Human Rights

Scholarship addressing the geography of human rights— the geographical analysis of the ways cultures conceive of justice and understand just behavior—improves both our understanding of human rights and our understanding of geography. A full understanding of struggles over human rights requires a geographical perspective, a consideration of the contexts in which the struggles occur. Conceptualizations of human rights and the abuse of human rights do not just happen. They are the products of human action in particular cultural and environmental settings. They are place-based and socially constructed, products of processes not only tied to place but also altering the significance of place. Human rights scholarship that omits geographical background and geographical consequences misses the target because it fails to capture both the cultural struggles over what a just society is and the milieu of interrelated sites of injustice. If geographical research addressing oppression does not explicitly address human rights, then virtually by definition such work does so implicitly. At its core, human rights scholarship addresses oppression. Hence, such geographical scholarship as the work of Knopp (1997) addressing gay rights and of Monk (1998) addressing women’s rights fits into the scope of the geography of human rights in America. To fulfill its potential as a scholarly discipline examining the human condition, geography needs to focus on human rights. The spotlight of geographic education’s five themes—place, location, region, nature–society relations, movement—should be focused on what truly matters in people’s lives, including human rights. Likewise, the study of human rights, with its vexing examination of rights and wrong, needs the nuanced sensitivity of geography, with its study of cultural and environmental contexts. To wit, geography needs human rights and human rights needs geography. Geographical research that has been done or is in progress explains why. Indeed, the roster of former presidents of the Association of American Geographers contains many individuals whose professional and personal lives were committed to the furtherance of human rights. Among them are such luminaries as Richard Hartshorne, Harold Rose, Gilbert White, Julian Wolpert, and Richard Morrill, each of whom struggled for the advance of human rights in his personal life as well as his scholarly work.

Values, Ethics, and Justice

Questions of ethics, values, justice, and the moral principles according to which we engage in geographical scholarship, have always been a part of geography, but for the past two decades—and perhaps even more significantly, since the events of September 11, 2001—they have become a central part of the lexicon of American and international geographical scholarship. The Values, Justice and Ethics Specialty Group (VJESG) was formed in 1997 to respond to a felt need for geographers to focus on both the ethical issues that inform our academic work, and the ways in which that work is connected to larger societal issues. The concerns of the group have been less with a particular range of topics or approaches than with the ethical questions that cut across the entire discipline, on the assumption that such questions are bounded neither by subject matter nor by theoretical constraints. The group was formed at a time when questions of whether geographers should be concerned about the moral, ethical implications of their work had long since been replaced with questions of how geographers could focus attention on these issues. Concern is with the very difficult questions that link personal commitment, or reflexivity, with larger questions of research and pedagogy. One of the best sources of evidence of the importance of such questions, and of the intellectual sophistication with which they are being asked, is the journal Ethics, Place and Environment, inaugurated in 1998. This group felt a need, therefore, for a geographical forum in which to explore the relationship between American geography and the world in which it operates. While a relatively small number of geographers works in a more narrowly defined field that might be called moral philosophy (Sack 1997; Smith 1997,1998a, 2000), for the vast majority, ethical questions connect the academic and the personal lives of geographical practitioners, in ways that influence directly the questions they ask, the methodological and theoretical choices they make, and, perhaps most importantly, their personal relations with their research subjects and their own communities. As I. Hay (1998: 73) suggests, “the place to start that process is on our [geographers’] own professional bodies.”

European Geography

The European Specialty Group (ESG) was founded with considerable enthusiasm in 1992. Its organization and the rapid membership increase were in response to the historic changes following the fall of the Iron Curtain, the reintegration of the European continent, and a heightened interest in the evolution of European political and economic life. The purpose of the ESG is to move beyond the Cold War legacy of East–West division of the continent and foster research, teaching, and scholarly interaction on the geography of the new Europe. The ESG also serves as a bridge between US geographers working on Europe and their counterparts in the rest of the world. Finally, the group promotes the study of Europe within the discipline of geography and facilitates the exchange of information and ideas among its members and Europeanists in other disciplines, government, and private agencies. Research on Europe has been undertaken at a variety of spatial scales. A number of books reflect the pan-European scale (Berentsen 1993, 1997; Harris 1991, 1993a, b, 1997; Jordan 1996; McDonald 1997; Murphy 1991; Unwin 1998). The national scale also has received attention due to the continued importance of the different national contexts despite increased European integration, in conjunction with difficulties created by the lack of comparable statistical databases at a sub-national scale for the countries across Europe. Regardless of spatial scale several consistent themes have emerged. Within political geography focus is clearly on the new divisions of Europe, states–nations relationships, sub-national political transformation, the twin forces of democratization and nationalism, and ethnic conflict. Within economic geography research has centered around issues of “widening” versus “deepening” in the EU, globalization and pan-European integration, the impacts and implications of the incorporation of Central and Eastern European nations into the European economy, and the spatially uneven nature of economic change. Geographers also have been active in addressing issues of environmental damage, population, and migration. This chapter takes a regional approach that reflects the typical focus of most research. The material is treated systematically within sections on Western, Nordic, Eastern, and Mediterranean Europe.

Aging and the Aged

Elders are the fastest growing segment of the American population. In 1900, average life expectancy was 47 years. In the 1990s this figure stood at 78 years (Satcher 1996). Thus, not only are there both a higher percentage and a greater number of elderly individuals, but they are living longer, thus presenting a unique opportunity and challenge for geographic research. An earlier summary of the geographic literature on aging details several well-developed themes (Golant et al. 1989). These include residential location and migration patterns, activity patterns, and environmental relationships. The same themes persist and have been joined by work in health and service provision. Newer issues appearing in the literature concern the implications of a spatial shift in the elderly population for personal and environmental outcomes, with both the natural and built environments being the objects of study. A notable characteristic of these geographic studies is their broad range of scales from the macro-level (migration) to the micro-level (daily living space). This chapter seeks to highlight representative and influential contributions made by geographers to our understanding of how these demographic and spatial shifts affect the North American scene and how they will continue to impact America in the twenty-first century. It takes a broad, but selective view of current aging research as geographers are just one group of social scientists studying the elderly population and much collaboration and overlap in interests occur. The objective is not to discuss the findings of individual research, but rather to explore the breadth of issues examined by geographers. Several themes will be explored, including demographics and the components of population change, migration patterns, residential location and housing, service and health delivery, and environmental issues of particular relevance to the elderly population. The aging of populations, and the growing number of older individuals, implies that the spatial mobility of the aged will be a growing force shaping societies. The migration patterns of older persons have attracted considerable attention among scholars in a host of disciplines and have continued to be a research focus in geography.

Military Geography

In the benchmark publication American Geography: Inventory and Prospect (1954), Joseph Russell reported that military geography had long been recognized as a legitimate subfield in American geography. Despite the occasional controversy surrounding the subfield since his assessment (Association of American Geographers 1972; Lacoste 1973), and the general period of drought it experienced within American academic geography during the Vietnam era, military geography displays unquestionable resilience at the dawn of the twenty-first century. The subfield links geography and military science, and in one respect is a type of applied geography, employing the knowledge, methods, techniques, and concepts of the discipline to military affairs, places, and regions. In another sense, military geography can be approached from an historical perspective (Davies 1946; Meigs 1961; Winters 1998), with emphasis on the impact of physical or human geographic conditions on the outcomes of decisive battles, campaigns, or wars. In either case, military geography continues to keep pace with technological developments and seeks to apply geographic information, principles, and tools to military situations or problems during peacetime or war. Throughout the twentieth century, professional and academic geographers made enormous contributions to the US Military’s understanding of distant places and cultures. The vast collection of Area Handbooks found in most university libraries, serves as testament to the significant effort by geographers during wartime. Although some of the work remains hidden by security classification, a casual glance at Munn’s (1980) summary of the roles of geographers within the Department of Defense (DOD) enables one to appreciate the discipline’s far-reaching impact on military affairs. The value of military geography within a theater of war can hardly be disputed. The subfield has also been important during peacetime, however, providing an important forum for the continuing discourse among geographers, military planners, political officials, and government agencies, as each relies upon geographic tools and information to address a wide range of problems within the national security and defense arenas. Despite the subdiscipline’s well-established tenure, the Military Geography Specialty Group is in its infancy. The time-lag is attributable to the subfield’s tumultuous experience during the Vietnam era and the associated demise that ensued.

The Human Dimensions of Global Change

The human–environment condition has emerged as one of the central issues of the new millennium, especially as it has become apparent that human activity is transforming nature at a global scale in both systemic and cumulative ways. Originating with concerns about potential climate warming, the global environmental change agenda rapidly enlarged to include changes in structure and function of the earth’s natural systems, notably those systems critical for life, and the policy implications of these changes, especially focused on the coupled human–environment system. Recognition of the unprecedented pace, magnitude, and spatial scale of global change, and of the pivotal role of humankind in creating and responding to it, has led to the emergence of a worldwide, interdisciplinary effort to understand the human dimensions of global change. The term “global change” now encompasses a range of research issues including those relating to economic, political, and cultural globalization, but in this chapter we limit our focus to global environmental change and to the field that has become formally known as the human dimensions of global (or global environmental) change. We also focus mainly on the work of geographers rather than attempting to review the whole human dimensions research community. Intellectually, geography is well positioned to contribute to global environmental change research (Liverman 1999). The large-scale human transformation of the planet through activities such as agriculture, deforestation, water diversion, fossil fuel use, and urbanization, and the impacts of these on living conditions through changes in, for example, climate and biodiversity, has highlighted the importance of scholarship that analyzes the human–environmental relationship and can inform policy. Geography is one of the few disciplines that has historically claimed human–environment relationships as a definitional component of itself (Glacken 1967; Marsh 1864) and has fostered a belief in and reward system for engaging integrative approaches to problem solving (Golledge 2002; Turner 2002). Moreover, global environmental change is intimately spatial and draws upon geography-led remote sensing and geographic information science (Liverman et al. 1998). Geographers anticipated the emergence of current global change concerns (Thomas et al. 1956; Burton et al. 1978) and were seminal in the development of the multidisciplinary programs of study into the human dimensions of global change.

Transportation Geography

Transportation geography is the study of the spatial aspects of transportation. It includes the location, structure, environment, and development of networks as well as the analysis and explanation of the interaction or movement of goods and people (Black 1989). In addition it encompasses the role and impacts—both spatial and aspatial—of transport in a broad sense including facilities, institutions, policies and operations in domestic and international contexts. It also provides an explicitly spatial perspective, or point of view, within the interdisciplinary study of transportation. There has been substantial progress in the development of the transportation geography subfield over the last ten years. In 1993, the Journal of Transport Geography was started in the UK, providing the subfield with its own eponymous journal. Several second editions of key textbooks were published, including The Geography of Transportation (Taaffe et al. 1996), The Geography of Urban Transportation (Hanson 1995), and Modern Transport Geography (Hoyle and Knowles 1998). The Transportation Geography Specialty Group (TGSG) instituted the Edward L. Ullman Award for scholarly contributions to the subfield; recipients have included Edward Taaffe, Harold Mayer, Howard Gauthier, William Garrison, William Black, James Vance, Susan Hanson, Morton O’Kelly, Bruce Ralston, Donald Janelle, Thomas Leinbach, Brian Slack, and Kingsley Haynes. The specialty group also began honoring students who have written the best doctoral dissertations and masters theses each year, and a TGSG web page was created. The University of Washington Department of Geography instituted the Douglas K. Fleming lecture series in transportation geography at AAG annual meetings. Finally, transport geographers have played prominent roles in a Geography and Regional Science Program organized joint National Science Foundation/European Science Foundation initiative on Social Change and Sustainable Transport (SCAST) (Leinbach and Smith 1997; Button and Nijkamp 1997). This initiative led to the development of the North American-based Sustainable Transportation Analysis and Research (STAR) network led by geographer William Black as a counterpart to the European-based Sustainable Transport in Europe and Links and Liaisons with America (STELLA) network. Together, these initiatives and research networks offer significant opportunities for geographers to contribute to a growing body of literature on the environmental, economic, and equity implications of transportation systems.

Sexuality and Space

. . . I have noticed with some dismay in recent years the appearance of tables representing various strange groups attending meetings of the Association of American Geographers. Marxist Geographers and Gay Geographers come to mind, and I wonder what next? Are we going to have a table of Whores in Geography, and Russian Communist Geography? . . . As for special tables, rooms and meeting times for such groups as Gay Geographers, we should flatly refuse any such groups the right to such representation. When engaging in their gay behavior they are not acting as geographers. . . . Our exclusion of such groups cannot be taken as a moralistic stand on the part of the Association, but simply as a professional one. It is not our business to support the Gay or the Street Walkers, or the Democrats or the Republicans. None of these groups, though they may have members or practitioners in geography, can be said to be geographers, per se. They should then not be permitted official or even associative status at our meetings. We have plenty to do in geography, and room for greater diversity of professional interest than almost any other society. There are, however, limits. We should confine our meetings to geography by geographers and for geographers. All others keep out. Carter (1977: 101–2) . . . In 1996, the Sexuality and Space Specialty Group (SSSG) came into being as a forum for addressing the sorts of sentiments expressed in the letter above, and for exploring the unquestioned heterosexuality of the geographical enterprise. While the sentiments expressed may seem extreme, they point to disciplinary resistances to certain lines of inquiry. The comments and the subsequent creation of the SSSG reveal how the topical contours of geography are, and always have been, politically negotiated. Until recently, sexuality research in geography had been considered especially out of place (see Valentine 1998; Chouinard and Grant 1995). Organized collectively under the aegis of the AAG, the SSSG represents considerable political will and work. Its presence underscores how marginalized groups can never take for granted their place in society, including the academy.

Economic Geography

To read the comparable chapter on economic geography in Geography in America is to recall a world, and a way of viewing that world, that seems remote. For one thing, that chapter was called Industrial Geography. There were good reasons why industrial geography was so prominent in the last report. The 1970s and 1980s were a period of fundamental industrial change in Western economies involving deindustrialization and lay-offs, restructuring of methods of production, the emergence of new manufacturing and service sectors, and new forms of international economic organization supported by innovations in telecommunications, transportation, and corporate organization and management. All those substantive issues remain important, and in some cases central, to present economic geographical research. Changed, though, is the conceptualization of those issues. In particular, newer approaches tend to blur the boundary between the economic part of economic geography, and other social, cultural, and political geographical practices. Some have labeled this move “the cultural turn” (Crang 1997; Thrift and Olds 1996; Barnes 1996b), but this description is too narrow because more than just the cultural is at stake. Rather, the very idea of the economic is being reconceived. The economic is no longer conceptualized as sovereign, isolated, and an entity unto itself, but porous and dependent, bleeding into other spheres as they bleed into it. To use Karl Polyani’s (1944) term, which is often deployed in this literature, the economy is “embedded” within broader processes. There are at least two reasons for the reconceptualization of the economic by economic geographers. One is internal to the academy, and is bound up with a broader intellectual shift in the social sciences and humanities that is increasingly suspicious of essentialized entities such as “the economy” (Barnes 1996a; Gibson-Graham 1996; Lee and Wills 1997). A second source of change is the actual geography of economic activities. The economic geographical landscape of the 1990s seems quite different from the one written about in the last report, and thereby demands a new theoretical vocabulary in which to be represented. In the last report, for example, there was no mention of Fordism or post-Fordism, flexibility or economies of scope, localities or local modes of regulation, growth coalitions or territorial complexes, or glocalization or even globalization.

Geomorphology

Geomorphology is the science that studies landforms and landforming processes. Topics of research in geomorphology during the 1990s represent the diversity of the discipline, as practiced by both academics and nonacademic applied geographers in government and private positions. Discussions on the role and importance of scientific theory and social relevance in geomorphology have become increasingly common, although agreement has not been forthcoming. Issues of scale, both spatial and temporal, appear at the forefront of many current papers in the discipline, but little consensus has been reached as to what constitutes the appropriate scale for studies in geomorphology. The use of a broad diversity of research tools also characterizes American geomorphology, including fieldwork, computer and/or laboratory modeling, surface exposure dating, historical archival work, remote sensing, global positioning systems, and geographic information systems. Problems arise, however, when attempting to integrate the results of fine-scale fieldwork with coarser-scaled simulation models. The 1990s saw a renewed debate in the role of scientific theory in geomorphology. Prominent in that debate were issues of temporal and spatial scale. Significant discussions, culminating in the 2000 Binghamton Symposium on the integration of computer modeling and fieldwork in geomorphology, were also engendered by perceived clashes between the roles of fieldwork and the “new technology” in geomorphology. The 1990s have seen continuing interest in defining the role of geomorphology as a science. Most geomorphologists have accepted applied geomorphology (in the sense of Sherman 1989) as a logical extension of the environmental linkages of the science. The social relevancy of geomorphological research can be established without sacrificing the intellectual core of the discipline (Sherman 1994). However, questions continue as to what actually constitutes “the scientific nature of geomorphology”. Rhoads and Thorn (1993) raised the question of the role of theory in geomorphology in an essay that ultimately led to the 1996 Binghamton Symposium on the scientific nature of the discipline (Rhoads and Thorn 1996). Their goals in hosting the symposium were to “initiate a broad examination of contemporary perspectives on the scientific nature of geomorphology. This initial exploration of methodological and philosophical diversity within geomorphology is viewed as a necessary first step in the search for common ground among the diverse group of scientists who consider themselves geomorphologists” (ibid. p. x).