| Title |
Guidance on the Use of Best Available Science under the U.S. Endangered Species Act
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Management, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00267-016-0697-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dennis D. Murphy, Paul S. Weiland |
| Abstract |
The Endangered Species Act's best available science mandate has been widely emulated and reflects a Congressional directive to ensure that decisions made under the Act are informed by reliable knowledge applied using a structured approach. We build on a standing literature by describing the role of the best science directive in the Act's implementation and best practices that can be employed to realize the directive. Next we describe recurring impediments to realizing determinations by the federal wildlife agencies that are based on the best available science. We then identify the types of data, analyses, and modeling efforts that can serve as best science. Finally, we consider the role and application of best available science in effects analysis and adaptive management. We contend that more rigorous adherence by the wildlife agencies to the best available science directive and more assiduous judicial oversight of agency determinations and actions is essential for effective implementation of the Act, particularly where it has substantial ramifications for listed species, stakeholder segments of society, or both. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 48 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 16 | 32% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,863,722
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#185
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,860
of 297,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#6
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 297,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.