See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338469297

Physical geography contributes

Article  in  Progress in Physical Geography · January 2020

DOI: 10.1177/0309133319893918

CITATIONS READS

5 5,519

5 authors, including:

Carol P. Harden Sheryl Luzzadder-Beach

University of Tennessee University of Texas at Austin
80 PUBLICATIONS   1,490 CITATIONS    147 PUBLICATIONS   2,531 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Richard Marston Julie Ann Winkler

Kansas State University Michigan State University
88 PUBLICATIONS   2,307 CITATIONS    128 PUBLICATIONS   2,020 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

BLUE CREEK ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT View project

International Encyclopedia of Geography View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Marston on 11 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Editorial
Progress in Physical Geography
2020, Vol. 44(1) 5–13
Physical geography contributes ª The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0309133319893918
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppg

Carol P Harden
University of Tennessee, USA
Sheryl Luzzadder-Beach
University of Texas, USA
Glen M MacDonald
University of California, USA
Richard A Marston
Kansas State University, USA
Julie A Winkler
Michigan State University, USA

Abstract
Physical geography is a process, conducted by people, of integration and synthesis of ideas and observations
to advance scientific understanding of Earth’s surface and atmosphere and to apply this knowledge to the
greater good of the planet and its people. Therefore, physical geography matters; that is, physical geography
makes a difference to people and contributes to environmental decision making at various scales. Based upon
presentations and discussion at the 2019 AAG Annual Meeting (see editorial above in this issue), we provide
here a historical perspective and distillation of how and why, in our opinions, physical geography matters.
Although we provide several specific examples, these represent only a small portion of the large body of
excellent and relevant physical geography research.

Keywords
Geographic advantage, people–environment, spatial variability, place-dependence, scale

I Introduction  processes operating at multiple and inter-

locking scales; and
Hanson (2004) previously articulated the
 the integration of spatial and temporal
“geographic advantage” of the commonalities
analysis.
within the wider diversity of geography. She
wrote:
Although Hanson (2004) identified these
. . . the geographic advantage confers an understanding “understandings” as products of the geographic
of:

 relationships between people and the

Corresponding author:
environment; Carol P Harden, Burchfiel Geography Building, University
 the importance of spatial variability (the of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.
place-dependence of processes); Email: charden@utk.edu
6 Progress in Physical Geography 44(1)
advantage, they are the essence of the advantage
as well. The multiplicity of subjects and
approaches within the discipline is the founda-
tion for understanding why physical geography
matters. The geographic advantage arises,
Hanson wrote, from the diversity of questions
that geographers ask, and geography provides
the foundation for that diversity. As she also
noted, the range of scales applies not only to the
questions we ask but also to whom we commu-
nicate, from individuals to agencies and
national and international entities.
Understanding relationships between people
and the environment is central to why physical
geography1 matters, with Hanson’s other three
understandings contributing within and around
this leading dimension. From our perspectives
as physical geographers with different back-
grounds in research and teaching, but having
been presidents of the American Association
of Geographers, we examine each of these four
understandings, along with some of their com-
binations, in the context of how physical geo-
graphy matters.
II People and environment
The relationships of people and the biophysical
environment (here, not biophysics but the inclu-
sion of life and the built environment along with
the physical environment in physical geogra-
phy) motivate physical geography and are
infused throughout physical geography scholar-
ship and practice. Although some physical geo-
graphy research focuses solely on processes that
do not directly involve people, the underlying
motivation remains the potential connections
between these processes and human concerns.
An example is climate change at the close of the
last ice age and the resulting species extinctions
and spread of species into new geographic
ranges, which has implications for the preserva-
tion of biodiversity in the face of 21st century
anthropogenic climate change (MacDonald
et al., 2012; Pearson, 2006). On the other hand,
people are directly part of the processes studied
and the questions posed for much of physical
geography research, as in investigations of the
dynamics of river channels that consider rip-rap
use, levee construction, and general restoration,
with questions of where and how dependent on
people’s needs and perceptions (Guida et al.,
2016; Kenney et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2014).
Physical geography makes a difference at
multiple human scales. At local scales, physical
geography addresses questions such as field-
scale soil erosion in which the role of the farmer
is central to the questions posed and processes
examined and to the applications of the research
outcomes (Teshager et al., 2017). For climate-
dependent activities, physical geography mat-
ters for human health, agricultural markets,
building design, and assessment of climate
change impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation
options (e.g., Tamerius et al., 2007, inter alia).
At the international scale, physical geography is
embedded in security concerns. For instance,
the potential impact of freshwater availability
on future conflict is a political geography ques-
tion rooted in physical geography (Mach et al.,
2019).
Hazards research provides compelling exam-
ples of the infusion of human concerns into
physical geography. While some studies focus
on fundamental natural processes, such as mass
movement mechanisms in landslides and those
of overbank flow in flooding (Harden, 2001;
Phillips, 2015), much of the hazard-related
research in physical geography is concerned
with people’s vulnerability to hazards and with
their contribution to hazard occurrence. Gilbert
White (1945) set the standard for making a dif-
ference. He recognized the links between flood-
ing and people, and today we recognize the
utility of communicating and managing flood
risk and including people as active agents in the
hydrology and hydraulics of flooding. (e.g.,
Bracken et al., 2016). In another domain, bio-
geographers have a long and productive history
of examining natural and anthropogenic fire
Harden et al.
regimes. Proxy records, such as charcoal analy-
sis and tree rings along with remote sensing, are
used to infer the climatic influences affecting
the timing of fire disturbance over large areas
and the human modifications of land and fuels
that alter such relationships (Malanson, 1985).
These studies provide insights into historical
and potential future changes in fire hazards
(MacDonald et al., 2008; Wahl et al., 2019).
Another example, often occurring at a broader
spatial scale, is desertification (e.g., Mensching
and Ibrahim, 1976; Prăvălie et al., 2019; Rey-
nolds et al., 2007). Physical processes are at the
core of understanding desertification (e.g., Phil-
lips, 1993), but are coupled to human concerns
and to human agents as drivers and victims.
Remote sensing has been central to understand-
ing land-cover dynamics (e.g., Helldén and
Tottrup, 2008), but it is the integration of phys-
ical and human geography that provides insights
on the multiple processes that lead to desertifi-
cation (e.g., Bassett and Zueli, 2000).
III Importance of spatial variability
and place-dependence
The chorologic tradition (sensu Turner, 2002,
combining spatial pattern and process with the
characterization of places) is a dominant episte-
mology in physical geography. Physical geogra-
phers who study basic processes usually do so
explicitly in the context of the biophysical char-
acter of place (Hanson’s second bullet point)
and often also in terms of spatial variables, such
as relative location (Kim, 2013). A central
theme in place–space physical geography is
interaction among the processes and patterns
of gases, liquids, minerals, and their combina-
tion in more complex biological structures (i.e.,
life) – more commonly represented as interac-
tions of the domains of atmosphere, hydro-
sphere, lithosphere, and biosphere (Malanson
et al., 2014). Physical geography works in both
directions along a continuum from reductionist
analyses across multiple places of the
7
fundamental processes for a particular domain
to combining the domains to holistically char-
acterize place(s) (Kim and Kupfer, 2016) at
scales from sub-meters to global.
Physical geographers characterize places by
their biophysical interactions, for example, in
the modeling of river systems linking basin sub-
strates, land cover, and vegetation to hydraulics,
channel patterns, and dynamics (Marston et al.,
1995), and in identifying climatic regimes,
including their extreme events (Winkler,
1988). These have implications for land-use
policies, decisions, and outcomes. Deeper in
time, geographers have reconstructed the envi-
ronment of the ancient Maya, with insights into
how those interactions inform our ongoing rela-
tionships with the environment (Beach et al.,
2019; Luzzadder-Beach and Beach, 2009).
Reconstructing and reconceptualizing past
climates have led to deeper efforts to char-
acterize how and why climates differ. The
Thornthwaite–Mather water balance concept
(Mather, 1978; Thornthwaite, 1948) captures
fundamental processes that characterize and dif-
ferentiate places in ways that matter. Such types
of indices are regularly used to identify and
communicate drought impacts and flood poten-
tial. Climatic differentiation has, more recently,
become the basis for the geographic organiza-
tion and interpolation of climate data, such as
the PRISM, WorldClim2, and CHELSA data-
sets (Daly et al., 2001; Fick and Hijmans,
2017; Karger et al., 2017, respectively), which
have facilitated an understanding of the impacts
of climatic variation (both spatial and temporal)
on physical and human systems along with their
vulnerability to climate variation (e.g., Albrecht
et al., 2018).
Spatial variables can also be part of the char-
acterizations of places, distinguishing between
the influences of isolation (Steinbauer et al.,
2016) and migration. For example, biogeogra-
phers can now infer processes of human evolu-
tion, population dynamics, and cultural
transitions across continents and the planet for
8 Progress in Physical Geography 44(1)
our species, Homo sapiens sapiens, from the
modern and paleo geographies of our genes
(e.g., Giampoudakis et al., 2017). Aside from
scientific importance, this matters on an indi-
vidual level to the many people who are inter-
ested in their personal ancestries and history.
IV Processes at multiple
geographic scales
The recognition that scale matters – in our ques-
tions, methods, and conclusions as much as in
the processes themselves – is infused through-
out physical geography. Some of this infusion
was inherent in the physical geography of
Strabo (Jones, 1917), but much has developed
with the abilities afforded by remote sensing
and geographic information systems to change,
revise, and combine scales. Examples of analy-
ses of processes at multiple scales include link-
ing local human activities to erosion and stream
sediments across multiple basins (Harden,
2006), estimating the cumulative effects of wet-
lands on major river flooding (Tobin, 1986), and
applying island biogeography to nature reserves
(Meadows, 2001; Rappaport et al., 2015).
Physical geographers also address cross-
scale phenomena and scaling methods. The
dynamical and empirical downscaling of cli-
mate observations and climate projections
exemplifies the infusion of multiscale concepts
into physical geography (Winkler et al., 1997).
Physical geographers have been at the forefront
of increasing the utility of climate projections
from global climate models (GCMs) for asses-
sing potential impacts and as input to decision
making (Diallo et al., 2019). Downscaling trans-
forms coarser scale outputs into finer scale
products using geographic information and
knowledge of physical processes at the finer
scale. The downscaled outcomes are widely
employed in a variety of applications, such as
conservation planning (Tabor and Williams,
2010). Geographers have also been instrumental
in incorporating finer scale processes, such as
urbanization, into GCMs (e.g., Oleson et al.,
2008).
V Integration of spatial
and temporal analysis
Physical geographers, while often starting from
a chorological foundation, have long thought
about time. From theorizing the history of land-
scapes (Davis, 1899), to paleoenvironmental
reconstruction (Butzer, 1968), to monitoring
changes in spring greening phenology
(Schwartz, 1998), time has always been wedded
to space. This integration is at the heart of
the systems approach in physical geography.
Systems analysis, or at least representation, pro-
vides a means for investigating the interactions
of system components across scales where the
time steps of feedbacks are tied to the distances
of the interactions. Feedback loops that include
people are an additional example of geography
that matters (e.g., Crawford and Mageean,
2011). The systems approach to spatio-
temporal dynamics became fundamental to all
dynamic modeling in physical geography. Such
modeling is perhaps best developed in climatol-
ogy, where spatially explicit, time-driven mod-
els are the essence of much contemporary
research (Schmidt and Sherwood, 2015;
Thornes and Randalls, 2014).
VI Advantage in the combinations
of Hanson’s four areas of
understanding
Understanding the relationships of people and
the environment is underpinned by understand-
ings of spatial variability, geographic scale, and
spatio-temporal integration. The magnitude–
frequency relationships of many environmental
events provide multiple examples of this under-
pinning. For instance, Wolman and Miller
(1960) characterized the fundamental concepts
from which we derive flood extent and fre-
quency statistics. Paleogeographers (e.g.,
Harden et al.
climatologists, hydrologists, ecologists) provide
a context for current climate change and its
potential consequences (Harrison et al., 2016).
Physical geographers inform us of spatial and
temporal scales for events so extreme and rare
as to challenge our imagination (Anderson et al.,
2015; Harden, 2001; Mattingly et al., 2018).
Such work is based in analyses of different
places and different times that build a picture
of pattern and process at multiple scales. These
understandings then form a basis for creating
and validating spatio-temporal concepts and
models, which provide a framework for appli-
cations that make a difference.
Species extinctions also illustrate the value of
integrating Hanson’s four areas of understand-
ing. Although major extinctions have been
shown to occur at tipping points in time, the
geography of genetic diversity indicates that
spatial habitat fragmentation, in addition to cli-
matic change and direct human pressures, has
led to sudden extinctions of species in isolated
populations (MacDonald et al., 2012). The
ongoing global loss of species, known as the
sixth mass extinction event, is a result of human
activity, with habitat destruction and fragmen-
tation as leading causes (Lewis, 2005).
Although this is a temporal event resulting from
human activity (Gaston, 2005), global spatial
patterns now reveal that chorology matters as
well in terms of both the characteristics of
places (e.g., species endemism) and their spati-
ality (e.g., islands) (Pimm et al., 1995).
Urban climatology provides an additional
example of the integration of the four under-
standings. The field of urban climatology has
as its foundation the environmental physics of
built surfaces (e.g., heat absorption and emis-
sion) but extends to human impacts and hazards,
such as the health consequences of urban cli-
mates (Arnfield, 2003; Sailor et al., 2016).
Urban climatology is also rooted in spatio-
temporal modeling that integrates the atmo-
sphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere
(Shaffer et al., 2015). Moreover, physical
9
geography research has addressed human vul-
nerability to excessive urban heat and contrib-
uted to the identification of mitigation
strategies, as well as to other improvements in
urban living, through the spatial arrangement of
surfaces, trees, and water (Cheng et al., 2014).
These urban ecosystem services complement
the information-based climate services envi-
sioned by the World Meteorological Organiza-
tion (WMO, 2019).
VII Futures
The advantages of physical geography will
carry into the future. The entanglements of peo-
ple and environment will continue indefinitely,
and our understanding will advance dynami-
cally; that is, we will discover new complexities
as fast as we answer old questions. Just as DNA
analysis and genomics are currently revolutio-
nizing biogeography and satellite remote sen-
sing earlier revolutionized the analysis of
Earth’s surface, so will new technologies
become available in physical geography and
older technologies evolve and improve. Our
challenge will be keeping abreast of the ever-
growing demands for environmental knowledge
and understanding. Human alteration of Earth’s
surface is an ongoing and accelerating global
experiment, albeit without replication. Under-
standing the processes and consequences of this
experiment is a challenge for all areas of phys-
ical geography, and one for which the integra-
tion of the human dimension into physical
geography and the explicit consideration of
multiple scales will become increasingly
important.
To face this complexity, we must ourselves
be complex, and this first means to embrace
diversity in all areas of our research tools and
our complement of researchers. It is increas-
ingly clear that beyond serving basic social jus-
tice, increasing participant diversity can be a
powerful driver of scientific innovation and pro-
ductivity (Nielsen et al., 2018). Physical
10
geography has too long been viewed as the
domain of western white men. Although we [the
authors] are 60% women, that number repre-
sents a spearhead, and further efforts to enlist
women are needed (or, in the words of Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, to at least “lift the boot from
their necks”). We are all white, and racial and
ethnic diversity in American physical geogra-
phy remains woefully low. In addition, while
the forum for this discussion was the American
Association of Geographers, physical geogra-
phy will also benefit from increased cooperation
among researchers from all nations. Increasing
diversity in all these dimensions will be diffi-
cult, but the question for physical geography, as
for all of science is – what questions and
answers are otherwise missed?
Many of the issues that demand immediate
attention by physical geographers, particularly
those of natural hazard mitigation and resili-
ence, climate change adaptation, and environ-
mental justice, require approaches that span the
natural sciences, social sciences, and huma-
nities. We must redouble our efforts to
strengthen linkages with the other branches of
geography. We should be standing with human
geographers shoulder to shoulder with common
cause as we confront the challenges and oppor-
tunities of the 21st century. In addition, geogra-
phers need to interact with diverse stakeholders,
including participating in the co-production of
knowledge.
We are also challenged to improve our ability
to communicate. Physical geography can make
a difference only if people recognize its signifi-
cance and contributions. Some progress in this
regard is evident. Physical geographers regu-
larly engage in interdisciplinary research and
publish their findings across disciplinary lines,
contributing to a broader understanding of the
environment. Physical geographers also com-
municate with other environmental profession-
als; the 100-yr floodplain and the urban heat
island are examples of concepts first communi-
cated to environmental agencies via
Progress in Physical Geography 44(1)
geographers. Physical geographers are also pro-
minent in state climatology offices and regional
climate centers and increasingly are cited in the
media. Other physical geographers also strive to
communicate to the general public through
press releases and interviews, although further
outreach is needed. Not all physical geogra-
phers excel at this communication, and more
communication training is necessary, especially
on how to best communicate the complexity and
uncertainty of science (National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017).
Moreover, such outreach takes time, and insti-
tutional recognition and support for this out-
reach are only slowly increasing.
Lastly, we all need to stand for physical geo-
graphy, and science more generally, as a human
right, as acknowledged in the United Nations
(UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 27 (Porsdam Mann et al., 2018). We
must insist that we collectively and individually
can practice and communicate physical geogra-
phy freely. We can be challenged, but we shall
not be denied.
Physical geography can, and will, play an
important role in advancing environmental
sciences and in increasing their relevance as
geography matters (de Blij, 2012). It is essential
for physical geography to maintain a strong con-
nection with the rest of the discipline and to
draw on the diverse and broad expertise of geo-
graphers to address the complex people–envi-
ronment challenges facing society.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of inter-
est with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Harden et al.
Note
1. We use “physical geography” to include climatology,
geomorphology, hydrology, pedology, and also biogeo-
graphy as practiced by geographers, which includes
landscape ecology.
References
Albrecht TR, Varady RG, Zuniga-Teran AA, et al. (2018)
Unraveling transboundary water security in the arid
Americas. Water International 43(8): 1075–1113.
Anderson SW, Anderson SP and Anderson RS (2015).
Exhumation by debris flows in the 2013 Colorado Front
Range storm. Geology 43(5): 391–394.
Arnfield AJ (2003) Two decades of urban climate
research: a review of turbulence, exchanges of energy
and water, and the urban heat island. International
Journal of Climatology 23: 1–26.
Bassett TJ and Zueli KB (2000) Environmental discourses
and the Ivorian savanna. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 90: 67–95.
Beach T, Luzzadder-Beach S, Krause S, et al. (2019)
Ancient Maya wetland fields revealed under tropical
forest canopy from laser scanning and multiproxy
evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science USA 116(43): 21469–21477.
Bracken LJ, Oughton EA, Donaldson A, et al. (2016)
Flood risk management, an approach to managing
cross-border hazards. Natural Hazards 82(2): 217–240.
Butzer KW (1968) Desert and River in Nubia. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Cheng C, Yue Y and Jiang W (2014) Numerical simulation
on cooling effects of greening for alleviating urban heat
island effect in North China. Applied Mechanics and
Materials 675-677: 1227–1233.
Crawford TW and Mageean D (2011) A coupled natural
and human systems approach toward biodiversity:
reflections from social scientists. In: Cincotta RP
and Gorenflo LJ (eds) Human Population: Its
Influences on Biological Diversity. Berlin: Springer,
225–238.
Daly C, Taylor GH, Gibson WP, et al. (2001) High-quality
spatial climate data sets for the United States and
beyond. Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers 43: 1957–1962.
Davis WM (1899) The geographical cycle. Geographical
Journal 14: 481–504.
De Blij H (2012) Why Geography Matters More Than
Ever. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11
Diallo I, Xue Y, Li Q, et al. (2019) Dynamical downscaling
the impact of spring Western US land surface tem-
perature on the 2015 flood extremes at the Southern
Great Plains: effect of domain choice, dynamic cores
and land surface parameterization. Climate Dynamics
53: 1039–1061.
Fick SE and Hijmans RJ (2017) WorldClim2: New 1-km
spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas.
International Journal of Climatology 37(12): 4302–4315.
Gaston KJ (2005) Biodiversity and extinction: species
and people. Progress in Physical Geography 29(2):
239–247.
Giampoudakis K, Marske KA, Borregaard MK, et al.
(2017) Niche dynamics of Palaeolithic modern humans
during the settlement of the Palaearctic. Global Ecol-
ogy and Biogeography 26(3): 359–370.
Guida RJ, Remo JW and Secchi S (2016) Applying
geospatial tools to assess the agricultural value of
Lower Illinois River floodplain levee districts. Applied
Geography 74: 123–135.
Hanson S (2004) Who are “we”? An important question for
geography’s future. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 94: 715–722.
Harden C (2001) Sediment movement and catastrophic
events: The 1993 rockslide at La Josefina, Ecuador.
Physical Geography 22(4): 305–320.
Harden CP (2006) Human impacts on headwater fluvial
systems in the northern and central Andes. Geomor-
phology 79: 249–263.
Harrison SP, Bartlein PJ and Prentice IC (2016) What have
we learnt from palaeoclimate simulations? Journal of
Quaternary Science 31(4): 363–385.
Helldén U and Tottrup C (2008) Regional desertification:
A global synthesis. Global and Planetary Change 64:
169–176.
Jones HL (1917) The Geography of Strabo. London:
Heinemann.
Karger DN, Conrad O, Böhner J, et al. (2017) Climatolo-
gies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas.
Scientific Data 4: #170122.
Kenney MA, Wilcock PR, Hobbs BF, et al. (2012) Is
urban stream restoration worth it? JAWRA Journal of the
American Water Resources Association 48(3): 603–615.
Kim D (2013) Incorporation of multi-scale spatial auto-
correlation in soil moisture–landscape modeling.
Physical Geography 34(6): 441–455.
Kim D and Kupfer JA (2016) Tri-Variate relationships
among vegetation soil and topography along gradients
12
of fluvial biogeomorphic succession. PLoS One 11(9):
e0163223
Lewis SL (2005) Tropical forests and the changing earth
system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci-
ety B: Biological Sciences 361(1465): 195–210.
Luzzadder-Beach S and Beach T (2009) Arising from the
wetlands: Mechanisms and chronology of landscape
aggradation in the northern coastal plain of Belize.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers
99: 1–26.
MacDonald GM, Beilman DW, Kuzmin YV, et al. (2012)
Pattern of extinction of the woolly mammoth in Ber-
ingia. Nature Communications 3: #893.
MacDonald GM, Bennett KD, Jackson ST, et al. (2008)
Impacts of climate change on species, populations and
communities: palaeobiogeographical insights and fron-
tiers. Progress in Physical Geography 32(2): 139–172.
Mach KJ, Kraan CM, Adger WN, et al. (2019) Climate as a
risk factor for armed conflict. Nature 571: 193–197.
Malanson GP (1985) Fire management in coastal sage
scrub, southern California, USA. Environmental Con-
servation 12: 141–146.
Malanson GP, Scuderi L, Moser KA, et al. (2014) The
composite nature of physical geography: Moving from
linkages to integration. Progress in Physical Geo-
graphy 38(1): 3–18.
Marston RA, Girel J, Pautou G, et al. (1995) Channel
metamorphosis, floodplain disturbance, and vegetation
development: Ain River, France. Geomorphology 13:
121–131.
Mather JR (1978) The Climatic Water Balance in Envi-
ronmental Analysis. Lexington: D.C. Heath.
Mattingly KS, Mote TL and Fettweis X (2018) Atmo-
spheric river impacts on Greenland Ice Sheet surface
mass balance. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres 123(16): 8538–8560.
Meadows ME (2001) Biogeography: does theory meet
practice? Progress in Physical Geography 25: 134–142.
Mensching H and Ibrahim F (1976) Desertification in and
around arid lands. Geographische Zeitschrift 64:
81–93.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medi-
cine (2017) Communicating Science Effectively: A
Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Nielsen MW, Bloch CW and Schiebinger L (2018) Making
gender diversity work for scientific discovery and
innovation. Nature Human Behaviour 2: 726–734.
Progress in Physical Geography 44(1)
Oleson KW, Bonan GB, Feddema J, et al. (2008) An urban
parameterization for a global climate model. Part I: For-
mulation and evaluation for two cities. Journal of Applied
Meteorology and Climatology 47(4): 1038–1060.
Pearson RG (2006) Climate change and the migration
capacity of species. Trends in Ecology & Evolution
21(3): 111–113.
Phillips JD (1993) Biopysical feedbacks and the risks of
desertification. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 83: 630–640.
Phillips JD (2015) Hydrologic and geomorphic flow
thresholds in the Lower Brazos River, Texas, USA.
Hydrological Sciences Journal 60(9): 1631–1648.
Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL, et al. (1995) The
future of biodiversity. Science 269(5222): 347–350.
Porsdam Mann S, Donders Y, Mitchell C, et al. (2018)
Advocating for science progress as a human right.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA
115(43): 10820–10823.
Prăvălie R, Bandoc G, Patriche C, et al. (2019) Recent
changes in global drylands: Evidences from two major
aridity databases. Catena 178: 209–231.
Rappaport DI, Tambosi LR and Metzger JP (2015) A
landscape triage approach: Combining spatial and
temporal dynamics to prioritize restoration and con-
servation. Journal of Applied Ecology 52(3): 590–601.
Reynolds JF, Smith DMS, Lambi EF, et al. (2007) Global
desertification: building a science for dryland devel-
opment. Science 316: 847–851.
Sailor D, Shepherd M, Sheridan S, et al. (2016) Improving
heat-related health outcomes in an urban environment
with science-based policy. Sustainability 8(10): 1015.
Schmidt GA and Sherwood S (2015) A practical philoso-
phy of complex climate modeling. European Journal
for Philosophy of Science 5: 149–169.
Schwartz MD (1998) Green-wave phenology. Nature 394:
839.
Shaffer SR, Chow WTL, Georgescu M, et al. (2015) Mul-
tiscale modeling and evaluation of urban surface energy
balance in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Journal of
Applied Meteorology and Climatology 54(2): 322–338.
Smith B, Clifford NJ and Mant J (2014) The changing
nature of river restoration. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews Water 1(3): 249–261.
Steinbauer MJ, Field R, Grytnes JA, et al. (2016)
Topography-driven isolation speciation and a global
increase of endemism with elevation. Global Ecology
and Biogeography 25: 1097–1107.
 Harden et al.
Tabor K and Williams JW (2010) Globally downscaled
climate projections for assessing the conservation
impacts of climate change. Ecological Applications
20(2): 554–565.
Tamerius JD, Wise EK, Uejio CK, et al. (2007) Climate
and human health: synthesizing environmental com-
plexity and uncertainty. Stochastic Environmental
Research and Risk Assessment 21: 601–613.
Teshager A, Gassman PW, Secchi S, et al. (2017) Simula-
tion of targeted pollutant-mitigation-strategies to reduce
nitrate and sediment hotspots in agricultural watershed.
Science of the Total Environment 607: 1188–1200.
Thornes JE and Randalls S (2014) Applied meteorology
and climatology. Progress in Physical Geography 38:
389–391.
Thornthwaite CW (1948) An approach toward a rational
classification of climate. Geographical Review 38:
55–94.
Tobin GA (1986) Modification of peak flood discharges by
wetland environments: A review. Geographical Per-
spectives 57: 6–18.
Turner BL (2002) Contested identities: Human-
environment geography and disciplinary implications
View publication stats
13
in a restructuring academy. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 92: 52–74.
Wahl ER, Zorita E, Trouet V, et al. (2019) Jet stream
dynamics, hydroclimate, and fire in California from
1600 CE to present. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 116(12): 5393–5398.
White GF (1945) Human Adjustment to Floods. Depart-
ment of Geography Research Paper 29. Chicago: The
University of Chicago.
Winkler JA (1988) Climatological characteristics of
summertime extreme rainstorms in Minnesota. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers 78: 57–73.
Winkler JA, Palutikof JP, Andresen JA, et al. (1997) The
simulation of daily temperature time series from GCM
output. Part II: Sensitivity analysis of an empirical
transfer function methodology. Journal of Climate
10(10): 2514–2532.
WMO (2019) Global framework for climate services.
Available at: http://www.wmo.int/gfcs/what-are-cli
mate-services (accessed 18 June 2019).
Wolman MG and Miller JP (1960) Magnitude and fre-
quency of forces in geomorphic processes. Journal of
Geology 68: 54–74.