Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Physical places of encounter are nodes of social interaction in which moments of social inclusion and exclusion crystallize. On a methodological level, meeting places have in the past usually been associated either with firmly established spatial arrangements or with situational opportunities of encounter. Acknowledging the complexity of places of encounter and developing further a spatio-visual mapping tool conducted in various research projects on local inclusion of newcomers, we propose an integrative research approach to capturing, mapping and analyzing places of encounter via four dimensions: level of institutionalization, level of intentionality, level of inclusion and horizontal and vertical scale. The proposed place-based approach holds the chance to explicitly take into account a spatial perspective in the analysis of social interactions. Thus, it goes beyond mere network analysis, but is able to capture the socio-spatial conditions of encounters as pre-configurations of further social dynamics. In doing so, we address not only the methodological gap in research but also the practical relevance for identifying and evaluating locally important meeting places. More specifically, as part of a qualitative interview, the mapping tool can enable the participation of people whose voices are seldom heard, while the inclusion of multiple perspectives on places of encounter may facilitate local governance processes in the social realm.

Keywords

places of encounter meeting places social inclusion mapping qualitative research

Introduction

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the temporary absence of physical encounters was a source of distress in many ways, while at the same time we became more aware of our immediate living environments as personal space. Under these conditions of “temporary de-globalisation” (Niewiadomski, 2020) and the revival of the local, interactions - for example with neighbours - became more valuable. But the relevance of places of encounter for the purpose of social well-being and cohesion had already become obvious, especially in the wake of the arrival of asylum seekers and (resettled) refugees in Europe during 2014-15. Meeting places are an important element of social integration and sense of place in both urban and rural areas. More generally speaking, face-to-face encounters can be considered a prerequisite for building local communities, constitute a “lubricant” for social contact, and contribute to personal well-being and identity-formation (Allport, 1954; Amin, 2006; Boyd, 2006; Delhey & Dragolov, 2015; Forrest & Kearns, 2001; Goffman, 1967; Putnam, 2000; Thrift, 2005).

Recent studies have shown that social contact is not always intentional; equally important contacts can also develop from casual encounters (Glorius et al., 2020). According to Granovetter (1973), “weak ties”, such as greeting or making small-talk with neighbours, can reduce the social distance between different social groups and can also be converted into “strong ties” depending on (1) time spent together, (2) degree of emotional intensity, (3) intimacy (mutual trust), and (4) the type of reciprocal assistance. All these considerations include long-term forms of interaction, which, to a greater or lesser degree, lead to less social fragmentation. “Geographies of encounter” (Dirksmeier et al., 2011; Valentine, 2008) contrast this with a perspective that deals with short-term and situational interactions. The main argument of this line of research lies in its criticism of cosmopolitan approaches that, in the wake of Allport’s contact hypothesis, celebrate encounters too much (Valentine, 2008). However, this idea remains marginal in academic as well as social discourse on places of encounter and meeting places. Rather, places of encounter are mainly perceived as institutionalized places that have a certain consistency and require a lot of organizational effort (Kersten et al., 2022; Soszyński et al., 2021), while accidental encounters have been considered rather marginal in practice as well as in academia. In the literature, various co-existing terms can be found on this topic, including, but not limited to places of encounter, places of interaction, meeting places or gathering places.¹

Although there have been several attempts to classify places of encounter (Oldenburg, 1989; Soszyński et al., 2021), to identify the conditions for the emergence of social places (Kersten et al., 2022), and to reveal practices of inclusion and exclusion (Amin, 2002; Radford, 2017), there is still no adequate integrative methodology that captures the dynamics of the emergence and disappearance of physical meeting places. There is also no holistic perspective that applies a broad, but at the same time locally bounded notion of places of encounter. Thus, in this paper, we propose a methodology that can “map” meeting places, reconstruct individual and locally specific attributions of meaning, and assess the role of places of encounter for local social cohesion.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: First, we briefly sketch the relevance of encounters and discuss concepts of the making of places, and their role in social interaction, as well as the specificities of urban and rural contexts. Then, in the following section, we elaborate on social inclusion and exclusion, stressing the relevance of social practices. Drawing on the state of the art research, we propose a framework for capturing, mapping and analyzing places of encounter on a local scale as a stimulus for social scientists, but also for architects and policy-makers to purposefully design urban and rural spaces. We then elaborate on limitations and possible hurdles of the methodology based on a process of validation by peers and practitioners and conclude with an outlook about the application in two different variants.

The Role of Encounters

Reflecting on encounters between human beings, Goffman (1963) emphasized their situational character, while Geiselhart (2009) elaborated further and stressed that social encounters are fundamental prerequisites for social interaction. In this article, we assume that an encounter forces an engagement with the other and that an action always entails a reaction. Thus, an encounter can either be routine (for example when people just greet each other) or can entail deeper interaction. Taking this as a starting point, the importance of encounters is shown along three dimensions: the individual, the social and the political one. At a psychological level, first of all, social exchange is an important prerequisite for personal well-being (Delhey & Dragolov, 2015), for strengthening one’s own resistance resources and for maintaining psychological and mental health, which is especially important for vulnerable groups such as refugees (Chase et al., 2008; Kia-Keating & Ellis, 2007). In a second sense, encounters are the “lubricant” of social contacts, which are constitutive of societies and may impede social fragmentation and stratification. This means that social stratification or group affiliations are negotiated in encounter situations (Dirksmeier et al., 2011). Encounters, therefore, potentially foster social relations between different groups in society. Especially as discussed by Allport (1954), contact theory assumes that meaningful encounters between different groups of individuals foster social relations in a given setting (e.g., Emerson et al., 2002; Forrest & Kearns, 2001; Pettigrew, 1998). Accordingly, a meta-analysis by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) revealed that out of 516 studies, 95% found a negative relationship between contact and prejudice. It has also been found that anti-immigration narratives at national level can be counteracted by local-level contact between immigrants and residents (Baldassarri & Abascal, 2020; Jolly & DiGiusto, 2014). Acknowledging the variety of social contact, Putnam (2000) and Szreter and Woolcock (2004) suggest distinguishing three different types that can create more opportunity to widen the lens on encounters: first, social contact between people who are not alike in terms of either socio-demographics or social identity (social bridges), second, social contact between members of a network who share a social identity (social bonds), and third, social contact between people interacting across power gradients in society; for example when it comes to accessing public and private services (social links). Finally, face-to-face encounters are a prerequisite for building local communities, a normative goal particularly emphasized by policy makers. In this realm, social interactions may support the expectation that human behaviour is predictable to a certain extent and guided by positive intentions (Morrone et al., 2009; Valentine, 2008) - which others would term “trust” (Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017) - as the moral element of solidarity (Delhey, 2007). Likewise, according to Thrift (2005), the existing friendliness of everyday encounters represents a baseline of democracy. A lack of social cohesion and thus a lack of identification with the larger collective on which one’s own actions are based (Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017; Tönnies, 1887), is often associated with negative consequences such as rising rates of crime and divorce, long-term unemployment and lone parenthood (Forrest & Kearns, 2001).

Giving Meaning to Places in Everyday Interaction

In order to understand the emergence of places of encounter, questions about space and place must be considered, not just in the course of the spatial turn in social sciences (Warf & Arias, 2009), but also as part of a long-standing conceptual debate and as a subject of interest in human geography. In his groundbreaking oeuvre on place and placelessness, the human geographer Relph (1976) argues from a phenomenological perspective that places consist of physical settings, activities, and meanings. In his understanding, they are “often profound centres of human existence to which people have deep emotional and psychological ties“ (p. 141). According to Agnew (1987), places are meaningful locations with three dimensions: Location, locale and sense of place. Location simply refers to the spatial characteristics of places, while locale means the material setting for social interactions and is therefore related to the concrete form of places. It is “the actual shape of place within which people conduct and interact as individuals” (Cresswell, 2004, p. 7). Lastly, sense of place is related to people’s subjective and emotional attachment to places and is thus similar to Relph’s notions of “meanings.” This dimension has been widely cited and applied in many sub-disciplines of human geography and even beyond (e.g., Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001; Lewicka, 2010; Shamai, 1991): “So sense of place is a complex concept of emotion and attachment to the human environment which is created from people’s adoption and use of places. This means that sense of place is not a predetermined phenomenon but is created from interaction between people and places” (Hashemnezhad et al., 2013, p. 7). The meaning given to places is not static, but rather constructed and shaped through (historical) actions and practices and their dynamics (Cresswell, 2004). This is in line with Massey’s (1994) argument for a procedural and progressive understanding of places and the dissolution of clear boundaries that construct an inside and outside. She also stresses that places do not have a single identity, but are constituted through internal conflicts about their meaning in the past, present and future. Lastly, she affirms that places have specificities which she understands as their accumulated history. Accordingly, places are “made” in the interplay between individuals and materialities.

Places of encounter or meeting places are thereby seen as a crucial element in facilitating the social relations between neighbours (“places of opportunity”, Emmenegger et al., 2017; van Dülmen & Klärner, 2022; Wiesemann, 2019), different ethnic groups (“micropublics”, Amin, 2002; Sanders, 2002) or different socio-political backgrounds (Valentine, 2013). Authors such as Valentine (2008), Dirksmeier et al. (2011) and Henriksen and Tjora (2013), however, have criticized Allport’s contact hypothesis, citing its optimistic assumption that encounters between strangers lead more or less automatically to an understanding of cultural difference and the overcoming of everyday racism: “Some of the writing about cosmopolitanism and new urban citizenship appears to be laced with a worrying romanticization of urban encounter and to implicitly reproduce a potentially naïve assumption that contact with ‘others’ necessarily translates into respect of difference“ (Valentine, 2008, p. 324–325). Accordingly, geographies of encounter stand at the interface between strangers and the physical setting in which such encounters take place, and argue for the consideration of places of encounter rather as mere occasions for interaction between strangers (Dirksmeier et al., 2011).

Conceptual and practical approaches that address places of encounter have so far focused on the role of so-called “third places”; that is, places that are neither the place of residence (the “first place”) nor the place of work (the “second place”), for the development of a sense of local belonging and the establishment of a local community (Oldenburg, 1989; see also Biglin, 2021; Hickman, 2013). Simultaneously, authors have highlighted the importance of the design of neighbourhoods. The urban architect Gehl (1980), who investigated the influence of physical-material structures on local social life, pointed out that the completion of both optional (sitting on a park bench) and necessary actions (emptying mailboxes) in relation to material structures may result in social activity. He concluded that social activity can play a role in how these actions are carried out and how they are arranged spatially. However, it is not a given that the planned arrangement of opportunities to meet also automatically leads to more social interaction. Rather, this depends on individual preferences and intentions, and above all on the question of whether and to what extent these meeting places have been created in a participatory way (Rosenblatt et al., 2009).

The research on places of encounter, so far, has mostly been focused on neighbourhoods in urban areas and cities (see for example, Abu-Ghazzeh, 1999; Askarizad & Safari, 2020; Holland et al., 2007; Ujang et al., 2018; Zerouati & Bellal, 2020), since these are more densely built-up and more encounters, both planned and accidental, take place there than in rural areas (Bridge & Watson, 2002). However, concepts and outcomes established in urban contexts are not necessarily applicable to rural places. Rural areas, for example, are associated with “countrymindedness” (Aitkin, 1985); that is, greater social closeness between people (Sørensen, 2016) and the importance of informal interactions (strong ties) (Mair & Thivierge-Rikard, 2010). Local associations and organized meeting places are more important than in cities, while social diversity in rural places may be lower. By way of illustration, in their study of four villages in Eastern Poland, Soszyński et al. (2021) identified six unique features of rural public places: (1) a connection with the open landscape; (2) spontaneity and informality; (3) a fluid borderline between public and private places; (4) weak links between commercial and public places, (5) attachment to tradition; (6) low quality and little diversity among public places in the countryside. Further, as key local actors often play a decisive role in rural place-making and in shaping its specific qualities (Meijer, 2019), private places can be converted more easily into public ones than in urban areas (Debertin & Goetz, 2013). For several decades now, the disappearance of central meeting points in rural areas has often been linked to a loss of social attachment to place and a lack of local social cohesion (Gieling et al., 2019; Vogt et al., 2015). Accordingly, interventions such as EU funding programs under the regional cohesion strategy have been implemented to counter this development by purposefully supporting village facilities (Gieling et al., 2019; Soszyński et al., 2021). However, the importance of local village facilities for place attachment and social cohesion has been brought into question by a quantitative study conducted in the rural Netherlands (Gieling et al., 2019). The authors of that study argue that meetings between residents in small rural settlements do not just take place in local facilities. Instead, people also occasionally encounter others at home; facilities outside the village may also support social contact, and there are different perceptions of the effect of certain places on local identity among different social groups. Finally, meeting places may also be moving in space as it was impressively shown by Koefoed et al. (2017) who presented the interactions between passengers and the driver on a bus line.

Based on the above-mentioned characteristics of places of encounter in urban and rural places, regarding the withdrawal of established and institutionalized meeting places and the simultaneous emergence of spontaneous places of encounter, a holistic framework for places of encounter must take into account the level of institutionalization, while also considering local conditions. Encounters can be highly institutionalized and formalized and take place regularly; they can depend on the organization and commitment of key individuals, such as “local heroes”; or they may occur randomly without any organization. Furthermore, encounters take place across a large spectrum of intentionality. While some places are explicitly created or redesigned to encourage encounters between different people or social groups, encounters at other places occur indirectly and as a side-effect. Encounters can also be completely unintentional. The level of intentionality must therefore be considered. To be able to assess the importance of a place of encounter for the local community, we advocate using a horizontal scale as the third dimension of our framework. This perspective aims to differentiate between places that are primarily important for people in the immediate vicinity, those that include larger streets or blocks of houses, and those that may even encompass an entire village/town or district.

Beyond Accessibility: Social Inclusion and Local Practices of Exclusion

The composition of society at local level has become more diverse in both urban, and increasingly also rural areas (Kordel et al., 2018), encompassing, for instance, newcomers seeking tranquillity in rural areas and refugees, as well as people who have been born and raised in a specified local setting. However, it has also become obvious that not every member of a society has the same access to places, including meeting places, due to both structural factors and individual circumstances, such as restricted mobility or finances, language barriers or physical impairment as a result of the built environment (Thompson & Kent, 2014). In the tradition of Henri Lefebvre`s concept of the “right to the city” (1968), issues of the unequal access of different social groups to resources, public parks and public debates have often been linked to questions of distributive and procedural justice in human geography (Fainstein, 2013; Marcuse et al., 2009; Mitchell, 2003).

In this context, the concept of social inclusion is crucial. This has become increasingly popular in social science, which has also led to a fuzziness in definition (Koehler et al., 2020). Initially used to address the participation of people with mental or physical disabilities (Cobigo et al., 2012; Simplican et al., 2015), it is now generally understood to involve social participation for all. This universalistic idea focuses on both empowering individuals - in the tradition of Sen’s capabilities approach (1989) - and reducing structural barriers that hinder the participation of certain groups (Allman, 2013; Hulse et al., 2010; Oxoby, 2009). When analyzing social inclusion and exclusion, scholars often refer to the accessibility of (infra)structures for certain groups in the areas of housing, labour market, education or health (Vrooman & Coenders, 2020). Also, individual’s social (non)connectedness and feeling of (non)belonging are taken into account (Vrooman & Coenders, 2020). From an actor-centred perspective, the development of networks, or in other words social capital, at places where people live plays a decisive role in getting access to places of encounter. Because different social groups begin from different places, and in order to achieve social cohesion and social participation, key local actors and authorities need to take special account of the concerns of socially disadvantaged groups (Mitchell, 2003). In that realm, questions arise about having access to key associations in local society and individual’s perceptions towards them. The concept of social inclusion can also be differentiated by the scale of the setting, ranging from the interpersonal dimension of social interaction in a private setting to community participation in a public setting (Simplican et al., 2015). In this paper, we advocate for a conceptualisation that understands social inclusion as locally-bounded. This refers to internal logics and historical developments of localities as well as to exclusionary practices which are carried out at key places. Therefore, this idea goes beyond an accessibility-centred approach to social inclusion, but calls for an explicit consideration of the practices and semantics of places of encounter. Concerning the first aspect, i.e. the importance of exclusionary practices on the local level, sociologist David Radford (2017) impressively highlighted how Hazara Afghans were marginalized in a rural community in Australia, even though they actively visited central locations in the small town such as the pub. It was found that local residents required from the Hazara to drink alcohol and gamble, if they wanted to be “real” Australians. Otherwise, they would remain outsiders. As a consequence of this “everyday otherness”, the Hazara retreat to safe places and even set up their own stores, which also function as meeting places, where they are not confronted with any restrictions. In turn, however, the marginalization has a stigmatizing effect, as the Hazara are therefore “self-fulfilling the oft-cited complaint that [they] ‘do not want to be a part of the community’” (Radford, 2017, p. 501). With regard to the semantics of places of encounter, i.e. the second aspect, Herslund and Paulgaard (2021) argue for the consideration of the (social) composition of the place. That is, the question of which topics are discussed, which decisions are made and to what extent the voices of different target groups are heard (Herslund & Paulgaard, 2021). In the case of refugees who arrived in rural areas in Norway and Denmark, a lack of local know-how and doing-how prevented refugees from meeting local residents (Herslund & Paulgaard, 2021).

Public places of encounter like streets or parks should not be “celebrated prematurely” (Wiesemann, 2019, p. 5) as they can also be places of exclusion (Byrne & Wolch, 2009). While there may be encounters that foster positive attitudes towards others (for urban greenspace, see Peters et al., 2010), which may be the case, for example, when one experiences unexpected gestures of courtesy and solidarity, the production of stereotypes also feeds on contact with other social groups, and the existence of “the other” can lead to forms of rejection and discrimination. Accordingly, both exclusionary practices and different social positions must be considered (Horolets et al., 2021; Risbeth et al., 2019).

Moreover, not every place of encounter must necessarily be inclusive and foster the interaction between different interests and values, i.e. what Audunson (2005) termed “low-intensive meeting places”. Some places can also be purposefully exclusive and target like-minded people only (“high-intensive meeting places”) (Audunson, 2005). In the context of newcomers, for instance, some places of encounter are especially designed for women only and thus are safe places, without putting in danger local social cohesion. More precisely, this happens when different social groups only meet separately and inclusive places are merely absent.

As questions of inclusion and exclusion are negotiated in places, we integrate level of inclusion into our framework as a fourth dimension with which to analyze places of encounter. The literature review has shown that the existence of places of encounter per se does not necessarily result in social inclusion. Rather, from an action-oriented perspective, it is necessary to get an overview of the places of encounter within a locality and evaluate the forms and practices of access and non-access, revealing their exclusivity respectively inclusivity. As we have shown in the previous section, places of encounter can also be analyzed according to their spatial catchment area. To the horizontal dimension of scale, however, we need to add a vertical dimension, which refers to practices of inclusion and exclusion. This points to the suitability of a place for exchanges between different types of people (groups). For example, a church service can be a meeting place for many people, but due to the high degree of formalisation of encounters, there is little possibility of direct exchange with others. On the other hand, there are fewer hierarchies at a music festival, which offers more opportunity for exchanges between different social groups.

Mapping Places of Encounter

Drawing on the above presuppositions about the making of places and exclusion and inclusion, the application of an integrative mapping of places of encounter in the course of a qualitative interview aims to:

(1) identify places of encounter in a holistic sense; and

(2) reconstruct the making of meaningful places of encounter through practices.

While previous research on meeting places drew on the tools of photovoice (Biglin, 2021; Morrow, 2000; van Hees et al., 2017), ethnography (Camp, 2015), (walking along) interviews (Carpiano, 2009; Dolley, 2020) and focus group discussions (Haugen, 2020; Morrow, 2000), we consider the suggested mapping as a means to elaborate on spatial dimensions of the everyday lives of individuals, groups or communities. Based on our profound experiences in various research contexts, the application of the spatio-visual tools facilitates the structuration and memorization of places of encounters. As part of a comprehensive participatory approach, participants can identify, characterize and reflect on places of encounter and thus analyze data even during the interview (Pain, 2012).

Inspired by the participatory mobility mapping (Weidinger et al., 2021) and social mapping tools (Kumar, 2002), we put forward a potential model for future research that exclusively targets places that become meaningful through social interaction. To do so, we apply a place-based approach, focusing on the places where participants’ live and their life-worlds (Husserl, 1954). Accordingly, it makes sense to get familiar with the locality and gain an impression about locally relevant places prior to carrying out the mapping tool, e.g., by means of background interviews with local experts and desk research. As with mobility mapping, an apartment or house may serve as a starting point and orientation for the subsequent identification of places of encounter. This should therefore be put in the centre of a blank sheet of paper, a drawing app on a tablet or an online whiteboard (e.g., using the tool miro), in case it is conducted online. For better orientation, also a map of the place under study may be helpful. A series of subsequent steps, outlined below, aim to identify the level of institutionalization (INS), the level of intentionality (INT), the level of inclusion (INC), and the scale (SCA).

Step 1: Firstly, participants are invited to write down (on small cards) all the places they usually visit in their everyday lives for the purpose of meeting other people. They are especially encouraged to include places where casual encounters (such as greeting others or making small talk) evolve, as well as those where encounters are organized and eventually become institutionalized. Moreover, participants are encouraged to consider places where they meet different socio-demographic groups (This step addresses INS + INT).

Step 2: Once participants have finished the first phase, they are asked to draw other places, where social encounters are not the primary function, but which are rather a secondary feature. Accordingly, participants are invited to think about places of leisure activities, education, work or shopping, where meaningful social encounters may evolve (this step addresses INT).

Step 3: Thirdly, the places identified are discussed individually, and participants are asked about the organization of the places, their level of inclusion as well as their spatial and temporal scale. It is assumed that practices on-site reflect the making of places. This step addresses the social composition of the meeting place, and what is common practice there, as well as questions of the inclusion and exclusion of certain groups. In this realm, the different interests involved should be considered, as well as which power asymmetries determine the use of the site and which issues are negotiated and how.

3a: In terms of institutionalization, it is of vital importance to know whether the place exists permanently or only temporarily. Moreover, is a place organized informally, and stakeholder-dependent or are there formal responsibilities? Has it changed over time? (INS).

3b: In order to identify the extent to which the meeting place is inclusive, participants are asked which groups mainly attend and which groups tend to be absent. This is also linked to the question of where visitors come from. In addition to this horizontal level, it is of special interest to know what kind of interaction is possible at the place; whether there are more or less formalized ways of interaction or whether the contact is rather low-threshold. In order to reconstruct the making of places of encounter, practices that occur there should be specified (What? With whom? Why?). Possible connotations encompass, for instance, casual encounters, mutual assistance, or friendship. Participants should be asked about the content of encounters negotiated at those places (Who determines the topics of conversation? Are there controversies?) (INC + SCA).

Step 4: Fourthly, participants are invited to reflect on places of encounter that they cannot access for various reasons. In concrete terms, this encourages them to identify meeting places that they might want to go to, but which they cannot or must not visit for various reasons. Inaccessibility may stem from legal issues or a lack of time or financial resources, as well as negative experiences of places due to discrimination or racism (Weidinger et al., 2021). This is also linked to the question of which meeting places are still missing from the perspective of participants in the locality (INC).

Once meeting places have been identified, the next step is to examine the deeper, implicit practices of inclusion and exclusion at each place. Participant observation is a particularly suitable method for this, as it happens in people’s everyday environments and allows researchers to grasp, at a glance, complex issues that participants express in a long-winded way (Spittler, 2001). To ensure intersubjective verifiability, participant observation should be conducted by two researchers at the same time. During the subsequent analysis, first, places mentioned and drawn are identified; second, participants’ narrative descriptions of places of encounter are processed. Places can be coded with regard to quantitative relevance and qualitative meaning (semantics) in the initial step. We suggest a coding that follows the suggested framework, including the dimensions.

(1) level of institutionalization (INS)

(2) level of intentionality (INT)

(3) level of inclusion (INC)

(4) scale (SCA)

For the classification of places the following criteria should be considered in order to process an intersubjectively comprehensible coding (Table 1).

Table 1.

Criteria for Allocation to Individual Categories.

Dimension	High	Middle	Low
Level of institutionalization (INS)	The place exists regularly and the organization is more or less formalized and thus independent from individuals.	The place depends on the engagement/organization of key stakeholders.	A situational place which exists occasionally and randomly.
Level of intentionality (INT)	The aim and purpose of using this place is encounter.	Encounters at this place are of secondary concern.	The place is not explicitly sought for encounters.
Level of inclusion (INC)	The place is accessible to everyone and everyone has an equal opportunity to have a say in how the place is run.	The place is accessible for many, but only some decide the agenda.	The place is only accessible to a certain social group, and some decide on the ways of the place; certain groups are excluded.
Scale (SCA) Horizontal (1) Vertical (2)	The place has significance for the whole district/village or beyond.	The place is relevant for a medium radius, for example a block of houses or a certain part of a village.	The place is only relevant for a small radius, concerning the immediate neighbourhood area.
Scale (SCA) Horizontal (1) Vertical (2)	The place facilitates one-to-many situations of encounter.	The place fosters one-to-one situations of encounter.	The place facilitates many-to-many situations of encounter.

In the following, we present the mapping of meeting places drawing on a fictitious example, i.e. a village with different opportunities for encounters, to illustrate how it can be put into practice in fieldwork. The village of Brainstein is located about 30 km from the nearest big city on a road heavily used by commuters and has about 1,000 inhabitants. Due to migration movements and state distribution mechanisms in recent years, more and more newcomers have arrived in the village. It has also experienced population growth due to amenity migrants who appreciate the tranquillity of the countryside and proximity to nature. In a (fictitious) research project that aims to investigate various aspects of social inclusion in this village, new immigrants and old residents in different age groups are asked about opportunities to meet in the village. At first, the most important places of encounter are named and shown (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Identification of places of encounter by the inhabitants of the village of Brainstein.

Questions are then asked about temporary opportunities for encounters, and about places where serendipitous encounters can take place. It turns out that the most important meeting places for old residents are the local football club and the weekly regulars’ table in the local pub, while new immigrants tend to name as important meeting places the church community and village festivals, which are run by the local associations, as they do not feel that welcome at the regulars’ table and not represented at the village council meeting. In order to establish social contacts in Brainstein, new immigrants also organize themselves independently, for example in the context of a barbecue evening in the neighbourhood. Interestingly, both new immigrants and old residents expressed the importance of greeting each other on the street. In the following, places mentioned are classified according to the scheme presented (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Categorisation of places of encounter according to analysis scheme.

For practitioners, the integrative mapping of places of encounter can provide empirical evidence for various governance processes. Therefore, results can be reported back to the mayor and the village council and foster sensitizing and reflection on the variety of local places of encounter and may reveal fields of action with regard to inclusivity. It can be applied at various spatial scales; to neighbourhoods, city districts or entire municipalities, and include a range of actors, depending on the interest of stakeholders.

Limitations of the Methodology

The proposed methodology represents an integrative approach for capturing, mapping and categorising places of encounter. However, there are some limitations and hurdles to the methodology, which were discussed with five fellow researchers, who have profound expertise in the application of participatory and/or visual methods, and practitioners in the course of four peer-validations in October 2022. Firstly, depending on the setting and the technical skills of the participants, the concrete mapping may be conducted with different techniques. In case of low technological or digital literacy, a low-threshold application of the tool is most recommendable. In many contexts and especially under time pressure, however, using a tablet or implementing the tool digitally may be preferred by the researcher to make the subsequent data processing less laborious. Secondly, “users” of places are not necessarily aware of the dimensions of analysis and it may not be clear to them at once, what it entails. Therefore, it is necessary to break down every dimension and develop comprehensible and locally-significant criteria, e.g. regarding the local range of level of institutionalization of places of encounter. It may also be valuable, at least while doing the categorisation, to include local experts. Thirdly, the terminological variety raised in the introduction, i.e., places of encounter, places of interaction, meeting places and gathering places, could not be addressed in general terms, but needs to be specified by participants and researchers in each context. While our approach focused on physical encounters, future research needs to take into account also places of encounters in digital spaces. Finally, when it comes to policy recommendations derived from the integrative mapping of places of encounter, researchers should be aware of the various spatio-temporal functions and uses of individual meeting places, i.e. they can be high inclusive in the morning and low inclusive in the afternoon.

Conclusion and Outlook

This article began from the assumption that face-to-face encounters are commonly seen as a prerequisite for social interactions that foster both personal well-being and social inclusion in terms of community building. Building on existing research on social places (Kersten et al., 2022) and attempts to classify places of encounter (Oldenburg, 1989; Soszyński et al., 2021), we proposed an integrative methodology that includes the voices of local inhabitants and is able to “map” places of encounter, reconstruct individual and locally specific attributions of meaning, and assess the role of such places in social inclusion. The mapping of places of encounter represents an integrative approach that brings together the often separately discussed roles of encounter for the individual, society and normative concepts such as community in one research design. We consider the academic and practical relevance of identifying local meeting places. Our integrative methodology includes the dimensions of level of institutionalization, level of intentionality, level of inclusion, and horizontal and vertical scale.

In social science research, the proposed place-based approach has a chance to explicitly take into account a spatial perspective in the analysis of social interactions. Thus, it goes beyond mere network analysis, but is able to understand the socio-spatial conditions of encounters as pre-configurations of further social dynamics. As such, the integrative mapping of places of encounter must not be limited to the exploratory phase in a research process. Instead, it can be a valuable methodology in the monitoring of development processes; for example, urban/regional/rural development or neighbourhood/community/village development. While research on places of encounter has recently focused on their role for the individual (in terms of well-being or identity formation), or their relevance for society, the proposed methodology aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of places of encounter. Accordingly, it is able to capture the changing meanings of places, incorporate power asymmetries in accessing places, and processes of exclusion and inclusion.

Depending on the aim and purpose, there are two other variants with different emphasis of the mapping of places of encounter that could be applied in the future, apart from the place-based approach suggested here. Since places are dynamic, mapping could first of all include a temporal dimension. This refers to both frequencies (e.g., weekly, occasionally) and different uses of places throughout the day (e.g., night-time exclusion, day-time inclusion). Because the meanings, level of institutionalization and inclusion and spatial scale change over time, a longitudinal, diachronic perspective could be appropriate, too. This can be achieved either by means of a retrospective application of the proposed mapping, for example by including a certain point in the past (such as 5 years ago), or by using an individually important point in time, (such as arrival at the place under study), or doing a periodical study (such as once every 5 years). A second variant could consider the making of places of encounter among different population groups. Applying the mapping methodology to different sub-groups, such as the autochthonous population and newcomers, youngsters and seniors; or singles and families, would enable the identification of exclusionary places or potential conflicts with regard to certain practices on site.

To strengthen its participatory character, aspects of the method can be varied during preparation, conduct and analysis. During the first and second phase, actors could be involved in selecting the spatial or group-related focus of the mapping, while in the third phase, community research could be strengthened by including inhabitants in its implementation, given that knowledge transfer has already taken place (cf. community and citizen science). Since the analysis often coincides with the interview itself and participants interpret their statements ad-hoc (Weidinger et al., 2021), participation is a given. Moreover, participants can be involved in the participant observation and classification of places. Consequently, the mapping method can enable the inclusion and participation of people whose voices are seldom heard.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to Julia Kieslinger (Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg), Franziska Lengerer, Heike Peter, (both Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institute, Braunschweig), Caroline Manahl (University of Innsbruck), and David Radford (University of South Australia, Adelaide) as well as the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier versions of the article. Furthermore, we want to thank Lukas Schorner for the graphic realization of the figures and, last but not least, Maggie Studholme for proof-reading.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the H2020 Societal Challenges (870831).

ORCID iDs

David Spenger

Stefan Kordel

Tobias Weidinger

Note

References

Abu-Ghazzeh

T. M.

(1999). Housing layout, social interaction, and the place of contact in Abu-Nuseir, Jordan. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(1), 41–73. https://doi.org/10.1006/JEVP.1998.0106

Agnew

(1987). Place and politics. The geographical mediation of state and society. Routledge.

Aitkin

(1985). Countrymindedness – the spread of an idea. Australian Cultural History, 4(3), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8462.1985.tb00286.x

Allman

(2013). The sociology of social inclusion. SAGE Open, 3(1), 215824401247195. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244012471957

Allport

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Amin

(2002). Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity. Environment and Planning A, 34(6), 959–980. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3537

Amin

(2006). The good city. Urban Studies, 43(5/6), 1009–1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980600676717

Askarizad

Safari

(2020). The influence of social interactions on the behavioural patterns of the people in urban spaces (case study: The pedestrian zone of Rasht Municipality Square, Iran). Cities, 101, Article 102687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102687

Audunson

(2005). The public library as a meeting-place in a multicultural and digital context: The necessity of low-intensive meeting-places. Journal of Documentation, 51(3), 429–441. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510598562

10.

Baldassarri

Abascal

(2020). Diversity and prosocial behavior. Science, 369(6508), 1183–1187. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2432

11.

Biglin

(2021). Photovoice accounts of third places: Refugee and asylum seeker populations’ experiences of therapeutic space. Health & Place. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2021.102663

12.

Boyd

(2006). The value of civility? Urban Studies, 43(5/6), 863–878. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980600676105

13.

Bridge

Watson

(2002). Lest power be forgotten. Networks, division and difference in the city. The Sociological Review, 50(4), 505–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/003802610205000403

14.

Byrne

Wolch

(2009). Nature, race, and parks: Past research and future directions for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography, 33(6), 743–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132509103156

15.

Camp

(2015). A study of third places: Benefits of shared leisure practices in public gathering places. Middle Tennessee State University.

16.

Carpiano

R. M.

(2009). Come take a walk with me: The “Go-Along” interviews as a novel method for studying the implications of place for health and well-being. Health and Place, 15(1), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.05.003

17.

Chase

Knight

Statham

(2008). Promoting the emotional wellbeing and mental health of unaccompanied young people seeking asylum in the UK. Research summary. Institute of Education, University of London.

18.

Cobigo

Ouellette-Kuntz

Lysaght

Martin

(2012). Shifting our conceptualization of social inclusion. Stigma Research and Action, 2(2), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.5463/SRA.V1I3.45

19.

Cresswell

(2004). Place. A short introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.

20.

Debertin

Goetz

(2013). Social capital formation in rural, urban and suburban communities. University of Kentucky. https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.159102

21.

Delhey

(2007). Do enlargements make the European union less cohesive? An analysis of trust between EU nationalities. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(2), 253–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00711.x

22.

Delhey

Dragolov

(2015). Happier together. Social cohesion and subjective well-being in Europe. International Journal of Psychology, Early view. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12149

23.

Dirksmeier

Mackrodt

Helbrecht

(2011). Geographien der Begegnung. Geographische Zeitschrift, 99(2/3), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.25162/gz-2011-0007

24.

Dolley

(2020). Community gardens as third places. Geographical Research, 58(2), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12395

25.

Emerson

Kimbro

Yancey

(2002). Contact theory extended: The effects of prior racial contact on current social ties. Social Science Quarterly, 83(3), 745–761. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00112

26.

Emmenegger

Fanghänel

Müller

(2017). Nachbarschaften in genossenschaftlichen Wohnsiedlungen als Zusammenspiel von gelebtem Alltag, genossenschaftlichen Strukturen und gebautem Umfeld – Ein Beitrag zur sozialen Nachhaltigkeit. KTI Forschungsprojekt 2014-2017. Hochschule Luzern.

27.

Fainstein

S. S.

(2013). The just city. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2013.834643

28.

Forrest

Kearns

(2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2125–2143. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980120087081

29.

Gehl

(1980). Life between buildings. Arkitektenes forlag.

30.

Geiselhart

(2009). The Geography of Stigma and discrimination. HIV and AIDS-related Identities in Botswana (= studies development geography 36). Saarbrücken.

31.

Gieling

Haartsen

Vermeij

(2019). Village facilities and social place attachment in the rural Netherlands. Rural Sociology, 84(1), 66–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12213

32.

Glorius

Kordel

Weidinger

Bürer

Schneider

Spenger

(2020). Is social contact with the resident population a prerequisite of well-being and place attachment? The case of refugees in rural regions of Germany. Frontiers in Sociology, 5, Article 578495. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2020.578495

33.

Goffman

(1963). Stigma. Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall.

34.

Goffman

(1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Aldine.

35.

Granovetter

(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469

36.

Hashemnezhad

Heidari

Mohammad Hoseini

(2013). Sense of place and place attachment. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 3(1), 5–12.

37.

Haugen

L. S.

(2020). Meeting places in Norwegian community mental health care: A participatory and community psychological inquiry. University of Bergen.

38.

Henriksen

I. M.

Tjora

(2013). Interaction pretext: Experiences of community in the urban neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 51(10), 2111–2124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013505891

39.

Herslund

Paulgaard

(2021). Refugees’ encounters with Nordic rural areas–darkness, wind and “Hygge”! Frontiers in Sociology, 6, Article 623686. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.623686

40.

Hickman

(2013). Third places and social interaction in deprived neighbourhoods in Great Britain. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 28(2), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-012-9306-5

41.

Hidalgo

M. C.

Hernández

(2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0221

42.

Holland

Katz

Peace

Clark

(2007). Social interactions in urban public places. Policy Press.

43.

Horolets

Stodolska

Peters

(2021). Migrants’ everyday life and migration regimes: A study of migrants’ leisurely use of urban parks. Studia Socjologiczne, 2(241), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.24425/sts.2021.137291

44.

Hulse

Jacobs

Arthurson

Spinney

(2010). Housing, public policy and social inclusion. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

45.

Husserl

, (1954). Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie. Den Haag.

46.

Jolly

S. K.

DiGiusto

G. M.

(2014). Xenophobia and immigrant contact: French public attitudes toward immigration. The Social Science Journal, 51(3), 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2013.09.018

47.

Kersten

Neu

Vogel

(2022). Das Soziale-Orte-Konzept. Zusammenhalt in einer vulnerablen Gesellschaft. Bielefeld.

48.

Kia-Keating

Ellis

B. H.

(2007). Belonging and connection to school in resettlement: Young refugees, school belonging, and psychosocial adjustment. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 12(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1359104507071052

49.

Koefoed

L. M.

Christensen

M. D.

Simonsen

(2017). Mobile encounters: Bus 5A as a cross-cultural meeting place. Mobilities, 12(5), 726–739. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2016.1181487

50.

Koehler

Cimadamore

Kiwan

Monreal Gonzalez

P. M.

(eds). (2020). The politics of social inclusion: Bridging knowledge and policies towards social change. Ibidem Press.

51.

Kordel

Weidinger

Jelen

(eds). (2018). Current immigration processes to European peripheries: Status quo, implications and development strategies. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

52.

Kumar

(2002). Methods for community participation: A complete guide for practitioners. ITDG.

53.

Lefebvre

(1968). Le droit á la ville, paris: Anthopos. In Lefebvre

(Ed), Writings on Cities, trans. E. Kofman and E. Lebas. Blackwell.

54.

Lewicka

(2010). What makes neighbourhood different from home and city? Effects of place scale on place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.004

55.

Mair

C. A.

Thivierge-Rikard

R. V.

(2010). The strength of strong ties for older rural Adults: Regional distinctions in the relationship between social interaction and subjective well-being. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 70(2), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.2190/ag.70.2.b

56.

Marcuse

Connolly

Novy

Olivo

Potter

Steil

(eds). (2009). Searching for the just city. Debates in urban theory and practice. Routledge.

57.

Massey

(1994). Space, place and gender. Polity Press.

58.

Meijer

(2019). Community-led and government-fed: Comparing informal planning practices in depopulating regions across Europe. The Journal of Rural and Community Development, 14(4), 1–26. http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/390731

59.

Mitchell

(2003). The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public space. Guilford Press.

60.

Morrone

Tontoranelli

Ranuzzi

(2009). How good is trust? Measuring trust and its role for the progress of societies (OECD statistics working papers No. 2009/03). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/220633873086

61.

Morrow

(2000). ‘Dirty looks’ and ‘trampy places’ in young people’s accounts of community and neighbourhood: Implications for health inequalities. Critical Public Health, 10(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/713658244

62.

Niewiadomski

(2020). COVID-19: From temporary de-globalisation to a recovery of tourism? Tourism Geography – An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 22(3), 651–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1757749

63.

Oldenburg

(1989). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. Paragon House.

64.

Oxoby

(2009). Understanding social inclusion, social cohesion, and social capital. International Journal of Social Economics, 36(12), 1133–1152. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290910996963

65.

Pain

(2012). A literature review to evaluate the choice and use of visual methods. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(4), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691201100401

66.

Peters

Elands

Buijs

(2010). Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 9(2), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UFUG.2009.11.003

67.

Pettigrew

T. F.

(1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65

68.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

(2006). A meta-Analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.

69.

Putnam

R. D.

(2000). Bowling alone. Free Press.

70.

Radford

(2017). Space, place and identity: Intercultural encounters, Affect and belonging in rural Australian spaces. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 38(5), 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2017.1363166

71.

Relph

(1976). Place and placelessness. Pion.

72.

Risbeth

Blachnika-Ciacek

Darling

(2019). Participation and well-being in urban greenspace: ‘curating sociability’ for refugees and asylum seekers. Geoforum, 106, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOFORUM.2019.07.014

73.

Rosenblatt

Cheshire

Lawrence

(2009). Social interaction and sense of community in a master planned community. Housing, Theory and Society, 26(2), 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036090701862484

74.

Sanders

(2002). Ethnic boundaries and identity in plural societies. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 327–357. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.140741

75.

Schiefer

van der Noll

(2017). The essentials of social cohesion: A literature review. Social Indicators Research, 132(2), 579–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1314-5

76.

Sen

(1989). Development as capability expansion. Journal of Development Planning, 19, 41–58.

77.

Shamai

(1991). Sense of place: An empirical measurement. Geoforum, 22(3), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(91)90017-K

78.

Simplican

S. C.

Leader

Kosciulek

Leahy

(2015). Defining social inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: An ecological model of social networks and community participation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.10.008

79.

Sørensen

J. F. L.

(2016). Rural–urban differences in bonding and bridging social capital. Regional Studies, 50(3), 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.918945

80.

Soszyński

Sowińska-Świerkosz

Kamiński

Trzaskowska

Gawryluk

(2021). Rural public places: Specificity and importance for the local community (case study of four villages). European Planning Studies, 30(2), 311–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1948974

81.

Spittler

(2001). Teilnehmende beobachtung als dichte teilnahme. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 126, 1–25.

82.

Szreter

Woolcock

(2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(4), 650–667. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh013

83.

Thompson

Kent

(2014). Connecting and strengthening communities in places for health and well-being. Australian Planner, 51(3), 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2013.837832

84.

Thrift

(2005). But malice aforethought: Cities and the natural history of hatred. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, NS 30(2), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2005.00157.x

85.

Tönnies

(1887). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Abhandlung des Communismus und des Socialismus als empirischer Culturformen. Fues’s Verlag.

86.

Ujang

Kozlowski

Maulan

(2018). Linking place attachment and social interaction: Towards meaningful public places. Journal of Place Management and Development, 11(1), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-01-2017-0012

87.

Valentine

(2008). Living with difference: Reflections on geographies of encounter. Progress in Human Geography, 32(3), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133308089372

88.

Valentine

(2013). Living with difference: Proximity and encounter in urban life. Geography, 98(1), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167487.2013.12094359

89.

van Dülmen

Klärner

(2022). Places that bond and bind: On the interplay of space, places and social networks. Social Inclusion, 10(3), 248–261. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v10i3.5309

90.

van Hees

Horstman

Jansen

Ruwaard

(2017). Photovoicing the neighbourhood: Understanding the situated meaning of intangible places for ageing-in-place. Health and Place, 48, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.08.007

91.

Vogt

Biernatzki

Kriszan

Lorleberg

(2015). Ländliche Lebensverhältnisse im Wandel 1952, 1972, 1993, 2012. Dörfer als Wohnstandorte.

92.

Vrooman

J. C.

Coenders

(2020). Institutions of inclusion and exclusion. Social Inclusion, 8(1), 178–183. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v8i1.2935

93.

Warf

Arias

(eds). (2009). The spatial turn. Interdisciplinary perspectives. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203891308

94.

Weidinger

Kordel

Kieslinger

(2021). Unravelling the meaning of place and spatial mobility: Analysing the everyday life-worlds of refugees in host societies by means of mobility mapping. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(1), 374–396. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fez004

95.

Wiesemann

(2019). Begegnung schaffen im Quartier. Eine Reflexion von Theorie und Praxis. vhwWerkSTADT.

96.

Zerouati

Bellal

(2020). Evaluating the impact of mass housings ‘in-between spaces’ spatial configuration on users’ social interaction. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 9(1), 34–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.05.005

Mapping Places of Encounter: An Integrative Methodological Approach to Understanding Social Inclusion

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

The Role of Encounters

Giving Meaning to Places in Everyday Interaction

Beyond Accessibility: Social Inclusion and Local Practices of Exclusion

Mapping Places of Encounter

Limitations of the Methodology

Conclusion and Outlook

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Note

References