Przegląd Geograficzny (2025) vol. 97, iss. 3
Between two places of residence. Residential multilocality and its relation to place attachmenet and local engagement
Przegląd Geograficzny (2025) vol. 97, iss. 3, pp. 301-325 | 
Full text
doi: https://doi.org/10.7163/PrzG.2025.3.4
Abstract
The article addresses the issue of residential multilocality, focusing on the relationship between living in more than one place, attachment to place, and engagement with local issues. It presents a theoretical framework for conceptualizing multilocality as a dynamic process of residing in multiple locations, offering an alternative to traditional notions of migration and daily mobility. The study seeks to answer how the “polygamy of place” and the temporary presence or absence of multilocal residents affect their attachment to places of residence and levels of community engagement.
A strong attachment to places of residence is evidenced by the prolonged use of specific locations, accompanied by relatively few relocations. Over time, respondents had the opportunity to build and deepen their ties to these places. Among participants, there was a tendency to expand their activity space by establishing an additional residence while maintaining the original one, which suggests a reluctance to abandon the current residence in favor of a new location. The time spent in each place is clearly asymmetrical: one location typically dominates as the space for daily functioning, while the other serves complementary roles: recreational, familial, or work-related.
Interpretation of responses to open-ended questions reveals several dimensions of place attachment: functional, emotional, and, less frequently, identity-related. Although classical models of attachment tend to assume a singular “rootedness,” many respondents expressed a sense of being “at home” in both places of residence, indicating an expanded model of belonging.
The study shows that mobility does not lead to an uprooting effect, and that it is not solely the duration and stability of residence that play the most important role in shaping place attachment. Rather, the presence of significant additional elements of interaction also has an impact. The research highlights that the subjective benefits of a place for individual activities, as well as the perceived possibilities offered by the location, are key factors. What keeps individuals in a place, therefore, is grounded in utility, not merely attachment. Mobility between two places of residence can complement the fulfillment of specific housing needs and compensate for a lack of emotional attachment to place. Functional attachment is recognized as a predictor of limited emotional bonding and identification with a location. Attachment alone – without specifying its type – is therefore not a decisive factor in determining local commitment.
Despite a high level of satisfaction with their place of residence, declared involvement in local life remains relatively low: more than half of respondents do not engage in any location. Factors limiting civic activity include temporary presence, a low sense of agency, lack of knowledge about local conditions, and, not infrequently, personal preferences. Thus, on the one hand, there are observable links between emotional belonging and a willingness to act for the community. On the other hand, multilocality, as an organizational practice of everyday life, generates structural constraints – such as limited time and spatial dispersion – that inhibit such engagement. Functional affiliation is also more frequently associated with a lower inclination to participate in local affairs.
Patterns of place attachment and engagement are complex in the context of multilocality, and any simplifications – including those adopted in the paper – fail to capture the full empirical diversity. People living in more than one place may develop strong spatial attachments, yet often lack the opportunity to participate fully in local life. Incorporating the perspective of multilocal residents is essential when considering spatial planning and strategies for social inclusion. Otherwise, a condition of “double invisibility” – both statistical and social – will persist, exacerbating the deficit of representation and influence in local affairs.
Keywords: multilocality, residential multilocality, place attachment, place dependence, local engagement, spatial mobility
[bgibki@uw.edu.pl], Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Geografii i Studiów Regionalnych
Citation
APA: Jaczewska, B. (2025). Pomiędzy dwoma miejscami pobytu. Wielolokalność mieszkaniowa a przywiązanie do miejsca i zaangażowanie w sprawy lokalne. Przegląd Geograficzny, 97(3), 301-325. https://doi.org/10.7163/PrzG.2025.3.4
MLA: Jaczewska, Barbara. "Pomiędzy dwoma miejscami pobytu. Wielolokalność mieszkaniowa a przywiązanie do miejsca i zaangażowanie w sprawy lokalne". Przegląd Geograficzny, vol. 97, no. 3, 2025, pp. 301-325. https://doi.org/10.7163/PrzG.2025.3.4
Chicago: Jaczewska, Barbara. "Pomiędzy dwoma miejscami pobytu. Wielolokalność mieszkaniowa a przywiązanie do miejsca i zaangażowanie w sprawy lokalne". Przegląd Geograficzny 97, no. 3 (2025): 301-325. https://doi.org/10.7163/PrzG.2025.3.4
Harvard: Jaczewska, B. 2025. "Pomiędzy dwoma miejscami pobytu. Wielolokalność mieszkaniowa a przywiązanie do miejsca i zaangażowanie w sprawy lokalne". Przegląd Geograficzny, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 301-325. https://doi.org/10.7163/PrzG.2025.3.4