Bill Overview
Title: Ka‘ena Point National Heritage Area Act
Description: This bill directs the Department of the Interior to conduct a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating Honolulu County, Hawaii, as a National Heritage Area, to be known as the Ka'ena Point National Heritage Area.
Sponsors: Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1]
Target Audience
Population: Residents and stakeholders in Honolulu County, Hawaii
Estimated Size: 1016508
- The bill focuses on conducting a study for designating an area in Honolulu County, Hawaii as a National Heritage Area.
- National Heritage Areas often aim to recognize and preserve regions significant for their culture, history, and natural aspects.
- The immediate impact of the bill is localized to the residents and stakeholders in Honolulu County, Hawaii.
- Long-term impacts could extend to tourists who visit the designated area, historians, and preservationists.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects residents and stakeholders in Honolulu County, Hawaii, with some potential long-term impacts on national tourists, historians, and conservationists.
- Direct impact is on local businesses, environmental groups, government agencies, and indigenous peoples within the region that lies within the proposed National Heritage Area.
- The budget constraints suggest limited immediate monetary impact, focusing on study and later recognition rather than infrastructure or immediate changes.
- It is important to consider diverse perspectives from local residents who may not see an immediate effect, tourist industry stakeholders, historians, and indigenous community leaders.
Simulated Interviews
Local business owner (Waianae, Honolulu County, Hawaii)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think declaring Ka'ena Point as a National Heritage Area would attract more tourists, which could boost my business.
- However, I'm also concerned about potential restrictions that might be imposed on how I run my shop nearby the area.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Historian (Honolulu, Hawaii)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial in preserving the cultural and historical value of Ka'ena Point.
- I support the legislation fully, as it enhances efforts to document and protect these sites.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Tour guide (Waikiki, Honolulu County, Hawaii)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This designation could bring in more tourists interested in nature tours, but I'm worried about increased environmental strain.
- Preservation efforts are key to maintaining the area's beauty.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired (Maui, Hawaii)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having grown up near Ka'ena Point, I think preserving its status is essential.
- Retirement gives me time to participate in cultural advocacy groups favoring the policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Environmental activist (Kapolei, Honolulu County, Hawaii)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm thrilled about this policy potential to bring regulated environmental protection to Ka'ena Point.
- Heritage recognition can bolster our ongoing conservation initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Indigenous leader (Honolulu, Hawaii)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cultural heritage designation could help in the preservation of indigenous history, but must proceed with full consultation with local communities.
- Support for the policy depends on its sensitivity towards indigenous markers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Travel blogger (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Though I'm not local, having Ka'ena Point as a National Heritage Area would bring more content and coverage for my blogs.
- It could enhance public interest in authentic Hawaiian culture and sites.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Federal policy advisor (Washington D.C.)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns well with our national heritage goals and could be a model for future similar designations across the U.S.
- Strategically, however, limited budgets and scope require careful assessment for long-term sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Local government official (Kaneohe, Honolulu County, Hawaii)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a government planner, I see the potential for this area to become a centerpiece for sustainable local tourism.
- However, we need to ensure that any changes do not disrupt the local way of life or ecological balance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Environmental scientist (Dallas, Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The designation of Ka'ena Point could offer substantial profiles for ecological impact studies that aid in conservation.
- As someone not in Hawaii, this provides data points for research but no direct impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $750000 (Low: $500000, High: $1000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The cost estimate assumes normal study expenses without unforeseen complications.
- All future economic benefits or impacts are theoretical and contingent on subsequent actions post-study.
- Local engagement and context-specific considerations could adjust cost estimates.