Source: author
Accommodating ethnic diversity – Exploring the role of
neighbourhood public spaces for a sense of belonging
Johanna Elina Pirhonen Student number: 11787414 Email: j.elina.pirhonen@gmail.com
Advisor: Myrte Hoekstra Second reader: Lia Karsten
Master thesis project in Human Geography (Urban Geography track) University of Amsterdam
Abstract
As ethnic diversity continues to increase, cities in Western Europe are applying different policies to deal with the resulting tensions between ethnic groups, one of them being social mixing. In mixed neighbourhoods, public space plays a central role in efforts of integration and alleviation of difference, but also works as a site of contestation and struggle with different ways of use and varying meanings ascribed to public spaces by different ethnic groups. The ways these processes unfold are inevitably shaped by the unequal power relations between these groups and can lead to exclusion, appropriation and alienation. Focusing on both different perceptions and uses of space as well as social aspects, this study aims to unravel the role that local public spaces play in guiding the sense of belonging in neighbourhood for diverse ethnic groups, using two multicultural
neighbourhoods in Amsterdam as case studies. The results show that shared sense of belonging is undermined by both unequal power relations as well as differences in the use of space, and tensions in the use of public space tend to be sometimes dealt with assimilationist perspective that
undermines the value of diversity. For migrant groups, however, public space remains an important place to foster their belonging to the neighbourhood community.
Table of contents
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Theoretical framework ... 3
2.1. Sense of belonging in diverse urban contexts ... 3
2.3. Contestation and the role of power relations in defining public space ... 5
2.4. Exclusion and segregation in public space ... 6
2.5. The contested potential of sociability in public space ... 7
3. Methodology and case study locations ... 9
3.1. Research methods and sampling ... 9
3.2. Conceptual framework and analysis... 11
3.3. Ethical considerations ... 13
3.4. Case study locations ... 13
4. Findings ... 16
4.1. Comparing the patterns in use of public and semi-public space ... 16
4.1.1. Similarities in the use of space between ethnic groups ... 17
4.1.2. Differences in the use of space between ethnic groups ... 18
4.1.3. Negative perceptions of uses of space ... 21
4.1.4. Consumption places and gentrification ... 23
4.2. Social aspects: inter- and intra-group conviviality and interaction... 27
4.2.1. Territorial behaviour and avoidance due to other user groups ... 27
4.2.2. Inter-ethnic sociability ... 30
4.2.3. Intra-ethnic sociability ... 34
4.3. Public spaces and belonging in the neighbourhood ... 37
4.3.1. Sense of place and place belongingness ... 37
4.3.2. Politics of belonging and social belonging ... 39
4.3.3. Groups whose sense of belonging might be the most at stake ... 41
5. Conclusions and discussion ... 43
References ... 47
1. Introduction
Many contemporary cities are increasingly faced with ethnic and cultural diversity, and one of the common ways to deal with this is to aim at promoting social and cultural integration of ethnic minorities by physically mixing them with the native group in same neighbourhoods (e.g. Blokland & van Eijk, 2009; Smets, 2011) – a process often referred to as social mixing. One of the alleged paradoxes of social mixing is that it aims to accommodate difference while fostering sense of belonging and community (Duyvendak et al., 2016). This research seeks to gain better understanding on whether this really constitutes a paradox and if yes, what the mechanisms behind it are. In the context of two highly multicultural neighbourhoods in Amsterdam, this study aims at broadening the understanding of the role that local public and semi-public spaces play in promoting or hindering a (shared) sense of belonging in the neighbourhood for diverse ethnic groups. Sense of belonging is here considered as consisting of place belongingness and social belonging and being guided by the perceptions and use of public space, perceptions of other users and the negotiation of difference, and the resulting ways in which residents relate to and interact with each other in public and/or semi-public space. Part of this negotiation is inclusion or exclusion from space, where the latter hinders coexistence and might also affect sense of belonging in the neighbourhood.
The characteristics of public space, as implied by Lawton (2013), can play a significant role in determining the interaction that takes place between different groups in socially mixed neighbourhoods. Public spaces can work as places where differences become overcome or familiarised (e.g. Vaiou & Kalandides, 2009), or, in contrary, they can “become important sites of struggle and negotiation over identities and over relations of domination and subordination – –” (Nagar & Leitner, 1998). The resulting situation is influenced by the divergence in perceptions, norms and practices that diverse groups might have regarding the (use of) public spaces, and the ways in which these differences are negotiated or contested - frequently further complicated by the unequal power relations between the various groups.
Due to the prominence of mixing policies and the ambiguous nature of public space in
accommodating and governing diversity, it is of importance to broaden the understanding on the different mechanisms that might explain belonging or non-belonging in a multicultural
neighbourhood. The interest is thus in finding factors that might explain whether diversity can be accommodated successfully on neighbourhood level so that diverse group feel included and at home and unravelling how the public and semi-public spaces might explain belonging differently for various ethnic groups with intersectional identities.
In this study, the problem was approached by considering both the “physical” and social aspects of public spaces, where the first one refers to varying ways in which these groups perceive and use the neighbourhood public spaces and how they attach meaning to them. Here, the potential processes of alienation due to multicultural landscapes and ethnic markers, and segregation or exclusion due to diverging ways of using the space between the groups are also considered as
potential threats to belonging. Furthermore, the possibilities that the local public spaces thus offer for ethnic groups to meet each other – and form familiarity and understanding between each other - are evaluated. The chapter on social aspects, on the other hand, considers the role and limitations of public spaces in fostering both inter- and intra-ethnic sociability, including potential processes of territorial behaviour such as appropriation of space by certain groups. In the closing chapter of findings, I evaluate how both the use and perceptions of and the
sociability in public space might foster or hinder the senses of belonging of diverse groups in the context of two case study neighbourhoods.
The main research question is as follows:
‘What is the role of local public spaces for the sense of belonging of diverse ethnic groups in a mixed neighbourhood?’
The sub-questions that were used to answer the main research question were:
1) How do diverse ethnic groups perceive and use the local public spaces in relation to each other? 2) How do the local public spaces function as places of inter- and intra-ethnic sociability?
3) How do these two aspects inform the sense of belonging in the neighbourhood (community) for diverse ethnic groups?
Partly because visual material was not used in gaining information on respondents’ perceptions and experiences, the focus of the paper is mostly on the different patterns of use of space and the social dynamics between ethnic groups in public space rather than in perceptions of landscapes and identification with public space.
2. Theoretical framework
In the Netherlands, there has been concern regarding the increased conflicts in inter-ethnic
relationships and attitudes, and the consequent lack of sense of belonging since 1990s, and this has led to urban policies that aim to promote social cohesion and integration (Peters et al., 2010; Peters, 2010; Duyvendak et al., 2016). This has led to state-driven efforts to create feelings of home and belonging for everyone in public spaces to promote integration and social cohesion, as pointed out by Duyvendak and the colleagues (2016). On the other hand, the relationship is reciprocal as encounters in public space - by increasing social cohesion - are also considered to foster feeling at home and belonging (Duyvendak et al., 2016; Blokland & Nast, 2014:1144).
Consequently, promoting feeling of home has been pursued by increasing the opportunities for inter-ethnic encounters by bringing diverse groups together on neighbourhood level via social mixing policies, and by stimulating inter-group sociability in public spaces of the neighbourhoods (Peters et al., 2010; Duyvendak et al., 2016). Indeed, in the literature on living with difference, public spaces in socially and culturally mixed neighbourhoods are often emphasized as places to bridge social difference among the residents. This view neglects the aspect of public space also as a place for contestation and production of difference (Ehrkamp, 2008), and as a site for practicing power over the design, management and use of space, as well as over who has access to it (e.g. August, 2014). The promotion of feeling at home in public space is criticized for being exclusive and
achieved by “re-conquering” the space from certain “groups that have already made it their ‘home’”, thus related to notions of urban revanchism (Smith, 2002). These processes imply that greater attention to inclusiveness of public space should be paid in order to maximize their potential not only as places to build intercultural understanding and social cohesion, but also as places to promote local belonging through place attachment for diverse groups.
2.1. Sense of belonging in diverse urban contexts
In much of the relevant academic literature, it is emphasized that the social and spatial are very much intertwined with and reflect on each other when it comes to concepts of belonging and identity (e.g. Clayton, 2009). In line with this, use of public spaces have been shown to have potential to promote both social cohesion and attachment to places (e.g. Peters et al., 2010).
Sense of belonging is often divided into place belongingness and politics of belonging (Smets and Sneep, 2015).
Place belongingness refers to affective forms of belonging to a certain place and is related to the concept of “feeling at home” (Duyvendak et al., 2016) - a central goal of Dutch urban policies both on national and neighbourhood scale. This can also refer to issues of identity and identification with place like described by Lähdesmäki and the colleagues (2016). Politics of belonging, on the other hand, refers to boundary-drawing around who is granted or denied access to a certain space based on notions of who belongs and who does not. It is often related to culture and race (Smets & Sneep, 2015; Leitner, 2012) and thus connected with a concept of social inclusion (Antonisch, 2010 in
Pinkster, 2017:4), but also socially contingent, and as Visser (2017:2) notes, dependent and produced through encounters with other people. In addition to place and political belonging, this study
consequently distinguishes a third aspect of belonging - social. Social belonging is here conceived as a feeling of being part of the neighbourhood community and feelings of attachment towards other neighbourhood residents, and as being influenced by politics of belonging and by encounters with others in public or semi-public space. In the context of ethnically diverse neighbourhoods, a distinction between intra- and inter-ethnic sociability should be established, since these two types can have different kind of effects on feelings of belonging. The first type of sociability is more closely connected with the concept of “bonding social capital”. The latter, on the other hand, is usually defined as “bridging social capital”, which refers to encounters that reduce social distance but are not necessarily turned into close relationships. This type of social capital can be important in feelings of being accepted and tolerated and thus enabling sense of belonging (Blokland & Nast, 2014:1144). In addition to encounters, belonging is produced by individuals’ and groups’ social locations, and by how these are reflected on processes of inclusion and exclusion (Yuval-Davis, 2006 in Hoekstra & Pinkster, 2017:3, Visser, 2017:2). Consequently, belonging can be seen as forming out of “seeking” and “granting” belonging, where the groups who are more powerful grant and guide the belonging of others (Yuyval-Davis, 2006, 2011 in Visser, 2017:2).
2.2. Public space, identity and varying uses of space
Public spaces are considered as important places of both constructing and expressing identities (e.g. Ehrkamp, 2008). When diverse groups with potentially varying preferences, norms, traditions and practices are ought to share the local spaces with each other in the neighbourhood, conflicts or tensions might arise (Lawton, 2016; Peters & De Haan, 2011). Shaping and managing local public space can contribute and be contributed by sense of belonging (Smets, 2011), and especially more recent immigrants might want to shape their surroundings to promote identification with place through reminiscence of their cultural background (Ehrkamp, 2008; Smets and Sneep, 2015). Additonally, as Risbeth (2001;358) notes, these practices might also cater to immigrants’ need for acknowledgement of their presence and identity in their new home country. This can be seen in “visual cues – – that symbolize the heritage of the community” (ibid.).
While the assertion of ethnic markers can be an important process for immigrants, it can result in the native population feeling threatened or culturally estranged, thus experiencing alienation and weakened sense of belonging (Duyvendak et al., 2016; Fincher et al., 2014). Furthermore, Rishbeth (2001:357-359) notes that landscapes with aims to incorporate aspects from various cultures might easily result in being “chaotic or divisive”, or not succeeding in representing the culture in an authentic way. On the other hand, the markers can be interpreted as positively contributing to diversity, which is frequently celebrated especially in the form of consumption places. This can also have negative consequences as the diversity itself can be commodified and used as an asset in place branding and marketing (Fincher et al. 2014;24-35); this might end up having negative effects for the
groups who formed this “celebrated” diversity in the first place, often as a result from gentrification and increased housing and rental prices (Fincher et al, 2014:31-35).
In addition to visual and symbolic aspects of public space, also the functional role of public space and activities offered in public space influence its inclusivity and potential to foster belonging in various groups. Empirical research in this area regarding ethnicity seems to be more limited than the one on landscapes and symbolic meanings, and the focus has, to a large degree, been on parks and natural areas, thus emphasizing the importance of focusing on the differences in use of space according to ethnicity. Some of the findings relating to the differences in use of space show that in the Netherlands, people of non-Western background spend a significant amount of their time with family when in public space, and favor places near their home (Jok´ovi, 2003 in Peters, 2010;421-422. According to Peters (ibid.), these findings could be explained partly by the lower
socio-economic status and by to cultural differences in the meanings and values regarding leisure in public space. The results in the study by Peters (2010) in urban parks were also supporting the notion that people with migrant background place a larger emphasis on the social character of leisure in public space than the native Dutch and tend to visit public spaces in larger groups. In addition to different emphasis on the social aspect, some of the differences included that migrants’ visits to park were often combined or related with food, such as having a picnic, and that they often played music in the parks.
2.3. Contestation and the role of power relations in defining public space
The potentially conflicting ways of perceiving and using public space might consequently lead to practices of appropriation and exclusion – for instance, native people can practice exclusion towards “newcomers” to maintain their familiar living environments (Ehrkamp, 2008).
Unequal power relations between distinct groups have been proven to play a central role in
contestations over the public space (e.g. August, 2014). The notion of inequality conflicts with ideals of non-hierarchical encounters that are often proclaimed as the key potential of public space (e.g. Young, 1990 in Ehrkamp, 2008). Power is exercised by the dominant groups when they take over local decision-making regarding the design, use and management of local public spaces, and these processes reflect more general contestations over the ideal neighbourhood character (Hoekstra & Pinkster, 2017; Fincher et al., 2014). Following this, Fincher and the colleagues (2014) emphasize the importance of urban planners to pursue an inclusive urban realm and the need for planners also to recognize their own subjectivity in the process, as decisions related to urban environment are hardly ever as objective as they might seem. For instance, the authors give examples that through planning and regulations, professionals can contribute to normalize certain behaviours, types of amenities and landscapes in public space. Normalization of space is often an unconscious process of defining the “appropriate uses of space and appropriate public behaviours”, imposed by the groups in powerful position and often based on cultural hegemony (Ehrkamp, 2008; Dines, 2002) and creating mental boundaries. In addition to planning professionals, residents can also use power regarding urban
space in more informal ways by appropriating, territorializing and normalizing it. In her study, Martine August (2014) witnessed how mainly white middle-class uses power in local decision-making over managing and defining the use of public space in mixed-income community in
Toronto. In studies both by August (2014) and Chaskin and Joseph (2012), youth that was “hanging out” in the neighbourhood public space was considered as inappropriate by owner-occupiers, and the authors explained this by the home-owners’ concern over the value of their property that was perceived to be in danger due to this behaviour. Since native people in the Netherlands tend to be wealthy more often than other ethnic groups, these notions also interact with ethnicity and can contribute to tensions between ethnic groups.
The unequal power relations over defining and shaping neighbourhood space are often pronounced when a neighbourhood is gentrifying: when the white middle-class and creative class take over previously marginalized neighbourhoods, they usually transform them into a more consumption-oriented, privatized landscape and also exercise power in defining the appropriate ways to behave in public spaces (e.g. August, 2014; Chaskin & Joseph, 2011). These processes often overlap with social mixing: introducing a “deprived” neighbourhood to more middle-class white residents can
significantly guide the (re-)development of the neighbourhood, trying to answer to the “images of a good city” as perceived by the groups in a powerful position in society (Bridge et al., 2014). In the process, they practice exclusion towards original low-income groups and thus also a large share of the ethnic minorities.
2.4. Exclusion and segregation in public space
Some authors critically note that the physical mixing in the form of housing on neighbourhood scale does not necessarily lead to an actual social mixing in the form of inter-group interaction in public space in the first place (Amin, 2002; Smets, 2011; Lawton, 2016); rather, proximity to dissimilar “others” has in some cases been shown to cause avoidance, disaffiliation (e.g. Pinkster, 2014) and segregation on micro scale, where the latter can refer to differentiation according to public spaces that different ethnic groups use (Smets & Sneep, 2015) or segregation within one public space (Burgers & Zuijderwijk, 2016).
Firstly, the role of local public spaces in bridging social difference and promoting social cohesion is undermined by the variance in perceptions and use of public space, which might lead to contestation and exclusion or “self-segregation”. On the other hand, exclusion can also be motivated by solely social aspects - notions of who belongs to a certain place. One of the most common ways of pursuing to legitimize exclusion of “racial others” is fear (Day, 2006). However, this fear is not necessarily limited to fear of criminal activity, and in addition to threats to identity, the process is often guided by prejudice. The latter was also the case in the study by August (2014), where racial youth was constructed as “out of place” (Cresswell, 1996) and criminalized in the community public space. In addition to - but often interrelated with - ethnicity, notions of belonging and consequent pursuits of exclusion can be based on the relative degree of establishment in being a resident in a
certain area. In a study by Burgers and Zuijderwijk (2016), also immigrants were noticed to create hierarchies between the groups who were more long-term residents as opposed to ”relative new-comers”; the assessments of social position were determined by obvious signs of integration such as capabilities to speak the local language, among other things, and were visible in the discourse by the established groups that linked the newcomers with nuisance and neighbourhood decline.
On the other hand, appropriation of space by immigrants can also lead to alternative reactions such as avoidance; this was the case in a study by Burgers & Zuijderwijk (2016), where native Dutch felt that neighbourhood square was “taken over” by immigrants and consequently, they avoided using the square and increasingly left the neighbourhood altogether. Furthermore, different ethnic groups were creating social hierarchies between the “established” and more recent immigrants, which informed politics of belonging – who is considered to belong, and who is granted access (ibid., p. 107) - on a neighbourhood square. Despite obvious conflicts, one of acclaimed goals of social mixing in the Netherlands is to promote sense of belonging and social cohesion by bringing different socio-economic and cultural groups together. The seeming paradox can perhaps be explained by the fact that these social mixing practices also pursue social and cultural integration (Smets & den Uyl, 2008), thus implying cultural assimilation and reducing visible differences in the use of public space.
Often, such as in the study by Pinkster (2014), it is the middle-class residents who practice
disaffiliation in a disadvantaged neighbourhood. The research on mixed-income communities and use of public space has also shown that proximity to difference can lead to negative interaction that causes conflicts and accentuates rather than alleviates the social divisions (August, 2014);
furthermore, Valentine (2008) notes that we should also take into account that marginal groups can be fearful of interaction with majority group. The tensions that arise from different social and ethnic groups living in proximity to each other have been at least partly accounted for conflicting
expectations of shared public or semi-public spaces regarding both their appearance and use. Tersteeg and Pinkster (2016) as well as Lawton (2016) have revealed how these kinds of conflicts can be especially strong in fine-grained mixing developments between market rate and social housing residents.
2.5. The contested potential of sociability in public space
One of the acclaimed functions of public space is to foster encounters with difference and between strangers, and this notion is also incorporated in the urban policies in the Netherlands. The potential for conviviality and social encounters, however, might be inhibited by the varying preferences and uses of space, which might lead to both conflicts and segregation. Furthermore, the perspectives regarding both the potential and the supposed ultimate goal of these encounters vary within academic literature. Some authors are more eagerly celebrating the potential of intercultural encounters in public space (e.g. Boyd, 2006 in Valentine, 2008), usually relying on the “contact hypothesis”, according to which more contact leads to reduced prejudice and tensions (Valentine,
2008). Inter-ethnic encounters can thus promote social cohesion by relieving tensions and increasing acceptance (Dines and Catell, 2006 & Putnam, 2000 in Peters et al., 2010), which in turn can
strengthen social belonging (Blokland & Nast, 2014: 1144).
Meanwhile, other authors, such as Valentine (2008) in theoretical discussion, Ahn (2017) and Burgers & Zuijderwijk (2016) in empirical studies, and Lawton (2013) through expert interviews question the potential of inter-ethnic encounters in public space to achieve increased respect for difference. This could potentially be a threat to cohesion and social belonging on the neighbourhood level. Valentine identifies a gap between individuals’ behaviour towards different ethnic groups in public, and on the other hand their values and attitudes towards difference in private. She explains this gap partly by the “urban etiquette”, which makes people perform “acts of kindness” in public regardless of their personal values. The notion that encounters with difference rarely translate into inter-ethnic relationships in private life has received empirical evidence in studies among others by Wessendorf (2013), Blokland & van Eijk (2010) and Peters & de Haan (2011), who all noticed that even people living in a super-diverse neighbourhood or who value diversity in principle do not necessarily have diverse, inter-ethnic social networks.
Differing from Valentine’s perspective, however, Wessendorf and Peters & de Haan consider encounters in public space as having an important role in potentially shaping people’s attitudes towards other ethnic groups. For instance, although the study by Peters & de Haan did not manage to confirm the influence of encounters on people’s attitudes on a societal level, the authors think that positive experiences of diversity can at least contribute to a more realistic picture of
multiculturalism, and potentially make people more open to more meaningful inter-ethnic contacts as well. The variation between distinct public space regarding the degree of exclusion/inclusion made them emphasize the role that quality of public space can play in influencing the type of interaction and images of diversity; places with several facilities and activities seemed to relate to positive experiences of diversity.
Views also vary regarding whether true respect for difference or translation of public encounters into private life is in fact necessary as far as there is no conflict between the various groups, as Susanne Wessendorf (2013) found out to be true for many residents in her study in a super-diverse neighbourhood of Hackney in London. This is in line with the notions by Blokland and Nast (2014), according to whom the idea of belonging does not require that residents like each other or each other’s behaviour in public space; the lack of social cohesion does not necessarily mean that individuals cannot feel belonging to the neighbourhood, since belonging can stem from other sources and does not require “one singular community or strong “personal local networks” (p. 1143). Instead, they emphasize the role of serendipitous and fleeting encounters with strangers as part of public familiarity, which according to them is significant for belonging. In addition, they note it is important to have predictability regarding each other and social situations, and to possess knowledge about the social codes and how to navigate the neighbourhood.
3. Methodology and case study locations
The fieldwork for this study was conducted in two multicultural neighbourhoods in Amsterdam: Indische Buurt and De Baarsjes. The nature of the study was mainly inductive as it aimed at “developing theory” from the data. I applied two types of qualitative methods: interviewing and participant observation. Qualitative methods were chosen since the research topic is dealing with complex human relationships such as power relations and prejudice that require gaining rich and in-depth data from the people themselves. The broad aim of this research is to “understand social reality – – as it really is” (Bryman, 2008:367). It involves an aim to understand people’s feelings and behaviour and motives and attitudes that are behind those behaviours. It thus requires methods that allow “seeing through the eyes of the people being studied” (Bryman, 2008: 385).
In both neighbourhoods, I conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 residents in both neighbourhoods – totaling 20 resident interviews. In addition, I conducted a shorter interview with a municipal worker in Indische Buurt to gain general data of the neighbourhood and a professional’s perspective, and one interview with street coaches in De Baarsjes, resulting in 22 interviews in total. Street coaches areprofessionals that focus specifically on conflicts and nuisance regarding youth. My plan was to also conduct an interview with one of the Area Support team members in De Baarsjes, but I was not able to arrange a meeting with them. I also used the method of participant observation on some of the neighbourhood public squares to support and add to the data gained in interviews, and to contribute to a triangulation of methods, thus adding different “lines of sight” (Berg & Lune, 2012:6).
3.1. Research methods and sampling
Semi-structured interviews were applied as the main research method. They were chosen over other types of interview because they allow some flexibility regarding both the discussion topics and the order in which the topics will be discussed. Furthermore, semi-structured interview technique allows adjustments to give more focus on the aspects that the interviewees attach most personal meaning to and that they have most things to say about, while keeping the discussion on aspects relevant for the research purposes.
Respondents for interviews were recruited mostly by approaching them in public spaces of the case study neighbourhoods, and the rest were approached in a community centre, a café or a store, and through local neighbourhood Facebook group. The sample included people with (white) native Dutch, Surinamese, Surinamese-Dutch, Moroccan, Turkish, Curaçaoan, Iranian and Croatian background. The ethnic background was determined by using the country of origin of respondents’ parents, following other studies on conducted on similar topics (e.g. Burgers & Zuijderwijk, 2016). For practical reasons, the white native Dutch will from now on be referred to
Western groups or people with immigrant background, despite many of them being born in the Netherlands.
The small number of first-generation immigrants was mostly caused by the fact that it was challenging to find ones who speak English, and as such I was not able to interview them. This limitation meant that I was required to rely on convenience sampling when choosing the
respondents, although I also made tentative judgements of people’s ethnic background based on their appearance to try to gather people from different backgrounds. This means I also
incorporated purposive sampling technique. Especially, my interest was interviewing people from the prominent groups in Amsterdam and in both case study neighbourhoods – Moroccan, Turkish and Surinamese, in addition to the native Dutch. Additionally, I pursued to include some variance among respondents regarding their age and gender.
The fact that respondents were mostly approached in public space might contribute to a skewed sample, as these individuals are more likely to be using the public space actively and thus
perceive them rather positively. However, this approach was also useful as these individuals were more likely to have time to participate in the research, and it also increased likelihood on gaining interesting data as these people might have more knowledge and experiences regarding the local public spaces. Importantly, also the language barrier resulted in a skewed sample and constitutes one of the main limitations of this study. This meant that the chosen respondents are more likely to be well integrated into the Dutch society, since they have either been born here or moved to the country when they were young. As a result, the findings might not reflect as much
experiences of alienation or tensions between these groups and the white Dutch as it perhaps would if the sample included recent immigrants. Furthermore, it might result in the sample being skewed towards highly educated and higher or middle-income groups. The study thus fails to provide an encompassing crosscut to the neighbourhood population and dynamics.
Furthermore, the fact that participation in research was voluntary probably had effects on the sample, as people who are more concerned and invested emotionally with their neighbourhood and public space might be more motivated and eager to participate in the research. On the other hand, this motivation did not only stem from positive attitudes but also from the issues some respondents had paid attention to regarding the public spaces in their neighbourhood. In addition to interviews, I conducted observations on ten separate times in both
neighbourhoods, times of observation ranging from 20 minutes to two hours. This method was used mainly to be able to reflect on the data gained from interviews, but as a hindsight, scarce observations rendered their usefulness rather limited, as important aspects in use of space might remain invisible. However, I attempted to overcome this slightly by including both different days of the week and different times of the day to achieve a broader and more realistic picture of how the spaces are used by different groups of people. Another limitation in using observation is that the researcher’s presence might render individuals to change their behavior (Berg & Lune, 2012:217), which makes it more difficult to obtain truthful observations of the studied subjects or environments.
3.2. Conceptual framework and analysis
Figure 1. Conceptual framework that guided the research process.
Figure 1 above shows the conceptual framework that worked as a guideline in the research. In order to answer the research questions, perceptions and use of public (or semi-public) spaces by each respondent were first investigated by asking each respondent to mark their favourite public spaces (or semi-public, in case they did not spend much time in public space) on the map of their neighbourhood. This was followed by inquiries regarding the motivations to go to and the activities that were usually taken in these places, i.e. use of public space. This allowed also a discussion on the reasons why some people did not feel comfortable going to certain places due to either physical aspects, other user groups or the way a certain place was used by others. In order to assess the opportunities that public spaces provide for so called shared sense of belonging and bridging difference, the goal was to reveal possible difference and similarities in the use of public space between different ethnic groups to understand whether public spaces are fostering co-existence as well as sociability between the people with different backgrounds (figure 1).
Sociability in public space is studied mainly in interviews and supported by the observations in some
neighbourhood squares. The interest is in both sociability among individuals of the same ethnic background as well as inter-ethnic sociability, although the effects of these two types of sociability are expected to be different. Respondents were asked about their own social interaction in public space, but also how they perceive the interaction between other users of public space in the
neighbourhood. Opportunities for especially inter-ethnic sociability were further evaluated based on the differences and similarities in the perceptions and use of public space, as well as on social aspects that were not related to place or use of space. An example of these aspects could be negative
Sense of belonging is studied using the data gained in interviews and operationalized as follows:
• Place belongingness:
Place belongingness is examined through the way people talk about neighbourhood’s public spaces and how they attach affective meaning to them. The belonging and place attachment on the neighbourhood level will be asked in a direct manner in interviews.
• Politics of belonging and social belonging:
The politics of belonging, referring to the aspects of exclusion/inclusion and access: Do people
feel comfortable and welcome in local public spaces? Do they perceive their use of space to be restricted by other groups?
Social belonging: How do people talk about other neighbourhood residents? How do they seem
to position themselves in the neighbourhood community? Additionally, frequency and type of interaction between different individuals and ethnic groups was evaluated as something that can either hinder or foster social belonging.
These aspects were then compared and reflected with the different patterns in use of space between ethnic (and income) groups as well as the aspects of sociability in order to understand the complex, intertwined roles that different aspects of local public space might have for belonging in the multicultural neighbourhood for different groups. Consequently, questions included in the interviews can be divided into four different categories: 1) use of public space and reasons for using certain places 2) perceptions of the public spaces and of their use by others 3) interactions in public space 4) belonging in public spaces and 5) general perceptions of and sense of belonging in the neighbourhood.
After conducting the interviews, they were transcribed to enable analysis. In the case of qualitative data and interviews, the analysis has to do with interpreting the words of the respondents and analyzing the “meanings that individuals assign to experience” (Berg & Lune, 2012:15). To make sense of the large amount of data, I used thematical content analysis; this means that interviews were coded thematically in ATLAS.ti programme. When creating codes, I used the so-called directed content analysis; this means that the codes that I used to make sense of my data were guided both by my conceptual and theoretical frameworks, but also by the data itself (Berg & Lune, 2012:352). This meant that the findings were more likely to be better fitted in the existing theory while still allowing the emergence of new themes and meanings. After the coding process, I retrieved and compared the codes according to both respondents’ ethnic backgrounds and the neighbourhoods to allow potentially emerging differences between these categories. Furthermore, it enabled me to see the emerging and prevalent themes and connect parts from separate interviews with each other.
3.3. Ethical considerations
Before conducting each interview, I ensured informed consent of the participant by giving the them basic information of the broad research purpose and topic and mentioning examples of types of questions. Furthermore, I explained my affiliation as a master student at the university of Amsterdam and explained what the research is used for. Regarding the topic, however, I did not make my specific topic explicit, as communicating the interviewees that I want to find out about whether different ethnic groups feel home in public spaces, it would have probably skewed their answers and made them emphasize aspects related to ethnicity or hide certain attitudes (Bryman, 2008).
After giving the necessary information regarding the research, I made it clear that participation is voluntary, and that the respondent can withdraw from the study at any point of the interview. Furthermore, I expressed that the data will remain confidential and anonymous - most of all as I did not ask or use respondents’ names - and stored the data only on my personal devices. The confidentiality and anonymity were especially important in this research as the topic is quite sensitive, and the answers might include very personal experiences such as being discriminated based on one’s ethnicity.
3.4. Case study locations
I chose to carry out research in Amsterdam both for convenience reasons and as it posed a new and interesting opportunity for me, but also because it seemed ideal for my topics of interest - ethnic diversity and mixed neighbourhoods. The presence of people with foreign background in Amsterdam is prevalent, forming about half of the total population, and most of the
neighbourhood are ethnically and culturally mixed as a result from prevalent social mixing policies that were put to practice to answer to perceived increasing tensions between different ethnic groups (Fincher et al. 2014).
In Amsterdam, the cultural hegemony of the native Dutch is thus not as strong as in many other places, since the cultural diversity is an established part of the city and most of its
neighbourhoods. This constituted both an opportunity and a limitation to this study; on one hand, Amsterdam provides a fruitful location to study the dynamics between diverse ethnic groups, where the several cultural identities are also visible in the neighbourhood landscapes. On the other hand, the ethnic and cultural diversity is quite an established part of Amsterdam, and many of the people with ethnic backgrounds are born and raised in the Netherlands, which makes is more complicated to study the process of cultural integration. Furthermore, many residents of Amsterdam, and especially multicultural neighbourhoods like Indische Buurt, have probably got used to cultural diversity, and it does not necessarily pose a threat or challenge in their everyday life in a similar way as it would for some others.
The case study neighbourhood were chosen because they are both ethnically diverse, and the diversity is also visible in retail and restaurants held by groups of ethnic background.
Additionally, the recent and still on-going gentrification - a process where neighbourhoods become increasingly inhabited by middle class, and often native white residents - in both neighbourhoods was expected to cause changing power dynamics. The changes in social dynamics as well as municipality’s development efforts were perceived as something that can potentially cause tensions in the use of public space.
Indische Buurt
Indische Buurt is situated in Amsterdam East and is one of the most ethnically diverse neighbourhoods in Amsterdam as its residents include people with about 80 different
nationalities. Residents with native Dutch background form 36,5 % of the local population, while the shares of other largest ethnic groups are: Moroccan 18,9 %, Turkish 8,9 % and Surinamese 8,0 % (Kerncijfers gebieden Amsterdam, 2018). The multicultural character of the
neighbourhood is perhaps best captured on its local shopping street, Javastraat, with has several ethnic restaurants and grocery stores as well as some popular cafés and bars. The neighbourhood has been affected by gentrification, and despite having previously been predominantly inhabited by people of non-Western background, it is now perceived as becoming more mixed due to the arrival of so-called gentrifiers and young urban professionals, who are mostly native, white Dutch people. This process has accelerated during the few last years. The renewal process of public spaces, but most of all the housing renewal and the trend of turning social housing into owner-occupied houses has attracted higher income classes into the area and contributed to the more prevalent presence of the native Dutch in the neighbourhood. (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018a; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018b; Schoonhoven, interview 3.4.2018)
According to the municipal worker responsible for the area of Indische Buurt, all ethnic groups are participating in developing the neighbourhood and its public spaces. Residents’ engagement in public space has also been supported by the municipality for instance by recruiting some residents to coordinate the public spaces adjacent to their homes (Schoonhoven, interview 3.4. 2018).
De Baarsjes
De Baarsjes is situated in Amsterdam West and relatively close to the city centre. It is, similarly to Indische Buurt, one of the more multicultural neighbourhoods in Amsterdam, but increasingly popular among middle and higher income native Dutch as well as younger population. In the beginning of 2018, the share of people of Moroccan background was 9,6 %, of Turkish 6,0 % and of Surinamese 5,0 %, while the share of inhabitants with other non-Western background was 10,3 %. The native Dutch formed approximately half of the population – 49,6 %. (Kerncijfers
gebieden Amsterdam, 2018). De Baarsjes is densely populated partly because in the
neighbourhood itself, there are no parks. However, there are two large parks situated just outside to the borders of the neighbourhood: Erasmuspark and Rembrandtpark. Also in De Baarsjes, municipality of Amsterdam has renewed some of the public spaces, most notably Mercatorplein, which is perhaps the most famous square in the neighbourhood. (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018c) In De Baarsjes, the area plan by the municipality of Amsterdam includes maintaining a balance between social and free sector housing and promoting social inclusion and acceptance and respect of difference among the residents. However, the plan also spells out that the city is making efforts to prevent especially Muslim youth from radicalisation, and the youth nuisance is mentioned as something that will be controlled more in order to improve safety in the area. It is also implied that both part of the Muslim community and the native Dutch in the area of Oud West and De Baarsjes are encountering difficulties with “feeling at home”. (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018d)
4. Findings
Perceptions and the different uses of public space were studied firstly to understand to what degree the public spaces in the case study neighbourhoods manage to cater to varying needs and offer possibilities for diverse groups to feel at home, and how the places thus influence their place belongingness.
Importantly, the perceptions of place and navigation of the neighbourhood are not only determined by the physical aspects of these place but are closely linked with processes of symbolic and physical boundaries set by other user groups, and further the general dynamics between different user groups. Additionally, the ways use of space by ethnic groups relate to and intersect with each other, and the ways different preferences and norms regarding public space are negotiated both affect the opportunities for conviviality and the nature of the relationships between diverse groups for instance through contestations and unequal power dynamics (e.g. Hoekstra & Pinkster, 2014). These issues will be dealt more in the chapter 4.2. along with limitations and contributors to interaction that are not related to place itself, thus helping to better assess the role of neighbourhood space for bridging social difference and promoting community belonging.
4.1. Comparing the patterns in use of public and semi-public space
In both Indische Buurt and De Baarsjes, the cultural diversity in a public space, and more generally in the neighbourhood was valued by many different respondents. This meant appreciation for both culturally diverse amenities such as restaurants, but also the diversity of people in the neighbourhood. However, there were differences between the neighbourhoods; in Indische Buurt, the appreciation of diversity was more prevalent than in De Baarsjes.
In Indische Buurt, respondents also generally felt more positively about their neighbourhood; it had to do with the social atmosphere but also with more practical features such as good
transportation connections and abundant range of amenities in vicinity. Respondents from Indische Buurt also perceived the local public spaces somewhat more positively than respondents from De Baarsjes. The positive perceptions were influenced by the recent and extensive renewal process of public spaces, which was seen as contributing to a safer and brighter neighbourhood.
When respondents were asked whether they perceived the public spaces in the neighbourhood mixed, most of them said yes. Despite this, there were both similarities and differences in how different ethnic groups navigate the public and semi-public spaces in their neighbourhood, including the place choices, rationalities behind them and the activities in public space. Additionally, there were differences in the perceptions regarding “mixing” between the neighbourhoods: more respondents in Indische Buurt perceived the public spaces in their
neighbourhood to be used by various ethnic groups, while in De Baarsjes, there were more notions of segregation, especially regarding the division between consumption places versus outdoor public spaces.
4.1.1. Similarities in the use of space between ethnic groups
One type of places that attracted several different ethnic groups in both neighbourhoods were
local shopping streets, which were favored most of all due to their diverse range of ethnic stores or
restaurants, but also due to white-oriented bars and cafés. These included also “trendy” places that catered to so called gentrifiers – creative middle class and young urban professionals, who tend to be mostly native Dutch people. In Indische Buurt, both the diverse amenities and the presence of diverse groups of people on the shopping street were mentioned as main reasons to be attracted to the street by most respondents. For a Moroccan young woman and her family, the street is also a place where one could easily bump into acquaintances and is thus reinforcing the sense of community:
“– – Javastraat has… there you meet everyone. You haven’t seen somebody in a long time, and you go to Javastraat and then you meet them there, you meet everybody (emphasizing the word). We do our shopping there on Javastraat. So, there we buy our meat, groceries, everything.”
Meanwhile, in De Baarsjes, the use of local shopping street was more often based on practical reasons rather than the atmosphere of diversity and familiarity: doing errands, passing through when going somewhere else, and visiting certain bars, cafés or restaurants. For the native Dutch respondents in De Baarsjes, it was mostly a place to do shopping or visit cafés that were mostly either trendy new places or “old-school” pubs, both of which were visited mainly by white Dutch people according to the respondents. For one Dutch respondent, these were also places where she has built public familiarity by getting to know other customers or the personnel after visiting regularly.
Another type of place that was visited both by the native Dutch and people with non-native Dutch background were the central squares that have many amenities located either on the square or nearby and are adjoined by the local shopping streets. In both neighbourhoods, the squares also have a public library (OBA) located on the edge. Javaplein in Indische Buurt was mostly visited to go to the cafés or the library on the square, but on a good weather, respondents said to prefer sitting outside on terraces. In addition to the cafés, the square was perceived attractive because it is busy with many people either passing through or stopping on the square. In the observations on the square, I noticed that people who were stopping to sit on the square were mostly staying only a short while – around 5 to 15 minutes – and it was mostly used as a place to eat something - often food bought from the adjacent fast food place. Some older women of ethnic background (assumedly Turkish or Moroccan, most of them wearing headscarves) were, however, sometimes staying longer. For them, the square seemed to offer
both a resting place on the way from place A to place B, but also a place to meet and interact with other women of the same ethnicity that they knew beforehand.
Mercatorplein in De Baarsjes - although mentioned as one of the places to go by several
respondents - was mostly a place to simply pass through when going to do some shopping at a supermarket or visit the library, both located on the edges of the square. This was especially true for the native Dutch respondents but was also the case for some non-Dutch respondents. One Dutch respondent and one half-Dutch respondent said that Mercatorplein is not a nice square to spend time at; it was not perceived inviting due to abundant use of asphalt and the absence of green elements. For a Dutch-Argentinian male respondent, it also had to do with a lack of activities and a layout that is not encouraging sitting or interaction. The sitting opportunities that were only located at the edges of the square and did not provide protection from the sun were not considered inviting, and the square was thought of as “not made for people”. Despite this, Mercatorplein was perceived to be quite an important meeting place for especially Turkish people by a Dutch respondent, and this was also somewhat visible in the observations of the square, where I noticed a significant presence of especially Turkish elderly men. It was also frequented by a Surinamese respondent who also expressed some attachment to it. She likes to visit the café and the supermarket on the square, but also to “sit on the square, talk a little, enjoy the
weather…”. On the other hand, Mercatorplein was also considered unattractive because of the
perceptions of its user groups and how it was used by them, which will be covered more in the chapter 4.2.
Something that was valued in public space by different ethnicities was having green elements and sitting opportunities. Regarding the activities in public space, passing through a square or street in order to go somewhere, such as friends’ house or a supermarket, was naturally something that all respondents did regardless of the ethnicity. What comes to staying activities, different types of sports - including both individual and team sports - were something that several respondents regardless of ethnicity mentioned as their activities in public space, mainly in fields meant for sports and in parks. Also sitting, resting and watching people or children playing were activities that were mentioned by people of various ethnicities, although especially on squares or
playgrounds, non-Dutch ethnicities were engaging in these staying activities more frequently than the native Dutch.
4.1.2. Differences in the use of space between ethnic groups
One of the most significant overarching differences in the use of space - as in places where respondents preferred to go and spend time in the neighbourhood - between different ethnic groups was that the native (white) Dutch residents do not use the outdoor public spaces as much as the other ethnicities. These “other” ethnicities refer to people with non-Western background such as Turkish, Moroccan or Surinamese. As mentioned, most of them were born in the Netherlands and were thus second-generation immigrants. The native Dutch people are more
inclined to use consumption places such as cafés and bars instead of outdoor places. This was something that emerged both in the interviews and the observations in public space. In my observations, the presence of people with Turkish or Moroccan background was quite prevalent especially on the squares in Indische Buurt. In many cases, this probably had to do with the fact that many of the schools in the area were specifically for Muslims, and the squares adjacent to them were thus frequented by the mothers of the children who go to these schools.
The division between outdoors and consumption places, however, is not only dividing the use of space based on ethnicity, but also based on income and different lifestyles, as an Argentinian-Dutch man in his fifties explains:
“The terrace is another kind of culture, too, when you have people who like terrace and people who don’t like terrace. People who don’t like terrace sit here. Or they don’t have the money, or… So that’s also another way to make a difference.
On the other hand, he implies adding cafés or bars with terraces alongside squares might also bring these different groups at least somewhat closer to each other spatially:
“– – I think it could be really nice, even if you have these kinds of…. splits, dividing… I think it’s good to put some bars… on some central places where you can go to. Because this Balboaplein and
Columbusplein, it’s a little bit like, you’re in a kind of desert.”
For most respondents with non-native Dutch ethnicity, using outdoor public spaces seemed more natural and occurred significantly more often than for native Dutch respondents. Notably, many of them used the public space as a place to socialize, which will be discussed more in detail in chapter 4.2. They were not only places to meet with friends at a previously chosen time, but also the fact that you can bump into familiar people on the street or squares was appreciated. Furthermore, they were using the public spaces more extensively for other staying activities as well, such as doing a barbeque, picnicking next to a playground or in a park and playing board games. In my observations, I often noticed people of Middle Eastern background having picnics on the playgrounds of Indische Buurt. The more extensive use of public space was also more common in the interviews in Indische Buurt, but the difference could be at least partly explained by the fact that for two of the Surinamese respondents in De Baarsjes, being too occupied by their work hindered their opportunities to spend time in public space, and for a Curaçaoan male, “meeting responsibilities” such as being a father to his young daughter meant that he cannot spend time on the streets anymore, like he used to do before.
In both neighbourhoods, there were also examples of subtle home-making practices that further demonstrated these groups’ more creative use of public space. For instance, a Surinamese woman in Indische Buurt adapted the public space to her use by bringing her own chair into the park. Also, the following quote by a young Moroccan woman, where she describes the traditions of her mother and her mother’s friends, shows an inclination to adapt the public space to
“Here even my mother and all her friends, they sit here until one o’clock at night. – – Yeah, one p.m., or I don’t know what the time is, but past midnight. They take with them some blankets, they put it on the bench coz it’s cold and just sit there. And here we also sit until one or two o’clock.” –Moroccan woman, 31 years old (Indische Buurt)
The adaptation of space to own needs is even more explicit is a quote by a Surinamese woman, who has previously been active in community participation, organizing different activities on a square close to her home together with a group of mothers. She mentioned that most of the public spaces in the neighbourhood look the same, which is why it is difficult to identify with most of them. Due to the lack of character in public space, she perceives it as the responsibility of the residents themselves to make public space their home: “The mothers have to stimulate the – –
and make use of public space, like soon we will make a barbeque. So, we are making use of our home.” For her friend (the main interviewee), the abilities to use neighbourhood space have improved
significantly as the length of residence and public familiarity in the neighbourhood have grown:
“R: Before it was like, “what are you doing here…?” It’s not… you don’t belong here. I don’t [didn’t] care about people when I was here. But now, you don’t see that anymore.
I: So, you think it has changed for the better?
R: Yeah, of course it’s better [now]. Because now, some people know me, who I am also. And I say no is no. Don’t talk anymore, no is no.”
This shows that being an established resident influences the politics of belonging and guides the perceptions of whether someone belongs or not.
In an interview with street coaches, the differences regarding the use of outdoor public spaces were connected to income differences but also to unemployment, which is more common among non-Dutch ethnic groups and leads to abundant free-time. This free-time was also mentioned to lead to informal and illegal street trade, which was also visible to and sometimes causing fear and anxieties in better-off residents. The differences could also be partly explained by the divergent views of the normative use of public spaces; for native Dutch respondents, the simple act of “hanging out” was considered something quite abnormal and even inappropriate, especially for people that did not fit certain age categories. A Dutch older male (67 years), when asked whether he ever spends time at any of the squares or streets in the neighbourhood, seemed to be taken aback by the question. He answered with a question: “what, you mean hang out?” and stated that “hanging out is for youngsters”. This means that he considered spending time in public spaces as something that is appropriate only for a certain age group and thus perceived himself as not belonging in outdoor public spaces in other forms as passing through. The condemning attitude towards “hanging out” and the need for more formal activities is made tangible also in the following quote:
“I have a feeling that “What am I doing here? Let’s go home” There’s nothing inviting me to stay. That’s my feeling. I need a … People are sitting here, it’s a little bit like… don’t you have something better to do?” –Dutch-Argentinian male, 52 years (De Baarsjes)
One of the interesting differences between the neighbourhoods concerns the use of parks by different groups. Flevopark in Indische Buurt was a popular place among many residents and different ethnicities. It attracted respondents from all different ethnicities in the sample: Dutch, Surinamese, Croatian, Moroccan and Iranian, resulting in 8 out of 11 respondents mentioning Flevopark as one of their favourite places. Among other things, the park was appreciated because it was perceived to be relaxed and non-commercial unlike some other parks in
Amsterdam, such as Vondelpark. When asked about the presence of different user groups in the park, a Moroccan female respondent said the “park is a perfect place to meet each other”. It was also a place of attachment for some non-native Dutch people: a Moroccan woman told how she has been going there since she was crawling, which has made her feel a sense of ownership towards the park, visible in the expressions such as “It’s my Flevopark”.
In contrast to this perception of the park as an inter- and intra-ethnic meeting place in Indische Buurt, parks were interestingly perceived as places visited more by the native Dutch people in De Baarsjes. This could arise from the fact that the parks are in fact outside the official borders of De Baarsjes despite their nearby location and are probably visited more by people outside De Baarsjes as well. This can withdraw non-Dutch ethnicities from their use, since they seem to appreciate sociability and familiarity in their use of public space, as also supported by previous research (Peters, 2010), and the use by outsiders weakens the public familiarity in the park. Based on the data in this study, public familiarity does not play a significant role for native Dutch when choosing a place to go, and as existing research shows, their social networks tend to be more spread outside the neighbourhood (Forest & Kearns, 2001:2131).
4.1.3. Negative perceptions of uses of space
Most respondents stated they feel welcome and comfortable in all public spaces in the neighbourhood. However, the closer examination of the data revealed that there were certain types of behaviour or uses of space that were perceived negatively by some respondents and can lead to avoidance of places or trigger tensions between ethnic groups. These behaviours thus reduce possibilities for coexistence between various groups in the neighbourhood, and also hinders residents’ sense of belonging by limiting the inclusiveness of public or semi-public spaces.
The most frequently mentioned behaviour that was perceived negatively by some respondents was drinking. This was mentioned in 6 resident interviews out of 20, including people with Moroccan, Turkish and Surinamese background. In the cases of Moroccan and Turkish respondents, the avoidance had to do with their religion. The presence or absence of drinking
affected the navigation of the neighbourhood in a sense that these respondents said they do not go to either any or certain bars or cafés in the neighbourhood, and some outdoor public spaces where people were perceived to be drinking more were also avoided. Especially the Turkish female respondent (23 years) expressed her aversion towards drinking quite strongly:
“I don’t find it fine to see people next to me that are drinking alcohol and is [that are] very drunk, because they are behaving very abnormal. So that’s also the reason why I’m not going to café Bar Baarsch.”
She also made it explicit that drinking is one of the main aspects that she bases her choices on regarding where to go:
“That’s also one of the reasons that I’m looking at when I decide to go to a place: there is alcohol, there is not alcohol, it’s a quiet place, if it’s a silent place, meaning if there are too much people, people that are looking, people want attention or to get a… a crush on people. So those are the reasons that I’m looking.”
For most respondents, the existence of bars themselves did not seem to bother them, but they simply avoided them. However, for the Turkish young woman, the presence of several bars was something she perceived negatively and that affected her feeling at home as well. This also had to with the noise that came with some of the bars that were open until late at night, which made her feel uncomfortable to a point where she was calling the police every night. The quote by the Turkish woman also shows how gender plays an important role in belonging or feeling
comfortable in public space, as unwanted attention from men might render some places unsafe for a Muslim woman. Something that was also causing aversion was gambling, as mentioned by a Moroccan woman in Indische Buurt:
“They have the pipes you know… like the… they have in the casino. They sit here on the ground, and… they give money. They give money… it’s illegal! And they also have beer and this [refers to drugs] … I don’t like that atmosphere. –Moroccan woman, 31 (Indische Buurt)
One possible source of tensions in the use of public space in both neighbourhoods was the divergence in ways of parenting. For people of non-Western background, it is more common to let their children play outside late at night, and this was something that has clearly caused some perplexity and judgement in a Dutch female respondent in Indische Buurt. According to a street coach in De Baarsjes, these differences have to do with diverging perspectives of life and the notion that “Dutch people have more discipline” (this was said by a street coach of non-Western ethnic background). The street coaches get many complaints mainly from native Dutch people about a noise from children’s play at late times. If the problems continue, they report back to the foundation they work for, and finally, municipality might involve by implementing targeted projects that aim to promote cultural integration and “teach the children the Dutch way of living”, thus implying an assimilationist practice. Playing outside late is not the only thing that causes tensions in parenting; there are also differing views on how you should act when your child is behaving in an inappropriate way. For a Polish woman (joining a main interviewee), this is something that
causes tensions on the playground between the parents, and even makes her want to avoid these places and situations:
“Some people don’t like what you say to your child, don’t like what you do with your child. You know, I don’t wanna go somewhere where you must be really careful what you say and how you say it.”
According to the above Polish woman, Dutch people are often less strict with their children and are behaving in a condemning way if others are being too direct with their words. On the other hand, a Dutch woman perceives it to be quite the opposite; she described a conflictual situation where a Dutch woman had got very upset with a Muslim woman who did not interfere when her child had been “acting annoyingly”. These seemingly contradicting stories most likely reflect the underlying tensions between the ethnic groups and the divergence between individuals within ethnic groups. Based on the interview with street coaches, however, it is most frequently the native Dutch who report about nuisances caused by the youth or children of ethnic background rather than the other way around.
Another type of behaviour that was perceived negatively by some Dutch respondents was
littering, which led to an unhygienic environment, especially in the form of rats. This was not
restricted to native Dutch, however; the rat problem was also bothering a Surinamese
respondent in De Baarsjes, to the degree that he said he does not really feel at home because of that. The way people take care of the shared environment could potentially contribute to tensions between the ethnic groups, as the Moroccan woman in Indische Buurt stated that Dutch people are neater in their use of public space:
“The Dutch people, they will never spit on the ground…or throw something on the ground… or leave the place where they have eaten and drunk. They don’t leave it and then go home. – – With other
ethnicity… they (makes a noise of eating) and then they… [imitates throwing rubbish away]
Differing from a study by Burgers and Zuijderwijk (2016) where people connected uncleanliness with specific ethnic groups, respondents in this study did not make it explicit who the ones littering are. It might be that they indeed do not associate littering with any specific groups, but it could also have to do with the Dutch societal norms of being tolerant, mentioned by a couple of other respondents and discussed in a later chapter.
4.1.4. Consumption places and gentrification
Although public spaces were the focus of this study, it is also important to look at the different patterns of mixing or segregation in commercial spaces, which are sometimes referred to as semi-public spaces and can also serve as “third places” outside the home and truly semi-public space. This aspect was incorporated into the study along the process due to limitations that occurred when focusing only on outdoor public spaces. Furthermore, this chapter discusses how the changes
