Community experiences and aspirations of young Syrian newcomers in a neighborhood in Amsterdam, the Netherlands

ABSTRACT

In the Netherlands, several housing projects have housed local young adults and refugees together, attracting media and academic attention. Along with praise for complementing the integration process of newcomers, criticism has also been leveled that such projects are often located far from residential areas. Meanwhile, the SET project located in a residential area in Amsterdam attempt to extend the active participation of locals in facilitating the integration of newcomers. This qualitative study investigated the community experiences of Syrian newcomers, the elements which stimulate or hinder newcomers’ participation in community activities and care programs in their everyday lives.

KEYWORDS:

• Housing
• refugees
• inclusive community and social inclusion
• neighborhood-based organization
• citizen participation
• community practice

From 2015 onwards, the number of Syrian newcomers has increased in the Netherlands. In the year of 2015, the first-time asylum applicants reached to forty-three thousand in the Netherlands, which is four times higher than in 2013. The number of applications is currently declining, but still, over thirteen thousand applied until 2020. Among those asylum seekers, almost one third were from Syria (CBS (Statistics Netherlands), 2021). Each city has had a number of newcomers allocated to it and has needed to provide housing for them. In addition, housing is of course also necessary for young Dutch adults. In response, housing corporations and municipalities in the Netherlands have come up with innovative housing projects that house young Dutch and young newcomers together in the same number, which has meant that both the refugee crisis and housing shortage for young adults in the Netherlands have been tackled simultaneously. Following Startblok Riekerhaven in 2015, other projects have included Startblok Elzenhagen (2018), Stek Oost (2018), Spark Village (2018), and SET (2018).

These projects have received positive feedback for making integration into Dutch society easier while still allowing the refugees to support each other in emotional terms (Costarelli et al., 2019; Czischke & Huisman, 2018; K. Kim & Smets, 2020). These projects also create new possibilities for housing policies that utilize prefabricated container blocks to quickly respond to urgent housing needs. However, each of the above projects (excluding the SET project) were constructed away from established residential areas, attracting criticism that they did not allow for natural exchanges with Dutch neighbors in local communities.

SET is located in IJburg (pronounced ay-burg in Dutch), a suburban residential area about ten kilometers from the center of Amsterdam. Providing housing for 180 young adults between the ages of eighteen and twenty-seven, the SET project is similar to the other projects in that they use prefabricated container blocks for construction, and they allow refugees and local young adults to live together.

There are studies dealing with the aspirations and frustration of newcomers (Van Heelsum, 2017), social contact between newcomers and neighbors residing in the co-housing projects (Mahieu & Van Caudenberg, 2020; Oliver et al., 2020), experiences and the perception of neighboring residents of a co-housing project (Zill et al., 2020) and interrelation between newcomers and volunteers (Younes et al., 2021). Yet, research on the everyday interactions between newcomers and the local residents is limited. Although there are a few studies dealing with community interaction (Costarelli et al., 2019; Czischke & Huisman, 2018; K. Kim & Smets, 2020), the scope of the community in these studies is mostly limited to co-habitants of a housing project.

The main questions addressed in this study are: How do Syrian newcomers experience communities in a neighborhood in IJburg, Amsterdam, and which experiences of the individual newcomers stimulate or hinder their participation in community activities? This paper starts with a review of research literature involving the term “community” to understand its elements as the word has a variety of meanings. Following this, the study’s research methodology will be presented. An introduction to the SET project from the experiences and perspectives of local residents and Syrian newcomers will follow. Finally, the community experiences and aspirations of Syrian newcomers and the value of local communities of practice will be discussed.

Community from a theoretical perspective

The social integration and participation of newcomers have been an important topic for the past few years. The idea of natural interaction in daily life led to experimental co-housing projects. These projects differ in size and composition of the population, physical and locational settings, and the type of interaction with nonresidents.

Younes et al. (2021) looked into a co-housing project in Amsterdam for Syrian newcomers and how the Syrian newcomers interacted with nonresidents such as volunteers, journalists, and neighbors. The study utilized Granovetter’s (1973) concept of “the strength of weak ties” and coined the concept of “hybrid ties.” Hybrid ties capture the development process of intense interaction in the beginning of the project that turned into a long-term relationship and includes both aspects of strong ties and weak ties, such as friendship, intimacy, and enabling access to new resources.

In another study of a co-housing project in the Netherlands, Oliver et al. (2020) revealed that living together in a co-housing project itself doesn’t guarantee social contact among residents. Alongside the importance of the adequate number and ratio of newcomer and native tenants, the study also emphasized the value of shared public space in which the residents of co-housing project have a chance for natural interactions and to develop friendships.

In the study of an intercultural co-housing project in Belgium, Mahieu and Van Caudenberg (2020) introduced a project that designed and considered participant capacity and motivation for befriending, such as language skills, psychological conditions, and motivation to participate. The study emphasized the value of the co-housing project for its various social supports and informal learning opportunity that was embedded in daily social interaction. The authors also argued that the capabilities, availabilities, and willingness of residents were important to manifest the value of the co-housing project.

Studies on co-housing projects designed for newcomers have been conducted with different perspectives and topics, yet studies that focus on the relationship with the local community are difficult to find. In this context, this study focuses on the community experiences of newcomers residing in a co-housing project located in a residential area. Therefore, it is necessary to first understand the community and consider how the community works.

Although community is a very complex phenomenon, the term is used widely in everyday life. DeFilippis and North (2004, p. 73) claim that “community is one of the most ideologically loaded terms in the English language.” The term community can be associated with various words with diverse meanings. According to Mannarini and Fedi (2009), the concept of community can have different meanings such as shared community, affective community, participatory community, ordinary community, and organized community. And such words as share, tie, citizen, street, and neighbors can be associated with the concept of community. Considering this variety of meanings, Blackshaw (2010) states that “community” is rather hermeneutical, arguing that description and interpretation is necessary to understand how it is used in specific situations.

Nevertheless, the notion of community can largely be separated into two distinct categories – geographical and relational. Agnew (1989, p. 13) distinguishes community as “a morally valued way of life and the constituting of social relations in a discrete geographical setting.” Here, “a morally valued way of life” can be understood as a community of interest and “social relations in a discrete geographical setting” as place-based social relations (DeFilippis & North, 2004, p. 73). In both categories, networks are key, but they differ by whether the common geographic location or common interests and values are most important.

When the geographical scope and autonomy of one’s life was limited, the meaning of community was strongly connected to the neighborhood, and the innate attributes of individuals were directly connected to individuality in the community. However, due to the development of transportation and communication, the geographical scope of one’s life has expanded, and different types and depths of relationships have emerged. As a result, many aspects of an individual’s urban life have been formed independently from one’s innate attributes. Moreover, the new type of community that formed on the basis of individual interests has replaced the traditional neighborhood community. In this vein, Webber’s (1963) expression “community without propinquity” has been widely accepted.

Community has also shifted in meaning from place-based to post-place. According to Bradshaw (2008), post-place communities can be geographically associated with each other virtually and globally, and individuals have ties to many communities. Post-place communities are fluid, dynamic, and transformative, and propinquity is not necessary for interaction due to high mobility. People are linked by interests, and therefore, values such as solidarity and shared norms are emphasized. Thus, Bradshaw (2008) describes post-place communities as solidarity based.

Although the geographical notion of community is diminished in the post-place construct, there are approaches that invigorate place-based or neighborhood communities. These approaches take a hybrid notion of geographical and relational community, and they capture both physical and social elements of community. Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) and Community Infrastructure Theory (CIT) are the examples. ABCD, a relationship-driven community development practice, values human, relational, and material resources (J. Kretzmann & McKnight, 1996; J. P. Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). The core resources that ABCD captures are the skills and capacities of individual residents, citizen associations, and local institutions. Here, citizen associations include book clubs and churches which facilitate exchanges between neighbors, and local institutions include libraries, schools, and businesses that form the basis of the community’s fabric.

Communication Infrastructure Theory (CIT) provides insight into how neighborhood communities work in practice and are intertwined with the social and physical environment (Y. C. Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006). CIT focuses on neighborhood residents, local media, and community organizations. Here, neighborhood residents can share various stories in their daily lives, local media can circulate the stories in the community, and community organizations can create and spread local issues. CIT also captures the resources within a residential area that facilitate or impede communication between residents on such topics as street safety, meeting places, and quality of local services.

In this vein, the term “community,” and declaration of the influence of community on an individual’s life or the importance of the community should be used circumspectly. In this paper, the geographic notion and physical elements are considered, as well as the relational notion and social elements of community. Moreover, community is not presented as a fixed entity, but instead community as used here captures the dynamics and process of formation and alteration.

In addition to the meaning of the term “community,” this paper also explores how the community works in everyday life. And the perspective that focuses on the people and actions that make up the community is expressed in communities of practice theory. In the early 1990s, the concept “communities of practice” emerged and expanded throughout education, business, and social systems (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998, 2000, 2010; Wenger & Snyder, 2000; Wenger et al., 2011). Communities of practice refers to a collective in which people with common interests and objectives gather voluntarily, accumulate knowledge and skills in the subject area based on trust, and share and practice the acquired results to create more knowledge. In communities of practice, as people participate, social relations are formed, and knowledge is shared among members (Wenger, 1998). The core idea in communities of practice is illustrated by Wenger (2000):

Since the beginning of history, human beings have formed communities that share cultural practices reflecting their collective learning: from a tribe around a cave fire, to a medieval guild, to a group of nurses in a ward, to a street gang, to a community of engineers interested in brake design. Participating in these ‘communities of practice’ is essential to our learning. It is at the very core of what makes us human beings capable of meaningful knowing. (p. 229)

Communities of practice refers to the components and the way people work together rather than a particular type or form of community. Here, “community” can be understood as a group of people who build relationships and commit themselves to continuing these relationships in the future. According to Wenger (1998), people belong to various communities of practice such as home, work and school – communities which continue to change throughout the trajectory of life.

There are three basic components in communities of practice: domain, practice, and community (Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al., 2002). “Domain” refers to a core issue or the scope of knowledge to be pursued; “practice” refers to the standardized behavior and other aspects of culture that unite communities such as methods of communication and problem solving; “community” refers to the relationships between people (Wenger, 1998).

In communities of practice, “practice” includes the three elements of mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire (Wenger, 1998, 2000). It can be expressed as mutual exchange, common objectives, and material and immaterial resources such as ideas, information, and knowledge. “Mutual engagement” considers conflicts of opinion, challenges, and competition as forms of participation. “Joint enterprise,” in addition to explicit and stable responsibilities, includes those that constantly change in the process of practice. “Shared repertoire” captures such elements as relationships, words, tools, behaviors, stories, and gestures. These elements cannot be formed in a short period of time but require time as they build a history.

In sum, when focusing on the meaning of “community,” geographic, relational, physical, and social aspects should be considered, and when focusing on how the community works, objectives, activities, relationships, and the influence of participants on one another should be taken into account.

Research methodology

This study employs qualitative research methodologies made up of interviews, casual talks, and participant observations. From March to July 2018, before the residents moved into SET, two civil servants and three local residents were interviewed. The interview questions were designed to inquire about the key actors, processes, features of the neighborhood, and situations regarding the SET project. The author also participated in a preparatory meeting for SET to observe the preparation process. One year after the SET project began providing housing, between August 2019 and January 2020, the author interviewed fourteen residents in SET: ten Syrian newcomer residents, two Dutch residents, one migrant resident from a western country, and one migrant resident from a non-western country. The author also interviewed six people from the surrounding neighborhood: four local people actively engaged in SET projects, and two locals who had negative views on hosting refugees in their neighborhood. In total, this study involved twenty-five interviews. The semi-structured interviews, which lasted from forty to eighty minutes, were aimed to capture the interviewee’s perceptions and experiences of the SET and IJburg.

Most interviews were conducted in English, but three interviews with Syrian newcomers were conducted with Arabic-English interpretation for interviewee convenience and better communication. All twenty-five interviews were audio recorded with informed consent. Twenty-two were transcribed verbatim and the three conducted with an interpreter were summarized.

In addition to the interviews, the author participated in a local residents’ preparatory meeting, a party celebrating the first anniversary of the SET project, and other regular weekly events such as Community Diner and Language Café to talk with the participants and observe. Through these events the author was able to meet people who agreed to be interviewed for this study, and those interviewees also introduced the author to their friends and colleagues.

Methodological triangulation, which refers to multiple methods or sources of data being used to increase research validity (Bryman, 2012, pp. 392, 717), was used. The information acquired from interviews and observations was routinely reviewed as data was collected following the methodology of constant comparison (Bryman, 2012, pp. 568, 710). In accordance with the theoretical saturation methodology, I conducted interviews until no further new insights could be found (Bryman, 2012, pp. 421, 717). As part of the data analysis process, the interview transcriptions were read multiple times and coded to identify significant themes and subthemes, following the process of open coding, axial coding, and selective coding (Bryman, 2012; Charmaz, 1996).

Communities of practice in IJburg and the SET project

IJburg, located in central east Amsterdam, is a new suburban area that has been developed for only about twenty years. The buildings are not high or densely packed, giving the area a “suburban” feel, despite being only 15–20 minutes away from central Amsterdam by public transportation. The buildings are new, and walkways, parks and other public spaces are well maintained. IJburg’s spatial boundaries are clearly distinguishable as it is an island with connecting bridges. Nevertheless, the living area and population continue to grow alongside development.

The population of IJburg was about 26,000 as of 2017 and consisted of forty-nine percent native Dutch, thirty-four percent non-western immigrants, and seventeen percent western migrants (Schut, 2018, pp. 20–23). According to an interviewee, the residents of IJburg, especially those who moved in during the beginning phase of its development, had a strong network and a shared identity as “pioneers.” They moved into their newly constructed houses even before any of the essential facilities, such as supermarkets and pharmacies, were completed. At the time, they obtained help from each other in their daily lives, such as with emergency medicine or giving rides in urgent situations. This history facilitated the establishment of close ties among the residents. Meanwhile, another interviewee emphasized that IJburg is a social experiment site focused on mixing different income groups. She said to mitigate the situation in another area of Amsterdam with a concentration of “problematic” families, the government relocated some of them to IJburg. The interviewee claimed that those people were responsible for problems like vandalism, which compromises the safety and quality of life of IJburg residents.

We didn’t want that mix. You can’t build something up if everything is breaking down by this mix. […] They [the municipality] placed multi-problem families in a row and then mixed in with property owners. And yeah, it’s not a good mix.

- X, a local resident

In 2016, SET was introduced by the local government of Amsterdam as an experimental housing project (Figure 1). Planning of the SET project impacted the residents of IJburg, with those living near the designated site actively expressing their opinions. Some local residents welcomed the project, while others opposed it. Although there were no violent demonstrations, many expressed their opposition through public hearings and filing complaints with the local government. According to residents interviewed for this study, the community was divided into those who supported the project and those who didn’t, and the lines were quite rigid. A local resident stated that:

Figure 1. SET and the surrounding neighborhood in IJburg, Amsterdam (Photo from Google Maps).

It was unbelievable. I know that in IJburg, there is the hospitality of rational people […] But on that evening [when the plan was announced] I saw another side. I saw the angriness. Maybe the beginning of polarization.– M, a local resident

The three major concerns of those against the project were the one-way and top-down style of communication from the municipal government, the large number of residents to be housed through SET, and the construction method involving prefabricated container blocks, which gave the impression that it would look ugly. In response, the government reduced the number of tenants at SET to half the original plans and improved the design and quality of the building (Figure 2). Together, these efforts served to reduce the complaints from existing residents.

Figure 2. SET (Photo by the author).

The way SET was developed and engaged with local residents resembles the ABCD approach, which emphasizes that positive outcomes can result when paying attention to opportunities and possibilities the community, rather than focusing on the needs or problems of the community (Mathie & Cunningham, 2003). The crisis that occurred in the neighborhood was overcome through the efforts of local residents. In this process, the government provided adequate support, in a way that supported citizen’s initiatives. Local residents initiated and ran such programs as Give-away Market, Community Diner, and Language Café with their neighbors instead of using external personnel such as professional event organizers or language teachers. Some groups of residents, especially those with “progressive” values, responded more sensitively to the conflict over SET. They made an effort to improve local resident understanding of refugees and create a welcoming atmosphere for the refugees to settle in peace. For example, they made a series of documentary films to show the refugees in a positive light and facilitate constructive discussions among them. Welcoming programs were also organized for the refugees. There were countless small informal meetings with small numbers of people, and several officially organized large meetings with fifty to hundred participants. There was a core group which de facto led these programs. As an interviewee who worked for the local government put it:

There is a very strong, committed group of people who are willing to give their free time and share their network and do what they can to support these people [newcomers] becoming a part of the neighborhood. […] And they really want to include these people, because it is better for the neighborhood to include them than to exclude them. […] And I have the strong feeling that there is a kind of common sense about this. There is something that could go really wrong if we don’t include these people into the community. - E, civil servant from IJburg area

From the perspective of Communication Infrastructure Theory (CIT), as applied to civic engagement, Y. C. Kim and Ball-Rokeach (2006) claim that “when embedded in a neighborhood environment where key community storytellers encourage each other to talk about the neighborhood, individual residents are more likely to become community members rather than mere occupants of physical spaces” (pp. 189–190). In Amsterdam, there were area managers (gebiedsmakelaar) who facilitated the neighborhood communities as public servants. In IJburg, one of the area managers had established a good network with local residents over a long period of time. In addition to providing space for residents to gather and work, the area manager provided necessary funding from the municipal budget. Her efforts in the initial phase of the preparatory period were key to the successful development of community-led programs. A local resident said about the development of programs and the process of co-creation between local government and residents:

The municipality has a formal responsibility but we [local residents] have a kind of moral responsibility to step in and do something for these young people. […] In the beginning, it was all [led by] the municipality, but as time goes on, we’ve been kind of building the program together.

- P, a local resident

Through the cooperation between local residents and the local government, events related to the SET project were created for residents to exchange ideas and express their views. Some refugees scheduled to move into the SET project also participated in some of the events and interacted with the residents (Figure 3).

Figure 3. A preparation meeting for SET in a community space nearby (Photo by the author; blurred to protect the privacy of the participants.).

Moreover, the area manager had invited two local residents to coordinate the community programs. These two coordinators took on the role of social managers and planned and operated various programs to help SET residents settle into the local community. All SET residents who participated in the interviews had a positive relationship with the two coordinators. These coordinators carefully built trust and friendship with newcomers, considering their backgrounds and personalities as individuals. There were also about twenty local residents who worked closely with these two coordinators, running, and participating in the Language Café and the Community Diner, as well as taking care of the refugees in person.

On the day the newcomers moved in, some local residents welcomed them, providing transportation and sharing soup and fruit in the front yard of SET. They also organized a give-away market that offered furniture, kitchen utensils, and household appliances to help newcomers secure items they needed to make a home (Figure 4). Some local businesses provided materials for housing decorations and hired some of the refugees living in SET. A Syrian interviewee talked about his feelings on the day he moved into SET:

Figure 4. Give-away market in SET (Weers, 2018).

When we were in the camp […] we heard that there were people who didn’t want the SET project. […] After we arrived here, we met so many people and so many neighbors. They were in the community hall [in the SET] and they were welcoming us. […] When I arrived here, we met some people outside. They were coming to SET to ask [us] if we wanted any help. -A, Syrian newcomer

This newcomer’s perspective shows that the various efforts of local residents to embrace newcomers in the local community paid off. The Syrian interviewees said that they certainly felt “IJburg” had welcomed them. Before moving in, they were concerned about resident opposition to hosting refugees in IJburg but the welcoming they received at the time of moving in banished their worries. In the more than one year since they moved in, the Syrian interviewees did not felt discriminated against or excluded. The degree to which the SET project succeeded in integrating into the surrounding community was revealed in the interviews, as the Syrian interviewees did not distinguish between the events and parties held in SET’s public space and those held in other community spaces in the neighborhood. The perception of these newcomers reveals the success at which SET merged into IJburg.

Participants in the Community Diner and the Language Café often discussed what programs to run and how to run them, what part each participant would play, and what material and other resources they could mobilize. In such discussions, newcomers, and non-regular participants were invited to join the local residents who regularly attended (Figure 5). By initiating and improving the programs through mutual exchange and a learning process which included consistent feedback, local residents and newcomers were able to find a way to grow together and add the emotional attachment to the program and neighborhood community.

Figure 5. Participants in a discussion session in the community diner program (Photo taken by the author; blurred to protect the privacy of the participants.).

As mentioned, not every IJburg resident was engaged in the SET project. Among those who were involved, there were differences in their purpose, degree and timing of participation. The residents engaged with the SET project fall into four groups: supportive local residents, opposed local residents, Syrian newcomers actively participating, and Syrian newcomers not actively participating. Of these four groups, some have developed communities of practice in a way that they achieve common objectives and create knowledge during the process, while other groups have ceased participating as their common objectives have been achieved.

In the beginning, as previously described, the local government simply notified local residents of IJburg after finding an available spot of land. But after receiving feedback from those residents, the government adjusted the planned number of tenants at SET and building design. Through this process, the complaints of most local residents were addressed as their views were reflected in the project. Those residents who viewed hosting refugees in the neighborhood in a negative light showed very little interest after a compromise was reached with the local government, while those residents who wanted to help the refugees continued to hold formal and informal meetings and prepared to assist with settling in and integrating into the neighborhood.

The local residents who participated in the various events with newcomers made up less than one percent of the total population of IJburg. Participation of newcomers also gradually declined. However, the newcomers kept the positive feelings they felt at the welcoming day and the initial phase of the project. Only ten to twenty Dutch residents maintained relations with the newcomers, but every Syrian interviewee said that the local residents welcomed them when they moved in, and relations were still good. In addition to regular programs, some of the local residents met up with newcomers several times a week to teach the Dutch language, provide emotional support, engage in activities together such as going to the sports center, and sometimes spending vacations together – all leading to natural engagement with each other in daily life.

As of January 2020, the Language Café in IJburg had been running for more than a year and a half and the Community Diner was planned and had begun operation. The Language Café was open two days a week and was run by about ten volunteers from IJburg. However, fewer than five SET residents consistently participated. Nevertheless, the Syrian interviewees talked about the Language Café as one of the benefits of SET. Even though most were not active recently because they were busy or tired, they were glad there was a place to get help when they needed it. Regarding the Community Diner, the response of the Syrian interviewees was similar to their response to the Language Café. Most said they had not consistently participated in these programs because they were busy or tired, and the programs were not always entertaining. Nevertheless, the fact these events existed was viewed as positive as they could participate and get help whenever they needed it.

Although the Language Café was designed for SET residents, other immigrants living in the neighborhood also participated. The volunteers at Language Café were disappointed at times due to the lack of participants from SET, but they continued to operate as a community program. Moreover, as volunteers learned that female immigrants from a Muslim background often face difficulties in joining social programs when other male participants are present, the volunteers decided to run a “women only” Language Café during the daytime as well. Not many Syrian newcomers participated in community programs, but the local residents consistently offered opportunities for newcomers to engage with local residents, which in turn also benefited other migrants in IJburg. This process of adjustment illustrates that local resident volunteers became a community of practice. The volunteers fostered the practical knowledge of the neighborhood and this knowledge led to the advancement of programs.

Newcomers currently participating actively in community programs may not participate in the future, depending on changes in their life situation. However, in such circumstances, members of the community of practice in IJburg could set up a new local agenda besides helping newcomers. Therefore, of the three elements that make up communities of practice, joint enterprises may change, but mutual engagement and shared repertoire could be maintained and even enriched.

Syrian newcomers’ community experiences and aspirations

Syrian newcomers at SET came from different hometowns and had different educational backgrounds, language skills, and personalities. Some were busy with studies or work, while others had difficulty settling into their new life. In general, in the early days, most of the newcomers who were interviewed participated in the events at SET and made efforts to meet people. Later, most of the newcomers used their English proficiency to focus on their studies or work opportunities and became independent from SET and IJburg. One Syrian interviewee described their feelings about socializing with Dutch people as:

It is boring and not interesting. I have already talked with half of the Netherlands about my life. […] Everyone I meet asks me the same question, ‘How did you come? What did you do? How long have you been here?’ I am really bored with these conversations. - O, Syrian refugee

As this quote would suggest, many Syrians were no longer interested in talking with local people because of the recurring conversation. Some, however, felt less prepared to become independent and relied on local residents.

The Syrian residents can be divided into two groups in terms of their relationships with their neighbors. The first group includes Syrian residents in SET who were not participating in the community programs. Busy with school or work, which is a major part of their new lives in the Netherlands, they spent most of their time away from IJburg during the day, and then returned to IJburg in the evening. Most of their waking hours were spent with schoolmates, coworkers, or Syrian friends at SET. The communities they belonged to were not place-based, but post-place communities, in accordance with their lifestyles. In IJburg, they paid attention to the built environment and were fond of its clean streets, new buildings, and beautiful canals. To them, IJburg was simply where they lived.

The second group includes Syrian residents who participated in the community programs. In addition to meeting some local residents through regular programs, they also maintained personal relationships with them. Some local residents who supported the SET project also invited Syrians into their everyday lives, such as inviting them for tea in the evening and conversing in Dutch. They also extended invitations to join in their leisure time activities. One Syrian interviewee stated:

IJburg is so beautiful. IJburg has such amazing people. […] I have a language coach. But I don’t say she’s my language coach. I say she is my mom. My Netherlands mom.- J, a Syrian newcomer

The Syrians who were able to build these close relationships with local residents often struggled to establish other parts of their new lives in the Netherlands, such as attending school or working. As a result, they had the time and opportunity to become emotionally attached to local residents and respond to their attempts to involve newcomers in daily life. For these Syrians, IJburg was a place where they had relationships with local residents.

For the Syrians, there was different emphasis on the geographical community and social relationships in the neighborhood depending on individual’s disposition and situation. On the one hand, for those with a wider circle, the physical environment of IJburg emerged as a prominent element, while social relations with the local residents remained casual. For those with narrower circles, social relations with the local residents came to the fore. However, this was a temporal observation that might develop differently from person to person and as their situations change.

Although the Syrian interviewees had positive views about IJburg regardless of their level of participation in community programs, the social atmosphere at SET was not entirely positive. The community activities and services within SET decreased, other than casual greetings. At first, there were many networking parties among residents in which many people participated, which created opportunities for the newcomers to interact and create friendships with their neighbors in SET. In the early days, these events were viewed positively as they helped new residents adjust. However, as time went by, with their busy work and study schedules, the residents interacted less often, and the opportunities to meet their neighbors decreased. Moreover, the communal rooms at SET were rarely available due to maintenance, and the group chats and the Facebook group only functioned as notification channels for occasional events or complaints. The lower community interaction at SET was understood as part of the natural process of residents becoming busy with their lives, and it is both applicable to Dutch and newcomer residents at SET. A resident at SET said:

My neighbor across the hall is a Syrian guy. He is very outgoing and friendly. […] We have sort of been friends from the beginning. […] But he’s been very busy. So, I haven’t seen him much lately.– I, a Dutch resident in SET

Another resident at SET stated:

In the beginning, there were so many people. But nowadays, most people are working. […] No one is in the building. They are either working or studying. – A, a Syrian newcomer

Meanwhile, some residents at SET pointed out that most Dutch residents did not seem very motivated to engage with the newcomers. One of the criteria for the selection of Dutch tenants was their motivation to help the integration of newcomers. However, interviewees assumed that some Dutch tenants applied to get a house, rather than helping newcomers in everyday life. Explaining the difficulty of finding a house in Amsterdam at an affordable price for young adults, a Dutch interviewee said:

In this building, there are a few people who never show up at any of social things [events], ever. […] So, they are really here for the house. […] Everyone can write a beautiful letter. – T, a Dutch resident in SET

As a result, some Syrian interviewees said that SET was really only a housing complex and there was no basis for defining it as a special “project.” These interviewees also pointed out the cultural differences which made it difficult for Syrians and Dutch to socialize. One of the cultural differences is captured in a quote from a Syrian interviewee:

We are simply living with Dutch people. It is very easy. They are very easy-going. But they are still very individualistic. And this is something we’re not used to in the Middle East. – T, a Syrian newcomer

The most frequent and specific example of cultural difference that emerged during the interviews with the Syrians was about the Dutch habit of making appointments to get together. The Syrian interviewees stated that Syrians tend to be flexible and spontaneous about meet ups, but the Dutch needed to make appointments for “every” occasion, including getting together to have a cup of coffee or tea. Differences like this led to fewer interactions between the two cultures at SET.

Most Syrians in this study said that various events and active exchanges, such as parties in the beginning of the project, gave Syrian newcomers the emotional and social support they needed as they started a new life in the Netherlands. However, as time went on, Dutch and Syrian residents at SET became busier in their everyday lives, and the social interactions among the residents of the project decreased. As the result, the impact of the SET project on Syrian newcomers’ everyday life gradually weakened.

Discussion and conclusion

In this study the authors looked at the concept of “community,” examining the geographic and relational notions of community, coupled with physical and social elements. Through the lens of communities of practice, the authors analyzed an actively working community group in a residential area in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. In examining the SET project and the IJburg community from the perspectives of Syrian newcomers, several overall findings have been identified that have implications for other communities with new immigrants.

First, the geographical boundaries of a community are difficult to distinguish in urbanized areas. Although IJburg is an island community that has been established for about 20 years, the population had already surpassed 20,000. Since not everyone knew each other, it is difficult to say that the local community is inclusive of all residents. SET’s physical boundaries were clearly defined as the physical building in the community, but many of the activities that took place in SET included the participation of residents from the surrounding area. Syrians did not clearly distinguish community activities they knew of or participated in as part of SET or IJburg. This illustrates that newcomers residing in SET may have felt more integrated into the wider community.

Second, the authors categorized relational communities into two types: place-based and post-place. IJburg and SET make up a place-based community for the Syrian newcomers as follows. Although it is helpful to establish and maintain relationships if people share a specific place, such as an office, school, or neighborhood, relationships could be developed more strongly based on the shared values, life conditions, and joint activities rather than mere sharing of physical places. The degree of collective and individual community care for newcomers in IJburg illustrates this, given that the Syrian newcomers developed a limited number of close and lasting relationships with local residents. These local residents were mostly those who participated in community programs. Some local residents got to know the newcomers through a program and developed personal relationships with them, but these relationships involved a small number of local residents. Yet, it is also noteworthy that the Syrian newcomers had a good impression of the larger community, although they only had interacted with a few welcoming residents. This has implications for urbanized modern society, because it is difficult to judge whether a local community’s culture or ambience is good or bad based on the engagement of only a few people.

A feature of IJburg and SET that suggest it is a post-place community for Syrian newcomers is illustrated in examples. One of the Syrian interviewees built most of his network outside SET and IJburg. He had friends living in other areas of Amsterdam or the Netherlands who he mainly met through school or work. He also kept in contact with Syrian friends he met at refugee camps but who currently resided in other areas of the Netherlands. In addition to these new friendships, relationships with family members and friends in Syria and other countries continued through online means. One time, the author attended a birthday party at SET for a Syrian newcomer. There were about twenty Syrians at the party but only a few who lived at SET. This illustrates how newcomers, including those who have settled in SET, can form geographically independent relationships.

This study on SET and IJburg also has implications for communities of practice. If there is a community of practice that focuses on a neighborhood community as a key domain, the geographical and the relational community will be overlapped, and the knowledge about the local community and the individual’s life in that area can be facilitated. This also implies that when a community of practice focuses in a certain neighborhood, a new domain of interest and common goals can consistently emerge, in the process of practice, mutual engagement can be strengthened, and shared repertoire can be enriched.

For example, although the Language Café in IJburg was designed to facilitate the integration of newcomers at SET, the majority of the participants were other immigrants who lived in IJburg and needed Dutch language practice. Furthermore, the Language Café ran women-only hours for Muslim women who did not usually interact with other men outside their own families. These examples show how local-based communities of practice can create, adjust, and develop the practical knowledge necessary for the community.

In IJburg, the communities of practice rooted in the local region illustrated societal resilience when the community faced conflict. After the initial SET project plan was introduced, many IJburg residents were opposed to the local government’s plans and conflicts between local residents occurred. Opposition to the government plan was resolved through adjustment of the plan in accordance with the concerns of residents. Some local residents also contributed to helping newcomers settle into the neighborhood.

It was essential to provide SET with adequate support from local governments and core staff members and volunteers from the surrounding neighborhood in order for it to succeed. Smets and Azarhoosh (2019) point out the importance of the moderator’s role in revitalizing the community. In IJburg, a civil servant in charge of the area recruited and supported the necessary moderators, who in turn ran various programs such as an orientation day, a give-away market, the Language Café, and the Community Diner in cooperation with other participants. This illustrates how a community can overcome a crisis and become more enriched through cooperation between local government and residents.

This study also suggests that even a small number of people can foster positive outcomes in a community. This provides hope for people who are willing to act make their local communities better. Community care is also important for those facing difficulties. Even if only a small number of people participate in community care programs, those participants may be the ones who need the most help and care.

Lastly, this study illustrates the potential for housing and resident management through collaboration with neighbors. Some communities attempt to achieve both housing management and tenant management at the same time. Comprehensive management of tenants or participation of tenants in response to the long-term risks of the social integration process often includes a low level of social interaction (Costarelli et al., 2020). This study shows the possibility of a management method that can be integrated with the local community through interaction with neighbors.

The importance of the community is widely emphasized in many areas including the social integration of migrants and refugees. Along with the importance of a well-balanced and elaborated understanding of community, the understanding of how community influences the members of the community in their everyday lives is important to promote community activities in a plausible direction. Regardless of the number of participants, this study suggests that the geographical community still works in practice and value, and the cooperation with the community of practice that takes interest in local issues is a key to flourishing a local community.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).