dc.contributor.advisor |
Balint, Peter J. |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Zirbel, Kylie E.
|
|
dc.creator |
Zirbel, Kylie E. |
|
dc.date |
2010-04-22 |
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2010-06-15T17:44:59Z |
|
dc.date.available |
NO_RESTRICTION |
en_US |
dc.date.available |
2010-06-15T17:44:59Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
2010-06-15T17:44:59Z |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
https://hdl.handle.net/1920/5895 |
|
dc.description.abstract |
Ocean noise is particularly problematic for marine wildlife in the Northern hemisphere.
One source of anthropogenic noise currently impacting cetaceans in particular is military
sonar. As a result, environmental NGOs have pursued a series of legal battles to test how
much leeway the Navy has concerning exemption from environmental laws. The legal
battle made its way to the Supreme Court in the case Winter v. Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC). Ruling of the court suggests that the military is held to
different standards when it comes to the implementation of federal environmental law.
Public opinion on the impact of navy sonar on cetaceans and current policy has not been
sought previously and since public opinion is a key force in the development and
implementation of policy it could be a valuable asset to stakeholders to understand.
In this thesis, I used chi-square tests to determine which demographic variables were
correlated with how respondents felt about Navy exemption. I found that age, level of
education, and ocean activity participation did not have a significant relationship with
how respondents felt about Navy exemption. I did find, however, that individuals who
were conservative, Republican, and have served in the military were more likely to
believe the Navy should be exempt from marine mammal protection regulations. I was
unable to test my hypotheses regarding race/ethnicity and environmental group
membership due to insufficient data. My study was also designed to investigate the
respondents’ understanding of sonar and its impact on marine mammals in order to
support a more comprehensive study in the future. The results that I obtained were that a
majority of my sample believe that Navy sonar impacts marine mammals. A majority of
my sample also believe that moderating sonar use would be an appropriate action to take
if Navy sonar does impact marine mammals. I also found that a large majority of my
sample has never heard about the case Winter v. NRDC. I conducted expert interviews to
determine the potential ramifications of the Supreme Court case. A few noteworthy
points found in the expert interviews include that the case exerts federal power over state
power; its legal precedent sets limitations to the use of preliminary junctions under
NEPA; and that it is possible to reconcile national security efforts with environmental
protection. |
|
dc.language.iso |
en_US |
en_US |
dc.subject |
navy sonar |
en_US |
dc.subject |
environmental policy |
en_US |
dc.subject |
cetaceans |
en_US |
dc.subject |
National Environmental Protection Act |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Supreme Court |
en_US |
dc.subject |
public attitudes |
en_US |
dc.title |
Navy Sonar, Cetaceans, and the Supreme Court: Fairfax County Public Attitudes and Potential Ramifications |
en_US |
dc.type |
Thesis |
en |
thesis.degree.name |
Master of Science Environmental Science & Public Policy |
en_US |
thesis.degree.level |
Master's |
en |
thesis.degree.discipline |
Environmental Science and Public Policy |
en |
thesis.degree.grantor |
George Mason University |
en |