The Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, The School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
The Centre for Environmental and Economic Research, The School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
PLoS One. 2018 Jun 22;13(6):e0198468. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198468. eCollection 2018.
Natural resource management uses expert judgement to estimate facts that inform important decisions. Unfortunately, expert judgement is often derived by informal and largely untested protocols, despite evidence that the quality of judgements can be improved with structured approaches. We attribute the lack of uptake of structured protocols to the dearth of illustrative examples that demonstrate how they can be applied within pressing time and resource constraints, while also improving judgements.
In this paper, we demonstrate how the IDEA protocol for structured expert elicitation may be deployed to overcome operational challenges while improving the quality of judgements. The protocol was applied to the estimation of 14 future abiotic and biotic events on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Seventy-six participants with varying levels of expertise related to the Great Barrier Reef were recruited and allocated randomly to eight groups. Each participant provided their judgements using the four-step question format of the IDEA protocol ('Investigate', 'Discuss', 'Estimate', 'Aggregate') through remote elicitation. When the events were realised, the participant judgements were scored in terms of accuracy, calibration and informativeness.
The results demonstrate that the IDEA protocol provides a practical, cost-effective, and repeatable approach to the elicitation of quantitative estimates and uncertainty via remote elicitation. We emphasise that i) the aggregation of diverse individual judgements into pooled group judgments almost always outperformed individuals, and ii) use of a modified Delphi approach helped to remove linguistic ambiguity, and further improved individual and group judgements. Importantly, the protocol encourages review, critical appraisal and replication, each of which is required if judgements are to be used in place of data in a scientific context. The results add to the growing body of literature that demonstrates the merit of using structured elicitation protocols. We urge decision-makers and analysts to use insights and examples to improve the evidence base of expert judgement in natural resource management.
自然资源管理利用专家判断来估计为重要决策提供信息的事实。不幸的是,尽管有证据表明结构化方法可以提高判断的质量,但专家判断往往是通过非正式且在很大程度上未经检验的协议得出的。我们认为,缺乏对结构化协议的采用是由于缺乏说明性示例,这些示例表明如何在紧迫的时间和资源限制内应用它们,同时还可以提高判断的质量。
在本文中,我们展示了如何部署结构化专家 elicitation 协议 IDEA 来克服操作挑战,同时提高判断的质量。该协议应用于澳大利亚大堡礁未来 14 种非生物和生物事件的估计。招募了 76 名具有与大堡礁相关的不同专业知识水平的参与者,并将他们随机分配到八个小组。每个参与者都通过远程 elicitation 使用 IDEA 协议的四步问题格式(“调查”、“讨论”、“估计”、“汇总”)提供他们的判断。当事件发生时,根据准确性、校准和信息量对参与者的判断进行评分。
结果表明,IDEA 协议通过远程 elicitation 为通过远程 elicitation 提供了一种实用、具有成本效益且可重复的方法,用于获取定量估计和不确定性。我们强调,i)将不同个体判断的汇总到 pooled 组判断中几乎总是优于个体,ii)使用修改后的 Delphi 方法有助于消除语言歧义,并进一步提高个体和组的判断。重要的是,该协议鼓励审查、批判性评估和复制,这是在科学背景下使用判断代替数据所必需的。结果增加了越来越多的文献,证明使用结构化 elicitation 协议的优点。我们敦促决策者和分析师利用这些见解和示例来改善自然资源管理中专家判断的证据基础。