The role of expert knowledge

Building the model of spatial prioritization for a Zonation project typically requires substantial amounts of expert judgement simply because the direct empirical data is lacking. All phases of building the model of spatial prioritization discussed above (sections 3.1.1 - 3.1.4) often rely – and sometimes heavily – on expert judgement. Paying attention to the reliability and accuracy of the expert-derived information is therefore something you will want to pay attention to.

Using expert knowledge in quantitative analysis is quite common in conservation science even if there are some serious known limitations. Most notably, expert judgement may be biased, poorly calibrated or self-serving all of which may lead to poor decision-making (Martin et al., 2012). Fortunately, there are ways to mitigate some of the well-known biases in expert elicitation and to increase the reliability of the analyses partly based on expert knowledge. At the outset of a Zonation project it is worthwhile to try to estimate the amount and type of expert judgment that is required and assess whether more formal expert-elicitation techniques could be used. Overcoming some of the limitations of expert judgement can be done through analytically testing the knowledge of experts, providing training and feedback for the experts and using structured elicitation procedures such as the Delphi technique (Burgman et al., 2011).

Who are the experts then who you should be engaging? Once again, the answer to this question will depend on the specifics of your project and you will probably face a whole continuum of expertise from which to choose. Typically, the experts come from research and management organizations, private sector, NGOs and from organizations responsible for the actual decision-making. The level of expertise of any given single expert will of course vary depending on the subject matter and will range from simple understanding to substantial contributory expertise (Burgman et al., 2011). From practical point of view, however, more attention should go to examining knowledge claims critically rather than concentrating on formal definitions of expertise and who to include in the group of experts (Gregory et al., 2006). When considering the wider conservation decision-making process and implementation, it is also important that you are explicit about the roles of experts and decision-makers involved. In other words, make sure that experts are not presented with decisions that should really be made by decision-makers (i.e. people with a legitimate mandate to make decisions). In more Zonation-specific terms, be careful not to confuse defining the objectives of the prioritization with the factors needed to address those objectives. Doing so may decrease the transparency of the prioritization and ultimately the acceptance of the results.