IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v95y2010i7p729-741.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the expert and non-expert opinion in fire risk in buildings

Author

Listed:
  • Hanea, D.M.
  • Jagtman, H.M.
  • van Alphen, L.L.M.M.
  • Ale, B.J.M.

Abstract

Expert judgment procedure is a method very often used in the area of risk assessments of complex systems or processes to fill in quantitative data. Although it has been proved to be a very reliable source of information when no other data are available, the choice of experts is always questioned. When the available data are limited, the seed questions cover only partially the domains of expertise, which may cause problems. Expertise is assessed not covering the full object of study but only those topics for which seed questions can be formulated. The commonly used quantitative analysis of an expert judgment exercise is combined with a qualitative analysis. The latter adds more insights to the relation between the assessor's field and statistical knowledge and their performance in an expert judgment. In addition the qualitative analysis identifies different types of seed questions. Three groups of assessors with different levels of statistical and domain knowledge are studied. The quantitative analysis shows no differences between field experts and non-experts and no differences between having advanced statistical knowledge or not. The qualitative analysis supports these findings. In addition it is found that especially technical questions are answered with larger intervals. Precaution is required when using seed questions for which the real value can be calculated, which was the case for one of the seed questions.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:95:y:2010:i:7:p:729-741
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2010.02.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832010000475
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2010.02.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Lin, Shi-Woei & Bier, Vicki M., 2008. "A study of expert overconfidence," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(5), pages 711-721.
    3. Cooke, Roger M. & Goossens, Louis L.H.J., 2008. "TU Delft expert judgment data base," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(5), pages 657-674.
    4. Robert L. Winkler, 1968. "The Consensus of Subjective Probability Distributions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 61-75, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Skorupski, Jacek, 2015. "The risk of an air accident as a result of a serious incident of the hybrid type," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 37-52.
    2. Hanea, D.M. & Jagtman, H.M. & Ale, B.J.M., 2012. "Analysis of the Schiphol Cell Complex fire using a Bayesian belief net based model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 115-124.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eggstaff, Justin W. & Mazzuchi, Thomas A. & Sarkani, Shahram, 2014. "The effect of the number of seed variables on the performance of Cooke′s classical model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 72-82.
    2. Erin Baker & Olaitan Olaleye, 2013. "Combining Experts: Decomposition and Aggregation Order," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1116-1127, June.
    3. James K. Hammitt & Yifan Zhang, 2013. "Combining Experts’ Judgments: Comparison of Algorithmic Methods Using Synthetic Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 109-120, January.
    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. Cooke, Roger M., 2014. "Deep and Shallow Uncertainty in Messaging Climate Change," RFF Working Paper Series dp-14-11, Resources for the Future.
    6. Roger M. Cooke, 2015. "The Aggregation of Expert Judgment: Do Good Things Come to Those Who Weight?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 12-15, January.
    7. Fergus Bolger & Gene Rowe, 2015. "There is Data, and then there is Data: Only Experimental Evidence will Determine the Utility of Differential Weighting of Expert Judgment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 21-26, January.
    8. Jeremy Rohmer & Eric Chojnacki, 2021. "Forecast of environment systems using expert judgements: performance comparison between the possibilistic and the classical model," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 131-146, March.
    9. Makariou, Despoina & Barrieu, Pauline & Tzougas, George, 2021. "A finite mixture modelling perspective for combining experts’ opinions with an application to quantile-based risk measures," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110763, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Hathout, Michel & Vuillet, Marc & Carvajal, Claudio & Peyras, Laurent & Diab, Youssef, 2019. "Expert judgments calibration and combination for assessment of river levee failure probability," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 377-392.
    11. Despoina Makariou & Pauline Barrieu & George Tzougas, 2021. "A Finite Mixture Modelling Perspective for Combining Experts’ Opinions with an Application to Quantile-Based Risk Measures," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-25, June.
    12. Justin W. Eggstaff & Thomas A. Mazzuchi & Shahram Sarkani, 2014. "The Development of Progress Plans Using a Performance‐Based Expert Judgment Model to Assess Technical Performance and Risk," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 375-391, December.
    13. Guo, Jian & (Steven) Li, Zhaojun & (Judy) Jin, Jionghua, 2018. "System reliability assessment with multilevel information using the Bayesian melding method," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 146-158.
    14. Geovanna Hinojoza-Castro & Montserrat Gómez-Delgado & Wenseslao Plata-Rocha, 2022. "Real Estate Developers as Agents in the Simulation of Urban Sprawl," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-12, July.
    15. Fei Xiong & Yun Liu & Zhenjiang Zhang, 2011. "Dynamics With Co-Evolution Of Individual Inclination And Opinion," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(01), pages 51-62.
    16. Joseph Kadane & Javier Girón & Daniel Peña & Peter Fishburn & Simon French & D. Lindley & Giovanni Parmigiani & Robert Winkler, 1993. "Several Bayesians: A review," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 2(1), pages 1-32, December.
    17. Karner, Alex & Niemeier, Deb, 2013. "Civil rights guidance and equity analysis methods for regional transportation plans: a critical review of literature and practice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 126-134.
    18. Hanea, A.M. & McBride, M.F. & Burgman, M.A. & Wintle, B.C. & Fidler, F. & Flander, L. & Twardy, C.R. & Manning, B. & Mascaro, S., 2017. "I nvestigate D iscuss E stimate A ggregate for structured expert judgement," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 267-279.
    19. Laura Diaz Anadon & Erin Baker & Valentina Bosetti & Lara Aleluia Reis, 2016. "Expert views - and disagreements - about the potential of energy technology R&D," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 677-691, June.
    20. 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.

    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:eee:reensy:v:95:y:2010:i:7:p:729-741. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    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.