• Roy Bendor
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Media and Environmental Communication book series (PSMEC)


This chapter focuses on the design and use of interactive media to scaffold their users’ understanding of sustainability. The chapter traces the influence of concepts developed in complex systems theory on the design of sustainability games and simulations, and asks about the implications of using computational assemblages to represent and act on socio-natural systems. The image of sustainability that emerges from these media and the synoptic interactions they provide is of a complex problem that could be solved, or at least managed, by applying scientific methods and reasoning.


  1. Adams, P. C. (1998). Teaching and Learning with SimCity 2000. Journal of Geography, 97(2), 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barry, A. (2001). Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society. New Brunswick: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bendor, R. (2012). Analytic and Deictic Approaches to the Design of Sustainability Decision-Making Tools (pp. 215–222). Proceedings of iConference ‘12, Toronto.Google Scholar
  4. Benhabib, S. (Ed.). (1996). Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bereitschaft, B. (2016). Gods of the City? Reflecting on City Building Games as an Early Introduction to Urban Systems. Journal of Geography, 115(2), 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergin, J. (2000, July). Fourteen Pedagogical Patterns. Retrieved from
  7. Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Borges, J. L. (1999). Collected Fictions (trans: Hurley, A.). New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  9. Bucher, T. (2012). Want to Be on the Top? Algorithmic Power and the Threat of Invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1164–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy (trans: Burchell, G.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cantwell Smith, B. (2002). The Foundations of Computing. In M. Scheutz (Ed.), Computationalism: New Directions (pp. 23–58). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  12. Capra, F. (1985). Criteria of Systems Thinking. Futures, 17(5), 475–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carmichael, J., Tansey, J., & Robinson, J. (2004). An Integrated Assessment Modeling Tool. Global Environmental Change, 14, 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Connolly, W. E. (2006). Experience & Experiment. Daedalus, 135(3), 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper, A. (2004). The Inmates Are Running the Asylum. Indianapolis: Sams.Google Scholar
  16. Costikyan, G. (2013). Uncertainty in Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Daniels, S. E., & Walker, G. B. (1996). Collaborative Learning: Improving Public Deliberation in Ecosystem-Based Management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16(2), 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Rosnay, J. (2011). Symbionomic Evolution: From Complexity and Systems Theory, to Chaos Theory and Coevolution. World Futures, 67(4–5), 304–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Devisch, O. (2008). Should Planners Start Playing Computer Games? Arguments from SimCity and Second Life. Planning Theory & Practice, 9(2), 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dreyfus, H. L. (1992). What Computers Still Can’t Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dyball, R., & Newell, B. (2015). Understanding Human Ecology: A Systems Approach to Sustainability. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Edwards, P. N. (2010). A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ermi, L., & Mäyrä, F. (2005). Fundamental Components of the Gameplay Experience: Analysing Immersion. Paper Presented at the 2005 DiGRA Conference: Changing Views – World in Play, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  24. Espinosa, A., & Walker, J. (2011). A Complexity Approach to Sustainability: Theory and Application. London: Imperial College Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Feenberg, A. (2017). Technosystem: The Social Life of Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ford, L. (2016). “Unlimiting the Bounds”: The Panorama and the Balloon View. The Public Domain Review. Retrieved from
  27. Forrester, J. W. (1998). Designing the Future. Lecture delivered December 15, 1998, at Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla.Google Scholar
  28. Fuller, R. B. (1969). 50 Years of the Design Science Revolution and the World Game: A Collection of Articles and Papers on Design. Carbondale: World Resources Inventory, Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
  29. Fuller, R. B. (1999). Your Private Sky (edited by Joachim Krausse & Claude Lichtenstein). Zurich: Lars Muller Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the Post-Normal Age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gaber, J. (2007). Simulating Planning – SimCity as a Pedagogical Tool. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(2), 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a Construct: History and Issues. Emergence, 1(1), 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haas Lyons, S., Walsh, M., Aleman, E., & Robinson, J. (2014). Exploring Regional Futures: Lessons from Metropolitan Chicago’s Online MetroQuest. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (trans: Lenhardt, C., & Nicholsen, S. W.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Habermas, J. (1996). Three Normative Models of Democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political (pp. 21–30). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Habermas, J. (2001). Truth and Society: The Discursive Redemption of Factual Claims to Validity. In On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative Action (pp. 85–103). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hirschkop, K. (2004). Justice and Drama: On Bakhtin as a Complement to Habermas. In N. Crossley & J. M. Roberts (Eds.), After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public Sphere (pp. 49–66). Oxford/Malden: Blackwell Publishing/The Sociological Review.Google Scholar
  38. Hulme, M. (2009). Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. London /New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  41. Kim, M., & Shin, J. (2016). The Pedagogical Benefits of SimCity in Urban Geography Education. Journal of Geography, 115(2), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2011). Code/Space: Software and Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Klein, N. (2014). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  44. Latour, B. (1988). The Pasteurization of France (trans: Sheridan, A., & Law, J.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lauwaert, M. (2007). Challenge Everything? Construction Play in Will Wright’s SimCity. Games and Culture, 20(3), 194–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levin, S. (1999). Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  47. Lilienfeld, R. (1975). Systems Theory as an Ideology. Social Research, 42(4), 637–660.Google Scholar
  48. Lorince, J. (2013, March 6). Emergence (and Some Devastation) in Sim City. Motivate. Play. Retrieved from
  49. Manjoo, F. (2013, March 4). The New SimCity Is Totally Addictive and Crazily Comprehensive. Slate. Retrieved from
  50. Manovich, L. (2001). The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Massey, N. (2012, March 12). SimCity 2013 Players Will Face Tough Choices on Energy and Environment. Scientific American. Retrieved from
  52. Mayer, I. S. (2008). The Gaming of Policy and the Politics of Gaming: A Review. Simulation & Gaming, 40(6), 825–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McDermott, J. (2014, February 9). Using the New SimCity, 6 Urban Planners Battle for Bragging Rights. Co.Design. Retrieved from
  54. Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
  55. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W., III. (1972). The Limits to Growth; A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Merchant, C. (2008). Ecology (2nd ed.). Amherst: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
  57. Midgley, G. (2003). Systems Thinking (Vol. 4). London/Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Milbank, D. (2016, November 18). Trump’s Fake-News Presidency. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
  59. Newig, J. (2007). Does Public Participation in Environmental Decisions Lead to Improved Environmental Quality? CCP (Communication, Cooperation, Participation. Research and Practice for a Sustainable Future), 1, 51–71.Google Scholar
  60. Nilsson, E. M., & Jakobsson, A. (2011). Simulated Sustainable Societies: Students’ Reflections on Creating Future Cities in Computer Games. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in the Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  62. Odum, E. P. (1983). Basic Ecology. Philadelphia: Saunders College Pub.Google Scholar
  63. Panofsky, E. (1927/1997). Perspective as Symbolic Form. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  64. Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rees, W. E. (2012). Cities as Dissipative Structures: Global Change and the Vulnerability of Urban Civilization. In M. P. Weinstein & R. E. Turner (Eds.), Sustainability Science: The Emerging Paradigm and the Urban Environment (pp. 247–273). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Robinson, J., & Cole, R. J. (2015). Theoretical Underpinnings of Regenerative Sustainability. Building Research & Information, 43(2), 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Robinson, J., Carmichael, J., VanWynsberghe, R., Tansey, J., Journeay, M., & Rogers, L. (2006). Sustainability as a Problem of Design: Interactive Science in the Georgia Basin. The Integrated Assessment Journal, 6(4), 165–192.Google Scholar
  69. Robinson, J., Burch, S., Talwar, S., O’Shea, M., & Walsh, M. (2011). Envisioning Sustainability: Recent Progress in the Use of Participatory Backcasting Approaches for Sustainability Research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(5), 756–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rothman, D. S., Robinson, J., & Biggs, D. (2002). Signs of Life: Linking Indicators and Models in the Context of QUEST. In H. Abaza & A. Baranzini (Eds.), Implementing Sustainable Development, Integrated Assessment and Participatory Decision-Making Processes (pp. 182–199). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  71. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Scott, A. C. (2007). The Nonlinear Universe: Chaos, Emergence, Life. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  73. Senecah, S. (2004). The Trinity of Voice: The Role of Practical Theory in Planning and Evaluating the Effectiveness of Environmental Participatory Processes. In S. P. Depoe, J. W. Delicath, & M.-F. A. Elsenbeer (Eds.), Communication and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making (pp. 13–33). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  74. Shapka, J. D., Law, D. M., & VanWynsberghe, R. (2008). Quest for Communicating Sustainability: Gb-Quest as a Learning Tool for Effecting Conceptual Change. Local Environment, 13(2), 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sheppard, S. R. J. (2001). Guidance for Crystal Ball Gazers: Developing a Code of Ethics for Landscape Visualization. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1), 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sisson, P. (2015, December 14). Check Out Buckminster Fuller’s Simulation to Save the Planet. Curbed. Retrieved from
  77. Sloman, A. (2002). The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to Artificial Intelligence. In M. Scheutz (Ed.), Computationalism: New Directions (pp. 87–127). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  78. Stirling, A. (2006). Analysis, Participation and Power: Justification and Closure in Participatory Multi-Criteria Analysis. Land Use Policy, 23, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Swart, R. J., Raskin, P., & Robinson, J. (2004). The Problem of the Future: Sustainability Science and Scenario Analysis. Global Environmental Change, 14, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Talwar, S., Wiek, A., & Robinson, J. (2011). User Engagement in Sustainability Research. Science and Public Policy, 38(5), 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Taylor, P. J. (2005). Unruly Complexity: Ecology, Interpretation, Engagement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Terzano, K., & Morckel, V. (2016). SimCity in the Community Planning Classroom: Effects on Student Knowledge, Interests, and Perceptions of the Discipline of Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 37(1), 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. van Kerkhoff, L., & Lebel, L. (2006). Linking Knowledge and Action for Sustainable Development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 445–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vancouver. (2010). Vancouver 2020: A Bright Green Future. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.Google Scholar
  85. VanWynsberghe, R., Carmichal, J., & Khan, S. (2007). Conceptualizing Sustainability: Simulating Concrete Possibilities in an Imperfect World. Local Environment, 12(3), 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Walker, G. B. (2007). Public Participation as Participatory Communication in Environmental Policy Decision-Making: From Concepts to Structured Conversations. Environmental Communication, 1(1), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  88. Wells, M. (2016). Deliberate Constructions of the Mind: Simulation Games as Fictional Models. Games and Culture, 11(5), 528–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Westley, F., Carpenter, S. R., Brock, W. A., Holling, C. S., & Gunderson, L. H. (2002). Why Systems of People and Nature Are Not Just Social and Ecological Systems. In L. H. Gunderson & C. S. Holling (Eds.), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  90. Woessner, M. (2015). Teaching with SimCity: Using Sophisticated Gaming Simulations to Teach Concepts in Introductory American Government. PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(2), 358–363.Google Scholar
  91. Worster, D. (1994). Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas (2nd ed.). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roy Bendor
    • 1
  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations