There is a common acceptance that the Anthropocene epoch is characterized by the increasing dominance of human activity as a driver of global terrestrial change. Geomorphology, with its historical roots in geology and geography, would seem to be ideally positioned as a geoscience to tackle the well documented, rapidly degrading health of that environment. However, the word ‘geomorphology’ is problematic outside the academy in a way that ‘landscape’ is not. A more explicit identification of geomorphology as a landscape science would encourage engagement by geomorphologists in one of the most urgent environmental questions of our time. If humanity is indeed the most important driver of environmental change, we propose that geomorphologists need to engage more seriously with the cognate landscape sciences, such as landscape architecture, anthropology and political ecology. In particular, there are landscapes that are more threatened than others and critical zones in landscapes that must be protected and enhanced with greater care than others. We argue that recasting geomorphology as not only a geoscience but also a landscape science would highlight issues of human well-being at different spatio-temporal scales and we illustrate this in three case studies from our respective countries: UK, Canada and Austria. As traditional geoscientists, we are not used to thinking of coastal flooding, permafrost degradation and snow depletion as centrally important to our science. But as landscape scientists the inclusion of these and all other components of the cryosphere's interaction with human wellbeing is entirely logical and the distinction between systemic and cumulative environmental responses provides a key to unravelling the variable contributions of local actors, managers and decision makers to environmental degradation. Decision making at zonal, regional and local scales are integral to the way in which geomorphic systems function. This argument clearly has wider application. It is up to geomorphology, acting as a landscape science, to provide the underpinning principles that identify landscape-changing actions as being unsustainable and in providing better-informed future pathways away from such actions.

人们普遍认为人类世时期的特征是人类活动作为全球陆地变化的驱动力而日益占主导地位。地貌学在地质学和地理学中有着悠久的历史，因此似乎可以理想地定位为应对有据可查的，迅速恶化的环境健康的地学。但是，“地貌学”一词在学院之外是有问题的，而“风景”则不是。将地貌学更明确地识别为景观科学将鼓励地貌学家参与我们时代最紧迫的环境问题之一。如果人类确实是环境变化的最重要驱动力，那么我们建议地貌学家需要更加认真地参与相关的景观科学，例如景观建筑，人类学和政治生态学。特别是，某些景观比其他景观受到的威胁更大，并且景观中的关键区域必须比其他景观更加谨慎地加以保护和增强。我们认为，将地貌学改写为地球科学和景观科学不仅会突出时空尺度上的人类福祉问题，而且还将在来自我们各自国家（英国，加拿大和奥地利）的三个案例研究中加以说明。作为传统的地球科学家，我们不习惯将沿海洪水，多年冻土退化和积雪损耗视为对我们的科学至关重要的方面。但是作为景观科学家，冰冻圈的所有这些和所有其他成分都被包括在内 与人类福祉的互动完全是合乎逻辑的，系统性和累积性环境对策之间的区别为揭示当地行为者，管理者和决策者对环境恶化的各种贡献提供了关键。地域，区域和地方尺度的决策对于地貌系统的运作方式必不可少。这种说法显然具有更广泛的应用。地貌学（作为景观科学）有赖于提供基本原则，以识别景观改变行为是不可持续的，并为远离此类行为提供更明智的未来途径。地域和地方尺度是地貌系统运行方式不可或缺的一部分。这种说法显然具有更广泛的应用。地貌学（作为景观科学）有赖于提供基本原则，以识别景观改变行为是不可持续的，并为远离此类行为提供更明智的未来途径。地域和地方尺度是地貌系统运行方式不可或缺的一部分。这种说法显然具有更广泛的应用。地貌学（作为景观科学）有赖于提供基本原则，以识别景观改变行为是不可持续的，并为远离此类行为提供更明智的未来途径。