Persian
Volume 39, Issue 2 (2024)                   GeoRes 2024, 39(2): 233-242 | Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Systematic Review |
Subject:

Print XML Persian Abstract PDF HTML


History

How to cite this article
Khalili E, Seyedolhosseini S, Hanaee T, Saeedi Mofard S. Placemaking Based on the Continuity of the Value of Natural Areas. GeoRes 2024; 39 (2) :233-242
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1607-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Rights and permissions
1- Department of Urbanism, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran
* Corresponding Author Address: Department of Urbanism, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Emamieh Boulevard, Mashhad, Iran. Postal Code: 9187147578 (seyedmoslem.seyedalhosseini@iau.ac.ir)
Full-Text (HTML)   (10 Views)
Background
Placemaking transforms abstract spaces into meaningful places through human interaction. In urban and natural contexts, it focuses on community, ecology, and improving public space quality.
Previous Studies
Previous studies show that the concept of placemaking emerged in the 1970s in the United States and developed further in subsequent decades [Hes et al., 2020]. William Whyte, in the 1950s, identified urban sprawl as a threat to social identity, which later emphasized the need for placemaking [McDonough, 2013]. Several scholars have highlighted the human, social, and design-oriented aspects of placemaking, describing it as a participatory process closely tied to people’s needs and aspirations [Silberberg, 2013; Moreira, 2021]. Other studies emphasize the importance of placemaking in urban green spaces, climate adaptation, and sustainable development [Wyckoff, 2014; Boros & Mahmoud, 2021; Bush et al., 2020]. More recent research has focused on nature-based placemaking and its role in transforming human–environment relationships [Greedy et al., 2022; Sen & Nagendra, 2020]. These studies suggest that nature-based approaches, by enhancing social capital and reconnecting people to nature, can significantly improve urban quality of life [Fitzpatrick & Fontana, 2017; Gulsrud et al., 2018].
Aim(s)
The main aim of the present study was to examine the formal, methodological, and content-related characteristics of the accumulated body of knowledge in the field of placemaking.
Research Type
The methodology of this study was descriptive, based on a systematic review of documents and library resources, as well as searches in reputable international databases. The process was reported using the PRISMA flow diagram.
Research Society, Place and Time
The present study is based on an international systematic review, and the research population includes scientific articles published in English in the field of placemaking. The data were collected from the Semantic Scholar database, and the selected articles pertain to various regions including the United States, Europe, Arab countries, Asia, and Australia. The time frame of the reviewed articles spans from 2018 to 2023.
Sampling Method and Number
In this study, purposeful sampling was employed based on predefined criteria. In the first stage, 1,190 articles were identified from the Semantic Scholar database using relevant keywords and advanced search strategies. After screening based on abstracts and full texts, 39 articles were selected. Finally, considering eligibility and accessibility criteria, 31 articles were chosen as the final sample for systematic analysis.
Used Devices & Materials
The tools and materials used in this study included the Semantic Scholar database for article searches, Microsoft Excel for note-taking and organizing article information, and MaxQDA 2020 software for coding, content analysis, and extracting main and subcategories. Additionally, combined keywords and Boolean operators were used to enhance the accuracy of database searches.
Findings by Text
This research analyzed the general characteristics and structure of the reviewed articles related to the placemaking of urban natural settings. In terms of publication time, most articles were published between 2018 and 2023, with the highest number in 2020. The authors’ specializations were mainly in architecture, urban planning, and environmental sciences, while the journals were primarily focused on the fields of arts and urbanism (Figure 1). Geographically, Australia ranked first with five articles, followed by Arab countries, Europe, the United States, and Asia (Table 1).


Figure 1. Findings classification, part 1

Table 1. Selected articles in this study



The article content was analyzed based on three axes: research topic classification, theoretical approach, and research scale. In the thematic classification section, subcategories included the concept of placemaking, influencing factors, and its impacts. Among these, "transforming space into place" and "climatic conditions" were the most frequent, while "digital infrastructures" and "sustainable place design" were identified as the main outcomes (Table 2).

Table 2. Data preparation in the form of subcategories and core categories



In the theoretical approach section, the articles addressed areas such as nature-based placemaking, urban planning, economics, regeneration, and technology. The highest frequency was related to nature-based placemaking and urban design, with equal frequency in topics such as participation and aesthetics (Table 2). Regarding research scale, most studies focused on urban public spaces (12 cases), green spaces (7 cases), and urban locations (11 cases) (Table 2).
In terms of research focus, human-centered, place-centered, and process-centered approaches were analyzed, with human-centered and physical/spatial approaches being the most dominant (Table 2, Figure 2).
Finally, an analysis of the relationships between various categories using MaxQDA software revealed that placemaking in urban planning, particularly in urban design and planning, and its impact on sustainability and digital infrastructure are highly significant. Also, there was a notable relationship between urban public spaces and human-centered and physical approaches, along with the overlap between regeneration and creativity domains observed in some studies (Figure 3).



Figure 3. The relationship between thematic classification, theoretical framework, scale of research and main research focus

Main Comparisons to Similar Studies
The present study, focusing on the concept of placemaking in natural environments and its role in maintaining environmental values, offers findings comparable to several related studies. In the research by Akbar & Edelenbos (2021), emphasis shifted from a traditional view of placemaking as a physical product toward a more process-oriented and participatory perspective that simultaneously considers the role of both citizens and planners. This aligns with the present study’s perspective of recognizing placemaking as a human-driven process. Similarly, Bush et al. (2020) emphasized that nature is a vital component of health, well-being, and social cohesion, and its integration into placemaking strengthens human relationships and sustainability, directly aligned with the present research’s approach to linking place with natural values. Furthermore, Cilliers et al. (2015) highlighted the importance of integrating green planning strategies with placemaking to create high-quality, lasting public spaces in natural and urban settings, consistent with this study's aim to create places with identity and deep emotional connections.
Suggestions
Current spatial planning and sustainability approaches argue that placemaking and green planning strategies can support various fields. These approaches focus on creating high-quality, socially resilient, and environmentally friendly spaces. Furthermore, they help transform temporary spaces into permanent public places by introducing nature-based initiatives.
Conclusion
The impact of placemaking on other domains is significantly evident through the relationships formed. Moreover, in terms of placemaking effects, researchers’ efforts were primarily concentrated on two areas: place sustainability and the development of digital infrastructure.

Acknowledgments: None reported by the authors.
Ethical Permission: None reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: This article is derived from the first author’s dissertation under the supervision of the second author and the consultation of the third and fourth authors.
Authors’ Contributions: Khalili E (First author), Main Researcher (25%); Seyedolhosseini M (Second author), Introduction Writer/ Methodologist/Statistical Analyst (25%); Hanaee T (Third author), Statistical Analyst (25%); Saeedi Mofrad S (Fourth author) Statistical Analyst (25%)
Funding: None reported by the authors.
Keywords:

References
1. Abusaada H, Elshater A (2021). Effect of people on placemaking and affective atmospheres in city streets. Ain Shams Engineering Journal. 12(3):3389-3403. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.asej.2021.04.019]
2. Akbar PNG, Edelenbos J (2021). Positioning place-making as a social process: A systematic literature review. Cogent Social Sciences. 7(1):1905920. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/23311886.2021.1905920]
3. Alizadeh B, Hitchmough JD (2020). How will climate change affect future urban naturalistic herbaceous planting? The role of plant origin and fitness. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 54:126786. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126786]
4. Barry J, Agyeman J (2020). On belonging and becoming in the settler-colonial city: Co-produced futurities, placemaking, and urban planning in the United States. Journal of Race, Ethnicity and the City. 1(1-2):22-41. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/26884674.2020.1793703]
5. Beattie N (1985). Place and placemaking. Urban Placemaking', Place and Placemaking. 1:93-109. [Link]
6. Boros J, Mahmoud I (2021). Urban design and the role of placemaking in mainstreaming nature-based solutions. Learning from the Biblioteca Degli Alberi case study in Milan. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities. 3:635610. [Link] [DOI:10.3389/frsc.2021.635610]
7. Bush J, Hernandez-Santin C, Hes D (2020). Nature in place: Placemaking in the biosphere. In: Placemaking Fundamentals for the Built Environment. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 39-61. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-981-32-9624-4_3]
8. Cilliers EJ, Timmermans W, Van den Goorbergh F, Slijkhuis J (2015). Green place-making in practice: From temporary spaces to permanent places. Journal of Urban Design. 20(3):349-366. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/13574809.2015.1031213]
9. Donaldson GH, João EM (2020). Using green infrastructure to add value and assist place-making in public realm developments. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 38(6):464-478. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/14615517.2019.1648731]
10. Fajri I, Yusuf R, Azhari B (2020). Innovation model of citizenship education learning in the 21st-century skill-learning environment of students in Aceh. Journal of Critical Reviews. 7(16):2334-2343. [Link]
11. Fernandez de Osso Fuentes M, Keegan BJ, Jones MV, Macintyre T (2022). How can digital placemaking impact health and wellbeing of citizens through green and blue space connections? A systematic literature review protocol. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. [Link]
12. Fernandez de Osso Fuentes M, Keegan BJ, Jones MV, Macintyre T (2023). Digital placemaking, health & wellbeing and nature-based solutions: A systematic review and practice model. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 79:127796. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127796]
13. Fitzpatrick J, Fontana B (2017). Nature-based placemaking: A handbook for utilizing a community's natural outdoor recreational resources to create a total quality experience and support local community and economic development. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Downtown Center. [Link]
14. Garay-Huamán AN, Irazábal-Zurita C (2021). Latinos in Kansas City: The political economy of placemaking. Journal of Planning Literature. 36(2):131-154. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/0885412220969910]
15. Greedy RD, Perry EE, Goralnik L, Fitzpatrick J (2022). Nature-based placemaking: A natural asset focused community vibrancy roadmap. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership. 14(1). [Link] [DOI:10.18666/JOREL-2022-V14-I1-11134]
16. Gulsrud NM, Hertzog K, Shears I (2018). Innovative urban forestry governance in Melbourne?: Investigating "green placemaking" as a nature-based solution. Environmental Research. 161:158-167. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.005]
17. Hartanti NB, Martokusumo W, Lubis BU, Poerbo HW (2016). The quest for urban identity: Influence of urban morphological development to the imageability of Bogor city streets. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Science. 4(7):49-58. [Link]
18. He S, Hart L, Sayani D, Henderson R (2020). University creative placemaking: Insights from UBC students. UBC Undergraduate Research. [Link]
19. Helmy M (2020). Placemaking in Arab cities. Realities, challenges, and prospects. The Journal of Public Space. 5(1):1-4. [Link] [DOI:10.32891/jps.v5i1.1247]
20. Hes D, Hernandez-Santin S, editors (2020). Placemaking fundamentals for the built environment. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-981-32-9624-4]
21. Hes D, Mateo-Babiano I, Lee G (2020). Fundamentals of placemaking for the built environment: An introduction. In: Placemaking fundamentals for the built environment. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 1-13. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-981-32-9624-4]
22. Keleg MM, Butina Watson G, Salheen MA (2022). A critical review for Cairo's green open spaces dynamics as a prospect to act as placemaking anchors. Urban Design International. 27(3):232-248. [Link] [DOI:10.1057/s41289-022-00193-x]
23. Lombard M (2014). Constructing ordinary places: Place-making in urban informal settlements in Mexico. Progress in Planning. 94:1-53. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.progress.2013.05.003]
24. Makhkamov DN (2023). Legal protection of green areas in European countries. International Bulletin of Applied Science and Technology. 3(1):17-22. [Link]
25. Mcdonough JT (2013). Place-making: A study of emerging professionals' preferences of place-making attributes [dissertation]. Michigan: Michigan State University. [Link]
26. Mikolajewicz N, Komarova SV (2019). Meta-analytic methodology for basic research: A practical guide. Frontiers in Physiology. 10:00203. [Link] [DOI:10.3389/fphys.2019.00203]
27. Moradpoor N, Pourahmad A, Hataminejad H, Ziari K (2023). An analysis of resilience in Tehran using a systematic review. Geography and Urban Space Development. 11(1): . [Persian] [Link]
28. Moreira, S. [2021]. What is placemaking. O que é placemaking. 27:12-15. [Link]
29. Najafi P, Mohammadi M, Le Blanc PM, Van Wesemael P (2022). Insights into placemaking, senior people, and digital technology: A systematic quantitative review. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/17549175.2022.2076721]
30. Öncel H, Levend S (2023). The effects of urban growth on natural areas: The 3 metropolitan areas in Türkiye. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 195:816. [Link] [DOI:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2393249/v1]
31. Pigott TD, Polanin JR (2020). Methodological guidance paper: High-quality meta-analysis in a systematic review. Review of Educational Research. 90(1):24-46. [Link] [DOI:10.3102/0034654319877153]
32. Ramadhani I, Tahir A, Annisa S (2021). Placemaking and refugees: A literature review. Resilience Development Initiative. [Link]
33. Ramli NA, Ujang N (2020). An overview of creative placemaking as an enabler for a sustainable urban regeneration. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal. 5(13):345-352. [Link] [DOI:10.21834/e-bpj.v5i13.2056]
34. Ran J, MacGillivray BH, Gong Y, Hales TC (2020). The application of frameworks for measuring social vulnerability and resilience to geophysical hazards within developing countries: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Science of the Total Environment. 711:134486. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134486]
35. Sadeghi AR, Shahvaran F, Gholami AR, Feyzabi T (2022). Toward behavior-based placemaking: The evolution of place concept in urban design knowledge. International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management. 7(3):357-372. [Link]
36. Sen A, Nagendra H (2019). The role of environmental placemaking in shaping contemporary environmentalism and understanding land change. Journal of Land Use Science. 14(4-6):410-424. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/1747423X.2020.1720841]
37. Sen A, Nagendra H (2020). Local community engagement, environmental placemaking and stewardship by migrants: A case study of lake conservation in Bengaluru, India. Landscape and Urban Planning. 204:103933. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103933]
38. Serin B (2018). Cross disciplinary review of placemaking literature: A literature mapping. Working Paper. Glasgow: UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence. [Link]
39. Shaheen N, Shaheen A, Ramadan A, Hefnawy MT, Ramadan A, Ibrahim IA, et al (2023). Appraising systematic reviews: A comprehensive guide to ensuring validity and reliability. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. 8:1268045. [Link] [DOI:10.3389/frma.2023.1268045]
40. Silberberg S (2013). Pretext securitization of Boston's public realm after 9/11: Motives, actors, and a role for planners. Policing Cities:246-271. [Link]
41. Sisto R, García López J, Lumbreras Martín J, Mataix Aldeanueva C, Ramos Ferreiro L (2021). City assessment tool to measure the impact of public policies on smart and sustainable cities. The case study of the municipality of Alcobendas (Spain) compared with similar European cities. Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions. 3:81-101. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-57764-3_6]
42. Son IS, Krolikowski C, Rentschler R, Huang SS (2022). Utilizing events for placemaking of precincts and main streets: Current state and critical success factors. Event Management. 26(2):223-235. [Link] [DOI:10.3727/152599521X16106577965044]
43. Strydom W, Puren K, Drewes E (2018). Exploring theoretical trends in placemaking: Towards new perspectives in spatial planning. Journal of Place Management and Development. 11(2):165-180. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/JPMD-11-2017-0113]
44. Toolis EE (2021). Restoring the balance between people, places, and profits: A psychosocial analysis of uneven community development and the case for placemaking processes. Sustainability. 13(13):7256. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su13137256]
45. Verdiguel NR (2021). The role of placemaking in universities and their surrounding communities: A literature review. Honors Undergraduate Theses. 1015. [Link]
46. Wardhani WC, Hartanti NB, Utomo H (2023). Creative placemaking elements in public space design to strengthen the character of cultural arts centers. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Karya Ilmiah Lembaga Penelitian Universitas Trisakti. 8(1):85-98. [Indonesian] [Link]
47. Wyckoff MA (2014). Definition of placemaking: Four different types. Planning & Zoning News. 32(3):Unknown pages. [Link]
48. Zorbaugh H (2005). The natural areas of the city. The urban sociology reader. 1:82-88. [Link]