<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|>You are an expert on climate change, human mobility and migration. Answer the question truthfully.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|>Here are the title and abstract of a scientific paper probably related to climate change, human mobility and migration..
Title:"Displacement and solidarity: An ethic of place-making."
Abstract:"When the sick, injured, or dying arrive in a hospital - often along with family members - they find themselves on an alien landscape. Elderly people enter unfamiliar territory as they move from home or hospital into a long-term care setting, which may be the first in a series of placements for their final years. African Americans have been subjected for decades to oppressive urban planning policies, including 'serial displacement', which have systematically uprooted and dispersed them, their homes, and their places of business and worship. Around the world currently, 65 million people are displaced, most trying to escape uninhabitable environs involving war, persecution, drought, and famine. Some of these migrants and asylum-seekers reside in and around refugee camps but many are in urban enclaves or isolated outside them in desperately inhospitable conditions. Some are trying to integrate and make homes in new countries. Still more people are coming in perilous flight from the unfurling effects of climate change. 'We are place-lings,' according to Ed Casey, 'never without emplaced experiences'. Lorraine Code, explaining our social and geographical embeddedness and interdependence, describes us as 'ecological subjects'. By recognizing place, we can deepen our appreciation for the ways in which we are radically relational, that is, interdependent with people, non-human others, and particular locations. This robust and realistic conception of our relational nature and its implications for health and ethics deserves more attention. Elsewhere I have argued for 'ethical place-making' as morally obligatory for supporting the capability to be healthy, or health justice, for ecological subjects. Drawing on this conception of persons as creatures situated in specific social relations, geographic locations, and atmospheric and material environments, here I emphasize the importance of place and argue for an ideal and practice of 'ethical place-making' as an essential and, indeed, ethically required way of demonstrating and forging future solidarity and advancing justice, particularly health justice. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, I explain what I mean by place and examine the relationships, revealed by contemporary research in social epidemiology, between place and health. In Section 3, I build on the conception of persons as ecological subjects to ground what Carol Gould has called 'solidaristic recognition', which, as I will interpret it, requires us to reckon with the significance of place in our relational nature. I then link solidaristic recognition to the ideal and practice of ethical place-making and, in turn, the capability to be healthy, that is, health justice. I argue that place-based interventions should be principal and prioritized ways of showing solidarity and promoting justice - especially health justice - for ecological subjects, above all those who are displaced and/or insecurely placed. Where solidaristic relations do no."
I have six questions you need to answer.
Q1: Is this article is about 'human migration mobility': 1 = yes; 0 = no. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q2: What drivers of migration and mobility does the article study? 0 = 'other', 1 = 'climate', 2 = 'environment', 3 = 'economic', 4 = 'conflict', 5 = 'political', 6 = 'social', 7 = 'family'. Answer with a number or a sequence of numbers separated by commas. Do not give a textual explanation. 

Q3: What is the overall sentiment of the article?:0 = 'neutral', 1 = 'negative', 2 = 'positive'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q4: What type of climate or environmental keywords are explicitly mentioned?:  0 = 'none', 1 = 'algal blooms', 2 = 'infestation', 3 = 'infectious diseases', 4 = 'ocean acidification', 5 = 'sea ice', 6 = 'acid rain', 7 = 'drought', 8 = 'cold wave', 9 = 'heat wave', 10 = 'glacial', 11 = 'wildfire', 12 = 'air pollution', 13 = 'biodiversity loss', 14 = 'coastal erosion', 15 = 'land degradation', 16 = 'deforestation', 17 = 'desertification', 18 = 'water pollution', 19 = 'diebacks', 20 = 'permafrost loss', 21 = 'sand mining', 22 = 'sea level rise', 23 = 'earthquake', 24 = 'tsunami', 25 = 'volcanic', 26 = 'flood', 27 = 'avalanche', 28 = 'landslide', 29 = 'downburst', 30 = 'thunderstorm', 31 = 'sandstorm', 32 = 'haze', 33 = 'storm', 34 = 'cyclone', 35 = 'blizzard', 36 = 'hail', 37 = 'snow', 38 = 'tornado', 39 = 'wind', 40 = 'hurricane', 41 = 'typhoon', 42 = 'other'. Answer with a number or a sequence of numbers separated by commas. Do not give a textual explanation. 

Q5: What discipline does the article belong to?: 0 = 'other', 1 = 'social science', 2 = 'natural science', 3 = 'arts and humanities', 4 = 'multidiscipline and interdiscipline'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q6: Does the article apply quantitative and/or statistical analysis?: 0 = 'no', 1 = 'yes'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Use the following template: 

Q1 = [];
Q2 = [];
Q3 = [];
Q4 = [];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [].<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|>Answer:

Displacement and solidarity: An ethic of place-making
When the sick, injured, or dying arrive in a hospital - often along with family members - they find themselves on an alien landscape. Elderly people enter unfamiliar territory as they move from home or hospital into a long-term care setting, which may be the first in a series of placements for their final years. African Americans have been subjected for decades to oppressive urban planning policies, including 'serial displacement', which have systematically uprooted and dispersed them, their homes, and their places of business and worship. Around the world currently, 65 million people are displaced, most trying to escape uninhabitable environs involving war, persecution, drought, and famine. Some of these migrants and asylum-seekers reside in and around refugee camps but many are in urban enclaves or isolated outside them in desperately inhospitable conditions. Some are trying to integrate and make homes in new countries. Still more people are coming in perilous flight from the unfurling effects of climate change. 'We are place-lings,' according to Ed Casey, 'never without emplaced experiences'. Lorraine Code, explaining our social and geographical embeddedness and interdependence, describes us as 'ecological subjects'. By recognizing place, we can deepen our appreciation for the ways in which we are radically relational, that is, interdependent with people, non-human others, and particular locations. This robust and realistic conception of our relational nature and its implications for health and ethics deserves more attention. Elsewhere I have argued for 'ethical place-making' as morally obligatory for supporting the capability to be healthy, or health justice, for ecological subjects. Drawing on this conception of persons as creatures situated in specific social relations, geographic locations, and atmospheric and material environments, here I emphasize the importance of place and argue for an ideal and practice of 'ethical place-making' as an essential and, indeed, ethically required way of demonstrating and forging future solidarity and advancing justice, particularly health justice. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, I explain what I mean by place and examine the relationships, revealed by contemporary research in social epidemiology, between place and health. In Section 3, I build on the conception of persons as ecological subjects to ground what Carol Gould has called 'solidaristic recognition', which, as I will interpret it, requires us to reckon with the significance of place in our relational nature. I then link solidaristic recognition to the ideal and practice of ethical place-making and, in turn, the capability to be healthy, that is, health justice. I argue that place-based interventions should be principal and prioritized ways of showing solidarity and promoting justice - especially health justice - for ecological subjects, above all those who are displaced and/or insecurely placed. Where solidaristic relations do not prevail, ethical place-making has the potential to catalyze and nurture them and, over time, to advance justice. A full discussion of the complex and contested relationship between solidarity and global justice is beyond the scope of what I can expound on here; I follow - and present concrete manifestations of - the views of Iris Marion Young and Carol Gould in seeing solidarity as having, as Gould puts it, a crucial 'role not only in motivating people's commitment to the realization of global justice but [also] contribut[ing] to its construction or constitution.' In Section 4, I present examples of ethical place-making inspired by solidaristic recognition in a range of domains significant for bioethics - clinical and long-term care and urban planning in the United States and Netherlands, and refugee care and resettlement in Lebanon and Germany. In the cases presented, I describe how the particular elements of ethical place-making, emerging from solidaristic recognition, are realized, and so support the conditions for the capability to healthy, or health justice. Following this discussion, I move on to the conclusion. Place 'is no fixed thing'. The accounts of geographers, philosophers, and some architects emphasize our embodied experience in or around place(s), place's significance for the development of our subjectivity and identity, and, finally, the complex social processes that help to create, maintain, and transform places (and, in turn, bodies and subjectivities). The understanding I follow here defines 'place' in terms of the material environment, and how we, as embodied beings, move in, absorb, shape and are shaped by it, and how we, as social agents, interact with and within it, gather and attach particular meanings, and forge relationships and identities. A growing body of research in social epidemiology using realist methods explains in increasingly rich, if grim, detail the ways in which social conditions and features of the external environment, including place-related factors, affect health and longevity, and contribute to preventable health inequities. We are talking about components of the built environment, like land use, housing design, materials and quality, street layout and transportation, exposure to toxins, and violence, access to food and activity options; and urban design or decline. Air and water quality, and access to green space are other place-related factors. We should also include climate and the potential in specific locations for climate-related disasters in our scope of concern. So-called 'determinants' such as these operate independently and interactively at various levels and in different contexts to generate harms to health and health inequities. On terrain more typical for bioethics, clinical and other care settings, as currently configured, are notoriously disorienting, anxiety-inducing, and in some ways dangerous for physical, psychological, and existential health. Researchers have detailed a range of effects of institutional design, including the effects of noise and light on recovery times, and the ways architecture can shape interactions and experiences. Long-term care settings are infamous for poor conditions. A lack of light, private space, and access to the outdoors, for example, and isolation from broader social surroundings, adversely affect the health of elderly people. People fleeing war, persecution, and famine endure desperate conditions that threaten health. Many reside in camps (in the form of transit camps and official refugee camps, detention centers, etc. ) while others dwell in slums or other settlements - primarily in urban areas - segregated from the majority population. These people suffer from a range of complex physical and mental health conditions. Before or during transit and in camps and other settings, they face food insecurity, risk of communicable disease, fear, violence, loss, and other experiences. If there is access to health services it is often restricted to acute medical care, and not equipped to adequately address chronic or mental health conditions or the social determinants of health needs. Migrants and asylum-seeking people thus lack crucial capabilities to be healthy. It is not that a relationship between place and health is a modern epiphany. Hippocrates' Airs, waters, and places, the epidemiological work of Louis-Rene Villerme and Rudolph Virchow in the 19th century, and the histories of public health and urban planning, all recognized the importance of environmental conditions. The asylums for the mentally ill in the late 19th century reveal an attention, if not yet evidence-based, for place in care and healing. Inspired by the Moral Treatment movement, New Enlightenment intellectuals, and health advocates like Dorthea Dix, Thomas Kirkbride established professional guidelines on institutional layout and room design for patients. Realist methods in social epidemiology, more recently, have deepened our appreciation and understanding of the processes at work on our corporeal nature, and our entanglement with the world around us. We are situated socially, materially, and geographically, and vulnerable as creatures who need care and who also need to 'fit' with the places in which we dwell and through which we navigate. We are, in short, ecological subjects, beings for whom social interdependence and geographic locatedness are vital. As I will argue below, health justice, or the capability to be healthy, therefore demands thoughtful attention to place and the conditions that create and sustain places. In the next section, I explain the relationship between recognizing people as ecological subjects and the ideal and practice of solidarity. Solidarity, as I will define it, refers to reaching out through engaging our moral imaginations across social and/or geographic distance and asymmetry to recognize and assist others who are vulnerable, in some cases, acutely, and, over time, advance justice. As a practice, solidarity involves two core 'enacted commitments'. The first commitment is to engaging our moral imaginations and recognizing others in need, or what I will describe below as solidaristic recognition. The second commitment is to responsive action. This hybrid definition draws upon the inspirational work of Iris Marion Young, Carol Gould, Fuyuki Kurasawa, and Prainsack and Buyx, all of whom build upon a long and rich history of interpretations of solidarity. Recognizing the suffering of the displaced and others who are 'implaced' in conditions unable to sustain them follows from the most minimal appreciation of people as ecological subjects, relational creatures who are densely enmeshed in social relations as well as spatial locations. While my analysis differs substantially, to describe this here I use Carol Gould's term, 'solidaristic recognition'. Gould distinguishes between what she calls 'rigorous recognition' and 'generous recognition'. Rigorous recognition appreciates the equality of all people through an essentially cognitive process involving an acknowledgment of our fellow humanity. The generous genre, which she recasts as 'solidaristic recognition', involves empathy, or an affective link with others, and focuses on our 'mutual interdependence and common needs'. Solidaristic recognition conceives of others as 'equal in their difference', that is, their distinctive social group membership and individual particularity. On my own interpretation, solidaristic recognition has two varieties, neither of which relies on empathy: basic and relational, responsible recognition. If we conceive of people in ecological terms, basic recognition (similar to Gould's 'rigorous recognition') might be expanded beyond its appreciation of everyone's equal moral worth to take account of the significance of place for the equitable flourishing of all ecological subjects. This most basic form of recognition acknowledges that we are equal in part because we all share a need to be 'in place' in settings that can sustain us and support our capacities. A second, more ethically responsible, form of recognition I will call relational solidaristic recognition emerges from reckoning more thoroughly with our radically relational nature as ecological subjects. This reckoning demands that we conceive of ourselves and others as embedded but also that we understand that we are constitutive of one another and our environs. Geographers have described this in terms of the intersubjectivity of identity and place. In her philosophical account of ecological subjectivity, Lorraine Code underscores the idea that we are 'made by and making [our] relations in [asymmetrical] reciprocity with other subjects and with horizontal ellipsis multiple, diverse locations'. Seeing not just identities, but also, critically, place in relational terms, highlights 'the variety of interactions between people who are located differently that go into making places'. As Iris Young puts it, we 'dwell together' in 'complex, causal' relations of interdependence and in specific atmospheric and material conditions on earth in geographic regions and neighborhoods, in homes, and institutions of care and employment. We ecological subjects, then, contribute to the construction of place - often unintentionally - through actions and interactions within a larger context of social structures and processes. These structures and processes serve to enable some people in the realization of their capacities, yet constrain others, creating and/or sustaining structural injustice. This is evidenced, for example, in urban planning policies that spawn residential segregation or global economic and trade policies that compel health care workers to migrate and deepen health inequities in source countries. While basic solidaristic recognition can allow for or has the potential to generate ethical place-making, relational recognition understands the ways that our own subjectivities, identities, and places of dwelling as ecological subjects are formed in relation to other identities in other places and, crucially, that this generates responsibilities for justice. It is in this sense that relational solidaristic recognition is a more responsible form: it appreciates better-situated ecological subjects' contributions to the injustice suffered by the displaced or precariously placed, and aspires to respond and work toward promoting justice. Responsiveness , an important epistemic and, in turn, ethical capacity, is a crucial element for enactments of solidarity in the view I want to develop. Both Joan Tronto and Elise Springer assign 'responsiveness' a prominent place in their work. Springer situates 'responsiveness' within virtue ethics. On her view, it involves a kind of adaptability, particularly in unfamiliar moral terrain, or in the face of concerns that 'resist clear representation'. Springer posits responsiveness as also involving a commitment to 'extend a temporally continuous thread of attention' or giving one's moral attention over time, not episodically or reactively. Tronto identifies responsiveness as one of four ethical elements of care, casting it as a moral capacity that involves vigilance 'to the possibilities for abuse that arise with vulnerability'. I would add another element as integral to responsiveness, drawn specifically from ecological epistemology: an ability to show finely tuned sensitivity to context, that is, the particularity of people and circumstance, and give attention and action that is fitting. Solidarity, enacted, should emerge from a disposition committed to responsiveness understood in terms of these capacities, if it is to meet the mark. In the next section I turn to responsive action that arises from solidaristic recognition, in particular, efforts at place-making for the displaced. Innovation, inspired by ecological thinking and increasingly evidence-based, is underway. 'Place-making' is a set of intentional practices spanning different disciplines that targets neighborhoods, parks and paths, features of landscape, housing developments, streetscapes, long-term care facilities, and hospitals. With and without attention to health, it is either referenced explicitly or somehow central to key international documents and declarations including the Sustainable Development Goals and UN Habitat's New Urban Agenda. It is on the agendas of the World Health Organization (WHO), the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), even the World Bank, some think tanks and foundations, and a major US corporation. Public health leaders point to place-based interventions as 'the new frontier'. In other work I have interpreted ethical place-making, a notion that first surfaced in the geography literature, as a core component of an enabling, capabilities-oriented conception of justice. Grounded in ecological thinking and an ecological conception of persons, ethical place-making understands all people as embedded socially and spatially, and often enmeshed in relationships of structural injustice that threaten health. Key elements of ethical place-making include: nurturing relations of care and interdependence; protecting bodily integrity; supporting autonomy, not interpreted in terms of individual self-reliance, but in the relational sense that sees us as originating, persisting, and flourishing within relations of care and interdependence, given ongoing opportunities for self-directed thought and action; promoting stability and a sense of rootedness and, at the same time, supporting generative movement; and finally, where necessary, responding to inequities. Below I offer selected examples of place-making drawn from a range of domains pertinent to bioethics. After describing them, I explain why they count as instances of ethical place-making inspired by (and potentially generating more) solidaristic recognition and how they stand to promote - especially health - justice and in some cases address health inequities. I start at the level of community and public health with an urban planning example, and from there, turn to a clinical and then a long-term care setting. These three case studies come from the global north. The final examples explore (mostly health-centered) place-making efforts in refugee reception and resettlement, sketching innovations in Germany and also Lebanon, a country that borders the war in Syria and ranks fourth worldwide as a host to refugees. Further research will yield additional instances of solidarity and place-making, particularly for health, in other parts of the world. In [a] system of the city as weaving, [creating] crosswise threads enables solidarity, and fundamental to solidarity is the free system of movement horizontal ellipsis 'Intentional shrinkage', 'sorting', and 'serial displacement' are terms given to the urban land use and 'development' policies that systematically shredded the social and material fabric in and around African American neighborhoods in New York City. Public health researchers have linked these policies and the consequent displacement of families, businesses, churches and more, to the AIDS epidemic, addiction, asthma, post-traumatic stress, and obesity. Working together, citizens, planners, and researchers responded with the Giraffe Path (GP), a 6-mile trail from Central Park to the Cloisters. The walking and biking path is a project emerging explicitly from the kind of solidarity described above: the recognition of the city and its people as ecologically embedded, with enduring health inequities as a result of displacements, and responsive action in the form of (re)creating place with and for ecological subjects. The GP is based on a conception of the city and its neighborhoods and residents as interdependent - and is designed to restore connections between formerly fractured communities around and across the Harlem River and, at the same time, to support outdoor physical activity. The closure of the bridge, that had long linked neighbors, as a 'crime-prevention' measure for gentrifying neighborhoods, severed (in a pattern repeated in cities everywhere) relationships between people according to categories of class and race. By (re)connecting places and people and mending - as its designers say, 'weaving', 're-stitching' - the GP helps restore these and cultivate new relations. At the same time, as part of the City Life Is Moving Bodies (CLIMB) Project, the GP's creation of flow and unimpeded movement is being celebrated as 'a victory for the city's entire circulatory system'. The attention paid to (solidaristic recognition of) the importance of place for health and most significantly, health inequities, in this instance of ethical place-making is an exception and not the norm. Urban renewal policies and planning tend to prioritize physical, economic, and social issues, yet few focus explicitly on health or show concern for health equity. Another essential dimension for future solidarity is the potential for political engagement generated by the GP. As Iris Young argues (and the inset quote implies), segregation obscures from the affluent an appreciation of their privilege, and, by limiting interaction, constrains political communication. This erodes the potential for solidarity and perpetuates social injustice. The GP designers aspire to promote solidaristic recognition through facilitating new interactions, forging new relations, and evolving as ecological subjects. We must pay attention to the lived spatial significance of patients' experience of health and illness if we are going to treat them fully and well. Doing so is one step of paying attention to a person horizontal ellipsis The terrain and overall ambience of the clinical setting is famously hostile to non-medical people, notably the ones it exists to serve. Place-centered innovation in hospitals and other centers of care is a growing niche, recognizing the harms done to ecological subjects - here patients and their families - in the 'care' of institutions built as medical assembly lines organized around time until discharge or demise. One neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at the Royal United Hospital in Bath, U.K., recognizes the importance of place for the health and well-being of vulnerable ecological subjects and puts into practice a concept known as 'secure base', which wraps around patients and families 'like a hug'. The unit's design also demonstrates solidarity with them in recognizing the effects of typical clinical settings and, in contrast, boasts lots of natural light, greatly reduced noise, private nooks, and a horseshoe-shape design that reflects the progression a newborn will take from intensive care to a neonatal room. In this case of ethical place-making, innovators aim to create a habitat that nurtures overlapping relations of care wherein babies sleep longer, and parents are perhaps a little less distressed, and more able to participate in care and interact with clinical care providers. As noted above, the structure of this temporary dwelling enables families to better understand, through their embodied experience, the clinical pathway the infants will follow until discharge, which in turn likely gives a boost to their sense of agency and empowerment and helps to level the playing field with clinicians. Designed by a long-term care nurse in response to her observations and experience of existing institutions, Hogeway Village accommodates elderly people with dementia in a setting meant to resemble a real European neighborhood. It has a market, cafe, salon, theater, sidewalks, and ample green space. Different models, tailored to appeal to specific social and cultural groups, are available. Staff engage with residents without clinical garb and simultaneously provide skilled care. Family members are integrally involved in care plans. Hogeway is built to protect yet not restrict, allowing residents a wide range of movement and access to the outdoors. The availability of palliative care ensures that residents do not have to relocate at the end of life, which allows for continuity of care and relationships. Another benefit is that family members need not navigate new terrains, or settings, of care or transportation as elders' needs evolve. Emerging research on long-term care settings designed more like homes and communities suggests that residents are more socially engaged and active, and experience better overall 'well-being'. Preliminary evidence also suggests that integrating families in care can improve relations with care workers, as well as resident care and health. European cities and regions have demonstrated their horizontal ellipsis willingness to express solidarity with horizontal ellipsis the world's refugees via participation in resettlement. Solidarity is at the moral center of humanitarian action, and place-making by other names has long been integral to humanitarian operations. From an emphasis on emergency and temporary assistance, humanitarians have expanded the scope and practice of 'solidarity' given the nature of current conflicts and the creation of dependencies that may lead to more sustained commitments. Their work now increasingly overlaps with development efforts to bolster host countries' capacities to receive, resettle, and integrate asylum-seekers and other migrants for the long term. Solidarity, indeed, is the basis of commitments to refugee resettlement in international humanitarian law. In 2004, the Mexico Plan of Action to Strengthen International Protection of Refugees in Latin America (MPA), which encompassed regional responsibility sharing, the expansion of resettlement space, reception capacity, and long-term integration, highlighted solidarity as a guiding principle for support of refugees from Columbia and their host countries. Northern Europe has been the preferred destination for refugees from Syria and other places where war has driven people from their homes. Germany, especially its cities, hosts more recent asylum-seekers than any other EU nation. Urban areas have absorbed two-thirds of the world's refugees and now face the work of integration. The region offers myriad examples of efforts in ethical place-making spawned by solidaristic recognition. In both Hamburg and Berlin, organizing around place has been a key strategy in welcoming and helping to integrate new arrivals. In Berlin, city planners have employed a strategy of creating container villages to help refugees feel secure and foster a sense of embeddedness-in-community. While formalized, state-administered efforts have unfolded, citizen volunteers have designed innovative responses to link refugees with needed services, helping to integrate them and provide a sense of place. The coordinated state and civil society effort, in particular, is an inspiring example of politically and socially constructed solidarity, supported and advanced by what Christine Straehle calls a 'cosmopolitan avant-garde' of citizens. Hamburg is also innovative in linking services across sectors like food, shelter, education, work skills, and legal advice, appreciating the importance of integrating services for those who have endured profound dispersion and fragmentation. The city addressed housing needs by redesigning existing buildings and engaged local communities in deciding on locations in order to help ensure a welcoming, safe environment and avoid the possibility of local neighborhood resistance. The countries, such as Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey that serve as the principal hosts to refugees fleeing Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, are organizing around so-called 'resilience' strategies, which aim at bolstering host countries' capacities to accept and integrate asylum-seekers and other migrants for the long-term. This management philosophy deserves more sustained discussion. I highlight here another civil society initiative involving ethical place-making. In Lebanon during the war (1975-1990) public spaces were among the most dangerous places. Now they serve as temporary shelter areas for migrants and refugees displaced from neighboring conflict who face fear, discrimination, and violence in their new environs. In this context, one architect saw an opportunity: 'I thought by promoting place-making in Lebanon we can join the efforts of local [civil society] actors, since horizontal ellipsis place-making is based on networking and bringing people together.' With his guidance, youth in Beirut participated in identifying and recreating public spaces with the aims of reducing violence, promoting inclusion, interaction, and community-building. Along with place-making for the sake of social integration, place-based interventions in healthcare services are surfacing in response to contemporary migration patterns. Adapting to the mobility of many displaced people who are, not accessing services in camps, for instance, humanitarian and local actors have reorganized healthcare delivery. The Blue Dot Hubs developed by UNHCR and partners to provide care and services to people en route are a specific example of a response - a place-making intervention to 'changing therapeutic geographies' in modern crises. In the context of resettlement, interventions focused on the creation of 'therapeutic landscapes' aim specifically at displaced children as they resettle in new countries. Through recultivating cultural traditions, building social networks, and creating safe places, young people can create new homes. These examples depict different modes of displacement and distinct populations situated in specific kinds of settings and in particular - yet in all cases asymmetrical - relations of power. In each case, responsive action, keenly sensitive to context, emerges from solidaristic recognition, either basic or relational. In some cases it aims explicitly at justice. We can see specific elements of solidarity-sparked ethical place-making across cases. Support for relations of care is at the heart of the efforts made in the Bath NICU and Hogeway Village designs, and also in the GP and initiatives for refugees. Attention to the need for rootedness and movement is manifested in these civil society efforts to welcome and create material, social, economic, and political space for refugees; it is also an organizing principle for the GP, Hogeway, and Bath's NICU. Transformative autonomy is evident in the GP, the therapeutic landscape projects, Hogeway, and the NICU. Attention to inequities, especially health inequities, motivates the GP and Blue Dot Hubs. In all, the creators - architects, designers, planners, carers, and citizens - recognize the 'users', let us say 'dwellers', as ecological subjects and respond with concerned attention to their distinctive needs, in real time and over time with the aim of supporting their capabilities, chiefly to be healthy, and in some cases to remedy injustice. I have argued that recognizing all people as ecological subjects enables us, indeed compels us, to forge relations of solidarity and promote justice through ethical place-making with those who are vulnerable through their insecure relationship to place. On the moral landscape(s) of bioethics, an ethic of place-making expresses and has rich potential for nurturing bonds of solidarity along with advancing health, social, and global justice with patients and families, elderly people transitioning to long-term care, urban populations confronting health inequities, asylum-seekers dwelling in precarious conditions, and perhaps others. The author declares no conflict of interest. Casey, E. (2009). Getting back into place: Toward a renewed understanding of the place-world. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, p. 321. Code, L. (2006). Ecological thinking. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. See also Bradotti, R. (2013). Posthuman relational subjectivity. In P. Rawes (Ed.), Relational architectural ecologies: Architecture, nature, and subjectivity. New York, NY: Routledge; Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Eckenwiler, L. (2016). Defining ethical place-making for place-based interventions. Amer J Pub Health 106, 1944-1946; Eckenwiler, L. (2012). Long-term care, globalization, and justice. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Gould, C. (2007). Recognition, empathy, and solidarity. In G. W. Bertram, R. Celikates, C. Laudou, & D. Lauer (Eds.), Socialite et reconnaissance. Grammaires de l'humain. Paris, France: Editions L'Harmattan, p. 260. Gould, C. (2014). Interactive democracy: The social roots of global justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119-120. Casey, E. (1997). The fate of place: A philosophical inquiry. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, p. 286. See also Grosz, E. (1999). Becomings: Explorations in time, memory, and futures. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; Light, A., & Smith, J. M. (Eds.) (1998). Philosophies of place. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield; Cresswell, T. (Ed.) (2004). Place: A short introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell; Tschumi, B. (2001). Architecture and disjunction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Casey, op. cit. note 6; Seamon, D. (2013). Lived bodies, place, and phenomenology: Implications for human rights and environmental justice. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 4(2), 143-166. Marmot, M. (2005). Social determinants of health inequities. Lancet, 365, 1099-1104; Browning, C. R., Bjornstorm, E. E. S., & Cagney, K. A. (2011). Health and mortality consequences of the physical environment. In R. G. Rogers & E.M. Crimmins (Eds.), International handbook of adult mortality (pp. 441-464). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; ;