This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bots, P. Articles by van Daalen, E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Functional design of games to support natural resource management policy development

CEMAGREF, Montpellier Regional Center, France

Els van Daalen

Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands, C.vanDaalen{at}TUDelft.nl

This article works toward a conceptual framework for designing games to support policy development for managing natural resources. The point of departure for this framework is a typology for functions of games in support of policy. This typology consists of six classes of functions of a policy game: research and analyze policy contexts as systems, design and recommend alternative solutions to a policy problem, provide advice to a client on what strategy to follow in the policy process, mediate between di ferent stakeholders, democratize policy development by actively bringing in stakeholder views, and clarify the values and arguments pertinent to the policy discourse. These functions are illustrated using specific examples of games that have been used in the domain of natural resource management (NRM). The framework discussed in this article may help game designers to match specific game properties (players, roles, rewards, and representations of the NRM context) with the intended function of the game in the policy-development process.

Key Words: alternative solutions • game design • game properties • gaming • mediation • natural resource management (NRM) • policy analysis • policy development • policy games • policy contexts as systems • representations • stakeholder views • strategy • rewards • roles • values clarification

References

• Aarseth, E., Smedstad, S.M., & Sunnanå, L. (2003). A multi-dimensional typology of games. In M. Copier & J. Raessens (Eds.), Level up: Digital games research conference (pp. 48-53). Utrecht, the Netherlands: University of Utrecht, Faculty of Arts.
• Anderson, C.M. (2004). How institutions affect outcomes in laboratory tradable fishing allowance systems. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 33(2), 193-208.
• Barreteau, O. (with M. Antona, P. d'Aquino, S. Aubert, S. Boissau, F. Bousquet, et al.). (2003). Our companion modelling approach. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 6(2). Retrieved January 19, 2006, from http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/1.html
• Bots, P.W.G., Mayer, I.S., Bueren, E. van, Seijdel, R., & Voort, H. van der. (2004). A simulation-gaming approach to collaborative decision making for sustainable urban renewal. In W. C. Kriz & T. Everle (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Transforming knowledge into action through gaming and simulation (pp. 124-133). Munich: SAGSAGA.
• Bousquet, F., Barreteau, O., D'Aquino, P., Etienne, M., Boissau, S., Aubert, S., et al. (2002). Multi-agent systems and role games: Collective learning processes for ecosystem management. In M. Janssen (Ed.), Complexity and ecosystem management: The theory and practice of multi-agent approaches (pp. 248-285). London: Edward Elgar.
• Brewer, G.D. (1986). Methods for synthesis: Policy exercises. In W. C. Clark & R. E. Munn (Eds.), Sustainable development of the biosphere (pp. 455-473). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Bueren, E. van, Bots, P., Seijdel, R., & Mayer, I. (2002). The DUBES game: Supporting sustainable urban renewal project. In I. Mayer & W. Veeneman (Eds.), Games in a world of infrastructures: Simulation-games for research, learning and intervention (pp. 125-144). Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon.
• Carton, L., Mayer, I., Jong, M. de, Leijten, M., Scalzo, R., Dammers, E., et al. (2002). The urban network game: Innovations in development planning. In I. Mayer & W. Veeneman (Eds.), Games in a world of infrastructures: Simulation-games for research, learning and intervention (pp. 39-65). Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon.
• Csirik, J.A., Littman, M.L., Singh, S., & Stone, P. (2001). FAucS: An FCC Spectrum Auction Simulator for autonomous bidding agents. In L. Fiege, G. Mühl, & U. Wilhelm (Eds.), Electronic commerce: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop (pp. 139-151). Berlin: Springer.
• Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Duke, R.D., & Geurts, J.L.A. (2004). Policy games for strategic management: Pathways into the unknown. Amsterdam: Dutch University Press.
• Etienne, M. (2003). SYLVOPAST: A multiple target role-playing game to assess negotiation processes in sylvopastoral management planning. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 6(2). Retrieved January 19, 2006, from http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/5.html
• Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Frieling, D. H. (Ed.). (1998). Het Metropolitane Debat. Bussum, the Netherlands: Thoth.
• Heun, J.C., Schotanus, T.D., Groen, M. M. de, & Werner, M. (2002). STORM-Rhine simulation tool for river management. EGS XXVII General Assembly Abstract No. 6844. Retrieved January 19, 2006, from http://www.library.tudelft.nl/delftcluster/themes_all/DC1-616-1.html
• Holling, C. S. (Ed.). (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
• Klabbers, J.H.G. (2003). The gaming landscape: A taxonomy for classifying games and simulations. In M. Copier & J. Raessens (Eds.), Level up: Digital games research conference (pp. 54-67). Utrecht, the Netherlands: University of Utrecht, Faculty of Arts.
• Kolo, C., & Baur, T. (2004). Living a virtual life: Social dynamics of online gaming. Game Studies: International Journal of Computer Game Research, 4(1). Retrieved January 19, 2006, from http://www.gamestudies.org/0401/kolo/
• Ledyard, J.O. (1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (pp. 111-194). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, D.M., & Minton, J.W. (1999). Negotiation (3rd ed.). Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
• Maharg, P. (2001). Virtual communities on the web: Legal skills in a virtual community. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 15(3), 345-360.[CrossRef]
• Mayer, I.S., Daalen, C. E. van, & Bots, P.W.G. (2004). Perspectives on policy analyses: A framework for understanding and design. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 4(2), 169-191.[CrossRef]
• Mayer, I. & Veeneman, W. (Eds.). (2002). Games in a world of infrastructures: Simulation-games for research, learning and intervention. Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon.
• Mayer, I., & Wenzler, I. (Eds.). (2005). Utilities deregulation and simulation [Special issue]. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 36(1).
• Mäyrä, F. (Ed.). (2002). Computer games and digital cultures. Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press.
• Roth, A.E., & Erev, I. (1995). Learning in extensive-form games: Experimental data and simple dynamic models in the intermediate term. Games and Economic Behavior, 8(1), 164-212.[CrossRef]
• Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Shubik, M. (1975). Games for society, business and war: Towards a theory of gaming. New York: Elsevier.
• Ståhl, I. (1988). Using operational gaming. In H. J. Miser & E. S. Quade (Eds.), Handbook of systems analysis: Craft issues and procedural choices (pp. 121-171). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
• Timmermans, J.S. (2004). Purposive interaction in multi-actor decision making. Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon.
• Toth, F.L. (2001), Participatory integrated assessment methods (Tech. Rep. No. 64). Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
• Uithol, F., Zanting, H.A., Doef, R., Bots, P., & Smallegange, R. (2001). Spelsimulatie ondersteunt ruimtelijke planvorming. ROM Magazine, 19(3), 8-11.
• Underwood, S.E., & Duke, R.D. (1987). Decisions at the top: Gaming as an aid to formulating policy options. In D. Crookall, C. S. Greenblat, A. Coote, J. H. G. Klabbers, & D. R. Watson (Eds.), Simulation-gaming in the late 1980s (pp. 289-296). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
• Wenzler, I. (1993). Policy exercises: A new approach to policy development. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Institute for Applied Social Sciences.

This version was published on December 1, 2007

Simulation & Gaming, Vol. 38, No. 4, 512-532 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1046878107300674


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Thavikulwat Social Choice in a Computer-Assisted Simulation Simulation Gaming, August 1, 2009; 40(4): 488 - 512. [Abstract] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bots, P. Articles by van Daalen, E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?