Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70 (2017) 896904

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Assessment of the environmental impacts associated with hydropower MARK

a b c d, e
Anabela Botelho , Paula Ferreira , Ftima Lima , Lgia M. Costa Pinto , Sara Sousa
a
DEGEIT and GOVCOPP, University of Aveiro, Campus Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
b
ALGORITMI Research Centre, University of Minho, Campus Azurm, 4800-058 Guimares, Portugal
c
Department of Production and Systems, University of Minho, Campus Azurm, 4800-058 Guimares, Portugal
d
NIMA, University of Minho, Campus Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal
e
ISCAC, Instituto Politcnico de Coimbra, Quinta Agrcola, Bencanta, 3040-316 Coimbra, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: The production of electricity from hydropower results in several environmental impacts that, in only some
Hydroelectric power instances, have been analysed from an economic valuation approach. Moreover, as environmental impacts
Environmental valuation largely depend on the specic characteristics of the case study, benet transfer techniques are inadequate for
Environmental impacts valuation. The present paper demonstrates through the review of valuation studies on the environmental
impacts of this technology, and the analysis of the dierent environmental impacts associated with hydropower
for specic case studies that in fact benet transfer should not be applied as each hydropower plant has specic
and dierent impacts. The paper demonstrates the importance of a case study approach, for dening priorities
with respect to alternative hydropower production facilities. Finally, the paper demonstrates that choice
experiments are particularly suited for valuing the identied environmental impacts, being relevant for policy
planning purposes.

1. Introduction national, regional and local authorities, Non-Prot Organizations,

In recent years, within available renewable energy sources (RES)
hydropower has acquired an increasingly signicant role, currently
representing the largest contributor of its kind to power generation in
Europe [1] and starting to capture a substantial amount of attention
from developing counties. This energy alternative, due to its speci-
cities has become a key player helping to face global energy challenges,
in keeping with sustainability goals. Recognizing underlying resource
nitude and depletion, it constitutes an opportunity not only to answer
continuous energy demands associated with economic and population
growth while meeting environmental standards (especially considering
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, global warming and climate change
issues) and simultaneously improving social wellbeing through power
supply to underdeveloped and isolated regions (see [26]).
Notwithstanding in order to fulll these objectives, encompassing
environmental, social and economic pillars, it is necessary to identify
and internalize potential impacts (both benets and costs) resulting
from hydropower project deployment.
Several authors (see [2,5,79]) have already pointed out the need
for accountability based on public consent and relationships between
dierent stakeholders including project developers, local populations,
among others, in order to develop a comprehensive and sustainable
approach. Although impact assessment has recently undergone a series
of changes towards becoming a more open process encouraging
participatory approaches in order to gain public acceptance, adoption
of steps leading to its eld implementation is still currently a challenge.
However, eectively the increase of awareness and knowledge has
contributed to shift existing policies and assessment procedures
towards an increasingly environmentally and socially inclusive process
with hydropower being currently considered one of the most sensitive
energy sources regarding these issues (see [7,10]).
Despite hydropower being considered a tool for economic devel-
opment essentially because of its multifunctional nature, presenting
environmental advantages when compared to more conventional
energy sources, its impacts cannot be neglected ([11]. Whilst [4,12]
stress the urgency of integrating equity in impact assessment and
policies to minimize adverse impacts, [9,13,14] have suggested a more
widespread and inclusive approach, integrating Social Impact
Assessment (SIA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Evidencing, according to this latter author, how potentially aected
environmental aspects, such as water quality, biodiversity, passage of
aquatic species, pest species, erosion and sedimentation, have reper-

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: anabela.botelho@ua.pt (A. Botelho), paulaf@dps.uminho.pt (P. Ferreira), lima.mfatima@gmail.com (F. Lima), pintol@eeg.uminho.pt (L.M.C. Pinto),
ssousa@iscac.pt (S. Sousa).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.271
Received 6 May 2015; Received in revised form 7 November 2016; Accepted 29 November 2016
Available online 05 December 2016
1364-0321/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Botelho et al.
cussions at social and economic level potentially generating enduring
problems, if not previously assessed. Furthermore, by being under-
taken along with EIA, SIA improves understanding of social repercus-
sions of prospective projects (see [9]), aiming to identify potential
impacts and ensure that local communities eectively aected by
hydropower deployment are fairly compensated, making sensitive
issues like involuntary resettlement an opportunity to improve prior
livelihood, reducing the risk of impoverishment.
The economic valuation of environmental impacts of renewable
energy sources (RES) has become an important issue in economics,
especially because of the evident and increasing need to value damages
caused by human activity either for awarding compensation or for
planning purposes. It is also recognized the importance of the
economic valuation of environmental impacts as an important require-
ment of costbenet analysis (CBA), which plays an important role in
the public decision process. Economic valuation methods provide
monetary estimations of environmental, health, and social impacts,
so that they can be incorporated into CBA.
This paper aims to present a critical analysis of the literature
addressing the environmental impacts of hydropower deployment and
its economic valuation. The contribution of this study is twofold: rstly
the most common environmental impacts from hydropower are
classied in categories and methodologies used to value these impacts
are critically analysed; secondly hydropower cases studies in Portugal
are reviewed conrming not only the relevance of the previously
identied impacts but also the importance of addressing environmental
specicities of each project for which choice experiments methods are
particularly well suited. Section two summarizes the environmental
impacts identied in the literature. Section three discusses the meth-
odologies used to value the impacts. Section four, analyses four reports
of three case studies of hydroelectric power plants planned or under
implementation in Portugal. Finally, section ve presents some con-
cluding remarks.
2. Environmental impacts of hydropower deployment
Despite the increasing role played by hydropower as a much needed
renewable alternative in global energy scenario, like any other energy
source it entails both benets and costs at an environmental as well as
at a socio-economic level. The nature and extent of the impact is highly
dependent of site specic characteristics as well as on the type and
dimension of hydropower plant [15]. This implies that impacts
aecting local communities must be assessed on a case-to case basis
[7] and, as such, it becomes an increasingly complex task to identify the
most meaningful impacts. Therefore, in order to achieve this purpose a
cross-referenced comparative approach is suggested and the literature
on the economic valuation of hydropower environmental impacts can
also be organized by the type of environmental impacts considered, and
methodology used.
Renewable energy compared to conventional energy sources, i.e.,
sources of non-renewable energy from fossil fuels (oil derivatives, coal
and natural gas) are considered to have a lower impact on the
environment. In this context, Ferreira et al. [16] has emphasized,
mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through low carbon
power generation as a key contribution of small hydroelectric projects
(SHP) towards sustainability. However, RES also have some environ-
mental eects themselves that should not be overlooked. For hydro-
power, environmental impacts reported in the literature are frequently
associated to biodiversity limitation, impacts on fauna and ora,
landscape intrusion, water resource impacts, destruction of historical
relics and visual impacts ([4,1726] among others). As such, the
various studies have pointed environmental impacts associated with
897
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70 (2017) 896904
Table 1
Environmental impacts summarized by the number of studies that are considered.
Environmental impacts Number of References
associated with hydropower studies
Fauna 9 [17,2024,27,29,30]
Flora 11 [4,1721,23,24,27,29,30]
Landscape 8 [4,20,22,2527,29,30]
Remains 4 [4,23,29,30]
hydropower activity which can be summarized in four important
categories: fauna, ora, landscape and historical remains [23]. In
Table 1 we summarize the previous studies by counting the number
of times (papers) that an impact is considered in the analysis.
Only four studies [4,23,29,30] consider historical remains as
environmental impacts (possibly because in many circumstances these
are not the most prominent impact). The ora is the attribute more
frequently mentioned, since eleven studies using this attribute in their
analyses. This is due in large part by direct damage caused by the
impact of constructing dams on ora as agricultural losses, forestry
losses, erosion and vegetation, referred to by [4,17
21,23,24,27,29,30]. Next we focus on the methodologies used to value
these identied impacts and the results obtained.
3. Valuation of environmental impacts
Determining the economic value of the environmental impacts is a
process far from being simple, since there are no markets for the
environmental goods and services impacted and, therefore, prices are
not available. Nevertheless, the inexistence of prices for these environ-
mental impacts does not necessarily mean they have no value. This type
of resources are called non-market goods and their value may be
estimated through two main types of valuation methods: (i) revealed
preferences (RP), through which the goods value is inferred based on
the observation of consumers behaviour, and (ii) stated preferences
(SP), where the goods value depends on the individuals statements
when asked how they would behave when faced with a certain scenario
regarding non-market goods. These two types of methodologies have
advantages and drawbacks. One major advantage of SP over RP
techniques is the fact that they allow the elicitation of the total
economic value (including use and non-use values) of the goods and
services; and is applicable ex-ante and ex-post. RP requires the
existence of a market context where the behaviour of the consumer is
observed and preferences over the environmental good inferred, thus
its application is only possible ex-post and it only allows the elicitation
of the value attributed by users [33].
Due to its advantages and applicability, the analysis focus on SP
methods: the contingent valuation method (CVM) and the choice
experiments (CE). The CVM is a direct survey approach to estimate
consumers` preference [3337]. Through an appropriately designed
questionnaire, respondents are asked to express their maximum will-
ingness to pay (WTP) or minimum willingness to accept (WTA)
compensation for a hypothetical change in the level of provision of
the good or service. In fact, a hypothetical market situation is specied
and the respondent is asked how he would behave (buying (wtp) or
selling (wta)) in that situation. This methodology is most commonly
used to value environmental changes [38] and is essential for CBA of
environmental projects [39]. The CVM is in addition the methodology
recommended by the NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
A. Botelho et al.
Fig. 1. Timeline of Valuation Studies.
Administration) panel for the valuation of environmental impacts [40].
It has been applied in various environmental issues, such as water
quality, air quality, outdoor recreation, the preservation of species,
cultural heritage, among others [28,33,35,39,41,42].
The CE is also a survey based approach and presents the advantage
that respondents are simply required to choose their preferred option
out of a series of set of alternatives that dier by the attributes/levels
presented. This method allows the estimation of the value that
respondents attach to each attribute in isolation and also combined
with other attributes [34]. Relative to the CVM, CE allows the
elicitation of more information at the expenses of a more complex
choice situation.
Stated preference methods, as they are based on intended beha-
viour, are applicable ex-ante and ex-post and can be used to elicit the
total economic value of a good or service.
In the last decades, the use of these two stated preference (SP)
valuation methods occurred in stages, i. e from the 90 s up until the
present it can be divided into three phases, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
Grouping the studies according to the methodology used corresponds,
to a certain extent to grouping them according to their objectives and
goals. CVM studies intend to elicit the economic value attributed to a
scenario, while CE intends to elicit the value attributed to specic
characteristics of a scenario.
As can be seen in Fig. 1, from 1996 until 1999 the most commonly
used method was the CVM, from 2002 to 2009 the most frequent were
CE and nally from 2010 to 2016 the CVM is back to be the most
frequently used, only being identied in 2015 a study that applies the
CE method [29]. Table 2 presents the studies considered, which are
devoted to the assessment of environmental impacts associated with
hydropower activity, as well as the methods and the attributes
considered. In the period 19961999 several studies considered the
CVM for the valuation of environmental impacts, [1720] are some
examples. These studies were applied to the removal of a dam and
restoration of the aected area ([17]), to the preservation of the
ecological integrity of rivers ([18]), to avoiding the construction of a
dam ([19]), and to the relative environmental impacts of hydroelectric
power in comparison to other RES, such as wind and biomass ([20]). In
the second period, 20022009, [2124], CE is used to assess the
environmental impacts of hydroelectric production. Finally, an analysis
from 2010 to 2016, reveals that in this period, the most frequently used
methodology was the CVM [4,2528,3032], during which a single
study is identied as using the CE to value the adverse environmental
impacts of the hydropowers facilities [29].
Loomis [17] using the CVM analysed also attributes related to
issues such as the sh (increase salmon to increase sheries) and river
restoration (natural state). Han et al. [23], using CE, concluded that
historical remains were the most valuable attribute followed by fauna,
ora and lastly forest. Gunawardena [4], using market values, analysed
three types of environmental impacts of the project: diversion of river
ow, including impact on historical monuments landscapes and sites;
cost of lost recreational activities/water sports; and loss of scenic view
including the loss of forest land and of home gardens. An important
conclusion presented was that loss of scenic view of the river by local
residents was dicult to compensate for.
It should be stressed that production of electricity from RES and in
898
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70 (2017) 896904
particular from large hydro power plants can lead to signicant
environmental costs at local, national and global levels and distribu-
tional inequalities when they are placed in inappropriate locations. The
impact on the landscape typically include physical changes in land-
scape and environmental quality, [20,22,2527,29,30], are examples of
studies considering these impacts. Hanley and Nevin [20] and
Bergman et al. [22] address also the impacts of several renewable
energy sources.
Alp and Yetis [25] and Ponce et al. [26] consider only hydroelectric
power, and found that loss of land and change in landscape are the
most signicant impacts. From a life cycle assessment (LCA) perspec-
tive, changes in land use are considered one of the three main impact
pathways that hydropower can adversely aect biodiversity. Also
focusing on hydroelectric power alone, Gonzlez-Cabn and Loomis
[18] analysed four programs of dam construction and river conserva-
tion. The most important reason given by households for rivers to be
important for them included maintaining rivers for future generations,
for clean air, protecting the environment and natural beauty. Biro [19]
analysed agricultural losses, forestry losses and loss of environmental
value as principal attributes and concluded that the inclusion of
environmental eects on the corresponding cost-benet analysis
rendered the project economically undesirable. Sundqvist [21] used
three attributes: downstream water level; erosion; and impacts on
vegetation and sh. Meanwhile, households in Chile show preference
for integration of RES for electricity generation and WTP, through
imposition of penalties on energy sources perceived as environmen-
tally damaging [27].
Lastly, Kataria [24] used ve attributes: sh; birds; benthic
invertebrates and river-margin vegetation; and erosion. The river-
margin vegetation and erosion attribute were the most valued ones
with highest marginal WTP.
Fauna is an attribute most commonly reported ([17,20
24,27,29,30]) but its impact is not as mentioned or showed to be
considered as important as the impacts previously analysed, except for
the work of Sundqvist [21]. However, associated to the increase of SHP
in Spain, lvarez-Troncoso et al. [43] observed changes in faunal
composition.
Botelho et al.[29,30] analyse the value of environmental impacts of
Dams in Portugal both from the perspective of local residents and the
general population, concluding that impacts are local specic and that
fauna and ora is the most value attribute. In Botelho et al. [32], the
authors apply the CVM to specic facilities across the dierent RES in
operation in Portugal, including hydropower, and analyse its impacts
on the local residents, taking particularly into account the social equity
dimension as the most important determinant of the compensation
amount is location.
The importance of the outlined attributes is well evident in the
environmental impact assessment studies of hydropower projects. Next
section presents a collection of studies conducted for hydropower
plants in Portugal, demonstrating if and how each one of these
attributes is addressed and detailing the assigned impacts.
4. Hydropower in Portugal
Portugal is one of the European Union (EU) countries with the
 Table 2
Stated Preference Studies on Hydropower Deployment from 1996 to 2016.
Method Authors
CVM [17] Loomis (1996)
[18] Gonzlez-Cabn and Loomis
(1997)
[19] Biro (1998)
[20] Hanley and Nevin (1999)
CE [21] Sundqvist (2002)
[22] Bergmann et al. (2006)
[23] Han et al. (2008)
[24] Kataria (2009)
CVM [25] Alp and Yelis (2010)
[4] Gunawardena (2010)
899
[26] Ponce et al. (2011)
[27] Aravena et al. (2012)
[28] Xu et al. (2015)
CE [29] Botelho et al. (2015)
CVM [30] Pinto et al. (2015)
[31] Jones et al. (2016)
[32] Botelho et al. (2016)
Country Attributes Description
A. Botelho et al.
USA Fish; River restoration. It measures the economic benefits of removing a dam (particularly regarding the salmon population)
and restoring the Elwha River.
Puerto Rico Rivers flow; Rivers protection. It presents the main economic benefits of maintaining the ecological integrity of the Ro Mameyes and
consequently the reasons to avoid the construction of a dam.
Turkey Agriculture; Forestry; Environmental value. It proceeds to the economic valuation of the environmental impacts associated to the activity of the
Karyaktepe dam, such as: the loss of agricultural income; the loss of value from the national forests;
and the loss of the non-use values placed on the environment by the local residents.
Scotland Visual impact; Wildlife; Vegetation; It focus on how the construction of a dam in the North Assynt Estate affects the landscape, vegetation,
water levels, fish and other wildlife.
Sweden Water level; Vegetation; Fish. It mainly stresses the environmental externalities associated to the construction of a dam, such as the
negative effects on the water level, on the vegetation and fish.
Scotland Landscape; Wildlife; Air pollution; Jobs. It underlines some important issues associated with the renewables facilities, namely on its visual
impacts; its influence on the species living around a facility; its consequences on the air pollution; and
also its socioeconomic impacts, particularly regarding the creation of local employment.
Korea Forest; Fauna; Flora; Remains. It proceeds to the economic valuation of the impacts associated to the construction of a large dam in
Korea, underlying how it affects the forests, some fauna and flora species, and the historical remains.
Sweden Fish; Birds; Benthic invertebrates; Vegetation. It estimates the amount people are willing to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower
regulated rivers, stressing the importance of an increased fish stock, improved conditions for the bird
life, increased species richness and measures to improve the river-margin vegetation.
Turkey Environmental impacts. It estimates the amount people are willing to pay for the restoration of the environmental impacts of
the Yusufeli dam in northeast Turkey.
Sri Lanka River flow; Forest land; Home gardens. It stresses the externalities of the Broadlands hydropower project, namely how it affects historical
monuments, landscape, recreational activities/water sports, scenic view of the river, carbon storage,
forests and home garden productivity.
Chilean Patagonia Landscape It estimates the economic value of the landscape loss due to flooding by the construction of
hydropower plants in Chilean Patagonia.
Chile Landscape; Flora; Fauna; River sports; Agriculture; Tourism; It inquires the Chilean households regarding their preferences for different sources of electricity
Fishing; Relocation of displaced inhabitants. generation such as fossil fuels, large hydropower in Chilean Patagonia and other renewables.
Regarding hydropower, several impacts were deep in, namely landscape intrusion, impacts on fauna
and flora, impacts on river sports, on agriculture, tourism, fishing and the relocation of displaced
inhabitants.
China Drinking water sources This study reveal individuals WTA compensation for a reservoir's ecological protection in Beijing,
China.
Portugal Landscape; Fauna; Flora; Noise; Heritage; Electricity bill. The authors estimate the monetary amount that individuals are willing to pay in order to avoid certain
adverse environmental impacts due to the activity of hydropower plants.
Portugal Landscape; Fauna: Flora; Noise; Cultural heritage Through the application of the CVM, this paper estimates how much people are willing to accept in
order to be compensated for the adverse impacts caused by the presence of an hydropower plant near
their residence.
USA Social disruption; Air pollution It focus the Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River and shows that inclusion of several previously-
omitted dimensions of social value are important for fully capturing non-use value surrounding dam
operations. This study demonstrates that public preferences over dam operations are likely currently
more complex than what emerged from earlier CV studies and may require a more inclusive values
approach.
Portugal Social sustainability The authors apply the CV method to specific facilities across the different RES in operation in
Portugal. Regarding hydropower, this study focus the case of three specific dams, namely Aguieira,
Alqueva and Douro International (Picote and Bemposta) and analyses its impacts on the local
residents, taking particularly into account the social dimension.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70 (2017) 896904
A. Botelho et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70 (2017) 896904

highest exploitable hydropower potential. One of the main drivers for

national interest such as the Almourol

archeological) 15.9 km of railroad and
5 railroad stations will be lost. Loss of
the connection to the Douro railroad.
this advantageous situation is the high rainfall that characterizes some

44 buildings, some categorized as

areas of the country. Hydropower has traditionally played a signicant
20 buildings (architectural and role in Portugal s power mix, and in recent years determinant steps

castle and a roman road

were made in this sector with the approval by the Portuguese
Government, in December 2007, of the National Programme of Dams
Historical remains

with High Hydroelectric Potential (PNBEPH), and other projects,

namely power reinforcement operations of several hydropower plants.
The PNBEPH primarily aimed to increase Portugal's hydropower
capacity and to exploit 70% of its hydropower potential coupled with
other initiatives for energy production, namely due to its abundance.
The PNEBPH was expected to contribute achieve the 2020 target for
Loss of the Tua

renewable electricity for the country, thereby contributing also to

demographic

reduce Portugal dependence on imported fuels and GHG emissions.

railroad

Under this Programme, it was decided the construction of ten hydro-

Socio-

power plants, representing a total potential capacity of approximately

1100 MW and an estimated yearly gross electricity output of
world heritage site of
High impact on the

1630 GWh ([44]).

railroad and the

Among these, three were selected for the present analysis given
Not significant

their diverse characteristics: Foz-Tua located very close to the Douro

Landscape

River (in Tua river) and to a UNESCO World Heritage Site with
impact

capacity of 2126 MW, 108 m high and an inundated area of 4.2 km2;
ADV

Almourol in the Tejo river and close to some important architectural

and ethnographic sites with capacity of 78 MW, 24 m high and
animals. (Area of habitat affected
53.9he) Water ecosystems Death
High impact on birds and other

inundated area of13.4 km2; and Pinhoso located in the Vouga river
Several species of fish; wolves;
of animals of reduced mobility

National conservation area of

with capacity of 77 MW, 73 m high and an inundated area of 2.5 km2

several fish species; Carpes

([45]).
From the environmental impact assessments of the three projects
we can identify some common eects despite the variety in their
Trout estuary

severity (Table 3). Common impacts are ora, fauna and landscape. In
particular, in Pinhoso and Almourol signicant impacts on local sh
estuary
Fauna

species are expected. In the case of Foz-Tua the most signicant eects
in on birds. Given dierent topographies, and current use of soils, the
water quality is expected to be dierent between Pinhoso and
creation of water reservoir

Amourol on one side, and Tua on the other as this last one is much
-agricultural fields pine
Deforestation involving:

more steep, and soils are relatively poor there is no intense use for
Positive eect due to
-olive trees vines

agricultural practices, thus the risk of eutrophication is low. On the

other hand, Tua has no risk of seismic activity compared to the other
deforestation,

two locations. The risk of coastal erosion is not signicant in Tua but is
-cork tree

considered high in Almourol and medium to high in Pinhoso.

Flora

The most important disruption in the case of Tua is the disappear-

ance of 15.9 km of railroad and the loss of the connection of this line to
Occupation of agricultural
agricultural nitrates; risk

the Douro line; in addition, the changes in weather that are expected
fields and possibility of

may have some interference with the characteristics of the wine

water eutrophication
Risk of presence of

produced; it is also in the vicinity of the UNESCO word heritage site

of eutrophication

of Alto Douro Vinhateiro and it is feared it may impact the harmony

of the landscape, namely given the height of the Dam. This same
Pour soil

feature was intensively discussed during the public consulting phase

Soil

and the decision was to choose the lower of three possible heights that
were considered. It should also be stressed the destruction of an
the coast (medium-
high) Seismic zone
Risks of erosion at

important area of Sobreiro (cork tree), a protected species by law, in

effects on water

Seismic zone-B
Risk of coastal
Some positive

addition to the destruction of vines, olive trees and pine trees.

Impacts of three hydropower Dams in Portugal [44].

erosion-high

In the case of Almourol, in addition to the already mentioned

Geology

impact on particular species of sh, some species are considered not

caves

adequately protected by Natura 2000 program, is the impact of

C

architectural and archeological patrimony, some of which are consid-

Temperature increase

ered monuments of national interest: Almourol Castle and a Roman

Decreased frosting
Humidity increase

road are among the aected.

No information

No information

Recent changes in the National Plan, have led to a revision of

projects initially proposed/to withdraw or suspend other projects (see
Climate

[46]). Regardless, projects presented for the Portuguese case study

have been subject to a socio-economic and environmental assessment
within the context of National Plan for hydropower production.
Almourol

Pinhoso
Foz-tua

Abovementioned impacts often adversely aect valued ecosystem

Table 3

components (VEC's) of scientic, economic, social or cultural signi-

cance (CNSC [47]) not just on a local community level. These aspects

900
 A. Botelho et al.

Table 4
VEC, impacts and mitigation measures for Foz Tua project.

Foz Tua Project

Environmental aspect Flora and VEC Phase/Action Impact Mitigation Measure

vegetation Rare, endemic, localized, threatened or endangered Construction Phase/Building Loss of Minimize construction of infrastructures; remove debris and ensure
species: installation and Infrastructure biodiversitya renaturation of temporary pathways
Flora: Festuca Duriotagana (endemic sp. to Douro, Construction Phase/ Deforestation
Annex II from Habitats Directive 92/43/CEE, Law- Operational Phase/ Presence of the
Decree n 49/05) dam
Vegetation: Quescus suber (9330 Quescus suber Forest, Operational Phase/ New
Habitats Directive 92/43/CEE) accessibilities

Fauna Rare, endemic, localized, threatened or endangered species Construction Phase/Building Loss of When possible take advantage of existing pathways; limit access to
installation and Infrastructure biodiversitya water margin; limit the practice of nautic racing sports; limit level of

901
Reptile and amphibious: Vipera latastei (vulnerable sp.) Construction Phase/ Deforestation noise emitted
Mammals: lutra-lutra (Annex B-II and Annex B-IV from Operational Phase/ Presence of the
habitats directive) dam
Birds: Harpia Harpya (endangered sp.) Operational Phase/ New
Fish: Squalius alburnoides (vulnerable sp., in the Red accessibilities
Book of endangered species of Portugal)

Landscape Natural and Man-made visual amenities Construction Phase/Building Visual intrusiona Compensate involuntary displacement; replace infrastructures;
Douro Vinhateiro Region installation and Infrastructure promote local museum center
Construction Phase/ Deforestation
Operational Phase/ Presence of the
dam
Operational Phase/ New
accessibilities

a
Impact can be temporary during construction phase, but permanent during operational phase (own elaboration from: Proco Ambiente 2008a) [50] and Proco Ambiente, 2008b) [49]).
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70 (2017) 896904
A. Botelho et al.
Table 5
Impact classification and interpretation.
Classication of the impact Interpretation
Nature Positive or negative
Magnitude Low; medium; high
Signicance High significance; Medium significance;
low significance
Incidence Direct or indirect
Duration Temporary or permanent
Moment the impact is veried Immediately; medium term or long term
Probability of occurrence/degree of Certain; probable and uncertain
certainty
Reversibility Reversible or irreversible
Spatial dimension Local; regional or national
(own elaboration from Profico Ambiente, 2008 a) [50]).
are classied as sensitive areas and are covered by national legislation
framework for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - Decree-Law
n 151-B/2013 [48]. The case of Foz Tua impacts is now analysed with
further detail aiming to show how the assessment of impacts was
addressed and which mitigation measures were foreseen during
dierent time-frames. A selection of VEC's, impacts and mitigation
measures for this project is provided in Table 4.
In the assessment process, impacts are identied and analysed
for each environmental aspect and have been classied, according to
several criteria as described on Table 5(Proco Ambiente [49]).
In the case of Foz Tua hydropower plant the impact on forest and
ora are considered to be relevant during construction and exploita-
tion phases. Several species will be aected with the loss of available
land. For instance for some local endemic ora 100% of local area is
expected to be aected (submerged) by the project, corresponding to
125% of regional and national territory aected and depending on
the species. These were classied as medium/high impacts, irrever-
sible, permanent and with eects at National scale. A monitoring
program was then proposed for both phases. Also, a program for
monitoring animal species was proposed including land and aquatic
ones that should be revised every year and during 10 years. In the
particular case of aquatic species, the monitoring during the con-
struction phase is expected to be monthly, trimestral or semi-annual
depending on the parameters. After that, in the exploitation phase
trimestral monitoring is expected for most chemical parameters and
in the case of phytoplankton and annual in the case of sh
community [50].
When applicable potential cumulative or synergetic impacts were
determined. Cumulative impacts are those that result from an
accretion of minor eects, that are visible from a certain threshold,
or that result from accumulation of similar eects in surrounding
areas [50]. Whereas synergetic impacts result from the interaction of
direct or indirect impacts, from which results impacts or environ-
mental risks of higher signicance and severity, than the sum of each
impact [50].
Similarly, a monitoring plan is also contemplated in EIA process.
This step consists of a systematic gathering of data and observations,
with regards to environmental impacts. It serves as a support to
subsequent stages (namely post-evaluation) to verify environmental
compliance of the project (Decree-Law n 151-B/2013) [48]. In the
specic case of Foz Tua Project, monitoring plan is ongoing, for
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. It is expected to last throughout
the useful lifetime of the project, to verify the real impact on
environment of construction and operational phases on the aquatic
ecosystems (EDP [51]). The monitoring plan for ora and fauna have a
shorter time span. Flora monitoring process started in 2010 and it is
902
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70 (2017) 896904
expected that will go on for another 15 years. With the aim of verifying
the existence of environmental impacts from dam construction ([51]).
Whereas monitoring plan for fauna is expected to go on for another 5
years period. It focuses a diversity of vertebrate and invertebrate
species, with the purpose of assessing species interaction with sur-
rounding habitats (such as fragmentation issues, among others) ([51]).
Table 6, provides a brief description of some of the monitoring
measures adopted for the above mentioned environmental aspects.
Therefore, though common environmental impact categories have
been identied, this case study has illustrated that the evaluation of the
signicance associated to impact assessment is case specic. Main
impacts have been associated to both natural and man-made environ-
ment and have implied/elicited specic monitoring and mitigation
measures, which is consistent with case-by-case analysis. The inclusion
of the impacts into the decision making framework is eased if all are
reduced into the same measuring unit. The conversion requires the use
of economic valuation methodologies.
5. Conclusions
The case studies analysed for Portugal revealed that fauna and
ora are the most commonly mentioned impacts, although in some
cases it is not the most important ones according to the studies
reviewed. In particular historical remains have a very signicant
eect in the case of Tua and Almourol. It should also be stressed the
signicance of coastal erosion induced by the dams in the case of
Almourol and Pinhoso. In the case of Tua, coastal erosion is not
included as an impact because the dam locates upstream of one
major dam. Most studies focus on the hydropower plants` conse-
quences after its construction process has been completed, only
allowing to develop some mitigation measures on its impacts. In this
paper, we intentionally selected 3 hydroelectric plants which con-
struction is not yet completed and, therefore, it is possible to
intervene in a very broad way in order to maximize its advantages
and minimize its adverse eects, particularly for the environment.
Moreover, the literature review of valuation studies of the
environmental impacts associated with hydropower between the
period 19902016, demonstrated that although dierent methods
are used the attributes turn out to be very similar and can be divided
into four major attributes, namely ora, fauna, landscape and
historical remains. The ora is the attribute that is most referenced
by the reviewed authors, which may be due to the fact that the
constructions of dams directly aect the ora in all stages, from the
construction and the maintenance phases.
Although some common attributes and valuation methods could
be identied, the literature review and in particular the case studies
analysed demonstrated that each hydropower plant has specic
characteristics resulting on the need to consider dierent impacts.
As such, when evaluating the environmental impacts of a hydro-
power dam it is of utmost importance to take a case study approach
as some impacts are absent from some case studies while very
pertinent in others. The evaluation of these impacts to be under-
taken in future research should focus on these specicities, conse-
quently choice experiments is the most adequate technique for
dening priorities with respect to alternative hydropower produc-
tion facilities. To achieve equity and eciency in the decisions, it is
important to understand how the dierent characteristics of the
projects impact citizens welfare. In addition, the valuation of
characteristics may provide important guidelines for designing cost
eective attenuation measures.
 A. Botelho et al.

Table 6
Impacts characterization for Foz Tua project.

Environmental Aspect Monitoring Action Expected Expected Cost Implementation timeframe (start/end)
Effectiveness

Terrestrial Fauna and Birds Assesment of population indicators (abundance, geographical distribution Aa Low/medium The year prior to the beginning of compound activities/
Flora and specific composition) Annually, after the start of operational phase and after 10
years for a global assessment
Carnivorous Mammals Assesment of population indicators ( abundance and density) prior and after A/Ba 25,000 30,000 Year prior to construction (at least)/ Annually until the 10th
construction phase; genetic monitoring to assess effects of fragmentation /year year, and global assessment with possible readjustment at the
end of this period
Flora Sampling (for most valued spp): Throughout 15 years after the project starts
Sampling area downstream of dam; dimension of squares selected
according to type of vegetation; Annual assessment of degree of coverage
of spp present in the squares (Domin-Krajina scale)
Six squares permanently per type of vegetation area- i) directly aected by

903
the project; ii) not disturbed within the perimeter of the project; iii) not
disturbed out of the perimeter of the project
Statistical analysis (share of coverage per sp and in total, specic diversity,
diversity index)
Aquatic Ecosystem Water Quality Characterization of physicochemical parameters bi-monthly (2 parameters), A 20,000 /year After the start of construction work/-
(construction phase) monthly (3 parameters) and quarterly (3 parameters)
Invertebrate Semester characterization B 3200 /year After the start of construction work/-
Fish Electrical fishing semester B 4500 /year After the start of construction work/-
Vegetation Semester characterization of rupicoulous vegetation and determination of A 1000 /year After the start of construction work/-
degree of coverage
Aquatic Ecosystem Water Quality Characterization of physicochemical parameters quarterly Throughout operational phase/-
(operational phase) Invertebrates Annual characterization (Summer) Throughout operational phase/-
Phytoplankton Quarterly characterization Throughout operational phase/-
Fish Annual characterization Throughout operational phase/-
Vegetation Annual characterization Throughout operational phase/-

a
A- Very eective monitoring; B- Average eective monitoring; C- Very ineective monitoring (own elaboration from: Proco Ambiente 2008 a) [50] and Proco Ambiente, 2008b) [49]).
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70 (2017) 896904
A. Botelho et al.
References
[1] Eurelectric - Union of the Electricity Industry. Hydro in Europe: powering renew-
ables full report. Eurelectric. Brussels 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.
eurelectric.org/media/26690/hydro_report_nal-2011-160-0011-01-e.pdf
[2] IEA International Energy Agency. Hydropower and the environment: present
context and guidelines for future action. IEA technical report. Annex III: hydro-
power and the environment: present context and guidelines for future action. (2).
Retrieved from: http://www.ieahydro.org/reports/HyA3S5V2.pdf; 2000
[3] ESHA European small hydropower association. Current status of Small
Hydropower development in the EU-27 - Raising Awareness of Small Hydropower
sector Stream Map Project. ESHA. Brussels 2011. Retrieved from: http://
streammap.esha.be/leadmin/documents/Raising_awareness_doc___press_
release/FINAL_SHP_Awareness_2011.pdf
[4] Gunawardena P. Inequalities and externalities of power sector: a case of Broadlands
hydropower project in Sri Lanka. Energy Policy 2010;38:72634.
[5] Yuksel I. Global warming and environmental benets of hydroelectric for sustain-
able energy in Turkey. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(6):381625.
[6] IEA- International Energy Agency. Technology roadmap hydropower. Paris: IEA.
Retrieved from: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/
2012_Hydropower_Roadmap.pdf; 2012
[7] Koch HF. Hydropowerthe politics of water and energy: introduction and over-
view. Energy Policy 2002;30(14):120713.
[8] Klimpt E, Rivero C, Puranen H, Koch F. Recommendations for sustainable
hydroelectric development. Energy Policy 2002;30(14):130512.
[9] Tilt B, Braun Y, He D. Social impacts of large dam projects: a comparison of
international case studies and implications for best practice. J Environ Manag
2009;90(3):S249S257.
[10] Kaunda SC, Kimambo ZC, Nielsen KT. Hydropower in the Context of Sustainable
Energy Supply: A Review of Technologies and Challenges. Review Article. Renew
Energy. http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2012/730631; 2012, Article ID 730631.
[11] IHA International Hydropower Association. Hydropower Sustainability
Assessment Protocol. Economy. IHA. Retrieved from: http://www.
hydrosustainability.org/About-Sustainability/Economic.aspx; 2013.
[12] Namy S. Addressing the social impacts of large hydropower dams. J Int Policy Solut
2007(7):117.
[13] IHA International Hydropower Association. Hydropower sustainability assess-
ment protocol. Environmental Assessment and Management. IHA. Retrieved from:
http://www.hydrosustainability.org/About-Sustainability/Environment/
Documents.aspx; 2013.
[14] IHA International Hydropower Association. Hydropower sustainability assess-
ment protocol. Social Impact Assessment. IHA. Retrieved from: http://www.
hydrosustainability.org/About-Sustainability/Social/Social-impact-assessment.
aspx; 2013.
[15] IPCC International Panel on Climate Change. Renewable energy sources and
climate change mitigation special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate
change. Prepared by Technical Support Unit Working Group III and Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) Seyboth K, Eickemeier P, Matschoss P,
Hansen G, Kadner S, Schlomer S, Zwickel T, von Stechow C, Edenhofer O, Madruga
RP, Sokona Y. (Eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press Retrieved from:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srren/SRREN_FD_SPM_nal.pdf;
2012
[16] Ferreira JHI, Camacho JR, Malagoli JA, Jnior SCG. Assessment of the potential of
small hydropower development in Brazil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;56:3807. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.035, Accessed from
https://www.reserachgate.net/publication/286638431.
[17] Loomis JB. Measuring the economic benets of removing dams and restoring the
Elwha River: results of a contingent valuation survey. Water Resour Res
1996;32(2):4417.
[18] Gonzlez-Cabn A, Loomis J. Economic benets of maintaining ecological integrity
of Ro Mameyes, in Puerto Rico. Ecol Econ 1997;21:6375.
[19] Biro YEK. Valuation of environmental impacts of the Kayraktepe Dam/hydro-
electric Project, Turkey: an exercise in contingent valuation. Ambio
1998;27(3):2249.
[20] Hanley N, Nevin C. Appraising renewable energy developments in remote
communities: the case of the North Assynt Estate, Scotland. Energy Policy
1999;27:52747.
[21] Sundqvist T. Power generation choice in the presence of environmental external-
ities [Doctoral thesis of Thomas Sundqvist]. Sweden: Lulea University of
Technology; 2002.
[22] Bergmann A, Hanley N, Wright R. Valuing the attributes of renewable energy
investments. Energy Policy 2006;34(9):100414.
[23] Han S, Kwak S, Yoo S. Valuing environmental impacts of large dam construction in
Korea: an application of choice experiments. Environ Impact Assess Rev
2008;28:25666.
[24] Kataria M. Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower
regulated rivers. Energy Econ 2009;31:6976.
[25] Alp E, Yetis . Application of the contingent valuation method in a developing
country: a case study of the Yusufeli Dam in northeast Turkey. Water Sci Technol
2010;62(1):99105.
904
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70 (2017) 896904
[26] Ponce RD, Vsquez F, Stehr A, Debels P, Orihuela C. Estimating the economic value
of landscape losses due to ooding by hydropower plants in the Chilean Patagonia.
Water Resour Manag 2011;25:244966.
[27] Aravena C, Hutchinson GW, Longo A. Environmental pricing of externalities from
dierent sources of electricity generation in Chile. Energy Econ 2012;34:121425.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.11.004, Accessed from: https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/254408681.
[28] Xu L, Yu B, Li Y. Ecological compensation based on willingness to accept for
conservation of drinking sources. Front Environ Sci Eng 2015;9(1):5865.
[29] Botelho A, Loureno-Gomes L, Pinto LMC, Sousa P, Sousa S, Valente M. Using
choice experiments to assess environmental impacts of Dams in Portugal. AIMS
Energy Press 2015;3(3):31625.
[30] Pinto LMC, Botelho A, Sousa P, Sousa S. A contingent valuation of the environ-
mental impacts of dams. In: Proceedings of the Conference Energy for
Sustainability 2015 Sustainable Cities: Designing for People and the Planet,
organized by UC/ITeCons/MIT Portugal, 14-15 May 2015, Coimbra, Portugal;
2015, ISBN: 978-989-98949-2-1.
[31] Jones B, Berrens R, Jenkins-Smith H, Silva C, Carlson D, Ripberger J, Gupta K,
Carlson N. Valuation in the anthropocene: exploring options for alternative
operations of the Glen Canyon Dam. Water Resour Econ 2016;14:1330 http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2016.02.003.
[32] Botelho A, Loureno-Gomes L, Pinto LMC, Sousa S, Valente M. Social sustainability
of renewable energy sources in electricity production: an application of the
contingent valuation method. Sustain Cities Soc 2016;20:2016. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.scs.2016.05.011, [available on line 20 May 2016 [in press]].
[33] Mendelsohn R, Olmstead S. The economic valuation of environmental amenities
and disamenities: methods and applications. Annu Rev Environ Resour
2009;34:32547.
[34] Garrod G, Willis K. Economic valuation of the environment: methods and case
studies. Great-Britain: Edward Elgar; 1999.
[35] Pearce D, Atkinson G, Mourato S. Cost-benet analysis and the environment:
recent developments, organisation for economic co-operation and development.
Paris, France: OECD Publishing; 2006.
[36] Venkatachalam L. The contingent valuation method: a review. Environ Impact
Assess Rev 2004;24:89124.
[37] Carson R. Contingent valuation: a user's guide. Environ Sci Technol
2000;34(8):14138.
[38] Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference
methods for valuing environmental amenities. J Environ Econ Manag
1994;26:27192.
[39] Carson R, Flores N, Meade N. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence.
Environ Resour Econ 2001;19:173210.
[40] Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H. Report of the
NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 1993;58(10):460114.
[41] Kwak SJ, Russel CS. Contingent valuation in Korean environmental planning: a
pilot application to the protection of drinking water quality in Seoul. Environ
Resour Econ 1994;4:51126.
[42] Department of Environment. Guidelines on the economic valuation of environ-
mental impacts for EIA projects. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
Putrajaya; 2008.
[43] Alvarez Trancoso R, Benetti CJ, Sarr MAB. Impacts of hydroelectric power stations
on Trichoptera assemblages in four rivers in NW Spain. Limnologica
2015;53:3541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2015.05.001, Accessed from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277133709.
[44] OECD . OECD environmental performance reviews: Portugal. OECD Publishing;
2011. p. 2011.
[45] COBA and PROCESL. Programa Nacional de Barragens com Elevado Potencial
Hidroelctrico (PNBEPH) Memria. Document prepared for INAG, DGEG and
REN; 2007.
[46] Ministry of Environment Communication. Plano Nacional de Barragens de Elevado
Potencial Hidroeltrico- Viso Integrada da Utilizao, Renaturalizao e Proteo
dos Rios. Gabinete do Ministrio do Ambiente. Accessed from: http://www.
portugal.gov.pt/pt/ministerios/mamb/docs/20160418-mamb-pn-barragens.aspx;
2016 [in Portuguese].
[47] CNSC. Canada Nuclear Safety Comission. Vision 2010-valued ecosystem compo-
nents. Accessed from: http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/pdfs/Port-Hope/open-
house/September-23-2011-Port-Hope-Open-House-Poster-Vision-2010-Valued-
Ecosystem-Components_e.pdf; 2010.
[48] Decree-Law n 151-B/2013. Ministrio daAgricultura, do Mar, do Ambiente e do
Ordenamento do Territrio. Dirio da Repblica, 1. srieN. 21131 de outubro
de 2013. [in Portuguese].
[49] Proco Ambiente b). Estudo de Impacto Ambiental do Aproveitamento
Hidroeltrico de Foz de Tua; 2008; Vol. I: pp. 1357. [in Portuguese].
[50] Proco Ambiente a). Estudo de Impacto Ambiental do Aproveitamento
Hidroeltrico de Foz de Tua; 2008: Vol. II: pp. 1399. [in Portuguese].
[51] EDP. Electricidade de Portugal. Foz Tua- Desempenho Ambiental. Accessed from:
http://www.a-nossa-energia.edp.pt/centros_produtores/desempenho_ambiental.
php?Item_id=80 & cp_type=he & section_type=desempenho_ambiental; 2016 [in
Portuguese].