Place-making, place-disruption, and place protection of urban blue spaces: perceptions of waterfront planning of a polluted urban waterbody

Digital placemaking, health & wellbeing and nature-based solutions: A systematic review and practice model

“…The second key theme found is sense of place, in that individuals spend time living and emotionally interacting with space beyond being physically in it (Abdel-Aziz et al, 2016;Birnbaum et al, 2021;Freeman et al, 2019). Scholars understand it as one of the objectives of placemaking (Chen et al, 2022;Fredericks et al, 2018;Rutha and Abbas, 2021), and it is usually presented as linked to place attachment (Birnbaum et al, 2021;Freeman et al, 2019;Kale, 2019;Polson, 2015;Rutha and Abbas, 2021;Toomey et al, 2021) and identity (Agyekum and Table 5 (continued ) placemaking can be understood as a process on digital communities involving an organic interaction among the digital placemakers as they participate towards a common cause of sustaining the local culture of geographic spaces while engaging through the key strategies towards the process Stokes et al (2018) No Markusen and Gadwa, (2010) Creative placemaking…”

“…N/A Newbold, 2019;Breek et al, 2018;Harner et al, 2017;Relph, 2007;Soedarsono et al, 2021). Most authors referred to Tuan's theory (Basaraba, 2021;Devine, 2017;Gulsrud et al, 2018;Harner et al, 2017;Rutha and Abbas, 2021;Rzeszewski and Naji, 2022;Toomey et al, 2021), which studies the human emotions and relationships to a specific place (Tuan, 1977), also presented as one of the foundations of placemaking (Clark and Lupton, 2021;Devine, 2017). Sense of place layers the physical space with meaning and cultural symbols (Foth et al, 2021), bringing a variety of benefits to communities, such as enabling community building (Breek et al, 2018), creating sense of ownership and entitlement (Kale, 2019), and development of community and individual identity (Chen et al, 2022;el Khafif et al, 2021;Harner et al, 2017;Kale, 2019).…”

“…Co-creation as a theme is found to be highly linked with governance practice for consultation and planning decisions, which uses community participation as a tool. Some authors refer to it as co-governance (Gulsrud et al, 2018), collaboration in city-making processes (Bicquelet-Lock, 2021;Fredericks et al, 2018;Toomey et al, 2021), or co-design , as it describes bottom-up initiatives. This theme is linked to smart cities, as digital technologies embedded in the urban area are presented to include citizens' opinions and inputs in the decision-making.…”

“…The first result and most clear within this theme is that digital placemaking has not been explored through blue spaces, with only one study addressing blue spaces from an analogue placemaking approach (Toomey et al, 2021).…”

Towards a pedagogy of social-ecological collaborations: engaging students and urban nonprofits for an ecology with cities

“…These conversations led to the decision to conduct a social assessment of the park, based on an existing methodology that was previously piloted in another waterfront site in NYC (see Toomey et al 2021). A social assessment is a research approach that integrates qualitative and quantitative methods to quickly gather information about the social meanings of a given place and can be used for public planning (Auyeung et al 2016).…”