Responding to scientific uncertainty in U.S. forest policy

Environmental Science and Policy

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 253-271

  Schultz, Courtney ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptive management; Forest policy; Precautionary principle; Scientific uncertainty; Sound science

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; DECISION MAKING; ECOSYSTEM; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FOREST MANAGEMENT; LAND USE; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; PEER REVIEW; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 42149186372     PISSN: 14629011     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2007.09.002     Document Type: Review

References (95)

1. Adelman D.E. Two models for scientific transparency in environmental law. In: Wagner W.E., and Steinzor R. (Eds). Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research (2006), Cambridge University Press, New York 193-213
2. Allen C.D., Savage M., Falk D.A., Suckling K.F., Swetnam T.W., Schulke T., Stacey P.B., Morgan P., Hoffman M., and Klingel J.T. Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecol. Appl. 12 (2002) 1418-1433
3. Allen T.F.H., Tainter J.A., Pires J.C., and Hoekstra T.W. Dragnet ecology-"just the facts ma'am": the privelege of science in a postmodern world. Bioscience 51 (2001) 475-485
4. Alverson W.S., Kuhlmann W., and Waller D.M. Wild Forests: Conservation Biology and Public Policy (1994), Island Press, Washington, D.C.
5. Anderson D.R., Burnham K.P., and Thompson W.L. Null hypothesis testing: problems, prevalence, and an alternative. J. Wildl. Manage. 64 (2000) 912-923
6. Bear D. Some modest suggestions for improving implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act. Nat. Resour. J. 43 (2003) 931-960
7. Calver M.C., Dickman C.R., Feller M.C., Hobbs R.J., Horwitz P., Recher H.F., and Wardell-Johnson G. Toward resolving conflict between forestry and conservation in Western Australia. Australian Forestry 61 (1998) 258-266
8. Calver M.C., Bradley J.S., and Wright I.W. Towards scientific contributions in applying the precautionary principle: an example from southwestern Australia. Pacific Conserv. Biol. 5 (1999) 63-72
9. Chalmers A.F. What is This Thing Called Science? (1982), University of Queensland Press, St. Lucia, Queensland
10. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 1984. 467 U.S. 837.
11. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 1971. 401 U.S. 402.
12. Clark J.A., Hoekstra J.M., Boersma P.D., and Kareiva P. Improving U. S. Endangered Species Act recovery plans: key findings and recommendations of the SCB recovery plan project. Conserv. Biol. 16 (2002) 1510-1519
13. Clark J.R. The ecosystem approach from a practical point of view. Conserv. Biol. 13 (1999) 679-681
14. Clarke A. Seeing clearly: making decisions under conditions of scientific controversy and incomplete and uncertain scientific information. Nat. Resour. J. 46 (2006) 571-599
15. Corbin G.D. The United States Forest Service's response to biodiversity science. Environ. Law 29 (1999) 377-415
16. Cortner H.J., and Moote M.A. The Politics of Ecosystem Management (1999), Island Press, Washington, DC
17. Cranor C.F. The dual legacy of Daubert v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceutical. In: Wagner W.E., and Steinzor R. (Eds). Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research (2006), Cambridge University Press, New York 120-142
18. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1993. 509 U.S. 579.
19. Deville A., and Harding R. Applying the precautionary principle (1997), The Federation Press, Sydney
20. Di Stefano J. Power analysis and sustainable forest management. Forest Ecol. Manage. 154 (2001) 141-153
21. Di Stefano J. A confidence interval approach to data analysis. Forest Ecol. Manage. 187 (2004) 173-183
22. Dietz T., and Stern P.C. Science, values, and biodiversity. Bioscience 48 (1998) 441-444
23. Doremus H. Listing decisions under the Endangered Species Act: why better science isn't always better policy. Washington Univ. Law Q. 75 (1997) 1029-1053
24. Doremus H. Adaptive management, the Endangered Species Act, and the institutional challenges of "new age" environmental protection. Washburn Law J. 41 (2001) 50-89
25. Doremus H. The purposes, effects, and future of the Endangered Species Act's best available science mandate. Environ. Law 34 (2004) 397-450
26. Doremus H. Science plays defense: natural resource management in the Bush administration. Ecology Law Q. 32 (2005) 249-305
27. Doremus H. Using science in a political world: the importance of transparency in natural resource regulation. In: Wagner W.E., and Steinzor R. (Eds). Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research (2006), Cambridge University Press, New York 143-164
28. Ecology Center v. Austin, 2005. 430 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.).
29. Ellison A.M. Bayesian inference in ecology. Ecol. Lett. 7 (2004) 509-520
30. Fairbrother A., and Turnley J.G. Predicting risks of uncharacteristic wildfires: application of the risk assessment process. Forest Ecol. Manage. 211 (2005) 28-35
31. Farber D.A. Probabilities behaving badly: complexity theory and environmental uncertainty. U. C. Davis Law Rev. 37 (2003/2004) 145-173
32. Feller J.M. The BLM's proposed new grazing regulations: serving the most special interest. J. Land Resour. Environ. Law 24 (2004) 241-248
33. Gray, A.N. 2000. Adaptive ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest: a case study from coastal Oregon. Conservation Ecology 4:6. Available at: http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss2/art6/.
34. Gray J.S., and Bewers J.M. Towards a scientific definition of the precautionary principle. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 32 (1996) 711-768
35. Haas G.E. Restoring dignity to sound professional judgment. J. Forestry 101 (2003) 38-43
36. Hoberg, G., 2003. Science, politics, and U.S. forest law: the battle over the forest service planning rule. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. Discussion Paper 03-19, pp. 1-30.
37. Hornstein D.T. The data wars, adaptive management. and the irony of "sound science". In: Wagner W.E., and Steinzor R. (Eds). Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research (2006), Cambridge University Press, New York 103-119
38. House Resources Committee Oversight Hearing. Canada Lynx Interagency National Survey and Endangered Species Data Collection (2002), House Resources Committee, Washington, D.C.
39. Inland Empire Public Lands Council v. United States Forest Service, 1996. 88 F.3d 754 (9th Cir.).
40. Jasanoff S. Beyond epistemology: relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Stud. Sci. 26 (1996) 393-418
41. Jasanoff S. The songlines of risk. Environ. Values 8 (1999) 135-152
42. Kangas A.S., and Kangas J. Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis. Forest Policy Econ. 6 (2004) 169-188
43. Kangas J., Store R., Leskinen P., and Mehtatalo L. Improving the quality of landscape ecological forest planning by utilising advanced decision-support tools. Forest Ecol. Manage. 132 (2000) 157-171
44. Karkkainen B.C. Adaptive ecosystem management and regulatory penalty defaults: toward a bounded pragmatism. Minnesota Law Rev. 97 (2003) 943-998
45. Kemmis D. Science's role in natural resource decisions. Issues Sci. Technol. 18 (2002) 31-34
46. King P.S. Applying Daubert to the "hard look" requirement of NEPA: scientific evidence before the Forest Service in Sierra Club v. Marita. Wisconsin Environ. Law J. 2 (1995) 147-171
47. Kinzig A., Starrett D., Arrow K., Aniyar S., Bolin B., Dasgupta P., Ehrlich P., Folke C., Hanemann M., Heal G., Hoel M., Jansson A., Jansson B.-O., Kautsky N., Levin S., Lubchenco J., Maler K.-G., Pacala S.W., Schneider S.H., Siniscalca D., and Walker B. Coping with uncertainty: a call for a new science-policy forum. Ambio 32 (2003) 330-335
48. Kleiss M.E. NEPA and scientific uncertainty: using the precautionary principle to bridge the gap. Minnesota Law Rev. 87 (2002/2003) 1215-1245
49. Lackey R.T. Pacific salmon, ecological health, and public policy. Ecosys. Health 2 (1996) 61-68
50. LaFranchi S. Surveying the precautionary principle's ongoing global development: the evolution of an emergent environmental management tool. Boston College Environ. Affairs Law Rev. 32 (2005) 679-720
51. Lands Council v. Powell, 2004. 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir.).
52. Langston N. When sound science is not enough. J. Forestry (2000) 31-35
53. Laudan L. Science and values (1984), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
54. Lee K. Compass and Gyroscope (1993), Island Press, Washington, D.C.
55. Ludwig D., Mangel M., and Haddad B. Ecology, conservation, and public policy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Sys. 32 (2001) 481-517
56. Madden E. Seeing the science for the trees: employing Daubert standards to assess the adequacy of national forest management under the National Forest Management Act. J. Environ. Law Litigation 18 (2003) 321-364
57. Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 1989. 490 U.S. 360.
58. McCarthy M.A., and Burgman M.A. Coping with uncertainty in forest wildlife planning. Forest Ecol. Manage. 74 (1995) 23-36
59. McGarvey D.J. Merging precaution with sound science under the Endangered Species Act. Bioscience 57 (2007) 65-70
60. McGarvey D.J., and Marshall B. Making sense of scientists and "sound science": truth and consequences for endangered species in the Klamath basin and beyond. Ecol. Law Q. 32 (2005) 73-111
61. Michaels D. Politicizing peer review: the scientific perspective. In: Wagner W.E., and Steinzor R. (Eds). Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research (2006), Cambridge University Press, New York 219-237
62. Montopoli G.J., and Anderson D.A. A logistic model for the cumulative effects of human intervention of bald eagle habitat. J. Wildl. Manage. 55 (1991) 290-293
63. Moore C.T., and Conroy M.J. Optimal regeneration planning for old-growth forest: addressing scientific uncertainty in endangered species recovery through adaptive management. Forest Sci. 52 (2006) 155-172
64. Murphy D.D., and Noon B.R. Coping with uncertainty in wildlife biology. J. Wildl. Manage. 55 (1991) 773-782
65. Nie M. Statutory detail and administrative discretion in public lands governance: arguments and alternatives. J. Environ. Law Litigation. 19 (2004) 223-291
66. Noah L. Scientific "republicanism": expert peer review and the quest for regulatory deliberation. Emory Law J. 49 (2000) 1033-1083
67. Noon B.R., and Blakesley J.A. Conservation of the northern spotted owl under the Northwest Forest Plan. Conserv. Biol. 20 (2006) 288-296
68. Northern Spotted Owl v. Hodel, 1988. 716 F. Suppl. 479 (W.D. Wash.).
69. Owen D. Prescriptive laws, uncertain science, and political stories: forest management in the Sierra Nevada. Ecol. Law Q. 29 (2002) 747-804
70. Parkhurst D.F. Statistical significance tests: equivalence and reverse tests should reduce misinterpretation. Bioscience 51 (2001) 1051-1057
71. Patterson M.E., and Williams D.R. Maintaining research traditions on place: diversity of thought and scientific progress. J. Environ. Psychol. 25 (2005) 361-380
72. Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959), Harper Torchbooks, New York
73. Prato T. Accounting for uncertainty in making species protection decisions. Conserv. Biol. 19 (2005) 806-814
74. Rasband J., Salzman J., and Squillace M. Natural Resources Law and Policy (2004), Foundation Press, New York
75. Raul A.C., and Dwyer J.Z. "Regulatory Daubert": a proposal to enhance judicial review of agency science by incorporating Daubert principles into administrative law. Law Contemporary Probl. 66 (2003) 7-44
76. Ravetz J.R. What is post-normal science. Futures 31 (1999) 647-653
77. Regan H.M., Colyvan M., and Burgman M.A. A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecol. Appl. 12 (2002) 618-628
78. Ruhl J.B. The battle over Endangered Species Act methodology. Environ. Law 34 (2004) 555-603
79. In: Sarewitz D., Pielke R.A., and Byerly R. (Eds). Prediction: science, decisionmaking. and the future of nature (2000), Island Press, Washington, D.C.
80. Seidman A.M., and Burdin D.S. Forest wildlife management: a legal battleground for a scientific dilemma. Nat. Resour. Environ. 20 (2005) 40-44
81. Shapiro S. Politicizing peer review: the legal perspective. In: Wagner W.E., and Steinzor R. (Eds). Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research (2006), Cambridge University Press, New York 238-254
82. Shrader-Frechette K., and McCoy E.D. Applied ecology and the logic of case studies. Philos. Sci. 61 (1994) 228-249
83. Shrader-Frechette K., and McCoy E.D. Molecular systematics, ethics, and biological decision making under uncertainty. Conserv. Biol. 13 (1999) 1008-1012
84. Sierra Club v. Marita, 1995. 46 F.3d 606 (7th Cir.).
85. Sierra Club v. Martin, 1999. 168 F.3d 1 (11th Cir.).
86. Smith M.D. Cumulative impact assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act: an analysis of recent case law. Environ. Practice 8 (2006) 228-240
87. Stankey G.H., Bormann B.T., Ryan C., Shindler B., Sturtevant V., Clark R.N., and Philpot C. Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan. J. Forestry 101 (2003) 40-46
88. Stewart, R.E., L.C. Walters, P.J. Balint, Desai, A., 2004. Managing Wicked Environmental Problems. Report to Jack Blackwell, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.
89. Taylor B.L., and Gerrodette T. The uses of statistical power in conservation biology: the Vaquita and Nothern Spotted Owl. Conserv. Biol. 7 (1993) 489-500
90. Taylor B.L., Wade P.R., DeMaster D.P., and Barlow J. Incorporating uncertainty in management models for marine mammals. Conserv. Biol. 14 (2000) 1243-1252
91. Wade P.R. Bayesian methods in conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 14 (2000) 1308-1316
92. Wagner W.E. Congress, science, and environmental policy. University of Illinois Law Review 1999: (1999) 181-286
93. Wiener J.B., and Rogers M.D. Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe. J. Risk Res. 5 (2002) 317-349
94. Wilkinson C.F., and Anderson H.M. Land and resource planning in the national forests (1987), Island Press, Washington, D.C.
95. Wynne B. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science--hitting the notes, but missing the music?. Commun. Genet. 9 (2006) 211-220