502.full

7/30/2019 502.full

1/20

http://phg.sagepub.com/Progress in Human Geography

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/35/4/502The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0309132510385740

2011 35: 502 originally published online 5 November 2010Prog Hum GeogrJon Shaw and James D. SidawayMaking links: On (re)engaging with transport and transport geography

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Progress in Human GeographyAdditional services and information for

http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/35/4/502.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 5, 2010OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jul 19, 2011Version of Record>>

at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 4, 2012phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/content/35/4/502http://phg.sagepub.com/content/35/4/502http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://phg.sagepub.com/content/35/4/502.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/11/04/0309132510385740.full.pdfhttp://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/11/04/0309132510385740.full.pdfhttp://phg.sagepub.com/content/35/4/502.full.pdfhttp://phg.sagepub.com/content/35/4/502.full.pdfhttp://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/11/04/0309132510385740.full.pdfhttp://phg.sagepub.com/content/35/4/502.full.pdfhttp://phg.sagepub.com/content/35/4/502.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/content/35/4/502http://phg.sagepub.com/

7/30/2019 502.full

2/20

Article

Making links: On (re)engagingwith transport and transportgeography

Jon Shaw

University of Plymouth, UK

James D. Sidaway

University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

AbstractRecent reviews have suggested a vibrancy and diversity in transport geography. But these articles were thefirst progress reports on transport geography since 1988, indicating how the field has been relatively marginalto broader disciplinary debates. Meanwhile, a lively literature on mobilities has developed. In these contextsand as a supplement to the recent progress reports, a review of otherwise largely distinct fields reminds ushow transport as a critical component of inquiry in geography is frequently taken for granted. We invite are-engagement with transport and transport geography that opens fresh tracks for human geography.

Keywords

mobility, movement, transport, transport geography, travel

I Introduction: Transport mattersOne of my students told me that on Second Life, that

virtual world online, no one bothers to use the roads.

Nothing comes between the cyber-citizens and their

real state; everyone simply teleports to their destina-

tions. And part of me thought: what sort of life is

that? (Moran, 2009: 259)

Fordism and post-fordism; shifting geographical

divisions of labour; tourism; development; geo-

politics; climate change; embodiment; sustain-

ability; landscape. Such topics are at the heart

of what has constituted research endeavour in

human geography and related disciplines. They

have been objects of theorization and the focus

of sustained empirical inquiry. And all, in one

way or another, have at their heart an associa-

tion with, or arguably a reliance on, movement

of commodities, artifacts and people trans-

port, in common parlance. Our mention of

the significance of movement seems hardly

surprising in the context of the recent mobili-

ties turn. Thus Sheller and Urry (2006) have

made the call for a new mobilities paradigm

in response to what they view as the shortcom-

ings of static social science:

Issues of movement, of too little movement or too

much, or of the wrong sort or at the wrong time, are

central to many lives and many organisations. From

SARS to train crashes, from airport expansion con-

troversies to SMS (short message service) texting

on the move, from congestion charging to global

terrorism, from obesity caused by fast food to oil

Corresponding author:

Jon Shaw, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental

Sciences, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus,

Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK

Email: [email protected]

Progress in Human Geography35(4) 502520

The Author(s) 2010Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

10.1177/0309132510385740phg.sagepub.com

http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/

7/30/2019 502.full

3/20

wars in the Middle East, issues of mobility are

centre stage. And partly as an effect a mobility

turn is spreading into and transforming the social

sciences, transcending the dichotomy between trans-

port research and social research, putting social rela-

tions into travel and connecting different forms oftransport with complex patterns of social experience

conducted through communications at-a-distance.

(Sheller and Urry, 2006: 209)

And within geography (and around its margins),

a growing number of authors have emphasized

strongly and innovatively the significance of

movement and what Kesselring (2006: 269)

calls constellations of mobility and immobility,

movement and motility (see Adey, 2010a;

Bissell, 2009; Crang, 2002; Cresswell, 2006,2010; Dodge and Kitchen, 2004; Massey,2005; Middleton, 2009; Watts, 2008). Yet, in

reflecting on the recent rediscovery of move-

ment, we arrive straight away at the question:

what oftransport geography in all of this?

As one of us has argued elsewhere, there is atendency for the stress on mobility as a consti-

tutive framework for modern society to side-

step much work under the sign of transport

per se. Yet, [r]ather than opposing extremes,

transport geography and mobilities [litera-

tures] contain various approaches that might

be thought of as distributed along a continuum

(Shaw and Hesse, 2010: 307). To extend that

analogy, here we will reconsider the transport

side of this continuum arguing for broaden-

ing and linking it more substantively with key

agendas in human geography.

One measure of the recent trajectory of

Anglophone transport geography is its absence

from the progress report section of Progress inHuman Geography for fully 19 years; Peter

Rimmers (1988) contribution was the last until

the appearance of David Keelings (2007) New

directions on well-worn trails.1 Preston and

OConnor (2008: 227) suggest in their conclud-

ing chapter to Transport Geographies: Mobili-

ties, Flows and Spaces (Knowles et al., 2008)

that beyond its immediate circles the profile of

transport geography receded somewhat after aheyday in the 1960s and 1970s. Hanson (2003:

469) goes further, arguing that it became a

quiet, some might say moribund, corner of our

discipline, bringing to mind Brian Berrys

(1969) reflections on political geography that

had temporarily lost its disciplinary centrality

largely because it remained within what was

increasingly seen as an outmoded descriptive

framework. Ironically in the context of Berrys

quote, transport geography has suffered the

same fate due to an association with spatial sci-

ence and positivism, and of course it is now these

that many have come to see as insufficient as

groundings for human geography.

Goetz (2006) takes issue with Hansons cri-tique, especially in relation to alleged quietude.

Indeed, such was the volume of work undertaken

between progress reports Goetz et al. (2009)

found that transport-related articles constituted

4.5% of papers in the top 12 geography journals

between 1996 and 2006 that Keeling (2007,

2008, 2009) divided his reviews among three

separate progress papers. Transport geography

also has a significant presence at the flagship

conferences of both the Association of AmericanGeographers (AAG) and the Royal Geographi-cal Society (with the Institute of British Geogra-

phers) (RGS-IBG). But while Keeling (2007:

217) affirms that recent progress in transporta-

tion geography research has been impressive

and that significant advances have been madein key areas we highlight the more pluralistic

quality of work emerging from the Journal of

Transport Geography and elsewhere (e.g.

Farrington, 2007; Hall, 2004; Hall et al., 2006;

Jain and Lyons, 2008; Kwan, 2007; Lyons,

2009; MacKinnon et al., 2008; Pooley et al.,

2005; Schwanen et al., 2008, 2009; Sultana,2005) at the same time he lays bare the limited

interaction between transport geography and

other aspects of the discipline:

geographers often tend to engage with transporta-

tion (when it is engaged with at all) as if it were

Shaw and Sidaway 503


7/30/2019 502.full

4/20

merely a backdrop to, or a consequence of, the local

or global geographic frameworks they seek to

explore . . . Even authorities on transport geography

frequently take an a priori approach to the relation-

ship between transportation and socio-economic

change. (Keeling, 2007: 219)

Goetz (2006) concedes that transport geogra-

phers have become somewhat detached, arguing

that while intradisciplinary interaction across

geography has decreased often a function of

the need to work with colleagues in cognate

areas this has especially been the case between

transport and other geographers.

Against this background, then, is it an over-

statement to suggest that much transport geogra-

phy has taken place in a disciplinary backwater,only marginally associated with key social,

political and cultural imperatives that shape and

are shaped by systems of transport and travel?

Has this in turn led to considerations of transport

being underplayed more generally in human

geography, at least in analytical terms? Calls fortransport geographers to reconnect with broader

disciplinary concerns and mobility scholars are

not new and have appeared, for example, in the

Journal of Transport Geography (Hall, 2010;Horner and Casas, 2006), at numerous confer-ence sessions (including AAG and RGS-IBG

meetings) and at various points in the chapters

of Transport Geographies.2 While there are

exceptions (see, for example, Hall et al., 2006),

these interventions have in the main been

encouraged or made by transport geographers,

or intended for transport geography audiences.

To an extent, this is understandable: transport

geographers perceiving themselves or their spe-

cialism as marginalized might feel obliged to

promote internal debate about the need to reor-

ientate the focus of some transport geography

research if its outputs are to speak to a broader

audience.

Yet, in challenging Hansons assertions with

a quantitative analysis of journal content over

the last 10 years, Goetz et al. (2009) overlook

a more qualitative sense of the place of transport

geography within the wider geographiccommunity. Goetz et al. (2009) are right to point

to the considerable amount of transport-related

material in the top 12 geography journals in the

10 years since 1996, and a broader review in this

case of work relating to the topics highlighted at

the beginning of the paper unearths a sizeable

body of work that scrutinizes phenomena depen-

dent upon transport functionalities and opera-

tions. But what strikes us is that much of this

work is not really regarded either by its authors

or the bulk of its audience as transport geography;

many of these books and papers are instead pre-

sented and consumed first and foremost as polit-

ical geography, or development geography, or

social geography, that contain a transport or travelaspect but generally as a means of making a wider

(sometimes theoretical) point. Perhaps both Han-

son and Goetz are correct: there is a lot of

transport-related work in geography journals, yet

transport geography as subdiscipline remains out-

side the key disciplinary agendas.

In light of this debate and of Keelings recent

review articles in this journal, we reflect here on

the place, perception, reception and prospects

of transport and transport geography in humangeography. It is not our intention to conduct adetailed analysis of the changing fortunes of

transport geography over time, not least because,

as we have indicated, there is a literature already

addressing this topic. Instead we consider

broader themes. First, we illustrate that any mar-ginalization of transport geography was not a

result of transport itself having in some way dis-appeared from the objects of geographers inqui-

ries; in other words, there is certainly a lot of

transport in geography even if it has not often

been identified as an explicit object of study.

We outline three contrasting and, we hope,

thought-provoking examples of work on tour-

ism and pilgrimage, on geopolitics and on ports

that are very much based on movement. We

have cast our net widely, over human geography

but also beyond its formal boundaries allied to

how Gregory (1993) steps from a discipline to

504 Progress in Human Geography 35(4)


7/30/2019 502.full

5/20

a discourse of geography to include otherwork that connects space, place and transport.

Our examples are superficially unrelated, at leastas lines of scholarly inquiry, but do have in com-

mon that transport tends to feature as a given: for

various reasons transport connections have usu-

ally been made subconsciously, or have been

taken for granted without much in the way of

critical thought devoted to the functions and

mechanics of movement systems. Second, we

argue that human geography would benefit from

a more explicit consideration of transport in at

least some elements of its research endeavours.

This is not done to privilege transport geography

as a subdiscipline, but because mobility and

accessibility matter in the wider enterprise ofhuman geography they can shift the kinds of

questions asked and, in turn, the insights gained.

Similar points have been made in relation to

the mobilities turn. In the preamble to a nascent

politics of mobility, Cresswell (2010: 18) notes

that although social scientists had studied at

length topics to which transport and travel were

central, their approaches [were] rarely actually

about mobility but rather took human movement

as a given an empty space that needed to beexpunged or limited (see also Kellerman,

2009). He demonstrates this with the example

of migration theory: movement was seen to

occur because of the particular relationship

between the push and pull factors associated

with different places, and in this sense migrationtheory was about places rather than movement.

In relation to such questions and insights, heargues the new mobilities approach:

brings together a diverse array of forms of

movement across scales ranging from the body

(or, indeed parts of the body) to the globe. These

substantive areas of research would have been for-

merly held apart by disciplinary or subdisciplinary

boundaries that mitigated [sic] against a more holis-

tic understanding. (Cresswell, 2010: 18)

In parallel terms, broadened and repositioned

interpretations of transport in geography and

by extension transport geography itself areuseful, suggestive and productive.

II Three tracks

1 Tourism and pilgrimageTransport and travel partly define tourism.

While not the only form of mass human move-

ment (commuters and refugees constituting oth-

ers, for example) tourism has burgeoned during

the 20th and 21st centuries. In ways that echo the

case of transport geography, geographies of

tourism occupy what a recent progress report

in this journal has called a liminal position in

the discipline: no one disputes its inclusion in

geographical research, but many view tourismas little more than minor specialism or pursuit

of the frivolous or fun (Gibson, 2008: 418). Yet

it is at the heart of deep transformations in many

places. The scripting of great swathes of the

planet and numerous localities which become

resorts or destinations is mediated through the

specialist form of mass travel that is tourism.

This is something more than what Turner

(1975) labelled the pleasure periphery, or the

complex relations between hosts and guests(Smith, 1989), or the complex of transforma-

tions associated with what MacCannell (1989)

called a new leisure class or even the way of

seeing and encountering places associated

with a putative tourist gaze (Urry, 1990).

When we write Maldives, Thailand, Bondi,Florence, Las Vegas, Acapulco, Ibiza or

Mykonos, distinctive geographical imagina-tions are invoked that overwrite and rework

other histories and geographies of such places.

These are artifacts of tourism. Popular western

geographical imaginations are unintelligible

without an appreciation of how they are partlyconstituted through tourism.3 Moreover, tourism

transforms places.China is a case in point. In the very early

1980s, China started for the first time since

1949 to allow individual foreign travellers

access to certain cities and areas. The way in,



7/30/2019 502.full

6/20

at first, was via Hong Kong, where visas for suchtravel were issued. This coincided with the entry

of overseas capital into the newly designatedSpecial Economic Zones. In China, tourism her-

alded and reinforced a broader and ultimately

globally significant sociospatial transforma-

tion (Cartier, 2001). Likewise, in Spain in the

1950s, the abolition of the requirement that all

foreigners acquire a visa before entry heralded

a wider opening of the Spanish economy and

embeddedness in a transforming European and

Atlantic economy that signified the (fascist)

Franco regime embarking on a new economic

trajectory. Vast fortunes were made, but the

emergence of new social elites and new social

attitudes also began to undermine the deeplyauthoritarian order that Franco and his generals

had established through terror in the 1930s and

1940s (Hooper, 2006). The lesson from these

two examples (and more could be mustered,

from the beaches of Cuba or the clubs of Goa, for

example) is that tourism is frequently at the heart

of much deeper social changes. In the way it is

about bodies, money, land, consumption and

culture, it has an ability to crystallize and accel-

erate wider trends.The logistics of moving large numbers of

people over large distances upon which mass

tourism depends have greatly swelled air travel

and airports. These have grown with business

travel (indeed, as academics we can vouch for

how tourism and business travel sometimesintersect, enabled by air miles or stays beyond

the conference or meeting to savour the destina-tions), migrants and others on the move. The

experiences, and cultural, social, political and

economic geographies of airports and flights

have yielded a growing literature, within and

beyond geography (Adey, 2008; Adey et al.,2007; Budd and Graham, 2009; Dodge and

Kitchin, 2004; Salter, 2008). These spaces and

movements, their interfaces of code, security,

regulations and money, make them exemplary

sites of the wider shifts that characterize moder-

nity. It is there, for example, that the geopolitical

fallout of 9/11 is experienced by millions (albeit

for most, their confinement is relatively short and

civil although see Graham, 2008 in compar-

ison with those who have undergone special ren-

dition or been denied the freedom of circulation

in the name of security and the war on terror).

Of course other culturally sanctioned reasons

for leaving home to travel (as Smith, 1989,

terms tourism) exist that are allied but not redu-

cible to tourism. We refer here to pilgrimage.

Sites such as Rome, Lourdes, Fatima, Santiago

de Compostela, Medjugorje, Bodgaya, Jerusa-

lem, Amritsar, Varanasi and Mecca receive mil-

lions of pilgrims each year. As David Gladstone

(2005) notes, in terms of sheer numbers pilgrim-

age is the most important form of tourism inlarge swathes of the world. Although work on

the geography of religion has not often fore-

grounded movement, the Hajj in particular is

the focus of a substantial historical and anthro-

pological literature (Hammoudi, 2006; Werbner,

2003) as well as extensive exegesis regarding its

meaning within Islam (see, for example, Ali

Shariatis classic The Hajj, which was first trans-

lated from the original Persian to English in

1977). As Miriam Cooke and Bruce Lawrence(2005) note, this is a movement that matters tomillions and is invoked again five times a day

by all who pray facing Mecca. Therefore:

Daily and annually across time and space, the his-

tory of Islam flows from Mecca and back to Mecca.

It flows through myriad networks. They connect

individuals and institutions at once affirming and

transforming them. (Cooke and Lawrence, 2005: i)

In turn the Saudi Kingdom derives much of itsclaim to legitimacy from serving as the guardian

of the holy places and providing the transport

infrastructure and associated security thatenables the mass movement of pilgrimage (as

Roberts 1981 and Holden and Johns 1982 his-tories of the Saud family make clear).

It is evident even from this brief survey of

material on tourism and pilgrimage that trans-

port is simultaneously central to and neglected



7/30/2019 502.full

7/20

within their geographies. Transport geographersinterested in tourism have sought to address this

gap (see Dickinson, 2010; Hall, 2010; Robbinsand Thompson, 2007) but more broadly neither

collections on the geography of tourism (such

as Shaw and Williams, 2002) nor those on the

geography of religion (such as Holloway and

Valins, 2002) pay all that much attention to

transport. Indeed, while other issues such as

politics, consumption and culture are evident

in these fields, one of the key preconditions for

tourism and for so much religious activity

namely the tangible linking together of sites,

people and communities through transport

seems considerably underplayed. In this context

we now turn to discuss the interface betweengeopolitics and transport.

2 Geopolitics

While it is fairly obvious that tourism is inher-

ently connected with transport, it might at first

glance seem less plausible that transport andtravel concerns are at the heart of geopolitical

thinking and practice. But consider the Israelicase (whose technologies and surveillance prac-

tices have been disseminated more widely since9/11 through the war on terror). Weizman (2007)describes how:

Israels conception of security has always included

a complex territorial, institutional and architec-

tural apparatus, conceived in order to manage the

circulation of Palestinians through Israeli space.

The Israeli writer-activist Tal Arbel has called

this Israels mobility regimes. (Weizman, 2007:

142, 146)

Roads, barriers and checkpoints fragment and

regulate movement for some (the Palestinian

population) and enable it for others (settlers andthe Israeli security forces). Of course, in the most

fundamental material senses, transport infrastruc-ture (in the form of connecting national space and

enabling an idea of the national economy/

society) is at the heart of modern national-state

projects as territorial entities. Writing, for

example, about Turkey (in which a modernnation state had to be constructed out of the

debris of the Ottoman Empire from the 1920s

onwards), Kezer (2009) notes how the emerging

republic orchestrated events that would celebrate

the new national infrastructure:

On these occasions, roads, railroads, streets, and

ultimately, bodies became the sites of a nationwide

pageantry in which repeating patterns of movement,

synchronized rhythms, and shared silences were to

confer a sense of unity upon the landscape and its

inhabitants. (Kezer, 2009: 523)

It is thus no surprise that (in proposing an

alternative supranational project of an integrated

European space) the European Commissionadvances a vision and project of a connected

European space. This is promoted through the

funding of trans-European networks, chief

among these strategic road and rail infrastructure

that has a pan-European impact (Charlton and

Vowles, 2008; Jensen and Richardson, 2004).

More generally, an examination of geopoli-

tics through the 20th century reveals the central-

ity of revolutions in mobility and access to its

evolution indeed, these reformulated themeaning of territory. In his study of the making

of a modern sensibility of space and time, Kerns

(2003) sees the emergence of geopolitics as

intertwined with new technologies of communi-

cation (notably the telegraph and then wireless)

and transport (notably railroads, steamships and

later aircraft on which see Butler, 2001). And

writing on geopolitics has exploded in the lastfew decades. Alongside the development of crit-

ical geopolitics, examining the ways that places

and spaces are narrated as strategic, there has

been the excavation of a wide range of 20th-

century geopolitical traditions. Thus Mackin-ders (1904) paper The geographical pivot of

history, widely seen as inaugurating the geopo-

litical tradition, has the development of railway

infrastructure as the key to what he saw as the

renaissance of the Heartland. Indeed it is the

attendant sense ofglobal connection that enables



7/30/2019 502.full

8/20

the birth of geopolitics as a fin de siecle imperialdiscourse whereby the world is increasingly

envisaged as a single strategic arena of collidinggreat powers and empires enabled by new tech-

nologies (Kearns, 2009). At the same time,

Mahans (1890) late 19th-century emphasis on

the lessons of sea power for a rising USA

focused on the significance of maritime mobi-

lity at a moment when coal and iron were repla-

cing wood and sail and the steamship had

revolutionized commerce and navies. Later,

the even more sudden revolution in airpower

(see Brobst, 2004) and subsequent accelera-

tions in military technologys ability to over-

come distance culminated in a series of

debates about speed and war in the wake ofthe first Gulf War (Der Derian, 1992) and the

so called revolution in military affairs

which means that the great powers chief

among them the USA can strike anywhere

on the planet (Ek, 2000; Graham, 2006a,

2006b). Satellite technologies (see MacDo-

nald, 2007) and wider military geographies

(Woodward, 2004) are allied to the multiple

materialities underpinning transport geogra-

phies, from GPS to freeways and weatherforecasts.

More specific pathways through the complex

and close interface between geopolitics and

transport can be found within geographical writ-

ing, including such themes as the impact of first

apartheid and then South Africas transition oninternational transport links and routes (Gaile,

1988; Gibb, 1991; Pirie, 2006) and more widelywork on such strategic ventures as the Panama

Canal, whereby as Parker (2007) notes:

The successful opening of the canal in August 1914,

at almost precisely the moment when Old Europe

was embarking on a ruinous war, was the climax

of the United States spectacular rise to world

power. The Isthmus was the key to the struggle for

mastery of the Western Hemisphere as well as to

wider international commercial and naval strength.

With the successful completion of the Washington-

funded and dominated canal, the United States

emerged as a truly global power and the American

Century could begin. (Parker, 2007: xiv)

Subsequently Suez would run through Middle

Eastern and European (especially British) geo-

politics, whereby the debacle of 1956 Anglo-French-Israeli military intervention known as

the Suez Crisis, aiming to secure the canal for

these powers, ended up producing its closure

that would make new routes around the Cape

of Good Hope increasingly strategic. The Straits

of Malacca and Hormuz offer similar challenges

to todays rising and falling powers.

3 Ports

Ports are more obviously an existing theme oftransport geography where contributions have

long been evident. Yet, since they are so evi-

dently at the heart of world trade, and with that

an array of economic, social and political geo-

graphies, they matter beyond being entities in

and of themselves. In other words, their role and

geographical distribution underpin and are

essential moments within the changing global

geography of development and urbanization.

While airports have more often been the subject

of recent innovation in geographical scholarship

on, for example, global cities (see the sample of

papers at http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc), we

would argue that seaports and their forward and

backward linkages are equally central to both the

historical and contemporary interconnections

and dynamics of world cities. Thus, in calling for

a wider comparative analysis of port cities, and

their relationships with hinterlands, Tan (2007)

notes that:

Port cities do not only function as entry or exit

points for the movement of goods, labour and capi-

tal; they also serve as nodal centres for the reception

and transmission of culture, knowledge and infor-

mation . . . their essential functions generating the

conditions and space for cultural mixing and hybri-

disation. (Tan, 2007: 853)

The strategic passages mentioned in the preced-

ing section are all also associated with ports;



7/30/2019 502.full

9/20

places such as Said, Suez, Colon, Kish,

Malacca, Singapore and Dubai. And, while

port development has long been a staple of

transport geography and its interface with

broader geographical concerns (see, for exam-ple, Bird, 1982; Hoyle, 1994; Pinder and Slack,

2004), the sheer scale of new port activity in

recent years is remarkable. For example, the

latest embodiment of the transformations in

China has produced an extraordinary concen-

tration of new port facilities (Lee et al., 2008;

Olivier and Slack, 2006). The extent of this can

be visualized in a cartogram of global port

capacity (Figure 1), which contrasts starkly

with one indicating countries where shipping

is registered (Figure 2), in which the flags of

convenience states of Liberia and Panama

loom large. While the canal there also gener-

ates government revenues in Panama, forLiberia as much as two-thirds of all govern-

ment revenue comes from licensing such ships

(Alderton and Winchester, 2002; Mansell, 2009).

Similar expansions in port capacity are also

taking place now in the states of the Persian

Gulf, as they did in earlier decades in Kaoh-

siung, Busan and Singapore. This earlier phase

evolved in tandem with new technologies of

terminals (in lieu of the earlier docks) and

containerization. Indeed, the advent of shippingcontainers became vital to a wider (to use Peter

Dickens term) global shift. Levinsons (2006)

study of The Box: How the Shipping Container

Made the World Smaller and the World Econ-

omy Biggerdetails how the first use of contain-

ers (adapted from trucks) at Newark, New

Jersey, in 1956 quickly spread to become a

global transport revolution. Of course, the new

economic geographies enabled by this have mul-

tiple underpinnings in waves of tariff and trade

regulations and in other technological, social

and political shifts. But viewing the rather mun-dane technology of shipping containers as an

agent (we might think of it as an actant in thelanguage of actor-network theory) and a means

of production reveals it to be at the heart of

momentous shifts. Since he captures a sense ofthese in his opening lines, it is worth quoting

from Levinsons (2006) account at length:

Figure 1. Cartogram of container port capacity worldwideSource: http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected38. Copyright SASI Group (University of Sheffield) and MarkNewman (University of Michigan).



7/30/2019 502.full

10/20

Before the container, transporting goods was expen-

sive so expensive that it did not pay to ship many

things halfway across the country, much less half-

way across the world . . . The container made ship-

ping cheap and by doing so changed the shape of the

world economy. The armies of ill-paid, ill-treated

workers who once made their livings unloading

ships in every port are no more, their tight-knit

waterfront communities now just memories. Cities

that had been centres of maritime commerce for

centuries, saw their waterfronts decline with star-

tling speed, unsuited to the container trade . . . Even

as it helped destroy the old economy, the container

helped build a new one. Sleepy harbors such as

Busan and Seattle moved into the front ranks of the

worlds ports, and massive new ports were built in

places like Felixstowe, in England and Tanjung

Pelepas, in Malaysia, where none had been before

. . . Sprawling industrial complexes where armies

of thousands manufactured products from start to

finish gave way to smaller, more specialized plants

that shipped components and half-finished goods to

one another in ever lengthening supply chains . . .

This new economic geography allowed firms whose

ambitions had been purely domestic to become

international companies, exploiting their products

almost as effortlessly as selling them nearby.

(Levinson, 2006: 13)

Levinson describes the limited crews that workaboard the ships and the speed and scale

at which most ports shift containers to trucksor trains and vice versa. Attention to these

merchant marine lives forms the subject of

Borovniks (2005) account of the globallymobile social geographies of sailors from Kiribati

(the Gilbert Islands) who form a mobile commu-nity, spending more time aboard ships than at

home. And Steinberg (2009) draws attention

to the extent to which geography (at least human

geography) is an earthbound subject, frequently

neglecting the 71% of the planet that is oceanic.While many of the issues that he raises, such as

fisheries and exclusive economic zones, are about

other geographies, a case can be made that manyof the issues of political (maritime choke points

and piracy, for example), social and economic

geography that he paints have transport at their

heart. For Steinberg (2009):

It may be fitting that a favourite modelling device of

the new economic geographers is the iceberg func-

tion [in which transport costs melt away with dis-

tance as the goods moved approach their far away

Figure 2. Cartogram of registration of merchant shipping worldwideSource: http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected40. Copyright SASI Group (University of Sheffield) and MarkNewman (University of Michigan).



7/30/2019 502.full

11/20

markets], a distance coefficient that metaphorically

refers to the temporality, nature, and spatial texturing

of the marine environment, within which so much

economic activity takes place. (Steinberg, 2009: 5)

Such new economic geography, associatedwith Paul Krugman, has the friction of distanceat its core and transport costs as an explicit com-

ponent of analysis. Our interpretation is broader,

however, taking cognisance of the ways that

transport infrastructure both enables and

expresses the circulation of capital. Harvey(1982) famously argues that all geography is

necessarily historical; or rather that historical

geographical materialism is a framework for

approaching diverse trends and transformations.The urbanization of capital becomes central to

the relations between fixity and motion, which:

leads us to a conception of a built environment

which functions as a vast, humanly created resource

system, comprising use values embedded in the

physical landscape, which can be utilized for pro-

duction, exchange and consumption. From the

standpoint of production, these use values can be

considered as both general preconditions for and

direct forces of production. We have to deal then,

with improvements sunk in the soil, aqueducts,buildings; and machinery itself in great part, since

it must be physically fixed, to act; railways; in short,

every form in which the product of industry is

welded fast to the surface of the earth (Grundrisse,

pp. 73940). (Harvey, 1982: 233)

In turn, as such fixed capital is periodically deva-

lorized through new global geographies of pro-

duction, so sites of transport and associated

infrastructures have so often become the

domains of new geographies of accumulation.

Consider the frequency with which gentrifica-

tion in western cities has expanded and become

most manifest in waterfront, port and dockland

locations hitherto primarily dedicated to trans-

port and distribution (Lees et al., 2006). The cen-

trality of transport and its intimate relationship

to other aspects of circulation within all this is

evident but often quickly passed over. When

we also remember that a particular extensive

mode of regulating capital/labour relations andthe broader balance of relationships between

production, finance and consumption and the

state became known (after an automobile com-

pany who pioneered new production techniques

and established a mass product) as Fordism, the

case for sustained critical geographical attention

to transport in the widest sense becomes all

the more compelling.

III Links and prospects: Wheretransport matters

1 Transport and transport geography

We have flagged three tracks and points of con-

nection between transport and broader humangeography, drawing upon work that lies beyond

the customary remit of transport geography.

Other tracks are also possible; we have by no

means exhausted the range here. For instance,

different work on infrastructure and the securing

of sites/places of ports, railways and roads

invites scrutiny and suggests further critical

potential (Easterling, 2007) and there is a wealth

of work within development geography that has

transport and mobility as a focus (for example,Grice and Drakakis-Smith, 1985; Johnston,

2007; Simon, 1996). And, as Gandy (2005) and

Graham and Pitcher (2007) document, in places

such as the petro-dollar fuelled cities of Angola

and Nigeria, the car becomes an extraordinary

object of power and desire, amid more general-

ized urban fractures, extreme inequality and a

measure of chaos. In a related register, feministgeographies have long been concerned with

gender-specific differentials in access and mobi-

lity see Law (1999) and Chapter Four in the

landmark text by Domosh and Seager (2001).

Latterly, too, work on visualization and criticalstrands of GIS have taken up these themes,

sometimes inspired by that feminist work

(Schwanen et al., 2008).

Rather than pursue all these tracks here, how-

ever, we wish to return to our opening questions

about the place, perception, reception and



7/30/2019 502.full

12/20

prospects for transport and transport geographywithin human geography. In practice, of course,

these are two separate things. Rethinking therole of transport within geography suggests a

deeper consideration of movement within stud-

ies of another topic or object; critical reflections

on a given geographical inquiry might prompt

new questions about the potential impact of

changes in previously taken-for-granted (and

probably assumed-to-be-stable) transport condi-

tions. So, in relation to our foregoing discussion

of tourism and pilgrimage, geopolitics and ports:

what would happen to the global tourist industry

in the event of sustained and more widespread

disruption owing to a volcanic ash cloud similar

to that which grounded flights over Europeanand Atlantic airspace in the spring of 2010? In

the language of realist geopolitics, has the

much-vaunted revolution in military affairs

of high-speed aerial techno-warfare found its

nemesis in the improvisedroadside bomb? And

what would be the effect of volatility in transport

costs so that, using new economic geography

parlance, the iceberg effect were inverted and

the relative trade advantage of shipping goods

from China disappeared?Rethinking, on the other hand, the role of

transport geography within geography might

involve other geographers actively engaging

with the fundamental interests and assumptions

of transport geographers (and vice versa). Natu-

rally there is some debate about what these actu-ally are. In essence, transport geography is the

study of spatial aspects of transport (Goetzet al., 2004). Rodrigue et al. (2009) identify as

important the geography of transport networks

themselves and the impact of these networks in

determining wider human geographies, and to

this might be added the concept of travel spaces(Shaw et al., 2008). Seeking to cast the net some-

what wider, Hall (2010: 1) argues that transport

geography should not be confined to spatiality

because holistic understanding is best sought

on the back of geographys role as an integrat-

ing, synthesising facilitator that works best in

interdisciplinary settings when its profile as a

distinctive spatial disciplineper se is restrained.

In addition to different conceptions of scope, of

course, there is increasing epistemological var-

iation, and while much work remains in the spa-

tial/analytical mode quite considerably more

attention has in recent years been paid to critical

and cultural elements of transport and travel

(Schwanen, 2010). The key point for our pur-

poses in all of this is that, despite expanding het-

erogeneity, the unifying feature of most transport

geographers work is the privileging or at least

keen awareness of movement and its signifi-

cance in the broader geographical endeavour.

This focus on transport can be very profitably

connected with the interests of other geogra-phers; to illustrate we draw again on the topics

discussed in the previous section. Work on, for

example, the environmental impact of travel to

ecotourism destinations has shed further light

on the overall impact of ecotourism by extend-

ing the scale of reckoning beyond the local site

of the destination (Hunter and Shaw, 2006).

In terms of geopolitics, similar to the way that

planespotters and the specialist aviation media

enabled the mapping of extraordinary rendition(Sidaway, 2008), empirical data on transportoperations tabulated in transport geography

express geopolitical relations such as fragmenta-

tion of the Middle East or northeast Asia. Butmapping such movements and trade often prefi-

gures or runs counter to official and ideologicaldivides: a case in point was apartheid South

Africa and the frontline states mutual hostility

in the 1970s and 1980s. The way that the endur-

ance of a colonially derived South Africa-

centred transport system served elite interests

across the racial and ideological divides was fre-

quently missed by analysis focused on geopoliti-

cal discourses. Finally, in relation to ports, the

disproportionate social, economic and political

impacts of these facilities on the places that sur-

round them needs excavating. The sociospatial

trajectory of China the mother of all core-

periphery models (Krugman, 2010) and the



7/30/2019 502.full

13/20

historical geography of gentrification in Londonare examples of how these spatially constrained

technological assemblages shape cities andnations in much the same way that financial cen-

tres dynamize (or cast a shadow over) entire

economies.

2 Transport as an entry point

Thinking more broadly, the entry point of

transport can offer valuable insight on broader

conceptual concerns in human geography. Take

scale, for example. Like others, we would argue

that the questions it poses cannot be resolved

theoretically, but demand attention to how scales

are made and acquire meanings in particularcontexts (see MacKinnon, 2010). In arguing for

horizontal networks to replace the hierarchy of

scale in human geography, Marston et al.

(2005: 427) suggest that for studying humans

and objects in their interactions across a multi-

plicity of social sites . . . [i]t seems to us that

horizontality provides more entry points con-

ceived as both open multi-directionally and

unfolding non-linearly. Especially promising

entry points are the connections (and limits tothese for many) that transport constitutes while

on the one hand its infrastructure corresponds

with horizontal networks, the regulation and

governance of those networks remain distinctly

scalar and hierarchical. Or consider the burgeo-

ning literature on the nature of maps and map-ping, developed in response to GIS and the

proliferation of so called neo-geographiesenabled by new satellite, digital and other

code-space technologies (see Kitchin and

Dodge, 2007). The use and depiction of transport

routes are frequently at the heart of and repre-

sent distilled expressions of these issues. Build-ing on geographical scholarship such as that of

Merriman (2007), Morans (2009) study of roads

makes this wider point in considering the tech-

nologies of and depictions within sat-nav and

the more traditional roles and representations

found in city maps and road atlases:

The trunk roads on atlases are drawn so thickly that

if they were to scale they would be hundreds of

yards wide . . . If we viewed Britain from the air

. . . patchwork-quilt field patterns [not shown on

the map, but reflecting other issues of landscape,

ownership and production] are far more conspicu-ous from above than motorways . . . Our reading

of the road depends on the flawed language of the

road map and its real-life accessory, the road sign.

(Moran, 2009: 55)

A third such conceptual concern might be

sustainability (and latterly the governance of

carbon see While et al., 2010). Along with

many other delegates at the Association of

American Geographers meeting in Washington

DC in April 2010, we waited for more than aweek for (scaled and hierarchical) regulators to

determine that it was safe to fly in the aftermath

of the Icelandic volcanic eruption. The episode

illustrated how dependent we have become on

transport networks (and this was only air trans-

port, which accounts for an extremely small pro-portion of overall passenger journeys, although

it is far more significant in terms of high-valuefreight). Or, at least, it highlighted how depen-

dent we thinkwe have become. There is nothingat all new in suggesting that while transport lib-erates us it also enslaves us as the extensive

literature highlighting myriad ways of doing

things without being so reliant on transport

would attest (some prominent recent examples

are Black, 2010; Cahill, 2010; Lyons, 2009;

McKinnon et al., 2010; Schwanen et al., 2009)

but overhearing stranded geographers conver-

sations in Washington you would certainly have

been forgiven for thinking it is not well enough

understood, at least in our discipline. Glenn

Lyons (2004) has spoken about how the policy

response to those transport problems most asso-

ciated with (un)sustainability usually conges-

tion and pollution is often to propose a

transport solution, such as a new road, a more

frequent bus service, or, in the above case, a new

radar system capable of detecting volcanic ash

from 60 miles away. But this is to miss the point



7/30/2019 502.full

14/20

that transport problems are generated by socialactions, and as such aresocialproblems; conges-

tion, pollution and the significant consequencesof disruption to flows into and out of Europe are

byproducts of a means by which society chooses

to trade and interact. Seen from this perspective,

the links between transport, geography and

sustainability are evident and reassert the impor-

tance of improving our understanding of why,

how and where commodities, artifacts and peo-

ple move. It may well be that, in Cresswells

terms, we are ever more on the move, but

unpacking further the interaction between trans-

port and society will help us figure out ways of

moving less, or at least differently (Spinney,

2009, hints at this in a discussion of the linksbetween a mobilities approach to cycling

research, and policy).

Reconsidering transport prompts new ques-

tions, perspectives and points of departure. This

can also enable a more open interpretation of

transport geography one that spreads through

a great deal of geographical work, but in which

what has traditionally been seen as transport

geography is only one part. In all of this we are

not arguing that those working in cultural, polit-ical, economic or urban geography abandon

those fields and terms and become ersatz trans-

port geographers. Nor would we fully concur

with Baudrillard (1988: 5455) in his claim that

if you [d]rive ten thousand miles across Amer-

ica . . . you will know more about the countrythan all the institutes of sociology and political

science put together.4 But we are arguing (1)that there are underexplored possibilities for

transport geographers and scholars working out-side the usual tracks of transport geography to

(re)build linkages, and in so doing (re)engage

transport and the ideas of mobility and accessi-bility with their centrality to human geography

(see Farrington, 2007); and (2) that a greater

analytical awareness of transport and its roles,

means, representation and production becomes

an effective vantage point into other geographies

and opens fresh (or anew) tracks into the

mediation and remaking of space, place,landscape, nature and scale.

From this standpoint the increasing promi-

nence of the mobilities turn is very welcome, but

at the same time poses its own challenges in

terms of the arguments we are presenting. In cri-

tiquing previous work for being too static in its

focus, mobilities adherents are not advocating a

rediscovery of transport in the social sciences in

the way we suggest here. Indeed, mobilities

scholars are often critical of transport studies

(including transport geography) for its over-

whelmingly utilitarian nature that overlooks the

enormous expanse of lived experience (Spin-

ney, 2009: 819) in journeys and movement more

generally:

Transport, more than any other word, has come to

denote how we (reductively) think about movement

and mobility in the West. Because of its dominance

a potential multiplicity of styles of movement has

been dominated by a fixation with one style of

movement transport as accepted and appropriate

. . . [T]ransport geography encompasses a relative

diversity of approaches but has arguably reproduced

an onus on movement as transport due to a tendency

to give primacy to the most readily visible and

articulable aspects of movement. (Spinney, 2009:

819820)

We do not deny that there is much for transport

geographers (and others) to take from this

critique (Shaw and Hesse, 2010), but in advan-

cing a broader conception of mobility, material

transport networks should not be lost sight of;

the existence, derivation, functioning, opera-

tion and implications of transport systems

and the links they provide between people,

places and socio-economic development remain

fundamental.

IV Departures

In the first of his recent progress reports, Keeling

(2007: 219) observed that the challenge for

transportation geographers, it seems, is to define

a set of theories and concepts about the spatial



7/30/2019 502.full

15/20

relationships between people and places that situ-ate accessibility and mobility at the nucleus of

human interaction. Adey (2009) goes further,noting that the discussions in Transport Geogra-

phies: Mobilities, Flows and Spaces (Knowles

et al., 2008) written by a glittering cast of

transport geography academics who contemplate

an array of diverse [material] could have:

drawn upon more nuanced takes on what we even

mean by the concepts of mobility and transport,

as opposed to treating them as a given. There was a

sense that who or what was mobile was taken rather

one-dimensionally, lacking analysis of their social

inflections. (Adey, 2009: 732)

Transport, in other words, is not just aboutmodes and movement but also about politics,

money, people and power, and there is a need for

transport geography to be a more human geogra-

phy. Hanson (2006: 233) wants to make trans-

portation studies once again vibrant and central

to the study of human geography and argues that

both groups of geographers the transportation

aware and the transportation oblivious need to

do more imagining. In this sense we allneed to

treat mobility and transport as more than a given,and in the light of Keelings progress reports it

has been our intention to stimulate reflections

on how, and consider their significance beyond

the confines of transport geography.

Transport is customarily regarded as a

derived demand, an activity which is undertaken

or endured in order ultimately to do something

else more important, engaging or fun. A similar

point might be made about transport in intellec-

tual terms. Obviously transport merits investiga-

tion in its own right, but because it is an

expression of the desire to realize a particularambition in the terms of our examples going

on holiday, getting closer to God, enabling geo-political power, shifting goods it helps to tell us

something about something else. Cresswells

(2010) proposed politics of mobility can beinterpreted as characterizing mobility as a proxy

for social justice: the more we have access to it

and the nicer and more voluntary it is, the betteroff we are. Perhaps in the light of the foregoing

discussion about sustainability, some aspects of

this thesis are open to challenge, but Cresswells

remains a significant intervention. In a transport

rather than mobilities context it reminds us

to raise questions about how and where the

production of political economies relate to sys-

tems of movement, and in turn how this is a key

moment in the wider production of space and

reproduction of these economies.

During those days stranded in Washington

DC, we wandered into the National Museum of

American History. Here, in the whole floor exhi-

bit of America on the Move, Americas history

was narrated through railroad and interstate high-way maps, with other images and artifacts of

transport; gas stations, cars, containers, trains.

In the whole museum, only the section on the

Price of Freedom: America at War was larger

and on that floor, too, strategic means of trans-

port figured prominently. Before the transatlantic

flights returned to their customary frequency of

over a thousand per day, we also decided to hike

along a section of the long-distance path known

as the Appalachian Trail. Of the same path, pro-gressing at a similarly moderate pace, the Amer-ican writer Bill Bryson (1998) noted that he

would walk each day further than the average

American would in an entire year. How did this

and the average expenditure of $14,000 per US

household per year on running a car (Lutz andFernandez, 2010) come to pass? And what are

the consequences? We have been reconsidering

these questions, along with other analytical (and

literal) points of departure when we make it onto

an aircraft, or join others in trains, or are negoti-

ating other transport networks (intensely local

and micro-scale, but at the same time national

and global, and unworkable without that most

fundamental of geographical texts and practices,

the map). We invite you to join us, while thinking

critically about the processes and assemblages

that brought into your proximity the words we

finish writing here.



7/30/2019 502.full

16/20

Notes

1. We exclude from our discussion the place of transport

geography in the disciplinary discourse of other lan-

guages (see, for example, Gather et al., 2008; Nuhn and

Hesse, 2006). Clearly there are other stories to tell in

this regard. We also acknowledge occasional and sig-

nificant engagements from other perspectives, such as

feminist readings of transport geography (Law, 1999).

2. And, indeed, in a previous context see, for example,

Eliot-Hurst (1974).

3. Moreover the path of mass tourism and many wider

social transformations is often paved by the presence

of smaller numbers of backpacker travellers whose

impacts outweigh their relatively modest numbers

(Richards and Wilson, 2004).

4. For a start we would argue that this would need to be

supplemented by flying and negotiating access to air-craft (see Adey, 2010b)!

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Roger Lee and another

(anonymous) member of Progress in Human Geo-

graphys editorial team, three anonymous referees,

and Danny MacKinnon and Jennie Middleton for

their extremely helpful comments on earlier drafts

of this paper. Both the volcanic ash cloud that cov-

ered much of Europe and the North Atlantic in thenorthern spring of 2010 and the regulatory response

to it were also useful in enabling us to finesse our

thoughts. The paper is dedicated to Jasmin Leila:

traveller (http://www.rgs.org/jasminleilaaward).

References

Adey P (2008) Airports, mobility and the calculative archi-

tecture of affective control. Geoforum 39: 438451.

Adey P (2009) Book review of Knowles, R., Shaw, J. and

Docherty, I. (2008) Transport Geographies: Mobilities,

Flows and Spaces. Progress in Human Geography 33:

731732.

Adey P (2010a) Mobility. Abingdon: Routledge.

Adey P (2010b) Aerial Life: Spaces, Mobilities, Affects.

Chichester: Blackwell-Wiley.

Adey P, Budd L, and Hubbard P (2007) Flying lessons:

Exploring the social and cultural geographies of glo-

bal air travel. Progress in Human Geography 31:

773791.

Alderton T and Winchester N (2002) Globalisation and de-

regulation in the maritime industry. Marine Policy 26:

3543.

Baudrillard J (1988) America. London: Verso.

Berry B (1969) Book review of Russett, B. 1967:

International regions and the international system: astudy in political ecology. The Geographical Review

59: 450451.

Bird J (1982) Transport decision makers speak: The

seaport development in the European Communities

project part II. Maritime Policy and Management

9: 3102.

Bissell D (2009) Visualising everyday geographies: Prac-

tices of vision through travel-time. Transactions of the

Institute of British Geographers 34: 4260.

Black W (2010) Sustainable Transportation: Problems

and Solutions. New York: The Guilford Press.Borovnik M (2005) Seafarers maritime culture and the

I-Kiribati way of life. Singapore Journal of Tropical

Geography 26: 132150.

Brobst PJ (2004) Icarian geography: Airpower, closed

space and British decolonization. Geopolitics 9:

426439.

Bryson B (1998) A Walk in the Woods: Rediscovering

America on the Appalachian Trail. New York:

Broadway.

Budd L and Graham B (2009) Unintended trajectories:

Liberalization and the geographies of private busi-

ness flight. Journal of Transport Geography 17:

285292.

Butler D (2001) Technogeopolitics and the struggle for the

control of world air routes, 19101928. Political Geo-

graphy 20(5): 635658.

Cahill M (2010) Transport, Environment and Society.

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Cartier C (2001) Globalizing South China. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Charlton C and Vowles T (2008) Inter-urban and regional

transport. In: Knowles R, Shaw J, and Docherty I (eds)

Transport Geographies: Mobilities, Flows and Spaces.

Oxford: Blackwell, 120136.

Cooke M and Lawrence B (eds) (2005) Muslim Networks

from Hajj to Hip Hop. Chapel Hill, NC: University of

North Carolina Press.

Crang M (2002) Between places: Producing hubs, flows and

networks. Environment and Planning A 34: 569574.

Cresswell T (2006) On the Move: Mobility in the Western

World. London: Routledge.



7/30/2019 502.full

17/20

Cresswell T (2010) Towards a politics of mobility. Envi-

ronment and Planning D: Society and Space 28: 1731.

Der Derian J (1992) Antidiplomacy: Spies, Terror, Speed

and War. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Dickinson J (2010) Guest editorial: Tourism and climate

change an introduction. Journal of TransportGeography 18: 445446 (special section: Tourism and

Climate Change).

Dodge M and Kitchin R (2004) Flying through code/space:

The real virtuality of air travel. Environment and Plan-

ning A 36: 195211.

Domosh M and Seager J (2001) Putting Women in Place:

Feminist Geographers Make Sense of the World. New

York: The Guilford Press.

Easterling K (2007) Enduring Innocence: Global Archi-

tecture and its Political Masquerades. Boston, MA:

MIT Press.Ek R (2000) A revolution in military geopolitics? Political

Geography 19: 841874.

Eliot-Hurst M (ed.) (1974) Transportation Geography:

Comments and Readings. Toronto: McGraw-Hill-

Ryerson.

Farrington J (2007) The new narrative of accessibility:

Its potential contribution to discourses in (transport)

geography. Journal of Transport Geography 15:

319330.

Gaile G (1988) African airline connectivity: South African

sanctions, neocolonialism and development. African

Urban Quarterly 3: 177195.

Gandy M (2005) Learning from Lagos. New Left Review

33: 3652.

Gather M, Kagermeier A, and Lanzendorf M (2008) Geo-

graphische Mobilita ts- und Verkehrsforschung. Berlin:

Gebrueder Borntraeger Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Gibb R (1991) Imposing dependence: South Africas

manipulation of regional railways. Transport Reviews

11: 1939.

Gibson C (2008) Locating geographies of tourism. Prog-

ress in Human Geography 32: 407422.

Gladstone D (2005) From Pilgrimage to Package Tour:

Travel and Tourism in the Third World. London:

Routledge.

Goetz A (2006) Transport geography: Reflecting on a sub-

discipline and identifying future research trajectories.

The insularity issue in transport geography. Journal

of Transport Geography 14: 230231.

Goetz A, Ralston B, Stutz F, and Leinbach T (2004) Trans-

portation geography. In: Gaile G and Willmott C (eds)

Geography in America at the Dawn of the 21st Century.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 221236.

Goetz A, Vowles T, and Tierney S (2009) Bridging the

qualitative-quantitative divide in transport geography.

The Professional Geographer 61: 323335.

Graham A and Pitcher M (2007) Luanda, Angola.In: Murray M and Myers G (eds) Cities in Contem-

porary Africa . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,

195172.

Graham B (2008) UK air travel: Taking off for growth? In:

Docherty I and Shaw J (eds) Traffic Jam: Ten Years of

Sustainable Transport in the UK. Bristol: The Policy

Press, 139160.

Graham S (2006a) Cities and the war on terror. Interna-

tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30:

255276.

Graham S (2006b) Surveillance, urbanization and the USrevolution in military affairs. In: Lyon D (ed.) Theo-

rizing Surveillance. Cullompton: Willan, 247268.

Gregory D (1993) Geographical Imaginations. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Grice K and Drakakis-Smith D (1985) The role of the state

in shaping development: Two decades of growth in

Singapore. Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers 10: 347359.

Hall D (2004) Towards a gendered transport geography.

Journal of Transport Geography 12: 245247.

Hall D (2010) Transport geography and new European rea-

lities. Journal of Transport Geography 18: 113.

Hall P, Hesse M, and Rodrigue J-P (2006) Exploring the

interface between economic and transport geography.

Environment and Planning A 38: 14011408.

Hammoudi A (2006) A Season in Mecca: Narrative of a

Pilgrimage. New York: Hill and Wang.

Hanson S (2003) Transportation: Hooked on speed, eyeing

sustainability. In: Sheppard E and Barnes T (eds) A

Companion to Economic Geography. Oxford: Black-

well, 468483.

Hanson S (2006) Imagine. Journal of Transport Geogra-

phy 14: 232233.

Harvey D (1982) The Limits to Capital. Oxford: Blackwell.

Holden D and Johns R (1982) The House of Saud. London:

Pan.

Holloway J and Valins O (2002) Placing religion and spiri-

tuality in geography. Social and Cultural Geography 3:

1 (themed section).

Hooper J (2006) The New Spaniards, second edition. Lon-

don: Penguin.



7/30/2019 502.full

18/20

Horner M and Casas I (2006) Assessments of research

needs in transport geography. Journal of Transport

Geography 14: 228242, 384400.

Hoyle B (1994) A rediscovered resource: Comparative

Canadian perspectives of waterfront redevelopment.

Journal of Transport Geography 2: 1929.Hunter C and Shaw J (2006) Applying the ecological foot-

print to ecotourism scenarios. Environmental Conser-

vation 32: 294304.

Jain J and Lyons G (2008) The gift of travel time. Journal

of Transport Geography 16: 8189.

Jensen OB and Richardson T (2004) Making European

Space: Mobility, Power and Territorial Identity.

London: Routledge.

Johnston D (2007) These roads were made for walking?

The nature and use of rural public transport services

in Garut Regency, West Java, Indonesia. SingaporeJournal of Tropical Geography 28: 171187.

Kearns G (2009) Geopolitics and Empire: The Legacy

of Halford Mackinder. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Keeling D (2007) Transportation geography: New direc-

tions on well-worn trails.Progress in Human Geography

31: 217225.

Keeling D (2008) Transportation geography new

regional mobilities. Progress in Human Geography

32: 275283.

Keeling D (2009) Transportation geography: Local chal-

lenges, global contexts. Progress in Human Geography

33: 516526.

Kellerman A (2009) Personal Mobilities. Abingdon:

Routledge.

Kerns S (2003) The Culture of Space and Time: 18801918,

second edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Kesselring S (2006) Pioneering mobilities: New patterns

of movement and motility in a mobile world. Environ-

ment and Planning A 38: 269279.

Kezer Z (2009) An imaginable community: The material

culture of nation-building in early republican Turkey.


Kitchin R and Dodge M (2007) Rethinking maps.Progress

in Human Geography 31: 331334.

Knowles R, Shaw J, and Docherty I (eds) (2008) Transport

Geographies: Mobilities, Flows and Spaces. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Krugman P (2010) Regional Studies Association Annual

Lecture. Presented at the Annual meeting of the

Association of American Geographers, Washington,

DC, 16 April.

Kwan M-P (2007) Mobile communication, social net-

works and urban travel: Hypertext as a new metaphor

for conceptualizing spatial interaction. The Profes-

sional Geographer59: 434446.Law R (1999) Beyond women and transport: Towards

new geographies of gender and daily mobility. Prog-

ress in Human Geography 23: 567588.

Lee SW, Song DW, and Ducruet C (2008) A tale of Asias

world ports: The spatial evolution in global hub port

cities. Geoforum 39: 372385.

Lees L, Slater T, and Wyly E (2006) Gentrification.

Abingdon: Routledge.

Levinson M (2006) The Box: How the Shipping Container

Made the World Smaller and the World Economy

Bigger. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Lutz C and Fernandez AL (2010) Carjacked: The Culture

of the Automobile and its Effect on Our Lives. New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lyons G (2004) Transport and society. Transport Reviews

24: 485509.

Lyons G (2009) The reshaping of activities and mobility

through new technologies. Journal of Transport Geo-

graphy 17: 8182 (special themed issue).

MacCannell D (1989) The Tourist: A New Theory of the

Leisure Class. Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press.

MacDonald F (2007) Anti-Astropolitik: Outer space and

the orbit of geography. Progress in Human Geography

31: 592615.

Mackinder H (1904) The geographical pivot of history.

The Geographical Journal 23: 421444.

McKinnon A, Cullinane S, Browne M, and Whiteing

A (2010) Green Logistics: Improving the Envi-

ronmental Sustainability of Logistics. London:

Kogan Page.

MacKinnon D (2010) Reconstructing scale: Towards a

new scalar politics. Progress in Human Geography.

doi: 10.1177/0309132510384498.

MacKinnon D, Shaw J, and Docherty I (2008) Diverging

Mobilities: Devolution, Transport and Policy Innova-

tion. Oxford: Elsevier.

Mahan A (1890) TheInfluence of Sea Power Upon History:

16601783. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.

Mansell JNK (2009) Flag State Responsibilities: Histori-

cal Developments and Contemporary Issues. Heidel-

berg: Springer.



7/30/2019 502.full

19/20

Marston S, Jones JP, and Woodward K (2005) Human

geography without scale. Transactions of the Institute

of British Geographers 30: 406432.

Massey D (2005) For Space. London: SAGE.

Merriman, P (2007)Driving Spaces: A Cultural-Historical

Geography of Englands M1 Motorway. Oxford:Blackwell.

Middleton J (2009) Stepping in time: Walking, time and

space in the city. Environment and Planning A 41:

19431961.

Moran J (2009) On Roads: A Hidden History. London:

Profile Books.

Nuhn H and Hesse M (2006) Verkehrsgeographie. Pader-

born: Ferdinand Schoeningh.

Olivier D and Slack B (2006) Rethinking the port.


Parker M (2007) Panama Fever: The Battle to Build theCanal. London: Hutchison.

Pinder D and Slack B (eds) (2004) Shipping and Ports in

the Twenty-first Century: Globalisation, Technological

Change and the Environment. London: Routledge.

Pirie G (2006) Africanisation of South Africas interna-

tional air links, 19942003. Journal of Transport Geo-

graphy 14: 314.

Pooley C, Turnbull J, and Adams M (2005) A Mobile Cen-

tury? Changes in Everyday Mobility in Britain in the

Twentieth Century. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Preston J and OConnor K (2008) Revitalized transport

geographies. In: Knowles R, Shaw J, and Docherty I

(eds) Transport Geographies: Mobilities, Flows and

Spaces. Oxford: Blackwell, 227237.

Richards G and Wilson J (2004) (eds) The Global Nomad:

Backpacker Travel in Theory and Practice. Clevedon:

Channel View Publications.

Rimmer P (1988) Transport geography. Progress in

Human Geography 12: 270281.

Robbins D and Thompson K (2007) Transport at tourist des-

tinations. Journal of Transport Geography 15 (special

themed issue).

Robert L (1981) The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of

Saud. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.

Rodrigue J-P, Comtois C, and Slack B (2009) The Geogra-

phy of Transport Systems. Abingdon: Routledge.

Salter M (2008) (ed.) Politics at the Airport. Minneapolis,

MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Schwanen T (2010) The mobility multiverse. Paper pre-

sented at the Annual Conference of the Association

of American Geographers, Washington, DC.

Schwanen T, Dijst M, and Kwan M-P (2009) ICTs and the

decoupling of everyday activities, space and time:

Introduction. Tijdschift voor Economische en Sociale

Geographie 99: 519527 (special themed issue).

Schwanen T, Kwan M-P, and Ren F (2008) How fixed is

fixed? Gendered rigidity of space-time constraints andgeographies of everyday activities. Geoforum 39:

21092121.

Shariati A (1977) The Hajj. Houston, TX: Free Islamic Lit-

eratures Inc.

Shaw G and Williams A (eds) (2002) Critical Issues in

Tourism: Geographical Perspectives, second edition.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Shaw J and Hesse M (2010) Transport, geography and the

new mobilities. Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers 35: 305312.

Shaw J, Knowles R, and Docherty I (2008) Introducingtransport geographies. In: Knowles R, Shaw J, and

Docherty I (eds) Transport Geographies: Mobilities,

Flows and Spaces. Oxford: Blackwell, 39.

Sheller M and Urry J (2006) The new mobilities paradigm.


Sidaway J (2008) The dissemination of banal geopolitics:

Webs of extremism and insecurity. Antipode 40: 28.

Simon D (1996) Transport and Development in the Third

World. London: Routledge.

Smith V (ed.) (1989) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology

of Tourism. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylva-

nia Press.

Spinney J (2009) Cycling the city: Movement, meaning

and method. Geography Compass 3: 817835.

Steinberg P (2009) Oceans. In: Kitchin R and Thrift N

(eds) The International Encyclopaedia of Human Geo-

graphy. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2126.

Sultana S (2005) Racial variations in males commuting

times in Atlanta: What does the evidence suggest? The

Professional Geographer57: 6682.

Tan T-Y (2007) Port cities and hinterlands: A comparative

study of Singapore and Calcutta. Political Geography

26: 851865.

Turner L (1975) The Golden Hordes: International Tourism

and the Pleasure Periphery. London: Constable.

Urry J (1990) The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in

Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE.

Watts L (2008) The art and craft of train travel. Social and

Cultural Geography 9: 711726.

Weizman E (2007) Hollow Land: Israels Architecture of

Occupation. London: Verso.



7/30/2019 502.full

20/20

Werbner P (2003) Pilgrims of Love! The Anthropology of a

Global Sufi Cult. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University

Press.

While A, Jonas A, and Gibbs D (2010) From sustainable

development to carbon control: Eco-state restructuring

and the politics of urban and regional development.

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers

35(1): 7693.

Woodward R (2004) Military Geographies. Oxford:

Blackwell.


Documents

502.full