ES·EN
Monaco Data Observatory · SECP Data
SECP · Final Empirical Dataset
Aggregated results from the empirical application of the Soft Exclusion Coding Protocol (SECP) to the consolidated corpus of the Monaco Research Observatory.
The SECP identifies and documents observable mechanisms through which access, circulation, staying, interaction or behaviour may be conditioned without necessarily requiring an absolute formal prohibition.
Dataset Overview
Empirical Corpus
The SECP forms part of the same master inventory used by the VAM, but retains its own units and coding rules. The overall corpus contains 75 spatial cases and 225 visual assets, of which 169 are identified as SECP Candidate Assets.
Opportunity-Based Analysis
Normalization by Observable Opportunity
Not all SECP mechanisms can be assessed in every spatial case. A category related to staff, security, prices, signage, events or furniture requires an empirically suitable situation in which to observe it.
For this reason, the denominator for each category is not automatically the set of 75 cases. The matrix assesses the 900 Case × Category combinations derived from 75 cases × 12 categories and distinguishes among YES, UNCERTAIN and NO.
Confirmed empirical occurrences ÷ Opportunity = YES
Only opportunities reviewed as YES are included in the denominator. UNCERTAIN and NO are not converted into absence of the mechanism or counted as zero.
Mechanism Categories
The Twelve SECP Categories
The twelve categories identify distinct mechanisms. Their presence requires empirical evidence and a coding decision; no category is inferred automatically from the general appearance of a space.
Physical and Architectural Deterrence
Physical or architectural elements that hinder, channel or condition particular uses or forms of access.
Route Steering and Circulation Control
Spatial configurations that direct, redirect or condition particular trajectories.
Furniture and Resting Restrictions
Conditions relating to furniture, staying or opportunities to rest.
Visual and Symbolic Signalling
Visual or symbolic elements capable of communicating codes of use, legitimacy or belonging.
Signage and Informational Filtering
Signage, information or messages that delimit uses, access or conditions for participation.
Economic Conditionality
Access, use or staying associated with documentable economic conditions.
Normative and Behavioural Filtering
Observable norms or expectations relating to conduct, appearance, use or behaviour.
Surveillance and Security Presence
Surveillance or security relevant to the observable regulation of space.
Staff-Mediated Interactional Filtering
Staff interventions that mediate access, circulation, staying or interaction.
Temporal Exclusion
Changes in access or use relating to schedules, closures, events or other temporal conditions.
Spatial Ambiguity and Discreet Access
Discreet, ambiguous or spatially difficult-to-read entrances that may condition recognition of access.
Temporary Privatisation and Event Transformation
Temporary transformations that alter the ordinary arrangements for the use or accessibility of space.
Final Empirical Results
Confirmed Mechanisms by Observable Opportunity
The following values come from the reviewed empirical register. The rate expresses the proportion of confirmed occurrences among opportunities classified as Opportunity = YES for each category.
| SECP | Category | Opportunity = YES | Confirmed n | Normalized Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SE1 | Physical and Architectural Deterrence | 26 | 19 | 73.1% |
| SE2 | Route Steering and Circulation Control | 28 | 17 | 60.7% |
| SE3 | Furniture and Resting Restrictions | 12 | 8 | 66.7% |
| SE4 | Visual and Symbolic Signalling | 25 | 17 | 68.0% |
| SE5 | Signage and Informational Filtering | 16 | 12 | 75.0% |
| SE6 | Economic Conditionality | 10 | 10 | 100.0% |
| SE7 | Normative and Behavioural Filtering | 12 | 9 | 75.0% |
| SE8 | Surveillance and Security Presence | 7 | 5 | 71.4% |
| SE9 | Staff-Mediated Interactional Filtering | 16 | 9 | 56.3% |
| SE10 | Temporal Exclusion | 12 | 7 | 58.3% |
| SE11 | Spatial Ambiguity and Discreet Access | 9 | 5 | 55.6% |
| SE12 | Temporary Privatisation and Event Transformation | 7 | 3 | 42.9% |
The sum of the Confirmed n columns is 121 confirmed empirical occurrences. The rates do not use the 75 cases as a common denominator, but rather the category-specific YES opportunities.
Empirical Reading
General Pattern
The results show that confirmed mechanisms are not concentrated in a single form of spatial regulation. The register includes physical, circulation-related, symbolic, informational, economic, normative, temporal and staff-mediated mechanisms.
SE6 — Economic Conditionality has the highest normalised rate, with 10 confirmations in 10 YES opportunities (100.0%). This result must be interpreted in light of its relatively small denominator and should not be taken as evidence that SE6 is the most territorially prevalent mechanism.
In absolute terms, SE1 records 19 confirmed occurrences, while SE2 and SE4 each record 17 confirmed occurrences. Therefore, absolute frequency and normalised rate must be analysed together.
SE5 and SE7 reach 75.0%, SE1 73.1%, and SE8 71.4%. At the lower end of the observed rates, SE12 records 42.9%, with three confirmations among seven YES opportunities.
Opportunity Structure
YES, UNCERTAIN and NO
Opportunity is assessed independently of subsequent confirmation of the mechanism. A case classified as Opportunity = YES means that there is an adequate basis for assessing the mechanism, not that it is necessarily present.
YES
A specific, reviewed empirical basis exists that allows the corresponding category to be assessed directly.
180 combinations
UNCERTAIN
The category could be assessable, but the available evidence does not allow a sufficiently clear opportunity to be established.
183 combinations
NO
The configuration of the case does not provide a specific empirical opportunity to assess that category.
537 combinations
Representative Cases
Confirmed Mechanism Configurations
The following cases show how several categories can coexist within the same spatial unit. Only categories confirmed in the final empirical register are presented here.
VAM-MC-001
Place du Casino
Central space and principal sightlines.
Confirmed Categories:
SE4 · SE5 · SE7 · SE8 · SE9
Confirmed Occurrences: 5
VAM-MC-011
Place du Casino
Vehicle access system, valet service and pedestrian–vehicle interface.
Confirmed Categories:
SE1 · SE5 · SE7
Confirmed Occurrences: 3
VAM-MC-017
Place du Casino
Changes in level and pedestrian edges.
Confirmed Categories:
SE1 · SE10
Confirmed Occurrences: 2
Reading the Data
Interpretation Rules
SECP rates do not represent the percentage of Monaco’s territory subject to exclusion, or the percentage of visitors affected. They represent the proportion of YES opportunities in which the corresponding category was empirically confirmed.
A high rate must always be interpreted alongside the size of its denominator. A mechanism with ten opportunities may show a higher rate than another with twenty-eight opportunities without having a larger absolute number of occurrences.
A lack of confirmation for a YES opportunity does not mean that the space lacks all forms of regulation. It means only that this specific category was not confirmed under the protocol’s rules.
SECP categories describe observable mechanisms. They do not permit automatic inferences about intent to exclude, subjective experience, agents’ motivations or psychological effects on users.
VAM × SECP
Connected but Independent Instruments
VAM and SECP may draw on part of the same evidence corpus, but they address different questions. VAM describes configurations of Visibility and Accessibility, whereas SECP records specific mechanisms of spatial regulation and soft spatial exclusion.
The relationship is examined through a specific crosswalk . SECP codes do not generate VAM scores, and VAM scores do not automatically confirm SECP categories.
Research Documentation
Methodology, Validation and Replication
The results on this page should be read together with the taxonomy, observation and coding method, empirical validation, and the protocol’s reliability and validity documentation.
SECP Overview
Overall architecture, scientific purpose and relationship with VAM.
Observation & Coding Method
Units of analysis, evidence, variables and decision-making process.
Empirical Validation
Empirical validation and the protocol’s final results.
Reliability & Validity
Consistency and validity rules, negative cases and ethical safeguards.
Research Materials
Methodological resources, datasets and replication documentation.
Research Connections
SECP Overview · Empirical Validation · VAM Data · VAM Overview
Open Research · SECP
Evidence, coding and open documentation
Materials associated with the Soft Exclusion Coding Protocol are held in the Monaco Research Observatory’s OSF repository to facilitate access to its methodological documentation, data structure and empirical records linked to the research corpus.
The repository maintains traceability across spatial cases, observation opportunities, SE1–SE12 categories, empirical assessments and visual assets used as evidence. The presence of a candidate asset does not in itself constitute a confirmed SECP occurrence.
VAM and SECP may use shared visual evidence, but maintain separate units of analysis, coding rules and results.
SECP Research Repository
Monaco Research Observatory · Open Science Framework
DOI:
10.17605/OSF.IO/FV293
Access research materials on OSF →
