The epistemological stance of the conference is grounded in Dipesh Chakrabarty's (2009) approach. According to the historian the Anthropocene marks "the collapse of the old humanist distinction between natural history and human history”, where humanity will now constitute both the former and the latter. This perspective is echoed by Bruno Latour (2015) for whom the Anthropocene is the era of merging the two stories.
From this viewpoint, four research directions have been identified:
01. Living on Earth in the era of the Anthropocene
How can the geography of the Anthropocene contribute to the development of resiliency in the wake of risks and disasters? Should we assign an intrinsic value to nature? How is the Anthropocene engaging us to think about the interrelatedness of crises in the 21st century? How can geography inform a framework to globally protect nature and its resources by 2050?
02. Geography, Development and Environmental Ethics
Is geography still a social discipline in the Human Era or the Anthropocene? Is the distinction between human geography (human history) and physical geography (natural history) continue to be relevant? What are the benefits of combining feminism and geography for the social sciences?
03. Geography of Anthropcene's epistemology and its debates
How does the rethinking of geographic practice and theory fit into this new geological era? How does geography interpret the world and its territories in the context of the Anthropocene? How does the Anthropocene influence the debates on human "values" in relation to nature?
04. Territorialities and Socio-ecological Representations
How can the biophysical markers used in physical geography be mobilized to consider the sustainable development of territories and landscapes? What type of territorialities and landscapes could be produced? How can indigenous territorialities, landscapes and identities be situated in the geographical debates?