Why are some experts more credible than others?

Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency

“…If this is done in a way that enables decision-makers, opponents and the general public to understand the facts underlying the prediction results, it will open the door to reflection, critique, opposition and discussion among decisionmakers and other stakeholders. Kontic (2000) discusses how transparency may be one way of improving the credibility of EIAs. According to him, transparency means the complete and clear recording of expert reasoning, judgements and decisions in the evaluation process; a clear indication of where the boundaries for knowledge lie; the rationale for the methods used to address variability and uncertainty; where hypotheses and/or speculations have been adopted; and the appraisal of values.…”

Strategic environmental assessment of Canadian energy policy

“…The balance of experts and the nature of their expertise also require particular attention (for instance, Noble, 2002b;Kontic, 2000). The purpose of this paper, however, was to illustrate a structured SEA methodology through a case study application.…”

Formalising expert opinion through multi-attribute value functions: An application in landscape ecology

“…Furthermore, the technique has the advantage of recording all the judgments and the choices that make up the final value assignment. This is recognised as a fundamental requisite to enhance the credibility of the evaluation in the eyes of the public and of the decision-makers (Kontic, 2000). For these reasons, it appears worthwhile to experiment on the use of this technique in the realm of landscape ecological evaluation.…”