This article explains how a role-play game (RPG) can allow participants to get insights on the dynamics of incorporating scientific advice into adversarial policymaking. A RPG called GROUND-LEVEL OZONE (GLO) simulates a multi-stakeholder negotiation based on the recommendations of an integrated environmental assessment (IEA) for urban air quality management. Structured debriefing of the RPG used questionnaire survey of participants’ perceptions of IEA usefulness as well as participants’ feedback about the use of the IEA and performance of the facilitators during negotiations. By linking those perceptional and behavioral patterns to the negotiated outcomes, the debriefing drew much broader insights on the importance of upstream engagement for enhanced legitimacy of the IEA and constructive roles of a facilitator in a multi-stakeholder negotiation. This article also critically reviews the debriefing method and suggests a new design of more sophisticated debriefing method and a new RPG for more effective learning of the dynamics of the use of IEA in a multi-stakeholder negotiation in the future.
AckermanB. A.HasslerW. T. (1981). Clean coal/dirty air or how the clean air act became a multi-million dollar bailout for high-sulfur coal producers and what should be done about it. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2.
AdlerP. S.BarrettR. C.BeanM. C.BirkhoffJ. E.OzawaC. P.RudinE. B. (2000). Managing scientific and technical information in environmental cases: Principles and practices for mediators and facilitators. Washington, DC: RESOLVE, The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, and the Western Justice Center Foundation.
3.
ApplegateJ. S.SarnoD. J. (1997). FUTURESITE: An environmental remediation game-simulation. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 13-27.
4.
BabaN.UchidaH.SawaragiY. (1984). A gaming approach to the acid rain problem. Simulation & Games, 15, 305-314.
5.
BarreteauO. (2003). The joint use of role-playing games and models regarding negotiation process: Characterization of associations. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 6(2). Retrieved from http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/3.html
6.
BespolkaC. G. (1989). A multi attribute trade off and analysis framework for electric utility integrated resource planning (Energy Laboratory Report No. MIT-EL 89-005). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
7.
BoissauS.CastellaJ. 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: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 34, 342-357.
8.
BrewerG. (1986). Methods for synthesis: Policy exercises. In ClarkW.MunnR. (Eds.), Sustainable development of the biosphere (pp. 455-475). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
CamargoM. E.JacobiP. R.DucrotR. (2007). Role-playing games for capacity building in water and land management: Some Brazilian experiences. Simulation & Gaming, 38, 472-493.
10.
CaplanN. (1979). The two communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22, 459-471.
11.
Comisión Ambiental Metropolitana. (2001, August). Inventario de Emisiones 1998 de la Zona Metropolitana del Valle México, Versión Preliminar [Emission inventory for Mexico City metropolitan area (1998). (Preliminary version)]. Mexico City, Mexico: Author.
12.
ConnorsS.DodderR.AokiC.MostashariA.BracamontesA.AmanoD. . . . RothK. (2002). Preliminary assessment of long-term emissions reductions for reference cases incorporating alternative air quality program implementations and alternative urban transformations (Draft, Mexico City Project). Cambridge, MA: Integrated Program on Urban, Regional and Global Air Pollution, MIT.
DaridoG. B. (2001). Managing conflicts between environment and mobility: The case of road-based transportation and air quality in Mexico City (MIT master’s thesis). MIT Integrated Program on Urban, Regional and Global Air Pollution (Report No. 23), Cambridge, MA.
15.
DennisR. L.ByunD. W.NovakJ. H.GalluppiK. J.CoatsC.VoukM. A. (1996). The next generation of integrated air quality modeling: EPA’s models-3. Atmospheric Environment, 30, 1925-1938.
16.
DionnetM.KuperM.HammaniA.GarinP. (2008). Combining role-playing games and policy simulation exercises: An experience with Moroccan smallholder farmers. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 39, 498-514.
17.
DolinE.SusskindL. (1992). A role for simulations in public policy disputes: The case of national energy policy. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 20-44.
18.
DukeR.GeurtsJ. (2004). Policy games for strategic management: Pathways into the unknown. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Dutch University Press.
19.
DunnW. (1980). The two communities metaphor and models of knowledge use. Knowledge: Creation Diffusion and Utilization, 3, 293-326.
20.
EliassenA.SaltbonesJ. (1983). Modeling of long-range transport of sulphur over Europe: A two-year model run and some model experiments. Atmospheric Environment, 17, 1457-1473.
21.
EtienneM. (2003). SYLVOPAST: A multiple target role-playing game to assess negotiation processes in sylvopastoral management planning. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 6(2). Retrieved from http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/5.html
22.
FiorinoD. J. (2001). Environmental policy as learning: A new view of an old landscape. Public Administration Review, 61, 322-334.
23.
FuntowiczS. O. (2006). Why knowledge assessment? In PereiraA. G.VazS. G.TognettiS. (Eds.), Interfaces between science and society (pp. 137-145). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.
24.
FuntowiczS. O.RavetzJ. R. (1992). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In KrimskyS.GoldingD. (Eds.), Social theories or risk (pp. 251-274). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
25.
FuntowiczS. O.StrandR. (2007). Models of science and policy. In TraavikT.LimL. C. (Eds.), Biosafety first: Holistic approaches to risk and uncertainty in genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms (pp. 263-278). Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Academic Press.
26.
GurungT. R.BousquetF.TrébuilG. (2006). Companion modeling, conflict resolution, and institution building: Sharing irrigation water in the Lingmuteychu Watershed, Bhutan. Ecology & Society, 11(2). Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art36/
27.
HeymannM. (2004). Air pollution control: Who are the experts? In Kurz-MilckeE.GigerenzerG. (Eds.), Experts in science and society (pp. 159-177). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
28.
InnesJ. E.BooherD. E. (1999). Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65, 9-26.
29.
JägerJ. (1998). Current thinking on using scientific finding in environmental policymaking. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 3, 143-153.
30.
JonesC. O. (1975). Clean air: The policies and politics of pollution control. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
31.
KarlH. A.SusskindL. E.WallaceK. H. (2007). A dialogue, not a diatribe: Effective integration of science and policy through joint fact finding. Environment, 49(1), 20-34.
KimD. Y. (2007). The challenges of consensus building in a consolidating democracy: Diesel vehicles and urban air pollution in Korea. Wiesbaden, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller e.K.
34.
KrebsD. J. (1999). A tale of two cities: The regulation of particulate air pollution in Mexico City and Los Angeles (MIT master’s thesis). MIT Integrated Program on Urban, Regional and Global Air Pollution (Report No. 1), Cambridge, MA.
35.
KuipersH. (1983). The role of a game-simulation in a project of change—A case for deep-sea fishing. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 275-296.
36.
LaxD. A.SebeniusJ. K. (2006). 3D negotiation: Powerful tools to change the game in your most important deals. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
37.
LevyM. A. (1993). European acid rain: The power of tote-board diplomacy. In KeohaneR. O.HassP. M.LevyM. A. (Eds.), Institutions for the Earth: Sources of effective international environmental protection (pp. 75-132). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
MathevetR.Le PageC.EtienneM.LefebvreG.PoulinB.GigotG. . . . MauchampA. (2007). BUTORSTAR: A role-playing game for collective awareness of wise reedbed use. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 38, 233-262.
39.
MayerI. (2008). Gaming for policy analysis. Learning about complex multi-actor systems. In de CaluweL.HofstedeG. J.PetersV. (Eds.), Why do games work? In search of the active substance (pp. 31-40). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
40.
MayerI. (2009). The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: A review. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 40, 825-862.
MolinaL. T.MolinaM. J. (Eds.). (2002). Air quality in the Mexico megacity: An integrated assessment. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
43.
MolinaM. J.MolinaL. T. (2004). Improving air quality in megacities: Mexico City case study. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1023, 142-158.
44.
MorrisA. P.YandleB.DorchakA. (2004, April). Choosing how to regulate (Case Research Paper Series in Legal Studies, Working Paper 04–3). Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University.
45.
NowotnyH.ScottP.GibbonsM. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
46.
OzawaC. P.SusskindL. E. (1985). Mediating science-intensive policy disputes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5, 23-39.
47.
ParsonE. A. (1997). Informing global environmental policy-making: A plea for new methods of assessment and synthesis. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 2, 267-279.
48.
PortneyP. R. (1990). Air pollution policy. In PortneyP. R. (Ed.), Public policies for environmental protection. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
49.
SchöppW.AmannM.CofalaJ.HeyesC.KlimontZ. (1998). Integrated assessment of European air pollution emission control strategies. Environmental Modeling & Software, 14, 1-9.
50.
SchwartzP. (1991). The art of the long view. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Sistema de Transporte Colective del Gobierno del Distrito Federal. (1999). Plan de Empresa 2000-2006 [Business plan (2000-2006)]. México City, Mexico: Author.
53.
Smog City 2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Sacramento Air Quality Management District. (n.d.). Available from http://www.smogcity2.org/index.html
54.
SusskindL. E. (2008). Arguing, bargaining, and getting agreement. In MoranM.ReinM.GoodinR. E. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 269-295). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
55.
SusskindL. E.CorburnJ. (2000). Using simulations to teach negotiation: Pedagogical theory and practice. In WheelerM. (Ed.), Teaching negotiation: Ideas and innovations. Cambridge, MA: Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
56.
SusskindL. E.JainR. K.MartyniukA. O. (2001). Better environmental policy studies: How to design and conduct more effective analyses. Washington, DC: Island Press.
57.
TollefsonJ. (2010). Environment: Mexico’s scientist in chief. Nature, 467, 902-905.
58.
TothF. L. (1988). Policy exercises: Objectives and design elements. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 235-255.
59.
TothF. L. (2001). Participatory integrated assessment methods: An assessment of their usefulness to the European Environmental Agency (Technical Report 64). Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency.
60.
van DaalenC. E.ThissenW. A. H.BerkM. M. (1998). Experiences with a dialogue process between policy makers and global modelers (Report No. 410 200 017). Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
61.
WeberE. P.KhademianA. M. (1997). From agitation to collaboration: Clearing the air through negotiation. Public Administration Review, 57, 396-410.
62.
WolfL. P.LaessigR. E. (1973). ERG-Energy Resources Game: Simulation gaming of regional energy. Simulation & Games, 4, 315-323.
63.
WynneB. (1992). Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change, 2, 111-127.
