Tools for adaptive governance for complex social-ecological systems: a review of role-playing-games as serious games at the community-policy interface

Serious games (SGs) are games primarily intended for education, rather than amusement (Abt 1987: 9), contributing to pre-defined objectives while engaging the user (Susi et al 2007). In recent years, SGs have been used in diverse contexts including agriculture (Hill et al 2014), risk management, food security, water resource management, climate change (Lawrence and Haasnoot 2017), environmental management (García-Barrios et al 2017), health and education (Ricciardi and De Paolis 2014) to engage individuals, communities, and decision-makers with complex resource problems, including wicked problems (Lawrence 2010, Flood et al 2018). Many of these games, in an environmental context, draw attention to, or focus on, adaptive governance mechanisms for resolving tensions between competing demands.

Adaptive governance in this context refers to an emerging mode of governance that rejects linear or goal-based frameworks in favour of flexibility, shared resources and mutual understanding (Brunner et al 2005, Chaffin et al 2014, Schultz et al 2015). While there remains some debate in the literature about its precise definition (Koontz et al 2015, Hasselman 2017), several common characteristics have been identified (Karpouzoglou et al 2016), including adaptability (e.g. Folke et al 2005, Olsson et al 2006), collaboration to achieve desired outcomes (Wyborn 2015, Chaffin and Gunderson 2016), learning and experimentation (Crona and Parker 2012, Sharma-Wallace et al 2019), and flexible governance arrangements (Janssen and van der Voort 2016, Nanda et al 2018). Adaptive governance principles ensure that the social, political, cultural and ecological contexts of environmental problems are directly incorporated into existing governance structures in order to transform governance structures themselves and the whole system in order to address the problem(s) in a more holistic way (Folke et al 2005).

The challenges of implementing adaptive governance for common-pool and other resources are well documented. Critically, we see an opportunity for SGs to provide a pathway for experiential learning and adaptation by different actors, providing a safe innovation space for experimentation, at various political and administrative levels across geographic scales (Johnson et al 2011, García-Barrios et al 2017, den Haan and van der Voort 2018, Flood et al 2018). Given the growing interest in adaptive governance and SGs, the following review seeks to systematically identify, review and assess the literature, to support the empirical application of adaptive governance and accelerate conceptual and theoretical development. More specifically, the review focuses on a subset of SGs: role-playing SGs (RPGs)—in which individual players assume a different identity for the purposes of the game.

There are other reviews of SGs, although they are limited in number Roberts (1976) provides one of the most relevant and comprehensive reviews; however, given the adaptive governance turn in environmental and natural resource sectors, an update is warranted. Katsaliaki and Mustafee (2012) assessed sustainable development SGs focused on learning and teaching and find that these SGs are generally online, single player and aimed at young people. There was no examination of how games can support collaboration, a key element in adaptive governance. Reckien and Eisenack (2013) review 52 SGs for climate change, noting that less than half deal with adaptation to climate change, a gap that is dealt with in the review by Flood et al (2018). Mayer (2009) published a review of gaming in policy—the promotion and use of gaming in policy-making, and how policy-making can be supported through gaming. Most recently, den Haan and van der Voort (2018) review 42 publications, specifically to assess social learning outcomes addressing sustainability issues.

Social learning refers to the 'collective process of acquiring, processing and disseminating knowledge' (Heikkila and Gerlak 2013: 486). It is understood as a change in understanding achieved through interaction in collaborative and participatory settings (den Haan and van der Voort 2018). Deliberative interactions form the backbone of social learning approaches, whereby a broad range of stakeholders work together building relationships that result in some form of collective action (Cundill and Rodela 2012, Baird et al 2014, den Haan and van der Voort 2018). Baird et al (2014) define social learning as changes in cognitive (knowledge and thinking), normative (norms and approaches) and relational (interpersonal connections, networks and trust building) learning. SGs offer the collaborative and participatory stakeholder interactions necessary to generate positive social learning outcomes (Medema et al 2016, Salvini et al 2016, Becu et al 2017, Ampatzidou et al 2018).

We anticipate the outcomes of this review will inform both the growing body of literature in games and gaming, and the development, use and application of serious RPGs in adaptive governance approaches to community land-use management and development. The review can inform game design, particularly the scaling of games to fit particular decision-making contexts. The review will also demonstrate the ability of RPGs to inform adaptive decision-making and contribute to social learning. While previous reviews have included RPGs, none of these studies have systematically considered the use and application of RPGs with reference to adaptive governance.

The review is structured as follows: We begin by describing the conceptual elements and principles of SGs and role-playing games (RPG) and their relationship to adaptive governance, and advance a framework for empirically evaluating their significance. We then present the results of the systematic review, focusing on the significance of RPGs for adaptive governance and their impacts, followed by discussion, conclusions and recommendations.

There is a growing body of literature investigating the relationships between institutional arrangements and the management of natural resources, for example, water management, conflict and cooperation around land and water and community management of forests (see Cleaver 2017). Developed over the last three decades, much of this work conceives the relationship between the biophysical environment and the human management systems, governance and institutional arrangements and practices used to sustain them, in terms of linked social-ecological or human-environmental systems. In theory, such systems are capable of responding to change, while preserving functionality (Berkes et al 2002, Folke et al 2005).

In practice, however, decision-making processes for natural resource management often entail complex social dynamics including trust building, power imbalances and vested interests. Stakeholders may become polarised, adopting antagonistic positions, or processes may be costly, leading to disillusionment. To overcome some of these challenges, adaptive governance has been proposed as a way to better account for the social dimension of adaptive co-management of ecosystems and landscapes (Brunner et al 2005, Pahl-Wostl 2009). Unlike conventional modes of governance which rely on linear- or goal-based frameworks, adaptive governance focuses on tools and approaches that seem to be of significance in responding to crisis, shaping change and building resilience for reorganisation and renewal of social-ecological systems, both internally and in relation to shocks and stressors (Dietz et al 2003, Walker et al 2004, Folke et al 2005). Marking a shift from management to governance, adaptive governance acknowledges the dynamic, multi-faceted character of environmental issues, which necessarily involve diverse scales, actors, and contexts, and notes the subsequent need for flexibility, social learning, and capacity for change in any proposed solution (Brunner et al 2005, Olsson et al 2007, Armitage et al 2008, Akamani et al 2016).

Recent reviews of the field note the continuing importance of adaptive governance in theory and practice but flag critical areas for further study (Chaffin et al 2014, Wyborn 2015, Karpouzoglou et al 2016, Sharma-Wallace et al 2018). The role of power and equity relations is an understudied but central component of adaptive governance process and outcomes, often contributing to either the success or failure of adaptive governance approaches on the ground (McDougall et al 2013, Wyborn 2015, Sharma-Wallace et al 2019). Wyborn (2015) suggests that adaptive governance scholarship devote more attention to situated, contextual, or relational perspectives over the traditional focus on abstract design principles and conditions underlying adaptive governance systems.

Other challenges relate to the empirical operationalization of adaptive governance. A more comprehensive understanding of both the methods, tools, and frameworks necessary for adaptive governance approaches and the existing institutional and regulatory barriers to its application is still required for the successful implementation of adaptive governance across cases (Olsson et al 2006, Chaffin et al 2014). In order to help address this gap, Sharma-Wallace et al (2018) reviewed 92 empirical cases of adaptive governance to distil eight methods or elements of adaptive governance in practice. They found that adaptive governance includes collaboration, coordination, social capital, community empowerment, capacity development, linking knowledge and decision-making, leadership and governance opportunities.

Collaboration involves meaningful cross-scale multi-actor interaction, emphasising the incorporation of a large range and diversity of stakeholder perspectives and capacities, including formal and informal opportunities (see Brunner et al 2005, Olsson et al 2008). Coordination involves bringing together geographical, actor and issue scales, often through a formal coordinating body (Olsson et al 2007, 2008). Central to adaptive governance is social capital, or base levels of trust, familiarity and goodwill between actors; often this is built up over long time periods (see Van Niekerk 2014). Community empowerment is also critical, as communities are where governance change is implemented and felt (see Olsson et al 2008). Capacity development is necessary for adaptive governance and includes knowledge, resources and the scope for action to sustain governance activities (see Abrams et al 2015). Adaptive governance also needs to link science and decision-making. Stakeholders require the best available information concerning the problem and potential solutions (see Serrao-Neumann et al 2016). While the foregoing elements are necessary, sometimes a skilled, charismatic and passionate leader is required to locate emerging or old problems, bring actors together and coordinate support (Olsson et al 2004). Finally, Sharma-Wallace et al (2018) highlight the necessity of being ready for windows of opportunity for adaptive governance—taking advantage of events (such as natural disasters or a change in government) to initiate adaptive governance (Olsson et al 2006, Brundiers and Eakin 2018, Cradock-Henry et al 2019).

The notion of adaptation implies capacity to respond to change and even transform social-ecological systems into improved states (Folke et al 2005, Olsson et al 2006). Adaptive governance thus focuses on experimentation and learning, and it brings together research on institutions and organisations for collaboration, collective action and conflict resolution in relation to natural resource and ecosystem management (Brunner et al 2005, Chaffin and Gunderson 2016). The essential role of individuals needs to be recognised in this context (e.g. leadership, trust building, vision and meaning); their social relations (e.g. actor groups, knowledge systems and social memory); and social networks serve as the web that ties together the adaptive governance system (Gunderson and Light 2006, Chaffin and Gunderson 2016). It involves cross-level and cross-scale activities (Janssen and van der Voort 2016) and includes governmental policies that encourage creativity and experimentation with different tools, methods, and approaches.

Rumore and Susskind (2013) introduce the concept of role-playing simulations for adaptive planning. However, while not specifically designed for adaptive governance, several of the functions of games as described by Mayer et al (2004) can be related to adaptive governance. Democratisation or equal access for all participants links closely with Sharma-Wallace et al's (2018) cross-scale multi-actor collaboration element, which emphasises incorporating a large range and diversity of stakeholders (participants). Mediation and the development of methods for conflict resolution can also be related to adaptive governance through the element of social capital, where stakeholders negotiate initial disagreements or conflict, and over the longer term, go on to develop working relationships. Finally, we note Mayer et al's (2004) design and recommendation, which is described as 'out of the box' thinking and delivering solutions, links well to cross-scalar and multi-actor collaboration, where the results of the collaboration process are fed back into official policy and practice.

The characteristics of robust SGs; relationship with the real world, having purpose and value, and being engaging and enjoyable for players (Harteveld 2011) and those described by ProActive (2009) in table 1 also link to Sharma-Wallace et al (2018)'s elements of adaptive governance.

Finally, Simons and Ruijters (2008) and ProActive (2009) suggest there are five metaphors for learning, where four can contribute to adaptive governance. Learning by doing relates to capacity development, participation and social concepts of learning relates to cross-scale multi-actor collaboration, discovery or transformative actions through engagement relates to community empowerment and engagement, and transfer of information can be linked to linking science and decision-making through data collection and monitoring. All of the metaphors for learning can be related to capacity development.

By focusing on role-playing SGs (RPGs)—in which individual players assume a different identity for the purposes of the game—the following review seeks to gain insight into the degree to which RPGs can.... Furthermore, the review focuses on RPGs as a subset of SGs, for their potential replicability in remote areas. While advances in computer simulations for SGs are welcomed, their suitability is limited in areas with poor telecommunications infrastructure, including some rural regions in developed countries and many developing country contexts, especially those that are data or bandwidth poor. As such, the review is broadly applicable to other remote or less developed regions, and relevant for nearly all complex environmental issues in crossing decision-making domains between community and other higher levels.

To assess the literature on function, use and potential of RPGs for resource management, a systematic review methodology was used. Systematic review provides a structured process for the collection and analysis of knowledge. Transparency and documentation allows for data validation and replication, while the typically large scope of the review helps generate new insight across existing work (Petticrew and Roberts 2006, Higgins and Green 2008, Booth et al 2016).

We followed a multi-step systematic review process, including development and documentation of the research question and research protocol, progressive literature search and refinement phases and data extraction, synthesis and analysis (Khan et al 2003, Higgins and Green 2008). Table 2 outlines the inclusion and exclusion criteria applied during the literature search and refinement stages of the review.

A preliminary search of the literature on game-based scenarios returned many education-focused results on 'game-based learning'. Based on terminology found in previous studies on scenarios and natural resource management (see Castella et al 2005), we expanded our search terms for the review to include: simulation gaming and multi-agent modelling; RPGs; multi-agent simulations; multi-agent system simulations; gaming simulation; game-based learning; and structured game-based training. The filter term 'and natural resources' was added to all keyword searches. Following the initial searches, we added the term 'SGs' and 'natural resources' due to its repeated appearance in the literature. We searched the Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, Google Scholar and Google Web databases and screened results for relevance on the keyword, title, abstract and full text level according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria (table 2). If the search terms were present in any of the search fields, we included the result in the initial phase of literature collection (table 3, Phase 1). Our literature database included the full bibliographic citation information for each search result and was screened to remove exact duplicates (table 3, Phase 2). After inclusion/exclusion screening was completed, our final body of literature included 147 studies on game-based scenarios and natural resource management (table 3, Phase 3).

Following a scan of the 147 systematic search results, we discovered that many of the articles located in our search reported the same or slightly different aspects of the same overall projects in which a RPG was embedded. From the scan of each article, the RPG was determined to be a 'constant', and thus, no new data about the game itself was presented in the multiple articles. As a result, only one or two papers from the same project were selected to provide the greatest 'coverage' of RPGs in natural resource management contexts where the RPG aspects remained constant while other data or methods were explored. In addition, the criteria for the type of papers to be reviewed were tightened, eliminating theses, working papers and most reports. Only peer-reviewed journal and conference papers were included in the final review. Some exceptions to these more stringent requirements included those papers that already had data extracted, and the few papers that provided an actual RPG, along with some information on its creation and/or deployment (see Emerson et al 1999, Barrett et al 2003, Walsh et al 2014). Fifty-two cases were included in the final review (table 3, Phase 4).

Table 4 summarises the categories used in the data extraction, organisation and analysis stage of the literature review. Data extraction methods followed the general systematic review template. We extracted, organised and analysed data from the final body of literature based on a series of data variables chosen for their correspondence to the research questions and foci. Manual coding, synthesis and analysis drew from these categories to emphasise mechanics of game purpose, design, execution, and evaluation and internal and external factors for success or failure. Knowledge gaps and lessons for practice within the context of the research programme were also identified.

Each of the papers were searched for key terms distilled from Sharma-Wallace et al (2018), and the text scanned for further details to determine whether the games and their outcomes corresponded to the intent of one or more of the elements of adaptive governance. Table 5 shows the elements and the key words.

The following discussion, review and analysis is based on an examination of 52 papers on RPGs that have been applied to one or more aspects of natural resources management. An additional five papers on role-play simulations were also included. Of these, 39 were situated in developing countries and seven in developed countries. Three papers provided general overviews of RPGs, while the rest were focused at the international scale.

The demographic context for game design and play varied across the reviewed cases with a few major points of commonality. While the games targeted diverse sectors, agriculture and water management were predominant and frequently linked (Farolfi et al 2004, Rajabu 2007, Souchère et al 2010). Most of the games were designed and implemented in local or regional contexts in the global south, usually at the community or catchment level. Twenty of the papers related to games played to assist natural resource management at the local level, 23 at the regional level, and four at the international level. Of these international games, two were truly international, while the other two were played at the local/regional level and incorporated international components (e.g. international relations and trade). Generally these papers reported on games that had been played in a rural or peri-urban setting. The focus on the local scale potentially reflects the short-term fixed nature and livelihood dimensions of natural resource management, where regardless of the scale of governance, practice and outcome is enacted and experienced on-the-ground first. The majority of games nevertheless accounted for the multiple parties implicated in natural resource issues, with most designed around a particular collective environmental conflict or coordination problem. The range of game participants subsequently included a variety of community-level actors with some stake, agency, and pre-existing role in natural resource practice and outcomes such as farmers, landowners, municipal government officials and planners.

With respect to games' purpose, the papers reviewed included one RPG for each of climate change and natural hazards/disasters, two for forestry, and three generally relating to natural resource management. Two games were purely for educational purposes within a resource management context. Five papers had a conservation focus. The highest number of games was focused on water management (15 papers) and agriculture (16 papers). Several papers provided general details of role-playing and triadic design games (games which balance reality, meaning and play—see Harteveld 2011), without the natural resources context. This mix of foci provide a variety of perspectives, designs and methods for creating RPGs that can be adapted or customised to deprived areas in developed countries and other adaptive governance contexts.

In practical terms, we found that the RPGs in the review were generally designed to advance sustainable solutions to complex natural resource management and common-pool resource problems. This is in line with the stated goals of adaptive governance, to provide collaborative, flexible and learning-based approaches to wicked or complex problems (Olsson et al 2006). These might include protracted or emerging stakeholder conflict over resource use, such as tensions between methods of use and distribution of benefits (Etienne 2003, Dung et al 2009, Hertzog et al 2014). Problems may also involve overuse or mismanagement of resources, leading to environmental degradation. Examples include encroachment of farmland into areas of ecological significance or intensive agricultural practices contributing to soil erosion and runoff risk (Souchère et al 2010, Vieira Pak and Castillo Brieva 2010, Gourmelon et al 2013, Villamor and Badmos 2016). In all instances, the games we reviewed sought an acceptable balance or compromise in the form of conflict resolution between competing stakeholders or consensus between environmental protection and community livelihoods.

The following discusses results in more detail, focusing on the links between RPGs and adaptive governance, and evaluation of learning outcomes. A brief overview is next, we then identify and discuss examples of RPGs and their contribution to the following elements of adaptive governance: cross-scale interactions, social capital, community empowerment and engagement, capacity development, monitoring and evaluation, and social-ecological context. The approach is designed to examine RPGs from purpose to design, actual games and each evaluation phase as they relate to adaptive governance.

4.1. Games and adaptive governance

4.2. Impacts of game play and adaptive governance

5.1. Games as a tool for adaptive governance

5.2. Research gaps and areas for further study

Our review of RPGs in the natural resource sector suggests that games can be a productive way to engage stakeholders and improve environmental outcomes across cases, contexts and sectors. In particular, RPGs have broad potential to complement and strengthen adaptive governance approaches to environmental problem solving. As a social learning platform, RPGs may help establish and nurture the human relationships, trust, capacity and connections required to address the long timescales and uncertainty associated with complex environmental issues (Dietz et al 2003, Walker et al 2004, Folke et al 2005). Social learning is thus highly complementary to the principles of adaptive governance, through building capacity and connections between stakeholders, amongst other elements, to address complex, environmental issues. While RPGs are seldom seen as a tool for adaptive governance (Sharma-Wallace et al 2018), they represent an innovative way of advancing more holistic and context-sensitive decision-making practices.

Our review also highlights the adaptability and scalability of RPGs, and their potential application in a wide variety of contexts, situations and scales. RPGs can be designed for, and implemented across, disciplines, skills, backgrounds, positions and many other 'demographic' factors. The ability of researchers to incorporate interdisciplinary thinking into game development enriches the gaming experience for both participants and the researchers. Incorporating players from a wide range of personal and professional backgrounds—those that are most obviously relevant for the situation, but also those that may not be immediately seen as relevant—enhances the players' experience as well as the data and information that emerges from playing the game. This is particularly valuable where there are complex, multi-dimensional problems. This potentially allows us to create an RPG that can be played with community members and others to assist in community-level decision-making.

Nevertheless, the review does highlight some important gaps in the RPG literature, for example, we find limited evidence of games that bridge community—and higher-level decision-making scales. Purposeful RPG design may be useful in this regard and will require outcomes and purposes to be clearly defined from the initial design stages. We also note limited application of RPGs played for community decision-making outcomes (see Adamatti 2009), even though there is a significant need for decision-making tools to address complex problems involving multiple stakeholders and scales. While the review advances a foundation upon which future researchers or communities will be able to use RPGs at the community decision-making level (between individual landowners and the policy level), further research is needed to fully realise RPGs' potential in this area. As a first step, considering other literature (i.e. around simulation, conflict resolution and organisational change) into the theory behind game development and execution may provide rich exploratory pathways for better integration of community and policy scales into RPGs.

In this light, RPGs are best seen as a useful tool in the adaptive governance toolbox, which can contribute to robust environmental outcomes when used progressively and/or in combination with other management applications. SGs and RPG are an effective way to trial innovative decision-making, assess the consequences of management actions and adapt thinking without real-world consequences in the context of environmental decision-making. By providing participants and players with the opportunity to assume other roles, game play enhances and enables social learning. Such safe innovation spaces can help advance effective environmental decision-making to resolve intractable problems, removing the risks otherwise associated with decisions, to allow for greater experimentation and flexibility (Geels 2011), and accelerate progress towards adaptive governance solutions.

Research was funded by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) Contract C04X1502 'Weaving the Korowai of Papatūānuku—Adaptive Governance and Supported Environmental Decision-making. Peter Edwards and Nicholas A Cradock-Henry were supported in part by funding from the Resilience to Nature's Challenges National Science Challenge—Rural Program and the Natural Hazards Research Platform. We would also like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback.

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.