Staff Publications

Staff Publications

  • external user (warningwarning)
  • Log in as
  • language uk
  • About

    'Staff publications' is the digital repository of Wageningen University & Research

    'Staff publications' contains references to publications authored by Wageningen University staff from 1976 onward.

    Publications authored by the staff of the Research Institutes are available from 1995 onwards.

    Full text documents are added when available. The database is updated daily and currently holds about 240,000 items, of which 72,000 in open access.

    We have a manual that explains all the features 

Records 1 - 20 / 25

  • help
  • print

    Print search results

  • export

    Export search results

  • alert
    We will mail you new results for this query: q=Henriksen
Check title to add to marked list
Assessing the climate regulation potential of Agricultural soils using a decision support tool adapted to stakeholders' needs and possibilities
Broek, Marijn Van de; Henriksen, Christian Bugge ; Ghaley, Bhim Bahadur ; Lugato, Emanuele ; Kuzmanovski, Vladimir ; Trajanov, Aneta ; Debeljak, Marko ; Sandén, Taru ; Spiegel, Heide ; Decock, Charlotte ; Creamer, Rachel ; Six, Johan - \ 2019
Frontiers in Environmental Science 7 (2019). - ISSN 2296-665X
Soils perform many functions that are vital to societies, among which their capability to regulate global climate has received much attention over the past decades. An assessment of the extent to which soils perform a specific function is not only important to appropriately value their current capacity, but also to make well-informed decisions about how and where to change soil management to align the delivered soil functions with societal demands. To obtain an overview of the capacity of soils to perform different functions, accurate and easy-to-use models are necessary. A problem with most currently-available models is that data requirements often exceed data availability, while generally a high level of expert knowledge is necessary to apply these models. Therefore, we developed a qualitative model to assess how agricultural soils function with respect to climate regulation. The model is driven by inputs about agricultural management practices, soil properties and environmental conditions. To reduce data requirements on stakeholders, the 17 input variables are classified into either (1) three classes: low, medium and high or (2) the presence or absence of a management practice. These inputs are combined using a decision tree with internal integration rules to obtain an estimate of the magnitude of N2O emissions and carbon sequestration. These two variables are subsequently combined into an estimate of the capacity of a soil to perform the climate regulation function. The model was tested using data from long-term field experiments across Europe. This showed that the model is generally able to adequately assess this soil function across a range of environments under different management practices. In a next step, this model will be combined with models to assess other soil functions (soil biodiversity, primary productivity, nutrient cycling and water regulation and purification). This will allow the assessment of trade-offs between these soil functions for agricultural land across Europe.
Modeling of Soil Functions for Assessing Soil Quality: Soil Biodiversity and Habitat Provisioning
Leeuwen, J.P. van; Creamer, Rachel ; Cluzeau, Daniel ; Debeljak, Marko ; Gatti, Fabio ; Henriksen, Christian Bugge ; Kuzmanovski, Vladimir ; Menta, Cristina ; Pérès, Guénola ; Picaud, Calypso ; Saby, N.P.A. ; Trajanov, Aneta ; Trinsoutrot-Gattin, Isabelle ; Visioli, Giovanna ; Rutgers, M. - \ 2019
Frontiers in Environmental Science 7 (2019). - ISSN 2296-665X - 13 p.
Soil biodiversity and habitat provisioning is one of the soil functions that agricultural land provides to society. This paper describes assessment of the soil biodiversity function (SB function) as a proof of concept to be used in a decision support tool for agricultural land management. The SB function is defined as “the multitude of soil organisms and processes, interacting in an ecosystem, providing society with a rich biodiversity source and contributing to a habitat for aboveground organisms.” So far, no single measure provides the full overview of the soil biodiversity and how a soil supports a habitat for a biodiverse ecosystem. We have assembled a set of attributes for a proxy-indicator system, based on four “integrated attributes”: (1) soil nutrient status, (2) soil biological status, (3) soil structure, and (4) soil hydrological status. These attributes provide information to be used in a model for assessing the capacity of a soil to supply the SB function. A multi-criteria decision model was developed which comprises of 34 attributes providing information to quantify the four integrated attributes and subsequently assess the SB function for grassland and for cropland separately. The model predictions (in terms of low—moderate—high soil biodiversity status) were compared with expert judgements for a collection of 137 grassland soils in the Netherlands and 52 French soils, 29 grasslands, and 23 croplands. For both datasets, the results show that the proposed model predictions were statistically significantly correlated with the expert judgements. A sensitivity analysis indicated that the soil nutrient status, defined by attributes such as pH and organic carbon content, was the most important integrated attribute in the assessment of the SB function. Further progress in the assessment of the SB function is needed. This can be achieved by better information regarding land use and farm management. In this way we may make a valuable step in our attempts to optimize the multiple soil functions in agricultural landscapes, and hence the multifaceted role of soils to deliver a bundle of ecosystem services for farmers and citizens, and support land management and policy toward a more sustainable society.
A Field-Scale Decision Support System for Assessment and Management of Soil Functions
Debeljak, Marko ; Trajanov, Aneta ; Kuzmanovski, Vladimir ; Schroder, J.J. ; Sandén, Taru ; Spiegel, Heide ; Wall, David ; Broek, Marijn van de; Rutgers, Michiel ; Bampa, Francesca ; Creamer, Rachel ; Henriksen, Christian Bugge - \ 2019
Frontiers in Environmental Science 7 (2019). - ISSN 2296-665X
Agricultural decision support systems (DSS) are mostly focused on increasing the supply of individual soil functions such as e.g. primary productivity or nutrient cycling, while neglecting other important soil functions, such as e.g. water purification and regulation, climate regulation and carbon sequestration, soil biodiversity and habitat provision. Making right management decisions for long-term sustainability is therefore challenging, and farmers and farm advisors would greatly benefit from an evidence-based DSS targeted for assessing and improving the supply of several soil functions simultaneously. To address this, need we designed the Soil Navigator DSS by applying a qualitative approach to multi criteria decision modelling using Decision Expert (DEX) integrative methodology. Multi-criteria decision models for the five main soil functions were developed, calibrated and validated using knowledge of involved domain experts and knowledge extracted from existing datasets by data mining. Subsequently, the five DEX models were integrated into a DSS to assess the soil functions simultaneously, and to provide management advises for improving the performance of prioritized soil functions. To enable communication between the users and the DSS, we developed a user-friendly computer-based graphical user interface, which enables users to provide the required data regarding their field to the DSS and to get textual and graphical results about the performance of each of the five soil functions in a qualitative way. The final output from the DSS is a list of soil mitigation measures that the end-users could easily apply in the field in order to achieve the desired soil function performance. The Soil Navigator DSS has a great potential to complement the Farm Sustainability Tools for Nutrients included in the Common Agricultural Policy 2021-2027 proposal adopted by the European Commission. The Soil Navigator has also a potential to be spatially upgraded to assist decisions on which soil functions to prioritize in a specific region or member state. Furthermore, the Soil Navigator DSS could be used as an educational tool for farmers, farm advisors and students, and its potential should be further exploited for the benefit of farmers and the society as a whole.
Harvesting European knowledge on soil functions and land management using multi-criteria decision analysis
Bampa, Francesca ; O'Sullivan, Lilian ; Madena, Kirsten ; Sandén, Taru ; Spiegel, Heide ; Henriksen, Christian Bugge ; Ghaley, Bhim Bahadur ; Jones, Arwyn ; Staes, Jan ; Sturel, Sylvain ; Trajanov, Aneta ; Creamer, Rachel E. ; Debeljak, Marko - \ 2019
Soil Use and Management 35 (2019)1. - ISSN 0266-0032 - p. 6 - 20.
DEX model - farmers and multi-stakeholders - locally relevant advice - participatory research - soil quality

Soil and its ecosystem functions play a societal role in securing sustainable food production while safeguarding natural resources. A functional land management framework has been proposed to optimize the agro-environmental outputs from the land and specifically the supply and demand of soil functions such as (a) primary productivity, (b) carbon sequestration, (c) water purification and regulation, (d) biodiversity and (e) nutrient cycling, for which soil knowledge is essential. From the outset, the LANDMARK multi-actor research project integrates harvested knowledge from local, national and European stakeholders to develop such guidelines, creating a sense of ownership, trust and reciprocity of the outcomes. About 470 stakeholders from five European countries participated in 32 structured workshops covering multiple land uses in six climatic zones. The harmonized results include stakeholders’ priorities and concerns, perceptions on soil quality and functions, implementation of tools, management techniques, indicators and monitoring, activities and policies, knowledge gaps and ideas. Multi-criteria decision analysis was used for data analysis. Two qualitative models were developed using Decision EXpert methodology to evaluate “knowledge” and “needs”. Soil quality perceptions differed across workshops, depending on the stakeholder level and regionally established terminologies. Stakeholders had good inherent knowledge about soil functioning, but several gaps were identified. In terms of critical requirements, stakeholders defined high technical, activity and policy needs in (a) financial incentives, (b) credible information on improving more sustainable management practices, (c) locally relevant advice, (d) farmers’ discussion groups, (e) training programmes, (f) funding for applied research and monitoring, and (g) strengthening soil science in education.

Engineers at the Patient’s Bedside: : The Case of Silence in Inter-institutional Educational Innovation
Verouden, Nick ; Sanden, M.C.A. van der; Aarts, M.N.C. - \ 2016
In: The Silences of Science / Mellor, Felicity, Webster, Stephen, London : Routledge - ISBN 9781472459978 - p. 89 - 112.
Innovation in science and technology is increasingly linked with interdisciplinarity. Encouraging this trend depends in part on cutting-edge educational programmes that revise, reinvent and redesign curricula as interdisciplinary vehicles, establishing and re-establishing relations between traditional fields and areas of expertise (Stone et al., 1999; Casey, 1994). Such programmes are valuable because they can overcome ‘silo’ mentalities and equip prospective students with the skills and knowledge necessary for understanding and solving complex societal problems (Stone et al.,1999; McFadden et al., 2010). Although these programmes are very promising, their development and

implementation also brings challenges. The literature on curriculum development shows that many programmes have struggled to achieve true integration (McFadden et al., 2010; Stone et al., 1999). Dam-Mieras et al. (2008), in their study of an international master’s programme in sustainable development and management developed collaboratively by nine universities, observed that universities have their own experts and own programmes and that the ‘not invented here’ argument influences how details about new programme are discussed. Focussing on innovative online instruction courses, Xu and Morris (2007) found that the absence of group cohesiveness between faculty and project coordinators can hinder the collaborative course development process and affect the quality of the end product. Stone et al. (1999) emphasize that faculty members and administrators work at cross-purposes and view each other’s initiatives with suspicion. Given the importance that scientists, academic institutions and policy makers ascribe to innovation, along with their assumption that such innovation is a sure result of interdisciplinarity, it is essential to gain a better understanding of how curriculum development in academic education actually works. For this chapter, we consider how processes of connecting and inter-

relating could add to our understanding of the problems and dilemmas that arise in developing and implementing such programmes. Scholars of innovation, in science and technology and beyond, have explained that innovation is not some abstract algorithm: it relies on interaction and collaboration between

multiple actors with different expertises, visions, priorities and investment (Van Bommel et al., 2011; Leeuwis and Aarts, 2011; Akrich et al., 2002; Fonseca, 2002). This process of interacting is very difficult, however, and creates many tensions. This is revealed by studies that show the lurking problems of connecting previously unconnected people around new ideas and technologies. These studies show how innovation processes become defined by competition for scarce resources, protracted negotiations over priorities and interests, and dynamics of inclusion and exclusion (Leeuwis andAarts, 2011; Pretty, 1995; Van Bommel et al., 2011). Fonseca (2002) hence explains that innovation always creates a paradoxical situation, in which organizations, in their search to accelerate change and adapt to and find solutions for external challenges and demands, unavoidably create new and unpredictable interactional patterns. Given that interacting is a complicated matter in innovation processes, a

key question within the management of innovation literature is how we can account for the way relevant actors connect, or fail to connect (Akrich et al., 2002). In this respect, verbal communication is often cited as an essential mechanism for effectively connecting important actors and social groups around innovative ideas, products, or technologies (Van Bommel et al., 2011). In turn, the markers of effective verbal communication as a frame for innovation are seen to be openness, dialogue, and the ability to cooperate and be reflective on one’s thoughts and actions (Stilgoe et al., 2013). Thorp and Goldstein (2010), writing about university innovation, describe conversations as the fertile ground from which innovation grows and urge us to make time and space for those conversations. Dialogue and openness are seen as indicators of the quality of interaction, and process transparency as a decisive component of academic innovation. By being open or transparent in discussing issues and problems, actors build confidence that negotiation is ‘real’ and not a cover-up for private backroom deals (de Bruijn and ten Heuvelhof, 2008). Although there is a wealth of research on communication for innovation,

most scholarly work focuses on what is exchanged verbally, on how actors collate all the relevant evidence, put it on the table and discuss it openly. As of yet, silence is absent from these studies of communication for innovation. Building on recent organizational and strategy scholarship, in which silence is approached as an intricate concept with powerful functions and meanings in social interaction (Van Assche and Costaglioli, 2012; Carter et al., 2008; Henriksen and Dayton, 2006; Panteli and Fineman, 2005; Tucker and Edmondson, 2003; Jaworski, 2005; Morrison and Milliken, 2000), we suggest that silence merits much more attention in analyses of academic innovation. This chapter therefore explores the role of moments of silence during interactions within networks developing and implementing educational innovation. The structure of this chapter is as follows. We start by looking at the litera-

ture on dynamic innovation networks and communication and complement these insights with scholarship on silence within organization studies. After briefly introducing our approach, we present the findings of a study of an inter-institutional and interdisciplinary joint bachelor’s programme that was

implemented at the interface of health and technology. The purpose of the study was to better understand the significance of moments of silence in developing and implementing this programme. We end with the implications of our findings for steering in the context of interdisciplinary innovation.
TargetFish - Targeted disease prophylaxis in European fish farming
Wiegertjes, G.F. ; Lorenzen, N. ; Secombes, C.J. ; Collet, B. ; Fischer, U. ; Tafalla, C. ; Parra, D. ; Scapigliati, G. ; Boudinot, P. ; Evensen, Ø. ; Adams, A. ; Toffan, A. ; Buchmann, K. ; Vesely, T. ; David, L. ; Mulero, V. ; Smith, P. ; Aspehaug, V. ; Engell-Sørensen, K. ; Sober, J. ; Wallis, T. ; Rød, T. ; Flores, M. ; Stratmann, A. ; Christofilogiannis, P. ; Tobar, J. ; Henriksen, N. ; Sigholt, T. ; Heras, A. De Las - \ 2016
Bulletin of the European Association of Fish Pathologists 36 (2016)1. - ISSN 0108-0288 - p. 52 - 56.
Identification and analysis of uncertainty in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in South and Southeast Asia
Keur, Peter van der; Bers, Caroline van; Henriksen, Hans Jørgen ; Nibanupudi, Hari Krishna ; Yadav, Shobha ; Wijaya, Rina ; Subiyono, Andreas ; Mukerjee, Nandan ; Hausmann, Hans Jakob ; Hare, Matt ; Scheltinga, Catharien Terwisscha van; Pearn, Gregory ; Jaspers, Fons - \ 2016
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 16 (2016). - ISSN 2212-4209 - p. 208 - 214.
Best practices - Capacity development - Climate change adaptation - Disaster risk reduction - Natural hazard management - Uncertainty

This paper addresses the mainstreaming of uncertainty in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) using as a case South and Southeast Asia, a region highly vulnerable to a wide range of natural disasters. Improvements in the implementation of DRR and CCA at the community and regional levels can be realized when the underlying uncertainties are understood and made transparent by all those involved in the science, practice and decision making of natural hazard management. This theme has been explored in a think tank fashion through knowledge elicitation and sharing among experts in the research community as well as practitioners and policy advisers with extensive experience with and insight into DRR and CCA at the regional and/or local levels. The intended result has been the identification of the means by which the capacity to integrate uncertainty can be developed. In this elicitation process, sources of uncertainty associated with the implementation of best practices in DRR and CCA at the regional and local levels. The results of presented are considered by the stakeholders involved to be valuable in expanding capacity to plan and implement more effective DRR and CCA policies and measures particularly at the community level where uncertainty plays a central role for those most vulnerable to current and future climate extreme events, and socio-economic constraints and changes

Targeted disease prophylaxis in European fish farming (TargetFish)
Wiegertjes, G.F. ; Lorenzen, N. ; Secombes, C. ; Collet, B. ; Fischer, U. ; Tafalla, C. ; Parra, D. ; Scapigliati, G. ; Boudinot, P. ; Evensen, O. ; Adams, A. ; Toffan, A. ; Buchmann, K. ; Vesely, T. ; David, L. ; Mulero, V. ; Smith, P. ; Aspehaug, V. ; Engell-Sorensen, K. ; Sober, J. ; Wallis, T. ; Rod, T. ; Flores, M. ; March, J. ; Stratmann, A. ; Christofilogiannis, P. ; Tobar, J. ; Henriksen, N.H. ; Sigholt, T. ; Heras, A. de la - \ 2013
Fish and Shellfish Immunology 34 (2013)6. - ISSN 1050-4648 - p. 1746 - 1746.
Impact of animal health and welfare planning on medicine use, herd health and production in European organic dairy farms
Ivemeyer, S. ; Smolders, E.A.A. ; Brinkmann, J. ; Gratzer, E. ; Hansen, B. ; Henriksen, B.I.F. ; Huber, J. ; Leeb, C. ; March, S. ; Mejdell, C. ; Nicholas, P. ; Roderick, S. ; Stöger, E. ; Vaarst, M. ; Whistance, L.K. ; Winckler, C. ; Walkenhorst, M. - \ 2012
Livestock Science 145 (2012)1-3. - ISSN 1871-1413 - p. 63 - 72.
somatic-cell score - energy-balance - antimicrobial-usage - mastitis control - udder health - management - lactation - milk - quantification - program
Achieving and maintaining high herd health and welfare status and low veterinary medicine inputs are important aims in organic livestock farming. Therefore, an on-farm intervention study (CORE Organic ANIPLAN) was conducted on 128 organic dairy farms in seven European countries aiming at minimising medicine use through animal health and welfare planning (AHWP). Medicine use (excluding complementary treatments such as homeopathic remedies) was assessed as the total number of treatments and as the number of treatments of various disease categories (udder, fertility, metabolism, locomotion and others) generated from farm records and national databases, respectively. Health and production data were calculated at farm level from milk recording data: Somatic cell score (SCS) was used as an indicator for udder health, incidences of low (<1.1) and high (> 1.5) fat–protein ratio as indicators of rumen acidosis and imbalanced energy supply, respectively. Calving interval was used as an indicator for fertility. Milk recording data and treatment data were retrospectively collected for a one year period before and after the first farm visit. Focus areas of animal health and welfare plans were either generated in Stable Schools (adapted Farmer Field Schools) or using face-to-face advice but following similar principles. Most frequently chosen focus areas were metabolic disorders (66% of farms), udder health (58%), lameness (47%), and fertility (39%). General linear models for repeated measures were used to analyse the development at the farm level. The total number of treatments, the number of udder treatments and the number of metabolic treatments were all significantly reduced during the one year study period, whilst the number of treatments of lame cows increased. With the exception of SCS, which improved significantly, the other health indicators remained stable. Milk yield and average lactation number also remained unchanged. Choice of different focus areas had no significant effects on the corresponding treatment and health variables except for indication of rumen acidosis; for the latter situation on farms with an AHWP focus on metabolic issues improved, but this was not the case across all farms. Overall, the implementation of AHWP reduced total treatment incidence and improved the udder health situation across all farms regardless of the focus areas in the AHWP. Hence, AHWP can be regarded as a feasible approach to minimising medicine use without the impairment of production and herd health under several organic dairy farming conditions in Europe
More is not always better: coping with ambiguity in natural resources management
Brugnach, M. ; Dewulf, A. ; Henriksen, H.J. ; Keur, P. van der - \ 2011
Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011)1. - ISSN 0301-4797 - p. 78 - 84.
frames - conservation - issues
Coping with ambiguities in natural resources management has become unavoidable. Ambiguity is a distinct type of uncertainty that results from the simultaneous presence of multiple valid, and sometimes conflicting, ways of framing a problem. As such, it reflects discrepancies in meanings and interpretations. Under the presence of ambiguity it is not clear what problem is to be solved, who should be involved in the decision processes or what is an appropriate course of action. Despite the extensive literature about methodologies and tools to deal with uncertainty, not much has been said about how to handle ambiguities. In this paper, we discuss the notions of framing and ambiguity, and we identify five broad strategies to handle it: rational problem solving, persuasion, dialogical learning, negotiation and opposition. We compare these approaches in terms of their assumptions, mechanisms and outcomes and illustrate each approach with a number of concrete methods
Farmer groups for animal health and welfare planning in European organic dairy hers
Vaarst, M. ; Gratzer, E. ; Walkenhorst, M. ; Ivemeyer, S. ; Brinkman, J. ; March, S. ; Whistance, L.K. ; Smolders, E.A.A. ; Stöger, E. ; Huber, J. ; Leeb, C. ; Roderick, S. ; Winckler, C. ; Henriksen, B.I.F. ; Nicholas, P. ; Hansen, B. ; Mejdell, C. - \ 2010
In: Proceedings 9th European IFSA Symposium, 4-7 July 2010, Viena Austria. - - p. 683 - 691.
melkveehouderij - dierenwelzijn - biologische landbouw - diergezondheid - agrarische bedrijfsplanning - dairy farming - animal welfare - organic farming - animal health - farm planning
A set of common principles for active animal health and welfare planning in organic dairy farming has been developed in the ANIPLAN project group of seven European countries. Health and welfare planning is a farmer‐owned process of continuous development and improvement and may be practised in many different ways. It should incorporate health promotion and disease handling, based on a strategy where assessment of current status and risks forms the basis for evaluation, action and review. Besides this, it should be 1) farmspecific, 2) involve external person(s) and 3) external knowledge, 4) be based on organic principles, 5) be written, and 6) acknowledge good aspects in addition to targeting the problem areas in order to stimulate the learning process.
Identifying uncertainty guidelines for supporting policy making in water management illustrated for Upper Guadiana and Rhine Basins
Keur, P. van der; Brugnach, M. ; Dewulf, A. ; Refsgaard, J.C. ; Zorilla, P. ; Poolman, M.I. ; Isendahl, N. ; Raadgever, G.T. ; Henriksen, H.J. ; Warmink, J.J. ; Lamers, M.A.J. ; Mysiak, J. - \ 2010
Water Resources Management 24 (2010)14. - ISSN 0920-4741 - p. 3901 - 3938.
multicriteria evaluation - public-participation - quality-assurance - bayesian networks - flood management - model - identification - perspectives - methodology - netherlands
In recent years, guidelines have been developed for supporting water managers in dealing with uncertainty in integrated water resources management (IWRM). Usually such guidelines have concentrated on certain aspects of processes in IWRM, notably on uncertainty associated with the modelling process and monitoring data. While this is of undisputed importance for supporting water managers in making well balanced and informed decisions, less attention has been paid to guiding policy makers in where uncertainty may emerge when considering the whole water management process. In this paper it is assessed in what way the policy makers can benefit from support in accounting for uncertainty at various stages in the water management process. Point of departure is an analysis of a broad range of uncertainty guidelines and their categorization in the water management process using a recently developed framework. Emphasis is on linking sources of uncertainty to uncertainty guidelines from an applied point of view in water management by developing a way to assist water managers to deal with uncertainty in IWRM and make informed and robust decisions. To support this, the Upper Guadiana basin in Spain and three Rhine basins are used as cases for water management issues in which it is demonstrated how water managers potentially can benefit from uncertainty guidelines in support of policy making, for instance with respect to implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD)
Harmonised Principles for Public Participation in Quality Assurance of Integrated Water Resources Modelling
Henriksen, H.J. ; Refsgaard, J.C. ; Højberg, A.L. ; Ferrand, N. ; Gijsbers, P. ; Scholten, H. - \ 2009
Water Resources Management 23 (2009)12. - ISSN 0920-4741 - p. 2539 - 2554.
river-basin management - uncertainty - vulnerability - framework
The main purpose of public participation in integrated water resources modelling is to improve decision-making by ensuring that decisions are soundly based on shared knowledge, experience and scientific evidence. The present paper describes stakeholder involvement in the modelling process. The point of departure is the guidelines for quality assurance for `scientific` water resources modelling developed under the EU research project HarmoniQuA, which has developed a computer based Modelling Support Tool (MoST) to provide a user-friendly guidance and a quality assurance framework that aim for enhancing the credibility of river basin modelling. MoST prescribes interaction, which is a form of participation above consultation but below engagement of stakeholders and the public in the early phases of the modelling cycle and under review tasks throughout the process. MoST is a flexible tool which supports different types of users and facilitates interaction between modeller, manager and stakeholders. The perspective of using MoST for engagement of stakeholders e.g. higher level participation throughout the modelling process as part of integrated water resource management is evaluated
Learning experiences from working with tools and training for adaptive management at the interface connecting researchers and practitioners
Henriksen, H.J. ; Mysiak, J. ; Keur, P. van der; Rotter, S. ; Poolman, M.I. ; Jaspers, F. ; Francois, G. ; Terwisscha Van Scheltinga, C.T.H.M. ; Farmani, R. ; Bromley, J. ; Boyce, D. ; Knieper, C. ; Möltgen, J. - \ 2009
Chapter 5: Learning how to deal with differences
Brugnach, M. ; Henriksen, H.J. ; Dewulf, A. - \ 2009
In: Uncertainty in adaptive water management : concepts and guidelines / Brugnach, M., van der Keur, P., Hendriksen, H.J., My¿iak, J., Osnabrück, Germany : University of Osnabrück, Institute of Environmental Systems Research (Newater Synthesis Products 02) - p. 53 - 68.
Development of animal health and welfare planning
Vaarst, M. ; Leeb, C. ; Nicholas, P. ; Roderick, S. ; Smolders, E.A.A. ; Walkenhorst, M. ; Brinkman, J. ; March, S. ; Stöger, E. ; Gratzer, E. ; Winckler, C. ; Lund, V. ; Henriksen, B.I.F. ; Hansen, B. ; Neale, M. ; Whistance, L.K. - \ 2008
In: Cultivating the Future Based on Science: Proceedings of the second scientific conference of the International Society of Organic Agriculture Research (ISOFAR), held at the 16th IFOAM Organic World Congress in Cooperation with the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). - [S.l.] : ISOFAR - ISBN 9783037360279 - p. 40 - 43.
Identification of Major Sources of Uncertainty in Current IWRM Practice. Illustrated for the Rhine Basin
Keur, P. van der; Henriksen, H.J. ; Refsgaard, J.C. ; Brugnach, M. ; Pahl-Wostl, C. ; Dewulf, A. ; Buiteveld, Hendrik - \ 2008
Water Resources Management 22 (2008)11. - ISSN 0920-4741 - p. 1677 - 1708.
management - climate
Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) can be viewed as a complex process in which the effect of adopted water management measures must be monitored and adjusted in an iterative way as new information and technology gradually become available under changing and uncertain external impacts, such as climate change. This paper identifies and characterises uncertainty as it occurs in the different stages of the IWRM process with respect to sources, nature and type of uncertainty. The present study develops a common terminology that honour the most important aspects from natural and social sciences and its application to the entire IWRM process. The proposed framework is useful by acknowledging a broad range of uncertainties regarding data, models, multiple frames and context.,Relating this framework to the different steps of the IWRM cycle is helpful to determine the strategies to better handle and manage uncertainties. Finally, this general framework is illustrated for a case study in the transboundary Rhine river basin
Quality Assurance support through MoST (HarmoniQua)
Refsgaard, J.C. ; Højberg, A.L. ; Henriksen, H.J. ; Scholten, H. ; Kassahun, A. ; Packman, J.C. ; Old, G.H. - \ 2006
In: Proceedings Managing Ground-Water Systems. - Golden, Colorado, USA : International Ground Water Modelling Center (IGWMC), Colorado School of Mines - p. 521 - 525.
Quality Assurance of the modelling process
Refsgaard, J.C. ; Højberg, A.L. ; Henriksen, H.J. ; Scholten, H. ; Kassahun, A. ; Packman, J.C. ; Old, G.H. - \ 2006
In: Proceedings of the XXIV Nordic Hydrological Conference 2006, Experiences and Challenges in Implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive, NHP Report No. 49. - Vingsted, Denmark : - p. 716 - 723.
waterbeheer - modellen - kwaliteitscontroles - kennis - richtlijnen (guidelines) - hydrologie van stroomgebieden - stroomgebieden - monitoring - water management - models - quality controls - knowledge - guidelines - catchment hydrology - watersheds
The present paper briefly describes a new modelling support tool (MoST) aimed at facilitating better quality assurance of the modelling process. MoST comprises a Knowledge Base with guidelines on good modelling practise for seven scientific domains. It supports multi-domain modelling and working in teams of different user types (water managers, modellers, auditors/reviewers, stakeholders and members of the public). The key functionality of MoST is to: (a) Guide to ensure that a model has been properly applied; (b) Monitor to record decisions, methods and data used in the modelling work and in this way enable transparency and reproducibility of the modelling process; (c) Report to provide suitable reports on what has been done by the various actors. MoST has been developed under the HarmoniQuA project (www.HarmoniQuA.org)
Quality assurance in model based water management - review of existing practice and outline of new approaches
Refsgaard, J.C. ; Henriksen, H. ; Harrar, B. ; Scholten, H. ; Kassahun, A. - \ 2005
Environmental Modelling & Software 20 (2005)10. - ISSN 1364-8152 - p. 1201 - 1215.
waterbeheer - modellen - kwaliteitscontroles - watervoorraden - richtlijnen (guidelines) - kennis - waterkwaliteit - monitoring - hydrologie van stroomgebieden - stroomgebieden - water management - models - quality controls - water resources - guidelines - knowledge - water quality - monitoring - catchment hydrology - watersheds - validation
Quality assurance (QA) is defined as protocols and guidelines to support the proper application of models. In the water management context we classify QA guidelines according to how much focus is put on the dialogue between the modeller and the water manager as: (Type 1) Internal technical guidelines developed and used internally by the modeller's organisation; (Type 2) Public technical guidelines developed in a public consensus building process; and (Type 3) Public interactive guidelines developed as public guidelines to promote and regulate the interaction between the modeller and the water manager throughout the modelling process. State-of-the-art QA practices vary considerably between different modelling domains and countries. It is suggested that these differences can be explained by the scientific maturity of the underlying discipline and differences in modelling markets in terms of volume of jobs outsourced and level of competition. The structure and key aspects of new generic guidelines and a set of electronically based supporting tools that are under development within the HarmoniQuA project are presented. Model credibility can be enhanced by a proper modeller-manager dialogue, rigorous validation tests against independent data, uncertainty assessments, and peer reviews of a model at various stages throughout its development.
Check title to add to marked list
<< previous | next >>

Show 20 50 100 records per page

 
Please log in to use this service. Login as Wageningen University & Research user or guest user in upper right hand corner of this page.