Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
FAQs
Figures
Doing CPG Research: Structure and Methods
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Geography
Physical Geography

Introducing Critical Physical Geography

Profile image of Rebecca LaveRebecca Lave

2018, The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Physical Geography

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5_1
visibility

…

description

19 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Critical Physical Geography (CPG) is an emerging body of work that brings together social and natural science in the service of eco-social transformation, combining attention to power relations and their material impacts with deep knowledge of particular biophysical systems (Lave et al. 2014). By studying material landscapes, social dynamics, and knowledge politics together, CPG answers the periodic calls for integrating geographic research (e.g.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What are the core tenets of Critical Physical Geography (CPG)?add

CPG is centered on recognizing how landscapes are shaped by human actions and structural inequalities, emphasizing eco-social systems. It also highlights the entwined nature of natural and social sciences in research question formation and knowledge impacts.

How does CPG differ from traditional environmental science frameworks?add

Unlike traditional frameworks, which often isolate natural and social sciences, CPG integrates methods to address complex environmental issues holistically. This approach enables researchers to iteratively analyze biophysical and social data, enhancing explanatory depth.

What barriers exist for interdisciplinary research in geography?add

Barriers include institutional separation of fields, logistical challenges in funding integrated research, and a lack of cross-training among scholars. Mutual disrespect between disciplines further complicates collaboration, exacerbating existing divisions in research practices.

How does CPG approach research methodology?add

CPG utilizes a mixed-methods framework, drawing from both qualitative and quantitative techniques without adhering to a single methodological standard. This flexibility allows researchers to select appropriate methods tailored to specific environmental problems.

What implications does CPG have for knowledge production and political accountability?add

The literature argues that CPG reveals the political dimensions of knowledge production, advocating for an awareness of how scientific inquiries shape societal conditions. Such reflexivity challenges scholars to consider the ethical implications of their research on communities.

Figures (3)
and often precludes a deeper understanding of complex power relations that shape and are shaped by the biophysical world. The current conversation leaves a number of fundamental issues at the margins, including those actions that the Anthropocene is being used to legitimate, the presumptions that underpin environmental science and decision-making (e.g. a preoccupation with GDP as a goal), and the diverse suite of eco-social relations that comprise the Anthropocene. Methodologically, research on the Anthropocene has tended toward global-scale modeling and highly simplified understandings of human actions, failing to consider the material realities of day-to-day life that might give rise to very different definitions of what is important in the Anthropocene. Aspiring to a richer and more open consideration of the Anthropocene, CPG not only rethinks and breaks down the divides between conventional disciplines but also engages with fundamental questions about the conditions within which we find ourselves as a society and the role of scientific inquiry in shaping those conditions. In this Handhook. we advocate and demonectrate carefiil inteorative work
and often precludes a deeper understanding of complex power relations that shape and are shaped by the biophysical world. The current conversation leaves a number of fundamental issues at the margins, including those actions that the Anthropocene is being used to legitimate, the presumptions that underpin environmental science and decision-making (e.g. a preoccupation with GDP as a goal), and the diverse suite of eco-social relations that comprise the Anthropocene. Methodologically, research on the Anthropocene has tended toward global-scale modeling and highly simplified understandings of human actions, failing to consider the material realities of day-to-day life that might give rise to very different definitions of what is important in the Anthropocene. Aspiring to a richer and more open consideration of the Anthropocene, CPG not only rethinks and breaks down the divides between conventional disciplines but also engages with fundamental questions about the conditions within which we find ourselves as a society and the role of scientific inquiry in shaping those conditions. In this Handhook. we advocate and demonectrate carefiil inteorative work

Related papers

Engaging within the Academy: A call for Critical Physical Geography
Rebecca Lave
View PDFchevron_right
Charting a Critical Physical Geography Path in Graduate School: Sites of Student Agency
Lisa Kelley
View PDFchevron_right
Critical Geography
Moira Ozias

Critical Qualitative Research & Social Justice, 2025

The emergence of critical geography in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Blomley 2006; Neely and Samura 2011) marked a turn not only in the study of human geography but also in the ways that scholars, activists, and community members across fields of study theorize and engage notions of space and place. Scholars across fields grappled with questions of identity, power, globalization, economic inequality, poverty, processes of decolonization, neocolonialism, and struggles for social change. Geographers were no different. In fact, geography became a key site for asking how material and social worlds were enmeshed in oppressive systems, and struggles for justice, via theories of space. Geographers and theorists such as

View PDFchevron_right
Editorial: “Relating physical and human geography”
Lorenzo Bagnoli

Belgeo, 2021

View PDFchevron_right
Valdivia, Gabriela, Matthew Himley, and Elizabeth Havice. Forthcoming. "Critical Resource Geography: An Introduction." In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Resource Geography, edited by Matthew Himley, Elizabeth Havice, and Gabriela Valdivia. New York: Routledge
Gabriela valdivia

2021

The Routledge Handbook of Critical Resource Geography offers a toolkit of critical, reflexive, and speculative approaches for studying resources and the socioecological systems with which they are co-constitutively entangled. This chapter introduces two fundamental ideas about critical resource geography that emerge from the Handbook's contents: first, that the critical analysis of resource systems and their historical and contemporary geographies is integral for understanding the state of the world; second, that doing critical resource geography involves ongoing reflection on how, why, and for whom academic knowledge production about resources matters. To advance these propositions, this chapter situates the descriptor "critical" in critical resource geography and outlines key trajectories of intellectual-political analysis within this body of scholarship, organized around two thematic areas: "(Un)knowing the World of Resources" and "Unbounding the Worl...

View PDFchevron_right
Critical Geography. In: Kitchin R, Thrift N (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, volume 2, pp. 345-357. Oxford: Elsevier
Ulrich Best
View PDFchevron_right
Critical Geography: An Introduction
Archie Simpson

2020

Critical geography is based upon the notion that humanity has the potential to transform the environment. It challenges the dominant ideologies that characterise international political structures, hence contesting traditional categories and units of analysis in IR such as anarchy, security and the concept of the state. Critical geography is based upon the principle that questions about spatial relations, which refer to how an object located within a particular space relates to another object, are important because political behaviour is embedded in socio-political structures based on ideas about space. Following from this, if scholarship and political behaviour are ingrained in socio-political structures, an objective analysis of international politics becomes impossible. IR theory cannot reflect the global situation from a neutral standpoint. Critical geographers suggest that alternative ways of thinking about space have the potential to change fundamental ideas, theories and appr...

View PDFchevron_right
The 18th Annual Critical Geography Conference
Miles Kenney-Lazar

The 18th Annual Critical Geography Conference: Constructing a Radical Politics in an Age of Crisis took place in November 4-6, 2011, at Clark University, in Worcester Massachusetts. In this report the conference organizers summarize the results and offer some insights on the challenges and opportunities of mobilizing politically through the critical geography community. We argue that institutionalized actions within the academy, like this conference, are political events. We highlight the need for critical geographers to focus using the intellectual, financial, and institutional resources of the academy to facilitate activism and open new political spaces.

View PDFchevron_right
Thinking across the divide: perspectives on the conversations between physical and human geography
Keith Richards, Stephan Harrison

Area, 2004

View PDFchevron_right
Berg, L.D., Best, U., Gilmartin, M. and Larsen, H.G. (eds.): Placing Critical Geography. Historical Geographies of Critical Geography
Judit Timár

Hungarian Geographical Bulletin

View PDFchevron_right

References (52)

  1. Ashmore, Peter, and Belinda Dodson. 2017. Urbanizing physical geography. The Canadian Geographer 61 (1): 102-106.
  2. Barron, E.S., C. Sthultz, D. Hurley, and A. Pringle. 2015. Names matter: Interdisciplinary research on taxonomy and nomenclature for ecosystem manage- ment. Progress in Physical Geography 39 (5): 640-660.
  3. Barry, A., and G. Born. 2013. Interdisciplinarity: Reconfiguration of the social and natural sciences. London: Routledge.
  4. Bhaskar, R. 1975. A realist theory of science. London: Verso.
  5. ---. 1979. The possibility of naturalism. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
  6. Blaikie, P. 1985. The political economy of soil erosion in developing countries. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  7. Blaikie, P., and H. Brookfield. 1987. Land degradation and society. London: Methuen.
  8. Blue, B., and G. Brierley. 2016. 'But what do you measure?'Prospects for a construc- tive Critical Physical Geography. Area 48: 190-197.
  9. Bracken, L.J., and E. Oughton, eds. 2009a. Special issue: Interdisciplinarity within and beyond geography. Area 41 (4): 371-481.
  10. ---. 2009b. Interdisciplinary research: Framing and reframing. Area 41 (4): 385-394.
  11. Castree, N. 2014. The Anthropocene and the environmental humanities: Extending the conversation. Environmental Humanities 5: 233-260.
  12. Clifford, N.J. 2002. The future of geography: When the whole is less than the sum of its parts. Geoforum 33 (4): 431-436.
  13. Cullum, C., K.H. Rogers, G. Brierley, and E.T. Witkowski. 2016. Ecological classi- fication and mapping for landscape management and science: Foundations for the description of patterns and processes. Progress in Physical Geography 40 (1): 38-65.
  14. Davis, D.K. 2007. Resurrecting the granary of Rome: Environmental history and French colonial expansion in North Africa. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
  15. Doyle, M.W., J. Singh, R. Lave, and M.M. Robertson. 2015. The morphology of streams restored for market and nonmarket purposes: Insights from a mixed natural-social science approach. Water Resources Research 51 (7): 5603-5622.
  16. Engel-Di Mauro, S. 2014. Ecology, soils, and the left: An ecosocial approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  17. Feyerabend, P. 1978. Science in a free society. London: Routledge.
  18. Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
  19. Gordon, N. 1995. Summary of technical testimony in the Colorado water division 1 trial. Overview; January-December 1990. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
  20. Goudie, A.S. 1986. The integration of human and physical geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 11 (4): 454-458.
  21. Hall, K.L., A.L. Vogel, B.A. Stipelman, D. Stokols, G. Morgan, and S. Gehlert. 2012. A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: Goals, team processes, and strategies. Behavioral Translational Medicine 2 (4): 415-430.
  22. Harrison, S., D. Massey, K. Richards, F. Magilligan, N. Thrift, and B. Bender. 2004. Thinking across the divide: Perspectives on the conversations between Physical and Human Geography. Area 36 (4): 435-442.
  23. Harrison, S., D. Massey, and K. Richards. 2006. Complexity and emergence (another conversation). Area 38 (4): 465-471.
  24. ---, eds. 2008. Special issue: Conversations across the divide. Geoforum 39 (2): 549-686.
  25. Harvey, D. 1972. Revolutionary and counter revolutionary theory in Geography and the problem of ghetto formation. Antipode 4 (2): 110-125.
  26. Hatvany, M., D. Cayer, and A. Parent. 2015. Interpreting salt marsh dynamics: Challenging scientific paradigms. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105 (5): 1041-1060.
  27. Hecht, S. 1985. Environment, development and politics: Capital accumulation and the livestock sector in Eastern Amazonia. World Development 13 (6): 663-684.
  28. Holifield, R., and M. Day. 2017. A framework for a Critical Physical Geography of 'sacrifice zones': Physical landscapes and discursive spaces of frac sand mining in western Wisconsin. Geoforum 85: 269-279.
  29. Lane, S.N. 2017. Slow science, the geographical expedition and Critical Physical Geography. The Canadian Geographer 61: 84-101.
  30. Laris, P., M. Koné, S. Dadashi, and F. Dembele. 2017. The early/late fire dichotomy: Time for a reassessment of Aubréville's savanna fire experiments. Progress in Physical Geography 41 (1): 68-94.
  31. Lave, R., and B. Lutz. 2014. Hydraulic fracturing: A Critical Physical Geography review. Geography Compass 8 (10): 739-754.
  32. Lave, R., M.W. Wilson, E. Barron, C. Biermann, M. Carey, C. Duvall, L. Johnson, et al. 2014. Critical Physical Geography. The Canadian Geographer 58 (1): 1-10.
  33. Massey, D. 1999. Space-time, 'science' and the relationship between physical geogra- phy and human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS 24 (3): 261-276.
  34. McClintock, N. 2015. A Critical Physical Geography of urban soil contamination. Geoforum 65: 69-85.
  35. Munroe, D., K. McSweeney, J.L. Olson, and B. Mansfield. 2014. Using economic geography to reinvigorate land-change science. Geoforum 52 (1): 12-21.
  36. Penny, D., G. Williams, J. Gillespie, and R. Khem. 2016. 'Here be dragons': Integrating scientific data and place-based observation for environmental manage- ment. Applied Geography 73: 38-46.
  37. Phillips, J.D. 2007. The perfect landscape. Geomorphology 84 (3-4): 159-169.
  38. Ramadier, T. 2004. Transdisciplinarity and its challenges: The case of urban studies. Futures 36: 423-439.
  39. Sarmiento, F.O., J.T. Ibarra, A. Barreau, J.C. Pizarro, R. Rozzi, J.A. González, and L.M. Frolich. 2017. Applied montology using critical biogeography in the Andes. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 107 (2): 416-428.
  40. Sayre, N.F. 2015. The Coyote-Proof Pasture Experiment: How fences replaced preda- tors and labor on US rangelands. Progress in Physical Geography 39 (5): 576-593.
  41. Sherman, D. 1996. Fashion in geomorphology. In The scientific nature of geomorphol- ogy, ed. C.E. Thorn and B.L. Rhoads, 87-114. New York City: Wiley.
  42. Simon, G.L. 2016. Flame and fortune in the American West: Urban development, envi- ronmental change, and the great Oakland hills fire. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  43. Stengers, I. 2013. Une autre science est possible. Paris: La Découverte.
  44. Thornes, J.E. 1981. A paradigmatic shift in atmospheric studies? Progress in Physical Geography 5 (3): 429-440.
  45. Thrift, N. 2002. The future of geography. Geoforum 33 (3): 291-298.
  46. Turner, M. 2015. Political ecology II: Engagements with ecology. Progress in Human Geography 40 (3): 413-421.
  47. Van Dyke, C. 2015. Boxing daze-using state-and-transition models to explore the evolution of socio-biophysical landscapes. Progress in Physical Geography 39 (5): 594-621.
  48. Walker, P. 2005. Political ecology: Where is the ecology? Progress in Human Geography 29 (1): 73-82.
  49. Watts, M.J. 1985. Social theory and environmental degradation: The case of Sudano- Sahelian West Africa. In Desert development: Man and technology in sparselands, ed. Y. Gradus, 14-32. Dordrecht: Reidel.
  50. Wear, D.N. 1999. Challenges to interdisciplinary discourse. Ecosystems 2: 299-301.
  51. Wilcock, Deirdre, G.J. Brierley, and Richard Howitt. 2013. Ethnogeomorphology. Progress in Physical Geography 37 (5): 573-600.
  52. Zimmerer, K.S., H. Córdova-Aguilar, R. Mata Olmo, Y. Jiménez Olivencia, and S.J. Vanek. 2017. Mountain ecology, remoteness, and the rise of agrobiodiversity: Tracing the geographic spaces of human-environment knowledge. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 107 (2): 441-455.

Related papers

Critical Physical Geography
L. Johnson, Nathan McClintock, Gregory Simon, Elizabeth S Barron, Rebecca Lave

2014

A recent opinion piece rekindled debate as to whether geography’s current interdisciplinary make-up is a historical relic or an actual and potential source of intellectual vitality. Taking the latter position, we argue here for the benefits of sustained integration of physical and critical human geography. For reasons both political and pragmatic, we term this area of intermingled research and practice critical physical geography (CPG). CPG combines critical attention to power relations with deep knowledge of biophysical science or technology in the service of social and environmental transformation. We argue that whether practiced by individuals or teams, CPG research can improve the intellectual quality and expand the political relevance of both physical and critical human geography because it is increasingly impractical to separate analysis of natural and social systems: socio-biophysical landscapes are as much the product of unequal power relations, histories of colonialism, and racial and gender disparities as they are of hydrology, ecology, and climate change. Here, we review existing CPG work; discuss the primary benefits of critically engaged integrative research, teaching, and practice; and offer our collective thoughts on how to make CPG work.

View PDFchevron_right
Introduction to special issue on critical physical geography
Rebecca Lave
View PDFchevron_right
Commentary: Historical and Critical Physical Geography
Rebecca Lave

Historical geography, 2018

View PDFchevron_right
Intervention: Critical physical geography
Elizabeth S Barron, Gregory Simon, L. Johnson, Chris Duvall, Rebecca Lave

"A recent opinion piece rekindled debate as to whether geography’s current interdisciplinary make-up is a historical relic or an actual and potential source of intellectual vitality. Taking the latter position, we argue here for the benefits of sustained integration of physical and critical human geography. For reasons both political and pragmatic, we term this area of intermingled research and practice critical physical geography (CPG). CPG combines critical attention to power relations with deep knowledge of biophysical science or technology in the service of social and environmental transformation. We argue that whether practiced by individuals or teams, CPG research can improve the intellectual quality and expand the political relevance of both physical and critical human geography because it is increasingly impractical to separate analysis of natural and social systems: socio-biophysical landscapes are as much the product of unequal power relations, histories of colonialism, and racial and gender disparities as they are of hydrology, ecology, and climate change. Here, we review existing CPG work; discuss the primary benefits of critically engaged integrative research, teaching, and practice; and offer our collective thoughts on how to make CPG work."

View PDFchevron_right
The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Physical Geography
Maegen Rochner

The AAG Review of Books, 2019

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Environmental Sustainability
  • Critical Physical Geography

    • Cited by

    A Critical Physical Geography of Landscape Changes in Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia, 1950s–2005
    Lisa Kelley

    Social and Ecological Interactions in the Galapagos Islands, 2020

    View PDFchevron_right
    Patterns of interdisciplinary collaboration resemble biogeochemical relationships in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica: a historical social network analysis of science, 1907–2016
    Andrew Fountain

    Polar Research, 2022

    A social network analysis of science in the McMurdo Dry Valleys S.M. Chignell et al.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved