What matter is walking ground made of? And how does such ground matter? What is the relationship between walking surfaces and people’s experience of natural landscapes? And how do different ground surfaces enact different meshworks of conservation politics, mobility, and tourism infrastructure? Drawing from nonrepresentational theory and from audiovisual fieldwork conducted in and around Australia’s Cradle Mountain, part of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, this article and its accompanying video focus on the materials of walking trails to understand the relations among walking, the built environment, and the sensory and affective experience of place. Arguing that trails and trail surfaces—and boardwalks in particular—serve as influential material conduits for variously contested outdoor recreation mobilities, this article develops the argument that pathways are elements in the world’s transformation of itself.
BallantyneM.PickeringC. M. (2015). The impact of trail infrastructure on vegetation and soils: Current literature and future directions. Journal of Environmental Management, 164, 53-64.
2.
BarrattP. (2011). Vertical world: Technology, hybridity, and the climbing body. Social & Cultural Geography, 12, 397-412.
3.
BrownK. (2015). Leave only footprints? How traces of movement shape the appropriation of space. Cultural Geographies, 22, 659-687.
4.
CresswellT. (2013). Friction. In AdeyP.BissellD.HannamK.MerrimanP.ShellerM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of mobilities (pp. 107-115). London, England: Routledge.
5.
DavidsonA. (2009). Living between nature and technology: The suburban constitution of environmentalism in Australia. In WhiteD.WilbertC. (Eds.), Technonatures: Environments, technologies, spaces, and places in the twenty-first century (pp. 167-189). Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
6.
DixonG. (2015). Overland Track and side-tracks, Cradle Mountain–Lake St Clair National Park: Survey of track and campsite condition. Unpublished Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service report.
7.
DutkiewiczJ. (2015). Pretzel logic: An embodied ethnography of a rock climb. Space and Culture, 18, 25-38.
8.
EdenS.BarrattP. (2010). Outdoors versus indoors? Angling ponds, climbing walls, and changing expectations of environmental leisure. Area, 42, 487-493.
9.
EdensorT. (2000). Walking in the British countryside: Reflexivity, embodied practices, and ways to escape. Body & Society, 6, 81-106.
10.
EdensorT. (2008). Walking through ruins. In VergunstJ. L.IngoldT. (Eds.), Ways of walking: Ethnography and practice on foot (pp. 123-142). Farnham, England: Ashgate.
11.
EdensorT. (2010). Walking in rhythms: Place, regulation, style, and the flow of experience. Visual Studies, 25, 69-79.
12.
ForsythI.LorimerH.MerrimanP.RobinsonJ. (2013). What are surfaces?Environment and Planning A, 45, 1013-1020.
13.
HarperM. (2008). The ways of the bushwalker: On foot in Australia. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: University of New South Wales Press.
14.
IngoldT. (2004). Culture on the ground: The world perceived through the feet. Journal of Material Culture, 9, 315-340.
15.
IngoldT. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge, and description. London, England: Routledge.
16.
IngoldT. (2015). The life of lines. London, England: Routledge.
17.
KaikaM. (2005). City of flows. London, England: Routledge.
18.
LingisA. (1998). The imperative. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
19.
LorimerH. (2012). Surfaces and slopes. Performance Research, 17, 83-86.
20.
LundK. (2005). Seeing in motion and the touching eye: Walking over Scotland’s mountains. Etnofoor, 18, 27-42.
21.
MichaelM. (2000). These boots are made for walking . . . : Mundane technology, the body, and human-environment relations. Body & Society, 6, 107-126.
22.
MichaelM. (2009). The cellphone-in-the-countryside: On some of the ironic spatialities of technonatures. In WhiteD.WilbertC. (Eds.), Technonatures: Environments, technologies, spaces, and places in the twenty-first century (pp. 85-104). Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
23.
NettletonS. (2015). Fell runners and walking walls: Towards a sociology of living landscapes and aesthetic atmospheres as an alternative to a Lakeland picturesque. British Journal of Sociology, 66, 759-778.
24.
ShoveE. (2005). Comfort, cleanliness, and convenience: The social organisation of normality. Oxford, England: Berg.
25.
SolnitR. (2001). Wanderlust: A brief history of walking. London, England: Penguin.
26.
VergunstJ. L. (2008). Taking a trip and taking care in everyday life. In VergunstJ. L.IngoldT. (Eds.), Ways of walking: Ethnography and practice on foot (pp. 105-123). Farnham, England: Ashgate.
27.
VergunstJ. L.IngoldT. (Eds.). (2008). Ways of walking: Ethnography and practice on foot. Farnham, England: Ashgate.
28.
WaittG.GillN.HeadL. (2009). Walking practice and suburban nature-talk. Social & Cultural Geography, 10, 41-62.
29.
WhiteD.WilbertC. (2009). Inhabiting technocultural time/spaces. In WhiteD.WilbertC. (Eds.), Technonatures: Environments, technologies, spaces, and places in the twenty-first century (pp. 1-30). Waterloo, Ontario, England: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
30.
WylieJ. (2005). A single day’s walking: Narrating self and landscape on the South West Coast Path. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30, 234-247.
31.
WylieJ. (2006). Smoothlands: Fragments/landscapes/fragments. Cultural Geographies, 13, 458-465.
