Research Perspectives on National Parks

Abstract

American national parks have served as research sites for geographers for close to a century. Ellsworth Huntington studied giant sequoias and published The Secret of the Big Trees in 1921. More recently, Thomas and Geraldine Vale used repeat photography to analyze vegetation change in Yosemite (1994), and David Butler has conducted research on natural hazards in Glacier National Park (1989, 1998). Since Ronald Foresta's 1984 analysis of the National Park Service (NPS), growing numbers of geographers have found the parks themselves and their management worthy of research. Historical Geography featured a special section of eight articles on parks and preserved areas (Dilsaver and Young 2007). For the past two decades I have studied the American national park system and worked in some of the country's most beautiful and iconic places. I have found that the 391 units in the park system best represent America's heritage and are the end result of extensive and, at times, contentious public debate and legislative action. As more geographers look at these special places, the range of locations (every state except Delaware) and array of topics offered are wide (NPS 2007). Taking a cue from Donald Meinig's ten versions of the same landscape (1979), I suggest that most national park units are six types of places. The first three derive from the purposes for which they were founded: to protect natural resources, to preserve historic sites, and to provide recreation. These can and do clash in some parks, leading to complex legal questions and public antagonism. Indeed, the NPS even developed a set of three management handbooks in 1968 in order to prioritize the functions at each unit. However, park managers and Congress recognized that many parks fill all three roles. The result was the 1970 General Authorities Act, which redefined the system as a single park in which all resources are under equal protection (Dilsaver 1994a, 269-276, 371-376). The remaining three realities that are today's national parks reflect their land use, management policies and roles in society: parks as political constructions, economic entities, and social places. Within these categories lie the meaning and significance of the parks to American culture and society. Like the three purposes for which they are established, each is complex and offers many research questions to the geographer. I will briefly review these six perspectives on national parks and recommend some areas where future research is needed. THE PURPOSES OF PARKS PARKS AS RESERVES FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND SYSTEMS Although the parks, monuments, recreation areas and historic sites differ in specific legislation, current NPS policy protects natural processes and endangered species while providing baselines for measuring environmental change (Harmon 1999). However, fire management, predator policies, and attitudes toward exotic species have evolved through time. The histories and lasting impacts of earlier policies, such as fire suppression and predator destruction, have great import for current park managers and surrounding ecosystems. As scientists advance their knowledge of natural systems, resource management requires frequent reappraisal. Global warming, the biogeographical interplay within ecosystems with extirpated, endangered, and exotic species, and the human impacts on natural systems can be monitored closely in the parks where most consumptive and destructive activities are banned (Runte 1987, 138-154,197-208; Wright 1992; Sellars 1997; NPS 2006, 35-57). Physical geographers can not only participate in such research but also study the reciprocal relationships between evolving natural systems, growing scientific knowledge, and park management policies. What have been the agency's responses to changes in extant vegetation communities in the past? As global warming stresses regionally endangered species and encourages invasion of hitherto absent species, how will NPS managers respond? …