Combining experts' risk judgments on technology performance of phytoremediation: self-confidence ratings, averaging procedures, and formative consensus building.

Expert panels and averaging procedures are common means for coping with the uncertainty of effects of technology application in complex environments. We investigate the connection between confidence and the validity of expert judgment. Moreover, a formative consensus building procedure (FCB) is introduced that generates probability statements on the performance of technologies, and we compare different algorithms for the statistical aggregation of individual judgments. The case study refers to an expert panel of 10 environmental scientists assessing the performance of a soil cleanup technology that uses the capability of certain plants to accumulate heavy metals from the soil in the plant body (phytoremediation). The panel members first provided individual statements on the effectiveness of a phytoremediation. Such statements can support policymakers, answering the questions concerning the expected performance of the new technology in contaminated areas. The present study reviews (1) the steps of the FCB, (2) the constraints of technology application (contaminants, soil structure, etc.), (3) the measurement of expert knowledge, (4) the statistical averaging and the discursive agreement procedures, and (5) the boundaries of application for the FCB method. The quantitative statement oriented part of FCB generates terms such as: "The probability that the concentration of soil contamination will be reduced by at least 50% is 0.8." The data suggest that taking the median of the individual expert estimates provides the most accurate aggregated estimate. The discursive agreement procedure of FCB appears suitable for deriving politically relevant singular statements rather than for obtaining comprehensive information about uncertainties as represented by probability distributions.