Role-playing games in natural resource management are currently being tested as research, training, and intervention tools all over the world. Various studies point out their potential to deal with complex issues and to contribute to training processes. The objective of this contribution is to analyze the limits and potentialities of this tool for capacity building in environmental management of stakeholders with low educational levels by comparing various Brazilian experiences. Five games that were developed and used to train local stakeholders or state technicians about specific aspects of new and di ficult to understand legislation are compared. The comparison of these experiences is based on (a) an analysis of the materials (game support) provided by the developers, (b) interviews with authors and game developers, and (c) participation in game sessions whenever possible.
Antona, M., D'Aquino, P., Aubert, S., Barreteau, O., Boissau, S., Bousquet, F., et al. (2003). Companion modelling approach set. Available at http://cormas.cirad.fr/fr/reseaux/ComMod/charte.htm
2.
Bellenzani, M.L.R. (2000). A APA Municipal do Capivari-Monos como uma estratégia de proteção aos mananciais da região metropolitana de São Paulo, PROCAM [The environmental municipality protected area “Capivari-Monos” as a protection strategy to catchments of São Paulo Metropolitan Region, PROCAM, University of São Paulo]. São Paulo, Brazil: University of São Paulo.
3.
Boissau, S., & Castella, J.C. (2003). Constructing a common representation of local institutions and land use systems through simulation-gaming and multiagent modeling in rural areas of Northern Vietnam: The SAMBA-Week methodology. Simulation & Gaming: AnInternational Journal, 34(3), 342-357.
4.
Bousquet, F., Bakam, I., Proton, H., & Le Page, C. (1998). CORMAS: Common-pool resources and multi-agent systems. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 1416, 826-838.
5.
Brotto, F.O. (2001). Jogos cooperativos: o jogo e o esporte como um exercício de convivência [Cooperative games: The game and sport as a conviviality exercise]. Santos, São Paulo State , Brazil: Projeto Cooperação.
6.
Chohin-Kuper, A., Ducrot, R., Tonneau, J.-P., & da Rocha Barros, E. (2005). Role playing game development in irrigation management: A social learning approach. In S. Perret, E. Farolfi, & R. Hassan (Eds.), Water governance for sustainable development: Approaches and lessons from developing and transitional countries (pp. 259-274). London, UK: Earthscan .
7.
Coll, C. (1996). Os professores e a concepção construtivista [The teachers and the constructivist conception]. In C. Coll et al. (Eds.), O construtivismo na sala de aula (pp. 9-28). São Paulo, Brazil: Ática.
8.
CONSTRUÇÃO DO ESPAÇO URBANO (CEU). (2004). Curitiba, PR, Brazil: Ambiens, Sociedade Cooperativa.
9.
DESAFIO DAS ÁGUAS (DA). (1998). São Paulo, Brazil: Ecoar Institute for Citizenship.
10.
Dorn, D.S. (1989). Simulation games: One more tool on the pedagogical shelf. Teaching Sociology, 17, 1-18.
11.
Ducrot, R. (2004). Negowat Project (Negotiation on water resources) . São Paulo, Brazil: Procam/ USP.
12.
ESTATUTO DA CIDADE (EC). (2002). São Paulo, Brazil: Polis Institute/Pontifical Catholic University of Campinas.
13.
Etienne, M. (2003). SYLVOPAST: A multiple target role-playing game to assess negotiation processes in syulvopastoral management planning. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 6(2). Available at http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/5.html
14.
Fjermestad, J., & Hiltz, S.R. (1997). Experimental studies of group decision support systems: An assessment of variables studied and methodology. In Proceedings of the 30th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences: Information Systems Track-Collaboration Systems and Technology (Vol. 2, p. 45). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
Instituto Pòlis. (2004). Monitoramento dos instrumentos e processos de multiplicação do conteúdo do estatuto da cidade 3 Relatório Resultados [Monitoring of tools and diffusion processes from City Statute: Third report results]. São Paulo, Brazil: Author.
17.
Jacobi, P. (2001). Gestão participativa de bacias hidrográficas no Brasil e os desafios do fortalecimento de espaços públicos colegiados [Participative management of river basin in Brazil and the challenges of strengthening the collegiate public spaces]. Revista Organização e Sociedade , 8(22), 91-106.
18.
JOGOMAN (MAN). (2004). São Paulo, SP, Brazil: Negowat Project.
19.
Junqueira, R. (1999). Desafio das Águas: Articulando a agenda XXI do pedaço [The water challenge: Articulating the locallyAgenda21]. Work presented in International Society for Third Sector Research (ISTR)—Latin American and the Caribbean (LAC) Network, Santiago, Chile.
20.
Law 7663/91, São Paulo State Policy on Hydric Resources of 30 December of 1991. Available at www.sigrh.sp.gov.br/sigrh/basecon/lrh2000/LE/Leis/03_LEI_n_7663_de_30_de_dezembro_de_1991.htm
21.
Marcondes, M. J. d. A. (1999). Cidade e natureza: Proteção dos mananciais e exclusão social [City and nature: The Peri-urban catchments protection and social exclusion] . São Paulo, Brazil: Studio Nobel: Editora da USP: FAPESP.
22.
Maurel, P., Cernesson, F., Ferrand, N., Craps, M., & Valkering, P. (2003). Some methodological concepts to analyse the role of IC-tools in social learning processes. International Environmental Modelling and Software Society. Available at www.iemss.org/iemss2004/pdf/dss2/maursome.pdf
23.
Mayer, I., & De Jong, M. (2004). Combining GDSS and gaming for decision support . Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 223-241.
24.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002). Towards sustainability in the water sector—The importance of human actors and processes of social learning. AquaticSciences, 64, 394-411.
25.
Peters, V., & Vissers, G. (2004). A simple classification model for debriefing simulation games. Simulation & Gaming, 35(1), 70-84.
26.
Porto, M. (2003). Recursos hídricos e saneamento na REGião metropolitana de São Paulo: um desafio do tamanho da cidade [Water resources and sanitation at São Paulo Metropolitan Region: A challenge with the same size of the city] . Brasília, Brazil: Banco Mundial .
27.
Program on Negotiation. (1995). Program on negotiation at Harvard Law School. Available at www.pon.org
28.
REGULARIZAÇÃO FUNDIÁRIA (REG). (2004). Porto Alegre, Brazil: Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions.
29.
Reigota, M. (1996). O que é educação ambiental [What is environmental education?]. São Paulo, Brazil: Brasiliense.
30.
Saito, C.H. (2002). Política nacional de educação ambiental e construção da cidadania: desafios contemporâneos [National environmental education policy and the citizenship building: Contemporaneous challenges]. In A. Ruscheinsky (organizer), Educação ambiental: Abordagens múltiplas (pp. 47-60). Porto Alegre, Brazil: Artmed.
31.
Trajber, R., & Manzochi, L.H. (1996). Avaliando a Educação Ambiental no Brasil: materiais impressos [Evaluating the environmental education in Brazil: Printed material]. São Paulo, Brazil: Gaia.
32.
Tung, L., & Turban, E. (1998). A proposed research framework for distributed group support systems. Decision SupportSystems, 23, 175-188.
33.
Ulrich, M. (1997). Games/simulations about environmental issues existing tools and underlying concepts. In Gaming/Simulation for Policy Development and Organizational Change. Proceedings of the 28th Annual International Conference of the International Simulation and Gaming Association (ISAGA) (pp. 301-311). Available at www.ucs.ch/service/download/docs/articlesimgamesenvissues.pdf
