Mobility, Sharing and Segregation in Belfast: Policy Report

Brendan Sturgeon, Neil Jarman, Dominic Bryan, John Dixon, Duncan Whyatt, Bree T. Hocking, Jonny Huck, Gemma Davies and Colin Tredoux Published January 2020

Institute for Confict Research North City Business Centre 2 Duncairn Gardens Belfast BT15 2GG

Tel: 028 90742682 Email: [email protected]

Web: www.confictresearch.org.uk belfastmobilityproject.org/index.html

The Belfast Mobility Project was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, under grant reference: ES/L016583/1.

Design and production: Three Creative Company Ltd. Tel: 028 9048 3388 Email: [email protected] BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Contents

About the Authors 4

Acknowledgements 4

Foreword by Frederick W. Boal 5

Executive Summary 7

Chapter 1: Introduction 10

Chapter 2: North Belfast – A Divided Landscape 16

Chapter 3: North Belfast – A Shared Landscape 36

Chapter 4: Belfast City Centre 48

Bibliography 55

3 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

About the Authors

Brendan Sturgeon is a Researcher at the Bree T. Hocking was until recently a Institute for Confict Research, an NGO Research Associate in the School of located in North Belfast. His research Psychology at the Open University. An interests include segregation and policing independent scholar, her work focuses on in post-confict societies. spatial politics, identity, public art and the anthropology of tourism in post-industrial/ Neil Jarman is Director of the Institute post-confict landscapes. for Confict Research. His research has focused on issues such as street violence, Jonny Huck is a Lecturer in GIS at the disputes over parades, management of University of Manchester. His research public order, police reform, racist and interests focus around geospatial software homophobic violence and human rights. development and the collection and analysis of geographical information from Dominic Bryan is Professor of the public. Anthropology at Queen’s University Belfast. His research interests include the politics of Gemma Davies is a GIS Offcer in rituals and symbols in Northern Ireland. Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University. Her research interests cover John Dixon is Professor of Psychology several areas of applied GIS, including at the Open University. His work focuses food security; journey-time exposure to air on the dynamics of intergroup contact, pollution; and mobility. prejudice and segregation in historically divided societies. Colin Tredoux is Professor of Psychology at the University of Cape Town. His work in Duncan Whyatt is a Senior Lecturer in social psychology focuses on intergroup Geographical Information Science (GIS) at contact, social infuence and minimal Lancaster University. His research interests group network experiences. span practical applications of geospatial technologies across human and physical geography.

Acknowledgements

The research team wish to thank the 520 people from across North Belfast who participated in the Belfast Mobility Project. We are very grateful for their contribution to our study.

In addition, we wish to pass on our gratitude to the project’s advisory group who offered important observations regarding the overall direction the study should adopt. Thanks also to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) for the funding that enabled the Belfast Mobility Project to take place (ESRC grant reference: ES/L016583/1).

We hope that the fndings offer a valuable insight into how people residing in North Belfast feel about a variety of issues associated with their local area, including: the degree of community segregation that exists in North Belfast and the related way in which people navigate their associated neighbourhoods and facilities.

4 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Foreword

Many elements in the city, and in winning novel Milkman: “You were left particular the people and their activities, with a curtailed [jogging] route owing to are as important as the physical parts. religious geography.” (Kevin Lynch 1960) The data for the Shankill-Falls study were Where we sleep is the basic census gathered by face-to-face interviews with measure of location. But people spend a a sample of residents. All the analysis was great deal of time moving around away carried out by hand, the only additional from the home base – they go to shop, equipment being a small electric calculator. to school, to work, to visit other folk, for The Belfast Mobility Project (BMP) Report entertainment and much more. When summarises the methods and fndings we look at census maps of Belfast, we of a survey carried out in North Belfast in see patterns of residential segregation 2016, almost 50 years after the Shankill- and mixing. When we look at people’s Falls investigation. There are fundamental movement, we see varying patterns of similarities between both the methodology activity segregation and mixing. and the fndings of the two studies. However, there are also important differences. Firstly, The distinction between residential BMP has brought to bear a much wider segregation and activity segregation range of techniques (most notably the Belfast was the key motivating factor for a study Pathways app, refecting the digital age I carried out in 1968 in a small part we now live in and certainly something not of the Falls and Shankill areas of west available in the late 1960s.) Secondly, BMP Belfast. The fndings of this research were has covered a much more extensive swathe published in the journal Irish Geography of territory than was the case in the earlier in 1969. We found that two groups study. Thirdly, BMP provides a focus on the of people (Catholics and Protestants) city centre that was entirely absent from the not only did not live in the same Shankill-Falls project. And fnally, BMP has a neighbourhoods, they also did not move much stronger policy emphasis. around in the same areas. Moreover, they had clear ideas about where the That said, my 1968 study did not entirely boundaries of their neighbourhoods neglect policy matters. I think it would were to be found. It could be said that the be true to say that both studies share people interviewed had mental maps that an unease about the degree of activity served like nautical charts guiding their segregation disclosed, but when it navigation of the area. As the American comes to suggesting appropriate policy architect/planner Kevin Lynch put it as far responses that would lead to a reduction in back as 1960, “every citizen has had long this segregation, I fear that the conclusion associations with some part of his city, I reached 50 years ago still stands. My and his image is soaked in memories and conclusion took the form of a quote from meanings.” an American sociologist, Herbert Gans. Writing in 1967 (at least with reference Much closer to home, consider these two to the US context) he concluded “plans quotations and their strong navigational and policies aimed at changing peoples’ content. First, Belfast poet Ciaran behaviour cannot be implemented Carson, in his 1989 book Belfast Confetti, through prescribing alterations in the describing his walk to primary school in the physical community or by directions aimed 1950s: “but remember, never go by Cupar at builders; they must be directed at the Street, my father would warn me.” Second, national sources and agents which bring Anna Burns in her 2018 Man Booker Prize about the present behaviour.”

5 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Fundamentally, in Belfast, it is the residential segregation that anchors and shapes much of the activity segregation. We have made little progress over 50 years in reducing residential segregation. It is therefore not surprising, as the BMP amply demonstrates, that we still experience high degrees of activity segregation. However, beyond the residential spaces, BMP clearly shows the value of the city centre as an arena for cross-community mingling, but one that needs to be carefully nurtured and indeed enhanced. Further, the Report suggests that some lessons from the city centre could, where appropriate, be applied to the activity-segregated neighbourhoods themselves.

So, the bottom line is that the BMP Report provides pointers to possible interventions in urban design and in the management of the visual landscape of our city. These interventions could, at the very least, help underpin and encourage any constructive moves that might (just might) be forthcoming from the overarching political and social environments. Indeed, a bit of mutually supportive positive feedback could achieve a great deal.

Frederick W. Boal Professor Emeritus of Human Geography, The Queen’s University of Belfast

6 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Executive Summary

In Northern Ireland, the 1998 Good Friday/ division entrenched within global institutions Belfast Agreement brought an end to the of residence, employment or education. region’s confict, ongoing since the late The Belfast Mobility Project contended that 1960s. The agreement, ratifed by 71.1% segregation was the dynamic outcome of the country’s population, included the of individuals’ routine movements as they protection of a number of human rights travelled their city, using its pathways, and equality guarantees. Crucially, it also amenities and activity spaces, thereby provided a blueprint for a power-sharing coming into contact with certain kinds of executive – an institution that would seek people and avoiding others. to bring together representatives from Northern Ireland’s leading political parties To achieve the proposed analysis, the in an Assembly, which would be tasked research team adopted a unique mixed with debating and developing future methods approach to describing and policy initiatives in the region. In the years explaining patterns of activity space following the creation of this institution, segregation, including: moderate parties, such as the Ulster Unionist Party and the Social Democratic 1. A large-scale survey of residents across and Labour Party, who had played an North Belfast; instrumental role in securing the 1998 2. GPS tracking allied with GIS methods agreement, became increasingly side-lined, of data capture, analysis and while the Democratic Unionist Party and representation; Sinn Fein quickly established themselves 3. Walking interviews with selected as the two largest parties in Assembly participants; and elections. A number of unresolved and 4. Use of Spraycan software. contentious issues, left over from the 1998 Agreement, have, however, led to repeated Recruitment for the study would be suspensions of the Assembly. In 2015, focused in North Belfast, an area of the A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement city that features a complicated pattern of and Implementation Plan 2015, looked residential segregation. again at dealing with aspects of the past (including parading), but by January 2017 In this report, our key fndings are the Assembly was completely suspended. summarised under three headings: North In January 2020, as this report is offcially Belfast – A Divided landscape; North released, the Assembly have sat for the frst Belfast – A Shared Landscape and Belfast time in three years and will now attempt to City Centre. overcome disagreements over a standalone Irish Language Act and other aspects of North Belfast – A Divided landscape cultural expression. • Based on analysis of over 20 million It was within this complicated dynamic GPS tracking points, we found that that researchers involved in the Belfast participants spent most of their time in Mobility Project aimed to assess the nature their own communities and little time in of segregation between the region’s two ‘outgroup’ areas – locations associated main community identity groups, Protestants with the ‘other’ community. and Catholics. To do so, the research team • Activity space segregation was marked proposed an innovative methodological in ‘public’ spaces that would ordinarily framework that would seek to surpass be sites for mixing. For example, the way previous research has studied parks are typically conceived as being segregation, which has commonly been quintessentially open and inclusive focused on (relatively) stable patterns of

7 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

facilities designed for members of all • For both Catholic and Protestant communities to enjoy freely. However, respondents, greater self-reported our walking interview data suggests willingness to use activity spaces the use of parks in North Belfast is beyond their own community was often organised along sectarian lines, predicted by factors such as perceived with residents using different access threat to personal safety and the nature points, and sometimes, avoiding areas of their past contact experiences with associated with the ‘other’ community members of the ‘other’ community. completely. • At this point in North Belfast’s Belfast City Centre development, we would describe its parks and comparable facilities as • A fnal line of evidence on the potential ‘liminal spaces’ that are simultaneously sharing of space concerns residents’ public, open spaces and sectarian and use of Belfast city centre. divided spaces. • For the most part, the city centre is • In their everyday lives, local residents now treated as a space of inclusion must negotiate this ‘in between-ness’, and belonging that has historically as they engage in their ordinary daily improved. activities – such as walking their dogs • GPS tracking and survey data for or bringing their children to local play example, suggest that the majority of areas. the city’s central spaces and routes are widely used and perceived as shared North Belfast – A Shared landscape by members of both Catholic and Protestant communities. • Although our tracking data evidenced • However, some residents do continue high levels of activity space segregation to feel unwelcome in certain areas of in North Belfast, we also found that the city centre and worry about that a proportion of both Protestant and they might have negative encounters Catholic residents’ time was spent with members of the ‘other’ community. accessing facilities located in ‘shared’ or ‘mixed’ spaces. Conclusions • These visits tended to occur during the afternoon, between 12pm and 6pm. Our fndings demonstrate that North Belfast The destinations located in shared faces two kinds of mobility problems. One public areas, included: leisure facilities, is the challenge of encouraging people to shopping centres, large retail stores feel safe, comfortable and confdent as they and other spaces of consumption. move through their local area and access • Our questionnaire data provided resources, which is a complicated landscape further evidence that residents’ full of interface barriers and ‘dead-ends’. attitudes towards sectarian segregation The other is the need to better understand may be changing for the better. Many the characteristics of the small number of residents (between 40% and 50% ‘shared’ spaces that exist throughout the across six survey items) expressed area, so that we can attempt to learn the positive feelings about using facilities values of these locations. It is likely that based in or near areas associated the these two problems, of understanding ‘other’ community. the nature of segregation and sharing, are • Perhaps surprisingly, a smaller interwoven and only by carefully refecting percentage of between 23% and 24% on both can we produce more effective expressed clearly negative feelings, and effcient strategies in response to each with between 23% and 26% remaining matter moving forward. undecided.

8 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

From our research fndings, we can draw Belfast. Should something similar be a number of conclusions in relation to held in the north of the city? Or should developing future policy related to sharing festivals like the Mela be rotated around and segregation in North Belfast. the city parks? Or can there be multiple venues for one festival? • Potential: Interventions to promote • Mixed Housing: The promotion of mixing and sharing should be shared housing developments in North aware of the interrelations between Belfast, such as the Felden estate, is intergroup contact, threat and everyday viewed as one way of encouraging mobility practices. Our survey data integration and sharing. But there demonstrates that interventions should be greater awareness of the developed to generate positive contact mixed areas that already exist, and between the two main communities people should not be complacent have the potential to shape how people about their sustainability. There is a use spaces and facilities beyond in- risk that some of the existing mixed group territories, as they can reduce residential areas may become areas feelings of threat related to these in transition and thus move from one locations. In contrast, experiences of community’s ‘ownership’ to another. negative contact are likely to have the • Arterial Routes: The tracking data opposite impact, increasing feelings of demonstrates that people spent a intergroup-threat and segregation of considerable ammount of time moving everyday spaces and pathways in North along arterial routes. While the value Belfast. of such mixing can be questioned, the • Shopping: The data from this study importance of such spaces should not suggests that retail and consumption be discounted, as the proliferation of are key drivers in bringing the two peace walls, industrial buffer zones communities together in one space. We and cul-de-sacs continue to pose should probe in more detail what we problems for how people navigate the can learn from this mixing and consider area. There is scope for investment ways of trying to extend it further. in improving the quality of arterial For instance, could more interface routes through provision of potentially structures be redeveloped into cross shared resources that can be used by community spaces, which could contain pedestrians as well as commuters. retail and other occasions that were • Further Research: The approach used regularly visited by our participants (GP for this study generated fascinating surgery, dentist, etc.)? This type of site insights into how people relate to has already been developed to good their environment and understand the effect in the Suffolk and Lenadoon context of their community. Further interface in West Belfast. Although exploration of these methods can there are examples of this type of facilitate a ‘bottom-up’ analysis of investment failing (e.g. Hillview retail how everyday spaces in Belfast are park), this should not discount the perceived and used by residents. Aside potential of future sites. from facilitating a richer analysis of • Parks: Our tracking data reveals that segregation than is currently being participants spent little time in North offered by other methods, such as Belfast’s parks and green spaces. What Census data mapping, it can provide type of activities/events might be ordinary citizens a sense of ownership promoted in the area’s parks, green and trust regarding the re-design of spaces and associated facilities to their fractured landscape. create more widespread usage? The Belfast Mela has been an enormous success in Botanic Gardens in South

9 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Chapter 1: Introduction

Despite the establishment of a peace The intense division is refected in agreement in Northern Ireland since residents’ mobility patterns, with 1998, a complex pattern of segregation Protestants and Catholics often choosing exists throughout its capital city, Belfast to use different facilities and pathways – between Protestant unionists (who in order to avoid the ‘other’ community have historically supported British rule in (Dixon et al., 2019; Hocking et al, 2018). the area) and Catholic nationalists (who These decisions are made both consciously have historically sought unifcation with and subconsciously, as residents make the Republic of Ireland).1 Segregation is judgements about how they navigate common within many large cities around spaces where the two communities the world (Boal, 1978) and has sometimes intersect (including, arterial routes and been intentionally introduced to regulate spaces of consumption). In some cases, inter-group confict, as was the case in residents may choose a route in reaction Northern Ireland (Boal, 1971). However, to a particular incident or occasion, but it can produce serious and long-lasting equally, decisions may be made simply out damage to the social fabric of a society. of habit and in accordance with the local For instance, studies have identifed community’s pre-established sense of what how a divided landscape can lead to is considered ‘safe’ or ‘unsafe’. sustained patterns of social inequality and deprivation (Massey and Denton, 1993), Shirlow and Murtagh (2006) explain that and intensify intergroup prejudice and there are clear distinctions between the discrimination (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). ‘chosen’ and ‘rejected’ pathways. For instance, the distinct neighbourhoods are The nature of segregation in Northern characterised by symbolic markings, such Ireland has been further sustained and as fags, murals and painted kerbstones, reinforced by the brutal violence that which Komarova and McKnight (2013) characterised the region’s recent period suggest have been used to ‘enclose’ space. of confict between 1969 and 1998. The Consequently, it is generally accepted that distinct rereading and retelling of this residential segregation and the associated period emphasizes the sense of difference sectarian undertones (Roulston and Young, between the two main communities 2013) have a considerable infuence (Hamilton et al, 2008). regarding how people organise their daily routines (Hamilton et al, 2008), even if North Belfast is a microcosm of the evidence directly examining associated broader patterns of division and tension behaviours remains sparse. that exist throughout the capital city and the region of Northern Ireland Mobility patterns in North Belfast more generally (See Figure 1). There are are clearly connected to the issue of signifcant levels of residential segregation community contact, but they are further (both communal and social) throughout infuenced by the area’s related physical the area, whilst long-term residents also infrastructure. Despite North Belfast’s experienced prolifc levels of political striking natural environment, from violence during the peak of the region’s the Cavehill to the Lough, the ‘public confict – leaving a complicated legacy of space’ that exists in North Belfast is ‘leftover’ paramilitary activity (Sterrett et al, often considered to be ‘low quality’ and 2019). ‘unattractive’ – with a general absence of

1 We use the terms ‘Protestant’ and ‘Catholic’ to describe the broad identities of ethno-political groups, not as a specifc reference to religion.

10 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 1. Community segregation in North Belfast

foliage and frequent points of dereliction of the confict (Gormley-Heenan et al, and abandonment (Sterrett et al, 2019). 2013). Several have also been erected (or The physical environment is further increased in size) in the post agreement impacted by urban design, with transport era, as a consequence of local residents corridors (such as the M2 and Westlink) raising concerns about the safety of their and large vacant sites (i.e. Hillview property and wider concerns about low- Enterprise Park and the Little Patrick level episodic violence between the two Street area) impeding the area’s physical main communities (mainly involving young connection to the rest of the city and the people). general visual look of the area.

Belfast is regularly classifed as being in a ‘post confict’ condition, but it remains highly territorialized (Hocking et al, 2018). The physical environment of North Belfast is dominated by the presence of a number of physical interface barriers (often locally referred to as ‘peace walls’ or ‘peace lines’), which were initially installed as a temporary measure during the early stages

11 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Methodology identifed as the primary research area. These were Tigers Bay and New Lodge; In light of North Belfast’s complicated Ardoyne and Glenbryn; Glandore and physical landscape and the on-going Skegoneill; the Greater Whitewell area; tension that exists between the two main and Ballysillan and Ligoniel (See Figure 2). communities, the Belfast Mobility Project Each of the sites selected featured distinct sought to assess how segregation between pockets of Catholic and Protestant housing, and among Protestant and Catholic which could be generally easily identifed areas impacted on the lives of local by the associated symbolic landscape residents. The project aimed to analyse (that regularly featured fags, painted how segregation created by the physical kerbstones and murals). separation of the two communities is re- emphasized by the way residents choose The research project involved a mixed- to navigate their locality and organise methods approach, which included (see daily routines. Five paired sub-sites were Hocking et al, 2018 for more details):

Figure 2. North Belfast – BMP Field Sites © OpenstreetMap Contributors 2019

12 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

• Survey (consisting of 51 questions) - Walking interviews lasted between 45 minutes and two hours and - 520 questionnaires were completed. were recorded and transcribed, while the routes were tracked by - Community background of the smartphone app. A schedule participants: 238 Catholics, 247 of the core questions can be found Protestants and 35 individuals who on the project’s website, see http:// designated themselves as ‘other’. belfastmobilityproject.org/index. html. - Gender breakdown of participants: 306 women, 213 men and 1 individual • Spraycan software who designated as ‘other’. - The Spraycan software allowed - See Sturgeon et al 2019 for a participants to identify and mark report on the survey fndings specifc categories of place, such as and the project’s website (http:// shared spaces, mixed areas or spaces belfastmobilityproject.org/index. to avoid, on a computerised map of html) for the full list of questions used their area before embarking on the and the complete responses. walking interview.

• Tracking residents’ movements using - The individual marked maps were the Belfast Pathways app then aggregated to generate a collective view of public spaces in - 233 local residents downloaded the both North Belfast and Belfast City app for a two-week period. Centre (see Huck et al., 2018 for more details). - The app ran ‘in the background’ on each device and gathered GPS Further Information data on participants’ movement: recording the pathways they took, the The Belfast Mobility Project was funded time they spent in different areas, and by the Economic and Social Research the locations of their destinations. Council and ran between September 2015 and the end of January 2018. The • Walking interviews formal feldwork took place throughout 2016. Some participants were recruited - 33 residents of North Belfast via engagement with community participated in this strand of the groups in North Belfast, but the primary study. data collection involved door-to-door canvassing of approximately 14,000 doors across the fve feld sites in North Belfast. - Prior to the walk, Interviewees completed a Participatory GIS mapping exercise using Spraycan Throughout 2017, the research team software (see below) and were analysed the data and presented its initial then given the following set of fndings to the project advisory group, instructions: ‘Imagine you are a other relevant statutory bodies and local tour guide and we are visiting your community organisations in North Belfast. community. We want to get an idea of This process culminated in a policy how you use and experience the local workshop in December 2017 at the Open environment on a typical day. We are University in Belfast, where the research particularly interested in how living in team and key stakeholders discussed a divided part of the city affects your how the fndings could inform policy everyday life.’ development.

13 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

A number of papers have also been Huck, J., Whyatt, D., Dixon, J., Sturgeon, prepared for publication. These include: B., Hocking, B.T., Davies, G., Jarman, N. & Bryan, D. (2018) “Exploring Segregation Davies, G., Whaytt, D., Huck, J., Dixon, and Sharing in Belfast: A PGIS Approach.” J., Hocking, B.T., Jarman, N., Sturgeon, Annals of the American Association of B. & Bryan, D. (2019) “Networks of (Dis) Geographers, 109(1): 223-241. https://doi. connection: Mobility practices, tertiary org/10.1080/24694452.2018.1480930 streets and sectarian divisions in North Belfast.” Annals of the Association of Sturgeon, B., Jarman, N., Bryan, B., American Geographers. https://doi.org/10 Whyatt, D., Hocking, B. T., Huck, J., .1080/24694452.2019.1593817 Davies, G. & Tredoux, C. (2019) Attitudes and Experiences of Residents of North Dixon, J., Tredoux, C., Davies, G., Huck, Belfast to the ‘Other’ Community, Safety, J., Hocking, B.T., Sturgeon, B., Whyatt, D., Visual Displays, Peace Walls and Belfast Jarman, N., & Bryan, D. (2019) City Centre. Belfast: Institute for Confict “Parallel lives: Intergroup contact, threat Research. and the segregation of everyday activity spaces.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/ pspi0000191

Dixon, J., Tredoux, C., Sturgeon, B., Hocking. B.T., Davies, G., Huck, J., Whyatt, D., Jarman, N. Bryan, D. (Forthcoming). ‘When the walls come tumbling down’: The role of intergroup proximity, threat and contact in shaping attitudes towards the removal of Northern Ireland’s peace walls.

Hocking, B.T., Sturgeon, B., Dixon, J., Jarman, N., Bryan D., Huck, J., Whyatt, D., & Davies G. (2019) “Place-Identity and Urban Policy: Sharing Leisure Spaces in the ‘Post-Confict’ city.” In Piazza, R. Discourses of Identity in Liminal Places and Spaces. London: Routledge Press.

Hocking, B.T. Sturgeon, B., Whyatt, D., Davies, G., Huck, J., Dixon, J., Jarman, N. & Bryan, D. (2018) “Negotiating the ground: ‘mobilizing’ a divided feld site in the ‘post- confict’ city.” Mobilities, 13(6): 876-893. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2018.1 504664

14 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Outline of the Report

This report offers an overview of the Belfast Mobility Project. Chapter 2 presents an analysis of our data that identifes the degree to which the area can be considered a ‘Divided Landscape’, before identifying more positive examples of the way in which North Belfast can be described as a ‘Shared Landscape’ in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 refects on the data related to Belfast City Centre, an area which, even at the height of the region’s confict, was largely considered to be a neutral or shared space, but an area on which very little research has explored how people actually access and travel through it.

15 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Chapter 2: North Belfast – A Divided Landscape

There has been a considerable range of dominated by fear, distrust and threat. research conducted on urban segregation Leonard (2007) illustrated a concerning in Belfast. A landmark publication by Fred connection between the mobility habits of Boal in 1969, entitled ‘Territoriality on the adults in interface area and the subsequent Shankill-Falls Divide, Belfast’, indicated that impact this had on the decisions taken by there was a defnite and impactful correlation young people from the same area. She between residential segregation and activity found it was common for young people to space segregation, i.e. people were much replicate the segregated pathways used by more likely to stay close to their home and older relatives and friends. use familiar facilities in everyday spaces. The study established signifcant aspects of While the large amount of scholarly and ethno-sectarian immobility, identifying the policy-related work already conducted in presence of two very distinct ‘territories’. North Belfast provides us with a varied and Later, Boal (1971) concluded that class can valuable body of information on the area, perpetuate ethno-religious divides, or even the Belfast Mobility Project aimed to analyse create a divide in its own right. In 1996, Boal urban segregation and the separation of indicated that the segregation of the region’s North Belfast’s two main communities in a two main communities during the height of more dynamic and fuid manner than had the confict has had a lasting impact, leaving previously been achieved. The study sought a lack of opportunities and drivers to bring to assess how division can be created and them together again. reinforced by the way in which residents organise their daily routines and make use of Other studies have come to similar activity spaces2 beyond an individual’s home conclusions. For instance, Shirlow and over time. The four methodological and McGovern (1998) noted that the strands of the study produced different consistent distance between the two main indications of how participants related to communities has led to a situation where their local environment and moved through each tended to eulogise their ‘own’ area their neighbourhood and beyond. As such, and develop a perception that the ‘other’ this section of our report looks at fndings community is abnormal, antagonistic associated with the ‘Divided Landscape’ and uncompromising. Shirlow (2003) has obtained from the different components of also indicated that poor inter-community the study’s methodology: relationships in Ardoyne, (an area in North Belfast that has been the site of tension over • 2.1 Survey Findings – Views on parades and inter-community violence), had Community Identity, Cross-Community led to a combination of real and imagined Sentiment, Community Expression, concerns that signifcantly impact upon Personal Safety and Interface Barriers; where residents are prepared to go. He • 2.2 Participatory GIS – Segregation, indicates this has created a ‘geography Division and Mixing; of socio-economic domination and/or • 2.3 Belfast Pathways App – Segregated resistance, in which power relationships Pathways, Activity Spaces and are spatialized and imagined in distinct ‘T-Communities’; and observable ways’ and which is played • 2.4 Walking Interviews – Chosen and out within a clearly demarcated arena, Selected Pathways.

2 When discussing the term ‘activity spaces’, the research team are referring the local areas within which people move or travel during the course of their daily routines.

16 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

2.1 Survey Findings – Views on Figure 4 (overleaf) shows that more than Community Identity, Cross-Community two thirds of participants indicated that Sentiment, Community Expression, they would classify their feelings to the Personal Safety and Interface Barriers ‘other’ community as being of positive while nearly six out of ten said they had The questionnaire began with a series feeling of respect for the other community. of questions associated with community However, respondents were less likely to identity, which were designed to report feelings of trust towards members enable the research team to gain an of the ‘other’ community, with less than understanding of how people living half of the total number of respondents throughout North Belfast relate to their reacting positively. local community. Over half of the total number of participants agreed, or strongly Again, the negative responses must be agreed that ‘community was important to considered as important. They indicate them’, that they ‘feel a member of their a basic level of respect to the ‘other’ community’ and that they have ‘strong ties community, but do not go as far as trusting to their community’, see Figure 3 (the full them. The reasons for the lack of trust results from the survey can be found http:// could be attributed to the perception that belfastmobilityproject.org/). the ‘other’ side has disrespected their culture or community in the past. It could Overall, Figure 3 reveals that community also be associated with past assertions identity is important to respondents from that the ‘other’ community had broken a Catholic background, who agreed, or their word. The broader regional political strongly agreed at a rate at least 10% stalemate has likely also impacted on how higher than Protestants in relation to the two communities relate to one another. feeling that community is important to There was little difference between how them (65% vs. 49%); that they were a Catholics and Protestants responded to member of their community (75% vs 63%) this section of the survey. and that they have strong ties to their community (61% vs. 48%).

Figure 3. Percentage of respondents by community background who indicated strong sense of community attachment

Catholic Protestant

0 Community is important I am a member of my community I have strong ties

17 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 4. Percentage of respondents by community background who reported a high degree of positive feelings, trust and respect for the ‘other’ community

Catholic Protestant

0 Positive Trust Respect

The survey then asked participants • 35% of Catholics felt threatened to consider different aspects of how when they saw fags being fown that the ‘other’ community expressed its expressed the identity of the ‘other’ identity. This section was split into four community (compared to 19% of forms of community expression: cultural Protestants); celebrations, fags, murals and painted • 20% of Catholics felt that murals kerbstones. Overall, around one in four associated with the ‘other’ community respondents agreed, or strongly agreed was a threat to their identity (in with the suggestion that various types of comparison to 10% of Protestants); and community expression made them feel • 60% of Catholics felt they would not be threatened, with the reaction to fags welcomed or respected in areas where (27%) being more negative than to cultural kerbstones were painted in the colour celebrations (21%) and to murals (15%). of the ‘other’ community (compared to 32% of Protestant respondents). Figure 5 compares the responses of Catholics and Protestants who reacted It is worth noting that in each case only a negatively to various forms of cultural minority of each community had negative expression by members of the ‘other’ reactions to each of the four forms of community, or to the presence of different displays discussed above. The one types of visual displays in public spaces. In exception to this is the Catholic response each case, Catholics were more negative to painted kerbstones, with just under in their attitudes towards such cultural 60% of Catholics stating that they felt displays than Protestants: threatened by kerb painting compared to 32% of Protestants. • 29% of Catholics agreed or strongly agreed that they felt threatened by members of the ‘other’ community celebrating their cultural traditions (13% of Protestants responded in this way);

18 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 5. Percentage of respondents by community background who felt threatened by cultural and visual displays

Catholic Protestant

0 Cultural celebrations Flags Murals Painted kerbstones

In most cases, respondents report a Figure 6 compares the combined degree of indifference (neither agreed responses of people from both community nor disagreed) or indicated that the backgrounds who indicated that they felt cultural activities and visual displays of the the various visual displays were a threat to ‘other’ community did not make them feel their identity with those who said they did threatened. not pose any threat.

Figure 6. Percentage of all respondents who felt threatened by cultural and visual displays, compared with those who did not

Threat No threat

0 Cultural celebrations Flags Murals Painted kerbstones

19 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Participants were asked a series of This sense of fear may be thought of questions related to community safety. as part of the legacy of the confict in Overall, Catholic participants were North Belfast, but also a response to the more likely to indicate a greater level of extensive violence in the area since the concern about their sense of safety than ceasefres in 1994 and particularly in the Protestants (See Figure 7): early years of the peace process when North Belfast was subject to recurrent • 44% of Catholics indicated that rioting and attacks on properties in that they were sometimes afraid of interface areas. being identified as a member of their community (30% of Protestant Several additional questions explored participants responded in this way); participants’ willingness to use everyday • 33% of Catholics worried about spaces beyond their own communities. being physically attacked by Generally, the responses were positive members of the ‘other’ community here, although as we shall see, our data (compared to 21% of Protestants); on activity space segregation and actual • 24% of Catholics worried about their use of everyday spaces are somewhat personal property being damaged contradictory. by members of the ‘other’ community (as opposed to 20% of Protestants); A large percentage of participants rejected and the suggestion that they would avoid • 39% of Catholics indicated that areas that were associated with the ‘other’ living in Belfast is dangerous for community, with between 40% and 55% members of their community disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with because of sectarian violence (31% suggestions that they would prefer to use of Protestants responded in this way). single identity facilities, travel through or close to areas dominated by their own community, and avoid some public spaces, particularly if marked by visual symbols associated with the ‘other’ community.

Figure 7. Percentage of respondents by community background who expressed fear of being identifed, physically attacked, having property damaged or who think Belfast is dangerous

Catholic Protestant

0 Afraid of being identiﬁed Worried about Worry about attack Belfast is dangerous for members physical attack to property of my community

20 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 8. Percentage of respondents by community background who adapt their mobility because of their community identity

Catholic Protestant

0 Prefer to use own facilities Travel through own area Avoid public spaces Avoid areas with visual displays

Figure 8 illustrates that Protestants were Another set of questions in the survey generally around 10% more likely to be asked participants to consider their views willing to use spaces where they may on the large number of interface barriers encounter the ‘other’ community, whereas or peace walls that exist throughout North Catholics were more likely than Protestants Belfast (See Figure 9 - overleaf). Overall, to avoid places that had clear visual there was a majority support for the markers of community identity: government’s proposals for the removal of interface barriers (53% of participants • 37% of Catholics said they preferred to agreed or strongly agreed with such use facilities located in areas of Belfast proposals). Perhaps surprisingly given dominated by members of their own the response to the questions about community, while 31% of Protestants community safety, Catholics were more responded in the same way; supportive of removing the barriers than • 27% of Catholics chose routes that were Protestants (56% vs 49%). within or close to their own community, even if they were not the quickest way to get to their destination, whereas 19% of Protestants did the same; • 18% of Catholics said they would avoid public spaces where they were likely to encounter members of the ‘other’ community, while 15% of Protestants responded in this way; and • 42% of Catholics said they avoided streets that have clear symbols (murals, fags and kerb painting) associated with the ‘other’ community, as opposed to 27% of Protestants.

21 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 9. Attitudes of respondents by community background to interface barriers

Catholic Protestant

0 Support barrier removal Too soon to remove barriers Barriers play valuable role

It is also worth noting that 32% of Catholics to protect communities against violence by and 33% of Protestants believed it was too paramilitary groups, more than half thought soon to remove the barriers and, nearly they served to keep the communities apart, half of all respondents (47%) also felt while nearly 70% thought they were there that some barriers continued to provide to make people feel safer (See Figure 10). a valuable role in their community and These fgures correlate with the 2015 edition should remain (Catholics and Protestants of the Public Attitudes to Peace Walls Survey responded in a largely similar way). (2015): Survey Results, carried out by Ulster University on behalf of the Department When asked about the function of that of Justice, which indicated that 61% of interface barriers played at this time, around respondents felt the function of their nearest 40% of respondents thought they served peace wall was to help them feel safer.

Figure 10. Respondents’ perceptions on the roles played by interface barriers

Catholic Protestant

0 Protect against Protect against Keep Communities Help People Loyalist Violence Republican Violence Apart feel safer

22 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

2.2 Participatory GIS – Segregation, little acknowledgement or recognition. Division and Mixing Mixed residential areas were identifed in predominately owner-occupied areas, and Belfast lost around one third of its residential in particular across large parts of the North population between 1971 and 2011, and Circular, Antrim and Cavehill Roads, and although North Belfast’s population has also along sections of the Oldpark and been relatively stable, there has been a Crumlin Roads. subtle shift in the demographics of the area with those of a Catholic community The Spraycan software maps also background becoming the majority (57%). highlighted differences in the perceptions One consequence of such demographic of local residents of local divisions shift that Sterrett et al, (2019) observe is that compared with data from the 2011 Census some areas in North Belfast that are currently (See Figures 11 and 12 - overleaf), and considered as ‘mixed’, might come to be which also identifed some mixed areas, classifed as ‘Catholic’ in the near future. but which did not fully overlap with the They note that this transformation is not perceptions of local residents. happening at a ‘working-class’ level, but rather in more affuent parts of Oldpark, If policy-makers are trying to build and Cliftonville, Cavehill and the Antrim Road, support shared use of space and the which have witnessed signifcant ‘Protestant development of mixed residential areas, middle class departure’. Therefore, while then there is perhaps a need for a greater North Belfast may not be as highly polarised recognition of such existing shared or as is often portrayed, it is not clear whether mixed spaces in places such as North such mixed residential areas are stable Belfast and thought needs to be given to communities or are a more transient what can be done to ensure that such areas phenomena of an ongoing process of are demographically stable, rather than demographic change. be acknowledged as part of a transitory process that reinforces the norms of binary Despite these subtle changes to the division. demographic profle of North Belfast, the area is still widely described as a ‘patchwork 2.3 Belfast Pathways App – Segregated quilt’ of Protestant or Catholic dominated Pathways, Activity Spaces and and largely segregated residential areas, ‘T-communities’ a view that has been frequently reinforced over the past twenty years by disputes over The Belfast Pathways App enabled the parades, tensions at interfaces and the research team to consider participants’ presence of numerous peace line barriers. movement in a fuid manner within the landscape by tracking them using the Such a perception was confrmed to a built-in GPS receiver in their smartphones. great extent by participants who used the A total of 233 individuals agreed to Spraycan software to visualise local patterns download the app for a two-week time of segregation and division. Figure 11 period and agreed that all of the data illustrates their understanding of the local collected by the app could be used within divisions, with large swathes of North Belfast the context of this study. Twenty-four clearly identifed as being inhabited by either million GPS points of tracking data were Protestants or Catholics. collected during the feldwork.

However, as well as the clear understanding of extensive single identity areas, the results also revealed that residents were also aware of a signifcant number of mixed residential areas, and which often receive

23 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 11. Perceptions of community affliation gathered by ‘Spraycan’ exercise

24 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 12. Community Affliation according to 2011 Census

25 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 13. Cumulative GPS track traces indicating patterns of usage of shared and divided spaces

Given the enormous amount of data the North Circular, Cliftonville and Oldpark obtained from the Belfast Pathways app, Roads, most of their time was spent in their the research team is able to make a own areas using tertiary level streets. For number of judgements regarding how example, in upper North Belfast Protestant our participants spend time in their participants spent a large amount of time local environment. When we display the in the Ballysillan and Glenbryn areas, while data in an illustrative manner on a map Catholic participants spent time in Ligoniel of the local area (see Figure 13) what is and Ardoyne, while in lower North Belfast most striking about how our participants Catholics spent time in the New Lodge and move around in North Belfast specifcally, Waterworks areas, while Protestants spent is the degree to which Catholics and time in Tigers Bay, Mountcollyer and Shore Protestants use separate pathways and Road. Beyond the main routes and some activity spaces, thereby extensively key commercial facilities there was limited living their lives apart, despite being in shared use of space. close proximity to one another. Figures 14 and 15 show the same data, but Due to the general absence of large levels this time disaggregated into Protestant of ‘mixing’ in our data, we can identify that and Catholic pathways overlaid on the our participants were most likely to spend Spraycan map of perceived segregation their time in areas associated with their in North Belfast. own community background, also known as ‘in-group spaces’. The tracking traces show that while people from both communities used the same To investigate further the types of space primary routes, such as Crumlin, Antrim and that residents move within during their Shore Roads, and secondary routes, such as every date life, we used the GPS tracking

26 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 14. Cumulative GPS track traces for Catholic respondents indicating patterns of usage of shared and divided spaces

Basemap © Crown Copyright

Figure 15. Cumulative GPS track traces for Protestants respondents indicating patterns of usage of shared and divided spaces

Basemap © Crown Copyright

27 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

data to assess the amount of time spent visible on OSNI background maps or on moving within different types of group Google Maps, were then digitised and space (ingroup, mixed and outgroup), added to the maps. At this point, main roads within different types of areas (along main (defned as through roads wide enough for roads, or within tertiary street networks). two cars to pass), and other features such This was achieved by adapting the concept as interfaces, parks, industrial areas and developed by Grannis (1998) to defne retail centres, were used as ‘line barriers’ – series of interconnecting tertiary streets as providing the necessary boundaries to create T-communities. T-communities terminate the proposed ‘T-communities’. The spatial at the point they reach a main road, or extent of each of the T-communities was then other barrier such as parkland. The theory determined using network analysis in ArcGIS of T-communities is underpinned by the Pro to defne service areas (See Figure idea that they defne local neighbourhoods 16). We were then able to determine the accounting for potential interactions with community affliation of each T-community others, hence being particularly useful for by using a combination of population census segregation studies. data and the specialized local knowledge of those involved in the research team. To generate the T-communities framework Most signifcantly for an understanding a road dataset was obtained from the of the levels of everyday segregation in Ordnance Survey Northern Ireland (OSNI). North Belfast, no T-community straddled Additional residential pathways, that were identifable Catholic and Protestant areas.

Figure 16. T-Communities in North Belfast © Crown copyright

Basemap © Crown Copyright

28 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 17. Median minutes spent along main roads or within T-communities, across types of group space

Key fndings from our analysis of time spent Throughout each walk, researchers moving within T-communities and sections questioned participants about how they of main road, showed that residents were related to their physical environment, signifcantly less likely to move within mixed and how the landscape impacted upon or outgroup spaces (see Figure 17). This decisions they made regarding use is especially true within T-communities, of space. The researchers prompted with greater mixing likely to occur along participants to discuss how they felt main roads. Movement within mixed and about different features as they moved outgroup spaces was signifcantly more likely through the area (i.e. murals, fags, to occur when travelling in a vehicle than on painted kerbstones and different facilities foot. There were no signifcant differences that were considered shared or more in results between Catholic and Protestant clearly designed for single identity use). participants. At the same time, researchers remained sensitive to hidden or subtle aspects For fuller details of the T-community of the landscape that may only have a methods and results see Davies et al (2019). connection to ‘insiders’ from the local community (see the project website, http:// 2.4 Walking Interviews – Chosen and belfastmobilityproject.org/index.html for Rejected Pathways the Walking Interview Framework).

The Walking Interviews helped contextualise the raw data obtained from the survey, Spraycan software and Belfast Pathways App and allowed us to access participants’ own explanations of how and why they chose particular routes as they navigated North Belfast. They also gave participants the opportunity to identify particular spaces as shared and to explain why, thus adding qualitative richness and depth to our survey and tracking data.

29 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 18. Walking Interview Route of Participant A Basemap © Crown Copyright

Quote C: Having something like that there on that road... to me it just shows the mentality of them... I wouldn’t venture in this area. I wouldn’t like to see it in Belfast.

Quote A: People... especially coming to this time of the year, Easter, would come and lay these wreathes for the Republicans, who have lost their lives, all of the friends and family and comrades who’s lost their lives during the Troubles.

Quote B: Everton Complex could be a shared space because there’s a doctor’s there. There’s a doctor I would use... Unless the people from Glenbryn use ones further up the Ballysillan... A lot of people would tend to use their own areas, their own facilities.

Participants revealed a range of identifes clear points of perceived threat views about how they felt about their from the ‘other’ comm unity (Quote F). community, their relationship with the ‘other’ community and points of Throughout the Walking Interviews interaction or mixing between the there were key trends and variations two. Figure 18 outlines a walk taken regarding how participants responded with a Catholic male from Ardoyne to the questions from the researchers. (Participant A). Within the interview, he Male participants generally demonstrated indicated a clear and deep awareness a clearer sense of the local geography of his community’s tradition and values in the outdoor portion of the walk, but (see Quote A), aspects of the physical they showed less willingness to take the landscape that he found offensive and researchers into areas that would be intimidating (Quote B) and a shared space associated with the ‘other’ community. utilised by both communities (Quote C). For instance, Participant B demonstrated considerable reluctance to use a nearby Figure 19 provides an overview of another collection of shops as he felt that they were participant (Protestant, male) living in the affliated with the Catholic community: Glenbryn/Upper Ardoyne area (Participant B), who demonstrates a comparable “Now there’s shops just down there (the awareness of the region, but does so from Ardoyne shops). I would never use them an opposing viewpoint. He to explains shops… I’ve never been in them.” aspects of the local tradition (particular to (Participant B – Protestant male from his community – see Quote D), observes Glenbryn/Upper Ardoyne) potential instances of sharing (Quote E) and

30 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 19. Walking Interview Route of Participant B Basemap © Crown Copyright

Quote D: I think a lot of the community is POA (Pride of Ardoyne) orientated, you know. ‘We’re all band members, we should all stick together.’ You know that type of thing.

Quote F: If they took those barriers away, there’s... not a lot that’s going to stop... a lot of people from smashing Quote E: Wishing Well is windows, and breaking into houses. Catholic and Protestant. And it’s good to see, to be honest with you. It is really good to see.

Female participants were less likely to Despite this apparent trend, the GPS feel their mobility was restricted by the tracking data provided by the Belfast surrounding residential segregation and Pathways App did not reveal gender often explained that they used facilities differences in mobility practices. Women (i.e. shops) that were based in or near were no more likely than men to spend the ‘other’ community. This resonates greater amounts of time in shared or with other research that has identifed outgroup spaces. Nor are they more gender differences in mobility patterns likely to visit destinations located within in Northern Ireland (Lysaght and Basten, such spaces. Thus, there is a potential 2003; Hamilton et al. 2008), which has discrepancy between what women and found women felt more confdent, at men say they do and what they actually do. least anecdotally, about entering areas associated with the ‘other’ community. It has been suggested that this gendered sense of confdence could be linked to the fact that women and children were not considered as ‘legitimate targets’ during the region’s recent confict (Dowler, 2001).

31 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 20. Walking Interview Routes mapped against Spraycan data on segregation Basemap © Crown Copyright

Figure 20 shows the routes of Walking The majority of participants explained that Interview Participant A and Walking their perception of their safety in passing Interview Participant B against the through roads within the ‘other’ community Spraycan map of perceived segregation was often dependent on a number of and which illustrates how both participants variables: the ‘time of year’ was an issue for remained within the bounds of their own most participants and indicates the degree community territories. However, it is also to which certain annual celebrations worth noting that Participant B’s route took remain contentious in North Belfast. Even in the Deerpark Road area, which was Catholic participants who indicated that perceived to be predominately Catholic by they rarely changed their routes for fear of those mapping the area via Spraycan, and encountering the ‘other’ community, noted which highlights some of the perceptions that they would likely do so throughout the of demographic change taking place and month of July3, while others articulated the which was noted earlier. general sense of intimidation they felt at that time of year:

3 July is regularly a contentious month in Northern Ireland. During the high point of the region’s confict, annual parades by the Orange Order were accompanied by riots and paramilitary violence. In the post-confict era, disputes over parading routes continue to be a major point of division between the two main communities in North Belfast.

32 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

“In Mount Vernon, come the Twelfth (of “Look, I wouldn’t be able to walk up July) you hear sounds of war … Beating the road, I can’t walk up to the Catholic drums, ffe being played, bonfres being area, Glandore or Antrim Road… I can’t burned. The whole Twelfth thing… the go into the area… cause they’d all be Catholics stay in their houses; they don’t rioting, my face is known, you know. come out… We should be allowed to, I’m one of the ones they’d chase you but you don’t go out. The whole town is know.” (Participant D – Protestant male turned off. And the marching is done to from Skegoneill) impress upon the bystander that this is our area and you cannot come in here Such viewpoints provide a connection and just cross, you can’t cross the line of between the interview and questionnaire the parade, for example, that would be a data. In the questionnaire data analysis, terrible bad thing to do.” (Participant C – negative contact experiences were linked Catholic male from Fortwilliam) to self-reported and actual avoidance of shared and outgroup spaces for both Catholic and Protestant residents. Most participants stated that they felt more Conversely, positive contact experiences comfortable passing close to ‘interface’ were associated with a greater self- areas during the day, rather than after reported willingness to use shared or dark, and a number suggested that their outgroup spaces and, again, more time sense of safety would be determined by spent in such spaces (Dixon et al., in press). how they were moving through the ‘other’ community, i.e. almost all felt that they would be comfortable driving. Participant Discussion B identifes the type of decision-making process residents consciously and Overall, the four strands of the study subconsciously consider: present a complex pattern of segregation in North Belfast. The survey data found “It’s funny, it’s like, if I was driving … and that participants have considerable attachment to their own community, I turned the corner and there was red, while a large number also had positive white and blue, for instance, it doesn’t interactions with the ‘other’ community. annoy me. It wouldn’t. But if the car broke However, such attitudes and experiences down there, I’d be, ah, well. But if I was were balanced by concern, particularly in driving through an area that was green, relation to a sense of safety and threat by white and gold, I’d start panicking, I the cultural and visual displays from the would, I’d be going like aagh. I don’t want ‘other’ community. This underlying sense to break down here. You know, you just of threat is in turn likely to infuence some know. To be honest, you know I mean. You of the concerns about moving around in just come in an area and you know this public spaces and in particular in areas is defnitely not an area where you want dominated by the ‘other’ community. to break down. Or I wouldn’t like to be stranded in this area.” Protestants were generally more positive (Participant B – Protestant male from regarding experiences of community Glenbryn/Upper Ardoyne) interaction and had greater sense of comfort in inter-communal settings, while Catholics expressed concerns about issues Participants also stated that negative of safety, considered visual displays as contact with the ‘other’ community in the more of a threat. Consequently, Catholic past shaped their views and on-going respondents were also more likely to interactions: report limiting their mobility in public spaces and accessing resources beyond their own community. Ironically, though,

33 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Catholics who downloaded the Belfast The data obtained from Spraycan refects Pathways App, actually spent slightly more the large degree of segregation that time in shared or outgroup spaces. This participants residing in North Belfast amount of time in shared spaces is again a identifed in their surrounding area. statistically signifcant effect, though fairly While offcial statutory statistics (e.g. small in size (Dixon et al., in press). Census data) also provide a comparable breakdown, the Spraycan data provides Refecting on the survey fndings, one can us with an important and novel ‘bottom- trace a sense of caution by participants up’ view of how people interpret their toward people from a different community neighbourhoods and communities. background to their own, participants Such detail is important – it offers us have implied that they are generally not the opportunity to look at some of the opposed to interacting with the ‘other’ inaccuracies we encounter when studying community (and often do so with positive maps that have been generated using outcomes), yet they also indicate that offcial sources. For instance, there are single identity cultural celebrations large spaces of North Belfast that are make them feel uncomfortable. This is neither ‘Catholic’ or ‘Protestant’, as they further evidenced by the large number may simply be a space of dereliction of respondents to the survey that support or industry – by identifying locations as the Government’s proposals to remove belonging to one community or the other, all interface barriers by 2023, while many as Census data does (it also identifes areas also indicated that these structures play as ‘mixed’, where appropriate), this can be an important role in regulating community misleading and is ultimately inaccurate. safety in their area. Moreover, and tellingly, Further exploration of software such as our GPS tracking data shows that the vast Spraycan may help reduce some of these majority of participants spent little or no inaccuracies and also assist residents living time within areas associated with the ‘other’ in spaces subject to plans for regeneration community’s spaces and rarely, if ever, visit (e.g. Ardoyne and Ballysillan are listed destinations located within such spaces as one of The Executive Offce’s ‘Urban (Dixon et al., in press). Villages’) an interactive opportunity to identify how they relate to their local area. The survey results reveal that participants appear conficted. While they display a In the walking interviews, participants general openness to the ‘other’ community often indicated that they did not have a in some contexts, they are not ready to ‘problem’ with the ‘other’ community, a fully embrace those of the opposing sentiment that was especially common community background. There are positive when participants were deep in their own sentiments, but also hesitation. These communities. But as they moved closer to fndings correlate with data from the streets or facilities perceived as ‘owned’ by Belfast Pathways App where the majority of the ‘other’ community, their attitudes often the pathways taken were within ‘in-group’ seemed to become more hostile to those spaces and mixing were largely based in that area. This was often triggered by the upon need. Participants’ movements were appearance of fags, murals and or painted linked to an apparent unease toward the kerbstones, associated with those of the ‘other’ community. People appear willing opposing community background. to travel through spaces associated with the opposing community background, but preferably in a vehicle.

34 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Whether displayed to demarcate space There are obvious and dangerous issues or simply as demonstration of community with such a landscape. It institutionalizes pride, such visual displays served as divisions and lead to the development of signifcant points of threat for participants. sustained pockets of inequality. There is Some refused to cross into streets where a need to better understand what makes the community affliation clearly changed. the small number of spaces where the When asked why, they often found it diffcult communities mix be felt as safe spaces. We to articulate exactly what posed a direct have identifed elsewhere in this chapter threat. Some young men suggested it that visits to these locations are generally was too much of a risk, as members of the based on need, but in Chapter 3 we will ‘other’ community might recognise them explore the characteristics of these sites from previous incidents of low-level rioting, to assess the context within which a small but often participants simply implied they amount of sharing space is happening would not feel comfortable or safe. within the deeply divided landscape of North Belfast. The four strands of data demonstrate challenges for both residents of North Belfast and policy-makers. Where goodwill does exist between the two communities, it is compromised by participants feelings about the ‘other’ community’s cultural celebrations and does not extend to people feeling comfortable enough to pass through areas associated with the opposing community unless they are in a vehicle. Our data suggests that people enter ‘outgroup’ space relatively infrequently.

Clearly residential segregation powerfully shapes wider patterns of movement and activity space use, notably through the segregation of tertiary street networks or T-Communities. It limits residents’ opportunity for goodwill to be developed further. The way in which the segregated landscape is heavily marked by community identity further adds to the sense that some spaces are ‘no-go’ areas. While transforming the residential layout of North Belfast is clearly complicated, the ways in which segregation is re-emphasized by cultural displays means that locations become less easily understood as public streets and more accurately considered as single identity territory.

35 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Chapter 3: North Belfast – A Shared Landscape

Northern Ireland’s confict is fundamentally the area. The value of ‘sharing’ was clear. about territory, sovereignty and identity. However, without specifcally defning As a consequence, creating genuine the ‘spaces’ where this ‘vision’ could be shared spaces where all people can feel explored, or how such spaces could be equal and valued is extremely challenging, created, the value of the premise seemed particularly as efforts to create these limited. The document rightly indicated spaces are undermined by a backdrop the importance of creating a ‘shared vision’ of very physical and evident legacies, as to support ‘Northern Ireland’s increasingly described in Chapter 2. Such landscapes diverse population’, but there was limited constantly remind residents of who they detail regarding how this should best be are. They also remind them where and achieved. with whom they belong or do not belong. In this chapter, we briefy explore the In 2005, A Shared Future noted the policy context in which the promotion importance of ‘reclaiming shared space’, of a ‘Shared Landscape’ has acquired as too often there had been a tendency signifcance, before outlining some to mark town centres, arterial routes relevant fndings from the Belfast Mobility and main thoroughfares with fags, Project, developing on our preliminary symbols and other markers of group discussion of results presented above: territoriality (Offce of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, 2005). Despite • 3.1 Shared Space and Policy – An the unquestionable merit and accuracy Overview of Relevant Shared Space of this point, a report for Belfast City Initiatives; Council noted that it was necessary for • 3.2 Survey Findings – Views on Cross- policy-makers to recognise that the Community Experiences and Feelings challenges are not just physical – there During These Engagements; are ‘mental walls’ that people will need • 3.3 Walking Interviews and Participatory help navigating, even where high quality GIS – Spaces Perceived to be Shared; shared spaces are created (Gaffkin et al, • 3.4 Belfast Pathways App – Identity of 2008). Locations that were Shared. Furthermore, A Shared Future noted that 3.1 Shared Space and Policy – An the key premise of sharing in Northern Overview of Relevant Shared Space Ireland, was signifcantly undermined by Initiatives the underlying ‘culture of intolerance’ that exists in the region. The strategy pointed to Within the policy domain, past efforts to the need for ‘cohesive communities’ where create, encourage or even identify shared ‘relationships are central’ and ‘political, spaces has proved problematic. The civic and community leadership’ was 2001 Regional Development Strategy for evident. The importance of developing a Northern Ireland 2025 did not specifcally progressive and coherent good relations mention ‘shared spaces’ but did emphasize agenda was noted: the importance of a ‘shared vision’ (Department for Regional Development, “Separate but equal is not an option. 2001). The document sought a ‘sustained Parallel living and the provision of urban renaissance in our cities and towns’, parallel services are unsustainable both allied with a ‘vibrant rural Northern Ireland’ morally and economically.” within its proposed 25-year vision for

36 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

The most recent relevant policy document Despite TBUC offering a desirable vision to address the problem of shared space, of a united community and an improved Together: Building a United Community understanding of shared spaces, there Strategy (TBUC), was published by the was still scant detail of how these matters Offce of the First Minister and Deputy First could be practically achieved. For instance, Minister (now The Executive Offce) in 2013 there was little detail of how to introduce and outlined a vision of: shared spaces into the existing urban environment. “(A) united community, based on equality of opportunity, the desirability of good Throughout these policy documents there relations and reconciliation - one which is a clear desire to increase the number is strengthened by its diversity, where and quality of shared spaces throughout cultural expression is celebrated and Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, in most embraced and where everyone can live, cases, there is little detail regarding how shared spaces should be defned, learn, work and socialise together, free encouraged or created. The value of from prejudice, hate and intolerance.” sharing is clearly emphasized, but in addition to a lack of detail regarding its The document noted a particular practical implementation in generic terms, commitment to young people (via the new there is no explanation of how areas with ‘United Youth’ initiative) and to building a deeply entrenched community identities safer community (by creating a ten-year could be made more inclusive and programme aimed at removing all interface integrated. Perhaps as important, there is barriers by 2023). It also pledged to deal also limited data on how local residents with issues related to cultural expression, may already be sharing their spaces, i.e. which would be led by the establishment evidence based on analysis that directly of an all-party group that would make examines how they use the everyday recommendations related to parades and spaces of the city, the pathways they take, protests; fags; symbols; emblems and and the destinations they visit. related matters. The fourth and fnal headline action was a commitment to a ‘shared 3.2 Survey Findings – Views on Cross- community’, which sought to enhance good Community Experiences and Feelings relations ‘by placing it on a statutory basis During These Engagements with the creation of a new Equality and Good Relations Commission’ and introduced a While the fndings from the survey that more sophisticated good relations section relate to sharing space can only provide an for Equality Impact Assessments for all insight into the views of the participants in policies across government. isolation, they offer an important indication of how individuals might be prepared In this regard, the strategy offered a clearer to use and share space in practice. The defnition of shared space than what had survey data from Chapter 2 indicated that been provided by previous relatable participants generally had positive feelings strategies: toward members of the ‘other’ community, and this can be considered as an important “Shared space need not be neutral component of creating a more ‘shared’ space; it is not pursuing some sense of society. A signifcant proportion of sanitised territory that denies the ability respondents also recorded that they were of people to celebrate their culture. The willing to use spaces beyond their own challenge is to ensure that shared space communities. remains open, on the basis of equality of opportunity to ensure that all sections of The survey suggested that there is society can have access” a potential for greater sharing and

37 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 21. Percentage of respondents by community background that had positive interactions with the ‘other’ community and those who had experienced negative experiences

Catholic Protestant

0 Friendly Interaction Welcomed by other community Negative experiences Verbally abused

cooperation in North Belfast (See Figure ‘other’ community, and Catholics were 21). For instance, participants reported a little more likely than Protestants to that they often had friendly interactions respond in this manner. with members of the ‘other’ community and that such interactions were much Perhaps the key set of results regarding more common than negative forms of the potential of mixing in North Belfast, contact. More than 60% of all respondents comes from the set of questions that ask indicated that they always interacted participants directly to consider how they with the ‘other’ community in a friendly would feel if they were in a situation where way. Similarly, some 55% of respondents they were interacting with individuals stated that they always felt ‘welcomed’ by from the ‘other’ community. When asked individuals from the opposing community if they would feel comfortable or safe, background. around a third of Catholic respondents (34%) and close to half of the Protestant Moreover, the survey revealed that respondents (46%) indicated they would participants rarely had negative and only 16% of the total number of feelings towards members of the ‘other’ respondents indicated they would not feel community, less than 10% of respondents safe. Similarly, respondents gave positive indicated this happened regularly. responses to the questions about whether they would feel nervous or awkward in It is encouraging that so many participants such situation – just 10-12% indicated that feel positive about different aspects of they would be nervous or awkward of they engagement with the ‘other’ community, were interacting with the ‘other’ community but we cannot overlook the small (See Figure 22). percentage of respondents who reported that they had negative experiences in In general, Protestant respondents were such situations, especially as people will more positive than Catholic respondents likely recite the details of these to other in relation to their feelings toward members of their community. About one community interaction with the ‘other’ in ten of those surveyed stated that they community and stated that they would always had negative interactions with the more comfortable (48% vs. 33%) and

38 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 22. Percentage of respondents by community background who would feel comfortable, safe, nervous or awkward in the presence of other community

Catholic Protestant

0 Comfortable Safe Nervous Awkward safe (45% vs. 36%), but there was no real the participant rather than the system difference in the percentage of those dictated the way we interpret how people who said they would feel nervous or living North Belfast relate to spatial awkward. boundaries and so provide a bottom-up perspective on segregation in Belfast. 3.3 Walking Interviews and Participatory GIS – Spaces Perceived to be Shared The Spraycan exercise that participants completed before the walking interviews Nearly ffty years ago Frederick Boal enabled them to map key shared or (1971) sought to map Belfast community mixed areas. Figure 11 (See page 24) members’ perceptions of the extent illustrated how far people were aware of of ‘their area’, by asking people to shared or mixed residential areas, while describe ‘How far does your area extend Figure 23 indicates respondent’s views in each direction?’ He then drew the of some of the more specifc shared resulting regions, based on the most spaces. The aggregate sprays showed commonly cited landmarks. Over that participants generally focused on time, work of this type has emerged a limited number of types of spaces, in other locations. In 2016, Goldblatt these included supermarkets, shopping and Omer assessed the measurement centres, leisure centres and other spaces of ‘perceived neighbourhoods’ in their of consumption, and as we shall discuss study of segregation in Jaffa, Israel. They below these were the most likely public collected sketches from their participants spaces to be identifed as ‘shared’ by that indicated boundaries of their the GPS tracks from the Belfast Pathways neighbourhoods, which were later App. We are also able to identify that of digitised by researchers. While the value the total time our participants spent in of both approaches should be clearly mixed or shared spaces, 57.4% of these acknowledged, they still encourage visits occurred during the day – between participants to classify neighbourhoods 12pm and 6pm (19.7% happened in the using predefned boundaries. The Belfast morning and 22.9% in the evening). Mobility Project sought to ensure that

39 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figures 23 and 24 illustrate how perceptions Centre), parks (Ligoniel Park, Alexandra Park, and behaviour coincide in many cases. There Loughside Park and Grove Park) and leisure are a number of sites on both maps that centres (Ballysillan Leisure Centre and Grove were identifed as places considered to be Wellbeing Centre) would be considered as shared (via Spraycan, Figure 23) and sites shared spaces. where the two communities also potentially mix in practice (Figure 24). Figure 23 shows While Catholic and Protestant participants that participants felt that the large shopping were largely in agreement with the sites centres (Cityside Retail Park and Abbey where mixing might occur, there were

40 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

some sites that only Catholic participants simply overlook the presence of the Mater selected, such as the Mater Hospital, on Hospital as the use of the space is purely the lower right hand side of Figure 23, or based on need? By contrast, did our that only Protestant respondents marked, Catholic respondents not mark Tesco at for example Tesco at Woodvale, on the Woodvale because the residential housing lower left side of Figure 23. The reasons near the site is largely Protestant? It would why the two communities have designated be wrong to draw defnitive conclusions sites not recognised by the other is unclear. from these differences, but what we can For instance, did Protestant participants infer is that the two communities are likely

41 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

to interpret space differently – one may Even where sites are identifed as shared consider a particular site to be shared; the in the Walking Interviews, the Belfast other may not. Pathways App demonstrated that their usage can still be sectarianised on very basic Also, despite the clear sense of correlation levels, such as how people access the site. between the two maps, there are some Figure 25 opposite shows the perceived variations in regards how perception and community identity of the residential streets behaviour matchup. While a number surrounding Cityside Retail Park (top panel), of participants in the Spraycan exercise the perception that the retail park is shared fagged public parks as spaces where they (central panel) and the way local residents would anticipate the two communities accessed the site (bottom panel). would meet, the tracking data indicated that few participants actually visited the different The research fndings indicate (bottom public parks throughout North Belfast (see panel) that Catholics from the adjacent and Section 3.4 for more details). Interviewees predominantly Catholic New Lodge area end discussed some of the challenges they to use one entry point and Protestants from encountered when it came to using public the neighbouring Tigers Bay area arrive and parks, for example noting that they did not depart via another. What we can conclude is feel comfortable using certain access points that even in spaces where we feel sharing is that may be identifed as being close to an happening in a casual and indirect manner in area associated with the ‘other’ community. North Belfast, there is often a very subtle and Other concerns relating to safety (such as deliberate effort by residents to regulate how poor lighting and general lack of people) they mix with the ‘other’ community. and poor-quality facilities (no public restrooms) were also raised by participants. 3.4 Belfast Pathways App – Identity of Locations that were Shared As discussed, other locations regularly identifed as being ‘shared’ by the The data from the tracking app evidenced participants were largely based around high levels of activity space segregation shopping (including shopping centres, throughout North Belfast with most people supermarkets and other smaller convenience spending the majority of their time in shops) or health (leisure centres, doctor spaces inhabited by people from a similar surgeries and dentists). These locations community background (see Chapter cannot be considered high quality shared 2). But people also spent a considerable spaces, rather they may best be described as proportion of their time in spaces that ‘neutral’ spaces where the two communities are not closely identifed with one of the are content to share space on the basis of two main communities. The data from the need or convenience. For instance, one Belfast Mobility App made it possible to participant involved in the Walking Interviews identify locations where the movements stated that a local recycling centre (based by participants from the two communities beside Alexandra Park) would be one of the overlap, that is spaces that were shared to at few local locations where he expected the least some extent. two sides to mix, but usually without actually disclosing their identities: Chapter 2 highlighted that main spaces used by members of both communities “Yeah, that would be like the closest on a routine basis were the main arterial thing to a shared space I’d know. It’s the routes that run through North Belfast, a dump [recycling centre at Alexandra rather perfunctory use of space that rarely Park Avenue]. Cause everyone has to generates any form of interaction. However, use the dump at some point.” the app data also evidenced that people (Participant E – Protestant male from ‘shared’ a range of other spaces such as Skegoneill) large retail stores, supermarkets and other shops (Figure 26 opposite).

42 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 25. Shared space: Perceptions and GPS Figure 26. Main destinations in shared or traces about the Cityside Retail Park mixed spaces DESTINATION PERCENTAGE OF TYPE TIME SPENT IN LOCATION Large retail stores 14% Other shops 13% Supermarkets 10% Industrial 4% Parks 3%

The main shopping locations used by participants were the Cityside Retail Park, off York Road; the Abbey Centre Shopping Mall and the Abbey Centre Retail Park; as well as Tesco’s on the Antrim Road and Asda on the Shore Road. All of these were visited equally by Protestants and Catholics, except for the Asda store which was mainly used by Protestants. Other frequently visited sites that seem to be shared in practice include: Fortwilliam Nursing Fold (an old persons’ home); the Yorkgate railway station; and the Valley Leisure Centre. Spraycan data identifed a wider range of spaces that were perceived to be shared (see Figure 23), but this did not necessarily translate into shared usage.

While there is some degree of value in the two communities using the same sites for shopping, this need not result in high- quality sharing. Visits are based on utility and likely result in very little engagement between individuals from different backgrounds. For instance, a Catholic family and Protestant family may be in the same aisle of the same shop, but this is unlikely to result in normal circumstances to any meaningful type of engagement. In this sense, people experience such spaces

43 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

as neutral rather than truly shared.4 They Cityside and Abbey retail centres, Asda use the spaces as individuals rather than is largely surrounded by predominately as group members, consequently the sites Protestant residential areas and which and their usage are stripped of identity- likely has an impact on how the site is relevant meanings. Auge (2008) has used. Protestants may feel a greater sense identifed such locations as ‘non places’, of ownership of the site, with Catholics sites which lack any particular historical, possibly feeling that they would prefer relational or identity-relevant meanings. As to use an alternative store closer to an a result, cross-community interactions in area dominated by members of their spaces of this kind may be considered as community. A similar context applies to feeting or shallow (Taylor & Moghaddam, the Tesco store in Woodvale, which is a 1994). predominately Protestant area and all the visits to this site were made by Protestant However, given the large amount of participants. time that participants spent in shopping locations, we must consider if retail can In contrast, the Tesco shop on the Antrim be considered a method for sharing in Road has a reasonably even distribution the future. As noted earlier, the value of of visits from both communities despite interactions between the two communities being largely surrounded by residential in these spaces is likely to be limited, but housing associated with the Catholic are there ways to enhance the quality community. This might be explained by of this mixing? While large supermarket the fact that there is a substantial amount chains would likely be unwilling to engage of Protestant housing nearby and much with any relevant initiatives, it should be of the area is private housing, which may considered what facilities could be added make Protestants visiting feel safer and to these sites to increase the opportunity more comfortable than might otherwise for the two communities to engage more be the case. Moreover, there are few fags meaningfully. demarcating any perceived ownership of the surrounding area and there is a police The widespread use of retail sites raises station located nearby, which may make the possibility that such sites could be shoppers feel more secure. further developed in interface areas to open up movement in and around the Despite the widespread co-use of areas, where they may act as both a buffer shopping spaces, public parks were less and a shared resource. Thus far this theory widely used by participants in the Belfast has had mixed success – failing quickly in Mobility Project, who spent just 3% of their the Hillview site on the Crumlin Road, but time in North Belfast’s parks. Given the working well in the Cityside centre and scale of shared space initiatives that have on a smaller scale with the development promoted the value of these spaces, it is between Suffolk and Lenadoon in West worrying that these sites have not been Belfast. more regularly used by our participants.

The specifc absence of co-use of the The fndings echo those of another study Asda on the Shore Road may be explained (Abdelmonem and McWhinney, 2015), by its location. Where both Catholic and which found public spaces in Belfast Protestant communities reside close to the to be complex sites of contention and

4 When discussing spaces that are ‘neutral’ rather than ‘shared’ we are indicating that they are locations where people from different community backgrounds may be in the same location, but there are little quality interactions between the groups (e.g. people from different backgrounds may be in the same isle of a supermarket, but never speak to one another). These may also be locations where people consciously avoid making their identity known and wear no markers that could ‘give away’ their background (e.g. they would intentionally not wear a sports top that reveals a particular allegiance to a particular team/community).

44 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

uncertainty. This evidence may partly Figure 27. Perceptions of division and usage of explain why our participants spent so little Alexandra Park time in these locations. Parks and green spaces are generally underpinned by the principles of ‘openness’ and ‘inclusivity’, but in North Belfast, the use of such spaces can become sectarianized by the way in which the communities approach these locations. For instance, it is common for the two main communities to identify community specifc access points to North Belfast’s parks, and in some cases, such as the Waterworks, residents choose to avoid one another completely by self-segregating the sites into zones belonging to ‘their’ local area and the ‘other’ community (Hocking et al., 2018). Furthermore, the three main parks in North Belfast (Alexandra Park; Ballysillan Playing Fields and the Waterworks) contain interface barriers, a legacy of past tensions that appear to continue to resonate with local residents.

The principles of inclusivity and sharing have been signifcantly compromised in Alexandra Park, where in an extreme example a fence has essentially partitioned the park into two distinct single-identity spaces. Although a gate was constructed in the fence 2011, allowing access to both parts, the ideals of openness and inclusivity of public parks has been undermined. The data from the Belfast Mobility Project illustrated that people participating in ordinary activities, such as walking their dogs or taking their children to play areas, frequently refect on what entry-point should they should take and which area of the park they should visit (See Figure 27).

45 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 27 shows that people perceive the al (2008), who also indicated shopping area surrounding Alexandra Park to be centres, supermarkets and leisure centres highly segregated (top panel), but also that tend to be viewed as shared, in contrast the Catholic side of the park is perceived with local ‘bread and milk’ shops, which to be a more shared space than the were generally always considered to be Protestant side (central panel). In addition, segregated (see Huck, 2018 for more the fgure also suggests that relatively few details). people used the park, and few of those who did crossed through the gates from The obvious challenge for local policy- one side to the other (bottom panel). Once makers will be to study these trends in again, these data highlight the differences an effort to produce more substantial between what people may perceive as levels of sharing in North Belfast and shared and their willingness to actually use beyond. Chapter 2 clearly evidenced the the perceived shared space. negative impact that fags, murals and painted kerbstones had on creating the However, it is also interesting to note that type of atmosphere where sharing was in spite of perception that environment possible. Elsewhere, Shirlow (2003) has around Alexandra Park was highly also explained that for mixing to occur on segregated, two adjacent sites, the Tesco a signifcant level, the respective place shop on the Antrim Road and the recycling has to be decoupled from any relevant centre on Alexandra Park Avenue were political and religious backgrounds. The both widely used by people from both failure to do this in North Belfast has led to communities, and treated as a shared the sectarian segregation of public spaces, resource. This perhaps highlights a contrast such as parks – thereby reducing the range between a willingness to share a functional of platforms available to encourage further space such as a shop or recycling centre, interaction. but not the leisure spaces within the park. In the absence of locations that can easily Discussion be identifed as examples of spaces which routinely play host to ‘high quality sharing’, Despite the deeply segregated nature of we must then likely consider in what ways North Belfast, the research highlighted we can take advantage of other aspects of an awareness by residents of several mixing identifed in this chapter. It is easy predominately owner occupied residential to be underwhelmed by the fact that the areas that were perceived to be mixed majority of the sharing we have evidenced (Figure 11). While the presence of such in this section of the report is based on mixed areas challenge views of North need, but it is still occurring, and we should Belfast as completely polarised, they also think about how we can enrich this low- raise questions of whether such mixing is a level engagement. For instance, a large long term or a transitory state and whether number of both Catholics and Protestants they may serve as the basis for a more visited Cityside Retail Park and the Abbey integrated future geography. Centre Shopping Mall – the mixing between the communities was likely at a Our data also demonstrates that sharing low level (i.e. being in the same physical of public spaces is common, albeit with space, but with little actual engagement), signifcant limitations to this sharing. but can this be stimulated further? Could Most of the mixing between the two statutory bodies look to insert additional main communities happens during the facilities at or near these locations – such afternoon (12pm-6pm) and is based as libraries or an open public space with a around need (i.e. shopping) and wider child’s play area? Those involved in policy practices of leisure and consumption. This development would likely prefer a different correlates with research by Hamilton et driver for sharing other than shopping,

46 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

but mixing in such spaces is occurring at a reasonably signifcant level and the general absence of further examples of comparable levels of sharing means that this is likely an opportunity that requires further evaluation.

Moreover, while we should continue to encourage the sharing of space in particular sites where the two communities meet, we must also routinely evaluate the dynamic of the small number of mixed housing developments in North Belfast. Recently developed sites, such as Felden, require on-going review to ensure they develop appropriately – while we explore how developments of this kind can be replicated elsewhere. In addition, we must be careful that locations that have been traditionally defned as ‘shared’ do not transition into single identity status.

47 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Chapter 4: Belfast City Centre

Belfast’s civic centre has a complex history So, while the shared space offered by in terms of who has access to it and who Belfast city centre should always be feels safe there (Connolly 2012; Bryan, considered of considerable value, it should Connolly and Nagle, 2019). The class never be taken for granted. Belfast City gender, religion and politics of the people Council’s Good Relations Plan, aimed to who have been allowed to be represented consolidate this long history by identifying in the commercial and civic space, as well ‘securing shared city space’ as one of its of those who have had restrictions placed four key themes that could help promote upon them, has varied over time. There equality and good relations across the have, for example, been periods when city. The plan also included the need expressions of working class ‘Orangeism’ to transform contested space, develop were unwelcome in the centre’s civic shared cultural space and build shared spaces. At other points, it has been organisational space and noted that considered one of the few locations in the the centre of Belfast was important in city where Catholics and Protestants largely connecting the city together in ways that feel free to share space (Shirlow, 2003). ‘encourage citizens to travel to new parts (of the city) and have new experiences Even during the height of the confict, while remaining comfortable and feeling Belfast city centre was a location where the safe. Finding ways to connect places is two main communities frequently mixed extremely important in this regard.’ The in shops and offces, although this was plan also acknowledged the signifcant also a period when civic life decreased impact segregation was continuing to have (Bryan, 2012). After the 1998 Agreement, across the city: a greater diversity of events developed, including: St. Patrick’s Day, Culture Night, “Many of the deprived areas within Belfast Pride and the Festival of Fools as well in 2011 are those same areas that were as the development of new commercial the most deprived in the city in 1991. outlets and the rise of the café culture Most of these areas are those in and and the Cathedral Quarter appear to around interfaces. There is still extensive have made the city more vibrant. This has residential segregation with accompanying been underpinned by a number of policy security concerns and crime. Promoting initiatives from the council. better community and race relations are particularly acute within this context.” There have, however, been moments when the accessible nature of the city centre has The Belfast Agenda, which identifes a been undermined. In 2011, the Belfast City series of aspirations for how the city will Council’s Good Relations Plan noted the evolve by 2035, is less specifc about the particular importance of making progress need to deal with residential divisions, in transforming ‘contested spaces’ beyond the word ‘segregation’ only appears the main city centre (Belfast City Council, twice in the forty-eight-page document. 2011). Yet within twelve months of this The ambitious vision put forward in the document being published, the city’s main document largely focuses on the centre of civic space around Belfast City Hall had Belfast. While the value of such aspirations staged a sequence of aggressive protests should not be discounted, it must be related to the decision to limit the days the acknowledged that there is already a Union Flag would fy at this location (Nolan distinction between how the city centre et al., 2014). and interface areas have developed since the 1998 political settlement.

48 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

The redevelopment of Belfast’s economy 4.1 Survey Findings – Views on Community and architecture, the regeneration of Belonging in Belfast City Centre; derelict spaces, the ‘reimaging’ of areas marked by fags and murals, and the 4.2 Belfast Pathways App – Use of Belfast widespread funding of a service-based City Centre; voluntary sector to promote reconciliation and social and economic development 4.3 Walking Interviews and Participatory have all been positive steps taken since GIS – Views on ‘safe’ and ‘unsafe 1998. However, they have arguably had locations in Belfast City Centre. most impact in the central parts of the city, leading to a relatively integrated 4.1 Survey Findings – Views on and peaceful city centre but a very Community Belonging in Belfast City visible urban hinterland where sectarian Centre enclaves are considered as places which the peace-building process will, in theory, The research team included a series of be later extended (Mitchell and Kelly, questions about Belfast city centre in 2010). The northern part of the city could the survey, so that we could review how be considered as archetypical of such individuals living in a highly segregated a hinterland, with sectarianism still a residential environment related to the prominent characteristic. nearby civic space. Overall, respondents offered a very positive view of Belfast city Having established how our participants centre. used space in North Belfast in Chapters 2 and 3, this Chapter will analyse the degree Figure 28 shows that a large percentage to which those involved in the study relate of respondents from both communities to the city centre, which, as established, is felt the city centre was a shared space an area traditionally viewed as ‘shared’ and within which both communities could has been a site of signifcant investment feel equally welcome (82%) and was a far in the post-confict era. This analysis will more open and inclusive space that it had be presented within the following three been in the past (79%). While people from themes: Figure 28. Percentage of respondents by community background who agree or strongly agree that Belfast city centre is a shared space; is more inclusive than it was in the past; has areas that their community would avoid and a place that people still worry about having a negative experience in

Catholic Protestant

100

0 City centre as a City centre is My community avoid My community worry shared space more inclusive than in the past certain areas in about having negative the city centre experiences in the city centre

49 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

both Catholic and Protestant backgrounds 4.2 Belfast Pathways App – Use of expressed similar views, Catholics were Belfast City Centre more strongly in support of the view that Belfast city centre is more inclusive than it Tracking and PGIS data suggest the vast was in the past. majority of city’s central spaces and routes are widely used and perceived as safe by However, there are some qualifcations to members of both Catholic and Protestant this positive view of the city centre. Nearly communities. The city centre accounts for four out of ten (40%) of respondents to about 9% of destinations visited in ‘shared’ the survey indicated that they felt that or ‘mixed’ activity spaces. We recorded their community would avoid certain 313 visits by our participants in Belfast areas in Belfast city centre because they city centre – it appears that these were worry that they may not be welcome, mainly routine (possibly for work) as there with Catholic respondents being slightly were only 57 unique users. There was little more concerned than Protestants (42% difference between how the two main compared to 38%). communities moved around the centre of the city; Figures 29 and 30 illustrate the Furthermore, 27% of respondents also pathways taken by Catholic participants said they worried about having a negative and those from a Protestant background. experience with members of the other community while in the city centre, The data relating to the city centre and again Catholics were slightly more indicates a clear sense that the majority concerned than Protestants. So, while of participants feel comfortable moving people in North Belfast generally feel around in this zone. It does not appear that positive about developments in the city people felt bound by the access points centre, they also retain some fears and they had entered from, i.e. their movement concerns about interacting with members and decisions regarding where they went of the other community. do not appear to be infuenced by the way in which they entered and would later exit When the research team explored the the area. However, there was noticeably responses to this section of the survey less data from Catholic participants in the in further detail, we found that that more south side of the city centre, than from favourable attitudes towards the city participants but at this stage it is not clear centre were predicted by realistic and why this should be the case, and this is symbolic threat (the strongest predictors) something that needs to be explored in and positive experiences of contact with further research. members of the ‘other’ community. In other words, people who were more generally afraid of being attacked or worried about threats to their community identity were less likely to perceive the city centre as a shared and inclusive space. Similarly, people who had a history of positive contact experiences with members of other communities were more likely to perceive the city centre as a shared and inclusive space. Demographic factors such as age, gender, community identity and socioeconomic status had little impact on perceptions of the city centre (see Dixon et al, forthcoming).

50 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 29. Pathways taken by Catholic participants in Belfast City Centre

Figure 30. Pathways taken by Protestant participants in Belfast City Centre

51 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

4.3 Walking Interviews and Participatory its close proximity to the predominately GIS – Views on ‘safe’ and ‘unsafe Catholic Markets area. locations in Belfast City Centre A number of respondents also identifed Some concerns about safety were identifed concerns about some of the boundary areas during the Walking Interviews, but these between the core city centre and the adjacent mainly concerns people’s attitudes to sites residential areas. In particular Catholic on the perimeter of the city centre rather participants often stated they felt would be than the central core area (Figures 31 and unsafe moving past or through North Street 32). For example, a small number of Catholic (an area close to the predominantly Protestant respondents indicated that they would feel Shankill Road), while Protestant participants uncomfortable in areas bordering South indicated that they would be uncomfortable Belfast, due to past experiences of inter- near Castle Street (an area close to the community violence near Central Station predominantly Catholic Falls Roads). during the parading season in Northern Ireland, and several participants from a Yet, as demonstrated by the tracking data, Protestant background stated that they were a sizeable proportion of participants who uncomfortable in this area as well, due to self-identifed themselves as Protestant

Figure 31. ‘Safe’ spaces in Belfast city centre

52 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Figure 32. ‘Unsafe’ spaces in Belfast city centre

Road Data © OpenstreetMap Contributors appear to have visited/passed by these area north of Dunbar Link, this is an area areas in signifcant numbers. This could that has long been largely derelict, but is best be explained by the fact some of currently an area with a number of new these areas are on natural access points commercial developments in progress. from North Belfast to the city centre, These are routes that serve as access while the roads near the Markets serve points to the city centre and therefore as a route into East Belfast (an area participants’ sense of discomfort may which is predominantly Protestant). have been prompted less by any potential This contradiction does though offer an engagement with the ‘other’ community important outcome regarding the data than an expression of a basic fear about we have obtained – what people say they moving through a rundown area that offers do and what they actually do can often be little sense of security or reassurance as quite different. one moves through it.

Of course, we should not discount the sense of threat that participants have recorded in any area of the city and each feature that invokes discomfort needs further evaluation. For instance, a number of participants also explained that they felt uncomfortable in the ring of industrial and derelict land they encounter when entering and exiting the city centre. These included streets to the north side of the city centre, such as Corporation Street and York Street. Similar concerns were expressed about the

53 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Discussion Nevertheless, there were areas where our participants registered concerns about Belfast’s city centre has long been entry points to the city centre that are considered as one of the few sites where regularly identifed as being associated the city’s residents feel safe to ‘share’ with the ‘other’ community (notably a space. Due to its civic nature and the number of Protestants marked the Markets general absence of party emblems or fags, area of the town and several Catholics there is less of a sense of space being marked North Street and its surrounding ‘owned’ by one group. Perhaps for this area). While it would be easy to overlook reason, mixing throughout the centre of these fndings as de-stigmatising entry the city generally withstood some of the points will likely be challenging, there are most contentious moments of the region’s further abandoned spaces and points of wider confict. Again, we need to consider dereliction that also made our participants in more detail the characteristics of the feel ‘unsafe’ (for instance a large number city centre that make it a location where marked the area commonly referred to the two communities feel comfortable for as Sailor Town in this way). Consequently, shopping and socialising. In addition, we while the largely favourable attitude toward need to continue to gauge where, when Belfast city centre should be considered and why community members use the city encouraging, there are certainly points centre, move freely through its streets, and of concern and these are not simply access its facilities. limited to anxiety about the perceived sectarian ownership of specifc spaces. In this sense our analysis is timely, Moreover, further research of this kind is especially given that Belfast city centre likely important to study and understand has been the location of a number of high what knock-on effects of issues such as profle and contentious political and social the ‘Flags Protest’ and marches by the moments in recent years. For instance, Anti-Internment League will have on how the ‘Flag Protests’, following Belfast City people use the city centre. The handling of Council’s decision, in December 2012, to these events and the long-term cumulative limit the days the Union fag fies above impact will likely have important Belfast City Hall, led to a series of violent consequences for how our participants riots between loyalists and the police and view Belfast city centre in the future, as our could have impeded the ‘open and free’ fndings indicate the perceived neutrality use of city centre space. A now annual of the zone has been an important feature march by the Anti-Internment League (a of its usage. group perceived to be largely comprised of dissident republicans), which passes through Belfast city centre, has also involved violent exchanges with the police. Consequently, the opportunity to assess how people enter and move around the centre of the city is a valuable one. We found that our participants tended to move around reasonably freely throughout the city centre. This could be likely connected to the fact that most respondents to our survey indicated high levels of positivity to questions relating to their sense of belonging in the space and that those who completed the Participatory GIS exercise identifed few locations in the area that they defned as ‘unsafe’.

54 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Department for Regional Development. (2001) Regional Development Strategy for Northern Bibliography Ireland 2025. Belfast: Department for Regional Development. Abdelmonem, M. & McWhinney, R. (2015) “In search of common grounds: Stitching the divide Dixon, J., Tredoux, C., Davies, G., Huck, J., Hocking, landscape of urban parks in Belfast.” Cities, 44: B.T., Sturgeon, B., Whyatt, D., Jarman, N., & 40-49. Bryan, D. (2019). “Parallel lives: Intergroup contact, threat and the segregation of everyday Belfast City Council (2011) Good Relations Plan. activity spaces.” Journal of Personality and Social Belfast: Belfast City Council. Psychology. Boal, F.W. (1969) “Territoriality on the Shankill-Falls Dixon, J., Tredoux, C., Sturgeon, B., Hocking. B.T., Divide, Belfast.” Irish Geography, 6(1): 30-50. Davies, G., Huck, J., Whyatt, D., Jarman, N. Boal, F.W. (1971) “Territoriality and class: A study of Bryan, D. (Forthcoming). ‘When the walls come two residential areas in Belfast.” Irish Geography, tumbling down’: The role of intergroup proximity, 6(3), 229-248. threat and contact in shaping attitudes towards the removal of Northern Ireland’s peace walls. Boal, F.W. (1978) “Territoriality on the Shankill-Falls divide, Belfast: the perspective from 1976.” An Dowler, L. (2001) “No man’s land: Gender and the invitation to geography, 58-77. geopolitics of mobility in west Belfast, Northern Ireland.” Geopolitics, 6: 158-176. Boal, F.W. (1996) “Integration and division: sharing and segregating in Belfast.” Planning Practice & Gaffkin, F., McEldowney, M., Rafferty G. & Sterrett, Research, 11(2): 151-158. K. (2008) Public Space for a Shared Belfast: A research report for Belfast City Council. Belfast: Bryan, D. (2012) “Titanic Town: Living in a Landscape Queen’s University Belfast. of Confict.” In Connolly, S. Belfast 400: People Place and History. Liverpool: Liverpool University Gans, H. (1967) The Levittowners. New York: Press. Columbia Press. Bryan, D., Connolly, S. & Nagle, J. (2019) Civic Goldblatt, R. & Omer, I. (2016) “Perceived Identity and public space: Belfast since 1780. ‘neighbourhood’ and tolerance relations: The Manchester: Manchester University Press. case of Arabs and Jews in Jaffa, Israel.” Local Environment, 21(5): 555-572. Burns, A. (2018) Milkman. London: Faber and Faber. Gormley-Heenan, C., Byrne, J. & Robinson, G. (2013) Byrne, J., Gormley-Heenan, C., Morrow, D. & “The Berlin Walls of Belfast.” British Politics, 8(3): Sturgeon, B. (2015). Public Attitudes to Peace 357-382. Walls (2015): Survey Results. Belfast: Ulster University. Grannis, R. (1998) “The importance of trivial streets: Residential streets and residential segregation.” Carson, C. (1989) Belfast Confetti. Oldcastle: The American Journal of Sociology, 103: 1530-1564. Gallery Press. Hamilton, J., Hansson, U., Bell, J. & Toucas, S. (2008) Connolly, S. (2012) People, Place and History. Segregated Lives. Social division, sectarianism Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. and everyday life in Northern Ireland. Institute for Davies, G., Whaytt, D., Huck, J., Dixon, J., Hocking, Confict Research. B.T., Jarman, N., Sturgeon, B. & Bryan, D. (2019) Hocking, B.T., Sturgeon, B., Dixon, J., Jarman, N., “Networks of (Dis)connection: Mobility practices, Bryan D., Huck, J., Whyatt, D., & Davies G. (2019) tertiary streets and sectarian divisions in North “Place-Identity and Urban Policy: Sharing Spaces Belfast.” Annals of the Association of American in the ‘Post-Confict’ city.” In Piazza, R. Discourses Geographers. of Identity in Liminal Places and Spaces. London: Davies, G., Whyatt, D., Huck, J., Dixon, J., Hocking, Routledge Press. B.T., Jarman, N., Sturgeon, B. & Bryan, D. (2019) Hocking, B.T. Sturgeon, B., Whyatt, D., Davies, G., Combining T-communities and GPS tracking to Huck, J., Dixon, J., Jarman, N. & Bryan, D. (2018) assess the impact of segregation on mobility in “Negotiating the ground: ‘mobilizing’ a divide Belfast. In: Proceedings of the GIS Research UK feld site in the ‘post-confict’ city.” Mobilities, 28th Annual Conference, Leicester, UK. 13(6): 876-893. Davies, G., Huck, J., Whyatt, D., Dixon, J., Hocking, Huck, J., Whyatt, D. & Coulton, P. (2014) “Spraycan: A B.T., Jarman, N., Sturgeon, B. & Bryan, D. (2017) PPGIS for capturing imprecise notions of place.” Belfast Mobiltiy Project: Extracting Route Applied Geography, 55: 229-237. Information from GPS Tracks. In: Proceedings of the GIS Research UK 25th Annual Conference, Huck, J., Whyatt, D., Dixon, J, Sturgeon, B., Hocking, Manchester, UK. B.T., Davies, G., Jarman, N. & Bryan, D. (2018) “Exploring Segregation and Sharing in Belfast:

55 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

A PGIS Approach.” Annals of the American Offce of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister Association of Geographers, 109(1): 223-241. (2005) A Shared Future: Policy and Strategic Framework for Good Relations in Northern Huck, J., Whyatt, D., Hocking, B.T., Sturgeon, B., Ireland. Belfast: Offce of the First Minister and Davies, G., Dixon, J., Jarman, N. & Bryan, D., Deputy First Minister. (2019) A Bayesian Approach to ‘Community Belonging’ and Segregation in a Divided City. In: Offce of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister Proceeding of the GIS Research UK 28th Annual (2013) Together: Building a United Community Conference, Leicester UK. Strategy. Belfast: Offce of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Komarova, M. & McKnight, M. (2013) “We are Watching you too’: Refections on Doing Visual Roulston, S. & Young, O. (2013) “GPS tracking of Research in a Contested City.” Sociological some Northern Ireland students – Patterns of Research Online 18(1): 19. shared and separated space: Divided we stand?” International Research in Geographical and Leonard, M. (2007) “Trapped in space? Children’s Environment, 22(3): 241-258. accounts of risky environments.” Children & Society, 21(6): 432-445. Shirlow, P. (2003) “Who fears to speak?’ Fear, mobility and ethno-sectarian in the two ‘Ardoynes.” The Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the city. Cambridge Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 3(1): 76-91. MA: The MIT Press. Shirlow, P. & McGovern, M. (1998) “Who Fears to Lysaght, K. & Basten, A. (2003) “Violence, fear and Speak?”: Fear, Mobility and Ethno-Sectarianism ‘the everyday’: negotiating spatial practice in the in the Two ‘Ardoynes’.” The Global Review of city of Belfast.” In Stanko, E.A. The Meanings of Ethnopolitics, 3(1): 76-91. Violence. London: Routledge. Shirlow, P. & Murtagh, B. (2006) Belfast: Segregation, Massey, D.S. & Denton, N.A. (1993) American Violence and the City. London: Pluto Press. apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Sterrett, K. Mulholland, C., Morrissey, M., Karelse, University Press. C. & Gaffkin, F. (2019) North Belfast: Report. Belfast: Queen’s University Belfast. Mitchell, A. & Kelly, L. (2010) Walking with de Certeau in North Belfast: Agency and Resistance in a Sturgeon, B., Jarman, N., Bryan, D., Dixon, J., Whyatt, conficted city, divided cities/contested states. D., Hocking, B., Huck, J., Davies, G. & Tredoux, C. Working Paper 17. Cambridge, UK: Confict in (2019) Attitudes and Experiences of Residents of Cities. North Belfast to the ‘Other’ Community, Safety, Visual Displays, Peace Walls and Belfast City Nolan, P., Bryan, D., Dwyer, C., Hayward, K., Radford, Centre. Belfast: Institute for Confict Research. K., & Shirlow, P. (2014) The Flag Dispute: Anatomy of a Protest. Belfast: Queen’s University Whyatt, D., Huck, J. Davies, G., Dixon, J., Hocking, Belfast. B.T., Jarman, N., Sturgeon, B. & Bryan, D. (2017). Belfast Mobility Project: Integrating PGIS and Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2011) When groups GPS to Understand Patterns of Segregation. In: meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. Proceedings of the GIS Research UK 25th Annual Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Conference, Manchester, UK. Whyatt, D., Huck, J., Davies, G., Dixon, J., Hocking, B., Jarman, N., Sturgeon, B. & Bryan, D. (2016) Belfast Pathways: Space-Time Analysis of Every Day Activities in a Segregated Environment. Proceedings of the 24th GIS Research UK Conference.

56 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

57 BELFAST MOBILITY PROJECT – POLICY REPORT

Institute for Confict Research North City Business Centre 2 Duncairn Gardens Belfast BT15 2GG Tel: 028 90742682 Email: [email protected] Web: www.confictresearch.org.uk