The spatial-conceptual basis of the construction of place across the social sciences, including in human geography (and particularly in the field of area studies), has long been questioned and criticised for its strong grip on territorial and container-like thinking on spatiality.Alternative spatial dimensions, such as scale, place and networks, have been put forward by a range of authors.Building on these critical perspectives, this article proposes rethinking 'spatial bias', or what we would call the 'one-dimensional framing of space', and combining the most promising perspectives on spatial construction in a multi-dimensional analytical framework, in order to synergise their individual strengths instead of playing off one against another.The framework, considered a heuristic tool for empirical analysis, combines the categories of space as place, territory, network, positionality and mobility from a relational, actor-centred and translocal perspective.Operationalised for the empirical analysis of socio-spatial dynamics and phenomena, it allows one to trace interconnections between different spatial dimensions and offers a range of different entry points for empirical inquiry.We demonstrate the utility and practical value of the suggested analytical framework through its application in one empirical case study in northern Pakistan.

Research on the governance of refugees has until recently remained conceptualized with the national perspective as a starting point. This article compares asylum governance at the local level between Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, focusing on the often sensitive and highly debated issue of reception and accommodation. The central idea is to determine convergences and divergences of local reception structures and efforts, and how they are linked to the governance levels situated above them. Despite municipalities having been greatly affected by, and having shaped in practice, reception and integration processes of asylum seekers and refugees, so far there has been little in terms of comparative research across countries in Europe. Our findings emerging from the comparison suggest that top-down implementations of asylum reception have created numerous problems and protest on the ground, especially when the local population and local stakeholders were not involved in the decision-making process. On the one hand, the case studies show that within each national setting, the local regimes and agencies can shape divergent reception outcomes in terms of integrative or disintegrative policies. On the other hand, converging developments in the local cases across national contexts, such as the impact of the local political climate, suggest the crucial impact of local reception regimes and agencies, notwithstanding varying regulatory frameworks and procedures. We thus underline the importance of local-to-local comparison, and not only national-to-national, when it comes to analysing refugee reception.

The objective of this article is to provide an analysis of the spatialities of Airbnb in Sofia, Bulgaria. Relying on an analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data, this article firstly explores the diffusion and concentration of Airbnb listings in the city’s districts. It questions whether the platform’s self-proclaimed contribution to a more diversified offering of tourism accommodation indeed applies to the context of Sofia. It then identifies which listings are most popular among Airbnb guests, and examines who reaps the benefits and profits from this “sharing” economy and who does not. In doing so, this article aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of the power relations in the production and consumption of Airbnb experiences. Whilst discussing the socio-spatial impacts of Airbnb in Sofia, this article takes into account some of the broader urban transformations that have taken place in the city since the end of the socialist regime in 1989. The findings suggest that the large majority of Airbnb listings tend to concentrate in those districts that are marked by commercialization and gentrification and are home to a privileged higher-income population. These areas generally also already benefit from a high concentration of official tourism accommodation and tourist attractions. As such, the article concludes that, like in other European cities, Airbnb benefits a selective number of hosts and potentially further exacerbates an already problematic private rental market.

Addressing the spatial dimensions of risk, this paper examines the multiple ways that consumers negotiate the 'riskscapes' associated with the consumption of convenience food.It explores how convenience food poses a range of risks and potential ways of mitigating those risks.Drawing on empirical research from Germany and the UK, the paper demonstrates how food risks should be contextualized within the practices of everyday life and how consumer understandings of risk differ from expert risk assessments.The paper locates a number of different sites within the riskscape associated with convenience food, going beyond the focus on food safety and security that are the main concerns of health authorities and government advisors.Deicit models of food risk are criticised and alternatives are proposed that emphasise the socially embedded nature of risk within the practices of everyday life.

This paper uses the concept of riskscapes to understand the way climate risks manifest themselves and interact with other risks to create vulnerable local communities in Ethiopia and Tanzania. The main research question we addressed is: what are the different sources of risks facing farmers’ livelihoods in the selected case study areas of both countries and where does climate risk fit? The study uses qualitative research methodology with thick description of our case studies to identify variables which are common in both countries. Accordingly, we identified six major risk settings which are important in determining the vulnerability of communities, namely ‘climate hazard risk setting’, ‘subsistence risk setting’, ‘population increase risk setting’, ‘state policy failure risk setting’, ‘market volatility risk setting’, and ‘supernatural risk setting’. Our findings highlight two important points. First, the interaction between risk settings and climate risks differs from one place to another, depending on the ecological endowment and social fabric of the area of interest. Second, local communities and experts attach different importance to the six risk settings identified and the interaction between them, making up local community and expert riskscapes. Hence, we argue that effective climate risk management in the context of sub-Saharan Africa requires proper understanding of the way various risk settings interact with climate risk, and of the different weight that relevant actors attribute to these risks and their interaction.