气候变化领域集成服务门户(CCPortal): Science in action or science inaction? Evaluating the implementation of “best available science” in hydropower relicensing

CCPortal

DOI	10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111457
	Science in action or science inaction? Evaluating the implementation of “best available science” in hydropower relicensing
	Vogel S.K.; Jansujwicz J.S.; Sponarski C.C.; Zydlewski J.D.
发表日期	2020
ISSN	03014215
卷号	143
英文摘要	Over the next two decades, half of all hydropower projects in the USA will require relicensing by the Federal Regulatory Commission (FERC). Relicensing proceedings invoke a range of informational sources and agency regulators are tasked with using the “best available science” (BAS) to make informed decisions about hydropower operations and management. Although embraced as the standard, BAS is not well-defined. The Kennebec and Penobscot River watersheds in Maine provide an ideal opportunity for studying BAS in the relicensing process in the context of fish passage concerns. Using citation analysis and an online survey, we identified informational sources used in relicensing decisions for dams in this system and assessed agency perceptions of BAS. Analysis of relicensing documents (n=62) demonstrates that FERC and licensee documents are highly similar in citation composition. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) documents typically cite more sources and are three times more likely to cite peer-reviewed sources than FERC and licensee documents. Survey data reveals that federal and state agency respondents (n=49) rate peer-reviewed literature highly as BAS, followed by university, agency, and expert sources while industry and community sources rate poorly. Federal respondents report using peer-reviewed/academic sources more frequently and expert sources less frequently than state respondents. Overall, the agreement between individuals with respect to the valuation of sources is low. The reported differences in information use may be linked to disparities in the access to certain sources of information, particularly peer-reviewed literature. Enhanced understanding of information use may aid in identifying pathways for better informed relicensing decisions. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd
关键词	Best available science Decision-making FERC Hydropower relicensing
英文关键词	Hydroelectric power; Surveys; Citation analysis; Community sources; Hydropower projects; Informed decision; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Regulatory commission; River watersheds; Sources of informations; Information use; alternative energy; decision making; energy policy; hydroelectric power; hydroelectric power plant; literature review; policy implementation; regulatory framework; river management; Kennebec River; Maine; Penobscot River; United States
语种	英语
来源期刊	Energy Policy
文献类型	期刊论文
条目标识符	http://gcip.llas.ac.cn/handle/2XKMVOVA/204907
作者单位	Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Conservation Biology, University of Maine, 5755 Nutting Hall, Orono, ME 04469, United States; Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions, University of Maine, 5710 Norman Smith Hall, Orono, ME 04469, United States; U.S. Geological Survey, Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Maine, 5755 Nutting Hall, Orono, ME 04469, United States
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714	Vogel S.K.,Jansujwicz J.S.,Sponarski C.C.,等. Science in action or science inaction? Evaluating the implementation of “best available science” in hydropower relicensing[J],2020,143.
APA	Vogel S.K.,Jansujwicz J.S.,Sponarski C.C.,&Zydlewski J.D..(2020).Science in action or science inaction? Evaluating the implementation of “best available science” in hydropower relicensing.Energy Policy,143.
MLA	Vogel S.K.,et al."Science in action or science inaction? Evaluating the implementation of “best available science” in hydropower relicensing".Energy Policy 143(2020).