GCMRC Recreation Research News

The recreation study sponsored by the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center is complete. The research, which began in 1998, was part of the Adaptive Management Program for the operations of Glen Canyon Dam. The final report, entitled “Preferences of Recreation User Groups of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon,” details attitudes and preferences of recreational user groups and stakeholders of the Colorado River ecosystem. The objectives of this study were directed at describing preferences for various flow-related setting characteristics. Specifically the objectives were:
1. Determine current attitudes and preferences of Colorado River users toward recreation opportunities and setting attributes related to river flows.
2. Evaluate changing attitude and preferences of Colorado River users.
3. Evaluate commonality and disparity of current user attitudes and preferences regarding proposed management directions.
The study involved two phases of data collection. The first phase assessed current stakeholder issues related to recreation within the Colorado River ecosystem. Its major tasks, which were conducted during summer/fall of 1998, involved contacting stakeholders to identify and prioritize issues linking river flow levels to recreational use. The issues identified in the first phase guided the second phase of data collection in which user attitudes and preferences were assessed. The major tasks of the second phase of data collection, which took place from fall 1998 through spring 1999, involved five surveys of recreationists to assess their preferences for flow-related setting characteristics.
This research followed-up on the findings of Bishop et al. (1987) who studied relationships between flow release levels and recreational preferences of Grand Canyon white water rafters, Glen Canyon anglers, and Glen Canyon day-trip rafters. During the early 1980s, release flows from the Dam varied widely on a daily basis, and were referred to as “fluctuating flows.” A large portion of their study addressed user preferences related to flows that fluctuated more than 10,000 cfs within a 24-hour period. They also found that decreases in the number of camping beaches would have a substantial adverse impact due to recreational rafters having to share camping beaches with other groups. Other studies have indicated a decrease in the number and quality of beaches in the Colorado River ecosystem due to the adverse impact of Glen Canyon Dam. One of the objectives of the 1996 spike flow (beach habitat building flow or BHBF) was to enhance the number and size of beaches in the river corridor. Evidence indicates that immediately following the spike flow there was a net gain in beaches and that a substantial proportion of beaches increased in size.
The high priority stakeholder issues that emerged from phase 1 were related to spike flows and their effects on recreation opportunities, particularly as spike flows affect number, size, and other characteristics of beaches. Hence, this study emphasized user preferences for beach characteristics, especially beach characteristics related to managerial influence such as size, presence of shade from a tree, and vegetation. Preferences for beach characteristics were primarily determined using photographs of beaches that were digitally manipulated to achieve the specific images required for the research design. For phase 2, the following five recreational user groups were surveyed using mailback questionnaires: private trip leaders, commercial outfitter patrons, commercial river guides, Glen Canyon anglers, and Glen Canyon day-trip rafters. Survey response rates ranged between 65% and 91%. During the time period of data collection, average daily flows ranged between 9,000–27,000 cfs. The principal conclusions of this study were:

1. Glen Canyon Dam releases have substantial impacts on recreational opportunities in the river corridor. Private trip leaders, commercial patrons, river guides, and anglers all reported preferences for various flow-related setting characteristics. White water rafter satisfaction was highest at constant flows between 20,000–25,000 cfs, and several flow-related setting characteristics were rated highly important, most notably stopping and hiking at side canyons, and running large rapids. Angler satisfaction was highest at constant flows between 10,000–15,000 cfs, however anglers were still satisfied with constant flows up to 25,000 cfs. For most day-trip rafters, satisfaction was considered independent of flow levels above 3,000 cfs.
2. The negative effects of fluctuating flows on recreational use were not substantial problems during the time period of this study. Given the level of annual run-off since the Record of Decision (1996), results of the stakeholder discussions concluded that fluctuating flow problems have been effectively addressed and currently are not a priority issue.
3. The recreational impacts of constant flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam were remarkably unchanged since the Bishop et al. (1987) study. User attitudes and preferences regarding constant flows have not changed significantly in the past 15 years. The constant flow impacts identified by Bishop et al. (1987) converged with the evidence reported in this study.
4. The 1996 spike flow, as it affected beach development, was perceived as significantly improving recreational opportunities for rafters. Spike flows are being promoted as a means to increase the number and size of beaches, and hence have considerable support amongst the recreational public.
5. Large size beaches with shade from trees are setting characteristics with highly reliable and strong user preferences. Across three user groups (private trip leaders, commercial patrons, and river guides) and across several segmentation variables (past experience, boat type, group size), respondents preferred beach campsites greater than 800 square meters that included shade from trees. In addition, the size of beach was consistently ranked from a series of setting characteristics as being moderately important by white water rafters.
6. There is both commonality and disparity between user preferences and stakeholder directions. Points of overlap between stakeholders and users were: concern over impact of spike flows, lack of interest in fluctuating flows, and an awareness of the recreational impacts of various constant flow levels. Points of disparity between user preferences and stakeholders were that some stakeholders resisted explicit linkages between bhbf and the enhancement of recreational quality. An expanded context of Dam operating decisions, which would more explicitly include recreational user preferences, would be embraced by some stakeholders and not by others.
We appreciate the cooperation from the gcrg, and from the many river guides who provided the benefits of their thoughts by completing and returning questionnaires. The passion and commitment for river running in Grand Canyon came through loud and clear, and made for some provocative responses.

For further information about the study, contact Bill Stewart from the University of Illinois at wstewart@uiuc.edu or by phone at
217/244-4532.