Terese E. Venus , Oreoluwa Ola , Maria Alp , Nico Bätz , Maria Dolores Bejarano , Isabel Boavida , Maria Cristina Bruno , Roser Casas-Mulet , Mauro Carolli , Gabriele Chiogna , Marie-Pierre Gosselin , Jo H. Halleraker , Markus Noack , Diego Tonolla , Davide Vanzo , Daniel S. Hayes
{"title":"The power of hydropeaking: Trade-offs between flexible hydropower and river ecosystem services in Europe","authors":"Terese E. Venus , Oreoluwa Ola , Maria Alp , Nico Bätz , Maria Dolores Bejarano , Isabel Boavida , Maria Cristina Bruno , Roser Casas-Mulet , Mauro Carolli , Gabriele Chiogna , Marie-Pierre Gosselin , Jo H. Halleraker , Markus Noack , Diego Tonolla , Davide Vanzo , Daniel S. Hayes","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The operational practice of “hydropeaking” allows hydropower plants to cover peaks and deficits in energy demand, but it also impacts river ecosystems. The assessment of hydropeaking impacts plays an important role in safeguarding ecosystem services, but is challenging due to the relative importance of impacts at different sites. To compare impacts in hydropeaking rivers, we elicit expert judgment on the relative impacts of hydropeaking on river ecosystem services. Using the best-worst scaling (BWS) method, we compare the impact on the three categories of river ecosystem services (provisioning, regulating and cultural). Our respondents include 98 hydropower experts. Our analysis accounted for individual heterogeneity to assess how perceptions vary across regions, attitudes and representative river characteristics. We find trade-offs between provisioning and regulating services at the regional and local levels, which represents a key issue in dealing with climate change and ecosystem degradation. The best-affected services were water for power generation, raw materials, water for industrial activities and water for irrigation. The worst-affected services were fisheries and aquaculture, maintenance of population and habitat, and wild animals. Our results have implications for the safeguarding of river ecosystem services and the design of regulatory and incentive schemes for mitigation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51021,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Economics","volume":"233 ","pages":"Article 108583"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800925000667","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The power of hydropeaking: Trade-offs between flexible hydropower and river ecosystem services in Europe
The operational practice of “hydropeaking” allows hydropower plants to cover peaks and deficits in energy demand, but it also impacts river ecosystems. The assessment of hydropeaking impacts plays an important role in safeguarding ecosystem services, but is challenging due to the relative importance of impacts at different sites. To compare impacts in hydropeaking rivers, we elicit expert judgment on the relative impacts of hydropeaking on river ecosystem services. Using the best-worst scaling (BWS) method, we compare the impact on the three categories of river ecosystem services (provisioning, regulating and cultural). Our respondents include 98 hydropower experts. Our analysis accounted for individual heterogeneity to assess how perceptions vary across regions, attitudes and representative river characteristics. We find trade-offs between provisioning and regulating services at the regional and local levels, which represents a key issue in dealing with climate change and ecosystem degradation. The best-affected services were water for power generation, raw materials, water for industrial activities and water for irrigation. The worst-affected services were fisheries and aquaculture, maintenance of population and habitat, and wild animals. Our results have implications for the safeguarding of river ecosystem services and the design of regulatory and incentive schemes for mitigation.
期刊介绍:
Ecological Economics is concerned with extending and integrating the understanding of the interfaces and interplay between "nature''s household" (ecosystems) and "humanity''s household" (the economy). Ecological economics is an interdisciplinary field defined by a set of concrete problems or challenges related to governing economic activity in a way that promotes human well-being, sustainability, and justice. The journal thus emphasizes critical work that draws on and integrates elements of ecological science, economics, and the analysis of values, behaviors, cultural practices, institutional structures, and societal dynamics. The journal is transdisciplinary in spirit and methodologically open, drawing on the insights offered by a variety of intellectual traditions, and appealing to a diverse readership.
Specific research areas covered include: valuation of natural resources, sustainable agriculture and development, ecologically integrated technology, integrated ecologic-economic modelling at scales from local to regional to global, implications of thermodynamics for economics and ecology, renewable resource management and conservation, critical assessments of the basic assumptions underlying current economic and ecological paradigms and the implications of alternative assumptions, economic and ecological consequences of genetically engineered organisms, and gene pool inventory and management, alternative principles for valuing natural wealth, integrating natural resources and environmental services into national income and wealth accounts, methods of implementing efficient environmental policies, case studies of economic-ecologic conflict or harmony, etc. New issues in this area are rapidly emerging and will find a ready forum in Ecological Economics.