VOL. .I, NO. 1 IYh TkR RESOURCES RESEARCH

On the ()itnntitnfiue Inventory of the Riverscape‘

LUNA 13. LEOPOLI) AND bfAURA O’BRIEN hfARCIIAND 1: S Gcoloytcnl Suriiril Il-ush?ngfo?l,1) c. 20242

tliBcrriitly, ticpcnrliiig upon individual back- grouirtl, interest, ticsircs, and thus onc’s objec- tiws. Tlic prwcnt paper presents a tentative and inodcst attempt to rccortl thc gresciicc or ab- FCIICC of clioscn factors that contribute to aesthetic ivorth. Obscrvations nwc made in a rrstrictcd rangr of cxsniplcs in one locnlity, Alanicdn and Contra Costa coiint.ies near San Frmrisco Bay, California. Nost of the sites are locntetl along tlic rlinniirls of sinal1 streams tiraining tlicsc foothills. The sitcs chosen include st rcains originating in natural undcveloped arras, in parks, atid in subiirban and urban foothill areas.

1 HE IN\CNTO~IY l‘lic hctors contributing to the aestlietic or rinotional rcaction to R, are presum- ably capable of bcing identified. Wc constructed nil inventory clircklist that included both physi- cal fc:itiircs of sizc and form and such subjective attribiitcs as ecologir diversity and scenic views. Tlic rlicrklist was filled out at each site chosen, citlicr incasuring or subjectively evaluating the pr~scnceor level of each factor in the list. :- Listing the qualities of various environments or sitcs, one might be able to rank the relative riniqucwss of each attribute at various sites in rclation to tlic population as a whole or to a particular part of it. Thus we conceive that in a planning program the computer read-out for each alternative for water development would inclutls not only tho usual pertinent data on 709 sizes, benefits, aid costs, biit also tlic iiiniil)rr of rankings that are violated or consunietl. For example, onr dnnisitc niiglit involve n rirrr reach that contains sever:il properties that are uniqur and arc foitntl only at flint site, ~r.licrens nnother iiiny consiiiiic only iisiinl or coininoii types not, nt :ill iiniquc. The field inventory list,ing the itmis or p:ir:iiii- etcrs is prcecntctl iii Tnblc 1 with the rnngc of catcgorics assigiiahlc to each niensiircd or esti- mated factor. As shown, enrh par:iii)rter in the list mas assigned n category lahcl using tlic

Physicnl and Chcrnicnl __ Cliaracter 1 .~ Width (ft) <:1 Jkpth (it,) a.5 Velocity (ft/sec) <0.2 Vnriabili1,v index .-dl Bed sediment sixc (mm) <0.01 0 01-0 2 0 2-2 2-21) > 20 Bed. slope (ft/mi) <3 3-5 5-50 an ?on >2IIO Basin area (sq mi) <0.5 0 5-1 1--5 .5-10 >IO %earn order (IIorton) 1 2 3 4 Bnnk height. (ft) <0.5 0 5-1 I- 3 38 >S Susceptibility to (esh.) sl,:Lblc: Width of Rood plain <5 5-1 0 I 0-1 on Turbidity (ppni) <25 25-1 50 150-900 Bioloeical Charnct,cr Algae aI,scn t, Fi1amentoii.i slime (dialoms) absent Fauna (estim.) p00r Flora Charactw bare grassy brllsll Exotic exotic Divcirsi t y (estim.) moiiolonous General biologic condition poor -IInman TJsr and Intcrest Trash aiid litter Metal (no./ioo rt) <2 6 10 Paper, plastic (nn./100 ft) <2 1;- II1 Other (no./JOO fl) <2 G- IO Artificial controls controlled Accessibility Individual wilderness R.lw use wilderncss Acsi,helic irnprrssions (estirn.) Iacal scenery uriatlractivc Vistas none Degree of change Degradation degraded liccovcry polential not recoveralh Urbanization urban General aesthetic inlmest unattractive _____~____- tlre 12iveiscupe 0. Stinnl,errp Crrrk, adjacent to D iin, lini\wxitv, Caliiornia Campus, Berkeley; 7 SIim1)crry Crrrk, at , between Hav Innd nnil Gio\ mini Halls, University of Ilri Lrlrg ; 8 Ilol>lwrs Crrrk, nt Ash Street croesover, \\ 1ll)tl ; 0. Ilolil,rrs CrrrL, nt Highway 36 crow \VlTL\\ ood ; 10. J~rxtliri ltivrr, nl Trinnrl Rest Stop; 11 I’enthrr llnrr, at Higliway 70 cxit nort inir OrnJ ilk n:im ; *i 12 If’ildrnt Crerk. nt Indinn Camp Picnir me Tilh Rrgionnl I’nrk, 1hhle.v; 13. IGiIrr Crrrk, trilxitnrr to Wildrat Cree iir:ir Alv:ir:itlo l’:irh, J~irliinontl; 14. 1i:iIri Crrrk, tiibuhry lo ll’iltlcnt Crcrk, ‘/I iiiilr ilo\\nslic:ini fioin sitr 13. 1.5 IIorw tinil crowing of Wildrat Creek, Al- \ ii:i&i I’nil,. Iiirlirnoiitl; 1G Kilht Crcrk, pimic nrpa in Ahnrndo P:iik, % mile tlomiislirniii from sitr 15, Rirhniond; 17. Judson hIr.irl nica, Stm\\brrry Crrrk, west of I3otnnicnl GartlrnP, University of Californin, Ihkclrv ; 18. I‘rrn Gnnc nrrn, Slrn\rl)crry Crrrk, rnst of 1’:11in (;row, 1bt:inirnl Gardens, Univcrsi~y of c‘:ilifot III:~,13crkrlry ; 19. Ciilrrrt zonc of Strnwbrrry Crcrk, hrtwecn 1301 nnirsl Gnrdcns and tennis courts, Univcrsity of Califomin, Ikrkrlry ; 20. Imid Slump Creek, South Hig)i\vay, Siesta V:illrp; 21. C;ully CrrrL, Strstn. Vnllry; 22 Sn:uiil, ]%rook.Third Gully, Siesta Valley ; 23. Ccincnl Slab Cieek at Orinda City Imiits, 01intl:L; 24. Cnn\oii Crrck, tributnry to Snn 1,eandro Cieck, nrar S:in 1,rnndro. Tlic iiieasiirrniciits of pliysicnl size and char- nrteristirs were representative of the average rnndition in tlie 200-foot reach. A photograph t:ihcn at cacti site proved to be useful in the rnnrse of later data analysis. Water 1 elocity was nieasurcd by timed floats. lkd sctlimciit size was tnkeii as the B-axis dinnictrr of the inedian size particle. To csti- ni:iic the :iinount of green algae and filamentous tlintoiiis, ten rocks were picked up from the brtl and inspected ; the average percentage of rock area covered by algae was estimated. The fauna and the diversity of flora. were estimated from the general character of the area, in corn-‘ parison with sites known to be generally rep sentative of the valleys in the Coast bnge. Degree of control reflects the asti- mated degree to which the flow is controlled by reservoirs, the amount of revetment, and other channel alterations. 9

? m

N

... EI--P)

e,?

M

N01

N

0N a3 2 2 P -o

2 ^1 '? fl - I:

I e

... ? I^ :? I? 0 a m h a

10

-1. m

N

.a

4 .g Y c d 2 0 3 f B 1 -6 i t a* 1 2 ; 4 5 b i Y Total 233 188 232 153 148 116 144 380 287 371 400 154 111 111 1-14 123 217 158 159 216 138 251 116 128 7 2 Biolomcal Character - Oi 20 OT 20 Oi Oi Oi 25 20 07 25 25 07 07 0: Oi 20 07 0; 07 07 20 07 23 3 Filamentousslimp 09 20 09 09 09 09 20 20 20 25 25 2.5 09 09 25 09 50 50 50 09 09 50 09 20 5 F~UM 20 08 08 50 n8 50 08 50 50 33 33 08 20 20 08 n8 08 08 20 os ~1 20 os 08 2 Flora 0 Character 12 loo 08 50 09 09 09 12 12 50 12 01) 12 00 09 09 no 50 12 511 09 n9 IO- 12 5 Exotic 20 12 14 12 20 50 50 14 14 14 1.4 20 14 14 12 20 100 20 12 1 00 12 12 Dir enity 25 25 11 50 20 11 11 11 11 25 50 20 2; 25 20 20 11 11 2.3 25 I1 11 20lJ 25l2 3 Total 93 1 85 58 1 91 73 I 36 1 05 1 32 1 2i 1 54 1 59 1 07 87 84 81 iJ 1 98 1 46 1 26 1 99 81 1 22 138 1 02 4 Human Cae and Interest 3 Tmh and Ltter 3 Metal 31 12 33 12 12 -20 17 50 12 20 20 12 12 12 33 12 20 17 50 17 17 17 17 20 Paper, PlaJtic 08 50 50 08 08 08 08 08 14 14 n8 08 08 1.1 08 1 00 08 50 50 14 14 14 14 08 Other 20 20 14 20 11 20 14 11 11 14 20 11 11 14 11 11 14 11 11 50 14 50 lo0 14 Artlfunslcontrob 20 12 1i 33 12 50 20 17 17 12 12 17 12 17 17 .%? 20 20 33 12 12 12 50 20 AcnaebrLty Individual 05 0.5 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 1 00 1 00 1 00 05 o5 Muuw 100 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 50 50 06 06 06 06 06 33 33 33 @I.o6 Amtktrc Impnsston Lmllcellary 25 14 25 50 14 14 14 14 1.1 14 14 25 25 14 25 14 14 14 25 1s 25 50 15 . VUW 06 06 06 50 OB 06 50 06 50 50 of3 06 of3 06 06 06 06 50 06 og 06 M.@I. Degrw of change Dasnd.tl00 12 14 12 17 14 14 50 17 14 12 17 100 17 12 14 17 12 I4 14 12 RkOrsnp0~Qb.l .I7 17 07 100 07 17 07 17 07 07 07 17 07 07 07 100 07 07 07 07 . IMunhbon 10 .lo 10 10 10 25 25 14 14 14 10 10 33 33 10 10 25 25 10 14 . oslleml .atbetic interat 33 ad .w 20 25 14 20 .I4 14 20 20 20 25 25 20 14 14 20 20 IIuman debris or :irtifncts wcrc countrtl in inis of di:ir:irtrrist iw, cvrii tliriiigli tliry rnnnot the 200-foot reach nlid rccortlctl as tiinnl)rrs tell of wli:it, tlic iiiis is c~oniiioscd. counted. Scenic iniprrssioiis and orciirrcncc of ‘IIit~ wlirinc of r:ilrtilntinp riniqiirnr+s .worrs vistas reflect wlint an obsrrver srcs n.lien stniid- is iiitlilTrrrnt r\-lirtlirr tlir cntrgory cI:i.-s is in ing bcsidc tlie stream. tlir niitltllc of tlic r:uigc for tlint. rnttwry or Tablc 2 lists thc basic ht:i in trrnis of chss :it OIIC of tlic cx~rr~nrs.~\ltlioiigli it rvor~lilIIC categorics as dcfincd in Tablc 1. Notc that, tho possilh to lnotlify tlic s(*liriiic IO roii+iilrr tlic numbers in this table are only category Inl~cls position in tlic rntigr of cntrpories. it tlrics not and not me:isures of merit or valuc. scrm iircrsmry to (lo this, siiirc C~PScntrgorirs in tlic mitltllc of tlie sr:ilc arr thr iiiorc roiiinioii RELATIVE UNIQUENESS OF SITES :i11(1, Iirnrc, tlic liiglirr IIII~~IIPII~P~Y:IIII(Y arc Uniqiie is a mord mcniiing without, like or iisiinllg :issori:itrtl with {lie rstrrnirs, equal. For tliings society jutlgcs to I)c tlrsirnliIc, Notr tli:it. t Iir iiiiiciiirncw wows :irr :il.w in- relativc scnrrity or nniqucncss increases vnlirc tlifTrrriit to wlirtlicr tlir to society, hiit for tlie present it nppr:irs to bc fio from 1 to 5 (ill ortlrr ( niorc important to tlevclop n method of tlrtrr- ing gootlnrss) or in tlic i I, niinging a scale of iiniqiirnras than to nsaign :lily 1Iiosc it.enic, wlirtlirr ‘good’ or ‘hi(1,’t1i:it. :ire rclativt? vnlnc. Tlirrrforr, wr srrk :i 1iirr:irrliir:il ri)innioi~ niiiniig tlir sitw :iIr ivriclitvil lo\v in milking of sites in tcrnis of iinicliirntrss bnsctl flit sroriiig, It Ii:~piwnst1i:it. IIIOW f:i(,ttirs 11i:it on the objrctive nir:isiirrniriit or rstimntion of :irc iisii:iIly rowitirrrtl ‘gooil’ trntl to 1:irgc chn.ractcrist ics observrd in tlir firld. v:iIiics in llir riiiit~~~c~~irsssrtirr, Iwr:iiisr tlicw If n sitc pnrainctrr is, for rsninlilr, oiic :imong f;ic.tors :irr intlrril lrs,s roinnioii iii tliv nio(Irrii sis of tlic same cntraory, the sitc sIi:irrs this rivrr,v:ipc. Ilnl it is rnlirrly ~icis~sil)lriii :I iir:irly cliaractcristic with fivc otlicrs. It mnv IIC said n:itiir:i1 rivcr tli:it tlic Iiiglirst iiiiiqiiriicss srorc tlicn, that it is uniqur in the ratio of one to ~voiiltlI,c givcn to tlir sitr th:it, is iiiost tiirhid, six, or its niiiqiiencss is 1/G (0.10). In this n.ny most rron.clr(l, and grnrrally n.orr( in :rii :irstIic- uniqueness may bc dcfinctl on n sc:ilc of 0 to 1.0. tic sense, brcansr tlint sitr is intlrrtl iiniqiir. In the present stiidy tlicre werc 24 sitrs Intlcrtl, n rrowtlr(1, littrrctl sitc, togrtlirr with studied. If the numerical (Irsrription of n ccrtniii :I iiniquc srt of 1iistorir:il valiirs, nix!; oiitsrore charnctcristic is in tlic mine chss cntrgory at nntiiral vnlrirs in this sclirnic. This Oir nnicliic- all sitrs, each sitc is tlcsrrild as having a nrss scorc is jiist, n nir:iiirc of iiiiiqiirnrss nntl uniqiicness of 1/24 or .OJ. This is :I miiiiniuni not, nrrrssnrily n nirasiirc of gootlrir.ss or Iiacl- iiniqnrness in tlie snmple. If, lioncvcr, on!; nnr 11c*s. site Iins x ccrbin clnss cnlcgory among tlic Talilc 4 prrsriits tlic r:iiik ortlrr of sitrs oil possible class labels 1-5, tlirn that site lins n tlic Insis of iiniqiicnrss srnrrs for r:irli of Ilirrr nniqiicncss of 1/1 or 1.0 for t.li:it p:irnmrtcr or groiips of fxrtors: I)liysir:il, liiologiv:il, :uitl attribntc. Iiinnnn intcrrst,. Tlir r:in!iing of sit?.- Ii:isrrl on Table 3 prcscnts tlic iiniqiiciirss ratios for tlir sinii of all tlirrc is sliowii iii coli~nin5. T:il~lc eacli obscrvetl pnmnrtcr :it. nll 24 sitrs. Tlic 5 slio\~st,lic nvrrngc iniit~iirnrsssrorc for c:irli numerical valiic of this ratio drpcntls 011 its site. scarcity of occiirrrnrc among all silcs. For Notc tIi:it, tlic iiiiiqiirnrss srorrs I):isr(l on :ill esamplc, clianiiel witltli site 1 ~ns2 fert, nt f:irtorr Iinvc oiily n siii:ill r:iiigr ninoiig tlir ‘14 and thus it falls in tlic rntcpory Ialded 1, which sitrs. 1’rrsiini:il)ly this is tliic in pnrt, to tlic includes a range of nitltli froni 0 to 3 Icct. In intrinsic siniilnrity of cli:inncls ol :I mi:ill mngr this same class catrgory are witltlis at sitcs 3, in sizc ant1 wit,liin a small gcogrnl)liic coinpnss. 17, 20, and 22. Thus enrh of tlicsc 5 sites lins n uniqueness of 1/5 (.20) as its width cliaracter- IIowcvrr, inclwlctl in tlic 24 sitrs arc two, istic (Table 3). nrimbcrs 10 and 11, that rcprescnt lnrgcr Average uniqueness scores can be calculatcd soniewhnt f:irthcr froni tile Bcrkrlcv nrcn. These for dl sites for my particular groups of char- two, includctl in an otlicrivise rcstrictcil grogra- acteristics and sites. Thcse uniqiicness scores, Iiliic area, slioriltl slioiv n rclativrly Iiigli uniqnc- liowcvcr, st:itistirnlly incnsiirc one aspect of n rorr in tlic snmlilr nnrl, intlrrd, sitcs 10 nntl lie Ritletscape

11 btaiitl in tlic third and fourth r:iy (column 5, table 4). Xotc that thr sites in first and sec ortlcr, nrimbers 20 and 22, also rank in Sit r No. HitiloKirnl 1 n( rirsl All 0 in tlir physcnl factors, in the top . ~ Iiiimnii niterrkt factors, nnd onc of tl I I (i S l ‘20, rniihs first in tlic biological list. 2 4 1s 0 :3 24 1 3 17 NEEDS ANI) PIiOBLEMS 4 :i 1 (i I 22 14 3L IK IIANKIKG IIETHODS li 8 1 .-I 20 ’Tlic ini1)rrfcrtioiis niitl tlrn\vbacks in this 7 I! I% I!) :it 4 !I I!) I c:irly at trnipt ranking riverscape fcatures are !I 10 ?I S iiiinictlintcly ntlinittctl. IO n 20 4 lir rrh//n Il!K7n] (Iiscusscd tlic difficulties of I1 ) 2! 1 I rnditioiinl roiisrr\~ntioiirronomirs iintlcr condi- 12 13 10 18 1 :1 17 17 21 tioiis rrentccl by trclinologicd ntlvances. €le II IS I6 22 ]mils ont d>rwlirrc rh’rutilla, IOGTb] tlint I., 20 22 23 . . if n iini(Irip roinniotlity 15 rcniorrd from IO 21 :I 12 tlir ninrkrt, tlir socid low IS not, nlist the 17 2 2.3 IO a4lr.r rould hrirr rrrcirrtl, hit thr s~iiii of llw IS I1 II 7 in:~xiniunirwli briyrr woriltl linrr brrn willing I!) 11 !I 14 to pny rrillirr than go \vithout (13. 1046). 20 I 6 I “I 19 5 13 liriitilln’s tlisrussion emphasizes tlic need to 2 .j 12 2 3 cvnliintc relntivc uniqueness. “3 23 4 I 5 34 15 7 IO It is obvioiis that iiniqucncss is only one of tlic cliarnrteristics of nn environnicnt which is northy of study. To tlic aspects of stiinulntion iisunlly listrtl by thc csperimcntnl psychologist . -iiitcnsify, no\ rlty, complcsity, and variations --~I~ol~/wd~[ l9GGJ atltls iiicongrirtt y, ‘the jnrring rlTect of tlic jnxtnposition of diffcrcnt structures lncking any relationslnp to onc nnotlirr (p. 33).’ 21 In ow consrtlernt ion of the problcni of mensure- .20 nicnt rerognizrtl this conccpt of the misfit .1s we .23 or rnisplnrctl ns a factor tlint sliould IIC recorder1 .I2 in tlic ficltl brit perlinps unfortrniatclp chose to . 10 nirliitlr tlint, in oiir Irss spccific term ‘general .I7 ncstlictir iiitrrest’ iii Tablr 1. Thc ocrurrenee of . ‘>’.. .21 misfits niny be iiiorc tlinn mrrclv one factor in 2.7 nestlietic ernluntion. Kates [IN61 goes 60 far .2.7 as to s:iy that ‘we slioiild not seck to measure I2 .I8 bcnuty brit ratlicr uglinrss (p. 24).’ 1 3 .I4 \\”ohlwill continues 14 .I4 I .-, . I4 . . . wliilc it, niny tw ensv to illustrate the 10 . l!) rrlrvrtnrc of lhcsc ‘rollatite’ varinbles . . , to 17 .20 oiit rrnponw to the physiml environment, 18 . 10 svstcmatic rrmrtrch in this area will have to 19 .I9 roiiie lo grips with the problems of opera- 20 .2F tional definition and measurement . . . (p. 33). 21 . 19 22 .25 Perhaps our inventory should be altered to 23 .IS express more explicitly a numerical rating of 24 .I8 misfit occurrences. 716 LEOI’OLD AND MAHCHANI)

Anotlicr tlifficiilty with tlic inrcntory clieck- scciic, :ind iiit(~riiiillr~ir~~-l~rIrnvrlctl cstcn- list we uscd is that onr thrcc over-all categories sivcly Iiy nutomol)ilr, filling oiit :L srrnrry rating -physical rharactcr, biologir:il chnractcr, slrect cvrry half-niilc along tlir cliosrii rontcs. human interest-are dissimilar. It is clcarly Tlic rating qunnlitirs obtnincci wcrc plotted on easier to mcasiirc objectively some of tlic topog- ninps for planning piirposrs. Consitlrrnblc at- ra.phic or physical c1i:irnrtcristics tlinn most, of t.rntioii irns pnitl to ryrsorrs nn:ilogniis to ow those in t.lie third category. I~iirthcrninrc,it, can iriislifs. I\ snrncwli:it. siini1:ir forin of in:ililiing is be argued that tlicsc catcgorics do not describe risctl by Xcscnrch Plotttiitig mitl Dcsigtb ilsso- lantlscalie ncstlictics. It. seems to lis, Iiowver, cintes I 19071, cstqt that tylic rsnnililrs of each that aestlictic rcaction is made up of at least r:itcgory \wrc st~lcclctl,:ind tlic cvalii:ititin OI a two aspects. The first is comlirisctl to sonic given sitc wis inntlr Liy nr:itrIiiii~ :IS rlosrly as extent of the factors in our checklist, nltlinugh Iiossiblc one of tlic saniplrs in tlw filc of the present list may be incornpletr and some esamplrs. factors need iurthcr dcfinition and possibly further subdivision. The second aspcct is the U’I’I1,IEING TIL13 RhNlC VALVCES reaction of the viewer to these clinrarteristics Tlicrc is n tlifficiilty indvrtl iii tlic incre or attributes. proccss of :ultling tlic initnrriml rat iiizs of nll It was our intention to rrstrict oiir riiccklist factors :it :I sitr or :ivrr:iyinq 11irni. Avrr:iging and this paper to the description of tlic sites, mnkcs tlic lncit nssinnption ilint rnc.11 fnctor uncomplicated by the mcigliting introtlriccd by c:irrics cqnnl wight. Nrvrrtlrrlrss, wr r:in totals the attitudes or prefcrenccs of tlic viewer. In on tlic columns in T:ililc 3 to ser Iiov large a this we have not been cntirrly siircessfid, pri- r:inge in totnl iiniqncnrss scows ot’riir? ill oiir marily because of the inclusion of the tlircc sanililc. Frirtiier study sliniiltl lic givcn to the fac,tors labeled local scenery, tlrgrntl:ition, and cflcct of nvrmging. general aesthetic interest,. Ihcli of thrsc RS Adtling nnw~iglitctl uniqurness r:itios of tlic defined reflects to some drgrrc onr own imprrs- srvcral sitcs may tend to nvcrnge orit any sig- sion or preference, and in fiitnrc work we siig- nifir:incc ninnng tlirm. This lrntlrwy is the Rest that these factors eitlicr be rcdcfinctl or grcntcr the lnrgcr thc lnnnlirr of cli:irnrlcristics eliminated insofar as tlic piirpose of ol)jcct,ive that arc ntltlctl togcllirr for rnrli sitc. Thiis, to description is concerned. lrst whetlirr tlic tlilfercnrrs niiiong tlir scvernl The list of factors inrlridctl in tlie inventory tot:ils in Tablc 3 arc significant, wr constriictcd may also be incomplctc. R.csenrch should hc a sct of rnndoin nnmbcrs 1 to 5 for 2-k ‘sites’ undertaken to identify tliose feathires of the and 10 ‘chnrnctcristics,’ thus, in vTCrc:t, pnr:illcl- riverscape, both na turd and man-indricctl, that ing t,lic datn in Tnlile 2 for tlic 10 ‘l’hysirnl nntl influence individual reactions. At the moment C.liemic:d Chnrnetrristks.’ Tllc tlistrilxi tion of we believe that attempts slionltl he made to t.hc tot:d iiniqncnrss ratios for siicli a set of describe, keeping the assignment of rating niim- raiidom nrmilirrs tlors intlcrd orcill)y n narrow bers in the checklist as oiijective ns possible and rangc as cspcctcd, bctwrcn n innsiniiiiii of 2.51 minimizing the effect of bias or preference in the and R minimiini of 1.74. In rontmst., tlic tolnls quantitative rating procctlure. for tlic tlntn givrn in Tnlilo 3 r:ingr Iictmccn Separately, the matter of prcfcrcncc shoultl :L ninsiinrini of -1.00 ant1 n niiniiiiiiiii of 1.11. be taken up. Thcrc are scl-ern1 appronc~hes t,o It is onr opiiiion tlint, tlir iiiiitliiriicss scnrcs the detrrminstion of prefercncrs nntl thus to coriltl IIO iitiliactl to rsniniiic. ill tloplli tlic im- measuring both what vnrioiis intlivitliials sce mid 1)ortnncc of bins or prcfcrcnrc. Tlic nrst stngc what impact the factors IIRVC on tlicir reactions. shorild incorporntc a ronsiiiiicr-tlcinniitl annlysis Sonnenfclti! [1DGO1 used a set of 50 pairs of of vr.liat8proplc srrk in lnntlscnpo, following tlic photo slides in which four environmcntal elc- mct,hod nsctl by Shnjer ct nl. [l!Nji]. Tlicsc mentsvegctation, topography, water features investigators showed photographs of cacli site and temperaturcmere systematically varied. to n sample of proplr, anti cacli viewer was Sargent [1DG7] took a somewhat different ap- asked to rate or cvalilntc thc sitcs. proach. Using factors chosen by him as dingnos- In such R manncr it, may be possible to tic-distance, variety, depth of view, width of dcvclnp a set of wciglits to be applied to iiniqiie- Inwntory oj the Riverscape icss \:nliirs to tlcvrlop n prrfcrciirc rank that various special purposes; as, for nrorpor:itw Irotli tho olijcctiw site clinrnrtrr- crncss ~ircs~rvnt~on,boating or stirs :i11(1 :I sitl)jrctii-c I)dcrriicc wight. iiitcrfcrtwx of rcscrvoir construc iintc uses of thc river. R.\ \I 1’1.1 s(:l’ltonI,E~~s GENEML CONCLUSIONS A roiiipiriw of illr qii:ility of riv(:is OII n itntistiwl 1i:isis 11:: ~It~riil~c~tIrli~l~riirls grr:itly on Tlic study purports to be only a prcliminary hc r:i(liiis of xitiililing in sl)nrc nnil in tirnc. approach to R nwiicrical drscription of factors rlic iini(1ttrnws worrs of tlic scrrral sitcs tlr- roinliristng social or ncstlictic ratlicr than monc- pcntl roiirit1ri:il)ly on tlir gcogrnpliicnl rangc of tnry valric. Hiit we have attempted to avoid tlir wiii 1 ili iiy, consitlcration of rchtirc dcsirability, that is, l’lic tiiiic r;itliiis is itnportnnt as wcll. Soinc ‘good’ vcrsris ‘bad,’ because it appars that the of ilic: fnc*toi#s, siirli as width or slope, are first nccd is for a mctliod of drsrription without cssrnti:illy lixrtl r1i:ir:ictrrisiics. Otlirr.~,sitrh as tlie bins ncrompniiping the assignincnt of mea- rliwhnrpr or tlissolvtd ozygrii, arc Iiiphly rnr- sures of worth. i:ihIc not oiily :IS Iwiivrcii sr:IsoIis but RISO Data cvcii for pararnetcrs not anicnablc to diririi:ill~.. It \r.oiiltl 11r tlrsitx1)lc tlicrcforc citlicr mcnsiirriiient by rrilr or nictcr call bc clamificifirtl to iii:ilir rvpr:ii, siiriyJ.s or to itsr coiitinriorisl~ to tlcrirc a rclntivc ranking of uniqueness whirli, rrroitlrtl &it:\ of tlio,v f:IrtorF, Fldi :IS tlisclinrgc on furtlicr tlcwlopmciit, might be a usable ap- or tlisiolvrtl osyprii, tlint ch:inpc r:ipitlly. To ~ironchto tlic problcm of inconimcnsiirablcs in tlic rxtriit, tIi:it, tlntn :it :L sit? nrc t,lirnisclrrs rcsoiircc 1)Iaiiniiig. of ni:ijor intvrwt, tlicn ol)scrvntions orcr tirnc Tliis prcliininnry effort siiagcsts that SOIIIC arc nrrilrrl; to llic rstcnt, tlmt, comparison kind of clnseificntion of scarcity is frasiblc that ninong ,sitc*s is ilic tloiiiin:uit interest, tlicii can lend to a tcchiiiquc for river surrey adnil- n:itiii:iI v:iii;itions ns,Gocintrtl niih srnsons may tnblc in a basic data program in addition to the br Irss significint. IIona~cr,no jiitlgnicnt is usual I~ydraulic and hydrologic factors. If so, pt)ssil)lr :it ibis tiiiir OII tlic c1tTrc.t of tirnc vnri:i- tlwn thc rcsrilts of scarcity or iiniqucncss eral- tioiis on sii(’li intrisitr roin~i:irisonsor scorcs. untion might be applied in cvnlunting choices Jlrsitlrs s:iiiipling rntliiis, tlic iiitciisi ty of ninoiig nltcrnntircs in river basin dcrclopinent. snnipliiig, tht, is, ilic nunilicr of snmpling points, is :ilso n significnnt f:ictor. Tlic vnrious REFERENCES snni\)liiig or xcwss sites slioiiltl not bc so close I