Planetary Parks and Leave No Trace
Presentation Type
Long presentation (faculty/staff) 15-20 minutes
In Person or Zoom Presentation
In-Person
Campus
Daytona Beach
Status
Faculty
Faculty/Staff Department
Humanities & Communication
Presentation Description/Abstract
Cockell and Horneck (2004; 2006) have proposed a planetary park system for Mars, imitating national park systems and wilderness designations already found in several countries on Earth; their planetary park proposal aims at preserving representative geological characteristics of Mars, sites of historical importance, scientific interests, and wilderness values. Recent work by Lindquist (2024) critiques and expands on the prior proposal, while Cockell (2024) further reflects on the proposal of planetary parks twenty years after its initial presentation. This paper aims to add to the discussion of planetary parks through a critique of further motivations behind them, especially as Cockell (2024) (and Horneck (2006)) argues that one of the benefits of planetary parks would be an opportunity to actually lessen the overall protection of planetary bodies to incentivize private industry, echoing Cockell’s previous proposal for treating non-park lands as Lockean (2006). Thus, the orientation of Cockell and Horneck’s proposal bears the mark of the target of well-trodden critiques of park and wilderness programs already established in the environmental ethics literature, and such a conception ought to be rejected. Nevertheless, still finding value in planetary park proposals, the paper critically engages literature surrounding Leave No Trace principles for wilderness recreation, exploring their application to the Martian environment and the expanded planetary park program while also considering alternative “right to roam” codes for parks and the spaces between.
Keywords
Leave No Trace, Mars, Planetary Parks, Environmental Philosophy, Space Exploration
Planetary Parks and Leave No Trace
Cockell and Horneck (2004; 2006) have proposed a planetary park system for Mars, imitating national park systems and wilderness designations already found in several countries on Earth; their planetary park proposal aims at preserving representative geological characteristics of Mars, sites of historical importance, scientific interests, and wilderness values. Recent work by Lindquist (2024) critiques and expands on the prior proposal, while Cockell (2024) further reflects on the proposal of planetary parks twenty years after its initial presentation. This paper aims to add to the discussion of planetary parks through a critique of further motivations behind them, especially as Cockell (2024) (and Horneck (2006)) argues that one of the benefits of planetary parks would be an opportunity to actually lessen the overall protection of planetary bodies to incentivize private industry, echoing Cockell’s previous proposal for treating non-park lands as Lockean (2006). Thus, the orientation of Cockell and Horneck’s proposal bears the mark of the target of well-trodden critiques of park and wilderness programs already established in the environmental ethics literature, and such a conception ought to be rejected. Nevertheless, still finding value in planetary park proposals, the paper critically engages literature surrounding Leave No Trace principles for wilderness recreation, exploring their application to the Martian environment and the expanded planetary park program while also considering alternative “right to roam” codes for parks and the spaces between.