Cities 36 (2014) 28–40

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /c i t ies

Mental maps compared to actual spatial behavior using GPS data: A newmethod for investigating segregation in cities

0264-2751/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.09.003

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 2 5881433; fax: +972 2 5820549.E-mail addresses: malka.greenberg@mail.huji.ac.il (M. Greenberg Raanan),

noamshoval@huji.ac.il (N. Shoval).1 Tel.: +972 2 5883017.

Malka Greenberg Raanan 1, Noam Shoval ⇑Dept. of Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 18 April 2013Received in revised form 11 July 2013Accepted 5 September 2013

Keywords:Global Positioning Systems (GPS)Mental mapsSegregationSpatial activityJerusalem

a b s t r a c t

This article examines the relationship between perceived territorial boundaries and actual spatial activ-ity. The methodology used includes a combination of mental maps and interviews for examining percep-tions of territorial boundaries, with tracking technology (GPS) and activity diaries to track the actual useof space. This methodology was implemented in a pilot study with a sample of 18 women living in Jeru-salem, including secular Jews, ultra-orthodox Jews, and Palestinian Muslims.

The study found a very strong relationship between perceived personal territory and actual spatialactivity. However, while the secular Jewish women appeared to be completely segregated within theirterritory, the ultra-orthodox Jewish women and the Palestinian Muslim women were both very activewithin the secular Jewish territory, but avoided each other’s territories. The analysis of mental mapsand actual spatial patterns of residential daily activities challenges prevailing notions about the spatialstructure of Jerusalem and the internal power relations between the populations that inhabit it. Moregenerally, it provides a new methodological approach for investigating segregation in cities.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Traditional concepts of the city define it as a mosaic of separatehomogeneous areas, each with unique features (Boal, 1987; Shevky& Bell, 1955). However, more modern concepts relate to the city as acomplex and personal space. Its meanings are constructed dynam-ically by the people living in it (Harvey, 1989). In fact, according tothis view, a dialectical process develops between the city and its cit-izens, in which, on the one hand, the city influences and even formsthe collective and territorial identity of the residents, and on theother hand, the residents themselves create meanings that con-struct urban space. The geographical paradigm developed by Lefeb-vre (1974), Harvey (1989), and Soja (2000) views people as activeagents in the production and interpretation of space. This paradigmplaces the individual and his inner world in the spotlight, andbrings forth research concepts, such as urban identity, exclusion,segregation, belonging, territoriality, and cognitive space.

One of the most common ways of examining the perception ofspace in geographic research is through cognitive maps. This prac-tice is derived from the assumption that cognitive maps influencespatial behavior (Golledge & Stimson, 1997). Residents or visitorsare active agents in creating their space through spatial behavioral

patterns. Thus, there is an ongoing dynamic relationship betweentheir conception of the space, their behavior within it, and the ac-tual construction of the space. Examining spatial activity andmovement enables us to see the process of construction of socialspace, and the relationship between perception and space.

The aim of this paper is to further understand the relationshipbetween perceived territorial boundaries and actual spatial activ-ity. The methodology used includes a combination of sketch mapsand interviews to examine perceptions of territorial boundaries,with activity diaries and tracking technology (GPS) to track actualspatial behavior.

The new approach, presented here, was tested in a pilot studythat was implemented in the city of Jerusalem. It is customary torefer to Jerusalem as a contested city, divided into three distinctspaces, serving three conflicting cultural groups (Alfasi & Fenster,2005). However, this study offers a more complex view of the citywhich may contradict prevailing notions of static segregation.

This paper looks at the personal perspectives of secular Jewish,Ultra-Orthodox Jewish and Palestinian-Muslim women living inJerusalem, and examines the complex relationship between wo-men’s perceptions of the segregated city and of their territorial po-sition within it, as well as their actual day-to-day spatial activity.

Theory

Until the 1980s, definitions of spatial segregation emphasizedthe uneven distribution of predefined social groups within residen-

M. Greenberg Raanan, N. Shoval / Cities 36 (2014) 28–40 29

tial spaces (Boal, 1987). Lysaght and Basten (2003) argued that dis-course regarding divided cities usually focuses on residential seg-regation, a focus which reflects a static picture of life withinthem. This focus does not provide insight into the mundane activ-ities of everyday life, which require dynamic movement acrossspaces and the traversing of different territories. Moreover, manyof the social consequences of residential segregation depend onthe areas where people spend time when not at home (Ellis,Wright, & Parks, 2004). Recent research has concentrated on eval-uating segregation beyond residential spaces, since individualsexperience segregation across multiple socio-geographical spaces(Ellis et al., 2004; Kwan & Lee, 2004; Zandvliet & Dijst, 2006; Lee& Kwan, 2011, Wong & Shaw, 2011; Farber, Páez, & Morency,2012; Jones & Pebley, 2012; Palmer et al., 2012). When examiningsegregation, one must also take into account that individual iden-tity formation in the global reality of the early 21st century is a dy-namic process, in which identity is not only committed to onedominant group reference (Park, 1926). The assumption that thereis a close relationship between social interactions and physical dis-tance must therefore be questioned (Häußermann & Siebel, 2001;Valentine, 2008; Wirth, 1927). Individuals can be socially and cul-turally isolated from their neighbors and neighborhood, whilemaintaining significant social relationships with people who arephysically distant. In this respect, researchers argue that when dis-cussing terms such as spatial belonging and territorial identity, theemphasis needs to shift from the ethnic group to the individual le-vel (Schnell, 2002).

Ruiz-Tagle (2012) defines segregation as a reflection of socialcauses with physical manifestations and social consequences. Itis influenced not only by structural factors that impose spatialpositions, but also by complex individual and group behaviors: ur-ban personality, attachment, identity, differentiation, perceptionsof disorder and so on. He claims, therefore, that the concept of seg-regation should not be explored merely in terms of location, but interms of a more complex sociology of place that includes humaninteractions and collective constructions. Similarly, according toSchnell and Benjamini (2001), if segregation and social belongingare not defined solely in terms of residence, but also in terms ofindividual perception and activities, we must distinguish betweenthree dimensions that define segregation: residential segregation,social networks, and the activities of everyday life-spaces. Indeed,according to De Certeau (1984), daily practices in the city are thosethat most signify the territorialisation and appropriation of space,as well as the meaning assigned to spaces.

Giddens’ (1991) structuration theory stated that reality is con-stantly re-structured according to the individual’s daily experi-ences in segregated spaces, affecting the nature of everydayspaces. This is in accordance with Fensters’ (2004) claim that one’ssense of belonging is based on the accumulation of spatial knowl-edge, memory, and daily intimate walking and being. In her study,she analyzed cognitive maps of residents in Jerusalem and London,using the concepts of belonging, commitment, and comfort.

Cognitive space – Mental maps and activity space

The psychological transformation processes by which we gath-er, retrieve, arrange, store, encode, and interpret information relat-ing to characteristics of the environment are called ‘‘mentalmapping’’ (Downs & Stea, 1973). The creation of a mental map isrelated to identity. It varies from group to group and from personto person, and is determined by our prejudices and personal expe-riences (Downs & Stea, 1973). Studies have shown that all of thefollowing factors affect the perception and the mental maps thatpeople have of their surroundings: socio-economic status, ethnic-ity and race, gender and age, time of residence, and the mode oftransportation used (Madanipour, 1996).

Many studies suggest that spatial decision-making processesoccur within the cognitive space, that is, the mental environmentis crucial to our understanding of spatial behavior (Garling & Goll-edge, 2000; Lloyd & Ader, 1980; Lloyd & Steinke, 1986; Orleans,1973). These decisions include short-term decisions such as alloca-tion of space and time for recreational activities, decisions aboutmode of transportation, travel and shopping patterns and long-term decisions such as where to live and work (Gold, 1980; Goll-edge & Timmermans, 1990; Kitchin & Blades, 2002; Pacione, 1978).

The everyday space utilized by an individual is called an ‘‘actionspace’’ or ‘‘activity space’’ and includes all of the places and desti-nations relating to the individual’s daily movements (Dijst, 1999;Golledge & Stimson, 1997). All activities, however, have specificspatial and temporal characteristics that cannot be separated andare crucial for understanding an individuals’ activity pattern(Kwan, 2007). Mental maps provide the external borders of anindividual’s potential activity space, which can be defined as thearea which contains most of the individual’s destinations, or asthe individual’s personal territory. This sub-space within mentalmaps is often fragmented in the sense that it includes unfamiliar,and perhaps even unwanted territories extending beyond pre-ferred areas (Schönfelder & Axhausen, 2004).

The most important spatial destinations in a person’s life are‘‘anchor points’’ (Couclelis, Golledge, Gale, & Tober, 1987). Themain anchor point for most people is their place of residence.But other places such as the workplace or a close friend’s home alsofunction as anchor points.

Gender and space

Since the mid 1970s, feminist geographers have identified theurban space as an important formative element through whichgender is experienced and established (McDowell, 1983). One ofthe main claims by feminist geographers is that urban space servesand is created in accordance with existing power relations, exclud-ing ethnic minorities and other disadvantaged groups such as wo-men. In addition, urban land-use patterns and transportationsystems have created mobility barriers for women with young chil-dren, reinforcing gender inequalities in employment accessibilityand, overall, helping maintain traditional gender roles (Church-man, 2000; Jacobs & Fincher, 1998; Mackenzie & Rose, 1983;McDowell, 1999; Spain, 1993; Bondi and Rose, 2003; Sandercock,2003).

Wilson (2001), on the other hand, emphasizes ways in whichcities liberate women by enabling them to escape the constraintsof normative expectations and providing them with greater mobil-ity and access to opportunities, precisely because of the distancefrom patriarchal domination which usually exist in rural societies.

Feminist researchers have documented fear as a force structur-ing women’s everyday life in urban environments (Koskela & Pain,2000; Listerborn, 2002; Pain, 1991; Valentine, 1990). Rose (1993)argues that fear of violence or being attacked in public spaces isa factor which affects women’s mobility. That is to say, women’sinterpretation and experience of space is significantly differentfrom that of men. Researchers have found two important factorsthat reinforce the confidence of women in space:

1. Social privilege is related to the perception of invisibility, whichallows women to feel safer and enables a sense of belonging inurban space (Kern, 2005).

2. Koskela (1997) argues that for women, knowing their environ-ment enables them to take possession of space and feel ‘‘at-home’’, which then produces ‘‘bold’’ behavior in urban space.

Fenster (1998, 1999) argues that in traditional societies, wo-men’s movement in space is much more controlled and limited

30 M. Greenberg Raanan, N. Shoval / Cities 36 (2014) 28–40

by social and cultural norms and values. This is expressed in sym-bolic spaces of modesty and immodesty, which are often perceivedas forbidden and permitted spaces. Fenster (2004) argues that wo-men’s clothing affects female mobility. Women who are dressedunlike the dominant social norms dictated in a particular areamay refrain from entering that area. In Jerusalem, for example, sec-ular women refrain from entering the ultra-orthodox areas of thecity.

Tracking technologies

Traditionally the most common research method used to gatherinformation on spatial patterns of human activity has been thetime–space budget technique, which was developed in the 1960sand 1970s (Golledge & Stimson, 1997). According to this method,data collection is primarily based on time–space diaries, in whichsubjects self-document their activities over a period of one dayto a week (Thornton, Williams, & Shaw, 1997). This method hasmany advantages, but also several drawbacks, such as inaccuratedocumentation of the subjects’ activities, resulting in distortionof the data, as well as a disparity between the data regarding timeand the quantity of the information.

In contrast to this method, tracking technologies, such as GPSreceivers, provide information over time on the daily activities ofpeople within the urban environment in a relatively reflexive andreliable way. The development of tracking technologies has creatednew possibilities for collecting high resolution and accurate spatialand temporal data (Shoval, 2008; Shoval & Isaacson, 2006).

On the other hand, tracking technologies have some disadvan-tages. For example, the subject’s awareness that she is being mon-itored could potentially affect her activity patterns. The subjectmight refrain from certain activities, or try to act differently in or-der to present herself in a manner perceived as being more positiveor favorable. In addition, the study requires active participationand compliance on the part of the subjects in order to obtain reli-able data from the device. For example, the subjects need to peri-odically charge the device. One must note that the use of GPS totrack activity cannot replace activity diaries due to the nature ofpersonal information, which only diaries can provide. Therefore,both methods were used in this study.

2 These neighborhoods were built across the 1949 ceasefire line and are consideredy the Palestinians and most of the international community as illegal settlements.raeli law and the Jewish mainstream, however, do not consider them to bettlements but, rather, to be regular neighborhoods in Jerusalem.

Study area

Jerusalem is at the heart of a religious, ethnic, national andpolitical conflict and is often defined as a polarized and contestedcity (Bollens, 1998a, 1998b; Klein, 1999). As a result of the 1967war, Israel expanded the municipal boundaries to include the ter-ritory of East Jerusalem and its hinterland (70,500 dunams or17,421 acres). While Israeli law and its administration was ex-tended unilaterally over east Jerusalem in 1981, the PalestinianArab population was not granted Israeli citizenship, but are consid-ered permanent residents (Hasson, 2001). Over the past decade,the construction of the Separation Barrier has affected the func-tional and economic viability of East Jerusalem as a metropolitancenter by separating the city from Palestinian suburbs in the WestBank (Chiodelli, 2013; Shlay & Rosen, 2010). The Separation Barrierhas had far ranging effects on the residents of the metropolitan re-gion, in particular the Palestinian residents (for further details, see:Brooks, 2007; Kimhi, 2006).

In addition to being a polarized city in terms of relations be-tween Jews and Arabs, the Jewish population residing in Jerusalemis divided in terms of religiosity (ultra-orthodox vs. national-reli-gious vs. secular). Cultural tension prevails between the Jewishpopulations of Jerusalem, with political competition over positionsof power at the municipal level as well as lifestyle issues regarding

public space, such as conflicts about whether places of entertain-ment should be open on Saturdays (Gonen & Hasson, 1997).

The Palestinian Arab population comprises approximately 35%of the city’s population and consist of about a quarter of a millionpeople, who live primarily in the eastern section of the city. For de-tailed information on the Palestinian population in Jerusalem see:Chesin, Hutman, and Melame (1999) and Khamaisi (2008). TheJewish population, constituting 65% of the city’s population (abouthalf a million people), resides in the western part of Jerusalem (thepart that has belonged to the State of Israel since 1948) and in sev-eral neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem. Ultra-orthodox Jews, whomake up about a quarter of the city’s population, live mainly innorthern Jerusalem. The ultra-orthodox population is character-ized by strict adherence to religious commands, self imposed segre-gation and special dress (Blumen, 2007). The ultra-orthodox live insegregated neighborhoods, within which a separate cultural iden-tity exists (Hasson, 2001; Shilhav, 1991; Choshen & Korach,2010; Alfasi, Flint Ashery, & Benenson, 2012).

Long-term historical processes have produced distinct ethno-national, cultural and social identity groups, which occupy specificterritories within Jerusalem (ethno-cultural territories). These dif-ferent groups have assigned unique geopolitical, cultural and eco-nomic meanings to their territories (Hasson, 2001; Kimchi, 2008).This separation divides the city into three distinct geographical re-gions. Each area contains a distinct center for trade and services, aswell as educational and cultural institutions that almost exclu-sively serve the distinct community.

Romann and Weingrod (1991) found that the division betweenIsraeli-Jews and Palestinian-Arabs in Jerusalem is both politicaland economical. This is reflected in the separation that exists inresidential neighborhoods, business centers, urban centers, trans-portation and medical services. The two researchers also foundthat movement from one territory to the ‘‘other’’ is not an everydayact. Kimchi (2008) also argues that there are almost no spaces inwhich there is interaction between all sectors of the population,except for meetings that randomly occur in open spaces or urbanparks and a few interactions in the Old City. In contrast, a recentstudy conducted by Shtern (2010) showed that processes of dailyinteraction and the crossing of territorial borders mainly occur inthree different commercial zones in Jerusalem: The Malcha mallin West Jerusalem, the Mamilla quarter on the seam-line and theMuslim market in East Jerusalem.

On the other hand, various groups compete for control over ur-ban space. This competition among groups is apparent, for exam-ple, in the penetration of Jews into Palestinian-Arabneighborhoods, like Silwan and the Muslim Quarter of the Old City,and in the penetration of Palestinian-Arabs into Jewish neighbor-hoods in north Jerusalem, such as French Hill and Pisgat Ze’ev.2

Methodology

A convenience sample of six secular Jewish women, six ultra-orthodox Jewish women, and six Palestinian-Muslim women wasrecruited to participate in the study using the ‘‘snow-ball’’ tech-nique. As literature shows that factors such as age, gender, familystatus, education, socioeconomic status, and the level of knowl-edge regarding the specific environment being researched all influ-ence mental maps (Carter, 1981; Downs & Stea, 1973; Golledge &Timmermans, 1990), all the women who were selected were be-tween the ages of 19–30, single, born in Jerusalem, and were uni-versity students or had an equivalent educational status

bIsse

Fig. 1. Jewish and Arab populations in Jerusalem 2010.

M. Greenberg Raanan, N. Shoval / Cities 36 (2014) 28–40 31

(participants’ areas of residence can be seen in Fig. 1).Data collection was carried out in three stages: First, the sub-

jects were interviewed through in-depth semi-structured inter-views. The interviews were held from October 2009 to February2010 and the subjects selected the location of the interview. Theinterviews lasted on average an hour and a half. Each womanwas asked to draw four sketch maps: The first map was an emptymap of the streets of Jerusalem without any names on it. The sub-ject was asked to pinpoint 15 locations on the map from differentareas in the city. The purpose was to test the level of familiarityand orientation in appraising the city using a cartographic map.

On the second map, which included names of the main streetsand neighborhoods, the interviewees were asked to freely dividethe city into areas, using whichever categories she decided upon.On the third map, the subjects were asked to divide the city intothree different areas: the secular-Jewish area, the ultra-orthodoxarea, and the Palestinian-Arab area. On the fourth map (identicalto the second map) the subjects were requested to mark areasusing different colors. Each color represented a different emotion:sense of belonging – feeling at home (green), areas where theywere not completely comfortable (orange), areas where they felt

Table 1The percentage of time spent by each cultural group within their personal territories.

Secular Jewish Ultra-orthodoxJewish

PalestinianMuslim

Notincludinghome

Total Notincludinghome

Total Notincludinghome

Total

% of time spentin spaces ofbelonging

94 97 68 88 71 97

32 M. Greenberg Raanan, N. Shoval / Cities 36 (2014) 28–40

very uncomfortable and even fearful (red), unknown areas (blue),and areas where they felt neutral (gray).

At the end of each interview, the subject received a GPS receiverfor a week. The device recorded information regarding the subject’smovements every ten seconds over the duration of the entire week.In addition, the subjects were given a small activity diary to recordtheir movements during that week. The combination of informa-tion received from the GPS and the activity diaries enabled abroader understanding of the subjects’ spatial activity patterns.

At the end of the week another short interview was held witheach subject, usually by telephone, which dealt with the circum-stances which led the subject to cross over (according to the GPSdata) into territories which she had marked to be outside of herpersonal and perceived cultural territory. The subject was alsoquestioned about her feelings during these deviations. Finally,she was asked to what extent her movements during the weekwere typical of her spatial behavior.

All of the sketch maps were scanned and then, using ArcInfo 9.3software, each map was georeferenced. A new layer of polygonswas created based on the maps drawn by each subject. The processtook place as close as possible to the interview to ensure that theinterpretation would be as close as possible to the information pro-vided verbally during the interview. Moreover, the processed mapwas sent to the subject who was asked to correct anymisinterpretation.

The output of the GPS devices included a table consisting of po-sition and time data. Using ArcInfo 9.3., the data was geographi-cally connected to the processed sketch maps of the subjects. Theprocessing of the data included dividing the data into: (1) tracks– the movement of the subject from her home to work, for exam-ple, and (2) activity nodes – destinations (e.g., home, work, restau-rant, shopping mall). Activity nodes (anchor points) were definedas locations where the subject spent more than fifteen minutes.These nodes were then verified against the activity diaries. Ulti-mately a number of additional criteria were used to define theactivity nodes because of the realization that often, the importanceof an activity node is not always determined by the timeparameter:

1. Activity nodes were defined based on the activity diaries, even ifnot recorded by the GPS devices.

2. Any university campus or hospital complex was consideredonly one node.

3. Bus stations were not considered activity nodes although, onoccasion, some subjects had to wait there for significantamounts of time.

The perceptual segregation model

For each subject, a Perceptual Segregation Index was calculatedfor each of the cultural-ethnic groups to which she did not belong.The index took the following parameters into account:

1. Whether the subject marked personal territorial spaces withinthe other group’s cultural territories on the sketch map (P, val-ues – 0 or 1).

2. The degree of the subject’s acquaintance with the other culturalgroup’s territories, based on the location identification test (K,values – ranging from 0 to 1).

3. Whether, in her interview, the subject mentioned places ofentertainment and shopping located in the other group’s terri-tories (E, values – 0 or 1).

4. Verbal references from the interview regarding the places andterritories associated with the other group (L values – rangingfrom 1 to 2).

The Perceptual Segregation Index S for interviewee i toward cul-tural group j was then calculated as following, with the index’s val-ues ranging from 0.125 (inclusion) to 1 (exclusion).

Sij ¼ 1=ðLij � ð1þ kij þ Pij þ EijÞÞ:

Results

Perceptions of territorial boundaries were examined in thisanalysis according to two dimensions: personal territorial bound-aries and cultural group territorial boundaries (both based on thesubjects’ sketch maps). A strong relationship was found betweenthe perceived personal territories and activity space. Calculationsof the GPS data indicate that the subjects stayed, on average, with-in their personal territorial boundaries 94% of the time. This is alsoapparent when looking at each subject’s tracks and activity nodes.They were, for the most part, restricted to the perceived personalterritorial boundaries. The traversing of territorial boundarieswas limited.

Table 1 shows the percentage of time spent within the personalterritory by each cultural group.

This table indicates that there were almost no meaningful dif-ferences between cultural groups. The difference that was foundcan be explained by two ultra-orthodox Jewish women who de-fined their place of work to be outside of their personal territorialboundaries. However, when neutralizing the duration of timespent by each subject at her home, a place ‘‘automatically’’ identi-fied to be within her personal territorial boundaries, a differencebetween the secular Jewish participants and the other subjectswas revealed. Even when they were outside of their homes, thesecular Jewish subjects still operated within the boundaries oftheir personal territories, whereas the ultra-orthodox Jews’ andPalestinian-Muslims’ movements was often in areas defined to beoutside of their personal territorial boundaries.

Fig. 2 shows an example of the typical overlap between the per-sonal territory (marked in green) and activity (marked in black) ofa secular Jewish subject.

In order to reach a greater understanding of the participants’cognitive space, it was important to examine the relationship be-tween personal territory and cultural group territory, as expressedin the sketch maps.

As shown in Table 2, in eight of the eighteen cases, the per-ceived personal territory was completely contained within the per-ceived cultural group territory. The sketch maps of the remainingsubjects showed that they expressed a sense of personal belongingto territories which they did not perceive as belonging to their owncultural group territory. These areas correlated most with areas de-fined as being joint: shopping and entertainment areas (e.g., theindustrial estate in Talpiot for Palestinian-Muslim participants),symbolic areas (the old city for all of the participants), open spaces(e.g., Gan Saker park for ultra-orthodox Jews), workplaces (e.g., HarHotzvim, a high-tech industrial area for ultra-orthodox Jewish par-ticipants) and urban centers such as hospitals and universities.

Fig. 2. An example of the typical overlap between the personal territories (marked in green) and activity (marked in black) of a secular Jewish subject. (For interpretation ofthe references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 2The association between the subjects’ personal territory and cultural group territory.

The relationship between personal territory and cultural-ethnic territory Ultra-orthodox Jewish Palestinian-Muslim Secular Jewish

The personal territory is completely contained within the cultural group territory 2 1 5The personal territory is partially contained within the cultural group territory 4 5 1

M. Greenberg Raanan, N. Shoval / Cities 36 (2014) 28–40 33

There were only a few cases in which residential neighborhoodswere marked as belonging to the subjects’ personal territory, butwere beyond their cultural group territory. An example of such acase is the neighborhood of Bayit Vegan, marked by a secular Jew-ish subject as a Jewish ultra-orthodox enclave in terms of the group

territory, but as part of their personal territory, because of beingpart of the adjacent secular Jewish territory.

Table 2 implies that for minority groups in Jerusalem, the con-ceptual boundaries between ethnic-cultural territories are moreflexible.

Table 3The percentage of time spent within the subjective cultural territory by each cultural group.

Cultural territories Secular Jews Ultra-orthodox Jews Muslim Total

The number ofrelevantsubjectsa

% of timespent outsideof home

% oftotaltime

The number ofrelevantsubjectsa

% of timespent outsideof home

% oftotaltime

The number ofrelevantsubjectsa

% of timespent outsideof home

% oftotaltime

Secular Jewish area 6 79.4 93.5 6 13.5 3.9 4 6.9 1.0 32.0Ultra-orthodox Jewish

area4 1.0 0.4 5 40.5 70.7 2 0.8 0.1 23.7

Palestinian-Arab area 2 0.2 0.1 3 0.1 0.1 6 56.9 88.2 29.8Joint Palestinian-Arab

and secular Jewisharea

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.5 0.8 0.3

Joint Secular and ultra-orthodox Jewish area

0 0 0 4 26.2 20.5 2 4.7 1.8 7.4

Joint ultra-orthodoxJewish andPalestinian-Arab area

0 0 0 2 0.4 0.1 1 5.4 2.2 0.8

Areas joint for allcultural groups

1 15.2 4.3 5 15.7 3.6 2 0.6 0.3 2.7

Undefined 5 4.2 1.8 5 3.6 1.2 6 22.1 5.6 3.3

Total 100 100 100 100

a This refers to subjects who marked this category on the map and spent time in it. This is actually the number of subjects that contributed to the data in that row in thetable.

34 M. Greenberg Raanan, N. Shoval / Cities 36 (2014) 28–40

While the findings reported above address the associations be-tween (a) perceived personal territory and spatial behavior, andbetween (b) perceived personal territory and subjective culturalterritory, the missing piece of the puzzle is the relationship be-tween spatial behavior and subjective cultural territory, which ispresented in the following table (see Table 3).

The results in this table are consistent with the common refer-ence to Jerusalem as a divided and polarized city. The participantshardly entered the territories which they perceived to belong toother cultural groups. The most pronounced spatial separationswere found between Jews and Arabs. In addition, the ultra-ortho-dox Jews were inclined to define areas as mixed areas, as opposedto their secular counterparts who tended to view areas as homog-enous. Relative to the secular Jews in this study, the ultra-orthodoxJews and Palestinian-Muslims spent less time within their owncultural territory when outside of their homes. This is most likelydue to the dominant relationship between social majorities andminorities. Minority groups are often dependent on the majority’sterritory for employment, shopping, and services.

Observing the activities of subjects outside of their homesemphasizes the asymmetry between the different cultural groups.Ultra-orthodox Jews spent considerable time within the secular

Table 4The Perceptual Segregation Index.

Social-Ethnic Identity Average on the Spatial SegregationIndex – secular space

AvInd

Secular Jewish 0.5Palestinian Muslim 0.13 0.6Ultra-orthodox Jewish 0.11

Table 5The number of subjects who deviated from their cultural territory according to the circumsfrom the GPS data).

Reason for deviation No. of ultra-orthodoxparticipants

No. ofparticip

Crossing through 4Work/study 2 1Entertainment and shopping 5 3

Jewish territory, whereas secular Jews hardly spent any time with-in the ultra-orthodox Jewish territories.

The Palestinian-Muslim subjects spent a considerable amountof time in areas which they did not define as being part of any cul-tural group, and which were commonly referred to as secular Jew-ish areas by others. This was mainly due to their lack of knowledgeof the Jewish areas and their inability to distinguish between ultra-orthodox Jewish territories and secular Jewish territories. The sec-ular Jewish subjects appeared to be the most segregated groupboth according to their spatial behavior and according to their per-ceptions. They were less prone to defining areas as being culturallyand ethnically shared than the other groups.

These results indicate a relatively close relationship betweenspatial segregation and perceptual segregation, as indicated bythe Perceptual Segregation Index (Table 4). Results relating to thePerceptual Segregation Index, presented in the following table, re-veal a high level of perceptual segregation among ultra-orthodoxJews and Palestinian-Muslims toward each other, a moderate levelof perceptual segregation among secular Jews toward the othertwo communities, and a low level of perceptual segregation amongultra-orthodox Jews and Palestinian-Muslims towards the secularJewish territory.

erage on the Spatial Segregationex – Ultra-orthodox space

Average on the Spatial SegregationIndex – Arab-Palestinian space

2 0.413

0.67

tances which led to the deviation (combines information from the activity diaries and

Muslimants

No. of secular Jewishparticipants

Total no. of participantswho deviated

6 130 32 10

Fig. 3. The secular Jewish subjects’ aggregated GPS data.

Table 6The percentage of time spent in cultural territories according to the Jerusalem Institute map.

Secular Jewish Ultra-orthodox Jewish Palestinian Muslim

% of time spentoutside of home

% of totaltime

% of time spentoutside of home

% of totaltime

% of time spentoutside of home

% of totaltime

% of time spent in secular space 98.38 99.48 50.43 27.82 60.32 13.9% of time spent in ultra-orthodox space 0.69 0.25 47.8 71.35 0.03 0.01% of time spent in Arab-Palestinian space 0.93 0.27 1.77 0.83 39.65 86.09

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

M. Greenberg Raanan, N. Shoval / Cities 36 (2014) 28–40 35

36 M. Greenberg Raanan, N. Shoval / Cities 36 (2014) 28–40

In light of the prominent tendency to stay within cultural ethnicterritories, it is important to examine the circumstances underwhich subjects deviated from their own territories.

Table 5 shows that crossing through areas which were outsideof the subjects’ cultural territory was the most common deviation.According to the subjects’ interviews, this type of deviation fromtheir cultural territory held no significance for them. Travellingoutside of their cultural areas for entertainment, shopping andemployment reasons occurred less. As in the previous table, ul-tra-orthodox Jews tended to leave their cultural territory morethan the other groups (mainly into the secular Jewish territory).

Fig. 4. The Palestinian-Muslim su

Spatial segregation

As this is a pilot study, these findings are based on a small sam-ple and are, therefore, not conclusively representative of Jerusa-lem’s population. However, the importance of these findings liesin demonstrating the methodological possibilities which were ex-plored in this study.

The subjects mostly operated within their own perceived cul-tural group territory, suggesting a high level of segregation be-tween the different communities. The use of perceptions to

bjects’ aggregated GPS data.

M. Greenberg Raanan, N. Shoval / Cities 36 (2014) 28–40 37

define cultural group territories means that the data analysis re-ported above was based on subjective sketch maps.

A more ‘‘objective’’ way of looking at cultural territories in Jeru-salem is by defining them according to a residential ethno-culturaldivision map, based on the map produced by the Jerusalem Insti-tute for Israel Studies (see Fig. 1). Examining the activity spacesof the subjects with reference to this map reveals the same findingsconcerning their segregation patterns, as shown in Table 6.

The secular Jewish subjects appeared to be completely segre-gated within their own territories, while the ultra-orthodox Jewsand Palestinian-Muslims were very active within the secular Jew-ish territories, but avoided each other’s territories.

Fig. 5. The Jewish ultra-orthodox s

The ‘‘institutional map’’ tended to define areas which were per-ceived as being complex or joint activity spaces as secular Jewishterritories, thus underscoring the Palestinian-Muslims’ and ultra-orthodox Jews’ activity within the secular Jewish territory. In fact,according to this map, most of the ultra-orthodox Jews’ and Pales-tinian-Muslims’ activities, which were outside of their homes, tookplace in the secular Jewish territory.

When looking at each group’s aggregated GPS data, with refer-ence to the ‘‘institutional map’’, both the spatial segregation ofeach group and the deviations into the secular Jewish territorywere evident (Figs. 3–5).

ubjects’ aggregated GPS data.

38 M. Greenberg Raanan, N. Shoval / Cities 36 (2014) 28–40

Discussion and conclusions

This study examined the relationships between perceptions ofspace and actual activity patterns, demonstrated on the city ofJerusalem. The research methodology included sketch maps, in-depth interviews, and tracking technologies, a combination thatmade it possible to examine concepts that reside between spaceand identity. Combining these methods of data collection, on theone hand, provided verification of the reliability of the data col-lected, and on the other hand, enabled a thorough analysis and abroader perspective, because in many ways the different datasources complemented each other.

Interpretations of the city, which were given by the differentparticipants through sketch maps and in-depth interviews, oftenrevealed very similar perceptions between the cultural groups.They also revealed, however, personal preferences and tendencies.As described below, the overall picture which emerges from theseinterpretations is less of a city divided by three populations, andmore of a city with a common central area in which the secularpopulation tends to retreat, sided by two separate polarized terri-tories where the ultra-orthodox Jewish community and the Pales-tinian-Arab community resides.

The results of this study indicate that the formation of territo-rial boundaries coincides with everyday practices in the city andis part of the territorialisation and appropriation of space. This isdemonstrated by the high percentage of time spent by the subjectswithin their personal territorial boundaries, and the momentarycrossing of foreign territories, which was the main reason for devi-ation from perceived personal territories. The existence of activitynodes (anchor points) outside of personal territorial boundarieswas relatively rare.

The examination of the subjects’ GPS data when outside of theirhomes indicated a difference between the populations: while thesecular Jewish subjects appeared to operate within the boundariesof their personal territories, the ultra-orthodox Jews’ and Palestin-ian-Muslims’ movements were often in areas defined to be outsideof their personal territorial boundaries. This may be explained bythe close relationships between the personal and cultural groupterritories.

An examination of the actual deviations of the subjects fromtheir perceived cultural territory, based on information from theactivity diaries and the GPS data, appears to show that the mainexception, which the subjects usually perceived as insignificant,was the brief crossing of cultural ethnic space while travelling.Slightly less frequent was the presence of ultra-orthodox Jewishwomen, for the most part, in the secular Jewish territory or sharedterritories for purposes including entertainment, shopping, work,and study. Some Palestinian-Muslim subjects also engaged in theseactivities in territories identified as being secular Jewish territories,and some of them stated explicitly that Ramallah was a preferableoption in terms of recreation and shopping activities than Jerusa-lem. It is interesting to note that the crossing of borders by minor-ity groups appeared to be mainly for recreational activities and notfor forced reasons.

In addition to marking their own personal territory, each sub-ject was asked to divide the city into cultural territories. In manycases, the cultural group territory contained and overlapped withthe personal territory. In other words, a substantial part of eachsubject’s perceived personal territory may be explained by theircultural group territory. This phenomenon is reminiscent of Hurta-do’s (1996) assertion regarding the dominant role of social identityin creating structures connected to the perception and use of space.

When focusing on activity outside of the subjects’ homes, it wassalient that the secular Jewish subjects were active within theirown cultural group territory, while ultra-orthodox Jews and Pales-tinian-Muslims divided their time between their cultural territory

and the secular Jewish territory, or territories defined by them asjoint or shared. It should be noted that while shared territorieswere defined by almost all of the participants (although some re-ferred only to the Old City as such), it was primarily ultra-orthodoxJews who actually used these spaces. In fact, one ultra-orthodoxJewish woman spent her entire time in territories she defined assecular or shared. In contrast, only one secular Jewish womanspent time in a shared territory, since her place of work was lo-cated there.

These findings indicate fundamentally different conceptions ofshared or joint territories among the three different groups in thisstudy. While the ultra-orthodox Jews and Palestinian-Muslimssubjects may have claimed territories for themselves by definingthem as ‘‘shared’’, the secular Jews were blind to the two other cul-tural groups, and, if they were even aware of them, tended to per-ceive them as not belonging to or invading their cultural territory.This dichotomist and one-dimensional reading of the space dem-onstrated by the secular Jewish participants might also explaintheir higher presence in areas defined by them as secular. Anothercommon explanation is the effect of power relations betweenmajority and minority groups on the use of space. Minority groupsare often dependent on the majority group’s territory in areas ofemployment, shopping and services, since many such functionsare positioned only within this territory. In comparison, the secularJewish women did not need to leave their cultural ethnic territory– since it provided them with all of their needs. In support of thisnotion, findings indicated that for five out of six of the secular Jew-ish subjects, their perceived personal territory was completelyincorporated within their perceived cultural territory.

The conflictual understandings of shared space coincides withValentines (2008) critique of urban encounters. She underminesthe assumptions that contact with ‘others’ necessarily translatesinto respect for difference. Furthermore, these results can beunderstood in accordance with the Holland, Clark, Katz, andPeace’s, 2007 suggestion that different groups coexist and even ob-serve one another in public spaces in the city but are self-segre-gated within particular spaces. The findings of this researchreinforce the need to further understand the concept of sharedspace in divided cities, because the same space can be read andexperienced very differently between majority and minoritygroups and within each of the groups. It can be understood as aspace providing opportunities for encounters between strangers(Valentine, 2008), a space of interdependence that develops inter-cultural understanding (Amin & Parkinson, 2002) and a space of‘domestic cosmopolitanism’ to signal that cosmopolitanismemerges from engagements with otherness, (Nava, 2006). Whileat the same time it can be experienced as a segregated space or aspace of conflict and withdrawal.

The Perceptual Segregation Index results indicated a high levelof perceptual segregation among the ultra-orthodox Jews and thePalestinian-Muslims toward each other, a medium level of percep-tual segregation among the secular Jews towards the other twocommunities, and a low level of perceptual segregation amongthe ultra-orthodox Jews and Palestinian-Muslims towards the sec-ular Jewish territory.

In general, there was a sweeping uniformity in the subjects’expressions of warmth, safety and belonging toward their own ter-ritory. Nonetheless, some ultra-orthodox Jewish and Palestinian-Muslim women expressed discomfort regarding their own terri-tory due to differences in religiosity.

An analysis of explicit references made during the interviewsshowed that, symmetrically, the ultra-orthodox Jews tended to re-late very negatively to the Arab areas and the Palestinian-Muslimstended to relate very negatively to the ultra-orthodox Jewishspaces. Both groups of subjects expressed an overwhelming senseof fear and lack of knowledge regarding each other’s territories.

M. Greenberg Raanan, N. Shoval / Cities 36 (2014) 28–40 39

When the participants were able to identify the other group’sspaces, they usually marked these spaces on the sketch maps asareas of discomfort.

In this context, the phenomenon of there being a mutual lack ofknowledge among Arabs and Jews of each other’s spaces should beconsidered. Romann (1984) attributed this phenomenon to segre-gation, which causes each group to primarily recognize its own ter-ritory. This phenomenon was reflected by the Palestinian Muslimsubjects, who marked a high proportion of areas as ‘‘undefined’’in their sketch maps, and by their inability to distinguish betweenultra-orthodox areas and secular Jewish areas. The Jewish subjectsalso showed ignorance regarding the Arab areas, although theywere able to identify them as such, according to their names.

The subjects operated primarily within their own perceived cul-tural group territories, suggesting a high level of spatial segregationbetween the different communities. The secular Jews appeared tobe completely segregated within their own territory, while the ul-tra-orthodox Jews and Palestinian-Muslims were very active withinthe secular Jewish territory, but avoided one another’s territories.An analysis of their activity with reference to the Jerusalem Insti-tute Map suggests that most of the time that ultra-orthodox Jewsand Palestinian-Muslims spent outside of their homes took placein the secular Jewish territories. These findings can be understoodin line with research that showed that segregation levels in theemployment space were lower than that in the residential space(Blumen & Zamir, 2001; Ellis et al., 2004; Estlund, 2003).

In this study, a high correlation was found between each culturalgroup’s average score on the Perceptual Segregation Index and thefindings regarding spatial segregation. The high perceptual segrega-tion among ultra-orthodox Jews and Palestinian Muslims towardeach other was in almost complete accordance with the spatial seg-regation found between these groups. The low perceptual segrega-tion among the ultra-orthodox Jews and Palestinian Muslimstoward the secular Jewish territories was in line with the significantamount of time which they spent within those areas.

The association between perceptual segregation and spatialsegregation is not always obvious. Although an individual’s opin-ions and perceptions are actually affected by their spatial behavior,and vice versa, spatial constraints are also realistic factors to con-sider when dealing with spatial segregation. For example, in herstudy, Goldhaber (2004) found that the Arabs living in Jaffa havea low level of territorial segregation, whereas the level of their per-ceptual segregation was high. A different approach can be found inValentine and Waite (2012) research that showed that people em-ploy strategies for separating their beliefs from their everyday con-duct, attempting to create and manage spaces of coexistencedespite the potential for conflict.

The research findings strengthen the claims made in recentstudies on segregation which challenge the assumptions that theexperience of space is identical for all individuals (Farber et al.,2012). This research shows that an individual may experience dif-ferent levels of segregation in different socio-geographical spaces,and thereby reveals the processes of mutual constitution of the so-cial and the spatial. The importance placed in this research onfocusing on the individual’s everyday spatial activities accordswith Valentine’s appeal to pay more attention to the intersection-ality of multiple identities (and not just to ethnicity). The researchcan thereby enable a better understanding of the complex ways inwhich power operates regarding sociospatial inequalities (Valen-tine, 2007).

The methodology developed in this research can expand the po-tential of investigating the temporal and spatial complexity of peo-ple’s behavior. This research coincides with recent researchmethods that reveal many important characteristics of thespace–time activity patterns of different population subgroups inrelation to the concrete urban environment. Lee and Kwan’s

(2011) visualization methods, for example, focus on the under-standing of socio-spatial isolation using activity spaces and socialnetworks. As this study demonstrates, these methods help us gaininsight into the everyday life of a particular place and time on anindividual level.

In summary, this analysis of sketch-maps and spatial patterns ofresidential daily activities challenges prevailing notions about thespatial structure of the city and the internal power relations be-tween the populations that inhabit it. This study shows how sub-jects’ personal perceptions and spatial interactions reveal theirpersonal interpretation of the city and maintain a dialectical rela-tionship with the concept of a divided and polarized city. On theone hand, these perceptions and spatial interactions strengthenthe existing feelings of segregation, while, on the other hand, theystretch and blur the conventional boundaries. The methodologyused in this study, incorporating several methods of data collectionand analysis, enabled a wide perspective and in-depth analysis ofrelatively complex concepts, such as territoriality, segregationand sense of security. This research can connect and illuminatethe different dimensions of socio-spatial integration as developedin the work of Ruiz-Tagle (2012). However, continued research isneeded on a larger scale, examining a greater number of subjectsover a longer period of time, in order to strengthen the conclusionsand provide greater evidence of their credibility and to allow amore in-depth and broader look at the different populations partic-ipating in this research.

References

Alfasi, N., & Fenster, T. (2005). A Tale of two cities: Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in the ageof globalization. Cities, 22(5), 351–363.

Alfasi, N., Flint Ashery, S., & Benenson, I. (2012). Between the individual and thecommunity: Residential patterns of the Haredi population in Jerusalem.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 1468–2427.

Amin, A., & Parkinson, M. (2002). Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living withdiversity. Environment and planning A, 34(6), 959–980.

Blumen, Orna (2007). The gendered display of work: The midday scene in anUltraOrthodox Street in Israel. Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women’s Studies &Gender Issues, 123–154.

Blumen, O., & Zamir, I. (2001). Two social environments in a working day:Occupation and spatial segregation in metropolitan Tel Aviv. Environment andPlanning A, 33(10), 1765–1784.

Boal, F. W. (1987). Segregation. In M. Pachione (Ed.), Social geography, progress andprospect (pp. 90–128). London: Croom Helm.

Bollens, S. A. (1998a). Urban planning amidst ethnic conflict: Jerusalem andJohannesburg. Urban Studies, 35, 729–750.

Bollens, S. A. (1998b). Urban policy in ethnically polarized societies. InternationalPolitical Science Review, 19, 187–215.

Bondi, L., & Rose, D. (2003). Constructing gender, constructing the urban: A reviewof Anglo-American feminist urban geography. Gender, Place and Culture: AJournal of Feminist Geography, 10(3), 229–245.

Brooks, R. D. (Ed.). (2007). The wall: Fragmenting the Palestinian fabric in Jerusalem.Jerusalem: International Peace and Cooperation Center.

Carter, H. (1981). The study of urban geography. London: Edward Arnold.Chesin, S. Amir., Hutman, B., & Melame, A. (1999). Separate and unequal: The inside

story of Israeli rule in East Jerusalem. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Chiodelli, F. (2013). Re-shaping Jerusalem: The transformation of Jerusalem’s

metropolitan area by the Israeli barrier. Cities, 31, 417–424.Choshen, M., & Korach, M. (2010). Jerusalem: Facts and trends 2009/2010. The

Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. <http://www.jiis.org>.Churchman, A. (2000). Women and the environment: Questioned and unquestioned

assumptions. In J. Wapner, T. Demick, H. Yamamoto, C. Minami, & T. Yamamoto(Eds.), Theoretical perspectives in environment–behaviour research (pp. 89–106).London: Plenum.

Couclelis, H., Golledge, R. G., Gale, N., & Tober, W. (1987). Exploring the anchor-point hypothesis of spatial cognition. Journal of Environment Psychology, 7,99–122.

De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Dijst, M. (1999). Two-earner families and their action spaces: A case study of twoDutch communities. GeoJournal, 48, 195–206.

Downs, R., & Stea, D. (Eds.). (1973). Image and environment: Cognitive mapping andspatial behavior. Chicago: Aldine.

Ellis, M., Wright, R., & Parks, V. (2004). Work together, live apart? Geographies ofracial and ethnic segregation at home and at work. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers, 94(3), 620–637.

40 M. Greenberg Raanan, N. Shoval / Cities 36 (2014) 28–40

Estlund, C. L. (2003). Working together: How workplace bonds strengthen a diversedemocracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Farber, S., Páez, A., & Morency, C. (2012). Activity spaces and the measurement ofclustering and exposure: A case study of linguistic groups in Montreal.Environment and Planning – Part A, 44(2), 315.

Fenster, T. (1998). Ethnicity, citizenship and gender: Expressions and planning –Ethiopian immigrant women in Israel. Gender, Place, Culture, 5, 177–189.

Fenster, T. (1999). Space for gender: Cultural roles of the forbidden and thepermitted. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 17, 227–246.

Fenster, T. (2004). The global city and the holy city: Narratives on planning, knowledge,and diversity. London: Pearson.

Garling, T., & Golledge, R. G. (2000). Cognitive mapping and spatial decision making.In R. Kitchin & S. Freundschuh (Eds.), Cognitive mapping: Past, present and future(pp. 44–65). London: Routledge.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age.Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Gold, J. R. (1980). An introduction to behavioral geography. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Goldhaber, R. (2004). Paterns of segregation in terms of marginal exclusion: A casestudy of the Arabs in Jaffa, PhD dissertation. Department of Geography, Tel AvivUniversity.

Golledge, R. G., & Stimson, R. J. (1997). Spatial behavior: A geographic perspective.New York: Guilford Press.

Golledge, R. G., & Timmermans, H. (1990). Applications of behavioral research onspatial problems, I: Cognition. Progress in Human Geography, 14(1), 57–99.

Gonen, A., & Hasson, S. (1997). The cultural tension within Jerusalem’s Jewishpopulation. Jerusalem: The Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies (inHebrew).

Harvey, D. (1989). The urban experience. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins UniversityPress.

Hasson, S. (2001). Territories and identities in Jerusalem. GeoJournal, 53, 311–322.Häußermann, H., & Siebel, W. (2001). Integration and segregation: Thoughts on an

old debate. German Journal of Urban Studies 40.1 [WWW document]. <http://www.difu.de/publikationen/integration-and-the-city.html-3> Accessed08.07.13.

Holland, C., Clark, A., Katz, J., & Peace, S. (2007). Social interactions in urban publicplaces. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Hurtado, A. (1996). The color of privilege: Three blasphemies on race and feminism.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Jacobs, J., & Fincher, R. (1998). Introduction. In R. Fincher & J. M. Jacobs (Eds.), Citiesof difference (pp. 1–25). New York: Guilford.

Jones, M., & Pebley, A. (2012, May). Redefining neighborhoods using commondestinations: Social characteristics of activity spaces and home census tractscompared. In Presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association ofAmerica, San Francisco. <http://paa2012.princeton.edu/papers/120246>.

Kern, L. (2005). In Place and at home in the city: Connecting privilege, safety andbelonging for women in Toronto. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of FeministGeography, 12(3), 357–377.

Khamaisi, R. (2008). Between competition and integration: The formation of adislocated and distorted urbanized region in Jerusalem. In International Peaceand Cooperation Center (Ed.), Jerusalem and its Hinterland (pp. 67–87).Jerusalem: The International Peace and Cooperation Center.

Kimchi, Y. (2008). The operational and metropolitan framework of Jerusalem. In O.Ahimeir & Y. Bar-Siman-Tov (Eds.), Forty years in Jerusalem 1967–2007(pp. 11–21). Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies.

Kimhi, I. (Ed.). (2006). The security fence around Jerusalem: Implications for the cityand its residents. Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies.

Kitchin, R., & Blades, M. (2002). The cognition of geographic space. London: TaurisPublishers.

Klein, M. (1999). Doves in Jerusalem sky: The peace process and the city 1977–1999.Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies.

Koskela, H. (1997). ’Bold walk and breakings’: Women’s spatial confidence versusfear of violence. Gender, Place and Culture, 4, 301–319.

Koskela, H., & Pain, R. (2000). Revisiting fear and place: Women’s fear of attack inthe built Environment. Geoforum, 31, 269–280.

Kwan, M. P. (2007). Mobile communications, social networks, and urban travel:Hypertext as a new metaphor for conceptualizing spatial interaction. TheProfessional Geographer, 59, 434–446.

Kwan, M. P., & Lee, J. (2004). Geovisualisation of human activity patterns using 3DGIS: A timegeographic approach. In M. F. Goodchild & D. G. Janelle (Eds.),Spatially integrated social science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lee, J. Y., & Kwan, M. P. (2011). Visualisation of socio-spatial isolation based onhuman activity patterns and social networks in space–time. Tijdschrift vooreconomische en sociale geografie, 102(4), 468–485.

Lefebvre, H. (1974). La production de l’espace, The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, 1991, Trans.). Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.

Listerborn, C. (2002). Understanding the geography of women’s fear. In L. Bondi, H.Avis, R. Bankey, A. Bingley, J. Davidson, R. Duffy, V. I. Einagel, A. M. Green, L.Johnston, S. Lilley, C. Listerborn, M. Marshy, S. McEwan, N. O’Connor, G. Rose, B.Vivat, & N. Wood (Eds.), Subjectivities, knowledges, and feminist geographies(pp. 34–43). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Lloyd, R., & Ader, R. (1980). A cognitive model for recreational spatial behavior in anurban area. South-Eastern Geographer, 20, 145–159.

Lloyd, R., & Steinke, T. (1986). The identification of regional boundaries on cognitivemaps. Professional Geographer, 38, 149–159.

Lysaght, K., & Basten, A. (2003). Violence, fear and the everyday: Negotiating spatialpractices in the city of Belfast. In E. Stanko (Ed.), The meaning of violence(pp. 224–243). London: Routledge.

Mackenzie, S., & Rose, D. (1983). Industrial change, the domestic economy andhome life. In J. Anderson & R. Hudson (Eds.), Redundant spaces in cities andregions (pp. 155–200). London: Academic Press.

Madanipour, A. (1996). Design of urban space: An inquiry into a socio-spatial process.London: Wiley.

McDowell, L. (1983). Towards an understanding of the gender division of urbanspace. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 1, 59–72.

McDowell, L. (1999). Gender, identity and place. Cambridge: Polity Press.Nava, M. (2006). Domestic cosmopolitanism and structures of feeling: The

specificity of London. In N. Yuval-Davis, K. Kannabiran, & U. M. Vieten (Eds.),The situated politics of belonging. London: Sage.

Orleans, P. (1973). Differential cognition of urban residents: Effects of social scaleon mapping. In R. Downs & D. Stea (Eds.), Image and environment: Cognitivemapping and spatial behavior (pp. 115–130). Chicago: Aldine.

Pacione, M. (1978). Information and morphology in cognitive maps. Transactions ofthe institute of British Geographers, 3(4), 548–568.

Pain, R. (1991). Space, sexual violence and social control: Integrating geographicaland feminist analyses of women’s fear of crime. Progress in Human Geography,15, 415–431.

Palmer, J. R., Espenshade, T. J., Bartumeus, F., Chung, C. Y., Ozgencil, N. E., & Li, K.(2012). New approaches to human mobility: Using mobile phones fordemographic research. Demography, 50, 1105–1128.

Park, R. E. (1926). The urban community as a spatial pattern and a moral order.Reprinted In C. Peach (Ed.), (1975). Urban social segregation. London: Longman.

Romann, M. (1984). The inter-relationship between the Jewish and Arab sectors inJerusalem since 1967: Economic and spatial aspects. Jerusalem: The JerusalemInstitute for Israeli Studies (in Hebrew).

Romann, M., & Weingrod, A. (1991). Living together separately: Arabs and Jews incontemporary Jerusalem. Princeton: Princeton university press.

Rose, D. (1993). On feminism, method and methods in human geography: Anidiosyncratic overview. The Canadian Geographer, 37(1), 57–61.

Ruiz-Tagle, J. (2012). A theory of socio-spatial integration: Problems, policies andconcepts from a US perspective. International Journal of Urban and RegionalResearch.

Sandercock, L. (2003). Cosmopolis II mongrel cities of the 21st century. London andNew York: Continuum.

Schnell, I., & Benjamini, Y. (2001). The Socio-spatial isolation of agents in everydaylifespaces as an aspects of segregation. Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers, 91, 622–636.

Schnell, I. (2002). Segregation in everyday life spaces: A conceptual model. In I.Schnell & W. Ostendorf (Eds.), Studies in segregation and desegregation(pp. 39–65). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Schönfelder, S., & Axhausen, K. W. (2004). Structure and innovation of human activityspaces, Arbeitsberichte Verkehrs- und Raumplanung, 258, Institut fürVerkehrsplanung und Transportsysteme (IVT). Zürich: ETH Zürich.

Shevky, E., & Bell, W. (1955). Social area analysis. California: Stanford UniversityPress.

Shilhav, Y. (1991). A ‘Shtetel’ (Small Town) within a modern city – A geography ofsegregation and acceptance. Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies(in Hebrew).

Shlay, A. B., & Rosen, G. (2010). Making place: The shifting green line and thedevelopment of ‘‘greater’’ metropolitan Jerusalem. City & Community, 9(4), 358–389.

Shoval, N. (2008). Tracking technologies and urban analysis. Cities, 25(1), 21–28.Shoval, N., & Isaacson, M. (2006). The application of tracking technologies to the

study of pedestrian spatial behavior. The Professional Geographer, 58(2),172–183.

Shtern, M. (2010). Interaction patterns between Israelis and Palestinians in mixedcommercial zones in Jerusalem. Jerusalem: The Floersheimer Institute for PolicyStudies (in Hebrew).

Soja, W. E. (2000). Postmetropolis. Oxford: Blackwell.Spain, D. (1993). Gendered spaces. Chapell Hill and London: The University of North

Carolina Press.Thornton, P. R., Williams, A. M., & Shaw, G. (1997). Revisiting time–space diaries: An

exploratory case study of tourist behaviour in Cornwall, England. Environmentand Planning A, 29(10), 1847–1867.

Valentine, G. (1990). Women’s fear and the design of public space. BuiltEnvironment, 16, 288–303.

Valentine, G. (2007). Theorizing and researching intersectionality: A challenge forfeminist geography. The Professional Geographer, 59, 10–21.

Valentine, G. (2008). Living with difference: Reflections on geographies ofencounter. Progress in Human Geography, 32(3), 323–337.

Valentine, G., & Waite, L. (2012). Negotiating difference through everydayencounters: The case of sexual orientation and religion and belief. Antipode,44(2), 474–492.

Wilson, E. (2001). The invisible flâneur (revised version). In E. Wilson (Ed.), Thecontradictions of culture: Cities, culture, women (pp. 72–89). London: Sage.

Wirth, L. (1927). The ghetto. American Journal of Sociology, 33(1), 57–71.Wong, D. W., & Shaw, S. L. (2011). Measuring segregation: An activity space

approach. Journal of Geographical Systems, 13(2), 127–145.Zandvliet, R., & Dijst, M. (2006). Short-term dynamics in the use of places: A space–

time typology of visitor populations in the Netherlands. Urban Studies, 43(7),1159–1176.