University of South Carolina Scholar Commons

Faculty Publications Geography, Department of

2010 Introduction: Why a political ecology of the U.S. South? P. T. Hurley

Edward R. Carr University of South Carolina - Columbia, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/geog_facpub Part of the Human Geography Commons

Publication Info Published in Southeastern Geographer, Volume 50, Issue 1, 2010, pages 99-109. © Southeastern Geographer 2010, Project MUSE Hurley, P. T. & Carr, E. R. (2010). Introduction: Why a political ecology of the U.S. South? Southeastern Geographer, 50(1), 99-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sgo.0.0063

This Article is brought to you by the Geography, Department of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ,QWURGXFWLRQ:K\D3ROLWLFDO(FRORJ\RIWKH866RXWK"

3DWULFN7+XUOH\(GZDUG5&DUU

Southeastern Geographer, Volume 50, Number 1, Spring 2010, pp. 99-109 (Article)

3XEOLVKHGE\7KH8QLYHUVLW\RI1RUWK&DUROLQD3UHVV DOI: 10.1353/sgo.0.0063

For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sgo/summary/v050/50.1.hurley.html

Access provided by Lou __ACCESS_STATEMENT__ Beth Holtz Library Endowment (13 May 2015 18:40 GMT) Forum on Political Ecology of the U.S. South Introduction: Why a Political Ecology of the U.S. South?

PATRICK T. HURLEY Ursinus College EDWARD R. CARR University of South Carolina

political ecology in/of that previous considerations often have the u.s. south? come in the context of separate literatures and concerns, aimed at different audi- Management challenges related to the ences, journals and conferences, and relationship between nature and society therefore do not truly speak the same lan- are nothing new in the U.S. South. Tech- guage. While such intellectual hetero- nical studies of rural sprawl (Wear and geneity can be an important opportunity Greis 2002; Cho et al. 2003), coastal de- for innovation, the absence of an integra- velopment (Allen and Lu 2002), environ- tive conceptual framing across these liter- mental change (TNC 2005; Early 2006), atures creates a situation where studies in and conservation have, at some level, ad- one literature contain moments of incom- dressed such challenges. So, too, a num- mensurability with studies from other lit- ber of geographers have explored the role eratures. In these moments, something that particular human-environment re- gets lost in translation between, for exam- lationships have played, for example, in ple, a study of rural sprawl and a study of urban development in New Orleans and the politics of conservation. the distribution of environmental risks It is this outcome, these moments of (Colten 2005). What then, is the purpose incommensurability that led us to think of calling for, and writing on, a political about a political ecology of the U.S. South. ecology in the U.S. South? We argue that By linking these papers under the heading political ecology is more than a new term political ecology, we are able to see how for nature-society studies (though the they speak to issues much larger than the nebulousness of the contemporary litera- cases raised in each individual paper. In ture might suggest otherwise), but funda- this sense, we can move beyond illustra- mentally about the relations of power and tive independent case studies and move knowledge that emerge in the context of toward a broader understanding of the is- particular nature-society relationships. sues and processes that shape the out- This is not to say that the studies cited comes of socionatural relationships, both above do not engage with issues of power, in the South and in broader contexts. This authority and legitimacy, but to point out sort of systematic linking is necessary, if

southeastern geographer, 50(1) 2010: pp. 99–109 100 patrick t. hurley and edward r. carr research on nature and society in the U.S. sideration of problems and management South—or political ecology more broadly solutions or best practices, to recognition —is to do more than put out fires under that particular local problems are tied particular subdisciplinary headings, or in to much larger issues that must be con- the context of particular problems. For ex- sidered if that solution is to be lasting, ample, studies of rural sprawl are gen- more than the mere treatment of a symp- erally focused on larger economic drivers tom. Some authors (Nononi 2005; Pea- of this development and its impact on the cock 2005) have recently suggested that environment and local populations. How- we are moving from an understanding of ever, we see little concern for the con- the U.S. South as exceptional, to one that struction of knowledge and authority that sees the South as reflecting, embodying prioritizes certain kinds of development and leading trends in diverse arenas of over others and often has the effect of globalization, for better or for worse. This framing debates about these impacts in newer identity, borne out of the region’s ways that may intensify social inequalities most recent experiences with a global po- or erode the unique social relations that litical economy, will require different constitute these places (i.e. Sackett 2007), framings of the socionatural events and though the sets of knowledge produced challenges that accompany this region’s about these issues are central to the out- increasing engagement with these politi- comes of particular debates in particu- cal and economic structures, if we hope lar places. Likewise, studies of community to address and manage such issues. Spe- conservation, while often recognizing the cifically, the U.S. South requires analytical struggles over meaning that shape policy tools that can identify and address the and land use outcomes, rarely examine multiple sources of these challenges with- how these struggles are shaped by rela- out recourse to tragic narratives of defeat tions of power and knowledge linked to at the hands of external forces. In doing a larger political economy, even though so, we see the potential to better address these relations define the contours of Neumann’s (2009) recent call to see re- what, at first, appear to be local discursive gions as constructed through historically struggles (Hurley and Walker 2004; Rob- contingent processes that characterize the bins 2006). Thus, in this issue we have two simultaneous transformation of society South Carolina studies that, though they and nature. While a political ecology of have emerged in what appear to be dis- the U.S. South allows us to link particular tinct intellectual realms, are addressing challenges to the regional and global pro- very similar issues. cesses and structures that produce them in Taking a critically-informed, broadly the contemporary context, it also allows us political ecological approach to diverse so- to find the commonalities among different cionatural relationships in the U.S. South, challenges that characterize the region. these papers illustrate the value of such The diversity of issues raised in these pa- integration and the larger issues of power pers should not be seen as an impediment and knowledge that it brings to the fore. to thinking about and addressing larger Further, such an approach presents the issues of political economy, power and opportunity to move past the narrow con- knowledge, but instead a reflection of the Introduction: Why a Political Ecology of the U.S. South? 101 multiple ways in which these issues are England fisheries (St. Martin 2001, 2005), materialized in particular places. There- the production and consumption of chemi- fore, it is in the development of such tools cals associated with lawns in Ohio and the that we see the potential to answer No- wider U.S. (Robbins and Sharp 2001; Rob- noni’s (2005, p 262) call for a place-based bins 2007), and economic development is- politics that can push back against un- sues in rural Pennsylvania (Che 2006). In wanted economic and environmental this special collection, we explore the changes that may result from the increas- ways political ecology is illuminating ing (or as some might suggest, a renewed) struggles over the environment in the U.S. globalization of the region. South, while suggesting the ways that this research in the U.S. South might influence political ecology in political ecological explorations outside north america the region. Initially, there was some concern over The papers in this forum speak to a the applicability of political ecology to the growing field of inquiry in political ecol- study of nature-society interactions in the ogy, the examination of nature-society re- First World or advanced capitalist con- lationships in the Global North. It is worth texts. However, McCarthy (2002) quickly briefly examining this evolving literature pointed out that a number of critical to place our concerns, and those expressed themes common within political ecology in these papers, in their intellectual con- were also prevalent in the United States: text. Although political ecology is more 1) access to and control over resources; often associated with critical research in 2) the marginality of particular groups the area of environment and development within a community; 3) livelihood consid- in the Global South, attention to areas of erations; 4) property rights and claims to the Global North—within advanced capi- resource access; and 5) the framing of lo- talism—within this subfield has blossomed cal histories, meanings, and cultures in over the past decade (Schroeder et al. terms of resource use. In the years that 2006). Indeed, Walker (2003) and, more followed, additional elements of a North recently, Neumann (2009) have argued American political ecology have emerged. that political ecology must go beyond the First, Robbins (2002) argued that greater Global South-Global North binary. Yet, attention needs to be given to the role that now that the debate over the validity of the central institutions of power play using political ecology’s tools in the Global in environmental outcomes. This means North has ended (Schroeder et al. 2006), combining analyses of the micro-politics it is fair to ask: where, geographically and of place, or informal political arenas, with thematically, has the field’s examination the realm of formal politics. One particu- of North American cases1 led us? And lar area of interest under this concern what issues have been left unexplored? is that voiced by Walker and Fortmann Since its early focus on the American (2003), who suggested that planning West, political ecology in North America arenas represent a meso-scale arena of has grown to include exploration of topics, power that is central to understanding the such as community and enclosure in New environmental struggles in First World 102 patrick t. hurley and edward r. carr places. Second, Schroeder et al. (2006, prices could be used to mobilize politi- p 163) have suggested that three common cal opposition to county-based conser- processes are important to any political vation efforts through conspiracy theory ecology of the so-called ‘‘First World’’: discourse, constructing some types of 1) examination of the linkage of global- knowledge, namely those grounded in the ized production and consumption, 2) ‘‘the science of conservation planning, as ‘‘out- partial coincidence of deindustrialization’’ side’’ influences in local matters. Similarly, and the restructuring of agricultural pol- Robbins (2006) demonstrated that par- icy in ways that have led to ‘‘Third World ticular natural resource constituencies— conditions’’ in the hearthlands of North including those with intimate knowledge America and Europe, and 3) the emer- of the ecologies that contribute to the per- gence of migration streams that have sistence of the resources valued by both brought sizable Third World populations long-time residents and newcomers—may from ‘‘Latin America, Africa, and many be silenced by powerful discursive alli- parts of Asia’’ ‘‘into the spatial heart of ances associated with social and economic capitalism.’’ changes in gentrifying communities (Rob- Writing under the American West re- bins 2006). In one of the first comparative gional heading, political ecologists have studies of environmental management in provided important insights into the con- the American West, Reed (2007a; 2007b) flicts over the environmental practices demonstrated the ways in which regional of extractive industries (McCarthy 2002; economies, ecologies, and cultures in Can- Sayre 2002; Brogden and Greenberg ada lead to uneven environmental man- 2004) and the prospects for new envi- agement in the protected areas of British ronmental management regimes (Reed Columbia and Alberta. 2007a, b) in areas where former extractive Beyond its focus on the American West, economies are being replaced by real es- North American political ecology has had tate development (Walker and Fortmann a strong thematic interest in both urban 2003; Brogden and Greenberg 2004; Hur- contexts and alternative economies. First, ley and Walker 2004; Robbins 2006). the theoretical development of urban Walker and Fortmann (2003) demon- political ecology has benefitted greatly strated that community changes in Nevada from work in North America (see Keil and County, California associated with ame- Bell 1998; Keil 2005; Heynen et al. 2006). nity in-migration resulted in competing Exploring the inequitable distribution rural capitalisms that prioritize the aes- of greenspace in Indianapolis, Heynen thetic qualities of landscape. Historically, (2006) lays bare the relationship between the county’s rural economy was tied to environmental change and class as well as landscapes of extraction, while a newer other power relations in cities around the form emphasizes the protection of natural world. In his work on urban parks in Phila- landscapes through planning and develop- delphia, Brownlow has questioned the ex- ment decisions. Related work by Hurley tent to which local environmental control and Walker (2004) demonstrated how fear becomes a mechanism for social control over the potential negative impacts of bio- and exclusion of particular groups, such as diversity conservation efforts on real estate women and children (Brownlow 2006a). Introduction: Why a Political Ecology of the U.S. South? 103

Brownlow’s work also explores the influ- sistence of subsistence activities within the ence of ‘‘inherited fragmentations,’’ or the rural spaces of advanced capitalism (Em- processes of political devolution and the ery and Pierce 2005). Whether it’s a need rescaling of social relations that result for food, medicinal, ritual, or craft-related from new neoliberal forms of urban gov- resources (or assets; see Brown 1995), the ernance (Brownlow 2006b). Byrne et al.’s existence of specific natural landscapes, (2007) historical approach to park de- and the access to the resources these pro- velopment in Los Angeles reveals the en- duce, are an integral part of the livelihood tanglement of ‘‘political, economic, eco- strategies and cultural identities of rural logical, and institutional factors’’ with resource users (Brown 1995; Emery and race, poverty, and greenspace allocation Pierce 2005) as well as a set of practices that produced the Kenneth Hahn State that are increasingly being acknowledged Recreation Area, a local park where an oil by political ecological scholars (Robbins field once stood. Although not explicitly et al. 2007). In doing so, this work both urban, Robbins’ (2007) investigation of points to and raises questions about the ‘‘lawn people’’ highlights the important potential of local livelihood practices to role that both political and moral econo- exist outside of national and global mar- mies, specifically the creation of product kets. It also challenges the ability of exist- demand by the lawncare industry on the ing conservation regimes and knowledges one hand and those concerned with prop- to recognize the legitimacy of these prac- erty values on the other, play in perpetuat- tices. But there is much work left to be ing this once peculiar American land cover done on this issue within North America, so often associated with suburbia. Rob- given the growing awareness that gath- bins’ analysis traces the changing practices ering practices are perhaps more wide- of industry and landowners, demonstrat- spread than once imagined. ing the global economic imperatives for At the end of the first decade of the 21st manufacturers of lawn-care products to Century, it is fair to say that political ecol- work tirelessly to sell a particular aes- ogy has taken root in research on the envi- thetic: the neighborhood monoculture ronment in North America. We are encour- lawn. Yet, there is certainly a need for aged by recent trends at the Association greater attention to regional distinctions of American Geographers (AAG) Annual and issues surrounding, for example, the Meeting. Of the 91 papers sponsored by ecological management of public land- the Cultural and Political Ecology spe- scapes, in the form of urban parks, or or- cialty group at the 2008 AAG meetings, 16 dinary landscapes, such as the suburban papers focused on political ecology in lawn. Indeed, alternative lawn aesthetics North America.2 A number of these con- and associated practices, such as the his- tinued common themes of inquiry, such as toric lawn aesthetics and associated prac- Walker’s (2008) examination of plan- tices among rural African Americans in ning contests in Oregon and Richmond’s the South (see Westmacott 1992), point to (2008) exploration of knowledge and potentially fruitful ground. power in Alaska’s fishery commons. Like- Second, political ecology has been at wise, Gabriel’s (2008) work continues an the forefront in acknowledging the per- important trend in excavating the eco- 104 patrick t. hurley and edward r. carr nomic and ecological relationships of ur- (2008), and others (e.g., Bullard 1990; ban gatherers with NTFPs in Philadelphia Barry 1997). In the first instance, Nesbitt parks. However, several of these papers and Weiner’s analysis may speak more to suggested a geographic and topical broad- Appalachia as a region than it does to ‘‘The ening of PE’s use within North America. South’’ more broadly, but its focus on the For example, Wilson et al. (2008) brought role of exurbanites, conservation organi- PE’s critical focus to bear on South Central zations, and federal land management sig- Pennsylvania, asking whether there is a nal key actors and histories. In the second, New East and exploring how this place is Colten’s exploration ‘‘New Orleans’’ high- similar to or different from the ‘‘New lights the dramatic efforts taken to control West,’’ while Cidel (2008) expanded the nature and their grounding within par- field’s consideration beyond natural re- ticular scientific frameworks that likely sources narrowly confined in her explora- were pervasive throughout the South, tion of LEED building standards. Likewise, while his analysis of water pollution en- Stuart’s (2008) focus on E. coli outbreaks forcement highlights the historical privi- in California’s spinach and lettuce indus- leging of natural resource protection over try demonstrate the relevance of political public health concerns. ecology to key food issues in the U.S. From Still, the seeming lack of wider atten- this sampling, it appears that the im- tion to the politics of environment and de- portance of political ecological research in velopment within this region, we suggest, North American contexts has moved well is particularly surprising, given longstand- beyond an intellectual debate within Ge- ing racial and social inequalities (e.g., the ography and its allied disciplines to wider ongoing struggles over social, economic, examination and illumination of impor- and political positionality by groups such tant policy issues. as African Americans, Appalachian High- landers, and Native Americans), historic political ecology in and as well as more recent trends in natu- of the u.s. south ral resource use and management (e.g., mountain-top removal and forestry is- Despite an explosion of interest in po- sues), dramatic transformations in agri- litical ecology as an approach to human- culture over the past few decades (e.g., environment interactions in the Global agricultural restructuring, Contained Ani- North, political ecological research has re- mal Feeding Operations), and ongoing mained largely (and suspiciously) absent social-demographic changes related to in- in the U.S. South. Notable exceptions in- migration and immigration (see, for ex- clude Nesbitt and Weiner’s 2001 explora- ample, Emery et al. 2006). In short, the tion of conflicts between exurbanites and themes of political ecology identified by long-time locals in non-coal mining areas McCarthy (2002) and Schroeder et al. of West Virginia, Colten’s work on both (2006) are emergent within the U.S. South. the uneven distribution of vulnerability Without a systematic means of examining in New Orleans (2005) and the myth of the various nature-society relationships in permissiveness in pollution regulation this region, we risk perpetuating a dis- Introduction: Why a Political Ecology of the U.S. South? 105 aggregated literature that can do little to history, then these papers and the larger speak to the broad processes and struc- movement of political ecology into the tures that play out in particular places. U.S. South that they lead show the region Such a fragmented literature can do little may have good reason to decry what is to link particular cases together to address happening to it in the present. issues of justice and/or sustainability in a manner that fosters a coherent community the papers or movement. Walker (2003, p 7), like Neumann The papers in this forum speak to a di- (2009), has argued that political ecologi- verse set of nature-society interactions in cal research might benefit from more ex- various parts of the U.S. South. Each refer- plicitly regionally focused studies, given ences some, if not all, of McCarthys’ five that regions are useful ‘‘in revealing the themes of political ecology in the Global importance of local-scale social dynamics North. Thus, each case addresses the fram- while situating these dynamics within ing and management of a particular chal- broader’’ processes. New work focused on lenge, and how those efforts privilege situations common to, if not endemic in, some actors while constraining others. the U.S. South appears to be answering Taken together, these diverse cases high- this call. Of the 16 North American papers light the common issues of power and at the 2008 AAG Annual Meeting, five fo- knowledge that emerge across the south in cused on the U.S. South. One of these ap- the context of its most recent experience pears in this issue (Finewood), while an- with globalization. From just three pa- other represents an offshoot of the paper pers, we can begin to draw together some by Halfacre and Hurley. Work by Massey threads of a place-based politics that might (2008) also examined the discourse sur- challenge dominant narratives about the rounding new legislation on mountain-top South and its place in the world, and in so removal, while Watson (2008) explored doing provide a foundation for action that the role of NTFP users’ knowledge in Flor- can transform the region and its identity to ida in formulating natural resource policy. the benefit of those living there. The papers in this forum expand on these Handley and Alderman’s paper exam- trends, moving some of the nature-society ines how particular discursive framings of challenges facing the U.S. South under the kudzu as an alien invasive species by those microscope of political ecology. In so do- living in Missouri draw upon and repro- ing, they illuminate how challenges as di- duce various Southern narratives, and verse as the management of invasive spe- in so doing condition how people view cies, the maintenance of non-timber forest this species and its control. For example, product (NTFP)—based livelihoods, and they note that Kudzu is constructed as a coastal development are all manifesta- ‘‘Southern Curse,’’ a species that was out tions of processes that create/perpetuate of place anywhere but the South. Under symptoms of what is commonly labeled this construction, they note that the incur- ‘‘The South.’’ If The South is sometimes sion of Kudzu into Missouri is read as taint thought of, or thinks of itself, as a victim of on Missouri’s identity, some sort of a deg- 106 patrick t. hurley and edward r. carr radation that is not purely ecological, but changed basketmakers’ access to and con- also social—the fear is that Missouri is be- trol over the various resources, such as coming more like the South. Unspoken are sweetgrass, needed to make their crafts. the characteristics of the South that Mis- They link this changing access to the sourians fear, for as Handley and Alder- marginal position of these basketmakers man point out, there is no specific charac- within the expanding Town of Mount teristic that is feared. Instead, it is a fear Pleasant, and illustrate how this loss of ac- of the South as other, as somehow ex- cess challenges the livelihoods of these ceptional in the U.S., that drives this dis- basketmakers and reframes these liveli- course. Here then, we see how the effort hoods activities from central parts of a to control an invasive species reproduces community identity to outlying activities a narrative of Southern exceptionalism, that promote problematic, if not illegal, ac- where by implication problematic weed tivities to gather needed resources. Thus, species run rampant in a semi-tropical en- they highlight how the shifting fortunes of vironment because ‘‘that is what happens these basketmakers are not the products in the South.’’ Yet kudzu, as Handley and of a uniquely Southern approach to race, Alderman point out, is as much an invasive identity or property, but instead embody species in the U.S. South as it is in Mis- shifts seen among other communities, in souri. There is nothing ‘‘natural’’ about the other parts of the United States and the association of this species, or an exotic, world. By reframing the issue of justice dangerous ecology, with the U.S. South. away from a focus on the local community As this region continues to develop global and its values, and toward a larger political connections such as those that brought economy that drives rural gentrification kudzu to the region in the late 19th Cen- and its associated changes, Halfacre and tury, the opportunities for new incursions Hurley provide a platform on which bas- from exotic species will increase. This is ketmakers might build a politics of place not an inevitable outcome of ‘‘southern- that draws in other members of the com- ness,’’ but a process that can be under- munity, instead of placing themselves in stood through an engagement with global opposition to the people around whom political economy and its intersection with they live and to whom they sell their wares. regional and local ecologies. The degrada- Finally, Finewood’s paper addresses tion of the southern environment is not the disconnects between science and pol- inevitable or natural. icy that contribute to ongoing tensions Halfacre and Hurley’s work on sweet- between conservation and development grass basket making in Mt. Pleasant, South along South Carolina’s coast. Where many Carolina explores the challenges facing actors involved in conservation and de- a traditional livelihoods activity in the velopment issues are aware of the break- context of rural gentrification. Using the down of communication between scien- concept of environmental justice as a tists and policymakers, they tend to ascribe touchpoint, they examine how changing such breakdowns to individual personali- property rights and claims over resources ties. Such explanation subtly references associated with rural gentrification have the parochialism and anti-intellectualism Introduction: Why a Political Ecology of the U.S. South? 107 that have been used to set off the South as emerge, rather than see them as somehow exceptional from the rest of the United inevitable products of life in this region. States, and therefore marks the problems Each represents ‘‘unique moments’’ that that emerge from this breakdown of com- highlight the political ecological terms un- munication as an inevitable outcome in der, and conditions in, which different the South. Finewood challenges this nar- forms of environmental change, disparate rative, arguing that these communication knowledge, and changing management problems stem not from a uniquely South- approaches intersect to shape changing so- ern issue, but from the more universal in- cietal norms, ideas, and everyday lives. commensurability of capitalist expansion They are a powerful argument to extend and environmental reproduction. In so political ecological investigation in this re- doing, he reframes the challenges of con- gion. They also suggest the importance of servation and development that trouble complimentary and comparative attention many coastal areas in the South from an by independent scholars working on spe- inevitable product of a uniquely Southern cific cases within a particular region. The attitude toward science and planning to a opportunities to contribute to the well- manifestation of larger issues of political being of individuals and communities in economy that are not inevitable, and to this region are many, and engagement which Southerners must respond. Further, with the issues important to this region (or this reframing highlights what Nononi others through similar work) provide new (2005) and Peacock (2005) describe as opportunities to develop ‘‘liberation ecolo- the end of Southern exceptionalism. These gies’’ (Peet and Watts 2004) that illu- conflicts over development and conser- minate the contemporary nature-society vation are a manifestation of global chal- challenges facing the South today, and pro- lenges played out in different arenas vide the foundations for a politics of place throughout the world. Rather than lagging that can improve the lot of those living in behind the cutting edge of change, these this region. challenges demonstrate that the South is, for better or for worse, at the leading edge notes of globalization and its challenges. 1. For the purposes of this paper, we focus on the U.S. and Canada in the North American conclusion context. 2. Another 5 papers could arguably be the- All three papers, while addressing di- matically relevant to North American issues, but verse issues and contexts, share an effort here we only discuss those whose fieldwork is to rethink and reframe issues at the inter- explicitly based in U.S. and Canadian contexts. section of environment and society in a manner that enables a reconsideration of references causes, and a rethinking of opportunities Barry, J. 1997. Rising tide: The great for a politics of place that can empower Mississippi flood of 1927 and how it communities and individual in the U.S. changed America. New York, NY: Simon South to address challenges as they and Schuster. 108 patrick t. hurley and edward r. carr

Bullard, R. 1990. Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, vision? Conspiracy theory and land-use and environmental quality. San Francisco, planning in Nevada County, California. CA: Westview Press. Environment and Planning A 36:1529– Cho, P., Newmand, D. H., and Wear, D.N. 2003. 1547. Impacts of second home development on Nononi, Donald M. 2005. Critique: Creating housing prices in the Southern Appalachian the Transnational South. In The American Highlands. Review of Urban and Regional South in a Global World, (eds) J. L. Peacock, Development Studies 15(3):208–225. H. L. Watson and C. R. Matthews. Chapel Cidel, J. 2008. A political ecology of the built Hill: University of North Carolina Press. environment: the LEED standards for green Neumann, R. 2009. Political ecology II: buildings. Presentation at the 2008 Annual Theorizing region. Progress in Human Meetings of the Association of American Geography doi:10.1177/ Geographers. Boston, MA. 0309132509343045. Colten, C. 2008. Southern pollution Peacock, James L. 2005. The South and permissiveness: Another regional myth? Grounded Globalism. In The American Southeastern Geographer 48(1):75–96. South in a Global World, (eds) J. L. Peacock, ———. 2005. An unnatural metropolis: Wresting H. L. Watson and C. R. Matthews. Chapel New Orleans from nature. Baton Rouge, LA: Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Louisiana State University Press. Peet, Richard, and Watts, M. (eds.). 2004. Early, L. 2006. Looking for longleaf: The fall and Liberation Ecologies: Environment, rise of an American forest. Chapel Hill: Development, Social Movements: Second University of North Carolina Press. Edition. London: Routledge. Emery, Marla, and Pierce, A.R. 2005. Reed, M.G. 2007a. Uneven environmental Interrupting the telos: locating subsistence management: a Canadian comparative in contemporary US forests. Environment political ecology. Environment and Planning and Planning A 37(6):981–993. A 39(2):320–338. Emery, M., Ginger, C., and Chamberlain, J. ———. 2007b. Uneven Environmental 2006. Migrants, Markets, and the Management: A Canadian Perspective. Transformation of Natural Resources Environmental Management 39(1):30–49. Management: Galax harvesting in Western Richmond, L. 2008. Knowledge and Power in North Carolina. In Latinos in the New the Commons: Tracing dynamics between South: Transformations of Place, (eds.) fishery scientist and Alaska Native fishing H. A. Smith and O. J. Furuseth. Burlington, community narratives of the Pacific halibut VT: Ashgate Publishing. fishery on Kodiak Island. Presentation at Gabriel, N. 2008. Constructing the Urban the 2008 Annual Meetings of the Forest: Environmental Imaginaries, Association of American Geographers. Alternative Economies, and Forest Boston, MA. Management in Philadelphia. Presentation Robbins, Paul. 2006. The Politics of Barstool at the 2008 Annual Meetings of the Biology: Environmental Knowledge and Association of American Geographers. Power in Greater Northern Yellowstone. Boston, MA. Geoforum 37:185–199. Hurley, Patrick, and Walker, P.A. 2004. Whose ———. 2007. Lawn people: How grasses, weeds, Introduction: Why a Political Ecology of the U.S. South? 109

and chemicals make us who we are. ‘exurban’ Sierra. Cultural Geographies 10: Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 469–491. Sackett, Jovian. 2007. Examining the Politics of Wear, D.N., and Greis, J.G. 2002. The Southern a View: A Study of the Political Ecology of Forest Resource Assessment. Asheville, NC: Rural and Scenic Communities in the USDA, US Forest Service, Southern Swannanoa Valley, NC, Unpublished Research Station. Masters Thesis, Department of Geography, Westmacott, R. 1992. African-American gardens University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. and yards in the Rural South. Knoxville: Schroeder, R.A., St. Martin, K., and Albert, K.E. University of Tennessee Press. 2006. Political ecology in North America: Wilson, R., Crawford, T., and Bigler, A. 2008. Discovering the Third World within? Whither the New East? Comparing rural Geoforum 37(2):163–168. change in southern Pennsylvania and Stuart, D. 2008. The Political Ecology of E. coli southwestern Colorado. Presentation at the Outbreaks from Industrially Processed 2008 Annual Meetings of the Association of Produce. Presentation at the 2008 Annual American Geographers. Boston, MA. Meetings of the Association of American Geographers. Boston, MA. Walker, P. 2008. The Oregon Tale: The Epic patrick t. hurley is an assistant professor Battle over Rural Landscape Visions and in the Environmental Studies Program at Property Rights, 1973–2007. Presentation Ursinus College, Collegeville, PA 19426. Email: at the 2008 Annual Meetings of the [email protected]. His research interests Association of American Geographers. focus on the implications political ecology, the Boston, MA. politics of conservation, and land-use change Walker, P.A. 2003. Reconsidering ‘regional’ have for conservation practice. political ecologies: Toward a political edward r. carr is an associate professor in ecology of the rural American West. the Department of Geography at the University Progress in Human Geography of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208. Email: 27(1):7–24. [email protected]. His research interests include Walker, P.A., and Fortmann, L. 2003. Whose development, adaptation to global change, and landscape? A political ecology of the political ecology.