In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

NOTES Introduction 1. Archdale, “A New Description of that Fertile and Pleasant Province of South Carolina ,” 295; Cushman, “South Carolinians Nurture a Little Cause That Could.” Wise, “Holy City Displaces San Francisco as No. 1 on Condé Nast List.” Charleston is called the “holy city” because of the prevalence of church steeples on its cityscape. 2. Behre, “Forum to Look at Projects”; “Forum to Address Changes in the City.” 3. Allen, “Another Day, Another Project”; “It’s All about Balance”; Berry, “Preserving Wildness,” 139. On the concept of social ecology, see Cohen et al., “Environmental Orientations .” 4. For an examination of the unique nature of human culture, see Tomasello, “The Human Adaptation for Culture.” Assessing which people in a community participate in the decision-making process and which are being “marginalized” is a crucial concern of environmental perception studies. The individual is often viewed as “one voice”; in practice , however, how a person interacts within society influences individual perception. See Merchant, Radical Ecology, 1–2. For a sampling of the debates about how conservation and development are conceptualized, see Cronon, “The Trouble with Wilderness”; Duncan and Duncan, “The Aestheticization of the Politics of Landscape Preservation”; K. Brown, “Innovations for Conservation and Development”; Berkes, “Rethinking Community-based Conservation”; Oldekop et al., “Understanding the Lessons and Limitations of Conservation and Development”; and Gruber, “Key Principles of Community-Based Natural Resource Management.” See also Zimmerer, “The Reworking of Conservation Geographies .” Political scientists have long viewed a robust sense of community as the best setting in which to meet the requirements of legitimate government, especially in democratic regimes. See Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics. One author defines a political community as “a group of people who live under the same political rules and structure of governance and share status as citizens” and defines a cultural community as “a group of people who share a culture and draw their identities from common language, history, and traditions” (Stone, Policy Paradox, 19). Communities of place are connected to a physical space; communities of identity may transcend place and be bound by social characteristics, and communities of interest are defined by how they interact with resources or ecosystems. See Duane, Shaping the Sierra. In practice each community constitutes a heterogeneous entity rather than fits completely within a single classification. See Agrawal and Gibson, “Enchantment and Disenchantment,” and Johnson and Halfacre, “Resident Place Identities in Rural Charleston County, South Carolina.” 256 Notes to Pages 4–11 5. Davis, “A Sense of Place,” 2, and O’Connor, “The Partridge Festival,” 426. On the concept of “pride of place,” see B. Allen, “The Genealogical Landscape and the Southern Sense of Place”; Hiss, The Experience of Place; Jacobson, Place and Belonging in America; Low, “Cultural Conservation of Place.” 6. Leland, Porcher’s Creek, 6, and Conroy, The Prince of Tides, 5. 7. Leland, Porcher’s Creek, xii, 114; Conroy, The Water Is Wide, 5; Humphries, “A Disappearing Subject Called the South,” 214. 8. Bruce, Transfer of Grace, 24; Dolah et al., The Condition of South Carolina’s Estuarine and Coastal Habitats, 2004. 9. Morgan quoted in “South Carolina Preserves Sandy Island.” Tourism is South Carolina ’s most important industry, and just three lowcountry counties—Horry, Charleston, and Beaufort—account for nearly 60 percent of the state’s total tourism-related income. See Collins, “Climate Change.” For a textured first-person account of the lowcountry, see Cuthbert and Hoffius, Northern Money, Southern Land. A more general overview of the region is Zepke, Coastal South Carolina. 10. Slade, “S.C. Population Growth in Top Ten.” See also R. Johnson, “New Frontier in Waterfront”; Schmidt, “Beaufort, S.C.,” and Charleston Regional Development Alliance, “Market Profile” (website). On the concept of growth machines, see Logan and Molotch, Urban Fortunes. Growth data for the lowcountry are available in Allen and Lu, “Modeling and Predicting Future Urban Growth in the Charleston Area” (website), and Phillips, “S.C. Residents Flock to Urban Areas, Coast.” For growth projection maps, see Strom Thurmond Institute, “Charleston Urban Growth Project 1973–2030” (website). See also “Lowcountry among Nation’s Top 100 Fastest-Growing Areas”; London and Hill, Land Conversion in South Carolina; and Urban Land Institute, Growing by Choice or Chance. 11. Wilson and Fischetti, “Coastline Population Trends in the United States.” 12. Elmendorf and Luloff, “Using Ecosystem-based and Traditional Land-use Planning to Conserve Greenspace.” There are few published scholarly studies of lowcountry environmental history. A useful source is H. Smith, “Watersheds of Control.” 13. Hagood, e-mail message to the...

Share