Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Global Trends in Dam Removal and Related Research: A Systematic Review Based on Associated Datasets and Bibliometric Analysis

  • Published:
Chinese Geographical Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dam removal has been increasingly reported globally and is becoming an important approach for river management, restoration and environmental conservation in damming rivers. However, current limited knowledge of global trends in dam removal and related research may be potentially biased in terms of the geographic distribution and organisms studied. Such bias could mislead dam removal planning and management in different areas and ecological conservation for different taxa. In this study, we quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed datasets of dam removal and publications of dam removal research using bibliometric methods. A total of 1449 dam removal documents were published from 1953 to 2016. Trends, current hotspots and future directions of dam removal research were identified. The results from this study reveal that dam removal largely occurred in the North America and Europe, and most of the removed dams were small and old dams. With respect to the topic analysis, more dam removal studies should focus on the responses of a wide range of organisms, not only fish, as well as the interspecies relationships, food webs and ecosystem structures and functions. Based on our findings, we also provide some suggestions for future dam removal planning and analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • References

  • Ackers P, White W R, 1973. Sediment transport: new approach and analysis. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, 99(11): 2041–2060.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcaraz C, Carmona-Catot G, Risueño P et al., 2015. Assessing population status of Parachondrostoma arrigonis (Steindachner, 1866), threats and conservation perspectives. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 98(1): 443–455. doi: 10.1007/s10641-014-0274-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angermeier P L, 2008. Fish conservation: a guide to understanding and restoring global aquatic biodiversity and fishery resources. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 27(3): 802–804. doi: 10.1899/0887-3593(2008)27[802:BR]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter R M, 1977. Environmental effects of dams and impoundments. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 8: 255–283. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.08.110177.001351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bednarek A T, 2001. Undamming rivers: a review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environmental Management, 27(6): 803–814. doi: 10.1007/s002670010189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellmore J R, Duda J J, Craig L S et al., 2017. Status and trends of dam removal research in the United States. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 4(3): e1164. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohrerova Z, Park E, Halloran K et al., 2017. Water quality changes shortly after low–head dam removal examined with cultural and microbial source tracking methods. River Research and Applications, 33(1): 113–122. doi: 10.1002/rra.3069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Born S M, Genskow K D, Filbert T L et al., 1998. Socioeconomic and institutional dimensions of dam removals: the wisconsin experience. Environmental Management, 22(3): 359–370. doi: 10.1007/s002679900111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewitt P K, 2016. Do the fish return? A qualitative assessment of anadromous pacific salmonids’ upstream movement after dam removal. Northwest Science, 90(4): 433–449. doi: 10.3955/046.090.0405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer J H D, Renkema J M S, Kersten A M P, 2014. Endnote X7. Wageningen: Wageningen UR Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunn S E, Arthington A H, 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management, 30(4): 492–507. doi: 10.1007/s00267-002-2737-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng F, Granata T, 2007. Sediment transport and channel adjustments associated with dam removal: field observations. Water Resources Research, 43(3): W03444. doi: 10.1029/2005WR004271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding Chengzhi, Jiang Xiaoming, Wang Lieen et al., 2018. Fish assemblage responses to a low-head dam removal in the Lancang River. Chinese Geographical Science. doi: 10.1007/s11769-018-0995-x

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudgeon D, 2003. The contribution of scientific information to the conservation and management of freshwater biodiversity in tropical Asia. Hydrobiologia, 500(1–3): 295–314. doi: 10.1023/A:1024666627070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudgeon D, 2010. Prospects for sustaining freshwater biodiversity in the 21st century: linking ecosystem structure and function. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(5–6): 422–430. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dugan P J, Barlow C, Agostinho A A et al., 2010. Fish migration, dams, and loss of ecosystem services in the Mekong basin. Ambio, 39(4): 344–348. doi: 10.1007/s13280-010-0036-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO, 2001. Dams, Fish and Fisheries: Opportunities, Challenges and Conflict Resolution. Rome: The Food and Agriculture Organization.

  • Foley M M, Bellmore J R, O’Connor J E et al., 2017. Dam removal: listening in. Water Resources Research, 53(7): 5229–5246. doi: 10.1002/2017WR020457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangloff M M, Edgar G J, Wilson B, 2016. Imperilled species in aquatic ecosystems: emerging threats, management and future prognoses. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 26(5): 858–871. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant G, 2001. Dam removal: panacea or Pandora for rivers? Hydrological Processes, 15(8): 1531–1532. doi: 10.1002/hyp.473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halsing D L, Moore M R, 2008. Cost-effective management alternatives for snake river chinook salmon: a biologicaleconomic synthesis. Conservation Biology, 22(2): 338–350. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00913.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart D D, Johnson T E, Bushaw-Newton K L et al., 2002. Dam removal: challenges and opportunities for ecological research and river restoration: we develop a risk assessment framework for understanding how potential responses to dam removal vary with dam and watershed characteristics, which can lead to more effective use of this restoration method. Bioscience, 52(8): 669–682. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0669:DRCAOF]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch J E, 2005. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46): 16569–16572. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang J H, Kazama S, 2013. Short-term river response and restoration of biological diversity following slit construction. Journal of Hydro-Environment Research, 7(3): 161–173. doi: 10.1016/j.jher.2013.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katopodis C, Aadland L P, 2006. Effective dam removal and river channel restoration approaches. International Journal of River Basin Management, 4(3): 153–oi: 10.1080/15715124.2006.9635285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klima V A, 2014. The Penobscot River Restoration Trust and the Return of Alewife and Blueback Herring, Alosa Pseudoharengus and a. Aestivalis, in the Penobscot River, Maine. Fort Lauderdale: Nova Southeastern University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larinier M, 2000. Dams and Fish Migration: World Commission on Dams. Roma: The Food and Agriculture Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehner B, Liermann C R, Revenga C et al., 2011. High-resolution mapping of the world’s reservoirs and dams for sustainable river-flow management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(9): 494–502. doi: 10.1890/100125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lejon A G C, Renöfält B M, Nilsson C, 2009. Conflicts associated with dam removal in Sweden. Ecology and Society, 14(2): 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu F L, Lin A W, Wang H H et al., 2016. Global research trends of geographical information system from 1961 to 2010: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 106(2): 751–768. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1789-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu X J, Zhang L, Hong S, 2011. Global biodiversity research during 1900–2009: a bibliometric analysis. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(4): 807–826. doi: 10.1007/s10531-010-9981-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magilligan F J, Nislow K H, Kynard B E et al., 2016. Immediate changes in stream channel geomorphology, aquatic habitat, and fish assemblages following dam removal in a small upland catchment. Geomorphology, 252: 158–170. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.07.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mane K K, Börner K, 2004. Mapping topics and topic bursts in PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(S1): 5287–5290. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0307626100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchese C, 2015. Biodiversity hotspots: a shortcut for a more complicated concept. Global Ecology and Conservation, 3: 297–309. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2014.12.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin J F, 2013. Engaging birds in vegetation restoration after elwha dam removal. Ecological Restoration, 31(1): 46–56. doi: 10.3368/er.31.1.46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullens J B, Wanstreet V, 2010. Using willingness-to-pay surveys when assessing dam removal: a new hampshire case study. The Geographical Bulletin, 51(2): 97–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers N, Mittermeier R A, Mittermeier C G et al., 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772): 853–858. doi: 10.1038/35002501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neeson T M, Ferris M C, Diebel M W et al., 2015. Enhancing ecosystem restoration efficiency through spatial and temporal coordination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(19): 6236–6241. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1423812112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson C, Reidy C A, Dynesius M et al., 2005. Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science, 308(5720): 405–408. doi: 10.1126/science.1107887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor J E, Duda J J, Grant G E, 2015. 1000 dams down and counting. Science, 348(6234): 496–497. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa9204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poff N L, Hart D D, 2002. How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science of dam removal: an ecological classification of dams is needed to characterize how the tremendous variation in the size, operational mode, age, and number of dams in a river basin influences the potential for restoring regulated rivers via dam removal. Bioscience, 52(8): 659–668. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0659:HDVAWI]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl M M, 2002. Bringing down our dams: trends in american dam removal rationales. Jawra Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 38(6): 1511–1519. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.tb04361.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raghavan R, Das S, Nameer P O et al., 2016. Protected areas and imperilled endemic freshwater biodiversity in the Western Ghats Hotspot. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 26(S1): 78–90. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter B, Baumgartner J, Wigington R et al., 1997. How much water does a river need? Freshwater Biology, 37(1): 231–249. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1997.00153.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rollet A J, 2014. Geomorphological and river management issues of dam removal: lessons from low order and low gradient streams. SAO/NASA ADS. Avilable at: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014EGUGA.16.3344R

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider S, 2007. Macrophyte trophic indicator values from a European perspective. Limnologica, 37(4): 281–289. doi: 10.1016/j.limno.2007.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Service R F, 2011. Will busting dams boost salmon? Science, 334(6058): 888–892. doi: 10.1126/science.334.6058.888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafroth P B, Friedman J M, Auble G T et al., 2002. Potential responses of riparian vegetation to dam removal: dam removal generally causes changes to aspects of the physical environment that influence the establishment and growth of riparian vegetation. Bioscience, 52(8): 703–712. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0703:PRORVT]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuman J R, 1995. Environmental considerations for assessing dam removal alternatives for river restoration. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, 11(3–4): 249–261. doi: 10.1002/rrr.3450110302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith M G, 2006. Dam removal: a taxonomy with implications for economic analysis. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 134(1): 34–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1936-704X.2006.mp134001007.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley E H, Doyle M W, 2003. Trading off: the ecological effects of dam removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(1): 15–22. doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0015:TOTEEO]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tao J, Che R X, He D K et al., 2015. Trends and potential cautions in food web research from a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 105(1): 435–447. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1679-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The H John Heinz III Center, 2002. Dam Removal: Science and Decision Making. Washington: Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment.

  • Vannote R L, Minshall G W, Cummins K W et al., 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 37(1): 130–137. doi: 10.1139/f80-017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vörösmarty C J, Mcintyre P B, Gessner M O et al., 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature, 468(7321): 334. doi: 10.1038/nature09549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang P, Dong S K, Lassoie J P, 2014. The Large Dam Dilemma: An Exploration of the Impacts of Hydro Projects on People and the Environment in China. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7630-2

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Ruonan, Wu Wenqiang, Peng Wenqi et al., 2015. An analysis of the reasons of dam removal in the united states. China Rural Water and Hydropower, (9): 135–138, 143. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickham H, 2016. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wohl E E, Cenderelli D A, 2000. Sediment deposition and transport patterns following a reservoir sediment release. Water Resources Research, 36(1): 319–333. doi: 10.1029/1999WR900272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Dams, 2000. Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-making-the Report of the World Commission on Dams. United Kingdom: Earthscan Publications.

  • Wu J G, Huang J H, Han X G et al., 2003. Three-gorges damexperiment in habitat fragmentation? Science, 300(5623): 1239–1240. doi: 10.1126/science.1083312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • York S N, 2014. Science of science (sci2) tool. In: Alhajj R, Rokne J (eds). Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarfl C, Lumsdon A E, Berlekamp J et al., 2015. A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquatic Sciences, 77(1): 161–170. doi: 10.1007/s00027-014-0377-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang C, Ding L Y, Ding C Z et al., 2018. Responses of species and phylogenetic diversity of fish communities in the Lancang River to hydropower development and exotic invasions. Ecological Indicators, 90: 261–279. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.03.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Yuan, Chen Libin, Qu Xiaodong et al., 2011. Environmental factors and community characteristics of aquatic macrophytes in Taizi river tributaries of Liaoning Province. Plant Science Journal, 29(5): 552–560. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We wish to thank Dr. Wu Ruidong from Yunnan University for his helpful suggestions on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Yunnan Key Laboratory of International Rivers and Transboundary Eco-security, Yunnan University, Kunming, 650091, China

    Liuyong Ding, Liqiang Chen, Chengzhi Ding & Juan Tao

  2. Institute of International Rivers and Eco-security, Yunnan University, Kunming, 650091, China

    Liuyong Ding, Liqiang Chen, Chengzhi Ding & Juan Tao

Authors
  1. Liuyong Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liqiang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chengzhi Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Juan Tao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Chengzhi Ding or Juan Tao.

Additional information

Foundation item: Under the auspices of the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2016YFA0601601), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41501574) and the Yunnan Applied Basic Research Projects (No. 2016FB079)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ding, L., Chen, L., Ding, C. et al. Global Trends in Dam Removal and Related Research: A Systematic Review Based on Associated Datasets and Bibliometric Analysis. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 29, 1–12 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-018-1009-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-018-1009-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation