Research explores engagement with climate change in state and national parks

LAWRENCE — State and national parks long have been playgrounds for Americans seeking escape from the stressors of modern life. Parks seemingly offer a chance to commune with unspoiled wilderness and learn about ecology. But are park administrators and employees educating their visitors about changes and perils brought on by a rapidly warming planet? Are parks missing the chance to make the public aware of dangers tied to climate change?

A study in the peer-reviewed journal Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy from the University of Kansas suggests many parks sidestep the opportunity to educate millions of Americans and to “inspire civic engagement” around the issue of climate. Further, the findings suggest local political leanings and perspectives on the natural world mean some parks might even lead visitors to avoid reckoning with the mounting ecological crisis.

“When I started grad school, I began paying attention to the academic conversation around climate change and the psychological research emerging from it,” said lead author Trevor Lies, a doctoral candidate in psychology at KU. “One thing that particularly interested me — partly because I was spending a lot of time in parks — was that scholars in psychology and other fields thinking about climate change were starting to present parks as spaces that could play a central role in raising awareness and educating people. The impacts of climate change are highly observable in these places, with ecological changes such as species extinction, invasive species, changes in water levels and extreme weather impacts becoming undeniable.”

Lies devised a study to measure engagement with climate change among park personnel and administration and began calling national and state parks to collect qualitative data.

“At the time, I was working in a park in Kansas, giving me direct access to local communities,” he said. “But for this study, I realized the most straightforward approach would be to call state parks across the country and speak with employees. While unconventional, this method allowed us to gather firsthand perspectives of experts in these spaces, who we describe in the paper as ‘institutional actors.’ About half the time, the person on the phone would direct me to the park’s director. In other cases, I was unable to get through even after multiple attempts. My goal was to speak with the most knowledgeable employees to standardize data collection across different locations.”

Lies said many of the parks he surveyed had recent experience with extreme weather events that could be linked to a warming climate.

“A major reason this issue stood out to me at the time was the severe flooding occurring across the Midwest, particularly in Kansas,” he said. “This aligned with what the literature describes as a ‘focusing event’ that can spark public attention and conversation around a broader issue. So, as a starting point in my interviews, I wanted to ensure that participants had recent experience with extreme weather. This allowed me to use it as an entry point to ask, ‘Can we talk about climate change now?’”

In his work, Lies said he approached the role of state and national parks through a critical historical lens.

“Rather than viewing these spaces as just ‘nature’ where people can be brought to learn and then return home, I see them as historically unique,” Lies said. “Like any space inhabited by people, parks were created with specific purposes, and those purposes may still shape how they operate today.”

Lies said that the origins of parks trace to European colonial history in the U.S., many African nations and other regions where parks were initially created — not necessarily as places for the cultivation of environmental responsibility but as refuges from the stresses of everyday life.

“For example, in the paper, we quote the 1872 Yellowstone National Park Protection Act — which introduced the world’s first national park — which was to be set aside as a ‘pleasuring ground’ for the benefit and enjoyment of the people,” Lies said. “What was left out of that proclamation was that this endeavor would also entail the forced removal of Indigenous peoples from the region, transforming their homelands into a park. Parks, then, became a refuge from everyday burdens, but for a particular group — upper-class settlers — who could visit, relax and leave without any strings attached. This also reinforces a compartmentalized view of nature, where it exists ‘out there’ as something we can care about momentarily before returning home to our lifestyles of overconsumption.”

Lies’ co-authors were Glenn Adams, KU professor of psychology; Syed Muhammad Omar, a KU doctoral student in the Department of Psychology; KU graduate and independent scholar Alyssia Roennengart; and the late Byron Santangelo, a former KU professor most recently on the faculty of the Department of English at Indiana University-Bloomington. Their interdisciplinary approach integrated psychological and literary perspectives for a nuanced analysis of the subject.

The researchers focused on three key factors in examining state and national parks in their interviews and findings. First, they asked about institutional support and expertise.

“Many employees expressed a lack of confidence in discussing climate change, saying they didn’t have the scientific background or training to make definitive statements,” Lies said. “However, those in states with stronger political investment in climate change mitigation, such as formal climate action plans, were more likely to speak candidly about it.”

Next, the researchers wanted to know about the sociopolitical context that informed operation of the parks.

“Consistent with previous research in political and environmental psychology, we found that attention to climate change tended to align with political orientation, race and ethnicity,” Lies said. “However, rather than an employee’s personal identity, we focused on the demographic and political context they worked in. Employees in more conservative, predominantly white regions were less likely to link extreme weather to climate change. We used 2020 Trump vote percentage and percentage white population in their surrounding areas as a proxy for this measure, which further supported this pattern.”

Finally, the research sought to consider the colonial legacy of parks, asking if parks are equipped under their current organization to adequately engage visitors in discussions about a changing climate and its local impacts.

“This was the most interesting to me,” Lies said. “Many people today might not see parks as connected to the history of U.S. colonialism, but that’s the historical context in which we situate them. The idea of seeking refuge in a ‘natural’ space distinct from where we spend our everyday lives is a deeply culturally and historically constructed phenomenon. Nearly all employees — around 96% — described parks primarily as spaces for recreation. Fewer than half mentioned alternative purposes, such as education. Although psychologists and other researchers may be correct in seeing parks as potential venues for climate education, our work finds that they are largely not currently designed for that role. In fact, some aspects of how parks operate may actively work against their potential as spaces for environmental awareness.”