incorporating science into the environmental policy process: a case study from washington state
Clicks: 257
ID: 202976
2005
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
30.0
/100
257 views
47 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #144 of 308 articles by views in ieee access
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 308 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The incorporation of science into environmental policy is a key concern at many levels of decision making. Various institutions have sought to standardize the protection of natural resources by requiring that decisions be made based on the "best available science." Here we present empirical data describing the incorporation of best available science in the land-use policy process on a local scale. Results are based on interviews with planners and others who conducted scientific reviews associated with a Washington State Growth Management Act amendment that requires the inclusion of best available science in protecting critical areas. Our results show that jurisdictions varied with respect to how they included science in their land-use policies. Specifically, we found that smaller jurisdictions were very reliant on scientific information provided by state agencies, communicated frequently with other jurisdictions and agencies, and most often let scientific information guide the policy development process. Medium-sized jurisdictions, in contrast, were more inwardly focused, relied predominantly on local information, communicated little with outsiders, and more often looked to political influences to guide the policy process. Large jurisdictions, including most counties, often generated their own best science, communicated with and often informed state agencies and other jurisdictions, and more often considered science first during the policy development process. Jurisdictions also differed in terms of how best available science was defined, and how jurisdictions dealt with conflicting scientific information. Our results provide empirical evidence of the variation with which best available science is used in environmental policies.
| Reference Key |
francis2005ecologyincorporating
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Tessa B. Francis;Kara A. Whittaker;Vivek Shandas;April V. Mills;Jessica K. Graybill |
| Journal | ieee access |
| Year | 2005 |
| DOI |
10.5751/ES-01359-100135
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.