Laserfiche WebLink
2. Simple statistical analysis of standard deviation and mean acceptability rating at <br />each specific flow measured for each surveyed stretch. <br />Example Table 1 <br />Mean acceptability rating and standard deviation for measured specific cfs flows on the <br />Upper Crooked, Oregon, USA <br />Specific Flow CFS Mean Acceptability Standard Deviation <br />50 -3.00 0.00 <br />100 -3.00 0.00 <br />200 -3.00 0.00 <br />300 -2.96 0.20 <br />400 -3.00 0.00 <br />600 -2.62 0.82 <br />800 -2.05 1.28 <br />1000 -1.39 1.73 <br />1200 -0.76 1.76 <br />1400 0.18 1.59 <br />1600 0.88 1.56 <br />1800 1.89 1.20 <br />2000 2.30 1.36 <br />2200 2.66 0.73 <br />2400 2.83 0.38 <br />2800 2.81 0.59 <br />3000 2.70 0.81 <br />3400 2.56 1.02 <br />3800 1.44 1.69 <br />4200 0.61 2.09 <br />4600 0.12 2.42 <br />5000 -0.06 2.54 <br />3. Analysis of open ended questions regarding minimum acceptable, standard, <br />technical, high challenge and highest safe flows, preferred craft types and <br />respondent's skill level and user group affiliation (commercial vs. private). <br />4. Analysis of open ended comment questions for trends and testimonials. <br />II. Optional Analyses (some but not all of these analyses may be requested to be <br />preformed depending on relevance to study and number of participants by analyzed <br />variable in the survey). <br />1. Potential for Conflict Index for rivers with a wide range of acceptable flows <br />and/ar user groups (i.e. commercial vs. private). Smaller the bubbles the more ? <br />agreement between respondents at each specific flow level. The larger the bubble , <br />the less agreement between respondents.