Luu, C; von Meding, J K and Kanjanabootra, S (2017) Balancing costs and benefits in Vietnam's hydropower industry: A strategic proposal. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 8(1), pp. 27-39. ISSN 1759-5916
Abstract
Purpose: One of the main strategic targets in the national power development plan of Vietnam is to give priority to hydropower. However, there is evidence that the most “at risk” in Vietnamese society have, to date, broadly failed to benefit from hydropower development but rather have become more vulnerable. This paper aims to broaden the perspective of decision makers (government agencies, investors and banks) in the hydropower industry regarding the environmental and social impacts of unrestrained development and the critical need to not only reduce disaster risk for communities but also provide a sustainable model for Vietnam’s energy demand. Design/methodology/approach: This position paper presents a critique of public policy in Vietnam related to hydropower industry, undertaken alongside an analysis of socio-economic community resilience and disaster risk reduction literature. Findings: Small hydropower investment must be delayed until measures are put in place to ensure that multi-stakeholder risk is a central component of the investment dialogue. Current pricing policies are not aligned with the hydropower development management, and this erects barriers to environmentally and socially conscious decision-making. Practical implications: This paper suggests that the development of small hydropower projects must be curtailed until new measures are put in place. This has practical implications for investors, policy makers and residents of affected areas. The authors argue for a significant shift in government strategy toward building resilience as opposed to growth and profit at any cost. Social implications: Conscious of Vietnam’s energy demands and development goals, this paper investigates the context of increasing disaster risk and ecological pressures, as well as social injustice relating to the hydropower industry. This kind of analysis can support future efforts to reduce disaster risk and the vulnerability of marginalized groups in Vietnam. Originality/value: The authors present a comprehensive review of Vietnamese hydropower from a disaster resilience perspective and provide analysis that will be useful in further research in this emerging area.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cost benefit analysis; energy strategy; hydropower development; resilience; small hydropower; strategic investment |
| Index terms: | social impact, critique, energy strategy, community resilience, pricing, energy demand, investor, strategic investment, hydropower development, disaster risk reduction, public policy, evidence, vulnerability, decision-making, methodology, profit, small hydropower, disaster resilience, strategy, government agency, cost benefit analysis, disaster risk, society, Vietnam, proposal |
| Subjects: | Geography, social equity, financial risk, management, research methods, administrative law, communities and social development, environmental hazards, decision analysis, sociology, climate science, evaluation and assessment methods, renewable energy, data analysis and analytics, project planning, energy systems, financial and cost management, economic analysis, public policy |
| Topics: | Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Governance, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here