Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- Member of: ASU Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Description
The study of American national parks provides invaluable insights into American intellectual, cultural, and sociopolitical trends. As very popular tourist attractions, parks are also depicted in art, film, television, books, calendars, posters, and a multitude of other print and visual media. National parks therefore exist both physically and in the American imagination. Comparing Yosemite National Park, one of the oldest and most popular national parks, to Mineral King, California, a relatively unknown and far less-visited region in Sequoia National Park, unveils the deep complexity of the national park idea. From the mid-nineteenth to the late twentieth centuries, the visual and written representations of each area, including art, photographs, advertisements, and government publications, evolved and shifted, sometimes rapidly and paradoxically, depending upon the aims and needs of historic societies. The power of imagery and production of knowledge to influence visitation, management, and land designation is revealed through this comparative study. Park representation and interpretation in the cultural consciousness, moreover, uncovers how societies perceive and, thus, will ultimately use certain environments. A place cannot truly become a national space until it is viewed and valued as such in the American imagination. The creation of cultural material, especially visual works, is vital for forming and sustaining national park narratives. Popular parks like Yosemite need to have their legacies reinforced, and lesser-known units, such as Mineral King, deserve the chance to have a cultural legacy created—thereby helping to ensure that both remain for future generations.
ContributorsVicknair, Alexandra Katherine (Author) / Hirt, Paul W (Thesis advisor) / Fixico, Donald L (Committee member) / Jones, Christopher F. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
For more than 100 years, the Unite States National Park Service (NPS) has been guided by a mandate to preserve parks and their resources for the enjoyment of present and future generations. But all parks are subject to conditions that may frustrate preservation efforts. Climate change is melting the glaciers. Rising seas are sweeping away protected shorelines. Development projects, accompanied by air, water, light, and noise pollution, edge closer to parks and fragment habitats. The number of visitors and vested interests are swelling and diversifying. Resources for preservation, such as funds and staff, seem to be continuously shrinking, at least relative to demand.
Still, the NPS remains committed to the preservation of our natural and cultural heritage. Yet the practice of that promise is evolving, slowly and iteratively, but detectably. Through explorations of legal and scholarly literature, as well as interviews across the government, non-profit, and academic sectors, I’ve tracked the evolution of preservation in parks. How is preservation shifting to address socio-ecological change? How has preservation evolved before? How should the NPS preserve parks moving forward?
The practice of preservation has come to rely on science, including partnerships with academic researchers, as well as inventory and monitoring programs. That shift has in part been guided by goals that have also become more informed by science, like ecological integrity. While some interviewees see science as a solution to the NPS’s challenges, others wonder how applying science can get “gnarly,” due to uncertainty, lack of clear policies, and the diversity of parks and resources. “Gnarly” questions stem in part from the complexity of the NPS as a socio-ecological system, as well as from disputed, normative concepts that underpin the broader philosophy of preservation, including naturalness. What’s natural in the context of pervasive anthropogenic change? Further, I describe how parks hold deep, sometimes conflicting, cultural and symbolic significance for their local and historical communities and for our nation. Understanding and considering those values is part of the gnarly task park managers face in their mission to preserve parks. I explain why this type of conceptual and values-based uncertainty cannot be reduced through science.
Still, the NPS remains committed to the preservation of our natural and cultural heritage. Yet the practice of that promise is evolving, slowly and iteratively, but detectably. Through explorations of legal and scholarly literature, as well as interviews across the government, non-profit, and academic sectors, I’ve tracked the evolution of preservation in parks. How is preservation shifting to address socio-ecological change? How has preservation evolved before? How should the NPS preserve parks moving forward?
The practice of preservation has come to rely on science, including partnerships with academic researchers, as well as inventory and monitoring programs. That shift has in part been guided by goals that have also become more informed by science, like ecological integrity. While some interviewees see science as a solution to the NPS’s challenges, others wonder how applying science can get “gnarly,” due to uncertainty, lack of clear policies, and the diversity of parks and resources. “Gnarly” questions stem in part from the complexity of the NPS as a socio-ecological system, as well as from disputed, normative concepts that underpin the broader philosophy of preservation, including naturalness. What’s natural in the context of pervasive anthropogenic change? Further, I describe how parks hold deep, sometimes conflicting, cultural and symbolic significance for their local and historical communities and for our nation. Understanding and considering those values is part of the gnarly task park managers face in their mission to preserve parks. I explain why this type of conceptual and values-based uncertainty cannot be reduced through science.
ContributorsSullivan Govani, Michelle (Author) / Minteer, Ben A (Thesis advisor) / Budruk, Megha (Committee member) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Committee member) / Theuer, Jason (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
Global climate change, rising average temperatures, rising water levels, irregularities in climate and river regimes, and increasing anthropogenic disturbances pose a significant risk to the ecosystems of protected areas. Given that past conditions are different from future conditions, managing protected areas faces serious challenges. New management approaches and strategies are needed to overcome these challenges. Planners and academicians have established methodologies for assessing the quality of climate change adaptation and resilience plans. However, a similar plan quality evaluation that considers climate change adaptation for National Park General Management Plans has not been conducted. This study adapted that methodology for national park management plans and applied it to analyze National Park General Management Plans across nine United States climate regions. Furthermore, this thesis aims to address this gap by asking and answering the following question: How do existing management plans for national parks meet the principles identified for effective planning for climate change? In this study, national park management plans are evaluated according to 112 criteria across seven principles, allowing for direct comparison and conclusions on strengths and weaknesses. The study revealed the strengths and weaknesses of the plans. Plans generally have similar weak points and strong points. While some aspects, such as public participation and coordination, perform relatively well, there are critical shortcomings in articulating a vision for climate adaptation, addressing uncertainty, and developing detailed strategies and monitoring mechanisms. The study will contribute to a better understanding of how protected areas can prepare for climate change impacts.
ContributorsSeki, Muhammet Ali (Author) / Meerow, Sara (Thesis advisor) / King, David (Committee member) / Larson, Kelli (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023