709

AUGUST 1968

The factors contributing to the aesthetic oremotional reaction to a landscape are presum­ably capable of being identified. We constructedan inventory checklist that included both physi­cal features of size and form and such subjectiveattributes as ecologic diversity and scenic views.The checklist was filled out nt ench site chosen.either measuring or subjectively eynfuating thepre...:::ence or le\·el of each factor in the list.

Listing the qualities of ,-arious cm+ironmentsor sites, one might be able to rank the relativeuniqueness. of each attribute at various· sitesin relation to the population as n whole or to aparticular part of it. Thus we conccive that ina planning program the computer read-out fore3ch alternati\'c for water de\'elopment wouldinclude not only the usual pertinent data on

THE IXYEXTOHY

differently. depending upon individual back­ground, interest, desires, and thus one's objec­tives.

The present paper presents a tcntntiye nodmodest attempt to record the presence or ab­sence of chosen factors that contribute toaesthetic worth. Observations were made in arestricted range of exnmples in one locality,Alameda and Contra Costa count.ics near SanFrancisco Bay. California. 1'10st of the sites arelocated along the channels of small streamsdraining these foothills. The sites chosen includestreams originating in natural unde\-elopedareas, in parks, and in suburbnn and urbanfoothill areas.

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH

LPNA B. LEOPOLD AND MAURA O'BRIEN MARCHAND

U. S. Geological SurveyW""hinglon, D. C.IIO!!42

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

, IAb8tract. In the vicinity of Berkeley. California, 24 minor "alleys were described in terms

of factors chosen to represent aspects of the river landscape. A total of 28 factors were evalu­ated at eaeh site. Some were directly measurable. others were estimated, but each obsen'atiollwas assigned to ODe of five categories for tha.t factor. Each factor for each site was thenexpressed as a uniqueness ratio, which depended on the number of sites being in Ute samecategory. 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 withoutassigning monetary value.

GENERAL STATEMENT

On property we grow pigs or peanulll. Onwe grow suburbs or sunJlowers. On land­

pe we grow feelings or frustrations. The'ty of a landscape may be an asset to

iety, or it may be a 'scarlet letter' that should. d us of wbat we have thrown away. All

empts to preserve the environment must ne-ily rewesent a compromise between the

uty of the natural world, minimally infiu­ced by man, and the world in which we havesupport ourselves. But we all realize thatd can he used by man in such a way thatretains the essential elements of its aestheticue, or it can be used in such a way that mostthese values disappear.ncb one of us has a somewhat different ideaut which aspeets of the ri\'e~ landscape mosttribute to its aesthetic worth. E":en among

who are conscious of tbe fact that aesthetices are worthy of preservation it is possible

bave sincere and well meaning persons dis­88 to what areas are mor~, or less, vaIu­

, and for what purposes.y thingS are happening in the environ­

. Various groups give priority to preservingerent parts of. it, and as a result we areer unsuccessful about preserving anything.

e time bas come when we should be able toobjectively about the factors that con­

ute to aesthetic ranking and to realize thate relative importance of these factors is viewed

.1 A contraction of lriver landscape.'

TABLE 1. Definition of Class Ciltegories

numbers from 1 to 5. Those factors that cobe measured have the measurement data. cin five ranges. Channel width, for example, W

measured in fee~t. The ranges make up ametric progression of size categories, as canseen in the definition of rang¥ in Table 1.

Those fact"rs that could not he ·measuredthe usual sense were assessed in the fieldjectively and assigned to a category 1 to 5that Bite factor aa defined" in Table l.factors related to aeathetic impression couldc",-pressed quantitativelYJ such as tlie num

LEOPOLD A?-Il> MARCHAND710

sizes, benefits, and costs, but nlso the numberof rankings that are violated or consumed. Forexample, onc damsite might involve a riverreach that contains several river properties thatarc unique and are found only at that site,whereas another may consume only usual orcommon types not at all unique.

The field inventory listing the items or param­eters is presented in Table 1 with the range ofcategories .assignable to each measured or esti­mated. factor. As shown, each parameter in thelist was assigned a category label using the

Physical and ChemicalCharacter

Width (It)Depth (It)Velocity (ft/sec)Variability indexWidth/height of valleyBed sediment size (mOl)Bed slope (ft/mi)Basin area (sq mi)Stream order (Horton)Bank height (It)Susceptibility to erosion

(estim.)Width of flood plainTurbidity (ppm)

Biological CharacterAlgaeFilamentous slime (diatoms)Fauna (estim.)Flora

CharacterExotic

Diversity (estim.)General biologic condition

Human Use and InterestTrash and litter

Metal (no./100 It)Paper, plastic (no./100 ft)Other (no./IOO ft)

Artificial controlsAccc...c:sibility

IndividualMass use

Aesthetic impressions (estim.)Local sceneryVistas

Degree of changeDegradationRecovery potential

UrbanizationGeneral aesthetic interest

of the 24 sites indicating location follows:

Inventory of the Riverscape 7J I

plates, or other 6. Strawberry Creek, n.djn.cent to Dwinclle An-nex, University, California Campus, Berkeley;

i. St.rawberry Creek, at bridge, between Ha\"il­land nnd Giovanni Halls, University of California-,Berkeley;

8. Robbers Creek, at Ash Slreet crossover, "Tesl­wood,

9. Robbers Creek, at. Highway 36 erossonr,Westwood;

10. Fealher River, at. Tunnel Rest. Slop;11. Feather Rinr, at Highway iO exit north,

ncar Oroville Dam;12. 'Vildeat Creek, at Indian Camp Picnic nren,

Tilden Regional Park, Berkeley;13. Knler Creek, tributar~' to Wildc:lt Creek,

ncar Alvarado Park, Richmond;14. Kaler Creek, tributary to Wildcat Creek,* mile downstream fro~site 13;15. Horse !.mil crossing of Wildcat Creek, Al­

varado Park, Richmond;16. Wildcat Creek, picnic area in Ah'arndo

Park, *mile downstream from site 15, Richmond;Ii. Judson Mead area, Strnwberry Creek, west

of Botanical Gardens, Uni"ersit~, of California,Berkeley;

18. Fern Grove area, Strawberry Creek, cast ofPalm Grove, Botanical Gardens, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley;

19. Culvert zone of Strawberry Creek, betweenBotanical Gardens and tennis courts, Universityof CaJifomin., Berkeley;

20. Land Slump Creek, South Highway, SiestaValley;

21. GuUy Creek, Siesta Va.Ue~';

22. Swamp Brook, Third Gully, Siesta Valley;23. Cement Slab Creek at Orinda CiLy Limits,

Orinda.;24. Canyon Creek, tributary to San Leandro

Creek, near San Leandro.

The measurements of physical size and char­acteristics were representative of the averagecondition in the 2oo-foot reach. A pbotographtaken at each site proved to be useful in thecourse of later data analysis.

Water velocity was measured by timed .aoats.Bed sediment size was taken as the" B-axisdiameter of the median size particle. To esti­mate the amount of green algae and filamentousdiatoms, ten rocks were picked up from thebed and inspected; the average percentage ofrock area covered by algae was estimated. Thefauna and the diversity of flora were estimatedfrom the general character of the area, in com­parison with sites known to be generally repre­sentative of the valleys in the Coast Range.

Degree of channel control reflects the esti-near mated degree to which tile flow is controlled by

reservoirs, the amount of bank revetment, andnenrother channel alterations.

cans, paper

FIELD DATA

Couple Brook, adjacent to Lake AnZR. TildenoDai Park, near Berkeley;Family's Path Creek, tributary to Lake ADza,en Regional Park, near Berkeley;North Stream Picnic Area, Tilden RegionaI, near Berkeley;

. Eucalyptus Creek, Indian Camp Area.,'t Reservoir Junction, Berkeley;

. Cobble Creek, Pony-Ride Playfield,mit Reservoir Junction, Berkeley;

The 24 sites Ii ted below'were cbosen to repre­t a variety of smnU stream ebannels or valle)'s

northern California, primarily in the Berkeley, including

l

some that were primarily urban­and other basins in relatively natural condi-

n. With some changes the field inventory couldapplied to ebannels and valleys of an entirelyerent sort, but it was our intention to takepIes on basins uf more or less comparable

ysica! types.The survey locations were chosen more or

G random nnd marked on " topographic• There was DO formal stratification or ran-• tion; once the field technique is deemed

inry, " more formal method of choosingy sites will b" justified. Emphasis wasted primarily to the inclusion of sites repro­

ting a variety of conditions of urbanizationd use rath~r than a variety of stream channel

. For tlUs reason some streams were chosenhw1t-up rban arens, some in .Btate nnd

parks, and some in areas not subject toensive us.!.

arrival at a location a specific site wasconsisting of Bome 200 feet of channel

within which the observations were meantpply. it each site the nssignmcnt of numberse factors wan considered froOl" the point ofof an observer standing near the stream

looking up and down the vnUey. Many ofsmall streams are incised in minor valleys,

sides of which stand 20 to 30 fect aboveel a:nd 80 the view wan often restricted

e valJ~y sides. ..y of the channels were so wooded' thatwas no vist&. out toward the bay or up

adjacent hills. We recorded whether suchvistas were common or absent.

-,

'.

3112

2I9

2

5

22

7

2

2

5

115

77

2118

".,12

23

61

88

••

.,2

5

•

812

•5

3ij

10

•12

..

I1

11

2

42

53

22

r,

5

6

ij

5

\

3

,25

3

76

105

11

10

5

214

33

5

5

5276

8135

72

13

8

2

II

15112

12

21

•8

5

6728

2

2

No. of Elich Clltc~ory

2

5

3

•3

•

,2

218

15112

•3

24

2'4

55,

225

3

322

21

••

.,,4

"3.\

..

.\

55

1155

5

4321

34

31

23

22

3

•43

I12

.,3

3·15

5

22

2

••8

233

3

5

"2

1I.,

32

1121

31

5

345

I

•••

I,1

225

3

3

34

114

2

••8

•2

254

21

112

..-,5

1,

113,

3 35 •1 35 3

1 32 2.. 44 3

5 5

2 32 ..

2 2

5' •3 1

• 5• 5

2 2I 2

'I "3 ..

1 1, 4

2 3

5 •3 45 4

2 1

4 "

5

•

22

232

325

5

•1

2

•I

•

2

•24

2

'.

1133

324

4433

333

55

21

3

112

•543

'.4

22..2

5 51 5

2' "5 52 3;l ·1

2 31 1

3 34

2 3

4 51 42 42 2

1 11 53 2

" .\

" 3

2 3

2 22 I

" 32 2

2 23 3.• 4

14 15 16 17 18 III 20 21 22 23 2·1

44·11

3I

2

51

113

2

,522

•

23.,

22.,2

..1

5332

33

•5

3

352

333

2\3

..442

22

'.

2

2431

55

5

4

5-I

5

4533

21

5C,

521

3

3

-\

54

2

Site Numbers

55

2

2121

15-I

25

55

5

25

•5

55

3

10 11 12 13

5

43

4

5

555

55

5

•

225

23

85

••

•1

•2

5

9

5

4

21

3442

5

•5

·1

3

-.\2

,4

4I

325

·1 "I I

6 5 5 65 6 6 6

3 3 1 ·1

3 3 " 3

'I 3 2 4a 5 I) 2<1 4 4 ·1

2 1 I1 1 2122

2552 1 2

5 3 3 34 3- 1 11 3 5 5

2 2 2 22 2

442 144.4 4343 23 154.

3 3 2 2

I I

" ",I ·1

112

5

5322

41

3

I4

2

5

I12·1

5

•

4 13 44 2

2

4 21 1

23'15678

22 ·1

222

5 .(

1 2I 23 2

2 2\

5 5

5 44 33 3-I 1

5 54 5

Pnramelel1l i\ICMured or I::SUIllILll"tl

)'hysical lUlU Chemical ClltIrllctcrWidth (ft)Depth (ft)Velocity (ft/soo)Vtlrillbilily Index 5 - cl>hemernl

1 - little vlIrill.lionWidth/heiglJt of \'lllIe)'

Ded sediment si1.e (/llln)Bed slope (rVmi)Ba8in area. (1KI milStream order (Horton)Dallk height (ft)Susecptibilit}, to erosion (estilll.)Width of flood plain (ft)

Diologieal CIUHnctcrAlgaoFilamentoull slime-diatomsFauna (estim.)Flom

Character, bare to woodsExoticl

Divcrsity (estim.)

Buman Use and Interestl'rnsh and Litter

MetalPaper. pl88tieOther

Artificial controlsACCCMibility

IndividualMaM uae

Aesthetic impressions.~-Loca1.scenery ._­

VistMDegree of change.

DcgrapatioDReco~ery potentialUrbanizationGeneral aosthetic intorut

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)

• • • • • 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 .00Dopt.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 ,09Ve1ocit.y .33 ... .60 .09 .09 .09 .09 .33 .20 .20 .20 .as .09 .09 .as .09 .as .09 .00 .33 .20 .09 .09 .20Variability lndex .as .20 ,20 .20 .20 .17 .17 .20 .17 .17 ,17 ,20 .20 .20 .20 .20 .20 .20 ,20 ••• .2Q ,.. .20 .17Widt.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 .20Dc.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 .17Bed slope .03 .03 .03 ,101 .10 .10 .10 .03 .03 .60 .60 .10 ,10 .10 ,10 .10 .OB ,03 ,OB .03 .03 ,OB .OB .10St.ream ordor .20 .sa .20 .20 .20 .11 .11 .11 .11 .60 .." ,20 .11 .11 .11 .I1 .as .sa .20 .20 .20 .20 .20 .11Dank 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 ,OBWidth 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 .07 !20 .07 .20 .07 .07 .07 .25 .20 .07 .2' .2' .07 .07 .07 .07 .20 .07 ,07 .07 .07 .20 ,07 .25 0-~

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 .33 .20 .W .17 .17 .17 ,20 '",12 .1' .17 ,17Paper. !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 .03OtheT ,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 .05MIUlS 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'llflitHll.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 .JotVi8tlUl .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 ehnngcDegradation .12 .14 .12 .17 .H .H .50 .17 .14 ,12 .17 1.00 .17 .12 .14 .17 .12 .14 .J.! .12 ,50 ,12 ,17 ,12Ilccol'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 1.00UrblUlita~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 aesthotioinlcre8t .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 1.85 1.78 1.82 1.'15 2.37 2.00 2.00 1.07 3.M 1.51 2.33 2.37 2.DD •.06 3.35 3.23 2.77 ...~

'"

LEOPOLD AND MARCHAND

mix of characteristics, evcn though theytell of what the mix is composed.

The scheme of calculating uniquenessis indifferent wbether the category class .the middle Qf tbe range for that categoat one of the extremes. Altbougb it waulpossible to modify the scheme to consideposition in the range of categories, it dseem necessary to do thisJ since class cain the middle of the scale are the moreand, hence, the higher uniqueness valusuaUy associated with the extremes.

Note that the uniqueness scores aredifferent to wbether the class categorygo from 1 to 5 (in order of an implied ining goodness) or in the re\'erse order.

Those itemsl whether 'good' or 1>ad/ thcommon among the sites are weighreq 1the scoring. It happens that those Iactorsare usually considered 'good' tend tovalues in the uniqueness score, becausefactors are indeed Jess common m{the mriverseape. But it is entirely possible in & nnatural river that the highest uniquenesswould be given to the site that is mostmost crowded, and generally worst in an atic sense, because that site is . deed uniIndeed, " crowded, littered site, togethera unique set of historical values, may ounatural values in this scheme. Thus the uniness score is just a meaure of uniquenessnot necessarily a measure of goodness orness.

Table 4 presents the rank order of .the bssis oI uniqueness scores Ior each ofgroups of factors: pbysical, biological,human interest. The ranking of sites hllSe<ithe sum of all three is shown in column 5. T5 shows the average uniqueness score forsite.

Note that the uniqueness scores based 0

factors have only " small ranlle among thsites. Presumably this is due in part tnintrinsic similarity of channels of a small rin size and within a small geographic com

However, included. in the Z4 sites arenumbers 10 and II, that represent larger risomewhat farther from the Berkeley area. Ttwo l included in an otherwise ~estricted geophic area, should s.110w a relatively h.igh uniqness score in the sample and, irldeed, sites 10

714

Human debris or :utifacts were counted inthe 200-foot rench and recorded as numberscounted. Scenic impressions and occurrence ofvistas reflect what an ohsen'er sees wben stand­ing beside the stream.

Table 2 lists the basic data. in terms of classcategories as defined in Table 1. Note that thenumbers in this table nre only category labelsand not measures of merit or value.

REL.~TlVE UNIQUE~ESS OF SITES

Unique is a. word meaning without like orequal. For things society judges to be desirable,relative scarcity or uniqueness incre3Se5 valueto society. but for the present it appears to bemorc important to develop a method of deter­minging a scale of uniqueness than to assign anyrelative value. Therefore, we seek a. hierarchicalranking of sites in terms of uniqueness basedon the objecti,'c measurement or estimation ofchamcteristics obsen-ed in the field.

If a. site pammeter is. for example, one amongsix of the same category. the site shares thischarncleristie with five others. It may be saidthen, tllat it is unique in the ratio of ODe tosix, or its uniqueness is 1/6 (0.16). In this wayuniqueness may be defined on :1 scale of 0 to 1.0.

In the present study there were 24 silesstudied. If the numerical description of a certaincharacteristic is in the same class category ataU sites, each site is described as having auniqueness of 1124 or _04. This is a minimumuniqueness in the sample. If. however, only onesite has a certain class category among thepossible class labels 1':5, then that site has"uniqueness of 1/1 or 1.0 for that parameter orattribute.

Table 3 presents the uniqueness ratios foreach observed parameter at all 24 sites. Thenumerical value of this ratio depends on itsscarcity of occurrence among all sites. Forexample, channel width at site 1 was Z feet,and thus it falls in the category labeled I, whichincludes" range of width from 0 to 3 feet. Inthis same class category are widths at sites 3,17. 20, and 22. Thus each of these 5 sites has auniqueness of 1/5 (.20) as its widtJl character­istic (Table 3).

Average uniqueness scores can be calculatedfor all sites for any particular groups of char·acteristies and sites. These uniqueness scores,howe'·erl statisticrllly measure one aspect of a

Inventory of the Riverscape 715

... while it may be easy to illustrate thcrelevance of these ·coUn.tivc' variables . .. toour response to the physical cnvironment,systematic research in this area will have tocome to grips with lhe problems of opera­tional definition and measurcment ... (p. 33).

Perhaps our im'entory should be altered toexpress more explicitly a numerical rating ofmisfit occurrences.

11 stand in the third and fourth rank in the ar­ray (column 5, table 4).

Nole that the sites in first and second rankorder, numbers 20 and 22, also rank in the top9 in the physical factors, in the top 6 in thehuman interest factors, and one of them, site20, ranks first in the biological list.

KEEDS A~D pnOBLE:l.IS

IX' R.-\K KIXG :l.lETHODS

The imperfections and drawbacks in thisendy attempt at ranking riycrscape features areimmediately admitted.

Knttilla [l96ia] discussed the difficulties oftraditional conservation economics under condi­tions created bj' technological advances. Hepoints out elsewhere [Krutilla, 196ib] that

... if a unique commodity is removed fromthe market, the social loss is not whn.t theseUer could have recci"ed, but the sum of thema..ximum each buyer would ha"c been willingto pay rather than go without (p. 1046).

Krutilla's discussion emphasizes the need toevaluate relative uniqueness.

It is obvious that uniqueness is only one ofthe characteristics of an environment which isworthy of study. To the aspects of stimulationusually listed by the experimental psychologist-intensity, novelty, complexity, and variations-WohlwilL [1966] adds il1congruity, lthe jarringeffect of the jm.inposition of different structureslacking any relationship to one another (p. 33).'In our consideration of the problem of measure­ment we recognized this concept of tile misfitor misplaced as a factor that should be recordedin the field but perhaps unfortunately chose toinclude that in our less specific term 'generalaesthetic interest' in Table 1. The occurrence ofmisfits may be more than merely one factor inaesthetic evaluation. Kates (1966] goes so faras to say that 'we should not seek to measurebeauty but rather ugliness (p. 24).'

Wohlwill continues

AverageUniqueness

Site Score

1 .212 .203 .184 .255 .126 .167 .178 .25

\9 .2110 .2511 .2512 .1813 .1414 .1415 .1416 .1917 .2018 .1919 .1920 .2621 .1922 .-.""23 .1824 .18

\

~-

j

LE 4. Rank Order for Each Site Based onGroups or Parameters and All Parameters

iRank Based nn

~

Phyllic.il Biological Interest All

6 I 16 8 710 4 18 9

1~ , I 24 13 173 I 6

15 22 14 2421, 8 15 2017 14 12 192 9 19 54 10 21 83 6 20 31 5 24 4

13 13 10- 1823 17 17 2124 18 16 2216 20 22 2320 21 3 128 2 23 10

12 7 11 1111\ 11 9 149 1 6 1

18 19 5 135 12 2 2

22 23 4 15

1115 7 16

Average Uniqueness Scores {or Sites

LEOPOLD AND MARCH."'ND71G

Another difficulty with the inventory check­list we used is that OUT three over-all categories-physical character, biological character, andhuman interest-arc dissimilar. It is clearlyeasier to measure objecth'ely some of the topog­raphic or physical characteristics than most ofthose in the third category. Furthermore, it canbe argued that these categories do not describelandscape aesthetics. It seems to us, however,that aesthetic reaction is made up of at leasttwo aspects. The first is comprised to someextent of the factors in our checklist, althoughthe prescnt list may be incomplete and somefactors need further definition and possiblyfurther subdivision. The second aspect is thereaction of the viewer to these characteristicsor attributes.

It was our intention to restrict our checklistand th.is paper to the description of the sites,uneomplicated by the weighting introduced bythe attitudes or preferences of the viewer. Inthis we have not been entirely successful, pri­marily because of the inclusion of the threefactors labeled local scenery, degradation, andgeneral aesthetic interest. Each of these asdefined reBects to some degree our own impres·sian or preference, nnd in future work we sug­gest that these factors either be redefined oreliminated insofar riS the purpose of objectivedescription is concerned.

The list of factors included in the inventorymay also be incomplete. Research should beundertaken to identify those features of theriverscape, both natural and mnn-induced, thatinBuence individual reactions. At the momentwe believe that attempts should be made todescribe, keeping the assignment of rating num­bers in the checklist as objective as possible andminimizing the effect of bias or preference in thequantitative rating procedure.

Separately, the matter of preference shouldbe taken up. There arc several approaches tothe detennination of preferences and thus tomeasuring both what \'3rious individuals see andwhat impact the factors ha\'e on their reactions.Sonnenfeld [1966] used a sct of 50 pairs ofphoto slides in which four environmental ele­ments-vegetation, topogrnphy, water featuresand temperature-were systematically varied.

Sargent [1967] took a somewhat different ap­proach. Using factors chosen by him as dingnos­tic-distancc, variety, depUI of view, width of

scene, and intermittency-he traveled Crt'sively by automobile, filling out a scenery ra"I.shect every half-mile along the chosen rouThe rating quantities obtained were plottedmaps for planning purposes. Considerabletention was paid to eyesores analogous to I

misfits. A somewhat similar form of mapp"used by Research Planning and De8ign _ciates [1967], except that type examples ofcategory were selected, and the evaluationgiven site was made by matching as c1,possible one of the samples in theexamples.

UTILIZING THE RANK VALUES

Tbere is a difficulty involved in theprocess of adding the numerical ratingsfactors at a site or averaging them. Aver:makes the tacit assumption that eacb flcarries equal weight. Nevertheless, we ranon the columns in Table 3 to see how Irange in total uniqueness scores occurs isample. Further study sbould be given t,effect of averaging. .

Adding unweighted uniqueness ratios ofseveral sites may tend to average out anynificanee among them. This tendency isgreater the larger the number 06 charaete .that are added together for eacll site. Thtest whether the differences am6ng the se­totals in Table 3 are significant, we COD

a set of random numbers 1 to 5 for 24 'and 10 'characteristics/ thus, in effect,jng the data in Table 2 for the 10 'Physi.Chemical Characteristics.' 'The distributi'the total uniqueness ratios for such arandom numbers does indeed occupy a D;

range as expected, between a maximum ofand a minimum of 1.74. In -contrast, thefor the data given in Table 3 range bea ma:\.;mum of 4.00 and a minimum of 1.

It is our opinion that the uniquenesscould be utilized to examine in depth tbportance of bias or preferenoe. The nextshould incorporate a eonsumer-demandof what people seek in landscape, followimethod used by Shafer et aJ.. [1967].investigators showed pbotographs of ea.to a sample of people, wid each view,asked to rate or evaluate the Sites.

In such a manner it may be possib!develop a set of weights to be applied to

Inventory of the RiverscapeI

values to develop a preference rank thatrporates botli the objective site character­

CB and a sUbj~htive preference weight.\

SAMPLiNG PROBLEMS

comparison of the quality of rivers on a. .cal basis 1\81 described depends greatly onradius of sampling in space and in time.uniqueness scores of the ~veral sites de­considerably 00 the geographical range of

sampling.e time radius is important as well. Somee factors, SUCh as width or slope, aTC

tially fixed characteristics. Others, sucb anor dissolved oxygen, are bighly var-

DOt only as between se8.sona but also. It would be desirable therefore eitherrepeat surveys or to use continuouslydata of those factors, suoh aa discbargeved oxygen, that change rapidly. Tont that data at a site are themselves

jar interest, then observations over timeceded; t~ the e.mot that comparison

sites is the dominant interest, thenvariatid,a associated with seasons maysignifiJnt. However, no judgment is

Ie at this time on the effect of time varillc­on such intersite comparisons or scores.des sampling radius, the intensity of

g, t111~t is, the number of samplingis also a significant factor. The variousg or access sites should not be so closeey are replicates of ODe another, oorpart that they are completely unrelated.sites are completely unrelated, then the

lahels for each item (i.e., readingy in Table 3) would be rand0ml(

ted.

GnouP COM~ARISON8

ique does not consider the relativeI of groups or combinations of pro-

There mllcY be no particular theoretical• but an a!tack 00 the problem re­

larger sample size than now available.t to the limitations of sampling, thee nevertheless represents one kind ofof the hasic data contained in Table 2.. ds of applications may suggest other. Indeed, upon appropriate evidence,t be desirable to incorporate weighting

cto determine ranking of sites for

717

various special purposes; as, for example, wild­erness preservation, boating or canoeing, andinterference of reservoir construction with alter­nate uses of the river.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

The study purports to be only a preliminaryapproach to a numerical description of factorscomprising social or aesthetic rather than mone­tary value. But we have attempted to avoidconsideration of relati,·c desirability, that is,'good' versus tbad/ because it appears that t.hefirst need is for a method of description wiUlOutthe bias accompanying the assignment of mea­sures of worth.

Data even for parameters not amenable tomeasurement by rule or meter can be classifiedto derive a relatiye ranking of uniqueness which.on further development. might be a usable ap­proach to the problem of incommensurnbles inresource planning.

This preliminary effort suggests that somekind of classification of scarcity is feasible thatcan lead to a technique for river survey adap­table in a basic data program in addition to theusual hydrnulic and hydrologic factors. If so,then the results of scarcity or uniqueness eval­uation might be applied in evaluating choicesamong alternath'es in river basin development.

REFERENCES

Ka.tes, R.• The pursuit of beauty in the environ­ment, Landscape, 16(2), 21-25, 1966.

Krutilla, J. V., Conservation reconsidered. Am.Eean. Rev., Sept. 1967, 778-786, 19670.

Krutilla., J. V., Environmental effects of economicdevelopment, Daedalu8. 96(4), 1058-1070, 1967b.

Research Planning and Design Assoc., Inc., Studyof visual and cultural environment (preliminaJlYissue) Amherst, Mass., 64 pp .• 1967. ", .i

Sargent, F. 0., Scenery classification, Vermont Re­sources R~. Center, Rept. 18. g']' pp. (mimeo­graphed), 1967.

Sh.fer, E. L., J. F. Hamilton, and E. A. Schmidt,A quantitative model for landscape references,U. S. Dept. Agr., Forest Servo Northeastern Expt.Sta., New York College of Forestry, Syracuse,N. Y. (Duplicated), 1967.

Sonnenfeld, J.• Variable values in space and land­scape: An inquiry into the nature of environ­mental necessity. J. Social 188ue8, £'2(4), 71-82,1966.

Wohlwill, J. F., The physical environment: Aproblem for n. psychology of stimulation, J.Social Issues, 22(4), 2!h'lB, 1966.

(Manuscript received November 2, 1967.)