Landscape Detectives: Critical Physical Geography at Lund University

Not all that counts can be counted: A critical physical geography manifesto

“Not everything that can be counted counts. Not everything that counts can be counted.”

-William Bruce Cameron, 1963

The quote above is sometimes attributed to Albert Einstein, but it was actually from a book about sociology, published in 1963. The context is a discussion about how nice it would be if sociological data was just numbers that could be put into ”IBM machines” (nowadays called computers), but then the author wanted to highlight that not everything can be analyzed quantitatively, some knowledge comes from more qualitative approaches. In Physical Geography, the emphasis is often on “counting” to reach conclusions, but as we move towards more and more complex questions about the Earth and its system, we need to start engaging with other forms of data and approaches to knowledge acquisition.

Geography is a discipline with immense potential for interdisciplinarity, yet, the discipline have for a long time been divided into human geography and physical geography, with limited communication between the two. Being “interdisciplinary” in a disciplinary system can be challenging. You are supposed to be an expert in one discipline, and at the same time be able to communicate and understand other disciplinary approaches, and because of that you are often outside of your scholarly comfort zone.

Critical physical geography, as defined by Rebecca Lave and colleagues (see reading list below) is an attempt to move towards bridging the gap between physical and human geography, and towards acknowledging the role of power dynamics in how landscapes are shaped. It has it’s basis in physical geography, still interested in physical geography questions, but with a good understanding of the socio-economic and political dimensions that cannot be disregarded when seeking to answer such questions. Humans are seen as more than just a disturbance.

As critical physical geographers at Lund University, we

  • are aware of the existence of different types of knowledge production (epistemologies), and are open towards other ways of producing knowledge than “our own”
  • are interested in combining physical science with social science for a deeper understanding
  • question science as an objective process and discuss science as a subjective process that is influenced by the positionality of the person conducting the research
  • propose that the above mentioned subjectivity is not necessarily a problem as long as there is transparency about what assumptions and decisions were made when doing the research, and how they might influence the result
  • acknowledge that the answers we find are shaped by the questions we ask and the definitions we use
  • place people, power dynamics, and politics at the center of physical geography
  • are interested in the critical aspects of physical geography, GIS and Remote Sensing
  • highlight and discuss questions of ethics in the scientific process
  • aim to be policy relevant

Resources/reading list

Critical Physical Geography

  • Lave, R., Biermann, C., & Lane, S. N. (2018). The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Physical Geography. Palgrave Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5
  • Lave, R., Wilson, M. W., Barron, E. S., Biermann, C., Carey, M. A., Duvall, C. S., Johnson, L., Lane, K. M., McClintock, N., Munroe, D., Pain, R., Proctor, J., Rhoads, B. L., Robertson, M. M., Rossi, J., Sayre, N. F., Simon, G., Tadaki, M., & Van Dyke, C. (2014). Intervention: Critical physical geography. Canadian Geographies / Géographies Canadiennes, 58(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12061

Critical Remote Sensing

  • Bennett, M. M., Chen, J. K., Alvarez Leon, L. F., & Gleason, C. J. (2022). The politics of pixels: A review and agenda for critical remote sensing. Progress in Human Geography, 46(3), 729–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913252210746
  • Bennett, M. M., Gleason, C. J., Tellman, B., Alvarez Leon, L. F., Friedrich, H. K., Ovienmhada, U., & Mathews, A. J. (2024). Bringing satellites down to Earth: Six steps to more ethical remote sensing. Global Environmental Change Advances, 2, 100003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecadv.2023.100003

Feminist perspectives/critiques

  • Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
  • Kroth, L. (2025). Remote sensing and feminist critique: Reappropriations of sensing across distance. Environment and Planning F, 4(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/26349825241283838
  • Litfin, K. T. (1997). The gendered eye in the sky: A feminist perspective on earth observation satellites. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 18(2), 26–47.
  • Schuurman, N. (2002). Women and technology in geography: A cyborg manifesto for GIS.(Focus: Equity for women in geography). The Canadian Geographer, 46(3), 258–266.

Research combining biophysical and social methods

5 September 2025

This entry was posted in

Critical Physical Geography