Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Eliciting fuzzy distributions from experts for ...
View graph of relations

Eliciting fuzzy distributions from experts for ranking conceptual risk model components

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published

Standard

Eliciting fuzzy distributions from experts for ranking conceptual risk model components. / Page, T.; Heathwaite, A. L.; Thompson, L. J.; Pope, L.; Willows, R.

In: Environmental Modelling and Software, Vol. 36, 10.2012, p. 19-34.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Harvard

Page, T, Heathwaite, AL, Thompson, LJ, Pope, L & Willows, R 2012, 'Eliciting fuzzy distributions from experts for ranking conceptual risk model components', Environmental Modelling and Software, vol. 36, pp. 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.03.001

APA

Vancouver

Author

Page, T. ; Heathwaite, A. L. ; Thompson, L. J. ; Pope, L. ; Willows, R. / Eliciting fuzzy distributions from experts for ranking conceptual risk model components. In: Environmental Modelling and Software. 2012 ; Vol. 36. pp. 19-34.

Bibtex

@article{de025058492c421ca997a35a9cb09818,
title = "Eliciting fuzzy distributions from experts for ranking conceptual risk model components",
abstract = "An expert elicitation methodology was developed to integrate scientific knowledge from many studies at different spatial and temporal scales. The methodology utilised a structured one-to-one interview to elicit scale-dependent conceptual models and expert-weightings for conceptual model components. It was designed to inform large scale catchment risk analyses but, equally, could be applied to many other environmental applications where expert opinion is required to fill knowledge-gaps. Both quantitative (fuzzy rankings) and qualitative information was collected. The risk analyses relate to those carried out by the Environment Agency of England and Wales to meet their European Water Framework Directive obligations associated with the protection of surface water ecology. Specifically, the information elicited was required to inform future risk analyses and inform strategies to reduce the associated uncertainties. Development of the methodology focussed on minimising potential biases associated with the information elicited and on the obtaining fuzzy rankings consistent with experts' reasoning. Minimisation of biases was afforded by making the experts aware of potential biases before the elicitation began; the success of this strategy was however difficult to assess within the scope of the study. However, the one-to-one interview provides enough feedback to give some confidence that this strategy has value. The main limitation of the approach is the time-consuming nature of one-to-one interviews, which may lead to interviewee fatigue. There was generally good agreement between experts on the components chosen to be included in the conceptual models and on the assigned fuzzy rankings: although very broad distributions indicating significant uncertainty was a common response. The principal components chosen were dominated by physical factors that control hydrological pathways and connectivity of the landscape to surface waters. Uncertainties were generally associated with the heterogeneity and variability of unique catchments, which combined with sparse observations, makes it difficult to apply current scientific knowledge. These uncertainties are compounded by the fact that current process understanding is largely informed by small scale experiments, where the rules for upscaling remain under-researched: the experts were required to undertake this upscaling during the elicitation. In the absence of knowledge at the appropriate scales, the scale-dependent information elicited is necessary to utilise many scientific theories and ultimately provides hypotheses to be tested using large scale experimentation.",
keywords = "Expert opinion , Elicitation , Fuzzy number , Water framework directive , Phosphorus , Uncertainty",
author = "T. Page and Heathwaite, {A. L.} and Thompson, {L. J.} and L. Pope and R. Willows",
year = "2012",
month = oct,
doi = "10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.03.001",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "19--34",
journal = "Environmental Modelling and Software",
issn = "1364-8152",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Eliciting fuzzy distributions from experts for ranking conceptual risk model components

AU - Page, T.

AU - Heathwaite, A. L.

AU - Thompson, L. J.

AU - Pope, L.

AU - Willows, R.

PY - 2012/10

Y1 - 2012/10

N2 - An expert elicitation methodology was developed to integrate scientific knowledge from many studies at different spatial and temporal scales. The methodology utilised a structured one-to-one interview to elicit scale-dependent conceptual models and expert-weightings for conceptual model components. It was designed to inform large scale catchment risk analyses but, equally, could be applied to many other environmental applications where expert opinion is required to fill knowledge-gaps. Both quantitative (fuzzy rankings) and qualitative information was collected. The risk analyses relate to those carried out by the Environment Agency of England and Wales to meet their European Water Framework Directive obligations associated with the protection of surface water ecology. Specifically, the information elicited was required to inform future risk analyses and inform strategies to reduce the associated uncertainties. Development of the methodology focussed on minimising potential biases associated with the information elicited and on the obtaining fuzzy rankings consistent with experts' reasoning. Minimisation of biases was afforded by making the experts aware of potential biases before the elicitation began; the success of this strategy was however difficult to assess within the scope of the study. However, the one-to-one interview provides enough feedback to give some confidence that this strategy has value. The main limitation of the approach is the time-consuming nature of one-to-one interviews, which may lead to interviewee fatigue. There was generally good agreement between experts on the components chosen to be included in the conceptual models and on the assigned fuzzy rankings: although very broad distributions indicating significant uncertainty was a common response. The principal components chosen were dominated by physical factors that control hydrological pathways and connectivity of the landscape to surface waters. Uncertainties were generally associated with the heterogeneity and variability of unique catchments, which combined with sparse observations, makes it difficult to apply current scientific knowledge. These uncertainties are compounded by the fact that current process understanding is largely informed by small scale experiments, where the rules for upscaling remain under-researched: the experts were required to undertake this upscaling during the elicitation. In the absence of knowledge at the appropriate scales, the scale-dependent information elicited is necessary to utilise many scientific theories and ultimately provides hypotheses to be tested using large scale experimentation.

AB - An expert elicitation methodology was developed to integrate scientific knowledge from many studies at different spatial and temporal scales. The methodology utilised a structured one-to-one interview to elicit scale-dependent conceptual models and expert-weightings for conceptual model components. It was designed to inform large scale catchment risk analyses but, equally, could be applied to many other environmental applications where expert opinion is required to fill knowledge-gaps. Both quantitative (fuzzy rankings) and qualitative information was collected. The risk analyses relate to those carried out by the Environment Agency of England and Wales to meet their European Water Framework Directive obligations associated with the protection of surface water ecology. Specifically, the information elicited was required to inform future risk analyses and inform strategies to reduce the associated uncertainties. Development of the methodology focussed on minimising potential biases associated with the information elicited and on the obtaining fuzzy rankings consistent with experts' reasoning. Minimisation of biases was afforded by making the experts aware of potential biases before the elicitation began; the success of this strategy was however difficult to assess within the scope of the study. However, the one-to-one interview provides enough feedback to give some confidence that this strategy has value. The main limitation of the approach is the time-consuming nature of one-to-one interviews, which may lead to interviewee fatigue. There was generally good agreement between experts on the components chosen to be included in the conceptual models and on the assigned fuzzy rankings: although very broad distributions indicating significant uncertainty was a common response. The principal components chosen were dominated by physical factors that control hydrological pathways and connectivity of the landscape to surface waters. Uncertainties were generally associated with the heterogeneity and variability of unique catchments, which combined with sparse observations, makes it difficult to apply current scientific knowledge. These uncertainties are compounded by the fact that current process understanding is largely informed by small scale experiments, where the rules for upscaling remain under-researched: the experts were required to undertake this upscaling during the elicitation. In the absence of knowledge at the appropriate scales, the scale-dependent information elicited is necessary to utilise many scientific theories and ultimately provides hypotheses to be tested using large scale experimentation.

KW - Expert opinion

KW - Elicitation

KW - Fuzzy number

KW - Water framework directive

KW - Phosphorus

KW - Uncertainty

U2 - 10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.03.001

DO - 10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.03.001

M3 - Journal article

VL - 36

SP - 19

EP - 34

JO - Environmental Modelling and Software

JF - Environmental Modelling and Software

SN - 1364-8152

ER -