Beatrix Potter's classic children's book, The Tale of Peter Rabbit , offers an example of a well‐entrenched view of property and its geographies. Drawing on this, and current scholarship on law and geography, I explore the ways in which the spatial boundaries of property are formally conceived. I then compare this model with the findings of a qualitative research project on people's everyday practices and understandings of their garden boundaries in inner city Vancouver. While this provides partial support for the formal model, I find more pervasive evidence for a very different view of the boundaries of property. While the dominant account assumes a determinate, individualistic and ordered view of the boundary, my findings suggest a more relational, porous and ambiguous alternative. The gap, however, proves instructive. In conclusion, therefore, I return to law and geography to reflect on the importance of thinking through the ways legal forms, such as property, are materially and spatially enacted within particular places. Finally, the study alerts us to the multivalent political possibilities of property. While property can, indeed, be individualistic and reified, it also contains more collective and fluid meanings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nicholas Blomley (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: