Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Pierre D. Glynn

Publications and source records attributed to Pierre D. Glynn.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2023

Recognizing political influences in participatory social-ecological systems modeling

Stakeholder participation in social-ecological systems (SES) modeling is increasingly considered a desirable way to elicit diverse sources of knowledge about SES behavior and to promote inclusive decision-making in SES. Understanding how participatory modeling processes function in the context of long-term adaptive management of SES may allow for better design of participatory processes to achieve the intended outcomes of inclusionary knowledge, representativeness, and social learning, while avoiding unintended outcomes. Long-term adaptive management contexts often include political influences -- attempts to shift or preserve power structures and authority, and efforts to represent the political and economic interests of stakeholders -- in the computer models that are used to shape policy making and implementation. In this research, we examine a period that included a major transition in the watershed model used for management of the Chesapeake Bay in the United States. The Chesapeake Bay watershed model has been in development since the 1980s, and is considered by many to be an exemplary case of participatory modeling. We use documentary analysis and interviews with participants involved in the model application and development transition to reveal a variety of ways in which participatory modeling may be subject to different kinds of political influences, some of which resulted in unintended outcomes, including: perceptions of difficulty updating the model in substantive ways, “gaming” of the model/participatory process by stakeholders, and increasing resistance against considering uncertainty in the system not captured by the model. This research suggests unintended or negative outcomes may be associated with both participatory decision-making and stakeholder learning even though they are so often touted as the benefits of participatory modeling. We end with a hypothesis that further development of a theory of computer model governance to bridge model impact and broader theories of environmental governance at the science-policy interface may result in improved SES modeling outcomes.

Maryland, Virginia↗
USGS2022

Value of information and decision pathways: Concepts and case studies

Information used in decision making arises from the structuring of observations and data. The collection, dissemination, and use of information has monetary and non-monetary costs (e.g., competition for attention) and necessitates trade-offs. Understanding the benefits of having information (i.e., the value of information, VOI), including resulting societal outcomes, is useful to information producers/funders and decision makers. Using theory, use cases, and hypotheticals, we describe how information (e.g., geospatial information) is valued and incorporated in decisions and actions related to managing natural resources, environments, and the impacts of natural and anthropogenic hazards. We discuss the nature of information and how it relates to models (conceptual, mental, scientific), beliefs, knowledge, and economic analyses. VOI approaches and behavioral factors that potentially affect information use and value are summarized. Framing of information and VOI through data to decision pathways (DDPs) at first simplifies understanding, then illustrates the benefits of information, and the human and societal challenges encountered in valuing and using it. We present approaches to overcome these challenges. Our transdisciplinary analysis concludes with a summary of critical issues affecting DDPs and VOI, and suggestions for improving both economic analyses and the actionability and use of information.

Frontiers in Environmental Science (Environmental ↗
USGS2022

Value of information: Exploring behavioral and social factors

There is growing interest within and beyond the economics community in assessing the value of information (VOI) used in decision making. VOI assessments often do not consider the complex behavioral and social factors that affect the perception, valuation, and use of information by individuals and groups. Additionally, VOI assessments frequently do not examine the full suite of interactions and outcomes affecting different groups or individuals. The behavioral and social factors that we mention are often (but not always) innately-derived, less-than-conscious influences that reflect human and societal adaptations to the past. We first discuss these concepts in the context of the recognition and use of information for decision making. We then find fifteen different aspects of value and information pertinent to VOI assessments. We examine methodologies and issues related to current VOI estimation practices in economics. Building on this examination, we explore the perceptions, social factors, and behavioral factors affecting information sharing, prioritization, valuation, and discounting. Information and valuation issues are then considered in the context of information production, information trading and controls, and information communication pathologies. Lastly, we describe issues relating to information useability and actionability. Our examples mention the value and use of geospatial information, and more generally concern societal issues relating to the management of natural resources, environments, and natural and anthropogenic hazards. Our paper aims to be instrumentally relevant to anyone interested in the use and value of science.

Frontiers in Environmental Science↗
USGS2022

Water-use data in the United States: Challenges and future directions

In the United States, greater attention has been given to developing water supplies and quantifying available waters than determining who uses water, how much they withdraw and consume, and how and where water use occurs. As water supplies are stressed due to an increasingly variable climate, changing land-use, and growing water needs, greater consideration of the demand side of the water balance equation is essential. Data about the spatial and temporal aspects of water use for different purposes are now critical to long-term water supply planning and resource management. We detail the current state of water-use data, the major stakeholders involved in their collection and applications, and the challenges in obtaining high-quality nationally consistent data applicable to a range of scales and purposes. Opportunities to improve access, use, and sharing of water-use data are outlined. We cast a vision for a world-class national water-use data product that is accessible, timely, and spatially detailed. Our vision will leverage the strengths of existing local, state, and federal agencies to facilitate rapid and informed decision-making, modeling, and science for water resources. To inform future decision-making regarding water supplies and uses, we must coordinate efforts to substantially improve our capacity to collect, model, and disseminate water-use data.

Journal of the American Water Resources Associatio↗
USGS2022

Opportunities for businesses to use and support development of SEEA-aligned natural capital accounts

Global understanding of the interconnections between the environment and economy has increased, driving the development of frameworks and standards that support the measurement and valuation of natural capital and ecosystem services by both governments and businesses. This paper outlines how businesses can use natural capital accounts (NCA) aligned to the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA) standard described in this special issue to support identification, management, and valuation of natural capital not typically listed on corporate balance sheets. Such accounts have direct applications for business strategic planning, investment decisions, supply chain management , operations management, risk management, and corporate reporting. Businesses also have important roles to play in advancing SEEA-aligned NCA by providing information that would be useful to include in the accounts and by helping to shape accounts to provide decision-relevant information for both the private and the public sectors. Current pilot SEEA-aligned NCA data and analyses developed for the United States can help address some of the common challenges that businesses face in using natural capital data such as accessibility, quality, and credibility, important for business decision making. However, improvements are needed to fill data gaps and produce more frequent and timely estimates aligned to the temporal resolution needed by businesses.

Ecosystem Services↗
USGS2021

Lessons learned from development of natural capital accounts in the United States and European Union

The United States and European Union (EU) face common challenges in managing natural capital and balancing conservation and resource use with consumption of other forms of capital. This paper synthesizes findings from 11 individual application papers from a special issue of Ecosystem Services on natural capital accounting (NCA) and their application to the public and private sectors in the EU and U.S. NCA is inherently a data-integration centered exercise, aiming to draw new insights by realigning environmental and economic data into a consistent framework. Drawing primarily on papers from the special issue and other key NCA literature, we identify lessons learned and gaps remaining for NCA’s development and application to decision making. In doing so, we identify eight key similarities and three major differences in NCA development, status, and application between the U.S. and EU. NCA can be highly policy relevant: special issue papers address critical issues including agriculture, water, conservation/land-use planning, climate, and corporate decision making. In both the U.S. and EU, further application is needed to drive demand for the accounts’ production. Based on these experiences, the U.S. and EU can be important leaders in cross-sector, international collaboration toward next-generation environmental economic accounts that advance global NCA practice.

Ecosystem Services↗
USGS2021

Socio-technical scales in socio-environmental modeling: Managing a system-of-systems modeling approach

System-of-systems approaches for integrated assessments have become prevalent in recent years. Such approaches integrate a variety of models from different disciplines and modeling paradigms to represent a socio-environmental (or social-ecological) system aiming to holistically inform policy and decision-making processes. Central to the system-of-systems approaches is the representation of systems in a multi-tier framework with nested scales. Current modeling paradigms, however, have disciplinary-specific lineage, leading to inconsistencies in the conceptualization and integration of socio-environmental systems. In this paper, a multidisciplinary team of researchers, from engineering, natural and social sciences, have come together to detail socio-technical practices and challenges that arise in the consideration of scale throughout the socio-environmental modeling process. We identify key paths forward, focused on explicit consideration of scale and uncertainty, strengthening interdisciplinary communication, and improvement of the documentation process. We call for a grand vision (and commensurate funding) for holistic system-of-systems research that engages researchers, stakeholders, and policy makers in a multi-tiered process for the co-creation of knowledge and solutions to major socio-environmental problems.

Environmental Modelling and Software↗
USGS2020

Testing ecosystem accounting in the United States: A case study for the Southeast

Ecosystem accounts, as formalized by the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounts (SEEA EEA), have been compiled in a number of countries, yet there have been few attempts to develop them for the U.S. We explore the potential for U.S. ecosystem accounting by compiling ecosystem extent, condition, and ecosystem services supply and use accounts for a ten-state region in the Southeast. The pilot accounts address air quality, water quality, biodiversity, carbon storage, recreation, and pollination for selected years from 2001 to 2015. Results illustrate how information from ecosystem accounts can contribute to policy and decision-making. Using an example from Atlanta, we also show how ecosystem accounts can be considered alongside other SEEA accounts to give a more complete picture of a local area’s environmental-economic trends. The process by which we determined where to place metrics within the accounting framework, which was strongly informed by the National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS), can provide guidance for future ecosystem accounts in the U.S. and other countries. Finally, we identify knowledge gaps that limit the inclusion of certain ecosystem services in the accounts and suggest future research that can close these gaps and improve future U.S. ecosystem accounts.

Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississi↗
USGS2020

Integrating physical and economic data into experimental water accounts for the United States: Lessons and opportunities

Water management increasingly involves tradeoffs, making its accounting highly relevant in our interconnected world. Physical and economic data about water in many nations are becoming more widely integrated through application of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounts for Water (SEEA-Water), which enables the tracking of linkages between water and the economy. We present the first national and subnational SEEA-Water accounts for the United States. We compile accounts for water: (1) physical supply and use, (2) productivity, (3) quality, and (4) emissions for roughly the years 2000 to 2015. Total U.S. water use declined by 22% from 2000 to 2015, falling in 44 states though groundwater use increased in 21 states. Water-use reductions, combined with economic growth, led to increases in water productivity for the overall national economy (65%), mining (99%), and agriculture (68%). Surface-water quality trends were most evident at regional levels, and differed by water-quality constituent and region. This work provides (1) a baseline of recent historical water resource trends and their value in the U.S., and (2) a roadmap for the completion of future accounts for water, a critical ecosystem service. Our work also aids in the interpretation of ecosystem accounts in the context of long-term water resources trends. heir value in the U.S., and (2) a roadmap for the completion of future accounts for water, a critical ecosystem service. Our work also aids in the interpretation of ecosystem accounts in the context of long-term water resources trends.

Ecosystem Services↗
USGS2019

Try, try again: Lessons learned from success and failure in participatory modeling

Participatory Modeling (PM) is becoming increasingly common in environmental planning and conservation, due in part to advances in cyberinfrastructure as well as to greater recognition of the importance of engaging a diverse array of stakeholders in decision making. We provide lessons learned, based on over 200 years of the authors’ cumulative and diverse experience, about PM processes. These include successful and, perhaps more importantly, not-so-successful trials. Our collective interdisciplinary background has supported the development, testing, and evaluation of a rich range of collaborative modeling approaches. We share here what we have learned as a community of participatory modelers, within three categories of reflection: a) lessons learned about participatory modelers; b) lessons learned about the context of collaboration; and c) lessons learned about the PM process. First, successful PM teams encompass a variety of skills beyond modeling expertise. Skills include: effective relationship-building, openness to learn from local experts, awareness of personal motivations and biases, and ability to translate discussions into models and to assess success. Second, the context for collaboration necessitates a culturally appropriate process for knowledge generation and use, for involvement of community co-leads, and for understanding group power dynamics that might influence how people from different backgrounds interact. Finally, knowing when to use PM and when not to, managing expectations, and effectively and equitably addressing conflicts is essential. Managing the participation process in PM is as important as managing the model building process. We recommend that PM teams consider what skills are present within a team, while ensuring inclusive creative space for collaborative exploration and learning supported by simple yet relevant models. With a realistic view of what it entails, PM can be a powerful approach that builds collective knowledge and social capital, thus helping communities to take charge of their future and address complex social and environmental problems.

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene↗
USGS2019

Records of engagement and decision making for environmental and socio-ecological challenges

We propose creating and maintaining records of engagement and decision-making (RoED) to help us and our communities better understand ourselves, our goals, our decisions, and the dynamic systems in which we all live. The purpose of RoED is to go well beyond noting that dialogue occurred or a decision was reached. The records should, in ways appropriate to the context and participants, document interactions and note biases, beliefs, emotions, behaviors, norms, and values. These crucial aspects are generally absent in academic papers and formal reports, yet they always play a role in decision-making processes. While not a panacea for addressing critical biophysical and social challenges, we propose that a comprehensive framework for promoting realistic, legitimate and inclusive engagement could enhance trust, establish institutional memory, and when and where appropriate, ensure greater transparency. The aim is to create and maintain RoED to collect significant information and share insights from multi-stakeholder decision-making processes from diverse institutions, contexts, and disciplinary domains. In the long-term RoED could promote more effective adaptive management or governance approaches. This paper describes an exploratory phase intended to catalyze collaborative efforts worldwide.

EURO Journal on Decision Processes↗
USGS2018

The natural capital accounting opportunity: Let's really do the numbers

The nation’s economic accounts provide objective, regular, and standardized information routinely relied upon by public and private decision makers. But they are incomplete. The U.S. and many other nations currently do not account for the natural capital — such as the wildlife, forests, grasslands, soils, and water bodies—upon which all other economic activity rests. By creating formal natural capital accounts (NCA) and ecosystem goods and services (EGS) accounts, governments and businesses can better understand the past, peer into the future, innovate, conserve, and plan for environmental shocks. They would standardize, regularly repeat, and aggregate diverse natural resource, environmental, and social and economic data and could thereby play a significant role in advancing the science of coupled biophysical and social systems.

BioScience↗
USGS2018

Twelve questions for the participatory modeling community

Participatory modeling engages the implicit and explicit knowledge of stakeholders to create formalized and shared representations of reality and has evolved into a field of study as well as a practice. Participatory modeling researchers and practitioners who focus specifically on environmental resources met at the National Socio‐Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) in Annapolis, Maryland, over the course of 2 years to discuss the state of the field and future directions for participatory modeling. What follows is a description of 12 overarching groups of questions that could guide future inquiry.

Earth's Future↗
USGS2018

Response to comment by Walker et al. on “From data to decisions: Processing information, biases, and beliefs for improved management of natural resources and environments”

Our different kinds of minds and types of thinking affect the ways we decide, take action, and cooperate (or not). The comment by Walker et al. (2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000750 ) illustrates several points made by Glynn et al. (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000487 ) and many other articles. Namely, biases and beliefs often drive scientific reasoning, and scientists, just like other humans, are intimately attached to their values and heuristics. Scientists, just like many other people, also tend to read and interpret text in ways that best match their individual perceptions of a problem or issue: in many cases paraphrasing and changing the meaning of what they read to better match their initial ideas. Walker et al. are doing interesting and important research on uncertainty. Nonetheless, they misinterpret the work, assumptions, and conclusions brought forth by Glynn et al. (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000487 ).

Earth's Future↗
USGS2018

Tools and methods in participatory modeling: Selecting the right tool for the job

Various tools and methods are used in participatory modelling, at different stages of the process and for different purposes. The diversity of tools and methods can create challenges for stakeholders and modelers when selecting the ones most appropriate for their projects. We offer a systematic overview, assessment, and categorization of methods to assist modelers and stakeholders with their choices and decisions. Most available literature provides little justification or information on the reasons for the use of particular methods or tools in a given study. In most of the cases, it seems that the prior experience and skills of the modelers had a dominant effect on the selection of the methods used. While we have not found any real evidence of this approach being wrong, we do think that putting more thought into the method selection process and choosing the most appropriate method for the project can produce better results. Based on expert opinion and a survey of modelers engaged in participatory processes, we offer practical guidelines to improve decisions about method selection at different stages of the participatory modeling process.

Environmental Modeling and Software↗
USGS2017

Purpose, processes, partnerships, and products: four Ps to advance participatory socio-environmental modeling

Including stakeholders in environmental model building and analysis is an increasingly popular approach to understanding ecological change. This is because stakeholders often hold valuable knowledge about socio-environmental dynamics and collaborative forms of modeling produce important boundary objects used to collectively reason about environmental problems. Although the number of participatory modeling (PM) case studies and the number of researchers adopting these approaches has grown in recent years, the lack of standardized reporting and limited reproducibility have prevented PM's establishment and advancement as a cohesive field of study. We suggest a four-dimensional framework (4P) that includes reporting on dimensions of (1) the Purpose for selecting a PM approach (the why ); (2) the Process by which the public was involved in model building or evaluation (the how ); (3) the Partnerships formed (the who ); and (4) the Products that resulted from these efforts (the what ). We highlight four case studies that use common PM software-based approaches (fuzzy cognitive mapping, agent-based modeling, system dynamics, and participatory geospatial modeling) to understand human–environment interactions and the consequences of ecological changes, including bushmeat hunting in Tanzania and Cameroon, agricultural production and deforestation in Zambia, and groundwater management in India. We demonstrate how standardizing communication about PM case studies can lead to innovation and new insights about model-based reasoning in support of ecological policy development. We suggest that our 4P framework and reporting approach provides a way for new hypotheses to be identified and tested in the growing field of PM.

Ecological Applications↗
USGS2017

From data to decisions: Processing information, biases, and beliefs for improved management of natural resources and environments

Our different kinds of minds and types of thinking affect the ways we decide, take action, and cooperate (or not). Derived from these types of minds, innate biases, beliefs, heuristics, and values (BBHV) influence behaviors, often beneficially, when individuals or small groups face immediate, local, acute situations that they and their ancestors faced repeatedly in the past. BBHV, though, need to be recognized and possibly countered or used when facing new, complex issues or situations especially if they need to be managed for the benefit of a wider community, for the longer-term and the larger-scale. Taking BBHV into account, we explain and provide a cyclic science-infused adaptive framework for (1) gaining knowledge of complex systems and (2) improving their management. We explore how this process and framework could improve the governance of science and policy for different types of systems and issues, providing examples in the area of natural resources, hazards, and the environment. Lastly, we suggest that an “Open Traceable Accountable Policy” initiative that followed our suggested adaptive framework could beneficially complement recent Open Data/Model science initiatives.

Earth's Future↗