Group elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand bays

Gerald G. Singh; Jim Sinner; Joanne Ellis; Milind Kandlikar; Benjamin S. Halpern; Terre Satterfield; Kai Chan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0182233

Group elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand bays

Gerald G. Singh, Jim Sinner, Joanne Ellis, Milind Kandlikar, Benjamin S. Halpern, Terre Satterfield, Kai Chan

Biological, Environmental Sciences and Engineering

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

19 Scopus citations

Abstract

The elicitation of expert judgment is an important tool for assessment of risks and impacts in environmental management contexts, and especially important as decision-makers face novel challenges where prior empirical research is lacking or insufficient. Evidence-driven elicitation approaches typically involve techniques to derive more accurate probability distributions under fairly specific contexts. Experts are, however, prone to overconfidence in their judgements. Group elicitations with diverse experts can reduce expert overconfidence by allowing cross-examination and reassessment of prior judgements, but groups are also prone to uncritical

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	e0182233
Journal	PLOS ONE
Volume	12
Issue number	8
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182233
State	Published - Aug 2 2017

Bibliographical note

KAUST Repository Item: Exported on 2020-10-01
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the Cawthron Institute for their generous support of this research. Special thanks to Mark Newton, Dana Clark, Sarah Klain, and Paige Olmsted for helping with the workshop. We would also like to thank the experts who took part in this study. The Cawthron Institute and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (grant MAUX1208) funded the elicitation process and workshop, but had no role (outside the authors) in study design, data analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Access to Document

10.1371/journal.pone.0182233

https://repository.kaust.edu.sa/bitstream/10754/625312/1/journal.pone.0182233.pdf

Cite this

@article{14364dfe1b15472fb378d5bdedb88be2,

title = "Group elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand bays",

abstract = "The elicitation of expert judgment is an important tool for assessment of risks and impacts in environmental management contexts, and especially important as decision-makers face novel challenges where prior empirical research is lacking or insufficient. Evidence-driven elicitation approaches typically involve techniques to derive more accurate probability distributions under fairly specific contexts. Experts are, however, prone to overconfidence in their judgements. Group elicitations with diverse experts can reduce expert overconfidence by allowing cross-examination and reassessment of prior judgements, but groups are also prone to uncritical",

author = "Singh, {Gerald G.} and Jim Sinner and Joanne Ellis and Milind Kandlikar and Halpern, {Benjamin S.} and Terre Satterfield and Kai Chan",

note = "KAUST Repository Item: Exported on 2020-10-01 Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the Cawthron Institute for their generous support of this research. Special thanks to Mark Newton, Dana Clark, Sarah Klain, and Paige Olmsted for helping with the workshop. We would also like to thank the experts who took part in this study. The Cawthron Institute and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (grant MAUX1208) funded the elicitation process and workshop, but had no role (outside the authors) in study design, data analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.",

year = "2017",

month = aug,

day = "2",

doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0182233",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "12",

pages = "e0182233",

journal = "PLOS ONE",

issn = "1932-6203",

publisher = "Public Library of Science",

number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Group elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand bays

AU - Singh, Gerald G.

AU - Sinner, Jim

AU - Ellis, Joanne

AU - Kandlikar, Milind

AU - Halpern, Benjamin S.

AU - Satterfield, Terre

AU - Chan, Kai

N1 - KAUST Repository Item: Exported on 2020-10-01 Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the Cawthron Institute for their generous support of this research. Special thanks to Mark Newton, Dana Clark, Sarah Klain, and Paige Olmsted for helping with the workshop. We would also like to thank the experts who took part in this study. The Cawthron Institute and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (grant MAUX1208) funded the elicitation process and workshop, but had no role (outside the authors) in study design, data analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

PY - 2017/8/2

Y1 - 2017/8/2

N2 - The elicitation of expert judgment is an important tool for assessment of risks and impacts in environmental management contexts, and especially important as decision-makers face novel challenges where prior empirical research is lacking or insufficient. Evidence-driven elicitation approaches typically involve techniques to derive more accurate probability distributions under fairly specific contexts. Experts are, however, prone to overconfidence in their judgements. Group elicitations with diverse experts can reduce expert overconfidence by allowing cross-examination and reassessment of prior judgements, but groups are also prone to uncritical

AB - The elicitation of expert judgment is an important tool for assessment of risks and impacts in environmental management contexts, and especially important as decision-makers face novel challenges where prior empirical research is lacking or insufficient. Evidence-driven elicitation approaches typically involve techniques to derive more accurate probability distributions under fairly specific contexts. Experts are, however, prone to overconfidence in their judgements. Group elicitations with diverse experts can reduce expert overconfidence by allowing cross-examination and reassessment of prior judgements, but groups are also prone to uncritical

UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10754/625312

UR - http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182233

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026635784&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0182233

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0182233

M3 - Article

C2 - 28767694

SN - 1932-6203

VL - 12

SP - e0182233

JO - PLOS ONE

JF - PLOS ONE

IS - 8

ER -

Group elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand bays

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Data from: Group elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand bays

Cite this

Group elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand bays

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Datasets

Data from: Group elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand bays

Cite this