Mission Rivalry: Use and Preservation Conflicts in National Parks Policy

8/13/2019 Mission Rivalry: Use and Preservation Conflicts in National Parks Policy

1/15

Mission Rivalry: Use and Preservation Conflicts

in National Parks Policy

Shannon K. Orr &Rebecca L. Humphreys

Published online: 18 June 2011

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract The purpose of this study is to explore the conflict between use and

preservation in national parks policy as seen through the mission statement of the

National Parks Service. The histories of the national parks were qualitatively

coded in order to further explore this controversy, or what we have termed

mission rivalry.

Keywords National parks.

Mission statement.National park service

.Publicmanagement

Introduction

The national park system in the United States began quietly, and with little

contemplation as to both the future rewards and challenges of protected lands. In

1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed a law declaring that Yellowstone would

forever be dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring ground for thebenefit and enjoyment of the people(Yellowstone Act1872, p.1). The worlds first

national park was in theory protected, but with minimal administrative oversight and

no provisions for operational funding. The lack of bureaucratic oversight is not

entirely surprising, early visions for national parks were based on the convergence of

a number of factors: romantic idealism, nostalgia for untamed wilderness, the rapid

pace of settlement, a growing awareness of the profit potential from exploiting

natural wonders, and a desire to compete with the artistic treasures of Europe (Sax

Public Organiz Rev (2012) 12:8598

DOI 10.1007/s11115-011-0161-8

S. K. Orr (*) :R. L. Humphreys

Department of Political Science Bowling Green State University 110 Williams Hall Bowling Green
http://-/?-http://-/?-


2/15

1981; Runte 1997). Concerns about environmental protection were largely absent

from early national parks policy discussions.1

Although early visitors to national parks were few, those who did manage visits

left their marks through graffiti, litter and poaching (Zaslowsky and Watkins 1994).

In 1906 the Antiquities Actwas passed in response to the vandalism and looting ofAnasazi relics in ancient Indian cliff dwellings in the Southwest. The act gave the

president the authority to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks,

historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest

(American Antiquities Act1906, p.1) situated on lands owned or controlled by the

U.S. government to be national monuments without obtaining congressional

approval. It also prohibited any excavation or appropriation of antiquities on federal

lands without a permit. Under the act twenty national monuments were created by

1916 (Zaslowsky and Watkins1994).

The overuse and wanton disregard for the environment in Yellowstone reached acrisis point, and the Cavalry was eventually sent in to manage the park and to try to

control the rampant commercialism which threatened many of the natural wonders.

Other parks were haphazardly managed by a few scattered innkeepers and locals

who were usually more interested in making money than protecting the parks (Sax

1981). Congress did not formally establish the National Park Service (NPS) to

oversee the management of National Parks until August 25, 1916 with the signing of

The Organic Act. The act empowered the National Park Service to conserve the

scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide

for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave themunimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations (Organic Act1916, p.1).

The Management Policies of the National Park Service of 2001 (adopted

December 2000) attempted to address the problem, stating where there is a conflict

between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them,

conservation is to be predominant.2 However, in testimony before the Subcommit-

tee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands in 2002 and subsequent follow

up statements by the NPS director this distinction is less clear. In response to the

question What is the legal basis for concluding that the Organic Act requires that

when there is a conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for

the enjoyment of them, conservation is to be predominant?she replied We believe

this statement is an inaccurate interpretation of the law(The Coalition of Concerned

National Park Service Retirees 2004, p.4). Thus attempts to reconcile this conflict

remain unresolved.

This mission statement is problematic for a number of reasons, both substantively

from the perspective of the mission statement literature, and normatively for its

inherent policy conflicts, or what we term mission rivalry over both use and

preservation. From the nascence of the parks movement until today, national parks

1 By 1830, Niagara Falls, which was heralded as one of the nations greatest wonders was overrun by

tourist operators charging outrageous fees for the best views. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the area

86 S.K. Orr, R.L. Humphreys
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


3/15

have been battlegrounds for competing visions about the purpose and mission of

these lands.

While there is ongoing debate over the complexity of the NPS mission, there is a

more fundamental debate within the strategic planning literature on mission

statements.3

The literature surrounding mission statements is complicated by boththe vast confusion over the definition of the term, as well as the conflicting

prescriptions for mission statement content. This incoherence is problematic given

the demonstrated importance of having a clear mission statement. Mission

statements help to establish a model for strategic planning within an organization

(McGinnis 1981; Pearce 1982; Cochran and David 1985). Organizations with

unclear mission statements may be forced to individually interpret the organizations

objectives and priorities, which lead to both confusion and problems related to

competing interests (Byars and Neil 1987).

The controversy surrounding the National Park Service mission statement iswhether the statement communicates the NPSs purpose as being driven by either

use or preservation, and whether or not these two motivations can reasonably

coexist. It has been argued that based on the historic intent of the time there was no

conflict over the motivations of use and preservation (Winks1997). However, there

is growing concern, particularly by environmentalists that in practice the national

parks are dominated by the use principle to the detrimental effect on the

environment. One way in which to explore this debate from another perspective is

to analyze the histories of the national parks to determine if they were created

following the use or preservation principle. If in fact preservation is the guidingprinciple of the organization then we should see that the parks were created for

reasons of preservation, such as protecting endangered species or fragile ecosystems.

Mission statements

Controversies in the mission statement literature

One of the most significant problems facing the mission statement literature is the

controversy over the very meaning of the term. Mission statements have been

variedly defined as business ventures to be pursued by a company (Staples and

Black 1984), present and future business activities (Byars and Neil 1987), a

statement of purpose or being that makes an organization unique (David 1989), a

rallying which represents the spirit and foundation of the organization (Cummings

and Davies1994).

Complicating the discussion further, within the strategic planning literature there

is an ongoing debate over the purpose of mission statements. The prevailing

argument is that the mission statement establishes a model for strategic planning

within an organization. Beyond the advantages of strategic planning, scholars cite

Mission Rivalry: Use and Preservation Conflicts in National Parks Policy 87
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


4/15

various additional purposes for mission statements including that they establish an

evaluation tool for organizations, communicate organizational purpose to the public,

establish an employee code of conduct, create unanimity of purpose within an

organization, establish an organizational tone, establish organizational priorities,

create a strategic tool for assignment of work duties, reassure stakeholders, revealorganizational image, guide and motivate employees, and lastly stimulate debate

within an organization.

There are few detractors within the mission statement literature. The limited

critique focuses on mission statements as either being inconsequential to

organizational success, or not worth the time associated with creating the statement.

Byars and Neil maintained that due to the poor content prescribed for mission

statements, the statements usually lack genuine meaning. They maintained that

mission statements are generally far too broadly written and thus the content lacks

meaning or the capacity for impacting the organization (Byars and Neil 1987).Russell E. Ackoff, a prominent critic of mission statements, supported the viewpoint

that mission statements lack meaning by stating that mission statements only include

pious platitudes, statements of obvious necessities, and meaningless superlatives

and thus cant possibly have the type of positive impact as statements with genuine

facts and definitions (Ackoff 1987). This criticism is really more about poorly

written mission statements, rather than the statements themselves.

In terms of a cost benefit analysis of the value of mission statements Ireland and

Hitt cited nine possible reasons why organizations might devalue the possible

benefits of mission statements due to the costs associated with creating a missionstatement. These reasons include; stakeholder conflict, internal controversy, time

constraints, exposing confidential organizational information, management priorities,

staff inexperience, loss of autonomy, reflecting only a limited number of stakeholder

viewpoints, and resistance to change (Ireland and Hitt1992). These criticisms can be

overcome through organizational commitment to the process and a better

understanding of how mission statements should be crafted.

Adding to the confusion over mission statements is the lack of coherence and

consensus over terms or concepts. There is a vast amount of literature pertaining to

the prescribed content for mission statements. This body of literature lacks

consistency and common understanding. Based on an analysis of the key mission

statement literature we have synthesized the proposed elements of mission

statements into the frameworks shown in Table1. This table shows the variety and

extensiveness of prescriptions within the literature for statements that are designed to

serve the purpose of clearly communicating information about an organization to the

public. In addition, when looking at this framework it becomes obvious that various

categories and sub categories are misleading, at cross purposes, and exhaustive.

Even if an organization crafted their statement to include information derived from

only one bullet point, or sub category, per prescription category the resulting

statement would still be at the very least eight sentences long.

The prescribed style of mission statements is another area of the strategic

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


5/15

Table 1 Prescriptions for mission statement content

1. Definition of Organization/Statement of Uniqueness

The unique service the organization provides

(McGinnis1981; Pearce1982; Staples and Black1984; Cochran and David1985; Ackoff1987; Ireland andHitt1992)

2. Organizational Purpose

Primary justification of existence

(Pearce1982; Cochran and David1985; Ireland and Hitt1992; Cummings and Davies1994; Campbell1997)

3. Current Business Operations, which include;

Defining current business activities

Target customers and markets

Products and services

Identifying/explaining geographic and business domain

Identifying core technologies/how services will be provided(McGinnis1981; Pearce1982; Staples and Black1984; Cochran and David 1985; Byars and Neil 1987;

Ireland and Hitt1992; Campbell 1997)

4. Future Business Objectives, which include;

Defining future business objectives/goals/aspirations

Expressing commitment to survival/growth/quality of services/profitability

(McGinnis1981; Pearce1982; Staples and Black1984; Cochran and David1985; Ackoff1987; Byars andNeil1987; Ireland and Hitt1992; Cummings and Davies 1994)

5. Method For Achieving Future Business Objectives, which include;

Specific plan for success

A model for strategic planning A framework for allocating resources

A framework for organizational structure

Evaluation tools

(McGinnis1981; Pearce1982; Cochran and David 1985; Byars and Neil 1987; Ireland and Hitt1992;Cummings and Davies 1994; Campbell1997)

6. Organizational Values, which include;

Organizational philosophy

Organizational choices for thriving

Organizational policies

Organizational tone

Style of leadership

Treatment of employees

Employee code of conduct

(McGinnis1981; Pearce1982; Staples and Black1984; Cochran and David1985; Ackoff1987; Ireland andHitt1992; Cummings and Davies 1994; Campbell1997)

7. Public Image, which include;

Organizational self concept

Expressing organizational identity

Desired public image

(Cochran and David1985; Pearce and David 1987; Cummings and Davies 1994)

8 Stakeholder Relations which include;

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


6/15

(McGinnis 1981), which would better incorporate the majority of the eight

prescribed components listed previously in Table 1. In contrast, others advocate

for broad and vague statements to encourage flexibility and organizational

responsiveness (McGinnis 1981; Ireland and Hitt 1992). Through our research we

have determined that including extensive content into a statement dilutes thecommunicative power of the statement. Therefore mission statements must be

shortened by identifying key elements that allow the statement to communicate the

organizations purpose while still maintaining clarity.

Prescribing mission statement content is universal in the sense that the statements

are equally important and effective for the public, private, for profit, and not for

profit industries. Strategic planning scholars agree that due to the positive impact

mission statements have been observed to have on the effectiveness of strategic

planning, the statements are equally important for all industries and a uniform

rational for prescribing content can be used in each industry settings (Cochran andDavid1985; Ireland and Hitt1992; Morris1996).

When analysing the existing prescriptions for mission statement content there

appears to be a lack of a means to sufficiently address multiple objectives within

a singular organization. Organizations with multiple stakeholders inherently have

multiple objectives. Such an organization must then craft their mission statement

to comprise the shared interests of the separate stakeholders, as opposed to listing

rival objectives. Each individual stakeholder has needs, desires, concerns, and

fears these comprise their interests. Objectives are merely specific elements

individual stakeholders must decide upon. Interests are what cause individualstakeholders to determine their objectives. Further behind rival objectives lie both

incompatible and shared interests. Organizations that fail to articulate the shared

interests of their stakeholders within their mission statement possess mission

rivalry (Fisher and Ury 1981).

Revised model for mission statements

Based on the meta-analysis of the mission statement literature, we have identified the

key elements of a mission statement. We have emphasized the importance of brevity

based on the 1998 Bart and Baetzs study that found that the longer the mission

statement, the lower the organizations productivity (Bart and Baetz1998). It is our

contention that previous definitions of mission statements, or models for mission

statement content, either included far too many prescribed elements making them

impossible to implement, or were too broad in their intentions providing no guidance

for the organization. We have identified a means to develop a three step mission

statement incorporating what appear to be the most central elements for

communicating an organizations genuine intent as well as offering pertinent facts.

As was shown in Table1these are key elements that appear with great frequency in

the literature. Our definition is as follows; effective mission statements define the

organization and the organizations purpose, state who the organization seeks to

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


7/15

rivalry. Our framework includes a basic definition of the service the organization

provides and the single justification for the existence of the organization. This

communicates the identity of the organization and the value they provide the public.

Our framework also forces an organization to identify shared interests amongst

stakeholders. This method prevents mission rivalry by establishing a shared identityfor the organization. In addition, this framework purposively leaves out elements that

would be appropriate for an organizational value statement (Table2).

Evaluation of the NPS mission statement

Structural analysis

In this section we will evaluate the National Park Service mission statement based onour new mission statement framework. The evaluation will briefly concentrate on the

issues of defining the organization, keeping mission statements current, including

basic content, the organizations method for achieving its general purpose and then

focused on the most pressing problem of mission rivalry.

If we evaluate the NPS mission statement based on the literature analysis, we can

identify numerous problematic areas. The statement lacks a clear definition of the

National Park Service. To fully define the NPS, the statement must clearly define

what unique service the organization provides. How does the NPS, preserve

unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national parksystem? What does this mean for management and for stakeholders? How does an

organization preserve unimpaired a resource is used on a daily basis? This portion of

the mission statement is far too broad to effectively structure the work of the NPS.

Despite changing political priorities, rapidly increasing visitation and growing

pressures on natural resources, the mission statement has not been effectively

updated to reflect these developments. One of the most significant problems is that

the mission statement fails to include the organizations method for achieving its

general purpose when it states, The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend

the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation

throughout this country (National Park Service 2002, p.1). However, again this

section is far too vague to be effective. The notion that most early national parks

and monuments were selected without regard for biological or geological

Table 2 New framework for mission statement definition and content

1. Definition of organization paired with organizational purpose

What unique service the organization provides

Primary justification of existence

2. Who the organization seeks to serve

Including each individual interest

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


8/15

considerations is, with some justification, commonly perceived as the correct version

of American history (Shafer1999, p. 198.). The original Organic Act and the 1970

and subsequent policy amendments failed to outline a scheme for how the NPS was

supposed to fulfill the mission.

Normative analysis

The most important concern with the mission statement is the possible contradiction

between promoting both use and preservation in national parks: if use impairs

natural areas, how can policy simultaneously accommodate use and also preserve

those same natural areas? (Foresta1984). The national park system struggles to deal

with mission rivalry everyday. How many people can visit Petrified Forest National

Park before the very features that attracted visitors are destroyed? How significant

are the side effects of oil drilling right outside of Canyonlands National park? Canyou allow concessionaires to provide people with food and drink so they can extend

their visit, without at the same time denigrating the aesthetic experience that brought

them there in the first place?

Scholars of protected lands and practitioners in the field have debated for years

the intent and meaning of the agencys mission, and how to implement. Is there a

paradox at work? Are preservation and use compatible? (Ridenour1994) There are

no easy answers to these questions. Keiter argues that although the Act speaks in

terms of both preservation and pubic use, the statutory non-impairment standard

indicates that resource preservation responsibilities should take precedence overpublic use in the event of conflict (Keiter1997, p. 660). He further argues that the

1978 amendments to the Act which state that parks shall be protected and managed

in light of the high public value and integrityof the system, in fact strengthens the

commitment to the basic preservation tenet. Indeed, several courts have concluded

that the amended statute clearly gives primacy to resource preservation over

competing uses or interests (Keiter 1997, p.667). However, Cheever in contrast

argues that the statutory history is not so clear, and that judges have failed to come to

an agreement as to the meaning of the mission (Cheever1997). Recent decisions to

expand the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park and to allow state and

local interests to turn hiking trails and dirt roads in national parks into highways

without court review or public input, illustrate these dilemmas

One argument for the contradictory mandate is that at the time national parks

were thought of as worthless lands,and as such Congress did not think through the

potential conflict between unimpaired and enjoyment because it could not be

imagined that the national parks would ever be of interest to commerce of industry

(Runte 1997).

Early supporters of the National Park Service such as Stephen Mather (who was

later named the first Park Service Director) did not seek direction from Congress;

rather they sought the blessing of Congress to develop a system of National Parks,

but without Congressional oversight. In this case the paradoxical mission statement

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


9/15

hotels, roads and other facilities. Emphasis on public use included suppressing

wildfires, introducing exotic game fish species and the promotion of wildlife

viewing by feeding bears at garbage dump sites (Keiter1997). Viewed from todays

perspective these activities would be highly controversial, and in violation of many

of the present management practices of the NPS.In the early years of the national parks, visitor use was low and of minimal impact

on the environment; the contradiction Congress had enacted into law in the 1916

general management act, ordering the National Park Service at once to promote use

and to conserve the resource so as to leave them unimpaired, was actually a

workable mandate (Sax1981, p. 11).

Regardless of the intent at the time, from todays standards this contradiction is

problematic. The problem from todays perspective is that we are continually

struggling to resolve this conflict and the future of our national parks are at stake.

The contradictory mandate facilitate(s) the generation of perceptions of agencypurpose at odds with actual agency conduct. They allow those of us who are

interested in public land management to project our vision and values onto the

language Congress used to instruct these agencies. This almost insures that some

significant part of the interested public will believe that the agencies conduct is not

only wrong but illegal (Cheever1997, p. 627).

One of the ongoing dilemmas is how to fulfil such interests in order to provide for

the enjoyment of the present generation while at the same time leaving the parks

unimpaired for future generations. While the mission statement is limited in the

interests it serves, it also faces the dilemma of trying to serve multiple conflictinginterests who support varying interpretations of the mission. Supporting the

enjoyment mission is park concessionaires, members of Congress and their staff

who have popular National Parks units in their districts, local communities

dependent upon national parks, interest groups that support recreation and tourism,

and visitors (Freemuth2000). These actors tend to favour wildlife and management

policies that emphasize use. On the other side are resource protection actors who

support the preservation aspect of national parks and favour policies that may restrict

use of the national parks.

Mission statements that include mission rivalry are inherently unclear and

problematic. They create opportunities for stakeholder conflict and threaten the

coherence of management operations. In trying to serve many interests, they end up

serving none. In many ways it also sets the organization up for failure as it cannot

possibly fulfil its objectives. This may very well be the best way to describe the

current state of national parks policy.

Qualitative coding

In order to further test the hypothesis that the NPS has a contradictory mission we

used content analysis to determine the factors that led to the creation of national

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


10/15

perspective of the researcher, both authors coded the national park histories to

improve the reliability and validity of the methodology. The entire population of

national parks is being studied because of the manageable number of cases.

The histories were obtained from the websites of the National Parks Service.

While biases may clearly have entered into the writing of these histories, thisrepresents less of a threat than usual for qualitative coding studies. These cases

represent the authoritative histories according to the NPS, which provides

consistency to our study. While we had to exclude five cases because they were

not available on the website, we did so to ensure greater reliability and validity. We

also eliminated those that had unclear histories. In total 11 cases were excluded.

Only national parks were included in this research. Additional units under the

National Park Service such as National Battlefields were excluded.

One of the downfalls of any qualitative coding study is the inevitable cry of

oversimplification. By their very nature, studies of public policy are caught betweenthe complexity of the field of study, and the need to theoretically reduce that

complexity into manageable frames for study. Multiple forces lead to the creation of

national parks, many of those intangible and difficult identify. This study focuses on

the primary motivations and actors involved in the formation of national parks in the

United States. Each history was coded as either use, preservation or both. The

purpose was to identify whether the park was created to preserve some aspect of the

park, to facilitate or encourage use or some combination of these two factors.

We found that use was the dominant justification in five cases, preservation in

twenty-one cases, both in seventeen cases. Excluding the national parks with unclearhistories, use was a motivating factor for 40.7% parks and 70.3% have at least some

preservation history. A typical example for use creation is Big Bend National Park,

which was created during the Great Depression as a means of fostering tourism and

creating employment through the Civilian Conservation Corps. In the case of Hot

Springs National Park the government actually facilitated the development of the

area to make it more attractive to tourists including building mountain drives,

bathhouses, gymnasiums and billiards rooms. The creation of Zion National Park

occurred along with the development of rail and automobile links to the area.

In terms of preservation, a classic example is Arches National Park which was

largely created to protect the natural sandstone formations. Joshua Tree National

Park was similarly created to protect the area from land developers and cactus

poachers. Petrified Forest National Park was created to protect petrified wood

specimens form tourists looking for unusual souvenirs, and poachers looking to sell

the artifacts for profit. Voyageurs National Park was created in part to preserve the

area for its historical significance during the fur trade.

Parks with histories that reflect both use and preservation histories include parks

such as Kenai Fjords, which was created both in order to protect natural features

such as the ice fields, but at the same time to attract tourism to the area. North

Cascades National Park was one of the most controversial with respect to use and

preservation, as preservationists pushed for federal government protection of the



11/15

politics or individual intervened. A different angle on the use/preservation conflict is

the controversy over the standards that should be used to create a national park.

Many have argued that scenic beauty was the primary consideration for granting

national park status (Disilvestro1993, Runte1997, Noss and Cooperrider), however

the historical analysis does not support that argument. Cuyahoga National Park forexample was considered by many to not be beautiful enough for national park status

(Shafer1999).

Representativeness of ecosystems and natural features has also been a concern.

The 1970s saw a significant growth in the number of national parks created. Nixons

State of the Union address in 1971 outlined the following goal And not only to

meet todays needs but to anticipate those of tomorrow, I will put forward the most

extensive program ever proposed by a President of the United States to expand the

Nations parks, recreation areas, open spaces, in a way that truly brings parks to the

people where the people are. For only if we leave a legacy of parks will the nextgeneration have parks to enjoy(Nixon1971)Nixonsparks to the people program

was supported by Congress and partly as a result, the park system grew quickly. The

Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Parks and Insular Affairs,

Representative Phillip Burton of California required that twelve new park proposals

be reviewed each year. No longer was the identification of parks in the hands of the

NPS, but now Congress could and did take an initiatory role (Ridenour1994; Winks

1997). Part of Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udalls vision for the national park

system during this time included the creation of urban parks, built near population

centers so that people could take full advantage of outdoor recreation opportunities.According to former director of the National Park Service (19891993)

Many of the units being voted in by Congress are not worthy of national

recognition but get voted in anyway. . . we spend hundreds of millions of

dollars on what can best be described as local or regional economic

development sites. . . While I was director I searched for a way to recognize

local or regional areas of interest without having to bestow upon them NPS

status. . . Some wanted their site to become a NPS site because they no longer

could afford to take care of it. Others just wanted a pat on the back and some

sign of official acknowledgement that could be put at the city entrance roads(Ridenour1994, p. 17).

Discussion

It is clear that the national park service suffers from what we have termed mission

rivalry. In part, the national parks should have a complicated mission. They must

balance the interests of outdoor enthusiasts and so-called windshield visitors who

never leave their cars. For some a visit to a national park is not complete without a t-

shirt and bagful of souvenirs, while for others the high point of a visit is enjoying

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


12/15

resource investment. The promotion of tourism may also serve to educate people

about natural resources, and the relationship between humans and the environment.

Supporting tourism can help to foster appreciation for nature and these resources,

and encourage people to devote their time and efforts to ensuring their protection for

future generations.Conversely, economic development and tourism in particular can pose a serious

threat to ecosystem integrity. Visitors place pressure on parks through overuse,

increased waste and pollution. Similarly, increasing visitors means building costly

facilities in areas that would otherwise be left natural (Shaw and Stroup, 1997).

Increasing facilitates such as retail stores contribute to an increasing commercial

climate, detracting from the overall wilderness experience (Lowry, 1997). If tourist

activity is allowed to increase unchecked, a parks carrying capacity or ability to

accommodate more people without resource loss will eventually be exceeded. Once

resources begin to decline, tourists value them less and may decide to go elsewhere(Lowry, 1997). Supporting tourism and economic development also required

diverting public funds for infrastructure such as roads and washroom facilities

rather than environmental protection.

While the public impression is that national parks are created to protect beautiful

landscapes and natural wonders, the reality is far different. The creation of national

parks is a highly politicized process, and environmental altruism is not always the

driving force for the creation of these parks. Crater Lake was created in 1902

through the efforts of a single individual, Judge William Gladstone Steel, who even

had to pay for the care of the park itself and serve as its unpaid supervisor for manyyears. Lake Clark was protected in part as a way to preserve the sockeye salmon

fishery. The protection of North Cascades National Park took more than 70 years

because of well organized opposition, and in the end was created through a

complicated compromise that resulted in a national park divided into northern and

southern units and two national recreation areas.

The consequences of mission rivalry for the National Park Service are numerous.

For one, the ever increasing number of dubious national parks increases the burden

on the NPS which is struggling to do more with less. A contradictory mandate sets

the NPS up for stakeholder disappointment. Adventure sport enthusiasts who expect

to be able to go rock climbing will be disappointed when climbing areas are closed

due to environmental threats. Hikers looking for a chance to commune with nature

will be disenchanted by traffic jams filled with RVs and the growing numbers of

retail and commercial stores.

Conclusion

This research first identified the incoherent nature of the existing strategic planning

literature as it pertains to mission statements. It was determined that the existing

definitions of mission statements as well as the existing prescriptions for mission



13/15

Based on the evaluation of the literature and the histories of the national parks, the

NPS mission statement is problematic. It fails to clearly define the National Park

Service, resolve mission rivalry, reflect the current landscape of the organization,

include basic content, and include the organizations method for achieving its general

purpose.The findings of the historical analysis support the ongoing debate that the NPS

has two dramatically opposing objectives; use and preservation. Some national park

advocates have called for a new NPS mission statement altogether. Referring to both

the NPS and the Forest Service, Cheever (1997) argues that . . . it would be useful

to have agency mission statements that were more than mirrors, reflecting back the

values of each interest group on itself. A clearer mission statement, conveying the

same message to all interested parties, would not guarantee enhanced agency stature

and discretion, but would at least make it possible (Cheever 1997, p. 634). The

revised management policies of 2001 were an attempt to reconcile this conflict,however there seems to be retreat from the commitment to preservation.

We will not go so far as to propose a new missions statement for the NPS. An

organizations stakeholders must be involved in mission statement development to

ensure that the stakeholders themselves are included in the process. Far too often

organizations make the mistake of assigning the task of mission development to the

organizations management, but this method has been proven to be not as effective

as those statements crafted with the involvement of key stakeholders. Further the

process of crafting an organizational mission statement is an important learning

process for an organization as it confronts the organizational culture, competition,goals and future.

Is it possible to find a balance between what could perhaps be described as a

continuum of use and preservation or are they mutually exclusive? Conversely, is it

possible that the apparent contradiction strengthens the work for the NPS by

providing flexibility and the authority to make responsive decisions? This may be an

unresolved debate as it speaks to the core values of many of the NPS constituencies

which will always be in conflict. It may be possible to find a balance but doing so

will certainly require funds that have not been forthcoming from the government,

and a commitment to ensuring that these national parks are indeed enjoyed by both

present and future generations.

References

Ackoff, R. L. (1987). Mission statements. Planning Review, 15(4), 3031.

American Antiquities Act (1906). American Antiquities Act. 16 USC 431433.

Bart, C. K., & Baetz, M. C. (1998). The relationship between mission statements and firm performance: an

exploratory study. Journal of Management Studies, 35(6), 823853.

Byars, L. L., & Neil, T. C. (1987). Organizational philosophy and mission statements. Planning Review,15(4), 3235.

Campbell, A. (1997). Mission statements. Long Range Planning, 30(6), 931932.



14/15

Cummings, S., & Davies, J. (1994). Mission, vision, fusion. Long Range Planning, 27(6), 147150.

David, F. R. (1989). How companies define their mission. Long Range Planning, 22(1), 9097.

Disilvestro, R. (1993).Reclaiming the last wild places: The new agenda for biodiversity. New York: John

Wiley & Sons.

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in . New York: Penguin

Group.Foresta, R. (1984). Americas national parks and their keepers. Washington D.C.: Resources for the

Future.

Freemuth, J. (2000).The fires next time. Idaho: The Fires Next Time Conference Proceedings, Boise State

University.

Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (1992). Mission statements: importance, challenge, and recommendations for

development.Business Horizons, 35(3), 3441.

Keiter, R. B. (1997). Preserving nature in the National parks: law, policy, and science in a dynamic

environment. Denver University Law Review, 74(3), 649696. Retrieved 03/26/2010, from

LexisNexis Academic.

Lowry, W. R. (1997). National parks policy,. In Charles Davis (ed.), Western public lands and

environmental politics. Boulder: Westview Press.

McGinnis, V. J. (1981). The mission statement: a key step in strategic planning. Business, 31(6), 3943.Morris, R. J. (1996). Developing a mission for a diversified company.Long Range Planning, 29(1), 103

115.

National Park Service. (2002). The National park system caring for the American legacy. Retrieved 07/19/

09, fromhttp://nps.gov/legacy/mission.html.

Nixon, R. (1971). State of the Union address. Retrieved 07/18/09, from http://millercenter.org/scripps/

archive/speeches/detail/3874.

Organic Act (1916). National Park Service Organic Act. United States of America.

Pearce, J. A. I. (1982). The company mission as a strategic tool. Sloan Management, 23(3), 1524.

Ridenour, J. (1994). The National parks compromised: Pork barrel politics and Americas national

treasures. Merrillville: ICS Books.

Runte, A. (1997). National parks: The American experience. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Sax, J. (1981). Mountains without handrails. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Shafer, C. (1999). US national park buffer zones: historical, scientific, social, and legal aspects.

Environmental Management, 23(1), 4973.

Shaw, S. & Stroup, R. (1997). Protecting nations parks through corporatizing. Forum for Applied

Research & Public Policy, 12(1), 3338.

Staples, W. A., & Black, K. U. (1984). Defining your business mission: a strategic perspective. Journal of

Business Strategies, 1(1), 3339.

The Coalition of Concerned National Park Service Retirees. (2004). A call to action: Saving our National Park

system. Retrieved 06/26/2010, fromhttp://www.npsretirees.org/cnpsr/call-action-nps-governance.

Winks, R. (1997). The National Park Service Act of 1916: A contradictory mandate?Denver University

Law Review, 74(3), 575624. Retrieved 03/26/2010, from LexisNexis Academic.

Yellowstone Act (1872). An act to set apart a certain tract of land lying near the headwaters of theYellowstone River as a public park. 17 Stat. 32.

Zaslowsky, D., & Watkins, T. H. (1994). These American lands. Washington DC: Island Press.

Dr. Shannon K. Orr is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bowling Green

State University (Bowling Green, OH). Her research is in the area of national parks policy as well as

Climate Change policymaking and the United Nations.

Rebecca L. Humphreys graduated from Bowling Green State University with the Masters of Public

Administration (MPA) degree. Her Masters thesis was entitled The Historical Progression of Problem

Definition for the Practices of Polygamy and Prostitution in the United States.

http://nps.gov/legacy/mission.htmlhttp://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3874http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3874http://www.npsretirees.org/cnpsr/call-action-nps-governancehttp://www.npsretirees.org/cnpsr/call-action-nps-governancehttp://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3874http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3874http://nps.gov/legacy/mission.html


15/15

Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

Documents

Mission Rivalry: Use and Preservation Conflicts in National Parks Policy