Introducing Critical Physical Geography

  • Rebecca Lave
  • Christine Biermann
  • Stuart N. Lane


In this chapter, the Handbook editors introduce the emerging field of Critical Physical Geography. We explain its core tenets and its primary methodological principles and epistemological assumptions. We address intellectual and practical barriers to the kind of careful integrative eco-social research that typifies Critical Physical Geography and also the reasons why it is worth overcoming those barriers. After an overview of the structure of the Handbook, we close with a discussion of why the field of Geography is home to this effort to integrate attention to power relations and their material impacts with deep knowledge of particular biophysical systems.


  1. Ashmore, Peter, and Belinda Dodson. 2017. Urbanizing physical geography. The Canadian Geographer 61 (1): 102–106.Google Scholar
  2. Barron, E.S., C. Sthultz, D. Hurley, and A. Pringle. 2015. Names matter: Interdisciplinary research on taxonomy and nomenclature for ecosystem management. Progress in Physical Geography 39 (5): 640–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barry, A., and G. Born. 2013. Interdisciplinarity: Reconfiguration of the social and natural sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bhaskar, R. 1975. A realist theory of science. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1979. The possibility of naturalism. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  6. Blaikie, P. 1985. The political economy of soil erosion in developing countries. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Blaikie, P., and H. Brookfield. 1987. Land degradation and society. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  8. Blue, B., and G. Brierley. 2016. ‘But what do you measure?’Prospects for a constructive Critical Physical Geography. Area 48: 190–197.Google Scholar
  9. Bracken, L.J., and E. Oughton, eds. 2009a. Special issue: Interdisciplinarity within and beyond geography. Area 41 (4): 371–481.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2009b. Interdisciplinary research: Framing and reframing. Area 41 (4): 385–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castree, N. 2014. The Anthropocene and the environmental humanities: Extending the conversation. Environmental Humanities 5: 233–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cullum, C., K.H. Rogers, G. Brierley, and E.T. Witkowski. 2016. Ecological classification and mapping for landscape management and science: Foundations for the description of patterns and processes. Progress in Physical Geography 40 (1): 38–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, D.K. 2007. Resurrecting the granary of Rome: Environmental history and French colonial expansion in North Africa. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engel-Di Mauro, S. 2014. Ecology, soils, and the left: An ecosocial approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feyerabend, P. 1978. Science in a free society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  20. Goudie, A.S. 1986. The integration of human and physical geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 11 (4): 454–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harrison, S., D. Massey, and K. Richards. 2006. Complexity and emergence (another conversation). Area 38 (4): 465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ———, eds. 2008. Special issue: Conversations across the divide. Geoforum 39 (2): 549–686.Google Scholar
  25. Harvey, D. 1972. Revolutionary and counter revolutionary theory in Geography and the problem of ghetto formation. Antipode 4 (2): 110–125.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hecht, S. 1985. Environment, development and politics: Capital accumulation and the livestock sector in Eastern Amazonia. World Development 13 (6): 663–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  29. Lane, S.N. 2017. Slow science, the geographical expedition and Critical Physical Geography. The Canadian Geographer 61: 84–101.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lave, R., and B. Lutz. 2014. Hydraulic fracturing: A Critical Physical Geography review. Geography Compass 8 (10): 739–754.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  33. Massey, D. 1999. Space-time, ‘science’ and the relationship between physical geography and human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS 24 (3): 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McClintock, N. 2015. A Critical Physical Geography of urban soil contamination. Geoforum 65: 69–85.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Penny, D., G. Williams, J. Gillespie, and R. Khem. 2016. ‘Here be dragons’: Integrating scientific data and place-based observation for environmental management. Applied Geography 73: 38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Phillips, J.D. 2007. The perfect landscape. Geomorphology 84 (3–4): 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ramadier, T. 2004. Transdisciplinarity and its challenges: The case of urban studies. Futures 36: 423–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sayre, N.F. 2015. The Coyote-Proof Pasture Experiment: How fences replaced predators and labor on US rangelands. Progress in Physical Geography 39 (5): 576–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sherman, D. 1996. Fashion in geomorphology. In The scientific nature of geomorphology, ed. C.E. Thorn and B.L. Rhoads, 87–114. New York City: Wiley.Google Scholar
  42. Simon, G.L. 2016. Flame and fortune in the American West: Urban development, environmental change, and the great Oakland hills fire. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  43. Stengers, I. 2013. Une autre science est possible. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  44. Thornes, J.E. 1981. A paradigmatic shift in atmospheric studies? Progress in Physical Geography 5 (3): 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thrift, N. 2002. The future of geography. Geoforum 33 (3): 291–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Turner, M. 2015. Political ecology II: Engagements with ecology. Progress in Human Geography 40 (3): 413–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Walker, P. 2005. Political ecology: Where is the ecology? Progress in Human Geography 29 (1): 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wear, D.N. 1999. Challenges to interdisciplinary discourse. Ecosystems 2: 299–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilcock, Deirdre, G.J. Brierley, and Richard Howitt. 2013. Ethnogeomorphology. Progress in Physical Geography 37 (5): 573–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca Lave
    • 1
  • Christine Biermann
    • 2
  • Stuart N. Lane
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of GeographyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Earth Surface Dynamics, Université de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations