Terre Satterfield

Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement

A focus on ecosystem services (ES) is seen as a means for improving decisionmaking. In the research to date, the valuation of the material contributions of ecosystems to human well-being has been emphasized, with less attention to important cultural ES and nonmaterial values. This gap persists because there is no commonly accepted framework for eliciting less tangible values, characterizing their changes, and including them alongside other services in decisionmaking. Here, we develop such a framework for ES research and practice, addressing three challenges: (1) Nonmaterial values are ill suited to characterization using monetary methods; (2) it is difficult to unequivocally link particular changes in socioecological systems to particular changes in cultural benefits; and (3) cultural benefits are associated with many services, not just cultural ES. There is no magic bullet, but our framework may facilitate fuller and more socially acceptable integrations of ES information into planning and management.

A social–ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social considerations

Many conservation plans remain unimplemented, in part because of insufficient consideration of the social processes that influence conservation decisions. Complementing social considerations with an integrated understanding of the ecology of a region can result in a more complete conservation approach. We suggest that linking conservation planning to a social–ecological systems (SES) framework can lead to a more thorough understanding of human–environment interactions and more effective integration of social considerations. By characterizing SES as a set of subsystems, and their interactions with each other and with external factors, the SES framework can improve our understanding of the linkages between social and ecological influences on the environment. Using this framework can help to identify socially and ecologically focused conservation actions that will benefit ecosystems and human communities, and assist in the development of more consistent evidence for evaluating conservation actions by comparing conservation case studies.

Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment

A cornerstone of environmental policy is the debate over protecting nature for humans’ sake (instrumental values) or for nature’s (intrinsic values) (1). We propose that focusing only on instrumental or intrinsic values may fail to resonate with views on personal and collective well-being, or “what is right,” with regard to nature and the environment. Without complementary attention to other ways that value is expressed and realized by people, such a focus may inadvertently promote worldviews at odds with fair and desirable futures. It is time to engage seriously with a third class of values, one with diverse roots and current expressions: relational values. By doing so, we reframe the discussion about environmental protection, and open the door to new, potentially more productive policy approaches.

From Invisibility to Transparency: Identifying the Implications

This paper explores the need for a broader and more inclusive approach to decisions about land and resources, one that recognizes the legitimacy of cultural values and traditional knowledge in environmental decision making and policy. Invisible losses are those not widely recognized or accounted for in decisions about resource planning and decision making in resource- and land-use negotiations precisely because they involve considerations that tend to be ignored by managers and scientists or because they are often indirect or cumulative, resulting from a complex, often cumulative series of events, decisions, choices, or policies. First Nations communities in western North America have experienced many such losses that, together, have resulted in a decline in the overall resilience of individuals and communities. We have identified eight types invisible losses that are often overlapping and cumulative: cultural/lifestyle losses, loss of identity, health losses, loss of self-determination and influence, emotional and psychological losses, loss of order in the world, knowledge losses, and indirect economic losses and lost opportunities. To render such invisible losses more transparent, which represents the first step in developing a more positive and equitable basis for decision making and negotiations around land and resources, we recommend six processes: focusing on what matters to the people affected, describing what matters in meaningful ways, making a place for these concerns in decision making, evaluating future losses and gains from a historical baseline, recognizing culturally derived values as relevant, and creating better alternatives for decision making so that invisible losses will be diminished or eliminated in the future.

The Challenges of Incorporating Cultural Ecosystem Services into Environmental Assessment

The ecosystem services concept is used to make explicit the diverse benefits ecosystems provide to people, with the goal of improving assessment and, ultimately, decision-making. Alongside material benefits such as natural resources (e.g., clean water, timber), this concept includes—through the ‘cultural’ category of ecosystem services—diverse non-material benefits that people obtain through interactions with ecosystems (e.g., spiritual inspiration, cultural identity, recreation). Despite the longstanding focus of ecosystem services research on measurement, most cultural ecosystem services have defined measurement and inclusion alongside other more ‘material’ services. This gap in measurement of cultural ecosystem services is a product of several perceived problems, some of which are not real problems and some of which can be mitigated or even solved without undue difficulty. Because of the fractured nature of the literature, these problems continue to plague the discussion of cultural services. In this paper we discuss several such problems, which although they have been addressed singly, have not been brought together in a single discussion. There is a need for a single, accessible treatment of the importance and feasibility of integrating cultural ecosystem services alongside others.

Engage key social concepts for sustainability

Social indicators, both mature and emerging, are underused With humans altering climate processes, biogeochemical cycles, and ecosystem functions (1), governments and societies confront the challenge of shaping a sustainable future for people and nature. Policies and practices to address these challenges must draw on social sciences, along with natural sciences and engineering (2). Although various social science approaches can enable and assess progress toward sustainability, debate about such concrete engagement is outpacing actual use. To catalyze uptake, we identify seven key social concepts that are largely absent from many efforts to pursue sustainability goals. We present existing and emerging well-tested indicators and propose priority areas for conceptual and methodological development.

A protocol for eliciting nonmaterial values through a cultural ecosystem services frame

Stakeholders’ nonmaterial desires, needs, and values often critically influence the success of conservation projects. These considerations are challenging to articulate and characterize, resulting in their limited uptake in management and policy. We devised an interview protocol designed to enhance understanding of cultural ecosystem services (CES). The protocol begins with discussion of ecosystem-related activities (e.g., recreation, hunting) and management and then addresses CES, prompting for values encompassing concepts identified in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) and explored in other CES research. We piloted the protocol in Hawaii and British Columbia. In each location, we interviewed 30 individuals from diverse backgrounds. We analyzed results from the 2 locations to determine the effectiveness of the interview protocol in elucidating nonmaterial values. The qualitative and spatial components of the protocol helped characterize cultural, social, and ethical values associated with ecosystems in multiple ways. Maps and situational, or vignette-like, questions helped respondents articulate difficult-to-discuss values. Open-ended prompts allowed respondents to express a diversity of ecosystem-related values and proved sufficiently flexible for interviewees to communicate values for which the protocol did not explicitly probe. Finally, the results suggest that certain values, those mentioned frequently throughout the interview, are particularly salient for particular populations. The protocol can provide efficient, contextual, and place-based data on the importance of particular ecosystem attributes for human well-being. Qualitative data are complementary to quantitative and spatial assessments in the comprehensive representation of peoples values pertaining to ecosystems, and this protocol may assist in incorporating values frequently overlooked in decision making processes. Un Protocolo para Obtener Valores No Materiales por medio de un Marco de Servicios Ambientales Culturales Resumen Los deseos, necesidades y valores no materiales de los accionistas influyen frecuentemente sobre el éxito de los proyectos de conservación. Estas consideraciones son difíciles de articular y caracterizar, lo que resulta en entendimiento limitado en el manejo y la política. Concebimos un protocolo de entrevista diseñado para mejorar el entendimiento de los servicios ambientales culturales (SAC). El protocolo inicia con la discusión de actividades relacionadas con ecosistemas (p. ej.: recreación, cacería) y manejo; después señala a los SAC, dando pie a los valores que encierran conceptos identificados en la Evaluación Ambiental del Milenio (2005) y explorado en otras investigaciones sobre SAC. Hicimos pruebas piloto del protocolo en Hawái y Columbia Británica. En cada localidad entrevistamos a 30 individuos de diversos entornos. Analizamos los resultados de las dos localidades para determinar la efectividad del protocolo de entrevista en la obtención de valores no materiales. Los componentes cualitativos y espaciales del protocolo nos ayudaron a caracterizar los valores culturales, sociales y éticos asociados con el ecosistema de múltiples maneras. Los mapas y las preguntas de situación, o de tipo viñeta, ayudaron a los encuestados a articular valores difíciles de discutir. Las preguntas abiertas permitieron a los encuestados expresar una diversidad de valores ambientales y demostraron ser suficientemente flexibles para que los encuestados comunicaran valores que el protocolo no buscaba explícitamente. Finalmente, los resultados sugieren que ciertos valores, aquellos mencionados frecuentemente en la entrevista, son particularmente prominentes para poblaciones particulares. El protocolo puede proporcionar datos eficientes, contextuales y basados en lugar sobre la importancia de atributos ambientales particulares para el bienestar humano. Los datos cualitativos son complementarios para las evaluaciones cuantitativas y espaciales en la representación comprensiva de los valores de los valores que pertenecen a los ecosistemas. Este protocolo puede ayudar a incorporar valores frecuentemente ignorados en el proceso de toma de decisiones.

Narrative valuation in a policy judgment context

Much natural resource policy work stresses the importance of involving lay and expert stakeholders in a dialogue about environmental values pertaining to decisions about land management. To this end, there is growing interest in value elicitation techniques that: (a) provide alternatives to values expressed as willingness to pay formulas; and (b) do a good job of representing the many social, ethical, scientific, or economic value dimensions of a problem and linking those dimensions to the evaluation of a specific policy. Toward these objectives, this paper explores the technique of narrati6e 6aluation, that is, the act of situating a valuation and decision problem in the context of a narrated story. It reports on an experiment that tested a narrative-based representation of a problem against a utilitarian one (didactic text) to see which representation better served the decision process. The relative proficiency of both formats was tested in the context of a policy decision about the impact of hydroelectric power production on a river’s salmon population. The narrative technique appeared better able to help participants consider relevant value information such that they could apply that information to a complex policy judgment. Some reasons for the success of the narrative condition are discussed, including the technique’s capacity for engaging participants and rendering technical information salient. The paper closes with some recommendations for further tests of narrative-based valuation tools.

Governance implications of nanomaterials companies’ inconsistent risk perceptions and safety practices

Current research on the nanotechnology industry indicates its downstream expansion at a rapid pace, while toxicological research and best practices for environmental health and safety are still being developed. Companies that use and/or produce engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) have enormous potential to influence safe-handling practices for ENMs across the product life cycle. Knowledge of both industry practices and leaders’ perceptions of risk is vital for understanding how companies will act to control potential environmental and health risks. This article reports results from a new international survey of nanomaterials companies in 14 countries. In this survey, company participants reported relatively high levels of uncertainty and/or perceived risk with regard to ENMs. However, these perspectives were not accompanied by expected risk-avoidant practices or preferences for regulatory oversight. A majority of companies indicated “lack of information” as a significant impediment to implementing nano-specific safety practices, but they also reported practices that were inconsistent with widely available guidance. Additionally, in the absence of safe-handling regulations, companies reported nano-specific health and safety programs that were narrow in scope. Taken together, these findings indicate that health and safety guidance is not reaching industry. While industry leaders’ reluctance toward regulation might be expected, their own reported unsafe practices and recognition of possible risks suggest a more top-down approach from regulators is needed to protect workers and the environment.

Poisoning the body to nourish the soul: Prioritising health risks and impacts in a Native American community

Current United States government risk assessment and management regulations fail to consider Native American definitions of health or risk. On the invitation of the Coast Salish Swinomish Indian Tribal Community of Washington State, this study examines local meanings of health in reference to seafood where contamination of their aquatic natural resources has been found. By conducting two series of interviews with Swinomish seafood consumers, experts and elders, the study allowed interviewees to provide a more complete picture of the implications of seafood contamination alongside consumption habits within the community. Study results demonstrate that seafood represents a symbolic, deeply meaningful food source that is linked to a multi-dimensional ‘Swinomish’ concept of health. A health evaluation tool using descriptive scaled rankings was devised to clarify non-physiological health risks and impacts in relation to contaminated seafood. Findings demonstrate that food security, ceremonial use, knowledge transmission, and community cohesion all play primary roles in Swinomish definitions of individual and community health and complement physical indicators of health. Thus, to eat less seafood (as prescribed on the basis of current physiological measures) may actually be detrimental to the Swinomish concept of health.