No abstract

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.Keywords: physical geography, critical human geography, transdisciplinarity, anthropoceneIntervention en géographie physique critique Un article d'opinion paru récemment est à l'origine de la relance d'un débat qui pose la question à savoir si le fondement interdisciplinaire actuel de la géographie serait une relique historique ou une source réelle et potentielle de vitalité intellectuelle. En prenant la défense de la seconde position, nous militons en faveur des bénéfices découlant de l'intégration soutenue de la géographie physique et de la géographie humaine critique. Pour des raisons à la fois politiques et pragmatiques, nous avons nommé ce domaine de recherche et de pratique enchevêtré la géographie physique critique (GPC). C'est au service de la transformation sociale et environnementale que la GPC intègre un regard critique sur les relations de pouvoir à la connaissance profonde de la science ou de la technologie biophysique. Que se soient des individus ou des équipes qui la pratiquent, les travaux de recherche en GPC peuvent contribuer à l'amélioration de la qualité intellectuelle et à l'élargissement de la pertinence politique de la géographie humaine critique et géographie physique, compte tenu que la séparation de l'analyse des systèmes naturels et des systèmes sociaux pose des difficultés d'ordre pratique. À l'origine des paysages sociobiophysiques se trouvent autant les relations inégales de pouvoir, les histoires de colonialisme et les disparités raciales et entre les sexes que l'hydrologie, l'écologie et les changements climatiques. Dans cette partie de l'article, nous passons en revue les travaux actuels en GPC, nous engageons une discussion sur les principaux avantages des approches intégratives et véritablement critiques en recherche, dans l'ense...

Urban tree planting initiatives are being actively promoted as a planning tool to enable urban areas to adapt to and mitigate against climate change, enhance urban sustainability and improve human health and well-being. However, opportunities for creating new areas of green space within cities are often limited and tree planting initiatives may be constrained to kerbside locations. At this scale, the net impact of trees on human health and the local environment is less clear, and generalised approaches for evaluating their impact are not well developed.In this review, we use an urban ecosystems services framework to evaluate the direct, and locally-generated, ecosystems services and disservices provided by street trees. We focus our review on the services of major importance to human health and well-being which include ‘climate regulation’, ‘air quality regulation’ and ‘aesthetics and cultural services’. These are themes that are commonly used to justify new street tree or street tree retention initiatives. We argue that current scientific understanding of the impact of street trees on human health and the urban environment has been limited by predominantly regional-scale reductionist approaches which consider vegetation generally and/or single out individual services or impacts without considering the wider synergistic impacts of street trees on urban ecosystems. This can lead planners and policymakers towards decision making based on single parameter optimisation strategies which may be problematic when a single intervention offers different outcomes and has multiple effects and potential trade-offs in different places.We suggest that a holistic approach is required to evaluate the services and disservices provided by street trees at different scales. We provide information to guide decision makers and planners in their attempts to evaluate the value of vegetation in their local setting. We show that by ensuring that the specific aim of the intervention, the scale of the desired biophysical effect and an awareness of a range of impacts guide the choice of i) tree species, ii) location and iii) density of tree placement, street trees can be an important tool for urban planners and designers in developing resilient and resourceful cities in an era of climatic change.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12940-016-0103-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Effective policies promoting diversity in geoscience require understanding of how the values and practices of the community support the inclusion of different social groups. As sites of knowledge exchange and professional development, academic conferences are important culturing institutions that can alleviate or reproduce barriers to diversity in geoscience. This study examines diversity at a 2017 geoscience conference, the joint Canadian Geophysical Union and Canadian Society of Agricultural and Forest Meteorology annual meeting, through observation of participation, presentation content, and behaviour in conference sessions. Across 256 observed presentations, women constituted 28% of speakers, whereas women of colour made up only 5%. Participation rates differed between disciplinary sections, with the most populous sessions (Hydrology and Earth Surface) having the lowest percentage of women. Examination of presentation content reveals that the methods and scholarly contributions of both women and people of colour differed from the majority, suggesting an intellectual division of labour in geoscience. Examination of audience behaviours between presenters reveals how a "chilly climate" can be experienced by women and other marginalized demographics in conferences. We argue that there is more to be done than simply increasing numbers of women or other minorities in geoscientific spaces, and we suggest pathways to making geoscience a more inclusive and democratic pursuit.

The classification of river forms and processes has emerged as a major site for interdisciplinary cooperation and application of environmental science. Geomorphologists, ecologists, planners, and others have made concerted efforts to develop theoretical and empirical frameworks with which to classify rivers and their component parts for multiple, diverse applications. As the breadth and depth of classification logics continue to swell, this article takes stock of recent developments through three analytical lenses. First, the theoretical underpinnings of river classification are explored and summarized to provide a framework within which to situate and compare different classification approaches. Second, four emerging frameworks for river classification are described and compared to assess their epistemological, institutional, and governance implications. Different epistemic communities produce different kinds of classifications, which reveal different ‘realities’ of rivers to be acted upon by human agents. Third, by emphasizing how river classification practices are productive of environmental governance regimes and rationalities, the roles, responsibilities, and possibilities for environmental science are clarified and expanded. Rather than thinking about classification purely as a realist scientific project, attention needs to be paid to the ways in which ‘classifying mindsets’ relate to the production of social and environmental outcomes. WIREs Water 2014, 1:349–367. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1026 This article is categorized under: Water and Life > Nature of Freshwater Ecosystems

Fundamental changes in the meaning and practice of environmental science are affecting – and are affected by – the theoretical, technological, pedagogical and institutional projects of physical geography. These changes have given rise to a range of ‘integrative’ (or integration‐directed) disciplinary narratives which articulate a role for physical geographers within an engaged project of societal relevance and transformation. In this context, we welcome the rise of a notional ‘Critical Physical Geography’ and here we seek to expand the conversation to support thinking about what it might mean to be critical within physical geography. Moving beyond definitions of interdisciplinary collaboration, we propose that being critical from within physical geography begins with cultivating a critical disposition towards the situated partiality of our scientific practices. This prompts consideration of the ways in which our environmental objects could be assembled differently, reflecting different personal histories and values, and from different epistemic locations and management framings and through different investment narratives. A critical disposition prompts reflection upon the situated constraints and opportunities presented by our institutional locations. Recognition and articulation of critical perspectives may provoke endeavours to more consciously reassemble our scientific and institutional projects into more effective interventions to secure a more powerful and meaningful role for physical geographers across their diverse engagements.

The granting of rights to the Whanganui River in 2017 emerged as an outcome of Tribunal hearings relating to breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, signed between Māori chiefs and the British Crown in 1840. As this expression of a river as having legal personhood with rights reflects a distinctively Māori perspective upon river systems, it offers the prospect for a new era of sociocultural approaches to river management in Aotearoa New Zealand. Using the Whanganui River as a case study, this paper explores prospective geomorphic meanings of river rights. The paper asks, “What role can geomorphology play in identifying, articulating and protecting the rights of a river?” Ancestral Māori relations to the river based upon mutual codependence (reciprocity) are juxtaposed against geomorphic understandings of a river's agency as expressed through self‐adjustment, diversity of form, evolution, and catchment‐scale connectivities. Relations between river science and indigenous concepts of rivers, framed under the auspices of river rights, present opportunities for different approaches to river management.