Introduction to special issue on critical physical geography

Abstract

The relationship (or lack thereof) between physical and human geography is a longstanding discussion within our field. In PiPG alone there have been dozens of articles that raise the issue over more than three decades. Some authors call for physical/human synthesis (e.g. Bracken and Oughton’s 2009 special issue of Area; Clifford, 2002; Harrison et al.’s 2008 special issue of Geoforum; Massey, 1999; Thornes, 1981); others are less convinced that deep integration is feasible, or even desirable (e.g. Demeritt, 2009; Johnston, 1983; Johnston, 2012; Thrift, 2002). But even a brief review of the literature makes two points glaringly clear: this discussion has been going on for decades and, given its regular reoccurrence, it would seem we have remarkably little to show for it. A great deal of ink and angst has been expended on the topic of integrating our field, and yet physical and human geography appear to have remained stubbornly, and in some cases hostilely, separate. Given that long and not notably effective history, why would you bother to read this special issue? Because the articles that follow depart from every paper cited above in one very important way: instead of calling for integrated work, they do it, demonstrating the scientific and political utility of integrating critical human and physical geography in practice. Individually or in teams, the authors in this special issue work across the divide, combining insights from geomorphology, ecology, and biogeography with approaches from participatory action research, political ecology, science and technology studies, and environmental history. While these authors hail from disparate geographic fields, the broad approach they share is critical physical geography (Lave, 2014; Lave et al., 2014), a new field that combines