Bill Overview
Title: Continued Rapid Ohia Death Response Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes requirements to research and control the fungus Ceratocystis, known as Rapid Ohia Death, which has killed more than a million native trees in Hawaii.
Sponsors: Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI]
Target Audience
Population: People in Hawaii connected to the ecosystem and culture involving Ohia trees
Estimated Size: 1400000
- The Rapid Ohia Death primarily affects the native ohia trees in Hawaii.
- Hawaii is a unique ecological zone with significant biodiversity.
- The death of ohia trees affects the local ecosystem, tourism, and native cultural practices that rely on these trees.
- Cultural and ecological significances include traditional uses by Native Hawaiians, including in hula.
- The impact extends to the biodiversity dependent on ohia trees, including various endemic bird and insect species.
Reasoning
- The policy will have the greatest impact on individuals residing in Hawaii, particularly those whose livelihoods and cultural practices depend on the ohia trees.
- Not everyone in Hawaii will be equally affected; those most directly involved with ecological tourism, cultural activities, and environmental sciences may notice a larger change.
- The budget for the policy restricts the extent of immediate research and action, meaning full effects and benefits may not be noticeable until several years into implementation.
- Tourism operators and local businesses may see changes in visitor numbers related to the preservation of natural beauty attributed to ohia trees, which can indirectly affect residents outside Hawaii if ecosystems improve or degrade.
- Individuals living outside Hawaii will mostly be unaffected in their day-to-day lives unless they are involved in environmental conservation on a national scale.
Simulated Interviews
Cultural Practitioner (Hilo, Hawaii)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is crucial for preserving our cultural heritage.
- Without action, we risk losing traditions tied to the ohia.
- Concerns about policy implementation and actual adherence to Native Hawaiian perspectives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 1 |
Ecologist (Honolulu, Hawaii)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a step forward to mitigate biodiversity loss.
- Funding should ensure comprehensive research and public awareness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 2 |
Tour Guide (Maui, Hawaii)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Conservation efforts are essential for sustaining tourism.
- The policy could eventually lead to more engagement in eco-tours.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Hotel Manager (Waikiki, Hawaii)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy is important indirectly for maintaining high tourist interest.
- Skeptical about immediate financial benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Travel Blogger (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Few direct effects, but supports environmental preservation.
- Good for content creation about restored ecosystems.
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 |
Farmer (Puna, Hawaii)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might help preserve crucial parts of farmland.
- Worried about fungus spreading to adjacent areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Retired (Kona, Hawaii)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy is better late than never for ohia preservation.
- Doubts about policy covering all affected areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Environmental Lawyer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Good example of proactive environmental legislation.
- Hopes for enlargement of funding and scope.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Student (Hawaii Island, Hawaii)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aligns with academic studies indicating urgent action needs.
- Should be used as a foundation for advanced ecological studies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Teacher (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Interesting case study of policy-making affecting ecosystems.
- Little personal impact, indirect educational benefits.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Key Considerations
- A significant portion of Hawaii's tourism relies on its natural beauty and biodiversity, which is threatened by Rapid Ohia Death.
- The disease's impact on cultural practices and native species highlights the importance of a rapid response.
- Funding is necessary not only for eradication efforts but also for research to understand and prevent the disease's spread.
- While initial costs are high, long-term savings accrue from preserved ecosystems and maintained tourism revenue.