ES·EN
Soft Exclusion Coding Protocol · Monte Carlo Research Lab
Replicable procedure for recording mechanism occurrences, bounded spatial units, sources of evidence, coding decisions and observed spatial effects.
Protocol navigation:
Overview ·
Theory ·
Taxonomy ·
Coding method ·
Empirical validation ·
Reliability and validity ·
Research materials
Units of analysis
Primary unit: mechanism occurrence
A mechanism occurrence is a specific manifestation of a soft spatial exclusion mechanism identified at a defined place and time.
Examples:
- a hotel entrance that is difficult to identify as accessible;
- staff questioning a visitor approaching an entrance;
- the removal of public furniture before an event;
- a minimum-consumption requirement on a terrace;
- barriers redirecting pedestrians around a hospitality area.
Secondary unit: bounded spatial setting
A bounded spatial setting is a spatially and functionally coherent area within which one or more mechanisms may operate.
Examples:
- a hotel lobby;
- a casino entrance;
- a marina quay;
- a restaurant terrace;
- a shopping arcade;
- a public square;
- the hospitality perimeter of an event.
The same spatial unit may contain several occurrences because different mechanisms can affect different stages of approach, entry, circulation, staying and participation.
Evidence framework
| Evidence type | What is recorded | Main limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Direct spatial observation | Entrances, barriers, routes, furniture, signage and staff positioning. | Physical observation does not automatically establish the purpose of a device. |
| Visual evidence | Photographs, videos, diagrams, sightlines and temporal comparisons. | Visual evidence may omit relevant contextual elements. |
| Documentary evidence | Rules, plans, prices, opening hours, reservation systems and access conditions. | Published rules may differ from how they are applied in practice. |
| Interactional evidence | Questions, redirections, warnings, checks and differential treatment. | An isolated interaction may not represent a recurring pattern. |
| Behavioural evidence | Hesitation, changes in route, withdrawal, reduced length of stay or seeking permission. | The motivation behind behaviour cannot be inferred automatically. |
| Qualitative evidence | Perceptions of exclusion, legitimacy, discomfort and belonging. | Subjective accounts are not automatically generalisable. |
Coding variables
The categories SE1–SE12 identify which type of mechanism is present. The variables M1–M8 describe the characteristics of each coded occurrence.
| Code | Variable | Format |
|---|---|---|
| M1 | Presence | 0 = absent; 1 = present |
| M2 | Restrictive intensity | Ordinal scale from 0 to 4 |
| M3 | Explicitness | Ordinal scale from 0 to 3 |
| M4 | Spatial coverage | Ordinal scale from 0 to 3 |
| M5 | Temporal persistence | Ordinal scale from 0 to 3 |
| M6 | Behavioural effect | Ordinal scale from 0 to 3 or not observed |
| M7 | User specificity | Categorical |
| M8 | Evidence confidence | Ordinal scale from 0 to 3 |
M2 · Restrictive intensity
| Score | Interpretation | General anchor |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | No restriction | There is no observable restrictive effect on access or use. |
| 1 | Weak | A minor, symbolic or easily avoidable restriction. |
| 2 | Moderate | A significant condition, inconvenience or need for adaptation. |
| 3 | Strong | A substantial effect on ordinary access, circulation or staying. |
| 4 | Very strong | A situation approaching practical exclusion without relying exclusively on an explicit prohibition. |
M3 · Explicitness
| Score | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 0 | There is no explicit signal. |
| 1 | An implicit or ambiguous signal. |
| 2 | An indirect but recognisable restriction. |
| 3 | An explicit rule or direct restriction requiring classification at the boundary between soft exclusion and direct exclusion. |
M4 · Spatial coverage
| Score | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 0 | An isolated point. |
| 1 | A small part of the spatial unit. |
| 2 | A substantial part of the spatial unit. |
| 3 | The entirety of the spatial unit or access system. |
M5 · Temporal persistence
| Score | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 0 | Momentary. |
| 1 | Temporary or occasional. |
| 2 | Recurrent. |
| 3 | Permanent or structurally embedded. |
M6 · Behavioural effect
| Score | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 0 | No behavioural effect is observed. |
| 1 | Hesitation or minor behavioural adjustment. |
| 2 | Change of route, reduced staying time or conditional participation. |
| 3 | Withdrawal, effective avoidance or inability to participate. |
| Not observed | Behavioural evidence is unavailable for the occurrence. |
M7 · User specificity
- U0: universal;
- U1: user role;
- U2: reservation status;
- U3: customer status;
- U4: membership;
- U5: accreditation;
- U6: staff discretion;
- U7: unclear or unobservable criterion;
- U8: mixed criteria.
Social class, ethnic origin, nationality or other protected characteristics must not be inferred from the appearance of observed individuals.
M8 · Evidence confidence
| Score | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 0 | Insufficient evidence. |
| 1 | One weak or indirect source. |
| 2 | One strong source or several converging partial sources. |
| 3 | Triangulated evidence from multiple independent sources. |
Evidence confidence indicates the degree of support available for a coding decision. This variable does not increase the substantive intensity of the mechanism: intensity and confidence in the evidence must remain analytically separate.
Coding decision tree
- Identify an observable element, rule, spatial arrangement or interaction.
- Define the spatial practice potentially affected.
- Delineate the bounded spatial setting.
- Determine whether the element produces an observable restriction.
- Determine whether the restriction is explicit and absolute.
- If it is explicit and absolute, record the situation as direct exclusion.
- If it is not absolute, determine whether it discourages, filters, redirects, delays or conditions presence or use.
- Identify the strongest alternative explanation.
- Assess whether the evidence of soft exclusion remains valid after considering that explanation.
- Assign the interpretive status.
- Select the primary SECP category.
- Add a secondary category only when a distinct additional function is present.
- Code intensity, explicitness, spatial coverage and temporal persistence.
- Code the behavioural effect only when observable evidence of behaviour is available.
- Assign user specificity.
- Assign evidence confidence.
- Record supporting and contradictory evidence.
- Document ambiguous cases or high-intensity occurrences in detail.
Minimum observation record
| Group | Required fields |
|---|---|
| Identification | Case ID, mechanism ID, setting ID and name of the space. |
| Location | Spatial type, location and boundaries. |
| Time | Date, time, day of the week and ordinary or event-related condition. |
| Mechanism | Primary category, subtype, observed element and spatial practice affected. |
| Scores | Presence, restrictive intensity, explicitness, spatial coverage, temporal persistence, behavioural effect and evidence confidence. |
| Evidence | Types of evidence and references to related files or documents. |
| Interpretation | Interpretive status, alternative explanation and classification as direct or soft exclusion. |
| Review | Coder, secondary coder, agreement and review status. |
Database architecture
Mechanism-occurrence table
Each row represents an observable occurrence of a mechanism. The table retains the data associated with each coded element and maintains traceability between mechanism, case, evidence, scores and interpretive decision.
Spatial-setting table
Each row represents a bounded spatial unit. The table can summarise:
- number of mechanisms;
- categories present;
- dominant mechanism;
- mechanism configurations;
- conditions of direct exclusion;
- temporal conditions;
- observation coverage;
- overall level of evidence confidence;
- Visibility–Accessibility Matrix classification;
- Soft Exclusion Index result, where applicable.
Connection with empirical validation
Applying these observation and coding rules provides the methodological basis for the SECP empirical register. Coded occurrences maintain traceability between the spatial unit, mechanism, visual or documentary evidence, M1–M8 variables and interpretive decision.
Results derived from the empirical corpus are presented separately in the dedicated validation section, avoiding any conflation of the methodological rules on this page with the presentation of results.
Continue to the SECP Empirical Validation & Final Results →
Observation and Coding Method · Soft Exclusion Coding Protocol
