Bill Overview
Title: Rural Outdoor Investment Act
Description: This bill directs the Department of Commerce to make grants to eligible recipients for outdoor recreation projects to spur economic development, with a focus on rural communities. Commerce shall develop a partnership agreement to provide for the development of, among other things, basic training, including in-person or modular training sessions, for small businesses and rural communities.
Sponsors: Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in rural communities worldwide
Estimated Size: 64000000
- The bill focuses on outdoor recreation projects in rural communities, indicating it is designed to benefit individuals living in rural areas.
- Rural recreation projects can increase tourism and economic activities, potentially affecting both direct beneficiaries in rural settings and indirectly benefiting urban populations who visit rural areas for recreation.
- Small businesses in rural areas will benefit from the grants, potentially impacting owners, employees, and residents relying on these entities.
- Economic development efforts tend to have multiplicative effects, potentially affecting a wide range of community members, including those seeking employment opportunities.
- Rural areas in many countries historically constitute a smaller but significant portion of the national population, often cited as 15-30% of total national populations.
Reasoning
- Approximately 20% of the US population resides in rural areas, with around 64 million people, making them the primary beneficiaries of the policy.
- The policy's budget restriction implies the need for careful selection of projects impacting broader segments of these communities, rather than each individual within the rural population.
- Rural outdoor recreation can stimulate local economies indirectly by attracting tourism, thus benefiting not just those directly in the recreation or service industry but also by creating ancillary business opportunities.
- While the focus is on economic development, the experiential and quality of life improvements from enhanced outdoor spaces will affect the broader community's wellbeing.
- Not all rural residents will perceive the changes equally, as some might prioritize immediate economic benefits over long-term recreational upgrades.
- The indirect positive impact could extend to urban populations visiting these rural areas, although this would not change their baseline living circumstances.
- The policy likely enhances economic prospects of small business owners, who rely on increased local visitation and commerce.
- The duration factors in how quickly these projects can influence wellbeing, with some expecting immediate gains, while others perceive them as slow to manifest over years.
Simulated Interviews
Local Outdoor Tour Guide (Appalachian Region, West Virginia)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy could really help bring more tourists into our area. We have stunning landscapes but not enough visitors know about them.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Café) (Ozarks, Arkansas)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 11.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More outdoor projects might mean more customers, which is great, but we also need more year-round activities.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (The Dakotas)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having better-maintained public parks would be wonderful for my daily walks.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Public School Teacher (Northern Maine)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Outdoor investments can provide more educational opportunities for my students. This could inspire a future generation that's more connected to nature.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Rancher (Rural Arizona)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Keeping the natural beauty intact is crucial for us. Development should not compromise our lifestyle.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
College Student (Upstate New York)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhancing rural recreation aligns with what I'm learning and might provide job opportunities post-graduation.
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 |
Stay-at-home Parent (Rural Georgia)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could help revitalize our small town. I'm supportive if it means more business and better amenities.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Craft Brewer (Vermont)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New outdoor activities could draw more people to the region, benefiting our tasting room and the local economy.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired Veteran (Rural Idaho)
Age: 73 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about more outdoor spaces, especially if it's done thoughtfully without disrupting our environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Community Planner (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill aligns with our town's goals to enhance quality of life and economic opportunities through sustainable development.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $240000000 (Low: $190000000, High: $290000000)
Year 3: $230000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $280000000)
Year 5: $220000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $270000000)
Year 10: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $150000000)
Key Considerations
- The sustainability of the projects initiated through grants may vary across different regions, impacting long-term efficacy and returns.
- Training programs and project management need to be tailored according to regional specifics to ensure maximum economic upliftment.
- The indirect impact on urban populations due to increased recreational travel needs to be integrated into comprehensive evaluations.