Skip to main content
Login
  1. Home
  2. The Field Guide to Mixing Social and Biophysical Methods in Environmental Research
  3. 6. Embracing and enacting critical and constructive approaches to teaching Critical Physical Geography
Open Book Publishers

Embracing and enacting critical and constructive approaches to teaching Critical Physical Geography

  • Jennifer Salmond(author)
  • Gary Brierley(author)
Chapter of: The Field Guide to Mixing Social and Biophysical Methods in Environmental Research(pp. 87–118)
  • Export Metadata
  • Metadata
  • Locations
  • Contributors
  • References

Export Metadata

Metadata
Title Embracing and enacting critical and constructive approaches to teaching Critical Physical Geography
ContributorJennifer Salmond(author)
Gary Brierley(author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0418.06
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0418/chapters/10.11647/obp.0418.06
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
CopyrightJennifer Salmond; Gary Brierley;
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2025-02-25
Long abstract

This chapter outlines the theoretical and pedagogical benefits of using a critical physical geography (CPG) framework to teach mixed methods approaches to environmental research. CPG frameworks explicitly call for education practices which emphasise an awareness of individual and collective situatedness and positionality and its influence on knowledge production. We demonstrate how a final year mixed methods undergraduate physical geography course can be co-created with students to provide a pedagogically sound, student focussed, enriching educational experience. We argue that whilst challenges must be addressed in the development of integrative teaching approaches, their use enables students to embrace notions of knowledge beyond concepts of ‘truth’ and ‘universality’ and empowers students to work in areas where information and understanding may yet be incomplete. Our experiences suggest that using these types of approaches enables students to actively engage with positive, proactive, ethical encounters with their living environments in hopeful ways, helping them to envisage more equitable and sustainable futures.

Page rangepp. 87–118
Print length32 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Locations
Landing PageFull text URLPlatform
PDFhttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0418/chapters/10.11647/obp.0418.06Landing pagehttps://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0418.06.pdfFull text URL
HTMLhttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0418/chapters/10.11647/obp.0418.06Landing pagehttps://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0418/ch6.xhtmlFull text URLPublisher Website
Contributors

Jennifer Salmond

(author)
Professor of Geography at University of Auckland
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5670-7724

Gary Brierley

(author)
Professor of Physical Geography at University of Auckland
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1310-1105
References
  1. Auckland Council. 2016. Te Auaunga Awa Oakley Creek Upper Catchment Strategy 2016-2019, http://oakleycreek.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Te-Auaunga-Awa-Oakley-Creek-Upper-Catchment-Strategy-2016-2019.pdf
  2. Auckland Council. 2022a. Environmental Monitoring Data for Oakley Creek, https://www.lawa.org.nz/explore-data/auckland-region/river-quality/oakley-creek
  3. Agyeman, J., R.D. Bullard, and B. Evans. 2003. Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World (Routledge). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849771771
  4. Bishop, R. and T. Glynn. 2000. ‘Kaupapa Maori messages for the mainstream’, Set, 1, pp. 4–7. https://doi.org/10.18296/set.0785
  5. Blue, B., C. Gregory, K. McFarlane, M. Tadaki, P. van Limburg‐Meijer, and N. Lewis. 2012. ‘Freshwater geographies: Experimenting with knowing and doing geography differently’, New Zealand Geographer, 68.1, pp. 62–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-7939.2012.01223.x
  6. Blue, B. 2018. ‘What’s wrong with healthy rivers? Promise and practice in the search for a guiding ideal for freshwater management’, Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 42.4, pp. 462–477. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133318783148
  7. Blue, B. and G. Brierley. 2016. ‘“But what do you measure?” Prospects for a constructive critical physical geography’, Area, 48.2, pp. 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12249
  8. Boelens, R., A. Escobar, K. Bakker, L. Hommes, E. Swyngedouw, B. Hogenboom, and K.M. Wantzen. 2023. ‘Riverhood: Political ecologies of socionature commoning and translocal struggles for water justice’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 50.3, pp. 1125–1156 https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2022.2120810.
  9. Braun, A.C. 2021. ‘More accurate less meaningful? A critical physical geographer’s reflection on interpreting remote sensing land-use analyses’, Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 45.5, pp. 706–735. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133321991814
  10. Braun, A., Chapter 39, this volume. ‘(Critical) Satellite remote sensing’.
  11. Breznau, N., E.M. Rinke, A. Wuttke, H.H. Nguyen, M. Adem, J. Adriaans, and J. Van Assche. 2022. ‘Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119.44. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/j7nc8
  12. Brierley, G.J. 2020. Finding the Voice of the River: Beyond Restoration and Management (Springer Nature). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27068-1
  13. Brierley, G., M. Hillman, and L. Devonshire. 2002. ‘Learning to participate: Responding to changes in Australian land and water management policy and practice’, Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 18, pp. 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0814062600001063
  14. Brierley, G. and K. Fryirs. 2014. ‘Reading the landscape in field-based fluvial geomorphology’, in Developments in Earth Surface Processes, ed. by J.F. Schroder Jr. (Springer), pp. 231–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-63402-3.00013-3
  15. Brierley, G. and K. Fryirs. 2022. ‘Truths of the Riverscape: Moving beyond command-and-control to geomorphologically informed nature-based river management’, Geoscience Letters, 9.1, pp. 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40562-022-00223-0
  16. Brierley, G. and K. Fryirs. 2024. ‘Geomorphic meanings of a resilient river’, in Resilience and Riverine Landscapes, ed. by M.C. Thoms and I.I. Fuller (Elsevier), pp. 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-91716-2.00001-7
  17. Brierley, G., K. Fryirs, H. Reid, and R. Williams. 2021. ‘The dark art of interpretation in geomorphology’, Geomorphology, 390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2021.107870
  18. Brierley, G., M. Tadaki, D. Hikuroa, B. Blue, C. Šunde, J. Tunnicliffe, and A. Salmond, 2019. ‘A geomorphic perspective on the rights of the river in Aotearoa New Zealand’, River Research and Applications, 35.10, pp. 1640–1651. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3343
  19. Chan, K.M., P. Balvanera, K. Benessaiah, M. Chapman, S. Díaz, E. Gómez-Baggethun, and N. Turner. 2016. ‘Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113.6, pp. 1462–1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113
  20. Couper, P. R.2023. ‘Interpretive field geomorphology as cognitive, social, embodied and affective epistemic practice’, The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 67.3, pp. 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12821
  21. Fryirs, K. and G. Brierley. 2021. ‘How far have management practices come in ‘working with the river’?’, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 46.15, pp. 3004–3010. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.5279
  22. Fryirs, K.A., J.M. Wheaton, S. Bizzi, R. Williams, and G. Brierley. 2019a. ‘To plug‐in or not to plug‐in? Geomorphic analysis of rivers using the River Styles Framework in an era of big data acquisition and automation’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 6.5. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1372
  23. Fryirs, K., G. Brierley, M. dos Santos Marçal, M.N. Peixoto, and R. Lima. 2019b. ‘Learning, doing and professional development – the River Styles Framework as a tool to support the development of coherent and strategic approaches for land and water management in Brazil’, Revista Brasileira de Geomorfologia, 20.4. https://doi.org/10.20502/rbg.v20i4.1560
  24. Fuller, I.C., G.J. Brierley, J. Tunnicliffe, M. Marden, J. McCord, B. Rosser, and M. Thomas. 2023. ‘Managing at source and at scale: The use of geomorphic river stories to support rehabilitation of Anthropocene riverscapes in the East Coast Region of Aotearoa New Zealand’, Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1162099
  25. Gibson-Graham, J.K. 2011. ‘A feminist project of belonging for the anthropocene’, Gender Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 18.1, pp. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369x.2011.535295
  26. Gibbons, M. 2013. ‘Mode 1, Mode 2, and Innovation’, in Encyclopedia of Ceativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, ed. by E.G. Carayannis (Springer). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_451
  27. Gillet, N., E. Vogel, S. Noah, and C. Hatch. 2018. ‘Proliferating a new generation of critical physical geographers: Graduate education in UMass’s Riversmart Communities Project’, in The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Physical Geography, ed. by R. Lave, C. Biermann,and S.N. Lane (Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 515–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5_24
  28. Gregory, C.E. and G.J. Brierley. 2010. ‘Development and application of vision statements in river rehabilitation: the experience of Project Twin Streams, New Zealand’, Area, 42.4, pp. 468-478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2010.00946.x
  29. Hikuroa, D., G.J. Brierley, M. Tadaki, B. Blue, and A. Salmond. 2021. ‘Restoring sociocultural relationships with rivers: Experiments in fluvial pluralism’, in River Restoration: Political, Social, and Economic Perspectives, ed. by B. Morandi, M. Cottet, and H. Piégay (Wiley-Blackwell), pp. 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119410010.ch3
  30. Hoskins, T.K. and A. Jones. 2020. ‘Māori, Pākehā, critical theory and relationality: A talk by Te Kawehau Hoskins and Alison Jones’, New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 55.2, pp. 423–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-020-00174-0
  31. Jackson, T. and J. Dixon. 2007. ‘The New Zealand Resource Management Act: an exercise in delivering sustainable development through an ecological modernisation agenda’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34.1, pp. 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1068/b32089
  32. Knight, C. 2016. New Zealand’s Rivers: An Environmental History (Canterbury University Press).
  33. Koppes, M.N. 2022. ‘Braiding knowledges of braided rivers–the need for place‐based perspectives and lived experience in the science of landscapes’, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 47.7, pp. 1680–1685. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.5380
  34. Lane, S.N., C. Biermann, and R. Lave. 2018. ‘Towards a genealogy of critical physical geography’, in The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Physical Geography, ed. by R. Lave, C. Biermann, and S.N. Lane (Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5_2
  35. Lave, R., M. Wilson, E. Barron, C. Biermann, M. Carey, C. Duvall, L. Johnson et al. 2014. ‘Intervention: critical physical geography’, The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 58.1, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12061
  36. Lave, R., C. Biermann, and S.N. Lane. 2018. ‘Introducing critical physical geography’, in The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Physical Geography, ed. by R. Lave, C. Biermann, and S.N. Lane (Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5_1
  37. Malone, M. 2021. ‘Teaching critical physical geography’, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 45.3, pp. 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2020.1847051
  38. Mitchell, D., E.W. Laurie, R.D. Williams, K.A. Fryirs, G.J. Brierley, and P.L. Tolentino. 2024. ‘Developing an equitable agenda for international capacity strengthening courses: environmental pedagogies and knowledge co-production in the Philippines’, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 48.2, pp. 281–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2023.2235668
  39. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. 2018. TE POU O KĀHU PŌKERE. Iwi Management Plan for Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei (Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei). https://knowledgeauckland.org.nz/media/1400/te-pou-o-k%C4%81hu-p%C5%8Dkere-iwi-management-plan-ngati-whatua-orakei-2018.pdf
  40. Parsons, M., K. Fisher, and R.P. Crease. 2021. Decolonising Blue Spaces in the Anthropocene: Freshwater Management in Aotearoa New Zealand (Springer Nature). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61071-5
  41. Ruru, J. 2018. ‘Listening to Papatūānuku: a call to reform water law’, Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 48.2–3, pp. 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2018.1442358
  42. Samuelson, L., B. Blue, and A. Thomas. 2023. ‘Restoration as reconnection: A relational approach to urban stream repair’, New Zealand Geographer, 79.2, pp. 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/nzg.12372
  43. Salmond, A. 2014. ‘Tears of Rangi: Water, power, and people in New Zealand’, HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4.3, pp. 285–309. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau4.3.017
  44. Salmond, A. 2017. Tears of Rangi: Experiments Across Worlds (Auckland University Press). https://doi.org/10.1017/s0165115319000627
  45. Sharp, E., J. Fagan, M. Kah, M. McEntee, and J. Salmond. 2021. ‘Hopeful approaches to teaching and learning environmental “wicked problems”’, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 45.4, pp. 621–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2021.1900081
  46. Sharp, E.L., G.J. Brierley, J. Salmond, and N. Lewis. 2022. ‘Geoethical futures: a call for more-than-human physical geography’, Environment and Planning F: Philosophy, Theory, Models, Methods and Practice, 1.1, pp. 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/26349825221082168
  47. Stewart‐Harawira, M.W. 2020. ‘Troubled waters: Maori values and ethics for freshwater management and New Zealand’s fresh water crisis’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 7.5. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1464
  48. Tadaki, M., K. McFarlane, J. Salmond, and G.J. Brierley. 2011. ‘Theorizing “crisis” as performative politics: a view from physical/environmental geography’, Dialogues in Human Geography, 1.3, pp. 355–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820611421557
  49. Tadaki, M, J. Salmond, R. Le Heron, and G.J. Brierley. 2012. ‘Nature, culture and the work of physical geography’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37.4, pp. 547–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00495.x
  50. Tadaki, M., G.J. Brierley, M. Dickson, R. Le Heron, and J. Salmond. 2015. ‘Cultivating critical practices in physical geography’, The Geographical Journal, 181.2, pp. 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12082
  51. Tadaki, M. and J. Sinner. 2014. ‘Measure, model, optimise: understanding reductionist concepts of value in freshwater governance’, Geoforum, 51, pp. 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.11.001
  52. Te Aho, L. 2019. ‘Te Mana o te Wai: An indigenous perspective on rivers and river management’, River Research and Applications, 35.10, pp. 1615–1621. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3365
  53. Thomas, A.C. 2015. ‘Indigenous more-than-humanisms: Relational ethics with the Hurunui River in Aotearoa New Zealand’, Social and Cultural Geography, 16.8, pp. 974–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2015.1042399
  54. Tuhiwai Smith, L. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous People (University of Otago Press).
  55. Warne, K. 2013. ‘Pilgrim at Oakley Creek’, New Zealand Geographic.
  56. Wilkinson, C., D.C. Hikuroa, A.H. Macfarlane, and M.W. Hughes. 2020. ‘Mātauranga Māori in geomorphology: existing frameworks, case studies, and recommendations for incorporating Indigenous knowledge in Earth science’, Earth Surface Dynamics, 8.3, pp. 595–618. https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-8-595-2020
  57. Winz, I., G.J. Brierley, and S. Trowsdale. 2011. ‘Dominant perspectives and the shape of urban stormwater futures’, Urban Water Journal, 8.6, pp. 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062x.2011.617828

Export Metadata

UK registered social enterprise and Community Interest Company (CIC).

Company registration 14549556

Metadata

  • By book
  • By publisher
  • GraphQL API
  • Export API

Resources

  • Downloads
  • Videos
  • Merch
  • Presentations
  • Service status

Contact

  • Email
  • Bluesky
  • Mastodon
  • Github

Copyright © 2026 Thoth Open Metadata. Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.