The Model Dimensionality and Its Impacts on the Strategic and Policy Outcomes in IAMs the Findings from the RICE2020 Model

This paper studies the impacts of regional breakdowns or model dimensionality on the model’s optimal solutions. Using the United States (USA) and China (CHN) as the experimental subject, we test the various solutions related to USA and CHN, such as the Cournot-Nash equilibrium and the Lindahl equili...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Computational economics Jg. 62; H. 3; S. 1087 - 1106
1. Verfasser: Yang, Zili
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: New York Springer US 01.10.2023
Springer
Springer Nature B.V
Schlagworte:
Analysis
Behavioral/Experimental Economics
Breakdown
Climate change
Climatic changes
Computer Appl. in Social and Behavioral Sciences
Economic theory
Economic Theory/Quantitative Economics/Mathematical Methods
Economics
Economics and Finance
Energy modeling
Equilibrium
Experiments
Externality
Game theory
Greenhouse gases
Math Applications in Computer Science
Mitigation
Operations Research/Decision Theory
Regions
Research subjects
Simulation
Working groups
IAM for climate change
Model comparison
The Cournot-Nash equilibrium
The Lindahl equilibrium
Modeling methodologies
ISSN:0927-7099, 1572-9974, 1572-9974
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This paper studies the impacts of regional breakdowns or model dimensionality on the model’s optimal solutions. Using the United States (USA) and China (CHN) as the experimental subject, we test the various solutions related to USA and CHN, such as the Cournot-Nash equilibrium and the Lindahl equilibrium, in the RICE2020 model under three regional breakdowns. Their solutions’ invariance and variances across different model dimensionalities indicate that modeling dimensionality may play a role in the strategic interactions among the regions in GHG mitigation. The simulation results also point out the pitfalls of the model comparisons across IAMs for climate change.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0927-7099
1572-9974
1572-9974
DOI:10.1007/s10614-022-10292-0