IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i19p5509-d273719.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tradeoff between Hydropower and River Visual Landscape Services in Mountainous Areas

Author

Listed:
  • Bin Fu

    (Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, China
    University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Naiwen Li

    (State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Engineering, College of Water Resource & Hydropower, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, Sichuan, China)

Abstract

Water retention is one of the important services provided by ecosystems. Water retention is also the basis for multiple other services, such as hydropower development, river continuity, and biodiversity. However, there are clear tradeoffs among these services. Tradeoffs are already a hot topic in ecosystem services research, but the tradeoff between hydropower and river visual landscape services (RVLS) has not yet been investigated. In this study, we used the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs (InVEST) hydropower model for spatial mapping of watershed services. The proportion of the inflow of power stations to annual flow was proposed as the indicator for RVLS. Finally, based on an evaluation of historical hydropower development, different flow recovery scenarios were set up, and the tradeoff relationship between hydropower and landscape services was analyzed. The results showed that the tradeoff between the hydropower service and RVLS in mainstream displayed obvious spatial and temporal changes. With the development of hydropower, the increase of hydropower services caused a rapid decline in RVLS. The difference of two service scores fell from 1.0 in 1958 to 0.52 in 2015. The tradeoff intensity showed a turbulent decline downstream, which was closely related to the cascades’ development. The tradeoff was reversible. Through the flow scheduling of the reservoir group, the RVLS of each river section can be basically restored, while the hydropower service decline was only 29%.

Suggested Citation

  • Bin Fu & Naiwen Li, 2019. "Tradeoff between Hydropower and River Visual Landscape Services in Mountainous Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-20, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5509-:d:273719
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5509/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5509/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Victor, Peter A., 2012. "Growth, degrowth and climate change: A scenario analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 206-212.
    2. Mach, Megan E. & Martone, Rebecca G. & Chan, Kai M.A., 2015. "Human impacts and ecosystem services: Insufficient research for trade-off evaluation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 112-120.
    3. Sentelhas, Paulo C. & Gillespie, Terry J. & Santos, Eduardo A., 2010. "Evaluation of FAO Penman-Monteith and alternative methods for estimating reference evapotranspiration with missing data in Southern Ontario, Canada," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(5), pages 635-644, May.
    4. Chisholm, Ryan A., 2010. "Trade-offs between ecosystem services: Water and carbon in a biodiversity hotspot," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 1973-1987, August.
    5. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Johnson, Gary W. & Voigt, Brian & Villa, Ferdinando, 2013. "Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 117-125.
    6. Zhihui Li & Xiangzheng Deng & Feng Wu & Shaikh Shamim Hasan, 2015. "Scenario Analysis for Water Resources in Response to Land Use Change in the Middle and Upper Reaches of the Heihe River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-23, March.
    7. Hutcheson, Walter & Hoagland, Porter & Jin, Di, 2018. "Valuing environmental education as a cultural ecosystem service at Hudson River Park," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 387-394.
    8. Divinsky, Itai & Becker, Nir & Bar (Kutiel), Pua, 2017. "Ecosystem service tradeoff between grazing intensity and other services - A case study in Karei-Deshe experimental cattle range in northern Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 16-27.
    9. Marcel Aillery & Robbin Shoemaker & Margriet Caswell, 2001. "Agriculture and Ecosystem Restoration in South Florida: Assessing Trade-Offs from Water-Retention Development in the Everglades Agricultural Area," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(1), pages 183-195.
    10. Jacob J Bukoski & Jeremy S Broadhead & Daniel C Donato & Daniel Murdiyarso & Timothy G Gregoire, 2017. "The Use of Mixed Effects Models for Obtaining Low-Cost Ecosystem Carbon Stock Estimates in Mangroves of the Asia-Pacific," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, January.
    11. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: A case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 40-50.
    12. Byman Hamududu & Aanund Killingtveit, 2012. "Assessing Climate Change Impacts on Global Hydropower," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-18, February.
    13. Lester, Sarah E. & Costello, Christopher & Halpern, Benjamin S. & Gaines, Steven D. & White, Crow & Barth, John A., 2013. "Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 80-89.
    14. Demarty, M. & Bastien, J., 2011. "GHG emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs in tropical and equatorial regions: Review of 20 years of CH4 emission measurements," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 4197-4206, July.
    15. Nancy Carson & Panagiotis Tsigaris, 2011. "Illustrating Environmental Issues by Using the Production-Possibility Frontier: A Classroom Experiment," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(3), pages 243-254, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pedro Pérez-Cutillas & Pedro Baños Páez & Isabel Banos-González, 2020. "Variability of Water Balance under Climate Change Scenarios. Implications for Sustainability in the Rhône River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-22, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qian Li & Xuefeng Zhang & Qingfu Liu & Yang Liu & Yong Ding & Qing Zhang, 2017. "Impact of Land Use Intensity on Ecosystem Services: An Example from the Agro-Pastoral Ecotone of Central Inner Mongolia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-11, June.
    2. Keyu Qin & Jing Li & Xiaonan Yang, 2015. "Trade-Off and Synergy among Ecosystem Services in the Guanzhong-Tianshui Economic Region of China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Yanqiong Ye & Jiaen Zhang & Ting Wang & Hui Bai & Xuan Wang & Wei Zhao, 2021. "Changes in Land-Use and Ecosystem Service Value in Guangdong Province, Southern China, from 1990 to 2018," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, April.
    4. Shiliang Liu & Yuhong Dong & Hua Liu & Fangfang Wang & Lu Yu, 2023. "Review of Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services and Realization Approaches in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    5. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    6. Adrienne Grêt-Regamey & Bettina Weibel & Kenneth J Bagstad & Marika Ferrari & Davide Geneletti & Hermann Klug & Uta Schirpke & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2014. "On the Effects of Scale for Ecosystem Services Mapping," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-26, December.
    7. Peng, Jian & Hu, Xiaoxu & Wang, Xiaoyu & Meersmans, Jeroen & Liu, Yanxu & Qiu, Sijing, 2019. "Simulating the impact of Grain-for-Green Programme on ecosystem services trade-offs in Northwestern Yunnan, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    8. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Waage, Sissel & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 27-39.
    9. Divinski, Itai & Becker, Nir & Bar (Kutiel), Pua, 2018. "Opportunity costs of alternative management options in a protected nature park: The case of Ramat Hanadiv, Israel," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 494-504.
    10. Ochoa, Vivian & Urbina-Cardona, Nicolás, 2017. "Tools for spatially modeling ecosystem services: Publication trends, conceptual reflections and future challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 155-169.
    11. Qingfu Liu & Yanyun Zhao & Xuefeng Zhang & Alexander Buyantuev & Jianming Niu & Xiaojiang Wang, 2018. "Spatiotemporal Patterns of Desertification Dynamics and Desertification Effects on Ecosystem Services in the Mu Us Desert in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, February.
    12. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    13. Vallet, Améline & Locatelli, Bruno & Levrel, Harold & Wunder, Sven & Seppelt, Ralf & Scholes, Robert J. & Oszwald, Johan, 2018. "Relationships Between Ecosystem Services: Comparing Methods for Assessing Tradeoffs and Synergies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 96-106.
    14. Dang, Anh Nguyet & Jackson, Bethanna Marie & Benavidez, Rubianca & Tomscha, Stephanie Anne, 2021. "Review of ecosystem service assessments: Pathways for policy integration in Southeast Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    15. Wu, Xutong & Wang, Shuai & Fu, Bojie & Liu, Yu & Zhu, Yuan, 2018. "Land use optimization based on ecosystem service assessment: A case study in the Yanhe watershed," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 303-312.
    16. Berna Tektas Sivrikaya & Ferhan Cebi & Hasan Hüseyin Turan & Nihat Kasap & Dursun Delen, 2017. "A fuzzy long-term investment planning model for a GenCo in a hybrid electricity market considering climate change impacts," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 975-991, October.
    17. Berna Tektaş & Hasan Hüseyin Turan & Nihat Kasap & Ferhan Çebi & Dursun Delen, 2022. "A Fuzzy Prescriptive Analytics Approach to Power Generation Capacity Planning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-26, April.
    18. Heikkinen, Tiina, 2018. "An Equilibrium Framework for the Analysis of a Degrowth Society With Asymmetric Agents, Sharing and Basic Income," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 43-53.
    19. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    20. Ewa Chomać-Pierzecka & Andrzej Kokiel & Joanna Rogozińska-Mitrut & Anna Sobczak & Dariusz Soboń & Jacek Stasiak, 2022. "Hydropower in the Energy Market in Poland and the Baltic States in the Light of the Challenges of Sustainable Development-An Overview of the Current State and Development Potential," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-19, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5509-:d:273719. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.