Expert Demand for Consumer Sleep Technology Features and Wearable Devices

Global demand for sleep-tracking wearables, or consumer sleep technologies (CSTs), is steadily increasing. CST marketing campaigns often feature a scientific component, but the scientific relevancy and monetary value of CST features within the sleep research community remains unquantified. Sleep medicine experts were recruited through social media and nonprobability sampling techniques to complete a survey identifying sleep metrics and device features that are most desirable to the scientific community. A hypothetical purchase task (HPT) estimated economic valuation for devices with different features by price. Forty-six (N=46) respondents with an average of 10±6 years’ experience conducting research in real-world settings completed the online survey. Total sleep time was ranked as the most important measure of sleep followed by objective sleep quality while sleep architecture/depth and diagnostic information were ranked as least important. Experts preferred wrist-worn devices that could reliably determine sleep episodes as short as 20 minutes. Economic value was greater for hypothetical devices with longer battery life. These data set a precedent to determine how scientific relevance of a product impacts the potential market value of a CST device. This is the first known attempt to establish consensus opinion or economic valuation for scientifically-desirable CST features and metrics using expert elicitation.

Human Factor Risk Modeling for Shipyard Operation by Mapping Fuzzy Fault Tree into Bayesian Network

The operational activities conducted in a shipyard are exposed to high risk associated with human factors. To investigate human factors involved in shipyard operational accidents, a double-nested model was proposed in the present study. The modified human factor analysis classification system (HFACS) was applied to identify the human factors involved in the accidents, the results of which were then converted into diverse components of a fault tree and, as a result, a single-level nested model was established. For the development of a double-nested model, the structured fault tree was mapped into a Bayesian network (BN), which can be simulated with the obtained prior probabilities of parent nodes and the conditional probability table by fuzzy theory and expert elicitation. Finally, the developed BN model is simulated for various scenarios to analyze the identified human factors by means of structural analysis, path dependencies and sensitivity analysis. The general interpretation of these analysis verify the effectiveness of the proposed methodology to evaluate the human factor risks involved in operational accidents in a shipyard.

Use of expert elicitation to assign weights to climate and hydrological models in climate impact studies

Various methods are available for assessing uncertainties in climate impact studies. Among such methods, model weighting by expert elicitation is a practical way to provide a weighted ensemble of models for specific real-world impacts. The aim is to decrease the influence of improbable models in the results and easing the decision-making process. In this study both climate and hydrological models are analyzed and the result of a research experiment is presented using model weighting with the participation of 6 climate model experts and 6 hydrological model experts. For the experiment, seven climate models are a-priori selected from a larger Euro-CORDEX ensemble of climate models and three different hydrological models are chosen for each of the three European river basins. The model weighting is based on qualitative evaluation by the experts for each of the selected models based on a training material that describes the overall model structure and literature about climate models and the performance of hydrological models for the present period. The expert elicitation process follows a three-stage approach, with two individual elicitations of probabilities and a final group consensus, where the experts are separated into two different community groups: a climate and a hydrological modeller group. The dialogue reveals that under the conditions of the study, most climate modellers prefer the equal weighting of ensemble members, whereas hydrological impact modellers in general are more open for assigning weights to different models in a multi model ensemble, based on model performance and model structure. Climate experts are more open to exclude models, if obviously flawed, than to put weights on selected models in a relatively small ensemble. The study shows that expert elicitation can be an efficient way to assign weights to different hydrological models, and thereby reduce the uncertainty in climate impact. However, for the climate model ensemble, comprising seven models, the elicitation in the format of this study could only reestablish a uniform weight between climate models.

GMD perspective: The quest to improve the evaluation of groundwater representation in continental- to global-scale models

Continental- to global-scale hydrologic and land surface models increasingly include representations of the groundwater system. Such large-scale models are essential for examining, communicating, and understanding the dynamic interactions between the Earth system above and below the land surface as well as the opportunities and limits of groundwater resources. We argue that both large-scale and regional-scale groundwater models have utility, strengths, and limitations, so continued modeling at both scales is essential and mutually beneficial. A crucial quest is how to evaluate the realism, capabilities, and performance of large-scale groundwater models given their modeling purpose of addressing large-scale science or sustainability questions as well as limitations in data availability and commensurability. Evaluation should identify if, when, or where large-scale models achieve their purpose or where opportunities for improvements exist so that such models better achieve their purpose. We suggest that reproducing the spatiotemporal details of regional-scale models and matching local data are not relevant goals. Instead, it is important to decide on reasonable model expectations regarding when a large-scale model is performing “well enough” in the context of its specific purpose. The decision of reasonable expectations is necessarily subjective even if the evaluation criteria are quantitative. Our objective is to provide recommendations for improving the evaluation of groundwater representation in continental- to global-scale models. We describe current modeling strategies and evaluation practices, and we subsequently discuss the value of three evaluation strategies: (1) comparing model outputs with available observations of groundwater levels or other state or flux variables (observation-based evaluation), (2) comparing several models with each other with or without reference to actual observations (model-based evaluation), and (3) comparing model behavior with expert expectations of hydrologic behaviors in particular regions or at particular times (expert-based evaluation). Based on evolving practices in model evaluation as well as innovations in observations, machine learning, and expert elicitation, we argue that combining observation-, model-, and expert-based model evaluation approaches, while accounting for commensurability issues, may significantly improve the realism of groundwater representation in large-scale models, thus advancing our ability for quantification, understanding, and prediction of crucial Earth science and sustainability problems. We encourage greater community-level communication and cooperation on this quest, including among global hydrology and land surface modelers, local to regional hydrogeologists, and hydrologists focused on model development and evaluation.

An assessment of marine, estuarine, and riverine habitat vulnerability to climate change in the Northeast U.S.

Climate change is impacting the function and distribution of habitats used by marine, coastal, and diadromous species. These impacts often exacerbate the anthropogenic stressors that habitats face, particularly in the coastal environment. We conducted a climate vulnerability assessment of 52 marine, estuarine, and riverine habitats in the Northeast U.S. to develop an ecosystem-scale understanding of the impact of climate change on these habitats. The trait-based assessment considers the overall vulnerability of a habitat to climate change to be a function of two main components, sensitivity and exposure, and relies on a process of expert elicitation. The climate vulnerability ranks ranged from low to very high, with living habitats identified as the most vulnerable. Over half of the habitats examined in this study are expected to be impacted negatively by climate change, while four habitats are expected to have positive effects. Coastal habitats were also identified as highly vulnerable, in part due to the influence of non-climate anthropogenic stressors. The results of this assessment provide regional managers and scientists with a tool to inform habitat conservation, restoration, and research priorities, fisheries and protected species management, and coastal and ocean planning.

Uncertainty, Complexity and Constraints: How Do We Robustly Assess Biological Responses under a Rapidly Changing Climate?

How robust is our assessment of impacts to ecosystems and species from a rapidly changing climate during the 21st century? We examine the challenges of uncertainty, complexity and constraints associated with applying climate projections to understanding future biological responses. This includes an evaluation of how to incorporate the uncertainty associated with different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios and climate models, and constraints of spatiotemporal scales and resolution of climate data into impact assessments. We describe the challenges of identifying relevant climate metrics for biological impact assessments and evaluate the usefulness and limitations of different methodologies of applying climate change to both quantitative and qualitative assessments. We discuss the importance of incorporating extreme climate events and their stochastic tendencies in assessing ecological impacts and transformation, and provide recommendations for better integration of complex climate–ecological interactions at relevant spatiotemporal scales. We further recognize the compounding nature of uncertainty when accounting for our limited understanding of the interactions between climate and biological processes. Given the inherent complexity in ecological processes and their interactions with climate, we recommend integrating quantitative modeling with expert elicitation from diverse disciplines and experiential understanding of recent climate-driven ecological processes to develop a more robust understanding of ecological responses under different scenarios of future climate change. Inherently complex interactions between climate and biological systems also provide an opportunity to develop wide-ranging strategies that resource managers can employ to prepare for the future.

Quantifying Earth system interactions for sustainable food production: an expert elicitation

Several safe boundaries of critical Earth system processes have already been crossed by human perturbations. Recent research indicates that not accounting for the interactions between these processes may further narrow the safe operating space for humanity. Yet existing work accounts only for transgression of single boundaries and only a few studies take some of the boundary interactions into account. For future sustainability assessments, it is essential to understand boundary transgressions and their interactions more comprehensively. Here, we explore quantitatively how strongly seven variables, representing Earth system processes relevant to food production, interact with each other, using a structured expert knowledge elicitation. We identify Green water and Land system change as crucial interactive processes through their impacts on multiple relevant processes, while Biosphere integrity-land, freshwater and ocean components appear to be most affected by other Earth system processes, most notably Blue water and Biogeochemical flows. The elicitation also enabled us to map the complex network of mechanisms mediating interactions, to support integrated Earth system and planetary boundaries modelling and assessments. Finally, we created a prioritisation scheme for future research according to the interaction strengths and existing knowledge gaps. Our analysis improves our understanding of Earth system interactions, with clear implications for sustainable use of natural resources such as the biophysical limits for food production.