Earthquake probability in engineering — Part 1: The use and misuse of expert opinion. The Third Richard H. Jahns Distinguished Lecture in Engineering Geology

Krinitzsky, E. L.

doi:10.1016/0013-7952(93)90030-g

Cited by 76 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Experts’ reliance in part upon socio-political values indicates that personal values also play a minor role in preparedness judgments. This might indicate some difficulty with the evaluation task, where a greater reliance upon personal values can be expected for experts who make judgments that span beyond their specific area of expertise [ 10 , 20 - 22 ]. For instance, experts outside of regulatory agencies may have less direct knowledge and experience with the challenges of regulation and hence may rely in part upon personal values and experiences when making an assessment (and vice versa) thus accounting for some of the observed variance in preparedness judgments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Expert opinion has also been found to vary significantly with political attitudes and values. Several scholars have found that similar to non-experts, scientists often use norms or values when making judgments about risk under high uncertainty [ 10 , 20 - 22 ]. For instance, economically conservative nanoscientists were found by Corley et al to show less support for regulation [ 22 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Expert Views on Regulatory Preparedness for Managing the Risks of Nanotechnologies

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The potential and promise of nanotechnologies depends in large part on the ability for regulatory systems to assess and manage their benefits and risks. However, considerable uncertainty persists regarding the health and environmental implications of nanomaterials, hence the capacity for existing regulations to meet this challenge has been widely questioned. Here we draw from a survey (N=254) of US-based nano-scientists and engineers, environmental health and safety scientists, and regulatory scientists and decision-makers, to ask whether nano experts regard regulatory agencies as prepared for managing nanomaterial risks. We find that all three expert groups view regulatory agencies as unprepared. The effect is strongest for regulators themselves, and less so for scientists conducting basic, applied, or health and safety work on nanomaterials. Those who see nanotechnology risks as novel, uncertain, and difficult to assess are particularly likely to see agencies as unprepared. Trust in regulatory agencies, views of stakeholder responsibility regarding the management of risks, and socio-political values were also found to be small but significant drivers of perceived agency preparedness. These results underscore the need for new tools and methods to enable the assessment of nanomaterial risks, and to renew confidence in regulatory agencies’ ability to oversee their growing use and application in society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expert Views on Regulatory Preparedness for Managing the Risks of Nanotechnologies

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…21 argued that strong personalities influence outcomes. Participants advocate positions, views are anchored, change is resisted, people hold covert opinions that are not explained and there is pressure to conform.…”

Section: Stakeholders Influence and Social Network Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Approach in Environmental Management

Romero-Gelvez

García‐Melón

2016

Int. J. Info. Tech. Dec. Mak.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The environmental decision problems often are divisive, even in a technical realm, decision makers with strong personalities influence outcomes. The purpose of this study is to define and quantify the factors that affect the conservation objectives of a national natural park located in Colombia, South America adding the judgments of six decision makers with different knowledge (every decision maker is also a stakeholder representative). This paper uses a hybrid multiple criteria group decision making model (MCDM), combining the social network analysis (SNA), analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and similarity measures to solve the consensus and anchoring problem among environmental decision makers. The SNA technique is used to build an influential network relation map among decision makers and to obtain their weights for applying a weighted analytic hierarchy process. Then, the final decision matrices for every decision maker are compared between them in order to identify the consensus level of the problem.Keywords: Group decision-making; stakeholder analysis; consensus; MCDM; AHP; SNA 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification: 22E46, 53C35, 57S20 IntroductionShared responsibility for the protection of nature demands common solutions to existing problems. Environmental management decisions have been the cause of many debates and deep disagreements underlying the multifaceted nature of most environmental problems. Environmental management takes place at many levels (local communities, city, state) and involves a large number of stakeholders (such as landowners, entrepreneurs, urban planners, farmers...) with conflicting interests 1 . The complexity of environmental problems requires transparent and flexible decision-making processes that integrate different areas of knowledge and values 2 . Therefore, we can affirm that environmental planning is a multi-criteria and multi-stakeholder problem by nature 3 4 . . From all of them, the AHP method proposed by 10 has been chosen because it provides an easy-to-understand framework for decision-making or evaluation problems and also it presents its strengths when working in scenarios with scarce information. AHP * For the title, try not to use more than three lines. Typeset the title in 10 pt Times Roman, bold and uppercase. 1 has also the flexibility to combine quantitative and qualitative factors, to handle different groups of actors, to combine the opinions expressed by many experts, and can help in stakeholder analysis.The purpose of stakeholder analysis is to understand their behavior, expectations, relationships and influences or resources they can bring to the decision-making process 11 . 12 suggest that the increasing use of stakeholder analysis in natural resources management reflects the recognition that stakeholders can and should influence environmental decisionmaking processes. This approach is being promoted by the EU (Directive 2003/35/EC2), and by the U.S. the Environmental Protection Agency which promote citizen participation in environmental decision-m...

show abstract

“…It depends on a mathematical and philosophical understanding of probability theory, and on an awareness of the potential for value judgements to impact reasoning (e.g. Krinitzsky, 1993 -less of an issue, perhaps, in this paper, because the values were not being applied in risk assessment). The inconsistencies and heuristics revealed in this paper may therefore suggest that probabilistic methods in volcanology require a level of training (O'Hagan et al, 2006, make a number of constructive suggestions in this regard.…”

Section: Expert Probability Judgementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expert opinion and probabilistic volcanic risk assessment

Donovan

Eiser

Sparks

2015

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. AbstractWe present data from an international survey of scientists working at volcanic observatories concerning eruption likelihoods. The scientists were asked a range of questions using different types of phrasing. The data suggest that the phrasing of questions affects the ways in which probabilities are estimated. In total, 71% of respondents (N=70) exhibited some form of inconsistency in their answers between and/or within different question formats. The data also allow for an analysis of the use of scaling in probabilistic assessment, and the use of quantitative versus verbal risk measurements. However, some respondents were uncomfortable with providing any numerical probability estimate, perhaps suggesting that they considered the uncertainty too high for meaningful judgements to be made.

show abstract

Earthquake probability in engineering — Part 1: The use and misuse of expert opinion. The Third Richard H. Jahns Distinguished Lecture in Engineering Geology

Cited by 76 publications

References 9 publications

Expert Views on Regulatory Preparedness for Managing the Risks of Nanotechnologies

Expert Views on Regulatory Preparedness for Managing the Risks of Nanotechnologies

Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Approach in Environmental Management

Expert opinion and probabilistic volcanic risk assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About