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

Handle URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10754/625312
Title:
Group elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand bays
Authors:
Singh, Gerald G. ( 0000-0003-4333-1988 ) ; Sinner, Jim; Ellis, Joanne ( 0000-0002-2625-4274 ) ; Kandlikar, Milind; Halpern, Benjamin S.; Satterfield, Terre; Chan, Kai
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
KAUST Department:
Red Sea Research Center (RSRC)
Citation:
Singh GG, Sinner J, Ellis J, Kandlikar M, Halpern BS, et al. (2017) Group elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand bays. PLOS ONE 12: e0182233. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182233.
Publisher:
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Journal:
PLOS ONE
Issue Date:
2-Aug-2017
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0182233
Type:
Article
ISSN:
1932-6203
Sponsors:
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.
Additional Links:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182233
Appears in Collections:
Articles; Red Sea Research Center (RSRC)

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorSingh, Gerald G.en
dc.contributor.authorSinner, Jimen
dc.contributor.authorEllis, Joanneen
dc.contributor.authorKandlikar, Milinden
dc.contributor.authorHalpern, Benjamin S.en
dc.contributor.authorSatterfield, Terreen
dc.contributor.authorChan, Kaien
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-10T11:43:33Z-
dc.date.available2017-08-10T11:43:33Z-
dc.date.issued2017-08-02en
dc.identifier.citationSingh GG, Sinner J, Ellis J, Kandlikar M, Halpern BS, et al. (2017) Group elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand bays. PLOS ONE 12: e0182233. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182233.en
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203en
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0182233en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10754/625312-
dc.description.abstractThe 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 uncriticalen
dc.description.sponsorshipWe 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.en
dc.publisherPublic Library of Science (PLoS)en
dc.relation.urlhttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182233en
dc.rightsThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.en
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.titleGroup elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand baysen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentRed Sea Research Center (RSRC)en
dc.identifier.journalPLOS ONEen
dc.eprint.versionPublisher's Version/PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionNEREUS Program, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.en
dc.contributor.institutionCawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand.en
dc.contributor.institutionInstitute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.en
dc.contributor.institutionNational Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.en
kaust.authorEllis, Joanneen
All Items in KAUST are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.