As underlined by Aelbrecht and Arefi (2024), despite its popularity, “placemaking” remains a nebulous concept within the public realm, given the lack of consensus on its definitions, as well as challenges in rationalising and operationalising it (Arefi, 2014; Ellery et al., 2021). Cohen et al. (2018, p. 9) suggests the “somewhat-nebulous term affords different meanings to different practitioners, professionals and academics”. In other words, in the opinion of Schrag and McKinnon (2023), it can be said that different stakeholders interpret the varying definitions as it suits their personal circumstances best (Markusen & Gadwa Nicodemus, 2014; Kobersmith, 2021).
Engagement in Placemaking: an Introduction / Rotondo, Francesco. - STAMPA. - 2:(2025), pp. 1-3. [10.1163/9789004691919_002]
Engagement in Placemaking: an Introduction
Rotondo, Francesco
Primo
2025-01-01
Abstract
As underlined by Aelbrecht and Arefi (2024), despite its popularity, “placemaking” remains a nebulous concept within the public realm, given the lack of consensus on its definitions, as well as challenges in rationalising and operationalising it (Arefi, 2014; Ellery et al., 2021). Cohen et al. (2018, p. 9) suggests the “somewhat-nebulous term affords different meanings to different practitioners, professionals and academics”. In other words, in the opinion of Schrag and McKinnon (2023), it can be said that different stakeholders interpret the varying definitions as it suits their personal circumstances best (Markusen & Gadwa Nicodemus, 2014; Kobersmith, 2021).File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Placemaking_Vol_2_Index_Introduction.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza d'uso:
Creative commons
Dimensione
5.29 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
5.29 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.