‘Interpreted space’ as a mediator between physical environment and situated substance use: outline of a socio-spatial theory for substance use prevention

Abstract

Environmental approaches to substance use prevention currently rely on a behaviorist paradigm. On this theoretical foundation, useful intervention strategies may be overlooked, and effectiveness may be limited. To address these issues, this study drew on Löw’s ‘sociology of space’ to develop a socio-spatial theory for prevention research. Salient dimensions of everyday settings (e.g. home, bar) were identified through mixed-methods research with 24 female university students who were current users of alcohol or cigarettes. Situational pathways explored the event-level interplay of these dimensions with other factors in relation to situational substance use and abstinence. On this basis, the article proposes a visual theory which outlines three mediating steps between physical environment and situated substance use outcomes: perceived space (construal of manifest aspects); interpreted space (construal of latent aspects); and momentary thoughts and feelings. Personal and cultural factors moderate this process. The theory is illustrated using three pathways in smoking ban contexts. The findings can inform intervention design and research into contextual factors of substance use by outlining a mechanism with specified variables, highlighting the role of subjective meaning-making, and suggesting specific environmental aspects for future consideration.

Keywords:

• Micro-environments
• environmental prevention
• substance use
• alcohol
• smoking
• intervention design
• sociology of space
• more-than-human

Acknowledgements

The project was supervised by Christoph Reinprecht. Tamara Artacker and Xenia Baumgartner assisted with participant recruitment, interview transcription and double-coding. Markus Rheindorf helped plan this article, Alexandra Puhm and Alfred Uhl provided useful comments on an earlier draft. I am also grateful for the insights and suggestions offered by two anonymous reviewers.

Disclosure statement

The author reports no conflict of interest.

Notes

1 The original study protocol foresaw the inclusion of alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. The Ethics Committee of the University of Vienna considered that discussion of illegal substances might prompt participants to disclose an intention to commit a punishable offence, which, within the Austrian legal context, would have created a legal obligation to stop them from committing that offence. Furthermore, the University of Vienna could not offer any institutional support in case of problems. The Committee therefore judged the inclusion of illegal substances as too risky for researcher and participants and requested that the study be limited to legal substances.

2 In prevention research, ‘theory’ is ‘a set of interrelated concepts that are used to describe, explain and predict how various aspects of human behaviour are related to each other’ (EMCDDA, 2019, p. 44). This corresponds with conceptions of ‘sociological theory’ or ‘middle-range theory’ as a middle ground between ‘Grand theory’ and ‘Plain Empiricism’ (Swedberg, 2017, pp. 191–192). Considering Abend’s (2008) classification of ‘theory’ in sociology, the conceptual model presented in Figure 1 is located between ‘theory₁’ and ‘theory₂’: it builds upon specific empirical pathways (theory₂) to offer a general account (theory₁) of situated substance use; however, due to the study’s empirical limitations, it cannot claim the broad applicability characteristic of theory₁.

3 This concept resembles the known concept of ‘outcome expectancies’ (e.g. as the ‘explicit or implicit beliefs about the likely results of alcohol consumption’, Monk & Heim, 2013, p. 539).

4 Exceptions do not feature in the chosen example, but analyses of other pathways (e.g. pathway sets ‘F’ and ‘G’ in Table 1) suggested that apparent contradictions (e.g. a general substance use position in favour of abstinence vs. actual substance use) could be explained via such ‘exception’ rules. Furthermore, ‘exception’ rules could explain why substance users may not themselves experience a conflict in such situations.

5 The abstract books for the European Society for Prevention Research (EUSPR) annual conferences 2015–2021 contain only one presentation mentioning ‘social practice’ (MacArthur et al., 2018) and no presentations mentioning ‘practice theory’, ‘theories of practice’, ‘drinking practice’, ‘smoking practice’ or other substance ‘use practice’; in the same period, over 20 presentations referred to environmental prevention or related approaches (abstract books retrieved from https://euspr.org/category/news/annual-conference/ on 13.3.2022).

6 While Gibsonians also refer to ‘meaning’, this is ‘functional’ meaning (e.g. what physical actions an object affords) rather than the symbolic or social meaning referred to in the present approach.

Additional information

Funding

The project received financial support from the University of Vienna (Completion Scholarship).