Economic Botany 58(2) pp. 161–171. 2004q 2004 by The New York Botanical Garden Press, Bronx, NY 10458-5126 U.S.A.

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PRESERVATION OF

LOWCOUNTRY SOUTH CAROLINA SWEETGRASS

(MUHLENBERGIA FILIPES [M. A. CURTIS] J. PINSON AND

W. BATSON) BASKETRY1

ZACHARY H. HART, ANGELA C. HALFACRE, AND MARIANNE K. BURKE

Hart, Zachary H., Angela C. Halfacre (Master of Environmental Studies Program and De-partment of Political Science, College of Charleston, 66 George St., Charleston, South Carolina29424, USA; e-mail: density27@hotmail.com and halfacrea@cofc.edu), and Marianne K.Burke (USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Center for Forested Wetlands Re-search, 2730 Savannah Hwy., Charleston, South Carolina 29414, USA; mburke@fs.fed.us).COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PRESERVATION OF LOWCOUNTRY SOUTH CAROLINA SWEETGRASS

(MUHLENBERGIA FILIPES [M. A. CURTIS] J. PINSON AND W. BATSON) BASKETRY. Economic Botany58(2):161–171, 2004. Sweetgrass (Muhlenbergia filipes [M. A. Curtis] J. Pinson and W. Batson)is a coastal, nontimber forest resource ranging from North Carolina southwestward to Texas.The plant has special cultural and economic importance in coastal South Carolina, where thelocal Gullah community uses this resource in a form of coiled basketry. The plant is becomingincreasingly unavailable to basket makers, however, because of habitat destruction, habitatlimitation, and private ownership of the resource. This study examines stakeholder involvementin and perceptions of past and current sweetgrass management. Twenty-three interviews wereconducted with Charleston, South Carolina area basket makers and were analyzed for emergentthemes using content analysis, a technique permitting objective analysis of text. Survey respon-dents identified residential development as a major cause of sweetgrass inaccessibility andindicated that purchasing raw materials has become standard practice. Furthermore, respon-dents indicated several potential solutions to the problem and expressed their willingness tocontribute time to management efforts.

Key Words: Conservation; Muhlenbergia filipes; non-timber forest resource; South Carolina;sweetgrass basketry.

Current developments in environmental poli-cy have increasingly emphasized public partici-pation in decision-making processes (Beierleand Konisky 2000). As our awareness of the in-sufficiencies of traditional hierarchical, com-mand-and-control environmental managementstrategies has increased (Parker and Selman1999), the push for more public participation hasbeen driven largely by optimism about its abilityto improve the quality of environmental deci-sions (Beierle and Konisky 2000). Avenues forpublic participation vary widely, including pub-lic hearings and forums, citizen committees, ref-erendums and initiatives, surveys, and focusgroups. Although it is generally agreed that pub-lic involvement in environmental decision mak-ing produces more widely accepted outcomes,

1 Received 9 July 2003; accepted 20 January 2004.

there is no overarching, unifying theme that ex-plains why some programs work and others fail(Beierle and Konisky 2000; Spyke 1999). Manyquestions exist about the most effective venuefor eliciting public involvement in various sce-narios. Although it is widely embraced, publicinvolvement is a concept that is far from refined,and debates about the quality and process ofpublic involvement abound.

In the South Carolina Lowcountry, an envi-ronmental issue of local importance offers agreat opportunity to incorporate public involve-ment into decision-making processes and pro-vides a framework for eliciting stakeholder inputin similar scenarios. The issue is dwindling sup-plies of sweetgrass (Muhlenbergia filipes [M. A.Curtis] J. Pinson and W. Batson), a native coast-al grass that is used by local Gullah people in aform of coiled basketry first practiced in Africa.

162 [VOL. 58ECONOMIC BOTANY

Sweetgrass baskets are a source of income andcultural pride for many of those who make them,and the baskets have become an historical iconfor the Charleston, South Carolina area wheremost of the baskets are made and sold. Thesweetgrass on which basket makers depend,however, has become increasingly scarce be-cause of habitat destruction and limitation. Fur-thermore, many large sweetgrass populationsthat do exist are inaccessible to basket makersbecause of private property restrictions. Somebasket makers now buy the material at highcosts from others who travel as far as Georgiaand Florida to harvest or ‘‘pull’’ the grass, andunless local supplies are made more widelyavailable, the art form may soon disappear.

In this study, we conducted a survey of basketmakers in the Charleston area to assess how bestto undertake future sweetgrass management andincorporate stakeholders into those efforts. Weinterviewed 23 basket makers about their useand management of the resource as well as theirconcerns and ideas regarding the scarcity andinaccessibility of sweetgrass. Using contentanalysis, a technique to draw data objectivelyfrom text, we identified in interview transcriptsmultiple themes that address our research ques-tion: What are stakeholders’ views of and rolesin past and current sweetgrass management? Inaddressing this question, we provide the foun-dation for a sweetgrass management plan. Moregenerally, we illustrate a democratic, non con-frontational methodology for incorporating pub-lic involvement into local environmental deci-sion making.

SOUTH CAROLINA LOWCOUNTRY COILEDBASKETRY

South Carolina Lowcountry coiled baskets arepresently constructed from four primary plantmaterials: blades or ‘‘threads’’ of sweetgrass,strips of the leaves of palm (Sabal palmetto C.Loddiges), needles of the longleaf pine (Pinuspalustris P. Miller), and cuttings of black rush(Juncus roemerianus G. Scheele). Althoughthree of the four plants used in the baskets arefairly widely available through collection in thewild or cheap purchase from collectors, sweet-grass is needed in the greatest quantity but is themost difficult one to obtain (Derby 1980).Sweetgrass is a long-stemmed plant that occursnaturally in clumps landward of the second duneline at beaches, as well as in the boundaries be-

tween marsh and woods (Rosengarten 1986).The former of these two habitats has been iden-tified with a number of terms including ‘‘mari-time wet grassland,’’ ‘‘mesic slack,’’ ‘‘dunetrough,’’ and ‘‘low interdune meadow’’ (Ohlandt1992). In their description of the maritime wetgrassland, Schafale and Weakley (1990) list M.filipes as a dominant species. Landowners havetraditionally burned these coastal plain habitatsto prevent the growth of thick shrubs and scrubtrees (Barry 1980), but the current regulation ofthis practice allows hardier species to encroachupon the area. Sweetgrass collectors have tra-ditionally distinguished between a ‘‘coarse’’grass that grows in more sunlit areas and a‘‘fine’’ grass that results from growth in deepershade (Derby 1980), but some basket makerspresently also distinguish a medium-gauge grassthat is especially versatile for basketry. Perdue(1968) argues that the very name of the plant,sweetgrass, is an ill-applied misnomer that prob-ably resulted from confusion with true sweetgrass, Hierochloe odorata (L.) G. Wahlenberg,which occurs in much of Canada and the north-ern United States and has been used in compa-rable forms of Native American basketry. Theterm ‘‘sweetgrass basket’’ has claimed an iden-tity of its own, however, and admirers of thebaskets usually enjoy the mildly fragrant, hay-scented material. For some time, there was con-siderable debate about whether sweetgrass wasa variety of another Muhly grass (Muhlenbergiacapillaris [J. Lamarck] C. Trinius) or a distinctspecies (Rosengarten 1986), but Pinson and Bat-son in 1971 determined sweetgrass to be mor-phologically distinct from M. capillaris.

Sweetgrass basketry is practiced almost ex-clusively by the descendants of enslaved Afri-cans brought to the South Carolina coast fromwestern Africa for labor on rice plantations.Known as the Gullah people, this close-knitcommunity resides in the state’s Lowcountry, in-cluding its many nearby sea islands, in parts ofFlorida, and in coastal and island Georgia,where they are more commonly referred to asGeechee people (Gullah/Geechee Special Re-source Study 2001). Basket-making skills werecarried over from slaves’ homelands and quicklyadapted to raw materials available on the Low-country coast. The basketry was introduced tothe United States in the late 17th century (Ro-sengarten 1986), documented as early as 1730,and commonplace on southern plantations by

2004] 163HART ET AL.: SOUTH CAROLINA SWEETGRASS

1850 (Teleki 1975). The early history of theLowcountry basket parallels the rise of rice cul-ture (Rosengarten 1986, 1997). Initially, mendominated the craft (Derby 1980), and basketswere constructed with thick and tough blackrush (Juncus roemerianus) combined with thinsplits of white oak (Quercus alba L.) or stripsof saw palmetto (Serenoa repens [Bartram] J. K.Small) for binding (Rosengarten 1986). Thesebaskets were used for everyday agricultural andhousehold purposes and were viewed more asobjects of necessity than objects of art. Aroundthe turn of the 20th century, however, a groupof black families in Mount Pleasant, South Car-olina, began mass-producing more delicate‘‘show baskets’’ made from sweetgrass andbound with strips of palmetto leaf (Rosengarten1986). Sales of these baskets provided importantincome for basket makers during the agriculturaldepressions that followed the 1890s, hurricanesof the early 1900s, and the arrival of the bollweevil in 1918 (Rosengarten 1986). From atleast the 1920s, many men began leaving farmsfor the military and for employment in the grow-ing industrial sector (Derby 1980), and aboutthis time, women came to dominate the craft(Rosengarten 1986). Baskets produced by Low-country artisans most closely resemble thoseproduced in Senegambia, Angola, and the Con-go (Rosengarten 1986, 1997; Twining 1978). Te-leki (1975) asserts that Lowcountry baskets soclosely resemble recent Senegambian basketsthat the two are difficult to distinguish. Rosen-garten (1986) has provided a comprehensive ex-amination of the preparations and techniquesused with these raw materials. Although a vari-ety of basket forms have evolved since the in-troduction of the art to the Southeast, the basicdesigns used centuries ago are still produced andsold by most basket makers today.

One of the first academic treatments of sweet-grass basketry was offered by Perdue (1968). Inhis report, the author misidentifies the maincomponent of the sweetgrass baskets as Sporo-bolus gracilis (C. Trinius) E. Merrill and givesa rather unflattering description of the artisticprocess and the baskets themselves. In contrast,Derby (1980) insists that the construction of thebaskets requires a great deal more thought, en-ergy, and work than the average person not in-volved in production would expect. In any case,sweetgrass baskets are currently highly prizedand provide a major source of income for many

of those who make them. Sweetgrass basketshave been displayed at museums and exhibits allover the world. As the art of coiled basketry hasradiated from the Mount Pleasant area whenbasket makers married or moved away (Rosen-garten 1986), the baskets have become well rec-ognized and sought after as pieces of art (Fig.1). As early as 1975 (Teleki 1975), however, itwas recognized that residential development inMount Pleasant—with associated habitat de-struction and private property restrictions—wasdecreasing supplies of the resource. Additional-ly, fire suppression and possibly changes inmoisture saturation levels have markedly re-duced the extent of sweetgrass habitat (Burke etal. 2003). Heavy commercial development in theprimary area where baskets are sold is dislocat-ing some basket makers’ places of business. TheGullah people who make sweetgrass baskets arethreatened by lack of jobs, encroaching devel-opment, and diminishing population (Gullah/Geechee Special Resource Study 2001). Coiledbasketry exists as one of the most visible ves-tiges of this culture, and the art form has a claimto history almost equal to the oldest objects pro-duced in the region by non indigenous people(Rosengarten 1997). There exists a realisticthreat that this culturally and economically sig-nificant form of basketry may soon disappear ifraw materials become increasingly difficult toobtain.

STUDY AREA

Sweetgrass baskets are sold at three main lo-cations in the Charleston area. Most basket mak-ers work from our primary study site, a stretchalong Highway 17 North, the ‘‘Old Ocean High-way,’’ in Mount Pleasant, and extending northinto adjoining Berkeley County, South Carolina.The basket makers sell their wares in this areafrom open-air, wooden display stands that linethe shoulder of the busy highway (Fig. 1). Bas-kets are usually hung on nails on the stands toattract the attention of passing tourists as the art-ists work continually from within the stands orin their automobiles. These roadside displaysdate back to the early 1900s (Fig. 2), and theirform and size evolved quickly with the pavingand increased use of the highway in the 1920sand 1930s (Derby 1980). Today, many of thestands appear dilapidated and weather-beaten,but some have been refurbished or only recentlyconstructed. A small number of stands have

164 [VOL. 58ECONOMIC BOTANY

Fig. 1. Upper: Exceptional coiled baskets made with sweetgrass, bulrush, pine, and palmetto; Lower: Amodern basket stand along Highway 17 N in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina (photos 2002, by Zac Hart).

2004] 165HART ET AL.: SOUTH CAROLINA SWEETGRASS

Fig. 2. An early basket stand with the artist work-ing inside, 1938, by USDA Forest Service.

amenities like plastic walls to protect the basketmakers from inclement weather, or enclosedwooden rooms attached to or nearby the stands.The first basket stand lies on the eastern side ofthe highway 0.7 miles north of the Highway 526overpass in Mount Pleasant. From this point, thestands are almost evenly distributed on eitherside of the highway for approximately 9.5 miles.Approximately 81 stands lie along this stretch,but not all are still in use, and heavy develop-ment in recent years along the busy corridorcontinues to displace some basket makers. Bas-ket makers typically occupy the stands duringthe late morning and early afternoon hours ofpleasant days, Monday through Saturday. An oc-cupied stand on a Sunday is an uncommon sight.Sweetgrass baskets are sold almost year-roundfrom these stands, but many basket makers workfrom home during the harshest winter months toreplenish their inventory for the upcoming tour-ist season.

Approximately 10 basket makers sell theirwares in an area of downtown Charleston knownas The Four Corners of Law at the intersectionof Meeting and Broad Streets. This area servedas our secondary study site. Here, basket makerswork from lawn chairs or their automobiles andsimply lay their products on the wide sidewalksto entice passing pedestrians. The vending hoursand seasons of basket makers in this area aresimilar to those in Mount Pleasant, and again,vendors rarely appear on Sundays at the loca-tion.

Approximately 20 basket makers sell theirwares in downtown Charleston’s Old City Mar-ket. Originally constructed in 1841 and sincethen destroyed and rebuilt (Derby 1980), themarket is today a heavily trafficked shoppingarea and major tourist attraction. Baskets at thislocation are sold either from display tables in-side the market or at unsheltered spots just out-side the four buildings that constitute the market.Both of these types of vending sites must berented. Basket makers at this location typicallyoccupy their vending sites more than those atothers. Many basket makers in the market beginselling their wares in the early morning andsometimes do not leave until late evening. Bas-ket sales on Sundays and throughout the winterare common. Often crowded and noisy, the at-mosphere of the Old City Market is considerablydifferent from other areas where sweetgrass bas-kets are sold.

DATA AND METHODOLOGY

To assess stakeholders’ views of and roles inpast and current sweetgrass management, weconducted 23 interviews with Charleston areabasket makers between June 2002 and January2003. Of these interviews, 13 were conducted atbasket stands in Mount Pleasant and 3 at basketmakers’ vending locations at The Four Cornersof Law in downtown Charleston. We conducted4 of the 23 interviews at respondents’ homes, 2at public meeting spots (the Charleston CountyLibrary and the Sewee Visitor Center), and 1 ata basket maker’s workplace. Although at leastone Old City Market basket vendor was inter-viewed in the study, we did not use the marketas a study area in this project because noise lev-els and the more business-oriented atmosphereof the area would not likely allow effective in-terviewing.

We identified our interviewees through twonon-probability sampling techniques: snowballand convenience sampling. In snowball sam-pling, subjects with particular attributes are iden-tified, interviewed or surveyed, and then askedto refer others who possess similar attributes(Berg 2001). Those referrals are then contacted,and the process is repeated if necessary. In thisstudy, several basket makers involved in publicbasketry demonstrations were initially targetedbecause of their presumably high levels ofknowledge, community involvement, and inter-est in preserving the craft. Snowball sampling in

166 [VOL. 58ECONOMIC BOTANY

this study, however, was largely unsuccessfulbecause many basket makers were either hesi-tant to refer others or simply did not know oth-ers that they thought would be interested in par-ticipating in the study.

Convenience sampling, a technique that ‘‘re-lies on available subjects—those who are closeat hand or easily accessible’’ (Berg 2001), wasthen employed. Basket makers who happened tobe vending during researcher trips into the fieldwere asked to participate in the study and thenasked for the names of referrals. We made con-siderable efforts to make field excursions atvarying times and on different days of the weekto make contact with a variety of basket makers.A total of approximately 60 basket makers wereapproached through both sampling techniques inthe course of the study, and 23 were inter-viewed.

A semi-standardized structure was applied toall interviews. Respondents were asked ques-tions concerning sweetgrass use and manage-ment from an interview schedule but were en-couraged to elaborate on topics by asking prob-ing questions. The wording of scheduled inter-view questions as well as probes varied amonginterviews, because the educational level of bas-ket makers was varied considerably. These in-terviews typically lasted for 30 to 45 min, andall except one were audiotape-recorded. Afterinterviews, we administered to all basket makersshort questionnaires assessing demographic in-formation.

Interview tapes were then transcribed verba-tim into written text and analyzed using quali-tative content analysis. Content analysis is abroadly applicable tool that can be generally de-fined as a technique in which the content of amessage is objectively and methodically exam-ined to isolate data of value. Berg (2001) hasprovided an excellent overview of this tech-nique. In the content analysis of our study data,we first scrutinized interview transcripts andidentified a number of emergent or recurrentthemes expressed by the basket makers. Individ-ual transcripts were then coded with respect tothese emergent themes, and the prevalence ofthe themes was reported through frequencycounts of interviewed basket makers expressingthem. Interviewee illustrations of these themesare included as quotations in the Results section.We reported demographic data assessed in ques-

tionnaires through univariate statistics, again asfrequency counts.

RESULTS

DEMOGRAPHICS

All survey respondents in this study were fe-male. Although two male basket makers wereapproached during researcher trips into the field,one declined to participate and one could not bereached for interviewing after initial contact.The average year of birth among survey respon-dents was 1944. The most elderly respondentwas born in 1926 and the youngest in 1963. Ten(43%) survey respondents identified their pri-mary occupation as basketry, and several differ-ent titles were used to describe this occupation:basket maker, basket weaver, sweetgrass artist,and educational artist. Six (26%) respondentsidentified themselves as retirees, five (22%) asemployees, and two (9%) as having no occu-pation or unemployed.

Fourteen (61%) survey respondents reportedresiding in zip code 29466, the less developedarea of Mount Pleasant, northeast of ‘‘urban’’Mount Pleasant. Seven (30%) reported living in‘‘urban’’ Mount Pleasant with zip code 29464,and two respondents reported living in areas out-side of Mount Pleasant. Twenty-two (96%) ofthe basket makers surveyed in this study report-ed having at least one child.

STAKEHOLDER VIEWS AND PRACTICES

The primary goal of this study was to identifycommon views and practices of basket makersthat might aid in development of an effective,long-term sweetgrass management plan. Weidentified seven such views and practices (Table1) through content analysis of basket maker in-terview transcripts and represent them here asthemes: (1) basket maker has purchased sweet-grass from collectors; (2) residential develop-ment is a reason for the unavailability of sweet-grass; (3) the dedication of local land to sweet-grass cultivation would help make sweetgrassmore available; (4) outside assistance wouldhelp make sweetgrass more available; (5) edu-cational outreach would help make sweetgrassmore available; (6) basket maker expresses nopreference regarding sources of assistance; (7)basket maker is willing to donate time to resto-ration efforts.

(1) Basket maker has purchased sweetgrassfrom collectors. Although it is common knowl-

2004] 167HART ET AL.: SOUTH CAROLINA SWEETGRASS

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF THEMES IDENTIFIED THROUGH INTERVIEW CONTENT ANALYSIS.

ThemeNo. respondents

reporting% respondents

reporting

(1) Basket maker has purchased sweetgrass from collectors 18/23 78%(2) Residential development is a reason for the unavailability of

sweetgrass 23/23 100%(3) The dedication of local land to sweetgrass cultivation would

help make sweetgrass more available 20/23 87%(4) Outside assistance would help make sweetgrass more available 19/23 83%(5) Educational outreach would help make sweetgrass more avail-

able 17/23 74%(6) Basket maker expresses no preference regarding sources of as-

sistance 14/23 61%(7) Basket maker is willing to donate time to restoration efforts 17/23 74%

edge to those familiar with the basket-makingcommunity that some basket makers now pur-chase rather than collect raw materials, littledocumentation exists to suggest the extent towhich this practice has become widespread. Inthis study, 18 (78%) survey respondents indi-cated that they had at some time purchasedsweetgrass from others who collect it. Some bas-ket makers admitted never having collected thegrass themselves. Most, however, indicated thatalthough they had collected the grass themselvesin the past, they now purchase some or all ofthe sweetgrass that they use. Purchasing sweet-grass from collectors was described as standardpractice by many survey respondents:

‘‘Well usually like I said this man outside now, hegoes out and get them (sweetgrass), and I get most ofmy grass and stuff from him. And like I said I knowpeople who go as far as Florida just to find it and bringit back to us here.’’

‘‘I used to do it (collect the grass), but right nowI’m buying because where they have to go to collectthe grass, I haven’t been able to go to those areas.’’

The collectors were consistently identified asmen—sometimes members of the basket-makingcommunity who made trips from Charleston tocollect the grass, and sometimes residents ofother areas in Florida, Georgia, and South Car-olina who harvested the grass and made trips toCharleston to sell it to basket makers. Some bas-ket makers expressed anger and frustration at thehigh prices that the collectors charge for the ma-terial, because these prices must ultimately bereflected in the cost of the baskets, which tomany tourists seems surprisingly high. Anotherindicated that the high price of the grass nega-

tively affected the development of basket-mak-ing skills among the younger members of thecommunity:

‘‘And in fact it got to one point where my daughter,my son, and two of my nieces were wanting to learn,but unfortunately the sweetgrass was so scarce I justcould not afford to allow them to play with it, youknow, to learn more. I mean they know how to weavea little bit, my children, but you know I just couldn’tafford it.’’

(2) Residential development is a reason forthe unavailability of sweetgrass. Every basketmaker surveyed in this project identified resi-dential development in the Charleston area as areason for the difficulty in obtaining sweetgrass.Many basket makers described development asa threat to basketry in two respects. First, de-velopment in coastal and wetland areas is re-sponsible for much destruction of sweetgrasshabitat. Second, plants that are not destroyed bynearby development often become the propertyof landowners and therefore off-limits to thebasket makers who depend on them. Many bas-ket makers indicated that although abundantsupplies of sweetgrass still exist in the Charles-ton area and on nearby sea islands like KiawahIsland, the grass is not accessible to basket mak-ers because of private property restrictions andthe ‘‘gated’’ nature of some communities wherethe grass is located. Although survey respon-dents reported various points at which develop-ment began to have a noticeable impact onsweetgrass accessibility, everyone interviewedin this study agreed that development has hadan impact on the resource:

168 [VOL. 58ECONOMIC BOTANY

‘‘You know they’re getting near the water and theswampy areas. They’re building up just so they canput new houses. They’re bulldozing all of our plantsdown you know, and private property now, the peoplejust won’t let you in to get it. Even though some ofthese places still have sweetgrass, you cannot get inthere to get them even if you know somebody. Youjust can’t get in.’’

‘‘They’re having a hard time because some of theplaces where the grass is growing is private propertyand we can’t go on it. So there are some people whoI think are in trouble, you know, trespassing, and likeI said they have to go out a whole lot farther than theyused to go, like Florida and Georgia. . .’’

‘‘It’s very scarce because the gentlemen and the peo-ple that own the property, the water land, they buildhomes near that area. The grass situation becomes veryscarce because people shutting off the property anddon’t want you to come on it.’’

(3) The dedication of land to sweetgrass cul-tivation would help make sweetgrass more avail-able. Twenty (87%) of the surveyed basket mak-ers indicated that the dedication of land tosweetgrass cultivation would ease the problemof its inaccessibility. Some basket makers notedthat acquisition or ownership of that land wouldnot be necessary, only the use of the land and acertain degree of access to the land for the bas-ket makers. Many respondents indicated that alarge-scale project would be necessary to meetthe needs of the basket-making community, andsome believed that stipulations regarding theharvesting of the material would be necessary toensure equitable distribution of the resource.Some basket makers expressed preference forcultivation sites in the Mount Pleasant area, be-cause most basket makers live there and the artform has such strong historical roots in the area:

‘‘I think what we need [is] . . . a land big enough,like a farm-sized land, and really actually plant thesweetgrass and make it enough to where you can reallysee that I know I can depend on this sweetgrass foryears and years and years. I think, um, that would helpout a lot because you will find a lot of basket makerswill come out and actually use it.’’

‘‘Well, I think this side is where the basket is beingmade. This is the area where it was founded. So tome, they should have some property over here wherewe can plant it.’’

‘‘First thing is we need the land. Then you can goon from that.’’

(4) Outside assistance would help makesweetgrass more available. Nineteen (83%) sur-

vey respondents indicated that assistance fromsources outside of the basket-making commu-nity would be helpful in making sweetgrassmore available. Basket makers recognized thatsuccessful management efforts would requiremany costly resources and considerable labor,and accepted that these might come from exter-nal groups or citizens:

‘‘You know, [assistance from] people with the re-sources, people with the property, people who can helpus get into where we can’t go. That’ll help us a lot.’’

Many respondents noted past instances inwhich outside groups have attempted to restorethe grass or help the basket makers, and ex-pressed eagerness and optimism at the idea offurther assistance from such groups. Basketmakers generally contended that assistance fromsources external to the basket-making commu-nity would be both welcomed and helpful:

‘‘They would love that (outside assistance). I knowthey would love it . . . No one would really turn downsome help.’’

‘‘Oh, we would definitely accept any help that weget.’’

‘‘The more the merrier.’’

(5) Educational outreach would help makesweetgrass more available. Despite basket mak-ers’ expertise regarding the harvesting and useof sweetgrass, many felt that knowledge ofsweetgrass ecology and physiology was inade-quate within the basket-making community.Seventeen (74%) survey respondents indicatedthat educational outreach with respect to sweet-grass science and cultivation would help makethe resource more available. Several basketmakers said that a meeting or conference wouldlikely be the most effective venue for such out-reach. Some basket makers indicated that, al-though the transmission of this knowledgewould be generally helpful, the typically smallyards of basket makers would not allow self-sustaining home cultivation. Many respondentsfelt, however, that the area in which most of thebasket-making community resides would besuitable habitat for the plant and that those withadequately sized yards would likely be success-ful in home cultivation efforts:

‘‘Yeah, that [educational outreach] would help too,you know, because I’m pretty sure they could findspots in their back yard to grow it.’’

2004] 169HART ET AL.: SOUTH CAROLINA SWEETGRASS

‘‘Probably teaching how to do [cultivate] it wouldbe a helpful thing.’’

‘‘Yeah, that [educational outreach] would be [help-ful]. Yeah, and knowing how to test the soil out toknow if this is the right soil for the grass to grow inthe area.’’

(6) Basket maker expresses no preference re-garding sources of assistance. Preferences andlevels of trust will undoubtedly affect the out-come of any sweetgrass management efforts thatincorporate assistance from groups outside ofthe basket-making community. If the basketmakers themselves are not comfortable withgroups assisting in management, then those ef-forts will probably not be as successful as theycould be. In this study, 14 (61%) survey respon-dents expressed no preference whatsoever withregard to sources of sweetgrass restoration as-sistance. Although several basket makers iden-tified specific groups that they would like to in-volve in future management efforts, includingthe City of Charleston, Boone Hall Plantation inMount Pleasant, and local historic groups, onlyone basket maker expressed distrust for a spe-cific group, the Town of Mount Pleasant. Manybasket makers declined to discuss trust and pref-erence issues, because they felt that such state-ments should arise through community discus-sion and be representative of the entire basket-making community. In general, however, basketmakers expressed an urgent need for measuresto increase sweetgrass accessibility and open-ness to assistance from any willing source:

‘‘I think we’d trust anybody. I think people are try-ing to help but I don’t know bottom line what weneed.’’

‘‘They [basket makers] know they need the help, sothey’ll trust anybody. It ain’t no thing in the trust.We’ll work together.’’

‘‘I don’t think [prefer] no particular group becausewhat we have to do is get some grass.’’

(7) Basket maker is willing to donate time torestoration efforts. Seventeen (74%) of the bas-ket makers surveyed in this study indicated thattime would be their most likely contribution tofuture management efforts. Although many re-spondents reported being in poor health or phys-ically unable to perform more strenuous aspectsof restoration, they described their willingnessand ability to act as liaisons between the sweet-grass community and others involved in man-

agement efforts. Several basket makers indicatedtheir willingness to make monetary contribu-tions to management efforts, but time was themost likely avenue for stakeholder involvementfor most survey respondents:

‘‘I don’t think y’all will have no problem with vol-unteers coming out there to help you because it’s gon-na benefit us . . . more than anybody else.’’

‘‘Time and labor I can do. Maybe some money de-pending on how I sell my baskets. Anything to im-prove the situation, you know, because I’m only goingto be sewing for a few more years, but I’m thinkingabout the ones that are coming behind me.’’

‘‘Money I don’t have, but time and labor I will par-ticipate in. And like I said I don’t have the money, soif somebody else has the resources I will gladly givemy time and labor.’’

DISCUSSION

In their search for the prized raw material,members of the sweetgrass community facemany challenges. First, rapid growth and devel-opment in coastal South Carolina destroy andlimit access to existing populations of the plant.Sweetgrass usually goes unnoticed when beach-front and marsh view property is disturbed forconstruction and other purposes, and the plantsthat do survive often become private propertyand therefore off-limits to the basket makers.Moreover, ecological variables such as fire sup-pression and possibly changes in hydroperiodshave reduced the extent of natural sweetgrasshabitat (Burke et al. 2003). The suppression offires in sweetgrass habitat allows hardier shrubsand tree species to encroach upon and easily outcompete the low-growing plant. Sweetgrass bas-ket makers are also challenged in finding placesto sell their wares. Some basket stands alongHighway 17 have been displaced through de-velopment along the rapidly growing corridor,leaving basket makers with few other locationsto market their goods. Finally, basket makers arechallenged by influences inherent to the plantitself. Sweetgrass must grow for 2 to 3 yearsbefore the ‘‘threads’’ are of reasonable lengthand strength to use in the baskets; thus success-fully planted seedlings of the plant must be tend-ed for some time before providing a ‘‘payoff.’’The plant also develops a bright pink floweraround October, after which time it translocatesits carbohydrates and the blades become brownand more brittle. Basket makers generally do not

170 [VOL. 58ECONOMIC BOTANY

pull the ‘‘threads’’ after this flower has devel-oped and must wait for April or May to begincollecting new, green blades of sweetgrass. Thisis a relatively short time frame for basket makersto obtain enough sweetgrass to sustain them-selves through the late fall and winter.

Several efforts to restore sweetgrass havebeen made in the recent past. In 1988, a confer-ence was held in Charleston to bring togethercoastal resource managers, politicians, scientists,and basket makers in addressing the dwindlingavailability of the resource (see McKissick Mu-seum 1988). From this conference came the cre-ation of the first sweetgrass basketry organiza-tion, the Mount Pleasant Basketmakers’ Asso-ciation, commitments from various stakeholdergroups, and in 1993, the first of a series ofsweetgrass restoration efforts in the Charlestonarea. Plots of sweetgrass were planted at severalupland, protected sites over the course of themid-1990s with the hopes that these sites wouldsustain basket makers’ sweetgrass needs foryears to come. Although the plants generally didwell in the upland habitats, several other vari-ables detracted from the overall success of theprojects. Issues including basket maker access tothe privately owned sites (see Frazier 1999; Mc-Dowell 2000) and maintenance and management(see McDowell 2000) of the easily overgrownand out competed plants took a toll. Today,sweetgrass at some of these sites has becomeovergrown or disappeared. At sites where pop-ulations still exist, the grass is not abundant andis accessible only to a few basket makers.

The need for increased access to sweetgrassfor Lowcountry South Carolina basket makers isclear. The majority of basket makers surveyedin this study now buy at least some of their rawmaterials from collectors, and if collectors areforced to travel more often and farther awayfrom the Charleston area to obtain the material,it will likely become more expensive. Populationgrowth in southeastern coastal areas has beenparticularly rapid and is expected to continue(Beekman et al. 1996), making such a scenariomore probable. Many basket makers describethe art as one that is generally practiced in apredictable manner; children learn and practicebasketry early, quit making baskets around ad-olescence, and then return to the art or ‘‘pickup’’ the baskets again in their later years. Anobvious concern with this pattern is that childrenof the basket-making community today may see

the troubles that their elders are having andabandon the art. The future of sweetgrass bas-ketry may very well hinge on sustainable man-agement or restoration plans that are conceivedand developed in the near future.

The key findings of this research are that sur-veyed sweetgrass stakeholders support a numberof different management avenues and that theyare willing to contribute to management efforts.Surveyed basket makers most often identifiedthe large-scale cultivation of sweetgrass as a po-tential way to alleviate sweetgrass inaccessibil-ity. Survey respondents also indicated that assis-tance from groups external to the basket-makingcommunity would be helpful, and to a lesser de-gree that educational outreach with regard tosweetgrass ecology would help increase avail-able amounts of the resource. The answer to thesweetgrass issue probably lies in several coor-dinated efforts rather than a single measure. Pastrestoration efforts have demonstrated that sev-eral issues arise in such group efforts as sweet-grass ‘‘farms.’’ This type of project probablywould not be a panacea but might be an excel-lent focal point for a larger program aimed ateducating sweetgrass stakeholders in the crea-tion of their own sustainable supplies of the re-source. One avenue that is scarcely addressed inthis study is the possibility of opening commu-nication lines between basket makers and theresidents of nearby islands where the grassgrows abundantly but is off-limits. Althoughland owners may fear that the grass is beingdamaged through harvesting and that they willreceive nothing in return for the material, manybasket makers insist that ‘‘pulling’’ the grasshelps it to grow more vigorously and that theywould gladly exchange a coiled basket for theopportunity to harvest.

In addressing our research question regardingthe stakeholders’ views of and roles in past andcurrent sweetgrass management, we provide thefoundation for a sweetgrass management planthat may secure the well-being of a centuries-old African art, coiled basketry. Although sur-veyed stakeholders and their descendants havehistorically done and currently do little to man-age sweetgrass supplies themselves, our resultspoint toward many possibilities for educatingthose stakeholders and incorporating them intofuture management efforts. Communities grap-pling with highly localized environmental issueshave at their fingertips a number of public par-

2004] 171HART ET AL.: SOUTH CAROLINA SWEETGRASS

ticipation options but no evaluative criteria bywhich to assess their appropriateness. In thisstudy, we propose and outline a method to elicitstakeholder input effectively in a democratic,non adversarial manner to address a local andhighly relevant environmental issue.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe thank the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium for making this

study possible with funding. We thank all of the basket makers whoparticipated in the study, especially those who offered advice and instruc-tion throughout the project, opened their homes to us, allowed us tophotograph their work, and made time in busy schedules to speak withus. We thank the Historic Charleston Foundation, which generously madeavailable its archives and information. We thank John Rashford for in-valuable input and Kathy DeHaan for helpful suggestions. We also thankthose of the 2002 joint annual meeting of the Society for EcologicalRestoration/Ecological Society of America (SER/ESA) for allowing usto present preliminary results of this study, as well as those of the 2003joint annual meeting of the ESA/International Society for EcologicalModeling (ISEM) for allowing us to present our final results.

LITERATURE CITED

Barry, J. M. 1980. Natural vegetation of South Car-olina. University of South Carolina Press, Colum-bia.

Beekman, R. L., F. J. Vernberg, and W. B. Vern-berg. 1996. Sustainable development. Pages 1–5 inF. J. Vernberg, W. B. Vernberg, and T. Siewicki,eds., Sustainable development in the SoutheasternCoastal Zone. University of South Carolina, Co-lumbia.

Beierle, T. C., and D. M. Konisky. 2000. Values,conflict, and trust in participatory environmentalplanning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Manage-ment 19:587–602.

Berg, B. B. 2001. Qualitative research methods for thesocial sciences. Allyn and Bacon, NeedhamHeights, Massachusetts.

Burke, M. K., A. C. Halfacre, and Z. Hart. 2003.Decline of sweetgrass spurs restoration of coastalprairie habitat (South Carolina). Ecological Resto-ration 21:50–51.

Derby, D. D. 1980. Black women basket makers: astudy of domestic economy in Charleston County,South Carolina. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign.

Frazier, H. 1999. A struggle for sweetgrass. The Post

and Courier, Charleston, South Carolina, Monday,September 13.

Gullah/Geechee Special Resource Study. 2001. Ex-ploring the soul of Gullah culture . . . a progressreport 1, No. 1. National Park Service, SoutheastRegion, Atlanta.

McDowell, E. 2000. In search of sweetgrass for bas-ketmakers. The Post and Courier, Charleston, SouthCarolina, Sunday, December 10.

McKissick Museum. 1988. Proceedings of the Sweet-grass Basket Conference, McKissick Museum, TheUniversity of South Carolina, Columbia.

Ohlandt, K. F. 1992. Where the sweetgrass grows:the restoration of a maritime wet grassland, incor-porating harvesting of Muhlenbergia filipes. Mas-ter’s thesis, The University of Georgia, Athens.

Parker, J., and P. Selman. 1999. Local government,local people, and local agenda. Pages 18–30 in S.Buckingham-Hatfield and S. Percy, eds., Construct-ing local environmental agendas. Routledge, NewYork.

Perdue, R. E., Jr. 1968. ‘‘African’’ baskets in SouthCarolina. Economic Botany 22:289–292.

Pinson, J. N., Jr., and W. T. Batson. 1971. The statusof Muhlenbergia filipes Curtis (Poaceae). The Jour-nal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 87:188–191.

Rosengarten, D. 1986. Row upon row: sea grass bas-kets of the South Carolina Lowcountry. McKissickMuseum, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

. 1997. Social origins of the African-AmericanLowcountry basket. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard Univer-sity, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classifi-cation of the natural communities of North Caro-lina. North Carolina Heritage Program Division ofParks and Recreation, North Carolina Departmentof Environment, Health and Resources, Raleigh.

Spyke, N. P. 1999. Public participation in environ-mental decisionmaking at the new millennium:Structuring new spheres of public influence. BostonCollege Environmental Affairs Law Review 26:263–313.

Teleki, G. R. 1975. The baskets of rural America. F.P. Dutton and Co., Inc., New York.

Twining, M. A. 1978. Harvesting and heritage: Acomparison of Afro-American and American bas-ketry. Southern Folklore Quarterly 42:167.