IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i8p6371-d1118406.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Operationalizing Community Placemaking: A Critical Relationship-Based Typology

Author

Listed:
  • Zohar Fingerhut

    (Department of Geography and Environmental Development, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva 84105, Israel)

  • Nurit Alfasi

    (Department of Geography and Environmental Development, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva 84105, Israel)

Abstract

Placemaking is a relatively new planning technique formulated as an alternative to formal, comprehensive, top-down land-use planning. Instead of the statutory process and product, placemaking offers an open-ended, unstructured framework for planning and implementing focused interventions. This study applies a critical look at how this relatively loose framework operates in practice. Based on an investigation of community placemaking projects in southern Israeli cities, we present four models of placemaking, organized around two main axes: the goal axis, which ranges from a broad community goal to a narrow, predetermined aim, and the motivation axis, which ranges from internal to external motivation. The four types of placemaking emerging from the combination of these considerations are (1) traditional, (2) governmental, (3) artistic-economic, and (4) segregative, based on the varied socio-spatial relations between the stakeholders. This typology serves as a warning sign for possible ways that processes with loose boundaries can be exploited, and the setbacks to which they can lead. It offers a helpful framework for further advancements in placemaking, making it an effective tool for socially and environmentally sustainable urbanism.

Suggested Citation

  • Zohar Fingerhut & Nurit Alfasi, 2023. "Operationalizing Community Placemaking: A Critical Relationship-Based Typology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:8:p:6371-:d:1118406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6371/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6371/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ann Markusen, 2013. "Fuzzy concepts, proxy data: why indicators would not track creative placemaking success," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 291-303, November.
    2. Florian Kaefer, 2021. "Introduction to an Insider’s Guide to Place Branding," Management for Professionals, in: An Insider’s Guide to Place Branding, edition 1, pages 1-3, Springer.
    3. Loh, Carolyn G., 2019. "Placemaking and implementation: Revisiting the performance principle," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 68-75.
    4. Peter J. Ellery & Jane Ellery, 2019. "Strengthening Community Sense of Place through Placemaking," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(2), pages 237-248.
    5. Florian Kaefer, 2021. "An Insider’s Guide to Place Branding," Management for Professionals, Springer, edition 1, number 978-3-030-67144-0, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arthur Huang & Efrén De la Mora Velasco & Adam Haney & Sergio Alvarez, 2022. "The Future of Destination Marketing Organizations in the Insight Era," Tourism and Hospitality, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-6, September.
    2. Marco Bevolo & Stefano Polito, 2024. "“Placecinemaking”, or participatory social design for urban placemaking," Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 20(1), pages 105-117, March.
    3. Mona El Khafif & Kathy Hsu Wibberly & Elgin Cleckley & Tho H. Nguyen & Marcus H. Divers, 2021. "We Are Martinsville (WAM): Leveraging Mobile Gaming for Community Engagement and Improving Health," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global, vol. 10(4), pages 63-87, October.
    4. Eunbee Gil & Yongjin Ahn & Youngsang Kwon, 2020. "Tourist Attraction and Points of Interest (POIs) Using Search Engine Data: Case of Seoul," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-21, August.
    5. Xin Li & Bingruo Duan, 2018. "Organizational microblogging for event marketing: a new approach to creative placemaking," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 59-79, January.
    6. Meetiyagoda, Lakshika & Mahanama, P.K.S. & Ley, Astrid & Amarawickrama, Susantha, 2024. "Relationship between sense of place and co-creation process: A systematic literature review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    7. Sonn, Jung Won & Chen, Kelly Wanjing & Wang, He & Liu, Xiao, 2017. "A top-down creation of a cultural cluster for urban regeneration: The case of OCT Loft, Shenzhen," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 307-316.
    8. Guan Li & Liping Wang & Cifang Wu & Zhongguo Xu & Yuefei Zhuo & Xiaoqiang Shen, 2022. "Spatial Planning Implementation Effectiveness: Review and Research Prospects," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-20, August.
    9. Jiangang Shi & Wei Miao & Hongyun Si & Ting Liu, 2021. "Urban Vitality Evaluation and Spatial Correlation Research: A Case Study from Shanghai, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, November.
    10. Loh, Carolyn G., 2019. "Placemaking and implementation: Revisiting the performance principle," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 68-75.
    11. Jakar, Gidon S. & Razin, Eran & Rosen, Gillad, 2021. "Local government going offside? The gap between planning and implementation of sport development projects," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    12. Michael W. Mehaffy & Tigran Haas & Peter Elmlund, 2019. "Public Space in the New Urban Agenda: Research into Implementation," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(2), pages 134-137.
    13. Andrew J. Van Leuven & Sarah A. Low & Edward (Ned) Hill, 2023. "What side of town? How proximity to critical survival factors affects rural business longevity," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 352-385, June.
    14. Margarita Vološina & Evija Taurene & Pēteris Šķiņķis, 2023. "Towards Liveability in Historic Centres: Challenges and Enablers of Transformation in Two Latvian Towns," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 52-66.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:8:p:6371-:d:1118406. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.