This book stems from the belief that undergraduate, and many graduate, students in geomorphology are taught far too little about the theoretical foundation of the discipline. This is a tragic oversight because all disci plines exist solely by virtue of a body of theory; furthermore, all substan tive research must, of necessity, be directed at improving this body of theory. While the centrality of theory is a characteristic of all science, it appears that it is fieldwork that has achieved sacrosanct status in geo morphology. The supreme standing of fieldwork would seem at first sight to be supported by such comments as that cited by Ager (1984, p. 42): "My old professor - the great H. H. Read - once said, 'The best geologist is, other things being equal, he who has seen the most rocks'. " The key issue in Read's comment is obviously "other things being equal"; what are these other things? For they will be just as applicable to geomorphology as to geology at large. One is certainly personal ability, but another critical com ponent is the individual's knowledge of relevant theory. Pursuit of theo retical knowledge is not generally a favored activity in geomorphology, a situation epitomized by Chorley's (1978, p. 1) one-liner: "Whenever anyone mentions theory to a geomorphologist, he instinctively reaches for his soil auger.

This book stems from the belief that undergraduate, and many graduate, students in geomorphology are taught far too little about the theoretical foundation of the discipline. This is a tragic oversight because all disci plines exist solely by virtue of a body of theory; furthermore, all substan tive research must, of necessity, be directed at improving this body of theory. While the centrality of theory is a characteristic of all science, it appears that it is fieldwork that has achieved sacrosanct status in geo morphology. The supreme standing of fieldwork would seem at first sight to be supported by such comments as that cited by Ager (1984, p. 42): "My old professor - the great H. H. Read - once said, 'The best geologist is, other things being equal, he who has seen the most rocks'. " The key issue in Read's comment is obviously "other things being equal"; what are these other things? For they will be just as applicable to geomorphology as to geology at large. One is certainly personal ability, but another critical com ponent is the individual's knowledge of relevant theory. Pursuit of theo retical knowledge is not generally a favored activity in geomorphology, a situation epitomized by Chorley's (1978, p. 1) one-liner: "Whenever anyone mentions theory to a geomorphologist, he instinctively reaches for his soil auger.

This is the first book to bring together practical examples from around the world to show how geomorphological evidence can help in effective land utilisation and hazard risk assessment. Case studies provide important lessons in risk management, and experts provide summaries of current research. The text also promotes good practice and effective land use, and looks at problems caused by misuse of the environment and potential solutions based on geomorphological evidence.

The surface features of the Earth are commonly split into two cate gories, the first of which comprises those features that are due to processes occurring inside the solid Earth (endogenetic features) and the second those that are due to processes occurring outside the solid Earth (exogenetic features). Specifically, the endogenetic features are treated in the science of geodynamics, the exogenetic features in the science of geomorphology. I have treated the theoretical aspects of the endogenetic features in my "Principles of Geodynamics", and it is my aim to supplement my earlier book with a discussion of the theory of the exogenetic features. It is my hope that the two books will together present a reasonably coherent, if necessarily incomplete, account of theoretical geology. Contrary to endogenetic phenomena, exogenetic processes can often be directly observed as they occur: the action of a river, the development of a slope and the evolution of a shore platform are all sufficiently rapid so that they can be seen as they take place. This has the result that in geomorphology one is generally on much less speculative ground regard ing the mechanics of the processes at work than one is in geodynamics.