Gaming the future of an urban network

Futures 36 (2004) 311–333www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

Gaming the future of an urban network

Igor S. Mayera,∗, Linda Cartona, Martin de Jonga,Martijn Leijten a, Ed Dammersb

a Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management (TPM), Technical University of Delft,P.O. Box 5015, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands

b Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research (RPB), P.O. Box 30314, 2500 GH The Hague, TheNetherlands

Abstract

Scenario and gaming techniques have a number of complementary characteristics. In thisarticle, the design and evaluation of a gaming–scenario experiment for the exploration ofdevelopment planning in an urban network in the Netherlands is presented. Two gaming ses-sions were held using two long-term scenarios (2030) as varying contexts. The combinedgaming–scenario approach made it possible to evaluate the impact of external future develop-ments and trends on the administrative and spatial development. Evaluation results of thegaming experiment indicate that the gaming–scenario approach generated new and criticalinsights on development planning and the future of the urban network. Through the game, theprincipal, the game leaders but most of all the stakeholder-participants experienced and realizedthat the management of development planning in urban networks is a very difficult task andis full of pitfalls. 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

1.1. Development planning

In a thriving, densely populated and urbanized country like the Netherlands, spaceis at a premium. At the same time, due to the rise in prosperity and the increasing

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.:+31-15-2787185; fax:+31-15-2786439.E-mail address: [email protected] (I.S. Mayer).

0016-3287/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00159-9

312 I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

tendency towards individualization, private citizens and businesses are nowdemanding more spatial quality and greater levels of sustainability. In the view ofmany spatial planners and members of the public, large parts of the Netherlandshave already been spoiled by the intensification of ribbon development and businessparks along important motorways and railway lines. In actual practice, the increasingpressure on space and the need for spatial quality are at odds with each other.

Major changes are also taking place on an administrative level. Citizens, busi-nesses and social organizations are becoming more and more vocal and now havemore expertise at their disposal. They are no longer satisfied with public participationin policy after spatial plans have already been practically ratified. They want earlyparticipation so that they can make their objections and wishes known in advance[12,27]. Nowadays, it is not unusual for social groups to come up with their owninitiatives or innovative spatial concepts and ideas for which governments must finda solution [26,28]. In some cases, influential new joint ventures are formed betweenpublic, private and social parties. One such example involves the proposal of theDelta Metropole Association (Vereniging Deltametropool), founded by leading spa-tial planners, local administrators and regional private and public splinter groups, toturn the Randstad conurbation into an urban network of the same name [13,26].

The social and administrative dynamic, and the tension that this creates in relationto spatial quality requirements, is turning into a major challenge for spatial policy.Numerous (Dutch) bodies and policymakers are therefore advocating a spatial devel-opment policy [37] or development planning [35,36]. Instead of resisting activitiespassively and exhibiting too little flexibility, governments must aim at activelyentering into partnerships with other governments, the business sector and socialorganizations. Together, they must develop and realize interrelated, creative con-cepts, projects and programs [3,4,14,15,17,20,23,34,37].

The concept of development planning is worked out in more detail, for example,in a study called Spatial Development Policy carried out by one of the most importantadvisory bodies of the Dutch government, the Advisory Council on GovernmentPolicy [37]. The concept of development planning is also dealt with in the mostrecent government policy document on spatial planning, the Fifth Policy Documenton Spatial Planning [35,36]. The Fifth Policy Document assigns a role not only totraditional admittance planning but also to development planning. According to theMinistry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), developmentplanning requires:

… active intervention by means of investments made by both public and privateparties. The State shall then provide policy frameworks for the investments andharmonize them with each other. This provides scope for the initiatives of lowergovernments, market parties and social organizations and supports them [36: p.41].

Innovation of spatial projects and administrative procedures, a future orientation,the development of integral concepts, stakeholder planning and new ways of public

313I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

private financing and co-operation are some of the relevant characteristics ascribedto development planning [6,14,27].

1.2. An ambiguous concept that needs to be validated

The above description, however, shows that development planning may be aninteresting concept, but it is also very abstract and ambiguous. Moreover, the realquestion is how development planning works in practice and whether it actuallydiffers from admittance planning. How can such notions as stakeholder planning,future orientation and innovation be realized in a region? How do spatial investments,innovation and integral concepts come about? Does development planning reallyresult in spatial and administrative innovation, as one would expect in theory? Onpaper, development planning may look like an interesting concept, but at the sametime it is a concept that has yet to be validated and whose implications are notexactly clear. In fact, nobody really knows what the concept of development planningmeans in actual practice, how it differs from accepted practices, and to what(improved) outcomes it leads as opposed to admittance planning. Moreover, develop-ment planning certainly does not mean the total surrender of control over spatialdevelopment. Other management instruments are also probably necessary, and admit-tance planning and development planning may even complement each other in thisrespect. What is clear, however, is that development planning will have to be tackledby governments and private and social parties on a regional/provincial level.

1.3. Outline

In this article, we will present and discuss a gaming–scenario experimentdeveloped to explore conceptually and actually experience the future of developmentplanning on the level of an urban network. In the following section, we will introducethe combined gaming–scenario approach in greater detail. We will then describe theobjective and background of the so-called Urban Network game and explain howtwo environmental scenarios for spatial development in the Netherlands until 2030were used as starting point and context for two gaming sessions. Next, we willexplain how the game was designed and evaluated and then present and discuss theevaluation results and findings. The article concludes with some points of reflectionon development planning and the methodological approach.

2. Combining gaming and scenarios

2.1. Gaming

Both scenarios and gaming have a well-established tradition in urban and spatialplanning—as well as in many other domains of foresight and decision-making[9,11,22,25]. As is the case with scenarios [32], many authors have tried to capturethe great diversity of gaming in a taxonomy or conceptual framework of game types

314 I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

and functions [16,24,32]. For reasons of focus, we will not try to discuss or(re)structure this great diversity here, but define simulation games as a simplificationand condensation of the real system, allowing participants to experiment safely with(future) decisions and institutional designs and reflect on the outcomes [11,18]. Theseexperiences are relevant for a better understanding of how complex social–techno-logical systems work and how to manage and design them. In games of this type,a relatively large group of people (re)enact a part of reality in order to understand andmanage that part of reality better than they were able to before. This (re)enactment isusually formatted and supported by professional game designers and moderators.

Games used for futuring or strategic policy support are usually very open games,in some cases supported by advanced computer technology such as a systems dynam-ics model or group support systems [1,2,33]. Open games imply that the participantsare, or represent, the real stakeholders and face actual problems, and that the outcomeor message of the game is not predefined but discovered during social interactions[11]. The outcomes of the game are not strictly controlled, but a wide range ofbehavioral patterns may emerge from actor interactions. In other words, participantsare allowed to construe their own game to a certain extent. In our view, games ofthis type can have three main functions [18]:

1. Learning: The games are experiential environments in which participants can learn(about) the system at hand.

2. Research: The games are experimental environments through which researcherscan learn about the system from the interaction between the participants and theinteraction between participants and (computer) models.

3. Intervention: The games are experimental environments in which both researchersand participants can make conceptual and instrumental inferences for realdecision-making and policymaking.

2.2. Combining gaming and scenarios

Scenario and gaming techniques have a number of interesting complementarycharacteristics. Both methods root in a ‘what if…’ type of thinking, but scenariosare largely model based and/or conceptual representations of the future [21], whilegames allow a more experiential and social interactive exploration of the future [10].In a metaphorical and usually also a literal sense, scenarios are (con)‘ texts’ con-structed by analysis and creativity, whereas games are a (re)enacted experience.

A combined use of scenarios and gaming for policy and decision support thereforecould enhance a conceptual and an experiential exploration of the future [8,31].Future scenarios, for instance, can be used as points of reference or context for socialexperimentation in a game [5,8]. Conversely, a gaming experiment can be a usefulstep in the (participatory) development of future scenarios. Games can also be usedto validate or finetune scenarios or draw lessons from them for policy- and decision-making [10,31].

The idea of eclectically combining scenarios and gaming techniques (as well asother techniques) for instance underlies the concept of ‘policy exercises’ [29,30].

315I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

These are rather eclectic combinations of workshops, scenarios, computer simula-tions and gaming techniques. They tend to explore the effects of alternative coursesof action for future problems in a multi-actor environment under conditions of uncer-tainty and risk. Policy exercises explore how ‘ the system’ will behave and howplanned and unplanned strategic actions relate to that behavior.

A combined scenario/gaming approach—similar to the policy exercise—was usedto conceptualize, experience and evaluate the notion of development planning in aregional urban network in the Netherlands. In the next section, we will introducethe case study and show how long-term scenarios (2030) were used as a startingpoint for the gaming experiment [7].

3. Methodology and research approach

3.1. The initiative

One of the aims of the Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research (RPB), estab-lished on 1 January 2002, is to gain a greater insight into a number of spatial conceptsthat are an expression of development planning, such as ‘urban network’ and ‘provin-cial landscape’ . RPB therefore asked the Delft University of Technology to designa game in which the concept of development planning could be tested in a safe butrealistic environment. The game was intended to generate a host of ideas about theway development planning can be implemented and about the impact on developmentplanning of lateral factors such as the economy and the environment. The projectwas also intended to generate ideas for a knowledge agenda—that is, a list of ques-tions for follow-up research. In order to realize these objectives and build a game,the notion of development planning had to made as concrete as possible for a specificregion in the Netherlands. Development planning had to be tried out, however, with-out losing the opportunity for the stakeholder-participants to experiment with it and,if necessary, redefine or critize it. Because the notion of urban networks is stronglyrelated to the concept of development planning, it was decided to try out the experi-ment on the level of an existing urban network—Brabant City.

3.2. Brabant City—an urban network

The specific purpose of the game was defined as “ to examine the effects andconditions of development planning on the level of urban networks” . The Fifth PolicyDocument describes urban networks in the following way:

Urban networks consist of a number of compact larger and smaller cities thathave good links with each other, separated by non-urbanized areas. Urban net-works differ from each other with regard to both size and composition [36: p. 60].

The Brabant City urban network involves a kind of joint venture between theprovince of North Brabant and five large Brabant municipalities (the so-called ‘B5’—

316 I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

Breda, ’s Hertogenbosch (Den Bosch), Eindhoven, Tilburg, Helmond). In 2002, thesecities drew up a joint program consisting of nine projects, for which they appliedfor a subsidy from the national government. The nine projects strengthen the urbannetwork as a whole, for example, through the construction of public transport links,or they strengthen individual cities but not at the expense of other cities, for example,by developing railway station areas. However, the real question is what will happenwhen hard choices and considerations have to be made whereby not all of the citiescan be equally successful. For example, in the Brabant City context, how is thedevelopment location chosen for a mega-project such as a transshipment center ora large theatre? This means that urban networks such as Brabant City will have towork not only on spatial innovation but also on administrative innovation.

Implementation of the Brabant City initiative is therefore more complex and moredifficult to control than initially appears. Firstly, there is competition and rivalrybetween the cities, which are always competing with each other to attract investmentsand projects. Secondly, within the Brabant City network, there are also joint venturesbetween one of the large cities and nearby small municipalities. These smaller jointventures can affect the large Brabant City network. For the province of North Brab-ant, the game was a good opportunity to experiment with administrative and spatialdevelopment in the context of the Brabant City urban network.

3.3. Questions and objectives of the game

The Urban Network game therefore had a number of objectives and questions forthe Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research and for the urban network BrabantCity—a mixture of research, learning and intervention objectives [18]. The mainobjectives of the game experiment were to:

1. gain insight into the concrete opportunities and threats as well as the success andfailure factors of development planning in the long run;

2. generate innovative spatial ideas and projects for Brabant City 2030;3. provide a ‘ rehearsal space’ for (new) administrative formats for Brabant City

2030.

To achieve these objectives, the following questions were of primary importance:

1. In what way and in what direction can Brabant City further develop administrat-ively and spatially as a network city?

2. To what extent does that development depend on lateral factors such as theenvironment, the economy and Europe?

3. To what extent and in what way can the spatial development of Brabant City bedesigned, managed and facilitated?

4. To what extent do those spatial and administrative innovations lead to the realiz-ation and greater understanding of the planning process and the concept of devel-opment planning?

317I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

3.4. The gaming experiments

The so-called Urban Network game was played twice, on 14 November and 10December 2002. The gaming sessions lasted a full day and took place in the businesslounge of a large football club in the region. In fact, from the windows of the hallthe game participants had a fine view of a real playing field.

The two sessions had a similar structure, but the participants had to play withintwo different long-term scenarios (see below). This made it possible to evaluate theimpact of lateral developments on development planning and on the administrativeand spatial development of Brabant City. Around 50 representatives of all relevantadministrative, private and social parties participated in each session: representativesof the five large Brabant municipalities and several small municipalities, the prov-ince, project developers, Ministries, social groups such as the environmental move-ment and council for the disabled and transport companies. A large number of parti-cipants took part on both days, so the two sessions also involved a learning curve.The participants played various roles in teams of two to four persons—roles thatwere similar to their positions in real life. During the Urban Network game, parti-cipants developed a large number of innovative spatial designs and projects for Brab-ant up to the year 2030 and placed those projects on a large block map after con-sulting and negotiating with other parties. The Brabant City joint venture attemptedto manage the administrative and spatial development that resulted.

3.5. Evaluation approach

The game experiment was evaluated on the following points:

� The content-related innovation of the spatial projects: are the players capable ofdevising and realizing innovative and future-oriented projects in the context ofBrabant City?

� The progress of the administrative processes: are the players capable, in the con-text of Brabant City, of bringing about administrative innovation whereby parti-cular attention is paid to investments, process management and strategic frame-works?

The progress of the game and the results were evaluated in various ways:

� Observations. The progress of both sessions—what was said and done—wasrecorded by four observers;

� Photographs, sketches, documents and maps. Photographs and documents madeduring the game—such as concept forms, completed project proposals, (rough)sketches and maps—were used to reconstruct the progress of the sessions andthe results.

� Interim evaluations and debriefing. During each gaming session, interim evalu-ation moments were inserted to facilitate a plenary discussion about the course

318 I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

and the results. At the end of the game, a comprehensive content-related debriefingwas held.

� Evaluation form. At the end of the game, the participants completed an evaluationform. The question mainly focused on the participants’ level of satisfaction andtheir opinions on the way the game was organized, the use of maps and the out-comes for development planning and Brabant City. Participants were asked toreturn the forms after the end of the game, and the response level was approxi-mately 50%.

� Interviews after the game. After each day, telephone interviews were held aboutthe course of the game and the results.

� Interim measurements of the administrative process. The progress of the experi-ment with development planning in Brabant City was measured at the start ofeach gaming session, at lunchtime and at the end of the day. Using eight dimen-sions, the participants were asked for their evaluation of the administrative andspatial process, expressed on a scale of 1 to 10. The response level for all measure-ments was around 90%. Textbox 1 presents a short summary of the eight dimen-sions associated with development planning—such as stakeholder support, inno-vation, future orientation, etc.—that were used to measure the participants’opinion about the course of development in Brabant City during the game.

Textbox 1. Dimensions of development planning in the simul-ation game

How does the administrative and spatial development evolve untilnow? Indicate your opinion on the following characteristics (scale1–10; three repeated measurements during the game).

1. ‘Viscous’ versus decisive2. Conservative versus innovative3. Out of control versus well managed4. Short-term thinking versus long-term thinking5. Disjointed versus integral consideration6. Every man for himself versus co-operation7. Closed process versus open process8. Opposition versus support

4. Scenarios as experimental context for the game

The Urban Network game was developed and played within two contrasting long-term context scenarios that the Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research haddeveloped beforehand: (1) Brabant Production Space; and (2) Brabant Aesthetical

319I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

Space [7] The Brabant Production Space scenario functioned as the input and back-ground for the Urban Network game held on 14 November 2002. The Brabant Aes-thetical Space scenario was used in a comparable way for the gaming session heldon 10 December 2002. Fig. 1 gives a ‘quick draw’ artist impression of the mobilitytrend in each of the two scenarios.

In concrete terms, this means that participants had to define innovative plans andprojects that matched the various trends, futuristic views and preconditions as formu-lated in the Production Space scenario (during the first gaming session) or for theAesthetical Space scenario (during the second gaming session).

The environmental scenarios Brabant Production Space and Brabant AestheticalSpace outline the effects of a number of mega-trends for the province of NorthBrabant. Mega-trends are developments in economic, technological, socio-culturaland other areas that fundamentally change society and physical space in the longrun [19]. The scenarios look ahead to the year 2030 and explore the effects of thesemega-trends on infrastructure, housing, work, traffic, agriculture, nature, recreationand water. The scenarios also include prognoses on development trends, such as thehomes and business parks required for Brabant 2030. They therefore formulated thechallenges facing Brabant City. In the scenarios, development of the urban networkwould have to be successful in order to compete with other urban networks in theNetherlands and with large cities in Europe. The most important differences betweenthe two scenarios are summarized in Table 1.

Prior to the game, participants were asked to carefully read the relevant ProductionSpace scenario or Aesthetical Space scenario. To make the scenario more real forthe participants, they were asked to think of some innovative projects that werecompatible with this scenario.

The two scenarios Production Space and Aesthetical Space were illustrated oncolored wallboards in the hall. These wallboards indicated the most important trendsfor each scenario with one-liners, graphs and photographs.

Other maps indicated how Brabant would look in 2020 on the basis of existingplans and an unchanged policy. Needless to say, participants could deviate fromthese existing plans during the game. To enable the participants to really get a ‘ feel’for the scenarios, two professional actors introduced the scenario before the gamebegan.

Fig. 1. ‘Quick draw’ artist impression of the scenarios.

320 I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

Table 1Comparison of the scenarios

Production Space Aesthetical Space

Major economic growth: significant growth of the Low(er) economic growth: the ‘sensible economy’knowledge and innovation economy. comes into its own.Regional policy is of little consequence: policy is Regional policy is of major consequence: policy isdetermined at global and local level. determined by governments on all scale levels.Economy takes precedence over the environment: The environment takes precedence over thespace and the environment are at the service of economy: space and the environment define theprosperity. conditions for prosperity.Nature and agriculture are becoming outmoded; A lot of attention to nature and landscape; farmerscattle farming makes way for knowledge-intensive become green entrepreneurs.agricultural businesses.The housing market and the demand for business People want to live in green areas; demand forlocations grow significantly. business locations mainly focused on quality.Repressive water management: flooding controlled Land and water management integrated: water isby technical measures. the most important landscape element.Transport by road and air on the increase. Rail, water and underground transport increase the

most.

5. Outline of the game

5.1. Previous history—November 2004

The previous history—or game scenario—presented to the participants during theintroduction to the game was largely in keeping with reality. In order to highlightcertain areas of tension in the game, however, an imaginary leap in time was madefrom 2002 to 2004. In the gaming scenario and during the introduction, the parti-cipants were told that in 2002 the five major Brabant cities of Breda, Tilburg, DenBosch, Eindhoven and Helmond and the province of North Brabant had approvedthe Brabant City program, with which they hoped to realize their joint ambitions(Fig. 2 gives a ‘quick draw’ artist impression of the Urban Network challenge forthe two different scenarios). The participants were given information about the actual

321I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

Fig. 2. ‘Quick draw’ artist impression of the Urban Network challenge.

Brabant City program and short descriptions of the currently formulated projects inthe real Brabant City program, including:

� The development of railway stations and rail zones in a number of cities;� The development of a multimodal complex;� The construction of an urban traffic intersection;� Shuttles for the high-speed train.

During the introduction to the game, the participants were told that almost nothingof this Brabant City program from 2002 had yet been realized by the year 2004.The parties involved had set up the Brabant City Bureau, however. The five citiesand the province have agreed that this bureau must mainly act as a motivating forceand process manager for innovative projects that are clearly of joint interest to Brab-ant City. It mainly involves large-scale and ambitious projects, so-called key projects.These are valuable projects that would never get off the ground without vision,harmonization and firm management among the provincial government and the fivelarge Brabant cities.

In the narrative of the history between 2002 and 2004, the participants were toldthat the Brabant City Bureau also called in the services of the (fictitious) bureauFuturewatch, which is internationally renowned in the field of research into futuredevelopments and trend analysis. Futurewatch was asked to paint a reliable pictureof a number of important external trends and developments—technological, adminis-trative and international—and to show how they would affect Brabant (City). TheBrabant City Bureau recently approved the definitive text of the Futurewatch report.Now, at the start of the game, the report must be translated into activities. Needlessto say, the Futurewatch trend report was the Brabant Production Space scenario (on14 November) and Brabant Aesthetical Space scenario (on 10 December).

5.2. Tasks in the game

After the game had been explained and they had received their instructions, allparticipants were given the opportunity to prepare for their roles in the game. This

322 I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

included developing a concept and strategy for their role and explaining it brieflyto the other participants using a slogan.

The participants were then asked to create a ‘new map’ of Brabant City 2030 byconsulting and negotiating with other participants and taking the Futurewatch trendreport into account. The task assigned to the participants was therefore:

Place your own ambitions and your joint ambitions for Brabant 2030 on the map.

A so-called block map was used for this process. This is a 3 × 5 m plasticizedmap of the province of Brabant (scale 1:25,000) which was laid on a 30-cm-highplatform in the middle of the hall. During the game, all projects and plans wereplaced on this map and, where necessary, removed or replaced. This produced anup-to-date map of all projects and plans that had been devised and realized by parti-cipants in various parts of the hall.

The plans that were submitted were placed on the map in the form of symbols:wooden and metal blocks for various types of urbanization, such as high-rise build-ings in city centers, suburban residential areas, greenhouses and the like; transparentcut-out pieces of plastic for such things as nature reserves and water; thread for lineinfrastructure such as roads and rail links; flags for special projects such as an airportor a theater. The map was accompanied by a legend displaying the meaning of thesymbols. Different plans were identified immediately using different combinationsof colors and flag symbols. Gradually, therefore, projects appeared on or disappearedfrom this block map (Fig. 3).

5.3. Game procedures

The participants negotiated and formed coalitions for projects that fitted the scen-ario, and they tried to obtain financial resources and consent from other players (inthe form of tokens and signatures) for their projects. There were map materials oneach table in the hall on which participants could draw and plan the projects. Duringthe game, the players could call in professional designers to raise projects to a higherplane, to create more cohesion between the projects and to illustrate the projects.The designers could themselves indicate the spatial patterns and opportunities for

Fig. 3. Projects are placed on the block map.

323I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

Brabant, draw maps and integrate the plans of others into area-oriented designsand concepts

Parallel to this process, the Brabant City Contact Group—consisting of five alder-men and a member of the Provincial Executive—and the Brabant City Bureauattempted to give real shape and implementation to the Brabant City urban network.The effects of this would become evident from the appearance of innovative, integrat-ing (key) projects on the map and the distinctive development of the Brabant Cityurban network’s administrative organization and procedures.

Complicated spatial and legal procedures in the game were greatly simplified.Large(r) projects required the approval of parties such as the provincial government,local government, Ministries and/or the Brabant City Bureau and could only be real-ized when enough tokens had been collected. The number of tokens allotted to theparties placed a limit on their ambitions, but lengthy negotiations about money werenot the aim of the game anyway. However, the players received considerably moretokens in the Production Space scenario than in the Aesthetical Space scenario.

For each project to be realized, the applicants compiled a standard project dossier.An expert panel, consisting of four of the game supervisors and the principal, wereresponsible for the logistics related to the approval, funding and realization of pro-jects and for evaluating the physical feasibility of each project. The panel enforcedthe administrative rules that were made by the participants themselves. In addition,the panel periodically provided the players with resources (tokens) that they coulduse to fund their projects, and it also defined the requisite number of tokens for eachproject. The panel also functioned as a bank to which all participants could applyfor the funds they required for their projects. The number of tokens differed for eachscenario (more tokens for Production Space than for Aesthetical Space) and the waythe tokens were distributed among the parties also differed in each case.

The expert panel assigned a number to each of the project dossiers, and the samenumber was attached to the corresponding symbol on the map—for example, a blockor flag. The participants were therefore able to use the numbers of the symbols onthe map to identify and examine the project dossiers of the other teams.

It is important to note that during the game, the participants were allowed tochange the requirements and administrative and planning rules within the game. Infact, this was even one of the important tasks of the Brabant City Bureau. Forexample, the participants could enter into an agreement—a convenant—with certainarrangements; the State could then assume or delegate particular powers, while theBrabant City Bureau was able to obtain formal authority from the cities. By doingthat, the participants were given opportunity to experiment with the general notionsof development planning for their own context.

6. Findings and insights

6.1. Development planning and innovative projects

At the end of the first day on 14 November, there were 41 projects on the blockmap. Examples of projects that fitted the Production Space scenario include: the

324 I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

development of large and smaller business parks, housing projects, the constructionof a large commercial leisure park, the development of public transport intersectionsand the development of a second national airport.

There were a lot fewer projects at the end of the second day—just 12—but theprojects that were realized were larger and more integrated, including water, agri-culture and environmental projects, the establishment of a knowledge center and thedevelopment of a large-scale event center.

Unlike the first day, the projects on the second day were area-oriented and func-tion-oriented combinations of smaller projects. It was striking that in the first gamejust two of the 41 projects could really be seen as key projects that could (only) berealized on the level of the urban network, while on the second day four of the 12projects were key projects. Table 2 illustrates the most important key projects onboth days.

In general, during the Production Space scenario, people preferred to realize theirown projects rather than focus on harmonization and cohesion. Because of this, theblock map on the first day was mainly a patchwork quilt of many different unre-lated projects.

In the first Production Space scenario, as expected, the types of projects weremuch more urbanized (red), and on the second day, in the Aesthetical Space scenario,they involved much more nature (green). However, on both days, participants alsodeveloped projects that were ‘against the flow’ . For example, in the Production Spacescenario, a large financial fund for environmental management was set up, mainlythanks to the efforts of the National Forest Service, which continued to protect theinterests of the natural surroundings despite the difficult circumstances of ProductionSpace. In the Aesthetical Space scenario, a large number of residential developmentsand business parks were constructed—for example, to fund restructuring projectsand green projects. This implies the presence of balanced reactions in the plan-ning system.

6.2. Development planning and administrative innovation

The first and universally shared reaction after the end of both simulation days wasthat the game was a very realistic reflection of reality (Fig. 4). The chairperson ofthe Brabant City Bureau:

In just one day, I experienced what I have been going through in reality for thepast two years with my work for Brabant City. This has certainly opened my eyes.

Many participants cited the high speed at which the projects came about withouttheir involvement as an important factor for the uncomfortable situation in whichthey found themselves. While they were trying to develop a good spatial concept,they felt they were being continually overtaken by the progressive processes ofothers. One participant aptly compared the game to a pressure cooker, with the effectgreatly magnified.

The designers—who could be hired to design projects—felt the least satisfied with

325I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

Tab

le2

Key

proj

ects

onth

ele

vel

ofB

raba

ntC

ity

Day

1:Pr

oduc

tion

Spac

eD

ay2:

Aes

thet

ical

Spac

e

Publ

ictr

ansp

ort

netw

ork

Bra

bant

City

:st

reng

then

ing

the

rail

Bra

bant

wat

erne

twor

k:a

netw

ork

for

good

str

affic

byw

ater

,w

here

the

Bra

bant

busi

ness

netw

ork

with

extr

atr

acks

and

stat

ions

join

ing

the

park

sar

ere

stru

ctur

edan

dop

ened

upth

roug

hth

eB

raba

ntca

nals

.R

otte

rdam

–Par

isH

SLlin

kat

Bre

da.

Ave

nue

A2:

new

urba

nce

nter

inD

enB

osch

inth

efin

anci

al,

InG

allo

p:th

ecr

eatio

nof

a‘B

raba

ntm

yth’

bypr

omot

ing

adi

stin

ctna

tiona

lan

dba

nkin

gan

dle

gal

field

s.T

his

cent

eris

loca

ted

atth

ein

tern

atio

nal

profi

lefo

rth

eex

istin

gto

pho

rse

bree

ders

,ri

ding

scho

ols,

etc.

and

expa

ndin

gin

ters

ectio

nof

a(p

artia

llyco

vere

d)ra

illin

kan

dm

otor

way

.th

eex

istin

gB

raba

ntH

alls

totu

rnth

emin

toth

eSo

uthe

rnN

ethe

rlan

dsev

ent

cent

er.

Inte

rsec

tion

Ein

dhov

en(T

heW

eb):

the

deve

lopm

ent

ofth

ear

eaar

ound

the

airp

ort

atE

indh

oven

into

am

ultim

odal

inte

rsec

tion

with

inte

nsiv

ean

dm

ixed

resi

dent

ial

and

wor

kfu

nctio

ns.

Wat

erpo

rt:

inve

stm

ent

inre

crea

tion

and

natu

recl

ose

toth

eci

ties,

com

bine

dw

ithin

tegr

alw

ater

man

agem

ent

for

all

the

wat

erw

ays

(wat

erco

urse

san

dri

vers

)in

Bra

bant

.

326 I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

Fig. 4. Brabant City in session.

their role in the game. If given the choice, they would have preferred to design theirbeautiful, innovative and integral spatial concept ‘on the drawing board’ . However,in practice, just as sometimes in reality, they were reduced to ‘ image reproducers’of the ideas of others.

During both simulation days, the strategic tactics of some people were very notice-able. For example, several players cleverly used the rudimentary projects-in-progressto their own advantage. The project developers, in particular, were able to persuademany parties to place projects on the map. The small municipalities, in particular,were quick to turn to the project developers for advice, money and help to realizetheir projects. However, while all of this was happening, the administrative represen-tatives and process managers of Brabant City were virtually invisible. During theinterim evaluation on 14 November, one project developer remarked:

I didn’ t even know that the game was really about them.

The Brabant City administrators and process managers were very inward-looking.The competitiveness between the Brabant City cities and the occasional insularitythat cropped up led to hold-ups and an element of sluggishness in the decision-making process. The main debating point was the distribution of financial costs andbenefits among the municipalities. Complicated constructions were devised to regu-late funding and distribute the resources, but particularly to ensure that none of theparties paid too much or received too little. In the meantime, the administrators werenot available for other tasks and were therefore inaccessible to other parties. In thisregard, one of the project developers remarked:

Our projects, our management is different to that in their world (theadministrators). When we want to talk to them they have no time, even thoughour projects tie in with their network city.

327I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

One unexpected outcome was that due to the flourishing economic situation inthe Production Space scenario, there were more than enough financial resources togo round. As a result, the private parties and individual municipalities were able tolargely realize their own ambitions in spite of Brabant City. Some small munici-palities and project developers in particular availed of the opportunity with openarms and displayed great resolve and decisiveness in realizing innovative projects.The representatives of the State were ignored increasingly, often due to the bureau’slack of initiative and their failure to manage Brabant City. The Brabant City Bureauwas excluded more and more from the game until it was virtually ignored duringthe final stages of the first day and no longer played any kind of significant role.

Consequently, one of the recommendations of the participants at the end of theday was that, in reality, Brabant City should only focus on a very limited numberof special projects. The participants seemed to agree with the principle of subsidiar-ity: organize locally what can be done locally. They also denounced any attemptsto reach a broad and sweeping consensus, a leftover from the Dutch administrativetradition called ‘polder model’ .

In the time available between the two simulation days, the team, RPB and thecontact persons of the provincial government comprehensively evaluated the admin-istrative impasse to which development planning can lead. Together, they devised anumber of new strategies so that more administrative innovation could be realizedon the second day. Brabant City Bureau would place less emphasis on financialresources, pay more attention to process management rather than content, contributemore to the collective development of concepts by initiating co-desiging and manag-ing a regional development fund, be more visible, and more emphatically focus onexternal parties such as project developers and small municipalities. On 10December, this new strategy worked initially, but then the same pattern as beforegradually appeared. Again, one of the participants remarked:

They’ re still so busy talking with each other that all I can see in the game is theirbacks. But that’s the kind of inward-looking administrative attitude that you alsocome across in reality.

Brabant City was caught in a vicious circle: no willingness to invest without con-crete projects—no projects without concept—no concept without willingness toinvest. The mutual trust between parties turned out to have a decisive influence on thechoices they made when realizing projects and on their attitude during administrativenegotiations. For example, the small municipalities chose to sell land to projectdevelopers rather than to the large municipalities, which they regarded as a threat.The large municipalities had to play a double role. They were regularly faced withthe choice of going along with all kinds of local initiatives that developed at a fastpace or sticking to the sluggish procedures in the Brabant City urban network.

During the second day, this vicious circle was broken by a subtle maneuver andthe persuasive behavior of the member of the Provincial Executive. To bring thegame a step further, people would have to be prepared to accept the existing conceptand also agree that everybody would invest money. This eventually led, 90 minutes

328 I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

later, to a plenary round of applause for the integrated realization of four large innov-ative projects for Brabant City.

After the second gaming session, the participants observed that the map of BrabantAesthetical Space met their expectations more than at the end of the first gamingsession and that administrative management had made better progress. The parti-cipants also noted, however, that both development planning and Brabant City urbannetwork are very difficult concepts in actual practice. As a regional enterprise, theurban network would particularly have to aim for higher scale levels, such as nationalgovernment and the European Union, but should certainly not to try to organize toomany projects on local and regional levels. Furthermore, the participants observedthat progress and speed were particularly important alongside all-party involvementand funding.

The two sessions of the game, however, did not manage to convince the parti-cipants of the value of development planning or the Brabant City urban network.For that matter, that was never the intended aim of the game. The participants turnedout to be quite critical and dissatisfied about the way the game led to new insightsfor the spatial development of Brabant City according to the principles of develop-ment planning in the Brabant City urban network.

6.3. Interim measurements

The above observations are confirmed by the results of the interim measurementscarried out on both gaming days. The results of the measurement made accordingto the eight dimensions specified in Section 3.5 illustrate a predominantly negativeimage of the way the experiment with development planning in Brabant City pro-gressed. Figs. 5 and 6 display the progress of the scores of the participants (n =35) on the basis of mean scores.

The most important conclusions from these measurements can be summarized asfollows. During the first half of both simulation days, there was a significant drop

Fig. 5. Interim measurements, game 1—Production Space.

329I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

Fig. 6. Interim measurements, game 2—Aesthetical Space.

in the participants’ evaluation of the practical effects of the experiment with develop-ment planning in Brabant. This drop is particularly significant as far as the dimen-sions of decisiveness, management and innovation are concerned. The participants’evaluation of a number of dimensions rose again in the afternoon. During the after-noon of the first gaming session, there was a very significant rise in the participants’evaluation of development planning for the dimensions of decisiveness, support baseand innovation (see Fig. 5). During the afternoon of the second gaming session,these dimensions also rose again, but much less significantly. At the end of thesecond day, cohesion and co-operation scored as badly as ever.

On both days, however, there is an interesting dichotomy in the dimensions fordevelopment planning. This is clearly shown by the results of the measurements atthe end of the first day: a reasonably positive evaluation (mean �5) for the dimen-sions of decisiveness, support base, innovation, future orientation and openness. Thedimensions of co-operation, management and cohesion attain an extremely negativescore (mean �5). On Day 2, the situation is very similar but less pronounced. Here,too, particularly management, cohesion and co-operation attain a low score, butdecisiveness is also unsatisfactory.

The conclusion to be drawn from these results is that on the first day, administrat-ive management and innovation evaporated completely. But because the ProductionSpace scenario exhibited a significant economic development during the first session,giving rise to a huge demand for spatial projects, a relatively large number of projectswere still realized. In other words, admittance planning largely evaporated, develop-ment planning never got off the ground, but significant economic growth meant thatthere was still a proliferation of individual projects. Each of these projects individu-ally was reasonably innovative and creative, but the majority of the participants werenot happy with the final result on the block map. To quote one of the participants,development planning, without management and at a time of major economic growth,led to a ‘depressing result’ in terms of spatial quality.

On Day 2, the desired cohesion, management and co-operation were not achieved

330 I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

at acceptable levels (see Fig. 6), despite the intervention of the game leaders. Partlydue to the Aesthetical Space scenario, in which economic growth was somewhatless and the emphasis on spatial quality and nature was greater, the final result wasexperienced as less depressing, but there were also less decisiveness and spatialinnovation. Because many participants were taking part for the second time and werenot happy about their achievements in the previous gaming–simulation, Day 2involved a learning element. People worked hard to bring about fundamental con-cepts, administrative management and spatial quality. Nevertheless, at the end of theday, people were still not very happy about the way this experiment with develop-ment planning worked out. In other words, with better administrative management—with both admittance planning and development planning—an even better resultmight have been achieved.

7. Conclusion and discussion

The Dutch national government believes that regional public–private joint ventureshave an increasingly important role to play in the development and innovation ofspatial projects, but new administrative and spatial management instruments on aregional level are necessary in order to do this. Evaluation results of the two gamingexperiments with varying long-term context scenarios indicate that the gaming–scen-ario approach was an effective experimental method that generated new and criticalinsights on the future of development planning and urban networks.

The future scenarios proved very effective as context for the game. Moreimportant, they gave the game a long-term future orientation, enhanced creativityand persuaded the participants to step back (for a day) from reality as it is.

The gaming element in addition allowed the participants to actually experimentwith the reality that was presented in the scenarios and interact with other stake-holders. While doing that, the concepts, ambitions and visions of the scenarios, devel-opment planning and urban networks, proved very difficult to realize because of thestrategic dimensions of the Urban Network—i.e. both the ‘ real’ and the ‘simu-lated’ game.

The two gaming sessions played within the two different scenarios enhanced aninteresting learning effect. After the first game, the stakeholder-participants weregiven ‘a second chance’ to realize development planning and the Urban Network.However, with the Urban Network game, the principal, the game leaders but mainlythe participants experienced and realized that the management of development plan-ning and urban networks is a very difficult task and is full of pitfalls. The generalinference to be made from this game is that national governments should be cautiousin propagating the ambiguous concepts of development planning and urban networks.As it is now, the negative aspects of the existing planning procedures are merelycontrasted with the expected positive aspects of the new concept of developmentplanning. A more thoughtful approach would contrast the pros and cons of bothalternatives and than generate a combinatory model that enhances the pros of bothmodels and avoids both their downsides.

331I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

Development planning will probably always function within a framework ofadmittance planning. But while admittance planning is based on formal approval andcan ultimately lead to coercion and sanctions, development planning mainly involvesenticement and therefore positive incentives that ensure that all parties can gain andachieve something. Development planning therefore functions mainly on the basisof ‘soft’ management instruments, such as financial distribution models, the powerof persuasion, arrangements and agreements, the creation of a concept and leadership.To achieve this, quite a profound culture change is necessary among all the partiesinvolved. The game shows that this does not evolve of itself. Particularly, the elementof competition between cities and the distribution of costs and benefits on a regionallevel are barriers that are almost insurmountable. Cities, in particular, tend not to goalong with projects that are directly or indirectly important to them but from whichothers will ultimately gain even more and pay less.

Urban joint ventures will therefore have to be limited to things that really matterand will create a distinct profile for themselves in relation to third parties such asnational government, the European Union, social organizations and private parties.Development planning in an urban network context tends to lead to an inward-look-ing approach on the part of municipalities and provinces. This results in sluggishness,as a result of which private parties and small municipalities, in particular, lose anyenthusiasm they had for the urban network and turn against it. Moreover, withoutgood management and a suitable set of administrative instruments, developmentplanning will not lead to the cohesion and integration of key projects.

One of the positive aspects of development planning is that it can actually leadto innovative projects and decisiveness. On both days, after a lot of consultation andnegotiation, a number of large and reasonably innovative projects got off the ground,and the game definitely produced a large number of innovative ideas, concepts andprojects for Brabant. Furthermore, a lot of new alliances between administrative,private and social parties came about in the game. However, one important peripheralcondition for innovation and decisiveness in development planning is a favorableeconomic climate so that there is sufficient funding and demand for spatial projects.Innovation and decisiveness clearly do not live up to their promise when conditionsare not ideal. For RPB, this justifies launching an international comparative studyinto co-operation between cities in urban networks. Such a study would look at themanagement instruments that are being used to achieve this and at ways of strength-ening the mutual trust between governments. The major challenge for developmentplanning and urban networks is to ensure that support, co-operation and integrationare combined with decisiveness, speed and innovation. However, that appears to bean insurmountable dilemma, because one always seems to happen at the expenseof another.

332 I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Maarten Post, Martijn Mentink, Ine Wouters, MichelReinders of the Province of North Brabant, Johan van der Schuit of the NetherlandsInstitute for Spatial Research, Richard Scalzo, Fernke Verwest, Joost van Kempenand all of the game participants for making the game a success. We thank KoosRosenboom of the Institute for Societal Innovation (IMI) and Bob Ruisendaal fortheir introduction of the scenarios. Cartoons and drawings: Beeldleveranciers (2002).Photographs: Zandee Fotografie.

References

[1] J. Affisco, My experiences with simulation/gaming—5 years further down the road, Simulation andGaming 31 (1) (2000) 42–47.

[2] M. Angelides, R. Paul, A methodology for specific, total role-playing, intelligent gaming–simulationenvironment development, Decision Support Systems 25 (2) (1999) 89–108.

[3] ANWB, Ruimtelijke Ontwikkeling in Nederland: Samen, Anders, Beter, ANWB, The Hague, 2001.[4] AVBB et al., Samen Werken aan de Ruimtelijke Ordening van Nederland, 2001.[5] D. Crookall, K. Arai (Eds.), Simulation and Gaming Across Disciplines and Cultures, Sage, Thou-

sand Oaks, 1995.[6] E. Dammers et al., Innoveren in de Groene Ruimte: Een Verkenning van Methoden, Alterra-rapport

476, Alterra, Wageningen, 2002.[7] E. Dammers, et al., Scene, een Kwartet Ruimtelijk Scenario’s voor Nederland, Nai Uitgevers/RPB,

Rotterdam/The Hague, 2003.[8] A. de Geus, Planning as learning, Harvard Business Review 2 (1988) 70–74.[9] R. Duke, Gaming the Future’s Language, Sage, Beverly Hills, 1974.

[10] R. Duke, The gaming discipline as perceived by the policy and organization sciences, in: J. Geurts(Ed.), Gaming/Simulation of Policy Development and Organizational Change, Tilburg UniversityPress, Tilburg, 1998, pp. 21–27.

[11] R. Duke, A personal perspective on the evolution of gaming, Simulation and Gaming 31 (1) (2000)79–85.

[12] J. Edelenbos, Design and management of participatory public policymaking, Public Management 1(4) (1999) 569–578.

[13] D. Frieling, Deltametropolis/remaking NL, in: RIBA/University of Cambridge Conference, Manches-ter, The Density Debate; Seven Lectures on Urban Settlement Pattern, 2000, pp. 1–9.

[14] P. Healey, New partnerships in planning and implementing future-oriented development in Europeanmetropolitan regions, Informationen zur Raumentwicklung (Information on Spatial Development)11/12 (2000) 745–750.

[15] Interprovinciaal Overleg (IPO), Van Ordenen naar Ontwikkelen; Provincies Investeren in de Kwalit-eit van de Ruimte, Advies van de Ad Hoc IPO-commissie Ruimtelijke Ontwikkelingspolitiek, TheHague, 2001.

[16] J. Klabbers, A user-oriented taxonomy of games and simulations, in: D. Crookall (Ed.), Simulation-gaming in the Late 1980s, Pergamon, Oxford, 1987, pp. 261–276.

[17] R. Lodewijks, et al., Het Metropolitane Debat, Thoth Publishers, Bussum, 1998.[18] I. Mayer, W. Veeneman (Eds.), Games in a World of Infrastructures. Simulation-games for Research,

Learning and Intervention, Eburon, Delft, 2002.[19] J. Naisbitt, Megatrends, Warner Books, New York, 1982.[20] W. Salet, A. Faludi (Eds.), The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning, KNAW, Amsterdam, 1999.[21] P. Schwartz, The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World, Doubleday,

New York, 1991.

333I.S. Mayer et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 311–333

[22] M. Shubik, The Uses and Methods of Gaming, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1975.[23] Sociaal-Economische Raad (SER), Vijfde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening, Advies 01/07, SER, The

Hague, 2001.[24] W. Switalski, Gaming–simulation: an attempt at structural typology, in: D. Crookall (Ed.), Simul-

ation-gaming in the Late 1980s, Pergamon, Oxford, 1987, pp. 277–288.[25] J. Taylor, Instructional Planning Systems; A Gaming–Simulation Approach to Urban Problems,

Cambridge University Press, London, 1971.[26] G. Teisman, De Deltametropool als supernetwerk, Rooilijn 4 (2001) 187.[27] G.R. Teisman, E.H. Klijn, R. Monnikhof, J. Edelenbos, Into the fog, stakeholder input in partici-

patory impact assessment, Impact Assesment and Project Appraisal, Journal of the InternationalAssociation for Impact Assessment 19 (1) (2001) 29–39.

[28] G.R. Teisman, E.H. Klijn, Partnership arrangements: governmental scheme or governance scheme?,Public Administration Review 62 (2) (2002) 197–205.

[29] F. Toth, Policy exercises, the first ten years, in: D. Crookall, K. Arai (Eds.), Simulation and GamingAcross Disciplines and Cultures, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1995, pp. 257–264.

[30] F. Toth, Simulation/gaming for long-term policy problems, in: D. Crookall, K. Arai (Eds.), Simul-ation and Gaming Across Disciplines and Cultures, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1995, pp. 134–142.

[31] S. Underwood, R. Duke, Decisions at the top: gaming as an aid to formulating policy options, in:D. Crookall (Ed.), Simulation-gaming in the Late 1980s, Pergamon, Oxford, 1987, pp. 289–296.

[32] P. van Notten, et al. An updated scenario typology, Futures 35 (5) (2003) 423–443.[33] J. Vennix, Group Model Building, Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics, John Wiley

and Sons, Chichester, 1996.[34] VROM-raad, Kwaliteit in Ontwikkeling, Advies 026, VROM-raad, The Hague, 2001.[35] VROM-RPB, Ruimte Maken, Ruimte Delen; Vijfde Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening, PKB, Deel

1, 2001.[36] VROM-RPB, Ruimte Maken, Ruimte Delen; Vijfde Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening, PKB, Deel

3, 2002.[37] Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR), Ruimtelijke Ontwikkelingspolitiek, Rap-

porten aan de Regering Nr 53, SDU Uitgevers, The Hague, 1998.