Group elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand bays
Type
ArticleAuthors
Singh, Gerald G.
Sinner, Jim
Ellis, Joanne

Kandlikar, Milind
Halpern, Benjamin S.
Satterfield, Terre
Chan, Kai
KAUST Department
Red Sea Research Center (RSRC)Date
2017-08-02Permanent link to this record
http://hdl.handle.net/10754/625312
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
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 uncriticalCitation
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.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.Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)Journal
PLOS ONEPubMed ID
28767694Relations
Is Supplemented By:- [Dataset]
Singh, G. G., Sinner, J., Ellis, J., Kandlikar, M., Halpern, B. S., Satterfield, T., & Chan, K. (2018). Data from: Group elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand bays (Version 1) [Data set]. Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/DRYAD.VR165. DOI: 10.5061/dryad.vr165 Handle: 10754/662373
ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1371/journal.pone.0182233
Scopus Count
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as This 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.
Related articles
- Correction: Group elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand bays.
- Authors: Singh GG, Sinner J, Ellis J, Kandlikar M, Halpern BS, Satterfield T, Chan K
- Issue date: 2017
- Quantifying the Effects of Expert Selection and Elicitation Design on Experts' Confidence in Their Judgments About Future Energy Technologies.
- Authors: Nemet GF, Anadon LD, Verdolini E
- Issue date: 2017 Feb
- Mechanisms and risk of cumulative impacts to coastal ecosystem services: An expert elicitation approach.
- Authors: Singh GG, Sinner J, Ellis J, Kandlikar M, Halpern BS, Satterfield T, Chan KMA
- Issue date: 2017 Sep 1
- Use of expert judgment in exposure assessment: part 2. Calibration of expert judgments about personal exposures to benzene.
- Authors: Walker KD, Catalano P, Hammitt JK, Evans JS
- Issue date: 2003 Jan
- A comparison of two methods for expert elicitation in health technology assessments.
- Authors: Grigore B, Peters J, Hyde C, Stein K
- Issue date: 2016 Jul 26