I bought this on the strength of the other reviews and wish now I hadn't wasted my money. The book is badly produced (you need a better editor, proof reader, and setter, Mr C), is extremely narrow in its scope, and concentrates only on those aspects of the subject that are already well known.
As a subject, psychogeography predates civilization (pagan peoples knew how geography was integral to psychology). The concentration on recent urban p-g, and the insistence that only London and Paris really count (despite a nod to New York) ignores the long rural tradition as well as p-g in other urban settings around the world.
The author's knowledge and understanding of Alfred Watkins' work and its impact is poor. Which leads one to wonder just how well he really knows the rest of the subject. His attempt to assert that Ackroyd is outside the tradition as he somehow conservative rather misses the point that urba p-g as a whole is both conservative and somewhat obsessed with the notion of a golden age.
Where the book does have a strength is in pointing out that for some people p-g is a method to some other end rather than an end in itself. Attempts to turn it into a science have so far met with failure simply because the amount of data required to make any form of realistic assessment are simply overwhelming. As an artistic method (particularly in literature and film) it is highly sucessful as it seems that an artistic sensibility and sensitivity are required to process and interpret a landscape and the figures that move within it.
There are better books on the subject. But anyone wanting to know what p-gis would be far better off seeking out p-g artists and writers.