Valuation of the environmental impacts of the Kayraktepe Dam/Hydroelectric Project, Turkey: An exercise in contingent valuation

Ambio

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 224-229

  Biro, Yasemin E K ^a  

^a NONE   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DAM CONSTRUCTION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; HYDROELECTRIC POWER;

TURKEY, KAYRAKTEPE DAM;

EID: 0031833502     PISSN: 00447447     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Veltrop, J 1991. The debate over large dams - the case for. Civ. Engin. 61, 42-46.
2. Williams, P.B. 1991. The debate over large dams - the case against. Civ. Engin. 61, 46-48.
3. Goldsmith, E and Hildyard, N (eds). 1984. The Social and Environmental Effects of Large Dams. Sierra Club, San Francisco.
4. Ligon, F.K., Dietrich W.E. and Trush, W.J. 1995. Downstream ecological effects of dams. Bioscience 45, 183-192.
5. Society for the Protection of Nature (DHKD). 1992. Towards Integrated Management in the Göksu Delta - Feasibility Report. Istanbul, Turkey.
6. Ramsar Convention (Convention of Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat) was prepared by UNESCO (1971) and aims to conserve the world's important wetlands and their flora and fauna. Currently, there are 83 contracting parties including Turkey and there are 674 Ramsar sites worldwide.
7. EIEI 1982 Kayraktepe Dam and Hydroelectric Power Plant Project Feasibility Report. Ankara, Turkey.
8. Howe, C.W. 1971. Benefit-cost Analysis for Water System Planning. American Geophysical Union.
9. In essence, this is a cost-effectiveness analysis where a project is considered to be economically feasible only if its costs are less than the costs of the best alternative Such an analysis helps choose a project that minimizes the cost of achieving a "predetermined" objective such as producing a given number of GW of electric power.
10. Hanley, N. and Spash, C.L. 1993. Cost-Benefit Analysts and the Environment. Edward Elgar Publishing, Hants, UK.
11. Pearce, D. and Turner, R.K. 1990 Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York.
12. Mitchell, R.B. and Carson, R.T. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future. Washington, DC
13. Portney, P.R. 1994. The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. J. Econ. Persp. 8, 2-17.
14. Diamond, P.A and Hausman, J.A. 1994. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J Econ. Persp. 8, 45-64.
15. Hanemann, W.M. 1994. Contingent valuation and economics. Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics Working Paper 697.
16. Lazo, J.F., Schulze, W.D., McClelland and Doyle J.K. 1992. Can contingent valuation measure nonuse values? Am. J Agric. Econ. 74, 1126-1132.
17. Relevant 1990 population census figures were obtained from the local census bureau in Silifke
18. It was assumed that the average family size is 5 people. This assumption has been confirmed by the responses to the family size question in the demographics section of the questionnaire.
19. DSI (Devlet Su Iskri). 1994. Kayraktepe Dam and Hydroelectric Power Plant Project Environmental Impact Assessment. Ankara, Turkey.
20. These values do not reflect the value of ecosystem services that forests provide.
21. DSI (Devlet Su Iskri). 1994. Kayraktepe Dam and Hydroelectric Power Plant Project Environmental Impact Assessment. Ankara, Turkey
22. This figure does not include tree replanting costs
23. The exchange rate was about USD = TL 30 000.00 when an interview was conducted with the Turkish Ministry of Forestry in Fall 1994.
24. Those who were undecided were assigned the average WTP value calculated from the values declared by the 186 people who were decisive.
25. However, this calculation may underestimate the value of time for all respondents since not all respondents are farmers and those who are not farmers usually earn higher hourly wages.
26. DSI (Devlet Su Iskri). 1993. Economic Evaluation of Kayraktepe Project Ankara, Turkey.
27. The official project lifetime has been set at 50 years by DSI.
28. I would like to first thank the local communities in the Goksu River watershed who participated in this study. Then, I would like to thank the 5 graduate students (Muge Kantar, Hasan Gunen, Gulay Cetinkaya, Nalan Dogruyol and Ufuk Gultekin) who helped me conduct the interviews. I would also like to thank the Society for the Protection of Nature (DHKD) in Turkey, Tour du Valat Biological Station in France and the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California at Berkeley in the USA for providing funding and support for this study. I would also like to thank Cansen Akkaya, Tuncay Soysal and Turan Hazer of DSI in Turkey, Ayse Pamuk of the University of Virginia, Leonard Sklar of the International Rivers Network in Berkeley and my advisors Dr. Richard B Norgaard and Dr. Michael W. Hanemann at the University of California at Berkeley. Finally, I thank the two referees for their reviews.
29. First submitted 2 July 1996. Accepted for publication after revision 10 January 1997.