English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

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~\cite{o07}, 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.JRC.DDG.01-Econometrics and applied statistic

Setting environmental policy when experts disagree