At the science - policy interface there are several reasons to combine models with the participatory process to facilitate the complex policy making process but the communication of the two sides is often too hard to generate any meaningful results. In this paper we argue that to close the communication gap the rationale of the Meta - rule of complex policy making needs to be comprehended and coped with. Gaming as a participatory method can be used to organize the combined process. Through the literature review we summarize the principles of gaming and use them to analyze an empirical case where stakeholders participated in a water policy making process. A computer model called the Planning Kit Blokkendoos (PKB, in English: Box of Blocks) was used here to support the participatory process and is claimed to have had a marked impact on the complex policy making process. We conclude that the PKB tool provided the stakeholders with significant 'room to play' with the various policy alternatives and interweaved with the policy process.
DOCUMENT
Cities are becoming increasingly vulnerable to climate change, and there is an urgent need to make them more resilient. The Climatescan adaptation tool www.climatescan.nl is applied as an interactive tool for knowledge exchange and raising awareness on Nature-Bases Solutions (NBS) targeting young professionals in ClimateCafes. Climatescan is a citizen science tool created through ‘learning by doing’, which is interactive, open source, and provide more detailed information on Best Management Practices (BMPs) as: exact location, website links, free photo and film material. BMPs related to Innovations for Climatic Events (INXCES) as stormwater infiltration by swales, raingardens, water squares, green roofs subsurface infiltration are mapped and published on social media. Climatescan is in continuous development as more data is uploaded by over 250 people around the world, and improvements are made to respond to feedback from users. In an early stage of the international knowledge exchange tool Climatescan, the tool was evaluated by semi-structured interviews in theClimatescan community with the following result: stakeholders demand tools that are interactive, open source, and provide more detailed information (location, free photo and film material). In 2016 Climatescan (first stage of INXCES) was turned into an APP and within two years the tool had over10,000 users and more than 3,000 international projects. More than 60% of the users are younger than 34 and 51% of users are female, resulting in engagement with an important target group: young professionals. The tool is applied in Climatecafe.nl around the world (The Netherlands, Sweden, Philippines, Indonesia, South Africa) where in a short period of time stakeholders in triple helix context (academia, public and private sector) work on climate related challenges and exchange their knowledge in a café setting. Climatescan has also been used in other water challenges with young professionals such as the Hanseatic Water City Challenge and Wetskills. During the INXCES project over 1000 BMPs related to Innovations for Climatic Events (INXCES) are mapped inall partner countries (figure 1). The points of interest vary from just a location with a short description to a full uploaded project with location, description and summary, photos and videos, presentations, links to websites with more information and scientific papers and books (as Bryggen in Norway: https://www.climatescan.nl/projects/16/detail ).
DOCUMENT
How do policy analysts perceive the various roles that Models, Simulations and Games (MSG) have, or can have in Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)? Fifty-five policy analysts in water management in The Netherlands and China were interviewed, following the procedure of the Q-method. Comparative analysis of the combined quantitative and qualitative data show that: (1) The debate on the role of MSG for IWRM is structured around five frames in The Netherlands and three frames in China. (2) The frames in The Netherlands and China are significantly different. (3) In China, there is a predominant frame that perceives MSG for IWRM as data driven simulation technology for rationalization of water management, which is less significant in The Netherlands. (4) The reverse is true with regard to MSG for stakeholder interaction, learning and integrated assessment, which are significant frames in The Netherlands, but not in China. The conclusion is that frame differences can easily confuse professional and academic debate about MSG for water management; within the same institutional and cultural context, but even more so in Netherlands-China co-operation projects. Frames are also relevant when designing, using or evaluating innovative methods for integrated water resources management.
DOCUMENT
