Advertisement

Infranomics pp 239-255 | Cite as

Boats and Bridges in the Sandbox: Using Role Play Simulation Exercises to Help Infrastructure Planners Prepare for the Risks and Uncertainties Associated with Climate Change

  • Todd SchenkEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Topics in Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality book series (TSRQ, volume 24)

Abstract

Climate change poses a range of threats to our various infrastructure systems. Among the myriad of hazards, increased precipitation and sea level rise may inundate transportation networks and heat waves may stress our electricity grids. These threats may require new ways of managing uncertainty and making decisions. Climate change adaptation planning is being proposed as an important part of infrastructure management and decision-making moving forward, but is not yet well developed or integrated as an area of practice. Various tools and approaches may be employed under the umbrella of effective adaptation—including scenario planning and multi-stakeholder decision-making—but they have not been fully embraced by stakeholders. Facilitating the uptake of new tools to effectively address nascent, complex and uncertain challenges by infrastructure-related institutions is no easy task. Role-play simulation exercises (RPS) offer one way in which we can explore issues and options with decision-makers and other stakeholders. These exercises provide safe spaces in which stakeholders that are not used to working together directly can interact and experiment with tools and approaches not traditionally employed. Simulations make it possible to zero in on the key issues while pushing those of less importance into the background.

Keywords

Role-play simulation exercise Serious game Stakeholder engagement Adaptation planning Scenarios Multi-stakeholder engagement 

References

  1. 1.
    de Sherbinin A, Schiller A, Pulsipher A (2007) The vulnerability of global cities to climate hazards. Environ Urbanization 19(1):39–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dorfman M, Mehta M, Chou B, Fleischli S, Sinclair Rosselot K (2011) Thirsty for answers: preparing for the water-related impacts of climate change in American cities. Natural Resources Defense Council, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    HM Government (2011) Climate resilient infrastructure: preparing for a changing climate. Presented to parliament by the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs by command of her majesty. TSO (The Stationary Office), NorwichGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosenzweig C, Solecki WD, Blake R, Bowman M, Faris C, Gornitz V, Horton R, Jacob K, LeBlanc A, Leichenko R, Linkin M, Major D, O’Grady M, Patrick L, Sussman E, Yohe G, Zimmerman R (2011) Developing coastal adaptation to climate change in the New York city infrastructure-shed: process, approach, tools, and strategies. Climatic Change 106:93–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schipper ELF, Burton I (eds) (2009) The Earthscan reader on adaptation to climate change. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Research Council (2010) Adapting to the impacts of climate change. America’s climate choices: panel on adapting to the impacts of climate change. National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Young OR et al (2006) A portfolio approach to analyzing complex human-environment interactions: Institutions and land change. Ecol Soc 11(2)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jager J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100(14):8086–8091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clark WC, Holliday L (2006) Linking knowledge with action for sustainable development: the role of program management–summary of a workshop. National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:445–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rahman SA, Walker WE, Marchau V (2008). Coping with uncertainties about climate change in infrastructure planning—an adaptive policymaking approach. Final report. ECORYS Research and Consulting, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marchau VAWJ, Walker WE, van Wee GP (2010) Dynamic adaptive transport policies for handling deep uncertainty. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 77:940–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baumgartner FR, Jones BD (1993) Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Downs A (1967) Inside bureaucracy. Little, Brown and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Perrow C (1986) Complex organizations: a critical essay. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Powell WW, DiMaggio P (1991) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pressman JL, Wildavsky AB (1984) Implementation: how great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marshall T (2013) Planning major infrastructure: a critical analysis. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Walker WE, Lempert RJ, Kwakkel JH (2013) Deep uncertainty. In: Gass S, Fu M (eds) Encyclopedia of operations research and management science, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1153-7 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lempert RJ, Popper SW, Bankes SC (2003) Shaping the next one hundred years: new methods for quantitative long-term strategy analysis, MR-1626-RPC. The RAND Pardee Center, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walker WE, Rahman SA, Cave J (2001) Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policymaking. Eur J Oper Res 128(2):282–289CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Neufville R, Scholtes S (2011) Flexibility in engineering design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schoemaker PJH (2004) Forecasting and scenario planning: the challenges of uncertainty and complexity. In: Koehler DJ, Harvey N (eds) Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. Blackwell Publishing, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chermack TJ, Lynham SA, Ruona WEA (2001) A review of scenario planning literature. Future Res Q Summer 2001:7–31Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Quay R (2010) Anticipatory Governance. J Am Plann Assoc 76(4):496–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sapuan M (2012) Using uncertain sea level rise projections: adaptation in Rotterdam and New York. Master of Science Thesis in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Innes JE, Booher DE (2010) Planning with complexity: an introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Susskind L, Cruikshank JL (1987) Breaking the impasse: consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Margerum RD (2011) Beyond consensus: improving collaborative planning and management. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Few R, Brown K, Tompkins EL (2007) Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Clim Policy 7:46–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Layzer JA (2008) Natural experiments: ecosystem-based management and the environment. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory 18:543–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mendler de Suarez J, Suarez P, Bachofen C, Fortugno N, Goentzel J, Gonçalves P, Grist N, Macklin C, Pfeifer K, Schweizer S, Van Aalst M, Virji H (2012) Games for a new climate: experiencing the complexity of future risks. Pardee Center Task Force Report, Boston: The Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, Boston UniversityGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Plumb D, Fierman E, Schenk T (2011) Role-play simulations: a useful roadmap for decision makers. CBI reports. http://cbuilding.org/publication/article/2011/roleplay-simulations-useful-roadmap-decision-makers
  35. 35.
    Susskind L, Field P, van der Wansem M (2005) Integrating scientific information, stakeholder interests, and political concerns in resource and environmental planning and management. In: Hanna KS, Slocombe DS (eds) Fostering integration: concepts and practiced in resource and environmental management. Oxford University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Barringer RE, Whaley B (1965) The MIT political-military gaming experience. ORBIS—J World Aff 9(2):437–458Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Boocock SS, Schild EO (eds) (1968) Simulation games in learning. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Carlson E (1969) Learning through games: a new approach to problem solving. Public Affairs Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Becker HA (1980) The emergence of simulation and gaming. Simul Games 11(1):11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Doerner D (1980) On the difficulties people have in dealing with complexity. Simul Games 11(1):87–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bloomfield LP (1984) Reflections on gaming. ORBIS 27(4):783–790Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dolin EJ, Susskind LE (1990) A role for simulations in public policy disputes: the case of national energy policy. PON working paper 90-16. Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Parson EA (1996) What can you learn from a game? In: Zeckhauser RJ, Keeney RL, Sebenius JK (eds) Wise choices: decisions, games, and negotiations. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, pp 233–252Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    DeNeve KM, Heppner MJ (1997) Role play simulations: the assessment of an active learning technique and comparisons with traditional lectures. Innov High Educ 21(3):231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Susskind LE, Corburn J (1999) Using simulations to teach negotiation: pedagogical theory and practice. PON working paper 99-3. Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Najam A (2001) Getting beyond the lowest common denominator: developing countries in global environmental negotiations. PhD Dissertation in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mayer IS (2009) The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: a review. Simul Gaming 40(6):825–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Grüne-Yanoff T, Weirich P (2010) The philosophy and epistemology of simulation: a review. Simul Gaming 41(1):20–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schreuder Y (2001) The Polder model in Dutch economic and environmental planning. Bull Sci Technol Soc 21(4):237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rodan G, Jayasuriya K (2007) The technocratic politics of administrative participation: case studies of Singapore and Vietnam. Democratization 14(5):795–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    CBI—Consensus Building Institute (2013) Tools: role-play simulations. http://cbuilding.org/tools/role-play-simulations. Last accessed 18 Feb 2013
  52. 52.
    Schenk T (2011) Building national consensus for international climate change negotiations. CBI reports. http://cbuilding.org/blog/2011/building-national-consensus-international-climate-change-negotiations

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban Studies and PlanningMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations