It is becoming increasingly clear that scientists, managers, lawyers, public policymakers, and the public must decide how to value what is provided by, and is a consequence of, natural resources. While “Western” scientists have clear definitions for the goods and services that ecosystems provide, we contend that these categories do not encompass the full totality of the values provided by natural resources. Partly the confusion results from a limited view of natural resources derived from the need to monetize the value of ecosystems and their component parts. Partly it derives from the “Western” way of separating natural resources from cultural resources or values, and partly it derives from the false dichotomy of assuming that ecosystems are natural, and anything constructed by man is not natural. In this article, we explore the previous assumptions, and suggest that because cultural resources often derive from, and indeed require, intact and unspoiled natural ecosystems or settings, that these values are rightly part of natural resources. The distinction is not trivial because of the current emphasis on cleaning up chemically and radiologically contaminated sites, on restoration of damaged ecosystems, on natural resource damage assessments, and on long-term stewardship goals. All of these processes depend upon defining natural resources appropriately. Several laws, regulations, and protocols depend upon natural resource trustees to protect natural resources on trust lands, which could lead to the circular definition that natural resources are those resources that the trustees feel they are responsible for. Where subsistence or tribal peoples are involved, the definition of natural resources should be broadened to include those ecocultural attributes that are dependent upon, and have incorporated, natural resources. For example, a traditional hunting and fishing ground is less valued by subsistence peoples if it is despoiled by contamination or physical ecosystem degradation; an Indian sacred ground is tarnished if the surrounding natural environment is degraded; a traditional homeland is less valued if the land itself is contaminated. Our argument is that intact natural resources are essential elements of many cultural resources, and this aspect requires and demands adequate consideration (and may therefore require compensation).

Increasingly managers and scientists are recognizing that solving environmental problems requires the inclusion of a wide range of disciplines, governmental agencies, Native American tribes, and other stakeholders. Usually such inclusion involves communication at the problem-formulation phase, and at the end to report findings. This paper examines participatory research, the differences between the traditional stakeholder involvement method of communication (often one-way, at the beginning and the end), compared to full collaboration, where parties are actively involved in the scientific process. Using the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Amchitka Island in the Aleutians as a case study, we demonstrate that the inclusion of Aleut people throughout the process resulted in science that was relevant not only to the agency’s needs and to the interested and affected parties, but that led to a solution. Amchitka Island was the site of three underground nuclear tests from 1965 to 1971, and virtually no testing of radionuclide levels in biota, subsistence foods, or commercial fish was conducted after the 1970s. When DOE announced plans to close Amchitka, terminating its managerial responsibility, without any further testing of radionuclide levels in biota, there was considerable controversy, which resulted in the development of a Science Plan to assess the potential risks to the marine environment from the tests. The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) was the principle entity that developed and executed the science plan. Unlike traditional science, CRESP embarked on a process to include the Alaskan Natives of the Aleutian Islands (Aleuts), relevant state and federal agencies, and other stakeholders at every phase. Aleuts were included in the problem-formulation, research design refinement, the research, analysis of data, dissemination of research findings, and public communication. This led to agreement with the results, and to developing a path forward (production of a biomonitoring plan designed to provide early warning of any future radionuclide leakage and ecosystem/human health risks). The process outlined was successful in resolving a previously contentious situation by inclusion and collaboration with the Aleuts, among others, and could be usefully applied elsewhere to complex environmental problems where severe data gaps exist.

Background Q fever is a febrile illness caused by infection with the bacterium Coxiella burnetii. It is most often transmitted by inhalation of the bacteria after it is shed by infected livestock. Recent studies have found very high C. burnetii infection rates among marine mammals, but it is not known if shedding by marine mammals creates a risk of Q fever among humans. To better understand infection of humans with exposure to marine mammals, the prevalence of antibodies against C. burnetii in serum samples taken from Alaskan Native persons residing on the Pribilof Islands was evaluated. The Pribilof Islands support large populations of northern fur seals infected with C. burnetii that may increase the risk of exposure for island residents. Methods Serum testing for IgG antibodies against C. burnetii (phase I and phase II) was performed, and demographic data were analysed utilizing banked serum specimens drawn from island residents from 1980 to 2000. Results The overall seroprevalence rate was 11.6% (95% CI = 9.3%–14.4%; 72/621). This is higher than the previously reported 3.1% (95% CI = 2.1%–4.3%) seroprevalence for the U.S. population. Conclusions These results suggest that Alaskan Native persons may be at higher risk for exposure to C. burnetii than the general US. population, possibly due to proximity to large populations of infected marine mammals.