Stormy Geomorphology

Stormy Geomorphology

 – written by James Tempest (University of Cambridge), Larissa A. Naylor (University of Glasgow), Tom Spencer and Iris Möller (University of Cambridge) –

Extreme storm and flood events are occurring with increasing frequency and intensity across the globe causing significant geomorphic change throughout many landscapes often with detrimental impacts on local populations.

Boat washed onto shore following major storm surge in N. Norfolk, U.K. (credits: James Tempest)

In 2014 an international meeting hosted by the Royal Geographical Society and British Society for Geomorphology brought together world-leading experts in this field to showcase the fundamental role geomorphology plays in the age of extremes. The outcomes of the meeting were published in a special issue of Earth Surface Processes and Landforms which included a State of Science paper on this topic (see below). These papers highlighted how geomorphic contributions can enhance our ability to predict, measure and manage the landscape to be more resilient to effects of extreme events.

Predicting extreme hydrological events are an important area of research but such forecasts are often limited by the short length of current river flow records which only extend to the mid 20th Century. Palaeogeomorphology studies resolve such issues by reconstructing historical flood events thereby extending the flood record further back in time to capture these extreme events. Such records not only improve the forecasting of extreme events by providing models with much needed additional data but also allow us to interpret the interactions between geomorphic dynamics, human impacts and changes in climate regimes.

Extreme events witnessed over recent years have raised awareness of policy-makers and practitioners about the important role that geomorphology can play in both managing the landscape and human impacts to these extreme events. Geomorphic processes can both mediate and increase the geomorphological impacts of extreme events, influencing societal risk. This includes determining the resilience and recovery of landscapes, such as barrier islands, to extreme events that may offer some form of natural flood defence. In addition, geomorphological science is now regularly used to deliver nature-based management approaches, such as the creation of coastal wetlands. Such approaches are delivering more sustainable forms of flood and storm defence that are effective in reducing damage and destruction brought about by extreme events.

Sea-defence repair and re-distribution of sediments at Chesil Beach, U.K. following 2014 storms (credits: James Tempest)

Geomorphological science is undoubtedly improving our understanding of flood risk through extreme events yet it is still under-appreciated and under-utilised by the engineering community and policy-makers. Future climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction strategies must consider geomorphology as an important component in determining and managing the response of landscapes in order to protect human assets in an age of extreme flood and storm events.


 – written by James Tempest (University of Cambridge), Larissa A. Naylor (University of Glasgow), Tom Spencer and Iris Möller (University of Cambridge) –

European Critical Physical Geography – or how power relations can be considered during research set ups

– written by Christian Schneider  (University of Leipzig) and Sabine Kraushaar (University of Vienna) –

Group of Critical Physical Geography Scientist from around Europe. Organizers left frist row: Prof. Rebecca Lave (Indiana University) and behind her Prof. Stuart Lane (Université de Lausanne).

In March this year the first European Critical Physical Geography (CPG) Workshop took place in Berlin bringing together 19 scholars from different European and American research institutions and backgrounds under the lead of  Rebecca Lave and Stuart Lane and the financial support by their affiliations Indiana University and the Université de Lausanne.

The workshop intended to:

(i) support the exchange between scientists who follow – or want to follow – a critical approach in their research,

(ii) create a legible base for their proposals and

(iii) promote the ideas.

But let’s start slowly first – What is CPG?

CPG research aims at “critical attention to power relations with deep knowledge of biophysical science or technology in the service of social and environmental transformation” (Lave et al. 2013).

So far scholars who consider themselves part of CPG are engaged in hydrological modeling, geomorphology, critiques on ecosystem services assessments, food sciences, timber production and land use change assessments. Most of the works are influenced by political ecology, science and technology studies, integrative approaches in geography as well as systems theory and critical approaches from political and human geography.

Additionally the workshop made clear that for many scholars in Europe CPG means as well:

  • a space to discuss scientific and activist approaches to dismantle power relations embodied in biophysical systems and/or the perspectives on as well the use of biophysical systems, rather than a new scientific discipline next to political ecology, human geography, physical geography etc.
  • a cooperative and integrative platform to critically reflect on the own work in physical geography as well as in other natural sciences.
  • a school of thought influenced by critical geographical thinkers like David Harvey, Doreen Massey and Neil Smith.
  • Scholars in CPG might also consider themselves as part of societal decision making rather than an objective scientists only providing facts to stakeholders.

Session on the intellectual roots of CPG? How is CPG different from existing interdisciplinary research traditions, such as socio-ecological systems? How is it different from political ecology?

An elementary question of the workshop was how to transform science into CPG research?

Firstly, we as scholars who are interested in CPG need to reflect which epistomologies and onthologies are used in our fields of research, and what kind of knowledge counts and who benefits from the knowledge and data we are producing. Following these considerations, one might stumble over research questions that do not only focus on the measurement of slope instabilities and natural hazards in a certain area but ask for the political and economic factors influencing the spatial distribution of these hazards. Or who suffers from it in what way? Moreover, it became clear that CPG is hard to imagine without a transdisciplinary approach. Many will say at this point that they include stakeholders already in their research through leaflets, presentations or a homepage. However, CPG meant for all the participants that we allow the researched to “talk back to us” and include stakeholders in a way that they are not only informed but actually shape the way how research is done, this way valuing local knowledge and researching an actual demand beside the fundamental interests in a research object.

Let’s put critical into physical geography!

Discussing How do we actually do this? How can we embed critical perspectives in physical models? How can we investigate the co-constitution of eco-social systems? What are the material substances through which structural inequalities are (re)produced?

Most – if not all – of our current environmental challenges cannot be fully understood from only one disciplines perspective. In order to understand urging problems of our time we need to know about the relevant processes and flows of matter and energy as well as about the structures of power which cause and shape the impacts of biophysical phenomena. We need to understand and incorporate critical social and political geographical approaches to analyze social power relations in order to design new critical approaches and foci to assess biophysical systems.

And a lot of work has been done already if we look at Political Ecology, Critical Geography as well as the discourses about a social-ecological transformation and DeGrowth.

The CPG workshop in Berlin also fed into recent attempts to establish a more natural science oriented branch of Critical Geography during the annual meetings of the Critical Geography Network in Germany. Therefore, feel free to contribute to the Research Workshop for Critical Geography 2017 in Bremen or the current initiative to organize a Conference on Critical Geography in Tübingen this year. If you are interested in this topic let’s have a meeting at the EGU 2017 and let’s think about a session on critical physical geography at the EGU 2018.

Interested? Please feel free to contact us!

Christian Schneider:

Sabine Kraushaar:

– written by Christian Schneider  (University of Leipzig) and Sabine Kraushaar (University of Vienna) –

Report from the Spring School on “Statistical analysis of hyperspectral and high-dimensional remote-sensing data using R”, Jena, Germany, March 13-17, 2017

The Spring School on “Statistical analysis of hyperspectral and high-dimensional remote-sensing data using R” was organized by the GIScience group lead by Prof. Alexander Brenning and two researchers from his GIScience research group, Patrick Schratz and Dr. Jannes Münchow. The school brought together a diverse group of 28 researchers (e.g. geoscientists, forestry, environmental studies) at different scientific levels (graduate students, PhD, postdoc, professor) from all over the world as far as Chile, Peru, Turkey, and Bosnia & Herzegowina. Overall, eight german and 16 non-german participants (20 male, 8 female) took part in this event. During five days the participants were introduced to the theoretical background of hyperspectral remote sensing data and learned in numerous hands-on sessions how to analyse and illustrate spatial data in R. The Spring School was organized within the LIFE Healthy Forest project and supported by the Michael Stifel Center Jena. In this short blog-post I want to give you a quick overview of the many, many things we learned during this intense “spatial stats-and-R-week”.

Participants and organizers of the Spring School on “Statistical analysis of hyperspectral and high-dimensional remote-sensing data using R” in Jena, © H. Petschko

On the first day of the summer school the participants obtained a theoretical introduction to hyperspectral remote-sensing data with examples focusing on the application of hyperspectral data in forest research. Marco Peña from the Alberto Hurtado University in Chile gave a lecture on “Introduction to hyperspectral remote sensing” which brought everyone to the same level. This very comprehensive introduction was followed by a talk on hyperspectral applications exemplified on a study on forests in the Bialowieza Forest in eastern Poland by Aneta Modzelewska from the Forest Research Institute in Raszyn. The last talk on the first day was by Dr. Henning Buddenbaum (University of Trier) on “Hyperspectral remote sensing for measuring biochemical leaf parameters in forests”. Dr. Buddenbaum is involved in the Science Advisory Group – Forests and Natural Ecosystems in the EnMAP mission, a German hyperspectral satellite mission aiming at monitoring and characterising the Earth’s environment globally.

The second day was filled with hand-on R sessions. In a first session by Patrick Schratz we learned about his “must know” features of R, namely Rmarkdown, the apply-family and pipes. This was followed by two session focusing on the usage of R as a GIS. Dr. Jannes Münchow, who developed the package RQGIS, an interface between R and QGIS which allows the user to access QGIS algorithms from within R. Afterwards we were introduced to the package mapview, an R package by Dr. Tim Appelhans. Mapview is a GIS-like interactive graphing tool that is directly accessible within RStudio (or the web browser, if you are not using RStudio). It is especially helpful if you want to quickly do a visual check whether a certain analysis has produced reasonable results.

The third day started with a lecture and hands-on session on “Statistical and machine learning in remote sensing” by Prof. Alexander Brenning with a focus on linear discriminant analysis, support vector machine and random forest. A short overview of these statistical modeling methods and the application in R including a comprehensive tutorial can be found here. In the afternoon, Dr. Thomas Bocklitz presented a very different perspective in the application of spectral data analysis in histopathology. Afterwards, the participants had a chance to discuss their own research involving spatial modeling techniques or R-problem with the group and the experts from the GIScience group in Jena.

Solving R-problems with Dr. Jannes Münchow, © H. Petschko

Open session during the Spring School to discuss research projects of the participants, © H. Petschko

Discussion sampling designs with Prof. A. Brenning, © H. Petschko

Introduction to parallel processing in R with Patrick Schratz, © H. Petschko

On the fourth day, Partick Schratz briefly introduced the hsdar developed by Dr. Lukas Lehnert from University of Marburg. It can be used for processing and analysis on hyperspectral data in R. Prof. Brenning focused in his second session further on the assessment of model accuracy (non-spatial and spatial validation methods, variable importance) using the sperrorest package and dealing with high dimensionality in linear regression.

Lecture by Prof. A. Brenning on “Statistical and machine learning in remote sensing”, © H. Petschko

On the last day, we visited a monitoring site and a site with tornado damage (see images below) from 2016 in the Thuringian Forest together with three experts from the official authority “ThüringenForst”. In conclusion, the Spring School was a great event with many fruitful hands-on R-sessions during which the participants could learn helpful tricks in R, how to use R as a GIS and about statistical and machine learning in R. Hopefully there will be more academic “schools” like this one to follow in the future (maybe even with a thematic focus on geomorphology or natural hazards).

Tornado damage in the Thuringian Forest from September 2016 © P. Schratz

Field trip to the Thuringian Forest, © P. Schratz

written by Anna Schoch (PhD student from the University of Bonn)

7th Young Geomorphologists’ Day in Naples/ Italy

The Italian Young Geomorphologists represented by Irene Bollati (front row, green jacket) and Francesca Vergari invite you to join their event in June 2017. Group shot taken during the fieldtrip in Sardinia at the 6th Young Geomorphologists’ Day in 2015

IMPORTANT NOTICE! All those who tried to subscribe to the VII Young Geomorphologists Day 2017, should re-send all the documentation to the mail address because of technical problems that are now fixed!

We are glad to invite You to the “7th Young Geomorphologists’ Day” that will be held in Naples (Italy) on 15th-16th June 2017

The main topic is “Innovative technologies for monitoring and digitally modeling past and present geomorphological processes”.

During the first day there will be the Oral and Poster Session.

During the second day a fieldtrip including a short course on monitoring systems for submerged and emerged sandy beach monitoring is organized.

All the information (timetable, registration form etc.) are available here!!!

Waiting for your participation, we remain at disposal for all the information you need (

– Irene Bollati, University degli Studi in Milan

& Francesca Vergari, University “La Sapienza” in Rome –

The Real Museo Mineralogico in Naples, location of the first day of the Congress.

The Garigliano River Mouth and sandy coast, where the fieldtrip of the second day will take place.


Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: