This article is published in Environmetrics as a special issue on Ecosystem Services, edited by M. Scott and R. Smith Affiliation(s).
Special Issue Paper
Four case studies in using expert opinion to inform priors†
Version of Record online: 18 APR 2011
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Special Issue: Quantitative Approaches to Ecosystem Service Evaluation
Volume 22, Issue 5, pages 662–674, August 2011
How to Cite
Kuhnert, P. M. (2011), Four case studies in using expert opinion to inform priors. Environmetrics, 22: 662–674. doi: 10.1002/env.1115
- Issue online: 4 JUL 2011
- Version of Record online: 18 APR 2011
- Manuscript Accepted: 8 MAR 2011
- Manuscript Revised: 20 DEC 2010
- Manuscript Received: 29 NOV 2009
- Bayesian modelling;
- Bayesian Belief Networks;
Priors gained from expert opinion can be the key to effective decision-making. Yet, there is continuing controversy with its use because of its subjective and potentially biased nature. I examine the use of expert opinion through four environmental case studies in which one or more experts participated in an elicitation exercise to provide inference on ecological problems. In each case study, I examine how expert opinion informed the model and the potential pitfalls that could result, especially in data-limited situations.
I discuss two opposing schools of thought: (1) experts provide a valuable source of information that can offer useful insights into a model and (2) expert priors are most times biased, leading to incorrect results and bad decisions. I show that expert opinion has a place in ecological analyses if carefully structured in a model. In situations in which data are limited or simply not available, steps can be taken to ensure its proper use and interpretation from models so decisions can be made urgently and updated when new data becomes available. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.