State parks: laboratories for innovation - Cover Story

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Sept, 1997 by William R. Lowry

Millions of Americans will vacation in parks this year. In doing so, they may learn about some of the problems, such as budget shortfalls, facing the nation's parks and may be surprised to discover that the most innovative responses to some of these issues are taking place in state park systems.

Park managers at all levels of government face a variety of significant challenges. Innovative solutions have been tried and tested at the state level in recent years. These experiences provide important lessons for other, less adventurous states and for park managers at all levels of the Federal system.

Three general trends contribute momentum for state park system innovations. First, demands on park managers at all levels of government have increased. Second, resources for park programs have decreased. Third, Federal influence, as in many other policy areas, has diminished in recent years, leaving even more pressure on state park systems.

Innovation is one key to effective government. As problems arise in society or remain unsolved, politicians attempt to prove their worth and maintain their credibility with voters by offering solutions. Failure to innovate results in inefficiency, stagnation, and disillusionment with government. The need for creative solutions becomes more acute when demands grow.

Park managers increasingly have had to address internal and external threats in recent years. Internally, parks have suffered from wear and tear of higher visitation and use. Recreational visits to the national parks have risen steadily to around 300,000,000 and those to state parks total more than 700,000,000.

External threats from air and water pollution, commercial development, and aesthetic degradation have had an impact. According to numerous studies, such as the one conducted by the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors, demands on parks at all levels will grow in coming years as more people pursue outdoor recreation.

The need for innovation becomes more urgent when resources are scarce. Creative solutions offer the potential to find ways to accomplish the same or new goals with fewer resources.

All levels of American government have been affected by fiscal stress. The budget cuts and deficits of the 1980s and 1990s have created considerable urgency for policymakers either to reduce spending or seek efficiency in their programs. Fiscal stress has been particularly acute at the state level. The impact of fiscal conditions is especially noticeable in policy areas perceived as non-essential, such as park management.

Reliance on state governments for solutions has increased as Federal authorities have delegated and decentralized responsibilities in a variety of policy areas. In park management, what once was a powerful Federal presence has been reduced to a marginal role. Federal authorities concerned with park management traditionally have encouraged state park systems to provide outdoor recreation opportunities. However, those authorities, especially personnel in the National Park Service (NPS), have been beset with their own severe challenges.

During the 1980s, Congress cut Federal financial involvement in state park systems significantly. Prior to 1980, Federal grants through the Land and Water Conservation Fund constituted the most important source of outside funding for state parks. The total amount for that program was cut from more than $300,000,000 (in constant 1982 dollars) in the late 1970s to $17,000,000 by 1990. State park systems thus moved into a period of relative autonomy.

The diminished Federal influence triggered a variety of reactions from state park systems. First, state park managers began to innovate. State policymakers in numerous issue areas responded with experimentation and new ideas. Second, the innovations adopted were not uniform. A strong tradition of political science literature suggests that the variance between states in adoption of new ideas depends upon such factors as need, affluence, urbanization, and political culture. Third, innovations have not always been completely successful. Innovations may not accomplish the goals for which they were intended and result in unintended consequences.

National and state parks currently are faced with an abundance of difficult issues. In recent years, state park managers have supplied numerous solutions regarding financial resources, organizational structures, concession arrangements, and land expansion.

Financial resources have not kept pace with increased demands on parks. Since 1983, the operating budget for the NPS has remained relatively flat in real dollars. The scarcity of financial resources for national park management led to cuts in interpretive programs, deterioration of infrastructure, and stagnant employee salaries.

A survey of state park directors in die 1980s identified lack of funds as their most urgent need. Current state park managers echo these perceptions. "Most of my job is to look for dollars with which to operate," indicates Wisconsin's Dave Weizenicker, head of die National Association of State Park Directors.