# data[].attributes.body
This poster aims to illuminate the reality and ethical status of the American National Parks. The Parks have long been a national treasure and a precious project of our most treasured presidents. But in many ways, the relationship between modern Americans and the National Parks remains unclear, and the tensions therein unresolved. With the aim of clarifying that relationship, this educational brochure investigates the National Parks, their history, their management, their environmental impact, their political character, and their place in the current climate crisis. It will also explore the works of thinkers whose thoughts on the parks, or the ideas and themes that underpin them, help us to understand our relationship to them. That relationship, as this brochure will attempt to explain, may have its benefits, but it also might have its limits. This poster hopes to conclude by considering, in light of all of these factors, what it means to relate to the parks "ethically," and offering ways that modern Americans might think about the parks with an ethical mindset.

# data[].attributes.body
Both the history and purpose of national parks in the United States have tangled and shifted over their lifetime, beginning from the nineteenth century. From that time, conservationists - meaning those in the movement concerned with scientifically regulating the resource industry through land "protection" - directed lobbyists to help spur organization of the National Parks. This lobbying was ultimately successful and culminated in the creation of Yellowstone Park in 1872, the National Park Service in 1926. Once this organization was underway, in no small part because of enthusiasm of President Teddy Roosevelt, parks began to appear across the nation. These parks often accompanied roads and railways, increasing their visibility, which in turn amplified their popularity and progress. This popularity eventually led tourism to dominate the National Parks in the 20th century. Parks would also, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, become political tools of oppression, where war-related prisoners and even innocent indigenous people would be confined. Having this “multiple use," land, for economic gain, confinement, and human pleasure, appeared to be the goal of the National Parks in the first half of the 20th century, and for a while, all of those uses were less than tacitly supported by the government itself. The parks were then used - or exploited - as a resource, for tourism as well as natural resources, until the controversy arose around their need to be "protected." In the 1960's, this controversy grew, and the first law regarding “environmental protection” was issued in order to create the boundaries of the parks, boundaries that barred those looking to exploit the natural resources of parks. A process was also created to allow owners of unrecognized parks to gain governmental approval. This regulation, notably, disadvantaged indigenous people, and the legacy of that disadvantage is still seen when coal and lumber industries invade what indigenous peoples would like to be protected or sacred land. After the 1960s, national parks and interest in them only grew. Their purpose began to be viewed, interestingly, in a historical light: it was focused on commemoration, memorialization, and cultural significance(for only certain cultures, notably). In recent years, the climate change crisis and the problem of national identity have begun to dominate the discussion of the National Parks, and it is the ethical lens of that discussion that this poster aims to illuminate. For a more complete summary of the history of national parks in America, see our timeline.

# data[].attributes.body
A man-made lookout in Acadia National Park

# data[].attributes.body
To properly address the environmental impact of the parks, one must first consider the tension between conservation and tourism. Conservation, understood as the effort to preserve our natural environment, conflicts with tourism, because tourism approaches nature as an entity designed for human gain or pleasure. This tension challenges the common preconception of national parks: while many see visiting a national park as simply experiencing nature in its full form, such a tourist experience actually causes environmental damage through littering, noise pollution, emissions, habitat disruption, decreased water quality etc. A study done by the Journal of Travel Research, the study reflected in the chart above, indicates that out of 44 National Parks surveyed in the United States, 54.5% experience water quality issues, 61.4% experience air quality problems, and 84.1% had either flora or fauna problems, all as a result of tourism. This more explicitly demonstrates the significant kinds of damage that tourism inflicts upon National Park systems in the United States. On the opposing side, the U.S Department of Interior also reports that in 2019 visitor spending in communities around national parks caused a $41.7 billion benefit to the economy as well as providing 340,500 jobs. Visitor spending went up by $800 million from 2018 to 2019 and the U.S economy grew by $1.6 billion overall effect. So it is clear from this that tourism in National Parks provides a substantial economic gain. The study of the parks, then, requires us to consider the tension between the short-term economic benefit of the tourism experience and the cost - moral, intrinsic, environmental, and eventually economic - persistent environmental degradation.
There are many potential answers to this tension, and that is at least partially elaborated elsewhere in this poster. But whatever the answer is to this very difficult question, it is a crucial ethical dilemma to consider when deliberating about the virtue - or lack thereof - of the National Parks. In considering these things, we can reflect on how national parks both challenge and reflect these ideas of conservation and tourism, and how parks can both help and harm us and our world.

# data[].attributes.body
Roger King’s view of our relationship to nature makes the topic of national parks even more complicated. On the surface, it would seem as if the parks could be a solution to our estrangement from nature, but King's analysis challenges that conception. While the conservation efforts are certainly valuable, and while excursions into nature teach us something about it, it does not entirely the satisfy the immersive goal that we imagine it does. These excursions only take place for limited times and in certain, less dangerous places. Interacting with these “bio-regions,” does not, according to King, necessarily cultivate a “thick," or sincere and intimate, relationship with nature. Thus, King's view of land, and our ethical relationship to it, rests on the premise that our culture inevitably colors and influences our view of nature, and that the return to a pre-human nature is impossible. This comes to affect his view of lands like national parks, ones that are viewed as "protected." To King, "protected" lands are not holistically pure nor pristine lands, but rather those that rely on the intervention and protection of human beings to survive. One might imagine, as King does, the killing of invasive species to maintain a field as "protection." In this sense, the National Park Service, human visitation of the parks, and action to maintain them seem less invasive, less unethical, and more justified as a necessary act of restoration or stewardship. With that said, we also might keep in mind King's warning: an ethical person must always be wary of using "protection" as a justification for human alteration, for that can easily become an excuse for over-intervention, and ultimately destruction. In light of both that insight and that warning, the view of the American National Parks appears to be more realistic.

# data[].attributes.body
While national park management is an important multifaceted topic, the one most directly relevant to our discussion is the regulation of tourism in the parks. In the United States, tourists are generally allowed to travel on foot throughout the park with limited restrictions. There are rarely areas with fenced boundaries and few sections of the parks that restrict access to tourists. Most parks in the U.S. encourage an open and adventurous experience(nps.gov). The significance of this encouragement is more properly understood when put in a global context. If, for example, you compare the management of the U.S. National Park Service to that of a foreign country - say, South Africa - you find that in comparison to American management, South African and more generally foreign management is much more restrictive. In national parks like those in South Africa, tourists are often required to stay in vehicles when traveling around areas of the park(sanparks.org). While this is partially for their own safety, it is also an attempt to conserve apex predators (Licht et al.). By contrast, American parks only introduce apex predators to specific large areas(Ibid). This would explain the comparative lack of fences, restrictions, and boundaries in the American national parks, for if less predators lurk, and there are less species to protect, less restrictions are required. This contrast carries with it ethical complications. For if national parks are meant to protect the natural environment, and the natural environment thrives in a state of biodiversity, then maintaining that biodiversity, and introducing species to do so, seems the ethical and prudent thing to do. Yet to do so means that the tourism to such parks has to be restricted, to protect both the species and the human visitors. With that in mind, it would seem that the American National Parks have ethical complications, and that those complications stem in no small part from the presence, influence, and even prioritization of tourism.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.eenews.net/special_reports/NPS100

# data[].attributes.body
As the historical section of this poster revealed, there is a long and intimate history between American politics and the American National Parks. Ideally and originally, the purpose of National Parks was and is to protect the natural and cultural resources while providing an environment for youth and adults alike. But when this mission collides with political necessities, complications arise. The parks require funding, and that is often met with resistance. This remains the case despite the economic benefit the parks bring(see "environmental impact"). Because of this resistance, the funding has declined over the past few years(epa.gov). Despite this, however, the travel to the parks has not decreased(nps.gov); a majority of Americans have visited a National Park with a wide diversity of visitors. Public opinion also continues to strongly support the parks: according to a survey conducted by the Hart Research Center for American Progress, approximately 77% of Americans either strongly support or fairly support the National Park system while another 15% neither support or oppose the National Park system (Hart). Not only do American Citizens feel that the National Parks benefit the country as a whole, but many also feel that the Parks benefits them on a personal level. Because of this personal and public benefit, approximately 50% of Americans feel as though despite the want and need for National parks, America and the U.S. government do not do enough to either upkeep or support the NPS. What is more, many Americans share the concern  that the land should be more thoroughly preserved, and receive more attention to  protect wildlife and promote biodiversity. So here we have a dilemma on the public policy front: American citizens largely support the parks and want to see them more properly funded, but American policy makers are too concerned with the short-term cost to agree. This divide was especially prominent during the Trump presidency, where Scott Pruitt's rollbacks made protected land vulnerable to corporate invasion. These rollbacks seem unwise and even catastrophic in the light of how dangerous and urgent the climate crisis we now face is. Despite President Biden's election, and his immediate re-joining of the Paris Climate Accords, this political controversy and the public policy dilemma over the parks remains. It also remains spiritually important to the essence of our nation. As the founding framers often remarked, and President Roosevelt often emphasized, America is unlike Europe: the most beautiful features of this nation are not its museums and palaces, open to only the elite few; instead, it is the natural land that is our most beautiful and impressive treasure, and because of the National Parks, the beauty of that land is "owned" by everyone and no one. Thus the American National Parks are uniquely and essentially democratic in nature, and particularly aligned with the ideal political mission of the American democracy. In that light, it would seem that there is a particular duty encumbered upon our political representatives to protect and foster the National Park Service and its regulations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Conclusion: How Do We Think about the Parks 'Ethically'?

# data[].attributes.subject
Conclusion: How Do We Think about the Parks 'Ethically'?

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout this poster, many different perspectives on the American National Parks have been illuminated. The historical perspective allows us to see the uniquely important place that the Parks play in the development and intrinsic nature of the American democracy; the political perspective allows us to see how the parks are viewed by the public, how they are treated by lawmakers, and helps us to answer how they should be treated; the comparative perspective gives us the opportunity to see how the parks are managed and elevates our view of how they should be managed; the ecological view shows us how science reveals the danger that tourism poses to the land that the National Park Service is designed to protect, and balance that with the good they do; and the textual perspective of Wilson and King show us the philosophical roots of "protected lands" like the Parks and questions just how much of that "good" those lands can actually accomplish, given our industrialized, modern environment. In light of those considerations, we are more ready to consider the parks from an ethical perspective, and answer more fully how we are to think and behave towards the parks. In light of the information given in this brochure, we suggest that that mindset is one as open as possible to nature, as humble as possible, and, as much as is possible, concerned equally with the fate of our environment as with our own fate, for the two are inevitably entangled. As for behavior, we contend that the ethical American is not barred from visiting National Parks because of the harm the tourist industry causes, but, when they do, is required to "tread lightly;" so to speak, to be respectful and protective of the natural species that exist within them. They also, we suggest, have political duties, from an ethical perspective; they might be considered ethically "required" to attempt to care or support the mission of the Park Service and governmental agencies that are designed to protect our natural environment, for this political position most strongly follows from the ethical mindset of respect and humility that we described to be optimal. While others may have their own opinions of what is more or less "optimal;" this conclusion seems the best possible definition in light of the information we have found and provided.

# data[].attributes.body
Yellowstone National Park

# data[].attributes.headline
Alexander Wilson and the Limited Landscape

# data[].attributes.subject
Alexander Wilson and the Limited Landscape

# data[].attributes.body
These questions of tourism and human influence beckon another question: just how much can the national parks broaden our mental horizon? Are there limits to how authentic, how genuine, and how meaningful our experiences in the national parks can be? Throughout The Culture of Nature, Wilson provides one perspective that helps to answer these questions. Wilson draws on historical examples to highlight our
convoluted relationship with nature and how often times, our regard(or disregard) for it likely stems from its inherent contrast to industry and civilization. Wilson also likens our relationship with nature to something romantic, an that most people imagine as an escape from a crowded and polluted urban life. And
with respect to our national parks, our collective relationship towards them tends to be one of admiration. And mass admiration at that, for 327.5 million people paid them a visit in 2019. As Wilson emphasizes, though, even in wild and protected places like American National Parks, our travels there are not as much for the sake of respecting nature as they are geared towards optimum human satisfaction. Despite the wildness and freedom of nature that they symbolize,
their relationship to the tourist industry requires the Park Service to alter, curate, and customize natural scenery to satisfy visitors. Wilson refers to this phenomenon as ‘nature tourism’, a sort of oxymoronic act that, although well-intentioned, more often leads to artificial and commodified nature experiences than it does holistic and authentic ones. This is because nature tourism inevitably incentivizes the fragmentation of land as it seeks to transform
varying private parcels into their own respective "nature" spaces. This fragmentation, to Wilson, disrupts the original expansive and continuous landscape. In reading Wilson and considering his views, we might come to realize, from an ethical perspective, that even in the parks that we protect and appreciate most, avoiding the presence of human manipulation is all but unavoidable.