Journal Article - Risk Analysis
Quantifying the Effects of Expert Selection and Elicitation Design on Experts' Confidence in Their Judgments About Future Energy Technologies
Abstract
Expert elicitations are now frequently used to characterize uncertain future technology outcomes. However, their usefulness is limited, in part because: estimates across studies are not easily comparable; choices in survey design and expert selection may bias results; and overconfidence is a persistent problem. We provide quantitative evidence of how these choices affect experts' estimates. We standardize data from 16 elicitations, involving 169 experts, on the 2030 costs of five energy technologies: nuclear, biofuels, bioelectricity, solar, and carbon capture. We estimate determinants of experts' confidence using survey design, expert characteristics, and public R&D investment levels on which the elicited values are conditional. Our central finding is that when experts respond to elicitations in person (vs. online or mail) they ascribe lower confidence (larger uncertainty) to their estimates, but more optimistic assessments of best-case (10th percentile) outcomes. The effects of expert affiliation and country of residence vary by technology, but in general: academics and public-sector experts express lower confidence than private-sector experts; and E.U. experts are more confident than U.S. experts. Finally, extending previous technology-specific work, higher R&D spending increases experts' uncertainty rather than resolves it. We discuss ways in which these findings should be seriously considered in interpreting the results of existing elicitations and in designing new ones.
Read the entire article here (log in may be required): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.12604/abstract
For more information on this publication:
Please contact
Science, Technology, and Public Policy
For Academic Citation:
Nemet, Gregory, Laura Diaz Anadon, and Elena Verdolini. “Quantifying the Effects of Expert Selection and Elicitation Design on Experts' Confidence in Their Judgments About Future Energy Technologies.” Risk Analysis, (2016) .
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions
- The Wall Street Journal
Will Using More Biofuels Be Good for the Environment? Two Experts Square Off.
Book
- Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Handbook of the International Political Economy of Energy and Natural Resources
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Paper
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Attacking Artificial Intelligence: AI’s Security Vulnerability and What Policymakers Can Do About It
Blog Post
- Iran Matters
U.S.-Led Regime Change is not the Path
Analysis & Opinions
- New Straits Times
Gorbachev and the End of the Cold War
Abstract
Expert elicitations are now frequently used to characterize uncertain future technology outcomes. However, their usefulness is limited, in part because: estimates across studies are not easily comparable; choices in survey design and expert selection may bias results; and overconfidence is a persistent problem. We provide quantitative evidence of how these choices affect experts' estimates. We standardize data from 16 elicitations, involving 169 experts, on the 2030 costs of five energy technologies: nuclear, biofuels, bioelectricity, solar, and carbon capture. We estimate determinants of experts' confidence using survey design, expert characteristics, and public R&D investment levels on which the elicited values are conditional. Our central finding is that when experts respond to elicitations in person (vs. online or mail) they ascribe lower confidence (larger uncertainty) to their estimates, but more optimistic assessments of best-case (10th percentile) outcomes. The effects of expert affiliation and country of residence vary by technology, but in general: academics and public-sector experts express lower confidence than private-sector experts; and E.U. experts are more confident than U.S. experts. Finally, extending previous technology-specific work, higher R&D spending increases experts' uncertainty rather than resolves it. We discuss ways in which these findings should be seriously considered in interpreting the results of existing elicitations and in designing new ones.
Read the entire article here (log in may be required): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.12604/abstract
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions - The Wall Street Journal
Will Using More Biofuels Be Good for the Environment? Two Experts Square Off.
Book - Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Handbook of the International Political Economy of Energy and Natural Resources
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Paper - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Attacking Artificial Intelligence: AI’s Security Vulnerability and What Policymakers Can Do About It
Blog Post - Iran Matters
U.S.-Led Regime Change is not the Path
Analysis & Opinions - New Straits Times
Gorbachev and the End of the Cold War