WSP06475

• File Number: 7630.425
• Description: Wild and Scenic - Piedra River
• State: CO
• Basin: Western Slope
• Water Division: 7
• Date: 8/1/1991
• Author: Thomas Brown Terry D
• Title: Landscape Aesthetics of Riparian Environments - Relationship of Flow Quantity to Scenic Quality Along a Wild and Scenic River
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

000005

WA,7ER RESOLRCES RESEARCH. VOL ~7 NO.8. PAGES 1787-17t)~. ALiGUST I 'J'i I

Landscape Aesthetics of Riparian Environments: Relationship of Flow
Quantity to Scenic Quality Along a Wild and Scenic River

THOMAS C. BROWN

Rocky ,l.1vlIntain Forest and Ranl!e E.~periment Starion. FOr{ C,)IIIn.I. C<)/oruuo

TERRY C. DANIEL

Dt'pllrrmenl uf Psycho/ugy. Unil'l!r.\"i/} (/f Ari:::onu. Tucsun

The reJalionship bt:twc:c=n flow quantilY amJ ~ct:nic quality was measurt:d for a "wild and :.cenic"
river in C0loraJo. Rt:spondems' scenic bC::J.uty judgmems of video sequences depicting the river at
ft.ow ri.l.le~ from 120 \0 ~650 ds 13.'100 \0 75.0 m}}<;) were scaled to an Inlerval scale measure of perceived
scenic beauly following psychophysical scaling procedures. Regressions of scenic beauty on variables
descnbing flow and other me characteristics showed sl.:enic beauty to increa"ie as flow increased up to
about 1100-1500 cfs IJI--C mJ/sl and then fall as flow cOnlmued to increase. Opumum flows for scenic
beauty typically occur for two short periods each year. during the asc~nding and descending ponions
of the annualla(e spnng i'~ak. runoff season. Flow explained from ]0 to 25% of the variance in scenic
beauty. depending on how much emphasis the scenic b~auty judgment format (ended (0 place on flow.

INTRODUCTION

Since passag.e of the Wild :.J.nJ Scenic Rivers Act in 1969.
over 1'20 river stretches in the L'nited States have been
designareLl as "Wild and Scenic." Management of these
river stretches emphasizes protection from dams and other
forms of development. as well as maintenance of the scenic
beauty of the landscape. Such maintenance. of course,
requires an understanding of how s..:enic beauty varies with
changes in landscape elements. Of particular interest are
elements subject [Q managemenr. such as streamflow.
No previous studies have empincally measured the rela.
[ionship between streamflow quantity and scenic beauty, but
some authors have attempted to characterize the landscape
elements of riparian environments. Lt'vpvld [1969] outlined a
procedure for measuring the "uniqueness" of a river valley
that included measures of channel width and depth. flow
velocity and variabililY. and many other features. but he
drew no conclusions about the relationship of flow to unique.
ness or uniqueness to scenic quality (see also Leopold and
Atfarchllnd [1968J). Litton [1977] reviewed the aesthdic
criteria typically used by landscape architects [0 assess
landscapes and how these criteria apply [Q river areas. The
criteria (unity. varielY. and vividness) place emphasis on
\ano.form~ and 'Jegetation patterns, in addition to the river
i[self. and focus on the over~lIl landscape. tending to over.
look the effect of v....rying ftow levels on scenic beauty.
Kapl/l11 [I9TI] argues that people's aeslhetic preferences
for landscapes are s[rong.ly affected by the "readabiIIlY" and
"involvement" of a scene. ReaJabililY is enhanced by
orderliness and J-epth of view. which rivers naturally provide
since [hey are bounded by edges and offer some degree of
openness. Involvem~nr is enhanced by complexity and a
sen:-.c of mystery. which rivers. typ\cally proVIde by the
variety ofelemenrs in iJ river scene le.g.. water. movement.
vcge(ation. topographic relief) and the interest engendered

Copyright 191}1 by the AmencJ.n GC:Llphy'Si!:JI Union.

Papr:r nurnbc:r 91 WR00975.
OO..n.IJ9i/9INJ WR.nOQ75S0~.Otl

as a river winds around a bend or goes out of sight beyond a
slope or vegetation. Like the other two efforts, Kaplan's
reasoning pro\lldes little insight about the re\'i:\t\ono::.hip of
flow to sct:nic beau[y.
Masteller et al. [1976] recognized the need to better
underst~nd. lhb relationship in their thorough revlew of
methodologies for measuring srreamtiow' aesthetic values.
But, to our knowledge. only Lirton [1984. p. 374J has
published an analysis of the relationship. and his was admll-
tedly J. cursory look. From observations of photographs
taken at various flow levels from several photo points aJong
two C<llifornia rivers, he concluded that some segments of a
stream show morc visual response than others as flow
volumes fluctuate and that "at borh flood stage and lowest
stage. it can be e:\pected that aesthetic quality is dimin-
ished." Negative effects of abnormally high flows include
"drowning out the COnlraS{s between riffles and pools.
masking apparenl differences. of velocity with the impression
of a single k.ind of movement." and disappearance of islands
and bars. Negative effects of low water include loss of
vitality with reducrion or loss of white wi..\.ler, a COnd\tlon of
abandonment suggested by stranded features, and the los~ of
vividness of contrast b~tween pools and flowing water.
Although pr~vious. studies have not empirically measured
rhe effect of flow level on public perception of scenic beauty
per se, several economic studies have estimated willingness
to poy for recreation at different flow levels. These studies,
reviewed by Loomis [1987]. all indicate that willingness of
recreationists to pay for river recreation increases wilh flow
up to a point and Ihc::n (for most activitit:s at least) decreases
as flow rises abuve the critical level. Funh~rmore, the
crillcal It:vcl differed by recreation activity. with anglers
preferring lower flow kvels than floaters or streamside
users.
One of these econl.)mk studres was of [he Cache La
Poudre River in northern ColurJuo. the fo..:us of the present
study. Dal/hat ond rVlln,!: [19811 interviewed anglers.
tlo~Hers. and shl)rdine rc::crealil)nists (mainly campers and
picnickc::rsl ..,long. tl'le river upstream of Fon Collin'S about

17S7

<----.

\.