Finding a “Disappearing” Nontimber Forest Resource: Using Grounded Visualization to Explore Urbanization Impacts on Sweetgrass Basketmaking in Greater Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina∗

Abstract

Despite growing interest in urbanization and its social and ecological impacts on formerly rural areas, empirical research remains limited. Extant studies largely focus either on issues of social exclusion and enclosure or ecological change. This article uses the case of sweetgrass basketmaking in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, to explore the implications of urbanization, including gentrification, for the distribution and accessibility of sweetgrass, an economically important nontimber forest product (NTFP) for historically African American communities, in this rapidly growing area. We explore the usefulness of grounded visualization for research efforts that are examining the existence of "fringe ecologies" associated with NTFP. Our findings highlight the importance of integrated qualitative and quantitative analyses for revealing the complex social and ecological changes that accompany both urbanization and rural gentrification.

Dodging alligators, rattlesnakes, and backyard docks: a political ecology of sweetgrass basket-making and conservation in the South Carolina Lowcountry, USA

“…As a result, amenity-related urban and resort development has reduced both the amount of habitat, through both direct and indirect processes, and public access to remaining populations (Rosengarten 1994;Ohlandt 1992;Hurley et al 2008). Interviewees in the 2002-2003 data collection effort (Hart 2003) repeatedly discuss this theme, citing residential development as a primary reason for the difficulty in obtaining sweetgrass ).…”

“…Amenityoriented development in the region suggests that shifts in the physical preferences for homesites, along with landowners' (many of whom come from outside the lowcountry) ideas about property rights and about conservation, are important factors (Hurley et al 2008). Existing habitats for sweetgrass are found in the most valuable and in-demand areas for residential development (Hurley et al 2008). Thus, development that emphasizes recreational amenities, such as quick access to the water or natural amenities that afford spectacular views of the wetlands, streams and rivers, and the ocean (Fig.…”

Urban Foraging: A Ubiquitous Human Practice Overlooked by Urban Planners, Policy, and Research

“…These ecological dynamics are affected by social processes, along with the direct and indirect effects of climate change on species prevalence and abundance [48]. In addition to the conversion of greenspace to hardscape [21,32], remaining greenspaces may be privatised or reconceptualised as spaces for non-consumptive recreation and nature watching, resulting in the closure of de facto commons where foraging previously occurred unhindered [49,50]. Clark and Nicholas [51] surveyed 30 urban forestry master plans from North America and found an underlying prioritisation of wildlife habitat over food security that shapes urban forest planning in most cities.…”

Rural gentrification in the North Aegean Countryside (Turkey)

“…Developers divide existing field plots into smaller pieces and sell them at a profit, further causing the land use pattern to change, private property ownership to increase and open spaces and agricultural lands to decrease (Walker & Fortmann, 2003). The enclosure of large lands and increase in gated communities further changes the natural vegetation and even affect the local economy (Hurley et al, 2008;Grabbatin et al, 2011). This alteration in traditional land use is both a result of the post-productive economy, as newcomers alter the rural landscape, and its trigger on the other hand, as the new settlement patterns begin to resemble typical suburban neighborhoods and attract further investment and newcomers.…”