Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper assesses the contribution that board games can make as decision support tools to offer stakeholders another option to better navigate the complexity and wicked nature of urban challenges using more novel participatory techniques. Using the example of Birmingham, the design, play and evaluate phases of the ‘Urban Placemakers’ game are described and analysed with respect to synergies between key literatures on games and public participation. Using the Urban Placemakers game in a workshop setting to identify and explore the problems facing urban areas, complements traditional approaches to participation and policy-making, but provides additionality through creating more accessible and enjoyable end-user experiences through which policy-focused research models and supporting outputs can be co-developed with stakeholders. The core ingredients of co-design and co-production within the Urban Placemakers game ensure that academic rigour, policy relevance and pragmatism intersect. This convergence space provides a safe hypothetical fertile space for thinking and deliberation that enables players to discuss ‘wicked’ urban problems outside usual agency restrictions, yielding insights to challenges championing innovation and social learning in a fun setting. Whilst playing the game was an enjoyable experience for the majority of participants, it also helped the research team better understand the urban interdependencies within their own work packages and research and was used to help prioritise a set of indicators to explore and diagnose the problems facing the city of Birmingham. This use of a game board approach was found to be a valuable additional method for engaging with urban problems in innovative ways that were grounded in co-creation, play and fun with a computer nowhere in sight.

Keywords

public participation urban systems urban challenges policy development inclusion diagnostics stakeholder engagement planning

‘Games are frameworks that designers can use to model the complexity of the problems that face the world and make them easier for the players to comprehend’ (Flanagan, 2009:49).

Introduction

Cities are a complex ecosystem of people and grey, green, blue and living infrastructures (Hislop et al., 2019). This complexity includes everything that comes together in urban settings. The interdependencies between these different systems are complex and dynamic and are often neglected in research and policy (Scott et al., 2013). The identification and diagnosis of urban problems and subsequent policy interventions are often undertaken in sectoral and policy silos (Corrigan and Joyce 2000; Harrison et al., 2004; Koch 2013; Leach et al., 2017), potentially leading to ineffective and/or conflicting outcomes (Castells, 2017). Too often problems are defined politically without any wider appreciation of the inherent complexity and ‘wickedness’ of urban challenges; wicked problems are complex social issues that are difficult and perhaps impossible to solve. Policy-makers must be challenged to undertake more holistic diagnostics and interventions based on a better understanding of city system interdependencies, stakeholder/citizen needs and behaviour(s) (Lundström & Mäenpää, 2017; Couch, 2016) involving integration (Ravetz, 2016), innovation (Rogers, 2003) and effective public participation and engagement (De Vente et al., 2016). The context for this paper is urban environment complexity and the need for alternative methodological tools to inform the development of a more holistic appreciation of the challenges facing urban residents and businesses.

A veritable armoury of public participation tools exists (De Vente et al., 2016) but, in practice, lack of resources often results in more passive and tokenistic forms of consultation on policy interventions that have already been developed. Alternatives to existing approaches need to be developed and tested to support and inform policy interventions. One such alternative is the application of board games as a methodological tool for informing understanding of urban problems (Poplin 2012; Robinson et al., 2021).

In this paper, we assess the potential and application of a board game called ‘Urban Placemakers’ as an innovative and deliberative participatory experiment involving citizens, policy-makers and academics working together to contribute to improved understanding(s) of Birmingham’s complex and wicked urban challenges. The central purpose of the game was to collaboratively develop and prioritise a set of indicators that would inform the direction and focus of the research project. Consequently, the outputs helped the prioritisation of indicators from an initial expert-led process for improved urban diagnostics, as well as provided important feedback loops within the wider research project to inform future plans, policies, projects and programmes (PPPPs).

Birmingham is the UK’s second city with a population of 1,144,900 in 2021 which was a 6.7% increase from 2011. The city has a high unemployed rate compared to the UK (7.3% in 2024–25 compared to 3.9%) and is a very multicultural city with ethnic minorities accounting for 51.4% of the city’s population in 2021. This makes Birmingham a super diverse city that continues to experience major social and governance problems combined with austerity. On 22nd July 2014, Sir Albert Bore, then Leader of Birmingham City Council (BCC), together with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, instructed Sir Bob Kerslake to undertake an independent review of the governance and organisational capabilities of BCC with a view to making a series of recommendations for improving efficiency and effectiveness. This report noted that:

‘The council’s financial issues, the poor performance of children's services and the council’s failure to react effectively to the issues in some schools have been well documented. But the challenges go wider. The economy has underperformed. This is a matter of national importance. But it matters most to the people who live in the city’ (Kerslake, 2014:6).

These financial issues intensified and in September 2023, BCC issued a Section 114 notice, or the formal admission that it was unable to balance its books.

First, we explore a social-ecological systems perspective on cities to understand how urban problems can be framed and diagnosed. Second, we review theoretical approaches to public participation and complexity in the context of adopting more deliberative and interactive approaches which provides the context to critically assess the literature on board games. Third, we explore the evolution and development of the Urban Placemakers game and its application to Birmingham including analysing outcomes. Finally, the conclusion assesses the contribution that games in general and Urban Placemakers, in particular, can add to participatory processes and outcomes.

Cities, citizens and public participation

Cities perform multiple functions as spaces for innovation, creativity, globalisation and wealth creation (Ravetz, 2016). They are places for education, work, travel, recreation, heritage and everyday living. Such functions cause conflict and tensions between the kind of city environments people want with multiple competing visions. This makes it difficult for city planners to develop holistic approaches to the challenges they face. Increasingly, cities are disaggregated into sectoral and professional silos resulting in management, co-ordination, control, ownership, regulation and service provision undertaken by multiple public, private and third sector agents (Scott et al., 2013). These silos reflect the professionalisation and specialisation of service functions (housing, waste, planning, social services, etc.) and pose considerable logistical and behavioural challenges for the development of more holistic approaches to optimise ecosystem services benefits and sustainability, resilience and liveability (Tippett et al., 2007).

The social-ecological systems literature considers cities as a plexus consisting of many interdependent systems with multiple complex causal loops (Leach et al., 2017; Ravetz, 2016;). For any policy intervention, it becomes important to understand and identify the essential components of place(s) and the linkages and interdependencies between them that influence, and are influenced, by urban lifestyles, liveability and livelihoods (Allender et al., 2015; Amin and Thrift, 2016; Magnusson, 2012). However, the complex and wicked nature of city challenges requires more innovative approaches to address them (Lönngren and Van Poeck, 2021). Thus we employ a process of urban diagnostics or problem identification that requires public participation, ideally within mixed method applications. Many components of urban living are hidden from public gaze and/or are difficult to measure. This is partly about the quality and temporal lags of available datasets that measure cities as they were, rather than as they are, but also the temptation to value that which is most easily measured (Spash, 2008).

Furthermore, the efficacy of any urban diagnostics process is heavily influenced by the agency(ies) managing the process. Gatekeepers control what constitutes legitimate evidence which then shapes and limits the kinds of interventions that are possible. The nature of the interaction between decision-makers and various publics becomes significant; is it to seek validation of decisions already taken or to input into decisions that are yet to be made or to broaden the nature of the debate?

Three theoretical strands in the public participation literature converge with our concern for more effective citizen and agency participation; rights-based citizenship (e.g. Dagnino, 2003; Kabeer, 2005), communicative action (Habermas, 1987; Healey 1993) and complexity (e.g. Wagenaar, 2007; Lundström and Mäenpää, 2017). All champion the need for involving publics and agencies more directly in policy and decision-making.

Rights-based citizenship stresses the legal, ethical and moral obligation for publics to be involved in decision-making affecting their lives (Ensor et al., 2015). This provides a stronger basis for citizens to make claims on their governments and for holding them to account for their duties to enhance citizen access to policy-making (Connolly et al., 2006; Cornwall and Nyamu-Musembi, 2004; Jones, 2007).

Communicative action theory focuses on optimising the quality of that involvement through positive and deliberative dialogues (Dryzek, 2009). This approach enables publics to engage explicitly with service providers in participatory processes in managed ‘safe spaces', helping to improve the intelligibility, quality, and delivery of policies with a greater sense of ownership (De Vente et al., 2016; Richards et al., 2004). Yet public participation is often framed within a utopian narrative and rarely questioned as a goal in its own right (Beierle and Konisky 2001). Indeed, only a few commentators directly challenge the efficacy of stakeholder and public involvement strategies and how they inhibit policy-making in some circumstances or raise citizen expectations (Bloomfield et al., 2001; Niemeyer and Spash, 2001). Political economy (Adger et al., 2005) and governmentality (Andreucci and Kallis, 2017) perspectives highlight how participation often reinforces existing power relationships and competing scales of decision-making within engagement processes that can be illusory and tokenistic.

Complexity as a theoretical perspective in participation is fuelled through the social-ecological systems literature highlighting that when using expert-led technocentric, reductionist approaches, predictions in complex systems are uncertain and difficult to manage often leading to perverse outcomes. This type of approach is characterised as a tame problem by Lundström et al. (2016) when the problems here are more ‘wicked’. Here wicked relates to city problems which are ill-formulated; where evidence is confusing and contested and where there are multiple stakeholders with conflicting values, which cumulatively increases system uncertainty and instability (Churchman, 1967; Lönngren and Van Poeck, 2021). So, by using more participatory and deliberative approaches, there is increasing interaction within and across complex systems, promoting social learning and feedback potentially delivering improved outcomes (Wagenaar, 2007; Rogers, 2003).

The following key questions arise from this brief overview: (i) What information shapes/drives the public engagement agenda (and from whom)? (ii) Who is allowed to be involved? (iii) When are they involved? (iv) Who is listened to? (v) What information is used? (vi) What is the nature of the interactions between publics and the managing agency(ies) and with what impact? (vii) What are the motives and desired outcomes of participative events?

In many contemporary urban governance arrangements public participation is a statutory requirement for PPPPs. However, regulation does not, in itself, generate good outcomes. For example, participation can be viewed as just another regulatory hurdle to be overcome or box to be ticked rather than as a positive and deliberative process to improve policy outcomes. Expert-led approaches involving usual suspects dominate such processes often excluding other local knowledge(s) and views from hard-to-reach groups (Richards et al., 2004). Furthermore, there are growing concerns that the techniques themselves become the end rather than the means to achieving wider insights and benefits (Cooke and Kothari, 2001). Collectively this critical literature highlights the need to exercise caution in the design, planning, delivery and evaluation of all public participation activities (De Vente et al., 2016).

Playing board games with public participation

Games exist in various shapes, formats and levels of sophistication although they principally revolve around fun, excitement and challenge (Redpath et al., 2018). There are two main discourses positioned around the mechanistic (Janssen et al., 2015) and the experiential interpretations (Killi et al., 2012). To Juul’s (2005: 36) a game is a mechanistic ‘… rule-based system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome, the player feels emotionally attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are negotiable’. Whilst Hainey (2010:33) considers the experiential mode as ‘…voluntary, and typically enjoyable, physical or mental activities; they involve goals and ways of achieving these goals usually in the form of moves or actions within the game that can be subject to constraints or rules’.

Both interpretations suggest that games have considerable potential in facilitating more active, emotional and deliberative forms of public participation. Redpath et al. (2018:415) confirm this within a wildlife management context arguing that games have potential to ‘disentangle complexity’ and to better understand conflict management through the development of shared dialogues. It is this focus on complexity that arguably provides an important dimension in their capability to tackle complex wicked problems (Lundström and Mäenpää, 2017). Indeed, Lundström and Mäenpää’s (2017:1358) application of wicked gaming perspectives on EU regional policy highlighted not only the role of the players in resolving, but also in creating and reinforcing, the wickedness. By creating and playing the game participants can discover some new and interesting ways to understand wicked problems.

Fun and enjoyment remain central to game theory and practice, stimulating creativity as the brain moves from a cognitive, rule-bound state to a more fluid, relaxed state where problem solving thrives. Kiili et al. (2012) identify this state as flow when all the success factors operate cumulatively and where participants become fully immersed in game play.

The literature makes a further distinction between games intended to entertain, and those intended to promote learning where the term serious games is commonly used (Connolly et al., 2012; Muratet et al., 2009; Wouters and Van Oostendorp 2013). Although participants in an entertaining game need to learn something to progress, the learning itself is not the primary goal. Flanagan (2009: 249) views serious games as powerful learning tools for managing change in complex environments as ‘… a player is able to step away and think critically about those problems’ in a simulated environment.

Here, it is worth recognising potential differences in virtual and face-to-face participation. With face-to-face participation, the most common position assumes that knowledge can be transferred effectively as it allows for multidimensional communication, increased engagement, relationship building, access to nonverbal cues such as expressions and body language (Asheim et al., 2007; Maskell et al., 2004; Storper and Venables, 2004). Alternatively, the possible disadvantages of face-to-face participation include limited length of interaction, travel time and costs, manual post-workshop documentation and limited maximisation of creative input from attendees (Brabham, 2009). In contrast, virtual facilitation can be considered as more cost-effective compared to physical meetings and they contribute to environmental protection. The disadvantages of virtual facilitation include (i) limited length of interaction, (ii) limited relationship-building opportunities\limited opportunities for one-to-one communication and (iii) limited access to facial expressions and other nonverbal cues. In addition, technically oriented problems due to the virtual environment may prove to be challenging such as (i) problems with host server capacity, (ii) limited broadband capacity of some participants and (iii) a lack of computer skills among some participants. These issues may lead to a decrease in confidence in the technical system and dissatisfaction with the scientific quality of the organising research team (Grönlund and Himmelroos, 2009). Participation in a game in person encourages people to play the game in a ‘safe’ hypothetical space rather than adopting or defending their agency position or agenda. This can be helped by using dice, role play and visual prompts which randomises the discussion and forces people to participate in the game with questions and scenarios randomly determined (Carter et al., 2015). Games function theoretically and practically as positive and novel interventions for imagining and creating new futures and realities. De Luca and Bertolo (2012:71) writing about games within an urban context highlight their power in changing perceptions of routine spaces and in adding new meanings to human interpretation of the physical environment.

A successful game involves structure, clear purpose, motivated participants, a range of activities located within a supportive and safe setting (Poplin, 2012). According to Dealtry (2004), this enables participants to stretch themselves and take risks in relatively safe hypothetical environments (Pourabdollain et al., 2012; Whitton, 2012). This is most explicit in the health profession literature where Gibson and Douglas (2013) identify multiple benefits from game play. Complex topics can be communicated with no risk to patients; participants learn without having to face the consequences of incorrect decisions made in clinical settings (Deck and Silva, 1990) and the game setting reduces anxiety and stress found in clinical situations (Deck and Silva, 1990; Gruending et al., 1991; Kuhn, 1995). Effective and successful games should be designed around specific goals to entertain, educate and encourage people to participate and communicate different perspectives in a collaborative way (Poplin 2012). Motivation is an important catalyst and should be designed into the game’s ingredients and rules (De Freitas, 2006; Pivec, 2007). For instance, De Freitas (2006) highlight the role of motivation as a core component in effective game design for learning. The development of a game to facilitate dialogue instead of winners and losers provides an alternative tool that can enhance motivation (Redpath et al., 2018).

The socio-cultural setting in which the game is played is important as knowledge is gained from the activities and the culture in which they are developed and used (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1976). Social learning and interactions between participants comprise an essential part of gameplay (Vygotsky, 1976). Thus, games have interactive features which can capture the effects of particular actions/decisions enabling alternative strategies to be promulgated and assessed (e.g. risk). Social interaction is a key component, with not only the potential to create a context for the acquisition of knowledge, but also to form a distinctive community around a specific theme (Shaffer, 2006). This ‘group think’ tends to motivate and facilitate social learning inherently allowing participants to acquire knowledge to work more effectively within a particular group. Board games can motivate learning and promote a change of attitude towards a particular area of knowledge (Redpath et al., 2018).

Games are like any participatory tool with negative consequences and outcomes depending on how they are designed and played and how the results are used in subsequent policy or decision-making processes. Indeed, ensuring what results are captured and the acceptability of such data to decision-makers is often neglected. Poorly designed games and their associated questions and rules can lead to disengagement and chaos. Games can potentially cause anxiety and embarrassment or can result in behaviour which some find threatening, such as increased competition (Henderson, 2005; Kuhn, 1995). Furthermore, there are significant cost and time implications in developing and setting up games compared with more traditional participatory formats. It may be difficult to establish and measure individual learning in team games and some participants may choose to take a back seat or be disruptive. As De Freitas (2006) observes, some games can be considered as childish pursuits and may be dismissed as irrelevant.

Creating urban placemakers

The ‘Urban Placemakers’ game was developed to enable participants to better engage with the wicked problems that characterise the 21st-century city, by collaboratively developing and prioritising a set of indicators to inform the direction and focus of the research project, while exploring the interdependencies and complex challenge areas facing Birmingham – including urban socio-economics, health, connectivity and transport, resilient environments and governance. The game had four objectives:

(i) Engaging with a co-production research model.

(ii) Supporting the participants in understanding the complexity, the systemic interconnections within and in-between complex challenge areas facing the city.

(iii) Identifying variables to inform an intra-urban analysis of the city.

(iv) Moving from the identification of problems to informing policy development.

The game was designed to translate the emerging findings into a discussion platform that could meaningfully engage citizens and was built on an interdisciplinary research model to maximise research and policy impacts. Figure S1 visualises the thematic structure and flow of the Urban Placemakers game, where each ‘line’ represents a research strand and is mapped onto the board design.

The catalyst for developing and applying a board game approach came from Participology; a web based portal co-designed from a range of real life projects in UK, Europe, USA and Australia using a game-based format for improved policy outcomes. . The portal has transferable specific guidance for people to design, play and evaluate a board game format for any purpose utilising established good practice in participatory processes. The guidance was used to co-design Urban placemakers involving academics, policy and practice participants as part of a deliberative process to develop a game board, questions and rules. It is worth noting that, given the complexity and multifaceted nature of interdependent challenges faced by the city, engagement with stakeholders and policy-makers has played an important role in identifying and understanding the multiple challenges facing the city. A project Touchstone Group was established of over 30 organisations from public, private and third sectors. Participants were selected through stakeholder mapping and outreach, with a focus on including less typical voices such as youth groups and community organisations. The game format helped reduce power imbalances through randomised movement and shared discussion. For example, a teenage participant led one group’s discussion – highlighting how the structure enabled influence beyond traditional hierarchies. The transdisciplinary model was key in designing an approach that captured Birmingham’s complexity in a way that was motivating and fun for potential players; whether they be citizens or policy-makers.

One important innovation was the design of the board itself as a visual proxy for the complex network of systems and interdependencies that exist in a city. Some of these systems can be considered separately but, in many instances, system interdependencies are critical. This led to adapting a London Underground model to design the game board. The ‘stations’ on the board became convergence points where the systems interact and intersect in complex ways. Here each ‘line’, of six, reflecting current research themes:

(i) interconnectivity,

(ii) diagnostics,

(iii) innovation,

(iv) systems,

(v) governance,

(vi) health and equality,

(vii) environment and

(viii) ward characterisation.

More explicitly, the eight lines (themes) represented on the board – interconnectivity, diagnostics, innovation, systems, governance, health and equality, environment, and ward characterisation – were derived from the project’s interdisciplinary research strands. These were identified through initial scoping work, literature review, and stakeholder input, reflecting tangible domains (e.g. health and environment) as well as enabling concepts (e.g. systems and innovation). Mega stations were created at points where three or more lines intersected to represent areas of heightened complexity and system interdependency. Each station, interchange, and mega station triggered scenario-based questions grounded in early indicator development. These indicators – originally developed through expert-led analysis – were repurposed into discussion prompts during gameplay, providing a mechanism for participant feedback and prioritisation. This helped address earlier dissatisfaction within the Touchstone Group over indicator relevance, effectively integrating co-produced insights into the research framework. The game concluded after all lines had been visited and a group visioning exercise was completed, ensuring thematic coverage and structured closure. These themes will be transferable to other urban contexts, but the questions would have to be customised for each context.

The questions were co-designed using two overlapping methods. First, research fellows working on specific themes (lines) spent 2 days designing a set of questions each relating to the core outcomes emerging from their research into this urban domain. Each question contained two parts: some evidence or statement of current practice and then a scenario for wider discussion. The research team agreed a final set of questions that focussed on challenges that (i) were considered to be most important for households (ii) a topical public policy issue, and (iii) would enable empirical exploration (Table S1).

Second, the questions and board game were tested through a piloting process with 30 academic, policy and practice participants. The trial run refined the rules of the game, determined how long a game would take to play and led to alterations in the questions and rules. This highlights that effective design of a board game requires significant development and testing time (Carter et al., 2015). The game was primarily tested with stakeholders who were also involved in its co-design, as part of a wider participatory research process. While this integration fostered ownership and contextual relevance, it limited opportunities to test the game independently with new users. That said, the structure and mechanics of Urban Placemakers are intentionally adaptable, accommodating in terms of variables and cities and the accompanying Participology portal supports this transferability. The game was also played in Leeds by six groups of policy-makers and academics and this highlighted that the themes and questions were applicable in another urban context, Future use in other contexts may benefit from replicating not only the game but also the co-design process itself.

Process description: Playing urban placemakers

The following analysis is taken from the outputs from a game played with the Touchstone Group members consisting of over 30 partners and interested parties drawn from the public, private and third sector on 1 June 2017 at the University of Birmingham, involving five games played simultaneously with six players per game.

Every table had a dedicated facilitator responsible for recording participant’s answers as well as facilitating the game. Facilitators adopted a neutral position and their main role was to record the game and to facilitate. Participants were briefed by the facilitators regarding the rules of the game and asked permission to record the game to make sure the observations were systematically recorded.

The game starts by placing a coloured counter on a station, interchange or mega station of the players’ choice. As explained above, each ‘line’, reflects a different research theme\challenge facing the city (i) interconnectivity (ii) diagnostics (iii) innovation (iv) systems integration (v) governance (vi) health and equality (vii) environment and (viii) ward characterisation. Three types of stations are positioned on one line or city system; interchanges where systems meet and mega stations where multiple systems come together (Figure S2).

As a second step, the players then roll the dice and the player with the highest score commences play. The rest of the process can be summarised in five stages:

(i) This player then rolls the dice again and according to the number, their playing piece is moved in any direction.

(ii) Upon landing on a station, interchange or mega station, stakeholders select the matching question card and engage in group discussion for 10 min.

(iii) The discussion is overseen and recorded by a facilitator with any decisions or disagreements noted for future reference.

(iv) Then the next player rolls the dice again enabling the counter to be moved in any direction and a question should be selected from the appropriate pile and so on until all six lines have been discussed.

(v) The game concludes by the facilitator requiring players to spend 10–15 min deliberating on the game’s outcome and developing an overall vision for Birmingham. At this stage, participants are tied collectively to their previously agreed comments/positions as read out by the note taker. Thereafter they identify key obstacles and opportunities affecting those visions.

Thereafter, participants were asked to identify key obstacles and opportunities affecting those visions. This final stage enabled groups to move from abstract discussion to more grounded reflections on what change might look like in practice. For example, some tables developed visions focused on integrated planning, digital inclusion, or environmental resilience, identifying actionable mechanisms such as multi-agency planning teams or community-led pilots. Table A.4 provides illustrative examples of the types of visions and mechanisms that emerged during gameplay, drawn from facilitator notes and post-game debrief discussions.

It is noteworthy that whilst the use of dice introduced elements of chance and movement, Urban Placemakers was intentionally designed to be non-competitive. The aim was to foster collaborative dialogue and shared learning, rather than individual or team-based competition. This supported the game’s purpose as a deliberative tool, encouraging participants to engage openly without strategic behaviour or power dynamics. Often public participation techniques conceal or displace underlying relations of power and inequality. The facilitators’ role encouraged inclusive participation, and every player had an equal opportunity to take control of the game when it was their turn to play.

At the end of the game a debriefing phase, supported by the facilitator, enabled the players to evaluate the experience. These sessions explored the strengths and weaknesses of this public participation approach. One player asked permission to photograph the components of the game as they wanted to develop their own version as a public engagement tool. In addition, two research team members with experience of the game process, independently observed the tables applying a peer observation framework as one element of the game’s evaluation process.

We gave a flavour of the participatory exchanges and different discourses which developed across two of the tables using two answer examples (See Supplemental Material S.4.1 Governance Mega Station: Participatory Exchange and Discussion and S.4.2 Systems Integration Mega Station: Participatory Exchange and Discussion as well as Appendix, Table A.2 and A.3).

Discussing urban placemakers and policy implications

Drawing on the literature on public participation and serious games, this section reflects on three overarching themes that shape the discussion: (1) how the design and facilitation of the Urban Placemakers game helped participants engage with complex and ‘wicked’ urban challenges; (2) how the game process contributed to knowledge co-production, conflict management, and research impact and (3) the wider transferability of Urban Placemakers to city planning. Within this framing, we revisit four key attributes identified through the project experience – (i) the tube map inspired game board design, (ii) the dual role of participants in both unpacking and shaping the problem space, (iii) the participatory rules of engagement and (iv) the game’s evolution into a project output that resolved tensions over indicator development. These elements are not treated as separate subsections but rather inform the integrated discussion that follows.

Managing wicked problems: The power of the gaming process

Urban Placemakers highlighted how complex research processes can be transformed using a game-based format to create an engaging game experience, but also one that enables participants to better understand complex systems dynamics and help inform research work streams. This learning process is conceptualised in Figure S3. It is worth stressing again how the benefits flowed equally to the research team and stakeholders (Touchstone Group) in their interactions which occurred at multiple stages from initial design of the game to post-game evaluation and use of results. The ‘two safe spaces’ refer to the university as a neutral convening environment and the board game itself as a hypothetical space for open exploration. ‘Resource complexity design’ captures how the game’s visual and narrative structures represented system interdependencies for participants.

This research project was predicated on securing a better citizen-led understanding of urban challenges through harnessing the joint experience and expertise of the research team and Touchstone stakeholder group in a series of deliberative events. The game was the climax event of this relationship and was used explicitly to help integrate and address problems emerging from previous meetings of the project associated with expert-led indicator development.

Furthermore, the management of the project via the university provided a safe and neutral space within which a series of deliberative public participation processes could take place involving the Touchstone group and research team (Figure S3). This safe space involving both the setting (a university) and the game (hypothetical space of a tube map) was important in enabling stakeholders to contribute to challenges without having to stick assiduously to their organisational remits thus restricting dialogue and social learning.

Significantly, the strength of the gaming process featured in the design, playing and impact phases of the game. Working across a large transdisciplinary team, the active participation of researchers, policy and practice representatives in a co-design process helped the team better understand the integration of the nexus within wicked urban challenges; both within their own work strands and crucially across those that others were working on. This interaction helped people better understand and engage with urban challenges and their interconnections, using the tube map as a powerful visual impact tool to support that process (Lundström and Mäenpää, 2017). The act of designing and pilot testing questions/scenarios from their own work strands within a social learning team environment that satisfied the criteria for mega stations, interchanges and stations, helped make interdependencies explicit across areas of investigation and thus became a powerful research tool itself, further enhancing the transdisciplinarity nature of the project and its outcomes (Tress et al., 2005). Participants in the game defined and managed the wicked nature of the urban challenges through discussion building on Lundström and Mäenpää’s (2017) assertions of duality.

Furthermore, as the two discourses highlighted, game participants began to construct multiple responses to the problem they were discussing; reformulating and challenging previous held ideas (e.g. planning notifications to schools) which enabled a deeper understanding of possible solutions (Raisio and Vartiainen, 2015). Here the strength of the public learning curve increases through deliberation becoming influential in demystifying complex problems.

Drawing from the evaluations of the participants and observers the creation of a hypothetical tube station map of Birmingham (there is no tube network in Birmingham) provided an unusual, visually exciting hypothetical space to engage participants in managed discussions. Furthermore, the dice provided a degree of acceptable randomness to the questions which prevents people coming to the table with their own agenda. It enabled players to work together to control the direction of movement of the counter towards particular intersections of interest. The possibility of different movement pathways adds a sense of excitement to those playing. Here, the way the rules interact with players concomitant with freedoms of action contributes to a positive experience (Flanagan, 2009; Redpath et al., 2018). Furthermore, by giving the dice to different players in turn they assume control of the board on behalf of the group and the subsequent questions that follow. This reduces the influence of dominant personalities, but again this can be influenced by the facilitator. For example, it was noticeable here how a teenager on one table was able to exert significant influence through the leadership role in this approach where in conventional approaches might have remained quiet. In this way the game proved quite an empowering experience enabling people to move outside their professional silos which may restrict responses in normal situations meanwhile allowing people to be more creative. Moreover, the safe space enables players to contribute without fear of having their organisational label used against them.

The game-based format was perceived as non-threatening (feedback session plenary) thus reinforcing the rights-based citizenship and communicative action agendas for publics to be actively involved in positive and deliberative processes concerning issues that directly impact upon their lives (Connolly et al., 2006; Ensor et al., 2015). By representing these research strands as separate underground lines their intersection within stations, interchanges and mega stations provides pathways to integration and offers up a model that can help participants navigate the complexities of the city system as they play the game. This enabled a complex research project with various work streams to be reduced to something tangible and meaningful that stakeholders could effectively engage with, and by so doing increase their own capacity and capability when it came to the last stage of the project in developing player-led visions (Redpath et al., 2018).

Collectively participant feedback (feedback session plenary) identified that players were able to move outside their own agency roles and boundaries to inform the discussion. Here, the hypothetical space provided by the tube map visualisation became an important prompt to enable this to happen, highlighting its value as a communicative action catalyst (Dryzek, 2009). Peer observation of the games being played also confirmed that most participants were fully and actively engaged with the issues and were enabled to speak openly and critically. This accords with research that highlights how games are associated with conventions that have been acquired by playing board games with family and friends and these conventions include competitiveness and pleasure associated with a group activity (Krek, 2008; Poplin 2012; Pivec, 2007).

Playing the game was a deliberative process using answers and justifications to the scenarios to encourage players to engage in further explorations. The reflexivity and co-production of visions and mechanisms to achieve them arguably enables more holistic thinking to dominate the process thereby helping to address wicked problems in a way that may not arise in a conventional workshop arrangement. Here the learning aspect of the game becomes an explicit component of the process (Flanagan, 2009).

Playing with a purpose

Games like Urban Place Makers work best when they have a clear purpose tied to real policy or practice goals. Participants in our study made it clear that they wanted more than just a fun break from routine – they wanted to feel the game had meaning and would lead to tangible outcomes. The strength of Urban Place Makers lay in its design: it helped participants understand the complex urban issues we were tackling, specifically by prioritising indicator development drawn from urban diagnostics (see Appendix 1).

This process also deepened participants’ understanding of the broader research project. It gave them insight into the kinds of challenges the research team had been wrestling with and allowed them to contribute in a way that was thoughtful, efficient, and useful to the project’s goals. Playing the game wasn’t the end – it was the beginning of richer conversations between residents and policy-makers. In this sense, it reflects Redpath et al.’s (2018) constructivist approach to game design, where stakeholders co-create knowledge and shape the outcomes together.

There were several additional benefits to using this board game as a tool within the research process: (1) It disrupted traditional decision-making approaches, opening space for more accessible and user-friendly ways of thinking about policy – particularly through the lenses of personal values, time constraints, and social connections. (2) It allowed for more practical engagement with urban challenges, helping to ground abstract issues in real-world. (3) It encouraged thinking across multiple dimensions, as players had to respond to 5 or 6 questions per session, consisting different geographic and thematic levels. (4) It was perceived as inclusive, original, and enjoyable, helping to build a sense of collaboration while grappling with complex issues. (5) Its simplicity was part of its effectiveness, making it easy to pick up, yet effective in generating meaningful insights. Overall, Urban Place Makers was not just a game; it was a platform for connection, dialogue, and co-creation, supporting the research while giving voice to those involved.

Transferability of the game

The game itself is transferable to other cities and audiences. Indeed it was adapted to a health audience. The adaptation of the hypothetical tube model is highly impactful of showing system interdependencies and is transferable to any city or town. However, the questions that are used must be place and context dependent and thus it is important for preliminary research to be undertaken to accurately capture the issues therein. The Birmingham questions are NOT transferable and therefore the use of a board game will require upfront investment in the research phases to understand the systems and issues in place.

Conclusion

Games are designed to be fun and motivating but they can also be useful participatory tools if designed and played effectively as part of a deliberative process. This paper has revealed that co-design, social learning and conflict management in a safe space can make an interesting additional public participatory tool. The game format helped reduce and explain the complexity of an interdisciplinary research project that sought to develop an appreciation of a city’s system dynamics. The core ingredients of co-design and co-production of the game helped ensure that academic rigour, policy relevance and practice pragmatism intersected to create a fit for purpose product. Such endeavours provide fertile thinking ground for participants that goes beyond the conventional and where innovation can prosper.

Those playing the game clarified their understanding of some of the challenges facing Birmingham’s policy-makers. However, developing and overseeing the game as a public participation tool enabled researchers to deepen their understanding of urban challenges, but also to develop a greater appreciation of the role boardgames can play in understanding research and policy challenges.

Whilst this game had no winners or losers, we contend that it has been a win-win situation for all those who played a part in it. From its selection as a tool to address conflict management within the Touchstone group and wider research team, to its co-design using an innovative tube station map which enabled both researchers and citizens to unpack the complexity of Birmingham’s urban systems, to active engagement with the challenges explored in the game. Nevertheless, there is a lack of research on the impact of games on those who play them when used for more policy and practice-based outcomes. Thus, there is a need for further research that looks at the way in which games are used in participation management, and some of the dangers that might arise. Let the fun and games begin.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Reading cities: Towards a participatory tool for disentangling the complexity of urban systems

Supplemental Material for Reading cities: Towards a participatory tool for disentangling the complexity of urban systems by D Sevinc, A Scott, RJ Bryson and J Leach in Local Economy.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Research Councils UK (RCUK) and Innovate UK, led by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), as part of the Urban Living Partnership [grant number EP/P002021/1].

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

D Sevinc

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Adger

Brown

Tompkins

(2005) The political economy of cross-scale networks in resource co-management. Ecology and Society 10(2): 9.

Allender

Owen

Kuhlberg

, et al. (2015) A community based systems diagram of obesity causes. PLoS One 10: e0129683.

Amin

Thrift

(2016) Seeing like a City. Cambridge: Polity.

Andreucci

Kallis

(2017) Governmentality, development and the violence of natural resource extraction in Peru. Ecological Economics 134(C): 95–103.

Asheim

Coenen

Vang

(2007) Face-to-face, buzz, and knowledge bases: sociospatial implications for learning, innovation, and innovation policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 25(5): 655–670.

Beierle

Konisky

(2001) What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes. Environment and Planning C(19): 515–527.

Bloomfield

Collins

Fry

, et al. (2001) Deliberation and inclusion: vehicles for increasing trust in UK public governance. Environment and Planning C 19: 501–513.

Brabham

(2009) Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Planning Theory 8(3): 242–262.

Carter

Scott

Adams

(2015) Learning Lessons From Rufopoly as a Participatory Tool, November 2011 to March 2015, Work Package 1 Report. Project Report. Birmingham: Birmingham City University.

10.

Castells

(2017) Another Economy is Possible: Culture and Economy in a Time of Crisis. Cambridge: Polity.

11.

Connolly

Richardson

Miles

(2006) Situated legitimacy: deliberative arenas and the new rural governance. Journal of Rural Studies 22: 267–277.

12.

Churchman

(1967) Guest editorial: Wicked problems. Management science B141–B142.

13.

Connolly

Boyle

MacArthur

, et al. (2012) A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education 59(2): 661–686.

14.

Cooke

Kothari

(eds) (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed books.

15.

Cornwall

Nyamu‐Musembi

(2004) Putting the ‘rights‐based approach’ to development into perspective. Third World Quarterly 25(8): 1415–1437.

16.

Corrigan

Joyce

(2000) Reconnecting to the public. Urban Studies 37(10): 1771–1779.

17.

Couch

(2016) Urban Planning: An Introduction. London: Macmillan International Higher Education.

18.

Dagnino

(2003) Citizenship in Latin America, an introduction. Latin American Perspectives 30(2): 211–225.

19.

De Freitas

(2006) Learning in Immersive Worlds: A Review of Game-based Learning. Coventry: Coventry University.

20.

De Luca

Bertolo

(2012) Urban games to design the augmented city. Eludamos. Journal for Computer Game Culture 6(1): 71–83.

21.

De Vente

Reed

Stringer

, et al. (2016) How does the context and design of participatory decision making processes affect their outcomes? Evidence from sustainable land management in global drylands. Ecology and Society 21(2): art24.

22.

Dealtry

(2004) Professional practice: the savvy learner' (online). Journal of Workplace Learning 16(1/2): 101–109.

23.

Deck

Silva

(1990) Getting adults motivated, enthusiastic and satisfied resources for organisation. Edina.

24.

Dryzek

(2009) Democratization as deliberative capacity building. Comparative Political Studies 42(11): 1379–1402.

25.

Ensor

SEP

Hoddy

Ratner

(2015) A rights-based perspective on adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 31: 38–49.

26.

Flanagan

(2009) Critical Play: Radical Game Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

27.

Gibson

Douglas

(2013) Criticality: the experience of developing an interactive educational tool based on board games. Nurse Education Today 33(12): 1612–1616.

28.

Grönlund

Himmelroos

(2009) The challenge of deliberative democracy online–A comparison of face-to-face and virtual experiments in citizen deliberation. Information Polity 14(3): 187–201.

29.

Gruending

Fenty

Hogan

(1991) Fun and games in nursing staff development. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing 22: 259–262.

30.

Habermas

(1987) The critique of functional reason. The theory of Communicative Action 2: 241–245.

31.

Hainey

(2010) Using Games-based Learning to Teach Requirements Collection and Analysis at Tertiary Education Level. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Paisley: University of the West of Scotland.

32.

Harrison

Munton

Collins

(2004) Experimental discursive spaces: policy processes, public participation and the greater London authority. Urban Studies 41(4): 903–917.

33.

Healey

(1993) The communicative work of development plans. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 20(1): 83–104.

34.

Henderson

(2005). Video games: a significant cognitive artefact of contemporary youth culture. Digital Games Research Conference 2005, Changing Views: Worlds in Play, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 16–20 June 2005.

35.

Hislop

Scott

Corbett

(2019) What does good green infrastructure planning policy look like? Developing and testing an assessment framework within central Scotland. Planning Theory & Practice 20(5): 633–655.

36.

Janssen

Lindahl

Murphy

(2015) Advancing the understanding of behaviour in social-ecological systems: results from lab and field experiments. Ecology and Society 20(4).

37.

Jones

(2007) The European landscape convention and the question of public participation. Landscape Research 32(5): 613–633.

38.

Juul

(2005) Where the action is. Game studies. The International Journal of Computer Game Research 5(1).

39.

Kabeer

(2005) Gender equality and women's empowerment: a critical analysis of the third millennium development goal. Gender and Development 13(1): 13–24.

40.

Kerslake

(2014) The Way Forward: An Independent Review of the Governance and Organisational Capabilities of Birmingham City Council. London: Department of Communities and Local Government.

41.

Kiili

De Freitas

Arnab

, et al. (2012) The design principles for flow experience in educational games. Procedia Computer Science 15: 78–91.

42.

Koch

(2013) Bringing power back in: collective and distributive forms of power in public participation. Urban Studies 50(14): 2976–2992.

43.

Krek

(2008) Quality Assurance in (Citizenship) Education. in Europe: New Perspectives on Citizenship Education.

44.

Kuhn

(1995) Gaming: a technique that adds spice to learning. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing 26(1): 35–39.

45.

Lave

Wenger

(1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

46.

Leach

Lee

Hunt

, et al. (2017) Improving city-scale measures of livable sustainability: a study of urban measurement and assessment through application to the city of Birmingham, UK. Cities 71: 80–87.

47.

Lönngren

Van Poeck

(2021) Wicked problems: A mapping review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 28(6): 481–502.

48.

Lundström

Raisio

Vartiainen

, et al. (2016) Wicked games changing the storyline of urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 154: 20–28.

49.

Magnusson

(2012) Politics of Urbanism: Seeing Like a City. London: Routledge.

50.

Maskell

Bathelt

Malmberg

(2004) Temporary clusters and knowledge creation: the effects of international trade fairs, conventions and other professional gatherings, Spaces 2004 - 04.

51.

Muratet

Torguet

Jessel

, et al. (2009) Towards a serious game to help students learn computer programming. International Journal of Computer Games Technology 2009: 470590.

52.

Niemeyer

Spash

(2001) Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: a critical appraisal. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19(4): 567–585.

53.

Pivec

(2007) Editorial: play and learn: potentials of game‐based learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 38(3): 387–393.

54.

Poplin

(2012) Playful public participation in urban planning: a case study for online serious games. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 36(3): 195–206.

55.

Pourabdollahian

Taisch

Kerga

(2012) Serious games in manufacturing education: evaluation of learners' engagement. Procedia Computer Science 15: 256–265.

56.

Raisio

Vartiainen

(2015) Accelerating the public’s learning curve on wicked policy issues: results from deliberative forums on euthanasia. Policy Sciences 48(3): 339–361.

57.

Ravetz

(2016) City-Region 2020: Integrated Planning for a Sustainable Environment. Oxford: Routledge.

58.

Redpath

Keane

Andrén

, et al. (2018) Games as tools to address conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 33(6): 415–426.

59.

Richards

Blackstock

Carter

(2004) Practical Approaches to Participation no 1: SERP Policy Brief: Macaulay Institute. Aberdeen: The Macaulay Land Use Research Institute.

60.

Robinson

Hardman

Matley

(2021) Using games in geographical and planning-related teaching: serious games, edutainment, board games and role-play. Social Sciences & Humanities Open 4(1): 100208.

61.

Rogers

(2003) The Diffusion of Innovation. 5th edition. London: Simon & Schuster.

62.

Scott

Carter

Reed

, et al. (2013) Disintegrated development at the rural–urban fringe: Re-connecting spatial planning theory and practice. Progress in planning 83: 1–52.

63.

Shaffer

(2006) Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers & education 46(3): 223–234.

64.

Spash

(2008) How much is that ecosystem in the window? The one with the biodiverse trail. Environmental Values 17(2): 259–284.

65.

Storper

Venables

(2004) Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography 4(4): 351–370.

66.

Tippett

Handley

Ravetz

(2007) Meeting the challenges of sustainable development-A conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for participatory ecological planning. 0305-9006 67(1): 9–98.

67.

Tress

Fry

(2005) Integrative studies on rural landscapes: policy expectations and research practice. Landscape and Urban Planning 70(1-2): 177–191.

68.

Vygotsky

(1976) Play and its role in the mental development of the child. In: Bruner

Jolly

Sylvia

(eds) Play: Its Role in Development and Evolution. New York: Basic Books, 537–554.

69.

Wagenaar

(2007) Governance, complexity, and democratic participation: How citizens and public officials harness the complexities of neighborhood decline. The American review of public administration 37(1): 17–50.

70.

Whitton

(2012) The place of game-based learning in an age of austerity. Electronic Journal of E-Learning 10(2): 249–256.

71.

Wouters

Van Oostendorp

(2013) A meta-analytic review of the role of instructional support in game-based learning. Computers & Education 60(1): 412–425.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.38 MB