Places are characterized by physical features (i.e., furniture, window placement, etc.) and by the corresponding behaviors of people who occupy them (i.e., eating, sitting, walking). In the digital world, places are also characterized by the virtual behaviors and activities of people (i.e., internet browsing, checking emails, etc.). Although virtual behaviors usually occur in computer-mediated formats, these behaviors are no different than conventional forms of behavior where people interact with each other, exchange ideas, share information, conduct business, or engage in discussion.
This means that in today's world of telecommunication and technological advances virtual behaviors can – and do – occur any place where wireless connections are available. It can be assumed, then, that the classical “place attributes” of sociality, control, community, and privacy apply to both physical and virtual places (Axtell, Hislop, and Whittaker 2008; Oblinger and Oblinger 2005; Wilson and Peterson 2002).
Any discussion regarding virtual behaviors must first address the ongoing debate in the literature regarding the concepts of “virtuality”1 and “physicality.” Although the literature contains many research studies that explore the physical attributes of places,2 research studies that examine the virtual attributes of places are far less frequent (Canter 1997; Cresswell 2004; Weisman 2001).
Virtuality is an umbrella term that refers to the nature of human interaction with virtual tools and is defined as “the cultural perception that material objects are interpenetrated by information patterns” (Hayles 1999). According to Hayles, virtuality is normally associated with computer simulations that put the body into a feedback loop with a computer-generated image. This definition suggests the duality of virtuality as being materiality on the one hand, and information on the other. In contrast, the term physicality usually is used to refer to the tangible physical world and the physical space that is occupied while conducting activities such as conversation, eating, and sitting.
The difference between virtuality and physicality is the focus of debate among scholars. Those who fall into the virtuality school of thought suggest that virtual reality technologies make visually immediate the perception that a world of information exists parallel to the “real” world, the former intersecting the latter at many points and in many ways (Hayles 1999).
Advocates of physicality, in contrast, usually proclaim phenomenology as the dominant school of thought. Phenomenology enthusiasts argue that the character of “place” is embodied in its physical rootedness. This way of thinking proposes that because an individual is bound by their body to a place, the physicality of the human body immediately regularizes the world in terms of here-there, near-far, up-down, above-below, and right-left. Further, they argue that physicality equates to authenticity, suggesting that any simulation of the physical world is inauthentic – often referring to such places as pseudo-places (e.g., Disneyland) or as non-places (e.g., an airport) (Relph 1976). According to this way of thinking, when people are sitting at their computer and looking at the screen they are merely “pretending” to be in a “real” place, much like people pretend to be at a “real” French café when dining in Disneyland (Turkle 1996). In extreme cases phenomenology advocates suggest that any relationship between virtuality and “sense of place” is insignificant in relation to the properties of physicality.
This debate among scholars about the dichotomy between virtuality and physicality reflects a long-standing tension in the environment and behavior literature where phenomena are often cast in outright opposition to each other; for example, form versus function, environment versus behavior, and people versus place. Various scholars have challenged such dichotomous views, suggesting that such stances are detrimental to a holistic understanding of phenomena (Altman and Rogoff 1987).
Physicality, as a place determinant, stems from a nostalgic view of place as suggested by phenomenologist Heidegger (1962) and his followers. Moores observes that physical determinism as a criterion of place suffers from an excess of idealism, and, as such, negates the possibility of different, perhaps competing, place-making practices occurring among people who occupy the same physical location (Moores 2006; see also Massey 1995; May 1996).
In keeping with Moores' assertion, Kendall proposes that much like physical locations, virtual behaviors allow for near-instantaneous responses from physically distant others, and can provide a particularly vivid sense of place. At the same time, however, Kendall maintains that virtual determinism should not be considered the sole criterion of place. She notes that while engaged in a virtual behavior, there is still a physical environment in which the body resides and, hence, there is the potential for two experiential worlds to coexist simultaneously (Kendall 2002).
Extending the idea of virtual behaviors to urban environments, Linda Baker observes a new sense of place, terming it the “new new urbanism,” a fusion of telecommunications technology and urban design (Baker 2004). Baker postulates that with the new generation of wireless devices, GPS locators, and ubiquitous networking, digital space will facilitate the communal public places where people interact with friends or strangers. She observes that the wireless services emphasize proximity over connectivity, the local over the global, and the adage of “here and now” rather than “anytime, anywhere” of the internet's former purpose.
This essay extends the prior arguments of virtual–physical coexistence by going beyond the simplistic dichotomy of virtuality and physicality, and framing it as a virtual–physical continuum. Consider, for instance, that person A visits a coffee shop with person B. This means that persons A and B are operating in the same physicality. If person A connects with person C through a social networking site such as Facebook, person A is operating in virtuality. Thus, person A is operating both in physicality (as he engages with person B) and virtuality (as he engages with person C). This interaction could be further intensified if person B connects virtually with another person, D. Now both A and B are floating between physicality and virtuality.
These different scenarios create different space-time geographies which can only be described through environments which are on a virtual–physical continuum. Spaces which are on the virtual–physical continuum have been referred in educational and information sciences as blended spaces which, by definition “blend” physical environments (face-to-face) with virtual environments (wireless computer technology) (Oblinger and Oblinger 2005).
Classroom environments and wireless coffee shops can be considered as existing in the central portion of this virtual–physical continuum because they consist of a nearly equivalent blending of virtual and physical places. Other environments can be at the extremes: that is, either overtly virtual such as social networking sites or overtly physical such as a neighborhood park, an assisted living facility, or any environment where online activities are kept to a minimum. While a strict demarcation between these three modes is difficult to make, suffice it to say that with the rapid advancements of digital technologies, distinctions between them are continually blurred.
While not many studies have explored place-type attributes of the virtual–physical continuum, in recent studies of the virtual behaviors of computer users, Ito, Okabe, and Anderson identified two types of behaviors – “camping” and “cocooning” (Ito et al. 2009). “Camping” consists of moving from place to place and “cocooning” consists of being stable in a place for a specific duration. A certain degree of cocooning behavior may be part of camping behavior on a temporary basis (i.e., when needing to stop in order to complete a task before moving on).
In an examination of the behaviors of wireless café users, Gupta observed them to be either mobilizers or socializers (Gupta 2004). For mobilizers, the wireless café is the background for a principal activity. Socializers, on the other hand, camp out with their laptops in the hope of connecting physically with co-present others. In addition to Gupta's study, other researchers also identify socializer behaviors as prevalent in wireless establishments (Brown and O'Hara 2003; Hislop and Axtell, 2009; Kakihara 2003).
These altered behaviors, to some extent, can be described by the differences of perception between older and younger generations regarding computer technology. For example, studies conducted in coffee shops during the 1970s by Oldenburg and Seamon suggested that “whatever interrupts conversations” lively flow is ruinous to a sense of place, citing the example of electronic gadgets as such an interruption (Oldenburg 1989). Similarly, in 1979 Seamon contended that “technology and mass culture destroy the uniqueness of places” (Seamon 1979).
In contrast, more recent studies of users who visit coffee shops have found that one of the main reasons for going to a café is to work on, or with, their electronic gadgets. According to Nimon, perhaps the most predictable development in today's generation has been in regard to their attitudes towards technology itself (Nimon 2007). To the baby-boomer generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) and Generation X (those born between 1965 and 1979), phenomena such as mobile phones and the internet represent tools that, while useful, are not essential. For the current generation, referred to as Generation Y (those born after 1980), these tools are as inseparable from their daily existence as the clothes they wear or the food they eat. Dobbins also notes that the world of Generation Y is a “24/7” world – meaning that their expectation is for immediate responses within a rapid time frame (Dobbins 2005).
According to Weisman, place attributes are qualities that are attributed to places in the context of our interactions with them. Although few studies have been done that examine the attributes of places that exhibit a virtual–physical continuum, related studies reveal that the ambience of the space and the services offered within, or adjacent to, the hotspot (such as print and copy services) are critically important (Forlano 2008). In another, related, study, Doyle identified behavioral and physical attributes of places in terms of patterns. These patterns include “wings of light,” positive outdoor spaces, private terraces, windows overlooking life, low sills, main entrances, pedestrian density, activity pockets, and “common areas of the heart” (Doyle 2011).
A good example of a place-type that illustrates emerging place attributes is the MIT steam café. The goal of the café is to augment technology with physical space in order to bring people together to discuss and improve the continuing creation of food and space as an inspirational reflection of a community (Wilson and Peterson 2002). This wireless café includes an active website and a plasma monitor. The website allows visitors to review the daily menu, check ingredients, and submit feedback or new recipe ideas. Through the use of the plasma monitor, visitors are encouraged to participate in public discussions about the content of the Web, thereby building a sense of ownership and empowerment.
The purpose of this research study was to identify the place attributes that are impacted by virtual behaviors. The following research questions were the foci of this inquiry:
The research setting for this study was a Midwestern town in the USA with a population of approximately 100,000 people. The boundaries between the downtown and campus areas have blurred over time, with several wireless coffee shops appearing over a short stretch of street close to the downtown and campus. Over the space of three years, a total of seven wireless coffee shops were designated as the “place” settings for this study. The subjects of the study were users of coffee shops along this stretch of street, most of whom spent two to three hours per day in one of the shops. Among all the users, most were university students between 20 and 29 years of age (n = 143).
The close proximity of the coffee shops, the resemblance in size of each shop, and the similarity of users provided a measure of control over the demographic and physical variables. At the same time, these factors helped to maintain a certain level of control over variations in the “place” experience of customers/users.
The sample included a total of 233 coffee shop customers/users, consisting of both computer users (n = 163) and non-computer users (n = 70), with the latter used as a control group. The unequal sample sizes are a result of a shift in the focus of the study from one of simply examining the behavior of computer users in coffee shops to a more comprehensive examination of the relationship between virtual behaviors and place attributes. In order to do this, a control group of computer users was necessary, resulting in the hypothesis that there would be significant differences in the way these two groups perceived the relative importance of place attributes.
Since the intention was to examine the impact of virtual behaviors on place attributes, the dependent variables consisted of place attributes that were operationalized into behavioral and physical attributes. Thus, behavioral attributes were defined as those properties of the place that included psychological and socio-physical aspects that might impact how users experienced the “place.” Physical attributes were defined as those properties of a place that included physical and tangible objects as well as interior/architectural features that might impact the users' experience of the place.
The virtual behaviors independent variables were operationalized as those activities that computer users engaged in while at the coffee shops, as compared to non-computer users. Computer users were defined as customers who came into the coffee shop with a computer device such as a lap-top and engaged in virtual behaviors. Hand-held or mobile devices were not included in the study. Virtual behaviors included such things as interaction with other people online, the exchange of ideas, information-sharing, social support, conducting business, directing actions, creating art, playing games, and engaging in political discussion, among others. These activities were accomplished through computer-mediated formats such as instant messaging, emails, and Web browsing, among others. In addition, the independent variable of “time spent in the coffee shop,” measured in terms of hours per week, was included in the study to provide further insights into the place experience of people in the coffee shop.
The physical and behavior attributes of the place were measured through the use of a questionnaire. Data from the questionnaire were supplemented by information resulting from a photo-voicing technique that captured the visual characteristics of the place attributes through the eyes of each subject. In addition, data were gathered that identified the nature, order, and length of time of spent on virtual behaviors using a cognitive mapping exercise of each subject's personal learning environment (PLE).
The User Analysis questionnaire used in the study was developed by ASTM to measure workplace performance (Becker and Sims 1990).3 This instrument identifies the behavioral attributes as degree of privacy, accessibility of location, opportunity to meet friends, density of people, noise level, and crowd character. The physical attributes are identified in the questionnaire as space size, arrangement of furniture, quality of lighting, color of room, and overall image. Because the intent of the study was to discern whether or not the nature of place attributes changed when applied in the context of a virtual–physical continuum, no attempt was made to distinguish place attributes as solely physical or solely virtual.
Photo-voicing interviews were conducted with five customers per coffee shop (a total of 40 customers), targeting subjects of diverse age, profession, and gender. To complete the photo-voicing portion of the study, subjects were provided with a camera and asked to photograph elements that they liked in a specific coffee-shop setting. The investigators accompanied each subject on the photo journey. After the photo-journey, the participants were shown pictures of the photographs they had taken and asked why they selected them in relation to their experience in the coffee shop.
In addition, further insights were provided from the cognitive mapping exercise, completed by each subject, of their personal learning environment (PLE). A PLE, as used in this study, follows the definition proposed by Graham Attwell in his paper, “The Personal Learning Environments – the future of eLearning?” (2007). According to Attwell, a PLE is:
any social software that lets people rendezvous, connect or collaborate by use of a computer network. It supports networks of people, content and services that are more adaptable and responsive to changing needs and goals. Social Software adapts to its environment, instead of requiring its environment to adapt to software…allowing the internet to be used for creating and sharing information and knowledge, rather than merely accessing external artifacts.
Such internet or software tools are used by learners to take control of and manage their own learning and includes systems such as wiki, blogs, and Facebook (Milne 2006).
To complete the cognitive mapping exercise of their virtual behaviors, subjects were asked to draw a flow chart of the internet sites they visited, their activities while on the site, and the order and frequency of each visit.
The objective of the study was to examine the differences between non-computer users and computer users in terms of the importance of physical and behavioral place attributes. To test the effects of virtual behaviors in the form of computer usage on place attributes a sample t test was computed. Because the place attribute scores were negatively skewed, a log transformation of the scores was conducted to transform the data of place attributes into a normal distribution. Further, because the sample size of the two groups was unequal (n = 70 for non-computer users and n = 149 for computer users), it was necessary to check for homogeneity of variances. This test revealed that the standard deviations were within the range of 0.2 and 0.3 of each other and therefore were not significant.
The results of the t test showed that the place attribute variable of “opportunity to meet friends” was significant. The t test (t (231), p = .017) revealed a significant difference in this variable between computer users (M = 0.28, SD = 0.23) and non-computer users (M = 0.20, SD = 0.23). Contrary to what might be expected as suggested by the literature, computer users placed higher importance on the opportunity to meet friends than non-computer users did. The photo-voicing exercise clarified that the opportunity to meet friends was referring to having a space available in the coffee shop that would facilitate interaction among small and large groups. The results were inconclusive as to whether the opportunity to meet friends was meant to be with those individuals who were physically present, those who were virtually present, or both. It is suggested that future study is needed to pinpoint this further.
While the opportunity to meet friends was found to be the most important place attribute, it should be noted that another place attribute found to be of high importance was the arrangement of furniture. Although not statistically significant, the results showed that computer users valued the importance of furniture arrangement (M = 0.38, SD = 0.18) more than non-computer users (M = 0.33, SD = 0.19). This view was also reflected in the photo-voicing exercises where subjects pointed out the placement, functionality, and role of furniture in accomplishing specific virtual and physical tasks. In addition, the results of the t test revealed that for the variable of “time spent” in the coffee shop, computer users spent more time in the coffee shop (M = 2.2, SD = 1.3) than non-computer users (M = 1.7, SD = 0.9).
The cognitive maps derived from the personal learning environments of computer users provided data relative to the order and frequency of virtual behaviors being conducted by computer users in the coffee shops. When all the PLEs from all computer users (n = 163) were tabulated, it revealed that the computer users engaged in a variety of virtual behaviors, resulting in nine different prevalent activities: (1) using email, (2) using social networks, (3) studying, (4) browsing, (5) online chatting, (6) listening to music, (7) watching movies, (8) shopping online, and (9) viewing pictures/photographs. The frequency of use of virtual behaviors shows that most users were engaged in emailing, followed by social networking, studying, and browsing.
Although emailing was the most dominant virtual behavior, computer users seldom did this activity in isolation from other activities. Most users undertook a cluster of virtual behaviors/activities. These clusters were identified and then categorized based on the level of formality in the nature of the behavior:
The remaining activities were dispersed and could not be clustered in any meaningful way. Overall, users engaged in predominantly informal virtual behaviors as compared to a mix of formal virtual behaviors.
An examination of virtual behavior clusters and the importance of the cluster to specific place attributes was completed using a standard multiple regression analysis. (No violations of multi-colinearity were found in that the correlations of independent variables were smaller than 0.7 and tolerance >1.) When all three virtual behavior clusters were simultaneously used to predict the relative importance of the 11 place attributes, the independent importance of each one emerged in the resultant standardized beta weights.
In the regression model, formal virtual behaviors and informal virtual behaviors accounted for a significant variance in the importance of the place attribute of privacy. In other words, privacy was valued by coffee shop computer users who were predominantly engaged in the formal cluster of virtual behaviors and informal cluster of virtual behaviors, while no significance was found for mixed virtual behaviors.
It is interesting to note that the place attribute variable of “noise level” was not significant for computer users who were engaged in formal virtual behaviors such as “study.” It is suggested that this may be because computer users have found ways to neutralize this place attribute through the use of earphones and other gadgets.
Informal virtual behaviors accounted for a significant variance in the importance of the place attribute of “meeting friends,” and mixed virtual behaviors accounted for a significant variance in the importance of the place attributes of “size of the space” and noise levels. In these cases the beta value was negative, indicating that lower space size and higher noise levels were undesirable for informal virtual behaviors. This could be explained by the need for more flexibility and the diversity of these activities.
Interestingly, none of the virtual behaviors significantly predicted the importance of physical place attributes such as color or furniture arrangements (compared to behavioral place attributes), indicating that these features were not as important for computer users as convention would assume.
Using a standard multiple regression analysis, the variable of “time spent” by computer users in the coffee shop was examined to see if it could serve as a predictor of the frequency of specific virtual behaviors. It was found that spending more time in the coffee shop was a significant predictor of the frequency of virtual behaviors such as watching movies, viewing pictures, and listening to recordings. Interestingly, the “time spent” in coffee shop was not a significant predictor of the frequency of virtual behaviors such as studying, browsing, social networking, and shopping.
The variable “time spent” by computer users was examined further to see if it could serve as a predictor of the importance given to the place attributes of the coffee shops. Statistical analysis of the results revealed that the time spent in the coffee shop was a significant predictor of the importance given to the place attributes of density and size of the space. This finding suggests that among computer users, more time spent in the coffee shop was associated with less density (fewer people) and smaller space size. Contrary to expectations, “time spent” in the coffee shop was not associated with other physical place attributes such as lighting, color, and image – elements which are traditionally considered important by designers.
In this study an attempt was made to reconceptualize places in a physical–virtual continuum in order to measure virtual behaviors and their impact on place attributes. Data collected from eight wireless coffee shops over a three-year period using various research tools revealed that the opportunity to meet friends and the arrangement of furniture were the most important place attributes for customers who engaged in virtual behaviors. The study also reinforced the assumption that computer users would spend more time in the coffee shop compared to non-computer uses.
Although the PLE maps completed by the computer users in the coffee shops showed a wide variety of virtual behaviors, emailing was found to be the most prominent virtual behavior, with social networking coming in second. An important finding related to these behaviors was that computer users tended to conduct these behaviors as clusters of activities, rather than in isolation from other behaviors/activities. Three clusters of behaviors were identified: (1) predominantly formal, (2) predominantly informal, and (3) predominantly a mix of formal and informal.
It should be noted that computer users whose activities fell into the formal cluster valued their privacy more in comparison to those who fell into the informal cluster, who valued meeting their friends more. Those users who fell into the mixed cluster rated the size of the space and the noise level as most important to their experience in the coffee shop.
Lastly, among computer users the findings revealed that the time spent in the coffee shop was a significant predictor of the place attributes of density (number of people in the space) and the size of the space.
While it is not possible to predict the impact of virtual behaviors on place attributes based solely on the results of this study, an examination of the findings provides interesting insights into the importance of place attributes in the experience of computer users. When examining the virtual–physical continuum of place attributes, this study found that computer users assigned more importance to the virtual attributes of the coffee shop than the physical attributes. (It is important to note that place experience in the virtual–physical continuum includes a range of awareness from minimal attentive contact to more intense encounters. This being the case, these variations of space-time geographies of environments in the virtual–physical continuum are difficult to comprehend, let alone measure.)
Traditionally, place as a construct has been addressed in several different domains.4 The question is whether the role of virtual behaviors should be situated within these existing place models or, instead, be reconceptualized. According to the literature, when virtual behaviors are introduced into the existing models of place, they can be viewed as an additional layer that maps onto physical place (Graham and Marvin 1996). This approach argues for augmentation or evolution, rather than substitution – suggesting that no matter how “real” virtuality may appear, physicality continues to impact and shape the individual experience. Therefore, physicality remains relevant in any new conception of place and supports the growing belief that virtuality and physicality are complements to each other rather than substitutes for each other (Mokhtarian 2002).
A new framework for place attributes can be illustrated through a modification of one of the place models suggested by Weisman (2001). Weisman's model defines place as the interaction between people (individuals, groups, or organizations), program (purpose and patterns of use), and building (sensory and spatial properties, as well as physicality of the setting). By augmenting virtuality to this model, it is reconceptualized to fit the virtual–physical continuum. This reconceptualization of Weisman's place model adds virtual people to the people component (for e.g. friends in Facebook), virtual functions to the program component (for e.g. emailing) , and virtual interfaces (computers and mobile devices) to the building component. Place then becomes the fusion of all the components of virtuality and physicality.
The reconceptualization of place in terms of a physical–virtual continuum avoids the simplistic notions associated with extreme physicality and extreme virtuality of place models. As anthropologists Wilson and Peterson suggest in their work with online communities, the conventional analytical emphasis on a community's boundedness and isolation usually masks significant interactions between individuals as well as the heterogeneity of the community itself. They contend that there exists a wide range of virtual communities – from small groups engaged in tightly focused discussions of specific topics, to complex created worlds with hundreds of simultaneous participants, to millions of users linked by exchange networks. In other words, a more fluid concept of community, one that explores multi-sided situations, is spatially diverse and consists of trans-local sites (Wilson and Peterson 2002).
According to Forlano, the “Anytime, Anywhere” adage promoted by mobile companies is untrue when one looks at the actual habits of the users (Forlano 2008). Doyle contends that the conventionally touted distinction in the place literature between “here” and “there” is also a myth. That is to say, just because an activity can be performed as easily in space A as in space B it does not mean that the experience of doing that activity will be the same in each space. Kakihara argues that the locational aspect of a place (where) should take on greater importance only when one considers other variables such as interaction (with whom) and organization (with what) (Kakihara 2003). For example, an individual who works at home may decide to go to a neighborhood café to do their work because the café provides a positive ambience that enables them to concentrate on their work.
The purpose of this chapter was to introduce the reader to a new way of thinking about place attributes and to introduce the concept of the virtual–physical continuum as a mechanism for the reconceptualization of existing place models. The research study discussed here was limited by the specific type of place (coffee shops) used as the setting for the research. Thus, further research is necessary in other place settings to gain a better understanding of how the virtual–physical continuum affects one's sense of place and to address the following questions raised by the research study:
Many thanks to the students from Human Factors Class at the University of Missouri, Department of Architectural Studies, 2007–2012, who were instrumental in collecting these data.