Leisure Sciences

An Interdisciplinary Journal

ISSN: 0149-0400 (Print) 1521-0588 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulsc20

Leisure Spaces, Community, and Third Places

Felice Yuen & Amanda J. Johnson

To cite this article: Felice Yuen & Amanda J. Johnson (2016): Leisure Spaces, Community, and
Third Places, Leisure Sciences, DOI: 10.1080/01490400.2016.1165638

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2016.1165638

Published online: 01 Jun 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ulsc20

Download by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] Date: 09 June 2016, At: 20:03
 LEISURE SCIENCES
, VOL. , NO. , –
http://dx.doi.org/./..

RESEARCH REFLECTION

Leisure Spaces, Community, and Third Places

Felice Yuena and Amanda J. Johnsonb
a
Faculty of Applied Human Sciences, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada; b Department of Recreation and
Tourism Management, Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo, BC, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

After decades of highlighting the decline of social networks, leisure Received  May 
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 20:03 09 June 2016

spaces as third places constitute a welcomed approach to mediate this Accepted  March 
loss. Third places are defined as public gathering places that ultimately
KEYWORDS
contribute to the strength of community. We appreciate the concept community; diversity; leisure;
and believe that it has and will continue to influence scholars in the field social media; third place
of leisure. For this reason, this research reflection argues Oldenburg’s
conceptualization of third places requires reconsideration. Specifically,
we address the increasing prevalence of technology and question Old-
enburg’s claim that technology contributes to the isolation of individu-
als. We also encourage a more complex understanding of third places—
one that is beyond the idealized notion of public places. Oldenburg’s
social dimensions of third places (enjoyment, regularity, pure sociabil-
ity/social leveler, and diversity) are offered as a useful framework. More
specifically, we argue that diversity is the most relevant characteristic
when exploring third places as a platform for community.

The third place is a generic designation for a great variety of public places that host the regular,
voluntary, informal, and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home
and work. (Oldenburg, 1999, p. 16)

The notion of third places is appealing to leisure scholars as it is useful in understanding

leisure, particularly in the realm of community. For decades, researchers have observed the
erosion of social networks in Western society (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton,
1996; Ife & Tesoriero, 2006; Oldenburg, 1999; Portes, 2014; Putnam, 2000; Traynor, 2012). As
such, understanding and ultimately creating leisure spaces as third places constitute a wel-
comed approach to mediate this loss of community.
There are numerous definitions of community, with some focusing on social relation-
ships and others relating to geographical space, the functionality of community, or a com-
munity of interest (Brown & Hannis, 2008; Pedlar & Haworth, 2006). Our conceptualiza-
tion of community is based on communitarianism. An attempt to balance individual rights
with collective responsibility and duty is central to the philosophy of communitarianism
(Arai & Pedlar, 2003). Mutual support, reciprocity, and solidarity are essential components
of community (Arai & Pedlar). Borrowing from Pedlar and Haworth, “the emphasis here is
on shared values, joint effort, and the involvement of all members” (p. 519). According to
communitarian Charles Taylor (1992), “asserting rights itself involves an obligation to belong”

CONTACT Felice Yuen, PhD felice.yuen@concordia.ca Department of Applied Human Sciences, Concordia University,
 Sherbrooke St. West VE ., Montreal, Quebec, Canada HB R.
©  Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 2 F. YUEN AND A. J. JOHNSON

(p. 38). The communitarian perspective believes that connection to community is required
for an individual to engage and contribute to a common good (Sandel, 1992). Given the focus
on the relational, we frame this discussion around the social dimensions1 of third places and
community building.
Many leisure settings and activities, such as community gardens and summer camps, have
been examined as spaces that can be used to (re)build community (Arai & Pedlar, 2003;
Glover, 2004; Glover, Shinew, & Parry, 2005; Shinew, Glover, & Parry, 2004; Yuen, 2013; Yuen,
Pedlar, & Mannell, 2005). Leisure settings, such as curling clubs, farmers’ markets, and sup-
port groups involving workshops and social activities, have been examined as third places in
the leisure literature (Glover & Parry, 2009; Glover, Parry, & Mulcahy, 2012; A. J. Johnson,
2013; Mair, 2009). Such places are often presented as gathering spaces where individuals can
informally connect with family, friends, or community members. Oldenburg (1999) himself,
pointed to leisure settings, such as pubs and coffee shops, as examples of places where indi-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 20:03 09 June 2016

viduals come together to create community.

We appreciate the concept of third places and believe that it has and will continue to influ-
ence scholars in the field of leisure. For this reason, we believe Oldenburg’s (1999) notion of
third places requires a critical examination as we continue to use this concept to frame our
research. Our view is that Oldenburg’s conceptualization of third places requires reconsider-
ation. Specifically, we address the increasing prevalence of technology and question Olden-
burg’s claim that “the only predictable social consequence of technological advancement is
that they will grow ever more apart from one another” (p. xxviii). We also encourage a more
complex understanding of third places— one that is beyond Oldenburg’s idealized notion of
public places.
While we believe the concept of third places requires a critical examination, we also believe
that it provides a useful framework to understand the ways in which leisure spaces can be
conducive to community. The first part of this research reflection focuses on a divergence from
Oldenburg’s (1999) discussion of third places, but the second part highlights how his social
dimensions of third places help us consider how leisure can be used to create community.

Third places: Revisited

Digital spaces as third places

Information and communication technologies (ICTs) such as digital social networks (e.g.,
Facebook, Twitter, Second Life), are increasingly used as methods through which social con-
nections are developed and maintained. Indeed, ICTs are increasingly infused in our every-
day lives and in our leisure time (Haythornthwaite & Kendall, 2010; Memorovic et al., 2014).
Researchers have also recognized ICTs as providers of meaningful social engagement and
support (Delamere, 2011; Haythornthwaite & Kendall; Memorovic et al.; Minahan & Wol-
fram Cox, 2007). Delamere described the multiplayer online virtual world, Second Life, as a
computer-generated third place, while Memorovic and his colleagues discussed ICTs as aug-
menting opportunities for community and, more radically, replacing Oldenburg’s coffee shop
example of third places.
In his book, Oldenburg (1999) argued that technology contributes to the weakening of
community and facilitates socially isolating experiences. We believe that there is still much to
be explored in our understanding of how third places, ICTs, leisure, and community affect one

 Social dimension refers to the demographic make-up of people, their experiences, and their emotions, as opposed to the physi-
cal dimensions (i.e., built environment). For more discussion on the importance of the physical aspects in community building,
please see Dempsey (, ), Glover and Parry (), Peters, Elands, and Buijs (), and Talen ().
 LEISURE SCIENCES 3

another. Indeed, there has been limited research regarding digital third places and community
in the field of leisure studies. Nonetheless, we, like many others, recognize that ICTs have the
potential to be considered third places (Cilesiz, 2009; Delamere, 2011; Ducheneaut, Moore,
& Nickell, 2007; Haythornthwaite & Kendall, 2010; Lawson, 2004; Memorovic et al., 2014;
Minahan & Wolfram Cox, 2007; Steinkuehler, 2005; Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006).
The consideration of ICTs as third places is the first point in which we diverge from Olden-
burg’s (1999) conceptualization of third places. In the following section we discuss our other
point of divergence— problematizing third places as public places.

Reconsidering third places as public places

Oldenburg (1999) defined third places as “a generic designation for a great variety of public
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 20:03 09 June 2016

places” (emphasis added, p. 16). From his definition, we have come to associate public places
with third places. In lamenting the loss of third places, Oldenburg argued Western society
is being depleted of opportunities and places for individuals to connect with community and
that the third places we have lost were inherently open and inclusive. Along with many others,
Oldenburg viewed public places as vital in the creation of community. That is, public places
have been recognized as contexts to encourage citizen involvement (McInroy, 2000; Warpole,
1997) and to create a sense of belonging and place attachment for community members (Low
& Altman, 1992).
In the same regard, public places are generally depicted as the embodiment of democracy
(Howell, 2001; Johnson & Glover, 2013). However, such spaces are not always accessible. Old-
enburg’s (1999) conceptualization of accessibility and accommodation as a characterization of
third places is markedly different from ours (pp. 32–33). His discussion on the ease of access
focused on the long hours of third places and their close physical proximity to its patrons. Our
conceptualization of accessibility is related to social inclusion and judgment free spaces where
there is a sense of acceptance and connection to the broader community (Trussell & Mair,
2010). Subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, forms of exclusion, such as “No Loitering” signs
or defensive architecture, are often present in public spaces (Johnson & Glover). Defensive
architecture is a design method used to prevent the presence of specific populations in public
spaces. For example, metal spikes designed to deter homeless people were recently erected on
a sidewalk outside of a local business in Montreal, Quebec, Canada (Johnson, 2014).
According to Howell, the goal of urban design is to attract the upscale public while deter-
ring the masses. This practice has resulted in the creation of exclusionary spaces that often
appear public to selected users while simultaneously preventing large segments of society
from interacting within the space (Glover et al., 2012; Johnson & Glover, 2013). Indeed, public
places can be conducive to feeling of belonging and social cohesions, but they can also breed
experiences of marginalization and exclusion. Given the complexity of experiences within a
third place, we argue that we need to move beyond the idea of third places as public places.
We believe third places exist not because the place is defined as public, but because of
certain existing social dimensions. Glover and Parry (2008), for example, demonstrated that
private leisure spaces, such as the Gilda’s Club (a space for people living with cancer), may
also serve as a third place. Incidentally, Oldenburg’s (1999) coffee shop and pub examples
of third places are arguably private spaces for consumption. Similarly, A. J. Johnson (2013)
argued farmers’ markets may be construed as either public or private yet maintain the social
characteristics that often allow them to act as a third place. By considering specific social
dimensions of third places we move beyond polarizing and limited discussions of public and
private spaces.
 4 F. YUEN AND A. J. JOHNSON

Table . Third Places and Community.

Social Dimension of
Third Places Description by Oldenburg () Connection to Community

Enjoyment • Entertainment is provided by the people
themselves.
• The sustaining activity is conversation
which is variously passionate and light-
hearted, serious and witty, informative and
silly. (p. xxii)
• “People are not interested in the project
of community building. It is the thing, its
charms and traditions, that have capti-
vated their good will.” (Borgmann, , p.
).
• Playful conversations enable individuals
to move beyond self-interest to areas of
shared meaning. (Arai & Pedlar, )

Regularity • It is the regulars whose mood and manner
provide the infectious contagious style of
interaction. (p. )
• Those who regularly visit third place
expect to see familiar face. Absences are
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 20:03 09 June 2016
• Community exists when we engage with
one another through relations of care,
which is both fostered and defined by reg-
ular interaction. This interaction creates
foundation from which a sense of solidar-

quickly noted, and those present query ity can emerge. (Schweigert, )
one another about an absent member. (p.
)

Pure sociability/Social • The charm and the flavor of one’s person- • Sociability refers us back to the power of
Leveler ality, irrespective of his or her station in life, the collective, the sense of being together
is what counts. (p. ) and obligation to get along. (Shields, )

Diversity • The elderly and poor, the ragged and
infirm, are interspersed among those look-
ing and doing well.
• The full spectrum of local humanity is rep-
resented. (p. )
• Heterogeneous communities are strong
because of its diversity to resources and
adaptability to change. (Somerville, )

Social dimensions of third place

As Glover and Parry (2009) acknowledged, place is “defined by more than just its physical ele-
ments; it refers to the socio-cultural meanings and emotional attachments held by an individ-
ual or a group for a spatial setting” (p. 98). In other words, place is a social construct (Frumkin,
2002; Gieryn, 2000; Lefebvre, 1991; Smale, 2006). With this in mind, we highlight the feeling
(enjoyment) and interactions (regularity, pure sociability, diversity) Oldenburg (1999) used
to conceptualize third places and their connection to community (see Table 1). The accumu-
lation of interpersonal interactions and the feelings created from these interactions are what
gives a place meaning (Glover & Parry), and ultimately what renders a specific space to be
identified as a third place.
The consideration of specific social elements that create the third place will strengthen
our understanding of how leisure can be used to create spaces for community. Leisure spaces
alone do not facilitate community. Rather it is the interactions, the relationships, and the feel-
ings that exist within the setting that create community (Johnson & Glover, 2013). The social
dimensions of third places offer a framework leisure practitioners can use to develop leisure
settings that are conducive to community, and for leisure scholars to consider when exploring
leisure spaces as third places. While all of Oldenburg’s social dimensions of third places are
important considerations, we argue that diversity is the most relevant when exploring third
places as a platform for community.
Certain spaces may be inclusive toward a specific population, while at the same time be
exclusive to another population. Leisure spaces are no exception (Mulcahy, Parry, & Glover,
2010; Trussell, Sharpe, & Mair, 2011). For example, in his narrative inquiry of a specific leisure
 LEISURE SCIENCES 5

space, Glover (2004) found that social capital is not evenly distributed or accessed in a commu-
nity garden. Additionally, Johnson and Samdahl’s (2005) study of a gay bar depicted how the
space provides patrons reprieve from heterosexual discourse while encouraging misogynistic
practices. As they argued, “leisure spaces can foster inequality as well as community” (p. 331).
Incidentally, Oldenburg described the ambience of the beloved public pub as “restrained mas-
culinity” (p. 129). While he did not present this type of environment as an issue, C. W. Johnson
(2013) argued that leisure spaces can enforce mainstream discourses and ideals and that indi-
viduals who are marginalized because of their gender, race, sexual identity, or ability may not
participate because they do not fit in. Even if the dominant discourse is “restrained,” we ought
to question who is present and who is not when examining leisure spaces as third places.
Accessibility is a necessary consideration when looking at third places from a communitar-
ian perspective. As argued by Etzioni (2004), individuals who feel connected are more moti-
vated to act in ways that reflect shared values. People may indeed be experiencing a third place,
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 20:03 09 June 2016

but who exactly is having this experience? Researchers should consider the socio-economic
demographic of those present and who is being excluded, and for what reasons. As empha-
sized by Peters and de Haan (2011), the quality of the space, such as consideration for safety,
comfort, enjoyment, and attractiveness, is of central importance when looking at inclusion
and exclusion. Researchers should also reflect upon the changes that may be necessary to
increase accessibility for members of the community and to ensure the continued experience
of third place. As argued by Mair (2009), “efforts to address issues of accessibility also reflect
broader social changes that must be faced by third places” (pp. 462–463). In Mair’s study of
curling clubs as third places, she highlighted a need to respond to the existing aging member-
ship of the club. This response included growing acceptance and provisions for individuals
using wheelchairs and individuals with vision impairments. Third places are dynamic (Old-
enburg, 1999; Mair), and should be continuously created and re-created in response to the
community it serves. While regulars are necessary to create and maintain a sense of familiar-
ity and solidarity, this must be balanced with openness to diversity and change.
Some may argue that the notion of third places is an ideal. Indeed, “the full spectrum
of humanity [emphasis added]” is a tall order (Oldenburg, 1999, p. 14). Nonetheless, these
dimensions offer a benchmark for consideration. If we are to talk about leisure spaces as places
of community, then we should be discussing who is present and who is not. The requirement
for diversity narrows the spectrum of leisure settings that may be considered a third place. We
question Lin’s (2012) assertion of Starbucks as third place, given its high price of coffee and
food. His analysis of Starbuck’s patrons highlighted an educated cliental who are attracted to
its prestigious atmosphere. While enjoyment, regularity, and pure sociability may be present,
the presence of diversity is questionable. Given the lack of diversity, we would argue that Star-
bucks is not a third place. Without diversity, one could argue that leisure spaces, such as Star-
bucks, which cater to a specific population and fit within a dominant discourse, contributes to
normalizing the marginality of those who are treated as inferior (i.e., the lower class). While
this example specifically addresses socio-economic diversity, we encourage researchers to rec-
ognize the complexity and intersectionality2 associated with experiences of marginalization
and issues of diversity.
Incidentally, the consumer-oriented aspect of some spaces complicates using the notion of
third place, particularly in terms of diversity and the kind enjoyment that is typical within

 Intersectionality recognizes individuals have multiple identities based on demographic characteristics such as race, ethnicity,
class, gender, and sexual orientation (Mann & Huffman, ).As argued by Brotman and Kraniou (), researchers need
to consider various experiences of marginalization—some of which may be more dominant than others, depending on the
situation.
 6 F. YUEN AND A. J. JOHNSON

such a place (one that is provided by the people themselves). As previously mentioned,
high prices attract a certain kind of patron; one that is typically well-educated and affluent.
Furthermore, if the primary activity is the consumption of goods and services, the outcome
is the reinforcement of a lifestyle enclave, as opposed to community. According to Bellah and
his colleagues (1996, p. 335), “a lifestyle enclave is formed by people who share some feature
of private life. Members of a lifestyle enclave express their identity through shared patterns
of appearance, consumption, and leisure activities, which often serve to differentiate them
sharply from those with other lifestyles” (p. 335). A lifestyle enclave is fundamentally seg-
mental, contributes to individual expression, and includes only those with a common lifestyle
(Bellah et al.). Returning to Oldenburg’s (1999) discussion of enjoyment, the people and the
conversation are the foci of the experience in a third place, not the goods purchased. In other
words, consumption might occur, but the main motivators and contributors to one’s sense of
enjoyment are the people themselves and the entertainment they provide.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 20:03 09 June 2016

As argued by Oldenburg (1999), “a place that is a leveler is, by its nature, an inclusive place
(p. 24). He further contends that a space that facilitates pure socialization serves to expand
networks of association. As argued by Yuen and Glover (2005), the socializing component
within a leisure experience facilitates the development of social capital. More specifically, the
broadening of one’s social network is related to the concept of bridging social capital. That
is, as a social leveler, third places can facilitate “relations of respect and mutuality between
people who know that they are not alike in some socio-demographic (or social identity) sense
(differing by age, ethnic group, class, etc.)” (Szreter & Woolcock, 2004, p. 655). In the same
regard, third places can encourage linking social capital by creating “norms of respect and
networks of trusting relationships between people who are interacting across explicit, formal
or institutionalized power or authority gradients in society” (Szreter & Woolcock, p. 655).
As it has been recognized through numerous studies in our field, social capital is an impor-
tant component of community (e.g., Glover, 2004; Glover, Parry, & Shinew, 2005; Heming-
way, 1999; Misener & Mason, 2006; Yuen et al., 2005; Yuen, 2013). However, as Glover (2006)
emphasized, “leisure researchers have a tendency to focus on how social capital enables [mem-
bers of a community], rather than how it denies” (p. 361). He urges us to move beyond the
production and maintenance of social capital toward a more critical understanding of its dis-
tribution. That is, the benefits of social capital are not equal and that the appropriation of
this capital is dependent on one’s social position (Glover, 2006). The call for a critical exami-
nation of social capital warrants more discussion than this research reflection can provide.3
Nonetheless, we raise the issue because it is our hope that leisure researchers will learn from
our arguably narrow focus of social capital and that we will apply the concept of third places
in our field with caution and with a critical lens.
Leisure settings are complex. Even as a third place, they carry both the possibility to create
community and potential to normalize and exacerbate the oppression and marginalization of
others. The experience of a leisure setting as a third place does not automatically imply that
this setting will facilitate a third place experience for all who come. We believe moving beyond
equating third places with the romanticized notion of public places is a good starting point. We
also believe placing more emphasis on the social dimension of diversity will enable researchers
to understand the complexity of leisure spaces as third places, whether it be virtually or face-
to-face. This research reflection is but another point in the conversation. It is our hope that
ongoing research will continue this conversation and increase our understanding of how third
places intersect with leisure and community.

 Please refer to Blackshaw and Long (), Glover (), and Mulcahy, Parry, and Glover () for more details.
 LEISURE SCIENCES 7

References
Arai, S., & Pedlar, A. (2003). Moving beyond individualism in leisure theory: A critical analysis of con-
cepts of community and social engagement. Leisure Studies, 22(3), 185–202.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton (1996). Habits of the heart. Los Angeles,
CA: University of California Press.
Blackshaw, T., & Long, J. (2005). What’s the big idea? A critical exploration of the concept of social
capital and its incorporation into leisure policy discourse. Leisure Studies, 24(3), 239–258.
Borgmann, A. (1992). Crossing the postmodern divide. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Brotman, S., & Kraniou, S. (1999). Ethnic and lesbian: Understanding identity through the life-history
approach. Affilia, 14(4), 417–438.
Brown, J., & Hannis, D. (2008). Community development in Canada. Toronto, ON, Canada: Pearson
Education.
Cilesiz, S. (2009). Educational computer use in leisure contexts: A phenomenological study of ado-
lescents’ experiences at Internet cafés. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 232–274.
doi:10.3102/0002831208323938
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 20:03 09 June 2016

Delamere, F. M. (2011). Second life as a digitally mediated third place: Social capital in virtual world
communities. In G. Crawford, V. K. Gosling, & B. Light (Eds.), Online gaming in context: The social
and cultural significance of online games (pp. 236–248). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dempsey, N. (2008). Quality of the built environment in urban neighborhoods. Planning Practice and
Research, 23(2), 249–264.
Dempsey, N. (2009). Are good-quality environments socially cohesive? Measuring quality and cohesion
in urban neighborhoods. Town Planning Review, 80(3), 315–345.
Ducheneaut, N., Moore, R. J., & Nickell, E. (2007). Virtual “third places”: A case study of sociability in
massively multiplayer games. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 16, 129–166.
Etzioni, A. (2004). The common good. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Frumkin, H. (2002). Urban sprawl and public health. Public Health Reports, 117, 201–217.
Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 463–496.
Glover, T. D. (2004). Social capital in the lived experiences of community gardeners. Leisure Sciences,
26(2), 143–162.
Glover, T. D. (2006). Toward a critical examination of social capital within leisure con-
texts: From production and maintenance to distribution. Leisure/Loisir, 30(2), 357–367.
doi:10.1080/14927713.2006.9651357
Glover, T. D., Parry, D. C., & Shinew, K. J. (2005). Building relationships, accessing resources: Mobilizing
social capital in community garden contexts. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(4), 450.
Glover, T. D., Shinew, K. J., & Parry, D. C. (2005). Association, sociability, and civic culture: The demo-
cratic effect of community gardening. Leisure Sciences, 27(1), 75–92.
Glover, T. D., & Parry, D. C. (2009). A third place in the everyday lives of people living with cancer:
Functions of Gilda’s Club of Greater Toronto. Health and Place, 15, 97–106.
Glover, T. D., & Parry, D. C., & Mulcahy, C. M. (2012). At once liberating and exclusionary? A Lefeb-
vrean analysis of Gilda’s Club of Toronto. Leisure Studies, 32(5), 1–20.
Haythornthwaite, C., & Kendall, L. (2010). Internet and community. American Behavioral Scientist, 53.
doi:10.1177/0002764209356242
Hemingway, J. L. (1999). Leisure, social capital, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Leisure Research,
31(2), 150–165.
Howell, O. (2001). The poetics of security: Skateboarding, urban design, and the new public
space. Urban Action. Retrieved from http://urbanpolicy.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Howell_
2001_Poetics-of-Security_NoPix.pdf
Ife, J. W., & Tesoriero, F. (2006). Community development: Community-based alternatives in an age of
globalisation. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Johnson, A. J. (2013). “It’s more than a shopping trip”: Leisure and consumption in a farmers’ market.
Annals of Leisure Research, 16(4), 1–17.
Johnson, A. J., & Glover, T. D. (2013). Understanding urban public space in a leisure context. Leisure
Sciences, 35(2), 190–197.
Johnson, C. W. (2013). Masculinity and leisure. In K. Henderson, S. Shaw, V. Freysinger, & D. Bialeschki
(Eds.), Women, gender and leisure (pp. 245–257). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
 8 F. YUEN AND A. J. JOHNSON

Johnson, C. W., & Samdahl, D. M. (2005). “The night they took over” misogyny in a country-western
gay bar. Leisure Sciences, 27(4), 331–348. doi:10.1080/01490400590962443
Johnson, M. (2014, June 10). Outrage after Montreal store lays out spikes to deter homeless.
CTV News. Retrieved from http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/outrage-after-montreal-store-lays-out-
spikes-to-deter-homeless-1.1862513
Lawson, K. (2004). Libraries in the USA as traditional and virtual “third places.” New Library World,
105(1198/1199), 125–130.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. London, England: Basil Blackwell.
Lin, E. (2012). Starbucks as the third place: Glimpses into Taiwan’s consumer culture and lifestyles.
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 24, 119–128. doi:10.1080/08961530.2012.650142
Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman & S. M. Low
(Eds.), Place attachment: Human behavior and environment (Vol. 12, pp. 1–12). New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Mair, H. (2009). Club life: Third place and shared leisure in rural Canada. Leisure Sciences, 31(5), 450–
465.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 20:03 09 June 2016

Mann, S. A., & Huffman, D. J. (2005). Marxist-feminist thought today. Science & Society, 89(1), 5–10.
McInroy, N. (2000). Urban regeneration and public space: The story of an urban park. Space and Polity,
4, 23–40.
Memorovic, N., Fels, S., Anacleto, J., Calderon, R., Gobbo, F., & Carroll, J. (2014). Rethinking third
places: Contemporary design with technology. The Journal of Community Informatics, 10(3).
Retrieved from <http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/1048/1116>
Minahan, S., & Wolfram Cox, J. (2007). Stitchn’Bitch: Cyberfeminism, third place and the new materi-
ality. Journal of Material Culture, 12(1), 5–21.
Misener, L., & Mason, D. S. (2006). Creating community networks: Can sporting events offer meaning-
ful sources of social capital? Managing Leisure, 11(1), 39–56. doi:10.1080/13606710500445676
Mulcahy, C. M., Parry, D. C., & Glover, T. D. (2010). Play-group politics: A critical social cap-
ital exploration of exclusion and conformity in mothers groups. Leisure Studies, 29(1), 3–27.
doi:10.1080/02614360903266973
Oldenburg, R. (1999). Great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons and other hang-
outs at the heart of community. New York, NY: Marlow & Company.
Pedlar, A., & Haworth, L. (2006). Community. In C. Rojek, S. M. Shaw, & A. J. Veal (Eds.), A handbook
of leisure studies (pp. 518–532). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Peters, K., Elands, B., & Buijs, A. (2010). Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion?
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9, 93–100.
Peters, K., & de Haan, H. (2011). Everyday spaces of inter-ethnic interaction: The meaning of urban pub-
lic spaces in the Netherlands. Leisure/Loisir, 35(2), 169–190. doi:10.1080/14927713.2011.567065
Portes, A. (2014). Downsides of social capital. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 111(52), 18407–18408.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY:
Simon & Schuster.
Sandel, M. (1992). The procedural republic and the unencumbered self. In S. Avineri & A. de-Shalit
(Eds.), Communitarianism and individualism (pp. 12–28). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schweigert, F. J. (2002). Solidarity and subsidiarity: Complementary principles of community develop-
ment. Journal of Social Philosophy, 33(1), 33–44.
Shields, R. (1992). The individual, consumption cultures and the fate of community. In R. Shields (Ed.),
Lifestyle shopping: The subject of consumption (pp. 99–113). London, UK: Routledge.
Shinew, K. J., Glover, T. D., & Parry, D. C. (2004). Leisure spaces as potential sites for interracial inter-
action: Community gardens in urban areas. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(3), 336–355.
Smale, B. (2006). Critical perspectives on place in leisure research. Leisure/Loisir, 30(2), 369–382.
Somerville, P. (2011). Understanding community: Politics, policy and practice. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2005). The new third place: Massively multiplayer online gaming in American
youth culture. Tidskrift Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 12(3), 17–32. Retrieved from
http://www.sprak.umu.se/digitalAssets/5/5649_lofu_nr3_2005.pdf#page=16
 LEISURE SCIENCES 9

Steinkuehler, C. A., & Williams, D. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name:
Online games as “third places.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 885–909.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00300.x
Szreter, S., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political
economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33, 650–667.
Talen, E. (2000). The problem with community in planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 15(2), 171–
183.
Taylor, C. (1992). Atomism. In S. Avineri & A. de-Shalit (Eds.), Communitarianism and individualism
(pp. 29–50). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Traynor, B. (2012). Community building: Limitations and promise. In J. DeFilippis & S. Saegert (Eds.),
The community development reader (2nd ed., pp. 209–219). New York, NY: Routledge.
Trussell, D. E., & Mair, H. (2010). Seeking judgment free spaces: Poverty, leisure, and social inclusion.
Journal of Leisure Research, 42(4), 513–533.
Trussell, D., Sharpe, E., & Mair, H. (2011). Leisure, space and change: Examining the terrain of social
struggle and transformation. Leisure/Loisir, 35(2), 91–95.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 20:03 09 June 2016

Warpole, K. (1997). The richness of cities: Urban policy in a new landscape. London, England: Comedia
and Demos.
Yuen, F. (2013). Building Juniper: Chinese Canadian motivations for volunteering and experiences of
community development. Leisure/Loisir, 37(2), 159–178.
Yuen, F., & Glover, T. (2005). Enabling social capital development: An examination of the festival of
neighborhoods in Kitchener, Ontario. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 23(4), 20–23.
Yuen, F. C., Pedlar, A., & Mannell, R. C. (2005). Building community and social capital through chil-
dren’s leisure in the context of an international camp. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(4), 494–518.