Exploring the contribution of formal and informal learning to academic staff member employability: a Dutch perspective

Purpose – Little attention has been paid to the employability of academic staff and the extent to which continuous learning contributes to academic career success. The purpose of this paper is to explore the contribution of formal and informal learning to employability. Design/methodology/approach – Survey data were obtained from 139 academic staff members employed at the Open University in the Netherlands. The questionnaire included employee characteristics, job characteristics, organizational context factors, formal learning and informal learning and employability variables. Findings – Informal learning, such as networking and learning value of the job, appeared to be solid contributors to employability, while the impact of formal learning activities was far less significant. Further, the study revealed the impact of employee and organizational context factors upon informal learning and employability. Age, salary and learning climate appeared to be strong predictors for informal learning, while promotions were shown to be highly positive contributors to employability. Practical implications – The findings stress the value of informal learning, although human resource policies that encourage both formal and informal learning are recommended. Originality/value – Academic careers comprise an under-researched area and the same applies to the relationship between learning and employability in the context of these types of careers

Rainfall interception and the coupled surface water and energy balance

Evaporation from wet canopies (E) can return up to half of incident rainfall back into the atmosphere andis a major cause of the difference in water use between forests and short vegetation. Canopy water budgetmeasurements often suggest values of E during rainfall that are several times greater than those predictedfrom Penman–Monteith theory. Our literature review identified potential issues with both estimationapproaches, producing several hypotheses that were tested using micrometeorological observations from128 FLUXNET sites world-wide. The analysis shows that FLUXNET eddy-covariance measurements tend toprovide unreliable measurements of E during rainfall. However, the other micrometeorological FLUXNETobservations do provide clues as to why conventional Penman–Monteith applications underestimateE. Aerodynamic exchange rather than radiation often drives E during rainfall, and hence errors in airhumidity measurement and aerodynamic conductance calculation have considerable impact. Further-more, evaporative cooling promotes a downwards heat flux from the air aloft as well as from the biomassand soil; energy sources that are not always considered. Accounting for these factors leads to E estimatesand modelled interception losses that are considerably higher. On the other hand, canopy water budgetmeasurements can lead to overestimates of E due to spatial sampling errors in throughfall and stem-flow, underestimation of canopy rainfall storage capacity, and incorrect calculation of rainfall duration.There are remaining questions relating to horizontal advection from nearby dry areas, infrequent large-scale turbulence under stable atmospheric conditions, and the possible mechanical removal of splashdroplets by such eddies. These questions have implications for catchment hydrology, rainfall recycling,land surface modelling, and the interpretation of eddy-covariance measurements.JRC.E.1-Disaster Risk Managemen

Rainfall interception and the coupled surface water and energy balance

Evaporation from wet canopies (E) can return up to half of incident rainfall back into the atmosphere and is a major cause of the difference in water use between forests and short vegetation. Canopy water budget measurements often suggest values of E during rainfall that are several times greater than those predicted from Penman–Monteith theory. Our literature review identified potential issues with both estimation approaches, producing several hypotheses that were tested using micrometeorological observations from 128 FLUXNET sites world-wide. The analysis shows that FLUXNET eddy-covariance measurements tend to provide unreliable measurements of E during rainfall. However, the other micrometeorological FLUXNET observations do provide clues as to why conventional Penman–Monteith applications underestimate E. Aerodynamic exchange rather than radiation often drives E during rainfall, and hence errors in air humidity measurement and aerodynamic conductance calculation have considerable impact. Furthermore, evaporative cooling promotes a downwards heat flux from the air aloft as well as from the biomass and soil; energy sources that are not always considered. Accounting for these factors leads to E estimates and modelled interception losses that are considerably higher. On the other hand, canopy water budget measurements can lead to overestimates of E due to spatial sampling errors in throughfall and stemflow, underestimation of canopy rainfall storage capacity, and incorrect calculation of rainfall duration. There are remaining questions relating to horizontal advection from nearby dry areas, infrequent large-scale turbulence under stable atmospheric conditions, and the possible mechanical removal of splash droplets by such eddies. These questions have implications for catchment hydrology, rainfall recycling, land surface modelling, and the interpretation of eddy-covariance measurements