Urban Contingency - 2016 - Negotiating Space

Negotiating Space ….towards community resilience URBAN RESILIENCE AAR5220

Authors:

Alejandra Madero.

Frederick Mugisa.

Tathabrata Bhattacharya.

Tripti Mahaseth.

May, 2016

M.Sc. Urban Ecological Planning Department of Urban Design and Planning Faculty of Architecture and Fine Arts Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim, Norway

1. INTRODUCTION This study is based on the increased influx of newcomers to Trondheim, Norway and the challenges that may arise once newcomers are housed. The steady increase in newcomers is a reality for the near future and many challenges could arise from it which have to be addressed in a multi-disciplinary manner to avoid future conflict. Urban practitioners must play their part. Such movements have led to a wide range of risks to newcomers, as well as communities in host countries. The primary concern was brought about by the increased influx of refugees, however the study focuses on individuals as newcomers since challenges of adapting to a new place is a common denominator whether an individual migrates by choice or not.

“The process of migration is a process of change, for migrants as well as host and home societies” (IOM 1, 2008, p. 14). This process equally exposes and affects both the newcomers and the host societies whereby the newcomers are exposed to a new culture and environment while host communities become more diverse and heterogeneous. This has created some resistance that has affected the integration processes (Ibid.). Today, urban practitioners are grappling with the fact that the capacity of the existing urban systems is not fully prepared to accommodate and appropriately integrate this unexpected influx of newcomers. It has been noted, by The World Economic forum2, that migrants have to deal with challenges such as; marginalization, community disruption, increased morbidity and mortality while the host countries face costs, social and political polarization and resistance.

In the case of Norway, which has increased their quota of refugees for the next years, chances are that the newcomers will face more problems. Social integration will be one of the major challenges for both newcomers and the host society.

Trondheim is the third largest city in Norway with a total population of 184,960 3. The annual increase in population in the city is 2221 people per year. According to the Kommune, Trondheim is ready to receive 1

MIGRATION, I. O. F. 2008. World Migration Report 2008: Managing Labour Mobility in the Evolving Global Economy. World Migration Report [Online]. Available: https://publications.iom.int/books/worldmigration-report-2008-managing-labour-mobility-evolving-global-economy#sthash.P2sgShRv.dpuf [Accessed May 10, 2016].

2 FORUM, W. E. 2016. Resilience Insights. Global Agenda Council on Risk & Resilience. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

3 SSB 2015. Population and population changes, 1 January 2016, estimated figures. Norway: Statistisk sentralbyrål: Statistics Norway.

1

1100 refugees in the year 2016. This may not seem like a large number in the overall scheme of influx of refugees in the world. However for the city of Trondheim, an additional 50% population comparable to its net population growth is a considerable change. In this context, preparing to receive the 1100 newcomers this year, perhaps more in the coming years, poses a challenge for the integration process.

Social Integration can be understood as the creation of mutual relationships and the expansion of social networks between the host community and the newcomers. It can be seen as the interaction and cooperation amongst both actors at individual and community levels.

Structural (also referred to as placement) integration is a subset of Social Integration. Structural integration means the acquisition of rights and the access to positions and membership statuses in the core institutions of the immigration society: economy and labour market, education and qualification systems, housing system, welfare institutions including the health system, and the citizenship as membership in the political community (Heckmann and Bosswick, 2005) Norway has made efforts regarding structural integration which has enabled newcomers to become part of the existing systems. In spite of this, challenges still exist with attaining social integration. The purpose of this research is to contribute towards understanding social integration through the lens of spatial features of a place. It is also intended to understand the process of building social integration and its link to urban resilience.

The study started by identifying the area where most newcomers reside in Trondheim, Norway. It was established from Statistics Norway's Information Centre4 that the neighbourhood with the highest percentage of migrants is Saupstad-Kolstad with 29.4% population being migrants, in comparison with the whole city of Trondheim that presents 6.8% of migrant population, representing the most culturally diverse area of Trondheim. Taking this neighbourhood as a case study, the paper explores the relationship between space, social integration and urban resilience to uncover the reasons what makes KolstadSaupstad popular for newcomers.

The questions this paper seeks to look at are; why do newcomers choose to live in Kolstad-Saupstad in Trondheim? What are the characteristics that make this a desirable place to live? And, how do these characteristics build a sense of community and the way the community comes together and faces challenges posed by influx of newcomers.

4

Ibid.

2

2. THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING This paper deals with certain terms that have over time become difficult to define amongst the social sciences and planning world. It is desirable that these words are unpacked before they are subjected to analysis and observations are made. Concepts such as; social integration, community resilience and urban resilience which represent the overall theoretical premises of this research will be discussed.

2.1 The Concept of Social Integration According to Heckmann (Heckmann and Bosswick, 2005), “Integration as a general sociological concept and as a state refers to stable, cooperative relations within a social system which has distinct borders to its environment.... Functionalist theory sees integration as one of the functionalist prerequisites of any social system to ensure its survival.”

Integration as a term has been synonymous with many in the past; assimilation, social cohesion, inclusion, incorporation, absorption and many others. These terms have been contested and considered ambiguous in both meaning and utilisation. It has been the term ‘assimilation’ that has been most widely accepted in the past. However, there have been many misconceptions with the term; it was understood to be a one sided process in which immigrants or newcomers were culturally suppressed to obtain a homogenous society. This idea is recently being challenged and new interpretations in terms of integration being a two way process to shrink differences between newcomers and receiving societies is coming up. It is no longer limited to strengthening relations within a social system but also to incorporate and include the newcomers to an existing social system.

When we talk in context of newcomers, firstly we must observe that migration has an effect in the size and composition of the population of the receiving society and its existing system. How these newcomers relate to existing systems, culture and people and how the receiving society is open to this relation is a crucial factor in the integration process.

(Heckmann and Bosswick, 2005) contend that there are two concepts of integration; system integration and social integration. System integration refers to relations independent of individual actors; relations between that of parts of the existing system like institutions or the relation between parts of a social system to one another. Conversely, social integration is the inclusion of a newcomer to an existing society, the relations of the newcomer to that of existing actors and at a more personal level; a relation between individuals to one another in an existing system.

The emphasis here is that of social integration since the integration of newcomers to receiving society is the focus of the study. A definition of social integration of migrants (newcomers) is: “....a generations lasting process of inclusion and acceptance of migrants in the core institutions, relations and statuses of the receiving society. For the migrants integration refers to a process of learning a new culture, an acquisition of rights, access to positions and statuses, a building of personal relations to members of receiving society and a formation of feeling of belonging and identification towards the immigration society. Integration is an interactive process between migrants and the receiving society. The receiving society has to learn new ways of interacting with the newcomers and adapt its institutions to their needs.” (ibid)

3

It is important to understand now that social integration is not only an end state but also the process since societies are dynamic in nature and ever-changing. To understand further social integration we look at an approach to categorise the dimensions of this concept.

(Esser, 2000) proposes four basic dimensions of social integration which provide a basis for discussing the concept in context of this study.

Source: Esser,2000, Compiled by Authors

The four dimensions mentioned above are the base tools in the understanding of the findings of the study.

As urban practitioners, this paper focuses on the spatial imprints of the dimensions of social integration.

Space is the central platform in placement integration as housing, in interactive integration as a place or opportunity for interaction, and in identificational integration as a spatial reference system to a place an individual belongs to or wants to belong to.

2.2 Urban Resilience Over the last decade the word resilience has become buzzword that has been used as a desired characteristic of cities. (Meerow et al., 2016) note that resilience has made it possible to make connections between complex socio-ecological systems and their sustainable management with urban solutions.

Despite this growing interest in urban resilience, there is still a certain level of disagreement on its definition. This is largely because the term is a combination of two words; urban and resilience, that have invariably been used to mean different things and in a wide range of contexts. The word ‘resilience’ has defined in so many different fields that it has almost become redundant. However, some scholars argue that the openness of the term helps to foster multidisciplinary collaboration since it provides a basis for understanding multiple fields. (Meerow et al., 2016)

4

(Klein et al., 2003) argue that the openness of definition gives an avenue to interpret and understand complex systems like cities through a multitude of lenses. Urban resilience has been mostly quoted in response to or preparation for natural disasters, but it can be applied to other aspects of city development.

One of these being the level of preparedness of urban systems to incorporate an unexpected influx of population, with different cultural background, and their ability to adapt for these new cultures.

As open as a concept might be there are still certain characteristics of it that have to be defined. A recent literature review on the term has helped to identify the major 6 paradigms of resilience and created a new integral definition for it: “Urban Resilience refers to the ability of an urban system- and all its constituent socio-ecological and socio-technical networks across temporal and spatial scales to maintain or rapidly return to desired functions in the face of a disturbance, to adapt to change and to quickly transform that limit current or future adaptive capacity”. (Meerow et al., 2016) Despite the broadness of this definition, there is still room for the term to adapt to any unexpected circumstance at any level of a city system, depending on the desired focus. It provides for a definition of “urban” as the series of socio-ecological and socio-technical networks that maintain a running system.

Resilience can have an impact from the individual to the government level, depending on the focus of it.

Urban resilience is seen to mean the process of building the overall adaptive and responsive capacity of a city on a day to day basis rather than simply adapting to specific threats as they arise. By seeing it as a process, there are several stages that have to be addressed depending on the shock or stress that is being dealt with.

Source: Authors

The ‘Panarchy’ model framework as proposed by (Gunderson, 2001) acknowledges resilience as a process and highlights its stages. This framework is based on empirical knowledge creating a complex yet understandable way to access and examine how unexpected shocks or stresses affect different parts of systems, making it easy to identify and mitigate which part of the system might fail. Panarchy is to give sense to what it might be. We cannot predict the specifics of future possibilities, but we might be able to define conditions that limit or expand those future possibilities. As a consequence, the properties we need to choose are not those chosen to describe the existing state of a system and its behaviour, but rather ones chosen to identify the properties and process that shape the future (ibid)

5

Since the focus of this research is dealing with an expected but sudden influx of population, the stage of the process that this paper deals with is preparedness.

The preparedness of how to deal with the accommodation of new cultures?

Source: Gunderson, 2001

By dealing with preparedness and accommodation of new cultures into the society, the focus will be on resilience at a community level. How do community-level systems help translate their cultural needs into physical or spatial features? How do different communities of the existing city adapt their dynamics to suit the newcomers’ cultural and spatial requirements? By identifying attempts of integration for newcomers in the city, we can understand how things work, why they work, and how they can be improved in terms of social integration, urban resilience and space.

3. RESEARCH QUESTION This study stems from the recent and continuing influx of refugees to Trondheim. The question arises; where do these newcomers choose to stay after they have been granted residence? The study evolves from the finding that: Most immigrants (newcomers) choose to reside in Kolstad-Saupstad in Trondheim. (SSB, 2015) After this fact is established, the question that arises is what makes Kolstad-Saupstad the desirable to the newcomers? And what can we learn from this?

Therefore, the main question that this research set out to answer is: What are the characteristics of Kolstad-Saupstad that makes it attractive to newcomers in Trondheim?

Identifying the characteristics alone is not sufficient. The influx of refugees to Trondheim is being considered a stress to the system and the Kommune is concerned over how successfully the newcomers and existing residents will be integrated. In order to understand this concern, the study looks at how the housing cooperative of Kolstad-Saupstad has dealt with newcomers in the past and present, and how adaptation to changes for newcomers has evolved.

Source: Authors

6

Sub Question: In what ways do these characteristics build social integration and resilience?

The nature of this sub questions is explanatory, and it defines the path to link the findings with the major theoretical terms on which this research is based on.

4. METHODOLOGY Social Integration and Urban Resilience, the core concepts of this paper, are very subjective and depend a lot on interpretation of both the actors and the observers. Hence a social constructionist approach has been adopted. This approach, (Robson, 2011) argues, is best used in scenarios where there are no single “realities” but many versions and perceptions of it. The onus then lies on the researchers to acquire multiple perspectives, thereby constructing the “reality” by appreciating the “reality” of every participant. Since observation and what people “feel” forms a prime factor in this research, this research is essentially qualitative in nature.

Also, looking at the theoretical discussion behind social integration and urban resilience and the complexity in analysing them in an urban scenario involving dissimilar cultures, it is clear that a particular strategy is required for investigation. This strategy goes beyond simple observation or interviews and forms the core of the research-methodology. As the phenomena of social integration and urban resilience have been explored in a local context and it is almost impossible to ascertain the scale to which these things influence the city at large, it is safe to conclude that a case study method would have been the ideal way to conduct research in this direction.

Case study has been defined “a strategy for doing research which involves an empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of evidence.”

(Robson, 2011) 4.1 Methods

Source: Authors

The information used in this research has been largely gathered by observing and interviews. Since the research hinges very strongly on the physical use of space, the use of observation as a method of collecting data was indispensable. It was crucial to observe the different ways in which spaces are used daily and the how the residents modified these to suit their needs. Later, observation was also used to triangulate the claims made by the interviewees and the reality on ground. The advantage of strategically

7

observing helps to identify the different spaces that were most used by the population, but also key actors and give insights on how to contact them.

Likewise, Interviews were an important tool in gathering “realities” of different people and hence understanding the perceptions. Also, being a face-to-face exercise, it was easy to build a rapport with the respondents so that crucial information could be gathered on sensitive topics.

In order to understand the real situation, impartially, it was necessary to triangulate the information received by both interviews and observations by overlapping them. The subjectivity of the research made it very crucial that a comparison of the different points of view of the actors had to be carried out. In a nutshell, given the limited time and difficulty information gathering, triangulations become the primary means of validating the gathered information.

4.2 Limitations The nature of this research and the case study area presented challenges to deal with. The subjectivity and sensitivity of the topic themselves created boundaries, while the creation of trust within the community and searching for the right actors who were open enough to talk about the subject added greater challenge.

The lack of networks of the researchers, not only in the area but in the city, represented one of the major limitations for this study.

Source: Authors

Added to this, language barrier also came across. The researches do not speak Norwegian and lack a translator in their group. People contacted at Kolkstad-Saupstad did not speak English and this problem further aggravated with the migrant community. It is felt that many more interesting peoples’ insights could have been gained, their perceptions and more importantly their qualms could the language barrier be overcome.

Also, the current political and social situation the “refugee crisis” has brought about, has made people hesitant to talk about social integration, culture clashes openly. These matters, we were informed were graver with migrant population that hail from similar regions.

8

5. FINDINGS From the above discussion we understand that social integration has long departed from the idea of simply assimilating the newcomers into the host community by making them “fit” for the hosting culture. It is rather seen as an opportunity to bring two communities together without affecting each other’s prestige and an obligation on either’s part to imbibe and appreciate cultural nuances of each other.

Although integration is a concept largely dependent on perception and normally observed over a long duration of time, certain efforts of integrating cultures leave spatial imprints. The way some things are either constructed or simply installed and spaces designed or their usages adapted, show the extent of assimilation of cultures. This in turn points towards the capability of people to modify spaces around them to suit their (cultural) needs in a foreign environment.

Our justification of studying Kolstad-Saupstad partly arises from this fact. As discussed earlier, KolstadSaupstad is a desirable residential area for the migrants albeit its distance from the city-centre and reportedly inferior living conditions compared to the rest of Trondheim. However, over the period of our research, talking to key respondents and repeated site visits, we came across certain phenomena that when carefully observed exhibit efforts of social integration and point towards small evidences of assimilation of culture. In what is to follow, an effort has been made to understand these phenomena in the light of social integration, i.e. to what extent they bring people together of different cultures, how they transform spaces and help improve resilience of the community in particular and the city in general.

5.1 Barbeque spaces Norwegians value their sun, and outdoor activities are popular in their culture. Barbequing is one such activity. Considering that it is a reason to ‘get-together’, the Borettslag in Kolstad-Saupstad installed small barbeque grills in the open spaces. Being accessible to all, it has overtime become a popular activity in the local migrant communities to gather for barbecues. It is interesting to see how this seemingly simple phenomenon evidences the transformation of space for integration, utilization of resources for cultural expression and showcasing the incongruences between cultures.

It is worth noting that while the Norwegians prefer barbequing within a small group (mostly as a single family), the migrant communities on the other hand tend to assemble in large numbers usually as different families. Although the aim of bringing people together is achieved, the usage of space by the various residents is different.

Source: Authors

9

It is interesting to note that although barbecuing as a form of recreation is a prevalent culture in Norway, the migrant families have taken it up enthusiastically. However, this seemingly “family” event with limited number of people has been modified into an opportunity to meet with people from their community at large.

This seemingly simple phenomenon reveals transformation of space for integration, utilization of resources for cultural expression and also evidences of cultural clashes.

By what has been discussed earlier, this small event can be seen as evidence to social integration of the newcomers by flexibly utilizing the available space for cultural accommodation.

Demonstrating the adaptability of the area for different cultures, the barbeque areas is an example of good acculturation strategies for spaces, whereby it provides a space for cultural exchange and also allows modification of itself into a communal event to suit newcomers’ cultural needs. In a way, this space brings together two very different cultures strengthen the channels for social integration of the area. This, in turn helps to build community resilience by facilitating the meeting places and enhancing the chances of interaction between the newcomers and the natives. The flexibility and adaptability of the usage of this space to accommodate two very distant cultures shows tolerance capacities, both being major components of urban resilience.

5.2 The case of Washing Carpets Carpets form an integral part of home decor for most of the newcomer families in Kolstad-Saupstad. Washing them in an open public space happened to create some conflict and the issue was raised at the Borettslag. The washing of the carpets was a very necessary activity and a considerable number of residents required an alternative.

Therefore, it was collectively decided to utilize a part of the Borettslag premises as a carpet washing area within a fixed schedule and consequently, necessary arrangements were made. This space also signifies the community’s effort to understand and accommodate new culture (acculturation), negotiation on part of the Borettslag (finding a middle path to balance the interest of both the communities) and ‘identification’ whereby such simple decision signalled the tolerance and inclusion of the migrant community within the folds of the host community.

This case reveals a particularly interesting side of social integration and gives deep insights into the spatial imprint of negotiation to achieve social integration, cultural necessities, transforming usage of space and an an opportunity for acculturation. As for Urban resilience, it represents the ability to adapt and transform to accommodate new needs without limiting their current or future capacity. Building up the sense of belonging by providing a space in society, enhancing the sense of community and contributing towards community resilience.

10

5.3 The Mosque This case reveals an important dimension of social integration, namely ‘Placement’; that shows the position one has reached in the society. The mosque not only serves as a place for congregation of the individuals but also a chance to practice religion freely. The mosque can be seen as a place that strengthens the bonds within the certain newcomer communities. Other cultural activities also take place in the mosque, making it a space created to showcase understanding and respect towards newcomers and their culture. Moreover, Source: Authors

considering that the host community does not proactively practice religion, the mosque stands as a testimony to the tolerance the host community has towards newcomers.

The allocation of a space for a mosque has been a result of accommodating the cultural needs of a large population of the area. This suggests that efforts are being taken to adapt to newer cultures which are becoming part of the Norwegian society by giving them a place to identify themselves as a religious group.

This lends to the understanding that the community is prepared to accept these changes and make it a part of their system which represents high levels of adaptability, contributing to community resilience.

5.4 Områdeløft The Områdeløft is the latest effort by the Kommune towards social integration by introducing improved spaces of recreation that could be utilized to bring together people of various cultures. This recent project is an effort to use participatory techniques to get insight from the residents in the community to voice out their needs. An example of such an effort is the plan to improve the parks and children playing areas as a result of suggestions given by children themselves. This initiative lends towards both interaction integration as well as identification integration. This interactive process to adapt spaces according to the needs of inhabitants is a positive step towards sense of ownership and Source: http://www.husbanken.no/omradeloft/

belonging of the place to the residents. These are the kind of initiatives and the kind of spaces that are envisioned which become interactive spaces for the community to gather and socially integrate. The inhabitants also begin to identify with their surroundings and become more a part of the community via initiatives like Områdeløft. This will in turn help build community resilience since the collective voices of the

11

inhabitants is to result into a physical spatial adaptation to their needs and desires. The process is still an ongoing one which from the outset looks encouraging to build both social integration as well as community resilience; the results are to be seen.

5.5 Borettslag Borettslag (Housing cooperative) is a non-profit formal body of representatives of a housing complex assisted by an external mediator for maintenance and dispute resolution in the housing complex. In Kolstad there are seven members in one Borettslag in which except the mediator all others are residents of the area and are democratically elected after a fixed term. It is an independent body with no dependence on Kommune. The borettslag functions as a chief custodian of the monthly fees paid by the residents of the particular complex and determines its investment in consultation with the residents.

Source: Author

The Borettslag can be seen as an institution that showcases the dimension of ‘placement’ whereby, the election of residents as members without cultural bias promotes social integration. It is so, because being represented in the system that maintains one’s neighbourhood in a foreign land with every decision being discussed with all members brings a degree of confidence in the system and on the formal arrangement that mandates and promotes it. Being part of such a system adds relevance to one’s position in the society.

Also, it helps the residents to see themselves as member of a collective body, thereby imparting a distinct ‘identification’. The formation of a Borettslag for the purpose of dispute resolution within the complex indicates an effort towards improving ‘interaction’, giving every member an equal chance to understand, assimilate, imbibe and adapt to each other’s culture for the ultimate benefit of the complex.

Communities are dynamic in nature and are constantly changing, whether it be change in population size or composition, in financial stability. The Borettslag is an established system which deals with these changes and considers solutions to issues which may come along with this change. The ability of the Borettslag to continue adapting and mediating any challenges they might face in the housing society, with examples such as the barbeque area or the carpet washing area, shows a high capacity to deal with changes. This is turn helps to build a more resilient community which is adaptable, flexible and works through mediation.

5.6 Adjustable Dwelling Units Homes are considered to be the most personal spaces and bear the ultimate expression of one’s culture.

To be able to organise home according to one’s needs, necessity and culture is a big achievement of any dweller. It is interesting to see that dwelling units in Kolstad-Saupstad have been allowed such arrangements with an understanding with the Borettslag. Under this arrangement, an occupant is allowed modify the rooms as one desires. It was informed that certain partitions within the dwelling units have been made with light materials so that they can be removed or modified according to the owner’s wishes. A resident is even allowed to change services such as water pipes with consultation with the Borettslag. As

12

long as the main structure of the building is maintained, options to modify spaces within are open to consultation.

This simple understanding between the Borettslag and the residents can be seen to solidify ‘identification’ of a resident to its representative body. This could also be treated as an indicator of good ‘interaction’ between them. However, over all, the very fact that a family or an individual can regulate the amount of space can help build confidence within the residents, which in turn helps in realising all the aforementioned dimensions of social integration within a community.

The capacity of adapting the space itself without limiting the current of future evolvement shows a chance to build individual resilience in a personal or family level, contributing to the overall community resilience of the area by enhancing the capacities of individuals. This provides a small example of how to impact and trigger individual resilience, and support to the bigger picture.

5.7 Limitations From the above discussion it is clear that small efforts, often unconsciously bring about positive and desirable changes in the way two cultures interact with each other, making space for each other in the best possible manner. However, it would be a folly to not discuss the limitations of such actions.

Drawing from the cases presented above, though Kolstad-Saupstad is a desirable place to live, discussions have revealed that there are latent issues that may arise when the cultures come face-to-face.

It has been learned that the barbeques arranged by migrants are sometimes in shape of mega events that run contrary to the prevalent idea of it being a family affair. Over the years, some complaints regarding noise have been reported to the Borettslag from time to time. It should also be highlighted that although the construction of a mosque was allowed in Kolstad-Saupstad, the call for prayers (Azaan) was disallowed citing noise and disturbance to locals. It should be understood that the calls form an integral part of the Islamic religion and can be seen as a huge trade-off by the migrant community to be part of the host community.

It is also interesting to see how in the process of designing spaces for interaction, certain important spaces have been transformed considerably. A case in hand is the children play areas that have been installed with barbeque grills that often become occupied with adults thereby, limiting play areas for children in the vicinity of their homes. Although, various efforts have been planned in this regard under the Områdeløft, its realization and the results are yet to be seen.

A notable conflict in terms of usage of space has been the case of foyer spaces within apartment buildings.

The foyer and staircase areas are common spaces which are meant to be kept empty for movement as well as exit routes at times of emergency. However, there have been incidences of families keeping personal items such as bicycles, shoe racks in these common spaces. This results in clutter and difficulty in movement for other residents in the building. This is an ongoing conflict which has not yet been resolved by the community for which the concerns have been raised.

13

6. CONCLUSION The purpose of looking at Kolstad-Saupstad as a site in particular was to find instances in which space has been a determinant of either coexistence or conflict between newcomers and the host community. We found spaces that incorporated the ideas of both. We can see from the findings that spaces need to be adaptable, communities need to be tolerant to all cultures, and that mediation is key to adapt spaces to all cultures.

The adaptability, tolerance and mediation need to be both in the case of newcomers and of the host community in order to continue the process of social integration and resilience in the community.

Adaptability to change is a key factor in both building social integration as well urban resilience; both the concepts acknowledge that change is imminent and that the only way to overcome issues is to adapt to these changes as best as possible.

Tolerance is a highlighted attitude to be incorporated into spaces since this limits issues which may arise between various actors (whether newcomers or that of host community) and leads to better integration and a more resilient community. Tolerance is key, since this is the characteristic that makes various actors aware of differences in cultures yet drives them to respect and adapt to these differences. Tolerance allows individuals to experience one another's culture and strive towards a more heterogeneous community based on respect for differences. Mediation of usage and adaptability of space is key to achieve a tolerance environment in which inhabitants of the community co-exist. Mediation allows equal voice in expression of views of all parties and a compromise on the solution to any conflict that may arise. This in turn leads to a greater sense of ownership and sense of belonging of the space which helps build social integration and urban resilience.

Overall, mediation, adaptability, and tolerance are the key characteristics found in course of the study which make Kolstad-Saupstad attractive to newcomers, and help to build social integration and urban resilience amongst both newcomers and the host community.

Source: Author

14

REFERENCES ESSER, H. 2000. Soziologie. Spezielle Grundlagen. Band 2: Die Konstruktion der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt/New York.

Campus.

FORUM, W. E. 2016. Resilience Insights. Global Agenda Council on Risk & Resilience. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

GUNDERSON, L. H. 2001. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems, Island press.

HECKMANN, F. & BOSSWICK, W. Integration and integration policies. Bamberg: European Forum for Migration Studies, 2005. Citeseer.

KLEIN, R. J., NICHOLLS, R. J. & THOMALLA, F. 2003. Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept?

Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 5, 35-45.

MEEROW, S., NEWELL, J. P. & STULTS, M. 2016. Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 147, 38-49.

MIGRATION, I. O. F. 2008. World Migration Report 2008: Managing Labour Mobility in the Evolving Global Economy.

World Migration Report [Online]. Available: https://publications.iom.int/books/world-migration-report-2008managing-labour-mobility-evolving-global-economy#sthash.P2sgShRv.dpuf [Accessed May 10, 2016].

ROBSON, C. 2011. Real world research 3 rd Ed. UK: Wiley.

SSB 2015. Population and population changes, 1 January 2016, estimated figures. Norway: Statistisk sentralbyrål: Statistics Norway.

15