Predicting Paris: Multi-Method Approaches to Forecast the Outcomes of Global Climate Negotiations

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Sprinz, Detlef F.
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Kallbekken, Steffen, Stokman, Frans, Sælen, Håkon, Thomson, Robert
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i3.654
Resumo: 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.
id RCAP_75ffc6e823c804f2b37b75a4c2a4dd07
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/654
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Predicting Paris: Multi-Method Approaches to Forecast the Outcomes of Global Climate Negotiationsclimate policy; climate regime; expert survey; forecasting; global negotiations; Paris agreement; prediction; simulationWe 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.Cogitatio2016-09-08info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i3.654oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/654Politics and Governance; Vol 4, No 3 (2016): Climate Governance and the Paris Agreement; 172-1872183-2463reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/654https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i3.654https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/654/654Copyright (c) 2016 Detlef F. Sprinz, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Steffen Kallbekken, Frans Stokman, Håkon Sælen, Robert Thomsonhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSprinz, Detlef F.Bueno de Mesquita, BruceKallbekken, SteffenStokman, FransSælen, HåkonThomson, Robert2022-10-21T16:03:48Zoai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/654Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:13:46.835861Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Predicting Paris: Multi-Method Approaches to Forecast the Outcomes of Global Climate Negotiations
title Predicting Paris: Multi-Method Approaches to Forecast the Outcomes of Global Climate Negotiations
spellingShingle Predicting Paris: Multi-Method Approaches to Forecast the Outcomes of Global Climate Negotiations
Sprinz, Detlef F.
climate policy; climate regime; expert survey; forecasting; global negotiations; Paris agreement; prediction; simulation
title_short Predicting Paris: Multi-Method Approaches to Forecast the Outcomes of Global Climate Negotiations
title_full Predicting Paris: Multi-Method Approaches to Forecast the Outcomes of Global Climate Negotiations
title_fullStr Predicting Paris: Multi-Method Approaches to Forecast the Outcomes of Global Climate Negotiations
title_full_unstemmed Predicting Paris: Multi-Method Approaches to Forecast the Outcomes of Global Climate Negotiations
title_sort Predicting Paris: Multi-Method Approaches to Forecast the Outcomes of Global Climate Negotiations
author Sprinz, Detlef F.
author_facet Sprinz, Detlef F.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce
Kallbekken, Steffen
Stokman, Frans
Sælen, Håkon
Thomson, Robert
author_role author
author2 Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce
Kallbekken, Steffen
Stokman, Frans
Sælen, Håkon
Thomson, Robert
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Sprinz, Detlef F.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce
Kallbekken, Steffen
Stokman, Frans
Sælen, Håkon
Thomson, Robert
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv climate policy; climate regime; expert survey; forecasting; global negotiations; Paris agreement; prediction; simulation
topic climate policy; climate regime; expert survey; forecasting; global negotiations; Paris agreement; prediction; simulation
description 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.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-09-08
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i3.654
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/654
url https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i3.654
identifier_str_mv oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/654
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/654
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i3.654
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/654/654
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cogitatio
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cogitatio
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Politics and Governance; Vol 4, No 3 (2016): Climate Governance and the Paris Agreement; 172-187
2183-2463
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799130591234359296