Beyond the Edge and in Between: (Re)conceptualizing the Rural–Urban Interface as Meaning–Model–Metaphor

Literature Cited

• Allen, J. D., D. Massey, and A. Cochrane. 1998. Rethinking region. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ban, H. W., and O. Ahlqvist. 2009. Representing and negotiating uncertain geospatial concepts—Where are the exurban areas? Computers Environment and Urban Systems 33:233–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beebe, C., and S. M. Wheeler. 2012. Gold Country: The politics of landscape in exurban El Dorado County, California. Journal of Political Ecology 19:1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Blaikie, P. M., and H. C. Brookfield. 1987. Land degradation and society. London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Bunce, M. 1994. The countryside ideal: Anglo-American images of landscape. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cadenasso, M. L., S. T. A. Pickett, K. C. Weathers, S. S. Bell, T. L. Benning, M. M. Carreiro, and T. E. Dawson. 2003. An interdisciplinary and synthetic approach to ecological boundaries. BioScience 53:717–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadenasso, M. L., S. T. A. Pickett, K. C. Weathers, and C. G. Jones. 2003. A framework for a theory of ecological boundaries. BioScience 53:750–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadieux, K. V. 2008. Political ecology of exurban “lifestyle” landscapes at Christchurch's contested urban fence. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7:183–94.
   Google Scholar
• Cadieux, K., and P. Hurley. 2011. Amenity migration, exurbia, and emerging rural landscapes: Global natural amenity as place and as process. GeoJournal 76:297–302.
   Google Scholar
• Castree, N. 2001. Socializing nature: Theory, practice, and politics. In Social nature: Theory, practice, and politics, ed. N. Castree and B. Braun, 1–21. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2005. Nature. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Croissant, C. 2004. Landscape patterns and parcel boundaries: An analysis of composition and configuration of land use and land cover in south-central Indiana. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 101:219–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cromartie, J., and S. Bucholtz. 2008. Defining the “rural” in rural America. Amber Waves, 6. http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2008-june/defining-the-%E2%80%9Crural%E2%80%9D-in-rural-america.aspx#.V3PQ8k32aM8 (last accessed 29 June 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Crump, J. R. 2003. Finding a place in the country—Exurban and suburban development in Sonoma County, California. Environment and Behavior 35:187–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duane, T. P. 1999. Shaping the Sierra: Nature, culture, and conflict in the changing West. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ewert, A. W., D. J. Chavez, and A. W. Magill. 1993. Culture, conflict, and communication in the wildland–urban interface. Boulder, CO: Westview.
   Google Scholar
• Filan, T., and C. Hiner. Forthcoming. “Boom and bust”: (Hi)stories of landscape production and consumption in the Sierra Nevada foothills of California. Regional Studies, Regional Science.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. 1998. Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. 1999. The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Furuseth, O. J., and M. B. Lapping. 1999. Contested countryside: The rural urban fringe in North America. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Gallent, N., J. Andersson, and M. Bianconi. 2006. Planning on the edge: The context for planning at the rural-urban fringe. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gosnell, H., and J. Abrams. 2011. Amenity migration: Diverse conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges. GeoJournal 76:303–22.
   Google Scholar
• Haaland, C., G. Fry, and A. Peterson. 2011. Designing farmland for multifunctionality. Landscape Research 36:41–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hester, R. T. 1985. Landstyles and lifescapes + 12 steps to community development. Landscape Architecture 75:78–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiner, C. C. 2014. “Been-heres vs. come-heres” and other identities and ideologies along the rural–urban interface: A comparative case study in Calaveras County, California. Land Use Policy 41:70–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———. 2015. (False) dichotomies, political ideologies, and preferences for environmental management along the rural–urban interface in Calaveras County, California. Journal of Applied Geography 65:13–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———. 2016a. “Chicken wars,” water fights, and other contested ecologies along the rural–urban interface in California's Sierra Nevada foothills. Journal of Political Ecology 23:167–81.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2016b. Divergent perspectives and contested ecologies: Challenges in environmental management along the rural–urban interface. In A comparative political ecology of exurbia: Planning, environmental management, and landscape change, ed. L. Taylor and P. T. Hurley, 51–82. Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Huylenbroeck, G. v., and G. Durand. 2003. Multifunctional agriculture: A new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development. London: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Ilbery, B. W. 1998. The geography of rural change. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, E. G., H. J. Cho, and N. E. Bockstael. 2007. Exurban settlement pattern and the exurban condition: A typology of US metropolitan areas. Review of Agricultural Economics 29:494–501.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson-Smith, D., and J. Sharp. 2008. Farming in the urban shadow: Supporting agriculture at the rural–urban interface. Rural Realities 2 (4): 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Knickel, K., and H. Renting. 2000. Methodological and conceptual issues in the study of multifunctionality and rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 40:512–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuminoff, N., A. Sokolow, and D. Sumner. 2001. Farmland conversion: Perceptions and realities. Davis, CA: AIC Issues Brief No. 16, Agricultural Issues Center, University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Laband, D. N., B. G. Lockaby, and W. C. Zipperer. 2012. Urban–rural interfaces: Linking people and nature. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen, S., and C. Hutton. 2011. Community discourse and the emerging amenity landscapes of the rural American West. GeoJournal 77:651–65.
   Google Scholar
• Lefebvre, H. 1991. The production of space. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Libby, L. W., and M. Dicks. 2002. Rural–urban interface issues. Oak Brook, IL: The Farm Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Lichter, D. T., and D. L. Brown. 2011. Rural America in an urban society: Changing spatial and social boundaries. Annual Review of Sociology 37:565–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massey, D. 1993. A place called home? New Formations 17:3–15.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 1994. Space, place, and gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Massey, D. B., J. Allen, and P. Sarre. 1999. Human geography today. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Masuda, J. R., and T. Garvin. 2008. Whose heartland?: The politics of place in a rural–urban interface. Journal of Rural Studies 24:112–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, J. 2008. Rural geography: Globalizing the countryside. Progress in Human Geography 32:129–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, A. C. 1992. Characterizing exurbia. Journal of Planning Literature 6:350–68.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, P. B. 2001. Rural restructuring in the American West: Land use, family and class discourses. Journal of Rural Studies 17:395–407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nesbitt, J. T., and D. Weiner. 2001. Conflicting environmental imaginaries and the politics of nature in Central Appalachia. Geoforum 32:333–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann, R. P. 2005. Making political ecology. London: Hodder Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Peet, R., and M. Watts. 2004. Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, social movements. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pickett, S. T. A., and M. L. Cadenasso. 2002. The ecosystem as a multidimensional concept: Meaning, model, and metaphor. Ecosystems 5:1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Post, D. M., M. W. Doyle, J. L. Sabo, and J. C. Finlay. 2007. The problem of boundaries in defining ecosystems: A potential landmine for uniting geomorphology and ecology. Geomorphology 89:111–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riebsame, W. E., H. Gosnell, and D. M. Theobald. 1996. Land use and landscape change in the Colorado mountains I: Theory, scale, and pattern. Mountain Research and Development 16:395–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robbins, P. 2004. Political ecology: A critical introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2007. Lawn people: How grasses, weeds, and chemicals make us who we are. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2011. Political ecology: A critical introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Robbins, P., K. Meehan, H. Gosnell, and S. J. Gilbertz. 2009. Writing the new West: A critical review. Rural Sociology 74:356–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, W. A. 2011. Environmental politics and policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, A., A. Gilbert, and A. Gelan. 2007. The urban–rural divide: Myth or reality? SERG Policy Brief No. 2. Aberdeen, UK: The Macaulay Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Serra, P., A. Vera, A. F. Tulla, and L. Salvati. 2014. Beyond urban–rural dichotomy: Exploring socioeconomic and land-use processes of change in Spain (1991–2011). Applied Geography 55:71–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheridan, T. E. 2007. Embattled ranchers, endangered species, and urban sprawl: The political ecology of the new American West. Annual Review of Anthropology 36:121–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. 1996. Status of the Sierra Nevada: Summary of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report. Berkeley: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, N. 2008. Uneven development: Nature, capital, and the production of space. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Soini, K., H. Vaarala, and E. Pouta. 2012. Residents' sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural–urban interface. Landscape and Urban Planning 104:124–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sokolow, A. 2004. California's edge problem: Urban impacts on agriculture. In California agriculture: Dimensions and issues, ed. J. Siebert, 289–304. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strayer, D. L., M. E. Power, W. F. Fagan, S. T. A. Pickett, and J. Belnap. 2003. A classification of ecological boundaries. BioScience 53:723–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swyngedouw, E., and N. C. Heynen. 2003. Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of scale. Antipode 35:898–918.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tacoli, C. 2006. The Earthscan reader in rural–urban linkages. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, L. 2011. No boundaries: Exurbia and the study of contemporary urban dispersion. GeoJournal 76:323–39.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, L., and P. T. Hurley, eds. 2016a. A comparative political ecology of exurbia: Planning, environmental management, and landscape change. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2016b. Introduction: The broad contours on exurban landscape change. In A comparative political ecology of exurbia: Planning, environmental management, and landscape change, ed. L. Taylor and P. T. Hurley, 1–29. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Theobald, D. M. 2001. Land-use dynamics beyond the American urban fringe. Geographical Review 91:544–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———. 2005. Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecology and Society 10 (1): 32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Travis, W. R. 2007. New geographies of the American West: Land use and the changing patterns of place. Washington, DC: Island.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Census. 2009. State and county quick facts: Calaveras County. California. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06009.html (last accessed 2 June 2010).
   Google Scholar
• Walker, P. A. 2003. Reconsidering “regional” political ecologies: Toward a political ecology of the rural American West. Progress in Human Geography 27:7–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, P., and L. Fortmann. 2003. Whose landscape? A political ecology of the “exurban” Sierra. Cultural Geographies 10:469–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, P. A., and P. T. Hurley. 2011. Planning paradise: Politics and visioning of land use in Oregon. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, R. 1973. The country and the city. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, G. A. 2001. From productivism to post-productivism … and back again? Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26:77–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———. 2010. Multifunctional “quality” and rural community resilience. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35:364–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkler, R., D. R. Field, A. E. Luloff, R. S. Arannich, and T. Williams. 2007. Social landscapes of the inter-mountain west: A comparison of “old west” and “new west” communities. Rural Sociology 72:478–501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods, M. 2005. Rural geography: Processes, responses and experiences in rural restructuring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2009. Rural geography: Blurring boundaries and making connections. Progress in Human Geography 33:849–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———. 2011. Rural. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar