“Geographical Imaginaries”: A Three-Decade Literature Review of Usage and Applications Across Academic Contexts

1 Introduction

The aim of this article is to analyze and categorize the various contemporary uses of the term “geographical imaginaries” as it appears in the broader social science literature. While a key objective is to explore the varying definitions of the term, its core meaning can be succinctly summarized as “taken-for-granted spatial orderings of the world” (Gregory, 2009a, p. 282). Similar to related concepts like “spatial imaginaries,” “geographical imaginations” (Gregory, 1994, 2009b), and “imaginative geographies” (Gregory, 2009c, p. 284), the term gained popularity in the early 2020s and has continued to grow in prominence ever since (Watkins, 2015, p. 508). Geographical imaginaries appear in a wide range of humanities and social science literature addressing topics such as social phenomena, places, spaces, brands, landscapes, and complex health-related issues. For instance, scholars of migration and global mobility may view imaginaries as both drivers and deterrents of movement. Positive imaginaries – such as those surrounding Silicon Valley – can attract tech entrepreneurs, while negative or less appealing imaginaries may influence how American expatriates perceive postings in less conventional destinations, such as Kazakhstan or the Gulf States. As this article suggests, the use of geographical imaginaries varies significantly across the articles: in some, it serves as a central theoretical concept, in others, it functions as an analytical tool embedded within broader frameworks, playing either a primary or secondary role.

This literature review examines the concept of “geographical imaginaries” from its emergence until 2024, based on a Scopus-based literature query. Disentangling all the related notions that describe how people imagine social spaces and places is by no means an easy task, largely because their meanings often overlap. Additionally, as this review demonstrates, authors do not consistently use these terms but often employ them interchangeably (Wright, 2010). Nevertheless, this review focuses exclusively on “geographical imaginaries,” exploring how the term is employed in the literature. The main emphasis is on the various definitions used, the contexts in which the concept appears, and the scales to which it applies – macro, mezzo, or micro. This investigation provides insight into the meaning of this theoretical concept. The article identifies the most prevalent interpretations of “geographical imaginaries,” aiding in navigating its various, and sometimes contradictory, applications. The conceptual ambiguity arises from the term’s inconsistent usage across different studies. A deeper understanding of its contextual usage may be particularly revealing in cases where the explicit meaning remains vague or underdefined.

The working definition of an “geographical imaginaries” for the sake of this article is based on two key sources – the conceptual article on geographical imaginaries by Howie and Lewis (2014) and a chronologically earlier French-language influential article by Riaño and Baghdadi (2007), who discussed the geographical imaginaries (imaginaires géographiques) in the context of female migrants, directly pointing to the salience of the concept for the studies of migration and international mobility, and introduced this term in non-English language literature. Figure 1 presents the frequency of the phrase in the eligible sources (refer to Methodology section for details).

Figure 1

Distribution of studies over time.

According to Howie and Lewis (2014, p. 136), what distinguishes “geographical imaginaries” from “geographical imaginations” is the performative aspect – “geographical imaginaries are not just socially produced but also socially productive”; i.e. they frame understandings of the world. For these reasons, if we perceive them as a force in symbolic struggle, they are never stable but situated in social and cultural context – “constructed within life course experiences, emotion, personal background and memory, as well as in social framings of education systems, class, gender, ethnicity, and overt political and textual constructions” (Howie & Lewis, 2014, p. 136). “Geographical imaginaries,” understood as “conceptual armory,” is a valuable concept that is not only for scholars but also for school journalists, politicians, and teachers (Howie & Lewis, 2014, p. 132).

This understanding builds upon the earlier notions of geographical imaginations and imagined geographies. The interest in studying human imaginaries within a social context dates back to the philosophical writings of Jean-Paul Sartre, Cornelius Castoriadis, and Charles Taylor. The uses of “imaginaries” are so varied that it is not possible to analyze all the threads, or even map this vast literature. Instead, I focus on a narrower notion, yet not the one which focuses on spatiality at the cost of the social dimension of an imagination – “spatial imaginaries” (Watkins, 2015, p. 519). Although “geographical imaginaries”, just as spatial imaginaries, are inherently related to spatiality, they are also social imaginaries, in the sense that the spatial dimension is one of many dimensions, not necessarily the most important one.

The structure of this article is as follows. First, I detail the methodological assumptions of the scoping literature review. Although this is not a systematic literature review, I applied the PRISMA guidelines to select the cases, as this framework provides clear, actionable instructions for filtering studies – even when the sample represents only a portion of the existing literature.

Subsequently, this scoping review examines the literature on geographical imaginaries using six criteria: definitions, theoretical foundations, research contexts, range of imaginaries, and their overall scope. The findings section is structured around the research questions outlined below. I examine how geographical imaginaries are defined, their theoretical underpinnings, and the research contexts in which they appear. Additionally, I investigate the range of these imaginaries, exploring whether they pertain to smaller, individual perceptions or broader, all-encompassing narratives. Finally, I identify various categories of phenomena – such as the environment, global health, and society (“scope”) – that are analyzed through the lens of geographical imaginaries.

This review can lead to a more informed use of theoretical categories in future social analyses and, most importantly, maps the field, enabling researchers to navigate the diverse analyses that employ the notion of geographical imaginaries. Thus, the objective of this article is not only to demonstrate the inconsistency in how the concept of geographical imaginaries is defined, but also to show that its definition is often shaped by the specific research context.

2 Methodology

This study analyzes 116 sources that contain the phrase “geographical imaginaries,” retrieved from the Scopus database (Finfgeld-Connett, 2018). These sources explore geographical imaginaries in relation to various social phenomena (e.g., ethnic stereotypes), places and spaces, geopolitical concepts, health issues, and public security concerns (e.g., terrorism; Table 2).

Materials were selected based on the criteria specified below. The extensive pool of articles discussing “geographical imaginaries” was evaluated against these eligibility criteria. This review is predominantly qualitative, focusing on presenting the variety of definitions and types of “geographical imaginaries.” By providing excerpts from the articles along with their interpretations, the study contextualizes the analyzed imaginaries. Although a few attempts at quantification are made to assess the frequency of certain types, the polysemic nature of the material limits these quantifications as fully objective measurements. The numbers serve more as approximate indicators of the popularity of certain perspectives on imaginaries rather than precise measurements.

3 Procedure

The literature review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines, which were designed to help authors provide a transparent description of the research procedures (Mak & Thomas, 2022; Page et al., 2021). The flow of information through the different phases of this review was depicted using the PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram^[1] (Figure 2).

Figure 2

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.

In brief, as shown in the figure above, PRISMA involves the following steps:

1. Search Records & Removal of Duplicates. The initial step involved identifying studies through database searches and removing duplicates.

2. Abstract-level Screening. An initial screening of abstracts was carried out to exclude irrelevant studies based on the inclusion criteria.

3. Full-text Screening. The full texts of potentially relevant studies were reviewed to confirm their adherence to the inclusion criteria.

4. Final Included Papers. The studies that remained after screening were meticulously analyzed and coded according to the established criteria.

In the preliminary search for studies on geographical imaginaries, I used the Scopus database, as it is broad enough to include many high-quality and other reliable academic articles while being selective enough to exclude publications from outlets with questionable reputations or limited impact on global academic debates. The initial search was conducted on June 11, 2024, using the following criteria:

• Keyword: “geographical imaginaries”;

• Search within: all fields;

• Sources: all (journals, books, chapters, etc.).

This query, based on broad search criteria, produced 504 records, including journals, books, and chapters. Subsequently, I limited the query to “Social Sciences and Arts and Humanities,” resulting in 473 records. When further restricted to English-language entries, the total was 429 records, consisting of papers, books, and chapters published between 1999 and 2024. It is worth noting that the analysis included papers that used one of the synonymous terms discussed (e.g., spatial imaginaries, security imaginaries) or those that indicated a discussion of the topic under alternative naming, as long as the term “geographical imaginaries” appeared in the main text.

This number was further narrowed during the abstract-level screening process. If the phrase “geographical imaginaries” did not appear in the abstract, I screened the entire article for eligibility. Manual verification allowed me to exclude many articles that referenced geographical imaginaries in a largely superficial manner – for instance, when authors loosely referred to “imaginaries of island laboratories” in the Dutch and French Caribbean (Borie & Fraser, 2023). In some cases, the term “geographical imaginaries” appeared only in the references (Jeleff et al., 2023) but not in the abstract or main text. At this stage, if the context was unclear, I determined whether the article warranted an in-depth analysis.

In the abstract-level screening, supported by full-text review if necessary, I excluded certain studies that focused on narrow phenomena, particularly from history or art history, even when “imaginaries” were mentioned, albeit briefly. For example, I excluded an article examining the testimonial spaces of Nazi camps because “imaginaries” was only referenced in passing. Similarly, a study analyzing “reactions to the performance of Stravinsky’s Le Sacre du Printemps” was not included, as it aimed to illustrate how rhythm is culturally and politically encoded through discursive and conceptual links to geographical imaginaries of place. The rationale for these exclusions is that the articles either mentioned geographical imaginaries only in passing or defined them strictly within the narrow context of their case studies, without linking them to contemporary societies or cultures. As a result, the definitions of imaginaries offered were not applicable to broader contexts or useful for explaining present-day social issues, as exemplified by the approach of by Howie and Lewis (2014) and Riaño and Baghdadi (2007).

During the full-text screening phase, I analyzed the complete texts of potentially relevant studies (n = 140) to ensure they met the inclusion criteria. At this stage, 24 articles were excluded for the reasons outlined in Figure 2. This phase enabled me to eliminate articles outside the scope of this research, such as those focused exclusively on historical phenomena (e.g., not addressing contemporary imaginaries) or those in which “geographical imaginaries” appeared only in the references, with no implicit reference in the content, even if they had passed the initial screening (as they appeared to address geographical imaginaries in the manner defined above). Ultimately, the research material was limited to 116 sources published between 2001 and 2024, primarily consisting of journal articles and chapters, with only a few entire books.^[2]

4 Research Questions

The study addresses the following questions based on a scoping literature review:

1. How are “geographical imaginaries” defined in the literature of the social sciences and humanities?

2. What theories are employed in their conceptualization?

3. In what contexts does the analysis of imaginaries predominantly occur?

4. What types of imaginaries can we distinguish based on their “range,” understood as the level of analysis from micro to macro?

5. What types of phenomena are explored through the use of imaginaries?

5 Findings

The findings section is organized around the research question, as outlined above. Whenever possible, I refer to the total count of the articles that collectively constitute the analyzed pattern, using this to measure its prevalence. Most importantly, I discuss and provide examples of specific approaches based on the analyzed articles.

6 Discussion

The article confirmed existing assumptions (Howie & Lewis, 2014; Watkins, 2015) that the term “geographical imaginaries” is used quite loosely across studies. Half of the articles examined relied on a generic definition or “imaginaries about,” based on a commonsense understanding of the term. Only one in three articles was written with an explicit conceptualization of geographical imaginaries. Furthermore, even when a article adopted a strict definition – rooted in clear criteria and grounded in the literature – it is notable that this did not always translate into a consistent or rigorous application of the term in the results section.

Moreover, the analyzed sources suggest that clearly delineating the boundaries between “imaginaries” (synonymous with the less commonly used term “geographical imageries”) and related concepts is a challenging task. Few authors make such distinctions, as exemplified by Cangià and Zittoun (2020), who differentiate between “imaginaries” – defined as a stable, shared, and transmitted toolkit resulting from imagination – and dynamic “imagination,” characterized as “an ever-changing embodied and creative activity both embedded in and shaping the social and cultural world around” (Cangià & Zittoun, 2020, p. 643). More often, however, there is a terminological confusion.

In the analyzed pool of articles, various adjectives were associated with the core term “imaginaries” (Jiang et al., 2022), significantly altering its meaning. The two most common conceptual solutions are “spatial imaginaries” – a concept that has been explored in-depth (Watkins, 2015) – yet a comprehensive literature review is still lacking, and “geographical imaginations.” The challenge with the latter term is its distinctly different meaning, however, some authors analyze “geographical imaginations” and various “imaginaries” simultaneously, making it difficult to disentangle the two.

To some extent, it is possible to differentiate between “geographical imaginaries” and synonymous terms that emphasize connections to other disciplines, such as “social imaginaries”, “political imaginaries” (sometimes referred to as “high-politics imaginaries”), and “economic imaginaries.” While geographical imaginaries – indistinguishable in this regard from spatial imaginaries (Watkins, 2015) – are always related to spatiality, social, political, and economic imaginaries do not necessarily incorporate this aspect. Among these, the concept of “economic imaginaries” is drawn from cultural political economy and is precisely defined, often based on Bob Jessop’s conceptualizations, which describe them as “simplified, necessarily selective mental maps of a supercomplex reality,” rather than as purely representational accounts of an external reality (Lewis, 2018, p. 5; Grubbauer, 2014).

What further complicates the analysis is the presence of hybrids in the reviewed literature, such as “socio-spatial imaginary” and “social and spatial imaginaries,” which appeared in the same article (Bürkner & Scott, 2019). Additionally, the authors referenced “ethno-spatial imaginaries” (Maraud & Guyot, 2016), also known as “ethno-spatial representations.” These hybrids hinder the ability to ascertain a clear and consistent meaning as intended by the authors, not to mention the ontological and epistemological assumptions that underlie these terms.

Furthermore, articles on geographical imaginaries employ a broad array of concepts that narrow the boundaries of what constitutes “geographical imaginaries.” In alphabetical order, these concepts included “Anthropocene imaginaries,” “anti-colonial imaginaries,” “common tourist imaginary,” “diasporic imaginations,” “geopolitical imaginaries,” “imaginary-as-brand” (or “commercial imaginaries of national branding”), “medical imaginaries,” “military imaginations of outer space,” “national imaginaries,” “nationalist imaginaries,” “neighborhood imaginaries,” “neoliberal imaginary,” “racist imaginaries,” “religious imaginations/geographical imaginaries,” “urban imaginaries,” and “aesthetic imaginaries.” Many of these terms are intuitive in nature and often lack analytical clarity, as they are used metaphorically rather than as part of a “conceptual armory” (Howie & Lewis, 2014, p. 136). While my aim is not to critique the authors – whose agendas may differ from the conceptualization of “geographical imaginaries” – this dispersion of similar, undertheorized notions complicates academic discourse. Ultimately, it leaves it to future authors to determine which concepts are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably. For instance, the concept of “sustainable imaginary” is clearly defined as “a society’s understanding and vision of how resources are being used and should be used to ensure socio-environmental reproduction” (Cidell, 2017, p. 171). Another source that employs this term, suggests, however, that environmental imaginaries can have two meanings: first, “stories that are told about environmental issues, allowing analysis of how changes are attributed as positive or negative”, and second, “the ways in which environmental conditions are often discussed in relation to other issues, highlighting the embeddedness of environmental concerns within broader power relations, histories, and contexts” (Harris, 2011, p. 193).

The lack of a precise definition can be both a drawback and an opportunity for theoretical exploration. For instance, Nick Lewis, co-author of an influential theoretical article on geographical imaginaries (Howie & Lewis, 2014), uses the terms “spatial” and “geographical” imaginaries interchangeably in his earlier article focused on national branding (Lewis, 2011). He distinguishes between “cultural,” “environmental,” and “economic” imaginaries, providing examples such as reputations for reliability, quality, consistency, prompt payment, and trustworthiness (Lewis, 2011, p. 270). In Lewis’s article, “geographical imaginaries” is conceptualized as a broad term with several subtypes related to various domains, including culture, environment, economy, and others. While these subtypes highlight specific social domains, the overarching reference remains the core concept of geographical imaginaries. This understanding, although only implicitly presented in Lewis’s work, helps mitigate the excessive fragmentation of the concept. A notable advantage is that it allows for the exploration of the different shades and meanings of “geographical imaginaries.”

The focus on the range of imaginaries enabled me to distinguish between “macro” imaginaries, which are evident in public discourse, and “micro” imaginaries, which can be traced in individual narratives. This criterion is crucial, as the epistemological stance from which knowledge is produced can significantly influence the content of these imaginaries. The primary implication of this finding is methodological. Since geographical imaginaries are produced at various social levels, it is crucial to study them using a range of materials – from individual reflections to media images, public policies, and even meta-narratives embedded in literature, film, and drama. These levels can either complement or contradict one another. What is particularly significant is the intersection between micro-level imaginaries and the mezzo and macro levels, which also warrant careful examination.

The three levels of imaginaries correspond to the disciplinary affiliations of the students of geographical imaginaries and the scope of the articles. Micro-level imaginaries are most frequently discussed by sociologists and social geographers. Within this category, as in the overall pool of articles, geography remained the most common disciplinary affiliation, accounting for 40% of the articles, while sociology constituted a significant 28%. In contrast, on the macro scale, geographers authored 57% of articles, while sociologists contributed only 11%. Furthermore, mezzo- and macro-level analyses are more typical of political scientists, who almost never contribute to the understanding of micro-level imaginaries.

Similarly, society is the main topic in sources focused on the micro-scale (80% of articles, 20 out of 25), but its significance declines at the mezzo level (9 out of 31 articles, or 29%) and even further at the macro level (5 out of 44 articles, or 11%). In contrast, topics such as politics and the concept of the image itself become more prominent at higher levels of analysis. At the macro level, analyses are more likely to focus on images themselves or branding, such as the marketing value of Lapland’s imaginary (Herva et al., 2020).

While discussing these results, it is important to consider two limitations of the study. First, the analysis did not account for various conceptual alternatives mentioned above (such as “spatial imaginaries”) in order to focus on the details of a single notion – its history, evolving definitions, and disciplinary impact. Second, certain articles were deliberately excluded from the analysis, particularly historical studies (e.g., those focused on colonialism in the context of the 1884–1885 Berlin Conference) and media studies that primarily analyze media texts themselves (e.g., the depiction of Paris in Hollywood-inspired Maghrebi-French narratives). Although this decision limited the scope of the analysis, it allowed me to examine articles that were methodologically aligned with interview material, policy analysis, or analyses of media that discussed social realities, such as cartoons analyzed in the context of the Arab Spring.

7 Conclusion

The meta-analysis suggests that the term geographical imaginaries is not used consistently across the analyzed article. The issue lies not only in the relative rarity of clear definitions but also in the lack of consensus on whether geographical imaginaries should be treated as a well-defined concept rather than a commonsensical notion. While it is not always necessary to define the term explicitly – especially when it is not central to the study, as was often the case – the problem arises when imaginaries are used more as a catchphrase than as an analytical concept.

The answer to the second research question – concerning the theoretical frameworks employed in the conceptualization of geographical imaginaries – is closely linked to the first. The diverse theoretical underpinnings of geographical imaginaries reflect variations in research contexts, analytical scales, and the specific phenomena under investigation, as previously discussed. The analysis indicates that scholars investigate geographical imaginaries across a broad spectrum – from micro-level imaginaries rooted in individual experience to macro-level imaginaries embedded in global public discourse. The topics addressed range from social phenomena, places, and spaces to brands, landscapes, health, and public security.

Given the lack of a shared conceptual foundation, such as the one proposed by Howie and Lewis (2014), a wide array of often incompatible theoretical perspectives appears across the literature. Ideally, if geographical imaginaries were understood in the generalized sense proposed by Howie and Lewis – as mental representations that both shape and are shaped by human action, or alternatively, as structures of meaning that both inform and are informed by human action – the concept could be meaningfully applied across a range of disciplines. This concept serves as a general framework – flexible, yet not contradictory – and does not require an explicit definition in every instance. While a universal definition of geographical imaginaries may not be necessary, the general understanding proposed by Howie and Lewis (2014) offers a promising conceptual starting point. Treating geographical imaginaries as an analytical rather than a commonsensical term could lead to more rigorous theoretical reflection and, consequently, deeper insights into the phenomena it seeks to explain.

Despite the terminological ambiguity, the notion remains valuable for deepening our understanding of diverse cultural phenomena, as demonstrated by contributions from multiple fields. The wide applicability of the concept suggests its utility for scholars in human geography, sociology, migration studies, political science, and beyond. Moreover, there is still room to apply this framework to emerging areas of inquiry. For instance, the history of ideas could benefit from considering the imaginaries within which certain ideas are generated or transferred across borders (Abriszewski, 2016), while migration studies might further explore the imaginary dimension of practices such as medical tourism (Horsfall, 2019).