جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « لندفرم‏ ها » در نشریات گروه « جغرافیا »

Geomorphologists and Overlooking of Philosophy of Science in Geomorphology1-IntroductionIt is natural that a thoughtful man will attempt to understand the world and himself as part of it. Knowing about the subject under study is a prelude to each science. In numerous books, geomorphology is considered to be composed of three words of Greek origin, Geo (earth), Morphe (form) and Logos (identification) (Gutidrrez, 2005: 3; Thorn, 1988: 24; Chorley et al, 1996: 9). In the definition of the International Association of Geomorphologists (IAG), it is the interdisciplinary and systematic study of landforms, their perspectives, and surface processes that create and modify complications (www.Geomorph.org, 2013).Men has always raised questions for understanding and explaining how these reliefs are shaped and how these reliefs can be effective in their lives. Examples of commonly asked questions in geomorphology are:- Why are alluvial fans formed on the foothills?- Why are most caves formed in limestone?- Why are coastal cliffs retreating?To explain the why of landforms, how they are formed should be explained. For Newton(1643-1727), the scientist should look at how, not why. Why questions can be answered with complex and irresponsible speculation and how questions can be answered with experiment (Capaldi, 2011: 232).Although Whalley (1987: 86), believes that what questions, and the how of function and development of landscapes and landforms are dealt with in new geomorphological research, from the point of view of Yatsu, geomorphologists have tried to find answers to what, where and when questions and rarely seek answers to how questions (Gregory, 2010: 32). The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of scientific explanation in geomorphology and review and discuss the causes of insufficient attention of geomorphologists to philosophical issues in geomorphology and its implications..2-Material and MethodsConsidering the theoretical nature of the discussion regarding the ontology and philosophy of geomorphology, the research method in this article is analytical-descriptive. Therefore, several sources in this field, mainly in English, were developed and reviewed over a long period of time. Because the lack of proper explanation of the philosophy of a science, after a while, leads to the mass production of largely repeated fruitless works and tendency to adjacent sciences, the importance of explanation in geomorphology was first discussed and then the reasons for the neglect or insufficient attention of geomorphologists to different philosophical attitudes and theoretical frameworks in geomorphology have been criticized. In the end, due to the importance of addressing philosophical issues, the necessity of more attention of geomorphologists to the philosophy of geomorphology was analyzed and solutions were presented.3-Results and Discussions3-1. Is geomorphology a science?The definition of science can also be different depending on which school or philosophical perspective is to be considered. Baker considers science as a deliberate and observational process for understanding and knowledge that helps man understand the truth (Baker, 1996: 59). Finally, the answer to the question of whether geomorphology is a science or not is a personal choice. In a scientific approach, geomorphic systems are considered to be physical systems that have had historical changes. This view shows the importance of general physical theories and geo-historical theories about the evolution of a particular perspective (Rhoads and Thorn, 1993). Apart from the philosophical views or personal divisions, the reasons for geomorphology to be science are:1. Geomorphology seeks to explain landforms and processes.(e.g. the explanation of the events leading to the formation of alluvial cones).2. Geomorphology, based on causality, tries to place landforms and processes under general rules (generalization).(e.g. the explanation of the formation of alluvial terraces in relation to the slope law).3. Geomorphologists, like other experts in the field of empirical sciences, are always outside the scope of their research in the study of the subject.4. The geomorphologist's main tool for gaining knowledge is observation, measurement and experiment.5. With advances in science, including geomorphology, more knowledge will be obtained about complex problems in geomorphology in the future.3-2. Is there a connection between geomorphology and philosophy?Investigating landscapes is the main subject of geomorphology science (Harrison, 1999), and the necessary condition for this task is to collect data on ground forms and operating processes in accordance with ideas and hypotheses (Gregory, 2010: 29). Although the subject examined in geomorphology, i.e. the study of the evolution of landforms over time, fully reflects the philosophy and philosophical foundations of the field of geosciences (Rhoads and Thorn, 1994), and time was even one of the tripartite components of relief in the Davies paradigm, but "traditionally, geomorphologists refrain from discussing the philosophical foundations of geomorphology" (Harrison and Dunham, 1998). There are three reasons why geomorphologists are suspect of the role of theory in geomorphology:A. Differences in scientific viewpoints, goals and methodology of those who call themselves geomorphologists (Rhoads and Thorn, 1993). .B. Many geomorphologists consider their main task as field work and observation (Rhoads and Thorn, 1993) and agree with this view that the fieldwork and the relationships established between landforms during fieldwork are the geomorphologist's final work (Slaymaker, 2009). C. Extensive misinterpretation of the theory (a construction) against computing (communication device). Geomorphologists should not deceive themselves that the theory is not related to geomorphology, it is restricted to certain sciences, and has a computational aspect (Rhoads and Thorn, 1993). ConclusionsIf geomorphology aims to find a solid and supreme position among other sciences, geomorphologists must focus more on the philosophy and methodology of their discipline. The emphasis on explaining or recognizing how landforms and processes put geomorphology among empirical sciences. According to Rhoads (1999), physical geographers, and in particular geomorphologists, have begun to address philosophical issues. The interconnection between philosophers of science and geomorphologists can be the beginning of this work.With the attraction of geomorphology among geosciences (geology and geography), environmental sciences and engineering and that people with different backgrounds want to introduce themselves as geomorphologists, a geomorphologist should have a "geomorphologic" view: i.e. a mixture of intuition, impudence in theorizing, and liberation from everyday life, but dependent on the experience and the physical reality that is created through theories. The first step in this way is to focus on the basic sciences, in particular, physics and its combination with the spatial analysis of landforms.

Terrain morphology, provides a lot information for researchers in the field of environmental science. One of the goals in geomorphology is identification, and analyzing terrain landforms. In the past, the identification of landforms was performing field-based or using topographical maps. Manually, which was time-consuming and difficult, and in vast areas, it was facing many problems. In this article we had attempted to identify glacial and sub glacial landforms including: glacial cirque, glacial sinkhole (Tarn Lake), summit, saddle, ridgeline, drainage line, and sedimentary fans. For recognizing these landforms, two modelling approaches have followed. First is a conceptual modeling, which uses kernel pattern modeling. This modeling level, provides the condition in which, terrain morphology compares to the reference pattern. Second is an object-based modeling, which uses reference object to recognize landforms. Above mentioned landforms, considered in this research, recognizes, using both modeling approaches, and the results represents in the form of maps. Some typical landforms considered to make accuracy assessment and performance control, for each model output possible. To automate modeling procedures, Python programming language used widely. Eventually, all codes and scripts prepared in the build-in Graphical User Interface (GUI) programming environment of python (Tkinter), and the software, named: Landform Detector V.1 prepared. Accuracy assessment, shows that landform recognition process had performed with 60% in average, which respect to the landform complexity, is acceptable. Average accuracy of the considered models are equal to 51.58 % and 50.60 % for conceptual and object-based approaches, respectively. In result, object-based approach had a better performance overall.

River geomorphology is one of the determining factors and an important step in mathematical modeling of landform variations. Investigating the pattern of flow in warping intervals and geomorphic units of the Aras river, the formation processes and the process of their change are important for river geomorphology studies and make river engineers better acquainted with the trend of changes. The main objective of this research is to implement fractal dimension of geomorphological changes in the Aras River route. Using the method of controlled classification and maximum probability algorithm, the layer of geomorphologic landforms of the Aras River environment for two periods was prepared in four channels of Channelform Channel, Point Bar, Flood plain, Riverside, and Coniferous; Then, the fractal models of the environment - area and cumulative number - were used to describe the mathematical behavior of these landforms. Changes in the amount of DAP (environment-area) for the landforms in the Aras River environment in the two years of 1987 and 2018 showed that the DAP values of all landforms (other than point load) in 2018 were smaller than the DAP Landforms in 1987. Therefore, the geometric pattern of the Aral River landforms in 1987 is more irregular and more complicated than in 2018. In the case of Land Point, this figure increased in 2018 than in 1987, indicating a more regular pattern of this landform. Changes in the amount of D (cumulative area - area) for the landforms studied in the Aras River environment showed that its magnitude increased in 2018 compared to 1987, which can be D, or represents small components of a large size Or more components with small size. Regarding the survey of Landsat satellite images used in this study to extract river geomorphological landforms in the Aras River in 1987 and 2018, pixel behavior of landforms is typical of the large There is a tendency to study the landforms. Of course, in the case of the river channel, it should be noted that due to the decrease in the discharge and hence the reduction of the channel width, it can be commented on the reduction of its area.

Geomorphologic landforms associated with tourism and development has been considered by many researchers in recent years. Geomorphologic landforms which have values and capabilities، considered in context of tourism، known as geomorphosite and are studied in geomorphotourism approach. In this paper، we used LANDSAT satellite imageries، geological and topographic maps، data obtained by field observations، in recognizing geomorphologic landforms of Gilan_e_Gharb، Qhasr_e_Shirin and Sarpol_e_Zahab counties (Piran waterfall، Golin valley، Alvand river، Imam Hassan (As) spring، the gorge of Hajian and Sarab Gilan_e_Gharb) which have tourism attraction affects. We prepared an identification and characterization card for every landform. Based on four tourism criteria- scientific، cultural / historical and social – economic_ we measured capabilities and tourism values for the landforms and evaluated and analyses them. Results showed that among this landforms، due to scientific and cultural - historical specific values، Piran waterfall geomorphosite and its’ surrounding area gets the most points. It seems that the tourism authorities should pay attention to this site to create needed infrastructures for tourism development، since it will help to extent employments and improve economic situation of the studied area residents.

Nature tourism Geotourism as a sub oriented along other branches such as tourism، rural tourism، cultural and plenty of capacity potential for the development of land and natural resources is sustainable. Lorestan province of Iran in the West، including the areas of capacity development activities، the Geotourism has great potential. The aim of this study was to evaluate the capacity of attraction Geomorfoturiste The Geotourism development in the study area. This is the type of information needed to stem both library and field research has been compiled. They are. The results of this study show that the model Pralong tourism has high potential for capacity analysis.

Based on the satellite image, geology maps and field studies, it was tried to investigate on the tourism potential and obstacles present in thought path of tourism development in the region. For determining the importance and tourism value of this phenomenon, a taxonomy model of importance were used for regional, national and international level on the basis of formation and navigate. In the first level of taxonomy, the Geomorphology view and forms were considered. The magmatism, erosion, tectonic and environmental processes related to ecotourism was studied.In the second level of taxonomy sedimentology. Ancient-geology and occasion viewpoints were studied. The Results show that Darabgerd salt dome, Reghez valley and Hassan Abad alluvial fan have the most value and potential for tourism.