Jean Hugé

Dr. Jean Hugé

Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, the Netherlands
+5

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

20Years (2007-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 December 2015 in Journal of Cleaner Production
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RLRodrigo Lozano
Rodrigo Lozano
KCKim Ceulemans
Kim Ceulemans
MAMar Alonso-Almeida
Mar Alonso-Almeida
DHDonald No Middle Name Huisingh
Donald No Middle Name Huisingh
FLFrancisco J. Lozano
Francisco J. Lozano
JHJean Hugé
Jean Hugé

25 August 2014 in Sustainability
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TWTom Waas
Tom Waas
JHJean Hugé
Jean Hugé
TBThomas Block
Thomas Block
Tarah WrightTarah Wright
Tarah Wright
FBFrancisco Benitez-Capistros
Francisco Benitez-Capistros
AVAviel Verbruggen
Aviel Verbruggen
Recognizing the urgent need for sustainability, we argue that to move beyond the rhetoric and to actually realize sustainable development, it must be considered as a decision-making strategy. We demonstrate that sustainability assessment and sustainability indicators can be powerful decision-supporting tools that foster sustainable development by addressing three sustainability decision-making challenges: interpretation, information-structuring, and influence. Particularly, since the 1990s many substantial and often promising sustainability assessment and sustainability indicators efforts are made. However, better practices and a broader shared understanding are still required. We aim to contribute to that objective by adopting a theoretical perspective that frames SA and SI in the context of sustainable development as a decision-making strategy and that introduces both fields along several essential aspects in a structured and comparable manner.

6 April 2015 in Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NMNibedita Mukherjee
Nibedita Mukherjee
JHJean Hugé
Jean Hugé
WSWilliam James Sutherland
William James Sutherland
JMJeffrey McNeill
Jeffrey McNeill
OVOpstal Maarten Van
Opstal Maarten Van
NKNico Koedam
Nico Koedam
Summary: Many areas of science, including conservation and environmental management, regularly require engaging stakeholders or experts to produce consensus or technical inputs. The Delphi technique is an iterative and anonymous participatory method used for gathering and evaluating such expert‐based knowledge. We outline the methodology of the Delphi technique and provide a taxonomy of its main variants. In addition, we refine the technique by providing suggestions to address common limitations (e.g. time consumption, attrition rate) in order to make the method more suitable for application in ecology and conservation. A comprehensive search for studies that have applied the Delphi technique in conservation and environmental management resulted in 36 papers. The Delphi technique has been applied to a range of issues, including developing decision support systems and predicting ecological impacts of climate change. The papers reviewed suggest that the Delphi technique is an efficient, inclusive, systematic and structured approach that can be used to address complex issues. A major strength compared to other group‐based techniques is the reduced influence of social pressures among respondents. The Delphi technique is relatively little used and seems undervalued. Given its wide range of possible applications, it could be applied more widely in evaluating evidence and providing expert judgments.

27 September 2011 in Sustainability
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TWTom Waas
Tom Waas
JHJean Hugé
Jean Hugé
AVAviel Verbruggen
Aviel Verbruggen
Tarah WrightTarah Wright
Tarah Wright
At the turn of the millennium, the world’s political leadership adopted sustainable development as a leading model for societal development. However, the terms “sustainable development”, “sustainability” and “sustainable” are sometimes over- and misused despite wide consensus about the concept’s meaning among sustainability scholars and practitioners. While the concept allows various sustainability views to co-exist, random conceptualizations which do not respect the fundamental sustainability principles undermine the concept’s objective to steer action. This lack of understanding of sustainability arguably inhibits its practical realization and a proper understanding of sustainability is urgently needed. In this paper we aim to contribute to a better understanding of sustainability by adopting a bird’s eye perspective. We review the rich contemporary literature, with a specific focus on the terminology, genesis, fundamental principles, mainstream views of sustainability, and several governing aspects. Further, using the evolving body of sustainability literature, the paper provides arguments to combat common misconceptions of sustainability.

22 September 2014 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NMNibedita Mukherjee
Nibedita Mukherjee
WSWilliam J. Sutherland
William J. Sutherland
LDLynn Dicks
Lynn Dicks
JHJean Hugé
Jean Hugé
NKNico Koedam
Nico Koedam
FDFarid Dahdouh-Guebas
Farid Dahdouh-Guebas
The valuation of ecosystem services is a complex process as it includes several dimensions (ecological, socio-cultural and economic) and not all of these can be quantified in monetary units. The aim of this paper is to conduct an ecosystem services valuation study for mangroves ecosystems, the results of which can be used to inform governance and management of mangroves. We used an expert-based participatory approach (the Delphi technique) to identify, categorize and rank the various ecosystem services provided by mangrove ecosystems at a global scale. Subsequently we looked for evidence in the existing ecosystem services literature for monetary valuations of these ecosystem service categories throughout the biogeographic distribution of mangroves. We then compared the relative ranking of ecosystem service categories between the monetary valuations and the expert based analysis. The experts identified 16 ecosystem service categories, six of which are not adequately represented in the literature. There was no significant correlation between the expert based valuation (the Delphi technique) and the economic valuation, indicating that the scope of valuation of ecosystem services needs to be broadened. Acknowledging this diversity in different valuation approaches, and developing methodological frameworks that foster the pluralism of values in ecosystem services research, are crucial for maintaining the credibility of ecosystem services valuation. To conclude, we use the findings of our dual approach to valuation to make recommendations on how to assess and manage the ecosystem services provided by mangrove ecosystems.

17 October 2012 in Environment, Development and Sustainability
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MOMaarten Van Opstal
Maarten Van Opstal
JHJean Hugé
Jean Hugé