Adam Wolf 9A-Testing the Hypothesis Part 2

Person 1 should have a need for access to more water during wildfire season.  However, this person did not have this need because they have never experienced a close wildfire.  Because of this unique personal experience, person 1 feels no threat and therefore has their need met.  Person 2 just moved to a dry area but came from a moist climate.  He cannot relate to the dry fire season dangers.  As a result, this individual has no need to have a device to supply supplemental water.  Person 3 is a 10-year-old child living in their parent’s house.  While I initially thought person 3 would have this need, I learned they don’t coordinate with those types of responsibilities of the household.  It would be more of a concern for their parents.  Person 4 is a leader of a local hospital.  She claims the hospital already has a roof sprinkler system in case of a wildfire outbreak.  This explanation indicated to me that person 4 does not have my need.  Person 5 is a firefighter, a great example of someone I thought would have this need.  However, they don’t see the feasibility of the opportunity and claim there are more efficient methods that use upgraded technology to solve the same need. 

Inside the boundary	Outside the boundary
People who own areas in wildfire season locations an have been affected in the past	People who don’t have direct responsibility of their property or already have watering systems
Need to have a device that transports water quickly and saturates an entire property in the event of a fire emergency	Water supply is not a need due to lack of perceived threat or existing needs already met
The need exists because areas that have the greatest threat of wildfires also have the least supply of available water to fight and protect homeowner properties	I classify these people outside my need group because they would not be likely to search for solutions if the problem doesn’t exist.