Incorporating science into the environmental policy process: A case study from Washington State

Ecology and Society

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2005, Pages

  Francis, Tessa B ^a   Whittaker, Kara A ^a   Shandas, Vivek ^a   Mills, April V ^a   Graybill, Jessica K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Best available science; Critical areas ordinance; Environmental policy; Growth Management Act; Land use planning; Washington State

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; LAND USE PLANNING; POLICY ANALYSIS;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WASHINGTON [UNITED STATES]; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 27444436819     PISSN: 17083087     EISSN: 17083087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5751/ES-01359-100135     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Alberti, M., J. M. Marzluff, E. Shulenberger, G. Bradley, C. Ryan, and C. Zumbrunnen. 2003. Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems. BioScience 53:1169-1179.
2. Bennett, E. M., S. R. Carpenter, G. D. Peterson, G. S. Cumming, M. Zurek, and P. Pingali. 2003. Why global scenarios need ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:322-329.
3. Bisbal, G. A. 2002. The best available science for the management of anadromous salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59:1952-1959.
4. Bogert, L. M. 1994. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it: is the "best available" science any available science under the Endangered Species Act? Idaho Law Review 31:85-150.
5. Brennan, M. J., D. E. Roth, M. D. Feldman, and A. R. Greene. 2003. Square pegs and round holes: application of the "best scientific data available" standard in the Endangered Species Act. Tulane Environmental Law Journal 16:387-444.
6. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). 2003. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program: vision for the program and highlights of the scientific strategic plan. CCSP, Washington, D.C., USA.
7. Collingridge, D., and C. Reeve. 1986. Science speaks to power: the role of experts in policy making. St. Martin's Press, New York, New York, USA.
8. Copsey, A. D. 1999. Including best available science in the designation and protection of critical areas under the Growth Management Act. Seattle University Law Review 23:97-143.
9. Eliasson, I. 2000. The use of climate knowledge in urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 48:31-44.
10. General Accounting Office (GAO). 2003. Endangered species: Fish and Wildlife Service uses best available science to make listing decisions, but additional guidance needed for critical habitat designations. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C., USA.
11. Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
12. Joint Natural Resources Cabinet (JNRC). 1999. Statewide strategy to recover salmon. JNRC, Olympia, Washington, USA.
13. Kinzig, A., and D. Starrett. 2003. Coping with uncertainty: a call for a new science-policy forum. Ambio 32:330-335.
14. Lubchenco, J. 1995. The role of science in formulating a biodiversity strategy. BioScience (Supplement):S7-S9.
15. Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Second edition. Sage Publications, London, UK.
16. Norse, D., and J. B. Tschirley. 2000. Links between science and policy making. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 82:15-26.
17. Office of Community Development (OCD). 2002. Citations of recommended sources of best available science for designating and protecting critical areas. OCD, Olympia, Washington, USA.
18. Ousley, N. K. 2003. Critical areas assistance handbook: protecting critical areas within the framework of the Washington Growth Management Act. Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Olympia, Washington, USA.
19. Policansky, D. 1998. Science and decision making for water resources. Ecological Applications 8:610-618.
20. Sadik, N. 1999. The state of world population 1999 - 6 billion: a time for choices. United Nations Population Fund, New York, New York, USA.
21. Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research. Sage Publications, London UK.
22. Tarlock, A. D. 2002. Who owns science? Pennsylvania State Law Review 10:135-154.
23. Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). 2004. Scientific integrity in policymaking: an investigation into the Bush administration's misuse of science. UCS, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
24. United Nations (UN). 1992. Agenda 21, Chapter 35: Science for sustainable development. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
25. Weber, J. R., and C. S. Word. 2001. The communication process as evaluative context: what do nonscientists hear when scientists speak? BioScience 51:487-495.