We stand on the cusp of the National Park Service’s second century, at an intersection of retrospection and promise. It’s the perfect point from which to look back on the first 100 years of the management of the world’s greatest park system, and to examine how it can be improved moving forward into the future.

But it won’t be, and shouldn’t be, a quick and easy examination, for there are many troubles in our national parks and the National Park Service. Cash-strapped parks face overcrowding issues, climate-driven changes, and a lack of resources. The National Park Service centennial has diverted energy and resources from the agency’s core mission, which, as the National Park Service Organic Act points out, is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein. It’s a central mission courts time and again have upheld.

Today the Park Service grapples with pressures both internal and external. Internally, it at times seems conflicted. Despite its Organic Act mandate, at Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida potential wilderness designation in the 147,000-acre Additional Lands was tossed aside in favor of off-road vehicle routes and hunting; at Grand Teton National Park, the agency agreed to let the state of Wyoming govern wildlife management on state and private inholdings totaling some 2,300 acres, a move that has opened up private lands to hunting; at Olympic National Park in Washington, the agency tries to manage, rather than remove, non-native mountain goats.

Ethical lapses stretch from the field all the way to the director’s office. Employee morale across the much-beloved agency has been in a swoon for more than a decade, a downward spiral that wasn’t helped by a long running, and tolerated, chapter of sexual harassment at Grand Canyon National Park.

Externally, there is a drive to nurture a following more representative of the nation’s diversity, to see that the park system recognize not just beautiful scenery and American history and culture, but to make all segments of society value the National Park System and feel welcome in the parks themselves.

But is that realistic? In trying to adapt to all of those segments (especially in the creation of new national monuments) do we improve the National Park System, or dilute it until it's something it was never meant to be? Parks should showcase the exemplary, not just the representative aspects of American landscapes and history.

Recently, while roaming a rare and used bookstore in Salt Lake City, I came across this book: Regreening The National Parks. Written by Michael Frome during the National Park Service's 75th anniversary, it's a thoughtful, incisive analysis of the agency, its duty, and our parks. It remains pertinent today.

In 1992 Mr. Frome, one of the deans of environmental writing during the past half-century, wrote that the National Park Service had lost its way; that it had been overrun by politics. He called for a “regreening of the national parks.” By regreening, he meant closing roads, and instituting carrying capacities for parks (“to provide optimum enjoyment rather than maximum use”). He advocated for a change in the National Park Service, to “get over the idea that national parks are outdoor amusement centers meant for tourism.”

Mr. Frome also called for the National Park Service to be a stand-alone agency, separate from the Interior Department, hoping that it might flourish without the constant churning drumbeat of politics.

But the drumbeat goes on.

Our national parks are being forced to shoulder high-power transmission lines while large-scale wind and solar projects sprout adjacent to their boundaries. They are subjected to nuclear waste from power plants, and are becoming biological islands where managers in some cases are being asked to serve as zookeepers.

Shoulder seasons now add weeks to the once-traditional high seasons, straining human resources and impacting natural resources. Some segments of the public are demanding Wi-Fi within the parks. Congressional funding continues to lag. It's the National Park Service's centennial year, but it and our parks are in dire straits. At a time when some parks are operating on budgets smaller than they had four years ago, Park Service Director Jon Jarvis has applauded Congress for being “generous to us this year in Fiscal 2016.” Yet the vast majority of national parks aren’t realizing that generosity. Line item increases went to construction and land acquisition, but overall, the across-the-board increases did not even cover the cost-of-living increases for most parks.

While there’s an ever-growing list of potential additions to the park system, one thing seems to be missing from the public dialogue: how to make the National Park Service better. Better in terms of park management, better as a place to make a career, and better tutors of the history, landscapes, and culture within the system.

The blame, of course, can’t all be laid on the Park Service’s doorstep. Congress holds a huge responsibility, and can be criticized both for underfunding the agency and at times micromanaging it.

In an attempt to explore the promise of the next century, we're kicking off our Centennial Series issues. This series profiles, details, suggests, and advocates for needed change. It's our inspirations and aspirations for the future.

We hope you’ll join us in this discussion, for the national parks are our American heritage, our touchstones, and dear to our hearts.