Scinovex
reviewTop 1% cited

Eliciting Expert Knowledge in Conservation Science

Conservation Biology · 2012 · Vol. 26(1) · pp. 29–38
Tara G. MartinMark A. BurgmanFiona FidlerPetra KuhnertSamantha Low‐ChoyMarissa F. McBrideKerrie Mengersen

Abstract

Expert knowledge is used widely in the science and practice of conservation because of the complexity of problems, relative lack of data, and the imminent nature of many conservation decisions. Expert knowledge is substantive information on a particular topic that is not widely known by others. An expert is someone who holds this knowledge and who is often deferred to in its interpretation. We refer to predictions by experts of what may happen in a particular context as expert judgments. In general, an expert-elicitation approach consists of five steps: deciding how information will be used, determining what to elicit, designing the elicitation process, performing the elicitation, and translating the elicited information into quantitative statements that can be used in a model or directly to make decisions. This last step is known as encoding. Some of the considerations in eliciting expert knowledge include determining how to work with multiple experts and how to combine multiple judgments, minimizing bias in the elicited information, and verifying the accuracy of expert information. We highlight structured elicitation techniques that, if adopted, will improve the accuracy and information content of expert judgment and ensure uncertainty is captured accurately. We suggest four aspects of an expert elicitation exercise be examined to determine its comprehensiveness and effectiveness: study design and context, elicitation design, elicitation method, and elicitation output. Just as the reliability of empirical data depends on the rigor with which it was acquired so too does that of expert knowledge.

Conservation Techniques and StudiesUrban Planning and ValuationGeographic Information Systems StudiesConservation scienceBiodiversity conservationGeographyBiologyBiodiversityEcology

MeSH terms

Conservation of Natural ResourcesExpert TestimonyUncertainty
Citations
807
FWCI
441.65
field-weighted impact
References
90
Percentile
100%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
References
Overconfidence in Interval Estimates.
Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · 2004 · 511 citations
Measures of Anchoring in Estimation Tasks
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · 1995 · 751 citations
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Science · 1974 · 27,472 citations
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.