Comment on Recasting geomorphology as a landscape science by Slaymaker et al. (2021)

Slaymaker et al. (2021) argue that geomorphology is poorly known and has little influence outside its practitioners and therefore should be recast as both a geoscience and a landscape science. The only evidence they evince for the claim about the lack of influence of geomorphology is that it is not evident in the publications from international environmental programs. This is far from a convincing case and does not support their view that geomorphology should be recast. We contend that most geomorphological influence is at the national, regional to local scale, not internationally. Our main concern with their proposal is however that a change of language could confuse potential users and students, with the opposite effect to what they wish. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Automated summary

Researchers argue that geomorphology is poorly known and propose to reposition it as a geoscience and a landscape science, using the lack of evidence in international environmental programs as support. However, they fail to recognize that geomorphology's influence lies more at the national, regional, and local scale, and changing the language may confuse potential users and students.