Deutsch
 
Datenschutzhinweis Impressum
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

 
 
DownloadE-Mail
  Predicting Paris: Multi-method approaches to forecast the outcomes of global climate negotiations

Sprinz, D. F., Bueno de Mesquita, B., Kallbekken, S., Stokman, F., Saelen, H., Thomson, R. (2016): Predicting Paris: Multi-method approaches to forecast the outcomes of global climate negotiations. - Politics and Governance, 4, 3, 172-187.
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i3.654

Item is

Dateien

einblenden: Dateien
ausblenden: Dateien
:
7052oa.pdf (Verlagsversion), 724KB
Name:
7052oa.pdf
Beschreibung:
-
Sichtbarkeit:
Öffentlich
MIME-Typ / Prüfsumme:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technische Metadaten:
Copyright Datum:
-
Copyright Info:
-
Lizenz:
-

Externe Referenzen

einblenden:

Urheber

einblenden:
ausblenden:
 Urheber:
Sprinz, Detlef F.1, Autor              
Bueno de Mesquita, B.2, Autor
Kallbekken, S.2, Autor
Stokman, F.2, Autor
Saelen, H.2, Autor
Thomson, R.2, Autor
Affiliations:
1Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, ou_persistent13              
2External Organizations, ou_persistent22              

Inhalt

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Schlagwörter: -
 Zusammenfassung: We examine the negotiations held under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change in Paris, December 2015. Prior to these negotiations, there was considerable uncertainty about whether an agreement would be reached, particularly given that the world’s leaders failed to do so in the 2009 negotiations held in Copenhagen. Amid this uncertainty, we applied three different methods to predict the outcomes: an expert survey and two negotiation simulation models, namely the Exchange Model and the Predictioneer’s Game. After the event, these predictions were assessed against the coded texts that were agreed in Paris. The evidence suggests that combining experts’ predictions to reach a collective expert prediction makes for significantly more accurate predictions than individual experts’ predictions. The differences in the performance between the two different negotiation simulation models were not statistically significant.

Details

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Sprache(n):
 Datum: 2016
 Publikationsstatus: Final veröffentlicht
 Seiten: -
 Ort, Verlag, Ausgabe: -
 Inhaltsverzeichnis: -
 Art der Begutachtung: Expertenbegutachtung
 Identifikatoren: DOI: 10.17645/pag.v4i3.654
PIKDOMAIN: Transdisciplinary Concepts & Methods - Research Domain IV
eDoc: 7052
Research topic keyword: Mitigation
Research topic keyword: Climate Policy
Model / method: Agent-based Models
Regional keyword: Global
Organisational keyword: FutureLab - Social Metabolism and Impacts
 Art des Abschluß: -

Veranstaltung

einblenden:

Entscheidung

einblenden:

Projektinformation

einblenden:

Quelle 1

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Titel: Politics and Governance
Genre der Quelle: Zeitschrift, SCI, Scopus, oa
 Urheber:
Affiliations:
Ort, Verlag, Ausgabe: -
Seiten: - Band / Heft: 4 (3) Artikelnummer: - Start- / Endseite: 172 - 187 Identifikator: Anderer: Cogitatio Press
Anderer: 2183-2463
CoNE: https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/cone/journals/resource/politics-and-governance