Revisiting Leopold: Resource Stewardship in the National Parks

Abstract

The US National Park System is significantly different-in scope, number of units, size and complexitythan in the 1960s when the Leopold Report. Scientific understanding of natural and cultural resources has expanded dramatically. Developments since the 1960s include increasing biodiversity loss, habitat fragmentation, land use change, groundwater depletion, invasive species, rapid and sometimes unplanned development, growing air, noise, and light pollution and the impacts of climate change. The cultural values and interests held by the American people have also broadened, generating pressing demands for parks to reflect diversity and relevance for new generations. Fifty years on, the National Parks Service and its National Park System Advisory Board have revisited the Leopold Report. The new report, Revisiting Leopold, published here, focuses on the natural and cultural resource management of the National Park System and answers three questions: 1) What should be the goals of resource management in the National Park System?; 2) What policies for resource management are necessary to achieve these goals?; 3) What actions are required to implement these policies?

Are historical fire regimes compatible with future climate? Implications for forest restoration

“…yet, it is challenging to predict the outcomes of restoration activities under future climate regimes. Recently, some have argued for a new resource management paradigm, based on the maintenance of ecosystem function and regional native biodiversity (Colwell et al 2014, Stephenson 2014. Recently, some have argued for a new resource management paradigm, based on the maintenance of ecosystem function and regional native biodiversity (Colwell et al 2014, Stephenson 2014.…”

Crowd‐sourced data reveal social–ecological mismatches in phenology driven by climate

“…The feasibility of these strategies depends on their costs, as well as on how closely aligned they are to existing management mandates (Colwell et al . ) in the context of increasing visitation to Mount Rainier NP (visitation increased by 30% from 2008 to 2018; NPS ), which puts additional pressure on infrastructure and natural resources. Our results also suggest that social learning and altered visitor management in the social system (Fazey et al .…”

A Chinese approach to protected areas: A case study comparison with the United States

“…Even in these two countries with huge economies, key park functions receive too little funding to achieve their goals. Science, resource management, and education are among the most severely underfunded functions, particularly relative to the government and private investments that go into economic development in and around national parks (Colwell et al, 2012;Han and Ren, 2001;NPCA, 2011;Quan et al, 2011;Sellars, 2009;Zhou and Grumbine, 2011).…”

“…We believe that greater investment in science, resource management, and education in national parks is warranted if they are to fulfill their ambitious missions over the long-term (Colwell et al, 2012;Han and Ren, 2001;Liu et al, 2013;NPCA, 2011;Quan et al, 2011;Sellars, 2009). This is not surprising advice coming from a group of scientists, but without adequate investment in these areas, economic development around parks may reduce their conservation value and park managers may be unable to detect or respond to serious resource degradation until it is too late.…”

“…Inadequate information on the condition of resources makes it difficult or impossible to manage them effectively, particularly in a time of rapid environmental change (Colwell et al, 2012). The magnitude of the investments in protected area infrastructure in China makes the lack of information particularly worrying.…”