There has been a debate in the New York Times recently about how to manage visitor numbers in Yosemite National Park.  Essentially what we see through the debates are the often contradictory functions of national parks – protecting ecosystems and providing locations for people to visit, to travel through and to stay in. These issues have been around all over the world ever since national parks first came into existence – not in all parks, but especially in those that have high visitor numbers.

Bluff Falls, Northeast Victoria, Australia

I really enjoy travelling in most national parks and I really appreciate what they stand for – attempts by Government and international agencies to protect significant and important ecosystems, landscapes, cultural heritage and so on. National parks also can (and do) bring significant economic benefits to local communities. Travellers, tourists and recreationalists visit parks and bring with them spending, need for accommodation and the need for services. Further, because national parks sit within landscapes they become an important part of a mosaic of land-use and activities – parks fitting in agricultural landscapes and nearby small communities where benefits flow, for example. So theirs is an important contribution to local communities in terms of diversifying their economic base and providing income opportunities for local people in whatever forms these may take.

For LoST, national parks can be incredibly beautiful places for travel. I think of the national parks in my part of Australia.  I’ve cycled, walked, camped and photographed many of those in my area (and beyond), and have got to know local people, rangers and other travellers who share my reasons for being there and doing the things I do.

Keep a watch out on some blogs focused on specific parks and the travels I’ve undertaken in them.