying whether people should be denied the permission to come up with their own methods of defense against the fire, the following are the hypotheses. First, when the fires happen without prior warning, there is not enough time to set up the personal defense mechanisms. Data from the fire-fighters show that sometimes when the fires are sudden, the people do not have much time to put it off, and attempts to do it might cause more harm than letting the fire burn. Here, the independent variable is the time of the occurrence of the fires while the dependent variable is the speed of efficiency of setting up the mechanisms. Second, most homes have flammable substances stored in them which if kept from catching fire, the destruction caused could be reduced. In this hypothesis, the extent of destruction depends on the presence of flammable substances in houses. This is true because these flammable substances fuel the fires, making even small fires explode to huge flames. This information can be verified by residents who have witnessed explosions in homes that used petrol machines or those that have cars(Billington, Ferguson, & Copping, 2002). Lastly, if people are denied the chance to try to save their property, small manageable fires could be allowed to burn up...