FUTURESITE, a game simulation, was developed to stimulate and inform public participation in the highly controversial environmental cleanup decisions affecting a former nuclear weapons facility in the United States. Meaningful public participation demands an understanding of the technical, financial and political constraints on the cleanup process. The primary purpose of the game simulation was to present information concerning the environmental contamination, health hazards, and potential future uses of the facility in a readily comprehensible format. An additional purpose of FUTURESTE was to encourage cooperation and consensus building in making actual remedial plans for the facility.
Baba, N.
, Uchida, H., & Sawaragi, Y. (1984). A game approach to the acid rain problem. Simulation & Games, 15, 305-314.
2.
Brewer, G. D.
(1978). Scientific gaming: The development and use of free-form scenarios. Simulations & Games, 9, 309-315.
3.
Breyer, S.
(1993). Breaking the vicious circle: Toward effective risk regulation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
Centers for Disease Control. (1993, November). The Fernald Dosimetry Reconstruction Project: Tasks 2 and 3 (RAC Report No. CDC-5). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
5.
Clark, P. B.
, & Emrich, W. M. (1980). New tools for resolving environmental disputes: Introducing federal agencies to environmental mediation and related techniques (Report to Council on Environmental Quality and U.S. Geological Survey No. 13). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
6.
Dukes, R. L.
(1990). Collective action in simulated agrarian and industrial societies. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
7.
Exline, C. H.
, & Larkin, R. P. (1979). Reviewing DEAD RIVER: A simulation game of river restoration. Simulation & Games, 10, 87-90.
8.
Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee
. (1993, February). Recommendations for improving the federal facility environmental restoration decision-making process and setting priorities in the event of funding shortfalls (Interim report). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
9.
Fernald Citizens Task Force
. (1995, July). Recommendations on remediation levels, waste deposition, priorities, and future use. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.
10.
Gamson, W. A.
(1972). SIMSOC: Establishing social order in a simulated society. In M. Inbar & C. S. Stoll (Eds.), Simulation and gaming in social science (pp. 51-68). New York: Free Press.
11.
Greenblat, C. S.
, & Duke, R. D. (1981). Principles and practices of gaming simulation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12.
Inbar, M.
, & Stoll, C. S. (Eds.). (1972). Simulation and gaming in social science. New York: Free Press.
13.
Jones, K.
(1985). Designing your own simulations. New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall, Inc.
14.
Kahneman, D.
, Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Kirts, C. A.
(1991). The COMMONS game: Its instructional value when used in a natural resources management context. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 5-18.
16.
Klabbers, J.H.G.
(1989). On the improvement of confidence. In J.H.G. Klabbers, W. J. Scheper, C.A.Th. Takkenberg, & D. Crookall (Eds.), Simulation-gaming: On the improvement of competence in dealing with complexity, uncertainty, and value conflicts. New York: Pergamon Press.
17.
Klabbers, J.H.G.
, Swart, R. J., VanUlden, A. P., & Vellinga, P. (1995). Climate policy: Management of organized complexity through gaming. In D. Crookall & K. Arai (Eds.), Simulation and gaming across disciplines and cultures: ISAGA at a watershed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
Kaufman, B. L.
(1994, August 6). Games asks Fernald uses. Cincinnati Enquirer, pp. B1, B3.
19.
Lederman, L. C.
(1992). Debriefing: Towards a systematic theory and practice. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 145-160.
20.
Maidment, R.
, & Bronstein, R. H. (1973). Simulation games: Design and implementation. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
21.
Mautner-Markhof, F.
(1995). The reality, management and simulation of complex systems. In D. Crookall & K. Arai (Eds.), Simulation and gaming across disciplines and cultures: ISA GA at a watershed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Marcus, P. A.
, & Emrich, W. M. (Eds.). (1981). Environmental conflict management. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
23.
Raser, J. R.
(1969). Simulation and society: An exploration of scientific gaming. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
24.
Sharda, R.
, Willett, K. & Chiang, P. S. (1988). WQM: A water quality management simulation game. Simulation & Games, 19,27-41.
25.
Starr, P.
(1994). Seductions of sim: Policy and simulation game. The American Prospect, 17, 25.
26.
Stem, P. C.
, Fineberg, H. V. (Eds). (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
27.
Straus, D. B.
(1981). Managing complexities. In P. A. Marcus & W. M. Emrich (Eds.), Environmental conflict management (pp. 1-9). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
28.
Susskind, L. E.
(1994). Overview of developments in public participation. In E. C. Lichtenstein & W. T. Dunn (Eds.), Public participation in environmental decisionmaking (pp. 8-12). Washington, DC: American Bar Association.
29.
U.S. Department of Energy, Fernald Environmental Management Project
. (1994). 1993 site environmental report. Washington, DC: Author.
30.
Wynn, M.
, Overall, J., Smith, R., Taylor, J., & Totterdill, P. (1982). Teaching and administration. Simulation & Games, 13, 295-298.
