Metaverse Territorial Scale: A New Paradigm for Spatial Analysis

Definition

The Metaverse Territorial Scale is a novel category of spatial analysis, extending beyond conventional physical scales. It conceptualizes the metaverse as a distinct territory, shaped not only by geographical contiguity but also by power relations that emerge through digital interactions, code infrastructures, and platform-based governance in an immersive space undergoing continuous co-production. This concept is rooted in the theory of territory, which defines it as a space produced by the action of social actors. However, the theory is expanded to a domain where territorialization transcends physical materiality and generates new forms of territorialities. Consequently, the scale proposed is considered a valuable addition to the existing array of scales, including traditional categories such as local, regional, national, and global scales. This phenomenon differs fundamentally from geographical scales due to the absence of physical barriers, which endows it with unparalleled adaptability and scalability. This allows the overlapping of multiple spatial logics within the same virtual environment, characterized by a high degree of immersion. The “Metaverse Territorial Scale” is therefore a conceptualization of a virtual-immersive spatial dimension that is not static; it is continuously shaped and redefined by user interactions and underlying technological innovations. Consequently, analysis from the perspective of this scale is essential for understanding the spatial and power dynamics that manifest themselves in cyberspace.

1. Introduction

The metaverse is conceptualized as a network of three-dimensional, immersive virtual universes accessible via the internet, where users interact with each other and with the digital environment [1,2,3,4]. Despite the lack of a universally accepted definition, the term has gained significant traction, particularly in the context of urban and societal advancement towards “smart” models. These models have given rise to novel management and economic propositions, such as the MetaEconomics and MetaManagement models in MetaCities [5]. In this rapidly evolving scenario, there is a need for analytical models capable of interpreting new spatial configurations. In this context, the concept of the Metaverse Territorial Scale [6,7] emerges.

In order to comprehend this novel concept, it is imperative to undertake, as a preliminary measure, a thorough examination of the function of conventional territorial scales. In geographical and social analysis, scales (local, regional, national, international) are fundamental tools for studying accessibility, equity, socioeconomic interactions, and resource governance in various sectors, such as transportation, tourism, and agriculture [8,9,10,11]. However, these conventional metrics, inherently associated with physical geography, prove inadequate in capturing the distinctive dynamics of virtual spaces, which exceed the limitations of traditional boundaries.

The Metaverse Territorial Scale, proposed by Almeida [6], addresses precisely this gap. Contrary to conventional geographical divisions, territory in the metaverse is conceptualized as a singular scale, emerging concurrently at multiple levels through the interactions among its users (social actors). This environment, despite its use of spatial and landscape metaphors, is a mediated, monitored, and monetized space [1], constituting a field of disputes and power relations, and therefore a territory. Consequently, Raffestin’s [12] theory of territory, which conceptualizes territory as a space produced by power relations, provides a robust theoretical framework for analysis.

The articulation between Raffestin’s theory [12] and the concept of Metaverse Territorial Scale [6] thus provides a model for understanding the new forms of territoriality that emerge from immersive environments. The application of this model to practical cases, such as the metaverse cities of Seoul and Dubai [6,7], illustrates its potential for analyzing how spatial dynamics are transformed in cyberspace, offering interdisciplinary perspectives for the study of social interactions in multiple dimensions.

The present essay aims to discuss and theoretically validate the concept of Metaverse Territorial Scale [6] by addressing the inadequacy of traditional geographical scales for analyzing cyberspace. To this end, it proposes a connection with Raffestin’s theory of territory [12] in order to demonstrate how this new analytical model enables the interpretation of territorialities and power relations emerging in the metaverse.

2. Theoretical Framework of the Entry

The concept of territorial scale is, by nature, complex and multifaceted, and is best understood as a dynamic, multilayered construct (Figure 1).

The geographical and social literature highlights this complexity through various analytical lenses. These lenses include a critique of conventional perspectives, advocating for a more relational understanding of space [13]; the concept of “scalar fixation”, which involves the territorialization of capital and the generation of disparate developmental outcomes [14]; and the necessity for multiscalar methodologies to unveil varied spatial patterns [15]. A collective examination of the extant literature reveals that the physical territorial scale, as delineated by Guzmán et al. [16] and Sartre and Gagnol [17], encompasses a multifaceted array of dimensions that extend beyond mere geometric demarcation. These dimensions encompass the social, economic, and power dimensions that are intricately interwoven with the concept of territory.

There are myriad approaches to analyzing territory, which may focus on political or biophysical aspects or on the sense of belonging and identity [18,19]. However, when examining digital environments such as the metaverse, the definition proposed by Raffestin [12] is particularly pertinent. He underscores that territory is not merely a pre-existing entity, but rather a social construct produced from the power relations between social actors. Consequently, space becomes a territory through the actions of control, influence, and delimited appropriation. This perspective is fundamental to the metaverse, a space entirely shaped by the interactions and power dynamics between its various social actors (users, developers, and platforms).

Almeida [6] introduces the concept of “Metaverse Territorial Scale” by applying this theoretical lens. This concept adapts Raffestin’s [12] vision to immersive digital territories, arguing that although power relations remain the defining element, they manifest themselves in unique ways due to the digital and expandable nature of these environments. These spaces have even adopted the strategy of creating metaverse territorial brands [6,7]. Consequently, the scale of the metaverse transcends geographical boundaries. It is characterized by multiple levels of interaction and organization, ranging from specific virtual locations to global networks of users. These networks are structured and interconnected by digital power dynamics.

The case study of the city of Seoul in the metaverse offers an empirical illustration of this model [6,7]. The creation of a digital replica of the city is not a neutral act; it is a territorial project where power relations between government authorities, technology corporations, and citizens are replicated and transformed. The manner in which this virtual space is organized, the entities responsible for its governance, and the processes by which its “territorial brand” is established all serve to demonstrate strategies of power and digital control. The analysis of this case demonstrates the applicability of the Metaverse Territorial Scale to understand the organization and dynamism of complex virtual territories, where immersiveness is the predominant characteristic.

3. Features of the Metaverse Territorial Scale

Accordingly, the Metaverse Territorial Scale is characterized by the structuring of virtual spaces within immersive digital environments. The malleable and expandable nature of these environments distinguishes them from physical territories [6]. It is important to acknowledge that the scale proposed by Almeida [6] is not static; rather, it is modulated by a complex interaction between technological infrastructure, environment design, and social practices. In contrast to geographical scales, which are constrained by physical boundaries, the metaverse scale functions as a “space of flows” [20], where proximity is determined more by network connectivity than by geographical contiguity. This condition permits constant reorganization and the overlapping of multiple spaces, thereby creating what relational geography describes as complex spatial topologies, where distance is reconfigured [21,22].

A distinctive feature of this scale is its simulated spatiality, which can both replicate the physical world (e.g., countries, cities, islands, buildings) and generate entirely new worlds [7]. This phenomenon can be likened to Baudrillard’s [23] concept of simulacrum, wherein the digital reproduction can at times surpass the original in terms of perceived reality or significance. The capacity to generate and maneuver within these three-dimensional environments, unencumbered by physical limitations, engenders novel forms of spatial interaction. The recent literature on world-building in virtual environments, for example, highlights how these constructions are not just scenarios, they are socio-technical systems that actively shape the possibilities for action and social interaction [24,25].

The advent of the new scale is predicated on technological infrastructure, which assumes the role of its material basis. It is imperative to acknowledge that processing capacity, network latency, and access devices do not merely serve as facilitators; rather, their inherent function is to be constituent elements of the territory itself. In accordance with Lessig’s [26] assertion that “code is law”, the software architecture and protocols of a platform establish the foundational principles of interaction, thereby serving as the “physics” of the virtual environment. Recent studies on the materiality of the digital argue that this infrastructure, far from being invisible, imposes its own forms of power and control, directly influencing the governance and economy of these spaces [27,28].

In this regard, the Metaverse Territorial Scale is regarded as a byproduct of ongoing collaborative production, a process that also resonates with Lefebvre’s theory of “production of space” [29]. The conception of space in the metaverse is a collaborative process involving developers and users, with the final experience being shaped by the social practices that take place within the virtual environment. User interactions, ranging from user-generated content to community formation, actively adapt territoriality, thereby transforming space into a “place” that possesses social meaning. This dynamism, driven by both user agency and technological evolution, results in a spatial dimension that transcends geographical boundaries, generating immersive territories in constant transformation and evolution [30].

4. Components of the Metaverse Territorial Scale

The concept proposed in this entry is a multifaceted construct, supported by five interdependent components that collectively define its structure and dynamics. The primary and most fundamental of these is virtual and hybrid spatiality. This component pertains to the development of environments that, through the replication of reality or the generation of new virtual domains, establish “phygital” spaces where the boundaries between the physical and digital realms become indistinct [31]. In this context, territoriality signifies three-dimensional representation and the cognitive navigation capabilities of users within these environments, thereby fostering a “sense of place” [32,33,34]. This sense of place can be as substantial as, if not more so than, that of physical spaces.

This spatiality functions as a stage for the second component, which is social and economic interaction networks. In the metaverse, the transcendence of geographical barriers has been demonstrated to enhance the mobilization of users’ social capital [35], which manifests itself through affiliations with communities and projects. Such territories also harbor complex virtual economies [36], with digital asset markets and new work models that challenge traditional notions of value [31,37]. Consequently, the extent of a territory serves as an indicator of the density and reach of these networks.

However, it must be noted that both spatiality and interactions are contingent on the third component, which is infrastructure and platformization. The viability of territorial scale is dictated by the underlying technology, ranging from hardware to the platformization of the metaverse, where companies control the “digital land” [38]. The issue of interoperability, defined as the capacity to function across different platforms, emerges as a pivotal political contention that will shape the future nature of cyberspace [39]. The manner in which this infrastructure is structured and presented to users constitutes the fourth component: architecture and persuasive design. Virtual architecture ceases to be a neutral setting and becomes an agent that influences behavior through persuasive design [40], constituting a “procedural rhetoric” [41] that directs interactions and reinforces power relations [12].

Governance and jurisdiction represent the fifth component, which is superimposed on all others. This element refers to the formal and informal systems of rules and conflict resolution that govern a metaverse territory. In contrast to the nation-state model, governance in the metaverse is exercised by multiple actors, including platforms (through Terms of Service that function as “private constitutions”) and Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) [42]. This scenario gives rise to a complex jurisdictional mosaic, raising critical questions regarding the applicable law and the protection of digital “citizens’ rights” [7,43,44].

Concomitant with this paradigm is the Metaverse Territorial Scale, comprising five components that function collectively as a dynamic system (Figure 2). Technology enables the spatial framework, design determines its morphology, and interactions animate it, thereby giving shape to Raffestin’s [12] concept of “lived territory”. Governance regulates this cycle, which perpetually generates and reproduces the metaverse territory, thus sustaining the metaverse. Consequently, a model of Metaverse Territorial Scale has been formulated.

5. Implications of the Metaverse Territorial Scale

The advent of the Metaverse Territorial Scale precipitates profound ramifications that reconfigure the social, political, economic, cultural, and urban domains. This phenomenon extends beyond the realm of mere technological innovation, as it challenges the very foundations of societal organization. The repercussions of this foundational shift in the nexus between space and power are multifaceted, encompassing the evolution of individual interactions, the reconfiguration of community dynamics, the restructuring of market systems, and the reimagining of the very concept of state sovereignty.

Within the social sphere, the metaverse scale gives rise to novel forms of community that function under the logic of “networked individualism” [45]. Communities in the metaverse are primarily formed based on affinities, thus overcoming the traditional model of geographical proximity and functioning as “third places” [46], where individuals find belonging [18]. Consequently, notions of identity become more performative and fluid, in a process that echoes Bauman’s [47] “liquid modernity”. The metaverse functions as an identity laboratory [6,7], where avatars facilitate the exploration of various aspects of the self, unbound by the limitations of the physical body [48].

However, it is within the political sphere that these implications reach their most structural dimension. The establishment of embassies in the metaverse, as evidenced by Barbados’ example and Tuvalu’s initiative to become the first “digital nation”, signifies an unparalleled process of deterritorialization of the state [7]. Both cases raise fundamental questions about metaverse citizenship and directly challenge the Westphalian model of sovereignty, which historically links the state to a fixed geographical substrate [49].

From an economic perspective, the proposed scale facilitates the disintermediation process and the establishment of markets that function on a global scale in real time. The proliferation of the “platform economy” [28] has accelerated, while the consolidation of crypto-asset-based economies poses significant challenges to traditional financial and regulatory systems, which are inherently territorial in nature [31,50]. This scenario presents a paradox on cultural grounds. On the one hand, it can promote “glocalization” [51], thereby conferring global visibility on local cultures. On the other hand, it carries the risk of a new form of cultural imperialism [52], in which platforms from the Global North impose their own aesthetics, norms, and values through their architectures and algorithms [38].

In the domain of urban and regional planning, the primary implication is the emergence of Digital Twins—meticulous and dynamic virtual simulations of cities and infrastructure. In this case, the metaverse functions as a laboratory for testing urban interventions [7] and optimizing the management of complex systems prior to physical implementation [53]. This approach enables more resilient and participatory planning; however, it also raises critical questions regarding the control and use of urban data, including user privacy.

6. Conclusions and Prospects

This entry is based on a specific analysis of the metaverse as an emerging field of social interaction. The aim of the entry is to define and characterize the Metaverse Territorial Scale. The entry accomplished this objective by integrating Raffestin’s theory of territory [12] with contemporary discourse on platformization and digital governance. Consequently, the concept of the metaverse finds itself situated within the established traditions of critical geography, cultural studies, and power studies [54].

A primary outcome of this entry is the delineation and description of the Metaverse Territorial Scale, which is conceptualized as a model comprising five interdependent components: hybrid spatiality, socioeconomic networks, infrastructure, persuasive design, and governance. Consequently, this entry provides the theoretical foundation for the pioneering concept introduced by Almeida [6], thereby solidifying it as an operational conceptual tool. The central contribution of this entry lies in the recognition of this scale as a category of analysis for understanding the unique forms of space production that define immersive virtual territories, also called metaversal territories.

The ramifications of this contemporary paradigm are extensive and multifaceted. As previously outlined, this reconfiguration encompasses a wide range of aspects, including the formation of fluid identities and networked communities, as well as the emergence of novel forms of digital sovereignty. Illustrative cases include Tuvalu and virtual embassies, along with the establishment of urban laboratories known as Digital Twins.

This entry contributes to the theoretical advancement of spatial analysis by introducing the original concept of Metaverse Territorial Scale, a category not previously defined in the literature. While grounded in Almeida’s [6] earlier work and Raffestin’s theory of territory [12], this entry advances the framework by articulating five analytical components that structure immersive virtual territories. These components (hybrid spatiality, socioeconomic networks, infrastructure, persuasive design, and governance) are presented as a cohesive model that expands the conceptual boundaries of territorial analysis. By formalizing this paradigm, the entry offers a novel lens for understanding the spatial and power dynamics of the metaverse, thereby enriching the field with a distinctive and operational theoretical contribution.

It is acknowledged that the theoretical nature of this entry constitutes its primary limitation, as it lacks in-depth empirical discussion that could assess the applicability of the model in various metaverse contexts. Moreover, the rapid pace of technological evolution necessitates a dynamic approach to any conceptual analysis, thereby requiring continuous updating. These limitations, however, delineate a framework for future research endeavors. Empirical investigations are imperative, including case studies on the governance of “digital nations”, comparative analyses of power strategies in centralized versus decentralized metaverses (DAOs), and investigations into jurisdiction in immersive territories. The empirical application of the Metaverse Territorial Scale will be further explored in future studies, aiming to validate and expand the theoretical model proposed here through concrete and comparative contexts.

It is noteworthy that the Metaverse Territorial Scale is an innovative analytical lens for deciphering the complex geographies of power in the 21st century. The comprehension of the genesis, contestation, and governance of these novel immersive virtual domains is not merely an academic endeavor; rather, it is an imperative condition for the establishment of a more egalitarian, democratic, and self-aware digital future, one that is characterized by its own power structures.