The use of systematic methods to collect relevant literature adds considerable value to the process of conducting a review and overcomes the selection bias of traditional journals. By agreeing on a clear set of selection criteria and examining the relevance of such a large body of abstracts, the authors also gain a much better understanding of the overall research landscape to guide it and better define their research objective. Informing these developments and supporting decision-makers in the successful implementation of PA mechanisms therefore remains a key task for academic research. Although there is research that supports and questions the effectiveness of PA, no attempt has been made to systematically synthesize this area of research, as existing reviews lack systematic methods (Petticrew and Mccartney 2011, Minx et al 2017) or remain too narrowly targeted (for an overview of existing reviews, see page 4 of the protocol in stacks.iop.org/ERL/15/083006/mmedia additional documents). We provide new evidence of the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement by systematically mapping literature. To our knowledge, this is the first application of systematic evidence synthesis to this area of literature. In addition, we offer conceptual advances by evaluating PA based on factors, barriers and recommendations for effectiveness. Following a rigorous and transparent protocol, we create a comprehensive database of peer-reviewed literature on PA, which is not trivial in terms of scope and depth. We divide our subsequent analysis of this literature into three sections: First, we systematically categorize each article according to the aspect of the PA to be studied and get an overview of the research coverage of the mechanisms established by the PA.
We further categorize the literature based on its overall assessment of the agreement, identify which documents portray the PA as primarily a positive or negative development, or provide a mixed assessment that has both positive and negative aspects without favoring one over the other. Finally, we review each remaining article at the full-text level, resulting in a final database of 292 relevant documents published between January 2016 and June 20193 (see Figure 1). When the nations of the world adopted the Paris Agreement in December 2015, they took a big step towards creating an operational regime to advance climate action after some 20 years of unsuccessful attempts to achieve it.1 This paper focuses both on the paradigm shift in diplomacy that made success in Paris possible. and the considerable challenges facing the agreement this year. As the parties struggle to finalize the implementation measures needed to establish the Paris regime.2 The complete absence of documents explicitly examining capacity-building mechanisms is even more striking. We find evidence that capacity building plays a role as an obstacle and recommendation, most of which focus on the need for greater transparency and review capacity (Brechin 2016, Millar et al 2016, Umemiya et al 2017, Winkler et al 2017, Tian and Xiang 2018, Tompkins et al 2018), Financial Accounting (Roberts et al 2017, Sovacool et al 2017, Weikmans and Roberts 2019) and technology (Puig et al 2018, Romijn et al 2018, Harwatt 2019, Hofman and van der Gaast 2019). However, this only further supports the need for more research on how the Paris Capacity Building Committee can overcome these obstacles and integrate existing recommendations. Given the current emissions gap, new research aimed at strengthening the capacity to increase ambition appears to be a strong desideratum. In terms of environmental efficiency, the PA relies entirely on national and non-governmental measures to achieve its objectives. Even under an institutionally effective agreement, the commitments presented and implemented may simply not be ambitious enough to achieve the palestinian authority`s goals, and civil society and non-state action may not be able to fill the gap.6 Indeed, the current level of ambition is far from what is needed to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. the literature highlights in detail the lack of ambition.
not only in existing NDCs, but also citing the general lack of funding and the withdrawal of the United States as major obstacles to effectiveness. Finally, we identify 58 articles that recommend avenues for further research. Here we find an immensely diverse set of research questions on all aspects of PA (for a complete list of these broken down by PA mechanism, see Appendix 5). To ensure the relevance of the literature identified by our search, we review all documents identified by our search chain at the title and abstract level using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. We include all documents explicitly examining the Palestinian Authority or any of its mechanisms (as described in Section 2), as well as analyses of similar mechanisms with explicit reference to the Palestinian Authority and analyses of the UNFCCC negotiations that explicitly refer to a PA mechanism. We exclude studies that focus on national/regional case studies without explicit reference to the broader function of the mechanism they are studying. These cases often remain limited to their context and do not provide comparable information on the functioning of the PA in general (i.e. . . . . .
.