CHAPTER 5
Social Dimensions
of Nontimber Forest
Products
Kelly Watson
Colmore S. Christian
Marla R. Emery
Patrick T. Hurley
Rebecca J. McLain
Carl Wilmsen
CHAPTER 5 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUC TS IN TH E UNITED STATES UNDER C H ANGIN G CONDI T I ONS
5.1
Introduction
A
lthough public and private forests in
the United States have long been dominated
by timber management (McLain 2002),
these forests are also the source of hundreds
of nontimber forest products (NTFPs) (Hurley et al.
2008, Schlosser and Blatner 1995). The variety of
NTFPs is matched by the diversity of people who
harvest them. The existence of these varied and often
competing interests means that issues of power, access
and control, labor relations, and social justice are equal
to ecological and economic issues in their importance.
The potential consequences of climatic variability
lend a special urgency because the distribution of
costs, risks, and opportunities will change as forest
species distribution changes and spatial and temporal
patterns of natural hazards change. A key issue is
that the impacts of harvest for most NTFPs are not
well understood, and social, economic, and ecological
sustainability requires continuous research, monitoring,
and discussion. For example, where frequently harvested
species are affected, particularly where populations
decrease or respond in ways that adversely affect
desired characteristics, formerly sustainable practices
may no longer serve. New knowledge and adjustments
in governance may be needed. This chapter seeks to
provide a framework of the social dimensions of NTFPs
on public and private lands across the United States.
Our starting point in discussing these issues is to
acknowledge large-scale data on the social dimensions
of NTFPs are sparse. It is thus diffcult to characterize
NTFP harvesting on a national scale and to draw
general conclusions about the conditions, impacts,
costs, and benefts of harvesting. Nevertheless, we
discuss the fndings of a number of regional and
local studies that permit us to draw some tentative
conclusions about harvester demographics, stewardship,
and environmental and social justice issues.
We begin this chapter by providing a brief overview
of NTFP user communities, drawing on results
from regional surveys to provide information on
NTFP harvester demographics. The survey data
also provide insights into the social and economic
values of NTFPs for the people who harvest them.
Next, we consider social relationships of governance—
specifcally, cooperation and communication between
landowners/land managers and harvesters. This
discussion suggests communication and cooperation
are key to integrating scientifc knowledge with the
knowledge of harvester communities for more effective
governance. A closely related discussion explores
the literature on harvester stewardship practices and
how these might inform NTFP governance strategies.
There appears to be some correlation between land
tenure and conditions of access directly affecting
harvesting practices, and this effect needs to be taken
into consideration in developing strategies to ensure
resiliency and good stewardship on forested lands.
Following the discussion of governance and stewardship,
we explore social networks and labor structures of
NTFP harvesting. It is likely that the greatest volume
of harvested plant materials and mushrooms goes into
commodity production systems, although many people
involved in harvesting NTFPs do so entirely outside
formal markets. Within commodity production systems
there may be labor supply chains involving many
intermediaries. Harvesters within these labor supply
chains are often vulnerable. The literature on this topic
leads us to conclude that land tenure, race, immigration
status, income, and education play roles in harvester
vulnerability and affect the abilities of harvesters to
access sites as well as to participate in forest management
decisions that directly affect their lives and livelihoods.
Our discussion ends with a review of fndings from
recent research on NTFP harvesting in more populous
areas and the environmental justice considerations
this brings to the foreground. It would be easy to
assume that NTFPs are exclusively products of rural
and wilderness locations; however, recent research
documents their harvest in urban, suburban, and
exurban locations by diverse peoples for diverse
purposes. This research also suggests that the extent
to which people of color disproportionately face
barriers to access and inclusion poses important
social and environmental justice challenges for
landowners in rural, urban, and urbanizing settings.
103
104
A S S E S S ME N T O F N O N T I M BER FO REST PRO D UCTS IN THE UN ITED STATES UNDER C H ANGING C ONDITIONS • CHAPTER 5
5.2
An Overview of Nontimber Forest
Product Harvesters in the United
States
except the category of “visiting farm or agricultural
settings” (Cordell et al. 2012). In addition, of eight
common public pursuits in forested areas, only viewing
or photographing birds is reported more frequently
than gathering NTFPs (Cordell et al. 2012; table 5.2).
Viewed in terms of the numbers of people who harvest,
United States residents enjoy the benefts of NTFPs
largely unmediated by markets. The nonmarket nature
of NTFP uses may be fundamental to their value (Dick
1996, Emery 2002). If prospective harvesters possess
the knowledge and access to land where the desired
NTFPs are present, the practice is open to anyone
with the physical capacity to engage in it (see section
6.5). Perhaps as a result, the demographic profle of
harvesters looks like America. Among the larger social
goods are environmental justice and the public health
benefts associated with exercise, time spent in nature,
and nutritional quality of products consumed.
In 2004, respondents to a general population survey
conducted in four New England states2 were asked,
“Have you collected any tree or plant materials around
woodlands: e.g., mushrooms, berries, cones, or moss?”
(table 5.1). Eighteen percent reported they had done so
in the previous 12 months, while 26 percent had done
so in the previous 5 years. Analysis of the demographics
of positive respondents to the survey showed that
gathering crosses socioeconomic boundaries, including
age, gender, income, and place of residence. This survey
also asked how respondents used the materials they
gathered (table 5.3). Functional uses mentioned were
food (62 percent), decoration (59 percent), cultural (16
percent), and medicine (8 percent). Reported livelihood
uses were personal consumption (88 percent), giftgiving (5 percent), value-added sale (2 percent), and sale
of raw material (1 percent), with 4 percent reporting
other, unspecifed uses (Robbins et al. 2008).
The number of people who participate in NTFP
harvesting, their demographic characteristics, and the
ways they use gathered materials provide one measure of
the social signifcance of this use of United States forests.
Results of random sample, general population telephone
surveys conducted in the U.S. Northeast provide such
numbers (table 5.1). Two cycles of a survey assessing
participation in a variety of outdoor recreation activities
asked people in 20 states1 if they had picked mushrooms
and/or berries in the previous 12 months (Cordell et
al. 2012). Weighted results show that for the period
1999–2001, 27.9 million people 16 years of age and
older had gathered NTFPs. In 2005–2009, that number
was 35 million people, an increase of 25.7 percent. This
rate of increase exceeds all other surveyed activities
Survey results on livelihood uses of NTFPs are striking.
The number of respondents who directly use the NTFPs
they gather is an order of magnitude higher than those
who sell them in any form. Further, ethnographic
research suggests that gatherers frequently share and gift
NTFPs to family and friends, such that the number of
people who use NTFPs in the absence of market exchange
of any sort is greater than the number of those who
gather NTFPs to sell them (Emery 2001b, Emery and
Table 5.1—Rates of participation in nontimber forest product gathering by residents of the Northeastern
United States. Sources: Cordell et al. 2012, Robbins et al. 2008.
Location
Northeastern Statesa
New England
b
Year
Sample size
Previous 5
years percent
Past 12
months percent
2005–2009
30,000
n/a
36
2004
1,650
26
18
Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin.
b
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
a
1
Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
2
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
CHAPTER 5 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUC TS IN TH E UNITED STATES UNDER C H ANGIN G CONDI T I ONS
Table 5.2—Rates of participation in forest-based activities
by residents of 20 northeastern states, 2005–2009.
Source: Cordell et al. 2012.
Positive
response rate
Activity
Change in
participation
rate 1999–2009
------------- percent ------------Viewing or photographing birds
38.2
17.8
Gathering mushrooms/berries
36.0
25.7
Day hiking
32.7
15.1
Visiting wilderness areas
31.3
10.7
Warmwater fishing
24.5
17.3
Developed camping
20.6
-10.4
Canoeing
12.3
8.2
Primitive camping
11.6
-2.5
Table 5.3—Functional and livelihood uses reported by positive respondents to a 2004 New England survey. Totals may exceed 100 percent,
as most respondents use harvested plant materials and/or fungi for more than one function and also may engage in multiple livelihood uses.
Source: Robbins et al. 2008.
Functional uses
Livelihood uses
--------------------------------- percent ---------------------------------
--------------------------- percent ---------------------------
Edible
Medicinal
Decorative
Cultural
Landscaping
Other
Personal use
Gifting
Sale raw
Sale value added
Other
62
8
59
16
n/a
13
88
5
1
2
4
Ginger 2014, Emery et al. 2003). For those who sell some
or all of what they harvest, more do so after adding value,
suggesting that NTFPs are a basis for microenterprises.
Here, ethnographic research suggests that much of this
activity likely takes place within the informal economy
and, therefore, leaves no records in formal economic
statistics. Practices within the informal economy
include bartering; trade; personal use; and recreational,
spiritual, and cultural uses (McLain et al. 2008).
Two recent cycles of the National Woodland Owner
Survey (NWOS; 2002–2006, 2011–2013) included
questions about NTFP harvests on family forest lands
(Butler 2008, Butler et al. 2016), providing another
important source of data on their social values and
uses. The NWOS has been conducted periodically
since 1953 and is the offcial database of nonindustrial
private forest owners in the United States. It uses a
stratifed random sample design to survey over 10
million family forest landowners per cycle. The NWOS
is implemented on an annual basis with a subset of
the total sample (20 percent) contacted each year.
Results for the 2002–2006 and 2011–2013 surveys
show a marked increase in family forest landowners
reporting that NTFPs have been harvested on their
lands at some point in the past, from 16 percent (2002
and 2006) to 29 percent (2009 and 2013), but a drop
of nearly 50 percent in those indicating that harvest
has occurred in the previous 5 years. This trend may
refect aging of the landowner population. Proportions
of those reporting harvest for sale and personal use
were more stable over the two survey cycles and parallel
livelihood uses reported by respondents to the general
population surveys discussed in the previous paragraph.
In the 2011–2013 cycle, reported rates of harvest for
personal consumption were an order of magnitude
greater than those reported for sale (table 5.4).
The data represented by the 2002–2006 and 2011–2013
NWOS cycles are particularly signifcant because
they span a period of deep economic recession. Data
on NTFP harvesting from future NWOS surveys
will be invaluable in understanding relationships
between NTFP harvesting, owner demographics
(particularly age), and macroeconomic conditions.
105
106
A S S E S S ME N T O F N O N T I M BER FO REST PRO D UCTS IN THE UN ITED STATES UNDER C H ANGING C ONDITIONS • CHAPTER 5
Table 5.4—Family forest owners with >1 acre reporting harvest of nontimber forest
products on their land. Sources: Butler 2006, Butler et al. 2016.
Estimated # of owners
2002–2006 a
2009–2013 b
NTFPs ever harvested
1,701,000
10,777,027
16
29
Harvested in past 5 years
1,239,000
1,215,370
73
38
163,000
244,238
10
8
1,319,000
2,750,548
78
87
Harvested for sale
Harvested for personal use
a
b
Percent of owners
2002–2006
2009–2013
Estimated total number of owners = 10,398,000.
Estimated total number of owners = 10,777,027.
5.3
Nontimber Forest Product
Stewardship
collected and reported on a number of products,
including western brackenfern (Pteridium aquilinum
(L.) Kuhn) (Anderson and Blahna 2000); American
ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) (Burkhart et al.
2012);
echinacea (Echinacea spp.) (Price and Kindscher
The concept of stewardship encompasses informal
2007); salal (Gaultheria shallon Pursh) (Ballard and
practices that NTFP harvesters develop and apply in
Huntsinger 2006); galax (Galax urceolata (Poir.)
their daily lives, as well as formal programs initiated by
trade associations, amateur science societies, conservation Brummit) (Emery et al. 2003); and wild mushrooms
nongovernmental organizations, or Government agencies. (Barron and Emery 2009, Jones 2002, Love et al.
1998, Richards and Creasy 1996). Additionally,
Scientifc knowledge of NTFP stewardship practices in
Baumfek et al. (2010) report data on sustainable
the United States is fragmentary, as is knowledge about
harvesting practices for 30 species in northern Maine.
their socioecological impacts or the factors associated
with the use and transmission of such practices. For
example, researchers in the following studies have
5.3.1 Knowledge
examined harvester stewardship: New England (Baumfek Much NTFP research on stewardship seeks to document
et al. 2010, Emery et al. 2003, Emery and Ginger 2014),
what harvesters perceive to be sustainable harvesting,
New York (Emery and Ginger 2014), the Southeast
as well as how they produce and share their knowledge.
(Emery et al. 2003, 2006), the Pacifc Northwest (Ballard Emery (2001b) argues that three types of knowledge—
and Huntsinger 2006, Jones 2002, Love et al. 1998,
ecological, economic, and use knowledge—are important
McLain et al. 2014, Peck and Christy 2006, Pilz et
for stewardship. Harvesters’ ecological knowledge is
al. 2003, Poe et al. 2013, Richards and Creasy 1996),
often characterized as traditional or local. Berkes et al.
southern California (Anderson and Blahna 2000),
(2000, p. 1252) defne traditional ecological knowledge
Pennsylvania (Burkhart et al. 2012), Kentucky (Hembram (TEK) as “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and
and Hoover 2008), Kansas (Price and Kindscher 2007),
belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down
the Washington, D.C. region (Barron and Emery
through generations by cultural transmission, about
2009), and the Great Lakes region (Emery 2001a).
the relationship of living beings (including humans),
Studies of NTFP stewardship practices have primarily
used qualitative methods, typically combining key
informant interviews with participant and direct
observation of harvesting practices; a few researchers
have used mail or in-person surveys (e.g., Anderson
and Blahna 2000, Burkhart et al. 2012, Richards and
Creasy 1996) or feld experiments (Ballard 2004, Peck
and Christy 2006, Price and Kindscher 2007). Data on
NTFP stewardship practices have been systematically
with one another and with their environment.” Ballard
and Huntsinger (2006, p. 531) defned local ecological
knowledge (LEK) as “local expertise of peoples that
may not have a long-term relationship with the local
environment, but nevertheless have local wisdom,
experience and practices adapted to local ecosystems.”
Many people view TEK/LEK as incompatible with
scientifc knowledge. However, some harvesters
engage in informal experiments or carefully document
CHAPTER 5 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUC TS IN TH E UNITED STATES UNDER C H ANGIN G CONDI T I ONS
observations of plants and ecological conditions
to inform their harvesting practices (Barron and
Emery 2009, Charnley et al. 2007, Jones and Lynch
2002, Love et al. 1998). Moreover, some harvesters
design and implement studies aimed at establishing
harvesting “best practices.” An example from the
Pacifc Northwest is a 13-year experiment conducted
by members of the Oregon Mycological Society in the
1990s and early 2000s to determine how harvesting
affected chanterelle (Cantharellus spp.) productivity
and whether the manner of harvesting (pulling versus
cutting) made a difference (Pilz et al. 2006).
(Burkhart et al. 2012, Emery et al. 2003); among healers
who use wild plants in their practice, particularly
American Indians, apprenticeships are not uncommon.
A key theme in the NTFP stewardship literature is that
NTFP knowledge is often differentially distributed and
acquired in different ways across social categories, such
as age, gender, ethnicity, and class; it also varies by
experience level (Ballard and Huntsinger 2006, Emery
et al. 2003, Richards and Creasy 1996). This highlights
the importance of designing stewardship research in
ways that will capture the variation among harvesters
in the type, depth, and breadth of their knowledge.
Harvesters acquire and pass on knowledge about
harvesting practices in a variety of ways, with many
using multiple learning and knowledge transmittal
strategies (Baumfek et al. 2010). Many harvesters learn
about NTFPs through on-the-ground training by family
members, friends, or neighbors (Barron and Emery
2012, Emery et al. 2006, Emery and Ginger 2014). Field
guides, Internet websites, forays, foraging walks, and
courses are also common means by which harvesters
acquire NTFP knowledge, as is participation in clubs,
associations, and informal “meet-up” groups (Baumfek
et al. 2010, Hurley et al. 2015, McLain et al. 2014).
NTFP buyers are important conduits for the transmittal
of knowledge about sustainable harvesting practices
5.3.2 Practices
Knowledge shapes how people harvest, and conversely,
harvesting is the means by which people acquire
knowledge about the biological, physiological, and
ecological factors that affect plant growth and
reproduction under different harvesting regimes. As
indicated in table 5.5, researchers have documented
the use of a broad array of harvesting practices
aimed at ensuring the long-term sustainability of
plant populations and minimizing disturbance to
the surrounding ecosystem. The practices used vary
by species, product, and harvester. Harvesters also
often use practices aimed at minimizing disturbance
Table 5.5—Practices designed to sustain plant populations and minimize habitat disturbance.
Practices
Studies that document the practice
Timing harvests to avoid collecting when plants are
vulnerable
Emery et al. 2003, Hembram and Hoover 2008
Rotating harvest sites
Emery and Ginger 2014, Hembram and Hoover 2008, McLain et al.
2014, Price and Kindscher 2007
Retention of some mature plants
Anderson and Blahna 2000, Emery et al. 2003, Hembram and Hoover 2008
Monitoring resource abundance and restricting harvests if
population declines
Baumflek et al. 2010, Emery et al. 2003, Emery and Ginger 2014,
Hembram and Hoover 2008, McLain et al. 2014
Avoiding damage to vulnerable plant parts
Anderson and Blahna 2000, Emery et al. 2003
Propagating plants or fungi by planting berries, seeds,
cuttings, or spreading spores
Barron and Emery 2009, Burkhart et al. 2012, Emery et al. 2003,
McLain et al. 2014
Avoiding species known to be endangered or threatened
Emery et al. 2003, Emery and Ginger 2014, Poe et al. 2013
Restricting amounts harvested (often as a percentage of
product available)
Emery et al. 2003, Emery and Ginger 2014, McLain et al. 2014,
Poe et al. 2013
Keeping site locations secret from or off-limits to other
harvesters
Emery et al. 2003, Price and Kindscher 2007
Selective harvest
Baumflek et al. 2010, Emery et al. 2006, Emery and Ginger 2014,
McLain et al. 2014, Price and Kindscher 2007
107
108
A S S E S S ME N T O F N O N T I M BER FO REST PRO D UCTS IN THE UN ITED STATES UNDER C H ANGING C ONDITIONS • CHAPTER 5
of other ecosystem components, such as avoiding
trampling on endangered plant species, flling in
holes when digging roots, and leaving a portion of
fruits, berries, or seeds for wildlife (Baumfek et al.
2010, Emery and Ginger 2014, Emery et al. 2003).
5.3.3 Ethics
Researchers studying NTFP harvesters have documented
a set of ethical principles that guide what people harvest,
how much they harvest, and when they harvest it
(Anderson and Blahna 2000, Baumfeck et al. 2010,
Emery 2001b, Emery and Ginger 2014, Emery et al.
2003, Price and Kindscher 2007). Emery and Ginger
(2014, p. 16) summarize these into fve guiding norms:
1.Gather in areas where the targeted species is plentiful.
2.Do not take all the leaves, seeds, fruits, or
other parts, and rotate where you harvest
3.Minimize disturbance to the harvesting site.
4.Avoid trampling or harvesting species
known to be endangered.
5.Take only what you need.
Additionally, many American Indian harvesters include
giving thanks or asking the plant’s permission to be
harvested among their ethical guidelines (Baumfek
et al. 2010), a practice that many nonnative herbalists
also follow (Emery and Ginger 2014, Poe et al. 2014).
The American Herbal Products Association has published
a set of “good collection practices” for wild plant
harvesters (AHPA 2006) that echoes the guidelines
described by Emery and Ginger (2014). Harvester rules
governing stewardship practices in the United States are
often self-enforced (Hembram and Hoover 2008), or as
one key informant in Burkhart et al.’s (2012) study of
ginseng harvesters put it, “ginseng is an honor system.”
Hembram and Hoover (2008) point to the lack of
community-level enforcement mechanisms as a barrier
to sustainable NTFP management. However, to some
extent, buyers function as community-level enforcers for
products such as American ginseng by complying with
legal provisions that require them to refuse to buy small
or immature roots (Burkhart et al. 2012). Wild matsutake
(Tricholoma spp.) mushroom dealers in southwestern
Oregon perform a similar function by refusing to buy
very small mushrooms (Richards and Creasy 1996).
5.3.4
Stewardship
Limited data are available on the factors associated
with stewardship behavior or higher levels of local
ecological knowledge among NTFP harvesters. Studies
document substantial levels of difference in knowledge
and harvesting practices between more experienced
and less experienced Latino immigrant salal harvesters
(Ballard and Huntsinger 2006); and between American
Indians with a generations-old cultural tradition of
harvesting matsutake for subsistence and recently arrived
Southeast Asian commercial matsutake harvesters
in southwestern Oregon and northern California
(Richards and Creasy 1996). In all three studies,
more experienced harvesters had greater depth and
breadth of ecological knowledge and used what they
perceived to be more sustainable harvesting practices.
However, it is unclear whether the differences in the
use of harvesting practices between the Southeast
Asian and American Indian harvesters were linked to
differences in experience, harvesting motivations, or
both since the Southeast Asian harvesters had only
recently begun to participate in the matsutake harvest.
Land tenure also infuenced harvesting practices of
Latino salal harvesters, with experienced pickers
practicing less sustainable harvesting on lands on
which their tenure was insecure and sustainable
harvesting on lands to which they had secure longerterm access (Ballard and Huntsinger 2006). Price and
Kindscher (2007) also found that echinacea harvesters
used less sustainable harvesting practices on de facto
open access harvesting sites than on private lands
on which anti-trespassing laws were enforced.
5.3.5
Integrating Local and Scientific Knowledge
Managing forests for NTFPs is challenging for many
state and Federal land agencies owing to the diversity
of species, limited knowledge of these species, and
lack of scientifc knowledge about most NTFPs. In
many cases, harvester knowledge is the only source
of knowledge based on long-term observations about
the ecological impacts of NTFP harvesting (Emery
2003). In the absence of surveys in peer-reviewed
studies, NTFP harvesters are an important yet often
under-utilized potential source of knowledge.
One approach to addressing the knowledge gaps within
management agencies and the uncertainties associated
CHAPTER 5 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUC TS IN TH E UNITED STATES UNDER C H ANGIN G CONDI T I ONS
with NTFP harvesting is to integrate harvesters’ LEK
with scientifc research projects (Emery and Barron
2010). Burkhart et al. (2012) document state and
Federal agencies’ lack of capacity to enforce ginseng
regulations and call for the establishment of “bottomup” ginseng planting and restoration partnerships
between conservation agencies, harvesters, ginseng
growers, and traders as a way to address the regulatory
enforcement gap. Pilz et al.’s (2006) guide for
participatory monitoring provides detailed guidelines
for planning, implementing, and following through on
collaborative research involving harvesters and scientists.
Few assessments of such partnerships exist. However,
Ballard et al.’s (2008) comparative assessment of
community-based forestry groups involved in scientifc
partnerships included one initiative involving NTFP
harvesters that was successful in developing a photo point
monitoring system for wild mushrooms. They found that
building in mechanisms for regular interaction between
scientists and harvesters was a key to developing the trust
and respect for the collaboration to work. They highlight
the need for more research on strategies that enable
greater integration of LEK and scientifc knowledge.
For the most part, NTFP harvesters who depend on the
resource or the supplemental income their harvesting
provides each year recognize that their livelihoods depend
on sustainability of the resource. Some NTFP harvesters
are keen observers of cause and effect, and the impacts
harvesting has on the resource. For example, matsutake
harvesters who harvest on the forests of central Oregon
argue that soil compaction from mechanical thinning
as well as thinning too heavily will inhibit matsutake
production. In response to input by mushroom harvesters,
offcials revised their initial plans for a recent timber
sale to protect more matsutake habitat and also required
logging over snow to limit soil compaction (Headley and
Wilmsen 2010). Such place-based ecological knowledge,
gained through years of experience with the resource and
working partnerships with the Forest Service on national
forests, can complement scientifc knowledge, thereby
improving forest inventories for specifc uses of NTFPs
as well as monitoring of those uses (Emery et al. 2014).
Engaging with resource users as stewards of the land
they harvest may be a valuable undertaking for land
managers. Neither local nor scientifc knowledge
is expected to replace the other knowledge system,
but to bolster the effectiveness of science-based
management. Everett (2001) found that NTFP groups
often have the most “reliable information about the
specifed NTFP abundance, distribution, and impacts
of harvesting. Research indicates that without such
knowledge, users and managers have no basis for
decisions about sustainable harvest levels” (Everett
2001, p. 340). For example, Barron and Emery’s
(2012) research on morel (Morchella spp.) harvesters
in the Eastern United States has shown the importance
of participatory approaches when designing and
implementing forest management on Federal land.
Local knowledge provided valuable insight into morel
habitat, ecology, and phenological characteristics.
Harvesters and primary processors are key actors
in NTFP commodity production-to-consumption
systems. As the people most directly engaged with
commercially traded plant materials and mushrooms
and the ecosystems in which they occur, many
harvesters possess extensive knowledge and have
strong interests in the outcomes of management and
governance processes. Consequently, their input can
strengthen management for NTFPs and other forest
values (Ballard and Huntsinger 2006, Charnley et al.
2007). Because commercial harvesters and primary
processors commonly are members of socially marginal
groups by virtue of income, ethnicity, and other
characteristics, special efforts may be needed to integrate
their perspectives into land management strategies.
Landowner/producer organizations may offer an
opportunity for achieving greater integration and
cooperation between land managers and harvesters.
The Alabama Medicinal Plant Growers Association
(AMPGA) is one example. Established around 2008,
the AMPGA serves as an umbrella for small landowners
from minority and underserved communities and
producers to network and share information about
production, processing, and marketing of medicinal
plants, such as American ginseng, goldenseal, and black
cohosh. While much of their product is cultivated, some
members also use wild-harvested materials. The AMPGA
provides these individuals with a vehicle for networking
and peer-to-peer learning to improve fnancial return to
group members. Such organizations also may serve as
a source of information for policy and management.
Additionally, harvesters are more likely to adopt and
follow permit or other management systems if they
perceive that they have contributed to its development
109
110
A S S E S S ME N T O F N O N T I M BER FO REST PRO D UCTS IN THE UN ITED STATES UNDER C H ANGING C ONDITIONS • CHAPTER 5
(Everett 2001). This is important because such policy
and management are likely to impact resource users
most and it is critical there be support from harvester
communities for sustainable use and management of
forest resources. In many cases, NTFPs provide a much
needed source of income or they have signifcant social
and cultural capital, linking people to their natural
environments, providing sources of medicinal plants,
and maintaining what are sometimes multi-generational
ties to the art of harvesting (Emery and Pierce 2005,
Fisher 2002, Watson 2010). Increasing gatherer and
primary producer input represents an opportunity
for enhancing environmental justice, reducing
litigation potential, and enhancing the information
base available for NTFP policy and management.
5.4
Stakeholder Organizations, Labor
Issues, and Social Networks
There is a long history in America of people harvesting
NTFPs to supplement their incomes or to support
themselves during hard times or when they have
few other options (Fisher 2002). The Multiple-Use
Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (see chapter 7) requires
public land managers to promote “stability of
communities” and “to provide for a continuous and
ample supply of timber” and “secure the benefts of
forests in maintenance of water supply, regulation of
stream fow, prevention of soil erosion, amelioration of
climate change and preservation of wildlife.” Ensuring
these multiple use categories are all met thus requires
a balancing act—one that requires that harvesting
options remain viable while at the same time forest
resiliency remains intact for long-term sustainability.
options, they turned to what they knew best: earning
a living from the land (Saechao and Wilmsen 2012).
Four major areas of concern to NTFP harvesters
include lack of consistent access to harvesting sites,
fuctuating prices, security and safety while collecting,
and resource sustainability that will supply future
harvests. Access to NTFPs is mediated by a variety of
ecological, economic, structural, cultural, historical,
and political concerns. Permitting and leasing are two
very common ways of allowing access to harvesting
areas. Public and private landowners do both.
Mediation of access is a function of the lower
socioeconomic positioning of some groups of NTFP
harvesters. In California, Oregon, and Washington,
e.g., harvesters of matsutake mushrooms, huckleberries
(Vaccinium spp.), and foral greens are ethnically diverse
and many are recent immigrants with limited English
profciency and low incomes. There are essentially two
ways that they are organized as workers: as independent
contractors, or employees of a business. When they are
independent contractors, they buy permits, lease land,
or contract with landowner(s) (as sharecroppers or some
other arrangement) to gain access to harvesting areas.
They may hire employees to harvest the NTFP, or harvest
it on their own or together with family members and/
or friends, and sell their harvest to a buyer. Employees
work for someone who acquires the needed permits,
leases, or contracts, and are paid by the hour or piece.
The way in which control of land and resources is
structured affects harvester access to NTFPs. In the
foral greens industry in the Pacifc Northwest, e.g.,
brush shed operators (the people who buy greens
directly from the harvesters) have increasingly controlled
leases. This is due in part to the fact that low-income
harvesters typically do not have the capital needed to
pay the up-front costs, such as bonding insurance and
rent paid in advance, needed to lease land. Under these
circumstances many foral greens harvesters, especially
recent immigrants from Latin America, are dependent
on brush shed owners or agents who sublet from them
for transportation and the sale of their product. The
sublessees, referred to by the Spanish term raiteros
(van owners), transport the harvesters to and from the
leased land and take them to the brush shed that holds
the lease to sell their product at the end of the day.
Including diverse opinions from harvesters in forest
management decisions is important for long-term
sustainability and resiliency of forested lands (Fisher
2002). Often low-income and minority groups may
not have the interest or organizational, educational, or
economic capacity to participate in forest management
decisions that directly affect their lives and livelihoods
and for the beneft of the forests they harvest. Moreover,
many harvesters got a start in the commercial harvest of
NTFPs in the United States due to events and forces set in
motion by political forces. Therefore, immigrants often
arrived in the United States lacking the skills demanded
The raiteros charge the harvesters a fee for transportation
by a developed country’s market economy. With few other services and may also charge them a percentage of the
CHAPTER 5 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUC TS IN TH E UNITED STATES UNDER C H ANGIN G CONDI T I ONS
value of their daily harvest. Although the brush shed
owners treat them as independent contractors, harvesters
are not free to sell to any shed. They cannot afford
to travel to alternative buyers often in more distant
locations, nor do they have access to market and price
information from which they can make selling decisions.
This means that they must accept the price the leasing
brush shed offers them. Many harvesters fear retaliation
if they speak publicly or complain to the authorities about
being taken advantage of or poor working conditions. A
lack of law enforcement means that working conditions
may remain dangerous (McLain and Lynch 2010).
Public land agencies’ traditional approach to gathering
information for proposed management actions may
also affect access to harvesting sites. This process
often excludes stakeholder groups that lack formal
organizational structures, and members of these groups
rarely have the fnancial ability or time to participate in
forest decisionmaking (McLain 2002). Nongovernmental
organizations have been useful in bridging these gaps
to assist disadvantaged groups in overcoming these
barriers. Responsiveness of agency offcials can help
as well. To address these issues and be responsive to
forest communities as well as improve access to national
forest land, the USDA Forest Service 2012 Planning
Rule (National Forest System Land Management
Planning of 2012) and its directives are designed to
enhance public outreach so that land management
decisions factor in public inputs. In many parts of the
country, the Forest Service also reaches out to ethnic
minorities in appropriate languages to ensure critical
communications and needs are addressed. The 2012
Planning Rule, which explicitly calls for collaborative
planning, may provide for expanding the breadth of
stakeholder involvement in forest management decisions.
Conditions in the foral greens industry differ markedly
from those in the harvest of wild mushrooms. Buyers
of wild mushrooms never gained control of land and
leases as their counterparts in the foral greens industry
did. Moreover, most wild mushroom harvesters are
United States citizens or legal residents and therefore
are less fearful of retaliation. These differences in the
structures of the foral greens and wild mushroom
markets prevent large mushroom-buying companies
from gaining as much control over the market, as
well as access to harvesting sites, as large foral
greens companies have (McLain and Lynch 2010).
Cash fow and overhead costs are economic factors that
mediate access to NTFPs. Large numbers of harvesters
often begin the harvest season with little cash to spare,
and thus are very sensitive to changes in permit prices,
campground fees, and other expenses. Commodity prices
are clearly a major concern to NTFP harvesters because
the price they receive for their products determines their
income. To the extent that harvesters of foral greens
who are dependent on raiteros are not free to fnd the
highest price for their product, their annual incomes are
lowered. The seasonality of NTFP harvests means that
many harvesters of wild mushrooms and other NTFPs
depend on intense harvesting activity during only a few
months of the year to earn a large portion of their annual
household income. Some mushroom harvesters follow
the different seasons around western United States and
thus spend most months of the year harvesting some
type of mushroom (e.g., morels, matsutake, chanterelles).
Many also pick huckleberries during the late summer
and early fall. Many of these harvests may be underreported, as collection data rely on the honesty of
harvesters, who may be wary of oversight and regulation.
Security and safety are also major concerns of harvesters.
These concerns include confrontations with other
harvesters, robbery, and theft. There are tensions between
commercial, personal use, and cultural harvesters, and
these can sometimes lead to confrontations between
harvesters. There have been cases of harvesters being
robbed of their day’s harvest at gunpoint. Theft of
foral greens occurs when harvesting on a lease without
permission or harvesting on public lands without
permits (Welch 2006). In the case of salal on private
land, thieves often harvest at night. In the early light
of dawn, they bring trucks in to haul away the greens
before the lessee arrives for work. While it is not clear
how often this occurs, it is a signifcant enough concern
for harvesters to bring it up without being prompted.
Addressing the major concerns of harvester communities
is a key step in mediating the disconnect between
harvesting communities and land managers. Access to
harvesting sites, information about price variability,
security and safety, and resource sustainability are major
concerns of NTFP harvesters. However, many harvesting
communities may be marginalized, due to employment
and income, language challenges, or cultural barriers
(Emery and Barron 2010, Fortmann and Ballard 2011,
McLain 2002, Watson 2010) and therefore lack formal
outlets for participating in forest management decisions.
111
112
A S S E S S ME N T O F N O N T I M BER FO REST PRO D UCTS IN THE UN ITED STATES UNDER C H ANGING C ONDITIONS • CHAPTER 5
These decisions, however, directly affect the lives and
livelihoods of harvesting communities as well as the
sustainability of the forest. Therefore, building and
improving communication between landowners and
harvester communities are critical, as are developing and
implementing NTFP policy and management to ensure
resiliency and good stewardship on forested lands.
5.5
Urban Harvesting and Social Justice
A diversity of urban spaces support NTFP harvesting
opportunities, including city parks, institutional
campuses, vacant lots, cemeteries, and other locations
(Hurley et al. 2015, Jahnige 2002; McLain et al.
2014). Beyond selected urban areas (i.e., Seattle,
WA; Philadelphia, PA; New York, NY) featured
in a limited number of studies (Hurley et al. 2015,
McLain et al. 2014), research on suburban and
rapidly urbanizing areas is also generally lacking
(see Grabbatin et al. 2011; Hurley et al. 2008, 2013;
and Gianotti and Hurley 2016, for exceptions).
Researchers are paying increased attention to the role
that diverse species in the forests of urban, suburban, and
urbanizing United States play in meeting the material
and cultural needs of residents. Studies, though limited,
are documenting the diversity of plant species, range of
plant parts, types of uses, motivations for harvest, and
the importance of these harvests to diverse peoples living
in the cities being studied. Studies have been completed in
Seattle, WA (McLain et al. 2012; Poe et al. 2013, 2014),
and Philadelphia, PA (Gabriel 2006, Hurley et al. 2015),
as well as Baltimore, MD, Washington, DC, and Boston,
MA (Jahnige 2002). These studies reveal that harvesters
collect common weeds, including many invasive species,
from native, nonnative, and invasive shrubs and vines
and from many native, ornamental, and nonnative trees.
Public and private lands, including actively managed
(i.e., public parks and institutional campuses) and largely
neglected spaces (i.e., vacant lots), provide an abundance
of harvesting opportunities for harvesters. These harvests
provide residents with foods, medicines, and materials
that support their everyday needs or are part of their
regular recreational endeavors (McLain et al. 2014).
Our understanding of NTFPs within United States cities
is still in its infancy. For example, while analyses of
species have been completed for some United States cities,
with some analysis of the ecosystem service benefts,
no studies have assessed the range of provisioning or
cultural services associated with the full complement
of species occurring within cities. However, analyses of
New York City’s urban tree inventories and vegetation
databases reveal 553 tree, shrub, and understory plant
species representing more than 1,100 uses. Most of
the species with one or more uses are native, while a
signifcant minority of species—particularly herbaceous
species—are nonnative. Whether native, nonnative,
or invasive, many species are abundant, although
species abundance and distributions within urban
greenspaces are uneven throughout the city (fgure 5.1).
Most research on urban NTFPs has focused on
documenting the range of species that are being
harvested, the diversity of peoples engaged in harvesting,
motivations for harvesting, places where harvesting
occurs, and uses of species targeted (Community
Resources 2000; Hurley et al. 2015; Jahnige 2002;
McLain et al. 2012, 2014; Poe et al. 2013, 2014). In
Seattle, qualitative interviews with NTFP harvesters
revealed that 433 plant species and 53 species of fungi
are gathered (Poe et al. 2013). A number of species,
such as Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus
Focke), were commonly mentioned as targeted, whereas
species such as salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis Pursh)
and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica L.) were identifed
as culturally distinct species harvested by Coast Salish
native communities. In addition, other species were
preferred by particular cultural groups: chestnuts,
watercress, pennywort, and plantain for Korean, Hmong,
Vietnamese, and Cambodian gatherers; hawthorn
fruit for Eastern European collectors; amaranth for
Mexican households; and plums and various types of
mushrooms for Russian gatherers (Poe et al. 2013).
Similarly, research in New York City is fnding that
several species are particularly important to Chinese
immigrants, including ginkgo nuts (Ginkgo biloba L.),
black mulberries (Morus nigra L.), mugwort (Artemisia
vulgaris L.), and common dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale F.H. Wigg). Interviews with this immigrant
group revealed an additional 49 foraged species, of which
12 are mushrooms, one is a seaweed, another 25 are
herbs, fve are shrubs, and six are trees. In Philadelphia,
PA, engagement with NTFPs by new groups that organize
through social media is on the rise (Hurley et al. 2015).
In-depth interviews with 38 members of this group and
other NTFP harvesters revealed that 160 plants and four
species of fungi are gathered. Providing a food source is
CHAPTER 5 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUC TS IN TH E UNITED STATES UNDER C H ANGIN G CONDI T I ONS
.,,
r.>
c'
Food
Med ici ne
t-
Otilc r
Food
.0
:,
~
Other
.,,
Growth type
M edici ne
r.>
Food
>"
Medici ne
.,,
Food
~I
Other
--- 1:- •
----
• Invasive occasional
I
I
•
•
•
••
Medici ne
I
--
Othe r
~
l5
M edici ne
Other
Food
C
:,
Othe r
•
Potentially invasive frequent
•
Nonnative rare
•
Nonnative occasional
•
Nonnative common
•
Nonnative frequent
•
Native rare
• Native occasional
,•.
-
•
0
Invasive frequent
Nonnative no abun. data
•
M edici ne
u.
Invasive common
•
I
Food
~
•
•
Native common
•
Native frequent
Native no abun. data
50
100
JSO
200
250
Number of species
Figure 5.1—Potentially forageable species found in New York City by growth type, types of use, status, and abundance.
Status and abundance in the region as per the New York Metropolitan Flora Project. (Source: Brooklyn Botanic Garden 2016.)
a dominant reason for harvesting, but some collect raw
materials for basketry and other NTFPs and a minority
sell items harvested from city parks and other areas.
campuses, are key to NTFP opportunities. However,
as with the urban context, the legality of foraging
within parks in the Philadelphia metropolitan area
spans a spectrum, ranging from the harvest of berries
These qualitative studies point to particular urban spaces,
and nuts in limited quantities for personal use,
such as city parks, institutional campuses, vacant lots,
principally on lands managed by the Commonwealth
and cemeteries, as key sites that support the forest, shrub,
of Pennsylvania (e.g., state game lands, state parks) to
and understory vegetation that create opportunities for
outright prohibition in county, municipal parks, and
NTFP harvest in cities. Parks and recreational trails
on private land trust reserves (Hurley et al. 2015).
are particularly important to NTFP harvesters in the
Philadelphia area, e.g., with social meet-up groups
Many formerly rural portions of the country are rapidly
regularly organizing hikes in parts of the city’s parks
urbanizing at densities ranging from urban to exurban
to learn about useful species and their NTFP values
(Brown et al. 2005). Research is generally lacking on
(Hurley et al. 2015). Importantly, limited observations
the status of NTFPs in rural areas experiencing diverse
suggest the reactions of municipal governments to
types of urbanization. A major exception is the work on
these practices may differ markedly. Whereas Seattle
sweetgrass (Muehlenbergia sericea, M. capillaris, or M.
policymakers have worked to embrace some aspects of
filipes)3 basketry among African Americans living in the
foraging (Floberg et al. 2013), including through new
South Carolina lowcountry (see Grabbatin et al. 2011;
policy language in the city’s stewardship plan, managers
Hart et al. 2004; Hurley et al. 2008, 2012). This work
in the Philadelphia area see NTFP harvesting activities
highlights similarities in the situation of rural NTFP
as a threat to park resources (Hurley et al. 2015).
users with regard to stable NTFP supplies in other areas
of the country (Emery 2002), including the extent to
The harvesting of NTFPs is not limited to urban areas,
which changing patterns of land tenure, ownership, and
but also takes place in suburban areas (Hurley et al.
management play roles in shaping access to key NTFPs.
2015, Robbins et al. 2008). Drawing on qualitative
For sweetgrass basketmakers in the greater Charleston
interviews with “Wild Foodies,” research in the
area, urbanization has meant changes in patterns of
Philadelphia metropolitan area suggests that parks,
supply for and access to the three key materials that are
greenways, and trails, as well as institutional
traditionally harvested from area forests and de facto
3
Note: The common name “sweetgrass” is used to refer to Muhlenbergia filipes, not to be confused with Hierochloe odorata (Alpine sweetgrass).
113
114
A S S E S S ME N T O F N O N T I M BER FO REST PRO D UCTS IN THE UN ITED STATES UNDER C H ANGING C ONDITIONS • CHAPTER 5
resource commons: blades of sweetgrass, palmetto
fronds (Sabal palmetto), and longleaf pine needles
(Pinus palutris). Decades of suburban development have
contributed to a decline in the ecological conditions that
produced relatively abundant supplies of sweetgrass.
Some key questions have emerged about the social
justice aspects of continued access to NTFPs that
support cultural and material relationships to forested
ecosystems in urban environments. Indeed, urban
forested ecosystems are key to the cultural and material
practices of diverse peoples who have been marginalized
within natural resource and land use decisionmaking
processes. The cases of African American basketmakers
in the greater Charleston area of the South Carolina
lowcountry (Hurley et al. 2008) as well as American
Indians in the Seattle area (McLain et al. 2012) illustrate
social justice dimensions raised by questions of access
to NTFPs in United States cities. Similar issues are at
play in other areas of the country, where the traditional
relationships of native peoples to plants for material needs
and cultural uses are seen as potentially out of place in
urbanizing areas (Matthewson 2007). Longstanding
uses may be threatened by regulatory dynamics on
public lands and changes to social-ecological dynamics
on private lands, including those uses that support
household economies and food security. Changes in
ownership patterns, land use, and land management,
however, represent opportunities for and challenges
to the continuation of these practices (Grabbatin et al.
2011, Hurley et al. 2013, Poe et al. 2014). For example,
the inclusion, principally, of sweetgrass and, to a lesser
extent, other species associated with sweetgrass basketry
within ornamental landscape plantings in the common
areas of residential and commercial development in the
Greater Mt. Pleasant, SC, area has contributed resource
supplies to these livelihood users. Likewise, new efforts
within Seattle to incorporate NTFP foraging perspectives
into local policy documents as well as to develop new
food forests and public urban orchards suggest proactive
efforts to deal with the needs and desires of NTFP users.
Quantitative research on NTFP harvesting in urban
areas confrms qualitative work, while suggesting that
issues related to access and land-use change may extend
to more than just distinct cultural groups. In the survey
carried out by Robbins et al. (2008), most respondents
were Caucasian, college-educated, in the highest income
brackets, and lived in the city. Robbins and coauthors
concluded that NTFP harvesting is a practice that
transcends socioeconomic background and involves
diverse individuals entering environments around them
to gather products for their own purposes, directly
using and consuming plants. Further, the authors note
that “in the absence of signifcant Federal lands in the
New England region, moreover, this body of gatherers
is harvesting from private lands, roadsides, city parks,
and other areas” (Robbins et al. 2008, p. 272).
Continued research on urban and suburban NTFPs
needs to focus on shifting perceptions of urban forests
and green spaces. Most analyses are qualitative
and limited to a small number of cities, primarily
in the Eastern United States. Most focus on species
being harvested and their uses, the people engaged
in harvesting and their motivations, and identifying
where harvesting occurs (Community Resources
2000; Hurley et al. 2015; Jahnige 2002; McLain et
al. 2012, 2014; Poe et al. 2013, 2014). Urban and
suburban harvesting present an important and emerging
area for research on NTFPs in the United States.
5.6
Key Findings
• In some regions of the United States, as much as 16–36
percent of people have harvested NTFPs for primarily
personal use.
• People of all ages, incomes, and ethnicities harvest
NTFPs outside of formal markets, whether harvesting
on public or private land.
• Harvesting, preparing, and using NTFPs connect
people directly and materially to forests and are sources
of social and cultural capital.
• NTFPs are harvested in landscapes from urban to
wildland environments.
• Including diverse harvesters in forest management
decisions may enhance the long-term sustainability of
NTFPs.
CHAPTER 5 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUC TS IN TH E UNITED STATES UNDER C H ANGIN G CONDI T I ONS
5.7
Key Information Needs
5.9
Literature Cited
• National baseline data on NTFP harvesters are needed
as a basis for monitoring NTFP use in an era of
changing climate.
American Herbal Products Association (AHPA). 2006. Good agricultural and
collection practice for herbal raw materials. Silver Spring, MD: American
Herbal Products Association.
• Enhanced understanding is needed to address barriers
to participation in NTFP management planning for
diverse harvesters, particularly those least likely to
participate in formal consultation processes.
• Additional information is needed to understand the
social, ecological, and governance implications of
foraging in (sub)urban landscapes.
5.8
Conclusions
The research reviewed in this chapter suggests a number
of conclusions about the social dimensions of NTFP
harvesting in the United States. First, NTFPs provide
social and cultural capital and economic capital. Studies
on harvester demographics demonstrate that many
people gather NTFPs outside of formal markets (Butler
2008, Cordell et al. 2012). Harvesting, preparing, and
using NTFPs connect people directly and materially
to forests (Emery et al. 2006, Robbins et al. 2008).
Second, data show that harvester demographics cross
social categories of age, gender, ethnicity, and income.
Continued research on harvester populations across the
United States is high priority. Also there is an urgent
need to examine variation in NTFP knowledge and
stewardship practices among harvesters. Governance
structures will function best when they are grounded
in realities of NTFP gathering systems. This will
include recognizing and accommodating people who
gather and use NTFPs outside of formal economic
markets, while being informed by labor and economic
structures of formal NTFP markets. Resource
users are in direct contact with forest resources
and local knowledge may bolster the effectiveness
of management on public and private lands.
Opportunities exist to increase the effectiveness of
NTFP monitoring and management by enhancing
communication and cooperation between stakeholders
and land managers. Special attention will be needed
in such efforts to reach out to populations frequently
absent from natural resource decisionmaking processes.
Anderson, J.A.; Blahna, D.J. 2000. Fern gathering on the San Bernardino
National Forest: Cultural versus commercial values among Korean and
Japanese participants. Society and Natural Resources. 12: 747–762.
Ballard, H.L. 2004. Impacts of harvesting salal ( Gaultheria shallon ) on the
Olympic Peninsula, Washington: harvester knowledge, science, and
participation. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley. Doctoral
dissertation.
Ballard, H.L.; Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E.; Sturtevant, V.E. 2008. Integration
of local ecological knowledge and conventional science: a study of seven
community-based forestry organizations in the USA. Ecology and Society.
13(2): 37.
Ballard, H.L.; Huntsinger, L. 2006. Salal harvester local ecological
knowledge, harvest practices and understory management on the
Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Human Ecology. 34: 529–547.
Barron, E.S.; Emery, M.R. 2009. Protecting resources: Assessing visitor
harvesting of wild morel mushrooms in two National Capital Region
parks. Natural Resources Tech. Rep. NPS/NCR/NCRO/NRTR—
009/002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Park Service. 52 p.
Barron, E.S.; Emery, M.R. 2012. Implications of variation in social-ecological
systems for the development of U.S. fungal management policy. Society
and Natural Resources. 25: 996–1011.
Baumflek, M.J.; Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C. 2010. Culturally and economically
important nontimber forest products of northern Maine. Gen. Tech. Rep.
NRS-68. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Northern Research Station. 74 p.
Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological
knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications.
10: 1251–1262.
Brown, D.; Johnson, K.; Loveland, T.; Theobald, D. 2005. Rural land-use
trends in the coterminous United States, 1950–2000. Ecological
Applications. 15: 1851–1863.
Burkhart, E.P.; Jacobson, M.G.; Finley, J. 2012. A case study of stakeholder
perspective and experience with wild American ginseng ( Panax
quinquefolius ) conservation efforts in Pennsylvania, U.S.A.: limitations
to a CITES driven, top-down regulatory approach. Biodiversity and
Conservation. 21: 3657–3679.
Butler, B.J. 2008. Family forest owners of the United States, 2006.
Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 72 p.
Butler, B.J.; Hewes, J.H.; Dickinson, B.J. [and others]. 2016. USDA Forest
Service National Woodland Owner Survey: national, regional, and state
statistics for family forest and woodland ownerships with 10+ acres,
2011–2013. Res. Bull. NRS-99. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 39 p.
Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2007. Integrating traditional and local
ecological knowledge into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacific
Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 246: 14–28.
Community Resources. 2000. The bounty of the urban forest: the
uses and values of urban nontimber forest products. http://www.
urbanforestrysouth.org/resources/library/the-bounty-of-the-urbanforest-the-uses-and-values-of-urban-nontimber-forest-products/file.
[Date accessed: February 11, 2013].
115
116
A S S E S S ME N T O F N O N T I M BER FO REST PRO D UCTS IN THE UN ITED STATES UNDER C H ANGING C ONDITIONS • CHAPTER 5
Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Mou, S.H.; Gormanson, D.D. 2012. Outdoor
recreation in the Northern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-100.
Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Northern Research Station. 74 p.
Dick, R.E. 1996. Subsistence economies: freedom from the marketplace.
Society & Natural Resources. 9: 19–29.
Emery, M.R. 2001a. Social values of specialty forest products to rural
communities. In: Josiah, S.J., ed. Proceedings of the North American
Conference on Enterprise Development through agroforestry: farming
the forest for specialty products. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Integrated
Natural Resources and Agricultural Management (CINRAM), University
of Minnesota: 25–32.
Grabbatin, B.; Hurley, P.T.; Halfacre, A. 2011. “I still have the old tradition”:
the co-production of sweetgrass basketry and coastal development.
Geoforum. 42: 638–649.
Hart, Z.; Halfacre, A.; Burke, M. 2004. Community participation in
preservation of Lowcountry South Carolina sweetgrass ( Muhlenbergia
filipes [M. A. Curtis] J. Pinson and W. Batson) basketry. Economic Botany.
58: 161–171.
Headley, C.; Wilmsen, C. 2010. Matsutake mushroom harvesters influence
land management in central Oregon. United Forest Voice. Spring: 1–2.
Emery, M.R. 2001b. Who knows? Local nontimber forest products
knowledge and stewardship practices in northern Michigan. Journal of
Sustainable Forestry. 13: 123–139.
Hembram, D.; Hoover, W.L. 2008. Nontimber forest products in Daniel
Boone National Forest region—Economic significance and potential for
sustainability. In: Jacobs, D.F.; Michler, C.H., eds. Proceedings of the 16th
Central Hardwoods Forest Conference; 2008 April 8–9; West Lafayette,
IN. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS P-24. Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 148–156.
Emery, M.R. 2002. Space outside the market: implications of NTFP
certification for subsistence use. In: Shanley, P.; Pierce, A.; Laird, S.;
Guillen, A., eds. Tapping the green market: management and certification
of NTFPs. London: Earthscan: 302–312.
Hurley, P.; Emery, M.R.; McLain, R. [and others]. 2015. Whose urban forest?
Plant foraging and the political ecology of urban forests. In: Isenhour, C.;
Checker, M.; McDonough, G., eds. Sustainability in the global city. New
York: Cambridge University Press: 187–212.
Emery, M.R.; Barron, E.S. 2010. Using local ecological knowledge to
assess morel decline in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic region. Economic Botany.
64: 205–216.
Hurley, P.; Grabbatin, B.; Goetcheus, C.; Halfacre. A. 2013. Gathering, buying,
and growing sweetgrass ( Muhlenbergia sericea ): urbanization and social
networking in the sweetgrass basket-making industry of lowcountry
South Carolina. In: Voeks, R.; Rashford, J., eds. African ethnobotany in
the Americas. New York: Springer-Verlag: 153–174.
Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C. 2014. Special forest products on the Green
Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests: a research-based
approach to management. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-131. Newtown Square,
PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research
Station. 51 p.
Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C.; Chamberlain, J. 2006. Migrants, markets, and the
transformation of natural resources management: galax harvesting in
western North Carolina. In: Furuseth, O.J.; Smith, H., eds. Latinos in the
new South and the transformation of place. Burlington, VT: Ashgate:
69–88.
Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C.; Newman, S.; Giammusso, M.R.B. 2003. Special
forest products in context: gatherers and gathering in the Eastern United
States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-306. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 59 p.
Emery, M.R.; Pierce, A.R. 2005. Interrupting the telos: locating subsistence
in contemporary U.S. forests. Environment and Planning A. 37: 981–993.
Emery, M.R.; Wrobel, A.; Hansen, M.H. [and others]. 2014. Using traditional
ecological knowledge as a basis for targeted forest inventories: paper
birch ( Betula papyrifera ) in the U.S. Great Lakes Region. Journal of
Forestry. 112: 207–214.
Everett, Y. 2001. Participatory research for adaptive ecosystem
management: a case of nontimber forest products. Journal of Sustainable
Forestry. 13: 335–357.
Fisher, A.H. 2002. Making peace in the berry patch: the 1932 handshake
agreement and the promise of cultural use zones. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain,
R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States.
Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press: 293–299.
Hurley, P.; Halfacre, A.; Levine, N.; Burke, M. 2008. Finding a “disappearing”
resource: using grounded visualization to explore urbanization impacts on
sweetgrass basket-making in Greater Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. The
Professional Geographer. 60(4): 1–23.
Jahnige, P. 2002. The hidden bounty of the urban forest. In: Jones, E.T.;
McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United
States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 96–107.
Jones, E.T. 2002. The political ecology of wild mushroom harvester
stewardship in the Pacific Northwest. Amherst: University of
Massachusetts-Amherst. Ph.D. dissertation.
Jones, E.T.; Lynch, K. 2002. The relevance of sociocultural variables to
nontimber forest product research, policy, and management. In: Jones,
E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the
United States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 26–51.
Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. 2002. Nontimber forest products
in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 445 p.
Love, T.; Jones, E.; Liegel, L. 1998. Valuing the temperate rainforest: wild
mushrooming on the Olympic Peninsula Biosphere Reserve. Ambio.
9: 16–25.
Matthewson, M. 2007. California Indian basketweavers and the landscape.
In: Li, J., ed. To harvest, to hunt: stories of resource use in the American
West. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State Press: 40–57.
McLain, R.; Hurley, P.; Emery, M.R.; Poe, M. 2014. Gathering “wild” food in
the city: rethinking the role of foraging in urban ecosystem planning and
management. Local Environment. 19: 220–240.
Floberg, J.; Small, J.; Bradley, G. [and others]. 2013. City of Seattle 2013
urban forest stewardship plan. Seattle, WA: City of Seattle Urban
Forestry Commission. 78p.
McLain, R.; Poe, M.; Hurley, P. [and others]. 2012. Producing edible
landscapes in Seattle’s urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening.
11: 187–194.
Fortmann, L.; Ballard, H. 2011. Sciences, knowledges, and the practice of
forestry. European Journal of Forest Research. 130: 467–477.
McLain, R.J. 2002. Business as usual: the exclusion of mushroom pickers in
wild mushroom management in Oregon’s national forests. In: Jones, E.T.;
McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United
States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 375–385.
Gabriel, N. 2006. Urban nontimber forest products in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia: Temple University. M.S. thesis.
Gianotti, A.G.S.; Hurley, P.T. 2016. Gathering plants and fungi along the
urban-rural gradient: uncovering differences in the attitudes and
practices among urban, suburban, and rural landowners. Land Use Policy.
57: 555–563.
McLain, R.J.; Alexander, S.J.; Jones, E.T. 2008. Incorporating understanding
of informal economic activity in natural resource and economic
development policy. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-755. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station. 53 p.
CHAPTER 5 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUC TS IN TH E UNITED STATES UNDER C H ANGIN G CONDI T I ONS
McLain, R.J.; Lynch, K. 2010. Managing floral greens in a globalized
economy: resource tenure, labour relations and immigration policy in the
Pacific Northwest, USA. In: Laird, S.A.; McLain, R.J.; Wynbeerg, R.P.,
eds. Wild product governance: Finding policies that work for nontimber
forest products. London: Earthscan: 267–285.
National Forest System Land Management Planning of 2012; 36 CFR Part 219.
Peck, J.E.; Christy, J.A. 2006. Putting the stewardship concept into practice:
commercial moss harvest in northwestern Oregon, USA. Forest Ecology
and Management. 225: 225–233.
Pilz, D.; Ballard, H.L.; Jones, E.T. 2006. Broadening participation in biological
monitoring: handbook for scientists and managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW680. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 131 p.
Pilz, D.; Norvell, L.; Danell, E.; Molina, R. 2003. Ecology and management of
commercially harvested chanterelle mushrooms. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW576. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 83 p.
Poe, M.; LeCompte, J.; McLain, R.J.; Hurley, P. 2014. Urban foraging and
the relational ecologies of belonging. Social & Cultural Geography. 15(8):
901–919.
Poe, M.R.; McLain, R.J.; Emery, M.R.; Hurley, P.T. 2013. Urban forest justice
and the rights to wild foods, medicines, and materials in the city. Human
Ecology. 14: 409–422.
Price, D.M.; Kindscher, K. 2007. One hundred years of Echinacea angustifolia
harvest in the Smoky Hills of Kansas, USA. Economic Botany. 61: 86–95.
Richards, R.T.; Creasy, M. 1996. Ethnic diversity, resource values, and
ecosystem management: Matsutake mushroom harvesting in the
Klamath bioregion. Society and Natural Resources. 9: 359–374.
Robbins, P.; Emery, M.R.; Rice, J. 2008. Gathering in Thoreau’s backyard:
Nontimber forest product harvesting as practice. Area. 40: 265–277.
Saechao, F.; Wilmsen, C. 2012. Huckleberry harvesting—is it the American
dream? The Chronicle. September 11.
Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A. 1995. The wild edible mushroom industry of
Washington, Oregon, and Idaho—a 1992 survey. Journal of Forestry.
93: 31–36.
United Nations. 1987. Our common future—Brundtland report. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Watson, K. 2010. Tupelo forests and honey production along the
Apalachicola River of Northwest Florida: livelihood preservation and
forest conservation in a changing rural landscape. Tallahassee: Florida
State University. Ph.D. dissertation.
Welch, C. 2006. A war in the woods. Seattle Times. June 6. http://
seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003042206_salal06m.html. [Date
accessed: September 26, 2014].
117