Export file:


  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text


  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

Using Choice Experiments to Assess Environmental Impacts of Dams in Portugal

1 NIMA and EEG, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal
2 GOVCOPP, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
3 CETRAD and DESG, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
4 ISCAC, IPC, Coimbra, Portugal

Special Issues: Advances in Energy and Sustainable Development

Despite their well-known benefits in electricity production, dams are also responsible for some adverse environmental impacts affecting particularly the wellbeing of residents of the local communities. These environmental damages have not been included in the cost-benefit analysis of hydropower developments mainly because of the difficulty to determine their value. The prime objective of this paper is to measure the economic values of several environmental impacts due to the dams' activity in Portugal, using a discrete choice experiments approach. With the results of this research paper, we expect to contribute to a more efficient and thorough cost-benefit analysis within the complex process of deciding the optimal location of future dams to be built not only in Portugal, but elsewhere. The addition of this stage to the decision-making process allows the integration of economic, social and environmental dimensions, promoting a richer and more informed decision process.
  Article Metrics

Keywords discrete choice experiments; dams; environmental impacts; public attitudes

Citation: Anabela Botelho, Lina Lourenço-Gomes, Lígia M.C. Pinto, Patrícia Sousa, Sara Sousa, Marieta Valente. Using Choice Experiments to Assess Environmental Impacts of Dams in Portugal. AIMS Energy, 2015, 3(3): 316-325. doi: 10.3934/energy.2015.3.316


  • 1. Rosenberg D, Berkes F, Bodaly R, et al. (1997) Large-scale impacts of hydroelectric development. Environ Rev 5: 27-54.    
  • 2. Abbasi SA, Abbasi N (2000) The likely adverse environmental impacts of renewable energy sources. Appl Energ 65:121-144.    
  • 3. Awakul P, Ogunlana SO (2002) The effect of attitudinal differences on interface conflict on large construction projects. The case of the Pak Mun Dam project. Environ Impact Assess Rev 22: 311-335.
  • 4. Han SY, Kwak SJ, Yoo SH (2008) Valuing environmental impacts of large dam construction in Korea: An application of choice experiments. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28: 256-266.    
  • 5. Tullos D (2009) Assessing the influence of environmental impact assessments on science and policy: An analysis of the Three Gorges Project. J Environ Manage 90: 208-223.    
  • 6. Wang K, Chen D (2012) Impacts of the Three Gorges Dam on Fishery Resources in the Yangtze River. In: After Three Gorges Dam Symposium Proceedings, Appendix C: Submitted Papers. April 13-14; Berkeley, USA.
  • 7. Rashad S, Ismail M (2000) Environmental-impact assessment of hydro-power in Egypt. Appl Energ 65: 285-302.    
  • 8. Wang P, Lassoie JP, Dong S, et al. (2013) A framework for social impact analysis of large dams: A case study of cascading dams on the Upper-Mekong River, China. J Environ Manage 117: 131-140.    
  • 9. 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 S 86: 363-368.    
  • 10. Ouyang W, Hao F, Zhao C, et al. (2010) Vegetation response to 30 years hydropower cascade exploitation in upper stream of Yellow River. Commun Nonlinear Sci 15: 1928-1941.    
  • 11. Theobald DM (2010) Estimating natural landscape changes from 1992 to 2030 in the conterminous US. Landscape Ecol 25: 999-1011.    
  • 12. Morgan JL, Gergel SE, Coops NC (2010) Aerial photography: a rapidly evolving tool for ecological management. BioScience 60: 47-59.    
  • 13. Zhao Q, Liu S, Deng L, et al. (2012) Landscape change and hydrologic alteration associated with dam construction. Int J Appl Earth Obs 16: 17-26.    
  • 14. Pinho P, Maia R, Monterroso A (2007) The quality of Portuguese Environmental Impact Studies: The case of small hydropower projects. Environ Impact Assess Rev 27: 189-205.    
  • 15. Gunawardena UAD (2010) Inequalities and externalities of power sector: A case of Broadlands hydropower project in Sri Lanka. Energ Policy 38: 726-734.    
  • 16. Bakken T, Sundt H, Ruud A, et al. (2012) Development of small versus large hydropower in Norway - comparison of environmental impacts. Energ Proc 20: 185-199.    
  • 17. Ferreiro MF, Gonçalves ME, Costa A (2013) Conflicting values and public decision: The FozCôa case. Ecol Econ 86: 129-135.    
  • 18. JKA—JongensKeet Associates (2010) Noise Impact Assessment. In: Groot Letaba River Water Development Project—Environmental Impact Assessment. Department of Water Affairs, Republic of South Africa. Available from: https://www.dwa.gov.za/Projects/GrootLetaba/.
  • 19. Biscarini C, Di Francesco S, Manciola P (2009) CFD modelling approach for dam break flow studies. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 6: 6759-6793.    
  • 20. Giorgio-Serchi F, Peakall J, Ingham D, et al. (2012) A numerical study of the triggering mechanism of a lock-release density current. Eur J Mech B-Fluid 33: 25-39.    
  • 21. Alcrudo F, Mulet J (2007) Description of the Tous Dam break case study (Spain). J Hydraul Res 45: 45-57.    
  • 22. Mullens JB, Wanstreet V (2010) Using willingness-to-pay surveys when assessing dam removal: a New Hampshire case study. Geogr Bull 51: 97-110.
  • 23. Cui Y, Parker G, Braudrick C, et al. (2006) Dam removal express assessment models (DREAM). Part 1: model development and validation. J Hydraul Res, 44: 291-307.
  • 24. Louviere JJ, Hensher D (1989) On the Design and Analysis of Simulated Choice or Allocation Experiments in Travel Choice Modelling. Transport Res Rec 890: 11-17.
  • 25. Louviere JJ, Hensher D (1983) Using Discrete Choice Models with Experimental Design Data to Forecast Consumer Demand for a Unique Cultural Event. J Consum Res 10: 348-361.    
  • 26. Louviere JJ, Woodworth G (1983) Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data. J Market Re 20: 350-367.    
  • 27. Lancaster K. (1966) A New Approach to Consumer Theory. J Polit Econ 84: 132-157.
  • 28. Bateman I, Carson R, Day B, et al. (2002) Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar.
  • 29. Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz V (1998) Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment: Design Issues, Current Experience and Future Prospects. Environ Resour Econ 11: 413-428.    
  • 30. Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright RE (2001) Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation? J Econ Surv 15: 435-462.
  • 31. Pearce D, Atkinson G, Mourato S (2006) Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments, OECD.
  • 32. Train K (2003) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • 33. Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W (2005) Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • 34. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics, ed. P. Zarembka. New York: Academic Press, 105.
  • 35. Botelho A, Lourenço-Gomes L, Pinto LMC, et al. (2014) How to Design Reliable Discrete Choice Surveys: The Use of Qualitative Research Methods. 2nd International Conference on Project Evaluation-ICOPEV 2014, organized by CGI-Research Centre for Industrial and Technolgy Management, School of Engineering of University of Minho, June 2014.
  • 36. Street D, Burgess L (2007) The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments. Theory and Methods. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
  • 37. Greene W (2012) Nlogit. Version 5 Reference Guide. New York: Econometric Software.
  • 38. Zografakis N, Sifaki E, Pagalou M, et al. (2010) Assessment of public acceptance and willingness to pay for renewable energy sources in Crete. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14: 1088-1095.    
  • 39. Bergmann A, Hanley N, Wright R (2006) Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energ Policy 34: 1004-1014.    
  • 40. Ku SJ, Yoo SH (2010) Willingness to pay for renewable energy investment in Korea: A choice experiment study. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14: 2196-2201.    
  • 41. Wiser RH (2007) Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecol Econ 62: 419-432.    
  • 42. Aravena C, Hutchinson WC, Longo A (2012). Environmental pricing of externalities from different sources of electricity generation in Chile. Energ Econ 34: 1214-1225.    
  • 43. Sundqvist T (2002) Power Generation choice in the presence of environmental externalities. [PhD Dissertation]. [Lulea]: Lulea University of Technology.
  • 44. Han S-Y, Kwak S-J, Yoo S-H (2008). Valuing environmental impacts of large dam construction in Korea: An application of choice experiments. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28: 256-266.    
  • 45. Cretì A, Pontoni F (2014) Cheaper electricity or a better river? Estimating fluvial ecosystem value in Southern France. Economiepolytechnique- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique: 2014-2015.
  • 46. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, et al. (1993) Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register 58: 4601-4614.
  • 47. Shogren J (1990) The impact of self-protection and self-insurance on individual response to risk. J Risk Uncertain 3: 191-204.    
  • 48. Seip K, Strand J (1992) Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment. Environ Resour Econ 2: 91-106.    
  • 49. Neil HR, Cummings RG, Ganderton P, et al. (1994) Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Econ 70: 145-154.    
  • 50. List JA, Gallet CA (2001) What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis. Environ Resour Econ 20: 241-254.
  • 51. Botelho A, Pinto LC (2002) Hypothetical, real, and predicted real willingness to pay in open-ended surveys: experimental results. Appl Econ L 9: 993-996.    


This article has been cited by

  • 1. Anabela Botelho, Lígia M.C. Pinto, Lina Lourenço-Gomes, Marieta Valente, Sara Sousa, Social sustainability of renewable energy sources in electricity production: an application of the contingent valuation method, Sustainable Cities and Society, 2016, 10.1016/j.scs.2016.05.011
  • 2. Anabela Botelho, Paula Ferreira, Fátima Lima, Lígia M. Costa Pinto, Sara Sousa, Assessment of the environmental impacts associated with hydropower, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2016, 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.271
  • 3. Anabela Botelho, Lina Lourenço-Gomes, Lígia M. Costa Pinto, Sara Sousa, Marieta Valente, Discrete-choice experiments valuing local environmental impacts of renewables: two approaches to a case study in Portugal, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2018, 10.1007/s10668-018-0169-0
  • 4. Sara Sousa, Anabela Botelho, Lígia M. Costa Pinto, Marieta Valente, How Relevant Are Non-Use Values and Perceptions in Economic Valuations? The Case of Hydropower Plants, Energies, 2019, 12, 15, 2986, 10.3390/en12152986

Reader Comments

your name: *   your email: *  

Copyright Info: 2015, Lígia M.C. Pinto, et al., licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved