
doi: 10.1002/esp.4096
AbstractGeomorphic effectiveness has been an influential concept in geomorphology since its introduction by Reds Wolman and John Miller in 1960. It provided a much needed framework to assess the significance of an event by comparing event magnitude to the resultant geomorphic effects. Initially, this concept was applied primarily in river channels, under the linear assumption that geomorphic responses to similarly sized flood events will be consistent. Numerous authors have since attempted to quantify a direct, proportional relationship between event magnitude and different forms of geomorphic response in a variety of geomorphic settings. In doing so, these investigations applied an array of metrics that were difficult to compare across different spatiotemporal scales, and physiographic and geomorphic environments. Critically, the emergence of other geomorphic concepts such as sensitivity, connectivity, thresholds, and recovery has shown that relationships between causes (events) and geomorphic effects (responses) are often complex and non‐linear.This paper disentangles the complex historical development of the geomorphic effectiveness concept and reviews the utility of various metrics for quantifying effectiveness. We propose that total energy (joules) is the most appropriate metric to use for quantifying the magnitude of disturbance events (cause) and volumetric sediment flux associated with landform modification is the most appropriate metric for quantifying geomorphic effects. While both metrics are difficult to quantify, they are the only ones which facilitate comparison across a range of spatiotemporal scales (comparability) in a variety of geomorphic environments (flexibility). The geomorphic effectiveness concept can continue to be useful provided that geomorphologists use flexible and comparable metrics. Today, geomorphologists are better prepared to consider the influence of non‐linear processes on determinations of geomorphic effectiveness, allowing investigators to not only determine if a disturbance event was effective but also to explain why or why not. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Planning and Development, Connectivity, 550, 3305 Geography, 1901 Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous), 1904 Earth-Surface Processes, 910, Cause-and-effect, 333, Disturbance events, Sensitivity, 3305 Geography, Planning and Development, Metrics
Planning and Development, Connectivity, 550, 3305 Geography, 1901 Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous), 1904 Earth-Surface Processes, 910, Cause-and-effect, 333, Disturbance events, Sensitivity, 3305 Geography, Planning and Development, Metrics
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 70 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
