Stricter environmental regulations (e.g. the EU’s Water Framework Directive) will entail many environmental improvement measures in waters that have been affected by hydropower, and dam removals are becoming a more common measure. This paper reviews economic evaluations of dam removals, primarily drawing on studies in the USA, and identifies key, frequently recurring, issues that future evaluations will likely need to consider. The paper also reports on an ex-ante evaluation of the recent removal of the Marieberg Hydropower Plant in the Mörrum River in Sweden. An environmental valuation survey carried out as a key part of this evaluation was conducted as a replication of a previous study, where the policy context was different but the expected ecological outcome similar. The replication study produced comparable results to those of the previous study.

Background

The Västerbotten intervention program (VIP), is a public health promotion program in northern Sweden with the aim of preventing cardiovascular disease. Positive effects have been reported although the evidence is not unequivocal. Since only historical controls have been used, effects from other sources than the program have largely been uncontrolled for and health related quality of life (HRQoL) has not been evaluated.

Purpose

By using the neighbouring county of Norrbotten (NB) as the reference population, we compare HRQoL in Västerbotten (VB) and in NB.

Methods

In 2014 the Northern Sweden survey, Monitoring of Trends and Determinants in Cardiovascular Disease (MONICA), examined a random sample from the two counties. HRQoL was measured with the EQ-5D-3L. In total, 1112 subjects aged 40–74 years participated, 516 in VB and 594 in NB. Differences in mean QoL between VB and NB were analysed via Student’s t-test and the Pearson chi-square test.

Results

Average HRQoL measured by the EQ-5D-index was 0.798 in VB and 0.811 in NB, a difference of 0.013 (p = 0.2, CI -0.009 to 0.036). For subjects aged 45–54 years, the HRQoL was lower in VB than in NB, a difference of 0.048 (p = 0.041; CI 0.002 to 0.0094). Men had higher HRQoL than women, and university educated had higher HRQoL than those without university education. EQ-VAS showed similar results. Subjects from NB and from VB did not differ regarding age, gender and level of education. In NB, HRQoL decrease with age, a pattern not seen in VB.

Conclusions

We found similar levels of HRQoL in VB and in NB.

This paper analyzes the preferences for reducing the negative impacts of landslides. Negative consequences of landslides include impacts on transport infrastructure, humans, the environment and important societal services. We apply a choice experiment. The analysis is based on 6048 observations from 504 participants in a web panel. The overall finding is that reducing the risk of landslides would have a positive impact on individuals’ utility, and that individuals prioritize preventing negative consequences on human health and safety over maintaining societal services, environmental status, and preventing damages to transport infrastructure, which seems to be least pressing. Results indicate that prioritizations of citizens differ from the prioritizations of public authorities, whose risk assessment model for evaluating the consequences of landslides gives equal weight to the different impacts.

This paper analyses the preferences of public officials and citizens related to the impacts of floods in the Gothenburg region in Sweden. Citizens and public officials in the flood-prone region answered identical choice-experiment surveys characterized by the negative impacts of floods: property damage, traffic disturbances, and water supply security. By having citizens and public officials respond to identical surveys, it was possible to analyse whether and, if so, how priorities and monetary valuation differed in respect of the different negative effects of floods. The overall finding is that public officials’ and citizens’ preferences seem to converge, and that both citizens and public officials are willing to pay to reduce flood-related costs. Public officials have similar priorities to citizens, in that security of drinking water provision was given priority over property damage, while traffic disturbances were ranked lowest. In terms of their respective willingness to pay to avoid the negative impact of floods, public officials were willing to pay more than citizens to pay for securing the drinking water supply and for restoring damaged property, though these differences were not substantial. There are, however, some differences in preference between citizens and public officials: the latter preferred not to spend anything to reduce traffic disturbances caused by floods, whilst citizens were willing to do so. These results imply that decisions made within the public sector will not come to differ substantially from citizens’ preferences