{"title":"A complex balance: assessing perspectives on decommissioning large dams to restore river ecosystems","authors":"Joshua Matanzima, Teboho Mosuoe-Tsietsi","doi":"10.1080/02508060.2023.2234225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, critics of large dams have raised fundamental questions around the necessity and benefits of large dams. A large dam is defined as one with a height of 15 m or more from the lowest foundation to the crest, or a dam between 5 and 15 m impounding more than 3 million cubic metres of water (International Commission on Large Dams, 2011). Since the focus of this article is on large dams, the term ‘dams’ may be used in reference to large dams. Two significant questions have reoccurred in debates on large dams: Should we build more dams or not? Is there a good large dam? Thayer Scudder has expressed a clear opposition to ‘good’ large dams (Scudder, 2017). This is largely due to the evidence that suggests that the persistent, negative socio-economic and environmental costs of large dams exceed their proclaimed economic benefits (Schulz & Adams, 2019; Sovacool & Bulan, 2011). Based on a statistical analysis of 245 large dams in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and North America built between 1934 and 2007, Ansar et al. (2014, p. 2) concluded that ‘even before accounting for negative impacts on human society and the environment, the actual construction costs of large dams are too high to yield a positive return’. Consequently, there have been calls not only to cease the construction of large dams but also to decommission existing ‘unnecessary’ dams (Ansar et al., 2014; Scudder, 2017, 2019). An unnecessary dam is one whose existence is deemed unjustifiable because its negative risks and impacts are considered to outweigh its perceived benefits. Dam decommissioning refers to the process of removing or ceasing the operation of a dam because its negative effects outweigh their perceived benefits. Dam removal is an important tool for river restoration and addressing ageing infrastructure. It is an ongoing process as a large number of ageing dams that are no longer serving their original purposes have become safety liabilities, or represent potential for river system restoration if they are taken down (Duda & Bellmore, 2022). There are two categories of dam removal processes: full and partial decommissioning. Full removal entirely reestablishes the free-flowing conditions in a river because all physical obstacles are abolished, and the river’s continuity is restored (Ayboga, n.d.). Dam removal allows for","PeriodicalId":49371,"journal":{"name":"Water International","volume":"48 1","pages":"615 - 630"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Water International","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2023.2234225","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In recent years, critics of large dams have raised fundamental questions around the necessity and benefits of large dams. A large dam is defined as one with a height of 15 m or more from the lowest foundation to the crest, or a dam between 5 and 15 m impounding more than 3 million cubic metres of water (International Commission on Large Dams, 2011). Since the focus of this article is on large dams, the term ‘dams’ may be used in reference to large dams. Two significant questions have reoccurred in debates on large dams: Should we build more dams or not? Is there a good large dam? Thayer Scudder has expressed a clear opposition to ‘good’ large dams (Scudder, 2017). This is largely due to the evidence that suggests that the persistent, negative socio-economic and environmental costs of large dams exceed their proclaimed economic benefits (Schulz & Adams, 2019; Sovacool & Bulan, 2011). Based on a statistical analysis of 245 large dams in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and North America built between 1934 and 2007, Ansar et al. (2014, p. 2) concluded that ‘even before accounting for negative impacts on human society and the environment, the actual construction costs of large dams are too high to yield a positive return’. Consequently, there have been calls not only to cease the construction of large dams but also to decommission existing ‘unnecessary’ dams (Ansar et al., 2014; Scudder, 2017, 2019). An unnecessary dam is one whose existence is deemed unjustifiable because its negative risks and impacts are considered to outweigh its perceived benefits. Dam decommissioning refers to the process of removing or ceasing the operation of a dam because its negative effects outweigh their perceived benefits. Dam removal is an important tool for river restoration and addressing ageing infrastructure. It is an ongoing process as a large number of ageing dams that are no longer serving their original purposes have become safety liabilities, or represent potential for river system restoration if they are taken down (Duda & Bellmore, 2022). There are two categories of dam removal processes: full and partial decommissioning. Full removal entirely reestablishes the free-flowing conditions in a river because all physical obstacles are abolished, and the river’s continuity is restored (Ayboga, n.d.). Dam removal allows for
期刊介绍:
Water International is the official journal of the International Water Resources Association (IWRA), founded in 1972 to serve as an international gateway to the people, ideas and networks that are critical to the sustainable management of water resources around the world. Water International''s articles, state-of-the-art reviews, technical notes and other matter are policy-relevant and aimed at communicating in-depth knowledge to a multidisciplinary and international community. Water International publishes both individual contributions and thematic special issues and sections on cutting edge issues.
All individual manuscript submissions are subject to initial appraisal and peer review by the Deputy Editor in Chief and the Associate Editors, and, if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by at least one independent, anonymous expert referee. All external peer review is double blind. Thematic issues and sections are handled under comparable procedures by guest editors under the oversight of the Editor in Chief.