Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

Adjusting New Ruralism: The ‘soul’ of Waddington, N.Y. and placemaking

at the Water’s edge☆
Courtney Johnson-Woods a, *, Andrea Feldpausch-Parker b
a
Clarkson University [United States], Communication, Media & Design. Office: 180 Bertrand H. Snell Hall | Mailbox: CU Box 5760, Potsdam, NY, 13699, USA
b
SUNY Environmental Science & Forestry [United States], 216 Baker Lab, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY, 13210, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Despite significant contributions to the multidisciplinary literature in rural development, U.S. planning schol­
New ruralism arship has tended to privilege an urban focus given challenges accompanying globalization, the migration of
Placemaking people from rural to urban areas, as well as cultural-practice perceptions of ‘rural’ within the profession. As a
Community led development
result, frameworks have prevailed that are designed to improve livability in cities, including two dominant
Local entrepreneurism
Sustainability
conceptualizations – New Urbanism (NU), and New Ruralism (NR), the latter consisting of approaches that
preserve or enhance rural-urban edges for the benefits of urban areas. Often overlooked are deep rural areas and
their unique development challenges enabled by geographic isolation and compounded by population decline. In
this relative vacuum of attention, the Northern New England Chapter of the American Planning Association
(NNECAPA) drew on its experience to recommend a counterpoint to NR, calling for an adjusted New Ruralism
([a]NR) framework to better assess and guide planning and development in more remote rural areas to create
places in which people can thrive. The purpose of this paper is threefold: first, to introduce the framework as part
of the scholarly literature; second, to suggest the placemaking activities evident in Waddington, N.Y, a small
village near the Canadian border along the St. Lawrence River, not only contribute to the community’s “soul,”
but also makes the community an ideal case study among those NNECAPA is collecting to further define its [a]NR
conceptual umbrella. Finally, in undertaking our documentation in this task, we answer the regional chapter’s
call to help improve its scaffolding. Through the nexus of practical placemaking and the broader rural studies
knowledge front, we suggest three major adjustments, represented visually as a model of intersecting restruc­
tured mindsets and corresponding, more specified strategies for further deliberation.

Funding This inclination is the result of what she describes as a “self-fulfilling

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
1. Introduction
In the preface to her edited collection of essays under the theme
Ruralism, Carlow (2016) describes a rural state of emergency, one in
which small towns and villages are searching for a livable future in an
ever urbanizing world. Her alarm is contextualized against a trend in
which such rural places have been recently absent from national
agendas, accompanied by the trending discourse focused on the urban.
prophecy, with cities becoming larger and better, more interesting and
beautiful, whereas villages and small towns are more or less left to their
own devices” (p. 7). Many scholars echo this sentiment (e.g. Frank et al.,
2020; Santiago et al., 2016) noting that rural communities account for
75–80% of the U.S. total land area (Cox, 2013; Read, 2020), and are of
vital importance in terms of food, fiber and natural resources (Argent,
2017), water supply (Brauman et al., 2007), and as sites for climate
change mitigation, carbon sinks, and sources of innovation and alter­
native energy (e.g. Woods, 2012). Despite their resource significance,
these rural areas are facing a myriad of complex struggles such as the
changing nature of the rural economy due to job losses in resource
extraction and manufacturing, demographic changes defined by an

Institutional affiliation under which this study was undertaken as part of PhD dissertation completion: SUNY Environmental Science & Forestry [United
☆

States]. Graduate Program in Environmental Science. Advisor: Andrea Feldpausch-Parker, Ph.D. 1 Forestry Drive Syracuse, NY 13210 315-470-6500.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: cwoods@clarkson.edu (C. Johnson-Woods), amparker@esf.edu (A. Feldpausch-Parker).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.04.012
Received 26 February 2021; Received in revised form 4 April 2022; Accepted 25 April 2022
Available online 19 May 2022
0743-0167/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Johnson-Woods and A. Feldpausch-Parker
exodus of young talent and high-earning Americans to urban centers,
lacking upward mobility in many rural communities, and a persistent
gap in unemployment and poverty rates between metro and non-metro
counties. Often under-resourced, many rural regions are lacking in ca­
pacity to adequately respond (Morrison et al., 2015), resulting in
comparative geographic inequalities, documented resistance to inno­
vation and change, and even resentment that accompanies perceived
and real “loss of rurality” and identity (Frank et al., 2020; Frank and
Hibbard, 2017; Scott et al., 2019; Tietz, 2012). These combined chal­
lenges underscore the critical importance of planning in rural areas for
rural areas, not only to ensure the stability of local communities and
secure key services for those who live there, but to also ensure their
sustainability as part of broader connections to urban and global sys­
tems. On this point, many researchers, leaders, and planners are in
agreement.
Although a multidisciplinary and devoted body of scholarship and
practice centered on rural planning and development has emerged over
the decades, the disproportionate focus on the urban gives way domi­
nant frameworks in the U.S. planning literature that privilege the city.
New Urbanism (NU) includes an array of combined smart growth
planning practices and strategies that seek to minimize sprawl in areas
of higher population densities. New Ruralism (NR) in its latest concep­
tion first suggested by Kraus (2006) focuses on the enhancement and
preservation of rural, agricultural, urban-edge areas as stages for effi­
cient and sustainable food production to serve cities, as well as oppor­
tunities for urbanites to nurture connections to the land (Newman and
Saginor, 2016). Despite trends of out-migration of people from rural to
urban and suburban areas, Carlow (2016) is quick to point out that rural
communities are in need of forward-looking strategies for sustainable
development. To that end, she poses two critical questions: (1) What
new concepts for rural living are there; and (2) Do we need to formulate
a new vision for ‘ruralism?’ (p. 7).
The Northern New England Chapter of the American Planning As­
sociation (NNECAPA) was grappling with the same questions, particu­
larly in light of the small scale of most communities across the three-
state region (Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont) the chapter serves.
Although NNECAPA planners acknowledge that many strategies drawn
from the NU and NR frameworks have been successfully implemented in
rural communities in adapted forms, the professional chapter suggested
a counterpoint of NR was necessary. Underpinning this claim is a
recognition of the resource challenges rural communities face in
creating opportunities and addressing deficits. In response, the chapter’s
planning strategies are not designed to serve an urban metropolis
nearby, but rather to make deep rural communities places in which
people can live and even thrive.
Appearing in the Small Town and Rural Planning Division of the APA
summer 2017 newsletter(American Planning Association, 2017), this
divergent description of NR was articulated:
“New Ruralism is about rural communities finding new ways and
sustainable approaches to create economic opportunities, provide
livable-wage jobs, improve access to local foods, offer better aging in
place options, expand access to social services, improve access to
transportation, grow the local economy, and provide for a number of
other basic needs. It is about communities finding creative ways to
adapt to and succeed within today’s economy without compromising
local values and culture” (p. 1).
As part of this expressed vision, NNECAPA began assembling from an
array of its own projects those that were working in rural communities
to develop what it called an adjusted New Ruralism (herein we also refer
to this as [a]NR) framework. After presenting this conceptualization to
the national APA, the chapter issued a call for submissions of projects
and initiatives that might serve as case studies to help the group further
delineate and expand its [a]NR scaffolding and to provide guidance to
other rural communities in their development efforts (NNECAPA, 2020).
This paper answers NNECAPA’s appeal by suggesting that
426
Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442
Waddington, N.Y, a small village near the Canadian border located on
the St. Lawrence River, exemplifies ongoing efforts to accommodate
development while preserving rural heritage, place-based character, and
natural resource integrity, and serves as an ideal case study among those
the chapter is documenting. We also heed NNECAPA’s invitation to
suggest improvements to its framework and through our findings and
grounded theory describe several further “adjustments” to better artic­
ulate viable and transferable strategies that other deep rural commu­
nities might contemplate.
We begin by reviewing rural planning and development approaches
through an examination of the multidisciplinary scholarship in Section 2
before outlining our study methods and describing Waddington as a site
of research in Section 3. We introduce NNECAPA’s [a]NR framework for
the first time in the academic literature in Section 4, while discussing the
ways in which our case documentation illuminated both shortcomings
and challenges of this scaffolding, leading to three recommended
overarching alterations for our own workability. Section 5 presents
these proposed adjustments visually with additional discussion in an
attempt to move the [a]NR framework forward through the nexus of
scholarship, before final considerations in Section 6, which includes
conclusions, limitations, and potential lines of future investigation.
1.1. Practical theory: dominant planning frameworks
Several contemporary articles (Frank and Hibbard, 2016; Frank and
Reiss, 2014; Santiago et al., 2016) have cited Caldwell’s (2011)
description of rural planning as “the process of planning for rural areas,
with a focus on rural issues and from a rural perspective” (xvi). Many see
his description as a directive, encapsulated in some of the more recent
sentinel essays that simultaneously lament the fact that despite the fact
one in five, or 60 million people, still live in rural areas in the U.S, and
despite important work in the 1970s–1990s that produced an abundance
of practical guidance in the profession and practice of rural planning,
there appears to have been over the last two-plus decades a privileged
urban focus in the planning literature.
That is not to say there is a complete absence of rural planning
contribution. In their meta-analysis of over 240 references, Frank and
Reiss (2014) suggest a momentum of rural planning contributions,
exemplified by the publishing of two seminal books (Daniels, 1988;
Lapping et al. 1989), numerous edited compendiums (e.g. Cloke 1988;
Bell and Cloke, 1989), practical guidebooks (e.g. Daniels et al., 2007),
and the launch of the Journal of Rural Studies among other publications
has given way to a divergence, one in which the planning practice
literature has plateaued regarding a rural focus. By contrast, the authors
note, a dedicated, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary scholarly
foundation for rural planning and development has steadily emerged,
one that is “gradually coming to constitute a distinct field of study”
(Lapping et al. 1989, p. 317). Some of this more recent work is centered
on specific rural challenges, such as agricultural practice and sector
change (Scott et al., 2019a,b), community health, healthcare and aging
in place (e.g. Zhang et al., 2020), and climate change mitigation,
adaptation and anticipatory planning (e.g. Bukvic and Harrald, 2019;
Kim and Marcouiller, 2021), among other foci.
There has also been a vast body of work focused on community-based
and community-driven development (CBD and CDD) approaches in
rural areas, many in global contexts, which aim to “harness and build
social capital, using social capital ideas as discursive justification for
particular types of project interventions” (McCarthy, 2014, p. 145).
Although CBD has been defined as “an umbrella term for projects that
actively include beneficiaries in their design and management” (Mansuri
and Rao, 2004, p. 1), CDDs tend to include more encompassing partic­
ipant involvement via social networks that facilitate collective action in
either the design and ultimate implementation of a development project,
and/or funding for project implementation (King et al., 2010). Many
recent studies of CBD and CDD, under the banner of Community Led
Development (CLD) are focused on issues of sustainability in food
C. Johnson-Woods and A. Feldpausch-Parker
production, housing and healthcare provision, water resources man­
agement and services, and climate-change mitigation and adaptation,
including ways to bridge funding gaps across targeted goals.
Placemaking is a conceptualization that emerged formally in the
1970s architecture scholarship and practice, but its widespread use in
the planning literature is only recently gaining more traction. Wyckoff
(2015) articulates placemaking as a deliberate and strategic process, a
means to an ends via creating “quality places that people want to work,
play and live in” (p. vi). He introduced in 2010 a placemaking typology,
and as a visual model in 2014 that he and his team in their compre­
hensive handbook describe through a lens of smart growth and other
professional planning principles, strategies, and standards ((Wyckoff,
2010). Growing scrutiny of the trajectory of the placemaking umbrella
has also ensued in parallel in the literature, with criticism of conceptual
over-reliance on regulatory schemas that may result in inadequacies,
including less emphasis on processes that creates the capacity for people
to invest space with meaning (Mateo-Babiano and Lee., 2020), as well as
averting focus on other place-based needs, such as attentiveness to social
equity (Fincher et al., 2016). Despite growth in the body of literature on
placemaking and practical focus via organizations like the Project for
Public Spaces, with only some exception, the placemaking lens in the US
is still predominantly urban.
Entrepreneurship in the rural and ‘rural entrepreneurship,’ are two
complementary conceptualizations within the literature. Korsgaard,
Müller and Tanvig (2015) distinguish these, noting the former repre­
sents “entrepreneurial activities with limited embeddedness enacting a
profit-oriented and mobile logic of space” (n.p.). Differing, rural entre­
preneurship represents entrepreneurial activities that “leverage local
resources to re-connect place to space.” Although both types contribute
to local development, the latter, note the authors, “holds the potential
for an optimized use of the resources in the rural area, and these ven­
tures are unlikely to relocate even if economic rationality would suggest
it” (n.p.). This focus has led to a growing body of work, much of it in­
ternational, in which scholars are examining the ways in which
place-based contexts influence entrepreneurial processes and outcomes
(e.g., Zahra et al., 2014), with rural contexts garnering its own strain in
the literature (e.g. Gaddefors and Anderson, 2017; Müller and Kors­
gaard, 2018) including a focus on the potential of entrepreneurial
mindsets via social enterprises (social entrepreneurship) in addressing
challenges in rural communities (e.g., Steiner and Teasdale, 2019).
Some of the most recent introductions in scholarship explore what
might be considered imaginative planning and development approaches
in rural areas, with many works published by scholars documenting case
studies in Europe and contemplating alternatives to growth-oriented
paradigms in what are dubbed “non-core regions.” These encourage
thinking to embrace other concepts of ‘growth’ as well as alternative
models focused on local-regional transformations towards more sus­
tainable conditions of development, (Leick and Lang, 2018). This in­
cludes a body work focused on “regenerative” or “regeneration”
strategies – innovations designed to move beyond traditional “counter­
acting tactics to ‘shrink smart’” (Küpper et al., 2018, p. 229), with some
focused on centering harmonization with natural systems. This includes
growing attentiveness to the potential of Circular Economies (CEs),
described by Angeli (2018), among others, as a disruptive development
strategy that “allows economic growth by optimizing the use of natural
resources, minimizing environmental pressures, transforming supply
chains and consumption patterns and redesigning production systems so
that they are restorative or regenerative by intention and design,”
(published abstract).
Despite this robust literature foundation, generating widespread
knowledge, appreciation, and application of a rural planning perspec­
tive within the planning profession in the U.S. has proved elusive. A
major challenge according to Frank and Reiss (2014) is that the
“inability of planning journals to keep pace with the growth of rural
planning scholarship potentially handicaps rural planning thought and
practice by denying it access to the wider profession…". This may be a
427
Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442
contributing factor, they note, to the “sidelining of rural for urban in the
planning literature” (p. 388), as is the inclination for most professional
planners to work in cities and suburban environments, adopting through
experience and inclination a greater urban planning perspective.
Perhaps compounding this lagging advocacy in more recent years is
also the lingering framing of rural communities as either a romantic or
idyllic image of “tranquil, unchanging farmsteads and small towns”
(Daniels and Lapping, 1987, p. 273), and are thus fine as-is or even
ideally left alone, or what White (1994) describes as a “bleaker view” of
communities and areas beset by significant “economic and demographic
decline” (p. 29). In reality, for most living in rural communities across
the U.S, neither depiction is wholly accurate as a singular frame. Instead,
rural places are far more complex and unique, often shaped by location,
embedded lived histories, and an array of what Flora et al. (2018) call
diverse “capitals” (natural, cultural, human, social, political, financial,
and built) that when leveraged in the face of opportunities, can help
communities achieve economic and social goals with a great degree of
local self-determination.
Even with vast assets and creative possibility in responding to chal­
lenges, Edwards and Haines (2007) note that those offering guidance on
rural planning are often “inappropriately applying urban planning
practices, such as comprehensive plans and new urbanism to rural
areas” (in Frank and Reiss, 2014, p. 387). According to Stratton (2009),
NU focuses on several smart growth planning strategies and practices,
incorporating controls, zoning, and urban design as constraints to un­
planned, sometimes chaotic sprawl. Tactics include embracing public
works standards, working together to codify NU principles tailored to
meet the specific needs of each community. NU also focuses on the
creation of walkable, neighborhood-based development that often fea­
tures comprehensive, mixed-use design approaches that work for the
“full continuum of development” (p. 1).
In model form, the emerging smart growth strategies derived from
NU principles have been transformative for cities, and despite an over­
zealousness to utilize these approaches in rural communities when un­
suitable, many smaller towns and villages across the U.S. have
incorporated successful NU strategies in downtown areas in the form of
historic preservation and mixed-use integration, and in developing a
cohesive center square or core. In other words, some smart growth
practices in urban areas have transferable value in rural communities as
well. But many do not.
Another major challenge for rural areas rests in the fact so many
researchers and planners couch ‘rural’ as the area just outside of urban
and suburban settlements (Frank and Reiss, 2014), or as White (2014)
describes, a rural America “situated at an interdependent urban-rural
fringe or metropolitan edge” (p. 230). New Ruralism (NR) describes
edge communities that serve as agricultural preserve staging areas pri­
marily for larger urban centers in the production of sustainable food. In
addition, these boundary areas are envisioned to help urbanites connect
idyllically to their rural, pastoral roots, and often include preserved
rural-esque infrastructure such as walking trails, community gardens,
shared equestrian facilities, and eco-region, low impact development.
According to Newman and Saginor (2016), NR, in its condensed defi­
nition, is essentially a growth framework within an environmental
disciplinary focus that “grafts farmland and sustainable agriculture
principles into contemporary planning” (p. 269). Much of the practical
rural community design literature according to Frank and Reiss (2014) is
focused on managing the rapid growth of these amenity-rich, urban-­
edge areas (Resina and WilliamViestenz, 2012).
But White (2014) also identified a second rural America, describing a
community considered in its more remoteness, ‘deep rural’ (p. 230).
According to Frank and Reiss (2014), a scarcity mentality often pervades
these areas, “which has meant the primacy of economic development,
including business and population recruitment, poverty alleviation, and
fiscal responsibility,” (p. 390). Each approximation of White’s two rural
Americas requires potentially different planning approaches, attributed
in part to the fact that, as Newman and Saginor (2016) are quick to point
C. Johnson-Woods and A. Feldpausch-Parker
out, NU principles are not easily translatable to NR philosophies in
communities with lower densities, despite NU and NR sharing the same
goal of minimizing land consumption with vastly different land uses. In
addition, few NR philosophies easily translate to communities that are
considered ‘deep rural.’ As an outcome, Carlow (2016) observes, “Few
forward-looking strategies for developing villages and small towns exist
– even though there are ample methods for how to manage their
shrinkage” (p. 6). This deficit is more in keeping with a renewed interest
in rural areas as distinctly rural areas (author emphasis, Frank and Reiss,
2014, p. 386), and calls for deep rural communities to consider modified
or even radically different strategies, accompanied by an effort to raise
awareness of the rural planning field within the planning profession.
This requires according to the authors the elaboration and advancement
of four necessary knowledge fronts: (1) the distinct rural planning
perspective; (2) the perspective of rural places and peoples (rural
studies); (3) the nexus of rural planning and development approaches
with the literature; and (4) profession support for rural planning.
1.2. Deep rural planning and NNECAPA’s adjusted New Ruralism
NNECAPA members may have recognized the role they could play in
elaborating the rural planning perspective by not only reporting on the
successful integration of NU, NR, and related planning approaches in
their own projects, but also in documenting the ways in which com­
munities in their deep rural region required a different set of practices all
together. This aim mirrors not only the unique challenges of rural areas,
but also Carlow’s (2016) reality that small rural villages and towns have
fewer resources at their disposal compared to metro areas and are thus
somewhat on their own. Central to this understanding is a recognition
that the needs of deep rural communities rely more heavily on valuing
the uniqueness and specificity of local places, sometimes inherently
attached to identity, empowering residents to build social capital and
capacity, and greater coordination of their constituencies.
In 2020, NNECAPA through The New Ruralism Project published its
initial compendium of documented case studies . Examples from its
three-state region and other rural U.S. communities were featured in five
categorical focus areas: “food,” “people helping people,” “building jobs
on our strengths,” “energy of volunteers,” and “other rural initiatives.”
These cases are also accessible online (Case Studies of New Ruralism,
2020). Several of these descriptive cases focus on evidenced attributes
and most include narratives of those engaged, including interviews from
professionals and leaders to local community members. Also articulated
is attentiveness to funding, impacts, and “lessons to share.”
These cases are preceded by a more robust articulation of the need
for this adjusted conception of NR away from the urban fringe than
when first introduced at the national APA meeting. To prosper, states
NNECAPA
“rural communities need not only a synchronized sustainability
focus, but to thrive, planning, policy and grassroots efforts must
embrace new methods of economic sustainability, like closed loop
systems, cooperatives and the creative economy, while weaving
together efforts to uphold environmental sustainability of natural
resources with attentiveness to investments in their social capacity,
safetynets, and citizen wellbeing and empowerment” ((Northern
New England Chapter of the American Planning Association, 2020)
The synergy of these ideas for strong rural communities like those
profiled is indeed an ambitious aim, with long-term impacts and mea­
sures of success still uncertain given endogenous challenges and exog­
enous pressures.
1.3. Methodological approach
This project emerged from a larger life-narrative field study that
relied on qualitative methods to better understand people’s connections
the St. Lawrence River and their respective shoreline communities of
428
Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442
Massena, Waddington, and Clayton, N.Y, particularly situated in the
multidisciplinary body of theory and scholarship through the lens of
‘place.’ The oral histories of 24 participants in Waddington were
recruited via snowball method, recorded, and transcribed as part of the
initial study.
Often methodologies grounded in oral histories not only help address
initial research questions through the generation of rich data, but often
yield new questions via grounded theory worthy of concurrent pursuit or
future study (Endres, 2011). This was certainly the case regarding
Waddington in which we experienced through openness and reflexivity
what Debord (1958) called a “derive,” – a sense of becoming drawn by
the attractions of the terrain and the encounters that contribute to a vibe
or genius loci (“soul”) of a place (Jive′ n and Larkham, 2003). Contem­
poraneous questions arose from thick descriptions regarding observed
restoration to architecture and buildings in the historic business district
to accommodate new shops and businesses, as well as ongoing im­
provements to shoreline amenities that hosted an array of events. Much
of this activity over the 2+ years of our study felt current, deliberate, and
with much community involvement, and we were grappling with how to
adequately and accurately articulate what we were witnessing, and what
many participants were including in their life narratives.
Immersion in the planning practice and scholarly literature informed
our decision to use an extended case study approach to both revisit data
from the initial study as well as collect new data, combined with
grounded theory analysis, to methodologically address the ways in
which Waddington appeared to demonstrate the practical and descrip­
tive case studies we discovered NNECAPA was documenting as part of its
proposed [a]NR framework. These combined methods affirm scholarly
discussions of the evolution of grounded theory, spanning both post-
positivist classic (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) and constructivist trajec­
tories, which have strong foundational support (Strauss, 1987; Charmaz,
2006; and Lauckner et al., 2012, among others).
Initial life history transcripts were revisited with five selected based
on high degree of participant involvement in the community, with line-
by-line open coding contextualized by the practical and scholarly
planning and placemaking literature, including the [a]NR principles,
strategies, and criteria for case inclusion (see Tables 1 and 2 in Section
4). Emerging themes were documented, with the most significant,
frequent, and overlapping exemplars used to review the remaining
transcripts. Counter-narratives, tensions and uniquely qualifying themes
were also noted. In methodological best practice, post-session memos
accompanied life narrative encounters, and these, alongside published
community planning documents, photo and sketch-mapping, field notes
from mobilizing methods championed by Pink (2007, 2008, 2009)
Table 1
Principles and attributes of NNECAPA’s [a]NR framework.
Principle (1): Promoting Individualism within Community
• Everyone is important
• Grounding, centering
• Volunteerism
• Democracy is alive – citizen empowerment
• Fostering creative spirit
• Fostering self-sufficient individuals and communities
Principle (2): Simplicity and Enlightenment
• Fostering entrepreneurism, ingenuity, flexibility
• Co-operatives, commons
• Reliance on local food, energy, fuel and fiber
• Local ownership
• Decentralized, integrated infrastructure
• Creating “closed loop” systems
• Putting long-term sustainability before quick profits
Principle (3): Enhancing Community “soul” via Placemaking
• Protecting the historic fabric of stonewalls, town centers, barns, working landscapes
and waterfronts
• Connection to natural systems
• Creating spaces where people stand, gather, smiling, hugging, talking
• Celebration via community service, music, art, dance, theater: promoting sharing,
pride of place, trust, a fun place to be!
C. Johnson-Woods and A. Feldpausch-Parker
Table 2
Criteria for NNECAPA [a]NR case study.
Criterion Communities do not rely on professional town or staff or outside
1 funding in an effort to be sustainable at the community level, and to
encourage locally-driven, community-wide support for successful
implementation.
Criterion [a]NR Efforts foster improvement in quality of life, livable wage jobs,
2 meeting basic household needs and/or long-term community
sustainability.
Criterion [a]NR efforts foster growth in the local and regional economy rather
3 than contribute to a leakage of wealth outside the region.
including guided walking and boating tours, participation in community
events, and regular visits to stores and businesses, were also examined
and similarly coded thematically in conversation with the body of
planning and placemaking literature. Earlier thematic analysis linked to
“place” and the river was also retained presuming linkages between
place and placemaking for the purposes of this undertaking.
1.4. Waddington, NY as a site of research
Waddington, called “kanateroken” or “Wet Village,” by members of
the Iroquois Confederacy who long inhabited the area, is a small
incorporated village in Northern New York (NNY) situated along the St.
Lawrence River and Seaway, not far from the physical international
border between the US and Canada (See Fig. 1).
Waddington is located on the north-western edge of St. Lawrence
County, which at 2,821 mi2 is the largest county in terms of landmass in
the New York state, but includes only one small city (Ogdensburg,
Fig. 1. Map of waddington, N.Y.
429
Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442
population 12 364) and several scattered rural villages and very small
towns. Waddington is midway along the river between Ogdensburg to its
south, which serves as a small port along the Seaway, and Massena, NY,
23 miles to its north, location of the Eisenhower Power Dam and Seaway
Locks system completed in 1959 by the New York Power Authority
(NYPA). Both provide bridge accessibility over the St. Lawrence to
Canada, including its capitol, Ottawa, which at 76 miles away (121 km),
and a population of nearly 1 million, is the closest sizable US or Cana­
dian city to Waddington. It is considered a deep rural village as it is part
of a remote, rural region, which is experiencing overall population
decline.
Breaking the sightline of Canada’s shoreline from Waddington’s
banks is a stretch of land called Ogden Island, which provides the
community uniquely with a protective barrier from the wide-open
shipping channels and rougher waters of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
The island was named for David Ogden, who by 1811 essentially owned
Waddington, the riverbed, shoreline, and helped propel the growth of
small-scale industries such as brick manufacturing, tanneries, and even
newspaper printing, alongside agriculture and dairy farming from 1840
to 1880, made possible by the first dam along the Long Sault rapids.
Unfortunately, this economic boon was unsustainable given the absence
if rail transportation in the remote region, which made competing with
increasing demands of down-state cities for dairy products, coincident
with the invasion of this market by western wheat and beef, nearly
impossible (Layo, 1999). As these small enterprises folded, many of the
buildings in Waddington that had been constructed by local stone and
brick to support this early industry, were vacated for decades or con­
verted to residential housing.
Unlike the growth of large-scale industry supported by hydro, which
C. Johnson-Woods and A. Feldpausch-Parker
spurred growth of Massena before facility and plant downsizing and
closures in the last three decades, Waddington never experienced a
resurgence in manufacturing, though many living there secured work at
Massena plants and in other nearby communities. As a result, the village
and surrounding area never grew substantially, with only 931 perma­
nent residents living there currently among 396 households, and a me­
dian age of 51.3 years (NY Data and Demographics, 2019). The village
downtown was described by one older resident as nearly “frozen in
time.” With the exception of the historic waterfront industrial area,
demolished as part of the Seaway project, the buildings of Waddington
center do not look much different than they did 100 years ago (Gar­
ofalini, 1992). That, for many, is part of its lure, as is the river itself.
2. Findings
2.1. Waddington case study documentation: working with NNECAPA’s
[a]NR framework
NNECAPA’s [a]NR framework and compiled case documentation
addresses the rural planning perspective, which distinguishes “inte­
grated, community-based rural planning from planning in rural areas”
(Frank and Reiss, 2014, p. 387). In other words, the chapter espouses
spotlighting efforts that certainly might borrow from urban planning
initiatives and principles if they are working in deep rural areas. How­
ever, the distinction of [a]NR presumes that some of these may be
mismanaged in rural settings, may be deficient given the uniqueness of
deep rural spaces and places, and may require completely different,
integrated approaches attune to rural communities for success.
The inaugural framework that was provided to those collecting case
studies is introduced in the scholarly literature for the first time (See
Table 1), and includes a set of principles and corresponding attributes
that reflect tools and policies that in the application to deep rural
communities, “seek and celebrate creative innovation to sustain healthy
social, economic and natural systems into the future” (NNECAPA web­
site, 2019).
These strategies are derived from combined or integrated smart
growth approaches, but uniquely with the addition of ‘healthy commu­
nity’ principles (NEECAPA, 2020). The latter links and integrates design
with planning policies and practices to not only public health and aging
in place, but also the educational, emotional, social, physical and spir­
itual wellbeing of the people who live there (Norris and Pittman, 2000;
Wolff, 2010).
NEECAPA’s assembled case studies were intended to exemplify ideal
practices that have typically been available as recommended tools for
rural communities to utilize in development efforts, but in practice have
been rather ad-hoc, incremental, and understudied in terms of outcomes
and impacts. In addition to aligning with its articulated principles and
attributes, NNECAPA suggests case study strategies should ideally “fit”
rural areas with low population density meet three criteria (see Table 2,
below):
2.2. Recommending an [a]NR adjustment: formalizing Wyckoff’s
placemaking typology
Notably, the three overarching principles for case inclusion (see
Table 1), ‘Promoting Individualism within Community,’ ‘Simplicity and
Enlightenment,’ and ‘Enhancing Community “Soul” via Placemaking,’
include corresponding descriptive characteristics (attributes) that might
be visible or working in case communities like those it was documenting
430
Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442
under its own regional umbrella. While we were undertaking the
documentation of our own findings of Waddington for such a task, some
of the [a]NR attributes in their relative vagueness required more sub­
jective interpretation for our purposes, and there were few guidelines in
making many of these insights accessible in ways that bridged to plan­
ning practice and scholarly terminology. In order for us as non-planners
to more accurately situate what we were observing in Waddington, we
undertook the advisement of what Frank and Reiss (2014) describe as
inherent in another critical knowledge front – exploring the nexus be­
tween integrated rural planning and the broader community/city
planning and development field, as our requisite next step.
Although the nature of grounded theory as a methodology provides
the possibility for a number of bridges to cross as part of this theoretical
exercise, NNECAPA’s inclusion of Placemaking as the third of its three
[a]NR principles already correlates in terminology to scholarship. In
addition, we were aware of Wyckoff’s cautionary concern that the
“myriad uses of the term [placemaking] are sometimes confusing and
contradictory,” thus potentially diluting “the value of the concept and
undermines its utility in helping neighborhoods and communities ima­
gine and create a better future” (in Planning and Zoning News, 2010).
These reasons seemed like a good jumping off point to tinker theoreti­
cally with NNECAPA’s framework, by taking our data collected as part
of this study, and positioning it in both NNECAPA’s scaffolding and the
specificity of Wyckoff’s (2014) Placemaking Typology (See Fig. 2).
Drawing from an extensive examination of the literature and practice
over the last four decades Wykoff and his colleagues articulated this
placemaking typology as a “Placemaking Assessment Tool” to guide
local officials and community stakeholders in analyzing which type of
placemaking is beneficial to pursue in a specific location (Wyckoff,
2015, p. 28). The model suggests most placemaking activities fall into an
overarching Standard Placemaking category, depicted within the larger
circle, as well as include facets of three specialized types – Strategic,
Tactical, and Creative Placemaking, depicted in the three interlocking
circles. Each specialized placemaking type has its own sets of strengths
and weaknesses when engaged independently or as part of a sequence of
placemaking approaches designed to achieve clearly-described goals
and objectives that support a particular community vision. Each of these
placemaking approaches is inherently linked to community-building
which the literature suggests as a purposeful attempt at creating a
sense of belonging or Sense of Place (SoP).
Table 3 displays our findings related to ‘Placemaking,’ categorized
by both the [a]NR framework and Wyckoff’s typology to both provide
specificity of the approaches we observed, and what was conveyed via
participant narratives, and to highlight the flexibility and integrative
nature of placemaking types in Waddington.
2.2.1. Standard placemaking (structural improvements/additions) in
waddington
Standard Placemaking is akin to the universal placemaking descrip­
tion advanced by the Project for Public Spaces: projects that lead to
incremental improvement over long periods of time, and often include
facade and neighborhood undertakings (structural focus) as well as
regular programs and events in improved neighborhood public spaces
that also have economic development benefits and foster liveliness and
celebration. The main purpose in standard placemaking is to create
“quality places” where people want to live, play, study, and work, which
requires an active social capital of community members in both the
process of inception and implementation (Wyckoff, 2014, n. p.). Para­
mount to the standard placemaking goal is fostering economic
C. Johnson-Woods and A. Feldpausch-Parker
Fig. 2. Wyckoff’s 4-categorical placemaking model.
development in a place by attracting a talented workforce as a long-term
goal (Wyckoff, 2015, p. 26).
Waddington boasts a number of cohesive Standard Placemaking ap­
proaches, including the addition of its new Waterfront Pavilion at Island
Park (Table 3/Row 1) where many life narratives were recorded for this
project. The construction was made possible by a state grant from the
New York Power Authority (NYPA) and leveraged local funding, and is
envisioned as a larger-scale transformative project and series of activ­
ities that can convert Waddington’s downtown shoreline to one with a
strong SoP that serves as a magnet for people and new development.
From this stone and wood structure, respite with outdoor fireplace and
retractable screens to capitalize on river and Ogden Island views, much
of Waddington is visible from all four sides, connecting the community
to natural systems, an attribute of placemaking in [a]NR. It sits as a new
landmark at a critical village node and provides spaces for numerous
community and private events where people gather, enjoy music, and
celebrate. Improvements to the Civic Center and Park (Table 3/Row 4)
at the north shore village boundary has allowed the community to host
massive summer events, including international fishing tournaments
and festivals, tied to tourism goals as well as improving shoreline
accessibility and quality of life for residents. Working in tandem, these
improvements and strategies yield other effective, value-added contri­
butions to support community goals.
2.2.2. Tactical placemaking in waddington
Tactical Placemaking draws from two separate, but related bottom-up
approaches brought together. This includes “Tactical Urbanism,” (Lydon
et al., 2012), which improves ‘livability’ incrementally at the street,
block or building scale, and “Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper (LQC),” (those
highlighted by theProject for Public Spaces), local development strate­
gies that are lower-cost, lower risk and capitalize on the creative energy
of the community. Examples include closing streets for festivals or craft
markets, community-built playgrounds, or pop-up events using other
placemaking hardscapes (Cohen et al., 2018, p. 13; Wyckoff, 2015, pp.
26–28). Many tactical improvements have been made to Island Park via
community member volunteers aiding in small-scale LQC enhancement
projects and interventions, including the crafting of rustic furniture that
can be moved to accommodate an array of events, the establishment of
community gardens, and ongoing artistic displays maintained by
431
Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442
community members. Additions to the Civic Center Park, including a
new playground, improved beach and basketball courts, as well as a
walking and bike path connecting both anchoring shoreline parks
(Table 3, Row 3), are examples of tactical approaches seeking to
advantage small-scale improvements to set the stage for bigger
long-term improvements. The recently added day-dock system for visi­
tors to the community (Table 3, Row 2) is an example of this progres­
sion. It was first implemented as a tactical urbanism approach as a way
to stage more substantial investments phased-in development over time
as part of larger planned project. In terms of [a]NR principles, this
project is one of ‘simplicity and enlightenment,’ borrowing from an
enlightened and transect planning perspective, where small projects
minimize risk while being attentive to regional planning needs. From an
incremental perspective, Waddington’s next step is expansion to a
larger-scale long-term slip and day marina, a project that received
community approval in July 2021 following a NYPA give back from land
it acquired in the 1950s for Seaway construction.
Visible from the main waterfront hub down river is the town beach
peninsula (Table 3/Row 5), which factored into many life narratives
centered on recreation. It is home to a recent addition, the St. Lawrence
University (SLU) boathouse, quickly becoming a visible landmark and
architectural gem in the community. It houses the racing shells and
equipment used by the university crew team which can be seen prac­
ticing early in the mornings from the shoreline. This project is a clear
example of initial Tactical Placemaking approaches, characterized by the
LQC approach in that attracting the team to the river was low risk, low
cost, and capitalized on the energy of the community to champion ‘use
first, design-to-follow,’ while leveraging a community-university part­
nership. This connection has resulted in many crew members and stu­
dents coming to town for not only practice, but also coffee, breakfast,
shopping and special events. Long-term it contributes to Strategic Pla­
cemaking in bringing in higher education partnerships that could lead to
attracting knowledge creators to the area long-term via connection to
the river and community. As is the case, often placemaking projects
straddle categories over time when initial benefits are realized.
2.2.3. Strategic Placemaking in waddington
Strategic Placemaking includes long-term, deliberate and often top-
down approaches to achieve a particular goal mainly focused on job
C. Johnson-Woods and A. Feldpausch-Parker Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442

Table 3
Waddington’s placemaking strategies contextualized by the [a]NR framework and Wyckoff’s 4-placemaking type categories.
Wyckoff’s Four Placemaking Types

Standard Tactical Strategic Creative

Waddington, NY Placemaking Strategies

1. New Waterfront Pavilion [a]NR Structure built via fundraising and Volunteer, hand-crafted rustic
Principles/Attributes (3) matching funds from New York Power furniture that can be moved to
Placemaking Authority (NYPA) accommodate a variety of events
• Protecting the historic fabric of Regular, Planned Events (concert (aligned with “Lighter, Quicker,
waterfronts series; annual Homecoming; National Cheaper” approach)
• Connection to natural systems and Collegiate Bassmasters
• Creating spaces where people Tournament)
stand, gather, smiling, hugging,
talking
• Celebration via community
service and congregation
2. New Day Dock System [a]NR Phased-In Approach to Building
Principles/Attributes (2) Marina – a Tactical Urbanism
Simplicity/Enlightenment strategy.
(3) Placemaking
• Connection to natural systems
3. New Walking/Bike Path [a]NR Incremental Project that will connect “Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper” strategy
Principles/Attributes (3) two anchor spaces, the Donald M. – improving walkability of
Placemaking Martin Civic Center/Park and community.
• Connection to natural systems Waterfront Pavilion along the
Riverfront for community events
4. Donald M. Martin Civic Center Improvement for events/community Recreation Improvements for
and Park Project (3) such as the National and Collegiate families
Placemaking Bassmasters Tournaments
• Protecting the historic fabric of
waterfronts
• Connection to natural systems
5. SLU Boat House [a]NR Incremental Improvement of Place – Small-Scale Project that included a Connecting to university and
Principles/Attributes (3) Fostering Appreciation of Recreation Community-University Partnership knowledge workers as an
Placemaking Activity minimizing risk entrepreneurial and growth
• Connection to natural systems strategy
6. Town Hall Renovation [a]NR Providing community members with Providing no-cost meeting space
Principles/Attributes (2) venue space for community and private for local businesses in need of
Simplicity/Enlightenment events Renovated Space for future conference and other space needs
• Fostering entrepreneurism, Community Museum and Historical
ingenuity, flexibility (3) Association
Placemaking
• Protecting the historic fabric of
stone buildings
• Celebration via community service
and congregation
7. Waddington Marketplace & Fundraising-Supported Phased-In Pop-Up Market (aligned with Street Long-Term Goals Mixed Use Living Bringing in artists
Studios at Clark House [a]NR Incremental Improvements to the Plans Collaborative approaches) & Studio Space for Artisans as from across the
Principles/Attributes (1) Building Entrepreneurs. Successful Grant region for Co-Op as
Promoting Individualism for Water/Utility Infrastructure well as Artist
• Self-sufficient communities Studios
• Fostering the Creative Spirit (2)
Simplicity/Enlightenment
• Fostering entrepreneurism,
ingenuity, flexibility
• Co-operatives, commons (3)
Placemaking
• Protecting the historic fabric of
stone buildings

432
C. Johnson-Woods and A. Feldpausch-Parker
retention and creation, targeting what Wyckoff describes as knowledge
worker/talent who in the global ‘New Economy’ can live anywhere. In
urban areas, this might include multi-use development and housing and
transportation options; in rural areas, this might mean enjoining the
movement of shared workspaces and co-working hubs for virtual, digital
workforce development (Kojo and Nenonen, 2017; Moriset, 2013).
These approaches are often narrower in focus than standard strategies,
and can be resource intensive in rehabilitation and implementation of
spaces and structures. Row 6 of Table 3 includes the renovation of
Waddington’s old Town Hall building, a project championed by the then
town supervisor, the youngest elected to that post in New York State.
Notes Hammond in his guided walking tour as part of this project
(personal communication, 2019), the renovation includes preservation
of the 1884 building on the National Register of Historic Places built by
stone mason and master builder Issac Johnson, a former slave from
Kentucky who escaped during the Civil War to the Union Lines and with
his freedom made his way to the Northern New York – Ontario, Canada
border. Hammond notes of the building’s potential following revitali­
zation as a critical space for government, business, and civic life in
Waddington, with new office spaces, dedicated space for the future
Waddington Museum and Historical Association, meeting rooms for area
businesses, and a large open space, the scale and historical interiors now
the site for event rentals such as weddings, free to Waddington residents
and a nominal fee to others. This project is both Standard Placemaking in
its long-term interval approach for planned new spaces, with a major
focus on Strategic Placemaking in its attempts to provide area businesses
with meeting space and support services and attract new business
growth, an [a]NR principle of Simplicity and Enlightenment in fostering
entrepreneurial activity.
2.2.4. Waddington’s unique focus on Creative Placemaking
Perhaps where Wyckoff’s model is most useful in concert with the [a]
NR framework is in describing with greater specificity Waddington’s
efforts in Creative Placemaking (Table 3/Row 7), the third specialized
type other deep rural communities are pursuing with varying degrees of
success, even those communities considered less amenity-rich (Lactorin,
2019).
This rather new conceptualization was first introduced by Markusen
and Gadwa (2010), and is an evolving field of practice with vast de­
scriptions. Essentially these approaches propose leveraging partnerships
across the public, private, nonprofit and community sectors to strate­
gically harness the power of creativity, culture, and the arts in service to
communities to help drive broader agendas for growth, change, and
transformation while building “character and quality of place” (Art­
space, 2018). A further distinction of Creative Placemaking in our docu­
mentation is that it actually bridges all three [a]NR principles,
embracing artists as a driving entrepreneurial force for economic and
sustainable development, relies on artist cooperatives as foundational,
and fosters the creative spirit.
Although not all Creative Placemaking endeavors are good in­
vestments, several communities have seen success, and so far, Wad­
dington’s incremental approach appears to be achieving local
development objectives that were articulated in an earlier published in
the latest published community plan (Camoin Associates, 2007). This is
most evident in the renovations and improvements of three side-by-side
historic stone and brick buildings that are dedicated to sustainable
arts-based businesses (See photos, Appendix A). The new Waddington
Marketplace & Studios at Clark House is the centerpiece of Main Street,
occupying a reclaimed historic inn built in 1893 and saved from de­
molition by a group of concerned citizens in 1997. Forming Clark House
Preservation, Inc, the group raised an initial $300,000 in private funding
433
Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442
pledging in-kind work to embark on phased restoration that preserved
internal structure and many historical elements while modernizing the
space. This is a clear example of Strategic Placemaking in that it is tar­
geted and tied to achieving a long-term strategic development goal of
job creation and business growth by creating a quality place in which
residents can work and live.
In 2015, community members launched a pop-up market featuring
artisans of all types – folk, crafters, fine artisans, and producers of artisan
culinary products from across the region for the Christmas season, an
example of Tactical (LQC) Placemaking. The event was so successful that
artisans decided to show and sell their work year-round, working as a
“cooperative” in [a]NR vernacular (Principle (2)) to start, where artisans
work a few hours to greet visitors and customers purchasing artistic
wares. The next phase of the renovations is in the works. In 2017,
$100,000 in grant and leveraged private funding was secured to provide
running water and plumbing critical to the planned second-floor studio
spaces, where visitors will be able to observe artists-in-residence. The
goal of this project is to create space dedicated to “bringing together
creative minds” (Waddington Marketplace & Studios [online], 2018),
with potential for artist residences as well.
This project complements the efforts of other arts-based businesses
including next door The Gallery, which emphasizes fine arts, including
paintings, prints, photography, and other works. There is an artist-in-
residence, and classes are offered by artists as well. The Artworks Crep­
erie Café is a recent addition in Waddington’s commercial district housed
in a historic corner building facing Main Street with side window and
patio views of the St. Lawrence. It specializes in an array of savory and
dessert crepe creations, and the interior is reminiscent of eating in an art
gallery, with rotating displays of works available for purchase.
The three enterprises cross-promote to nurture an engaging “expe­
rience” in Creative Placemaking in their materials as well as on websites
and social media outlets (Scott, 2015). This activity has inspired other
property owners to undertake revitalization projects on this block with
attention to protecting the historic fabric and details as well. Based on
the documentation of these initiatives, Waddington appears to be in the
early stages of a “decentralized portfolio of spaces acting as creative
crucibles” (Markusen and Gadwa, 2014, p. 2) indicative of the growing
practice of Creative Placemaking, which many suggest may hold the po­
tential to change the future of American towns.
2.2.5. Standard placemaking (events and celebrations) in Waddington
Mateo-Babiano and Lee., 2020 suggest placemaking is more than
community hardscapes and includes processes that create the capacity
for people to “invest space with meaning.” The spaces made possible by
structural placemaking improvements and additions provide opportu­
nities for community members to gather, participate in events, and
celebrate, and are considered by Wyckoff as examples of a second, in­
tegrated part of Standard Placemaking.
Nearly every participant who shared their life story mentioned the
Friday Summer Concert Series in the new Pavilion, as well as Wad­
dington’s annual Homecoming, which we attended two times, doc­
umenting in field notes and photographs using thick description (Geertz,
1973) (See Appendix 1). Homecoming has been celebrated for nearly half
a century, and has grown in size and scope over the years. This three-day
festival encourages people who grew up in the community to return each
summer to rejoin family and friends in the Waddington Center anchored
by Island Park and is very important to residents in fostering SoP and in
many instances, celebrating and performing the uniqueness of what is rural
(rurality) (Woods, 2010). Many high school graduating classes hold their
reunions in conjunction with this long weekend, and parents look for­
ward to the return of their grown children who may have moved away.
C. Johnson-Woods and A. Feldpausch-Parker
Although focused on Waddington community members and their fam­
ilies, Homecoming is also an opportunity to draw in tourists, partnering
with the regional public radio network for promotion. An array of ac­
tivities appeal to people of all ages such as dances, live music, an
expansive craft and vendor fair, as well as special events for children
such as the Non-Octane Go-Kart Races, treasure hunt, and ice cream
social to encourage young family participation. Activities are focused
along the historic business district, and the enhanced riverfront
including a 5k race, food trucks, and annual antique car show, respite
with handcrafted trophies from old car and truck parts. As it gets closer
to dusk, people gather in chairs and blankets as boats converge from all
across the river for a generous fireworks display. Volunteers collect
donations for the annual rubber duck raffle, which supports the display,
as well as contributions to the volunteer fire department, which is a
critical resource in the community, as is the case in many rural areas.
We found great value in utilizing Wyckoff’s Typology to aid us in
both bridging our findings of Waddington’s placemaking initiatives with
the literature, and in lending specificity to our case study documenta­
tion, particularly given the definitional tensions of the placemaking
construct. As such, we recommend as the first adjustment to [a]NR the
formalization of Wyckoff’s typology as part of Principle (3).
2.3. A second recommended [a]NR adjustment: detangling
entrepreneurism and sustainability
Our research findings suggest a great deal of entrepreneurial focus in
Waddington, particularly in the major successive fishing tournaments
held annually, the growth and success of which justified the need for
improved Standard Placemaking improvements and additions to the
shoreline previously described.
This includes the St. Lawrence International Junior Carp Tourna­
ment, celebrating twenty years in 2022. The event was launched after
film actor Tom Felton, who played Harry Potter bad-boy wizard Draco
Malfoy, visited the St. Lawrence River in 2002 with his brother for an 8-
day fishing vacation. According to study participants, they fished day
and night and slept in a tent pitched on the shoreline, catching an
estimated 3000 pounds of carp. Felton suggested hosting an interna­
tional tournament at the end of his stay to the then county Chamber of
Commerce executive, an idea immediately embraced with the caveat he
return as the inaugural master-of-ceremonies. He agreed and the
coverage of the tournament by the BBC drew the attention of other
potential tournaments, including the World Carp Cup.
One participant described a meeting with a local leader and local
media figure who was also an avid angler to discuss the ways to
advantage this publicity and the obvious water assets of not only of the
St. Lawrence, but other connecting water bodies (Cole’s Creek, the
Grasse River, and the Oswegatchie River) as well, and set out to work on
a strategic FISH CAP (Fish Capitol of the World) branded campaign (See
Appendix B for logo). The hope was to leverage the gaining coverage of
early tournaments to promote fishing tourism, and their collective ef­
forts garnered interest from the Bassmaster Elite, which added Wad­
dington to its circuit beginning in 2013, based on what national
tournament organizers described as “open shoreline, scenic beauty,
shoreline infrastructure and cooperative community” (personal
communication, 2019). The tournament’s success is entrepreneurial,
and contracted through 2021 brought an estimated $4.5 million annu­
ally to Waddington and the immediate region (Clarkson University,
2019). In addition, it is in Standard Placemaking a valued festival (Lamb,
2017) that includes community volunteerism and attendance, fostering
great pride among Waddington community members, while offering
434
Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442
weeklong activities and festival events to local residents in Wadding­
ton’s downtown core and Island and Civic Center Parks, drawing in
crowds even at early dawn to watch the boats and pro anglers donning
colorful logos of sponsors, described by one participant as an experience
like “NASCAR on water” (Newman and Giardina, 2008). Building on this
successful community entrepreneurial steam, local leaders then worked
with Potsdam, NY-based Clarkson University 24 miles away and its
collegiate club anglers to host the Carhartt Bassmaster Collegiate tour­
nament in 2019, the success of which contributed to the selection of
Waddington and this new club as the host of the International Collegiate
Championships in 2021 (see Photos in Appendix C). These efforts fit the
more traditional pattern of entrepreneurship activities in rural areas, as
they are intended as part of tourism-growth paradigms, even with
additional placemaking value to communities.
Creative Placemaking, as previously described, is a cornerstone of
documented activity in Waddington and is not simply a celebration of
“The Arts;” but rather an attempt to harness the entrepreneurial energy
of those engaged in distinct decentralized and complementary crucibles
propelling a greater creative economy. Certainly the artistic commons in
which artists take turns in working at the Waddington Marketplace ex­
emplifies attributes of Principle 2 in the [a]NR framework regarding a
sharing ethos and foundational co-operative. Three artists who partici­
pated in our life narrative study described not only this vehicle as an
opportunity to sell their creative products, but also the ways in which it
fostered a sense of belonging and community among those involved.
This demonstrates the ways in which the principles of [a]NR intersect
and overlap, as fostering creative spirit and self-sufficiency is outlined in
Principle 1 of the scaffolding. This co-operative also fits to some extent
the conceptualization of rural entrepreneurism, not just entrepreneur­
ism in the rural, as it has some potential to retain creative entities from
potential relocation through local ingenuity and championing, even if
economic rationality would suggest otherwise (Korsgaard et al., 2015).
In many ways, approaches like these have some commonality with
contemporary scholarly and grey literature focused on sustainability
research, policy, and practice both here in the U.S. and globally. These as
discourses are considered among the less pragmatic, more imaginative
approaches to planning and development given their departure from
dominant growth paradigms (Dryzek, 1998) recognizing of course the
degrees of system(s) transformation sought are varied. It is impossible to
exclude from the [a]NR some of the contemporary discussions of sus­
tainability even in the last few years that either are or will be important
in rural communities and regions, and NNECAPA has referenced a few of
these as attributes (i.e., ‘Creating closed-loop systems,’ and ‘Putting
long-term sustainability before quick profits’) in its framework. In many
ways, Waddington’s Creative Placemaking efforts as incremental toward
a more sustained creative crucible do speak to a rural entrepreneurial
mindset reliant on local talent and generating and retaining accumu­
lated profit, or wealth, within the region. This is vastly different than
Waddington’s more traditional tourism efforts (focused on a growth
paradigm), which is more indicative of entrepreneurism in the rural in
attracting external dollars to the region as part of growth strategies.
Because of these distinctions, and the very real trend in exploring
more “enlightened” approaches (borrowing from [a]NR Principle 2), we
recommend detangling entrepreneurism and sustainability principles
and attributes, providing scaffolding to tend practically to forms of
entrepreneurism in rural communities. This includes the importance of
social entrepreneurism approaches, or the growing recognition of social
enterprises in addressing interconnectedness between different place-
specific rural needs and potential solutions (Steiner and Teasdale,
2019). Our recommendation for this adjustment grew also from our own
C. Johnson-Woods and A. Feldpausch-Parker Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442

findings in which several participants mentioned the work of a com­ Table 4

munity member in establishing a consultancy that provides Waddington Placemaking and development cautions and concerns expressed in waddington
residents with assistance in gaining access to critical services provided community life narratives with corresponding discourses in the literature.
by healthcare entities through the Affordable Care Act among other Predominant Themes in Life Narrative Corresponding Discourses (Nexus with
health initiatives, charging providers rather than community members Findings Related to Placemaking/ the Literature)
for this networking. The value of this service addressed a significant Development Concerns and Cautions in
Waddington
challenge in many rural communities in which members are uninsured.
Our limited case study of Waddington did not reveal some of the Concerns about gentrification as a result (Bedoya, 2013; Costello, 2007; Courage
of rising property values (and et al., 2021; Doucet et al., 2011; Nance,
more radical sustainability approaches emerging in the literature,
corresponding property taxes), as well 2021; Komarek-Meyer, 2019; Phillips,
perhaps because Waddington’s placemaking efforts are still in their as rising costs (assessment fees for 2010; Phillips and Smith, 2018)
relative early stages, or our maybe the scope of our project or approach expanded infrastructure related to
simply did not capture existing efforts. Despite this absence, we believe improvements and a planned
strategies like those related to Circular-Economies and Regenerative development that extended the
provision of utilities), and conversion of
Practices such as those espoused by Hawken (2021) are important in­ accessible, less expensive goods and
clusions as their own distinct, imaginative lens, and includes the services with more upscale versions,
growing movement of organizations and communities committed to out of reach for many.
achieve by 2030 the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Lacking job opportunities as well as (Barcus and Brunn, 2010; Reddick
lacking infrastructure (internet et al., 2020; Roberts and Townsend,
Goals, a collection of 17 interlinked global goals designed to be a
connectivity) and transportation 2016; Strover, 2001; Von Reichert
“blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all” (The beyond the region to competitively et al., 2014)
Sustainable Development Goals Report, 2017). This intersecting attract young talent and/or a mobile
knowledge front informs our suggestion that Principle (2) of the [a]NR, workforce to the area, and contributing
Simplicity and Enlightenment, be separated into two: Entrepreneurism to the exodus of young people to other
urban areas outside the region.
and Sustainability, our second recommended overarching adjustment to
Concerns that even the loss of one (Davies et al., 2018; Davies et al., 2021;
the framework. community champion to death or Skinner et al., 2014)
relocation may halt progress made so
2.4. A third recommended [a]NR adjustment: promoting empowered far regarding placemaking and
development, or may result in
capacity
regression. Additional concerns of loss
of champions and volunteers due to
The documentation of the importance of volunteerism in Wadding­ burnout from over-involvement given
ton, an attribute of Principle (1) of [a]NR cannot be overstated. It seems the needs of the community and lack of
implausible that the community is capable of carrying out the number of legacy capacity (new volunteers).
Trepidation that as more “newcomers” (Costello, 2007; Duffy and Waitt, 2011;
back-to-back major events and tactical placemaking strategies it does move to Waddington given the draw of Gibson et al., 2011; Jepson and Clarke,
with such regularity and in such a condensed annual timeframe. This waterfront, there may be a loss of 2014; Mair and Duffy, 2018)
work rests on a standing planning committee for Homecoming that meets common identity among those who
regularly year long, bringing in other volunteers to help carry out small have lived in the area for generations,
which may also change some of the
segments of the event. There is another team with some overlapping
cherished traditions and festivals like
membership dedicated to carrying out the Bassmaster tournament, Homecoming, and issues and priorities
which also meets year-round and includes local elected leadership and of amenities and development.
regional business representatives. In addition, many community mem­ Concerns about ‘aging-in-place’ including (Ahn et al., 2020; Anarde, 2019; Cohen,
bers detail their role in placemaking efforts in their life narratives, which distance to services and lack of 2021; Forsyth and Molinsky, 2021)
accessibility.
included capitalizing on their skills and networks outside of Waddington Given scarcity, concerns about (Daniels et al., 2019; Gansauer and
regionally and in the state to leverage in-kind capacity with other op­ competition with other nearby Haggerty, 2021; Lu, 2011)
portunities and support. This is especially true of the community’s communities for limited resources and
Creative Placemaking corridor, which is a partnership between commu­ agenda prioritization in the greater
North Country, while recognizing the
nity members, their community-established foundation, and the energy
interdependence across the region.
and resources of creative entrepreneurs plugged into the greater
regional arts council and other networks outside of the community.
One of the strengths of oral histories as a qualitative methods is the
generation of rich data not only based on the stories participants tell, but ‘Promoting individualism in community’ to instead focus on an over­
also post-interview notes that contextualize those narratives. It is clear arching empowered capacity mindset, of which promoting individu­
that the 19 participants who mentioned volunteering in Waddington alism is one attribute alongside others. This reframing then can also
exhibit not only pride in these events and placemaking outcomes accommodate our recommendation that [a]NR include explicit formal
(Gieling et al., 2019; Wiersma and Koster, 2013), but also some degree of processes in the community for involvement in decision-making about
individual empowerment and self-actualization described in the litera­ placemaking and development in keeping with the [a]NR attribute that
ture as important for community attachment in rural areas. Equally ‘Democracy is Alive!’ This should guarantee residents access, standing,
important, volunteerism in Waddington is in light of lacking staff and and influence, or what Senecah (2004) calls Trinity of Voice (TOV), of
significant external resources is essential to both placemaking and not only those who are typically engaged and involved, but also in
entrepreneirual-focused initiatives, in keeping with much of the CLD deliberate efforts to broaden participation of diverse place narratives
literature that describes empowered community self-sufficiency via and landscape perspectives of ordinary and marginalized voices. This
volunteer networks (e.g., Davies, et al., 2018; Joseph and Skinner, 2012; outreach promotes not only democratic inclusiveness, but also helps
Skinner et al., 2014). Developing volunteer capacity in rural areas is also identify assets and building civic capacity for decision-making (Frank
important in fostering transformational leadership (introducing new and Reiss, 2014), with a focus on the processes that sustain or transform
initiatives) and in transactional leadership (sustaining momentum)
rural settings (Woods, 2005) and identity.
(Davies et al., 2021). To that end, there are numerous processes communities might
It is this latter value of volunteerism that guides our third recom­
consider. For example, Wyckoff (2015) describe the value of Charrettes
mended adjustment to the [a]NR framework – to reframe Principle (1) –

435
C. Johnson-Woods and A. Feldpausch-Parker
Fig. 3. Adjusted [a]NR framework model.
in placemaking, processes that engage community stakeholders from
across broad interests and diverse perspectives early in a project as part
of shared visioning, social learning centered on planning and develop­
ment schemas, and creative problem solving. Participatory involvement
is also highlighted in many of NNECAPA’s case studies, some featured as
part of the “lessons learned,” which identify challenges but offer per­
spectives on the ways in which communities addressed those challenges.
We know from the literature that although often positive, there can
be via trade-offs less desirable, even detrimental impacts that can
accompany development and placemaking efforts. Even when unin­
tended, these impacts on members or groups in communities might be
overlooked or perhaps relegated as incidental when compared to the
potential value of proceeding with projects and strategies perceived to
benefit the majority of the community.
In our own findings, for example, we documented six emergent
themes related to concerns and cautions vocalized by study participants,
some of whom had not actively engaged in placemaking or development
decisions in the community. These are summarized in the left hand of
Table 4, below, and are very much in keeping with many of the corre­
sponding criticisms of development strategies and approaches in
selected discourses found in the rural studies, development, and place­
making literature (referenced in the right hand column of Table 4).
Many of these expressed cautions and apprehensions may be
downplayed or overlooked, particularly in the early stages of place­
making when the novelty of renovated and hardscapes and expanded
events are propelled by renewed energy and excitement in the com­
munity. Not only do we suggest in our [a]NR that communities work to
formalize processes of inclusion of community member participants
early in conceptual stages, but drawing on the theoretical work of
436
Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442
Dryzek and Niemeyer (2008), we suggest incorporating discursive rep­
resentation (some of the more familiar assemblies of representative
values, interests, identities, wants, desires), as well as representation a
previously marginalized discourse, in deliberate decision-making pro­
cesses when the whole person cannot be represented (also in Young,
2001). These representations might originate via qualitative methods
that capture these sentiments, as was clear from our study findings, or
from corresponding knowledge fronts gleaned from broader planning
practice in rural areas as well as planning and rural development
scholarship.
3. Depicting adjustments visually: a new, ‘adjusted’ [a]NR
framework
Together, these three suggested modifications or adjustments are
depicted visually in Fig. 3, our proposed, adjusted, [a]NR framework. In
addition to expanding from three principles to four overarching mind­
sets (Placemaking, Entrepreneurship, Sustainability and Empowered
Capacity), we articulate from our findings a set of approach attributes,
retaining much those included in NNECAPA’s original scaffolding,
though rearranged, more specific, or even expanded to include discus­
sions that accompany our findings.
Notably outside of this circular depiction of intersecting mindsets are
important considerations in rural development and placemaking ap­
proaches drawn from the literature and incorporate distinguishing fac­
tors included in NNECAPA’s criteria for case study development. These
include the extent to which deep rural communities have access or
leverage external resources, participate in regional collaboration (which
may have both benefits as well as concerns), may be identified for
C. Johnson-Woods and A. Feldpausch-Parker
resilience support for climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well
as other exogenous factors that might shape a community’s future goals
and efforts.
In terms of connecting to natural systems, arguably, the St. Lawrence
and connecting tributaries are critical to Waddington’s placemaking
efforts, not only in hardscape accessibility at the shoreline, but also as
part of events and even in recreational opportunities for residents such
as swimming and boating. Although cities in the U.S. have been out­
pacing rural areas in terms of population growth, many people are still
choosing to live in rural mountain or lake locations distant from markets
(and this may increase post-COVID) because of significant natural
amenities (Gude et al., 2006). In fact, many deep rural communities
possess natural assets that when threaded across regions are part of
collaborations to leverage and manage “long and skinny places” such as
regional greenways, blue corridors, heritage touring routes, and
multi-use pathways such as rails-to-trails, for example. These ap­
proaches help rural communities that are typically in competition for
limited resources instead factor the ways in which “reenergizing and
leveraging regionalism as a necessary framework for vision, support and
funding is imperative in today’s political and financial environment”
(Klein, 2013, p 642). Wyckoff (2015) also acknowledge the importance
of these nested approaches including those reliant on natural systems as
part of placemaking success.
At the same time, we feel NNECAPA’s inclusion of ‘connecting to
natural systems’ as distinctively a placemaking attribute to be limiting.
After all, connecting to natural systems is critical to many entrepre­
neurial efforts in rural communities, particularly those connected to
agricultural production and is inescapably tied to imaginative ap­
proaches under the sustainability umbrella such as CEs (e.g., Angeli,
2018), and capacity building, as well. This explains our decision to
include connecting to natural systems at the intersection of all four
mindsets.
The same can be said of community ‘soul.’ Although much the vibe
that beckoned us to linger in and explore in Waddington may be
inherently part of its placemaking activities, it is also illuminated
through an inspired dedication to volunteerism, the championing by
local entrepreneurs, and in the everyday stories of the lives and in­
teractions of residents that “leave traces behind in the material texture of
a deep rural place” (Topaloğlu, 2019). This underscores our decision to
center articulation of the ‘soul’ of a deep rural community at the very
heart of the [a]NR framework.
4. Conclusions and future directions
According to Frank and Reiss (2014) “the rural planning perspective
distinguishes integrated, community-based rural planning from plan­
ning in rural areas, and justifies the former” (p. 391). NNECAPA was
advocating this knowledge front through its efforts to document suc­
cessful projects in deep rural communities across the states the chapter
represents when it formulated the [a]NR framework, noting that much
of the dominant planning literature and emergent planning frameworks
including New Urbanism (NU) and New Ruralism (NR) privileged an
urban focus. Although Waddington, NY is not under the NNECAPA’s
437
Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442
regional auspices, the [a]NR appeared in the body of multi-disciplinary
scholarship to most adequately describe the deliberate planning,
development, and placemaking activities we were observing in our
two-year place-based study of the community. We speculated Wad­
dington might make an ideal case study for NNECAPA’s published
compendium, and in using its framework as a basis in that task,
answered the chapter’s invitation to improve its scaffolding if war­
ranted. For our purposes, this meant bringing forth both more specificity
with regards to placemaking approaches, and bridging the body of
scholarship from rural studies to make additional adjustments that
contributed to our own adjusted [a]NR conceptualization introduced
here.
We admit that Waddington’s advantaged proximity and accessibility
to the St. Lawrence River has provided unique opportunities for entre­
preneurial and placemaking aims and thus may differentiate it among
the case studies NNECAPA has documented. However, summer is a short
season in the North Country, and for 7 months out of the year before the
icebreaker makes its way down the Seaway, Waddington resembles most
remote, rural communities across the U.S. without such amenities, and
faces many of the same significant economic and development chal­
lenges. We also believe Waddington has in its community champions
leveraged internal resources as in-kind demonstration to attaining some
external support, particularly from NYPA, and that this may not fully
meet NNECAPA’s criteria for inclusion, though this resourcefulness is
tied to the ingenuity of an empowered citizenry. In keeping with Pred’s
(1984) contention that places are never really finished, future research
in light of this evidenced capacity may include our own return to
Waddington with our framework in hand to examine whether the
community’s recent placemaking activities can be both measured and
sustained. This includes the introduction of questions related to ways in
which the community appears to be teetering in some of its early focus
on co-operatives some of the more imaginative development approaches
fostered by a sustainability mindset that depart from typical growth
paradigms when sustained growth may not be possible, but quality of
life and livability is still a valued and consensus aim. Finally, we invite
other planners and scholars, just as NNECAPA had done, to test our
recommended adjusted [ a]NR framework in studying and documenting
the efforts of other deep rural communities, and to adjust the scaffolding
again to addresses deficiencies and suggest additional improvements.
Author statement
Courtney Johnson-Woods: Data curation; Formal analysis; Inves­
tigation; Methodology; Project, Administration; Writing - original draft;
Writing – final draft. Andrea Feldpausch-Parker: Supervision;
Advisement on Visualization; Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
C. Johnson-Woods and A. Feldpausch-Parker Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442

Appendix A

438
C. Johnson-Woods and A. Feldpausch-Parker Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442

Appendix B

439
C. Johnson-Woods and A. Feldpausch-Parker Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442

Appendix C

440
C. Johnson-Woods and A. Feldpausch-Parker Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442

References Endres, D., 2011. Environmental oral history. Environ. Commun. J. Nat. Cult. 5 (4),
485–498.
Fincher, R., Pardy, M., Shaw, K., 2016. Place-making or place-masking? The everyday
Bedoya, R., 2013. Creative placemaking and the politics of belonging and dis-belonging.
political economy of “making place”. Plann. Theor. Pract. 17 (4), 516–536.
GIA Reader 24. Available from. http://www.giarts.org/article/placemaking-and-
Flora, C.B., Flora, J.L., Gastayer, S.P., 2018. Rural Communities: Legacy + Change
politics-belonging-anddis-belonging.
[ebook Version]. Routledge, New York, NY.
Ahn, M., Kwon, H.J., Kang, J., 2020. Supporting aging-in-place well: findings from a
Forsyth, A., Molinsky, J., 2021. What is aging in place? Confusions and contradictions.
cluster analysis of the reasons for aging-in-place and perceptions of well-being.
Housing Policy Debate 31 (2), 181–196.
J. Appl. Gerontol. 39 (1), 3–15.
Frank, K.I., Hibbard, M., 2016. Production, consumption, and protection: perspectives
American Planning Association [APA], 2017. Small town and rural planning division.
from North America on the multifunctional transition in rural planning. Int. Plann.
Small Town & Rural Planning (Summer). Retrieved. https://planning-org-uploa
Stud. 21 (3), 245–260.
ded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/document/Division-Small-Town-Rural-News-201
Frank, K.I., Hibbard, M., 2017. Rural planning in the twenty-first century: context-
7-Sum.pdf.
appropriate practices in a connected world. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 37 (3), 299–308.
Anarde, S., 2019. Home sweet home: aging in place in rural America. Generations 43 (2),
Frank, K.I., Reiss, S.A., 2014. The rural planning perspective at an opportune time.
17–23.
J. Plann. Lit. 29 (4), 386–402.
Angeli, F., 2018. The circular economy: a broader perspective for rural areas. In: [Rivista
Frank, K.I., Hibbard, M., Shucksmith, M., Tonts, M., Long, H., Zhang, Y., Dandekar, H.C.,
di studi sulla sostenibilità : VIII, 1, 2018][Milano : Franco Angeli, 2018.] -
2020. Comparative rural planning cultures. Plann. Theor. Pract. 21 (5), 769–795.
Permalink. http://digital.casalini.it/10.3280/RISS2018-001008.
Gaddefors, J., Anderson, A.R., 2017. Entrepreneursheep and context: When
Argent, N., 2017. Rural geography I: resource peripheries and the creation of new global
entrepreneurship is greater than entrepreneurs. Int. J. Entrepr. Behav. Res. 23 (2),
commodity chains. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 41 (6), 803–812.
267–278. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-01-2016-0040. Publisher: Emerald
Artspace, 2018. Artspace.org.
Publishing Limited.
Barcus, H.R., Brunn, S.D., 2010. Place elasticity: exploring a new conceptualization of
Gansauer, G., Haggerty, J., 2021. Beyond City Limits: Infrastructural Regionalism in
mobility and place attachment in rural America. Geogr. Ann. B Hum. Geogr. 92 (4),
Rural Montana, USA. Territory, Politics, Governance, pp. 1–19.
281–295.
Garofalini, L.M., 1992. New York State Division for Historic Preservation, Waddington
Bell, P., Cloke, P., 1989. The changing relationship between the private and public
Historic District, Nomination Document, 1992. National Park Service, National
sectors: privatisation and rural Britain. J. Rural Stud. 5 (1), 1–15.
Register of Historic Places, Washington, D.C.
Brauman, K.A., Daily, G.C., Duarte, T.K.E., Mooney, H.A., 2007. The nature and value of
Geertz, C., 1973. Cited by 15094 — thick description: towards an interpretive theory of
ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu. Rev.
culture ⋅ clifford geertz. In: The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, 1973.
Environ. Resour. 32, 67–98.
Gibson, C., Connell, J., Waitt, G., Walmsley, J., 2011. The extent and significance of rural
Bukvic, A., Harrald, J., 2019. Rural versus urban perspective on coastal flooding: the
festivals. In: Festival Places. Channel View Publications, pp. 3–24.
insights from the US Mid-Atlantic communities. Climate Risk Management 23, 7–18.
Gieling, J., Haartsen, T., Vermeij, L., Strijker, 2019. Out of love for the village? How
Caldwell, W.J. (Ed.), 2011. Rediscovering Thomas Adams: Rural Planning and
general and selective forms of attachment to the village explain volunteering in
Development in Canada. UBC Press, Vancouver, Canada.
Dutch community life. J. Rural Stud. 71, 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Camoin Associates, 2007. Waddington, NY Community Development Plan (Archived,
jrurstud.2018.06.008.
Village of Waddington).
Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for
Carlow, V.M., 2016. Ruralism. The Future of Villages and Small Towns in an Urbanizing
Qualitative Research, Chicago: Aldine.
World. Jovis, Berlin, Germany.
Gude, P.H., Hansen, A.J., Rasker, R., Maxwell, B., 2006. Landsc. Urban Plann. 77,
Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through
131–151.
Qualitative Analysis. Sage, London.
Hawken, P., 2021. Regeneration: Ending the Climate Crisis in One Generation. Penguin
Clarkson University, 2019. Economic Impacts of Bassmaster Tournament on St. Lawrence
Books, New York.
County, 2013 Report available through the St. Lawrence County Chamber of
Jepson, A., Clarke, A., 2014. Defining and Exploring Community Festivals and Events.
Commerce. Retrieved. https://www.clarkson.edu/news/clarkson-university-mba-st
Routledge, pp. 19–32.
udents-bassmaster-tournament-had-103m-338m-economic-impact-st.
Jive′ n, G., Larkham, P.J., 2003. Sense of place, authenticity and character: a
Cloke, P., 1988. In: Introduction: Planning, Policy Making and State Intervention in Rural
commentary. J. Urban Des. 8 (1), 67–81.
Areas. Policies and Plans for Rural People: an International Perspective, edited by.
Joseph, A.E., Skinner, M.W., 2012. Voluntarism as a mediator of the experience of
Paul Cloke.
growing old in evolving rural spaces and changing rural places. J. Rural Stud. 28 (4),
Cohen, A., 2021. The challenges of intersectionality in the lives of older adults living in
380–388.
rural areas with limited financial resources. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine 7,
Kim, H., Marcouiller, D.W., 2021. Rural prospects for resilience: planning sustainable
23337214211009363.
livelihoods and coping with flood hazards along the US Mississippi River. Soc. Nat.
Cohen, M., Gajendran, T., Lloyd, J., Maund, K., Smith, C., Bhim, S., Vaughan, J., 2018.
Resour. 34 (2), 168–187.
Valuing Creative Placemaking: Development of a Toolkit for Public and Private
King, E., Samii, C., Snilstveit, B., 2010. Interventions to promote social cohesion in sub-
Stakeholders. Sydney. NSW Government, Landcom.
Saharan Africa. J. Dev. EFFLATOUNIA 2 (3), 336–370.
Costello, L., 2007. Going bush: the implications of urban-rural migration. Geogr. Res. 45
Klein, Jim, 2013. The art of managing long and skinny places: a case for regional
(1), 85–94.
collaboration. In: Proceedings of the Fábos Conference on Landscape and Greenway
Courage, C., Borrup, T., Jackson, M.R., Legge, K., McKeown, A., Platt, L., Schupbach, J.
Planning, vol. 4, 1 , Article 36. Available at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/fabos
(Eds.), 2021. The Routledge Handbook of Placemaking. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
/vol4/iss1/36.
Cox, W., 2013. Rural Character in America’s Metropolitan Areas. December 11. New
Kojo, I., Nenonen, S., 2017. Evolution of co-working places: drivers and possibilities.
Geography. https://www.newgeography.com/content/004088-rural-character
Intell. Build. Int. 9 (3), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2014.987640.
-america-s-metropolitan-areas.
Komarek-Meyer, G., 2019. Gentrification, Displacement & Creative Placemaking. USFCA
Daniels, T.L., 1988. JW Keller, with MB Lapping.
Open Access Blogs.
Daniels, T., Lapping, M., 1987. Small town triage: a rural settlement policy for the
Korsgaard, S., Müller, S., Tanvig, H.W., 2015. Rural entrepreneurship or
American Midwest. J. Rural Stud. 3 (3), 273–280.
entrepreneurship in the rural–between place and space. International Journal of
Daniels, T.L., Keller, J., Lapping, M., Daniels, K., Segedy, J., 2007. The Small Town
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 21 (1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-
Planning Handbook. Planners Press, American Planning Association, Chicago, IL.
11-2013-0205.
Daniels, J., Douglas, D.J., Vodden, K., Markey, S., 2019. What Is New Regionalism?. The
Kraus, S., 2006. A Call for New Ruralism. In: The Metropolitan Edge: New Ruralism and
Theory, Practice and Potential of Regional Development, vol. 30. The Case of
Other Urban-Rural Sustainability Strategies. UC Berkley, Berkley, CA [Published
Canada.
Symposium Paper 2007]. Agriculture at.
Davies, A., Lockstone-Binney, L., Holmes, K., 2018. Who are the future volunteers in
Küpper, P., Kundolf, S., Mettenberger, T., Gesine Tuitjer, G., 2018. Rural regeneration
rural places? Understanding the demographic and background characteristics of
strategies for declining regions: trade-off between novelty and practicability. Eur.
non-retired rural volunteers, why they volunteer and their future migration
Plann. Stud. 26 (2), 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1361583.
intentions. J. Rural Stud. 60, 167–175.
Lactorin, B., 2019. A Rural Renaissance: How Small Towns Are Leading the Way in
Davies, A., Lockstone-Binney, L., Holmes, K., 2021. Recognising the value of volunteers
Creative Placemaking. Springboard for the Arts [online]. Retrieved. https://sprin
in performing and supporting leadership in rural communities. J. Rural Stud. 86,
gboardexchange.org/a-rural-renaissance-how-small-towns-are-leading-the-way-in
136–144.
-creative-placemaking/.
Debord, G., 1958. Theory of the Dérive. Internationale Situationniste, #2 ([PDF online]).
Lamb, C., 2017. Fishing towns: Waddington, NY. August 15, 2019 from https://www.
Doucet, B., van Kempen, R., van Weesep, J., 2011. We’re a rich city with poor people”:
bassmaster.com/news/tournament-towns-waddington. .
municipal strategies of new-build gentrification in Rotterdam and Glasgow. Environ.
Lapping, M.B., Daniels, T., Keller, J.W., 1989. Rural Planning and Development in the
Plann. 43, 1438–1454.
United States. Guilford Press.
Dryzek, J.S., 1998. The politics of the earth: environmental discourses, 2016 Hum. Ecol.
Lauckner, H., Paterson, M., Krupa, T., 2012. Using constructivist case study methodology
Rev. 5 (1), 65.
to understand community development processes: proposed methodological
Dryzek, J.S., Niemeyer, S., 2008. Discursive representation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 102 (4),
questions to guide the research process. Qual. Rep. 17, 25.
481–494.
Layo, E.J., 1999. So Much to Tell: A Place We Call Home – Waddington (NY).
Duffy, M., Waitt, G., 2011. Rural festivals and processes of belonging. In: Festival Places.
Leick, B., Lang, T., 2018. Re-thinking non-core regions: planning strategies and practices
Channel View Publications, pp. 44–58.
beyond growth. Eur. Plann. Stud. 26 (2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Edwards, M.M., Haines, A., 2007. Evaluating Smart Growth implications for small
09654313.2017.1363398.
communities. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 27, 49–64.
Lu, M., 2011. Ad hoc regionalism in rural development. Geogr. Rev. 101 (3), 334–352.

441
C. Johnson-Woods and A. Feldpausch-Parker
Lydon, M., Bartman, D., Garcia, T., Preston, R., Woudstra, R., 2012. Tactical Urbanism
Short-Term Action Long-Term Change, vol. 2. The Street Plans Collaborative.
Mair, J., Duffy, M., 2018. The role of festivals in strengthening social capital in rural
communities. Event Manag. 22 (6), 875–889.
Mansuri, G., Rao, V., 2004. Community-based and -driven development: a critical
review. World Bank Res. Obs. 19 (1), 1–39.
Markusen, A., Gadwa, A., 2010. Creative placemaking: a white paper for the mayors’
institute on city design. In: National Endowment for the Arts in Partnership with the
United States Conference of Mayors and the American Architectural Foundation.
Mateo-Babiano, I., Lee, G., 2020. People in place: placemaking fundamentals. In:
Placemaking Fundamentals for the Built Environment. Palgrave Macmillan,
Singapore, pp. 15–38.
McCarthy, J.F., 2014. Using community led development approaches to address
vulnerability after disaster: caught in a sad romance. Global Environ. Change 27,
144–155.
Moriset, B., 2013. Building New Places of the Creative Economy. The Rise of Coworking
Spaces. Retrieved from ffhalshs-00914075f.
Morrison, T.H., Lane, M.B., Hibbard, M., 2015. Planning, governance and rural futures in
Australia and the USA: revisiting the case for rural regional planning. J. Environ.
Plann. Manag. 58 (9), 1601–1616.
Müller, S., Korsgaard, S., 2018. Resources and bridging: the role of spatial context in
rural entrepreneurship. Enterpren. Reg. Dev. 30 (1–2), 224–255.
Nance, K., 2021. Art as a Means of Urban Revitalization? an Examination of Creative
Placemaking, Artist Perspective, Gentrification, and Neighborhood Change in
Wichita. Kansas (Doctoral dissertation, Wichita State University.
Newman, J.I., Giardina, M.D., 2008. NASCAR and the" southernization" of America:
spectatorship, subjectivity, and the confederation of identity. Cult. Stud. - Crit.
Methodol. 8 (4), 479–506.
Newman, G., Saginor, J., 2016. Priorities for advancing the concept of new ruralism.
Sustainability 8, 269.
Case Studies of New Ruralism (2020). The new ruralism project. 6pgs. Available online
at: https://nne.planning.org/knowledge/new-ruralism.
Norris, T., Pittman, M., 2000. The healthy communities movement and the coalition for
healthier cities and communities. Publ. Health Rep. 115 (2–3), 118.
Northern New England Chapter of the American Planning Association (NNECAPA),
2020. Lessons in New Ruralism. Retrieved from. https://www.dropbox.com/s/9xbic
o04knvsogr/LESSONS%20IN%20NEW%20RURALISM%20Fall%202020.pdf?dl=0.
Phillips, M., 2010. Counterurbanisation and rural gentrification: an exploration of the
terms. Popul. Space Place 16 (6), 539–558.
Phillips, M., Smith, D.P., 2018. Comparative approaches to gentrification. Dialogues in
Human Geography 8, 5–27.
Pink, S., 2007. Doing Visual Ethnography. Sage, London.
Pink, S., 2008. Mobilising visual ethnography. Making routes, making place and making
imagines. Qualitative Social Research 9 (2), 36.
Pink, S., 2009. Doing Sensory Ethnography. Sage, London.
Pred, A., 1984. Jun). Place as historically contingent process: structuration and the time-
geography of becoming places. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 74 (2), 279–297.
Reddick, C.G., Enriquez, R., Harris, R.J., Sharma, B., 2020. Determinants of broadband
access and affordability: an analysis of a community survey on the digital divide.
Cities 106, 102904.
Resina, J.R., William, R., Viestenz, W.R., 2012. EDS. The New Ruralism: an Epistemology
of Transformed Space. Iberoamericana Vervuert, Madrid.
Roberts, E., Townsend, L., 2016. The contribution of the creative economy to the
resilience of rural communities: exploring cultural and digital capital. Sociol. Rural.
56 (2), 197–219.
Santiago, A.M., Gutierrez, L.M., Soska, T.M., 2016. Remembering the other 46:
community organizing, planning and development in rural areas. J. Community
Pract. 24 (3), 231–234.
Scott, M., 2015. Article soliciting artist interest in creative placemaking in Waddington.
https://slcartscouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/artist-community-in-
Waddington-article-by-Mark-Scott.pdf.
Scott, M., Gallent, N., Gkartzios, M., 2019a. Planning Rural Futures. The Routledge
Companion to Rural Planning. Routledge, London, pp. 633–644.
Scott, M., Gallent, N., Gkartzios, M., 2019b. New horizons in rural planning. In: Scott, M.,
Gallent, N., Gkartzios, M. (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Rural Planning.
Routledge, pp. 1–11.
442
Journal of Rural Studies 92 (2022) 425–442
Senecah, S.L., 2004. The Trinity of Voice: the Role of Practical Theory in Planning and
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Environmental Participatory Processes.
Communication and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making,
pp. 13–33.
Skinner, M.W., Joseph, A.E., Hanlon, N., Halseth, G., Ryser, L., 2014. Growing old in
resource communities: exploring the links among voluntarism, aging, and
community development. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien 58 (4),
418–428.
Steiner, A., Teasdale, S., 2019. Unlocking the potential of rural social enterprise. J. Rural
Stud. 70, 144–154.
Stratton, E., 2009. New Ruralism. Jamie Baker Roskie, ED. UGA Land Use Clinic, Athens,
GA, pp. 1–7.
Strauss, A., 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Strover, S., 2001. Rural internet connectivity. Telecommun. Pol. 25 (5), 331–347.
Tietz, M.B., 2012. Regional development planning. In: Sanyal, B., Vale, L.J., Rosan, C.D.
(Eds.), Planning Ideas that Matter. MIT Press, pp. 127–152 ([Google Scholar]).
Topaloğlu, A.M., 2019. Traces of Informal Placemaking the Case of Caferağa
Neighborhood in İstanbul ([Published Thesis]).
Von Reichert, C., Cromartie, J.B., Arthun, R.O., 2014. Reasons for returning and not
returning to rural US communities. Prof. Geogr. 66 (1), 58–72.
White, S., 1994. Ogallala oases: water use, population distribution, and policy
implications in the high plains of western Kansas, 1980-1990. Ann. Assoc. Am.
Geogr. 84 (1), 29–45.
White, S.S., 2014. Farmers and rural Kansas communities: planning for the future. The
Journal of Rural and Community Development 9 (3), 227–242.
Wiersma, E.C., Koster, R., 2013. Vulnerability, volunteerism, and age-friendly
communities: placing rural northern communities into context. Journal of Rural and
Community Development 8 (1).
Wolff, T., 2010. The Power of Collaborative Solutions: Six Principles and Effective Tools
for Building Healthy Communities. John Wiley & Sons.
Woods, M., 2005. Rural Geography: Processes, Responses and Experiences in Rural
Restructuring. Sage, London, UK.
Woods, M., 2010. Performing rurality and practicing rural geography. Prog. Hum. Geogr.
36 (6), 835–846.
Woods, M., 2012. Rural geography III: rural futures and the future of rural geography.
Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36 (1), 125–134.
Wyckoff, M.A., 2010, January. Definition of Placemaking: Four Different Types. Planning
& Zoning News (PZN).
Wyckoff, M.A., 2014. In: Steuteville, R. (Ed.), Four Types of Placemaking. Better Cities &
Towns, and Public Square [online]. CNU Journal.
Wyckoff, M.A., 2015. Placemaking as an Economic Development Tool: A Placemaking
Guidebook. Michigan State University Land Policy Institute and the Planning &
Zoning Center, Lansing, MI. MSU.
Young, I.M., 2001. Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Polit. Theor. 29 (5),
670–690.
Zahra, Shaker A., Wright, Mike, Abdelgawad, Sondos G., 2014. Contextualization and the
advancement of entrepreneurship research. Int. Small Bus. J. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0266242613519807.
Zhang, X., Warner, M.E., Wethington, E., 2020. Can age-friendly planning promote
equity in community health across the rural-urban divide in the US? Int. J. Environ.
Res. Publ. Health 17 (4), 1275. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041275.
Further reading
Bedoya, R., 2013. Placemaking and the Politics of Belonging and Dis-belonging. GIA
Read. 24 (1). https://www.giarts.org/article/placemaking-and-politicsbelonging-an
d-dis-belonging.
Read, A., 2020. Asset-Based Economic Development: Building Sustainable Small and
Rural Communities: A briefing paper from the ICMA Center for Sustainable
Communities. In: Read, A. (Ed.). International City/County Management Association
(ICMA), Washington, D.C., pp. 1–50
The Sustainable Development Goals Report, 2017. United Nations, New York, NY,
pp. 1–64. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2017/thesustainabledevel
opmentgoalsreport2017.pdf.