You are here

Centennial Series | Reform, Don't Replace, The National Park Service

Share

Editor's note: As part of National Parks Traveler's Centennial Series, William R. Lowry, a professor at Washington University and author of Repairing Paradise, and John Freemuth, a professor at Boise State University and author of Islands Under Siege, examine how to reinvigorate, not replace, the National Park Service.

The centennial of the National Park Service is inspiring an impressive amount of soul-searching about the agency and the lands for which it is responsible. This is timely and potentially beneficial. As many analysts as well as agency employees themselves have long argued, the NPS faces serious challenges that affect the preservation and management of these precious lands (U.S. NPS 1992, see also Freemuth 1992; Frome 1992; Lowry 2009; Runte 1979; Sellars 1997; Yochim 2013). Numerous well-intentioned observers have thus suggested significant restructuring or even replacement of the agency through proposals such as privatizing the parks or transferring jurisdiction to the state level. Indeed, some prominent analysts, including some in this forum, have proposed privatizing national parks or at least managing them as franchises. State legislators in nearly a dozen Western states have proposed a transfer of federal parklands to state jurisdiction. This paper is intended as a caution. Be careful of major changes to the overall institutional structure of national park management. Such structural replacement would not be as popular as imagined nor as beneficial as promised. 

Acadia National Park sunrise/Colleen Miniuk-Sperry

A majority of Americans want the national parks to remain under control of the federal government/Acadia National Park sunrise by Colleen Miniuk-Sperry

The Popularity of Federal Management

One of the most fundamental decisions for any society is what to do with public lands. Federalist 10 frames the general question this way: “The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.” In the U.S., this question of the public lands has been at the heart of countless controversies in American society since humans cleared the first forest for a settlement. Most scholarly analyses of these debates assert that historically, Americans support the idea of public lands as they “…place a high cultural value on open space” (Wilson and Paterson 2003: 9). We argue that there are a number of reasons that the public lands, including the national parks, are of national interest, not local or particular.

Numerous public opinion surveys suggest that Americans value protection of public lands. In a 1996 survey of issues including population, air quality, water quality, species endangerment, and climate change, for instance, only toxic waste drew higher levels of concern than loss of rain forests or over-development of natural places. The latter drew a mean response of 7.7 (on a 10-point scale), much higher than any of the other issues just mentioned (Guber 2003: 26). The results are even stronger when questions focus not on public lands in general but rather on national parks and wilderness areas. For instance, a 1998 Colorado State University survey found 87 percent of respondents agreeing that parks should “remain the special protected areas that they have been in the past” and another 10 percent saying that was somewhat important (Haas and Wakefield 1998: 2). Similarly, a 2001 Los Angeles Times poll showed 91 percent of Americans saying that preserving wilderness is important (Campaign for America’s Wilderness 2003) A majority in that poll said it was “extremely important.” A 2013 poll of western voters by Hart Research Associates shows nearly 2/3 (65 percent) of residents supporting permanent protection for wilderness, parks and open spaces. (American Progress 2013).

While some state legislators have expressed interest in transferring jurisdiction of parks from the national to the state level, the vast majority of Americans have rejected the idea. When asked who should make decisions about national parks, the previously-cited Colorado State poll found only 10 percent saying state government and 66 percent answering NPS managers (Haas and Wakefield 1998: 14). A 2012 survey by Hart Research Associates found 88 percent of voters considered it “quite important” (29%) or even “extremely important” (59 percent) for the federal government to protect and support parks (Hart 2012). Further, unlike other environmental issues, support for national, not state or local, parks cuts across traditional party lines. In this poll, 92 percent of Democrats and 81 percent of Republicans saying that was either “quite important” or “extremely important.” (Hart 2012).

Back in 2012 the Arizona Legislature wanted the federal government to turn over its lands to the state, including the Grand Canyon/Kurt Repanshek file photo

There is another way to discern the public views on public lands and parks. In Arizona, hardly a state of liberal persuasion, in March 2012, the state legislature passed a bill that called for federal land agencies to give up title to roughly 48,000 square miles (124,000 square kilometers) of federal land by 2015. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the bill for reasons including cost and legal uncertainties. The Arizona Legislature then placed Proposition 120 on the November ballot. The proposition called for the federal government to relinquish what would amount to most non-Native American land within the state, including Grand Canyon National Park. Specifically, it stated that Arizona, “Declares its sovereign and exclusive authority and jurisdiction over the air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources within its boundaries.” (Arizona, 2012)  Only established Native reservations, a trivial amount of state cessations, and small military reservations weren’t included. Arguments ranged from those touting state sovereignty, through those asserting that federal land ownership was unconstitutional, and vague promises to protect “Grand Canyon State Park” to the degree the National Park Service had.  The proposition failed by a vote of 67.7 percent to 32.3 percent. (Arizona, Secretary of State, 2012). In Arizona, the people spoke.

Little sentiment for privatization or decentralization is evident, even in generally conservative western states. In the answer to the decision-making power in the Colorado State survey, less than 1 percent of the respondents in this national poll supported the private sector (Haas 1998: 14). Another poll of 1,600 voters in the Rocky Mountain states by two leading national opinion research firms in 2014 reflected strong opposition to transferring public lands to state governments (American Progress 2014). Indeed, when asked if these places belong to the nation or to the state, 62 percent said “strongly” for the former as opposed to 17 percent “strongly” for the latter. These are voters who are more likely to identify themselves as conservatives than liberal by a 2-1 margin. Indeed, 29 percent of survey respondents identify with the Tea Party. These results are even more impressive given that the question lumps together forests and public lands. If the question focused purely on national parks, the results would be even stronger.

The public does not support major restructuring of the National Park System or indeed of cuts to protection of public lands in general. Indeed, Americans typically endorse greater support and funding for public lands. In a separate analysis, we’ve analyzed over 2,400 ballot initiatives and referenda on public lands between 1988 and 2014. Voters have passed an impressive 75 percent of them. Further, the partisan divide on environmental issues between Republicans and Democrats is not nearly as evident when it comes to public lands, especially regarding national parks (Shipan and Lowy 2001). Finally, this support for public lands has been apparent even in elections such as 2014 when conservatives made gains in elections throughout the country but still passed strong public lands bills in states such as California and Florida (New York Times 2014; The Trust for Public Lands 2014).

The Logic of Federal Management

Although polls and ballot results reflect little support for major institutional changes to the national park system, some proponents of replacing the NPS might argue that voters are just not yet aware of the possible benefits of privatization or decentralization. Both logic and the evidence that does exist suggest several counter arguments.

Private markets excel at providing many goods and services, but parks are not one of them. One reason is that setting prices on preservation goals is extremely difficult. Benefits are indirect and difficult to measure, thus defying easy quantification. As economist Robert Nelson wrote years ago, “No entrepreneur could readily convert benefits of this kind into profits” (Nelson 1982: 66). If they can’t achieve profits, will private enterprise be interested managing parks in their current preserved condition?

Second, private goods require excludability. One can only access or use the good if they are willing to pay for it. On the contrary, parks are a good that if available to one, are available to all. Non-excludability makes private ownership impractical. As economist Robert Dorfman states, “There isn’t much point in owning anything from which other people cannot be excluded” (Dorfman 1993: 81). Establishing private ability to exclude people from parks would create the potential for discrimination and inequity.

Could we possibly ever find a substitute for Yosemite?/Jean Bjerke

Third, unlike other private goods, parks have no substitute. Part of the reason for that is in the very nature of a national park – each park unit is unique. As Nobel Laureate Robert Solow said, privatizing a good is difficult if “they have an independent value and no good substitutes” (Solow 1991: 187). Are there really substitutes for places like Yellowstone or Yosemite?

Fourth, privatizing parks would create the potential danger in over-development of a commons. As Hardin noted in his seminal article “Tragedy of the Commons,” private use of a public land or commons, even if considered rational by each user, is likely to lead to the ruin of the common area for all (Hardin 1993). Little wonder then that even some of the most prominent advocates of private property have warned against privatization of public parks. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith said of public lands: “Lands for the purpose of pleasure and magnificence – parks, gardens, public walks etc., possessions which are everywhere considered as causes of expense, not as sources of revenue – seem to be the only lands which, in a great and civilized monarchy, ought to belong to the crown (Smith 1776: 306)." It is possible of course, to argue that in some cases the national park commons is overused, but this is a thorny issue to resolve and requires more nuanced proposals than simply rejecting the NPS.

Finally, what about the possibility of keeping parks in the public sector but transferring responsibility for their management to the state level? Empirical evidence is available regarding the possible consequences. Every state has a state park system. While systems vary on many dimensions, one theme is quite common. State governments, faced with serious budget constraints, typically demand that their park systems be fairly self-sufficient. This may sound reasonable for purposes of accountability, but it does create pressure on state park managers to increase the revenue from otherwise natural lands. They are thus much more likely to have hotels, lodges, golf courses, and ski resorts than more natural counterparts in the national park system (Lowry 2001). The exceptions here prove the rule. In the state of Missouri, for example, citizens have endorsed and since reauthorized a percentage of the sales tax to fund the state park system. Freed from financial pressure to make the park system self-funding, Missouri park system managers have kept the state’s parks in much more natural condition than in many neighboring states. More development in state parks may be a desirable outcome to some, but the polls cited above do not indicate that this is a majority position.

Possible Reforms to Federal Management

This paper is not intended to suggest that the NPS is doing everything right. As we and many other analysts have argued, the National Park System is plagued with significant problems, such as deteriorating infrastructure, micromanagement from political authorities, and difficulties in restoring important natural ecosystems (Freemuth 1992; Lowry 2009; Yochim 2013).  Numerous reforms are possible, but we will just mention two that come out of the proposals for decentralization and privatization.

First, the NPS could pay greater heed to lessons learned by the state parks or by other national park systems. The agency has often been somewhat insular (some critics refer to the long tradition of multi-generational employees with “green blood” receiving favorable treatment within the bureau) and thus not at all receptive to different ideas. State park managers, consistent with the tradition of innovation in a federal system, have tried various approaches to problems. For instance, underfunded state park systems have allowed limited commercialization, such as corporate sponsorship of trails or beachfronts, in order to alleviate financial stress. The NPS might well find opportunities for such sponsorship without sacrificing the ideals of natural areas.

Second, one of the arguments of those advocating making parks private is that it would make the parks more financially accountable. Those running the NPS could be much more financially responsible. Specifically, the fee system for the National Park System is currently generous to a fault. One illustrative example is the Senior Eagle Pass, available for life for a one-time fee of $10 to any American when they turn 62. At last year’s PERC-sponsored seminar on national parks all attendees, of various policy and intellectual backgrounds, claimed to be more than willing to pay more for such a privilege. The parks face funding shortfalls that are too significant to be virtually giving away access.

The national parks reflect us at our best/Harold Jerrell photo

Conclusions

We make one more appeal for the parks and the public lands to remain as national resources. Recall the famous Wallace Stegner (1998: 135-136) observation that national parks are “absolutely American, absolutely democratic; they reflect us at our best rather than our worst.  Without them millions of lives would have been poorer.” As former rangers we participated in helping, in some small way, some of those lives become richer and saw in some visitors and others a fierce loyalty to our national parks as national treasures. We realize this language is not often in the same conversation with “efficiency” privatization” and “markets” but we do think it echoes how many people think about parks and we don’t think they are wrong.

Reforms are one thing. The national parks could certainly be better managed and made more relevant in the next century. Proposals to completely replace a system that has worked fairly well for the past century, however, are neither popular nor persuasive.

* * * * * 

Bibliography

American Progress. 2013. “Poll shows Voters want Public Lands Protected.” Press release 6/17/2013.

American Progress. 2014. “Bipartisan Poll finds Western Voters Oppose Transfer of America’s Forests and Public Lands to State Ownership.” Press release dated 9/25/2014.

Campaign for America’s Wilderness. 2003. “A Mandate to Protect America’s Wilderness.” Washington D.C.: Campaign for America’s Wilderness.

Dorfman, Robert. 1993. “Some Concepts from Welfare Economics.” In Economics of the Environment, ed. Robert and Nancy Dorfman. 3rd. ed. Norton Publishing: 79-96.

Freemuth, John. 1992. Islands under Siege. Lawrence, KA: University of Kansas Press.

Frome, Michael. 1992. Regreening the National Parks. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Guber, Deborah Lynn. 2003. The Grassroots of a Green Revolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Haas, Glenn E. and Timothy J. Wakefield. 1998. “National Parks and the American Public.” For Collins, Co: Colorado State University.

Hart Research Associates. 2012. “Strong Bipartisan Support for National Parks.” A national survey conducted on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association.

Lowry, William R. 1994. The Capacity for Wonder (1994). Washington D.C.: Brookings.

Lowry, William R. 2001. “The Impact of Reinventing Government on State and Federal Parks.” Journal of Policy History 13(4): 405-428).

Lowry, William R. 2009. Repairing Paradise. Washington D.C.: Brookings.

Nelson, Robert H. 1982. “The Public Lands.” In Current Issues in Natural Resource Policy, ed. Paul Portney. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future, 14-73.

New York Times. 2014. “In Red and Blue States, Good Ideas Prevail.” The New York Times 11/6/2014.

Runte, Alfred. 1979. National Parks: The American Experience. University of Nebraska Press. 

Sellars, Richard West. 1997.  Preserving Nature in the National Parks. Yale University Press.

Shipan, Charles R. and William R. Lowry. 2001. “Environmental Policy and Party Divergence in Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 54, 2: 245-263.

Solow, Robert M. 1991. “Sustainability: An Economist’s Perspective.” In Economics of the Environment, ed. Robert and Nancy Dorfman. 3rd ed. Norton: 179-187.

Smith, Adam. 1776. The Wealth of Nations, Vol. 2. 1960 ed. London: Dent.

Stegner, Wallace. 1998. “Marking the Sparrow’s Fall.” In Page Stegner ed. The Making of the American West. Henry Holt Publishers.

The Trust for Public Land. 2014. “3 Big States Lead Record Vote for Land Conservation.” Press release, 11/5/2014.

U.S. National Park Service. 1992. National Parks for the 21st Century. Washington D.C. NPS.

Yochim, Michael J. 2013. Protecting Yellowstone. University of New Mexico Press. 

Featured Article

Comments

Maybe the best place to start would be to reform Congress with term limits and strict regulation of campaign funding.


"This paper is not intended to suggest that the NPS is doing everything right. As we and many other analysts have argued, the National Park System is plagued with significant problems, such as deteriorating infrastructure, micromanagement from political authorities, and difficulties in restoring important natural ecosystems..."

Even more significant NPS problems are its top-heavy, cult-like management displaying minimal fiscal transparency or accountability, and unrepentant persecution of whistleblowers.  That "deteriorating infrastructure" has been worsened for decades by managerial obsession with development at the expense of maintenance.   

The long section on privatization and State control is well-written, but the couple of 'possible reforms' mentioned seem pretty skimpy and boil down to more money.  I would liked to have seen some discussion of other reorganization possibilities such as
removing the NPS from the historically and currently corrupt Department of Interior and giving it an independent status modeled on the Smithsonian.

https://www.doi.gov/ocl/dois-corruption

Of course, no such major changes will be possible until Lee Dalton's political reforms are achieved.


With you Lee on term limits, not so much on eliminating the 1st amendment.  Unfortunately I don't think either would substantially change the plight of the NPS.


Again with that nonnsense that money equals speech. Follow that out and every corruption and bribery conviction infringes first amendment rights.


"corruption and bribery "- do I hear Clinton Foundation and State Department - are crimes that have nothing to do with free speech.  Expressing your preference for a political candidate is the epitomy of free speech.  


Glad you are in favor of supporting the old Republican tradition of buying the best politicians you can.


And you are buying in to the old Democratic tradition of making baseless accusations.  Show me a Republican that has changed his position due to being bought and I am willing to throw him in the slammer.  Are you willing to throw Hillary in the slammer for selling her position as Secretary of State?  The evidence came out loud and clear today.  But like "climate science" I suspect we will hear crickets from you on that.  


Where were we? That's right:

Centennial Series | Reform, Don't Replace, The National Park Service


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.