IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/3201.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A literature review on the use of expert opinion in probabilistic risk analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ouchi, Fumika

Abstract

Risk assessment is part of the decision making process in many fields of discipline, such as engineering, public health, environment, program management, regulatory policy, and finance. There has been considerable debate over the philosophical and methodological treatment of risk in the past few decades, ranging from its definition and classification to methods of its assessment. Probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) specifically deals with events represented by low probabilities of occurring with high levels of unfavorable consequences. Expert judgment is often a critical source of information in PRA, since empirical data on the variables of interest are rarely available. The author reviews the literature on the use of expert opinion in PRA, in particular on the approaches to eliciting and aggregating experts'assessments. The literature suggests that the methods by which expert opinions are collected and combined have a significant effect on the resulting estimates. The author discusses two types of approaches to eliciting and aggregating expert judgments-behavioral and mathematical approaches, with the emphasis on the latter. It is generally agreed that mathematical approaches tend to yield more accurate estimates than behavioral approaches. After a short description of behavioral approaches, the author discusses mathematical approaches in detail, presenting three aggregation models: non-Bayesian axiomatic models, Bayesian models, andpsychological scaling models. She also discusses issues of stochastic dependence.

Suggested Citation

  • Ouchi, Fumika, 2004. "A literature review on the use of expert opinion in probabilistic risk analysis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3201, The World Bank.
  • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:3201
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/04/15/000009486_20040415130301/Rendered/PDF/wps3201Literature.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Moffitt, L. Joe & Osteen, Craig D., 2006. "Prioritizing Invasive Species Threats Under Uncertainty," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 35(1), pages 1-11, April.
    2. Elena M. Parilina & Georges Zaccour, 2022. "Sustainable Cooperation in Dynamic Games on Event Trees with Players’ Asymmetric Beliefs," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 194(1), pages 92-120, July.
    3. Moffitt L. Joe & Stranlund John K. & Field Barry C., 2005. "Inspections to Avert Terrorism: Robustness Under Severe Uncertainty," Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, De Gruyter, vol. 2(3), pages 1-19, September.
    4. Werner, Christoph & Bedford, Tim & Cooke, Roger M. & Hanea, Anca M. & Morales-Nápoles, Oswaldo, 2017. "Expert judgement for dependence in probabilistic modelling: A systematic literature review and future research directions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 801-819.
    5. Marta O. Soares & Jo C. Dumville & Rebecca L. Ashby & Cynthia P. Iglesias & Laura Bojke & Una Adderley & Elizabeth McGinnis & Nikki Stubbs & David J. Torgerson & Karl Claxton & Nicky Cullum, 2013. "Methods to Assess Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Further Research When Data Are Sparse," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 415-436, April.
    6. Zhijun Yang & K. H. Coble & M. Darren Hudson, 2009. "The role of individual personality type in subjective risk elicitation outcomes," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 209-222, March.
    7. Hanea, D.M. & Jagtman, H.M. & van Alphen, L.L.M.M. & Ale, B.J.M., 2010. "Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the expert and non-expert opinion in fire risk in buildings," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 729-741.
    8. Keith Coble & Zhijun Yang & M. Darren Hudson, 2011. "Using experimental economics to evaluate alternative subjective elicitation procedures," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(14), pages 1729-1736.
    9. Deborah F. Shmueli & Ehud Segal & Michal Ben Gal & Eran Feitelson & Amnon Reichman, 2019. "Earthquake readiness in volatile regions: the case of Israel," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 98(2), pages 405-423, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:3201. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Roula I. Yazigi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.