國立高雄大學圖資館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

圖資館首頁

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Evaluating agency use of "best avail...

Lowell, Natalie C.

Evaluating agency use of "best available science" under the Endangered Species Act.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Evaluating agency use of "best available science" under the Endangered Species Act.
作者:	Lowell, Natalie C.
面頁冊數:	31 p.
附註:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 55-02.
附註:	Adviser: Ryan P. Kelly.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International55-02(E).
標題:	Political science.
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=1599856
ISBN:	9781339072791

Evaluating agency use of "best available science" under the Endangered Species Act.
Lowell, Natalie C.

Evaluating agency use of "best available science" under the Endangered Species Act. - 31 p.

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 55-02.

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2015.

Since Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973, the world's population has nearly doubled, environmental issues have become increasingly politicized, and species continue to go extinct at alarming rates, leading to political conflict that potentially impedes ESA implementation. Because the ways in which agencies use science in the ESA often serve as the legal basis for litigation, it is timely and pertinent to evaluate the quality of science used, both in order to point to ways of improving ESA science policy and to minimize agency exposure to future litigation. The "best" available science and its use are each moving targets, difficult to define in the abstract. However, a straightforward way of evaluating these ideas is to compare the use of science by each of the two administrative agencies in charge of implementing the ESA, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA). Here, I use a suite of data sources---including litigation records, authorship affiliation, and bibliography and listing frequency data---to ask whether one agency systematically uses "better" science than the other. I find that the NOAA outperforms the FWS on four of eight metrics, while the agencies do not differ by the remaining four metrics, suggesting that, overall, the NOAA uses systematically better science than FWS. Lastly, I interpret my findings in the context of each agency's budget, structure, and history and highlight specific policy mechanisms that would allow the agencies to use better science and improve endangered species management.

ISBN: 9781339072791Subjects--Topical Terms:

174710
Political science.

Evaluating agency use of "best available science" under the Endangered Species Act.
LDR:02529nmm a2200289 4500 001 476029
005 20160418090142.5
008 160517s2015 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781339072791
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI1599856
035 $a AAI1599856
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Lowell, Natalie C. $3 730265
245 1 0 $a Evaluating agency use of "best available science" under the Endangered Species Act.
300 $a 31 p.
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 55-02.
500 $a Adviser: Ryan P. Kelly.
502 $a Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2015.
520 $a Since Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973, the world's population has nearly doubled, environmental issues have become increasingly politicized, and species continue to go extinct at alarming rates, leading to political conflict that potentially impedes ESA implementation. Because the ways in which agencies use science in the ESA often serve as the legal basis for litigation, it is timely and pertinent to evaluate the quality of science used, both in order to point to ways of improving ESA science policy and to minimize agency exposure to future litigation. The "best" available science and its use are each moving targets, difficult to define in the abstract. However, a straightforward way of evaluating these ideas is to compare the use of science by each of the two administrative agencies in charge of implementing the ESA, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA). Here, I use a suite of data sources---including litigation records, authorship affiliation, and bibliography and listing frequency data---to ask whether one agency systematically uses "better" science than the other. I find that the NOAA outperforms the FWS on four of eight metrics, while the agencies do not differ by the remaining four metrics, suggesting that, overall, the NOAA uses systematically better science than FWS. Lastly, I interpret my findings in the context of each agency's budget, structure, and history and highlight specific policy mechanisms that would allow the agencies to use better science and improve endangered species management.
590 $a School code: 0250.
650 4 $a Political science. $3 174710
650 4 $a Environmental law. $3 183552
650 4 $a Environmental management. $3 200432
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0439
690 $a 0474
710 2 $a University of Washington. $b Marine and Environmental Affairs. $3 730266
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 55-02(E).
790 $a 0250
791 $a Master's
792 $a 2015
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=1599856