Terre Satterfield

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the effectiveness of the ecosystem services framework in decision-making is thwarted by conflation of services, values, and benefits, and that failure to appropriately treat diverse kinds of values.

TL;DR: It is proposed 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, and it is time to engage seriously with a third class of values, one with diverse roots and current expressions: relational values.

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors develop a framework for ecosystem services research and practice, addressing three challenges: (1) non-material values are ill suited to characterization using monetary methods; (2) it is difficult to unequivocally link particular changes in socioecological systems to cultural benefits; and (3) cultural benefits are associated with many services, not just cultural ES.

TL;DR: In this article, the authors 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.

TL;DR: Indices of environmental injustice and social vulnerability were developed as part of a U.S. National Risk Survey and it was found that those who regarded themselves as vulnerable and supported belief statements consistent with the environmental justice thesis offered higher risk ratings across a range of hazards.