Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 729–738

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development

Bing Yu, Linyu Xu n
State Key Laboratory of Water Environment Simulation, School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, No. 19, Xinjiekouwai Street, Haidian District,
Beijing 100875, China

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Ecological compensation could coordinate the development of energy, the economy, and the environ-
Received 14 November 2014 ment by internalizing environmental externalities and adjusting for the relationships with stakeholders'
Received in revised form benefits. Thus, because hydropower is a clean and renewable form of energy, it is urgent that an eco-
9 August 2015
logical compensation mechanism be established for hydropower to promote its sustainable develop-
Accepted 20 October 2015
ment. In this context, this paper has reviewed previous compensation research to explore the particular
Available online 5 December 2015
role that ecological compensation has had in the sustainable development of hydropower. The paper
Keywords: discusses and perfects the ecological compensation mechanism establishment in hydropower develop-
Habitat restoration ment, discussing its connotation, stakeholders, modes, and development of standards. We found that the
Hydropower resettlement
current ecological compensation mechanism in hydropower development was not complete; the accu-
Compensation mode
racy, applicability and reasonability of each mode of ecological compensation in hydropower develop-
Compensation standards development
ment required additional study. Based on these findings, in this review paper, a complete ecological
compensation mechanism framework was constructed to avoid the partial compensation on large
hydropower projects. With this new compensation mechanism framework, the displaced people, inun-
dated habitats, and regulated rivers were identified as the recipients, whereas the beneficiaries from the
hydropower development were identified as the payers. The findings also indicated that the market-led
and government-led compensation should be integrated when designing natural habitat restoration,
resettlement compensation, and payment for ecosystem services (PES) in hydropower development.
Additionally, a cascade ecological compensation development mode was proposed for hydropower
development according to the practical situation in China to illustrate the gradual perfection of the
ecological compensation mechanism establishment.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 730
2. Purpose of study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 730
3. What is ecological compensation in hydropower development? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 730
4. Stakeholders of ecological compensation in hydropower development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 731
5. Modes of ecological compensation in hydropower development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 731
5.1. Direct habitat ecological restoration and dam re-operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 732
5.2. Indirect protection with PES for hydropower projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733
5.3. Immigrant resettlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733
6. Standards development for ecological compensation in hydropower development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733
6.1. Accuracy of ecological habitat restoration projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 734
6.2. Applicability of paying for hydropower schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 734
6.3. Reasonability of immigrant resettlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735
8. Future trend of the ecological compensation mechanism in hydropower development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735
8.1. Completed ecological compensation mechanism of large hydropower projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735

n
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ 86 10 58800618.
E-mail address: xly@bnu.edu.cn (L. Xu).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.038
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
730 B. Yu, L. Xu / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 729–738

8.2. Integrated market-led and government-led ecological compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736

8.3. Cascade ecological compensation mode for large hydropower projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736

1. Introduction compensation mechanisms. Although these measures mitigated

The potentially serious environmental and social impacts that
result from hydropower project development are attracting
greater attention. Although hydropower development has always
been traditionally considered a green energy resource, some
reports have differentiated between “small hydro” as being
renewable and sustainable, whereas “large hydro” is not [1]. Zhang
and Xu also illustrated that the low-carbon status of large hydro-
power projects was overestimated [2]. A recent wave of public
opposition to hydropower projects has emerged, particularly to
schemes that involve reservoirs impounded by large dams. As
some evidence has shown, dams impair river ecosystems by
altering their flow regimes both in terms of the hydrology and
geomorphology, such as the water temperature, flood extent and
nutrient loads, and thus degrade feeding and breeding habitats
along the river [3]. Other research has shown that stocks of
Atlantic salmon on the Penobscot River declined dramatically
following the construction of hydropower dams in the early 20th
century [4]. Likewise, the migratory fish resource at risk from
mainstream dam development on the Mekong River was esti-
mated at 0.7–1.6 million tons per year [5]. Furthermore, the
socioeconomic impacts generated by dam construction are
numerous and outstanding, with respect to the displacement of a
large number of indigenous people from their homeland, the
extensive destruction of agricultural and forest lands, damages to
historical and mineral resources, and the loss of archeological,
scenic and tourist sites [6–8].
Because of the increasing adverse impacts, ecological com-
pensation was proposed as an effective management tool to alle-
viate the identified contradictions among energy, the environment
and socio-economics. By constructing a model area with similar
ecological functions or qualities that are impaired by human
activities, the ecological compensation mechanism was designed
to directly improve the ecologically damaged area [9]. It was also
applied to solve ecological problems in an indirect way through
the payment for ecosystem or environmental services (PES), which
was identified as being a market solution to adjust stakeholder
interests towards protecting the environment [10]. In the field of
ecological compensation for hydropower development, a broad
range of hydropower interests and stakeholders began decades
ago to seek approaches to hydropower development and man-
agement from different perspectives. To maximize the benefits to
society and minimize the environmental and social impacts to
local communities, many policies, projects and schemes were
designed and thus a mechanism for ecological compensation in
hydropower development began to gradually form. The World
Commission on Dams and the International Hydropower Asso-
ciation produced policy principles and the hydropower industry
developed sustainability guidelines to minimize the negative
impacts [11,12]. Furthermore, several federal laws were designed
in the United States to impose environmental constraints on
hydropower operations, such as the Grand Canyon Protection Act,
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and the Electric Con-
sumers Protection Act [13]. Concurrently, ecological compensation
structures such as artificial gravel banks and different types of
manufactured habitats were installed along the banks of reservoirs
[14], all of which could be ecologically defined as ecological
the negative consequences, this remediation was found to be
costly and was not suitable in all cases. Given the growing
awareness of environmental protection as part of hydropower
development, trade-offs were negotiated between hydropower
companies and the landowners in watersheds with regards to
environmental protection [15], which is referred to as ecological
compensation in environmental economics.
2. Purpose of study
Although various ecological compensation measures have been
taken to provide environmental protection in past decades, an
ecological compensation mechanism for hydropower develop-
ment has not been formally established. Because there is no
definitive statement for the range and duty of hydropower sta-
keholders, the implemented compensation measures were not
efficient enough. Moreover, the challenge in quantifying the var-
ious and extensive impacts from hydropower projects causes
development of an ecological compensation standard to be more
difficult. Thus, some queries will be raised in its development, such
as does hydropower development need an ecological compensa-
tion mechanism or not? What type of ecological compensation
should be applied in this field? Who should participate in the
ecological compensation? How much should be compensated for
impacts to the ecological environment? How could ecological
compensation be reasonably and effectively practiced?
To solve these pending problems in ecological compensation
and provide guidance for policymakers, this paper focuses on the
following four aspects. It seeks answers to the issues concerning
ecological compensation of hydropower development in terms of
connotation, stakeholders, modes, and standards development.
Finally, this paper also proposes further trends and solutions to
ecological compensation based on the above review.
3. What is ecological compensation in hydropower
development?
The term ‘compensation’ has different definitions in different
contexts. Compensation measures always appear in the last step of
an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and natural resource
damage assessment (NRDA). It refers to the mitigation measures
used to minimize environmental impacts during a project's con-
struction and operation, restoration of the site and to compensate
for residual impacts [16,17]. Many potential impacts including
ecological, economic, and social among others may require com-
pensation. Cuperus [18] defined ecological compensation as the
substitution of ecological functions or qualities that are impaired
by human development. Ecological compensation plays one of the
main sustainability roles within the overall compensation practice
[19]. At present, ecological compensation has developed into an
effective measure to balance efficiency and equity during eco-
nomic development and environmental protection [20,21].
An eco-environmental externality is the theoretical basis of
ecological compensation [22]. Through ecological compensation,
the eco-environmental cost from resource development and the
 B. Yu, L. Xu / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 729–738
Table 1
Selected examples of stakeholder analysis in hydropower development.
Case study Stakeholders
The World Commission on Dams (WCD) Forum Private-sector; firms; river basin authorities; NGOs; indigenous' group; affected people's group.
Swiss Association for Environmentally Sound Hydropower companies; electricity suppliers; environmental NGOs; consumer NGOs.
Electricity
Asian Development Bank (ADB) Forum Project-affected people; district, provincial, and national government officials; civil society and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs); international NGOs; international organizations; other interest groups
Hydropower schemes in Ping River Basin, People who live nearby the sites; nongovernmental organizations; related governmental organizations
Thailand
eco-environmental benefit from environmental protection may be
included in a traditional economic cost-benefit analysis. Accord-
ingly, the principles of ecological compensation are expressed two
ways: “polluter-pays” and “beneficiary-pays”. The former principle
is generally used in compensation for damages to nature and has
been widely applied in America [23] and Europe [24,25], in cases
such as oil spills or other hazardous releases that require reme-
diation and habitat protection. The polluter-pays principle
demands environmental polluters or natural ecosystem destroyers
restore the natural resource and compensate the victims of that
damage. The later principle primarily applies in cases where there
is a Payment for Environmental Service. It is a type of voluntary
agreement between industry and public authorities to protect the
ecological environment. It aims to facilitate more environmentally
friendly actions by paying people to deliver environmental ser-
vices, which are also referred to as the provision of positive
externalities [26].
Similarly, in the context of hydropower development, the eco-
environmental externality is primarily reflected in two aspects:
the first is the direct external cost of natural ecosystems damaged
by water resource development and utilization; the second is the
adverse external effects on humans indirectly caused by damages
to the ecological environment [22]. And both positive and negative
externalities would be primarily caused by reservoir impound-
ment and occupation [27]. Thus, the ecological compensation of
hydropower development may be summarized as a managed way
to offset natural ecosystem damages and compensate the dis-
placed individual's benefit loss as a result of hydropower devel-
opment, thereby protecting the local natural environment and
promoting social justice. The principles of ecological compensation
in hydropower development would otherwise include both “pol-
luter-pays” and “beneficiary-pays”; however, it demands the
hydropower explorer and users pay compensation for natural
ecosystem restoration and hydropower resettlement.
4. Stakeholders of ecological compensation in hydropower
development
Who should be the payers and the recipients is the funda-
mental question in ecological compensation. Li [28] stated that the
essence of ecological compensation of hydropower development is
a balanced redistribution mechanism of rights, duties and
responsibilities between many interest-subjects, such as govern-
ment, development protectors, beneficiaries, and saboteurs. And
Richter and Thomas [29] also agreed that the collective desire of
stakeholders, resource managers, and dam managers for the out-
come of dam re-operation should be expressed as a set of goals.
Therefore, stakeholder analysis is necessary during the establish-
ment of ecological compensation to clear all respective interests in
hydropower development. Accordingly, the payers, recipients, and
trade-offs in ecological compensation could be subsequently
accounted for.
731
Source
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
As a powerful tool for policy analysis and formulation, stake-
holder analysis has been widely used in natural resource policy
and program development [30]. Grimble and Wellard [31] defined
stakeholders as ‘any group of people, organized or unorganized,
who share a common interest or stake in a particular issue or
system’, which varies from global, national and regional concerns
to the household or intra-household level. They also divided sta-
keholders into active stakeholders, who affected a decision or
action, and passive stakeholders, who were affected by this deci-
sion or action. Most studies adopt a systematic approach to
identifying stakeholders groups, eliciting their objectives, and
estimating preference weights through an analytic hierarchy pro-
cess or multi-criteria analysis [32,33]. The relevant studies of sta-
keholders in hydropower development are listed in Table 1.
We conclude that there is still a lack of extensive participation
among stakeholders and no specific and uniform regulated docu-
ment in the current policy-making process that treats ecological
compensation. However, one point remains certain: the stake-
holders of ecological compensation depend on the actual impacts
from hydropower development. Thus, in this paper, from the
perspective of ecosystem services, the stakeholders may be sys-
tematically analyzed.
According to the benefiting parties, the ecosystem services
were divided into two categories, ecological services and human
used services. Ecological services are the benefits that the natural
ecosystem provides all creatures, and human used services are the
benefits that are only enjoyed or consumed by human beings [38].
Thus, following this perspective, we identified the ecological
compensation objects and subjects of large hydropower develop-
ment projects, the process of which is shown in Fig. 1.
Beginning with the terrestrial and fluvial impacts caused by
large hydropower projects, the related ecosystem services were
identified, as were the corresponding influenced parties. Thus,
those parties who were negatively impacted by the hydropower
development would be the ecological compensation objects and,
conversely, those who benefited would be the subjects. Thus, for a
large hydropower project, its ecological compensation receivers/
objects would include the resettlements, inundated habitats, and
the regulated river; whereas the payers/subjects would consist of
the hydropower company along with other beneficiaries including
electric power users, water users, shipping beneficiaries, flood
control benefit areas, and tourism beneficiaries.
5. Modes of ecological compensation in hydropower
development
According to the compensation approaches, the compensation
mode was divided into two types: ‘in-kind’ compensation is
expressed in terms of the selected species, and ‘out-of-kind’ com-
pensation admits the creation of other types of values than those
lost [18,39]. In-kind compensation is more applicable to the sim-
plest impacts and stakeholder relationships, and thus ecological
compensation is difficult to conduct in hydropower development.
732 B. Yu, L. Xu / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 729–738

Large hydropower projects

Terrestrial impacts Fluvial Impacts

Farmland Forestland Grassland Reservoir Downstream

Ecological services Human used services Ecological services Human used services
- - - +

Regulated river Hydropower companies, power/

Inundated habitats Immigrants
ecosystem water users and other beneficiaries

Ecological compensation Ecological compensation

objects subjects

Fig. 1. The ecological compensation framework including object–subject identification of large hydropower projects. Note: “þ ” means positive impact; “ ” means negative
impact.

Alternatively, out-of-kind compensation can be used for the mul-

tiple impacts of hydropower development, and can be conducted in Assess dam-induced hydrologic alteration
various modes according to the stakeholder analysis as follows.

5.1. Direct habitat ecological restoration and dam re-operation Describe ecological and social consequences

To make hydropower development and operation more envir-

onmentally and socially sustainable some habitat restoration
projects were performed by stakeholders, including artificial eco- Specify goals for dam re-operation
logical habitat construction and dam re-operation. In Canada,
artificial ecological habitat compensation has been used to ame-
liorate the impacts of flooding and dewatering from hydroelectric
development on the Rose Blanche River. The compensation Design dam re-operation strategies to attain goals
involved improving fish passages in the system and the con-
struction of a spawning and rearing channel to replace lost habitat.
Additionally, in Austria, the near-bank compensation habitats
constructed in the Freudenau reservoir created habitats for aquatic Implement dam re-operation strategies
macrophytes, which were different from the natural floodplain
water bodies and provided many ecosystem services [14].
Fish passages can mitigate the disruption of longitudinal con-
tinuity, but the disturbance of water velocity requires another Assess results against goals
solution. One of the most promising strategies for maintaining a
river's ecological sustainability is the provision of an environ- Fig. 2. Framework for planning and implementing a dam re-operation project
(cited from [29]).
mental flow that if left in rivers, or restored in developed rivers,
will sustain the key ecological and societal values [40]. Environ-
mental flows can help balance an ecosystem and people's need for
water, both when constructing new dams and in the relicensing of between the Corps of Engineers and The Nature Conservancy. It
existing dams [41]. Environmental flows can be regulated through allowed water levels in the reservoir to rise slightly to approxi-
dam re-operation projects, restoring natural flow regimes and the mately 0.5 m above their normal target level to benefit fish
associated ecosystem health and services, as shown in Fig. 2 [29]. spawning and access to low-lying floodplain areas, flush oxbow
The environmental goals in reservoir optimization schemes are lakes, and disperse the seeds of floodplain trees [29]. Recently, an
often conducted in three approaches, namely as flow releases integrated hydro-environmental-habitat model estimating sui-
satisfying legal requirements, meeting water quality constraints
table environmental flows was specifically developed for Lijiang
for dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature and nutrients, and timed
River, China, in which an indigenous cyprinid fish Spinibarbus
to improve the health of fish populations [42].
hollandi (S. hollandi) is a target species for conservation [44]. In
An environmental flow restoration program on the Bill Wil-
Sweden, the Swedish Environmental Code, motivated by gains in
liams River in Arizona, United States, was studied, including its
conceptual flow-ecological response models, and hydrologic– ecological values, mandated owners of power stations to set aside
hydraulic and biotic response models, which illustrated how flows minimum flows corresponding to no less than 5% and no more
affect biota and the development of quantitative relationships than 20% of production value without offering compensation. In
between specific features of flow regimes and ecosystems [43]. A some cases, if higher environmental flows were required to
dam re-operation project of Thurmond Dam on the Savannah improve fish habitats and fish migration, compensation was pro-
River, United States, was initiated under a partnership in 2002 vided by government funding [41].
 B. Yu, L. Xu / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 729–738
Land use change projection
Forest management No management
Watershed Erosion Modelling
Land cover relatio n sh ip Watershed
change sediment yield
Reservoir sedimentation estimation
Power value loss estimation
PES scheme design
Hydropower p ay m en t Forest
operator management
Fig. 3. Framework (FOR-POWER) of paying the forest for electricity (cited from
[15]).
5.2. Indirect protection with PES for hydropower projects
As a conflict-resolution instrument, PES projects have been
applied to provide environmental protection during hydropower
development, especially in the conservation of adjacent forests.
The earliest PES efforts occurred in Costa Rica, which are also
possibly the most well known PES projects in Latin America
involved with hydropower development. The PES was negotiated
between the La Esperanza Hydropower operator and the upper
forest landholders in 1997. The four forest ecosystem services
chosen in this scheme were the mitigation of greenhouse gas
emissions, watershed protection, biodiversity protection, and the
preservation of natural scenic beauty. A base line payment of US
$10/ha/yr for each service, adjusted annually in response to
inflation and energy demand, was established based on Costa
Rica's national PES policy [45].
Elsewhere, a FOR-POWER framework (Fig. 3) was proposed and
applied to a proposed dam in Cambodia to compensate a forest for
electricity production. This scheme was created acknowledging
that forest conservation can reduce soil erosion, and efforts to
maintain the upstream forest cover would contribute to the eco-
nomic life span of a hydropower facility. The power value loss was
calculated using watershed erosion modeling and reservoir sedi-
ment trapping, and thus the annual payments were estimated to
be US$4.26–5.78 per ha [15].
Although there are only a few PES programs applied to
hydropower development, the above pilot programs have pro-
vided successful experiences for further ecological compensation
in this field.
5.3. Immigrant resettlement
Hydropower development projects sometimes require people
involuntarily resettle from an area where they live and work to
other locations, thus causing profound economic and cultural
733
disruption to the affected individuals and local communities [46].
Different from the negative effects previously mentioned, invo-
luntary resettlement is a socio-cultural/economic process that
happens first to people, rather than to their physical environment.
According to the affected people's demands, different compensa-
tion modes are also needed. For example, there are two basic
strategies in the guidelines and procedures of the World Bank that
are formulated for resettlement in its financed projects. Specifi-
cally, land-based strategies (e.g., new housing plots, farming or
gardening land) are for rural settings and non land-based strate-
gies (e.g., involving the service sector, industrial employment, self-
employment) are for urban settings [47]. In Indonesia, the devel-
opment of fish cage aquaculture in a reservoir was used in popu-
lation resettlement; the expansion of aquatic food production was
meant to assist in mitigating local food and population crises [48].
In China, the State Council [49] promulgated the Regulations on
Land Acquisition Compensation and Resettlement for the Con-
struction of Large- and Medium-sized Water Resources and
Hydropower Projects. It required that if arable land is requisi-
tioned for a large- or medium-sized water resource and hydro-
power project, the sum of the land compensation and resettle-
ment subsidies shall be 16 times the annual average output value
in the three years before requisition. In Thailand, in addition to the
direct compensation for resettlement, three further modes were
adopted to help offset the affected residents within hydropower
watersheds: corporate social responsibility, community develop-
ment funds, and PES schemes [50]. In Vietnam, some benefit-
sharing mechanisms have been recently implemented for com-
pensating the resettled populations, such as electrification of
affected communities, providing access to reservoir fisheries and
PES schemes [51]. The experiences in Thailand and Vietnam also
indicate that the ecological protection in hydropower resettlement
is very important and should be highlighted.
The previous practices show that various forms of compensa-
tion in money or in kind were applied for hydropower resettle-
ment. Because demand varies with each individual, monetary
compensation is not appropriate for everyone; the displaced
people occasionally preferred "land for land" compensation [47].
Furthermore, if large numbers of people were to be relocated, the
difficult arrangement between those being resettled and the host
population adds another challenge in resettlement. Especially
when it comes to international hydropower projects, the sharing
of hydropower benefits among co-riparian states would become
more implicit and uncertain [52].
Considering the above analysis, it can be concluded that the
compensation approaches in hydropower development are
becoming increasingly more comprehensive, with an increased
understanding regarding the project's impacts. The objects of
compensation have begun to contain many aspects, covering the
damaged terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem, as well as displaced
people. However, the key issue of standards development for
compensating the different objects is critical to this process, which
is the next component to be discussed.
6. Standards development for ecological compensation in
hydropower development
How much ecological compensation is suitable for hydropower
projects? This can be the most central and difficult problem of
ecological compensation in hydropower development. The multi-
ple impacts, various compensation demands, and different com-
pensation modes greatly contribute to standards development in
each compensation situation. Thus, the accuracy, applicability, and
reasonability of standards development for each type of ecological
734 B. Yu, L. Xu / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 729–738

Table 2
Selected examples of payment for ecosystem services projects.

PES project Payment basis (ecosystem service) Payment determination Source

Payment for Hydropower Project in Costa Rica 4 Forest ecosystem services (mentioned above) Period of payment US$/ha/yr [45]
During construction 3
1st Year of operations 8
2nd Year of operations 9
3rd & 4th Year of 10
operations
5th Year & onwards US$10*(Gr/Gf) *
(Tavg/Tbeg)
Payment for watershed ecological protection in San Water provision and sanitation US$26/ha/yr for landowners, charged by Local Water [26]
Pedro del Norte, Nicaragua Committee
Payment for watershed ecological protection Jesus de 3 Watershed ecosystem services : wood, soil US$0.06/month, 3.6% of water users' willingness to [26]
Otora in Honduras protection, climate regulation pay
Payment for forests in Mexico Hydrological services of forest US$18.2/ha determined by negotiation [69]

compensation in hydropower development require further dis-
cussion.
6.1. Accuracy of ecological habitat restoration projects
For ecological compensation of the natural ecosystem in
hydropower development, standards development is difficult
because compensation is nearly impossible to completely esti-
mate. The negative impacts include local and landscape environ-
mental effects and vary with the attributes of dam–reservoir sys-
tems, especially dam size and operations [53]. Li et al. [54] eval-
uated the ecological losses from hydropower development at three
spatial scales, including the plant scale, river scale, and watershed
scale. Rosenberg et al. [55] reviewed four impacts that occurred at
different spatial and temporal scales during hydropower devel-
opment. They indicated that methyl mercury bioaccumulation in
the food web occurred at the smallest scales; the emission of
greenhouse gases from reservoirs and downstream effects occur-
red at the largest scales; the emission of greenhouse gases from
reservoirs were relatively short term but eventually had global-
scale consequences; and biodiversity limitations were at the
intermediate spatial and temporal scales. Therefore, the restora-
tion of damaged ecosystems could begin with some aspect and
principle.
In practice, Canada developed its ecological compensation
standard based on no net loss (NNL) of productive capacity pro-
visions, and the habitat compensation amount was determined
using baseline surveys of habitat distribution and fish population
(density, biomass) production [56]. However, during the devel-
opment process, research determined that 63% of the projects
across Canada resulted in a loss of habitat productive capacity,
which indicates the knowledge and ability to replicate ecosystem
function was severely limited [57]. The Canadian Manuscript
Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences listed knowledge gaps in
the research on the productive capacity of fish habitat, such as
“how does dam removal affect fish and fish habitat both up- and
down-stream?” and “how do we incorporate the impacts of dams,
hydroelectric facilities into cumulative impact assessments for
other projects on the same system?” [58].
In theoretical research, dam re-operation through flow regime
manipulation is often considered able to offer ideal opportunities
for conducting large-scale, hypothesis-driven ecosystem experi-
ments [42]. However, although at least 200 environmental flows
methods had been used for quantifying the water requirements of
species, communities or river ecosystems, there still remains a
critical need for a greater understanding of the relationship
between flow and ecological response to support river flow
management [40,59]. Thus, the reservoir optimization schemes
used in practice may not seek flow regimes that maximize aquatic
ecosystem health [42]. Therefore, seeking environmentally feasible
alternatives for hydropower development would be promising
[60]. And the process such as trade-offs between hydropower and
ecological objectives, and hydropower contract load determina-
tion, are required at the hydropower planning stage [61,62].
Apart from flow regime operation and aquatic restoration, the
remediation of inundated ecosystems caused by hydropower
development is equally important but still lacks sufficient atten-
tion at present. Recently, we set up a “service-to-service” ecolo-
gical compensation framework for inundated habitats through
measures of restoring degraded grasslands upstream. It showed
that the compensatory area can be decided by the carbon stock
balance at the watershed scale [63].
6.2. Applicability of paying for hydropower schemes
Payment for ecosystem services (PES) aimed to facilitate more
environmentally friendly actions by paying those people who
deliver the environmental services [26]. The practical implement
of this market-based instrument for managing natural resources
has been conducted for watershed management, reservoir con-
servation, and biodiversity protection by some hydropower com-
panies, landowners and government as shown in Table 2.
Although PES schemes could be a win–win mechanism for both
parties involved through the provision of positive externalities, its
application is limited. There are five necessary conditions for the
implementation of a PES: (a) a voluntary transaction, (b) a well-
defined ES (or a land use likely to secure that service), (c) the
purchase must be by an ES buyer, (d) the service must come from
an ES provider, and (e) the ES provider must secure the ES pro-
vision [64]. The requirement of a ‘well-defined ES’ is the hardest
condition to satisfy because of the issue of ecosystem services
selection and its non-market valuation. In previous studies, many
market value methods and non-market value methods (e.g., mar-
ket price, shadow price, substitute cost, opportunity cost, travel
cost, and hedonic price) were used for valuing the ecosystem
services [65–67]. However, the high estimation results could not
be directly used as the compensation standard because the sta-
keholders' willingness, the institution arrangement, the opportu-
nity costs of upstream land use, and the local economic develop-
ment all required greater consideration in PES practice [26]. Thus,
in many PES cases, the payments were made in advance instead of
being continuous and were made in good faith rather than being
truly contingent on service provision [68].
From Table 2, it also can be deduced that only some key eco-
system services were selected for payment and the payment
amount was determined by negotiation rather than the ecosystem
service value estimation. Moreover, the current payment standard
does not consider the difference in space, which would affect the
 B. Yu, L. Xu / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 729–738 735

enthusiasm of protectors [70]. Vatn [10] also indicated that many
PES cases depend strongly on state and community engagement,
and therefore cannot be considered to be voluntary market
transactions. Considering the complexity of the ecosystem service
payment determination, the agreement on trade-offs between
both parties is not easily accomplished and thus limits the
applicability of the PES implementation.
6.3. Reasonability of immigrant resettlements
Hydropower resettlement is the most important part of eco-
logical compensation in hydropower development, but it is also
probably the most unsatisfactory component associated with dam
construction [47]. This difficulty is ascribed to the underestimation
impacts on the displaced people and some difficulties in coordi-
nating hydropower development and local development, includ-
ing the gaps in national polices, clear separation between enter-
prise and local communities, and problems with local manage-
ment and the local economy [71].
The social effects of large dams range from rural economics,
infrastructure, transportation, and housing, to culture, health, and
even gender [6]. Wang et al. classified the wealth loss of affected
people into three dimensions [8]. According to their research,
material wealth can be measured in monetary units; embodied
wealth, which refers to various skills that are used to make a liv-
ing, and relational wealth, which includes social and physical
infrastructure, were difficult to measure. Thus, the actual com-
pensation provided might be sufficient to cover the cost of
building houses, but little is available for the latter two types of
losses.
Moreover, the compensation demands vary with each indivi-
dual; thus, effective hydropower resettlement requires careful
consideration of immigrant preferences. The stated preference
methods, contingent valuation method (CVM) and choice experi-
ments (CE) were developed to reveal the willingness of stake-
holders expressed in terms of willingness to pay (WTP) or will-
ingness to accept (WTA), as shown in Table 3.
From Table 3, the WTP is used for revealing a payer's will-
ingness while the WTA is used for obtaining the receivers' will-
ingness. The gap between the WTP and WTA was significant
because of the differences in individual attitudes to gains and
losses [78]. In this context, a reasonable compensation standard of
immigrant resettlements is to seek a balance between the will-
ingness of payers and receivers.
7. Conclusion
The ecological compensation and its mechanism are not only
imperative in hydropower development for incorporating ecolo-
gical conservation into development but also indispensable to
ensure the community harmony. To internalize the multiple eco-
environmental externalities resulted from hydropower develop-
ment, the ecological compensation receivers/objects can include
inundated habitats, the regulated river, and the displaced people.
While on the basis of the principle that beneficiaries pay and
polluters make compensation, the payers/subjects are consist of
the hydropower developers, electric power users, water users,
shipping beneficiaries, flood control and tourism beneficiaries. The
current ecological compensation in hydropower development is
implemented with multiple modes ranging from artificial habitat
construction, dam re-operation, PES schemes, to resettlement.
Meanwhile, the compensation criteria vary in different modes due
to local regulations, trade-offs, and agreements. Hence, these
ecological compensation approaches with different object-
oriented compensation types, would inevitably demonstrate
their limitations respectively. Though each hydropower develop-
ment might differ from others to certain extent, there should be
some common approaches and principles in designing ecological
compensation mechanism for minimizing environmental impacts
and community sufferings. Therefore, a comprehensive compen-
sation framework is urgently needed to be established in the
future to avoid the above limitations.
8. Future trend of the ecological compensation mechanism in
hydropower development
From the above discussion, future studies of ecological com-
pensation in hydropower development should be initiated
according to the following aspects.
8.1. Completed ecological compensation mechanism of large hydro-
power projects
A sound ecological compensation mechanism should include at
least four aspects, namely eco-compensation objects, subjects, an
eco-compensation operational system and its management sys-
tem. Each aspect is interconnected. The relationships are pre-
sented in Fig. 4.
 As mentioned above, the compensation objects and subjects are
the basis for an ecological compensation mechanism, which
should be validated in advance. Especially for large hydropower
projects with multiple stakeholders (as shown in Fig. 1), the
ecological compensation of validated payers and recipient
should be completely designed.
 Considering the different demands of damaged natural ecosys-
tems and projects that affect humans, the operational system of
ecological compensation is needed to determine the manner,
mode and standards of compensation.
 Finally, to effectively and steadily insure ecological compensa-
tion implementation, a management system is necessary. Reg-
ulations and policies can adjust the relationship between sub-
jects and objects and supplement the operational system.
The framework of the ecological compensation mechanism
should initially be established to provide an overall design for

Table 3
Selected examples of stakeholders' willingness elicitation.

Willingness type Research purpose Method Source

WTP Estimated Swedish households' willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers CE [72]
WTP Receive payment for the loss of a scenic view of river because of a power station CVM [73]
WTP Investigate the preferences of households for a variety of different sources of electricity generation such as fossil fuels and large CVM [74]
hydropower in Chile
WTP Reveal public preferences for urban and rural hydropower projects in Austria CE [75]
WTA Investigate forest owners' preferences and willingness to accept compensation to participate voluntarily in forest conservation CE [76]
WTA Reveal farmers' willingness to accept compensation for a reservoir's ecological protection in China CVM [77]
736 B. Yu, L. Xu / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 729–738
Operational system
Mode Standard
Guidance Implement
Eco-compensation
Eco-compensation
Eco-compensation
subjects objects
Supervision
Management system Assessment
Regulations Policies
Fig. 4. A framework of the ecological compensation mechanism.
Fig. 5. A sketch of the cascade eco-compensation mode for large hydropower
projects.
ecological compensation in hydropower development, thereby
perfecting current uncompleted compensation. Furthermore, the
manner in which to integrate and coordinate ecological compen-
sation in hydropower development with the existing compensa-
tion capacity should be provided more attention.
8.2. Integrated market-led and government-led ecological
compensation
From the discussion above, it can be concluded that river
restoration/rehabilitation and immigrant resettlement are con-
sidered to be government-led ecological compensation, whereas
the PES projects are considered market-led ecological compensa-
tion. Nevertheless, compensation should not be conducted sepa-
rately, but should combine market regulation with government
management.
Market-led compensation with voluntary negotiation would be
the most effective way to internalize externalities according to
Coase economics. However, the lack of relevant laws and regula-
tions may make the compensation of PES short-term or unrealiz-
able [79,80]. In the meantime, a cost-benefit analysis and a sta-
keholder's willingness analysis conducted using market methods
should be considered for developing the standards of government-
led compensation. Therefore, it would be better to integrate power
market regulation and government management to promote the
implementation of compensation effectively. For example, in the
eco-compensation's operational system, market regulation should
be used because the compensation amount would be determined
by the recipients' demand and the payers' supply. Alternatively, in
an eco-compensation management system, government adminis-
tration will contribute more with respect to the necessary amount
of supervision and management. An on-site compensation super-
vision system should be established to cover all subjects and
objects through the entire compensation period.
8.3. Cascade ecological compensation mode for large hydropower
projects
The complex impacts of large hydropower projects mean that
ecological compensation is impossible to implement completely,
especially in developing countries. Therefore, we propose a cas-
cade mode be developed based on the current ecological com-
pensation status of hydropower projects in China, where the
hydropower development could be one of options to increase the
proportion of clean energy in total energy consumption in the
coming years [81]. The cascade mode is shown in Fig. 5.
As shown in Fig. 5, the ecological compensation of large
hydropower projects could be established at three levels as in this
paper. Level I eco-compensation refers to the compensation for
resettlement, or ‘a’; level II eco-compensation refers to the com-
pensation for resettlement and inundated habitats, or ‘aþ b’; level
III eco-compensation refers to complete compensation, including
for resettlement, inundated habitats, and regulated rivers, or
‘a þb þc’.
A legal provision for the resettlement of project-affected
farmers has been in place in China since 2006; in contrast, the
compensation for damaged natural ecosystems is limited. We
believe that the inundated land could be compensated through
off-site compensation, according to the ecological restoration
schemes. It is better to design restoration in terms of maximizing
mutual ecological benefits, e.g., restoration may promote vegeta-
tion or control erosion following reservoir impoundment. Draw-
down zones may cause erosion and sedimentation problems,
which may impact aquatic, riparian or terrestrial habitats. Another
aspect, a well water energy resource development plan should be
developed in advance, in which the environmentally feasible
potential for hydropower development should be determined. The
government should explicitly indicate the suitable developed
channel segment and process the water use property right for each
hydropower project by establishing ecological flows. It is only a
clear property right that can determine the externality, and the
compensation mechanism can then be realized. Through a cascade
mode of compensation development, an ecological compensation
establishment will gradually be perfected.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the National Science and Technology
Pillar Program, China (No. 2012BAC05B02), the Fund for Innovative
Research Group of the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant no. 51121003), and the Program for New Century
Excellent Talents in University (NCET-13-0064).
References
[1] Frey GW, Linke DM. Hydropower as a renewable and sustainable energy
resource meeting global energy challenges in a reasonable way. Energy Policy
2002;30(14):1261–5.
[2] Zhang J, Xu LY. Embodied carbon budget accounting system for calculating
carbon footprint of large hydropower project. J Clean Prod 2015;96:444–51.
[3] Kummu M, Sarkkula J. Impact of the Mekong River flow alteration on the Tonle
Sap flood pulse. AMBIO: J Hum Environ 2008;37(3):185–92.
[4] Maine Department of Marine Resources and Maine Department of Inland
Fisheries. Operational plan for the restoration of diadromous fishes to the
Penobscot River. Augusta, Maine, USA: Maine Department of Marine Resour-
ces and Maine Department of Inland Fisheries; 2009.
[5] Barlow C, Baran E, Halls AS, Kshatriya M. How much of the Mekong fish catch
is at risk from mainstream dam. Catch Cult 2008;14:16–21.
[6] Tilt B, Braun Y, He D. Social impacts of large dam projects: a comparison of
international case studies and implications for best practice. J Environ Manag
2009;90:S249–57.
 B. Yu, L. Xu / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 729–738
[7] Tajziehchi S, Monavari SM, Karbassi AR, Shariat SM, Khorasani N. Quantifica-
tion of social impacts of large hydropower dams – a case study of Alborz Dam
in Mazandaran province. North Iran 2013;7(2):377–82.
[8] Wang P, Lassoie JP, Dong SK, Morreale SJ. A framework for social impact
analysis of large dams: a case study of cascading dams on the Upper-Mekong
River, China. J Environ Manag 2013;117:131–40.
[9] Allen AO, Feddema JJ. Wetland loss and substitution by the Section 404 permit
program in southern California, USA. Environ Manag 1996;20:263–74.
[10] Vatn A. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol
Econ 2010;69:1245–52.
[11] World Commission on Dams. Dams and development: a new framework for
decision-making. London: Earthscan; 2000.
[12] International Hydropower Association (IHA). Sustainability guidelines. Lon-
don, UK; 2004.
[13] Kotchen MJ, Moore MR, Lupi F, Rutherford ES. Environmental constraints on
hydropower: an ex post benefit-cost analysis of dam relicensing in Michigan.
Land Econ 2006;82(3):384–403.
[14] Janauer GA, Lanz E, Schmidt-Mumm U, Schmidet B, Waidbacher H. Aquatic
macrophytes and hydro-electric power station reservoirs in regulated rivers:
man-made ecological compensation structures and the “ecological potential”.
Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 2008;8(2):149–57.
[15] Arias ME, Cochrane TA, Lawrence KS, Killeen TJ, Farrell TA. Paying the forest for
electricity a modelling framework to market forest conservation as payment
for ecosystem services benefiting hydropower generation. Environ Conserv
2011;4:473–84.
[16] NOAA. Natural resource damage assessment guidance document: scaling
compensatory restoration actions (oil pollution act of 1990). Silver Springs,
MD: US Department of Commerce, National Atmospheric and Oceanic
Administration; 1997.
[17] Darbi M, Ohlenburg H, Herberg A, Wende W, Skambraks D, Herbert M.
International approaches to compensation for impacts on biological diversity:
final report. Available at: 〈http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_
522.pdf〉 [accessed 22.10.14].
[18] Cuperus R, Canters KJ, Udo de Haes HA, Friedman DS. Guidelines for ecological
compensation associated with highways. Biol Conserv 1999;90(1):41–51.
[19] Villarroya A, Puig J. A proposal to improve ecological compensation practice in
road and railway projects in Spain. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2013;42:87–94.
[20] Gong YZ. Experiences of eco-compensation in the world and their uses for
reference to China. Manag For Sci 2002;3:19–22.
[21] ACCA21 (The administrative center for China's agenda 21).. Eco-compensa-
tion: international experiences and China's practices. Beijing: Social Sciences
Academic Press; 2007.
[22] Yu B, Xu LY. Study of eco-compensation in hydropower development in China.
Procedia Environ Sci 2012;13:891–8.
[23] Rosa H, Kandel S, Dimas L. Compensation for environmental services and rural
communities: lessons from the Americas. Int For Rev 2004;6(2):187–94.
[24] Cox J. Use of resource equivalency methods in environmental damage
assessment in the EU with respect to the habitats, wild birds and EIA directive.
Resource equivalency methods for assessing environmental damage in the EU;
2007.
[25] Roach B, Wade WW. Policy evaluation of natural resource injuries using
habitat equivalency analysis. Ecol Econ 2006;58(2):421–33.
[26] Kosoy N, Miguel M, Roldan M, Martinez-Alier J. Payments for environmental
services in watersheds: insights from a comparative study of three cases in
Central America. Ecol Econ 2007;61:446–55.
[27] Zhang J, Xu LY, Li XJ. Review on the externalities of hydropower: a comparison
between large and small hydropower projects in Tibet based on the CO2
equivalent. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:176–85.
[28] Li T. Study on ecological compensation system of hydropower development.
In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on e-product e-service and e-
entertainment (ICEEE); 2010. p. 1–4.
[29] Richter BD, Thomas GA. Restoring environmental flows by modifying dam
operations. Ecol Soc 2007;12(1):1–26.
[30] Ananda J, Herath G. The use of analytic hierarchy process to incorporate sta-
keholder preferences into regional forest planning. For Policy Econ 2003;5
(1):13–26.
[31] Grimble R, Wellard K. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource man-
agement: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities.
Agric Syst 1997;55(2):173–93.
[32] Harrison SR, Qureshi ME. Choice of stakeholder groups and members in
multicriteria decision models, 24. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.; 2000. p. 11–9.
[33] Wang L, Xu LY, Song HM. Environmental performance evaluation of Beijing's
energy use planning. Energy Policy 2011;39(6):3483–95.
[34] Brinkerhoff JM. Global public policy, partnership, and the case of the World
Commission on Dams. Public Adm Rev 2002;62(3):324–36.
[35] Bratrich C, Truffer B, Jorde K, Markard J, Meier W, Peter A, Schneider M,
Wehrili B. Green hydropower: a new assessment procedure for river man-
agement. River Res Appl 2004;20(7):865–82.
[36] Mirumachi N, Torriti J. The use of public participation and economic appraisal
for public involvement in large-scale hydropower projects: case study of the
Nam Theun 2 hydropower project. Energy Policy 2012;47:125–32.
[37] Supriyasilp T, Pongput K, Boonyasirikul T. Hydropower development priority
using MCDM method. Energy Policy 2009;37(5):1866–75.
[38] Nicolette J, Burr S, Rockel M. A practical approach for demonstrating envir-
onmental sustainability and stewardship through a net ecosystem service
analysis. Sustainability 2013;5(5):2152–77.
737
[39] Brinson MM, Reinhardt R. The role of reference wetlands in functional
assessment and mitigation. Ecol Appl 1996;6(1):69–76.
[40] Arthington AH, Naiman RJ, McClain ME, Christer Nillsson. Preserving the
biodiversity and ecological services of rivers: new challenges and research
opportunities. Freshw Biol 2010;55(1):1–16.
[41] Renöfält B, Jansson R, Nilsson C. Effects of hydropower generation and
opportunities for environmental flow management in Swedish riverine eco-
systems. Freshw Biol 2010;55(1):49–67.
[42] Jager HI, Smith BT. Sustainable reservoir operation: can we generate hydro-
power and preserve ecosystem values? River Res Appl 2008;24(3):340–52.
[43] Shafroth PB, Wilcox AC, Lytle DA, Hickey JT, Andersen DC, Beauchamp VB,
Hautzinger A, Mcmullen LE, Warner A. Ecosystem effects of environmental
flows: modelling and experimental floods in a dryland river. Freshw Biol
2010;55(1):68–85.
[44] Li R, Chen Q, Tonina D, Cai DS. Effects of upstream reservoir regulation on the
hydrological regime and fish habitats of the Lijiang River, China. Ecol Eng
2015;76:75–83.
[45] Rojas M, Aylward B. The case of La Esperanza: a small, private, hydropower
producer and a conservation NGO in Costa Rica (Land-water linkages in rural
watersheds case study series). Rome: FAO; 2002.
[46] Scudder T. The future of large dams: dealing with social, environmental,
institutional and political costs. Earthscan; 2005.
[47] Cernea MM. Involuntary resettlement in development projects: policy
guidelines in World Bank-financed projects. World Bank Publication; 1988.
[48] Costa-Pierce BA. Constraints to the sustainability of cage aquaculture for
resettlement from hydropower dams in Asia: an Indonesian case study. J
Environ Dev 1998;7(4):333–63.
[49] State Council, Regulations on compensation for land requisition and reset-
tlement in large and medium water resources and hydropower projects; 2006.
[50] Lebel L, Lebel P, Chitmanat C, Sriyasak P. Benefit sharing from hydropower
watersheds: rationales, practices, and potential. Water Resour Rural Dev
2014;4:12–28.
[51] Singer J, Watanabe T. Reducing reservoir impacts and improving outcomes for
dam-forced resettlement: experiences in central Vietnam. Lakes Reserv: Res
Manag 2014;19(3):225–35.
[52] Dombrowsky I, Bastian J, Däschle D, Heisig S, Peters J, Vosseler C. International
and local benefit sharing in hydropower projects on shared rivers: the Ruzizi
III and Rusumo Falls cases. Water Policy 2014;16(6):1087–103.
[53] Poff NL, Hart DD. How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science
of dam removal: an ecological classification of dams is needed to characterize
how the tremendous variation in the size, operational mode, age, and number
of dams in a river basin influences the potential for restoring regulated rivers
via dam removal. BioScience 2002;52(8):659–68.
[54] Li XJ, Zhang J, Xu LY. An evaluation of ecological losses from hydropower
development in Tibet. Ecol Eng 2015;76:178–85.
[55] Rosenberg DM, Berkes F, Bodaly RA, Hecky RE, Kelly CA, Rudd JWM. Large-
scale impacts of hydroelectric development. Environ Rev 1997;1:27–54.
[56] Scruton DA, Clarke KD, Roberge MM, Kelly JF, Dawe MB. A case study of habitat
compensation to ameliorate impacts of hydroelectric development: effec-
tiveness of rewatering and habitat enhancement of an intermittent flood
overflow channel. J Fish Biol 2005;67(sB):244–60.
[57] Quigley JT, Harper DJ. Effectiveness of fish habitat compensation in Canada in
achieving no net loss. Environ Manag 2006;37(3):351–66.
[58] Walks DJ, Fallis B, Ming D. Research and goal priorities for fish habitat man-
agement: science support requirements for implementing the fish habitat
protection provisions of the fisheries act. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2008;2738:63.
[59] Cai YP, Huang GH, Tan Q, Chen B. Identification of optimal strategies for
improving eco-resilience to floods in ecologically vulnerable regions of a
wetland. Ecol Model 2011;222:360–9.
[60] Zhang J, Xu LY, Yu B, Li XJ. Environmentally feasible potential for hydropower
development regarding environmental constraints. Energy Policy 2014;73:552–62.
[61] Jager HI, Efroymson RA, Opperman JJ, Kelly MR. Spatial design principles for
sustainable hydropower development in river basins. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2015;45:808–16.
[62] Yin XA, Yang ZF, Liu C, Zhao YW. An optimal hydropower contract load
determination method considering both human and riverine ecosystem
needs. Front Earth Sci 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11707-014-0470-7.
[63] Yu B, Xu LY, Yang ZF. Ecological compensation for inundated habitats in
hydropower developments based on carbon stock balance. J Clean Prod 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.071.
[64] Wunder S. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Indo-
nesia: Jakarta; 2005.
[65] MA. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC, USA:
Island Press; 2005.
[66] Wang G, Fang Q, Zhang L, Chen W, Chen Z, Hong H. Valuing the effects of
hydropower development on watershed ecosystem services case studies in
the Jiulong River Watershed, Fujian Province, China. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci
2010:363–8.
[67] Xu LY, Yu B, Yue WC, Xie XD. A model for urban environment and resource
planning based on green GDP accounting system. Math Probl Eng
2013;2013:1–10.
[68] Muradian R, Corbera E, Pascual U, Kosoy N, May PH. Reconciling theory and
practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments
for environmental services. Ecol Econ 2010;69:1202–8.
738 B. Yu, L. Xu / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 729–738
[69] Muñoz-Piña C, Guevara A, Torres JM, Braña J. Paying for the hydrological
services of Mexico's forests: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecol Econ
2008;65:725–36.
[70] Fu B, Wang YK, Xu P, Yan K, Li M. Value of ecosystem hydropower service and
its impact on the payment for ecosystem services. Sci Total Environ
2014;472:338–46.
[71] Yao YH, Zhang BP, Ma XD, Ma P. Large-scale hydroelectric projects and
mountain development on the upper Yangtze river. Mt Res Dev 2006;26
(2):109–14.
[72] Kataria M. Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydro-
power regulated rivers. Energy Econ 2009;31:69–76.
[73] Gunawardena UADP. Inequalities and externalities of power sector: a case of
Broadlands hydropower project in Sri Lanka. Energy Policy 2010;38:726–34.
[74] Aravena C, Hutchinson WG, Longo A. Environmental pricing of externalities
from different sources of electricity generation in Chile. Energy Econ 2012;34
(4):1214–25.
[75] Klinglmair A, Bliem M, Brouwer R. Public preferences for urban and rural
hydropower projects in Styria using a choice experiment. Kärnten 2012.
[76] Lindhjem H, Mitani Y. Forest owners' willingness to accept compensation for
voluntary conservation. J For Econ 2012;18(4):290–302.
[77] Xu LY, Yu B, Li Y. Ecological compensation based on willingness to accept for
conservation of drinking water sources. Front Environ Sci Eng 2014:1–8.
[78] Isoni A, Loomes G, Sugden R. The willingness to pay—willingness to accept
gap, the “endowment effect,” subject misconceptions, and experimental
procedures for eliciting valuations: comment. Am Econ Rev 2011;101:991–
1011.
[79] Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S. Taking stock a comparative analysis of payments
for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries.
Ecol Econ 2008;65(4):834–52.
[80] Norgaard RB. Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity
blinder. Ecol Econ 2010;69(6):1219–27.
[81] Li Y, Li Y, Ji PF, Yang J. The status quo analysis and policy suggestions on
promoting China's hydropower development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;51:1071–9.