In this feature authors review recently published books on subjects of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.

Blokland and Soenen use ethnographic research of tramcars in Antwerp to discuss how incidental contacts in public transport relate to safety and trust in the public space. They argue that anonymity, although often blamed, is not the culprit. Blaming certain categorically labeled groups as 'problematic' is not a fruitful approach either. Through an analysis of social realms (public, private and parochial, as in Lofland) that customers create in interaction with each other, the authors show that public transport incorporates potentials both for 'thin community' and for conflict and anxiety. Whether people experience one or the other depends on the social trust. The key to understand how such trust can grow and decrease cannot be found in crime statistics, individual attitudes or categories of 'problematic groups', but in the constructions of the social realms through which people opt out of the public realm or, in groups, appropriate the public space at the expense of others. Describing the various services of 'Lijnspotters', drivers and controllers, the authors discuss what types of social control in public transport is most likely to enhance social trust.

To live in a safe neighbourhood is to live in a neighbourhood where one knows what to expect and can navigate the public space. This article argues that issues of public safety in urban disadvantaged neighbourhoods are often understood as depending on crime and social control; but it may well be that whether or not people feel safe depends just as much on the degree of public familiarity of the context in which they live – and consequently on their abilities to know who to trust and distrust – as it depends on the usual suspects of crime rates, social cohesion, broken windows and collective efficacy. Using empirical data from four neighbourhoods in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, the article shows that data may substantiate this claim, formulates some policy recommendations and proposes an agenda for further research.

This paper discusses contemporary public space in light of two developments: a privatisation of space, and a spectacularization of space. Over against these processes, it argues that public space is able to provide two regulatory functions for social life: (1) anonimization; (2) public-formation. The paper concludes with a discussion of 'public familiarity' as one possible way of mediating these two apparently contradictory demands on public space.

This article sketches an alternative route to stimulate public familiarity: introducing spaces and zones of hospitality. Maybe hospitality in (semi)public space can offer more safe and comfortable ways of interaction. How does hospitality relate to the principles of public life like free access? Which views of interaction between strangers are presupposed? It is argued that hospitality means sharing together a certain limited space. The persons present depend on each other and they have the opportunity to make contact and get nearer. Guests have the positive obligation to treat each other with respect. Hospitable social regulation may be promoted in various ways. First by introducing symbolic demarcations like gateways and fences. Secondly by introducing convivial forms of interaction. Making use of public space in sheltered and relaxed ways may function as 'leveler' through which newcomers may feel welcome and 'at home'. Thirdly, by means of a 'personal hospitability' small conflicts can be managed. In that case some persons may take the role of public host without being asked. Finally some objections against hospitability are dealt with: on the one hand the freedom to move as one wants would be restricted and on the other hand informal manners in hospitable spaces would not satisfy the rules of detached and impersonal public interaction. Against that it is argued that 'total freedom of movement' and impersonal interaction are not always suitable principles to shape public life.