Perspectives on the salience and magnitude of dam impacts for hydro development scenarios in China

Water Alternatives

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 71-90

  Tullos, Desiree ^a   Brown, Philip H ^b   Kibler, Kelly ^a   Magee, Darrin ^c   Tilt, Bryan ^a   Wolf, Aaron T ^a  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Health Services and Department of Biology   (United States)

^c HOBART AND WILLIAM SMITH COLLEGES   (United States)

Author keywords

China; Decision making; Hydropower impacts; Salience; Stakeholders; World Commission on Dams

Indexed keywords

BIOPHYSICS; DAM CONSTRUCTION; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; GEOPOLITICS; MAGNITUDE; NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION; NUMERICAL MODEL; PERCEPTION; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS; STAKEHOLDER; WATER INDUSTRY; WATER PLANNING;

CHINA; YUNNAN;

EID: 77956624891     PISSN: 19650175     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Fishburn, P.C. 1968. Utility Theory. Management Science 14(5): 335-378.
8. Gordon, T. and Helmer, O. 1964. Report on a long range forecasting study. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
9. Koch, F. 2002. Hydropower - The politics of water and energy: Introduction and overview. Energy Policy 30(14): 1207-1213.
10. Magee, D. 2006. New energy geographies: Powershed politics and hydropower decision making in Yunnan, China. PhD thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, United States.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Salazar, J.G. 2000. Damming the child of the ocean: The Three Gorges project. The Journal of Environment and Development 9(2): 160-174.
15. 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.
16. Scudder, T. 2005. The future of large dams: Dealing with social, environmental, institutional and political costs. London: Earthscan.
17. Simonovic, S.P. and Fahmy, H. 1999. A new modeling approach for water resources policy analysis. Water Resources Research 35(1): 295-304.
18. Smit, B. and Spaling, H. 1995. Methods for cumulative effects assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15(1): 81-106.
19. Tilt, B. 2010. The struggle for sustainability in rural china: Environmental values and civil society. New York: Columbia University Press.
20. 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.
21. UN Committee on Economic Development. 1993. Agenda 21. New York: United Nations Publications.
22. Ünver, O. 2008. Global governance of water: A practitioner's perspective. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 14(4): 409-417.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Wolf, A.T.; Yoffe, S.B. and Giordano, M. 2003. International waters: Identifying basins at risk. Water Policy 5(1): 29-60.
26. WCD (World Commission on Dams). 2000. Dams and development: A new framework for decision-making. London: Earthscan.
27. 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.