Bill Overview
Title: National Park Foundation Reauthorization Act of 2022
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2030 the National Park Foundation.
Sponsors: Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4]
Target Audience
Population: People interested in or visiting U.S. National Parks worldwide
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The National Park Foundation supports programs and projects benefiting national parks in the United States.
- National parks receive millions of visitors annually, both from the U.S. and internationally.
- The reauthorization ensures continued support for preservation and restoration projects, community programs, and environmental education initiatives that reach a wide audience.
- Employees working within the national parks system and related industries, such as tourism and hospitality, will be directly impacted.
Reasoning
- The National Park Foundation Reauthorization Act of 2022 aims to support preservation and educational programs benefiting a diverse group of people, including park visitors and employees.
- Although a significant number of U.S. residents visit national parks, not everyone will experience a direct impact on their wellbeing, but enhancement in park facilities generally improves the visitor experience and increases tourism satisfaction.
- The economic impact due to the reauthorization will also ripple through related industries like tourism and hospitality, affecting those employed in these sectors.
Simulated Interviews
Park Ranger (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reauthorization will ensure I have the resources and support to continue conservation work.
- This policy will improve park facilities, benefiting both visitors and staff.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Hotel Manager (Orlando, Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This reauthorization indirectly helps our business maintain a steady influx of tourists.
- I am hopeful it will lead to more tourism, benefiting the entire community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Retired Teacher (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am enthusiastic about the ongoing support for educational programs.
- This policy reassures me that parks will be well-maintained for future generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Tech Worker (San Francisco, California)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I enjoy visiting parks occasionally, and it's great to know they'll be supported through this policy.
- While it doesn't directly affect my daily life, it's comforting to know the parks are being taken care of.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Austin, Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides crucial funding for monitoring and mitigating environmental impacts.
- It's a step forward in addressing climate challenges faced by national parks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
Tour Guide (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Continuous support to the National Park Foundation means stability for my source of income.
- It's reassuring for those working in tourism to see such support extended.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Graphic Designer (New York, New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I won't visit parks often, knowing they're preserved for others aligns with my values.
- The policy indirectly contributes to my happiness by promoting environmental conservation.
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 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
University Student (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reauthorization supports my education goals and passion for the environment.
- The policy ensures students like me can continue learning experientially through park visits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Bozeman, Montana)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Steady park funding ensures more business for my store.
- It's vital for economic stability in park-adjacent towns.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
College Graduate (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy increases my interest in sustainable travel and visiting parks.
- It's motivating to see policy align with personal interests.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $12360000 (Low: $10300000, High: $15450000)
Year 3: $12730800 (Low: $10609000, High: $15913500)
Year 5: $13551750 (Low: $11243000, High: $16836975)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $12500000, High: $18699000)
Year 100: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $310000000)
Key Considerations
- The reauthorization maintains continuity of funding, which is critical to preserving and enhancing national parks.
- National Park Foundation's partnership in leveraging private donations implies that federal support serves as a catalyst for more significant financial inflows.
- The socioeconomic benefits and indirect savings include potential influences on public health and environmental sustainability.
- Inflationary pressures may require adjustment of funding levels to maintain purchasing power.