Negotiating sustainabilities in applied geography: treading an uneven path

References

• Ackerman, E. A. (1962). Public policy issues for the professional geographer. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 52(3), 292–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1962.tb00414.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banks, M., & MacKian, S. (2000). Jump in! The water's warm: A comment on Peck's grey geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 25(2), 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-2754.2000.t01-1-00243.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, S., Lampkin, S., Dawkins, L., & Williamson, D. (2021). Smart cities and behavioural change: (Un)sustainable mobilities in the neo-liberal city. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences, 125, 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.06.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, S., & Woodley, E. (2019). Enabling communities for a changing climate: Re-configuring spaces of hazard governance. Geoforum, 100, 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.02.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaumont, J., Loopmans, M., & Uitermark, J. (2005). Politicization of research and the relevance of geography: Some experiences and reflections for an ongoing debate. Area, 37(2), 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2005.00606.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyle, M., Hall, T., Lin, S., Sidaway, J. D., & van Meeteren, M. (2020). Public policy and geography. In A. Kobayashi (Ed.), International encyclopedia of human geography (2nd ed., Vol. 11, pp. 93–101). Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Bulkeley, H., & Castán Broto, V. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00535.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgess, J. (2005). Follow the argument where it leads: Some personal reflections on ‘policy-relevant’ research. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30(3), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2005.00169.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cugurullo, F. (2021). Frankenstein urbanism: Eco, smart and autonomous cities, artificial intelligence and the end of the city. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cummins, S. C. J. (2003). From observation to experimentation: One prescription for a geography of public policy. Area, 35(2), 220–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4762.00265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eflin, J. C. (2004). Geographers and sustainability: A missing connection? In D. G. Janelle, B. Warf, & K. Hansen (Eds.), Worldminds: Geographical perspectives on 100 problems. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2352-1_55
   Google Scholar
• Fu, B. (2020). Promoting geography for sustainability. Geography and Sustainability, 1(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2020.02.003
   Google Scholar
• Khazragui, H., & Hudson, J. (2015). Measuring the benefits of university research: Impact and the REF in the UK. Research Evaluation, 24(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitchin, R. (2013). Big data and human geography: Opportunities, challenges and risks. Dialogues in Human Geography, 3(3), 262–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820613513388
   Google Scholar
• Kitchin, R. (2016). The ethics of smart cities and urban science. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2083), 20160115. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lane, S. N., Odoni, N., Landström, C., Whatmore, S. J., Ward, N., & Bradley, S. (2011). Doing flood risk science differently: An experiment in radical scientific method. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 36(1), 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00410.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liverman, D. M. (2018). Geographic perspectives on development goals: Constructive engagements and critical perspectives on the MDGs and the SDGs. Dialogues in Human Geography, 8(2), 168–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820618780787
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCormick, J. (1989). The global environmental movement (2nd ed.). Belhaven.
   Google Scholar
• Moseley, W. G. (2018). Geography and engagement with UN development goals: Rethinking development or perpetuating the status quo? Dialogues in Human Geography, 8(2), 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820618780791
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nightingale, A. J. (2018). Geography’s contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals: Ambivalence and performance. Dialogues in Human Geography, 8(2), 196–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820618780790
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owens, S. (2005). Making a difference? Some perspectives on environmental research and policy. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30(3), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2005.00171.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pacione, M. (2004). The principles and practice of applied geography. Applied Geography, 24, 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2442-9_3
   Google Scholar
• Pearce, D. (1988). Economics, equity and sustainable development. Futures, 20(6), 598–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(88)90002-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peck, J. (1999). Editorial. Grey geography? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 25, 131–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, R. (2010). The impact agenda and geographies of curiosity. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(4), 447–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00393.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Research Excellence Framework. (2021). Online. https://www.ref.ac.uk/
   Google Scholar
• Research Fish. (2021). Online. https://researchfish.com/
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 48(4), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selman, P. (1998). Local Agenda 21: Substance or spin? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41(5), 533–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640569811443
   Google Scholar
• Sultana, F. (2018). An(other) geographical critique of development and SDGs. Dialogues in Human Geography, 8(2), 186–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820618780788
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UKRI. (2021). https://esrc.ukri.org/research/impact-toolkit/what-is-impact/
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. (1992). Agenda 21 – Action plan for the next century endorsed at UNCED. UNCED.
   Google Scholar
• Watermeyer, R., & Hedgecoe, A. (2016). Selling ‘impact’: Peer reviewer projections of what is needed and what counts in REF impact case studies. A retrospective analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1170885
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watts, M. J. (1993). Development I: Power, knowledge, discursive practice. Progress in Human Geography, 17(2), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913259301700210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whatmore, S. J. (2009). Mapping knowledge controversies: Science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise. Progress in Human Geography, 33(5), 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132509339841
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar