Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNemet, Gregory F
dc.contributor.authorAnadon, Laura Diaz
dc.contributor.authorVerdolini, Elena
dc.date.accessioned2018-10-10T05:15:59Z
dc.date.available2018-10-10T05:15:59Z
dc.date.issued2017-02
dc.identifier.issn0272-4332
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/283323
dc.description.abstractExpert 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.
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherWiley
dc.titleQuantifying the Effects of Expert Selection and Elicitation Design on Experts' Confidence in Their Judgments About Future Energy Technologies.
dc.typeArticle
prism.endingPage330
prism.issueIdentifier2
prism.publicationDate2017
prism.publicationNameRisk Anal
prism.startingPage315
prism.volume37
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.30691
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-02-19
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1111/risa.12604
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2017-02
dc.identifier.eissn1539-6924
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
cam.issuedOnline2016-03-31
rioxxterms.freetoread.startdate2017-03-31


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record