ES·EN
Monte Carlo Research Lab · Monaco Research Observatory
A structured research instrument for identifying, classifying and analysing indirect mechanisms that condition access, circulation, staying, participation and spatial legitimacy in luxury tourism environments.
SECP v0.1 · Methodological design completed · Operational coding framework established · Empirical validation framework integrated
Protocol navigation:
Overview ·
Theory ·
Taxonomy ·
Coding method ·
Empirical validation ·
Reliability and validity ·
Research materials
What is soft spatial exclusion?
Soft spatial exclusion refers to observable spatial, material, visual, informational, economic, temporal, normative or interactional mechanisms that may discourage, filter, redirect, delay, restrict or condition certain forms of presence without relying exclusively on an explicit and absolute prohibition.
The protocol examines situations in which a person may be physically close to a space, or even directly able to see it, while nevertheless encountering differentiated conditions for entering, moving through it, stopping, waiting, staying, consuming, participating or being recognised as a legitimate user of that space.
Soft spatial exclusion is not inferred automatically from the existence of a barrier, an architectural feature or a difference in access. The SECP requires identification of the observable mechanism, the spatial practice affected, the functional context and the evidence linking these elements.
Scientific purpose
| Function | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Identify | Identify observable mechanisms of indirect spatial filtering. |
| Classify | Assign identified mechanisms to an operational, replicable taxonomy. |
| Compare | Compare spaces, locations, periods and different observation conditions. |
| Differentiate | Distinguish soft exclusion, direct exclusion, spatial regulation and legitimate operational requirements. |
| Evaluate | Examine restrictive intensity, explicitness, spatial coverage, temporal persistence, behavioural effects and user specificity. |
| Validate | Structure the assessment of reliability, construct validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity and empirical transferability. |
Spatial practices examined
The SECP does not classify objects or architectural elements alone. Its interpretative unit includes the relationship between an observable mechanism and the spatial practice that may be conditioned.
- Approaching a space or a threshold.
- Identifying an entrance.
- Entering.
- Moving through and crossing a space.
- Stopping, sitting or waiting.
- Observing and taking photographs.
- Remaining without making a purchase.
- Using facilities.
- Participating in activities.
- Reaching positions of proximity or viewpoints.
- Receiving assistance or interaction from staff.
- Being treated as a legitimate presence in the space.
The twelve mechanism categories
| Code | Category | Primary mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| SE1 | Physical and Architectural Deterrence | Material design may discourage approach, entry or staying. |
| SE2 | Route Steering and Circulation Control | Movement may be redirected, separated, channelled or made indirect. |
| SE3 | Furniture and Resting Restrictions | Opportunities to sit, wait or remain may be reduced or conditioned. |
| SE4 | Visual and Symbolic Signalling | Visual and symbolic codes may influence perceptions of access, suitability or legitimacy. |
| SE5 | Signage and Informational Filtering | Access or participation may depend on incomplete, ambiguous, selective or discreetly presented information. |
| SE6 | Economic Conditionality | Staying, use or participation may be conditional on payment, consumption or price. |
| SE7 | Normative and Behavioural Filtering | Behavioural expectations may condition which forms of presence or use are regarded as legitimate. |
| SE8 | Surveillance and Security Presence | Surveillance or the presence of security staff may affect approach, movement or staying. |
| SE9 | Staff-Mediated Interactional Filtering | Interaction with staff may filter, delay, condition or discourage certain forms of participation. |
| SE10 | Temporal Exclusion | Conditions of access or use may change restrictively according to opening hours, periods or temporary circumstances. |
| SE11 | Spatial Ambiguity and Discreet Access | An entrance may physically exist yet remain difficult to identify or interpret. |
| SE12 | Temporary Privatisation and Event Transformation | Ordinary spatial conditions may be temporarily transformed through perimeters, controls or specific access regimes. |
Open the complete coding taxonomy →
Coding architecture
Each SECP assessment distinguishes the presence of a mechanism from its analytical characteristics. The existence of a candidate visual asset does not automatically amount to a confirmed occurrence: coding requires identifying the mechanism present, the spatial practice it affects and the available level of evidence.
| Variable | Analytical function |
|---|---|
| M1 · Presence | Records the presence or absence of the mechanism assessed. |
| M2 · Restrictive intensity | Assesses the intensity with which the mechanism conditions the spatial practice. |
| M3 · Explicitness | Distinguishes implicit, indirect and explicit signals. |
| M4 · Spatial coverage | Determines the spatial extent affected by the mechanism. |
| M5 · Temporal persistence | Assesses the temporal persistence of the observed mechanism. |
| M6 · Behavioural effect | Records behavioural effects when they can be directly observed. |
| M7 · User specificity | Identifies whether conditions depend on role, reservation, customer status, membership, accreditation or other observable criteria. |
| M8 · Evidence confidence | Assesses the strength and convergence of the evidence supporting the coding decision. |
Open the Observation and Coding Method →
Connected theoretical contributions
The SECP forms part of the broader research architecture of the Monte Carlo Research Lab. Its role is operational and must be distinguished from theoretical projects and sociological interpretations that may subsequently be developed from observed patterns.
- Luxury as distinction in Monte Carlo — examines luxury as a system of recognition, habitus, symbolic capital, cultural capital and aesthetic capital.
- Soft spatial exclusion in luxury tourism environments — develops the theoretical question of how spatial configurations, aesthetic codes and social norms may produce differentiated conditions of presence and belonging.
- Architecture of Power and Exclusion — examines the spatial materialisation of power through architecture, thresholds, barriers, circulation, surveillance and visual control.
The SECP may be used alongside the Visibility–Accessibility Matrix, but the two instruments retain distinct units, variables and coding rules. Documentary coverage of a VAM dimension does not, in itself, constitute evidence of an SECP category.
Protocol components
| Component | Role |
|---|---|
| Operational definition | Definition of the phenomenon and delimitation of its analytical scope. |
| Mechanism taxonomy | Twelve operational categories of soft spatial exclusion. |
| Coding variables and scales | M1–M8 system for characterising observed occurrences. |
| Decision rules | Criteria for inclusion, exclusion and resolution of ambiguous cases. |
| Database architecture | Structure for linking cases, assets, categories and evidence. |
| Observation opportunities | Framework for distinguishing observable absence, insufficient evidence and lack of an opportunity for observation. |
| Reliability and validity framework | Procedures for assessing coding consistency and instrument validity. |
| Empirical validation register | Structure for documenting field assessments, evidence, coding decisions and reproducible results. |
Validation of the Protocol
The Soft Exclusion Coding Protocol includes a specific architecture for assessing reliability, construct validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, temporal validity and robustness.
Validation is organised around identified spatial units, observation opportunities, visual and audiovisual evidence, field records and documented coding decisions. Traceability from evidence to case, category and decision is a core requirement of the protocol.
Empirical Validation Framework
- Fieldwork design and empirical register
- Observation opportunities
- Independent coding and inter-coder reliability
- Construct and criterion validity
- Category-level validation analysis
- Negative cases and alternative explanations
- Robustness tests
- Protocol revision and version control
Explore the SECP Empirical Validation framework →
Relationship with the Visibility–Accessibility Matrix
VAM and SECP examine related dimensions of luxury tourism space, but they are not interchangeable instruments.
The Visibility–Accessibility Matrix assesses the visibility and accessibility conditions of a spatial unit. The Soft Exclusion Coding Protocol identifies specific mechanisms capable of conditioning practices of approach, circulation, staying, participation or legitimacy.
The same evidence may contribute to both instruments when it contains information relevant to each, but classification must be conducted independently under their respective methodological rules.
Explore the Visibility–Accessibility Matrix →
Continue exploring
- Theoretical Foundations
- Coding Taxonomy
- Observation and Coding Method
- SECP Empirical Validation
- Reliability, Validity and Ethics
- Research Materials
- Visibility–Accessibility Matrix
- Architecture of Power and Exclusion
Soft Exclusion Coding Protocol · Monte Carlo Research Lab · Monaco Research Observatory
