Advertisement

Implications of the Anthropocene Epoch for Geomorphology

  • Olav SlaymakerEmail author
  • Monica E. Mulrennan
  • Norm Catto
Chapter
  • 57 Downloads
Part of the World Geomorphological Landscapes book series (WGLC)

Abstract

The protection of landscape is a matter of priority in this Anthropocene epoch, as explained in Chap.  25. If we agree that humanity has become the dominant driver of environmental change then figuring out the intellectual and social relevance of geomorphology is a topic that requires equally urgent attention. Classical geomorphology pays scant attention to the social, cultural and political factors that provoke geomorphic change. A modest proposal to recast geomorphology as both a landscape science and a geoscience is a suggested preferred first step. If that step is taken, the contested status of ‘landscape’ will make broader philosophical and methodological approaches possible in geomorphology. In particular, both the intrinsic and utilitarian value of geomorphology could be assessed more realistically. The net result could be more careful consideration of human well-being in geomorphological research.

Keywords

Geomorphology Landchange science Landscape science Intrinsic and utilitarian value 

References

  1. Ashmore P (2015) Towards a sociogeomorphology of rivers. Geomorphology 251:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biermann F, Abbott K, Andresen S, Backstrand K, Bernstein S, Betsill MM, Bulkeley H, Cashore B, Clapp J, Folke C, Gupta A, Haas PM, Jordan A, Kanie N, Kluvankova-Oravska Lebel T, Liverman D, Meadowcraft J, Mitchell RB, Newell P (2012) Navigating the anthropocene: improving earth system governance. Science 335:1306–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biron PM, Buffin-Bélanger T, Larocque M, Choné G, Cloutier CA, Ouellet MA, Demers S, Olsen T, Desjarlais C, Eyquem J (2014) Freedom space for rivers: a sustainable management approach to enhance river resilience. Environ Manage 54:1056–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blaikie P, Brookfield H (1987) Land degradation and society. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Braun B, Castree N (eds) (1998) Remaking reality: nature at the millennium. Routledge, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. Brierley G, Fryirs K, Cullum C, Tadaki M, Huang HQ, Blue B (2013) Reading the landscape: integrating the theory and practice of geomorphology to develop place-based understandings of river systems. Prog Phys Geog 37:601–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chin A, O’Dowd AH, Gregory KJ (2013) Urbanization and river channels. In: Shroder JF, Wohl E (eds) Treatise on geomorphology, vol 9. Fluvial geomorphology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 809–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF (2000) The ‘anthropocene’. IGBP Global Change Newslett 41:17–18Google Scholar
  9. Fraser EDG, Mabee W, Slaymaker O (2003) Mutual vulnerability, mutual dependence. The reflexive relation between human society and the Environment. Global Environ Change 13:137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fryirs K, Brierley GJ (2013) Geomorphic analysis of river systems: an approach to reading the landscape. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Goudie AS (2002) Aesthetics and relevance in geomorphological outreach. Geomorphology 47:245–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goudie AS, Viles HA (2010) Landscapes and geomorphology: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp 99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goudie AS, Viles HA (2016) Geomorphology in the anthropocene. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gregory KJ (2000) The changing nature of physical geography. Arnold, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Haff PK (2010) Hillslopes, rivers, plows and trucks: mass transport on Earth’s surface by natural and technological processes. Earth Surf Processes 35:1157–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Head L (2008) Is the concept of human impacts past its use-by date? The Holocene 18:373–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hewitt K (1983) The idea of calamity in a technocratic age. In: Hewitt K (ed) Interpretations of calamity from the viewpoint of human ecology. Allen and Unwin, Winchester, MA, pp 3–32Google Scholar
  18. Holling CS (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecologic and social systems. Ecosystems 4:390–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Howitt R, Suchet-Pearson S (2006) Rethinking the building blocks: ontological pluralism and the idea of ‘management’. Geogr Ann 88B:323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ingold T (1995) Building, dwelling, living: how animals and people make themselves at home in the world. In: Strathern M (ed) Shifting contexts: transformations in anthropological knowledge. Routledge, London UK, pp 57–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ingold T (2000) Epilogue: towards a politics of dwelling. Conservat Soc 3:501–508Google Scholar
  22. Kareiva P, Watts S, McDonald R, Boucher T (2007) Domesticated nature: shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science 316:1866–1869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kershaw GGL, Castleden H, Laroque CP (2014) An argument for ethical physical geography research on Indigenous landscapes in Canada. Can Geogr 58:393–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kondolf GM, Podolak K (2013) Space and time scales in human landscape systems. Environ Manag 53:76–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lave R, Wilson MW, Barron ES, Biermann C, Carey MA, Duvall CS, Johnson L, Lane KM, McClintock N, Munroe D, Pain R, Proctor J, Rhoads BL, Robertson MM, Rossi J, Sayre NF, Simon G, Tadaki M, Van Dyke C (2014) Intervention: critical physical geography. Can Geogr 58:1–10Google Scholar
  26. Livingstone DN (2003) Putting science in its place: geographies of scientific knowledge. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meadows M, Lin JC (eds) (2016) Geomorphology and society. Advances in geographical and environmental sciences. Springer, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  28. Moller H, Berkes F, Lyver PO, Kislalioglu M (2004) Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecol Soc 9:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Monastersky R (2015) The human age. Nature 519:144–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mould SA, Fryirs K, Howitt R (2018) Practising sociogeomorphology: relationships and dialogue in river research and management. Soc Natur Resour 31:106–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muller-Wille L (2001) Shaping modern Inuit territorial perception and identity in the Quebec-Labrador Peninsula, Chap. 3. In: Scott C (ed) Aboriginal autonomy and development in Northern Quebec and Labrador. UBC Press, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  32. Mulrennan ME, Mark R, Scott CH (2012) Revamping community based conservation through participatory research. Can Geogr 56:243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Polanyi M (1958) Personal knowledge. Routledge and Keenan Paul, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  34. Rhoads BL (2006) The dynamic basis of geomorphology reenvisioned. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 96:14–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rhoads BL (1999) Beyond pragmatism. The value of philosophical discourse for physical geography. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 89:760; Ann Assoc Am Geogr 771Google Scholar
  36. Slaymaker O (2009) The future of geomorphology. Geogr Compass 3:329–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Slaymaker O (2017) Physical geographers’ understanding of the real world. Can Geogr 61:64–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Slaymaker O, Spencer T, Dadson S (2009) Landscape and landscape scale processes as the unfilled niche in the global environmental change debate: an introduction. In: Slaymaker O, Spencer T, Embleton-Hamann C (eds) Geomorphology and global environmental change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 1–36Google Scholar
  39. Tadaki M, Slaymaker O, Martin Y (eds) (2017) Critical physical geography. Can Geogr 61:1–148Google Scholar
  40. Turner BL, II, Lambin E, Reenberg A (2007) The emergence of landchange science for global environmental change and sustainability. In: Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the USA, Washington, DC 104, pp 20666–20671Google Scholar
  41. UNESCO (1972) World Heritage Convention. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilcock DA, Brierley GJ, Howitt R (2013) Ethnogeomorphology. Prog Phys Geogr 37:573–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wohl E, Gerlak AK, Poff NL, Chin A (2013) Common core themes in geomorphic, ecological and social systems. Environ Manag 53:14–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wylie J (2011) Landscape. In: Agnew JA, Livingstone DN (eds) Sage handbook of geographical knowledge. Sage Publications, London, pp 300–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yates J, Wilson N, Harris L (2017) Multiple ontologies of water: politics, conflict and implications for governance. Environ Plan D Soc SpaceGoogle Scholar
  46. Zalasiewicz J, Williams M, Steffen W, Crutzen PJ (2010) The new world of the Anthropocene. Environ Sci Tech 44:2228–2231CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olav Slaymaker
    • 1
    Email author
  • Monica E. Mulrennan
    • 2
  • Norm Catto
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of Geography, Planning and EnvironmentConcordia UniversityMontréalCanada
  3. 3.Department of GeographyMemorial University of Newfoundland and LabradorSt. John’sCanada

Personalised recommendations