Thinking complex interconnections: Transition, nexus and Geography

Abstract

More than ever is Geography surrounded by interdisciplinary movements claiming expertise with regard to the interconnections among nature, society and technology. These movements ask questions from Geography and geographers about if and how they can contribute to those movements and what form collaboration might take. This paper analyses Human Geography's interactions with research on sustainability transitions since the early 2000s to think through future interactions between Geography and research on the water–energy–food nexus. It shows that concepts, ideas, logics and methods have travelled from Human Geography into Transition Studies but that exchange between them has so far been partial and asymmetrical. Arguing that common ideas about how interdisciplinarity can be encouraged might be insufficient to change this situation, the paper develops ideas from Stengers, Whitehead, Foucault and others to explain the relations between Human Geography and Transition Studies in terms of modes of abstraction in an evolving ecology of power relations. It makes a case for slowing down modes of abstraction and proposes some ideas for slow collaborative research on sustainability transitions in contact zones. Implications for how Geography and geographers might engage with interdisciplinary nexus research are outlined.

(Re)thinking (re)connection: Young people, “natures” and the water–energy–food nexus in São Paulo State, Brazil

“…() schematise “qualitative” and “quantitative” approaches – but in terms of the former, cite just a few studies, which in turn actually rely almost exclusively on fairly large‐scale questionnaire surveys with often high‐level policy makers. In response, and while (like us) acknowledging the fairly nascent and in some cases ambiguous nature of nexus scholarship, Schwanen () argues that geographers could and should have a key role to play, in several senses: in questioning the global scale of much nexus policy making and abstraction; in articulating the place‐specific and multi‐scalar manifestations of nexuses; in challenging the presumed dominance of the water–energy–food triad (and thus admitting other constituents, such as land or chemicals); and in slowing down abstract forms of nexus thinking that are largely based on mathematical models. As Leck et al.…”

“…Compared with research on childhoods–natures, scholarly interest in nexus approaches – and especially resource nexuses – is more nascent and, as Schwanen () argues, rather ambiguous in terms of its theorisation. Recently, however, through a flurry of international conferences, national and global policy documents, funding prerogatives and academic publications, there has been burgeoning interest in resource nexuses – and especially the WEF nexus.…”

“…This paper makes a significant contribution to nexus literatures by responding to these critiques and taking up Schwanen's () challenge to geographers. Again, like Schwanen, we do not simply seek to “apply” nexus thinking to geographical research, or claim that nexus thinking will usher in some of kind paradigmatic shift in the discipline.…”

The geography of socio‐technical transitions: Transition–periphery dynamics

“…It has been noted that the socio‐technical transitions approach has neglected geographical influences (Coenen et al., ; Lawhon & Murphy, ). The focus of socio‐technical transitions research has tended to be on temporal aspects, however the influence of geography has more recently begun to attract attention in the literature (Bridge et al., ; Calvert et al., ; Chandrashekeran, ; Coenen et al., ; Hacking & Eames, ; Lawhon & Murphy, ; Schwanen, ). The consideration of geography in this research is important because it aids in better understanding the unevenness of transitions across space (Lawhon & Murphy, ).…”

The water–energy–food nexus at home: New opportunities for policy interventions in household sustainability

“…Second, focusing on the nexus of resources provides a new way to explore the sustainability of home practices. We acknowledge that dominant features of “nexus thinking” – attending to connections, interdependencies, alignments, trade‐offs (Leck et al., ) – is nothing new to human geography (Schwanen, ) or to theorists of social practice (cf. Hui et al., 2016).…”