EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMSEarth Surf. Process. Landforms 39, 476–486 (2014)Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Published online 1 August 2013 in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/esp.3461

Communicating geomorphology: global challengesfor the twenty-first centuryKenneth J. Gregory,1* Stuart N. Lane,2 John Lewin,3 Philip J. Ashworth,4 Peter W. Downs,5 Michael J. Kirkby6 and Heather A. Viles71 School of Geography and Environment, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, UK2 Universite de Lausanne, Faculté des Géosciences et de l’environnement, Geopolis bureau 3207, Lausanne, Switzerland3 Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK4 School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Lewes Rd, Brighton, UK5 School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, UK6 The School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK7 School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, UK

Received 11 February 2013; Revised 21 June 2013; Accepted 21 June 2013

*Correspondence to: Ken Gregory, School of Geography and Environment, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, UK. E-mail: k.j.gregory@ntlworld.com

ABSTRACT: The British Society for Geomorphology (BSG), established as the British Geomorphological Research Group (BGRG)in 1960, is considering how best to represent geomorphology and geomorphologists in the light of recent changes in the nature ofcommunication. These changes provide the BSG and other academic societies with challenges and opportunities. Seven driversof communication change are outlined: the changing position of geomorphology in higher education, the nature of academic inter-action, the means of communication available, a transformation in the nature of geomorphological research, changes in funding sup-port, the government role in resource allocation, and developments in quantifying international research impact. Challenges arisingfrom changing communications are identified as occurring beyond the ‘academy’, in the nature of publication within the ‘academy’,and associated with meetings of the ‘academy’. Although national societies now have to contemplate significantly different purposesto provide for their members than in the twentieth century, there are opportunities available that cannot be fulfilled by internationalorganizations alone. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEYWORDS: scientific communication; geomorphology; earth surface processes; open access

Introduction

The British Geomorphological Research Group (BGRG) wasfounded over 50 years ago, in 1960, essentially as a workinggroup established to develop morphological mapping (Waters,1958) and subsequently a geomorphological map of Britain(Gregory and Brown, 1976). It evolved into a UK learnedsociety, affliated to the RGS (Royal Geographical Society, withthe Institute of British Geographers) and to the GeologicalSociety, with an annual paper-reading conference, fieldmeetings (usually one each year), a house journal [EarthSurface Processes and Landforms (ESPL), since 1976], otherthemed publications (Table I), and an agenda for the further-ance of the discipline as a research community via such activ-ities as the provision of public information, schools liason,learning support for graduate students, the dispensing ofresearch grants and awards for achievement. In 2006 it becamethe British Society for Geomorphology (BSG) with a new consti-tution. In August 2010 the theme of the annual general meeting(AGM) focused on Future Challenges, with an exhibition enti-tled The Changing Face of the Earth displayed in London inthe Pavilion of the RGS illustrating developments in geomor-phology over half a century (Gregory, 2013). This commentaryis written to stimulate discussion on how changes in forms of

communciation both present challenges for the BSG, and havesignificance for geomorphology more generally. This and theoutcomes of a consultation with members undertaken by theBSG about its strategic plan (see http://www.geomorphology.org.uk/), could be pertinent to other geomorphological socie-ties and the discipline as a whole.

Communication is taken here to include transmittinginformation and ideas by written, verbal and other means.The BSG’s mission includes ‘disseminating new geomorpho-logical research and policy agendas’ and ‘developing appliedgeomorphological research, having a major impact on environ-mental policy and practice and providing a public benefit’ bothof which explicitly require communication. It can be arguedthat the over-arching purpose, for this and other similar Socie-ties, is scientific communication – between members of theBSG community, but also for members to keep abreast of andcontribute to current developments in their discipline, and forgeomorphology to be available to a wider scientific, profes-sional and public community.

Yet in the last 50 years the technology for, and the volume of,communication have changed drastically. When the Societywas founded in 1960 there were no dedicated British meetingsfor geomorphologists, few journal outlets, no e-mails and socialnetworks, and even out-of-area telephoning was expensive and

Table I. BSG themed publications

Year Publication Examples

1963- Current Research in Geomorphology1964- Occasional papers A Bibliography of British Geomorphology KMClayton1969- Technical Bulletins 26 by 1980 including: Field methods of water hardness determination

(1969); Techniques for the tracing of subterranean drainage (1969);The determination of the infiltration capacity of field soils using thecylinder infiltrometer (1970); The use of the Woodhead sea bed drifter(1970); A method for the direct measurement of erosion on rocksurfaces (1970); Techniques of till fabric analysis (1970); Field methodfor hillslope description (1971); The measurement of soil frost-heave inthe field (1971); Slope profile survey (1974); Electrochemical andfluorometric tracer techniques for streams (1974); The measurement ofsoil moisture (1974); Drainage Basin Morphometry (1975)

1971- IBG Special Publications Slopes: form and process (1971); Polar geomorphology (1974); Fluvialprocesses in small instrumented watersheds in the British Isles (1974);Progress in geomorphology (1974)

1972- Conference Proceedings and Books Including: Spatial Analysis in Geomorphology (1972); The UnquietLandscape (1974); Nearshore Dynamics and Sedimentation (1975);River Channel Changes (1977); Geomorphology: Present Problems andFuture Prospects (1978); Geomorphological Techniques (1980);Timescales in Geomorphology (1980); Geomorphology inEnvironmental Planning (1988); Floods: Hydrological, Sedimentologicaland Geomorphological Implications (1989); Soil Erosion on AgriculturalLand (1990); Vegetation and Erosion (1990); Lowland Floodplain Rivers(1992); Rock Weathering and Landform Evolution (1994);Geomorphology and Groundwater (1995); Landform Monitoring,Modelling and Analysis (1998); Tracers in Geomorphology (2000) ;Geomorphological Processes and Landscape Change: Britain in theLast 1000 Years (2001)

1997- Classic Landform Guides published by theGeographical Association in conjunctionwith the BGRG

Classic Glacial Landforms of Snowdonia (1997); and 15 other titles

2010- Geomorphological Techniques (Online Edition) Comprehensive, updated and online version of GeomorphologicalTechniques organized in five sections: Composition of Earth Materials;Topographic and Spatial Analysis; Processes, Forms and Materials inSpecific Environments; Long-term Environmental Change (datingtechniques, etc.); Modelling Geomorphic Systems

477COMMUNICATING GEOMORPHOLOGY

cumbersome through manually-operated exchanges. Manygeomorphologists attended annual meetings of the Institute ofBritish Geographers (founded in 1935) and these meetingswere important, especially in developing linkages withhydrology and quantitative methods, and in initiating publica-tions (e.g. Table I). In the 1960s, lone geomorphologists in whatwere then smaller institutions could be quite isolated. Before theera of relatively cheap air travel, it was also less easy to attendinternational meetings in person, and national meetings, includ-ing field meetings, were of considerable importance. The finalmanuscripts for books and articles were prepared manually byprofessional typists, and diagrams were hand-drawn.

Drivers of Change in GeomorphologicalCommunications

Since the 1960s, the location and position of geomorphology inhigher education has changed. First, the global expansion ofhigher education has resulted in many institutions housingteams of geomorphologists, not only in Geography depart-ments (although this is still predominantly the case in Europeand Canada) but also in Earth Science departments (as iscommonly the case in the United States) and in new academicconfigurations created to include the discipline in a variety ofways. The geomorphological community of BSG membershas changed significantly since the inception of the BGRG,

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

with more postgraduate (31% in 2013), postdoctoral andoverseas (10% in 2013) members. It has become increasinglyeasy to collaborate within institutions in contexts with namessuch as ‘geosciences’ and ‘earth system science’ within whichgeomorphology has an important role to play.

Second, as the activities and size of learned societies like theBGRG/BSG have grown (Tables II, IV), the needs for, and typeof, academic interaction have changed. Conferences havebecome increasingly international, following on from the firstInternational Geomorphology Conference held in Manchesterin 1985 but also via the renaissance of geomorphology at theAmerican Geophysical Union (AGU) and, much more recently,its growth as a discipline separate from hydrology at theEuropean Geosciences Union (EGU). Ironically, parallel withthis growing sense of ‘geomorphological identity’ has beenthe growth of multidisciplinary collaboration with a muchwider discipline set (e.g. with ecologists, climatologists, glaciol-ogists, hydrologists) coupled with a sense that geomorpholo-gists not only go overseas to research unique landscapes, butthey also go overseas to collaborate and tell others, throughinternational conferences, about these landscapes. Clearly,learned societies have to reflect upon how their activitiessituate themselves in the context of this internationalizationand multidisciplinary communication.

Third, the means of communication have become faster,easier and technically more sophisticated. This includes theonline availability of publications and near immediatemessaging with manuscript, image or data file attachments.

Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 39, 476–486 (2014)

TableII.

Contentan

alysisofEarthSu

rfaceProcesses

andLandform

s

Pap

ers

Year

Short

Authors

UKAuthors

UKfie

ldstudies

Tech

niques

important

Ext.Fu

nding

cited

EndUser

Commission

edAuthorNot

geomorphologist

1980

20

12

47(1.47)

24(51.1%)

12

116(18.8%)

16

1990

48

16

118(1.84)

37(31.4%)

71

15(23.4%)

010

2000

87

9242(2.52)

145(59.9%)

816

37(38.5%)

14

2010

144

19

523(3.40)

81(15.5%)

10

51

100(61.3%)

056

Note:Figu

resin

bracketsgive

averagenumber

ofau

thors

andthepercentage

ofau

thors,an

dwheretech

niques

areim

portanttheseincludedatingbyoptic

ally

stim

ulatedluminescenc

e(O

SL),remote

sensingan

dgeom

grap

hical

inform

ationsystem

s.

478 K. J. GREGORY ET AL.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ESPL publishes accepted papers on the internet, before typeset-ting, as soon as they are accepted. Paper refereeing is no longerin the hands of few individuals because the Internet allowsinteractive public discussion of papers before review (e.g.the new Earth Surface Dynamics journal). The project websitehas become a norm in geomorphological projects (e.g. www.brighton.ac.uk/columbia; www.stelar-s2s.org; http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/iges/research-groups/centre-glaciology/research-intro/britice-model/) allowing for dissemination of previously-unpublishedmaterial (e.g. copies of presentations). In the UK, pressure fromthe Research Councils now means that from 1 May 2015,the majority of the data created, recorded and used by re-searchers (e.g. models and software, results of experiments andsimulations, fieldwork observations, surveys, images) will befreely available for download, but more crucially, be amenablefor data mining (cf. http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/about/standards/researchdata/Pages/policyframework.aspx). Thus, the interna-tionalization is not just physical, but also technical, allowingthe global population to participate. English has become theglobal language for scientific communication. Internationalcollaboration and communication for research projects ingeomorphology follows the trend towards globalization thathas been a feature common to many human endeavours. TheInternet has facilitated globalization, standardization of researchmodes and evaluation, reducing the inward focus of nationalschools of geoscience hampered by language and communica-tion barriers (Marriner et al., 2010).

Fourth, the nature of Geomorphological research has alsobeen transformed. Technical requirements and expertise nowinvolve extensive use of laboratory equipment (for example insample dating, chemical analysis or in physical experimenta-tion or simulation). The use of remote sensing techniques andcomputer modelling also require both expertise and high-performance facilities. Field research makes increasing use ofsystems with an advanced physical basis, such as geophysics(e.g. ground penetrating radar) or laser technologies (e.g.terrestrial laser scanning, TLS). It can be argued that since1960 the whole science of Geomorphology has changeddramatically, reminiscent of the way in which Chemistry andPhysics were changed by the technological breakthroughs inthe early twentieth century (Gregory, 2013). Technologicalchanges have directed many geomorphologists towards morespecialist conferences, new thematic journals and newresearch communities in increasingly multidisciplinary con-texts. This in turn has affected the nature and pattern of commu-nication - who wants to communicate with whom - and theextent to which broad subject-wide communication remainspossible at the highest level.

Fifth, funding support in a number of countries, including theUK, is also now rather different, being increasingly client-focused and concerned with how results are disseminated. Inthe UK, for example, rather than the quinquennial funding touniversity institutions in the 1960s, research is much moreproject-focused and financed through competition for externalfunding [for example via the Natural Environment ResearchCouncil (NERC), the European Union (EU) project funding, orcommercial sponsorship]. In 2011–2012, NERC funded 215 pro-jects (£42M) in its Standard and Small Grant Schemes, with anapplicant success rate of about 17%. Such projects have to becosted for their full financial impact upon an institution (e.g.the time that employees of the University will spend upon theproject as well as new staff who will be employed on the pro-ject), and building costs, even if only 80% of these full costsare funded. Major equipment purchases are now effectivelycapped at £10 000. The NERC does not include Geomorphologyas one of its 51 key ‘science areas’ but there are relevantdescriptors including ‘earth surface processes’ and ‘sediments

Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 39, 476–486 (2014)

479COMMUNICATING GEOMORPHOLOGY

and sedimentary processes’. The NERC is consideringestablishing five thematic review committees with around 45topic descriptors, thus providing an opportunity for geomorphol-ogy to feature in its own right within a stable committeestructure. The situation in the UK is very different to the UnitedStates where in the National Science Foundation (NSF), geomor-phology does have its own identity and funding programmes andis housed under the ‘Earth Sciences’ theme and further under the‘Surface Earth Processes Section’ and then the ‘Geomorphologyand Land Use Dynamics Programme’ (http://www.nsf.gov/funding). The NSF has full-time programme managers andrecently advertised for a Section Head of Surface Earth Processes(https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/342745000). Anupshot of all this is that the nature of research, and to an extenthow it is reported, has become much more client-based.Financial support has increasingly become dependent ontargeted objectives and on value-for-money appraisal, and theseare commonly set and identified externally through the researchcouncils and other organizations. At the heart of NERC’s sciencestrategy (published in November 2007) are plans to deliver thescience needed to provide solutions to the global environmentalchallenges that the world is facing today and will face in thefuture. NERC has identified seven themes (Thematic Action Plansor TAPs) under which this science will be delivered. The termgeomorphology does not feature in any of the TAP descriptors(www.nerc.ac.uk/research/themes) yet they include topics suchas ‘Earth system sciences’ and ‘natural hazards’). The NERC willannounce the fourth phase of TAPS in 2013 and has recentlyinvested £5.2M in a special topic of ‘Flooding from IntenseRainfall’ (http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/flooding/events/ao.asp) that frequently mentions hydro-morphologicalprocesses but not geomorphology per se. It seems ‘Big team’grant applications are now frequently using geomorphologyto provide the answer rather than being explicitly aboutgeomorphology.Sixth, national governments have become progressively

more active in the assessment of University research activitiesso as to justify the allocation of scarce public resources. TheUK was the benchmark in introducing such evaluation withits 1986 Research Assessment Exercise, but a whole host ofother countries have embarked upon the evaluation of researchpeformance, including Australia, Belgium, France, Ireland,Norway, the Netherlands and New Zealand, albeit in a rangeof different ways and with variable implications for resourceallocation. Central to many of these is the need to demonstrateinternational recognition, something that has profound impli-cations for how we view communication. Further, it is notsuprising that because these kinds of assessment are tied toresource allocation, and because the latter can have a profoundimpact upon institutions, research assessment has become acritical activity in the management of higher education.Researchers as individuals are also now subject to professionalappraisal. Status, promotion prospects and future researchsupport depend on publication output and citation, togetherwith the levels of external funding received. Many universitieshave expanded their research administration so as to find waysof raising their research performance and hence resourceallocation. In some cases, notably in the UK, end-userrequirements have come to the fore, with research assessmentrequiring demonstration of research impact on more than just‘the academy’ (in the sense of institutional academic fields ofscience and scholarship). Thus, parallel with the shift toproject-based funding described earlier has been a new set ofsystems for judging the impact of those projects beyond theacademy: the advent of ‘Pathways to Impact’ in the UK (RCUK:http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/application/pathwaystoimpact.asp) and ‘Data Management Plans’ in the United States (NSF:

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

http://www.nsf.gov/eng/general/dmp.jsp) together with empha-sis on broader impacts now make it compulsory to disseminateand share results of research with academic, industry and thegeneral public. This is a particularly interesting context forgeomorphology because some, though not all, geomorpholog-ical research is clearly highly relevant to end-users (e.g. hazardassessment and mitigation; sustainable river and catchmentmanagement). Geomorphology needs to raise its profile incontributing to the major questions in society and to living withenvironmental change (e.g. http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/lwec/).

Finally, and reflecting the internationalization that is implicitin much of the earlier mentioned, we have seen the develop-ment of ways of quantifying international research impactlargely through what can be described as ‘digital counting’. Inrelation to publications, this is delivered through systems likethe Institute for Scientific Information (ISI’s) Web of Knowledgeor Google Scholar. Because information circulates in a digitalform, it can be tracked automatically and counted throughDigital Object Identifiers. Both journals and authors can trackthe number of times their work is cited. Indices like the journal“Impact Factor”, article citation rate and author “H-index” havebecome a new kind of currency against which communicationsare judged (e.g. Table III). These judgements are both enabledby the drivers described earlier (e.g. the digitalization ofcommunication) but also in turn sustain them and reinforcethem. We are moving from a set of indicators that might helpresource allocation, to targets that actually affect the practiceof individual geomorphologists (e.g. the use of journal ImpactFactors in deciding where to submit a research article), in waysthat can undermine the value of those indicators themselves.No professional geomorphologist can ignore the need tocommunicate in the particular formats that are likely to affectcareer prospects.

Changing Communications

Taking all the earlier changes together, it is clear that geomor-phologists now work in national, institutional and personalresearch and training contexts that are very different from thoseof 50 years ago. Global disciplinary growth contexts aredemonstrated by the 20 national societies that exist (Gregoryand Goudie, 2011, table 1.3), by the 38 journals that includegeomorphological papers (2011, table 1.4), and by the manysub-branches of the discipline (24 in 2011, table 1.5) that havebeen developed. How has all this been reflected in the natureof geomorphological communications and what are thechallenges and opportunities that result?

Communicating geomorphology beyondthe academy

First, there is no doubt that geomorphology as a discipline hasbecome more professionalized. It has to demonstrate itsrelevance beyond the academy, communicating what it isand why it is important. In the UK, some careers are nowlimited without chartered or professional status. In the UK, thechartered status C.Geog (Geomorph) accredited by the RGS isincreasingly being used to indicate the competence andexperience of those working in geomorphology. In the UnitedStates, there is no national geomorphology society [geomor-phology is organized as a Speciality Group of the Associationof American Geographers, a Division (Quaternary Geologyand Geomorphology) of the Geological Society of America,and a Focus Group (Earth and Planetary Surface Processes)

Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 39, 476–486 (2014)

Table III. Parallel journals with their dates of foundation; other international society /special-interest groups with geomorphology content

Year initiated JournalCitation indices where

available (for date)

Geomorphological Journals1938 Journal of Geomorphology (Discontinued after several

years publication)1956 Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie (Since 1960 has published

153 Supplementbände (Supplementary volumes) whichcover specific important topics (Schweizerbart SciencePublishers)

0.642 (2011)

1950 Revue de Géomorphologie Dynamique1960 Geomorphological Abstracts (At first published abstracts of

papers in geomorphology but later expanded to GeoAbstracts covering many related disciplines)

1973 Catena (Elsevier) 1.889, (5-yr) 2.5101977 Earth Surface Processes and Landforms (Wiley) 2.432 (2012)

(From 1977–1979 was Earth Surface Processes)1989 Geomorphology (Elsevier) 2.520, (5-yr) 2.879

Related FieldsHYDROLOGICAL 1963 Journal of Hydrology (Elsevier) 2.656, (5-yr) 3.271

1970 Nordic Hydrology (IWA Publishing; now HydrologyResearch)

0.976 (2011)

1971 Water, Air and Soil Pollution (Springer)1984 Regulated Rivers (Wiley)

1.625 (2011)

1987 Hydrological Processes (Wiley, now online only)Water Resources Research (AGU)

2.0282.4882.957, (5-yr) 3.246 (2011)

GLACIAL 1947 Journal of Glaciology (International GlaciologicalSociety)

2.301 (2012)

1977 Polar Geography and Geology (Taylor & Francis)1980 Annals of Glaciology (International GlaciologicalSociety)

1990 Permafrost and Periglacial Processes (Wiley)1990 Polar and Glaciological Abstracts (Cambridge)

2.5160.962

COASTAL 1973 Coastal Zone Management (Taylor & Francis) 1.194, (5-yr) 1.411 (2011)1984 Journal of Coastal Research

ARID Journal of Arid Environments (Elsevier) 2009 1.723, (5-yr) 2.134Aeolian Research (Elsevier) 2.179, (5-yr) 2.179

QUATERNARY 1970 Quaternary Research, (Elsevier) 3.126Quaternary Newsletter1972 Boreas (Wiley) 2.813, (5-yr) 2.989 (2009)1982 Quaternary Science Reviews (Elsevier) 4.245, (5-yr) 5.395 (2009)1985 Journal of Quaternary Science (Wiley)1990 (Quaternary Perspectives), Quaternary International(QRA)

3.11, 5-yr) 3.146 (2009)

1991 The Holocene (Sage)1.874, (5-yr) 2.002.594

PHYSICAL GEOLOGY 1973 Geology (GSA) 4.026, (5-yr) 4.7731975 Environmental Geology (Springer) 1.026 (2008)Earth Science Reviews (Elsevier) 6.594, (5-yr) 8.177

Journal Geological Society of London 3.297, (5-yr) 3.762 (2009)

Journal Geophysical Research-Earth Surface (AGU) 3.021 (2011)Sedimentology (Wiley-Blackwell) 2.114, (5-yr) 2.645 (2009)

1931 Journal of Sedimentary Research (SEPM)2.008, (5-yr) 2.657 (2009)

PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY 1977 Progress in Physical Geography (Sage) 3.3601980 Physical Geography (Bellwether Publishing)

ENVIRONMENT 1972 Science of the Total Environment (Elsevier) 3.286, (5-yr) 3.5361973 Catena (Elsevier)1976 Geo Journal (Springer)

1.889, (5-yr) 2.510

Environmental Management (Elsevier)3.245, (5-yr) 3.1616.868, (5-yr) 8.262

(Continues)

480 K. J. GREGORY ET AL.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 39, 476–486 (2014)

Table III. Continued

Year initiated JournalCitation indices where

available (for date)

1990 Global Environmental Change (Elsevier)1997 Global Environmental Outlook (UN annual review)Global and Planetary Change (Elsevier)

2.930, (5-yr) 3.918

Examples of established journals including geomorphological papers1818 American Journal of Science (US longest-running scientific

journal)3.607 (2003)

1831 Geographical Journal (Wiley) 1.9251890 Bulletin Geological Society of America (GSA) 3.637, (5-yr) 4.3271893 The Journal of Geology (University of Chicago) 2.71, (5-yr) 3.1172002 JGR Earth Surface 3.021 (2011)2008 Nature GeoscienceNational and international groups and societies1946 Swiss Geomorphological Society (SGS) National1955 Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division of the

Geological Society of AmericaNational

1960 British Geomorphological Research Group (BGRG)Became BSG in 2006

National

1970 Binghamton Geomorphology Symposium Annual meeting1983 Gilbert Club Annual meeting1989 International Association of Geomorphologists International2002 EGU – Geomorphology division International2008 AGU –Earth and Planetary Surface Processes (EPSP) group International

481COMMUNICATING GEOMORPHOLOGY

since 2008 of the AGU]. Professional status is achieved as aProfessional Geologist of the American Institute for ProfessionalGeologists by State licensing boards. Similarly, geomorpholo-gists are finding themselves involved increasingly in researchprojects that are often interdisciplinary but where thoseresearch projects are also active in the sense that they arebound to ongoing environmental management problems. Onegood example here is in relation to the role of geomorphologyin river restoration (e.g. Downs and Booth, 2011) where otherdisciplines, notably engineering, have found themselvesseriously unable to contribute the necessary science base foreffective river management. There is also growing pressure tocommunicate the results of geomorphic science, whether toprofessional practitioners or to the wider public, something thatcan be a challenge to those elements of geomorphic sciencethat, whilst nonetheless of importance to the academy, mayseem to be highly esoteric beyond it. This is illustrated byindications of how geomorphology can be utilized in relationto environmental challenges in Asia (http://www.geomorph.org/sp/arch/The_Science_of_Scenery.pdf) and by the interac-tive website that provides a single point of access to informa-tion on the geomorphology of Britain for the PhysicalLandscape of Britain and Northern Ireland Project (http://www.landscapebritain.org.uk)

The changing nature of geomorphologicalpublication within the academy

Against these kinds of changes, we can look at what is going onin more traditional outlets. Table II tracks some of the trendsvisible in the Society’s Journal, ESPL – the increasing volumeof articles published annually, increasing more than six times1980-2010, the growing joint authorship reflected in the 11fold increase of authors 1980–2010, betokening the collabora-tive nature of research projects involving varied expertise, andthe international affiliations of a growing number of journalauthors including some who may not describe themselves as

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

geomorphologists. In addition to the core journal outlets suchas the BSG’s journal ESPL (since 1976) and Geomorphology(since 1989) that are available, there have been many editedvolumes published particularly by Wiley but also by Elsevierand Sage, often recording papers and discussion at conferences(Table I). Many of these have involved a range of activities thatare cross-disciplinary or which incorporate geomorphology(e.g. in archaeology, sedimentology, the Quaternary, glaciol-ogy, project engineering, and in a range of environmentaland water sciences). Society members also present papers atlarge international fora such as the International Associationof Geomorphologists (IAG), AGU, EGU, the Association ofAmerica Geographers (AAG) and Geological Society ofAmerica (GSA), and at less regular meetings (with accompa-nying published volumes) by special-interest groups. Parallelorganizations and the range of journals that incorporategeomorphological research output are listed in Table III, indi-cating the substantial growth of outlets over the last 50 years.

Whilst discipline-specific journals like ESPL continue toflourish many of the drivers identified above have led to afundamental change in the way we publish and read geomor-phic science. When ESPL was established in 1976, there wasno digital diffusion. Reading geomorphology required aphysical visit to the library and browsing of the content of latestjournal issues or of a publication like Geo Abstracts. However,it was around about the same time that electronic mail (e-mail)began to move from within-organization servers to ones withbetween-organization capacity, and with the 1980s growth ofpersonal computing and the associated telephony, newcommunication possibilities emerged. Initially, e-mail alloweddiffusion of content, so changing the ways in which it waspossible to find out about new geomorphological research.From the late 1980s and early 1990s, the idea of content itselfbecoming digital was developed. The then BGRG discussedthis extensively at an Executive Committee Meeting in 1994,for example, leading to a proposal for a new online BGRGpublication. Developments in the publication industry over-took this, with ESPL becoming published both digitally and in

Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 39, 476–486 (2014)

482 K. J. GREGORY ET AL.

print from 1997, with digital accounting through systems likeISI developing in parallel. In the last decade, the appeal ofdigital publication has become the speed with which sciencecan be diffused and disseminated and, in theory, found. AtESPL, for instance, since 2005 all submitted manuscripts havebeen evaluated digitally. When accepted, a pre-proof versionof a research article is published, with a permanent DOI, imme-diately after acceptance. Under copyright restrictions, authorsare allowed to share their article personally with any interestedparty. Gone is the need to visit a library physically provided thereader has access to the right institutional subscription. Ineffect, communication has become fluid in the sense thatproducing a scientific article and disseminating it is much morerapid and much less constrained by physical parameters (e.g.printing, postage, etc.). What we choose to read has becomemuch less dependent on a physical library visit, or consider-ation of an electronically diffused Table of Contents, and muchmore dependent upon how an article is found by searchengines or is detailed in an Institutional Repository.When taken with the drivers identified earlier, notably the

pressure to publish, digital diffusion is having a profoundimpact upon how we find, use and produce geomorphicscience. Figure 1 shows an analysis of the ISI Web of Knowl-edge database for journal articles listed under the category‘Physical Geography’. The results of the analysis are dramatic,showing an exponential growth in the number of manuscriptspublished per year since the early 1960s. This curve reflectsthree parameters: (1) increase in the number of publicationslisted in databases like ISI; (2) growth in the number of publica-tions; (3) growth in the number of articles per publication (seeTable II for ESPL). Initially, this growth may have been anopportunity; there is more geomorphic science to read. Whereit is published may become less important because articles canbe found through search engines regardless of where they arepublished: if a geomorphologist publishes an article in thejournal of a very different community, it may still be found byother geomorphologists if the right phrases are used in thearticle title and/or abstract and/or keywords. However, thisview has three problems. First, it may be that as a result of thegrowth described in Figure 1, databases like ISI and GoogleScholar have reached the end of their useful life time. The sheervolume of material means that more general and inclusivesearches find too much material; overly specific ones misscritical papers. The problem is only becoming more acute.Some journals (Esurf) now allow their submitted manuscriptsto be discussed before they are published: if they are not thenaccepted, they are left as published in the Discussions

0

1000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

2000

3000

Num

ber

of p

aper

s pu

blis

hed

per

year

4000

5000

6000

Figure 1. The number of publications per year under the category‘Physical Geography’ since 1961, with an exponential curve fitted.Data from ISI Web of Knowledge. This figure is available in colouronline at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/espl

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

component of the journal. This will simply serve to augmentthe volume of geomorphology that we have to sift through, inthis case including papers that have not met the standardsrequired of the journal to which they were submitted. It alsocauses serious headaches for reviewers if Discussion papersthat remain published but not accepted are used by authorsto justify work in later manuscripts. Second, and ironically,the ‘old’ way of reading a journal’s contents page might havebeen much better at encouraging wider and interdisciplinarygeomorphic enquiry, simply because what was read was notconstrained by search terms but the journal back covers thatwe could inspect on library stands each month. We can nowfind much more, but what we do find is increasingly set bywhat we are looking for. Third, and perhaps most crucially forquestions of communication in geomorphology, is the loss ofgeomorphological identity that comes from reading acrosspublications by search terms rather than a small number ofdiscipline-based articles. If journals like ESPL played a role inbuilding and developing geomorphology as a discipline, thenthought needs to be given to how new forms of digital diffusionare undermining the traditional role that ESPL played.

The challenges that come from digital diffusion will no doubtevolve with an additional major issue: ‘Open Access’. Again,the drivers detailed earlier are contributing in various ways tothe Open Access debate: for instance, if public resources arescarce, why should institutions have to buy back the right toread the articles that their own employees have written? Ifdiffusion is digital, then institutional repositories in theoryprovide an easy and cheap means of diffusion, assuming thatthe associated materials can be intelligently found. As yet theOpen Access agenda is insufficiently stable for us to be ableto see what it might mean, exactly, for communication ingeomorphology, although some such as Hydrology and EarthSystem Sciences (HESS) and Earth Surface Dynamics (Esurf)are attracting interest. However, thus far, there has been littledevelopment of Open Access that is both ‘free-to-publish’ and‘free-to-read’; rather, there has been a shift away from institu-tions paying to read material towards authors paying either tosubmit material for consideration or to publish material whenaccepted. In effect, this is a move away from publisher risk (thata journal will not be purchased), towards author risk, notablyunder the ‘pay to submit’ model where the author must payregardless of the outcome of the manuscript evaluationprocess. The ‘pay to submit’ model is further complicated bythe observation, as noted earlier, that relatively little geomor-phological research is funded through research council typeprogrammes, such that the opportunity to secure the authorpays fees are not widely available to geomorphologists. In theUK, the financial burden of open access is mitigated by theResearch Councils providing funds to achieve online accessto peer-reviewed published research papers (£16M in 2013),but this only applies to Research Council funded research andstill only covers an expected 45% of the 10 165 outputs thatare forecast for 2013 (see http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUKOpenAccessPolicy.pdf). Three scenarios arelikely to follow with this shift in consumer and purchasingpower. First, as is already being seen in the social sciences,where it is hard for authors to ‘pay to submit’ substantial reduc-tions in submission costs may follow. Second, to counter authorrisk, some journals are shifting their manuscript evaluationcriteria away from an emphasis upon both scientific rigourand originality and towards scientific rigour alone. The inevita-ble result will be the publication of more and not less scienceand the reinforcement of the problems already implicit inFigure 1. This may be reinforced by the Discussion style ofopen review described earlier. Third, we can be sure that thiskind of shift will not only change the process of

Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 39, 476–486 (2014)

483COMMUNICATING GEOMORPHOLOGY

communication, who pays for it and when, but how we writeand perhaps even what we do. In the same way that HigherEducation institutions have come to try to manage researchquality, given that ‘pay-to-submit’ requires resource, such insti-tutions will almost certainly become increasingly involved indirecting how authors write and where they send their work.It is perhaps ironic that the ‘spirit’ of the Open Access agendamight actually translate into an evermore dirigiste form ofgeomorphological communication. This is a major issue forESPL as, in common with other learned societies, the BSGderives a considerable portion of its income from its flagshipjournal so that open access issues could be of major signifi-cance to its twenty-first century evolution.

Meetings of the academy

The third broad kind of challenge relates to the way we meet asa geomorphological community. Learned societies like the BSGcontinue to have to grapple with the problems posed by inter-nationalization (e.g. geomorphology-foci within organizationslike EGU and AGU as well as the specific development of theIAG), the opportunities that come from new forms of digitaldiffusion, and what all of this means for the membership andhow members meet. For instance, membership of the BSGmatters for sustaining activities and initiatives, more than itdoes financial resources. Membership of the BSG is relativelyinexpensive. Unlike EGU and AGU, whose meetings carry highregistration fees, there are no ‘overheads’ charged to the BSG’smeetings to subsidise its other activities. Much of the BSG’sincome comes from its journal so that, in addition to needingto guarantee the success of ESPL, the critical challenge for theSociety is to think about how its meetings, notably its annualmeeting which has traditionally been a national conference,develop and change to meet the needs of the twenty-firstcentury geomorphology community.The nature and form of meetings has changed over the last

50 years. Today, they involve a large number of short presenta-tions, either oral or increasingly as posters, with the number ofpapers presented much greater than was formerly the norm(Table IV). Oral PowerPoint presentations are of high visualquality, but their technical density (and sometimes imagecomplexity) and the presentation times available do not oftenallow very meaningful discussion. To ‘read a paper’ at a meet-ing may be professionally rewarding, but critical feedback anddiscussion of issues of the day are very limited – althoughTwitter and other social media methods of instant communica-tion and discussion are being increasingly used to generate

Table IV. Examples of number of papers presented at BSG meetings

Year Subject Lo

1975 Glacial and peri-glacial processesand landforms

Glasgow

1976 January River channel changes Lanchester1976 April Geomorphology: present problems

and future prospectsKing’s Coll

1994 Range of themes Birmingham2003 Range of themes Oxford2004 Geomorphology and Sustainability

(meeting with 30th IGC)Glasgow

2007 Geomorphology - a 2020 Vision. Birmingham2010 Challenges for Geomorphology London

2012 Are we putting the model cartbefore the data horse?

University

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

debate amongst the audience as illustrated recently at theBSG AGM in Nottingham (http://storify.com/WoodinRivers/british-society-for-geomorphology-annual-confernec). This isreinforced as papers are often restricted to as little as 12minutes presentation, perhaps not making optimal use of theopportunities now available for pre-circulation of papers.Poster presentations at meetings have greatly increased thevolume of material communicated, and provide the potentialfor more detailed one-to-one discussion, although they arenot always given a high profile. Some meetings haveintroduced new and welcome initiatives. The 2013 EGUGeneral Assembly introduced PICO (Presenting InteractiveCOntent) presentations, with presented material using touch-screen and swipe-access and combinations of ‘poster’ andoral deliveries (see http://www.egu2013.eu/pico.html). At theBSG’s 2012 Annual Meeting in Nottingham, a postgraduateworkshop provided editorial advice and feedback on paperpreparation for graduate students, involving the editor of ESPLand editors of two other journals (http://www.geograp-hypostgrads.com/bsg-2012-postgraduate-workshop/).

The challenge for national organizations like the BSG comesfrom the growth of international meetings with strong geomor-phological foci. There is a limit to how many meetings ascientist can attend, not just in terms of time, but also resource.The need to present internationally, as reflected in many of thedrivers described earlier, means that meetings like the EGU andthe AGU have become priorities for young geomorphologists,with national meetings sometimes in second place. Clearly thisrequires societies like the BSG to reflect upon the raison d’êtrefor their annual (and other) meetings as part of thinking throughtheir wider communication strategies.

Ways Forward for CommunicatingGeomorphology

The kinds of issues described earlier prompt us to suggestfurther and more widespread discussion on appropriate futureroles for national Societies in serving the communication needsof their members, and for ensuring that Geomorphology as adiscipline communicates its findings and expertise to a widerscientific, professional and public audience. Following the2006 name and other changes, the BSG developed an exten-sive strategic plan, accepted after considerable discussion bythe AGM in 2009. But the continued growth of geomorphologywithin the EGU, AGU and IAG, the changing nature of publish-ing, together with the increasing pressure for open access tojournal content and the wider ‘impact’ agenda make it

cation Number of papers

13, 13 per day

Polytechnic 13, 13 per dayege London 18 over 3.5 days, 5.14 per day

26 over 1.5 days, 17 per day, + 21 posters47 over 2.5 days, 18.8 per day91 papers in 4 days, 22.8 per day+ 65 posters

46 papers in 3 days, 15.3 per day30 papers in 2.5.days, 12 per day+ anniversary debate +7 posters

of Nottingham 46 papers over 2 days, 23 per day, + 18 posters

Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 39, 476–486 (2014)

484 K. J. GREGORY ET AL.

appropriate to re-consider the BSG’s future role. Members ofthe BSG were invited to submit comments related to theformulation of a succinct strategy and action plan (www.-geomorphology.org.uk), raising issues which apply to geomor-phology more generally.The question of scientific communication has been the

subject of recent widespread debate. For example a StanfordUniversity Libraries Colloquium (on Rethinking the Future ofScientific Communication, 8–9 March 2012) concluded that‘recent revolutions in information technology allow researchersmore access to more parts of the scholarly communicationpipeline, from informal discussion in blogs and journal clubs,to electronic dissemination of grey literature, to online datasets, to manuscript submission, peer review, publication, andpost-publication commentary and revision’. They saw thechallenge as one to ‘create continuity across the entire ecosys-tem, and give the scientific community the ability to observe orparticipate wherever they need to in that ecosystem’. Thechallenge of more information, and the need for moreconnected information, require better filtering and improve-ment in the way that scholars interact or access the productsof scholarly discourse all along the pipeline. Previously aMASIS Expert Group setup by the European Commission(2009) had noted how the World Wide Web offers the possibil-ity of bypassing traditional ways of doing science communica-tion without intermediary actors, and in a two way interaction,although this poses a challenge to both scientist and non-scientist. There are many implications for communicating thecharacter of geomorphology externally to the general publicbut internally the need still remains for societies to meet therequirements of their members.Thus several questions need to be addressed in the way

that other organizations have identified challenges and focifor research initiatives (e.g. NRC, 2009, Landscapes on theEdge; NSF sustainability; AGI http://www.agiweb.org/gap/CriticalNeeds2012.pdf). Set within an international andmultidisciplinary context, there is a need to focus upon thechanging requirements of communication with and betweenmembers – an issue which has to be addressed by all societies.

Table V. Challenges/opportunities for societies in response to the twenty-fir

Activities Internal to society

Research Shorter meetingsDevelopment of different formats for presentationmeetings – in view of communication methods navailable is a 10, 15, 20minute presentation necess(with insufficient time for questions and realdiscussion?). Should abstracts/papers be availableadvance, presentations limited to five minutes wdiscussion formats led by discussant, or have grouppapers the basis for theme discussion?

Keynote speakers to provide paper in advance so tpresentation is of key issues, then audience hasopportunity to interact with specialists.

‘Meetings’ via electronic media including webinarsFoster grant applications to research councilsTake advantage of funding base to invite keynote and otspeakers

Educational PG awareness and involvementFacebook, Twitter, LinkedinFixed term working groups

Professional Professional standardsCodes of PracticeFellowship of BSG

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Of the many questions which may be suggested those ofgeneral relevance can be envisaged under the research,educational and professional categories (Table V) embracedin the objectives of organizations like the BSG (www.geomor-phology.org.uk) . Addressing such questions could sustain orincrease membership. In view of the recent intensification ofthe role of the EGU and the AGU and of other multidisciplinaryorganizations what do members require of national organiza-tions such as the BSG dedicated to advancing the science ofgeomorphology?

Table VI identifies a set of requirements, many which will beof no surprise to readers of this article. What is of moreimportance is how these requirements are mapped on to thedrivers described earlier and these are questions, internally, thatorganizations like the BSG must answer.

In terms of research focus there is a need to consider whatcan be done to identify research topics, collectively to seekfunding and sponsorship, and then to communicate results.With the new social media available should conferenceformats be designed in a more innovative way to encourageparticipation and discussion, including webinars? For educa-tional purposes is it desirable to enhance the ways in whichpostgraduates familiarize themselves with the profession, meetand understand the major players, and become informed aboutcurrent trends and activities? All members need to be informedabout current trends, to have opportunities to share experienceand to have early notification of imminent developments.Professional internal functions could require establishingprofessional standards, codes of practice, possibly recognizedby Fellowship status. This could enhance the ways in whichthe geomorphologist and geomorphology undertake profes-sional applications.

In communicating geomorphology to external communities,for research there are always opportunities for combinedmeetings with partners, and an ongoing requirement is to invitenon-members to attend and participate in meetings so that theycan appreciate the current status of geomorphology and itspotential. Educational opportunities include ways in whichmodern geomorphology can be disseminated to schools and

st century environment and the availability of social media

External and impact

Meetings combined with partners – to minimize number ofmeetings to attend and to encourage interaction ofgroups of scientists.

atowary

iniths of

Attract related or other professionals to meetings, to inform(Research Councils, Government organizations), todemonstrate what geomorphology can contribute.

hat

her

Teaching and geomorphological communitiesC.Geog (Geomorph)

Communicate geomorphological research findings andknowledge to professionals and the public

Provide sessions of relevance to charteredGeomorphologists

Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 39, 476–486 (2014)

Table VI. Ways in which expediting society objectives have changed

Society objectives

Methods

Twentieth century Twenty-first century

Regular communications to members toalert them to pertinent developments

Newsletter Website, Facebook, Twitter blog

Helping communication between members AGM and other meetings Now also achieved through social mediasites, LinkedinMail and telephone

Geomorphology blogs (e.g. Landslides by D.Petley hosted by AGU)

Wiki approaches, e.g. for techniquesMembership details available on database toall members

Presentation and publication ofpapers

Read at meetings or published in journal Circulated electronically, Open accessjournal publication

Panel discussions, papers availableelectronically and focus on discussion

Postgraduate learning and support,and interaction with existing players

AGM and other meetings Postgraduate workshopsPostgraduate workshops

Themed high level research discussions Field meetings at significant sitesor areas or visits to laboratory facilities

Video conferencingGeomorphology blogs and wiki approaches

Foster and initiate group researchand innovative development,and the generation of researchideas, both pre- and post-publication

Working group meetings Communication utilizing collaborativetechnologies more extensively such asblogs and websites that individuals canadd to and edit

Provision and fostering of research fundingincluding small grants, pump priming

Submissions and processing by post Submissions and processing online andby e-mail

Recognize distinguished contributionsby awards

Nominations by post,announcements in journals

Nominations online and by e-mailand announcements by websites, e-mail

Proselytize geomorphology, raise externalawareness of the discipline and itspotential, provision for professionalgeomorphologists

Dissemination via professional training – inteaching geomorphology in schools andhigher education, themed meetings

CPD training, field sessions,equipment demos

Website hosting and website creationgeomorphological profiles/imagesCGeog(Geomorph)

Enhancement of political and publicawareness of geomorphology

Popular books TV programmesYouTube videosContributions to foresight groups

Future postgraduate training andinvolvement of the next generationof geomorphologists

Course provision Course provided but supported byFacebook, Twitter blog and visual media

485COMMUNICATING GEOMORPHOLOGY

teachers, to professionals who need (knowingly or otherwise)geomorphology for their work, and to the general public, forexample making Geomorphological Techniques chapters andschools geomorphology packs available (www.geomorphol-ogy.org.uk/). This could be an integral part of an outreach func-tion to make Geomorphology much more visible (Tooth, 2009).Professional opportunities are two-way: incoming by encour-aging more professionals to engage with, and be involved in,the Society, and outgoing with the Society providing courses,updating, and services which professionals require. Both activ-ities would benefit from more explicit attention being given tothe increasing role that geomorphology can have in environ-mental management, conservation and planning. In the lightof the challenges in Table V it is possible to suggest how thesemay affect the objectives for a society by contrasting the waysin which each objective was expedited in the twentieth centurywith those that are now current (Table VI).

Conclusion

Substantial changes over the last half century mean that com-munication in geomorphology has become radically different,with the role of the internet, social media, and changingdissemination formats and requirements as major agents forrecent changes. Such changes, together with more

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

international organizations, multidisciplinary research, andthe intrusion of governments and others into academicpractice, mean that national societies now have to contemplatesignificantly different provision for their members. Major poten-tial and practical communication changes concern the needfor meetings with different formats, perhaps including shorterpresentation times, electronic availability of papers prior tothe meeting, and greater emphasis on facilitated discussion.There is a need to engage with and commit to open accesspublication and data availability. But there is also an existen-tial danger that national societies in responding (or otherwise)to recent changes risk gradual decline and the lack of asufficiently clear purpose. However vital opportunities androles also exist. These include a national proselytization ofthe benefits and impacts of geomorphology, its applicationat several educational levels and to the general public, theprovision of support for chartered and professional geomor-phologists, and fostering a sense of community amongstpostgraduate and postdoctoral geomorphologists. Such provi-sions are very much national requirements that cannot befulfilled by international organizations so that national socie-ties should respond to the challenges. Focusing on theseissues explicitly and clarifying Society objectives, can realizethe very considerable potential that exists for advancing thescience of geomorphology and improving the provision forsociety members in the twenty-first century.

Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 39, 476–486 (2014)

486 K. J. GREGORY ET AL.

ReferencesDowns PW, Booth DB. 2011. Geomorphology in environmental man-agement. In The SAGE Handbook of Geomorphology, Gregory KJ,Goudie AS (eds). Sage: London; 78–104.

Gregory KJ. 2013. The changing face of the Earth. Geography Review26(4): 16–19.

Gregory KJ, Brown EH. 1976. Landscape in the eye of the beholder.Geographical Magazine 49: 145–150.

Gregory KJ, Goudie AS. 2011. Introduction to the discipline of geomor-phology. In The SAGE Handbook of Geomorphology, Gregory KJ,Goudie AS (eds). Sage: London; 1–20.

Marriner N, Morhange C, Skrimshire S. 2010. Geoscience meets thefour horsemen? Tracking the rise of neocatastrophism. Global andPlanetary Change 74: 43–48.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

National Research Council (NRC). 2009. Landscapes on the Edge: NewHorizons for Research in Earth Surface Processes. Committee onChallenges and Opportunities in Earth Surface Processes, NationalResearch Council: Washington, DC.

MASIS Expert Group setup by the European Commission Report. 2009.Challenging Futures of Science in Society – Emerging trends andcutting-edge issues. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/sis/docs/sis_masis_report

Stanford University Libraries. 2012. Colloquium on Rethinking theFuture of Scientific Communication, 8–9 March. http://lib.stanford.edu/files/Colloquium.Summary.Final_.pdf

Tooth S. 2009. Invisible geomorphology. Earth Surface Processes andLandforms 34: 752–754.

Waters RS. 1958. Morphological mapping. Geography 43: 10–18.

Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 39, 476–486 (2014)