Phase-based externality analysis for large hydropower projects

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 80 (2020) 106332

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Phase-based externality analysis for large hydropower projects Bingqing Xia, Maoshan Qiang , Hanchen Jiang, Qi Wen, Nan An, Dongcheng Zhang ⁎

T

State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Project Management and Technology Institute, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Externality Life cycle assessment Stakeholders Hydropower project The Three Gorges project The Xiluodu project

The global pressure of reducing greenhouse gas emission with an increasing energy demand has promoted the development of hydropower projects. However, these projects are always involved with controversial issues even when providing great positive externalities. This calls for more comprehensively quantitative analysis of hydropower project externalities. This paper establishes an analysis framework for hydropower project externalities based on the Life Cycle Assessment methodology and the economic valuation of hydropower externalities, and then applies the framework to the assessment of the Three Gorges Project and the Xiluodu Project as cases. The results indicate that: (1) hydropower project externalities are multi-component and dynamic in different phases of project life cycle; (2) the construction of large hydropower projects is beneficial for social welfare promotion, but the enhancement doesn't appear immediately at the startup but with a lag; and (3) along the life cycle of a hydropower project, negative externalities are prominent in the early phases while positive ones account for a major proportion in the late phases, calling for special attention to risk management during the construction and benefit allocation management during project operation. The results and recommendations of this paper can also be applied to other types of public or private projects for better social performance.

1. Introduction In recent years, with the rapid growth of energy demand and global pressure of greenhouse gas emission reduction, the demand of nonfossil energy has increased rapidly all over the world (Dai et al., 2011). Due to the sustainable nature of hydropower, the development of large hydropower projects have been advanced by governments across the world and advocated by various international organizations such as the World Bank (Wang et al., 2013b). According to the statistics released by the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD, 2011), there are over 58,000 large hydropower projects constructed around the world, which contributed to 14.7% of world's electricity generation in 2011 (Jiang et al., 2016a). Many developing countries, such as China, Pakistan, Brazil and Ethiopia, have put forward aggressive plans for the further development of large hydropower projects (Asif, 2009; Tortajada, 2015). However, due to the long construction period and the great amount of land and personnel involved in the development process, the construction of large hydropower projects are inevitably accompanied by great social and environmental externalities, which arouse wide social concerns and debates over the pros and cons of building large hydropower projects (Jiang et al., 2016b; Tilt et al., 2009; Wang et al.,

2013a). For example, the Sardar Sarovar dam in India is by far the most studied hydropower project for social impacts (Kirchherr et al., 2016). This huge dam is part of the Narmada Valley Development Project that consists of 30 large dams, 135 medium dams and thousands of small dams, and is designed to provide irrigation and drinking water for local people along the Narmada Valley. However, the potential impacts induced by this dam project are so large in scale that arouse strong opposition from the local people and environmental NGOs (Maitra, 2009). This also led the World Bank to withdraw the financial support to the Sardar Sarovar dam. Another example is the Three Gorges Project (TGP) in China. The project is the world's largest hydropower station in terms of installed capacity, not only providing China with large amounts of electrical energy, but also helping control the floods that threaten the downstream areas every summer. However, with regard to the resettlement of millions of people and submergence of a large number of villages and towns (Wilmsen, 2016), the large negative externalities of the TGP result in huge controversies on this project and the mode of hydropower development on a river. These controversies are more prominent in the subsequent development plan of Nu River in China, resulting in an ten-year delay of this development program (Magee and McDonald, 2006). The existence of hydropower project externalities not only

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Xia), [email protected] (M. Qiang), [email protected] (H. Jiang), [email protected] (Q. Wen), [email protected] (N. An), [email protected] (D. Zhang). ⁎

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106332 Received 14 October 2018; Received in revised form 19 October 2019; Accepted 20 October 2019 0195-9255/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 80 (2020) 106332

B. Xia, et al.

influences the attitudes of project stakeholders as a driving force of stakeholders' support for or opposition against a project, but also shapes the public and media's evaluation of a project, and subsequently determines the public perception of hydropower development. Many large hydropower projects are faced with great controversies during their construction and operation periods while they are providing or will provide huge positive externalities after completion. Stakeholder opposition or public protests may trigger various types of risks, including delays in project progress, reductions in financial support, and project cancellations (Do and Dinar, 2014; Tang et al., 2013). The stakeholders, such as local people, who are affected by the negative externalities of a project, and the social organizations concerned with the project, have become important constraints to hydropower development. This paper aims to conduct in-depth studies about positive and negative externalities of large hydropower projects by a comprehensively quantitative analysis of hydropower project externalities. Based on literature review, two hypotheses about hydropower project externalities were proposed to highlight the focus of this paper. A phasebased analysis framework for hydropower project externalities was established and the economic valuation of hydropower externalities of two case projects were calculated to provide a comprehensive analysis of hydropower project externalities. The characteristics of hydropower project externalities along the project life cycle were discussed and the management suggestions for practitioner and decision makers were provided.

environmental protection of projects (Aaltonen and Kujala, 2010; Huq, 2000; Zeng et al., 2015). For hydropower projects, the existence of multiple project externalities have already become the consensus of scholars (de Jong et al., 2015; Sheldon et al., 2015), but studies of hydropower project externalities with analysis on the time dimension are still rare. In fact, large projects generally have a longer life cycle than medium or small projects, during which project externalities keep changing and have effects on project delivery. In addition, hydropower projects have different goals and priorities in different life cycle phases, making the project externalities that are directly related to project activities also exhibit different characteristics at different project phases. Understanding of these characteristics is the basis for hydropower project externality research and management. With regard to the characteristics of the externalities of large hydropower projects, this paper proposes Hypothesis 1 as follows. Hypothesis 1. During the life cycle of a hydropower project, the components and variation characteristics of project externalities are different among project phases. Previous studies show some consensus on the positive externalities of hydropower projects, especially the carbon emission reduction. Sheldon et al. (2015) quantified environmental externalities of both hydroelectric and nuclear power by calculating the input-output efficiency factors (the ratios of electrical energy output to initial energy input) of different externalities such as carbon emissions, water consumption, and land use. The results showed that the efficiency factor of reservoir hydropower projects is about 3.52, indicating that the integrated effect is positive. Gunawardena (2010) conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the environmental externalities of a hydropower project in Sri Lanka by monetary value. The results showed that the present value of positive externalities (i.e. environmental benefits of reducing coal power generation, and power generation) is about 50 times that of negative externalities (i.e. environmental costs due to the diversion of river flow and the lost forest cover). Although hydropower projects may provide massive positive externalities and these positive externalities may greatly exceed the negative ones in value, developers and decision makers still need to pay special attention to the negative externalities as different externalities typically affect different groups of people. This means that stakeholders who are positively affected by the project are not the same people who are negatively affected by the project. The existence of negative project externalities directly influences the attitude of affected stakeholders and determines their reactions to the project. Madani et al. (2014) have mentioned that in a multi-participant system, stakeholders that base their decision-making on individual rationality may oppose against social beneficial decisions based on group rationality in events that impair their own interests. For hydropower projects, even if the positive externalities of the projects are greater than the negative externalities and the project is overall beneficial to the social welfare, some stakeholders may still have conflicts with hydropower developers or decision makers if they are negatively affected by the project. Meanwhile, the existence of negative project externalities will not only stimulate the strong response of the affected stakeholders, but also reduce the beneficiaries' support for the project. Delaney and Jacobson (2014) indicated that the support for a public project (such as a dam) can be significantly reduced when beneficiaries realize that their benefits hurts other groups' welfare. The negative externalities of a project not only increase the risks of stakeholder opposition, but also affect the public opinion, making the hydropower project lose the support from the public. In practice, the positive externalities of a hydropower project are often directly produced by the project's functions, which generate benefits several years after the start of project implementation, while the negative externalities usually appear as soon as the project starts. Thus, positive externalities of hydropower projects will emerge several

2. Literature review According to Samuelson's definition, an externality is an unexpected cost or benefit generated by a body (e.g., project or action) to others or an effect that cannot be fully explained using prices or market trading (Samuleson, 1947). The criterion of identifying externalities in a project is to analyze whether any benefit is received without paying or whether any cost is consumed without compensation. Experts and scholars studied a variety of externalities of large hydropower projects, such as water resource, land economic value, immigration loss, soil and water conservation, flood control, navigation, tourism, etc. (Zhang et al., 2015), and did a lot of analysis on the definitions, impacts and calculations of these different externalities (Mattmann et al., 2016; Qiu et al., 2016), such as the logic of water resources fee (Fan, 2010), the economic value of land loss of immigrants (Shen, 2008), the benefits of flood control (Schultz, 2002), and ecological benefits and costs of large hydropower projects (Chen et al., 2016). However, most of the existing studies on project externalities focus on the analysis of one single externality, and the time dimension has not been fully considered. Therefore, this paper emphasizes the comprehensive analysis of multiple externalities in different phases of hydropower project life cycle. The life cycle of a project can be divided into the following four major phases, including initiation, planning, implementation and closure (PMI, 2013). Traditionally, the project life cycle focuses on the project delivery period, which is from project start to project hand-over (Ward and Chapman, 1995). In recent years, a new concept of project life cycle management emphasizes that the complete project management evaluation cycle should include not only the project delivery phase but also the operation and maintenance phases (Furuta and Akiyama, 2017). In this new perspective, practitioners of project management pay attention to the investment in project delivery, and to the outcomes in project operation as well. The project value and performance are now determined by comprehensive input-output analysis or cost-benefit analysis (Artto et al., 2016). The concept of project life cycle management has been widely accepted in project management practice, and attracts more and more attention from researchers as well (Aaltonen and Kujala, 2010; Artto et al., 2016; PMI, 2013). The concept and framework has been introduced into many research fields, such as architecture, information technology, and product development, to carry out studies about economic benefits, safety, quality, and 2

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 80 (2020) 106332

B. Xia, et al.

years later than that of negative ones. However, both the affected stakeholders and the project beneficiaries will be clearly aware of negative externalities during the early period of the project as negative externalities are prominent in the period. Therefore, policymakers must have a clear understanding of the potential risks related to negative externalities well during the early period. In addition, the dissatisfaction of stakeholders and the support reduction of project beneficiaries may occur at the same time. Therefore, this paper proposes Hypothesis 2 as follows.

of sustainable energy and externality has already been accepted and supported by scholars in energy research (Koch, 2001), and now has been further expanded into studies of nuclear energy, hydropower, wind energy, solar energy and other fields (Pehnt, 2006; Varun et al., 2009). The LCA of hydropower projects, beginning with the LCA impact analysis for single hydropower project, now focuses more on LCA impact analysis and parameter estimation for multi hydropower projects or generation systems of different scales (Gracey and Verones, 2016; Kadiyala et al., 2016; Varun et al., 2012). However, due to the development of impact assessment methods and the quantitative technology, the externality LCA studies of sustainable energy projects, including hydropower projects, mainly focus on environmental aspects such as carbon emission and energy investment (Varun et al., 2009). Meanwhile, studies of externalities and economic valuation methods of hydropower projects in other impact aspects have made considerable progress in recent decades, but these research results have not been well integrated into the LCA method for life cycle systematic analysis yet (Sheldon et al., 2015). Besides, existing LCA studies of hydropower project externalities do take the time dimension into analysis by calculating comprehensive results for the whole life cycle, but these studies normally report the overall life-cycle results only and ignore the temporal variation characteristics in different life cycle phases, which are also important as indicated above (Karney and Maclean, 2007).

Hypothesis 2. negative externalities can have dominating effects in some phases during the whole life cycle of a hydropower project. High risks of stakeholder conflicts and public opposition exist in these phases. Based on the above analysis and assumptions, it is necessary to quantitatively analyze the hydropower project externalities in different phases of project life cycle. As calculating project externalities by using economic value is more accepted than other valuation forms in multiexternality analysis (Mattmann et al., 2016), this paper establishes a phase-based analysis framework for hydropower project externality based on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology and existing quantitative methods for economic valuation of different hydropower project externalities. Two typical large hydropower projects, including the Three Gorges Project and the Xiluodu Project, are investigated with the new framework to test the above Hypotheses. The characteristics of project externalities as well as practical suggestions for project externality control and management are discussed in the paper as well.

3.2. The phase-based framework for hydropower project externalities 3.2.1. Goal and scope definition Considering the above situations, this paper aims to establish a phase-based analysis framework for hydropower project externality (PB-HPE) by integrating more comprehensive economic valuation methods of project externality into the existing LCA studies of hydropower projects to conduct in-depth studies about positive and negative externalities of large hydropower projects. For the externality dimension, externalities of hydropower projects refer to the external impacts derived from the project construction and operation that are not paid (benefit) or compensated (cost) in most cases (Zheng et al., 2016). Thus, all the construction activities (such as land acquisition and immigration resettlement) and project functions (such as electricity generation, flood control and navigation) can trigger externalities and influence stakeholders' attitudes toward the project, which should be included in the framework. To provide a comprehensive valuation of hydropower project externalities, both social communities and environment affected by the hydropower project externalities are taken into consideration. For the time dimension, this paper focuses on the early stage of the project life cycle with obvious fluctuating characteristics in time span and chooses three phases of the life cycle of a hydropower project: project construction phase, trial operation phase and operation phase as the research scope. The reasons that the above three phases are chosen as the time span of this study and the closure phase of project life cycle is not included are as follows. Externalities in the early stage of the project life cycle (namely the project construction phase, trial operation phase and operation phase) can reflect the main characteristics of externalities variation during the development process of hydropower projects, as the functions or activities of a hydropower project will become stable after the project enters the operation phase. Meanwhile, the operation phase of hydropower projects occupies the vast majority of the project life cycle and most of the hydropower projects in the world are currently in their operation phase. Taking these three phases as the research scope to carry out externality assessment of hydropower projects makes it possible to use the actual operation data in the empirical analysis of this paper, and to obtain more accurate and reliable results about the externalities and their characteristics. The framework of this study is shown in Fig. 2 (Dreyer et al., 2006). The three phases of hydropower project life cycle in Fig. 2 are defined

3. Methods 3.1. Life cycle assessment of hydropower projects LCA is a tool to assess the potential environmental, social and economic impacts in whole life cycle of one product or project from production, consumption and disposal phases (ISO, 2006a). LCA was first developed as an environmental assessment tool to apply in industry of Europe in 1960 (Ghasempour and Ahmadi, 2016; Guinee, 2002) and were promoted rapidly, especially during 1980s and 1990s. With the development of quantitative methods and basic databases of LCA, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) released a process standard on Environmental LCA in 1997–2000, and gave specific guidelines to conduct LCA by standardizing the assessment process into four stages, including: Goal and Scope Definition, Life Cycle Inventory Analysis, Life Cycle Impact Assessment, and Interpretation (ISO, 2006a, 2006b), as shown in Fig. 1 (Varun et al., 2009). The standard and guidelines form the foundation for establishing all kinds of LCA frameworks. The comprehensive assessment tool of LCA conducts analysis from a perspective of life cycle to avoid problem-shifting among phases of life cycle, product-related regions or problem categories (Finnveden et al., 2009), attracting great interests from scholars in the research fields of product analysis, construction system analysis and sustainable energy system analysis (Dong and Ng, 2015; Ghasempour and Ahmadi, 2016; Varun et al., 2009). The application of life cycle approach in the study

Fig. 1. Life Cycle Assessment Framework (Varun et al., 2009). 3

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 80 (2020) 106332

B. Xia, et al.

as follows. Project construction phase refers to the period from the beginning of project construction to the start of trial operation. The start time of project construction is also the time when externalities first appear. The major task of project management in this phase is to promote project delivery by managing the schedule, cost, and quality to achieve objectives of project construction. At the end of project construction phase, a project is ready to start trial operation although part of the project is still under construction. Project trial operation phase refers to the period from the start of trial operation to the start of normal operation. The major task of project management in this phase is to debug the project and gradually increase the scale of project operation until fully reaching the required operating standard. At the end of project trial operation phase, a project is ready to start normal operation as the whole project delivery has finished and been handed over to the owners. Project operation phase refers to the period from the start of normal operation to the end of project life. The major task of project management in this phase is to maintain the operation, make benefits

Fig. 2. The phase-based analysis framework for hydropower project externality.

Table 1 The adjusted calculation methods of hydropower project externalities. Categories

Externalities elements

Calculation methods

Positive externalities

Grid benefit

The grid benefit is calculated as follows: BG = BE + BF = Pg × Q BE = (B′ − B′′) ∙ PC BF = B1 + B2 + B3 − Eh where BG is the grid benefit, BE is the peak shaving benefit, BF is the spinning reserve benefit, Pg is the unit grid benefit for hydroelectricity generation, and Q is the amount of power generated. B′ and B′′ are the daily coal consumption with the alternative plan and hydroelectricity respectively, PC is the price of coal; B1, B2, B3 and Eh are the capacity cost, the annual operating cost and the increment of coal consumption of the alternative plan, and the annual cost of the reference plan respectively. The simplified method applied in this framework calculates flood control benefit by multiplying the unit benefit for flood control by flood control amount as follows: Bflood = Eno − Ewith = Pcon × Qflood where Bflood is the flood control benefit, Eno is the economic loss of flood without the project, Ewith is the economic loss of flood with the project, Pcon is the unit benefit for flood control amount, and Qflood is the flood control amount of the project. The navigation benefit is calculated as follows: BN = B1 + B2 + B3 B1 = BN + BTF + BID B2 = BT + BM B3 = PshM∆J where BN is total navigation benefit, B1 is transportation cost saving, B2 is the improvement in transport efficiency, and B3 is reduction in accident cost. BN, BTF, BID are the cost saving of normal, transfer and inductive traffic volume with and without the project; BT is the time saving value of all cargo, BM is maintenance cost saving of all cargo ships; Psh is the average loss from a shipping accident, M is the annual shipping traffic, and ∆J is the reduction in the accident rate. The environmental benefit is calculated as follows: BE = (Q × Ece × EF − QRL) × PCO2 where BE is the environmental benefit, Q is the hydroelectricity generation quantity, Ece is the coal consumption of electricity supply, EF is the carbon emission of coal, QRL is the GHG emission of the reservoir, PCO2 is the trading price of carbon in international market (for example in the European market). The hydropower utilization benefit is calculated as follows: R = (Pmark−p − Phyd) × Q where R is the total value of the hydropower resource economic rent, Pmark−p is the average unit market price of electricity, Phyd is the unit sale price of electricity produced by hydropower, and Q is the amount of power generated. The economic rent loss of hydropower resource is calculated as follows: R = (Pmark−p − Phyd) × Q where R is the total value of the hydropower resource economic rent, Pmark−p is the average unit market price of electricity, Phyd is the unit sale price of electricity produced by hydropower, and Q is the amount of power generated. The intergeneration land loss is calculated as follows: LAt = Pt × A = a(1 + r)t × A where LAt is the economic value of the intergenerational land loss in year t, Pt is the unit output value of land, A is the amount of land submerged, a is the average output value of land three years prior to the expropriation, and r is the discount rate for proportional calculation. The invisible loss is calculated as follows: It = M × [P(t) − A(t)] where It is the economic value of the invisible loss in year t, P(t) the prediction of the net income under nonremoval conditions, A(t) is the prediction or actual amount of the net income after resettlement, and M is the number of immigrants.

Flood control benefit

Navigation benefit

Environmental benefit

Hydropower utilization benefit (economic rent gain)

Negative externalities

Hydropower resource (economic rent loss)

Intergeneration land loss

Invisible loss (immigrants)

4

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 80 (2020) 106332

B. Xia, et al.

and achieve the business goals.

activities that are distinguished among different hydropower projects. Due to the lack of available database for the basic data of PB-HPE analysis, all the data needed in this paper are collected by the authors from various data sources.

3.2.2. Life cycle inventory analysis The stage of Life Cycle Inventory Analysis (LCI) aims to determine the quantitative method applied in the LCA framework and collect data for calculation. Zheng et al. (2016) have discussed the concept and valuation methods of hydropower project externalities. Based on a systematic input-output analysis of hydropower projects, four positive externalities and three negative externalities were identified. Positive externalities include the grid benefit, the flood control benefit, the navigation benefit, and the environmental benefit. Meanwhile, negative externalities include the economic rent loss of hydropower resource, the intergeneration land loss, and the invisible loss. The grid benefit represents the cost reduction of electricity grid system from the hydropower projects, which includes the peak shaving benefit and the spinning reserve benefit. The flood control benefit represents the economic loss reduction after the application of the flood control function of hydropower projects and is typically calculated by flood loss comparison of with and without the project (OGCY, 2010; Zheng et al., 2016). The navigation benefit represents the economic gain bringing by the navigation function of with and without the project. The environmental benefit mainly includes the GHG (greenhouse gas) emission reduction benefit. The economic rent loss of hydropower resource is the economic rent gaining from hydroelectricity but not paid by the users to the resource owners, which can be calculated by the difference of electricity purchase values between hydroelectricity and other forms of power generations. The intergeneration land loss is the output value loss of the submerged land exceeding the land compensation. The invisible loss of immigrants is the total PCNI (per capita net income) changes of the immigrants under the resettle and non-resettle situations. We have noticed that when Zheng et al. (2016) applied the concept of economic rent to analyze the economic value of hydropower resource externality, they only took the economic rent loss of the local governments and communities into consideration as a negative externality, but didn't pay enough attention to the economic rent gain of power users as positive project externality. Therefore, this paper makes an adjustment of adding the hydropower utilization benefit into positive externality categories. As calculating externalities with economic valuation methods makes it possible to compare different externalities and to combine the externality analysis with traditional project financial analysis to get a more comprehensive understanding of a project’ impacts or overall value (Mattmann et al., 2016), the economic valuation methods of hydropower project externalities proposed by Zheng et al. (2016) are applied in the PB-HPE framework. The details of calculation methods are shown in Table 1. According to the selected economic valuation methods, the data needed in this paper is summarized in two categories, including basic data and operation data, as shown in Table 2. The basic data refer to the parameters representing the features of a certain region or country that relate to the economic valuation of hydropower project externalities. The operation data refer to the parameters for a certain functions or

3.2.3. Life cycle impact assessment The next step is Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), in which the Area of Projection (AoP) and the steps of impact assessment are determined (Dreyer et al., 2006; Jørgensen et al., 2007) to ensure a systematic LCA analysis with a clear protection target and assessment structure. In LCA, the term “Area of Protection” is used to express what is considered to be of value to human society and must be protected by LCA analysis. This is mainly determined based on the aspects that the LCA framework focuses on. For the externalities of hydropower projects, all the potential AoP of PB-HPE are the stakeholders affected by various externalities. As some of the externalities influence the whole society, the overall social welfare is also covered by AoP of the PB-HPE framework in this paper. The impact assessment typically includes two main steps: impact grouping and impact weighting (ISO, 2006a, 2006b). As project externalities have the following characteristics: 1) the positive or negative nature of each externality is easy to determine, which is a good category indicator for impact grouping of assessment; and 2) all externalities are quantitatively calculated by their economic values as depicted in Section 3.2.2, thus the results of various types of externalities have a uniform unit. Then, these impacts can be directly compared with others in terms of intensity and magnitude. Thus, the impact grouping of assessment can be determined according to the positive or negative nature of externalities, and the impact weighting can be determined according to the economic valuation results of different externalities. The steps of impact assessment in this paper is shown in Fig. 3. 4. Case analysis and results 4.1. Case selection Since the data involved in the economic valuation methods are of various types and scattered across different data sources, this paper uses the Three Gorges Project (TGP) and the Xiluodu Project (XLDP) as cases to demonstrate the proposed framework, considering the availability of data and the representativeness of cases. The TGP, which is located at the Three Gorges of the Yangtze River in China as shown in Fig. 4, is the largest hydropower station in the world, with a total installed capacity of 22.5 GW and an annual power

Table 2 The list of basis and operation data for PB-HPE framework. Basic data (of a region or country)

Operation data (of a targeted hydropower project)

Parameters Parameters Parameters Parameters Parameters Parameters Parameters

Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual

of of of of of of of

power grid flood control navigation carbon trade electricity prices land outcomes resident incomes

electricity generation capacity goods trade by navigation flood control amount amount of land submerged amount of people resettled

Fig. 3. The analysis steps of PB-HPE framework. 5

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 80 (2020) 106332

B. Xia, et al.

Fig. 4. The location of TGP and XLDP.

CTG Corp., the Operation Record of the TGP, the Development Reports of Global New Energy by Hanergy Company, the Annual Reports on China's Power Sector Development by China Electricity Council, relating government documents, and Central Bank official websites, were accessed to obtain all the required data and parameters for the case calculation. The sources for the basic and operation data for the two cases are shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. The time span of the data is from the officially launch time of each project to the year of 2015. That is, the data sequence for the TGP is from 1995 to 2015 (a total of twenty-one years) while that for the XLDP is from 2003 to 2015 (a total of thirteen years). Some data that cannot be found in public resources or the data of the newest year 2015 are directly collected from China Three Gorges Corporation, which is the owner of the two projects.

generation of approximately 100 TWh (Gleick, 2009). The number of project-induced immigrants is about 1.26 million. With regard to the XLDP, the project is located in the lower reaches of the Jinshajiang River in China (the upper reaches of the Yangtze River) as shown in Fig. 4. It is the world's third largest hydropower station. The installed capacity of the XLDP is 12,600 MW, and the annual power generation is about 60 billion kWh (Fan, 2010). The land acquisition of the XLDP resettled a total of 52,690 people. As the first and the third largest hydropower projects in the world, both of the two projects have strong industrial representativeness and global research attractiveness, as well as systematic and reliable data records. 4.2. Phase division of project life cycle The TGP and the XLDP have already passed the phases of project construction and trial operation. Both cases are currently in the project operation phase. The National People's Congress approved the proposal of the TGP in 1992. The construction of the TGP started in 1995 and the first batch of power generation units was put into use in 2003. The whole project construction was fully completed by the end of 2008 (Zheng et al., 2016). For the case of the XLDP, the project construction started in 2004 and the first batch of power generation units was put into use in 2013. By June of 2014, all the generation units of the XLDP were put into operation (Fan, 2010). Thus, the project construction phase of the TGP is from 1995 to 2002, the trial operation phase is from 2003 to 2008, and the operation phase is from 2009 to present, while the three phases of the XLDP are from 2004 to 2012, from 2013 to 2014, and from 2015 to present, respectively. As the formal operation phase of the XLDP is very short, it is combined with trial operation phase in the analysis of Section 4.4.

4.4. Results By substituting all the basic data and operation data collected from different sources (Tables 3 and 4) into the calculation methods of different hydropower project externalities (Table 1), this paper calculates annual positive and negative externalities of the TGP and the XLDP. Three negative externalities (the economic rent loss of hydropower resource, the intergeneration land loss, and the invisible loss), and five positive externalities (the grid benefit, the flood control benefit, the navigation benefit, the environmental benefit and the hydropower utilization benefit) were calculated, and the results are shown in Tables 5 and 6. The cumulative externality values of the TGP and the XLDP are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. The components and the percentages of the economic values of annual positive and negative externalities in different project phases of both cases are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. The economic values of annual total externalities of both cases are shown in Fig. 9, while the ratios of positive to negative externalities of the two projects are shown in Fig. 10.

4.3. Data collection Multiple data sources including the national statistical yearbooks, the provincial statistical yearbooks, the annual reports of the China Three Gorges Corporation (the CTG Corp.), the social responsibility reports of the CTG Corp., the environmental protection reports of the 6

Parameters of navigation

Parameters of carbon trade

Parameters of electricity prices

Navigation benefit

Environmental benefit

Hydropower utilization benefit (economic rent gain) Hydropower resource (economic rent loss) Intergeneration land loss Invisible loss (immigrants)

7

Negative externalities

Grid benefit

Positive externalities

Invisible loss (immigrants)

Intergeneration land loss

Hydropower resource (economic rent loss)

Hydropower utilization benefit (economic rent gain)

Environmental benefit

Navigation benefit

Flood control benefit

Externality elements

Categories

Table 4 The source summary of operation data for PB-HPE framework.

Annual electricity price and capacity Annual amount of land submerged Annual info of people resettled

Annual goods and ships of navigation Annual electricity generation capacity Annual electricity price and capacity

Annual electricity generation capacity Annual flood control amount

Operation data

Parameters of electricity prices Parameters of land outcomes Parameters of resident incomes

Parameters of flood control

Flood control benefit

Negative externalities

Parameters of power grid

Grid benefit

Positive externalities

Basic data

Externality elements

Categories

Table 3 The source summary of basic data for PB-HPE framework.

Annual amount of people resettled Annual income of people resettled

Annual unit sale price of hydro-electricity Annual amount of power generated Annual amount of land submerged

Annual unit sale price of hydroelectricity Annual amount of power generated

Annual goods traffic Annual shipping traffic Annual electricity generation capacity

Annual flood control amount

Annual electricity generation capacity

Detailed requirement

Average unit market price of electricity Average unit output value of the land submerged Annual income under non-removal condition

Normal traffic volume Improvement of channel length Navigation cost of ships Average time saving Reduction in the accident rate Average loss from a shipping accident Coal consumption of electricity supply Carbon emission of coal GHG emission of the reservoir Trading volume of carbon in Euro market Trading value of carbon in Euro market Euro to RMB exchange rate Average unit market price of electricity

Parameters of peak shaving and spinning reserve benefit Unit benefit for flood control amount

Detailed requirement

China Three Gorges Corporation China Three Gorges Corporation

Documents of National Development and Reform Commission China Three Gorges Corporation Documents of National Development and Reform Commission China Three Gorges Corporation China Three Gorges Corporation

Social responsibility reports of the CTG Corp. Environmental protection reports of the CTG Corp. Operation Record of the TGP Annual reports of the CTG Corp. Annual reports of the CTG Corp. Annual reports of the CTG Corp.

Annual reports of the CTG Corp.

Data sources

Office of the General Command of Flood Control and Drought Relief of the Yangtze River Annual reports of the TGP Social responsibility reports of the CTG Corp. Official website of Chongqing Migration Bureau Zheng et al. (2016) Xie et al. (2009) Zheng et al. (2016) Annual Reports on China's Power Sector Development Annual Reports on China's Power Sector Development Yang (2012) Development Reports of Global New Energy and World Bank reports Development Reports of Global New Energy and World Bank reports National statistical yearbooks and Central Bank official websites Documents of National Development and Reform Commission Documents of National Development and Reform Commission Provincial statistical yearbooks Provincial statistical yearbooks China Three Gorges Corporation

Zheng et al. (2016)

Data sources

B. Xia, et al.

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 80 (2020) 106332

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 80 (2020) 106332

B. Xia, et al.

Table 5 The calculation results of the externalities of TGP. Year

Negative externalities (Billion CNY) Hydropower resource

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

0.76 3.46 4.34 4.36 5.45 7.15 7.06 7.46 6.93 8.68 7.33 8.74 7.70

Intergeneration land loss

0.39 0.41 0.42 0.46 0.48 0.58 0.62 0.67 0.81 0.95 1.06 1.17 1.37 1.52 1.61 1.71 1.81

Positive externalities (Billion CNY) Invisible loss 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.21 0.20 0.26 0.06 ‐0.07 ‐0.12 0.44 1.18 1.88 2.09 2.91 3.48 3.60 3.58 3.18

Gird benefit

Flood control Benefit

Navigation benefit

Environmental benefit

Hydropower utilization benefit

0.05 0.21 0.26 0.26 0.33 0.43 0.42 0.45 0.41 0.52 0.44 0.52 0.46

0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.00 5.65 26.63 18.76 22.84 11.84 17.51 7.54

0.64 2.68 2.54 3.18 3.91 4.59 5.30 7.07 9.20 7.79 8.87 10.05 10.25

0.30 1.47 5.26 6.14 8.19 12.91 7.21 8.25 7.74 6.87 3.69 3.43 3.32

0.76 3.46 4.34 4.36 5.45 7.15 7.06 7.46 6.93 8.68 7.33 8.74 7.70

4.5. Results analysis

the representatives of the natural resource owners in China, namely the local governments. During the seven years of project operation phase (2009–2015), the economic values of annual total negative externalities of the TGP have been growing at a stable rate and remain at a level of 10–14 billion CNY (Table 5 and Fig. 5(a)). The economic rent loss of hydropower resource remains the dominant part of negative externalities (about 64%), followed by the invisible loss (24%) and the intergeneration land loss (12%) (Fig. 7(a)).

4.5.1. The TGP case 4.5.1.1. Negative externality analysis. During the eight years of project construction phase (1995–2002), the economic values of annual total negative externalities of the TGP are between 0 and 0.7 billion China Yuan (CNY), consisting of the invisible loss caused by the decrease of residents' net income before and after the relocation, and the intergeneration land loss borne by the communities nearby the project site with flat growth rates (Table 5 and Fig. 5(a)). The latter one accounts for 70% of the total negative externalities during 1999–2002 (Fig. 7(a)). Thus, the main stakeholders impacted by project negative externalities during this phase are the local community residents. During the six years of project trial operation phase (2003–2008), the economic values of annual total negative externalities of the TGP increase significantly from 1.5 to 9 billion CNY (Table 5 and Fig. 5(a)). The main negative externality now turns to be the economic rent loss of hydropower resource, accounting for 50% to 80% of total negative externalities (Fig. 7(a)), which means that the main stakeholders negatively impacted by the project externalities in this phase turn to be

4.5.1.2. Positive externality analysis. During the eight years of project construction phase (1995–2002), the economic values of annual total positive externalities of the TGP are zero (Table 5 and Fig. 5(b)). This is mainly because the project was still under construction during those years and all kinds of project functions had not yet started operation. The annual total project externalities (i.e. the annual total positive externalities minus the annual total negative externalities) are negative in this project phase (Fig. 9(a)). During the six years of project trial operation phase (2003–2008), the economic values of annual total positive externalities of the TGP increase rapidly from zero to nearly 25 billion CNY (almost twice the

Table 6 The calculation results of the externalities of XLDP. Year

Negative externalities (Billion CNY) Hydropower resource

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

0.99 4.38 4.87

Intergeneration land loss

0.00 0.00 0.00

Positive externalities (Billion CNY) Invisible loss 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.015 0.013 0.007

Gird benefit

Flood control benefit

Navigation Benefit

Environmental benefit

Hydropower utilization benefit

0.06 0.26 0.29

0.00 2.66 3.95

0.00 0.00 0.07

0.50 1.72 2.10

0.99 4.38 4.87

8

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 80 (2020) 106332

B. Xia, et al. 60

60

Construction

Trial

Operation

50

Externali es/ billion RMB

Externali es/ billion RMB

50

40

30

20

Operation

30

20

10

0

0

Intergenera"on land loss

Trial

40

10

Hydropower Resource

Construction

Invisible Loss

Gird Benefit

Flood Control Benefit

Environmental Benefit

Hydro U"liza"on Benefit

Naviga"on Benefit

(b) Positive externalities

(a) Negative externalities

Fig. 5. The calculation results of the externalities of TGP.

growth rate of total negative externalities in the same period) (Table 5 and Fig. 5(b)). The GHG emission reduction benefit accounts for more than 40% of the whole positive externalities, followed by the hydropower utilization benefit (30%), navigation benefit (22%), flood control benefit (2%) and grid benefit (2%) (Fig. 7(b)). The main stakeholders are scattered from local people working near the power plant to the electricity users who may be thousands of miles away from the TGP. During the seven years of project operation phase (2009–2015), the TGP has made full use of the designed functions, and the economic values of annual total positive externalities reach a high level (Fig. 5(b)). Positive externalities include flood control (42%), navigation (22%), hydropower utilization (20%), GHG emission reduction (15%), and grid benefit (1%) (Fig. 7(b)), which benefit a great amount of people who are living along the river. These positive externalities show different variation characteristics. The benefit of flood control had a large fluctuation due to different volumes of water inflow in different years, while that of navigation, hydropower utilization benefit and power grid are relatively stable (Fig. 5(b)).

negative and positive project externalities slows down. The ratio of annual positive to negative externalities fluctuates between 2.3 and 5.0 (Fig. 10), indicating that the economic value of annual total positive externalities in the normal operation phase is much greater than that of negative ones. 4.5.2. The XLDP case 4.5.2.1. Negative externality analysis. During the nine years of project construction phase (2004–2012), the economic values of annual total negative externalities of the XLDP are only 0–6 million CNY. Both the economic rent loss of hydropower resource and the intergeneration land loss have not yet appeared in this case, thus all negative externalities are from the invisible loss of residents (Table 6 and Fig. 6(a)). The main issue that the managers of the XLDP face in this phase is to deal with the living standard recovery of project resettlement. After entering project trial operation phase (2013–2015), the economic values of annual total negative externalities of the XLDP increase significantly and are 1 billion, 4.4 billion and 4.9 billion CNY, respectively (Table 6 and Fig. 6(a)). The increase is mainly from the economic rent loss of hydropower resource, accounting for nearly 100% of the total value of negative externalities (Fig. 8(a)). The estimated economic values of total negative externalities of the XLDP in operation phase are about 5 billion CNY when the annual electricity generation amount becomes stable. Thus, the stakeholders impacted by the economic rent loss of hydropower resource, namely local governments, are the most important stakeholders at this stage.

4.5.1.3. Ratio of positive to negative externalities analysis. In project construction phase, the economic values of positive externalities of the TGP are zero and the economic values of negative externalities grow steadily with a comparatively low rate. The annual total project externalities are negative (Fig. 9(a)). In the trial operation phase, the economic values of both the positive and negative externalities of the TGP grow rapidly and the annual total externalities turn to be positive, as positive externalities have a larger growth rate than negative ones. The ratio of annual positive to negative externalities gradually increases from 1.1 to 2.7 (Fig. 10). In project operation phase, the growth of both Construction

Trial

Operation

10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Hydropower Resource

Intergenera"on land loss

Construction

12.00

Externali es/ billion RMB

Externali es/ billion RMB

12.00

4.5.2.2. Positive externality analysis. The positive externalities of the

8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Gird Benefit

Flood Control Benefit

Environmental Benefit

Hydro U"liza"on Benefit

2011

Fig. 6. The calculation results of the externalities of XLDP. 9

2012

2013

Naviga"on Benefit

(b) Positive externalities

(a) Negative externalities

Operation

10.00

0.00 2004

Invisible Loss

Trial

2014

2015

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 80 (2020) 106332

B. Xia, et al.

100%

Construction

Trial

Operation

100%

Construction

Trial

Operation

90%

80%

80% 70%

60%

60% 50%

40%

40% 30%

20%

20% 10%

0%

0%

-20% Hydropower Resource

Intergenera"on land loss

Invisible Loss

Gird Benefit

Flood Control Benefit

Environmental Benefit

Hydro U"liza"on Benefit

Naviga"on Benefit

(b) Positive externalities

(a) Negative externalities

Fig. 7. The percentages of the externalities of TGP.

XLDP also appeared after entering the trial operation phase. The economic values of annual total positive externalities increased rapidly from zero to nearly 11.3 billion CNY within three years (2013–2015) (Table 6 and Fig. 6(b)). The dominant part of positive externalities was from the hydropower utilization benefit with a proportion of more than 40%, followed by flood control benefit (30%), environmental benefit of GHG emission reduction (20%), grid benefit (2.8%) and navigation benefit (0.3%) (Fig. 8(b)).

of project life cycles (Figs. 5, 6, 7 and 8), which strongly supports Hypothesis 1. The results support the Hypothesis 2 as well. Although the ratios of the economic values of positive externalities to that of the negative externalities of both cases exceed 2.0 during project operation phase (Fig. 10), negative externalities have dominating effects in project construction phases before the positive externalities show up. The stakeholder attitude toward a project may be more negative in these phases than in other positive externality dominating phases, and higher risks of criticism from the public and the media also exist in these phases.

4.5.2.3. Ratio of positive to negative externalities analysis. In project construction phase, the economic values of positive externalities of the XLDP in project construction phase are zero and the economic values of negative externalities grow steadily with a comparatively low rate. The annual total project externalities are negative (Fig. 9(b)). In the trial operation and operation phases, the economic values of positive and negative externalities of the XLDP both grow rapidly and the annual total externalities turn to be positive. The ratio of positive to negative externalities fluctuates between 1.5 and 2.5 (Fig. 10), which means that the XLDP is also externally beneficial for the whole society.

5. Discussions As the world's first and third largest hydropower projects, the case studies of the TGP and the XLDP have good representativeness for large hydropower projects. The results of the case studies reveal some common characteristics of large hydropower projects externalities and provide useful insights for project and stakeholder management. Firstly, the case studies show a common development path of the hydropower project externalities, which is directly related to the process of hydropower development. Negative externalities experienced by people resettled are the first to emerge, because the project resettlement often happens before the project construction. After entering the trial operation and operation phases, the project functions are put into use and positive externalities increase rapidly. The results show that the ratios of the economic values of positive externalities to that of the negative externalities in both cases exceed 2.0 during project operation phase.The economic value of annual total positive externalities of the

4.6. Hypothesis testing The above case calculation and analysis support the two Hypotheses proposed in Section 2. First, both the TGP and the XLDP have various types of positive and negative externalities in different project phases. The economic values of externalities gradually increase with time and become stable after entering project operation. There are clear differences among positive and negative externalities in components, proportions of different components, and growth rates in the three phases 100%

Construction

Trial

Operation

Construction

100%

90%

90%

80%

80%

70%

70%

60%

60%

50%

50%

40%

40%

30%

30%

20%

20%

10%

10%

Trial

Operation

0%

0%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Hydropower Resource

Intergenera"on land loss

Invisible Loss

Gird Benefit

Flood Control Benefit

Environmental Benefit

Hydro U"liza"on Benefit

Naviga"on Benefit

(b) Positive externalities

(a) Negative externalities

Fig. 8. The percentages of the externalities of XLDP. 10

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 80 (2020) 106332

B. Xia, et al.

45.00

Construction

Trial

Operation

Construction

7.00

Trial

Operation

40.00

6.00 35.00

Externalites/ billion RMB

Externali!es/ billion RMB

5.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00

4.00

3.00 2.00

1.00

5.00 0.00

0.00 2004

-5.00

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

-1.00

(a) TGP

(b) XLDP

Fig. 9. The total externalities of TGP and XLDP in different life cycle phases.

2010; Wilmsen, 2016), the XLDP does have a better image in the public mind because of its small influences on local communities. With regards to intergeneration land loss, applying a suitable land compensation standard is necessary. As the XLDP provides land compensation at a higher level in accordance with the new resettlement compensation policy of China (rising from 3–5 years land incomes to 16–20 years land incomes) (SCPRC, 2006), the economic value of negative project externality of intergeneration land loss in the XLDP case is zero throughout the calculation period. Therefore, the possible conflicts and risks with regards to land compensation may be reduced or avoided. Finally, for economic rent loss of hydropower resource, the XLDP establishes a new company with two local energy investment companies to share the benefits of hydropower development with the two local governments. This is a good attempt to get proactive support from local governments, as the local government are with strong administrative power which can substantially influence the project delivery process. When the negative externalities of the current phases cannot be reduced or have already been reduced to a relatively low level, the publicity of the huge positive project externalities to the public is also a feasible choice of reducing social risks. The publicity of positive externality information can help obtain more support from stakeholders and form a positive overall comment on the project in public opinion, which can provide a better public opinion environment for project construction and operation. This is important for hydropower development industry to get support from the public and for the project to better exert its functions. The above methods can also be applied as managerial strategies for other mega public projects to obtain better social performances.

5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TGP

XLDP

Fig. 10. The ration of positive to negative externalities of TGP and XLDP (trial operation phase and operation phase).

TGP is 30 billion of CNY, while that of the XLDP also reaches about 10 billion CNY. This indicates that the construction of these two large hydropower projects is beneficial for the promotion of the whole social welfare. However, this promotion effect doesn't appear immediately after the project starts but with a lag. The existence of such a lag in the initial phase of projects may lead to criticism from the public and the media. If a project is too strongly opposed by the public during the construction phase, the project may face the risk of being blocked, delayed or even stopped even if the project itself can improve the whole social welfare in the long run (Gu, 2016; Mauerhofer, 2016). Thus, it is necessary to pay attention to the negative externalities during the project construction phase and try to understand the source, intensity and variation trend of the opposing opinion and risks that a project may face. The key factors of negative externalities should be fully analyzed and methods that can reduce the level or delay the appearance of negative externalities should be put into practice to avoid social risks. Secondly, the comparison of the two cases shows some feasible methods of reducing the negative externalities in early project phases of large hydropower projects. For the invisible loss of the residents, reducing the scope of resettlement and promoting the life quality of resettled people back to former standard as soon as possible are very important. In the case of XLDP, the hydropower project resettled only fifty thousand people due to its geographical location, which is a huge advantage over the TGP that resettled a total of 1.25 million people. Although both the XLDP and the TGP pay special attention to the recovery of immigrants' living standard and take measures such as establishing the later-support fund or promoting new industry development plans to bridge the income gap before and after resettlement (Fan,

6. Conclusions This paper establishes a phase-based analysis framework for hydropower project externality (PB-HPE) by integrating the existing economic valuation methods of project externality with the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. The study results not only extend the application of LCA in the fields of hydropower projects but also provide empirical cases of hydropower project externalities. This paper calculates the time series externalities of the TGP and the XLDP in different project phases and analyzes the components and variation characteristics of externalities by applying the PB-HPE framework. The results of the case studies provide a quantitative description of the externalities of large hydropower projects along the project life cycle and reveal the general and specific characteristics of the typical large hydropower projects. The case studies also support the two Hypotheses proposed in this paper, indicating that the components and variation characteristics of hydropower project externalities are different among project phases and negative externalities can have dominating effects in some project phases during the life cycle of a hydropower project. 11

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 80 (2020) 106332

B. Xia, et al.

Applying the LCA tool into hydropower project externality analysis shows the feasibility of LCA framework in project impact analysis. The proposed framework can help researchers get more comprehensive and quantitative understanding of project life cycle performance. The quantitative analysis of the components and variation characteristics of hydropower project externalities will help hydropower developers and decision makers understand the changes and meanings of project externalities that are closely related to the interests of different stakeholders, and can provide references for selecting appropriate externality management strategies. The above conclusions and recommendations can be applied to other types of mega public projects or private projects for better social performances.

ISO, 2006a. ISO 14040 International Standard. In: Environmental Management –Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. ISO, 2006b. ISO 14044 International Standard. In: Environmental Management –Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines. International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva, Switzerland. Jiang, H., Lin, P., Qiang, M., 2016a. Public-opinion sentiment analysis for large hydro projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 142, 05015013. Jiang, H., Qiang, M., Lin, P., 2016b. Finding academic concerns of the Three Gorges Project based on a topic modeling approach. Ecol. Indic. 60, 693–701. Jørgensen, A., Le Bocq, A., Nazarkina, L., Hauschild, M., 2007. Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13, 96–103. Kadiyala, A., Kommalapati, R., Huque, Z., 2016. Evaluation of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from hydroelectricity generation systems. Sustainability 8, 539. Karney, B.W., Maclean, H.L., 2007. Life-cycle inventory of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for two hydropower projects in China. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 13, 271–279. Kirchherr, J., Pohlner, H., Charles, K.J., 2016. Cleaning up the big muddy: a metasynthesis of the research on the social impact of dams. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 60, 115–125. Koch, F.H., 2001. Externalities and Energy Policy:The Life Cycle Analysis Approach. Nuclear Energy Agency, París, Francia. Madani, K., Hooshyar, M., Khatami, S., Alaeipour, A., Moeini, A., 2014. NashReinforcement Learning (N-RL) for Developing Coordination Strategies in NonTransferable Utility Games, 2014 Ieee International Conference on Systems, Man And Cybernetics. IEEE, New York, pp. 2705–2710. Magee, D., McDonald, K., 2006. Beyond Three Gorges: Nu River Hydropwer and Energy Decision Politics in China. Maitra, S., 2009. Development induced displacement: issues of compensation and resettlement—experiences from the Narmada Valley and Sardar Sarovar project. Jpn. J. Polit. Sci. 10, 191–211. Mattmann, M., Logar, I., Brouwer, R., 2016. Hydropower externalities: a meta-analysis. Energy Econ. 57, 66–77. Mauerhofer, V., 2016. Introduction to the special issue: public participation in environmental and land use policy in East Asia. Land Use Policy 52, 477–480. OGCY, 2010. Office of the General Command of Flood Control and Drought Relief of the Yangtze River, Flood Control and Drought Relief of the Yangtze River. Changjiang Publishing House, Wuhan. Pehnt, M., 2006. Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies. Renew. Energy 31, 55–71. PMI, Project Management Institute, 2013. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 5th ed. Project Management Institute, Inc., NewtownSquare, PA, USA. Qiu, Y., Meng, G., Wei, Y., 2016. Factors influencing immigrants satisfaction in Danjiangkou Reservoir based on logistic regression model. Water Policy 18, 1384–1398. Samuleson, P., 1947. Foundations of economic analysis. Addison-Wesley Series Economics 14, 516–530. Schultz, B., 2002. Role of dams in irrigation, drainage and flood control. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 18, 147–162. SCPRC (State Council of the People's Republic of China), 2006. Large and Medium-sized Water Conservancy and Hydropower Project Construction Land Requisition Compensation and Resettlement Ordinance. (in Chinese). Sheldon, S., Hadian, S., Zik, O., 2015. Beyond carbon: quantifying environmental externalities as energy for hydroelectric and nuclear power. Energy 84, 36–44. Shen, J., 2008. Theory of Reservoir Resettlement Compensation Contract. Tsinghua University (in Chinese). Tang, W., Li, Z., Qiang, M., Wang, S., Lu, Y., 2013. Risk management of hydropower development in China. Energy 60, 316–324. Tilt, B., Braun, Y., He, D.M., 2009. Social impacts of large dam projects: a comparison of international case studies and implications for best practice. J. Environ. Manag. 90, S249–S257. Tortajada, C., 2015. Dams: an essential component of development. J. Hydrol. Eng. 20, 9. Varun, Bhat, I.K., Prakash, R., 2009. LCA of renewable energy for electricity generation systems—a review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 13, 1067–1073. Varun, Prakash, R., Bhat, I.K., 2012. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions estimation for small hydropower schemes in India. Energy 44, 498–508. Wang, P., Lassoie, J.P., Dong, S., Morreale, S.J., 2013a. A framework for social impact analysis of large dams: a case study of cascading dams on the Upper-Mekong River, China. J. Environ. Manag. 117, 131–140. Wang, P., Wolf, S.A., Lassoie, J.P., Dong, S., 2013b. Compensation policy for displacement caused by dam construction in China: an institutional analysis. Geoforum 48, 1–9. Ward, S.C., Chapman, C.B., 1995. Risk-management perspective on the project lifecycle. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 13, 145–149. Wilmsen, B., 2016. After the Deluge: a longitudinal study of resettlement at the Three Gorges Dam, China. World Dev. 84, 41–54. Xie, L.F., Luo, D.F., Li, J., 2009. Discussion on calculation of economic benefits for inland navigation and electricity junction. Port Waterway Eng. 2, 113–118 (in Chinese). Yang, L., 2012. Studies on Methane and Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Three Gorges Reservoir and their Influencing Factors. Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing (in Chinese). Zeng, S.X., Ma, H.Y., Lin, H., Zeng, R.C., Tam, V.W.Y., 2015. Social responsibility of major infrastructure projects in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33, 537–548. Zhang, J., Xu, L., Li, X., 2015. Review on the externalities of hydropower: a comparison between large and small hydropower projects in Tibet based on the CO2 equivalent. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 50, 176–185. Zheng, T.F., Qiang, M.S., Chen, W.C., Xia, B.Q., Wang, J.N., 2016. An externality evaluation model for hydropower projects: a case study of the Three Gorges Project. Energy 108, 74–85.

Acknowledgements Many thanks are given to the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51779124, 51479100, 51379104) and the State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering (Grant No. 2015-KY-5). B. Xia would like to acknowledge the China Institute for Rural Studies Tsinghua University for the Dissertation Scholarship and the China Scholarship Council (CSC) for the graduate fellowship. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. References Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., 2010. A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects. Scand. J. Manag. 26, 381–397. Artto, K., Ahola, T., Vartiainen, V., 2016. From the front end of projects to the back end of operations: managing projects for value creation throughout the system lifecycle. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34, 258–270. Asif, M., 2009. Sustainable energy options for Pakistan. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 13, 903–909. Chen, L., Sui, X., Wang, D.S., Yin, X.Y., Ji, G.D., 2016. The ecological benefit-loss evaluation in a riverine wetland for hydropower projects—a case study of Xiaolangdi reservoir in the Yellow River, China. Ecol. Eng. 96, 34–44. Dai, H., Masui, T., Matsuoka, Y., Fujimori, S., 2011. Assessment of China's climate commitment and non-fossil energy plan towards 2020 using hybrid AIM/CGE model. Energy Policy 39, 2875–2887. de Jong, P., Kiperstok, A., Torres, E.A., 2015. Economic and environmental analysis of electricity generation technologies in Brazil. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 52, 725–739. Delaney, J., Jacobson, S., 2014. Those outsiders: how downstream externalities affect public good provision. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67, 340–352. Do, K.H.P., Dinar, A., 2014. The role of issue linkage in managing nongooperating basins: the case of the Mekong. Nat. Resour. Model. 247, 192–518. Dong, Y.H., Ng, S.T., 2015. A social life cycle assessment model for building construction in Hong Kong. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 1166–1180. Dreyer, L., Hauschild, M., Schierbeck, J., 2006. A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11, 88–97. Fan, Q., 2010. Research on the Benefit Sharing Model of Hydropower Project Development. Tsinghua University (in Chinese). Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guinee, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D., Suh, S., 2009. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 91, 1–21. Furuta, H., Akiyama, M., 2017. Life-cycle of structural systems: design, assessment, maintenance and management. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 13 (1), 1. Ghasempour, A., Ahmadi, E., 2016. Assessment of environment impacts of egg production chain using life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 183, 980–987. Gleick, P., 2009. Three Gorges Dam Project, Yangtze River, China, the world’s Water 2008e2009: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources. Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 139–150. Gracey, E.O., Verones, F., 2016. Impacts from hydropower production on biodiversity in an LCA framework—review and recommendations. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 412–428. Gu, H., 2016. NIMBYism in China: issues and prospects of public participation in facility siting. Land Use Policy 52, 527–534. Guinee, J., 2002. Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 4, 311–313. Gunawardena, U.A.D.P., 2010. Inequalities and externalities of power sector: a case of Broadlands hydropower project in Sri Lanka. Energy Policy 38, 726–734. Huq, F., 2000. Testing in the software development life-cycle: now or later. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 18, 243–250. ICOLD, I.C.o.L.D, 2011. General Synthesis of World Register of Dams.

12