The geography of homelessness is often characterized as containment in marginalized spaces of cities or as placelessness necessitating continuous travel. These characterizations, which reflect discourses about ‘the homeless’ as an imagined deviant homogeneous group, have had substantial effects on policy formation and critiques of punitive turns in urban governance. Suggested policy responses frequently assume straightforward relationships between power/powerlessness and mobility/immobility binaries that do not appropriately portray actual mobility patterns of homeless individuals. Through focus groups and structured interviews, this paper examines the daily mobility of homeless adults in Long Beach, California, to identify the ways in which the everyday travel of homeless individuals compares with these ‘imagined’ characterizations and with national US household travel patterns. Results show that homeless mobility is highly spatially constrained and structured by sociocultural relations of stigmatization, economic productivity, and personal responsibility that are reflected in the operational conventions and institutional practices of transportation and social welfare systems. Nonetheless, during the course of a day, homeless individuals move among spaces where they experience varying levels of inclusion and exclusion, thus complicating static, homogeneous characterizations. This analysis contributes to both the urban transport and social geography literatures by demonstrating the value of combining sociocultural approaches to the study of mobility with more typical transportation geography analyses of individual travel behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonN, 1923The Hobo: The Sociology of the Homeless Man (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
2.
BeierA LOcobockP R, 2008Cast Out: Vagrancy and Homelessness in Global and Historical Perspective (Ohio University Press, Athens, OH).
BlumenbergEManvilleM, 2004, “Beyond the spatial mismatch: Welfare recipients and transportation policy”Journal of Planning Literature19182–205.
5.
BoschmannEKwanM, 2008, “Toward socially sustainable urban transportation: Progress and potentials”International Journal of Sustainable Transportation2(3) 138–157.
6.
BurtMAronL YLeeE KValenteJ, 2001Helping America's Homeless: Emergency Shelter or Affordable Housing? (Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC).
7.
CerveroRSandovalOLandisJ, 2002, “Transportation as a stimulus of welfare-to-work: Private versus public mobility”Journal of Planning Education and Research2250–63.
8.
ChurchAFrostMSullivanK, 2000, “Transport and social exclusion in London”Transport Policy7195–205.
9.
City of Long Beach, 2004, “2004 homeless assessment”, Department of Health and Human Services, http://homeless-research.com/.
City of Long Beach, 2007b, “Administrative use permit, conditions of approval, 1368 Oregon Avenue”, Department of Development Services, Long Beach, CA, [Case No. 0703–18].
CraneR, 2007, “Is there a quiet revolution in women's travel? Revisiting the gender gap in commuting”Journal of the American Planning Association73298–316.
15.
CresswellT, 2001The Tramp in America (Reaktion Books, London).
16.
CresswellT, 2006On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World (Routledge, New York).
17.
DearM JWolchJ R, 1987Landscapes of Despair: From Deinstitutionalization to Homelessness (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).
18.
DeVerteuilG, 2003, “Homeless mobility, institutional settings, and the new poverty management”Environment and Planning A35361–379.
19.
DeVerteuilG, 2006, “The local state and homeless shelters: Beyond revanchism?”Cities23109–120.
20.
DeVerteuilGMayJvon MahsJ, 2009, “Complexity not collapse: Recasting the geographies of homelessness in a ‘punitive’ age”Progress in Human Geography33646–666.
21.
EnglandKVL, 1993, “Suburban pink collar ghettos: The spatial entrapment of women?”Annals of the Association of American Geographers83225–242.
22.
EnglandK, 1994, “Reply to Susan Hanson and Geraldine Pratt”Annals of the Association of American Geographers84502–504.
FowlerF J, 1993Survey Research Methods2nd edition (Sage, Newbury Park, CA).
25.
GilbertM R, 1998, “‘Race’, space, and power: The survival strategies of working poor women”Annals of the Association of American Geographers88595–621.
26.
HansonSPrattG, 1994, “Commentary: On suburban pink collar ghettos: The spatial entrapment of women? By Kim England”Annals of the Association of American Geographers84500–502.
27.
HansonSPrattG, 1995Gender, Work, and Space (Routledge, London).
28.
HineJ, 2008, “Transport and social justice”, in Transport Geographies: Mobilities, Flows, and Spaces Eds KnowlesRShawJDochertyI (Blackwell, Malden, MA) pp 49–61.
29.
HineJMitchellF, 2003Transport Disadvantage and Social Exclusion: Exclusionary Mechanisms in Transport in Urban Scotland (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants).
30.
HolzerH J, 1991, “The spatial mismatch hypothesis—what has the evidence shown?”Urban Studies28105–122.
31.
IhlanfeldtK RSjoquistD L, 1998, “The spatial mismatch hypothesis: A Review of recent studies and their implications for welfare reform”Housing Policy Debate9849–892.
32.
Inter-University Consortium Against Homelessness, University of Southern California, Los Angeles2007a, “Ending homelessness in Los Angeles”.
33.
Inter-University Consortium Against Homelessness, University of Southern California, Los Angeles2007b, “A reality based approach to ending homelessness in Los Angeles”.
34.
Inter-University Consortium Against Homelessness, University of Southern California, Los Angeles2008, “2008 Report Card on homelessness in Los Angeles”.
35.
KainJ, 1968, “Housing segregation, negro employment and metropolitan decentralization”Quarterly Journal of Economics82(3) 175–197.
36.
KainJ, 1992, “The spatial mismatch hypothesis: Three decades later”Housing Policy Debate3371–460.
37.
KasardaJ, 1985, “Urban change and minority opportunities”, in The New Urban Reality Ed. PetersonP E (Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC) pp 33–67.
38.
KawashS, 1998, “The homeless body”Public Culture10319–339.
39.
LawR, 1999, “Beyond ‘women and transport’: Toward new geographies and gender mobility”Progress in Human Geography23567–588.
40.
MacDonaldH I, 1999, “Women's employment and commuting: Explaining the links”Journal of Planning Literature13267–283.
41.
MasseyD, 1993, “Power-geometry and a progressive sense of place”, in Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures, Global Change Eds BirdJCurtisBPutnamTRobertsonGTicknerL (Routledge, London) pp 59–69.
42.
MayJ, 2000, “Of nomads and vagrants: Single homelessness and narratives of home as place”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space18737–759.
43.
MayJ, 2003, “Local connection criteria and single homeless people's geographical mobility: Evidence from Brighton and Hove”Housing Studies1829–46.
44.
MitchellD, 1997, “The annihilation of space by law: The roots and implications of anti-homeless laws in the United States”Antipode29303–335.
45.
OngP M, 2002, “Car ownership and welfare-to-work”Journal of Policy and Management21239–252.
46.
OngP MHoustonD, 2002, “Transit, employment and women on welfare”Urban Geography23344–364.
47.
PetersonR A, 2000Constructing Effective Questionnaires (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).
48.
PrestonVMcLaffertyS, 1999, “Spatial mismatch research in the 1990s: Progress and potential”Papers in Regional Science78387–402.
49.
PucherJRenneJ L, 2003, “Socioeconomics of urban travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS”Transportation Quarterly57(3) 49–77.
50.
RahimianAWolchJ RKoegelP, 1992, “A model of homeless migration: Homeless men in Skid Row, Los Angeles”Environment and Planning A241317–1336.
51.
SanchezT W, 2008, “Poverty, policy, and public transportation”Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice42833–841.
52.
ShellerMUrryJ, 2006, “The new mobilities paradigm”Environment and Planning A38207–226.
53.
SmithN, 1996The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City (Routledge, New York).
54.
StaeheliL AMitchellD, 2008The People's Property? Power, Politics, and the Public (Routledge, New York).
55.
TakahashiL M, 1997, “The socio-spatial stigmatization of homelessness and HIV/AIDS: Toward an explanation of the NIMBY syndrome”Social Science and Medicine45903–914.
56.
TakahashiL MWiebeDRodriguezR, 2001, “Navigating the time–space context of HIV and AIDS: Daily routines and access to care”Social Science and Medicine53845–863.
