F. van der Hilst
Utrecht University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by F. van der Hilst.
Gcb Bioenergy | 2012
F. van der Hilst; J.A. Verstegen; Derek Karssenberg; André Faaij
A method and tool have been developed to assess future developments in land availability for bioenergy crops in a spatially explicit way, while taking into account both the developments in other land use functions, such as land for food, livestock and material production, and the uncertainties in the key determinant factors of land use change (LUC). This spatiotemporal LUC model is demonstrated with a case study on the developments in the land availability for bioenergy crops in Mozambique in the timeframe 2005–2030. The developments in the main drivers for agricultural land use, demand for food, animal products and materials were assessed, based on the projected developments in population, diet, GDP and self‐sufficiency ratio. Two scenarios were developed: a business‐as‐usual (BAU) scenario and a progressive scenario. Land allocation was based on land use class‐specific sets of suitability factors. The LUC dynamics were mapped on a 1 km2 grid level for each individual year up to 2030. In the BAU scenario, 7.7 Mha and in the progressive scenario 16.4 Mha could become available for bioenergy crop production in 2030. Based on the Monte Carlo analysis, a 95% confidence interval of the amount of land available and the spatially explicit probability of available land was found. The bottom‐up approach, the number of dynamic land uses, the diverse portfolio of LUC drivers and suitability factors, and the possibility to model uncertainty mean that this model is a step forward in modelling land availability for bioenergy potentials.
Gcb Bioenergy | 2015
Birka Wicke; F. van der Hilst; Vassilis Daioglou; Martin Banse; Tim Beringer; Sarah J. Gerssen-Gondelach; S. Heijnen; Derek Karssenberg; D. Laborde; M. Lippe; H. van Meijl; A. Nassar; J.P. Powell; Anne Gerdien Prins; Steven K. Rose; E.M.W. Smeets; Elke Stehfest; Wallace E. Tyner; J.A. Verstegen; Hugo Valin; D.P. van Vuuren; S. Yeh; André Faaij
Existing assessments of biomass supply and demand and their impacts face various types of limitations and uncertainties, partly due to the type of tools and methods applied (e.g., partial representation of sectors, lack of geographical details, and aggregated representation of technologies involved). Improved collaboration between existing modeling approaches may provide new, more comprehensive insights, especially into issues that involve multiple economic sectors, different temporal and spatial scales, or various impact categories. Model collaboration consists of aligning and harmonizing input data and scenarios, model comparison and/or model linkage. Improved collaboration between existing modeling approaches can help assess (i) the causes of differences and similarities in model output, which is important for interpreting the results for policy‐making and (ii) the linkages, feedbacks, and trade‐offs between different systems and impacts (e.g., economic and natural), which is key to a more comprehensive understanding of the impacts of biomass supply and demand. But, full consistency or integration in assumptions, structure, solution algorithms, dynamics and feedbacks can be difficult to achieve. And, if it is done, it frequently implies a trade‐off in terms of resolution (spatial, temporal, and structural) and/or computation. Three key research areas are selected to illustrate how model collaboration can provide additional ways for tackling some of the shortcomings and uncertainties in the assessment of biomass supply and demand and their impacts. These research areas are livestock production, agricultural residues, and greenhouse gas emissions from land‐use change. Describing how model collaboration might look like in these examples, we show how improved model collaboration can strengthen our ability to project biomass supply, demand, and impacts. This in turn can aid in improving the information for policy‐makers and in taking better‐informed decisions.
Agricultural Systems | 2010
F. van der Hilst; Veronika Dornburg; J.P.M. Sanders; B. Elbersen; Anil Graves; Wim Turkenburg; H.W. Elbersen; J.M.C. van Dam; André Faaij
Applied Energy | 2015
J.G.G. Jonker; F. van der Hilst; H.M. Junginger; Otávio Cavalett; Mateus F. Chagas; André Faaij
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews | 2012
F. van der Hilst; J.P. Lesschen; J.M.C. van Dam; M.J.P.M. Riksen; P.A. Verweij; J.P.M. Sanders; André Faaij
Applied Energy | 2016
J.G.G. Jonker; H.M. Junginger; J.A. Verstegen; Tao Lin; Luis F. Rodríguez; K. C. Ting; André Faaij; F. van der Hilst
Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining | 2012
F. van der Hilst; André Faaij
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews | 2014
V. Diogo; F. van der Hilst; J.A.J. van Eijck; J.A. Verstegen; J. Hilbert; S. Carballo; J. Volante; André Faaij
Biomass & Bioenergy | 2011
Arno van den Bos; C.N. Hamelinck; J. van de Staaij; Eric van de Heuvel; F. van der Hilst; André Faaij
Geophysical Research Abstracts | 2011
J.A. Verstegen; F. van der Hilst; Derek Karssenberg; André Faaij