The Significance of Perceptions and Feedbacks for Effectively Managing Wood in Rivers

Abstract

This article reports a survey of 196 river managers in seven states across the USA assessing their perceptions of in-stream wood. This survey followed corresponding questionnaires given to undergraduate students representing non-expert views in the same states and in 10 countries around the world. Whereas most students registered predominantly negative views of in-stream wood (i.e. not aesthetically pleasing, dangerous and needing improvement), American managers perceive rivers with wood as significantly more aesthetically pleasing, less dangerous and needing less improvement than rivers without wood. These views were consistent across different types of managers (conservation, fisheries, forestry, recreation and water), suggesting that because of education, training and field experience beyond the undergraduate degree, managers gain more positive views of in-stream wood. Analysis of manager responses grouped by years in the profession suggests that professional experience or information within professional networks plays a role. As years worked in the profession increase, managers' responses to photos with and without wood became significantly different, showing sharper discernment in viewing in-stream wood more positively. We conceptualize evolving management strategies involving wood in American rivers as a series of iterative states within changing human-landscape systems produced by interacting impacts and feedbacks. In this example application, the Interactive, Integrative, and Iterative (III) Framework for Human Landscape Change highlights the importance of public education and policy as necessary feedback linkages to close the gap between people's perceptions of wood and scientific advances that recognize the significant role of wood in rivers.

Comparative habitat use by large riverine fishes

“…The use of habitat patches indicated that reconstructed habitats may be used by multiple native species, hence maximising environmental benefits. This can be used to increase the positive perceptions by both the public and managers of the beneficial outcomes from woody-habitat reconstruction as a rehabilitation action (Chin et al 2012). The differences in habitat use shown can be used to design habitats that are more suited to the native species (e.g.…”

Trends in the use of large wood in UK river restoration projects: insights from the National River Restoration Inventory

“…Wood, both living and dead, is a naturally occurring feature of rivers where it acts as an ecosystem engineer, creating and sustaining habitats that are physically and ecologically diverse (Gurnell et al, ; this volume; Pilotto et al, ) and increasing the availability and diversity of food resources for stream consumers (Cashman et al, ). A growing body of scientific evidence on the multiple co‐benefits of wood in rivers is gradually changing the negative perception that rivers with wood are less attractive (untidy) and more hazardous (Piégay et al, ; Chin et al, ; Wohl, ). As a result, the long‐held practice of removing wood from rivers (Wohl, ), such as to facilitate navigation and increase conveyance of flows and sediments, is now being challenged and there is increasing emphasis on promoting the (re)introduction of instream wood features as part of restoration schemes to assist habitat recovery.…”

Lack of maintenance is a major challenge for stream restoration projects

“…This is a response to the common belief that instream wood is dangerous for both boating and floods (Chin e t al. , ). This perception represents a key threat to the success of resnagging projects (MDBA, ).…”