WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH AUGUST 1968

_ On the Quantitative .Invent01·y of the Riverscape'

LPNA B. LEOPOLD AND MAURA O'BRIEN MARCHAND U. S. Geological Survey W""hinglon, D. C.IIO!!42 ,I Ab8tract. In the vicinity of Berkeley. California, 24 minor "alleys were described in terms of factors chosen to represent aspects of the . A total of 28 factors were evalu­ ated at eaeh site. Some were directly measurable. others were estimated, but each obsen'atioll was assigned to ODe of five categories for tha.t factor. Each factor for each site was then expressed as a uniqueness ratio, which depended on the number of sites being in Ute same category. The uniqueness ratio is believed to represent one way the scarcity of a given river­ &CRpe can be ranked quantitatively without bias based 011 notions of good or bad, and without assigning monetary value.

GENERAL STATEMENT differently. depending upon individual back­ ground, interest, desires, and thus one's objec­ On property we grow pigs or peanulll. On tives. we grow suburbs or sunJlowers. On land­ The present paper presents a tcntntiye nod pe we grow feelings or frustrations. The modest attempt to record the presence or ab­ 'ty of a landscape may be an asset to sence of chosen factors that contribute to iety, or it may be a 'scarlet letter' that should aesthetic worth. Observations were made in a . d us of wbat we have thrown away. All restricted range of exnmples in one locality, empts to preserve the environment must ne- Alameda and Contra Costa count.ics near San ily rewesent a compromise between the Francisco Bay. California. 1'10st of the sites are uty of the natural world, minimally infiu­ located along the channels of small streams ced by man, and the world in which we have draining these foothills. The sites chosen include support ourselves. But we all realize that streams originating in natural unde\-eloped d can he used by man in such a way that areas, in parks, and in suburbnn and urban retains the essential elements of its aesthetic foothill areas. ue, or it can be used in such a way that most these values disappear. THE IXYEXTOHY ncb one of us has a somewhat different idea The factors contributing to the aesthetic or ut which aspeets of the ri\'e~ landscape most emotional reaction to a landscape are presum­ tribute to its aesthetic worth. E":en among ably capable of being identified. We constructed who are conscious of tbe fact that aesthetic an inventory checklist that included both physi­ es are worthy of preservation it is possible cal features of size and form and such subjective bave sincere and well meaning persons dis­ attributes as ecologic diversity and scenic views. mor~, 88 to what areas are or less, vaIu­ The checklist was filled out nt ench site chosen. , and for what purposes. either measuring or subjectively eynfuating the y thingS are happening in the environ­ pre...:::ence or le\·el of each factor in the list. . Various groups give priority to preserving Listing the qualities of ,-arious cm+ironments erent parts of. it, and as a result we are or sites, one might be able to rank the relative er unsuccessful about preserving anything. uniqueness. of each attribute at various· sites e time bas come when we should be able to in relation to the population as n whole or to a objectively about the factors that con­ particular part of it. Thus we conccive that in ute to aesthetic ranking and to realize that a planning program the computer read-out for e relative importance of these factors is viewed e3ch alternati\'c for water de\'elopment would

.1 A contraction of lriver landscape.' include not only the usual pertinent data on 709 710 LEOPOLD A?-Il> MARCHAND sizes, benefits, and costs, but nlso the number numbers from 1 to 5. Those factors that co of rankings that are violated or consumed. For be measured have the measurement data. c example, onc damsite might involve a river in five ranges. width, for example, W reach that contains several river properties that measured in fee~t. The ranges make up a arc unique and are found only at that site, metric progression of size categories, as can whereas another may consume only usual or seen in the definition of rang¥ in Table 1. common types not at all unique. Those fact"rs that could not he ·measured The field inventory listing the items or param­ the usual sense were assessed in the field eters is presented in Table 1 with the range of jectively and assigned to a category 1 to 5 categories .assignable to each measured or esti­ that Bite factor aa defined" in Table l. mated. factor. As shown, each parameter in the factors related to aeathetic impression could list was assigned a category label using the c",-pressed quantitativelYJ such as tlie num

TABLE 1. Definition of Class Ciltegories

Physical and Chemical Character Width (It) Depth (It) Velocity (ft/sec) Variability index Width/height of valley Bed sediment size (mOl) Bed slope (ft/mi) Basin area (sq mi) Stream order (Horton) height (It) Susceptibility to (estim.) Width of flood plain Turbidity (ppm) Biological Character Algae Filamentous slime (diatoms) Fauna (estim.) Flora Character Exotic Diversity (estim.) General biologic condition Human Use and Interest Trash and litter Metal (no./100 It) Paper, plastic (no./100 ft) Other (no./IOO ft) Artificial controls Accc...c:sibility Individual Mass use Aesthetic impressions (estim.) Local scenery Vistas Degree of change Degradation Recovery potential Urbanization General aesthetic interest Inventory of the Riverscape 7J I cans, paper plates, or other 6. Strawberry Creek, n.djn.cent to Dwinclle An- nex, University, California Campus, Berkeley; i. St.rawberry Creek, at , between Ha\"il­ FIELD DATA land nnd Giovanni Halls, University of California-, Berkeley; The 24 sites Ii ted below'were cbosen to repre­ 8. Robbers Creek, at Ash Slreet crossover, "Tesl­ t a variety of smnU stream ebannels or valle)'s wood, northern California, primarily in the Berkeley 9. Robbers Creek, at. Highway 36 erossonr, l Westwood; , including some that were primarily urban­ 10. Fealher River, at. Tunnel Rest. Slop; and other basins in relatively natural condi- 11. Feather Rinr, at Highway iO exit north, n. With some changes the field inventory could ncar Oroville Dam; applied to ebannels and valleys of an entirely 12. 'Vildeat Creek, at Indian Camp Picnic nren, erent sort, but it was our intention to take Tilden Regional Park, Berkeley; 13. Knler Creek, tributar~' to Wildc:lt Creek, pIes on basins uf more or less comparable ncar Alvarado Park, Richmond; ysica! types. 14. Kaler Creek, to Wildcat Creek, The survey locations were chosen more or * mile downstream fro~site 13; 15. Horse !.mil crossing of Wildcat Creek, Al­ G random nnd marked on " topographic varado Park, Richmond; • There was DO formal stratification or ran- 16. Wildcat Creek, picnic area in Ah'arndo • tion; once the field technique is deemed Park, * mile downstream from site 15, Richmond; inry, " more formal method of choosing Ii. Judson Mead area, Strnwberry Creek, west y sites will b" justified. Emphasis was of Botanical Gardens, Uni"ersit~, of California, Berkeley; ted primarily to the inclusion of sites repro­ 18. Fern Grove area, Strawberry Creek, cast of ting a variety of conditions of urbanization Palm Grove, Botanical Gardens, University of d use rath~r than a variety of stream channel California, Berkeley; . For tlUs reason some streams were chosen 19. Culvert zone of Strawberry Creek, between hw1t-up rban arens, some in .Btate nnd Botanical Gardens and tennis courts, University of CaJifomin., Berkeley; parks, and some in areas not subject to 20. Land Slump Creek, South Highway, Siesta ensive us.!. Valley; arrival at a location a specific site was 21. GuUy Creek, Siesta Va.Ue~'; consisting of Bome 200 feet of channel 22. Swamp Brook, Third Gully, Siesta Valley; within which the observations were meant 23. Cement Slab Creek at Orinda CiLy Limits, Orinda.; pply. it each site the nssignmcnt of numbers 24. Creek, tributary to San Leandro e factors wan considered froOl" the point of Creek, near San Leandro. of an observer standing near the stream The measurements of physical size and char­ looking up and down the vnUey. Many of acteristics were representative of the average small streams are incised in minor valleys, condition in the 2oo-foot reach. A pbotograph sides of which stand 20 to 30 fect above taken at each site proved to be useful in the el a:nd 80 the view wan often restricted valJ~y course of later data analysis. e sides. .. Water velocity was measured by timed .aoats. y of the channels were so wooded' that Bed sediment size was taken as the" B-axis was no vist&. out toward the bay or up diameter of the median size particle. To esti­ adjacent hills. We recorded whether such mate the amount of green algae and filamentous vistas were common or absent. diatoms, ten rocks were picked up from the of the 24 sites indicating location follows: bed and inspected; the average percentage of rock area covered by algae was estimated. The Couple Brook, adjacent to Lake AnZR. Tilden fauna and the diversity of flora were estimated oDai Park, near Berkeley; Family's Path Creek, tributary to Lake ADza, from the general character of the area, in com­ en Regional Park, near Berkeley; parison with sites known to be generally repre­ North Stream Picnic Area, Tilden RegionaI sentative of the valleys in the Coast Range. , near Berkeley; Degree of channel control reflects the esti- . Eucalyptus Creek, Indian Camp Area., near mated degree to which tile flow is controlled by 't Reservoir Junction, Berkeley; . Cobble Creek, Pony-Ride Playfield, nenr reservoirs, the amount of bank revetment, and mit Reservoir Junction, Berkeley; other channel alterations. TABI.E 2. Dusic DlLln -, (Vnllle I:lltered for each site! ill the lIumber from I to 5 indicatinG mnge within wlJich the mellllmed or estimated qunntity falla)

Site Numbers No. of Elich Clltc~ory

Pnramelel1l i\ICMured or I::SUIllILll"tl 23'15678 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 III 20 21 22 23 2·1 2 3 .. 5

)'hysical lUlU Chemical ClltIrllctcr Width (ft) 2 I 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 -\ 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 5 15 2 I Depth (ft) 2 1 II 2 2 -. 3 5 5 2 2 2 I 2 1 I 2 1 2 I 2 2 11 \ 1 2 Velocity (ft/soo) 2 2 \ 5 5 C, \ ., 3 3 5 ., ., 5 •3 2 3 11 5 ·1 " " 3 .. 'I " Vtlrillbilily Index 5 - cl>hemernl 5 .( ·1 ",I "·1 II 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 .. , 3 5 3 5 1 - little vlIrill.lion • Width/heiglJt of \'lllIe)' 2 2 'I 3 2 4 5 5 2 5 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 .. 3 2 2 II r, 3 Ded sediment si1.e (/llln) \ a 5 I) 2 ·1 5 5 2 2 3 3 3 2 -, 4 2 3 "3 5 ij ij ., 4 " " " Bed slope (rVmi) 5 5 5 <1 4 4 ·1 5 1 ., .• 4 4 5'. 5 5 5 5 5 5 .\ 2 10 12 Ba8in area. (1KI mil '. I ·1 , 4 Stream order (Horton) 2 3 3 1 5 5 3 " .\ 2 2 3 1 I 3 .. 5 3 2 Dallk height (ft) 2 ·1 4 4 3 5 5 3 4 2 2 .. , ,1 4 .\ 3 6 12• 2 3 3 " 3 " 3 '. Susecptibilit}, to erosion (estilll.) Width of flood plain (ft) 2 2 3 3 2 2 4 5 5 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 8 10 2 Diologieal CIUHnctcr I Algao 1 2 1 2 1 I 3 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 I 3 15 5 , Filamentoull slime-diatoms I 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 5 5 5 1 1 5 1 3 , 4 1 1 3 1 2 11 5 2 2 Fauna (estim.) 3 2 2 122 5 5 -I -I 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 2 2 2 12 5 3 '.2 Flom Character, bare to woods 4 1 3 5 3 3 3 4 4 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 5 • 2 3 3 ., 2 11 8 2 Exoticl 3 4 4 3- 1 1 3 • 4 3 2 3 4 5 4 ·1 •4 , , 1 5 8 I Divcrsity (estim.) 4 2 5 1 3 5 5 5 5 2 3 2 2 3 3 5 5 4 4 5 5 3 4 2 4 5 •• 9 Buman Use and Interest l'rnsh and Litter Metal 5 4 5 442 1 3 • 2 2 .. 4 4 5 • 2 1 3 1 1 2 6 5 2 8 3 Paper. pl88tie 4 3 3 44.4 4 4 1 1 4 4 4 1 4 5 • 2 2 1 1 4 7 2 2 12 1 Other 3 3 2 343 2 4 • 2 3 4 ·1 2 4 4 2 .. 4 2 5 2' 2 7 5 1 Artificial controls -I 1 2 3 154. 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 4 4 3 1 5 4 8 6 3 •5 2 ACCCMibility Individual 5 5 5 6 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 • 5 3 2 5 5 1 21 MaM uae 4 5 5 6 6 6 •5 5 5 5 •5 1 1 5 5 • 5 •2 2 2 5 5, 2 3 18 Aesthetic impressions • • .~-Loca1.scenery ._­ 4 2 4 255 2 5 5 2 .. 3 2 3 2 5' • 2 3 3 2 7 4 ., 7 VistM 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 1 I 1 1 1 •1 3 1 1 1 1 •3 18 2 2 2 Degree of change. • DcgrapatioD 8 2 4 5 , 2' " 4 2 3 3 2 I 2 4 2 2 8 7 6 1 Reco~ery potential 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 • 3 1 1 1 6 1 15 Urbanization 3 3 2 2 3 3 •I 1 3 • • • 2 3 10 7 General aosthetic intorut • •5 2 2 ;l ·1 • • • • • • 3 3 • 5 3 8 • 8 1 • 8 5 5 • 7 7 •• 10 11 I. ,. 17 IB I. 20 21 2• 2. 24 Phyllical and Chemical • • • • • • - ---" " " Character - -~. Width .20 .06 .20 .06 .06 .06 .06 .60, .06 .60 1.00 ,06 ,06 .06 ,06 .00 .20 . .06 .06 ,20 .06 .20 .00 .00 Dopt.h .11 ,09 .11 .11 .11 .09 .09 1.00 1 ~OO .60 .60 .09 .09 .09 .11 .09 .11 .n .09 .11 .09 .ll .09 ,09 Ve1ocit.y .33 ... .60 .09 .09 .09 .09 .33 .20 .20 .20 .as .09 .09 .as .09 .as .09 .00 .33 .20 .09 .09 .20 Variability lndex .as .20 ,20 .20 .20 .17 .17 .20 .17 .17 ,17 ,20 .20 .20 .20 .20 .20 .20 ,20 .2Q ,.. .20 .17 Widt.h/heiaht. valley .00 .00 .60 .•S .20 .0. .as .sa .09 ,.S .00 .09 .09 .09 .20 .00' .00 .60 .33••• .20 .20 .09 .20 Dc.d sediment aile .33 .33 .as .17 .26 .25 .20••• .17 .26 .26 .20 .20 .17 ,17 .17 .20 .17 .17 ,17 .17 .17 .20 .17 .17 Bed slope .03 .03 .03 ,101 .10 .10 .10 .03 .03 .60 .60 .10 ,10 .10 ,10 .10 .OB ,03 ,OB .03 .03 ,OB .OB .10 St.ream ordor .20 .sa .20 .20 .20 .11 .11 .11 .11 .60 .." ,20 .11 .11 .11 .I1 .as .sa .20 .20 .20 .20 .20 .11 Dank height. .•a .03 .03 .17 .17 .03 '.17 .03 .17 .60 .60 .17 .03 .03 .17 .03 .s. .sa .OB .03 .03 1.00 .03 ,OB Width flood plain .sa .12 .12 .10 .10 .12 .12 1.00 .60 .60 ,10 ,10 .12 .1' .10 .10 ,.. .12 ,12 .3• .10 ,10 .10 .10 ~ Total 2.33 1.88 2.32 1.63 1.48 1.16 1.44 •.80 2.87 3.71 '.00 1.thl. 1.11 1.11 1.t4 ~.23 2.17 1.58 1,50 2.H1 1.38 2.51 1.1(1 1.28 "~ Dioiollicill Charaoter >~ J\ljJBC 0- .07 !20 .07 .20 .07 .07 .07 .25 .20 .07 .2' .2' .07 .07 .07 .07 .20 .07 ,07 .07 .07 .20 ,07 .25 ~ Fil"mentou8 slime .09 .20 .09 .09 .00 .09 .20 .20 .20 .25 .25 .25 .00 .09 ,2' ,09 .50 .50 ,liO .09 .09 .60 ,09 .20 Fauna .20 .OB ,OB ,50 .03 .60 .03 .60 ,60 ••• ... .OB .20 ,20 .OB .OB .OB .OB ,20 .OB .33 ,20 ,OB .03 ""-...,c Flora ~ Character .12 1.00 .00 .60 .09 .09 .09 .12 .12 .60 .12 .09 .12 .09 .09 .09 .00 ,60 .12 .W ,09 .09 .12 ,12 Exotic .20 .12 .1' .12 .20 .60 .W .11 .11 .1' ,11 ,20 .1<1 .1'1 .12 .20 1.00 .20 .12 1.00 .12 .12 .12 .12 '"~ Di,'cIlIity .25 .,. .11 .W .20 .I1 .I1 .11 .I1 .25 .60 .20 .25 .25 .20 ,20 .11 .11 ,25 .25 .11 .11 .20 .,. Tolal 1.8S .5B UH .73 1.36 LOS 1.32 1.27 1.54 1.59 1.07 .B7 .B' .BI .7. l.D8 1.46 1.26 1.09 ,81 1.22 ,OB 1.02 ". ••• '"~ lIuman UIIO nnd Intefest. Truh and litter .§'" Metal .3. .12 .12 .12 .20 ,17 ,W .12 .20 .20 ,12 .12 ,12 .33 .1' .20 .17 .W ,17 .17 .17 .17 ,20 '" Paper. !lllUltic .OB .W •••,W .03 ,03 .OB .03 .03 .1<1 .1'1 ,03 .OB .03 .1<1 ,OB 1.00 .OB .50 .W .14 .1'1 .14 .14 .03 OtheT ,20 ,20 ,14 .20 .I1 .20 .14 .11 .I1 .14 .20 .11 .11 .H .I1 .11 .14 .11 .11 .50 .1·1 .50 1.00 .14 .i\rtificilll cOIlt.rob ,20 .12 .17 .33 .12 .W .20 .17 .17 .J2 .12 .17 .12 .17 .. 17 .3. ,20 .20 .33 .12 .12 ,12 ,60 .20 ,\eeetlllibility Individual .Oli ,OS .Oli .OS .Oli .05 ,05 .Oli .Oli .Oli .05 .Oli .Oli .Oli .Oli .05 .Oli .05 .05 1.00 1.00 1.00 .05 .05 MIUlS tUKl 1.00 .06 .00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 ,00 ,50 .50 .06 ,00 .00 .00 ,05 .33 .33 .3• ,00 .00 ,\ceLhctic JrnpfC'llflitHl l.oco.l scenory .21:i .1·1 .2.') .r}() .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .I-I .2fi .25 .1·1 .2;' .14 .1'1 .1<1 .2!i .1,1 .25 .50 .25 .Jot Vi8tlUl .06 ,06 .06 .no .00 .00 ,W ,00 .50 ,50 .06 .00 .00 .05 ,00 .00 .00 .50 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .W Degree of ehnngc Degradation .12 .14 .12 .17 .H .H .50 .17 .14 ,12 .17 1.00 .17 .12 .14 .17 .12 .14 .J.! .12 ,50 ,12 ,17 ,12 Ilccol'cry potontial .17 .17 .02 1.00 ,07 ,17 .07 .17 .07 ,07 ,07 .17 .07 .07 .07 1.00 .07 .07 .07 .07 .Oi ,07 ,17 1.00 UrblUlita~ion . 10 .10 .10 . . 10 .10 .25 .'5 .1-1 .14 .14 .10 .10 .33 .3. .10 .10 .2li .25 .10 .14 .14 .14 .14 Ceneral aesthotio ••• inlcre8t .20 .3:1 .25 '.33 .20 .2G .H ,20 ,14 ,1<1 .20 .20 .20 .25 .2li .20 .101 .1·1 ,20 .20 .14 .20 .B Tola1 2.70 1.DD 2.10 3,44 1.25 2.10 2.30 1.82 1.'15 2.00 2.37 2.DD •.06 3.35 3.23••• 2.77 ... 1.85 1.78 2.37 2.00 1.07 3.M 1.51 2.33 ~ '" 714 LEOPOLD AND MARCHAND Human debris or :utifacts were counted in mix of characteristics, evcn though they the 200-foot rench and recorded as numbers tell of what the mix is composed. counted. Scenic impressions and occurrence of The scheme of calculating uniqueness vistas reflect what an ohsen'er sees wben stand­ is indifferent wbether the category class . ing beside the stream. the middle Qf tbe range for that catego Table 2 lists the basic data. in terms of class at one of the extremes. Altbougb it waul categories as defined in Table 1. Note that the possible to modify the scheme to conside numbers in this table nre only category labels position in the range of categories, it d

and not measures of merit or value. seem necessary to do thisJ since class ca in the middle of the scale are the more REL.~TlVE UNIQUE~ESS OF SITES and, hence, the higher uniqueness val Unique is a. word meaning without like or usuaUy associated with the extremes. equal. For things society judges to be desirable, Note that the uniqueness scores are relative scarcity or uniqueness incre3Se5 value different to wbether the class category to society. but for the present it appears to be go from 1 to 5 (in order of an implied in morc important to develop a method of deter­ ing goodness) or in the re\'erse order.

minging a scale of uniqueness than to assign any Those itemsl whether 'good' or 1>ad/ th relative value. Therefore, we seek a. hierarchical common among the sites are weighreq 1 ranking of sites in terms of uniqueness based the scoring. It happens that those Iactors on the objecti,'c measurement or estimation of are usually considered 'good' tend to chamcteristics obsen-ed in the field. values in the uniqueness score, because If a. site pammeter is. for example, one among factors are indeed Jess common m{the m six of the same category. the site shares this riverseape. But it is entirely possible in & n charncleristie with five others. It may be said natural river that the highest uniqueness then, tllat it is unique in the ratio of ODe to would be given to the site that is most six, or its uniqueness is 1/6 (0.16). In this way most crowded, and generally worst in an a uniqueness may be defined on :1 scale of 0 to 1.0. tic sense, because that site is . deed uni In the present study there were 24 siles Indeed, " crowded, littered site, together studied. If the numerical description of a certain a unique set of historical values, may ou characteristic is in the same class category at natural values in this scheme. Thus the uni aU sites, each site is described as having a ness score is just a meaure of uniqueness uniqueness of 1124 or _04. This is a minimum not necessarily a measure of goodness or uniqueness in the sample. If. however, only one ness. site has a certain class category among the Table 4 presents the rank order of . possible class labels 1':5, then that site has" the bssis oI uniqueness scores Ior each of uniqueness of 1/1 or 1.0 for that parameter or groups of factors: pbysical, biological, attribute. human interest. The ranking of sites hllSe

\ ~- 71G LEOPOLD AND MARCH."'ND Another difficulty with the inventory check­ scene, and intermittency-he traveled Crt' list we used is that OUT three over-all categories sively by automobile, filling out a scenery ra"I. -physical character, biological character, and shect every half-mile along the chosen rou human interest-arc dissimilar. It is clearly The rating quantities obtained were plotted easier to measure objecth'ely some of the topog­ maps for planning purposes. Considerable raphic or physical characteristics than most of tention was paid to eyesores analogous to I those in the third category. Furthermore, it can misfits. A somewhat similar form of mapp" be argued that these categories do not describe used by Research Planning and De8ign _ landscape aesthetics. It seems to us, however, ciates [1967], except that type examples of that aesthetic reaction is made up of at least category were selected, and the evaluation two aspects. The first is comprised to some given site was made by matching as c1, extent of the factors in our checklist, although possible one of the samples in the the prescnt list may be incomplete and some examples. factors need further definition and possibly further subdivision. The second aspect is the UTILIZING THE RANK VALUES reaction of the viewer to these characteristics Tbere is a difficulty involved in the or attributes. process of adding the numerical ratings It was our intention to restrict our checklist factors at a site or averaging them. Aver: and th.is paper to the description of the sites, makes the tacit assumption that eacb fl uneomplicated by the weighting introduced by carries equal weight. Nevertheless, we ran the attitudes or preferences of the viewer. In on the columns in Table 3 to see how I this we have not been entirely successful, pri­ range in total uniqueness scores occurs i marily because of the inclusion of the three sample. Further study sbould be given t, factors labeled local scenery, degradation, and effect of averaging. . general aesthetic interest. Each of these as Adding unweighted uniqueness ratios of defined reBects to some degree our own impres· several sites may tend to average out any sian or preference, nnd in future work we sug­ nificanee among them. This tendency is gest that these factors either be redefined or greater the larger the number 06 charaete . eliminated insofar riS the purpose of objective that are added together for eacll site. Th description is concerned. test whether the differences am6ng the se­ The list of factors included in the inventory totals in Table 3 are significant, we COD may also be incomplete. Research should be a set of random numbers 1 to 5 for 24 ' undertaken to identify those features of the and 10 'characteristics/ thus, in effect, riverscape, both natural and mnn-induced, that jng the data in Table 2 for the 10 'Physi. inBuence individual reactions. At the moment Chemical Characteristics.' 'The distributi' we believe that attempts should be made to the total uniqueness ratios for such a describe, keeping the assignment of rating num­ random numbers does indeed occupy a D; bers in the checklist as objective as possible and range as expected, between a maximum of minimizing the effect of bias or preference in the and a minimum of 1.74. In -contrast, the quantitative rating procedure. for the data given in Table 3 range be Separately, the matter of preference should a ma:\.;mum of 4.00 and a minimum of 1. be taken up. There arc several approaches to It is our opinion that the uniqueness the detennination of preferences and thus to could be utilized to examine in depth tb measuring both what \'3rious individuals see and portance of bias or preferenoe. The next what impact the factors ha\'e on their reactions. should incorporate a eonsumer-demand Sonnenfeld [1966] used a sct of 50 pairs of of what people seek in landscape, followi photo slides in which four environmental ele­ method used by Shafer et aJ.. [1967]. ments-vegetation, topogrnphy, water features investigators showed pbotographs of ea. and temperature-were systematically varied. to a sample of people, wid each view, Sargent [1967] took a somewhat different ap­ asked to rate or evaluate the Sites. proach. Using factors chosen by him as dingnos­ In such a manner it may be possib! tic-distancc, variety, depUI of view, width of develop a set of weights to be applied to Inventory of the Riverscape 717 I values to develop a preference rank that various special purposes; as, for example, wild­ rporates botli the objective site character­ erness preservation, boating or canoeing, and CB and a sUbj~htive preference weight. interference of reservoir construction with alter­ \ nate uses of the river. SAMPLiNG PROBLEMS comparison of the quality of on a GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ..cal basis 1\81 described depends greatly on The study purports to be only a preliminary radius of sampling in space and in time. approach to a numerical description of factors uniqueness scores of the ~veral sites de­ comprising social or aesthetic rather than mone­ considerably 00 the geographical range of tary value. But we have attempted to avoid sampling. consideration of relati,·c desirability, that is, e time radius is important as well. Some 'good' versus tbad/ because it appears that t.he e factors, SUCh as width or slope, aTC first need is for a method of description wiUlOut tially fixed characteristics. Others, sucb an the bias accompanying the assignment of mea­ or dissolved oxygen, are bighly var- sures of worth. DOt only as between se8.sona but also Data even for parameters not amenable to . It would be desirable therefore either measurement by rule or meter can be classified repeat surveys or to use continuously to derive a relatiye ranking of uniqueness which. data of those factors, suoh aa discbarge on further development. might be a usable ap­ ved oxygen, that change rapidly. To proach to the problem of incommensurnbles in nt that data at a site are themselves resource planning. jar interest, then observations over time This preliminary effort suggests that some ceded; t~ the e.mot that comparison kind of classification of scarcity is feasible that sites is the dominant interest, then can lead to a technique for river survey adap­ variatid,a associated with seasons may table in a basic data program in addition to the signifiJnt. However, no judgment is usual hydrnulic and hydrologic factors. If so, Ie at this time on the effect of time varillc­ then the results of scarcity or uniqueness eval­ on such intersite comparisons or scores. uation might be applied in evaluating choices des sampling radius, the intensity of among alternath'es in river basin development. g, t111~t is, the number of sampling is also a significant factor. The various REFERENCES g or access sites should not be so close Ka.tes, R.• The pursuit of beauty in the environ­ ey are replicates of ODe another, oor ment, Landscape, 16(2), 21-25, 1966. part that they are completely unrelated. Krutilla, J. V., Conservation reconsidered. Am. Eean. Rev., Sept. 1967, 778-786, 19670. sites are completely unrelated, then the Krutilla., J. V., Environmental effects of economic lahels for each item (i.e., reading development, Daedalu8. 96(4), 1058-1070, 1967b. y in Table 3) would be rand0ml( Research Planning and Design Assoc., Inc., Study ted. of visual and cultural environment (preliminaJlY issue) Amherst, Mass., 64 pp .• 1967. ", .i Sargent, F. 0., Scenery classification, Vermont Re­ GnouP COM~ARISON8 sources R~. Center, Rept. 18. g']' pp. (mimeo­ ique does not consider the relative graphed), 1967.

I of groups or combinations of pro- Sh.fer, E. L., J. F. Hamilton, and E. A. Schmidt, A quantitative model for landscape references, There mllcY be no particular theoretical U. S. Dept. Agr., Forest Servo Northeastern Expt. • but an a!tack 00 the problem re­ Sta., New York College of Forestry, Syracuse, larger sample size than now available. N. Y. (Duplicated), 1967. t to the limitations of sampling, the Sonnenfeld, J.• Variable values in space and land­ e nevertheless represents one kind of scape: An inquiry into the nature of environ­ mental necessity. J. Social 188ue8, £'2(4), 71-82, of the hasic data contained in Table 2. 1966. . ds of applications may suggest other Wohlwill, J. F., The physical environment: A . Indeed, upon appropriate evidence, problem for n. psychology of stimulation, J. t be desirable to incorporate weighting Social Issues, 22(4), 2!h'lB, 1966. cto determine ranking of sites for (Manuscript received November 2, 1967.)