東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Evaluating agency use of "best avail...

Lowell, Natalie C.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

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.
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:

528916
Political science.

Evaluating agency use of "best available science" under the Endangered Species Act.
LDR:02529nmm a2200289 4500 001 2067647
005 20160418090142.5
008 170521s2015 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781339072791
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI1599856
035 $a AAI1599856
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Lowell, Natalie C. $3 3182507
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 528916
650 4 $a Environmental law. $3 560666
650 4 $a Environmental management. $3 535182
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0439
690 $a 0474
710 2 $a University of Washington. $b Marine and Environmental Affairs. $3 2096871
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