Environmental Sciences 2007 Research Evaluation, including SENSE Research … · 2014-11-06 · Environmental Sciences 2007 Research Evaluation, including SENSE Research School ...

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Environmental Sciences 2007Research Evaluation,

including SENSE Research School

December 2007

� QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Quality­Assurance­Netherlands­Universities­(QANU)Catharijnesingel­56PO­Box­80353503­RA­­UtrechtThe­Netherlands

Phone:­ +31­(0)­30­�30­3100Telefax:­ +31­(0)­30­�30­31�9E-mail:­ ­[email protected]:­ ­www.qanu.nl

©­�007­QANUText­and­numerical­material­from­this­publication­may­be­reproduced­in­print,­by­photocopy-ing­or­by­any­other­means­with­the­permission­of­QANU­if­the­source­is­mentioned.

3QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Table of contents

Foreword 5

Part I Report of the General Committee 7

Summary of evaluation of SENSE school & Acknowledgements 9

1.­ Introduction­ 11�.­­ Evaluation­of­SENSE­Research­School­­ 133.­­ Evaluation­of­SENSE­Research­Institutes­ �1

Appendices 39

Appendix­A­ Evaluation­of­SENSE­Research­School­Following­ECOS­Criteria­­ 41Appendix­B­ ECOS­Criteria­ 45Appendix­C­ SENSE­Disciplinary­Fields­and­Core­Themes­ 49Appendix­D­ Schedule­of­the­General­Review­Committee­ 51

Part II Reports of the Programme Review Committees 53

General remarks about the programme review procedures 55

Committee reports: assessments per institute and per programme At the end of all committee reports three appendices are given which contain the CV’s, an overview of the scores and the schedule of the site visit.

Committee Environmental Sociology, Economics 57and Policy Studies (ESEP)

1.­ The­review­committee­and­the­review­procedures­ 59�.­ General­remarks­ 613.­ Wageningen­University,­Institute­WIMEK­ 634.­ Vrije­Universiteit­Amsterdam,­Institute­IVM­ 695.­ Utrecht­University,­Copernicus­Institute­ 75

Committee Environmental Biology and Ecology (EBE) 83

1.­ The­review­committee­and­the­review­procedures­ 85�.­ General­remarks­ 873.­ Wageningen­University,­Institute­WIMEK­ 894.­ Vrije­Universiteit­Amsterdam,­Institute­IES­ 935.­ Radboud­University­ 996.­ Utrecht­University,­Copernicus­Institute­ 103

4 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Committee Environmental Earth Sciences (EES) 109

1.­ The­review­committee­and­the­review­procedures­ 111�.­ General­remarks­ 1133.­ Wageningen­University,­Institute­WIMEK­ 115

Committee Environmental Chemistry, Microbiology, Ecotoxicology and Biotechnology (ECMEB) 127

1.­ The­review­committee­and­the­review­procedures­ 1�9�.­ General­remarks­ 1333.­ Wageningen­University,­Institute­WIMEK­ 1354.­ Vrije­Universiteit­Amsterdam,­Institutes­IVM­and­IES­ 139

Committee Integrated Assessment, Sustainable Systems Analysis and Spatial Management (ISS) 145

1.­ The­review­committee­and­the­review­procedures­ 147�.­ General­remarks­ 1513.­ Wageningen­University,­Institute­WIMEK­ 1534.­ Vrije­Universiteit­Amsterdam,­Institute­IVM­ 1575.­ Utrecht­University,­Copernicus­Institute­ 1616.­ University­of­Groningen,­Institute­IVEM­ 1657.­ Maastricht­University,­Institute­ICIS­ 167

5QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

FOREWORD

This­report­is­part­of­the­periodic­quality­assessment­of­all­publicly­financed­research­in­the­Netherlands,­using­the­Standard­Evaluation­Protocol­�003-�009­for­Public­Research­Organi-sations­(SEP)­that­was­developed­by­VSNU,­KNAW­and­NWO.­The­purpose­of­this­report­is­to­present­a­reliable­picture­of­the­results­of­the­research­submitted­for­this­review­and­to­give­feedback­to­the­internal­quality­assurance­of­the­organisations­concerned.

The­review­covers­the­research­in­the­period­�001-�006­in­the­research­programmes­and­insti-tutes­that­participate­in­the­research­school­for­Socio-Economic­and­Natural­Sciences­of­the­Environment­(SENSE),­plus­the­activities­of­the­research­school­as­such.­

The­ review­ was­ commissioned­ jointly­ by­ the­ Boards­ of­ the­ universities­ that­ participate­ in­SENSE­ and­ by­ the­ Board­ of­ SENSE.­The­ review­ committees­ were­ supported­ by­ QANU­(Quality­ Assurance­ Netherlands­ Universities).­ QANU­ cooperated­ with­ SENSE­ to­ ensure­compliance­with­SEP­in­all­aspects­and­to­produce­independent­assessment­reports­with­peer­review­committees­of­international­experts­in­the­academic­fields­involved.

This­report­consists­of­two­parts.­

The­first­part,­the­Report­of­the­General­Committee,­builds­on­the­programme­reviews­and­deals­with:a)­­­ the­research­school­SENSE,­with­three­general­functions:­ •­­ School­for­Environmental­Researchers­and­Professionals­ •­­ Network­for­Environmental­Sciences­ •­­ Bridge­to­Society­and­Environmental­Governance.b)­­ the­research­institutes­(WIMEK-WU,­IVM-VU,­IES-VU,­Copernicus-UU,­IVEM-RUG,­

ICIS-UM).

The­second­part­of­this­report­contains­the­findings­of­the­five­programme­review­committees,­regarding­the­twenty-two­research­programmes­submitted­for­review.­­

QANU­wishes­to­thank­the­chairpersons­and­members­of­the­Review­Committees­for­their­participation­in­this­assessment­and­for­the­dedication­with­which­they­carried­out­this­task.­We­also­thank­the­staff­of­the­research­school­and­institutes­concerned­for­their­carefully­pre-pared­documentation­and­for­their­co-operation­during­the­assessment.

Quality­Assurance­Netherlands­Universities

Mr.­Chris­J.­Peels­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­­­Dr.­Jan­G.F.­VeldhuisDirector­­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­­­ ­­­­­­­­­Chairman­of­the­Board

6 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

7QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

PART I: REPORT OF ThE GENERAl COMMITTEE

8 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

9QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

SUMMARY OF EVAlUATION OF SENSE SChOOl

SENSE­as­an­organization­has­two­main­de facto­ functions:­the­training­of­young­environ-mental­scientists­and­the­advancement­of­environmental­research­through­networking.­It­has­been­very­successful­in­pursuing­these­goals.­As­a­practical­matter,­it­would­be­worthwhile­to­revise­the­SENSE­mission­statement­to­reflect­these­de facto­functions.­Besides­this,­SENSE­is­further­developing­its­function­as­a­bridge­between­the­environmental­sciences­on­one­hand­and­society­and­environmental­governance­on­the­other.­­Through­its­PhD­programme,­SENSE­is­making­a­major­contribution­to­the­training­of­the­next­generation­of­environmental­researchers­and­professionals­in­the­Netherlands­and­inter-nationally.­The­organization­and­enthusiasm­in­the­PhD­programme­is­outstanding.­Never-theless,­not­all­member­institutes­fully­participate­in­the­School’s­PhD­programme.­Since­the­training­of­young­scientists­is­one­of­the­central­tasks­of­SENSE,­we­recommend­that­steps­be­taken­to­increase­the­participation­of­all­institutes­in­the­procedures­and­guidelines­of­the­School’s­PhD­programme.­

Through­the­achievements­of­its­scientists­and­research­groups,­SENSE­has­become­well­rec-ognized­as­a­major­player­ in­the­fields­of­environmental­sciences­and­global­change.­It­was­noted­that­SENSE­has­not­achieved­this­reputation­by­being­a­“top­down”­research­organiza-tion.­In­fact,­the­School­has­neither­the­funds,­organizational­structure,­nor­(apparently)­the­ambition­to­be­a­top­down­research­organization.­Instead,­the­School­contributes­to­research­mainly­through­its­networking­activities­–­i.e.­building,­strengthening­and­supporting­a­pow-erful­network­of­environmental­research­institutes­in­NL.­This­approach­exploits­the­talents­of­member­institutes­and­does­not­challenge­their­autonomy.­

While­the­level­of­networking­and­collaboration­is­high­between­and­within­many­SENSE­institutes,­ it­ is­not­uniformly­high.­This­ is­ unfortunate­because­one­of­ the­main­ values­of­SENSE­is­to­support­synergistic­relationships­between­research­groups.­Hence,­high­priority­should­be­given­ to­providing­ incentives­ for­ increasing­ the­ level­of­collaboration­within­ the­SENSE­community­and­for­strengthening­the­School’s­multi-disciplinary­approach­to­envi-ronmental­research.­­

10 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Acknowledgments

The­Review­Committee­wishes­to­express­its­thanks­to­the­staff­of­SENSE­and­QANU­for­their­goodwill­and­helpfulness­during­the­review.­We­found­the­arrangements­for­the­review­to­be­well-organized­and­smooth-running.­

11QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

1. Introduction

1.1. Scope of the Review

This­report­is­part­of­the­external­review­of­the­activities­in­the­research­school­for­Socio-Eco-nomic­and­Natural­Sciences­of­ the­Environment­ (SENSE).­The­ review­covers­ the­ research­in­ the­period­�001-�006­ in­ the­ research­programmes­and­ institutes­ that­participate­ in­ the­research­school,­plus­the­activities­of­the­research­school­as­such.­This­means­that­the­entire­review­is­on­three­levels:­

•­ the­research­school­SENSE.­•­ the­research­institutes­(WIMEK-WU,­IVM-VU,­IES-VU,­Copernicus-UU,­IVEM-RUG,­

ICIS-UM)•­ the­research­programmes­

This­ review­was­ commissioned­ jointly­by­ the­Boards­of­ the­universities­ that­participate­ in­SENSE­ and­ by­ the­ Board­ of­ SENSE.­The­ review­ committees­ were­ supported­ by­ QANU­(Quality­ Assurance­ Netherlands­ Universities).­ QANU­ cooperated­ with­ SENSE­ to­ ensure­compliance­with­SEP­in­all­aspects­and­to­produce­independent­assessment­reports­with­peer­review­committees­of­international­experts­in­the­academic­fields­involved.

For­ the­ review­of­ the­��­ research­programmes,­ five­ review­committees­were­ installed.­The­findings­ of­ the­ programme­ review­ committees­ are­ laid­ down­ in­ separate­ reports.­ ­ For­ the­review­of­the­institutes­and­the­research­school,­a­sixth­committee­was­installed.­This­General­Committee­consisted­of­the­chairpersons­of­the­five­programme­review­committees­plus­an­independent­chairman:

•­ Prof.­Joseph­Alcamo,­Chairman,­University­of­Kassel•­ Prof.­Aviel­Verbruggen,­University­of­Antwerp•­ Prof.­Janne­Bengtsson,­Swedish­University­of­Agricultural­Sciences•­ Prof.­Andrea­Rinaldo,­University­of­Padova•­ Prof.­Willy­Verstraete,­Ghent­University•­ Prof.­Lea­Kauppi,­Finnish­Environment­Institute­(SYKE).

Secretary­of­this­committee­was­Roel­Bennink,­QANU.

The­findings­of­the­General­Committee­are­presented­in­this­report.­

This­report­deals­with

•­ the­research­school­SENSE,­with­three­general­functions:•­ School for Environmental Researchers and Professionals•­ Network for Environmental Sciences•­ Bridge to Society and Environmental Governance.

•­ the­research­institutes­(WIMEK-WU,­IVM-VU,­IES-VU,­Copernicus-UU,­IVEM-RUG,­ICIS-UM)

1� QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

1.2. Data Provided

The­Committee­has­received­detailed­documentation­consisting­of­the­following­parts:­

1.­ Self­evaluation­reports­per­institute�.­ Self­evaluation­report­SENSE3.­ Report­on­the­SENSE­PhD­Inquiry­�0074.­ Guidelines­for­Course­Coordinators;­Information­booklet­for­PhD­students5.­ CD­with­all­evaluation­documents­for­the­�007­review.

1.3. Procedures of Review

The­review­process­was­set­up­in­such­way­that­the­programme­review­committees­interviewed­the­management­of­the­institutes­and­the­management,­staff­and­board­of­the­research­school.­(See­Appendix­D).­A­summary­of­the­findings­of­the­General­Committee­was­presented­to­representatives­of­the­institutes­and­SENSE­in­the­afternoon­of­June­��,­�007.­

The­ review­of­ the­ research­programmes­ and­ institutes­ follows­ the­guidelines­of­ the­Stand-ard­Evaluation­Protocol­�003-�009­for­Public­Research­Organisations­(SEP),­published­by­KNAW,­NWO­and­VSNU.­Therefore,­this­element­of­the­review­serves­the­purpose­of­the­external­quality­assessment­of­the­university­research,­as­outlined­in­SEP.­

The­review­of­the­research­school­follows­the­guidelines­of­the­protocol­for­the­accreditation­of­research­schools,­developed­by­the­Research­School­Accreditation­Committee­(ECOS)­of­the­KNAW.­This­element­of­the­review­(together­with­the­results­of­the­research­reviews)­is­intended­to­serve­in­the­process­of­re-accreditation­of­the­research­school­by­the­KNAW.

1.4. limitations of Review

While­the­self-evaluations­provided­to­the­Committee­were­comprehensive­and­informative,­it­is­necessary­for­a­Committee­of­this­type­to­construct­its­own­picture­of­the­evaluated­organiza-tions­through­direct­discussions­and­questioning­of­the­organizations­being­evaluated.­Never-theless,­the­Committee­only­had­a­half-day­for­discussions­with­SENSE­School­officials,­and­only one day­for­meeting­with­representatives­from­six­separate­SENSE­institutes.­Although­the­members­of­the­Committee­had­spent­much­of­the­week­meeting­with­the­research­pro-grammes,­their­evaluations­had­been­organized­by discipline and group­rather­than­by­institute.­In­the­future,­if­evaluations­of­more­depth­are­needed­of­the­School­and­the­coordinating­role­of­ its­ Institutes,­we­recommend­that­more­time­be­allowed­for­ interviews­with­School­and­institute­representatives.­At­the­same­time­we­recommend­that­reviews­be­held­less­frequently­(similar­reviews­were­held­in­�000­and­�004).

13QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

2. Evaluation of the Sense Research School

2.1. Basis for the Review

To­ evaluate­ the­ SENSE­ Research­ School­ we­ considered­ not­ only­ the­ material­ we­ received­about­the­School­but­also­took­into­account­information­we­could­glean­from­our­evaluation­of­its­constituent­institutes­and­research­groups.­­

First­of­all,­we­considered­the­mission­statement­of­the­School,­which­is:­

To­promote­an­integrated­understanding­of­environmental­change­in­terms­of­mechanisms­that­cause­it­and­the­consequences­that­result­from­it.­Research­and­education­in­SENSE­are­dedicated­to­developing­high­quality­scientific­results­that­may­be­applied­to­practically­and­critically­inform­sustainable­environmental­governance­and­decision-making.­

To­fulfil­this­mission,­the­combined­programmes­of­research­and­education­within­SEN-SE­are­aimed­at­the­development­and­further­improvement­of­scientific­concepts­and­me-thods­that­are­required­for­an­effective­disciplinary­and­multi-disciplinary­understanding­of­environmental­change.

Although­ this­ is­ certainly­ a­valuable­mission­ statement,­ it­does­not­make­clear­ the­ relative­importance­of­the­words­“research”­versus­“education”.­In­reality,­the­Committee­noted­that­the­Board­and­management­of­SENSE­have­neither­the­funds­nor­institutional­instruments­to­coordinate­the­research­of­or­between­its­member­institutes.­Indeed,­the­institutes­are­autono-mous­ when­ it­ comes­ to­ the­ details­ of­ their­ own­ research­ plans.­With­ regards­ to­ research,­SENSE­has­the­role­of­facilitating­research­cooperation,­of­maintaining­quality,­and­sometimes­catalyzing­new­research­themes.­­

Indeed,­after­examining­the­SENSE­Research­School­at­all­ levels­(research­groups,­member­institutes,­and­the­school­administration­itself )­the­Committee­concludes­that­the­School’s­de facto­functions­are­two-fold:

•­ To­provide­training­for­young­scientists­in­the­many­fields­of­environmental­science­and­policy,­especially­through­the­education­of­PhD­students.­

•­ To­foster­world-class­environmental­research­by­supporting­a­national­network­of­environ-mental­research­institutes.­

These­are­very­worthwhile­and­admirable­functions,­and­we­recommend­the­School­make­it­more­clear­in­a­revised­mission­statement­that­its­activities­are­guided­by­them.­We­have­evalu-ated­the­School­with­reference­to­these­twin­functions.­

2.2. The PhD Training Programme

Introduction As­noted­above,­we­consider­the­PhD­Training­Programme­to­be­one­of­the­two­core­functions­of­the­School.­Our­opinion­is­that­this­programme­is­the­“glue”­that­binds­the­SENSE­com-munity­together.­

14 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Particular StrengthsThe­Committee­considers­the­PhD­programme­one­of­the­great­successes­of­SENSE.­Through­this­programme­SENSE­makes­a­major­contribution­to­the­training­of­the­next­generation­of­environmental­researchers­and­professionals­in­the­Netherlands­and­internationally.­

The­Committee­notes­the­high­motivation­and­enthusiasm­of­the­PhD­students.­A­very­posi-tive­aspect­of­the­PhD­Program­is­the­engaged­managerial­style­of­the­programme­coordinators­who­are­open­to­feedback­and­improvements.­­

The­Committee­approves­of­current­efforts­to­improve­the­supervision­of­students­and­better­communicate­the­“T-approach”­of­the­programme.­

We­also­find­that:

1.­ The­program­is­well-organized­and­comprehensive­in­that­it­involves­in-depth­disciplinary­and­multi-disciplinary­courses,­as­well­as­general­skill­courses.

�.­ The­organizational­structure­of­the­programme­promotes­effective­networking­within­and­outside­of­the­SENSE­community­(See­next­section).

3.­ The­programme­encourages­students­to­be­“entrepreneurial”­in­a­positive­sense,­because­SENSE­supports­self-organized­student­activities.­

The­ committee­ applauds­ the­ efforts­ to­ increase­ the­ number­ of­ international­ and­ summer­courses­&­workshops­which­will­make­the­PhD­course­program­even­more­valuable.­

Suggested Improvements

Achieving Full Participation While­the­School­has­adopted­excellent­guidelines­and­procedures­for­PhD­study,­these­guide-lines­are­unfortunately­not­followed­or­recognized­by­all­the­member­institutes­of­the­School.­For­example,­not­all­member­ institutes­ require­ their­doctoral­ students­ to­ follow­a­SENSE-authorized­“Individual­Training­and­Supervision­Plan”­(ITSP).­The Committee believes that member institutes should be required to cooperate and comply with the School’s PhD programme or at least with a designated set of core objectives and courses. (It­may­be­desirable­to­make­the­selection­of­mandatory­courses­somewhat­different­for­particular­mem-ber­institutes­or­academic­disciplines.)­We­recommend­that­steps­be­taken­to­ensure­that­all­institutes­fully­participate­in­the­procedures­and­guidelines­of­the­School’s­PhD­programme­unless­there­are­factors­that­make­this­impossible.

Improving PhD SupervisionBecause­of­the­key­role­of­supervision­in­the­success­of­PhD­students,­we­are­happy­to­see­that­SENSE­is­taking­steps­to­improve­this­supervision­by­organizing­workshops­on­conducting­and­supervising­PhD­studies,­and­by­developing­administrative­guidelines­for­supervisors.

Raising the Visibility of the S-CertificateDespite­the­quality­of­the­PhD­program,­the­students­felt­that­the­S-Certificate­was­still­not­a­very­valuable­asset­for­their­careers­because­it­is­relatively­unknown­among­potential­employ-ers.­To­make­the­S-Certificate­more­valuable­to­PhD­graduates,­SENSE­should­try­to­raise­the­certificate’s­visibility­among­the­professional­environmental­community­(e.g.­government­agencies,­environmental­firms).

15QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Preparing for Non-Academic Careers It­is­well-known­that­a­very­high­percentage­of­SENSE-PhDs­go­into­non-academic­careers­(perhaps­80%).­­On­one­hand,­the­School­takes­this­into­account­by­making­its­scientific­research­ and­ training­ as­ relevant­ as­ possible­ to­ sustainable­ development­ issues.­The­ “T-shaped”­ model­ of­ training­ (depth­ of­ analysis­ as­ well­ as­ on­ width­ of­ understanding­ and­communication)­is­indeed­very­relevant­both­for­scientific­careers­and­for­careers­outside­scientific­research.­On­the­other­hand,­Committee­believes­that­the­PhD­training­program­could­ better­ prepare­ its­ students­ for­ non-academic­ careers.­We­ recommend­ that­ various­actions­be­taken­to­broaden­the­training­program.­In­particular,­the­School­should­provide­more­opportunities­for­interaction­between­PhD­students­and­professionals.­For­example,­students­should­be­encouraged­to­take­courses­to­develop­“soft”­but­important­skills­such­as­project­management,­project­planning,­and­public­speaking.­The­School­should­also­organ-ize­special­“work­fairs”­where­students­can­meet­with­potential­employers.­

Achieving a Four-Year TargetBased­on­international­experience­the­Review­Committee­believes­that­under­normal­circum-stances­four­years­is­an­adequate­time­for­achieving­a­PhD­in­NL.­The­committee­believes­that­the­following­steps­should­be­taken­to­achieve­the­four­year­target:

(i)­ ­continuing­a­strict­“Go­-­No­Go”­decision­after­one­year,­(ii)­ ­providing­incentives­for­publications­and­for­finishing­within­four­years;­(iii)­­continuing­to­provide­time­management­courses­for­students;­(iv)­­urging­supervisors­to­develop­a­four­year­plan­for­their­doctoral­students.­­

Maintaining the Quality of Sandwich PhD’sThe­international­“sandwich­PhD”­programme­is­a­commendable­effort­at­capacity­building­and­bridging­to­developing­countries.­However,­SENSE­should­take­steps­to­ensure­the­high­research­standards­set­by­the­School­are­maintained­in­this­program.­­SENSE­should­ensure­that­the­numbers­of­sandwich­PhD­students­accepted­by­chair­research­groups­do­not­exceed­the­capacity­of­these­groups­to­provide­adequate­supervision.­

Targeting core courses to particular audiencesThe­committee­believes­that­the­mandatory­core­courses­offered­by­the­PhD­programme­are­the­core­of­SENSE­research­ training­programme.­Because­of­ the­multi-disciplinary­nature­of­ the­research­in­SENSE­and­because­the­PhD­students­have­a­very­diverse­academic­background,­the­number­of­mandatory­courses­cannot­be­very­large,­and­for­that­reason­the­optional­elements­in­the­programme­also­perform­a­very­important­role­in­the­quality­and­coherence­of­the­training.­Therefore­it­is­important­to­SENSE­that­its­PhD­students­fully­participate­in­both­its­mandatory­and­optional­courses.­However,­the­reality­is­that­the­participation­of­PhD­students­in­optional­courses­is­disappointingly­small­because­they­are­a­diverse­group­and­often­select­optional­courses­from­outside­of­SENSE.­As­noted­above,­a­solution­would­be­for­SENSE­to­make­the­selection­of­mandatory­courses­somewhat­different­for­particular­member­institutes­or­academic­disciplines.

2.3. Research Activities

Introduction Here­we­evaluate­the­research-related­activities­of­the­SENSE­Research­School.­An­important­point­ to­make­at­ the­outset­ is­ that­SENSE­has­neither­ the­ funds,­organizational­ structure,­

16 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

nor­(apparently)­the­ambition­to­be­a­“top­down”­research­organization.­­During­many­inter-views­it­became­clear­that­virtually­all­members­of­the­SENSE­community­were­satisfied­with­its­ “bottom­up”­approach­ to­ setting­ research­priorities­and­coordinating­ research­activities.­Indeed,­ it­ is­ the­view­of­ the­Committee­ that­ the­ research­activities­of­ the­School­ are­ (and­should­be)­concentrated­on­networking­activities­–­i.e.­building,­strengthening­and­support-ing­a­powerful­network­of­environmental­research­institutes­in­NL.­(See­Section­�.1­of­this­report).­Conversely,­the­goal­of­the­SENSE­Research­School­is­not­(primarily)­the­coordina-tion­of­a­fully­“optimized”­research­programme.­

Our­acceptance­of­SENSE­as­primarily­a­networking­organization­differs­to­some­degree­from­former­ evaluations1.­We­ recommend­ that­ future­ evaluations­ also­ judge­ the­ effectiveness­ of­SENSE­as­a­research­organization­based­primarily­on­its­networking­activities.­With­regards­to­the­coherence­of­its­research­programme­–­we­believe­that­future­evaluations­should­consider­the­difficulties­in­achieving­research­coherence­among­a­network­of­autonomous­institutes.­Conclusions­regarding­the­quality­of­research­in­the­various­research­programmes­of­SENSE­are­presented­in­a­separate­report.­Therefore­this­section­is­fairly­brief­and­only­covers­the­main­points­having­to­do­with­the­School’s­involvement­in­research.­

Particular StrengthsThe­information­presented­to­the­committee­clearly­shows­that­SENSE­has­become­well­rec-ognized­as­a­major­international­player­in­environmental­science­and­in­identifying­emerging­research­needs­in­the­fields­of­environmental­sciences­and­global­change.

The­Committee­finds­that­the­overall­research­goals­of­the­School­are­highly­relevant,­namely,­­“To­ excel­ in­ scientific­ research­of­ environmental­ changes,­ both­with­ regard­ to­disciplinary­understanding­of­the­relevant­issues­and­with­regard­to­multi-disciplinary­understanding­in­the­context­of­society.”

The­committee­notes­that­SENSE­recognises­the­need­for­bridging­the­gap­between­scientific­knowledge­on­the­one­hand,­and­society­and­environmental­governance­on­the­other.­With­these­ambitious­aims,­SENSE­transgresses­the­boundaries­of­regular­university­research.­Such­aims­are­beyond­ the­ reach­of­ individual­ research­programmes,­because­ they­ require­ a­high­degree­of­exchange,­integration­and­translation­of­knowledge,­and­a­high­degree­of­interac-tion­between­science­and­society­in­order­to­find­the­right­focus­of­the­research­and­to­create­adequate­conditions­for­the­interpretation­of­the­findings­at­different­levels.­SENSE­has­cre-ated­a­unique­platform­for­these­interactions­by­incorporating­a­broad­range­of­scientists­in­a­dedicated­network.

The­Committee­approves­of­the­current­SENSE­core­themes­(see­Appendix­C)­and­also­the­development­of­new­themes.­The­structure­and­management­of­the­four­core­themes­are­the­responsibility­of­ the­SENSE­Board­of­Directors­and­General­Board.­For­each­core,­a­man-ager­is­appointed­who­fosters­collaboration­and­exchange­of­expertise,­insights­and­new­ideas­within­ the­ theme­ but­ also­ between­ the­ themes.­This­ is­ achieved­ through­ workshops,­ core­meetings­and­discussion­groups.­The­committee­finds­the­currently­discussed­ideas­for­new­

1­­e.g.­“Research­schools­such­as­SENSE­seem­to­play­a­positive­role­in­increasing­the­coherence­of­the­research­programmes­of­the­participating­universities­…”­(Evaluation,­�000).­“…­the­coherence­of­the­research­…­is­not­very­strong”­(Evaluation,­�004),­“Important­weaknesses­are­lack­of­discretionary­research­funds­and­lack­of­top-down­influence­on­the­research­programme.”­(Evaluation,­�004)

17QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

themes­to­be­promising­and­they­should­be­developed­further.­We­suggest,­however,­that­the­core­themes­can­be­better­communicated­within­SENSE,­and­to­the­outside­world,­if­they­are­re-formulated­as­challenging­“research­questions.”

Because­of­its­many­public­outreach­activities,­SENSE­also­plays­a­valuable­role­in­communi-cating­findings­from­ecology­and­environmental­sciences­to­a­broad­audience.

Suggested Improvement

Fostering More CollaborationNetworks­as­organizational­structures­have­limits,­and­these­should­be­recognized­in­the­case­of­SENSE.­A­network­needs­an­effective­hierarchy­or­a­shared­bottom-up­coherent­perspec-tive­in­order­to­achieve­a­high­level­of­coherence­in­its­research­programme,­and­in­the­present­situation­the­autonomy­and­competitive­force­of­the­participating­universities­do­not­foster­this.­In­a­multidisciplinary­domain,­a­network­can­deliver­more­coherence­than­any­form­of­disciplinary­hierarchy.­Since­SENSE­harbours­both­disciplinary­and­multidisciplinary­groups,­this­is­yet­another­reason­why­a­very­coherent­research­programme­may­not­be­possible­nor­desirable­in­SENSE.­Indeed,­some­amount­of­overlap­and­perhaps­gaps­in­research­areas­are­inevitable.­

Nevertheless,­the­Committee­believes­that­it­is­possible­to­continue­to­improve­the­collabora-tion­between­its­research­institutes.­This­collaboration­would­encourage­research­synergies­not­otherwise­possible.­A­reward­system­is­now­needed­to­encourage­tighter­cooperation­within­the­SENSE­community.­For­example,­the­allocation­of­resources­within­the­SENSE­family­could­be­at­least­partly­tied­to­the­level­of­cooperation­between­institutes.­

Strengthening Multi-Disciplinary ResearchAs­noted­in­Section­�.1,­one­of­the­key­aims­of­the­School­is­to­further­“multi-disciplinary­understanding”­of­environmental­changes­by­encouraging­and­initiating­more­multi-discipli-nary­research­between­natural­and­social­sciences­(including­economics).­­Therefore­collabo-ration­between­ institutes­ (see­previous­point)­ should­ especially­ focus­on­multi-disciplinary­research.­The­Committee­recommends­that­progress­in­developing­multi-disciplinary­research­should­be­monitored­and­measured.­The­SENSE­Self­Evaluation­Report­did­not­sufficiently­document­which­groups­and­institutes­were­involved­in­joint­and­in­multi-disciplinary­projects.­Financial­and­other­incentives­should­also­be­offered­to­encourage­this­type­of­research.­

Making the Procedure for Selecting Themes More TransparentWhile­ approving­ of­ the­ School’s­ core­ themes,­ the­ procedure­ for­ selecting­ these­ themes­ is­unclear.­It­ is­recommended­that­SENSE­examines­and­evaluates­this­process­to­ensure­that­important­emerging­issues­are­covered­and­that­all­members­of­the­SENSE­community­are­involved.

18 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

19QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

3. Evaluation of SENSE Research Institutes

3.1. The Institutes

Four­of­the­seven­institutes­in­this­review­have­produced­self­assessment­reports­according­to­the­Standard­Evaluation­Protocol­(SEP),­providing­all­the­information­that­SEP­requires.­The­institutes­ICIS-UM,­IVEM-RUG­and­the­Radboud­University­department­of­Environmental­Sciences­ (RU/ES)­and­the­Environmental­Biology­group­(RU/EB)­ that­are­part­of­ the­RU­Institute­of­Water­and­Wetland­Research­(IWWR)­did­not­produce­a­separate­self­assessment­report­on­the­level­of­the­institute.­(It­has­been­argued­that­the­self-evaluations­of­the­research­groups­of­ICIS­and­IVEM­should­be­taken­as­the­self-evaluations­of­the­research­institutes­since­the­level­of­the­research­group­is­the­same­as­the­level­of­the­institutes.­Regarding­IWWR­of­Radboud­University,­it­was­noted­that­only­�­out­of­8­of­its­institutes­participate­in­SENSE.­Therefore,­the­organizers­of­the­review­did­not­request­a­self-evaluation­from­IWWR.­Finally,­it­ was­ noted­ that­ two­ other­ institutes­ participate­ in­ SENSE­ –­ IBED­ of­ the­ University­ of­Amsterdam­and­CML­of­Leiden­University.­Both­ institutes­were­reported­to­receive­a­very­positive­assessment­in­�006.)

The­evaluation­of­the­institute-level­according­to­SEP­should­cover:

1. Leadership, strategy and policy•­ What­is­the­quality­of­the­leadership,­management,­strategy­and­policy­of­the­institute,­

and­how­can­they­be­improved?•­ To­ what­ extent­ has­ the­ institute­ achieved­ its­ mission­ and­ goals­ formulated­ for­ the­

period­under­review?­•­ Are­the­overall­mission­and­goals­of­the­institute/research­programme­well­chosen­and­

phrased­in­view­of­the­actual­developments­in­the­relevant­research­field(s)?•­ What­are­the­scientific­qualities­and­relevance­of­the­institute’s­research­plans­and­to­

what­extent­are­these­plans­in­line­with­the­overall­mission­of­the­institute;­i.e.­is­there­sufficient­coherence­in­the­research­portfolio­of­the­institute?

2. Resources, funding policies and facilities­ What­is­the­quality­of­the­(human)­resources,­organisation­and­infrastructure­and­how­can­

they­be­improved?3. Academic reputation and societal relevance4. Reflection on the strengths and weaknesses the institute has formulated.

The­committee­held­interviews­with­the­management­of­the­institutes­on­Wednesday,­June­�0,­�007,­ in­ the­ same­week­ in­which­ the­programme­ review­committees­had­held­ their­interviews­with­the­programme­directors.­In­the­case­of­WIMEK-WUR,­RU/ES­and­RU/EB,­IVM-VU­and­IES-VU­the­programme­committees­visited­the­ institutes­and­made­a­tour­of­the­facilities.

�0 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

The size of the institutes in terms of research input in 2006 is as follows:

Institute Tenured staff Non-tenured staff

PhD-students Total research input (fte)

WIMEK-WU 18,9 16,6 64,7 100,�Copernicus-UU 10,3 7,9 �8,3 46,4IVM-VU 10,6 3,3 16,8 30,7IES-VU 3,8 4,6 13,1 �1,5ICIS-UM 1 5,3 3,9 10,3IVEM-RUG � 0,4 3,3 5,6RU/ES �,5 0,1 9,3 11,9RU/EB 1,5 3,4 5,� 10,1Total 50,5 41,6 144,6 236,6

3.2. Wageningen Institute for Environment and Climate Research (WIMEK, Wage-ningen University)

leadership, strategy and policyThe­Wageningen­Institute­for­Environment­and­Climate­Research­(WIMEK)­aims­to­develop­an­integrated­understanding­of­environmental­change­and­its­impact­on­the­quality­of­life­and­sustainability,­by­

(i)­ conducting­innovative­scientific­research,­(ii)­ offering­PhD­training­and­education­and­(iii)­dissemination­of­emerging­insights­and­recent­research­results.

WIMEK­has­a­director,­a­secretary­and­one­technical­staff­member.­In­the­interview­with­the­committee,­the­director­described­WIMEK­as­a­‘programming­unit’,­a­virtual­organisation­(no­bricks),­and­a­graduate­school.­WIMEK­was­founded­in­1993­and­executes­a­broad­multi-dis-ciplinary­fundamental­and­strategic­environmental­research­programme­at­Wageningen­Uni-versity,­which­encompasses­about­100­fte­staff,­including­the­PhD’s.­

WIMEK’s­research­is­carried­out­by­‘chair­groups’.­The­self­assessment­report­shows­a­list­of­�0­ chair­ groups­ that­ participate­ in­WIMEK.­ In­ each­ chair­ group­ a­ full­Professor,­ tenured­staff,­post-docs­and­PhD­students­work­together­in­well-defined­research­projects,­within­the­overall­scope­of­WIMEK’s­research­programme.­MSc­students­are­stimulated­to­participate­in­these­research­projects­by­doing­research­for­their­MSc­thesis.­They­are­regarded­as­part­of­the­scientific­community­and­actively­involved­in­colloquium­series­at­chair­group­level.­The­WU­chair­groups­that­participate­in­WIMEK­are­hierarchically­embedded­in­one­of­the­WU­Departments­and­participate­in­one­or­more­Graduate­Schools.­The­chair­groups­contribute­teaching­capacity­to­a­number­of­bachelor­and­master­programmes.­The­Environmental­Sci-ences­cluster,­for­instance,­consists­of­5­bachelor­and­11­master­programmes.

The­mandate­of­WIMEK­is:

•­ quality­assessment­of­research­proposals­of­PhD’s­(with­external­reviewers)•­ quality­assessment­of­groups•­ organisational­reviews

�1QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

•­ advice­on­appointment­of­professors•­ allocating­research­grants­(300­K€­per­year).

The­committee­remarks­that­WIMEK’s­bottom-up­approach­to­research­planning­is­creative­but­makes­it­difficult­to­develop­a­comprehensive­research­strategy­and­has­the­risk­that­critical­research­questions­are­overlooked.­However,­given­the­limited­resources­of­WIMEK­and­the­autonomy­of­the­chair­groups,­the­committee­agrees­that­bottom-up­research­planning­is­per-haps­the­most­feasible­approach­for­WIMEK.­In­fact­the­approach­has­resulted­in­very­relevant­and­important­results.­In­general­WIMEK­has­successfully­consolidated­expertise­at­WUR­in­the­environmental­research­area,­and­has­engaged­in­innovative­research­both­within­particular­disciplines­and­across­the­disciplines.­

Resources, funding policy and facilitiesIn­the­Wageningen-UR­Strategic­Plan­�007­–­�010,­the­WUR­Executive­Board­has­defined­research­priorities­for­the­coming­years­in­consultation­with­the­graduate­schools­and­the­sci-ence­groups.­These­priorities­aim­at:

•­ strengthening­ the­knowledge­base­of­ the­ specialized­research­ institutes­by­allocation­of­strategic­research­funds­financed­by­the­national­government­(especially­Min.­LNV)­and­enhancing­the­synergy­between­the­specialized­research­institutes­and­the­university

•­ identifying­ upcoming­ and­ fast­ developing­ research­ themes,­ which­ need­ extra­ financial­investments­in­de­coming­years.­

­For­ WIMEK,­ the­ following­ high­ priority­ research­ themes­ are­ of­ particular­ importance:­

•­ Sustainable­development­and­adaptation­of­ecosystems­and­landscapes­in­a­metropolitan­­context­(co-ordinator:­Prof.­Opdam,­WIMEK)

•­ Climate­change­(co-ordinator:­Prof.­Kabat,­WIMEK)•­ Bio-based­economy•­ Climate­resistant­coastal­zones•­ Integration­of­scale­levels­and­governance.

WIMEK­receives­a­yearly­budget­of­approximately­350­k€­from­the­WUR­Executive­Board­to­support­strategic­research­developments­by­financing­or­co-financing­PhD­and­post-doc­projects.­This­budget­is­used­to­support­and­stimulate:­

•­ the­interdisciplinary­co-operation­between­WIMEK­chair­groups;•­ the­synergy­with­Wageningen-UR­strategic­research­priorities­and­•­ the­participation­of­WIMEK­chair­groups­in­national­and­international­collaborative­re-

search­programmes­within­the­WIMEK­domain.

With­this­budget,­WIMEK­can­fund­�­PhD’s­per­year.­According­to­the­WIMEK­director­this­limits­the­number­of­new­curiosity­driven­research­programmes.­

The­percentage­of­university­money­for­the­research­in­WIMEK­is­�0%,­the­percentage­of­EU­and­other­funds­is­80%.­The­teams­are­flexible;­group­leaders­obtain­their­own­money­to­do­the­research.­The­combination­of­natural­sciences­and­social­sciences­allows­the­integration­of­research­contributions,­which­is­considered­essential­to­analyze­complex­environmental­issues­and­to­develop­appropriate­solutions.

�� QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

In­the­opinion­of­the­Committee,­the­strategic­priorities­set­by­the­WUR­Executive­Board­for­the­coming­years­are­an­excellent­complement­to­the­bottom-up­research­strategy­of­the­chair­groups.­­It­is­appreciated­that­a­budget­of­�­M€­per­year­is­available­for­promoting­the­synergy­between­natural­ science­ and­ social­ science.­The­ themes­ identified­by­ the­university­ rightly­place­much­emphasis­on­model-based­opportunities­to­strengthen­the­link­between­knowledge­and­policy­(on­scales­ranging­from­local­to­global).­­­

Regarding­the­PhD­policy,­the­committee­notes­positively­that­WIMEK­has­a­well­thought-out­PhD­programme­which­tracks­students­from­arrival­to­graduation­and­contributes­to­a­high­success­rate­for­Dutch­and­foreign­students.­It­is­noteworthy­that­all­WU­PhD­students­with­ an­approved­TSP­get­ a­budget­of­€­�.500­ to­ (partly)­ cover­ the­ costs­of­PhD­courses­(course­fees)­and­participation­in­international­symposia­and­congresses.­The­committee­was­informed­that­this­financial­policy­is­unique­for­universities­in­the­Netherlands.

Academic reputation and societal relevanceThe­committee­finds­that­WIMEK­has­made­great­progress­in­combining­fundamental­and­applied­research,­with­participatory­elements­and­strategic­perspective.­The­institute­has­made­a­major­contribution­to­raising­the­awareness­of­the­general­public­and­policymakers­about­the­importance­of­global­change.

The WIMEK-programmes that were evaluated in this review and their scores for Quality (Q), Productivity (P), Relevance (R) and Viability (V) are as follows:

Nr. Programme Q P R V�3 Environmental­Systems­Analysis­Group ­­­­5 ­­­­5 ­­­5 ­­­5­­7 Aquatic­Ecology­and­Water­Quality­Management­group ­­­­5 ­­­­4 ­­­5 ­­­5­­1 Environmental­Policy­Group ­­­­5 ­­­­4 ­­­5 ­­­4�0 Soil­Chemistry­and­Chemical­Soil­Quality­Group ­­­­5 ­­­­4 ­­­5 ­­3,518 Microbiology­Group­(only­Environmental­Microbiology­part) ­­­­5 ­­­­4 ­­­4 ­­3,5­­8 Nature­Conservation­and­Plant­Ecology­Group ­­­­4 ­­­­5 ­­­5 ­­­419 Environmental­Technology­Group ­­­­4 ­­­­5 ­­­5 ­­­415 Earth­System­Science­Group ­­­­4 ­­­­4 ­4,5 ­­4,517 Soil­Physics,­Ecohydrology­and­Ground­Water­Quality­Group ­­­­4 ­­­­4 ­­­4 ­­­416 Hydrology­and­Quantitative­Water­Management­Group ­­3,5 ­­­­3 ­­­3 ­­4,5­­� Environmental­Economics­and­Natural­Resources­Group ­­­­3 ­­­­3 ­­­4 ­­­3

The­programme­reviews­show­that­the­quality,­productivity,­relevance­and­viability­of­the­work­is­good­to­excellent.­The­research­covers­a­wide­range­of­disciplines­and­shows­various­degrees­of­multi-disciplinarity.­Most­groups­also­translate­their­findings­into­policy­and­practice.­Some­groups­have­excellent­connections­with­industry.­

The­ stage­ of­ development­ differs­ strongly­ between­ the­ groups;­ some­ groups­ were­ recently­reorganised,­ some­ show­ an­ uneven­ profile,­ understaffing­ or­ an­ overload­ of­ commitments.­Overall­excellent­scores­are­rewarded­to­the­Environmental­Systems­Analysis­group­(ESA).­The­Environmental­Policy­Group­(ENP)­also­received­very­high­grades,­and­has­potential­for­more­collaborative­research­in­fields­related­to­natural­science.­­

In­ the­case­of­ the­hydrology­research­ it­was­not­clear­ to­ the­programme­review­committee­why­the­research­was­organised­in­three­separate­groups.­On­the­national­level­of­hydrology­

�3QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

research­it­was­not­clear­to­the­programme­review­committee­what­determines­collaboration­in­SENSE­and/or­in­the­Boussinesq­Centre�.

A­general­recommendation­of­the­committee­is­to­organise­structural­interactions­with­gradu-ates­from­the­PhD­training­to­assess­their­experience­after­a­number­of­years.

Reflection on the strengths and weaknessesThe­SWOT­analysis­in­the­self­assessment­report­gives­a­good­comprehensive­analysis.­The­committee­ agrees­ that­ WIMEK­ has­ a­ unique­ research­ niche­ by­ combining­ fundamental,­applied­and­participatory­research­ in­natural­and­social­ sciences.­This­combination­enables­WIMEK­researchers­to­integrate­contributions­from­natural­and­social­science­research,­which­is­considered­essential­to­analyze­complex­environmental­issues­and­develop­appropriate­solu-tions.­The­programme­ reviews­ confirm­ that­WIMEK­has­ a­ strong­ scientific­basis,­ both­ in­disciplinary­research­and­in­interdisciplinary­research.­The­scientific­quality,­productivity­and­relative­impact­of­the­WIMEK­chair­groups­is­good­to­excellent.

Within­the­organizational­structure­of­WUR,­with­relatively­autonomous­chair­groups­and­with­ strategic­planning­ initiatives­ from­the­university­ level,­WIMEK­has­ significantly­con-tributed­to­the­development­of­an­integrative­approach­to­environmental­research­(combining­fundamental­and­applied­research)­and­to­prospective­and­assessment­studies­of­environmental­&­global­change.

3.3. Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation (Utrecht Uni-

versity)

leadership, strategy and policyThe­ Copernicus­ Institute­ for­ Sustainable­ Development­ and­ Innovation­ was­ established­ in­March­�001,­based­on­a­joint­decision­of­the­Governing­Board­of­Utrecht­University,­the­fac-ulty­of­Geographical­Sciences­(now­integrated­in­the­faculty­of­Geosciences)­and­the­faculty­of­Chemistry­(now­integrated­in­the­faculty­of­Science).­­The­mission­of­the­institute­is­to­inves-tigate­and­develop­processes­and­opportunities­for­innovative­change­towards­sustainability.­The­institute­seeks­to­contribute­to­the­development­of­knowledge­and­techniques­as­well­as­methods­and­instruments­in­the­field­of­sustainable­development,­taking­note­of­related­social­debates­and­policy­processes.­

The­institute­is­a­multi-disciplinary­natural­science­–­social­science­(β-γ) institute­with­a­very­broad­range­of­expertise:

•­ sustainable­energy•­ land­use,­the­environment­and­biodiversity

�­­The­Boussinesq­Center­for­Hydrology­is­a­scientific­centre­dedicated­to­focussing­and­strengthening­hydrologi-cal­research­in­The­Netherlands.­It­will­also­strive­to­create­favourable­conditions­for­an­efficient­multi-discipli-nary­research­environment.­The­Boussinesq­Center­will­be­the­umbrella­of­the­university­hydrology­groups­of­Delft­University­of­Technology­(­Water­Resources­Section),­Utrecht­University­(Earth­Surface­Hydrology­Group­and­ Hydrogeology­ Group),­ Vrije­ Universiteit­ (Department­ of­ Hydrology­ and­ Geo-environmental­ Sciences),­Wageningen­University­(Soil­Physics,­Ecohydrology­and­Groundwater­Management­Group­and­Hydrology­and­Quantitative­Water­Management­Group)­and­the­hydrology­groups­of­the­technological­institutes­UNESCO-IHE­(Institute­for­Water­Education,­Delft)­and­ITC-Enschede.

�4 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

•­ science,­technology­and­society•­ innovation­processes­and­systems•­ governance­towards­sustainable­development.

Four­groups­participate­in­the­institute:

•­ Science,­Technology­and­Society­(STS),­Faculty­of­Science•­ Environmental­Sciences­(ESc),­Faculty­of­Geosciences•­ Innovation­Studies­(IS),­Faculty­of­Geosciences•­ Environmental­Studies­and­Policy­(ESP),­Faculty­of­Geosciences.

The­board­of­the­institute­consists­of­the­leaders­of­these­groups­and­a­representative­of­the­Ph.D.­ students.­The­board­ is­ responsible­ for­ the­annual­budget­and­ for­ the­preparation­of­the­five-year­research­programme­in­line­with­the­focal­areas­of­Utrecht­University­and­the­faculties­involved.­The­chair­of­the­board­is­also­the­scientific­director­of­the­institute,­charged­with­the­daily­leadership­of­the­institute.­A­managing­director,­who­in­turn­is­assisted­by­a­management­assistant,­assists­the­scientific­director.­The­institute­has­installed­a­committee­of­coordinators­of­the­research­topics.­The­institute­is­involved­in­four­MSc­programmes­that­are­strongly­linked­to­the­research.­

The­committee­regards­the­organizational­structure­and­context­of­the­institute­as­very­com-plex.­Major­decisions­ involve­ several­ faculties,­departments­and­groups.­ It­ is­commendable­that­ Copernicus­ has­ developed­ a­ communication­ plan­ in­ �00�­ to­ strengthen­ the­ internal­and­external­communication­processes.­This­has­led­to­a­series­of­activities,­such­as­the­yearly­Copernicus­symposium.­Locating­the­institute­in­a­single­building­in­�004­was­also­an­impor-tant­move.

In­�006,­Utrecht­University­ formulated­ focal­ research­areas.­The­Copernicus­Institute­par-ticipates­in­the­focal­research­area­“Earth­and­Sustainability”.­The­committee­appreciates­that­strategic­planning­at­the­institute­has­led­to­an­especially­coherent­set­of­research­themes­that­promote­the­study­of­critical­questions­regarding­sustainability.­The­committee­is­happy­to­see­that­the­university­is­encouraging­and­supporting­this­strategic­planning.­

The­committee­supports­the­conclusion­of­the­mid-term­review­�004­that­the­institute­lives­up­to­its­mission­and­has­achieved­the­goals­set­for­the­past­years.­

Resources, funding policy and facilitiesThe­total­funding­for­the­research­in­the­institute­increased­from­�4.40­fte­in­�001­to­46.09­fte­in­�006.­The­external­funding­increased­from­39%­in­�001­to­61%­in­�006.­In­the­period­under­review,­on­average­48%­came­from­the­university,­38%­from­research­funds­and­14%­from­contracts.­

The­percentages­of­external­funds­for­the­sub-programmes­in­the­period­�001-�006­are:­

64.5%­for­Energy­for­Sustainable­Development­61%­for­Governance­for­Sustainable­Development47%­for­Land­use,­Biodiversity­and­Ecosystem­functioning37.5%­for­Dynamics­and­Governance­of­Innovation­systems.­

�5QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

The­committee­recognizes­the­successful­acquisition­of­new­funds,­allowing­the­appointment­of­a­large­number­of­new­PhD­students.­Since­April­�004­all­groups­are­located­in­the­same­building­of­Utrecht­University­which­we­believe­will­enhance­to­collaboration­between­groups.­In­the­interviews,­the­PhD­students­have­indicated­that­the­restructuring­and­relocation­of­the­institute­have­created­a­stimulating­academic­environment.

The­introduction­of­a­new­allocation­model­within­the­Faculty­of­Science­of­Utrecht­Univer-sity,­based­on­funds­from­internal­and­external­sources,­will­probably­create­new­opportunities­for­tenured­staff­positions.

Academic reputation and societal relevance The­research­programme­of­the­institute­is­called­‘Exploring­a­Sustainable­World’.­The­starting­point­of­the­research­programme­is­the­link­between­economic­activities­and­ecological­quali-ties.­The­institute­believes­that­high­quality­disciplinary­research­is­needed­to­understand­prob-lems­and­issues­in­the­field­of­sustainable­development­and­to­formulate­potential­answers­to­these­issues.­The­self­assessment­report­contains­an­impressive­list­of­projects­in­which­different­groups­or­sub-programmes­of­the­institute­cooperated­in­the­period­under­review­(p.­8).

The­Review­Committee­recognizes­that­the­institute­has­recently­greatly­improved­its­record­of­publishing­scientific­articles­in­key­journals.­The­number­of­academic­publications­in­jour-nals­and­book­chapters­has­doubled­between­�001­and­�006,­and­the­number­of­publications­in­scientific­journals­included­in­the­citation­index­has­almost­tripled,­reflecting­the­policy­of­the­institute­to­focus­especially­on­scientific­journals.­The­committee­applauds­the­institute’s­intention­to­maintain­this­level­by­attracting­high­quality­new­professors,­employees­and­visit-ing­guests­and­by­making­the­publications­more­easily­downloadable­from­the­websites.­

The Copernicus-programmes that were evaluated in this review and their scores for Quality (Q), Productivity (P), Relevance (R) and Viability (V) are as follows:

Nr. Programme Q P R V�5 Science,­Technology­and­Society­Group ­­­5 ­­­­4 ­­­5 ­­­514 Environmental­Sciences­Group ­­­4 ­­­­3 ­­­4 ­­­4­­6 Innovation­Studies­Group­(Not­SENSE) ­­­3 ­­­­3 ­­­4 ­­­4­­5 Environmental­Studies­and­Policy­Group ­­­3 ­­­­3 ­­­3 ­­­�

The­programme­reviews­show­that­the­quality,­productivity­and­relevance­of­the­work­is­good­to­excellent.­The­viability­is­very­good­to­excellent,­with­one­exception.­The­groups­are,­or­have­the­potential­to­become,­international­leaders.­A­particular­strength­is­the­building­of­partner-ships­and­collaborating­with­researchers­from­other­institutes­and­private­and­public­sectors­in­developing­knowledge­and­strategies­on­relevant­issues.­The­combination­of­natural­sciences­and­social­sciences,­both­in­teaching­and­in­research,­has­high­potential­but­also­needs­a­degree­of­intellectual­consolidation­to­counteract­fragmenting­forces.

Reflection on the strengths and weaknesses the institute has formulatedThe­committee­regards­the­SWOT-analysis­provided­in­the­self­assessment­report­a­very­good­overview­of­the­institute’s­development­and­responses.­The­institute­has­made­good­use­of­the­�000­and­�004­reviews.­Developments­in­society,­in­research­and­in­education­have­been­favo-rable­to­the­multi-disciplinary­approach­and­the­institute­has­not­only­greatly­profited­from­this­trend,­but­has­also­made­the­right­policy­decisions­in­a­pro-active­and­responsive­way.

�6 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

A­very­ important­aspect­ for­ the­further­development­of­ the­ institute­ is­ that­ there­are­three­vacant­chairs­ to­be­ filled.­ ­The­vacant­chairs­are­ for­Environmental­Sciences,­Dynamics­of­Innovation­Systems,­and­Energy,­Materials­and­the­Environment.

The­favorable­climate­for­multi-disciplinary­environmental­research­and­education,­with­its­wide­range­of­subjects­and­disciplines,­has­presented­great­opportunities­for­Copernicus,­and­it­will­be­a­continuous­challenge­to­maintain­critical­mass,­avoid­fragmentation­and­increase­coherence.­­

The­overriding­conclusion­of­the­committee­is­that­the­institute’s­integration­of­natural­and­social­sciences­with­technological­research­(spanning­fundamental,­strategic,­and­participatory­approaches)­makes­a­unique­contribution­to­international­global­change­and­energy­research.­

The­committee­agrees­with­the­strategic­statement­in­the­SWOT­analysis­(p.­�9)­that­the­coop-eration­between­local­Graduate­Schools­and­national­Research­Schools­should­be­strengthened­further­in­order­to­improve­the­quality­of­the­PhD­education­and­training­programme.­

3.4. Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

leadership, strategy and policyThe­Institute­for­Environmental­Studies­was­established­in­1971­as­the­first­academic­institute­for­multi-disciplinary­ research­of­environmental­problems­ in­ the­Netherlands,­originally­as­an­independent­institute­within­the­VU.­In­�001­IVM­was­integrated­into­the­newly-created­Faculty­of­Earth­and­Life­Sciences­(FALW).­As­part­of­this­merger­process,­IVM­was­reorgan-ized­into­four­departments,­each­with­�0-�5­researchers:­

•­ Chemistry­and­Biology­(C&B)•­ Environmental­Policy­Analysis­(EPA)•­ Economics­and­Technology­(E&T)•­ Spatial­Analysis­and­Decision­Support­(SPACE).

The­departments­have­developed­around­a­set­of­core­disciplines,­methods­and­datasets.­The­departments­play­a­critical­role­in­management­and­research­coordination­within­the­institute.­Each­IVM­researcher­is­also­a­member­of­one­or­more­research­clusters,­each­led­by­a­coordi-nator.­These­clusters­were­created­in­�005­as­fora­to­discuss­scientific­issues,­to­generate­new­ideas­for­research­and­publication,­and­to­develop­new­competences.­The­clusters­are­designed­to­encourage­cross-departmental­interaction.­Currently­there­are­1�­clusters;­an­evaluation­is­planned­every­�­years.­The­research­strategy­of­IVM­as­a­whole­emerges­in­large­part­out­of­the­research­clusters.

Merger­ into­the­faculty­has­encouraged­a­greater­focus­on­scientific­quality­and­provided­a­basis­for­a­growth­in­graduate­teaching.­In­�005­a­Graduate­Studies­Programme­was­created­at­IVM­as­part­of­a­new­Graduate­School­for­Earth,­Environment­and­Ecology­(Triple­E)­in­the­Faculty.­IVM­runs­a­one-year­Masters­programme­-­Environment and Resource Management­(ERM,­launched­in­�003)­–­which­attracts­55-60­students,­over­half­of­them­from­outside­the­Netherlands­and­about­a­third­from­outside­the­EU.­The­institute­also­teaches­on­a­number­of­bachelors­courses.

�7QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

The­management­team­of­IVM­consists­of­the­director­and­the­heads­of­the­four­departments.­The­director’s­role­is­to­encourage­a­stimulating­intellectual­climate­in­the­institute,­to­lead­the­management­team,­to­represent­the­institute­to­the­faculty­board­and­to­act­as­an­ambassador­for­the­institute­nationally­and­internationally.

The­mission­of­the­Institute­for­Environment­Studies­ is­ to contribute to sustainable develop-ment and management of the environment through scientific research and teaching.­ IVM­aims­to­do­excellent­science­that­is­problem-oriented­and­is­useful­to­a­wide­range­of­audiences­in­science,­government,­ industry­and­civil­society,­within­the­Netherlands­and­internationally.­IVM­ believes­ that­ curiosity-driven­ research­ is­ stimulated­ by­ confrontation­ with­ real-world­problems,­ and­ that­ complex­ environmental­ and­ sustainability­ problems­ are­ best­ addressed­through­appropriate­combinations­of­disciplinary­expertise.­A­feature­of­IVM’s­research­is­the­capacity­to­conduct­environmental­studies­in­their­societal­and­economic­context.­IVM­aims­to­reinforce­its­position­as­a­major­European­centre­for­environmental­research,­measured­in­terms­of­scientific­and­societal­impact.­IVM’s­policy­is­to­strengthen­a­research­culture­that­stimulates­interchange­between­researchers­and­stakeholders­from­diverse­backgrounds,­within­the­institute­and­outside­it.­

In­ the­ interview­ with­ the­ committee,­ IVM­ stated­ that­ the­ research­ strategy­ develops­ as­ a­result­of­ strengths,­objectives,­ competences­ and­demands.­Projects­need­ to­be­ scientifically­worthwhile­ and­ contribute­ to­ sustainable­ development.­ There­ are­ bi-weekly­ management­team­meetings­and­discussions­in­the­departments­and­clusters.­Projects­are­often­cooperative­between­teams.­The­instrument­to­substantiate­the­collaboration­is­usually­a­book.

IVM­is­project-based­organization.­In­�006­19%­of­the­research­was­university­funded,­8%­NWO,­73%­external­funds.­

The­Review­Committee­recognizes­that­IVM­is­adjusting­its­activities­so­as­to­place­a­greater­emphasis­on­theoretical­research­and­post-graduate­teaching­and­development.­The­Review­Committee­supports­this­transition­because­it­will­allow­IVM­to­make­a­larger­contribution­to­the­training­of­young­researchers­and­enable­the­institute­to­develop­a­longer-term­strategic­plan­for­research.­

The­ committee­ concludes­ that­ IVM­ fulfils­ its­ mission­ well­ because­ it­ makes­ a­ significant­contribution­to­applied­research­in­support­of­strategy­development­and­identifying­emerging­issues.­It­continues­to­be­a­pioneer­in­multi-disciplinary­approaches,­especially­regarding­the­human­dimensions­of­global­change.­

Resources, funding policy and facilitiesAt­any­one­time,­IVM­researchers­are­engaged­in­over­100­projects.­Each­project­has­a­leader­who­is­responsible­for­the­scientific­and­financial­management­of­the­project.­Projects­have­separate­budgets;­the­coordination­of­the­workflow­at­the­institute­is­handled­by­departmental­project­leader­meetings.­Most­projects­are­large,­but­IVM­regards­small­projects­as­useful­for­the­flow­of­knowledge­to­scientific­and­other­audiences.­The­committee­believes­that­the­tac-tic­of­using­flexible­research­clusters­helps­the­institute­to­effectively­respond­to­new­research­opportunities.­

The­proportion­of­direct­funding­rose­from­11%­in­�000­to­19%­in­�006.­The­strategy­of­the­institute­is­to­increase­the­proportion­of­direct­funding­to­about­30%,­primarily­by­increas-

�8 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

ing­its­teaching­activities.­The­aim­is­to­move­towards­a­position­where­about­one-third­of­the­income­is­core­funding.­The­committee­agrees­that­this­will­provide­for­a­better­balance­between­fundamental­and­applied­research,­enable­synergies­between­research­and­teaching,­and­make­the­institute­less­vulnerable­to­changes­in­research­priorities­set­by­outside­funding­organizations.

Academic reputation and societal relevance IVM’s­ research­projects­ are­ typically­ carried­out­ in­ teams,­ frequently­ in­ collaboration­with­researchers­in­other­institutions,­within­and­outside­the­Netherlands.­The­committee­applauds­the­efforts­of­IVM­to­recruit­talented­scientists­from­outside­the­Netherlands.­

Teamwork,­collaboration,­multi-disciplinarity­and­problem-orientation­leading­to­interactive­research­design­are­all­key­aspects­of­research­practice­at­IVM.

In­the­area­of­socio-ecological­interactions,­the­focus­of­the­research­is­on­chemical­contami-nants­and­water­quality.­In­the­area­of­the­analysis­of­human­responses,­the­research­covers­a­ broader­ range­ of­ economic­ valuation­ and­ incentive­ structures,­ analysis­ of­ environmental­governance­and­policy­ in­several­domains,­and­the­study­of­ social­behaviors­ in­response­ to­environmental­change.

The­committee­considers­it­a­wise­decision­that­IVM­works­on­a­number­of­integrating research themes­in­which­the­institute­regards­itself­as­leading­at­the­national­and­international­level,­and­where­the­institute­expects­to­make­major­contributions.­For­the­coming­period­the­inte-grating­research­themes­are:

•­ Managing climate and adaptation (the­role­of­technological­change­on­mitigation­strate-gies;­the­development­of­long-term­mitigation­and­adaptation­policies­in­the­international­context;­the­assessment­of­climate­adaptation­strategies­for­the­Netherlands­and­interna-tionally)

•­ Governing water resources (the­application­of­spatial­analysis­to­support­decisions­on­water­resources;­ the­ use­ of­ economic­ analysis­ and­ policy­ instruments­ in­ water­ management;­the­evolution­of­new­approaches­for­adaptive­water­governance­taking­account­of­uncer-tainty)

•­ Assessing emerging pollutants (the­development­and­testing­of­new­measurement­and­ana-lytical­techniques,­on­risk-based­toxicity­profiling­of­new­pollutants,­and­on­developing­alternatives­to­animal­testing)

•­ Shaping sustainability transitions (understanding­ of­ social­ and­ technological­ change­ in­processes­of­long-run­transitions­towards­sustainability;­policies­towards­sustainable­sys-tem­innovations).

Another­wise­choice­is­that­IVM­aims­to­develop­specific­and­integrated­methods­for­analyz-ing­environmental­problems.­These­methods­are­deployed­across­the­full­portfolio­of­research­carried­out­at­IVM.­A­focus­for­methodological­development­in­the­coming­years­will­be:

•­ Environmental measurement and assessment techniques•­ Decision-making processes and tools•­ Models and approaches for valuing environmental change and management options•­ Methods for analyzing policies and strategies to govern environmental resources and services.

�9QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

The­committee­regards­the­mission­and­goals­of­the­institute­as­well­chosen­in­view­of­the­developments­in­the­field.­This­is­also­evidenced­by­the­bibliometric­analysis­which­shows­that­IVM’s­four­departments­all­achieve­high­scores.­

The IVM-programmes that were evaluated in this review and their scores for Quality (Q), Productivity (P), Relevance (R) and Viability (V) are as follows:

Nr. Programme Q P R V­­4 Environmental­Policy­Analysis­Group­(EPA) ­­­­5 ­­­­4 ­­­4 ­­­5�1 Chemistry­and­Biology­Group­(C&B) ­­­­5 ­­­­4 ­­­4 ­­­4­­3 Economics­and­Technology­Group­(E&T) ­­­­4 ­­­­5 ­­­4 ­­­3�4 Spatial­Analysis­and­Decision­Support­Group­(SPACE) ­­­­4 ­­­­4­ ­­­4 ­­­4

The­programme­reviews­show­that­the­quality,­productivity­and­relevance­of­the­work­is­very­good­ to­ excellent.­The­ viability­ is­ good­ to­ excellent.­The­work­ is­ relevant­ to­ the­ scientific­community­and­to­civil­society­organizations,­and­national­and­international­environmental­policy.­In­the­area­of­chemical­and­biological­exposure­and­effects­measurement,­the­research­is­considered­to­be­among­the­best­internationally.­The­work­on­spatial­analysis­and­decision­support­places­a­strong­emphasis­on­natural­systems­modeling­and­hydrology/climate,­and­the­programme­review­committee­recommends­placing­more­emphasis­on­risk­analysis­in­order­to­better­support­the­mission­of­science­and­policy­integration.­

Reflection on the strengths and weaknesses the institute has formulatedThe­ SWOT-analysis­ in­ the­ IVM­ self­ evaluation­ report­ shows­ an­ ambitious­ attitude­ and­ a­clear­appreciation­of­opportunities­and­threats.­The­adjusted­strategy­towards­a­better­balance­between­fundamental­and­applied­research,­and­towards­greater­synergy­between­research­and­teaching,­is­fully­supported.­The­structure­and­leadership­of­IVM­are­in­excellent­shape­for­the­challenges­that­the­transition­poses.­The­institute­makes­a­significant­contribution­to­applied­research­in­support­of­strategy­development­and­identifying­emerging­issues.­It­continues­to­be­a­pioneer­in­multi-disciplinary­approaches,­especially­regarding­the­human­dimensions­of­global­change.

In­line­with­the­multi-disciplinary­objectives­of­IVM,­the­Department­of­Chemistry­and­Biol-ogy­should­work­more­closely­with­the­IVM­departments­concerned­with­the­human­dimen-sions­of­global­change.­An­alternative­would­be­to­concentrate­natural­science­expertise­in­the­field­of­environmental­sciences­in­the­Institute­of­Ecological­Science­(IES-VU).­

3.5. Institute of Ecological Science (IES, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

leadership, strategy and policyThe­Institute­of­Ecological­Science­of­the­Faculty­of­Earth­and­Life­Sciences­was­established­in­�001.­At­that­time­it­consisted­of­four­departments:­Animal­Ecology,­Systems­Ecology,­Ecol-ogy­and­Physiology­of­Plants,­and­Theoretical­Biology,­which­cooperated­in­a­very­loose­struc-ture.­After­re-organization­in­�003,­only­two­groups­are­now­present­within­the­IES:­Animal­Ecology­and­Systems­Ecology.­The­research­is­organized­along­four­lines,­in­which­members­of­both­departments­are­involved:

30 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

•­ climate­change•­ plant-soil­interactions•­ stress­ecology•­ ecological­genomics.

These­themes­are­tackled­at­levels­ranging­from­the­molecular-­to­ecosystem-.­The­mission­of­the­institute­is­to­achieve­and­maintain­an­internationally­recognized­position­in­these­four­fields.­The­fundamental­ecological­questions­that­the­institute­tackles­are­further­specified­in­three­categories:

•­ the­relationship­between­biodiversity­and­the­structure­of­ecological­communities,­paying­special­attention­to­evolutionary adaptation­to­environmental­change;

•­ the­ecological­effects­of­ stress factors­ in­ the­environment­and­the­mechanisms­by­which­animals­respond­and­adapt­to­these­factors;

•­ how­global­change­factors­affect­biodiversity­and­ecosystem­functioning­and­making­pro-jections­of­future ecosystem behavior­based­on­the­results­obtained­today­and­from­the­past­both­by­experimentation­and­modeling.

IES­employs­5�­persons,­�5­fte­research­input.­The­tenured­staff­is­8.8­fte,­of­which­is­3.4­research­fte­(their­other­task­is­teaching).­The­output­per­tenured­staff­is­19­publications­per­year.

The­organizational­structure­of­IES­is­relatively­light.­The­organization­within­the­faculty­is­such­that­the­institute­directors­do­not­control­the­allocation­of­budgets­to­the­departments.­The­heads­of­the­departments­have­a­relatively­high­level­of­autonomy.­Both­departments­in­IES­have­a­similar­organizational­structure­with­a­head­of­department­and­weekly­meetings­of­the­department­and­of­the­staff.­The­responsibility­for­the­quality­and­innovation­of­the­research­themes­of­the­institute­lies­primarily­with­the­programme­leaders.­According­to­the­self­evaluation­report­this­has­proven­to­be­a­successful­approach.­The­main­task­of­the­institute­is­to­identify­common­themes­and­possibilities­for­funding.

During­the­evaluation­period,­the­research­strategy­of­the­institute­has­considerably­changed­in­order­to­increase­the­strength­and­the­viability­of­the­institute.­The­committee­finds­the­recent­re-organization­and­developments­at­IES­to­be­very­positive.­

The­committee­notes­that­IES­has­an­excellent­PhD­policy,­providing­intensive­personal­super-vision­and­a­stimulating­academic­atmosphere.­The­policy­involves­regular­meetings,­intensive­personal­supervision­by­the­daily­supervisor­and­regular­feed-back­by­the­head­of­department.­Since­1985­all­PhD­students­finished­their­studies­with­a­PhD­degree,­except­in­two­cases.­In­most­cases­the­manuscript­for­the­thesis­is­delivered­by­the­end­of­the­four-year­contract­and­the­defense­is­scheduled­in­the­fifth­year­after­the­beginning­of­the­project.­The­PhD­students­follow­the­SENSE­training­program­and­often­take­additional­courses­from­Functional­Ecol-ogy­or­from­the­VU.­For­practical­and­statistical­skills­they­are­further­trained­by­lab­techni-cians­and­staff.

Resources, funding policy and facilitiesOn­average­43%­of­the­IES­research­staff­is­funded­by­NWO­and­33%­by­the­university.­The­remainder­is­financed­by­contract­research.­The­institute­aims­to­maintain­this­high­level­of­external­financing­by­focusing­on­NWO­funds.

31QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

The­institute­has­well-equipped­laboratories,­but­the­self­assessment­report­states­that­finances­from­the­university­are­under­such­pressure­that­in­the­long-term­IES­might­not­be­able­to­replace­existing­equipment­or­invest­in­new­types­of­equipment.­At­present­the­facilities­and­equipment­are­of­the­highest­quality.­The­molecular­laboratories­are­equipped­for­DNA­fin-gerprinting,­quantitative­PCR­and­access­to­a­shared­genetic­analyzer­for­sequencing.­Equip-ment­for­chemical­analysis­includes­an­Atomic­Absorption­Spectrophotometer­for­trace­metal­determination,­a­high­performance­liquid­chromatography­system­for­hydrocarbon­analysis­and­equipment­for­substance-specific­isotope­ratio­analysis.­For­the­experimental­work­IES­has­greenhouses,­climate­rooms­and­an­experimental­garden.­Field­work­is­performed­in­Lapland,­Spitsbergen,­Antarctica,­and­the­Netherlands.

The­committee­believes­that­the­university­should­provide­more­support­for­IES,­especially­more­space­and­funds­to­maintain­an­adequate­infrastructure.­

Academic reputation and societal relevance The­scientific­publication­output­of­the­institute­per­unit­tenured­staff­is­high­in­terms­of­qual-ity­and­quantity.­The­number­of­PhD­theses­from­�001­has­increased­significantly.

The­societal­relevance­of­the­work­was­highlighted­by­intense­discussions­with­orthodox­Islamic­students­in­the­course­on­Human­Evolution,­followed­by­media­contributions­on­evolution­and­Intelligent­Design­in­�005.­IES­also­organized­meetings­with­nature­management­organi-zations­to­present­the­results­of­the­biodiversity­research­and­to­show­the­implications­are­for­their­management­activities.­

The IES-programmes that were evaluated in this review and their scores for Quality (Q), Productivity (P), Relevance (R) and Viability (V) are as follows:

Nr. Programme Q P R V10 Systems­Ecology­Group ­­­5 ­­­­5 ­­­­4 ­­­5�� Animal­Ecology­Group­�:­Ecotoxicology­and­Ecogenomics ­­­4 ­­­­5 ­­­­4 ­­­5­­9 Animal­Ecology­Group­1:­Community­and­Evolutionary­­­

­­­­Ecology­­­4 ­­­­3 ­­­­4 ­­­4

11 Theoretical­Biology­Group ­­­4 ­­­3 ­­­­3 ­­­3

The­programme­reviews­show­that­the­quality,­productivity,­relevance­and­viability­of­the­work­is­good­to­excellent.­Some­interesting­combinations­of­scientific­approaches­offer­excellent­perspec-tives­for­the­future.­In­the­view­of­the­evaluators,­the­potential­towards­policy­and­management­has­not­been­fully­realized,­but­developments­are­moving­in­the­right­direction.­The­potential­of­some­of­the­theoretical­work­for­a­wider­academic­audience­would­merit­an­extra­effort.

Reflection on the strengths and weaknesses the institute has formulatedThe­committee­observes­that­the­institute­has­shown­considerable­innovation­over­the­last­six­years.­New­staff­have­been­appointed­and­large­research­grants­have­been­attracted­from­pres-tigious­funds.­The­investments­in­molecular­facilities­and­in­mass­spectrometry­have­proven­to­ be­ fruitful.­The­ choice­ of­ themes­ and­ the­ strategic­ adjustments­ are­ very­ good­ and­ the­international­reputation­has­increased­as­a­result­of­participation­in­international­research­net-works­and­visiting­guest­researchers.­The­research­programme­reviews­show­that­IES­is­making­important­contributions­to­a­number­of­fields­of­ecological­science­including­ground-breaking­work­in­environmental­genomics.

3� QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

While­IES­has­achieved­much,­the­committee­recommends­that­IES­increase­its­contributions­to­SENSE.­In­particular­IES­should­contribute­its­expertise­in­fundamental­ecological­science­to­joint­multi-disciplinary­projects­within­SENSE.­

3.6. Centre for Energy and Environmental Studies (IVEM, Rijksuniversiteit Gro-ningen)

leadership, strategy and policyThe­general­committee­did­not­interview­the­IVEM­management.­A­separate­self­assessment­on­the­institute­level­along­the­lines­of­SEP­was­not­provided.­

The­Centre­ for­Energy­ and­Environmental­ Studies­ IVEM­ is­ an­ independent­ research­ and­education­centre­within­the­Faculty­of­Mathematics­and­Natural­Sciences­(FMNS)­of­the­Uni-versity­of­Groningen.­IVEM­originates­from­two­predecessor­groups­working­on­energy­and­environmental­issues­since­1973.­IVEM­aims­to­analyze,­design,­and­assess­transition­routes­towards­a­more­sustainable­and­environmentally­compatible­societal­use­of­the­earth’s­natural­resources.­The­IVEM­research­is­interdisciplinary­and­rooted­in­natural­sciences­and­to­a­lesser­extent­in­social­sciences.

The­Centre­has­a­three­member­directorate­(elected­semi-annually)­under­the­chairmanship­of­the­professor­of­environmental­sciences.­The­directorate­meets­on­a­regular­basis.­The­full­Centre­board­meets­four­times­a­year.­The­Centre­conducts­regular­staff­meetings­in­which­relevant­research­and­education­issues­are­discussed­and­appropriate­plans­and­strategy­are­proposed­or­adjusted.­Decisions­on­scientific­strategy,­educational­programmes­and­budget­plans­are­made­by­the­directorate­in­close­consultation­with­the­staff­members­concerned.­Formal­appointments­of­personnel­financed­by­the­University­of­Groningen­are­made­by­the­Board­of­FMNS­upon­proposals­for­appointment­by­the­IVEM­directorate.­Decisions­on­specific­projects­are­made­by­the­staff­members­concerned­and­in­case­of­PhD­projects­by­the­co-promoter­in­close­cooperation­with­the­promoter.­The­compact­size­of­IVEM­is­reflected­in­its­informal­style­of­management­aimed­at­facilitating­and­stimulating­research­and­education.

IVEM­and­the­RUG­Centre­for­Isotope­Research­(CIO)­jointly­offer­a­two­year­English-lan-guage­based­MSc­degree­programme­in­Energy­and­Environmental­Sciences.­IVEM­is­a­key­participant­in­the­Energy­Delta­Research­Centre­(EDReC)­of­the­University­of­Groningen.

Since­�000­ IVEM­manages­ the­university-wide­ sustainability­project­ and­ it­ is­ increasingly­involved­in­sustainability-relevant­teaching­and­research­activities­both­within­and­outside­the­university.­

Resources, funding policy and facilitiesThe­institute­is­very­small,­but­relative­to­its­size­it­has­a­considerable­number­of­PhD­students.­The­institute­is­strongly­supported­by­university­funding.

Academic reputation and societal relevance The­transition­process­towards­an­equitable­and­sustainable­world­is­at­the­core­of­the­IVEM­research­programme­entitled:­‘Transition­towards­sustainability­and­environmental­quality’.­

33QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

The­programme­is­mainly­directed­at­the­development­of­basic­scientific­methodologies­such­as­life­cycle­analysis,­energy-based­input-output­analysis,­process­analysis,­computer­modeling,­integrated­assessment,­scenario­building­and­gaming.­Applied­studies­explore­specific­ issues­such­as­food­and­energy­consumption­in­households.­The­focus­is­on­basic­research;­secondary­attention­is­given­to­more­applied­research­issues­that­aim­to­achieve­both­scientific­credibility­and­transfer­of­knowledge­to­societal­groups.­The­number­of­publications­in­A-category­jour-nals­has­increased­considerably­in­the­last­year.

In the programme review the IVEM-programme received the following scores for Quality (Q), Productivity (P), Relevance (R) and Viability (V):

Nr. Programme Q P R V�6 IVEM:­Center­for­Energy­and­Environmental­Studies ­­­­3 ­­­4 ­­­4 ­­­3

The­programme­review­shows­that­the­quality,­productivity,­relevance­and­viability­of­the­work­is­good­to­very­good.­The­strategic­choice­of­this­group­to­focus­on­the­role­of­customers­is­regarded­as­original­and­innovative.­The­societal­relevance­of­the­group­is­demonstrated­by­its­regional­function­in­commenting­on­current­developments.­

Reflection on the strengths and weaknesses the institute has formulatedThe­SWOT­analysis­states­that­IVEM­is­a­compact­and­vital­centre­with­a­coherent­and­strong­sense­of­mission.­IVEM­produced­a­substantial­number­of­good­quality­PhD­theses­and­peer­reviewed­papers­and­has­the­ambition­to­continue­along­these­lines.­IVEM­is­strongly­sup-ported­by­ its­ faculty­ and­ the­University­of­Groningen­as­well­ as­by­ its­membership­of­ the­Energy­Research­Center­(EDReC)­and­the­Centre­for­Development­Studies­(CDS).­A­strong­point­is­also­that­IVEM­and­the­Centre­for­Isotope­Studies­offer­the­international­MSc­pro-gramme­Energy­and­Environmental­Sciences.­

The­ non-central­ geographic­ location­ in­ the­ Netherlands­ gives­ the­ institute­ a­ particular­societal­and­scientific­position­in­the­SENSE­School.­The­programme­review­committee­remarked­that­the­group­seems­somewhat­isolated­and­could­benefit­from­more­national­cooperation.

3.7. International Centre for Integrated Assessment and Sustainable Development (ICIS, Universiteit Maastricht)

leadership, strategy and policyThe­International­Centre­for­Integrated­Assessment­and­Sustainable­Development­ICIS­is­a­research­institute­within­Maastricht­University.­It­is­a­self-supporting­business­unit­reporting­to­the­Dean­of­the­Faculty­of­Humanities­and­Sciences.­­

The­general­committee­did­not­have­an­interview­with­the­ICIS­management.­A­separate­self­assessment­on­the­institute­level­along­the­lines­of­SEP­was­not­provided.

ICIS­started­in­1998­and­developed­into­an­international­expertise­centre­for­the­integrated­assessment­of­sustainable­development.­ICIS­started­with­a­team­of­5­people,­and­expanded­to­35­fte­around­�001.­The­current­size­of­the­research­staff­is­about­�1­people.­Since­�004­the­institute­has­focused­on­developing­integrated­assessment­methods­and­tools­to­address­key­

34 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

sustainability­issues.­From­its­inception,­ICIS­has­also­contributed­to­educational­programmes­in­a­number­of­faculties­of­Maastricht­University.

The­mission­of­ICIS­is­to­stimulate­integration­in­sustainable­thinking­and­practice­at­differ-ent­levels­of­society­by­research,­education­and­the­informing­of­policy.­In­order­to­achieve­this,­ICIS­develops­and­applies­innovative­integrated­decision­support­and­research­tools­that­address­and­enhance­understanding­of­issues­of­sustainability.

ICIS­identifies­its­strength­as­its­concrete­focus­on­sustainability­problems.­Core­activities­are­the­development­and­improvement­of­integrated­assessment­(IA)­methods,­tools­and­proce-dures­in­support­of­sustainable­development­practice.­Current­methodologies­are­participatory­methods,­ scenarios,­ indicator­analysis­ and­IA­modeling­ techniques.­The­ selection­of­ topics­reflects­the­priorities­and­research­agendas­of­national­and­international­research­programmes,­but­the­focus­of­the­research­group­is­wide­and­lacks­some­coherence.­The­number­of­priority­themes­listed­is­high­for­such­a­small­group.­

ICIS­has­a­flat­organizational­structure­with­a­core­group­of­11­multi-disciplinary­researchers/PhDs­and­10­affiliated­staff-researchers.­Emphasis­is­placed­on­personal­responsibility,­a­strong­commitment,­a­transparent­management­and­monitoring­structure.

ICIS­collaborates­closely­with­other­research­groups­in­the­university.­Strong­collaboration­also­exists­with­other­SENSE-partners­in­the­field­of­integrated­assessment­and­sustainable­devel-opment.­The­institute­generates­around­�0­research­proposals­annually.­

Resources, funding policy and facilitiesThe­six-year­average­percentage­of­university­funded­fte­in­research­was­13%,­NWO-funds­�4%,­contracts­63%.­The­institute­follows­a­strategy­of­increasing­the­proportion­of­university­funding,­primarily­by­ increasing­ its­ teaching­activities­and­by­developing­ their­own­master­Sustainable­Development­in­�007.­This­will­provide­a­better­balance­between­fundamental­and­applied­research,­and­enable­the­institute­to­exploit­synergies­between­research­and­teach-ing,­while­making­it­less­vulnerable­to­the­cyclic­behavior­of­research­funding.

Academic reputation and societal relevanceThe­self­assessment­report­states­that­the­scientific­and­societal­value­of­ICIS­research­is­reflected­in­frequently­requested­advice­by­policymakers­and­professional­organizations,­reports­to­min-istries­and­NGOs,­and­interviews­for­newspapers,­radio­and­television.

In the programme review the ICIS-programme received the following scores for Quality (Q), Productivity (P), Relevance (R) and Viability (V):

Nr. Programme Q P R V�7 ICIS:­International­Centre­for­Integrated­Assessment­

and­Sustainable­Development­­­3 ­ ­ ­ 4­

­­­­4 ­­­3

The­ programme­ review­ shows­ that­ the­ quality,­ productivity,­ relevance­ and­ viability­ of­ the­research­is­good­to­very­good.­

35QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Reflection on the strengths and weaknesses the institute has formulatedThe­SWOT­analysis­mentions­as­a­potential­weakness­the­danger­that­its­research­program­could­become­too­broad­or­vague.­ICIS­tries­to­overcome­this­by­focusing­on­specific­prob-lems,­tools­and­methodologies,­but­regards­the­current­institutional­support­as­insufficient­to­deal­adequately­with­the­rapidly­changing­field­of­integrated­assessment­of­sustainable­devel-opment.

Although­ICIS­has­good­contacts­with­other­research­groups­within­SENSE,­the­­programme­review­committee­strongly­recommends­that­this­cooperation­be­further­intensified.­

3.8. Radboud University: Environmental Sciences and Environmental Biology

The­two­research­groups­evaluated­in­this­review,­are­sub-groups­in­the­Institute­for­Water­and­Wetland­Research­(IWWR),­which­is­one­of­the­five­research­institutes­in­the­Faculty­of­Sci-ence­of­Radboud­University,­Nijmegen.

On­the­institute­level,­no­self­assessment­report­was­provided.­The­general­committee­did­not­have­an­interview­with­the­institute­or­group­management.

The­Department­of­Environmental­Sciences­(RU/ES)­participates­since­�004­in­IWWR.­Cur-rently,­RU/ES­employs­5­fte­tenured­and­1�.6­fte­temporary­staff,­including­PhDs.­The­ten-ured­staff­spends­about­half­of­its­time­on­teaching,­i.e.­6­courses­in­the­BSc-Biology­and­8­courses­in­the­MSc-Environmental­Sciences.­The­MSc­programme­is­coordinated­by­RU/ES.

The­research­group­Environmental­Biology­(RU/EB)­is­an­integral­part­of­the­Institute­for­Wetland­and­Water­Research­(IWWR).­The­group­has­1.5­fte­research­input­from­tenured­staff,­3.38­fte­non-tenured­and­5.17­fte­PhD­students.­According­to­the­self­evaluation,­since­February­�007­the­number­of­PhD­students­has­ increased­ to­17,­and­ the­number­of­MSc­students­to­15.

In the programme review the RU/ES and RU/EB groups received the following scores for Quality (Q), Productivity (P), Relevance (R) and Viability (V):

Nr. Programme Q P R V13 Environmental­Biology­Group ­­­4 ­­­­3 ­­­4 ­­­41� Environmental­Sciences­Group ­­­3 ­­­­3 ­­­4 ­­­4

The­ programme­ review­ shows­ that­ the­ quality,­ productivity,­ relevance­ and­ viability­ of­ the­research­is­good­to­very­good.

Because­no­information­on­the­level­of­the­research­institute­IWWR­was­provided,­no­separate­assessment­of­the­institute­was­made.­For­the­assessments­of­the­programmes,­we­refer­to­the­report­of­the­programme­review­committee­on­Environmental­Biology­and­Ecology­(EBE).

36 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

3.9. Overview of programme scores per review committee

cee nr. code programme institute Q P R V

ESEP

1 WU-ENP Environmental­Policy­Group WIMEK 5 4 5 4� WU-ENR Environmental­Economics­and­Natural­

Resources­GroupWIMEK 3 3 4 3

3 VU-E&T Economics­and­Technology­Group IVM 4 5 4 34 VU-EPA Environmental­Policy­Analysis­Group IVM 5 4 4 55 UU-ESP Environmental­Studies­and­Policy­

GroupCOPERNICUS 3 3 3 �

6 UU-ISG Innovation­Studies­Group­(Not­SENSE)

COPERNICUS 3 3 4 4

EBE 7 WU-AEW Aquatic­Ecology­and­Water­Quality­

Management­groupWIMEK 5 4 5 5

8 WU-NCP Nature­Conservation­and­Plant­Ecology­Group

WIMEK 4 5 5 4

9 VU-AE1 Animal­Ecology­Group­1:­Community­and­Evolutionary­Ecology

IES 4 3 4 4

10 VU-SE Systems­Ecology­Group IES 5 5 4 511 VU-TB Theoretical­Biology­Group IES 4 3 3 31� RU-ES Environmental­Sciences­Group RU 3 3 4 413 RU-EB Environmental­Biology­Group RU 4 3 4 414 UU-ES Environmental­Sciences­Group COPERNICUS 4 3 4 4

EES 15 WU-ESS Earth­System­Science­Group WIMEK 4 4 4,5 4,5

16 WU–HWM Hydrology­and­Quantitative­Water­Management­Group

WIMEK 3,5 3 3 4,5

17 WU-SEG Soil­Physics,­Ecohydrology­and­Ground­Water­Quality­Group

WIMEK 4 4 4 4

ECM

EB

18 WU-MIB Microbiology­Group­(only­Environmental­Microbiology­part)

WIMEK 5 4 4 3,5

19 WU-ETE Environmental­Technology­Group WIMEK 4 5 5 4�0 WU-SOQ Soil­Chemistry­and­Chemical­Soil­

Quality­GroupWIMEK 5 4 5 3,5

�1 VU-C&B Chemistry­and­Biology­Group IVM 5 4 4 4�� VU-AE� Animal­Ecology­Group­�:­

Ecotoxicology­and­EcogenomicsIES 4 5 4 5

ISS �3 WU-ESA Environmental­Systems­Analysis­Group WIMEK 5 5 5 5

�4 VU-SPACE Spatial­Analysis­and­Decision­Support­Group

IVM 4 4 4 4

�5 UU-STS Science,­Technology­and­Society­Group COPERNICUS 5 4 5 5�6 RUG-IVEM IVEM:­Center­for­Energy­and­

Environmental­StudiesIVEM 3 4 4 3

�7 MU-ICIS ICIS:­International­Centre­for­Integrated­Assessment­and­Sustainable­Development

ICIS 3 4 4 3

Q = Quality ESEP = Environmental Sociology, Economics and Policy StudiesP = Productivity EBE = Environmental Biology and EcologyR = Relevance EES = Environmental Earth SciencesV = Viability ECMEB = Env. Chemistry, Microbiology, Ecotoxicology and Biotechnology

ISS = Integrated Assessment, Sustainable Systems Analysis and Spatial Management

37QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

3.10. Overview of scores per institute

nr. code WIMEK Q P R V�3 ESA Environmental­Systems­Analysis­Group 5 5 5 51 ENP Environmental­Policy­Group 5 4 5 47 AEW Aquatic­ Ecology­ and­ Water­ Quality­ Management­

group5 4 5 5

�0 SOQ Soil­Chemistry­and­Chemical­Soil­Quality­Group 5 4 5 3,518 MIB Microbiology­Group­(only­Environmental­Microbiology­

part)5 4 4 3,5

8 NCP Nature­Conservation­and­Plant­Ecology­Group 4 5 5 419 ETE Environmental­Technology­Group 4 5 5 415 ESS Earth­System­Science­Group 4 4 4,5 4,517 SEG Soil­Physics,­Ecohydrology­and­Ground­Water­Quality­

Group4 4 4 4

16 HWM Hydrology­ and­ Quantitative­ Water­ Management­Group

3,5 3 3 4,5

� ENR Environmental­ Economics­ and­ Natural­ Resources­Group

3 3 4 3

nr. code Copernicus Q P R V�5 STS Science,­Technology­and­Society­Group 5 4 5 514 ES Environmental­Sciences­Group 4 3 4 46 ISG Innovation­Studies­Group­(Not­SENSE) 3 3 4 45 ESP Environmental­Studies­and­Policy­Group 3 3 3 �

nr. code IVM Q P R V4 EPA Environmental­Policy­Analysis­Group­(EPA) 5 4 4 5

�1 C&B Chemistry­and­Biology­Group­(C&B) 5 4 4 43 E&T Economics­and­Technology­Group­(E&T) 4 5 4 3

�4 SPACE Spatial­Analysis­and­Decision­Support­Group­(SPACE) 4 4 4 4

nr. code IES Q P R V10 SE Systems­Ecology­Group 5 5 4 5�� AE� Animal­Ecology­Group­�:­Ecotoxicology­and­

Ecogenomics4 5 4 5

9 AE1 Animal­Ecology­Group­1:­Community­and­Evolutionary­Ecology

4 3 4 4

11 TB Theoretical­Biology­Group 4 3 3 3

nr. code ICIS Q P R V�7 ICIS International­ Centre­ for­ Integrated­ Assessment­ and­

Sustainable­Development3 4 4 3

nr. code IVEM Q P R V�6 IVEM Center­for­Energy­and­Environmental­Studies 3 4 4 3

nr. code Radboud Q P R V13 EB Environmental­Biology­Group 4 3 4 41� ES Environmental­Sciences­Group 3 3 4 4

38 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

39QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

APPENDICES

40 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

41QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix A: Evaluation of the SENSE Research School According to ECOS Criteria

This­report­presents­an­evaluation­of­the­SENSE­School­based­on­interviews­with­the­manage-ment­of­SENSE­and­its­constituent­institutes,­as­well­as­self-evaluations­and­other­information­provided­to­the­committee,­and­reviews­of­the­research­programmes­within­SENSE.

The­SENSE­Research­School­for­Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment was­established­in­1994­and­accredited­by­the­KNAW­in­1997­for­the­first­time­for­a­5-year­period­1997-�001.­In­�00�,­the­SENSE­Research­School­was­accredited­for­another­five-year­period­on­the­basis­of­a­positive­assessment.­The­results­of­the­Midterm­Review­�004­and­the­present­peer­review­evaluation­of­Environmental Sciences 2007 will­accompany­the­request­for­renewal­of­accreditation­that­SENSE­will­submit­to­the­KNAW­in­December­�007.

General conclusion regarding re-accreditationIn­the­opinion­of­the­committee,­SENSE­fulfils­the­criteria­for­re-accreditation­of­the­research­school.­The­considerations­for­this­conclusion­are­described­in­the­following­paragraphs.

ECOS 1: Structured Training

The­committee­has­determined­that­SENSE­provides­its­PhD­students­with­a­thorough­training­for­becoming­independent­researchers­(in­close­cooperation­with­its­institutes).­All­SENSE­PhD­students­participate­in­a­SENSE-organized­educational­programme­which­enables­students­to:

•­ conduct­research­in­a­systematic­and­productive­way,­•­ work­effectively­in­an­international­arena,­•­ contribute­to­an­improved­understanding­of­the­causes­and­effects­of­environmental­pro-

blems­and­of­possible­solutions,­•­ position­their­own­research­in­a­multi-disciplinary­context­and­•­ translate­environmental­problems­into­relevant­sound­research­proposals.­

During­their­training­the­rights­and­obligations­of­the­PhD­students­and­SENSE­staff­are­clear.­Each­PhD­student­participating­in­SENSE­formulates­a­tailor-made­“Individual­Training­and­Supervision­Plan”­(ITSP),­in­close­consultation­with­his­or­her­supervisor.­The­ITSP­is­in­effect­an­agreement­on­education­and­supervision­reached­by­the­PhD­student­and­SENSE,­stipulat-ing­the­tasks­of­the­PhD­student­and­the­accompanying­supervision.­

The­PhD­courses­include­an­introductory­course­Environmental­Research­in­Context,­a­number­of­ specialized­ and­ broadening­ PhD­ courses,­ and­ general­ skills­ courses.­ Most­ elements­ are­optional,­but­some­are­mandatory.­Each­PhD­candidate­who­has­fulfilled­the­SENSE­training­requirements­ (equivalent­ to­30­ECTS;­where­1­ECTS­=­�8­hours­work­ load),­ including­ the­PhD-thesis,­receives­the­SENSE Certificate­issued­by­the­Board­of­the­Research­School.­SENSE­now­also­offers­the­possibility­to­publish­PhD­theses­in­a­SENSE­Series.­The­percentage­of­PhD­students­graduating­with­a­SENSE­Certificate­(indicating­that­they­followed­the­full­educational­programme),­has­more­than­doubled­to­34%­of­the­PhD­students­who­started­in­�001­or­later.

The­committee­has­seen­a­list­of­34­titles­of­courses­currently­organized­by­SENSE­(often­in­cooperation­with­other­research­schools).­The­background­CD­contained­the­information­fly-ers­of­three­of­these­courses.­A­specification­of­the­learning­objectives­of­the­courses­was­not­

4� QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

provided.­A­second­list­showed­the­titles­of­about­50­external­courses­accepted­by­SENSE­as­specialized­PhD­courses.­These­external­courses­are­offered­by­other­research­schools,­graduate­schools­and­institutes.

The­committee­notes­that­it­would­be­in­the­interest­of­the­students­and­of­SENSE­to­give­wider­publicity­to­the­opportunities­that­the­training­program­provides.­

ECOS 2: Scientific Mission

The­committee­believes­ that­SENSE­has­a­clear­de facto­ scientific­mission,­namely­to­train­young­environmental­scientists­and­to­advance­environmental­research­through­networking.­­SENSE­incorporates­several­high­quality­research­groups­who­are­active­participants­in­many­national­and­international­networks,­and­is­successful­in­acquiring­outside­funding.­(see­para-graph­on­Research­Component)

ECOS 3: Independent Organization

This­criterion­concerns­the­formal/legal­structure­of­the­Research­School.­These­aspects­were­not­evaluated­by­the­committee.­

ECOS 4: Cooperation within Nl

The­ committee­ has­ ascertained­ that­ SENSE­ is­ active­ in­ developing­ cooperation­ with­ key­organizations­in­the­Netherlands­and­abroad.­The­research­groups­contribute­to­implementa-tion­of­knowledge­in­society­by­cooperating­with­partners­in­governmental,­non-governmental­and­industrial­organizations,­ranging­from­local­water­boards­to­global­panels.­They­are­active­in­policy­consultancy­and­public­debates.­There­are­numerous­memberships­of­advisory­com-mittees­and­management­boards­on­environmental­and­sustainable­development­issues.­

In­terms­of­inter-­and­intra-university­cooperation,­SENSE­organizes­symposia­and­meetings­to­exchange­information­on­new­research­activities­and­research­lines­in­order­to­stimulate­mutual­contacts­and­cooperation­between­the­SENSE­researchers­and­to­avoid­unnecessary­overlap­in­research.­The­cooperation­between­the­groups­is­characterized­as­informal­and­self-organ-izing.­SENSE­stimulates­cooperation­between­socio-economic­and­natural­sciences,­investing­in­a­new­generation­of­young­scientists­capable­of­bridging­the­disciplinary­approaches­and­of­interacting­effectively­with­societal­bodies.­

ECOS 5: Critical Mass

The­committee­regards­the­training­capacity­as­adequate­for­its­mission­and­size.­The­SENSE­Research­School­is­now­host­to­more­than­300­PhD­students­and­almost­�00­senior­research-ers.­The­funding­of­the­courses­is­partly­based­on­student­fees­and­partly­on­course­subsidies­from­the­universities.­­

ECOS 6: Project Portfolio

SENSE­has­delegated­the­responsibility­for­the­admission­of­PhD­candidates­to­the­partner­institutes.­For­ example,­ to­be­ accepted­ as­ a­WIMEK­PhD­ student­ at­ the­SENSE­ research­school­requires­the­following­steps:

43QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

•­ Formal­admission­of­the­PhD­candidate­to­the­WU­PhD­programme,­based­on­(i)­pre-vious­academic­training­(at­least­MSc­level);­(ii)­proficiency­in­English­language­and­(iii)­sufficient­financial­support;

•­ Submission­of­a­full­PhD­proposal­to­the­WIMEK­desk­for­approval,­at­least­6­months­after­the­start­date­of­the­PhD­student;

•­ Assessment­of­the­full­PhD­project­proposal­by­two­independent­external­experts­on­(i)­scientific­quality,­(ii)­scientific­and­societal­relevance­and­(iii)­feasibility;

•­ Drawing­up­ an­ Individual­Training­ and­Supervision­Plan­ (ITSP)­ and­ submission­ to­ the­SENSE­education­desk­for­approval,­within­six­months­after­the­start­of­the­PhD­student.

The­committee­considers­the­procedure­used­by­the­School­and­its­constituent­institutes­for­selecting­PhD­students­and­their­projects­to­be­very­good.

ECOS 7: Collective Training

The­School­provides­training­programmes­with­both­collective­and­individual­elements.­To­obtain­the­required­30­ECTS,­PhD­students­follow­their­own­tailor-made­programme,­with­a­minimum­of­14­ECTS­of­compulsory­elements.­­­

Many­(international)­guest­researchers/lecturers­are­involved­in­the­SENSE­courses­and­sum-mer­schools.­

The­quality­assurance­for­membership,­training­and­supervision­in­SENSE­is­high.­The­com-mittee­especially­appreciates­the­policy­decision­to­pay­attention­to­improving­supervision.­­

ECOS 8: Post Doc Policy

The­committee­has­not­separately­assessed­this­element.

ECOS 9: links with Graduate Programmes

The­committee­has­seen­positive­examples­of­links­with­the­graduate­programmes­in­the­par-ticipating­universities,­but­the­situation­was­not­fully­documented­for­the­entire­school.­The­increasingly­close­relations­between­local­graduate­programmes­(especially­research­masters)­and­the­ local­PhD­training­will­offer­new­opportunities­and­challenges­for­SENSE.­Strong­cooperation­ on­ the­ issues­ of­ multi-disciplinarity­ and­ the­ environmental­ perspective­ are­expected­to­remain­an­added­value­of­the­SENSE­network.

ECOS 10: Accountability

The­committee­has­ascertained­that­SENSE­produces­annual­accounts­of­policy­and­results.­The­ very­ adequate­ information­provided­ for­ the­ current­ 6-year­ evaluation,­ shows­ that­ the­SENSE­network­ is­ capable­of­ self-critical­ evaluations­on­ the­basis­of­ good­ internal­quality­assurance­and­improvement­procedures.­

44 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

45QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix B: ECOS-criteria for (re)accreditation of research schools

The­following­elements­are­derived­from­the­protocol­for­the­accreditation­of­research­schools,­developed­by­the­Research­School­Accreditation­Committee­(ECOS)­of­the­Royal­Academy­of­Arts­and­Sciences­(KNAW).­

1. Structured trainingThe­ research­ school­ provides­ a­ thorough­ and­ institutionalized­ training­ for­ independent­researchers,­with­clearly­defined­rights­and­obligations.

b.­ Is­the­training­and­the­coaching­clearly­structured,­both­in­the­collective­and­in­the­indi-vidual­components?

c.­ Are­the­objectives­of­the­training­and­coaching­clearly­defined?d.­ Is­the­objective­of­the­training­programme­described­in­terms­of­the­professional­areas­in­

which­the­trainees­will­be­employed?e.­ Are­the­rights­and­obligations­of­trainers­and­trainees­clearly­described?

2. Scientific missionThe­research­school­has­a­clear­scientific­mission.­The­research­domain­is­well­defined­and­contains­one­or­more­specific­central­research­questions.The­school­accommodates­one­or­more­research­groups­of­proven­high­quality­at­national­and­international­ level.­The­school­cooperates­actively­with­research­groups­ in­ the­country­and­abroad.

b.­ Is­the­scientific­mission­clearly­defined­and­convincingly­explained?c.­ Does­ the­ school­hold­ a­ sufficiently­ strong­position­ in­ the­ relevant­ research­domain­ in­

terms­of­the­national­and­international­scientific­community?d.­ Is­the­research­portfolio­coherent­and­does­it­demonstrate­adequate­planning,­implemen-

tation­and­concrete­scientific­production?e.­ Does­ the­ school­actively­cooperate­with­research­groups­ in­ the­country­and­abroad,­as­

evidenced­by­joint­publications­or­projects?f.­ Does­the­school­accommodate­research­groups­with­a­high­performance­level­in­terms­of­

international­quality­standards,­as­evidenced­by­publications­of­the­participating­staff­in­the­preceding­five­years?­Do­these­staff­members­spend­an­adequate­proportion­of­their­appointment­on­their­participation­in­the­training­and­research­of­the­school?

g.­ In­the­preceding­four­years,­to­what­extent­have­the­research­groups­succeeded­in­obtai-ning­ funds­ from­ national­ funding­ councils,­ international­ funding­ organizations,­ other­external­funds­and­from­contract­research?

3. Independent organizationThe­research­school­functions­as­an­independent­organizational­unit­with­budget­and­manage-ment­responsibilities,­and­the­university­or­universities­concerned­guarantee­sufficient­funding­for­the­planned­capacity­for­a­period­of­at­least­four­years.

The­research­school­is­established­in­accordance­with­the­relevant­legal­articles­(WHW­9.�0,­9.�1,­9.��,­or­9.�3).

46 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

The­tasks­and­responsibilities­within­the­School­are­clearly­delegated­to­bodies­of­the­School.

a.­ Does­the­School­fulfill­the­legal­requirements­of­the­WHW­regarding­the­research­school­of­one­or­more­faculties­or­universities?

b.­ Have­the­faculty­dean­or­deans­defined­a­research­programme­for­at­least­four­years­and­does­the­board­of­the­research­school­have­the­responsibility­to­define­the­annual­research­programme?

c.­ Have­sufficient­responsibilities­for­personnel­and­material­management­been­transferred­to­the­board­of­the­research­school?

d.­ Have­the­university­or­universities­concerned­guaranteed­sufficient­funding­for­the­planned­capacity­for­a­period­of­at­least­four­years?

e.­ Are­management­and­organization­of­the­school­well­established?

4. Intra- and interuniversity cooperationResearch­groups­with­similar­or­complementary­missions­within­the­same­university­or­from­several­universities­can­cooperate­in­a­research­school.­The­school­can­also­make­multi-annual­agreements­for­cooperation­with­research­institutes­from­NWO,­TNO,­DLO,­KNAW,­large-scale­technological­institutes­(GTI’s),­and­other­research­institutes.­The­governmental­and­financial­responsibilities­of­the­school­are­borne­by­one­university­or­several­universities;­in­the­latter­case­the­primary­responsibility­for­the­school­is­borne­by­one­of­the­participating­universities.

b.­ Have­the­possibilities­for­intra-­and­interuniversity­cooperation­been­sufficiently­explored?c.­ In­the­case­of­participation­from­several­universities,­are­the­responsibilities­of­the­com-

missioning­university­adequately­described?d.­ Has­sufficient­attention­been­paid­to­opportunities­for­cooperation­with­para-university­

or­non-university­institutes?

5. Critical massThe­optimal­size­of­the­research­school­is­determined­by­programmatic­considerations,­per-sonnel,­organizational­structure,­funding­sources,­the­potential­supply­of­PhD­students,­the­labor­market­for­PhD­graduates.­A­guideline­for­the­minimum­size­of­a­school­is­a­research­and­ training­ capacity­ for­ at­ least­ 40­ research­ trainees,­ which­ is­ equivalent­ to­ an­ annual­intake­of­10­persons.­In­exceptional­cases­a­smaller­size­is­permissible,­if­proper­motivation­is­provided.

b.­ Is­the­funding­guaranteed­for­training­the­required­number­of­persons?c.­ Has­evidence­been­presented­that­there­is­adequate­capacity­for­the­teaching­and­supervi-

sion­of­the­trainees?d.­ Has­sufficient­attention­been­paid­to­the­labor­market­perspectives­of­the­PhD­graduates­

of­the­school?

6. Project portfolio The­research­school­has­a­progressive­multi-annual­project­portfolio,­based­on­careful­selec-tion,­prioritization­and­approval­of­research­projects,­with­an­established­procedure­for­select-ing­PhD­students.

b.­ Is­there­a­proper­procedure­for­selecting,­prioritizing­and­approving­project­proposals­for­PhD­students?

47QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

c.­ Do­the­procedures­and­criteria­for­selecting­PhD­students­ensure­a­good­quality­of­the­research­trainees?

7. Collective and individual trainingThe­research­school­provides­both­collective­and­individual­training­programmes­and­supervi-sion,­within­the­framework­of­four­years.­

a.­ Does­the­selection­of­senior-researchers­charged­with­training­and­research­supervision,­ensure­high­quality­performance?

b.­ Does­the­school­have­sufficient­funding­for­attracting­guest­researchers­and­guest­lecturers­and­have­such­persons­actually­been­employed­in­the­preceding­four­years?

c.­ Is­ there­ an­ adequate­ internal­ quality­ assurance­ for­ the­ training­ and­ supervision?­

8. Post doc policyThe­school­has­sufficient­possibilities­for­appointing­national­and­international­researchers­in­the­post­doctorate­phase.

Does­the­school­have­an­adequate­policy­and­sufficient­financial­means­for­appointing­national­and­international­post-docs­and­is­there­an­adequate­balance­between­the­teaching­and­research­tasks­of­the­post-docs?­

9. links with graduate programmes The­academic­staff­of­the­research­school­also­performs­tasks­in­the­university­graduate­pro-grammes.

a.­ Is­evidence­presented­of­ interaction­between­the­research­school­and­the­graduate­pro-grammes?

10. Accountability The­research­school­provides­an­annual­account­of­the­policy­and­the­results.­The­school­pro-vides­adequate­information­for­evaluating­its­performance­after­six­years.­

48 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

49QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix C: SENSE Disciplinary fields and Core Themes

The­SENSE­Research­Programme­�001­–­�006­is­structured­with­disciplinary­fields­and­core­themes.­The­disciplines­provide­the­long-term­research­basis,­the­core­themes­reflect­the­shorter­term­scientific­collaborations.­

The­three­disciplinary fields­in­SENSE­are:

1. Natural sciences at the smaller scales (molecular and microscopic processes, and sin-gle organism in well defined soil or water samples)

Disciplines­in­this­field­include­environmental­chemistry,­physics,­microbiology,­biotechnol-ogy,­physiology,­ecogenomics,­ ecotoxicology­and­soil­ chemistry.­The­ research­conducted­ in­this­ field­often­ involves­several­of­ these­disciplines.­Also,­relatively­well-defined­systems­are­studied.­The­ research­ leads­ to,­ for­ example,­new­pathways­ for­ soil­ remediation,­ innovative­waste-water­treatment­plants­and­setting­environmental­standards.

2. Natural sciences at larger scales (from species, communities, plot and fields, land-scape, ecosystem, watershed to the whole biosphere)

Disciplines­ include­ terrestrial,­aquatic­and­systems­ecology,­hydrology,­ soil­ science,­geology­and­atmospheric­sciences.­Processes­at­the­local­to­regional­level­are­studied­and­often­inte-grated­across­different­environmental­compartments,­such­as­soils,­slopes­and­rivers­or­species­interacting­with­their­environment.

3. Regional and global change, especially climate changeThese­disciplines­ focus­ at­ integrating­ the­human­ activities­ and­behavior­ into­ environmen-tal­science.­The­disciplines­include­earth­system­science,­systems­analysis,­economics,­sociol-ogy,­political­and­decision­sciences.­In­view­of­their­ integrative­nature,­also­methodological­approaches­such­as­geographic­information­systems,­spatial­environmental­modeling­and­par-ticipatory­integrated­assessments­are­developed­and­applied­in­this­field.

The­four­core themes­in­SENSE­are:

1. MicropollutantsStudies­on­the­effects­of­micropollutants­increasingly­focus­on­the­biological­responses­to­toxi-cant­stress­at­the­molecular­(ecological­genomics),­organism­and­population­level­ecotoxicol-ogy,­biodiversity).­The­development­of­new­analytical­or­biological-based­methods­to­measure­exposure­and­effects­of­micropollutants­is­an­important­new­goal.­Integrative­models­are­now­also­developed­to­predict­micropollutant­behavior­in­complex­environmental­settings.­All­this­should­contribute­to­the­development­of­better­environmental­technologies­and­the­restora-tion­of­renewable­cycles­of­matter­and­energy.­Emerging­and­future­foci­of­research­include­polar­organic­compounds,­ecological­genomics,­integrative­modeling­and­sustainable­land­and­water­use.

2. Environmental Change and Ecosystem DynamicsThe­ research­ focuses­ on­ fluxes­ of­ energy,­ water,­ carbon,­ nutrients­ and­ toxicants­ as­ well­ as­changes­in­populations,­ecosystems,­landscape­and­biomes.­The­issues­are­studied­by­labora-tory­experiments,­field­observations­and­modeling.­The­balance­between­ecology,­hydrology­and­atmospheric­sciences­will­shift­towards­more­aquatic­systems.­In­the­field­of­hydrology,­there­is­an­increasing­awareness­that­specific­functions,­especially­irrigation,

50 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

have­ to­ be­ considered­ in­ the­ context­ of­water­ resource­management.­The­ sequestration­ of­CO�­requires­enhanced­understanding­of­carbon­flows­and­dynamics.­This­all­relates­to­water­storage,­biomass­production­and­bio-geochemical­cycling­research­in­this­theme­but­also­to­research­groups­in­other­Core­themes.­

3. Global Change: Climate, land Use and Biogeochemical CyclesThe­multi-­and­transdisciplinary­research­aims­to­address­the­needs­of­managers­of­ecosystem­services,­local,­regional­and­national­governments­and­international­bodies­and­the­interna-tional­assessment­processes.­Major­tools­will­be­integrated­assessment­models,­combined­with­GIS­and­the­emerging­large­databases­of­spatial­patterns­and­temporal­trends.­The­focus­will­shift­away­from­just­understanding­the­causes­and­consequences­of­climate­change­towards­the­sustainable­management­of­global­and­regional­environmental­change.­New­regional­adapta-tion­studies­will­ focus­on­water­management­and­nature.­Extreme­events,­such­as­excessive­precipitation,­droughts­and­their­consequences­will­be­addressed.

4. Industrial Transformation: Towards Sustainable Use of Energy and MaterialsThe­research­emphasis­is­more­and­more­on­strategies­that­can­help­in­developing­and­adopt-ing­sustainable­ways­of­production­and­consumption.­The­theme­will­include­social­change­and­sustainable­development,­methodological­development­and­integration,­and­new­govern-ance­arrangements­for­sustainable­development.­A­challenge­is­to­combine­rigorous­scientific­research­with­other­stakeholders’­tacit­knowledge,­perceptions,­and­values.

The­ self-evaluation­ states­ that­ initiatives­ are­ mounting­ to­ add­ a­ new­ core­ theme­ “spatial analysis and modeling”.­Its­emphasis­will­be­to­measure­properties­and­relationships,­taking­into­account­the­spatial­localization­of­the­phenomenon­and­use­this­to­improve­understand-ing­of­the­systemic­dynamics­of­the­studied­systems.­Spatially­explicit­phenomena­are­key­fea-tures­of­many­environmental­issues­and­sustainable­development­(multi-scale,­multi-domain,­intergenerational)­and­this­makes­it­a­real­challenge­to­model.­It­requires­a­way­of­modeling­that­takes­the­essential­roles­of­spatial­and­temporal­distribution­into­account.­This­theme­is­currently­expanding­rapidly­and­several­SENSE­research­groups­have­engaged­in­developing­innovative­tools­and­methods.­This­is­also­the­first­core­theme­that­focuses­on­tools­that­are­useful­for­all­disciplinary­and­interdisciplinary­fields.­The­underlying­statistics,­large­databases­and­their­exploration,­and­specific­modeling­approaches­are­unique­enough­to­prompt­a­dedi-cated­core­manager­and­activities.­This­theme­may­probably­become­operational­late­�007.

Another­methodological­theme­that­could­emerge­in­the­near­future­is­stakeholder involve-ment and participatory integrated assessment.­These­approaches­have­recently­become­more­practical­and­are­urgently­required­in­applying­environmental­knowledge­because­of­the­pressing­policy­needs.­

The­structure­and­management­of­the­four­core­themes­are­the­responsibility­of­the­SENSE­Board­of­Directors­and­General­Board.­For­each­core,­a­manager­is­appointed­who­fosters­col-laboration­and­exchange­of­expertise,­insights­and­new­ideas­within­the­theme­but­also­between­the­themes.­This­is­achieved­through­workshops,­core­meetings­and­discussion­groups.

51QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix D: Schedule of the General Review Committee (actual program varied from what is shown)

WUR �8.­ Wageningen­Institute­for­Environment­and­Climate­Research­(WIMEK)VUVU

�9.­ Institute­for­Environmental­Studies­(IVM)30.­ Institute­of­Ecological­Sciences­(IES)

UU 31.­ Copernicus­Institute­for­Sustainable­Development­and­InnovationAll 3�.­ SENSE­Research­School

SUNDAY 17-06-2007 Utrecht�0.00­–­��.00 Meeting­chairs

WEDNESDAY 20-06-2007

Utrecht

09.00­–­10.00 Meeting­chairs­(without­Bengtsson)10.00­–­11.00 Presentation­CvB-WU­+­Wageningen­Institute­for­Environment­

and­Climate­Research­(WIMEK/WU)11.00­–­1�.00 Presentation­CvB/FB-UU­+­Copernicus­Institute­for­Sustainable­

Development­and­Innovation­(Copernicus/UU)­nr.­311�.00­–­13.00 Lunch­break13.00­–­14.00 Meeting­chairs14.00­–­15.00 Presentation­FB-ALW­+Institute­for­Environmental­Studies­

(IVM-VU)­nr.­�915.00­–­16.00 Presentation­(Institute­of­Ecological­Sciences­(IES-VU)­nr.­3016.00­–­17.00 Presentations­Institute­of­Environmental­Sciences­(CML-LU)­and­

Institute­for­Biodiversity­and­Ecosystems­Dynamics­(IBED-UvA)17.00­–­18.00 Meeting­chairs18.00­–­�0.00 Dinner

ThURSDAY 21-06-2007

Utrecht

09.00­–­10.00 Meeting­Chairs10.30­–­1�.00 Presentation­and­discussion­SENSE­Research­School,­including­

Core­Themes1�.00­–­13.00 Lunch­break13.00­–­14.00 Presentation­PhD­education­and­training­programme14.00­–­15.00 Meeting­with­SENSE­PhD­council15.00­–­17.30 Meeting­chairs18.00­–­�0.00 Diner

FRIDAY 22-06-2007

Utrecht

09.00­–­10.30 Meeting­with­SENSE­Directors­and­Board10.30­–­1�.00 Meeting­chairs1�.00­–­13.00 Lunch13.00­–­15.00 Presentation­preliminary­conclusions­per­chair­group15.00­–­15.15 Coffee­&Tea­break15.15­–­16.15 Presentation­preliminary­conclusions­on­­SENSE­institutes­and­

SENSE­Research­School16.15­–­17.30 Drinks­and­closure18.00­–­�0.00 Diner

5� QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme review committees:1. Environmental Sociology, Economics and Policy (Prof.­Aviel­Verbruggen,­Prof.­Ken­Green,­Prof.­Michael­Redclift)­­ ­ ­2. Environmental Biology and Ecology (Prof.­Janne­Bengtsson,­Prof.­Luc­de­Meester,­Prof.­Steve­Ormerod)­­ ­ ­3. Environmental Earth Sciences(Prof.­Andrea­Rinaldo,­Prof.­Hannes­Flühler,­Prof.­Roland­Schulze)­­ ­ ­4. Environmental Chemistry, Microbiology, Ecotoxicology and Technology (Prof.­Willy­Verstraete,­Prof.­Colin­Janssen,­Prof.­Laurent­Charlet)­­5. Integrated Assessment, Sustainable Systems Analysis & Spatial Management(Prof.­Lea­Kauppi,­Prof.­Thomas­Johansson,­Prof.­William­Lafferty)­­

53QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

PART II: REPORTS OF ThE PROGRAMME REVIEW COMMITTEES

54 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

55QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

General remarks about the programme review procedures

Harmonisation of scoresDuring­the­site­visits­and­during­the­finalisation­of­the­reports,­the­programme­review­com-mittees­have­paid­ specific­ attention­ to­ the­criteria­used­ for­ the­ scores­ for­ scientific­quality,­productivity,­relevance­and­viability,­and­to­the­possibility­of­an­unwanted­degree­of­variability­in­the­scores­between­the­reviewers­or­the­committees.­All­committees­have­used­the­criteria­of­the­SEP-scale­and­in­all­cases­the­scores­were­settled­by­the­committee­as­a­whole.­During­the­site­visit,­a­list­of­all­scores­was­provided­to­the­chairpersons­of­the­committees­with­the­specific­purpose­of­checking­whether­there­were­any­indications­for­an­unwanted­degree­of­variability­in­the­scores.­It­was­decided­that­there­were­no­obvious­signs­of­unfounded­diversity.­Also­in­the­course­of­finalising­the­general­report,­the­committee­chairs­have­paid­attention­to­the­scores­for­all­programmes­in­order­to­safeguard­as­much­as­possible­that­the­meaning­of­the­scores­of­one­committee­did­not­diverge­from­those­of­another­committee­in­this­review.

However,­ assessing­ the­ quality­ of­ research­ is­ not­ an­ exact­ science.­The­ assessments­ of­ the­research­programmes­are­expressed­in­text­and­in­scores.­The­scores­by­themselves­are­not­a­good­basis­for­policy­decisions;­they­must­be­interpreted­in­relation­with­the­text­and­in­the­context­of­the­review.­

Criteria used for the scores on Quality and ProductivityThe­committees­have­used­the­criteria­specified­in­SEP:­

“Quality­is­to­be­seen­as­a­measure­of­excellence­and­excitement.­It­refers­to­the­eminence­of­a­group’s­research­activities,­its­abilities­to­perform­at­the­highest­level­and­its­achieve-ments­in­the­international­scientific­community.­It­rests­on­the­proficiency­and­rigour­of­research­concepts­and­conduct;­ it­shows­in­the­success­of­the­group­at­the­forefront­of­scientific­development.­

Productivity­refers­to­the­total­output­of­the­group;­that­is,­the­variegated­ways­in­which­results­of­ research­and­knowledge­development­are­publicised.­The­output­needs­ to­be­reviewed­in­relation­to­the­input­in­terms­of­human­resources.”

Indicators­ for­ Quality­ specified­ by­ SEP­ are­ the­ originality­ of­ the­ approach­ and­ ideas,­ sig-nificance­of­the­contribution­to­the­field,­coherence­of­the­programme,­publication­strategy,­prominence­of­ the­programme­director,­prominence­of­ the­other­members­of­ the­ research­group,­quality­of­scientific­publications­(scientific­impact),­quality­of­other­results.­

Indicators­for­Productivity­specified­in­SEP­are­the­number­of­staff,­number­of­PhD-theses,­number­of­scientific­publications,­number­of­professional­publications,­other­results­(if­appli-cable),­distribution­of­published­output­within­the­group.

The­weight­assigned­to­each­criterion­is­not­a­fixed­entity,­and­the­productivity­scores­are­not­based­on­a­purely­numerical­calculation­of­the­number­of­publications­per­f.t.e.­in­research­or­on­the­relative­impact­of­the­journal­articles.­Factors­taken­into­account­are­the­prominence­of­the­publication­medium,­the­international­recognition­and­innovative­potential.­Ultimately,­the­assessments­are­based­on­the­expertise­and­experience­of­the­reviewers­and­the­committee­as­a­whole,­within­the­context­of­this­review.­

56 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Variability in the groupsThe­committees­have­considered­variability­in­output­among­the­staff­members­as­one­of­the­aspects­in­the­assessment­of­quality­and­productivity,­in­accordance­with­SEP.­The­committees­are­aware­that­some­staff­members­will­be­more­involved­in­research­and­others­in­education,­management­or­acquisition.­A­good­division­of­tasks­contributes­to­the­quality­of­teaching­and­research.­It­is­inevitable,­however,­that­there­can­be­quality­differences­between­groups­in­which­several­excellent­researchers­succeed­in­producing­high­output­and­groups­with­more­variability.­

Stage of development of a groupThe­committees­agree­that­it­is­important­to­take­into­account­if­a­group­was­recently­estab-lished­or­has­been­operative­for­many­years.­Generally­speaking,­the­committees­have­attached­more­importance­to­the­recent­performance­of­a­group­and­to­their­potential­for­the­future,­than­to­the­‘average’­performance­over­the­whole­period­under­review.­

External reviewersThe­committees­have­received­advice­from­a­number­of­external­reviewers­that­were­contacted­by­SENSE­to­complement­the­expertise­in­the­committees.­The­committees­have­taken­their­advice­into­account.­Within­the­context­of­the­review,­the­final­responsibility­for­the­assess-ments­rests­with­the­review­committees.­Specific­remarks­are­included­in­the­response­of­the­committees.

The­chairpersons­of­the­programme­review­committees,

Prof.­Aviel­Verbruggen­­Environmental­Sociology,­Economics­and­Policy­(ESEP)­ ­Prof.­Jan­BengtssonEnvironmental­Biology­and­Ecology­(EBE)­ ­ ­Prof.­Andrea­RinaldoEnvironmental­Earth­Sciences­(EES)­ ­ ­Prof.­Willy­VerstraeteEnvironmental­Chemistry,­Microbiology,­Ecotoxicology­and­Biotechnology­(ECMEB)­­­Prof.­Lea­KauppiIntegrated­Assessment,­Sustainable­Systems­Analysis­&­Spatial­Management­(ISS)

57QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Committee Environmental Sociology, Economics and Policy Studies (ESEP)

58 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

59QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

1. The review committee and the review procedures

Scope of the assessment and structure of this reportThe­Review­Committee­was­asked­to­perform­an­assessment­of­six­research­programmes­in­Environmental­Sociology,­Economics­and­Policy­Studies.­This­assessment­covers­the­activities­and­the­research­in­the­period­�001-�006.­The­assessment­is­part­of­the­�007­review­of­the­Netherlands­Research­School­for­Socio-Economic­and­Natural­Sciences­of­the­Environment­(SENSE).­­Institute ProgrammeWIMEK-WUR 1.­ Environmental­Policy­Group­(ENP)

�.­ Environmental­Economics­and­Natural­Resources­Group­(ENR)IVM-VU 3.­ Department­of­Economics­and­Technology­(E&T)

4.­ Department­of­Environmental­Policy­Analysis­(EPA)Copernicus-UU 5.­ Environmental­Studies­and­Policy­Group­(ESP)

6.­ Innovation­Studies­Group­(ISG;­not­in­SENSE)

The­Committee's­tasks­were­to­assess­the­quality­of­the­research­programmes­on­the­basis­of­the­information­provided­by­the­Institutes­and­through­interviews­with­the­research­leaders,­and­to­advise­how­this­quality­might­be­improved.

Part­I,­chapter­1­describes­the­composition­of­the­Committee,­its­activities­and­the­procedures­followed­by­the­Committee.Part­I,­chapter­�­contains­general­remarks­about­the­state­of­the­art­in­Environmental­Sociol-ogy,­Economics­and­Policy­Studies.Part­II­contains­the­assessment­of­the­programmes.­

Composition of the CommitteeThe­composition­of­the­Committee­was­as­follows:

•­ Prof.­Aviel­Verbruggen,­University­of­Antwerp,­chair­of­the­committee­­•­ Prof.­Kenneth­Green,­Manchester­Business­School­­ ­ ­•­ Prof.­Michael­Redclift,­King’s­College­London.

Roel­ Bennink­ of­ the­ Bureau­ of­ QANU­ (Quality­ Assurance­ Netherlands­ Universities)­ was­appointed­secretary­to­the­Committee.­

A­short­curriculum­vitae­of­the­Committee­members­is­included­in­Appendix­1.

IndependenceAll­members­of­ the­Committee­ signed­a­ statement­of­ independence­ to­ safeguard­ that­ they­would­assess­the­quality­of­the­Institute­and­research­programmes­in­an­unbiased­and­inde-pendent­way.­Any­existing­personal­or­professional­relationships­between­committee­members­and­programmes­under­review­were­reported­and­discussed­in­the­committee­meeting.­The­Committee­concluded­that­there­were­no­close­relations­or­dependencies­and­that­there­was­no­risk­in­terms­of­bias­or­undue­influence.

Data provided to the CommitteeThe­Committee­has­received­detailed­documentation­consisting­of­the­following­parts:­

60 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

6.­ Self­evaluation­reports­per­institute­and­per­programme7.­ Copies­of­three­key­publications­per­programme8.­ Bibliometric­study­SENSE­1996-�0059.­ Self-evaluation­and­background­material­about­SENSE,­including­a­CD­with­all­evalua-

tion­documents­for­the­�007­review.

The­documentation­included­all­the­information­required­by­the­Standard­Evaluation­Proto-col­(SEP).­­

Procedures followed by the CommitteeThe­ Committee­ proceeded­ according­ to­ the­ standard­ Evaluation­ Protocol­ (SEP).­ Prior­ to­the­Committee­meeting,­each­programme­was­assigned­to­a­first­and­a­second­reviewer,­who­formulated­a­preliminary­assessment.­The­final­assessments­are­based­on­the­documentation­provided­by­the­Institutes,­the­key­publications,­the­interviews­with­the­programme­leaders­and­the­PhD­poster­sessions.­The­interviews­took­place­on­June­17,­18­and­19,­�007­(see­the­schedule­in­Appendix­3).­

Preceding­the­ interviews,­ the­Committee­was­briefed­by­QANU­about­research­assessment­according­ to­SEP.­The­SENSE­management­gave­a­presentation­about­ the­School.­On­the­same­ day,­ June­ 17,­ �007,­ the­ Committee­ discussed­ the­ preliminary­ assessments.­ For­ each­programme­a­number­of­comments­and­questions­were­decided­upon.­The­Committee­also­agreed­upon­procedural­matters­and­aspects­of­the­assessment.­Site­visits­were­not­held.­All­interviews­took­place­in­Utrecht.After­the­interviews­the­Committee­discussed­the­scores­and­comments­and­made­draft­texts.­The­texts­were­finalised­through­email­exchanges.­The­final­version­was­presented­to­the­Insti-tutes­and­SENSE­on­August­1,­�007.­The­comments­of­the­Institutes­and­SENSE­were­dis-cussed­in­the­Committee­and­led­to­changes­in­the­report­on­a­number­of­points.­The­final­report­was­presented­ to­Boards­of­ the­participating­universities­ and­was­printed­after­ their­formal­acceptance­of­the­report.­The­Committee­used­the­rating­system­of­the­Standard­Evaluation­Protocol­(SEP).­The­mean-ing­of­the­scores­is­described­in­Appendix­�.­The­Committee­adhered­strictly­to­the­assessment­elements­prescribed­in­SEP­with­reference­to­the­scores.

61QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

2. General remarks

The­mission­of­SENSE­is­to­promote­an­integrated­understanding­of­environmental­change­in­terms­of­mechanisms­that­cause­it­and­the­consequences­that­result­from­it.­From­the­SENSE­perspective,­the­common­denominator­of­the­research­programmes­in­this­review­is­that­they­are­aimed­at­the­development­and­further­improvement­of­scientific­concepts­and­methods­that­are­required­for­such­an­integrated­understanding.­

In­SENSE­terms,­the­disciplinary­field­for­these­programmes­is­‘Regional­and­global­change,­especially­ climate­ change’.­These­ disciplines­ focus­ at­ integrating­ the­ human­ activities­ and­behaviour­into­environmental­science.­The­Core­theme­to­which­the­programmes­relate­most­is­‘Industrial­Transformation­―­Towards­Sustainable­Use­of­Energy­and­Materials’.­The­research­emphasis­in­this­theme­is­on­strategies­that­can­help­in­developing­and­adopting­sustainable­ways­of­production­and­consumption.­This­includes­social­change­and­sustainable­develop-ment,­methodological­development­and­ integration,­and­new­governance­arrangements­ for­sustainable­development.­According­to­SENSE,­a­challenge­in­this­field­is­to­combine­rigorous­scientific­research­with­other­stakeholders’­tacit­knowledge,­perceptions,­and­values.

In­the­six­programmes­in­Environmental­Sociology,­Economics­and­Policy­Studies­evaluated­by­ this­ committee,­ the­ scientific­ concepts­ and­ methods­ include­ ecological­ modernisation,­applied­economics,­governance­and­policy­analysis,­new­societal­arrangements­and­the­analysis­of­(technological)­innovation.­

The­committee­has­assessed­the­research­programmes­on­their­own­individual­mission­and­merit,­not­only­because­that­is­what­the­Standard­Evaluation­Protocol­(SEP)­requires,­but­also­because­the­information­provided­to­the­committee­did­not­provide­a­basis­for­a­higher­level­assessment­of­the­(potential)­contribution­of­these­programmes­to­an­integrated­understand-ing­of­the­causes­and­results­of­environmental­change.­The­programmes­are­not­‘just’­part­of­SENSE,­but­in­the­first­instance­they­are­university­research­programmes­with­close­links­to­a­diversity­of­university­teaching­programmes.­In­spite­of­the­diverse­contexts­and­the­autonomy­of­the­groups,­the­committee­believes­that­it­is­a­very­good­initiative­of­SENSE­to­organise­a­simultaneous­review­of­all­the­research­in­the­School.­

The­committee­found­the­quality­of­the­research­in­Environmental­Sociology,­Economics­and­Policy­Studies­to­be­good­to­excellent­by­international­academic­standards.­The­groups­per-form­at­a­high­level­of­productivity­and­the­academic­community­in­the­Netherlands­clearly­punches­more­than­its­weight­in­this­field.­

Cooperation­and­collaboration­does­exist,­but­is­not­more­important­as­an­organising­principle­than­debate­and­competition.­SENSE­provides­a­useful­network­for­all­these­functions.

The­groups­differ­in­the­balance­between­fundamental­research­and­more­applied­(contract-based)­research,­and­in­their­degree­of­participation­in­the­international­academic­or­policy­debates.­In­most­cases­the­tendency­is­to­strengthen­the­academic­quality­by­increasing­the­number­of­articles­in­high­impact­international­journals,­but­not­all­groups­have­shown­an­equally­feasible­strategy­in­that­respect.

6� QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

63QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

3. Wageningen University, Institute WIMEK

The­committee­assessed­the­following­programmes:

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityEnvironmental­Policy­Group Excellent Very­good Excellent Very­goodEnvironmental­Economics­and­Natural­Resources­Group

Good Good Very­good Good

64 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 1: Environmental Policy Group (WIMEK-ENP)Programme­director: Prof.­dr.­ir.­A.P.J.­MolResearch­staff­­�006: tenured­�.70­fte,­total­11.�4Assessments: Quality: Excellent

Productivity: Very­goodRelevance: ExcellentViability: Very­good

This­is­a­fairly­young­group­comprising­twelve­tenured­staff,­four­untenured­staff­plus­research­students.­The­ENP­Group­is­unusual­in­that­it­is­part­of­a­relatively­small­number­of­social­scien-tists­within­a­large­agricultural­university,­with­strong­affiliations­in­the­Life­Sciences­and­an­excel-lent­international­reputation.­The­ENP­Group,­led­by­Mol­and­Spaargaren­is­very­well­known­in­international­social­science­circles,­and­well­represented­in­international­bodies­such­as­the­Inter-national­Sociological­Association­(where­they­have­been­leaders­of­RC­�4­on­the­Environment).­Although­most­of­the­established­staff­are­Dutch,­the­list­of­research­students,­visitors­and­others­attached­to­the­group­is­very­international,­as­well­as­being­youthful.­The­impression­we­gained­was­of­a­motivated,­enthusiastic­group­led­by­two­international­‘stars’.­This­impression­of­vitality­was­borne­out­by­conversations­with­the­research­students­during­the­‘posters’­sessions.

The­ENP­has­developed­its­research­around­a­premise­–­that­environmental­considerations­can­(to­different­degrees)­be­incorporated­in­modernisation­and­globalisation­processes.­They­pioneered­the­investigation­of­Ecological­Modernisation­as­a­concept­which­could­be­analysed­empirically­as­well­ as­ theoretically,­ and­have­ taken­ the­approach­ into­ some­ interesting­and­new­areas­–­indeed­making­it­a­comprehensive,­rather­than­partial,­type­of­analysis.­They­have­had­significant­success­in­recent­years,­notably­since­the­last­assessment­in­�001,­particularly­in­fostering­connections­with­Asia,­where­they­see­notable­examples­of­ecological­‘modernity’,­and­have­entered­into­substantial­links­with­Asian­research­bodies,­often­via­‘sandwich’­PhD­students.­Their­ work­ demonstrates­ how­ demanding­ analytical­ approaches­ can,­ if­ properly­employed,­help­to­give­intellectual­cohesion,­and­to­direct­the­kind­of­empirical­evidence­that­social­science­(and­universities)­rightly­expect­to­obtain.

The­group­faces­two­kinds­of­organisational­problem.­On­the­one­hand­they­currently­have­a­rather­‘flat’­management­profile,­in­that­there­is­little­hierarchy.­Staff­are­given­considerable­freedom­to­develop­ their­own­ research­ interests­ and­new­research­ is­ assessed­on­ its­merits,­rather­than­with­the­explicit­intention­of­enlarging­the­group­or­gaining­additional­funding­(most­is­provided­from­the­University,­and­little­though­increasing­through­NWO).­Under­the­very­capable­leadership­of­Mol­and­Spaargaren­this­does­not­seem,­as­yet,­to­have­provoked­too­many­problems,­but­it­might­do­so­if­one­of­them­was­to­leave­and­not­be­replaced.­As­the­group­grows­in­size­it­will­need­to­consider­alternative­strategies­for­managing­what­is­becom-ing­a­substantial­body­of­people­and­research­projects.

The­second­kind­of­problem­is­related­to­the­links­with­Wageningen.­We­had­the­impression­that,­although­links­with­the­natural­sciences­in­Wageningen­are­reasonably­good,­more­might­be­done­to­actively­develop­research­in­related­fields.­The­group­provided­a­list­of­possible­areas­of­collaboration­in­its­self-assessment­report.­It­is­noted­that­collaborations­with­natural­scien-tists­in­Asia­and­elsewhere,­in­field­situations,­are­carried­out­with­natural­science­colleagues­Wageningen.­The­committee­considers­such­collaborations­as­very­valuable.­The­publication­policy­of­the­group­has­been­to­concentrate­on­big­monographs­with­excellent­(heavily­refereed)­international­presses,­such­as­MIT.­This­has­helped­them­secure­their­inter-

65QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

national­ reputation,­particularly­within­environmental­ sociology,­but­will­be­more­difficult­for­younger,­emerging,­staff­to­undertake.­­In­fact­they­themselves­discerned­a­‘generational’­dimension­to­this:­younger­staff­often­favouring­journals­over­books­and­mid-career­staff­com-ing­somewhere­in­between.­There­is­a­need­to­expand­their­already­creditable­showing­in­good­academic­journals.­It­is­indicative­of­the­ENP­group­that­they­have­discussed­journal­rankings­within­the­group­and­are­keen­to­develop­a­strategy­on­this­front.

The­challenge­for­the­ENP­group­is­how­to­manage­their­‘vitality’,­and­it­does­present­some­difficult­(if­not­impossible)­choices:­ if­they­expand­they­will­probably­need­to­develop­in­a­more­streamlined,­less­‘collegial’­direction,­with­more­devolution­beyond­the­top­strata.­They­might­then­be­seen­as­“the­cuckoo­in­the­nest”­at­Wageningen,­and­a­possible­threat­to­other­research­teams­which,­although­not­social-science­based,­have­strong­presence­in­developing­countries.­To­remain­as­they­are,­however,­will­be­difficult,­if­they­are­to­continue­to­act­entre-preneurially­and­successfully­drive­up­their­international­collaborations­and­highly­regarded­outputs.

Overall­this­is­a­group­whose­work­is­at­the­forefront­internationally­in­most­respects,­and­can­be­considered­an­international­leader­in­several­areas,­and­an­international­player­in­others.­They­are­definitely­a­research­group­to­watch.­­­­­­

66 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 2: Environmental Economics and Natural Resources Group (WIMEK-ENR)Programme­director: Prof.­dr.­E.C.­van­IerlandResearch­staff­­�006: tenured­1.94­fte,­total­6.18­fteAssessments: Quality: Good

Productivity: GoodRelevance: Very­goodViability: Good

The­submitted­Self­Evaluation­Report­provided­the­basic­information­within­the­prescribed­template.­While­the­information­was­useful,­the­report­does­not­fully­transmit­the­spirit­of­a­ research­group­confronted­by­new­challenges­ and­horizons.­On­ some­occasions­ (e.g.­ the­concluding­section­on­“Adjusted­strategy”,­p.­8)­the­text­is­so­succinct­that­the­reader­cannot­fully­understand­what­ is­ really­meant.­At­ the­meeting,­ENR­was­ represented­by­ the­group­leader­only,­while­it­became­obvious­that­in­the­near­future­more­responsibility­will­be­carried­by­the­two­associate­professors­of­the­group,­inter alia­because­the­group­leader­will­take­up­a­40%­director­position­at­the­WU­Mansholt­Graduate­School,­from­July­�007.­These­various­elements­together­induced­doubt­in­the­review­committee­as­to­whether­the­group­was­giving­sufficient­attention­to­its­future­development.

The­RC­appreciated­the­qualitatively­and­quantitatively­robust­work­that­the­group­has­carried­out,­specialized­as­it­is­in­the­thorough­study­of­important­environmental­issues,­applying­eco-nomic­concepts­and­models.­Themes­covered­include­climate­change,­energy,­pollution­and­waste,­resources­and­biodiversity,­water­management­and­biotechnology.­The­five­themes­are­led­by­five­professors,­one­full,­two­associate­and­two­assistant.­The­group­observes­that­“the­range­of­topics­seems­to­be­wide­for­a­middle­sized­research­group”­(p.­�)­and­that­“we­need­to­succeed­in­obtaining­larger­programme­funding­which­allows­(us)­to­implement­a­more­coher-ent­research­strategy­…”­(p.­8).­From­this,­the­RC­concludes­that­the­group­is­well­aware­of­the­advantages­of­reducing­the­range­of­topics­covered;­indeed­this­may­be­a­prerequisite­for­strengthening­the­group’s­per-formance­in­selected­fields­so­as­to­attain­higher­scores­on­the­standard­academic­criteria.­The­main­barrier­to­moving­forwards­would­seem­to­be,­on­the­one­hand,­the­attitude­of­the­group­in­taking­a­“serving­attitude”­towards­the­needs­and­requests­of­other­(natural­sciences)­groups­and­of­societal­clients­asking­for­assistance­in­economic­analysis­and­modeling.­On­the­other­hand,­there­are­barriers­related­to­policies­for­personnel­recruitment:­there­is­a­choice­to­be­made­between­candidates­with­a­profile­that­complements­and­strengthens­the­existing­themes­and­candidates­with­a­better­academic­and­scientific­record­but­who­are­interested­in­other­themes;­the­group­has­a­preference­for­the­latter,­but­this­weakens­the­group’s­focus.­It­is­rec-ommended­that­the­group­reflects­on­devising­an­explicit­strategy­for­its­future­development,­and­does­this­in­consultation­with­colleagues­in­SENSE.­Depending­on­the­outcome­of­these­reflections,­ the­ future­ evaluation­ of­ the­ research­ group’s­ performance­ on­ particular­ criteria­could­be­scaled­accordingly.

External­validation­and­relevance­for­society­are­strong­points­of­the­research­group­and­exten-sively­documented­in­the­self­evaluation­report­(p.­4).­As­such,­the­group­realizes­its­goal­of­being­ “involved­ and­ linked­ to­ real­ life­ policy­ issues­ in­ the­ Netherlands”­ (p.­ �).­The­ �001­VSNU­review­stated­that­“the­connection­with­the­policy­community­is­not­clear”­(p.­4;­p.­7;­annex­4);­the­present­review­committee­wanted­a­more­explicit­description­of­the­interaction­between­ the­group­and­policy­makers,­ although­detailed­ examples­of­ such­ interactions­ are­

67QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

supplied­in­the­self­evaluation­report­(p.4).­In­the­review­period,­the­group­has­provided­proof­of­an­active­involvement­in­capacity-building­in­developing­countries,­and­of­supplying­PhD­training.

The­number­of­PhD­students­is­commensurate­to­the­available­tenured­staff­of­the­group­(per-haps­at­the­high­end)­when­the­many­other­responsibilities­and­engagements­are­considered.

Because­the­group’s­bibliometric­score­is­not­outstanding,­it­is­planned­to­put­“stronger­focus­on­more­fundamental­research”­(p.­8)­to­realize­more­category­A­publications.­This­plan­has­to­be­weighed­against­the­strengths­of­the­group­in­applications­and­involvement­in­real­life­policy-making­[see­above].

The­group,­in­particular­the­group­leader,­have­played­a­key­role­in­the­development­of­the­functions­of­SENSE­as­ a­ school,­ a­network­ and­ a­bridge­ to­ society.­The­main­part­ of­ the­group’s­work­is­multi­disciplinary­in­nature­and­directed­to­societal­relevance­for­advancing­the­transition­to­a­more­sustainable­society,­but­a­review­of­its­strategy­is­urgent­if­it­is­to­improve­its­international­profile.

68 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

69QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

4. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Institute IVM

The­committee­assessed­the­following­programmes:

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityDepartment­of­Economics­and­Technology

Very­good Excellent Very­good Good

Department­of­Environmental­Policy­Analysis

Excellent Very­good Very­good Excellent

70 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 3: Department of Economics and Technology (VU-E&T)Programme­director: Prof.­dr.­M.W.­HofkesResearch­staff­­�006: tenured­�.64­fte,­total­6.84­fteAssessments: Quality: Very­good

Productivity: ExcellentRelevance: Very­goodViability: Good

The­Self­Evaluation­Report­provides­good­insight­into­the­mission,­fields­of­work­and­outputs­of­E&T,­but­there­is­not­as­much­information­and­detail­on­how­the­department­is­organized­and­how­the­work­is­produced.­When­the­SER­of­the­E&T­research­group­is­read­with­the­SER­of­the­IVM­Institute,­more­questions­could­be­answered­(in­particular­the­role­of­the­‘clusters’).­The­E&T­research­group­excels­in­acquiring­external­funding­(89%­of­its­total­income)­while­obtaining­high­scores­in­its­publication­record:­48%­of­the­journal­articles­are­in­A­journals;­the­relative­impact­amounts­to­1.60­in­the­�001-�006­period­(well­above­world­average).­This­is­a­very­good­result­given­that­the­group­is­specialized­in­applied­economics­research.­The­work­is­internationally­competitive­and­leading­at­the­national­level.

The­very­high­dependency­on­external­funding­is­characteristic­of­IVM­as­an­institute.­On­the­one­hand,­it­is­seen­as­a­proprietary­attribute,­as­part­of­IVM’s­mission.­On­the­other­hand,­changing­criteria­for­assessing­the­group’s­academic­performance­push­towards­a­more­stand-ard­ academic­position,­ including­ the­ acquisition­of­ resources­ for­ staffing­ and­ research­ (i.e.­being­less­reliant­on­external­funding).­This­may­lead­to­some­loss­in­administrative­autonomy,­but­given­the­large­degree­of­academic­autonomy­that­research­groups­enjoy­in­the­SENSE­network,­academic­agenda-setting­is­likely­to­stay­almost­exclusively­with­the­group.­Adding­more­theoretical­research­to­the­portfolio­may­follow­in­seeking­international­research­leader-ship.­However,­this­may­come­at­a­price,­by­a­reduction­in­the­group’s­short­and­medium-term­relevance­for­Dutch­society­and­policy­makers.

The­productivity­of­ the­group­is­high­according­to­the­statistics­provided­ in­the­SER.­It­ is­however­not­always­evident­for­the­RC­what­the­impact­is­of­the­part-time­and­newly-engaged­staff­members­on­the­productivity­data.­The­interview­with­the­group’s­professors­on­Tuesday­19th­June­revealed­a­very­dedicated­staff­that­processed­many­large­projects­of­high­relevance,­leading­to­many­publications­in­journals­and­in­other­media.­

An­almost­natural­corollary­of­the­high­rate­of­external­research­contracts­is­a­high­external­validation­/­relevance­for­society.­The­Committee­would­have­liked­to­see­more­specific­information­about­this­to­complement­the­mainly­quantitative­meta­indices­provided­in­the­SER.

The­SWOT-analysis­in­the­SER­is­rather­brief­and­general,­but­does­bring­out­some­interesting­things­with­respect­to­staffing,­i.e.­that­the­IVM­group­may­not­have­a­critical­mass­in­some­key­areas­and­that­it­is­very­difficult­to­attract­highly­qualified­personnel­(because­the­academic­and­career­pay-off­for­academics­in­mono-disciplinary­research­can­be­higher).­

On­the­one­hand,­E&T­faces­some­problems­in­keeping­outstanding­academics­in-house;­on­the­other­hand,­E&T­and­IVM­have­attracted­outstanding­academics­from­the­international­

71QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

academic­labour­market.­It­is­difficult­to­assess­the­balance­of­this­competition­on­the­perform-ance­and­future­of­E&T.­

Because­ analogous­discussions­ arose­ in­ the­WIMEK-ENR­group­ (which­works­ in­ a­ rather­similar­way­to­E&T,­but­is­more­embedded­in­and­funded­by­the­university­itself ),­it­may­help­to­deliberate­in­SENSE­on­how­this­issue­should­be­addressed.­Assigning­high­priority­to­the­personnel­issue,­and­finding­creative­solutions­for­it,­is­very­important­for­E&T’s­future.­It­is­also­why­the­RC­was­reluctant­in­scoring­the­Viability­criteria­higher­than­Good­(3),­even­though­the­dynamism­and­engagement­of­the­group­are­great­and­new­themes­such­as­poverty­and­environment­are­being­developed­with­enthusiasm.

Regarding­the­strategy­for­the­future,­the­Committee­recommends­not­to­refrain­from­consid-ering­adjustments­in­strategy­that­are­necessary­and­feasible.

7� QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 4: Department of Environmental Policy Analysis (VU-EPA)Programme­director: Prof.­dr.­F.­BiermannResearch­staff­­�006: tenured­�.37­fte,­total­1�.49­fteAssessments: Quality: Excellent

Productivity: Very­goodRelevance: Very­goodViability: Excellent

This­group­consists­of­three­full­professors­and­twelve­other­tenured­staff,­as­well­as­fourteen­unten-ured­staff.­Almost­half­their­funding­for­research­is­from­open,­competitive­contracts­and­most­of­the­rest­is­earned­competitively­from­the­NWO.­For­such­a­large­and­important­group­of­research-ers,­within­a­premier­Dutch­institution,­this­kind­of­profile­depends­heavily­on­a­high­degree­of­vitality­and­very­effective­management.­Since­�003­they­have­grown­from­fifteen­staff­(total)­to­thirty­five,­a­very­large­increase­in­a­short­space­of­time.­We­were­particularly­impressed­by­the­sen-ior­management­which­includes­some­outstanding­young­scholars,­notably­Biermann­and­Gupta.­This­is­a­young­group,­whose­leaders­are­barely­in­their­forties­and­which­is­growing­very­rapidly.

The­group­have­used­‘governance’­as­an­overarching­concept,­which­enables­them­to­distin-guish­between­their­various­thematic­areas,­underpinned­by­an­emphasis­on­politics,­public­management­ and­ international­ relations.­Their­ work­ is­ interdisciplinary,­ as­ befits­ a­ group­working­on­international­environmental­problems­and­integrated­environmental­assessment.­Their­funding­profile­has­forced­them­to­look­outwards,­but­this­is­a­feasible­strategy­given­the­strong­contextual­presence­of­IVM,­with­a­solid­international­reputation,­and­their­particular­‘niche’­in­international­studies­and­politics.­They­obtain­just­over­10%­of­their­income­from­the­university.­Although­they­depend­heavily­on­generating­external­research­income,­most­of­this­is­not­‘soft’­money,­but­in­the­form­of­EU­project­funds­and­NWO­funding.­It­is­to­their­credit­that­they­have­debated,­and­continue­to­debate,­the­merits­of­different­strategies­for­managing­and­financing­their­research­activities.­There­is­the­suggestion­that­younger­staff,­in­particular,­might­be­recruited­on­the­back­of­consultancy,­but­that­an­emphasis­on­more­core­funding­and­greater­attention­to­long-duration­funded­projects,­while­it­has­advantages­in­terms­of­academic­quality,­can­only­be­pursued­within­a­longer­time-frame.­The­group­gave­every­indication­of­being­aware­of­these­constraints­and­able­to­calculate­within­them,­a­con-siderable­feat­for­such­a­young­and­evolving­team.

We­ gained­ the­ impression­ that­ the­ publication­ strategy,­ like­ the­ funding­ strategy,­ is­ well­informed.­At­the­moment­they­are­seeking­a­‘mix’­of­ISI­publications,­in­good­international­journals,­as­well­as­book­chapters­–­the­normal­medium­for­much­work­in­international­rela-tions­and­politics.­

The­supervision­of­PhD­students­in­the­main­appears­to­be­successful;­the­Committee­appreci-ates­that­the­supervision­is­partly­undertaken­with­colleagues­elsewhere­in­IVM.­Money­needs­to­be­raised­for­PhDs,­and­the­group­is­always­on­the­look-out­for­new­projects.­

Their­publications­strategy­targets­the­policy­community­as­much­as­academics­in­the­field,­and­this­means­that­they­are­heavily­involved­in­‘grey’­literature,­writing­reports­and­‘in-house’­documents­for­international­negotiations,­as­well­as­in­the­more­‘public’­literature­represented­by­policy­journals.­One­example­is­the­Science­Plan­that­members­of­EPA­have­been­invited­to­develop­for­the­International­Human­Dimensions­Programme­on­Global­Environmental­Change­(IHDP)­around­their­key­organising­principle­of­‘governance’.­

73QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

They­have­a­clear­and­unremitting­policy­profile,­which­is­consistent­with­their­mission­and­their­strengths.­Their­work­is­relevant­to­the­scientific­community,­but­even­more­markedly­to­the­civil­society­organisations­and­government­interests­involved­in­international­environ-mental­policy.

We­concluded­that­this­was­a­young,­dynamic­group,­which­had­still­to­reach­its­full­poten-tial,­but­which­should­certainly­be­viewed­as­at­ the­ forefront­ internationally­ in­most­areas,­and­making­a­significant­contribution­internationally­where­it­was­not­at­the­leading­edge­of­research.

74 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

75QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

5. Utrecht University, Copernicus Institute

The­committee­assessed­the­following­programmes:

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityEnvironmental­Studies­and­Policy­Group

Good Good Good Satisfactory

Innovation­Studies­Group­(Not­in­SENSE)

Good Good Very­good Very­good

76 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 5: Environmental Studies and Policy Group (UU-ESP)Programme­director: Prof.­dr.­P.­GlasbergenResearch­staff­­�006: tenured­1,81­fte,­total­7.3�­fteAssessments: Quality: Good

Productivity: GoodRelevance: GoodViability: Satisfactory

This­is­a­relatively­small­group­consisting­of­six­tenured­staff,­with­varying­commitments­of­time­to­the­group,­and­a­sizable­number­of­affiliated­research­students.­The­group’s­mission­statement,­ like­ that­of­others­we­reviewed,­demonstrates­a­particular­ ‘position’­on­environ-mental­issues:­in­this­case,­the­idea­is­that­sustainable­development­can­be­‘induced’­in­socie-ties,­notably­through­‘new­societal­arrangements’­which­influence­its­development.­The­group­have­a­‘model’­representing­an­abstract­way­of­looking­at­society­(in­terms­of­the­sectors­State,­Market­and­Civil­society­and­their­interrelationships)­in­connection­with­the­physical­system.­They­have­concluded­from­many­of­their­studies,­that­governments­often­play­a­reactive­role,­while­innovative­ways­of­governance­for­sustainable­development­particularly­develop­in­inter-sectoral­arrangements.­

There­are­a­number­of­reasons­why­this­conceptual­approach­is­much­weaker­than­some­of­the­other­groups­with­a­similar,­if­not­identical,­disciplinary­composition.­First­it­is­never­clear­whether­‘societal­arrangements’­are­responsible­for­achieving­sustainable­development,­or­vice versa.­Indeed,­the­relationship­between­the­two­looks­suspiciously­like­a­tautology,­since­socie-ties­are­often­looked­upon­as­more­‘sustainable’­the­more­they­incorporate­civil­society­groups­into­their­deliberations.­The­team­claim­to­have­developed­this­‘model’­fifteen­years­ago,­but­the­scope­and­involvement­in­deliberative­democracy­and­similar­approaches­seems­to­have­outdistanced­ them.­When­ asked­ where­ they­ had­ sought­ to­ develop­ their­ theoretical­ ideas,­within­the­academic­literature,­they­replied­clearly­that­they­saw­these­ideas­as­informing­what­they­did.­They­did­not­appear­to­think­that­the­development­of­these­ideas­might­itself­(like­ecological­modernisation,­or­governance)­benefit­from­a­robust­discussion­within­the­pages­of­academic­journals.­Their­approach­is­axiomatic­rather­than­analytical.

Similarly,­given­their­ involvement­ in­Dutch­civil­ life,­and­the­great­majority­of­ their­ funds­come­from­the­University­and­the­NWO,­it­is­reasonable­to­ask­how­they­might­demonstrate­that­their­interaction­with­policymaking­works.­In­fact­they­argue­that­they­are­not­principally­concerned­with­policymaking­as­such,­but­rather­with­the­application­of­their­ideas­(or­coda)­to­specific­policy­areas.­They­have­reviewed­various­aspects­of­Dutch­policy,­and­the­outputs­although­not­published­in­the­very­best­academic­journals,­have­nevertheless­been­published­internationally,­and­not­simply­in­the­Netherlands.­However,­from­close­questioning­it­was­difficult­to­appreciate­how­this­case­material­might­inform­larger­international­debates,­rather­than­simply­represent­interesting­Dutch­evidence.­­They­acknowledge­that­methodologies­for­policy­analysis­need­to­be­given­more­attention,­but­are­unclear­as­to­what­this­might­imply­for­their­academic­work­in­future.­They­did­not­seem­to­have­a­strategy­for­conveying­their­ideas­within­the­social­sciences­internationally,­or­within­high-level­policy­circles.­They­insist­that­this­approach­is­viable­and­conclude­their­self-assessment­by­saying­that­they­are­“well­prepared­to­continue­their­mission”.

In­a­sense,­if­this­group­is­to­remain­small­and­focused­largely­(although­not­exclusively)­on­Dutch­policy­areas,­then­its­small­and­informal­management­is­not­a­problem.­If­it­were­to­

77QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

expand,­or­had­its­sights­on­higher­international­profile,­then­this­might­be­an­issue­in­the­future.­Clearly­ at­ the­moment­ the­ validation­ it­ gains­ is­ from­within­ the­Netherlands,­ and­although­this­is­acknowledged­as­a­potential­problem,­the­group­do­not­seem­altogether­clear­how­to­address­it.­It­is­suggested­that­close­links­with­the­Dutch­governmental­structure­can­bring­in­a­certain­amount­of­‘commissioned’­research­–­which­at­least­keeps­the­group­alive.­This­is­a­‘business­as­usual’­scenario,­and­one­that,­although­understandable­given­the­diffi-culty­in­securing­competitive­funding­internationally,­demonstrates­that­the­group­is­not­of­an­international­calibre.­The­previous­evaluation­had­mentioned­that­this­group­probably­‘under-represented’­its­work­internationally.­The­problem,­however,­is­rather­more­complex­–­how­can­work­that­is­national,­not­analytically­rigorous,­and­at­the­margins­of­the­most­innovative­social­ sciences,­be­communicated­ internationally­ in­good­ journal­outputs­and­with­ leading­publishers?

The­group­have­organised­the­‘International­Sustainable­Development­Research­Conference’­in­the­Netherlands.­It­is­indicative­of­their­current­position­that­in­an­attempt­to­raise­their­profile­internationally­they­have­chosen­journals­focused­on­environmental­issues,­rather­than­putting­their­ideas­to­the­test­in­more­testing­international­fora­of­mainstream­social­science.­This­is­a­research­group­that­has­undertaken­some­worthy,­if­unexacting,­research­with­a­clear­nationally­useful­aim,­but­has­thus­far­failed­to­initiate­or­contribute­significantly­to­interna-tional­debates­at­a­high­level­in­the­social­sciences.­Much­of­the­output­is­nationally visible (2) and solid. In­some­respects­the­outputs­are­making a valuable contribution at the international level (3)­and­are­competitive at the national level.­­There­is­thus­a­‘mixed’­picture­of­personal­commitment­to­the­idea­of­sustainable­development­but,­as­yet,­a­lack­of­clear­international­purpose.

78 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 6: Innovation Studies Group (UU-ISG, not in SENSE)Programme­director Prof.­dr.­ir.­R.E.H.M.­SmitsResearch­staff­­�006 3.5�­fte,­14.3�­fteAssessments: Quality: Good

Productivity: GoodRelevance: Very­goodViability: Very­good

­The­Innovation­Studies­Group­(ISG),­which­pursues­a­research­programme­on­“Dynamics­and­Governance­of­Innovation­Systems”,­is­one­of­the­four­groups­that­make­up­Utrecht­Uni-versity’s­Copernicus­Institute.­The­ISG­is­not­a­member­of­the­SENSE­Network.­However,­whilst­its­principal­intellectual­focus­is­on­the­social,­political­and­economic­analysis­of­innova-tion­and­technological­change­in­its­broadest­sense,­it­has­inevitably­become­concerned­with­the­environmental/sustainability­aspects­of­innovation,­though­by­a­focus­on­energy/materi-als/­nano/bio/transport­technologies.­In­this­respect,­it­is­similar­to­a­set­of­research­centres­on­innovation­studies­active­in­other­European­countries­(such­as­PREST­and­SPRU­in­the­UK,­Chalmers­in­Sweden),­a­set­which­the­group­has­set­its­sights­on­rivalling.

The­group­is­a­relatively­new­one,­established­in­�00�;­it­has­spent­the­last­five­years­building­up­its­capacity­and­developing­its­research­themes­and­doctoral­programme.­By­�006,­it­had­gathered­together­1�­tenured­and­11­non-tenured­staff­to­contribute­to­its­research­activities,­with­13­PhD­students­and­5­Postdocs.­The­external­funding­for­PhD’s­and­Postdocs­has­shot­up­from­�00�­to­�006­(Bsik­and­NWO)­and­they­expect­to­appoint­6­new­externally­funded­PhD’s­and­Postdocs­in­the­next­six­months.­­The­intellectual­frameworks­which­underpin­the­group’s­research­are­typical­of­almost­all­inno-vation­studies­research­centres­in­Europe­–­namely­innovation systems­and­path-dependency/co-evolutionary economics.­However,­because­of­its­position­within­Copernicus­(the­group­is­a­part­of­Utrecht’s­Faculty­of­Geosciences),­the­group­has­a­special­connection­to­the­natural­sciences.­Its­claim­to­multi-disciplinarity­is­thus­based­on­the­links­it­has­with­the­natural­sciences­that­are­behind­the­technological­innovations­it­is­analysing­and­socio-economically­assessing.­­There­is­no­doubt­that­the­group­has­made­considerable­progress­over­the­last­5­years­in­both­the­output­and­quality­of­its­papers­and­reports.­The­citation­analyses­that­the­Panel­was­pre-sented­with­show­evidence­of­some­international­quality,­and­in­the­discussions­we­had­with­the­group­we­were­assured­that­more­publications­would­be­appearing­in­�007,­with­a­focus­on­more­prestigious­international­journals.­The­group­was­taking­seriously­the­advice­it­had­been­receiving­regarding­improving­its­publications­profile­by­reviewing­the­journals­ it­was­targeting;­it­expected­that­this­would­be­clear­within­a­couple­of­years.­Prof.­­Smits­described­the­current­strategy­of­the­group­as­“creative­consolidation”;­the­Panel’­view­was­that­the­group­was­definitely­on­an­upward­trajectory,­but­that­whilst­the­publications­output­was­rising,­it­was­still­in­the­‘Good’­category,­with­the­group­being­“internationally­visible­and­a­national­player”.­The­PhD­programme­is­clearly­developing­apace­–­the­Panel­was­impressed­by­the­PhD­presentations.­However,­as­of­the­end­of­�006,­few­doctoral­students­had­completed­their­thesis,­though­it­is­clear­that­�007­and­�008­will­see­a­rapid­rise­in­completions.­Once­again,­an­upward­trajectory.­

The­research­programme­has­made­much­use­of­in­the­teaching­that­the­group­takes­part­in­–­through­a­‘Science­and­Innovation­Management’­programme­attracting­100­Bachelor­and­

79QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

40­ Master­ students;­ this­ strong­ connection­ between­ research­ and­ (especially)­ postgraduate­teaching­is­to­be­commended.­As­mentioned­above,­the­group­has­active­links­with­natural­scientists,­ both­ as­ ‘subjects’­ of­ their­ research­ and­ in­ collaborations.­The­ group­ considers­ this­natural­science-social­science­combination­to­be­their­“unique­niche”.­­If­this­is­the­case,­then­the­group­needs­to­think­about­how­it­can­give­the­‘combination’­some­intellectual­force,­by­seeking­to­theorise­how­such­combinations­can­be­more­than­just­part­of­the­methodology­of­innovation­researchers­(i.e.­close­connections­to­actual­innovators­and­their­scientific­associates).­They­need­to­show­that­the­combination­makes­a­difference­to­the­innovation­process­itself.­

The­Panel­was­impressed­by­the­vitality­(intellectual­liveliness)­of­the­tenured/post-doc­staff­and­PhD­students.­The­plans­for­the­next­phase­of­the­group’s­development­–­on­research­topics,­publication­strategy­and­staff/doctoral­student­development­–­are­well­expressed­and­credible.­The­group­definitely­ shows­ signs­of­being­a­ significant­ research­group­on­ innovation­ studies­internationally;­though­it­needs­to­develop­its­international­connections­as­a­deliberate­tactic.­But­most­importantly,­it­needs­to­reflect­further­on­what­its­main­intellectual­contribution­will­be­(probably­in­exposition­of­importance­of­social­science­–­natural­science­research­collaboration);­i.e.­needs­to­clarify­how­it­can­be­“unique”.­­The­group­–­is­on­the­‘cusp’­of­being­internationally­significant;­continued­strong­support­from­Copernicus/UU­will­bear­fruit.

80 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix 1: Curricula Vitae of committee members

Prof. Aviel Verbruggen, Dept.­Milieu­&­Technologiemanagement,­Universiteit­Antwerpen.­Trained­in­engineering­and­applied­economics­at­Louvain,­Antwerp­and­Stanford­University,­his­present­research­covers­electricity­economics­(cogeneration,­planning,­costing­and­pricing­in­ power­ systems,­ distributed­ generation­ and­ grid­ access)­ and­ energy­ efficiency.­ He­ is­ co-founder­of­research­and­consultant­units­ ‹STEM,­CENERGIE­and­FINES›.­He­conceived,­supervised­and­edited­the­State­of­the­Environment­Reports­in­Flanders­(1993-98)­and­was­the­first­president­of­the­Environmental­Advisory­Council­(1991-95)­and­principal­advisor­to­the­Minister­of­the­Environment­(1999-01).­He­contributes­to­the­IPCC­Third­and­Fourth­Assessment­Reports­(WGIII:­Mitigation­and­Adaptation).

Prof. Ken Green, Manchester­Business­School,­University­of­Manchester.­Professor­Green's­current­ research­ interests­ are­ in­ the­ socio-economic­ analysis­ of­ technological­ development,­especially­with­ regard­ to­ environmental­ influences­ on­ innovation,­ and­ strategies­ for­ devel-opment­ of­ biotechnology.­ Current­ research­ contracts­ are­ with­ the­Tyndall­ Centre,­ on­ the­influence­of­long-term­technological­change­on­greenhouse­gas­emissions,­and­the­ESRC,­on­sustainability­ in­ Food­ Systems.­ A­ recently­ completed­ research­ contract­ was­ an­ EU-funded­five-country­study­on­'Strategies­for­Sustainable­Households'.­He­has­also­undertaken­consul-tancies­on­environmental­purchasing­management,­the­links­between­environmental­strategies­and­R&D­activities­and­the­future­of­biotechnology­in­the­UK.

Prof. Michael Redclift,­Professor­of­International­Environmental­Policy­in­the­Department­of­Geography­at­King’s­College,­London.­Research­interests­include­sustainable­development,­global­environmental­change,­environmental­security­and­the­modern­food­system.­He­has­undertaken­research­in­Spain,­Ecuador,­Peru,­Mexico­and­the­United­Kingdom.­His­research­on­the­production­and­consumption­relations­under­the­ESRC/AHRC­Programme­‘Cultures­of­ Consumption’,­ was­ published­ in­ �004­by­Taylor­ and­ Francis­ in­ New­York­ as­ Chewing­Gum:­the­fortunes­of­taste.­He­has­just­completed­(�006)­a­major­comparative­study­of­fron-tier­societies­and­their­relations­with­the­natural­environment­for­MIT­Press:­Frontiers:­his-tories­ of­ civil­ societies­ and­nature.­He­was­ the­ first­Director­of­ the­Global­Environmental­Change­programme­of­the­ESRC­between­1990­and­1995.­Between­1973­and­1997­he­was­at­Imperial­College­at­Wye,­ultimately­as­Professor­of­Environmental­Sociology.­He­has­coor-dinated­research­grants­for­the­European­Commission­(FM­IV­and­V)­and­helped­initiate­the­TERM­programme­of­ the­European­Science­Foundation.­ In­addition­he­has­evaluated­ the­research­programmes­of­the­Norwegian­Research­Council­(RCN),­the­Netherlands­Research­Council­(NRP),­and­other­European­research­initiatives,­including­the­Tyndall­Centre­in­the­UK.­In­�006­he­was­the­first­recipient­of­the­‘Frederick­Buttel­Award’,­from­the­International­Sociological­Association,­for­“an­outstanding­contribution­to­international­scholarship­in­envi-ronmental­sociology”.

81QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix 2: Overview of Scores

Table 1: Overview of scores

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityWIMEK:­Environmental­Policy­Group

Excellent Very­good Excellent Very­good

WIMEK:­Environmental­Economics­and­Natural­Resources­Group

Good Good Very­good Good

IVM:­Department­of­Economics­and­Technology

Very­good Excellent Very­good Good

IVM:­Department­of­Environmental­Policy­Analysis

Excellent Very­good Very­good Excellent

Copernicus:­Environmental­Studies­and­Policy­Group

Good Good Good Satisfactory

Copernicus:­Innovation­Studies­Group­(Not­in­SENSE)

Good Good Very­good Very­good

Table 2: SEP-scale; the meaning of the scores

Work­ that­ is­ at­ the­ forefront­ internationally,­ and­ which­ most­ likely­will­have­an­important­and­substantial­impact­in­the­field.­Institute­is­considered­an­international­leader.

Excellent (5)

Work­ that­ is­ internationally­ competitive­ and­ is­ expected­ to­ make­ a­significant­ contribution;­ nationally­ speaking­ at­ the­ forefront­ in­ the­field.­Institute­is­considered­international­player,­national­leader.

Very good (4)

Work­that­is­competitive­at­the­national­level­and­will­probably­make­a­valuable­contribution­in­the­international­field.­Institute­is­considered­internationally­visible­and­a­national­player.

Good (3)

Work­that­is­solid­but­not­exciting,­will­add­to­our­understanding­and­is­in­principle­worthy­of­support.­It­is­considered­of­less­priority­than­work­in­the­above­categories.­Institute­is­nationally­visible.

Satisfactory (2)

Work­that­is­neither­solid­nor­exciting­flawed­in­the­scientific­and­or­technical­approach,­repetitions­of­other­work,­etc.­Work­not­worthy­of­pursuing.

Unsatisfactory (1)

8� QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix 3: Schedule

Research Assessment SENSE, ESEP

SUNDAY 17-06-200715.00­–­15.30 WELCOME15.30­–­16.00 QANU:­General­introduction­on­the­assessment­and­the­review­

programme16.00­–­16.30 SENSE:­General­introduction­SENSE,­with­emphasis­on­the­3­

different­ assessment­ levels:­ research­ groups;­ SENSE­ institutes­and­SENSE­Research­School

16.45­–­18.30 Internal­RC­meeting19.00­–­�1.00 Dinner�1.00­–­��.00 (meeting­chairs)

MONDAY 18-06-200709.00­–­10.30 Internal­RC­meeting10.30­–­11.30 Presentation­and­discussion­Environmental­Policy­Group­(ENP-

WIMEK/WU)­nr.­111.30­–­1�.00 Internal­RC­meeting1�.00­–­13.00 Lunch­break13.00­–­14.00 Presentation­ and­ discussion­ Department­ of­ Environmental­

Policy­Analysis­(EPA-IVM/VU)­nr.­414.00­–­15.00 Presentation­ and­ discussion­ Environmental­ Economics­ and­

Natural­Resources­Group­(ENR-WIMEK/WU)­nr.­�15.15­–­16.45 PhD­poster­presentations­(ENP,­EPA­and­ENR)­and­discussion17.00­–­18.00 Internal­RC­meeting18.00­–­�0.00 Dinner

TUESDAY 19-06-200709.00­–­10.30 Internal­RC­meeting10.30­–­11.30 Presentation­ and­ discussion­ Innovation­ Studies­ Group­ (ISG-

Copernicus/UU)­nr.­611.30­–­1�.00 Internal­RC­meeting1�.00­–­13.00 Lunch­break13.00­–­14.00 Presentation­ and­ discussion­ Department­ of­ Economics­ and­

Technology­(E&T-IVM/VU)­nr.­314.00­–­15.00 Presentation­ and­discussion­Environmental­ Studies­ and­Policy­

Group­(ESP-Copernicus/UU)­nr.­515.15­–­16.45 PhD­poster­presentations­ISG,­E&T­and­ESP­and­discussion17.00­–­18.00 Internal­RC­meeting

(chairs­meet­in­General­Committee,­Wednesday­9:00­hrs)

83QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Committee Environmental Biology and Ecology (EBE)

84 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

85QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

1. The review committee and the review procedures

Scope of the assessmentThe­committee­was­asked­to­assess­the­Environmental­Biology­and­Ecology­research­at­IES-VU­(Amsterdam),­WIMEK-WU­(Wageningen),­RU­(Nijmegen)­and­COPERNICUS­(Utrecht).­The­assessment­covers­activities­over­the­whole­period­�001-�006,­and­is­part­of­ the­�007­review­of­the­SENSE­research­school.

Composition of the committeeThe­committee­members­were:

•­ Prof.­Jan­Bengtsson,­professor­in­ecology­and­environmental­sciences­at­the­department­of­ecology,­Swedish­University­of­Agricultural­Sciences,­Uppsala,­Sweden­(chairman).

•­ Prof.­Steve­Ormerod,­professor­in­ecology­in­the­Cardiff­School­of­Biosciences,­Cardiff­University,­Wales,­UK.

•­ Prof.­Luc­de­Meester,­professor­in­ecology­and­evolutionary­biology,­Katholieke­Universi-teit­Leuven,­Leuven,­Belgium.

Three­ external­ reviewers­ assessed­ individual­ departments,­ and­ their­ views­ were­ taken­ into­account­in­the­final­assessment­of­the­programs.

Sietze­Looijenga­of­the­Bureau­of­QANU­(Quality­Assurance­Netherlands­Universities)­was­appointed­secretary­to­the­Committee.

A­short­curriculum­vitae­of­the­committee­members­is­included­in­Appendix­1.

IndependenceAll­ members­ of­ the­ Committee­ signed­ a­ statement­ to­ indicate­ that­ they­ would­ assess­ the­quality­of­the­Institute­and­research­programmes­in­an­unbiased­and­independent­way.­Any­existing­personal­or­professional­relationships­between­committee­members­and­programmes­under­review­were­reported­and­discussed­in­the­committee­meeting.­The­Committee­con-cluded­that­there­were­no­close­relations­or­dependencies­and­that­there­was­no­risk­in­terms­of­bias­or­undue­influence.One­of­the­external­reviewers­of­the­individual­programs­had­recently­published­with­the­group­he­was­reviewing,­but­the­committee­decided­his­report­could­be­used­in­the­assessment.

Data provided to the CommitteeThe­Committee­received­the­following­detailed­documentation:­

1.­ Self­evaluations­at­the­level­of­the­programmes,­the­institutes­and­the­research­school�.­ Copies­of­three­key­publications­per­programme3.­ Bibliometric­study­1996-�0044.­ A­CD-ROM­with­all­SENSE­background­material.

The­documentation­included­all­the­information­required­by­the­Standard­Evaluation­Proto-col­(SEP).­­

The­Standard­Evaluation­Protocol­(SEP)­provides­guidelines­to­evaluate­university­research­institutes­and­their­research­programmes.­The­self-evaluations­provided­by­SENSE­were­ade-

86 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

quately­documented­and­transparent.­In­combination­with­the­site­visits,­consisting­of­inter-views­ with­ group­ leaders­ and­ senior­ staff,­ and­ meetings­ with­ PhD­ students,­ they­ allowed­objective­evaluations­of­the­groups.

Procedures followed by the CommitteeThe­Committee­proceeded­according­to­the­SEP.­Prior­to­the­Committee­meeting,­each­pro-gramme­was­assigned­to­a­first­reviewer,­who­formulated­a­preliminary­assessment.­The­final­assessments­are­based­on­the­documentation­provided­by­the­Institutes,­the­key­publications­and­the­interviews­with­the­management­and­with­the­leaders­of­the­programmes,­as­well­as­meetings­with­Ph­D­students.­Site­visits­and­interviews­took­place­over­the­period­June­17,­�007-­June­�0,­�007­(see­the­schedule­in­Appendix­3).­

Preceding­the­ interviews,­ the­Committee­was­briefed­by­QANU­about­research­assessment­according­to­SEP.­On­the­same­day,­June­17,­�007,­the­Committee­planned­the­interviews­and­procedural­matters­and­aspects­of­the­assessment.­

After­the­interviews­the­Committee­discussed­the­scores­and­comments­and­made­draft­texts.­The­texts­were­finalised­through­email­exchanges.­The­final­version­was­presented­to­the­Institutes­and­SENSE­on­August­1,­�007.­The­com-ments­of­the­Institutes­and­SENSE­were­discussed­in­the­Committee­and­led­to­changes­in­the­report­on­a­number­of­points.­The­final­report­was­presented­to­Boards­of­the­participating­universities­and­was­printed­after­their­formal­acceptance­of­the­report.­

The­Committee­used­the­rating­system­of­the­Standard­Evaluation­Protocol­(SEP).­The­mean-ing­of­the­scores­is­described­in­Appendix­�.­

87QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

2. General remarks

The­ committee­ found­ the­ quality­ of­ the­ research­ in­ Environmental­ Biology­ and­ Ecology­within­SENSE­to­be­generally­high.­Several­groups­show­outstanding­international­leadership­in­their­respective­areas.­The­high­standards­set­by­the­research­school­for­groups­and­indi-vidual­researchers­has­resulted­in­the­fact­that­all­groups­are­performing­at­levels­clearly­better­than­“satisfactory”­(compared­to­international­­standards),­viz.­good­or­better­in­all­aspects.­

Hence,­the­restructuring­of­research­in­association­with­formation­of­research­schools­in­the­Netherlands­has­been­successful.­The­quality­of­Dutch­research­in­the­areas­assessed­is­clearly­internationally­competitive,­and­the­groups­ in­SENSE­play­ important­roles­ in­maintaining­and­further­enhancing­this­reputation.

The­committee­notes­that­the­degree­of­collaboration­within­and­between­disciplines­differs­between­the­groups­assessed.­We­acknowledge­the­necessity­to­maintain­the­highest­discipli-nary­standards­in­research,­but­we­also­want­to­emphasise­the­possibilities­of­SENSE­in­that­it­provides­an­arena­for­developing­innovative­multi-disciplinary­work­in­the­field­of­environ-mental­sciences.­There­are­differences­between­the­groups­in­the­extent­to­which­they­have­been­able­to­use­SENSE­to­do­this.­Collaboration­depends­not­only­on­the­groups­themselves­but­also­on­whether­ the­ respective­universities­provide­adequate­ facilities­and­ incentives­ to­increase­cooperation­with,­for­example,­other­natural­or­social­sciences.

Another­general­observation­is­that­several­groups­clearly­need­more­support­from­their­uni-versities­in­terms­of­tenure-funded­staff,­infrastructure,­space­or­other­kinds­of­support.­Some­universities­have­been­more­successful­ than­others­ in­ locating­the­groups­ in­environmental­biology­and­ecology­in­ways­that­increase­their­potential­to­perform­cross-cutting­research­to­the­highest­international­level.­It­is­notable­that­despite­several­groups­having­gone­through­a­period­of­restructuring­and­decreases­in­university­funding,­the­groups­have­to­a­large­extent­been­able­to­increase­external­funding­and­both­research­productivity­and­quality.­­This­indi-cates­the­strong­capacity­of­the­groups­and­should­not­be­interpreted­as­a­sign­that­funds­can­further­be­reduced,­as­there­is­a­limit­to­the­workload­and­stress­research­groups­and­individu-als­can­cope­with.­With­the­environment­now­rising­rapidly­on­the­political,­legal­and­social­agenda­worldwide,­we­urge­universities­in­the­Netherlands­to­better­support­ecology­and­envi-ronmental­biology.

The­groups­in­environmental­biology­and­ecology­have­overall­been­successful­in­implementa-tion­and­communicating­their­research­to­society.­Nonetheless,­we­find­that­there­is­potential­for­improvement­in­this­area.­Some­examples­are­communicating­scientific­knowledge­on­glo-bal­change­and­ecology­to­the­public,­and­influencing­policy­nationally­and­internationally.

88 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

89QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

3. Wageningen University, Institute WIMEK

The­committee­assessed­the­following­programmes:

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityAquatic­Ecology­and­Water­Quality­Management­Group

Excellent­ Very­good Excellent Excellent

Nature­Conservation­and­Plant­Ecology­Group

Very­good Excellent Excellent Very­good

­

90 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 7: Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management Group (WU-AEW)Programme­director Prof.­dr.­M.­SchefferResearch­staff­­�006 6.9­fteAssessments: Quality: 5

Productivity: 4Relevance: 5Viability: 5

This­research­group,­headed­by­M.­Scheffer­and­A.­Koelmans,­takes­a­broad­multidisciplinary­approach­to­generate­novel­insights­in­the­functioning­of­ecosystems­and­to­develop­effective­strategies­for­managing­and­restoring­aquatic­ecosystems.­Research­on­biodiversity,­ecosystem­functioning,­multiple­stresses,­and­processes­all­ figure­strongly­through­combined­expertise­in­ecology,­environmental­chemistry­and­ecotoxicology.­Leadership­ is­very­effective,­with­a­very­open­style,­reflecting­vision­while­allowing­freedom­for­ individual­development­of­the­individual­researchers­and­PhD­students.­The­research­ is­explicitly­multidisciplinary,­as­ the­group­combines­expertise­ in­ecology,­environmental­chemistry­and­ecotoxicology.­Methods­vary­from­large-scale­field­monitoring­to­experimental­manipulation­and­mathematical­mod-elling.­The­latter­has­been­central­to­the­study­of­stability­in­complex­systems,­where­this­group­has­world-leading­expertise.­­Importantly,­there­is­a­strong­drive­to­validate­model­outcomes­with­real­data.

The­scientific­quality­of­the­group­is­excellent.­Scheffer­is­recognised­as­a­world­leader­and­evidence­from­citations­and­publications­shows­that­his­work­has­a­broad­impact­on­ecosystem­ecology­and­freshwater­ecology.­Koelmans’­research­on­environmental­assessment­and­environ-mental­chemistry­is­also­excellent,­and­is­published­in­the­highest­ranking­journals­in­the­field­of­ecotoxicology.­Other­group­members­are­rapidly­increasing­their­own­impact,­and­trends­over­the­past­ten­years­have­been­spectacular.­

Productivity­is­high­on­both­publications­and­PhD­theses.­There­is­a­calculated­and­highly­beneficial­strategy­to­focus­on­quality­rather­than­on­quantity.­Although­the­review­panel­fully­endorsed­this­approach,­productivity­of­the­team­as­a­whole­was­judged­“very­good”­rather­than­“excellent”­since­there­is­moderate­variability­in­outputs­among­staff­members­from­excel-lent­to­more­modest.

Relevance­is­excellent­on­scientific­visibility­(i.e.­academic­dissemination,­as­illustrated­by­pub-lications­in­Science,­Nature,­PNAS,­and­top­journals­within­the­field­of­expertise)­and­with­respect­to­the­translation­of­scientific­findings­into­policy­(e.g.­management­of­wetlands)­and­practical­applications­(e.g.­absorption­of­organic­pollutants­by­black­carbon).­A­recent­large-scale­survey­of­80­floodplain­lakes­in­South­America­(SALGA­project)­exemplifies­perfectly­how­intrinsic­scientific­value,­local­training,­capacity­building,­local­awareness­and­translation­in­sustainable­management­can­be­combined.

As­a­vibrant­group­with­great­perspicacity­in­leadership,­the­prospects­of­this­group­are­excel-lent.­There­is­a­broad­array­of­potential­resources­available­and­a­good­mixture­of­established­and­upcoming­talent.­However,­success­still­depends­critically­on­a­few­key­individuals,­espe-cially­Marten­Scheffer.­It­is­recommended­that­efforts­are­continued­to­increase­the­impact­of­all­staff­members.­The­team­is­currently­moving­to­a­new­building,­where­the­facilities­will­be­excellent.­The­new­location­has­also­strong­added­value­in­being­close­to­the­well-equipped­laboratories­of­other­teams­and­Alterra.­

91QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 8: Nature Conservation and Plant Ecology Group (WU-NCP)Programme­director Prof.­dr.­­F.­BerendseResearch­staff­­�006 9.�­fte­Assessments: Quality: 4

Productivity: 5Relevance: 5Viability: 4

This­group­of­long-standing­eminence­has­as­its­main­goal­the­generation­of­new­scientific­insights­that­contribute­to­the­development­of­effective­strategies­to­maintain­and­restore­the­biodiversity­and­functioning­of­natural­ecosystems.­Above­all,­the­group­emphasises­interactions­between­plants,­plants­and­soil,­and­between­plants­and­the­atmosphere.­­They­blend­models­with­experiments­and­observations,­for­example­to­examine­the­consequences­of­changes­in­nitrogen­deposition,­climate­and­CO�­concentration­to­vegetation­systems­and­their­associated­ecosystem­goods­and­services.­­The­work­is­characterised­by­strong­inter-dependence­between­research­quality­and­major­value­to­management­and­policy.

On­research­quality,­ the­ leadership­of­ this­group­ is­clear­ from­contributions­ to­very­strong­publications­in­Nature,­Science,­and­PNAS,­with­consistently­high­quality­outputs­also­in­the­top­ranks­of­ecological­journals.­­The­towering­international­figure­of­Frank­Berendse­is­central­to­nearly­all­of­this­performance,­and­there­is­no­doubt­that­his­own­profile­and­position­make­him­a­world­leader.­­Significantly,­however,­there­is­some­asymmetry­in­research­performance­across­this­large­group.­­We­fully­expect­some­of­the­gifted­younger­researchers­around­Ber-endse­to­contribute­increasingly­to­research­quality­in­future­years.­­­­

In­the­current­period,­and­over­its­history,­this­has­been­a­hugely­productive­group,­with­per-capita­publications­among­the­very­highest­in­SENSE.­­For­high­quality­papers,­proceedings,­reports,­ book­ chapters,­ reports­ and­ a­ range­of­professional­publications,­ outputs­ reflect­ an­unwavering­ethic­of­commitment­and­productivity.­­PhD­training­has­been­consistently­high.­­As­a­major­contributor­in­sheer­numerical­terms,­the­group­is­faultless.­

In­addition­to­its­excellent­productivity,­this­group­scores­very­highly­for­the­relevance­of­its­work­ to­ solving­major­problems­ in­ environmental­management.­ ­Not­only­has­ there­been­major­ contribution­ to­ the­advancement­of­knowledge­with­ respect­ to­grasslands­and­agro-ecosystems,­in­disseminating­the­findings­and­influencing­implementation­by­end-users,­this­group­is­a­European­role­model.

Prospects­for­this­group­in­the­medium­term­are­extremely­good­given­the­continued­impor-tance­of­agro-ecological­ themes­and­the­group’s­ relevance­ to­global­change­research.­ In­ the­longer­term,­vitality­will­depend­on­the­progressive­development­of­other­researchers­who­can­approach­the­productivity,­profile­and­energy­of­the­current­leader.

9� QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

93QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

4. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Institute IES

The­committee­assessed­the­following­programmes:

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityAnimal­Ecology­Group­1:­Community­and­Evolutionary­Ecology

Very­good good Very­good Very­good

Systems­Ecology­Group Excellent Excellent Very­good ExcellentTheoretical­Biology­Group Very­good Good Good Good

94 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 9: Animal Ecology Group 1: Community and Evolutionary Ecology(VU-AE1)Programme­director Prof.­dr.­H.­VerhoefResearch­staff­­�006 6.7­­­fteAssessments: Quality: 4

Productivity: 3Relevance: 4Viability: 4

Following­a­recent­period­of­transition­and­the­recruitment­of­several­young­and­promising­scientists,­this­group­has­developed­a­more­focussed­mission­and­research­program.­This­has­placed­particular­emphasis­on­the­research­interests­of­these­younger­scientists.­The­group­works­closely­with­Animal­Ecology­�­at­VU,­and­in­many­respects­the­two­groups­can­be­regarded­as­one.­The­new­research­focus­is­on­two­themes:­community­ecology­with­an­emphasis­on­soil­organisms­and­biodiversity,­and­evolutionary­ecology,­especially­focusing­on­phenotypic­plas-ticity.­Many­groups­worldwide­are­working­in­one­of­these­areas,­but­the­linking­of­commu-nity­and­evolutionary­ecology­is­novel­and­marks­the­group­as­developing­an­internationally­distinct­and­quite­unique­mission.­If­successful­in­this­endeavour,­the­group­has­the­potential­to­become­an­international­leader­in­this­area.­The­research­program­is­very­good,­with­innova-tive­ideas­and­a­leader­aware­of­the­long­term­importance­of­encouraging­the­younger­scientists­in­the­group­into­leading­roles.­The­group’s­strength­is­in­theoretically­motivated­experiments­and­empirical­studies,­and­the­group­is­an­important­member­of­collaborative­projects­nation-ally­and­internationally.

The­quality­of­the­research­is­very­good.­The­group­has­produced­several­very­important­papers­on­biodiversity­and­ecosystem­functioning­in­high­profile­journals­such­as­Nature­and­Science.­The­group­is­likely­to­become­a­national­leader­and­an­internationally­competitive­player­in­evolutionary­community­ecology.

Based­on­quantitative­measures­the­productivity­of­the­group­is­good,­although­reorganisation­and­the­recruitment­of­new­members­has­resulted­in­a­somewhat­lower­productivity­in­recent­years.­The­group­is­small,­especially­in­terms­of­tenured­staff,­which­implies­fewer­papers­in­absolute­terms,­while­its­relative­impact­is­presently­on­the­lower­side­of­the­SENSE­groups.­In­contrast,­production­of­PhDs­has­been­very­good­taking­into­account­the­smallness­of­the­group.

The­relevance­of­the­group’s­work­is­very­good.­Several­major­papers­have­had­a­large­scientific­impact.­However,­the­potential­of­the­group­with­respect­to­more­applied­aspects­in­policy­and­management­has­not­been­fully­realised.­The­group­can­improve­in­this­area­given­recent­consolidation­and­changes­ in­composition.­All­ signs­are­ that­developments­are­ in­the­right­direction.

In­the­medium­and­longer-term,­viability­of­the­group­is­very­good.­It­is­promising­to­have­a­situation­with­three­young­and­highly­qualified­scientists­working­together­in­a­joint­program­that­ is­ both­ exciting­ and­ promising.­There­ are­ small­ uncertainties­ associated­ with­ a­ likely­change­in­group­leader­in­the­next­few­years.­The­review­committee­feels­that­the­focus­on­the­relationship­between­ecological­community­theory­and­evolutionary­theory­could­help­fully­realise­the­group’s­potential.

95QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 10: Systems Ecology Group (VU-SE) Programme­director Prof.­dr.­M.A.P.A.­AertsResearch­staff­­�006 6.5­fteAssessments: Quality: 5

Productivity: 5Relevance: 4Viability: 5

This­group­has­a­clearly­articulated­and­focussed­mission­to­analyse­how­global­change,­in­a­range­of­forms,­affects­biodiversity­and­ecosystem­function,­and­to­project­future­ecosystem­effects­from­current­and­past­results.­­Although­some­of­their­work­is­carried­out­in­the­Neth-erlands,­ they­ have­ significant­ interests­ in­ Arctic,­ sub-Arctic­ and­ Antarctic­ locations­ where­changing­UV-B,­warming­and­increasing­CO�­concentrations­have­major­ecological­effects.­The­group­has­a­stated­intention­to­perform­their­tasks­at­an­internationally­recognized­level­as­evidenced­by­high-impact­publication,­prominence­in­relevant­international­networks­and­substantial­external­funding.­­In­all­these­respects,­this­is­a­highly­successful­group­carrying­out­research­that­is­both­scientifically­excellent­and­highly­visible­internationally.­

On­quality,­the­Committee­judged­this­to­be­an­internationally­leading­group­on­the­basis­of­their­publication­record­in­Science­and­Nature,­as­well­as­their­consistently­strong­record­of­papers­in­the­very­highest­ranks­of­Ecology­and­Environmental­Science­journals.­­Significantly,­high-quality­performance­is­apparent­not­only­from­the­group­leader,­but­also­independently­from­other­leading­members.­The­group­has­sufficiently­critical­mass­of­effective­researchers­to­deliver­as­international­leaders­across­a­well-integrated­programme.­While­bibliometric­analy-ses­support­the­suggestion­that­this­is­a­group­of­extremely­high­quality,­finally­it­is­the­intrinsic­strength­of­their­science­that­places­them­in­such­a­leading­position.­

A­grading­of­5­for­productivity­reflects­a­per-capita­rate­of­publication­in­this­group­that­was­among­the­highest­of­all­those­examined.­­Significantly,­this­has­been­achieved­with­a­high­degree­of­ consistency­ in­ leading­ journals­ and­despite­ the­major­ logistical­demands­of­ field­research­in­highly­challenging­locations.­­PhD­completion,­although­slower­in­the­early­period­of­assessment­after­the­group’s­formation­in­1997,­is­now­consistently­high.­On­relevance,­the­review­committee­considered­that­the­work­in­this­group­was­topical,­visible­and­globally­valuable­in­scientific­terms.­­Nevertheless,­more­could­be­done­to­disseminate­the­group’s­findings­outside­the­research­domain­thereby­increasing­their­impact.­­There­is­a­need­for­all­ecological­and­environmental­researchers­to­demonstrate­the­wider­value­of­their­work,­and­in­the­global-change­domain­the­opportunities­are­particularly­large.

The­research­field­in­which­this­group­operates­is­already­highly­topical,­and­likely­to­become­even­more­pressing­in­future.­ ­Given­the­age­structure,­blend­of­established­and­promising­young­researchers,­and­current­level­of­excellence,­prospects­for­this­group­could­not­be­better.­On­viability,­therefore,­we­judge­this­to­be­a­research­group­in­its­prime­and­with­an­excellent­future.­

96 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 11: Theoretical Biology Group (VU-TB)Programme­director Prof.­dr.­S.A.L.M.­KooijmanResearch­staff­­�006 9.7­fteAssessments: Quality: 4

Productivity: 3Relevance: 3Viability: 3

The­mission­of­the­group­is­to­develop­and­apply­the­Dynamic­Energy­Budget­(DEB)­theo-retical­framework­to­questions­ranging­from­molecular­biology­to­global­ecosystem­science,­also­described­to­the­review­committee­as­developing­a­“theoretical­physics­for­biology”­based­on­ first­principles.­The­group­has­ a­ strong­and­dynamic­ leader,­ and­his­program­has­been­fairly­successful­during­its­�5­years,­and­has­provided­a­fresh­perspective­on­theoretical­aspects­of­ biology.­Being­based­on­ energy­ and­mass­balance­ in­ individuals,­ successful­ applications­have­been­in­ecotoxicology­and­population­dynamics.­An­external­reviewer­was­positive­in­his­evaluation­of­the­group.­We­have­taken­this­into­account­in­our­assessment.­

The­group­has­focussed­on­theoretical­development,­using­empirical­data­obtained­in­collabora-tions­for­applications­in­different­fields.­The­core­of­the­group­is­small.­With­only­two­university-funded­and­one­externally­funded­researcher,­it­lacks­critical­mass.­The­management­by­the­group­leader­seemed­unclear,­but­this­was­clearly­not­a­problem­for­the­interviewed­PhD­students,­who­were­happy­with­supervision­and­the­group­environment.­The­group­has­enrolled­a­large­number­of­PhD­students­in­recent­years,­of­which­less­than­50%­are­part­of­SENSE.

A­problem­highlighted­by­previous­evaluations­was­that­the­group­needs­a­more­pluralistic­approach,­because­the­narrow­theoretical­ focus­might­ jeopardise­ its­ long­term­viability.­No­action­has­been­taken­to­redress­this­perceived­imbalance,­which­reflects­the­particular­and­distinct­interest­of­the­group­leader.­Current­success­is­therefore­likely­to­come­at­the­cost­of­reduced­longer-term­viability­and­low­likelihood­of­any­new­leader­emerging­to­take­charge­of­this­research­theme.­­

The­specific­research­program­on­DEB­is­interesting­and­innovative.­The­group­leader­is­con-fident­that­the­concepts­will­be­progressively­more­accepted­and­disseminated­across­biology.­The­supporting­evidence­for­its­wide­application­from­general­textbooks­and­citations­is­not­yet­clear,­although­a­current­textbook­authored­by­the­group­leader­is­widely­available.­The­group­leader­was­pessimistic­about­the­future­of­the­group­at­the­university.­The­committee­feels­the­lack­of­other­theoretical­perspectives­in­the­group­to­be­a­potential­problem­for­its­long-term­viability.

In­ its­ specific­niche,­ the­ scientific­quality­of­ the­group’s­work­ is­ very­good.­The­quality­of­publishing­is­good­with­several­high-ranked­journal­papers.­The­theory­has­been­presented­in­a­well-received­book­by­the­group­leader.­The­productivity­of­the­group­is­good­when­judged­against­SENSE­as­a­whole­with­respect­to­papers­and­PhD­completion.

The­ relevance­ of­ the­ DEB­ program­ is­ high,­ with­ the­ training­ of­ students­ in­ quantitative,­mathematical­skills­and­their­applications­to­biology­as­a­major­strength.­At­the­same­time,­interactions­with­other­students­in­the­research­school­could­be­improved.­Acceptance­of­DEB­theory­has­been­slow­in­academy­and­this­decreases­the­scientific­relevance­of­the­group’s­work­in­terms­of­dissemination­of­knowledge.­

97QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Although­the­short­term­viability­over­the­coming­5-7­years­is­good,­the­long­term­prospects­are­lower­for­reasons­outlined­above.­­This,­coupled­with­small­core­group­size,­affect­viability­of­both­the­group­and­the­DEB­theory.

The­group­is­strongly­recommended­to­emphasise­two­things­in­future:Firstly,­training­the­next­generation­students­and­scientists­in­quantitative­mathematical­and­formalised­analysis­of­biological­phenomena­is­of­strategic­importance­for­SENSE­and­Dutch­science­as­a­whole.­Secondly,­the­group­should­give­higher­priority­to­ensuring­that­the­DEB­theory,­which­has­large­potential­conceptually,­gains­wider­acceptance­and­application.­This­can­be­achieved­by­translating­it­more­effectively­to­academia­that­are­not­necessarily­math-ematically­gifted.

98 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

99QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

5. Radboud University

The­committee­assessed­the­following­programmes:

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityEnvironmental­Sciences­Group Good Good Very­good Very­goodEnvironmental­Biology­Group Very­good Good Very­good Very­good

100 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 12: Environmental Sciences Group (RU-ES) Programme­director Prof.­dr.­A.J.­HendriksResearch­staff­­�006 7.6­fteAssessments: Quality: 3

Productivity: 3Relevance: 4Viability: 4

This­group’s­distinct­niche­is­in­understanding­physical­and­chemical­pressures­on­plant,­ani-mal­and­human­communities,­ in­particular­ in­the­Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt­delta.­ ­They­use­a­blend­of­conceptual­and­mathematical­models­developed­in­interaction­with­laboratory­exper-iments­and­field­surveys.­­Combining­research­with­strong­end-user­relevance,­they­also­train­PhD­and­MSc­students­to­a­high­professional­standard­for­entry­into­research,­management­and­consultancy.

The­group­has­gone­through­significant­changes­in­leadership­over­the­review­period­as­Prof­Nienhuis­retired­in­�003,­Dr­Rob­Leueven­held­a­caretaker­role­in­�003-�004,­and­Prof­Jan­Hendriks­ joined­ the­group­as­ leader­ in­�004.­There­have­been­major­ advances­ in­ research­quality­since­that­time,­with­external­research­funding,­publications­number­and­publications­quality­ all­ rising.­ Core­ staff­ in­ the­ group­ are­ increasingly­ publishing­ a­ significant­ propor-tion­of­papers­in­high­ranking­journals­in­the­environmental­toxicology­and­chemistry­fields,­with­others­contributing­effectively­in­freshwater­and­floodplain­ecology.­There­is­no­doubt­that­research­quality­is­now­becoming­increasingly­competitive­internationally,­and­this­is­evi-denced­by­strong­growth­in­the­relative­impact­of­the­group’s­papers.­­However,­judged­across­the­entire­review­period­and­taking­into­account­some­variability­in­performance­across­the­group,­on­quality­this­group­is­graded­as­a­good­national­competitor­with­international­vis-ibility.­­The­review­panel­strongly­encourages­the­group­members­to­maintain­their­newfound­confidence­in­publishing,­and­to­seek­to­place­seminal­outputs­in­the­very­best­journals­that­integrate­across­its­ecotoxicological­and­ecological­research.­Effective­design­and­increased­sci-ence­excellence­in­PhD­projects­will­also­help­to­build­quality.

The­transitions­of­the­last­5­years­have­meant­some­variability­in­research­productivity,­and­on­bibliometric­indicators­(e.g.­per­capita­publications),­their­performance­has­been­good­when­seen­across­the­whole­review­period.­­The­increase­since­�004­is­likely­to­augment­productivity­in­future,­and­will­clearly­have­beneficial­effects­on­visibility­when­linked­with­the­increasing­quality­noted­above.­There­has­been­a­steady­stream­of­PhD­students­throughout­all­years.

The­clear­interface­between­research­in­this­group­and­major­problems­in­ecotoxicology­and­environmental­management­means­that­relevance­in­this­group­is­high­and­rated­very­good.­Strong­emphasis­on­relevant­training,­end-user­contact,­strong­contract­funding,­effective­dis-semination­and­good­outreach­all­combine­to­reveal­the­group’s­strengths­in­this­respect.­­On­ vitality,­ the­ review­ panel­ scored­ this­ group­ highly.­ Current­ upward­ trajectory­ across­ a­range­of­performance­indicators,­the­importance­of­the­group’s­research­themes,­the­group’s­age-structure­and­increasingly­improved­balance­between­research­and­teaching­all­bode­well­for­development­in­the­coming­years.­

101QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 13: Environmental Biology Group (RU-EB)Programme­director Prof.­dr.­J.­RoelofsResearch­staff­­�006 10.0­fteAssessments: Quality: 4

Productivity: 3Relevance: 4Viability: 4

This­research­group­focuses­on­biogeochemical­and­ecophysiological­studies­of­a­wide­array­of­wetland­ecosystems.­The­group­aims­at­a­mutually­synergistic­interaction­between­funda-mental­science­and­applied­issues,­with­a­strong­involvement­in­management­and­restoration­of­wetland­ecosystems.­

Quality­is­very­high­and­reflects­the­high-quality­work­of­a­group­that­is­well­known­interna-tionally­in­its­field.­A­significant­part­of­the­work­is­published­in­the­top­ecological­journals,­and­there­have­also­been­two­very­timely­contributions­to­Nature.­A­proportion­of­papers­are­also­in­more­mid-ranking­journals,­and­there­is­scope­for­some­improvement.­Within­their­research­field,­this­research­group­is­clearly­a­national­leader­and­an­internationally­competi-tive­player.­A­decline­in­the­relative­impact­of­publications­over­the­past­ten­years­reflects­some­change­in­the­relative­importance­of­some­of­the­group’s­work­over­the­last­10­years­rather­than­any­change­in­intrinsic­quality.­Nevertheless,­there­is­some­variance­in­the­quality­and­quantity­of­ research­output­among­ team­members.­The­ recent­publication­of­ two­papers­ in­Nature­shows­that­the­team­grasps­opportunities­to­increase­the­impact­of­their­results.­

Productivity­is­ranked­as­good.­The­number­of­PhD­theses­was­relatively­low­in­the­first­part­of­the­evaluation­period,­but­is­now­increasing.­The­number­of­A-publications­is­moderate,­but­has­increased­strongly­in­�006.­Publication­output­differs­substantially­among­team­mem-bers.­

The­relevance­of­the­work­is­very­high.­There­is­an­excellent­dissemination­of­knowledge­to­water­management­authorities­and­organizations­involved­in­nature­restoration.­Dissemina-tion­of­advancements­of­scientific­knowledge­could­be­improved.­The­committee­recommends­that­the­team­should­design­a­strategy­to­present­their­approach­and­research­in­a­way­that­generates­strong­enthusiasm.­Given­the­intrinsically­very­attractive­research­themes,­improve-ment­is­clearly­possible.­­­

This­is­a­solid­group­with­very­good­prospects­in­terms­of­resources­and­research­themes.­There­is­promising­young­talent,­and­hence­a­need­to­consider­strategies­for­the­future.­Suggestions­may­be­to­make­young­promising­staff­explicitly­responsible­for­specific­research­themes,­to­increase­visibility­of­the­intrinsic­value­of­the­research­questions­and­their­scope­to­generate­high­quality­knowledge,­and­grow­to­combine­higher­output­and­outstanding­quality.­

The­group­tackles­some­highly­relevant­and­intriguing­questions,­and­has­a­distinct­approach­that­should­lead­to­innovative­insights.­The­committee­believes­that­there­is­scope­for­improve-ment­in­designing­a­vision­to­increase­the­visibility­of­the­group­and­in­emphasizing­the­spe-cificity­of­the­mission­and­the­distinctness­of­the­research­group­at­a­national­and­international­level.­­

10� QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

103QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

6. Utrecht University, Copernicus Institute

The­committee­assessed­the­following­programmes:

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityLand­Use,­Biodiversity­and­Ecosystem­Functioning

Very­good Good Very­good Very­good

104 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 14: land Use, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning (UU-ES)Programme­director Prof.­dr.­M.­Wassen,­Dr.­P.­VerweijResearch­staff­­�006 10.0­fteAssessments: Quality: 4

Productivity: 3Relevance: 4Viability: 4

The­group­ is­ currently­going­ through­a­ restructuring­phase­ following­ the­departure­of­ the­former­group­leader­Peter­de­Ruiter.­A­new­senior­member­was­being­recruited­at­the­time­of­the­review,­but­his/her­identity­was­not­known­to­the­review­committee.­The­group­will­con-tinue­to­work­in­three­closely­related­themes:­1.­Global­change­and­ecosystems,­�.­Biodiversity­and­biogeochemical­cycling,­and­3.­Natural­resource­management­and­biodiversity­conserva-tion.­Each­of­these­themes­is­important­at­an­international­level,­and­they­provide­for­an­inte-grated,­coherent­training­and­research­program.­Each­theme­will­be­scientifically­coordinated­by­the­three­senior­scientists­(Rietkerk,­Wassen­and­Verweij­respectively),­while­the­new­chair­will­be­responsible­for­links­with­policy­and­society.­The­new­organization­seems­well­planned­and­the­choices­were­well­explained­to­the­committee­at­the­interview.­The­PhD­students­had­a­positive­view­of­the­restructuring­and­relocation­of­the­Copernicus­institute,­indicating­an­active­and­scientifically­stimulating­environment­for­the­group.

The­research­programme­of­the­group­is­promising,­with­a­very­good­vision­and­indications­of­good­leadership.­The­programme­is­evolving­through­staff­changes,­and­the­developing­links­between­science­and­policy­are­ likely­ to­be­ fruitful.­The­quality­of­ the­group­ is­very­good,­with­several­excellent­papers­in­world-leading­journals,­especially­from­research­themes­1­and­�,­ showing­ international­ excellence.­However­ there­ is­ some­variation­ in­quality­within­ the­group,­and­there­is­a­need­for­greater­and­more­even­visibility­in­leading­peer-reviewed­journals­among­group­members.­

Although­productivity­is­rated­as­good,­it­has­also­been­variable­and­unbalanced­among­group­members.­Given­the­large­potential­in­all­three­research­themes,­it­is­likely­that­productivity­will­increase­in­future­across­all­research­fronts.­

The­relevance­of­the­work­is­very­high.­End-user­contacts­are­excellent,­and­the­societal­impact­of­some­of­the­work­is­very.­Scientifically,­the­impact­of­the­group­is­high­reflecting­a­interna-tionally­competitive­performance­coupled­with­a­leading­role­in­the­Netherlands.

The­group­has­responded­well­to­comments­from­previous­reviews.­Staff­changes­have­been­used­positively­to­ameliorate­weaknesses­regarding­societal­impact.­The­age­structure­of­the­group­is­well­balanced,­adding­further­to­future­potential.­The­committee­noted,­however,­the­fact­that­most­Ph­D­students­tended­to­work­on­applied­aspects.­The­potential­to­integrate­basic­and­applied­scientific­themes,­for­example­by­bringing­basic­theory­into­applied­ecology,­was­seen­as­a­strength,­but­one­that­was­not­yet­being­fully­realised.­Gaps­between­themes­1,­�­and­3­could­be­bridged­better,­and­theme­3­needs­to­improve­in­productivity­and­profile.­To­achieve­ this,­ it­might­be­necessary­ to­pay­more­attention­ to­ the­design­and­conceptual­framework­of­the­studies­carried­out­under­theme­3.­The­prospects­for­longer-term­viability­are­very­good,­and­the­group­will­most­likely­become­international­leaders­together­with­the­other­groups­at­the­Copernicus­institute.

105QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix 1: Curricula Vitae of committee members

Prof. Jan Bengtsson,­Dept.­of­Ecology­and­Environmental­Research,­Swedish­University­of­Agricultural­Sciences,­Uppsala.­Research­focused­on­community­ecology­ in­spatially­ subdi-vided­habitats,­and­on­the­linkages­between­population­and­ecosystem­ecology.­Study­of­the­dynamics­and­species­interactions­in­Daphnia­metapopulations­in­rockpools­since­the­early­1980-ies.­More­recently,­he­used­soil­organisms­to­study­how­food­web­structure­influences­ecosystem­processes,­both­in­theory­and­in­an­applied­context.­This­has­led­to­an­interest­in­the­importance­of­biodiversity­for­ecosystem­functioning,­and­management­of­landscapes­for­biodiversity­conservation.­He­is­also­ interested­ in­the­ long­term­dynamics­of­communities,­and­he­is­involved­in­studies­of­diversity­and­ecosystem­services­(mainly­biological­control)­in­agricultural­landscapes.

Prof. luc De Meester,­Departement­Biologie,­KU­Leuven,­Labo­Aquatische­Ecologie­&­Evo-lutiebiologie.­Research­topics:­Evolutionary­ecology,­using­zooplankton­(Daphnia)­as­model­organisms;­Micro-evolutionary­responses­to­natural­(e.g.­predators­and­parasites)­and­human-induced­stress­(e.g.­pollution,­global­warming,­habitat­fragmentation);­Aquatic­ecology­of­shal-low­lakes­and­ponds;­Biodiversity­and­nature­conservation­(aquatic­habitats;­shallow­lakes);­Restoration­ecology­and­Biomanipulation­of­shallow­lakes­and­ponds;­Ecology­of­resting­egg­banks­ in­ aquatic­ organisms;­ Community­ ecology­ of­ zooplankton;­ community­ assemblage;­metacommunity­structure;­Population­genetics­of­zooplankton;­metapopulation­biology.

Prof. Steve Ormerod,­Cardiff­University,­School­of­Biosciences.­Research­interests­in­the­rela-tionship­between­catchment­characteristics­and­the­ecology­of­running­waters­and­wetlands­through­ the­application­of­ experiments,­ surveys­ and­mathematical­models.­He­ is­ currently­reader­in­Ecology­and­Head­of­Catchment­Research­at­Cardiff­University,­and­also­editor­of­the­Journal­of­Applied­Ecology.­Dr.­Ormerod­was­a­member­of­the­Acid­Waters­Review­Group­and­the­Critical­Loads­Advisory­Group.

106 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix 2: Overview of Scores

Table 1: Overview of scores

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityProgramme­7:­Aquatic­Ecology­and­Water­Quality­Management­Group

Excellent Very­good Excellent Excellent

Programme­8:­Nature­Conservation­and­Plant­Ecology­Group

Very­good Excellent Excellent Very­good

Programme­9:­Animal­Ecology­Group­1:­Community­and­Evolutionary­Ecology

Very­good Good Very­good Very­good

Programme­10:­Systems­Ecology­Group

Excellent Excellent Very­good Excellent

Programme­11:­Theoretical­Biology­Group

Very­good Good Good Good

Programme­1�:­Environmental­Sciences­Group

Good Good Very­good Very­good

Programme­13:­Environmental­Biology­Group

Very­good Good Very­good Very­good

Programme­14:­Environmental­Sciences­Group

Very­good Good Very­good Very­good

Table 2: SEP-scale; the meaning of the scores

Work­that­is­at­the­forefront­internationally,­and­which­most­likely­will­have­an­important­and­substantial­impact­in­the­field.­Institute­is­considered­an­international­leader.

Excellent (5)

Work­that­is­internationally­competitive­and­is­expected­to­make­a­significant­contribution;­nationally­speaking­at­the­forefront­in­the­field.­Institute­is­considered­international­player,­national­leader.

Very good (4)

Work­that­is­competitive­at­the­national­level­and­will­probably­make­a­valuable­contribution­in­the­international­field.­Institute­is­considered­internationally­visible­and­a­national­player.

Good (3)

Work­that­is­solid­but­not­exciting,­will­add­to­our­understanding­and­is­in­principle­worthy­of­support.­It­is­considered­of­less­priority­than­work­in­the­above­categories.­Institute­is­nationally­visible.

Satisfactory (2)

Work­that­is­neither­solid­nor­exciting­flawed­in­the­scientific­and­or­technical­approach,­repetitions­of­other­work,­etc.­Work­not­worthy­of­pursuing.

Unsatisfactory (1)

107QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix 3: Schedule

Environmental Biology and Ecology Review Committee (EBE)

SUNDAY 17-06-2007

Utrecht

xx.xx­–­15.00 ARRIVAL­NH­Centre­Utrecht,­Janskerkhof­10,­Utrecht,­Tel.­+31.30.�313169

15.00­–­15.30 WELCOME15.30­–­16.00 QANU:­General­introduction­on­the­assessment­and­the­review­

programme16.00­–­16.30 SENSE:­General­introduction­SENSE,­with­emphasis­on­the­3­different­

assessment­levels:­research­groups;­SENSE­institutes­and­SENSE­Research­School

16.45­–­18.30 Internal­RC­meeting19.00­–­�1.00 DINNER�1.00­–­��.00 (meeting­chairs)

MONDAY 18-06-2007

Amsterdam

09.30­–­10.30 Internal­RC­meeting10.30­–­11.30 Presentation­and­discussion­Theoretical­Biology­Group­(TB-ICM/VU)­

nr.­1111.30­–­1�.00 Internal­RC­meeting1�.00­–­13.00 Lunch­break13.00­–­14.00 Presentation­and­discussion­Animal­Ecology­1:­Community­and­

Evolutionary­Ecology­Group­(AE1-IES/VU)­nr.­914.00­–­15.00 Presentation­and­discussion­Systems­Ecology­Group­(SE-IES/VU)­nr.­1015.15­–­16.45 Site­visit­+­PhD­(poster)­presentations­TB,­AE1,­SE)­and­discussion17.00­–­18.00 Internal­RC­meeting18.00­–­�0.00 Dinner­/­Travel­to­Utrecht

TUESDAY 19-06-2007

Utrecht

09.30­–­10.30 Presentation­and­discussion­Environmental­Sciences­Group­(ESG-Copernicus/UU)­nr.­14

10.30­–­11.30 Site­visit­+­PhD­(poster)­presentations­ESG­and­discussion­¾­hourWageningen

13.00­–­14.00 Presentation­and­discussion­Aquatic­Ecology­and­Water­Quality­Management­Group­(AEW-WIMEK/WU)­nr.­7

14.00­–­15.00 Presentation­and­discussion­Nature­Conservation­and­Plant­Ecology­Group­(NCP-WIMEK/WU)­nr.­8

15.15­–­16.45 Site­visit­+­PhD­(poster)­presentations­(AEW,­NCP)­and­discussion17.00­–­18.00 Internal­RC­meeting18.00­–­�0.00 Dinner

WEDNESDAY 20-06-2007

Nijmegen

10.00­–­11.00 Presentation­and­discussion­Environmental­Sciences­Group­(ES-RU)­nr.­1�11.00­–­1�.00 Presentation­and­discussion­Environmental­Biology­Group­(EB-RU)­nr.­13

108 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

1�.00­–­13.00 Lunch­break13.00­–­14.00 Internal­RC­meeting14.00­–­15.00 Site­visit­+­PhD­(poster)­presentations­(ES,­EB)­and­discussion15.00­–­16.00 Internal­RC­meeting­16.00­–­17.00 Internal­RC­meeting­/­closure17.00­–­18.0018.00­–­�0.00 Dinner

109QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Committee Environmental Earth Sciences (EES)

110 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

111QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

1. The review committee and the review procedures

Scope of the assessment and structure of this reportThe­Review­Committee­was­asked­to­perform­a­research­assessment­of­the­following­research­programmes­of­the­Wageningen­Institute­for­Environment­and­Climate­Research­(WIMEK):

•­ Earth­System­Science­–­Climate­Change­Group­(WU-ESS)•­ Hydrology­and­Quantitative­Water­Management­Group­(WU-HWM);•­ Soil­Physics,­Ecohydrology­and­Ground­Water­Management­Group­(WU-SEG).

This­assessment­covers­the­activities­and­the­research­in­the­period­�001-�006.­The­assessment­is­part­of­the­�007­review­of­the­Netherlands­Research­School­for­Socio-Economic­and­Natu-ral­Sciences­of­the­Environment­(SENSE).­­

The­Committee's­tasks­were­to­assess­the­quality­of­the­named­WIMEK­research­programmes­on­ the­basis­of­ the­ information­provided­by­ the­ Institute­and­ through­ interviews­with­ the­management­and­the­research­leaders,­and­to­advise­how­this­quality­might­be­improved.

Part­I,­chapter­1­describes­the­composition­of­the­Committee,­its­activities­and­the­procedures­followed­by­the­Committee.Part­I,­chapter­�­contains­general­remarks­about­the­state­of­the­art­in­the­field­of­Environ-mental­Earth­Sciences.Part­II­contains­the­assessment­of­the­programmes.­

Composition of the CommitteeThe­composition­of­the­Committee­was­as­follows:­

•­ Andrea­Rinaldo,­professor­of­Hydrogeomorphology­and­transport­phenomena­in­the­hy-drological­cycle­-­IMAGE­Department­of­the­University­of­Padova­(chair);­

•­ Hannes­Flühler,­professor­of­Soil­Physics­-­Institute­of­Terrestrial­Ecology­(ITÖ)­of­ETH­Zürich;

•­ Roland­Schulze,­professor­of­Hydrology­-­Department­of­Agricultural­Engineering­of­the­University­of­Natal.­

Peter­van­Holten­was­appointed­secretary­to­the­Committee,­on­behalf­of­QANU­(Quality­Assurance­Netherlands­Universities)

A­short­curriculum­vitae­of­the­Committee­members­is­included­in­Appendix­1.

IndependenceAll­members­of­ the­Committee­ signed­a­ statement­of­ independence­ to­ safeguard­ that­ they­would­assess­the­quality­of­the­Institute­and­research­programmes­in­an­unbiased­and­inde-pendent­way.­Any­existing­personal­or­professional­relationships­between­committee­members­and­programmes­under­review­were­reported­and­discussed­in­the­committee­meeting.­The­Committee­concluded­that­there­were­no­close­relations­or­dependencies­and­that­there­was­no­risk­in­terms­of­bias­or­undue­influence.

11� QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Data provided to the CommitteeThe­Committee­has­received­detailed­documentation­consisting­of­the­following­parts:­

1.­ The­Self­Evaluation­Reports­of­the­research­groups­named­before;�.­ Copies­of­three­key­publications­per­research­group;3.­ Bibliometric­study­1996-�004;4.­ The­Self­Evaluation­report­of­the­WIMEK­institute­(for­information);5.­ The­Self­evaluation­report­of­the­SENSE­Research­school­(for­information).

The­documentation­included­all­the­information­required­by­the­Standard­Evaluation­Pro-tocol­(SEP).­­

The­three­Environmental­Earth­Science­research­groups­evaluated­according­to­this­protocol­are­all­in­a­transition­phase­and­are­in­the­process­of­building­up­new­working­groups­(profes-sorships).­This­has­been­taken­into­account­by­the­Committee­in­the­assessment­of­the­per-formance­and­potential­of­the­groups­visited.

The­evaluation­process­was­carefully­organized­and­professionally­structured.

Procedures followed by the CommitteeThe­ Committee­ proceeded­ according­ to­ the­ Standard­ Evaluation­ Protocol­ (SEP).­ Prior­ to­the­Committee­meeting,­each­programme­was­assigned­to­a­first­and­a­second­reviewer,­who­formulated­a­preliminary­assessment.­The­final­assessments­are­based­on­the­documentation­provided­by­the­Institutes,­the­key­publications­and­the­interviews­with­the­management­and­with­the­ leaders­of­ the­programmes).­The­ interviews­took­place­on­June­18,­�007­(see­ the­schedule­in­Appendix­3).­

Preceding­the­ interviews,­ the­Committee­was­briefed­by­QANU­about­research­assessment­according­to­SEP.­On­the­same­day,­June­17,­�007,­the­Committee­discussed­the­preliminary­assessments.­For­each­programme­a­number­of­comments­and­questions­were­decided­upon.­The­Committee­also­agreed­upon­procedural­matters­in­relation­with­the­presentation­by,­and­discussion­with­each­research­group.­Each­research­group­delivered­in­a­short­presentation­the­highlights­of­their­programme,­followed­by­a­discussion­with­the­review­committee.­Finally­each­research­group­presented­its­facilities.­Rather­than­a­tour­to­demonstrate­these­facilities,­located­in­a­different­building,­posters­and­video­presentations­were­used.­At­the­end­of­the­visit­programme­the­PhD­students­of­the­research­groups­presented­their­research­in­a­poster­session.­After­the­interviews­the­Committee­discussed­the­scores­and­comments­and­made­draft­texts­on­June­18,­the­day­after­the­visit.­The­texts­were­finalised­through­email­exchanges.­The­final­version­was­presented­to­the­Institutes­and­SENSE­on­August­1,­�007.­The­comments­of­the­Institutes­and­SENSE­were­discussed­in­the­Committee­and­led­to­changes­in­the­report­on­a­number­of­points.­The­final­report­was­presented­to­Board­of­the­participating­university­and­was­printed­after­their­formal­acceptance­of­the­report.­The­Committee­used­the­rating­system­of­the­Standard­Evaluation­Protocol­(SEP).­The­mean-ing­of­the­scores­is­described­in­Appendix­�.­

113QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

2. General remarks

The Earth System Science and Climate Change­(WU-ESS)­group­addresses­Earth­Systems­research­in­5­interlinked­and­interactive­thematic­research­clusters­covering­fundamental­and­applied­climate-land­related­issues.­ESS­is­a­newly­established­chair­grouping­at­Wageningen­UR,­since­April­�006­only.­The­ESS­group­has­exceptionally­strong­leadership,­ambitious­goals­and­excellent­funding.­The­strategy­and­policy­of­research­appear­sound­and­include­a­major­effort­in­new­initiatives­in­teaching­and­revisiting­previous­syllabi,­with­a­particular­emphasis­on­Integrated­Water­Resource­Management.­The­group­is­well­represented­in­WUR­as­well­as­in­national­and­international­collaborations­and­networks,­with­members­of­the­group­often­in­leadership­roles.The­ group­ displays­ numerous­ strengths,­ perhaps­ above­ all­ the­ thrust­ into­ climate­ change­research.­If­weaknesses­are­to­be­highlighted,­these­revolve­around­having­to­cope­with­two­administrative­systems,­largely­a­legacy­of­a­re-alignment­of­two­previously­existing­groups.­

The hydrology and Quantitative Water management­(WU-HWM)­programme­has­to­be­seen­in­perspective.­The­former­Chair­holder­left­recently­and­a­new­Chair­has­been­appointed­only­in­April­�007.­Overall­the­Committee­has­great­confidence­that­the­current­leadership­will­ultimately­succeed­in­providing­vision,­academic­reputation­and­scientific­research­at­the­forefront,­internationally.The­research­work­has­been­widely­visible­and­the­overall­international­reputation­of­the­group­is­undeniable.­The­group­has­been­successful­in­obtaining­national­and­EU­funding.­The­Committee­noted­plenty­of­scope­for­the­evolution­of­the­programme­and­an­impressive­momentum­to­do­so.­Management­ and­ organization­ seem­ somewhat­ in­ need­ of­ reinforcement.­The­ Committee­has­the­impression­that­the­group­is­understaffed.­The­Management­style­of­the­new­Chair­is­appreciated

The­Soil Physics, Ecohydrology and Groundwater Management­(WU-SEG)­group­is­in­a­state­of­transition,­gearing­up­toward­new­goals­in­a­drastically­transformed­constellation­of­personnel.­From­the­1�­tenured­academics­just­four­will­continue­as­fully­active­members­of­SEG.­The­group­is­clearly­understaffed­and­under-resourced.­The­main­theme­of­the­group­is­process­understanding­and­quantification­of­water­and­ele-ment­fluxes­in­field­soils­(unsaturated­zone).­The­ecohydrology­claimed­by­the­above­men-tioned­HWM­group­relates­to­the­scale­of­entire­catchments­with­a­focus­on­the­areal­water­fluxes­between­biosphere­and­atmosphere­whereas­the­SEG­group­integrates­the­processes­that­control­ the­water­ regime­between­subsoil­up­ into­and­through­the­plant­canopy,­ the­ latter­being­primarily­based­on­field­scale­experimentation­and­modelling­and­the­former­on­catch-ment-scale­observations­and­modelling.­The­publication­record­of­the­group­is­very­good­and­internationally­well­visible.­The­new­measuring­techniques­for­the­monitoring­of­solute­fluxes­are­a­scientific­breakthrough.­The­group­has­a­high­probability­of­becoming­a­prominent­unit­in­soil­physical­research.­The­Committee­rates­the­performance­of­the­group­‘Very­good’­in­all­aspects,­i.e.­quality,­productivity,­relevance­and­prospects.­The­personnel­capacity­however,­is­critically­limiting­its­potential.

In­ general­ the­ Committee­ had­ a­ strong­ positive­ impression­ from­ the­ presentations­ of­ the­groups­of­PhD­students,­whose­scholarship­and­drive­were­assumed­as­a­sign­of­great­vitality­of­the­program.­

114 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

115QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

3. Wageningen University, Institute WIMEK

3.1. Assessment per institute

WIMEK­aims­to­develop­an­integrated­understanding­of­environmental­change­and­its­impact­on­ the­ quality­ of­ life­ and­ sustainability,­ by­ i)­ conducting­ innovative­ scientific­ research,­ ii)­offering­PhD­training­and­education,­and­iii)­dissemination­of­emerging­insights­and­recent­results.

The­policy­of­WIMEK­is­to­contribute­to­the­development­of­high­quality­national­and­inter-national­scientific­research,­focused­on­the­multidisciplinary­and­interdisciplinary­understand-ing­of­environmental­change­and­its­impact­on­the­quality­of­life­and­sustainability.

WIMEK­research­leaders­have­developed­a­strong­international­network­and­participate­suc-cessfully­ in­ national­ and­ international­ research­ programmes.­ WIMEK­ researchers­ are­ also­actively­involved­in­international­policy­assessments,­such­as­IPCC­and­the­Millennium­­Eco-system­Assessment­and­in­national­research­programmes­like­Bsik­‘Climate­change­and­spatial­planning’­and­‘Geoinformation’.­­

The­WUR­Executive­Board­has­defined­several­research­priorities­for­the­years­to­come­in­con-sultation­with­the­graduate­schools­and­the­science­groups.­These­priorities­are­i)­strengthen-ing­the­knowledge­base­of­the­specialised­research­institutes­by­allocation­of­strategic­research­funds­ financed­by­the­national­government­and­enhancing­synergy­between­the­specialised­research­institutes­and­the­university,­and­ii)­identifying­upcoming­and­fast­developing­research­themes,­which­need­extra­financial­investments­in­the­coming­years.

The­development­of­innovative­fundamental­research­and­strategic­research­requires­a­stimu-lating­academic­environment­in­which­researchers­have­ample­freedom­to­develop­and­pursue­their­original­ ideas.­Therefore,­ the­WIMEK­chair­groups­are­autonomous­ in­choosing­and­developing­their­own­research­topics.­

Funding­of­ the­national­and­ international­ research­programmes­ is­by­NWO,­EU,­national­and­foreign­governments,­industries­and­other­parties.­The­WUR­Executive­Board­determines­the­general­policy­on­the­allocation­of­budgets­among­the­research­groups.­The­budget­for­education­is­based­the­real­teaching­and­supervising­efforts­including­the­supervision­of­PhD­students.­On­average­40­–­45%­of­the­tenured­staff­time­is­available­for­research.­Extra­research­funds­are­granted­for­having­attracted­NWO­funded­post-docs­or­PhD­stu-dents.­This­budget­may­be­used­to­employ­additional­staff.­The­Executive­Board­grants,­ in­addition­research­bonuses­based­on­ the­ scientific­ research­performance.­Furthermore,­extra­research­funds­may­be­generated­from­externally­funded­research­projects.­­

The­quality­assessment­of­all­ tenured­staff­members­ is­based­on­criteria­determined­by­the­SENSE­Research­School.­

WIMEK­has­a­strong­position­in­environmental­and­climate­research.­The­scientific­quality,­productivity­and­relative­impact­of­the­WIMEK­chair­groups­varies­from­good­to­excellent.The­ international­dimension­of­ environmental­ issues­ requires­ active­participation­ in­ inter-national­ scientific­ research­ networks­ and­ intensive­ co-operation­ with­ foreign­ high­ quality­research­groups.­The­very­limited­research­budget­per­chair­group­obtained­from­WUR,­limits­

116 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

the­initiation­of­curiosity-driven­research­projects.­The­quality­of­the­WIMEK/SENSE­PhD­education­can­be­further­improved.­

3.2. Asssessment per programme

The­committee­assessed­the­following­programmes:

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityEarth­System­Science-Climate­Change­(WU-ESS)

Very­good Very­good Very­good/Excellent

Very­good/Excellent

Hydrology­and­Quantitative­Water­Management­(WU-HWM)

Good/Very­good

Good Good Very­good/Excellent

Soil­Physics,­Ecohydrology­and­Groundwater­Management­(WU-SEG)

Very­good Very­good Very­good Very­good

117QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 15: Earth System Science-Climate Change (WU-ESSProgramme­director Prof.­dr.­P.­KabatResearch­staff­­�006 8.54­fteAssessments: Quality: Very­good

Productivity: Very­goodRelevance: Very­good­to­ExcellentProspects: Very­good­to­Excellent

A­newly­established­Chair­grouping­at­Wageningen­UR,­commencing­only­in­April­�006­(i.e.­in­the­last­year­of­the­period­under­review),­the­ESS­group­addresses­Earth­Systems­research­in­5­interlinked­and­interactive­thematic­research­clusters­covering­fundamental­and­applied­climate-land­related­issues­across­the­range­of­scales­from­point­to­global­and­with­both­strong­disciplinary­and­trans-disciplinary­approaches.

This­holistic­and­all-encompassing­approach­is,­on­the­one­hand,­a­legacy­of­the­individual­researchers­making­up­the­ESS­group­and­their­former­affiliations,­while­simultaneously­it­is­an­innovative­one.

The­ESS­group­has­exceptionally­strong­leadership­through­Prof.­Kabat,­has­ambitious­goals­and­excellent­funding­of­the­order­of­3.5­mil­Euro/annum­(with­more­in­the­pipeline),­made­up­of­90%­from­large­and­long-term­external­funds.­The­strategy­and­policy­of­research­appear­sound­and­include­a­major­effort­in­new­initiatives­in­teaching­and­revisiting­previous­syllabi,­with­a­particular­emphasis­on­Integrated­Water­Resource­Management.­

With­each­of­the­5­thematic­research­clusters,­there­is­simultaneously­relatively­high­profile­in-house­expertise­while­there­is­strong­interaction­between­clusters,­with­each­appearing­to­be­adequately­funded.­The­group­is­well­represented­in­WUR­as­well­as­in­national­and­interna-tional­collaborations­and­networks,­with­members­of­the­group­often­in­leadership­roles.

The­academic­reputation­of­the­group­as­a­whole­is­sound,­but­is­perceived­to­lean­heavily­on­the­new­programme­leader’s­pre-�006­prominence­in­international­and­national­forums­and­in­the­members’­historical­publications­record.­

Given­the­vulnerability­of­the­Netherlands­to­certain­impacts­of­climate­change,­the­national­level­research­and­coordination­undertaken­by­the­group­is­highly­relevant­as­well­as­having­been­made­highly­visible­to­decision­makers­and­the­public­at­large.

The­ group­ displays­ numerous­ strengths,­ perhaps­ above­ all­ the­ thrust­ into­ climate­ change­research­across­a­range­of­scales,­a­focus­on­state-of-the-art­observations­and­the­trans-disci-plinary­nature­of­its­work.­If­weaknesses­are­to­be­highlighted,­these­revolve­around­having­to­cope­with­two­administrative­systems­(largely­a­legacy­of­a­re-alignment­of­two­previously­existing­groups),­ a­perceived­ inadequacy­of­ in-house­administrative­back-up­ (although­ this­has­ recently­been­partially­addressed),­an­overload­of­commitments­and­a­perceived­strong­dependence­on­the­reputation­and­drive­of­the­programme­leader­(although­the­latter­is­at­the­same­time­a­major­strength).­­­­­­­­­­­

Finally,­the­Committee­has­had­a­strong­positive­impression­from­the­presentations­of­the­group­of­PhD­students,­whose­scholarship­and­drive­were­assumed­as­a­sign­of­great­vitality­of­the­program.­

118 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

The­overall­quality­of­the­group­is­‘Very­Good’­(i.e.­4­on­the­SEP-scale),­with­some­crystal-lization­possibly­still­being­required­in­the­coherence­of­the­programme­(3)­and­allowing­more­members­of­the­group­to­come­more­to­the­fore,­but­with­the­benefit­of­a­highly­prominent­programme­leader­(5).

In­relation­to­productivity­the­overall­rating­is­‘Very­Good’­(4),­with­the­output­of­professional­papers­being­excellent,­while­to­date­the­number­of­PhD­theses­completed­is­on­the­low­side.­The­average­is­only­1.5­per­year­for­the­period­under­review,­but­with­a­significant­number­of­new­candidates­registered,­an­annual­output­of­3-4­PhDs­is­expected­in­years­to­come.­­­

Considering­the­stated­mission­of­the­group,­the­overall­relevance­of­the­programme­is­rated­‘Very­Good­to­Excellent­(4-5),­in­particular­the­efforts­in­relation­with­the­dissemination­of­knowledge­and,­as­far­as­a­research­group­can­go,­the­implementation­of­knowledge.­The­direct­societal­relevance­of­the­research­output­for­the­period­under­review­is­more­so­in­a­Dutch­context,­although­through­contributions­to­and­leadership­of,­inter alia,­the­International­Dia-logue­on­Water­and­Climate,­the­International­Geosphere-Biosphere­Programme,­the­Millen-nium­Ecosystem­Assessment­and­the­Intergovernmental­Panel­on­Climate­Change,­members­of­the­group­have­made­some­significant­contributions­to­the­advancement­of­knowledge­and­its­dissemination.­­

With­its­enthusiasm,­dynamic­leadership,­overall­age­profile,­good­mix­of­experienced­and­new­staff­and­high­national­and­international­profile,­the­prospects­for­this­group­are­considered­‘Very­Good­to­Excellent­(4-5)’,­with­the­proviso­that­the­group­can­keep­up­with­its­commit-ments­and­not­constantly­places­itself­under­time­pressure.­

119QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 16: hydrology and Quantitative Water Management (WU-hWM) Programme­director Prof­.dr.­ir.­R.­UijlenhoetResearch­staff­­�006 8.�3­­fteAssessments: Quality: Good­to­Very­Good

Productivity: GoodRelevance: GoodProspects Very­Good­to­Excellent

The­programme­has­to­be­seen­in­perspective.­The­former­chairholder­left­recently­(and­much­of­the­evaluation­hinges­of­achievements­directly­or­indirectly­related­to­the­past­Chair’s­man-agement),­and­a­new­Chair­has­been­appointed­only­in­April­�007.­The­transient­character­of­ the­missions­ is­obviously­reflected­ in­this­ fact,­ jointly­with­a­complex­ legacy­of­ the­past­in­terms­of­achievements­and­directions.­Overall,­ the­Committee­has­great­confidence­that­the­current­ leadership­will­ultimately­succeed­in­providing­vision,­academic­reputation­and­scientific­research­at­the­forefront,­internationally.­The­Committee’s­judgement­has­therefore­to­be­seen­as­a­whole­and­read­somewhat­in­detail,­we­presume,­because­normative­indicators­of­quality,­productivity,­relevance­and­prospects­are­necessarily­a­reflection­of­the­past­and­the­future­merged­together.­

Innovative­work­ is­ apparent­ from­the­programme,­ especially­ concerning­ the­measurement,­assimilation­and­modelling­of­hydrologic­fluxes­on­a­wide­range­of­scales­in­space­and­time.­Whereas­one­cannot­look­solely­at­the­steady­production­of­the­research­output­in­the­previ-ous­review­period,­given­the­rather­sharp­discontinuities­in­scientific­management­the­overall­productivity­is­judged­favourably.­The­programme­has­produced­steady­results­on­high-impact­journals­(clearly­ranked­at­the­top­of­the­hydrological­and­water­resources­literature)­over­most­of­the­period­which­could­be­examined­(�006),­with­variable­distribution­within­the­group.­The­research­work­has­been­widely­visible­and­the­overall­international­reputation­of­the­group­is­undeniable,­although­with­different­attributions­to­the­old­and­the­new­leadership.­In­this­sense­the­difficulties­of­the­Committee­in­distinguishing­past­and­prospective­achievements­(arguably­the­matter­of­foremost­interest­to­SENSE)­have­to­be­acknowledged.­

The­group­has­been­ successful­ in­obtaining­national­ and­EU­ funding,­ received­prestigious­scholarships­and­seems­channelled­through­a­sustainable­academic­pathway.­The­strive­for­fun-damental­catchment­science­and­hydrology­to­overcome­the­quantitative­water­management­is­apparent,­and­this­is­lauded­by­the­Committee.­One­notes,­however,­that­on­a­proper­bal-ance­such­diversity­is­not­seen­as­harmful,­and­the­current­leadership­style,­which­is­respectful­of­other­existing­capabilities­and­objectives­in­the­academic­environment,­is­appropriate­and­fruitful.­­The­Committee­noted­plenty­of­scope­for­the­evolution­of­the­programme­and­an­impressive­momentum­to­do­so.­

Incidentally,­the­Committee­speculated­with­keen­interest­about­possible­suggestions­about­such­evolution.­Specifically,­the­research­programme­is­deemed­interesting­but­in­need­of­some­critical­decisions.­Indeed­catchment­hydrology,­the­main­theme,­is­an­important­issue­both­sci-entifically­and­for­society­at­large.­It­is­clear­to­the­Committee,­however,­that­the­foremost­sci-entific­challenges­ahead­in­this­area­will­lie­rather­at­the­interface­with­other­disciplines,­within­the­same­scales­and­processes­–­specifically,­atmospheric­sciences­on­one­side­and­ecology­on­the­other.­In­this­sense­the­research­avenue­of­the­development,­testing­and­interpretation­of­advanced­observation­methods­for­hydrological­fluxes­and­states­is­much­encouraged­within­the­defining­catchment­science­field­chosen­(or­inherited).­In­this­respect­the­Committee­wel-

1�0 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

comes­the­directions­suggested­by­the­new­Chair,­whose­energy­and­drive­deeply­impressed­the­Committee.­Indeed­the­advanced­observation­techniques­for­natural­phenomena­and­hydro-logical­fluxes­in­particular­are­a­sound­and­important­area­of­research.­

The­Committee­also­made­clear­during­the­presentation­that­perhaps­a­definite­aim­at­eco-hydrology­(in­the­sense­of­water-controlled­ecological­processes­occurring­within­the­catchment­and­at­related­spatial­and­temporal­scales)­could­be­an­important­and­suitable­collective­objec-tive­for­the­group,­given­the­importance­of­the­research­at­stake­and­the­unique­opportunities­currently­waiting­in­WIMEK­and­in­this­programme.­Academic­problems­notwithstanding­(which­we­do­not­underestimate),­we­observe­that­eco-hydrological­processes­at­the­scale­of­the­catchment­will­be­important­and­globally­visible,­and­naturally­suited­to­the­experimental­facilities,­previous­insight,­scholarship­and­vocation­of­the­group.­­The­ Committee­notes­ that­ this­ process,­ epitomized­by­ the­ conversion­of­many­ important­Hydraulic­Laboratories­ to­Geophysical­Fluid­Dynamics­Laboratories,­ is­ likely­ to­be­ slower­in­the­Netherlands­where­by­the­nature­of­their­drainage­problems­the­hydraulic­tradition­is­strong­and­prominent­–­yet­perhaps­it­is­a­necessary­transition­which­might­be­fruitful­towards­improved­relevance­of­the­research­given­the­new­directions.­

A­brief­note­of­other­facts:

•­ Management­and­organization­seem­somewhat­in­need­of­reinforcement.­While­indeed­the­overall­count­of­fte­seems­in­line­with­other­groups,­the­Committee­has­had­the­im-pression­of­understaffing.­The­Management­style­of­the­new­Chair­is­appreciated;

•­ The­Committee­has­had­a­strong­positive­impression­from­the­presentations­of­the­group­of­PhD­students,­whose­scholarship­and­drive­were­read­as­a­sign­of­the­great­vitality­of­the­program;

•­ It­is­somewhat­unclear­to­the­Committee­(yet­not­necessarily­inexplicable)­how­the­diffe-rent­layers­of­coordination­operate­in­the­Netherlands­academic­environment.­Specifically,­the­Committee­wonders­what­actual­mechanisms­favour­the­interrelations­and­scientific­collaboration­among­the­different­groups­active­in­Hydrology­(namely­the­groups­num-ber­15,­16­and­17­belonging­to­different­Chairs)­within­SENSE­and/or­the­Boussinesq­Centre­for­Hydrology.­Furthermore,­the­merit­which­the­Institutions­are­gaining­from­the­spreading­of­hydrologic­research­within­three­different­Groups/Chairs,­seems­somewhat­unclear.

•­ Dry­bibliometric­ indicators­ cannot­properly­give­ the­ right­ impression­of­ the­academic­quality­of­this­group­and­of­its­scientific­output­if­not­properly­considered.­What­mat-ters­in­this­case­in­particular,­is­the­potential­rather­than­the­current­integral­of­the­past­achievements,­per­se­a­by-product­of­age­and­history­of­management­when­not­directly­attributable­to­Faculty­just­recently­left.­­

The­scientific­quality­of­the­production­is­overall­rated­‘Good­to­Very­Good’­(3-4).­National­prominence­and­ international­visibility­are­undoubtedly­achieved,­both­under­ the­previous­and­the­new­management.­To­date,­this­group­cannot­be­defined­as­a­world­leading­group­as­a­whole,­although­this­Committee­has­high­expectations­that­this­might­happen­in­the­near­future­owing­to­all­of­the­above.­

1�1QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

The­overall­per­capita­productivity­is­‘Good’­(3),­and­the­drive­to­direct­much­of­the­scientific­production­ (once­directed­ to­unrefereed­ sources)­ to­ refereed­ sources­ is­ visible­ and­appreci-ated.

The­scientific­and­societal­ relevance­of­ the­hydrologic­ issues­pursued­herein­ is­perceived­as­‘Good’­(3),­as­well­as­the­prospective­focus­of­the­incoming­activities.­The­Committee­notes­that­a­dramatic­turnaround­in­the­relevance­could­occur,­should­the­group­decide­to­aim­at­the­cutting­edge­of­interdisciplinary­research­centred­around­catchment­scales­and­processes.­

For­all­the­reasons­discussed­above,­the­Committee­is­of­the­opinion­that­the­perspectives­are­to­be­seen­as­Very­Good­to­Excellent­(4-5),­in­particular­trusting­the­newly­acquired­leadership­towards­the­creation­of­an­international­powerhouse­of­research­and­extension­in­the­general­area­of­catchment­science.­

1�� QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 17: Soil Physics, Ecohydrology and Groundwater Management (WU-SEG)Programme­director Prof.­dr.­ir.­S.E.A.T.M.­Van­der­ZeeResearch­staff­­�006 7.09­­­fteAssessments: Quality: Very­Good

Productivity: Very­GoodRelevance:­ Very­GoodViability: Very­Good

This­unit­is­in­a­state­of­transition,­gearing­up­toward­new­goals­in­a­drastically­transformed­constellation­of­personnel.­From­the­1�­tenured­academics­listed­in­Annex­1­of­the­Self­evalu-ation­Report,­just­four­of­them­will­continue­as­fully­active­members­of­SEG.­The­majority­of­the­staff­listed,­is­in­the­process­of­leaving­or­went­on­retirement.­Two­retired­colleagues­will­certainly­be­partially­ available­ for­ advice­and­ scientific­ support­but­unavailable­ to­nucleate­new­programs.­Hence­the­group­is­clearly­understaffed­and­under-resourced,­a­problem­that­has­to­be­taken­care­of.­The­assessment­the­professional­performance­of­this­group­is­difficult,­because­the­scientific­products­presented­in­the­self-evaluation­report­and­during­the­inter-views­have­been­generated­by­a­group­that­only­partially­continues­to­exist­and­the­record­of­the­newly­formed­group­covers­a­very­short­period­of­production­time.­

The­main­theme­of­this­group­is­process­understanding­and­quantification­of­water­and­ele-ment­ fluxes­ in­ field­soils­ (unsaturated­zone).­The­group­follows­ three­alleys­of­ research:­ (i)­including­ the­ dominant­ role­ of­ heterogeneity­ on­ the­ water­ flow­ field­ and­ solute­ fluxes­ in­stochastic­ models,­ (ii)­ developing­ new­ concepts­ for­ implementing­ the­ role­ of­ roots­ in­ the­modelled­ system,­ and­ ­ (iii)­ making­ use­ of­ the­ scientific­ treasure­ of­ the­ previous­ Chair­ by­supporting­the­worldwide­use­of­the­integrated­SWAP­Model­and­shift­the­focus­from­agro-hydrology­to­the­pedohydrology­of­natural­ecosystems.­Here­we­use­the­term­pedohydrology­in­lieu­of­ecohydrology­to­clarify­the­different­perspective­and­observation­scale­of­the­SEG­and­the­‘Hydrology­and­Quantitative­Water­Management’­(HWM)­groups.­The­ecohydrol-ogy­claimed­by­HWM­relates­to­the­scale­of­entire­catchments­with­a­focus­on­the­areal­water­fluxes­between­biosphere­and­atmosphere­whereas­SEG­integrates­the­processes­that­control­the­water­regime­between­subsoil­up­into­and­through­the­plant­canopy,­the­latter­being­pri-marily­based­on­field­scale­experimentation­and­modelling­and­the­former­on­catchment-scale­observations­and­modelling.

Finally,­the­Committee­had­a­strong­positive­impression­from­the­presentations­of­the­group­of­PhD­students,­whose­scholarship­and­drive­were­assumed­as­a­sign­of­the­great­vitality­of­the­program.­

Professor­van­der­Zee­is­one­of­the­scientists­internationally­leading­the­stochastic­modelling­of­reactive­solute­transport­in­the­Unsaturated­Zone.­He­has­a­profound­understanding­of­all­facets­of­transport­theory­in­soils.­He­is­one­of­the­very­few­who­have­done­pioneering­work­at­the­interface­between­soil­physics­and­soil­chemistry.Dr.­de­Rooij­is­a­highly­innovative­experimentalist­(with­a­proven­experience­in­transport­and­geostatistical­modelling).­The­new­measuring­techniques­for­monitoring­solute­fluxes­in­field­soils­and­for­expanding­the­measuring­range­of­tensiometers­are­both­a­scientific­breakthrough­which­he­will­be­able­to­capitalize­on­in­the­planned­research­programs.Dr.­Metselaar­ is­a­newcomer­in­root­research,­but­excellently­qualified­to­dig­into­the­field­of­modelling­root­morphology­in­the­context­of­roots­being­a­sink­for­water­and­elements­in­structured­soils.­He­combines­solid­experience­in­soil­physics,­mathematics­and­plant­physiol-

1�3QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

ogy­which­makes­him­fit­to­carry­out­original­work­to­overcome­one­of­the­real­gaps­in­soil­physical­research.Dr.­Van­Dam­warrants­continuity­to­exploit­the­expertise­accumulated­under­the­guidance­of­Professor­Feddes­(SWAP­model­support­centre).­He­complements­the­profile­of­the­other­three­tenured­academics­by­his­ability­to­apply­modern­pedohydrology­in­operational­deci-sions.­­Overall­the­Committee­rates­the­quality­of­research­as­‘Very­Good’­(4).­

Given­the­transitional­constellation­of­the­SEG­personnel­the­number­of­com­pleted­disserta-tions­ (3.7�­per­year)­ is­ substantial­ and­ significantly­ above­average.­The­number­of­A-­ and­B-papers­resulting­from­the­19­dissertations­is­limited­(≈­0.6­per­dissertation).­However,­the­publication­record­of­SEG­is­deemed­‘Very­Good­(4)’­and­internationally­well­visible­despite­the­relative­impact­ratio­being­only­slightly­above­one.­The­reason­for­this­is­the­fact­that­mem-bers­of­the­soil­physics­community­traditionally­publish­in­A-journals­which­raises­the­world­average­level­of­citations.­The­various­publication­categories­are­well­balanced­with­class­A-­and­B-papers­being­the­dominant­outlet.­The­significant­number­of­books­and­book­chapters­are­partly­a­legacy­of­the­previous­Chair­(Professor­Feddes).­These­contributions­are­well­visible­in­the­community.Professor­Van­der­Zee,­Dr.­de­Rooij­and­Professor­Feddes­provided­numerous­highly­appreci-ated­services­to­the­national­and­international­community.­The­achievement­of­Dr.­de­Rooij­as­an­EGU­offical­(European­Geosciences­Union)­needs­to­be­emphasized­because­he­established­the­ European­ platform­ ‘Unsaturated Zone’­ sciences­ which­ now­ attracts­ many­ experts­ from­overseas.Funding:­The­percentage­of­NWO­funding­(fundamental­science)­is­quite­high­and­favour-ably­rates­the­scientific­reputation­of­this­group.

The­instrumental­innovation­for­field­use­is­a­highlight­of­the­past­six­years­(multicompart-ment­sampler­and­osmotic­tensiometer).­The­same­applies­to­the­contribution­in­the­field­of­transport­theory.­The­SWAP­model­conceptualized­and­implemented­by­the­Feddes­group­is­one­of­the­classics­and­used­by­hundreds­of­research­units­around­the­globe.­Hence­the­group­maintained,­and­still­does,­a­user­support­on­a­high­level.­The­input­of­this­group­spans­from­fundamental­ insights,­over­ technical­ innovations,­ to­actual­use­of­ the­products­ in­practice.­Hence­they­serve­a­wide­spectrum­of­customers.­Overall­the­Committee­rates­the­relevance­as­‘Very­Good’­(4).

The­scientific­concept­of­this­group­is­a­well­conceived­reorientation­which­makes­optimal­use­of­the­knowledge­import­from­SOQ,­of­a­valorisation­of­Feddes’­legacy,­and­of­a­new­focus­on­roots­as­the­sink­for­water­and­sensitive­process­control­in­hydrological­and­global­climate­models.­This­ group­ has­ a­ high­ probability­ of­ becoming­ a­ prominent­ unit­ in­ soil­ physical­research­with­the­rare­label­of­a­convincingly­integrated­approach­(soil­physics­complemented­with­soil­chemical­expertise­and­new­input­from­root­physiology­and­morphology,­a­rare­com-bination­of­disciplines).­The­personnel­capacity­is,­however,­critically­limiting­the­potential­of­this­group­and­this­Committee­would­recommend­an­extension­of­its­permanent­staff.­Over-all,­the­Committee­rates­the­prospects­of­this­group­as­‘Very­Good’­(4).­

1�4 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix 1: Curricula Vitae of committee members

Prof. Andrea Rinaldo, Dipartimento­IMAGE,­University­of­Padova.­Transport­phenomena­in­the­hydrological­cycle.­Hydrogeomorphology.­Transport­ in­heterogeneous­porous­forma-tions.­Fluvial­hydraulics.­Fractals­in­geomorphology.­Stochastic­modelling­of­natural­phenom-ena.­Computational­spectral­methods.­Stochastic­Modeling­of­Natural­Phenomena.­Networks­in­Nature.­Ecological­Size­Spectra­and­Scaling­in­Ecosystems.

Prof. hannes Flühler, ETH­Zürich,­Institute­of­Terrestrial­Ecology­(ITÖ),­Soil­Physics.­Basic­Issues:­Transport­of­water,­solutes,­gas­and­heat­in­(real)­soils;­strong­emphasis­on­conducting­controlled­field­experiments­that­are­based­on­clearly­defined­research­questions;­adapting­and­developing­models­that­are­suitable­for­describing­those­features­that­govern­field-scale­trans-port­processes­;­key­is­the­dynamics­of­soil­and­rock­structures­and­their­influence­on­transport­in­those­media;­Environmental­Issues:­management­practises­and­physical­soil­status,­mobil-ity­of­chemicals­in­the­vadose­(unsaturated)­zone;­transport­phenomena­in­fractured­rock­as­related­to­nuclear­repositories;­Methodological­Issues:­high­resolution­TDR-technology;­image­analysis­and­quantification­of­dye­tracer­distributions­in­soils.­

Prof. Roland Schulze, Department­of­Agricultural­Engineering,­University­of­Natal.­Research­Interests:­

•­ Hydrological­processes­and­scale­issues•­ Hydrological­modelling­(developer­of­ACRU­model)•­ Integrated­catchments­modelling•­ Design­hydrology•­ Hydrological­education•­ Climate­change­impacts•­ Guest­Professor­in­hydrological­modelling­at­IHE,­Delft­(Netherlands)

1�5QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix 2: Overview of Scores

Table 1: Overview of scores

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityEarth­System­Science-Climate­Change­(ESS-CC)

Very­good Very­good Very­good/Excellent

Very­good/Excellent

Hydrology­and­Quantitative­Water­Management­(HWM)

Good/Very­good

Good Good Very­good/Excellent

Soil­Physics,­Ecohydrology­and­Groundwater­Management­(SEG)

Very­good Very­good Very­good Very­good

Table 2: SEP-scale; the meaning of the scores

Work­ that­ is­ at­ the­ forefront­ internationally,­ and­which­most­ likely­will­have­an­important­and­substantial­impact­in­the­field.­Institute­is­considered­an­international­leader.

Excellent (5)

Work­ that­ is­ internationally­ competitive­ and­ is­ expected­ to­ make­ a­significant­ contribution;­ nationally­ speaking­ at­ the­ forefront­ in­ the­field.­Institute­is­considered­international­player,­national­leader.

Very good (4)

Work­that­is­competitive­at­the­national­level­and­will­probably­make­a­valuable­contribution­in­the­international­field.­Institute­is­considered­internationally­visible­and­a­national­player.

Good (3)

Work­that­is­solid­but­not­exciting,­will­add­to­our­understanding­and­is­in­principle­worthy­of­support.­It­is­considered­of­less­priority­than­work­in­the­above­categories.­Institute­is­nationally­visible.

Satisfactory (2)

Work­that­is­neither­solid­nor­exciting­flawed­in­the­scientific­and­or­technical­approach,­repetitions­of­other­work,­etc.­Work­not­worthy­of­pursuing.

Unsatisfactory (1)

1�6 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix 3: Schedule

Environmental Earth Sciences Review Committee (EES)

SUNDAY 17-06-2007xx.xx­–­15.00 ARRIVAL­NH­Centre­Utrecht,­Janskerkhof­10,­Utrecht,­

Tel.­+31.30.�31316915.00­–­15.30 WELCOME15.30­–­16.00 QANU:­General­introduction­on­the­assessment­and­the­review­

programme16.00­–­16.30 SENSE:­General­introduction­SENSE,­with­emphasis­on­the­3­different­

assessment­levels:­research­groups;­SENSE­institutes­and­SENSE­Research­School

16.45­–­18.30 Internal­RC­meeting19.00­–­�1.00 DINNER�1.00­–­��.00 (meeting­chairs)�0.00­–­��.00

MONDAY 18-06-2007xx.xx­–­09.30 Travel­to­Wageningen09.30­–­10.30 Internal­RC­meeting­in­Wageningen10.30­–­11.30 Presentation­and­discussion­Earth­System­Science­Group­(ESS-WIMEK/

WU)­nr.­1511.30­–­1�.00 Internal­RC­meeting1�.00­–­13.00 Lunch­break13.00­–­14.00 Presentation­and­discussion­Hydrology­and­Quantitative­Water­

Management­Group­(HWM-WIMEK/WU)­nr.­1614.00­–­15.00 Presentation­and­discussion­Soil­Physics,­Ecohydrology­and­Ground­

Water­Quality­Group­(SEG-WIMEK/WU)­nr.­1715.15­–­16.45 Site­visit;­PhD­(poster)­presentations­(ESS,­HWM,­SEG)­and­discussion17.00­–­18.00 Internal­RC­meeting18.00­–­�0.00 Dinner­/­Travel­to­Utrecht

TUESDAY 19-06-2007xx.xx­–­09.30 Utrecht09.30­–­10.30 Internal­RC­meeting­/­closure10.30­–­11.3011.15­–­1�.0011.30­–­1�.00

(chairs­meet­in­General­Committee,­Wednesday­9:00­hrs)

1�7QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Committee Environmental Chemistry, Microbiology, Ecotoxicology and Biotechnology (ECMEB)

1�8 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

1�9QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

1. The review committee and the review procedures

Scope of the assessment and structure of this reportThe­Review­Committee­was­ asked­ to­perform­a­ research­assessment­of­ the­Environmental­Chemistry,­Microbiology,­Ecotoxicology­and­Biotechnology­research­at­the­Wageningen­Insti-tute­for­Environment­and­Climate­Research­(WIMEK),­at­ the­Institute­for­Environmental­studies­(IVM-VU)­and­at­the­Institute­of­Ecological­Science­(IES-VU).­This­assessment­covers­the­activities­and­the­research­in­the­period­�001-�006.­The­assessment­is­part­of­the­�007­review­of­the­Netherlands­Research­School­for­Socio-Economic­and­Natural­Sciences­of­the­Environment­(SENSE).­­

WIMEK-WUR 18.­ Microbiology­Group­(only­Environmental­Microbiology­part)19.­ Environmental­Technology­Group�0.­ Soil­Chemistry­and­Chemical­Soil­Quality­Group

IVM-VU �1.­ Department­of­Chemistry­and­BiologyIES-VU ��.­ Animal­Ecology­Group­�:­Ecotoxicology­and­Ecogenomics­Group

The­Committee's­tasks­were­to­assess­the­quality­of­the­research­programmes­on­the­basis­of­the­information­provided­by­the­Institutes­and­through­interviews­with­the­management­and­the­research­leaders,­and­to­advise­how­this­quality­might­be­improved.

Part­I,­chapter­1­describes­the­composition­of­the­Committee,­its­activities­and­the­procedures­followed­by­the­Committee.Part­ I,­ chapter­�­ contains­general­ remarks­ about­ the­ state­of­ the­art­ in­ the­Environmental­Chemistry,­Microbiology,­Ecotoxicology­and­Biotechnology­fields.Part­II­contains­the­assessment­of­the­Institutes­and­programmes.­

Composition of the CommitteeThe­composition­of­the­Committee­was­as­follows:­

•­ Prof.­Willy­Verstraete,­professor­of­Microbiology­and­Technology­at­Ghent­University,­Belgium

•­ Prof.­Colin­Janssen,­professor­of­Ecotoxicology­at­Ghent­University,­Belgium•­ Prof.­Laurent­Charlet,­ professor­ of Earth­ and­Planetary­Sciences­ at­ the­Universiteé­de­

Grenoble-I,­France.3

­A­short­curriculum­vitae­of­the­Committee­members­is­included­in­Appendix­1.

In­order­to­strengthen­the­soil­chemistry­expertise­of­the­committee,­prof.­Hannes­Flühler,­professor­ in­ terrestrial­ ecology­ of­ the­ ETH­ Zürich,­ member­ of­ the­ review­ committee­ for­Environmental­Earth­Sciences,­participated­in­the­evaluation­of­the­Soil­Chemistry­group­of­WIMEK­(prof.­Van­Riemsdijk).­Furthermore,­prof.­Andrea­Rinaldo,­Dipartimento­IMAGE,­University­of­Padova,­chair­of­the­review­committee­for­Environmental­Earth­Sciences,­pro-vided­a­preliminary­assessment­of­this­group.

3­Professor­Charlet­was­unfortunately­absent­due­to­illness­during­the­review­but­provided­a­preliminary­assess-ment­of­the­Soil­chemistry­group­of­WIMEK.

130 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Geert­van­der­Veen­was­appointed­secretary­to­the­Committee,­on­behalf­of­QANU­(Quality­Assurance­Netherlands­Universities).­

IndependenceAll­members­of­ the­Committee­ signed­a­ statement­of­ independence­ to­ safeguard­ that­ they­would­assess­the­quality­of­the­Institute­and­research­programmes­in­an­unbiased­and­inde-pendent­way.­Any­existing­personal­or­professional­relationships­between­committee­members­and­programmes­under­review­were­reported­and­discussed­in­the­committee­meeting.­The­Committee­concluded­that­there­were­no­close­relations­or­dependencies­and­that­there­was­no­risk­in­terms­of­bias­or­undue­influence.

Data provided to the CommitteeThe­Committee­has­received­detailed­documentation­consisting­of­the­following­parts:­

1.­ Self­evaluations­at­programme/research­group­ level­ (5),­at­ institute­ level­ (3)­and­at­ the­level­of­the­research­school

�.­ Copies­of­three­key­publications­per­programme;3.­ Bibliometric­study­1996-�0044.­ A­DVD­with­all­SENSE­background­material

The­documentation­included­all­the­information­required­by­the­Standard­Evaluation­Pro-tocol­(SEP).­­

The­ self-evaluations­ provided­ by­ SENSE­ were­ well­ documented­ and­ highly­ transparent.­Although­there­were­some­methodological­differences­between­the­self-assessment­of­the­vari-ous­groups,­the­assessments­in­combination­with­the­discussions­of­the­committee­with­the­research­leaders­allowed­an­objective­evaluation­of­the­research­groups.­

Procedures followed by the CommitteeThe­Committee­proceeded­according­to­the­SEP.­Prior­to­the­Committee­meeting,­each­pro-gramme­was­assigned­to­a­first­and­a­second­reviewer,­who­formulated­a­preliminary­assess-ment.­The­final­assessments­are­based­on­the­documentation­provided­by­the­Institutes,­the­key­publications­and­the­interviews­with­the­management­and­with­the­ leaders­of­the­pro-grammes).­The­interviews­took­place­on­June­17,­�007­till­June­19,­�007­(see­the­schedule­in­Appendix­3).­A­site­visit­was­organised­to­the­departments­of­environmental­technology­and­soil­ chemistry­and­chemical­ soil­quality.­The­committee­was­ impressed­by­ the­magnificent­facilities,­infrastructure­and­state-of-the­art­equipment­and­the­way­it­is­managed.­The­depart-ment­of­microbiology­could­not­be­visited­because­it­is­in­the­process­of­moving­to­new­facili-ties.­There­was­a­very­positive­and­open­interaction­with­5­PhD­students­from­each­of­these­groups­in­an­poster­session,­The­quality,­knowledge,­motivation­and­eagerness­to­succeed­was­very­well­appreciated­by­the­committee.

Preceding­the­ interviews,­ the­Committee­was­briefed­by­QANU­about­research­assessment­according­to­SEP.­On­the­same­day,­June­17,­�007,­the­Committee­discussed­the­preliminary­assessments.­For­each­programme­a­number­of­comments­and­questions­were­decided­upon.­The­Committee­also­agreed­upon­procedural­matters­and­aspects­of­the­assessment.­After­the­interviews­the­Committee­discussed­the­scores­and­comments­and­made­draft­texts.­The­texts­were­finalised­through­email­exchanges.­The­final­version­was­presented­to­the­Insti-tutes­and­SENSE­on­August­1,­�007.­The­comments­of­the­Institutes­and­SENSE­were­dis-

131QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

cussed­in­the­Committee­and­led­to­changes­in­the­report­on­a­number­of­points.­The­final­report­was­presented­ to­Boards­of­ the­participating­universities­ and­was­printed­after­ their­formal­acceptance­of­the­report.­

The­Committee­used­the­rating­system­of­the­Standard­Evaluation­Protocol­(SEP).­The­mean-ing­of­the­scores­is­described­in­Appendix­�.­

For­the­assessment­of­the­quality­of­the­research­the­groups­were­compared­at­the­international­level­with­their­peers.­Publication­and­citation­records­were­examined,­major­achievements­were­taken­into­account,­their­selected­top-publications­were­evaluated­and­their­capacity­to­attract­highly­qualified­students­and­collaborators­was­discussed.­In­terms­of­productivity­the­criteria­were­the­number­of­publications,­the­numbers­of­Msc­and­PhD­students,­the­patents­and­spin-offs.­These­values­were­judged­in­absolute­values­and­in­relation­to­the­number­of­staff.The­relevance­of­the­groups­in­relation­to­environmental­sciences­was­judged­at­the­interna-tional­and­local­level.­Furthermore­relevance­for­science­at­such­and­society­as­a­whole­were­taken­into­account.­Elements­such­as­recognition­as­a­knowledge­centre,­participation­in­expert­groups,­editorial­boards­and­professional­societies­are­indicators­for­the­former.­Services­and­expertise­rendered­to­industry­and­practical­applications­of­scientific­developments­constituted­the­weighting­for­the­latter­part.

The­prospects­and­viability­were­mainly­based­on­their­strategic­vision­with­regard­to­their­group­and­the­surroundings.­Moreover­the­concrete­and­practical­means­at­their­disposal­for­achieving­or­maintaining­leadership­were­assessed.­This­includes­personnel,­infrastructure­and­policy­issues­at­group,­institute­and­university­level.

13� QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

133QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

2. General remarks

In­the­domain­of­Environmental­Chemistry,­Microbiology,­Ecotoxicology­and­Biotechnology­a­number­of­rapid­scientific­developments­and­evolving­social­demands­can­be­observed.­In­the­scientific­domain­they­particularly­relate­to­genomics.­In­the­societal­domain­global­warm-ing,­biodiversity­and­pollution­are­major­drivers,­already­leading­to­increasing­public­aware-ness­and­more­stringent­(EU)­regulations.­In­order­to­solve­the­problems,­new­knowledge­is­necessary­to­determine­mechanisms­of­environmental­decay­and­in­this­way­be­better­able­to­develop­technology­to­increase­sustainable­development­and­use­of­renewable­resources.­This­necessitates­development­in­the­above­named­fields.The­state­of­the­art­in­the­domain­of­soil­chemistry­and­chemical­soil­quality­is­the­understand-ing­of­the­molecular­basis­of­crucial­soil­processes­such­as­the­interactions­of­metalhydroxides­and­organic­matter.­The­ translation­of­basic­chemical­understanding­of­ soil­phenomena­to­major­environmental­management­issues­in­the­framework­of­soil­quality­and­soil­health­and­soil­policy­(e.g.­water­framework­directive)­is­most­valuable­and­challenging.The­focal­point­of­current­environmental­microbiology­is­the­understanding­of­micro-organ-isms­and­particularly­microbial­communities­in­relation­to­the­functioning­of­natural­environ-ments­and­environmental­biotechnological­processes.­The­combination­of­the­integration­of­innovative­cultivation­based­and­functional­genomic­studies­is­a­general­trend.Recent­developments­in­the­field­of­environmental­health­focus­on­improving­our­understand-ing­of­the­occurrence­and­impact­of­natural­and­anthropogenic­stressors­in­ecosystems.­­The­development­and­application­of­novel­tools­for­detecting­effects­of­and­exposure­to­stressors­are­essential­to­further­enhance­our­capacity­to­protect­the­environment.­The­use­of­new­tech-nologies­such­as­ecological­genomics,­advanced­chemical­analytics­and­dedicated­in­vitro­and­in­vivo­test­systems­for­elucidating­impacts­of­environmental­stresses­are­currently­–­from­both­an­academic­and­a­regulatory­perspective-­major­research­themes­in­this­field.The­largest­challenge­for­environmental­technology­is­the­transfer­of­scientific­knowledge­to­solutions­for­problems­in­society.­Technology­is­more­and­more,­because­of­economic­costs­and­ environmental­ effects,­ moving­ from­ end-of-pipe­ solutions­ towards­ process­ integrated­solutions.­Reuse­of­water­and­materials­and­use­of­renewable­resources­are­important­parts­of­this­approach­because­they­address­basic­societal­needs.­The­research­of­the­groups­visited­is­all­tuned­to­these­trends,­and­certainly­is­geared­to­contrib-ute,­both­in­the­domain­of­basic­science­and­practical­applications,­to­progress­these­research­fields.As­the­assessment­of­the­individual­groups­in­this­report­will­show­SENSE­plays­a­competitive­to­leading­role­in­this­area­in­the­world.­No­major­shortcomings­were­identified.­­However,­in­view­of­the­current­low­interest­of­students­for­beta-sciences­it­is­recommended­to­strongly­advertise­the­empowerment­to­improve­the­living­conditions­of­this­planet­that­exists­within­the­domains­of­science­covered­by­this­committee.­

134 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

135QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

3. Wageningen University, Institute WIMEK

The­committee­assessed­the­following­programmes:

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityEnvironmental­Research­at­the­Laboratory­of­Microbiology

Excellent Very­good Very­good Good­to­Very­good

Environmental­Technology­Group Very­good Excellent Excellent Very­goodSoil­Chemistry­and­Soil­Quality­Group

Excellent Very­good Excellent Very­good­to­Good

136 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 18: Environmental Research at the laboratory of Microbiology (WU-MIB)Programme­director prof.­dr.­W.M.­de­Vos,­prof.­dr.­ir.­A.J.M.­Stams,­dr.­H.­SmidtResearch­staff­­�006 11.55­­fte­(�006,­within­SENSE)Assessments: Quality: Excellent

Productivity: Very­goodRelevance: Very­goodViability: Good­to­Very­good

The­ laboratory­ is­ a­ centre­ excellence­ in­ the­ field­ of­ anaerobic­ microbiology.­ It­ explores­ a­number­of­new­aspects­in­that­domain,­e.g.­the­elucidation­of­microbial­function­and­interac-tion­at­the­single­cell­level,­the­development­of­molecular­markers­to­interpret­metagenomics.­This­opens­a­variety­of­perspectives­for­acquiring­new­insights­and­developing­new­potentials­in­the­domain­of­environmental­microbiology.­

The­quality­of­the­group­can­internationally­be­rated­among­the­best­in­the­domain­of­micro-bial­ecophysiology,­particularly­the­aspects­of­syntrophy­qualify­as­excellent.We­acknowledge­the­fact­that­De­Vos­has­a­very­high­H-factor,­but­the­work­of­Stams­and­Schraa,­ which­ particularly­ relates­ to­ the­ environmental­ research,­ also­ has­ an­ applaudable­impact.­­­The­productivity­in­terms­of­publications­as­very­good,­but­the­number­of­MSc-theses­and­PhD-theses­is­rated­as­good.­

The­relevance­of­the­staff­as­measured­through­their­invited­lectures,­their­key-note­speeches­at­international­conferences­and­their­presence­in­international­committees­is­very­good.The­socio-economic­relevance­of­their­research­particularly­relates­to­their­interactions­with­the­environmental­technology­group­with­environmental­industries­which­are­prominent­on­the­international­scene.

The­prospects­of­the­group­relate­to­its­new­orientation­in­terms­of­systems­biology.­The­fact­that­they­have­delineated­the­possibility­to­further­promote­the­ecophysiology­of­syntrophic­bacteria­through­metagenomics­is­highly­valuable­and­will­ensure­the­sustainability­of­ongoing­high-level­research.­­­The­focus­of­the­director­with­respect­to­SENSE­and­the­environmental­researchers­in­his­group­requires­attention.

137QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 19: Environmental Technology Group (WU-ETE)Programme­director Prof.­dr.­ir.­W.H.­Rulkens,­prof.­dr.­ir.­C.J.N.­BuismanResearch­staff­­�006 ��.3�­­fteAssessments: Quality: Very­good

Productivity: ExcellentRelevance: ExcellentViability: Very­good

The­ group­ is­ involved­ to­ create­ new­ breakthrough­ technologies­ to­ establish­ new­ resource­cycles.­It­has­upfront­a­biotechnological­component,­which­it­combines­with­physics,­chem-istry­and­also­social­sciences.­­It­is­a­well-structured­organisation­with­good­management­in­which­concepts­such­as­bio-crystallisation,­bioavailability,­bio-retention­and­bio-electrochem-istry­generate­technologies­for­producing­products­such­as­recyclable­matters­reusable­waters­and­renewable­energies.­Moreover­the­group­has­the­special­characteristics­that­it­ interfaces­with­the­special­needs­of­society­for­new­solutions­for­environmental­problems,­both­in­devel-oped­and­developing­countries.

The­group­is­gaining­strength­and­is­competitive­at­the­international­level.­They­exert­a­strong­attraction­to­top­master­students­and­are­at­the­process­of­delivering­highly­qualified­PhDs.­Their­science­output­can­as­yet­be­qualified­good,­and­actions­are­taken­to­improve­it.­

On­the­basis­of­the­number­of­MSc­and­PhD­students­this­group­certainly­deserves­the­quali-fication­excellent.­Also­the­group­has­a­high­output­of­ intellectual­property­which­ it­ inter-faces­efficiently­with­appropriate­(industrial)­technology­developers.­The­number­of­published­papers­and­the­calculated­H-index­indicate­a­high­scientific­productivity­and­ranks­the­among­the­best­of­SENSE­WIMEK­groups.­

In­terms­of­keynote­lectures,­editorial­boards­and­leading­roles­in­international­scientific­com-mittees­the­staff­certainly­scores­very­good.­Moreover­their­interactions­with­industry­and­sci-entific­institutions­like­Wetsus,­Bbasic­and­LeaF­Associates­can­be­regarded­as­best­practice­in­the­field­of­applied­environmental­technology.­A­large­number­of­industrial­installations,­based­on­the­research­of­this­group,­has­been­built­all­over­the­world.­We­also­would­like­to­applaud­their­achievements­in­low­income­countries­where­a­number­of­technologies­of­the­group­are­applied­and­associated­training­is­provided.­­

The­planned­changes­in­staff­and­in­the­programme­will­certainly­further­enhance­their­inter-national­competitiveness.­The­three­main­domains­in­which­they­invest­for­the­future­(min-erals,­water­and­energy)­are­internationally­rapidly­evolving­research­fields­and­consequently­worthwhile­to­pursue.­The­fact­that­they­have­reoriented­their­PhD­intake­will­also­improve­their­quantitative­and­qualitative­output.­­­

138 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 20: Soil Chemistry and Soil Quality Group (WU-SOQ)Programme­director Prof.­dr.­W.H.­van­Riemsdijk,­prof.­dr.­S.E.A.T.M.­van­der­ZeeResearch­staff­­�006 9.7�­­­fte­Assessments: Quality: Excellent

Productivity: Very­goodRelevance: ExcellentViability: Very­good­to­Good

The­ group­ is­ strongly­ focused­ on­ developing­ molecular­ based­ fundamental­ understanding­of­ important­soil­chemical­processes­ that­can­also­be­relevant­ for­aquatic­environment­and­processes­occurring­in­waste­systems.­­The­areas­of­expertise­relate­to­the­interaction­between­ions­and­metal­hydroxides,­the­importance­of­organic­matter­and­the­behaviour­of­ions­in­soil­and­ the­ interaction­between­organic­matter­and­minerals.­ ­All­of­ these­open­new­horizons­for­promising­research­and­applications,­moreover­the­sensor­development­made­it­possible­to­advance­the­fundamental­understanding­of­transport­processes­of­ions­in­the­complex­soil­matrix.

The­group­is­a­world­leader­on­the­fundamental­aspects­of­element­behaviour­in­soils.­It­can­be­benchmarked­against­the­best­labs­in­this­field­worldwide.­The­publication­record­is­excel-lent.­

The­output­of­scientific­publications­is­very­good,­particularly­considering­their­top­quality.­The­number­of­completed­master-theses­is­fair,­the­number­of­PhD-theses­is­very­good.­

On­the­scientific­level­the­expertise­of­the­tenured­staff­is­internationally­highly­appreciated.­Moreover­major­efforts­have­been­made­to­implement­the­fundamental­knowledge­into­appli-cation­oriented­domains.­The­effect­that­commercial­partners­have­been­willing­to­fully­fund­PhD­projects­illustrates­their­successful­endeavours­along­those­lines.­

A­number­of­new­promising­developments­in­research­are­explored,­such­as­interfacing­with­soil­biology,­and­exploring­the­potentials­of­understanding­element­behaviour­in­natural­soil­structures.­The­group­is­encouraged­to­further­step­up­its­efforts­to­explore­and­actively­invest­in­new­multidisciplinary­scientific­developments­with­potential,­which­are­relevant­for­envi-ronmental­chemistry­and­biology.­­The­group­is­invited­to­attract­more­students­and­to­further­express­their­research­strategy.

139QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

4. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Institutes IVM and IES

The­committee­assessed­the­following­programmes:

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityDepartment­of­Chemistry­and­Biology­(IVM)

Excellent Very­good Very­good Very­good

Animal­Ecology­�:­Ecotoxicology­and­Ecogenomics­Group­(IES)

Very­good Excellent Very­good Excellent

140 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 21: Department of Chemistry and Biology (VU-C&B)Programme­director Prof.­dr.­J.­De­BoerResearch­staff­­�006 4.6­­­fteAssessments: Quality: Excellent

Productivity: Very­goodRelevance: Very­goodViability: Very­good

The­C&B­department­aims­to­contribute­to­the­field­of­environmental­health­by­developing­innovative­methods­ in­ the­areas­of­exposure­and­effects­assessments.­The­ fundamental­and­applied­aspects­of­this­research­should­be­considered­as­among­the­best­internationally.­Their­research­focuses­on­identifying­and­evaluating­emerging­chemicals­using­a­unique­com-bination­of­chemical­and­toxicological­methods.

In­terms­of­quality­the­group­is­internationally­competitive­and­ranks­among­the­very­good­research­teams­in­the­world.­They­exhibit­a­good­policy­and­dynamics­concerning­attracting­international­scientists.­They­are­internationally­recognised­for­their­unique­strategy­of­com-bining­molecular­toxicological­tools,­with­high­performance­chemical­analysis.­Their­publica-tions­are­very­high­ranking.­

The­productivity­per­person­of­this­group­is­remarkably­high.­Moreover­there­has­been­the­creation­of­a­spin-off­and­there­is­the­outlook­for­a­number­of­patents,­based­on­the­toxicologi-cal­assays­developed.­­However­the­number­of­MSc-theses­and­PhD-promotions­is­rather­low.­­This­is­due­to­the­fact­that­the­department­has­very­limited­possibilities­to­attract­students­and­to­enrol­them­in­their­R&D.­The­group­has­taken­several­actions­to­improve­these­potentiali-ties,­for­which­they­are­complimented.­The­committee­recommends­that­the­structural­posi-tioning­of­the­department­is­examined­at­a­higher­level,­with­a­view­to­improving­the­access­of­this­group­to­PhD-students­and­thus­improving­this­component­of­the­productivity.­

The­type­of­research­performed­by­the­group­has­both­a­high­scientific­and­socio-economic­relevance.­Members­of­ the­group­are­ represented­ at­ the­national­ and­ international­ level­ in­regulatory­and­advisory­organisations.­­The­group­also­has­a­considerable­number­of­interac-tions­with­major­industry­organisations­at­a­European­level.­

The­department­has­developed­a­strategy­in­which­chemistry­and­toxicology­are­combined­to­provide­results­on­the­potential­risks­of­chemicals­in­the­environment­in­a­faster­and­more­reli-able­way.­Moreover,­by­their­innovative­approach­of­Effect­Directed­Analysis,­­they­constantly­search­for­important­emerging­pollutants.­This­line­of­research­warrants­continuation­and­is­of­major­importance­in­the­context­of­SENSE.­Taking­into­account­that­the­director­was­only­recently­appointed­and­five­new­staff­members­were­added­to­the­group,­combined­with­their­already­excellent­performance,­the­committee­believes­that­the­prospects­of­this­team­are­excel-lent.­In­the­opinion­of­the­committee,­the­team­could­well­be­extended­with­an­additional­high-level­staff­member.­Obviously­the­amount­of­university­funding­(only­6.5%­of­turnover)­should­be­increased­in­order­for­the­group­to­reach­their­full­potential.

141QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 22: Animal Ecology 2: Ecotoxicology and Ecogenomics Group (VU-AE2)Programme­director Prof.­dr.­N.M.­van­Straalen,­dr.­C.A.M.­van­GestelResearch­staff­­�006 9.7­­­fteAssessments: Quality: Very­good

Productivity: ExcellentRelevance: Very­goodViability: Excellent

The­main­research­area­of­this­group­is­the­examination­of­ecological­effects­of­stress­factors­in­the­environment­and­the­mechanisms­by­which­animals­(soil­invertebrates)­respond­to­these­stressors.­The­ group­ has­ developed­ a­ hierarchical­ approach­ to­ environmental­ toxicological­issues­by­examining­stressor­effects­from­the­molecular­level­up­to­population­and­community­level.­Although­this­research­is­in­the­first­instant­addressing­fundamental­questions­it­clearly­has­a­good­applicability­and­high­societal­relevance.

The­department­publishes­high­quality­papers­and­provides­highly­appreciated­and­frequently­used­textbooks.­To­further­improve­the­impact­of­their­papers­in­the­field­the­group­leaders­have­analysed­their­publication­strategy­and­are­developing­an­improved­approach.

In­terms­of­output­of­number­of­papers­per­ tenured­staff­member,­ the­number­of­Masters­graduating­and­PhD’s­defending­their­theses­this­group­is­rated­excellent.­Several­IP­products­are­in­the­process­of­being­developed.­The­committee­recommends­that­the­department­con-tinues­this­high­level­of­various­outputs.­­­

The­department­has­a­ lot­of­ influence­on­the­ international­scene­through­participations­ in­various­commissions,­editorial­boards­and­professional­organisations.­Also­at­the­national­level­their­ research­has­an­ impact­on­environmental­policy.­Overall­ the­ relevance­ to­ science­and­society­­is­rated­very­good.

The­ combination­ of­ their­ established­ expertise­ in­ terrestrial­ stress­ ecology­ combined­ with­new­developments­in­ecological­genomics­certainly­offers­a­very­wide­array­of­perspectives­for­the­coming­years.­It­is­particularly­appreciated­that­they­consider­genomics­as­a­tool­to­inter-pret­ecological­phenomena­such­as­biological­availability­of­contaminants­and­functionality­of­invertebrate­communities­in­soil­ecosystems.

14� QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

­Appendix 1: Curricula Vitae of committee members

Prof. Willy Verstraete,­is­professor­of­microbiology­at­Ghent­University,­LabMET­(Labora-tory­of­Microbial­Ecology­and­Technology).­His­R­&­D­has­a­central­theme:­processes­medi-ated­by­microbial­mixed­cultures.­His­team­deals­with­microbial­transformations­in­waters­and­soils­and­the­gastro-intestinal­tract.­A­variety­of­biotechnological­processes,­based­on­microbial­consortia,­are­subject­to­R&D­at­LabMET.­W.­Verstraete­has­field­experience­with­respect­to­design­and­operation­of­drinking­water­production­plants­(slow­sand­filtration),­aerobic­waste-water­treatment­(in­particular­with­respect­to­nitrification-denitrification),­anaerobic­digestion­of­wastewaters­and­sludges,­solid­state­fermentation­of­organic­residues­and­bioremediation­processes­of­soils­and­sediments.­He­has­also­gained­experience­in­various­aspects­of­pre-­and­probiotics­used­in­human­and­animal­nutrition.­

Prof. Colin R. Janssen­is­professor­of­Ecotoxicology­at­Ghent­University,­Belgium­where­he­directs­the­Environmental­Toxicology­Research­Group,­Department­of­Applied­Ecology­and­Environmental­Biology­at­ the­Faculty­of­Applied­Biological­and­Agricultural­Sciences.­ ­He­holds­ a­Masters­degree­ in­ zoology­and­obtained­his­Ph.D.­ in­ environmental­ sciences­ from­the­same­university.­­Since­his­appointment­as­research­associate­in­1987,­C.­Janssen­and­his­research­ team­ have­ been­ conducting­ fundamental­ and­ applied­ ecotoxicological­ research­ in­various­areas­such­as­development­and­application­of­alternative­toxicity­tests,­sediment­and­effluent­toxicology,­biomarkers­and­endocrine­disruptors,­metal­toxicology­in­aquatic­and­ter-restrial­systems­and­environmental­risk­assessment.­

Prof. laurent Charlet,­professor­of­Earth­and­Planetary­Sciences,­­Universiteé­de­Grenoble-I,­France,­Department­(LGIT-OSUG).­His­research­interests­are:­

•­ Molecular­modeling:­Reaction­pathways­at­solid/water­interfaces­;­DFT,­MUSIC­and­DM­models­vs.­SANS,­XAFS,­LITRF,­Mössbauer­and­RPE­data.

•­ Contaminant­immobilization­in­clay-rich­carbonated­media:­Cation­exchange­and­struc-turally­based­surface­complexation­theory;­application­to­the­surface­chemistry­of­sulfides,­clays,­carbonates­and­mixed­mineral­systems.­Pathways­and­rates­of­reactions;­Integration­to­reactive­transport­models.

•­ Anoxic­media­and­emergence­of­life:­chemistry­of­FeS­protein­clusters­and­Prion­protein;­early­regulation­of­trace­metal­concentration­and­hydrogen­break­down­coupled­to­amino­acid­synthesis;­redox­(Fe,­Mn,­S)­and­acid-base­chemistry;­transformation­kinetics­of­in-organic­(U,­Se,­Cr,­As­and­Hg)­and­organic­(TCE,­Nitrobenzene)­contaminants­and­their­transport­in­confined­anoxic­environments.

•­ Large­field­scale­experiments:­Contaminant­(As,­Se,­Hg)­cycle­in­soils,­surface-­and­ground-waters;­field­intensive­studies­on­Arsenic­(Bengale,­Argentina,­France),­Selenium­(Spain)­and­Mercury­(French­Guyana);­paleoenvironmental­archives.

143QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix 2: Overview of Scores

Table 1: Overview of scores

Quality Productivity Relevance Viability18.­WIMEK­Microbiology Excellent Very­good Very­good Good­to­

Very­good19.­WIMEK­Environmental­Technology

Very­good Excellent Excellent Very­good

�0.­WIMEK­Soil­Chemistry­and­Soil­Quality

Excellent Very­good Excellent Good­to­Very­good

�1.­IVM­Environmental­Chemistry­&­Biology

Excellent Very­good Very­good Very­good

��.­IES­Ecotoxicology­and­Ecogenomics

Very­good Excellent Very­good Excellent

Table 2: SEP-scale; the meaning of the scores

Work­that­is­at­the­forefront­internationally,­and­which­most­likely­will­have­an­important­and­substantial­impact­in­the­field.­Institute­is­considered­an­international­leader.

Excellent (5)

Work­that­ is­ internationally­competitive­and­is­expected­to­make­a­significant­contribution;­nationally­ speaking­at­ the­ forefront­ in­ the­field.­Institute­is­considered­international­player,­national­leader.

Very good (4)

Work­ that­ is­ competitive­ at­ the­ national­ level­ and­ will­ probably­make­a­valuable­contribution­ in­ the­ international­ field.­ Institute­ is­considered­internationally­visible­and­a­national­player.

Good (3)

Work­that­is­solid­but­not­exciting,­will­add­to­our­understanding­and­is­in­principle­worthy­of­support.­It­is­considered­of­less­priority­than­work­in­the­above­categories.­Institute­is­nationally­visible.

Satisfactory (2)

Work­that­is­neither­solid­nor­exciting­flawed­in­the­scientific­and­or­technical­approach,­repetitions­of­other­work,­etc.­Work­not­worthy­of­pursuing.

Unsatisfactory (1)

144 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix 3: Schedule

Environmental Chemistry, Microbiology, Ecotoxicology and Biotechnology committee (ECMEB)

SUNDAY 17-06-2007xx.xx­–­15.00 ARRIVAL­NH­Centre­Utrecht15.00­–­15.30 WELCOME15.30­–­16.00 QANU:­General­introduction16.00­–­16.30 SENSE:­General­introduction16.45­–­18.30 Internal­RC­meeting19.00­–­�1.00 DINNER�1.00­–­��.00 (meeting­chairs)

MONDAY 18-06-2007XXXX­–­09.30 Travel­to­Wageningen09.30­–­10.30 Internal­RC­meeting­in­Wageningen10.30­–­11.30 Presentation­ and­ discussion­ Laboratory­ of­ Microbiology­ -­ Molecular­

Ecology­and­Microbial­Physiology­groups­(MIB-WIMEK/WU)­nr.­1811.30­–­1�.00 Internal­RC­meeting1�.00­–­13.00 Lunch­break13.00­–­14.00 Presentation­ and­ discussion­ Soil­ Chemistry­ and­ Chemical­ Soil­ Quality­

Group­(SOQ-WIMEK/WU)­nr.­�014.00­–­15.00 Presentation­and­discussion­Environmental­Technology­Group­

(ETE-WIMEK/WU)­nr.­1915.15­–­16.45 Site­visit;­PhD­(poster)­presentations­(MIB,­SOQ,­ETE)­and­discussion17.00­–­18.00 Internal­RC­meeting18.00­–­�0.00 Dinner­/­Travel­to­Utrecht

TUESDAY 19-06-200709.30­–­10.30 Internal­RC­meeting­in­Amsterdam10.30­–­11.30 Presentation­and­discussion­Department­of­Chemistry­and­Biology­

(C&B-IVM-VU)­nr.­�111.30­–­1�.00 Internal­RC­meeting1�.00­–­13.00 Lunch­break13.00­–­14.00 Presentation­and­discussion­Animal­Ecology­�:­Ecotoxicology­

and­Ecogenomics­Group­(AE�-IES/VU)­nr.­��14.00­–­15.00 Site­visit­+­PhD­poster­presentations­(C&B,­AE�)­and­discussion15.15­–­16.45 Internal­RC­meeting17.00­–­18.00 Internal­RC­meeting­/­closure18.00­–­�0.00 Dinner­/­Travel­to­Utrecht

(chairs­meet­in­General­Committee,­Wednesday­9:00­hrs)

145QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Committee Integrated Assessment, Sustainable Systems Analysis and Spatial Management (ISS)

146 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

147QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

1. The review committee and the review procedures

Scope of the assessment and structure of this reportThe­Review­Committee­was­asked­to­perform­a­research­assessment­of­the­WIMEK-WUR­Environmental­Systems­Analysis­Group;­ the­ IVM-VU­Department­of­Spatial­Analysis­ and­Decision­Support;­Copernicus­Institute­UU­Science,­Technology­and­Society­Group;­IVEM-RUG­Centre­for­Energy­and­Environmental­Studies­and­ICIS-UM­International­Centre­for­Integrated­Assessment­and­Sustainable­Development.­This­assessment­covers­the­activities­and­the­research­in­the­period­�001-�006.­

The­assessment­is­part­of­the­�007­review­of­the­Netherlands­Research­School­for­Socio-Eco-nomic­and­Natural­Sciences­of­the­Environment­(SENSE).­­

Institute Programme Wageningen­Institute­for­Environment­and­Climate­Research­(WIMEK-WU)

�3.­ Environmental­Systems­Analysis­Group

Institute­for­Environmental­Studies­(IVM-VU)­ �4.­ Department­of­Spatial­Analysis­and­Decision­Support­(SPACE)

Copernicus­Institute­for­Sustainable­Development­and­Innovation­­(Copernicus­UU)

�5.­ Science,­Technology­and­Society­Group

Centre­for­Energy­and­Environmental­Studies­(IVEM-RUG)

�6.­ Centre­for­Energy­and­Environmental­Studies

International­Centre­for­Integrated­Assessment­and­Sustainable­Development­(ICIS-UM)

�7.­ International­Centre­for­Integrated­Assessment­and­Sustainable­Development

The­evaluation­of­the­research­programmes­was­based­on­the­self-evaluation­reports­and­other­material­provided­by­the­Institutes­and­on­interviews­with­the­management­and­the­research­leaders.­The­committee­also­had­the­task­to­advise­how­the­quality­of­the­research­programmes­might­be­improved.

Part­I,­chapter­1­describes­the­composition­of­the­Committee,­its­activities­and­the­procedures­followed­by­the­Committee.Part­I,­chapter­�­contains­general­remarks­about­the­state­of­the­art­in­the­field­of­Integrated­Assessment,­Sustainable­Systems­Analysis­and­Spatial­Management.Part­II­contains­the­assessment­of­the­programmes.­

Composition of the CommitteeThe­composition­of­the­Committee­was­as­follows:­

•­ Dr.­Lea­Kauppi,­Director­General­of­the­Finnish­Environment­Institute­(SYKE)•­ Prof.­Thomas­B.­Johansson,­professor­of­energy­systems­analysis­and­Director­of­the­In-

ternational­Institute­for­Industrial­Environmental­Economics­(IIIEE)­at­the­University­of­Lund,­Sweden

•­ Prof.­William­Lafferty,­professor­of­political­science­and­Director­of­the­research­programme­ProSus­at­the­Centre­for­Development­and­the­Environment­(SUM),­University­of­Oslo.­Professor­of­Strategic­Research­for­Sustainable­Development­at­the­University­of­Twente.4

4­Professor­William­M.­Lafferty­was­not­able­to­attend­the­assessment­sessions­in­Utrecht.­His­com-ments­and­preliminary­assessment­were­forwarded­to­the­Committee­prior­to­the­meeting­in­Utrecht.

148 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

External­referent­for­the­committee­was­Helen­Couclelis,­Professor­of­Geography­at­the­Uni-versity­of­California,­Santa­Barbara,­California,­USA.

Dr.­ Barbara­ van­ Balen­ was­ appointed­ secretary­ to­ the­ Committee­ on­ behalf­ of­ QANU­(Quality­Assurance­Netherlands­Universities)

A­short­curriculum­vitae­of­the­Committee­members­is­included­in­Appendix­1.

IndependenceAll­members­of­ the­Committee­ signed­a­ statement­of­ independence­ to­ safeguard­ that­ they­would­assess­the­quality­of­the­Institute­and­research­programmes­in­an­unbiased­and­inde-pendent­way.­Any­existing­personal­or­professional­relationships­between­committee­members­and­programmes­under­review­were­reported­and­discussed­in­the­committee­meeting.­The­Committee­concluded­that­there­were­no­close­relations­or­dependencies­and­that­there­was­no­risk­in­terms­of­bias­or­undue­influence.

Material provided to the CommitteeThe­Committee­has­received­detailed­documentation­consisting­of­the­following­parts:­

1.­ Self­evaluations­at­the­level­of­the­programmes,­the­institutes­and­the­research­school�.­ Copies­of­three­key­publications­per­programme3.­ Bibliometric­study­1996-�0044.­ A­DVD­with­all­SENSE­background­material.

The­documentation­included­all­the­information­required­by­the­Standard­Evaluation­Proto-col­(SEP).­­

Remark about the Standard Evaluation ProtocolThe­ Standard­ Evaluation­ Protocol­ (SEP,­ see­ www.qanu.nl)­ provides­ guidelines­ to­ evaluate­university­ research­ institutes­ and­ their­ research­ programmes.­This­ report­ is­ limited­ to­ the­research­ programmes­ concerning­ Integrated­ Assessment,­ Sustainable­ Systems­ Analysis­ and­Spatial­Management.­The­distinction­between­institute­and­programme­was­however­not­very­clear­for­every­group­the­committee­assessed.­In­two­cases­the­programme­and­institute­were­fully­overlapping.­­The­part­of­the­SEP­protocol­that­describes­the­assessment­of­research­was­applicable­for­this­evaluation.­The­committee­could­get­a­good­picture­of­the­quality­and­pro-ductivity­of­each­of­the­groups.­

The­self-assessment­reports­the­committee­had­received­were­transparent­and­comprehensive,­the­interviews­with­the­group­leaders­completed­the­picture.­

The­SEP­protocol­guided­the­committee­through­the­process­of­assessment.­The­prescribed­rating­of­the­groups­according­to­the­four­criteria:­quality,­productivity,­relevance­and­viability­was,­however,­very­difficult.­The­value­of­the­research­programmes­can­not­be­described­in­simple­ratings.­The­committee­tried­to­express­the­differences­between­the­assessed­groups­in­the­final­ratings­but­the­committee­itself­regards­the­argumentation­that­accompanies­the­rat-ings­as­the­more­valuable­part­of­the­assessment.

149QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Procedures followed by the CommitteePrior­to­the­Committee­meeting,­each­programme­was­assigned­to­a­first­and­a­second­reviewer,­who­formulated­a­preliminary­assessment.­The­final­assessments­are­based­on­the­documenta-tion­provided­by­the­Institutes,­the­key­publications­and­the­interviews­with­the­management­and­with­the­leaders­of­the­programmes.­The­interviews­took­place­on­June­18,­�007­till­June­19,­�007­(see­the­schedule­in­Appendix­3).­Due­to­reasons­of­health,­Professor­William­M.­Lafferty­was­not­able­to­attend­the­assessment­sessions­in­Utrecht.­His­comments­and­prelimi-nary­assessment­were­forwarded­to­the­Committee­prior­to­the­meeting­in­Utrecht.

Preceding­the­ interviews,­ the­Committee­was­briefed­by­QANU­about­research­assessment­according­to­SEP.­On­the­same­day,­June­17,­�007,­the­Committee­discussed­the­preliminary­assessments.­For­each­programme­a­number­of­comments­and­questions­were­decided­upon.­The­Committee­also­agreed­upon­procedural­matters­and­aspects­of­the­assessment.­After­the­interviews­the­Committee­discussed­the­scores­and­comments­and­made­draft­texts.­The­texts­were­finalised­through­email­exchanges.­The­final­version­was­presented­to­the­Insti-tutes­and­SENSE­on­August­1,­�007.­The­comments­of­the­Institutes­and­SENSE­were­dis-cussed­in­the­Committee­and­led­to­changes­in­the­report­on­a­number­of­points.­The­final­report­was­presented­ to­Boards­of­ the­participating­universities­ and­was­printed­after­ their­formal­acceptance­of­the­report.­

The­report­of­the­external­referent­for­the­committee­concerning­programme­�4­was­received­after­the­site­visit.

The­Committee­used­the­rating­system­of­the­Standard­Evaluation­Protocol­(SEP).­The­mean-ing­of­the­scores­is­described­in­Appendix­�.­

150 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

151QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

2. General remarks

Today­the­world­is­facing­increasingly­complex­problems­which­require­responses­based­on­interdisciplinary­insights­and­research­from­both­social­and­natural­sciences.­The­groups­work-ing­in­this­field­acknowledge­that­their­research­not­only­has­to­be­scientifically­valid­and­rele-vant­to­the­policy­debate,­but­also­has­to­be­accepted­by­stakeholders.­This­places­some­specific­demands­on­the­methodology­development,­which­is­one­of­the­core­issues­in­this­field.­The­challenge­for­the­research­groups­is­to­combine­rigorous­scientific­research­with­stakeholders’­tacit­knowledge,­perceptions­and­values.­They­deal,­among­others,­with­uncertainty­ issues,­risks­analysis,­and­methods­that­explicitly­aim­at­effectively­integrating­stakeholders’­knowl-edge­into­modelling­for­decision-making­(i.e.­participatory­approach).­­Another­core­subject­in­this­field­is­the­study­and­design­of­new­governance­arrangements­for­sustainable­development­and­multi-level,­multi-actor,­and­multi-sector­societal­arrangements­for­sustainable­issues.­Research­is­focused­on­the­changing­roles­of­governments,­markets­and­the­civil­society­in­governance.­Other­research­foci­within­this­field­are­the­changing­relation-ship­between­public­and­private­responsibilities­for­sustainable­development­and­the­innova-tive­and­potentially­influential­new­types­of­governance­on­the­local,­regional­and­global­level­in­the­process­of­globalization.The­five­groups­that­were­evaluated­by­this­committee­were­very­diverse.­They­differed­in­size,­in­level­and­kind­of­funding,­in­subject­and­in­methods.­The­position­of­the­groups­in­uni-versity­varied­even­more.­Some­of­the­groups­are­an­institute­themselves,­others­are­part­of­a­larger­and­more­established­institute.­Some­of­the­groups­totally­depend­on­external­funding,­while­others­receive­almost­all­their­funding­from­the­university.­It­was­therefore­not­easy­for­the­committee­to­compare­the­groups­and­give­a­balanced­assessment­for­each­of­them.­

In­general­ the­ societal­ and­ scientific­ relevance­of­ the­ research­of­ these­groups­ is­high.­The­research­groups­are­productive­and­all­score­above­the­world­average­when­using­criteria­like­impact­factor,­citation­indexes­and­H-index.­

The­quality­of­the­research­is­generally­good­to­very­good­and­sometimes­excellent.­

Considering­the­challenges­and­problems­raised­by­the­global­change,­research­in­this­field­will­remain­highly­relevant­for­several­decades.­The­need­for­insights,­answers­and­solutions­will­grow­enormously­in­the­next­years.­Thus­the­viability­of­the­groups­is­generally­good­to­excel-lent,­although­the­size­of­the­group­and­their­position­in­the­university­makes­some­groups­more­vulnerable­than­others.

15� QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

153QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

3. Wageningen Universiteit, Institute WIMEK

The­Wageningen­Institute­for­Environment­and­Climate­Research­(WIMEK)­aims­to­develop­an­integrated­understanding­of­environmental­change­and­its­impact­on­the­quality­of­life­and­sustainability,­by­

(i)­ conducting­innovative­scientific­research,­(ii)­ offering­PhD­training­and­education­(iii)­dissemination­of­emerging­insights­and­recent­research­results.­

The­WU­chair­groups­that­participate­in­WIMEK­are­hierarchically­embedded­in­one­of­the­WU­Departments­and­participate­in­one­or­more­Graduate­Schools.­The­Science­Groups­and­WIMEK­have­different­tasks­and­responsibilities.­

The­ Environmental­ systems­Analysis­Group­ (ESA)­ is­ one­ the­ research­ groups­ of­WIMEK­participating­in­SENSE.

The­mission­of­ESA­is­the­development­and­improvement­of­innovative­integrated­research­tools­that­address­and­enhance­understanding­of­environmental­change­and­sustainability,­and­the­application­of­these­cutting-edge­tools­ to­advance­scientific­understanding­and­support­decision­making­locally,­nationally­and­internationally.­

The­committee­assessed­the­following­programmes:

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityEnvironmental­Systems­Analysis­group Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

154 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 23: Environmental Systems Analysis group (WU-ESA)Programme­director Prof.­dr.­L.­Hordijk,­Dr.­C.­Kroeze,­Prof.­dr.­R.­LeemansResearch­staff­­�006 5.7­­fteAssessments: Quality: Excellent

Productivity: ExcellentRelevance: ExcellentViability: Excellent

ESA­studies­complex­environmental­problems­at­an­aggregated­regional,­continental­and­glo-bal­level­by­identifying­and­analyzing­causes,­mechanisms,­processes,­impacts­of,­and­potential­solutions.­ESA­research­is­further­typified­by­its­innovative­integrative­multidisciplinary,­inter-disciplinary­and­transdisciplinary­approaches.­These­approaches­explicitly­address­the­need­of­policy­makers­and­other­stakeholders.­The­issues­that­are­addressed­are­pollution­(e.g.­causes­and­impacts­of­pollution,­nitrogen­fluxes,­uncertainty­analysis­and­scale­issues­in­modelling),­climate­change­(e.g.­emission­inventories,­biogeochemical­processes,­impact­assessments,­miti-gation­and­adaptation­strategies)­and­changes­in­ecosystems;­quantification­and­valuation­of­ecosystem­functions­and­services.­

The­research­approaches­and­tools­include:­

1.­ models­integrating­different­components,­dimensions­and­scales,�.­ appraisal­tools­for­ecosystem­functions,­services­and­their­valuation,3.­ integrated­environmental­assessments­with­special­emphasis­on­participatory­methods,4.­ methods­for­analyzing­and­communicating­uncertainty,­and5.­ decision­support­systems­for­integrated­pollution­and/or­ecosystem­management.

ESA­strongly­focuses­on­understanding­environmental­change­including­two­specific­research­lines:­‘Pollution­management’­and­‘Ecosystem­management’.

This­group­has­established­a­strong­programme,­well-linked­to­policy­makers.­The­mission­of­ the­group­ is­ to­maintain­ the­dialogue­with­policy­makers­ to­guarantee­ the­ applicability­of­the­research­results,­to­evaluate­the­potential­of­solutions­and­develop­possible­solutions.­Before­the­previous­research­assessment­in­�000­the­group­was­substantially­smaller­with­only­a­part-time­professor­as­director.­In­the­last­six­years­there­have­been­several­personnel­changes­but­this­has­not­affected­the­coherence­in­the­programme­nor­in­the­research­group.­On­the­contrary­ the­ committee­ was­ impressed­ by­ the­ results­ of­ this­ group,­ the­ strong­ vision,­ the­seniority­of­the­involved­researchers,­the­productivity­and­quality­of­the­research.­The­group­is­also­highly­committed­to­further­development­of­the­SENSE­Research­School.­It­has­been­successful­in­attaining­research­money,­but­is­also­supported­by­its­own­university.­­The­group­is­strongly­positioned­internationally­and­nationally­as­well­as­in­the­own­university­and­has­very­good­cooperation­with­other­prominent­international­research­groups.The­programme­has­a­good­balance­between­scientific­quality­and­relevance­and­is­well­focused.­

The­research­programme­is­very­coherent.­It­has­an­original­approach­and­contributes­signifi-cantly­to­the­overall­development­of­the­research­field.­Both­the­programme­director­and­the­other­members­of­the­group­are­prominent­in­the­field.­The­group­has­a­very­good­publication­strategy­and­the­quality­of­the­scientific­publications­is­excellent.­The­committee­has­seen­a­positive­trend­in­the­quality­of­the­publications­as­well­as­in­the­coherence­of­the­programme­over­the­last­six­years.­Citation­indexes­indicate­that­the­group­scores­above­world­average.

155QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

The­group­is­very­productive.­It­has­delivered­a­number­of­PhD­theses,­professional­publica-tions­and­public­oriented­publications­as­well­as­policy­reports­and­contributions­to­documen-taries­and­programs­on­radio­and­television.The­publication­list­demonstrates­the­success­of­international­collaboration­and­interdiscipli-nary­research.­ESA­researchers­are­highly­cited­and­frequently­invited­to­give­keynote­lectures­at­international­conferences.

The­relevance­of­the­research­by­this­group­is­very­high.­It­contributes­to­the­advancement­of­knowledge­ in­ the­ field­of­ integrated­ assessment,­ sustainable­ systems­ analysis­ and­ spatial­management.­The­knowledge­is­very­well­disseminated­and­implemented.­The­group­has­been­successful­in­disseminating­the­research­results­to­the­various­stakeholders.­The­scientific­and­societal­value­of­the­research­is­reflected­in­the­frequently­asked­advice­by­policy­makers­and­professional­organizations,­reports­to­ministries­and­NGO’s.­A­nice­example­of­an­innovative­product­with­a­high­impact­is­the­Natuurkalender­that­is­coordinated­by­Ir.­Van­Vliet.­This­project­aims­to­monitor,­analyze,­predict­and­communicate­climate­change­induced­changes­in­ phenology.­The­ project­ involves­ over­ 6000­ volunteers­ and­ hundreds­ of­ schoolchildren.­The­results­are­communicated­to­the­general­public­through­a­weekly,­very­popular­radioV­programme.

The­long­term­viability­of­this­programme­is­excellent.­The­relevance­of­this­kind­of­research­will­even­increase­in­the­future.­The­group­has­a­solid­position­in­the­Wageningen­University­as­well­as­nationally­and­internationally.­It­has­a­basic­funding­from­WU­and­good­possibilities­to­gain­other­funds.­The­core­staff­is­relatively­young­and­has­good­prospects.The­future­of­the­group­looks­very­promising,­it­has­several­excellent­scientists­and­a­coherent­programme.

156 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

157QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

4. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Institute IVM

The­Institute­for­Environmental­Studies­(Instituut voor Milieuvraagstukken,­IVM)­was­estab-lished­at­ the­Vrije­Universiteit­Amsterdam­(VU)­in­1971­as­ the­ first­academic­ institute­ for­multi-disciplinary­research­into­environmental­problems­in­the­Netherlands.­Over­the­last­35­years­IVM­has­built­strengths­across­the­social­and­natural­sciences,­shaping­and­responding­to­environmental­research­and­governance­issues.

Originally­an­independent­institute­within­the­VU,­IVM­was­integrated­into­the­newly-cre-ated­Faculty­of­Earth­ and­Life­Sciences­ (FALW)­at­ the­university­ in­�001.­As­part­of­ this­merger­process,­IVM­was­reorganised­into­four­departments:­Chemistry­and­Biology­(C&B);­Environmental­Policy­Analysis­(EPA);­Economics­and­Technology­(E&T);­and­Spatial­Analy-sis­and­Decision­Support­(SPACE),­now­each­with­�0-�5­researchers.­Merger­into­the­faculty­has­encouraged­a­greater­focus­on­scientific­quality­and­provided­a­basis­for­a­growth­in­gradu-ate­teaching.­In­�005­a­Graduate­Studies­Programme­was­created­at­IVM­as­part­of­a­new­Graduate­School­for­Earth,­Environment­and­Ecology­(Triple­E)­in­FALW.

Organisationally,­IVM­retains­a­large­measure­of­autonomy­with­its­own­management­team,­research­strategy,­budget­and­personnel­policy.­The­management­team­reports­to­the­Faculty­Board­on­the­institute’s­financial­and­scientific­performance.­Some­80%­of­IVM’s­activities­are­related­to­research,­most­of­it­funded­externally.­The­need­to­raise­project­finance,­to­manage­projects­effectively­and­to­communicate­with­a­wide­range­of­audiences­–­scientific­and­soci-etal­–­imposes­specific­discipline­on­the­institute’s­activities.­Researchers­are­expected­to­show­scientific­quality,­while­also­being­socially­relevant.

Multidisciplinarity­is­a­feature­within­departments.­IVM­includes­researchers­with­disciplinary­backgrounds­stretching­from­toxicology­to­international­law.­Beyond­this,­IVM­collaborates­in­research­with­other­institutes­and­with­stakeholders,­broadening­still­further­the­range­of­knowledge­integrated­into­the­research­methods,­analysis­and­outputs.

The­committee­assessed­the­following­programmes:

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityDepartment­of­Spatial­Analysis­and­Decision­Support

Very­good Very­good Very­good Very­good

158 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 24: Department of Spatial Analysis and Decision Support (VU-SPACE)Programme­director Dr.­R.­JanssenResearch­staff­­�006 6.76­fteAssessments: Quality: Very­good

Productivity: Very­goodRelevance: Very­goodViability: Very­good

The­Spatial­Analysis­and­Decision­Support­department­SPACE­was­established­in­�001.­The­department­brings­together­researchers­working­on­spatial­aspects­of­the­environment.­The­department­aims­to­develop­tools­for­understanding­and­visualising­the­pattern­and­dynamics­in­environmental­function­and­values.­These­methods­and­insights­should­serve­societal­deci-sion-making­on­the­spatial­organisation­of­environment­functions­and­values.­The­department­sees­it­as­its­challenge­to­adopt­powerful­new­analytical­tools­that­facilitate­more­participative­spatial­ decision-making,­ using­ often-disparate­ layers­ of­ information­ about­ land­ use,­ water­resources­ and­ water­ quality.­ SPACE­ has­ three­ research­ themes­ linking­ research­ tools­ with­domains­of­application:

1.­ Spatial­modelling�.­ Spatial­assessment,­and3.­ Spatial­decision­support

This­ is­ an­ exciting­department­whose­ research­programmes­ are­designed­ to­ serve­ a­ critical­societal­mission,­while­at­the­same­time­contributing­significant­scientific­research­and­meth-odological­innovations.­The­department’s­research­seeks­to­build­bridges­between­the­natural­and­social­sciences­(especially­the­decision­sciences),­between­academia,­decision­makers­and­stakeholders,­and­between­national­and­international­research­and­application­interests­in­the­general­areas­of­applied­ecology­and­spatial­decision­making.­The­spatial­focus­provided­by­spatial­analysis­and­associated­geo-information­techniques­helps­integrate­these­diverse­inter-ests­and­perspectives.­A­notable­strength­is­the­integration­of­natural­and­social­science/plan-ning­skills­not­just­within­the­group­but­often­within­the­same­individual­researcher.

On­the­basis­of­the­self­evaluation­report­and­the­interview­with­representatives­of­the­depart-ment­the­committee­concluded­that­the­SPACE­group­has­succeeded­in­combining­topics­and­tools­in­their­research­themes.­There­seems,­however,­be­a­disproportionately­strong­focus­on­natural­systems­modelling­and­hydrology/climate.­More­emphasis­on­the­'softer'­dimension­of­the­departments­research­interests­(risk­analysis,­adaptation,­valuation­of­environmental­serv-ices­etc)­would­provide­better­support­to­the­mission­of­science­and­policy­integration..­

The­group­depends­for­a­large­part­on­contract­money­and­has­so­far­been­successful­in­obtain-ing­funding.­

Access­to­data­is­a­crucial­question­for­this­group.­­Mostly­the­data­has­been­provided­by­the­customer­on­a­case­by­case­basis.­To­safeguard­the­continuity­of­its­activities­the­committee­rec-ommends­the­group­to­establish­permanent­cooperation­with­organisations­that­can­provide­the­necessary­data­on­a­more­independent­basis.­­

159QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Cooperation­in­research­in­the­Netherlands­is­for­IVM-VU­also­possible­outside­of­SENSE.­Some­PhD­students­of­this­group­do­courses­in­SENSE­but­not­all­SENSE­courses­are­relevant­for­their­PhD­students.­

Our­general­impression­is­that­this­research­group­has­great­potential­and­is­highly­productive.­The­research­is­of­good­quality,­of­high­relevance­and­it­can­support­also­the­work­of­other­research­groups­in­SENSE.

The­quality­of­the­tenured­personnel­appears­to­be­very­high,­and­the­research­output­is­solid­in­both­quantity­and­quality­(judging­from­the­impact­factor,­which­has­increased­markedly­during­ the­ current­ review­ period).­ Similarly,­ the­ professional­ service­ (editorships­ etc.)­ and­national­and­international­collaborations­are­strong­overall.­The­research­of­this­department­has­an­original­approach.­It­contributes­significantly­to­the­field.­The­department­has­a­good­publication­strategy.­The­quality­of­the­scientific­publications­is­very­good­and­they­have­a­good­scientific­impact.­It­appears­from­a­cursory­examination­of­the­material­provided­that­the­group’s­major­publi-cations­are­disproportionately­in­the­areas­of­natural­system­modeling­and­hydrology/climate­science.­A­little­more­emphasis­on­the­‘softer’­dimensions­of­the­department’s­research­interests­(risk­analysis,­adaptation,­valuation­of­environmental­services,­spatial­decision­support,­spatial­planning­and­management,­etc.)­would­provide­better­support­to­its­stated­mission­of­science­and­policy­integration.­

The­group­has­made­several­significant­contributions­to­practical­tools­and­methodology­in­the­area.­The­number­of­professional­publications­is­significantly­high.­The­number­of­PhD­theses­seems­quite­small.

There­is­an­increasing­need­for­the­type­of­expertise­that­the­group­represents.­Together­with­more­thematically­oriented­groups­they­form­a­strong­combination.­Although­the­entire­insti-tute­lacks­a­strong­and­coherent­dissemination­strategy,­the­contacts­of­this­group­with­the­field­and­stakeholders­seem­to­be­strong­and­guarantee­the­dissemination­of­results.

The­financial­basis­of­the­department­is­good.­The­group­has­to­find­its­funding­mainly­in­contracts­and­projects­with­third­parties­and­it­has­been­successful­in­that­aspect.­The­head­of­the­department­is­very­thinly­stretched­across­numerous­important­and­demanding­posts.­Several­members­of­the­department­at­the­associate­and­assistant­level­demonstrate­consider-able­talent­and­potential.

The­percentage­of­contract-funded­research­is­however­very­high­(80.5%)­compared­with­uni-versity-funded­and­NWO-funded­research.­Of­the­examples­of­projects­listed­in­the­self-evalu-ation,­only­ four­ continue­ into­�008­and­beyond.­ Information­about­ strategy­development­and­future­plans­is­minimal­in­the­self-evaluation.­This­suggests­an­opportunistic­strategy­of­short-term­adaptation­to­funding­conditions­that­pragmatically­may­make­sense,­but­which­may­conflict­with­the­critical­mission­of­the­department,­which­is­to­help­bridge­the­diverse­gaps­between­academic­research­on­the­one­hand­and­policy­and­planning­applications­on­the­other.­

A­strategic­research­plan­for­the­SPACE­department­would­help­the­unit­maintain­its­identity­within­the­broader­context­of­IVM.

160 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

161QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

5. Utrecht University , Copernicus Institute

The­Copernicus­Institute­for­Sustainable­Development­and­Innovation­was­created­in­March­�001,­based­on­a­joint­decision­of­the­Governing­Board­of­Utrecht­University,­the­faculty­of­Geographical­Sciences­(nowadays­integrated­in­the­faculty­of­Geosciences)­and­the­faculty­of­Chemistry­(nowadays­integrated­in­the­faculty­of­Science).­­The­following­goals­were­set­with­the­establishment­of­the­institute:­

•­ to­increase­the­visibility­of­the­research­at­Utrecht­University­of­the­groups­involved,­in­the­Netherlands­and­abroad;

•­ to­establish­an­organisation­that­facilitates­the­mutual­co-operation­within­Utrecht­Uni-versity­in­the­area­of­sustainable­development­and­innovation­and­creates­synergy;

•­ to­advance­the­coherent­execution­of­research­activities­within­Utrecht­University­in­the­area­of­sustainable­development;

•­ enlargement­and­widening­of­the­scientific­and­societal­forum­regarding­current­and­fu-ture­research;

•­ to­allow­a­better­tuning­between­education­and­research­and­possibly­stimulate­new­edu-cation­in­the­areas­Nature­and­Environment,­Energy­and­Materials,­Land­use­and­Biodi-versity,­Steering­and­Innovation,­and­‘Science,­Technology­and­Society’.

Four­groups­participate­in­the­institute:

1.­ Science,­Technology­and­Society­(STS),­Faculty­of­Science,­Department­of­Chemistry�.­ Environmental­ Sciences­ (ES),­ Faculty­ of­ Geosciences,­ Department­ of­ Innovation­ and­

Environmental­Sciences3.­ Environmental­Studies­and­Policy­(ESP),­Faculty­of­Geosciences,­Department­of­Innova-

tion­and­Environmental­Sciences4.­ Innovation­Studies­(IS),­Faculty­of­Geosciences,­Department­of­Innovation­and­Environ-

mental­Sciences.

The­ evaluation­ in­ this­part­ of­ the­SENSE­ review­only­ concerned­ the­ research­programme­“Energy­for­Sustainable­Development”­of­STS,­which­is­a­part­of­the­total­research­of­the­STS-group.­The­STS-group­is­also­involved­in­the­research­programme­“Land­Use,­Biodiversity­and­Ecosystem­Functioning”­of­the­ES-group­of­Copernicus.

The­mission­of­the­Copernicus­Institute­for­Sustainable­Development­and­Innovation­is­for-mulated­as­follows:“The­Copernicus­Institute­investigates­and­develops­processes­and­opportunities­for­innova-tive­change­towards­sustainability.­The­institute­thus­seeks­to­contribute­to­the­development­of­knowledge­and­techniques­as­well­as­methods­and­instruments­in­the­field­of­sustainable­development,­taking­note­of­related­social­debates­and­policy­processes.It­is­the­ambition­of­the­institute­to­make­a­difference­–­in­science­and­education,­and­in­soci-ety­at­large­–­in­the­exploration­of­a­sustainable­world.”

The­committee­assessed­the­following­programmes:

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityScience,­Technology­and­Society:­Energy­for­Sustainable­Development

Excellent Very­good Excellent Excellent

16� QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 25: Science, Technology and Society: Energy for Sustainable Development Programme­director Prof.­dr.­W.C.­TurkenburgResearch­staff­­�006 14.86­fteAssessments: Quality: Excellent

Productivity: Very­goodRelevance: ExcellentViability: Excellent

Science,­Technology­and­Society­is­one­of­the­four­research­groups­of­the­Copernicus­Institute.­The­research­group­performs­disciplinary­and­multi-disciplinary­research­and­provides­educa-tion­on­science­and­technology­for­sustainable­development,­focused­on­energy,­materials­and­the­environment,­land­use­and­biodiversity,­and­managing­environmental­risks­and­uncertain-ties.­The­ambition­of­the­research­group­is­to­make­a­difference­in­achieving­a­new­role­for­science­and­technology­contributing­to­sustainable­development.­The­approach­of­this­group­is­to­build­partnerships­and­collaborate­with­researchers­and­private­and­public­sectors­in­the­development­of­knowledge­and­strategies­in­the­indicated­fields,­locally,­nationally­and­inter-nationally.­The­research­of­the­group­is­organized­in­four­sub-programmes:

1.­ Energy­and­Materials­Demand­and­Efficiency�.­ Energy­Supply­and­System­Studies3.­ Energy­and­Global­Change:­Dealing­with­Risks­and­Uncertainties4.­ Land­Use­and­Biodiversity.

The­sub-programmes­1,­�­and­3­form­the­research­programme­Energy­for­Sustainable­Devel-opment.­Sub-programme­4­is­integrated­in­another­research­programme­(Land­Use,­Biodiver-sity­and­Ecosystem­Functioning).

The­committee­finds­the­achievements­of­this­group­impressive.­The­group­has­a­strong­leader­who­has­been­able­to­stimulate­others­to­reach­high­standards.­The­group­is­internationally­leading­in­the­specific­subjects­of­its­focus.­The­researchers­are­well­known­and­are­invited­as­visiting­professors­or­key­lecturers­in­several­countries­and­universities.­The­publication­record­is­very­good­and­there­is­a­positive­trend­in­scientific­impact.­The­group­is­very­productive.­The­members­have­a­clear­and­coherent­vision­on­the­mission­of­the­group­as­well­as­on­the­future­perspectives­of­research.­

The­research­of­this­group­is­at­the­forefront­internationally­and­has­an­important­and­substan-tial­impact­in­the­field.­The­ideas­and­approaches­adopted­are­original.­The­publication­record­is­very­good.­The­programme­director­and­the­other­members­of­the­research­group­have­a­prominent­role­in­their­field­both­nationally­and­internationally.

The­ productivity­ of­ the­ group­ is,­ considering­ the­ number­ of­ staff,­ very­ good.­The­ group­produced­a­number­of­excellent­scientific­and­professional­publications.­The­number­of­Phd­theses­is­reasonable.

The­relevance­of­the­research­by­this­group­is­scientifically­and­socially­very­high.­The­dissemi-nation­and­impact­of­the­knowledge­is­very­good.

In­view­of­the­past­scientific­performance­the­committee­evaluates­the­long-term­viability­of­the­programme­as­excellent.­The­group­has­a­clear­and­coherent­vision­on­the­future­activities.­

163QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

This­group­has­several­excellent­young­researchers­who­can­take­over­the­lead­and­can­guaran-tee­a­fruitful­future­of­the­research­group.­

164 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

165QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

6. University of Groningen, Institute IVEM

The­Centre­ for­Energy­ and­Environmental­ Studies­ IVEM­ is­ an­ independent­ research­ and­education­Centre­within­the­Faculty­of­Mathematics­and­Natural­Sciences­of­the­University­of­Groningen.­IVEM­originates­from­two­predecessor­groups­working­on­energy­and­environ-mental­issues.­

IVEM­and­the­RUG­Centre­for­Isotope­Research­(CIO)­jointly­offer­a­two­year­English-lan-guage­based­MSc­degree­programme­in­Energy­and­Environmental­Sciences.­

IVEM­is­a­key­participant­in­the­Energy­Delta­Research­Centre­(EDReC)­of­the­University­of­Groningen.­

Since­�000­ IVEM­manages­ the­university-wide­ sustainability­project­ and­ it­ is­ increasingly­involved­in­sustainability-relevant­reaching­and­research­activities­both­within­and­outside­the­university.­

The­dual­transition­process­towards­an­equitable­and­sustainable­world­is­at­the­core­of­the­IVEM­ research­ programme­ entitled:­ ‘Transition­ towards­ sustainability­ and­ environmental­quality’.­

The­committee­assessed­the­following­programmes:

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityTransition­to­sustainability­and­environmental­quality

Good Very­good Very­good Good

166 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 26: Transition to sustainability and environmental quality (RUG-IVEM)Programme­director Prof.­dr.­A.J.M.­Schoot­UiterkampResearch­staff­­�006 5.64­fteAssessments: Quality: Good

Productivity: Very­goodRelevance: Very­goodViability: Good

The­ IVEM­ research­ programme­ on­Transition­ to­ Sustainability­ and­ Environmental­ Quality­builds­on­the­notion­that­human­societies­use­natural­resources­to­meet­their­needs.­Any­resource­use­generates­pressures­on­the­environment.­Rich­western­style­consumption­patterns­generally­give­rise­to­a­higher­environmental­impact,­than­those­of­poor­development­societies.The­programme­is­ interdisciplinary­and­rooted­in­natural­sciences­and­to­a­ lesser­extent­ in­social­sciences.­The­programme­aims­to­analyze,­design,­implement­and­assess­transition­routes­towards­a­more­sustainable­and­environmentally­compatible­societal­use­of­the­earth’s­natural­resources.­The­focus­is­on­basic­environmental­research­with­global­and­long­term­perspective­and­secondary­attention­to­applied­environmental­research.

The­strategic­choice­of­this­group­to­focus­on­the­role­of­consumers­is­original­and­innovative,­since­very­little­research­is­done­on­this­side­of­the­problem.­The­group­is­regionally­oriented­and­well­known­in­the­northern­part­of­the­Netherlands.­It­has­a­special­position­within­the­Groningen­University­and­is­often­asked­to­present­their­vision­on­actualities.­The­projects­of­the­PhD­students­are­not­limited­to­the­consumer­perspective­and­do­not­reflect­the­mission­of­the­group­in­all­aspects.­Cooperation­in­SENSE­is­very­valuable­for­this­group­not­only­for­the­training­of­the­PhD­students­but­also­for­the­contacts­with­other­research­groups­in­the­field­of­environmental­studies­in­the­Netherlands.­The­group­seems­somewhat­isolated­in­the­north­of­the­country­and­could­benefit­more­from­national­cooperation.­

The­quality­of­the­research­is­good.­The­focus­on­the­consumers­is­original.­The­group­contrib-utes­to­scientific­development­in­the­field,­but­is­mainly­nationally­and­regionally­focused.­The­number­of­publications­in­A-category­journals­has­increased­considerably­in­the­last­year.

The­productivity­of­ the­group­ is­ very­good.­ In­ the­ interview­with­ the­committee­ the­pro-gramme­director­mentioned­that­the­group­is­often­asked­to­comment­and­advise­on­actual­issues.­That­kind­of­productivity­is­not­described­in­the­SEP­protocol­but­is­considered­valu-able­by­the­committee.­

The­social­and­scientific­relevance­of­the­research­of­this­group­is­very­high.­This­is­also­dem-onstrated­by­the­regional­function­this­group­seems­to­have­in­commenting­on­actual­issues­and­developments­in­the­field.

The­institute­is­very­small.­Especially­the­small­number­of­senior­and­tenured­staff­makes­the­institute­vulnerable.­On­the­other­hand­the­institute­is­strongly­supported­by­the­university­through­its­funding.­The­group­has,­in­view­of­its­size,­a­considerable­number­of­good­and­promising­PhD­students.­Participation­in­SENSE­is­very­valuable­for­this­group.­The­commit-tee­recommends­extending­the­co-operation­with­other­research­groups­in­SENSE.

167QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

7. Maastricht University , Institute ICIS

The­International­Centre­for­Integrated­Assessment­and­Sustainable­Development­ICIS­is­a­research­institute­within­Maastricht­University.­It­is­a­self-supporting­business­unit­reporting­to­the­Dean­of­the­Faculty­of­Humanities­and­Sciences.­­

ICIS­started­in­1998­and­developed­into­an­international­expertise­centre­for­the­integrated­assessment­of­sustainable­development.­ICIS­started­with­a­team­of­5­people,­and­expanded­to­35­fte­around­�001.­For­the­last­three­years­ICIS­has­a­research­staff­of­�1­people.­In­�004­the­founder­of­ICIS,­prof.­Rotmans­left­and­was­succeeded­by­prof.­Martens.­Since­then­the­research­focus­is­on­developing­Integrated­Assessment­methods­and­tools­to­address­key­sus-tainability­issues.­

The­projects­are­funded­by­a­variety­of­organisations­for­example­the­Netherlands­Organisation­for­Scientific­Research­(NWO),­the­European­Commission­(EU)­and­private­companies.­

The­ institute­has­no­permanent­ funding­ from­university­ and­ is­ totally­ relying­on­ external­funds,­especially­contract­money.­­All­projects­of­this­group­start­from­the­position­or­the­view­of­the­stakeholder.

The­committee­assessed­the­following­programmes:

Quality Productivity Relevance ViabilityIntegrated­Assessment­and­Sustainable­Development

Good Very­good Very­good Good

168 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Programme 27: Integrated Assessment and Sustainable Development (UM-ICIS)Programme­director Prof.­dr.­P.­MartensResearch­staff­­�006 10.�6­fteAssessments: Quality: Good

Productivity: Very­goodRelevance: Very­goodViability: Good

ICIS­has­a­strong­methodological­focus.­The­core­activities­are­the­development­and­improve-ment­of­integrated­assessment­(IA)­methods,­tools­and­procedures­in­support­of­sustainable­development­practice.­Current­methodologies­ are­participatory­methods,­ scenarios,­ indica-tor­analysis­and­IA­modelling­techniques.­The­selection­of­ topics­reflects­ the­priorities­and­research­agendas­of­national­and­international­research­programmes.­

The­ committee­ has­ the­ impression­ that­ the­programme­has­ been­ strong­but­ suffered­ (not­in­output­but­in­size)­from­the­departure­of­two­of­the­three­senior­researchers.­The­group­consists­at­this­moment­of­young­and­mostly­junior­researcher.­This­group­benefits­a­lot­from­the­SENSE­Research­School­especially­for­the­PhD­students­and­their­training.­The­director­has­good­contacts­with­other­research­groups­within­SENSE.­The­Committee­even­discussed­the­option­of­ this­group­ joining­ some­other­group­within­SENSE­with­a­ similar­ focus­on­methodologies.­If­this­is­not­feasible,­at­least­strengthening­the­cooperation­further­is­strongly­recommended.­

Due­to­the­necessity­to­fund­the­research­by­external­contracts­the­focus­of­the­research­group­is­wide­and­lacks­some­coherence.­The­number­of­priority­themes­listed­is­high­for­such­a­small­group.­The­group­has,­however,­been­successful­in­attaining­all­these­contracts­and­projects.­The­quality­of­the­research­is­good­but­not­exciting.­The­relative­impact­of­the­publica-tions­is­according­to­the­criteria­used­far­above­world­average.­The­prominence­of­the­pro-gramme­director­is­very­good.

Considering­the­number­of­staff­the­productivity­of­the­research­group­is­very­good,­it­is­far­above­world­average.­The­number­of­defended­PhD­theses­can­however­be­improved.­Publica-tions­records­seem­to­have­a­declining­trend­in­quality,­judging­from­the­relative­impact­and­the­number­of­A-category­articles.

The­research­is­socially­and­scientifically­very­relevant,­but­not­unique.

The­committee­has­the­impression­that­this­groups­depends­too­much­on­one­person:­the­pro-gramme­director.­The­committee­did­not­get­a­clear­picture­of­the­other­senior­researchers­in­this­group.­The­PhD­students,­however,­who­presented­their­projects­to­the­committee,­made­a­good­impression.­

Because­of­the­dependence­on­external­funding­and­of­the­reliance­on­the­programme­director,­the­programme­as­a­whole­seems­vulnerable.­Therefore,­the­committee­strongly­recommends­strengthening­the­contacts­with­other­research­groups­in­SENSE.

169QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix 1: Curricula Vitae of committee members

Dr. lea Kauppi, Director­General­of­the­Finnish­Environment­Institute­(SYKE),­Helsinki.­Sustainable­development,­climate­change,­transboundary­water­questions,­ integrated­assess-ments,­science­policy.­

Prof. Thomas B. Johansson, Professor­of­energy­systems­analysis­and­Director­of­the­Inter-national­Institute­for­Industrial­Environmental­Economics­(IIIEE)­at­the­University­of­Lund,­Sweden.­ ­Dr.­ Johansson­obtained­his­Ph.D.­ in­nuclear­physics­ from­ the­Lund­ Institute­of­Technology.­From­1994­to­�001,­he­was­Director­of­UNDP´s­Energy­and­Atmosphere­Pro-gramme.­He­served­on­the­Editorial­Board­of­the­World­Energy­Assessment,­1998-�000.­In­�000,­he­was­awarded­the­Volvo­Environment­Prize,­along­with­three­of­his­colleagues­for­the­book­Energy­for­a­Sustainable­World.­­

Prof. William lafferty, University­of­Oslo,­Centre­for­Development­and­the­Environment.­Research­director­for­the­programme­ProSus.­He­is­certified­as­professor­in­both­political­sci-ence­and­sociology,­and­has­recently­focused­his­research­on­problems­related­to­the­strategic­implementation­of­sustainable­development.­His­publications­cover­themes­on­the­nature­of­sustainable­development­as­concept­and­goal;­democracy­and­the­environment;­ sustainable­communities;­governance­and­sectoral­policy­integration;­and­strategies­for­“green­innovation”­in­business.­Lafferty­has­led­several­international­projects­in­the­field­of­sustainable­develop-ment­research,­including­a­1�-nation­project­on­“Sustainable­Communities­in­Europe”­(SUS-COM)­for­the­European­Commission,­and­a­9-nation­project­on­“Implementing­Sustainable­Development­in­High-Consumption­Societies­(COMPSUS)­-­with­James­Meadowcroft.­He­was­for­many­years­Norway’s­delegate­to­the­Governing­Council­of­the­International­Political­Science­Association­(IPSA),­and­served­as­Program­Chair­for­the­XVIII­World­Congress­of­Political­Science­in­Quebec­in­the­year­�000.

170 QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix 2: Overview of Scores

Table 1: Overview of scores

Quality Productivity Relevance Viability�3.­ Environmental­Systems­Analysis­

Group,­WIMEK-WURExcellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

�4.­ Department­of­Spatial­Analysis­­­­and­Decision­Support,­IVM­-VU

Very­good Very­good Very­good Very­good

�5.­ Energy­for­Sustainable­Development,­Copernicus­Institute­UU

Excellent Very­good Excellent Excellent

�6.­ Centre­for­Energy­and­Environmental­studies,­IVEM­–­RUG

Good Very­good Very­good Good

�7.­ Centre­for­Integrated­Assessment­and­Sustainable­Development,­­­ICIS­-­UM­

Good Very­good Very­good Good

Table 2: SEP-scale; the meaning of the scores

Work­ that­ is­ at­ the­ forefront­ internationally,­ and­which­most­ likely­will­have­an­important­and­substantial­impact­in­the­field.­Institute­is­considered­an­international­leader.

Excellent (5)

Work­ that­ is­ internationally­ competitive­ and­ is­ expected­ to­ make­ a­significant­ contribution;­ nationally­ speaking­ at­ the­ forefront­ in­ the­field.­Institute­is­considered­international­player,­national­leader.

Very good (4)

Work­that­is­competitive­at­the­national­level­and­will­probably­make­a­valuable­contribution­in­the­international­field.­Institute­is­considered­internationally­visible­and­a­national­player.

Good (3)

Work­that­is­solid­but­not­exciting,­will­add­to­our­understanding­and­is­in­principle­worthy­of­support.­It­is­considered­of­less­priority­than­work­in­the­above­categories.­Institute­is­nationally­visible.

Satisfactory (2)

Work­that­is­neither­solid­nor­exciting­flawed­in­the­scientific­and­or­technical­approach,­repetitions­of­other­work,­etc.­Work­not­worthy­of­pursuing.

Unsatisfactory (1)

171QANU­/­Research­Evaluation­Environmental­Sciences­�007

Appendix 3: Schedule

Integrated Assessment, Sustainable Systems Analysis and Spatial Management committee (ISS)

SUNDAY 17-06-2007xx.xx­–­15.00 ARRIVAL­NH­Centre­Utrecht,­Janskerkhof­10,­Utrecht,­

Tel.­+31.30.�31316915.00­–­15.30 WELCOME15.30­–­16.00 QANU:­General­introduction­on­the­assessment­and­the­review­

programme16.00­–­16.30 SENSE:­General­introduction­SENSE,­with­emphasis­on­the­3­different­

assessment­levels:­research­groups;­SENSE­institutes­and­SENSE­Research­School

16.45­–­18.30 Internal­RC­meeting19.00­–­�1.00 DINNER�1.00­–­��.00 (meeting­chairs)

MONDAY 18-06-2007XXXX­–­09.30 Utrecht09.30­–­10.30­ Internal­RC­meeting10.30­–­11.30 Presentation­and­discussion­Department­of­Spatial­Analysis­and­Decision­

Support­(SPACE-IVM/VU)­nr.­�411.30­–­1�.00 Internal­RC­meeting1�.00­–­13.00 Lunch­break13.00­–­14.00 Presentation­and­discussion­Science,­Technology­and­Society­Group­(STS-

Copernicus/UU)­nr.­�514.00­–­15.00 Presentation­and­discussion­Center­for­Energy­and­Environmental­Studies­

(IVEM-RUG)­nr.­�615.15­–­16.45 PhD­poster­presentations­(SPACE,­STS,­IVEM)­and­discussion17.00­–­18.00 Internal­RC­meeting18.00­–­�0.00 Dinner

TUESDAY 19-06-2007XXXX­–­09.30 Utrecht09.30­–­10.30 Internal­RC­meeting10.30­–­11.30 Presentation­and­discussion­International­Centre­for­Integrated­Assessment­

and­Sustainable­Development­(ICIS-MU)­nr.­�711.15­–­1�.0011.30­–­1�.00 Internal­RC­meeting1�.00­–­13.00 Lunch­break13.00­–­14.00 Presentation­and­discussion­Environmental­Systems­Analysis­Group

(ESA-WIMEK/WU)­nr.­�314.00­–­15.00 PhD­poster­presentations­and­discussion15.15­–­16.45 Internal­RC­meeting17.00­–­18.00 Internal­RC­meeting­/­closure18.00­–­�0.00 Dinner�0.30­–­�1.30

(chairs­meet­in­General­Committee,­Wednesday­9:00­hrs)