Refugee camps and reception and identification centres (RICs) have long been imagined as ‘the best’ or ‘most suitable’ places for displaced people by states and border management authorities. In contrast, informal housing often provided by activist groups, is frequently framed as a part of the urban ‘badlands’. Drawing on research carried out between 2015 and 2019 in key spaces in Greece and Serbia along the so‐called ‘Balkan Route’, this article engages with the concept of the ‘badlands’ as a lens through which to consider the different types of housing made available for refugees in key urban centres. Following Dikeç (2007), Neely and Samura (2011), and Shabazz (2015), we examine how sites of refugee accommodation are imagined through the lenses of place, space and race and how this shapes policy responses. We ask: what are the main divergences and variations between formal refugee housing and informal sites? Why, given the poor conditions of most refugee camps, are they still viewed as the ‘best’ solution to housing? What role do policy decisions play in ‘othering’ spaces, places, groups and individuals? We examine the spatial effects of multiple policy levels and interventions (EU, national, local, grassroots) on refugee accommodation.

中文翻译：

---

“巴尔干路线”的“荒地”：政策和城市难民住房的空间效应

长期以来，各州和边境管理当局一直将难民营，接待和识别中心（RIC）视为流离失所者的“最佳”或“最合适”的地方。相反，通常由激进主义者团体提供的非正式住房经常被构筑为城市“荒地”的一部分。本文借鉴了2015年至2019年在希腊和塞尔维亚的关键空间沿所谓的“巴尔干路线”进行的研究，将“荒地”概念作为一个视角，通过它可以考虑制作各种不同类型的房屋适用于主要城市中心的难民。继Dikeç（2007），Neely和Samura（2011）以及Shabazz（2015）之后，我们研究了如何通过地点，空间和种族的视角来想象难民安置的场所，以及它们如何塑造政策反应。我们问：正式的难民住房和非正式的住所之间的主要区别和区别是什么？为什么在大多数难民营条件恶劣的情况下，他们仍然被视为住房的“最佳”解决方案？政策决策在“其他”空间，地点，群体和个人中扮演什么角色？我们研究了多种政策水平和干预措施（欧盟，国家，地方，基层）对难民住宿的空间影响。