Methodology & Codebook

ES·EN

Monte Carlo Research Lab · Technical Documentation

VAM 2.0 · Empirically Validated Methodology

Technical specification of the Visibility–Accessibility Matrix: definitions, dimensions, evidence, coding rules, scoring, quality control and validation.

This document is the canonical methodological reference for VAM 2.0. Its purpose is to enable transparent, consistent, traceable and reproducible application of the instrument.

Current Research Status

Empirical Application & Validation Completed

The VAM 2.0 is considered operationally complete and empirically validated for the current Monaco Research Observatory release. Its application has been consolidated across 75 spatial cases and 225 visual assets, comprising 160 photographs and 65 videos.

The empirical findings and validation outputs are documented on a separate page to avoid mixing the coding manual with the presentation of results. Open VAM Empirical Validation & Final Results →

Model Identity
Scientific Purpose
Theoretical Foundation
Scope & Limitations
Unit of Analysis
Evidence Framework
Coding Workflow
Visibility Codebook
Accessibility Codebook
Participation Module
Recognised User Positions
Scoring & Calculation
Missing & Incomplete Evidence
Evidence Confidence
Matrix Configurations
Data Architecture
Fieldwork Protocol
Coding Reliability & Consistency
Validation Framework
Negative Cases
Transferability
VAM–SECP Relationship
Subjective Outcomes
Research Status
Citation & Version Control

Model Identity

Full name	Visibility–Accessibility Matrix
Abbreviation	VAM
Current version	VAM 2.0
Instrument type	Multidimensional instrument for spatial classification and comparison
Primary conceptual basis	Public Exposure of Luxury · Graduated Accessibility
Related frameworks	Luxury as Distinction · Architecture of Power and Exclusion · Soft Spatial Exclusion
Main analytical axes	Visibility · Accessibility
Operational dimensions	V1–V5 · A1–A5
Dimension scale	Ordinal 0–4
Axis score	0–100
Weighting	Equal weighting within each axis
Current status	Operational and empirically validated for the current release

Operational Definition

VAM classifies and compares spatially bounded units by addressing two questions: what can be observed from legitimate positions, and under what conditions can a person approach, enter, remain, consume, participate in or use the unit?

The instrument measures spatial, institutional and observable conditions. It does not directly measure aspiration, belonging, frustration, intimidation, social identity, conspicuous-consumption motivation or rejection.

Scientific Purpose

Primary Research Question

How do luxury spaces combine different degrees of public visibility with differentiated conditions of physical, economic, social, temporal and normative accessibility?

Analytical Objectives

compare spatial units within the same territory;
distinguish visual exposure from access and participation;
identify configurations of high visibility and restricted access;
identify accessible but visually discreet spaces;
document differences between formal access and the observable legitimacy of presence;
compare ordinary conditions with temporary or event-related conditions;
build a standardised, traceable spatial evidence base;
enable comparisons with other instruments without merging their coding systems.

Observing, approaching, entering, remaining, consuming and participating are related but not equivalent conditions.

Theoretical Foundation

VAM is based on a conceptual distinction between public exposure of luxury and graduated accessibility. The two dimensions may be spatially related but remain analytically separate.

The instrument does not rely on a single explanatory theory. Its methodological function is to operationalise observable properties and enable systematic comparisons among configurations of visibility and access.

Conceptual Component	VAM Operationalisation
Public exposure of luxury	Visibility axis · V1–V5
Graduated accessibility	Accessibility axis · A1–A5
Participation opportunities	Participation module, separate from V and A scores
Differentiated legitimacy	A3 Social Accessibility · A5 Normative Accessibility
Visibility–accessibility mismatch	Comparison between scores and Matrix Configuration
Temporal transformation	Linked observations under comparable temporal conditions

VAM is related to Luxury as Distinction, Architecture of Power and Exclusion and Soft Spatial Exclusion. These connections broaden the sociological interpretation of findings but do not change the scoring rules or make a VAM result automatic evidence of another construct.

Public exposure of a luxury good, activity or space is not automatically interpreted as aspiration, belonging or conspicuous consumption. VAM records visibility and accessibility; motivations and subjective responses require independent evidence.

Scope & Limitations

Claims Supported by the VAM

VAM supports claims about visual exposure, sightline continuity, activity legibility, display intensity, observation opportunities, physical access, economic conditions, social accessibility, temporal availability, normative rules and observable opportunities for participation.

Claims Not Supported by the VAM Alone

that an observer aspires to enter;
that a person feels included or excluded;
that a restriction is experienced as intimidating or humiliating;
that visibility changes consumption intentions;
that visibility, by itself, constitutes conspicuous consumption or an intention to display;
that there is a deliberate intention to exclude;
that all users interpret the space in the same way;
that a functional barrier necessarily reflects privilege.

These questions require interviews, surveys, ethnographic observation or other appropriate qualitative or behavioural sources.

Unit of Analysis

A spatially and functionally bounded area observed under defined temporal conditions.

The Case ID identifies a stable spatial unit. A change in time, date, ordinary conditions or event conditions does not automatically create a new case: it is recorded through an Observation ID linked to the same case, unless the functional or spatial boundary changes substantially.

Identifier	Function
Case ID	A spatially and functionally bounded unit.
Observation ID	A temporal or situational record associated with a case.
Asset ID	A photograph or video used as traceable evidence.

An entire building does not necessarily constitute a single unit. Entrances, lobbies, terraces, shops, marina berth access points, promenades, thresholds and other functionally distinct areas may constitute separate cases.

Evidence Framework

Evidence Type	Primary Use	Examples
Visual	Exposure, sightlines, barriers, display	Photographs, video, visual observation
Spatial	Entrances, routes, transitions, connections	Maps, routes, diagrams, observer position
Documentary	Prices, opening hours, reservations, rules	Official websites, signage, menus, regulations
Observational	Interactions and observable use	Fieldnotes, intervention or redirection
Qualitative / Supplementary	Subjective interpretation outside the VAM score	Interviews, surveys, narratives

Evidence Hierarchy

direct evidence corresponding to the observed condition;
official documentary evidence valid at the time;
repeated independent observations;
third-party documentary or visual evidence;
promotional material only when independently corroborated.

Promotional language alone does not constitute evidence of actual accessibility.

Coding Workflow

Define the spatial unit and assign its Case ID.
Record the temporal condition and, where applicable, the Observation ID.
Identify the legitimate observation position.
Link the Asset IDs and other available sources.
Code V1–V5 using the Visibility Codebook anchors.
Code A1–A5 using the Accessibility Codebook anchors.
Record participation opportunities separately.
Record formal user positions when they are observable.
Assess Evidence Confidence and any source conflicts.
Apply the missing-evidence rules.
Calculate V and A scores when sufficient evidence exists.
Assign the Matrix Configuration and record alternative explanations.

Visibility Codebook

A higher score indicates greater visibility. The general scale is: 0 not visible · 1 very limited · 2 partial or conditional · 3 high · 4 very high or continuous.

V1 · External Visual Exposure

Operational question: How much of the unit can be seen from legitimate public or semi-public positions?

Indicators: visible façade or interior, public viewing positions, distance, exposure during ordinary circulation and number of viewing directions.

0 not visible · 1 fragments or momentary views · 2 a significant portion visible under specific conditions · 3 main elements clearly visible · 4 prominent and continuous exposure.

Decision rule: the bounded unit is scored, not the entire building. A view available only from another restricted unit does not count as public exposure.

V2 · Sightline Continuity

Operational question: How continuous and unobstructed is the view between observer and unit?

Indicators: opacity, barrier height, vegetation, changes in level, glass transparency, orientation and visual depth.

0 completely obstructed · 1 severely interrupted · 2 intermittent sightlines · 3 mostly continuous · 4 open and continuous from several legitimate positions.

Decision rule: transparent glass does not automatically warrant a score of 4; reflections, tinting, lighting and temporary barriers must be assessed under actual conditions.

V3 · Interior and Activity Legibility

Operational question: Can an observer understand the function and observable activity of the unit?

Indicators: function, activities, circulation, service and differentiated areas. No inferences are made about people’s class, identity or status.

0 function cannot be identified · 1 ambiguous indications · 2 primary function identifiable · 3 activities generally legible · 4 activities and organisation clearly legible.

V4 · Display Intensity

Operational question: To what extent are luxury-associated goods, architecture, services or practices publicly displayed?

Indicators: shop windows, goods, yachts, vehicles, monumental architecture, lighting, visible consumption and event staging.

0 hidden or visually neutralised · 1 incidental · 2 limited display · 3 prominent · 4 intensive or theatrical display.

Decision rule: observable intensity is scored, not the presumed intention of the designer or institution.

V5 · Observation Opportunity

Operational question: Can an observer legitimately remain visually connected to the unit?

Indicators: seating, promenade width, viewing points, tolerance of photography, staff intervention, circulation pressure and opportunities to remain without consuming.

0 no tolerated position · 1 observation only while moving · 2 brief or conditional · 3 several legitimate positions · 4 extended observation facilitated.

Decision rule: Observation Opportunity is not equivalent to External Visual Exposure; a highly visible space may offer no legitimate place to stop.

Accessibility Codebook

A higher score indicates broader or less restrictive access: 0 unavailable · 1 highly restricted · 2 conditional · 3 broad but regulated · 4 open or minimally restricted.

A1 · Physical Accessibility

Operational question: Can an ordinary user physically approach and enter the unit?

Indicators: entrances, doors, barriers, ropes, controls, reception, distance, route complexity, stairs, ramps and separation from public circulation.

0 ordinary access impossible · 1 strict controls or authorisation · 2 entry dependent on reception or controls · 3 broadly accessible with light controls · 4 direct connection to public circulation.

Decision rule: safety or operational barriers must be recorded as alternative explanations where appropriate.

A2 · Economic Accessibility

Operational question: What financial commitment is required for ordinary access or continued participation?

Raw variables: price, minimum spend, deposit, purchase requirement, membership, accommodation, currency, date and comparable market.

0 access cannot be purchased through an ordinary transaction · 1 very high financial commitment · 2 significant expenditure · 3 ordinary paid entry or consumption · 4 ordinary entry and presence without mandatory expenditure.

Decision rule: when medians or percentiles are used, comparisons must involve functionally equivalent units and documented market evidence. Without a valid comparison, the score must not be inferred from reputation.

A3 · Social Accessibility

Operational question: Is an ordinary user’s presence recognised as legitimate without privileged status?

Indicators: invitation, membership, guest status, staff enquiries, redirection, informal gatekeeping and tolerance of visitors who are not customers.

0 private status required · 1 strong discretionary filtering · 2 presence considered legitimate after assuming a defined role · 3 most users accepted without prior recognition · 4 presence broadly considered legitimate under ordinary rules.

Decision rule: social class, wealth, ethnicity, status or legitimacy must never be inferred from appearance.

A4 · Temporal Accessibility

Operational question: When and for how long is ordinary access available?

Indicators: opening hours, appointments, seasons, event closures, daytime/night-time availability and temporary occupation.

0 no ordinary access · 1 rare or exceptional access · 2 access limited by time or conditions · 3 regular and extensive opening hours · 4 continuous or very extensive access.

Decision rule: ordinary and event conditions are recorded as separate observations linked to the case.

A5 · Normative Accessibility

Operational question: How demanding are the formal and behavioural conditions governing access and use?

Indicators: identification, dress code, age, reservations, photography, remaining on site, circulation, children, luggage, recording and other rules of conduct.

0 ordinary public use prohibited · 1 multiple restrictive requirements · 2 access subject to clearly specified requirements · 3 limited and predictable rules · 4 minimal ordinary rules of conduct.

Decision rule: legal, safety and operational requirements must be analytically separated from restrictions associated with privilege.

Participation Module

Participation opportunities are recorded separately and are not automatically incorporated into Visibility or Accessibility scores.

Code	Opportunity	Operational Meaning
P1	Observe	Maintain a visual connection
P2	Approach	Reach the threshold or immediate boundary
P3	Enter	Cross into the unit
P4	Remain	Remain without moving, being redirected or having to leave immediately
P5	Consume	Purchase goods or services
P6	Receive Service	Receive formal service
P7	Attend Activity	Participate in an organised activity
P8	Reserved Facilities	Use facilities outside ordinary circulation areas
P9	Photograph	Take photographs without intervention
P10	Symbolic / Visual Use	Observable use of the space as a backdrop or visual resource, without inferring psychological identification

Scale: 0 unavailable · 1 conditional · 2 broadly available · NA not applicable · NE insufficient evidence.

Recognised User Positions

User positions are recorded only when their role can be established through observable or documentary evidence. They do not constitute a universal social hierarchy.

UP1 Passer-by · UP2 Observer · UP3 Visitor · UP4 Customer · UP5 Guest · UP6 Invited Guest · UP7 Member · UP8 Resident · UP9 Owner · UP10 Authorised Professional.

A person may consume without belonging, or gain entry by invitation without satisfying ordinary purchasing conditions.

Scoring & Calculation

Visibility Score

V = 25 × mean(valid V1–V5)

Accessibility Score

A = 25 × mean(valid A1–A5)

The five dimensions carry equal weight within each axis. V and A scores range from 0 to 100.

0–19 very low · 20–39 low · 40–59 moderate · 60–79 high · 80–100 very high.

Coverage ≠ Score. The coverage percentages published in VAM Data indicate how many cases have an analytically represented dimension. They are not 0–4 scores or 0–100 indices.

Missing & Incomplete Evidence

Available Dimensions	Rule	Output
5 of 5	Calculate the mean as usual	Complete axis score
4 of 5	Calculate using four valid values	Incomplete axis score
3 or fewer	Do not calculate	Axis not calculable

NE — Insufficient Evidence: the dimension is relevant, but the available evidence does not permit a score to be assigned.
NA — Not Applicable: the dimension is conceptually inapplicable to the unit.

A missing value is never automatically converted into zero.

Evidence Confidence

Evidence Confidence conveys the strength of the evidence supporting coding and does not automatically modify the substantive score.

Level	Category	Definition
0	Insufficient	Inadequate or seriously contradictory evidence.
1	Limited	Primarily a single usable source.
2	Supported	Several consistent sources, or an axis with one missing dimension.
3	Triangulated	Multiple independent types of evidence, consistent over time and with no material contradiction.

Source conflict, temporal correspondence, temporary restriction and direct observation must be retained as independent flags.

Matrix Configurations

Visibility is shown on the vertical axis and Accessibility on the horizontal axis. Three operational bands are used for the overall configuration: Low 0–39, Moderate 40–59 and High 60–100.

Visibility	Accessibility	Configuration
High	High	Publicly Permeable Luxury
High	Low	Displayed but Restricted Luxury
Low	High	Discreet Accessibility
Low	Low	Enclosed Privilege
Moderate / Mixed	Moderate / Mixed	Conditional or Graduated Permeability

The complete dimensional profile takes precedence over the configuration label, especially for cases near a threshold.

Data Architecture

The data architecture separates case identity, observation, evidence, scores and quality. Links with other instruments are kept outside VAM core scoring.

Identification

Case_ID · Space_Name · Spatial_Type · Location · Spatial_Boundary

Observation

Observation_ID · Date · Time · Event_Status · Observer_Position · Temporary_Restrictions

Visibility

V1–V5 · valid dimensions · mean · score · band · completeness

Accessibility

A1–A5 · valid dimensions · mean · score · band · completeness

Participation

P1–P10 · UP1–UP10

Evidence & Quality

Asset_ID references · Evidence_Confidence · Source_Conflict · Temporal_Mismatch · Missing_Data_Flag · Alternative_Explanation

Cross-instrument rule. VAM–SECP references are maintained in a separate crosswalk. SECP codes do not form part of the VAM score.

Fieldwork Protocol

Before Observation

define the unit;
assign the Case ID;
define the temporal condition;
collect current documentary evidence;
identify legitimate observation positions.

During Observation

record the observation position;
document sightlines and barriers;
capture visual evidence;
record entrances and routes;
document observable intervention or redirection;
record temporal conditions.

After Observation

organise Asset IDs;
code V1–V5 and A1–A5;
record NE / NA;
assess Evidence Confidence;
calculate V and A;
assign the configuration;
document alternative explanations.

Repeated observations are linked to the same Case ID through Observation IDs when the temporal condition changes but the spatial unit does not.

Coding Reliability & Consistency

The consistency of the final VAM release rests on a version-controlled manual, stable anchors, explicit decision rules, case-to-evidence traceability, systematic review of scores and methodological auditing of ambiguous or borderline cases.

Control	Procedure	Output
Codebook control	Definitions, anchors and shared rules for V1–V5 and A1–A5	Version-controlled manual
Evidence traceability	Linking Case ID, Asset ID and contextual evidence	Auditable coding chain
Dimension review	Reviewing V1–V5 and A1–A5 scores against established anchors	Reviewed dimension scores
Boundary audit	Reviewing cases close to thresholds, missing evidence and alternative explanations	Methodological audit trail
Final consolidation	Ratification of scores and interpretation at case level	Final empirical coding

This page documents the instrument’s consistency and review rules. Empirical application results are presented separately in VAM Empirical Validation & Final Results .

Validation Framework

The empirical validation of the current release was organised around complementary components designed to assess the instrument’s conceptual adequacy, operational coherence and interpretative robustness. Consolidated findings are documented on the dedicated validation page.

Content Validity

The assessment examined the ability of V1–V5 and A1–A5 to represent observable components of Visibility and Accessibility and to maintain sufficiently distinct decision rules.

Construct Validity

The review examined the internal coherence of the dimensions and maintained Visibility and Accessibility as related but analytically independent axes.

Known-Case & Contrasting-Case Validity

Spatially contrasting configurations were used to check that the instrument distinguishes between visibility and access profiles without imposing predetermined scores.

Temporal Validity

Where comparable evidence was available, temporal variations were interpreted through observations linked to the same unit, avoiding the merging of ordinary and exceptional conditions.

Convergent & Discriminant Analysis

Relationships with external variables and SECP were examined while preserving the independence of each instrument. A relationship between the two does not incorporate SECP codes into the VAM score or make a VAM score automatic evidence of soft spatial exclusion.

Robustness & Sensitivity Review

The final review considered missing evidence, threshold-adjacent cases, exceptional temporal conditions, Evidence Confidence and alternative explanations before consolidating scores and configurations.

Negative Cases & Alternative Explanations

An apparently contradictory result is not automatically a coding error. It should be used to test the model’s limits and distinguish dimensions that may diverge.

high visibility does not demonstrate aspiration;
high accessibility does not demonstrate belonging;
purchasing power does not necessarily remove other access conditions;
low visibility can coexist with broad access;
a safety barrier must not automatically be coded as privilege;
an operational closure requires a separate explanation;
entry and the ability to remain must be distinguished;
ordinary and event conditions must not be merged.

Alternative explanation categories: safety, legal obligation, operational requirement, privacy, residential protection, crowd management, mobility limitation, maintenance, event logistics, privilege-related differentiation and mixed/uncertain explanation.

Transferability

The transferable methodological core of VAM comprises V1–V5, A1–A5, the 0–4 scale, equal weighting, 0–100 scores, missing-evidence rules, Evidence Confidence and Matrix Configurations.

Specific indicators can be adapted to hotels, retail environments, marinas, resorts, cruise ships, premium terminals and other settings, but external transferability remains a subsequent line of application. Any adaptation must explicitly retain the rules used or document any structural modification through version control.

VAM–SECP Relationship

The VAM and the Soft Exclusion Coding Protocol (SECP) are companion instruments that may use shared evidence but retain independent units, variables and analytical rules.

VAM does not generate SECP codes.
SECP does not generate VAM scores.

VAM describes visibility and accessibility configurations through V1–V5 and A1–A5. SECP identifies soft-exclusion mechanisms through SE1–SE12 and its own recording system. Relationships between the two are examined through a separate crosswalk, not by integrating scores.

Open the Soft Exclusion Coding Protocol →

Subjective Outcomes

VAM classifies spatial and institutional conditions. It does not automatically attribute psychological or social responses to observed individuals.

Aspiration, admiration, frustration, intimidation, indifference, rejection or criticism of inequality must be studied using methods designed specifically for those responses.

The possible relationship between visual exposure and aspiration is an interpretative question outside the VAM score. High visibility alone does not demonstrate desire, belonging or conspicuous-consumption motivation.

Research Status

Correct description of the current release:

The Visibility–Accessibility Matrix 2.0 is a theoretically developed, operationally complete and empirically validated instrument for the current Monaco Research Observatory release.

The instrument’s validation does not make it a measure of aspiration, belonging or causality. Nor does it make its configurations universal categories that can be applied without contextual review.

Current Empirical Corpus

75 spatial cases · 225 visual assets · 160 photographs · 65 videos.

Citation & Version Control

Recommended model name: Visibility–Accessibility Matrix 2.0
Institutional attribution: Monte Carlo Research Lab · Monaco Research Observatory
Status: Operational and empirically validated
Primary empirical context: Monaco / Monte Carlo luxury and tourism spaces

Any substantive change to dimensions, formulas, weights, thresholds or coding anchors requires a new instrument version. Editorial corrections that do not alter the rules may be documented without modifying the methodological architecture.

A future structural modification must produce a new major version distinct from VAM 2.0.

Research Connections

Related Research Pages

Visibility–Accessibility Matrix

Public overview of the instrument and its analytical axes.

Open VAM Overview →

Empirical Validation & Final Results

Final results of the empirical validation of VAM.

Open Empirical Validation & Final Results →

VAM Data

Dimensional coverage and empirical structure of the corpus.

Open VAM Data →

Empirical Case Profiles

VAM applications to selected real-world cases.

Open Empirical Case Profiles →

Evidence Guide

Guide to Case ID, Observation ID, Asset ID and VAM references.

Open Evidence Guide →