The History and Future of America’s National Parks

Image Credit: Sarah Choi

“There is nothing so American as our national parks.... The fundamental idea behind the parks...is that the country belongs to the people, that it is the process of making for the enrichment of the lives of all of us,” said Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States and proponent for the importance of the national parks in the United States. You may have heard this quote before, or something along those lines, about how the parks were the greatest idea the United States ever had. But what is the current reality of our national parks and the impacts on people of the 21st century? What is their history and trajectory for the future? 

The first national park, in not only the United States but the world, was Yellowstone, which remains one of the most visited parks in the US to this day. It was created by congress through the Yellowstone National Park Act on March 1, 1872, which set aside land in Montana and Wyoming to be preserved for public use and recreation. Not too long after came other parks such as Yosemite, Sequoia, Mount Rainier, and Crater Lake. It was not a coincidence that the parks emerged when they did: the late 19th century saw a rise in conservation efforts from people such as John Muir, John Wesley Powell, and Clarence King, important naturalists and authors of their time. While America became increasingly industrial and urban, a desire to preserve the “untouched” and “pristine” places in the natural world also emerged, drawing a distinctive line between what is human and what is natural. 

These parks were also seen as a way to promote tourism, specifically in the western United States (where even today the majority of national parks are located). Despite efforts to organize the parks, everything from transportation and facilities to the very foundations of their institution were not well maintained. There was no central governing body for nearly the first fifty years leading to miscommunication and overall poor management in financing, policy, and administration. That was when the NPS (National Park Service) was established in 1916 by President Woodrow Wilson, allowing more resources to be dedicated to the preservation of and allocation of new parks, leading to a heightened interest and investment in conservation in the mid-20th century. 

Of course, despite all of the conservation efforts the NPS has done for natural spaces in this country and initiatives to connect people to the outdoors, they still face criticism and opposition from a variety of different groups. First of all, many people in the lumber and oil industries find that allocating land and its resources to be left untouched is bad for economic reasons. They believe this would mean less revenue coming into their communities if certain areas with valuable resources were off limits. However, another reason that had been brought up in recent years is that these lands are not the United States’ to “protect” or designate, because believing in the country’s omnipotent power ignores the history of indigenous America and the genocide that occurred in the removal of people from their ancestral lands. Tim Swinehart elaborates in his article Teaching the Truth About National Parks, “early attempts to ‘protect’ nature are rooted in the exclusion of humans,” meaning not only indigenous people, but also other minority groups who were often discouraged or even right out denied access to these supposedly “public” spaces of recreation. This inequality is still seen to this day, as over 75 percent of visitors to the national parks are non-Hispanic white, meaning that people of color are underrepresented. The systemic difference stems from a variety of factors, including financial barriers and people of color feeling unwelcome by both fellow visitors and park rangers alike. 

But how do we start addressing these historical inequalities and inequities? There are many proponents of returning the national parks to Native American tribes as part of a repatriation movement. It is unclear how this would look exactly, but one recent example is with the Yurok tribe of Northern California and Southern Oregon, who had 125 acres of Redwood National and State Parks returned. This will be a long process, but it seems hopeful that this new park will have primary governance by the tribe while continuing to collaborate with the NPS. There are other ways of going about reparations that are being discussed, but progress in this area is very slow. Also, there are plenty of organizations attempting to create a greater sense of belonging in our parks by providing transportation and resources for underserved communities. However, despite these efforts, further diversification and accessibility is necessary. 

Despite the obvious flaws in the foundations of this system, the National Parks have allowed some semblance of pre-industrial America to prevail, preserving plant and animal species endemic to these places. But what does the future look like? 

There are currently 63 national parks and hundreds more forests, historic sites, and other preserved places and several more are in the process of being designated. However, our current political administration has continued to cut funding for the NPS and loosen regulations since January of this year, so it seems unlikely that there will be any new parks in the near future. They were already struggling to stay afloat before 2025, but continued layoffs have left many parks understaffed and sometimes in turmoil, in a way, regressing back to the original state of disorganization. Without enough people overseeing park maintenance and functions, there is fear that parks such as Yosemite will begin to fall into disrepair and we will lose over a hundred years of preservation efforts. Who knows where their future lies–but it is clear that there is change in store for our beloved national parks.