







































AUSTRALIAN POPULATION STUDIES  2021 | Volume 5 | Issue 1 | pages 9-17 

 

 

© Davies & Prout Quicke 2021. Published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence 3.0 Australia  
(CC BY-NC 3.0 AU). Journal website: www.australianpopulationstudies.org 

Commentary 

Population mobility, ‘usual residence’ 
and the census: the case of Australia’s 
grey nomads 

Amanda Davies  The University of Western Australia 

Sarah Prout Quicke*  The University of Western Australia 

* Corresponding author. Email: sarah.proutquicke@uwa.edu.au. Address: Department of Geography 

and Planning, School of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia, 35 Hackett Drive, 

Crawley, WA 6009, Australia. 

Paper received 24 March 2021; accepted 27 April 2021; published 31 May 2021 

1. Introduction 

Australia’s public heath response to COVID-19 included the temporary closure of state and regional 

borders in an effort to significantly curb population mobility. For those who were travelling at the time, 

the assumption seemed to be that they could simply return home, and resume travel when it was safe 

to do so. While it was recognised that mobility restrictions would cause difficulties for international 

tourists as they did not have a permanent residence in Australia, the assumption for domestic resident 

travellers was that they were ‘away from home’ and could therefore simply return to their place of 

‘usual residence’. Such normative framings of travellers as ‘away from home’ or away from a ‘usual 

residence’ present challenges for Australians who engage in practices of bi-locale and multi-locale 

forms of residence, for those that do not identify as having a single place of usual residence, and for the 

permanently nomadic. This includes a diverse range of sub-population groups: those experiencing 

secondary homelessness1; seasonal labourers; backpackers; highly mobile Indigenous peoples; long-

distance commuters; travelling show families and workers; permanent house-sitters, and; grey nomads 

(the focus of this paper). 

In the case of grey nomads, as mobility restrictions resulting from COVID-19 public health measures 

extended to the temporary closure of state and national parks and the camping grounds within, some 

travellers found they had little option but to move to costly private caravan parks, informal camping 

areas or to the properties of family or friends (Fowler 2020). The exact number of people likely to have 

been impacted is unknown. This is because, like most population sub-groups that are highly mobile and 

despite the phenomenon of grey nomads being a feature of the Australian population for more than 

four decades (Holloway et al. 2011), information about the size, characteristics and movements of this 

population is limited (Moore 2018; Raven 2016).  

 
1 Those moving frequently between one type of accommodation and another. 

 

http://www.australianpopulationstudies.org/
mailto:sarah.proutquicke@uwa.edu.au


10 Davies & Prout Quicke Australian Population Studies 5 (1) 2021 

 

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought into focus the need for a greater understanding of the nation’s 

mobile populations who engage in regular, patterned and/or permanent forms of medium- (i.e., 

periodic, seasonal) and long-term population circulation. Many of these population sub-groups are 

considered ‘at risk’ for different reasons (e.g., ill-health, social exclusion/disconnection, socio-economic 

disadvantage), and are often problematised and/or statistically invisibilised within sedentarist 

governance framings (see e.g., Prout Quicke and Green 2018). In an increasingly mobile world, 

governments need better tools for identifying the size, composition, patterns of movement and needs 

of such populations.  

Australian scholars have been leading international efforts to develop standardised estimates of 

temporary populations at varying geographical and temporal scales (Charles-Edwards et al. 2020). This 

important work, expertly synthesised recently by Panczak et al. (2020), foregrounds the necessity of 

such estimates because of the significant service-related impacts that temporary populations can have 

on different kinds of small area localities. As Charles-Edwards et al. (2020) identified from their survey 

of (mostly government) stakeholders, information about temporary populations is critical for: 

infrastructure and social service planning; land use planning; assessing and managing potential social, 

economic, and environmental impacts, and; securing fiscal equalisation grants. Much of the work 

encompassed within this research field, therefore, understandably takes a location-based approach to 

the measurement of temporary populations and considers how de jure populations and de facto 

populations might be distinguished and tracked over time in particular locations.  

In this short commentary piece, we take mobile sub-populations themselves as our frame of reference 

and probe the concept of ‘usual residence’ as operationalised by the Australian Bureau of Statistics 

(ABS) in its five-yearly Census of Population and Housing (hereafter ‘the census’), for its utility in 

relation to these groups, with particular reference to grey nomads as one case study group. We 

conclude by considering the possibilities for alternative survey logics and category framings in the 2026 

Census. 

2. Population mobility and conceptualisations of ‘usual residence’ in the 

census 

As the Australian Statistician David Kalisch noted in his preface remarks to the Census of Population 

and Housing: Topics Directions, 2021 paper, the census allows us to understand the cultural, 

economic and social diversity of our communities’ and provides vital information to “locate health, 

education and transport services where they are needed” (ABS 2018 p. np). Perhaps less obviously, 

but arguably just as important, the census presents a normative framework for categorising and 

statistically capturing social, cultural and economic trends. In other words, what is counted, and how 

categories of enumeration are conceived, reflect particular understandings of what counts (pun 

intended) in Australian society and how society is structured.  

We argue in this paper that census topics regarding population and location are underpinned by a 

particular normative assumption about the concept of ‘usual residence’ that obscures the potential 

for capturing critical information about certain population dynamics. In essence, the census provides 

for only two possible population positions in relation to usual residence. The first is absence: those 

that have no usual residence and are characterised as ‘homeless’. The second (all ‘non-homeless’ 



Australian Population Studies 5 (1) 2021 Davies & Prout Quicke 11 

 

 

people) are assumed to have one identifiable place of ‘usual residence’, defined by the census as the 

place they usually live over a minimum six-month period during the census year. Such assumptions 

are problematic for many of the sub-populations identified in the introduction of this commentary.  

The concept of usual residence, is of course, critical to the most fundamental applications of the 

census, including the ability to enumerate locality populations. Furthermore, the Australian census 

offers one of the more sophisticated and robust approaches to capturing nuanced aspects of 

population and locality. For example, since 1971, it has included questions that enable analysts to 

track internal migration across and between intercensal periods, and to distinguish place of usual 

residence from place of enumeration, on a quinquennial basis. Our central claim in this paper is not 

that the concept of ‘usual residence’ has no place in the census, but rather that accommodating (no 

pun intended) more than two positions in relation to usual residence might more accurately reflect 

the underlying realities of how population and locality intersect for highly mobile population groups. 

In particular, we are interested here in practices of residency that engage two or more places one 

might ‘usually live’ (i.e., bi-locale and multi-locale living) as well non-location-specific forms of 

residency that do not constitute conventional forms of primary or secondary homelessness such as 

sleeping rough or couch surfing.  

In its 2018 public census review, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) received 355 submissions 

regarding proposals to change or add census topics (ABS 2018). Twenty-four of these addressed the 

topic of location (within which ‘usual residence’ was a sub-topic) and included proposals to introduce 

a question regarding second residences, as well as the need for better information regarding people 

“staying temporarily in other household without a usual residence”. While the first proposal was 

deemed nationally significant by the ABS, particularly in small towns and communities where 

seasonal population influxes impacted service provision, it was ultimately determined that after 

extensive research and testing, the question proved too complex for respondents and added 

considerable cost and complexity to processing census forms (ABS 2018). With respect to the second 

proposal, while the ABS acknowledged the importance of data and information regarding people 

with no ‘usual residence’ it expressed concern that changes to questions on addresses, which are 

foundational for census applications, “will only be considered with a view of the potential impact on 

quality of population estimates” (ABS 2018). In practice, this meant introducing very minor 

amendments to the instructions regarding how to respond to questions about place of usual 

residence for those that have no place of usual residence (see Table 1).  

Table 1: Census form changes to usual residence question instructions, 2016-2021 

2016 Census 2021 Census 

For people who have no fixed or return 

address (for example, due to family conflict or 

eviction), write ‘NONE’ in the ‘Suburb/Locality’ 

box. 

For persons who have no usual address, write 

‘NONE’ in the ‘Suburb/Locality’ box. 

Source: ABS census forms 

At the 2016 Census, 45,179 people identified having no place of usual residence on the census form 

(ABS 2021a). De-identified census records enable analysis of the socio-economic and demographic 



12 Davies & Prout Quicke Australian Population Studies 5 (1) 2021 

 

characteristics of these individuals. However, there remains within the current census instrument no 

real capacity to distinguish primary and secondary homelessness from those who are permanently 

‘nomadic’ or live between two or more localities. In the next section, we turn to examining these 

quandaries in relation to one case-study sub-population: so-called ‘grey nomads’. In the broadest 

sense, grey nomads are typically characterised as older Australians who travel for extended periods 

of time seasonally, or on a permanent basis, throughout Australia. As Australia’s population profile 

ages, and as international travel is likely to be limited and high-risk for older populations for some 

time to come, this sub-population is likely to continue to grow. 

3. Grey nomads in Australia 

In Australia, moving to high amenity and lower-cost areas for retirement is a long established and 

well recognised trend (Davies and James 2011). While retirement migrants have typically been 

thought to prefer high amenity, coastal and climatically warm destinations, regional mobility data 

over the last decade also highlights the growth in popularity of inland and colder climate destinations 

amongst older Australians who are not in the labour force (ABS 2021c). These retirement migrations, 

involving a permanent one-way move from one residence to another, are relatively easy to infer 

from census population data. This stands in stark contrast to the capacity to accurately capture the 

movements of grey nomads (Davies 2011). The published research on Australian grey nomads, most 

of which comes from tourism studies, draws substantively on case study-based investigations and 

survey-based methodologies. The variability in the spatial, temporal and demographic parameters 

used to define the grey nomad population has resulted in variability in research sampling frames and 

sampling strategies across these studies and, in turn, variability in conclusions being draw about the 

grey nomad population in respect of its size, characteristics and movements.  

In one of the earliest studies of grey nomads, Onyx and Leonard (2005 p. 61), defined this sub-

population as “people aged over 50 years, who adopt an extended period of travel (at least 3 

months) independently within their own country”. Their definition made no stipulation regarding the 

retirement status of grey nomads. With respect to spatial dimensions, Onyx and Leonard (2005) drew 

comparisons between grey nomads and the better known North American snowbirds. They argued 

that while there were similarities between Australian grey nomads and North American snowbirds, 

the phenomena were different. North American snowbirds seasonal moves are bi-locale and highly 

location-specific: they leave their colder northern ‘snowbelt’ states during winter months for trailer 

parks and retirement communities in the more temperate southern ‘sunbelt' states of the USA 

(Happel and Hogan 2002), returning to the same destination year after year (Smith and House 2006; 

Viallon 2012). However, Onyx and Leonard found in their study that grey nomads often avoided 

highly commodified experiences and were highly mobile, moving from destination to destination. 

While climate did impact destination selection, the more significant drivers were socio-cultural 

motivations, with the grey nomads seeking to explore the country, engage in experiences and have 

an adventure (Onyx and Leonard 2005). Reporting on a large study of 400 grey nomads two years 

later, Onyx and Leonard (2007 p. 384) also noted that some grey nomads travelled for extended 

periods (up to several years) and thousands of kilometres during this time.   



Australian Population Studies 5 (1) 2021 Davies & Prout Quicke 13 

 

 

In a large study of the population geography of grey nomads published shortly thereafter, Cridland 

(2008) – who also defined grey nomads using a chronological age of 50+, but used shorter temporal 

dimensions of travelling (one month or more) – sampled almost 2,000 grey nomads staying in 

caravans at large/commercial caravan parks (with more than 50 powered sites) across northern 

Australia. He also identified variability in destination and patterns of movement and developed a 

typology of grey nomads based on this variability and types of activities undertaken. However, 

studies that focus on non-random sampling from particular kinds of localities such as large caravan 

parks and rallies (e.g., Wu and Pearce, 2017; Mahadevan, 2014) cannot be drawn upon (nor do they 

make such claims) to extrapolate the characteristics and patterns of movements of all grey nomads 

since a portion of the grey nomad population is known to deliberately avoid highly commodified 

locations such as major caravan parks (Davies and James 2011).  

Like Onyx and Leonard (2007) and Cridland (2008), Davies (2011) identified grey nomads using a 

chronological signifier (aged 55+). She extended previous analyses by showing that grey nomads 

could stay in a broader range of accommodation types during their travels, including hotels and 

private houses. However, in contrast to Onyx and Leonard (2005; 2007), Cridland (2008) and Davies 

(2011) some scholars eschew chronological parameters for defining grey nomads and instead draw 

on labour force status, and specifically retirement, as a key parameter (e.g., Higgs and Quirk 2007; 

Hillman 2013). More recent studies and reports on grey nomads tend to use chronological age 

classifications and specify that grey nomads are free from travel limiting work and family obligations, 

but do not specify that they are retired (see for example, Darley et al. 2017).  

The variability of these definitional parameters, and the findings subsequently produced from each 

study highlight the need for a more standardised set of definitional parameters for identifying the 

grey nomad population in order to facilitate analysis of the size, characteristics and migration 

practices of the grey nomad sub-population. The ABS investigated this as part of a 2011 study on 

homelessness. It defined grey nomads as “people in dwellings where all people in the dwelling were 

aged 55 years and over, were not in the labour force, and were staying in caravans, cabins or 

houseboats on Census night” (ABS 2011). The ABS found that on census night approximately 2,500 

people in Australia were grey nomads and of these, 80% were two person households (ABS 2011). 

The analysis revealed that 45% of the grey nomad population was ‘elsewhere in Australia’ compared 

to a year previous and 17% were at the same location as they were a year previous. Interestingly, 

40% recorded having no usual address the year pervious, suggesting that approximately 1,000 older 

Australians were, at that time, permanently nomadic. However, as with the aforementioned case 

study-based investigations into grey nomads, the ABS’s conclusions about grey nomads is limited by 

the definition used. Specifically, by viewing grey nomads as ‘retired’ the ABS’s analysis only included 

those not in the labour force. There is a need to revisit the definition used by the ABS in 2011 and 

consider alternative parameters for capturing meaningful information about this population in the 

census.  

As most scholars agree that grey nomads include those living in caravans, cabins and houseboats 

and, with 55 years the most commonly used age marker in studies published in the last decade, 

these characteristics in the definition do not require reconsideration and can be easily extracted 

from existing census datasets. It is also most commonly agreed across the literature that grey 

nomads need to be traveling for an extended period to be considered a grey nomad. While the 



14 Davies & Prout Quicke Australian Population Studies 5 (1) 2021 

 

duration of their travels is not possible to determine from the census, it is possible to determine that 

the dwelling location categories ‘manufactured home estates’ and ‘retirement villages’ should be 

excluded from the analysis.  

It becomes more problematic when trying to accommodate variable retirement status among grey 

nomads, as well as the subset of grey nomads who are permanently nomadic. On the first point, as 

some grey nomads are not retired (indeed the website The Grey Nomads at 

https://www.thegreynomads.com.au/ includes testimonials of grey nomads who are ‘working’ and a 

classifieds section for those seeking work) it is necessary to include those who are still in the labour 

force in any analysis. However, in including this group, it is likely that those who travel for 

employment and who do not consider themselves to be grey nomads would also be included. Those 

who are employed full-time or are unemployed seeking full-time employment can be excluded, as 

these people are unlikely to be grey nomads.   

On the second point, it initially appears possible to identify grey nomads by identifying from the 

census those who were ‘away from home’. As a portion of grey nomads are permanently nomadic, it 

is necessary to include those who were ‘away from home’ as well as those who were ‘at home’ on 

census night. However, including those who were ‘at home’ in a mobile dwelling at a 

caravan/residential park, camping ground or marina then includes those who permanently live in 

these places and do not travel and therefore would not fit the definition of a grey nomad. Table 2 

shows these two groups. 

 

Table 2: People aged 55 and over in a caravan, cabin or houseboat on census night 2016 

 
Employed, 

part time 

Employed, 

away from 

work 

Unemployed, 

looking for 

part time work 

Not in the 

labour force  

Total   

Elsewhere in Australia 

Caravan, at caravan/ 

residential park or 

camping ground 

1,356 3,715 179 42,177 47,427 

Cabin, houseboat at a 

marina 
32 20 4 324 380 

At Home 

Caravan, at caravan/ 

residential park or 

camping ground 

1,284 377 161 12,703 14,525 

Cabin, houseboat at a 

marina 
835 147 87 8,634 9,703 

Total 3,507 4,259 431 63,838 72,035 

Source: ABS (2021b) 

In considering those who were ‘at home’ in a mobile dwelling, general characteristics can be 

identified such as age profile, median income, education, gender, volunteer participation, and need 

for assistance. These data could be used to guide policies to ensure that appropriate social and 

https://www.thegreynomads.com.au/


Australian Population Studies 5 (1) 2021 Davies & Prout Quicke 15 

 

 

health care services and infrastructure are developed to support grey nomads. However, as already 

noted, these data would include individuals who do not identify as grey nomads. In terms of 

revealing the mobility patterns of grey nomads, duration of travel, and bi-local and multi-local forms 

or residence, the extant census data are limited in their utility. 

4. Discussion and conclusion: where to for the census? 

Official statistics, such as those derived from national censuses are powerful tools of governmentality 

(Kukutai and Taylor 2012). The way the census conceptualises categories of analysis determines the 

kinds of social realities that are rendered visible through it. The normative framing of the concepts of 

‘usual residence’ and ‘home’ in the census obscures the variability in the way some sections of 

Australia’s population experience residence and home. This paper focused on the grey nomad 

population to emphasise the challenges that exist in trying to develop an understanding of the size 

and characteristics of this sub- population from census data. With grey nomads not fitting into 

normative framings of usual residence and home, researchers have relied on discrete case study-

based data to infer characteristics about the grey nomad population. However, a review of the 

extant literature reveals variability between the definitions researchers have used to identify the 

grey nomad population. These differences in definitions have informed the development of different 

research sampling frames, which potentially skews understandings developed about the grey nomad 

population.  

Of course, the grey nomad population is just one example of a mobile sub-population whose mobility 

practices are not well understood. The rationalities and service needs of other sub-populations who 

engage in bi-locale and multi-locale living, as well as those that are not homeless but have no 

permanent addresses(s) are also invisibilised by the ABS’s normative framework for conceptualising 

usual residence. The invisibility of these rationalities has very real policy implications. As an example, 

Australia’s public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has sought to significantly curb 

mobility during particular periods, rests heavily on the understanding that most people have a 

permanent home to which they can retreat, or are homeless. However, as we do not collect data on 

non-normative performances of residence, it is difficult to determine how many people might have 

been left significantly displaced or detrimentally impacted by such mobility restrictions. There are 

also broader non-COVID related policy challenges for mobile population groups, from ensuring 

access to basic social services such as health and education services, to navigating through the 

common tropes often associated with mobile populations (e.g., as ‘parasitic’ in nature, as threats to 

conservation practices, as ungovernable etc.) (see Gilbert 2014). 

The utility of the data collected through the census is, necessarily, limited by the nature, number and 

complexity of questions that can be included. However, we argue that in looking to the 2026 Census, 

enabling residence data to be captured in such a way as to facilitate an improved understanding of 

bi-local, multi-local and nomadic populations would enable a richer understanding of residence and 

population mobility in Australia and provide critical insights to better service these populations, 

wherever they may be located. 

  



16 Davies & Prout Quicke Australian Population Studies 5 (1) 2021 

 

References 

ABS (2011) ABS Review of Counting the Homeless Methodology, Aug 2011. Canberra: ABS. 

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/03750F7F8176784DCA2578E200193

2BF?opendocument. Accessed on 12 March 2021. 

ABS (2018) Census of Population and Housing: Consultation on Topics, 2021. Canberra: ABS. 

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2007.0.55.001~2021~Main%

20Features~Preface~1. Accessed 12 March 2021. 

ABS (2021a) Census – Counting Persons, Place of Usual Residence (MB) (2016), Tablebuilder Pro. Findings 

based on use of ABS Tablebuilder data. 

ABS (2021b) Census – Counting Persons, Place of Enumeration (MB) (2016), Tablebuilder Pro. Findings 

based on use of ABS Tablebuilder data. 

ABS (2021c) Regional internal migration estimates, provisional. Canberra: ABS. 

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/regional-internal-migration-estimates-

provisional/latest-release. Accessed on 12 March 2021. 

Charles-Edwards E, Bell M, Panczak R and Corcoran J (2020) A framework for official temporary 

population statistics. Journal of Official Statistics 36(1): 1-24. https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2020-

0001  

Cridland S (2008) An Analysis of the Winter Movement of Grey Nomads to Northern Australia: Planning 

for Increase Senior Visitation, PhD Thesis. Cairns: James Cook University. 

Darley T, Lambert C and Ryan M (2017) Grey nomads’ caravanning use of social networking sites. 

Information, Technology and Tourism 17(4): 379-398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-017-0091-

6  

Davies A (2011) On constructing ageing rural populations: ‘Capturing’ the grey nomad. Journal of Rural 

Studies 27(2): 191-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.01.004  

Davies A and James A (2011) Geographies of Ageing: Social Processes and the Spatial Unevenness of 

Population Ageing. Aldershot: Ashgate. 

Fowler M (2020) ‘Just wild’: mass caravan park closures shatter nomads’ dreams. The Sydney Morning 

Herald, 29 March 2020. https://www.smh.com.au/national/just-wild-mass-caravan-park-

closures-shatter-nomads-dreams-20200327-p54eml.html  

Gilbert J (2014) Nomadic Peoples and Human Rights, London: Taylor and Francis. 

Happel S and Hogan T (2002) Counting snowbirds: the importance of and the problems with estimating 

seasonal populations. Population Research and Policy Review 21(3): 227-240. 

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019560405310  

Higgs P F D and Quirk F (2007) “Grey nomads” in Australia: are they a good model for successful aging and 

health? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1114(1): 251-257. 

https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1396.030  

Hillman W (2013) Grey nomads travelling in Queensland, Australia: social and health needs. Ageing & 

Society 33(4): 579-597. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X12000116  

Holloway D, Green L and Holloway D (2011) The intratourist gaze: grey nomads and ‘other tourists’. 

Tourist Studies 11(3): 235-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797611432043  

Kukutai T and Taylor J (2012) Postcolonial profiling of Indigenous populations. Espace, Populations 

Societes 2012(1): 13-27. https://doi.org/10.4000/eps.4812  

Mahadevan R (2014) Understanding senior self-drive tourism in Australia using a contingency behaviour 

model. Journal of Travel Research 53 (1): 252-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513496476  

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/03750F7F8176784DCA2578E2001932BF?opendocument
https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/03750F7F8176784DCA2578E2001932BF?opendocument
https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2007.0.55.001~2021~Main%20Features~Preface~1
https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2007.0.55.001~2021~Main%20Features~Preface~1
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/regional-internal-migration-estimates-provisional/latest-release
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/regional-internal-migration-estimates-provisional/latest-release
https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2020-0001
https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2020-0001
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-017-0091-6
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-017-0091-6
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.01.004
https://www.smh.com.au/national/just-wild-mass-caravan-park-closures-shatter-nomads-dreams-20200327-p54eml.html
https://www.smh.com.au/national/just-wild-mass-caravan-park-closures-shatter-nomads-dreams-20200327-p54eml.html
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019560405310
https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1396.030
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X12000116
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797611432043
https://doi.org/10.4000/eps.4812
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513496476


Australian Population Studies 5 (1) 2021 Davies & Prout Quicke 17 

 

 

Moore T (2018) Grey nomad lifestyle provides a model for living remotely. The Conversation 10 December 

2018. https://theconversation.com/grey-nomad-lifestyle-provides-a-model-for-living-remotely-

106074  

Onyx J and Leonard R (2005) Australian grey nomads and American snowbirds: similarities and 

differences. The Journal of Tourism Studies 16(1): 61-68.  

Onyx J and Leonard R (2007) The grey nomad phenomenon: changing the script of aging. International 

Journal of Aging and Human Development 64(4): 381-398. https://doi.org/10.2190/G4N9-3627-

3G7J-W454  

Panczak R, Charles-Edwards E and Corcoran J (2020) Estimating temporary populations: a systematic 

review of the empirical literature. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 6: 87. 

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0455-y  

Prout Quicke S and Green C (2018) “Mobile (nomadic) cultures” and the politics of mobility: insights from 

Indigenous Australia. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 43(4): 646-660. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12243  

Raven M (2016) Health of grey nomads: on the move and under the health sector radar. Australian 

Journal of Rural Health 24(3): 182-187. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.12236  

Smith S K and House M (2006) Snowbirds, sunbirds, and stayers: seasonal migration of elderly adults in 

Florida. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B 61(5): S232-S239. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/61.5.S232  

Viallon P (2012) Retired snowbirds. Annals of Tourism Research 39(4): 2073-2091. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.06.001  

Wu M and Pearce P (2017) The rally experience: exploring motivation patterns of Australian grey nomads. 

Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 6: 407-415. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.06.008  

 

https://theconversation.com/grey-nomad-lifestyle-provides-a-model-for-living-remotely-106074
https://theconversation.com/grey-nomad-lifestyle-provides-a-model-for-living-remotely-106074
https://doi.org/10.2190/G4N9-3627-3G7J-W454
https://doi.org/10.2190/G4N9-3627-3G7J-W454
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0455-y
https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12243
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.12236
https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/61.5.S232
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.06.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.06.008

