This article was downloaded by: [Ryerson University]

On: 26 February 2013, At: 00:24

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Mobilities
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmob20

Tropophilia: A Study of People, Place

and Lifestyle Travel
a a
Jon Anderson & Kathryn Erskine
a
School of Planning and Geography, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
Version of record first published: 15 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: Jon Anderson & Kathryn Erskine (2012): Tropophilia: A Study of People, Place
and Lifestyle Travel, Mobilities, DOI:10.1080/17450101.2012.743702

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2012.743702

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Mobilities
2012, 1–16, iFirst Article

Tropophilia: A Study of People, Place and

Lifestyle Travel

JON ANDERSON* & KATHRYN ERSKINE

School of Planning and Geography, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 00:24 26 February 2013

ABSTRACT This paper explores the changing relations between people and place that are
set in motion through mobility. Examining the mobilities of lifestyle travellers, it argues that
new relations are sought by this group that undermines traditional assumptions of stability
and preservation in the person–place relation. In their stead, lifestyle travellers seek
dynamism, change and instability in their engagements with place. This situation suggests
that the traditional recognition of the need for a rooted, static and stable set of relations
with place – i.e. topophilia – can be supplemented by the love of mobility, change and
transformation in the person–place relation – coined tropophilia. The paper raises the
important point that a desired connection between ‘people’on one hand and ‘place’ on the
other may only occur when their respective paces and trajectories positively coincide.

KEY WORDS: Topophilia, Tropophilia, Lifestyle travel, Place, Identity, Transformation

Introduction
This paper explores the relations between place, identity and mobility, with particu-
lar emphasis on the ‘lifestyle traveller’. Fundamental to geographical inquiry is the
study of the relations between people and place (see Holloway and Hubbard 2001,
6; Cloke, Crang, and Goodwin 2005, XII), yet there is growing acknowledgement
that these entities, and the relations between them, are far from being straightfor-
ward. The notions of people and place have, over recent years, undergone signifi-
cant transformation. In the humanist and phenomenological tradition, concepts of
people and place have been commonly understood as static and stable in nature.
Through their everyday actions and practices, people become rooted in places, and
places themselves are conserved and constant in their material and cultural form.
These relations are argued to create strong ties between people and place, and a
manifesto for the continued preservation of places in order to retain a cohesiveness
of community, a strong sense of place and a resilient coingredient identity. It is
from these relations that a topophilia – a love of rootedness, dwelling and habitation
within a secure geographical location is derived (Tuan 1974).

*Correspondence Address: Jon Anderson, School of Planning and Geography, Cardiff University, Cardiff,
UK. Email: andersonj@cf.ac.uk
1745-0101 Print/1745-011X Online/12/000001-16 Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2012.743702
 2 J. Anderson & K. Erskine

However, in recent years, it has been argued that these traditional notions of peo-
ple and place are being dismantled through the processes of globalisation and
mobility. As a result, people and place are now being reframed as constantly chang-
ing and provisional. This reframing raises a number of questions concerning the
nature of place (in terms of its variety and multiplicity) and the pace of place (in
terms of its trajectory, direction and speed of change/mobility) alongside the nature
of the individual and their own pace of change. These questions are interrogated in
this paper through the case of lifestyle travel. As Cohen outlines, the lifestyle trav-
eller is the one who actively pursues travel indefinitely, rather than as a temporal or
‘cyclical break’ from normality (2010, 64). Such a preferred lifestyle choice exem-
plifies the alternative and ‘networked patterns of social life’ (Duffy 2004, 32) that
characterise the twenty-first century, with such individuals serving as a corporeal
example of increasing global mobility, and destabilisation of existing lifestyles and
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 00:24 26 February 2013

understandings of place attachment, constancy and topophilia.

Drawing on Rojek (1993) and O’Reilly (2005), this paper argues that a key moti-
vation for lifestyle travel is not the active pursuit of mobility for its own sake (i.e.
simply to keep moving from one random place to another), rather it is to realise
identity challenge and transformation. External (or geographical) mobility is, thus,
undertaken in order to realise an internal (or identity-related) mobility – to invoke
change and challenge to the aspects of self-hood. Similarly, lifestyle travellers are
happy to remain in one location if its pace and nature allow that individual to change
and be challenged. Once an individual’s need for internal ‘mobility’ is exhausted
within one location – in other words, that place’s pace and trajectory is no longer
synchronous with those of the individual – then the lifestyle traveller moves on. This
phenomenon raises the important point that the ‘coingredience of people and place’
(after Casey 2001) may only occur when their respective paces and trajectories posi-
tively coincide. Such a position undermines traditional assumptions concerning the
nature of topophilia which valourise stability, preservation and conservation of geo-
graphical places, and introduces the importance of change, plurality and instability in
order to create enduring connections between people and place. The paper, therefore,
introduces the neologism tropophilia (literally the love of change) to refer to the new
ways in which the relations between people and place can be understood – not a love
of rooted and static geographical relations, but a love of mobility, movement and
change in terms of the coingredient constitution of identity and geography.

The transforming relations between people and place

As Holloway and Hubbard (2001, 7) tell the newcomers to the discipline, ‘the rela-
tionality of people and places ... is important to geographical understanding’. Here,
Holloway & Hubbard remind us that we are tied into places through our everyday
activities, cultures, belief systems and aspirations. Places themselves are formed by
and through our literal and metaphoric constructions and co-constituted by our lived
experiences, emotions and cultural attachments. People and place are, thus, inti-
mately connected; as Said suggests, no human is ever ‘outside or beyond geography’
(Said 1993, 7, also cited in Moore 1997, and Soja 2010), and as Soja confirms;

Our existential spatiality and temporality are essentially or ontologically

coequal, equivalent in explanatory power and behavioural significance, inter-
woven in a mutually formative relation. (Soja 2010, 16)
 Tropophilia 3

Thus, if we are social (and temporal) beings, then we must be geographical beings
too. Such intimate interconnection has tended to encourage a particular framing of
geographical place – specifically, geographical sites have been framed as fixed and
static in nature. According to Cresswell, such static configurations are part of a
‘sedentary metaphysics’ (after Malkki 1992) which seeks to ‘divide the world up
into clearly bounded territorial units’ (Cresswell 2004, 109). It is argued that from
this modern metaphysics, our ‘common sense’ categorisations of the world originate
(Bourdieu 1977, 1991); our geographies are established in,

things like nations, states, counties and places. Thinking of the world as
rooted and bounded ... actively territorialises identities in property, in region,
in nation – in place … (Cresswell 2004, 110)
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 00:24 26 February 2013

Places are, of course, static in the sense that they are stationary in terms of their
grid reference and location. However, places are also considered static in the sense
that they are changeless, preserved and constant. They may grow or contract, but
remain more (or less) of the same. From this view, if places are ‘carved out of
space’ (Sack 2004, 244), then it makes sense that places come to be defined when
such processes occur over a long period, stabilising and making durable place iden-
tities so that they are widely recognised and their values compounded. As Relph
argues, it is every geographical site’s,

persistent sameness and unity which allows [it] to be differentiated from

others. (Relph 1976, 45)

Due to the intimate interconnection between people and place, such a sedentary and
static approach to the latter category has implications for senses of self-hood (be it
individual or collective). As a world is framed consisting of closed, bounded and
stabilised places, not only are place identities deemed to be coherent and stable, but
so too are the cultures that are created within and through them. As ‘intrinsically
spatial beings’ (Soja 2010, 18), this coherence and constancy of place gives a plat-
form from which human identities and cultures can be formed. People can root
themselves in the constancy of place, become ‘attached’ to place and enjoy a sense
of belonging to a geographical hearth and home (see for example, Relph 1976; Sea-
mon and Mugerauer 1985). As Tuan argues, place has to be consistent and
unchanging in order for these senses of belonging and home to be rooted; in his
words, place has to be:

a static concept. If we see the world as process, constantly changing, we

would not be able to develop any sense of place. (1977, 179)

Some scholars describe this rooted interrelation between people and place as a form
of place attachment; as Belk puts it, place attachment can be defined as, ‘‘to be
attached to certain of our surroundings [and] make them a part of our extended
self’’ (cited in Giuliani and Feldman 1993, 271). Casey (2001) goes further to
suggest a ‘constitutive coingredience’ of people and place – each entity in this case
cannot be ontologically separated; there is no person without place (and vice versa).
In each framing, place is seen as fixed entity that has the capacity to affect the
sense of self-hood of an individual.
 4 J. Anderson & K. Erskine

Tuan emphasises this affective capacity of the rooted relations between people
and place through the neologism topophilia. Topophilia refers to the affective bond –
or relational sensibility as Anderson has argued elsewhere (2009), that is registered
in a person but created by their co-constitution with a particular place. A positive
relation between people and place (for example in a home setting) would be termed
topophilia, whilst a negative feeling (perhaps in a strange or unwelcoming place)
would be its counterpoint – topophobia. Such affective connections between people
and place have the implication that any changes to the nature of place can be easily
felt by those rooted in that location. Generally speaking, due to the positive nature
of topophilia, it is common for narratives of change to become pejoratively framed
as threat. Much research in environmental psychology and geography documents
the expressions of mourning, grief and loss felt by individuals and groups as a con-
sequence of place changes (see for example, Twigger-Ross and Uzzell 1996; Manzo
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 00:24 26 February 2013

2003). Such phenomena provoke protectionist and conservationist discourses which

seek to preserve the constancy of place in the face of change. As Tuan suggests:

our home and hometown should stay the same. Now, why ‘should’? How
come a moral command has slipped into the language? ...[because] our own
sense of self depends on such stability. When the neighbourhood we grew up
in is demolished, we feel as though a part of our own personality is undone;
and this would still be true even when the old neighbourhood has been
improved. … Any number of sound ecological reasons exist for preservation,
but the reason I wish to emphasise here is the human need for stability – for
a place where time seems to stop, a place to which we can return, a place
whose wholeness and integrity confirm our own. (2004, 45/47–48)

Due to the affective relation between people and place, the constancy of place is
deemed a common good, as Tuan tells us:

by remaining the same, they [constant places] tell us that, for all the loss of hair
and accretion of weight that make us almost unrecognisable to ourselves in the
mirror, our basic values and selves remain more or less intact. (2004, 49)

Topophilia is, thus, nurtured in these conditions and transmits a sense of security,
longevity and belonging to people through a place’s constancy. The logic follows
that how places are (and were) is how they should remain – any change is deemed
a ‘foreign’, ‘alien’ or ‘other’ threat which will inevitably ‘rupture and contaminate’
the affective coingredience of people and place (after Coleman and Crang 2002, 1).
However, with the rise of globalisation and the associated mobilities of commodi-
ties, ideas and people, many scholars have challenged static concepts of place and
the topophilic affects such concepts suggest. As Gustafson puts it:

as people seem to be increasingly mobile, and their social relations and other
everyday experiences are increasingly disembedded from physical locations …
social theorists are often somewhat sceptical about the importance of place
and place attachment. (Gustafson 2001, 668)

Influenced by the broader processes of globalisation and theoretical turns towards

the poststructural and mobile (see Callon 1986; Doel 1999; Latour 1999; Law and
 Tropophilia 5

Hassard 1999; Murdoch 2006; Sheller and Urry 2004, 2006; Adey 2009), ‘the fun-
damental “territorial” and “sedentary” precepts of twentieth-century social science’
are now being ‘put … into question’ (Hannam, Sheller, and Urry 2006, 1–2). It is
argued here that three key acknowledgements have served to undermine the preoc-
cupation with the sedentary. Firstly, the recognition that people are mobile; sec-
ondly, the places will change as a consequence of this mobility, and thirdly, taken
together these dynamic processes effect the relationships between people and place.
Taken, in turn, these mobilities, thinking is founded on the acknowledgement of
human movement and the need to explore its origins, meanings and effects. To
address these issues, Cresswell (2010b) has suggested a range – or ‘constellation’ –
of questions which frame the examination of human mobility, namely: Why does a
person move? How fast does a person move? In what rhythm does a person move?
What route do they take? How does it feel?, and when and how do they stop? This
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 00:24 26 February 2013

first stage in questioning the valourisation of the sedentary thus demonstrates how
the mobilities turn is ‘about more than getting from A to B’ (Cresswell 2010a,
554). However, human mobility does not exist in isolation, nor does it occur with-
out effect. Due in part to our inherently geographical formation, mobility is seen as
part of a relation, it is ‘an orientation to oneself, to others and to the world’ (Adey
2009, xvii). The second stage in decentring the static, thus, seeks to explore the
ways in which mobilities affect the nature of place. As human and other mobilities1
run through, coalesce in and diverge from geographical places, the ‘A’ and ‘B’ of
source and destination are being redefined in numerous ways (for example as ‘meet-
ing places’ (after Massey 1993; Solnit 2010), ‘events’ (Massey 2006), and ‘transient
convergences’ (Anderson 2009; 2012). As Murdoch tells us, instead of a geography
of ‘well-ordered, topographical spaces’ (2006, 19), this new framing, ‘describes
social and cultural systems that are open and dynamic, constantly in the process of
“becoming”’ (ibid., 17). Such thinking considers places as verbs rather than nouns,
processes that are always acting, and being acted on by every-‘thing’ else. From
this perspective, people and places are not ontologically fixed, but are ‘assembled
and reassembled in changing configurations’ (Hannam et al. 2006, 14), made up
from ‘complex systems of diverse intersecting mobilities’ (Sheller and Urry 2004,
6). Place is, thus, no longer reliable, consistent or necessarily coherent, it is wholly
provisional and unstable. Place, at any moment, emerges in time and space from
the web of flows and connections meeting at a particular node. With these points in
mind, we can draw on Cresswell to raise further questions concerning the
‘mobilities of place’. For example, how does a place ‘move’? How fast does it
change? In what rhythm? What route does it take? When and how does it stop?
And, perhaps most significantly for the concerns of this paper, how does it feel for
those experiencing these changes?
These questions lead us towards the third stage in the devalourisation of the
sedentary: the ways in which these dynamic processes affect the relations between
people and place. As humans are inherently spatial beings, the constellations of
mobility of people on one hand and of place on the other have inevitable effects on
the geographical self. These dynamic interrelations raise questions concerning the
continued relevance of structural accounts of the static connections between people
and place. In a world where rootedness is displaced, or at least combined with
routedness, home and belonging can no longer be simply understood in terms of
how attached an individual is to an unchanging geographical place; in other words,
there are limits to the explanatory power of stable and constant notions such as
 6 J. Anderson & K. Erskine

topophilia. In a world of mobilities, a sense of home and well-being may also come
to be defined by how complementary and synergistic the dynamics of place are to
the dynamics of an individual’s self-hood. From this view, the possibility is pro-
duced that the stability of place may actually impede personal growth; change and
mobility (of both a personal and geographical nature) is something that is desired
rather than discouraged. In such a scenario, topophilia, as currently understood,
does not fully capture the preferred relations between people and place. Rather, a
love of change and mobility – in other words tropophilia – may be more appropri-
ate. Tropophilia refers to an individual’s need to move and be moved and to be
stimulated and challenged in terms of their relations to place. Due to an individual’s
coingredience with place, this challenge comes from a geographical location itself;
a place’s diversity and dynamism – or its constellations of mobility – stimulate this
change2. In this view, rootedness in place is, thus, a case of tropophobia – a dislike
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 00:24 26 February 2013

or fear of change to identity, place and the relations between them. However, if a
place’s trajectory and pace of change is asynchronous when compared to the indi-
vidual, such a place is unlikely to offer an individual tropophilia. As we will see in
the following sections using the case of lifestyle travellers, this situation is likely to
render that individual discontent; in order to be happy, they will move to a different
place with a different constellation of mobility. Tropophilia then is a love of mobil-
ity, a love of experiencing change and new forms of constitutive coingredience. It
foregrounds questions concerning the respective speeds, trajectories and directions
of the mobilities of people and places and how complementary they may be. The
paper goes on to investigate the case of lifestyle travellers to demonstrate this new
tropophilic situation.

Mobilising method for the lifestyle traveller

In order to investigate how lifestyle travellers ‘see, know and consume the world’
(Germann Molz 2010), this paper is based on a research project that adopted a qual-
itative methodology encompassing ethnographic travel and open-ended interviews.3
One of the authors spent 18 months researching lifestyle travel(lers) in Australia,
New Zealand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand, and this paper is based on exten-
sive interviews with 21 self-defined lifestyle travellers moving through this part of
the world. Recruitment occurred through the opportune meeting of lifestyle travel-
lers ‘on the road’, but was also focused through the social networking site ‘Couch-
Surfing’.4 Here, requests for respondents could be posted on various locations and
group ‘walls’, as well as contacting nearby travellers directly using the search facil-
ity. In this way, respondents could become informed on the project and decide
whether the research and the term ‘lifestyle travel’ was applicable to them, before
choosing to respond. Interviewees sourced through these strategies were educated
and originated from developed nations (six were from Australia, six from Europe,
seven from North America, one from Asia and one from the Middle East). The vast
majority of respondents were travelling on their own: twelve were male, nine
female, and respondents ranged in age from 21 to 34. All were voluntary travellers
rather than being forcibly exiled from home locations, and in terms of duration had
been travelling from 14 months (minimum) to 13 years (the average (mean) of time
travelled was just over three and a half years). Despite their developed world
origins and their privileged position in being able to choose when and where to
travel, it was nevertheless difficult to categorise respondents into a straightforward
 Tropophilia 7

socio-economic class; the vast majority of travellers worked to travel, and due to
their temporal and physical dislocation from the norms of their original location
(see below) could no longer be straightforwardly allocated into stable class or
socio-economic categories (cf. hobos, see Cresswell 2001; or neo-nomads,
D’Andrea 2006).

Lifestyle travel. ‘A man can face anything except a succession of ordinary

days’ (Goethe, in Boyle 1992)
As Cohen identifies, the lifestyle traveller is one who actively pursues travel indefi-
nitely, rather than as a temporal or ‘cyclical break’ from normality (2010, 64). For
lifestyle travellers, travel is extended into an ‘ongoing lifestyle practice’ that super-
sedes conventional episodic bouts of holiday-making, tourism or backpacking
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 00:24 26 February 2013

(Cohen 2011). Whereas tourists and other travellers accept a return to ‘normality’
once their travels are complete, the lifestyle traveller rejects this return, transforming
their travel into their ‘norm’ and way of life. However, even such ‘preferred life-
styles’ (Cohen 2011) vary in length, pattern and degree of travel. As we will see
below, within this project, all respondents paused their travel activities for some
period of time, rather than be on the move continuously. For some, this involved
sojourns within a new place, whilst for others it involved visiting friends or return-
ing to earn money in locations they had visited before. Despite the different pace,
pauses and other punctuations to their movement (as will be discussed further
below), the important commonality between these individuals was their overarching
commitment to travel rather than to a career or home ties; as the following
respondent sums up:

I didn’t necessarily expect to have travel as an identity but now it very much
is and when I talk to people back home you know, they say, ‘well what do
you do?’ and I don’t say, ‘oh I’m a chef, I’m a secretary’, I say, ‘I travel’.
And it feels kinda [silly] but I don’t know how else to describe my lifestyle
choice and I couldn’t really picture what I would be if I wasn’t travelling.
(Miriam)

In essence, therefore, travel is considered the definitive trait of these individual’s

lives – it is an active and conscious choice to vacate a routine and ordered life at
one place for an existence centred on mobility in and to many. Indeed, the roots
formed by lifestyle travellers in and to their home place are seen as restrictions
rather than comforts. The routines and order of home are perceived as shackles that
lifestyle travellers seek to escape from, as En Tze puts it: ‘I wasn’t changing at
home, I was just like kind of stifling myself, so getting away was good’ (En Tze),
or as Chris explains,

I was running away from a life that I felt I was being forced into… just the
typical mundane go to college, to university, get a job, get married, have kids,
settle down, die. (Chris C)

In one sense, therefore, escape for these lifestyle travellers involved shedding
societal expectations and roles – the encultured norms of their home place. For
Chris, escape was synonymous with avoiding conformity to societal stages, to escape
 8 J. Anderson & K. Erskine

the rules of ‘normality’ so that he could create his own kind of ‘freely chosen game’
(Bauman 1996, 18). In another sense, however, this wish for escape can be under-
stood as the disparity between the pace and trajectory of individual’s identity – their
own need for diversity, change and multiplicity, and that of the place they currently
inhabit. In En Tze’s case, for example, the ‘constellations of ongoing trajectories’
that make up place had been exhausted by his life to date, their pace of change, and
the direction they were going in, failed to coincide with his need for difference and
development; as a consequence he felt stifled and getting away was good.
By experiencing a self-induced exit from their home place, lifestyle travellers
encountered both external and internal movement. In a different place, lifestyle trav-
ellers could encounter different societal expectations, differently paced and trajecto-
ried places, and because they were new to this place, they felt that their relations
with it were up for negotiation. By opting out of normality through physical dislo-
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 00:24 26 February 2013

cation from home, Chris, for example, felt that he could shirk off the feelings of
being tied or constrained to people or place that did not suit him and there were no
longer expectations on him:

I don’t like feeling trapped by people or society. When you’re in another cul-
ture that doesn’t apply to you cos you’re just a foreigner so you’re free of all
that, no-one expects you to do anything.

Other lifestyle travellers felt that the new places gave them not simply a freedom
from responsibility, but the opportunity to experience different cultures and places,
and the concomitant constellations that constitute them; as Jenni suggests,

… like the more you travel the more … you want … new experiences really,
and get some more knowledge about what’s going on in the world, getting new
ideas of what I want, just not getting stuck in the same circle as such. (Jenni)

Jenni articulates how her external movement is inextricably connected to her iden-
tity change. Her travelling experiences prevent her from remaining static in terms of
her self-identity – she is constantly challenged with new cultures and different ways
of being. For these spatial beings, the experience of new places give a shot in the
arm to their personal identity; the process of mobility that enables this is considered
synonymous with progression and self-development. Lifestyle travellers, therefore,
exhibit a tropophilic element to their coingredience with place, mobility enables this
interconnection to be refreshed and renewed in order to transform rather than pre-
serve their sense of self.

Transformative travel

[conventional] tourism is considered to actually confirm one’s view of the

world rather than transforming it… [in contrast] travel is seen as a resource in
the endeavour of self-realization. (Rojek 1993, 175)

As Rojek identifies, and O’Reilly (2005) has confirmed, a fundamental distinction

between tourist and traveller is the quest for ‘transformative experience’. For many
lifestyle travellers, the need for personal growth and transformation can be satiated
 Tropophilia 9

through movement: lifestyle travel offers a ‘way to grow’. The notion of transfor-
mative travel, therefore, complements the popular idea of ‘finding oneself’ through
travel (see Desforges 2000; O’Reilly 2006), a concept which was widely discussed
by interviewees in this project:

… I think finding yourself is part of growing up, whether you stay at home or
if your come here, like getting to know yourself, you can do that at home as
well. (Chris C)

However, many respondents took issue with the notion implicit within this
discourse – that there is a unitary self ‘out there’ to find; as Marco debates:

the point is not to find yourself, the point is to create yourself … I don’t
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 00:24 26 February 2013

know if there was anything there pre-existing that I was supposed to find but
I definitely created myself along the way. (Marco)

Echoing the post-structural critique of an essentialised identity (see Jameson 1991;

Featherstone 1995; Bauman 2001; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2002; Anderson
2004), lifestyle travellers generally dispute the notion of ‘finding oneself’ as this
implies an end state which undermines the very purpose of ongoing travel. Whilst
interviewees acknowledged the transformatory qualities afforded through their
mobility, finding a single or unified self was not their objective, they were more
interested in constructing or discovering the different selves they would encounter
through their travel experiences.
In relation to the eternal becoming of their own identity, moving to a new place
transforms the lifestyle traveller in unique ways. Due to the different paces and tra-
jectories of the new place they are now constituted by, individuals are required to
adjust their selves to understand the languages, customs, rites and practices which
allow themselves to survive there. It is exactly this form of adjustment and change
that lifestyle travellers thrive on, as the following respondents outline:

there are so many people and so many, even countries that seem very similar
but can be really different and there’s languages to learn and food to try and
just, there’s an exhilaration of moving to a city and knowing that there’s no-one
in the whole country that you know that you could call if you had an emer-
gency, that you don’t have a job, you don’t have a flat and you have $2000 in
the bank and you have to somehow sort yourself out and you know even if you
only have a couple of those its better than sky diving, the rush! (Miriam)

For Miriam, the freedom to test herself in new places is synonymous with fulfilling
a personal challenge, to see how far she can push herself when isolated from famil-
iarity.5 By submerging herself in an unknown place, she can explore the paths and
networks that constantly become it, she can actively pursue those trajectories that
challenge or resonate with her own in order to achieve goals of self-development
and satisfaction. The challenge mounted by a new place to personal senses of iden-
tity is emphasised by Jen, whose love of travel and being in new places is based on
being able to ‘be whoever you want to be and no-one knows you’. Through this
testing and experimenting with aspects of herself, she is constantly engaged in
getting to know herself when constituted differently in new person–place relations.
 10 J. Anderson & K. Erskine

For her, it is a battle of the selves, a game to be played out to see ‘which part of
your personality is gonna win out … so you have to re-define yourself’ (Jen).
However, as lifestyle travel is not simply travel for its own sake but rather as the
chance to refresh or renew the person–place relation, lifestyle travellers do not con-
tinually move from place to place, but in some cases pause or ‘moor’ themselves.
As Cresswell has acknowledged, the mobilities turn runs the risk of suggesting
that notions of immobility are ‘of the past and no longer relevant to the dynamic
work of the twenty first century’ (2010b, 18). However, ‘“moorings” are often as
important as “mobilities”’ (ibid., 18). Moorings can be understood in a number of
ways. From the perspective of Hannam et al. (2006, 3), moorings are the ‘necessary
spatial, infrastructural and institutional [fixities] that configure and enable mobilities’
(for example airports, passports, and customs). However, moorings can also be con-
sidered as the temporary pauses in mobility adopted by individuals to connect them-
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 00:24 26 February 2013

selves, however, provisionally to a particular location. In this sense, moorings are

the moments of physical or external ‘stillness’ in a life permeated by movement
(see Cresswell 2011). In the case of lifestyle travel, whilst all interview respondents
were committed to mobility, they also sought to dwell temporarily in one location
for an extended period of time. As the following respondents outline:

I haven’t done (many) tours as such, just kind of decided on a place I’d like
to go and gone there and searched for a job and just kind of stayed for a
while… (Jenni),

I think we’ve learnt more about places when we’ve lived there…you kind of
get a sense of what it’s all about, you tune into their way of life (Simon),

I guess I wanted to do some travelling where I got to live somewhere as

opposed to just moving around, like actually being in one spot and getting to
know someplace more than as a tourist. (En Tze)
For these respondents, lifestyle travel seems to be about experiencing variety and
alternative person–place relations from the ones they experience at home. In order
to develop identifiable person–place relations, a longer stay (or ‘mooring’) at a
place is required than what conventional tourism would allow (but crucially not an
indefinite stay). Lifestyle travellers are seeking to get a sense of the pace and trajec-
tories of a place, what makes it flow, and in what direction (see Germann Molz
2010).6 Where tourists may get a ‘snapshot’ of a place (and thus view it as static
and preserved), for lifestyle travellers this extended form of place constitution gives
them a taste of its eternal becoming. This emphasises how relative immobility
(through remaining in place) does not necessarily hinder or stunt their internal
movement and transformation as they are still pursuing an ‘inward voyage’ (Cohen
2010, 69), a development of the self through being part of a new person–place rela-
tion. In this sense, the challenge of lifestyle travel is more about the process of
making paths and integrating, rather than the end result of integration. When
integration occurs, it is often the signal to move on.

… when I do fully learn a language and learn a town and make connections,
that’s when I tend to like dis-anchor and go to the next place. And um, yea
that’s been a bit of a pattern for me …(Aviv)
 Tropophilia 11

In the light of the insights from the mobilities’ turn and the ever-changing nature of
place (see Sheller and Urry 2004; Anderson 2010), it is questionable whether it is
possible for individuals to ever ‘fully learn a town’ as Aviv suggests. As places are
always bound up in ‘diverse intersecting mobilities’ they are forever on trajectories
of change. What is important to acknowledge here, however, is how Aviv perceives
her mobility and that of the place she is in to have become synchronous. As one
place’s trajectories and constellations become familiar (even though they continue
to change) lifestyle travellers move on to a new location with a strange, unknown
and, therefore, exciting constellation of mobilities. Although new places offer trans-
formative challenges due to their alien paces and trajectories, once individuals have
come familiarised and adapted to their new person–place relation, places do not
often change at a (relative) pace that is different enough to replicate the sense of
novelty and ‘rush’ experienced by external mobility.7 In order to fulfil these individ-
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 00:24 26 February 2013

uals’ desire for personal growth, travel into a person–place relation is required. This
issue suggests there is some kind of ‘end-’ or at least ‘still-point’ for the person–
place relationship – a situation where the individual has come to be so familiar with
the pace and trajectory of the place that, as a consequence, it offers diminishing
returns to them in terms of novelty and challenge. At this point, the place is
‘acquired’ or ‘defeated’ (as Rachel states, ‘when I travel my goal is to conquer a
place … I want to be able to leave and be like “oh yeah I lived there 3 years ago
… I know what it’s like”’).8 In this way, place is conceived as a challenge to be
met, with success being achieved when the ongoing constellations of that place are
relatively familiar. At this stage, individuals perceive that they have exhausted the
differences and multiplicities offered by that place – for the time being at least. At
the point where many individuals may begin to feel a sense of belonging and topo-
philia, lifestyle travellers re-encounter feelings of stifling and shacklement – they
feel as if their trajectories of movement have settled into a negatively charged ‘still-
point’ (see Bissell and Fuller 2011, 3; also Doel 1999; Ingold 2005), and their love
of movement and change registers their current person–place relation as topophobia
and entrapment. By staying indefinitely at this still-point, or becoming ‘trapped’ in
place, their tropophilia is reignited. As Aviv and Cameron put it:

I do notice that when I stay somewhere too long I start to feel nervous, like
I’m not accomplishing enough, and then when I start somewhere new and dif-
ficult I feel fulfilled (Aviv),

things should be moving, right, I’m relaxing at home, I’m now in a stable,
relaxed work and it’s almost a sense of I’m coming to a grinding halt [and it
then I go], ‘Right! Where am I travelling to? I’m gonna go now! (Cameron)

For the lifestyle traveller, over-familiar external moorings inevitably lead to retarda-
tion in internal mobility. Their love of internal movement and transformation means
that tropophilia appears to be a state of being ‘uncomfortable’ or outside of their com-
fort zone – out of rhythm with the constellations of mobilities in a place. As Heath
outlines: ‘its kinda like for some reason I find myself less comfortable in the most
kind of stable, and the most comfortable in the most unstable places’. New person–
place relations, thus, tend to have a ‘shelf life’ for the lifestyle traveller – an
(unknown) expiry date which passes when the individual establishes a ‘home-like’
feel in a location and a sense of regularity or ‘normality’ sets in. As Jenni confirms:
 12 J. Anderson & K. Erskine

I like to just to stay for a few months, but not for a long time! Then I’ll still
continue travelling. Cos the novelty will wear off after a few months of being
there, not from the people that I care about but just the regular, doing the
things you have to do, it’s not very interesting cos you always know there’s
gonna be so many new and different things you could be doing. (Jenni)

I don’t have to be somewhere for 2 or 3 years to get a sense of home, like

Melbourne feels like home, Canberra feels like home, Edinburgh feels like
home, places where I’ve spent long enough to get an association or feel a
sense of identification with a place, they’re home, so yea I like to keep that
moving, keep it fresh. (Cameron)

everywhere is a bit sentimental for me, but I don’t really see myself moving
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 00:24 26 February 2013

back to any of those places you know, its almost like that time’s done … I
get restless living in a certain place... so it just feels more comfortable to keep
moving …(Miriam)
Feelings of familiarity and emotion formed for a person–place relation– what we
might traditionally understand as topophilia – are registered within lifestyle travel-
lers as over-familiarity, they represent feelings of stagnation and topophobia. At this
stage, the person–place relationship appears to have exhausted all possible avenues
and serves to feed only one aspect of their identity – such as ‘worker’ for example
– thus limiting their possibility to create new and contrasting identities. This is
nicely summarised by En Tze who described how having pre-existing networks
comprising of family members served to stifle his experience in Singapore, and that
this ready-made ‘home’ from ‘home’ essentially suppressed his ability to grow.

I just started travelling again and I really should’ve looked for work but I find
it really hard to make myself stop travelling, I looked for work in Singapore
for about a month but after 3 weeks I was going slightly insane I couldn’t
imagine being there for a year-long contract so I just kinda took off … I find
it, I dunno quite stifling and when I’m there it’s all family, everyone I know
is family, and I end up staying in like apartments, I’m not in hostels, I’m not
meeting people, I’ve not got a job so wasn’t meeting anybody new, and this
is just, drives me nuts, just sit all day reading, I mean it was like I was back
in the US only without any friends.

For En Tze, the process being established in a place, of being integrated within a
person–place relation, hampered his ability to encounter and invent new versions of
himself. External familiarity had led to internal stillness, and routedness had become
reduced to routines and roots. Although Singapore may have offered new trajecto-
ries and opportunities for change (for example if he had changed jobs, habits or
routines, or because of new developments, cultures and customs occurring in the
city) the strength of his family ties and the inertia of stillness stifled his ability to
foster self-transformation.

Conclusion
This paper has sought to look afresh at the fundamental building blocks of human
geography, the relations between people and place. Once codified as static and stable
 Tropophilia 13

entities, the relations between people and place were commonly argued to give rise
to feelings of topophilia, or love of place. Over recent years, however, these notions
have been transformed into dynamic, multiple and provisional processes, and these
transformations raise questions concerning how the relations between them should
be understood. This paper has explored these questions through the example of life-
style travel and has suggested notions of topophilia can be supplemented by tropo-
philia – or the love of mobility, change and transformation in the person–place
relation. It suggests that the geographical (or external) mobility of lifestyle travellers
is undertaken in order to realise identity-related (or internal) mobility – to invoke
change and challenge to aspects of self-hood. As we have seen, lifestyle travel
extends the wanderlust of tourism to a lifestyle choice, where travel is undertaken
with ‘the expectation of pleasure from novelty and change experienced’ (Cohen
2004, 29). For lifestyle travellers, the transformation of self occurs through changing
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 00:24 26 February 2013

to novel geographic surroundings. These new places have different ongoing constel-
lations, they move at different paces, they change more slowly or quickly, and each
offers a new experience for the lifestyle traveller. Due to the inherent spatiality of
human beings, these new sets of ongoing constellations alter aspects of the person–
place relation. In this way, external movement coincides and drives internal move-
ment, mobility is harnessed to satiate a tropophilic need to transform rather than pre-
serve the person–place connection. This understanding of travel and tropophilia
offers a supplementary account to existing understandings of the rooted relations
between people and place. While tourists can be understood within the existing para-
digm of sedentary metaphysics – enjoying bouts of movement, but always returning
home; sedentary notions of home are put into question by lifestyle travellers as their
route is their residence. Lifestyle travellers, therefore, have more similarity to
nomads (be they literal or metaphoric [see Braidiotti 1994; Grant 2003; D’Andrea
2006], or vagrants and hobos [see Cresswell 2001]), but also have resonance with
the increasing spread of lifestyle mobility more broadly (see Wilson 2009). Allied to
this, when attending to how lifestyle travellers may pause in a place for a short per-
iod of time to get to know its constellation of mobilities, we can consider how in our
own, perhaps more sedentary lives, we may feel more at home when a place is rede-
veloped or when new commodities, ideas, people and services come together in a
place to offer it a new direction and motion and, as a consequence, offer us new
forms of person–place relation. In this way, even sedentary individuals may feel
tropophilia as mobile places refresh and reboot our sense of self and offer us new
lives to live. The idea that humans require the change and transformation that is
offered by person–place mobility challenges conventional notions that stability, pres-
ervation and conservation (themselves grounded in notions of place that are rooted,
anchored and stable) are morally good. From the perspective of tropophilia, change
is not something to be resisted, but embraced. Tropophilia suggests that plurality,
diversity and transformation in the person–place relation is also a qualified good; not
for profit, or its own sake, but in order for us to be fully (spatially) human.

Notes
1. It is also acknowledged that non-human entities, such as animals, bacteria, weather systems and
water also move. As Sheller & Urry identify, ‘places consist of physical stuff, which is itself
always in motion: new hotel developments, airports and roads, eroding beaches and erupting volca-
noes, stinging mosquitoes and deadly viruses’ (2004, 1).
 14 J. Anderson & K. Erskine

2. Change may also be stimulated through the ways in which humans interact with a particular place
(for example, through changing their job, their identity or their habitual practices; as Haldrup
acknowledges, person–place relations are produced in part through the ‘discursive and embodied
practices of corporeal movement’ that humans engage in (2004, 435, see also Germann Molz
2010, 332).
3. This paper is part of a larger project which interviewed 50 lifestyle travellers in Asia, Australasia,
Europe and India between 2010 and 2012. The age range of respondents in Australasia and Asia
are not wholly representative of lifestyle travellers in other parts of the world; in other locations,
many continue to participate in this phenomenon well into their middle age. This situation raises
questions related to types of places that lifestyle travellers ‘feel the urge’ (see Sheller and Urry
2004, 1) to be constituted by at different stages of the lifecourse; unfortunately, however, these
questions are beyond the scope of this paper.
4. There is no space in this paper to explore the influence that the CouchSurfing network had on the
experiences of lifestyle travellers interviewed (but for more see Zuev 2011). For some, the network
offered familiarity and a functional safety net to their travels, but as Zuev (2011) identifies, the net-
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 00:24 26 February 2013

work can also be configured as representing ‘xenotopos’, or the ‘place of strangers’, with respect
to destabilising the notions of host, tourist, guest and local.
5. It is possible to suggest that due to the networks of traveller infrastructure (including social media,
guidebooks, hostels etc.) that any experienced lifestyle traveller is never that separated from the
familiar (see for example Edensor 2000 in relation to conventional tourism). Nevertheless, for
Miriam, arriving in a new place felt to her like a fresh challenge, offering new opportunities for
transformation and reinvention.
6. As Germann Molz has noted, different places exhibit different paces and trajectories, particularly in
relation to attitudes to time, for instance: ‘travellers comment on the exotic time-keeping in Ethio-
pia and Nepal where different calendars and ways of measuring time are remarkable local attri-
butes. They also remark on “jam karet” (“rubber time”) in Indonesia or the loose schedules of
Fijian time’ (2010, 340).
7. Of course, this pace could be slower than that of a familiar place, or that of the lifestyle traveller;
the key is that the pace of the new place is relatively different to that already encountered and
requires transformation to acclimatise to it (see for example, Germann Molz 2010).
8. Here Rachel demonstrates how lifestyle travellers are preoccupied with their own mobility and the
opportunities it affords them for transformation and challenge. Some become so preoccupied with
these elements that they ignore the possibilities offered by extended mooring in one location. It is
possible, for example, to remain in one place for an extended period of time, and due to that
place’s changing nature, be required to relearn and refamiliarise oneself with its new pace and
constellations. By definition, however, many lifestyle travellers choose to geographically transform
their person–place relations, rather than wait for a place in which they are moored to become
dynamically mobile.

References
Adey, P. 2009. Mobility. London: Routledge.
Anderson, J. 2004. “The Ties That Bind? Self-and Place-Identity in Environmental Direct Action.”
Ethics, Place and Environment 7 (1–2): 45–58.
Anderson, J. 2009. “Transient Convergence and Relational Sensibility: Beyond the Modern
Constitution of Nature.” Emotion, Space, & Society 2: 120–127.
Anderson, J. 2010. Understanding Cultural Geography: Places and Traces. London: Routledge.
Anderson, J. 2012. “Relational Places: The Surfed Wave as Assemblage and Convergence.” Environ-
ment & Planning D: Society & Space 30: 570–587.
Bauman, Z. 1996. “From Pilgrim to Tourist – or a Short History of Identity.” In Questions of
Cultural Identity, edited by S. Hall and P. du Gay, 18–37. London: Sage.
Bauman, Z. 2001. “On Mass, Individuals, and Peg Communities.” In The Consumption of Mass, edi-
ted by N. Lee and R. Munro, 102–13. Oxford: Blackwell.
Beck, U., and E. Beck-Gernsheim. 2002. Individualization. London: Sage.
Bissell, D., and G. Fuller. 2011. “Stillness Unbound.” In Stillness in a Mobile World, edited by D. Bis-
sell and G. Fuller, 1–17. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Tropophilia 15

Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Boyle, N. 1992. Goethe: The Poet and the Age. Oxford: Clarendon.
Braidiotti, R. 1994. Nomadic Subjects. Embodiment and Sexual difference in Contemporary Feminist
Theory. Cambridge: Columbia University Press.
Callon, M. 1986. “Some Elements in a Sociology of Translation.” In Power, Action, Belief, edited by J.
Law, 19–34. London: Routledge.
Casey, E. 2001. “Between Geography and Philosophy. What Does it Mean to be in the Place-World?”
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91 (4): 683–693.
Cloke, P., P. Crang, and M. Goodwin, eds. 2005. Introducing Human Geographies. London: Hodder
Arnold.
Cohen, E. 2004. Contemporary Tourism: Diversity and Change. Oxford: Elsevier.
Cohen, S. 2010. “Chasing a Myth? Searching for ‘Self’ Through Lifestyle Travel” Tourist Studies 10
(2): 117–133.
Cohen, S. 2011. “Lifestyle Travellers: Backpacking as a Way of Life.” Annals of Tourism Research 38
(4): 1535–1555.
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 00:24 26 February 2013

Coleman, S., and M. Crang. 2002. “Grounded Tourists, Travelling Theory.” In S. Coleman, and
M. Crang, M. eds., Tourism: Between Place and Performance. 1–17. New York, NY: Berghahn
Books.
Cresswell, T. 2001. The Tramp in America. London: Reaktion.
Cresswell, T. 2004. Place. A Short Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cresswell, T. 2010. “Mobilities I: Catching Up.” Progress in Human Geography 35: 550–558.
Cresswell, T. 2010. “Towards a Politics of Mobility.” Environment & Planning D, Society & Space 28:
17–31.
Cresswell, T. 2011. “Mobilities II: Still.” Progress in Human Geography. Accessed January, 2012
http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/09/22/0309132511423349.full.pdf 1–9.
D'Andrea, A. 2006. “Neo-Nomadism: A Theory of Post-Identitarian Mobility in the Global Age.”
Mobilities 1 (1): 95–119.
Desforges, L. 2000. “Travelling the World, Identity and Travel Biography.” Annals of Tourism Research
27 (4): 926–945.
Doel, M. 1999. Poststructuralist Geographies: The Diabolical Art of Spatial Science. Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Duffy, R. 2004. “Ecotourists on the Beach.” In Tourism Mobilities: Places to Play, Places in Play, edi-
ted by M. Sheller and J. Urry, 32–43. London: Routledge.
Edensor, T. 2000. “Staging Tourism: Tourists as Performers.” Annals of Tourism Research 27 (2):
322–344.
Featherstone, M. 1995. Undoing Culture. London: Sage.
Germann Molz, J. 2010. “Performing Global Geographies: Time, Space, Place and Pace in Narratives
of Round-the-World Travel.” Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space,
Place and Environment. 12 (3): 329–348.
Giuliani, V., and R. Feldman. 1993. “Review Essay: Place Attachment in a Developmental and Cultural
Context.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 13: 267–274.
Grant, R. 2003. Ghost Riders. Travels with American Nomads. London: Abacus.
Gustafson, P. 2001. “Place Attachment and Mobility.” In Multiple Dwelling and Tourism: Negotiating
Place, Home and Identity, edited by N. McIntyre, D. Williams, and K. McHugh, 17–31. Oxford-
shire: CABI.
Haldrup, M. 2004. “Laid-back Mobilities: Second-Home Holidays in Time and Space.” Tourism Geog-
raphies 6 (4): 434–454.
Hannam, K., M. Sheller, and J. Urry. 2006. “Editorial: Mobilities, Immobilities and Moorings.” Mobilities
1 (1): 1–22.
Holloway, L., and P. Hubbard. 2001. People and Place: The Extraordinary Geographies of Everyday
Life. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Ingold, T. 2005. Up, Across and Along. Accessed July, 2009. http://www.spacesyntax.tudelft.nl/media/
Long%20papers%20I/tim%20ingold.pdf, 45–54.
Jameson, F. 1991. Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. London: Verso.
Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Law, J., and J. Hassard, eds. 1999. Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell.
 16 J. Anderson & K. Erskine

Malkki, L. 1992. “National Geographic: The Rooting of Poples and the Territorialisation of National
Identity among Scholars and Refugees.” Cultural Anthropology 7 (1): 24–44.
Manzo, L. 2003. “Beyond House and Haven: Toward a Revisioning of Emotional Relationships With
Places.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 47–61.
Massey, D. 1993. Space, Place & Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Massey, D. 2006. “Landscape as a Provocation. Reflections on Moving Mountains.” Journal of
Material Culture 11 (1–2): 33–48.
Moore, D. 1997. “Remapping Resistance. Ground for Struggle and the Politics of Place.” In Geogra-
phies of Resistance, edited by S. Pile and M. Keith, 87–106. London: Routledge.
Murdoch, J. 2006. Post-Structuralist Geography: A Guide to Relational Space. London: Sage.
O’Reilly, C. 2005. “Tourist or Traveller? Narrating Backpacker Identity." In Discourse Communication
and Tourism, edited by A. Jaworski and A. Pritchard, 150–70. Clevedon: Channel View.
O’Reilly, C. 2006. “From Drifter to Gap Year Tourist. Mainstreaming Backpacker Travel.” Annals of
Tourism Research 33 (4): 998–1017.
Relph, E. 1976. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 00:24 26 February 2013

Rojek, Chris. 1993. Ways of Escape: Modern Transformations in Leisure and Travel. London: Macmillan.
Sack, R. D. 2004. “Place-Making and Time.” In Reanimating places. Re-Materialising Cultural Geog-
raphy Series, edited by T. Mels, 243–53. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Seamon, D., and R. Mugerauer, eds. 1985. Dwelling, Place and Environment: Toward a Phenomenol-
ogy of Person and World. Malabar, Florida: Kluwer.
Said, E. 1993. Culture & Imperialism. London: Vintage.
Sheller, M., and J. Urry. 2004. “Places to Play, Places in Play.” In Tourism Mobilities: Places to Play,
Places in Play, edited by M. Sheller and J. Urry, 1–10. London: Routledge.
Sheller, M., and J. Urry. 2006. “The New Mobilities Paradigm.” Environment and Planning A 38:
207–226.
Soja, E. 2010. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London:
Verso.
Solnit, R. 2010. Infinite City. A San Francisco Atlas. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Tuan, Y.-F. 1974. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values. London:
Prentice Hall.
Tuan, Y.-F. 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Tuan, Y.-F. 2004. “Sense of Place. Its Relationship to Self and Time.” In Reanimating places. Re-
Materialising Cultural Geography Series, edited by T. Mels, 45–56. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Twigger-Ross, C., and D. Uzzell. 1996. “Place & Identity Processes.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 16: 205–220.
Wilson, J. 2009. “Tourism Geographies: Space, Place and Lifestyle Mobilities.” Tourism Geographies
11 (1): 124–126.
Zuev, D. 2011. “CouchSurfing as a Spatial Practice: Accessing and Producing Xenotopos.” Hospitality
& Society 1 (3): 227–244.