|
<br />030072
<br />
<br />BROWN AND DANIEL: L,'NDSCAPE AESTHETICS OF RIP....RIAN ENVIRONMENTS
<br />
<br />1794
<br />
<br />depended on the format used to induce observers' judg-
<br />ments. Flow was less important in the rating experiments.
<br />which were intended to correspond to a real world situation
<br />of occasional visits to a wide variety of sites. than in the
<br />paired-comparison experiment, which was intended 10 cor-
<br />respond to a situation of occasional visits to the same few
<br />sites. Nevertheless, the different methods had little effect on
<br />the scenic beauty/flow relationship.
<br />These results indicate that scenic beauty could be en-
<br />hanced by storing water, during the high spring runoff
<br />period, for release later in the summer. Alternatives for
<br />scenic beauty enhancement via flow management could be
<br />compared with the aid of a seasonal scenic beauty index.
<br />Because a scenic beauty metric such as the SSE is an
<br />interval scale measure, a seasonal scenic beauty index could
<br />be computed as a function of SBE and time (most simply. For
<br />example. as the time-weighted average SBE for a season).
<br />An increase in such an index would indicate an increase in
<br />scenic quality.
<br />Knowing how the level of scenic beauty changes with flow
<br />rate could provide useFul infonnation for river management
<br />and policy. Cenainly for specifically designated "scenic"
<br />rivers, such as wild and scenic rivers, it is important to be
<br />able to predict how changes in flow will affect the viewing
<br />public's perception of the scenic beauty of the river land-
<br />scape. However, knowing the level of scenic beauty does
<br />not by itself provide a sufficient basis for determining stream
<br />flow policies. except in the unlikely circumstance where
<br />scenic beauty is the only output of interest and its enhance-
<br />ment is costless. A measure of scenic beauty reveals the
<br />quality of the viewing experience afforded by the river
<br />landscape. bill it does not indicate the imponance or'value of
<br />that experience. Just as the volume of water diverted for
<br />irrigation does not itself indicate the value of the diversion,
<br />so too a scenic beauty metric fails (0 measure the value of
<br />the scenic beauty: in both cases. value also depends upon
<br />the benefits provided to people.
<br />Decision making about flow alterations is most effective
<br />where the values of different affected water uses are com-
<br />pared in common terms. Thus decisive support for flow
<br />alteration decisions is too much to ask of scenic beauty
<br />assessment studies alone. However, the results of this study
<br />do show that flow volume affects public perception of scenic
<br />beauty, over a wide range in riverine charac(eristics. and
<br />suggest that scenic beauty contributes to peoples' willing-
<br />ness to pay for river recreation experiences. Clearly. wise
<br />river management policies cannot overlook the impact of
<br />flow changes on scenic be:lUty or on the value of river
<br />recrea(ion experiences.
<br />
<br />AcknoK'/edgmenlS. The aUlhors gratefully acknowledge the as-
<br />sistance of Don Patterson in slle selection. Bo Ste.....art and Carl
<br />Chambers in data collection. and Russ Parsons. Michelle Haefele.
<br />and John HetheringlOn in data analysis. Bo Shelby. Jonathan
<br />Taylor. Owen Wilhams. and the Joumal"s reviewers provided help-
<br />ful comments on earlier drafts.
<br />
<br />REFEREf"olCES
<br />
<br />Brown. T. c.. and T. C. Daniel. Predicting scentC beauty of limber
<br />stands, Fur. Sci., 32. 471-487, 1986.
<br />Brown. T. C. and T. C. Daniel. Conlext effects in perceived
<br />environmental quality asseS'imem: Scene selection and landscape
<br />qualily ralings, J. Em'iron. P.\ychol.. 7. 233-:50. 1l,l87.
<br />
<br />Brown, T. C.. and T. C. Daniel. Scaling of ratings: Concepts and
<br />methods. Rt's. Pap. RM.293, 24 pp., Rocky Ml. For. and Range
<br />Exp. Stn.. U. S. Dep. of Agric., Fort Collins. Colo., 1990.
<br />Brown. T. C., T. C. Daniel. H. W. Schroeder. and G. E. Brink.
<br />Analysis of ratings: A guide to RMRATE, Gen. Tech. Rep:
<br />RM-J95, 40 pp., Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., U.S. Dep.
<br />of Agric., Fort Collms. Colo., I 990a.
<br />Brown, T. c.. M. T.'Richards. T. C. Daniel. and D. A. King. Scenic
<br />beauty and recreation value: Assessing the relationship. in SOCial
<br />Science and Natural Resource Recrealion Management. edited
<br />by J. Vining. pp. 281-299. Westview Press, Boulder. Colo.,
<br />1990b.
<br />Buhyoff. G. J.. and W. A. Leuschner. ESlimating psychological
<br />disutility from damaged forest stands. For. Sci.. 24(3). 424-432.
<br />1978,
<br />Buhyoff. G. J.. and J. D. Wellman. The specification of a non-linear
<br />psychophysical function for visual landscape dimensions. J. Lei-
<br />sure Res., /2(3), 257-272, 1980.
<br />Buhyoff. G. J., and J. D. Wellman. and T. C. Daniel. Predicting
<br />scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western spruce
<br />budworm damage forest vistas. For. Sci., 28. 827-838, 1982.
<br />Daniel. T. C.. and R. S. Boster. Measuring landscape esthetics: The
<br />scenic beauty estimation method. Res. Pap. RM-J67, 66 pp..
<br />Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn.. U.S. Dep. of Agric.. Fort
<br />Collins, Cola.. 1976.
<br />Daniel. T. C.. and J. Vining. Methodological issues in the assess-
<br />ment of landscape quality, in Behavior and the Natural Environ-
<br />ment. Vol. 6. edited by I. Altman and J. S. Wohlwill. pp. 39-84.
<br />Plenum. New York. 1983.
<br />Daniel, T. c.. T. C. Brown. D. A. King. M. T. Richards. and W. P.
<br />Slewart. Perceived scenic beauty and contingent valuation of
<br />forest campgrounds. For. Sci.. 35(1). 76-90. 1989.
<br />Daubert, J. T.. and R. A. Young, Recreational demands for main-
<br />taining instream flows: A contingent valuation approach. Am. J.
<br />Agric. Ecc)n.. 63. 666--676.1981.
<br />Ebel. R. L., Estimation of lhe reliability of ratings. Psychomelrica,
<br />/6,407-424. 1951.
<br />Hull, R. B.. and G. J. Buhyoff. The scenic beauty temporal
<br />distribution method: An atlempt to make scenic beauty assess-
<br />mems compalible wilh foresl planning efforts, For. Sci.. 32,
<br />271-286, 1986,
<br />Hull, R B.. G. J. Buhyoff. and T. C. Daniel. Measurement of scenic
<br />beaulY: The law of comparative judgment and scenic beauty
<br />estimation procedures. For. Sci., JO, 1084-1096. 1984.
<br />Kaplan. R.. Down by the riverside: Informational factors in water-
<br />scape preference. in Proceedings: Symposium on river recreation
<br />management and research. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC.28. pp. 246-289.
<br />Northcentral For. Exp. Stn.. U.S. Dep. of Agric., St. Paul,
<br />Minn., 1917.
<br />Leopold. L. B.. Landscape esthetics: How to quantify the scenics of
<br />a river valley, Not. Hist.. 78(8). 36-45. 1969.
<br />Leopold. L. B.. and M. O'Brien Marchand. On the quantitative
<br />inventory of the riverscape. Water Resour. Res.. 4(4).709-717,
<br />1%8,
<br />Litton. R. B.. Jr.. River landscape quality and its assessment. in
<br />Proceeding!.: Symposium on river recreation management and
<br />research. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-28, pp. 46--54. Northcentral For.
<br />Exp. Stn.. U.S. Dep. of Ag.ric.. S1. Paul. Minn.. 1977.
<br />Litton. R. B.. Jr.. Visual fluctualions in river landscape quality. in
<br />NtJ.lionaJ Ri\'er ReuetJ.lion Symposium Proceedings. ediled by
<br />J. S. Popadic. D. I. Butterfield. D. H. Ander!>on, and M. R.
<br />Popadic. pp. 369-J83. Louisiana State Universily. Baton Rouge.
<br />19M.
<br />LoomiS. J.. The economic value of inslream flows: Methodology
<br />and benefit estimates for optimum flows. J. Enl'iron. Manage.. 24.
<br />169-179. 1987.
<br />Masteller. M. B., W. H. Andrews. L. C. Langord, and G. E.
<br />M(ldsen. Measurement of streamflow ae~thetic values. in Meth-
<br />Odllll1gie3 for Dt'lerminUlion of Streum Resource Flow Require-
<br />ments: An Asse.L\.ment. edited by C. B. Stalnaker and J. L.
<br />Arnette. pp. 167-199. Utah Stale University. Logan. 1976
<br />Ribe. R. G., A general model for understanding the perception of
<br />scenic beauty in Northern hardwood forests. Landscape J.. 9.
<br />M6-101. 19YO.
<br />Schroeder. H. W.. and T. C. Daniel. Prog.ress in prediCling the
<br />
<br />
<br />perce
<br />1981.
<br />Shuttle\
<br />prese
<br />/1.61
<br />Stewal1
<br />of ph!
<br />judgn
<br />283-3
<br />f Torgers
<br />:: Wile}
<br />'"
<br />.e, Vining,
<br />... two f-
<br />age.,
<br />
<br />."
<br />
<br />
|