Abstract
Communities around the world face similar pressures for change when experiencing the transition from rural to exurban, but they deal with these pressures in very different ways. As discussed in the Introduction, economic shifts on a global scale result in the decline of productive activities, such as agriculture and forestry, and in places with great natural beauty, local actors turn to amenity real estate development to capitalize on existing natural resources in new ways. This chapter continues the discussion about the application of a comparative political ecology framework begun in the Introduction to further illustrate the analysis of similarities and differences in the experience of exurbanization considered across different contexts in this volume. Two divergent exurban communities are explored in detail to highlight the effects of socioeconomic change, environmental management regimes, and the role of land-use planning in the negotiation of environmental imaginaries. In the case of Quakertown Swamp in southeastern Pennsylvania, political negotiation over environmental imaginaries within the land-use planning regime resulted in a contemporary exurban landscape of very fragmented nature conservation. By comparison, Nevada County in California’s Sierra Nevada foothills is the site of intensive site-level engagements by exurban actors over the aesthetics and material configurations of a rural landscape traditionally associated with agriculture and forestry but more recently transformed through low-density development. Through these case studies we specifically illustrate key dynamics of competing rural capitalisms, environmental management, and planning, and introduce important analytical questions for examining exurbia in other parts of the U.S. and beyond.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The analysis of landscape change discussed here is the result of using grounded visualization techniques (see Hurley et al. 2008; Knigge and Cope 2006), including air photo interpretation and coupled interviews with long-time locals. Fieldwork and qualitative interviews with Quakertown municipal officials were undertaken and completed by Hurley and Ursinus College student Max Lehner as part of an independent research project.
- 2.
The analysis of land-use conflict discussed here is the result of extensive ethnographic fieldwork conducted in the early 2000s, including interviews with county officials, developers, and residents. Fieldwork was undertaken as part of dissertation research (Hurley 2004).
- 3.
Lake of the Pines, 8–7–2003.
- 4.
This is a separate organization from the group, South County Area Neighbors, referred to at the beginning of this chapter, further highlighting the extent to which these issues are being politicized.
- 5.
The current chair of the planning commission was considered by many observers in Nevada County to be “in the minority” because he was appointed by a “planned growth” supervisor. Planning commissioners in Nevada County, however, have a history of demonstrating their independence, although the votes on many decisions related to development that are appealed to the Board of Supervisors often fall along ideological lines.
References
Calhoun, C. (Ed.) (2002). Regime. In Dictionary of the social sciences. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195123715.001.0001/acref-9780195123715-e-1420.
Druzin, H. (2003, 25 August). Diaz: County could lose its charm. The Union. Retrieved from http://www.theunion.com/news/2332082-113/news-none .
Duane, T. (1999). Shaping the Sierra: Nature, culture, and conflict in the changing West. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
DVRPC. (2010). DVRPC 2010 digital orthoimagery—Mr. SID County Mosaics. Retrieved from http://www.dvrpc.org/Aerials/.
DVRPC. (2011). 2011 Protected open space. Retrieved from http://www.dvrpc.org/Mapping/data.htm.
Hall, P. (2014). Cities of tomorrow: An intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century (4th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
Hurley, P. (2004). Whose vision? The political ecology of land-use policy in Nevada County, California. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
Hurley, P., Halfacre, A., Levine, N., & Burke, M. (2008). Finding a “disappearing” non-timber forest resource: Using grounded visualization to explore urbanization impacts on sweetgrass basket-making in greater Mt Pleasant, SC. The Professional Geographer, 60(4), 1–23. doi:10.1080/00330120802288941.
Hurley, P., & Walker, P. (2004). Whose vision? ‘Conspiracy theory’ and land-use planning in Nevada County, California. Environment and Planning A, 36(9), 1529–1547. doi:10.1068/a36186.
Innis, J., & Booher, D. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. New York: Routledge.
Knigge, L. D., & Cope, M. (2006). Grounded visualization: Integrating the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data through grounded theory and visualization. Environment and Planning A, 38(11), 2021–2037. doi:10.1068/a37327.
McGranahan, D. (1999). Natural amenities drive rural population change. Washington, DC: USDA, Agricultural Economic Report No. 781, USDA Economic Research Service.
Nesbitt, J. T., & Weiner, D. (2001). Conflicting environmental imaginaries and the politics of nature in Central Appalachia. Geoforum, 32(3), 333–349. doi:10.1016/S0016-7185(00)00047-6.
Nevada County. (2015). Digital data download. Retrieved from http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/igs/gis/Pages/MetaData.aspx.
Nevada County Planning Commission. (2004). Recorded proceedings of the Commission, 2–12–2004. Nevada City, CA: Nevada County Planning Department.
Nevada County Planning Department. (2004a). Nevada County Planning Commission staff report (File# FM97-007 & Z97-007).
Nevada County Planning Department. (2004b). Wolf Creek Ranch project findings. Retrieved from http://docs.co.nevada.ca.us/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File-69658/Project_Facts_&_Findings.doc.
Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC). (2000). Wolf Creek Ranch Estates final environmental impact report (SCH No. 1997102097). Sacramento, CA.
Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC). (2001). Wolf Creek Ranch Estates revised draft environmental impact report (SCH No. 1997102097). Sacramento, CA.
Peet, R., & Watts, M. (Eds.). (1996). Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, and social movements. London: Routledge.
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PA DCNR). (2015). Nockamixon State Park. Retrieved from http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/findapark/nockamixon/.
Pennsylvania Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. (2015). Pennsylvania spatial data access. Retrieved from http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/SearchPage.aspx.
Quick, K. S., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Distinguishing participation and inclusion. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(3), 272–290. doi:10.1177/0739456X11410979.
Reed, M. (2007a). Uneven environmental management: A Canadian comparative political ecology. Environment and Planning A, 39(2), 320–338. doi:10.1068/a38217.
Reed, M. (2007b). Uneven environmental management: A Canadian perspective. Environmental Management, 39(1), 30–49. doi:10.1007/s00267-005-0159-5.
Robbins, P. (2002). Obstacles to a first world political ecology: Looking near without looking up. Environment and Planning A, 34(8), 1509–1513. doi:10.1068/a34217.
Robbins, P. (2006). The politics of barstool biology: Environmental knowledge and power in greater Northern Yellowstone. Geoforum, 37(2), 185–199. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.11.011.
Sandberg, A., Wekerle, G., & Gilbert, L. (2013). The Oak Ridges Moraine battles: Development, sprawl, and nature conservation in the Toronto Region. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
The Union Editorial Board. (2004, February 10). The Union Q & A: Olivia Diaz, District 1. The Union, Grass Valley, CA.
Walker, P., & Fortmann, L. (2003). Whose landscape? A political ecology of the ‘exurban’ Sierra. Cultural Geographies, 10(4), 469–491. doi:10.1191/1474474003eu285oa.
Walker, P., & Hurley, P. (2011). Planning paradise: Politics and visioning of land use in Oregon. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Watts, M., & Peet, R. (1996). Conclusion: Towards a theory of liberation ecology. In R. Peet & M. Watts (Eds.), Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, and social movements (pp. 260–269). London: Routledge.
Watts, M., & Peet, R. (2004). Liberating political ecology. In R. Peet & M. Watts (Eds.), Liberation ecologies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hurley, P.T., Taylor, L.E. (2016). From Swamp to Ridgeline: Exploring Exurbia in Southeastern Pennsylvania and the Sierra Nevada Foothills of California. In: Taylor, L., Hurley, P. (eds) A Comparative Political Ecology of Exurbia. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29462-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29462-9_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29460-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29462-9
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)