Contested geographies of localization(s): towards open-locales

ABSTRACT In this paper, we identify localization(s) as an expanding set of spatial processes by which key economic and social mobilities are shifting towards regional, municipal and neighbourhood scales in response to interconnected crises of globalization, ecology, economy, politics, and public health. Localizations are already underway, and are likely to proliferate as these various crises intensify. They are diverse in their politics and have implications for all scales of social organization. Localizations raise important questions around inequalities and injustices, new topologies of (dis)connected communities, ethical dilemmas of obdurate globalizations, contesting turns to nativism, and ensuring the just and democratic construction of open-locales. Observing this trend of localizations from within the UK lockdowns of the global coronavirus pandemic, we argue that more geographically embedded but socially and politically interconnected futures are both an implication of this paper and should constitute the format of an important emerging research agenda around localizations.


Introduction
After centuries of globalizations, through which networks of economic, political and cultural exchangeand notably, exploitationhave established ever deeper and more complex interconnections between places around the world, and in which the spatial perimeters of individual lives have expanded generation after generation, there are signs that something different is happening in the current era of multiple crises. While the world certainly remains globally interconnected in numerous and complex ways, and the nation-state remains the primary unit of political organization, it is also increasingly clear that new processes of localization are emerging which require our attention. By localization, we refer to a shifting of key economic and social flows and mobilities towards more localized patterns of operation at scales of the region, municipality and neighbourhood, in response to a range of interconnected twenty-first-century crises of globalization, ecology, economy, politics, public health and culture.
As such, processes of localization can be seen as closely interlinked with ideas of deglobalization already established in geographical and political economy literatures in this journal and beyond (Bishop & Payne, 2021;Novy, 2017Novy, , 2020. However, our impulse to begin sketching out a distinct concept of localization reflects the lack of specific attention within deglobalization debates to the various ways in which local environments are being (re)shaped in response to interconnected contemporary crises and regaining importance as a set of scales at which everyday economic, social and cultural needs are fulfilled. Further, while many of the localizations we refer to are emerging in tensioneither explicitly or implicitlywith heavily globalized economic and social networks, we identify a multi-scalarity characterizing contemporary localizations, some of which are responding to unfavourable and imbalanced spatial arrangements within the boundaries of the nation-state or even municipality. Some instances of localization therefore exhibit similarities with a further concept of place-based development which largely focusses on urban and regional policy and the central role that local communities and natural resources should play when planning their prosperity (Pugalis & Bentley, 2014). Yet, the range and diversity of localizations with which we are concerned encompass a much broader array of economic, social and cultural reformations than is captured by traditional policy-focused notions of place-based development (Coenen & Morgan, 2019; F. . Furthermore, some strands of localization with which we engage take an explicitly critical approach towards the emphasis on 'development', regarding it as too accepting of capital accumulation and the growth paradigm, and therefore contributing to rather than questioning mechanisms that perpetuate ecological degradation and social injustices (Escobar, 2015;Kothari et al., 2019).
In elucidating the notion of localizations we seek to avoid perpetuating simplistic dichotomies of inherently conflictual local and global scales which tend to overlook everything in between (Iwuoha et al., 2020). Furthermore, our understanding of localizations is also distinct from long-established notions of glocalization, which scholars such as Swyngedouw have detailed as simultaneous and coconstitutive shifts of economic activities, networks and regulatory arrangements to transnational and local scales, through which reshaped local infrastructures play a crucial role in facilitating globalized flows of capital (Swyngedouw, 2004;Swyngedouw & Baeten, 2010). However, some strands of the localization we seek to articulate do align with more recent theorizations of glocalization, in which localizations of physical mobilities are combined with greater translocal and global integration in terms of political cooperation and solidarity (Goffman, 2020).
Our argument in this paper has three parts: firstly, we observe that numerous localizations are already unfolding in response to twenty-first-century crises, and need to be paid more attention as a diverse yet interrelated set of spatial processes; secondly, these localizations are being pursued from a number of competing political positions; and therefore, finally, researchers, policy-makers and community organizations must take an active role in combatting regressive discourses of localization (often associated with local-ism) and must nurture the development of what we call openlocales: empowered, inclusive and interconnected places created through just localizations, which constitute the bases for secure and sustainable livelihoods that are responsive to contemporary crises of ecology, inequality, health, democracy and more.
The structure of the paper reflects this three-part argument. In the first section, we offer an indicative illustration of the geographic and substantive character of already-unfolding localizations by discussing some notable trends and providing a table of specific examples. We then detail some of the major crises that localizations are responding to, focusing on the coronavirus pandemic, ecological breakdown, and crises of neoliberal globalization. In the second section, we discuss three broad political constituencies from which competing calls for localization are beingand will likely continue to bearticulated: right-wing nativism, neoliberal neo-localism and the green left. Finally, we begin to sketch out a research agenda to support the construction of open-locales, which will entail combatting nativist politics, enhancing democracy, equality and social justice, and building necessary and desired interconnections between communities.
An important clarification to make at this point, is that the perspectives in this paper reflect observations on processes of localization made from our embedded geographical location within the United Kingdom, and more specifically still, the North East of England. The paper's primary task is to conceptualize, and so our arguments do not draw on primary empirical fieldwork but instead offer an analysis of localizations as seen from our perspective whilst working from home under national restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic. While we refer to international examples, our account is inevitably shaped substantially by our own geographical context, and we cannot claim to provide a comprehensive representation of localizations as they are emerging and being experienced throughout the world. Rather, in the spirit of the arguments we make in this paper, we believe that grounded yet 'open' researchwhich speaks to that of others around the world while also acknowledging and benefitting from geographical situatednessis necessary in order to provide a fuller account of localizations as an emerging geographical phenomenon.

Diverse localizations in response to multiple crises
We begin here by providing an indicative sense of the geographic and substantive range of emerging localizations as a set of flows and mobilities which are being re-scaled, elaborating on some selected cases, and offering a table of further examples. Importantly, we argue that these localizations are not 'random' phenomena, but constitute attempts to respond in various ways to contemporary crises, of which we outline three of the most prominent dimensions: the coronavirus pandemic, global ecological breakdown, and crises of neoliberal globalization.

Emerging localizations
The first example of localization(s) can be found in the new geographies of sustainable energy. The long overdue arrival of significant renewable generation capacity is forcing a profound (re)localization of the mature power systems of the global North which were designed to distribute centrally generated power to local sites of consumption. The new geographies of low carbon energy turn this spatiality on its head, as has been well researched, and the decentralization of power generation is now inevitable (Becker & Naumann, 2017;Judson et al., 2020). The result is that very local power generation is most likely to energize our daily lives, regardless of the stubbornness of nationally organized markets which don't yet recognize this. The (re)localization of energy provision is well underway, as municipalities and community energy actors resume important roles in provision and governance (Becker & Naumann, 2017;Creamer et al., 2018).
A second example is the trend of withdrawals from globalized manufacturingwhich has for decades been the preferred spatial arrangement of neoliberal capitalismand its associated effects on the local scale. The level of reliance on major manufacturing centres, notably China, is now seen by many international firms and indeed many national governments as entailing too many risks and vulnerabilities. 'Reshoring' (Curran, 2021;The Economist, 2017) of previously globalized supply chains is increasingly being framed as an opportunity to revitalize internal regions that have been 'left behind' by neoliberal globalization's predilection for inter-connected metropolizes (Harris et al., 2020), by channelling investment and employment opportunities into specific local areas. An example of thisin rhetoric at leastis the UK Conservative government's 'levelling up' agenda which emerged after the 2019 General Election, when the Conservatives won a large swathe of seats in relatively disadvantaged post-industrial areas which had been held by the Labour Party for decades (Jennings et al., 2021;Tomaney & Pike, 2020).
While energy networks and manufacturing supply chains are undergoing sub-national localizations, there are also instances of localizations taking place within cities. In many places, a number of factors are converging to prompt a reduction in the frequency and primacy of journeys from suburban areas into city centres, for purposes of work, leisure and retail. Several cities are experimenting with models of neighbourhood based-living, such as 'fifteen-minute city' and 'complete 'Reshoring' and 'Levelling up'

Regional; Municipal
. Deglobalize production processes to provide jobs and investment for deprived regions/ localities . Reduce vulnerability to disruptions (e.g. political, pandemics, ecological disasters) . UK government 'levelling up' agenda in wake of Brexit, General Election, Covid (Harris et al., 2020) Anti-flying movements

Individuals
. Cultural shifts away from air travel due its climate impacts . 'Flygskam'/'Flight shame' as a cultural trend (Coffey, 2020;Mkono, 2020) neighbourhoods' initiatives (see Table 1), in which municipal authorities aim to reconfigure urban environments such that citizens can satisfy their daily needs within a short walking or cycling radius of their home (C40 Cities, 2015; Moreno et al., 2021;Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021). Such experiments have been accelerated by enforced shifts in many industries to homeworking during the coronavirus pandemic, as travel into city centres plummeted and high street retail collapsed while new localized patterns of consumption emerged (Nelson, 2020). These are just a few amongst many possible examples of emerging localizations. We indicate further cases in the table. In bringing together these examples, our argument is that diverse localizations are unfolding right now and that this trend is likely to continue in the coming years, for reasons that will be elaborated shortly. We are not arguing, however, that localizations are a totalizing or hegemonic trend. For a number of reasons, some global mobilities and exchanges will be necessary and/or desirable to maintain. One might first think of the cup of tea or coffee you may have enjoyed this morning, which has its global supply chain bio-geographically rooted in particular places around the world with the right altitude, temperature and rainfall for cultivation, or the electronic device you may be reading this on, which has its value chain deeply embedded in politically and economically important design and manufacturing centres, and which keeps you connected to loved ones around the world. It is highly unlikelyand in many cases, undesirable, if not impossiblethat supply chains such as these could be effectively localized worldwide (Foundational Economy Collective, 2020).
While many ecologically intensive and socially exploitative supply chains that shuttle goods across the world should be dismantled, the case of coronavirus vaccines encapsulates the existence of vitaland even lifesavingglobalized production and supply chains (though the incredibly uneven access to vaccines across the world population must be challenged). Furthermore, there are clearly forms of translocal cross-cultural exchange and learning that are crucial to the development of an inclusive, compassionate society, and forms of translocal political collaboration which are needed to address global crises such as ecological breakdown and pandemics.
On this point, there are several fundamental ongoing questions surrounding localizations: what should remain globalized, to what extent, on what grounds, and which voices hold the power to shape these debates? These are not only matters for practical evaluation. Determining whether the social and ecological benefits of any given globalized supply chain or mobility outweigh its costs, and exactly how much of this flow (e.g. coffee, fruits, computers, international travel) can be ethically and ecologically sustained, are inescapably matters for discussion and deliberation.
Localizations necessitate subjecting the social and ecological implications of intensely globalized liveswhich currently exist as a set of assumed freedoms amongst much of the world population (Brand & Wissen, 2012;Buch-Hansen, 2018)to critical reflection. This must go beyond marketbased models of carbon foot-printing and accounting, which have generally done little more than 'greenwash' and thus legitimize ultimately unsustainable and ethically questionable patterns of production and consumption.

Responding to crises
The drivers of emerging localizations are multifaceted and complex. On the one hand, communities, movements and governments around the world are formulating and advancing localizations which they see as helping to build more desirable futures in response to various contemporary crises. On the other hand, there is evidence that localizations can also occur in an unplanned and unwelcome fashion, during the most immediate and acute moments of crisis.
The coronavirus pandemic provides a horrifying yet spectacular case of the latter. As the virus broke out in early 2020, and its high transmissibility and fatality became clear, governments around the world took decisions such as to close their national borders, shut down vast swathes of their economies and issue 'stay at home' orders to their populations. This generated localizations in the form of massively reduced international travel and trade, as well as greatly restricted subnational mobilities and significant shifts in many industries towards home-working (Cresswell, 2020). Hyperlocal citizen mutual aid networksat the neighbourhood or even street scalealso sprang up around the world in order to sustain the wellbeing of their communities amidst inadequate national and local government support (Nelson, 2020;Springer, 2020). These localizations were generally not pre-planned steps towards desired futures, but emergency measures to limit the spread of coronavirus and protect public health and wellbeing.
It is important to state, however, that localizations during the pandemic were not uniform in effect but differentiated by factors such as class and geography. For example, in India, the shutdown of economic activities through national lockdown caused mass displacement of migrant workers who were forced out of rented accommodations in their regions of work and had to trek in harsh conditions across the country to their homes (Bandyopadhyay et al., 2021). More broadly, increases in low-paid courier and delivery labour were required to facilitate many middle-class localizations (Cresswell, 2020), while global elites often found a way around restrictions and remained hyper-mobile (Robson, 2020).
Beyond emergency lockdown measures, there is also emerging evidence that the experience of the coronavirus pandemic has itself expanded public enthusiasm for localization(s), as discussions occur as to what the post-pandemic world will look like. For example, citizen surveys have indicated that a significantly increased appetite for locally produced goods and services is likely to endure after the pandemic fades, while deficiencies in national government responses to coronavirus have bolstered a new wave of calls for devolution of political power to more local scales (Cresswell, 2020;Warner et al., 2021). Additionally, many workplaces have already taken decisions to make remote working practices established during the pandemic permanent (Hern, 2020). As the threat of coronavirus subsides, further long-term localizing effects of the pandemic will likely become clear.
In addition to coronavirus, localizations are emerging in response to the much longer-term ecological crisis resulting from the exploitation of ecosystems and burning of fossil fuels across centuries of colonial-capitalist 'development' (Kothari et al., 2019). In recent decades, the continuing expansion of this development model across ever-larger swathes of the world through neoliberal globalization has only intensified global ecological breakdown (Brand et al., 2020;Brand & Wissen, 2012). The world now faces a critical set of deeply interconnected ecological crises of climatic warming, species extinction, degradation of the soil, ocean acidification, deforestation, and more (Brand et al., 2021;Steffen et al., 2015).
One aspect of the current globalized society which entails significant ecological impacts is the volume of fossil-fueled transnational mobilities, albeit access to these mobilities and their benefits are incredibly unevenly distributed across the global population. Maritime shipping is currently estimated to contribute around 3% of total global carbon emissions (Heitmann & Peterson, 2014), whilst aviation contributes approximately 2.5% (Ritchie, 2020). Yet, due to the rapid growth rates of these industries and elusiveness of sustainable energy sources, their combined emissions are projected to rise to as much as 40% of total global carbon emissions by 2050 if major interventions are not made (Lükewille, 2018). Campaigns and initiatives such as local food and anti-aviation movements seek to emphasize the ecological impact of such trajectories and pursue alternative futures based on more sustainable and localized mobilities. Some also argue that a more localized world may enable greater responsiveness in a future of escalating ecological instability, which current trends suggest is likely (see Smaje, 2020).
Another set of crises which localizations are being produced by responses to the negative effects of globalization, and especially its neoliberal phase. In 'opening up' global markets, neoliberal globalization has expanded Western models of production and consumption predicated on the exploitation of 'cheap' labour and natural materials, namely in the global South (Brand et al., 2020;Brand & Wissen, 2012;Patel & Moore, 2020). Alongside this, neoliberalism's financialization of the world economy has facilitated an intensification of capital accumulation for global economic elites, exacerbating extreme inequality (Blakeley, 2019;Langman, 2013). The global financial crash of 2008 and its after-effects constituted a blow to the legitimacy of neoliberal globalization amongst significantthough clearly not all (see Horner et al., 2018)sections of the global population (Brand, 2016;Langman, 2013). This has prompted increasing efforts to reclaim greater economic and political autonomy at more local scales in opposition to globalized markets, finance and corporations. Further, neoliberal globalization's decommunalizing effects have engendered for many people a loss of their sense of belonging and autonomy (Bell, 2021;Escobar, 2018;Kothari et al., 2019). As such, some see processes of localization not only as a means of addressing material insecurities, but also as a way of re-establishing a meaningful sense of purpose and identity within the world and one's community. This opens up discourses of localization(s) to claims from a broad range of contesting political positions, as is next discussed.

Contested politics of localizations
Crucial to the argument of this paper, is the notion that processes of localization are diverse and as such do not carry an essential politics. Accordingly, we now explore three broad political constituencies from which calls for localization(s) are currently being articulated in different ways and for different ends.

Right-wing nativism
So-called populist right-wing movements have surged in recent years, tapping into discontent with globalization by stoking conflicts along cultural and ethnic lines, as opposed to emphasizing class divisions and systemic economic injustice (Bell, 2021;Novy, 2020). Novy (2017) has referred to this phenomenon as 'reactionary deglobalization'. While nationalism is undoubtedly the central modality through which these movements have manifested, researchers have paid relatively little attention to how particular imaginaries of the local have been mobilized in support of such racist and nativist politics.
For example, at a 2016 rally, Donald Trump explicitly appealed to localist sentiments, proclaiming: 'People talk about how we're living in a globalized world, but the relationships people value most are localfamily, city, state, and country. Local, folks, local' (quoted in Cresswell, 2020, p. 59). Elsewhere, Mamonova and Franquesa (2020) note a recent phenomenon of right-wing populist movements in Europe appealing to rural communities through support for localization(s) in the form of small-scale farming and agri-food systems. In the UK, Schlanger (2017) has argued that the vote in 2016 to leave the European Union was animated by a form of 'local-populism'. On the one hand, this entailed imaginaries of the UK itself as a form of 'local community' of which there was a desire to 'take back control', particularly in regards to immigration (Schlanger, 2017). At the same time, arguments for leaving the EU were often made based on very localized claims of overwhelmed public services, lack of employment opportunities and low wages, for which migrants from overseas were blamed. Such scenarios therefore create an opening for right-wing discourses of localization based on a nativist and racialized sense of place, which call for privileged and protected access to bolstered local housing, jobs and services for a defined 'native' and ethnic group, at the exclusion of 'others' (see Hirsch, 2018). Impacts of this kind of nativist and racialized sense of place were indicated by the spike in violence towards migrants and people of colour in the wake of the EU referendum (Burnett, 2017;Rzepnikowska, 2019;Virdee & McGeever, 2018).
As multiple intersecting crises likely intensify in the twenty-first century, there is a danger that such right-wing discourses of localization gain more salience, in responsefor exampleto increased levels of migration due to impacts of climate breakdown and conflicts.

Neoliberal neo-localism
While nativism and critiques of globalized society are core features of the far-right, certain kinds of localizations are also being articulated from more 'moderate' neoliberal positions, despite this being the political constituency which incorporates the most vehement defenders of globalized capitalism. In response to significant damages inflicted upon the legitimacy of the neoliberal political settlement since the 2008 global financial crisis (Brand, 2016;Langman, 2013), some are recognizing a need to appease discontent of those 'left behind' by globalization.
One example of such neoliberal localization discourse from our national context in the UK is showcased by the think-tank Localis. Officially independent but associated with politicians from more moderate sections of the Conservative Party, Localis describes its work as guided by the concept of neo-localism, which 'is about giving places and people more control over the effects of globalization' (Localis, 2021). Localis states explicitly that neo-localism is 'not anti-globalization, but wants to bend the mainstream of social and economic policy so that place is put at the centre of political thinking' (Localis, 2021). A similar discourse of localization was adopted by the governing UK Conservative Party during David Cameron's premiership from 2010 to 2016 (Featherstone et al., 2012;Tait & Inch, 2016), which outlined its desire to establish 'a more decentralised economy, society and politics' through a 'truly radical localization' agenda (quoted in Featherstone et al., 2012, p. 177). While in practice these references to localization ended up as a thin veil for a programme of extreme spending cuts and the shifting of responsibility for large-scale dismantling of public services onto local government (Lowndes & Gardner, 2016;Tomaney, 2016), Featherstone et al. (2012, p. 178) argue that the Conservatives' original aim in operationalizing discourses of localization was to 'fill an underlying void created by [neoliberalism's] privileging of market rationalities over social needs'. The 'levelling-up' discourse of the Conservative government under Boris Johnson follows a similar pattern (Jennings et al., 2021;Tomaney & Pike, 2020).
Neo-localism is a vision which is alert to some of the ways in which globalized neoliberal capitalism has eroded local economies and identities. It seeks to revive public support for this politicaleconomy through mild reforms which might offer a greater sense of empowerment to local communities. This complicates Novy's (2020) implication that neoliberal globalists have increasingly been shifting towards discourses of nationalistic capitalism in response to crises of globalization, indicating a further splinter that is beginning to advocate more localized variants of neoliberal capitalism.

Green left
Expanding calls for localization(s) are also emanating from progressive movements for social and environmental justice. These strands of localization discourse include the most substantive political-economic critiques of globalized neoliberal capitalism, often emphasizing its (neo)colonial and racialized dynamics, driving of vast socio-economic inequality, and ecological destructiveness (Brand et al., 2020;Kothari et al., 2019). Localizations are therefore commonly advocated as part of wider socio-ecological transformations which seek to tackle inequalities within and between nations whilst addressing ecological crisis.
One notable example here is the idea of 'open localization' (Liegey & Nelson, 2020;Velegrakis et al., 2019), which has become prevalent amongst proponents of degrowth, who call for planned socio-ecological transformation(s) to redistribute and reduce aggregate material and energy use to safe ecological levels whilst enhancing social justice and wellbeing (Demaria et al., 2013;Kallis et al., 2020). Open localization aims to counter the social and ecological damages of neoliberal globalization 'in transparent, all-inclusive ways based on solidarity with the aim of diversifying communities and environments to enrich life' (Liegey & Nelson, 2020: xi). Degrowthers have advocated localizing the production of key goods and services where possible in order to enhance local livelihoods and combat the ecological impacts and social injustices associated with globalized supply chains, as well as decentralizing political power in order to establish more autonomous local communities governed through forms of direct democracy (Latouche, 2009;Mocca, 2019). It is argued that these relocalized economies should be centred around (eco)feminist notions of social reproduction, or in other words, the care work which sustains social and ecological wellbeing on a day-to-day basis (Dengler & Seebacher, 2019;S. Barca, 2019). Perhaps the key challenge facing degrowth and open localization perspectives is whether they can be scaled out beyond geographical niches, given that they will continue to come under immense pressure from the dominant political-economy of globalized capitalism which they contest.
The 'foundational economy' is a related discourse which, like degrowth, calls for a shift of emphasis from individualized towards social consumption of key goods and services, but takes a less explicitly critical stance towards existing political-economic structures, in effort to build cross-partisan policy coalitions. In their ten-point plan for post-COVID recovery, the Foundational Economy Collective call for the shortening of 'fragile long supply chains in foundational commodities' in order for communities to become more resilient and responsive to an 'increasingly unstable political world' (Foundational Economy Collective, 2020, p. 10). At the same time, they warn against fetishization of the local scale, and suggest that it is neither realistic nor desirable that a country, such as the UK, could return to a point of supplying the majority of its own demand for manufactured goods (Foundational Economy Collective, 2018. On top of this, Novy (2020, p. 12) argues that 'a strengthened foundational economy based on planetary coexistence' is necessary in order to 'restrain hyperglobalization' and halt ecological breakdown. Accordingly, he contends that enhancing the foundational economy should form part of a programme of 'emancipatory deglobalization' (Novy, 2017), which entails the dismantling of globalized fossil fuel infrastructures and decentralization of economic and political power (Novy, 2020). While the less explicitly politicized framings of the foundational economy discourse may make it more amenable to some policy-makers, it may simply serve to stabilize more localized and social-democratic variants of neoliberal capitalism, and in doing so fail to sufficiently combat the root causes of ecological crisis and social inequalities.

Building open-locales
Drawing on ideas of open localization, in this final section of the paper we begin to sketch out some of the key concerns which should inform an emerging research agenda for the construction of openlocales. By open-locales we refer to empowered, inclusive and interconnected places created through just localizations, which constitute a basis for secure and sustainable livelihoods that are responsive to contemporary crises of ecology, inequalities, health, and democracy. Open-locales would be constituted by significantly localized economies, altered mobilities, responsiveness to ecological breakdown, interconnecting socio-technical and information systems, and 'open' cultures of translocal citizenships. We begin by discussing questions of power and justice within open-locales, before turning to consider the interconnections between open-locales.

Power and justice in open-locales
Firstly, a research agenda for open-locales must critically engage with questions of who has the power to shape localizations, and how they are differentially experienced by various sections of society. This could be theorized as a series of concerns around what Massey (2005) termed 'power-geometries'the ever-changing power relations which shape and are shaped by the always political organization of spatial arrangementsor though justice concepts, which question the inclusivity and (in)justice with which localizations are produced (Schlosberg, 2004). In many cases, localizations are framed as a means of contesting contemporary power-geometries and empowering local communities by reducing distances between agency and impacts, such as through reshoring manufacturing, local food initiatives, regionalist and municipalist political movements, and so on. Yetas explored abovelocalizations are not always driven by or conducive to a progressive politics, and often carry the risk of engendering socially and ecologically damaging outcomes (Escobar, 2018;Featherstone et al., 2012;Velegrakis et al., 2019). We seek here to unsettle any essentialist account of the local and argue instead that just localizationswhich constitute progressive and radical responses to contemporary crises and power-geometrieswill have to be actively fought for.
Depending on which political forces most effectively influence ongoing localizations, there is a substantial danger of regressive outcomes which exacerbate inequalities. We say exacerbate deliberately, as deep inequalities already exist between sections of the world population who are able to live very globalized livespartaking in an 'imperial mode of living' which places disproportionate claims on global resources, labour power and ecological sinks (Brand & Wissen, 2012) and those whose exploitation facilitates these intensely globalized lives. An acute illustration of these global class divisions emerged during the coronavirus pandemic, as 'kinetic elites' (Cwerner et al., 2009) continued to enjoy relatively unconstrained personal mobility, travelling between urban centres and remote island retreats via private jet (Robson, 2020) while most people remained restricted to their homes and local areas. Lower-income sections of society were much more likely to experience harsher impacts of lockdowns, as a result of poor access to basic services and amenities, green space, and digital infrastructures (Moreno et al., 2021).
One might also consider the case of local food, which in high-income nations such as the UK has long been associated with middle and upper classes, due to its generally higher prices. Wealthier individuals are currently far more able to choose to localize their consumption, while low-income households remain trapped on the receiving end of extremely low-cost, low-quality globalized capitalist production chains which strive for 'cheapness' through the exploitation of global labour and ecology (Patel & Moore, 2020). To address systemic inequalities then, localizations must seek to reconfigure modes of production, rather than simply encouraging demand-side behaviour changes.
Additionally, there is the crucial task of resisting nativist localisms, which take a 'fortress' mentality against migrants and those who do not fall within a certain ethnic profile, or which abandon translocal and international solidarities. These are not solely dangers presented by the far-right, and we must also be alert to the emergence of such tendencies in supposedly 'progressive' discourses of localization (Mason & Whitehead, 2012). This is why the concept of open localization is so important, in order to build local communities that are inclusive and act in solidarity to address translocal challenges such as ecological breakdown and pandemics. Combatting inequalities and injustices within and between communities should be at the centre of any twenty-first century localization (s) agenda.

Connecting open-locales
Secondly, a research agenda for open-locales must consider the intermediating infrastructures, institutions and technologies requiredand desiredto maintain channels of economic, political and cultural exchange between more localized communities. Again, this is crucial to prevent the creation of closed-off and exclusionary locales.
The first type of intermediaries to consider are forms of connective governance that would link together different local communities to discuss their shared interests and take collaborative decisions. While we have argued that localizations should play an important role in addressing current crises, it has to be remembered that the most pressing of these crises (e.g. ecological breakdown, socio-economic inequality, pandemics such as coronavirus) are translocal and global in character. Therefore, it is desirable that a more localized society would maintain structures for taking democratic translocal action on issues where this is clearly needed.
There is much research and practice which can be turned to for inspiration in this regard. One example is the concept of libertarian municipalism developed by Murray Bookchin. Bookchin (2015) proposed libertarian municipalism as a form of political organization which would return substantive powers to local communities, in the form of directly democratic assemblies at neighbourhood and municipal scales, in opposition to the nationalized power of the modern nation-state. Importantly, he argued that these municipal assemblies should also connect to one another through a non-hierarchical model of confederalism, where delegates from different local communities could join together to take decisions on translocal issues and provide a check against the possibility of parochialism in any one locale (Bookchin, 2015). These ideas of libertarian municipalism are being drawn upon currently by the Democratic Confederalism of Rojava in Northern Syria, and the expanding New Municipalism movement which comes together through the Fearless Cities network (Barcelona En Comú, 2019; Knapp et al., 2016;Russell, 2019). It is important that a research agenda for open-locales learns from the severe challenges that actually-existing efforts to build municipalist forms of governance have faced within a world where the nation-state remains the most powerful unit of political organization.
The second type of intermediary that needs to be explored is the infrastructures that would enable flows of people, goods, communications, and energy between open-locales. Writing from our position in the UK for example, it became clear during the coronavirus pandemic that alongside NHS workers and care givers, couriers provide another key connective function in a more localized society. Similarly, digital infrastructures have never been more critical, due to the massive increase in the proportion of work and family life that has become mediated through online technologies. As communities establish new ways of living beyond the coronavirus pandemic and in the context of ecological breakdown and political instability, these connective fibres, similar to the 'reliance systems' of (Schafran et al., 2020), are both economic and social and will be crucial in guarding against exclusionary and isolating localisms. As a result, and as well as the need for governance links, there will be a need for people and technologies to play increasingly important connective roles in constituting systems of provision and exchange. As certain mobilities are scaled down in order to address social and ecological challenges, a new topology of sustainable shipping, communications, electricity provision and more would require socio-technological systems that can play important roles in ensuring the 'openness' of open localization (Liegey & Nelson, 2020).

Conclusion
The paper has sought to identify, interpret and problematize an emerging set of interrelated spatial processes that we are calling localizations, which constitute an important and as yet underresearched aspect of the political, economic and cultural responses to major crises of the early twenty-first century.
We began the paper by offering an indication of the substantive and geographic range of emerging localizations, making our initial claim that localizations are already underway and are likely to proliferate, but have so far been paid insufficient academic attention as a distinctive albeit diverse set of spatial reformations. We then proposed that emerging localizations can be seen as responding to a number of interconnected contemporary crises, and expanded on three of the foremost examples: the coronavirus pandemic, ecological breakdown, and crises of neoliberal globalization. Next, we claimed that localizations as spatial processes do not carry any inherent politics and demonstrated three strands of localization discourse emanating from divergent political constituencies: right-wing nativists, neoliberal neo-localists and the green left. Finally, we closed the paper by outlining what we believe should be some of the foundational concerns of a research agenda to support the construction of open-locales: combatting nativist localisms and inequalities in who has the power to affect localizations and how they are experienced by different populations; and what kinds of socio-technical intermediaries are requiredand desiredto connect together places within a more localized world.
We hope that this paper can be a starting point for further theoretical, imaginative and empirical work to develop a more fully formed research agenda in social-ecological scholarship for open localizations and open-locales. Crucially, as colleagues in the academy grapple themselves with forms of localization in very real and immediate wayssuch as the ongoing effects of the coronavirus pandemic and the ethical imperatives to address the ecological impacts of research such as frequent air travelwe believe that this agenda can be most effectively advanced through geographically embedded research by scholars offering insights into their own local, regional and national contexts, whilst drawing on and contributing to international debates and action in support of just and sustainable futures.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Joe Herbert is a doctoral researcher in Human Geography at Newcastle University. His PhD thesis studied imaginaries of socio-ecological crisis and transformation amongst young environmental activists. His publications have focused on socio-ecological imaginations, degrowth and environmental justice.
Gareth Powells is a human geographer specializing in the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable socio-technical systems. His publications have focused on the concepts of flexibility, sustainable social practices, justice in low carbon energy systems and fuel poverty.