Editorial Free

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Place Management and Development, Volume 2, Issue 3

Extended editorial: place management 2009 and beyond

Welcome to Issue 3, Volume 2 of the Journal of Place Management and Development (JPMD). The journal has now been running for two years, and it seems an opportune time to reflect on developments, in both the practice of place management and the theories, concepts and principles that have developed through previous issues of this journal.

Place management was defined by this journal as “a coordinated,area-based, multi-stakeholder approach, harnessing the skills, experience and resources of those in the public, private and voluntary sectors” (Journal of Place Management and Development, n.d.) and informally as “the process of making places better” (Wikipedia, n.d.). In this respect, place management can be defined as a “loose” process with an outcome (a better place) as … there is no “one right way” to do place management “[r]ather a conscious decision is needed about how to set the boundaries and what intensity of management is desired” (Halliday, 2001). In the same way, the objectives of any place management initiative can vary from the long-term and strategic (e.g. a large-scale regeneration programme) to the short-term and tactical (a town centre festival).

From an academic perspective, place management is a nascent subject. There are currently only two journals or periodicals dedicated to its study (this one and Place Branding and Public Diplomacy). Nevertheless, there are a variety of other subjects and professions that contain elements related to the management of places. There are those who are involved in the design,construction and regeneration of locations (architects, planners, urban designers). There are those involved in the governance and control of places(elected members, council officers, street-wardens, police officers). Finally there are people who are marketing and branding places (such as inward investment agencies and tourist boards). This journal does not argue that making improvements to a specific area is anything new, rather that the process by which these improvements are made – a multi-stakeholder partnership approach is something that, until recently, had not received much attention in the academic literature.

In effect, the way our towns, cities and other locations are created, adapt and communicate is a rather haphazard affair. The professions that are involved in making places (the planners, architects and designers) are often not embedded or attached to the places they create. The making of places is undertaken without much involvement from those that take on the legacy of the maintenance of those places, on a day-to-day basis. With the increasing popularity of outsourcing, these two functions are often no-longer fulfilled “in-house”by the Local Authority. Finally, those that are charged with marketing the benefits of the location, the tourist offices, the inward investment agencies etc. often only communicate with those outside the area, and are not well connected internally nor charged with communicating within the location. The result is disparate and fragmented and not cost-effective. Just as the joined up government movement “seeks to coordinate the development and implementation of policies across government departments and agencies with the aim of addressing complex social problems” (The Oxford English Dictionary) so place management seeks to coordinate the resources and activity across various stakeholders to solve place problems and make place improvements in a far more “holistic” way.

In our first issue, David Adams (2008) identified four main drivers of change fuelling the adoption of a place management approach. First, the difficulty in coordinating activity across a number of unconnected organisations, departments,agencies and individuals. Many improvements to locations have ridiculously long lead times and there is a “perception of governments and public services as siloed, aloof and out of touch” (Adams, 2008, p. 17). Second, he recognises “a more savvy public demanding more localised and responsive services and engagement with governments and the public sector” (Adams,2008). At first glance, this public need for engagement appears paradoxical, in light of their disengagement with traditional forms of influence, such as local elections. Even at national elections, worldwide voter turnout has been in steady decline since the 1980s (in countries where voting attendance is non-compulsory). Third, Adams argues that places themselves are a factor in terms of productivity and innovation. Silicone Valley is a much-quoted example of the cluster effect (Porter, 1998) that results from the many different parts of the supply-chain of an industry being co-located. Likewise, in places like Paris, many different competitors, in a small geographic area can interact,share ideas and get artistic inspiration from what is going on around them. The recognition that place is “a factor of production” (Adams, 2008, p. 17) has meant a more concerted effort to manage some places, to encourage the growth of certain industries, rather than just leaving it to chance. Finally, as many communities become more transient and/or more diverse, community well-being, capacity-building and cohesiveness are also outcomes that may need“a helping hand” – through some sort of place management initiative.

Other authors have identified other drivers of change. For example, the proliferation of the “out-of-town” retailer has led to many town centres having to improve their offer and attract footfall back to traditional retail centres (Warnaby and Medway, 2004). Nevertheless, the rise of the national/international retailer has led to an increased standardisation of many traditional retail centres, making it hard for centres to compete in terms of distinctiveness or uniqueness. Even shopping centres also recognise the need“for shopping space individualism, identity, integrity and sensitivity to locality” (Myers et al., 2008, p. 109).

Place competition is not just contained within countries. Lower air fares and a more mobile population has led to many cities having to compete against each other in an international marketplace. In 2020 the number of people travelling internationally is forecast to reach 1.6 billion and the resulting revenue is expected to exceed US$2 trillion (Kotler and Gertner, 2002). Destinations compete not only for tourists and delegates etc. but also for relocating companies and often a skilled workforce (Hospers, 2004). The increase in place marketing and branding also fuels more place competitiveness at both local,national and international levels.

Nevertheless, behind the place brand there has to be a place product –in other words the location needs to meet the expectations of its consumers, be they permanent or temporary. This is the essence of a successful place –the ability to meet the needs of its communities. Unfortunately, many place brands and marketing campaigns are developed with little regard to the reality of the location. Until very recently, only “tranquil and pastoral scenes abound in the current main promotional brochure for Belfast and Northern Ireland which is knowingly entitled The Best of Northern Ireland. It can be confidently assumed that potential visitors already know the worst” (Neill,2001, p. 820).

Place branding and marketing has become an industry in itself and, often, not a particularly imaginative one. The place marketing tag-line “a land of contrasts” when googled with “tourist information” lists the official tourist information web sites of Wales, Scotland, Taiwan, Chile and Botswana to name just five. In contrast, “Berlin’s place marketing is plagued by a tension between distancing the city from the fears conjured up by the city’s Nazi past but still finding an acceptable way to confront and keep alive the memory of this awful reality” (Neill, 2001, p. 826). This tension or challenge is, at its very least, authentic and means the branding and marketing of Berlin does not attempt to commodify or standardise the city into a politically correct “norm”.

There are also social drivers of change. To combat an increasingly globalised marketplace there has been a rise of consumer interest in local products and alternative retail formats, such as farmers’ markets. Interest in local heritage is on the up, fuelled by the growth of people researching their family tree and also, in some part, by a need to belong in communities that may not have been a lifelong home. Again, this results in an appreciation for and often involvement in initiatives that “make a difference” at a local level,such as the Australian Tidy Towns network. An inter-connectiveness facilitated by technology also helps support people that are interested in their towns and cities.

The ease with which views can be posted and shared on the internet can be a powerful force for change. For example the Crystal Palace Campaign (n.d.), in London, has used the internet to successfully prevent a 20-cinema multiplex from being built on the historic, Grade II listed site in Crystal Palace Park(Crystal Palace Campaign).

The internet availability of local statistics and place key performance indicators relating to the performance of local schools, crime figures, property prices, amenities etc, gives local people more information and data to not only challenge those in charge of places but also can often mobilise them into making a difference themselves (such as through local crime prevention initiatives).

So, what has been the contribution of the JPMD to place management? Over the past two years we have published 35 articles that have met the editorial objective of furthering our understanding of the process behind making places better. An analysis of the key words that accepted authors have provided elicits 12 areas that have been covered by articles (in order of frequency):

• 1.

  The “unit” of place (city, town, region, etc).

• 2.

  Marketing and branding of places.

• 3.

  Management and change (from an organisational and locational perspective).

• 4.

  Improvements to place consumers’ satisfaction, well-being and quality of life, etc.

• 5.

  Governance and partnerships.

• 6.

  Regeneration and planning.

• 7.

  Place stakeholders.

• 8.

  Economic development.

• 9.

  Heritage and culture.

• 10.

  Tourism.

• 11.

  Retailing and shopping.

• 12.

  Global issues (globalisation, race relations, etc).

Within the type of places studied by articles, cities and urban areas are the most common. This is hardly surprising given that the United Nations has estimated that half of the world’s population now lives in urban areas, but that still leaves 3.4 billion people (approximately) living in rural areas and the management, development and marketing of these places is under-researched. Nevertheless, research published by the journal is geographically diverse, with papers from Australia, Austria, Canada, China, Dubai, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, the UK and the USA.

Returning to the first editorial for this journal, we suggested some potential topics in terms of the editorial scope of the journal. All the articles published so far have been clearly contained within this, nevertheless,it is important to constantly review our contributions to ensure our editorial policy is in keeping with what is occurring in both place management research and practice. Place management, in a practical sense, in the UK at least, has its roots in town and city centre management (TCM). Previous to the launch of this journal, TCM researchers and practitioners tended to publish in retailing journals. It is interesting that so few of the articles in the JPMD are retailing-centric. We feel this is a positive development as even those that manage town and city centres have a much wider set of stakeholders than just the retail sector.

Also, in the first editorial, we argued that place management should be concerned with the practical aim of making places better drawing on research from a number of disciplines. A rather “rough and ready”categorisation of all our contributions so far (in terms of key words and citations) generates seven subject/area classifications (in order of frequency):

• 1.

  Marketing and management.

• 2.

  Place management.

• 3.

  Public sector administration.

• 4.

  Planning.

• 5.

  Tourism.

• 6.

  Sociology.

• 7.

  Economics.

You may be questioning the difference between “marketing and management” and “place management”. In our categorisation, if the article includes place management literature and/or is written with some appreciation of the operationalisation of strategic marketing planning, in places (i.e. through an understanding of the different stakeholders etc. involved) then it has been included as a place management article. I would hope that, over time, there is an increased understanding of the application of marketing theories to place from a practical sense, and there is more convergence of the place management and place marketing/branding literature.

In this issue of the JPMD, we have five papers, which cover a spectrum of place management issues, from a variety of perspectives. Our first paper, “Building innovative models of territorial governance” by G. Argiolas, S. Cabras, C. Dessì and M. Floris, analyses the development and control of 35 Local Action Groups in Italy. These location specific private-public partnerships are place management structures, but as the author comes from a public administration perspective the term “territorial governance” is chosen to describe these entities. The papers offers an excellent review as to why the management of public space and services is no longer the exclusive responsibility of the public sector and the governance opportunities and challenges inherent in public-private partnerships.

The second paper, “Non-place marketing: transport hubs as gateways,flagships and symbols?” gives a different perspective on place. While many transport hubs (railway stations, airports, ferry terminals, etc.) involve principles of management, in terms of facilities management, they are also important assets to the towns and cities, serving as gateways and, in many cases, iconic and symbolic structures, contributing to a place’s identity and functionality, in relation to the role they play in linking it to other places. Gary Warnaby’s paper reminds us that “first impressions count”;we worry what the first-time traveller to London thinks when they arrive at one of Heathrow’s older terminals.

Our third paper, “Before they were famous: music-based tourism and a musician’s hometown roots” by David Leaver and Ruth A. Schmidt examines the role that famous musicians play in the creation of a music heritage consumption experience. Through visits to the former home towns of artists including The Beatles, Buddy Holly, Bob Dylan and Elvis Presley, the paper provides evidence that the emotional attachment to particular performers can be passed down through generations and, therefore, become further embedded in our popular culture. This then expands the concept of heritage. The paper also recognises that authenticity is a key aspect of the consumption experience for fans. While the interviewees focused on tourists (pilgrims?) experiences, it would be interesting to gauge the perceptions of other stakeholders, such as local residents.

Our first practitioner paper has been written by Jonathan Riley. Entitled“Well-being and the democracy of compulsory purchase” the paper offers a critical review of the compulsory purchase process in the UK. In contrast to the type of locally-based, multi-stakeholder, consensus decision-making documented in the first paper, compulsory purchase orders could be their antithesis. While Riley concludes that the existing process is “sufficiently democratic to justifiably exist in our society”, changes embedded in the Planning Act 2008, could delegate decision making to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations, thereby distancing local decisions from any local democratically elected body.

Our final paper, another practitioner paper by Helen Beck, “Linking the quality of public spaces to quality of life” while providing some much-needed evidence of this link also points out that many important features of public spaces are not contained in measurement or evaluation instruments,relating to quality of life or quality of the public realm. Nevertheless, from a practical perspective Helen recognises that “[w]e instinctively know that access to good quality parks, streets and open spaces provide benefit” and“that in a sensible world this is a truth that does not have to be proved”.

Once again, we feel that this issue of the journal provides thought-provoking research which has practical relevance. We hope you enjoy reading it.

Journal of Place Management and Development (n.d.), available at: http://info.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/journals.htm?PHPSESSID=05p0rrasdi4idticmfq5i5ki45&id=jpmd(accessed 6/10/09)

Kotler, P. and Gertner, D. (2002), “Country as brand, product and beyond: a place marketing and brand management perspective”, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 Nos 4/5, pp. 249–62

Myers, H., Gore, J. and Liu, K. (2008), “European shopping centre developments: an industry perspective”, Journal of Place Management and Development., Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 109–14

Neill, J. (2001), “Marketing the urban experience: reflections on the place of fear in the promotional strategies of Belfast, Detroit and Berlin”, Urban Studies, Vol. 38 Nos 5/6, pp. 815–28

Porter, M.E. (1998), “Clusters and the new economics of competition”, Harvard Business Review, November/December, pp. 77–90

Warnaby, G. and Medway, D. (2004), “The role of place marketing as a competitive response by town centres to out-of-town retail developments”, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research,Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 457–77

Wikipedia (n.d.), available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_management(accessed 6 October 2009)

Cathy Parker, Gareth Roberts, John Byrom