Manning’s roughness coefficient was estimated for a gravel-bed river reach using field measurements of water level and discharge, and the applicability of various methods used for estimation of the roughness coefficient was evaluated. Results show that the roughness coefficient tends to decrease with increasing discharge and water depth, and over a certain range it appears to remain constant. Comparison of roughness coefficients calculated by field measurement data with those estimated by other methods shows that, although the field-measured values provide approximate roughness coefficients for relatively large discharge, there seems to be rather high uncertainty due to the difference in resultant values. For this reason, uncertainty related to the roughness coefficient was analyzed in terms of change in computed variables. On average, a 20% increase of the roughness coefficient causes a 7% increase in the water depth and an 8% decrease in velocity, but there may be about a 15% increase in the water depth and an equivalent decrease in velocity for certain cross-sections in the study reach. Finally, the validity of estimated roughness coefficient based on field measurements was examined. A 10% error in discharge measurement may lead to more than 10% uncertainty in roughness coefficient estimation, but corresponding uncertainty in computed water depth and velocity is reduced to approximately 5%. Conversely, the necessity for roughness coefficient estimation by field measurement is confirmed. Manning’s roughness coefficient was estimated for a gravel-bed river reach using field measurements of water level and discharge, and the applicability of various methods used for estimation of the roughness coefficient was evaluated. Results show that the roughness coefficient tends to decrease with increasing discharge and comparison of roughness coefficients calculated by field measurement data with those estimated by other methods shows that, although the field-measured values ​​provide approximate roughness coefficients for relatively large discharge, there seems to be rather high uncertainty due to the difference in resultant values. a. water depth and an 8% decrease in velocity, but there may be about a 15% increas e, the water depth and an equivalent decrease in velocity for certain cross-sections in the study reach. Finally, the validity of estimated roughness coefficient based on field measurements was examined. A 10% error in discharge measurement may lead to more than 10% uncertainty in roughness coefficient estimation, but corresponding uncertainty in computed water depth and velocity is reduced to about 5%. Conversely, the necessity for roughness coefficient estimation by field measurement is confirmed.