See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269221778

Interseriality and Different Sorts of Walking: Suggestions for a Relational

Approach to Urban Walking

Article  in  Mobilities · December 2014

DOI: 10.1080/17450101.2014.969596

CITATIONS READS

28 313

4 authors:

Mattias Kärrholm Maria Johansson

Lund University Lund University
44 PUBLICATIONS   743 CITATIONS    108 PUBLICATIONS   1,902 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

David Lindelöw Inês Alves Ferreira

SWECO Università degli studi di Cagliari
8 PUBLICATIONS   89 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   84 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

EcoTick: Land use, climate and tick-borne diseases in dynamic multi-host ecosystems: estimated risk and experienced fear View project

Illuminate: Micro-level environmental factors influencing pedestrian and cyclist behaviour during dark hours View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mattias Kärrholm on 28 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Interseriality and Different Sorts of Walking: Suggestions

for a Relational Approach to Urban Walking
(authors copy of: Kärrholm, M., Johansson, M., Lindelöw, D., & Ferreira, I. A. (2014). Interseriality
and Different Sorts of Walking: Suggestions for a Relational Approach to Urban Walking. Mobilities,
(ahead-of-print), 1-16.)

Abstract : In this article we attempt to develop a meta-language for a relational approach to

urban walking that is able to account for walking as a mutable, embodied, materially
heterogeneous and distributed activity. Following the perspective on walking as developed in
a series of articles by Jennie Middleton (2009, 2010, 2011a, 2011b), we develop a notion of
the walker as a socio-technical assemblage. By recognising walking as an ongoing relation
of different series of walking assemblages or ‘sorts of walking’ it becomes possible to study
the mediation of these series through the focus on objects of passage: things or triggers that
transform one walking assemblage into another via the process of appraisal. We suggest
interseriality as a concept capable of handling a ‘relation of relations’; i.e., how different
sorts of walking relate to one another and how the ongoing transformation of a walking
assemblage ultimately also produces a mutable but sustaining walking person. Finally, we
suggest a focus on boundary objects (Star & Griesemer 1989). Since walking assemblages
cannot help but to transform in order to sustain, walks always include a series of different
sorts of walking: the possible co-presence of different sorts of walking thus depends on
boundary objects.

Keywords: urban walking, walking studies, assemblages, materiality, shared space

Number of words: 9304

Authors:

Mattias Kärrholm (Corresponding author)

Department of Architecture and the Built Environment, Lund University, P.O. 118, 221 00 Lund,
Sweden
E-mail: mattias.karrholm@arkitektur.lth.se
Phone: +46 (0) 462227323

Maria Johansson
 2

Environmental Psychology, Department of Architecture and the Built Environment, Lund University,
P.O. 118, 221 00 Lund, Sweden
E-mail: maria.johansson@arkitektur.lth.se
Phone: +46 (0) 46 2227169

David Lindelöw
Department of Technology and Society, Lund University, P.O. 118, 221 00 Lund, Sweden
E-mail: david.lindelow@tft.lth.se
Phone: +46 (0) 462229140

Inês A. Ferreira
Environmental Psychology, Department of Architecture and the Built Environment, Lund University,
P.O. 118, 221 00 Lund, Sweden
Email: ines.ferreira@arkitektur.lth.se
Phone: +46 (0) 46 222 73 32

Acknowledgements: This study was carried out within the research project Urban Walking funded by
grants from the Swedish Transport Administration, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and
the Swedish Research Council Formas dnr 250-2010-370.
 3

Interseriality and Different Sorts of Walking: Suggestions

for a Relational Approach to Urban Walking

Abstract : In this article we attempt to develop a meta-language for a relational approach to

urban walking that is able to account for walking as a mutable, embodied, materially
heterogeneous and distributed activity. Following the perspective on walking as developed in
a series of articles by Jennie Middleton (2009, 2010, 2011a, 2011b), we develop a notion of
the walker as a socio-technical assemblage. By recognising walking as an ongoing relation
of different series of walking assemblages or ‘sorts of walking’ it becomes possible to study
the mediation of these series through the focus on objects of passage: things or triggers that
transform one walking assemblage into another via the process of appraisal. We suggest
interseriality as a concept capable of handling a ‘relation of relations’; i.e., how different
sorts of walking relate to one another and how the ongoing transformation of a walking
assemblage ultimately also produces a mutable but sustaining walking person. Finally, we
suggest a focus on boundary objects (Star & Griesemer 1989). Since walking assemblages
cannot help but to transform in order to sustain, walks always include a series of different
sorts of walking: the possible co-presence of different sorts of walking thus depends on
boundary objects.

Keywords: urban walking, walking studies, assemblages, materiality, shared space

Walking became fashionable in Western Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries. As the
options for other means of transport increased, walking became an elective activity, made by
choice rather than by pure necessity, at least for the upper- and middle classes. New forms of
walking soon emerged, personalised as different walking types such as the flâneur, the
window shopper, the Sunday stroller, the commuter, the hiker, etc. (Urry 2000, 50 f.; Amato
2004, 255 ff.). During the early twentieth century, the role of the pedestrian as a disciplined
subject in urban traffic became an important actor, e.g. in modernist planning (Hornsey
2010; Blomley 2011). Today, the need for a reduction in car traffic, pleas for sustainable
urban planning, efforts to increase physical activity and improve health, or even desires to
increase consumption, all tend to turn to walking as a kind of solution, and thus walking has
quickly become the focus of ever-increasing research in a wide range of disciplines and
domains (cf. Middleton 2011a). Needless to say, as the mass of disciplinary research grows,
 4

interdisciplinary approaches become more important, as do the discussions of different

perspectives and conceptualizations of walking as a contemporary phenomenon.

In the wake of the increasingly elaborated (and perhaps hegemonic) sustainability discourse,
walking has become a means of transport of renewed interest, both in research and practice.
Slowly departing from modernistic zoning principles, planners have now also begun to call
for heterogeneous walking spaces, merging different forms of transport at multi-functional
places (Lavadinho & Winkin 2008). Of these design solutions, the concept of ‘shared space’
is the most extreme (as it seeks to avoid demarcations between pedestrians and vehicle
traffic altogether, Trafikverket 2011). These new design and planning endeavours also call
for new ways of conceptualising walking. The walking person as someone transporting
herself/himself from point a to point b can no longer be viewed as a stable and homogenous
figure, but needs to be regarded as a multiple and highly mutable actor (cf. Latour 1986). At
least two important strands of research can be identified in research on walking: that of
walking as a means of solving other problems, and that of walking as a self-sufficient part of
the complex embodied practices of human everyday life (cf. Middleton and her somewhat
related description of the different discourses investigating ‘why does one walk’ and ‘what
purpose could walking serve’; Middleton 2011a, 2877 f.). The first area of research tends to
focus on walking as a means of increasing health (Leslie et al 2005), increasing public space
use (Gehl 2010), saving time or money (Franěk 2012a), decreasing car dependency or traffic
congestion (Litman 2010), improving public safety (Kaspar & Bühler 2009), increasing retail
sales, etc. The focus is often on cause and effect relationships: specifically, either on walking
as a cause of ‘good’ effects, or on the different causes of walking as part of a search for
means to increase walking. Studies of these kinds are performed in a wide variety of
disciplines such as transport research, health research, environmental psychology, urban
studies, etc. The other strand of research tends to focus on walking as a problem in itself.
Here, walking as a means of transport is often regarded as a simplification that needs to be
problematised and more clearly enunciated (eg. Wunderlich 2008, Edensor 2010, Hornsey
2010, Hall and Smith 2013), for example, within ethnography, human geography,
architectural and artistic research. These two strands of research, which we will present
briefly below, do however have at least two things in common.

Firstly, both implicitly pertain to urban walking without implying a more elaborated
definition or differentiation of the phenomenon. Simplifying the situation somewhat, one
could perhaps argue that the first perspective tends to view walking as a given and assume
the need for its expansion in society, while the latter perspective often endeavours to
demonstrate how walking is quite differentiated, and much more than a mere means of
 5

transport. Both perspectives seem to result in a (perhaps unintentional) negligence with

regard to furthering a conceptual framework coping with the complex nature of urban
walking.

Secondly, both strands of research imply a perspective of power, albeit sometimes a

concealed one. Research in walking as a means of something else does imply a power
perspective focused on identifying means of inducing people to walk. Researchers who focus
on walking as inherently problematic are often more explicit in terms of power. Here,
investigating how people walk often means unmasking power structures (from a critical
perspective), as in the investigations into how modern man was disciplined into becoming a
pedestrian commuter, learning traffic behaviour, etc. (Hornsey 2010; Blomely 2011); or in
theories on how to use walking as a tactic to undermine the strategies of urban planners (de
Certeau 1984).

In times of paradigmatic change – as in the ongoing change from a modernistic zoning

principle to a planning for the co-existing activities and tempos of shared space (Hamilton-
Baillie 2008), or from the transformation of socially homogenic communities to spaces of
hyperdiversity (Amin 2012) – it is crucial to have concepts that enables us to follow and
investigate new evolving practices. The aim of this article is thus to develop a meta-language
(Latour 2013, 21) for a relational approach to urban walking that is able to account for
walking as a mutable, embodied, materially heterogeneous and distributed activity. Meta-
language, or infra-language, is a concept used by Bruno Latour to frame an investigation
without making the investigated actors mute. Meta-language thus guides the researcher, not
by reducing the heterogeneity of actors or by defining their ‘proper’ domains, but by
facilitating the tracing of actors, and their associations (Latour 2005, 30). Previous walking
studies have often focused either on an already categorised, ‘static’ walker, or on turning its
focus to the many different meanings on walking (and thus avoiding classification). Here we
want to enable a more clear focus on the walk itself, that is the practice of walking, the
senso-motoric, on-going and ever-changing activities of the walking body. This is
approached by the development of concepts opening up for a more genealogical approach,
suggesting certain paths of investigation, rather than defining static types.

In the first part of the paper we do a short review of the two different perspectives on
walking presented above, with a special focus on previous attempts of differentiation and
typologisation. Following the perspective on walking as developed in a series of articles by
Jennie Middleton (2009, 2010, 2011a, 2011b), we then develop a notion of the walker as a
socio-technical assemblage (De Landa 2006), and the walking environment as an
 6

interrelation of different usages and practices, always involving aspects of power. The
perspective suggested in this article is thus an effort to integrate, or perhaps more
appropriately, sidetrack the two strands of research presented above through a process
perspective of transformation based in relational ontology (Latour 2005). We then go on to
suggest interseriality as a concept capable of handling a ‘relation of relations’; i.e. how the
ongoing transformation of a walking assemblage ultimately also produces a mutable but
sustaining walking person (going from point a to point b). Recognising walking as an
ongoing relation of different series of ‘walking sorts’ renders it possible to study the
mediation of these series through the focus on objects of passage (things or triggers that
transform one walking assemblage into another via the psychological process of appraisal)
and boundary objects (objects which residing in multiple worlds and have multiple identities,
but still share some identity across these worlds; Star & Griesemer 1989) that enable the co-
presence of different sorts of walking. The possible relevance of these concepts for future
research is finally discussed in the conclusion.

The focus on urban walking does not necessarily mean that our concepts and discussions
could not apply to rural or ‘wilderness’ settings (which, however, remains to be seen), but
that our interest mainly lies on how walking, as a social, situated and highly negotiated
activity, co-exists with urban life and its plethora of bodies, objects, movements and
activities. Walking is in this sense involves socio-motricity (Warnier 2001), that is a
communication between people in and through motion. Walking in the wilderness is of
course also a highly negotiated activity, but would lead the discussion into other issues (to
focus, in terms of motivation as well as on environmental negotiations with terrains,
topographies, vegetation structure, presence of plant and animal species etc.).

Perspectives on Walking

Through the ethnography, philosophy and sociology of everyday life, walking has
increasingly been acknowledged as an important lived and embodied everyday practice. One
early influential text pointing in this direction was Marcel Mauss’ classical article
“Techniques of the Body”, first published in 1934 (Mauss 1973). The single most influential
philosopher to represent this perspective has, however, probably been Lefebvre. In his
Critique of Everyday Life I-III, published 1949, 1961 and 1981 (Lefebvre 1991a, 2002), he
presented a philosophy of everyday life, and with books such as The Production of Space
(Lefebvre 1991b) and Rhythmanalysis (Lefebvre 2004), he has had a tremendous impact on
theories of space, everyday life and even on urban mobilities, among other areas. More
 7

philosophical, and ethnographical, aspects of walking were also identified by French

followers of Lefebvre: Augoyard in 1979 (Augoyard 2007) and de Certeau in 1980 (de
Certeau 1984), for example. In Step by Step, Augoyard explores how the world is
appropriated and rendered world by the itineraries of the walking body, investigating figures
of walking as a kind of walking rhetoric in a qualitative sociological study of the French
urban housing project Arlequin, located outside Grenoble. Here, Augoyard provides a good
summary of what walking signifies: “Pedestrian statement signifies two things: one’s
immediate goal (going to work, going shopping, going home, going for a walk) and one’s
way of living the situation” (Augoyard 2007:75). Augoyard’s studies of walking as a kind of
inhabitation without building was brought up by de Certeau in his book The Practice of
Everyday Life, which was published just one year later. De Certeau’s book had a much
greater impact than Augoyard’s, but in terms of walking as a productive, narrative,
empowering and intrinsically valuable urban practice, their approaches are quite similar.

The legacy of thinkers such as Lefebvre, de Certeau and Augoyard, together with
phenomenological references such as Merleau-Pointy, is often discernible (implicitly or
explicitly) in the wide range of articles and books emanating from the field of walking
studies in the social sciences and humanities. In a series of seminal articles, Middleton
explored urban walking as an everyday activity from a more empirical perspective, focusing
on walking as an unfolding experience and as a socio-technical assemblage, and
investigating its relation to time, space, policy and planning (Middleton 2009, 2010, 2011a,
2011b). Others have explored qualitative aspects of walking in the landscape (Vergunst
2008; Olwig 2008). Additional themes include critical perspectives of power, which discuss
disciplining and regulating pedestrians’ practices (Hornsey, 2010; Blomley 2011), walking
and senses (Wunderlich 2010), or how people walk their stories (Legat 2008; Tuck-Po
2008). In an article from 2013, Hall and Smith investigated walking among groups who at
times would prefer not to be walking at all (urban outreach groups and the homeless), as well
as the sometimes problematic activity of stopping in an urban environment designed for flow
(Hall & Smith 2013). However diverse these qualitative approaches might appear, they all
tend to focus on aspects of walking that go beyond the role of walking as a mere means of
transport, instead emphasising walking as an embodied, constructed and situated practice.

Almost at the opposite end of this discourse is another perspective: that of viewing walking
as a means of ‘good’ behaviour. Walking as a means of enhancing and even producing
public and social life or a vivid city life has, for example, been highlighted by researchers of
urban design and urbanity such as Jacobs, Gehl and Gemzöe (Gehl & Gemzöe 1996; Gehl
2010). These discussions can also be founded on quantitative methods, such as Space
 8

Syntax, where emphasis is placed on a correlation between spatial structure and pedestrians
(Hiller et al 1993; Hillier 1996; cf. Zacharias 2001). Research on behavioural change within
the field of transport has also included studying incentives to foster ‘good’ transport choices,
such as walking to work instead of using a car, with so-called mobility management
campaigns and schemes (Litman 2010). Traffic safety research has also had the aim of
understanding which planning and design solutions constitute ‘good’ traffic behaviour, as
well as how to avoid occurrences of ‘bad’ behaviour, for instance jaywalking among
pedestrians (Svensson & Hydén 2006; Norton 2007). ‘Good’ walking behaviour has also
been the subject of many studies in the behavioural sciences, among others, in particular in
relation to spatial cognition and orientation (Kato & Takeuchi 2003), but also to
environmental impacts on distance estimation (Zhang, Zhang & Wang, 2013) and walking
speeds (Franěk 2012a, 2012b). Implicit in this ‘cause and effect logic’ of walking as a means
of ‘good’ behaviour is the search for factors that promote walking, indirectly regarded as the
good alternative to the car (reviews see Alfonzo 2005; Ogilvie et al 2007). In the literature
on physical activity, walking has to a greater extent been directly studied as an outcome
variable, operationalised in terms of frequency of occurrence, duration, and/or amount of
number of steps taken, as for example assessed by the International Physical Activity
Questionnaire (IPAQ), pedometers or accelerometers. Extensive research has been
performed on the correlation between the built environment and walking in this field, and
several methods have been developed to capture such correlations, including Geographical
Information Systems (GIS), environmental audits and users’ self-reports (Forsyth, Jacobsen
& Thering 2010). In many studies, the built environment has been operationalised as
characteristic of the so-called “3D’s”: density, diversity and design (Cervero & Kockelman
1997), and more recently been augmented with destination accessibility, distance to transit
bus stops and pedestrian-oriented designs (Ewing & Cervero, 2010). The widely used
Neighborhood Walkability Scale (NEWS), developed in the USA, can be used by way of
illustration: it lists almost one hundred aspects – including, for example, aspects of urban
density, land-use mix, street connectivity, eating facilities, aesthetics, traffic safety and crime
safety (Leslie et al 2005).

In short, the first perspective often comes close to an ethnographic approach, building on
specific cases or phenomena, studying walking as a lived and situated experience and
sometimes criticizing simplified walking models used in planning or urban design. However,
these studies seldom systematise their findings or suggest a broader theoretical approach for
the study of walking. Studies of the second perspective regard the experience of the
environment as a component that might either hinder or support the activity of walking.
These studies are often highly systematised and formalised in order to identify correlations
 9

between categories, leaving little or no room for rethinking basic concepts or developing
relational aspects that cannot be quantified. Walking needs to be stabilised as one or several
types, lest the quantitative efforts to produce correlations with environmental factors prove
fruitless. As walking seems to be a complex and manifold activity, we do, however, argue
that is important to find ways of distinguishing between different kinds of walking. Different
kinds of walking require different kinds of environments, which in turn indicate that walking
is not one activity, but many (Zacharias 2001, Wunderlich 2008). An appraisal of the
research done on walking to date indeed testifies to the rich variety of walking types.
Walking has been viewed as a way of thinking (Legat 2008), as a means of artistic
exploration (Sand 2011), as part of political projects (Pinder 2001, 2011) as a research
method (De Laval 1997), as a pedagogical activity (Curtis 2008), as an expression of faith
(Slavin 2003), as a political activity (MacAuley 2000), as tactical resistance (de Certeau
1984), as a rhetoric or style (Augoyard 2007), an exercise and a sport (Bairner 2011), as an
art form (Careri 2002), as culture (Gluck 2003), as a means of transport (Zacharias 2001), as
a social activity, as a way to gain independence (Napier et. al 2011), etc.

Although the ways of walking and the various perspectives from which they are studied
seem to be legion, the attempts to establish typologies of walking are remarkably few and
quite rudimentary. One of them was made by Wunderlich (2008), who distinguished
between purposive, discursive and conceptual walking. Purposive walking denotes walking
as a kind of necessary or utilitarian phenomenon, discursive walking can be described as a
kind of walking or roaming where the destination is not as important as the journey itself,
and conceptual walking refers to a way of obtaining new knowledge of the city through
walking: as in artistic derives, urban exploration, or walking as a research methodology. A
somewhat similar differentiation of walking is made by Alfonzo, who makes a distinction
between destination walking, strolling walking and combination walking (combining
destination and strolling in one journey; Alfonzo 2005, 820). In health studies (Humpel et al
2004) we find a differentiation of walking into walking for exercise, walking for pleasure
and walking to get to and from places. Other articles offer rudimentary and incomplete forms
of classification, but these are seldom associated with an ambition to create comprehensive
systemisations; instead, they tend to point out one or two important differentiations, such as
the distinction between extrovert and introvert walks (Tenngart-Ivarsson 2011). In walking
studies it seems quite common to make distinctions in terms of how an environment can
afford various things to different types of walking; for example, environments supporting
utilitarian walking may not support leisure walking (Baran, Rodriguez & Khattak 2008), or
the environment’s role may vary depending on whether one is walking in one’s own
neighbourhood or in a foreign city (Zacharias 2005). Thus, two walking figures are
 10

established: the inhabitant and the stranger. Some studies also suggest that the more one
walks within and becomes familiar with a particular area, the more one overestimates the
distances there (McCromack et al 2008; Crompton 2006); as new information on the area is
constantly being accumulated, a greater cognitive effort is required to process it. In an
interesting study, Costa (2010) investigates interpersonal relations when walking; that is,
how walking subjects form groups such as dyads or triads, and how these groups conduct
themselves differently in terms of speed and style (which also showed gender-specific
outcomes). The difference of walking or not walking together has also been developed in an
ethnographic study by Ryave and Scheinken (1974), and the revolving door as an actant in
this decision has been investigated by Weilenmann, Normark and Laurier (2012).

In summary, there is a need to acknowledge the existence of different ways of walking, since
it may well be that interventions that support one type of walking might be problematic for
another. But is an ever-increasing differentiation of walking types (or parameters) a befitting
way to assess walking activities? From a relational perspective, this solution would prove
inadequate – and pre-defining a hierarchical relation between these types (as implied in
Wunderlich 2008, 36) would be equally problematic. The problem of pre-defined categories
or types is that they tend to be reproduced repeatedly, whereas other categories, or new
forms or types of walking are rendered invisible or impossible to detect. Furthermore,
several categories can be used to describe the same trip. Is a walk through the park to the
grocery store purposive or discursive? Instead of an a priori typologisation, we will therefore
suggest a less formalistic and more relational approach; concepts that enable an analysis of
walking as an ongoing process, a meta-language open to new categorisations.

Walking Assemblages and Objects of Passage

Walking never transports us unchanged from a to b. Walking is, always sequential in the
sense that it is not an activity carried out according to a predefined choreography, but
instead: “people attune themselves to the rhythmicity of the moment through breathing,
gestures, pace of moments and speech” (Edensor 2010, 72). Walking is by nature
improvisational (Vergunst 2008). The possibility of humming tunes to set one’s own rhythm,
following internal or external hunches or saliences, etc., make walking a complex and highly
transformative activity. How a person chooses to walk from a to b might not only serve the
purpose of transportation, but even a transformation of intention, activity and route, where
the true destination of a certain walk is revealed only upon arrival. Nothing is pre-
 11

determined; the walker is to some extent, as Latour put it, “always slightly surprised by what
[she] do[es].” (Latour 1999, 281).

In policy, as Middleton points out, “an area might be considered more ‘walkable’ if a
pedestrian is able to walk on autopilot and the flow of their movement is uninterrupted by an
awareness of their bodily experiences” (Middleton 2011b, 95). This reasoning aligns itself
with the modernistic transport planning ideals of the 20th century that saw a need to
differentiate between pedestrians and motorised traffic by separating their flows in space and
time. This was justified for the sake of reducing the frequency and severity of accidents and
of increasing level-of-service (Koglin 2013). Modernistic areas were designed to allow
pedestrians to move without being interrupted or disturbed by cars. Today, however, one
sees new takes on pedestrianism; e.g., strategies that do not favour isolation and non-
transformation. Lavadinho and Winkin describe how the implementation of the Geneva
Pedestrian master plan involves encounter areas where movement is negotiated between
different means of transport (Lavadinho & Winkin 2008). Traffic safety measures, such as
introducing an unsignalised zebra crossing, also require a higher level of negotiation between
pedestrians and others in transit. The idea can be traced back to the Dutch Woonerf from the
late 1960s, and similar ideas have, for example, also been utilised in countries such as
Sweden, Denmark and UK through the shared space concept (Trafikverket 2011). The idea
common to of all these efforts aimed at a safer and more walker-friendly environment is the
strategic use of the transformation of urban walking. Decisions regarding where and how to
walk are rethought and distributed throughout the entire walking process, thus keeping the
attention and flexibility of the walker at a peak. The need to stay focused – which the mix of
road users in these places requires – has also been considered to create a safer traffic
environment for pedestrians. Instead of focusing on one choice prior to the walk or on what
leads to this choice, the investigation should necessarily include the plethora of choices and
actions produced during the walk itself. Thought might very well follow action, or as
Whitehead put it: “from the moment of birth we are immersed in action, and can only fitfully
guide it by taking thought” (Whitehead cited in Ingold 2011, 77).

The new approaches to urban walking mentioned above are less concerned with time
efficiency as they are with comfort and pleasantness – there is no ‘dead time’ that should
necessarily be minimised (Middleton 2011). Instead, we can observe a deterritorialisation of
pedestrianised (as well as car) territories. Different territorial productions are allowed to
overlap, forming transport space of higher territorial complexity (Kärrholm 2012). The call
for a conceptualisation of walking acknowledges the practice of walking as a transformative
phenomenon. Such an approach would be compatible with the studies of Augoyard, who
 12

describes walking as “practiced space whose complexity sidetracks any sort of explanation
that would claim to be clearly causal in nature” (Augoyard 2007, 25). Acknowledging urban
walking as a sequential and transformative practice also entails a shift from a pre-fixed
typology to a more genealogical approach, where intention is transformed in and through
action on something else, and each new juncture creates offspring that might only be
retroactively sorted into different themes, dependent on the purpose of the sorting. Middleton
has described and investigated the walker as a socio-technical assemblage (Middleton 2010,
577; cf. De Landa 2006), and the heterogenic character of the walking body has been
emphasised by several researchers (Cresswell 2006; Middleton 2011a). Here, transport
walking is not seen as a finished or uniform result of different environmental factors or
motives, needs or indicators, but instead as a practice whose specific embodied and
assembled form remains to be investigated, and where correlations seldom are simple or long
lasting. The role of material objects, or what Middleton calls ‘walking attire’ (Middleton
2011a, 2873), such as clothes, shoes, and ipods are important not only as autonomous
objects, but also in their connection to the walking body, forming an individual singularity or
assemblage of walking in an urban situation. The assemblage transforms during the walk as
the walking body (or object) becomes associated to or disassociated from other objects
interior or exterior to the human body.

An environmental-psychological perspective may perhaps serve to further describe this

continuous interplay (i.e. transaction) between the individual, material objects and the urban
environment. From this perspective, the assemblage would be seen as a freeze-frame
moment of specific ongoing human-environment transactions, accounting not only for the
walking person’s material possessions, but also individual characteristics (e.g. gender, age,
health status and personality traits) and other psychological resources (e.g. values, attitudes
and memories of previous experiences ), as well as factors in the external physical and social
environment. According to the human-environment interaction model (the HEI model,
Küller 1991; Johansson, 2006), the walking persons respond to any change of internal (e.g.
hunger) or external (e.g. presence of greenery, noise, rain) conditions by a basic emotional
process or appraisal process which includes a heightened arousal/activation level of the
central nervous system, an orientation response to comprehend the change of condition, an
evaluation of the situation as positive/negative to the individual, and coping/control of the
situation. If the outcome of the emotional process is satisfactory (control is experienced) the
individual – or here the walking assemblage – will continue as before, in this case walking.
If not, the individual will try to change the situation: The walking person may pick up speed
to escape a noisy environment, slightly change the direction of the walk towards a friend
who has appeared across the road, unfold an umbrella to shield from rain. These small
 13

changes will in turn give rise to new experiences. Hence, in any given moment the walking
assemblage is a result of the individual’s continuous basic emotional process or appraisal of
the situation, triggered by external actors in the socio-material environment, as well as
internal stimuli.

In his book An Inquiry into Modes of Existence (2013), Latour points out that continuity
always requires explanation: “since there is always a leap, a fault line, a lag, a risk, a
difference between one stage and the next” (Latour 2013, 210). Transformation is the rule,
whereas sustenance always requires hard work. For the walker to sustain as a walker, she is
dependent on the mediation of both internal and external actors (or stimuli). In their article
“Managing Walking Together”, Weilenmann, Normark and Laurier study the revolving door
as an important actor, dividing or sustaining walking dyads as they pass through it
(Weilenmann, Normark & Laurier 2012). In the article, they designate an interesting actor
type: actors that allow for the reconfiguration of assemblages, a type that could perhaps be
called objects of passage in this paper. Objects of passage can be described as triggers of
new human-environment transactions which, via the appraisal process, transform an old
assemblage into a new one, and in doing so also change one type of walking into another –
or alternatively, into a new activity altogether. The feeling of hunger, heavy grocery bags,
noise from a playground, a friend passing by or a telephone call might all trigger such
processes and thus transform the walking assemblage. This transformation can be associated
with either discontinuity or continuity. Sometimes a passage from one type of walking to
another is necessary for the walk to continue. Objects of passage could thus both transform
the walking assemblage or reconfigure it altogether. As an example, a problematic traffic
situation might force someone to give up walking all together and take the bus, but a means
to sustain as a walking person could instead be to take a creative detour. In both cases, we
have an object of passage transforming the walking assemblage into a new sort of walker
(the jaywalker), or into a new category altogether, such as a non-walker (the bus-passenger).
Some objects – a new jacket, for instance – may be of little or no consequence when it comes
to maintaining a “walking assemblage” with the same set of capacities, but as described
above, other objects will actually change the walking situation, thus forming a new kind of
walking assemblage with a new set of walking capacities or limitations (De Landa 2006, 29).
Some walking assemblages are transformed in several steps during a single walk, while
others remain stable. The walker sustains, but through a change of appearances which are
produced relationally as different types of walking.
 14

Interseriality and Boundary Objects

In lieu of different walking types, we now have a set of concepts to describe different sorts
of walking as constituted by heterogeneous socio-technical assemblages. These are subject to
change through objects of passage, key actors that transform one assemblage into another
one. This moves toward a genealogical or diachronic study, but synchronic (and synchoric)
relations between different walking sorts must also be accounted for. Sartre introduced the
concept of seriality in his Critique of Dialectical Reason, 1960 (Sartre 1976) in order to
describe how people relate to classes. The concept has since also been used in gender studies
(Young 1994). Seriality can be described as a number of individuals that share a common
way of acting, living, or being, but who do not form a social group or community. Often,
seriality is used to describe people who share a space and an intention, but who do not know
each other. It could, for example, be a group of people queued to board a bus, or people
eating in a restaurant (Österberg 1995, 67–68). The concept can thus be contrasted to groups
of people who meet on a regular basis and form a kind of social entity. Much like groups or
communities, the belonging is not dependent on spatial proximity, transpiring instead by way
of association. Walking in a group, separating, walking alone, buying an ice cream,
collecting one’s daughter from day care, walking home with her, ending up at a playground:
these are activities that involve various types of walking assemblages, all potentially part of
different walking series of everyday life: ice-cream eating walkers, parent-child walkers, etc.
In every situation, I/we form a new assemblage, and thus potentially become part of a new
series.

The constant transformation of a walking body joining and disjoining different series could
be compared to the relational perspective of intersectionality as discussed by Gill Valentine
(Valentine 2007). Valentine argues that different identities come to the foreground in
different time-spatial situations, emphasising that power relations between categories (such
as gender, class, ethnicity, disability, etc.), are always relational and situated. The categories
studied by Valentine can be described as series, albeit with some kind of shared identity,
rather than as groups, and allowing for a rephrasing of intersectionality as interseriality
could open up for a new and perhaps even more heterogeneous and differentiated
perspective. Instead of focusing on established sectors in society with a shared identity in
terms of age, gender, class or ethnicity, an interserial approach would include a wider variety
of different and weaker collectives of humans and non-humans and different sorts of
practices such as walking with a pram, walking with an umbrella, walking with grocery bags,
etc. To create concepts for the study of urban walking as a transformative practice in a more
heterogeneous urban environment (e.g. shared space), we need to be able to account for the
 15

interrelation of different activities taking place in the same space. Making one’s way through
a certain urban area might also lead one through a series of walking assemblages and
walking identities – all produced relationally within the situation and involving objects of
passage that trigger a new appraisal of the situation. One might go from the more privileged
and uncontested position of a walker strolling through a park to that of an unwelcome
pedestrian desperately trying to cross a road heavy with traffic, later shifting to a customer
with a malfunctioning shopping trolley trying to traverse a poorly paved parking lot. All of
these types of walking might create associations to a series of other walkers in similar
positions, but it might also create asymmetrical relations to other sorts of walkers, motorists,
etc., moving about in the city. By focusing on interseriality, it becomes clear that different
sorts of walking are often asymmetrical in terms of capacity and power. Furthermore, the
power relations between different walking sorts (series) are produced in a given situation,
and are dependent on the where and when of that situation. An important notion of
interseriality is thus not just that of difference, but also of how differences are enacted.

Interseriality can, of course, be discussed both from a diachronic and a synchronic

perspective. A diachronic perspective would be very much in line with Valentine’s
biographical approach, describing how a certain trajectory also includes the willing or
unwilling alternation between different series (cf. Valentine 2007). It could also include
stories about the inability to alternate or of ‘staying in the game’ despite efforts. Nilsson
gives us a good example of this when she tells us about her research on parkour (Nilsson
2010). The problem of being a participant observer soon became obvious: she did not have
the bodily skill necessary to follow the informant as they walked through the city, climbing
walls, jumping roofs, etc. From the secure position of an interviewer/observer, her identity
suddenly changed to that of a ‘non-traceur’ (unable to take part in a ‘parkour-walk’ through
the city). For a walker, the ability to change between series, or not, can be an important part
of experienced potentials and control, but asymmetric power relations can also be studied
more synchronically. In his study of downtown malls, Whyte tells us about how retired
people in USA came to simulate shopping behaviour (for example by bringing shopping
bags from home), and thus to avoid the attention of guards, enabling a longer stay in the mall
without buying (Whyte 1988, 210). Here, the customer and the non-customer seem to have
evolved as two different and asymmetric series of co-existing walkers. A synchronic study of
interseriality can thus be done to map power relations between different co-existing activities
or ‘series’ of everyday urban life

At this point, we have a rudimentary conceptual cluster, the first concepts of a meta-
language that could facilitate the study of urban walking as a mutable and relational object
 16

rather than as a phenomenon attributable to a set of types or finite categories. A first step is
to identify different walking assemblages and how different actors are clustered or associated
to form a walking entity of some sort. These assemblages are shaped and transformed by
different interior or exterior actors. Some actors, those that critically transform and redefine
the walking assemblage into a new sort of walking assemblage are referred to here as objects
of passage. These concepts suggest a relational study of walking where stability can be
described by the study of how walkers ‘stay in the game’ and sustain as walkers, despite – or
sometimes due too – intentional or unintentional associations to new objects of passages and
a transfiguration of the walking assemblage. A second step, then, would be to investigate
how different sorts of walking assemblages relate to one another at the place of study – the
perspective of interseriality is suggested as a way in which to focus on the relationship
between different sorts of walking as dependent on place and occasion. The power
perspective is particularly crucial here, as has been indicated by the reference to Valentine’s
concept of intersectionality. Which walking assemblages appear in series? Which walking
assemblages are granted privilege? Which assemblages are forgotten? How do different
walkers relate to each other? And how do the walking types that constitute a single walk
relate to each other over time? Power is, however, as much of uniting as dividing. Finally,
there is thus a need for the study of how actors work, not only as transformative junctions
(objects of passage), but also as connectors. A third step would then be to study how certain
objects can gather or bind these different series together, that is, boundary objects (Star &
Griesemer 1989).

A boundary object is “an object which lives in multiple social worlds and which has different
identities in each” (Star & Griesemer 1989, 409) and boundary objects play an important role
in the investigation of how different walking assemblages can co-exist in the same urban
environment, or at the same place. Boundary objects thus bind different worlds together, but
without necessarily imposing one group’s view on all the rest. They are abstract enough to
be used and interpreted in different ways, yet regarded as possessing some sort of distinctive
identity. They are thus objects usable by many different groups, or in this case, by different
walkers. For example, a paved pathway over the wet and muddy grass might be useful for a
lot of different walkers. It is a commonly recognised boundary object, yet used in specific
and varying ways by different series of walkers: lovers holding hands, the blind man with his
cane, the eight-year-old trying not to touch the cracks, etc. Some walkers might not take
notice of the object at all, such as the walker trudging through deep snow on a cold winter
day. In studies relating to urban design and walking, boundary objects become important for
study, since walking assemblages cannot help but transform in order to sustain, meaning that
most walks include a series of different walking sorts. The possible co-presence of different
 17

walking sorts depends on boundary objects. A stable boundary object, affording different
sorts of walking, might also prevent the need of constantly changing walking assemblages.

A ‘shared space’, such as a small square without the territorialisation of different sorts of
traffic, should preferably act as a boundary object for pedestrians and vehicular traffic. This
is accomplished by speed regulation, and by a smooth space that affords walking just as
much as wheels. But does it also work as a boundary object for different sorts of walking?
What sorts of walking can be detected? Certainly there are fewer walking assemblages here
as compared to a pedestrian precinct? Larger clusters of people are harder to sustain across a
square full of traffic, they tend to disperse. Walking that involves active attention, such as
walking and texting (on cell phone), or walking while attending to a child in a pram, might
also be hard to sustain. Indeed, a space shared by different kinds of traffic, seem to suggest
the proliferation of objects of passage, and this is also the intention of the planner. Some
sorts of walking, for example, the attentive and agile walker, are privileged, others are not.
An interserial investigation of different sorts of walking might shed more light on the
sometimes subtle power relations of such a space.

Concluding Remarks

Walking is always an ongoing process, produced through the ever-changing relationships

between walking bodies and their intrinsic and extrinsic associations. In light of post-
modernistic planning of shared space rather than zoning and of territorial complexity rather
than territorial homogeneity, there seems to be a need for an approach capable of accounting
for the heterogeneity of walking practices and their ongoing transformations. In this article
we attempt, through a short review of different perspectives on walking and walking
typologies, to develop a rudimentary meta-language for a relational approach to urban
walking that is able to account for walking as a mutable, embodied, materially heterogeneous
and distributed activity. We have thus suggested a set of concepts describing the continuous
transactions and associations of humans, objects and environments, shaping the walk as it
progresses toward a certain destination. These concepts – walking sorts, walking
assemblages, objects of passage, interseriality and boundary objects – mostly adopted from
other relational theories and conceptualizations, are meant as a way of mapping the ongoing
transformative processes of walking and how this process relates to individual characteristics
and psychological resources (interiors) as well as to external environmental factors (exterior
actors) in a continuous human-environment transaction.
 18

Exterior actors play at least three different roles here, acting as part of the walking
assemblage, or as an object of passage, or, finally, as a boundary object. Different walking
assemblages might always re-form into new ones, and an important question for the
researcher interested in the relation between the urban environment and pedestrian mobility
may want to account for, and list, these objects of passage as they unfold and consider how
they in walkers of different individual charactersitics and psychological resources may
change the appraisal of the walking situation. However, it is also necessary to focus on how
different walking assemblages relate to one another in a specific urban environment.
Through an interserial perspective the relations of these assemblages are investigated in
different situations, whilst their co-presence can be studied through boundary objects. Our
hope is that these concepts might form an alternative to a typologisation of walking that
attempts to fit walking practices into predefined categories. It is also our hope that they
might allow for a greater focus on the relational aspects of walking. Some aspects of our
behaviour need to be acknowledged as regular or general – different sorts of walking share
similarities with others of the same sort – but despite certain similarities, all activities include
their own specific features, specifics that must be accounted for, rather than concealed. The
suggested perspective opens up for a meta-level that acknowledges both similarities and
specificities, and hopefully does so without muting or overruling the voices of the empirical
study at hand.

Our intention is not that the proposed perspective should replace other approaches, but rather
that it, at times, could compliment the efforts of recent years to understand and analyse
mobility in general, and to walking studies in particular. The perspective is, as we see it,
especially suited for studies investigating mobility and socio-material relations in urban
spaces of transformation (cf. materialities and mobilities as described in Hannam, Sheller
and Urry 2006:14). These spaces could, for example, apart from the implementation of
shared space discussed above, include spaces with new kinds of users, such as people with
different new gadgets (skateboards, segways, i-pads, etc.), or spaces where certain kinds of
usages increase, such as the increase of public eating and drinking following in the wake of
urban regeneration projects focused on cafés, clubs and restaurants (Atkinson 2003, Jayne et.
al. 2006). The concepts could also be used to investigate the increase of information and
communication techniques (ICTs) in public space, that is to investigate a socio-material
response to what Boutang coins the arrival of a cognitive capitalism (Boutang 2011).
Furthermore, it would be interesting to extend the analysis of Weilenmann, Normark &
Laurier (2012), and investigate assemblages of different sizes, and even of the relationship
between mobility and larger crowds (Borch 2012), or why not the negotiations between
different social groups, and their sometimes different material cultures, in public space (the
 19

evolving hyperdiversity as described in Amin 2012)? These are just a few contemporary
discourses involving material aspects of movement and public space, where a
reconfiguration of both walking assemblages and the interseriality of different sorts of
walking can be insightful to trace and study. Our belief is that more detailed studies of the
how different sorts of walking practices are assembled to co-exist (or not), also can give
important new insights to the sometime quite subtle power relations of urban mobility in
public space.

References

Alfonzo, M. 2005. “To Walk or not to Walk? The Hierarchy of Walking Needs.” Environment and
Behavior 37: 808-836.
Amato, J. A. 2004. On Foot, A History of Walking. New York: New York University Press.
Amin, A. 2012, Land of Strangers. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Atkinson, R. 2003. “Domestication by Cappuccino or a Revenge on Urban Space? Control and
Empowerment in the Management of Public Spaces”. Urban Studies, 40, 9: 1829–1843.
Augoyard, J-F. 2007. Step by Step, Everyday Walks in a French Urban Housing Project. Minneapolis:

Minnesota University Press.

Bairner, A. 2011. “Urban Walking and the Pedagogies of the Street.” Sport, Education & Society 16
(3): 371-384.
Baran, P., Rodríguez, D. and Khattak, A. 2008. “Space Syntax and Walking in New Urbanist and
Suburban Neighbourhoods.” Journal of Urban Design 13(1): 5-28.
Blomley, N. 2011. Rights of Passage, Sidewalks and the regulation of public flow. London:
Routledge.
Borch, C. 2012. The Politics of Crowds, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boutang, Y. M. Cognitive Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.
Careri, F. 2002. Walkscapes: Walking as an Aesthetic Practice. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili.
de Certeau, M. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cervero, R. and Kockelman, K. 1997. “Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design.”
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2 (3): 199-219.
Costa, M. 2010. “Interpersonal Distances in Group Walking.” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 34 (1):
15-26.
Cresswell T. 2006. On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World. London and New York:
Routledge.
Crompton, A. 2006. “Perceived Distance in the City as a Function of Time.” Environment and
Behavior, 38 (2): 173-182.
 20

Curtis, E. 2008. “Walking out of the Classroom: Learning on the Streets of Aberdeen.” In Ways of
Walking, Ethnography and Practice on Foot, edited by T. Ingold and J.L.Vergunst. 143-154.
Farnham: Ashgate.
De Landa, M. 2006. A New Philosophy of Society. London: Continuum.
De Laval, S. 1997. Planerare och boende i dialog. Stockholm: KTH.
Edensor T. 2010. “Walking in Rhythms: Place, Regulation, Style and the Flow of Experience.” Visual
Studies 25 (1): 69-79.
Forsyth, A., Jacobsen J. and Thering K. 2010. “Six Assessments of the Same Places: Comparing
Views of Urban Design.” Journal of Urban Design 15 (1): 21-48.
Foster, C., Hillsdon, M. and Thorogood, M. 2004. “ Environmental Perceptions of Walking in English
Adults.” Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 58: 924-928.
Franěk, M. 2012a. “The Effect of Urban Vegetation and Traffic Intensity on Walking Speed.” In
Urban Planning and Transportation (UPT 12): Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS International
Conference. 163-166. Cambridge (UK): Athens.
Franěk, M. 2012b. “Pedestrian Walking Speed as a Response to Environmental Properties.” In
Advances in Environmental Science and Sustainability: Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS
International Conference on Urban Rehabilitation and Sustainability. 97-90. Sliema, Malta:
World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society.
Gehl, J. 2010. Cities for People. Washington: Island Press.
Gehl, J. and Gemzöe, L. 1996. Byens rum, byens liv. Copenhagen: Arkitektens and Kunstakademiets
Forlag.
Gluck, M. 2003. “The Flâneur and the Aesthetic Appropriation of Urban Culture in Mid-19th-Century
Paris.” Theory, Culture & Society 20 (5): 53–80.
Hall, T. and Smith R.J. 2013. “Stop and Go: A Field Study of Pedestrian Practice, Immobility and
Urban Outreach Work.” Mobilities 8 (2): 272-292.
Hamilton-Baillie, B. 2008. “Shared space: reconciling people, places and traffic” Built environment,
34 (2): 161-181.
Hannam, K., Sheller, M., & Urry, J. 2006. “Editorial: Mobilities, immobilities and moorings.”
Mobilities, 1(1), 1-22.
Hillier, B. 1996. Space is the Machine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hillier B., Penn, A. Hanson, J. Grajewski, T. and Xu J. 1993. “Natural Movement: or, Configuration
and Attraction in Urban Pedestrian Movement.” Environment and Planning B, 20: 29–66.
Hornsey. R. 2010. “He Who Thinks, in Modern Traffic, is Lost: Automation and the Pedestrian
Rhythms of Interwar London.” in Geographies of Rhythm, Nature, Place, Mobilities and
Bodies, edited by T. Edensor. 99-112. Farnham: Ashgate.
Humpel, N., Owen, N., Iverson, D., Leslie, E. and Bauman, A. 2004. “Perceived Environment
Attributes, Residential Location, and Walking for Particular Purposes.” American Journal of
Preventive Medicine 26 (2): 119-125.
Ingold, T. 2011. Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge, and Description. London: Routledge.
 21

Jayne M., Holloway, S. And Valentine G. 2006. “Drunk and Disorderly: Alcohol, Urban Life and
Public Space”, Prog Hum Geogr 2006, 30: 451-468.
Johansson, M. 2006. “Environment and Parental Factors as Determinants of Mode for Children’s
Leisure Travel.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26:156-169.
Kärrholm, M. 2012. Retailising Space; Architecture, Retail and the Territorialisation of Public Space,
Farnham: Ashgate.
Kato, Y. and Takeuchi, Y. 2003. “Individual differences in wayfinding strategies.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 23: 171-188.
Kaspar, H. and Bühler, E. 2009. “Planning, Design and Use of the Public Space Wahlenpark (Zurich,
Switzerland): Functional, Visual and Semiotic Openness.” Geographica Helvetica, 64 (1): 21-
29.
Koglin, T. 2013. Vélomobility – A Critical Analysis of Planning and Space. Lund: LTH.
Küller, R. 1991. “Environmental Assessment from a Neuropsychological Perspective.” In
Environment, Cognition and Action: An Integrated Approach. Edited by T. Gärling and G.W.
Evans. 111-147. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. 1986. “Visualization and Cognition: Thinking with Eyes and Hands.” Knowledge and
Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present 6: 1–40.
Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s Hope. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. 2005a. Reassembling the Social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. 2013. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Lavadinho, S. and Winkin Y. 2008. “Enchantment Engineering and Pedestrian Empowerment: The
Geneva Case.” In Ways of Walking, Ethnography and Practice on Foot. Edited by T. Ingold
and J. L. Vergunst. 155-168. Farnham: Ashgate.
Lefebvre, H. 1991a. Critique of Everyday Life Vol. I: Introduction. London: Verso.
Lefebvre, H. 1991b. The Production of Space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lefebvre, H. 2002. Critique of Everyday Life Vol. II: Foundations for a Sociology of the Everyday.
London: Verso.
Lefebvre, H. 2004. Rhythmanalysis, Space, Time and Everyday Life. London: Continuum.
Legat, A. 2008. “Walking stories; Leaving Footprints.” In Ways of Walking, Ethnography and
Practice on Foot. In Ways of Walking, Ethnography and Practice on Foot. Edited by T. Ingold
and J. L. Vergunst. 35-50. Farnham: Ashgate.
Leslie E., Saelens B., Frank L., Owen N., Bauman A., Coffee N. and Hugo G. 2005. “Residents’
Perception of Walkability Attributes in Objectively Different Neighbourhoods: A Pilot Study,
Health & Place 11: 227-236.
Litman, T. 2010. Are Vehicle Travel Reduction Targets Justified? Evaluating Mobility Management
Policy Objectives Such As Targets To Reduce VMT And Increase Use Of Alternative Modes.
Victoria, Canada: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Lucas, R. 2008. “Taking a Line for a Walk: Walking as an Aesthetic Practice.” In Ways of Walking,
Ethnography and Practice on Foot. Edited by T. Ingold and J. L. Vergunst. 169-184. Farnham:
Ashgate.
 22

MacAuley, D. 2000. “Walking the City: An Essay on Peripatetic Practices and Politics.” Capitalism
Nature Socialism, 11(4): 3–43.
Mauss, M. 1973. “The Techniques of the Body.” Economy and Society 2(1): 70-88.
McCormack, G.M., Cerin, E., Leslie, E., Du Toit, L. & Owen, N. 2008. “Objective Versus Perceived
Walking Distances to Destinations. Correspondence and Predictive Validity.” Environment and
Behavior, 40 (3): 401-425.
Middleton, J. 2009. “‘Stepping in Time’: Walking, Time, and Space in the City” Environment and
Planning A 41: 1943-1961.
Middelton, J. 2010. “Sense and the City: Exploring the Embodied Geographies of Urban Walking,”
Social & Cultural Geography, 11 (6): 575-596
Middleton, J. 2011a. “I’m on Autopilot, I Just Follow the Route: Exploring Habits, Routines, and
Decision-making Practices of Everyday Urban Mobilities.” Environment and Planning A 43:
2857-2877.
Middleton, J. 2011b. “Walking the City: The Geographies of Everyday Pedestrian Practices.”
Geography Compass 5 (2): 90-105.
Napier, M., Brown B., Werner C., Gallimore, J. 2011. “Walking to School: Community Design and
Child and Parent Barriers.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 31 (1): 45–51.
Nilsson E. 2010. Arkitekturens kroppslighet/Stadens som terräng. Lund: LTH.
Norton, P. D. 2007. “Street Rivals: Jaywalking and the Invention of the Motor Age Street.”
Technology and Culture, 48(2), 331-359.
Ogilvie, F., Rothnie, C., Cavill, N., Hamilton, V., Fitzsimons, F. and Mutrie, N. 2007. “Interventions
to Promote Walking: Systematic Review,” BMJ. 334: 1204-1214.
Österberg, D. 1995. Jean-Paul Sartre, filosofi, konst, politik, privatliv. Göteborg: Korpen.
Pinder, D. 2001. “Ghostly Footsteps: Voices, Memories and Walks in the City.” Cultural Geographies
8 (1): 1-19.
Pinder, D. 2011 “Errant Paths: The Poetics and Politics of Walking.” Environment and Planning D.
Society and Space 29: 672-692.
Ryave, A. L., & Schenkein, J. N. 1974. “Notes on the Art of Walking”. In Ethnomethodology, edited
by R. Turner. 265-274. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Sand, M. 2011. Gå vilse med punktlighet och precision. Stockholm: Arkitekturmuseet.
Sartre, J. P. 1976. Critique of Dialectical Reason. London: NLB.
Slavin, S. 2003. “Walking as Spiritual Practice: The Pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela.” Body
and Society, 9(3): 1–18
Star S.L. and Griesemer, J. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects:
Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39” Social
Studies of Science, 19 (3): 387–420.
Svensson, Å., and Hydén, C. 2006. ”Estimating the Severity of Safety Related Behaviour.” Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 38(2): 379-385.
Tenngart-Ivarsson, C. 2011. On the Use and Experience of a Health Garden. Alnarp, Sweden: SLU.
Trafikverket. 2011. Attraktiva stadsrum för alla, Shared space, T 2010:122, Stockholm: Trafikverket.
 23

Tuck-Po, L. 2008. “Before a Step Too Far: Walking with Batek Hunter-Gatherers in the Forest of
Pahang, Malaysia”, In Ways of Walking, Ethnography and Practice on Foot. Edited by T.
Ingold and J. L. Vergunst. 21-34. Farnham: Ashgate.
Urry, J. 2000. Sociology beyond Societies. London: Routledge.
Valentine, G. 2007. “Theorizing and Researching Intersectionality: A Challenge for Feminist
Geography.” The Professional Geographer 59 (1): 10-21.
Vergunst, J. 2008. “Taking a Trip and Taking Care in Everyday Life”, In Ways of Walking,
Ethnography and Practice on Foot. Edited by T. Ingold and J. L. Vergunst. 169-184. Farnham:
Ashgate.
Vergunst, J. 2010. “Rhythms of Walking: History and Presence in a City Street.” Space and Culture
13 (4): 376-388.
Warnier, J-P. 2001. “A Praxeological Approach to Subjectivation in a Material World’, Journal of
Material Culture, 6 (1): 5-24.
Weilenmann, A., Normark, D., and Laurier, E. 2012. “Managing Walking Together: The Challenge of
Revolving Doors” December 10th, 2013, at
http://www.ericlaurier.co.uk/resources/Writings/Weilenmann-2012-Revolving-doors-March-
12.pdf
Whyte W. H. 1988. City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Wunderlich, F. M. 2008. “Walking and Rhythmicity: Sensing Urban Space.” Journal of Urban Design
13 (1): 125-139.
Wunderlich, F. M. 2010. “The Aesthetics of Place-Temporality in Everyday Urban Space: The Case
of Fitzroy Square.” In Geographies of Rhythm, Nature, Place, Mobilities and Bodies, edited by
T. Edensor. 45-58. Farnham: Ashgate.
Young, I. M. 1994. “Gender as Seriality: Thinking about Women as a Social Collective.” Signs, 19
(3): 713–738.
Zacharias, J. 2001. “Pedestrian Behavior and Perception in Urban Walking Environments” Journal of
Planning Literature 16 (3): 3-18.
Zhang, H., Zhang, K. and Wang, R.F. 2013. “The Role of Static Scene Information on Locomotion
Distance Estimation.” Journal of Cognitive Psychology 25 (1): 73-83.

View publication stats