IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v143y2020ics0301421520302081.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Science in action or science inaction? Evaluating the implementation of "best available science” in hydropower relicensing

Author

Listed:
  • Vogel, Sarah K.
  • Jansujwicz, Jessica S.
  • Sponarski, Carly C.
  • Zydlewski, Joseph D.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Vogel, Sarah K. & Jansujwicz, Jessica S. & Sponarski, Carly C. & Zydlewski, Joseph D., 2020. "Science in action or science inaction? Evaluating the implementation of "best available science” in hydropower relicensing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:143:y:2020:i:c:s0301421520302081
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111457
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421520302081
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111457?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lea Kosnik, 2010. "Time to Pick a Fight? Interest Group Decision Making to Enter the Hydropower Regulatory Process," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 11-32.
    2. Kristensen, Henrik & Garling, Tommy, 1997. "The Effects of Anchor Points and Reference Points on Negotiation Process and Outcome," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 85-94, July.
    3. Mia Costa & Bruce A. Desmarais & John A. Hird, 2016. "Science Use in Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Effects of Political Attention and Controversy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 33(3), pages 251-269, May.
    4. Furnham, Adrian & Boo, Hua Chu, 2011. "A literature review of the anchoring effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 35-42, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ortiz, Jose M. & Teixeira, Lucas I. & Falcão, Natália N.L. & Soki, Erika A. & Almeida, Raquel M., 2024. "Information simplification and default choices improve financial decisions: A credit card statement experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    2. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Lahtinen, Tuomas J., 2016. "Path dependence in Operational Research—How the modeling process can influence the results," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 14-20.
    3. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    4. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    5. Siddiqi, Hammad, 2015. "Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic: A Unified Explanation for Equity Puzzles," MPRA Paper 68729, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Labro, Eva & Lang, Mark & Omartian, James D., 2023. "Predictive analytics and centralization of authority," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1).
    7. Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Seres, Gyula, 2021. "Are strategies anchored?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    8. Ashleigh Shelby Rosette & Shirli Kopelman & JeAnna Lanza Abbott, 2014. "Good Grief! Anxiety Sours the Economic Benefits of First Offers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 629-647, May.
    9. Sang-June Park & Youjae Yi, 2016. "Performance-only measures vs. performance-expectation measures of service quality," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(15-16), pages 741-756, December.
    10. Edwards, Chase J. & Bendickson, Joshua S. & Baker, Brent L. & Solomon, Shelby J., 2020. "Entrepreneurship within the history of marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 259-267.
    11. Christian Koch, 2021. "Can reference points explain wage rigidity? Experimental evidence," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 55(1), pages 1-17, December.
    12. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till E., 2015. "Anchoring in social context," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 29-39.
    13. Eva Labro & Mark Lang & Jim Omartian, 2019. "Predictive Analytics and Organizational Architecture: Plant-Level Evidence from Census Data," Working Papers 19-02, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    14. Yang, Guang & Huang, Ruixian & Shi, Yukun & Jia, Zhehao, 2021. "Does a CEO's private reputation impede corporate governance?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    15. Alistair Munro & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Green Goods: Are They Good or Bad News for the Environment? Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment on Impure Public Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 317-335, October.
    16. Jetter, Michael & Walker, Jay K., 2020. "At what age does the anchoring heuristic emerge? Evidence from Jeopardy!," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 757-766.
    17. Papyrakis, Elissaios & Parcero, Osiris Jorge, 2022. "The psychology of mineral wealth: Empirical evidence from Kazakhstan," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    18. Francesca Gioia, 2017. "Peer effects on risk behaviour: the importance of group identity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 100-129, March.
    19. Arnold, Markus C. & Gillenkirch, Robert M., 2015. "Using negotiated budgets for planning and performance evaluation: An experimental study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1-16.
    20. Jetter, Michael & Walker, Jay K., 2017. "Anchoring in financial decision-making: Evidence from Jeopardy!," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 164-176.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:143:y:2020:i:c:s0301421520302081. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.