Public Organiz Rev (2012) 12:8598 DOI 10.

1007/s11115-011-0161-8

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 . Public management

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 the benefit and enjoyment of the people (Yellowstone Act 1872, 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
S. K. Orr (*) : R. L. Humphreys Department of Political Science, Bowling Green State University, 110 Williams Hall, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA e-mail: skorr@bgsu.edu

86

S.K. Orr, R.L. Humphreys

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 Act was passed in response to the vandalism and looting of Anasazi 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 Act 1906, 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 Watkins 1994). The overuse and wanton disregard for the environment in Yellowstone reached a crisis 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 them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations (Organic Act 1916, 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 Subcommittee 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 in 1831 he encouraged a friend to visit quickly before your Niagara will have been spoiled for you. Already the forest round about is being cleared. I dont give the Americans ten years to establish a saw or flour mill at the base of the cataract Zaslowsky and Watkins (1994). These American Lands. Washington, DC, Island Press. p. 15. 2 Section 1.4.3 of NPS Management Policies.

Mission Rivalry: Use and Preservation Conflicts in National Parks Policy

87

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 both the 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 is whether 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 (Winks 1997). 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 guiding principle 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 Davies 1994). 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
The term mission statement is often used interchangeably with the terms vision statement, creed statement, statement of purpose, statement of philosophy, statement of beliefs, and statement of business principles. For the purposes of clarity we will use the conventional term mission statement. This is also the preferred term of the National Park Service.
3

88

S.K. Orr, R.L. Humphreys

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, reveal organizational 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 mission statement. 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 Hitt 1992). 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 Table 1. 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 planning literature that is at odds with itself. While some scholars advise short (Campbell 1997) and clear mission statements, which makes them memorable and easy to absorb (McGinnis 1981; Pearce 1982; Cochran and David 1985; Campbell 1997). Still others recommend specific mission statements with extensive content

Mission Rivalry: Use and Preservation Conflicts in National Parks Policy Table 1 Prescriptions for mission statement content
1. Definition of Organization/Statement of Uniqueness The unique service the organization provides

89

(McGinnis 1981; Pearce 1982; Staples and Black 1984; Cochran and David 1985; Ackoff 1987; Ireland and Hitt 1992) 2. Organizational Purpose Primary justification of existence (Pearce 1982; Cochran and David 1985; Ireland and Hitt 1992; Cummings and Davies 1994; Campbell 1997) 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 (McGinnis 1981; Pearce 1982; Staples and Black 1984; Cochran and David 1985; Byars and Neil 1987; Ireland and Hitt 1992; Campbell 1997) 4. Future Business Objectives, which include; Defining future business objectives/goals/aspirations Expressing commitment to survival/growth/quality of services/profitability (McGinnis 1981; Pearce 1982; Staples and Black 1984; Cochran and David 1985; Ackoff 1987; Byars and Neil 1987; Ireland and Hitt 1992; 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 (McGinnis 1981; Pearce 1982; Cochran and David 1985; Byars and Neil 1987; Ireland and Hitt 1992; Cummings and Davies 1994; Campbell 1997) 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 (McGinnis 1981; Pearce 1982; Staples and Black 1984; Cochran and David 1985; Ackoff 1987; Ireland and Hitt 1992; Cummings and Davies 1994; Campbell 1997) 7. Public Image, which include; Organizational self concept Expressing organizational identity Desired public image (Cochran and David 1985; Pearce and David 1987; Cummings and Davies 1994) 8. Stakeholder Relations, which include; tating a promise of success to stakeholders Indicating how the organization will serve the stakeholder (Ackoff 1987; Campbell 1997)

90

S.K. Orr, R.L. Humphreys

(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 the communicative 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 and David 1985; Ireland and Hitt 1992; Morris 1996). 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 individual stakeholders 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 Baetz 1998). 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 Table 1 these 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 serve, and list organizational objectives as well as stating a specific plan for achieving said objectives. Our prescribed content for mission statements allows for clarity, simplicity, and resolves the problem of mission contradictions, or as we have termed it mission

Mission Rivalry: Use and Preservation Conflicts in National Parks Policy

91

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 identity for the organization. In addition, this framework purposively leaves out elements that would be appropriate for an organizational value statement (Table 2).

Evaluation of the NPS mission statement Structural analysis In this section we will evaluate the National Park Service mission statement based on our 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 park system? 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 3. Future organizational objectives paired with the method for achieving objectives Specific goals Specific plan for achieving goals

92

S.K. Orr, R.L. Humphreys

considerations is, with some justification, commonly perceived as the correct version of American history (Shafer 1999, 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? (Foresta 1984). 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? Can you 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? (Ridenour 1994) 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 over public use in the event of conflict (Keiter 1997, 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 integrity of 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 (Cheever 1997). 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 was an asset because it did not constrain the activities of the agency. Almost any imaginable activity could be contained within the two extremes of use and preservation (Cheever 1997). Early parks management was oriented around encouraging visitors to the remote parks through the development of railroad lines,

Mission Rivalry: Use and Preservation Conflicts in National Parks Policy

93

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 (Keiter 1997). 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 (Sax 1981, 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 agency purpose 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 (Cheever 1997, 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 conflicting interests 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 (Freemuth 2000). 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 parks in the United States. Content analysis is a set of methods used to analyze the symbolic content of a communication. The purpose is to reduce the content to a set of analytical categories or codes which can then be used for analysis and pattern drawing. Because qualitative codes are very much based on the individual

94

S.K. Orr, R.L. Humphreys

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, this represents 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 between the 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 unclear histories, 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 mountain wilderness, and opponents argued for more utilitarian management in order to exploit the full economic potential of the rivers, forests and minerals. The historical study also highlights the controversies over the creation of national parks, and that a number of the parks were not deemed worthy of protecting until

Mission Rivalry: Use and Preservation Conflicts in National Parks Policy

95

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 (Disilvestro 1993, Runte 1997, Noss and Cooperrider), however the historical analysis does not support that argument. Cuyahoga National Park for example was considered by many to not be beautiful enough for national park status (Shafer 1999). 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 next generation have parks to enjoy (Nixon 1971) Nixons parks 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 (Ridenour 1994; 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 (Ridenour 1994, 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 tshirt and bagful of souvenirs, while for others the high point of a visit is enjoying isolation on top of a mountain. One of the most complicated stressors for national park is tourism. From one perspective tourism can have significant benefits for a national park. As an economic development strategy, tourism is relatively simple to initiate with minimal public

96

S.K. Orr, R.L. Humphreys

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 many years. 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 statements are inadequate. As a result of our findings we developed a new framework for mission statements. This new framework relies heavily upon the existing strategic planning literature, while also incorporating the concept of brevity for better communication as well as the need for addressing possible mission rivalry.

Mission Rivalry: Use and Preservation Conflicts in National Parks Policy

97

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. Cheever, F. (1997). The United States forest service and National Park Service: paradoxical mandates, powerful founders and the rise and fall of agency discretion. Denver University Law Review, 74(4), 625648. Retrieved 03/26/2010, from LexisNexis Academic. Cochran, D. S., & David, F. R. (1985). A framework for developing an effective mission statement. Journal of Business strategies, 2(2), 417.

98

S.K. Orr, R.L. Humphreys

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, from http://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, from http://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 the Yellowstone 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.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.