Place-Making Research: A Bibliometric, Visualization, and Thematic Analysis

Abstract

Place-making is recognized for its significant role in enhancing community cohesion, preserving cultural heritage, and promoting environmental sustainability. In recent years, place-making has garnered increasing attention as a multidisciplinary research topic from scholars in various fields. However, despite the increasing amount of research, systematic reviews and analyses of existing studies remain relatively scarce. Therefore, this study aims to provide a comprehensive bibliometric overview of the field of place-making through bibliometric and visualization analyses. We used CiteSpace for data analysis and visualization, focusing on the most influential articles, journals, countries, research categories, keywords, and themes in this field. The results indicate a significant increase in publications on placemaking since 2013. Major research institutions are concentrated in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Research hotspots are centered around “city”, “politics”, and “place-making”, among others. Current research is primarily categorized into four core themes: Urban Design and Public Space, Social Participation and Cultural Identity, Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability, and Governance, Policy, and Community Development. The research trajectory in this field shows trends of diversification and integration. Future research should emphasize interdisciplinary integration, combining urban planning, digital technology, and sociology.

1. Introduction

Globalization, while driving economic development and facilitating cultural exchange and integration, also presents numerous challenges for cities. These challenges include cultural homogenization, social inequality, and environmental pressures [1,2,3]. Under the influence of globalization, the distinctive local characteristics of cities are gradually being eroded, leading to public spaces that lack regional culture and community traits, which in turn affects residents’ sense of belonging and cultural identity [4]. Additionally, social inequality within cities has intensified, manifesting in unequal resource distribution and widening wealth gaps [5,6]. At the same time, rapid urban development has led to excessive resource consumption and environmental pollution, further challenging the sustainability of cities [7,8,9].

In this context, research on the interaction between locality and globalization has increasingly expanded. “Place-making”, as an urban planning concept that emphasizes local characteristics and sustainable development, has garnered widespread attention. By optimizing public spaces and urban environments, place-making addresses multiple urban challenges posed by globalization, gradually becoming a significant topic in urban planning and environmental design. This concept is not only considered crucial for enhancing community cohesion and preserving cultural heritage, but it also plays a key role in promoting environmental sustainability.

Currently, despite the increasing prevalence of the problems of “mobility” [10,11,12] and the phenomenon of “non-place” [13,14,15], scholars have pointed out that people’s attachment to place and the importance of place have become more pronounced in contemporary cities [16,17,18]. A review of the existing literature reveals that although the term “place-making” is widely used, there is no unified definition or standardized terminology. Moreover, different spellings such as “place making”, “place-making”, and “placemaking” carry different connotations when placed in specific contexts [19,20]. Scholars from various disciplines have expanded research on the definition and scope of place-making from their respective academic perspectives. Their aim is to understand the connections and effects of place-making on psychology [21,22,23], emotions [24,25,26], health [21,27], tourism [28,29], and the environment [30,31]. Furthermore, they seek to reveal how spaces become places of special emotional attachment and identity through cultural, meaningful, social dimensions, and functional organization. Therefore, “place-making” has gradually evolved into a multidisciplinary and comprehensive research topic. Its scope of discussion not only includes aspects such as sense of place, place attachment, and place identity but has also expanded into more complex areas such as urban renewal and social–ecological systems. This development highlights the need for an in-depth understanding of the current state of place-making research, current research hotspots, and future trends. Such an understanding not only promotes interdisciplinary exchange and cooperation but also provides a critical perspective for assessing the impact of place-making on society and the environment. It helps scholars grasp the field’s development and the mechanisms behind place-making. To gain a clearer picture of the current research landscape, we thoroughly reviewed the existing literature on place studies (

Table 1. Summary of 12 published literature reviews in the field of place-making (2012–2023).

Reference	Year	Journal	Review Methodology	Purpose
[32]	2012	Health & Place	systematic meta-analysis	This article brings the phenomenological sense of place approach together with current results from neuroscience, thereby reinforcing the phenomenological argumentation of human geography and environmental psychology.
[33]	2016	Journal of Environmental Psychology	systematic literature review	This article refines and extends the research on place attachment by linking it to the current literature on risk in the natural environment, but also by exploring diverse ways of linking this literature with scholarship outside the environmental psychology field.
[34]	2017	Ecology and Society	literature review	This research presents an approach and conceptual tools for how the sense of place perspective can contribute to social–ecological systems research.
[35]	2019	Journal of Business and Technical Communication	literature review	This literature review elaborates on the relationship between place and design thinking, focusing on the importance of privileging place in user-centered design processes.
[36]	2020	Spatial Cognition and Computation	systematic literature review	This review paper bridge multidisciplinary studies about place and collects the different facets of place introduced in the literature and synthesizes place characteristics by categorizing the identified facets.
[37]	2021	South African Journal of Psychology	Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses	This article presents a selective review of place identity studies in post-apartheid South Africa.
[38]	2021	Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography	systematic literature review	This article focuses on how space and place are articulated, presented, and interpreted within immigrant entrepreneurship literature in and about the Nordic context.
[39]	2022	Journal of Environmental Psychology	meta-review	This article aims to conceptualize (i.e., theoretically define) the notion of “place immersion” via a multidisciplinary meta-review and -synthesis approach.
[40]	2022	Health & Place	scoping review	This paper presents a scoping review that explores the empirical application of the concepts of sense of place, place attachment, and belonging-in-place across various disciplines, aiming to improve recruitment and retention in the rural health workforce.
[41]	2023	Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering	bibliometric review	This research analyzes the literature by questioning the common denominator between “place and the new” through the concepts of experience and meaning to expand and deepen the existing knowledge on the meaning of place in the production of place.
[42]	2023	Childrens Geographies	scoping review	This paper summarizes and identifies gaps in research on displaced children’s experiences of place and play in temporary or informal settlements and new environments.
[20]	2023	New Media & Society	scoping review	This article provides an interdisciplinary definition of “placemaking”, and it also highlighted areas (i.e., gaps) for future research into ‘creative place-making’ and ‘digital place-making’ practices for cultural heritage sites.

).

After carefully reviewing these papers, we found that several studies employed systematic reviews and meta-analyses, three used scoping reviews, and only one utilized bibliometric analysis. From the perspective of research content, the reviews primarily focus on several directions: place and space, sense of place, place attachment, place identity, place immersion, and children’s spaces. Although place-making is a major component of place theory, our review identified only one recent work that focused specifically on this topic [20]. This work primarily adopts a scoping review methodology and conducts a bibliometric review of the literature on the themes of creative and digital place-making using VOSviewer software (version 1.6.20). However, the scope of the paper’s discussion is limited, and the content of the bibliometric review is relatively sparse. This indicates that there is still a gap in research regarding a comprehensive overview and bibliometric analysis in the field of place-making.

Considering the aforementioned limitations and the necessity for further literature review, this study aims to conduct a comprehensive examination of the literature on place-making, elucidating the research dynamics through bibliometric analysis. Our primary objective is to summarize and analyze the progress and evolution of place-making research within academic discourse, with a particular focus on key aspects such as publication trends, countries, journals, research hotspots, core themes, and future research directions. By providing a detailed and structured overview of the current state of place-making research, this study not only fosters interdisciplinary exchange and collaboration but also offers crucial insights into the social and environmental impacts of place-making. It helps scholars from various disciplines understand the development trajectories and mechanisms of place-making. To achieve these objectives, we will provide up-to-date insights into the field of place-making by addressing key research questions (

Table 2. Research questions, objectives, and methods of this study.

Problem Summary	Specific Research Questions	Research Objectives	Methods
Overview of the main landscape in place-making research.	RQ1: What are the publishing trends in the published literature?	Analyze the publication patterns in the field of place-making research over time.	Use annual production graphs to reflect publication trends.
	RQ2: What are the main research categories in place-making?	Identify the main research areas of the topic based on the classification of papers.	Collaboration network graph of WoS Categories.
	RQ3: What are the most active publications, articles, and main research countries in this field?	Journals studying place-making, papers, and countries making significant contributions.	Statistics on the number of publications, literature citations, and national collaboration network.
Research hotspots and frontiers in place-making research.	RQ4: What are the research hotspots in this field?	Identify commonly associated keywords and delve into the concepts and content of place-making research.	Conduct keyword co-occurrence analysis, keyword sorting, and keyword co-occurrence maps.
	RQ5: What keywords have formed clusters?	Identify clusters of related keywords and categorize themes within the clusters.	Draw keyword clustering maps, categorize clustered research themes.
	RQ6: What are the research frontiers?	Research keywords that have sudden spikes in frequency contribution over different periods, grasping the research situation in the field.	Conduct keyword burst detection.
Limitations and future directions of place research.	RQ7: What are the limitations of existing research and future research directions?	Critically analyze gaps in the literature and suggest future research work.	Conduct a systematic literature review summary and outlook.

).

To address the key research questions outlined above, we conducted an in-depth analysis of the literature and integrated multidisciplinary research. The structure of the remainder of this article is as follows: Section 2 details the data and methods, with a primary focus on bibliometric analysis techniques and data sources. Section 3 provides a comprehensive analysis of two aspects: (1) a discussion of the temporal and geographical evolution of the place-making literature based on relevant statistics; (2) an identification of research hotspots and frontiers related to place-making studies. Section 4 re-inducts and elucidates the themes of place-making based on the research content. Section 5 synthesizes the conclusive opinions and limitations of this study and offers prospects for future research.

2. Data and Methods

2.1. Bibliometric Analysis

Bibliometric analysis is a popular and rigorous method for exploring and analyzing large numbers of scientific numbers [43]. Bibliometric analysis and scientific mapping can be effective in identifying established and emerging research themes, and the use of these methods allows for the identification of research clusters to reveal the knowledge structure of the research field and emerging areas of research [44]. Moreover, bibliometric methods can also be seen as a complement to traditional literature reviews and structured literature review methods, enhancing the objectivity of the study compared to these traditional methods [45].

The primary approach of this study is quantitative research using bibliometric analysis, supplemented by qualitative research methods. The quantitative analysis involves utilizing tools such as data mining, bibliometrics, and mapping to reveal the evolution paths of disciplines or research fields, identify research hotspots, and track research frontiers. The qualitative research primarily employs content analysis, thematic analysis, and literature comparison to further interpret the research themes, trends, and other insights revealed by the quantitative analysis. The primary focus is on employing thematic analysis to identify, categorize, and analyze themes in the literature, and to derive meaningful conclusions from them. CiteSpace is a commonly used bibliometric software for visualizing knowledge maps, research hotspots, and emerging trends [46,47]. We chose CiteSpace for visual bibliometric analysis due to its comprehensive advantages over other software in handling large-scale data, extracting cluster information, displaying graphs, tracking evolutionary trajectories, and conducting frontier analyses. In this paper, we used CiteSpace (version 6.3.R2), a professional literature analysis tool, to analyze and visualize the retrieved literature. This approach enabled us to construct a knowledge map of placemaking research, providing an overview of the field’s knowledge base and its evolution over the past twenty years. The primary approach considered involves using thematic analysis to identify, categorize, and analyze themes within the literature, aiming to distill meaningful conclusions from the findings.

It is noteworthy that the technical metrics of CiteSpace play a significant role in revealing the structure of academic networks and identifying research hotspots. For example, centrality is a key metric in CiteSpace used to measure the importance or influence of a node within the network. Typically, nodes with a centrality value greater than 0.1 are considered core nodes. CiteSpace also employs various clustering methods, including LSI, LLR, and MI, with LLR generally regarded as providing the most accurate clustering results. The effectiveness of clustering is evaluated using two key indicators: modularity (Q value) and mean silhouette (S value). Generally, an S value greater than 0.5 indicates reasonable clustering, while values above 0.7 suggest highly convincing results. In this study, we set the time range from 2003 to 2024, with a time slice of one year. The selection of node types is made according to the specific content being analyzed.

2.2. Data Sources

Given the extensive number of journals in the WOS database and the considerable variance in their quality, this study has chosen to utilize the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) for data collection. WoSCC is widely recognized as a reliable source for bibliometric research, encompassing the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science and Humanities (CPCI-SSH), and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).

This study follows a specific process from initial search to final article inclusion (as shown in Figure 1), to ensure the appropriateness of the literature examined, incorporating only high-quality research papers into our review.

After a thorough literature review, the search keywords “place-making”, “place making”, or “placemaking” were identified as standard in this research area. The search strategy was set as TS = (“place-making” or “place making” or “placemaking”), where “TS” represents “Topic” in the WoS database, targeting fields such as Title, Abstract, Author Keywords, and Keywords Plus. Keywords Plus are index terms automatically generated from the titles of cited articles. The search was designed to capture articles published from the establishment of WoSCC up to 9 May 2024, yielding 1832 records. Several exclusion criteria were applied to refine the scope of the literature. Initially, only peer-reviewed journal articles and review articles were considered, as they undergo a rigorous quality review process, totaling 1422 articles. Non-English documents were excluded, reducing the count to 1414. Additionally, 112 articles from unrelated fields such as oceanography, microscopy, and virology were manually excluded due to their low relevance to this study. Ultimately, 1302 significant and representative articles were selected as the data sample for the next step of bibliometric analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Current State of Research

3.1.1. Quantitative Analysis of Publications (Response to RQ1)

By statistically analyzing the number of publications in a research field, one can intuitively understand the research stage of the field and predict its development trends. Figure 2 illustrates the number of publications in the field of environmental design from 2003 to 2024. Due to the data collection cutoff date of 9 May 2024, the complete data for 2024 were not included in this study. To avoid misleading interpretations in the trend analysis, the data for 2024 have been excluded from the discussion on publication number trends.

Research literature on place-making in the WoSCC database began in 2003. From 2003 to 2008, there were very few publications. Only three articles were published over this six-year period. From 2009 to 2012, the number of publications began to rise slightly. The peak was in 2011, with 35 publications, although there was a slight decline in 2012. From 2013 onward, the number of publications increased significantly, rising from 46 papers in 2013 to 168 in 2023. This substantial increase in publications indicates that the specific field of place-making has garnered serious attention over the last decade. The growing number of participants and continuous research activities further support this trend. Therefore, it can be concluded that this topic has garnered widespread interest and holds a significant position in the current context.

The development of research on place-making can be categorized into three stages: the initial stage, the slow growth stage, and the rapid growth stage. This classification is based on significant changes in the number of published papers. The primary purpose of this categorization is to identify the evolution of research activities in the field by analyzing the changes in publication numbers, which reflect the level of attention and maturity in the study of place-making.

Stage one (2003–2008): there were very few papers on the theme of place-making in the WoSCC, with only three being published, indicating that the field was in an exploratory stage. The earliest documented paper was published by Frumkin, H. in 2003 [27], and it has been cited 314 times, demonstrating its significant foundational role in the study of place-making.

Stage two (2009–2012): this stage marked a period of slow development in the field of place-making. Since 2009, scholarly articles on place-making have been steadily published. Compared to the previous stage, there was a noticeable increase in the number of publications, with an average of 29 papers per year. Although the overall pace of research was still slow, this stage significantly contributed to laying the groundwork for future research on place-making. This is evidenced by citation counts, as four of the top ten most-cited papers from this period are related to place-making. Notably, the article by Richards, G., “Creativity and Tourism: The State of the Art” [48], published in 2011, has been cited 468 times, making it the most frequently cited paper during this period.

Stage three (2013–2023): this stage marks a period of rapid development, characterized by a sharp increase in the number of publications, indicating a fast-paced advancement in research on place-making. Since 2013, the volume of scholarly articles on this topic has grown significantly, with annual publications exceeding 40 papers. This trend continued until it reached a peak of 168 papers in 2023. The increasing number of articles highlights a surge in interest and participation in this field within the academic community. Furthermore, a detailed review of the literature from this period reveals that the research outcomes have become more diverse and in-depth. This reflects an escalating academic focus on place-making, with expectations that the number of publications will continue to rise in the coming years, providing more valuable insights and contributions to the field.

3.1.2. Characteristics of Research Categories (Response to RQ2)

The primary research categories are considered reflective of the research focal points within a field. In WoS, each publication is assigned to one or more subject categories based on the journal’s scope in which it is published. Using CiteSpace software, categories are set as nodes, resulting in the generation of the WoS Category Collaboration Network (Figure 3). This diagram demonstrates the connections and evolution among the subject categories. A total of 69 nodes and 257 links were produced in the diagram, where the size of each node indicates the count of articles within each category, and the links show the connections between categories, offering insights into the structure of research fields and the pathways of knowledge dissemination.

Figure 3 illustrates the collaborative relationships between different academic disciplines, highlighting the key research areas in current studies. The size of each node represents the number of articles within a specific category, while the lines indicate collaboration or connections between disciplines. The pink circle surrounding a node typically represents the node’s centrality, indicating its importance within the entire academic network. The figure shows strong links between major fields such as geography, environmental studies, and urban studies, underscoring their significance in place-making research. However, the limited number and scope of these connections suggest that interdisciplinary collaboration is not yet extensive, leaving room for further cooperation in the future.

From the top ten rankings in the main research categories (

Table 3. Top ten research categories ranked.

Rank	Count	Year	WoS Categories
1	418	2007	Geography
2	259	2007	Environmental Studies
3	249	2007	Urban Studies
4	166	2007	Regional Urban Planning
5	106	2010	Sociology
6	86	2009	Anthropology
7	76	2013	Environmental Sciences
8	74	2013	Green Sustainable Science and Technology
9	70	2009	Hospitality, Leisure, Sport, and Tourism
10	66	2009	Communication

), we can observe that the predominant fields are concentrated in geography, environmental studies, urban studies, and regional urban planning. These disciplines often involve comprehensive explorations of geospatial data, natural environments, and social structures. Over time, disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, environmental science, and green sustainable technology have also begun to emerge as significant, reflecting scholars’ increasing focus on the socio-cultural dimensions and sustainability issues in place-making. Additionally, the rise of research in tourism, leisure, and sports studies indicates an expansion of the field to encompass the impacts of life quality and leisure activities, as well as how these areas interact with broader socio-economic and environmental factors. The presence of communication studies in the rankings highlights the importance of information dissemination and media research in modern society.

Overall, the connections among these research categories reflect a multidimensional academic network where natural environments, social structures, cultural behaviors, and technological advancements interact with each other.

3.1.3. Most Active Journals (Response to RQ3)

Figure 4 illustrates the top ten journals by the number of published articles. Notably, Sustainability leads with the highest number of publications, totaling 43 articles, due to its broad focus on environmental, social, and economic sustainability. The second most active journal is GEOFORUM, which specializes in geographical research and published 33 articles. The dominant positions of these two journals underscore their crucial role as primary channels for disseminating knowledge in this key field. Journals such as Cities, Urban Studies, and International Journal of Urban and Regional Research focus on analyzing urban and regional issues, thereby advancing related policies and theories. Additionally, Tourism Geographies, Social Cultural Geography, Space and Culture, and Cultural Geographies explore how cultural and social behaviors interact with geographical spaces. European Planning Studies focuses on spatial and environmental planning within Europe. These leading journals encompass a range of topics from sustainability and urban planning to tourism geography, sociocultural studies, and geographical studies. They not only address the complexities of urbanization and regional development but also the interplay between natural environments, social structures, cultural behaviors, and technological advancements.

3.1.4. Most Influential Articles (Response to RQ3)

It is important to discuss the highly cited papers and find out which are the most relevant papers on the topic in order to follow up on the advancement of the research.

Table 4. Top 10 highly cited publications.

Rank	Title	Author/s	Year	TC	Journals
1	Creativity and tourism: The State of the Art	Richards, G. [48]	2011	468	Annals of Tourism Research
2	Relational place-making: the networked politics of place	Pierce, J.; Martin, D.G.; Murphy, J.T. [49]	2011	320	Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
3	Healthy places: Exploring the evidence	Frumkin, H. [27]	2003	314	American Journal of Public Health
4	On the role of affect and practice in the production of place	Duff, C. [24]	2010	228	Environment and Planning D: Society & Space
5	Rethinking the place brand: the interactive formation of place brands and the role of participatory place branding	Kavaratzis, M.; Kalandides, A. [50]	2015	204	Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space
6	Civic greening and environmental learning in public-access community gardens in Berlin	Bendt, P.; Barthel, S.; Coding, J. [30]	2013	196	Landscape and Urban Planning
7	Human geography and socio-technical transition studies: Promising intersections	Murphy, J.T. [51]	2015	169	Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
8	Impacts of urban living labs on sustainability transitions: mechanisms and strategies for systemic change through experimentation	von Wirth, T.; Fuenfschilling, L.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Coenen, L. [52]	2019	167	European Planning Studies
9	A Broader Context for Land Use and Travel Behavior, and a Research Agenda	Boarnet, M.G. [53]	2011	166	Journal of the American Planning Association
10	Tourism planning and place making: place-making or placemaking?	Lew, A.A. [19]	2017	165	Tourism Geographies

shows the top 10 most cited papers indexed by WoSCC. The table includes the titles of the publications, authors, publication years, total citations (TC), and the journal of publication.

These ten highly cited papers demonstrate multiple dimensions of place-making, encompassing aspects ranging from the integration of creativity into tourism and the role of socio-political factors in place creation and the construction of healthy environments to the significance of emotions and practices in place formation. The most cited paper is by Richards, G., published in Annals of Tourism Research in 2011, titled “Creativity and tourism: The State of the Art” [48]. This paper has been cited a remarkable 468 times. It considers the integration of the tourism industry with various place-making strategies from a creative tourism perspective, offering significant value to the scientific community. The second most cited paper is “Relational Place-Making: The Networked Politics of Place” [49], which has been cited 320 times. This paper discusses the integration of network concepts, political theory, and the concept of place, emphasizing the importance of interactions in place formation. Both of these highly cited papers are from the second slower development stage of place-making. Subsequently, Frumkin, H.’s “Healthy Places: Exploring the Evidence” [27] was published in the American Journal of Public Health, showing the impact of the environment on public health through 314 citations. Other papers, such as Duff, C.’s “On the Role of Affect and Practice in the Production of Place” [24], discuss the deep connections between the practices and emotional dimensions of place-making. Kavaratzis, M. and Kalandides, A.’s “Rethinking the Place Brand: The Interactive Formation of Place Brands and the Role of Participatory Place Branding” [50] explains that the formation of place brands involves not only the static attributes of places but also the ongoing interactions between people and these attributes. These highly cited papers not only demonstrate the theoretical diversity within the field of place-making but also reflect its interdisciplinary nature. Although they vary in themes, methods, and theoretical frameworks, each plays a significant role in advancing research and practice in the field of place-making.

3.1.5. Most Influential Countries (Response to RQ3)

To explore the contributions of different countries to research in the field of place-making, we created a national collaboration network knowledge map. In CiteSpace software, we set the nodes to “Country” to generate the national collaboration network knowledge map (Figure 5) and obtain the top 10 ranking of publishing countries (

Table 5. Top 10 publishing countries.

Rank	Count	Centrality	Year	Countries
1	389	0.28	2003	USA
2	200	0.29	2010	England
3	153	0.06	2007	Australia
4	95	0.06	2009	Canada
5	85	0.08	2009	People’s Republic of China
6	60	0.04	2009	Netherlands
7	50	0.11	2009	Germany
8	38	0.01	2012	Scotland
9	32	0.01	2009	Sweden
10	27	0.01	2009	New Zealand

).

In Figure 5, each node represents a country, and the node size is proportional to the number of publications from that country. The larger the pink circle in the figure, the higher the centrality of the country, indicating that it has greater influence within the research network. The network of the national collaboration map consists of 76 nodes and 223 links. The countries with larger nodes and more connections are the main contributors to research in this field. The United States is the largest node and the top publishing country, with 389 publications, accounting for 30% of all publications. The United Kingdom ranks second with 200 publications, representing 15%. Australia is third with 53 papers, comprising 12%. Together, these three countries account for more than half of the publications, indicating their significant academic influence in the field. The links indicate the extent of collaborative exchanges between different countries. The UK has the broadest collaboration scope, partnering with scholars from 34 countries, closely followed by the USA with 33 countries. Canada, the Netherlands, and Germany also show extensive inter-regional cooperation. Most research in this area is conducted by developed countries, likely due to their earlier urbanization processes that necessitated deep thinking about spatial and human relationships. Among developing countries, China, South Africa, and South Korea have also conducted significant research on this topic. According to Table 5, which ranks the top 10 publishing countries, the UK has the highest centrality at 0.29, followed closely by the USA with 0.28, indicating that these two countries occupy a high influence and central position in the global research network. Although Australia and Canada have a considerable number of publications, their centrality is lower (both at 0.06), which may indicate their limited influence within the global research network. Despite China having 85 publications, its centrality of 0.08 suggests that although its research started later, the increasing prominence of human–geographical issues, coupled with social progress and economic development, has led to a significant number of publications in recent years, gradually highlighting China’s growing international research impact.

3.2. Research Hotspots and Frontiers

3.2.1. Research Hotspots—Keyword Co-Occurrence (Response to RQ4)

Research hotspots are scientific issues or topics that have garnered widespread attention and discussion among scholars or experts within a certain period. Keywords, as abstracts and refinements of article content by authors, can reflect the core content of the literature. High-frequency keywords in a research field represent the hotspots and development trends of that field. Therefore, creating a keyword co-occurrence map provides a visual representation and reveals the current research hotspots in a particular area. In the CiteSpace software, set the node type to “Keywords” and perform a co-occurrence analysis to obtain the keyword co-occurrence knowledge map (Figure 6). This map contains a total of 254 nodes and 1795 links, with each node representing a keyword and the node size reflecting the frequency of the keyword’s occurrence. The pink circle surrounding a keyword typically indicates that the node’s centrality is greater than 0.1, marking it as an important node. However, looking at the overall density of the network, which is only 0.0559, the low value indicates that despite the presence of many keywords, the connectivity among them is still insufficient. Thus, research in this field needs further expansion and deepening. Based on the frequency of keywords, a list of the top 20 most cited keywords within the place-making theme has been compiled (

Table 6. Top 20 keywords ranked.

No.	Freq	Centrality	Year	Keywords
1	199	0.14	2011	city
2	194	0.09	2011	politics
3	147	0.1	2012	place making
4	127	0.09	2011	geography
5	117	0.11	2009	space
6	107	0.06	2009	place
7	80	0.12	2012	community
8	75	0.1	2009	identity
9	61	0.11	2012	gentrification
10	53	0.05	2011	policy
11	52	0.05	2014	urban
12	45	0.07	2010	migration
13	43	0.07	2011	governance
14	42	0.06	2011	tourism
15	38	0.09	2011	spaces
16	37	0.06	2013	management
17	32	0.03	2016	public space
18	30	0.1	2011	state
19	29	0.04	2011	neighborhood
20	28	0.03	2014	mobility

).

These high-frequency keywords reflect the central themes and areas of interest in the field. Keywords with high centrality often indicate that these themes act as core nodes in the research network, exerting a significant influence on other research topics. “City”, “politics”, and “place making” are the most frequently occurring keywords, appearing 199, 194, and 147 times, respectively. These keywords are primarily concentrated in studies from 2011 and 2012. “City” has the highest centrality (0.14), followed by “community” (0.12) and “space” and “gentrification” (0.11). This indicates that these keywords play a central role in place-making-related fields. The frequent appearance of the keyword “city” in place-making research can be understood as it acts as a focal point of multidisciplinary intersections, directly related to the pressing social, economic, and environmental issues in urbanization, as well as the practical needs of policy and planning. Moreover, the emergence of keywords such as “identity”, “community”, and “sense of place” suggests that researchers are increasingly focusing on the relationship between place and the identity of individuals or groups. This involves how physical and social structures can affect or shape an individual’s sense of identity and belonging. As urban changes and social issues such as “gentrification”, “migration”, and “tourism” become more prominent, these keywords point to key topics in urban development and social change, revealing researchers’ focus on urban space transformations and their impact on residents’ lives. Additionally, keywords like “governance”, “environmental justice”, “policy”, and “power” show that place-making is not just a matter of space and culture but is also deeply linked to political and management strategies. Research on how to consider spatial justice and social inclusivity in policy-making is an important aspect of research.

Through the analysis of keywords, it is evident that the study of place-making is multidimensional, involving comprehensive consideration from physical space design to social, political, and environmental factors, with new social problems and academic interests prompting a gradual shift towards exploring more complex and specific issues.

3.2.2. Research Hotspots—Keyword Clustering (Response to RQ5)

Cluster analysis groups keywords based on their inter-relationships, revealing levels of association within the field. We conducted a cluster analysis of co-occurring keywords in the literature using Log-Likelihood Ratio (LLR), resulting in a keyword cluster map (Figure 7). Each cluster is composed of several closely related terms, and the smaller the number, the more keywords it contains. This map displays a total of 17 clusters with a Q value of 0.7475 and an S value of 0.8166, indicating that the clustering structure of this study is prominent and reliable.

Figure 7 primarily presents 17 keyword clusters in place-making research: creative placemaking (Cluster #0), city (Cluster #1), sense of place (Cluster #2), built environment (Cluster #3), migration (Cluster #4), urban agriculture (Cluster #5), gentrification (Cluster #6), place making (Cluster #7), cultural ecosystem services (Cluster #8), resilience (Cluster #9), urban acupuncture (Cluster #10), digital placemaking (Cluster #11), community development (Cluster #12), affective labor (Cluster #13), visibility (Cluster #14), voluntarism (Cluster #15), and reform (Cluster #16).

Table 7. Keyword clustering information table.

Cluster ID	Size	Silhouette	Mean (Year)	Top Terms (Log-Likelihood Ratio)
0	44	0.868	2017	creative placemaking (38.04, 0.0001); arts district (10.71, 0.005); literature review (10.71, 0.005); cultural policy (10.71, 0.005); creative tourism (8.18, 0.005)
1	40	0.945	2013	city (19.79,0.0001); gentrification (14.9, 0.001); policy (13.16, 0.001); Toronto (11.85, 0.001); Barcelona (11.85, 0.001)
2	39	0.876	2017	sense of place (35.98,0.0001); place meaning (10.1, 0.005); urban waterfronts (6.45, 0.05); place attachment (5.41, 0.05); festival tourism (5.05, 0.05)
3	33	0.928	2016	built environment (13.37, 0.001); liminality (10.58, 0.005); neighborhood (6.91, 0.01); sustainable development (6.91, 0.01); adaptive reuse (6.91, 0.01)
4	33	0.874	2015	migration (14.7, 0.001); youth (13.29, 0.001); asylum seekers (9.27, 0.005); Syrian refugees (9.02, 0.005); gentrification (5.94, 0.05)
5	32	0.906	2014	urban agriculture (11.97, 0.001); community gardens (11.9, 0.001); black geographies (7.6, 0.01); agriculture (7.2, 0.01); motivations (7.2, 0.01)
6	30	0.974	2017	gentrification (11.79, 0.001); perceptions (11.5, 0.001); Washington (11.5, 0.001); mobile media (9.3, 0.005); domestic space (7.8, 0.01)
7	28	0.809	2014	place making (29.61, 0.0001); livelihoods (12.83, 0.001); Africa (12.36, 0.001); politics (8.67, 0.005); cultural politics (8.58, 0.005)
8	26	0.957	2014	cultural ecosystem services (13.87, 0.001); case study (5.34, 0.05); tourism system (5.29, 0.05); quality food (5.29, 0.05); Kurdish movement (5.29, 0.05)
9	24	0.846	2015	resilience (9.37, 0.005); humanities (6.55, 0.05); green network (6.55, 0.05); wind energy (6.55, 0.05); connected communities (6.55, 0.05)
10	21	0.845	2015	urban acupuncture (14.15, 0.001); property rights (10.39, 0.005); Chicago (10.39, 0.005); commons (10.39, 0.005); urban policy (7.6, 0.01)
11	21	0.924	2019	digital placemaking (24.18, 0.0001); social media (14.45, 0.001); festival branding (8.84, 0.005); public spaces (8.84, 0.005); virtual brand communities (8.84, 0.005)
12	20	0.836	2017	community development (20.63,0.0001); sovereignty (7.01, 0.01); thematic synthesis (7.01, 0.01); privatization (7.01, 0.01); labor displacements (7.01, 0.01)
13	15	0.936	2015	affective labour(11.52, 0.001); religion (10.8, 0.005); digital labour (5.75, 0.05); road travel (5.75, 0.05); Worcester (5.75, 0.05)
14	14	0.974	2013	visibility (9.28, 0.005); Syrian refugee crisis (9.28, 0.005); outdoor play (9.28, 0.005); intrinsic judgement (9.28, 0.005); transnational links (9.28, 0.005)
15	12	0.932	2014	voluntarism (9.83, 0.005); healthy aging (9.83, 0.005); dairy farming (9.83, 0.005); transition (9.83, 0.005); place integration (9.83, 0.005)
16	9	0.931	2014	reform (19.01,0.0001); urban growth (19.01,0.0001); state governance (9.47, 0.005); terrestrial spatial planning (9.47, 0.005); state-market relationship (9.47, 0.005)

provides information on each cluster in the knowledge map presented in Figure 7. The “Size” column represents the number of publications in each cluster, reflecting the breadth or focus of the topic within the research field. The “mean (Year)” column indicates the average publication year within the cluster, showing the temporal concentration of research topics and highlighting the periods that may represent the hotspots of study. These keyword clusters reveal the research emphases and evolutionary trends over different periods.

Based on this analysis, the period from 2013 to 2015 represents the foundational stage of place-making research, primarily focusing on urban issues (Cluster #1: city), social change (Cluster #4: migration; Cluster #13: affective labour), and environmental impacts (Cluster #9: resilience; Cluster #10: urban acupuncture; Cluster #8: cultural ecosystem services). This phase also includes initial explorations of topics such as visibility (Cluster #14: visibility), voluntarism (Cluster #15: voluntarism), urban agriculture (Cluster #5: urban Agriculture), and reform (Cluster #16: reform). The period from 2016 to 2017 marks the stage of deepening and diversification in research, during which relatively mature clusters were formed. Research themes expanded to include creative economy, culture, socio-psychology, and environmental sustainability. This stage involves in-depth studies of creative placemaking (Cluster #0: creative placemaking), culture (Cluster #7: place making; Cluster #12: community development), socio-psychology (Cluster #2: sense of place; Cluster #6: gentrification), and environmental sustainability (Cluster #3: built environment). The third stage, from 2019 to the present, is characterized by emerging technologies and digital transformation, marking the latest developments in the research field. Digital placemaking (Cluster #11: digital placemaking) reflects the rise and application of digitalization and social media in place-making research. This trend signifies a shift in the research field from traditional physical space design to new directions involving the interaction between virtual and real spaces. However, it is noteworthy that despite the increasing number of publications in recent years, no new research clusters have emerged. This indicates a need for more interdisciplinary research and discussion to broaden research paths and advance the development of the field.

From a disciplinary and content perspective, “creative placemaking” and “digital placemaking” combine geography, cultural studies, and urban planning to explore the role of the creative industries and digital technologies in place-making. “Sense of place” integrates environmental psychology, sociology, and geography, focusing on the emotional connections and social significance between people and spaces. “Built Environment” merges environmental science, architecture, and urban planning, emphasizing the relationship between urban physical spaces and sustainable development. “Migration” spans sociology, anthropology, and political science, analyzing the impact of migration and social change on urban spaces. Additionally, “urban agriculture” and “cultural ecosystem services” highlight the intersection of environmental science, sociology, and ecology, examining the roles of urban agriculture and cultural ecosystem services in urban environments. The interdisciplinary nature of these clusters reflects the complexity and diversity of place-making research. However, further discussion is needed on how these disciplines inter-relate.

3.2.3. Research Trends—Burstiness Keywords (Response to RQ6)

Keyword burst detection involves categorizing the frequency, burst strength, and respective start and end years of keywords in the literature, allowing for the identification of research hotspots over different periods. Compared to conventional high-frequency word analysis, analyzing emerging words offers more insights into the developmental trends and research frontiers of a field. The top 25 bursting keywords from 2007 to 2024 were generated using CiteSpace software (Figure 8). In the figure, “Strength” reflects the intensity of the burst, while “Begin” and “End” indicate the span of academic focus. The blue sections represent the start and end years of occurrence, and the red sections denote periods when each keyword was significantly popular in academic discussions, illustrating the temporal relevance of these keywords in scholarly discourse.

The data in the above figure reveal the research hotspots in place-making across different periods. Based on the burst strength of keywords, the top five keywords that experienced high burst intensities and explosive discussions during certain periods are “culture”, “community”, “tourism”, “creative city”, and “placemaking”. From the perspective of research duration, the keywords “community”, “geography”, and “history” have received sustained attention in the field of place-making, underscoring their significance in academic discourse. In terms of thematic evolution, beginning in 2012, there was a notable increase in scholarly interest in the roles of “community” and “geography” in place-making. Additionally, there was heightened attention to the phenomenon of urban gentrification. Between 2014 and 2020, “place identity”, “land”, “ecosystem services”, “tourism”, and “placemaking” were prominent keywords in place-making research. Since 2021, themes such as “media”, “sense of place”, “history”, “public art”, and “participation” have demonstrated considerable research intensity. It is anticipated that this focus will persist in future studies. It is noteworthy that although “media” only began exhibiting a trend of sudden emergence in 2022, it has shown significant intensity. This may be attributed to the rapid development of digital technology and social media, which increasingly play a crucial role in shaping public opinion and cultural expression. Researchers have focused on how media influences the perception and utilization of public spaces [54,55,56], as well as how it facilitates citizen participation and place-making [57,58,59].

4. Discussion

After organizing and analyzing the information provided, it is clear that the literature on “place-making” covers a wide range of aspects, highlighting the diversity and complexity of research in this field. However, due to the mechanical nature of the clustering algorithms used in software, based on the analysis and summary of high-frequency keywords, keyword clusters, and emerging keywords generated by CiteSpace, we have categorized and reallocated the research on place-making into four major themes. Each theme will include certain core keywords to showcase the research focus of that theme (

Table 8. Classification of research themes in place-making.

Research Theme	Overview	Supported Core Keywords
Urban Design and Public Spaces	Research related to urban space design, the utilization of public spaces, and infrastructure development	Sense of place; urban design; urban acupuncture; digital place-making; urban green infrastructure
Social Participation and Cultural Identity	Examining the degree of community participation, the sense of cultural identity, and the impact of social diversity on the sense of place and community development	Place-making; community engagement; gentrification; culture; creative place-making; Russia; cultural heritage; territory; boundary work
Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability	Investigating the synergy between economic activities and environmental protection, exploring strategies for sustainable development and green infrastructure in urban planning	Urban green infrastructure; economic development; adaptive reuse; regional planning; public health; digital place-making
Governance, Policy, and Community Development	Analyzing the role of policy formulation, governance structures, and community participation in urban development, with a focus on community development strategies and reforms	Community engagement; governance; policy; public space; integration; business improvement districts; reform

). The four themes are the following: Urban Design and Public Space, Social Participation and Cultural Identity, Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability, and Governance, Policy, and Community Development. The following sections provide an expanded explanation of these four themes and illustrate how the keywords support these themes.

• Urban Design and Public Spaces

This theme delves into how urban planning and design strategies can effectively enhance public spaces, thereby boosting a city’s sense of place, social cohesion, and significantly improving residents’ well-being. It emphasizes the power of design with the goal of creating more inclusive, accessible, and sustainable urban environments. “sense of place”, “urban design”, “urban acupuncture”, “digital place-making”, and “urban green infrastructure” are key terms central to this theme. These concepts highlight different aspects of enhancing urban environments, from fostering a deeper connection with locales to integrating technology and nature into city planning for more dynamic, resilient, and engaging urban spaces. This theme not only focuses on the physical layout and aesthetic features of spaces but also emphasizes the role of spatial design in shaping social relationships, promoting environmental sustainability, and enhancing the accessibility of public spaces. It showcases a range of approaches from traditional physical planning to utilizing emerging technologies to foster social interaction and participation, reflecting a comprehensive perspective that encompasses physical, sensory, and technological dimensions.

The keywords “sense of place” and “urban design” focus on how to create attractive and inclusive spaces through the design of urban environments so that people can develop a sense of belonging in urban environments. Because the sense of place is not only determined by the characteristics of the physical space but also influenced by the socio-cultural environment and personal experience [60]. While improvements to the physical environment are essential to enhance the sense of place, a combination of psychosocial and cultural factors is equally indispensable. Therefore, effective urban design should take into account cultural, historical, and social needs in order to create attractive and inclusive environments [61]. Moreover, urban design, as a crucial means of shaping a sense of place, also emphasizes social participation in spatial planning and design [62]. “Urban acupuncture” and “digital place-making” aim to explore small-scale but profound interventions [63,64], as well as how digital technologies can enhance public spaces and facilitate community interaction [65,66,67]. Finally, the keyword “urban green infrastructure” studies how to improve the quality of life of urban residents and promote ecological sustainability by increasing urban green space [31,68,69].

Research on urban design and public spaces spans a range of approaches, from traditional spatial planning to the use of emerging technologies to promote social interaction and participation. These approaches reflect a comprehensive perspective that integrates physical, sensory, and technological dimensions. While the importance of improving public spaces through design strategies in place-making is widely recognized, the applicability and universality of these strategies across different socio-economic contexts still require further validation. In particular, existing research tends to focus on large cities in developed countries, with insufficient exploration of the specific needs of developing countries or smaller cities. Future research should pay greater attention to public space design strategies in diverse socio-economic contexts.

This research theme primarily draws from the fields of urban planning, design, and environmental science, emphasizing strategies for optimizing physical spaces and providing technical solutions. However, whether these design approaches might exacerbate spatial inequalities or overlook the needs of marginalized groups is a question that warrants further investigation. Therefore, future research should deepen the intersection of urban design with psychology, sociology, and environmental science to explore how these fields can work together to optimize urban design strategies.

2.

Social Participation and Cultural Identity

The theme focuses on the role of community engagement and cultural activities in shaping local identity and community cohesion, and the centrality of cultural diversity in place-making. It covers a series of social and cultural issues from gentrification, community building, cultural heritage protection and so on. Core keywords such as “community engagement”, “gentrification”, “culture”, and “creative placemaking” highlight the importance of community dynamics and cultural diversity. The theme reflects people’s concern for social, community, and cultural values and how a sense of place can be strengthened through participation and innovation.

It is important to understand the needs and aspirations of a place and its community [68]. Therefore, community engagement becomes one of the effective means of place-making, because it involves the participation of community members in the planning and implementation stages. This ensures that the project results reflect the wishes and needs of the community [70,71]. Studies that incorporate the perspective of place creation into community practice also show the importance of place in shaping community identity, explaining common meaning and generating collective action [72]. Cultural heritage and creative place-making demonstrate how cultural resources and creative activities can be used to promote a place’s identity and cohesion [73,74]. Studies have shown that culture-led urban renewal is a feasible strategy for place-building and sustainable development [75], and the maintenance and display of cultural identity also helps to protect local history and cultural characteristics, making places not only physical spaces but also carriers of cultural inheritance. At the same time, cultural heritage values strongly shape a sense of place and play a prominent role in strengthening social cohesion and cultural identity [61]. Thus, consideration of local history and heritage also contributes to the re-expansion of place-making practices, harmonizing new urban communities with adaptive places full of character [76].

Research on this theme primarily stems from sociology, anthropology, and cultural heritage studies. It emphasizes the crucial role of community participation and cultural activities in shaping place identity and community cohesion, as well as the central importance of cultural diversity in place-making. Studies have shown that community engagement is a key tool in place-making, and culture-led urban regeneration is seen as an effective strategy for achieving sustainable development.

However, despite the broad recognition of the importance of community participation and cultural identity, several key issues remain to be explored. First, current research tends to focus on urban areas rich in cultural resources, with insufficient attention given to the specific needs of resource-poor regions or multicultural communities. This could result in neglecting the cultural diversity and specific needs of these communities in the place-making process. Additionally, as gentrification intensifies, there is a need to explore whether culture-led urban regeneration might inadvertently exacerbate social inequality or further marginalize certain groups. Lastly, it is important to recognize that the relationship between cultural identity and social participation is far more complex than the notion that “participation equals inclusion”. The path from participation to genuine identity formation in place-making is a long one.

Therefore, future research related to this theme should deepen collaboration with disciplines such as environmental psychology, public policy, and economics. In particular, further exploration is needed into the role of policy in place-making, the impact of economic inequality, and ensuring a thorough understanding of the complex relationship between cultural identity and social participation. This will contribute to creating more inclusive and sustainable places.

3.

Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability

This theme explores how to ensure environmental sustainability and the rational use of resources while promoting economic and social development. Keywords such as “urban green infrastructure”, “economic development”, “adaptive reuse”, and “regional planning” all point to the balance between economy and environment. The theme provides an example of how this balance can be promoted in practice through green infrastructure projects, sustainable economic strategies, and adaptive use of historical heritage.

The keywords “urban green infrastructure” and “adaptive reuse” focus on integrating sustainability principles into urban development and environmental design. Green infrastructure not only adds value in the development of public realms but also serves as a critical entry point for place-making [68,77]. For instance, urban community gardens enhance the accessibility of green spaces, facilitating place-making within social housing environments [78]. Additionally, the social, natural, and perceptual elements of urban green infrastructure have been proven to play a significant role in the well-being of local residents [69]. Adaptive reuse is not merely a technique or practical application, but a complex process that engages and alters the social, cultural, and spatial dynamics of cities and their communities around the world [79]. In the practice of exploring adaptive reuse, combining heritage with urban agriculture is considered a means to improve areas in need of regeneration [80]. Furthermore, constructing heritage communities has become an effective starting point for the “circular” adaptive reuse of cultural heritage [81]. Therefore, the strategies of Urban Green Infrastructure and Adaptive Reuse represent more than just technical integration; they are strategic considerations of urban development patterns, aiming to achieve sustainable development in economic, social, and environmental dimensions. “Economic development” and “regional planning” explore the significance of local attractiveness to economic development against the backdrop of international territorial competition [82], as well as the role of economics in facilitating place-making [83].

This thematic focus integrates perspectives from environmental science, ecology, economics, and cultural heritage studies, systematically exploring strategies to achieve a balance between economic, social, and environmental objectives in urban development. The value-added effects of green infrastructure in public place-making are widely recognized, while adaptive reuse, by combining cultural heritage with modern needs, has effectively promoted social and cultural sustainability.

However, despite the widespread acknowledgment of green infrastructure and adaptive reuse as key strategies for achieving economic and environmental balance, existing research still primarily focuses on technical solutions, with limited attention to the impact of socio-economic contexts on the implementation of these strategies. This challenge is particularly significant in developing countries and underdeveloped regions, where balancing economic development with environmental protection remains a critical issue. Therefore, future research should place greater emphasis on how to effectively implement these strategies across different socio-economic contexts.

4.

Governance, Policy, and Community Development

This theme focuses on how policies, regulations, and governance mechanisms affect placemaking and community development. The key words supporting this theme are “community engagement”, “governance”, “policy”, “public Space”, “integration”, and “reform”. These core keywords provide a broad perspective to examine the complex relationship between policy, governance and community development. It also demonstrates that place-making is a broad and dynamic field of study that covers the economic, social, and political dimensions of creating meaningful and sustainable places.

The terms “governance” and “policy” are closely linked, extensively exploring the dimensions of governance and policy in the place-making process. Increasingly, the concept of place-making is being incorporated into public policy discourse [84], where it is regarded as a policy endeavor rooted in the politics of space and time [85]. In [86], Le Xuan et al. discuss the role of radical place-making in shaping urban policy, focusing on the dimensions of decision-making, place, and policy. The maintenance of places is also considered to involve not just the physical environment and its design and upkeep but also interconnected and non-physical aspects such as partnerships, governance, funding, policies, and evaluation [87]. Additionally, “community engagement” and “public space” further emphasize the active roles of citizens and communities in urban development and place-making. In [88], Gabriela Quintana Vigiola proposes two approaches to place-making: people-centered and space-centered. While the former is predominantly adopted by social sciences disciplines, and the latter by fields related to the architectural environment, both focus on people and communities at their core. Therefore, it is essential to involve people in the decision-making process from concept to completion. In [72], Shwartz-Ziv et al. propose that participants are deeply involved in four main interconnected aspects of place-making: shaping the ethnographic significance of the place, managing spatial meanings within power relations, reconstructing the contentious meanings of spaces, and building the historical narrative of the place. This illustrates that effective governance mechanisms and transparent policy processes ensure that all stakeholders can participate in every stage of place-making, from planning and implementation to subsequent maintenance and evaluation. This inclusive participation not only enhances the wide acceptance of projects but also improves the adaptability and sustainability of policies, making them more reflective of and responsive to the dynamic changes within communities. “Integration” and “reform” further highlight the importance of policy and governance in facilitating the integration of community services and policy reform to address rapidly changing social needs and challenges. “Integration” focuses on how to incorporate diverse community groups, cultures, and backgrounds into broader community and urban development strategies, especially in multicultural communities [89,90]. “Reform” involves adjusting or restructuring existing policies and governance frameworks to meet the changing needs and challenges of urban development [91,92].

This thematic focus originates from the multidisciplinary perspectives of urban planning, sociology, and political science, primarily concentrating on the roles of policy, governance mechanisms, and community participation in place-making. It illustrates that place-making is a dynamic field of study, where scholars have explored the interactions among its economic, social, and political dimensions.

However, despite the critical role of governance and policy in place-making, current research has not sufficiently addressed the practical challenges of policy implementation. For instance, ensuring fairness and inclusivity within multicultural contexts and preventing the skewing of public spaces and resources due to unequal power relations remain significant challenges. Additionally, existing studies often emphasize theoretical discussions of policy, with less attention paid to the practical outcomes of policy implementation. Therefore, future research should focus on assessing the specific effects of policy implementation and exploring how policy reform and innovative governance mechanisms can promote sustainable community development.

By synthesizing and discussing these four thematic areas, we have not only gained a comprehensive understanding of the connections and interactions between different themes within place-making research but also deepened our recognition of place-making as a multidimensional field of study. This thematic analysis provides clear direction and a solid foundation for future research.

5. Conclusions and Prospects

5.1. Conclusions

This study systematically analyzed 1255 publications in the field of place-making using bibliometric methods, revealing the research structure and thematic evolution of the field while also providing direction for future research. These findings not only deepen our understanding of the complexity of place-making but also have significant implications for the broader academic community.

Through the analysis of publication volume, we observed a continuous growth trend in place-making research over the past few years, with a new research peak reached in 2023. The identification of research categories revealed the interdisciplinary nature of the place-making field. It is evident that place-making has become a multidimensional and multidisciplinary research hotspot, involving key areas such as geography, urban studies, and environmental studies. This interdisciplinary characteristic not only broadens the research perspective on place-making but also provides valuable theoretical and methodological support to researchers in other academic fields. However, despite the initial formation of collaborative networks among the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, there is still a need to strengthen transnational and cross-organizational collaboration to further promote innovation and development in place-making;

Over the years, research in place-making has primarily focused on aspects such as city, politics, space, and geography. An analysis of keyword clusters shows that scholars have deeply engaged with issues related to community, space, neighborhoods, and their connections to history, public art, sense of place, and participation. However, with the rapid development of digital media, digital places and creative places have emerged as new trends in place-making research, with “media” becoming a major hot keyword in recent years. At the same time, researchers have shown a strong interest in themes such as “sense of place”, “history”, “public art”, and “participation”. This trend indicates that place-making research is gradually integrating digital technology with traditional theories of place, aiming to explore new forms of urban space interaction;

Through the generation and analysis of knowledge maps based on keyword co-occurrence, clustering, and burst detection, we identified four core themes: “Urban Design and Public Space”, “Social Participation and Cultural Identity”, “Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability”, and “Governance, Policy, and Community Development”. These themes not only reflect scholars’ deep engagement with issues related to community, space, history, public art, and participation but also highlight their critical role in addressing urban challenges in the context of globalization;

Place-making research exhibits a diverse and integrative character, requiring the consideration of various factors such as locality, policy, economy, and socio-cultural aspects. This interdisciplinary approach is profoundly reshaping our understanding of urban spaces and social interactions.

5.2. Future Research Direction and Limitations (Response to RQ7)

The limitations of this study must also be acknowledged. First, since the data were sourced solely from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) and restricted to English-language publications, the findings may not fully encompass all the literature in the field of place-making, potentially affecting this study’s representativeness and comprehensiveness. Second, while this study identified core themes and emerging trends in place-making, the sustainability and future trajectories of these trends have not been fully validated. Third, influenced by our disciplinary backgrounds and research contexts, we may not have provided the most comprehensive or universally applicable perspectives.

Based on the analysis, we have identified several frontier directions for the future development of place-making theory: (1) the integration of digital technology and virtual spaces: we suggest exploring the application of digital technology and virtual spaces in place-making, such as enhancing interaction with urban spaces through augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and other digital tools. (2) Deepening social and cultural identity: from social and cultural perspectives, researchers can further explore inclusive design and participatory policies to ensure that the needs of all stakeholders are considered. (3) Protection and utilization of history and cultural heritage: investigating how modern technology and innovative design can be leveraged to enhance the role of history and cultural heritage in contemporary urban life. (4) Sustainability: this includes the application of green infrastructure, low-carbon design, the use of renewable materials, and how place design can promote environmental sustainability and ecological balance. (5) Media and place identity: exploring the positive role of media in enhancing community cohesion and cultural identity.

These research directions indicate the necessity for place-making theory to engage with a broader range of fields and interactions. Therefore, future research should consider adopting methods and theories from diverse disciplines to better address the complex social, cultural, and environmental challenges currently facing place-making. Doing so will enable continued contributions to the development of urban design, spatial planning, and the social sciences.