Environmental Management

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 283–295 | Cite as

Balancing Riparian Management and River Recreation: Methods and Applications for Exploring Floater Behavior and Their Interaction with Large Wood



River managers are tasked with meeting both ecological and human needs. In the Puget Sound lowland, riparian management often includes placing or allowing the presence of large wood to stabilize riverbanks and enhance salmon habitat. Although this practice benefits humans by protecting infrastructure and natural resources, it is unclear how such practices interact with an additional human interest, recreation. Furthermore, we were unable to find studies that describe how an agency can go about researching the interaction between recreation and large wood management practices. This study tested methods for describing and estimating the number of river floaters, where they float in relationship to river projects, the risks they take while floating, and their perceptions of large wood in the river. Selecting a high-use suburban river in Washington State, we used riverside observations, interviews, and an infrared counter to gather data in the summer of 2010. Statistical analyses provided general characteristics of users, trends in engaging in risky behaviors, and estimates of use for the entire season and on the busiest day. Data mapping with GIS presented the density of use along the river and frequency of use of specific float routes. Finally, qualitative analysis of interviews clarified floaters’ perspectives of large wood. To address the multiple mandates of river managers, it is important to understand recreation users, the factors that could be putting them at risk, and how the actual users perceive large wood in the river. This study demonstrates methods for scientifically gathering such information and applying it when making riparian management decisions.


River recreation Riparian management Large wood 


  1. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander D, Barnas K, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm C, Follstad-Shah J, Galat D, Gloss S, Goodwin P, Hart D, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Katz S, Kondolf GM, Lake PS, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Powell B, Sudduth E (2005) Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Branch C, Sniezek J, Sattin R (1991) Water recreation-related spinal injuries: risk factors in natural bodies of water. Accident Analysis and Prevention 23(1):13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chin A, Daniels M, Urban M, Piégay H, Gregory K, Bigler W, Butt A, Grable J, Gregory S, Lafrenz M, Laurencio L, Wohl E (2008) Perceptions of wood in rivers and challenges for stream restoration in the United States. Environmental Management 41:893–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cope A, Doxford D, Millar G (1999) Counting users of informal recreation facilities. Managing Leisure 4:229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cummings P, Mueller B, Quan L (2010) Association between wearing a personal flotation device and death by drowning among recreational boaters: a matched cohort analysis of United States Coast Guard data. Injury Prevention 17(3):156–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davenport M, Thompson J, Anderson D (2003) Niobara National Scenic River: a visitor use estimation system. Report to the NPS Niobara National Scenic RiverGoogle Scholar
  7. Driscoll TR, Harrison JA, Steenkamp M (2004) Review of the role of alcohol in drowning associated with recreational aquatic activity. Injury Prevention 10:107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fay G, Colt S, White E (2010) Data survey and sampling procedures to quantify recreational use of national forests in Alaska. USDA Technical Report PNW-GTR-808Google Scholar
  9. Gregory KJ, Davis RJ (1993) The perception of riverscape aesthetics: an example from two Hampshire rivers. Journal of Environmental Management 39(3):171–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lee J, Nahajski A, Miller S (1997) Riverbank stabilization program. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 123(5):292–294Google Scholar
  11. Leung Y, Marion J (2000) Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: a state-of-knowldege review. In: Cole D, McCool S, Borrie W, Loughlin J (eds) Wilderness science in a time of change conference: wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research StationGoogle Scholar
  12. MacIlroy C (2009) Recreational use of King County’s river system. A report prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and ParksGoogle Scholar
  13. Muhar A, Arnberger A, Brandenburg C (2002) Methods for visitor monitoring in recreational and protected areas: an overview. In: Sievänen T, Erkkonen J, Jokimäki J, Saarinen J, Tuulentie S, Virtanen E (eds) Policies, methods and tools for visitor management: proceedings of the second international conference on monitoring and management of visitor flows in recreational and protected areas. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Saarijarvi, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  14. Naiman RJ, Decamps H, McClain ME (2005) Riparia: ecology, conservation, and management of streamside communities. Elsevier, BostonGoogle Scholar
  15. Peters N, Dawson C (2004) Estimating visitor use and distribution in two Adirondack wilderness areas. In: Bricker K, Millington S (eds) Proceedings of the 2004 northeastern recreation research symposium. General Technical Report NE-326. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research StationGoogle Scholar
  16. Petts G, Welcomme R (2003) Rivers and wood: a human dimension. In: Gregory SV, Boyer KL, Gurnell AM (eds) The ecology and management of wood in rivers. American Fisheries Society symposium, Bethesda, MD, pp 421–431Google Scholar
  17. Piégay H, Gregory KJ, Bondarev V, Chin A, Dahlstrom N, Elosegi A, Gregory SV, Joshi V, Mutz M, Rinaldi M, Wyzga B, Zawiejska J (2005) Public perception as a barrier to introducing wood in rivers for restoration purposes. Environmental Management 36(5):665–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reuss M (2005) Ecology, planning and river management in the U.S.: some historical reflections. Ecology and Society 10(1):34Google Scholar
  19. Santiago L, Gonzalez-Caban A, Loomis J (2008) A model for predicting daily peak visitation and implications for recreation management and water quality: evidence from two rivers in Puerto Rico. Environmental Management 41:904–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith G, Keyl P, Hadley J, Bartley C, Foss R, Tolbert W, McKnight J (2001) Drinking and recreational boating fatalities: a population-based case-control study. JAMA 286(23):2974–2980Google Scholar
  21. Shoji Y, Yamaguchi K, Yamaki K (2008) Estimating annual visitors in Daisetsuzan National Park, Japan: combining self-registration books and IR trail traffic counters. Journal of Forest Research 13:286–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wohl E, Merritts DJ (2007) What is a natural river? Geography Compass 1(4):871–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VashonUSA
  2. 2.King County, Rivers and Floodplain ManagementSeattleUSA
  3. 3.SeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations