Geomorphological Mapping

Retrospective

There is a considerable literature on geomorphic maps, and reviews can be found in Fairbridge (1968), Cooke and Doornkamp (1990), Mitchell (1991), Goudie (1981, 2004) and Verstappen (in press). We can make a very broad distinction between maps that (1) use symbols, shading and colours to depict landforms and (2) those that use polygons that represent specific types of landforms. The former were developed before geographic information systems (GIS) came into widespread use, and the maps of Raisz and Lobeck have already been mentioned. The latter were also developed before GIS, but are more amenable to GIS manipulation and therefore may have become more common over the past two or three decades. Certainly, in Australia, polygon maps of landforms and related phenomena are routinely converted into digital GIS coverages as part of the collection of legacy data for new projects (e.g. Fitzpatrick et al., 2004).

The IGU Subcommission on Geomorphological Mapping sponsored a series of conferences and publications in the 1960s and 1970s. These set out [Page 143]a recommended set of symbols and colours for mapping at mainly detailed scales. Examples of maps and mapping systems are Bondesan et al. (1989), Castiglioni et al. (1990), Gullentops (1964), Joly (1962), Tricart and Usselmann (1967) and van Zuidam (1982). Morphological mapping (Waters, 1958) played an important part during this period; Savigear (1965) was perhaps the best known example, with Rose and Smith (2008) providing historical context. Brunsden et al. (1975) provide several fine examples of the application of morphological maps to site investigations for highway construction. During this period geomorphic maps using symbols were a common feature of many papers, even where the main topic was not mapping but some other systematic aspect of geomorphology. For example, de Dapper et al. (1989) used a geomorphic map to illustrate a paper on using SPOT imagery to map land degradation.

...