Michael Woods

This author reply responds to the commentaries on our article, ‘Planetary rural geographies’, exploring intersections with neo-Marxist political economy, post-colonialism, and digital geographies. The critiques raise questions about the portrayal of rural spaces as sources of planetary crises. We emphasize the intention of the planetary rural geographies framework to avoid a simplistic rural – urban dichotomy and argue for a nuanced understanding of planetary crises. Our response delves into the role of agency in a neoliberal capitalist context, incorporating post-humanist perspectives. It also examines the complex relationship between rural populism, conflicts, and planetary crises. Planetary rural geographies seek to integrate diverse perspectives as a research agenda, acknowledging the need for empirical tools to translate theoretical insights into meaningful interventions for just, equitable transitions.