COMPARACIÓN DEL TOTAL DE PREGUNTAS CONTESTADAS ACERTADAMENTE ENTRE EL GRUPO EXPERIMENTAL Y CONTROL

contexts.

Ethnographic urban studies from sociology, anthropology and social geography have been vital in furthering debate on the social constructions of place, but are curiously detached from the physicality of designed urban environments. In debates on geographies of encounter (Amin, 2002; Valentine, 2008; Neal at al., 2013) the physicality and design of the ‘where’ is largely missing. Research on placemaking and migration addresses this to some extent: Rios and Vasquez (2012), Hou (2013), Manzo (2011) and Sen (2013) all examine the specific ways in which diverse urban spaces are appropriated and changed due to changing populations. My work builds on and contributes to both bodies of literature, addressing materiality and temporality of experiences of urban places, while attending to nuanced dimensions of sociability. The focus on less obvious intercultural places, such as urban greenspace and unbounded streetspace, helps broaden the scope of transcultural urbanism (Hou, 2013) where there is a tendency to focus on ‘ethnoscapes’, dense urban places of clustered, sudden or

commercialised ethnic identity.

Within the debates of geographies of encounter these findings broadly support the importance of the visibility of multiculture (Wessendorf, 2013), and demonstrate the nuance and temporal qualities that are important to migrants in the everyday places of daily life. Overlapping use of public space by people from different

ethnic communities offers opportunities for gradual informal contact and give a visual shared recognition to the diversity of a neighbourhood. The community identity as defined within an ethnic group and within a multicultural

neighbourhood were both important. However, the ability to make choices about when to engage with one’s own ethnic group, and when to retreat from the expectations of this ‘public gaze’ was also valued (Powell and Rishbeth, 2012). Use of public greenspace was informed by cultural values, and engagement was most likely when participants could envisage realistic possibilities for life benefits such as opportunities to relax, socialise, play sport, be entertained or enjoy plants (Rishbeth and Finney, 2006).

Within this broader context, the discussion below focuses on whether urban outdoor public space is important in supporting social integration.

6.3.1 Being visible: urban landscapes of integration.

My research has addressed how first generation migrants encounter the city, participate in its diversity, and are enabled within and by the outdoor public realm. Do the findings support notions of ‘contact theory’ (Allport, 1954), suggesting that informal contact in diverse neighbourhoods increases integration, or is this a rose- tinted view (Amin, 2002; Valentine, 2008)?

Refugees and asylum seekers are in particular situations of comparative

powerlessness; often isolated, disorientated, impoverished and deskilled within their new environment. My research suggests that the complexity of the urban landscape can be hostile and illegible to negotiate, but starting to establish patterns of use can be instrumental in gaining confidence. The visibility of everyday life outdoors provides a means of tacit learning, allows for nuanced positioning

(spatial and temporal) and a gradual increase in number and quality of interactions.

In particular, the findings suggest that the visual permeability of outdoor places can support normalisation of difference, a commonplace diversity within a neighbourhood profile (Wessendorf, 2013). Viewing into and through public places can provide information on how to navigate and ‘read’ the urban landscape. This can help individuals find places and routes that feel safe and to identify ways

in which they can participate. How a person moves and pauses in their daily local journeys potentially facilitates repeated incidental interactions, building

neighbourliness, and giving scope for friendliness (Hudson, 2012).

Participants in both research projects valued spending time outdoors. Positive experiences of being outdoors, especially for new migrants, can play a role in fostering a sense of personal belonging and of making visible culturally diverse communities. The idea of ‘meaningful contact’ is contested (Philips and Robinson, 2015), and close relationships are not often forged on serendipitous meetings outside. But the findings indicate that relationships of different kinds can be strengthened by being able to spend longer periods of time outdoors, and the fluidity and range of transcultural practices that shape these encounters.

In particular, for first generation migrants, it is useful to recognise that socialising outside is a common practice in many parts of the world. Groups of migrants who find ways to continue this, sometimes adapting to fit different climates, often find it of central importance in countering isolation. Though these types of outdoor gathering are primarily ‘bonding’ rather than ‘bridging’ contact (Putnam, 2000, 22-24), the outdoor contexts are fundamentally more open to fluidity of encounter compared to indoor locations. Urban places which are designed to facilitate a range of different forms of socialising, often for larger sized groups, are beneficial.

Other patterns of public space use by migrants increase the chances of new bridging encounters. A significant minority within the participant groups across both projects actively embraced exploring the city and sought out opportunities for new experiences. Places which feel secure, legible and well maintained are found to be more inclusive and welcoming. The findings support Dines at al. (2006) in the importance of places of visible public activity, such as markets, playgrounds and festivals, where barriers to participation are minimised and it is possible to be together by doing together. Use of these spaces can lead to ‘loose ties’ which are seen as important to individual and community resilience (Hudson, 2012). Visibility of multiculture, of seeing people from different ethnic backgrounds, increases as a result of a genuinely representative mix of residents feeling able to

use public space, and this is turn can support a shared local sense of belonging (Rishbeth and Powell, 2013).

The research recognises other contexts where aggravations occur when different cultures of use are in conflict and seen as threatening, though this did not emerge as a strong theme in these projects and locations. Instead, the ‘big picture’ is that increased use develops individual and collective values of shared belonging, which support increased confidence in using outdoor spaces. This can be seen as a

virtuous cycle within superdiverse urban neighbourhoods.

The implications for landscape practice clearly develop from these understandings and are explored in more detail in the following chapter.

Chapter 7. Implications for landscape architectural practice