View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Research Online

University of Wollongong
Research Online

Faculty of Social Sciences - Papers Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences & Humanities

2015

Geography and global change science: Relationships necessary, absent,

and possible
Noel Castree
University of Wollongong, ncastree@uow.edu.au

Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers

Part of the Education Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons

Recommended Citation
Castree, Noel, "Geography and global change science: Relationships necessary, absent, and possible"
(2015). Faculty of Social Sciences - Papers. 1352.
https://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers/1352

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information
contact the UOW Library: research-pubs@uow.edu.au
Geography and global change science: Relationships necessary, absent, and
possible

Abstract
Initiated by geoscientists, the growing debate about the Anthropocene, 'planetary boundaries' and global
'tipping points' is a significant opportunity for geographers to reconfigure two things: one is the internal
relationships among their discipline's many and varied perspectives (topical, philosophical, and
methodological) on the real; the other the discipline's actual and perceived contributions to important
issues in the wider society. Yet, without concerted effort and struggle, the opportunity is likely to be used
in a 'safe' and rather predictable way by only a sub-set of human-environment geographers. The socio-
environmental challenges of a post-Holocene world invite old narratives about Geography's holistic
intellectual contributions to be reprised in the present. These narratives speak well to many geoscientists,
social scientists, and decision-makers outside Geography. However, they risk perpetuating an emaciated
conception of reality wherein Earth systems and social systems are seen as knowable and manageable if
the 'right' ensemble of expertise is achieved. I argue that we need to get out from under the shadow of
these long-standing narratives. Using suggestive examples, I make the case for forms of inquiry across
the human-physical 'divide' that eschew ontological monism and that serve to reveal the many legitimate
cognitive, moral, and aesthetic framings of Earth present and future. Geography is unusual in that the
potential for these forms of inquiry to become normalised is high compared with other subjects. This
potential will only be taken advantage of if certain human-environment geographers unaccustomed to
engaging the world of geoscience and environmental policy change their modus operandi.

Keywords
possible, absent, science, relationships, necessary, global, change, geography

Disciplines
Education | Social and Behavioral Sciences

Publication Details
Castree, N. (2015). Geography and global change science: Relationships necessary, absent, and possible.
Geographical Research, 53 (1), 1-15.

This journal article is available at Research Online: https://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers/1352

 Geography and global change science:
relationships necessary, absent and possible
Abstract Initiated by geoscientists, the growing debate about the Anthropocene, ‘planetary
boundaries’ and global ‘tipping points’ is a significant opportunity for geographers to
reconfigure two things: one is the internal relationships among their discipline’s many and
varied perspectives (topical, philosophical and methodological) on the real; the other the
discipline’s actual and perceived contributions to important issues in the wider society. Yet,
without concerted effort and struggle, the opportunity is likely to be used in a ‘safe’ and
rather predictable way by only a sub-set of human-environment geographers. The socio-
environmental challenges of a post-Holocene world invite old narratives about Geography’s
holistic intellectual contributions to be reprised in the present. These narratives speak well
to many geoscientists, social scientists, and decision-makers outside Geography. But
they risk perpetuating an emaciated conception of reality wherein Earth systems and social
systems are seen as knowable and manageable if the ‘right’ ensemble of expertise is
achieved. I argue that we need to get out from under the shadow of these long-standing
narratives. Using suggestive examples, I make the case for forms of inquiry across the
human-physical ‘divide’ that eschew ontological monism and which serve to reveal the many
legitimate cognitive, moral and aesthetic framings of Earth present and future. Geography is
unusual in that the potential for these forms of inquiry to become normalised is high
compared to other subjects. This potential will only be taken advantage of if certain human-
environment geographers unaccustomed to engaging the world of geoscience and
environmental policy change their modus operandi.
Keywords: geoscience; global environmental change; epistemic communities; inter-
disciplinary research; narrative; Geography.

Introduction
More than most people, researchers and educators believe in the power of
knowledge. But we understand its power is distributed unevenly: for various
reasons, some knowledges count more than others. The 2007-8 global financial
crisis is a case-in-point. The dominance of a certain style of economic thinking,
particularly in leading Anglophone universities, led to serious intellectual blind-
spots among financial professionals and financial regulators. Consequently,
mainstream economics has been subject to withering criticism in Australia and
elsewhere (for example, Mirowski, 2013; Quiggin, 2012). Geographers, of
course, have never possessed economists’ degree of societal influence.
However, knowledge about something that preoccupies a great many of us –
namely, the ‘human impact’ on the physical environment – is likely to become
uncommonly important in the decades to come.
This is not only because climate scientists have, after years of patient
effort, succeeded in getting climate change recognised as a serious global issue
in the wider society (organized scepticism now, happily, seems to be on the

1
wane). Beyond this, a much larger, diverse and international group of
geoscientists are today making increasingly alarming claims about the
magnitude, scope and scale of anthropogenic environmental change. These
claims amplify and connect those previously made about such things as
biodiversity decline and fresh water scarcity. They push to the limits the tone
of sobriety normally associated with science. In fact, they mirror, in an
empirical register, the political radicalism we normally associate with
environmentalism beyond the mainstream. As a recent Nature editorial phrases
it, “… time is running out, [though] the world is not yet doomed” (2014).
Business leaders and political decision-makers will find it ever harder to
acknowledge such claims publicly without implementing effective measures to
reduce the human impact. After too many years of talk without action, they
would likely suffer a credibility crisis by ignoring the profound implications of
the robust evidence and forecasts issuing from geoscience. In this light, the
question becomes: what stock of knowledge – that is to say, information,
concepts and arguments – will be available to inform deliberations and
decisions about Earth future? What epistemic communities might jostle to
shape debates, and what claims might they make about the post-fossil fuel
world we badly need to create?
In this paper I want to address these questions in relation to Geography
present and future. My argument will be two-fold. First, I think it’s highly likely
that a relatively small group of human-environment geographers 1 – those
possessed of a broadly ‘scientific-analytical’ mindset and with desires to be
broadly ‘policy relevant’ – will join a wider intellectual ‘thought collective’.
Indeed, some already belong to it. This collective spans multiple disciplines, and
is dominated by geoscientists studying global environmental change. It reaches
into parts of social science. To the extent its ideas (might) inform debate and
societal action, it (will) serve(s) to narrow humanity’s future options and
aspirations. This is because it largely excludes the insights of critical social
science and the humanities. For those geographers already (or aspiring to be)
part of the collective, I suspect that talk of such things as the Anthropocene,
‘planetary boundaries’, and global ‘tipping points’ will reactivate well-worn
narratives about Geography’s value as a holistic discipline that reaches the

1
In this paper I use the term ‘human-environment geography’ to refer to a range of studies conducted into the
relationships between people and the biophysical world. Some prefer the term ‘environmental geography’ (see,
for instance, Castree et al., 2009).

2
parts others cannot. Such narratives, despite sounding intellectually inclusive,
are in my view implicitly exclusionary.
Second, these practitioners and narratives aside, I believe contemporary
Geography possesses the intellectual resources to significantly expand people’s
sense of what Earth futures are desirable and achievable. This alternative
contribution to knowledge involves trying to change – rather than conform to
– the intellectual framing of anthropogenic environmental change issuing from
geoscience and certain elements of social science. It rests on a conception of
‘interdisciplinarity’ that eschews the singular, holistic pretensions of narratives
about Geography’s synthetic capacities. It trades confidently on contemporary
Geography’s heterodox character and wide intellectual band-width. The
alternative contribution is, I argue, badly needed (though Geography is hardly
the only discipline capable of making it). And yet I doubt it will be forthcoming.
I suggest that it will prove too challenging to the wider thought collective in
universities, think tanks and foundations who will likely set the agenda for
‘necessary and feasible actions’ in a post-Holocene world.2
As is already obvious from these summary claims, I will be venturing
some generalisations about currents of thinking in Geography and beyond. I
thereby risk over-simplifying a complicated intellectual landscape. Hopefully,
there is more than a grain of truth in the picture I paint. Towards the end of
the paper I will also be entering the realms of informed speculation. But my
hope is not simply to predict aspects of the intellectual future, however
sketchily. In writing this essay, I want also to shape that future so that the one
anticipated here does not come to pass. In short, if some readers share my
view about what is likely to eventuate for Geography in respect of reducing
‘the human impact’ on Earth, they might then ask: how might we act so that
the conclusions reached here prove, in time, to be quite wrong?
A quick word on terminology before I proceed. In what follows
‘geoscience’ refers to the various academic fields devoted to studying Earth
surface processes and phenomena (on land, in water and in the atmosphere). A
formal attempt to conjoin these fields is Earth System Science (ESS, on which
see Wainwright, 2009), though this is scarcely synonymous with geoscience at

2
The bare bones of this paper were first conjured in the form of a plenary lecture given at the 2014 IAZ-NZGS
joint conference in Melbourne. I want to thank the conferences organisers Brian Cook and Ian Rutherford for
the kind invitation to speak. This lecture, I now realise with the benefit of hindsight, was the fruit of ideas
seeded by Karen O’Brien in her 2010 report published in Progress in Human Geography. Since this report, I have
also taken inspiration from arguments about a ‘critical physical geography’ (Tadaki et al., 2014), among other
things.

3
large. ‘Global change science’ refers to a wider array of disciplines and sub-
fields, including those that study ‘human dimensions’ of environmental change.
What these disciplines and sub-fields have in common with geoscience, despite
their differences from it, is a belief that society (like ‘nature’) can be variously
measured, modelled and modified (e.g. by appealing to peoples’ rational self-
interest). Currently, those most central to global change science are
environmental economics, behavioral psychology, political science,
environmental planning and those sub-fields that study biophysical hazards,
rural land use and urbanization in broadly scientific-analytical ways. Global
change science is thus internally diverse. However, I designate its members a
‘thought collective’ because I believe they pursue styles of research that bear a
family resemblance and (for better or worse) possess a fair degree of
commensurability. In recognition of this, some (e.g. Robert Kates, 2011) have
attempted to badge and steer the collective with various meta-labels (in his
case ‘sustainability science’).
Geoscientists on the march
We are accustomed to science changing our world through its evidence,
concepts, inventions and practices. However, research into anthropogenic
environmental change is a case of stalled influence. Scientific representations of
Earth past, present and future enjoy a very high profile worldwide; yet the
challenge they pose to contemporary capitalist ways of life is being studiously
ignored by political economic elites and the majority of citizens. Accordingly,
geoscientists are now on the march, using the authority of their profession to
change societal thinking about what is considered practically necessary and
feasible. Forty years ago, when there was a great surge of concern about
Earth’s future, only a few scientists stuck their necks out – often
controversially so (think of Paul Ehrlich, for instance, the buccaneering biologist
and coauthor of The Population Bomb [1968]). Today, by contrast, the concern
is being expressed by hundreds of researchers across the environmental
disciplines, including some very well respected individuals like Paul Crutzen,
James Hansen and Will Steffen. This is why Naomi Klein (2014), in her new
book This Changes Everything, regards geoscientists as potential fifth columnists
challenging the present order from within.
In this light, we need to see recent claims about the Holocene’s possible
end – expressed in the concepts of the Anthropocene (Crutzen and Stoermer,
2000) planetary boundaries (Rockström et al. 2009a) and tipping points
(Barnosky et al., 2012) – as more than descriptive-explanatory ones. They are

4
also a strategic attempt by groups of geoscientists, notably in Europe, to exert
political influence in the wider world. This is graphically evident in Johan
Rockström et al.’s notion of a ‘safe operating space for humanity’. To use the
well-known distinction associated with advice dispensed by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), these groups are trying
harder than ever to be ‘policy relevant’ while somehow remaining ‘policy
neutral’. They are thereby discharging an awesome responsibility. What other
domain of academic inquiry permits practitioners to make claims about the
world that stand to become claims upon all those inhabiting that world? This sort
of epistemic universalism is rare in any walk of life, cross-cutting as it does
differences of society and situation. It comes with obligations and risks.
There are clear signs that geoscientists believe three changes to their
modus operandi are necessary if they are to exert greater societal influence in
future. First, some argue that the (worrying) evidence and forecasts about
global environmental change need to be broadcast to non-academic
constituencies in a more forthright and direct way. For instance, writing in
Nature Climate Change, Anderson and Bows (2012) criticise their colleagues for
pulling their punches about the political implications of scientific findings.
Meanwhile, Berkeley ecologist Anthony Barnosky and colleagues (2014) have
led by example, authoring a succinct synthesis document for political decision-
makers – the ‘Scientific consensus on maintaining humanity’s life support
systems in the 21st century’. This document is not circumscribed in content or
tone in the way that publications by formal reporting bodies like the IPCC – or
the younger Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services (IPBES) – are.
Second, it is increasingly clear to geoscientists that the large
environmental changes humans are causing will rebound on societies
significantly. So far, the bulk of global change inquiry – represented for a
generation by four international research programs3 – has focussed largely on
biogeochemical changes and scenarios. Geoscientists are now calling for
interdisciplinary research that links studies of human behaviour, institutions
and regulations with studies of the Earth’s changing physical geography. Such
integrative inquiry, it is hoped, will make global change research more relevant
to ‘mitigation’ and ‘adaptation’ policies. As a prominent statement in Science

3
I am referring to the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program, launched in 1987, which followed the
World Climate Research Program, created in 1980. They were followed by the International Human
Dimensions Program (1990) and Diversitas (launched in 1991 and focussing on global biodiversity and
biogeography).

5
put it, “research dominated by the natural science [should] transition toward
research involving the full range of [social] science and humanities” (Reid et al.
2010: 917). More recently, Phillip Sharp and Alan Leshner – of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science – have called for ‘convergence
science’ that “integrat[es] … knowledge from the life, physical, social and
economic sciences and engineering” (2014: 579). One example of these
aspirations is provided by Paul Palmer and Matthew Smith, writing in Nature.
They call for new Earth system models that can build-in human actions and
responses because omitting these is “like designing a bridge without accounting
for traffic” (2014: 365). Such models will, it is hoped, bring people and nature
into a single analytical domain, aspiring to mirror in a computational
environment real-world couplings between socio-economic and physical
systems.
Finally, several leading geoscientists have proposed a ‘new social
contract’ wherein their research becomes more applied and ‘solutions
orientated’ (see Brito and Stafford-Smith, 2012; DeFries et al. 2012). This
promises to take the idea of ‘policy relevant’ inquiry closer to high-level
decision-making and nearer the coal-face where practical measures to address
environmental change are implemented. It involves setting the general strategic
aims of public policy – such as new UN-sponsored Sustainable Development
Goals (see Griggs et al., 2013). But more concrete ‘actionable science’ is also
envisaged that will see global change researchers propose new technologies
and new ‘behaviour change’ measures (see Palmer, 2012; Sivapalan et al., 2014).
These three proposed alterations to the working practices of geo-
scientists are being made at an important moment for the logistics of global
change inquiry. A global Future Earth research programme
(http://www.icsu.org/future-earth) is now in its formative stages as a successor
to the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (among other things). It
already looks like it will internalise the expressed desire for more forthright,
interdisciplinary and relevant forms of socio-environmental inquiry (see
Gaffney, 2014). This is echoed in plans for important national level
programmes, such as the next phase of America’s global change research
(USGCRP, 2012).
Geography and global change science
These developments represent an exciting opportunity for many geographers
to make their research count beyond the discipline and outside the academy.
They also ask questions of Geography’s current capacity to take advantage of

6
this opportunity. We have been here before, of course. But where Geography
was only lightly involved in the great surge of environmental concern, policy
and activism during the late 1960s, today the ‘environmental agenda’ is quite
central to the discipline in a range of different ways. The question is not so
much whether, but how and to what degree, geographers might make their
voices heard as societies confront accelerating environmental change.
Answering this question directs us, in the first instance, to those –
human-environment geographers who already belong to, or are aligned with,
the geoscientific networks described above. These practitioners are interested
in influencing the drama of human-environment relations from one or other
side of the society-nature dualism that has long organised research and
teaching in Geography. They include the likes of Eric Lambin (of the
universities of Louvain and Stanford – who researches land use change by
linking remotely sensed and socio-economic data); Tim Lenton (of Exeter
University – an earth system scientist with expertise in modelling and ‘tipping
elements’); Erle Ellis (of the University of Maryland – a biogeographer who
studies anthropogenic ecosystems); Diana Liverman (of the University of
Arizona – who has studied people’s vulnerability to the effects of climate
change, among many other things); Neil Adger (who, like Lenton, is at Exeter
University – his major focus is the measurement and enhancement of social
resilience to environmental change); and Jon Barnett (of Melbourne University
– who examines social adaptation to climate change and environmental
in/security). These individuals (and there are several others one could
mention) are hardly of a piece. Some are geographers by background (e.g.
Liverman), others not (e.g. Lenton). The intellectual differences between them
speak to the diversity and complexity of the geoscience networks they are, in
different ways, plugged into. However, at different times and in different ways
they have joined geoscientists’ recent march to get anthropogenic
environmental change taken far more seriously in the wider world.
For instance, Lambin, Lenton and Liverman all lent their names to the
planetary boundaries idea that was first presented in papers in Nature and
Ecology and Society (Rockström et al., 2009a, 2009b). Erle Ellis, meanwhile, has
associated himself with the Anthropocene concept on several occasions (e.g.
Ellis, 2011). Then, Ellis, Lambin and Liverman were among the co-authors of a
notable manifesto for a new style of ‘can do’ global change science focussed on
‘planetary opportunities’ (DeFries et al. 2013). Liverman has recently co-led
authorship of the Future Earth design plan with Johan Rockström (Liverman &

7
Rockström, 2014). Finally, through their work on recent IPCC assessment
reports, both Adger and Barnett have helped to bring ‘human dimensions’
more to the fore in global change science. They have done so – and are hardly
alone in this – by employing a broadly ‘scientific-analytical’ language that makes
sense in global change research arenas long dominated by environmental
chemists, biologists and so on. This language talks about ‘drivers’, ‘factors’,
‘causes’, ‘effects’, ‘responses’ and ‘feedbacks’. It also resonates in policy circles
where decisions ultimately have to be made about how societies can mitigate
and adapt to anthropogenic environmental change.
Looking ahead, one can see how the wider developments in global
change science represented in Future Earth provide considerable opportunity
for more geographers to work in this vein. The ‘human-environment’
problematic today enjoys unprecedented intellectual and practical importance
in higher education and the wider world. Various geoscience subjects are
central to engaging that problematic, along with certain strands of social
science (e.g. environmental economics). The latter are set to become more
important as human adaptation to a changing Earth becomes a priority in the
decades ahead. To the extent that they share a ‘structure of feeling’ with these
subjects and strands, many geographers are likely to make formative
contributions to knowledge and policy in the years to come.
Narratives that galvanise … and constrain
All disciplines employ narratives to make sense of their past, present and
possible future. Narratives impose order on what was, is and could (or should)
be. The recent developments in geoscience, along with the growing impact of
humans on Earth, dovetail well with familiar stories about Geography’s identity
and value for society. These stories emphasise the discipline’s proclaimed
determination to bring what we call ‘nature’ and society within one or other
analytical frame, cross-cutting several spatio-temporal scales. They accent
Geography’s synthetic ambitions as a ‘weaver’, whereas more specialist
subjects tend to be ‘spinners’. They serve to anticipate and justify the need for
Geography to make its voice heard loudly in academic, policy and public
debates about humanity’s escalating effects on the planet. 4

4
My sometime co-editor and colleague David Demeritt (2009a, 2009b) has usefully identified two ways in
which Geography’s special relevance to the ‘environmental agenda’ has been proclaimed. One is to say that
Geography contains within it all or most of the specialisations one needs to understand past, present and
future human-environment relations. The other is to say that geographers possess synthetic habits of mind
that make them especially important in enabling the sort of ‘joined-up’ research that connects specialisms

8
 A recent example is offered by Carol Harden (2012), in the published
version of her conference address as President of the American Association of
Geographers (see also Ziegler et al., 2013). Like many others before her –
notably Melvin Marcus (1979), David Stoddart (1987), Robert Kates (1987),
Ron Cooke (1992), Patricia Gober (2000), Billie Lee Turner (2002), and David
Skole (2004) – Harden uses narratives about Geography’s late 19th century
origins and 20th century evolution to make claims about its current state and
future prospects. She reviews different ‘framings’ of human-environment
interactions in years past, not so much to advocate any one of them in the
present as to legitimate the claim that they cover the ‘core area’ of Geography.
Referencing external developments like those summarised earlier in this paper,
Harden concludes that “the opportunity costs to Geography of not bringing
our intellectual resources to bear are great” (2012: 745). She then observes
that
If Geography is a disciplinary doughnut, with important gaps at the center of its
intellectual space, then we have a research frontier right at our core. This internal
frontier offers new opportunities to integrate our full range of expertise as
geographers, from the natural science perspectives of physical geography to the
carefully nuanced understandings of those working with people and institutions, to
fill critically important research gaps, identified not only by ourselves but also by
others (ibid.).
In short, Harden uses both a story about Geography’s past and external
opportunities in the present to enjoin more practitioners to cross the ‘human-
physical’ divide so as to produce integrated and relevant knowledge.
It is not difficult to anticipate a narrative like this being reprised by
leading human-environment geographers as the society-nature problematic
assumes ever greater importance in universities and the wider society. Like all
narratives, Harden’s is both constructed and normative. This does not mean it
is presented in bad faith, or is deliberately manipulative. Narratives can inspire
us – for instance, I remember as an undergraduate being very energised by the
late David Stoddart’s (1987) plea to reinvigorate Geography’s ‘man-land’
tradition (as he called it at that time). Narratives can act as critical
commentaries on roads taken as compared to ones that might (have) be(en)
taken. In the present case, they could be used to inspire more geographers to
follow in the footsteps of Lambin, Liverman, Adger and others. Given
geoscientists’ determination to extend the scope and influence of their
together to comprehend the tapestry of human-environmental relations. In what follows I focus on the second
argument, which constitutes a more ambitious ‘selling’ of Geography’s credentials than the former.

9
inquiries, the ‘geographical advantage’ appears to be the ensemble of expertise
already existing in a single disciplinary space and practitioners’ synthetic habits.
We cover Earth systems and ‘human dimensions’ in one subject, and – unlike in
previous decades – seem fairly well placed to tackle the analytical and practical
challenges of an Earth transformed (see Ziegler et al., 2013).
However, just as narratives can forge identity and purpose among their
addressees, they can also alienate and divide. This has two aspects. First, some
addressees may simply not relate to the narratives at all. In Geography there
have long been physical and human geographers who rarely dwell in the
marchlands between the two fields. For them arguments about Geography’s
need for great coherence centred on society-nature interactions are either
irrelevant or over-bearing. Second, some addressees may respond to the spirit
but not the letter of the narratives. In the present case, there are many
geographers deeply interested in human-environment relations and very
concerned about the future of the planet. I count myself among them. But they
will not be persuaded that Geography should sell itself as what Skole (2004)
called “the pre-eminent interdisciplinary environmental discipline” whose time
has now come. Other narratives are possible and desirable, as I will show
below. First, however, let us consider in more detail the character of the
‘Geography: humans + environment = synthesis’ narrative, along with its
shortcomings. Over the years, and still today, this narrative has been especially
prominent in North America. There it has been used to ‘market’ Geography to
researchers and others outside the discipline. For instance, it is evident in the
US National Research Council agenda-setting report Understanding the Changing
Planet: Strategic Directions for the Geographical Sciences (2010). This doubtless
reflects Geography’s lower standing in the academic pecking order compared,
say, to the UK.
A troubling narrative-practice loop
Real and unexamined presuppositions
I suggest there has been a fairly consistent, if often implicit, set of ontological
and epistemological beliefs underpinning long-standing narratives about
Geography and the study of human-environment relationships. For some
geographers they are almost disciplinary common-sense. They are encapsu-
lated in this excerpt from Harden’s presidential address:
For geographers, sustainability research invites integration of all types of
geographic expertise. It needs the knowledge provided by those who study
human impacts and human adjustments and offers a wide research frame that

10
 encompasses interdisciplinary efforts, outreach to stakeholders and practitioners,
and research that once would have been considered “applied.” To be effective, it
will need to incorporate feedback in the human–environment system, as
achieving sustainable human–environment interactions will require cultural,
economic, philosophical, and engineering change (2012: ???).

If we unpack this (complex) claim, and contextualise it in previous AAAG

articles about Geography’s ‘true calling’, we discover a number of suppositions.
First, it is assumed there is one world whose interconnected character
demands integrative inquiry. Second, it is assumed that the epistemological
challenge is to connect the metaphorical jigsaw pieces so that the full picture is
revealed. This presupposes commensurability (conceptual, methodological etc.)
between the analysis of humans and of physical environments. Third, it is
assumed that real world actors can articulate their needs and wants such that
these can be incorporated in suitably bespoke, applied research outcomes.
Finally, it is assumed that Geography should work in a largely cognitive and
responsive register, providing information and proposals that will dovetail with
real world events (e.g. observed biophysical changes or new political agendas
for environmental management). The metaphor of ‘system’ positions geogra-
phers as observer-controllers trying to make things work better.
These beliefs are consistent with the vision many geoscientists have for
more forthright, interdisciplinary and relevant global change science. Indeed,
several human-environment geographers have directly addressed geoscientists
in precisely these terms, perhaps understanding that they seem uncontentious
to their intended audience. For instance, writing in Science Diana Liverman,
Billie Lee Turner II and Tom Wilbanks, among others, make the case for what
they call ‘practice-relevant adaptation science’ (Moss et al., 2012). Because the
global environment will undoubtedly change and because societies will have to
respond, the authors argue for an “adaption science … needed to understand
decision processes and information requirements, identity vulnerabilities,
improve foresight about climate risks and other stressors, and understand
barriers and options for adaptation” (p. 696). Throughout the paper, the
physical and humans worlds are depicted as amenable to integrated, actionable
analysis; ‘problems’ are seen to emerge ‘out there’ beyond universities and the
job of geographers and others is to respond through joined-up research and
tailored information/advice. Similar views underpin Robin Leichenko and
colleagues’ call for enhanced ‘vulnerability science’ in the pages of Nature
Climate Change (Stern et al., 2013). The authors propose interdisciplinary
vulnerability analysis across a range of environmental and social systems that

11
can “provide the basis for identifying and assessing options proactively and to
improve and hasten recovery” (p. 609). They position themselves, and their
readers, as public servants who can anticipate and reduce peoples’ risks to
environmental change by assembling more – and more ‘relevant’ – socio-
environmental evidence.
These sort of technocratic-managerial arguments are perfectly good
ones, as far as they go. They echo those made for over a decade by Robert
Kates (e.g. 2011) – advocate of ‘sustainability science’ – and for over thirty
years by Turner II (e.g. 2009) – champion of ‘land change science’. Such
arguments are routinely made flesh in multi-investigator research projects,
where the rhetoric of integrated, applied inquiry is substantiated. But the
public-spirited expert role they imagine geographers and others to play belies
their deeply political character; so too does the rather bland language of
‘problems’, ‘risks’, ‘options’ and ‘decisions’ that animates them. Geographers
can and should play a role in a more engaged, worldly form of global change
science that seeks to alter that which it studies. However, it would be wrong
to think that things like adaptation-, vulnerability-, sustainability- and land
change science are the only, or best, contributions to make. Such
contributions, consistent as they are with a certain disciplinary self-
understanding, suffer a double weakness. First, they invite human-environment
geographers to reproduce – because they refuse to fundamentally question –
the current political economic and cultural order of things. It is, of course,
precisely this order that’s the biggest threat to human and non-human life on
Earth (as Klein [2014] shows). Second, by bracketing questions of power,
inequality, values, social dissent and ethics, such contributions screen-out a
range of important contributions being made by human-environment
geographers who work in different registers. It is a measure of how hegemonic
a broadly scientific worldview is in global change research that those
geographers currently involved have found few opportunities to challenge its
political character.
Questions and criticisms
As I mentioned in passing earlier, Geography’s metaphorical ‘core’ is now far
more heavily populated than forty years ago (notwithstanding Harden’s claim
otherwise). But today’s human-environment geographers are a heterodox
group, particularly on the ‘human side’ of the disciplinary middle-ground.
Research like Eric Lambin’s or Jon Barnett’s represents only part of their
collective activity. Consider the contributions made by political ecologists (e.g.

12
Ribot, 2014), animal geographers (e.g. Gibbs et al., 2015), analysts of agro-food
systems (e.g. Bock & Buller, 2013) and many others besides. Much of their
activity does not instantiate the narrative favoured by Harden and previous
disciplinary notables. Yes, they aspire to ‘joined-up’ analysis of a world where
society and environment now bleed into one another. However, their research
gives us reason to question the four suppositions that underpin narratives
about Geography’s synthetic ambitions and proclaimed value as a holistic
discipline. Why so?
First, the ‘one world’ assumption (otherwise known as ontological
monism) is philosophically questionable. Why not a world of worlds? And,
even if we agreed we inhabit a single, hyper-complex reality, there is no
possibility that all aspects of it could be captured in a single analytical or
normative template that would trump all others (cf. Stallins, 2012). This is clear
in recent studies by geographers of how to manage invasive species, which
highlight the alternative framings available and the fact that ‘objective’ evidence
cannot adjudicate them (see Robbins & Moore, 2013). Second, the assumption
that chunks of knowledge can (at one or other operational scale) be pieced
together to reveal the ‘whole picture’ needs qualifying. The ‘parts’ one
identifies through research and the ‘reality’ they reveal (once ‘properly’
connected) are surely relative to cognitive, moral and aesthetic worldviews.
For instance, where climate scientists might favour mechanical metaphors by
abstracting from ‘nature’ in certain ways, a researcher investigating indigenous
peoples’ ‘adaptive responses’ may need to relinquish the categories of Western
thought so as to see their world from the inside-out. Recent geographical
research into water resources makes this abundantly clear (see Wilson, 2014).
Third, the assumption that listening to ‘stakeholders’ will better help
geographers tailor their research raises big questions about suitable forms of
dialogue and professional learning. For instance, a major contribution of
political ecology over the years has been to show that many users of land and
water are variously ignored, marginalised and often unable (for a variety of
reasons) to articulate their ‘real’ needs and wants (see, for instance, Peluso et
al., 2008). In this light, ‘stakeholder engagement’ becomes a complex, political
and possibly protracted affair. Finally, the assumption that geographers (should)
work largely in a cognitive and responsive mode unduly circumscribes their
potential contributions. Why should they not challenge and change external
agendas pertaining to things like global environmental change? Why should they
not bring moral and even aesthetic questions into the heart of their attempts

13
to describe, explain and change the world? Why can they not utilise
Geography’s mix of scientific, technical, critical and humanistic approaches in
novel ways towards new ends?
Geography and the prospect of a new kind of global change science
I have suggested that some geographers are set to play their part in the
consequential unfolding of global change science, based on previous and
current contributions, networks and narratives. But I have questioned the
intellectual and practical agenda these geographers’ research is likely to serve,
looking ahead. I believe that global change science needs to proceed in a less
resolutely scientific-analytical register. Anthropogenic environmental change
raises profound human questions – such as ‘how should we live with each
other and non-humans?’. Answers to these questions vary according the
worldviews of different communities, cultures and societies. This means that
the power of logical reasoning and factual evidence cannot operate in
abstraction nor presume to universal purchase. Global change science can no
longer externalise all this in its attempts to describe, explain and predict multi-
scalar socio-environmental dynamics. There is more to ‘human dimensions’
than the observation of peoples’ perceptions and preferences, or of the
‘carrots and sticks’ that govern the day-to-day behaviour of individuals and
organisations. How, then, to open the brackets?
There are interesting things afoot in Geography suggestive of an answer
to this question. I use Sarah Whatmore’s term “minority interdisciplinarity”
(2013: 173) to describe them. 5 These things are not (yet) formally referenced
to global change science in the main. Those pursuing them are not (yet) usually
plugged-in to the wider networks coalescing around the Future Earth initiative.
However, their inquiries hint at a different style of human-environment
geography than that commended in conventional disciplinary narratives. They
might thereby inspire new self-understandings productive of new aspirations. If
work in this vein could gain mass and momentum in the years immediately
ahead, Geography might then make a different contribution to global change
science than that imagined in the narratives of Harden, Kates and fellow-
travellers. Currently absent, I believe this contribution is necessary. Let me
summarise three examples of this work from both hemispheres before
distilling some take-home lessons.

5
The 2015 AAG meeting in Chicago uses the term ‘radical intra-disciplinarity’, one favoured by current
Association President Mona Domosh and suitably evocative of what I’m trying to get at in this part of the
paper.

14
Flood risk and management: a British science experiment
In recent years, a set of British human and physical geographers have together
experimented with a new form of ‘integrated’ inquiry. Funded by both the
Economic and Social Research Council and the Natural Environment Research
Council, they have sought to enact the analysis and management of flood risk
in novel ways (Lane et al., 2011; Donaldson et al., 2013; http://relu.data-
archive.ac.uk/explore-data/search-browse/project/?ID=RES-227-25-0018). In
England, academic, government and private sector scientists have long
dominated such analysis and management. Through the Environmental Agency
(EA) – the governmental body mandated to assess and reduce flood risk – a
series of approaches and methods have become well-established. These include
hydrological and hydraulic models, and cost-benefit analysis of possible risk
mitigation and prevention strategies. In recent years, the EA has paid more
attention to communicating and consulting with those affected by flooding.
One of the research team’s case areas was Pickering in North Yorkshire.
This small town is adjacent to a river with a catchment of around 70 km2. It has
been inundated several times in the last fifteen years. When the team arrived
there in 2007, Pickering had just suffered a major flood. Previous risk
assessments overseen by the EA had acknowledged the town’s vulnerability.
However, cost-benefit analysis of proposed measures to control water flows in
and around the town had produced grid-lock. The measures, framed by
standard hydrological evidence and predictions, were deemed too costly. They
had also proven to be controversial among some locals. As a result, flooding
was a recognised problem in Pickering but even major flood events were not
catalysing new, more effective management practices.
In this context, the research team resolved to undertake an experiment
in producing knowledge in a different way so as to ‘unfreeze’ the situation.
They collaborated with a small group of local residents to take a fresh look at
the flooding problem and possible solutions to it. The so-called Ryedale Flood
Research Group (RFRG) comprised locals, physical scientists (e.g. Stuart Lane)
and social scientists (e.g. Sarah Whatmore). It had several in-depth meetings,
between which sustained work was undertaken by group members. In these
meetings the hydrologists not only sought to explain the scientific approaches
typically used to assess flood risk. They also questioned them and incorporated
locals’ knowledge of the wider catchment above Pickering. Meanwhile, the
social scientists did not seek merely to ‘elicit’ local views through interviews or
focus groups. Instead, they engaged them as co-researchers in producing new

15
ideas about how and where to institute hitherto unconsidered flood control
measures. This process was participatory for all involved in ways more organic
and less procedural than established EA methods of local engagement.
The result – emergent rather than planned from the get-go – was the
production of a different model for representing water flows in the catchment
area. This model incorporated landscape elements that had been glossed in the
EA-led assessment process. It was usefully decoupled from that process and
generated possible new proposals that previous cost-benefit analyses had not
been able to consider. The principal one was to institute a set of small dams
(‘bunds’) in areas of the upstream flood plain to regulate water flow into
Pickering Beck. This idea, novel in the Pickering context (if not elsewhere),
proved far less controversial and more cost-effective than previous measures.
It created room for manoeuvre where none apparently existed. It only arose
because of a willingness to experiment with flood risk analysis – ‘experiment’ in
the sense of trying things out with no certain sense of the outcomes. As Lane
et al. put it,
The purpose of [physical and social] science had shifted from problem-solving
and analysis in ways that tend to give [it] … hegemony in the decision-making
process, to the practice of science as a … political intervention, making Ryedale
and its local community ‘heard’ and unsettling the established positions of
institutions and professionals … (2001: 32).
In sum, the research team did far more than identify hitherto ‘hidden’
physical and human dimensions of the Pickering flood drama. They also pushed
beyond standard forms of ‘public engagement’ that has become de rigeur in
contemporary science policy in many Western countries. The team, in effect,
performed a different ‘problem definition’ and identified novel solutions by
refusing the standard expert-lay relationship. In this process, knowledge of
environment and society emerged organically and relationally. It was ‘useful’
knowledge, but in more democratic, less formalised ways than that issuing
from the established EA processes.
Registering and learning from Country: novel Australian research collaborations
All empirical inquiry is underpinned by epistemological and ontological
assumptions: they are the hidden bed-rock upon which observation,
interpretation and intervention occur. While one set of assumptions are
common-sense for some, for others they are alien and may be experienced as
an imposition. Conversely, unlearning one’s taken-for-granted beliefs is a way
not only to discover different worldviews; it can also be experienced as a form

16
of personal reinvention that might sway others to relinquish what they
consider to be axiomatic.
Here in Australia geographers at the University of Newcastle and
Macquarie University have been inviting their peers to rethink the means and
ends of research by attending to Country. Like other settler colonies, modern
Australia is founded on an historical geography of physical and cultural violence
towards aboriginal peoples. Classically, ‘giving voice’ to these peoples in the
academic arena has involved anthropologists and geographers undertaking
sustained fieldwork in order to understand indigenous life-worlds from the
inside. Kate Lloyd, Sandie Suchet-Pearson and Sarah Wright have pushed far
beyond this classic practice in their path-breaking research on, with and for
Bawaka Country in north east Arnhem Land, part of Australia’s Northern
Territory (Bawaka Country et al., 2013, 2014; Wright et al., 2012).
Over a period of years the trio has developed very close relationships
with individuals and families who inhabit Bawaka Country. These relationships
have led them not merely to understand indigenous cosmology. More
profoundly, they have endeavoured to embrace this cosmology in the conduct
and dissemination of their research. This has involved seeing themselves as not
as analysts of Country but as elements of Country. Bawaka, as Wright et al.
(2012: 54) report,
… incorporates people, animals, plants, water and land. But Country is more than
just people and things; it is also what connects them to each other and the multiple
spiritual and symbolic realms. It relates to laws, custom, movement, song,
knowledges … histories, presents, futures … country can be talked to, it can be
known, it can itself communicate, feel and take action.
In this light, the trio have fundamentally questioned the standard protocols of
academic research into people and non-humans.
Methodologically they departed from the norm of putative neutrality
that so often underpins academic observation of the world. They also pushed
beyond sight and sound as privileged senses, and allowed themselves to invest
emotionally in Bawaka rather than purely intellectually. These methodological
choices allowed them to understand Country in a way arguably impossible if
they had treated it as a cultural construction there to be ‘documented’,
however faithfully. Lloyd, Suchet-Pearson and Wright have let Country alter
their research practices rather than expecting it to be intelligible using the
procedures and categories of Western academia. This tracks through to how
they report their inquiries. For instance, in a recent Cultural Geographies paper

17
– perhaps the most striking contribution in that journal’s pages for many years
– Bawaka Country is the ‘lead author’ (more accurately ‘sole author’, as
explained below).
This highly unusual move is no gimmick. Instead, it is a provocation to
the article’s readers: it says ‘Accept this article not only as a representation of
Country but as an extension of Country’. It invites readers to read with
‘embodied responsiveness’ (Bawaka Country et al., 2014: 10) and to be moved
by the ‘ethics of care’ (ibid.) definitional of aboriginal relations with human and
non-human others. It also raises serious questions about the adequacy of
textual representation, the prevalent medium in which Western societies still
disseminate knowledge. Can Bawaka Country ‘speak itself’ to readers like us
on the pages of an academic journal or via a monograph? Does it challenge us
to do better than rely on words and still images consumed at a distance?
From a physical geography (and wider geoscience) perspective, all this
may appear as interesting cultural ‘context’ but might be thought to do nothing
to alter established practices of researching rivers, landforms etc. in what
indigenous peoples’ call Country. However, in a novel ‘human-physical’
collaboration, Deirdre Wilcock, Gary Brierley and Richie Howitt (2013) argue
otherwise. Taking the case of both basic and applied research in
geomorphology, they consider how indigenous cosmologies might inspire
something they call ‘ethnogeomorphology’. As Wilcock et al. argue, these
cosmologies share a family resemblance with ideas of ‘emergence’ and ‘space-
time relationality’ in geomorphology, themselves contemporary forms in which
the field’s idiographic traditions live-on. The difference is that the cosmologies
are actively lived by indigenous peoples and possess ethical dimensions. The
authors invite geomorphologists to de-objectify landscapes and understand
their own research as both affecting – but standing to be affected by – the
material world (including human lives as physical, moral and affective landscape
elements). They call for a more reflexive, critical landform analysis conscious of
its own particular framings of the real and its imbrication in contexts (often
marked by power asymmetries) where the human and the physical cannot be
cleanly separated, either analytically or materially. As Jeremy Walker (2013)
shows, such awareness could challenge the neo-colonialism of Western
environmental policy approaches from the inside. This is not the same as saying
that such approaches, and the research underpinning them, has no value.
Instead, it is to relativise and provincialise them in ways we are (still) not
accustomed to, even after 25 years of post-colonial scholarship.

18
Facts and values in water resource governance: a New Zealand critique
The distinction between ‘facts’ and ‘values’ continues to organise the broad
academic division of labour, and underpins the familiar notion of ‘evidence-
based policy’ (where researchers are supposedly ‘policy relevant’ while
remaining ‘policy neutral’). As Bruno Latour (2004) and others have long
argued, it is also politics by other means: in the name of ‘facts’ researchers can
secrete specific values that dovetail with certain interests in the wider society
but not others. This is not to say researchers fabricate evidence (wittingly or
otherwise) to fit their favoured values. Instead, it is to say that once value
judgements are made, they are a key parameter defining what evidence counts
and, in turn, what sort of policies that evidence can feasibly speak to. Such
judgements are typically presented in the language of ‘objectivity’ and ‘logic’ in
natural science and in the ‘harder’ parts of the social sciences. This can serve
to ‘lock-in’ these judgements without them being made explicit or, where
necessary, debated by those who stand to be affected by them down the line
(Wynne, 2014).
In recent research into a holistic assessment tool used in freshwater
management, Marc Tadaki and Jim Sinner (2014) argue strongly that all
research on environment and people – both alone and together – contains
contingent and contestable value judgements that demand scrutiny. The
novelty of their case lies in its empirical focus: namely an attempt, by New
Zealand water professionals, to render different values explicit and transparent
by linking environmental and social data. Tadaki and Sinner show that, in their
desire to account for stakeholders’ varied valuations of freshwater, these
professionals institute their own value-set in the framing of what societal values
are admissible in the River Values Assessment Systems (RiVAS).
To be more specific, from the 1990s ecologists and conservation
planners have been tasked by New Zealand law to produce composite
measures of the quality of river systems with a view to ranking them
comparatively. More recently, regional governments have been tasked with
identifying people’s valuations of these systems to aid decisions about managing
water quality and quantity. Again, these valuations were to be referenced
nationally, necessitating a method of eliciting them in a standardised form in
different parts of New Zealand. The result was (is) a seemingly comprehensive
mapping of both environmental and social values by combining physical science
and social science methods.

19
 However, Tadaki and Sinner demonstrate two important things. The
first is that the RiVAS only captured one kind of ‘value’, which they term
‘contribution to a goal’. For instance, the System asks people how much river
X is valued as a place to swim or fish. The second is that this decision to
exclude methods to record other ways people might value rivers – Tadaki and
Sinner identity three (2014: 142) – was itself a value judgement, but one
shielded from public scrutiny. Made by water resource professionals, the
decision presumed that rivers matter to people most as possible means to
certain instrumental or recreational ends. For this reason, Tadaki and Sinner
argue that the RiVAS does not, in fact, ‘represent’ peoples’ values but is itself
what they call a “value articulating institution” (p. 148, emphasis added) – this
despite its apparent commitment to ‘give voice’ to otherwise mute stake-
holders. The flaw in the System, the duo argue, is the pretence to record facts
and values objectively as if the recording process is a neutral way-station to
fully informed water management cognisant of both physical and social
dimensions.
Local lessons for disciplinary and global agendas
Though conducted independently of each other, the recent studies I have just
highlighted demonstrate the merits of what we might call ‘wide and deep’
forms of socio-environmental inquiry. They are critical of ‘narrow and shallow’
forms but also self-reflexive about their own preferred approaches. Narrow
and shallow forms presume scientific knowledge can bracket value questions
and piece together data about physical and human dimensions, such that
normative issues arise ‘downstream’. By contrast, the studies summarised
above refuse, in their different ways, to make hard distinctions between
cognitive, ethical and aesthetic issues, between objectivity and subjectivity,
between means and ends, between is and ought. But they do not presume to
muddy those distinctions according to a single ontological or epistemological
template. We might take this as an acknowledgement of the wide range of
ways in which the practices of environmental science, social science and the
humanities can articulate. In the case of Geography specifically, these studies
incite us to cross the ‘human-physical’ divide in ways that standard narratives
of disciplinary unity scarcely imagine. Each one not only questions, but offers an
alternative to, at least one of the four assumptions that underpin the discourse
of Geography as a ‘synthetic’ subject. They speak to forms of knowledge that,
yes, are ‘integrated’ but in what we might call ‘cosmopolitical’ ways.

20
 By virtue of this, these studies also speak to the three-fold agenda of
today’s geoscientists in a constructive and suggestive manner. For instance, the
lessons of Bawaka Country are that the very ideas of ‘interdisciplinary’ and
‘actionable’ global change science are contingent on the underlying worldviews
one takes to be salient at one or other scale of analysis. Then, the RiVAS study
challenges any presumption that social scientists can deal with value questions
among ‘stakeholders’ in value-free ways analogous to geoscientists’ studies of
Earth systems. Finally, the Pickering study suggests that ‘actionable knowledge’
can involve much more than ‘consulting’ those who stand to be affected by that
knowledge. It contains its own politics and potentialities that place
responsibilities on researchers as agents rather than just service-minded
analysts. As part of this, there is the risk – if that’s the right word – that
research gets packaged to meet the perceived needs of policy makers or
dominant stakeholders, and little else besides.
The examples I have showcased may, of course, seem too local and too
radical to be instructive for global change science as it enters a new phase.
After all, global change science is concerned with analysis and intervention at
the planetary scale, cascading down to regions and places. Moreover, as noted
earlier, critical social science and the environmental humanities are not well
represented in the relevant networks and dialogues. However, this is precisely
why global change science needs an injection of new blood before analytical
and normative practices get solidified in consequential new research
programmes (see Castree et al., 2014). The merit of the examples I have
presented is they are concrete. Rather than offer abstract arguments about
“minority interdisciplinarity”, they serve as demonstration cases of what is
possible. They offer us hope that what Jerome Kagan (2009) calls the ‘three
cultures’ divide in academia can not only be bridged but spanned in plural,
creative ways.
Conclusion
A few years ago Mike Hulme (2008) – geographer turned climate-scientist
turned geographer once again – argued that Geography has more to offer
debates on climate change than an ‘integrated understanding’ of human-
environment couplings. “By stripping climate of its flowing cultural and
psychological symbolism, [and] by ignoring the multiple meanings of climate”,
Hulme opined, “we are in danger of letting the idea of climate change get out
of control” (p. 10). His argument is relevant to understandings of global
environmental change more broadly. Such change is not a single, complex,
21
planet-wide socio-physical hybrid existing ‘out there’; nor does it act back
upon humans as an objectively knowable set of processes and effects. Looking
ahead, it will not be experienced the same the world over – materially,
emotionally, morally or aesthetically. Neither will it, could it or should it
trigger similar responses; moreover, whatever the particular situation there is
more than one ‘right’ response. Global change science, and all those subjects
that try to understand and shape human-environment relationships, should be
aiming to understand and alter the differentiated landscape of matter, meaning
and affect that is life in the Anthropocene. The changing Earth will not – should
not – be itself changed by recourse to one or other form of expert analysis as
if it’s a patient seeking certified medical attention.
Geography will sell itself short if it rests content with anything less.
Worse, geographers who might otherwise challenge the current modus
operandi of many global change researchers will, in effect, be endorsing the
status quo. Here I return to my opening reference to economics and the 2007-
8 financial crisis. By analogy, we can ask what might happen if we allow things
like agent-based models, behavioural psychology and green economics to set
the agenda for the human response to environmental change. What sort of
world will emerge – and which worlds never stand a chance of eventuating – if
alternative framings of the actual, the possible and the desirable are rendered
largely invisible?
In Geography, this is a rather pointed question for two groups of
researchers and educators – one much larger than the other. On the one
hand, and as described earlier in this essay, there is a relative minority of
human-environment geographers who are already plugged-in to the world of
global change science. For at least some of them, the challenge is this: can their
‘insider’ status be used to render less muscular the scientific-analytical framing
so characteristic of the wider ‘thought collective’? I say some because a
number of practitioners wear more than one intellectual hat. Diana Liverman is
an excellent example: she is very alive to the ways that geoscience is political
for good and ill. In different writings, she has played alternative roles,
sometimes that of scientific analyst (e.g. Richardson et al., 2011), sometimes
that of science and policy critic (Lovell and Liverman, 2010). She has combined
them to good effect, helping to legitimise the study and mitigation of socio-
environmental vulnerability in hitherto physical science-dominated sections of
American global change research. On the other hand, you have a much larger
group of human-environment geographers who, like those mentioned in the

22
previous section, are neither linked to nor intellectually aligned with global
change science. Many of these geographers see the connective imperative
between cognitive, ethical and aesthetic matters, and between reason and
emotion. For at least some of them, the challenge is this: with like-minded
others outside Geography, can they build connections to global change science
that might serve to redirect the whole enterprise?
Sadly, I suspect the answer is ‘no’, despite some efforts in this direction
(e.g. Brannstrom & Vadjunec 2013). For all sort of practical and intellectual
reasons, they would likely find the challenge too much. Meanwhile, other
geographers – and a whole cadre of global change scientists – will continue to
misdescribe socio-environmental change as a complex of ‘problems’ in need of
technical and behavioural ‘solutions’ as part of a much hoped for ‘sustainability
transition’. As Hulme (2014) argues in his new book Can science fix the climate?,
different approaches are urgently needed. They would marry description,
explanation and prescription in plural ways reflective of divergent human values
and mindful of deep asymmetries of power and authority. They would open-up
our sense of what issues and goals matter to diverse constituencies, and what
kind of interventions seem necessary, wise or just. They might thereby foster
debate and multiply options, openly acknowledging the politics written into all
knowledge-claims about Earth present and future. Such practices are,
interestingly, hinted at in the high-profile World Social Science Report 2013 (ISSC
& UNESCO, 2013) and a new European agenda for publicly-funded science
(Felt et al., 2013). As I have argued, some geographers are already practising
the sort of wide and deep ‘minority interdisciplinarity’ that Hulme advocates.
They invite us to see Geography as, in Susan Smith’s felicitous words,
… an enterprise of relatedness whose vitality is secured by … pulling the world
apart, reassembling it, and adding to it in a variety of intruiging, ethically charged,
sometimes surprising and frequently controversial ways. (2005: 389).
Let us hope these practices can inspire new narratives and further innovative
inquiries that, in quick time, change the relations between Geography and the
wider world of global change science.
References
Barnosky, A. et al. (2012) ‘Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere’, Nature 486: 52-8.
Barnosky, A. et al. (2014) ‘Introducing the Scientific consensus on maintaining humanity’s life
support systems in the 21st century’, The Anthropocene Review 1, 1: 78-109.
Bawaka Country including et al. (2013) ‘Caring as Country: towards an ontology of co-
becoming in natural resource management’, Asia Pacific Viewpoint 54: 185–197.
Bawaka Country including et al., (2014) ‘Working with and learning from Country’, Cultural

23
 Geographies DOI: 10.1177/1474474014539248
Bock, B. & Buller, H.J. (2013) ‘Healthy, happy and humane: evidence in farm animal welfare
policy’, Sociologia Ruralis 53, 3:
Brannstrom, B. & Vadjunec, J. M. (eds) (2013) Land change science, political ecology, and
sustainability: synergies and divergences (New York: Routledge).
Brito, L. & Stafford-Smith, M. (2012) ‘State of the planet declaration’, accessed October 7th,
2014. http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/state_of_planet_declaration.pdf.
Castree, N. et al. (eds) (2009) A companion to environmental geography (Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell).
Castree, N. et al. (2014) ‘Changing the intellectual climate’, Nature Climate Change 4, August:
763-768.
Cooke, R. (1992) ‘Common ground, shared inheritance: research imperatives for
environmental geography’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 17, 2:
131-151.
Crutzen, P. J. & Stoermer, E. F. (2000) ‘The Anthropocene’, Global Change Newsletter 41: 17-
18.
DeFries, Ruth et al. (2013) ‘Planetary opportunities’, BioScience 62, 6: 603-606.
Demeritt, D. (2009a) ‘From externality to inputs and interference: framing environmental
research in geography’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 34, 1: 3-11.
Demeritt, D. (2009b) ‘Geography and the promise of integrative environmental research’,
Geoforum 40, 2: 127-9.
Donaldson, A. et al. (2013) ‘Overflowing with issues’, Environment & Planning C 31, 4: 603-18.
Ehrlich, A. & Ehrlich, P. (1968) The population bomb (Ballantine Books: New York).
Ellis, E. (2011) ‘Anthropogenic transformation of the terrestrial biosphere’, Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A 369: 1010-35.
Felt, U. et al. (2013) Science in society: caring for our futures in turbulent times (Strasbourg:
European Science foundation).
Gaffney, O. (2014) ‘Quiet green revolution starts to make some noise’, Nature 505, 30th
January: 587.
Gibbs, L., Atchison, J. & Macfarlane, I. (2015) ‘Camel country: assemblage, belonging and
scale in invasive species geographies’, Geoforum 58, 1: 56-67.
Gober, P. (2000) ‘In search of synthesis’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90,
1: 1–11.
Griggs, D. et al. (2013) ‘Sustainable development goals for people and planet’, Nature 495,
21st March: 305-7.
Harden, C. (2012) ‘Framing and reframing questinos of human-environment
interactions’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers
102, 4: 737-47.
Hulme, M. (2008) ‘Geographical work at the boundaries of climate change’, Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers 33: 1: 5-11.
Hulme, M. (2014) Can science fix the climate? (Cambridge: Polity).
ISSC & UNESCO (2013) World social science report (Paris: UNESCO).
Kagan, J. (2009) The three cultures (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Kates, R. (1987) ‘The human environment: the road not take, the road still beckoning’,
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77, 4: 525-34.
Kates, R. (2011) ‘What kind of a science is sustainability science?’, PNAS 108, 49: 19449-50.
Klein, N. (2014) This Changes Everything (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Lane, S. et al., (2011) ‘Doing flood risk science differently’, Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers 36, 1: 15-36.

24
Latour, B. (2004) Politics of nature (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).
Liverman, D. & Rockström, J. (2014) Future Earth design report (ICSU; Paris).
Lovell, H. & Liverman, D. (2010) ‘Understanding carbon offset technologies’, New Political
Economy15, 2: 255-273.
Marcus, M. (1979) ‘Coming full circle: physical geography in the 20th century’, Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 69:4: 521-532.
Mirowski, P. (2013) Never let a good crisis go to waste (London: Verso).
Moss, R. H. et al. (2013) ‘Hell and high water: practice-relevant adaptation science’, Science
342, 8th November: 696-98.
National Research Council (2010) Understanding the Changing Planet: Strategic Directions for
the Geographical Sciences (Washington: The National Academies Press).
Nature (2014) ‘Warming up’, Nature, 514, 1st October: 5-6.
O’Brien, K. (2010) ‘Responding to environmental change: a new age for human geography?’,
Progress in Human Geography 35, 4: 542-49.
Quiggin, J. (2012) Zombie economics: how dead ideas still walk among us (Princeton: Princeton
University Press).
Palmer, M. (2012) ‘Socio-environmental sustainability and actionable science’, BioScience 62,
1: 5-6.
Palmer, P. and Smith, M. (2014) ‘Model human adaptation to climate change’, Nature 512,
28th August: 365-6.
Peluso, N. L. Suray, A., Rachman, N. F. (2008) ‘Claiming the grounds for reform: agrarian
and environmental movements in Indonesia’, Journal of Agrarian Change 8: 2-3: 377-
408.
Reid, W. et al. (2010) ‘Earth system science for global sustainability’, Science 330, 12th
November: 916-7.
Ribot, J. (2014) ‘Cause and response: vulnerability and climate in the Anthropocene’, The
Journal of Peasant Studies DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2014.894911
Richardson, K, Steffen W. and Liverman D. eds. Climate Change: Risks, Challenges, Decisions.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rockström, J. et al. (2009a) ‘A safe operating space for humanity’, Nature 461, 24th
September: 472-5.
Robbins, P & Moore, S. (2013) ‘Ecological anxiety disorder’, Cultural Geographies 20, 1: 3-19.
Rockström, J. et al. (2009b) ‘Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for
humanity’, Ecology & Society 14, 2: 1-24.
Sharp, P. and Leshner, A. (2014) ‘Meeting global challenges’, Science 343, 7th February: 579.
Skole, D. (2004) ‘Geography as a great intellectual melting pot and the preeminent
interdisciplinary environmental discipline’, Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 94, 4: 739-743.
Sivapalan, M. et al., (2014) ‘Socio-hydrology: use-inspired water sustainability science for the
Anthropocene’, Earth’s Future 2: 225-30.
Smith, S. (2005) ‘Joined-up geographies’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 30:
3: 389-90.
Stallins, A. (2012) ‘Scale, causality and the new organism-environment interaction’, Geoforum
43, 3: 427-41.
Stern, P. C. et al. (2013) ‘Managing risk with climate vulnerability science’, Nature Climate
Change 3, July: 607-9.
Stoddart, D. (1987) ‘To claim the high ground: Geography for the end of the century’,
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 12, 3; 327-336.

25
Tadaki, M. & Sinner, J. (2014) ‘Measure, model, optimise: understanding reductionist
concepts of value in freshwater governance’, Geoforum 51, 2: 140-51.
Tadaki, M. et al. (2014) ‘Cultivating critical practices in physical geography’, The Geographical
Journal DOI: 10.1111/geogj.12082
Turner II, B. L. (2002) ‘Contested identities: human-environment geography and disciplinary
implications in a restructuring academy’, Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 92:1, 52-74.
Turner, B. L. (2009) ‘Land change science’, in N. Castree et al. (eds) A companion to
environmental geography (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), pp. 168-80.
USGCRP (2012) ‘The national global change research plan 2012-22’, accessed October 7th
2014. http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/national-global-change-research-
plan-2012–2021-strategic-plan-us-global-change
Wainwright, J. (2009) ‘Earth System Science’, in N. Castree et al. (eds) A companion to
environmental geography (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell) pp. 145-67.
Walker, J. (2013) ‘Worlds to endure: weathering disorder from Arnhem Land to Chicago’,
Global Networks 13, 3: 391-409.
Whatmore, S. (2013) ‘Where natural and social science meet?’, in A. Barry & G. Born (eds)
Interdisciplinarity: reconfigurations of the social and natural sciences (London: Routledge)
pp. 161-77.
Wilcock, D., Brierley, G. & Howitt, R. (2013) ‘Ethnogeomorphology’, Progress in Physical
Geography 37, 5: 573-600.
Wilson, N. J. (2014) ‘Indigenous water governance: Insights from the hydrosocial relations of
the Koyukon Athabascan village of Ruby, Alaska’, Geoforum 57, 1: 1-11.
Wright, S. et al., (2012) ‘Telling stories in, through and with Country’, Journal of Cultural
Geography 29, 1: 39-60.
Wynne, B. (2014) ‘Further disorientation in the hall of mirrors’, Public Understanding of
Science 23, 1: 60-70.
Ziegler, A. et al., (2013) ‘Comprehensive research in geography’, Area 45, 2: 252-4.

26