A tale of three villages: Local housing policies, well-being and encounters between residents and immigrants

This article examines how the location, function and quality of immigrant accommodation facilities, regulated by local housing policies, shape the perceived effects of immigration on the well-being of residents and immigrants in three villages in the Netherlands. Drawing on semistructured interviews with local government representatives, residents and Romanian and Polish immigrants, we show how the different locations of the immigrant accommodations condition social interactions between residents and immigrants and, in this process, reinforce social hierarchies and inequalities. We illustrate how, sometimes unintentionally, spatial policies prepare the stage for conflicts to arise between immigrants and residents, shaping the latter's experiences of migration irrespective of the behaviour of the former. For immigrants, the location of their accommodation sets the limits to what they can do in terms of private behaviour and social relations, exposing them to social control and evaluation.


| INTRODUCTION
The impact of migration on receiving countries has been a major concern of policymakers and researchers in the European Union (EU) in recent decades. This trend has only intensified in the aftermath of the 2014-2015 'refugee crisis', the 2008-2009 economic crisis, and the 2004 and 2007 EU enlargement rounds, which triggered significant intra-EU movements. It has now become more important than ever to understand how places cope with immigration, and how immigration affects the well-being of individuals, both long-term residents and immigrants. Our understanding of some of these matters is quite mature, with an abundance of studies researching the effects of migration on immigrants themselves (see, for instance, Bock et al., 2016;Marcu, 2015;McAreavey, 2017;White & Johnson, 2016) and on residents and the place (see, for instance, Bock, 2016;Kasimis et al., 2010;McAreavey, 2012). However, much less consideration has been given to specific characteristics of places that shape these effects. Moreover, we know far less about migration dynamics in rural as compared with urban areas.
Our article, in which we analyse how local migrant housing policies (i.e., the location, function and quality of immigrant accommodation facilities) affect the perceived effect of migration on the wellbeing of residents and immigrants in three villages in the Netherlands, intends to contribute to and advance this still incipient knowledge. To that end, we first provide a brief account of the housing policies concerning immigrants in the three villages, followed by an overview of the immigrant accommodation facility's location in each area. We show how these location choices are shaped by local housing policies and in turn shape the perceived effects of migration on the well-being of residents and immigrants. In the process, we consider three important factors that mediate the relationship between housing policies and migration experiences, namely, the characteristics of the three villages as new immigration destinations, the characteristics of the immigrant population and the nature of the encounters between immigrants and residents.

| PLACE, LOCAL MIGRANT HOUSING POLICIES AND WELL-BEING
Our article analyses how local migrant housing policies affect the perceived effects of migration on the well-being of immigrants and residents in three locations in the Netherlands. This section presents the theoretical concepts underlying our analysis.
We define well-being as the interplay between the material, the relational and the subjective well-being, following an adapted version of the conceptualisation proposed by McGregor (2007) and White (2008). The material concerns practical welfare and standards of living such as income, employment, education and health; the relational concerns personal and social relations; and the subjective concerns values, perceptions and experiences. Another way of thinking about it is to see it as a combination of what a person has (the material), with whom they can share what they have (the relational) and how they feel about what they have (the subjective) (McGregor, 2007). Importantly, although presented separately, these are not discrete categories, as human well-being requires the coexistence or integration of all these dimensions, which overlap to varying degrees (Wright, 2011).
Well-being, however, regardless of its definition, cannot be considered in a vacuum. The condition of one feeling well and the process that leads to such a feeling depend on one's ability to mobilise a range of material, social and psychological resources, which are essentially and necessarily connected to a place (Atkinson et al., 2012). The natural and built environment, the spatial layout and design of the place, the amenities it provides, the sense of community and trust, all serve as a background for the development of material, relational and subjective aspects of well-being. One particular aspect of place that we are interested in here is the role of local migrant housing policies in shaping effects of migration on the well-being of immigrants and residents. Housing policies regulate the location and function of housing facilities, as well as the quality of the living conditions within, which are bound to affect aspects of well-being for both groups. The location of housing, for instance, may enable or prevent encounters and interactions between residents and immigrants, which may evoke positive feelings and sympathy or negative feelings on both sides. The quality of housing concerns issues such as amenities, leisure activities or the possibility for privacy, which influence the subjective and material aspects of well-being for immigrants. The spatial design of the housing facilities may shape relations of power, structures of inequality, and practices of domination and subordination among the two groups in the place (Tickamyer, 2000). For instance, the geographical placement of immigrants within the locality affects their access to amenities and the costs incurred, as places constitute part of their opportunity structure. We distinguish between three regulatory aspects of migrants' housing policies, which cumulatively form distinctly different experiences of migration imprinted in the behaviour of migrants and residents, their interaction, their perception of each other, and by extension, their well-being. The three dimensions refer to the location, function and quality of the accommodation. The first dimension refers to where the immigrants' accommodation is placed, where we distinguish between residential and non-residential areas. The second dimension concerns the function the accommodation serves for immigrants, and here, we distinguish between a boarding-house (short-term) and a residence (long-term) function. The third dimension refers, intuitively, to the amenities provided by the accommodation facility.
There are three other important aspects that we discuss here, which mediate the relationship between housing policies and individuals' well-being, namely, the nature of the encounters between residents and immigrants, the characteristics of the place and the characteristics of the immigrant groups. The concept of encounters has been used to examine contact between groups distinct in terms of social identity and categorisation, which imply some form of potential conflict, prejudice or unease (Valentine, 2008;Wilson, 2017). Encounters hold the potential for changing intergroup relations, either by chipping away from prejudices and misconceptions about others and producing new convivialities (Leitner, 2012;Schuermans, 2013;Vertovec, 2015;Wilson, 2017), or by reaffirming prejudice, producing resentment, aggravating conflicts and reinforcing unequal power relations (Lobo, 2013;Stouraiti, 2012;Wilson, 2017). Yet these encounters do not take place in a vacuum, but in the presence of historically produced configurations of power and status (Vertovec, 2021). In addition, the characteristics of the place and those of the individuals mediate the nature of the encounters, with important consequences for intergroup dynamics. As Leitner (2012) notes, encounters are framed by historically grounded place identities, which are challenged by the presence of the migrants who may be seen as culturally different. Encounters are also embedded into pre-existing discourses about migrants (from media, from networks and from politicians), and into broader relationships of power, constituted by their class, their gender, their spatial location or their role in societal structures (Leitner, 2012;Matejskova & Leitner, 2011). Last but not least, the social construction of places often reflects and reinforces existing power relations between groups (Piekut & Valentine, 2017), framing encounters from unequal positions.
The three places in the Netherlands in which we conduct our analysis are rural areas and represent new immigration destinations.
Their rurality implies a different spatial and social background compared with urban areas. Socially, rural communities are tighter, and the social life in the village is more close-knit. Spatially, the residents may have assigned clear meaning to various locations within the village, a gathering spot in the village centre, for instance, while the village itself might be spatially less connected, with farms (where many migrants work) located in relative distance in relation to local populations. Their trait as new immigration destinations often implies limited experience with immigration. On the one hand, this results in little established institutional or infrastructural support for an unexpected influx of migrants (McAreavey, 2017), whereas on the other hand, it means that, historically, they are rather culturally homogenous communities (Winders, 2014), with a strong cultural identity.
The characteristics of the immigrant group should not be overlooked either; who the migrants are, what they do, where they come from, for how long they are staying; all these attributes can influence perceptions and interactions between residents and immigrants, and by extension, their (subjective) well-being. Immigrants' place of origin matters for three reasons. Firstly, it affects perceptions and attitudes towards them (e.g., Eastern vs. Western European and EU vs. non-EU immigrants vs. asylum seekers and refugees), and it frames their power relations vis-a-vis residents. Secondly, it affects their patterns of migration. EU migrants, given the removal of barriers to movement and the relatively short distances within the EU, are likelier to live transnational lives and to practice circular migration, than non-EU migrants. For some local communities in Europe, (Eastern) European migrants represent large minorities that are harder to ignore (Rye, 2018) and that oftentimes receive more (negative) media attention. The implication is that short-term migrants will behave differently and have different characteristics than long-term migrants. Thirdly, and relatedly, places of origin guarantee different rights and entitlements for immigrants, which shape their individual levels of agency (McAreavey & Argent, 2018), influencing in turn aspects of their well-being.

| OVERVIEW OF CASE STUDIES AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Our analysis is based on 60 semistructured interviews with residents Noordoostpolder is a region heavily relying on agriculture, dairy farming and horticulture as the backbone of its economy. 2 A particular characteristic of Noordoostpolder is the fact that it was built on reclaimed land from the sea and it was physically and socially engineered as an agricultural society (Haartsen & Thissen, 2018).
We considered Romanian immigrants in Steenbergen, and Polish immigrants in Noordoostpolder. Specifically, we interviewed residents (n = 15) and Romanian immigrants (n = 15) in Village A, and residents (n = 15) and Polish immigrants (n = 15) in Villages B and C. We consider residents to be Dutch individuals who have lived in the area for 10 years or more. We complement these materials with semistructured interviews with two local government representatives in both locations and analysis of local policy documents in relation to immigration.
The Netherlands has experienced significant immigration from both Romania and Poland, which have increased sharply after the coun- socio-economic characteristics, on reasons for migration or staying, on the migration experience, and on the three dimensions of well-being discussed in Section 2 (e.g., socio-economic aspects relating to the standard of living, employment, social relations and feelings, among others). Interviews were held face-to-face, in Dutch, Romanian and Polish, by native speakers. Interviews were recorded with the participants' consent, carried out in respondents' private homes or their workplaces and later transcribed and translated into English. Due to the relatively small sample, the data were coded manually, looking for specific keywords or expressions of how space mattered for encounters, experiences, perceptions and well-being. The stakeholder's interview statements were triangulated with information from official policy documents and/or official statements from the municipalities' websites.
Recruitment was carried out by approaching individuals on the street, knocking on doors and through snowballing. An attempt was made to recruit interviewees through social media, Facebook in particular, but this method turned out to be less successful. The sample ended up being divers in terms of age, gender, educational level and occupations.

| LABOUR RECRUITMENT AND MIGRANT HOUSING POLICIES
In the Netherlands, housing labour immigrants is the responsibility of the employers, but how and where to house them is regulated by the municipality's housing policy. There are no national guidelines concerning housing regulations for migrants, just a nonbinding joint national statement by stakeholder umbrella organisations (i.e., employers, housing agencies and local governments), recognising the need for cooperation. 3 Municipalities are, thus, autonomous in deciding whether to implement local guidelines and regulations, and on their parameters concerning location, housing conditions, maximum number of occupants, as long as safety regulations and rules of legal contracts are respected. Thus, rules governing housing conditions and housing locations as well as the enforcement of these rules vary between regions and between municipalities, depending on various factors (e.g., the size of the immigrant population and demand for housing, local attitudes towards immigrants, whether the municipality is proactive or reactive to current developments and the temporality of migration).
Employers, who are responsible for housing immigrants, turn to employment agencies as intermediaries. In the three villages analysed, employment agencies facilitate most of the immigration flows.
According to a labour recruitment agency representative from Steenbergen, employers prefer to use intermediaries, as it guarantees finding the right person for the job and the ability to terminate contracts easily if the job is no longer available (for instance, an order cancelling or a drop in demand implies lower production needs and thus a lower demand for employees). The representative referred to an everincreasing list of clients, including in agriculture, horticulture, food production, hospitality, manufacturing and logistics, among others.
The recruitment agencies operate via online websites where they post job advertisements and via recruitment campaigns in target origin countries. According to one of our interviewees, they collaborate with local governments/town halls in origin countries villages, who facilitate meetings with residents, where the agency can present its offer and respond to questions. They also put up flyers around the area, on pillars, trees, or in commuting buses and bus stations. Social networks are a strong determinant of migration, as many of our interviewees declared having chosen a particular recruitment agency at the recommendation of relatives, friends or colleagues who have migrated before. The system is especially conducive to the recruitment of lowskilled, low-educated individuals, who oftentimes cannot speak any foreign languages and who would have few means of migrating otherwise. The agency employs numerous Romanian and Polish nationals as 'coordinators'-agency employees in charge of managing all aspects of the migration process and of acting as interpreters; it offers transportation from the city of recruitment in Romania or Poland to the accommodation provided in the Netherlands (for a cost), and provides accommodation for all employees, for a weekly cost. Our interviewees mentioned that they can find their own private accommodation, outside of that provided by the agencies only after a certain period of time (one respondent mentioned having to live in the agency-provide accommodation for a minimum of 6 months).
Generally, employment agencies prefer large-scale accommodations close to the employment sites. However, because of housing shortages, many times they turn to renting family homes, in residential areas, where they accommodate migrant workers (for a cost).
Whether and where employment agencies can place their accommodation, the size of this accommodation, whether they can rent houses in residential areas, how many people they can house at once, all are aspects determined by the local municipal migrant housing policy.

| MIGRANT HOUSING POLICIES IN STEENBERGEN AND NOORDOOSTPOLDER
This section presents the main aspects of the migrant housing policies in each municipality. In doing so, we aim to show that (i) the characteristics of the policies reflect the governments' intentions of and perceptions of immigration and that (ii) the location, function and quality of housing in each location are shaped by the local migrant housing policy.

| Steenbergen
In Steenbergen, the local housing policy, which was first adopted in 2010 and revised in 2015, focused exclusively on short-term migrants and stipulated that they are to be housed in large-scale accommodation facilities, located on the outskirts of, or outside residential areas.
A local government representative succinctly characterises the aim of the policy: We see a lot of labour migrants being accommodated in the neighbourhoods, in the centres. Right now, we have a policy of tolerance for this, but our policy says that we don't want that, not the room renting. In other words, the local government's intention was to counteract the tendency of employment agencies to acquire family houses in which to lodge immigrants in the neighbourhoods, where there were more chances of encounters with residents, and to allow for better control and monitoring of their presence. In this approach, migrant housing needs to be bounded, and migrants needs to be potentially segregated, if not socially, at least geographically. Moreover, an official document accompanying the policy assessed housing for shortterm immigrants as having a boarding rather than residential function  Steenbergen, 2015, p. 32). Accordingly, it comes as no surprise that the immigrants' accommodation in Village A, in Steenbergen, is located at the edge of the village (see Figure 1). This indeed allows the local government a better overview of the number of immigrants residing at any time, and thus, a better management of the migration process, but it also restricts the degree of interaction between the residents and immigrants residing there.

| Noordoostpolder
In Noordoostpolder, on the other hand, the local housing policy, first

| MIGRANT HOUSING POLICIES, PERCEPTIONS OF MIGRATION AND WELL-BEING
For the purposes of our analysis, and in order to better understand the effects and functioning of the migrant housing policy in this context, we selected one case study in Steenbergen (Village A), where the immigrant accommodation facility is located outside of residential areas, and two case studies in Noordoostpolder, one in which the accommodation is located in a residential area (Village B) and thus the immigrants are further on their 'integration path', and one in which the accommodation is located far outside residential areas (Village C), closer to work places (see Figure 1). We analyse each village in turn, focusing on several dimensions pertaining to the immigrant accommodation and how these affect residents and immigrants' well-being.

| Village A-Housing at the margins
In Village A, in Steenbergen, the large-scale (400 persons) immigrant accommodation is located at the edge of the village, separated through a small plot of land from the residents' houses. Its location, spatially isolated, minimises the presence and visibility of immigrants and limits social interactions between them and the residents. Before being extended to house up to 400 labour immigrants, the accommodation facility was, subsequently, a monastery, an institute for persons with mental issues (a sanitarium), and an asylum and refugee centre.
This latter function of the facility was particularly dissatisfying for residents, causing 'a lot of protests in the community' (SR4). The change to housing labour immigrants, who 'leave early in the morning and arrive late at night' (Buitengewoon Noordoostpolder, 2012), and are thus invisible, was, in a sense, a welcome one. This corresponds to the findings of Guest and Wierzbocikie (1999) and Mahmoudi Farahani (2016) Not only is the accommodation located so visibly central, but it also replaces a café/restaurant, the only one in the village, a place where residents used to meet socially, and where community events were organised. The emotional and relational well-being of the residents is thus negatively impacted both by the loss of a place to socialise and by its transformation into an immigrant accommodation, an undesirable function. Therefore, whereas in Village A, the shift from a very controversial asylum centre to a labour immigrant accommodation might be perceived as positive, in this case, the shift was clearly perceived as negative. The café also had a symbolic meaning, being on the tulip route and providing a pit-stop for cyclists passing through. Now, because of the hotel, 'there is no place where they can go', which is considered a 'pity' (NR6). Even when the residents are not necessarily upset by the presence of the immigrant accommodation, they do perceive immigration more generally to benefit others and to not 'help' (NR7) them financially, but others who profit from it.
The residents' unhappiness with the presence of the hotel does not go unnoticed by the immigrants themselves. Polish respondents perceived the residents to be distant, to keep to themselves and not trust them. Some respondents intuit that the residents 'don't like the fact that there is a hotel here' (NI13), perceiving them to be 'prejudiced' against immigrants, to associate them with uncivilised behaviour, like urinating in public or consuming alcohol and drugs.
Despite the fact that the central location and the residential function of the accommodation are meant to create a pathway to local integration for immigrants, here, too, as in Village A, most immigrant respondents are discontent with their minimal social life and lifestyle, where 'you come from work, you take a shower, you eat and then you go to sleep, and then in the morning you get up again' (NI8). To the perceived lack of these relational aspects of well-being some respondents add material aspects such as the surrounding environment in the village, where 'there is nothing to do' and 'nowhere to go out' (NI5). All these testimonies point, again, to a lack of (a sense of) community, this time not bolstered by the physical isolation of the accommodation, but rather by the rejection and ensuing social isolation from the residents.
Lastly, the quality of the accommodation facility too contributes to shaping perceptions of immigration and thus the well-being of residents and immigrants. Unlike in Village A, where the accommodation itself offers some potential for leisure activities, the hotel in Village B does not provide any such options. With only one bar in the village, which is mostly frequented by residents, the only other option for immigrants to spend some leisure time outside their room, particularly if they want to smoke, is to gather in front of the hotel. Thus, especially when the weather is nice, 'in the summer at night' (NR5), immigrants can be seen outside the hotel, smoking, chatting and sometimes drinking. The lack of private space that the housing conditions entail helps produce the public visibility of the immigrants' behaviour. The behaviour itself is not intrinsically damning, it is its public display that makes it appear offensive. A Dutch resident might behave in a similar way, but the difference is that they would do so in the privacy of their homes or that of a bar.
In summary, the manifestation of the local migrant housing policy in Village B, which intends to pave a way for interaction and integration, seems to achieve the opposite effect. In this case, contact between the two groups does not lead to meaningful encounters.
Rather, close proximity generates comparisons and emphasises (perceived) differences, breeding defensiveness and the bounding of group identities (Valentine, 2008;Young, 2011). The residents are discontent with the loss of a community place, its replacement with an immigrant hotel and the presence of immigrants, whereas the immigrants do not feel a part of a community, and rather to the contrary, they feel ostracised by the residents.
6.3 | Village C-Housing out of sight and out of (the collective) mind  These fairly small differences make a strong impression on residents only because they are not exposed to them on a regular basis. By allowing the location of immigrants as far away from residents as possible, the housing policy allows for a perception of migration as a 'potential' disturbance but does not allow for a normalisation of different behaviour. These perceived differences between residents and immigrants in terms of norms and behaviour, their intransigence when it comes to migrants' behaviour, come about often in the residents' interviews. These differences, more than anything else, make immigrants stand out, despite their relative (physical) invisibility. For instance, a resident seems to believe that among immigrants, 'they all smoke and they all drink', and that this 'is something Polish' (NR15).
They do not reflect on their own smoking and drinking behaviour or that of their (accepted) community members. Moreover, it does not occur to anyone the fact that, because of the lack of leisure activities, sometimes smoking and drinking is all immigrants can do.
Lastly, as in Village B, here too some residents perceive immigration to 'bring something positive' to those that are 'depending on them [immigrants]', but to not benefit the 'normal citizen' (NR10) in any way.
In summary, the manifestation of the local migrant housing policy in Village C achieves the municipality's intention to distinguish between short-term and potentially long-term immigrants, and by extension, to minimise the interaction between them and residents.

| DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In this article, we have analysed how local migrant housing policies, through their location, function and quality of immigrant accommodation facilities, shape the perceived effect of migration on the wellbeing of residents and immigrants in three villages in the Netherlands.
The housing regulations, the specific location of each immigrant housing facility, the aesthetic of the facility at the exterior, the quality of the conditions in the interior, the role each facility plays in the village, the former function of the facility as well as the feelings it evokes for both groups, all are aspects that shape social interactions between immigrants and residents, and by extension the effect of migration on their well-being.
Our article illustrates how certain spatial policies already set the stage for potential conflict between immigrants and residents, shaping the latter's experiences of migration irrespective of the behaviour of the former. The transformation of each type of building into an immigrant accommodation was perceived differently by the residents in each village, depending on its previous role. In Village A, the change from an asylum centre to a labour migrant accommodation was largely perceived as an improvement, because the presence of the asylum seekers caused much friction in the village. In Village B, on the other hand, the former restaurant/bar was 'taken away' from the residents, a place that hosted community meetings and events. The transition from a community place to an immigrant hotel was thus bound to be perceived negatively, irrespective of how the immigrants living there behaved or who they were. Lastly, in Village C, the former farm was far away from the village to begin with, so what it transitioned to did not concern the residents much. Moreover, large-scale immigration is a relatively recent phenomenon for all three villages, who are reacting to the rapid developments and adjusting their policies in response. Thus, the process of finding a balance between maintaining the well-being of the residents (and immigrants) and satisfying the labour needs of local businesses is still in its initial stages. Local migrant housing policies are instrumentally used to navigate this fragile balance in all three villages. However, although keeping most immigrants away from residential areas might seem like an easy triple-win situation (i.e., meeting the labour demand of farmers, the out-of-sight preference of residents and providing employment opportunities for immigrants), as our study shows, these policies end up undermining the well-being of the latter two groups and threatening the interest of the former. relations has been acknowledged elsewhere (see, for instance, Cresswell, 2004;Cudworth, 2018;Hubbard et al., 2004;Massey, 2005;Tickamyer, 2000), the ways it is produced through local housing policies and the way it impacts social relations in intended and unintended ways has been far less researched. This aspect should not be overlooked, as migration-related local policies, such as housing, oftentimes have the explicit role of mediating encounters between residents and immigrants, and thus in shaping their experience of migration, of each other, and, thereby their relational well-being. Fourthly, we consider the experiences of both residents and immigrants, illustrating how different groups experience the same place differently, which reflects and reproduces their power and status. Lastly, we discuss the implications of specific types of migration patterns-circular and seasonal, and the implications for migrants and residents' well-being. This is most significant; as we shall see, the (mostly) temporary nature of the immigration phenomenon in the villages analysed not only shapes perceptions of migrations but also the type of migrant housing policies that local governments implement.
To conclude, in all three villages, the local governments employed local migrant housing policies to mediate encounters between residents and immigrants, which affected their relational, material and subjective well-being. In Villages A and C, the purpose was to impede encounters, whereas in Village B, the purpose was to facilitate them, albeit no opportunities were provided for meaningful contact and engagement. The existence of previous histories of place as well as the relations of power between the two groups in each village shaped the outcomes of these encounters and the individuals' feelings of well-being. In Villages B and C, they reinforced prejudice and difference, whereas in Village A, they paved the way for conviviality, at least from the residents' perspective. With the potential exception of the latter, the housing policies had a negative effect on the well-being of immigrants in all three villages, and on residents in Villages B and C. Our findings highlight the importance of considering all factors that mediate encounters, and thus well-being, paying particular attention to the social and geographical context and existing power relations between the groups they target.