Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/53588
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLouis Lebelen_US
dc.contributor.authorPhimphakan Lebelen_US
dc.contributor.authorChanagun Chitmanaten_US
dc.contributor.authorPatcharawalai Sriyasaken_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-04T09:52:19Z-
dc.date.available2018-09-04T09:52:19Z-
dc.date.issued2014-01-01en_US
dc.identifier.issn22126082en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-84927163989en_US
dc.identifier.other10.1016/j.wrr.2014.10.006en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84927163989&origin=inwarden_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/53588-
dc.description.abstract© 2014 Elsevier B.V. Hydropower dams typically produce benefits for their developers. At the same time, large dams have various negative environmental and social consequences, in particular, upon those who must be resettled or whose livelihoods are disrupted. The anticipated and actual revenue earned by hydropower plants from the production and sale of electricity could be shared with residents of hydropower watersheds, to help offset these adverse impacts of construction and operation. The purpose of this paper is to examine the different ways in which such benefits have been shared in the Sirikit Dam hydropower watershed in Northern Thailand. Four different models for benefit sharing, each with a history in the case study site, were identified: compensation for resettlement; corporate social responsibility; community development funds; and payments for ecosystem services. The earliest program on resettlement was of limited effectiveness, because short-term compensation was insufficient to improve livelihoods or alleviate poverty. The corporate social responsibility program has been ad hoc, with achievements not always geared toward priority needs. The recently launched Power Development Fund is a promising framework, as it involves long-term sharing of revenues from the sale of electricity for projects proposed by local communities and agencies. A pilot exploration of watershed fund, based on payments for ecosystem services concepts, looked likely to falter from lack of interests among potential buyers and other institutional barriers. The case study demonstrates that different benefit sharing models have their merits and limitations which vary as a project matures - a lesson important for the Mekong Region.en_US
dc.subjectEnvironmental Scienceen_US
dc.subjectSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.titleBenefit sharing from hydropower watersheds: Rationales, practices, and potentialen_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
article.title.sourcetitleWater Resources and Rural Developmenten_US
article.volume4en_US
article.stream.affiliationsChiang Mai Universityen_US
article.stream.affiliationsMaejo Universityen_US
Appears in Collections:CMUL: Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in CMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.