ES·EN
Monte Carlo Research Lab · Research Instrument
VAM 2.0 · Empirically Validated Operational Model
A multidimensional instrument for analysing how spaces associated with luxury combine public visibility with differentiated conditions of access.
The VAM does not simply classify spaces as open or closed. It examines how architecture, spatial organisation, economic conditions, observable social recognition, temporal restrictions and rules of use produce different degrees of observation, access, presence and participation.
Current Research Status
Empirical Application & Validation Completed
The Visibility–Accessibility Matrix 2.0 is considered operationally complete and empirically validated for the current version of the project. The instrument has been applied to the consolidated Monaco Research Observatory corpus, and its results have been reviewed and consolidated in the final empirical matrix.
Coverage ≠ Score. The VAM Data page publishes the dimensional coverage of the corpus. This coverage indicates how many cases have an analytically represented dimension; it is not equivalent to 0–4 scores, 0–100 indices or intensity.
Contents
01
Overview
The Visibility–Accessibility Matrix (VAM) is a multidimensional instrument developed at the Monte Carlo Research Lab to describe and compare bounded spatial units in settings associated with luxury.
The instrument addresses two related but analytically independent questions:
- To what extent can the architecture, interiors, activities, goods and uses of a spatial unit be observed?
- Under what conditions can different users approach, enter, remain in, consume, participate in or use that unit?
The VAM avoids reducing accessibility to a binary condition. It breaks accessibility down into physical, economic, social, temporal and normative dimensions, while visibility is assessed through five complementary dimensions.
02
Research Problem
Spaces associated with luxury may be highly visible without being fully accessible. Façades, interiors, goods and activities may be exposed to public observation while entry, presence or participation remain subject to conditions.
The reverse configuration may also occur: a relatively accessible unit may have limited visibility, discreet communication or low exposure of its indoor activities.
For this reason, binary categories such as public/private or open/closed do not adequately represent these combinations.
Central Research Question
How do luxury spaces combine different degrees of public visibility with differentiated conditions of physical, economic, social, temporal and normative accessibility?
The VAM distinguishes between observing, approaching, entering, remaining, consuming, receiving service, using facilities and participating. It does not automatically infer belonging, aspiration, social identity, conspicuous motivations or symbolic identification.
03
Theoretical Foundation
The VAM begins from a fundamental conceptual distinction between public exposure of luxury and graduated accessibility. Both dimensions may be spatially related, but they should not be treated as equivalent.
The instrument does not depend on a single explanatory theory. Its main purpose is to operationalise observable spatial properties and enable systematic comparisons between configurations of visibility and access.
- Public Exposure of Luxury
- It is operationalised through the five dimensions of the Visibility axis: external exposure, sightline continuity, legibility of interiors and activities, display intensity and observation opportunity.
- Graduated Accessibility
- It is operationalised through the five dimensions of the Accessibility axis: physical, economic, social, temporal and normative access.
The VAM relates to other conceptual research strands at the Monte Carlo Research Lab, including the analysis of luxury as distinction, Architecture of Power and Exclusion and Soft Spatial Exclusion. These connections make it possible to interpret the results within a broader sociological framework, but they do not replace the VAM’s operational rules or scores.
The visibility of a luxury good, activity or space does not automatically constitute evidence of conspicuous consumption, desire, aspiration, belonging or an intention to display. These issues require evidence independent of that used to calculate the VAM.
04
Unit of Analysis
A spatially and functionally bounded area observed under defined temporal conditions.
The unit of analysis is not automatically an entire building or establishment. A single building may contain several units with different visibility and accessibility profiles.
Possible units include entrances, lobbies, terraces, casino entrances, shop windows, retail interiors, restaurant areas, waterfront promenades, pontoon access points, pedestrian routes, observation points, residential thresholds and public–private transitions.
Where the evidence permits, every observation should be associated with a date, time period, spatial boundary, observer position, ordinary or event-related conditions, available evidence and temporal restrictions.
The following must be distinguished: Case ID, Asset ID and, where applicable, Observation ID.
05
Visibility Axis
Visibility refers to the degree to which a spatial unit, its activities or its relevant elements can be observed from public or legitimately accessible positions.
Each dimension is scored from 0 to 4 when sufficient evidence exists: 0 = not visible; 1 = very limited visibility; 2 = partial or conditional; 3 = high; 4 = very high or continuous.
V1 · External Visual Exposure
The extent to which the unit can be observed from streets, squares, promenades or other legitimately accessible positions.
0 not visible · 1 isolated fragments · 2 partial visibility · 3 high exposure · 4 continuous and prominent exposure.
V2 · Sightline Continuity
Continuity of the visual relationship, considering walls, vegetation, changes in level, screens, glazing, barriers and spatial orientation.
0 complete obstruction · 1 severe interruption · 2 intermittent continuity · 3 mostly continuous · 4 open, direct and continuous.
V3 · Interior and Activity Legibility
The extent to which the function, activity and spatial organisation of the unit can be identified without inferring the identities or social characteristics of people observed.
0 function cannot be identified · 1 ambiguous indications · 2 main function identifiable · 3 activities generally legible · 4 organisation and activities widely legible.
V4 · Display Intensity
The extent to which goods, architecture, services or practices associated with luxury are made visually apparent in the observed setting.
0 concealed · 1 incidental presence · 2 visible selection · 3 prominent display · 4 intensive or staged display.
V5 · Observation Opportunity
Availability of legally accessible and socially tolerated positions from which to observe, photograph or maintain visual contact with the unit.
0 no tolerated position · 1 observation only while moving · 2 brief or conditional · 3 several legitimate positions · 4 extended observation facilitated.
06
Accessibility Axis
Accessibility describes the conditions under which a person can approach, enter, remain in, consume, participate in or use a spatial unit.
Each dimension is scored from 0 to 4: 0 = access unavailable; 1 = highly restricted; 2 = conditional; 3 = broad but regulated; 4 = open or minimally restricted.
A1 · Physical Accessibility
Practical ability to approach, reach and enter the unit.
0 ordinary access impossible · 1 authorisation or strict control · 2 reception, security or controlled door · 3 broad access with limited controls · 4 direct connection to public circulation.
A2 · Economic Accessibility
Economic conditions necessary to enter, remain, consume or participate.
0 not obtainable through ordinary payment · 1 very high financial commitment · 2 significant expenditure · 3 ordinary paid consumption or admission · 4 ordinary presence without required expenditure.
A3 · Social Accessibility
The extent to which different users may enter and remain without an invitation, membership, guest status or discretionary social approval.
0 private status or invitation required · 1 strong discretionary filtering · 2 legitimacy linked to a defined role · 3 general acceptance without prior recognition · 4 presence widely treated as legitimate.
Coding must rely on observable rules, interactions and actions. Social class must not be inferred from appearance.
A4 · Temporal Accessibility
The extent to which access is available over time.
0 no ordinary access · 1 exceptional access · 2 limited by opening hours, appointment, season or event · 3 regular and extensive opening hours · 4 continuous or minimally restricted access.
A5 · Normative Accessibility
The extent to which formal and informal rules regulate entry, behaviour, circulation, photography, presence and use.
0 ordinary public use prohibited · 1 multiple restrictive requirements · 2 clear conditions · 3 predictable commercial rules · 4 ordinary rules of public conduct.
Restrictions arising from safety, legal requirements, universal accessibility or operations must be distinguished from restrictions associated with privilege.
07
Scoring and Calculation
Each dimension receives an ordinal score from 0 to 4 when sufficient evidence exists. All dimensions have equal weight within their axis.
Visibility Score
V = 25 × mean(valid V1–V5)
Accessibility Score
A = 25 × mean(valid A1–A5)
Both indices are expressed on a scale from 0 to 100.
Descriptive Bands
0–19 very low · 20–39 low · 40–59 moderate · 60–79 high · 80–100 very high.
Missing-Evidence Rule
- 5 valid dimensions: complete score.
- 4 valid dimensions: score calculated and flagged as incomplete.
- 3 or fewer: no overall score is calculated.
- Insufficient evidence: missing; never converted to 0.
- Not applicable: only when the variable is conceptually inapplicable.
08
Matrix Configurations
Configurations are descriptive categories used to interpret combinations of the Visibility and Accessibility axes. They do not replace the full dimensional profile.
| 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 final classification is derived from each case’s consolidated scores. The configuration label summarises the V–A combination, but the complete V1–V5 / A1–A5 profile retains interpretative priority.
09
Participation and Recognised Positions
Visibility and accessibility must not be confused with participation, belonging or symbolic identification.
Participation Opportunities
The VAM can separately record approaching, entering, remaining, consuming, receiving service, attending activities, using facilities or taking photographs. These variables are not automatically added to the V or A scores.
Recognised User Positions
When evidence makes it possible to identify a formal user position, categories such as passer-by, observer, visitor, customer, guest, invited guest, member, resident, owner or authorised professional may be recorded.
These positions do not constitute a universal social hierarchy and do not justify inferring wealth, class, status or belonging from appearance.
10
What the VAM Measures
The VAM Measures
- visual exposure;
- sightline continuity;
- interior and activity legibility;
- display intensity;
- observation opportunities;
- physical accessibility;
- economic accessibility;
- social accessibility;
- temporal accessibility;
- normative accessibility;
- participation opportunities;
- recognised formal user positions.
The VAM Does Not Directly Measure
- aspiration;
- frustration;
- belonging;
- intimidation;
- symbolic identification;
- conspicuous-consumption motivation;
- rejection of luxury;
- social or political criticism;
- individual social class or wealth.
These responses require interviews, surveys, ethnographic observation or other suitable qualitative sources.
11
Fields of Application
The VAM has been empirically applied and validated within the territorial corpus of Monte Carlo. Its structure can be used to analyse luxury urban districts, hotels, casinos, retail settings, restaurants, marinas, public squares, public–private transitions and temporary hospitality areas within this context.
Other settings—such as resorts, cruise ships, premium terminals or other luxury tourism destinations—are potential contexts for future transfer. Assessing such transferability is a separate question and does not modify the validation achieved in the current Monte Carlo corpus.
In any transfer, the core dimensions, scales and rules constitute the analytical core of the instrument, while certain contextual indicators may require operational adaptation.
12
Research Status
Current version: Visibility–Accessibility Matrix 2.0.
In its current version, the VAM:
- has a defined theoretical and operational structure;
- includes dimensions V1–V5 and A1–A5;
- includes final scoring and missing-data rules;
- has criteria for evidence and the delimitation of units;
- has been applied to the consolidated empirical corpus of 75 cases and 225 assets;
- includes 160 photographs and 65 videos in the final inventory;
- has consolidated VAM scores at case level;
- has completed its empirical validation phase for the current version;
- maintains traceability between case, evidence and analytical decision;
- keeps VAM results separate from SECP occurrences.
13
Research Documentation
Public VAM documentation is organised into five functionally distinct resources: methodology, validation, data, empirical profiles and the evidence traceability guide.
Methodology
VAM Methodology & Codebook
Canonical methodological manual: dimensions V1–V5 and A1–A5, evidence rules, scoring, missing data, units of analysis and configurations.
Validation
VAM Empirical Validation & Final Results
Presents the empirical validation process, consolidated results, methodological checks and conclusions for the validated version of the instrument.
Data
VAM Data
Presents the dimensional coverage of the empirical corpus and the principal structured VAM indicators.
Case Application
VAM Empirical Case Profiles
Selected real-world case profiles showing how the VAM is applied to bounded spatial units and how each interpretation is linked to traceable evidence.
Evidence Traceability
How to Read the MVFA–VAM Codes
Guide to interpreting Asset ID, Case ID, Observation ID, observation position, evidence type and VAM reference.
Open Research · VAM
Dataset, Documentation and Traceability
The documentation and data associated with the empirical application of the Visibility–Accessibility Matrix form part of the Monaco Research Observatory’s open repository on OSF.
The repository complements the public VAM pages with methodological materials and structured data that make it possible to trace the relationship between Spatial Cases, V1–V5 and A1–A5 scores, evidence sources and assets from the Monaco Visual Fieldwork Archive.
Visual assets support case assessment, but they are not themselves the scoring unit and do not automatically determine a VAM result.
VAM Research Repository
Monaco Research Observatory · Open Science Framework
DOI:
10.17605/OSF.IO/FV293
Access the Research Materials on OSF →
Research Connections
Methodology & Codebook · Empirical Validation · VAM Data · Empirical Case Profiles · Monte Carlo Research Lab
