Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Problem, research strategy, and findings Planning widely understands itself to be a derivative field that borrows and synthesizes from other fields. As a result, these fields have been rich sources for assessment, innovation, and expansion. Here we draw from one such cognate field that has particular relevance for rural planning: rural community development. Our review begins with a conceptual framework for literature analysis consisting of three recursively linked elements: substantive, procedural, and institutional. We then apply this framework to compare rural planning and rural community development as practiced in the United States. Finally, we summarize the findings to offer to rural planning the lessons and opportunities from rural community development, to leverage and connect each field’s strengths.Takeaway for practice The U.S. planning field’s orientations toward urban interests, the physical environment, formal processes, comprehensive planning, regulations, and government often hinder the effectiveness of planners serving rural communities. The field of rural community development excels where rural planning is limited, and thus offers many lessons, including its contrasting emphases on rurality, social and economic concerns, informal processes, capacity building, project implementation, voluntary actions, and nongovernmental partners. Planners can improve their influence and public support in rural areas by collaborating with rural community development and by incorporating rural community development approaches within planning.
Frank et al. (Fri,) studied this question.