2017 Tourism Planning and Place Making Place Making or Place Making
2017 Tourism Planning and Place Making Place Making or Place Making
Alan A. Lew
To cite this article: Alan A. Lew (2017) Tourism planning and place making: place-making or
placemaking?, Tourism Geographies, 19:3, 448-466, DOI: 10.1080/14616688.2017.1282007
摘要
旅游目的地规划与营销本质上是地方塑造 [place making] 行为, 即
有意识地塑造一个地方的形象与表象。地方塑造是一种人类与生
俱来的行为, 从个人自发的、无意识的行动(这里称作地方建构
[place-making])到政府和旅游部门规划的、有意识的全球主题化
行动(这里称作地方营造[placemaking])。如果把人类的地方塑造
行为看作一个连续谱, 地方建构和地方营造位于这个连续谱的两
端, 并且绝大多数地方是地方与全球要素的组合。这些要素涉及
面广泛, 从城市设计中的可见要素到人化景观乃至人类想象的无
形要素。地方塑造的方法, 不管是无意识的地方建构还是有计划
的地方营造行为, 基本上都是相同的, 但是其目的和结果却大相径
庭。旅游发展作为一种经济活动, 几乎总是有一个新自由主义
的、规划的地方营造方案。无意识的地方建构发自于个人的行为,
如果允许其发挥作用的话, 即使在总体规划痕迹浓重的旅游景观
中也会留下它的印迹。地方建构与地方营造知识对于深化旅游政
治经济学和主客双方在旅游地方共同塑造中作用等研究问题都会
有所启发。考察旅游景观中地方塑造的要素可以更清晰地辨别不
同世界观视角是如何深化旅游地方营造的, 进而有助于规划目的
地社区未来的发展。
Definitions
‘Place making’, ‘place-making’ and ‘placemaking’ are three ways of spelling a popular con-
cept that has at least two broad definitions in the academic literature, as well as many
finer definitions. Although these definitions exist, there is no consensus on how they
might be associated with the three ways that the concept can be spelled. A review of 62
publications that make use of at least one of the three spellings found 40 of them (64.5%)
using ‘place-making’, 16 (26%) used ‘placemaking’ and 9 (14.5%) used ‘place making.’
(One edited volume on place attachment (Manzo & Devine-Write, 2014) used all three ver-
sions, and two of the sources used two versions). Tourism was a primary focus for 27
(43.5%) of the publications, and was peripheral or non-existent in the others. Overall, there
was no clearly discernable pattern that differentiated how each spelling was used.
Because it is the least used of the three spellings, ‘place making’ will be used hereafter as
the all-inclusive concept that encompasses the full range of meanings and definitions
encountered in the literature. (Kolas (2004) makes a similar distinction between a broader
‘place making’ and a narrower ‘place-making’).
The first broad meaning comes out of the cultural geography tradition and is closely
associated with ‘sense of place.’ It is how a culture group imprints its values, perceptions,
memories, and traditions on a landscape and gives meaning to geographic space (Coates
& Seamon, 1984; Massey, 2005; Othman, Nishimura, & Kubota, 2013; Rose-Redwood, 2011;
Tuan, 1977; Wortham-Galvin, 2008). This is often obvious and taken for granted for cul-
tures around the world that have been in-place for a long period, such as is seen in the tra-
ditional villages of Southeast Asia (Yea, 2002) and in the Tibetan cultural landscapes of the
Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau (Kolas, 2004). It is also seen in the distinct urban and rural
landscapes of different parts of Europe, and in the different ways that China and Taiwan
have evolved since 1949 (Brown, 2004). Perhaps more interesting is how ethnic immigrant
cultures transform newly settled spaces into distinct places in a relatively short period
(Castillo, 2014; Harney, 2006; Main & Sandoval, 2015; Mazumdar & Mazumdar, 2008; Rios &
Vasquez, 2012; Trudeau, 2006). These are mostly organic, bottom-up processes, whereby
places are claimed and shaped through every day, and often mundane, social practices
(Dyck, 2005; Lems, 2016).
Overtime, such places can become popular tourist destinations, especially ethnic
neighborhood such as the Chinatowns, Korea towns, Japan towns and Little Italy neigh-
borhoods that are often found in large US cities (Lou, 2010), with similar corollaries around
the world. Ethnic cuisine and foods are among the essential organic place-making com-
mercial activities that draw tourists (Everett, 2012), although others (e.g. clothing, and reli-
gious arts and crafts) are also common.
The other broad definition is essentially the opposite of an organic approach, involving
a planned and often top-down professional design effort to influence people’s behavior
and shape their perceptions of a place (Lew, 2012). This approach has been a part of the
urban planning, architecture, and landscape architecture fields since at least the
450 A. A. LEW
Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution (late 1700s) when many of the capital cities of
Europe were re-made into symbols of the nation-state (Vale, 1992). In those fields, much
of what is encompassed by the study of urban (or community) design is today considered
placemaking (Cilliers & Timmmeran, 2014). The City Beautiful (late 1800s), the Garden City
(early 1900s), and today’s New Urbanism (in the US) are all top-down urban design move-
ments that sought (and seek) to reshape identity, experience, and behavior in urban set-
tings (Smith, 2002).
Although there is no agreement on how to spell this intentional and planned approach
to place making among the publications reviewed, there were two relatively recent books
(Markusen & Gadwa, 2010; Wyckoff et al., 2015) that used ‘placemaking’ to describe gov-
ernment sponsored efforts in the US to enliven the economic and cultural character of
neighborhoods and cities. Based on this admittedly slim argument, ‘placemaking’ is used
hereafter to refer to this more deliberate and purposeful approach to place creation. This
leaves ‘place-making’ to refer the more spontaneous and unstructured approaches. Today,
planned placemaking is widely seen in the form of themed pedestrian-oriented shopping
streets and downtown shoppertainment and eatertainment venues, which are major
attractions for both residents and visiting tourists in many cities (Gottdiener, 2001; Lew
2007b; Paradis, 2004).
A possible reason for the lack of clarity in the spelling of place-making, placemaking
and place making is because bottom-up, organic place-making and top-down, planned
placemaking are two ends on a continuum of place making ideas, theories, methods and
practices. Table 1 brings definitional clarity to the three spellings. As noted above, ‘place
making’ designates the overall framework that encompasses place-making and placemak-
ing, as well as in instances where there is sufficient overlap that neither of those concepts
is clearly applicable. The concepts outline in Table 1 derive from, and expands upon,
reviews of the literature on tourist attractions and combines both structural and cognitive
descriptors of place-making and placemaking sites (Lew, 1987). The descriptors are not
entirely consistent due to their multiple sources and the multiplicity of cases that they
may be applied to.
The key points that are evident in comparing the differences between place-making
and placemaking (Table 1) are as follows.
(1) All places undergo some form of place making through human encounters with the
world they inhabit. Place making is how people recognize, define, and create the
places they often call home, whether intentionally or not. It is also fundamental to
the tourist attractiveness of a place. Understanding place making from both its
organic and planned perspectives is an essential part of tourism destination devel-
opment and marketing (Lew, 2012), although these are not always framed in place
making terms.
(2) Organic place-making is often associated with bottom-up, local initiatives that
evolve in an incremental manner and are often driven through individual agency.
Bosman and Dredge (2011) referred to this a ‘minor placemaking,’ while Hollings-
head (2009) coined the term ‘unintentional worldmaking’ (as opposed to ‘inten-
tional worldmaking’). At a very basic level, it may simply involve the recognition or
naming of place (Light, 2014). Place-making is often not intentionally tourist ori-
ented, which gives it elements of unpredictability and risk for visitors, but also
Table 1. The tourism place making continuum.
Place-makings Mixed place makings Placemakings
Driver of change Individuals, local groups, human Collaborative, NGOs/NPOs Government, developers, socio-political structure
agency
Symbolism Local or traditional Glocalization Cosmopolitan, modern, or global
Process of change Bottom-up, organic and incremental, Co-management, co-creation, public Top-down, master planned, hyper-neoliberal
minor placemaking1, unintentional participation placemakinga, intentional worldmakingb
worldmaking2
Tourists Alternative tourists Specialty tourists Mass tourists
Ownership and accessibility Local owners, effort to visit, Locals and outsiders Outsider owners, easy to visit, accessible
inaccessible
Security Risk, uncertainty, surprise, escape Different Safe, known, predictable, familiar
Sought experiences Novelty, exotic, unique, individual Interesting Recreation, leisure, common, mass
Social space Back region Back and front regions Front region
Authenticity Objective authenticity, real, sense of Constructed authenticity, staged Inauthentic, contrived, fantasy, disneyfication,
place, vernacular simulacra, placelessness
Transformation Slow change, path dependent Moderate change, path divergent Rapid change, high efficiency, path creation
Development stage (TALC) Discovery, exploration Involvement, development Consolidation
Capacity Small/low capacity Medium capacity Large/high capacity
Guiding Unguided, tourism incognita Self-guided Guided, tourism cognita
Market orientation Local directed, craft tourism Regional and national directed International directed, industrial tourism
Experience Existential, experimental Experiential Recreational, diversionary
Semiotics Sight/site/place involvement, Mixed semiotics and engagement, Marker involvement, brand or theme oriented, sight
recognition, and orientation, place naming sacralization, socially constructed, metanarratives
self-constructed and personal
narratives
Fame Unknown, unimportant Regional importance Famous, important
TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES
Source: Based on Lew (1987) and Lew and McKercher (2006), with additional concepts from aBosman & Dredge (2011) and bHollinshead, Atleljevic and Ali (2009).
451
452 A. A. LEW
many instances, the best practice may be to simply allow the local and indigenous to
self-organize by removing external constraints.
If an indigenous tourism development process becomes successful, it is likely to attract
growing external interests pushing (or pulling) it into increasing levels of development
and placemaking. This may be considered an unfortunate situation by some or a fortunate
outcome by others. Either way, most tourism planning and development is placemaking,
involving a significant degree of government intervention even when private investors
drive it. This is because tourism is viewed by most communities as a tool for economic
development, employment growth, image and status building, and improving the overall
quality of life of a place or region (Bosman & Dredge, 2011). For these reasons, the follow-
ing discussion focuses on the process and implications of the planned placemaking
approach to tourism development.
(1) the frontage zone: directly in front of the buildings, including building entrances,
and areas where shops spill onto the sidewalk;
(2) the throughway zone: where people usually walk in an unobstructed manner on
appropriate pavement or other surface;
(3) the furniture zone: where plants, lighting, benches, litter cans, and other objects are
placed, in part to protect pedestrians from vehicle traffic; and
(4) the edge zone: where the sidewalk ends and the vehicle zone begins, but which can
also be the site of parking and bicycle pathways.
The goals of public space placemaking is to create spaces that are easily walkable, have
a variety of mixed uses and architectural designs to attract both locals and tourists, and is
interesting, safe and comfortable. A respect for historic structures and monuments, where
they exist, can also enhance the interesting aspects of a place. The Singapore Tourism
Board (STB, 2016) specifically lists placemaking as one of its principal activities. The STB
works with public and private stakeholders in several neighborhood precincts to coordi-
nate infrastructure improvements, events and marketing campaigns ‘to improve visitor
experience and inject vibrancy to bring the precinct to life’ (STB, 2016, p. 1). The primary
areas in which they do this are in the city-state’s Chinatown and Little India neighbor-
hoods, along with the shopping districts of Orchard Road and the Sentosa Harbourfront.
Wyckoff et al. (2015; see also Wyckoff, 2014) suggest that there are four types of urban
design placemaking. Standard placemaking includes the many incremental, and perhaps
uncoordinated, improvements that are made to a place over time. This may include side-
walk widening, the introduction of plants and color coordinated awnings over shop fronts,
and putting up more clear directional and street signage. Cities undertake these types of
improvements on a regular basis as old infrastructure is replaced and there is a desire to
improve over the past. The other three types of placemaking may also be part of the stan-
dard, incremental placemaking process, or they may be independent and significant pla-
cemaking initiatives in their own right.
Strategic placemaking is the creation of a major new investment that is intended to be a
catalyst in defining a neighborhood or even a city, and thereby attracting other invest-
ments (Shaw & Montana, 2016). This could be a new shopping or eating center, an open
space plaza for public gatherings and events, an entertainment or arts venue, or a major
transportation node (such as street car or subway station). Such venues can, of course,
also become major tourist attractions, such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris, France, the Sidney
Opera House in Sidney, Australia, and Faneuil Hall Marketplace in Boston, USA.
Creative placemaking is the use of the arts to create more interesting and vibrant places.
These include street sculptures, mural paintings on empty building walls, and major public
art monuments. It can also include cultural performances, festival events, and art studios
TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 455
and businesses, as well as the artists who work in these various venues – although those
are not specifically urban design elements (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010). While not pure art,
the introduction of colorful and thematic street name signs to identify a historic or cultural
neighborhood is another form of creative placemaking.
Tactical placemaking is the fourth placemaking approach and includes a wide variety of
temporary and experimental placemaking projects. This might include closing a street to
vehicles and only allowing pedestrians and bicycles for a day or weekend, or perhaps turn-
ing it into a temporary children’s playground, or an arts and crafts market. Other ideas,
among many, include creating temporary parks where cars would normally park (known
as ‘parklets’) (P to P, 2016), placing temporary chairs in an open space that normally has
no seating for pedestrians, and starting a garden on unused land (with or without permis-
sion). These acts are intended to break people’s taken-for-granted thinking about what
might be possible to improve the quality of life in a place. Tactical placemaking also offers
a way of making placemaking more of bottom-up organic process, although it is still a
planned approach that is distinct from pure place-making.
At one level, placemaking appears to be about physical design. However, the purpose
of the many design guidelines that accompany placemaking is to enhance human con-
nectivity, social interaction, and social and relational capital (Cilliers, 2014; Johnson, Glove,
& Stewart, 2014; Nettler, 2013; Nikitin, 2013; Richards, 2014). This is the recognition that all
forms of place-making and placemaking reflect individual and collective human values
and motivations (Pierce et al., 2011). The intentionality of placemaking, therefore, requires
an awareness of the social consequences of planned change.
intangible (image) attributes. Being a continuum, there are also elements that combine
both the tangible and the intangible, many of which are seen in the everyday practices of
people who occupy these planned places.
These tools of place making are essentially the same for both organic place-making and
master planned placemaking. Both, for example, influence building façades, local foods
and dress, and the image and myths of place. The primary difference is that the decision
to perform these in a place-making manner is made by individuals who are responding to
and performing traditional and indigenous cultural norms. In a pure placemaking context,
on the other hand, these tools are selected, placed, and performed to replicate a pre-
defined set of norms that have been chosen for the marketing value. This simulacrum
may be representative of an ethnic or heritage identity (Wortham-Galvin, 2008), or it may
reflect a more generic global modernity.
The elements identified in Table 2, therefore, may be expressed through different
scales and intentions between place-making and placemaking. From a tourism planning
perspective, the question is which of these tools should be manipulated, and with what
purpose or goal should they be impacted. In terms of tangible physical elements, the role
of the government in some place may be intentionally limited (either by policy or budget)
to making modest improvements to the physical design and infrastructure of public
spaces. In others, such as a historic district, local governments may adopt stringent physi-
cal design controls and invest in significant restoration and conservation efforts. Others
communities may see major government driven tourism development projects that
completely transform the physical space of a destination. The tangible dimension is, in
fact, the easiest to influence, manipulate and change from a governmentality perspective.
For most destinations, tourism development has more to do with the intangible ele-
ments in Table 2 than the tangible ones. The degree to which a community intentionally
manages intangible place making tools will vary, along with the mechanisms employed.
Marketing and branding builds on the built tourism infrastructure and other physical
resources, but is much more than that. In some places, heritage and myths have an attrac-
tive value that can be stronger than any built structure for tourism purposes (Hollingshead
et al., 2009). And reputations based on social media and general news events can be chal-
lenging to control (Lew, 2012). Traditional cultural practices maintain intangible place
TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 457
Critiques of placemaking
Placemaking is not without its critics. Both place-making and placemaking are inherently
political processes (Buser, Bonura, Fannin, & Boyer, 2013; Hultman & Hall, 2012; Nichols,
2001; Peirce, Martin, & Murphy, 2011). The simple act of place naming, for example, can
have significant political overtones (Hall-Lew & Lew, 2014). Whether is it Ayers Rock or
Uluru, or Mt Mckinley or Denali, place making through place naming reflects the con-
tested politics of ‘nationalism, (post)colonialism, identity politics, and the spatialization of
collective memory’ (Rose-Redwood & Alderman, 2011, p. 2). Part of this is seen in the
struggle between human agency (associated with place-making) and socio-political struc-
tures (associated with placemaking). However, it is much more complicated than that.
Individuals and groups of individuals have their own worldviews through which they
define their taken-for-granted lifeworld (Coates & Seamon, 1984) and maintain it though
worldmaking actions (Hollingshead et al., 2009), of which place making is an essential
458 A. A. LEW
part. Different worldviews will result in different place makings, some of which are poten-
tially incompatible. Tourism as a worldview has often been denigrated for violating, expro-
priating, and commodifying the lifeworld of local residents (Insch, 2011; Kolas, 2004; Ma &
Lew, 2012; McKercher et al., 2015; Morgan, 2014; Scho €llmann, 2003; Winter, 2014). But
such contestations over place making can also occur between different local or indige-
nous interests (Martin, 2003; Blackstock, 2005), and between different governmental
authorities seeking power over what they perceive as their turf (Dredge & Jenkins, 2003).
For Hollingshead et al. (2009), placemaking (as defined here) is one aspect of the broader
concept of worldmaking, which also included people-making and past-making, and is
driven by the mythologies that social groups create of themselves. The authors content
that (p. 432) ‘all who work in tourism (however intermittently!) unavoidably engage in’
tourism worldmaking. An understanding of how different world views (or worldmakings)
are expressed through the tools of place making (Table 2) in both bottom-up place-mak-
ings and top-down placemakings can provide critical insight into how power is distributed
in different ways among actors and interest groups, and how and why this changes over
time.
Possibly the most significant criticism of master planned placemaking is that it is part of
the larger process of gentrification Frank, 2012; (Lou, 2010; Richards, 2014). Gentrification
is the cumulative impact of placemaking improvements to lower income neighborhoods,
which are gradually transformed as the middle classes (the gentry) move in and displace
the original residents (Buser et al., 2013; Lou, 2010). Placemaking is a key component in
gentrification, as is tourism to the degree that it is associated with placemaking (Liang &
Bao, 2015). Some of the benefits of placemaking and tourism gentrification include
improved housing conditions, reduced crime rates, increased tax revenues for local gov-
ernment, and an increased mixing of social classes. Negative impacts associated with gen-
trification in general, but also tourism gentrification, include the loss of affordable
housing, the displacement of lower income people and lower profit businesses, and an
increase in homelessness and living costs.
Both Buser et al. (2013) and Richards (2014) suggest that creative placemaking, which
has a strong arts orientation, is inherently contradictory in that the artists involved often
represent political resistance to conservative social institutions, but are also complicit in
urban regeneration actions that may be contrary to those goals. One critic of placemaking
asks, ‘[w]hich people do we want to gather, visit and live in vibrant places? Is it just some
people? Is it already well-off people? It is traditionally excluded people? Is it poor people?
New people? People of color?’ (Mehta, 2012, p. 1). A focus on physical design, as well as
image marketing, can gloss over the complexity of human relations that real places are
made of (Nikitin, 2013). On the other hand, some studies have contradicted this indict-
ment of placemaking gentrification, finding that displacement was not as common or
deep as critics claim (Woronkowicz, 2015).
As suggested above, place making, especially when mass tourism is goal, will often
shift over time away from the organic place-making that may have been the foundation
of the destination towards planned placemaking. In doing so, placemaking increase
homogenization or sameness between places (Richards, 2014). The same chain stores or
restaurants start to appear in every tourism place, leading to a lack of diversity. This is a
form of economic and cultural globalization, resulting in a diminishing of localness and an
increasing in placelessness (Friedman, 2010; Relph, 1976). Disneyfication (predictability
TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 459
with a lack of surprise) and McDonaldization (efficiency and the lack of risk) (Ritzer & Liska,
1997) are other characteristics of thematic placemaking. Based on the overwhelming eco-
nomic success of mass tourism theme parks, cruise ships, and historic shopping streets
and shopping centers, this appears to be what the majority of tourists want.
In a postmodern argument, Lowenthal (2015) suggest that cultural authenticity is not a
fixed commodity. It is continually negotiated and re-invented with every act of recogni-
tion. This occurs through economic development and commodification, through national-
ism and other political interpretations, through heritage conservation and museumization
of the past, and through the creation of new culture and arts (Richards, 2011). In that
sense, is there any hope for a traditional, organic place-making in our contemporary glob-
alized and post-modern world?
For planned placemaking to foster a true and satisfying sense of place requires allowing
space for the natural evolution of organic place-making to add to and influence master
planned environments with vernacular and homegrown overtones. From this perspective,
planned placemaking becomes a stage or action that is part of the larger meta context of
place making and community development, and which also included organic place-
making. PPS (2013) refers to this a ‘place governance,’ which is an intentional effort to
increase equity, participation, inclusiveness, and social capital through the placemaking
process. Place governance is also about integrating government functions around creat-
ing successful public place (Kent, 2013), which should also be a goal of tourism advocates
(Hultman & Hall, 2012). Fortunately, organic place-making does not require planning
because it is human nature to created places that reflect who we are as individuals and as
cultural groups (Pink, 2008), even when faced with significant levels of globalization
(Martin, 2003). If anything, place-making can be stifled by excessive government regula-
tion and control.
From a tourism planning perspective, the major question is how can concepts associ-
ated with place making (including both place-making and placemaking) inform the strate-
gic marketing and development of a tourism destination? There is a clear distinction
between places that are deeply formed through an organic place-making experience,
drawing their attractive tourism power from that, and places that are fully master planned
thematic destinations, which also have a powerful tourist draw (Table 1). It is also clear
that there are many other places that are a mix of these two extremes, and that even
those that fall clearly into one or the other form have the potential to shift their
460 A. A. LEW
orientation. Over time, a place-making destination will likely experience more placemak-
ing activities, and a placemaking destination can experience increasing place-making pro-
cesses (Hultman & Hall, 2012).
A potential key to understanding these processes are the place making tools presented
in Table 2. When these place making elements are almost entirely grounded in an organic
place-making intention, then that orientation will be clearly expressed and experienced.
When most of these elements have their origin in a planned placemaking process, then
that too will be perceived and experienced by residents and visitors alike. From a compre-
hensive tourism planning perspective (including both physical design and destination
marketing), Table 2 offers a tool box from which elements can be selected to guide desti-
nation development in a place-making or placemaking way, with the more common goal
of seeking a balance between the two approaches.
As noted above, balancing place-making and placemaking is a political process that
inherently requires trade-offs among different interests (Hultman & Hall, 2012; Peirce
et al., 2011). The tools of place making do not solve that challenge. However, they could
make the negotiating process more clear by enabling participants to better visualize the
potential tangible and intangible outcomes of different policy and programming options.
This is the kind of skills that professional planners should bring to the table to help com-
munities to come to a consensus over their future evolution (Lew, 2007a).
Comprehensive place making for tourism, therefore, requires a meta level approach to
societal guidance (Friedman, 1987). From this higher and more reflective perspective, pla-
ces might be considered or designated for different levels for place-making and place-
making, from the completely unplanned, local, and organic to the completely themed,
safe, and global. The latter would require an existing or otherwise guaranteed mass tour-
ism market, and may not be appropriate in the earlier stages of emerging destination.
Local place-making, however, is always appropriate and should always be encouraged
through appropriate policies and practices.
Conclusions
Place making shows us the potential of both the organic and the planned approaches to
creating great places for locals and visitors. It provides us with a clearer understanding of
the elements of urban design and human behavioral responses to urban design, as well
as place programming and image building. It also informs us of what we cannot control,
and what needs to be given freedom to evolve in its own way and in its own time. Allow-
ing this natural evolution is probably the most difficult and risky task for tourism planners
and marketers. Placemaking, especially in its creative forms of public art, may even serve
as a vehicle of resistance and protest against neoliberal global capitalism and mass tour-
ism (Buser et al., 2013), and in support of the local (Fletchall, 2016).
Place making is an activity that humans naturally do as individuals and in social groups
in the places that they inhabit. It is also the foundation of most tourist attractions, whether
relics of past place-making, or the result of modern placemaking processes. This overview
of the definitions, approaches, and implications of different types of place making should
make it clear to planners who work for tourism communities, to tourism professionals
who contribute to community development, and to tourism researchers who seek to
inform the human condition, that a deeper understanding of place making practice and
performance is vital to understanding the dynamics of contemporary tourism
destinations.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Alan A. Lew is a professor in the Department of Geography, Planning, and Recreation at Northern
Arizona University where he teaches courses in geography, urban planning and tourism. He is a
member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and is the founding editor-in-chief of the
Tourism Geographies journal. His interests and writings focus on tourism across East and Southeast
Asia.
ORCID
Alan A. Lew http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8177-5972
References
Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Theory Culture Soci-
ety, 7, 295–310.
Alderman, D. H., Benjamin, S. K., & Schneider, P. P. (2012). Transforming Mount Airy into Mayberry:
Film-induced tourism as place-making. Southeastern Geographer, 52(2), 212–239.
Amoamo, M. (2012). (de)Constructing place-myth: Pitcairn Island and the “Bounty” story. Tourism
Geographies, 15(1), 107–124.
Baka, V. (2015). Understanding valuing devices in tourism through “place-making”. Valuation Studies,
3(2), 149–180.
TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 463
Benfield, K. (2013, July 17). Streets can be public spaces too. The Atlantic CityLab. Retrieved from
http://www.citylab.com/design/2013/07/streets-can-be-public-spaces-too/6235/
Berleant, A. (2003). The aesthetics of place. In S. Menin (Ed.), Constructing Place: Mind and Matter (pp.
41–54). London: Routledge.
Blackstock, K. (2005). A critical look at community based tourism. Community Development Journal,
40(1), 39–49.
Bosker, B. (2014, January 25). Why China’s homeowners want to live in fake Paris. The World Post.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bianca-bosker/china-fake-towns_b_4610715.
html
Bosman, C., & Dredge, D. (2011). Histories of placemaking in the Gold Coast City: The neoliberal
norm, the State story and the community narrative. Urban Research Program, Research Paper 33
(April). Brisbane: Griffith University.
Brown, M. J. (2004). Is Taiwan Chinese?: The impact of culture, power, and migration on changing iden-
tities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Buser, M., Bonura, C., Fannin, M., & Boyer, K. (2013). Cultural activism and the politics of place-making.
City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 17(5), 606–627. doi:10.1080/
13604813.2013.827840
Castillo, R. (2014). Feeling at home in the “Chocolate City”: An exploration of place-making practices
and structures of belonging amongst Africans in Guangzhou. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 15(2),
235–257.
Cilliers, E. J., & Timmermans, W. (2014). The importance of creative participatory planning in the pub-
lic place-making process. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 41, 413–429.
Coates, G. J., & Seamon, D. (1984). Toward a phenomenology of place and place-making: Interpreting
landscape, lifeworld and aesthetics. Oz, 6, 6–9. doi:10.4148/2378-5853.1074
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2003). Destination place identity and regional tourism policy. Tourism Geog-
raphies, 5(4), 383–407.
Dyck, I. (2005). Feminist geography, the ‘everyday’, and local-global relations: Hidden spaces of
place-making. The Canadian Geographer (Le Geographe canadien), 49(3), 233–243.
Everett, S. (2012). Production places or consumption spaces? The place-making agency of food tour-
ism in Ireland and Scotland. Tourism Geographies, 14(4), 535–554.
Frank, T. (2012). Dead end on shakin’ street. The Baffler, 20, 1. Retrieved from http://thebaffler.com/
articles/dead-end-on-shakin-street.
Fletchall, A. M. (2016). Place-making through beer-drinking: A case studies of Montana’s craft brewer-
ies. Geographical Review, 106(4), 539–566.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class, and how it’s transforming work, leisure community and
everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Friedman, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Friedman, J. (2010). Place and place-making in cities: A global perspective. Planning Theory & Practice,
11(2), 149–165. doi:10.1080/14649351003759573
Goodwin, H., & Santilli, R. (2009). Community-based tourism: A success? The International Centre for
Responsible Tourism (ICRT) Occasional Paper 11. ICRT. Retrieved from http://www.haroldgood
win.info/uploads/CBTaSuccessPubpdf.pdf
Gottdiener, M. (2001). The theming of America: American dreams, media fantasies, and themed envi-
ronments (2nd ed.). Boulder: Westview Press.
Hall, C. M., & Lew, A. A. (2009). Understanding and managing tourism impacts: An integrated approach.
Oxford: Routledge.
Hall-Lew, L. A., & Lew, A. A. (2014). Speaking Heritage: Language, Identity and Tourism. In A. A. Lew,
C. M. Hall, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to tourism (pp. 336–348). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Hamzah, A., & Khalifah, Z. (2009). Handbook on community based tourism: How to develop and sustain
CBT. Singapore: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Secretariat.
Harney, N. D. (2006). The politics of urban space: Modes of place-making by Italians in Toronto’s
neighbourhoods. Modern Italy, 11(1), 25–42.
464 A. A. LEW
Hoelscher, S. (1998). Heritage on stage: The invention of ethnic place in America’s little Switzerland.
Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Hollinshead, K., Atleljevic, I., & Ali, N. (2009). Worldmaking agency–worldmaking authority: The sover-
eign constitutive role of tourism. Tourism Geographies, 11(4), 427–443.
Hou, J., & Rios, M. (2003). Community-driven place making: The social practice of participatory design
in the making of Union Point Park. Journal of Architectural Education, 57(1), 19–27.
Hultman, J., & Hall, C. M. (2012). Tourism place-making: Governance of locality in Sweden. Annals of
Tourism Research, 39(2), 547–570.
Insch, A. (2011). Ethics of place making. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 7, 151–154.
doi:10.1057/pb.2011.23
Johnson, A. J., Glove, T. D., & Stewart, W. P. (2014). Attracting locals downtown: Everyday leisure as a
place-making initiative. Journal of Park and Recreation Management, 32(2), 28–42.
Kelly, D. (2015). Abandoned, European & Western-Themed Ghost Towns of China. Urban Ghosts.
Retrieved from http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2015/02/9-abandoned-european-themed-
western-ghost-towns-china/
Kent, E. (2013). Toward Place Governance: What If We Reinvented Civic Infrastructure Around
Placemaking? Project for Public Spaces website. Retrieved from http://www.pps.org/reference/
toward-place-governance-civic-infrastructure-placemaking/
Kolas, A (2004). Tourism and the making of place in Shangri-La. Tourism Geographies, 6(3), 262–278.
Landry, C. (2000). The creative city: A toolkit for urban innovation. London: Comedia.
Lems, A. (2016). Placing displacement: Place-making in a world of movement. Ethnos, 81(2), 315–337.
Lew, A. A. (1987). A framework of tourist attraction research. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(4), 553–75.
Lew, A. (1989). Authenticity and sense of place in the tourism development experience of older retail
districts. Journal of Travel Research, 27(4), 15–22.
Lew, A. A. (1999). Managing tourist space in pueblo villages of the American Southwest. In T. V. Singh
(Ed.), Tourism development in critical environments (pp. 120–136). Elmsford, NY: Cognizant Com-
munications Corporation.
Lew, A. A. (2007a). Invited commentary: Tourism planning and traditional urban planning theory:
Planners as agents of social change. Leisure/Loisir: Journal of the Canadian Association of Leisure
Studies, 31(2), 383–392.
Lew, A. A. (2007b). Pedestrian shopping streets in the restructuring of the Chinese city. In T. Coles, &
A. Church (Eds.), Tourism, power and place (pp. 150–170). London: Routledge.
Lew, A. A. (2011, April 19). The best tourism places. Tourism Place Blog. Retrieved from http://tourism
place.blogspot.com/2011/04/best-tourism-places-pecha-kucha.html
Lew, A. A. (2012). Geography and the marketing of tourism destinations. In J. Wilson (Ed.), The Rout-
ledge handbook of tourism geographies (pp. 181–186). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lew, A. A., & McKercher, B. (2006). Modeling the movement of tourists in a local destination. Annals
of Tourism Research, 33(2), 403–423.
Liang, Z.-X., & Bao, J.-G. (2015). Tourism gentrification in Shenzhen, China: Causes and socio-spatial
consequences. Tourism Geographies, 17(3), 461–481.
Light, D. (2014). Tourism and toponymy: Commodifying and consuming place names. Tourism Geog-
raphies, 16(1), 141–156. doi:10.1080/14616688.2013.868031
Lou, J. J. (2010). Chinatown transformed: Ideology, power, and resources in narrative place-making.
Discourse Studies, 12(5), 625–647.
Lowenthal, D. (2015). The past is a foreign country – revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Boston, MA: The MIT Press.
Ma, L., & Lew, A. A. (2012). Historical and geographical context in festival tourism development. Jour-
nal of Heritage Tourism, 7(1), 13–31.
MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. New York, NY: Schocken Books.
Main, K., & Sandoval, G. F. (2015). Placemaking in a translocal receiving community: The relevance of
place to identity and agency. Urban Studies, 52, 71–86.
Markusen, A., & Gadwa, A. (2010). Creative Placemaking. Washington, DC: National Endowment for
the Arts. White paper for The Mayor’s Institute on City Design. Retrieved from http://arts.gov/
pub/pubDesign.php
TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 465
Scho€llmann, A. (2003). The production of tourism space: A case study of the space-place dialectics in
contemporary tourism promotion (PhD thesis). Lincoln University, Christchurch.
Shaw, K., & Montana, G. (2016). Place-making in megaprojects in Melbourne. Urban Policy and
Research, 34(2), 166–189.
Singapore Tourism Board (STB) (2016). What we do: Placemaking. Retrieved from https://www.stb.
gov.sg/about-stb/what-we-do/Pages/Placemaking.aspx
Smith, N. (2002). New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrification as global urban strategy. In N. Brenner
& N. Theodore (Eds.), Spaces of neoliberalism: Urban restructuring in North America and Western
Europe (pp. 80–103). Oxford: Blackwell.
Thurlow, C., & Jaworski, A. (2014). ‘Two hundred ninety-four’: Remediation and multimodal perfor-
mance in tourist placemaking. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(4), 459–494.
Trudeau, D. (2006). Politics of belonging in the construction of landscapes: Place-making, boundary-
drawing and exclusion. Cultural Geographies, 13(3), 421–443.
Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Min-
nesota Press.
Vale, L. J. (1992). Architecture, power, and national identity (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Whittemore, A. H. (2015). Practioners theorize, too: Reaffirming planning theory in a survey of prac-
tioners’ theories. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(1), 76–85.
Winter, T. (2014). Material culture and contested heritage in tourism. In A. A. Lew, C. M. Hall, & A. M.
Williams (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to tourism (pp. 368–377). Oxford: Blackwell.
Williams, S., & Lew, A. A. (2014). Tourism geography (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Woronkowicz, J. (2015). Art-making or place-making? The relationship between open-air perfor-
mance venues and neighborhood change. Journal of Planning Education & Research, 36(1), 49–59.
Wortham-Galvin, B. D. (2008). Mythologies of placemaking, Places, 20(1), 32–39.
Wyckoff, M. (2014). Definitions of placemaking: Four different types. Planning & Zoning News, 32(3), 1.
Retrieved from http://landpolicy.msu.edu/news/article/lpis_mark_wyckoff_authors_article_on_
four_different_types_of_placemaking
Wyckoff, M. A., Neumann, B., Pape, G., & Schindler, K. (2015). Placemaking as and economic develop-
ment tool: A placemaking guide. East Lansing, MI: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University.
Su, X. (2010). The imagination of place and tourism consumption: A case study of Lijiang Ancient
Town, China. Tourism Geographies, 10(3), 412–434.
Yang, L., & Wall, G. (2008). Ethnic tourism and entrepreneurship: Xishuangbanna, Yunnan, China.
Tourism Geographies, 10(4), 522–544.
Yea, S. (2002). On and off the ethnic tourism map in Southeast Asia: The case of Iban longhouse tour-
ism. Sarawak, Malaysia, Tourism Geographies, 4(2), 173–194. doi:10.1080/14616680210124945