Editorial: applied geomorphological mapping

Mapping forms and deposits, and inferring processes, of a landscape is a very complex exercise (Demek, 1982). Its difficulty lies, on the one hand, in the challenge of identifying the processes themselves, their spatial and temporal extent (including the magnitude of activity) and the underlying base rocks (both in the field and through desk based analysis) and, on the other hand, the implementation of effective cartographic representation. General geomorphological maps are often driven by the need to understand the evolution of a portion of the landscape and a need to forecast future evolutionary trends. They have thus become a major research instrument in their own right (Hayden, 1986). Applied geomorphological mapping has to consider the evolution of the area under investigation, even if the specific objectives are more limited. The cartographic representation of geomorphological information poses some distinct challenges. To improve readability of geomorphological maps one approach is to reduce the complexity of the cartographic elements favouring a “question-driven ” approach, representing fewer processes at a time on the same map (e.g. Savigear, 1965; St-Onge, D. A., 1968). In this way the map is more readable for the user and the fundamental needs of improving land planning can be easily and more efficiently passed on to land managers. This issue also relates to the need for an increased interdisciplinary dialogue between geomorphologists and other professionals (Griffith and Hearn, 1990). Another approach is the adoption of recent digital analysis and visualization techniques. Increased computer power (both hardware and software) no