The Social Return Potential of Micro Hydropower in Water Networks Based on Demonstrator Examples
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Background and Research Gap
- Extend the theoretical and practical knowledge on quantifying the social impact of MHPs as the first step towards establishing a benchmark social return range for MHPs in water networks;
- Demonstrate a viable methodology for evaluating the tangible as well as the intangible benefits of MHPs. If successful, the resulting SROI ratio will simplify the indicative social value that can be derived in the immediate periods of a MHP installation represented;
- Contribute a simplified approach with which the acceptance and the acceptability of MHPs can be promoted. A SROI range, rather than a fixed value can support decision making, on the balance that some value will increase, while others will decrease over time;
- Enumerate the opportunities and challenges of quantifying and forecasting the potential social returns which can be scaled up to similar MHP installations.
2. Materials and Methods
- Define the scope/field of analysis and identify key stakeholders: Clear SROI analysis boundaries help to define the involved stakeholder groups and their role;
- Map potential impact and outcomes with stakeholder involvement: This task was necessary to demonstrate the links between inputs, outputs, and outcomes. This activity was undertaken with the stakeholders;
- Gather evidence of the outcomes and assign a value (or proxy value): As predicted by the authors of [51], this stage was protracted due to the complexity of sourcing data to determine if outcomes had occurred prior to assigning a monetary value. Information was not always readily available, was in different languages, or in disparate, un-signposted documentary sources and databases. Data from the Eurostat databases (e.g., [52]) and the European Emission Allowances (EUA)-EEX website were used to validate the data found online or provided by stakeholders;
- Calculate the impact and eliminate redundant/deadweight effects. This calculation goes through four steps to reduce the risk of overestimation [50,53]: the Deadweight estimation represents the outcomes that would have occurred if the activity had not taken place. The relationship between deadweight and outcome is reverse, as a decrease in outcomes is due to an increase in deadweight. The Displacement estimation, also known as the substitution effect, represents the negative and unforeseen elements overlapping positive elements that already existed. The Attribution estimation based on the proportion of the outcome is associated with other organisations. The Depreciation estimation represents the reduction in the impact across time, i.e., drop-off;
- SROI ratio calculation: This step involves adding up all the benefits, subtracting any negatives, and comparing the result against the initial investment. The sensitivity of the ratio was then evaluated.
Stages | Aim | Method |
---|---|---|
Knowledge, methods, and stakeholders | Background on social value and impact, measurement methods and financial proxies | Literature review |
Identification of pilot sites | Sampling | |
Identification of stakeholders | Survey, Mapping | |
Data Collection | Definition of the change areas and social impact | Stakeholder consultation, Survey, Interviews |
Quantification of inputs | Determining the financial and non-financial investments | |
Quantification of benefits | Stakeholder consultation, Survey, Interviews | |
Data Analysis | Cost analysis and determination of non-monetised inputs and redundancies (Deadweight) | Monetary and non-monetary cost attribution and analysis |
Quantification of the change and benefits per annum | Application of proxies to results | |
SROI analysis | SROI ratios | Application of SROI formula (adapted from Social Value UK) |
2.1. Sampling
- Sector/organisations: Representing domestic, public and irrigation water sectors. The public site in France was implemented and managed by a water company. The purpose of the site was to generate energy within the network and to provide public mobile phone charging points. The driver was to increase the water companies’ visibility and image and raise awareness of their use of sustainable renewable energy production using MHPs. The agricultural site in Spain produced energy for irrigation especially during the summer months. The domestic site in the UK generated energy for personal use as well as to provide power to up to 120 houses in the rural area.
- Geographic location: The sites were sited in Andalucía, Spain; Normandy, France; and Wiltshire, UK.
- Size: The sample represents small, medium, and large-scale installations and applications. The different sizes and scales provided the opportunity to study the technical, economic, and social returns—the latter being the focus of this report.
2.2. Data Collection and Analysis
- The average levelised cost of electricity of MHPs (e.g., [56]) consisting of installed capital cost, i.e., cost of materials, equipment expertise and labour as provided by the installer; economic life; capacity factor; operation and maintenance costs and the cost of capital;
- Cost, e.g., including where relevant, associated costs, e.g., land value on which the installation is situated, or cost/rent per square meter. Provided by the owner and validated against market benchmarks and official figures, e.g., UK Land Value Estimates for Policy Appraisal [57];
- Productivity costs—cost of disruption during installation, commissioning and servicing, cost incurred for staff training, management, and administration loss of income from designated land, e.g., less land for agricultural land, new or loss of jobs and associated salaries, etc. Estimated annual wage figures including associated contributions were provided by the owners and validated against national wage benchmarks (e.g., Eurostat Wages and Labour costs [58]).
- Valuation of in-kind contributions, e.g., existing equipment, publicity, and dissemination events, e.g., the EU Energy Day held at the Spanish demonstration plant during June/July 2019.
Estimating Financial and Social Return on Investment
3. Results
Sensitivity Analyses
4. Discussion
4.1. Assessing the Social Impact of MHP in Water Networks
- Expanding energy source and access: The potential for MHP to improve access to clean energy, particularly in remote areas without grid access was affirmed. In the demonstrator projects, it was found to deliver a range of socio-economic benefits that can facilitate product and economic transactions, assist in building rural markets, increase good practice, and create jobs. The installations were also found to enhance education and skills development in existing communities and the workforce;
- Organisational capacity and change: All the demonstrators showed significant organisational change from unsustainable, or less sustainable practices to improved sustainability. This was more notable in the irrigation example whereby a diesel generator was entirely replaced by a renewable, non-disruptive solution [65]. Similar to other case studies (e.g., [66]), projects such as this have a positive impact on capacity on skills and capacity development especially for the owner or organisation;
- Livelihood, productivity, and expanded uptake: The direct job implications of the MHP installations were not significant, but there were wider job implications for suppliers, manufacturers, installers, etc. The number of direct renewable jobs in the EU was estimated at 1.2 million in 2017, with hydropower—large and small ranked as the third largest employer [67]. The demonstrators delivered job benefits for the SMEs involved in the design and installation of the MHP plants, the production of equipment, as well as maintenance jobs. The replacement or displacement of non-renewable energy sources helped to maintain or increase productivity in the form of cost savings, and improvement to processes. This productivity could be extended to the further modernisation and better practice within the sector or community. Taking irrigation as an example, the demonstrator trailblazed energy recovery potential within existing networks. Similarly, the private example, whereby many more MHPs were installed in the area as a direct result of this exemplar. This is in addition to the level of interest generated amongst sector peers; therefore, also promoting the uptake of this renewable energy source, and strengthening the cohesiveness and social capital between and among sectoral communities;
- Reputational value: In the global market, studies have shown that corporate reputations account for over 35% of the market capitalisation [60]. Therefore, the reputation derived from the implementation of renewables such as MHPs is a valuable commodity for organisational entities. Stakeholders repeatedly mentioned the reputation and public image value of their MHP installations. They rated this as much more important that the economic or environmental value;
- Knowledge and awareness: The demonstrator enhanced knowledge and skills among the project team and external stakeholders in all the cases and for academics and non-academics, especially those without prior technical competencies in MHPs. For instance, since installation, the UK site has hosted over 1500 visitors excluding those attending the annual local festival. The owners have given about 68 presentations including hosting training days for the Environment Agency staff, and talks delivered to tour groups. They have contributed to various policy committees and consultations about renewable energy schemes in general, and, specific to MHP schemes. They have also, through a Community Power Group, supported other individuals in the design and commission of other MHP schemes in the area. The impacts here were generated through the availability of data from real cases and the dissemination and training initiatives aimed at promoting the technical competence across all stakeholder groups, not just the academics involved in the project. The projects have had a significant impact in creating attitudinal and environmentally positive behaviour change. They promote pro-environmental awareness and the adoption of non-popular renewables such as MHPs;
- Practical and policy applications and significance: Policy change takes a long time to occur as policy decisions go through many stakeholders and processes before being implemented. It was therefore difficult to assess the direct policy impact of the MHP demonstrators. Nevertheless, the importance of the policy environment can include influencing the cost of MHP installations as well as the resulting value. Notably in the local industry development, higher tax receipts were associated with innovation and increased productivity, occupational patterns, and skills, and localising or extending the value chain and sector/community benefits. Other stakeholders such as the owners, end users, and funders also indirectly benefitted from the schemes through marginal reductions in providers of products or services or innovation credits other attributable impact on the part of the funder.
4.2. Critiquing the Effectiveness of the SROI Approach
- Outcomes and impact values and data were not always available due to the lack of evidence and information from the relevant stakeholders. Hence, the authors of [51] have recommended that researchers should decide the frame of analysis and the available resources to implement it early on. Although significant efforts were made to substantiate these in this study, e.g., by comparing against similar cases in similar sectors. Educated estimations are necessary where proxies are not available. These estimates nevertheless can undermine the confidence in any SROI findings. Further, there were instances of known impact which could not be credibly valued, e.g., quantifying increased awareness and knowledge from dissemination via public media outlets. Moreover, the age of some of the demonstrator cases meant that the value to the public, e.g., mobile phone charging, could only be extrapolated from initial figures. In this study, these were mitigated where possible with substantiated proxies. However, further longitudinal studies are required to collaborate the findings. It would also be highly beneficial if regional, national and EU data organisations actively collect disaggregated social impact data for renewables to enable more robust studies;
- The financial inputs of the studied cases may not be representative of a non-demonstrator installation. For instance, demonstrator plants have other associated costs, e.g., for monitoring and disseminating performance data. The funders, stakeholders and beneficiaries for demonstration projects may be skewed. In most cases, the funder is not necessarily the owner, and may not directly benefit from the intervention.
- The criticisms of SROI centre on the methods for calculating social impact. This includes the challenges of quantifying non-financial and non-quantifiable outcomes. Inevitably, different people will determine and evaluate the monetary value of social metrics in different ways. This may lead to decisions to favour investment solutions whose merit and impact can be monetised. Further, conducting SROI is feasible when information on outcomes, cost, and revenue are readily collated and available. Otherwise, it could potentially be onerous in terms of time and effort, and this was found to be the case in this study. However, the results obtained have been shown on balance to be useful for decision making.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- IEA. Technology Roadmap—Hydropower; IEA: Paris, France, 2012; Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/technology-roadmap-hydropower (accessed on 14 January 2020).
- Damtew, Y.; Getenet, G. Assessment of Hydropower Potential of Selected Rivers in North Shoa Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. Am. J. Energy Res. 2019, 7, 15–18. [Google Scholar]
- Bódis, K.; Monforti, F.; Szabó, S. Could Europe have more mini hydro sites? A suitability analysis based on continentally harmonized geographical and hydrological data. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 37, 794–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasir, B. Design Considerations of Micro-hydro-electric Power Plant. Energy Procedia 2014, 50, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McNabola, A.; Coughlan, P.; Corcoran, L.; Power, C.; Williams, A.P.; Harris, I.; Gallagher, J.; Styles, D. Energy recovery in the water industry using micro-hydropower: An opportunity to improve sustainability. Water Policy 2014, 16, 168–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kougias, I.; Aggidis, G.; Avellan, F.; Deniz, S.; Lundin, U.; Moro, A.; Muntean, S.; Novara, D.; Pérez-Díaz, J.I.; Quaranta, E.; et al. Analysis of emerging technologies in the hydropower sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 113, 109257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pardo, M.; Riquelme, A.J.; Jodar-Abellan, A.; Melgarejo, J. Water and Energy Demand Management in Pressurized Irrigation Networks. Water 2020, 12, 1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fecarotta, O.; McNabola, A. Optimal location of pump as turbines (PATs) in water distribution networks to recover energy and reduce leakage. Water Resour. Manag. 2017, 31, 5043–5059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berrada, A.; Bouhssine, Z.; Arechkik, A. Optimisation and economic modeling of micro hydropower plant integrated in water distribution system. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 877–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kusakana, K. A survey of innovative technologies increasing the viability of micro-hydropower as a cost effective rural electrification option in South Africa. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 37, 370–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García, A.M.; Gallagher, J.; Chacón, M.C.; Mc Nabola, A. The environmental and economic benefits of a hybrid hydropower energy recovery and solar energy system (PAT-PV), under varying energy demands in the agricultural sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 303, 127078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García, I.F.; Novara, D.; Mc Nabola, A. A Model for Selecting the Most Cost-Effective Pressure Control Device for More Sustainable Water Supply Networks. Water 2019, 11, 1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fabiani, S.; Dalla Marta, A.; Orlandini, S.; Cimino, O.; Bonati, G.; Altobelli, F. The water-energy-food nexus in Europe. In Water, Sustainable Development and the Nexus; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; pp. 66–73. [Google Scholar]
- Ramos, H.M.; Carravetta, A.; Mc Nabola, A. New Challenges in Water Systems. Water 2020, 12, 2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnaiz, M.; Cochrane, T.; Calizaya, A.; Shrestha, M. A framework for evaluating the current level of success of micro-hydropower schemes in remote communities of developing countries. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2018, 44, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khennas, S.; Barnett, A. Micro-hydro power: An option for socio-economic development. In Renewable Energy: Renewables—The Energy for the 21st Century. Proceedings of the World Renewable Energy Congress VI, 1–7 July 2000, Brighton, UK; Pergamon: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000; pp. 1511–1517. [Google Scholar]
- Sengupta, S.; Sahay, A.; Hisrich, R.D. The social—Market convergence in a renewable energy social enterprise. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 270, 122516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahlborg, H.; Sjöstedt, M. Small-scale hydropower in Africa: Socio-technical designs for renewable energy in Tanzanian villages. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 5, 20–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crespo Chacon, M.; Rodriguez Diaz, J.A.; Garcia Morillo, J.; McNabola, A. Evaluation of the Design and Performance of a Micro hydropower Plant in a Pressurized Irrigation Network: Real World Application at Farm-level in Southern Spain. Renew. Energy 2021, 169, 1106–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adeyeye, K.; Gallagher, J.; McNabola, A.; Ramos, H.; Coughlan, P. Socio-Technical Viability Framework for Micro Hydropower in Group Water-Energy Schemes. Energies 2021, 14, 4222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thapa, R.B.; Govind, B.R.U.D.D.; Pokharel, R.; Chitwan, N. Prioritizing the Weightage of Sustainability Criteria and Sub-Criteria of Decentralized Micro-Hydropower Projects for Rural Electrification in Nepal. J. Energy Technol. Policy 2019, 9, 14–28. [Google Scholar]
- Kagohashi, K.; Fujimoto, T. Landcare, Water Resource Management and Sustainable Development: Implications from a Case Study of a Community-Based Approach to Micro-Hydropower Development and Social Issues in Gokase Township, Japan. Energy Procedia 2019, 156, 154–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saha, D.; d’Almeida, S. Green municipal bonds. Leaders 2017, 5, 886. [Google Scholar]
- Larkin, C. Financing Micro Hydropower, Report of Work Package 3 of the Reducing Energy Dependency in in Atlantic Area Water Networks (REDAWN) Project. July 2021. Available online: https://www.redawn.eu/sites/default/files/WP3.2MHPcommercialisa-tion_v2.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2021).
- Arnaiz, M.; Cochrane, T.; Hastie, R.; Bellen, C. Micro-hydropower impact on communities’ livelihood analysed with the capability approach. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2018, 45, 206–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boliko, C.M.; Ialnazov, D.S. An assessment of rural electrification projects in Kenya using a sustainability framework. Energy Policy 2019, 133, 110928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zen, A.C.; Lima, A.; Bianchi, A.L.; Babot, L. Sustainability, Energy and Development: A Proposal of Indicators. Int. J. Infonomics 2012, 5, 537–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaygusuz, K. Energy for sustainable development: A case of developing countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 1116–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sternberg, R. Hydropower: Dimensions of social and environmental coexistence. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2008, 12, 1588–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, S.L.; Beshilas, L.; Hotchkiss, E.L. Renewable Energy to Support Energy Security; NREL/TP-6A20-74617 Technical Report; National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2019. [CrossRef]
- IEA. World Energy Outlook IEA, Paris. 2020. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020 (accessed on 14 January 2020).
- Huijts, N.M.A.; Molin, E.J.E.; Steg, L. Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaunbrecher, B.S.; Daniels, B.; Roß-Nickoll, M.; Ziefle, M. The social and ecological footprint of renewable power generation plants. Balancing social requirements and ecological impacts in an integrated approach. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 45, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kastner, I.; Matthies, E. Investments in renewable energies by German households: A matter of economics, social influences and ecological concern? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 17, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, S.R.; Chang, P.L.; Hwang, Y.W.; Ma, Y.H. Evaluating the productivity and financial feasibility of a verti-cal-axis micro-hydro energy generation project using operation simulations. Renew. Energy 2014, 66, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, G.W.; Abe, N. Sustainability assessment of renewable energy projects for off-grid rural electrification: The Pangan-an Island case in the Philippines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, K.J.; Whitley, T. Applying Social Return on Investment (SROI) to the built environment. Build. Res. Inf. 2016, 45, 875–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinstein, M.M.; Bradburd, R. The Robin Hood Rules for Smart Giving; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Yates, B.T.; Marra, M. Social Return on Investment (SROI): Problems, solutions… and is SROI a good investment? Eval. Program Plan. 2017, 64, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cordes, J.J. Using cost-benefit analysis and social return on investment to evaluate the impact of social enterprise: Promises, implementation, and limitations. Eval. Program Plan. 2017, 64, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mitsumori, Y. A Local Enterprise to Construct 40 Small Hydropower Plants for Revitalizing Local Community. Inf. Eng. Express 2021, 7, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitsumori, Y. Socio-economic Impact of Small Hydropower on community: A new local electricity biz in Kyushu to bring benefit to local community. In Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI), Online, 1–15 September 2020; pp. 614–620. [Google Scholar]
- Mitsumori, Y. The Community-Level Socio-Economic Impact of a PFI-Based Small Hydropower Plant Construction Project. In Proceedings of the 2019 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), Portland, OR, USA, 25–29 August 2019; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Mitsumori, Y. Impact of Introduction of Renewable Energy on Local Community: Small Hydro Power Plants in Chugoku Region. In Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI), Kumamoto, Japan, 10–14 July 2016; pp. 770–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epstein, M.J.; Yuthas, K. Measuring and Improving Social Impacts: A Guide for Non-Profits, Companies, and Impact Investors; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Ngowi, J.M.; Bångens, L.; Ahlgren, E.O. Benefits and challenges to productive use of off-grid rural electrification: The case of mini-hydropower in Bulongwa-Tanzania. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2019, 53, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gambhir, V.K.; Majmudar, N.; Sodhani, S.; Gupta, N. Social Return on Investment (SROI) for Hindustan Unilever’s (HUL) CSR initiative on livelihoods (Prabhat). Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017, 122, 556–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zappalà, G.; Lyons, M. Recent Approaches to Measuring Social Impact in the Third Sector: An Overview. 2009. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319632308_Recent_approaches_to_measuring_social_impact_in_the_Third_sector_an_overview (accessed on 8 September 2022).
- Social Value UK. A Guide to Social Return on Investment, The SROI Network. January 2012. Available online: https://www.socialvaluelab.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SROI-a-guide-to-social-return-on-investment.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2022).
- Solórzano-García, M.; Navío-Marco, J.; Ruiz-Gómez, L.M. Ambiguity in the Attribution of Social Impact: A Study of the Difficulties of Calculating Filter Coefficients in the SROI Method. Sustainability 2019, 11, 386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kousky, C.; Lingle, B.; Ritchie, L.; Tierney, K. Social Return on Investment Analysis and Its Applicability to Community Preparedness Activities: Calculating Costs and Returns—Discussion Paper Resources for the Future. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017, 41, 27. [Google Scholar]
- Eurostat. Energy, Transport, and Environment Statistics, 2019 Edition. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/10165279/KS-DK-19-001-EN-N.pdf/76651a29-b817-eed4-f9f2-92bf692e1ed9 (accessed on 6 July 2020).
- Lombardo, G.; Mazzocchetti, A.; Rapallo, I.; Tayser, N.; Cincotti, S. Assessment of the Economic and Social Impact Using SROI: An Application to Sport Companies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ricciuti, E.; Bufali, M.V. The health and social impact of Blood Donors Associations: A Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis. Eval. Program Plan. 2019, 73, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DCLG—Department for Communities and Local Government. The Economic Cost of Fire: Estimates for 2008, Fire Research Report 3/2011. Crown Copyright. 2011. Available online: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20121103072344/http:/www.communities.gov.uk/fire/researchandstatistics/firestatistics/economiccost/ (accessed on 8 September 2022).
- De Jager, D.; Klessmann, C.; Stricker, E.; Winkel, T.; de Visser, E.; Koper, M.; Ragwitz, M.; Held, A.; Resch, G.; Busch, S. Financing Renewable Energy in the European Energy Market. Report for the European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy. 2011. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2011_financing_renewable.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2022).
- MHCLG—Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. Land Value Estimates for Policy Appraisal 2017. 2017. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/land-value-estimates-for-policy-appraisal-2017 (accessed on 24 June 2020).
- Eurostat Wages and Labour Costs. 2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Wages_and_labour_costs (accessed on 22 July 2020).
- REF—Renewable Energy Foundation (n.d.), FiT Generation Search. Available online: https://www.ref.org.uk/fits/search.php?tech=Hydro&order=ic&dir=desc&start=200 (accessed on 3 June 2020).
- Bracken, L.; Bulkeley, H.; Maynard, C. Micro-hydro power in the UK: The role of communities in an emerging energy resource. Energy Policy 2014, 68, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EA—Environment Agency. Mapping Hydropower Opportunities and Sensitivities in England and Wales; Technical Report; Environment Agency: Bristol, UK, 2010; 67p.
- IRENA. Hydropower, IRENA Working Paper—Renewable Energy technologies: Cost Analysis Series, Volume 1: Power Sector, Issue 3/5. June 2012. Available online: https://www.irena.org/publications/2012/Jun/Renewable-Energy-Cost-Analysis---Hydropower (accessed on 27 November 2019).
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Special Report Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation; Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Grant Thornton. Renewable Energy Discount Rate Survey A Grant Thornton and Clean Energy Pipeline Initiative. January 2019. Available online: https://www.grantthornton.co.uk/globalassets/1.-member-firms/united-kingdom/pdf/documents/renewable-energy-discount-rate-survey-results-2018.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2019).
- AMO (n.d). What price reputation? Corporate Reputation Value Drivers: A Global Report by AMO. Available online: https://www.australasianir.com.au/common/Uploadedfiles/AIRADocuments/MemberUpdateDocuments/AMO_What_Price_Reputation_report_R2[2](1).pdf (accessed on 8 September 2022).
- Bere, J.; Jones, C.; Jones, S. The Economic and Social Impact of Small and Community Hydro in Wales; CREW: Cardiff, Wales, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- REN21. Renewables: Global Status Report. 2019. Available online: http://www.ren21.net/gsr-2019/ (accessed on 26 July 2019).
- Arvidson, M.; Lyon, F.; McKay, S.; Moro, D. Valuing the social? The nature and controversies of measuring social return on investment (SROI). Volunt. Sect. Rev. 2013, 4, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simsa, R.; Rauscher, O.; Schober, C.; Moder, C. Methodological guideline for impact assessment. In Brussels, Seventh Framework Programme ‘Third Sector Impact’ (Grant Agreement 613034); European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Geographical Location | France | Spain | UK | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Water Network | Public Charging Points | |||
Municipal level | Yes | No. Community level | No | No |
Organisation/sector | Public water treatment | Water network/energy supply/local services | Private farm | Private owner |
MHP scheme age | New | New | New | 15 years |
Turbine type | PAT | Specialised turbine, not PAT | PAT | Kaplan turbine |
Head (m) | 10 m | 1–2 m | 10.1 m | 2.5 m |
Flow (L/s) | 94.4 L/s | 4.17 L/s | 14.1 L/s | 330 L/s (min. river flow) |
Power (kW) | 7 kW | 1 kW | 4 kW | 55 kW |
Evaluation period | 0–5 years | 0–5 years | 0–5 years | 0–12 years |
Associated water processes, e.g., cleaning, irrigation | Inlet to water treatment plant | None except for monitoring | Irrigation | Fishing, natural river flow |
Productive end-uses, e.g., lighting, pumping | Self-consumption for pumping system | Mobile phone charging; sending data for network monitoring | Irrigation | Electricity for self and grid consumption |
MHP output consumption | Direct | Indirect | Direct | Direct and indirect |
Previous/other renewable energy schemes | No | No | No | Ground source heat pumps |
Other purposes, e.g., Awareness and promotion | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes. Including knowledge, awareness, and training |
Costs (installation + materials) | EUR 43,453 | EUR 21,940 | EUR 30,000 | EUR 32,976 |
Stakeholders | Description | Outcomes. What Was Gained. How Changes Are Described | Proxy | Cost Impact |
---|---|---|---|---|
Farm owner/manager | Land cost/value | Reclaimed land from old diesel system for powering irrigation. | Value of the land per m2. | 1440 |
Innovation | Renewable energy innovation to replace unsustainable energy source. Time/effort saved in undertaking tasks, improved productivity. | Man hours. Increased productivity. | 21,600 | |
Reputation and influence | Brand gain from onsite renewable energy source. Free publicity and marketing. Increased reputational value for the farm. | Cumulative cost of promotion, marketing, and branding. | 31,500 | |
Operational | Renewable energy gain. | Levelised cost of generated electricity. | 1004 | |
Renewable energy | Decommissioning or limited use of diesel. Litres of diesel replaced per annum. Cleaner air. Decommissioning or limited use of diesel pump. Annual maintenance costs. | Cost savings from purchasing diesel. Annual cost savings of maintenance. | 7450 | |
Energy offset from MHPs per annum, e.g., Surplus energy for security systems and lighting. | Cost of energy EUR per kWh. | 1486 | ||
Decommissioning diesel, tonne per CO2 saved. | Commodities cost of CO2. | 221 | ||
Environmental risk of spillage eliminated. | Cost of diesel spillage treatment products. Cost of fines. | 14 | ||
Human resources/capital and productivity | 2 × staff training. Improved technical knowledge and expertise in MHP. | Cost savings of external consultants per annum. | 150 | |
Improved efficiencies. Minimised disruption. | Offset training and consultancy costs. Offset planning and logistics costs. | 1800 | ||
Reduced risk of fire. Removing the diesel engine risks. | Cost savings per potential fire incidence. Cost savings for fire response or emergency services. | 7251 | ||
Cost per crop or production time lost to fire. Labour cost for reducing fire risks. | 7439 | |||
Research grant providers and agencies | EU Funder | Demonstration efficacy of MHPs for the agricultural sector, knowledge, and capitalisation of technology. | Unquantified. | 0 |
Change agents (local authorities, individuals, lay engineers) | Project academics and partners | Research knowledge and expertise. Dissemination and impact activities across Spain and the EU AA. Free articles in newspapers and media coverage. | Media impact value, i.e., cost invested versus engagement/impressions on outlets. | 2500 |
Academic/research organisations | University and industry partners | Value of knowledge of system performance. Considering that water demand fluctuates throughout the year. Flow and pressure are variable. Value of knowledge and economics of MHPs. Value of knowledge gained from pilot plant. Value of knowledge gained from impact on irrigation and fertilisation activities. Value of knowledge of system performance. | Man hours. | 4900 |
Community | Local irrigation organisations and community | Increased practical knowledge and awareness of MHPs. Access to local demonstration site. | Unquantified. | 0.00 |
Individuals/general public | Sustainably sourced food products. Reduced environmental impact of farming and irrigation. | Unquantified. | 0.00 | |
Govt authorities and agencies | Regional energy and hydraulic agencies. Local authorities | Improved awareness. Evidence to support decision making. Evidence to support guidelines, policy. | Unquantified. | 0.00 |
Total input/investment | 48,369 | Total (discounted @ 3%). | 88,756 | |
Total after 5 years (discounted @ 3%). | 33,162 | |||
Net Present Value (PV minus the investment). | 232,251 | |||
Social Return value per 1 EUR invested. | 5.8 |
Stakeholders | Description | Outcomes. What Was Gained. How Changes Are Described | Proxy | Cost Impact |
---|---|---|---|---|
Owner/manager | Innovation | Immediate benefit of information activities within organisation. | Future benefit and time saved in energy issues. | 2400 |
Knowledge and awareness | Comparative knowledge before and after the pilot plant. | Knowledge increase from practical experience rather than paying for training or consultants. | unquantified | |
Reputation and influence | Wider reputational influence with customers. | Company estimated organisational value derived from promotion and events including per delegate. This includes CSR and policy compliance (cost of non-compliance) value and other metrics. | 65,772 | |
Power output from MHP to offset power use at the plant | Renewable energy gain. | Energy output per kw per annum. | 3066 | |
Cost input for energy | Cost per kWh of energy. | Cost of energy per kWh saved per annum. | 3373 | |
Environmental impact, CO2 savings | CO2 savings per kwh per annum. | Commodities cost of CO2. | 82 | |
ISO 14001, and other green certification | Benefit from green and other forms of certification. | Percentage financial benefit against annual turnover: Approx. EUR 5000 per million turnovers. | Unquantified | |
Research grant providers and agencies | EU funder | Demonstration efficacy of MHPs for the agricultural sector, knowledge, and capitalisation of technology. | Unquantified. | 0 |
End users/Customers | Water costs for end users. Price savings for customers | Indirect savings per customer. | Approx. EUR 0.01 per year per customer. | 4700 |
General public | Raising awareness in public places, e.g., bus stops of sustainability practices to serviced water customers in the region. | Unquantified. | 0 | |
Academic/research/professional organisations | University and industry partners | Value of knowledge of system performance. Considering that water demand fluctuates throughout the year. Flow and pressure are variable. Value of knowledge and economics of MHPs. Value of knowledge gained from pilot plant. Value of knowledge gained from impact on irrigation and fertilisation activities. Value of knowledge of system performance. | Unquantified. Man hours. Delegates numbers at promotion and dissemination events. | 0 |
Policy makers and facilitators | Environmental, energy and water policy makers and regulators | Awareness and implementation by government agencies and municipalities. | Unquantified. | |
Total input/investment | 71,793 | Total (discounted @ 3%). | 79,392 | |
Total after 5 years (discounted @ 3%). | 9139 | |||
Net Present Value (PV minus the investment). | 117,359 | |||
Social Return value per 1 EUR invested. | 2.6 |
Stakeholders | Description | Outcomes. What Was Gained. How Changes Are Described | Proxy | Cost Impact |
---|---|---|---|---|
Owner | Land | Increased value of land including designing the system to minimise impact on local ecology and for communal amenity. | Current value of land per m2. | 220,017 |
Innovation | Input into policy and community committee and groups on the innovative use of renewables. | Man, hours contributed by owner. | 4800 | |
Knowledge and awareness | Comparative knowledge before and after the plant. | Unquantified. Knowledge capacity to disseminate and train others. | 0 | |
Resourcing. Reputation and influence | Local, renewable energy supply to at least 12 other houses in the immediate vicinity of the site. | Equivalent cost of domestic energy per kWh from grid and subsidies. | 31,975 | |
Carbon savings and reduced environmental impact | t/CO2. The conversion factor is 0.283 kg CO2 saved for each kWh produced from a carbon free source. | Commodities cost of t/CO2 for all units supplied. | 2342 | |
Low-cost operation and maintenance cost of MHP. | Equivalent cost savings. | 30 | ||
End users/Community | Knowledge and awareness | Awareness due to public access to visit the system and site. | Unquantified. | 0 |
Government authorities and agencies | Improved awareness | Improved knowledge and awareness from attending training sessions at the site. | Unquantified. | 0 |
Evidence to support policy, and decision making | ||||
Evidence to support practice | ||||
Non-Govt. Organisations | Knowledge, information sharing | Unquantified. | 0 | |
1260 kw power generated. Calculated as carbon savings t/CO2. | Commodities cost of t/CO2. | 0 | ||
Total input/ investment | 301,952 | Total value (Year 1) EUR. | 259,161 | |
Estimated value (Year 5) (EUR). | 207,184 | |||
Net Present Value (PV minus the investment). | 1,019,165 | |||
Social Return value per 1 EUR invested. | 4.4 |
Country | Sector | Investment Cost (EUR) | Discount Rate (%) | Total Present Value (EUR) | NPV (EUR) | SROI per Euro Invested (EUR) | SROI | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ave | St. Dev | Range | |||||||
Spain (4 kW) | Irrigation | 88,756 | 3 | 280,620 | 232,251 | 5.80 | 5.47 | 0.31 | 0.61 |
7 | 262,622 | 214,253 | 5.43 | ||||||
10 | 250,889 | 202,520 | 5.19 | ||||||
France (7 kW) | Public water utility | 71,793 | 3 | 189,152 | 117,359 | 2.63 | 2.54 | 0.08 | 0.16 |
7 | 181,956 | 110,164 | 2.53 | ||||||
10 | 177,164 | 105,371 | 2.47 | ||||||
United Kingdom * (55 kW) | Private supply | 301,952 | 3 | 1,321,117 | 1,019,165 | 4.38 | 4.06 | 0.30 | 0.59 |
7 | 1,213,919 | 911,967 | 4.02 | ||||||
10 | 1,144,545 | 842,593 | 3.79 | ||||||
59,248 | 3 | 186,590 | 150,471 | 5.17 | 4.81 | 0.34 | 0.67 | ||
7 | 171,962 | 135,843 | 4.76 | ||||||
10 | 162,488 | 126,368 | 4.50 |
Country | Sector | Investment Cost (EUR) | Discount Rate (%) | Total Present Value (EUR) | NPV (EUR) | SROI per Euro Invested (EUR) | SROI | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ave | St. Dev | Range | |||||||
Spain | Irrigation | 39,699 | 3 | 78,811 | 39,112 | 1.99 | 1.89 | 0.09 | 0.18 |
7 | 74,724 | 35,025 | 1.88 | ||||||
10 | 72,034 | 32,335 | 1.81 | ||||||
France | Water utility | 69,393 | 3 | 54,793 | −14,599 | 0.79 | 0.73 | 0.06 | 0.11 |
7 | 50,072 | −19,320 | 0.72 | ||||||
10 | 47,018 | −22,375 | 0.68 | ||||||
United Kingdom | Private | 278,824 | 3 | 177,130 | −101,694 | 0.64 | 0.59 | 0.05 | 1.00 |
7 | 162,676 | −116,147 | 0.58 | ||||||
10 | 153,324 | −125,500 | 0.55 |
Country | Sector | Investment Cost (EUR) | Discount Rate (%) | Total Present Value (EUR) | NPV (EUR) | SROI per Euro Invested (EUR) | SROI | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ave | St. Dev | Range | |||||||
Spain | Irrigation | 39,670 | 3 | 280,620 | 232,251 | 5.80 | 5.47 | 0.31 | 0.61 |
7 | 262,622 | 214,253 | 5.43 | ||||||
10 | 250,889 | 202,520 | 5.19 | ||||||
France | Public water utility | 36,400 | 3 | 189,152 | 152,752 | 5.20 | 5.02 | 0.17 | 0.33 |
7 | 181,956 | 145,556 | 5.00 | ||||||
10 | 177,164 | 140,764 | 4.87 | ||||||
United Kingdom * | Private | 56,272 | 3 | 186,590 | 130,318 | 3.32 | 3.12 | 0.17 | 0.33 |
7 | 171,962 | 115,690 | 3.06 | ||||||
10 | 162,488 | 106,215 | 2.99 |
Country | Sector | Investment Cost (EUR) | Discount Rate (%) | Total Present Value (EUR) | NPV (EUR) | SROI per Euro Invested (EUR) | SROI | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ave | St. Dev | Range | |||||||
Spain | Irrigation | 39,670 | 3 | 225,042 | 215,372 | 5.67 | 5.32 | 0.33 | 0.65 |
7 | 209,265 | 169,595 | 5.28 | ||||||
10 | 199,007 | 159,337 | 5.02 | ||||||
France | Water utility | 42,893 | 3 | 158,595 | 115,702 | 3.70 | 3.60 | 0.09 | 0.18 |
7 | 154,143 | 111,250 | 3.59 | ||||||
10 | 151,126 | 108,233 | 3.52 | ||||||
United Kingdom * | Private | 298,809 | 3 | 1,317,067 | 1,018,259 | 4.41 | 4.09 | 0.30 | 0.59 |
7 | 1,210,201 | 911,392 | 4.05 | ||||||
10 | 1,141,040 | 842,232 | 3.82 | ||||||
3 | 182,540 | −116,269 | 0.61 | 0.57 | 0.04 | 0.16 | |||
7 | 168,244 | −130,565 | 0.56 | ||||||
10 | 158,983 | −139,826 | 0.53 |
Tests | Country | Spain (4 kW) | France (7 kW) | United Kingdom * (55 kW) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sector | Irrigation | Water Utility | Private | ||
Test 1: Discount rate | Average (SROI) | 5.47 | 2.54 | 4.06 | 4.81 |
St. Dev (SROI) | 0.31 | 0.08 | 0.30 | 0.34 | |
Range (SROI) | 0.61 | 0.16 | 0.59 | 0.67 | |
Test 2 *: Owner influence | Average (SROI) | 1.89 | 0.73 | 0.59 | |
St. Dev (SROI) | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.05 | ||
Range (SROI) | 0.18 | 0.11 | 1.00 | ||
Test 3: Investment costs | Average (SROI) | 5.47 | 5.02 | 3.12 | |
St. Dev (SROI) | 0.31 | 0.17 | 0.17 | ||
Range (SROI) | 0.61 | 0.33 | 0.33 | ||
Test 4: O&M, Productivity impact | Average (SROI) | 5.32 | 3.60 | 4.09 | 0.57 |
St. Dev (SROI) | 0.33 | 0.09 | 0.30 | 0.04 | |
Range (SROI) | 0.65 | 0.18 | 0.59 | 0.16 |
Sector | SROI (Minimum) | SROI (Maximum) | SROI (Average) |
---|---|---|---|
Irrigation | 5.32 | 5.47 | 5.40 |
Water utility | 2.54 | 3.60 | 2.07 |
Private | 3.12 | 4.09 | 3.61 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Adeyeye, K.; Gallagher, J.; Ramos, H.M.; McNabola, A. The Social Return Potential of Micro Hydropower in Water Networks Based on Demonstrator Examples. Energies 2022, 15, 6625. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15186625
Adeyeye K, Gallagher J, Ramos HM, McNabola A. The Social Return Potential of Micro Hydropower in Water Networks Based on Demonstrator Examples. Energies. 2022; 15(18):6625. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15186625
Chicago/Turabian StyleAdeyeye, Kemi, John Gallagher, Helena M. Ramos, and Aonghus McNabola. 2022. "The Social Return Potential of Micro Hydropower in Water Networks Based on Demonstrator Examples" Energies 15, no. 18: 6625. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15186625