scholarly journals Biological & Geological Collections as a Research Infrastructure: A Dutch case

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olaf Banki ◽  
Letty Stupers ◽  
Marijn Prins
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Natural Science ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Research Infrastructure ◽  
Data Types ◽  
Digital Collections ◽  
Biodiversity Research ◽  
Research Infrastructures ◽  
Biodiversity Information

Within the Netherlands, large scale digitization efforts of natural science collections have taken place in recent years. This has led to a wealth of digital information on natural science collections. Still, large quantities of collection data remain untapped and undigitized. The usage of all these digital collections data as driver for science and society remains underexplored. Especially important, is the opportunity for such data to be combined and/or enriched with other data types with the aim to empower different user groups. A consortium of Dutch partners has committed themselves in working together to make biological and geological collections into a joint research infrastructure, underpinning other research infrastructures and scientific uses also beyond the biodiversity research domain. This consortium combines the Dutch contribution to the Distributed Systems of Scientific Collections (DiSSCo), LifeWatch, the Catalogue of Life and the Global Biodiversity Information facility, under the coordination of the Netherlands Biodiversity Information Facility. As part of a preparatory project for DiSSCo, funded by the Dutch science council, we connected the different users groups of collection managers (data providers), scientists (end-users), IT-specialists and policymakers. With collection managers we explored how to move towards an overview of all natural science collections in the Netherlands. In addition, we studied to what extent collection holdings of different musea could be combined, managed, and shared into one research infrastructure. Using a research data management cycle perspective, we surveyed and interviewed the Dutch research community for the barriers and opportunities in using natural science collections and related data. The outcomes of the project should lead to the next steps in creating a more comprehensive and inclusive biodiversity research data infrastructure in the Netherlands that interacts seamlessly with existing international research infrastructures, including DiSSCo.

scholarly journals Digital Research Infrastructure

2021 ◽  
pp. 67-76
Author(s):  
Maik Stührenberg ◽  
Oliver Schonefeld ◽  
Andreas Witt
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Information Infrastructure ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Research Infrastructure ◽  
It Infrastructure ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Social Infrastructure ◽  
Research Infrastructures ◽  
Legal Infrastructure ◽  
Digital Research

AbstractDigital research infrastructures can be divided into four categories: large equipment, IT infrastructure, social infrastructure, and information infrastructure. Modern research institutions often employ both IT infrastructure and information infrastructure, such as databases or large-scale research data. In addition, information infrastructure depends to some extent on IT infrastructure. In this paper, we discuss the IT, information, and legal infrastructure issues that research institutions face.

GERI – The emerging Global Ecosystem Research Infrastructure

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaana Bäck ◽  
Werner Kutsch ◽  
Michael Mirtl
Keyword(s):  
Global Economy ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Anthropogenic Activities ◽  
Research Infrastructure ◽  
Ecological Processes ◽  
Unique Challenge ◽  
Ecosystem Research ◽  
Decadal Scale ◽  
Research Infrastructures ◽  
Access To Data

<p>Ecosystem Research Infrastructures around the world have been designed, constructed, and are now operational as a distributed effort. The common goal is to address research questions that require long-term ecosystem observations and other service components at national to continental scales, which cannot be tackled in the framework of single and time limited projects.  By design, these Research Infrastructures capture data and provide a wider range of services including access to data and well instrumented research sites. The coevolution of supporting infrastructures and ecological sciences has developed into new science disciplines such as macrosystems ecology, whereby large-scale and multi-decadal-scale ecological processes are being explored. </p><p>Governments, decision-makers, researchers and the public have all recognized that the global economy, quality of life, and the environment are intrinsically intertwined and that ecosystem services ultimately depend on resilient ecological processes. These have been altered and threatened by various components of Global Change, e.g. land degradation, global warming and species loss. These threats are the unintended result of increasing anthropogenic activities and have the potential to change the fundamental trajectory of mankind.  This creates a unique challenge never before faced by society or science—how best to provide a sustainable economic future while understanding and globally managing a changing environment and human health upon which it relies.</p><p>The increasing number of Research Infrastructures around the globe now provides a unique and historical opportunity to respond to this challenge. Six major ecosystem Research Infrastructures (SAEON/South Africa, TERN/Australia, CERN/China, NEON/USA, ICOS/Europe, eLTER/Europe) have started federating to tackle the programmatic work needed for concerted operation and the provisioning of interoperable data and services. This Global Ecosystem Research Infrastructure (GERI) will be presented with a focus on the involved programmatic challenges and the GERI science rationale.</p>

scholarly journals DiSSCo as a New Regional Model for Scientific Collections in Europe

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wouter Addink ◽  
Dimitrios Koureas ◽  
Ana Rubio
Keyword(s):  
Natural History ◽  
Natural Science ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Political Support ◽  
Research Infrastructure ◽  
Morphological Data ◽  
Natural History Museums ◽  
History Museums ◽  
Scientific Collections

European Natural Science Collections (NSC) are part of the global natural and cultural capital and represent 80% of the world bio-and geo-diversity. Data derived from these collections underpin thousands of scholarly publications and official reports (used to support legislative and regulatory processes relating to health, food, security, sustainability and environmental change) and let to inventions and products that today play an important role in our bio-economy. In the last decades, the research practice in natural sciences changed dramatically. Advances in digital, genomic and information technologies enable natural science collections to provide new insights but also ask for changing the current operational and business models of individual collections held at local natural history museums and universities. A new business model that provides unified access to collection objects and all scientific data derived from them. Although aggregating infrastructures like the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, GenBank and Catalogue of Life now successfully aggregate data on specific data classes, the landscape remains fragmented with limited capacity to bring together this information in a systematic and robust manner and with scattered access to the physical objects. The Distributed System of Scientific Collections (DiSSCo) represents a pan-European initiative, and the largest ever agreement of natural science museums, to jointly address the fragmentation of European collections. DiSSCo is unifying European natural science collections into a coherent new research infrastructure, able to provide bio- and geo-diversity data at the scale, form and precision required by a multi-disciplinary user base in science. DiSSCo is harmonising digitisation, curation and publication processes and workflows across the scientific collections in Europe and enables linking of occurrence, genomic, chemical and morphological data classes as well as publications and experts to the physical object. In this paper we will present the socio-cultural and governance aspects of this research infrastructure. DiSSCo is receiving political support from 11 countries in Europe and will gradually change its funding model from institutional to national funding, with temporary funding from the EC to support the preparation and development. Solutions to achieve large scale digitisation are currently designed in the EC funded ICEDIG project to underpin the future large scale digitisation carried out by the countries. Unified virtual (digitisation on demand) and transnational physical access to the collections is over the next four years being developed in the EC funded SYNTHESYS+ project. The governance of DiSSCo is designed to gradually change from a steering committee composed of a few large natural history museums contributing in cash to initiate the development into a legal entity in which national consortia are represented, with a central coordination office for daily management. Each country individually decides how its entities (scientific collection facilities, research councils, governmental bodies) are organised in their national consortium. A stakeholder and user forum, Scientific Advisory Board and International Advisory Board will ensure that DiSSCo will be functional in enabling science across disciplines and within the international landscape of infrastructures. Training and short scientific missions are being developed in the MOBILISE COST Action to build capacity in FAIR data production, publication and usage of scientific collection-derived data in Europe and to initiate the socio-cultural changes needed in the collection-holding institutes. A Helpdesk is being constructed in the SYNTHESYS+ and DiSSCo Prepare projects to further facilitate the use and scientific use cases have been collected in ICEDIG to develop and facilitate e-services tailored to scientific needs.

scholarly journals Describing the German Research Infrastructure DCOLL Based on the Criteria Defined by the One World Collection Group - a test case

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederik Berger
Keyword(s):  
Natural Science ◽  
Organizational Structures ◽  
Research Infrastructure ◽  
Test Case ◽  
Digital Collections ◽  
Institutional Level ◽  
Positive Side ◽  
World Collection ◽  
The One ◽  
High Level

The standardized description of collections is an important means for prioritizing collection digitization on a supra-institutional level. Different organizational and systematic structures prevent easy comparison of collections sizes and foci, in order to make informed decisions on setting priorities and efficiently distributing tasks. In autumn 2018, the consortium of German Natural Sciences Collections (DCOLL), consisting of seven natural history collections holding institutions integrated as a National Research Infrastructure*1 performed a top-level description of the consortium's collections based on a subset of the criteria defined by the One World Collection Working Group (OWC). OWC is based on an initiative of the directors of the world's largest Natural Science Collections and aims at making collections and ressource allocations comparable. Categories relating to the staff structure of institutions were omitted, as those were considered sensitive and of little use for the purpose. The survey focused on collection size and geographical distribution only. Since some partners already had previously assembled the necessary data and since the OWC criteria are based on a reasonably high level, allowing the integration of heterogenous collections, the OWC dashboard presented an opportunity to achieve quick standardized results. However, as one purpose of the survey was to support decisions on the consortium's digitization strategy, arguably not the objective of OWC, a field to describe the digitization rate had to be added. Another shortcoming of the OWC dashboard for this purpose was the difficulty in subsuming some important sub-collections into the given criteria, namely digital collections (like animal sound archives) and non-biological or non-geological collections (e.g. historical objects and archives). On the positive side, the survey proved to be very helpful to indicate the consortium's collection focus in comparison with other institutions on an international level. This can provide valuable information for establishing an integrated collection development and digitization strategy on a supra-institutional level. It can be shown for example that 41% of the objects with origin from Europe in Natural Science Collections are held by DCOLL. While it may be possible to derive meaningful strategic goals from this information, it is a big challenge to implement practical objectives based on the same criteria. From a bottom-up perspective the OWC dashboard aggregates data, which were collected in a non-standardized form within institutions across organizational structures. Increasing the granularity from this level will result in an unreasonable effort. This presentation discusses the process of collecting information based on the OWC criteria and will present the collection structure of DCOLL.

scholarly journals FinBIF: An all-embracing, integrated, cross-sectoral biodiversity data infrastructure

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leif Schulman ◽  
Aino Juslén ◽  
Kari Lahti
Keyword(s):  
Natural History ◽  
Data Management ◽  
Species Identification ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Dna Barcode ◽  
National Research Council ◽  
Observation Data ◽  
Biodiversity Data ◽  
Research Infrastructures ◽  
Biodiversity Information

The service model of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) is being implemented in an increasing number of national biodiversity (BD) data services. While GBIF already shares >109 data points, national initiatives are an essential component: increase in GBIF-mediated data relies on national data mobilisation and GBIF is not optimised to support local use. The Finnish Biodiversity Information Facility (FinBIF), initiated in 2012 and operational since late 2016, is one of the more recent examples of national BD research infrastructures (RIs) – and arguably among the most comprehensive. Here, we describe FinBIF’s development and service integration, and provide a model approach for the construction of all-inclusive national BD RIs. FinBIF integrates a wide array of BD RI approaches under the same umbrella. These include large-scale and multi-technology digitisation of natural history collections; building a national DNA barcode reference library and linking it to species occurrence data; citizen science platforms enabling recording, managing and sharing of observation data; management and sharing of restricted data among authorities; community-driven species identification support; an e-learning environment for species identification; and IUCN Red Listing (Fig. 1). FinBIF’s aims are to accelerate digitisation, mobilisation, and distribution of biodiversity data and to boost their use in research and education, environmental administration, and the private sector. The core functionalities of FinBIF were built in a 3.5-year project (01/2015–06/2018) by a consortium of four university-based natural history collection facilities led by the Finnish Museum of Natural History Luomus. Close to 30% of the total funding was granted through the Finnish Research Infrastructures programme (FIRI) governed by the national research council and based on scientific excellence. Government funds for productivity enhancement in state administration covered c.40 % of the development and the rest was self-financed by the implementing consortium of organisations that have both a research and an education mission. The cross-sectoral scope of FinBIF has led to rapid uptake and a broad user base of its functionalities and services. Not only researchers but also administrative authorities, various enterprises and a large number of private citizens show a significant interest in the RI (Table 1). FinBIF is now in its second construction cycle (2019–2022), funded through the FIRI programme and, thus, focused on researcher services. The work programme includes integration of tools for data management in ecological restoration and e-Lab tools for spatial analyses, morphometric analysis of 3D images, species identification from sound recordings, and metagenomics analyses.

Structuring a research infrastructure: A study of the rise and fall of a large-scale distributed biobank facility

2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Larsson ◽  
Carl Savage ◽  
Mats Brommels ◽  
Pauline Mattsson
Keyword(s):  
Power Analysis ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Research Infrastructure ◽  
Analysis Tool ◽  
Parallel Processes ◽  
Research Infrastructures ◽  
Prior Literature ◽  
National Champions ◽  
The Eu

This study analyses the perceived key interests, importance, influences and participation of different actors in harmonizing the processes and mechanisms of a distributed research infrastructure. It investigates the EU-funded initiative, BioBanking and Molecular Resource Infrastructure in Sweden (BBMRI.se), which seeks to harmonize the biobanking standards. The study interviews multiple actors involved throughout the development process. Their responses are analysed via a framework based on the IIED Stakeholder Power Analysis Tool. The BBMRI.se formation was facilitated by two parallel processes, with domestic and European/foreign origin, with leading scientists becoming ‘National Champions’. The respondents joined the organization under the premise that it would be a collaborative endeavour, but they were disappointed to learn the deliberative elements were more prevalent. In conclusion, the resulting autonomous structure caused disarray, while also fuelling interpersonal differences, ultimately leading to the closure of the infrastructure. Hence, it is necessary to clearly identify potential collaborative and deliberative elements already at the outset while also securing wider forms of communication between the participating actors, when establishing distributed research infrastructures. Moreover, while prior literature suggests that research infrastructures counteracts fragmentation, these results illustrate that this is not the case for this distributed research infrastructure.

scholarly journals Otobur in Action: Processing of various biodiversity data for botanical gardens; flowering calendar, herbarium digitization, propagation trials and scientific plant names

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rasim Aydınkal ◽  
Salih Kanoğlu
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Data Management System ◽  
Data Types ◽  
Phenological Data ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Germination Success ◽  
High Resolution Images ◽  
Recorded Data ◽  
Annual Estimate ◽  
Biodiversity Information

Over the past decade, great improvements have occurred in the field of biodiversity information technology. Data types such as geographic and phenological (e.g., blooming) characteristics of different specimens, which are used for the analysis of environmental issues, are steadily increasing on a large scale. Most herbaria and botanic gardens are involved in the digital compilations of such kinds of data to be able to transform them into meaningful results that can be used to tackle environmental problems (Leadlay and Greene 1998). These are usually in the form of high resolution images, along with tables displaying additional information about specimens, which are accessible over the internet. This study, will describe how we made an annual estimate of phenological data, constructing a flowering calendar of plants (Fig. 1) in the Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi (NGBB), using Otobur (Loizeau et al. 2018). Otobur is a data management system developed under NGBB in Istanbul, which is accessible at https://www.otobur.org.tr. In addition to this, we also analyze our recorded data on the ongoing propagation effort of seedlings, in order to analyze and compare their prior germination success and mortality ratios (Fig. 2). This enables us to improve our procedures, and to find the most suitable techniques to apply in the most accurate propagation trials.

Managing collaborative research data for integrated, interdisciplinary environmental research

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Finkel ◽  
Albrecht Baur ◽  
Tobias K.D. Weber ◽  
Karsten Osenbrück ◽  
Hermann Rügner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Management ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Environmental Research ◽  
Data Types ◽  
Research Data Management ◽  
Management Concepts

<p>The consistent management of research data is crucial for the success of long-term and large-scale collaborative research. Research data management is the basis for efficiency, continuity, and quality of the research, as well as for maximum impact and outreach, including the long-term publication of data and their accessibility. Both funding agencies and publishers increasingly require this long term and open access to research data. Joint environmental studies typically take place in a fragmented research landscape of diverse disciplines; researchers involved typically show a variety of attitudes towards and previous experiences with common data policies, and the extensive variety of data types in interdisciplinary research poses particular challenges for collaborative data management.We present organizational measures, data and metadata management concepts, and technical solutions to form a flexible research data management framework that allows for efficiently sharing the full range of data and metadata among all researchers of the project, and smooth publishing of selected data and data streams to publicly accessible sites. The concept is built upon data type-specific and hierarchical metadata using a common taxonomy agreed upon by all researchers of the project. The framework’s concept has been developed along the needs and demands of the scientists involved, and aims to minimize their effort in data management, which we illustrate from the researchers’ perspective describing their typical workflow from the generation and preparation of data and metadata to the long-term preservation of data including their metadata.</p>

Bottlenecks in the Implementation of On-Site Wastewater Treatment Plants on a Large Scale in The Netherlands

1990 ◽  
Vol 22 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 291-298
Author(s):  
Frits A. Fastenau ◽  
Jaap H. J. M. van der Graaf ◽  
Gerard Martijnse
Keyword(s):  
Wastewater Treatment ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Wastewater Treatment Plants ◽  
Housing Stock ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Domestic Wastewater ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Definition Of

More than 95 % of the total housing stock in the Netherlands is connected to central sewerage systems and in most cases the wastewater is treated biologically. As connection to central sewerage systems has reached its economic limits, interest in on-site treatment of the domestic wastewater of the remaining premises is increasing. A large scale research programme into on-site wastewater treatment up to population equivalents of 200 persons has therefore been initiated by the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment. Intensive field-research work did establish that the technological features of most on-site biological treatment systems were satisfactory. A large scale implementation of these systems is however obstructed in different extents by problems of an organisational, financial and/or juridical nature and management difficulties. At present research is carried out to identify these bottlenecks and to analyse possible solutions. Some preliminary results are given which involve the following ‘bottlenecks':-legislation: absence of co-ordination and absence of a definition of ‘surface water';-absence of subsidies;-ownership: divisions in task-setting of Municipalities and Waterboards; divisions involved with cost-sharing;-inspection; operational control and maintenance; organisation of management;-discharge permits;-pollution levy;-sludge disposal. Final decisions and practical elaboration of policies towards on-site treatment will have to be formulated in a broad discussion with all the authorities and interest groups involved.

scholarly journals Social Media in and Around a Temporary Large-Scale Refugee Shelter in the Netherlands

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 205630512110249
Author(s):  
Peer Smets ◽  
Younes Younes ◽  
Marinka Dohmen ◽  
Kees Boersma ◽  
Lenie Brouwer
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Crisis Communication ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
State Policies ◽  
Refugee Crisis ◽  
Top Down ◽  
And Migration

During the 2015 refugee crisis in Europe, temporary refugee shelters arose in the Netherlands to shelter the large influx of asylum seekers. The largest shelter was located in the eastern part of the country. This shelter, where tents housed nearly 3,000 asylum seekers, was managed with a firm top-down approach. However, many residents of the shelter—mainly Syrians and Eritreans—developed horizontal relations with the local receiving society, using social media to establish contact and exchange services and goods. This case study shows how various types of crisis communication played a role and how the different worlds came together. Connectivity is discussed in relation to inclusion, based on resilient (non-)humanitarian approaches that link society with social media. Moreover, we argue that the refugee crisis can be better understood by looking through the lens of connectivity, practices, and migration infrastructure instead of focusing only on state policies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document