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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

18 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 languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e0182233
JournalPLOS ONE
Volume12
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - 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.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Group elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand bays'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this