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/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

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

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The current framework for climate change negotiation models presents severallimitations that warrant further research and development. In this track, wediscuss mainly two key areas for improvement, focusing on the geographicalimpacts and utility framework. In the aspects of geographical impacts, Weexplore five critical aspects: (1) the shift from local to global impact, (2)variability in climate change effects across regions, (3) heterogeneity ingeographical location and political structures, and (4) collaborations betweenadjacent nations, (5) the importance of including historical and culturalfactors influencing climate negotiations. Furthermore, we emphasize the need torefine the utility and rewards framework to reduce the homogeneity and thelevel of overestimating the climate mitigation by integrating the positiveeffects of saving rates into the reward function and heterogeneity among allregions. By addressing these limitations, we hope to enhance the accuracy andeffectiveness of climate change negotiation models, enabling policymakers andstakeholders to devise targeted and appropriate strategies to tackle climatechange at both regional and global levels.

Dynamic Grouping for Climate Change Negotiation: Facilitating Cooperation and Balancing Interests through Effective Strategies