Why the impasse? The large dams debate and divergent perspectives

Abstract

Should we build more large dams? This has been the subject of articles, one multi-stakeholder world commission, government inquiries and protest movements. Nevertheless, unresolved disagreements have persisted for 50 years within the literature on this topic. More recently, the call for hydropower for climate change mitigation has concentrated attention. However, focusing on the energy transition has not resolved more fundamental questions within the contradictory narratives around large dams. I describe the current debate by investigating its subjectivities using Q methodology. In Q methodology, participants rank controversial notions from the debate, and the researcher uses these rankings' scores to retrieve generic opinion profiles. Twenty-seven participants ranked thirty-seven statements on large dams, the result is three opinion profiles ("Dam Busters", "Dam Necessarists" and "It-Dependers") and their points of contention. Divisive issues are the economic benefits, climate change and renewable energy, engineering solutions for impact mitigation, and cultural issues. The most profound division was between the ideology and politics of the Dam Busters and Dam Necessarists regarding the necessity of dams for mitigating climate change, and the economic benefits. Ideas and political values significantly shaped people's viewpoints, leading to a more intractable debate. I conclude by arguing against simplifying the debate into Not-In -My-BackYard (“NIMBY”) and There-Is-No-Alternative (“TINA”). Instead, I suggest the debate will move forward if we acknowledge that the divisions are subjective and ideological and if there is transparency around where disagreements lie. As an individual's ideology rarely changes, I propose that objective approaches will not resolve the debate.