Bill Overview
Title: America’s Outdoor Recreation Act of 2022
Description: of 2022 This bill provides for additional recreation opportunities on public lands and facilitates access to public lands.
Sponsors: Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV]
Target Audience
Population: People who use public lands for recreation activities
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The bill focuses on enhancing recreation opportunities on public lands, which are federal lands available for public use.
- Such lands are commonly used for hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, and other recreational activities.
- It includes National Parks, National Forests, Bureau of Land Management areas, and other public lands.
- The users of these lands are individuals who engage in outdoor activities as a hobby or recreational pursuit globally.
Reasoning
- These interviews should include a mix of individuals who are directly impacted by the availability of public lands for recreation and those who may have broader benefits or no direct impact.
- Due to the budget constraints, heavily populated areas near public lands may see more impact than remote areas.
- The policy is likely to have more influence on people who frequently engage in outdoor activities rather than those whose recreation involves other types of environments or city-based activities.
- Impact is also somewhat dependent on the frequency and intensity of one's engagement with public lands, as well as their proximity to such areas.
- The Cantril wellbeing score changes are likely to be subtle for most individuals, reflecting both the personal nature of subjective wellbeing and the broadly shared benefits of improved access to recreational spaces.
Simulated Interviews
Software Developer (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I love going to national parks and hiking trails on weekends.
- Any improvement in access or enhancing facilities would greatly benefit my outdoor 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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Teacher (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I tend to take my family camping once a year, so better facilities would be nice, but we manage with what is currently available.
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 |
Freelance Photographer (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to public lands is crucial for my work and personal enjoyment.
- More opportunities and better facilities would enhance my productivity and satisfaction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Finance Analyst (New York City, New York)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't really use public lands much, so this policy won't affect me.
- I'm more into city activities like running in Central Park.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Environmental Consultant (Montpelier, Vermont)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sustainability in recreation access is important for future generations.
- I hope this policy includes measures for conservation alongside access improvements.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Park Ranger (Austin, Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing access will help more people appreciate the beauty and importance of these lands.
- Additional funding could mean better resources for rangers and visitors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired (Tucson, Arizona)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better maintained trails and facilities would really help older citizens like me who enjoy nature at a slower pace.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
College Student (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expanding access would be fantastic for student groups like ours that periodically go hiking.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Entrepreneur (Boise, Idaho)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More visitors on public lands could potentially boost my business.
- Hope the policy also considers issues like preserving the environment and managing increased foot traffic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Tour Guide (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 55 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced facilities could mean more business during different seasons.
- Access is a key issue for clients traveling from other states.
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 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $62000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $44000000, High: $64000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $48000000, High: $68000000)
Year 10: $65000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $75000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $170000000)
Key Considerations
- Balancing environmental preservation with increased human activity is crucial to maintain the integrity of these lands.
- Determining the capacity and ensuring sustainable levels of use to avoid resource depletion is important.
- Coordination with state and local governments can help minimize costs and maximize benefits.
- Market demand for outdoor activities could influence the success of this policy.