Geomorphological Fieldwork

1. Auflage 2014
ISBN: 978-0-444-63418-4
Verlag: Elsevier Science & Techn.
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, Band Volume 18, 286 Seiten

Reihe: Developments in Earth Surface Processes

Geomorphological Fieldwork addresses a topic that always remains popular within the geosciences and environmental science. More specifically, the volume conveys a growing legacy of field-based learning for young geomorphologists that can be used as a student book for field-based university courses and postgraduate research requiring fieldwork or field schools. The editors have much experience of field-based learning within geomorphology and extend this to physical geography. The topics covered are relevant to basic geomorphology as well as applied approaches in environmental and cultural geomorphology. The book integrates a physical-human approach to geography, but focuses on physical geography and geomorphology from an integrated field-based geoscience perspective. - Addresses fluvial and karst landscapes in depth - Focuses on field-based learning as well as educational geomorphology - Conveys experiential knowledge in international contexts

Autoren/Hrsg.

Leseproben

Chapter 2 Why Fieldwork?
Casey D. Allen, [e-mail]    Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Denver, Colorado, USA Abstract
For centuries, fieldwork has been geomorphology’s heart, entwined with observation and imagination, bound to its place in space by practitioners. Yet nowadays fieldwork often gets tossed along the wayside as a reason for holiday (or similar experience), especially when advanced GIScience and new laboratory applications/techniques are readily available. However, as this chapter outlines, fieldwork – as a concept and endeavor – continues to enliven geomorphology as a discipline and should be incorporated into pedagogical strategies, lest it become forgotten. Fieldwork remains a valuable commodity in geomorphology, just as fieldwork practitioners remain important components of the discipline (and science more generally). Fieldwork helps verify data/hypotheses, enhances sense of place, generates excitement for the discipline in upcoming generations, functions as a bridge between/across disciplines, and helps challenge established paradigms. It should remain at the forefront of geomorphology. Keywords
fieldwork sense of place pedagogy tyranny of the majority in science 2.1. Introduction
Observation and imagination are two binding forces behind fieldwork and geomorphology. From its beginnings as a discipline, geomorphology has seemingly always been intertwined with the exploratory sciences and fieldwork (Nielsen, 2012). Though some may suggest the relationship superficial, it is in conducting geomorphological fieldwork that observation and theory become “symbiotic” (Rhoads and Thorn, 1996, p. 51). Tying in imagination to the symbiosis, Inkpen and Wilson (2013, p. 133) noted, “…the role of imagination in deciphering reality…is one that should be acknowledged and studied.” During the formative years of geomorphology, nearly all discoveries, every encounter with a landscape, was “unfamiliar” as Inkpen and Wilson (2013, p. 133) remind the scientist, and interpreting those landscapes into pertinent information required strong creativity and imagination. Baker and Twidale (1991) similarly noted that when the discipline was fledgling, new geomorphologists used their creativity to interpret the sometimes bizarre landscapes they encountered. Yet when in the field, they remind geomorphologists, observation remains a powerful tool, even if the ability is now a characteristic often lacking in geomorphology. But that ability alone, no matter how keen and developed, requires interpretation, which in turn often requires dedicated imagination to generate a useful explanation, and that may need to change depending on a field person’s contexts (Inkpen and Wilson, 2013). In each field encounter, the geomorphologist becomes a scientific witness, akin to their “gentlemen” counterparts in seventeenth century England (Shapin, 2010, p. 73). This important science component a few hundred years ago – witness of an experiment by a credible and reliable source – still remains embedded in science today, though such “gentlemen” are now called referees, editors, and (anonymous) peer-reviewers, irrespective of whether they have been in the field or not. Likewise, as Hall (2006) (see also Section 3 in Dorn et al. (2013)) has observed so astutely, those incorporating fieldwork should also strive for being objective, and resist hyper-focusing, lest they remain in the same paradigm when all evidence might point to the contrary. Further, as modeling gains more presence within the discipline, fieldwork often remains relegated as a side note, or as Twidale (1996, p. 373) suggested, “…an excuse for a holiday…” Those conducting research “in the field” however, and whose research contains strong field components, know that field-based data gathering, analysis, explanation, and interpretation often go well beyond modeling. Ground truthing can also help in rectifying mismatched spatial and temporal datasets, since some components of the natural world cannot be modeled. Fieldwork then remains necessary to inform those geomorphologic models (Mol and Viles, 2012; Inkpen et al., 2012; Bowker et al., 2008; Jennings and Huber, 2003; Wilson and Burrough, 1999; Convey, 1994; Baker, 1987; Box, 1981; Johnson et al., 2005), forcing researchers to think outside personal models and biases when gathering new data. Certainly fieldwork in geomorphology has ancillary benefits such as enhancing teaching practices – what budding geomorphologist does not like to explore outside? (Dorn et al., 2013; Allen, 2011a; Kent et al., 1997). However, it also has the power to strengthen subfield and interdisciplinary relationships (Allen, 2011b; Scott et al., 2006; Warburton and Higgitt, 1997) by verifying and enhancing form-process linkages and connections (Church, 2013; Allen and Lukinbeal, 2011; Viles et al., 2008). More important for the discipline of geomorphology, however, fieldwork can aid in challenging long-held theories based on casual and/or nonfield observations, or those entrenched ideas merely taken for granted (Hall et al., 2012; Hall and Thorn, 2011; Bracken and Wainwright, 2006; Schaffer, 1997; Bretz, 1923; Wegener, 1920), and help overcome these perceived weaknesses (lack of objectivity or a hyperfocus, for example). Using several examples of geomorphologic field-based inquiry related to the aforementioned topics, this chapter elaborates on why fieldwork remains an important facet of the discipline. But this chapter also serves as a plea of sorts to geomorphologists, regardless of subfield specialty: continue including fieldwork in research and teaching (for those that already do), or begin incorporating fieldwork into research programs and add it to pedagogy (for those who do not). 2.2. Wither fieldwork? the necessity of “ground truthing” and the importance of place
Although increasingly finer resolution technology and access to remotely-sensed data becomes easier, the perceived need for fieldwork (in terms of ground truthing) decreases. Why endure potentially arduous environments, long stays away from home, and get muddy, experience frostbite or hypothermia, or encounter dehydration and sunburn, when gathering data remotely is so easily achieved? Technologies that allow for such landform-process interactions as 3-D renderings of mass-wasting events, real-time mapping of earthquakes, LIDAR, and time-lapse photography of coastal retreat are exciting. Even advanced laboratory techniques such as scanning electron microscopy, backscatter microscopes, and varnish microlaminations allow us to see the landscape in nanometer size, peering into a whole new universe of understanding, sometimes helping us understand past environments and perhaps prepare for the future. Yet despite these advancements in landform processes and cross-scalar underpinnings, popular sentiment regarding fieldwork, especially by those who do it, centers on anecdotal evidence that while fieldwork is critical to geomorphology, it commonly gets rejected or neglected in favor of technological and laboratory-heavy disciplinary expansions. What these often magical-seeming hi-tech marvels overlook, however, is that each of them began with some type of fieldwork and, to be further validated as a model and gain stronger credibility, verification on the ground becomes necessary. And that is one component of geomorphological fieldwork’s great importance: ground truthing. Without on-the-ground verification, mistakes in data may occur. For example, mismatched imagery may occur in a final product (Fig. 2.1), incorrect distances might be measured due to imperceptible-from-the-image topography, thalweg depth is difficult to measure, paleoflood imbrications may be overlooked, damage from mass-wasting events might be miscalculated or dismissed, and the list continues. In each instance, potential errors could be thwarted and/or corrected by ground truthing. The question that when the ground truthing occurs remains irrelevant, as long as it happens – sometimes ground truthing after the fact, perhaps for model/data verification might be the best course of action for a research plan; sometimes it is planned in advance. In any case, the importance of ground truthing cannot be understated. It needs to transpire. Figure 2.1 An image from Google Maps displaying the northern rain forest in Grenada, West Indies. Misaligned imagery, denoted by rectangles, suggests some kind of rigid topographic barrier. This is not the case, as the topography is uniformly mountainous in the region. Similar satellite and aerial misalignments occur frequently, but more so with commercially available (and more affordable) imagery. Misrepresentations like these, however, demonstrate the need for ground truthing (and fieldwork), especially when using these technologies to identify potential study sites or, more importantly, analyze a region. Instigators of modern geomorphology like W.M. Davis and G.K. Gilbert understood this concept precisely, and certainly considered ground...