Socionatural resources occupy geographical space. They take up space, border space and interact with space. But those resources are social, too, in that they must be used and exchanged within a system of social relations. The meaning and significance of any resource alters according to the distributive in/equalities and stratifications of the social system to which it belongs. Which is to say that since all social systems are structural, enduring across time and shaping the lives and opportunities of social agents, resources are structural too. Resources both structure and are structured by the spaces of social relations. Thus, while resources are distributed between individuals, it is also the case that individuals are distributed between resources.

Like socionatural resources, then, space represents an interface of the physical on the one hand, and the social on the other. As a result, the concept of space is necessarily open, dynamic, contested and, indeed, political.

To make sense of this, and its significance for the concept of poverty, we begin by reviewing various literatures dealing with space: social policy and environmental sociology. We then apply key elements of these debates in order to develop the definition given at the end of Chapter Two.

Social policy

Social policy is also spatial policy. Space affects, and is affected by, the delivery and regulation of services and the experiences of service users. Research into health, housing and labour markets often makes this clear, in relation to urban/rural boundaries, for instance (see, for example, Woods, 2006). Furthermore, in an era of global social policy, welfare services resemble ‘nested systems’ that stretch across several spatial borders.

From Booth and Rowntree onwards, it has long been understood that poverty has significant geographical dimensions (see, for example, Coates and Silburn, 1970; Townsend, 1979, Chapter 14). Within any particular territory there will be inequalities in access to decent housing, schools, shops, transport and other facilities necessary for social participation, quality of life and self-esteem. At the same time, the composition of a place – its wealth and distributions of that wealth – will be shaped by its relation to other relevant places. In short, social-spatial inequalities are both intra- and inter-territorial. But what do we mean by ‘relevant places’?

The difficulty is that the meaning of territory and place is always evolving.