Gaming the Future of the Ocean: The Marine Spatial Planning Challenge 2050

  • Igor Mayer
  • Qiqi Zhou
  • Xander Keijser
  • Lodewijk Abspoel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8778)


The authors present and discuss the conceptual and technical design of the game Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) Challenge 2050, developed with and for the Netherlands’ ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. The main question in this paper is: What constitutes the socio-technical complexity of marine areas and how can it be translated into a simulation model for serious game-play with marine spatial planners? MSP Challenge 2050 was launched in March 2014 in a two day session with twenty marine planners from six countries. It aims to initiate and support MSP in the various Atlantic regions by bringing policy-makers, stakeholders, scientists together in a ‘playful’ but realistic and meaningful environment. In the North Sea edition of the game, six countries make and implement plans for this sea basin over a period of 35 years, with cumulative effects of their sectoral and national decisions emerging. The authors conclude that the combined and iterative use of complexity modelling and gaming is effective from the perspectives of design (development of a MSP model), research (insight acquired on MSP) and policy (policy-oriented learning and analysis for MSP). Further development and global dissemination of MSP Challenge 2050, as well as research and data collection, is foreseen.


Complexity Global System Science Integrated Planning Marine Spatial Planning Policy game Simulation-game Serious game Design 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Byrne, D.: Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: An Introduction. Routledge, London (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Misuraca, G., Broster, D., Centeno, C.: Digital Europe 2030: Designing Scenarios for ICT in Future Governance and Policy Making. Gov. Inf. Q. (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Global Systems Science - European Commission, (accessed: April 04, 2014)
  5. 5.
    Pahl-Wostl, C., Schlumpf, C., Bussenschutt, M., Schonborn, A., Burse, J.: Models at the interface between science and society: impacts and options. Integr. Assess. 1, 267–280 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Head, B.W.B.: Wicked Problems in Public Policy. Public Policy 3(2), 18 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nowotny, H.: The Increase of Complexity and its Reduction: Emergent Interfaces between the Natural Sciences, Humanities and Social Sciences. Theory, Cult. Soc. 22(5), 15–31 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Commission of the European Community, Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: Achieving Common Principles in the EU, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Commission of the European Community, Maritime Spatial Planning in the EU – Achievements and Future Development, Luxembourg, COM (2010) 771 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Commission of the European Community, Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the council, establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management, vol. 0074 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Halpern, B.S., Kappel, C.V., Selkoe, K.A., Micheli, F., Ebert, C.M., Kontgis, C., Crain, C.M., Martone, R.G., Shearer, C., Teck, S.J.: Mapping cumulative human impacts to California Current marine ecosystems. Conserv. Lett. 2(3), 138–148 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christensen, V., Walters, C.J.: Ecopath with Ecosim: Methods, Capabilities and Limitations. Ecol. Modell. 172(2-4), 109–139 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Voyer, M., Gladstone, W., Goodall, H.: Methods of social assessment in Marine Protected Area planning: Is public participation enough? Mar. Policy 36(2), 432–439 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jay, S., Street, H., Sheffield, S.: Spatial Planning and the Development of Offshore Wind Farms in the United Kingdom 1. Renew. Energy, 1–10 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kannen, A., Burkhard, B.: Integrated Assessment of Coastal and Marine Changes Using the Example of Offshore Wind Farms: the Coastal Futures Approach. GAIA - Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 18(3), 229–238 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huxham, M., Sumner, D., Park, M.: Emotion, Science and Rationality: The Case of the Brent Spar. Environ. Values 8(3), 349–368 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Side, J.: The Future of North Sea Oil Industry Abandonment in the Light of the Brent Spar Decision. Mar. Policy 21(1), 45–52 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Duke, R.D.: Gaming: the Future’s Language. SAGE Publications (1974)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mayer, I.S., Zhou, Q., Lo, J., Abspoel, L., Keijser, X., Olsen, E., Nixon, E., Kannen, A.: Integrated, Ecosystem-based Marine Spatial Planning: Design and Results of a Game-based Quasi-Experiment. Ocean Coast. Manag. 82, 7–26 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Igor Mayer
    • 1
  • Qiqi Zhou
    • 1
  • Xander Keijser
    • 2
  • Lodewijk Abspoel
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Technology Policy and ManagementTU DelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Ministry of Infrastructure and the EnvironmentThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations