Pierre Glynn, Ph.D.
Pierre Glynn, Ph.D., has now retired from his USGS management positions and is devoting his time to conducting interdisciplinary research to advance the science, policy, and management of complex systems and issues. He is currently Emeritus Scientist with the USGS Science and Decisions Center (USGS/SDC) in the Northeastern Region.
Pierre also serves as an Affiliated Scholar with Arizona State University’s Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes (ASU/CSPO) in Washington D.C.
Pierre’s current research includes studies on:
- water and natural capital accounting (USGS/SDC),
- value of Information – useability and actionability (USGS/SDC),
- Chesapeake Bay watershed modeling and its associated social systems (USGS/SDC),
- examining the role of narratives and information in managing natural resources and societal hazards (ASU/CSPO),
- adaptive management, participatory modeling, public participation in science, and the creation of “Records of Engagement and Decision-Making” (mainly ASU/CSPO),
- integrated modeling and System of Systems modeling (USGS/SDC), and
- the role of human biases, beliefs, heuristics, values, and norms in the conduct of science and policy (USGS/SDC).
Pierre was recently awarded (through ASU/CSPO) a Catalyst Leaders Fellowship from the Royal Society of New Zealand to study water science and policy issues (centered around Lake Taupo) in collaboration with the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences (GNS Science, New Zealand).
Pierre’s academic background includes a B.A. in Geological Sciences from Columbia College, an M.Sc. from University of Quebec in Montreal in isotopic environmental geochemistry, and a Ph.D. from the University of Waterloo, where his studies focused on groundwater and geochemical modeling.
Professional Assignments:
Jan. 1989 – March 2021: Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Reston, VA
- May 2019 – March 2021: Acting Chief, Hydro-Ecological Interactions Branch, Water Mission Area (WMA), USGS
- October 2017 – April 2019: Chief, Water Cycle Branch, WMA
- March 2005 – September 2017: Chief, Eastern Branch, National Research Program (NRP), WMA
- December 2015 – April 2016: Acting Associate Director for Energy and Minerals, and for Environmental Health Mission Areas
- November 2001 – February 2005: Staff Assistant to Chief Scientist for Hydrology, WMA
- January 1989 – November 2001: Research Hydrologist, NRP, WMA
January 1987 – January 1989: National Academy of Sciences Research Associate
Science and Products
The natural capital accounting opportunity: Let's really do the numbers
Twelve questions for the participatory modeling community
Tools and methods in participatory modeling: Selecting the right tool for the job
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”
Purpose, processes, partnerships, and products: four Ps to advance participatory socio-environmental modeling
From data to decisions: Processing information, biases, and beliefs for improved management of natural resources and environments
Modelling with stakeholders - Next generation
Review of the USA National Phenology Network
Integrated Environmental Modelling: Human decisions, human challenges
W(h)ither the Oracle? Cognitive biases and other human challenges of integrated environmental modeling
Modeling groundwater flow and quality
David L. Parkhurst as the recipient of the 2012 O.E. Meinzer Award of the Hydrogeology Division of the Geological Society of America
Science and Products
- Data
- Publications
Filter Total Items: 36
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 caAuthorsJames W. Boyd, Kenneth J. Bagstad, Jane Carter Ingram, Carl D. Shapiro, Jeffery Adkins, C. Frank Casey, Clifford S. Duke, Pierre D. Glynn, Erica Goldman, Monica Grasso, Julie L. Hass, Justin A. Johnson, Glenn-Marie Lange, John Matuszak, Ann Miller, Kirsten L. L. Oleson, Stephen M. Posner, Charles Rhodes, Francois Soulard, Michael Vardon, Ferdinando Villa, Brian Voigt, Scott WentlandTwelve 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, overAuthorsRebecca Jordan, Steven Gray, Moira Zellner, Pierre D. Glynn, Alexey Voinov, Beatrice Hedelin, Eleanor J. Sterling, Kirsten Leong, Laura Schmitt Olabisi, Klaus Hubacek, Pierre Bommel, Todd K. BenDor, Antonie J. Jetter, Bethany Laursen, Alison Singer, Philippe J. Giabbanelli, Nagesh Kolagani, Laura Basco Carrera, Karen Jenni, Christina PrellTools 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 choicAuthorsAlexey Voinov, Karen Jenni, Steven Gray, Nagesh Kolagani, Pierre D. Glynn, Pierre Bommel, Christina Prell, Moira Zellner, Michael Paolisso, Rebecca Jordan, Eleanor J. Sterling, Laura Schmitt Olabasi, Philippe J. Giabbanelli, Zhanli Sun, Christophe Le Page, Sondoss Elsawah, Todd K. BenDor, Klaus Hubacek, Bethany K. Laursen, Antonie J. Jetter, Laura Basco Carrera, Alison Singer, Laura G. Young, Jessica Brunacini, Alex SmajglResponse 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 otherAuthorsPierre D. Glynn, Alexey A. Voinov, Carl D. Shapiro, Paul A. WhitePurpose, 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 participatoryAuthorsSteven Gray, Alexey Voinov, Michael Paolisso, Rebecca Jordan, Todd BenDor, Pierre Bommel, Pierre D. Glynn, Beatrice Hedelin, Klaus Hubacek, Josh Introne, Nagesh Kolagani, Bethany Laursen, Christina Prell, Laura Schmitt-Olabisi, Alison Singer, Eleanor J. Sterling, Moira ZellnerFrom 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 toAuthorsPierre D. Glynn, Alexey A. Voinov, Carl D. Shapiro, Paul A. WhiteModelling with stakeholders - Next generation
This paper updates and builds on ‘Modelling with Stakeholders’ Voinov and Bousquet, 2010 which demonstrated the importance of, and demand for, stakeholder participation in resource and environmental modelling. This position paper returns to the concepts of that publication and reviews the progress made since 2010. A new development is the wide introduction and acceptance of social media and web apAuthorsAlexey Voinov, Nagesh Kolagani, Michael K McCall, Pierre D. Glynn, Marit E Kragt, Frank O Ostermann, Suzanne A Pierce, Palaniappan RamuReview of the USA National Phenology Network
In January 2014, leadership from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ecosystems Mission Area commissioned a review of the USA National Phenology Network (USA–NPN) Program. The Ecosystems Mission Area has a key stake in the USA–NPN, providing both supervision of its Director and most of the appropriated funds. The products and objectives of the program are relevant to six of the seven USGS Mission ArIntegrated Environmental Modelling: Human decisions, human challenges
Integrated Environmental Modelling (IEM) is an invaluable tool for understanding the complex, dynamic ecosystems that house our natural resources and control our environments. Human behaviour affects the ways in which the science of IEM is assembled and used for meaningful societal applications. In particular, human biases and heuristics reflect adaptation and experiential learning to issues withAuthorsPierre D. GlynnW(h)ither the Oracle? Cognitive biases and other human challenges of integrated environmental modeling
Integrated environmental modeling (IEM) can organize and increase our knowledge of the complex, dynamic ecosystems that house our natural resources and control the quality of our environments. Human behavior, however, must be taken into account. Human biases/heuristics reflect adaptation over our evolutionary past to frequently experienced situations that affected our survival and that provided shAuthorsPierre D. GlynnModeling groundwater flow and quality
In most areas, rocks in the subsurface are saturated with water at relatively shallow depths. The top of the saturated zone—the water table—typically occurs anywhere from just below land surface to hundreds of feet below the land surface. Groundwater generally fills all pore spaces below the water table and is part of a continuous dynamic flow system, in which the fluid is moving at velocities ranAuthorsLeonard F. Konikow, Pierre D. GlynnDavid L. Parkhurst as the recipient of the 2012 O.E. Meinzer Award of the Hydrogeology Division of the Geological Society of America
Describes the impact of USGS scientist David Parkhurst's influential contributions to the fields of aqueous geochemistry and hydrogeology. Parkhurst is the recipient of the 2012 O.E. Meinzer award of the Geological Society of America's Hydrogeology Division.AuthorsPierre D. Glynn