Faith and Doubt in an American Working Landscape: The Importance of Scale, Work, and Place in Rural Development Planning

Abstract

The term “working landscape” (WL) is increasingly used by American planners and policy makers to describe the rural places and livelihoods they aim to shape. This paper draws from a mixed-methods study of WL language as a collective action frame in the state of Vermont, where WL has been formalized into policy. Natural resource leaders and professionals share a common definition of WL that is supported by four key beliefs. However, interviews conducted in two representative farming communities suggest that landuse practitioners have not adopted WL language, and in some cases are skeptical of its meaning. The analysis explores potential explanations for the failure of the WL collective action frame to resonate across scales. The paper argues for a bottom-up planning approach that produces working landscapes policies that allow for diverse forms of work and accommodate the specificities of place.

Keywords:

• Collective action frame
• frame analysis
• multifunctionality
• rural planning
• scale
• working landscapes

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to those who generously gave their time to this research project and appreciate their contributions to improving Vermont’s rural communities. Thanks are owed to the graduate students of UVM Food Systems Immersion Seminar Spring, 2014, my colleague Ingrid Nelson for her comments on an early draft of this paper, and Kristina Sweet for research assistance. Many conversations with Kurt Cotanch provided the initial inspiration for this research. Thank you to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their many helpful suggestions.

Notes

1 Exceptions to this include large development projects that must be reviewed at the state level and agriculture development which is mainly exempt from zoning regulations.