Bill Overview
Title: Explore America Act of 2022
Description: This bill modifies and sets forth new provisions regarding the Preserve America Program and authorizes partnerships with gateway communities adjacent to units of the National Park System. The Department of the Interior shall offer to enter into partnerships with gateway communities, including Native American communities and National Heritage Areas, to leverage heritage tourism assets in order to strengthen the local economies and create jobs in those communities.
Sponsors: Rep. Peltola, Mary Sattler [D-AK-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: People living in gateway communities adjacent to National Park System units
Estimated Size: 22000000
- The bill impacts communities adjacent to units of the National Park System, often referred to as gateway communities.
- Approximately 327 million people visit National Parks in the United States annually, demonstrating their significance to local economies.
- Gateway communities are often heavily reliant on tourism, making them directly impacted by any legislation affecting tourism.
- The inclusion of Native American communities implies a focus on locations where National Parks and Native lands intersect.
Reasoning
- The budget constraints mean that the policy must be selective in its investments, likely focusing on high-potential partnerships with gateway communities that can demonstrate clear tourist interest and economic revitalization opportunities.
- Considering the size of the population in gateway communities adjacent to National Park units, the policy might only immediately impact a fraction of this population, thus interviews should reflect a balance of those impacted and not impacted.
- Heritage tourism improvements are likely to have varying effects depending on existing economic conditions, infrastructure, and local involvement in tourism activities.
- Including a cross-section of personalities ranging from those heavily reliant on tourism to those unaffected ensures representation across the spectrum of potential impacts.
- The wide geographical spread encourages selection of interviewees from different regions, particularly high-tourism areas, rural settings, and indigenous lands.
- Policy impact is projected through Cantril wellbeing scores over different terms (1, 2, 3, 5, 10, and 20 years) with and without the policy to assess longitudinal outcomes.
Simulated Interviews
Tour Guide (Moab, Utah)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful about the potential for job security and tourism growth this policy can bring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Hotel Manager (Charleston, South Carolina)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any policy that increases tourism and keeps our hotel busy is welcome, though I'm somewhat skeptical about its impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Local Business Owner (Springdale, Utah)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic, but previous attempts haven't always benefited small businesses directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Retired (Flagstaff, Arizona)
Age: 61 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate efforts to boost local economy, but it doesn’t seem directed at those not in the tourism industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
City Planner (Boulder City, Nevada)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy presents an opportunity to integrate heritage tourism into city planning and improve infrastructure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (Port Angeles, Washington)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial that economic development initiatives like this integrate sustainability to protect natural resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Park Ranger (Rapid City, South Dakota)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see potential for improved visitor experiences, which could make my job more rewarding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Artisan (Bar Harbor, Maine)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy will attract more tourists who appreciate local arts, but I'm unsure about real benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Historian (Durango, Colorado)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Such policies have the power to highlight and preserve the historical narratives I work with.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Restaurant Worker (Gatlinburg, Tennessee)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our town needs every help it can get to boost tourism and support local workers like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $32000000 (Low: $27000000, High: $42000000)
Year 3: $33000000 (Low: $28000000, High: $43000000)
Year 5: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $45000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Collaboration with Native American communities requires culturally sensitive approaches and respectful partnerships.
- Ensuring that local communities have a say in how tourism is developed and managed is crucial for successful implementation.
- The long-term sustainability of tourism infrastructure investments should be considered to prevent neglect after the initial funding period.