IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v302y2022i2p652-670.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A time sensitive graph model for conflict resolution with application to international air carbon negotiation

Author

Listed:
  • He, Shawei

Abstract

The uneven time required for decision making by negotiators can greatly affect the results of international negotiations. A novel time sensitive graph model is developed to analyze international negotiations in which the duration of time is different for negotiators, or called decision makers, to implement each action. In this novel model, the process of negotiation is divided into multiple phases. Decision makers may fail to achieve desired outcomes due to time constraints when approaching the deadline of each stage. Time sensitive stabilities are defined to describe this particular behavior patterns of decision makers. The interrelationships between classical stabilities and time sensitive stabilities are investigated. Propositions are provided to indicate how equilibrium can be affected by the change of action time. This novel methodology is applied to an air carbon negotiation participated by three representative decision makers, the European Union (EU), major developing countries, and the United States (US), under the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). The time sensitive equilibrium at the end of Baseline Phase explains modification of the requirements for monitoring the CORSIA baseline emissions under the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The time sensitive equilibrium achieved after June 2020 suggests that the EU Carbon Trading System for Monitoring Air Carbon Baseline (EU ETS MRV) could be adjusted by the end of the Pilot Phase provided that both developing and non-EU developed countries put the EU under pressure by filing appeals at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) meetings not later than March 2022.

Suggested Citation

  • He, Shawei, 2022. "A time sensitive graph model for conflict resolution with application to international air carbon negotiation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 652-670.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:302:y:2022:i:2:p:652-670
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2022.01.019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037722172200039X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.01.019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alice F. Stuhlmacher & Matthew V. Champagne, 2000. "The Impact of Time Pressure and Information on Negotiation Process and Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 471-491, November.
    2. DeCanio, Stephen J. & Fremstad, Anders, 2013. "Game theory and climate diplomacy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 177-187.
    3. Lou, Youcheng & Wang, Shouyang, 2016. "Approximate representation of the Pareto frontier in multiparty negotiations: Decentralized methods and privacy preservation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(3), pages 968-976.
    4. He, Shawei & Marc Kilgour, D. & Hipel, Keith W., 2017. "A general hierarchical graph model for conflict resolution with application to greenhouse gas emission disputes between USA and China," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 919-932.
    5. Brueckner, Jan K. & Zhang, Anming, 2010. "Airline emission charges: Effects on airfares, service quality, and aircraft design," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(8-9), pages 960-971, September.
    6. Keith W. Hipel & Liping Fang & D. Marc Kilgour, 2020. "The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Reflections on Three Decades of Development," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 11-60, February.
    7. Forgo, Ferenc & Fulop, Janos & Prill, Maria, 2005. "Game theoretic models for climate change negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(1), pages 252-267, January.
    8. Wendi L. Adair & Jeanne M. Brett, 2005. "The Negotiation Dance: Time, Culture, and Behavioral Sequences in Negotiation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 33-51, February.
    9. Scheelhaase, Janina & Maertens, Sven & Grimme, Wolfgang & Jung, Martin, 2018. "EU ETS versus CORSIA – A critical assessment of two approaches to limit air transport's CO2 emissions by market-based measures," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 55-62.
    10. Wang, Junjie & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping & Dang, Yaoguo, 2018. "Matrix representations of the inverse problem in the graph model for conflict resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(1), pages 282-293.
    11. Takehiro Inohara & Keith W. Hipel, 2008. "Coalition analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 343-359, December.
    12. Jiali Zheng & Han Qiao & Shouyang Wang, 2017. "The Effect of Carbon Tax in Aviation Industry on the Multilateral Simulation Game," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-24, July.
    13. Inohara, Takehiro, 2016. "State transition time analysis in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 274(C), pages 372-382.
    14. Haiyan Xu & Keith Hipel & D. Kilgour & Ye Chen, 2010. "Combining strength and uncertainty for preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(4), pages 497-521, October.
    15. Roszkowska, Ewa & Wachowicz, Tomasz, 2015. "Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 920-932.
    16. Haiyan Xu & D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2011. "Matrix Representation of Conflict Resolution in Multiple-Decision-Maker Graph Models with Preference Uncertainty," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 755-779, November.
    17. Jyrki Wallenius & James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Stanley Zionts & Kalyanmoy Deb, 2008. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1336-1349, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dixit, Aasheesh & Choi, Tsan-Ming & Kumar, Patanjal & Jakhar, Suresh K., 2024. "Roles of reciprocity and fairness concerns in airline-airport systems with environmental considerations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 312(3), pages 1011-1023.
    2. Sabino, Emerson Rodrigues & Rêgo, Leandro Chaves, 2024. "Minimax regret stability in the graph model for conflict resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 314(3), pages 1087-1097.
    3. Inohara, Takehiro, 2023. "Similarities, differences, and preservation of efficiencies, with application to attitude analysis, within the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(3), pages 1330-1348.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liangyan Tao & Xuebi Su & Saad Ahmed Javed, 2021. "Inverse Preference Optimization in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution based on the Genetic Algorithm," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1085-1112, October.
    2. Wu, Nannan & Xu, Yejun & Kilgour, D. Marc & Fang, Liping, 2023. "The graph model for composite decision makers and its application to a water resource conflict," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(1), pages 308-321.
    3. Inohara, Takehiro, 2023. "Similarities, differences, and preservation of efficiencies, with application to attitude analysis, within the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(3), pages 1330-1348.
    4. Huang, Yuming & Ge, Bingfeng & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping & Zhao, Bin & Yang, Kewei, 2023. "Solving the inverse graph model for conflict resolution using a hybrid metaheuristic algorithm," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(2), pages 806-819.
    5. Keith W. Hipel & Liping Fang & D. Marc Kilgour, 2020. "The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Reflections on Three Decades of Development," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 11-60, February.
    6. Zhao, Shinan & Xu, Haiyan & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping, 2019. "Mixed stabilities for analyzing opponents’ heterogeneous behavior within the graph model for conflict resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 621-632.
    7. Yu Han & Haiyan Xu & Ginger Y. Ke, 2020. "Construction and application of hyper-inverse conflict models based on the sequential stability," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 8(3), pages 237-259, November.
    8. Michele Griessmair & Johannes Gettinger, 2020. "Take the Right Turn: The Role of Social Signals and Action–Reaction Sequences in Enacting Turning Points in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 425-459, June.
    9. Haiyan Xu & D. Kilgour & Keith Hipel & Edward McBean, 2014. "Theory and implementation of coalitional analysis in cooperative decision making," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(2), pages 147-171, February.
    10. Yu Han & Haiyan Xu & Liping Fang & Keith W. Hipel, 2022. "An Integer Programming Approach to Solving the Inverse Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with Two Decision Makers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 23-48, February.
    11. He, Shawei & Marc Kilgour, D. & Hipel, Keith W., 2017. "A general hierarchical graph model for conflict resolution with application to greenhouse gas emission disputes between USA and China," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 919-932.
    12. Zheng, Shiyuan & Ge, Ying-En & Fu, Xiaowen & Jiang, Changmin, 2019. "Voluntary carbon offset and airline alliance," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 110-126.
    13. Qingye Han & Yuming Zhu & Ginger Y. Ke & Hongli Lin, 2019. "A Two-Stage Decision Framework for Resolving Brownfield Conflicts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, March.
    14. Chen, Yilin & Hou, Meng & Wang, Kun & Yang, Hangjun, 2023. "Government interventions in regional airline markets based on aircraft size—Welfare and environmental implications," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    15. Sean B. Walker & Keith W. Hipel, 2017. "Strategy, Complexity and Cooperation: The Sino-American Climate Regime," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 997-1027, September.
    16. Leandro Chaves Rêgo & France E. G. Oliveira, 2020. "Higher-order Sequential Stabilities in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution for Bilateral Conflicts," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 601-626, August.
    17. Verena Kurz & Andreas Orland & Kinga Posadzy, 2018. "Fairness versus efficiency: how procedural fairness concerns affect coordination," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(3), pages 601-626, September.
    18. Giannini Italino Alves Vieira & Leandro Chaves Rêgo, 2020. "Berge Solution Concepts in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 103-125, February.
    19. Kennedy, Matthew & Basu, Biswajit, 2014. "An analysis of the climate change architecture," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 185-193.
    20. Fageda, Xavier & Teixidó, Jordi J., 2022. "Pricing carbon in the aviation sector: Evidence from the European emissions trading system," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:302:y:2022:i:2:p:652-670. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.