Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S303–S311

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Modeling the costs and benefits of dam construction from a multidisciplinary

perspective
Philip H. Brown a, *, Desiree Tullos b, Bryan Tilt c, Darrin Magee d, Aaron T. Wolf e
a
Department of Economics, Colby College, 5246 Mayflower Hill, Waterville, ME 04901, United States
b
Department of Biological & Ecological Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, United States
c
Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, United States
d
Department of Environmental Studies, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY 14456, United States
e
Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Although the benefits of dam construction are numerous, particularly in the context of climate change
Received 15 September 2007 and growing global demand for electricity, recent experience has shown that many dams have serious
Received in revised form 3 March 2008 negative environmental, human, and political consequences. Despite an extensive literature doc-
Accepted 30 July 2008
umenting the benefits and costs of dams from a single disciplinary perspective, few studies have
Available online 7 November 2008
simultaneously evaluated the distribution of biophysical, socio-economic, and geopolitical implications
of dams. To meet the simultaneous demands for water, energy, and environmental protection well into
Keywords:
the future, a broader view of dams is needed. We thus propose a new tool for evaluating the relative costs
Dam construction
Dam removal and benefits of dam construction based on multi-objective planning techniques.
Program evaluation The Integrative Dam Assessment Modeling (IDAM) tool is designed to integrate biophysical, socio-
economic, and geopolitical perspectives into a single cost/benefit analysis of dam construction. Each of
27 different impacts of dam construction is evaluated both objectively (e.g., flood protection, as
measured by RYI years) and subjectively (i.e., the valuation of said flood protection) by a team of deci-
sion-makers. By providing a visual representation of the various costs and benefits associated with two
or more dams, the IDAM tool allows decision-makers to evaluate alternatives and to articulate priorities
associated with a dam project, making the decision process about dams more informed and more
transparent. For all of these reasons, we believe that the IDAM tool represents an important evolutionary
step in dam evaluation.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Environmental Protection Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act

Dams have contributed to human development by providing
reliable sources of drinking water and irrigation, hydropower,
recreation, navigation, income, and other important benefits
(World Commission on Dams (WCD), 2000). Further, in the pres-
ence of climate change, dams may play an increasingly important
role in protecting water resources. For example, areas affected by
severe drought and those subject to high vulnerability from
flooding due to heavy precipitation will likely increase in coming
decades (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007), the
negative consequences of which may be ameliorated by dams.
Similarly, increased melting of snow packs resulting from climate
change may lead to renewed interest in dams as a means of pro-
tecting drinking water supplies. Thus, although the National
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: phbrown@colby.edu (P.H. Brown).
of 1973, and the burgeoning national debt have led to a decrease in
the number of new dams, the next generation may witness
a renewed intensity in large dam development in the U.S. More-
over, new dams continue to be planned and constructed in many
developing countries.
The checkered history of large dams offers considerable insight
into the risks associated with renewed interest in dam construc-
tion. For example, the adverse effects of dams on ecosystems,
hydrology, and water quality (e.g., Petts, 1984; Poff et al., 1997; Poff
and Hart, 2002; Ward and Stanford, 1979) often disrupt existing
cultural and economic institutions (Cernea, 1999; Goldsmith and
Hildyard, 1986) and impact relationships between the dam
community and communities both up- and downstream, which
may include people in other political jurisdictions (Giordano et al.,
2005). Dams also have displaced up to 80 million people worldwide
(WCD, 2000), resulting in increased landlessness and unemploy-
ment as well as social disarticulation (Cernea, 1999). Risks associ-
ated with large dams also go beyond the immediate ecological and

0301-4797/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.025
S304 P.H. Brown et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S303–S311
social impacts; for example, 46 large dams catastrophically failed
between 1860 and 1995, eight of which resulted in the deaths of at
least 1000 people (McCully, 2001).
Analogously, concerns regarding the safety and passage barrier
presented by older dams and culverts have contributed to a surge in
dam removal (Doyle et al., 2008; Hart et al., 2002) despite the
outstanding uncertainties regarding this emerging practices (Doyle
et al., 2003; Pizzuto, 2002; Riggsbee et al., 2007; Walter and Mer-
ritts, 2008). Similarly, dam removal may have negative conse-
quences for electricity generation, tax revenues, recreation
opportunities, and housing values (Acharya and Lewis, 2001;
Bohlen et al., 2007; Wyrick et al., 2009). Dam removal also has
political implications as disparate constituencies organize in
support of or opposition to dam removal (Graf, 2003). Finally, as in
dam construction scenarios, decisions about dam removal are often
made under asymmetric information (Born et al., 1998), leading to
dissention in affected communities.
The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development identified biophysics, socio-economics, and geopoli-
tics as the primary areas of concern for environmental and social
sustainability in development (United Nations Committee on
Economic Development, 1993). As noted above, the impact of dam
construction may be felt across each of these areas (Bocking, 1998).
For example, relocation efforts associated with dam building often
lead to higher population densities and thus to greater struggles
over land access (Webber and McDonald, 2004). Similarly, higher
levels of siltation and evapotranspiration associated with new dam
construction (Phadke, 1999) may exacerbate water and land
conflicts among affected river populations (WCD, 2000).
The renewed interest in large dams and the uncertainty
surrounding dam removal provide opportunities for improved
understanding of the interaction between environmental and
social systems. However, despite an extensive literature doc-
umenting the benefits and costs of dams, few studies have
systematically evaluated the effects of dams from multiple disci-
plinary perspectives (Whitelaw and MacMullan, 2002, but see
WCD, 2000), and important synergistic relationships between
biophysics, socio-economics, and geopolitics are not well under-
stood as a result. In this paper, we develop an interdisciplinary
approach to evaluate dams in affected communities. Specifically,
we propose a new Integrative Dam Assessment Modeling (IDAM)
tool for evaluating the relative costs and benefits of dam
construction while accounting for biophysical, socio-economic, and
geopolitical effects.
The conceptual foundation for this tool is based on existing
approaches in multi-objective planning, including amoeba
diagrams (ten Brink, 1991; Wall and Marzall, 2006), radar charts
(Connell and Wall, 2004), sustainability polygons (Steiner et al.,
2000), and wellness appraisal index graphs (Dever, 1991) for
illustrating environmental, economic, and human health assess-
ments (Sadler et al., 2000). By further developing these concepts to
incorporate analysis of costs and benefits and by adapting the
indicators to the context of dam building, we have developed this
tool as a unique and potentially valuable instrument for informing
dam siting and design, increasing the transparency of decision-
making, encouraging public participation in the process, and doc-
umenting the process for selecting among various sites and designs
in dam development.
In this paper, we introduce the IDAM tool, a conceptual model
that explicitly calls for a variety of disciplinary perspectives in
evaluating the positive and negative implications of dam
construction and removal. This tool also overtly acknowledges both
objective and subjective valuations for a transparent consensus-
building evaluation of dams. After explaining the mechanics of the
tool, we offer an illustrative example of how two alterative dam
construction projects would be evaluated using this tool. Next, we
provide context for the use of the tool by discussing its generaliz-
ability to different settings. We then compare the IDAM tool with
other interdisciplinary approaches, commenting on the advantages
and disadvantages of each, and we conclude by reflecting on the
practical applications of the tool.
2. The integrative dam assessment modeling tool
The Integrative Dam Assessment Modeling (IDAM) tool is
designed to combine the three themes identified by the 1992
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development into
two circle diagrams, one measuring the costs associated with
proposed dam development and the other measuring the benefits.
Each of the two diagrams consists of 27 individual ‘‘impacts,’’ or
effects of dam construction, nine of which represent the biophysical
theme, nine of which represent the socio-economic theme, and
nine of which represent the geopolitical theme (Fig. 1). The same
impacts appear on both the cost and benefit circles, and each
impact comprises an equal portion (131⁄3  ) of the circle diagram.
The impacts included in the model were informed by an
extensive review of the existing literature, including evaluations of
environmental effects (e.g., Bunn and Arthington, 2002; Goldsmith
and Hildyard, 1986; McAllister et al., 2000; Rosenberg et al., 2000;
WCD, 2000), social effects (e.g., Bartolome et al., 2000; Égré and
Senécal, 2003; Lerer and Scudder, 1999; Sadler et al., 2000; Scudder,
1997), and the geopolitics (e.g., Bakker, 1999; McCully, 2001;
Ribeiro, 1994; Scudder, 2005; Waterbury, 1979) of large dams.
Groups of experts with experience in evaluating dam impacts
(including the authors) then gathered for semi-structured discus-
sions on the specific indicators to be included using the Delphi
Technique (Gordon and Helmer, 1964).1 This method enables
interdisciplinary dialog to develop consensus on the key compo-
nents for analysis and provides process techniques to resolve
differences as they arise.2 The biophysical impacts identified
through this process are water retention time; natural value;
downstream tributaries; biodiversity’ distance of river left dry
downstream of the dam; CO2 equivalent to coal; flood protection;
site stability; and reservoir surface (see Table 1 for more detail). The
socio-economic impacts of primary concern are social change;
cultural change; non-agricultural economic activity; health; agri-
cultural economic activity; displacement; hydropower and infra-
structure; housing values; and transportation (see Table 2 for more
detail). The geopolitical indicators include downstream riparian
population; downstream irrigation; political boundaries; existing
dams; agreements and institutions; political participation; histor-
ical stability/tensions; domestic governance; and socio-economic
impacts for non-constituents (see Table 3 for more detail).
Within the context of the IDAM tool, each of these 27 impacts
includes both an objective evaluation of the magnitude of the effect
of dam construction (called a ‘‘metric’’) and a subjective evaluation
of its biophysical, socio-economic, or geopolitical effect (called
a ‘‘valuation’’). That is, each impact is broken into five sub-sections
(each representing 22⁄3  of the circle) that classify the objective
magnitude of the effect on a six-point scale (Likert, 1932), ranging
from 0 for ‘‘no impact’’ to 5 for ‘‘extreme impact’’; Table 4 provides
three detailed examples. These categories are normalized so the
model may be used in evaluating the costs and benefits of small
dams such as those in New Jersey (Wyrick et al., 2009) and
1
These discussions were held as part of the International Symposium on the
Modeling of Dams in Washington on April 11–13th, 2007 and the symposium on
Damming the Nu: Evaluating Hydropower on China’s Angry River in Maine on
October 6–7, 2007.
2
Linstone and Turoff (1975) and Rowe and Wright (1999) provide thorough
summaries of the strengths and weaknesses of the Delphi Technique and Meedham
and de Loë (1990) describe its applicability to water resources planning.
 P.H. Brown et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S303–S311 S305

Fig. 1. IDAM tool. The sum of the shaded area for a completed IDAM characterizes the aggregated costs and benefits. The proportion of the costs and benefits is displayed on the
scale below. The scale runs from 0 to 100 on both the costs and benefits.

Maine (Bohlen and Lewis, 2009) as well as massive hydropower 3. Illustrative example – low vs. high-impact dams
development projects such as those in China (McNally et al., 2009;
Tullos, 2009), Lesotho (Tilt et al., 2009), and the American West In what follows, we offer two hypothetical examples of how
(Burke et al., 2009). Given this objective impact of a proposed dam, dam construction projects may be evaluated using the IDAM tool,
decision-makers are asked to evaluate the benefits and costs one for a relatively high-impact dam site and one for a low-impact
associated with the objective impact of proposed dams on the dam site.
following scale: ‘‘none,’’ ‘‘very small,’’ ‘‘small,’’ ‘‘moderate,’’ ‘‘large,’’
or ‘‘very large.’’3
Table 1
The objective metric of the costs and benefits of dam
Biophysical impacts.
construction is measured along the circumference of the IDAM
circle and the subjective valuation of this outcome is measured Label Impact Description Metric
along the radius. Given these data, the IDAM figure is shaded to BP1 Water retention time Time water is stored in Time
provide a visual comparison of the magnitude of the effects and the reservoir as indicator of
ecological impact
decision-makers’ valuation thereof (see Fig. 2 for a detailed account BP2 Natural value Potential gain or loss UNESCO ‘‘natural’’
of this process for a single indicator, and note that an impact associated with dam selection criteria
without shading does not imply a lack of data, but rather no activity
objective impact, no subjective cost or benefit, or both). The IDAM BP3 Downstream tributaries Number of tributaries for Number
supplying sediment and
tool thus provides an opportunity for heuristic decision-making.4
organic material, buffering
In an ideal setting, the decision-making team will include hydrology, and providing
experts who are trained to assess the impacts of dams through the habitat
various disciplinary frameworks as well as stakeholders with local BP4 Biodiversity Threatened/endangered % of known species
knowledge and experience. We anticipate that this process will plants and animals that are threatened
or endangered
involve negotiation and consensus-building through a process BP5 Distance of river left In scenarios where flow is Length
similar to the Delphi Technique, thereby improving the trans- dry downstream of dam diverted for irrigation
parency of the decision-making process. BP6 CO2 equivalent to coal Benefit of producing Pounds per MW
hydropower as opposed
to coal as alternative
energy source
BP7 Flood protection The magnitude of flooding RYI year
3 event captured by the
It is important to acknowledge that while some effects of dam construction on
dam in Return Year
human and natural systems can be felt immediately, others are dynamic and
Interval (RYI)
cumulative, becoming apparent over many years. Decision-makers should thus
BP8 Site stability Presence of geologic None to very large
keep the ‘‘life cycle’’ of a given dam project in mind when assigning objective
hazards, e.g. landslides,
metrics and subjective valuations (Sadler et al., 2000).
4 site stability, distance
As currently implemented, the IDAM tool assigns an equal area of the decision
to faults, and reservoir-
circle to each impact. We believe that such an approach accommodates weighting
induced seismicity
through the subjective valuation of each impact, although it may nevertheless be
BP9 Reservoir surface Surface area of reservoir Area
worth experimenting with a model which allows for a more flexibility in weighting
at full storage
impacts.
S306 P.H. Brown et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S303–S311

Table 2
Socio-economic impacts.
Label Impact Description
SE1 Social cohesion Change in social networks and perceived
social cohesion
SE2 Cultural change Sites of cultural significance
SE3 Non-agricultural Aggregate change in total income, less
economic activity government transfers
SE4 Health Frequency and severity of contamination
SE5 Agricultural Aggregate change in total income, less
economic activity government transfers
SE6 Displacement Relocation costs associated with changing
water levels
SE7 Hydropower/ Value of hydropower consumed locally or
infrastructure sold
SE8 Housing values Hedonic value of recreation and landscape
SE9 Transportation Value of change in economic activity
3.1. High-impact dam site
This hypothetical new dam site is located on the main stem of
a large river in the Unites States, with the primary objective of
providing a reliable source of irrigation water and a secondary
objective of producing hydropower. It is a wide (820 m) and rela-
tively short (21 m) structure, blocking passage for three species of
endangered salmon as listed under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) to an 88 km spawning habitat and leaving 18 km dry
downstream during very dry years.
Because of the generally low slope of the river valley, the
reservoir will have a high surface area and will inundate two Native
American reservation communities comprising nearly 1000 people
in total. Archaeological digs have recently discovered artifacts of
a community dating back to 2200 years within the inundated area,
and sites of spiritual importance will be submerged. The residents
of the affected communities will be relocated outside of the valley
to a reservation in the dry grassland 200 km away. Water is not
immediately accessible at the relocation site, but the U.S. govern-
ment has agreed to dig wells for the displaced communities.
However, no agreements have yet been signed between the
communities and the federal government because the residents are
concerned that the wells will be insufficient to meet their water
needs. Employment opportunities will exist at the new reservation
in the form of a newly constructed casino. Educational programs
will be developed at the new site for the relocated residents.
The benefits and costs of this high-impact dam are described in
the IDAM circles presented in Fig. 3. Note that the objective metrics
and subjective valuations have been estimated for this hypothetical
dam for illustrative purposes (see Table 5 for detail); for a true
IDAM evaluation, a decision-making team must provide the data
for metrics and valuations. In addition, recall that an impact
without shading implies that there is no objective impact and/or
that the subjective valuation associated with that impact is zero.
Subtracting the total cost (Panel B) from the total benefit (Panel A)
in the IDAM tool indicates a net cost of 10 units as follows: net cost
Metric of 58 units to biophysical impacts; net benefit of 23 units to socio-
Buckner economic indicators; and net benefit of 25 units to geopolitical
scale indicators. This outcome is compared to the net benefit (or cost) of
Number a low-impact dam built on a tributary of the dam below.
Dollars
Days per 3.2. Low-impact dam site
year
Dollars This hypothetical new dam site is located on a steeper tributary
to the main stem river proposed above, with similar objectives of
Dollars
developing irrigation resources and producing hydropower. This
Dollars structure would be narrower (120 m) and taller (47 m) than the
dam on the main stem of the river, with a small, but deep reservoir
Dollars
with 23 km2 in surface area. The low surface area of the reservoir
Dollars
blocks only 21 km of spawning habitat for two ESA-listed salmon.
This facility generates a similar amount of electricity (23 MW per
year), but the electricity will need to be transmitted farther to the
transfer facility. Furthermore, the structure will only store enough
water for irrigating only 423 ha of farmland for corn production.
There are numerous downstream tributaries that regularly supply
sediment and runoff to the main stem. However, because all of the
flow is diverted, the river will be left dry most years 6 km down to
the next tributary. By storing and diverting all of the flood water in
this river, this facility offers the benefit of downstream flood
protection. The value of this protection is quite limited, however,
because the habitat between the dam and the main stem is
industrial forest that was harvested just prior to construction. As
such, no communities will be displaced and no cultural or
anthropological artifacts will be inundated.
The benefits and costs of this low-impact dam are described in
the IDAM circles presented in Fig. 4. Subtracting the total cost
(Panel B) from the total benefit (Panel A) in the IDAM tool indicates
a net benefit of 10 units as follows: net cost of 24 units to
biophysical impacts; net benefit of 19 units to socio-economic
indicators; and net benefit of 15 units to geopolitical indicators.
Although the benefits of dam building at the high-impact site are
significantly larger than the benefits of building at the low-impact
site, the costs of dam building are also disproportionately larger in
the former case. Indeed, the IDAM tool indicates that the net benefit
to dam construction in the tributary of the river outweighs that of
dam construction in the main stem.
4. Applicability and generalizability of the IDAM tool
WCD (2000) calls for social, environmental, and technical
monitoring and assessment for proposed dam projects. Further, the
‘‘Five Key Decision Points’’ described in the WCD report propose
that decisions about dams should be rooted in careful discussions of
needs assessment, selecting alternatives and investigative studies,
project preparation, project implementation, and project operation.

Table 3
Geopolitical impacts.

Label Impact Description Metric

GP1 Downstream riparian population People in downstream communities potentially affected by upstream dams Number
GP2 Downstream irrigation Downstream irrigated area potentially affected by upstream dams Area
GP3 Political boundaries Number of national and sub-national political boundaries crossed by waterway Number
GP4 Existing dams Regulatory/storage capacity of existing dams on waterway Capacity
GP5 Agreements/institutions Number of inter-governmental institutions devoted to management of shared waterway Number
GP6 Political participation Plurality of decision-making processes in country where dam will be sited Democracy index
GP7 Historical stability/tensions Degree of interstate and intra-state stability versus tension among riparian countries Internal Basins at Risk (BAR) Scale
GP8 Domestic governance ‘‘Durability’’ of state government, including its ability to anticipate and, where International Basins at Risk (BAR) Scale
necessary, appropriately respond to domestic challenges
GP9 Socio-economic impacts Estimate of the magnitude of impacts for non-constituents (e.g. downstream Low–high
for non-constituents communities in other riparian countries)
 P.H. Brown et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S303–S311
Table 4
Example metrics for objective measurement of dam impacts. The objective metrics
associated with each of the 27 indicators in the IDAM tool are evaluated on a 6-point
scale in which 0 indicates no effect and 5 indicates a very large effect. In the interest
of space, three detailed examples (one each from the biophysical, socio-economic,
and geopolitical perspective) are provided; as noted in the text, these metrics should
be adapted to local circumstances.
BP7: Flood protection, relative to historical record for the same river
0 None
1 Flood protection for only small storms (1–10 RYI)
2 Flood protection for modest events (10–25 RYI)
3 Flood protection for large but regular events (25–100 RYI)
4 Flood protection for large and irregular events (100–1000 RYI)
5 Flood protection for events >1000 RYI
SE1: Resettlement cost, as a share of watershed GDP
0 No displacement
1 Less than 0.5% of total watershed GDP
2 0.5–1.5% of total watershed GDP
3 1.5–3.0% of total watershed GDP
4 3.0–5.0% of total watershed GDP
5 Greater than 5.0% of total watershed GDP
GP4: Capacity of existing dams to regulate annual flow
0 No existing dams on the main trunk of the river
1 Existing dams have capacity to regulate <10% of mean annual flow
2 Existing dams have capacity to regulate <20% of mean annual flow
3 Existing dams have capacity to regulate <30% of mean annual flow
4 Existing dams have capacity to regulate <40% of mean annual flow
5 Existing dams have capacity to regulate >40% of mean annual flow
The proposed IDAM tool may therefore be useful in operationaliz-
ing these recommendations, offering a systematic and transparent
approach for evaluating dam siting to meet the development and
sustainability needs of affected communities.
The IDAM tool is comprehensive in its evaluation of dam
construction from multiple disciplinary perspectives. Moreover,
because simple steps may be taken to adapt the model to local
conditions (such as adjusting or changing specific indicators
included the tool) and because it explicitly incorporates both
objective metrics and subjective valuations of dam impacts, the tool
is extremely flexible. By providing a visual representation of the
various costs and benefits associated with two or more dams, the
tool also allows decision-makers to evaluate alternatives and to
Fig. 2. Sample evaluation of the benefits of flood protection. Experts characterize the benefits of dam construction according to an objective metric. In the case of flood protection,
this metric describes protection relative to the historical record for the same river. Decision-makers assign a subjective valuation to these quantified benefits based on a scale
ranging from ‘‘none’’ to ‘‘very high.’’ The IDAM figure is then shaded in order to provide a visual representation of both the objective metric and the subjective valuation.
S307
articulate priorities associated with a dam project, making the
decision process about dams more informed and transparent. For
all of these reasons, we believe that the IDAM tool represents an
important evolutionary step in dam evaluation.
Thus, the IDAM tool is currently being used to evaluate dam
removal in Oregon, where the need to better understand the
integrated biophysical, socio-economic, and geopolitical advan-
tages and disadvantages of dam removal is great (Bowman, 2002).
Specifically, impacts identified in Tables 1–3 were adapted based on
current literature of dam removal (e.g., Graf, 2003), replacing
contextually inappropriate impacts (e.g., ‘‘distance of river left dry
downstream of dam’’) with more appropriate alternatives (e.g.,
‘‘predicted distance of downstream sediment deposition’’) while
retaining those that remained relevant (e.g., ‘‘biodiversity’’). We
then solicited feedback on the proposed impacts during facilitated
meetings with stakeholders, including representatives of federal
agencies, experts on environmental monitoring, and local land-
owners. We are now applying the IDAM tool to document and
analyze decision-making and environmental outcomes associated
with two economically, politically, and environmentally dissimilar
small dam removals. The results will include an evaluation of the
indicators for use in decision-making about dam removals beyond
these two case studies.
5. Other interdisciplinary approaches to modeling dams
Other approaches exist for performing interdisciplinary assess-
ments on ‘‘coupled human–environment systems’’ (Global Land
Project, 2005; Turner et al., 2003). For example, economic
approaches such as hedonic analysis and contingent valuation have
been used to value the impact of dam construction and removal on
water quality and fish biodiversity (e.g., Bohlen and Lewis, 2009).
Similarly, micro- and macroeconomic factors have been included in
biophysical simulation models (e.g., Benstead et al., 1999; Costanza
and Ruth, 1998; Haberl et al., 2006; Simonovic and Fahmy, 1999).
However, using economics to value socio-cultural and ecological
indicators is a source of debate due to difficulties in accounting for
variability in interpretation and positions on metrics and values
(McCauley, 2006; Sullivan, 2001).
S308 P.H. Brown et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S303–S311

Fig. 3. Illustrative example, high-impact dam. A dam on the main stem of a large river would block passage for salmon and sometimes leave downstream reaches dry. However, it
would also produce a modest amount of electricity and irrigate and for corn production. The reservoir would displace 1000 Native Americans, and compensation is still under
negotiation. Although important heritage sites would be lost, economic opportunities exist at the relocation site. See Table 5 for objective metrics and subjective valuations of these
impacts.

Table 5
Illustrative example: high- versus low-impact dams. A decision-making team comprised of experts and stakeholders will participate in a consensus-building process such as
the Delphi Technique to identify and evaluate the objective and subjective costs and benefits of dam construction at different sites. Based on the information provided in the
illustrative example, a decision-making team might arrive at the following objective metrics and subjective valuations. These values were used in constructing Figs. 3 and 4.

Key Impact High-impact dams Low-impact dam

Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

Obj. metric Subj. valuation Obj. metric Subj. valuation Obj. metric Subj. valuation Obj. metric Subj. valuation
Biophysical (BP) impacts
BP1 Water retention 0 0 4 4 0 0 2 4
BP2 Natural value 0 0 4 5 0 0 3 5
BP3 Downstream tributaries 0 4 3 0 3 4 0 0
BP4 Species of concern 0 0 2 5 0 0 1 5
BP5 Dry river 0 0 2 3 0 0 3 3
BP6 CO2 equivalent to coal 3 2 0 0 2 2 0 0
BP7 Flood protection 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
BP8 Site stability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BP9 Reservoir surface 0 0 4 3 0 0 1 3

Socio-economic (SE) impacts

SE1 Social cohesion 0 2 4 3 0 2 0 3
SE2 Cultural change 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1
SE3 Non-agr. economic activity 3 4 4 0 0 4 0 0
SE4 Health 5 0 0 4 3 0 0 4
SE5 Ag. economic activity 5 5 0 0 3 5 0 0
SE6 Displacement 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
SE7 Hydropower/infrastructure 3 4 0 5 1 4 0 5
SE8 Housing values 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
SE9 Transportation 0 3 5 2 0 3 0 2

Geopolitical (GP) impacts

GP1 Downstream riparian pop. 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
GP2 Downstream irrigation 5 5 0 0 3 5 0 0
GP3 Political boundaries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GP4 Existing dams 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0
GP5 Agreements/institutions 1 5 4 0 0 5 0 0
GP6 Political participation 1 3 3 0 0 3 0 0
GP7 Historical stability/tensions 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 2
GP8 Domestic governance 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 0
GP9 Socio-economic impacts for non-constituents 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 1
 P.H. Brown et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S303–S311
Fig. 4. Illustrative example, low-impact dam. This dam is taller and narrower than the high-impact dam, yet it blocks less spawning habitat for salmon and no communities would
be displaced by its construction. This dam would provide some flood protection, but only to industrial forest land. The small amount of electricity generated from this facility would
be transported farther away, and the dam would irrigate far less land. See Table 5 for objective metrics and subjective valuations of these impacts.
In another approach, Haberl et al. (2006) propose the use of
social–ecological metabolism measures drawn from the ecological
economics, industrial ecology, and human ecology literatures to
integrate biophysical and socio-economic processes through
a common currency (e.g., carbon and water). Such analyses
combine field data with statistical social data and use historical
sources to reconstruct past states of the system, thereby contrib-
uting to socio-ecological models that integrate economic and
ecological dynamics (Ayres, 2001; Ibernholt, 2002) in river systems
such as the Hudson (Ayres and Ayres, 1988; Ayres and Tarr, 1990)
and the Rhine (Stigliani et al., 1993). However, this approach is
limited in that it requires a rigid spatial scale over which systems
are compared, which is difficult to define for socio-economic
systems (Liverman and National Research Council (U.S.) Committee
on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, 1998).
Finally, agent-based models have also been used to study
complex social and environmental systems by attempting to
replicate the behavior of individuals and groups. The complex
dynamics within and between biophysical and human systems are
linked in such models as each disciplinary perspective is treated as
an agent that interacts with other agents. One advantage of agent-
based models over other types of interdisciplinary models is that
they are based on the underlying framework of each discipline,
rather than trying to meld disciplines under a single framework and
set of assumptions (McConnell et al., 2001). Moreover, by sepa-
rating policy questions from data, agent-based modeling increases
the transparency of decision-making in water resources planning
(Simonovic and Fahmy, 1999). However, agent-based models are
limited by the requirement to develop deterministic rules by which
agents drive system change. Furthermore, agent-based models
assume that agents have decision-making autonomy, and this
assumption may not be appropriate for large-scale public works
projects such as dams.
In light of the availability and limitations of these tools, the
IDAM tool offers at least five distinct advantages. First, and perhaps
most importantly, the tool renders explicitly the need for decision-
makers to simultaneously consider the biophysical, socio-
S309
economic, and geopolitical implications of dams. We believe that
identifying data needs in this way will help decision-makers to
produce comprehensive and empirically valid policy decisions.
Second, it combines both objective measurements and subjective
valuations of dam building into a single model. Third, neither the
model nor the authors of this study arbitrarily assign subjective
weights to the various impacts; instead, the importance of each
impact is left up to the decision team. We feel this is a vital
component in the development and functioning of this model, and
one that increases its applicability across different socio-cultural
and geographic contexts. Fourth, this work benefits from and
contributes to the perspectives of individual disciplines. Similar to
agent-based models, this approach does not require disciplines to
conform to a single framework for assessing impacts, but it does
integrate the various disciplinary perspectives into a single model.
Finally, the IDAM tool is visually accessible: costs and benefits of the
proposed project are clearly shown in figures, and conclusions
regarding dam impacts can be easily drawn by comparing the
shaded area of the two circles.
One disadvantage of the IDAM tool is the considerable up-front
data requirements for the objective assessments of dam impacts.
Still, any thorough evaluation of dams (e.g., environmental and
social impact assessments) is based on nearly identical information,
yet the IDAM tool makes the data needs clear at the outset. A
second potential limitation of the tool is that the 27 individual
impacts may not be appropriate to every setting; although we have
endeavored to make these categories widely applicable, we expect
that some decision-makers may find utility in adapting them to the
local context. Third, the value of the IDAM tool depends on
a balanced treatment of each disciplinary perspective: if natural
scientists or environmentalists comprise a disproportionate share
of the decision-making team, for example, the socio-economic and
geopolitical costs and benefits of dams may be undervalued,
leading to biased evaluations. Finally, the tool requires consensus-
building among interested constituencies. Again, we view this as an
advantage of the model, although some decision-makers may
disagree.
S310 P.H. Brown et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S303–S311
6. Conclusions
With the growing demand for water and energy, a concurrent
rise in the need for water storage and hydropower projects may be
expected, particularly in developing countries. At the same time,
aging hydropower stations are being removed with increasing
frequency in developed countries. The literature rooted in bio-
physiology, socio-economics, and geopolitics may inform decision-
makers’ decisions about the siting and sizing of new dams and
about the costs and benefits of removing existing dams, albeit often
from a single disciplinary perspective that may miss other impor-
tant outcomes associated with dam construction or removal.
Unfortunately, past attempts to integrate the biophysical, socio-
economic, and geopolitical effects in a coherent way have been
stymied by the disparate vocabularies and concepts under which
individual disciplines operate.
Nevertheless, this paper and others in this issue (e.g., Tullos
et al., 2009; Wyrick et al., 2009) have highlighted the importance of
assessing the impacts of dams from a multidisciplinary perspective.
To facilitate such evaluation, we have introduced the IDAM tool,
which allows decision-makers to assign objective metrics and
subjective valuations to a range of biophysical, socio-economic and
geopolitical effects of dam construction and removal. Properly
implemented, this tool encourages consensus-building and affords
an opportunity for heuristic decision-making. As such, it will
advance our understanding of how dams affect human and
ecological systems.
Recognizing that the credibility of a model depends on the
validity of underlying assumptions and on stakeholder buy-in, we
advocate a careful data collection process to verify the selection of
impacts, documented procedures for data quality and control, and
a deliberate attempt to include the breadth of stakeholders in the
evaluation process. Data needs are likely to involve analysis of
primary literature, household surveys, hydrologic and GIS analyses,
and public participation activities. While such data collection needs
are not trivial, they are no more cumbersome than those associated
with well-designed social and environmental impact assessments.
Developing stakeholder buy-in is likely to entail demonstration of
the IDAM tool, mechanism analysis, and opportunities for public
discussion, all of which contribute to the transparency of the deci-
sion-making process. Further, while true validation of the IDAM tool
is difficult in the absence of a natural experiment, the tool will
accommodate sensitivity validation (Schneider, 1997) by allowing
researchers to simulate changes in objective metrics and subjective
valuations to better understand the effect of each impact on high-
priority state variables. Finally, this approach facilitates an evalua-
tion of the relative importance of biophysical, socio-economic, and
geopolitical indicators in assessing dam impacts. These techniques
can be valuable in evaluating the credibility of the IDAM tool as well
as the currently held assumptions regarding the impacts of dam
construction and removal.
Acknowledgements
This manuscript benefited from outstanding research assis-
tance provided by Amy McNally, Beth Wiley, and Yilin Xu.
Funding for this work was provided by the National Science
Foundation, award #0623087. We are also grateful to the Gold-
farb Center for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement for conference
support.
References
Acharya, G., Lewis, L., 2001. Valuing open space and land use chaos in urban
watersheds: an hedonic property value analysis. Journal of Real Estate
Economics and Finance 22 (2/3), 221–237.
Ayres, R.U., 2001. The minimum complexity of endogeneous growth models: the
role of physical resource flows. Energy 26 (9), 817–838.
Ayres, R.U., Ayres, L., 1988. An Historical Reconstruction of Major Pollutant Levels in
the Hudson–Raritan basin, 1800–1980. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Rockville, MD.
Ayres, R.U., Tarr, J.A., 1990. Environmental change in the Hudson River Basin and the
Hudson–Raritan Estuary. In: Turner, B.L., Clark, W.C., Kates, R.W., Richards, J.F.,
Mathews, J.T., Meyer, W.B. (Eds.), The Earth as Transformed by Human Action:
Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere Over the Past 300 Years. Cam-
bridge University Press with Clark University, Cambridge, pp. 623–640.
Bakker, K., 1999. The politics of hydropower: developing the Mekong. Political
Geography 18 (2), 209–232.
Bartolome, L.J., de Wet, C., Nagaraj, V.K., 2000. Displacement, Resettlement, Rehabili-
tation, Reparation and Development; Thematic Review I.3. Prepared as an input to
the World Commission on Dams. World Commission on Dams, Capetown.
Benstead, J.P., March, J.G., Pringle, C.M., Scatena, F.N., 1999. Effects of a low-head
dam and water abstraction on migratory tropical stream biota. Ecological
Applications 9 (2), 656–668.
Bocking, S., 1998. Dams & Development. International Development Studies
Network. <http://www.idsnet.org/Resources/Dams/Development/DinD.html>.
Bohlen, C., Lewis, L.Y., 2009. Examining the economic impacts of hydropower dams
on property values using GIS. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (S3),
S258–S269.
Bohlen, C., Lewis, L., Wilson, S., 2007. Dam Removal and Property Values: a Hedonic
Analysis. Mimeo. Bates College.
Born, S., Genskow, K., Filbert, T., Hernandez-Mora, N., Keefer, M., White, K., 1998.
Socioeconomic and institutional dimensions of dam removals: the Wisconsin
experience. Environmental Management 22, 359–370.
Bowman, M., 2002. Exploring Dam Removal: a Decision-Making Guide. American
Rivers, Trout Unlimited, Washington DC.
Bunn, S., Arthington, A., 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of
altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management 30
(4), 492–507.
Burke, M., Klaus, J., Buffington, J.M., 2009. Application of a hierarchical framework
for assessing environmental impacts of dam operation: Changes in Streamflow,
bed mobility and recruitment of riparian trees in a western North American
river. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (S3), S224–S236.
Cernea, M.M., 1999. The Economics of Involuntary Resettlement: Questions and
Challenges. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Connell, D.J., Wall, E., 2004. Profiling economic capacity. Journal of Extension 42 (4).
Costanza, R., Ruth, M., 1998. Using dynamic modeling to scope environmental
problems and build consensus. Environmental Management 22 (2), 183–195.
Dever, G.E.A., 1991. Community Health Analysis: Global Awareness at the Local
Level, second ed. Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg, MD.
Doyle, M.W., Stanley, E.H., Harbor, J.M., 2003. Channel adjustments following two
dam removals in Wisconsin. Water Resource Research 39 (1), 1011.
Doyle, M.W., Stanley, E.H., Havlick, D.G., Kaiser, M.J., Steinbach, G., Graf, W.L.,
Galloway, G.E., Riggsbee, J.A., 2008. Aging infrastructure and ecosystem resto-
ration. Science 319, 286–287.
Égré, D., Senécal, P., 2003. Social impact assessments of large dams throughout the
world: lessons learned over two decades. Impact Assessment & Project
Appraisal 21 (3), 215–224.
Giordano, M., Giordano, M., Wolf, A., 2005. International resource conflict and
mitigation. Journal of Peace Research 42 (1), 47–65.
Global Land Project, 2005. Science plan and implementation strategy. Report
Number 53/IHDP Report Number 19, International Geosphere–Biosphere Pro-
gramme (IGBP), Stockholm.
Goldsmith, E., Hildyard, N., 1986. The Social and Environmental Effects of Large
Dams. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.
Gordon, T., Helmer, O., 1964. Report on a Long Range Forecasting Study. RAND
Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
Graf, W.L., 2003. Dam removal research. In: Graf, W.L. (Ed.), Dam Removal Research:
Science and Decision Making. Heinz Center, Washington, DC.
Haberl, H., Winiwarter, V., Andersson, K., Ayres, R.U., Boone, C., Castillo, A.,
Cunfer, G., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Freudenburg, W.R., Furman, E., Kaufmann, R.,
Krausmann, F., Langthaler, E., Lotze-Campen, H., Mirtl, M., Redman, C.L.,
Reenberg, A., Wardell, A., Warr, B., Zechmeister, H., 2006. From LTER to LTSER:
conceptualizing the socioeconomic dimension of long-term socioecological
research. Ecology and Society 11 (2), 1–34.
Hart, D.D., Johnson, T.E., Bushaw-Newton, K.L., Horwitz, R.J., Bednarek, A.T., Charles, D.F.,
Kreeger, D.A., Velinsky, D.J., 2002. Dam removal: challenges and opportunities for
ecological research and river restoration. Bioscience 52 (8), 669–681.
Ibernholt, K., 2002. Material flow accounting and economic modeling. In:
Ayres, R.U., Ayres, L. (Eds.), A Handbook of Industrial Ecology. Edward Elgar,
Northampton, MA, pp. 177–184.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Working Group 2: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. <http://www.gtp89.dial.pipex.com/chpt.htm>.
Lerer, L.B., Scudder, T., 1999. Health impacts of large dams. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 19 (2), 113–123.
Likert, R., 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of
Psychology 140, 1–55.
Linstone, H., Turoff, M. (Eds.), 1975. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applica-
tions. Addison-Wesley, New York.
Liverman, D.M., National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on the Human
Dimensions of Global Change, 1998. People and Pixels: Linking Remote Sensing
and Social Science. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
 P.H. Brown et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S303–S311
McAllister, D., Craig, J., Davidson, N., Murray, D., Seddon, M., 2000. Dams, Ecosystem
Functions and Environmental Restoration; Thematic Review II.1. Prepared as an
input to the World Commission on Dams. World Commission on Dams,
Capetown. <http://www.dams.org/docs/kbase/contrib/env245.pdf>.
McCauley, D.J., 2006. Selling out on nature. Nature 443, 27–28.
McConnell, W., Parker, D., Berger, T., Manson, S., 2001. Agent-based Models of Land-
use and Land-cover Change. Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science,
University of California at Santa Barbara. <http://www.csiss.org/resources/
maslucc/ABM-LUCC.pdf>.
McCully, P., 2001. Silenced Rivers: the Ecology and Politics of Large Dams, Enlarged
& updated ed. Zed Books, New York.
McNally, A., Magee, D., Wolf, A.T., 2009. Hydropower and sustainability: Resilience
and vulnerability in China’s powersheds. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment 90 (S3), S286–S293.
Meedham, R., de Loë, R., 1990. The policy Delphi: purpose, structure, and applica-
tion. The Canadian Geographer 32 (2), 133–143.
Petts, G.E., 1984. Impounded Rivers: Perspectives for Ecological Management.
Wiley, Chichester, New York.
Phadke, R., 1999. Dams, Displacement, and Community Reconstruction: an Anno-
tated Bibliography and Reference Guide. Institute of International Studies,
University of California at Berkeley. <http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/EnvirPol/
Bib/B01-Phadke.pdf>.
Pizzuto, J., 2002. Effects of dam removal on river form and process. Bioscience 52
(8), 683–692.
Poff, N.L., Allan, J.D., Bain, M.B., Karr, J.R., Prestegaard, K.L., Richter, B.D., Sparks, R.E.,
Stromberg, J.C., 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for conservation and
restoration of river ecosytems. Bioscience 47 (11), 769–784.
Poff, N.L., Hart, D.D., 2002. How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging
science of dam removal. Bioscience 52 (8), 59–68.
Ribeiro, G.L., 1994. Transnational Capitalism and Hydropolitics in Argentina: the
Yacyretá High Dam. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Riggsbee, J.A., Julian, J.P., Doyle, M.W., Wetzel, R.G., 2007. Suspended sediment,
dissolved organic carbon, and dissolved nitrogen export during the dam
removal process. Water Resource Research 43 (9), W09414.
Rosenberg, D.M., McCully, P., Pringle, C.M., 2000. Global-scale environmental effects
of hydrological alterations: introduction. Bioscience 50 (9), 746–751.
Rowe, G., Wright, G., 1999. The Delphi Technique as a forecasting tool: issues and
analysis. International Journal of Forecasting 15 (4), 353–375.
Sadler, B., Verocai, I., Vanclay, F., 2000. Environmental and Social Impact Assess-
ment for Large Dams, Thematic Review V.2. Prepared as an input to the World
Commission on Dams. World Commission on Dams, Capetown. <http://www.
dams.org/docs/kbase/thematic/tr52main.pdf>.
Schneider, S.H., 1997. Integrated assessment modeling of global climate change:
transparent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen hiding value-laden
assumptions? Environmental Modeling and Assessment 2 (4), 229–249.
Scudder, T., 1997. Social impacts of large dams. In: Dorcey, A.H.J., International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, World Bank Group
(Eds.), Large Dams: Learning from the Past. IUCN & World Bank, Gland,
Switzerland.
Scudder, T., 2005. The Future of Large Dams: Dealing with Social, Environmental
and Political Costs. Earthscan, Sterling, VA.
S311
Simonovic, S.P., Fahmy, H., 1999. A new modeling approach for water resources
policy analysis. Water Resources Research 35 (1), 295–304.
Steiner, K., Herweg, K., Dumanski, J., 2000. Practical and cost-effective indicators
and procedures for monitoring the impacts of rural development projects on
land quality and sustainable land management. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment 81 (2), 147–154.
Stigliani, W.M., Anderberg, S., Jaffe, P.R., 1993. Industrial metabolism and long-term
risks from accumulated chemicals in the Rhine basin. Industry and Environ-
ment 16 (3), 30–35.
Sullivan, K.M., 2001. Discursive practices and competing discourses in the gover-
nance of wild North American Pacific Salmon resources. In: Blatter, J., Ingram, H.
(Eds.), Reflections on Water: New Approaches to Transboundary Conflicts and
Cooperation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 163–188.
ten Brink, B., 1991. The AMEOBA approach as a useful tool for establishing
sustainable development. In: Kuik, O., Verbruggen, H. (Eds.), In Search of
Indicators of Sustainable Development. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dor-
drecht, The Netherlands.
Tilt, B., Braun, Y., He, D., 2009. Social impacts of large dam projects: a comparison of
international case studies and implications for best practice. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Management 90 (S3), S249–S257.
Tullos, D., 2009. Assessing the influence of environmental impact assessments on
science and policy: an analysis of the Three Gorges Project. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Management 90 (S3), S208–S223.
Tullos, D., Tilt, B., Liermann, C.R., 2009. Introduction to the special issue: Under-
standing and linking the biophysical, socioeconomic and geopolitical effects of
dams. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (S3), S203–S207.
Turner, B.L., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.J., Corell, R.W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N.,
Hovelsrud-Broda, G.K., Kasperson, J.X., Kasperson, R.E., Luers, A., Martello, M.L.,
Mathiesen, S., Naylor, R., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A., Schiller, A., Selin, H., Tyler, N.,
2003. Illustrating the coupled human–environment system for vulnerability
analysis: three case studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of
the United States of America 100, 8080–8085.
United Nations Committee on Economic Development, 1993. Agenda 21. United
Nations Publications, New York.
Wall, E., Marzall, K., 2006. Adaptive capacity for climate change in Canadian rural
communities. Local Environment 11 (4), 373–397.
Walter, R.C., Merritts, D.J., 2008. Natural streams and the legacy of water-powered
mills. Science 319, 299–304.
Ward, J.V., Stanford, J.A. (Eds.), 1979. The Ecology of Regulated Streams. Plenum
Press, New York.
Waterbury, J., 1979. Hydropolitics of the Nile Valley, first ed. Syracuse University
Press, Syracuse, NY.
Webber, M., McDonald, B., 2004. Involuntary resettlement, production, and income:
evidence from Xiaolangdi, PRC. World Development 32 (4), 673–690.
Whitelaw, E., MacMullan, E., 2002. A framework for estimating the costs and
benefits of dam removal. Bioscience 52 (8), 724–730.
World Commission on Dams, 2000. Dams and Development: a New Framework for
Decision-Making. Earthscan, London.
Wyrick, J.R., Rischman, B.A., Burke, C.A., McGee, C., Williams, C., 2009. Using hydraulic
modeling to assess the socio-economic impacts of small dam removal in southern
New Jersey. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (S3), S270–S278.
www.water-alternatives.org Volume 3 | Issue 2
Tullos, D.; Brown, P.H.; Kibler, K.; Magee, D.; Tilt, B. and
Wolf, A.T. 2010. Perspectives on the salience and magnitude
of dam impacts for hydro development scenarios in China.
Water Alternatives 3(2): 71-90

Perspectives on the Salience and Magnitude of Dam Impacts for

Hydro Development Scenarios in China
Desiree Tullos
Assistant Professor, Biological and Ecological Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, US;
tullosd@engr.orst.edu

Philip H. Brown
Associate Professor of Economics, Colby College, Waterville, ME, US; phbrown@colby.edu

Kelly Kibler
PhD student, Water Resources Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, US; kiblerk@engr.orst.edu

Darrin Magee
Assistant Professor, Environmental Studies, Hobart & William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY, US; magee@hws.edu

Bryan Tilt
Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, US;
bryan.tilt@oregonstate.edu

Aaron T. Wolf
Professor of Geography and Chair, Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, US;
wolfa@geo.oregonstate.edu

ABSTRACT: Following the principles and priorities outlined by the World Commission on Dams, managers are
increasingly considering a greater variety of impacts in their decision making regarding dams. However, many
challenges remain in evaluating the biophysical, socioeconomic and geopolitical impacts of dams, including the
potential diversity of stakeholder perspectives on dam impacts.
In this analysis, we surveyed representatives of non-governmental organisations, academics and hydropower and
government officials in Yunnan Province, China, to better understand how stakeholder group views on the size
(magnitude) and importance (salience) of dam impacts vary. We applied the technique defined by the
Interdisciplinary Dam Assessment Model (IDAM) to simulate three dam development scenarios: dams in general,
a single large dam and multiple small dams. We then surveyed the experts to measure their views on the
magnitude and salience of 21 biophysical, geopolitical and socioeconomic impacts for the three scenarios.
Survey results indicate differences in the perceived salience and magnitude of impacts across both expert groups
and dam scenarios. Furthermore, surveys indicate that stakeholder perceptions changed as the information
provided regarding dam impacts became more specific, suggesting that stakeholder evaluation may be influenced
by quality of information. Finally, qualitative comments from the survey reflect some of the challenges of
interdisciplinary dam assessment, including cross-disciplinary cooperation, data standardisation and weighting,
and the distribution and potential mitigation of impacts. Given the complexity of data and perceptions around
dam impacts, decision-support tools that integrate the objective magnitude and perceived salience of impacts are
required urgently.

KEYWORDS: Hydropower impacts, salience, decision making, stakeholders, World Commission on Dams, China

Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China Page | 71

Water Alternatives - 2010 Volume 3 | Issue 2

INTRODUCTION
Though hydropower development provides many known benefits, negative impacts are often
distributed across social and environmental systems (WCD, 2000; Scudder, 2005). In addition, perceived
costs and benefits are likely to vary among stakeholder groups (Ünver, 2008) linked to the river and
affected by the project in an assortment of ways.
In 2000, the World Commission on Dams (WCD) reported the need for more equitable,
interdisciplinary and sustainable decision making with respect to large dams, and that new models of
decision making must involve key stakeholders throughout the process. Much subsequent research has
also advocated for improving decision-making processes (McCully, 2001; Mokorosi and van der Zaag,
2007; Koch, 2002; Dingwerth, 2005). However, important challenges in implementation remain
unresolved. Chief among these is how best to carry out equitable and sustainable decision making in
situations in which information is scarce, or in which there exists strong institutional resistance to WCD
recommendations such as opening assessment procedures to public scrutiny or comment (Dubash et
al., 2002). A number of approaches are under development with the intent of improving governance
and decision making related to water resources development (WCD, 2000; van der Zaag et al., 2009;
Turner et al., 2003; Simonovic and Fahmy, 1999). The Integrative Dam Assessment Modelling (IDAM)
tool (Brown et al., 2009) is one example of a new process that seeks to fulfil the WCD’s
recommendations. Of the seven Strategic Priorities1 for the equitable and sustainable development of
water resources promoted by the WCD, the IDAM tool contributes most directly to facilitating
comprehensive options assessments that equally consider the environmental, technical, social,
economic and financial components of alternative development scenarios.

Interdisciplinary Dam Assessment Model (IDAM)

The goal of the IDAM instrument is to support more informed and transparent decision-making
processes around dam development. Rooted in the three pillars of sustainability (biophysics,
socioeconomics and geopolitics), as proposed at the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development (UN Committee on Economic Development, 1993), IDAM was established to promote the
full and equal consideration of the three pillars in dam decision making. IDAM is distinct in its ability to
simultaneously consider costs and benefits across the three pillars, as opposed to the discrete analyses
(e.g. in social impact assessments, environmental impact assessments, and benefit cost analyses) often
used to appraise dam decisions.
Moreover, the IDAM framework provides transparency for documenting information used in
evaluating dam development alternatives. In addition to enhancing the transparency of the decision-
making process, documentation throughout IDAM evaluation provides testimony as to the quality of
information used to reach a decision.
The IDAM tool is structured as a set of 21 biophysical, socioeconomic and geopolitical impacts of
dam construction (table 1), each of which is measured by independent analysts using an indicator that
reflects the objective magnitude of the impact, which is then classified into one of five bins indicating
the scale of impact. Indicators are intended to be neutral in tone and application; however, it is
foreseeable that in one geographic setting, some indicators may only connote a negative impact, yet in
another setting could also encompass a positive impact.
Next, a diverse group of stakeholders are asked to evaluate the importance of each impact in the
context of its magnitude and geography. Where possible, measures of data quality and variability are
provided so that the participants/stakeholders can weigh salience based on data/information certainty.
In this way, the IDAM tool integrates information forecasting of the extent or severity of dam-related

1
Seven Strategic Priorities (WCD, 2000): Gaining Public Acceptance; Comprehensive Options Assessment; Addressing Existing
Dams; Sustaining Rivers and Livelihoods; Recognizing Entitlements and Sharing Benefits; Ensuring Compliance; and Sharing
Rivers for Peace, Development and Security.

Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China Page | 72

Water Alternatives - 2010 Volume 3 | Issue 2

impacts (both positive and negative), henceforth referred to as the magnitude of impact, with
information about the significance that stakeholders assign to an impact of a given magnitude, which
we refer to as the salience of the impact.

Assessing stakeholder perspectives

Assessments of salience are likely to vary across different stakeholder groups in ways that reflect how
dams relate to various groups’ objectives and/or constituencies. As such, salience data may be used to
demonstrate how different groups of stakeholders perceive the consequences of development
alternatives, providing a loose narrative that describes how diverse groups are affected, whether
positively or negatively. As salience is evaluated during the assessment of options, stakeholders are
fundamentally part of the decision-making process, a key strategy identified by the WCD for gaining
public acceptance of a project. Furthermore, through alternatives assessment, the IDAM helps to
articulate where the costs and benefits of a project are believed to accrue. This information feeds
naturally into the WCD-recommended processes of recognising the entitlements of various stakeholder
groups and determining how to best share the benefits of selected projects.
The objective of the analysis presented in this paper is to evaluate how views vary across
stakeholder groups and across dam development scenarios. Specifically, we ask: How do different
stakeholder groups perceive the salience and magnitude of dam projects? How do those views change
across three hypothetical but policy-relevant dam scenarios? Based on the experience of big dam
construction in the US, we anticipate that academics and NGOs will be critical of dam construction or
more cognisant of the multifaceted costs of dam construction. Further, we anticipate a great diversity
of views on the cumulative impacts of small dams due to the limited public awareness of the number
and characteristics of the projects.

VARIABILITY IN STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES: CASE STUDY IN YUNNAN PROVINCE, CHINA

To evaluate the diversity in perspectives around dam impacts, we applied the IDAM framework to
hypothetical dam development scenarios and surveyed dam experts in Yunnan Province, China, as a
case study, evaluating the applicability and utility of assessing stakeholder salience within the IDAM.
Attendees of the International Conference on the Impacts of Dams, held in the Yunnan provincial
capital, Kunming, in July 2009, participated in surveys pertaining to the magnitude and salience of three
potential dam development scenarios. To allow for the most open discussion, fifteen water and hydro
development experts were divided into three private workshop discussions as follows: professionals
representing engineers, public officials and the hydroelectricity industry; representatives of
environmental and civil society non-governmental organisations (NGOs); and members of the academic
community. Classifications were based on the individual attendee’s danwei, or official work unit.
Each workshop included 1) a general introduction to the project; 2) some open discussion about the
impacts of dams and how to gauge them; 3) surveys on the views of dam impacts generally; 4) a
presentation of simulated impacts for two hypothetical dam development scenarios (described below);
and 5) a second survey regarding dam impacts for the presented scenarios. In the surveys, individuals in
each expert group were asked to indicate, on a 5-point scale, their perceived salience of each of the 21
indicators for each of the dam development scenarios. Impacts perceived as being negative were
evaluated on a scale of 0 (no importance) to -4 (maximal importance), while impacts perceived as being
positive were evaluated on a scale of 0 (no importance) to +4 (maximal importance).

Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China Page | 73

Water Alternatives - 2010
Table 1. IDAM impacts and indicators.
Biophysical
Impact name Positive scope of impact
BP1: Water Reservoir may store heavy
quality metals, pesticides and PCBs,
preventing downstream
contamination.
BP2: Biodiversity Reservoir may create potential
habitat or reduce competition
or predation for rare/endemic
species.
BP3: Impact area Reservoir may create potential
habitat or reduce competition
or predation for rare/endemic
species.
BP4: Sediment Reservoir may store
anthropogenic sources of
sediment and decrease turbidity
and sediment aggradation
downstream.
BP5: Natural flow Dam may reregulate altered
regime flows (if dam is mostly
downstream of a series of
dams).
BP6: Climate Generation of hydropower may
change and air reduce emissions of greenhouse
quality gases (GHG) and particulates;
may improve local air quality.
Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China
Volume 3 | Issue 2
Negative scope of impact Indicator
Reservoir may change the cycling of nutrients and carbon, Change in residence time through
decrease dissolved oxygen and total suspended solids, alter diel reservoir reach.
and seasonal temperature patterns and affect the growth of
periphyton, which will impact fisheries and water supplies.
Lotic and terrestrial habitats of rare or endemic species may be Index of habitat quality- habitat
destroyed; migration routes may be interrupted. classification of affected areas,
species occurrence, changes to
hydraulic habitat.
Aquatic, riparian and terrestrial habitats for endemic or rare Index of habitat quantity- surface
species may be disturbed or destroyed. area of the reservoir, length of river
impounded
Reservoir may disrupt natural longitudinal sediment movement; Trap efficiency of dam, percentage of
downstream channel may degrade; downstream grain size basin that contributes sediment to
distribution may change; depositional features (bars, islands, the dam.
deltas) and channel morphology (width, depth, sinuosity) may
change. These changes may result in habitat loss, streambank
instability and impacts to water infrastructure.
Dam may change historic hydrograph – magnitude, duration, Measured as changes to flood
timing, and frequency of high and low flows; may cause frequency and low baseflows when
downstream degradation/aggradation or changes to channel flow data available; alternately
morphology, migration or spawning cues, substrate conditions, defined as by carryover storage – (0)
condition of riparian vegetation. Because flow is considered the run of river (1) seasonal storage (2)
"master" variable (Poff et al., 1997) in regulating ecosystems, annual storage and (3) multiple year
negative ecological impacts of flow modification are extensive. storage.
Methane emissions due to decomposing organic material in some Amount of GHG emitted from
reservoirs may offset a portion of GHG saved by hydropower equivalent MW of coal power
production. generation, energy density (MW/unit
area of reservoir).
Page | 74
Water Alternatives - 2010
BP7: Landscape
stability
Socioeconomic
Impact name Positive scope of impact
SE1: Social capital Dams may facilitate
transportation across rivers,
integrating less accessible
portions of communities with
the rest of the community.
SE2: Cultural Dams may instil national pride.
change
SE3: Local Communities that were once
hydropower isolated or that relied on small
access hydro or alternative forms of
electricity generation may be
connected to the grid.
SE4: Health Water treatment facilities may
impacts improve the quality of drinking
water.
SE5: Income Incomes may rise as off-farm
opportunities working on dam
construction arise; government
transfers.
Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China
Volume 3 | Issue 2
Reservoir may induce seismicity, while road construction may Weight and depth of reservoir,
increase landslide potential. distance to faults, landslide hazard,
grade of slopes, erosivity of soils.
Negative scope of impact Indicator
People from one community may be resettled into multiple new Buckner Scale, based on household
communities, disrupting social cohesion. surveys, qualitative interviews.
Inundation of tombs, religious sites and other areas of cultural Index of impacts on material culture;
significance; loss of traditional knowledge regarding the ecosystem. knowledge of the local ecosystem;
sense of place from household
surveys and community surveys.
Prices of electricity may rise as the source of power may be further Index of frequency and price from
away. household surveys and community
surveys.
The prevalence of schistosomiasis and malaria and other water- Index of drinking water quality,
borne diseases may increase as the breeding grounds for hosts water-borne illness, toxicity from
increases. household surveys and community
surveys.
Inundation of agricultural land may imply reduced incomes for Income share of watershed average
farmers. from household surveys, community
surveys and State Statistical Bureau
data.
Page | 75
Water Alternatives - 2010
SE6: Wealth The quality of housing and/or
land in resettlement
communities may exceed that
in the affected area.
SE7: Macro New roads and other forms of
impacts infrastructure for dam
development may have
positive spillovers for tourism
and other industries; money
spent on dam construction
may dramatically increase local
economic activity; benefit of
flood protection.
Geopolitical
Impact name Positive scope of impact
GP1: Basin Dam provides benefits to basin
population residents such as hydropower,
affected irrigation, navigation, water
improvements and employment.
GP2: Political Basin-wide management may
complexity increase dialog that fosters
improved inter-jurisdictional
relations.
GP3: Legal Strong laws help mitigate the
framework impacts of change; existing basin
agreements and associated river
basin organisations help reduce
vulnerability throughout basin.
Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China
Volume 3 | Issue 2
Evacuees may deplete resources while re-establishing themselves Housing and land values, as a share
in resettlement communities. of watershed average from
household surveys, community
surveys, and State Statistical Bureau
data.
Resettlement of displaced peoples may be costly. Index of the cost of resettlement,
costs of infrastructure and present
commercial value of hydropower
produced from community surveys
and State Statistical Bureau data.
Negative scope of impact Indicator
Dam creates costs to basin residents such as loss of cropland, forced Share of basin population affected
resettlement, damage to fisheries or loss of livelihood. either positively or negatively as a
percentage of entire basin
population.
Basin-wide management may lead to greater tensions among Number and type of boundaries
riparians and reduce efficiencies. crossed.
Laws and other institutions are weak or non-existent and insufficient Administrative level of highest legal
to mitigate negative impacts or reduce vulnerability. framework governing dam site (e.g.
international, county-level).
Page | 76
Water Alternatives - 2010 Volume 3 | Issue 2

GP4: Domestic Decision processes are open and Decision processes are closed and obfuscated; governmental Democracy Index.
governance – transparent; governmental management capacity is limited; civil dialogue is
civil society management capacity is robust; limited/constrained.
(Democracy civil dialogue is open and active.
Index)
GP5: Political Cooperation during planning, Lack of cooperation during planning, construction and operation Internal BAR scale.
stability (intra- construction and operation phases phases, or other conflicts related to project, increases tensions in
national) leads to the establishment or relations among relevant internal administrative areas.
strengthening of internal
institutional arrangements, and
promotes improved relations
among relevant administrative
areas.
GP6: Political Cooperation during planning, Lack of cooperation during planning, construction and operation International BAR scale.
stability construction, and operation phases phases, or other conflicts related to project, increases tensions in
(international) leads to the establishment or relations among relevant international administrative areas.
strengthening of institutional
arrangements, and promotes
improved relations among relevant
international administrative areas.
GP7: Impacts Dam construction provides positive Dam construction causes negative impacts for individuals and Index of spatial extent and
on non- impacts for individuals and communities outside the immediate area of the dam. magnitude of impacts based on
constituents communities outside the reports from media, hydropower
immediate area of the dam. companies, government and NGOs.

Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China Page | 77

Water Alternatives - 2010 Volume 3 | Issue 2

Because hydropower and other objectives of dam construction can be met in various ways – for
instance, by building large dams across the main stem of a river or multiple smaller dams on tributaries
– the second survey was designed to capture the perceived salience of impacts for many small
hydropower stations relative to one large station. Thus, we were able to not only evaluate differences
in the perceived benefits and costs of dams across stakeholder groups, but also to evaluate how the
perceptions of impacts differ for one large dam relative to the cumulative impacts of many smaller
dams. Finally, the surveys provided an opportunity to investigate the application of the IDAM for
various dam scenarios. The results below derive from an analysis of the survey data collected at this
meeting of experts.

Dam scenarios: Hydropower policy in China

China is a world leader in small and large hydropower projects, and is home to the planet’s largest
hydropower potential at approximately 384 GW. The country has a rich dam building history, with
roughly 20,000 large dams (half the world’s total), a staggering number of smaller dams and numerous
research and design institutes for hydropower development. Depending on factors such as size,
generating capacity or location, a particular project may fall under the jurisdiction of different levels of
government or multiple bureaucracies at the same level. Thus, while large-scale projects requiring
significant capital investment, complex financing, multiple layers of contractors and subcontractors and
long construction periods will likely necessitate national-level oversight throughout the planning,
bidding, construction and operation phases, smaller projects might only require approval at the county,
municipal or province level.
Thus, policies designed to support hydropower development in China are formulated at different
levels and target projects of different scales in order to address a wide array of needs. Here, the 'scale'
of a project refers both to the technical scale of a dam (e.g. its installed capacity or height) and the
reach of its impacts (e.g. how broad an area or large a population will receive irrigation, hydropower or
flood control benefits, or experience fisheries or water quality declines). For example, proposed and
existing large dams on the Lancang and Nu Rivers in south-western China are supported by a number of
national-level policies. Chief among these is the Western Development Campaign (xibu dakaifa),
officially instituted in 2001 and ostensibly designed to help reduce the disparity in levels of
development between interior western provinces and coastal China. Included among the infrastructure
prioritised by the campaign are numerous large-scale electrification projects, including hydroelectric
dams (National Development and Reform Commission, 2009). Similarly, policies such as Send Western
Electricity East (xidian dongsong) and Send Yunnan Electricity to Guangdong (Diandian Yuesong), which
fall under the overall Western Development framework, call specifically for the development of
generation sites in the west, where potential hydroelectric stocks are the greatest yet least developed.
Power generated there can be sent to load centres in the east via long-distance ultra-high-voltage
transmission lines. Other policies include the Rural Electrification Program (nongye dianqihua), in place
in one form or another since the beginning of the reform period in 1979, which promotes smaller and
more local hydropower development. Such policies are articulated by the provincial- and lower-level
offices of central ministries.
Simultaneously, local governments in China also formulate their own economic development
policies, including those regarding hydropower. According to interviews with officials at the Ministry of
Water Resources in Beijing, overseeing local projects is left up to the relevant local authorities in the
geographic and administrative jurisdictions affected. For example, if a particular dam is designed to be
built entirely within one jurisdiction, then the project must be approved only at that level. If, however, a
project involves two jurisdictions of the same bureaucratic rank (e.g. two counties or county-level
municipalities), then the project must be approved by the relevant bureaucracy (-ies) at the next
highest administrative level (in this case, at the municipality or province level). One important
exception to this general rule involves large dams on important (zhuyao) rivers, of which both the

Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China Page | 78

Water Alternatives - 2010 Volume 3 | Issue 2

Lancang and Nu are examples given their transprovincial and transnational courses. For these two rivers
and others like them, even though all planning, design and impact studies are supposed to be overseen
by the relevant basin commission (in this case, the Yangtze River Water Resources Commission), final
authority to approve or reject a dam rests with the State Council and the National Development and
Reform Commission (NDRC) (Magee, 2006).
In theory, any dam built in China is subject to a final check by one of the seven basin commissions, in
order to ensure that the dam fits with the comprehensive plans for that particular basin. In practicality,
though, it is not always feasible to provide this kind of careful, multi-layered scrutiny for the thousands
of dams proposed and built on the countless smaller rivers and tributaries in the seven basins. And
while broad directions for hydropower development may be set at the national level, local authorities
retain a great deal of latitude in building smaller projects that they deem to fit within those guidelines,
and which do not fit the 'large dam' or 'primary river' criteria described earlier.
We developed two hypothetical scenarios to represent this continuum of governance and project
scales. The first of these is a single large dam scenario that would receive higher-level approval, while
the second involves a series of small tributary hydro development projects that together provide a
comparable amount of energy relative to the large dam scenario, yet would be evaluated at a much
lower governance level. That is, the large dam scenario (table 2) would be reviewed at the national level
by the relevant basin commission and just as likely by the NDRC and the State Council (especially in the
case of a transboundary river). The multiple small dams scenario (table 3), would likely be reviewed at
the very least by county-level authorities, and at most by their provincial-level counterparts.
The purpose of comparing the scenarios is thus not to equate them, but instead to evaluate
stakeholder perspectives on their magnitude and salience, and to explore the challenges of evaluating
the impacts of the two scenarios, including interdisciplinary and cumulative impacts. In addition, we
also surveyed stakeholders prior to defining the scenarios to capture perspectives on the salience of
dam impacts in general and to evaluate how knowing details about the projects influences stakeholder
views. For this general contexts survey, experts were asked only to rate the salience, as no magnitude
information was provided.
To compare directly perspectives on the two hydropower development policies, stakeholders were
provided with specific information about the objective magnitudes for the 21 impacts of dam
construction for each of two scenarios – a single large dam across the main stem of a river or several
small dams on the river’s tributaries – as shown in tables 2 and 3. Based on this information,
stakeholders categorised the magnitude of each impact. Using a scale similar to salience, magnitude of
potentially negative effects were scored from 0 (no negative effect) to -4 (maximal negative effect),
while potential positive benefits were scored from 0 (no positive effect) to +4 (maximal positive
impact). The scores were summed for each participant; the figure reports the average summation for
participants in each stakeholder group.

Table 2. Large dam scenario. Data in distilled format as presented to stakeholders.

Biophysical impacts Objective measure

BP1: Water Quality (retention time)
BP2: Biodiversity (habitat quality for
rare/endemic species)
BP3: Impact Area (habitat quantity)
BP4: Sediment (trap efficiency and
percent of basin contributing to dam)
BP5: Natural Flow Regime (change to
floods and baseflows)
BP6: Climate Change and Air Quality
One-year retention time.
Four migratory fish species affected, 3 diversity hotspots inundated,
increased habitat for amphibians and Asian carp.
300 km² and 160km river impounded
99% trap efficiency, 30% of basin blocked.
Flows over 6 RYI trapped, baseflow increased by 400%.
Net 2.4 million tonnes of CO2 'saved'.

Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China Page | 79

Water Alternatives - 2010
(CO2 equivalent of coal)
BP7: Landscape Stability (distance to
faults, landslide hazard)
Socioeconomic impacts
SE1: Social Cohesion (Buckner Scale)
SE2: Cultural Change (index of impacts
on material cultural; knowledge of the
local ecosystem; sense of place)
SE3: Local Hydropower Access (index of
frequency and price)
SE4: Health Impacts (index of drinking
water quality, water‐borne illness,
toxicity)
SE5: Income (as a share of watershed
average)
SE6: Wealth (housing and land values,
as a share of watershed average)
SE7: Macro Impacts (index of the cost
of resettlement, costs of infrastructure
and present commercial value of
hydropower produced)
Geopolitical impacts
GP1: Share of basin population affected
GP2: Political boundaries
GP3: Share of watershed covered by
treaties or River Basin Organisation
(RBO)
GP4: Domestic governance – internal
(Democracy Index)
GP5: Historical stability/tensions
GP6: Domestic governance –
international/other riparians
(Democracy Index)
GP7: Impacts for non‐constituents
Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China
Volume 3 | Issue 2
27 active and potentially active landslides >20m³, 4 km from faults.
Objective measure
30% of people are resettled from villages into towns, disrupting social
networks (including labour sharing and money lending).
40 villages will lose cultural sites, including tombs, archaeological sites
and present temple site.
Availability increased to 24 hrs/day, but price increased 20%.
10% more cases of schistosomiasis and malaria; 40% of people must
walk 2 km for drinking water.
Income inequality increased 20% because some people work at dam
site, while farmers’ land quantity and quality decreased.
Liquid wealth has increased to exceed provincial average, because of
compensation from government and hydro companies.
(Value of hydropower + increased mining access) – (cost of
resettlement and infrastructure) = +4%.
Objective measure
1%
Basin crosses five international boundaries, two provincial and ten
county boundaries within the country of interest.
80% but not the two upstream countries.
Standard decision-making process in China.
Concern expressed and organised over environmental and social
impacts. Support from provincial and national interests for
hydropower.
Downstream neighbours vary in level of democracy, from military
government to constitutional democracy.
Potential hydropower market, greater transportation network and
flood control. Some concern over loss of nutrients, fisheries and
vulnerable hydrology.
Page | 80
Water Alternatives - 2010
Table 3. Small dams scenario. Data in distilled format as presented to stakeholders.
Biophysical impacts
BP1: Water Quality (retention time)
BP2: Biodiversity (habitat quality for
rare/endemic species)
BP3: Impact Area (habitat quantity)
BP4: Sediment (trap efficiency and percent of
basin contributing to dam)
BP5: Natural Flow Regime (change to floods
and baseflows)
BP6: Climate Change and Air Quality (CO2
equivalent of coal)
BP7: Landscape Stability (distance to faults,
landslide hazard)
Socioeconomic impacts
SE1: Social Cohesion (Buckner Scale)
SE2: Cultural Change (index of impacts on
material cultural; knowledge of the local
ecosystem; sense of place)
SE3: Local Hydropower Access (index of
frequency and price)
SE4: Health Impacts (index of drinking water
quality, water‐borne illness, toxicity)
SE5: Income (as a share of watershed
average)
SE6: Wealth (housing and land values, as a
share of watershed average)
SE7: Macro Impacts (index of the cost of
resettlement, costs of infrastructure and
present commercial value of hydropower
produced)
Geopolitical impacts
GP1: Share of basin population affected
GP2: Political boundaries
GP3: Share of watershed covered by treaties
or River Basin Organisation (RBO)
GP4: Domestic governance – internal
(Democracy Index)
GP5: Historical stability/tensions
GP6: Domestic governance –
international/other riparians (Democracy
Index)
GP7: Impacts for non‐constituents
Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China
Volume 3 | Issue 2
Objective measure
No change in retention time.
No migratory fish species, no biodiversity hotspots directly
affected but possibly affected, no clear benefits to natural value.
2
4 km and 1km impounded.
0% trap efficiency, 20% of basin blocked by each structure.
No flood flows stored, baseflow essentially zero below dam.
Net 2.6 million tonnes of CO2 'saved'.
64 active and potentially active landslides <20m³, 1 km from
faults but little potential for seismic activity.
Objective measure
5% of people are resettled from villages into towns, disrupting
social networks (including labour sharing and money lending).
20 villages will lose tomb sites.
Availability increased to 24 hrs/day, price decreased by 15%.
No direct health impacts.
Reduction in irrigation water for 60 villages, decreased crop
yields.
Lump sum payments for appropriated land.
(Value of hydropower) – (cost of resettlement and
infrastructure) = +5%.
Objective measure
Negligible.
Basin crosses five international boundaries, two provincial and
ten county boundaries within the country of interest.
80% but not the two upstream countries.
Standard decision-making process in China.
Good communication with other riparians, some downstream
concern about dam operations.
Downstream neighbours vary in level of democracy, from
military government to constitutional democracy.
Little awareness of issue outside of local impacts.
Page | 81
Water Alternatives - 2010 Volume 3 | Issue 2

Results
The results of the surveys are organised in a number of ways to illustrate patterns in stakeholder views
of dam impacts. In addition, insights gained from the qualitative analysis of participants’ comments
during the workshop help interpret and contextualise these ratings.

Differences in salience across scenarios and stakeholder groups

Stakeholders evaluated the importance of 21 different impacts associated with dams; note that no
details about the dams (e.g. size, number) were provided for the general scenario, such that these
surveys reflect feelings about dams in general. Scores were summed for each participant; the figure
reports the average summation for participants in each stakeholder group. The process was repeated
for two more specific scenarios – a single large dam across the main stem of a river and for several
small dams along tributaries.
Figure 1 displays 'net salience', derived by subtracting the salience of negative impacts from the
salience of positive aspects. The combined results of all 21 indicators are averaged across all members
of each group. Positive net salience indicates that the stakeholder felt the benefits of dams were more
important than the costs, while negative net salience indicates that s/he felt the costs held more
significance than the benefits.

Figure 1. Net salience of impacts of dams in general and two potential dam development scenarios by
stakeholder group.

On average, academics and NGOs believed that the salience of the negative impacts of dams exceeded
that of the positive aspects. In contrast, representatives from hydropower companies and government
considered the salience of positive aspects of dam construction to be greater than the negative aspects.
Further, academics and members of the NGO community viewed the negative impacts of one large dam
to be more important than those from a series of small dams, while hydropower and government
officials considered the positive impacts of small dams to exceed those of a single large.
In comparing this general scenario to the Big Dam and Small Dams scenarios (figure 1), information
about the magnitude of specific impacts had a varied response on modifying the importance of dam
impacts. For academics, the large dam scenario was similar to the general scenario, while impacts of
the small dams scenario were considered to be much less important. This suggests that the academics

Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China Page | 82

Water Alternatives - 2010 Volume 3 | Issue 2

tended to think of large hydro development projects in considering dams generally. For NGOs,
information about the large dam scenario greatly increased their view of the importance of impacts,
with a smaller increase for small dams. In contrast, officials from hydropower companies and the
government viewed the importance of dam impacts to be high in general, yet the net salience
decreased as they considered context-specific scenarios, with the impacts of large dams being of less
overall importance than those of small dams.

Comparing hydro development policies: Variability in magnitude and salience across stakeholder
groups
As with salience, academics and members of the NGO community ranked the negative effects of dam
construction, independent of importance, to exceed the positive effects, while the opposite was true
for hydropower officials and government authorities (figure 2). Of the three groups, only NGO
representatives found the small dams to have greater impacts than the large dam scenario.
Academics tended to view the magnitude of impacts for large dams to be much greater than those
of small dams, whereas NGO representatives viewed the magnitude of impacts as being smaller for
large dams than for the cumulative effects of smaller dams. For hydropower and government officials,
large dams had a slightly larger positive impact than small dams.

Figure 2. Net magnitude of impacts of two potential dam scenarios by stakeholder group.

A more nuanced story is revealed by decomposing the overall impacts into biophysical, socioeconomic
and geopolitical areas. Figure 3 disaggregates stakeholders’ views of salience (top two panels) and
magnitude (bottom two panels) from figures 1 and 2 according to the three pillars of sustainability, as
well as the aggregate costs (left side of each panel) and aggregate benefits (right side of each panel) for
each pillar.
Regarding differences in perceived magnitude, all groups appear to be more concerned about all
pillars of impacts for large dam construction (measured in net terms) than the cumulative impacts of
many small projects. By pillar, academics tended to perceive biophysical and socioeconomic impacts to
be greater than geopolitical impacts for both dam scenarios, with negative impacts perceived to be
greater in magnitude than positive impacts for the large dam scenario. For both large and small
scenarios, socioeconomic and geopolitical impacts of the small dam scenario were perceived to be

Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China Page | 83

Water Alternatives - 2010 Volume 3 | Issue 2

smaller, both negative and positive, than biophysical impacts by academics. For both biophysical and
socioeconomic pillars, NGOs found the negative and positive impacts of large dams to be smaller than
academics, and the benefits to be smaller than perceived by hydropower officials. Socioeconomic
impacts, both positive and negative, were perceived to be the greatest of the three pillars for the small
dam scenario for NGO representatives. Of all groups, hydropower representatives and government
officials perceived the greatest benefits and least negative impacts of the large dam scenario, but found
some negative impacts of the small dams scenario to be of higher magnitude than academics. Notably,
this group considered the net benefits and costs of both dam scenarios to generally accrue in the
socioeconomic arena.
Regarding stakeholder views on salience, like magnitude, the importance of cumulative effects
around many small dams was considered smaller than a large dam across all pillars and for all
stakeholder groups. For all pillars in both dam scenarios, the negative effects were more important to
academics and NGO representatives than the positive effects. Academics weighted the importance of
the negative biophysical impacts of large dams most heavily, as well as the importance of the negative
socioeconomic impacts of a series of small dams. The NGO community found the negative
socioeconomic impacts of both large and small dams to be paramount in importance. Notably, this
group also considered the importance of socioeconomic benefits to be lower than the importance of
biophysical and geopolitical benefits. Representatives of hydropower companies and the government
considered the negative biophysical impacts of large dams to be much more important than those of
socioeconomic and geopolitical impacts. In contrast, this group rated the salience of biophysical
impacts to be the least for the small dams scenario.
Investigation of the objective magnitudes described in tables 2 and 3 in the form of a 5-point scale
demonstrates that different stakeholder groups view the objective impacts of dams very differently. For
example, the average negative score for each of the seven geopolitical impacts of small dams among
academics was 0.34 (between 'no impact' and 'low impact'), while representatives of NGOs assessed
these GP impacts with an average score of 1.24 (between 'low impact' and 'moderate impact').
Similarly, hydropower representatives and government officials scored the socioeconomic costs of large
dam development as 1.20 (between 'low impact' and 'moderate impact') in magnitude, whereas
academics scored the same effects as 2.11 (between 'moderate impact' and 'severe impact') in
magnitude.
Some interesting contrasts emerge from these surveys. For example, in the large dam scenario,
members of the NGO community tended to view socioeconomic impact magnitudes and importance to
be lower than biophysical impacts, and lower than were ranked by academics; however, the opposite
relationship appears to hold for small dams. This is interesting, particularly since most NGO
representatives in attendance were from organisations that specialised in environmental conservation,
not cultural preservation or a related socioeconomic mission. Further, the view of higher magnitude
and importance for socioeconomic impacts in small hydropower development, over large mainstream
projects, is not commonly expressed.

Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China Page | 84

Water Alternatives - 2010 Volume 3 | Issue 2

Figure 3. Salience and magnitude for big and small dams across disciplines.

Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China Page | 85

Water Alternatives - 2010 Volume 3 | Issue 2

In another example, hydropower and government officials viewed socioeconomic impacts to be of

greatest importance, but tended to view the potential benefits associated with these impacts as more
important than the potential costs. This may reflect the recent history of dam construction in China,
which has led to the displacement of some 15 million people since 1949 and has been, in part, driven by
policies that promote dam development as a key way to improve the socioeconomic conditions of
people, despite the potential for negative outcomes. These officials are part of the overall development
policy framework in China, which is fundamentally modernist in its outlook and seeks to provide high
rates of economic growth and improve living standards through large-scale development projects. A
common slogan from Deng Xiaoping, the architect of China’s recent economic reforms, holds that
"Development is the indisputable truth" (Tilt, 2010). However, massive resettlement and a limited legal
framework for ensuring public participation in the decision-making process may be represented in the
acknowledgement of negative impacts over large development projects.
Further, and taken together, these results show not only that different stakeholder groups view the
importance of different dam impacts differently, but also that they evaluate the magnitude of the same
objective data differently.

Qualitative findings
During the workshop, participants were encouraged to share their ideas both in public and in writing on
survey forms. Qualitative analysis of participant comments yielded a variety of important viewpoints
on: 1) the challenges of interdisciplinary cooperation; 2) the difficulty of standardising data and
indictors; 3) accounting for the distribution and potential mitigation of impacts; and 4) evaluating and
planning for the cumulative impacts of hydro development.
1. Challenges of integrated dam assessment. Most survey respondents stressed the value of an
integrated, transparent process for evaluating dam impacts, such as that afforded by the IDAM tool.
This approach is especially valuable in China, where the guidelines for environmental and social impact
analysis are often poorly defined. As one workshop participant noted, "Some things are considered
important [in EIAs and SIAs], and other things are not". Integrated tools can thus be important in
establishing transparency in decision making and in documenting investigations of dam impacts on
biophysical, socioeconomic and geopolitical systems.
While valuable, however, such research efforts can be extremely complex and daunting. One
representative of an environmental NGO remarked that "Such an assessment is really difficult to do. It
takes decades to do a thorough job, and that’s why people ignore it".
For example, experts were uncomfortable evaluating impacts outside their area of expertise,
inasmuch that geopolitical impacts were viewed generally by all groups to be of smaller net impact and
importance than socioeconomic and biophysical impacts. This may reflect some confusion on the part
of workshop participants about exactly how dams affect geopolitical systems. One participant, a
scientist working in an academic institution, commented that "It’s very hard to assess whether the
effect [of a dam] on internal governance is good or bad, positive or negative ". Another participant, a
representative from a conservation-oriented NGO, remarked "I’m confused by geopolitical indicator 6
*governance in other countries+. What does this have to do with dam construction? It’s strange ". This
illustrates how individuals are often influenced by their academic and professional backgrounds, and
that salience may vary depending on the discipline of the individual. Furthermore, it suggests a need for
a very thorough introduction to impacts and indicators prior to surveying stakeholders.
The comments of two workshop participants are indicative of the fact that many issues are now of
primary concern. One official from a large hydropower development company said that "When we
think about the effects of a dam, we’ve got to consider several areas. The first is inundation of land and
relocation of people. The second is the effects on the environment". Another participant, an official
from one of China’s largest state-owned power generation enterprises, agreed that "On the
socioeconomic side, the relocation problem is key. China is a country with little land and a huge

Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China Page | 86

Water Alternatives - 2010 Volume 3 | Issue 2

population. It’s difficult to give land to resettled people. Cultural protection, especially for minority
cultures, is important. It’s a national priority".
These comments serve to underscore the importance of conducting interdisciplinary dam
assessments. Natural scientists and social scientists have traditionally used their own disciplinary
training to study the effects of dam construction, yet dams lie at the nexus of biophysical,
socioeconomic and geopolitical relations, and an impact in one area is thus likely to have repercussions
for others. For example, the adverse effects of dams on ecosystems, hydrology and water quality
(Salazar, 2000) often disrupt cultural conditions and economic institutions (Scudder, 2005; Cernea,
2003), and also influence relationships between communities, regions or nations (Wolf, 2003).
2. Standardising data and indicators. As with any model, the IDAM tool requires careful
consideration of the reliability and validity of the data used, the assumptions required for the model
structure and the most effective techniques for reporting results. Especially in China, compiling datasets
can be problematic, as data, if available, is often collected from multiple locations or gathered by
multiple agencies. One workshop participant, a representative from an environmental NGO, pointed
out that "If you collect some data in one place and other data from another place, how can you
standardise it"?
This question is particularly relevant to work in China, where data access and quality can be limited.
In an ideal setting, a research team would collect all of the data themselves, using the IDAM framework
as a template for minimal information to assess a project. However, that is rarely feasible, and thus
data are developed from multiple sources, often at low resolution and/or with great uncertainty. It is
therefore critical that some measure, qualitative or quantitative, of data reliability and uncertainty
accompany the analysis.
Regarding model structure, some participants argued that the assignment of weights between each
indicator was difficult to resolve. One social scientist in an academic institution noted that "Whether we
should give different weights to the different components [biophysical, socioeconomic, and
geopolitical] – that is the first question. And who decides the weight"?
This question carries important scientific and policy implications. One representative of an
environmental NGO advocated for placing more weight on biophysical indicators such as Natural Value
(BP2) when applying the model in ecologically sensitive areas:
We know that Yunnan is such a small area, but the biodiversity is quite rich. It has as much biodiversity as
the entire United States, so we have to pay attention to this unique system. In such a small area, once
[biodiversity] is destroyed, you lose millions of years of evolution that you can never get back... Because
the biodiversity is so high in a place like Yunnan, it should be rated much higher, because if it’s destroyed,
we’ll never even know what was lost.

The development of weighting criteria in quantitative decision theory is challenging due to the
subjectivity of the task. Utility theory (Chechile, 1991; Fishburn, 1968) and the Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP) (Saaty, 2001; Schmoldt et al., 2001) are examples of multi-objective decision-making
frameworks that require weighting of various decision criteria. While methods for weighting criteria in
utility theory matrices are unspecified and may vary according to the preferences of the user, the AHP
specifies a method for calculating weights, requiring that stakeholders rank decision criteria relative to
one another. Expert opinion, for example the Delphi method (Gordon and Helmer, 1964), has also been
utilised in weighting objective criteria for decision making (Armour and Williamson, 1988; Smit and
Spaling, 1995). With the IDAM instrument, we have taken the philosophy that the weighting decision
should be made on a case-by-case basis. For the analysis presented here, we applied an equal weighting
of all indicator magnitudes. Weighting is instead represented by the assignment of salience to the
indicators by the different stakeholders, which we believe is another weighting approach that also
increases transparency. For example, if biodiversity trumps all others, then it will simply receive the
highest salience weighting.

Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China Page | 87

Water Alternatives - 2010 Volume 3 | Issue 2

3. Distribution and mitigation of impacts. Finally, many workshop participants agreed with the
need to capture both the distribution of costs and benefits, and the potential for mitigating certain
impacts. In regard to impacts’ distributions, one representative from an environmental NGO summed
up the challenge by stating that "We’re talking about impacts, but it’s important to know who bears the
impacts". Similarly, a scientist from an academic institution suggested that "We’ve got to consider the
benefit-sharing arrangement, the distribution of benefits [from dams]. This includes doing a
stakeholder analysis. Who loses and who wins when it comes to property rights, indigenous knowledge
and so forth"?
Certain types of negative dam impacts may be mitigated, while the mitigation of others may be
infeasible or impossible. An official from one of China’s largest state-owned power generation
enterprises commented that "We’ve got to consider how able we are to mitigate certain effects of
dams, like ecological impacts. Also, who has the responsibility to mitigate "? This is a particularly difficult
challenge in China, and one that varies based on the size and purpose of a given hydropower project.
For example, large dams may arguably have a greater impact on local ecosystems, but national laws
require at least a nominal environmental impact assessment of such large projects. Meanwhile, dozens
of small hydropower projects exist on tributaries which, as a result of their small scale, mostly undergo
scrutiny only by county-level officials. Under such limited oversight, mitigation of environmental and
social impacts may be compromised. Given that the responsibilities for designing, constructing,
operating and regulating hydroelectric dams may fall to literally dozens of agencies and companies,
determining responsible parties and holding them accountable in cases of negative impact mitigation
becomes acutely important.
4. Cumulative impacts assessment. The small-scale scenario supports calls (WCD, 2000; Yao et al.,
2006) for the assessment of cumulative impacts of hydro development projects. During our surveys,
challenges arose in considering how to aggregate impacts from 100 small tributary projects, and
concerns arose among workshop participants around the validity of comparing large and small dams. At
one level, this concern stems from uncertainty about when such comparisons are meaningful and
relevant. Workshop participants expressed concern that large and small hydropower projects may be
incommensurable in terms of benefits (e.g. provision and distribution of electrical power) and costs
(e.g. displacement of human population, effects on ecosystems). As one participant, a scientist in an
academic institution, noted, "You can’t just add up 100 small hydropower projects to equal one large
dam". In a similar concern regarding mitigation, a scientist in an academic institution noted that
"There’s no way to capture who’s responsible for mitigation. Small dams look better than big dams on
many indicators, but no one is accountable, so the actual outcomes can be worse ".
Further, given the longitudinal connection of river systems and the fact that dams already exist
upstream and downstream of new hydro development sites in south-western China, the need to
reconsider that the definition of an environmental and social 'baseline' may be necessary to relate new
projects to existing developments for hierarchical, additive and synergistic links is warranted (Wenger
et al., 1990). Further, it will be critical to identify what jurisdiction is ultimately responsible for both
basin planning and assessing cumulative impacts of hydro development, the benefits of which span
multiple basins and jurisdictions.

CONCLUSIONS
Our experience in developing and applying the IDAM tool illustrates some of the important challenges
that remain in comprehensively assessing the impacts of hydropower development. This is somewhat
troubling, given the time that has elapsed since the WCD report and the rate of dam building around
the world, much of which is occurring in data-poor environments. From complicated policies to
interconnected and indirect impacts, scientists will need to continue investigating ways to meet the
recommendations of the WCD. However, a few key conclusions are beginning to emerge.

Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China Page | 88

Water Alternatives - 2010 Volume 3 | Issue 2

First, regardless of which tool is used in the assessment of dam impacts, our results suggest there is
an important need to consider stakeholder perspectives, as different groups view both the objective
magnitude and subjective salience of impacts differently. This is an important element that should be
considered in any decision support tool.
Second, some impacts (e.g. geopolitical) are not as well understood by stakeholders as other
impacts. While the structure of the IDAM tool uses bins to provide context for the magnitude of
impacts, it is still important to assess impacts, articulate views and document factors in decision making
independently for stakeholders from different backgrounds. Further, in addition to this lateral
variability in stakeholder views of impacts, we anticipate vertical variability in stakeholder views. That
is, particularly in governments that are particularly hierarchical in organisation, such as China, higher
level decision makers collectively are likely to have different views than lower level decision makers.
Third, some challenges remain in structuring models to assess and weight cumulative and
management/mitigation impacts over space and time. A major challenge is over-structuring the
assessment model; flexibility in the model is important to meet the various scenarios under which
stakeholders need to articulate information and document decisions about dams.
Fourth, uncertainty due to the scarcity and reliability of information could play an important role in
developing stakeholders’ perceptions of impacts. Decision support tools can provide an important
analysis framework that establishes minimum information requirements and techniques for expressing
uncertainty in assessments.
Finally, a key advantage of a decision-support tool like the IDAM is the introduction of more
transparency into the decision-making process. When stakeholders and decision-makers are allowed to
rate salience as well as magnitude, their value judgements become explicit rather than remaining
implicit or invisible.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge Professors HE Daming and YAN Feng and the Asian International Rivers
Centre at Yunnan University for collaborating on the development of the IDAM tool and for planning
and hosting the International Conference on the Impacts of Dams in Kunming, China in July 2009. We
also would like to thank Francis Gassert, Ying Li, Eddie Schmitt, Qianwen Xu and Yong Zhang for their
assistance with data collection and analysis. This work was funded by the National Science Foundation
through awards # 0623087 and # 0826752.

REFERENCES
Armour, C. and Williamson, S. 1988. Guidance for modeling causes and effects in environmental problem solving.
Biological Report No. 89(4). Washington, DC: Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Brown, P.H.; Tullos, D.D.; Tilt, B.; Magee, D. and Wolf, A.T. 2009. Modeling the costs and benefits of dam
construction from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of Environmental Management 90(S3): 3-11.
Cernea, M.M. 2003. For a new economics of resettlement: A sociological critique of the compensation principle.
International Social Science Journal 55(175): 37-45.
Chechile, R.A. 1991. Probability, utility, and decision trees in environmental decision analysis. In Chechile, R.A. and
Carlise, S. (Eds), Environmental decision making: A multidisciplinary perspective, pp. 64-91. New York: Van
Nostram Reinhold.
Dingwerth, K. 2005. The democratic legitimacy of public-private rule making: What can we learn from the World
Commission on Dams? Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 11(1):
65-83.
Dubash, N.K.; Dupar, M.; Kothari, S. and Lissu, T. 2002. A watershed in global governance? An independent
assessment of the World Commission on Dams. Politics and the Life Sciences 21(1): 42-62.
Fishburn, P.C. 1968. Utility Theory. Management Science 14(5): 335-378.
Gordon, T. and Helmer, O. 1964. Report on a long range forecasting study. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China Page | 89

Water Alternatives - 2010 Volume 3 | Issue 2

Koch, F. 2002. Hydropower – The politics of water and energy: Introduction and overview. Energy Policy 30(14):
1207-1213.
Magee, D. 2006. New energy geographies: Powershed politics and hydropower decision making in Yunnan, China.
PhD thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, United States.
McCully, P. 2001. The use of a trilateral network: An activist’s perspective of the formation of the World
Commission on Dams. American University International Law Review 16(6): 1453-1475.
Mokorosi, P. and van der Zaag, P. 2007. Can local people also gain from benefit sharing in water resources
development? Experiences from dam development in the Orange-Senqu river basin. Physics and Chemistry of
the Earth 32(15-18): 1322-1329.
Saaty, T.L. 2001. Fundamentals of the analytic hierarchy process. In Schmolt, D.L.; Kangas, J.; Mendoza, G.A. and
Pesonen, M. (Eds), The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making, pp.
15-36. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Salazar, J.G. 2000. Damming the child of the ocean: The Three Gorges project. The Journal of Environment and
Development 9(2): 160-174.
Schmolt, D.L.; Kangas, J. and Mendoza, G.A. 2001. Basic principles of decision making in natural resource and the
environment. In Schmolt, D.L.; Kangas, J.; Mendoza, G.A. and Pesonen, M. (Eds), The analytic hierarchy process
in natural resource and environmental decision making, pp. 1-14.Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Scudder, T. 2005. The future of large dams: Dealing with social, environmental, institutional and political costs.
London: Earthscan.
Simonovic, S.P. and Fahmy, H. 1999. A new modeling approach for water resources policy analysis. Water
Resources Research 35(1): 295-304.
Smit, B. and Spaling, H. 1995. Methods for cumulative effects assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review 15(1): 81-106.
Tilt, B. 2010. The struggle for sustainability in rural china: Environmental values and civil society. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Turner, B.L.; Matson, P.A.; McCarthy, J.J.; Corell, R.W.; Christensen, L.; Eckley, N.; Hovelsrud-Broda, G.K.;
Kasperson, J.X.; Kasperson, R.E.; Luers, A.; Martello, M.L.; Mathiesen, S.; Naylor, R.; Polsky, C.; Pulsipher, A.;
Schiller, A.; Selin, H.; Tyler, N. 2003. Illustrating the coupled human-environment system for vulnerability
analysis: Three case studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America
100(14): 8080-8085.
UN Committee on Economic Development. 1993. Agenda 21. New York: United Nations Publications.
Ünver, O. 2008. Global governance of water: A practitioner’s perspective. Global Governance: A Review of
Multilateralism and International Organizations 14(4): 409-417.
van der Zaag, P.; Kunstmann, H.; Rosbjerg, D.; Uhlenbrook, S.; van de Giesen, N. and Mul, M. 2009. Integrated
water resources assessment, with special focus on developing countries. Special issue. Physics and Chemistry
of the Earth 34(4-5): 209-340.
Wenger, R.B.; Wang H. and Ma X. 1990. Environmental impact assessments of the People’s Republic of China.
Environmental Management 14(4): 429-439.
Wolf, A.T.; Yoffe, S.B. and Giordano, M. 2003. International waters: Identifying basins at risk. Water Policy 5(1):
29-60.
WCD (World Commission on Dams). 2000. Dams and development: A new framework for decision-making.
London: Earthscan.
Yao, Y.; Zhang, B.; Ma, X. and Ma, P. 2006. Large-scale hydroelectric projects and mountain development on the
upper Yangtze river. Mountain Research and Development 26(2): 109-114.

Tullos et al.: Hydro development scenarios in China Page | 90

 Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S208–S223

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Assessing the influence of environmental impact assessments on science and

policy: An analysis of the Three Gorges Project
Desiree Tullos*
Department of Biological and Ecological Engineering, Oregon State University, 116 Gilmore Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The need to understand and minimize negative environmental outcomes associated with large dams has
Received 15 September 2007 both contributed to and benefited from the introduction and subsequent improvements in the Envi-
Received in revised form 1 April 2008 ronmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. However, several limitations in the EIA process remain,
Accepted 30 July 2008
including those associated with the uncertainty and significance of impact projections. These limitations
Available online 20 November 2008
are directly related to the feedback between science and policy, with information gaps in scientific
understanding discovered through the EIA process contributing valuable recommendations on critical
Keywords:
focus areas for prioritizing and funding research within the fields of ecological conservation and river
Environmental impact assessment
Dams engineering.
Three Gorges Project This paper presents an analysis of the EIA process for the Three Gorges Project (TGP) in China as a case
Uncertainty study for evaluating this feedback between the EIA and science and policy. For one of the best-studied
Prioritization public development projects in the world, this paper presents an investigation into whether patterns
exist between the scientific interest (via number of publications) in environmental impacts and (a) the
identification of impacts as uncertain or priority by the EIA, (b) decisions or political events associated
with the dam, and (c) impact type. This analysis includes the compilation of literature on TGP, charac-
terization of ecosystem interactions and responses to TGP through a hierarchy of impacts, coding of EIA
impacts as ‘‘uncertain’’ impacts that require additional study and ‘‘priority’’ impacts that have particu-
larly high significance, mapping of an event chronology to relate policies, institutional changes, and
decisions about TGP as ‘‘events’’ that could influence the focus and intensity of scientific investigation,
and analysis of the number of publications by impact type and order within the impact hierarchy. From
these analyses, it appears that the availability and consistency of scientific information limit the accuracy
of environmental impact projections. These analyses also suggest a lack of direct feedback between the
EIA process and emerging science, as indicated by the failure of literature to focus on issues related to the
design and management of TGP, ultimately challenging the environmental sustainability of the project.
While the EIA process has enormous potential for improving both the basic sciences and the planning
and sustainability of hydrodevelopment, important institutional changes need to occur for this potential
to be realized. This paper concludes with recommendations about those institutional changes needed to
improve the feedback between the science and policy, and ultimately the environmental sustainability, of
large dams.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction (World Commission on Dams, 2000). Dams fragment river systems,

1.1. Environmental impacts of large dams
Large dams offer society many benefits but simultaneously
impose adverse, and often irreversible, impacts on the environment
Abbreviations: TGP, Three Gorges Project; EIA, Environmental impact assess-
ment; CIDA, Canadian International Development Agency; CYJV, Canadian Yangtze
Joint Venture; SEA, Strategic Environmental Assessment.
* Tel.: þ1 541 737 2038; fax: þ1 541 737 2082.
E-mail address: tullosd@engr.orst.edu
causing multilevel effects throughout the aquatic ecosystem in
several ways. By interrupting the longitudinal connectivity of rivers,
dams interrupt the migration of aquatic organisms and alter their
life cycles (Andersson et al., 2000; Jansson et al., 2000; Morita et al.,
2000; Dynesius and Nilsson, 1994; Dudgeon, 2000). The trapping of
sediment and nutrients behind dams promotes downstream
erosion, impairs habitat-building processes (Gosselink et al., 1974;
Kondolf, 1997), and forces changes in the aquatic food chain
(Humborg et al., 2000). Dams also modify temperature regimes both
within the reservoir and downstream, thereby affecting the repro-
duction and composition of aquatic communities (Clarkson and

0301-4797/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.031
 D. Tullos / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S208–S223
Childs, 2000; Walks et al., 2000). Other environmental effects
include changes in flooding and hydrology patterns (Poff et al., 1997;
Junk et al., 1989), landslide and earthquake occurrences (Edmonds,
1991), loss of biodiversity (McAllister et al., 2000), and changes to
aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna (see Kingsford, 2000 for
review). Large dams impact the environment both directly and
indirectly through various mechanisms that are well described in
the literature (see for example, Li et al., 1987; Pfleiger and Grace,
1987; McCully, 1996; Friedman and Auble, 1999; Hughes and Par-
malee, 1999; Aparicio et al., 2000; Jansson et al., 2000; Penczak and
Kruk, 2000; Sharma, 2001).
To characterize and minimize environmental effects associated
with proposed projects, environmental impact assessments (EIAs)
have become a fundamental component of the planning process for
large dams (IAIA, 1999). In the United States (US), the history of EIAs
is tied to decades of industrial development and consequent
environmental degradation. Regulatory protection of the environ-
ment in the US emerged largely through litigation. For example, the
1965 Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference versus Federal Power
Commission suit demonstrated the judicial process as a way by
which the public could use the legal system to enforce environ-
mental laws. The US EIA process was created in 1969 with the
passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which
mandated assessment of the environmental outcomes of develop-
ment projects. The EIA process was quickly adopted by govern-
ments and legislatures around world, including Japan (1972), Hong
Kong (1972), Canada (1973), Australia (1974), the Philippines
(1977), Taiwan (1979) and the People’s Republic of China (1979)
(Gilpin, 1995).
Some form of environmental assessment is now required in
most developed countries and many developing countries.
Numerous texts and guidance documents are available worldwide
on the subject (World Bank, 1991; Canter, 1996; Petts, 1999; Glasson
et al., 2005). The World Commission on Environment and Devel-
opment’s Brundtland Report (Brundtland, 1987) emphasized the
importance of public scrutiny and consensus as part of the EIA
process, promoting global responsibility for protecting the human
and natural environment. In 1992, the United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development in Rio devoted Principle 17 of
their Declaration on Environment and Development to EIA as part
of a larger call to relate human and environmental well being. Since
its initiation in 1969, the EIA process has changed and expanded its
scope, from basic characterization of a limited number of impacts to
more current Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) that
evaluate direct and indirect impacts and address consequences of
those impacts (Therivel, 2004).
One important component of EIA through time has been the
uncertainties related to impact projections, which may either serve
an important role in the design and assessment process (De Jonghe,
1992) for dams, or limit the utility of the EIA to influence project
outcomes (Sadler et al., 2000). Uncertainty in predicting the
significance and extent of environmental impacts arise from
insufficient and/or inaccurate baseline information, unexpected
changes in project plans, oversimplification in monitoring and
modeling efforts (Glasson et al., 2005), and a failure to accurately
assess causality (Perdicoúlis and Glasson, 2006). Failure to address
these uncertainties is due in part to limitations on time and
resources for scientific study, which Boxer (1988) reported would
result in underestimation of negative impacts of a project.
An EIA lacking in time and resources for full scientific investi-
gation can lead to a flawed assessment, thereby weakening the role
of the EIA process as a platform for guiding the policy making and
engineering for large development projects such as dams.
However, this situation is different from one where the EIA, while
thorough, is inconclusive. Whereas an EIA that is not fully devel-
oped given the available science is indicative of a failed process, an
S209
EIA that identifies scientific uncertainties leads the way for the EIA
process to play a direct role in guiding the science, decision-
making, and engineering design to improve the sustainability of
large development projects. Issues identified in the EIA as ‘‘Needs
for Further Study’’, for example, can inform the allocation of
resources for impact assessment and mitigation (Clarke, 2000).
However, it is more often the case that the influence of the EIA
process on impact minimization is weakened by the information
gaps, providing inadequate guidance for modifying designs,
particularly when projects have limited flexibility in the timeline
and budget.
To evaluate the role that EIAs can play in informing the science,
design, and policy of large dams, this paper presents an analysis of
the literature on the Three Gorges Project (TGP) on the Yangtze
River in China. This analysis was performed to compare initial
documents of the TGP-EIA process with independent scientific
assessments to investigate which issues were addressed in each. I
sought to identify patterns in the number of peer-reviewed publi-
cations over time and across environmental impact types, using the
impacts identified in the 1988 feasibility study by the Canadian
Yangtze Joint Venture (CYJV) as the baseline EIA document. This
analysis includes (1) the compilation of literature on TGP, (2)
a characterization of ecosystem interactions and responses to TGP
through a hierarchy of impacts, and (3) a coding of CYJV impacts as
‘‘uncertain’’ impacts that require additional study versus ‘‘priority’’
impacts that have particularly high significance, and (4) an event
chronology to relate policies, institutional changes, and decisions
about TGP as events that could influence the focus and intensity of
scientific investigation.
This paper first introduces the background and EIA process for
TGP and then reviews the projected environmental impacts and
initial observations following construction. The relationships
between the priority and uncertain impacts, impact types within
the hierarchy, TGP decision and reporting events, and the literature
that followed the 1988 CYJV feasibility study, referenced herein as
(CYJV pp.), are then illustrated. The paper concludes with reflec-
tions on the science and policy of EIA in large dam development.
2. Three Gorges Project, China
The Yangtze River drains 1.8 million square kilometers of agri-
cultural and industrial terrain reaching from northern Tibet to
Shanghai where it empties into the East China Sea. With a total
mainstem length of 6300 km, it is the third largest river in the
world and the largest river in China in terms of length and water
flow. As the river flows east through the Daba mountains, it
encounters a narrow constriction at the Three Gorges of Qutang,
Wu, and Xiling (or Sanxia). The entire Yangtze valley is important
nationally and globally, supporting approximately one-third of
China’s population (Vemula et al., 2004) and substantial agricul-
tural (70% of nation’s rice) and industrial (40% of total output)
production for China (Ryder and Barber, 1990). Further, the Yangtze
River is China’s treasure house of freshwater aquatic resources. The
Yangtze basin, which comprises the mainstem, tributaries and
connecting lakes and reservoirs, is rich in aquatic resources and has
been listed in the Global Ecoregion 200 by the World Wildlife Fund
(WWF) for priority conservation (Fu et al., 2003).
The Yangtze River is also responsible for some of China’s worst
natural disasters (Yin and Li, 2001). Major catastrophic floods
occurring over the last century on the Yangtze include those in
1911, 1931, 1935, and 1954, resulting in the deaths of over 300,000
people (Jackson and Sleigh, 2000). A 200-year flood event in 1954
resulted in the death of 30,000 and the displacement of over one
million people. In 1981, another flood resulted in the death of
nearly 3000 people. As recently as 1998, flooding in the Yangtze
caused over 4000 deaths, inundated 25 million hectares of
S210 D. Tullos / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S208–S223
cropland, and cost in excess of US $36 billion in damages to prop-
erty and infrastructure (Abramovitz, 2001), providing part of the
justification for the TGP.
The proposal for damming the TGP first came in 1919 from Dr.
Sun Yat-sen, a founder of the People’s Republic. For the following 60
years, plans for the 175 m high structure took shape. Construction
began on the concrete gravity dam in 1993. With the closure of the
structure in 2003, a 600 km long reservoir was formed upstream of
the dam. To date, the TGP is the largest (Chen et al., 2001), most
expensive (Qing, 1998), and most powerful (Lu, 1994) water project
ever built in the world. It comprises a dam, two powerhouses, and
navigation facilities. Fifteen years of construction and US $25 billion
have moved the project towards its three objectives: (1) flood
protection for over 10 million downstream floodplain residents, (2)
over 20,000 MW of hydropower generation, and (3) improved
navigation.
While the benefits of TGP are indeed substantial, the environ-
mental impacts of TGP on the Yangtze River ecosystems cannot be
neglected (Du, 1999; Yangtze Valley Water Resources Protection
Bureau, MWR and NEPA, 1999; Chen, 2004; Huang, 2004). Given
the enormous size of the dam as well as its strategic position at
1830 km upstream from the mouth of the Yangtze River, envi-
ronmental impacts affect a wide range of river-related ecosystem
components, among them hydrology, water quality, sediment
regime, geology, and both the terrestrial and aquatic flora and
fauna, including humans. Located in an exceptionally important
conservation area (Park et al., 2003), TGP is set to affect the rich
biodiversity of the Yangtze river (Wu et al., 2003) and the endan-
gered status of 25 fish species within its basin.
Efforts to protect such areas now fall under the relatively recent
EIA process in China (Ziyun, 1986; Chen et al., 2007), which requires
the consultation and application of various policies and laws,
including State Environment Protection Act (SEPA – 1979), Water
Pollution Prevention and Control Law (1984), and Environmental
Impact Assessment Law (2003) for major development projects.
While Chinese law does require completion of an EIA prior to
construction, the penalty for non-compliance is completion of
a post-construction assessment. This leniency of EIA regulation and
enforcement in China has resulted in a high failure rate in pro-
tecting the environment (Wang, 2007a,b). The EIA experience is
similar to other environmental regulations in China, the enforce-
ment of which has been estimated at only 10% (Gu, 2005a,b).
Following the questionable success rate of this strategy at pro-
tecting the environment, the policy and practice of environmental
regulation in China are undergoing rapid change, as illustrated by
recent interagency meetings organized by central governmental
agencies (HWCC, 2007), the increasing public criticism of large
development projects, and the organization of public interest
groups in China. In 2004, SEPA suspended work on 30 projects
nationwide, including TGP, to evaluate environmental assessments
(Gu, 2005a,b). In 2005 alone, SEPA minister Zhou Shengxian
reported 51,000 disputes over environmental pollution (Wang,
2007a,b), while Chinese environmental authorities report having
received written and personal requests from 597,000 petitioners
regarding environmental protection and rights in only four years
(Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, 2005). Community
groups, ranging from local alliances to formal Non-Governmental
Organizations, such as the Center for Legal Assistance to Pollution
Victims and the Chongqing Green Volunteers Federation, are
facilitating the regulatory disputes and advocating the rights of
people and the environment in China with increasing frequency
and intensity. These examples demonstrate how the policy and
public awareness of environmental impacts are changing in China,
with TGP-EIA both benefiting from, and contributing to, the
elevated status of environmental issues on China’s national agenda
over the past decade (Heggelund, 2006).
The TGP-EIA process began when a preliminary feasibility study
was commissioned (1983) and published (1985) by the Yangtze
Valley Planning Office (YVPO), an agency of the Ministry of Water
Resources and Electric Power. A second, more comprehensive
feasibility report was later commissioned in 1986 and published in
1988 through the CYJV, a collaboration between China’s Ministry of
Water Resources and Electric Power and the Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA). This 10-volume, US $14 million study,
hereafter referred to as the CYJV study, was based largely on the
1985 YVPO environmental assessment, reporting on the extent to
which environmental and social impacts of the TGP affected its
feasibility. This study, which was a fundamental document of the
EIA process for TGP, concluded that environmental impacts would
‘‘not affect the overall environmental feasibility [of the project] and
may indeed enhance the environment’’ (CYJV vol. 1; 16–12). By the
end of 1991, the Three Gorges Dam Approval Committee and
Ministry of Water Resources reviewed and approved the CYJV
study. In January 1992, a state-appointed Approval Commission
concluded that the CYJV study documented the benefits and costs
associated with TGP in sufficient detail. After further review, SEPA
accepted the CYJV study findings, emphasizing the importance of
implementing recommended measures for limiting environmental
impacts, while concluding that ‘‘environmental issues do not affect
the feasibility of the project’’ (Changjiang Water Resources
Commission, 2007).
The following review evaluates the 1988 CYJV study1 as the
baseline EIA document. The CYJV study mapped the Yangtze River
into three primary impact zones: (1) the reservoir area, (2) the
middle and lower reach region located between Sandouping dam
and Jiangyin in Jiangsu Province, and (3) the estuary region located
from Jiangyin in Jiangsu Province to river mouth and coastal area
(Fig. 1). For this analysis, the environmental outcomes of TGP as
described in the CYJV study have been remapped into a hierarchy of
first, second, and third order impacts (Fig. 2) based on existing
typologies (World Commission on Dams, 2000; Jorde et al., 2008) to
illustrate their interactions, link impacts across the orders to
investigate causality, and describe their coverage in the scientific
literature.
2.1. Projected and realized impacts of TGP
Even in a very well-studied project such as TGP, information
gaps exist. In this analysis, I utilize these gaps as an opportunity to
investigate the relationships between science and the EIA to eval-
uate how scientific focus influences the projection of physical and
biological impacts. In this regard, three questions were addressed:
1. How do decisions, documents, and recommendations that
define the EIA process influence the number and type of
scientific investigations on the dam impacts?
2. Does the classification of an impact as ‘‘uncertain’’ or ‘‘high
priority’’ influence scientific attention?
3. Does scientific interest follow certain types of impacts? More
broadly, what is the role of EIAs for driving the science of
conservation, ecological and physical models, and environ-
mental engineering?
An examination of these questions in the context of the CYJV
study and the literature that it and the TGP project have spawned
can help shape our understanding of the links between science and
policy in EIA of large dams. An event chronology (Fig. 3) maps this
literature by its timing and volume to explore the first question.
1
The entire 10-volume CYJV study, obtained directly from CIDA, was reviewed as
the basis for this analysis.
 D. Tullos / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S208–S223
Fig. 1. CYJV environmental study areas map. Three impact areas were mapped, including the reservoir reach and three reaches below the dam. The tributaries surrounding and
above the reservoir were not included in the study area because they were ‘‘not expected to affect the engineering feasibility of TGP’’ (CYJV; 1–4). Reprinted with permission from
CIDA.
Coding of impacts (Fig. 4) illustrates scientific coverage on issues by
impact types, priorities, and uncertainties to address the latter two
questions. It is important to note that with only five years of
evidence currently available in the literature on environmental
impacts since the closure of TGP reservoir in 2003, any references
to observed impacts are very preliminary. Because environmental
outcomes of the project are expected to change over time and with
changing operation and management strategies, a comprehensive
analysis of environmental impacts of TGP may never be realized
(Wang, 2003).
2.2. A hierarchy of impacts at TGP
According to established typologies (World Commission on
Dams, 2000; Jorde et al., 2008), first order impacts include the
primary effects that are directly associated with physical, chemical,
and geomorphological consequences of dams and reservoir oper-
ation, including hydrology, climate, sediment, and water quality.
The second order impacts include those related to primary changes
in the ecosystem, such as habitat quality or quantity and primary
productivity of algae and plankton. Third order impacts charac-
terize the cumulative effects associated with first and second order
impacts on the river system, including changes in the richness and
distribution of aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals (Fig. 2).
Scientific coverage of these impacts is not uniform across the
orders. Despite TGP being one of the best-studied modern dam
development projects, the CYJV study noted critical gaps in
knowledge regarding its impacts (CYJV, 9-32). Specifically, CYJV
identified a critical need for further study of several second and
S211
third order environmental issues, particularly those related to the
habitats and fate of Chinese Sturgeon, Yangtze Sturgeon, Chinese
dolphin, and the Siberian crane (CYJV, 9–26). This finding supports
the assertion that the techniques for predicting dam impacts on the
physical environment (e.g., hydrology, sedimentation, water
quality) appear to have advanced with the evolution of the EIA,
while projecting impacts on the flora and fauna (e.g., genetic
resources, significance of change on species and habitat) has not
progressed at the same rate (Sadler et al., 2000).
2.2.1. First and second order impacts
2.2.1.1. Hydrology. With the impoundment of the Yangtze River,
several hydrological changes have been acknowledged in the CYJV
study and the literature. Among the reported hydrologic impacts is
the inundation of 26 upstream tributaries that account for 21–33%
of the reservoir surface area (CYJV, 6–14) as well as the mainstem of
the Yangtze River, causing a velocity decrease by at least a factor of
five (CYJV, 4–20). Further details of these impacts are available in
the literature, including confirmation that the inundation resulted
in lower velocities and sedimentation (Liu and Zuo, 1987), as well as
increased evaporation of water from the increased surface area of
the reservoir (Jackson and Sleigh, 2000).
Because reservoir operation at TGP is prescribed by the project
objectives of flood control, power generation, and navigation (CYJV,
4–24), the reservoir water level was predicted to vary widely, from
15 to 30 m over the course of a year and up to several meters within
a day (CYJV, 6–15). Further, water levels were projected to fluctuate
in a cycle opposite from natural conditions, with lower levels
during the summer and higher levels in the winter (CYJV, 6–15).
S212 D. Tullos / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S208–S223

Fig. 2. Hierarchy and interactions of Three Gorges impacts. Primary changes in first order impacts translate into cumulative effects across the second and third orders. Only impacts
considered in the CYJV study and the reviewed literature were included in this figure. PP indicates the proportion of the impacts in this category reported in the CYJV study to be
‘‘priority’’ impacts, whereas PU indicates the proportion of the impacts reported by CYJV as ‘‘uncertain. ’’

Downstream effects of this hydrologic modification were predicted
to affect water levels in the mainstem and potentially the two
largest freshwater lakes in China, Poyang and Dongting Lakes (CYJV,
6–15), the latter of which is home to 41 globally-significant aquatic
and terrestrial organisms (Gui, 2007). The greatest reductions in
discharge were projected to occur in October, when flows were
estimated to be reduced by two-thirds of the pre-dam flows (CYJV,
6–26). Upstream of the dam, inundation of the reservoir area
fragments habitat as people and wildlife are resettled. This
secondary impact creates landbridges and issues of genetic diver-
sity and intensified population densities as people and wildlife
move to higher elevation areas (Wu et al., 2003).
Other secondary impacts associated with hydrologic changes
reflect local and regional changes in climate. Climate modifications
associated with TGP were projected to be minimal, occurring only
locally within the reservoir region, and to be well within existing
background variability (CYJV, 6–31). However, Miller et al. (2005)
reported that preliminary changes in evaporation, evaporative
cooling, and net radiation have already been detected in the
reservoir area. Wu et al. (2006) simulated and observed increased
precipitation in the region around TGP, specifically between the
Daba and Qinling mountains, while precipitation was reduced
within the TGP reservoir area following the closing of the dam’s
gates. The impact of flooding biomass and the resulting generation
of methane from decomposing vegetation and organic materials,
a potential source of greenhouse gasses (Palmieri et al., 2001; St.
Louis et al., 2000), was not addressed in the CYJV study nor in the
literature available on TGP at this time.
Hydrologic changes also result in changes in the microbial
community structure as secondary and cumulative impacts.
Observed community changes in the estuary and the East China Sea
after the TGP gates closed in 2003 are attributable in part to the
sudden decrease in runoff and related changes in temperature and
salinity (Shan et al., 2005; Jiao et al., 2007). Similarly, phytoplankton
abundance and biomass, negatively correlated to discharge in the
mainstem of the Yangtze downstream of the dam, have been shown
 D. Tullos / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S208–S223 S213

30
CYJV
Report

Reservoir 25
Filled
CYJV
Initiated

20

Number of publications
YVPO
feasibility

15
MWR proposal
TGP
approved

10

0
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20
32

35

38

41

44

47

50

53

56

59

62

65

68

71

74

77

80

83

86

89

92

95

98

01

04

07
Year

Fig. 3. Number of Three Gorges publications by year. Events are coded as ‘‘MWR Proposal’’ – Chinese Ministry of Water Resources (MWR) formally submitted the TGP proposal to
the Chinese State Council for approval, ‘‘CYJV initiated’’ – following the recommendation of the State Council, the CYJV study was commissioned. ‘‘CYJV Report’’ – CYJV feasibility
study completed. In June of 2003, the reservoir at TGP was formed, ‘‘Reservoir filled’’.

to decrease with the decrease in TGP discharge (Zeng et al., 2007a). that provide little habitat for the snail (Jobin, 2005). Upstream of the
Downstream hydrologic modifications were also projected to lead dam, occurrence of algal blooms within the TGP reservoir have been
to an increase in the distribution of the snail host (Oncomelania attributed to increases in residence time (Zeng et al., 2007b).
hupensis) and thus occurrence of a blood fluke (Schistosoma Secondary impacts also extend to other parasitic fauna upstream of
japonica) (Xing-jian et al., 1999; Zheng et al., 2002). However, this TGP, with the reservoir predicted to encourage the proliferation of
prediction has been dismissed by some due to the steep shorelines a fish tapeworm (Bothriocephalus acheilognathi) (Morley, 2007).

0.9 90
first order second order third order
impacts impacts impacts
0.8 80

Uncertainty of impact
0.7 Priority of impact 70
Number of publications
Percent Uncertain or Priority

Number of Publications

0.6 60

0.5 50

0.4 40

0.3 30

0.2 20

0.1 10

0 0
na
e

ra

s
ity
gy

gy
y

st
en

ita

an
ng

at

or

un
lit

lo
Lo

au
lo

lo

tiv

im

Fl
m

um
ab
ua

ha

Fa

lF

lF
ro

eo

di

es
uc

Cl
H

ic
Q

lC

ia

H
yd

ic
G

Se

ia
rc

at
od
er

str
at
ne

str
H

qu
Pr
at

qu
so

rre
an

rre
A
W

A
Re
y
Ch

Te
ar

Te
im
Pr

Fig. 4. Number of Three Gorges publications by subject. The number of publications for first, second, and third order impacts do not appear to be related to the CYJV study
classification as uncertain or priority impacts.
S214 D. Tullos / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S208–S223
Secondary effects of modified hydrology also include changes in
habitat, such as the submersion of sandbars that create eddies
utilized by freshwater dolphins downstream of TGP as resting sites
(Fearnside, 1988). While it has been reported that birds and
mammals upstream of the dam would not be significantly affected
by inundation due to their mobility (Xiao et al., 1999) and distri-
bution in higher altitudes (Xiao et al., 1999; Lin et al., 2003), some
evidence suggests that important habitats of terrestrial fauna may
be by the changes in hydrology downstream of the dam. For
example, the Poyang Lake Nature Reserve provides critical habitat
to many unique and rare crane species, including the rare and
endangered Siberian crane, of which 95% of the world’s population
overwinters at this reserve (CYJV, 6–99). The CYJV study does
acknowledge that changes in hydrology could occur in this
downstream lake. It recommends further study to evaluate the
relationship between the mainstem Yangtze elevation and Poyang
Lake (CYJV, 6-22) and acknowledges that the unknown impacts on
the Siberian crane habitat constitute a critical environmental
concern (CYJV, 6–106). In addition to the potential seasonal effects
on the lake habitats downstream, filling of biodiverse side-channel
habitats (Wang et al., 2005) and saltwater intrusion into the
estuary may also occur (Chen et al., 2001) as a consequence of
reduction of peak flows in the wet season.
Despite their expected significance on the ecosystem (Jackson
and Sleigh, 2000), many of the secondary impacts of these reduced
flood flows downstream in the wet season (summer and fall), as
well as hourly and daily fluctuations in flow for hydropeaking
during the dry season (winter and spring) and synergistic changes
in water quality and sediment, were not well addressed in the CYJV
study. For example, despite the substantial reduction in peak flows
downstream, increased flooding of some areas below the dam
could occur due to clearwater erosion and undercutting of the dikes
along the Yangtze that protect cities from rising floodwater. This
threat to dikes is the same mechanism by which the 1931 Yangtze
flood caused so much damage (Fearnside, 1988). The CYJV study
dismisses this impact, noting that general lowering of the down-
stream riverbed may occur but that revetments along the banks
would prevent bank erosion (CYJV, 6–44). Similarly, while other
second and third order impacts were identified in the CYJV
studyde.g., the increased probability of upstream flooding due to
increased base level from deposition of fine sediment at the upper
delta of the reservoir (CYJV, 6–43; Maize, 1996), many were dis-
missed as insignificant and/or the significance internally contra-
dicted by CYJV. This situation was partly a consequence of the
difficulty in projecting second and third order impacts of large
dams (World Commission on Dams, 2000) when baseline data are
lacking (CYJV, 1988).
2.2.1.2. Geology. The scientific literature reports greater concern
over geological impacts than was reported in the CYJV study.
Erosion of reservoir shorelines caused by waves and fluctuating
water levels and instability of slopes due to construction of roads
and infrastructure are presented as the potential impacts of TGP by
the CYJV study (CYJV, 6–37). The hundreds of known, existing
landslides caused by deforestation, rural development, and
underlying geology in the TGP region, some of which are in a state
of active deformation (Chen and Cai, 1994; Liu et al., 2004), were
predicted not to further destabilize with inundation at TGP (CYJV,
6–36). While the CYJV study did acknowledge that new landslides
could occur around the reservoir area, it qualified its assessment by
noting that landslides are a common feature of the Yangtze River
valley and that the hazards are low, with impacts projected to fall
primarily on navigation (CYJV, 6–36). Wu et al. (2001) confirm the
low risk of landslides in the area, finding that landslide hazards
cover an area of less than 5% of the total region, with secondary
impacts not affecting the TGP but potentially affecting the
navigation, highways, reservoir slopes, and building of cities and
towns. These assessments of low hazard potential contrast with
the work of Sheng and Liao (1997) who reported that the steep and
unstable slopes of the Yangtze River valley, in addition to the land
clearing and farming that further destabilizes the slopes, suggest
a great potential for landslide hazards in the area impacted by the
reservoir. A field study during the early 1980s by the Sichuan
Provincial Geological Office found 203 landslide and mud-flow
foundations in the reservoir area (Edmonds, 1992), which may
have provided the foundation for a particularly large (approxi-
mately 20 million m3) landslide that later occurred in July 2003.
Other investigators attribute this landslide, at least in part, to the
filling of the reservoir at TGP (Dai et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2004).
The debate over the influence of TGP on landslide hazards
continues. In 2007, a smaller landslide in an area near the dam
resulted in the death of one nearby worker, injury of another
worker, and the disappearance of another two workers. The State-
run Xinhua News Agency reported that no evidence exists to link
the landslide to TGP (Chang, 2007).
Another geologic hazard of TGP is reservoir-induced seismicity,
known to have caused earthquakes in India (Konya), China (Xinfeng
Jiang/Hsingfengkiang), Zimbabwe (Kariba), and Greece (Kremasta)
(Talwani, 1997). However, the CYJV study projected the TGP seis-
micity risk to be low following inundation (CYJV, 6–37). A similar
assessment is supported by the work of Tan et al. (1997). However,
Williams (1990b) noted substantial deficiencies in the CYJV study’s
geological assessment, including the underestimation of earth-
quake ground accelerations leading to an inadequate analysis of
reservoir-induced seismicity. Zheng (1992) agreed, noting that over
twenty earthquakes have been recorded in the reservoir area, with
magnitudes over 4.75 on the Richter scale, with one measuring 6.5.
Williams (1990b) has argued that the CYJV study finding of no
impact was based on a record of insufficient data, with a resulting
underestimation of the potential magnitude and/or frequency of
these events. These critiques have preliminary support from the
recent displacement (10–40 mm vertically, 5–10 mm horizontally)
of the lithosphere crust following the reservoir impoundment at
TGP (Du et al., 2005).
2.2.1.3. Water quality. The CYJV study examined water quality
impacts, finding that while there was insufficient information
existed to determine the significance of many water quality effects
(e.g., temperature, suspended sediment, pollution dispersion) of
TGP, none of these effects were likely to influence the feasibility of
the project (CYJV, 6–68). The study did note potentially significant
impacts of supersaturation below the dam, resulting in fish kills
from gas bubble disease (CYJV, 6–22), as well as the presence of
mercury in inundated soil and plants of the Yangtze basin, which
would prohibit human consumption of fish (CYJV, 6–66). It sug-
gested that both could be mitigated by monetary compensation,
enhancement measures, and aquaculture production (CYJV, 6–22;
6–68). Not only does the scientific literature contradict these
findings but the CYJV study contradicts itself. For example, CYJV
reported that TGP would either have no effect on, or would reduce
saltwater intrusion (CYJV, 6–23), but later reported that reduced
flows could significantly increase saltwater intrusion (CYJV, 6–26).
Early reports attempting to predict salinity effects found that while
saltwater intrusion may not occur during the low-water season
under the increased baseflow, it could occur in the wet season as
the reservoir stores water and flows are reduced downstream (Liu
and Zuo, 1987). More recent assessments found that saltwater
intrusion was already increasing in the Yangtze estuary prior to
closure of the dam at TGP (Xing et al., 2001), potentially influencing
waterworks (Chen, 1998), water supply (Li and Shao, 1996), crop
productivity (Shanzhong et al., 2007), and the estuary ecosystem
(Zhu et al., 2006).
 D. Tullos / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S208–S223
Changes in flow and water quality appear to have already
affected the microbial communities of the Yangtze mainstem and
estuary. Since inundation of TGP in 2003, substantial algae blooms,
predominantly dinoflagellates (Peridiniopsis spp.) and diatoms
(Cyclotella spp.), have been observed, particularly during the spring
dry season (Cai and Hu, 2006; Tang et al., 2006). At this stage, it is
unclear whether changes in primary production are a response to
declines in water quality or changes in flow regime. Cai and Hu
(2006) report that overall water quality was not degraded in the
TGP reservoir, due in part to the low retention time of water.
However, a laboratory study of inundated reservoir soils found that
they released substantial amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus to
the overlying water upon submersion (Liu et al., 2004). Further,
Gong et al. (2006) reported a substantial decrease in Si:N ratio at
Datong downstream of TGP, accompanied by a 55% reduction in
sediment loading and an 86% decline in primary productivity,
which they explained by changes in nutrient supplies associated
with the 2003 filling of TGP. While these data have been called into
question due to the temporal and spatial coverage of the dataset
(Yuan et al., 2007), other negative impacts regarding eutrophica-
tion in the tributaries upstream of TGP are predicted (Zhang et al.,
2007) due to the decreased velocity from the impoundment.
Another water quality concern is that of methylmercury
production, a central nervous system toxin (Clarkson, 1987). It is
easily absorbed into the tissue of fish that may be consumed by
humans, and subsequently result in mercury poisoning at modest
consumption rates (USEPA, 2001). Newly-formed reservoirs are
known sources of methylmercury to the aquatic food web (Kelly
et al., 1997; Duchemin et al., 1995; Bodaly et al., 1997). While the
CYJV study indicates that inorganic mercury is present in the
sediment, soil, and vegetation in the area inundated by TGP (CYJV,
6–66), no attempt to analyze the risk to the ecosystem or to humans
eating contaminate fish from reservoir sources was made because it
was believed that the lost food resources for people could be
replaced or mitigated by monetary compensation, enhancement
measures, and aquaculture production (CYJV, 6–22; 6–68).
Other water quality impacts are relevant to this analysis of TGP
but were given little attention in the feasibility study due to
insufficient data. For example, changes in temperature were pro-
jected to reduce crop yields for those diverting the Yangtze River for
irrigation (Fearnside, 1988). Further, over 10 million tons of
industrial wastewater and domestic sewage are discharged into the
Yangtze river and its tributaries each day upstream of TGP (Heming
and Rees, 2000), in addition to the 28,000 tons of nitrogen and
80 tons of pesticides in annual agricultural runoff discharged into
the river (CYJV, 6–47). These combined pollutants will accumulate
in the reservoir, increasing potential for algal blooms and water
quality impairment within the reservoir. As soils are flooded and
submerged plants decompose, anoxic conditions created by algal
blooms may further affect water quality by releasing soil-bound
nutrients and pollutants (Gunnison et al., 1984). Unfortunately, the
potential development of these impacts could not be thoroughly
addressed because so ‘‘little water quality data [were] made avail-
able to CYJV’’ (CYJV, 6–51).
2.2.1.4. Sediment. The first order environmental impacts associated
with changes in sediment regimes reported to affect the feasibility
of TGP are those of reservoir sedimentation, deposition, and higher
flood levels upstream of the reservoir, as well as degradation and
possible river regime changes downstream of the dam. (CYJV, 6–
43). Substantial scientific study of the Yangtze River sediment
regime began in the 1950s and has continued (e.g., Gu et al., 1987;
Gu and Douglas, 1989; Higgitt and Lu, 1996; Lu and Higgitt, 1998)
with an entire 2001 issue of the journal Geomorphology dedicated
to describing various features of the Yangtze river’s sediment
dynamics. Despite such extensive information on Yangtze sediment
S215
regime, some discrepancies are found between the CYJV study’s
predicted sediment impacts and reports in the literature. This
difference in views is primarily related to the sedimentation rates
estimated for the approximately 530 million tons of sediment
entering the TGP reservoir every year. The CYJV study reported,
with little noted uncertainty, estimates of sedimentation rates in
the reservoir of 80% for the first 50–60 years, predicting that
alternating deposition and erosion would occur to maintain 95% of
live storage over the long-term (CYJV, 6–43). However, Luk and
Whitney (1990) found that these rates underestimate sedimenta-
tion at TGP because some important factors were not considered,
among them new sources from resettlement, land clearing, and
reservoir shoreline erosion, as well as existing upstream sources on
terrace floodplains that may be mobilized. Further, Williams
(1990a) questioned several calculations in the CYJV study that
could result in underestimating sedimentation, including those
associated with the calculation of equilibrium slope, bed load of the
Yangtze, and reservoir trap efficiency. Complicating the estimate of
a Yangtze River sediment budget, China has begun working to
reduce sediment volumes arriving at TGP, including acting on
suggestions from the Yangtze Valley Planning Office to build more
dams upstream to trap sediment (Luk and Whitney, 1990).
Regardless of the exact figures for sediment trapping at TGP,
impacts associated with the modified sediment regime are expec-
ted to extend both upstream and downstream of the dam.
Upstream of the dam, sedimentation is expected to extend into the
mainstem and tributaries up to Chongqing (Liu and Zuo, 1987),
likely affecting navigation at the upstream end of the reservoir
(Fearnside, 1988) and potentially altering flood levels for upstream
communities (Maize, 1996). Downstream of the dam, the sediment
reduction is anticipated to have multiple effects. Channel erosion is
predicted to increase and lead to deepening of the mainstem
Yangtze, eventually reaching the lower stretches of the Yangtze’s
middle reaches (Liu and Zuo, 1987). While the CYJV study notes that
this type of erosion may occur in some areas, it does not consider it
to be significant (CYJV, 6–45). The CYJV study does acknowledge
several negative impacts of sedimentation. It reports that the
decline in sediment supply, estimated by Koshikawa et al. (2007) to
be 23% for the first 50 years, could create a serious problem for the
flood protection infrastructure and unprotected alluvial terraces
due to redirection of flows (CYJV, 6–45). Sediment decrease and
flow changes could also have second order impacts downstream of
TGP on the preferred habitat of the Chinese dolphin. CYJV addresses
this potential impact with the recommendation that ‘‘remedial
measures to ensure conservation of prime habitat should be
envisaged where deemed necessary’’ (CYJV, 6–45). The CYJV study
also predicts that the reduction in sediment supply will have
a small but long-term effect (i.e. centuries) on the sediment budget
of the Yangtze estuary (CYJV, 6–45).
Since the TGP impoundment, downstream effects have already
been observed, including a 65% reduction in sediment load in 2004
(Yang et al., 2006), one year after the dam was closed, and up to 25%
reduction of net deposition in Lake Dongting downstream of TGP
(Dai et al., 2005). This reduction in sediment discharge associated
with TGP has been characterized as generating an ‘‘ecosystem
disaster’’ for the inner shelf off the Yangtze River in the East China
Sea (Changsheng et al., 2003). Drawing from their estimate of a 31%
decrease in the supply of sediment to the estuary, Yang et al.
(2007a,b) have found that the deltaic coast of the Yangtze River has
already begun to recede and predict that coastal erosion will
intensify with time. Others predict that changes in sediment
supply, which acts as the primary driver of deposition and erosion
in much of the Yangtze River, will lead to extensive erosion for the
next 50 years, after which a balance of supply will be reached and
erosion will be reduced (Yang et al., 2007c). These changes in
erosion and deposition associated with coastal sediment dynamics
S216 D. Tullos / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S208–S223
define a secondary impact of TGP on estuary habitats, where the
interannual and interdecadal growth rates of intertidal wetlands
are strongly linked to the sediment supplied by the Yangtze River
(Yang et al., 2005).
2.2.2. Third order, cumulative impacts
First order and second order impacts translate into third order,
cumulative impacts that can result in substantial losses for aquatic
and terrestrial organisms and the humans who live around and
make use of the river system. The CYJV study predicted that the
most critical of the third order impacts for TGP would fall on three
rare and endangered aquatic species and their habitatsdthe
Chinese dolphin, the Chinese sturgeon, the Yangtze sturgeon (CYJV,
6–95). Research studies extend these impacts to other fish species.
For example, mathematical models predict that as many as six
endemic fish species have a high probability of extinction, while the
future of 14 other species is uncertain (Park et al., 2003).
2.2.2.1. Flora. The Three Gorges area is home to a number of
important plants (Ye et al., 2001), which are likely to be impacted
by construction, resettlement, and reservoir inundation. For aquatic
flora, the CYJV study reported that river-system plants were already
heavily modified due to agriculture, water diversions, and pollution
(CYJV, 6–69), thus projecting a ‘‘low magnitude of predicted effect
and little proliferation’’ (CYJV, 6–81). Morley (2007) also reported
a low impact of TGP, finding a limited area for plant growth in the
reservoir due to the steep shoreline and resulting narrow euphotic
zones.
The CYJV study also argued that insufficient data existed on the
distribution and abundance of rare plants in the terrestrial area
around TGP (CYJV, 6–104). Since the CYJV study, Xiao et al. (1999)
have found 47 plant species among the flora of the Three Gorges
region that are listed as ‘‘Rare and Endangered Plant Species Pro-
tected in China,’’ with four species in Class I and 21 species in Class
II under China’s Wild Animal Protection Law (1989). On this point,
the CYJV study has taken the position that the TGP will have no
direct impact on natural vegetation because the region has already
been so heavily impacted by historical and current anthropogenic
activities (CYJV, 6–104). However, it has since been estimated that
at least 34 local plant communities, including some found only in
the reservoir area, will be partly or completely inundated (Chen
et al., 1994; Huang, 2001). Among the rare and endangered plants
distributed in the reservoir region, the geographic range of Adian-
tum reniforme var. sinense, a species of fern that is important both
scientifically and culturally in China (Liu et al., 2007), is predicted to
be partly submerged and will further decline due to damage by
resettlement activities. A large proportion of the range for two
subtropical fruits, Litchi chinensis Sonn. and Dimocarpus longan
Lour, will be submerged by the reservoir. Among the specific native
terrestrial plants in the reservoir region, Myricaria laxiflora was
projected to be most affected by reservoir impoundment (Xiao
et al., 1999) and is now extinct due to habitat loss (Liu et al., 2006).
2.2.2.2. Terrestrial fauna. The comprehensive impacts on the
terrestrial fauna are not particularly well understood although
acknowledged primary impacts include (1) inundation and modi-
fication of habitats, including low-altitude grasslands and grass
farmlands, and (2) changes in the food web. The CYJV study
specifically reported a priority concern for the Siberian crane at
Poyang Lake Nature Reserve downstream of the dam. The study
notes that hydrologic and sediment regime modifications could
have unknown impacts for this endangered species (CYJV 6–106).
Additionally, researchers express concern over the upstream
flooding of the valley that is projected to result in over 100 moun-
taintops and ridges becoming landbridge islands (previously con-
nected land areas isolated by flooding or rising sea levels) (Wu et al.,
2003), potentially causing changes in vertebrate species diversity
and dominance of non-endemic species (Cosson et al., 1999).
2.2.2.3. Aquatic fauna. The impacts of TGP are uncertain at several
levels of the aquatic food web, from phytoplankton up through fish
species. The CYJV study projected only small changes in
zooplankton and benthos abundance and found that those
increases would be of little significance to the fishery (CYJV, 6–81).
However, substantial increases in phytoplankton biomass in
response to the reduced velocities of the reservoir and increased
transparency of streamflow released downstream have already
been observed (Kuang et al., 2005; Xue et al., 2006). Some
researchers argue that these changes in productivity of the channel
will (1) impact water quality by increasing levels of eutrophication
and (2) reduce Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels, resulting in second
order impacts, such as higher concentrations of toxins in the water,
habitat loss, and reduction in food sources for fish (Xie, 2003;
Fearnside, 1988). It is these second order impacts that drive adverse
effects on the food web; TGP is predicted to negatively impact
between 40 (Fu et al., 2003) and 80 fish species (Liu and Zuo, 1987).
One indication of these changes in the food web is the increasing
gradient of copepod density observed since the 2003 impound-
ment (Yao et al., 2007). Reports of change in the next level of the
food web have been published as well. For example, there has been
a shift in the density and composition of benthic macroinvertebrate
communities in Xiangxi Bay of the Three Gorges Reservoir towards
a dominance in oligochaetes in the two-year period after TGP’s
initial closure, presumably due to sedimentation in the bay (Shao
et al., 2006a). Also at the mouth of the Yangtze, researchers at the
National Taiwan Ocean University have reported an 86% reduction
in the high productivity zone and a 55% reduction in sediment load,
both attributable to a reduction in flows during the flooding season
(Marshall, 2006). This study also reported a shift from silicaceous
diatoms to flagellates in the Yangtze River estuary, a condition
which will negatively impact the health of the fishery through
flagellate depletion of oxygen, release of toxins, and reduced
quality of food (Marshall, 2006). These impacts may relate to other
changes in the food web, with observed shifts in fish community
composition at Guanzhuangping Bay from historical species to
more opportunistic species (Shao et al., 2006b). The CYJV study
acknowledged the uncertainty of these impacts, asserting that
since too little information is available, these types of estuarine
impacts are unpredictable (CYJV, 6–94).
Prior to TGP, 172 species of fish resided in the reservoir region,
25 of which were caught commercially (Wegner, 1994), serving as
an important food resource for the residents of the Yangtze River
valley. Affecting these fish are important secondary impacts that
include the possible detention of fry spawned in the upstream
reaches in the reservoir, preventing them from reaching their
rearing grounds in Dongting Lake which is connected to the
Yangtze River downstream of TGP (Chen et al., 2002; Duan et al.,
2002; Qiu et al., 2002). Huang (2001) has reported on the range of
fishes in the middle and downstream areas of the Yangtze that will
be narrowed due to decreases in fry supplementation from the
affected upstream systems. Interestingly, the third order impact of
losing an important migratory pathway is given as a primary reason
for dismissing the impact of turbines on fish mortality (CYJV, 6–88).
No literature since the release of the CYJV study has confirmed or
denied this assertion. Another secondary impact is the effect of
flooding on the existing aquaculture facilities, irrigation ponds, and
rice fields, which combined are responsible for twenty times the
annual production of the region’s natural fisheries (Wegner, 1990).
The CYJV study acknowledges that the consequences of losing these
aquaculture facilities are serious (CYJV, 6–87), noting that these
impacts should be addressed by further aquaculture development
and production (CYJV, 6–88).
 D. Tullos / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S208–S223
While public release of data on centrally coordinated fisheries
monitoring at TGP has been restricted until 2009, preliminary
reports provide evidence of third order responses to TGP in the
three years following initial closure, including 50–70% decreases in
annual harvest of carp and up to 95% decrease in carp eggs and
larval carp, both of which can be attributed to changes in temper-
ature and hydrologic regimes (Xie et al., 2007).
The aquatic species most critically affected by TGP are those
considered special, rare, or endangered, or those found only in the
geographical region occupied by the Yangtze. The CYJV study found
essentially no impact on some rare species, including the Chinese
Paddlefish and Chinese Sucker (CYJV, 6–81) and discounted
impacts on the Finless porpoise, finding that ‘‘because of the rela-
tively wide range of this somewhat rare species and the minor
changes in hydrology of the lower reaches and the estuary, no
significant impact is anticipated’’ (CYJV, 6–81).
While the CYJV study dismissed impacts on the above-
mentioned rare aquatic species, it did acknowledge impacts on
others. The fate of the Chinese dolphin, Chinese sturgeon, and
Yangtze sturgeon are three of the primary five aquatic environ-
mental issues not dismissed by the study (CYJV, 6–94). At the time
of the CYJV study (1988), the Chinese dolphin (Lipotes vexillifer) was
considered the rarest freshwater dolphin in the world, with only
200–300 individuals remaining. The impacts of TGP on the Chinese
dolphins are indirect since this species is found only in the middle
and lower reaches of the Yangtze below Yichang and rarely
migrates into the Three Gorges area. The State Council Three Gorges
Project Construction Committee (2004) suggested that the project
could improve the fate of Chinese dolphin, by providing deeper
water to escape accidental deaths and strandings and through
improved management of the Yangtze fisheries. However,
researchers warned that changes in downstream hydrology,
degradation of the channel and aggradation of small island and
sandbars, could potentially destroy resting areas and reserves
(Fearnside, 1988; Perrin et al., 1989). The CYJV study acknowledged
the potential severity of impacts on Chinese dolphins but noted
that insufficient information existed to evaluate the magnitude of
the impact (CYJV, 6–91) and recommended immediate imple-
mentation of monitoring studies and mitigation measures (CYJV, 6–
94). Apparently such a program has either not been implemented
or has not been successful because in late 2006, officials declared
the species functionally extinct (Lovgren, 2006).
The fate of the Chinese sturgeon (Acipenser sinensis) is still
unclear. A large, migratory fish, the sturgeon’s range was limited in
1981 by the existing Gezhouba Dam downstream of TGP. The
sturgeon has since spawned in the 10 km downstream of the
Gezhouba dam. However, it was projected in the CYJV study that
TGP created an additional third order impact on the spawning
success of the sturgeon in response to flow reductions in October
(CYJV, 6–90). Additionally, extraction of up to 13 million tons of
sand and gravel for the construction of TGP may ‘‘coincide with key
spawning grounds for the rare and endangered Chinese sturgeon’’
(CYJV, 6–44). While, insufficient information was available for the
feasibility study authors to assess the significance of impacts on
Chinese sturgeon (CYJV, 6–90), researchers (Xie, 2003) later pre-
dicted that the 41% reduction in discharge downstream of the dam
would most likely destroy the remaining breeding grounds avail-
able to the sturgeon. Navigation noise from increased shipping and
mortality due to a reduced supply in food resources have also been
reported as potential impacts on sturgeon population viability
(Edmonds, 1992).
2.2.2.4. Humans and the environment. Described in the CYJV study
as ‘‘the most significant environmental issue of the project,’’ the
third order impacts on humans are primarily those associated with
resettlement (CYJV 8, 9–26). With initial estimates of three quarters
S217
of a million people resettled (CYJV 8, 9–26), increasing to over 1.2
million people (Heming et al., 2001), the impacts are broad. Driven
by deforestation and cultivation of steep slopes, land recontouring
and water development projects, and increased densities of people
in urban areas of up to double the national average (Yardley, 2007),
these impacts could lead to increased surface runoff, wastewater
discharges, and erosion. While these environmental impacts are
difficult to measure, they may substantially add to the cumulative
effects of TGP on the environment of the Yangtze River system.
2.3. Analysis of the impact projections and the literature
With the purpose of the EIA to both support policy and design
considerations and to minimize environmental impacts (Petts,
1999), evidence of scientific focus on uncertain and priority impacts
should be clear. To evaluate how impacts of TGP were considered as
priorities to scientists and the funding agencies, a collection of
literature on environmental impacts of TGP was compiled and
reviewed. References for this literature search were identified
through the bibliography of the 1988 CYJV study and through
a search in several databases, undertaken using the keywords
‘‘Three Gorges’’ and ‘‘Dam.’’ Electronic databases checked included
Web of Science (1970–present), GeoRef (1985–present), Environ-
mental Science & Pollution Management (1967–present), Aquatic
Pollution & Environmental Quality (1990–present), Aquatic
Sciences & Fisheries Abstracts (1978–present), EIS: Digests of
Environmental Impact Statements (1985–present), and Water
Resources Abstracts (1967–present). This literature analysis
focused on articles published since the 1988 release of the CYJV
study with relevance to environmental impacts. The papers were
used to map the scientific interest in environmental impacts at TGP
across time, impact types, and the CYJV study findings.
2.4. Environmental impacts and impact interactions at TGP
While Fig. 2 is not an exhaustive road map of all potential
impacts at TGP, the hierarchical analysis includes and links those
impacts treated in the reviewed literature. This analysis is valuable
for investigating how uncertainty and priority translate across
impacts and illustrates the interactions between higher and lower-
order responses to TGP. For example, hydrologic impacts directly
influence numerous other responses to TGP, including those of first,
second, and third orders. While the CYJV study treated hydrologic
impacts as having little uncertainty or priority, it considered some
secondary impacts influenced by hydrology to be uncertain and/or
priority. Among those affected by hydrology is habitat. The
percentage of habitat impacts classified as uncertain is high (0.63),
but the percentage of habitat impacts classified as priority is low
(0.0). Habitat then influences impacts on aquatic fauna, which were
classified as both priority (0.14) and uncertain (0.43) in the CYJV
study. This dichotomy illustrates that inconsistencies exist in the
knowledge about sources of uncertainty and in the prioritization of
impacts. If hydrologic impacts were considered certain, but habitat
impacts are uncertain, it could be concluded that habitat is influ-
enced by other, unidentified drivers, that the links between
hydrology and habitat are unclear, or else that the certainty of
hydrologic impacts is not as great as stated. Similar inconsistencies
exist with water quality impacts, noted as highly uncertain by the
CYJV study, though secondary impacts associated with degradation
of water quality, such as changes in primary productivity and
resource availability, were not considered to be uncertain. These
types of inconsistencies illustrate how uncertainty is not consis-
tently translated across linked impacts in the EIA process and
provide justification for linking the lower-order drivers of change
(e.g., hydrology, water quality) to cumulative responses (e.g.,
aquatic fauna) to establish causality (Perdicoúlis and Glasson, 2006)
S218 D. Tullos / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S208–S223
in study impacts. This hierarchical analysis not only illustrates
those links and thereby identifies areas for future study as part of
the EIA process, it also emphasizes why a single disciplinary
approach to impact assessment is incompatible with the environ-
mental protection objectives of EIA.
2.5. Literature coverage of impacts across time and EIA decisions
and reporting
An event chronology was constructed by overlaying a distribu-
tion of publications in each impact area over time (Fig. 3) with dates
of important decisions and reports in the EIA process to illustrate
the relationship between the EIA process and the number and focus
of research publications. Numbers of publications increased in the
years just before the Ministry of Water Resources formally
proposed the TGP to the State Council in 1983 and continued to rise
up through 1986 when the CYJV study was commissioned. For the
next seven years, little literature was published on TGP, despite the
release of the CYJV study in 1988. That pattern shifted again in
1995, two years after the TGP was formally approved by the State
Council. With the reservoir closed in 2003, scientists are increas-
ingly reporting initial responses of the Yangtze River environment
to TGP. The findings of those studies, as discussed in the previous
sections, indicate mixed and inconclusive impacts of the project.
Disagreement between scientists and between scientists and state
officials emphasizes the remaining uncertainty in impact signifi-
cance, four years after the project closed the reservoir.
2.6. Literature coverage of impacts and findings of CYJV study
The uncertainty of impact projections appears to generally
decrease with increasing order across the hierarchy (Fig. 4). While
uncertainty in hydrologic and sediment impacts was considered
low by the CYJV study, the uncertainty of other first order impacts,
including water quality (0.83) and geology (0.67), was high relative
to the impacts in the second (e.g., habitat at 0.63) and third orders
(e.g., aquatic fauna at 0.43) with the greatest uncertainty.
The focus of research efforts does not tend to fall primarily on
impacts that were classified in the CYJV study as uncertain or
priority (Fig. 4). Instead, the studies appear to be distributed across
impacts independent of prediction confidence and impact signifi-
cance as stated in the CYJV study. For example, despite the lack of
uncertainty in projections about hydrology, it was the best studied
of all environmental impacts with 84 publications devoted to it. In
contrast, the uncertain effects of TGP on habitat were the second
most-cited of the impacts, a situation consistent with the high
percentage of uncertain, but low priority, classification of habitat
impacts in the CYJV study. In this latter case, scientific interest
followed classification of uncertain, rather than priority, impacts.
From the other cases, no relationship appears to exist between the
classification of impacts by CYJV and the number of scientific
publications. For example, the well-studied impacts on water
quality and aquatic fauna received the highest number of priority
classifications by CYJV but were also considered highly uncertain by
CYJV. In contrast, several impacts across the three orders (e.g.,
sediment, climate, human environment) were relatively well cited
in the literature despite not being noted as priority or uncertain
impacts in the CYJV study. Other first and second order impacts
(e.g., water quality, geology, channel change, aquatic fauna, lost
resources) have been relatively well studied, with 40–50 publica-
tions each since 1988, across mixed levels of uncertainty and/or
priority indicated by the CYJV.
With the exception of the secondary impacts on primary
productivity, the least studied impacts primarily fell into the third
order, represented by only 20% of the publications, whereas first
order and second order were addressed by 44% and 36% of the
literature, respectively. This lack of attention on the cumulative
effects of TGP is consistent with what Brookes (1999) describes as
the difficulties attributed to predicting flora, fauna, and other
higher order impacts due to the multitude of interactions defining
them (see Fig. 2).
This analysis leads one to question why scientific interest failed
to follow uncertain and poorly understood, but important impacts:
were hydrologic impacts more uncertain than the CYJV study
indicated? Why was water quality not of greater interest to funding
agencies and researchers? The lack of consistency between scien-
tific focus of literature published since the 1988 CYJV study and the
noted limitations of scientific information in that report make it
difficult to conclude that the TGP-EIA process adequately informed
the funding for and pursuit of questions related to informational
gaps that should be uncovered by an EIA. Instead, it suggests that
either the CYJV erroneously dismissed priority and/or uncertain
impacts or that the scientific community failed to follow the CYJV
identified needs for further study.
3. Implications for measuring dam impacts – linking science
and policy
3.1. Limitations, uncertainty, and responsibility in the EIA process
The World Commission on Dams (2000) notes that the EIA
process is often limited by five primary problems: (1) resistant
attitudes, (2) insufficient structural integration of the EIA into
policy/decision making, (3) insufficient scope of the EIA, (4) inad-
equate procedural assessments, and (5) poor technical quality of the
EIA. EIAs are further limited in their function when performed too
late into the planning and design of large dams to evaluate alter-
natives that include environmental objectives in the dam design
and reservoir operation (e.g., the environmental flow component of
the Mohale dam in Lesotho; World Commission on Dams, 2000).
For one of the world’s most widely studied large development
projects, the TGP-EIA process could have provided an example of
how science can move beyond these limitations to inform policy,
design, and management of large dams. For example, given the
relatively long time-frame of this project development, some
studies were able to inform ecological mitigation recommenda-
tions, such as the recommendation that several large water releases
be built into the operational schedule to stimulate fish reproduction
during spawning season (Chao et al., 1987). However, it is unclear
whether this mitigation strategy was implemented, as preliminary
observations indicate success in stimulating reproduction appears
is limited with the announcement of the Chinese dolphin as func-
tionally extinct. The ‘‘long and hard road’’ ahead for environmental
remediation at TGP, a recent warning voiced by a representative of
the Chinese State Council (Yardley, 2007), reflects the limited
success of the EIA in contributing to mitigation measures of the
large project.
Some uncertainty in impact projection, and consequently
environmental mitigation measures, of large dams is inevitable
(World Commission on Dams, 2000). This uncertainty is driven by
the different time and spatial scales over which the various impacts
occur (Edmonds, 1992), a failure to thoroughly consider interdis-
ciplinary links (Brown et al., 2009) and their cumulative effects
(World Commission on Dams, 2000), and the acknowledged
insufficient baseline study on the impacted river system (CYJV,
1988). Because scientific monitoring and study can be of substantial
value in assessing and mitigating the environmental impacts of
large dams (Wu et al., 2003), linking EIA findings to research
priorities and funding should be viewed as a necessity. Steps
towards improving the EIA process are primarily promoted through
the coherence and commitment of the regulators and scientific
 D. Tullos / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S208–S223 S219

funding agencies and can only occur if the EIA process is initiated
early in the preliminary stages of planning.
For the integration of science and policy to be successful at
protecting the environment, consideration of the hierarchy of
impacts of dams across space and time is needed. For example, the
hierarchical links between changes in hydrology and habitat are
needed to understand the critical impacts of TGP on the spawning
habitat of endangered Chinese sturgeon. With 98% of the historical
habitat blocked by Gezhouba Dam in 1981, severe reductions in the
remaining 2% of spawning areas downstream of Gezhouba was
anticipated in response to the additional 40% reduction in flow
associated with TGP (Xie, 2003). This cumulative effect of the
hydrologic change translates across all three orders and empha-
sizes the need for broad spatial extents, particularly when consid-
ering the profound and synergistic effects of multiple dams on an
ecosystem (World Commission on Dams, 2000).
Given the longitudinal connection of river systems and the fact
that many rivers are already heavily impacted by man, the need to
assess and relate new projects to existing developments for hier-
archical, additive, and synergistic links is warranted (Wegner,
1990). Extending this principle, the strong links between social and
environmental welfare (Ledec and Quintero, 2003) make social
impacts relevant to the EIA process. For example, in the case of the
TGP region, resettlement was considered the greatest threat to the
environmental feasibility of TGP, potentially generating profound
environmental impacts, such as increased erosion from deforesta-
tion and increased population density.
3.2. Opportunities through linking science and policy
While the CYJV study certainly has its limitations (see Ryder
and Barber, 1990 for an excellent review), the availability and

Fig. 5. Essential integration of publicly funded science with large dam planning. Arrows to illustrate the points at which publicly funded scientific investigation on environmental
outcomes should support the planning and development process for large dams. Modified from the World Commission on Dams (2000).
S220 D. Tullos / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S208–S223
consistency of scientific information and the lack of a more direct
role for the science in guiding design and management of TGP
ultimately challenged the TGP-EIA process. To overcome the gaps
in scientific information important for implementing and evalu-
ating conservation and management issues, changes in the plan-
ning process for large dams (Fig. 5) are needed. As integrated with
the planning of large dams, the EIA becomes a dynamic and long-
term effort to understand and minimize project impacts. In this
context, the sources of impact uncertainty identified by EIA
assessments offer opportunities for advancing the science and
informing policy, design, and mitigation strategies of large dams.
The analyses presented here illustrate why the interdependence of
scientific investigation and EIA intent needs to be utilized to both
guide and serve the assessment and design processes. This is
critical because, like TGP, the realized impacts of large dams will
vary depending on how the dam is ultimately managed (Shen and
Xie, 2008). However, such an integration of science with policy
will require establishing funding priorities that support these
types of studies and should become a mandatory part of the
planning process.
Thus, environmental monitoring of large dam projects serves
two roles: (1) providing the fundamental work that informs
understanding of dam impacts over time and space and (2) forming
the basis for assessing environmental compliance. To fulfill these
roles, the explicit integration of scientific investigation should be
made for developing guidance on the environmental compliance
and performance of large dams. On a practical level, this chal-
lenging integration will be influenced by environmental permits,
legal agreements, and project scheduling and budgeting. Recently
the World Bank moved in this direction with the Second Ertan
Hydroelectric Project (Sichuan, China), by setting funding criteria
on, among other things, conducting annual site visits during
construction to investigate environmental conditions and inter-
view local residents. This project, hailed as ‘‘China’s first large
hydroelectric project built in full compliance with international
practice and yet in consideration of China’s practical situations,’’
(Yunhua, 2004) attempts a step forward in institutionalizing envi-
ronmental compliance conditions in planning and funding of large
dams (World Commission on Dams, 2000).
4. Conclusions
As climate change increases the potential for flooding and
drought (IPCC, 2007) and the global demand for energy (Criqui and
Kouvaritakisn, 2000) and water (Jobin, 1999) of a growing human
population also increase, a surge in new large dam projects is likely
to occur. However, without comprehensive investigation of the
potential impacts of a major project, irreversible and unforeseen
impacts to the environment will occur. For the EIA process to
constructively support the minimization and mitigation of the
environmental effects of large dams, the links between (a) hierar-
chical and interrelated impacts and (b) science and policy need to
be to recognized and additional commitments of time and
resources should be made to advance the science and sustainability
of hydropower development.
A robust EIA process is essential in the assessment of large dam
impacts. A project of the scope of TGP will be increasingly common
in China and abroad. Several dams of similar height are already in
various stages of planning and construction in Yunnan Province,
Chinadfor example, the Xiaowan Dam (292 m) on the Lancang
River and the Song Ta (307 m) and Ma Ji (300 m) dams on the Nu
River (Magee, 2006). While it is encouraging that research on dams
in China has increased throughout the planning of TGP (Liu and
Zuo, 1987), there are several lessons to be learned from the EIA
process for the world’s largest dam. This review has revealed
discrepancies and omissions in impact significance and certainty
that could have been reduced had systematically, and coherently
planned, monitoring programs been implemented. As suggested by
De Jongh for all development projects (1992), the EIA process for
TGP would have benefited from the integration of a more formal
and interdisciplinary approach for characterizing the uncertainty of
impact projections.
To address the significance of projected impacts for a large
project, an approach for considering risk would help focus research
priorities. Various approaches already exist (Donnelly, 2006; ICOLD,
2005), including Potential Failure Mode Analysis (PFMA), which has
been required under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) regulations on all hydropower facilities in the United States
since 2002. Establishing causality across the hierarchy of impacts
(see Perdicoúlis et al., 2007 for an excellent review) can also reduce
uncertainty by providing linkages between impacts and their
significance. By more thoroughly and transparently analyzing the
uncertainty and significance of impacts, the CYJV study could have
better guided research in a larger sense to further understanding
and minimization of the negative consequences of large dams on
people and the environment.
To be fair, the performance of EIAs both within China and
around the world is continually improving and the increasing use of
the EIA process has placed more emphasis on improving the
identification of potential impacts. Whereas dams might be
described as ‘‘threatening’’ should an EIA not be conducted,
prepared too quickly, or offer no mitigation options (McAllister
et al., 2000), the EIA process can potentially go a step further by
playing a fundamental role in the design process as well as
advancing the science and improving interdisciplinary communi-
cation of large dam impacts. Evaluation of the risk and uncertainty
of environmental impacts should inform the process, both in spite
of and in response to the enormous challenge of predicting the
myriad integrated impacts of large dams.
However, without a policy that continuously integrates scien-
tific findings into the dam planning and design process, the
benefits of expanding environmental analysis are limited. Institu-
tional and international policies regulating the EIA process also
face criticism. Concerns regarding the responsibility of environ-
mental assessment and performance of large dams include those
regarding who should perform the impact assessments (Edmonds,
1992; Fearnside, 1988) and who should establish and enforce
regulations and incentives for minimizing those impacts (Sadler
et al., 2000). In response to these concerns, Strategic Environ-
mental Assessment (SEA), adopted as part of the World Bank’s
Environmental strategy in 2001, offers some guidelines for inte-
grating the EIA with policies and planning, simultaneously making
the process more transparent and accessible to the public (World
Bank, 2005).
However, recognition of the interdependence of science and
policy is critical within any public process, including the SEA
framework. In the case of large dams, science is needed to establish
an understanding of the interactions between, the uncertainty
around, and the significance of environmental impacts. Policy is
needed both to fund scientific study and to enforce EIA recom-
mendations throughout a long-term monitoring and environ-
mental permitting process that is informed by the science before,
during, and after dam construction. Only through the continued
engagement of unbiased science throughout the planning, design,
construction, and operation of dams can hydrodevelopment
approach the sustainability necessary in the arriving era of water
and energy instability.
Acknowledgments
This manuscript greatly benefited from the contributions of
Hilmar Malmquist and Guðmundur Páll Ólafsson. Funding for this
 D. Tullos / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S208–S223
work was provided by the National Science Foundation, award
#0623087.
References
Abramovitz, J., 2001. Averting unnatural disasters. In: Brown, L.R. (Ed.), State of the
World 2001. W.W. Norton & Company, New York.
Andersson, E., Nilsson, C., Johansson, M.E., 2000. Effects of river fragmentation on
plant dispersal and riparian flora. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management
16, 83–89.
Aparicio, E., Vargas, M.J., Olmo, J.M., De Sostoa, A., 2000. Decline of native fresh-
water fishes in a Mediterranean watershed on the Iberian Peninsula: a quanti-
tative assessment. Environmental Biology of Fishes 59, 11–19.
Bodaly, R.A., St. Louis, V.L., Paterson, M.J., Fudge, R.J.P., Hall, B.D., Rosenberg, D.M.,
Rudd, L.W.M., 1997. Bioaccumulation of mercury in the aquatic food chain in
newly flooded areas. In: Sigel, H., Sigel, A. (Eds.), Mercury and Its Effects on
Environment and Biology. Marcel Decker, New York, pp. 259–287.
Boxer, B., 1988. China’s three Gorges dam: questions and prospects. The China
Quarterly 113, 99.
Brookes, A., 1999. Environmental impact assessment for energy projects. In:
Petts, V. (Ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, vol. 2. Blackwell
Science, London, pp. 405–430.
Brown, P.H., Tullos, D., Tilt, B., Magee, D., Wolf, A.T., 2009. Modeling the costs and
benefits of dam construction from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of
Environmental Management 90 (S3), S303–S311.
Brundtland, G. (Ed.), 1987. Our Common Future: The World Commission on Envi-
ronment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cai, Q.H., Hu, Z.Y., 2006. Studies on eutrophication problem and control strategy in
the Three Gorges Reservoir. Acta Hydrobiologica Sinica 30, 7–11.
Canadian Yangtze Joint Venture (CYJV) 1988. Three Gorges Water Control Project
Feasibility Study. Environment, vol. 8. Obtained from the Canadian Interna-
tional Development Agency (CIDA).
Canter, L.W., 1996. Environmental Impact Assessment, second ed. McGraw-Hill Inc.,
ISBN 0-07-114103-0, 660 pp
Chang, A., 2007. China: Three Gorges impact not that bad. Associated Press. Nov 22,
2007, Beijing, China. Three Gorges Project, Published online by the Chinese
Ministry of Water Resources (MWR) 2004. Changjiang Water Resource
Commission (CWRC) 1997. pp. 22.
Changjiang Water Resources Commission, 2007. China pledges more measures to
ensure environmental protection in Three Gorges. http://www.river.gov.cn/
detail/20071122/97100.asp?column¼News (accessed 02/2008).
Changsheng, C., Jianrong, Z., Beardsley, R.C., Franks, P.J.S., 2003. Physical–biological
sources for dense algal blooms near the Changjiang River. Geophysical Research
Letters 30, 21–24.
Chao, W., Yu, Z., Xu, W., Deng, Z., Chai, M., 1987. A preliminary assessment of the
impact of the Three Gorges Project on fish resources in the Changjiang River
and review of ways of enhancing the resource. In: A Collection of Literature on
the Environmental Impacts of the Three Gorges Project in the Changjiang River
and Strategies for Mitigation. Science Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 2–20.
Chen, X., 1998. Changjiang Yangtze River Delta, China. Journal of Coastal Research
14, 838–858.
Chen, Z., Li, J., Shen, H., Wang, Z., 2001. Yangtze River of China: historical analysis of
discharge variability and sediment flux. Geomorphology 41, 77–91.
Chen, D., Liu, S., Duan, X., Shi, W., Wang, B., 2002. On the dynamics of fishery
resources of the Yangtze river and its management. Acta Hydrobiologica Sinica
26, 685–690.
Chen, Y., 2004. Effect of the Three Gorge Project on the sustainable development in
the Yangtze River basin. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin 13,
109–113.
Chen, D.J., Cai, Y.J., 1994. Monitoring and prediction of landslides and unstable cliffs
in the Three-Gorges reservoir region, People’s Republic of China. In: Proceed-
ings of 7th International IAEG Congress, pp. 1383–1389.
Chen, W., Zhang, X., Liang, S., et al., 1994. Plants and Composite Agricultural
Ecosystems of the Three Gorges Reservoir Region. Science Press, Beijing, PR China.
Chen, Q., Zhang, Y., Ekroos, A., 2007. Comparison of China’s Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) law with the European Union (EU) EIA directive. Environ-
mental Monitoring and Assessment 132, 53–65.
Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, 2005. Environmental Protection in
China 1996–2005. http://www.caep.org.cn/english.
Clarke, C., 2000. Cross-Check Survey: Final Report, A WCD survey prepared as an
input to the World Commission on Dams, Cape Town, www.dams.org.
Clarkson, T., 1987. Metal toxicity in the central nervous system. Environmental
Health Perspectives 75, 59–64.
Clarkson, R.W., Childs, M.R., 2000. Temperature effects of hypolimnial-release dams
on early life stages of Colorado River basin big-river fishes. Copeia, 402–412.
Cosson, J.F., Ringuet, S., Claessens, O., de Massary, J.C., Dalecky, A., Villiers, J.F., Granjon, L.,
Pons, J.M., 1999. Ecological changes in recent land-bridge islands in French Guiana,
with emphasis on vertebrate communities. Biological Conservation 91, 213–222.
Criqui, P., Kouvaritakisn, N., 2000. World energy projections to 2030. International
Journal of Global Energy Issues 14, 116–136.
Dai, F.C., Deng, J.H., Tham, L.G., Law, K.T., Lee, C.F., 2004. A large landslide in Zigui
County, Three Gorges area. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 41, 1233–1240.
Dai, S.B., Yang, S.L., Zhu, J., Gao, A., Li, P., 2005. The role of Lake Dongting in regu-
lating the sediment budget of the Yangtze River. Hydrology and Earth System
Sciences 9 (6), 692–698.
S221
De Jonghe, P., 1992. Uncertainty in EIA. In: Watharn (Ed.), Environmental Impact
Assessment: Theory and Practice, pp. 62–82.
Donnelly, C.R., 2006. Safe and secure – risk based techniques for dam safety.
International Water Power and Dam Construction, Wilmington Media Ltd.,
December 7.
Du, Z., 1999. Soil and water conservation and improving ecological environment in
the Three Gorges reservoir area. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze
Basin 8, 299–304.
Du, R.L., Qiao, X.J., Wang, Q., Xing, C.F., You, X.Z., 2005. Deformation in the Three
Gorges Reservoir after the first impoundment determined by GPS measure-
ments. Progress in Natural Science 15, 515–522.
Duan, X., Chen, D., Liu, S., Chi, C., Yang, R., 2002. Studies on status of fishery
resources in the Three Gorges reservoir reaches of the Yangtze river. Acta
Hydrobiologica Sinica 26, 605–611.
Duchemin, E., Lucotte, M., Canuel, R., Chamberland, A., 1995. Global Biogeochemical
Cycles 9, 529.
Dudgeon, D., 2000. The ecology of tropical rivers and streams in relation to
biodiversity and conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31,
239–263.
Dynesius, M., Nilsson, C., 1994. Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems
in the northern third of the World. Science 266, 753–762.
Edmonds, R.L., 1991. Global Ecological Biogeography Letters 1, 105. Summary report
for environmental impact of Three Gorges Dam Project. Environment Evalua-
tion Department and the Yangtze River Water Resources Reservation Research
Institute 1996. The Chinese Academy of Sciences (in Chinese).
Edmonds, R.L., 1992. The Sanxia (Three Gorges) project: the environmental argu-
ment surrounding China’s super dam. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters
2, 105–125.
Fearnside, P.M., 1988. China’s Three Gorges dam: fatal project or step toward
modernization? World Development 16, 615–630.
Friedman, J.M., Auble, G.T., 1999. Mortality of riparian box elder from sediment
mobilization and extended inundation. Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management 15, 463–476.
Fu, C., Wu, J., Chen, J., Wu, Q., Lei, G., 2003. Freshwater fish biodiversity in the
Yangtze River basin of China: patterns, threats and conservation. Biodiversity
and Conservation 12, 1649–1685.
Gilpin, A., 1995. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Cutting Edge for the
Twenty-first Century. Cambridge University Press.
Glasson, J., Therivel, R., Chadwick, A., 2005. Introduction to Environmental Impact
Assessment: Principles and Procedures, Process, Practice and Prospects, second
ed. UCL Press, ISBN 1-85728-945-5, 496 pp.
Gong, G.C., Chang, J., Chiang, K.P., Hsiung, T.M., Hung, C.C., Duan, S.W.,
Codispoti, L.A., 2006. Reduction of primary production and changing of nutrient
ratio in the East China Sea: effect of the Three Gorges Dam? Geophysical
Research Letters 33, 7.
Gosselink, J.G., Odum, E.P., Pope, R.M., 1974. The Value of the Tidal Marsh. Louisiana
State University, Center for Wetland Resources, Baton Rouge. Publication no.
LSU-SG-74-03.
Gu, L., 2005a. China improves enforcement of environmental laws. http://www.
chinese-embassy.org.uk/eng/zt/Features/t214565.htm# Embassy of the Peo-
ple’s Republic of China in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, 09/29/2005 (accessed 02/2008).
Gu, H., Douglas, I., 1989. Spatial and temporal dynamics of land degradation and
fluvial erosion in the middle and upper Yangtze River basin, China. Land
Degradation and Rehabilitation 1, 217–235.
Gu, H., Ai, N.S., Ma, H., 1987. Sediment sources and trend of sedimentation in the
Three Gorges reservoir area. In: Leading Group of the Three Gorges Project
Ecology and Environment Research Project, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Collected Papers on Ecological and Environmental Impact of the Three Gorges
Project and Countermeasures. Science Press, Beijing, pp. 522–541 (in Chinese).
Gu, L., 2005b. China improves enforcement of environmental laws. http://www.
chinese-embassy.org.uk/eng/zt/Features/t214565.htm> National Day Feature
published by the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 2005/09/29.
Gunnison, D., Brannon, J.M., Chen, R.L., Smith Jr., I., Sturgis, T.C., 1984. Richard B.
Russell Dam and Reservoir: Potential Water Quality Effects of Initial Filling and
Decomposition of Vegetation. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 68 pp.
Haihe River Water Conservancy Comm. Commission (HWCC), 2007. MWR and SEPA
Jointly Organize Examination of EIA of Water Resources Planning. www.hwcc.
com.cn/newsdisplay/newsdisplay.asp?Id¼165108 November.
Heggelund, G., 2006. Running into Dead Ends: Challenges in Researching the Three
Gorges Dam. China Environment Forum. Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars, pp. 79–88.
Heming, L., Rees, P., 2000. Population displacement in the Three Gorges reservoir
area of the Yangtze River, central China: relocation policies and migrant views.
International Journal of Population Geography 6, 439–462.
Heming, L., Waley, P., Rees, P., 2001. Reservoir resettlement in China: past experi-
ence and the Three Gorges Dam. The Geographic Journal 167, 195–212.
Higgitt, D., Lu, X., 1996. Patterns of sediment yield in the Upper Yangtze Basin,
China. In: Walling, D.E., Webb, B.W. (Eds.), Erosion and Sediment Yield: Global
and Regional Perspectives (Proceedings of the Exeter Symposium) IAHS
Publication, vol. 236. International Association of Hydrological Sciences, Wall-
ingford, pp. 205–214.
Huang, Z., 2001. Biodiversity conservation for the Three Gorge Project. Biodiversity
Science 9, 472–481.
S222 D. Tullos / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S208–S223
Huang, Z., 2004. Eco-environmental Monitoring and Protection for the Three
Gorges Project 2003. Three Gorges of China Press, Beijing.
Hughes, M.H., Parmalee, P.W., 1999. Prehistoric and modern freshwater mussel
(Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) faunas of the Tennessee river: Alabama, Ken-
tucky, and Tennessee. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15, 25–42.
Humborg, C., Conley, D.J., Rahm, L., Wulff, F., Cociasu, A., Ittekkot, V., 2000. Silicon
retention in river basins: far-reaching effects on biogeochemistry and aquatic
food webs in coastal marine environments. Ambio 29, 45–50.
ICOLD. 2005. Risk assessment in dam safety management. A Reconnaissance of
Benefits, Methods and Current Applications. ICOLD Bulletin 130, Paris.
International Association for Impact Assessment in Cooperation with Institute of
Environmental Assessment (IAIA), 1999. Principles of EIA Best Practice. IAIA
International Headquarters, ND 58103, USA.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. WGII – Impacts, Adap-
tation and Vulnerability, August, p. 938.
Jackson, S., Sleigh, A., 2000. Resettlement for China’s three Gorges Dam: socio-
economic impact and institutional tensions. Communist and Post-Communist
Studies 33, 223–241.
Jansson, R., Nilsson, C., Dynesius, M., Andersson, E., 2000. Effects of river regulation
on river-margin vegetation: a comparison of eight boreal rivers. Ecological
Applications 10, 203–224.
Jiao, N.Z., Zhang, Y., Zeng, Y.H., Gardner, W.D., Mishonov, A.V., Richardson, M.J.,
Hong, N., Pan, D.L., Yan, X.H., Jo, Y.H., Chen, C.T.A., Wang, P.X., Chen, Y.T.,
Hong, H.S., Bai, Y., Chen, X.H., Huang, B.Q., Deng, H., Shi, Y., Yang, D.C., 2007.
Ecological anomalies in the East China Sea: impacts of the three Gorges dam?
Water Research 41, 1287–1293.
Jobin, W., 1999. Dams and Disease. Taylor and Francis, London.
Jobin, W., 2005. Health conscious: dams in China and Africa have been linked to
positive health impacts in their local populations. International Water Power
and Dam Construction 57, 10–13.
Jorde, K., Burke, M., Scheidt, N., Welcker, C., King, S., Borden, C., 2008. Reservoir
operations, physical processes, and ecosystem losses. In: Habersack, H.,
Piéay, H., Rinaldi, M. (Eds.), Gravel-Bed Rivers VI: From Process Understanding
to River Restoration. Elsevier, pp. 15,607–15,636.
Junk, W.J., Bayley, P.B., Sparks, R.E., 1989. The flood pulse concept in river floodplain
systems. In: Dodge, D.P. (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Large River
Symposium, Ottawa, Ontario (Canada), vol. 106. Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, pp.110–127.
Kelly, C.A., Rudd, J.W.M., Bodaly, R.A., et al., 1997. Increases in fluxes of greenhouse
gases and methyl mercury following flooding of an experimental reservoir.
Environmental Science Technologies 31, 1334–1344.
Kingsford, R.T., 2000. Ecological impacts of dams, water diversions and river
management on floodplain wetlands in Australia. Austral Ecology 25, 109–127.
Kondolf, G.M., 1997. Hungry water: effects of dams and gravel mining on river
channels. Environmental Management 21, 533–551.
Koshikawa, M.K., Takamatsu, T., Takada, J., Zhu, M.Y., Xu, B.H., Chen, Z.Y.,
Murakami, S., Xu, K.Q., Watanabe, M., 2007. Distributions of dissolved and
particulate elements in the Yangtze estuary in 1997–2002: background data
before the closure of the Three Gorges Dam. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science
71, 26–36.
Kuang, Q., Bi, Y., Zhou, G., Cai, Y., Hu, Z., 2005. Study on the phytoplankton in the
Three Gorge reservoir before and after sluice and the protection of water
quality. Acta Hydrobiologica Sinica 29, 353–358.
Ledec, G., Quintero, J.D., 2003. Good dams and bad dams: environmental criteria for
site selection of hydroelectric projects. The World Bank Latin America and
Caribbean Region Sustainable Development Working Paper, 16, p. 30.
Li, C., Shao, L., 1996. Review of impact between sea water and fresh water on the
coastal zone – a case study from China. In: Groundwater Discharge in the
Coastal Zone: Proceedings of an International Symposium, vol. 8, pp. 135–142.
Li, H., Schreck, C.B., Bond, C.E., Rexstad, E., 1987. Factors influencing changes in fish
assemblages of Pacific Northwest streams. In: Matthews, W.J., Heins, D.C. (Eds.),
Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream Fishes.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, pp. 193–202.
Lin, Y.H., Su, H.L., Ma, Q., Xiao, W.F., 2003. Status and conservation of rare and
threatened terrestrial vertebrate in the Three Gorges reservoir area. Scientia
Silvae Sinicae 39, 100–109.
Liu, C., Zuo, D., 1987. Environmental issues of the Three Gorges Project, China.
Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 1, 267–273.
Liu, J.G., Mason, P.J., Clerici, N., Chen, S., Davis, A., Miao, F., Deng, H., Liang, L., 2004.
Landslide hazard assessment in the Three Gorges area of the Yangtze river using
ASTER imagery: Zigui–Badong. Geomorphology 61, 171–187.
Liu, X., Gituru, R., Chen, L., 2007. Genetic variation in the endangered fern Adiantum
reniforme var. sinense (Adiantaceae) in China. Annales Botanici Fennici 44, 23–32.
Liu, Y., Wang, Y., Huang, H., 2006. High inter-population genetic differentiation and
unidirectional linear migration pattern in Myricaria laxiflora, an endemic
riparian plant in the Three Gorges Valley of Yangtze River. American Journal of
Botany 93, 206–215.
Lovgren, S., 2006. China’s Rare River Dolphin Now Extinct, Experts Announce.
National Geographic News, December 14.
Lu, Y., 1994. Three Gorges Project – A Progress Report. International Water Power
and Dam Construction, pp. 20–23.
Lu, X., Higgitt, D., 1998. Recent changes of sediment yield in the upper Yangtze,
China. Journal of Environmental Management 22, 697–709.
Luk, S., Whitney, J., 1990. Unresolved issues: perspectives from China. In: Damming
the Three Gorges: What Dam Builders Don’t Want You to Know. Earthscan,
London.
Maize, K., 1996. China’s three Gorges Dam: mammoth opportunities and risks. The
Electricity Journal 5, 10–13.
Magee, D., 2006. Powershed politics: Yunnan hydropower under great western
development. China Quarterly 185, 23–41.
Marshall, J., 2006. Three Gorges dam threatens vast fishery. New Scientist 2540
(February 25), 18.
McAllister, D., Craig, J., Davidson, N., Delany, S., Seddon, M., 2000. Biodiversity
impacts of large dams. World Commission on Dams: Thematic Report. http://
www.dams.org/thematic/tr21.htm.
McCully, P., 1996. Silenced Rivers. The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams. Zed
Books, London.
Miller, N.L., Jin, J.M., Tsang, C.F., 2005. Local climate sensitivity of the Three Gorges
Dam. Geophysical Research Letters 32, 16.
Morita, K., Yamamoto, S., Hoshino, N., 2000. Extreme life history change of white-
spotted char (Salvelinus leucomaenis) after damming. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57, 1300–1306.
Morley, N.J., 2007. Anthropogenic effects of reservoir construction on the parasite
fauna of aquatic wildlife. Ecohealth 4, 374–383.
Palmieri, A., Shah, F., Dinari, A., 2001. Economics of reservoir sedimentation and
sustainable management of dams. Journal of Environmental Management 61,
149–163.
Park, Y.S., Chang, J.B., Lek, S., Cao, W.X., Brosse, S., 2003. Conservation strategies for
endemic fish species threatened by the Three Gorges Dam. Conservation
Biology 17, 1748–1758.
Penczak, T., Kruk, A., 2000. Threatened obligatory riverine fishes in human modified
Polish rivers. Ecology of Freshwater Fishes 9, 109–117.
Perdicoúlis, A., Glasson, J., 2006. Causal networks in EIA. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 26, 553–569.
Perdicoúlis, A., Hanusch, M., Kasperidus, H., Weiland, U., 2007. The handling of
causality in SEA guidance. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27,
176–187.
IUCN Species Survival Occasional Paper No. 3. In: Perrin, W., Brownell, R., Kaiya, Z.,
Jiankang, L. (Eds.), Biology and Conservation of the River Dolphins. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.
Petts, J., 1999. Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment. Blackwell Science
Ltd, Oxford.
Poff, N.L., Allan, J.D., Bain, M.B., Karr, J.R., Prestegaard, K.L., Richter, B.D., Sparks, R.E.,
Stromberg, J.C., 1997. The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47, 769–784.
Pfleiger, W.L., Grace, T.B., 1987. Changes in the fish fauna of the lower Missouri river,
1940–1983. In: Matthews, W.J., Heins, D.C. (Eds.), Community and Evolutionary
Ecology of North American Stream Fishes. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman, pp. 155–163.
Qing, D., 1998. The River Dragon Has Come! The Three Gorges Dam and the
Fate of China’s Yangtze River and Its People. M.E. Sharpe Inc., Armonk, NY,
pp. 181.
Qiu, S.L., Liu, S.P., Huang, M.G., Chen, D.Q., Duan, X.B., 2002. Monitoring of spawning
sites of four major Chinese carps in the middle section of Yangtze River. Acta
Hydrobiologica Sinica 26, 716–718.
Ryder, G., Barber, M., 1990. Damming the Three Gorges: 1920–1993. In: Damming
The Three Gorges: What Dam Builders Don’t Want You To Know. Earthscan,
London.
Sadler, B., Verocai, I., Vanclay, F., 2000. Environmental and Social Impact Assess-
ment for Large Dams, Thematic Review V.2 prepared as an input to the World
Commission on Dams, Cape Town, www.dams.org.
Shan, X.-J., Xian, W.-W., Wu, Y.-F., 2005. Dynamic changes in the ichthyoplankton
community structure after the sluice of the Three-Gorges Dam. Zhongguo
Haiyang Daxue Xuebao 35, 936–940.
Shanzhong, Q., Zulu, Z., Zhaopei, Z., Qiaoyu, G., Yan, Z., 2007. Saltwater intrusion in
the Laizhou Gulf, Shandong Province, China: causes and its impact on coastal
areas. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 36, 361–362.
Shao, M.L., Xie, Z.C., Ye, L., Cai, Q.H., 2006a. Changes in the benthic macro-
invertebrates in Xiangxi Bay following dam closure to form the Three Gorges
Reservoir. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 21, 717–719.
Shao, X.-Y., Li, D.-F., Cai, Q.-H., 2006b. The composition of the fish community
in Xiangxi Bay and resources evaluation. Acta Hydrobiologica Sinica 30,
70–74.
Sharma, V.K., 2001. Post impoundment changes in river Beas after Pong Dam
emergence. Applied Fisheries and Aquaculture 1, 9–12.
Shen, G., Xie, Z., 2008. Three Gorges Project: chance and challenge. Science 304,
681.
Sheng, J., Liao, A., 1997. Erosion control in South China. Catena 29, 211–221.
State Council Three Gorges Project Construction Committee, 2004. Small Three
Gorges with the Reservoir Water Storage of the Three Gorges Project. http://
www.3g.gov.cn/english/Small%20Three%20Gorges%20with%20the%20Reservoir.
%20Water%20Storage%20of%20the%20Three%20Gorges%20Project.htm.
St. Louis, V.L.C., Kelly, C., Duchemin, E., Rudd, J., Rosenberg, D., 2000. Reservoir
surfaces as sources of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere: a global estimate.
Bioscience 50, 9.
Talwani, P., 1997. On the nature of reservoir-induced seismicity. Pure and Applied
Geophysics 150, 473–492.
Tan, C.X., Sun, Y., Wang, R.J., Hu, D.G., 1997. Assessment and zonation of regional
crustal stability in and around the dam region of the Three Gorges Project on
the Yangtze River. Environmental Geology 32, 285–295.
Tang, H.B., Liu, G.X., Hu, Z.Y., 2006. Preliminary research on the algal bloom of
Peridiniopsis sp. in Gaolan River of the Three Gorges Reservoir. Acta Hydro-
biologica Sinica 30, 47–51.
 D. Tullos / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S208–S223
Therivel, R., 2004. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. Earthscan,
London.
USEPA, 2001. Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methyl
Mercury. National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), pp. 303.
Vemula, V.G., Hamid, M.N., Kaplan, A., Phiromchai, S., Price, R., Lei, G., Yu, X. 2004.
Development of an integrated river basin strategy in the Yangtze River basin.
UNITAR Hiroshima Office for Asia and the Pacific, Series on Biodiversity,
Kushiro, Japan, 29 November to 3 December 2004.
Wang, R.Z., 2003. Natural occurrence and backwater infection of C-4 plants in the
vegetation of the Yangtze hydropower Three Gorges Project region. Photo-
synthetica 41, 43–48.
Wang, F., Zhang, Y., Huo, Z., Matsumoto, T., Huang, B., 2004. The July 14, 2003
Qianjiangping landslide, Three Gorges Reservoir, China. Landslides 1, 157–162.
Wang, S.J., Chen, Z.Y., Smith, D.G., 2005. Anastomosing river system along the
subsiding middle Yangtze River basin, southern China. Catena 60, 147–163.
Wang, A., 2007a. Environmental protection in China: the role of law. China Dialogue,
February 05, 2007. http://www.chinadialogue.net/homepage/show/single/en/
745-Environmental-protection-in-China-the-role-of-law (accessed 02/2008).
Wegner, D.L., 1990. Three Gorges Reservoir: environmental impacts. In: Damming The
Three Gorges: What Dam Builders Don’t Want You To Know. Earthscan, London.
Wegner, D., 1994. Three Gorges Reservoir: Environmental Impacts Yangtze! Yang-
tze!. Earthscan.
Walks, D.J., Li, H.W., Reeves, G.H., 2000. Trout, summer flows, and irrigation canals:
a study of habitat condition and trout populations within a complex system. In:
Cowx, I.G. (Ed.), Management and Ecology of River Fisheries. Blackwell Science,
London, pp. 115–125.
Wang, A., 2007b. Environmental Protection in China: the Role of the Law. China
Dialogue.
Williams, P.B., 1990a. Sedimentation analysis. In: Damming The Three Gorges: What
Dam Builders Don’t Want You To Know. Earthscan, London.
Williams, P.B., 1990b. Dam safety analysis. In: Damming The Three Gorges: What
Dam Builders Don’t Want You To Know. Earthscan, London.
World Bank, 1991. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook, 3 vols. Environment
Department, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
World Bank, 2005. Integrating Environmental Considerations in Policy Formulation:
Lessons from Policy-Based SEA Experience. Report No. 32783 of the World
Bank, Washington, D.C.
World Commission on Dams, 2000. Dams and Development. A New Framework for
Decision Making: The Report of the World Commission on Dams. Earthscan
Publications, London, England. http://www.dams.org/report.
Wu, J., Huang, J., Han, X., Xim, Z., Gao, X., 2003. Three-Gorges Dam – experiment in
habitat fragmentation? Science 300, 1239–1240.
Wu, L., Qiang, Z., Zhihong, J., 2006. Three Gorges Dam affects regional precipitation.
Geophysical Research Letters 33, 4.
Wu, S.R., Shi, L., Wang, R.J., Tan, C.X., Hu, D.G., Mei, Y.T., Xu, R.C., 2001. Zonation of
the landslide hazards in the forereservoir region of the Three Gorges Project on
the Yangtze River. Engineering Geology 59, 51–58.
Xiao, W., Li, J., Yu, C., 1999. Terrestrial Animal and Plant Ecology of the Three Gorge
of Yangtze River. Public Press Of Southwest China Normal University, pp. 85–90.
Xie, P., 2003. Three-Gorges dam: risk to ancient fish. Science 302, 1149.
Xie, S.G., Li, Z.J., Liu, J.S., Xie, S.Q., Wang, H.Z., Murphy, B.R., 2007. Fisheries of the Yangtze
river show immediate impacts of the three Gorges dam. Fisheries 32, 343–344.
Xing-jian, X., Xian-xiang, Y., Yu-hai, D., Gui-yang, Y., Liu-yan, C., Zheng-ming, S.,
1999. Impact of environmental change and schistosomiasis transmission in the
middle reaches of the Yangtze River following the Three Gorges construction
project. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 30,
549–555.
Xue, J.Z., Ye, L., Cai, Q.H., Liu, J.K., 2006. Variation of cladocerans from Maoping to
Guizhou in the Three Gorges Reservoir before and after impoundment. Acta
Hydrobiologica Sinica 30, 58–63.
S223
Gui, X., 2007. Challenge and opportunities biodiversity conservation in Dongting
lake. Forestry Department of Hunan Province.
Xing, C., Zong, Y., Zhang, E., Xu, J., Li, S., 2001. Human impacts on the Changjiang
(Yangtze) river basin, China, with special reference to the impacts on the dry
season water discharge into the sea. Geomorphology 41, 111–123.
Yang, S.L., Zhang, J., Zhu, J., Smith, J.P., Dai, S.B., Gao, A., Li, P., 2005. Impact of dams
on Yangtze River sediment supply to the sea and delta intertidal wetland
response. Journal of Geophysical Research Part F Earth Surfaces 110 (F3), 12.
Yang, S.L., Li, M., Dai, S.B., Liu, Z., Zhang, J., Ding, P.X., 2006. Drastic decrease in
sediment supply from the Yangtze River and its challenge to coastal wetland
management. Geophysical Research Letters 33, 4.
Yang, D.-G., Wei, Q.-W., Chen, X.-H., Liu, J.-Y., Zhu, Y.-J., Wang, K., 2007a. Hydrology
status on the spawning ground of Acipenser sinensis below the Gezhouba Dam
and its relation to the spawning run. Acta Ecologica Sinica 27, 862–869.
Yang, S.L., Zhang, J., Xu, X.J., 2007b. Influence of the Three Gorges Dam on down-
stream delivery of sediment and its environmental implications, Yangtze River.
Geophysical Research Letters 34, 10.
Yang, S.L., Zhang, J., Dai, S.B., Li, M., Xu, X.J., 2007c. Effect of deposition and erosion
within the main river channel and large lakes on sediment delivery to the
estuary of the Yangtze River. Journal of Geophysical Research Part F Earth
Surfaces, 1–13.
Yangtze Valley Water Resources Protection BureauMWR & NEPA, 1999. Questions
and Answers on Environmental Issues for the Three Gorges Project. Science
Press, Beijing, New York.
Yardley, J., 2007. Chinese Dam projects criticized for their hidden costs. New York
Times.
Yao, J.-l., Xue, J.-z., Wang, D.-y., Cai, Q.-h., Huang, X.-f., Liu, J.-k., 2007. Seasonal
variation and longitudinal distribution of copepods in the main river area of the
Three Gorges Reservoir. Biodiversity Science 15, 300–305.
Ye, Q., Chen, S., Wang, S., 2001. The archaic and relict communities of rare and
endangered plants in the Three Gorge area and its adjacent area. Journal of
Plant Resources and Environment 10, 21–25.
Yin, H., Li, C., 2001. Human impact on floods and flood disasters on the Yangtze
River. Geomorphology 41, 105–109.
Yuan, J., Hayden, L., Dagg, M., 2007. Comment on reduction of primary production
and changing of nutrient ratio in the East China Sea: effect of the Three Gorges
Dam? by Gwo-Ching Gong, et al. Geophysical Research Letters 34, L14609,
doi:10.1029/2006GL029036.
Yunhua, C., 2004. Hydroelectric Exploitation and Sustainable Development of the
Yalong River. UNHYDRO 2004, Beijing.
Zeng, H., Song, L.-r., Yu, Z.-g., Chen, H.T., 2007a. Preliminary study on algal blooms
within the Three Gorges Reservoir. Changjiang Liuyu Ziyuan Yu Huanjing 16,
336–339.
Zeng, H., Song, L.R., Yu, Z.G., Chen, H.T., 2007b. Post-impoundment biomass and
composition of phytoplankton in the Yangtze River. International Review of
Hydrobiology 92, 267–280.
Zhang, S., Li, C.-m., Zheng, B.-h., Zhai, C.-z., Zheng, J., Zhang, Q., 2007. Trophic states
and nutrient output of tributaries in Three Gorges Reservoir area. Huanjing
Kexue 28, 500–505.
Zheng, J., Gu, X., Xu, Y., Ge, J., Yang, X., He, C., Tang, C., Cai, K., Jiang, Q., Liang, Y.,
Wang, T., Xu, X., Zhong, J., Yuan, H., Zhou, X., 2002. Relationship between the
transmission of Schistosomiasis japonica and the construction of the Three
Gorge Reservoir. Acta Tropica 82, 147–156.
Zheng, Z., 1992. Sanxia gongcheng yingxiang Zhongguo mingyun. Zhongyang Ribao
(International Edition) 23153 (March 03).
Zhu, J., Ding, P., Zhang, L., Wu, H., Cao, H., 2006. Influence of the deep waterway
project on the Changjiang estuary. In: Wolanski, E. (Ed.), The Environment in
Asia Pacific Harbours, The Netherlands.
Ziyun, F., 1986. Environmental impact assessment in the Yangtze Valley. Ambio 15,
347–349.
 Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S203–S207
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman
Editorial
Introduction to the special issue: Understanding and linking the biophysical,
socioeconomic and geopolitical effects of dams
1. Introduction
Dams have made important contributions to human develop-
ment, and the benefits derived from them have been considerable
(World Commission on Dams, 2000). With the rising global popu-
lation and desire to increase quality of life, dams are prominently
staged to deliver hydropower, irrigation and drinking water
supplies, recreation, navigation, and many other resources to the
growing planet. Further, the uncertainty of the future climate
regime may mean that dams will play an increasingly important
role in water resources. For example, it is predicted that drought-
affected areas will likely increase in extent and flood risks will be
augmented in response to increased frequency of heavy precipita-
tion events (IPCC, 2007), the effects of both of which may be
ameliorated by dams. Thus, the construction of new dams, while
in decline in the United States since the 1970s (US Army Corps of
Engineers, 1996), may see a renewed intensity both at home and
abroad.
At the same time, dams are increasingly slated for removal,
reflecting a growing concern over their adverse ecological, social,
and economic impacts (Pejchar and Warner, 2001). Aging struc-
tures, which can pose a risk to public safety, are increasingly
removed under new policies and funding sources to support
removal projects (Heinz Center, 2002). Dam removal is also
emerging as a promising option for restoring continuums and
reconnecting habitats for migratory fish species, including anadro-
mous salmon, that are federally listed as threatened or endangered
in the United States (Gregory et al., 2002). However, there is a great
deal of uncertainty about the consequences of dam removal (Aspen
Institute, 2002; Hart et al., 2002), particularly the unknowns
related to the extent, magnitude, and timing of physical and ecolog-
ical outcomes (Heinz Center, 2002; Hart et al., 2002).
Thus, dams are a crucial issue for resource managers, scientists
and policymakers. To advance the knowledge about and inform
the management of dams, this special issue of the Journal of Envi-
ronmental Management presents cutting-edge research in various
academic disciplines and proposes new multi-disciplinary
approaches for understanding and predicting how dams and
dam removals affect societies and ecosystems. The goal of this
collection is to offer guidance for and provoke conversations about
the interdisciplinary nature of dams. The idea for the special issue
was conceived at a symposium, held in April of 2007 at Skamania
Lodge on the Columbia River in Washington State, USA, which
brought together scientists and resource managers to discuss
the effects of dams on social and ecological systems. Many of
0301-4797/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.08.018
the authors whose work is included in this special issue partici-
pated in the symposium and shared with us the recognition
that, while various scientific fields have developed their own
specialized theories and methods for assessing the impacts of
dams, no comprehensive effort to understand dams from a holistic,
interdisciplinary perspective yet existed. The papers included in
this special issue, which represent three key thematic areas
(biophysical, socioeconomic, and geopolitical) associated with
sustainable development (United Nations Committee on
Economic Development, 1993) are a step toward achieving this
goal.
In this brief introductory paper, we discuss the global distribu-
tion and significance of dams in today’s world and discuss the three
thematic areas included in this special issue.
2. Dams in historical and global context
Existing records indicate that dams were first built in Jordan
around 4000 BCE. The earliest known dam remains, from the
Sadd El-Kafara earthen dam in Egypt, are dated to 2600 BCE
(Schnitter, 1994). Romans built the first concrete and mortar
dams around 100 AD, followed by arch dam construction in Meso-
potamia around 1280 AD. By the 1600s, the Spanish were leaders in
dam construction, and they brought their knowledge and expertise
with them to the New World, a milestone in the global spread of
river regulation.
With rapid economic development, increasing demand for elec-
trical power, and governmental support for large public works
projects, dam construction reached its peak in the latter half of
the 20th century. Current figures indicate that 50,000 large dams,
which the International Commission on Large Dams defines as
those greater than 15 m in height or having a storage capacity
greater than 3 million cubic meters, exist in the world today (World
Commission on Dams, 2000; Scudder, 2005). Dams are now a ubiq-
uitous part of the landscape in many parts of the world; a digitally
georeferenced database of all dams and reservoirs worldwide,
which is being developed as part of an ongoing research effort,
illustrates this ubiquitous and often dense distribution of dams
and reservoirs (Fig. 1).
Among the large river basins of the world (those with a histor-
ical mean annual discharge of greater than 350 m3 s 1, of which
there are 292), nearly one half (139 of 292) remain unfragmented
by dams on their main channels (Fig. 2), and more than one-third
(102 systems) remain unfragmented on both the main stem and
major tributaries (Nilsson et al., 2005). At the continental scale,
S204 D. Tullos et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S203–S207
Fig. 1. Distribution of dams and reservoirs that have been digitally georeferenced as part of an ongoing collaborative development of a comprehensive global database on dams and
reservoirs Lehner et al. (unpublished data).
North and Central America have the greatest number of unfrag-
mented basins remaining (35), while the greatest proportion of
free-flowing large river systems remains in Australasia (74%). North
and Central America, along with Europe, feature heavily regulated
river systems; 12 major river basins on these two continents have
less than 25% of their main channel lengths remaining free-
flowing.
Dams provide the opportunity to harness water for a variety of
human uses, including irrigation, flood control, household and
commercial consumption, recreation, and navigation. Human
beings thus have the capability to heavily usedand sometimes seri-
ously over-exploitdwater resources. Of the world’s 292 large river
basins, there are at least six in which reservoir storage exceeds the
annual discharge: Manicougan, Colorado, Volta, Tigris-Euphrates,
Mae Khlong and Rio Negro (Nilsson et al., 2005). Another 14 major
rivers are so heavily regulated that more than 50% of their annual
flow is diverted for reservoir storage and use. Several of the world’s
great rivers, including the Colorado, the Nile, and the Yellow, no
longer reach the sea year round.1 Thus, the distribution of global
dams is broad and the impacts of dams on the world’s rivers are
profound, demonstrating the critical need for understanding how
biophysical, socioeconomic, and geopolitical impacts interact over
time and space.
3. Thematic areas in the special issue
There is a rich literature on the effects of dams (see thematic
reviews from World Commission on Dams) and case studies of
dam removals are being reported at an increasing frequency (See
BioScience special issue, 2002). We believe that the concepts and
information on dam impacts represented in this literature are
appropriately framed around the three themes (biophysical, socio-
economic, and geopolitical) associated with environmental and
social sustainability as defined by the 1992 United Nations Con-
ference on Environment and Development (United Nations
Committee on Economic Development, 1993). Contributors to this
special issue have focused their scholarship on these three key
thematic areas.
1
At the other end of the flow regulation spectrum, reservoir storage in the Ama-
zon–Orinoco is only about 3% of the mean annual discharge.
3.1. Biophysical
Dams affect biophysical systems primarily by altering the hydro-
graph of a river and by fragmenting river systems (Kotchen et al.,
2006). These primary effects in turn impact sediment load and
riverbed morphology (Yang et al., 2006); soil salinity and quality;
species composition of riparian areas, including the proliferation
of invasive species (Mumba and Thompson, 2005); the health and
viability of aquatic biota (Kingsford, 2000); and water quality and
disease burden in human populations (Lerer and Scudder, 1999).
To better understand these biophysical impacts and how to
minimize them, Tullos (2009) evaluates how large dam impact
minimization has both contributed to and benefited from the intro-
duction and subsequent improvements in the Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) process. In presenting an analysis of the
EIA process for the Three Gorges Project (TGP) in China, this case
study attempts to evaluate the feedback between the EIA, science,
and policy. Results indicate that the availability, consistency, and
uncertainty of scientific information limits the projection of envi-
ronmental impacts, and that a lack of direct feedback between
the EIA process and emerging science challenges the environ-
mental sustainability of TGP post-construction. This work high-
lights important institutional changes that need to occur to
improve the environmental sustainability of large dams, including
the integration of scientific research and environmental compli-
ance into the management strategies for dams.
Burke et al. (2009) apply a process-based, hierarchical frame-
work to evaluate environmental impacts of dams on the Kootenai
River in the United States. By investigating the relative effects of
two dams and the operation strategies, including environmental
flow releases, of those dams over time and space, these investiga-
tors were able to mechanistically describe and quantify environ-
mental impacts of dams, simultaneously isolating and linking
biophysical impacts of large dams. This framework is valuable for
river managers around the world because it provides a powerful
tool for assessing the operational impacts of dams on physical
processes and consequent ecosystem function.
Schmitz et al. (2009) also linked physical and biological
processes through investigations of a dam breach and removal in
Montana. Using paleoflood hydrology, hydrologic modeling, and
aerial photo interpretation, these investigators documented the
corresponding channel and vegetation adjustments. This work
 D. Tullos et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S203–S207
Fig. 2. Distribution of main stem fragmentation by dams among the world’s 292 large river systems. White areas represent river systems excluded for size or lack of data.
demonstrates the utility of paleohydrology and aerial photography
as tools for integrating biological and physical responses to dams
and dam removals, providing a critical perspective on how these
responses are integrated over time.
3.2. Socioeconomic
Because dam projects are often used as tools for development,
their socio-economic impacts on human communities, both inten-
tional and unintentional, can be substantial (Egre and Senecal,
2003). International interest in the socio-economic effects of
dams is on the rise among scholars and policymakers, as evidenced
by the growth of organizations such as the World Commission on
Dams and the International Rivers Network. Socio-economic
impacts of dams include migration and resettlement (Bartolome
et al., 2000), changes in household size and structure (Lerer and
Scudder, 1999), changes in employment and income-generating
opportunities, alteration of access and use of land and water
resources; changes in social networks and community integrity
(Fuggle and Smith, 2000), and often a disruption of the psycho-
social well being of displaced individuals (World Commission on
Dams, 2000). Managing and mitigating the negative socio-
economic impacts of dam construction is an important task since,
as the World Commission on Dams noted in its seminal report,
these effects are ‘‘spatially significant, locally disruptive, lasting,
and often irreversible’’ (World Commission on Dams, 2000, p. 102).
The papers included in this thematic area address some of the
complex human issues involved in dam construction and removal.
Tilt et al. (2009) use the tool of social impact assessment to examine
the effects on human communities from two recent large-scale,
international dam projects: the Lesotho Highlands Water Project
in Lesotho, southern Africa, and the Manwan Dam in China’s upper
Mekong basin. Their analysis suggests that social impact assess-
ment should be used as a tool not simply to evaluate or predict
dam impacts, but also to facilitate the participation of key stake-
holders in the decision-making processes related to dam design,
siting, and construction.
Both Bohlen and Lewis (2009) and Wyrick et al. (2009) focus
their attention on the socio-economic impacts of dam removal,
a practice that is seeing an increasing trend in the United States
(Heinz Center 2002). Wyrick et al. (2009) discovered important
concerns among residents living adjacent to several small dams
scheduled for removal in New Jersey. Although these dams pre-
sented a safety hazard and structural repairs would be prohibitively
expensive, residents voiced a number of concerns about removing
the dams, including the potential for aquatic habitat loss, impacts to
S205
wildlife, increased flooding risk, and declining property values.
Using hydrological models, the researchers determined that dam
removal would actually result in minimal effects on the hydrology
and biology of the stream corridor. Their study points to a signifi-
cant information gap between scientists, policymakers, and prop-
erty owners.
Using geographic information systems (GIS) and hedonic prop-
erty value analyses, Bohlen and Lewis (2009) examine the complex
relationship between hydropower dam location and nearby resi-
dential property values on the Penobscot River in Maine, where
a basin-wide restoration effort includes plans to remove two
dams and decommission a third. Their analysis suggests that prop-
erty values may be impacted by dam removal, but that this effect is
mediated by a host of other variables. Consideration of the social
and economic impacts of dam building or dam can complement
studies of the ecological impacts of the practice. Ultimately, policy-
makers have to balance the perceived ecosystem and economic
benefits associated with dam removaldincluding habitat restora-
tion and benefits to migratory speciesdwith other potential
economic impacts on residents and communities.
3.3. Geopolitical
Geopolitical issues associated with dams range from the
unequal and unfair distribution of costs and benefits (Bocking,
1998), to transboundary water concerns (Wolf, 2000), and public
participation and governance. Reviews (Waterbury, 1979; McCully,
2001; Scudder, 2005; Wolf, 1994) of the geopolitics of dams empha-
size the importance of hydropolitics, and problems often arise
when politics are not considered equally with other factors associ-
ated with dam development (Okidi, 1987).
Meierotto (2009) examines the role of advocacy groups,
including NGOs, in the decision-making processes behind large
dams, with a focus on the Talo Dam in Mali. Significantly, much
of this advocacydboth for and against the damdcame from trans-
national groups that were somewhat removed from the experi-
ences of the people whose lives would be most affected by the
project. Despite the current focus of most international develop-
ment organizations on community-based participatory develop-
ment, Meierotto’s work reminds us of the complexities involved
in achieving this goal.
McNally et al. (2009) analyze the roles of policy and institutions
in hydropower development in China, which involves a complex
array of state agencies and corporate entities. Using the ecological
concepts of resilience and vulnerability, and adapting them for
institutional analysis, they assess China’s capacity for dealing
S206 D. Tullos et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S203–S207
with water resource management in a sustainable way. Their find-
ings have implications not only for China’s watersheds but also for
transboundary rivers elsewhere.
Funding sources for large-scale infrastructure projects in the
developing world are increasingly diffuse. McDonald et al. (2009)
explore the role of Chinese funding and expertise in the construc-
tion of Sudan’s Merowe Dam, one of Africa’s largest dam projects.
In contrast to the World Bank and other multilateral development
organizations, Chinese dam builders have yet to adopt internation-
ally accepted standards for assessing and mitigating the social and
environmental costs of dam construction projects. The authors
suggest that, given China’s current involvement in dozens of
large-scale dam projects worldwide, this has important implica-
tions for human rights, global finance, and environmental
sustainability.
4. Toward a new synthesis
Clearly, these three themes do not act independently. For
example, the biophysical impacts of dams often affect society by
disrupting existing cultural and economic institutions (Goldsmith
and Hildyard, 1986; Cernea, 1999; Scudder, 2005), and it is known
that the most socially benign dams are those with the least envi-
ronmental impacts (Ledec et al., 1997). As Ledec et al. suggest,
‘‘There exist various quantitative, easily calculated indicators which
can be used to estimate the extent of adverse environmental and
social impacts for any proposed hydroelectric project’’ (Ledec
et al., 1997). However, natural and social scientists have tradition-
ally worked independently to study how dam construction changes
each of the three components. While useful data has been produced
in these studies, this reductionist approach has not been sufficient
for documenting the interconnected nature of biophysical, socio-
economic, and geopolitical effects. What is needed now is a collab-
orative, holistic approach to study the integrated effects of dams,
particularly how the synergistic relationship among these three
components impact river communities.
Such an approach is not a simple endeavor. While the impacts
within each theme may be well-defined conceptually, many are
not directly measurable. Across disciplines, we see differences in
spatial scales (e.g. watershed vs. powershed vs. tradeshed), time
scales for change (i.e. ecological change is slow relative to economic
change), data types and availability, and indicators (e.g. values,
covariance, and relevance), and organizations (i.e. individuals,
formal and informal organizations, cultures, societies, and ecosys-
tems). In an effort to simultaneously evaluate the biophysical,
socioeconomic, and geopolitical costs and benefits of dams, Brown
et al. (2009) present the Integrative Dam Assessment Modeling
(IDAM) tool. The IDAM tool evaluates each of 27 different impacts
(9 from each of the three thematic areas) of dam construction
both objectively (e.g., flood protection) and subjectively (i.e., policy-
makers’ valuation of said flood protection). By providing a visual
representation of the various costs and benefits associated with
two or more dams, the IDAM tool allows researchers to investigate
basic questions regarding distribution of impacts and decision-
makers to evaluate design and operation alternatives and to artic-
ulate priorities associated with a dam project, making the decision
process about dams more informed and more transparent. Such
a tool can be useful for developing recommendations as a collabora-
tive and multi-disciplinary approach by which all three thematic
areas (biophysical, socioeconomic, and geopolitical) are simulta-
neously judged.
In closing, decisions about dams potentially involve very high
stakes, and can result in undesirable changes and outcomes that
are irreversible or extremely difficult to reverse (Whitelaw and
Macmullen, 2002). Current decision-making about dams often
relies on incomplete, fragmented information from various
scientific disciplines. By synthesizing existing knowledge, docu-
menting new observations, and proposing new tools, we present
this special issue as a collection of information to assist scientists,
policymakers and resource managers as they assess the costs and
benefits of dams across communities and ecosystems.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the National Science
Foundation (award #0623087) for financial support of the sympo-
siums that initiated this effort.
References
Aspen Institute, 2002. Dam removal. In: A New Option for a New Century. The
Aspen Institute.
Bartolome, L.J., et al., 2000. Displacement, Resettlement, Rehabilitation, Reparation,
and Development: China Report, World Commission on Dams Thematic Review
1.3. World Commission on Dams, Cape Town.
Brown, P.H., Tullos, D., Tilt, B., Magee, D., Wolf, A.T., 2009. Modeling the costs and
benefits of dam construction from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of
Environmental Management 90 (S3), S303–S311.
Bocking, S., 1998. Dams & Development. International Development Studies
Network (accessed 01.12.07). <http://www.idsnet.org/Resources/Dams/Devel-
opment/DinD.html>.
Bohlen, C., Lewis, L.Y., 2009. Examining the Economic Impacts of Hydropower Dams
on Property Values Using GIS. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (S3),
S258–S269.
Burke, M., Jorde, K., Buffington, K.M., 2009. Application of a hierarchical framework
for assessing environmental impacts of dam operation: changes in streamflow,
bed mobility and recruitment of riparian trees in a western North American
river. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (S3), S224–S236.
Cernea, M.M., 1999. The Economics of Involuntary Resettlement: Questions and
Challenges. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Egre, D., Senecal, P., 2003. Social impact assessments of large dams throughout the
world: lessons learned over two decades. Impact Assessment & Project
Appraisal 21 (3), 215–224.
Fuggle, R., Smith, W.T., 2000. Large Dams in Water and Energy Resource Develop-
ment in The People’s Republic of China, World Commission on Dams Country
Review Paper. World Commission on Dams, Cape Town.
Goldsmith, E., Hildyard, N., 1986. The Social and Environmental Effects of Large
Dams. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.
Gregory, S., et al., 2002. The conceptual basis for ecological responses to dam
removal. BioScience 52, 713–723.
Hart, D.D., et al., 2002. Dam removal: challenges and opportunities for ecological
research and river restoration. BioScience 52, 669–681.
Heinz Center, 2002. Dam Removal Research: Status and Prospects. The Heinz Center
for Science, Economics, and the Environment, Washington, DC.
IPCC, 2007. WGII, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Kingsford, R.T., 2000. Ecological impacts of dams, water diversions and river
management on floodplain wetlands in Australia. Austral Ecology 25 (2),
109–127.
Kotchen, M.J., et al., 2006. Environmental constraints on hydropower: an ex post
benefit–cost analysis of dam relicensing in Michigan. Land Economics 82 (3),
384–403.
Ledec, G., Quintero, J.D., Mejia, M.C. 1997. Good Dams and Bad Dams: Environ-
mental and Social Criteria for Choosing Hydroelectric Project Sites. Sustainable
Development Dissemination Note #1. A report produced for the World Bank.
22 pp.
Lerer, L.B., Scudder, T., 1999. Health impacts of large dams. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 19 (2), 113–123.
McCully, P., 2001. Silenced Rivers: the Ecology and Politics of Large Dams. Zed
Books, Limited, London. St. Martin’s Press, New York.
McDonald, K., Bosshard, P., Brewer, N., 2009. Exporting dams: China’s hydropower
industry goes global. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (S3), S294–
S302.
McNally, A., Magee, D., Wolf, A.T., 2009. Hydropower and sustainability: Resilience
and vulnerability in China’s powersheds. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment 90 (S3), S286–S293.
Meierotto, L., 2009. The uneven geographies of transnational advocacy: The case of
the Talo Dam. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (S3), S279–S285.
Mumba, M., Thompson, J.R., 2005. Hydrological and ecological impacts of dams on
the Kafue flats floodplain system, Southern Zambia. Physics and Chemistry of
the Earth 30, 442–447.
Nilsson, C., et al., 2005. Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large river
systems. Science 308, 798–800.
Okidi, C.O., 1987. Development and the Environment in the Senegal Basin Under the
OMVS Treaty. Institute for Development Studies. Paper No. 283, Nairobi, Kenya.
Pejchar, L., Warner, K., 2001. A river might run through it again: criteria for consid-
eration of dam removal and interim lessons from California. Environmental
Management 28, 561–575.
 D. Tullos et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S203–S207 S207

Schmitz, D., Blank, M., Ammondt, S., Patten, D.T., 2009. Using historic aerial photog- World Commission on Dams, 2000. Dams and Development: a New Framework for
raphy and paleohydrologic techniques to assess long-term ecological response Decision-Making. Earthscan, London.
to two Montana dam removals. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (S3), Wyrick, J., Rischman, B.A., Burke, C.A., McGee, C., Williams, C., 2009. Using hydraulic
S237–S248. modeling to address the social impacts of small dam removals in Southern New
Schnitter, N.J., 1994. A History of Dams, the Useful Pyramids. A.A. Balkema, Rotter- Jersey. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (S3), S270–S278.
dam, Netherlands. Yang, Z., et al., 2006. Dam impacts on the Changjiang (Yangtze) river sediment
Scudder, T., 2005. The Future of Large Dams: Dealing with Social, Environmental, discharge to the sea: the past 55 years and after the three Gorges dam. Water
Institutional and Political Costs. Earthscan, London. Resources Research 42.
Tilt, B., Braun, Y., He, D., 2009. Social Impacts of Large Dam Projects: A Comparison
of International Case Studies and Implications for Best Practice. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Management 90 (S3), S249–S257.
Desiree Tullos*
Tullos, D., 2009. Assessing the influence of environmental impact assessments on Oregon State University, Biological and Ecological Engineering, 116
science and policy: An analysis of the Three Gorges Project. Journal of Environ- Gilmore Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, United States
mental Management 90 (S3), S208–S223.  Corresponding author.
US Army Corps of Engineers, 1996. Water Control Infrastructure: National
Inventory of Dams (CD-ROM). Federal Emergency Management Agency, E-mail address: tullosd@engr.orst.edu (D. Tullos)
Washington, DC.
United Nations Committee on Economic Development, 1993. Agenda 21. United Bryan Tilt
Nations Publications, New York. Oregon State University, Anthropology,
Waterbury, J., 1979. Hydropolitics of the Nile Valley, first ed. Syracuse University United States
Press, Syracuse, NY.
Whitelaw, E., MacMullan, E., 2002. A framework for estimating the costs and bene- Catherine Reidy Liermann
fits of dam removal. Bioscience 52, 724–730.
Wolf, A., 1994. A hydropolitical history of the Nile, Jordan, and Euphrates River University of Washington, School of Aquatic and
Basin. In: Biswas, A. (Ed.), International Waters of the Middle East. Oxford Fishery Sciences, United States
University Press, Oxford.
Wolf, A., 2000. Development and Transboundary Waters: Obstacles and Opportuni-
ties in River Basin Management: its Role in Major Water Infrastructure Projects. 1 July 2008
World Commission on Dams Thematic Review. Available online 26 November 2008