This paper explores the relationship between placemaking – both as a model of urban regeneration and as a participatory process – and visual and art-based methods from an educational perspective. It builds on the idea that co-constructed beauty is essential for individual and community well-being, it can drive democratic citizenship and foster social transformation.

The theoretical framework draws on two interconnected dimensions: first, theories on space, place attachment, and the multidimensional and interdisciplinary concept of "placemaking"; second, the philosophical tradition that examines art and aesthetic experience. Altman and Low (1992) first theorized place attachment, emphasizing the role of physical spaces and social environments in constructing individual and collective identity, shaping citizenship, and fostering well-being. Moreover, if humans are always situated and shaped by the structures, objects, and contexts encountered in daily life, it is equally true that spaces are described, and even constructed through human experience, which includes practices, representations, learning, and lived reality (Lefebvre, 1974; Iori, 2003). Hence, Placemaking, rooted in urban studies (Jacobs, 1965; Whyte, 1980), emerges from the recognition of the intricate relationship between places and their inhabitants. According to Jacobs and Whyte, pioneers of this concept, a place is defined by its capacity to be experienced daily by its community; thus, it must ensure safety, accessibility, functionality, and opportunities for social interaction. Over time, placemaking has evolved from defining a product to signifying a process, deeply rooted in collaboration and co-design.

Regarding art, references date back to Greek philosophy, where Plato and Aristotle emphasized its educational and formative power, not only for individuals but also to train good citizens and to build the ideal city. A well-formed individual reflects a functioning society and, in turn, contributes to building it through shared behaviors, thoughts, representations, and the art of living well. Similarly, John Dewey (1934) argued that art and creativity must be nurtured within civic organization through shared participation in social and cultural practices and rituals.

Recent developments in placemaking integrate urban regeneration, community participation, and art-based methods. In Creative Placemaking (Nowak, 2008; Markusen & Gadwa, 2010), stakeholders from public and private sectors collaborate to shape neighborhoods through cultural initiatives, fostering intergenerational and intercultural interactions. These initiatives not only enhance social cohesion but also generate economic benefits by employing local artists and strengthening the connection between livability, economy, and culture (Latz, 2017; Li et al., 2019; Carpenter, 2022; Inghilleri Paolo et al., 2023; Piscitelli, 2023). Psychological research supports the idea that aesthetic and architectural regeneration, when inclusive, accessible, and sustainable, improves well-being and quality of life (Inghilleri, 2021). At European level, the NEB, New European Bauhaus initiative, promotes ecological and artistic ideals to ensure spaces foster community and cultural engagement (https://new-european-bauhaus.europa.eu/index_en).

Despite its growing relevance, however, Creative Placemaking remains conceptually vague, lacking clear methodological guidelines for assessing sustainability (Zitcer, 2020) and educational outcomes. This research intends to explore how art-based and participatory methods facilitate transformation within lived spaces and seeks to find methodological guidelines for designing placemaking as community-based learning and educational environments. 

From a methodological standpoint, an ongoing scoping review of the literature is being conducted (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). The research questions and objectives were identified using the SPIDER model (Cooke et al., 2012): - S (Sample) – Communities/New Generations - PI (Phenomenon of Interest) – "Placemaking" AND "Creative Placemaking" AND "Educational Processes" AND "Participation" - D (Design) – The design of Creative Placemaking processes - E (Evaluation) – All types - R (Research) – Qualitative, mixed methods, case studies, among others. A keyword search was performed across major social studies databases, including ERIC, Educational Research Abstracts Online, and Educational Collection, as well as search engines that provides access to grey literature, such as Google Scholar. Since Creative Placemaking is a set of practices rooted in cultural and social participation, articles were included even if they did not explicitly use the term but featured methodologies associable to them. The selection of studies is ongoing, with inclusion/exclusion criteria being clarified and papers being charted in a table containing general and specific study details. The goal is to synthesize data and provide a narrative overview of the existing literature. Methodologically, this literature review interprets studies through the pedagogical lens of empirical educational research (Mortari, 2007; Mortari & Ghirotto, 2019) and participatory action research (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, pp. 559–603). Art-based methods serve both a documentary and reflective function, allowing for the reinterpretation and transformation of lived spaces through inclusive citizen participation. The examined projects align with the tradition of qualitative, participatory, and ethnographically inspired research (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Baldacci & Frabboni, 2020), emphasizing how reality results from shared processes of meaning-making and social interaction. This scoping review serves as a preliminary step, providing a strong basis for future transformative research that will explore the practical implementation of these methods in educational settings. The aim is to better comprehend and highlight recurrent aspects of Creative Placemaking processes and projects, in terms of educational outcomes, learning possibilities, new knowledge, inclusion and sustainability. The next phase of my research will be eventually to experiment these participatory and art-based approaches in real-life context to explore and evaluate their potential in fostering learning and community engagement, ultimately assessing their role in reshaping public and shared spaces.

One of the first notable findings concerns the structuring of different types of placemaking processes. Cara Courage (2017) identifies four key models: public realm, creative, participatory, and social practice placemaking. Additionally, a systematic review by Akbar and Edelenbos (2021) categorizes placemaking engagement into three approaches: top-down (meaning governments and private sectors implement placemaking with minimal community involvement), bottom-up (so local communities lead with little or no external input), and collaborative (which integrates diverse stakeholders at various stages, from conceptualization to evaluation). A significant insight is that most Creative Placemaking projects tend to follow a top-down approach rather than a collaborative or bottom-up one (Zitcer, 2020). However, the top-down approach to placemaking seems more likely to lead to gentrification, the reproduction of stereotypical gender dynamics and the flattening of cultural identities (Bricocoli & Savoldi, 2010). Among these models, the collaborative approach is found to be the most effective and sustainable, as it values citizen engagement and ensures the feasibility and longevity of projects. At the same time, this approach presents challenges, particularly in managing the diverse representations and interests of various stakeholders (Akbar & Edelenbos, 2021). Notably, there is a lack of studies exploring Creative Placemaking from an educational perspective. The hope, for this ongoing scoping review, is to get to a deeper understanding of the role of visual and art-based methodologies in fostering shared representations of places and in enabling collective reflective and metareflective experiences. Furthermore, we explore how creativity, in this context, can become an educational methodology, generating new meanings while promoting democratic actions and learnings such as dialogue, co-design, active listening, and the integration of diverse perspectives. These good practices, when shared and replicated, can lead to continuous improvement and transformation of individuals and the societies in which they live.

Akbar, P. N. G., & Edelenbos, J. (2021). Positioning place-making as a social process: A systematic literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, 7(1), 1905920; Altman, I., & Low, S. M. (Eds.). (1992). Place attachment. Plenum Press; Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32; Baldacci, M., & Frabboni, F. (2020). Manuale di metodologia della ricerca educativa (1a ed., 4a ristampa). UTET Università; Bricocoli, M., & Savoldi, P. (2010). Milano downtown: Azione pubblica e luoghi dell’abitare (1. ed). Et al.; Carpenter, J. (2022). Picture This: Exploring Photovoice as a Method to Understand Lived Experiences in Marginal Neighbourhoods. Urban Planning, 7(3), 351–362; Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22, 1435–1443; Courage, C. (2017). Arts in Place: The Arts, the Urban and Social Practice (1st ed.). Routledge; Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications; Dewey, J., & Matteucci, G. (2020). Arte come esperienza. Aesthetica; Inghilleri, P. (2021). I luoghi che curano. Raffaello Cortina; Inghilleri Paolo, Boffi Marco, & Ranisio Nicola. (2023). Nurturing cultural Heritages and place attachment through street-art - A longitudinal psycho-social analysis of a neighborhood renewal process; Iori, V. (2003). Lo spazio vissuto: Luoghi educativi e soggettività (Rist). La Nuova Italia; Jacobs, J. (1965). The death and life of great American cities. Penguin Books; Latz, A. O. (2017). Photovoice research in education and beyond: A practical guide from theory to exhibition. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; Lefebvre, H. (2018). La produzione dello spazio. PGreco; Li, E. P. H., Prasad, A., Smith, C., Gutierrez, A., Lewis, E., & Brown, B. (2019). Visualizing community pride: Engaging community through photo- and video-voice methods. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 14(4), 377–392: Mortari, L. (2007). Cultura della ricerca e pedagogia: Prospettive epistemologiche. Carocci; Mortari, L., & Ghirotto, L. (2019). Metodi per la ricerca educativa. Carocci; Piscitelli, P. (2023). Filmmaking as a transformative research tool for urban studies. Tracce Urbane. Rivista Italiana Transdisciplinare Di Studi Urbani, V. 10 N. 14, economia e urbanistica tra Green Deal e paradigmi PostGrowt; Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Conservation Foundation; Zitcer, A. (2020). Making Up Creative Placemaking. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 40(3), 278–288.