Approach

The focus in this chapter is on the client – what is it that hazard and risk managers want from geomorphologists and what do geomorphologists believe that their science can constructively offer hazard and risk management? However, communicating skills and requirements can be difficult because scientists and practitioners come from different backgrounds and work within different constraints. On the one hand, the geomorphologist primarily needs to satisfy the research community, while the manager, on the other hand, has to deal with their client base and the public in general, often within a strict statutory, regulatory, policy and financial framework. Clearly, the basic information demands of hazard assessment, of where (location), what (type of event), when (how often) are fundamental to reducing risk but the manager might also legitimately ask ‘which areas are free from hazard?’, ‘what type of mitigation might be appropriate?’, ‘what sort of monitoring should be undertaken?’, ‘what changes can we expect in the future?’ and ‘what is the cost effectiveness of different management options?’.

In post-event situations, geomorphologists may also be required for forensic investigation. In many cases this will be to establish the cause, apportion weight to the causative factors, and to determine the relative importance of human versus natural factors in creating both cause and consequences.

By understanding the geomorphic system, not only in space but also through time, the geomorphologist should be capable of predicting or at least indicating the hazardous characteristics of processes and places within the system, at a range of spatiotemporal scales.