Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

(1)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

Hydropower Development and Environmental Conflicts:

Conclusions from an Austrian Case Study:

Hans-Peter NACHTNEBEL

(2)

To describe, to analyse and to propose a method to analye an unsolved problem related to

hydropower development, environmental

protection and navigation

(3)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE STUDY

The Socio-Economic Context

•Role of Hydropower in Austria

•Role of Navigation

•Role of Environmental Protection

•Public Participation

(4)

The Socio-economic Context

Hydropower

• Austria covers about 60% of its electric demand by hydropower

• no nuclear power station is in operation

• several power stations like Hainburg were planned, built and operated without any problems

• a renewable nonpolluting way of power generation

• Hainburg was planned with a capacity of 360 MW and

2075 GWh/a (64100 GWh annual generation in Austria)

(5)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

Hydropower Use Along the Austrian Danube

(6)

(7)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

The Story About Hainburg

(8)

The Socio-Economic Context

Navigation

• The Danube is an international river used for navigation

• The improvement of the waterway is in national and international interest

• The navigation potential is large but the actual ship based

transport is low

(9)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

The Socio-Economic Context

Environmental Protection:

• Environmental preservation is a national objective

• Surface water quality is good to excellent in Austria

• Wetlands are rare and endangered

• Last major wetlands are found in the flood plains of the

Danube

(10)

(11)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

The Environment

(12)

Some Figures about the Ecological State

• 30 mammal species, 8 reptiles, 13 amphibia, several of them are on the list of endangered species.

• 109 species of the birds hatching in Austria are native to the floodplain areas.

• 57 species fish species were found there from which 32

species are abundant.

(13)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

Groundwater Dynamics and Fish Habitats

(14)

The Socio-Economic Context

Drinking water resources

• Environmental preservation is a national objective

• Surface water quality is good to excellent in Austria

• Wetlands are rare and endangered

• Last major wetlands are found in the flood plains of the Danube

• Riverine landscapes offer a huge potential for recreation

• Wetlands provide water resources for drinking water

(15)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

Groundwater Systems

(16)

Groundwater Systems

(17)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

The Socio-political Context

Public Participation

• Until 1996 only directly involved people were legally invited to the trial

• Until 1993 there was no legally binding environmental

compatibility analysis (declaration)

(18)

* 1983: Governmental declaration calling for the construction of the scheme Hainburg

* 1983: The responsible „semi-private“ company DOKW-AG

submitted a general project outline to the Supreme Water Law Authority (SWLA)

* 1984: All legal steps are successfully passed and a concession is issued for building and operating

* 1984-85: Eco-activistic groups claim the project site and stop construction works

* 1985: An ecological advisory board is established at the Ministry of Environment to resolve the conflict

* 1985-90: Alternative plans are discussed

* 1990-96: Preparatory plans for implementation of a National Park

(19)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

The Story About Hainburg

(20)

The Story about Hainburg

(21)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

The Story About Hainburg

* 1985-86: Another project “Freudenau” is developed

* 1987-88: The public is involved from the early beginning in project developement

* 1988: The provincial government of Vienna decides that an

environmental compatibility study has to be elaborated and a referendum has to held

* 1990: The University of Agricultural Sciences has to evaluate the environmental compatibility study

* 1991: About 130 conditions are identified by the university but no veto against the project is raised

* 1991: Information campaign by the hydropower company

* 1991: Referendum in Vienna

71 % vote for the project

44 % of entitled people participated

(22)

* 1992: The legal procedure about the project is successfully finished

* 1992-97: Construction of the scheme in a complex environment

* 1975- Degradation of the river bed of the Danube (-4 cm/year)

* 1991- River engineering works to maintain the water way and to preserve the flood plain

* 1996: A National Park is designated to protect the wetlands in the flood plain of Hainburg

* 1996 An expert committee is established to propose solutions for stabilisation of the river bed

The problem has not been solved yet

(23)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

The Hydropower Station Freudenau

(24)

Analysis of the Problem

• A conflict among economic, environmental and social goals

• deficits in legislation

• no rational approach (method) for analysing the conflict and in assisting to resolve it

• no agreed data base

(25)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

A Rational Approach

• Identify the problem

• Identify objectives, goals and criteria

• Criteria should be quantitatively or qualitatively expressed

• Identify a broad set of alternatives

• Assess the impacts by the set of criteria

• Elaborate an alternative versus criteria array

• Compare (rank ??) alternatives

(26)

General objectives

• Utilise efficiently national resources

hydropower generation navigation

• Preserve the state of the environment

wetlands

Groundwater system Thermal springs

• Improve social welfare

Jobs

(27)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

Objectives and Goals

Maximise economical utilization of resources

• maximise power generation annual power output GWh

• minimise costs investment costs Mrd. ATS operation costs ordinal

• improved navigation restrictions days/year

Increase social welfare

• increase of employment rate short-term ordinal

long-term ordinal

• improve recreational opp. ordinal

• protection of hot springs risk %

(28)

Habitats and Species

• flood plain forests

losses due to construction ha area of initial vegetation ha losses of inundated area % area of flood plain forests ha

forest edges km

forest galleries km

• typical faunistic populations

• morphometric variability of riverbanks

• water quality

(29)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

Alternatives

• Different locations for hydropower station

• Different size and number

• Energy imports instead of generation

(30)

Hydropower Potential

Location

Stream km

# of schemes

installed capacity

generated power

Estimated costs

(billion ATS)

(31)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

Alternatives

ID-No A 2 A 3 A 4 A 5 A 6

Alternative Hainburg Schönau Petronell 2 Wildungs- Engelh.

Petronell 1 mauer stetten

Wolfsthal 2 Wolfsthal 2 Wolfsthal 2

No of Power 1 3 2 2 1

Stations

Capacity 360 247 327 327 352

(MW)

Generation 2075 1700 1990 1920 2035

(GWh)

Investment 11,4 24,9 15,9 15,6 12,2

(Mrd.ATS)

(32)

Set of Alternatives

• A1 no hydropower station

• A2 1 plant Hainburg

• A3 3 medium sized plants

• A4 2 plants (Petronell 2 & Wolfsthal)

• A5 2 plants (Wildungsmauer & Wolfsthal)

• A6 1 plant Engelhartstetten

• Each scheme can be improved by accompanying

measures. Indicated by A

(33)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

Alternatives versus Criteria Array

• Including the zero alternative and compensatory measures (to reduce adverse impacts) there are 12 alternatives which are evaluated by 3 goals which are described by 33 criteria

• For each criterion there is an upper and lower bound

• Criteria may be of different importance

(34)

(Plan Impact Matrix)

The full set of alternatives 

• Criteria A

₁

A

₂

A

₃

A

_i

A

_N

• C

₁

a

₁₁

a

₁₂

a

₁₃

a

_1i

a

_1N

• C

₂

a

₂₁

a

₂₂

a

₂₃

a

_2i

a

_2N

• C

₃

a

₃₁

a

₃₂

a

₃₃

a

_3i

a

_3N

• C

_j

a

_j1

a

_j2

a

_j3

a

_ji

a

_jN

• C

_J

a

_J1

a

_J2

a

_J3

a

_Ji

a

_JN

(35)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

Comparing Different Alternatives by ELECTRE

Each alternative is now characterised by 33 criteria How to compare different criteria ?

• Euros versus groundwater dynamics

• outcomes are scaled to a common range

Which alternative is good ?

• When the outcomes are close to the target

• Pairwise comparison of alternatives A

_i

and A

_j

• That one is ‚preferred‘ which is better in most of the criteria

• However, if it failes in a criterion, then it should not be much

worse

(36)

Comparing Outcomes for Different Criteria

• Scaling

• Assumption: linear scale

Criterion (unit)

Minimum output Maximum output 1

0

(37)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

Scaling Example

X

Min

X

X X X



 

max

'

max

Min Min

X X

X Z X



 

max

Both variables X’ and Z are within the range (0,1) and they are complementary to each other;

X’+Z=1

X’ expresses the degree of dis-satisfaction and Z

corresponds to the degree of satisfaction.

(38)

Criteria may have different weights (importance) w _k

Equal sum of weights are given to the 3 objectives

Pairwise comparison uses also a scale Sc

• Concordance: How much better is A _i than A _j

• Discordance: How strongly fails A _i to A _j

i j

kj ki

k Aj

Ai k

Aj

Ai k

A A

all Z for

Max Z j

i DI

w

w w

j i CI

 

 

 

 





 





^ ^

_ _

) , (

2 1 )

,

(

(39)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

Example

Alternative Weigth Scale

A3 A5

Criteria 1 Net Benefit 4 3 2 5

Criteria 2 Water Quality poor good 1 5

Criteria 3 Energy output 5 2.5 2 5

CI(3,5)=4/5 DI(3,5)=2/5

Range very good-good-acceptable-poor-very poor

1 2 3 4 5

(40)

When is an Alternative ‚Good‘

• When its CI is high and its DI is low !

• For each pairwise comparison we get a matrix for CI and a DI

• Therefore we obtain two matrices for the whole

set of alternatives versus criteria

(41)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

Concordance Matrix

A1 A1a A2 A2a A3 A3a A4 A4a A5 A5a A6 A6a

A1 0,00 0,50 0,67 0,65 0,73 0,71 0,63 0,61 0,61 0,61 0,67 0,65 A1a 0,50 0,00 0,72 0,70 0,63 0,61 0,63 0,61 0,61 0,61 0,72 0,70 A2 0,32 0,27 0,00 0,50 0,39 0,37 0,38 0,38 0,36 0,36 0,50 0,49 A2a 0,34 0,29 0,50 0,00 0,39 0,39 0,40 0,40 0,38 0,38 0,52 0,50 A3 0,26 0,36 0,61 0,61 0,00 0,49 0,61 0,63 0,51 0,53 0,60 0,60 A3a 0,29 0,39 0,63 0,61 0,50 0,00 0,61 0,64 0,51 0,53 0,62 0.60 A4 0,36 0,36 0,62 0,59 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,52 0,40 0,44 0,60 0,58 A4a 0,38 0,38 0,62 0,60 0.36 0,36 0,48 0,00 0,40 0,40 0,60 0,58 A5 0,38 0,38 0,64 0,62 0,49 0,49 0,60 0,60 0,00 0,52 0,64 0,62 A5a 0,39 0,39 0,64 0,62 0,47 0,47 0,55 0,60 0,48 0,00 0,64 0,62 A6 0,32 0,27 0,50 0,48 0,40 0,38 0,39 0,39 0,36 0,36 0,00 0,50 A6a 0,34 0,29 0,51 0,50 0,40 0,40 0,42 0,41 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,00 Discordance Matrix

A1 0,00 0,85 0,42 0,70 0,72 0,75 0,71 0,71 0,71 0,71 0,39 0,70 A1a 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,82 0,82 0.96 0,96 0,86 0,86 1,00 1,00 A2 0,98 0,98 0,00 0,74 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,16 0,74 A2a 0,98 0,98 0,02 0,00 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,16 0,16 A3 0,68 0,95 0,52 0,75 0,00 0,47 0,35 0,55 0,36 0,58 0,49 0,75 A3a 0,68 1,00 0,57 0,54 0,07 0,00 0,39 0,36 0,40 0,37 0,53 0,51 A4 0,75 0,75 0,17 0,72 0,42 0,45 0,00 0,52 0,15 0,55 0,14 0,72 A4a 0,75 0,75 0,20 0,20 0,42 0,42 0,05 0,00 0,15 0,15 0,17 0,20 A5 0,67 0,67 0,16 0,66 0,31 0,38 0,10 0,46 0,00 0,49 0,14 0,66 A5a 0,67 0,67 0,19 0,17 0,31 0,31 0,10 0,10 0,05 0,00 0,16 0,17 A6 1,00 1,00 0,03 0,74 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,00 0,74 A6a 1,00 1,00 0,05 0,03 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,02 0,00

(42)

A1 A1a A2 A2a A3 A3a A4 A4a A5 A5a A6 A6a A1 0,00 0,50 0,67 0,65 0,73 0,71 0,63 0,61 0,61 0,61 0,67 0,65 A1a 0,50 0,00 0,72 0,70 0,63 0,61 0,63 0,61 0,61 0,61 0,72 0,70 A2 0,32 0,27 0,00 0,50 0,39 0,37 0,38 0,38 0,36 0,36 0,50 0,49 A2a 0,34 0,29 0,50 0,00 0,39 0,39 0,40 0,40 0,38 0,38 0,52 0,50 A3 0,26 0,36 0,61 0,61 0,00 0,49 0,61 0,63 0,51 0,53 0,60 0,60 A3a 0,29 0,39 0,63 0,61 0,50 0,00 0,61 0,64 0,51 0,53 0,62 0.60 A4 0,36 0,36 0,62 0,59 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,52 0,40 0,44 0,60 0,58 A4a 0,38 0,38 0,62 0,60 0.36 0,36 0,48 0,00 0,40 0,40 0,60 0,58 A5 0,38 0,38 0,64 0,62 0,49 0,49 0,60 0,60 0,00 0,52 0,64 0,62 A5a 0,39 0,39 0,64 0,62 0,47 0,47 0,55 0,60 0,48 0,00 0,64 0,62 A6 0,32 0,27 0,50 0,48 0,40 0,38 0,39 0,39 0,36 0,36 0,00 0,50 A6a 0,34 0,29 0,51 0,50 0,40 0,40 0,42 0,41 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,00 Discordance Matrix

A1 0,00 0,85 0,42 0,70 0,72 0,75 0,71 0,71 0,71 0,71 0,39 0,70 A1a 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,82 0,82 0.96 0,96 0,86 0,86 1,00 1,00 A2 0,98 0,98 0,00 0,74 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,16 0,74 A2a 0,98 0,98 0,02 0,00 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,16 0,16 A3 0,68 0,95 0,52 0,75 0,00 0,47 0,35 0,55 0,36 0,58 0,49 0,75 A3a 0,68 1,00 0,57 0,54 0,07 0,00 0,39 0,36 0,40 0,37 0,53 0,51 A4 0,75 0,75 0,17 0,72 0,42 0,45 0,00 0,52 0,15 0,55 0,14 0,72 A4a 0,75 0,75 0,20 0,20 0,42 0,42 0,05 0,00 0,15 0,15 0,17 0,20 A5 0,67 0,67 0,16 0,66 0,31 0,38 0,10 0,46 0,00 0,49 0,14 0,66 A5a 0,67 0,67 0,19 0,17 0,31 0,31 0,10 0,10 0,05 0,00 0,16 0,17 A6 1,00 1,00 0,03 0,74 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,75 0,00 0,74

(43)

Water Resources Planning and DM: course unit 6

Comparison and Ranking of Alternatives

• An alternative should have at least a certain dominance CI* and a ‚low failure‘ DI*

• Therefore all alternatives are analysed for which CI>CI* and DI<DI*

**CI* = 0.6, DI* = 0.2 CI* = 0.6, DI* = 0.1 A4 >A2 A5a > A2 A5 > A4**

A4 > A6 A5a > A2a A5a >A4a A4a >A6 A5a > A4a

A5 > A2 A5a > A6 A5 > A4 A5a > A6a A5 > A6

A1 no hydropower station A2 1 plant Hainburg

A3 3 medium sized plants

A4 2 plants (Petronell 2 & Wolfsthal)

A5 2 plants (Wildungsmauer & Wolfsthal)

A6 1 plant Engelhartstetten

(44)

Analysis of Outcome

• The alternative A2 proposed by the hydropower company is not among the preferred alternatives

• Also the zero option A1 (do nothing) is NOT attractive

• The zero alternative is only attractive when the economic criteria have low weigth

• There is a set of alternatives which is interesting A5, A4

• A sensitivity analysis indicates that these alternatives

are very often among the ‚attractive ones‘

(45)