Rel⋅e⋅vant -- /ˈrɛləvənt/ [rel-uh-vuhnt] –-adjective-- bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand; pertinent: a relevant remark.
Are our national parks losing their relevancy?
I raise that question because on one hand we saw an upwelling of interest last fall when The National Parks: America's Best Idea riveted many to their television sets for six consecutive nights, and yet on the other hand National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis shortly after he was appointed cited a need to prevent the parks from becoming irrelevant.
"I have conducted over 200 interviews with superintendent candidates, and I always ask, 'What is the biggest issue facing the NPS into the future?' The majority answer, 'relevancy,' the director said back in September in a system-wide email to his staff. "There is deep concern out there that national parks will become irrelevant to a society that is disconnected from nature and history. We need to help all Americans – especially young people – discover a personal connection to their national parks.
"While the places are spectacular, it is our people that make parks come alive. In Ken Burns’s documentary The National Parks: America’s Best Idea he focuses as much on the people as on the parks: employees, residents of gateway communities, scientists, scholars, politicians, indigenous people, activists, concessioners, volunteers, partners and, of course, visitors. Without them, the National Park System would not exist, many parks would never have been established, and the National Park Service would not have the deep support of the American people that we enjoy. I believe every American will relate to and cherish their national parks if given the chance to connect, by technology or by visiting. Beyond parks, our recreation and historic preservation community assistance programs reach and benefit families near their homes in ways that the parks cannot. I plan to expand these programs."
Is the park system struggling with being relevant in the 21st century? Equally worried about the relevancy of parks are the concessionaires that work in them.
"Visitation has declined significantly over twenty years even as the overall population has grown and diversified, and even as a higher percentage of the visits has shifted to close-to-urban center units like Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Lake Mead National Recreation Area," said a white paper prepared last summer for the National Park Hospitality Association, which represents the concessionaires. "Equally importantly, lengths of stays have shortened, and visitation to parks remains largely homogeneous: Caucasian, affluent and educated. There are exceptions. But the exceptions are invariably linked to park units that have worked hard to be visible and relevant regionally.
"...We have already lost a generation – perhaps two generations – of Americans who regularly utilize parks and the Great Outdoors for relaxation and recharging – mental and physical. Large portions of the post-Boomer adult generations have turned to shopping malls and electronic entertainment for leisure pursuits and have limited traditions or skills in the outdoors. And absent intervention and assistance, this pattern will repeat, as parents fail to introduce kids to the outdoors. The truth is that there are major and potent competitors for the leisure time of all Americans, and especially youth. These competitors use advertising and other promotion extensively, and have effectively 'hidden' many traditional leisure choices, including park visits. National park visits can’t compete ad for ad, but there are strategies for making parks and fun outdoors more 'top of mind.'"
The white paper, which promoted creation of a National Parks Promotion Council, said particular focus should be placed on (1) youth; (2) urban; (3) lower income; (4) non-Caucasian; (5) seniors and (6) new Americans.
Of course, to answer this question I suppose one has to define how relevancy, when it comes to national parks, looks. In 2008 the Park Service counted nearly 275 million recreational visits to the parks. Would 300 million visits reflect better relevancy? Three-hundred-fifty million? Four-hundred-million? Or are the parks relevant no matter what the level of visitation?
Do the settings in the accompanying photos lose relevancy if only ten people view them?
Tell us what you think. Are the national parks in danger of becoming irrelevant? And if you think so, what should be done?
Comments
Interesting discussion, veering in the usual direction of equating "national parks" with National Parks and natural areas. (I, for one, would welcome a streamlining of designations.)
If we look at the totality of resources and areas in the care of the National Park Service, the picture is different, as MikeD pointed out above. Roughly 2/3 of the units were set aside for their historic and cultural values and even the areas that are preserved primarily for their natural values have significant historical resources ... Old Faithful Inn, Fort Yellowstone, pioneer structures in Grand Teton, Native Hawaiian sites in Hawaii Volcanoes.
It may well be, as MikeD said, that those stories of the Mosaic of America lend themselves more to access by media. I'm an old interpreter. I can spin a pretty good story about the people who lived in Pueblo Bonito at Chaco Canyon while standing in the east plaza of Bonito. BUT, I cannot begin to help people understand life in that pueblo at a given time, and the way their cosmological understanding was reflected in their architecture, anywhere near as well as some digital presentations have been able to do. And what is our purpose at that park ... to count the most number of people we can get in the park, to limit the attendance to the least number possible (as some would do) or to make available to the world the stories (and there are many, many, MANY) of what happened there?
When speaking of "relevance", it helps to have common parameters. Evidently many of these posts are from those who are in (or were in) the pro class, and know whereof you speak. Obviously you care deeply and have dozens of valid reasons why the parks are relevant. So I have a question for you: How many of you got into this park business in hopes of gaining rock star status and scads of cash? Anybody?
I didn't think so. Whatever reasons you had for signing up, it wasn't to get rich.
On the other hand, the concessionaires are ALL about the money. As an industry, they truly only care about the bottom line. They don't really have to care about the Organic Act and all it implies. So their idea of "relevance" fundamentally differs from the "relevance" the NPS might be concerned with. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
If NPS is willing to make keeping infrastructure as well as public presentations up to date a priority, then by definition they will be relevant. Similarly, if they invest in their staff, the staff will relate better to the public. If NPS can show the public that they value the parks and their guardians enough to invest in them, then they won't need to be so concerned with visitation. We will come to them.
maybe a nice tax break for young and old who can spend a week "in service" at a park doing whatever jobs that would otherwise cost the park system $. In my opinion even a week of scrubbing toilets at one of our national parks would be an excellent way "to get em' hooked".
I have lived and worked at the Grand Canyon at the South Rim for the past nine years. Prior to my move here, I did a ten day backpacking trip down the Tanner Trail in the fall of 2000. I had recently experienced a divorce and remembered my aunt getting into a shape for her Grand Canyon post-divorce hike and it seemed liked a logical thing to do. When I returned to the rim from my backpacking trip, I "accidently" discovered that is was possible to actually live and work at the Grand Canyon. I moved here three months later and have loved it!
I work for Xanterra South Rim, who is the concessionaire here. I have a great job in that I work in the Sales Office and get to work with people from all over the world. I have been humbled on numerous occasions by the initial reaction to the Grand Canyon by people from various places. The reactions differ, but the common thread is that one cannot experience the Grand Canyon in some way and not be affected.
Relevant was originally a Scottish legal term meaning "take up, take possession of property." Any visitor who ventures to a national park feels some sense of ownership and pride, regardless of where they come from.
Our company hosts an annual Awards Ceremony dinner honoring employees for years of service and others who are worthy of special recognition. Last evening, we had our event honoring 72 employees who collectively have provided 805 years of service. This is pretty impressive. Each employee's Director gave a short speech outlining their achievements and often their reason for coming to work here at the Grand Canyon. I was struck by how many people have been here or another national park for the majority of their career. The stories were all different, but the final result is that our long-term employees are here working in a national park because being here is relevant to their lives. Our GM gave a short speech at the end of the ceremony thanking everyone for their participation, commitment and dedication in making the Grand Canyon a memorable place for our guests. He noted that it would not be possible without the help of each and every person in that room. That is relevant.
My family has long-term history with the national parks. I have a picture of my grandmother in my office riding the mules to Phantom Ranch in 1964. My mom lived in Yellowstone when she was little. My family went on many vacations to national parks when I was growing up. When I was raising my family, we took them on many vacations to national parks. My mom, daughter, son-in-law and two grandkids were here enjoying the national park at Christmas. They did the mule ride and I don't think my grandson will ever forget the thrill of riding through the forest in the snow to the Abyss Overlook. National parks are the places these valuable memories are created. I don't ever anticipate a time in future generations that my family will not enjoy the national parks. It is part of our history and relevant to us.
I'll echo an earlier poster and say "why is relevance measured by attendance?"
The national park service is America's museum. It protects and contains things of importance and value so folks can see them whenever they want. They're as relevant as the National Archives, the Smithsonian, or the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Everything in these institutions is valuable as a historic and/or natural artifact.
In my view, the only time a National Park System site loses relevance would be in one of the following cases:
1) the value is actually lost or destroyed. Example: that old park (I forget the name) with cycad fossils that was despoiled and vandalized. It obviously lost its relevance.
2) a historic site that was originally thought to be important, but either was proven not to be or was replaced by something that better showed that particular facet of history.
Otherwise, it doesn't matter if only a few hundred people visit.
======================
My travels through the National Park System: americaincontext.com
The "value destroyed" site Barky referred to is South Dakota's defunct Fossil Cycad National Monument (1922-1956), which was delisted after being stripped of the surface deposits of fossils that once made the site nationally significant. For more details, visit this site.
Wow, Diane, that's quite a story. It sounds like you've got a dream job. Thanks for sharing.
The entire concept of this thread is jarringly off to me. I see 'relevance' as a subjective judgement - more of a concept than a thing, and questioning relevance sounds appropriate to a first year philosophy major. If someone has no experience in or access to a park then relevance becomes a "if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it" question. And if one is experienced with parks and have access to them the question barely needs be asked.
I see the National Parks as a solid reality of self evident value, with both tangible and intangible qualities. The only real question is helping more to be in the woods to hear the tree fall, while ensuring that those same opportunities are available to our great-grandchildren.
[In my humble opinion], and meaning no offense to the others who have other opinions.