Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Determining community preferences to manage conflicts in small hydropower projects in Nepal

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sustainable Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The livelihoods of local communities can be affected by environmental degradation and economic development resulting from the construction of hydropower projects, and failure to address issues of concern in a timely fashion can lead to conflicts. Working with communities to identify potential impacts, issues of concern, and community preferences for mitigation activities will help hydropower companies to plan and manage effective mitigation activities and avoid conflict. In this study, the preferences of the local community in the area affected by a four-megawatt hydropower project in Sankhuwasabha District in Nepal were measured using a discrete choice experiment survey. More than half of the respondents expected both positive (mostly economic) and negative (mostly environmental) impacts from the project. They were mostly concerned about the negative impacts that directly influenced their livelihood options, especially reduction in fish numbers and increased flooding. The analysis indicated that respondents wanted to have more fish available in the river, additional check dams to control floods, more funds allocated to conservation than to income generation, and less labour contribution. The estimated annual willingness-to-pay for the improved scenario was slightly more than the estimated cost of mitigating the physical and biological damage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acharya DR, Bell JS, Simkhada P et al (2010) Research women’s autonomy in household decision-making: a demographic study in Nepal. Reprod Health 7:15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adhikari B, Di Falco S, Lovett JC (2004) Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecol Econ 48:245–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez-Farizo B, Hanley N (2002) Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain. Energy Policy 30:107–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anup G, Ian B, Sang-Eun O (2011) Micro-hydropower: a promising decentralized renewable technology and its impact on rural livelihoods. Sci Res Essays 6:1240–1248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baigal P (2017) Chitral pioneers community hydropower schemes. https://www.thethirdpole.net. Accessed 23 July 2017

  • Barros N, Cole JJ, Tranvik LJ et al (2011) Carbon emission from hydroelectric reservoirs linked to reservoir age and latitude. Nat Geosci 4:593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett J, Birol E (2010) Choice experiments in developing countries: implementation, challenges and policy implications. Cheltenham, UK, Edwarg Elgar, p 321

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann A, Hanley N, Wright R (2006) Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy 34:1004–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann A, Colombo S, Hanley N (2008) Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments. Ecol Econ 65:616–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjornlund H, Zuo A, Wheeler S et al (2013) Policy preferences for water sharing in Alberta, Canada. Water Resour Econ 1:93–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliemer MCJ, Rose JM (2010) Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations. Transp Res Part B Methodol 44:720–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R, Haider W, Gunaratne L, Beardmore B (2010) A choice experiment of human-elephant conflict resolution in Sri Lanka. In: Bennett J, Birol E (eds) Choice experiments in developing countries: implementation, challenges and policy implications. Edward Elgar, Northampton

    Google Scholar 

  • Camou-Guerrero A, Reyes-García V, Martínez-Ramos M, Casas A (2008) Knowledge and use value of plant species in a Rarámuri community: a gender perspective for conservation. Hum Ecol 36:259–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandy T, Keenan RJ, Petheram RJ, Shepherd P (2012) Impacts of hydropower development on rural livelihood sustainability in Sikkim, India: community perceptions. Mt Res Dev 32:117–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cromwell G (1992) What makes technology transfer? Small-scale hydropower in Nepal’s public and private sectors. World Dev 20:979–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degefu DM, He W, Zhao JH (2015) Hydropower for sustainable water and energy development in Ethiopia. Sustain Water Resour Manag 1:305–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Electricity Development (2017) List of issued survey Licenses. http://www.doed.gov.np/survey_license_for_generation_1-25mw.php. Accessed 22 July 2017

  • Diduck A, Sinclair J, Pratap D, Hostetler G (2007) Achieving meaningful public participation in the environmental assessment of hydro development: case studies from Chamoli District, Uttarakhand, India. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 25:219–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diduck AP, Pratap D, Sinclair AJ, Deane S (2013) Perceptions of impacts, public participation, and learning in the planning, assessment and mitigation of two hydroelectric projects in Uttarakhand, India. Land Use Policy 33:170–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Divyeshori Hydropower Pvt Ltd (2015) Supplementry initial environment examination report of SabhaKhola Hydro Electric Project. Divyeshori Hydropower Company Limited, Kathmandu, Nepal

  • Ek K (2002) Valuing the environmental impacts of wind power: a choice experiment approach. LuleåUniversity of Technology, Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences, Division ofEconomics, 2, 40

  • Ek K (2005) Public and private attitudes towards “green” electricity: the case of Swedish wind power. Energy Policy 33:1677–1689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearnside PM (2016) Environmental and social impacts of hydroelectric dams in Brazilian Amazonia: implications for the aluminum industry. World Dev 77:48–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrini S, Scarpa R (2007) Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study. J Environ Econ Manag 53:342–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher B, Naidoo R, Guernier J et al (2017) Integrating fisheries and agricultural programs for food security. Agric Food Secur 6:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey GW, Linke DM (2002) Hydropower as a renewable and sustainable energy resource meeting global energy challenges in a reasonable way. Energy Policy 30:1261–1265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu B, Wang YK, Xu P et al (2014) Value of ecosystem hydropower service and its impact on the payment for ecosystem services. Sci Total Environ 472:338–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghimire S (2012) Land use planning in hydropower development a case study of upper Tamakoshi Hydroelectric Project. Kathmandu Univ J Sci Eng Technol 8:134–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GoN (2004) Local self governance act 2055 (1999) Second amendment. Ministry of Law and Justice, Kathmandu, Nepal

  • Hanemann M (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discreteresponses. Am J Agric Econ 66:332–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Wright R, Adamowicz V (1998) Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ Resour Econ 11:413–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • HIDCL (2016) Nepal hydropower overview. Hydroelectrcity Investment and Development Company Ltd (HIDCL), Kathmandu, Nepal

  • Khadka K (2012) Land and natural resources: central issues in the peace and democratisation process in Nepal. Econ J Dev Issues 11:47–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kibria G (2017) Sustainability in hydropower and safe fish passage. Res Gate Online. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22074.70086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klimpt J-É, Rivero C, Puranen H, Koch F (2002) Recommendations for sustainable hydroelectric development. Energy Policy 30:1305–1312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ku S-J, Yoo S-H (2010) Willingness to pay for renewable energy investment in Korea: a choice experiment study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 14:2196–2201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster K (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74:132–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehtonen E, Kuuluvainen J, Pouta E et al (2003) Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environ Sci Policy 6:195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li S, Zhang Q, Bush RT, Sullivan LA (2015) Methane and CO2 emissions from China’s hydroelectric reservoirs: a new quantitative synthesis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:5325–5339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manski CF (1977) The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis 8:229–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathema AB, Guragain S, Sherpa NC, Adhikari BB (2013) Can hydropower drive green economy for Nepal: a review. J Environ Prot (Irvine Calif) 4:732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCandless MM (2007) Community involvement in the development of small hydro in Uttaranchal, India. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Agricultural Development (2012) District profile Sankhuwasabha. Sankhuwasabha. Ministry of Agricultural Development, Kathmadu, Nepal

  • Ministry of Water Resources (2001) The Hydropower Development Policy, 2001. The Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal

    Google Scholar 

  • Navrud S, Bråten KG (2007) Consumers’ preferences for green and brown electricity: a choice modelling approach. Rev Econ Polit 117:795–811

    Google Scholar 

  • Nightingale A, Sharma JR (2014) Conflict resilience among community forestry user groups: experiences in Nepal. Disasters 38:517–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paudel N, Karki R (2013) The context of REDD+ in Nepal: drivers, agents and institutions. CIFOR Occasional Paper 81, CIFOR Bogor, Indonesia

  • Pokharel S (2001) Hydropower for energy in Nepal. Mt Res Dev 21:4–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Practical Action (2017) Small-scale hydro power. https://practicalaction.org/small-scale-hydro-power. Accessed 6 Apr 2017

  • Prasai S, Surie MD (2013) Political economy analysis of the Teesta River Basin. The Asia Foundation, New Delhi, India

  • Rai RK, Scarborough H (2013) Economic value of mitigation of plant invaders in a subsistence economy: incorporating labour as a mode of payment. Environ Dev Econ 18:225–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rai RK, Scarborough H (2015) Nonmarket valuation in developing countries: incorporating labour contributions in environmental benefits estimates. Aust J Agric 59:479–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rai RK, Scarborough H, Subedi N, Lamichhane B (2012) Invasive plants—do they devastate or diversify rural livelihoods? Rural farmers’ perception of three invasive plants in Nepal. J Nat Conserv 20(3):170–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rai RK, Shyamsundar P, Nepal M, Bhatta LD (2015) Differences in demand for watershed services: understanding preferences through a choice experiment in the Koshi Basin of Nepal. Ecol Econ 119:274–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rai RK, Neupane P, Dhakal A (2016) Is the contribution of community forest users financially efficient? A household level benefit-cost analysis of community forest management in Nepal. Int J 10(1):142–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijal P (2015) Benefit sharing in hydropower. Himalayan Times, Ghaziabad

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe J, Bennett J, Louviere J (2000) Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecol Econ 35:289–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy RCK (2000) Land rights of the indigenous peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. IWGIA, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapkota I, Oden PC (2008) Household characteristics and dependency on community forests in Terai of Nepal. Int J Soc For 52:253–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma RH, Awal R (2013) Hydropower development in Nepal. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 21:684–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivongxay A, Greiner R, Garnett ST (2017) Livelihood impacts of hydropower projects on downstream communities in central Laos and mitigation measures. Water Resour Rural Dev 9:46–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool BK, Dhakal S, Gippner O, Bambawale MJ (2011) Halting hydro: a review of the socio-technical barriers to hydroelectric power plants in Nepal. Energy 36:3468–3476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabi A, Hille SL, Wüstenhagen R (2014) What makes people seal the green power deal? Customer segmentation based on choice experiment in Germany. Ecol Econ 107:206–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilt B, Braun Y, He D (2009) Social impacts of large dam projects: a comparison of international case studies and implications for best practice. J Environ Manag 90:S249–S257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • To PX, Dressler WH, Mahanty S et al (2012) The prospects for payment for ecosystem services (PES) in Vietnam: a look at three payment schemes. Hum Ecol 40:237–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Train KE (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tuan T, Navrud S (2007) Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates. Environ Resour Econ 38(1):51–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Sperling E (2012) Hydropower in Brazil: overview of positive and negative environmental aspects. Energy Procedia 18:110–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang C (2012) A guide for local benefit sharing in hydropower projects. World Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang G, Fang Q, Zhang L et al (2010) Valuing the effects of hydropower development on watershed ecosystem services: case studies in the Jiulong River Watershed, Fujian Province, China. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 86:363–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winemiller KO, McIntyre PB, Castello L et al (2016) Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon, Congo, and Mekong. Science 80- 351:128–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng R, Cai X, Ringler C, Zhu T (2017) Hydropower versus irrigation—an analysis of global patterns. Environ Res Lett 12:34006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziv G, Baran E, Nam S et al (2012) Trading-off fish biodiversity, food security, and hydropower in the Mekong River Basin. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:5609–5614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zografakis N, Sifaki E, Pagalou M et al (2010) Assessment of public acceptance and willingness to pay for renewable energy sources in Crete. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 14:1088–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was undertaken jointly by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) Koshi Basin Programme (KBP) and Green Governance Nepal (GGN). KBP is supported by the Australian Government through the Sustainable Development Investment Portfolio for South Asia, as well as by core funds of ICIMOD contributed by the Governments of Afghanistan, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. We would like to thank Dr. A. Beatrice Murray for editorial assistance. The views and interpretation in this publication are those of the authors and should not be ascribed to GGN, ICIMOD, or their donors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Management of Science and Technology Development, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Rajesh Kumar Rai

  2. Faculty of Environment and Labour Safety, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Rajesh Kumar Rai

  3. The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal

    Laxmi D. Bhatta

  4. Green Governance Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal

    Bikal Dahal & Bandana Shri Rai

  5. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia

    Shahriar M. Wahid

Authors
  1. Rajesh Kumar Rai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laxmi D. Bhatta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bikal Dahal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bandana Shri Rai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shahriar M. Wahid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajesh Kumar Rai.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rai, R.K., Bhatta, L.D., Dahal, B. et al. Determining community preferences to manage conflicts in small hydropower projects in Nepal. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 5, 1103–1114 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-018-0285-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-018-0285-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation