Bill Overview
Title: Chiricahua National Park Act
Description: This bill redesignates the Chiricahua National Monument in Arizona as the Chiricahua National Park.
Sponsors: Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by the redesignation of Chiricahua National Monument to a National Park
Estimated Size: 1500
- Renaming a national monument to a national park may increase tourism.
- Local businesses may see increased revenue due to more visitors.
- The local community around Chiricahua will be directly affected by changes in park status.
- National park designation may lead to increased federal funds for maintenance and infrastructure.
Reasoning
- The policy mainly impacts people living near or visiting the Chiricahua National Monument, so the interviews should focus on local residents, business owners, and park visitors.
- People outside the immediate area who are interested in national parks or natural conservation may also experience indirect benefits.
- The budget constraints suggest that while there can be improvements in park maintenance and infrastructure, these improvements will be modest initially, expanding over time.
- The policy impacts may not be immediately evident in year one but will more likely show in years 5 to 10, as funds for improvements are utilized.
Simulated Interviews
small business owner (Cochise County, Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think renaming it to a national park can bring more tourists.
- I hope this will mean more business for my shop.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
outdoor enthusiast (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change might increase park funding, which is great for hiking and camping.
- I believe more people should experience national parks.
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 |
environmental specialist (Tucson, Arizona)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Renaming might bring attention and funding to conservation.
- Potential for better maintenance efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
retired (Cochise County, Arizona)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy won't make it too crowded for the wildlife.
- Some more facilities would be nice though.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
artist (Bisbee, Arizona)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased tourism could provide more exposure to my work.
- As long as the natural beauty is preserved, I'm all for it.
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 |
park ranger (Sierra Vista, Arizona)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- National park status could mean better facilities and more educational programs.
- Concerned about handling more visitors with the same resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
hotel manager (Douglas, Arizona)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A change in status could bring much-needed business.
- We are prepared to welcome more visitors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
student (Flagstaff, Arizona)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could create more opportunities for jobs in conservation.
- Hope it leads to more internships and learning experiences.
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 |
travel blogger (Albuquerque, New Mexico)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The rebranding offers new content opportunities for my blog.
- I look forward to exploring the upgraded park.
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 |
retired teacher (Tucson, Arizona)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A national park status is a fitting recognition for Chiricahua.
- I hope the educational programs will expand as a result.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $400000 (Low: $300000, High: $500000)
Year 2: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $200000)
Year 3: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $200000)
Year 5: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $200000)
Year 10: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $200000)
Year 100: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $200000)
Key Considerations
- National park designation could enhance tourism and associated economic benefits.
- Long-term costs mainly associated with increased park maintenance due to higher visitation.
- Requires monitoring of environmental impacts due to increased human activity.