Perspectives on the Salience and Magnitude of Dam Impacts for Hydro Development Scenarios in China
Perspectives on the Salience and Magnitude of Dam Impacts for Hydro Development Scenarios in China
复制标题
对中国水电开发情景中大坝影响的显着性和规模的看法
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Wolf
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Tullos;P. Brown;K. Kibler;D. Magee;A. Wolf
遵循世界水坝委员会概述的原则和优先事项，管理人员在有关水坝的决策中越来越多地考虑各种影响。然而，在评估大坝的生物物理、社会经济和地缘政治影响方面仍然存在许多挑战，包括利益攸关方对大坝影响的看法的潜在多样性。在这项分析中，我们调查了云南省的非政府组织、学者和水电代表以及政府官员中国，以更好地了解利益相关者群体对大坝影响的规模(规模)和重要性(显着性)的看法是如何变化的。我们应用跨学科大坝评估模型(IDAM)定义的技术来模拟三种大坝发展情景：一般大坝、单个大型大坝和多个小型大坝。然后，我们对专家进行了调查，以衡量他们对三种情景下21种生物物理、地缘政治和社会经济影响的规模和显著程度的看法。调查结果表明，在专家组和大坝情景中，感知到的影响的突出程度和程度有所不同。此外，调查表明，随着提供的有关大坝影响的信息变得更加具体，利益攸关方的看法也发生了变化，这表明利益攸关方的评估可能会受到信息质量的影响。最后，调查的定性意见反映了大坝跨学科评估的一些挑战，包括跨学科合作、数据标准化和加权，以及影响的分布和潜在的缓解。鉴于围绕大坝影响的数据和认知的复杂性，迫切需要综合客观影响大小和感知的影响显著程度的决策支持工具。
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.