Professional Documents
Culture Documents
On The Role of Geography in Earth System Science - Pitman
On The Role of Geography in Earth System Science - Pitman
www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum
Critical Review
Abstract
Geography is fundamentally a non-reductionist and holistic discipline. While we tend to focus on particular areas (Physical,
Human, etc.), or we focus on specic successes (Quaternary studies for example) this paper argues that selling Geography though
emphasizing these specic areas or strengths misses a major potential contribution our discipline can make. While most sciences
have become reductionist over the last two centuries, they have recently discovered that the Earth is a complex system with emergent properties that cannot be explained through understanding the components parts individually. Many of these sciences are now
contributing to a major eort called Earth System Science, an integrative super-discipline that accepts that biophysical sciences and
social sciences are equally important in any attempts to understand the state, and future of the Earth System. This paper argues that
the development of Earth System Sciences is a risk for Geography since it is, in eect, Geography with few Geographers. While
representing a threat, the development of Earth System Science is also an opportunity. I argue that Geography could be a lead discipline among the other biophysical and social sciences that are now building Earth System Science to address key problems within
the Earth System. While I am optimistic about the potential of Geography to take this leadership role, I am pessimistic about the
likelihood that we will. I provide suggestions on how we might take on the leadership of Earth System Science including individual
engagement and a renement of tertiary training of some Geography students.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Earth System Science; Role of Geography; Geographic leadership; Physical Geography; Human Geography
1. Introduction
While Geography has followed almost all 19th and
20th Century social and biophysical sciences along the
reductionist route, we have, in my view, tried to keep
an eye on the big picture better than most. We have
been criticised for this holistic (and traditionally rather
generalist) approach by other disciplines because
breadth across a range of disciplines tends to require a
somewhat less deep appreciation of any one discipline.
A fundamental (in the full sense of that word) change
is now taking place in those disciplines that endeavour
to understand the Earth System. After two centuries of
reductionist science, other biophysical and social sciences have begun to recognise the need to understand
E-mail address: apitman@penman.es.mq.edu.au
0016-7185/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.11.008
complex systems (the Earth System for example) holistically. Rather than attempting to break a biophysical
phenomenon into smaller and smaller parts in the hope
of nally understanding that part, the biophysical sciences have stepped back from dissecting nature into
its component parts (Lovelock, 2003) and started to
look at the total system. This approach, known as Earth
System Science is not new, it is a re-invention of Geography. Throughout the 20th Century, Geographers
have been doing this type of investigation and exploring the interrelationship between the biophysical and
social systems and some of the 20th Centurys leading
Geographers have written about the interconnectivity
of the Earth System (e.g. Davis, 1901; Strahler, 1951;
Chorley et al., 1984). While many in Geography have
followed the reductionist path, others have maintained
a broad multidisciplinary, multiscale, non-reductionist
138
to Human Geography. However, it is simply indisputable that the new thrust in Earth System Science is largely independent of Geography. I appreciate that some
within Geography will nd this statement confronting
and point to Geographers who play a key role in Earth
System Science. My view is that these are either the
exceptions that prove the rule (e.g. B.L. Turner II from
Human Geography) or are mainly from the paleoclimate community (Frank Oldeld and John Dearing
for example, but also see Thrift, 2002; Alverson et al.,
2003). Part of the problem is that Earth System or
Earth System Science means dierent things to dierent people. I try to dene the context of this paper in the
following section.
I want to make it clear at this point that this paper
should not be read as an attempt to belittle Geography.
I do not argue that Geographers have somehow failed to
do useful work, they demonstrably have. I do, however,
argue that there has been an explosion within the international communitys eort in Earth System Science
independent of any signicant role or contribution from
Geography. The Earth System Science community
would likely fail to recognise names like Chorley, Dury,
Davis, etc. because this new Earth System Science has
emerged from mathematics, physics and biology. Thus,
while Geography has made many important contributions, it seems it has not done enough to prevent the
re-invention of Geography twice: once as Environmental Science and now as Earth System Science. I also wish
to defend why I do not discuss the detail of a suite of
internal Geography debates or paradigms in this paper.
I do not discuss the contemporary structure of Geography, its historical development, its heritage or the suite
of human-physical dialogues. Why? Simply because
these debates and issues seem unknown outside Geography. I therefore focus on a view of Geography from outside the discipline, identifying a major contribution
Geographers can make. Again, this is not intended to
belittle internal debates or perspectives. Since these are
internal to Geography they may be important to Geography but they are irrelevant to an external view of
what Geography might oer.
This paper briey outlines the change that has taken
place in the last ve years in Earth System Science. I
point out a few areas where Geography should have
led this change but did not. I then draw attention to a
major step underway in Earth System Science in the
hope that this will draw Geographers into the arena to
contribute in ways that will benet the discipline, and
the wider scientic community.
139
140
2003) and is considered a revolution by some biophysical scientists, and wrong by others.
Why does Earth System Science move consideration
of the Earth System as a physical system where Humans
are external, to a biophysical-social system where
Human activity is considered an internal inuence?
There is now virtually no place within the Earth System
that does not show evidence of the Human ngerprint
(deep within the oceans and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets may remain pristine). The addition of carbon dioxide (CO2), sulphur and nitrogen into the
atmosphere, via Human activity, has changed the chemistry of rainwater (Charlson et al., 1992) and the deposition of trace elements onto the biosphere (Vitousek
et al., 1997b; Butcher et al., 1992; Prentice et al.,
2001). The addition of CO2 acts directly to fertilize
plants and changes species composition and plant structure and function (Gitay et al., 2001; Prentice et al.,
2001). No study of the soil, the geomorphology, the
ora and fauna of any place on Earth can be assumed
to be independent of the role of Humans. The hydrology
is aected by Human-induced land clearance, re and
urbanization (Beven, 2000). Soils are aected by changes
in atmospheric chemistry, nitrogen deposition and land
management practices (Huggett, 2003). The ecology is
aected directly by Human-induced clearance (Gitay
et al., 2001; Prentice et al., 2001) and changes in nitrogen
and sulphur deposition (Prentice et al., 2001), and indirectly by changes in species composition and by the indirect eect of increasing CO2 (Stocker et al., 2001).
Climate is aected by land clearance (Stocker et al.,
2001) and by increasing greenhouse gases and sulphate
aerosols (Houghton et al., 2001). In eect, the nature
of the Earth System is now aected by Human-activity
at a level that rivals natural variability (Turner et al.,
1990; Steen et al., 2003; Williams, 2003). In each case
(and there are, of course, many more) Humans initiate
the change, but Human development may, in turn, be
aected by the changes in the biophysical system. In
some areas (uvial hydrology, catchment management,
river rehabilitation) the role of Humans is becoming
better appreciated and more central to management
approaches (e.g. Brierley and Fryirs, 2004). Geographers have made a key contribution to environmental
management (e.g. Cooke and Doornkamp, 1974)
although the eld of environmental management and
environmental sustainability is rapidly evolving in terms
of complex self-organizing systems (Kates et al., 2001).
Overall, it is important to note that the biophysical
environment aects Humans, and that Humans aect
the biophysical environment. This is a two-way process
with extremely complex, yet intimate interactions and
feedbacks that, at its heart, Geography attempts to
understand. However, despite Geography retaining a
broader perspective than other disciplines, most Geographers are not multidisciplinary in this sense. This is
(c) a partial understanding of how the levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols will evolve in
the future.
380
370
360
350
340
330
320
310
1958
141
1964
1970
1976
1982
1988
1994
2000
Year
Fig. 1. The increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere
at Mauna Loa observatory (data from Keeling and Whorf, 2002).
142
143
144
145
146
8. Summary
Earth System Science is a major initiative which recognises the need to integrate biophysical and social sciences
into mathematical models of the Earth System. The development of this initiative has occurred to address the problem of Human-induced change within the Earth System. I
have argued that Earth System Science is really Geography, but with little involvement of Geographers.
Earth System Science has developed an understanding
of the biophysical system with little reference to Physical
Geography. Physical Geography has not contributed signicantly because we do not have the literacy to communicate our knowledge in this new discipline. There are, of
course, major exceptions where Physical Geographers do
play a signicant role, but our presence does not give
critical mass and our inuence is not seen as originating from Geography. The incorporation of the social sciences into Earth System Science is now being performed
with little reference to Human Geography, despite the
major contribution that could be made. Rather than
use Human Geography or Physical Geography, Earth
System Science is using physicists, demographers, economists and biologists, and these groups are each making
major contributions and casting doubt on the relevance
of Geography beyond the connes of our own discipline.
To address this concern I have argued that we need to:
(a) volunteer our services via contact with the appropriate international science bodies; and
(b) recognise that some Geography students with
undergraduate training in both the biophysical sciences (probably physics) and the social sciences
(probably economics) would have the literacy to
contribute to Earth System Science.
If we can give a few of these students enough Geography so that they understand why what we do is fundamentally dierent from reductionist sciences, then a
new generation of Geographers will emerge with skills,
knowledge and experience with which no other discipline can compete. It will also raise the reputation of
Geographers in the market place, beyond that which
other disciplines can provide.
I therefore argue that the role of Geography should
be much more that the study of the key components that
Thrift (2002) demonstrates to be healthy. We are the
natural discipline to embrace the genuinely multidisciplinary science that is Earth System Science. We naturally view the Earth as a combination of biophysical
and social sciences. Yet other disciplines that actively
embraced the reductionist approach through the 20th
Century have now discovered the need for a more holistic perspective. They are rapidly and enthusiastically
developing an Earth System Science perspective that is
independent of, yet parallels Geography. If Geography
does not take leadership in this arena, it will not be long
before other disciplines fully take this opportunity from
us and Earth System Science will continue to develop in
parallel with Geographyat our expense. While it may
be too late, given the momentum Earth System Science
has already developed (Steen et al., 2002, 2003; Clark
et al., 2003; Kabat et al., 2003) and that groups such
as the Potsdam Institute and the Earth System Initiative
at MIT (http://web.mit.edu/esi/) already bridge the biophysical and social sciences, I believe that an active
engagement by Geography in Earth System Science
would be welcomed.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Bob Fagan and Richie Howitt
for their insight and advice on a draft of this paper. I
would also like to thank several anonymous reviewers
who provided extremely valuable advice. Finally, I am
sincerely grateful for Ms. Karyn Knowles for her editorial advice and her comments that aided the clarify of
this paper.
References
Alverson, K.D., Bradley, R.S., Pedersen, T.F. (Eds.), 2003. Paleoclimate, Global Change and the Future. Springer, 220pp.
Amsterdam Declaration on Global Change, 2001. http://www.sciconf.igbp.kva.se/fr.html. Issued at Challenges of a Changing Earth:
Global Change Open Science Conference, a joint meeting of: the
International GeosphereBiosphere Programme (IGBP), the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), the World Climate Research Programme
(WRCP) and the International Biodiversity Programme (DIVERSITAS), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1013 July 2001.
147
148
D.J., Noger, M., van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K.,
Johnson, C.A. (Eds.), Climate Change, 2001, The Scientic Basis.
Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Third Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK (Chapter 7).
Strahler, A.N., 1951. Physical Geography. J. Wiley and Sons,
New York, 534pp.
Stull, R.B., 1988. An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology.
Kluwer Academic Publishing, Berlin, 666pp.
Thrift, N., 2002. The future of geography. Geoforum 33, 291298.
Turner II, B.L., 2002a. Contested identities: Humanenvironmental
geography and disciplinary implications in a restructuring academy. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geographers 92, 5274.
Turner II, B.L., 2002b. Response to thrifts The future of geography.
Geoforum 33, 427429.
Turner, B.L II, Clark, W.C., Kates, R.W., Richards, J.F., Mathews,
J.T., Meyer, W.B. (Eds.), 1990. The Earth as Transformed by
Human Action Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere
over the Past 300 years. Cambridge University Press.
Vernadsky, V.I., 1926. The Biosphere. Springer-Verlag, New York,
192pp.
Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J., Melillo, J.M., 1997a.
Human domination of Earths ecosystems. Science 277, 494499.
Vitousek, P.M., Aber, J.D., Howarth, R.W., Likens, G.E., Matson,
P.A., Schindler, D.W., Schlesinger, W.H., Tilman, D.G., 1997b.
Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and
consequences. Ecol. Appl. 7, 737750.
Vorosmarty, C.J., Moore III, B., Grace, A.L., Gileda, M.P., Melillo,
J.M., Peterson, B., Jrastetter, E.B., Steudler, P.A., 1989. Continental scale models of water balance and uvial transport: an
application to South America. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 3, 241
256.
Vorosmarty, C.J., Green, P., Salisbury, J., Lammers, R.B., 2000.
Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and
population growth. Science 289, 284288.
Williams, M., 2003. Deforesting the Earth. From Prehistory to Global
Crisis. University of Chicago Press, 689pp.
Wilson, M.F., Henderson-Sellers, A., 1985. A global archive of land
cover and soil data sets for use in general circulation climate
models. J. Climatol. 5, 119143.
Wood, E.F., Lettenmaier, D.P., Zartarian, V.G., 1992. A landsurface
hydrology parameterization with subgrid variability for general
circulation models. J. Geophys. Res. 97, 27172728.