# Setting Environmental Policy When Experts Disagree

- 367 Downloads

## Abstract

How can a decision-maker assess the potential of environmental policies when a group of experts provides divergent estimates on their effectiveness? To address this question, we propose and analyze a variant of the well-studied \(\alpha \)-maxmin model in decision theory. In our framework, and consistent to the paper’s empirical focus on renewable-energy R&D investment, experts’ subjective probability distributions are allowed to be action-dependent. In addition, the decision maker constrains the sets of priors to be considered via a parsimonious measure of their distance to a benchmark “average” distribution that grants equal weight to all experts. While our model is formally rooted in the decision-theoretic framework of Olszewski (Rev Econ Stud 74:567–595, 2007), it may also be viewed as a structured form of sensitivity analysis. We apply our framework to original data from a recent expert elicitation survey on solar energy. The analysis suggests that more aggressive investment in solar energy R&D is likely to yield significant dividends even, or rather especially, after taking expert ambiguity into account.

## Keywords

Expert elicitation Expert aggregation Decision theory Renewable energy R&D## JEL Classification

C60 D81 Q42 Q48## References

- Ahn D (2008) Ambiguity without a state space. Rev Econ Stud 75:3–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Arrow K, Hurwicz L (1972) An optimality criterion for decision-making under ignorance. In: Carter CF, Ford LJ (eds) Uncertainty and expectations in economics: essays in Honour of G.L.S. Shackle. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp 1–11Google Scholar
- Asano T (2010) Precautionary principle and the optimal timing of environmental policy under ambiguity. Environ Resour Econ 47:173–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Athanassoglou S, Xepapadeas A (2012) Pollution control with uncertain stock dynamics: when, and how, to be precautious. J Environ Econ Manag 63:304–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Baillon A, Cabantous L, Wakker P (2012) Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs: an experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories. J Risk Uncertain 44(2):115–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Baker E, Chon H, Keisler J (2009a) Advanced solar R&D: combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy. Energy Econ 31:S37–S49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Baker E, Chon H, Keisler J (2009b) Carbon capture and storage: combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy. Clim Change 96:379–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Baker E, Keisler J (2011) Cellulosic biofuels: expert views on prospects for advancement. Energy 36:595–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bosetti V, Carraro C, Galeotti M, Massetti E, Tavoni M (2006) WITCH: a world induced technical change hybrid model. Energy J 2:13–38Google Scholar
- Bosetti V, Catenacci M, Fiorese G, Verdolini E (2012) The future prospect of PV and CSP solar technologies: an expert elicitation survey. Energy Policy 49:308–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Clemen R, Winkler R (1999) Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Anal 19:187–203Google Scholar
- Clemen R, Winkler R (2007) Aggregating probability distributions. In: Edwards W, Miles R, von Winterfeldt D (eds) Advances in decision analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 154–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cooke R (1991) Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective probability in science. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
- Curtright AE, Morgan G, Keith DW (2008) Expert assessments of future photovoltaic technologies. Environ Sci Technol 42:9031–9038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Eichberger J, Grant S, Kelsey D, Koshevoye G (2011) The \(\alpha \)-MEU model: a comment. J Econ Theory 146:1684–1698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fiorese G, Catenacci M, Verdolini E, Bosetti V (2013) Advanced biofuels: future perspectives from an expert elicitation survey. Energy Policy 56:293–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gajdos T, Hayashi T, Tallon JM, Vergnaud JC (2008) Attitude toward imprecise information. J Econ Theory 140:27–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gajdos T, Vergnaud JC (2013) Decisions with conflicting and imprecise information. Soc. Choice Welfare 41:427–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ghirardato P (2001) Coping with ignorance: unforeseen contingencies and non-additive uncertainty. Econ Theor 17:247–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ghirardato P, Maccheroni F, Marinacci M (2004) Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude. J Econ Theory 118:133–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gilboa I, Marinacci M (2012) Ambiguity and the Bayesian paradigm. In: Acemoglu D, Arellano M, Dekel E (eds) Advances in Economics and Econometrics. Tenth World Congress of the Econometric Society, Economic Theory, vol I, Econometric Society Monographs, pp 179–242Google Scholar
- Gilboa I, Schmeidler D (1989) Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. J Math Econ 18:141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jaffray J-Y (1989) Linear utility theory for belief functions. Oper Res Lett 8:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Klibanoff P, Marinacci M, Mukerji S (2005) A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica 73:1849–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Knutti R, Furrer R, Tebaldi C, Cermak J, Meehl GA (2010) Challenges in combining projections from multiple climate models. J Clim 23:2739–2758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kriegler E, Hall JW, Held H, Dawson R, Schellnhuber HJ (2009) Imprecise probability assessment of tipping points in the climate system. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(13):5041–5046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ludwig D, Hilborn R, Walters C (1993) Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: lessons from history. Science 260:17–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Meinshausen M, Meinshausen N, Hare W, Raper SCB, Frieler K, Reto K, Frame DJ, Allen MR (2009) Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 C. Nature 458(7242):1158–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Millner A, Calel R, Stainforth DA, MacKerron G (2013) Do probabilistic expert elicitations capture scientists uncertainty about climate change? Clim Change 116(2):427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Millner A, Dietz S, Heal G (2013) Scientific ambiguity and climate policy. Environ Resour Econ 55:21–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Morgan MG, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Morgan MG, Pitelka I, Shevliakova E (2001) Elicitation of expert judgments of climate change impacts on forest ecosystems. Clim Change 49:279–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Morgan MG, Adams PJ, Keith DW (2006) Elicitation of expert judgments of aerosol forcing. Clim Change 75:195–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nordhaus W (1994) Expert opinion on climatic change. Am Sci 82:45–51Google Scholar
- Nordhaus W (2008) A question of balance: weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
- O’Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhan A, Eiser JR, Garthwaite PH, Jenkinson DJ, Oakey JE, Rakow T (2006) Uncertain judgments: eliciting experts probabilities. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Olszewski W (2007) Preferences over sets of lotteries. Rev Econ Stud 74:567–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Popp D (2004) ENTICE: endogenous technological change in the dice model of global warming. J Environ Econ Manag 48:742–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rostek M (2010) Quantile maximization in decision theory. Rev Econ Stud 77:339–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Savage LJ (1954) The foundations of statistics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Treich N (2010) The value of a statistical life under ambiguity aversion. J Environ Econ Manag 59:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tversky A, Kahneman D (1983) Extensional vs. intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychol Rev 90:293–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Epa (2011) Expert elicitation task force white paper. http://www.epa.gov/stpc/pdfs/ee-white-paper-final
- Vardas G, Xepapadeas A (2010) Model uncertainty, ambiguity and the precautionary principle: implications for biodiversity management. Environ Resour Econ 45:379–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vaughan D, Spouge J (2002) Risk estimation of collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet. Clim Change 52:65–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Woodward RT, Bishop RC (1997) How to decide when experts disagree: uncertainty-based choice rules in environmental policy. Land Econ 73:492–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yaari ME (1969) Some remarks on measures of risk aversion and on their uses. J Econ Theory 1(3):315–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zickfeld K, Levermann A, Morgan MG, Kuhlbrodt T, Rahmstorf S, Keith DW (2007) Expert judgements on the response of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation to climate change. Clim Change 82:235–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zickfeld K, Morgan MG, Frame D, Keith D (2010) Expert judgments about transient climate response to alternative future trajectories of radiative forcing. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:12451–12456CrossRefGoogle Scholar