This benchmark assignment assesses the following competency: 4.2 – Analyze the human, economic, and environmental issues involved in emergency planning, response, and recovery.
Emergency planning must take into account both short- and long-term recovery. This can pose a particular challenge since specific long-term needs can vary tremendously depending on the scope and nature of the incident. While the ultimate goal is to help the community return to its predisaster state, that may not always be possible depending on the nature of the disaster. Regardless of circumstances, the government’s role is to assist in the reestablishment of order and ensure people’s daily lives and the economies of impacted areas can return to normal functioning as swiftly as possible. Once basic needs have been provided for in the immediate wake of disaster, emergency managers and officials are responsible for implementing long-term recovery plans.
For the Recovery section of your AAR (3-4 pages), research both the short- and long-term recovery efforts for your selected event. Analyze how effectively efforts of planning, response, and recovery promoted the return to predisaster levels of community, economic, and environmental functioning in the region.
1. Discuss the strengths of both the short- and long-term recovery plans implemented to protect the interest of all areas affected by the disaster. This includes the human, economic, and environmental aspects that may have been affected.
2. Discuss the weaknesses and challenges of both the short- and long-term recovery plans implemented to protect the interest of all areas affected by the disaster.
3. If there remains long-term recovery work to be done, explain the current state of the situation and summarize the most important issues that still need to be addressed.
4. Identify and discuss any political, legal, and faith-based issues that have affected the recovery process.
5. Provide your recommendations for improving short- and long-term planning processes in the area to promote quick and effective recovery, including economic recovery, from future emergency situations or disasters.
Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
ou are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
ational public perception and policy agendas (Gilliam Jr and Iyengar 2000, Walgrave et al. 2008, Baumgartner and Jones 2010). Media coverage is generally thought to influence policy agendas in two primary ways. First, media coverage can influence the relative salience (importance or prominence) of a particular pubic issue through repeated coverage over time (Soroka 2003, Baumgartner and Jones 2010). Second, media coverage can influence public and policy conceptualization about an issue and coalescence – how an issue is understood, defined, and framed (Elder and Cobb 1983). This conceptualization of an issue can influence the perception of the possible solutions and the importance of addressing the problem with governmental policy (Weart 1988, Baumgartner and Jones 2010). However, there is mixed evidence for how these factors – problem severity, interest groups, media coverage, and public perception – may act together to influence policy generation (McCombs and Shaw 1972, Funkhouser and Shaw 1990, Entman 1993, Koch-Baumgarten and Voltmer 2010).
Our objectives were to characterize the relative influence of the factors that led to the establishment of the APHIS National Feral Swine Damage Management Program in 2013 (federal government fiscal year 2014). Specifically we wanted to understand 1) the significance of public policy image on congressional policy activity; 2) to assess the influence of problem severity and broad governmental institutional pressures associated with expansion of wild swine at a national level on policy activity; and 3) to identify predictors of policy activity for informing wildlife and agricultural interface management; specifically program assessments and new program development. Here we use the term ‘policy’ in its broadest definition referring not only to operational policies of government but also including all dialogue related to the development of policy. To investigate the relationship between policies, wild swine, and agriculture we use 29 years of data from three primary datasets – number of wild swine related policy actions (response variable), newspaper headline data, and the amount of agriculture in wild swine regions. Based on studies suggesting a strong dependence of policy change on changes in public policy image (Jones and Baumgartner 2004, Baumgartner and Jones 2010), specifically increased policy activity when public policy images become negative, we hypothesized that significant increase in the number of negative newspaper articles would act as a mechanism for influencing policy activity and provide a link between changes in policy and expanding wild swine populations. Because governmental institutions tend to increase stability in policy areas (Jones et al. 2003, Baumgartner and Jones 2010), we hypothesized that increasing the amount of agriculture in wild swine regions might be related to increasing problem severity and result in increased pressures on federal governmental institutions. Thus increasing policy activity as agricultural related interests increased demands for policy solutions to wild swine related issues – agricultural damage and economic losses. In our statistical models, we wanted to estimate these effects and determine if these patterns are consistent with increased policy activity. The broader goal of this analysis is to provide a mechanistic understanding of the policy image and institutional conditions that give rise to variations in the policy process, which enables improved response to changes in conditions that impact both wildlife and agricultural policy.