Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access to SAGE Geography Journals - Register here

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Progress in Physical Geography
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Martin, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Church, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Numerical modelling of landscape evolution: geomorphological perspectives

Yvonne Martin

Department of Geography, University of Calgary, Calgary AB, T2N 1N4, Canada, ymartin{at}ucalgary.ca

Michael Church

Department of Geography and Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, V6T 1Z2 Canada

A resurgence of interest in landscape evolution has occurred as computational technology has made possible spatially and temporally extended numerical modelling. We review elements of a structured approach to model development and testing. It is argued that natural breaks in landscape process and morphology define appropriate spatial domains for the study of landscape evolution. The concept of virtual velocity is used to define appropriate timescales for the study of landscape change. Process specification in numerical modelling requires that the detail incorporated into equations be commensurable with the particular scale being considered. This may entail a mechanistic approach at small (spatial) scales, whereas a generalized approach to process definition may be preferred in large-scale studies. The distinction is illustrated by parameterizations for hillslope and fluvial transport processes based on scale considerations. Issues relevant to model implementation, including validation, verification, calibration and confirmation, are discussed. Finally, key developments and characteristics associated with three approaches to the study of landscape modelling:(i) conceptual; (ii) quasi-mechanistic; and (iii) generalized physics, are reviewed.

Key Words: geomorphology • landscape evolution • model implementation • numerical modelling • process specification • scale

Progress in Physical Geography, Vol. 28, No. 3, 317-339 (2004)
DOI: 10.1191/0309133304pp412ra
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Progress in Physical GeographyHome page
S. Tooth
Arid geomorphology: investigating past, present and future changes
Progress in Physical Geography, June 1, 2007; 31(3): 319 - 335.
[PDF]

Home page
 Progress in Physical GeographyHome page
A. T. Codilean, P. Bishop, and T. B. Hoey
Surface process models and the links between tectonics and topography
Progress in Physical Geography, July 1, 2006; 30(3): 307 - 333.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Geological Society, London, Special PublicationsHome page
J. Braun
Recent advances and current problems in modelling surface processes and their interaction with crustal deformation
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, January 1, 2006; 253(1): 307 - 325.
[Abstract] [PDF]