Acknowledging Trade-offs and Understanding Complexity: Exurbanization Issues in Macon County, North Carolina

Abstract

We applied an integrative framework to illuminate and discuss the complexities of exurbanization in Macon County, North Carolina. The case of Macon County, North Carolina, highlights the complexity involved in addressing issues of exurbanization in the Southern Appalachian region. Exurbanization, the process by which urban residents move into rural areas in search of unique natural amenities and idealized lifestyles, can often have a dramatic impact on the local economy, culture, and environment. Within Macon County, complex debates and tensions among multiple stakeholders struggle to address local residential development. How can better problem definition benefit rural communities in addressing exurbanization pressures and effects? We asserted that a key factor in the shortcomings of previous solutions was the shortsightedness inherent in policy that attempts to treat individual symptoms without being able to adequately characterize the underlying problem. The goal of the integrative framework is to initiate an iterative process of transparent negotiation, which recognizes a range of potential choices to be considered and to embrace the social complexities that can at times overwhelm scholars and practitioners, inviting simplification and polarization of the issues. This new and emerging framework offers a novel way of approaching conservation and development issues where other frameworks have failed. It helps acknowledge the difficult choices, i.e., trade-offs, that have to be made in a material process like exurbanization. Trade-offs will be necessary in any negotiation related to conservation. Therefore, conflict surrounding specific values, e.g., cultural, financial, or ecological, must be acknowledged upfront to move deeper into issues of plurality. Given the complexity, understanding how the process of exurbanization is being played out within Macon County provided not only an opportunity to demonstrate the functionality of an integrative approach, but also a call for further study of exurbanization dynamics.

Full text

Copyright © 2014 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Vercoe, R. A., M. Welch-Devine, D. Hardy, J. A. Demoss, S. N. Bonney, K. Allen, P. Brosius, D. Charles, B. Crawford, S. Heisel, N.
Heynen, R. G. De Jesús-Crespo, N. Nibbelink, L. Parker, C. Pringle, A. Shaw, and L. Van Sant. 2014. Acknowledging trade-offs and
understanding complexity: exurbanization issues in Macon County, North Carolina. Ecology and Society 19(1): 23. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5751/ES-05970-190123
Synthesis
Acknowledging Trade-offs and Understanding Complexity: Exurbanization
Issues in Macon County, North Carolina
Richard A. Vercoe 1, M. Welch-Devine 2, Dean Hardy 3, J. A. Demoss 3, S. N. Bonney 4, K. Allen 3, Peter Brosius 3, D. Charles 1, B.
Crawford 5, S. Heisel 4, Nik Heynen 1, R. G. de Jesús-Crespo 4, N. Nibbelink 5, L. Parker 1, Cathy Pringle 4, A. Shaw 1 and L. Van Sant 1
ABSTRACT. We applied an integrative framework to illuminate and discuss the complexities of exurbanization in Macon County,
North Carolina. The case of Macon County, North Carolina, highlights the complexity involved in addressing issues of exurbanization
in the Southern Appalachian region. Exurbanization, the process by which urban residents move into rural areas in search of unique
natural amenities and idealized lifestyles, can often have a dramatic impact on the local economy, culture, and environment. Within
Macon County, complex debates and tensions among multiple stakeholders struggle to address local residential development. How
can better problem definition benefit rural communities in addressing exurbanization pressures and effects? We asserted that a key
factor in the shortcomings of previous solutions was the shortsightedness inherent in policy that attempts to treat individual symptoms
without being able to adequately characterize the underlying problem. The goal of the integrative framework is to initiate an iterative
process of transparent negotiation, which recognizes a range of potential choices to be considered and to embrace the social complexities
that can at times overwhelm scholars and practitioners, inviting simplification and polarization of the issues. This new and emerging
framework offers a novel way of approaching conservation and development issues where other frameworks have failed. It helps
acknowledge the difficult choices, i.e., trade-offs, that have to be made in a material process like exurbanization. Trade-offs will be
necessary in any negotiation related to conservation. Therefore, conflict surrounding specific values, e.g., cultural, financial, or ecological,
must be acknowledged upfront to move deeper into issues of plurality. Given the complexity, understanding how the process of
exurbanization is being played out within Macon County provided not only an opportunity to demonstrate the functionality of an
integrative approach, but also a call for further study of exurbanization dynamics.
Key Words: conservation; development; ecological; exurbanization; integrative conservation; trade-offs
INTRODUCTION
There are increasing calls in conservation for an approach that
explicitly defines and acknowledges the various trade-offs
involved in decision making (McShane et al. 2011). Identification
of trade-offs, recognition of dissonant and conflicting views, and
an understanding of the different ways in which trade-offs are
understood and framed, ideally allows for deliberate negotiation
among the myriad stakeholders of conservation projects (Hirsch
et al. 2010, McShane et al. 2011). Conservation and development
discourse must move beyond the simplified ‘win-win’ rhetorics
that have underscored conservation efforts for the past 20 years,
through such initiatives as integrated conservation and
development programs (ICDPs), community based conservation
(CBC), and now market-based mechanisms (MBM; Brandon and
Wells 1992, Western and Wright 1994, Costanza et al. 1997, Daily
1997, Phillips 2003). Win-win approaches in conservation and
development often ignore interdependent and interconnected
complexities (McShane and Wells 2004, McShane et al. 2011) thus
limiting the scope of possible solutions and affecting the long-
term sustainability of outcomes. The challenges and pitfalls of
past win-win approaches have led to the realization that although
some peoples, species, or habitats may benefit from particular
conservation and development interventions, others will not;
there are always winners and losers. Identifying trade-offs requires
recognition of the complexities of both social and ecological
systems and their linkages and interactions (Cash et al. 2006, Liu
et al. 2007). The integrative framework addresses trade-offs by
allowing for the consideration of multiple perspectives and ways
of thinking about these complex social-ecological problems
(Hirsch et al. 2013).
We drew on the work of the Advancing Conservation in a Social
Context initiative (ACSC 2011) to address exurban development
in Macon County, North Carolina. We apply ACSC’s integrative
framework, which calls for an iterative and deliberative process
that values the input of multiple actors and perspectives, to
understand the social and biophysical issues specific to this area.
The integrative framework operates on the assumption that good
decisions are more likely to come from plurality in problem
definition and a robust characterization of problems, facilitating
the recognition and negotiation of trade-offs (Hirsch et al. 2013).
We demonstrate how the integrative framework guided us to ask
new questions regarding exurbanization in Macon County. We
describe exurbanization in a broader context through a review of
the scholarly literature that illustrates the drivers and potential
consequences of exurbanization in various regions of the world.
We place exurbanization in the context of a specific site, Macon
County, North Carolina. Finally, we show how the application of
the integrative framework leads to more holistic ways of defining
and approaching conservation challenges, which ideally will affect
decision making processes.
Social-ecological consequences of exurbanization
Exurbanization describes a global phenomenon that has been
gathering momentum throughout the last half century.
1Department of Geography, University of Georgia, 2Center for Integrative Conservation Research, University of Georgia, 3Department of
Anthropology, University of Georgia, 4Odum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, 5Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources,
University of Georgia

Ecology and Society 19(1): 23
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss1/art23/
Spectorsky (1955) first used the term to discuss the new class of
people who were moving beyond the suburban fringe of New
York City in search of a rural lifestyle with urban accessibility.
This process has been continually facilitated by improved
transportation, increased flexibility of work schedules, and the
rise of virtual commuting, all of which have allowed people to
maintain urban incomes while increasing their living space
(Nelson and Dueker 1990). Definitions of exurbanization vary,
but there are several commonalities throughout. Most definitions
emphasize the characteristics of exurban migrants: people who
possess an unequal access to external capital and the desire to
maintain the facilities of urban living within an idealized rural
atmosphere (Berube et al. 2006). Exurbanization provokes a
boom in housing growth in rural areas, which sometimes creates
tension between long-term rural residents and new migrants
(Gosnell and Abrams 2011). Perhaps ironically, if exurbs continue
to grow and transition into suburbs, exurban migrants instigate
a process of development that may undermine the initial motives
for relocation. Gragson and Bolstad (2006) refer to it as a
phenomenon in which urban residents who are attracted to rural
amenities such as scenic resources, low cost of living, and the
absence of zoning restrictions, build recreational properties on
rural lands, thus transforming the rural nature of these lands
through their cumulative building activities. Broader definitions
include seasonal second-homes under the term exurbanization,
which suggests that the characterizing element is the distance
between the place of residence and the source of income (Esparza
2009). A parallel body of literature examines the same pattern of
urban to rural migration through a different lens, that of amenity
migration, emphasizing that migrants tend to be drawn
disproportionately to particular natural amenities (McGranahan
1999). Exurbanization and amenity migration are closely related
to a third term, residential tourism, which describes the seasonal
migration of retired individuals to areas with numerous natural
amenities (Casado-Diaz 1999). We employ the term
exurbanization as a more holistic definition that focuses not only
on the drivers of migration patterns but also on the resulting
impacts to the landscape.
Over the past century, migration from urban to exurban mountain
regions in the United States has been driven by social and
technological trends. Initially, exurban population growth was
thought to be linked to technological advances that allowed
employees to live and work further from urban centers (Nelson
and Dueker 1990, Dent 1998); however, current causal evidence
is still equivocal (Culbertson et al. 2008). Still, there has been a
noticeable increase in job opportunities away from urban areas,
defined by Nelson et al. (1995) as “exurban industrialization.”
Broader social trends provide a better foundation for explaining
population growth in these areas. Increases in retirement and
resort communities, coinciding with the retirement of the baby
boomer generation in recent decades account for population
growth away from cities in the United States (Glennon and
Kretser 2005, Culbertson et al. 2008). Additionally, the
population of wealthy second-home or seasonal residents has
grown in exurban communities. Second homeowners in the
Southern Appalachian Mountains are attracted to these regions
for aesthetic benefits and natural amenities of the land including:
high elevations, temperate climate, access to streams and open
spaces, and recreational opportunities (SAMAB 1996, Cho et al.
2005, Culbertson et al. 2008). Overcrowding and rising real-estate
prices in traditional destinations, such as Nantucket and Rhode
Island, have also motivated many retirees and second homeowners
to explore alternative regions, such as the Southern Appalachians,
where they can obtain property at lower cost (National Association
of Realtors 2002). The rapid growth rates to which these factors
contribute lead to economic and social shifts that can have
profound impacts on resident populations.
Many formerly rural communities that once specialized in resource
extractive industries, like mining and timber, are now shifting to
service industries such as tourism (Esparza 2009). In some areas,
especially in the developing world, exurbanization may result in
increased employment opportunities, improved security and
safety, new road construction, and increased market access
(Wittemyer et al. 2008). However, in most areas, although
residential development and tourism do provide jobs for local
populations, they do not assure steady economic development,
especially in times of crisis (Robbins et al. 2012). Furthermore,
demographic and economic shifts can increase the cost of living
by increasing land and housing prices (Costello 2007, McCarthy
2008), increasing stress on utilities, and necessitating new, and
complex development ordinances (Esparza and Carruthers 2000).
The shifting terrain of livelihood issues such as ambiguous
property rights, informal resource use and access, and the
representation and acknowledgment of local histories in these
intense periods of demographic change can be seen in the tensions
that manifest between long-time residents and migrants (Boucquey
et al. 2012).
These costs and benefits in exurban transformation include not
only economic, but also cultural dimensions that Esparza and
Carruthers (2000:24) characterize as the “commodification of
place.” Though an influx of people and capital has the potential
to generate renewal (Rasker 2006), as a community becomes a
commodity, local histories and meanings can take a back seat in
resource-use decision making, and legitimate local users can be
disenfranchised (Boucquey et al. 2012). Wealthier new residents
may arrive with new expectations about social-ecological and
resource concerns that can be incongruent with traditional rural
values. For example, locals may perceive forests through a utility
value, whereas newcomers prize aesthetics (Egan and Luloff 2000).
As a result conflicts often emerge around ideas about whether long-
time residents should have to adapt to the newer interest(s) of
outsiders, or migrants should adapt to the lifestyles of long-time
residents (Egan and Luloff 2000).
Exurbanization produces notable environmental impacts as well.
Proximity to natural amenities, such as forest reserves, is believed
to be one of the main drivers of exurban development
(McGranahan 1999, Culbertson et al. 2008, Kirk et al. 2012).
However, though greater access to nature increases the economic
value of exurban properties, the process of exurbanization itself
tends to degrade the quality of the surrounding natural resources,
which ultimately decreases the conservation value of these lands
(Cho et al. 2005, Radeloff et al. 2010, Kirk et al. 2012).
Development in Macon County has recently been following the
general trend of moving away from main roads and toward forested
areas where residents have better access to these natural assets,
resulting in a steady decrease in forest area since 1990 and a 361%
increase in private roads between 1954 and 2009 (Kirk et al. 2012).

Ecology and Society 19(1): 23
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss1/art23/
Studies of the ecological impacts of exurbanization have
demonstrated its effect on forest fragmentation and watershed
integrity. In Macon County, forest fragmentation often occurs in
the context of exurbanization because of the preference for
building in forested areas and/or near national forest land (Turner
et al. 2003). This can interfere with the dispersal and migration
of local native wildlife (Glennon and Kretser 2005),
concomitantly decreasing their ability to reproduce as the amount
of suitable habitat decreases (Reynolds-Hogland and Mitchell
2007). Generally, as forest edge increases the acreage that is
considered to be forest interior decreases. This is a process that
favors the competitive ability of introduced generalist species,
which are often invasive, over those that are native, hindering their
ability to persist (Glennon and Krestor 2005, Kuhman et al. 2010).
The end product of this process is a potential homogenization of
the landscape as it experiences the local extinction of many of its
native flora and fauna (Turner et al. 2003, Glennon and Kretser
2005). Fragmentation can reduce the amount of communal land
available for hunting and create tensions regarding accessibility
(Storm et al. 2007). The exurbanite preference to settle in
previously undeveloped regions also increases the likelihood that
wildlife will be exposed to domestic pets, roads and traffic, and
human activity, which all result in increased human-wildlife
conflict and wildlife mortality (Glennon and Kretser 2005).
Exurban regions often lie outside the coverage area under formal
zoning ordinances, making it easier for development to take place
along river floodplains and riparian zones (Canfield and Hawkins
2009). Riparian deforestation can result in increased stream
temperatures (Clinton and Vose 2006, Price and Leigh 2006,
Audrey and Hawkins 2009), increased sedimentation (Clinton
and Vose 2006, Price and Leigh 2006), and the introduction of
exotic species (Audrey and Hawkins 2009). These processes, in
turn, result in the degradation of stream habitats for
macroinvertebrates and fishes (Brett 1956, Swift and Messer 1971,
Walters et al. 2009). Other potential impacts of anthropogenically
altered stream habitats include the possibility of increased disease
transmission with spread into novel environments and hosts
(Bradley and Altizer 2007) and the general displacement of native
species (Lehtinen et al. 1999, Maestas et al. 2001, Hansen et al.
2005, Kuhman et al. 2010). In the Little Tennessee Watershed
(LTW) where Macon County lies, ecological consequences are a
particular cause for concern because of its status as a biodiversity
hotspot (Harrison 2005). The region is home to endemic species
such as the southern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and also
rare species like the hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis),
America’s largest salamander (LTWA 2007).
The impacts of exurban development not only result in changes
to wildlife habitat, but also can pose significant hydrological
problems for human populations and aquatic species. Although
exurban development leads to fewer hydrological changes than
development at urban densities, the decrease in forested land and
increase in impervious surfaces, e.g., roads and houses, in rural
areas cause increases in surface runoff and erosion (Wenger et al.
2011). This is especially true because exurban areas tend to have
fewer resources for stormwater and road infrastructure to mitigate
these impacts (Canfield and Hawkins 2009). This poses a
significant risk to the Southern Appalachian region, which has
been referred to as the “water tower” of the Southeastern U.S.
(Webster et al. 2012). In addition, exurban houses are often distant
from sewer infrastructure, and thus are mostly serviced by septic
systems that are more difficult to maintain and regulate. Poorly
managed septic systems may lead to fecal coliform pollution
(Clinton and Vose 2006, Price and Leigh 2006, Lohse and
Merenlender 2009), which is a significant potential human health
hazard (NCEEP 2010). Septic system mismanagement has also
been associated with increases in nitrogen loading in rivers
(Kaushal et al. 2006), which may increase the likelihood of algal
blooms, decrease dissolved oxygen content (NCEEP 2010), and
disrupt the stream food web. These effects may lead to changes
in macroinvertebrate and fish populations (Cross et al. 2007,
NCEEP 2011). Overall, sedimentation, organic pollution, and
nutrient loading impair habitat for aquatic species and decrease
the aesthetic and recreational value of the watershed (LTWA
2007). Within the study area, Webster and colleagues (2012)
reported a trend of greater nitrate concentration in relation to
mountainside development within 58 streams throughout the
watershed. As Macon County’s development pattern moves
toward suburbanization (Kirk et al. 2012), it becomes clear that
it will be increasingly important to consider both the changes in
the local hydrology that are a result of increased imperviousness,
as well as the infrastructure and regulatory responses that could
address these issues.
Exurbanization in the context of Macon County
Land use histories, economic trajectories, and demographic
changes in Macon County are critical to understanding current
debates around exurbanization (Kirk et al. 2012). Among long-
time residents in areas like Macon County, there is a strong
tradition of individual and family independence that is typified
in the resistance to land-use restrictions (Gragson and Bolstad
2006). This has been a factor in the slow pace of the development
of land-use regulations in the region. The increase in total number
of residences, and location of these residences, has dramatically
affected the local economy, culture, and environment. Although
development has brought construction and service industry
employment to the region, there are growing concerns about the
relationships between exurban growth and the increased
probability of landslides on steep slopes and deteriorated
aesthetic and cultural values of the mountains. With the economic
downturn many local residents have been financially affected; yet,
simultaneously some may be relieved to see an end to the building
boom because of the concerns over increasing environmental and
social impacts. Although Macon County faces unemployment
issues, citizens are faced with hard choices involved in either
allowing unregulated development to continue or exploring other
economic alternatives and visions for the area as expressed by
various stakeholders in the region.
The processes associated with exurbanization are forcing
stakeholders in areas like Macon County to face hard decisions
and to succinctly analyze both the social as well as the ecological
impacts of development in their regions. Within Macon County,
any desire to reconcile the area’s ongoing development with the
preservation of natural resources that have traditionally attracted
exurbanites will require a willingness to consider the problem
from multiple perspectives. In the next section, we introduce the
Advancing Conservation in a Social Context’s (ACSC)
Integrative Framework as a way of approaching the issue of
exurbanization within Macon County through an iterative
process designed to facilitate multi-perspective discussions that

Ecology and Society 19(1): 23
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss1/art23/
ultimately seeks out “better problem definitions that open the way
to generating and communicating better decisions” (Hirsch et al.
2013).
THE INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK
The integrative framework (Fig. 1) is a conceptual architecture
that ‘makes space’ for multiple perspectives and ways of thinking
about complex problems and trade-offs (Hirsch et al. 2013). It
was created by an international team of academics and
practitioners assembled by the John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation’s Conservation and Sustainable
Development Program as part of a four-year initiative called
Advancing Conservation in a Social Context (2007-2010). In
response to the Foundation’s frustration with a long series of
unrealistic win-win funding proposals, this collaborative effort
produced a new framework for examining conservation problems.
The integrative framework highlights the critical need for: (1) the
explicit acknowledgment of trade-offs during the problem
formulation phase; (2) the recognition that there are many
different ways of perceiving these trade-offs; and (3) a more
nuanced analysis of these trade-offs in decision-making processes.
Fig. 1. The Advancing Conservation in a Social Context
(ACSC) Integrative Framework. Source Hirsch et al. 2013.
The integrative framework is intended to help guide a
collaborative process that includes reflection, research, and
action. By articulating multiple perspectives through the
integrative lenses, it is possible to explore different assumptions,
concepts, and ways of thinking. Ideally, the multiperspective
process allows for parallel perspectives to be equally expressed in
the search for understanding and addressing trade-offs and
complexity. This process is intended to result in better problem
definitions, improved communication, and the formulation of
better research approaches.
Given the complexity of development issues in Macon County,
it is necessary to adopt an approach that takes into account
multiple stakeholders’ perspectives, which are always partial and
potentially conflicting. The goal of the integrative framework is
not to produce a singular solution, but rather to initiate an
iterative process of transparent negotiation that recognizes a
range of potential choices to be considered and that each has its
own unique outcomes (McShane et al. 2011). It is also designed
to clarify and embrace the social complexities that can at times
overwhelm scholars and practitioners. Further, it is grounded in
the recognition that people’s “perspectives are embedded in social
systems and preexisting power relations” (Hirsch et al. 2010:259).
Included in this understanding is the explicit acknowledgement
that not all actors are equally empowered to shape the overall
nature of the debate and that actors may at times consider some
values to be non-negotiable. Given these considerations, the
integrative framework attempts to frame trade-offs in a manner
that transcends traditional cost-benefit analyses.
McShane et al. (2011) assert that trade-offs are integral to
conservation management projects, and that diverse social-
ecological values are not likely to mesh neatly together into win-
win solutions for every stakeholder. They argue that cycles of
optimism and disillusionment, in which conservation problems
and universal solutions are cast into a positive light by and for
policy makers and the public, followed by management and
development failures, are common when complexity is ignored or
simplified (McShane et al. 2011). Ultimately, the integrative
framework is a tool to help communities tackle conservation
dilemmas through a process, which facilitates their understanding
that the issues are complex and that tough choices must be made,
but that the opportunity does exist for “genuine reflection, honest
communication, and responsible action” (Hirsch et al. 2010:263).
The lenses of the integrative framework are meant to highlight
the multiple ways in which complex problems can be addressed.
These lenses allow for simultaneous engagement with complex
conservation issues that are too often siloed. The three lenses are
values and valuation, process and governance, and power and
inequality. Though other lenses could be elaborated, these are the
lenses put forth in the original ACSC integrative framework
document and the ones that have been field tested and have proven
promising at encompassing a large range of approaches for
studying nature and society (Zia et al. 2011, Anderson et al. 2012,
Ráez-Luna and Dammert Bello 2012). Each of these lenses has
its own starting assumptions from which a set of questions and
core concepts flow (Table 1).
For the value and valuation lens, the underlying assumption is
that good decisions come from good methods for accounting for
multiple values and comparing them. Through the use of
measurements, indicators, and analyses of commensurability, this
lens aims to identify what is important for various actors, how it
can be counted, and the issues that arise from trying to compare

Ecology and Society 19(1): 23
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss1/art23/
values across different conceptual and cultural contexts. The
process and governance lens rests on the assumption that good
decisions come from good public processes. Its core concepts,
inclusion, voice, and authentic engagement, provide a language
for asking questions about who should be involved in decision
making and through what mechanisms. Finally, the power and
inequality lens starts from the assumption that nothing is natural
or neutral, including valuation and governance, but that all are
shaped by the exercise of power. Discourse, agency, and hegemony
are the key concepts that allow one to uncover the forms of power
that shape knowledge claims and policy framing (Hirsch et al.
2013).
Reading a complex issue through these lenses is not an exercise
in synthesis; rather, there are moments of disjuncture and
incommensurability that must be appreciated and acknowledged.
The integrative framework is not a master model. Instead, by
reading the problem through these multiple lenses and
highlighting the moments of convergence and divergence, it can
be better defined and engaged.
Rather than seeking an optimal solution in Macon County that
satisfies every stakeholder, we used the lenses of the integrative
framework to identify stakeholder’s multiple views and values and
to acknowledge the necessity of trade-offs and hard choices as
citizens negotiate development ordinances, especially regarding
steep-slope building regulations (McShane et al. 2011).
Value and valuation lens
The value and valuation Lens of the integrative framework shows
the difficulties inherent in any process that translates complex
values into monistic values, or exchange values, for the purpose
of facilitating comparison (Hirsch et al. 2013). The literature on
exurbanization suggests that conservation agendas are often set
up in direct opposition to those of economic development. As an
example, the debate over housing development in Macon County
is often framed as one of competing values. This binary framing
can be unproductive, as cases of conflict are often more complex
than this and involve multiple actors with diverse agendas. The
binary framing also assumes that these values can be easily
defined, measured, and compared. Analysis using the value and
valuation lens, however, shows that the assumptions of the binary
framing are incomplete.
In their initial encounters, stakeholders from diverse
constituencies may believe they share similar values that, if
fulfilled, will result in win-win outcomes. For example, real estate
developers, second-home buyers, and long-time residents of
Macon County might all agree that safety is a collective concern.
However, recent controversies surrounding the production of a
set of hazard maps designed to consider ‘safety’ as a value suggest
that such a seemingly universal objective can be conceptualized
and ultimately prioritized very differently among stakeholders.
Similarly, although land stewards may use the conservation risk
of developing an area as an argument for preservation, developers
may view the conservation risk as acceptable in light of economic
gains, instead focusing more on the economic risk of slowed
growth. Key questions include: what does safety in relation to
these forms of risk mean in this context, and how is safety
measured?
The example of fecal coliform pollution illustrates these concerns.
The hazard maps that were produced show slope steepness and
stability; however, though fecal coliform pollution presents a
potential health hazard for humans, this indicator of safety is not
identified on these maps. Why is it that steep slope is defined as
a hazard when fecal coliform is not represented? Part of the
explanation for this discrepancy lies in the fact that these safety
indices do not have a singular and mutually agreed upon valuation
or priority when viewed by different stakeholders. Any analysis
must pay attention to who defines and measures safety as well as
what indicators they use for valuing it. Rather than
conceptualizing safety as a value that automatically promotes a
win-win scenario, it is more productive to explicitly consider
potential trade-offs and incommensurabilities in values that are
important for decision making.
Analyzing a value through a critical lens helps us explore the
different conceptual frameworks that stakeholders are drawing
upon and how this may lead them to prioritize certain values over
others. The indicators chosen to represent specific values,
therefore, depend not on the value per se, but on one’s
interpretation of that value. Even if tangible indicators of values
exist and can be measured, it is important to acknowledge that
multiple forms of values may be incommensurable. For example,
the local land trust might see themselves as stewards of the land
and focus on ecological preservation as a long-term goal.
Developers might see the need for continued economic growth as
imperative to the immediate needs of the community. These
perspectives are both temporally incommensurable, i.e., long-
term vs. short-term, as well as potentially incompatible at a policy
level. Each value set produces different outcomes, each outcome
has different relationships to underlying values, and each
stakeholder has different perceptions of these values. For
example, a decision to develop steep slopes will likely increase
river sedimentation and fecal coliform pollution (Clinton and
Vose 2006, Price and Leigh 2006). These environmental effects
present a health hazard to the community that may be acceptable
to certain stakeholders, relative to the economic gains associated
with construction. However, increased sedimentation causes a
secondary effect of degradation to trout habitat, which may
reduce economic gains associated with recreational opportunities
over the long-term. Given this context of trade-offs, it is highly
unlikely that certain values can be accurately quantified in a single
metric and compared across stakeholder groups to show the
overall cost or benefit of a decision.
The integrative framework provided by the ACSC project (ACSC
2011) functions on the premise that the real power of discussing
trade-offs is not necessarily in calculating costs and benefits, but
in encouraging a diverse group of stakeholders to consider the
multiplicity of viewpoints. Identifying hard choices up front and
acknowledging that certain values are difficult to quantify and
compare are important first steps in addressing long-standing
disputes (Hirsch et al. 2010).
Process and governance lens
The process and governance lens adds to the integrative
framework a better awareness of how institutional contexts shape
values and how particular metrics are ultimately prioritized as the
operational norm. By examining the procedures through which
decisions are ultimately made, it becomes possible to identify the
ways the role of governance potentially hinders or facilitates a
more inclusive decision-making process. In the case of Macon
County, we used the process and governance lens to critically

Ecology and Society 19(1): 23
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss1/art23/
Table 1. Integrative Framework (IF) as applied to Macon County, North Carolina, USA. This table illustrates a sampling of the
questions that arise from use of the integrative framework and some brief examples of the information that these questions elicit. This
table is not meant to be an exhaustive chronicling of the questions raised by the IF or of the data produced. Rather, it is meant to
illustrate how looking through different lenses highlights and obscures different areas of the problem and how when the lenses are
taken together we arrive at a more holistic understanding of the issue or problem.
Lens The Conservation Context of Macon County
Values and valuation What is important or valuable in this region and who values these things?
Water quality – state water specialists (e.g., North Carolina Department of Natural Resources workers), town water
managers, conservation activists, residents.
Healthy fish populations – anglers, conservationists.
Thriving economy/livelihoods – residents, government officials, developers.
Private land rights, freedom to develop without regulations – some residents, developers.
Aesthetic value of mountains – many new residents, some longer term residents.
Safety – residents, emergency responders, government officials.
How can these values be measured and compared? When might it be difficult to compare? Are there some values that
cannot be measured or compared?
Development vs. support of agriculture vs. environmental protection.
Priorities of long-term vs. newer residents.
Different indices of safety and risk and their relative importance (fire, landslide, accessibility).
Process and
governance
What processes for change currently exist and what are the possibilities for new processes?
Education, regulation, voluntary self-regulation.
Whose voices are included?
Developers, bankers, conservationists, local residents – not in equal measure.
How do existing institutions and governance structures shape the identification and negotiation of problems?
Political manipulation by certain actors, reconstitution of the planning committee, overall lack of transparency.
General resistance to governmental control, regulation, taxes, zoning, etc.
Power and inequality Who is defining the issue or problem?
Small, vocal minority.
What forms of power influence the debate?
Financial, cultural, political, knowledge (access to information).
Those with money invested in steep slope lands have had a larger voice.
Who wins and who loses?
Environmentalists, in particular, seem to lack any real power.
Is the issue simplified in ways that leave out voices and priorities?
Framed as development vs. environment and developers vs. conservationists. Serious discussion about safety not included,
developers who favor an ordinance restricting development are silenced.
explore access to decision-making processes and government’s
role in addressing development and exurbanization.
A contentious political debate has developed in Macon County
around the issue of development and the creation of a steep-slope
ordinance for the region. Although drafted, no comprehensive
steep-slope ordinance has been enacted for the region. A
subcommittee of seven individuals appointed by the Macon
County Planning Board (MCPB) began developing this
ordinance in June 2009 and provided recommendations to the
board in February 2010. After more than a year of revisions and
months of debate, the MCPB eventually tabled the draft
ordinance in August 2011. In its place, a construction ordinance
was passed. Members of the planning board saw this construction
ordinance as establishing a common ground among those
involved in the steep-slope debate. The construction ordinance
has more lenient standards, and building codes are not tied to the
landslide hazard maps, nor are they dependent upon slope
steepness or stability. With the tabling of the steep-slope
ordinance and replacement by a less explicit construction
ordinance, a comprehensive ordinance that addresses concerns
for all stakeholders has never been enacted for the region despite
seemingly popular public support for the measure.
Development governance in Macon County is a mosaic of
specialized departments and commissions, each holding one piece
of the picture, but none able to provide comprehensive governance
with independent establishment of regulations for development
in the region. There are a handful of state and local government
divisions, in addition to the MCPB, that create or enforce
ordinances, codes, and other legally binding policies pertaining
to steep-slope development. The county Department of Planning,
Permitting and Development (DPPD) is responsible for enforcing
building codes as well as erosion, sedimentation, and flood
ordinances. The DPPD enforces existing policies, rather than
developing new ones. The North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources creates development
ordinances to protect water quality and wildlife habitat.
Monthly MCPB meetings are open to the public, with public
comment periods for proposed ordinances. In 2008, a series of
charrettes, open to the public, were held by the Community
Foundation of Western North Carolina (Mountain Landscapes

Ecology and Society 19(1): 23
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss1/art23/
Initiative) to envision the future of development in Western North
Carolina (WNC). The outcome of these charrettes was a toolbox
of best management practices for development and planning in
the WNC mountains. Organized citizen groups can shape the
process of steep-slope development by influencing decision
making, financing campaigns, educating the public, and molding
the discourse about the debate.
Inclusion of multiple voices in the processes of governance is
essential to ensure that outcomes are publicly supported and are
in the best interests of multiple stakeholders. The process and
governance lens allowed us to focus on the effectiveness of the
government processes and procedures related to development in
Macon County. Although the MCPB meetings and the
Community Foundation charrette were open to the public, it is
unclear if attempts to involve residents in development discourse
were effective. To better determine inclusive processes, it is
important to identify who was able to participate and who was
left out, and what the reasons were for their inclusion or exclusion.
Is there evidence that individuals or groups possess, or are
perceived to possess, power that has unequal influence over
political outcomes? Without this kind of analysis and the
inclusion of multiple voices, governance will be undermined and
processes will not reflect differentiated and mixed opinions of the
residents of Macon County.
Governance processes have the opportunity to be participatory
and consensus oriented in nature, and elected officials are often
accountable, transparent, responsive, and effective as a result of
their mandate(s). Working under this assumption, it follows that
within the context of development in Macon County, appropriate
governance should be to find solutions to support and serve a
community’s long-range economic development strategies. How
then have governing institutions responded to different arguments
and constituencies that have formed in response to development
in Macon County, and have these institutions fulfilled their
obligations in the context of appropriate governance? We draw
attention to the following factors and questions that reflect the
considerations of the process and governance lens: (1) the multiple
processes of engagement: how has prior input via public
processes, such as community meetings and charrettes, been
synthesized and merged into governance decision making? (2) To
what degree has key scientific data and input by targeted agencies,
i.e., U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Land Trust of
the Little Tennessee, University of Georgia, etc., helped guide and
determine management directives and processes in steep-slope
development? (3) Do certain scientific, social, cultural, or other
inputs maintain a privileged place in defining Macon County
governance, and who creates or has access to those inputs? (4)
Given the existing imbalance of voice and power, i.e., political
influence of an active minority base, how can community
networks and area partnerships at multiple scales and across
diverse constituencies continue to expand their voice in
governance, share ideas and solutions, and demand public access
and disclosure of all relevant information for making informed
decisions about steep-slope development? The current governing
institutions have the capacity to regulate steep-slope
development; the question becomes one of political will to adopt
regulations that reflect multiple values. However, different
stakeholders can encourage and benefit from more transparent
governance in specific ways. By capitalizing on the existing
institutions and structures in place, Macon County residents can
foster increased consensus and recognize trade-offs around basic
steep-slope regulation. Affected communities or stakeholders
have the opportunity to understand their rights and obligations,
advocate for accountability and transparency in elected officials,
and identify solutions and iterative planning processes that
support their community’s long-term vision and goals.
Power and inequality lens
When exurbanization in Macon County is analyzed through the
power and inequality lens, multiple domains emerge that structure
the way the issue is articulated and negotiated among the diverse
group of stakeholders. These domains, among others, are at least
cultural, political, financial, and epistemological, and include
both implicit and explicit forms of power. They frame the
discourse emerging from interactions among stakeholders and
partially define the process of trade-offs. How trade-offs are
negotiated is affected by how forms of inequality manifest in
various ways including: (1) differential access to information
about risk, e.g., landslide hazards; (2) unequal access to political
processes, e.g., policy making; (3) differential access to knowledge
and to the claims of knowledge creation, e.g., sustainable
development practices; and (4) inequality of wealth. If these
power dynamics and inequalities are acknowledged, the problem
can be redefined as one of articulating a pluralism of values and
partial perspectives to negotiate trade-offs. We outlined how
power and inequality can determine whose voices are most
important in shaping exurbanization in Macon County.
An historical perspective of a region affords the opportunity to
examine the cultural context in which the multiple forms of power
and inequality have emerged and interacted. Without this
historical background, any analysis loses sight of long-term
trajectories and the associated intentions of decision makers and
other actors. In the case of Macon County, recognizing the
economic history of mining and agriculture that shifted into the
current economy based on tourism, which is facilitated by amenity
migration and exurbanization, may illuminate how some of the
contentions over development regulations are being articulated
and negotiated. Specifically, disagreements concerning future
land-use and the ordinances that regulate development may arise
from a socially heterogeneous group of citizens including
multigenerational and newly immigrated families, e.g., retirees
from Florida, with divergent life histories and ideas about
development. Moreover, disparities in access to the financial gains
resulting from the ‘new economy,’ which depends upon the tourist
service industry and new home building, may create new tensions
within groups of long-term residents.
Many questions result from the link between historical processes
and a nuanced appreciation of power and inequality dynamics in
Macon County. Which stakeholders have the power to create and
endorse knowledge bases? Are certain types of knowledge
privileged and how has that privileging shifted through time and
in response to exurbanization? For example, is scientific data of
exurban disturbance privileged over concerns for the market value
of property development? Are exurbanite values, varied though
they may be, given more weight in governance than the values of
stakeholder groups that claim a connection to the landscape
through descendants? What forms of power do developers,
residents, government officials, and scientists, among other
stakeholders, display when debating steep-slope development?
Who has the power to determine the trajectories of economic,

Ecology and Society 19(1): 23
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss1/art23/
ecological, and cultural development in the region? The strength
of analysis through the power and equality lens lies in making
forms of influence explicit so that analysis of historic and
structural inequalities and management of trade-offs are well-
informed and articulated (Hirsch et al. 2013).
Economic power often influences who is able to bring their voices
successfully to the table in negotiations and who has the most
incentive. Because the outcome of steep-slope regulation debates
will affect financial futures, money serves as a motivating force
behind their voices. In addition, those that have access to more
capital may be more willing to hire attorneys or may have the time
to represent their voice at public hearings. Thus, the amount of
capital invested and the amount of capital at one’s disposal are
factors contributing to inequality and dynamics of power in this
debate.
Though many find it easy to blame developers and lending
agencies for disparities in wealth and access, and even for some
of the consequences of failing steep-slope development projects,
realizing that these groups may be operating with limited
information about developing in steep slope areas should allow
for more productive negotiations and realistic agreements among
groups. Developers have unequal access to information about
steep-slope hazards, and they lack the power to create and enforce
development regulations. Critiques of financial inequality are not
about blaming developers, but are instead about recognizing that
under the current state of incomplete information and lack of
regulation consensus, developers have few incentives to change
their practices.
In terms of equal access to information, the removal of landslide
hazard information from the Macon County website is another
case in point. As debates around development regulation raged,
state of North Carolina officials developed landslide hazard maps
that were temporarily posted on the Macon County website.
Shortly after opponents of regulation questioned the utility and
authority of the maps they were removed from the local
government website. In this situation the needs of opponents were
perceived to have outweighed the benefits of retaining hazard
information on the county website. It is possible that the desire
to maintain current land values was privileged, although the
identity of the person who authorized the removal of the maps
is unknown.
In this discussion of power and inequality, we must acknowledge
that power does not necessarily reside in explicit displays of
wealth. For example, less explicit power resides in the abilities of
stakeholders to engage with development issues through, for
example, their rights as private landowners. Landowners have
sometimes denied access to scientists conducting studies on the
ecological effects of steep-slope development. Access to power is
nuanced and contextual, and there are numerous other ways that
stakeholders can express their agency regardless of access to
monetary capital.
There is an inherent risk when approaching conservation issues
using a pluralistic methodology. Though all stakeholders possess
some form of power, some stakeholders will have more influence
over political and economic processes. The most explicit form of
power addressed here regarding development in Macon County
is the political power to confirm or veto regulations and zoning
pertaining to development ordinances. However, less explicit
political power can sit with those who are able to influence
political decisions. It is unclear in this debate which parties or
individuals outside of official political office have the capability
to influence political decisions in Macon County, but the current
elected body has explicit power to mandate or avoid passing
regulations. With the explicit power of making final
determinations on regulations around development in the region,
the political offices in which this power sits are of extreme
importance to the many stakeholders who are deeply invested in
the region; thus, a deeper analysis of how power and inequality
influence the political domain are of crucial importance. In this
setting, new issues of power and inequality will emerge, and an
iterative process of analysis will be necessary to effectively
represent all stakeholders affected by Macon County
development.
CONCLUSION
Applying the integrative framework to the case of Macon County,
North Carolina, highlights the trade-offs and complexities
involved in addressing issues of exurbanization in the Southern
Appalachian region. This case study illustrates the need for
nuance in defining problems surrounding already polarized issues.
Trade-offs will be necessary in any negotiation related to
conservation. Therefore, it can be very effective if conflict
surrounding specific values, e.g., cultural, economic, or
ecological, is acknowledged upfront. In analyzing multiple
perspectives through the integrative framework’s three lenses of
values and valuation, process and governance, and power and
inequality, we arrived not at a more focused definition of a
problem, but at one that grants complexity and conflict the same
merit as simplification and resolution.
Conservation and development issues in Macon County are
continually being defined and redefined in an iterative process
that suggests not one problem and one solution, but an evolving
and emergent set of processes that will include many voices and
many decisions over a long period of time. What the integrative
framework calls for, and what we have attempted to demonstrate
the need for, is transparent negotiation based on deliberate and
democratic thought. Although this may complicate the efforts of
decision makers, it does acknowledge the difficult choices that
will have to be made and the explicit need to focus on trade-offs.
There is more work to be done in refining and applying the
integrative framework to conservation issues. This includes a
discussion of what it means to apply a conceptual framework to
a materially felt process like exurbanization. In calling this
framework ‘integrative,’ the relationship between science and
policy must be explored and questions such as “How does ‘better
problem definition’ benefit Macon County?” need to be
addressed. By illuminating the intricacies of the social-ecological
system, we hope to guide inclusive decisions that work through
multiple understandings of conservation issues with the hopes of
effecting fewer unintended consequences.
Responses to this article can be read online at:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses.
php/5970

Ecology and Society 19(1): 23
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss1/art23/
Acknowledgments:
This project was supported by a grant from the National Science
Foundation to the Coweeta Long Term Ecological Research
(LTER) program (DEB-0823293).
LITERATURE CITED
Advancing Conservation in a Social Context (ACSC). 2011.
Advancing conservation in a social context: working in a world of
trade-offs. Final Report. Center for Integrative Conservation
Research, Athens, Georgia, USA. [online] URL: http://cicr.ovpr.
uga.edu/files/2012/03/ACSC_final_report.pdf
Anderson, Z. R., P. D. Hirsch, and T. O. McShane. 2012. An
analysis of conservation and development trade-offs at the Cat
Tien National Park, Vietnam. Pages 309-331 in T. C. H.
Sunderland, J. Sayer, and H. Minh-Ha, editors. Evidence-based
conservation: lessons from the Lower Mekong. Routledge, New
York, New York, USA. [online] URL: http://www.cifor.org/
publications/pdf_files/Books/BSunderland1301.pdf
Audrey, A., M. Briggs, and K. Kroesen. 2009. Preparing for
human expansion into exurban riparian areas. Pages 181-198 in
A. X. Esparza and G. McPherson, editors. The planner’s guide to
natural resource conservation: the science of land development
beyond the metropolitan fringe. Springer, New York, New York,
USA.
Berube, A., A. Singer, J. H. Wilson, and W. H. Frey. 2006. Finding
exurbia: America’s fast-growing communities at the metropolitan
fringe. Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., USA. [online]
URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2006/10/
metropolitanpolicy%20berube/20061017_exurbia.pdf
Boucquey, N., L. M. Campbell, G. Cumming, Z. A. Meletis, C.
Norwood, and J. Stoll. 2012. Interpreting amenities, envisioning
the future: common ground and conflict in North Carolina’s rural
coastal communities. Geojournal 77(1):83-101. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10708-010-9387-1
Bradley, C. A., and S. Altizer. 2007. Urbanization and the ecology
of wildlife diseases. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22(2):95-102.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.11.001
Brandon, K. E. and M. Wells. 1992. Planning for people and
parks: design dilemmas. World Development 20:557-570. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(92)90044-V
Brett, J. R. 1956. Some principles in the thermal requirements of
fishes. Quarterly Review of Biology 31(2):75-87.
Canfield, E., and R. H. Hawkins. 2009. Storm water management
in exurbia. Pages 199-213 in A. X. Esparza and G. McPherson,
editors. The planner’s guide to natural resource conservation: the
science of land development beyond the metropolitan fringe.
Springer, New York, New York, USA. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/978-0-387-98167-3_11
Casado-Diaz, M. A. 1999. Socio-demographic impacts of
residential tourism: a case study of Torrevieja, Spain.
International Journal of Tourism Research 1(4):223-237. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-1970(199907/08)1:4<223::AID-JTR153>3.0.
CO;2-A
Cash, D. W., W. N. Adger, F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Lebel, P. Olsson,
L. Pritchard, and O. Young. 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics:
governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and
Society 11(2): 8. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.
org/vol11/iss2/art8/
Cho, S.-H., D. H. Newman, and D. N. Wear. 2005. Community
choices and housing demands: a spatial analysis of the Southern
Appalachian Highlands. Housing Studies 20(4):549-569. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673030500114433
Clinton, B. D., and J. M. Vose. 2006. Variation in stream water
quality in an urban headwater stream in the Southern
Appalachians. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 169:331-353. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11270-006-2812-x
Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B.
Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G.
Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the
world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387
(6630):253-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
Costello, L. 2007. Going bush: the implications of urban-rural
migration. Geographical Research 45(1):85-94. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2007.00430.x
Cross, W. F., J. B. Wallace, and A. D. Rosemond. 2007. Nutrient
enrichment reduces constraints on material flows in a detritus-
based food web. Ecology 88(10):2563-2575. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1890/06-1348.1
Culbertson, K., D. Case, D. Fowler, H. Morgan, and S.
Schwellenbach. 2008. Moving to the mountains: amenity
migration in the Sierra and Southern Appalachian Mountains.
Page 217 in J. L. Wescoat, Jr. and D. M. Johnston, editors. Political
economies of landscape change: places of integrative power.
Springer, New York, New York, USA.
Daily, G. C. 1997. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural
ecosystems. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.
Dent, Jr., H. S. 1998. The roaring 2000’s: building the wealth and
life style you desire in the greatest boom in history. Simon and
Schuster, New York, New York, USA.
Egan, A. F., and A. E. Luloff. 2000. The exurbanization of
America’s forests: research in rural social science. Journal of
Forestry 98(3):26-30.
Esparza, A. X. 2009. Exurbanization and Aldo Leopold’s human-
land community. Pages 3-26 in A. X. Esparza and G. McPherson,
editors. The planner’s guide to natural resource conservation.
Springer, New York, New York, USA. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/978-0-387-98167-3_1
Esparza, A. X., and J. I. Carruthers. 2000. Land use planning and
exurbanization in the rural mountain west: evidence from
Arizona. Journal of Planning Education and Research 20:23-36.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/073945600128992573
Glennon, M., and H. Kretser. 2005. Impacts to wildlife from low
density, exurban development: information and considerations for
the Adirondack Park. Technical Paper No. 3. Wildlife
Conservation Society, Adirondack Communities and Conservation
Program, Saranac Lake, New York, USA.

Ecology and Society 19(1): 23
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss1/art23/
Gosnell, H., and J. Abrams. 2011. Amenity migration: diverse
conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic dimensions, and
emerging challenges. Geojournal (76):303-322. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10708-009-9295-4
Gragson, T. L., and P. V. Bolstad. 2006. Land use legacies and the
future of Southern Appalachia. Society and Natural Resources:
An International Journal 19(2):175-190. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/08941920500394857
Hansen, A. J., R. L. Knight, J. M. Marzluff, S. Powell, K. Brown,
P. H. Gude, and K. Jones. 2005. Effects of exurban development
on biodiversity: patterns, mechanisms, and research needs.
Ecological Applications 15(6):1893-1905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/05-5221
Harrison, S. 2005. Biodiversity and wilderness: the need for
systematic protection of biological diversity. Journal of Land,
Resources, and Environmental Law 25:53-62.
Hirsch, P. D., W. A. Adams, J. P. Brosius, A. Zia, N. Bariola, and
J. L. Dammert. 2010. Acknowledging conservation trade-offs and
embracing complexity. Conservation Biology 25(2):259-264.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01608.x
Hirsch, P. D., J. P. Brosius, S. O’Conner, A. Zia, M. Welch-Devine,
J. L. Dammert, A. Songorwa, T. C. Trung, J. L. Rice, Z. R.
Anderson, S. Hitchner, J. Schelhas, and T. O. McShane. 2013.
Navigating complex trade-offs in conservation and development:
an integrative framework. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies
31:99-122.
Kaushal, S. S., W. M. Lewis, and J.H. McCutchan, Jr. 2006. Land
use change and nitrogen enrichment of a Rocky Mountain
Watershed. Ecological Applications 16:299-312. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1890/05-0134
Kirk. R. W., P. V. Bolstad, and S. M. Manson. 2012. Spatio-
temporal trend analysis of long-term development patterns
(1900-2030) in a Southern Appalachian county. Landscape and
Urban Planning 104:47-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2011.09.008
Kuhman, T. R., S. M. Pearson, and M. G. Turner. 2010. Effects
of land-use history and the contemporary landscape on non-
native plant invasion at local and regional scales in the forest-
dominated southern Appalachians. Landscape Ecology
25:1433-1445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9500-3
Lehtinen, R. M., S. M. Galatowitsch, and J. R. Tester. 1999.
Consequences of habitat loss and fragmentation for wetland
amphibian assemblages. Wetlands 19(1):1-12. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/BF03161728
Little Tennessee Watershed Association (LTWA). 2007. The state
of the streams in the Upper Little Tennessee Watershed: a report
on water quality and habitat trends, 1990-2002. Little Tennessee
Watershed Association, Franklin, North Carolina, USA.
Liu, J., T. Dietz, S. R. Carpenter, M. Alberti, C. Folke, E. F.
Moran, A. N. Pell, P. Deadman, T. Kratz, J. Lubchenco, E.
Ostrom, Z. Ouyang, W. Provencher, C. L. Redman, S. H.
Schneider, and W. W. Taylor. 2007. Complexity of coupled human
and natural systems. Science 317:1513-1516. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1126/science.1144004
Lohse, K. A., and A. M. Merenlender. 2009. Impacts of exurban
development on water quality. Pages 3-26 in A. X. Esparza and
G. McPherson, editors. The planner’s guide to natural resource
conservation. Springer, New York, New York, USA. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/978-0-387-98167-3_9
Maestas, J. D., R. L. Knight, and W. C. Gilgert. 2001. Biodiversity
and land-use change in the American mountain west.
Geographical Review 91:509-524. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3594738
McCarthy, J. 2008. Rural geography: globalizing the countryside.
Progress in Human Geography (32)1:129-137. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0309132507082559
McGranahan, D. A. 1999. Natural amenities drive rural population
change. Agricultural Economic Report No. (AER-781). U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
Washington, D.C., USA. [online] URL: http://www.ers.usda.gov/
publications/aer-agricultural-economic-report/aer781.aspx#.Uaz-
edJO-30
McShane, T. O., P. D. Hirsch, T. C. Trung, A. N. Songorwa, A.
Kinzig, B. Monteferri, D. Mutekanga, H. V. Thang, J. L.
Dammert, M. Pulgar-Vidal, M. Welch-Devine, J. P. Brosius, P.
Coppolillo, and S. O’Connor. 2011. Hard choices: making trade-
offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being.
Biological Conservation 144:966-972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2010.04.038
McShane, T. O., and M. P. Wells. 2004. Getting biodiversity projects
to work: towards more effective conservation and development.
Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA.
Nelson, A. C., W. J. Drummond, and D. S. Sawicki. 1995. Exurban
industrialization: implications for economic development policy.
Economic Development Quarterly 9:119-133. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/089124249500900202
Nelson, A. C., and K. J. Dueker. 1990. The exurbanization of
America and its planning policy implications. Journal of Planning
Education and Research 9:91-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/073
9456X9000900201
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP).
2010. Franklin to Fontana local watershed plan: Little Tennessee
River Basin, Swain and Macon Counties, North Carolina. Phase
II: watershed assessment report. North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program and Equinox Environmental Consulting
and Design, Asheville, North Carolina, USA. [online] URL:
http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Little_Tennessee/New/
F2F_WAR_ExecSummTOC_Oct2010.pdf
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP).
2011. Franklin to Fontana local watershed plan phase III. Upper
Little Tennessee River Basin, Swain and Macon Counties, North
Carolina. Project atlas. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program and Equinox Environmental Consulting and Design,
Asheville, North Carolina, USA. [online] URL: http://www.
nceep.net/services/lwps/Little_Tennessee/New/F2F%20P3%20Atlas_Final-
Reduced_LOnamesremoved_AJL_12oct2011.pdf
Phillips, A. 2003. Turning ideas on their head: a new paradigm
for protected areas. George Wright Forum 20(2):8-32.
Price, K., and D. S. Leigh. 2006. Comparative water quality of
lightly- and moderately-impacted streams in the Southern Blue-
Ridge Mountains, USA. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 120:269-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-005-9060-1

Ecology and Society 19(1): 23
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss1/art23/
Radeloff, V. C., S. I. Stewart, T. J. Hawbaker, U. Gimmi, A. M.
Pidgeon, C. H. Flather, R. B. Hammer, and D. P. Helmers. 2010.
Housing growth in and near United States’ protected areas limits
their conservation value. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 107(2):940-945. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0911131107
Ráez-Luna, E., and J. L. Dammert Bello. 2012. Reflexiones y
lecciones sobre la toma de decisiones ante grandes proyectos
minero-energéticos en el Perú: el caso de la hidroeléctrica
inambari en la Amazonía Peruana. Cuaderno de investigación
(Vol. 7). Peruvian Society of Environmental Law (SPDA), Lima,
Peru.
Rasker, R. 2006. An exploration into the economic impact of
industrial development versus conservation on western public
lands. Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal 19
(3):191-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920500460583
National Association of Realtors. 2002. The 2002 National
Association of Realtors profile of second-home owners. National
Association of Realtors, Washington, D.C., USA.
Reynolds-Hogland, M. J., and M. S. Mitchell. 2007. Effects of
roads on habitat quality for bears in the Southern Appalachians:
a long-term study. Journal of Mammalogy 88(4):1050-1061. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1644/06-MAMM-A-072R1.1
Robbins, P., S. Martin, and S. Gilbertz. 2012. Developing the
commons: the contradictions of growth in exurban Montana.
Professional Geographer 64(3):317-331. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/00330124.2011.601193
Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB). 1996.
The Southern Appalachian assessment social/cultural/economic
technical report. Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere
(SAMAB) and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southern
Region, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. [online] URL: http://www.
samab.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SAA-social.pdf
Spectorsky, A. C. 1955. The exurbanites. 1st ed. Lippincott,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Storm, D. J., C. K. Nielson, E. M. Shauber, and A. Woolf. 2007.
Deer-human conflict and hunter access in an exurban landscape.
Human-Wildlife Conflicts 1(1):53-59.
Swift, Jr., L. W., and J. B. Messer. 1971. Forest cuttings raise
temperatures of small streams in the southern Appalachians.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 26(3):111-116.
Turner, M. G., S. M. Pearson, P. Bolstad, and D. N. Wear. 2003.
Effects of land-cover change on spatial pattern of forest
communities in the Southern Appalachian Mountains (USA).
Landscape Ecology 18:449-464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/
A:1026033116193
Walters, D. M., A. H. Roy, and D. S. Leigh. 2009. Environmental
indicators of macroinvertebrate and fish assemblage integrity in
urbanizing watersheds. Ecological Indicators 9:1222-1233. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.02.011
Webster, J. R., E. F. Benfield, K. K. Cecala, J. F. Chamblee, C. A.
Dehring, T. Gragson, J. H. Cymerman, C. R. Jackson, J. D.
Knoepp, D. S. Leigh, J. C. Maerz, C. Pringle, and H. M. Valett.
2012. Water quality and exurbanization in Southern Appalachian
streams. Pages 90-106 in P. J. Boon and P. J. Raven, editors. River
conservation and management. John Wiley and Sons, London,
UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119961819.ch8
Wenger, S. J., D. J. Isaak, C. H. Luce, H. M. Neville, K. D. Fausch,
J. B. Dunham, D. C. Dauwalter, M. K. Young, M. M. Elsner, B.
E. Rieman, A. F. Hamlet, and J. E. Williams. 2011. Flow regime,
temperature, and biotic interactions drive differential declines of
trout species under climate change. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 108(34):14175-14180. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1103097108
Western, D., and R. Wright. 1994. The background to
community-based conservation. Pages 1-12 in D. Western and R.
Wright, editors. Natural connections: perspectives in community-
based conservation. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.
Wittemyer, G., P. Elsen, W. T. Bean, A. C. Burton, and J. S.
Brashares. 2008. Accelerated human population growth at
protected area edges. Science 321(5885):123-126. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1126/science.1158900
Zia, A., P. Hirsch, A. Songorwa, D. R. Mutekanga, S. O’Connor,
T. McShane, P. Brosius, and B. Norton. 2011. Cross-scale value
trade-offs in managing social-ecological systems: the politics of
scale in Ruaha National Park, Tanzania. Ecology and Society 16
(4): 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04375-160407