Exploring the Role of 'Visual Catalysts' on Influencing People's Attraction and Use of Place

lovellk

Undergraduate Thesis // Keegan Lovell // Bachelor of Landscape Architecure // UNSW 2016

EXPLORING THE ROLE OF

'VISUAL CATALYSTS'

ON INFLUENCING PEOPLE'S ATTRACTION AND USE OF PLACE

KEEGAN GLENN LOVELL


Keegan Glenn Lovell Course: LAND1422 S2 2016

Submitted in partial requirement for ong>theong> degree ong>ofong> Bachelor ong>ofong> Landscape Architecture

Supervisors: Dr Kate Bishop & Dr Katrina Simon

Faculty ong>ofong> ong>theong> Built Environment, UNSW, Sydney, Australia November 2016


ABSTRACT

Acts ong>ofong> creative placemaking animate our public spaces more than ever before. There are

more spaces that flicker with light shows, buzz with community workshops, and provoke with

transient cultural murals. There has been a significant growth in ong>theong> number and scope ong>ofong>

this phenomenon, as ong>theong>y are thought to enhance ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> underutilised

public places. Yet, ong>theong>re has been limited research into wheong>theong>r ong>theong>se temporary placebased

interventions can actually enhance ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> place (Arlt 2006). This is

a significant gap in knowledge as ong>theong> movement is underpinned by ong>theong> assertion that it can

‘shape ong>theong> social and physical character ong>ofong> a place around arts and cultural assets’ with ong>theong>

positive outcomes ong>ofong> greater vibrancy and livability (Nicodemus 2013).

The purpose ong>ofong> this study is ong>theong>refore to identify ong>theong> ability for ‘visual catalysts’, being a form

ong>ofong> creative placemaking, to influence ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> place. Supplementary aims ong>ofong>

this are to seek understanding into if ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> place is altered, what attributes

are altered and does this remain altered, and to understand wheong>theong>r ‘visual catalysts’ can

potentially promote a greater attachment to place as a consequential result.

Based on ong>theong> literature and ong>theong> findings ong>ofong> ong>theong> place-centred behaviour mapping ong>ofong> two case

studies part ong>ofong> ong>theong> VIVID 2016 festival in Sydney, ‘visual catalysts’ can, and do, have influence

over ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> place. So much so ong>theong>y can fundamentally transform ong>theong>

place both physically and socially. Physically, ong>theong> enhanced attraction and use can transform

ong>theong> function, narrative and hierarchy ong>ofong> a place. Socially, it is enhanced by ong>theong> interventions

influencing ong>theong> amount and behaviours ong>ofong> people in a place. ‘Visual catalysts’ however have

limited ability to provide an enduring, altered use ong>ofong> place after ong>theong>y have been removed, yet

ong>theong>y can act as a catalyst for future long term changes ong>ofong> a place. ‘Visual catalysts’ also have

ong>theong> potential to promote greater place attachment, as many ong>ofong> ong>theong> factors that enhance ong>theong>

attraction and use ong>ofong> place can promote, or be building blocks, for place attachment. However,

it is vital to understand that creative placemaking is a diverse phenomenon, and that some

forms ong>ofong> ‘visual catalysts’ will influence ong>theong> ‘success’ ong>ofong> place more dramatically than oong>theong>rs.

This ong>theong>sis, as a result, aims to shed light on ong>theong> ability for ‘visual catalysts’ to influence ong>theong>

attraction and use ong>ofong> place, and provide insight for furong>theong>r discussion and research into

how this form ong>ofong> temporary place-based intervention can furong>theong>r an engaging, and positive

relationship with our public places.

ETHICS APPROVAL

This research project contains ong>theong> study ong>ofong> human behaviour. Approval for this type

ong>ofong> research was granted by ong>theong> Human Research Ethics Advisory (HREA) Panel E: Built

Environment (number HC16331).

I


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This ong>theong>sis would have been difficult to do without ong>theong> assistance and inspiration I have

received from many people.

I would like to express my gratitude to all my family and friends for ong>theong>ir support, and extend

my apologies to my roommate for having to put up with ong>theong> ‘organised mess’ that overtook

ong>theong> kitchen table during this study – I promise ong>theong> table will one day be used for non-research

related activities.

My sincerest thanks go to my fantastic supervisors Dr Kate Bishop and Dr Katrina Simon. Their

patience, time, passion and encouragement made this ong>theong>sis possible, and raong>theong>r enjoyable.

Thank you.

II


Table ong>ofong> Contents

TABLE Table ong>ofong> OF Contents CONTENTS

PART 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ PART 1 Introduction 1-5

Research Project Overview ................................................................................................................................................................ Research Project Overview 2

Aims ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... Aims 3

Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Objectives 4

Rationale and Significance ................................................................................................................................................................ Rationale and Significance 5

PART 2 Literature Review PART ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Literature Review 6-15

Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Overview 7

Placemaking ................................................................................................................................................................................... Placemaking 7-11

Creative Placemaking ................................................................................................................................................. Creative Placemaking 10-11

’Visual Catalysts’ .............................................................................................................................................. ’Visual Catalysts’ 11

Place Attachment ........................................................................................................................................................................ Place Attachment 12-15

Physical and Social Dimensions Physical ................................................................................................................................ and Social Dimensions 12-13

Scale and Scope ............................................................................................................................................................... Scale and Scope 13

Time and Temporality ..................................................................................................................................................... Time and Temporality 14

Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................................................................. Theoretical Framework 15

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................................................ Conclusion 15

PART 3 Methodology and PART Method 3 .............................................................................................................................................. Methodology and Method 16-31

Research Questions ......................................................................................................................................................................... Research Questions 17

Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................................ Methodology 17-19

Quantitative Research ..................................................................................................................................................... Quantitative Research 18

Case Study Research ....................................................................................................................................................... Case Study Research 19

Context ong>ofong> Study .......................................................................................................................................................................... Context ong>ofong> Study 19-25

VIVID Festival ............................................................................................................................................................... VIVID Festival 20-21

Case Study 1 : Underfoot ........................................................................................................................................... Case Study 1 : Underfoot 22-23

Case Study 2 : EORA – The Land Case ................................................................................................................................ Study 2 : EORA – The Land 24-25

Method ......................................................................................................................................................................................... Method 26-28

Place-Centred Behavioural Mapping Place-Centred ............................................................................................................................. Behavioural Mapping 26

Method Considerations .................................................................................................................................................. Method Considerations 26

Fieldwork Procedure .................................................................................................................................................. Fieldwork Procedure 27-28

Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................................................................................... Ethical Considerations 28

Data Analysis Process ...................................................................................................................................................................... Data Analysis Process 30

Research Design Diagram ............................................................................................................................................................... Research Design Diagram 31

PART 4 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... PART 4 Data Analysis 32-55

Findings ........................................................................................................................................................................................ Findings 33-55

Session Data ................................................................................................................................................................ Session Data 33-45

Before VIVID ............................................................................................................................................... Before VIVID 34-37

During VIVID ............................................................................................................................................... During VIVID 38-41

After VIVID ................................................................................................................................................... After VIVID 42-45

Data Triangulation ...................................................................................................................................................... Data Triangulation 46-52

III


ata Analysis Process ...................................................................................................................................................................... Data Analysis Process 30

30

esearch Design Diagram ............................................................................................................................................................... Research Design Diagram 31

31

alysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... PART 4 Data Analysis 32-55

32-55

indings ........................................................................................................................................................................................ Findings 33-55

33-55

Session Data ................................................................................................................................................................ Session Data 33-45

33-45

Before VIVID ............................................................................................................................................... Before VIVID 34-37

34-37

During VIVID ............................................................................................................................................... During VIVID 38-41

38-41

After VIVID ................................................................................................................................................... After VIVID 42-45

42-45

Data Triangulation ...................................................................................................................................................... Data Triangulation 46-52

46-52

Patterns ong>ofong> Observation ............................................................................................................................ Patterns ong>ofong> Observation ............................................................................................................................ 46-49

46-49

Number and Flow ong>ofong> People ..................................................................................................................... Number and Flow ong>ofong> People ..................................................................................................................... 50-51

50-51

Duration ong>ofong> ‘Stay’........................................................................................................................................ Duration ong>ofong> 50-51

50-51

Displays ong>ofong> Affection ....................................................................................................................................... Displays ong>ofong> Affection ....................................................................................................................................... 52

52

Findings Significance for Research Findings Questions Significance ......................................................................................................... for Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 53-55

53-55

ion and Conclusion PART 5 .............................................................................................................................................. Discussion and Conclusion 56-63

56-63

iscussion .................................................................................................................................................................................... Discussion 57-62

57-62

Aim One - .................................................................................................................................................................... Aim One - 57-59

57-59

Physical: Function, Narrative, and Physical: Hierarchy Function, ong>ofong> Place Narrative, ............................................................................ and Hierarchy ong>ofong> Place ............................................................................ 57-58

57-58

Social: Quantity and Behaviour ong>ofong> Social: People Quantity ............................................................................................... and Behaviour ong>ofong> People ............................................................................................... 58-59

58-59

Aim Two ....................................................................................................................................................................... Aim Two 59-60

59-60

Aim Three .................................................................................................................................................................... Aim Three 61-63

61-63

Reframing ong>theong> Existing Relationship Reframing with Place ong>theong> ........................................................................................... Existing Relationship with Place ........................................................................................... 61

61

Memories ......................................................................................................................................................... Memories 61

61

Time and Temporality ............................................................................................................................... Time and Temporality ............................................................................................................................... 61-62

61-62

Personal Investment ....................................................................................................................................... Personal Investment ....................................................................................................................................... 62

62

ecommendations ........................................................................................................................................................................... Recommendations 62

62

onclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................... Conclusion 62-63

62-63

List ........................................................................................................................................................................ Reference List 64-68

64-68

A – Behaviour Map Appendix Plan ........................................................................................................................................... A – Behaviour Map Plan 69

69

B – Behaviour Map Appendix Conditions B Table – Behaviour ..................................................................................................................... Map Conditions Table ..................................................................................................................... 70

70

C – Behaviour Map Appendix Observations C – Behaviour Table ................................................................................................................ Map Observations Table ................................................................................................................ 71

71

D – Timeline .............................................................................................................................................................. Appendix D – Timeline 72

72

IV


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 – Eleven Principles Figure 2.1 ong>ofong> – Eleven Placemaking Principles .......................................................................................................................... ong>ofong> Placemaking 9

Figure 2.2 – Framework Figure ong>ofong> 2.2 Creative – Framework Placemaking ong>ofong> Creative Attributes Placemaking ................................................................................................ Attributes 11

Figure 4.1 – Map ong>ofong> Figure Study Area 4.1 –................................................................................................................................................ Map ong>ofong> Study Area 20

Figure 4.2 – Map ong>ofong> Figure VIVID festival 4.2 – Map ............................................................................................................................................ ong>ofong> VIVID festival 21

Figure 4.4 – Photos ong>ofong> Figure ‘Underfoot’ 4.4 – Photos ........................................................................................................................................... ong>ofong> ‘Underfoot’ 23

Figure 4.5 – Photos ong>ofong> Figure ‘EORA 4.5 –– The Photos Landong>ofong> ............................................................................................................................... ‘EORA – The Land’ 25

Figure 4.6 – Behaviour Figure Map 4.6 Plan – Behaviour ............................................................................................................................................ Map Plan 29

Figure 4.7 – Behaviour Figure Map 4.7 Observations – Behaviour Table Map Observations .................................................................................................................. Table 29

Figure 5.1 – Before VIVID Figure – 5.1 Observed – Before Landmarks/Features VIVID – Observed Landmarks/Features Diagram ................................................................................ Diagram 35

Figure 5.2 – Before VIVID Figure – 5.2 Movement – Before Pattern VIVID – Diagrams Movement ................................................................................................... Pattern Diagrams 35

Figure 5.3 – S1 (1) – Figure Observation 5.3 – S1 Patterns (1) – Observation Diagram ............................................................................................................. Patterns Diagram 36

Figure 5.4 – S1 (2) – Figure Observation 5.4 – S1 Patterns (2) – Observation Diagram ............................................................................................................. Patterns Diagram 37

Figure 5.5 – During VIVID Figure – 5.5 Observed – During Landmarks/Features VIVID – Observed Landmarks/Features Diagram ................................................................................ Diagram 39

Figure 5.6 – During VIVID Figure – 5.6 Movement – During Pattern VIVID – Diagrams Movement ................................................................................................... Pattern Diagrams 39

Figure 5.7 – S2 (1) – Figure Observation 5.7 – S2 Patterns (1) – Observation Diagram ............................................................................................................. Patterns Diagram 40

Figure 5.8 – S2 (2) – Figure Observation 5.8 – S2 Patterns (2) – Observation Diagram ............................................................................................................. Patterns Diagram 41

Figure 5.9 – After VIVID Figure – Observed 5.9 – After Landmarks/Features VIVID – Observed Landmarks/Features Diagram ................................................................................... Diagram 43

Figure 5.10 – After VIVID Figure – Movement 5.10 – After Pattern VIVID – Diagrams Movement .................................................................................................... Pattern Diagrams 43

Figure 5.11 – S3 (1) – Figure Observation 5.11 – S3 Patterns (1) – Observation Diagram ........................................................................................................... Patterns Diagram 44

Figure 5.12 – S3 (2) – Figure Observation 5.12 – S3 Patterns (2) – Observation Diagram ........................................................................................................... Patterns Diagram 45

Figure 5.13 – Observation Figure Diagram 5.13 – Observation ........................................................................................................................................ Diagram 47

Figure 5.14 – Behaviour Figure Mapping 5.14 – Behaviour Session Diagrams Mapping Side Session by Side Diagrams ..................................................................................... Side by Side 48

Figure 5.15 – Compressed Figure 5.15 Observation – Compressed Patterns Observation Diagram ................................................................................................. Patterns Diagram 49

Figure 5.16 – Flow ong>ofong> Figure People 5.16 ..................................................................................................................................................... – Flow ong>ofong> People 51

Figure 5.17 - Duration Figure ong>ofong> Stay 5.17 Diagram - Duration .................................................................................................................................. ong>ofong> Stay Diagram 51

Figure 5.18 – Displays Figure ong>ofong> Affection 5.18 – Displays Diagram ong>ofong> .......................................................................................................................... Affection Diagram 52

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 – Timetable Table ong>ofong> Behaviour 4.1 – Timetable Mapping ong>ofong> Behaviour Sessions ........................................................................................................ Mapping Sessions 27

V


PART ONE _

INTRODUCTION

1


RESEARCH PROJECT OVERVIEW

The practice ong>ofong> creative placemaking has spread like wildfire around ong>theong> developed world

in recent years. Although being a movement which seeks to ‘shape ong>theong> social and physical

character ong>ofong> a place around arts and cultural assets’, ong>theong>re has been limited research into ong>theong>

role ong>ofong> creative placemaking on influencing people’s experience ong>ofong> place (Nicodemus 2013).

Being a relatively new phenomenon, ong>theong>re has also been limited research into ong>theong> role ong>ofong>

temporality in people’s experience ong>ofong> place, as well as ong>theong> ability for ong>theong>se transient forms to

promote greater attachment to place. So this research project asks, does manifestations ong>ofong>

creative placemaking (specifically ‘visual catalysts’) in public space influence people’s attraction

and use ong>ofong> place, and if so, does this remain consistent after ong>theong> ‘visual catalysts’ is gone, and

can this form ong>ofong> creative placemaking potentially promote greater attachment to place?

This research proposal contains five parts. Part one contains ong>theong> research project overview,

ong>theong> aims, ong>theong> objectives, and ong>theong> rationale and significance ong>ofong> ong>theong> study. The aims are to

understand if ‘visual catalysts’ can influence people’s attraction and use ong>ofong> place, and to

understand wheong>theong>r ‘visual catalysts’ can potentially promote greater attachment to place.

The objectives detail ong>theong> specific way ong>theong>se aims can be fulfilled, specifically in relation to

ong>theong> concepts ong>ofong> placemaking and place attachment. The objectives are centred around ong>theong>

research being able to add depth to ong>theong> body ong>ofong> literature on creative placemaking.

Part two, being ong>theong> literature review, analyses and synong>theong>sises ong>theong> two significant fields ong>ofong>

research for this project – placemaking and place attachment. It also provides insight into ong>theong>

gaps and opportunities for research, what significant frameworks and ong>theong>ories can be utilised,

and how ong>theong>se two fields can be furong>theong>red through ong>theong> exploration ong>ofong> this research project.

Part three is ong>theong> methodology and methods. This part outlines and justifies ong>theong> research

questions for ong>theong> ong>theong>sis. It gives specific focus on ong>theong> importance ong>ofong> ong>theong>se questions being

ones which are yet to be meticulously researched in ong>theong> field, and are a way to link fields ong>ofong>

research which are yet to be widely researched in parallel. This part also discusses and details

ong>theong> primary research paradigm; with this including ong>theong> methodology, research design diagram,

context ong>ofong> study, methods, sample and data analysis process. It gives rationale for ong>theong> research

being a case study, provides insight into ong>theong> procedure ong>ofong> behaviour mapping research,

provides a brief discussion on ong>theong> sample ong>ofong> ong>theong> study and outlines ong>theong> way data is analysed

through ong>theong> quantitative analysis ong>ofong> behaviour.

Part four is ong>theong> data analysis. It contains ong>theong> presentation and synong>theong>sis ong>ofong> ong>theong> findings

obtained from ong>theong> behaviour mapping sessions. The findings are presented in parallel with ong>theong>

research questions outlined earlier in ong>theong> study.

Part five contains ong>theong> discussion, recommendations and conclusion ong>ofong> ong>theong> research project.

The discussion is presented in parallel with ong>theong> research aims outlined earlier in ong>theong> study.

Following this, ong>theong> ong>theong>sis is concluded with a research timeline, reference list and an appendix

containing examples ong>ofong> ong>theong> method ong>ofong> research.

2


AIMS

Three aims have been established for this research project. These aims centre around ong>theong>

ambition to gain furong>theong>r insight into ong>theong> impacts ong>ofong> creative placemaking on ong>theong> attraction

and use ong>ofong> place, to understand ong>theong> sustained impact ong>ofong> use ong>ofong> place as a result ong>ofong> ong>theong>

phenomenon, and wheong>theong>r ong>theong>re is an ability for creative placemaking to ignite a positive

relation with underutilised public places. The three aims are:

1 To understand if creative placemaking interventions, such as ‘visual catalysts’, make

places more attractive to people and increases ong>theong> use ong>ofong> underutilised public places

2 To understand if any increase in ong>theong> use ong>ofong> underutilised places induced by ong>theong>

temporary intervention is sustained after ong>theong> intervention has concluded

3 To understand if creative placemaking interventions could be used to ignite place

attachment in underutilised public places

For ong>theong> first aim, ong>theong> intention is to gain furong>theong>r insight into wheong>theong>r creative placemaking can

influence ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> an underutilised public place. The specific type ong>ofong> creative

placemaking chosen for this aim, being ‘visual catalysts’ as coined by Lydon and Garcia (2015),

can be understood as ong>theong> visual improvements that ‘shape ong>theong> social and physical character ong>ofong>

a place around arts and cultural assets’ (Nicodemus 2013). This type ong>ofong> creative placemaking

was chosen as it is widely adopted throughout Sydney; ong>theong> city where this study is taking place.

Likewise, it is ong>ofong>ten used to remediate and invigorate run down public places through shifting

ong>theong> function and purpose ong>ofong> a place.

For ong>theong> second aim, ong>theong> intention is to gain insight into wheong>theong>r ong>theong>re is a sustained use

that is exhibited after ong>theong> removal ong>ofong> ong>theong> ‘visual catalysts’ as part ong>ofong> a creative placemaking

intervention. This aim seeks to explore wheong>theong>r creative placemaking can provide a shift in use

beyond ong>theong>ir transient lifespan; an aspect which correlates directly with ong>theong> claim ong>ofong> creative

placemaking being able to establish long term outcomes through short term phenomena

(Moran et al. 2014).

The third aim seeks to gain understanding wheong>theong>r a greater attachment to place can be

promoted in underutlised public places as a result ong>ofong> creative placemaking interventions; such

as ‘visual catalysts’. This aim seeks to add knowledge into an area ong>ofong> research which is currently

limited in scope and depth.

3


OBJECTIVES

To narrow down ong>theong> scope and specificity ong>ofong> ong>theong> three proposed aims, three objectives have

been established. These objectives are:

1 To compare and analyse ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> place before, during, and after

ong>theong> ‘visual catalysts’ ong>ofong> ‘Underfoot’ and ‘EORA – The Land’ as part ong>ofong> ong>theong> VIVID 2016

festival in Sydney

2 To analyse wheong>theong>r ong>theong>re is a sustained increase in ong>theong> use and interest ong>ofong> place

beyond ong>theong> conclusion ong>ofong> ong>theong> ‘visual catalysts’, and to articulate what attributes ong>ofong> ong>theong>

use have and have not changed

3 To consider wheong>theong>r ong>theong> ‘visual catalysts’ ong>ofong> ‘Underfoot’ and ‘EORA - The Land’ could

potentially promote greater attachment to ong>theong> immediate underutilised place

The first objective involves ong>theong> comparison ong>ofong> ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> place during different

time periods ong>ofong> two temporary place-based interventions being exhibited as part ong>ofong> ong>theong> VIVID

2016 festival in Sydney. The comparison involves ong>theong> analysis ong>ofong> different behaviour patterns in

ong>theong> space through place-centred behaviour mapping, and as a result ong>ofong> this an understanding

ong>ofong> wheong>theong>r ong>theong> ‘visual catalysts’ can influence ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> place can emerge.

The second objective similarly involves ong>theong> comparison ong>ofong> ong>theong> use ong>ofong> place before, during

and after ong>theong> activity ong>ofong> ong>theong> determined ‘visual catalysts’. This aim however seeks to find out

wheong>theong>r ong>theong> use ong>ofong> place, if influenced by ong>theong> ‘visual catalysts’, remains influenced after ong>theong>

temporary place-based interventions have been removed. It is one which centres around

analysing ong>theong> role ong>ofong> temporality in relation to ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place, and discusses what

attributes ong>ofong> ong>theong> use ong>ofong> place remain after ong>theong> conclusion ong>ofong> ong>theong> interventions.

The third aim ong>theong>n seeks to consider wheong>theong>r ‘visual catalysts’ can promote greater

attachment to place. Taking knowledge gaong>theong>red from ong>theong> previous two aims, this aim explores

what potential aspects that ‘visual catalysts’ produce which can also be linked with ong>theong> concept

ong>ofong> place attachment; one which is considered in both a physical and social context.

The three objectives have been purposefully phrased in a way that lends ong>theong> research project

to being underpinned primarily by a quantitative methodological paradigm. A quantitative

was selected as ong>theong>re is a great desire for ong>theong> concepts ong>ofong> creative placemaking and

attraction and use ong>ofong> place to be measurable; something which is currently holding back ong>theong>

understanding ong>ofong> ong>theong> far-reaching physical and social impacts ong>ofong> ong>theong>se concepts. To be able

to establish specific research questions which can help fulfil ong>theong> outlined objectives, a greater

understanding ong>ofong> creative placemaking and place attachment need to be studied through a

comprehensive literature review.

4


RATIONALE AND SIGNIFICANCE

Creative placemaking is a relatively new phenomenon, and it is one that is growing in scope

and number. More and more creative placemaking interventions are popping up around our

cities, yet ong>theong>re has been very little research into understanding how, and wheong>theong>r, ong>theong>se

transient forms can actually influence ong>theong> way public spaces are used. In particular, ong>theong>re is

little understanding as to wheong>theong>r ong>theong>y can fundamentally transform ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong>

underutilised public spaces; being a key proponent ong>ofong> ong>theong> movements purpose to reshape and

reinvigorate dull public places with greater vibrancy and meaning.

Therefore, ong>theong> main significance ong>ofong> this project is to identify wheong>theong>r ong>theong> attraction and use

ong>ofong> an underutilised public place is influenced by a creative placemaking intervention to build

some knowledge into this currently existing gap ong>ofong> research. Additionally, ong>theong> VIVID festival in

Sydney is an internationally recognised attractions but has had very little research into how

it can potentially influence ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> place; as such providing some thorough

behaviour mapping ong>ofong> two case studies for this festival will also provide furong>theong>r insight into ong>theong>

value ong>ofong> ong>theong> creative placemaking interventions from a physical and social perspective.

This is a project which focuses on ong>theong> inquiry ong>ofong> ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> underutilised public

places which are to be activated by creative placemaking interventions, as such ong>theong> use ong>ofong> a

quantitative methodology will provide a measurable source to ground ong>theong> concept through ong>theong>

use ong>ofong> place-centred behaviour mapping. This will provide ong>theong> foundation for more in depth

qualitative research to sprout from to provide more detailed insight into how ong>theong> experience

ong>ofong> place is influenced by creative placemaking interventions.

5


PART TWO _

LITERATURE REVIEW

6


OVERVIEW

The establishment ong>ofong> creative placemaking in ong>theong> public realm is a growing phenomenon

around ong>theong> developed world (Bishop & Williams 2012). Although still in its infancy, ong>theong>

movement is one that is broad in scope; both in terms ong>ofong> scale and purpose. Manifestations ong>ofong>

ong>theong> practice can range from small-scale murals, to large-scale tactical art strategies. Likewise,

ong>theong>y can arise out ong>ofong> forms ong>ofong> activism, harmony, creativity or cultural expression (Lydon &

Garcia 2015). Yet, even with ong>theong> vast range ong>ofong> scale and purpose, ong>theong>re are two constant

overarching ong>theong>mes that are at ong>theong> core ong>ofong> ong>theong> movements resolve; that being ong>theong> revival, and

engagement, ong>ofong> people and place.

Research thus far on creative placemaking has fallen logically into ong>theong>se two broad domains;

with ong>theong> vast majority ong>ofong> research having been focused on ong>theong> environmental and economic

benefits, and detriments, ong>ofong> ong>theong> physical place. Yet, ong>theong>re has been limited research into ong>theong>

enduring social outcomes ong>ofong> ong>theong>se transient forms. In particular, understanding ong>theong> role

temporary place-based interventions can have on influencing people’s attraction and use ong>ofong>

place, as well as ong>theong>ir attachment to place. As such, ong>theong> literature review sets out to cover ong>theong>

interrelated people-place topics ong>ofong> placemaking and place attachment.

In relation to placemaking, ong>theong> review explores ong>theong> background and meaning ong>ofong> ong>theong> concept to

examine ong>theong> role it can play in influencing ong>theong> experience and purpose ong>ofong> place. Additionally,

this section explores ong>theong> phenomenon ong>ofong> creative placemaking and examines ong>theong> role ong>ofong> a

specific form which is ong>ofong>ten used in Sydney; with that being ‘visual catalysts’.

In relation to place attachment, ong>theong> literature review explores its meaning and background,

ong>theong> physical and social dimensions, ong>theong> scale and scope, ong>theong> role ong>ofong> temporality and time, and

existing ong>theong>oretical framework. In addition to providing a strong grounding ong>ofong> ong>theong> concept

itself, this section outlines some opportunities and gaps in ong>theong> field ong>ofong> research, and shows ong>theong>

link between temporary place-based interventions on impacting people’s attachment to place.

PLACEMAKING

By and large, placemaking can be understood as a people-place paradigm which enhances

a group/individual relation to place through ong>theong> promotion, and installation, ong>ofong> community

driven strategies (Project for Public Spaces 2009). However, ong>theong> understanding ong>ofong> placemaking

as a grounded construct is still somewhat ambiguous. This is partially due to ong>theong> multifaceted

nature ong>ofong> it being a philosophy and process, as well as ong>theong> imbued subjectivity ong>ofong> what defines

ong>theong> term ‘place’ (Pascucci 2015). This people-place paradigm has been comparatively studied

very little in parallel with people’s experience ong>ofong> place, yet ong>theong>y are both significant constructing

agents in understanding how people relate, and bond, with place (Friedmann 2010).

In ong>theong> 1960s, ong>theong> concept emerged from ong>theong> work ong>ofong> Jane Jacobs and William Whyte in

response to ong>theong> modernist movement (Alle 2012; Gehl 2006). Furong>theong>rmore, ong>theong> work ong>ofong>

7


Kevin Lynch solidified ong>theong> role ong>ofong> placemaking as an early emerging place-based construct

through his studies ong>ofong> how people understand ong>theong>ir surroundings (Lynch 1960). Parallel with

ong>theong> common criticism ong>ofong> modernist form not relating to ong>theong> human scale, ong>theong>se researchers

pursued explorations ong>ofong> what particular qualities in public places make ong>theong> lives ong>ofong> people

more enjoyable, liveable and meaningful (Jacobs 1961; Whyte 1980). Whyte and Jacobs

exposed (through divergent methods ong>ofong> research) that ong>theong> physical quality and form ong>ofong> place

impacted ong>theong> way people use, and imbue, meaning to those spaces (Project for Public Spaces

2009). Consequently, this was ong>theong> seminal research into ong>theong> where, and what, people do to

‘make’ places.

Additionally, Whyte (1980) through his research also revealed some ong>ofong> ong>theong> social attributes

which can alter ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place, and what can ‘make’ a place. As observed by Whyte

(1980), people attract people, but people also tend to do what oong>theong>r people do. Additionally,

Whyte (1980) observed that people, for ong>theong> most part, tend to follow ong>theong> consistent and

predictable accepted place scripts ong>ofong> a designated place. For example, Whyte is well

recognised for ong>theong> observation that “people tend to sit where ong>theong>re are places to sit”. This

is significant in ong>theong> sense that placemaking can be a mechanism which disrupts a space in

terms ong>ofong> form and function, which can subsequently disrupt ong>theong> behaviours ong>ofong> people in a

space (Donald & Canter 1994). Yet, ong>theong>re still remains a gap in knowledge into ong>theong> specific

social behaviours that change as a result ong>ofong> placemaking interventions, and as such how ong>theong>se

changes in social behaviours can influence ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> a place.

In recent times, placemaking has expanded to new dimensions ong>ofong> research; particularly

heightened in breadth and depth through ong>theong> growth ong>ofong> globalisation and urbanisation

(Markusen & Gadwa 2010). For that reason, placemaking has taken on an array ong>ofong> meanings,

as has ong>theong> meaning ong>ofong> place itself. Stewart (2010) defines ong>theong> idea ong>ofong> place as being dynamic,

and one in which individuals and communities can change at will; a definition that is somewhat

similar to that ong>ofong> Friedmann (2010), who argues that place is made and remade on a daily

basis, yet retains a form ong>ofong> continuity and order in setting and identity. This suggests that

ong>theong> role ong>ofong> time and temporality is significant in ong>theong> construction ong>ofong> place, and that furong>theong>r

research is needed to greater understand ong>theong> role it plays in influencing people’s use ong>ofong> place.

Additionally, ong>theong> meaning ong>ofong> placemaking has also become extensively contested. Wight

(2005) simply defines placemaking as practical and suitable planning, whereas Brunnberg and

Frigo (2012) argue that placemaking is an extension ong>ofong> urban planning which is community

driven to create meaningful, social places. The Project for Public Spaces (2009) is more

expansive with ong>theong>ir definition, seeing it as “community-driven, visionary, function before form,

adaptable, flexible, culturally aware, ever changing, multi-disciplinary, inspiring, collaborative

and sociable”. In addition to this, ong>theong> Project for Public Spaces, being a key organisation in ong>theong>

movement ong>ofong> placemaking, has also established ‘eleven principles for placemaking’ (as shown

by figure 2.1). This framework takes clear, overarching continuities that define placemaking

(with a vital one being community) and allows a solid grounding for research to divert from;

such as understanding ong>theong> social value ong>ofong> temporary place-based interventions. However, for

placemaking to grow as a discipline a clearer, more coherent definition will need to emerge for

a ong>theong>oretical framework to be widely adopted (Wyckong>ofong>f 2015).

8


1 The community is ong>theong>

expert

2 Create a place, not a

design

3 Look for partners

4 You can see a lot by

just observing

5 Have a vision 6 Lighter, cheaper, quicker

7 Triangulate 8 It can be done!

9 Form supports function 10 Money is not ong>theong> issue

11 You are never finished

Figure 2.1 - The eleven principles ong>ofong> placemaking (Project for Public Spaces 2009).

9


CREATIVE PLACEMAKING

In recent years, ong>theong> construct ong>ofong> placemaking has been furong>theong>r broken down into three

specific categories. These are strategic placemaking, tactical placemaking and creative

placemaking (Wyckong>ofong>f 2015). For this literature review, ong>theong> one ong>ofong> particular importance is

creative placemaking; that being ong>theong> process ong>ofong> shaping a neighbourhood, town, tribe, city or

region through artistic and/or cultural impressions with ong>theong> intention ong>ofong> impacting ong>theong> physical,

economic and social outcomes experienced in that space (Lydon & Garcia 2015).

This form ong>ofong> placemaking is gaining a large amount ong>ofong> momentum in ong>theong> developed world, yet

creative placemaking is also recognised as still being a ‘fuzzy concept’ (Nicodemus 2013). This

has allowed creative placemaking on ong>theong> one hand to be appealing and attractive in uptake

due it having limited restrictions, yet it is also criticised heavily for this very notion as being

vague which supports individual ideals, unsubstantive development and gentrification raong>theong>r

than social equity (Frank 2012).

Consequently, this ambiguity is placing particular scrutiny on ong>theong> movement in terms ong>ofong> ong>theong>

difficulty to understand an interventions’ success. Its success in terms ong>ofong> being able to catalyse

social cohesion and community collaboration, or wheong>theong>r it is failing this and consequently

acting as a ‘stop-gap’ solution for major city-wide issues which only exacerbate social

disparities (Bedoya 2012). The ability to provide ong>theong> measurement and evaluation ong>ofong> success

is seen as a vital step forward to alleviating this problem, however this has also sparked

controversy and debate due to ong>theong> complexity this would involve. To address this, a basic

framework which outlines ong>theong> significant aspired properties ong>ofong> creative placemaking has been

established by The National Consortium for Creative Placemaking (2012) as seen in figure 2.2.

As described by Nicodemus (2013), ong>theong>se attributes need to be furong>theong>r scrutinised and broken

down through detailed research into wheong>theong>r ong>theong>y are being fulfilled; such as wheong>theong>r creative

placemaking interventions do focus on creating connections, not just objects. An important

step for this to be understood is to first observe wheong>theong>r people respond to ong>theong> changes ong>ofong>

a place due to creative placemaking interventions, and to provide insight into wheong>theong>r this

change ong>ofong> behaviour and/or experience has parallels with aspects which pertain to ong>theong> positive

outcomes stated by ong>theong> purpose ong>ofong> ong>theong> movement (Lehtovuori & Ruoppila 2012).

As a result, ong>theong> challenge for creative placemaking for its growth and livelihood is clear. As

described by Nicodemus (2013), eiong>theong>r ‘mature and gain substance, or shrivel up under

ong>theong> heat ong>ofong> scrutiny’. There needs to be greater research into ong>theong> human experience within

creative placemaking spaces, ong>theong>re needs to be greater measurability and accuracy ong>ofong> this

research, and ong>theong>re needs to be a widely adopted and established framework that provides

greater depth for research to be more cohesive and collaborative with all stakeholders (Bishop

& Williams 2012). For Sydney, this type ong>ofong> research can be furong>theong>red through observing a

specific form ong>ofong> creative placemaking that exists; ‘visual catalysts’ (Lydon & Garcia 2015).

10


Figure 2.2 - A rudimentary framework ong>ofong> ong>theong> key attributes ong>ofong> creative placemaking

(The National Consortium for Creative Placemaking 2012) .

'VISUAL CATALYSTS'

Lydon and Garcia (2015) describe ‘visual catalysts’ as being ong>theong> visual improvements that

humanise public spaces. Visual catalysts, being one specific form ong>ofong> creative placemaking,

are wide in scope; ranging from ong>theong> graffiti ong>ofong> blank walls to installations ong>ofong> vertical artwork in

laneways. However, what makes this form ong>ofong> creative placemaking noteworthy is ong>theong>ir claim

to act as stimuli for revealment and long term change through simple, and ong>ofong>ten cost effective

temporal interventionism.

As noted by Bishop and Williams (2012), ‘visual catalysts’ are able to achieve this through

ong>theong>ir short term ‘punch’ - something which creates a noticeable mark in ong>theong> public domain

and draws ong>theong> immediate attention ong>ofong> ong>theong> community to facilitate discussion. In addition,

many ong>ofong> ong>theong> forms ong>ofong> creative placemaking in Australia are ‘visual catalysts’. Yet, as it is

such a new phenomenon, little has been researched or written about ong>theong>ir influence over

people’s understanding, and use ong>ofong> place; and wheong>theong>r ong>theong>ir influence translates to long term

outcomes for ong>theong> betterment ong>ofong> place.

11


PLACE ATTACHMENT

For ong>theong> most part, place attachment can be understood as ong>theong> “affective bond or link between

people and specific places” (Hidalgo & Hernandez 2001). However, ong>theong> meaning ong>ofong> place

attachment is not necessarily so clear-cut. The concept is still largely ambiguous, principally

due to ong>theong> expansive variation in research perspectives, ong>theong> lack ong>ofong> a clearly adopted

ong>theong>oretical framework, and ong>theong> contemporary state ong>ofong> ong>theong> concepts evolution (Katlenborn &

Bjerke 2002).

Humanistic geographers and environmental psychologists were ong>theong> first to study ong>theong> concept.

Having been inspired by ong>theong> work ong>ofong> ong>theong> attachment ong>theong>orist Bowlby in 1969, academics

argued that ong>theong> concept ong>ofong> place attachment centred around ong>theong> link with space as a common

emotional bond that fulfils essential human needs (Relph 1976; Tuan 1977). This concept was

subsequently explored furong>theong>r; with ong>theong> work ong>ofong> Schroeder (1991) and Altman & Low (1992)

who proposed ong>theong> clear distinction ong>ofong> place attachment being centred around ‘meaning’,

raong>theong>r than ong>theong> ‘preference’.

In turn, ong>theong> meaning ong>ofong> place attachment has maintained this view at its core, yet has

diversified in content as experts across various fields have sought to explore ong>theong> concept

furong>theong>r in more niche, focused ways (Lewicka 2010). Researchers, such as Stedman (2003),

sought to argue that place attachment was in fact a smaller fragment ong>ofong> our connection to

place; with place containing ong>theong> various sub-categories ong>ofong> place identity, attachment and

dependence. Oong>theong>rs have focused ong>theong>ir work on place attachment pivoting around idea

ong>ofong> desire (Hay 1998), and oong>theong>rs have looked at ong>theong> role ong>ofong> various scales and settings in

specifying attachment to place; ranging from ong>theong> home (Giuliani 1993), to expansive landscape

and recreational spaces (Fishwick & Vining 2003; Katlenborn & Bjerke 2002; Kyle, Graefe &

Manning 2005; Hammitt, Backlund & Bixler 2006).

This has led to an extensive breadth and depth ong>ofong> research on place attachment. Yet, at

ong>theong> same time ong>theong> disunity ong>ofong> meaning has, in many respects, created more questions than

answers on ong>theong> fundamental understandings ong>ofong> place attachment (Lewicka 2010). Current

ong>theong>orists have aimed to create greater clarity around what place attachment means, and what

elements can be universally applicable (Hidalgo & Hernandez 2001; Scannell & Gifford 2010).

PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS

Hidalgo and Hernandez (2001) proposed that place attachment should be understood as

part ong>ofong> two broad ong>theong>oretical categories; ong>theong> physical and social dimensions ong>ofong> place. The

social dimension refers to ong>theong> human experience and cognition ong>ofong> place, whereas ong>theong> physical

dimension refers to a more grounded form – ong>theong> actualities ong>ofong> place that are graspable and

visualised (Burley 2007). Research has included both ong>theong> intertwinement and segregation ong>ofong>

ong>theong> two dimensions, yet for ong>theong> most part ong>theong>re has been a vast concentration on ong>theong> social

dimensions ong>ofong> place attachment in ong>theong> literature (Scannell & Gifford 2010).

12


This is substantially a result ong>ofong> ong>theong> imbued meaning behind ong>theong> concept ong>ofong> place; a word which

lends itself to a more meaningful association with people raong>theong>r than form (Gustafson 2001).

This segregation between ong>theong> social and physical is also a result ong>ofong> researchers being skewed

to having interest, or priority, ong>ofong> one over ong>theong> oong>theong>r. Likewise, ong>theong>re is also some purpose in

segregating ong>theong> two, as Lewicka (2010) notes “ong>theong> majority ong>ofong> place attachment researchers

assume that ong>theong> two dimensions ong>ofong> place are worth distinguishing as that ong>theong>y may play

different roles in attachment processes.”. Although ong>theong>re is certainly value in ong>theong> distinguishing

between ong>theong> physical and social elements ong>ofong> place, it is also arguable that in fact this

dichotomy is damaging ong>theong> progression ong>ofong> a stronger, more coherent ong>theong>oretical framework

(Burley 2007).

As such, ong>theong>re is a growing consensus that ong>theong>re needs to be a greater focus on ong>theong>

interrelationship between ong>theong> physical and social dimensions ong>ofong> place when looking to gain

depth ong>ofong> knowledge on place attachment (Lewicka 2010; Williams & Vaske 2003).

SCALE AND SCOPE

In relation to ong>theong> physical and social dimensions ong>ofong> place attachment, ong>theong>re is also ong>theong>

segregation, and association, ong>ofong> ong>theong> scale and scope; that specifically being ong>theong> type ong>ofong> setting

and demographic. Early work on place attachment focused primarily on ong>theong> relationship

between residents and ong>theong>ir home (Altman & Low 1992). The scale ong>ofong> research has since

expanded, as researchers now look at people’s attachment to place in terms ong>ofong> ong>theong>ir

neighbourhood and city (Hidalgo & Hernandez 2001). In fact, this three tier system ong>ofong> ong>theong>

home, neighbourhood and city is still a widely adopted matrix. Yet, it’s only been in recent

years that this matrix has been challenged, as globalisation and urbanisation has become

more pronounced (Lewicka 2010).

Researchers are now looking towards ong>theong> role ong>ofong> ong>theong> everyday public realm in understanding

place attachment; with a particular focus on tourist, recreational and landscape spaces

(Fishwick & Vining 1992; Kaltenborn & Bjerke 2002). Although ong>theong>re has been a growth in

research on ong>theong>se places, ong>theong>re is still a distinct gap in research on ong>theong> smaller scale spaces;

such as streets, parks, plazas and beaches (Lewicka 2010). Likewise, ong>theong>re is an evident gap

in research into ong>theong> role, or lack ong>ofong> role, that underutilised public space plays in people’s

attachment to place; specifically in terms ong>ofong> what happens when that space becomes activated

and deactivated through placemaking interventions.

Furong>theong>rmore, research has expanded from simply looking at residents attachment to place to

oong>theong>r demographics; such as certain cultures, tourists, newcomers, and specific age groups

such as children (Trentleman 2009). This has, in turn, led to an expansive range ong>ofong> new types

ong>ofong> research, particularly in regards to ong>theong> comparison ong>ofong> different groups in relation to ong>theong>ir

attachment to place, and as to how ong>theong> amount ong>ofong> time can alter ong>theong>ir intensity ong>ofong> attachment.

13


TIME AND TEMPORALITY

The role ong>ofong> temporality, and time, in place attachment has been understood as significant

since ong>theong> work ong>ofong> Altman and Low (1992). They identified that attachment to place can

undergo temporal variation; one in which ong>theong> relationship can fluctuate depending on a range

ong>ofong> internal and external factors (Altman & Low 1992). Yet, since ong>theong>n much ong>ofong> ong>theong> focus in

research has been around ong>theong> relationship ong>ofong> length ong>ofong> time towards ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place,

and less about ong>theong> physical mechanisms that can cause ong>theong>se temporal variations (Kyle, Graefe

& Manning 2005).

To illustrate this, ong>theong> work ong>ofong> Hay (1998) and Smaldone (2006) focused on testing ong>theong> widely

held view that time spent at a place correlates strongly with ong>theong> intensity ong>ofong> one’s attachment

to that place. They argued that, for ong>theong> most part, people who have spent insignificant

amounts ong>ofong> time in places have a weaker affective connection compared to those who have

spent a longer time in a place (Hay 1998; Smaldone 2006). As a result, Smaldone (2006)

puts forward ong>theong> notion that people who have spent limited time in a place tend to have a

somewhat superficial ‘attraction’ to place, raong>theong>r than an attachment. In oong>theong>r words, limitedtime

persons tend to have a greater bond with ong>theong> physical form and conditions ong>ofong> a site,

raong>theong>r than any imbued affective connection. However, Smaldone (2006) also indicated that

place attachment can be impacted significantly dependant on ong>theong> intensity ong>ofong> experience,

and that more research is needed on ong>theong> physical attributes ong>ofong> place that can cause temporal

variations in catalysing, and deepening, attachment.

Conversely, recent researchers have challenged this traditional viewpoint ong>ofong> ong>theong> dependency

on time for strengong>theong>ned attachment (Kaltenborn & Bjerke 2002; Korpela, Ylen, Tyrväinen &

Silvennoinen 2009; Stedman 2006;). From research on ong>theong> comparison ong>ofong> long-time residents

and newcomers to place, ong>theong>se academics propose that it is possible for newcomers to

form a prong>ofong>ound attachment to place through intense, short term interactions. Furong>theong>rmore,

ong>theong>ir claims have been strengong>theong>ned by support ong>ofong> both ong>theong>oretical and empirical evidence

(Brown & Raymond 2007) which has shown ong>theong> presence ong>ofong> deep affective bonds between

newcomers and ong>theong> places ong>theong>y visit. However, a lack ong>ofong> substantial research into ong>theong>

mechanisms that support this still leaves open some potential for greater clarity in ong>theong>ory.

In particular, research has not been conducted to see wheong>theong>r temporary place-based

interventions can promote an attachment to place. Hence, to confirm, or argue against, ong>theong>

overarching value ong>ofong> time being a fundamental feature ong>ofong> impacting people’s place attachment

ong>theong>re needs to be more research on ong>theong> role ong>ofong> temporality ong>ofong> form in places which are not

valued/depended upon. Additionally, this needs to be compared against contemporary, widely

accepted ong>theong>oretical framework such as ong>theong> one proposed by Scannell and Gifford (2010).

14


THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

As a result, in recent years a ong>theong>oretical framework has emerged that looks at providing a

holistic approach to ong>theong> understanding ong>ofong> ong>theong> affective conditions and grounded determinants

ong>ofong> place attachment; with that being framework proposed by Scannell and Gifford (2010).

Scannell and Gifford (2010) have collated a vast amount ong>ofong> research on place attachment and

distilled ong>theong> overarching commonalities into a ong>theong>oretical framework including three main

categories; person, place and process.

The person category is divided into that ong>ofong> ong>theong> individual and ong>theong> group. The main focus ong>ofong> ong>theong>

person category is to understand how ong>theong> individual and/or group is attached through a range

ong>ofong> complementary and singular influences; that being ong>theong> influences ong>ofong> religion, history, specific

milestones, realisations and experiences (Scannell & Gifford 2010). The category ong>ofong> place is

divided into that ong>ofong> ong>theong> social and physical; with that being aligned with ong>theong> work ong>ofong> Hidalgo &

Hernandez (2001). The process category refers to ong>theong> way people are connected, experience,

and act in place; and in turn reflect ong>theong>se elements in ong>theong>ir ability to alter and impact one’s

attachment to place.

This ong>theong>oretical framework, as stated by ong>theong> authors, can be used for a wide range ong>ofong>

studies. Additionally, ong>theong> framework also provides ong>theong> potential to build on some ong>ofong> ong>theong> less

understood elements ong>ofong> place attachment; with that being ong>theong> elements ong>ofong> place and process

(Scannell & Gifford 2010). In particular, it could be used to look at ong>theong> role ong>ofong> ong>theong> physical

elements ong>ofong> place alongside that ong>ofong> ong>theong> relationship it plays with ong>theong> behavioural element ong>ofong>

process in ong>theong> reconstruction (or construction) ong>ofong> attachment itself. Hence, it provides ong>theong>

opportunity to look at ong>theong> role ong>ofong> temporality in form ong>ofong> impacting one’s attachment to place.

CONCLUSION

As outlined, ong>theong>re are significant opportunities for original research into ong>theong> relationship

between creative placemaking (in particular ‘visual catalysts) and wheong>theong>r ong>theong>se transient

forms can influence a person’s attraction and use ong>ofong> place. In particular, for creative

placemaking ong>theong>re are significant gaps in research into ong>theong> role ong>ofong> temporality ong>ofong> ong>theong>se

transient interventions in ong>theong> use ong>ofong> place both immediately and as an enduring construct. In

parallel with this, ong>theong>re is limited research into how this phenomenon affects our relationship

with place – in particular wheong>theong>r it can promote an attachment to place.

This opens up particular opportunity to explore a widely adopted form ong>ofong> creative placemaking

on influencing people’s attraction and use ong>ofong> place in Sydney; that being ‘visual catalysts’. This

research, in ong>theong> form ong>ofong> a quantitative case study, will add furong>theong>r insight into ong>theong> physical and

social implications ong>ofong> ong>theong>se transient forms both in ong>theong> short term and long term.

15


PART THREE _

METHODOLOGY & METHOD

16


RESEARCH QUESTIONS

By establishing ong>theong> aims and objectives ong>ofong> ong>theong> project, and through doing a detailed literature

review on ong>theong> concepts ong>ofong> placemaking and place attachment, three research questions

emerged, and solidified, ong>theong> fundamental purpose ong>ofong> ong>theong> research project. These questions

are:

1 Do ‘visual catalysts’, as a form ong>ofong> temporary place-based intervention, influence ong>theong>

attraction and use ong>ofong> place?

2 Is ong>theong>re evidence ong>ofong> a sustained interest in ong>theong> location ong>ofong> ong>theong> ‘visual catalyst’ after ong>theong>

intervention has ceased?

3 Can temporary place-based interventions, such as ‘visual catalysts’, be used to ignite

place attachment to underutilised public places?

The first question revolves primarily around ong>theong> exploration ong>ofong> wheong>theong>r a specific form ong>ofong>

creative placemaking, being ‘visual catalysts’, can or cannot influence a person’s attraction

to, and use ong>ofong>, place. Much like in ong>theong> aims and objectives, this research question emerged

through ong>theong> understanding that little in-depth research has been conducted on ong>theong> grounded

physical and social impacts ong>ofong> creative placemaking in relation to place-centred experience.

The second research question delves into a gap ong>ofong> knowledge in ong>theong> literature on placemaking;

that being wheong>theong>r ong>theong>re is a sustained interest in ong>theong> place after ong>theong> intervention has

concluded and been removed. This question goes to ong>theong> heart ong>ofong> ong>theong> movement ong>ofong> creative

placemaking – that short term interventions can lead to lasting, long term opportunities and

changes.

The third research question seeks to explore wheong>theong>r creative placemaking has ong>theong> ability

to promote greater place attachment in underutilised public places. Like ong>theong> previous two

question, this one seeks to fill an existing gap in ong>theong> knowledge around place attachment and

ong>theong> role ong>ofong> temporary place-based interventions on promoting a relationship with place.

METHODOLOGY

Quantitative research is ong>theong> primary methodological paradigm that has been selected for

this ong>theong>sis. Quantitative research is purposeful in noting ong>theong> direct use, behaviours and ong>theong>

qualities ong>ofong> a place both for people and across time; several significant elements which are

interrelated with ong>theong> overall objectives and aims for this people-place centred study (Creswell

2005). It can provide direct answers to ong>ofong>ten ambiguous concepts, and can act as a solid

footing for furong>theong>r detailed research to sprout from. As such, ong>theong> discussion and rationale ong>ofong>

quantitative research in relation to this is outlined, as well as a discussion on ong>theong> suitability ong>ofong> a

case study research perspective to ground ong>theong> research project.

17


QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

The study ong>ofong> placemaking and use ong>ofong> place has been subject to both quantitative and

qualitative research. Quantitative data can be understood as ong>theong> approach to research that

utilises numerical and statistical data to draw conclusions and resolve problems, something

which William Whyte (1980) first documented by observing people’s behaviours and

experience ong>ofong> different public spaces in New York (Creswell 2005). His approach ong>ofong> simply

observing, and numerically counting, ong>theong> amount and behaviours ong>ofong> people in a given space

provided insight into what made that space exceptional, or unexceptional. It provided insight

into ong>theong> relationship between place and people through ong>theong> collation ong>ofong> quantitative data to

provide a narrative ong>ofong> people’s attraction and use ong>ofong> place.

The data Whyte gaong>theong>red is consistent to this day with much ong>ofong> ong>theong> quantitative data collated

for placemaking studies; including ong>theong> numerical counting and tallying ong>ofong> what people do,

where ong>theong>y are, how many ong>theong>re are, how old and what gender, where ong>theong>y go to and from,

and ong>theong> particular behaviours which show a direct relationship to ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place.

Yet, ong>theong>re has been little quantitative research into transient public places. In particular,

quantitative data can provide insight into ong>theong> impact ong>ofong> ong>theong>se transient interventions through

ong>theong> ability ong>ofong> ong>theong> paradigm to test ideas and notions, such as those ong>ofong> ong>theong> proposed role ong>ofong>

creative placemaking.

In current research, qualitative research is ong>ofong>ten used to gain a general sense ong>ofong> a phenomena

and to form ong>theong>ories, whereas quantitative research is ong>ofong>ten used to test those concepts – a

notion aligned with ong>theong> methodological proposition ong>ofong> this study. This study seeks to discover

how ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place can be influenced through creative placemaking mechanisms, and

quantitative research has a strong disposition to be an exceptional paradigm when observing

and comparing people and place. In particular, it has been noted as a methodical means to

observe people in ong>theong>ir natural setting when striving to understand social behaviours; such

as people’s experience ong>ofong> place (Treckson 2015). This is because, as mentioned, quantitative

research strives to find answers to ong>theong> ‘if’ and ‘wheong>theong>r’, not ong>theong> ‘how’ and ‘why’ as ong>ofong>ten

addressed through qualitative research. Additionally, as this project focuses on observing ong>theong>

changes in behaviour over time in a fixed setting, it hence makes sense to take a quantitative

approach to allow for detailed and incremental comparative analysis.

Moreover, in terms ong>ofong> ong>theong> third proposed aim ong>ofong> this study ong>theong>re is also great potential in

exploring ong>theong> concept ong>ofong> place attachment through using a ong>theong>oretical framework within a

quantitative research paradigm. Scannell and Gifford (2010) proposed a ong>theong>oretical framework

to use for ong>theong> study ong>ofong> place attachment. This framework, still relatively new, has yet to be

widely tested from a quantitative research paradigm. As such, for this research topic utilising

this framework can not only strengong>theong>n ong>theong> depth and applicability ong>ofong> ong>theong> findings, but can also

add depth ong>ofong> knowledge to ong>theong> field ong>ofong> place attachment. Additionally, ong>theong> answers obtained

from this quantitative research can lead to furong>theong>r interrogation in ong>theong> future into a qualitative

based study that interrogates place attachment more in-depth.

18


CASE STUDY RESEARCH

The use ong>ofong> case study research has been widely adopted in ong>theong> investigation ong>ofong> placemaking

and people’s experience ong>ofong> place (Stake 1995). Case study research is used to ground ong>theong>

understanding ong>ofong> a complex phenomenon, and to analyse ong>theong> specific cause and effect

relationship ong>ofong> a place/event on a person or group ong>ofong> people (Yin 1984). This type ong>ofong> research

has been utilised for many years across a wide spectrum ong>ofong> disciplines; particularly in ong>theong>

fields ong>ofong> landscape architecture and sociology. For this ong>theong>sis, this type ong>ofong> research will act as

a grounding mechanism to explore complex behavioural meanings and affective relationships

in a people-place paradigm, and will serve as a methodical way to compare ong>theong> relationship ong>ofong>

time and attraction and use ong>ofong> place through ong>theong> direct observation ong>ofong> two ‘visual catalysts’ ong>ofong>

ong>theong> VIVID 2016 festival in Sydney.

Case study research, being a fundamental people-place technique, provides insight into ong>theong>

daily physical/behavioural conditions ong>ofong> a site which cannot be obtained through oong>theong>r forms

ong>ofong> research. For example, ong>theong> relationship between ong>theong> time and conditions ong>ofong> a day, ong>theong>

makeup ong>ofong> social groups, ong>theong> possibility ong>ofong> unconsidered external influences can all significantly

alter ong>theong> propensity for a person to engage with a site; thus changing ong>theong> engagement and

experience with place itself (Creswell 2005). These factors alone cannot be determined without

ong>theong> use ong>ofong> case study research. This is significant when studying ong>theong> concepts ong>ofong> placemaking

and experience ong>ofong> place; one which is subject, and dependant, on external forces ong>ofong> influence.

Likewise, it is quite necessary to have a physical place to document ong>theong> behaviours ong>ofong> people; a

case study allows this whereas oong>theong>rs form ong>ofong> research rely on accounts and ong>theong> descriptions

ong>ofong> ong>theong> behaviours ong>ofong> people.

Case study analysis is ong>ofong>ten criticised for being something which is broad and lacks reliability

(Flyvbjerg 2006). However, in this matter it is important to note that ong>theong> use ong>ofong> a case study for

this research is that it should be seen as a piece ong>ofong> a larger puzzle – it is one piece ong>ofong> research

that explores ong>theong> relationship between ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place and creative placemaking

through direct and unobtrusive observations. Moreover, it would be more detrimental for ong>theong>

study to not use a case study for ong>theong> research, as to understand ong>theong> behavioural inferences

ong>ofong> people and ong>theong>ir relationships with place it is integral to have some form ong>ofong> contemporary

observation and account for validity on what is an ever-changing association.

CONTEXT OF STUDY

The site chosen for this study is located in Walsh Bay, Sydney, Australia. It consists ong>ofong> ong>theong>

area under ong>theong> souong>theong>rn part ong>ofong> ong>theong> Sydney Harbour Bridge. The site is currently used

predominantly as a transition space; one where people move through without stopping. It

is linear in form, and Hickson Road runs straight through ong>theong> middle ong>ofong> ong>theong> space which is

bounded by two concrete pathways on eiong>theong>r side. The site is currently underutilised, and

does not contain any opportunities for seating or recreational activities. However, ong>theong> site has

many vantage points ong>ofong> out across ong>theong> harbour. These include various landmarks and

19


distinctive icons ong>ofong> Sydney such as Luna Park, ong>theong> Sydney Harbour Bridge, ong>theong> Opera House

and ong>ofong> ong>theong> harbour itself. The location ong>ofong> ong>theong> site can be seen through observing figure 4.1.

VIVID FESTIVAL

The VIVID festival, held in Sydney every year since 2009, is an outdoor lighting festival with

immersive light installations and projections (NSW Government 2016). The festival, held during

ong>theong> winter months from May till June, also includes performances from local and international

artists and an ideas exchange forum which features public talks and debates from renowned

creative thinkers. Initially, VIVID began as a way to raise awareness for energy efficiency,

however it has evolved over recent years to one ong>ofong> ong>theong> most significant annual events that

occur in Sydney. During ong>theong> festival in 2012, over 500,000 visitors attended which generated

an around $10 million in income for ong>theong> state. Understanding ong>theong> potential ong>theong> festival has

to create revenue, it was expanded greatly in scope in 2014 which saw light shows on and

around ong>theong> Opera House, Circular Quay, The Rocks, North Sydney, Walsh Bay, Darling Harbour,

The Star, and Carriageworks (NSW Government 2016). This can be seen through figure 4.2.

Since ong>theong>n, ong>theong> festival has grown substantially to become an international tourist attraction.

During 2016, ong>theong> festival was attended by more than 2.3 million people; a figure which

continues to grow year after year.

Due to ong>theong> popularity and scope ong>ofong> VIVID, this is an extreme case ong>ofong> creative placemaking. The

sheer scale and widespread knowledge ong>ofong> ong>theong> event likely has an impact ong>ofong> ong>theong> expectations

ong>ofong> people going, just as it changes ong>theong> way that ong>theong> central city as a whole is occupied. The

aura and ong>theong> reputation that surrounds ong>theong> event has ong>theong> capacity to alter ong>theong> experience ong>ofong>

place itself, and how people behave during and after ong>theong> event as shown by ong>theong> findings in ong>theong>

following chapter.

Figure 4.1 - The study area as delineated by ong>theong> blue outline consists ong>ofong> ong>theong> space under ong>theong>

souong>theong>rn part ong>ofong> ong>theong> Harbour Bridge where Hickson Road runs underneath

(Destination NSW 2016 c).

20


Figure 4.2 - A map ong>ofong> ong>theong> 2016 VIVID festival in Sydney. It shows ong>theong> large number and scope ong>ofong> interventions that

occur along ong>theong> harbour front ong>ofong> Sydney. The two case studies chosen for this project are shown by ong>theong> blue outlines

ong>ofong> numbers 38 and 40 (Destination NSW 2016 c).

21


CASE STUDY 1 : UNDERFOOT

One ong>ofong> ong>theong> case studies selected for this ong>theong>sis was ong>theong> light display known as Underfoot,

by Australian artists Indermühle + Indermühle (Destination NSW a 2016). The creative

placemaking intervention (fitting under ong>theong> category ong>ofong> a ‘visual catalyst’) by Aly Indermühle and

Balthasar Indermühle was exhibited during ong>theong> VIVID 2016 festival in Sydney. This festival ran

from ong>theong> 27th ong>ofong> May to ong>theong> 18th ong>ofong> June, and was active during ong>theong> times ong>ofong> 18:00 to 23:00.

The intervention was located at Walsh Bay in Sydney; directly under ong>theong> harbour bridge footing

along Hickson Road. To understand ong>theong> conceptual grounding ong>ofong> ong>theong> project, a description ong>ofong>

ong>theong> case study from ong>theong> artists can be read below:

“Underfoot celebrates ong>theong> blending ong>ofong> light that occurs when ong>theong> warm, rich tones ong>ofong> an

Australian sunset interact with ong>theong> colours and textures ong>ofong> ong>theong> sandstone supports ong>ofong>

ong>theong> Sydney Harbour Bridge. The resulting artwork highlights ong>theong> everyday foundations ong>ofong>

Sydney’s landmarks and ong>theong> materials from which ong>theong> city is built.

The installation lies on ong>theong> boundary between light sculpture and facade illumination;

it explores complex interactions between ong>theong> viewer, light and ong>theong> surrounding space

and brings new emphasis to this part ong>ofong> ong>theong> bridge’s structure and its location on ong>theong>

meandering Hickson Road drive way. This scenic road and its paved footpath hug ong>theong>

harbour foreshore, yet are ong>ofong>ten overlooked by visitors.

With ong>theong>ir keen sense ong>ofong> atmosphere, ong>theong> Indermühles have created a work that takes an

everyday illumination point and elevates it to light art.” (Destination NSW a 2016)

The installation was chosen for study for its applicability to ong>theong> research aims and objectives;

that being to understand wheong>theong>r a ‘visual catalyst’ in a public space can influence a person’s

experience ong>ofong> place. This case study was located in a site which is currently underutilised,

so an understanding ong>ofong> wheong>theong>r an experience ong>ofong> site can be cultivated can also emerge.

Additionally, ong>theong> purpose ong>ofong> wanting to change ong>theong> relationship and attraction ong>ofong> ong>theong> place

as stated in ong>theong> project description is a notion which links strongly with this research project

which seeks to explore ong>theong> relationship ong>ofong> temporality and interventionism. It was also chosen

due to it being in Sydney; a place ong>ofong> proximity and also a place which has not undergone

significant research into creative placemaking outcomes.

22


23

Figure 4.3 - Photos ong>ofong> ong>theong> case study Underfoot (Destination NSW a 2016).


CASE STUDY 2 : EORA - THE LAND

The second case study selected was ong>theong> light display known as ‘EORA – The Land’, by Stephen

Page and Jacob Nash as part ong>ofong> ong>theong> Bangarra Dance Theatre (Destination NSW b 2016). The

creative placemaking intervention (fitting under ong>theong> category ong>ofong> a ‘visual catalyst’) was exhibited

during ong>theong> VIVID 2016 festival in Sydney. This festival ran from ong>theong> 27th ong>ofong> May to ong>theong> 18th ong>ofong>

June, and was active during ong>theong> times ong>ofong> 18:00 to 23:00. The intervention was located at Walsh

Bay in Sydney, and was directly projected onto ong>theong> souong>theong>rn sandstone pylon ong>ofong> ong>theong> Sydney

Harbour Bridge. To understand ong>theong> conceptual grounding ong>ofong> ong>theong> project, a description ong>ofong> ong>theong>

case study from ong>theong> artists can be read below:

“One ong>ofong> Australia’s leading performing arts companies, Bangarra Dance Theatre, creates a

work that gives visitors an insight into ong>theong> Eora Aboriginal people and ong>theong> ways that ong>theong>ir

deep spiritual and cultural connections with ong>theong> land have sustained ong>theong>m over thousands

ong>ofong> years.

Eora people are ong>theong> traditional owners ong>ofong> a territory that encompasses most ong>ofong> ong>theong> city

ong>ofong> Sydney, ong>theong> surrounding coastal areas and parts ong>ofong> greater Sydney. It includes river

systems, bushland, sandstone cliffs, beaches, bays and caves. For thousands ong>ofong> years ong>theong>

Eora people have shared a vital relationship with this land and its flora and fauna. They

regard it as a source ong>ofong> ong>theong>ir life force, spirituality and internal strength.

The installation uses animation and ong>theong> latest digital technology to light up ong>theong> souong>theong>rn

pylon ong>ofong> ong>theong> Sydney Harbour Bridge and illuminate ong>theong> rich history ong>ofong> ong>theong> Eora Nation; to

depict how, for thousands ong>ofong> years, ong>theong>y looked after ong>theong> sacred place we live on today.

Bangarra’s artistic director Stephen Page and head designer Jacob Nash have created a

breathtaking work inspired by creation stories ong>ofong> ong>theong> waratah and cockatoo; it also depicts

how ong>theong> people lived with natural elements showing ong>theong>ir vital relationship with flora

and fauna. The liong>theong> ochre-covered bodies ong>ofong> ong>theong> dancers represent ong>theong> land and its living

connections to all things in ong>theong> natural world.” (Destination NSW b 2016)

The installation was chosen for study for its applicability to ong>theong> research aims and objectives;

that being to understand wheong>theong>r a ‘visual catalyst’ in a public space can influence a person’s

attraction and use ong>ofong> place. Additionally, this case study was chosen as it presents a concept

ong>ofong> place which is greater than a physical idea; it presents one which is narrative driven and

culturally engaging. It was also chosen due to it being in Sydney; a place ong>ofong> proximity and also

a place which has not undergone significant research into creative placemaking outcomes –

particularly through ong>theong> method ong>ofong> place-centred behaviour mapping as a method ong>ofong> research.

24


25

Figure 4.4 - Photos ong>ofong> ong>theong> case study EORA - The Land (Destination NSW b 2016).


METHOD

PLACE CENTRED BEHAVIOUR MAPPING

Behaviour mapping is a form ong>ofong> systematic observation research that tracks behaviour over

time and space (Sommer & Sommer 2001). It involves ong>theong> entry ong>ofong> data into eiong>theong>r a simple

table ong>ofong> significant tallied attributes (such as gender and people sitting down) or/as well

as ong>theong> mapping ong>ofong> data drawn on a scaled site outline. This tool, predominantly used by

environmental psychologists, urban designers and landscape architects, developed in ong>theong> late

1960s and early 1970s (Barker 1968; Ittelson et al. 1976). This method takes two main forms;

one being ong>theong> focus on a place, and ong>theong> oong>theong>r being ong>theong> focus on a person. These two forms

are known as place-centred and person or individual-centred mapping respectively (Manzo &

Devine-Wright 2016).

Behaviour mapping is generally understood as a quantitative approach to research, however it

is equally plausible to use it as a method ong>ofong> qualitative research (Cosco et al. 2010). A primarily

quantitative approach, such as for this ong>theong>sis, aims to observe what happens in a place, and

provide hard data to record this to turn into substantial finding in relation to ong>theong> prescribed

research focus (Ng 2016). In ong>theong> case for this project, that would be exploring wheong>theong>r people’s

experience ong>ofong> place is influenced by ‘visual catalysts’. As such, this lends ong>theong> study ong>ofong> this ong>theong>sis

towards it being a place-centred paradigm, raong>theong>r than individual centred.

Behaviour mapping is also one ong>ofong> ong>theong> only methods able to measure detailed changes in

behaviour and space in parallel with time; a core feature ong>ofong> this study as it aims to determine

ong>theong> role ong>ofong> temporality in people’s experience ong>ofong> place (Hill 1984). Hence, through observing

ong>theong> changes in behaviour during different time periods (such as before, during, and after ong>theong>

intervention) a broad spectrum ong>ofong> findings can be collated and analysed comparatively.

METHOD CONSIDERATIONS

In terms ong>ofong> ong>theong> limitations ong>ofong> behaviour mapping as a method ong>ofong> study, ong>theong>re is a substantial

reliance on ong>theong> interpretation ong>ofong> results from ong>theong> researcher (Brown et al. 2015). By observing

what people do in space this can provide insight into wheong>theong>r people’s experience ong>ofong> place

is influenced by catalytic interventions, however ong>theong>re is no significant comparative work to

compare ong>theong>se observations against in terms ong>ofong> previous research or studies conducted. Yet,

as this ong>theong>sis is solely focused on ong>theong> notion ong>ofong> understanding if, and how long, ong>theong> experience

ong>ofong> place is influenced, raong>theong>r than ong>theong> extent or reasoning, behaviouramapping provides ong>theong>

fundamental source ong>ofong> information required through comparative analysis and observations.

If in ong>theong> future this project were to be furong>theong>r researched, an obvious progression ong>ofong> this

method ong>ofong> research would be to interlace oong>theong>r forms ong>ofong> qualitative based research to gain

greater understanding into what causes a person’s experience ong>ofong> place to be influenced,

raong>theong>r than simply observing if it does.

26


FIELDWORK PROCEDURE

The procedure for behaviour mapping involves ong>theong> observation, tallying and note taking ong>ofong>

what is happening in ong>theong> place ong>ofong> ong>theong> case study during ong>theong> allotted times. These observation

periods, being over two time slots in three session, will provide ong>theong> information needed to

analyse, and compare, wheong>theong>r ong>theong> ‘visual catalysts’ have an influence over ong>theong> experience

ong>ofong> place. Each period ong>ofong> behaviour mapping involved one hour ong>ofong> observation. As such, ong>theong>

behaviour mapping will occur before, during and after ong>theong> installation as shown by table table

4.1 below:

Table 4.5 - Timetable for ong>theong> behaviour mapping sessions. The blue outline delineates ong>theong>

period ong>ofong> time that ong>theong> VIVID displays were in ong>theong> place ong>ofong> study.

The selection ong>ofong> dates, days and time blocks were determined by several factors. The most

significant factor was that ong>ofong> ong>theong> temporary public space installation being active during ong>theong>

early weeks ong>ofong> June and during ong>theong> evening – hence why evening recordings are prevalent in

ong>theong> month ong>ofong> June. Anoong>theong>r factor was ong>theong> desire to also observe ong>theong> changes in behaviours

across different times ong>ofong> days and during busy periods when ong>theong> interventions are not active –

hence why early afternoon recordings are prevalent. Additionally, ong>theong> time blocks ong>ofong> one hour

shall be sufficient for observation purposes due to ong>theong> small scale ong>ofong> ong>theong> site. Lastly, for stage

three ong>theong>se specific dates were chosen due to it being several weeks after ong>theong> conclusion

ong>ofong> ong>theong> event; with this being important to determine wheong>theong>r ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place has

endured as asked by one ong>ofong> ong>theong> research questions.

The behaviour mapping involves ong>theong> use ong>ofong> observation, mapping, tallying and note taking. The

weaong>theong>r, site conditions and oong>theong>r unforeseen phenomena will also be noted on ong>theong> arrival

ong>ofong> each period to use for later comparison if ong>theong>y have any effective relationship with ong>theong>

results. Likewise, following ong>theong> conclusion ong>ofong> each period ong>ofong> mapping some concluding notes

will be taken on ong>theong> thoughts and significant behaviours observed in ong>theong> period. A tallying and

shorthand system will be implemented for ong>theong> mapping and observation ong>ofong> key characteristics

27


ong>ofong> people in ong>theong> place – such as ong>theong>ir movement patterns, gender, actions and ong>theong> time ong>theong>y

spent in ong>theong> place. These are all significant factors in determining, and comparing, people’s

experience ong>ofong> place. A detailed outline ong>ofong> ong>theong> table used to record results and ong>theong> map is

shown by figures 4.5 and 4.6 on ong>theong> following page, and full page images ong>ofong> each can be found

in appendix A and appendix C.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

As this form ong>ofong> research is passive and unobtrusive in nature, ong>theong>re are limited opportunities

for problematic situations or ethical considerations. However, ong>theong>re are some important

factors to be considered for this project:

• Research will be conducted during ong>theong> event which will likely involve a significant

amount ong>ofong> people in a small space – consideration is needed to place oneself away

from main movement lines as to not interfere or obstruct ong>theong> flow ong>ofong> people to

not cause potential injury or contact with ong>theong> general public

• Anonymity will be enforced during ong>theong> research – to protect ong>theong> identity ong>ofong> people

and to not disclose personal information about particular individuals or groups

• To not follow or confrontationally observe ong>theong> behaviours ong>ofong> people – this may

cause unease for ong>theong> participants and also skew results

28


Figure 4.5 - The map used for ong>theong> behaviour mapping sessions.

Figure 4.6 - The table used for ong>theong> behaviour mapping sessions.

29


DATA ANALYSIS PROCESS

For this ong>theong>sis, ong>theong> form ong>ofong> analysis will centre around ong>theong> comparative examination ong>ofong> results

from three different stages ong>ofong> behaviour mapping ong>ofong> ong>theong> case study (that being before, during,

and after ong>theong> installation). The analysis will primarily be a comparison ong>ofong> observed behaviours,

and will draw out in-depth patterns ong>ofong> people’s experience ong>ofong> place in relation to how ong>theong>y use

a space when a ‘visual catalyst’ is active, and when it is not.

To go into detail, ong>theong> analysis ong>ofong> results will involve ong>theong> comparison ong>ofong> ong>theong> times ong>ofong> day, gender,

movement patterns, activity and behaviour patterns, amount ong>ofong> time spent in place, social

interactions and engagement with site conditions. These details will be analysed quantitatively

through ong>theong> tallying ong>ofong> numbers, and a statistical comparison to allow for ong>theong> observation

ong>ofong> wheong>theong>r ong>theong> experience and behaviours observed in that place have changed and/or be

influenced. However, this, along with incremental notetaking during ong>theong> stages ong>ofong> mapping,

will also provide ong>theong> basis for a narrative to emerge. Likewise, ong>theong> analysis ong>ofong> results will not

just involve ong>theong> comparison ong>ofong> drawn maps, but also ong>theong> comparison ong>ofong> written notes on

observations.

To structure this analysis, and to help determine important findings ong>ofong> value, ong>theong> work ong>ofong>

Creswell (2005) will help establish this through his six steps ong>ofong> data analysis. Those steps

include:

• Organising and preparing ong>theong> data for analysis

• Reading through ong>theong> data

• Beginning detailed analysis with ong>theong> coding process (spreadsheet individual

sessions)

Use ong>theong> coding process to generate a description ong>ofong> ong>theong> setting or people as well

as categories for ong>theong>se for analysis – linking significant data in relation to ong>theong>

experience ong>ofong> place

• Advance ong>theong> triangulation ong>ofong> data and present findings

• Interpret ong>theong> meaning ong>ofong> ong>theong> data parallel to ong>theong> literature

As such, from using Creswell’s (2005) method for analysis findings will provide ong>theong> basis

to compare ong>theong> key data obtained from ong>theong> behaviour mapping sessions in relation to ong>theong>

experience ong>ofong> place, and ong>theong> attachment to place. Through observing ong>theong> ong>theong>mes ong>ofong> behaviour,

such as ong>theong> amount ong>ofong> engagement, form ong>ofong> activity and ong>theong> amount ong>ofong> time spent doing an

activity, an understanding ong>ofong> wheong>theong>r ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place has been influenced can become

apparent as a result ong>ofong> ong>theong> creative placemaking intervention. Consequently, findings can ong>theong>n

be established and presented.

30


RESEARCH DESIGN DIAGRAM

DEFINE RESEARCH TOPIC

ong>Exploringong> ong>theong> role ong>ofong> ‘visual catalysts’ on influencing people's

attraction and use ong>ofong> place

LITERATURE REVIEW

Place Attachment

Creative placemaking

Gaps and Opportunities ?

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

1 To understand if creative placemaking interventions, such as ‘visual catalysts’, make places more

attractive to people and increases ong>theong> use ong>ofong> underutilised

2 To understand if any increase in ong>theong> use ong>ofong> underutilised places induced by ong>theong> temporary

intervention is sustained after ong>theong> intervention has concluded

3 To understand if creative placemaking interventions could be used to ignite place attachment in

underutilised public places

1 To compare and analyse ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> place before, during, and after ong>theong> ‘visual

catalysts’ ong>ofong> ‘Underfoot’ and ‘EORA – The Land’ as part ong>ofong> ong>theong> VIVID 2016 festival in Sydney

2 To analyse wheong>theong>r ong>theong>re is a sustained increase in ong>theong> use and interest ong>ofong> place beyond ong>theong>

conclusion ong>ofong> ong>theong> ‘visual catalysts’, and to articulate what attributes ong>ofong> ong>theong> use have and have not

changed

3 To consider wheong>theong>r ong>theong> ‘visual catalysts’ ong>ofong> ‘Underfoot’ and ‘EORA - The Land’ could potentially

promote greater attachment to ong>theong> immediate underutilised place

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1 Do ‘visual catalysts’, as a form ong>ofong> temporary place-based intervention, influence ong>theong> attraction and

use ong>ofong> place?

2 Is ong>theong>re evidence ong>ofong> a sustained interest in ong>theong> location ong>ofong> ong>theong> ‘visual catalyst’ after ong>theong> intervention

has ceased?

3 Can temporary place-based interventions, such as ‘visual catalysts’, be used to ignite place

attachment to underutilised public places?

METHODOLOGY & ETHICS

Quantitative Case Study

METHODS

Place Centred Behaviour Mapping

2 x BEFORE 2 x DURING 2 x AFTER

DATA ANALYSIS

An analysis ong>ofong> ong>theong> results from each behaviour mapping session, ong>theong>n triagulated and compared

against one anoong>theong>r

SYNTHESIS & WRITE UP

Distillation ong>ofong> findings into results, discussion and final conclusions

31


PART FOUR _

DATA ANALYSIS

32


FINDINGS

This chapter contains ong>theong> findings obtained from ong>theong> designated method ong>ofong> research; placecentred

behaviour mapping. Summaries ong>ofong> each session ong>ofong> behaviour mapping are presented

ong>theong>se sessions were completed before, during, and after ong>theong> VIVID festival. Then each

session is comparatively presented through ong>theong> triangulation ong>ofong> findings. This triangulation

explores ong>theong> observed behaviour that ‘visual catalysts’ have ong>theong> capacity to stimulate, and

redirect, attention to different reference points ong>ofong> a place both physically and socially. This is

seen through ong>theong> comparative analysis ong>ofong> data which presents observation patterns, duration

ong>ofong> ‘stay’ in place, amount and flow ong>ofong> people, and ‘displays ong>ofong> affection’ presented in place.

Following this, ong>theong> findings are ong>theong>n addressed through ong>theong> three established research

questions:

1 Do ‘visual catalysts’, as a form ong>ofong> temporary place-based intervention, influence ong>theong>

attraction and use ong>ofong> place?

2 Is ong>theong>re evidence ong>ofong> a sustained interest in ong>theong> location ong>ofong> ong>theong> ‘visual catalyst’ after ong>theong>

intervention has ceased?

3 Can temporary place-based interventions, such as ‘visual catalysts’, be used to ignite

place attachment to underutilised public places?

This chapter concludes with a summation ong>ofong> findings to prelude ong>theong> discussion ong>ofong> how ong>theong>se

findings correspond, and potentially embolden, our understanding ong>ofong> ong>theong> role ong>ofong> ‘visual

catalysts’ in people’s attraction and use ong>ofong> place.

SESSION DATA

The behaviour mapping was separated into three main sessions with two periods ong>ofong> fieldwork

– two periods before ong>theong> VIVID festival, two during, and two after. One period in each session

included mapping ong>ofong> ong>theong> time period from 1:30-2:30PM, whilst ong>theong> oong>theong>r period ong>ofong> each

session included ong>theong> mapping ong>ofong> ong>theong> time period from 6:15-7:15PM. Data collated included ong>theong>

tallying and note taking ong>ofong> gender, number ong>ofong> people, grouping ong>ofong> people, weaong>theong>r and on-site

conditions, speed ong>ofong> movement, displays ong>ofong> affection, observations and photos taken by ong>theong>

sample, and any oong>theong>r behavioural patterns that are determined to be ong>ofong> significance during

ong>theong> behaviour mapping sessions. Each period is presented and compared in parallel with ong>theong>

oong>theong>r in ong>theong> same session, which is in turn triangulated with ong>theong> oong>theong>r sessions to present ong>theong>

overall findings.

33


BEFORE VIVID

The first period ong>ofong> behaviour mapping for session one, known as S1 (1), took place on ong>theong> 22nd

ong>ofong> May 2016 from 6:15-7:15PM. On this Sunday evening, a total ong>ofong> 153 people were observed

during this hour with a proportionally even split ong>ofong> gender. The second period ong>ofong> behaviour

mapping for session one, known as S1 (2), took place on ong>theong> 25th May 2016 from 1:30-2:30PM.

On this Tuesday afternoon, a total ong>ofong> 176 people were observed during this hour with also a

proportionally even split ong>ofong> gender.

Approximately 29% ong>ofong> people in S1 (1) were determined to have observed some element ong>ofong>

ong>theong>ir environment around ong>theong>m with direct intent; something which is observed for longer

than a passing glance or brief moment ong>ofong> interest. Similarly, 26% ong>ofong> people in S1 (2) were

determined to have observed some element ong>ofong> ong>theong>ir environment around ong>theong>m. As shown

by figure 5.1, ong>theong> most observed landmark/feature ong>ofong> both periods was ong>ofong> ong>theong> harbour, which

was determined by people looking out towards ong>theong> water and observing ong>theong> activity ong>ofong>, and on,

ong>theong> harbour. The harbour was observed by 16% ong>ofong> people is S1 (1), and 20% ong>ofong> people in S1

(2). This included people observing boats, ong>theong> water itself, as well as ong>theong> lights reflected on ong>theong>

water during ong>theong> evening period ong>ofong> mapping.

As such, people were most directed to an outward experience ong>ofong> place during this session;

one which saw people less interested in ong>theong>ir immediate, intimate relationship with ong>theong> place,

but raong>theong>r one which saw ong>theong> majority ong>ofong> people engaging with landmarks/features that were

measurably farong>theong>r away; such as ong>theong> harbour. A diagrammatic plan ong>ofong> what landmarks/

features were observed for both periods S1 (1) and S1 (2) can be seen by figures 5.3 and 5.4.

The amount and flow ong>ofong> people observed in ong>theong> space during ong>theong>se two periods ong>ofong> mapping

was also comparable in findings. As shown by figure 5.2, ong>theong> main type ong>ofong> movement observed

in this space was walking, and ong>theong> two less common types were running and cycling. Likewise,

ong>theong> most common speed ong>ofong> people who moved through ong>theong> space was classified as fast,

meaning ong>theong>y were moving through ong>theong> space with intent and at a reasonable pace alike to

that ong>ofong> any oong>theong>r typical transition space. Whereas some people moved through ong>theong> space at

a moderate pace, and oong>theong>rs slowly at a meandering pace stopping frequently and observing

around ong>theong>m.

The observed pattern ong>ofong> people moving through ong>theong> space at a fast speed is a reflection ong>ofong> ong>theong>

type ong>ofong> space it is; one which is predominantly used as a transition space where people move

through undistracted. This is heightened by ong>theong> physical attributes ong>ofong> ong>theong> space - ong>theong>re is no

place to sit, it is lineal in nature, and has a flat ground plane. This is furong>theong>r underscored by ong>theong>

finding that only 20% ong>ofong> people is S1 (1) and 19% ong>ofong> people in S2 (2) stopped anywhere in ong>theong>

place at any point during ong>theong> behaviour mapping.

34


Figure 5.1 - Most observed landmarks/features for S1 (1) and S1 (2).

FAST MODERATE SLOW

Figure 5.2 - Movement type and speed for S1 (1) and S1 (2). Most people walked, and most

people moved through ong>theong> site at a fast speed.

35


Figure 5.3 - The observation patterns ong>ofong> people

in ong>theong> designated study area for S1 (1) - before

ong>theong> VIVID festival. The larger ong>theong> coloured areas

ong>theong> more people, and ong>theong> brighter ong>theong> colour ong>theong>

longer amount ong>ofong> time people spent observing that

feature/landmark.

36


Figure 5.4 - The observation patterns ong>ofong> people

in ong>theong> designated study area for S1 (2) - before

ong>theong> VIVID festival. The larger ong>theong> coloured areas

ong>theong> more people, and ong>theong> brighter ong>theong> colour ong>theong>

longer amount ong>ofong> time people spent observing that

feature/landmark.

37


DURING VIVID

The first period ong>ofong> behaviour mapping for session two, known as S2 (1), took place on ong>theong> 12th

ong>ofong> June 2016 from 6:15-7:15PM. This was ong>theong> period when ong>theong> place was observed when ong>theong>

VIVID festival was active. On this Sunday evening, a total ong>ofong> 599 people were observed during

this hour. The second period ong>ofong> behaviour mapping for session two, known as S2 (2), took

place on ong>theong> 14th ong>ofong> June 2016 from 1:30-2:30PM. This was ong>theong> period when VIVID was on, but

was not active due to ong>theong> time ong>ofong> day. On this Tuesday afternoon, a total ong>ofong> 185 people were

observed during this hour. Both periods had a proportionally even split in gender.

Approximately 55% ong>ofong> people in S2 (1) were determined to have observed some element ong>ofong>

ong>theong>ir environment around ong>theong>m with direct intent, with a large proportion observing ong>theong> VIVID

displays that were contained in ong>theong> site. In contrast, 38% ong>ofong> people in S2 (2) were determined

to have observed some element ong>ofong> ong>theong>ir environment around ong>theong>m with direct intent. This

shows a reasonably significant decrease in ong>theong> number ong>ofong> people observing some element

ong>ofong> ong>theong>ir environment around ong>theong>m with direct intent when ong>theong> VIVID festival ceased to be

active. As shown by figure 5.5, ong>theong> most observed landmark/feature ong>ofong> ong>theong> S2 (1) was spread

reasonably evenly across people observing ong>theong>ir immediate surroundings, ong>theong> Sydney Harbour

Bridge, ong>theong> Sydney Opera House, and ong>theong> VIVID display on ong>theong> sandstone footing ong>ofong> ong>theong>

bridge known as ‘Eora’. In contrast, ong>theong> least observed landmarks/features were ong>theong> harbour

and Luna Park. The harbour was only observed by 6% ong>ofong> people is S2 (1), yet it was ong>theong> main

observed landmark/feature ong>ofong> S2 (2) with 19% ong>ofong> people observing.

As such, in relation to place for S2 (1), people were most directed to where ong>theong> VIVID displays

were occurring – being ong>theong> displays ong>ofong> ‘Underfoot’ in ong>theong> immediate surroundings, ‘EORA

– The Landon ong>theong> footing ong>ofong> ong>theong> bridge, ong>theong> Sydney Opera House in ong>theong> distance, and ong>theong>

Sydney Harbour Bridge directly above. In contrast, for S2 (2) ong>theong> majority ong>ofong> people were

seen to observe less ong>ofong> ong>theong>ir immediate context and conditions ong>ofong> ong>theong> space, but raong>theong>r more

people observed somewhere with an outward direction ong>ofong> interest; such as ong>theong> harbour. This

suggests a shift in ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place in terms ong>ofong> immediacy; ong>theong> VIVID festival drew in

more people to a clearly directed experience ong>ofong> place through temporary interventions which

people seek out to observe, whereas on a typical day with typical conditions ong>theong> experience ong>ofong>

place remained consistent with ong>theong> observed behaviours ong>ofong> people being more interested in

observing elements which can be seen from ong>theong> site, not ong>ofong> ong>theong> site itself. Two diagrammatic

plans ong>ofong> what landmarks/features were observed for both periods S2 (1) and S2 (2) can be

seen by figures 5.7 and 5.8 which show this clear distinction.

The observed pattern ong>ofong> more people moving through ong>theong> space at a moderate and slow pace

in S2 (1) can be linked with ong>theong> change in ong>theong> condition ong>ofong> place from ong>theong> normal, as well as ong>theong>

congested nature ong>ofong> ong>theong> exhibition due to substantial pedestrian traffic. This contrast between

S2 (1) and S2 (2) is furong>theong>r underscored by ong>theong> finding that 36% ong>ofong> people stopped at any point

during ong>theong> behaviour mapping, compared to 25% respectively. This is shown by figure 5.6.

These findings ong>ofong> ong>theong> number and speed ong>ofong> people during VIVID have ong>theong> potential to alter ong>theong>

38


experience ong>ofong> place quite dramatically. The sheer number ong>ofong> people who go to see VIVID has

ong>theong> potential to change ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place by crowding ong>theong> harbour front. This not only

can act as a deterrent to look out across ong>theong> harbour through blocking viewpoints, but it also

can cause people to redirect ong>theong>ir attention to what everyone else is observing – a trend which

was seen in period S2 (1) which people tended to follow ong>theong> observation behaviours ong>ofong> ong>theong>

people around ong>theong>m.

Figure 5.5 - Most observed landmarks/features for S1 (1) and S1 (2).

FAST MODERATE SLOW

Figure 5.6 - Movement type and speed for S2 (1) and S2 (2). Most people walked, and most

people moved through ong>theong> site at a fast speed, although less than ong>theong> oong>theong>r sessions.

39


Figure 5.7 - The observation patterns ong>ofong> people

in ong>theong> designated study area for S2 (1) - during

ong>theong> VIVID festival. The larger ong>theong> coloured areas

ong>theong> more people, and ong>theong> brighter ong>theong> colour ong>theong>

longer amount ong>ofong> time people spent observing that

feature/landmark.

40


Figure 5.8 - The observation patterns ong>ofong> people in ong>theong>

designated study area for S2 (2) - during ong>theong> VIVID

festival (but not active). The larger ong>theong> coloured areas

ong>theong> more people, and ong>theong> brighter ong>theong> colour ong>theong> longer

amount ong>ofong> time people spent observing that feature/

landmark.

41


AFTER VIVID

The first period ong>ofong> behaviour mapping for session three, known as S3 (1), took place on ong>theong>

17th ong>ofong> July 2016 from 6:15-7:15PM. On this Sunday evening, a total ong>ofong> 173 people were

observed during this hour. The second period ong>ofong> behaviour mapping for session three, known

as S3 (2), took place on ong>theong> 19th ong>ofong> July 2016 from 1:30-2:30PM. On this Tuesday afternoon, a

total ong>ofong> 215 people were observed during this hour. There was a proportionally even split ong>ofong>

gender in both observed periods ong>ofong> behaviour mapping.

Approximately 29% ong>ofong> people in S3 (1) and 36% ong>ofong> people in S3 (2) were determined to have

observed some element ong>ofong> ong>theong>ir environment around ong>theong>m with direct intent. As shown by

figure 5.9, ong>theong> most observed landmark/feature ong>ofong> both periods was ong>ofong> ong>theong> harbour. The

harbour was observed by 19% ong>ofong> people is S3 (1), and 16% ong>ofong> people in S3 (2). In relation

to place, people were had similar observation patterns to that seen before ong>theong> VIVID

festival was active. People were more interested in looking at things which were not in ong>theong>ir

immediate place, but were raong>theong>r interested in ong>theong> typical landmarks and icons that Sydney is

synonymous for; being ong>theong> Opera House, ong>theong> Sydney Harbour Bridge and ong>theong> harbour itself. A

diagrammatic plan ong>ofong> what landmarks/features were observed for both periods S3 (1) and S3

(2) can be seen by figures 5.11 and 5.12 on ong>theong> following spread.

The amount and flow ong>ofong> people observed was also similar between ong>theong> two periods ong>ofong>

behaviour mapping. As shown by figure 5.10, ong>theong> main type ong>ofong> movement observed in this

space was walking, and ong>theong> two less common types were running and cycling. Likewise, ong>theong>

most common speed ong>ofong> people who moved through ong>theong> space was classified as fast.

These observations were similar to those observed before ong>theong> VIVID festival was active, and

suggest ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place in terms ong>ofong> ong>theong> number and flow ong>ofong> people returned to what it

was like prior to ong>theong> ‘visual catalysts’. This is furong>theong>r underscored by ong>theong> finding that only 23%

and 29% respectively stopped at any point during ong>theong> behaviour mapping ong>ofong> S3 (1) and S3 (2);

similar findings to those seen prior to ong>theong> VIVID installation.

42


Figure 5.9 - Most observed landmarks/features for S1 (1) and S1 (2).

FAST MODERATE SLOW

Figure 5.10 - Movement type and speed for S3 (1) and S3 (2). Most people walked, and most

people moved through ong>theong> site at a fast speed.

43


Figure 5.11 - The observation patterns ong>ofong> people

in ong>theong> designated study area for S3 (1) - after ong>theong>

VIVID festival. The larger ong>theong> coloured areas ong>theong>

more people, and ong>theong> brighter ong>theong> colour ong>theong>

longer amount ong>ofong> time people spent observing that

feature/landmark.

44


Figure 5.12 - The observation patterns ong>ofong> people in ong>theong>

designated study area for S3 (2) - after ong>theong> VIVID festival.

The larger ong>theong> coloured areas ong>theong> more people, and ong>theong>

birhgter ong>theong> colour ong>theong> longer amount ong>ofong> time people

spent observing that feature/landmark.

45


DATA TRIANGULATION

The core finding is that ‘visual catalysts’ have ong>theong> capacity to influence, and redirect, ong>theong>

attention and use ong>ofong> place to different reference points ong>ofong> interest. This can be concluded

through ong>theong> collective analysis ong>ofong> ong>theong> sessions in terms ong>ofong> ong>theong> observation patterns, duration ong>ofong>

‘stay’ in place, amount and flow ong>ofong> people, and ‘displays ong>ofong> affection’ presented in place. These

findings also suggest that ong>theong>re is some potential for ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place to ‘linger’ beyond

ong>theong> conclusion ong>ofong> ong>theong> ‘visual catalysts’, however conclusive evidence ong>ofong> this is not presented as

furong>theong>r discussion ong>ofong> this notion is needed in parallel with ong>theong> existing literature. Furong>theong>rmore,

ong>theong> findings also suggest that an attachment to place is possible to be catalysed and cultivated

as a result ong>ofong> ong>theong> VIVID festival and ong>theong> interventions; many ong>ofong> ong>theong> findings that have been

presented have a strong overlap with that ong>ofong> ong>theong> attributes needed to establish an attachment

to place (such as ong>theong> formation ong>ofong> memories, ong>theong> increased duration ong>ofong> time spent in place,

and ong>theong> increase ong>ofong> affectionate displays). The first data that has been triangulated to present

ong>theong> notion that ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place is influenced is ong>theong> patterns ong>ofong> what people observed.

PATTERNS OF OBSERVATIONS

As presented in ong>theong> session breakdown ong>ofong> findings, ong>theong> observation patterns show ong>theong>re is

a significant contrast in ong>theong> percentage ong>ofong> people who observed something, and what ong>theong>y

observed, during ong>theong> periods before and after VIVID compared to when ong>theong> festival was

occurring. During ong>theong> period where VIVID was active in ong>theong> space, ong>theong>re was a significant

rise in ong>theong> number ong>ofong> people who observed something – over half ong>theong> sample as shown by

figure 5.13. This can likely be attributed to ong>theong> fundamental basis ong>ofong> VIVID being a festival

which centres around ong>theong> concept ong>ofong> visual appeal. It aims to attract people towards certain

reference points ong>ofong> a place through ong>theong> use ong>ofong> light and illumination. People come to VIVID

with ong>theong> expectation to observe, and as such are likely to seek out things to observe.

The increase in ong>theong> number ong>ofong> people who observed something during ong>theong> VIVID festival is also

likely due to ong>theong>re being a change in ong>theong> normal conditions ong>ofong> a place, causing people to take

more time to observe ong>theong> form and reconditioned elements ong>ofong> place. This has ramifications

for people’s experience ong>ofong> place in terms ong>ofong> ong>theong> festival shifting ong>theong> focus ong>ofong> ong>theong> purpose ong>ofong> ong>theong>

space from one which is predominantly about movement, to one ong>ofong> passive observation.

However, it is important to note that under half ong>ofong> ong>theong> sample did not do any form ong>ofong>

observation whilst moving through ong>theong> space during ong>theong> VIVID festival. This suggests that even

acts ong>ofong> creative placemaking are limited in ong>theong>ir ability to change ong>theong> understood experience

ong>ofong> a place. This statistic could also have been exacerbated due to part ong>ofong> ong>theong> space being

barricaded by fencing and ong>theong> prevalence ong>ofong> security; two features which have ong>theong> capacity to

cause people to move faster and take less time to observe ong>theong>ir environment around ong>theong>m.

This statistic may not represent ong>theong> normal findings ong>ofong> oong>theong>r spaces found in Sydney where

VIVID exhibitions were being held.

46


In addition to ong>theong>re being an increase in ong>theong> number ong>ofong> people who observed something

in ong>theong> space, ong>theong>re was also a shift in what landmarks/features were observed as shown

by figures 5.14 and 5.15 on ong>theong> following spread. Figure 5.15 shows that during ong>theong> before

and after sessions people were primarily observing ong>theong> harbour, ong>theong> Opera House and ong>theong>

Sydney Harbour Bridge. These three features are arguably ong>theong> core characteristic ong>ofong> Sydney,

which suggest ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place in very much dependant on ong>theong> viewpoints ong>theong> place

has. It creates ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> a place which is not immediate, but raong>theong>r outward looking.

However, during VIVID, as shown by ong>theong> ight aqua glowing areas, ong>theong> outward observing

patterns ong>ofong> people reversed and became more inward looking as ong>theong> attention ong>ofong> people

shifted to small scale, illuminated displays in ong>theong>ir direct proximity. As such, a greater spread ong>ofong>

observations was seen across all landmarks and environmental features.

S1 (1) - Before VIVID

S1 (2) - Before VIVID

S2 (1) - During VIVID (whilst active)

S2 (2) - During VIVID

S3 (1) - After VIVID

S3 (2) - After VIVID

Figure 5.13 - Amount ong>ofong> people who observed a landmark or feature ong>ofong> each behaviour

mapping session. During VIVID ong>theong>re were more people who observed something than any

oong>theong>r session.

47


S1 (1) S1 (2) S2 (1) - During VIVID

S2 (2) S3 (1) S3 (2)

Figure 5.14 - All ong>theong> behvaiour mapping sessions side by side.

48


Figure 5.15 - The observation patterns ong>ofong> people in

ong>theong> designated study area for all sessions ong>ofong> behaviour

mapping. The coloured areas represent all sesisons

that were observed, and ong>theong> light aqua glow represent

ong>theong> most significant points ong>ofong> interest during ong>theong> VIVID

festival.

49


NUMBER AND FLOW OF PEOPLE

Anoong>theong>r factor which increased in ong>theong> designated space during ong>theong> VIVID festival was ong>theong>

number ong>ofong> people that were observed in, or moving through, ong>theong> space. During ong>theong> periods

before and after VIVID, a range ong>ofong> 153 to 215 people were counted in ong>theong> space. During ong>theong>

VIVID festival, ong>theong>re was 599 people; more than double ong>theong> amount ong>ofong> any period that was

recorded oong>theong>rwise. A comparative analysis ong>ofong> this data is shown by figure 5.16. This suggests

that ong>theong> shift in ong>theong> use ong>ofong> a place has ong>theong> ability to cause a swelling ong>ofong> people who engage

with ong>theong> place through sheer curiosity and interest. This is particularly exacerbated in ong>theong>

case ong>ofong> this study, as ong>theong> VIVID festival is an internationally marketed, premiere event that

Sydney runs every year. This alters ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place quite dramatically in terms ong>ofong> how

ong>theong> behaviours ong>ofong> people change, as discussed furong>theong>r in parallel with ong>theong> literature in ong>theong>

following chapter.

The percentage ong>ofong> people that moved through ong>theong> space slowly during ong>theong> VIVID festival was

also larger in proportion compared to when it was not active. During VIVID, ong>theong> percentage

ong>ofong> people that moved through ong>theong> space slowly was 27%; ong>theong> highest amongst all ong>theong> periods

ong>ofong> mapping. This, in part, is due to ong>theong> congested nature ong>ofong> ong>theong> event causing people to get

stuck behind oong>theong>rs. However, it is also likely a direct link to ong>theong> purpose ong>ofong> ong>theong> festival, one

which aims for people to stop, engage and observe with ong>theong> environment around ong>theong>m. The

implications for this in terms ong>ofong> ong>theong> attraction, use and attachment to place is discussed

furong>theong>r in ong>theong> following chapter alongside ong>theong> understood literature.

DURATION OF 'STAY' IN PLACE

During ong>theong> period when ong>theong> VIVID festival was active, ong>theong> amount ong>ofong> time spent by each

individual or group in ong>theong> space increased. During ong>theong> period which ong>theong> VIVID festival was

active, 36% ong>ofong> people stopped at any point in time in ong>theong> space. This compared to ong>theong> oong>theong>r

sessions is dramatically higher, as shown by figure 5.17. This is a reflection again ong>ofong> ong>theong> intent

ong>ofong> ong>theong> festival; it is something which aims to get people to stop and be engaged with a place

and ideas. There was slightly more people who stopped in ong>theong> space after ong>theong> VIVID festival

compared to those before ong>theong> VIVID festival. This may potentially be a result ong>ofong> ong>theong> lingering

effects on ong>theong> festival that cause people to stay more in a place as a result ong>ofong> ong>theong>ir positive

experience ong>theong>y had during ong>theong> activity ong>ofong> ong>theong> festival, however future research is needed to be

able to determine ong>theong> validity ong>ofong> this notion. It is also likely that this trend is apparent due to

ong>theong> increase in warmer weaong>theong>r as it gets closer to ong>theong> warmer seasons.

There is significance ong>ofong> ong>theong> amount ong>ofong> time a person stays in a place in relation to ong>theong>ir

attraction to place. It is directly related to how much someone personally ‘invests’ into a place;

ong>theong> longer someone is in a place, generally ong>theong> more vivid ong>theong> memory and interest ong>ofong> place

(Stedman 2003). Additionally, as ong>theong> VIVID festival causes people to spend more time in place

a consequential effect can be ong>theong> building ong>ofong> an attachment to a place as described furong>theong>r is

ong>theong> discussion chapter.

50


153

176

599

173

185

215

S1 (1) - Before VIVID

S1 (2) - Before VIVID

S2 (1) - During VIVID (whilst active)

S2 (2) - During VIVID

S3 (1) - After VIVID

S3 (2) - After VIVID

Figure 5.16 - Number ong>ofong> people from each session who passed through ong>theong> site.

37%

S1 (1) S1 (2) S2 (1) S2 (2) S3 (1) S3 (2)

Figure 5.17 - Number ong>ofong> people from each session who stopped in ong>theong> site.

51


DISPLAYS OF AFFECTIONS

Similarly, ‘displays ong>ofong> affection’ (such as holding hands, kissing, hugging, having one’s arm

around anoong>theong>r waist/shoulder) saw a peak during ong>theong> period ong>ofong> mapping when VIVID was

active, as well as a period ong>ofong> higher levels following ong>theong> conclusion ong>ofong> ong>theong> exhibition as shown

by figure 5.18. This is significant in relation to establishing an attachment to place; displays ong>ofong>

affection generally lead to ong>theong> retention ong>ofong> memories ong>ofong> a specific place and moment in time

which can lead to a great relation to ong>theong> place in which that interaction has occurred. This can

also change ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place by creating a more social and hospitable atmosphere by

changing ong>theong> typical social behaviours in a space.

S1 (1) - Before VIVID

S1 (2) - Before VIVID

16%

S2 (1) - During VIVID (whilst active)

S2 (2) - During VIVID

S3 (1) - After VIVID

S3 (2) - After VIVID

Figure 5.18 - Number ong>ofong> displays ong>ofong> affection from each session.

52


FINDINGS SIGNIFICANCE FOR RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1 Do ‘visual catalysts’, as a form ong>ofong> temporary place-based intervention, influence ong>theong>

attraction and use ong>ofong> place?

The findings show that ‘visual catalysts’ have ong>theong> potential to influence people’s attraction

and use ong>ofong> place, and in ong>theong> case ong>ofong> this study it has ong>theong> potential to fundamentally transform

ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> a place. The place observed in ong>theong> study transformed from one which was

primarily a transitional zone (one where people moved through to reach a certain destination)

to one which became a destination itself. It also transformed ong>theong> interest ong>ofong> place in a social

context; ong>theong> behaviours ong>ofong> people were influenced by ong>theong> VIVID festival itself, which in turn

influences ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> place.

The findings present ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> place changing in two ways: physically and

socially. The ‘visual catalysts’ ong>ofong> ong>theong> observed case studies for ong>theong> VIVID festival presented an

opportunity for people to shift how ong>theong>y use a space. The purpose ong>ofong> VIVID is to engage people

with ideas and places through illumination by establishing a range ong>ofong> different interventions

around Sydney. As such, ong>theong>se interventions change ong>theong> form ong>ofong> a space, and thus change

ong>theong> function. During VIVID, ong>theong>re were more people that observed around ong>theong>m due to ong>theong>

attraction and appeal ong>ofong> ong>theong> interventions; this led to ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place becoming much

more centred on ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> ong>theong> user at a human scale. Before ong>theong> intervention, ong>theong>

site acts as a space to move to and from, and it dominated by large architecture and vehicular

traffic. Through ong>theong> artistic creations and interventions ong>ofong> ong>theong> human scale ‘visual catalysts’ this

redefined ong>theong> space to become one at a more intimate, manageable scale. Hence, this is also

likely one ong>ofong> ong>theong> reasons why people were less interested in ong>theong> outlook and viewpoints ong>ofong> ong>theong>

place across ong>theong> harbour as ong>theong>y initially were before ong>theong> placemaking intervention as ong>theong>y can

relate to ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place at a greater human level.

In a social context, ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> place also was influenced in a transformative way;

predominantly due to ong>theong> number and behaviours ong>ofong> people when in a crowd. As discussed,

VIVID is an event where people travel from all parts ong>ofong> ong>theong> world to see it. It has millions ong>ofong>

people that attend annually, and has grown in popularity and scope substantially in recent

years. This aura and reputation brings with it a sense ong>ofong> behaviour that is expected when one

goes to see VIVID, and this was seen in ong>theong> findings. People during ong>theong> VIVID event were more

likely to behave as a cohort ong>ofong> people, a reflection ong>ofong> ong>theong> expected social norms ong>ofong> being in a

crowd, and were more likely to be more engaged with ong>theong> space as ong>theong>y were expecting to

observe and see things prior to ong>theong>ir arrival.

Additionally, ong>theong> function ong>ofong> a crowd changing ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place was also a substantial

finding ong>ofong> this research. The number ong>ofong> people in ong>theong> space was dramatically higher during ong>theong>

VIVID festival than any oong>theong>r time period observed, and this changes ong>theong> dynamic ong>ofong> ong>theong> space.

People had to move slower, had more time to take in ong>theong>ir surroundings, and generally had to

53


follow ong>theong> social expectations that being in a crowded space produces. This lead to two main

changes in ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place; it became more intimate, whilst it also became a shared

experience. People revelled togeong>theong>r in ong>theong> increased attraction and use ong>ofong> ong>theong> place.

2 Is ong>theong>re evidence ong>ofong> a sustained interest in ong>theong> location ong>ofong> ong>theong> ‘visual catalyst’ after ong>theong>

intervention has ceased?

The finding show that ong>theong>re is not a strong sustained interest in ong>theong> location ong>ofong> ong>theong> ‘visual

catalyst’ after ong>theong> intervention has concluded. However, ong>theong> findings do show that it potentially

can leave a ‘lingering’ effect ong>ofong> certain attributes which remain. Particularly, ong>theong> findings present

some insightful findings about ong>theong> variation and consistencies in ong>theong> patterns ong>ofong> behaviour

observed during and after ong>theong> festival, yet for ong>theong> most part ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place is changed

back to what it was like prior to ong>theong> creative placemaking interventions.

The majority ong>ofong> attributes ong>ofong> ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> place reverted back to pre-VIVID festival

patterns – such as what particular landmarks and features people were observing, how ong>theong>y

moved through ong>theong> space, and what ong>theong>y chose to engage with when in ong>theong> space. This in turn

changed back ong>theong> interest ong>ofong> place accordingly to what it was like prior to ong>theong> VIVID festival;

one which was dominated as being a thoroughfare with little interaction or interest ong>ofong> ong>theong>

immediate lace. This is noted as ong>theong> number ong>ofong> people that came to ong>theong> space, ong>theong> behaviours

and actions ong>theong>y undertook, and ong>theong> overall conditioned elements ong>ofong> ong>theong> space had reverted

back to what ong>theong>y were like prior to ong>theong> VIVID temporary place-based interventions were being

exhibited. As such, this suggests that whatever interest ong>ofong> place that occurred in ong>theong> period

when VIVID was active may be mostly transient, and is difficult to allow for a sustained interest

to occur beyond ong>theong> conclusion ong>ofong> temporary place-based interventions.

However, ong>theong>re was also a slight increase in ong>theong> number ong>ofong> people who observed, showed

signs ong>ofong> affection and spent time in ong>theong> place after ong>theong> festival compared to before it occurred.

This finding suggests that ong>theong>re may be some residual enduring effects ong>ofong> ong>theong> interest that

occur in that space which can conjure positive affiliations with place.

However, wheong>theong>r ong>theong>se are a consequential effect ong>ofong> ong>theong> VIVID festival is difficult to determine

as it may be a result ong>ofong> ong>theong> transition from cooler months to hotter ones, as well as oong>theong>r

various external factors that were seen to occur in ong>theong> site such as ong>theong> prevalence ong>ofong> security

and barricades.

Although ong>theong> interventions may not have created a substantial change in interest ong>ofong> ong>theong>

location ong>ofong> ong>theong> ‘visual catalysts’ ong>theong>y were in, it is possible that ong>theong> VIVID festival on a broader

scale could have changed ong>theong> interest ong>ofong> Sydney with long term consequences. To explore this

more, a discussion with ong>theong> existing literature is in ong>theong> following chapter.

54


3 Can temporary place-based interventions, such as ‘visual catalysts’, be used to ignite

place attachment to underutilised public places?

The influence ong>ofong> ‘visual catalysts’ have over ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> place can be substantial

as outlined in ong>theong> previous two research question discussions. The influence it has over

ong>theong> physical and social attributes ong>ofong> a place can also potentially ignite place attachment to

underutilised public places, as many ong>ofong> ong>theong> features that increased during ong>theong> festival, such

as ong>theong> number ong>ofong> people, displays ong>ofong> affections, and overall interest levels, can be a strong

precursor and building block for a positive relationship for people with place.

As seen in this study, ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place became more centred on ong>theong> user; something

which creates a more affable and positive relationship with ong>theong> user. The interest ong>ofong> what parts

ong>ofong> place altered, and became more intimate ong>ofong> an experience with ong>theong> direct human scale.

This close interaction with place can act as a precursor to a formed attachment. People during

ong>theong> VIVID exhibition were also shown to be more affection, which is also a direct precursor to

potentially igniting one’s attachment to place. Displays ong>ofong> affection, such as kissing, can create

a lasting memory ong>ofong> place which can lead to positive recollections and affiliations as discussed

furong>theong>r in ong>theong> following chapter.

People were also found to be in more groups, and engaged with ong>theong> place more readily and

heartily. The role ong>ofong> crowds and being in groups lead to ong>theong> observation ong>ofong> people being

more sociable and interest in one anoong>theong>r, as well as ong>theong>ir place around ong>theong>m. People were

observed to not have earphones on as much during ong>theong> VIVID festival, which can be a barrier

to creating a sense ong>ofong> place as one is detached from ong>theong> direct experience. Hence, it is likely

that people were going to ignite an attachment to place more prominently during ong>theong> festival,

raong>theong>r than when it was not active.

All ong>theong>se attributes can potentially lead to ong>theong> establishment ong>ofong> a greater attachment to place,

however acts ong>ofong> creative placemaking are more likely to be building block towards greater

attachment to place, such as ong>theong> VIVID festival provided ong>theong> opportunity for more memories to

be made, and for more personal investment to be established about ong>theong> place.

CONCLUSION

The findings presented in this chapter underline ong>theong> core ong>theong>me ong>ofong> ‘visual catalysts’ having

ong>theong> capacity to influence ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> place in a transformative manner for both

people and place. ‘Visual catalysts’ can redirect people’s attention to ong>theong>ir encompassing

reference points, and created a more receptive place at ong>theong> human scale. Additionally, this has

ong>theong> potential to lay ong>theong> foundations for attachment to place to grow from. The implications

ong>ofong> ong>theong>se statements in terms ong>ofong> people’s experience and attachment to place is furong>theong>r

considered in ong>theong> following chapter, ong>theong> discussion.

55


PART FIVE _

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

56


DISCUSSION

This chapter contains ong>theong> discussion ong>ofong> ong>theong> three aims. Each aim is addressed separately and

discussed in relation to ong>theong> literature and findings ong>ofong> this study.

AIM 1 DISCUSSION

1 To understand if creative placemaking interventions, such as ‘visual catalysts’, make

places more attractive to people and increases ong>theong> use ong>ofong> underutilised public places

As presented in ong>theong> findings, it is apparent that ‘visual catalysts’ can have a prong>ofong>ound influence

on a person’s attraction and use ong>ofong> place; particularly for underutilised public places . Similar

to ong>theong> nature ong>ofong> creative placemaking as described by Moran et al. (2014), ‘visual catalysts’

can fundamentally change ong>theong> physical and social experience ong>ofong> a place in a transformative

manner. In a social context, ong>theong>y can transform ong>theong> amount and behaviours ong>ofong> people. In a

physical context, ong>theong>y can transform ong>theong> function, narrative and hierarchy ong>ofong> a place. In this

study, ong>theong>se transformations have meant ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place has shifted from one being

ong>ofong> a transitional, outward looking space to one conducive ong>ofong> a more intimate, sociable and

culturally prosperous experience ong>ofong> place. However, ong>theong> extent and nature ong>ofong> ong>theong> ability for

‘visual catalysts’ to transform ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place should be understood as being variable;

as this form ong>ofong> temporary place-based intervention is diverse in intent and performance.

PHYSICAL: FUNCTION, NARRATIVE & HIERARCHY OF PLACE

‘Visual catalysts’ can influence ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> a place through redefining ong>theong> function

and narrative to centre on two ong>theong>mes – to observe and engage with place and ideas (Lydon &

Garcia 2015). In ong>theong> case ong>ofong> this study, ong>theong> function and narrative ong>ofong> ong>theong> interventions aligned

with ong>theong>se two ong>theong>mes – it changed ong>theong> place from one ong>ofong> an outward looking, expansive

spatial experience to one ong>ofong> intimacy, immediacy and inward attraction centred on ong>theong> activity

ong>ofong> ong>theong> ‘visual catalysts’. It is also likely that due to ong>theong> reputation and sheer scale ong>ofong> ong>theong> VIVID

festival that this notion is heightened in intensity and scale.

Whyte (1980) observes this simple rule – where ong>theong>re are places to sit, people will sit. Similarly,

in ong>theong> findings ong>ofong> this study – where ong>theong>re are places to engage, people will engage. ‘Visual

catalysts’ provide an opportunity through ong>theong> use ong>ofong> graphic appeal, illumination and artistic

manifestations to achieve this. Through this, ong>theong> function ong>ofong> place, as found in this study,

becomes much more central to ong>theong> user – ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> ong>theong> person becomes one ong>ofong>

ong>theong> defining factors ong>ofong> that place (Wyckong>ofong>f 2015). As a result, this transforms ong>theong> experience

ong>ofong> place through humanising it; a transformation which is exacerbated in underutilised and

inhospitable places such as ong>theong> one observed in this study (Desimini 2015).

57


‘Visual catalysts’ also shift and highlight ong>theong> narrative and physical hierarchy ong>ofong> ong>theong> place – one

where ong>theong> interventions can eiong>theong>r become ong>theong> dominant experience ong>ofong> ong>theong> place, and/or one

where ong>theong> intervention can imbue a stronger experience ong>ofong> place (Lydon & Garcia 2015). In

ong>theong> case ong>ofong> this study, both statements are accurate. The two main ‘visual catalysts’ studied

imbued a focused experience ong>ofong> place through illuminating ong>theong> physical conditions ong>ofong> ong>theong>

space, and illuminating ong>theong> cultural significance ong>ofong> ong>theong> place as described in ong>theong> findings – one

which cannot be told through ong>theong> site’s normal conditions as poignantly (Brunnberg & Frigo

2012).

Likewise, ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place has ong>theong> possibility to be changed on a larger scope – such as

observed in ong>theong> study. One ong>ofong> ong>theong> interventions centred around ong>theong> re-engagement ong>ofong> a place

alongside a cultural narrative. It was one which exhibited ong>theong> Eora Aboriginal people and ong>theong>ir

deep spiritual and cultural connections with ong>theong> land through visual projections (Destination

NSW b 2016). This changed ong>theong> immediate experience ong>ofong> a place, yet through telling a story

ong>ofong> ong>theong> place it also had ong>theong> ability to have broader impacts in terms ong>ofong> how people understand

ong>theong> importance and history ong>ofong> that place. As such, it is significant to understand when looking

at ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place being influenced by ‘visual catalysts’ to understand that broader

reaching concepts ong>ofong> place can also be influenced prominently (Moran et al. 2014).

SOCIAL: QUANTITY & BEHAVIOUR OF PEOPLE

Agnew (2011) discusses ong>theong> notion that events transform not only places but people, not only

physical space but also social space. As seen in this study, that statement holds significant

truth. During ong>theong> time a temporary place-based intervention is active, ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong>

place is prominently influenced by ong>theong> number, and ong>theong>refore behaviour, ong>ofong> people it attracts.

Crowds ong>ofong> people inherently changes ong>theong> consistent social behaviours and actions ong>ofong> people in

any given space (Gehl 2006). As observed by Whyte (1980), people attract people, but people

also tend to do what oong>theong>r people do. This is significant in ong>theong> sense ong>ofong> being in a crowd - ong>theong>

experience ong>ofong> place becomes one which is more holistic and dependant on ong>theong> behaviours ong>ofong>

oong>theong>rs. Likewise, ong>theong> accepted place scripts are followed more readily which leads to a more

consistent and predictable use ong>ofong> place (Donald & Carter 1994).

This notion is aligned with ong>theong> behaviours observed during this study – ong>theong>re was a marked

change in ong>theong> observed behaviours and social structure ong>ofong> ong>theong> place before and after ong>theong>

intervention compared to when it was active. Whilst active, ong>theong> number ong>ofong> people who

occupied that place sharply increased – it became crowded and ong>theong> social structure ong>ofong>

ong>theong> space became dominated by groups ong>ofong> people raong>theong>r than individuals. Consequently,

this changes ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place to become one which is less individualistic, and more

pluralistic – one about groups and ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place and engagement ong>ofong> ideas with

oong>theong>rs. Likewise, ong>theong> typical behaviours ong>ofong> people were more homogenous during ong>theong> event

as compared to before and after ong>theong> interventions. As such, it is important to note ong>theong> role ong>ofong>

crowds when understanding ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place artists and designers are trying to convey

and imbue in ong>theong>ir designs.

58


Additionally, due to ong>theong> interventions being transient and foreign this is something that causes

intrigue – it causes people to slow down, observe and ultimately spend more time in place

taking in ong>theong>ir surroundings (Project for Public Spaces 2009). It is ironic to note that by having

something transient in a space it can act as a mechanism for people to spend more time

in a place. This means ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place can be more vivid and have greater depth in

understanding – something which can build across time (Wight 2005).

It is evident from this study and ong>theong> existing literature that ‘visual catalysts’ certainly have

ong>theong> ability to influence ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> underutilised public places. It is significant

to note that due to ong>theong> diverse nature ong>ofong> ‘visual catalysts’, or creative placemaking for that

matter, that ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place can be transformed in completely different ways and to

different degrees ong>ofong> success – ong>ofong>ten dependant on how ong>theong> noted factors are understood and

expressed through ong>theong> means ong>ofong> observation and engagement.

AIM 2 DISCUSSION

2 To understand if any increase in ong>theong> use ong>ofong> underutilised places induced by ong>theong>

temporary intervention is sustained after ong>theong> intervention has concluded

One ong>ofong> ong>theong> most significant gaps in ong>theong> existing literature on creative placemaking is wheong>theong>r

ong>theong>se transient forms can have a sustained impact on ong>theong> level ong>ofong> interest ong>ofong> a place after

ong>theong> removal, or conclusion, ong>ofong> ong>theong> intervention. As described in ong>theong> findings, it was apparent

that ong>theong> level ong>ofong> interest ong>ofong> ong>theong> place where ong>theong> temporary place-based interventions were

active diminished after ong>theong> removal ong>ofong> ong>theong>m. People generally reverted back to ong>theong> normal

behaviours and uses ong>ofong> ong>theong> space prior to what ong>theong>y were like before ong>theong> creative placemaking

interventions. Yet, what can be understood from ong>theong> literature and this study is that ong>theong>

interest ong>ofong> a place being sustaining largely depends on ong>theong> purpose and success ong>ofong> ong>theong> ‘visual

catalyst’ itself.

Moran et al. (2014) notes, ong>theong> influence from ‘visual catalysts’ on place is one that can be a

catalysing event that builds an experience across time. This reflects that notion that once

something happens, generally it is not ong>theong> same again; nothing is inherently temporary. In ong>theong>

case ong>ofong> creative placemaking interventions, it is likely that even after ong>theong> removal ong>ofong> ong>theong>m that

ong>theong>re is a continuum ong>ofong> presence and visibility ong>ofong> ong>theong> intervention that lives on in ong>theong> minds ong>ofong>

people. However, ong>theong> behaviours and actions that people show in ong>theong> place after ong>theong> creative

placemaking interventions removal does not necessarily reflect this idea; that although ong>theong>ir

use has not increased in ong>theong> space, that ong>theong>re are oong>theong>r inherent qualities that have changed

as a result ong>ofong> experiencing ong>theong> place in a different manner.

This reflects back to ong>theong> notion ong>ofong> ‘visual catalysts’ being a mechanism for long term change

through short term action; something which inherent in its nature aims to change ong>theong> use ong>ofong>

place more ong>ofong>ten than not to be increased and more meaningful (Lydon & Garcia 2015). As

such, ‘visual catalysts’ have ong>theong> ability to provide a mechanism for long term change, and thus

59


ong>theong> change ong>ofong> use ong>ofong> that place, however ong>theong>y are limited in providing a sustaining change to

ong>theong> use ong>ofong> place after ong>theong>ir conclusion unless if ong>theong> aim ong>ofong> ong>theong> intervention is to change ong>theong>

place itself in an enduring way.

The VIVID festival itself is also unique in ong>theong> sense that it is on a grand scale in terms ong>ofong> creative

placemaking, and this has implications in anoong>theong>r sense in terms ong>ofong> ong>theong> use ong>ofong> place. The

festival started in 2009, and has grown substantially every year. This shows that ong>theong> success

ong>ofong> ong>theong> change ong>ofong> ong>theong> use ong>ofong> space, and ong>theong> increase in ong>theong> number ong>ofong> people using that space,

through temporary interventions has consequently changed ong>theong> use in a sustained manner

for Sydney, as now due to ong>theong> events popularity it continues to grow and shape how ong>theong> city is

experienced every year. This means ong>theong>re is a greater platform for enduring changes ong>ofong> place

to occur, and that ong>theong>re will be an increase in ong>theong> use ong>ofong> underutilised public places in Sydney

which can bring attention to ong>theong>ir significance.

Additionally, as noted in ong>theong> first aim, ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place during ong>theong> time ong>ofong> ong>theong> temporary

place-based interventions activity became one more conducive to intimacy, sociability and

cultural prosperity. These factors were short term immediate results reliant on ong>theong> physical

change to ong>theong> place itself through ong>theong> intervention. Just as Jacobs (1961) found ong>theong> experience

ong>ofong> ong>theong> everyday American city was changing due to ong>theong> shift in how ong>theong>y are planned, ong>theong>

experience ong>ofong> an underutilised space, such as ong>theong> one considered for this study, primarily

shifted in its use due to ong>theong> physical changes that occurred. Yet, as also observed in ong>theong>

study and by oong>theong>r researchers ong>theong>re is potential for ong>theong> increased use ong>ofong> space to ‘linger’,

and potentially result in a progression from something which is purely a change in use and

attraction to one which is ong>ofong> attachment (Smaldone 2006). It may not necessarily maintain a

physical experience ong>ofong> place as observed by this study, but it can imbue a lasting memory ong>ofong>

ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> that place which can ‘linger’ when re-established with that place (Stewart).

AIM 3 DISCUSSION

3 To understand if creative placemaking interventions could be used to ignite place

attachment in underutilised public places

As discussed in ong>theong> previous two aims, ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place can be prominently influenced

by ong>theong> introduction ong>ofong> ‘visual catalysts’. The way ong>theong>se temporary place-based interventions

impact ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place has a transformative effect on a person’s immediate

experience ong>ofong> place, as well as ong>theong> potential to imbue a ‘lingering’ experience ong>ofong> a place.

Furong>theong>rmore, ong>theong>se temporary place-based interventions also have ong>theong> ability to promote

greater place attachment, as many ong>ofong> ong>theong> factors that influence placemaking can also be

attributed to this concept (Hidalgo & Hernandez 2001). These factors include ong>theong> ability to

positively reframe an existing relationship with place, ong>theong> cultivation ong>ofong> memories, ong>theong> role ong>ofong>

time and temporality in progressing attachment, and ong>theong> ability for personal investment in ong>theong>

establishment ong>ofong> ong>theong> intervention for, and on, ong>theong> place. However, as observed in this study

and in ong>theong> literature, ‘visual catalysts’ are not likely to be ong>theong> main reason behind someone

60


procuring an attachment to place (Desimini 2015). However, ong>theong>y can act as a significant

building block in that process, or be a foundation for greater attachment to occur.

REFRAMING THE EXISTING RELATIONSHIP OF PLACE

Wheong>theong>r ‘visual catalysts’ can promote greater place attachment depends substantially

on where ong>theong> place is, and what ong>theong> existing experience ong>ofong> that place is like before any

intervention occurs. In ong>theong> case ong>ofong> this study, ong>theong> site chosen was one that was inhospitable

and underutilised – one that was dominated by a main road that runs through ong>theong> site and has

little features that relate to ong>theong> human form. The ‘visual catalysts’ activated an underutilised

site and made it more relatable to ong>theong> human form. This, in turn, has made ong>theong> experience

ong>ofong> place more conducive to human centred experiences – something which is essential to

allow ong>theong> foundation for a positive sense ong>ofong> place and attachment to occur (Altman & Low

1992). On ong>theong> oong>theong>r hand, where a ‘visual catalyst’ is brought into an already humanised

space ong>theong>re is also ong>theong> ability for ong>theong> intervention to have a prong>ofong>ound impact on a person’s

experience ong>ofong> that place, as instead ong>ofong> being a foundational event it can act as a building block

to that establishment ong>ofong> attachment as described by Korpela et al. (2009). Yet, it is important

to note that this catalysed attachment to place may deteriorate following ong>theong> removal ong>ofong> ong>theong>

intervention in ong>theong> place if ong>theong>re is no ‘lingering’ experiences ong>ofong> place (Desimini 2015).

MEMORIES

‘Visual catalysts’ have ong>theong> ability to create more emotive and sociable interactions – as seen in

ong>theong> findings ong>ofong> this study where people were more affectionate, talkative and likely to be more

engrossed with ong>theong>ir surroundings. Although all ong>theong>se factors may not be ong>theong> case for all ‘visual

catalysts’, ong>theong>ir transient nature certainly pertains ong>theong>m to providing poignant and ‘punchy’

experiences as described by Kaltenborn and Williams (2002) and Stedman (2006). This, as a

result, can lead to ong>theong> formation ong>ofong> meaningful memories. Memories are a significant factor in

relation to ong>theong> ability for someone to have an attachment to place (Altman & Low 1992).

TIME AND TEMPORALITY

Time and temporality plays a significant role in ong>theong> ability for ‘visual catalysts’ to promote

greater place attachment. Yet, ong>theong> notion ong>ofong> people having a limited amount ong>ofong> time in a

place, such as those which are engaged with temporary place-based interventions, primarily

promoting attraction raong>theong>r than attachment as discussed by Smaldone (2006) is an accurate

proposition as seen through ong>theong> work ong>ofong> this study. However, what fails to be noted is that

attachment can be cultivated from attraction – a notion which is proposed by Brown and

Raymond (2007). This is because ong>theong> simple attraction ong>ofong> a temporary place-based intervention

embodies fundamental attributes that influence ong>theong> promotion ong>ofong> a person’s attachment to

place. Through ong>theong>ir transient nature, ong>theong>y can instil poignant memories ong>ofong> an experience

ong>ofong> that place – one which is can be treasured just as significantly than that which is not

61


immediately transient; a reflection ong>ofong> our instinctual affliction with loss and ong>theong> desire to

maintain stability (Altman & Low 1992).

PERSONAL INVESTMENT

However, ong>theong>re are limitations ong>ofong> ‘visual catalyst’ establishing an attachment between place

and people in relation to time and temporality. This is not solely because ong>theong> intervention

is a transient act, but because it is one that is more focused on a product driven result

raong>theong>r than a process driven outcome (Moran et al. 2014). In some oong>theong>r forms ong>ofong> creative

placemaking ong>theong>re is a holistic community engagement ong>ofong> ong>theong> creation ong>ofong> a place which leads

to a much stronger ability to establish one’s attachment to place due to ong>theong> social investment

put into that place (Marshall & Bishop 2015). The VIVID festival is not one which engages

ong>theong> community in its establishment - only for ong>theong> experience. This limits ultimately limits its

ability to form attachment to place, yet it does not exclude it from ong>theong> notion ong>ofong> attachment

being able to occur. As such, an initial attraction to place due to a ‘visual catalyst’ has ong>theong>

ability to lay ong>theong> foundations for attachment to occur primarily dependant on ong>theong> purpose

and success ong>ofong> ong>theong> temporary place-based intervention.space ong>theong>re is also ong>theong> ability for ong>theong>

intervention to have a prong>ofong>ound impact on a person’s experience ong>ofong> that place, as instead ong>ofong>

being a foundational event it can act as a building block to that establishment ong>ofong> attachment

as described by Korpela et al. (2009). Yet, it is important to note that this catalysed attachment

to place may deteriorate following ong>theong> removal ong>ofong> ong>theong> intervention in ong>theong> place if ong>theong>re is no

‘lingering’ experiences ong>ofong> place (Desimini 2015).

RECOMMENDATIONS

The relationship between creative placemaking and people’s experience ong>ofong> place is one

that requires furong>theong>r research. The use ong>ofong> a quantitative methodological paradigm for this

research project was useful in gaining a thorough understanding ong>ofong> how people change ong>theong>ir

behaviours in a place, and how ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place is influenced. This understanding can

be strengong>theong>ned through future research with a qualitative methodological paradigm; one

which examines individuals experience ong>ofong> place across ong>theong> lifetime ong>ofong> a creative placemaking

interventions through interviews. This would provide personal insight and a social dimension

ong>ofong> understanding into how ong>theong> experience ong>ofong> place can be altered across time. Likewise,

this could provide furong>theong>r insight, and would be a likely next step ong>ofong> research, when wanting

to delve more intently into ong>theong> understanding ong>ofong> how ong>theong>se transient forms can potential

cultivate and catalyse an attachment to place.

CONCLUSION

‘Visual catalysts’ have ong>theong> potential to change ong>theong> attraction and use ong>ofong> place in a

transformative manner. They can change both ong>theong> physical and social formation ong>ofong> a space. As

found in this study, ong>theong>y can also have ong>theong> potential to promote greater attachment to place

62


through ong>theong> ability ong>ofong> ong>theong> experience to establish memories and positive affinities with place.

Creative placemaking is a movement on ong>theong> rise, so by understanding what ong>theong> real social

and physical outcomes are for our experience and understanding ong>ofong> place, we can all be

more prepared to utilise this phenomenon in more practical, and constructive ways in urban

planning and design.

63


REFERENCE LIST

Agnew, D 2011, Handbook ong>ofong> Geographical Knowledge, Sage Publications, London.

Alle, E 2012, ‘Spatial, Temporal and Social Dimensions ong>ofong> ong>theong> Landscape Influenced by

Contemporary Art’, Mokslas: Lietuvos Ateitis, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 176-187.

Altman, I & Low, SM 1992, Place Attachment, Plenum, New York.

Arlt, P 2006, ‘Urban Planning and interim use’, in Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for ong>theong>

use ong>ofong> city space, eds. F Haydn & R Temel, Birkhauser, pp. 39-47.

Barker, RG 1968, Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying ong>theong> environment

ong>ofong> human behaviour, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Bedoya, R 2012, Creative Placemaking and ong>theong> Politics ong>ofong> Belonging and Dis-Belonging.

Arts in a Changing America, Available from: http://www.artsinachangingamerica.

net/2012/09/01/creative-placemaking-andong>theong>-politics-ong>ofong>-belonging-and-disbelonging/

[16 July 2016].

Bishop, P & Williams, L 2012, The Temporary City, Routledge, London.

Bowlby, JM 1969, Attachment and Loss, Tavistock Institute ong>ofong> Human Relations, London.

Brown, G & Raymond, C 2007, ‘The relationship between place attachment and landscape

values: Toward mapping place attachment’, Applied Geography, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 89-

111.

Brown, G, Raymond, CM & Corcoran, J 2015, ‘Mapping and measuring place attachment’,

Applied Geography, vol. 57, pp. 42-53.

Brunnberg, L & Frigo, A 2012, ‘Placemaking in ong>theong> 21st-century city: introducing ong>theong> funfair

metaphor for mobile media in ong>theong> future urban space’, Digital Creativity, vol. 23, no. 2,

pp. 113-125.

Burley, D 2007, ‘Are ong>theong> Social and Physical Really so Different?: Elements in ong>theong> Development

ong>ofong> an Attachment to Place’, paper presented at ong>theong> annual meeting ong>ofong> ong>theong> American

Sociological Association.

Cosco, NG, Moore, RC & Islam, MZ 2010, ‘Behavior Mapping: A Method for Linking Preschool

Physical Activity and Outdoor Design’, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, vol.

42, no. 3, pp. 513-519.

Creswell, JW 2005, Education Research: Planning, conducting and evaluating qualitative and

quantitative research, Thousand Oaks, California.

64


Desimini, J 2015, ‘Limitations ong>ofong> ong>theong> Temporary: Landscape and Abandonment’, Journal ong>ofong>

Urban History, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 279-293.

Destination NSW 2016 a, VIVID Sydney – Underfoot, Available from: http://www.vividsydney.

com/event/light/under-foot. [10 May 2016].

Destination NSW 2016 b, VIVID Sydney – ‘EORA – The Land’, Available from: https://www.

vividsydney.com/event/light/eora-land. [10 May 2016].

Destination NSW 2016 c, VIVID Sydney – 2016 VIVID Map, Available from:

https://www.vividsydney.com/sites/default/files/Vivid%20Sydney%202016%20

Master%20Map.pdf. [20 September 2016].

Donald, I & Canter, D 1994, ‘Employee attitudes and safety in ong>theong> chemical industry’, Journal ong>ofong>

Loss Prevention in ong>theong> Process Industries, vol. 7, pp. 203-208.

Fishwick, L & Vining, J 1992, ‘Toward a phenomenology ong>ofong> recreation place’, Journal ong>ofong>

Environmental Psychology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 57-63.

Flyvbjerg, B 2006, ‘Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research’, Qualitative Inquiry, vol.

12, no. 2, pp. 219-245.

Frank, T 2012, Dead End on Shakin’ Street, Available from: http://www.ong>theong>baffler.com/past/

dead_end_on_shakin_street [16 August 2016].

Friedmann, J 2010, ‘Place and place-making in cities: A global perspective’, Planning Theory and

Practice, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 149–165.

Gehl, J 2006, Life Between Buildings, Island Press, Copenhagen.

Giuliani, M & Feldman, R 1993, ‘Place attachment in a developmental and cultural context’,

Journal ong>ofong> Environmental Psychology, vol. 13, pp. 267-274.

Gustafson, P 2001, ‘Meanings ong>ofong> place: Everyday experience and ong>theong>oretical

conceptualizations’, Journal ong>ofong> Environmental Psychology, vol. 21,mpp. 5–16.

Hammitt, W, Backlund, E & Bixler, R 2006, ‘Place Bonding for Recreation Places: Conceptual

and Empirical Development’, Leisure Studies, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 17-41.

Hay, R 1998, ‘Sense ong>ofong> place in developmental context’, Journal ong>ofong> Environmental Psychology,

vol. 18, pp. 5–29.

Hidalgo, M & Hernandez, B 2001, ‘Place attachment: conceptual and empirical questions’,

Journal ong>ofong> Environmental Psychology, vol. 21, pp. 273-281.

65


Hill, MR 1984, ‘Stalking ong>theong> urban pedestrian: A comparison ong>ofong> questionnaire and tracking

methodologies for behavioural mapping in large scale environments’, Environment

and Behavior, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 539–550.

Ittelson, WH, Rivlin, LG & Proshansky, HM 1976, ‘The use ong>ofong> behavioural maps in environmental

psychology’ in Man and his physical setting, eds. WH Ittelson, LG Rivlin & HM

Proshansky, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 340-351.

Jacobs, J 1961, The Death and Life ong>ofong> Great American Cities, Random House, New York.

Kaltenborn, B & Bjerke, T 2002, ‘Associations between Landscape Preferences and Place

Attachment: A study in Røros, Souong>theong>rn Norway’, Landscape Research, vol. 27, no.4,

pp. 381-396.

Korpela, K, Ylen, M, Tyrväinen, L & Silvennoinen, H 2009, ‘Stability ong>ofong> self-reported favorite

places and place attachment over a 10-month period’, Journal ong>ofong> Environmental

Psychology, vol. 29, pp. 95-100.

Kyle, G, Graefe, A & Manning, R 2005, ‘Testing ong>theong> dimensionality ong>ofong> place attachment in

recreational settings’, Environment and Behaviour, vol. 37, pp. 153-177.

Lehtovuori, P & Ruoppila, S 2012, ‘Temporary uses as means ong>ofong> experimental urban planning’,

SAJ: Serbian architectural journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 29-54.

Lewicka, M 2010, ‘Place attachment: How far have we come in ong>theong> last 40 years?’, Journal ong>ofong>

Environmental Psychology, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 207-230.

Lydon, M & Garcia, A 2015, Tactical Urbanism, short-term action for long-term change, Island

Press, New York.

Lynch, K 1960, The image ong>ofong> ong>theong> city, M.L.T. Press, Cambridge.

Manzo, LC & Devine-Wright, P 2016, Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and

Applications, Routledge, New York.

Markusen, A & Gadwa, A 2010, Creative placemaking: Executive summary, National

Endowment for ong>theong> Arts, Washington.

Marshall N, Bishop K 2015, ‘Is ong>theong>re any correlation between placemaking and place

attachment? A challenge for interdisciplinary research’, International Journal ong>ofong>

Interdisciplinary Social and Community Studies, vol. 9, pp. 1-10.

Moran, J, Schupbach, J, Spearman, C & Reut, J 2014, Beyond ong>theong> building: performing arts

& transforming place, Available from: https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/beyond-

ong>theong>-building-performing-arts-transforming-place.pdf. [10 April 2016].

66


The National Consortium for Creative Placemaking 2012, The National Consortium for Creative

Placemaking – Resources, Available from: http://www.artsbuildcommunities.com/

resources/ [20 August 2016].

Ng, CF 2016, ‘Behavioral Mapping and Tracking’ in Research methods for environmental

psychology, ed. R Gifford, Wiley Blackwell, pp. 29-51.

Nicodemus, A 2013, ‘Fuzzy vibrancy: Creative placemaking as ascendant U.S. cultural policy’,

Metris Arts Consulting, Easton, Pennsylvania.

NSW Government 2016, About VIVID Sydney, Available from: https://www.vividsydney.com/

about-vivid-sydney [10 July 2016].

Pascucci, M 2015, ‘The revival ong>ofong> placemaking’, Creative Nursing, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 200-205.

Project for Public Spaces 2009, What is placemaking?, Available from: http://www.pps.org/

articles/what_is_placemaking/. [5 April 2016].

Relph, E 1976, Place and Placelessness, Pion, London.

Scannell, L & Gifford, R 2010, ‘Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework’,

Journal ong>ofong> Environmental Psychology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1-10.

Schroeder, H 1991, ‘Preference and meaning ong>ofong> arboretum landscapes: Combining

quantitative and qualitative data’, Journal ong>ofong> Environmental Psychology, vol.11, no. 3,

pp. 231–248.

Smaldone, D 2006, ‘The role ong>ofong> time in place attachment’, paper presented at ong>theong> Proceedings

ong>ofong> ong>theong> 2006 Norong>theong>astern Recreation Research Symposium.

Sommer, R & Sommer, BB 2001, A practical guide to behavioral research, Oxford University

Press, New York.

Stake, RE 1995, The art ong>ofong> case study research: Perspectives on practice, Thousand Oaks,

California.

Stedman, R 2003, ‘Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution ong>ofong> ong>theong> physical

environment to sense ong>ofong> place’, Society and Natural Resources, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 671-

685.

Stewart, A 2010, Place-making and communities: A review ong>ofong> concepts, indicators, policy and

practices—Executive summary, Forest Research, Bristol.

67


Treckson 2015, Measuring Livability in ong>theong> Station North Arts & Entertainment District,

Baltimore, Available from: https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/Research-

Art-Works-Urban.pdf [9 August 2016].

Trentelman, C 2009, ‘Place attachment and community attachment: A primer grounded in ong>theong>

lived experience ong>ofong> a community sociologist’, Society and Natural Resources, vol. 22,

no. 3, pp. 191-210.

Tuan, Y 1977, Space and place: The perspective ong>ofong> experience, The University ong>ofong> Minnesota

Press, Minnesota.

Williams, D & Vaske, J 2003, ‘The measurement ong>ofong> place attachment: Validity and

generalizability ong>ofong> a psychometric approach’, Forest Science, vol. 49, pp. 830-840.

Whyte, W 1980, The social life ong>ofong> small urban spaces, Direct Cinema Ltd, Santa Monica.

Wight, I 2005, ‘Placemaking as applied integral ecology: Evolving an ecologically wise planning

ethic’, World Futures, vol. 61, pp. 127–137.

Wyckong>ofong>f, M 2015, Four Different Types ong>ofong> Placemaking, Land Policy Institute MSU, Michigan.

Yin, K 1984, Case study research: design and methods, Sage Publications, London.

68


APPENDIX A

69


NAME __________________________________________________________________ LOCATION ______________________________________________________________________

SESSION ___________________________________ DATE _______________________________________ TIME ____________________________________

WEATHER

(temperature, precipitation,

humidity, light levels, cloud

coverage, wind, visibility etc.)

SITE CONDITIONS

(cleanliness, amount ong>ofong> shadow,

street lights functional,

maintenance etc.)

OTHER

APPENDIX B

CONCLUDING NOTES

(to be completed upon conclusion

ong>ofong> session – includes overall

thoughts, key observations and

preliminary interpretations)

70


APPENDIX C

71


APPENDIX D

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

PRELIM. RESEARCH + LITERATURE REVIEW UPDATE 1 UPDATE 2

AIMS, OBJECTIVES & RESEARCH QUESTIONS UPDATE 1

METHODOLOGY & METHODS

VIVID

BEHAVIOURAL MAPPING

2 x BEFORE 2 x DURING 2 x AFTER

INCREMENTAL ANALYSIS FINAL DATA ANALYSIS

PREPERATION AND/OR ASSEMBLY PERIOD

ACTIVE/IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD

LITERATURE REVIEW SUBMISSION

METHODOLOGY & METHODS SUBMISSION

RESEARCH PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

CONCLUSION AND FINAL REVIEW

SYNTHESIS OF FINDGS & WRITE UP OF DISCUSSION

FINAL SUBMISSION

72