Drawing on empirical data from a regional Australian city, this paper investigates how public space is implicated in locational disadvantage, how COVID-19 is impacting inequality, and how placemaking can best serve "disadvantaged" communities. To explore public space's role during COVID-19, we assessed public open space coverage in three "disadvantaged" Geelong suburbs, interviewed local community workers, and analysed survey data from resident input to a local placemaking project. Findings revealed both quantitative and qualitative shortfalls in local public spaces; that COVID-19 amplified existing inequalities; that public space shortfalls compounded pandemic stressors; and that these shortfalls should be remedied via community-driven placemaking. Findings also yielded common themes linking place stigma, inequality, and place attachment, and underscoring how placemaking can reinforce or challenge existing disparities. We developed a holistic Framework illustrating the dynamic interplay of five important factors that emerged across our data: locational disadvantage, public space, place stigma, place attachment, and placemaking. Illuminating how place-makers might harness these dynamics to advance social goods and minimise social harms, our Framework seeks to support more "spatially just" placemaking. Amidst rising inequality, we argue that a renewed focus on the spatial dimensions of justice will strengthen placemaking's potential to mitigate the locational aspects of disadvantage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mundell et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: