Games for Aiding Stakeholder Deliberation on Nexus Policy Issues

  • Junko Mochizuki
  • Piotr Magnuszewski
  • Joanne Linnerooth-Bayer


Games can provide an effective and replicable space in which stakeholders learn skills necessary for deliberative and pluralist policymaking. These skills are especially important for “nexus” policy issues that are typically characterised by multiple, competing problem frames involving overlapping networks of stakeholders. In this position paper, we describe three serious games that serve as a space for players (stakeholders) and researchers to jointly explore alternative solutions to complex resource management issues: the Water-Food-Energy Nexus Game (Nexus Game); the Narubu Game of Many Voices (Narubu Game); and the Forest Governance Game (Forest Game). The games contain instructive and reflexive mechanisms that prompt players to self-discover common challenges associated with complex nexus issues, including conflicting institutional mandates, social dilemmas, contending worldviews, and plural interpretations of science.


  1. Alcamo J (2015) Systems thinking for advancing a nexus approach to water, soil and waste. Accessed 3 Mar 2017
  2. Aldred J, Jacobs M (2000) Citizens and wetlands: evaluating the Ely citizens’ jury. Ecol Econ 34(2):217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen CR, Gunderson LH (2011) Pathology and failure in the design and implementation of adaptive management. J Environ Manage 92(5):1379–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Averch HA, Lavin M (1964) Simulation of decision-making in crises. Accessed 3 Mar 2017
  5. Bachofen C, Suarez P, Steenbergen M, Grist N (2012) Can games help people manage the climate risks they face? The participatory design of educational games. Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre Working Paper Series 3Google Scholar
  6. Barreteau O, Antona M, D’Aquino P, Aubert S, Boissau S, Bousquet F, Daré WS et al (2003) Our companion modelling approach. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6:1Google Scholar
  7. Bednarik P, Dieckmann U, Linnerooth-Bayer J, Magnuszewski P (forthcoming) A game of common-pool resource management: the effects of communication, shared benefits and worldviewsGoogle Scholar
  8. Boas I, Biermann F, Kanie N (2016) Cross-sectoral strategies in global sustainability governance: towards a nexus approach. Int Environ Agreements: Polit Law Econ 16(3):449–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bogost I (2008) The rhetoric of video games. In: The ecology of games: connecting youth, games, and learning. MIT Press, Cambrigde, pp 117–140Google Scholar
  10. Bousquet F (2005) Companion modeling and multi-agent systems for integrated natural resource management in Asia. Int. Rice Res. Inst.Google Scholar
  11. Centre for Systems Solutions (2016) ACCURENT—Accelerating Urban Energy Transitions. Accessed 13 Mar 2017
  12. Centre for Systems Solutions/IIASA (2016) Flood resilience game. Accessed 13 Mar 2017
  13. Conway D, van Garderen EA, Deryng D, Dorling S, Krueger T, Landman W, Lankford B et al (2015) Climate and southern Africa’s water-energy-food nexus. Nat Clim Change 5(9):837–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cundill G, Rodela R (2012) A review of assertions about the processes and outcomes of social learning in natural resource management. J Environ Manage 113:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Suarez JM, Suarez P, Bachofen C, Fortugno N, Goentzel J, Gonçalves P, Grist N et al (2012) Games for a new climate: experiencing the complexity of future risks. Pardee Center Task Force ReportGoogle Scholar
  16. Dietz T (2013) Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(Suppl 3):14081–14087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Douglas M (1978) Cultural bias. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Occasional Paper, 35Google Scholar
  18. Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1983) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. University of California PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Dryzek JS (2001) Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Polit Theory 29(5):651–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duke RD (2011) Origin and evolution of policy simulation: a personal journey. Simul Gaming 42(3):342–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elster J (1998) Deliberative democracy, vol 1. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Entholzner A, Reeve C (eds) (2016) Building climate resilience through virtual water and nexus thinking in the southern African development community. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischhoff B (2013) The sciences of science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(Suppl 3):14033–14039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Foran T, Ward J, Kemp-Benedict E, Smajgl A (2013) Developing detailed foresight narratives: a participatory technique from the Mekong region. Ecol Soc 18(4)Google Scholar
  25. Garmendia E, Stagl S (2010) Public participation for sustainability and social learning: concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe. Ecol Econ 69(8):1712–1722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Geels FW, Berkhout F, van Vuuren DP (2016) Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions. Nat Clim Change 6(6):576–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Geurts JLA, Duke RD, Vermeulen PAM (2007) Policy gaming for strategy and change. Long Range Plan 40(6):535–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harteveld C, Guimarães R, Mayer IS, Bidarra R (2009) Balancing play, meaning and reality: the design philosophy of LEVEE PATROLLER. Simul Gaming 41(3):316–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hassenforder E, Smajgl A, Ward J (2015) Towards understanding participatory processes: framework, application and results. J Environ Manage 157:84–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holling CS (2000) Theories for sustainable futures. Conserv Ecol 4(2)Google Scholar
  31. Jackson S, Tan P-L, Nolan S (2012) Tools to enhance public participation and confidence in the development of the Howard East aquifer water plan, Northern Territory. J Hydrol 474:22–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Joint Research Center (2016) EU-AU-IIASA evidence and policy: water–energy–food nexus. Accessed 3 Mar 2017
  33. Jones L, Grist N, Ludi E, Carabine E (2014) Planning for an uncertain future: promoting adaptation to climate change through flexible and forward-looking decision making. Accessed 13 Mar 2017
  34. Juhola S, Driscoll P, de Suarez JM, Suarez P (2013) Social strategy games in communicating trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation in cities. Urban Clim 4:102–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kallis G, Hatzilacou D, Mexa A, Coccossis H, Svoronou E (2009) Beyond the manual: practicing deliberative visioning in a Greek island. Ecol Econ 68(4):979–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kapp KM (2012) The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training an education. WileyGoogle Scholar
  37. Koster RA (2012) Theory of fund for game design. O’ReillyGoogle Scholar
  38. Kristjanson P, Harvey B, Van Epp M, Thornton PK (2014) Social learning and sustainable development. Nat Clim Change 4(1):5–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krolikowska K, Kronenberg J, Maliszewska K, Sendzimir J, Magnuszewski P, Dunajski A, Slodka A (2007) Role-playing simulation as a communication tool in community dialogue: Karkonosze Mountains case study. Simul Gaming 38(2):195–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kurian M, Ardakanian R (2015) Governing the nexus. Springer International PublishingGoogle Scholar
  41. Le Blanc D (2015) Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a network of targets. Sustain Dev 23(3):176–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leck H, Conway D, Bradshaw M, Rees J (2015) Tracing the water–energy–food nexus: description, theory and practice. Geogr Compass 9(8):445–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Levitt SD, List JA (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? J Econ Perspect 21(2):153–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Linnerooth-Bayer J, Vari A, Thompson M (2006) Floods and fairness in Hungary. In: Verweij M, Thompson M (eds) Clumsy solutions for a complex world: governance, politics and plural perceptions. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstok, pp 181–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Linnerooth-Bayer JA, Scolobig A, Ferlisi S, Cascini L, Thompson M (2016) Expert engagement in participatory processes: translating stakeholder discourses into policy options. Nat Hazards 81(1):69–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lubans J Jr (2009) Leading from the middle: what? So what? Now what? Libr Leadersh Manage 23(3):140–142Google Scholar
  47. Mayer IS (2009) The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: a review. Simul Gaming 40(6):825–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McGonigal J (2011) Reality is broken: why games make us better and how they can change the world. PenguinGoogle Scholar
  49. Meadows D (2002) Dancing with systems. Syst Thinker 13:2–6Google Scholar
  50. Newell B, Wasson R (2002) Social system vs solar system: why policy makers need history. Confl Cooperation Relat Int Water Resour Hist Perspect 62:3ffGoogle Scholar
  51. Ostrom E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(39):15181–15187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Parson EA (1996a) How should we study global environmental problems? A plea for unconventional methods of assessment and synthesisGoogle Scholar
  54. Parson EA (1996b) What can you learn from a game. In: Wise choices: games, decisions, and negotiations. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  55. Plate R (2010) Assessing individuals’ understanding of nonlinear causal structures in complex systems. Syst Dyn Rev 26(1):19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rasul G, Sharma B (2016) The nexus approach to water–energy–food security: an option for adaptation to climate change. Clim Policy 16(6):682–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rayner S (2006) Wicked problems: clumsy solutions. Jack Beale Memorial Lecture. University of New South Wales, 25 July 2006Google Scholar
  58. Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. EarthscanGoogle Scholar
  59. Ringler C, Bhaduri A, Lawford R (2013) The nexus across water, energy, land and food (WELF): potential for improved resource use efficiency? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5(6):617–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169Google Scholar
  61. Rowe G, Marsh R, Frewer LJ (2004) Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Sci Technol Human Values 29(1):88–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rumore D, Schenk T, Susskind L (2016) Role-play simulations for climate change adaptation education and engagement. Nat Clim Change 6(8):745–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ryan T (2000) The role of simulation gaming in policy-making. Syst Res Behav Sci 17(4):359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Salen K, Zimmerman E (2004) Rules of play: game design fundamentals. MIT pressGoogle Scholar
  65. Salgado PP, Quintana SC, Pereira AG, del Moral Ituarte L, Mateos BP (2009) Participative multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of water governance alternatives. A case in the Costa del Sol (Malaga). Ecol Econ 68(4):990–1005Google Scholar
  66. Scolobig A, Lilliestam J (2016) Comparing approaches for the integration of stakeholder perspectives in environmental decision making. Resources 5(4):37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Scolobig A, Thompson M, Linnerooth-Bayer J (2016) Compromise not consensus: designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation. Nat Hazards 81(1):45–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Singleton BE (2016) Clumsiness and elegance in environmental management: applying cultural theory to the history of whaling. Environ Polit 25(3):414–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Smajgl A (2018) Participatory processes and integrated modelling supporting nexus implementations. In: Hülsmann S, Ardakanian R (eds) Managing water, soil and waste resources to achieve sustainable development goals: monitoring and implementation of integrated resources managementGoogle Scholar
  70. Smajgl A, Ward J (2015) Evaluating participatory research: framework, methods and implementation results. J Environ Manage 157:311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smajgl A, Ward JR, Foran T, Dore J, Larson S (2015) Visions, beliefs, and transformation: exploring cross-sector and transboundary dynamics in the wider Mekong region. Ecol Soc 20(2):15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stefanska J, Magnuszewski P, Sendzimir J, Romaniuk P, Taillieu T, Dubel A, Flachner Z, Balogh P (2011) A gaming exercise to explore problem-solving versus relational activities for river floodplain management. Environ Policy Governance 21(6):454–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Steiner, J (2012) The foundations of deliberative democracy: empirical research and normative implications. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  74. Sterman JD (2006) Learning from evidence in a complex world. Am J Public Health 96(3):505–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) (2014) Cross-sectoral integration in the Sustainable Development Goals: a nexus approach.
  76. Thompson M (2008) Organising and disorganising. A dynamic and non-linear theory of institutional emergence and its implication. Triarchy PressGoogle Scholar
  77. Thompson M (2013) 36 Clumsy solutions to environmental change. In: A changing environment for human security: transformative approaches to research, policy and action, p 424Google Scholar
  78. Thompson M, Ellis R, Wildavsky A (1990) Cultural theory. Westview PressGoogle Scholar
  79. Umejesi I, Thompson M (2015) Fighting elephants, suffering grass: oil exploitation in Nigeria. J Organ Change Manage 28(5):791–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. United Nations (2015) The millennium development goals report 2015. Accessed 3 Mar 2017
  81. United Nations (2016) The sustainable development goals report. Accessed 3 Mar 2017
  82. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992) The Rio declaration on environment and development. Available at: Accessed 6 Mar 2017
  83. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2016) Using Minecraft for community participation manual. Accessed 13 Mar 2017
  84. Van der Heijden, K (1996) Scenarios: the art of strategic conversation. WileyGoogle Scholar
  85. Verweij M, Thompson M (eds) (2011) Clumsy solutions for a complex world: governance, politics and plural perceptions, 2 edn. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  86. Visman E (2014) Knowledge is power. Unlocking the potential of science and technology to enhance community resilience through knowledge exchange. The Humanitarian Practice Network at the Overseas Development Institute, London. Available at: Accessed 17 Mar 2017
  87. Webler T, Kastenholz H, Renn O (1995) Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning perspective. Environ Impact Assess Rev 15(5):443–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Webler T, Tuler S, Krueger ROB (2001) What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environ Manage 27(3):435–450Google Scholar
  89. Williamson OE (1975) Markets and hierarchies. New York, pp 26–30Google Scholar
  90. Yazdanpanah M, Thompson M, Hayati D, Zamani GH (2013) A new enemy at the gate: tackling Iran’s water super-crisis by way of a transition from government to governance. Prog Dev Stud 13(3):177–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Yazdanpanah M, Hayati D, Thompson M, Zamani GH, Monfared N (2014) Policy and plural responsiveness: taking constructive account of the ways in which Iranian farmers think about and behave in relation to water. J Hydrol 514:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Yillia PT (2016) Water-Energy-Food nexus: framing the opportunities, challenges and synergies for implementing the SDGs. Österr Wasser Abfallwirtsch 68(3–4):86–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© United Nations University Institute for Integrated Management of Material Fluxes and of Resources (UNU-FLORES) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Junko Mochizuki
    • 1
  • Piotr Magnuszewski
    • 2
    • 3
  • Joanne Linnerooth-Bayer
    • 1
  1. 1.Risk and Resilience ProgramInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)LaxenburgAustria
  2. 2.Water Program, Risk and Resilience ProgramInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)LaxenburgAustria
  3. 3.Centrum Rozwiazan Systemowych (CRS)—Centre for Systems SolutionsWrocławPoland

Personalised recommendations