Environmental and livelihood impacts of dams: common …€¦ · Keywords: Dam; environment;...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Minnesota Libraries, Twin Cities]On: 08 February 2012, At: 13:07Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of River Basin ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trbm20

Environmental and livelihood impacts of dams:common lessons across development gradients thatchallenge sustainabilityMarcus W. Beck a , Andrea H. Claassen b & Peter J. Hundt ca Conservation Biology Graduate Program, University of Minnesota, 200 Hodson Hall,1980 Folwell Ave, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USAb Conservation Biology Graduate Program, University of Minnesota, 200 Hodson Hall,1980 Folwell Ave, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA E-mail:c Conservation Biology Graduate Program, University of Minnesota, 115 Ecology, 1987Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA E-mail:

Available online: 11 Jan 2012

To cite this article: Marcus W. Beck, Andrea H. Claassen & Peter J. Hundt (2012): Environmental and livelihood impactsof dams: common lessons across development gradients that challenge sustainability, International Journal of River BasinManagement, DOI:10.1080/15715124.2012.656133

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2012.656133

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trbm20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2012.656133

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Research paper

Environmental and livelihood impacts of dams: common lessons across developmentgradients that challenge sustainability

MARCUS W. BECK, Conservation Biology Graduate Program, University of Minnesota, 200 Hodson Hall, 1980Folwell Ave, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA. Email: [email protected] (author for correspondence)

ANDREA H. CLAASSEN, Conservation Biology Graduate Program, University of Minnesota, 200 Hodson Hall,1980 Folwell Ave St. Paul, MN 55108, USA. Email: [email protected]

PETER J. HUNDT, Conservation Biology Graduate Program, University of Minnesota, 115 Ecology, 1987 UpperBuford Circle St. Paul, MN 55108, USA. Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACTThe economic benefits of dams have been assumed to outweigh the costs, thus providing rationale for construction of dams around the world. However,the development of these structures can be accompanied by negative biophysical, socio-economic, and geopolitical impacts; often through the loss ofecosystem services provided by fully functioning aquatic systems. Moreover, impacts of dams can be involuntarily imposed on marginalized peopleswhose livelihoods are dependent on riverine resources. In this review, we examine the impacts of dam projects in regions of the world that are at differentstages of development, using the USA, China, and Southeast Asia to represent a development gradient from developed to developing, respectively. Casestudies for each region illustrate the environmental and livelihood impacts of dams in each region, while also providing a basis to better understand howenvironmental degradation is directly related to economic growth. We conclude that a distinct temporal component related to development mediates therelationship between policies and governance mechanisms and the mitigation of environmental and social costs of dams. The role of affected individualsto influence the political will behind dam projects and the importance of environmental advocacy is emphasized as a fundamental approach towardsmore sustainable development.

Keywords: Dam; environment; livelihood; USA; China; Southeast Asia

1 Introduction

Rivers have played a major role in shaping the earth’s physical

and ecological landscapes through their unique hydrologic

characteristics, as well as shaping cultural landscapes by provid-

ing food, water, and other ecosystem services. With the rise of

ancient civilizations came a rise in building dams and diversions

for water storage, irrigation, transportation, and flood control. As

early as 6500 BC, the Sumerians constructed dams across the

Tigris and Euphrates rivers to provide flood control and irrigation

for crops (McCully 2001). By the first millennium BC, stone and

earthen dams were erected on nearly every continent, enabling

the acquisition of water and food to sustain population growth.

Dam technology advanced slowly until the Industrial Revolution

when larger dams were built in less time and from man-made

materials (DiFrancesco and Woodruff 2007). Today, more than

45,000 large dams (greater than 15 m in height) exist worldwide

(DiFrancesco and Woodruff 2007), that provide water supply,

flood control, waterpower for mills, hydroelectric power,

improved navigation, recreation, and waste disposal (Graf 2002).

The rapid increase in dam projects during the early and middle

twentieth century was driven by socio-economic and political

pressure to increase the quality and quantity of water for pro-

duction while simultaneously minimizing its destructive poten-

tial (i.e. water security). Advances in structural engineering,

such as the use of pre-stressed concrete (Arthur 1977), also con-

tributed to the proliferation of dams. Recently, dam construction

in developed countries has decreased as a majority of economi-

cally viable projects have already been pursued. Moreover,

changes in ideology and a growing awareness of the environ-

mental and social impacts of dams have become important

factors that influence valuations of dam projects in developed

Received 29 June 2011. Accepted 6 January 2012.

ISSN 1571-5124 print/ISSN 1814-2060 onlinehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2012.656133http://www.tandfonline.com

1

Intl. J. River Basin Management iFirst, 2012, 1–20

# 2012 International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

countries (Born et al. 1998, Johnson and Graber 2002). Dams

that no longer function for their intended purposes or that pose

safety hazards have been decommissioned and removed (Kato-

podis and Aadland 2006). However, the political-ecology dimen-

sion of developing countries and the multiple utilitarian benefits

provided by dams continue to favour the proliferation of these

structures in regions where the resources offered by free-

flowing rivers provide incentive for industrial and infrastructure

development (Goodland 1997). The potential negative impacts

of dams on the environment and natural resource-based liveli-

hoods of local peoples are often considered by decision-

makers to be acceptable costs relative to the economic benefits

these structures can provide.

1.1 Negative impacts of dams

The impacts of dams on the biological, geophysical, and chemi-

cal processes of rivers have been extensively documented (Gold-

smith and Hildyard 1984, Petts 1984, Graf 1999, WCD 2000).

Although specific environmental impacts of dams are influenced

by local conditions, as well as the size and type of dam con-

structed, similar environmental impacts of dams have been docu-

mented in various regions of the world, and are generally not

unique to a specific location or ecosystem.

Negative environmental impacts of dams can occur upstream,

downstream, and in reservoirs. In addition to habitat degradation

or destruction, dams induce significant barrier effects by block-

ing the downstream flow of sediment and nutrients and prevent-

ing the migration of fish and other aquatic organisms (Lessard

and Hayes 2003, Meixler et al. 2009). Additionally, altered

flow rates may negatively impact aquatic organisms that

depend on critical thresholds of water level, velocity, or timing

for life history stages (Bunn and Arthington 2002, Dugan et al.

2010). Dams may also negatively impact aquatic organisms by

altering water temperature and dissolved oxygen both within

reservoirs and outflows (Lessard and Hayes 2003). Reservoirs

may also contribute to atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g.

carbon dioxide and methane) through the decomposition of

flooded biomass and soils (St. Louis et al. 2000, Makinen and

Khan 2010).

The creation of a reservoir from damming a river has multiple

social and economic impacts on individuals living near the dam

project. Resettlement and loss of land from reservoir inundation

is the most prominent impact from dam construction. Environ-

mental impacts of dams and consequent reduction in access or

availability of fish and other riverine resources may negatively

impact human livelihoods as well. Reservoir fisheries may be

poor substitutes for river fisheries as a result of lower pro-

ductivity and the need for periodic restocking of introduced

fish populations that are not self-sustaining (Marmula 2001,

Baran et al. 2007). In many parts of the world, fish and other riv-

erine resources are critical to sustaining human livelihoods by

providing food and financial security (Shoemaker et al. 2001,

DiFrancesco and Woodruff 2007). Indigenous groups pursuing

subsistence lifestyles are often the most heavily impacted by

loss of natural resources from dam construction (McCully

2001). Reservoirs also increase health risks for individuals that

maintain physical connections with aquatic environments.

Reservoirs provide breeding habitat for vectors of water-borne

diseases, such as malaria and schistosomiasis, which otherwise

are found in substantially lower abundances in undammed

rivers (Goldsmith and Hildyard 1984).

Additionally, flood control is a major incentive for building

dams. However, a decreased occurrence of natural flooding

reduces downstream sediment deposition important for restoring

the fertility of riparian areas (Shoemaker et al. 2001, Lebel et al.2005). Flood control may also give a false sense of security poten-

tially causing more loss of life and property during unusually large

flooding events than if no flood control structures were in place

(Lebel et al. 2005). Many cases exist where dam failure during

construction or ageing was disastrous for local communities

(Baird et al. 2002, Graham 2009). Indeed, safety concerns (fol-

lowed by environmental concerns) are the leading reasons for

removal of dams in Wisconsin, USA (Born et al. 1998).

Finally, dams have impacted the cultural, aesthetic, and rec-

reational values of natural rivers. Although dams and reservoirs

may also provide some of these benefits (Doyle et al. 2000,

Anderson et al. 2008), river-based recreational activities and

river-front property associated with dam removal may provide

more long-term cultural, aesthetic, and recreational benefits (Sar-

akinos and Johnson 2002, Provencher et al. 2008). Additionally,

dam projects that displace indigenous populations can greatly

erode social cohesion leading to long-term losses in culture

(Goldsmith and Hildyard 1984, Garrett 2010).

1.2 Sustainability of dams

The global increase in construction of dams during the twentieth

century and the associated negative impacts has brought atten-

tion to the need for project managers and financiers to adopt

more sustainable practices in construction, operation, and event-

ual removal of dams. The World Commission on Dams (WCD)

was established in 1998 to promote more sustainable approaches

to dam development. The WCD report was released in 2000 as

both an assessment of effectiveness of large dams and a proposed

international framework for planning, appraisal, construction,

operation, monitoring, and decommissioning of dams (WCD

2000, Moore et al. 2010). The framework of the WCD is

complex and promotes the use of three global norms, five core

values, five key decision points, seven strategic priorities, 33

associated policy principles, and 26 guidelines in implemen-

tation and advocacy of dam-related activities. For example,

core values such as participatory decision-making and equity

have relevance to costs distribution of dam development.

Although the WCD report documented the inadequacies of

many dam projects, the proposed framework was not universally

accepted. Many international governments and financiers con-

sidered the guidelines to be overly stringent, such that

2 Marcus W. Beck et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

implementation would discourage further infrastructure develop-

ment (Fujikura and Nakayama 2009, Moore et al. 2010). A

decade after the release of the WCD report, opinions on the effec-

tiveness of the WCD guidelines for improving sustainability of

dam projects remains contentious (see Moore et al. 2010).

Other international initiatives have gained recognition for

promoting more sustainable development paradigms in dam pro-

jects. The most notable precursor to the WCD framework is the

Dublin Principles, established in 1992 at the International Con-

ference on Water and the Environment (ICWE 1992). The

Dublin Principles consist of four recommendations for more sus-

tainable use of water resources, which recognize participatory

approaches to water use and also establish the basis for integrated

approaches to water resource management advocated by inter-

national organizations such as the Global Water Partnership

(GWP 2010). However, the Dublin Principles and integrated

water resource management have been criticized for difficulties

in economic valuation of water resources (Savenije and van

der Zaag 2002) and practical applications (Garcia 2008). A

more contemporary approach to sustainable use of rivers is the

2007 Brisbane Declaration established at the 10th International

River Symposium and International Environmental Flows Con-

ference (Brisbane Declaration 2007). The Brisbane Declaration

identified a list of key findings and global action agendas relevant

to the preservation and restoration of environmental flow

regimes. Fundamental to the Brisbane Declaration was the

need to actively engage all stakeholders in decision-making by

considering the full range of human needs and values as a

basis for more effective environmental flow management. The

key findings and global action agendas of the Brisbane Declara-

tion have promoted research efforts in support of environmental

flow assessment and implementation (Arthington et al. 2010),

although the application of these principles to achieve more sus-

tainable development of dams has yet to be shown.

More broadly applicable approaches not specific to dams have

also provided arguments for sustainable development. Ecosys-

tem services are broadly defined as the benefits humans

receive from ecosystems, including provisional, regulating, cul-

tural, and supporting services (MEA 2003). Quantifying ecosys-

tem services is an assertion that normally functioning

environments provide anthropocentric services with intrinsic

worth. As such, ecosystem services provide conceptual linkages

between environmental condition and human well-being, having

tremendous potential for conservation and restoration (Brauman

et al. 2007). The negative environmental and societal impacts of

dam projects have undoubtedly degraded or eliminated many

services provided by ecosystems. The degradation of ecosystem

services caused by dams has been quantified in several studies,

but multiple institutional and economic barriers may prevent

the implementation of safeguards for protecting the environment

(Ebisemiju 1993, Brismar 2002). Additionally, the quantification

of services that have no well-established markets, such as cul-

tural or spiritual values provided by ecosystems, has proved dif-

ficult (Hanley et al. 1998).

1.3 Objective and approach

Current global trends suggest multiple challenges to sustainable

development still persist despite guidelines promoted by past

efforts such as the WCD, Dublin Principles, Brisbane Declaration,

and valuation of ecosystem services. Holistic assessments of costs

of dam projects are rarely conducted, particularly because many

costs are not easily quantified or political and cultural climates

may provide disincentives for more sustainable approaches.

Although costs can be distributed across many segments of

society, rural and under-represented individuals often share a dis-

proportionate amount, particularly through loss of resource-based

livelihoods (Goldsmith and Hildyard 1984). The objective of this

review is to facilitate a broader discussion of challenges for imple-

menting more sustainable practices in the development, operation,

or removal of dams by emphasising commonalities and trends in

countries at different stages of economic development. We suggest

current practices do not indicate sustainability, particularly

through impacts on the environment and livelihoods of margina-

lized members of society. The role of affected individuals in pol-

itical processes has profound implications for improving

infrastructure development paradigms and is emphasized as a pre-

liminary approach towards sustainable development. More impor-

tantly, we suggest common themes preventing sustainable

development (defined in WCED 1987) exist regardless of a coun-

try’s economic status, although the fundamental drivers of

environmental degradation vary with development.

The consequences of unsustainable dam construction have

been well documented, providing an abundance of examples

for review. As such, we focus on three different regions, each

having a unique history, culture, and development trajectory, to

establish a context of examination for global trends related to

dam projects. First, we discuss the USA, a developed country

with a detailed history in large infrastructure projects. Second,

we discuss the dam industry in China, a moderately developed

country with dramatic economic growth and increasing

demand for resources. Third, we discuss Southeast (SE) Asia,

a developing region that exemplifies the influence of a global

economy on the environment and society. We also discuss key

examples of dam projects in each region that illustrate unique

issues and commonalities of dam projects in a sustainable devel-

opment context. Emphasis is given to environmental impacts of

dam projects and how loss of resources translates to loss of live-

lihoods of affected peoples.

2 Regional studies of dam development: USA, China, andSE Asia

2.1 USA: a developed nation shifting towards dam removal

2.1.1 Brief history of dam construction in the USA and impactson Native Americans

The building of infrastructures, such as dams, has been a primary

focus of economic development during the brief history of the

Environmental and livelihood impacts of dams 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

USA. The construction of single-purpose dams began in the early

1820s during the Industrial Revolution (Billington et al. 2005). In

the early 1930s, multipurpose dams were constructed, such as the

Hoover Dam on the Colorado River (Billington et al. 2005). Con-

struction of dams in the USA peaked between 1955 and 1975

(DiFrancesco and Woodruff 2007). Currently, there are almost

2300 hydropower dams in the USA (Cech 2003), in addition to

several million total dams, with reservoirs that cover approxi-

mately three percent of the country’s land surface (DiFrancesco

and Woodruff 2007). While most of these dams are small (less

than 1 m in height), there are estimated to be more than 75,000

dams over 2 m high (Graf 2003), each storing at least 1.2 km3

of water (Graf 2006). Almost all rivers in the conterminous

USA are dammed (DiFrancesco and Woodruff 2007) and nearly

one million kilometres of waterways have been transformed into

reservoirs with a total storage capacity almost equal to the coun-

try’s total annual runoff (Graf 2002).

The dams and reservoirs of the USA have had profound

impacts on the geomorphology and hydrology of the country’s

rivers and streams (Graf 1999), with associated negative impacts

on fish (Wunderlich et al. 1994, Lydeard and Mayden 1995, Mag-

nuson et al. 1996, Marmula 2001, Close et al. 2002, Cumming

2004) and those dependent on fish-based resources (Magnuson

et al. 1996, Ulrich 1999). Fish have provided a primary source

of protein for Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest for

over 10,000 years (Suttles 1990, Butler and O’Connor 2004,

DiFrancesco and Woodruff 2007) and also have importance for

traditional rituals and medicines (Swezey and Heizer 1977,

Close et al. 2002). Anadromous salmonids are particularly

impacted by dams as these structures impede movement to spawn-

ing grounds, degrade spawning habitat, inhibit migration of juven-

ile fish to the ocean, change water chemistry and temperatures, and

change quantity and timing of stream flows (Magnuson et al.

1996). Consequently, dams have affected Native Americans of

the Pacific Northwest by contributing to declines in catch,

eroding traditional culture, limiting access to or flooding tra-

ditional fishing areas, and causing shifts in diet (Magnuson et al.

1996, Ulrich 1999, Close et al. 2002, DiFrancesco and Woodruff

2007). Many indigenous people have migrated out of the region,

whereas those remaining have used costly litigation measures to

regain or protect rights to harvest protected fish (DiFrancesco

and Woodruff 2007). Many tribes have established livelihoods

by operating large fish hatcheries used to stock salmon runs

(DiFrancesco and Woodruff 2007), although costs of stocking pro-

grammes are considerably high (Michael 1999) and long-term

prospects for restoration are bleak in the absence of dam

removal (Lackey 2003).

2.1.2 Slow shift in policy toward dam removal

Most US policies related to dams have focused almost exclusively

on construction (Graf 2002). However, the utility of a dam is

diminished over time through sedimentation of the reservoir and

decreasing structural stability (Pohl 2002), suggesting more

attention should be focused on policies that outline eventual

removal of these structures. Nearly 25% of all dams in the USA

are greater than 50 years old, and by 2020, this number will

grow to more than 85% (McClain et al. 2006). While dam

safety has always been a concern, the structural instability of an

aging dam increases the likelihood of failure and possible loss

of human life. Dams have been responsible for over 3000

deaths in the USA (DiFrancesco and Woodruff 2007). Removal

has also been increasingly viewed as a financially beneficial

option, given the lack of services provided by ageing dams

(Graf 2002). Dam removal is a relatively new concept that

appears antagonistic with the ideology that drives dam construc-

tion in newly developing or developed countries. Dams that

were viewed as tools to promote economic growth in the USA

no longer serve their intended purposes, whereas the long-term

viability of these structures in developing countries are rarely

questioned by dam proponents.

A notable concern for dam removals in the USA is a lack of suf-

ficient policies for guiding removal activities. The Federal Water

Power Act of 1920 (later to become the Federal Power Act in

1935) streamlined the process for hydropower development and

created the regulatory precursor to the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) to promote and encourage hydropower

development in the USA (Kosnik 2006). Under the Federal

Power Act, operation of a non-federal dam in the USA requires

a license, which is valid for terms of 50 years or less. Conse-

quently, many dams are currently being considered for removal

because of relicensing issues (Becker 2006). Surprisingly, the

Federal Power Act was devoid of guidance on appropriate

actions for decommissioning, which implicitly assumed that the

operation of a dam would remain in the best interest of the

public (Doyle et al. 2003). A comprehensive decommissioning

policy was issued by FERC in 1994, yet these guidelines have

not been extensively used in practice (Doyle et al. 2003). More-

over, dam relicensing in the absence of removal can be proble-

matic. Although FERC relicensing can require new operating

conditions to address environmental concerns (e.g. increase in

minimum flows), these conditions are established in relation to

the current river condition as a referential baseline. This approach

fails to account for legacy impacts of a dam and implicitly allows

loss of environmental capital over time as a result of historical

cumulative impacts of the structure (Masonis and Bodi 1998).

Dams are also being removed in the USA because of shifts in

public opinion regarding the utility of these structures in environ-

mental or social contexts. As such, policy changes made primar-

ily during the latter part of the twentieth century have slowly

shifted the emphasis of public debate to the negative impacts

of dams. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Clean Water Act of 1972,

and Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 have enhanced the

protection of riverine habitats and species. The country’s

environmental legislation emerged as a direct product of the

environmental movement of the 1960s and provides some of

the most powerful examples of legislative approaches for


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

restoring and protecting aquatic resources. For example, the level

of protection granted to imperilled species and their critical

habitat under the ESA is a powerful statement of the political,

and therefore public opinion, towards the environment (e.g.

Czech et al. 1998), following substantial economic development.

Box 1: Dam removal on the Elwha River

The Elwha River in the Pacific Northwest flows from the Olympic

mountains to the Strait of Juan de Fuca in the Pacific ocean.

Construction of the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams in the early

twentieth century has negatively impacted anadromous fish

populations in the river (Pess et al. 2008). Several species have been

listed as threatened or protected under the ESA (Wunderlich et al.

1994). Although little information is available on historic population

sizes, an estimated reduction of 75% of spawning habitat caused by

the dams has likely contributed to decreases in salmonid stocks (Pess

et al. 2008). Growing concerns of declining salmonid populations led

the US congress to enact the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries

Restoration Act of 1992 to restore the river’s ecosystem and allow for

recovery of native anadromous fishes (Duda et al. 2008). The

legislation was also prompted by relicensing issues with the Elwha

Dam more than a decade prior. Relicensing of the Elwha Dam was

contentious for a variety of reasons, such as the need to fulfil federal

fish and wildlife mitigation standards, proximity to a national park,

dam owners’ business decisions, and the cultural, spiritual, and

economic goals of the Elwha Klallam tribe. Eventually, removal of

both dams was considered the only option for restoring native

salmonid populations in the Elwha (Duda et al. 2008).

Arguably, the Elwha Klallam tribe has been most affected by the

reduced salmon populations. Salmon have historically provided the

tribe with protein and also have importance in religious ceremonies,

although declines in stocks were observed as European settlers

inhabited the area. Traditional fishing rights were recognized by

European settlers in 1855 with the signing of the Point No-Point

Treaty. However, construction of the dams effectively negated this

treaty by negatively impacting salmonid populations and fish-based

livelihoods of the tribe for the following 90 years.

The scheduled removal of both dams in 2014 is anticipated to enable the

return of native anadromous fishes to upper reaches of the Elwha

River. Researchers have prepared for the removal by collecting data on

the condition, value, genetic structure of fish populations (Loomis

1996, Brenkman et al. 2008, Winans et al. 2008), and investigating

how to monitor population changes after dam removal (McHenry and

Pess 2008). The removal of the dams is expected to increase biomass

of all salmonids in the region (Wunderlich et al. 1994), having

potential benefits for individuals pursuing resource-based livelihoods.

Evidence from other projects suggests recovery of fish populations can

occur as soon as a few years after removal (Crane 2009). Downs et al.

(2009) present an extreme example where adult salmon were observed

travelling upstream three days after dam removal.

2.1.3 Review and analysis

Box 1 describes a case study that exemplifies common trends in

dam projects of the USA. Construction of the Elwha and Glines

Canyon dams was initiated during a period of economic growth

in the USA, whereas the dams are currently planned for removal

in part because the services for which they were built are no

longer provided. The dams have impacted salmonid species that

provide multiple ecosystem services, including economic, cul-

tural, and spiritual benefits. The negative impacts on fisheries

have imposed substantial costs on indigenous peoples, although

removal of the dams are expected to improve fisheries and sub-

sequently restore many of the traditional benefits that salmon

have provided for the Elwha Klallam tribe (Wunderlich et al.1994, Gowan et al. 2006).

Table 1 illustrates the primary impacts of dam projects in the

USA and highlights many of the issues discussed in Box 1. The

impacts of the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams are certainly not

unique to the Elwha River such that costs and benefits can be

generalized into the categories highlighted in Table 1. For

example, the impacts of the Elwha River dams on anadromous

fish species are discussed by Wunderlich et al. (1994) and Pess

et al. (2008). Similar impacts of dams on anadromous species

in other systems have been reported in the Clearwater River in

Idaho (Wallace and Ball 1978), the Little Salmon River in

New York (Meixler et al. 2009), and multiple reaches of the

Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest (Magnuson et al.1996, Dauble and Geist 2000). Historical benefits provided by

the Elwha River dams are also similar to those provided by

other dams in the USA (e.g. hydropower). More importantly,

the removal of the Elwha River dams and others in the USA

has been facilitated by the lack of benefits the dams currently

provide. Thus, the benefits listed in Table 1 can, in many

cases, be described in a historical context and do not contribute

significant value to many existing dams in the USA. The

current trend towards dam removal, therefore, exemplifies the

lack of benefits provided by many dams in the USA (Born

et al. 1998, Katopodis and Aadland 2006).

2.2 China: a developed and growing nation

2.2.1 Dam development in China

China’s domestic dam industry is unrivalled at the international

level in a number of projects, financial investment, and

impacts on the environment and society. Almost half of the

world’s 45,000 large dams have been built or are under construc-

tion in China (Fuggle and Smith 2000). Additionally, loss of land

and environmental degradation caused by dam projects has

imposed significant costs on the Chinese rural population. Jing

(1997) stated that 10.2 million people living in rural environ-

ments had been displaced by hydropower projects by the

1990s. More alarmingly, in his 2007 work report to the National

People’s Congress, Premier Wen Jiaboa reported that 23 million

people have been displaced by dam projects. China’s most recent

five-year plan (2011–2015) has proposed an increase in the

number of domestic dam projects by 50% to contribute 130–

140 GW to the country’s energy supply.

Assessments of dam projects in China have indicated that the

industry has significantly expanded in recent years (Shui 1998,

McDonald et al. 2009). The emergence of privately owned


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

investment firms and the increasing power of local governments

have created a more flexible dam industry that is less constrained

by bureaucratic limitations and under diminishing control by the

central government (McDonald 2007). This decentralization has

been attributed to the emergence of China’s market-based

economy near the turn of the century (Magee 2006, McDonald

2007, Tullos et al. 2010). China’s government has historically

maintained a poor record of transparency in dam development pro-

jects, although recent trends indicate a shift towards increasing dis-

closure, perhaps in acknowledgement of the need to adopt more

sustainable approaches (McDonald et al. 2009, Zhang et al.

2010). However, environmental and societal impacts of dam pro-

jects remain prevalent; in addition to the lack of control China’s

government has in a decentralized market.

Understanding the demographics and ethnicity of Chinese

society can also provide insight into initiatives that affect dam

development projects and distribution of wealth. A majority of

the country’s ethnic diversity is contained in the less-developed

interior, as compared to the developed coastal regions. Recent gov-

ernment initiatives such as the Western Development Campaign

have focused on developing infrastructure for resource acquisition

in China’s interior to meet the growing energy demand from devel-

oped areas (Magee 2006, Wei and Fang 2006). These initiatives

have profound implications for China’s rural inhabitants as the

majority opinion favours development projects as a means to

bring these individuals ‘into the twenty-first century’ in line with

the country’s broader economic objectives (McDonald 2007).

2.2.2 Challenges to sustainable dam development andpreservation of livelihood

Several challenges have prevented effective implementation of

China’s environmental laws. Two laws affect how hydropower

projects are developed and what mitigation activities are con-

ducted. First, the 1988 Water Law states that China’s water

resources are owned by the people, whereas important decisions

that affect these resources fall under the oversight of government

representatives from multiple agencies. The increasing flexibility

of China’s dam industry has substantially limited the ability of

individuals to participate in decision-making processes implicit

in Water Law (Boxer 2001, McDonald 2007). Second, the 2003

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) law established a legal

requirement for dam developers to assess and alleviate negative

impacts of projects. However, EIA law has not been effectively

implemented due to lack of requirements for assessing project

alternatives, lack of formal mechanisms for including individuals

in decision-making, and non-existent provisions for ensuring miti-

gation measures are met (McDonald 2007). Provisions to improve

EIA law were proposed in recent years to support mechanisms for

public participation in EIA activities (McDonald et al. 2009).

Oversight of dam development projects is vested in multiple

government agencies acting at different levels of organization.

Activities that affect resource development and use are under

the jurisdiction of several state agencies, including the Ministry

of Water Resources, State Environmental Protection Agency, and

State Electricity Regulatory Commission. These agencies

respond directly to the National People’s Congress, whereas

the State Council maintains oversight and also has final authority

for approving ‘large’ projects on ‘important’ rivers (Tullos et al.2010). For smaller projects, the authority is delegated to lower

resource management agencies that have recently indicated a rea-

lignment of mission objectives towards more sustainable

approaches to development, which is reflective of initiatives at

higher levels of government (see Fan 2006). The complex

bureaucratic structure of China’s government may prove

Table 1. Impacts of dam projects and literature sources for the USA.

Impacts Type Sourcesa

Costs

Cost of stocking programmes P Wernstedt and Paulsen (1995), and Michael (1999)

Decline of anadromous fish spp. P, C, S

Wallace and Ball (1978), Magnuson et al. (1996), Dauble and Geist (2000), and Meixler et al.

(2009)

Dietary changes P, C Watkins (2000) and Close et al. (2002)

Loss of culture and social

disintegration C Close et al. (2002), Runstrom et al. (2002), and Garrett (2010)

Reduction of downstream flows R, S Bunn and Arthington (2002), Magilligan et al. (2003), and Graf (2006)

Relocation from affected areas C McDonald and Muldowny (1982) and Ortolano and Cushing (2002)

Safety of dams R, C Born et al. (1998) and DiFrancesco and Woodruff (2007)

Benefits

Electricity generation P, R Billington et al. (2005) and Kosnik (2010)

Flood control R, S Billington et al. (2005) and Glenn et al. (2008)

Irrigation P, R Pisani (2003) and Billington et al. (2005)

Recreation C Cordell and Bergstrom (1993) and Anderson et al. (2008)

Notes: Impacts are described as costs or benefits and further defined based on the type of ecosystem service that is affected (P, provisional; R, regulating; C, cultural; S,supporting, from MEA 2003). Both costs and benefits are provided to facilitate qualitative evaluations of projects in each region.

aSupplementary sources are provided in addition to sources in the main text.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

problematic for accommodating progressive goals that poten-

tially conflict with multiple agency objectives. Additionally,

effective implementation of progressive governance policies

meant to safeguard interests of local communities remains pro-

blematic in the context of China’s market-based economy. The

central government also continues to exercise authority over

large projects that are ostensibly justified, based on national

interest (e.g. the Three Gorges Dam (TGD)) regardless of

regional impacts or external criticism (Edmonds 1992).

Box 2: Three Gorges Dam

The TGD on the Yangtze (Chiang Jiang) River is the world’s largest

hydropower plant and one of the most controversial infrastructure

projects undertaken by a single government. Primarily proposed for

energy generation, flood control, and to increase trade routes to

Western China, the TGD became fully operational in 2008,

generating an electric potential of 18,200 MW and providing a

reservoir spanning over 600 km (CTGC 2002). While many of the

negative impacts of the project are not yet apparent, substantial

degradation of the environment has already occurred and has been

compounded by the involuntary resettlement of at least 1.5 million

individuals (Jackson and Sleigh 2000, Kittinger et al. 2009).

Many environmental impacts of the TGD project have been

documented (Ding et al. 2008, Kittinger et al. 2009, Yi et al. 2010).

The Yangtze River Basin supports approximately 350 fish species,

112 of which are endemic and potentially threatened by loss of

habitat caused by the dam (Park et al. 2003). Several notable species,

such as the river sturgeon (Acipenser dabryanus), Chinese sturgeon

(Acipenser sinensis), and Chinese paddlefish (Psephurus gladius),

have become increasingly rare as hydropower projects have

contributed to habitat loss, in addition to declines from overfishing

(Wei et al. 1997, Wu et al. 2004). Mammalian diversity of the

Yangtze has also been impacted. Repeated surveys for the Yangtze

River dolphin (Lipotes vexillifer) have been unsuccessful in locating

a single individual (Turvey et al. 2007). Additional environmental

impacts are anticipated downstream of the TGD as a result of reduced

flows, such as decreased nutrient transport and regression of riparian

wetlands (Lopez-Pujol and Ren 2009). The TGD project has also

negatively affected terrestrial environments, primarily from

inundation of the reservoir. In addition to several rare plant species

that have been impacted by the reservoir (Huang 2001), habitat

fragmentation has occurred through the creation of ‘landbridges’ that

were previously connected to the mainland (Wu et al. 2003).

The reservoir has caused substantial societal impacts by inundating 11

county towns, and 114 townships, in addition to 1350 small villages

where a majority of residents have pursued agrarian or subsistence

lifestyles enabled by the Yangtze’s fertile riparian areas (Jackson and

Sleigh 2000, Jim and Yang 2006). Increased demand for food is

expected with loss of farmland because crops requiring fertile soils

and heavy irrigation are staple foods for the affected peoples (Peng

et al. 2009). The preservation of an agrarian lifestyle has only been

promised to 60% of resettled farmers, although allocated lands for

resettlement have been inadequate to fully support agriculture

(Jackson and Sleigh 2000, Jim and Yang 2006). Downstream

inhabitants will also be disadvantaged by altered geochemical

characteristics of the reduced flow system (Yang et al. 2007). Finally,

increased occurrences of landslides on the slopes of the reservoir

following inundation have created numerous safety hazards (Wu

et al. 2001, Liu et al. 2004), particularly for densely populated areas

surrounding the reservoir (Yin et al. 2010).


Box 2 highlights the prominent impacts of the largest dam

project in the world to date. Despite the unprecedented nature

of the project, the impacts attributed to the TGD are indicative

of broad trends observed for dam projects in China (Table 2).

The negative impacts of dam projects in China are similar to

other regions (e.g. decline of fisheries, relocation from affected

areas, etc.) but differ in the sheer magnitude of the impacts,

given the number of large dams in the country. For example,

current estimates have indicated that as many as 23 million

people have been displaced by large dams in China (see

above). The number of displaced individuals is second only to

India (WCD 2000) and is not only related to the size of dam pro-

jects, but also the population densities of affected areas, particu-

larly the Yangtze River Basin. Other unique impacts attributed to

dam projects in China have also been observed. For example, a

unique environmental cost of dam projects that has relevance

to both social and environmental concerns is the potential

impacts large reservoirs have had on geological stability. In

addition to nearshore landslides, large reservoirs have been

associated with tectonic instability (Goldsmith and Hildyard

1984, pp. 104–119). Of particular interest is the potential role

the Zipingpu reservoir may have had in the catastrophic 2008

Wenchuan earthquake. Although the specific role remains con-

troversial, studies have not excluded the reservoir as one of

several contributing factors that may have caused the earthquake

(Ge et al. 2009, Lei 2011). Similar concerns have been raised for

the potential effect that the TGD reservoir may have on regional

geological stability (Chen and Talwani 1998).

The benefits described in Table 2 have provided a strong

rationale for the proliferation of dam projects, particularly

because of the country’s rapid economic growth in recent

years. While dams in other regions of the world are constructed

for similar reasons, China’s increasing economic and population

growth have created tremendous demand for energy, water secur-

ity, and to a lesser extent, flood control. Understandably, dams

have also been advocated by proponents as a means to

improve navigation and trade, particularly by allowing increased

access to interior regions of the country (Peng et al. 2010).

Regardless of whether the claimed benefits provided by dams

are fulfilled, the unique geopolitical climate of China provides

an interesting context within which to analyse the role of dams

in society. The proposed benefits are certainly noteworthy as

one cannot provide an argument, for example, against the loss

of life prevented by damming an unpredictable river. However,

the far-reaching negative impacts of dams balanced with their

proposed benefits bring into question the overall sustainability

of dams in China. Current debates regarding social equity and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

economic development have focused on the relative tradeoffs of

large infrastructure projects, with no clear consensus on the most

appropriate methods for achieving sustainable development

(Jackson and Sleigh 2000, Boxer 2001).

2.3 SE Asia: environment, livelihoods, and politics in adeveloping region

2.3.1 Brief history of hydropower development in the MekongRiver Basin

Hydropower development was first considered in SE Asia by the

Mekong Committee, an intergovernmental agency established in

1957 to represent the interests of Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, and

Cambodia. The Mekong Committee was backed by the United

Nations with considerable financial and technical support from

the USA (McCully 2001, Molle et al. 2009). Technical advisors

from the US Army Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation advo-

cated hydropower to promote economic growth of the region

(Middleton et al. 2009), and secondarily to pre-empt the

spread of communism through infrastructure development (Mid-

dleton et al. 2009, Hirsch 2010). Additionally, the prevailing

technocentric approaches to integrated river basin development

promoted by the United Nations presumably considered infra-

structure development as an efficient and effective approach to

alleviating poverty (Saha and Barrow 1981). With the exception

of Thailand, hydropower development halted as a wartime con-

flict pervaded the region, until the 1990s when a relative level of

stability was regained.

International development banks and private-sector compa-

nies have also promoted infrastructure development in SE

Asia. The World Bank and the Asian Development Bank

(ADB) promoted hydropower development in the 1990s to

improve regional infrastructure (IRN 1999, Bourdet 2000),

especially in Laos with its numerous Mekong tributaries and

mountainous topography. Laos’ nominal infrastructure develop-

ment, mainly rural populace, and low quantifiable economic

capital provided justification for development banks to

promote mandates of poverty reduction through hydropower

development. Although the development banks require some

level of environmental and social review, the effectiveness of

top-down approaches to reduce poverty are questionable in con-

sideration of the secondary environmental and societal impacts

of such projects. More recently, international and regional

private-sector companies have promoted dam construction in

SE Asia. In particular, Thai and Vietnamese companies are

major investors in dam construction both within their respective

countries as well as in Laos and Cambodia (Middleton et al.2009). With less stringent environmental and social review pro-

cesses, private-sector companies are often more attractive to

national governments than multilateral development banks. Cur-

rently, over 100 hydropower dams in the Mekong River Basin

are operational, under construction, or are proposed to be built

in the near future (Hirsch 2010, ICEM 2010).

2.3.2 Environmental and social impacts of hydropowerdevelopment in SE Asia

The Mekong River Basin supports a high level of endemism and

is recognized as a global biodiversity hotspot (CEPF 2007, Koh

and Sodhi 2010). The Mekong River is second only to the

Amazon River in fish species diversity (Woodruff 2010) with

over 700 fish species identified to date, and an estimated 1300

within the entire basin (Baran et al. 2007). The Mekong Basin

also provides critical habitat for a number of endangered

species, including giant Mekong catfish (Pangasianodon

Table 2. Impacts of dam projects and literature sources for China.


Costs

Decline of aquatic organisms P, C, S Park et al. (2003), Wu et al. (2004), Wei and Fang (2006), Turvey et al. (2007), and Yi et al. (2010)

Decline of fisheries P, C Wei et al. (1997), Jackson and Marmulla (2001), and Kang et al. (2009)

Decline of terrestrial organisms P, C, S

Huang (2001), Ding et al. (2008), Lopez-Pujol and Ren (2009), Fu et al. (2010), and Zhang et al.

(2011)

Geological instability from reservoir R, C Chen and Talwani (1998), Wu et al. (2001), Liu et al. (2004), and Yin et al. (2010)


disintegration C Tan et al. (2005), Wei and Fang (2006), McDonald (2007), and Kittinger et al. (2009)

Loss of farmlands from inundation P, C Jim and Yang (2006) and Jim et al. (2010)

Reduction of downstream flows R, S Yang et al. (2007) and Lopez-Pujol and Ren (2009)

Relocation from affected areas C Jing (1997), Jackson and Sleigh (2000), Heming et al. (2001), and McDonald et al. (2008)

Benefits

Electricity generation P, R Huang (1993), Wang (2002), and Magee (2006)

Flood control R, S Shu and Finlayson (1993), Wang (2002), and Cheng and Chau (2004)

Improved navigation and trade P, C Wang (2002) and Peng et al. (2010)

Notes: Impacts are described as costs or benefits and further defined based on the type of ecosystem service that is affected (P, provisional; R, regulating; C, cultural; S,supporting; from MEA 2003). Both costs and benefits are provided to facilitate qualitative evaluations of projects in each region.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

gigas), Irawaddy dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris), Cantor’s giant

softshell turtle (Pelochelys cantorii), black-bellied tern (Sternaacuticauda), greater adjutant (Leptoptilos dubius), and large-

antlered muntjac (Muntiacus vuquangensis) (Claassen 2004,

Bezuijen et al. 2008, WCS 2009). Moreover, new species are

routinely discovered in the region (Duckworth et al. 2001,

Dersu and Associates 2007, Bezuijen et al. 2008).

Estimates from the International Rivers Network and United

Nations indicate that the Mekong River Basin is home to 60

million people (IRN 2008, UNESCAP 2011), most of whom are

rural inhabitants that practice a mix of subsistence agriculture,

fishing, livestock husbandry, hunting, and gathering of non-timber

forest products (Shoemaker et al. 2001, CEPA 2007, Blake et al.2009). Of particular concern for local livelihoods are the potential

impacts of hydropower development on Mekong fisheries. The

Mekong River Basin supports the largest inland fishery in the

world (Sarkulla et al. 2009), with an estimated annual value of US

$2–3 billion (Baran et al. 2007). A third of the human population

in the Mekong Basin is involved in fishing, such that fish comprise

40–80% of people’s daily protein intake, with non-fish aquatic

organisms such as crabs, shrimp, clams, and snails contributing an

additional five percent (Touch and Todd 2001, Hortle 2007).

Several dams in the region have caused significant declines in

fish populations and consequently to people’s livelihoods and

food security. Fish harvest on the Sesan River in Cambodia

has decreased by 30–60% since construction of the Yali Falls

Dam upstream in Vietnam (Baird and Meach 2005). Degradation

of fish habitat and migration barriers caused by the Pak Mun

Dam in Thailand contributed to significant declines in fish popu-

lations, leading to massive protests by the local people. These

protests prompted government restitutions, installation of a fish

ladder, stocking of the reservoir, and opening of the dam gates

for four months each year to allow fish passage (Roberts 2001,

Foran and Manorom 2009). However, 91 of 240 documented

fish species have disappeared in the Mun River since dam con-

struction and only two species have been observed using the

fish ladder (Roberts 2001). No fish ladders in SE Asia have

been successful in allowing passage for more than a few

species (Roberts 2001).

The flood pulse hydrology of the Mekong River Basin plays an

important role in maintaining ecosystem and agricultural pro-

ductivity (Woodruff 2010). The natural timing of high flow

events is critical to the life histories of many Mekong fishes

(Dudgeon 2000, Shoemaker et al. 2001, Woodruff 2010).

Additionally, flooding provides fertile soil for rice and agriculture

by depositing sediment in the flood plain and delta. Although

flood control is an important justification for dam construction,

inhabitants of the Mekong Basin have adapted their lifestyles to

accommodate annual flooding and are not necessarily negatively

impacted by flooding events. On the contrary, the benefits of

flooding to local livelihoods potentially outweigh the costs associ-

ated with occasional crop and property destruction by providing

nutrients for agriculture and maintaining important ecosystems

(Shoemaker et al. 2001, Lebel et al. 2005).

Downstream changes to hydrology and sediment transport

and the subsequent environmental and societal impacts caused

by dams have received only cursory attention by dam propo-

nents. An environmental impact study conducted for the Yali

Falls Dam in Vietnam covered only a 7 km stretch downstream

of the dam (Halcrow and Partners 1998), yet negative impacts

to wildlife and human livelihoods were documented hundreds

of kilometres downstream in Cambodia (Claassen 2004, Baird

and Meach 2005). This case highlights the inadequacies in

accounting for the costs of hydropower, as well as issues of trans-

boundary politics. Additionally, most of the affected Cambo-

dians are indigenous minority groups who were not consulted

prior to development and also do not have political leverage to

lobby support from the Cambodian government (Baird et al.

2002, Kim and Tep 2006).

A majority of dams in the Mekong Basin have been built on

tributaries to the mainstream. However, since 2006 there has

been renewed interest in mainstream dams, with 12 dams pro-

posed in SE Asia (10 in Laos and 2 in Cambodia) (Hirsch

2010, ICEM 2010). In 2009, the Mekong River Commission

(MRC), established to foster cooperation in development pro-

jects among nations in the Mekong Basin, commissioned an

independent review of the proposed projects. The October

2010 report recommended a 10-year moratorium on building

mainstream dams to allow for more thorough review of potential

costs and benefits (ICEM 2010). The report was also commis-

sioned partly in response to the proposed Xayaburi Dam in

Laos. Opposition to the project from regional and international

non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as from the

governments of Cambodia and Vietnam, resulted in a construc-

tion delay of the dam until concerns about the project’s environ-

mental and social costs can be better addressed. Although these

recent events indicate a shift towards more sustainable develop-

ment practices in SE Asia, the future of Mekong mainstream

hydropower development remains uncertain.

Box 3: Nam Theun 2 (NT2)

The NT2 project in Laos is a transbasin diversion project consisting of a

39 m dam on the Theun River and a 450 km2 reservoir flooding about

half of the Nakai Plateau. Water is shunted from the reservoir down a

350 m escarpment into the Xe Bang Fai River via a 27 km long

channel, thus impacting two major rivers in two separate basins.

Conservation priority species that have been impacted by the project

include Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), large-antlered muntjac

(M. vuquangensis), white-winged duck (Cairina scutulata), otter,

and turtle species. At least five new rodent and two fish species were

documented during a pre-inundation survey (Dersu and Associates

2007). Additionally, approximately 6200 people were relocated from

the inundation zone and an additional 120,000 people on the Xe Bang

Fai River suffered livelihood losses (Shoemaker et al. 2001,

Lawrence 2009).

NT2 was touted by the World Bank and ADB as exemplary in its

treatment of environmental and social concerns. However, several

mitigation measures for the NT2 hydropower project were

inappropriate, unrealistic, or poorly implemented (Dersu and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

Associates 2006, Lawrence 2009). For example, a wildlife

conservation area was created in the Theun River watershed to offset

potential environmental impacts of the project. Although the

conservation area will expand protection for upland habitats and

species, the benefits have likely not exceeded losses of potentially

more valuable aquatic habitats destroyed by the project (WWF 2003,

Dersu and Associates 2006). Another mitigation measure was the

proposed creation of up to 100 permanent wetlands near the reservoir

boundary (K. Berkmuller, personal communication, July 2007).

However, according to project consultants, only about 30 wetlands

had been constructed as of early 2011.

Social mitigation measures have also been inadequate. Although

affected individuals were promised monetary compensation prior to

the commencement of the project, funds were not distributed until

several years after project initiation. Additionally, an alternative

livelihood development plan was implemented because of shortages

in replacement lands and impacts to fisheries, which included training

and support for upland rice and cash crop cultivation. However, the

International Rivers Network has reported that the poor quality of

resettled lands has prevented the cultivation of crops and the non-

existence of local markets for selling cash crops has prevented

individuals from obtaining sufficient income (IRN 2008). On the Xe

Bang Fai River, a micro-credit fund was created for affected

individuals to invest in alternative livelihood developments.

Although the fund has provided monetary support for affected

individuals, high interest rates and the need to repay loans when

alternative livelihood ventures were unsuccessful has created a

disincentive for borrowing (IRN 2008, Lawrence 2009).


Inadequate environmental, social, and economic assessments

have contributed to the lack of sustainability of many hydropower

projects in SE Asia. Benefits from hydropower have also been

exaggerated, such as for the Pak Mun Dam, which had an

estimated electricity generation potential that was nearly five

times greater than the actual amount (Roberts 2001, Foran and

Manorom 2009). Transboundary impacts of river development

also pose challenges as upstream countries often do not account

for downstream impacts. National governments, the MRC, multi-

lateral lending agencies, and private-sector companies have also

inadequately addressed damages to the environment and local

livelihoods (Shoemaker 1998, IRN 1999, Baird et al. 2002,

Sneddon and Fox 2007). Additionally, lack of transparency and

poor participatory processes have caused difficulties for dam-

affected people to have a meaningful dialogue with decision-

makers regarding hydropower development (IRN 1999, Baird

et al. 2002, Sneddon and Fox 2007). Corruption by multilateral

donor agencies, national, provincial and local government

agencies, and private-sector dam consultants and construction

companies have also presented obstacles to more sustainable

development (IRN 1999, McCully 2001, IRN 2008). Finally,

mitigation measures against hydropower projects have often

been inappropriate, unrealistic or poorly executed (Box 3).

The NT2 project represents a progressive initiative to account

for the full costs of hydropower development and suggests a

greater awareness by development firms of the need to account

for social and environmental externalities (Table 3). Box 3 high-

lights some of the initiatives undertaken to mitigate the environ-

mental and social impacts of the NT2 project. However, the

success of these initiatives in achieving sustainable development

remains questionable, particularly in light of the challenges that

have been encountered in their implementation. The underlying

causes that create challenges to sustainable development in devel-

oping countries (e.g. balancing poverty alleviation with economic

growth) have not been effectively addressed. For example, the

implementation of alternative livelihood plans has been insuffi-

cient for ensuring affected individuals are not adversely

Table 3. Impacts of dam projects and literature sources for SE Asia.


Costs

Decline of aquatic organisms P, C, S Dudgeon (2000), Roberts (2001), Dudgeon (2005), and Jutagate et al. (2010)

Decline of fisheries P, C Baird and Meach (2005), Khoa et al. (2005), and Dugan et al. (2010)

Decline of terrestrial organisms P, C, S

Duckworth et al. (1998), Claassen (2004), Dersu and Associates (2007), and Ahlering et al.

(2011)


disintegration C Shoemaker (1998), Choy (2004), Hirsch and Wyatt (2004), and Keong (2005)

Reduction of downstream flows R, S Baird et al. (2002), Claassen (2004), and Baird and Meach (2005)

Relocation from affected areas C Shoemaker (1998) and Lawrence (2009)

Transboundary impacts P, C, R, S Wyatt and Baird (2007), Kloepper (2008), and Trandem (2008)

Benefits

Electricity generation P, R Hirsch (2010), ICEM (2010), and Kosa et al. (2011)

Flood control R, S Lebel et al. (2005) and Richaud et al. (2011)

Poverty alleviation C Kloepper (2008) and Lawrence (2009)

Notes: Impacts are described as costs or benefits and further defined based on the type of ecosystem service that is affected (P, provisional; R, regulating; C, cultural; S,supporting; from MEA 2003). Both costs and benefits are provided to facilitate qualitative evaluations of projects in each region.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

impacted. Resettlement lands have been in short supply and

alternative livelihood ventures have been ineffective because of

the lack of congruency with traditional means of livelihood.

Moreover, the lack of transparency and accountability exhibited

by private development firms highlights the fundamental dis-

parity between traditional economic approaches to development

and progressive approaches that seek to achieve sustainability.

Many of the costs and benefits of dams in SE Asia that apply to

NT2 can also be extended to other projects (Table 3), and

perhaps have not been effectively addressed because of difficulty

of their valuations in traditional economic paradigms.

3 Discussion

3.1 Understanding the development gradient

The fundamental challenges to more accurate and holistic cost–

benefit analyses are not unique to examples in this review.

Additionally, our analysis indicates that costs and benefits are

similar for each region (Tables 1–3). Dams have severely

degraded aquatic systems and imposed considerable social

costs, regardless of region. What information is, therefore,

gained by examining dam projects in the USA, China, and SE

Asia? How can this information be used to develop a broader

understanding of how and why these projects continue to

persist at different levels of economic development? To

address these questions, the relationship of economic growth,

the environment, and society must first be examined. Our

review illustrates a distinct temporal component of economic

development that dictates policies and governance mechanisms

to mitigate environmental and social costs of infrastructure pro-

jects. That is, sufficient policies and governance mechanisms for

environmental protection are often not implemented until after a

country is developed. Indeed, economic indicators, such as gross

domestic product, can predict effects of development on the

environment such that the relationship can be described by an

inverted-U or environmental Kuznets curve (Selden and Song

1994). Environmental degradation increases with economic

growth until a maximum point is reached, after which degra-

dation decreases with further growth as substantial institutions

for environmental protection are established (e.g. multijurisdic-

tional resource management agencies or effective legislation).

While the environmental Kuznets curve has been applied to

many scenarios describing the relationship between economic

development and environmental degradation (e.g. emissions,

Selden and Song 1994, Dinda 2004), to our knowledge, the

curve has not been applied to the case of dams. Examples from

the three regions in the context of the environmental Kuznets

curve are indicated in Figure 1.

To better understand the relationship of economic develop-

ment with environmental degradation in the context of dams,

slight modifications to the environmental Kuznets curve can be

made so the curve follows a bell-shape rather than an

‘inverted-U’. That is, environmental degradation caused by

dams increases at an increasing rate as a country progresses in

development status away from point 1, and decreases at a

decreasing rate as a country approaches developed and moves

towards point 3. The relationship between the two axes in

Figure 1 can be modelled using the probability density function

for the standard normal distribution (note the equation represents

the shape, not a probability distribution):

f (x) = 1��2p

√( )

· exp−x2

2

( ), (1)

where f (x) represents environmental degradation as a func-

tion of an economic development indicator, x. Figure 2 provides

an alternative depiction of the relationship between economic

development and environmental degradation, using a slight

Figure 1. Theoretical relationship of economic development and environmental degradation from Eq. (1). Economic development is measured usingan indicator (e.g. per capita gross domestic product) and environmental degradation is measured by loss of ecosystem services and livelihoods. Theillustrated relationships represent ideal scenarios, such that SE Asia, China, and the USA exemplify broad trends consistent with the generalrelationship.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

modification to Eq. (1). Suppose an additional variable is

defined, ‘environmental capital’, which is inversely related to

environmental degradation and can also be described as a func-

tion of economic development. The relationship between

environmental capital and economic development can be

described by taking the integral of Eq. (1) and multiplying by

negative one:

g(x) = −1 ·∫

f (x) dx

= −1 ·∫

1��2p

√( )

· exp−x2

2

( )dx, (2)

where g(x) represents environmental capital as a function of

the same economic development indicator, x, used in Eq. (1).

Figure 2 illustrates this relationship and provides an alternative

depiction of Figure 1, whereby the rate of environmental degra-

dation is increasing for developing countries (point 1, SE Asia),

maximized at moderate levels of development (point 2, China),

and decreasing for developed countries (point 3, USA). Environ-

mental capital also decreases across the development gradient

and partly explains current trends in development in the three

regions. For example, dams are currently advocated in SE Asia

due to high environmental capital, whereas dam projects in the

USA are not a current focus of development as a majority of

viable projects have already been pursued (i.e. low environ-

mental capital). The integration used to produce Figure 2 can

also be described as the cumulative loss of environmental

capital across the development gradient. As a country progresses

from undeveloped to developed, the environmental capital of

domestic resources is cumulatively depleted as economic

growth progresses, until insufficient resources are available to

sustain continued growth. The current trend towards dam

removal in the USA suggests the cumulative loss of environ-

mental capital is approaching 100% (in the context of

damming rivers) and removal of dams can restore environmental

capital or ecosystem services. Finally, Figure 2 illustrates the

inverse relationship of environmental capital and policy effec-

tiveness, such that as economic development increases, environ-

mental capital is diminished whereas policy effectiveness

becomes maximized.

In summary, Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the theoretical relation-

ships of economic growth with environmental degradation,

capital, and policy effectiveness in three distinct phases of devel-

opment. First, SE Asian countries are developing and have non-

existent or ineffective mechanisms in place to enforce environ-

mental standards (although multilateral banks advocate use of

such standards). The potential environmental capital is also

maximized such that vast quantities of unused resources continue

to promote development. Second, China has a transitional

economy such that the country has experienced increasing devel-

opment as a result of recent economic reforms. This development

is mirrored by the rate at which domestic dam projects are being

pursued by local governments and private development firms.

Indications at upper levels of the Chinese government have

suggested recognition of the need to consider full costs of devel-

opment projects, although sustainability has yet to be achieved

(i.e. emerging policy effectiveness in Figure 1). Third, the

USA is developed and has arguably the most effective policies

and governance mechanisms among the regions for ensuring

environmental protection (e.g. ESA, Clean Water Act, etc.).

However, the lack of environmental capital that is available for

resource acquisition through dam projects has contributed to

the increasing number of dams that have been removed or are

scheduled for removal.

Figure 2. Theoretical relationship of economic development with environmental capital and policy effectiveness from Eq. (2). The curve emphasizesthe rate of environmental degradation as well as the loss of environmental capital at different stages of development. The illustrated relationships rep-resent ideal scenarios, such that SE Asia, China, and the USA exemplify broad trends consistent with the general relationship.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

3.2 Drivers of dam projects

The relationship of economic development and environmental

protection illustrated by Figures 1 and 2 facilitates an under-

standing of development paradigms in each of the three

regions. However, this relationship is superficially correlative

and warrants a more detailed assessment of the fundamental

drivers that influence development paradigms. The complexities

of the political-ecology dimension (i.e. political environments in

which decisions have ecological consequences) have profound

influences on infrastructure projects, which has relevance in

the context of a region’s economic development status. Indeed,

the fundamental drivers of dam projects, either for construction

or removal, are largely the product of prevailing attitudes regard-

ing the perceived benefits or costs of such projects, regardless of

actual empirical evidence for or against a project (Rigg 1991,

Johnson and Graber 2002). This suggests that even more accu-

rate cost–benefits analyses, although a fundamental first step

towards more sustainable development, will carry little weight

in combating the political will behind a project. The political

pressure that proponents of dam projects have on decisions can

be substantially disproportionate to the critics, particularly in

developing countries when international financiers are involved

(Middleton et al. 2009). Proponents of dams in developing

countries carry strong arguments that dams will provide electri-

city, agricultural irrigation, and prevent loss of life from flooding.

Critics that argue projects are environmentally or socially

harmful are therefore easily dismissed, for example, as individ-

uals that would ‘deny their fellow men the fruits of progress

for the sake of a few wild animals’ (Goldsmith and Hildyard

1984, p. 55). Despite these strong arguments, many of the

benefits claimed by project proponents are also not fulfilled or

are grossly exaggerated. For example, electricity potential of

hydropower dams is often stated as being higher than actual

amounts after project completion (Foran and Manorom 2009),

reservoir fisheries claimed to benefit local populations fail to

become established (Kittinger et al. 2009), or the increased pro-

duction of crops from irrigation by dams fails to alleviate local

hunger (Goldsmith and Hildyard 1984). The political will

behind infrastructure development projects often fails to consider

these past lessons; projects are initiated with the assumption that

they will be completed regardless of fallbacks, thus providing

strong deterrents against abandoning a project on the grounds

of pre-emptive cost–benefit analyses.

The prevailing attitudes and political will for promoting dam

projects in developed countries, either for construction or

removal, is drastically different from those in developing

countries. The relationship between drivers of projects and the

political-ecology dimension can in part explain the emergence

of environmental and social protection measures with economic

development illustrated in Figure 2. However, an important point

is that large infrastructure projects were historically promoted in

developed countries for many of the same reasons that propo-

nents continue to advocate dams in developing countries.

Therefore, recognition that many dams in developed countries

no longer serve purposes for which they were built or failed to

provide claimed benefits is fundamental to understanding the

political will for discouraging additional projects or removing

defunct dams. Common social problems that are used to garner

support of dams in developing countries (i.e. flood control, elec-

tricity generation, etc.) no longer provide sufficient justification

for the continued construction of infrastructure in developed

countries. Additionally, the US environmental movement facili-

tated a shift in public opinion that viewed the industrial complex

as environmentally exploitational and realized the limits of

human activity (Dunlap 1991). This paradigm shift in ideology

towards more environmentally-oriented opinions is arguably

related to the basic requirements of society and individual

well-being, fulfilled in part by the historical contributions of

infrastructure projects, such as dams. Gradual shifts in opinion

regarding matters of importance, such as a recognition of an indi-

vidual’s relationship with the environment (Leiserowitz et al.2006), was facilitated by comparatively high standards of

living. This is not to suggest individuals in developing countries

who follow subsistence lifestyles have little value for the

environment, rather the evolution of societal opinion in favour

of the natural environment often follows post-industrialization.

The influence of these opinions on environmental matters in

the USA, particularly regarding dam removal, has taken the fore-

front in debates of societal use of natural resources (Born et al.1998, Johnson and Graber 2002).

3.3 Methods of change

The engenderment of a political atmosphere in favour of environ-

mental and social protection suggests degradation of the natural

resource base is a necessary prerequisite of economic develop-

ment that facilitates shifts in opinion regarding the efficacy of

dam projects. The externalities imposed on the environment

and marginalized segments of society by large infrastructure pro-

jects, therefore, appear to be inevitable consequences of econ-

omic development. However, an assessment of the limited

examples of dam projects that have been cancelled or re-evalu-

ated for sustainability can provide insight into how these projects

can be prevented, if costs exceed benefits or improved to more

adequately mitigate externalities, respectively. The political

power of affected individuals in developing countries has been

shown to be paramount in the process for addressing externalities

of dam projects. For example, Rigg (1991) assesses the emer-

gence of an environmental movement in Thailand and the poten-

tial role in preventing construction of the Nam Choan Dam. Rigg

(1991) suggests that the indoctrination and organization of local

populations is perhaps the most effective means of mitigating the

effects of dam projects. This does not suggest that projects

should be adamantly opposed by affected parties, but rather the

negative externalities should be priority mitigation activities

addressed by developers, made possible by providing an active

political voice to affected peoples. A potentially useful indicator


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

of the political will of historically under-represented individuals

is the rise of NGOs. McDonald (2007) suggests that the rise of

NGOs and the will of local peoples have created an effective

means of stalling efforts to dam the Nu River in China. While

the lobbying power of NGOs in China is not without limits,

the increasing role NGOs have had in the discussion of current

dam projects suggests an emergence of more proactive environ-

mental protection measures. This emergence is necessary to

more sustainably develop the country’s resources, having impli-

cations for development activities elsewhere.

A more empirical approach to account for the negative extern-

alities of dam projects is their explicit valuation as services pro-

vided by ecosystems. Regardless of the potential challenges

associated with the use of ecosystem services (e.g. institutional bar-

riers and accurate quantification), our analysis contributes to the

growing body of literature that advocates ecosystem services as a

useful approach for more holistic evaluation of costs and benefits.

A recent study conducted by Brown et al. (2009) illustrated the

development of the Integrated Dam Assessment Modelling

(IDAM) tool as an approach to holistically evaluate dam projects

in a multidisciplinary perspective. The IDAM allows for the inte-

gration of biophysical, socio-economic, and geopolitical perspec-

tives into a single cost–benefit analysis, accounting for both

objective and subjective measures. Therefore, the IDAM could

be particularly useful in the comparison of ecosystem services

because it combines subjective measures of valuation with more

tangible costs or benefits. To date, the IDAM has not been fully

implemented as a tool for more holistic cost–benefit evaluations

(but see Tullos et al. 2010) because of its recent introduction.

However, other researchers have recently advocated the use of

similar multidisciplinary approaches as a means to more accurately

assess costs and benefits of dam projects. Kittinger et al. (2009)

recently conducted a holistic evaluation of the TGD project with

an emphasis on linking ecological change and human well-

being. The approach, therefore, relies heavily on the basic prin-

ciples of ecosystem services and provides a more detailed under-

standing of how development affects human livelihoods through

ecosystem degradation. Our analyses contribute to the growing

body of literature illustrated by Brown et al. (2009) and Kittinger

et al. (2009) that promote more holistic evaluation of costs and

benefits, primarily through the quantification of ecosystem ser-

vices. For example, Tables 1–3 describe broad impacts of dam pro-

jects on ecosystem services for each region, which are also

amenable for more detailed analyses, such as the approach illus-

trated by the IDAM. Accurate comparisons of costs and benefits

are a necessary first step towards more sustainable development.

3.4 Conclusion

Assessments of dam projects in the USA, China, and SE Asia

have illustrated problems for effective environmental protection

and maintenance of livelihoods for affected peoples. These

regions were chosen to exemplify societal and political chal-

lenges to sustainability in the context of different development

trajectories. Furthermore, our assessment of dam projects indi-

cates a need to adopt more sustainable approaches to develop-

ment that have been advocated by several authors (Goodland

et al. 1993, McDonald 2007, Brown et al. 2009, Kittinger

et al. 2009). A general conclusion can be made that suggests,

in addition to more holistic cost–benefit analyses, dam develo-

pers and financiers need to establish more accountability and

transparency. Explicit mechanisms also need to be in place to

allow affected individuals and stakeholders an active voice in

decisions for projects, including both dam construction and

removal. The relationship between economic development and

environmental degradation illustrated in Figures 1 and 2

should provide a context within which to frame development

paradigms that consider the potentially conflicting roles of

policy implementation and environmental capital.

The implementation of more thorough cost–benefit analyses

conducted at the onset of project development could improve pro-

tection of the environment and local livelihoods. Cost–benefit ana-

lyses should accurately reflect costs of dam projects throughout a

dam’s entire lifespan, as well as include multiple spatial and tem-

poral contexts. The most apparent need to improve cost–benefit

analyses is to provide an explicit link between development and

loss of livelihood through degradation of the environment. Such

an approach could rely heavily on principles of ecosystem services,

especially those that quantify the loss of services from altered

flows. Although not a comprehensive list, these costs should con-

sider losses associated with reduced agriculture from floodplain

regression, loss of marine fisheries at river outflows, loss of fish-

eries upstream, and loss of water supply. Additionally, project

assessments need to consider costs from operation and eventual

dam removal. Adequate assessment of compensation costs for dis-

placed individuals is also necessary for cost–benefit analyses

aimed at sustainable development (Jackson and Sleigh 2000, Jim

and Yang 2006). Although our suggestions for more holistic

cost–benefit analyses only briefly address a finite number of

specific needs, a greater recognition of the costs of dam projects

could contribute to more environmentally sustainable approaches

to infrastructure development. As indicated above, broader invol-

vement of affected individuals in decision-making processes,

facilitated in part by the emergence of a political atmosphere in

favour of environmental and social protection, will ensure that

dam projects are more equitably implemented.

Acknowledgements

We thank Nick Jordan, Robert Sterner, Loren Miller, and Ingrid

Schneider for constructive feedback during the preparation of

this manuscript. We also thank an anonymous reviewer for sug-

gestions that have greatly improved the manuscript content.

Finally, we thank the Conservation Biology graduate programme

at the University of Minnesota for contributions and funding in

support of the manuscript. All authors have contributed equally

to the manuscript content.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

References

Ahlering, M.A., et al., 2011. Genetic diversity, social structure,

and conservation value of the elephants of the Nakai

Plateau, Lao PDR, based on non-invasive sampling. Conser-vation Genetics, 12 (2), 413–422.

Anderson, D.H., et al., 2008. Proximate and distant visitors:

differences in importance ratings of beneficial experiences.

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 26 (4), 47–65.

Arthington, A.H., et al., 2010. Preserving the biodiversity and

ecological services of rivers: new challenges and research

opportunities. Freshwater Biology, 55 (1), 1–16.

Arthur, H.G., 1977. Nambe Falls Dam: first mechanically pre-

stressed concrete dam in United States. Civil Engineering,

47 (11), 50–53.

Baird, I.G., et al., 2002. A community-based study of the down-stream impacts of the Yali Falls dam along the Se San, Sre

Pok, and Sekong Rivers in Stung Treng Province, northeastCambodia. Stung Treng, Cambodia: Sesan Protection

Network, Partners for Development, NTFP, Se San District

Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry Office, and Stung Treng

District Office.

Baird, I.G. and Meach, M., 2005. Sesan River fisheries monitor-ing in Ratanakiri province, northeast Cambodia: before and

after construction of the Yali Falls dam in the Central High-lands of Vietnam. Ban Lung, Cambodia: 3S Rivers Protection

Network, GAPE.

Baran, E., Jantunen, T., and Chong, C.K., 2007. Values of inlandfisheries in the Mekong River Basin. Phnom Penh, Cambodia:

WorldFish Center.

Becker, D.H., 2006. The challenges of dam removal: the history

and lessons of the Condit dam and potential threats from

the 2005 federal power act amendments. Environmental

Law, 36 (3), 811–868.

Bezuijen, M.R., Timmins, R., and Teak, S., 2008. Biologicalsurveys of the Mekong River between Kratie and StungTreng towns, northeast Cambodia, 2006–2007. Phnom

Penh, Cambodia: Worldwide Fund for Nature.

Billington, D.P., Jackson, D.C., and Melosi, M.V., 2005. Thehistory of large federal dams: planning, design, and construc-

tion in the era of big dams. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.

Blake, D.J.H., Friend, R., and Promphakping, B., 2009.

Landscape transformations and new approaches to wetlands

management in the Nam Songkhram River basin in northeast

Thailand. In: F. Molle, J. Foran and M. Kakonen, eds.

Contested waterscapes in the Mekong region: hydropower, liveli-hoods and governance. London: Earthscan Publishing, 173–202.

Born, S.M., et al., 1998. Socioeconomic and institutional

dimensions of dam removals: the Wisconsin experience.

Environmental Management, 22 (3), 359–370.

Bourdet, Y., 2000. The economics of transition in Laos: fromsocialism to ASEAN integration. Cheltenham, UK: Edward

Elgar.

Boxer, B., 2001. Contradictions and challenges in China’s water

policy development. Water International, 26 (3), 335–341.

Brauman, K.A., et al., 2007. The nature and value of ecosystem

services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services.

Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32, 67–98.

Brenkman, S.J., et al., 2008. Establishing baseline information

on the geographic distribution of fish pathogens endemic in

Pacific salmonids prior to dam removal and subsequent reco-

lonizaton by anadromous fish in the Elwha River, Washington.

Northwest Science, 82 (sp1), 142–152.

Brisbane Declaration, 2007. The Brisbane Declaration: environ-

mental flows are essential for freshwater ecosystem health and

human well-being [online]. 10th International River sym-posium and International Environmental Flows conference,

Brisbane, Australia. Available from: http://www.eflownet.

org/download_documents/brisbane-declaration-english.pdf

[Accessed 13 September 2011].

Brismar, A., 2002. River systems as providers of goods and ser-

vices: a basis for comparing desired and undesired effects of

large dam projects. Environmental Management, 29 (5),

598–609.

Brown, P.H., et al., 2009. Modeling the costs and benefits of dam

construction from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal ofEnvironmental Management, 90, S303–S311.

Bunn, S.E. and Arthington, A.H., 2002. Basic principles and

ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic

biodiversity. Environmental Management, 30 (4), 492–507.

Butler, V.L. and O’Connor, J.E., 2004. 9000 years of salmon

fishing on the Columbia River, North America. QuaternaryResearch, 62 (1), 1–8.

Cech, T.V., 2003. Principles of water resources: history, devel-opment, management, and policy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

CEPA (Culture and Environment Preservation Society), 2007.

Sekong river-based livelihood study in northeast Cambodia.

Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Culture and Environment Preser-

vation Society.

CEPF (Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund), 2007. Indo-

Burma ecosystem profile [online]. Available from: www.

cepf.net/where_we_work/regions/asia_pacific/indo_burma/

ecosystem_profile/Pages/default.aspx [Accessed 6 November

2010].

Chen, L. and Talwani, P., 1998. Reservoir-induced seismicity in

China. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 153 (1), 133–149.

Cheng, C.T. and Chau, K.W., 2004. Flood control management

system for reservoirs. Environmental Modelling & Software,

19 (12), 1141–1150.

Choy, Y.K., 2004. Sustainable development and the social and

cultural impact of a dam-induced development strategy –

the Bakun experience. Pacific Affairs, 77 (1), 50–68.

Claassen, A.H., 2004. Abundance, distribution, and reproduc-

tive success of sandbar-nesting below the Yali Falls hydro-power dam on the Sesan River, northeast Cambodia. Phnom

Penh, Cambodia: Worldwide Fund for Nature, Wildlife Con-

servation Society, Danida, BirdLife International.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

http://www.eflownet.org/download_documents/brisbane-declaration-english.pdf

http://www.eflownet.org/download_documents/brisbane-declaration-english.pdf

www.cepf.net/where_we_work/regions/asia_pacific/indo_burma/ecosystem_profile/Pages/default.aspx



Close, D.A., Fitzpatrick, M.S., and Li, H.W., 2002. Ecological

and cultural importance of a species at risk of extinction,

Pacific lamprey. Fisheries, 27 (7), 19–25.

Cordell, H.K. and Bergstrom, J.C., 1993. Comparison of recrea-

tion use values among alternative reservoir water level man-

agement scenarios. Water Resources Research, 29 (2),

247–258.

Crane, J., 2009. Setting the river free: the removal of the Edwards

dam and the restoration of the Kennebec River. Water History,

1 (sp1), 131–148.

CTGC (China Three Gorges Corporation), 2002. Project website[online]. Beijing, China. Available from: http://www.ctgpc.

com [Accessed 9 November 2010].

Cumming, G.S., 2004. The impact of low-head dams on fish

species richness in Wisconsin, USA. Ecological Applications,

14 (5), 1495–1506.

Czech, B., Krausman, P.R., and Borkhataria, R., 1998. Social

construction, political power, and the allocation of benefits

to endangered species. Conservation Biology, 12 (5),

1103–1112.

Dauble, D.D. and Geist, D.R., 2000. Comparison of mainstem

spawning habitats for two populations of fall Chinook

salmon in the Columbia River basin. Regulated Rivers-Research & Management, 16 (4), 345–361.

Dersu and Associates, 2006. Inception report. C880: consul-tancy agreement for wildlife program phase 1. Vientiane,

Lao PDR: Nam Theun Power Company.

Dersu and Associates, 2007. Baseline inventory: wildlife andhabitat studies of the Nakai Plateau. Vientiane, Lao PDR:

Nam Theun Power Company.

DiFrancesco, K. and Woodruff, K., 2007. Global perspectives onlarge dams: report on a conference held November 3–5, 2006.

New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental

Studies Publication Series.

Dinda, S., 2004. Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis: a

survey. Ecological Economics, 49 (4), 431–455.

Ding, J.Q., et al., 2008. China’s booming economy is sparking

and accelerating biological invasions. Bioscience, 58 (4),

317–324.

Downs, P.W., et al., 2009. Managing reservoir sediment release

in dam removal projects: an approach informed by physical

numerical modelling of non-cohesive sediment. InternationalJournal of River Basin Management, 7 (4), 433–452.

Doyle, M.W., et al., 2000. Dam removal: physical, biological,

and societal considerations, In: R.H. Hotchkiss and N.

Glade, eds. Proceedings of the 2000 joint conference on

water resources engineering and water resources planningand management, 30 July – 2 August 2000, Minneapolis,

MN: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1–10.

Doyle, M.W., et al., 2003. Dam removal in the United States:

emerging needs for science and policy. EOS, 84 (4), 29–36.

Duckworth, J.W., Timmins, R.J., and Evans, T.D., 1998. The

conservation status of the river lapwing Vanellus duvaucelii

in southern Laos. Biological Conservation, 84 (3), 215–222.

Duckworth, J.W., et al., 2001. A new species of wagtail from the

Lower Mekong Basin. British Ornithological Club Bulletin,

121 (3), 152–182.

Duda, J.J., Freilich, J.E., and Schreiner, E.G., 2008. Baseline

studies in the Elwha River ecosystem prior to dam

removal: introduction to the special issue. NorthwestScience, 82 (sp1), 1–12.

Dudgeon, D., 2000. Large-scale hydrological changes in tropical

Asia: prospects for riverine biodiversity. Bioscience, 50 (9),

793–806.

Dudgeon, D., 2005. River rehabilitation for conservation of fish

biodiversity in monsoonal Asia. Ecology and Society, 10 (2),

15–16.

Dugan, P.J., et al., 2010. Fish migration, dams, and loss of eco-

system services in the Mekong Basin. AMBIO, 39 (4),

344–348.

Dunlap, R.E., 1991. Trends in public opinion toward environ-

mental issues – 1965–1990. Society & Natural Resources,

4 (3), 285–312.

Ebisemiju, F.S., 1993. Environmental impact assessment:

making it work in developing countries. Journal of Environ-mental Management, 38 (4), 247–273.

Edmonds, R.L., 1992. The Sanxia (3 Gorges) Project – the

environmental argument surrounding China super dam.

Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters, 2 (4), 105–125.

Fan, C., 2006. China’s eleventh five-year plan (2006–2010):

from “getting rich first” to “common prosperity". Eurasian

Geography and Economics, 47 (6), 708–723.

Foran, T. and Manorom, K., 2009. Pak Mun dam: perpetually

contested? In: F. Molle, T. Foran and M. Kakonen, eds. Con-

tested waterscapes in the Mekong region: hydropower, liveli-hoods and governance. London: Earthscan Publishing, 55–80.

Fu, B., et al., 2010. Three Gorges Project: efforts and challenges

for the environment. Progress in Physical Geography, 34 (6),

741–754.

Fuggle, R. and Smith, W.T., 2000. Large dams in water andenergy resource development in The People’s Republic of

China (PRC). Cape Town: World Commission on Dams.

Fujikura, R. and Nakayama, M., 2009. Lessons learned from the

World Commission on Dams. International Environmental

Agreements - Politics, Law, and Economics, 9 (2), 173–190.

Garcia, L.E., 2008. Integrated water resources management: a

‘small’ step for conceptualists, a giant step for practitioners.

International Journal of Water Resources Development, 24

(1), 23–36.

Garrett, B.L., 2010. Drowned memories: the submerged places

of the Winnemem Wintu. Archaeologies-Journal of theWorld Archaeological Congress, 6 (2), 346–371.

Ge, S., et al., 2009. Did the Zipingpu Reservoir trigger the 2008

Wenchuan earthquake? Geophysical Research Letters, 36,

L20315–L20316.

Glenn, E.P., et al., 2008. Reconciling environmental and flood

control goals on an arid-zone river: case study of the Limit-

rophe Region of the Lower Colorado River in the United


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

http://www.ctgpc.com

http://www.ctgpc.com

States and Mexico. Environmental management, 41 (3),

322–335.

Goldsmith, E. and Hildyard, N., 1984. The social and environ-mental effects of large dams. San Francisco, CA: Sierra

Club Books.

Goodland, R., 1997. Environmental sustainability in the hydro-

power industry: disaggregating the debate. In: T. Dorcey, ed.

Large dams: learning from the past looking at the future,

11–12 April 1997, Gland, Switzerland. Gland, Switzerland:

The World Conservation Union and The World Bank Group

Workshop Proceedings, 69–102.

Goodland, R., Juras, A., and Pachauri, R., 1993. Can hydro-

reservoirs in tropical moist forests be environmentally sustain-

able? Environmental Conservation, 20 (2), 122–130.

Gowan, C., Stephenson, K., and Shabman, L., 2006. The role of

ecosystem valuation in environmental decision making:

hydropower relicensing and dam removal on the Elwha

river. Ecological Economics, 56 (4), 508–523.

Graf, W.L., 1999. Dam nation: a geographic census of American

dams and their large-scale hydrologic impacts. Water

Resources Research, 35 (4), 1305–1311.

Graf, W.L., 2002. Dam removal: science and decision making.

Washington, DC: The H. John Heinz III Center for Science,

Economics, and the Environment.

Graf, W.L., 2003. Dam removal research: status and prospects.

Washington, DC: The H. John Heinz III Center for Science,

Economics, and the Environment.

Graf, W.L., 2006. Downstream hydrologic and geomorphic

effects of large dams on American rivers. Geomorphology,79 (3–4), 336–360.

Graham, W.J., 2009. Major U.S. dam failures: their cause, resul-

tant losses, and impact on dam safety programs and engineer-

ing practice. In: J.R. Rogers, ed. Great rivers history, 17–19

May 2009, Kansas City, MO. Reston, VA: American

Society of Civil Engineers and Proceedings of the history

symposium of the world environmental and water resources

congress, 52–61.

GWP (Global Water Partnership), 2010. Global Water Partner-ship: towards a water secure world [online]. Stockholm,

Sweden: Global Water Partnership. Available from: http://

www.gwp.org/en/ [Accessed 13 September 2011].

Halcrow and Partners, Limited, 1998. Se Kong – Se San andNam Theun River Basins hydropower study: initial environ-

mental examination. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

Hanley, N., Wright, R.E., and Adamowicz, V., 1998. Using

choice experiments to value the environment: design issues,

current experience and future prospects. Environmental andResource Economics, 11 (3–4), 413–428.

Heming, L., Waley, P., and Rees, P., 2001. Reservoir resettlement

in China: past experience and the Three Gorges Dam. The

Geographical Journal, 167 (3), 195–212.

Hirsch, P., 2010. The changing political dynamics of

dam building on the Mekong. Water Alternatives, 3 (2),

312–323.

Hirsch, P. and Wyatt, A., 2004. Negotiating local livelihoods:

scales of conflict in the Se San river basin. Asia Pacific View-point, 45 (1), 51–68.

Hortle, K.G., 2007. Consumption and the yield of fish and other

aquatic animals from the Lower Mekong Basin. Vientiane,

Lao PDR: Mekong River Commission.

Huang, J.P., 1993. Energy substitution to reduce carbon-dioxide

emission in China. Energy, 18 (3), 281–287.

Huang, Z., 2001. Biodiversity conservation for the Three Gorges

Project. Biodiversity Science, 9 (4), 472–481.

ICEM (International Centre for Environmental Management),

2010. MRC strategic environmental assessment (SEA) ofhydropower on the Mekong mainstream: final report. Hanoi,

Vietnam: International Centre for Environmental

Management.

ICWE (International Conference on Water and the Environ-

ment), 1992. The Dublin Statement and report of the confer-

ence, International Conference on Water and theEnvironment: Development Issues for the 21st Century,Dublin, Ireland26–31 January 1992.

IRN (International Rivers Network), 1999. Power struggle: theimpacts of hydro-development in Laos. Berkeley, CA: Inter-

national Rivers Network.

IRN (International Rivers Network), 2008. Power surge: the

impacts of rapid dam development in Laos. Berkeley, CA:

International Rivers Network.

Jackson, D.C. and Marmulla, G., 2001. The influence of dams on

river fisheries. In: G. Marmulla, ed. Dams, fish, and fisheries:opportunities, challenges, and conflict resolution. FAO Fish-

eries Technical Paper. No. 419, Rome: Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations, 1–44.

Jackson, S. and Sleigh, A., 2000. Resettlement for China’s Three

Gorges Dam: socio-economic impact and institutional ten-

sions. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 33 (2),

223–241.

Jim, C.Y. and Yang, F.Y., 2006. Local responses to inundation and

de-farming in the reservoir region of the Three Gorges Project

(China). Environmental Management, 38 (4), 618–637.

Jim, C.Y., Yang, F.Y., and Wang, L., 2010. Social-ecological

impacts of concurrent reservoir inundation and reforestation

in the Three Gorges Region of China. Annals of the Associ-ation of American Geographers, 100 (2), 243–268.

Jing, J., 1997. Rural resettlement: past lessons for the Three

Gorges Project. The China Journal, 38, 65–92.

Johnson, S.E. and Graber, B.E., 2002. Enlisting the social

sciences in decisions about dam removal. Bioscience, 52 (8),

731–738.

Jutagate, T., et al., 2010. Effects of an anti-salt intrusion dam on

tropical fish assemblages. Marine and Freshwater Research,

61 (3), 288–301.

Kang, B., et al., 2009. Fish and fisheries in the Upper Mekong:

current assessment of the fish community, threats and conser-

vation. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 19 (4),

465–480.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

http://www.gwp.org/en/

http://www.gwp.org/en/

Katopodis, C. and Aadland, L.P., 2006. Effective dam removal

and river channel restoration approaches. InternationalJournal of River Basin Management, 4 (3), 153–168.

Keong, C.Y., 2005. Dam-induced development and environ-

mental and social sustainability: the Bakun industrialization

strategy revisited. Journal of Economic Issues, 39 (1),

123–150.

Khoa, S.N., et al., 2005. Impacts of irrigation on fisheries in rain-

fed rice-farming landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42

(5), 892–900.

Kim, S. and Tep, B., 2006. Lessons learned but not learned:water governance in the 3 S Rivers region. Vientiane, Lao

PDR: 3 S River Protection Network, Culture and Environment

Preservation Association.

Kittinger, J.N., et al., 2009. Toward holistic evaluation and

assessment: linking ecosystems and human well-being for

the Three Gorges Dam. EcoHealth, 6 (4), 601–613.

Kloepper, Y., 2008. Southeast Asian water conflicts - from a

political geography perspective. Asia Europe Journal, 6 (2),

325–343.

Koh, L.P. and Sodhi, N.S., 2010. Conserving Southeast

Asia’s imperiled biodiversity: scientific, management, and

policy challenges. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19 (4),

913–917.

Kosa, P., et al., 2011. The potential micro-hydropower projects

in Nakhon Ratchasima province, Thailand. RenewableEnergy, 36 (3), 1133–1137.

Kosnik, L.R.D., 2006. Sources of bureaucratic delay: a case

study of FERC dam relicensing. Journal of Law Economics& Organization, 22 (1), 258–288.

Kosnik, L., 2010. The potential for small scale hydropower

development in the US. Energy Policy, 38 (10), 5512–5519.

Lackey, R.T., 2003. Pacific northwest salmon: forecasting their

status in 2100. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 11 (1), 35–88.

Lawrence, S., 2009. The Nam Theun 2 controversy and its

lessons for Laos. In: F. Molle, T. Foran and M. Kakonen,

eds. Contested waterscapes in the Mekong region: hydro-

power, livelihoods and governance. London: Earthscan

Publishing.

Lebel, L., Garden, P., and Imamura, M., 2005. The politics of

scale, position, and place in the governance of water resources

in the Mekong region. Ecology and Society, 10 (2), 1–8.

Lei, X., 2011. Possible roles of the Zipingpu Reservoir in trigger-

ing the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Journal of Asian EarthSciences, 40 (4), 844–854.

Leiserowitz, A.A., Kates, R.W., and Parris, T.M., 2006. Sustain-

ability values, attitudes, and behaviors: a review of multina-

tional and global trends. Annual Review of Environment andResources, 31, 413–444.

Lessard, J.A.L. and Hayes, D.B., 2003. Effects of elevated water

temperature on fish and macroinvertebrate communities

below small dams. River Research and Applications, 19 (7),

721–732.

Liu, J.G., et al., 2004. Landslide hazard assessment in the Three

Gorges area of the Yangtze river using ASTER imagery:

Zigui-Badong. Geomorphology, 61 (1–2), 171–187.

Loomis, J.B., 1996. Measuring the economic benefit of remov-

ing dams and restoring the Elwha River: results of a contingent

valuation survey. Water Resources Research, 32 (2), 441–447.

Lopez-Pujol, J. and Ren, M.X., 2009. Biodiversity and the Three

Gorges Reservoir: a troubled marriage. Journal of NaturalHistory, 43, 2765–2786.

Lydeard, C. and Mayden, R.L., 1995. A diverse and endangered

aquatic ecosystem of the Southeast United States. Conserva-tion Biology, 9 (4), 800–805.

Magee, D., 2006. Powershed politics: Yunnan hydropower under

Great Western Development. China Quarterly, 185, 23–41.

Magilligan, F.J., Nislow, K.H., and Graber, B.E., 2003. Scale-

independent assessment of discharge reduction and riparian

disconnectivity following flow regulation by dams. Geology,

31 (7), 569–572.

Magnuson, J.J., et al., 1996. Upstream: salmon and the society inthe Pacific northwest. Washington, DC: National Academy

Press.

Makinen, K. and Khan, S., 2010. Policy considerations for

greenhouse gas emissions from freshwater reservoirs. WaterAlternatives, 3 (2), 91–105.

Marmula, G., 2001. Dams, fish and fisheries: opportunities,challenges and conflict resolution. Rome: Food and Agricul-

tural Organization of the United Nations.

Masonis, R.J. and Bodi, F.L., 1998. River law. In: R.J. Naiman

and R.E. Bilby, eds. River ecology and management: lessonsfrom the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. New York: Springer,

553–571.

McClain, S., Lindloff, S., and Baer, K., 2006. Dam removal andhistoric preservation: reconciling dual objectives. Washing-

ton, DC: American Rivers and National Park Service.

McCully, P., 2001. Silenced rivers: the ecology and politics oflarge dams. London: Zed Books.

McDonald, K., 2007. Damming China’s grand canyon: plurali-

zation without democratization in the Nu River Valley. Thesis

(PhD). University of California.

McDonald, B., Webber, M., and Yuefang, D., 2008. Involuntary

resettlement as an opportunity for development: the case of

urban resettlers of the Three Gorges Project, China. Journalof Refugee Studies, 21 (1), 82–102.

McDonald, K., Bosshard, P., and Brewer, N., 2009. Exporting

dams: china’s hydropower industry goes global. Journal ofEnvironmental Management, 90 (Supplement 3), S294–S302.

McDonald, M.J. and Muldowny, J., 1982. TVA and the dispos-sessed: the resettlement of population in the Norris damarea. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.

McHenry, M.L. and Pess, G.R., 2008. An overview of monitor-

ing options for assessing the response of salmonids and their

aquatic ecosystems in the Elwha River following dam

removal. Northwest Science, 82 (sp1), 29–47.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2003. Ecosystems

and human well-being: our human planet. Washington, DC:

Island Press.

Meixler, M.S., Bain, M.B., and Todd Walter, M., 2009. Predict-

ing barrier passage and habitat suitability for migratory fish

species. Ecological Modeling, 220 (20), 2782–2791.

Michael, J.H., 1999. The future of Washington salmon: extinc-

tion is not an option but may be the preferred alternative.

Northwest Science, 73 (3), 235–239.

Middleton, C., Garcia, J., and Foran, T., 2009. Old and new

hydropower players in the Mekong region: agendas and strat-

egies. In: F. Molle, J. Foran and M. Kakonen, eds. Contestedwaterscapes in the Mekong region: hydropower, livelihoodsand governance. London: Earthscan Publishing.

Molle, F., Foran, J., and Kakonen, M., 2009. Contested water-scapes in the Mekong region: hydropower, livelihoods, andgovernance. London: Earthscan Publishing.

Moore, D., Dore, J., and Gyawali, D., 2010. Special issue:

WCD+10: revisiting the large dam controversy. WaterAlternatives, 3 (2), 1–474.

Ortolano, L. and Cushing, K.K., 2002. Grand Coulee Dam 70

years later: what can we learn? International Journal ofWater Resources Development, 18 (3), 373–390.

Park, Y.S., et al., 2003. Conservation strategies for endemic fish

species threatened by the Three Gorges Dam. ConservationBiology, 17 (6), 1748–1758.

Peng, S., Tang, Q., and Zou, Y., 2009. Current status and chal-

lenges of rice production in China. Plant ProductionScience, 12 (1), 3–8.

Peng, W., Shuai, C.F., and Xin, X., 2010. Yangtze River: China’s

golden waterway. Proceedings of the Institution of CivilEngineers-Civil Engineering, 163 (5), 15–18.

Pess, G.R., et al., 2008. Biological impacts of the Elwha River

dams and the potential salmonid responses to dam removal.


Petts, G.E., 1984. Impounded rivers: perspectives for ecologicalmanagement. New York: Wiley.

Pisani, D.J., 2003. Federal reclamation and the American West

in the twentieth century. Agricultural History, 77 (3),

391–419.

Pohl, M.M., 2002. Bringing down our dams: trends in American

dam removal rationales. Journal of the American WaterResources Association, 38 (6), 1511–1519.

Provencher, B., Sarakinos, H., and Meyer, T., 2008. Does small

dam removal affect local property values? An empirical analy-

sis. Contemporary Economic Policy, 26 (2), 187–197.

Richaud, B., et al., 2011. Real-time optimisation of the Hoa Binh

reservoir, Vietnam. Hydrology Research, 42 (2–3), 217–228.

Rigg, J., 1991. Thailand Nam-Choan-Dam Project – a case-

study in the greening of Southeast Asia. Global Ecology and

Biogeography Letters, 1 (2), 42–54.

Roberts, T.R., 2001. On the river of no returns: Thailand’s Pak

Mun dam and its fish ladder. Natural History Bulletin of the

Siam Society, 49 (2), 189–230.

Runstrom, A., et al., 2002. Lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens)

on the Menominee Indian Reservation: an effort toward co-

management and population restoration. Journal of AppliedIchthyology, 18 (4–6), 481–485.

Saha, S.K. and Barrow, C.J., 1981. River basin planning: theoryand practice. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Sarakinos, H. and Johnson, S.E., 2002. Social perspectives on

dam removal. In: W.L. Graf, ed. Dam removal: science anddecision making. Washington, DC: The H. John Heinz III

Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment.

Sarkulla, J., et al., 2009. Hydropower in the Mekong region:

what are the likely impacts upon fisheries? In: F. Molle, J.

Foran and M. Kakonen, eds. Contested waterscapes in theMekong region: hydropower, livelihoods and governance.

London: Earthscan Publishing.

Savenije, H.H.G. and van der Zaag, P., 2002. Water as an econ-

omic good and demand management: paradigms with pitfalls.

Water International, 27 (1), 98–104.

Selden, T.M. and Song, D., 1994. Environmental quality and

development: is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emis-

sions? Journal of Environmental Economics and Manage-ment, 27 (2), 147–162.

Shoemaker, B., 1998. Trouble on the Theun-Hinboun: a fieldreport on the socio-economic and environmental effects of

the Nam Theun-Hinboun hydropower project in Laos. Berke-

ley, CA: International Rivers Network.

Shoemaker, B., Baird, I.G., and Baird, M., 2001. The people and

their river: a survey of river-based livelihoods in the Xe BangFai River Basin in central Lao PDR. Vientiane, Lao PDR:

Canada Fund for Local Initiatives.

Shu, L. and Finlayson, B., 1993. Flood management on the

Lower Yellow-River – hydrological and geomorphological

perspectives. Sedimentary Geology, 85 (1–4), 285–296.

Shui, F., 1998. A profile of dams in China. In: M.E. Sharpe, J.

Thibodeau, Q. Dai and P.B. Williams, eds. The river dragonhas come. London: Probe International, International Rivers

Network, 18–24.

Sneddon, C. and Fox, C., 2007. Power, development, and insti-

tutional change: participatory governance in the Lower

Mekong Basin. World Development, 35 (12), 2161–2181.

St. Louis, V.L., et al., 2000. Reservoir surfaces as sources of

greenhouse gases to the atmosphere: a global estimate. Bio-science, 50 (9), 766–775.

Suttles, W., 1990. Northwest coast: handbook of North AmericanIndians volume 7. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute.

Swezey, S.L. and Heizer, R.F., 1977. Ritual management of sal-

monid fish resources in California. Journal of CaliforniaAnthropology, 4 (1), 6–29.

Tan, Y., Hugo, G., and Potter, L., 2005. Rural women, displace-

ment, and the Three Gorges Project. Development and

Change, 36 (4), 711–734.

Touch, S.T. and Todd, B.H., 2001. The inland and marine fish-eries trade of Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Oxfam

America.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

Trandem, A., 2008. A Vietnamese/Cambodian transboundary

dialogue: impacts of dams on the Se San river. Development,51 (1), 108–113.

Tullos, D., et al., 2010. Perspectives on the salience and magni-

tude of dam impacts for hydro development scenarios in

China. Water Alternatives, 3 (2), 71–90.

Turvey, S.T., et al., 2007. First human-caused extinction of a

cetacean species? Biology Letters, 3 (5), 537–540.

Ulrich, R., 1999. Empty nets: indians, dams and the Columbiariver. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

UNESCAP (United Nations Economic and Social Commission

for Asia and the Pacific), 2011. Asia-Pacific in Figures 2006[online]. Bangkok: United Nations Economic and Social

Commission for Asia and the Pacific. Available from: http://

www.unescap.org/stat/data/apif/index.asp [Accessed 30 May

2011]

Wallace, R.L. and Ball, K.W., 1978. Landlocked parasitic Pacific

lamprey in Dworshak Reservoir, Idaho. Copeia, 3, 545–546.

Wang, J.Z., 2002. Three Gorges Project: the largest water conser-

vancy project in the world. Public Administration and Devel-

opment, 22 (5), 369–375.

Watkins, M., 2000. Native Americans: effects of the Grand

Coulee Dam on Native Americans in the United States,

Annex 9. In: L. Ortolano and K.K. Cushing, eds. Grand

Coulee dam and Columbia basin project case study: finalreport. Cape Town, South Africa, World Commission on

Dams, 69–80.

WCD (World Commission on Dams), 2000. Dams and develop-ment: a new framework for decision-making. London:

Earthscan.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development),

1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment andDevelopment: our common future. New York: United

Nations General Assembly.

WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society), 2009. Biodiversity moni-toring in the floodplain of the Tonle Sap in 2008–9. Phnom

Penh, Cambodia: Wildlife Conservation Society.

Wei, Q., et al., 1997. Biology, fisheries, and conservation of stur-

geons and paddlefish in China. Environmental Biology ofFishes, 48 (1–4), 241–255.

Wei, Y.H.D. and Fang, C.L., 2006. Geographical and structural

constraints of regional development in western China: a

study of Gansu Province. Issues and Studies, 42 (2), 131–170.

Wernstedt, K. and Paulsen, C.M., 1995. Economic and biologi-

cal analysis to aid system-planning for salmon recovery in

the Columbia River Basin. Journal of Environmental Man-

agement, 43 (4), 313–331.

Winans, G.A., et al., 2008. Genetic inventory of anadromous

Pacific salmonids of the Elwha River prior to dam removal.


Woodruff, D.S., 2010. Biogeography and conservation in South-

east Asia: how 2.7 million years of repeated environmental

fluctuations affect today’s patterns and the future of the

remaining refugial-phase biodiversity. Biodiversity Conserva-tion, 19 (4), 919–941.

Wu, S.R., et al., 2001. Zonation of the landslide hazards in the

forereservoir region of the Three Gorges Project on the

Yangtze River. Engineering Geology, 59 (1–2), 51–58.

Wu, J., et al., 2003. Three Gorges Dam: experiment in habitat

fragmentation? Science, 300 (5623), 1239–1240.

Wu, J., et al., 2004. The Three Gorges Dam: an ecological exper-

iment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2 (5),

241–248.

Wunderlich, R.C., Winter, B.D., and Meyer, J.H., 1994. Restor-

ation of the Elwha River ecosystem. Fisheries, 19 (8), 11–19.

WWF (Worldwide Fund for Nature), 2003. Nam Theun 2: WWFInternational position statement. Bangkok: Worldwide Fund

for Nature.

Wyatt, A.B. and Baird, I.G., 2007. Transboundary impact assess-

ment in the Sesan River Basin: the case of the Yali Falls Dam.

International Journal of Water Resources Development, 23

(3), 427–442.

Yang, S.L., Zhang, J., and Xu, X.J., 2007. Influence of the Three

Gorges Dam on downstream delivery of sediment and its

environmental implication, Yangtze River. Geophysical

Research Letters, 34 (10), 1–5.

Yi, Y.J., Wang, Z.Y., and Yang, Z.F., 2010. Impacts of the Gez-

houba and Three Gorges Dam on habitat suitability of carps in

the Yangtze River. Journal of Hydrology, 387 (3–4), 283–291.

Yin, Y., et al., 2010. Real-time monitoring and early warning of

landslides at relocated Wushan Town, the Three Gorges

Reservoir, China. Landslides, 7 (3), 339–349.

Zhang, L., et al., 2010. An implementation assessment of

China’s Environmental Information Disclosure Decree.

Journal of Environmental Sciences-China, 22 (10),

1649–1656.

Zhang, Y., et al., 2011. Changing distribution and abundance of

Swan Goose Anser cygnoides in the Yangtze River floodplain:

the likely loss of a very important wintering site. Bird Conser-vation International, 21 (1), 36–48.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

3:07

08

Febr

uary

201

2

http://www.unescap.org/stat/data/apif/index.asp

http://www.unescap.org/stat/data/apif/index.asp

Environmental and livelihood impacts of dams: common …€¦ · Keywords: Dam; environment;...

Documents

Transcript of Environmental and livelihood impacts of dams: common …€¦ · Keywords: Dam; environment;...