Incorporating Science into the Environmental Policy Process: a Case Study from Washington State

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.

Using best available science to protect critical areas in Washington state: challenges and barriers to planners

“…The State agency responsible for enforcing the BAS amendment, DCTED, has recognized this need and recommended that meaningful application of existing science to planning goals occur when planners and scientific professionals collaborate (Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development 2003). However, many small and some medium-sized jurisdictions do not have the resources to engage scientists in such consultation (Francis et al 2005). One approach to solving this problem would be for the State to fund consultants or staff to adapt existing scientific information to a local jurisdiction's critical areas.…”

“…Medium-sized jurisdictions relied more on local scientific data, did not tend to look to other jurisdictions, but instead looked to political influences to guide decisions. Larger jurisdictions, including many counties, generated their own science, communicated with and often informed other jurisdictions and state agencies, and let the science lead decisions (Francis et al 2005). In this paper, we explore what about the scientific information was useful for planners, whether and how it is applicable to writing their conservation ordinances, and what constrains their review of BAS.…”

“…When scientific information is used to inform land use decisions, few studies have empirically examined how planners and policy-makers experience the process of using science and, specifically, what the barriers are in that process (but see Yli-Pelkonen andNiemela 2006 andFrancis et al 2005) and what are ways to overcome them. The consideration of scientific information in the planning and policy-making process has been central to Washington State's recent court order to "consider the Best Available Science" (Copsey 1999) when developing conservation ordinances to protect critical areas.…”

Exploring the Promise of Actor Analysis for Environmental Policy Analysis: Lessons from Four Cases in Water Resources Management

“…(Dinar 1998, Norse and Tschirley 2000, Francis et al 2005. However, empirical research suggests that experts in practice may bear a close resemblance to issue advocates.…”

Response to Young and Wolf: goal attainment in urban ecology research

“…Through group research projects (e.g., Robinson et al 2005;Francis et al 2005;Dooling et al 2007;Oleyar et al in review), collaborative teaching, and seminars, we have immersed ourselves in the various conceptual frameworks, theoretical models, and empirical research considered "urban ecology." We therefore pay particular attention to Young and Wolf's scholarship purporting an analysis of a "core" of literature in urban ecology, given that each of us affiliated with the University of Washington's Urban Ecology IGERT program defines differently a suite of urban ecology literature for our teaching and research applications.…”