The concept of transport capacity and its use in different geomorphic process domains

The notion of sediment-transport capacity has been engrained in geomorphological and related literature for over 50 years, although its earliest roots date back explicitly to Gilbert in fluvial geomorphology in the 1870s and implicitly to eighteenth to nineteenth century developments in engineering. Despite cross fertilization between different process domains, there seem to have been independent inventions of the idea in aeolian geomorphology by Bagnold in the 1930s and in hillslope studies by Ellison in the 1940s. Here we review the invention and development of the idea of transport capacity in the fluvial, aeolian, coastal, hillslope, débris flow, and glacial process domains. As these various developments have occurred, different definitions have been used, which makes it both a difficult concept to test, and one that may lead to poor communications between those working in different domains of geomorphology. We argue that the original relation between the power of a flow and its ability to transport sediment can be challenged for three reasons. First, as sediment becomes entrained in a flow, the nature of the flow changes and so it is unreasonable to link the capacity of the water or wind only to the ability of the fluid to move sediment. Secondly, environmental sediment transport is complicated, and the range of processes involved in most movements means that simple relationships are unlikely to hold, not least because the movement of sediment often changes the substrate, which in turn affects the flow conditions. Thirdly, the inherently stochastic nature of sediment transport means that any capacity relationships do not scale either in time or in space. Consequently, new theories of sediment transport are needed to improve understanding and prediction and to guide measurement and management of all geomorphic systems.

Commodification of retirement and the emergence of rural gated communities: The associated challenges for rural planning

Abstract:
This paper combines demographic ageing and retirement lifestyles with rural in-migration processes and suggests the emergence of a specific rural form of gated community; namely, park homes. All year round or permanent (as opposed to seasonal) residential mobile homes (resembling detached bungalows in design and appearance) are commonly referred to as 'park homes'. With a growing proportion of the UK population aged 65 and over, combined with increasing longevity, meeting the residential preferences and lifestyle aspirations of an ageing population is potentially 'big business' for the private sector. Park home living, with their resident age restrictions (normally 50 years and over), is increasingly marketed as a retirement option in rural and coastal locations of the UK. However, many areas are often remote with declining populations and limited community services. Operators have sought to tap into retiree aspirations for a 'place in the country' and 'sell' the concept of park home living as a specific form of housing, community and lifestyle. Park homes are frequently marketed as a means to release equity from the sale of a large family home to fund a retirement lifestyle and as friendly communities of like-minded people, always willing to lend support or provide assistance if required. The physical and social composition of such sites represent a form of rural gated community. This paper seeks to identify the rural planning issues which emerge from such developments and asks: who are moving to park home sites and why? do park homes provide those who otherwise could not afford a 'place in the country' the option of rural living? does park home living live-up to residents' expectations of the rural idyll or retirement lifestyle? do they give rise to issues of gentrification and geriatrification of the countryside? what are the prospects for residents to 'age in place'? might ageing residents become financially trapped in such developments giving rise to park ghettoization? what are the associated challenges for rural policy-makers and public service providers?