Integrating geodesign and game experiments for negotiating urban development

SANDER LENFERINK, GUSTAVO ARCINIEGAS, ARY SAMSURA, LINDA CARTON

Lenferink, S., Arciniegas, G., Samsura, A., & Carton, L. (2016). Integrating Geodesign and game experiments for negotiating urban development. Research In Urbanism Series, 4(1), 71-92. doi:10.7480/ rius.4.844 KEYWORDS Planning Support Systems (PSS); Geodesign; Spatial development; Collaborative planning; game; Housing; Business areas Negotiation Abstract In this article we explore an expansion of geodesign to analyze processes of modelling it with game-theoretical by combining cooperation and competition and experiments. We test the applicability of facilitating these two fields in an oversupply of development the case study of workshop by analysing integrated sites in the Liemers corridor. Two workshops were held, with representatives provincial and regional the with and involved municipalities six the of supply the of distribution the over negotiated participants which in authority, of development sites. The workshops were performed around an interactive MapTable, with spatial information (from GIS) and financial information (from the game-theoretical model) being visualized in workshops were real-time. assessed to The discover integrated differences in terms place. We takes how learning and whether examine and they outcomes, of process and added provides geodesign and theory game of combination the that conclude discussion, and negotiation a realistic support by facilitating value for planning a designing at aiming by and locations, to real-life strongly connected is that common, collaborative solution. Through the integrated workshop learning also and terms geographical and financial in oversupply of problem the about is stimulated. about each other’s motives and behaviour

RIUS 4: GEO-DESIGN 72 INTEGRATING GEODESIGN AND GAME EXPERIMENTS FOR NEGOTIATING URBAN DEVELOPMENT 73 INTRODUCTION STAKEHOLDER FOR INTEGRATED GEODESIGN AND GAME THEORY AS CORNERSTONES 1. 2009 the ESRI International Annual being After during introduced widely this article In we explore the application of an expansion of geodesign Since the combination of geodesign and game is theory still rare, in this 2. INTERACTION are combined: Ge- of theory For the integrated workshop, two strands User Conference in San Diego,Conferencein San User California, the concept of geodesign - has at tracted a lot of attention from different fields of study including geography, emphasis The studies. and environmental planning, landscape architecture, in geographical design processes entire the has been on of geodesign - envi participation aid of stakeholder with the collaboration through and ronments 2010). technology (Goodchild, cooperation competitionthe and process among as an approach to analyse by integrating stakeholders the technique of spatial visualization with help of Planning Support (PSS) Systems with game-theoretical modelling - and simu lation in a We appliedworkshop. this approach in a case of regional planning in the development with, provision at present, supply-led of sites for urban Dutch municipalities moment, At the many experience Netherlands. prob- sites caused by the increase of lems of oversupply of plans for development frag- competition between municipalities and of the degree of inter-urban the financial and land market. mentation as a result of the crisis in article we aim to test the applicability of facilitating these two fieldsintegrated in workshop. an In order to do so, we will first describe theinstitutional setting and the next section. Afterwards, in the cal background theoreti- elaboration of the context of the project are described, followed by further integrat- setup of the the and model game theory analytical framework, the ed geodesign-game-experiment workshops. Subsequently, the experiences in more detail. Finally, discussed and will be presented workshops with the and some recommendations. conclusions we will provide our odesign (2) (1) and Game theory on negotiations - In lit among stakeholders. geodesign is sometimes combined with the methodologies of serious erature, instance D’Aquino, games (for Le Page, Bah, 2003; Vasconcelos Bousquet, & geodesign and game theory combination of on the et al., 2009), literature but is very scarce. This article together and aims to bring separated strands these report on an attempt to bridge combine and approaches.the two Therefore, this theoretical section will provide geodesign a glance into both and game theory. - Geodesign Game theory for strategic decision behaviour While Geographic Information Science Science Geographic While a quantitative, has Information - rational-ana geodesign, for framework well-known of the founder According to the In an effort to catch the practices under the label of geodesign, the fol- In short, game theory can be defined as a mathematical approach to 2.1 2.2 lytic reputation and is therefore criticized criticized and is lytic reputation therefore headings like under qualitative GIS (Cope & Elwood, Schoepfer & Rogers, 2009; and critical 2014) (see cartography Crampton & Krygier, 2006), geodesign adopts generally a more qualitative stakeholders. between to facilitating collaboration approach Carl Steinitz, geodesign is an interdisciplinary practice, emerging from the collaboration working jointly on a of professionals and stakeholders, shared supports and organizes or place. Steinitz’ focal spatial problem framework these practices, integrating Amongst oth various approaches and methods. ers, the practice ers, the of design professionals, of geodesign requires collaboration (often with analysts a background in geographical sciences), information p. 4-5). ‘people of the place’ (Steinitz, 2012, technologies and lowing definition has been formulated: “Geodesign is a design and planning which method creation tightly couples the of design proposals with impact by geographicsimulations informed thinking, contexts, and digital systems (Michael technology” Flaxman, 2010, in Steinitz, project the In 2012). de- scribed in this article, played with stake- a simulation game is developed and practices similarities approaches and to the in a way which shows holders, an iterative described as geodesign. In and stakeholders process, researchers in modifications and landscapes, real-world of representations towards work A (GIS-based) PSS to serves bring various themes and its physical structure. certain decisions calculate consequences of together, and sets information and negotiations. deliberations ‘on the fly’ during study strategic behaviour (Myerson, 1991). In game theory a game is an ab- a game game theory In 1991). (Myerson, strategic behaviour study With situations. decision-making interdependent and conflicting of straction its formulations, game formal and abstract can theory be useful to provide of collective decision-making for the study - process solid micro-foundations to the competition also social interactions, especially related co- and es and has game theory (Elster, 1982). Furthermore, operation among stakeholders of collective action problems by understanding potential to improve the our of collective actions, describing explaining the basic how collective structure potential outcomes of collective analysing actions (Hardin, actions work and 1971; Aumann, 1985; Ostrom, 1990).

RIUS 4: GEO-DESIGN 74 INTEGRATING GEODESIGN AND GAME EXPERIMENTS FOR NEGOTIATING URBAN DEVELOPMENT 75 - - CASE STUDY: MUNICIPAL OVERSUPPLY OF DEVELOPMENT SITES OVERSUPPLY MUNICIPAL CASE STUDY: Institutional setting Game theory is not a single method of analysis. Rather, it has numerous numerous it has Rather, of analysis. method a single is not theory Game limitations. One also has many Despite advantages, game theory its many development primarily is a the planning of urban In the Netherlands, 3. 3.1 - of stake exposing for various analysing and interactional structures features can in- The various dimensions dimensions. contexts and in various holders involved, stakeholders way in which the the of stakeholders number clude the these and stakeholders, to the of information the availability and interact, dimensions can notably affectboth structure and outcome of stakeholders’ & Skeath, 2004). activities (Dixit interaction is that some of its basic are excessivelyrigid, assumptions of them may which give difficulties in its application to complex real-life situations. Related to social dilemmas (e.g. public goods provision), studies and experiments many have been performed (see e.g. Fehr & Gächter, 2000; Bochet - settings involv in laboratory experiments occurred However, of those most et al., 2006). Heine, at universities (Henrich, Norenzayan, & students ing undergraduate 2010). The specificity of such experimental settings raises questions about their generalizability and the effect that context may have on experimental outcomes, especially when local and spatial are settings crucial, such as in the case of supplying Moreover, development land. most local decision-mak- systems ers, particularly at the municipal level, are not always taking urban into their decision: make often only limit they consideration when they their municipal By applying concern to their boundaries. a geodesign workshop in conducting a game experiment with municipality representatives (“the real people of the place”), we might expect that the effectiveness of the experi municipal and responsibility. task Municipalities apply zoning plans that is and how much development specify possible whether within their bound ment will be improved. Not only to observe their strategic decision behaviour to observe their strategic behaviour decision only will be improved. Not ment in a more realistic setting, with a better decision but it will also provide them support. addition, aries. In municipalities attempt to attract investors and private de- velopers for funding the developments because more development results in taxes. As a consequence, is a considerable degree higher income from there de- of competition between municipalities in urban for attracting investors velopment. The provincial is government left with the task to supervise and However, coordinate the municipalities provinces intervene if necessary. and develop- municipalities to give to the urban tend freedom to plan for usually ment by themselves. - - 8737 120,1 TOTAL REGIONAL DEMAND 9666 208,7 TOTAL REGIONAL SUPPLY 2791 113,0 DOETIN- CHEM 27,0 2057 MONTFER- LAND 20,2 1600 ZEVENAAR 682 33,5 DUIVEN 3,0 536 WESTER- VOORT Figure 1. Municipalities in the Liemers transport corridor. 12,0 2000 EIB, 2013; IBIS-Province of Gelderland, 2013; Province of Gelderland, 2013. ARNHEM Case description Supply and demand of business area and housing in the Liemers Corridor until 2040. Based on Since Since the financial and real estate crisis has hit in2008, it has become The case represented in the workshop is a real-world region with a prob- 3.2 Table 1. Business area (ha) MUNICI- PALITY Housing (no. units) more important for municipalities important more in a region, - the prov with deliberation in ince, and for housing to total demand of the reach a common understanding region- total the exceeds nowadays plans development of supply space; office oversupply of development drop because this will of land prices If al demand. the Commons-situa of a ‘Tragedy market, then be brought to the plans will will become manifest. in Hardin, 1968) originally explained tion’ (as lem of oversupply of development plans, anno 2014. In this article, this we fo- In 2014. plans, anno of oversupply of development lem in the case of the development cus on the provision of locations for urban transport corridor between the Dutch cities and Doetinchem, the of Arnhem In the 1), in the Eastern part of the Netherlands. Liemers corridor (Figure Liemers connected by the A12 and A18 highways and the transport corridor, railway line six Arnhem-Doetinchem, municipalities compete by providing development. As a of result the competi urban planned locations for future tion and the limited demand for urban development at a regional scale, there tion for urban and the limited demand is locations which considerably reduces the value of an oversupply of planned the locations (Table 1).

RIUS 4: GEO-DESIGN 76 INTEGRATING GEODESIGN AND GAME EXPERIMENTS FOR NEGOTIATING URBAN DEVELOPMENT 77 - METHODOLOGY: THE INTEGRATED GEODESIGN-GAME EXPERIMENT WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY: THE INTEGRATED Learning as a success criterion Analytical framework: The People of the Place sphere: The workshop was not meant to simulate ‘any region’ or ‘a fictitious As geodesign is understood as a team effort, group work criteria come 4. The demand for future urban development can be regarded as a common common as a regarded can be development urban future for The demand 4.1 ion an iterative that is learning environment created. We will now explain how we included these spheres as preconditions for enabling learning in the workshop. planning problem, a real-world and real stakeholders problem’, but concerns of seeking an understanding In of local development plans. oversupply the with do and think in what stakeholders real stakes weighing intervention di- and in considering strategic lemmas cooperation and competition with other stakeholders in making their (individual and collective) trade-offs, their re- in a recognizable A work- be represented fashion. situation should al-world shop setting requires sufficient simplification whileremaining dedicated to would not consider it re- the involved stakeholders If the problem at hand. developed approach be con- situation, the would sembling their real-world sidered a failure. into play for a successful project. In order for the workshop in terms of pro- cess and outcome to be successful, the geodesign team considered learning (individual and group learning) as most important the quality criterion for evaluating the project’s success. This is in line with Vonk, & Geertman Schot (2005) and with Pelzer, Geertman, Van der Heijden, & E. Rouwette (2014) and of values of added survey a systematic Pelzer & Geertman, 2014), who made (PSS), Planning Support eliciting Systems learning as communication and proven, elements, of successful group continuous work with PSS for planning disciplines, across four the occur decision-making. As learning should and of geodesign spheres a fash (Steinitz,be incorporated in such 2012) should pool resource. The six municipalities compete for this resource, in and, - do The six municipalities compete this resource, for pool resource. providing by - of planned de for an oversupply ing so, resource deplete the col- in a spontaneous be found this problem can The solution to velopment. & Lai, 1990; Webster (see Ostrom, laboration integrated geodesign 2003). An decision could provide for workshop to come to collaboration, support by in- solutions, with potential simulation problem at hand, insight in the creasing discussion of potential Stillwell, & Toppen, outcomes (e.g. Geertman, and of such integrated workshops is 2013). The set-up described in detail greater in the next section. - - Geographic sciences sphere: sphere: sciences Geographic a that team acknowledged research The of plans inventory thorough sphere: Information technology about In early discussions experimenting with decision-making in a Design professions sphere: It is in this sphere that the integrated workshop approach somewhat dif- and a trustworthy source of facts and figures would be necessary in order to make a valid, diagnosis representative Data of the problem. preparing for the the province, stakeholders: with the involved was collected workshops the region metropolitan the six and municipalities We recognize involved. the of the spatial phenomenon being understanding studied: a thorough need for As in geography the geography sciences sphere in Steinitz’s scheme. spheres sciences, in this project the approach premised on the ideais build a model to into it move to try then and accuracy, sufficient bearing present, the on based the future. with real participants, workshop-setting it various was the intention that to col- be used could tools support Planning be integrated. expertises would represent (selective, lect and ‘what if’) geographic on local plans information and area characteristics, while incorporating also or linking data on supply re- prices and land related (and spaces business and of housing demand and ideas the that it became clear project As the unfolded, on investment). turns for a negotiation game and the automated MapTable approach for visualiz The negotiation be integrated. game soft should simulations ing dynamic ware would have the built-in pay-off structure of the underlying game-the- ory model, which calculates the financialconsequences of various levels of (in-)equilibrium of supply and demand (section 4.2). The MapTable, running a (section dynamic GIS model 4.3), could serve as interface between the par- ticipants the geographicaland model the game information, as well as theory in order to show financial consequences of decisions in real time. Based on mapping previous experiences collaborative planning and with processes and the MapTable instrument, there was a clear expectation on what could be rep- resented in the short, compressed and simplified context typical for a game, how GIS visualizations could work in a setting, workshop and what would be (im-)possible in a collaborative (Mayer, Carton, De setting with stakeholders & Thissen, 2009; Ar- Carton 2007; Jong, Leijten, Carton, 2004; & Dammers, ciniegas, 2012; Arciniegas & Janssen, 2012). conceived that by Steinitz fers from (2012). For this particular project, deal- between negotiations financial-strategic the plans, of oversupply an with ing of possible reduction of develop- municipalities as to how to divide a burden ment plans, was considered the core issue. The exact of the landscape outlook

RIUS 4: GEO-DESIGN 78 INTEGRATING GEODESIGN AND GAME EXPERIMENTS FOR NEGOTIATING URBAN DEVELOPMENT 79 - - -

) * ) − " %

i s − ≤

' i ( x

" %

= " for 0 ≤ ! Game theory model In this equation, p_i is the financial outcomes of municipality i, which The game-theoretical model employed in this study is based on a modi- model employed in this study The game-theoretical 4.2 or the exact or the choices where spatial be decreased should plans development or cancelled, importance, of minor was considered dealing when the with their mutu the contrary, On stakeholders. the interactions among strategic al negotiations and trade-offs between options of burdensharing, accepting intervention losses, competitionto the cooperation, central and were found geodesignpart of the preparation effort. The execution and workshops of the aimed at finding creative inter-relational solutions for the stakeholders and increasing of the strategic the understanding of considerations stakeholders and the workings of supporting Samsu (see also approaches and instruments ra, 2014). By offering various potential planning interventions and interven- to the workshop participants tion instruments consecutive in game rounds, increasing complexity, the incrementally creativity would be triggered in a step-wise fashion. can also be negative. The number of development locations, x, supplied by The players. variable to be decided by the municipality is the only i (in ha) other variables are given and consist of: r, constants the basic revenue based on specificcost and selling prices of every unit of development locationthat particular municipality for development (in €); and D, the total demand in locations in the corridor (in ha). When ∑▒x_i , the aggregated supply of devel- opment locations (in ha), is D (i.e. there is greater than oversupply), c is the ed different municipalities in the Liemers transport corridor – individually are going development sites they to supply. With a limited choose how many demand that is shared among all players, the aggregated supply will affect the expected developing from values the sites. It is somewhat indubitable to assume that when the aggregate supply exceeds the demand, the value will oppositely, aggregate decrease and will increase when the value the supply to negotiate their plans to adjust will have then Players is below the demand. to the supplies for development sites. Changes made will trigger real-time calculations of financial outcomes as values for each municipality involved, using the equation: fication of N-person prisoners’ dilemma game that was done by constructing by done was that game dilemma prisoners’ N-person of fication ba- The agents/players. the to space strategy and structure payoff continuous sic idea of the game is subjects that or players – who in represent this study - - MapTable PSS workshop The MapTable PSS The MapTable A PSS with a digital corridor area was constructed, which fea- map of the Two geodesign geodesign were organized, workshops in which negotiations between Two 4.3 reduction factor for the value value for the factor reduction municipalities of the - sites. Ad development - increas the is c undersupply), is (there D than smaller is ∑▒x_i when versely, ing Theoretically, development site. the value of each factor for the optimum and gathered were constants .The ∑▒p_i maximizing by calculated be can level based on real data calculated to related the cost and selling price of location the province from also on reports and and for each municipality development city-region area (CBS, covers the study authority that PBL Wageningen and UR, 2013; Cobouw, 2013; Province of Gelderland, 2013; IBIS-Province 2013; EIB, - each munic Therefore 2011). Amsterdam, 2013; VU University of Gelderland, ipality has different values of x, r and c,based on their plans and profiles of Moreover, development. location their to related structure benefits and costs si , based sites, a maximum supply of development each municipalityhas also development plans. on their current port corridor. In this workshop, port corridor. In this workshop, we asked the participants to play the role of workshop was The second a representative of a municipality corridor. in the each of the six development practitioners mu- from with the local urban held ex- nicipalities as a semi-controlled Each workshop was held in the corridor. of assessing the periment. Both workshops were videotaped with the purpose and analysing participants’ statements, observing their physical behaviour, according the relation between the two, because people do not always behave to rational principles (Neale & Bazerman, 1985), and the negotiation process defines how and why people have their particular way of thinking and acting (Rubin and Brown, 1975). an integration of two main an interactive elements: GIS, a digital tured touch table, called the MapTable, and the game model, described above. theory As PSS is a combination such, the of what Schoop describes as an auto- (2004) nego- a of optimum economic any find to tries that system, mation-oriented tiation process, and a communication-oriented system, that supports com- municative processes. The MapTable is a digital touch table of large format (46-inch) developed and commercialized by the Dutch firm Mapsup (http:// spatial www.mapsup.nl) designed to support group informa work around tion. The PSS was developed within the ESRI ArcGIS® environment using an the six municipalities were facilitated using financial and geographical data with held was workshop first The developments. industrial and residential on development practitioners working as civil the regionalservants in urban the provincial or city-region government authority related to the Liemers trans

RIUS 4: GEO-DESIGN 80 INTEGRATING GEODESIGN AND GAME EXPERIMENTS FOR NEGOTIATING URBAN DEVELOPMENT 81 - Figure 2. Players negotiating around the MapTable PSS. In the In the PSS, supply of development plans is the visualized using building areas in the corridor. Dashed lines on each bar indicate the single local supply for each municipality. Figure 3. Initial distribution of supply of business areas. The blue line indicates demand for business ArcGIS extension called CommunityViz (http://www.communityviz.com). CommunityViz called extension ArcGIS is CommunityViz The extension to support used map-based performing users of their decisions (Walker & Daniel, calculations results showing the 2011), interactive 2). The and tools interface experiment for the in real time (Figure with Mapsup. in cooperation were developed blocks that represent a fixed amount of developments units (Table alter the supply by each mu- was chosen to easily amount that is represented 2). The nicipality. The initially displayed spatial distribution of blocks was modelled housing by each municipal and supply of both business to match the current ity, both in size and geographical location (Figures 3 and 4). ity, both in size and geographical location - 50 0,5 SMALL 5,0 200 LARGE Representation of housing and business area by visualized types of blocks. Table 2: Representation of housing Financial impacts for the initial supply distribution for projected business areas. Figure 5. Financial impacts for the initial supply distribution in the corridor. Dashed lines on each bar indicate the single local supply for each municipality. on each bar indicate the single local supply in the corridor. Dashed lines The PSS shows financial effects of a given spatial configuration of spatial configuration spatial a given of effects financial shows PSS The Figure 6. Financial impacts for the initial supply distribution for projected housing developments. TYPE OF BLOCKS Business area (ha) Housing (no. units) Initial distribution of supply of housing. The blue line on both charts indicates demand housing charts indicates demand The blue line on both of supply of housing. Figure 4. Initial distribution ure, in Euros, for each municipality separately and an aggregate value in for the Euros, ure, 5 and 6). corridor (Figures developments (for both business and housing), by presenting a financial fig

RIUS 4: GEO-DESIGN 82 INTEGRATING GEODESIGN AND GAME EXPERIMENTS FOR NEGOTIATING URBAN DEVELOPMENT 83 - Figure 7. Timeline representing the experiment protocol of one workshop session. Workshop Workshop participants used the PSS to assess financial impacts the of (municipal in the PSS boundaries, spatial - develop Map available layers water bodies, aerial photography) ment plans, railway stations, roads, of blocks Introduction to working with the library Charts showing supply of spatial plans for business and housing. Charts showing financial revenues in of assignments rounds Subsequently, participants carried out four At three moments in the workshop participants filled in a short ques- Workshop setup and game rounds Workshop The workshops started with role area and the introduction to an the study ------initial initial spatial configuration of projected housing and business development, MapTable on the individual supply their negotiate adjust us- changes, and ing their finger or a digital pen. They could either remove blocks, add blocks or by moving blocks from one municipality to (by selecting another one or more blocks within municipal the one player and dragging boundaries of this withinselection target municipality). of a the boundaries If the participants changed the spatial configuration for spatial development, the financial fig 2.5 hours involving negotiations about downsizing supply of plans (round 1), 2), while taking new railway station de- public into account (round transport velopment (round 3) and introduction of a financial compensationmecha- nism. The overall goal was to: “Modify the spatial configuration of supply of the both at displayed profits the using 2025 for plans development municipal corridor level”. individual municipal level and the tionnaire regarding their expectationsexperiences workshop, and about the 7. of the workshop in Figure with the tool, as illustrated in the timeline ures were automatically reassessed in real time. were automatically ures practice of PSS. Next, a hands-on demo and instruction with the MapTable simply as PSS) was given, (abbreviated Planning Support underneath System which included: - distribution of supply and demand for housing and office space. distribution of supply and demand for housing and RESULTS: EXPERIENCES FROM PARTICIPANTS FROM EXPERIENCES RESULTS: General observations All participants pointed to relevant features on the map in trying to ex- All participants pointed to relevant features In this section, this section, experiences applying work - the describe we In the from 5. In general, the fact the negotiation that took place interactive around an Stakeholders pointing to the map during their negotiations. Municipality territories are Figure 8. Stakeholders pointing to the map during their negotiations. 5.1 represented by different semi-transparent colours on the map, and the various graphs visualize the represented by different semi-transparent colours ward spatial arguments to justify their behaviour. For example, in one of the behaviour. their to justify spatial arguments ward municipalitythe importance workshops, the of of Zevenaar brings forward the international industrial area along the A12 highway, by zooming in on the plain their motives and justify their behaviour (Figure 8). In doing so, they (Figure plain their motives behaviour and justify their in-depth knowledge of their respective municipalities for used brought and shops. We do this by highlighting the learning experience (section 5.3). How- 5.3). (section experience learning the highlighting by this do We shops. ever, first we describe generalthe observations the performanceon visualisation of the and financial model (section 5.1) and the differences in process 5.2). workshops (section between the and outcomes map proved to be effective. It facilitated a focused form of communication, in which financial and spatial negotiations could be combined and supported The tool helped to come to an agreement. in order information by relevant to identify first steps towards obtaining a better regional adjustment of sup- in municipal demand overcoming locations for development and ply and the problem. common pool resource

RIUS 4: GEO-DESIGN 84 INTEGRATING GEODESIGN AND GAME EXPERIMENTS FOR NEGOTIATING URBAN DEVELOPMENT 85 - - Process and outcomes Nevertheless, some of the participants some of the Nevertheless, broader spatial felt that the dis- The relation between the financial modeland the spatial information The process and outcomes differed greatly between the two workshops, with regional participants Workshop provincial par- regional and government, the workshop with the the In 5.2 location, turning on the underlying high-resolution aerial photography, photography, aerial high-resolution and underlying on the location, turning explaining geographical relevant the German and the highway to the relation hinterland. that felt They the workshops. was missing in development urban cussion on spatial the and story, financial a of much too “become tool the with discussion planning aspects are insufficientlydiscussed”. The participants felt the urge to discuss more spatial aspects, maps, look at more background and illustrate that with issues, and opportunities chances in their own municipality. The on issues did, however, set-up of the workshop them to focus solely force related to participants oversupply. This was felt by the as too restrictive. For some participants, the financial information seemed to fuel the discussion geographical indicate the that the in- Such remarks more than information. informa financial and geodesign) in (central information spatial of tegration tion (put central in this game, tion (put central in dilemma conceptualiza an N-prisoners using tion) needs to be balanced. must be according clear and transparent, to the participants. They need to be aware of preconditions the and assumptions, which information is displayed, model, to be able to design excluded in the and are included which factors and As a participant the outlines of an agreement. questionnaire, in the in notes real- a for essential is figures the in “insight work, to negotiation the for order istic negotiation”. However, it is especially to realize important for them that the financial model simplifies financial relations in the real estate market, and that, as such, the exact outcomes are not of great added value. After all, the goal not primarily to simulate possible workshop was of the outcomes on the basis of a model, but to facilitate a on discussion the issue of oversupply of participants, workshop was successful locations. This was clear to the the and the discussion, at it, as illustrated by this quote: helps to “the tool structure confront each other”. specify each other’s interests and subsequently although it has to be stated that participants to be stated value it has acknowledged the added although of both workshops. lo- of development ticipants an agreement on the amount easily reached of agreed that a general decrease cations to be supplied. It was commonly - - The iterations in the workshop merely helped to indicate the the workshop merely The iterations in whether The main as increased in- be outcome of the workshop can formulated with local participants Workshop For the participants in the workshops with the local municipalities, this The iterations in the Maptable than in PSS were used more restrictively The main outcome of the process was a call for more provincial involve- locations locations would help the financial result of all players, andthat thelargest suppliers should cut back their plans the most. This can be qualified as- real istic, perspective regional this workshop in in because of the players of the in acted or less more sensitivities which local all players not play a role: did the workshops: regional the common, This can also be interest. during seen the participants displayed active poses to look for possibilities, and tried both municipalities. assigned outside their respective, within and common regional interest was being The participants served. decided togeth- strategy was to er what the best the objective reach of limiting oversupply. tri- through and model, The participants of the limits the iteratively explored the objective al-and-error of limiting the regional reached oversupply was over the different municipalities. and distributed fairly the of regional oversupply, and problem of the nature size and sight in the now, provincial cross-municipal character of it. For the regional and author all, “the After problem. solve the municipalities the should ities that still feel caused the problem, are they feeling the consequences of municipalities have effort in solving it”. it, so they should also increase their proved to be different. They could not come to a limitation of the supply of of the negotiation development locations. At the end an oversupply of these locations still existed. The negotiations the local mu- with the players from nicipalities had a tougher character in which participants negotiated more a local perspective, Each player point from serving their own local interests. ed to other municipalities to find solutions for the problem mu- neighbouring locations in the discuss the map to identify and used They oversupply. of overlooked. nicipalities that otherwise might be the workshop with regional participants. They applied a drip-feed method, in decreases were made to the amount of locations provided. small which only the participants Instead, the Maptable used more as a discussion tool for ex- plicating each other’s position in the negotiation. develop- overarching spatial policies in formulating ment on regional urban to deliver more tailor-made approaches. They ment: “the province will have

RIUS 4: GEO-DESIGN 86 INTEGRATING GEODESIGN AND GAME EXPERIMENTS FOR NEGOTIATING URBAN DEVELOPMENT 87 - - 0,92 0,74 CRONBACH’S A 5,26 1,21 STD. DEVIATION 5,26 5,17 MEAN 6,33 6,67 MAXIMUM 2,67 1,67 MINIMUM scale with 1 = strongly disagree; and 7 = strongly agree) scale with 1 = strongly disagree; and 7 = strongly Learning Results of the objective to learn about others and the object at hand (N = 14; On a 7-point Likert Results of the objective to learn about others and The participants stressed that the tool effectively linked financial and Although the workshops yielded different results as to reachingagree- 5.3 Learning about the issue Learning about other participants Table 3. have the instruments to intervene, why not do so? The province should care- so? The province not do why to intervene, should the instruments have municipal each assess brings fully successfully the workshop Although plan”. information together in interactive fashion with plenty of (financial)feed back, which can be the used by participants to design to solutions the problem of oversupply, this seems not to be sufficient for finding case study. of oversupply in this problem a solution to the spatial taking negotiations, The place which are usually in separated arenas. players used both the map and the financial data provided in the negotiation process. Especially the information from other municipalities, often belong- As one participanting regions, to other proved to be useful. explains: “The extra information of the spatial of the corridor versus the region element is in negotiationsunderdeveloped in practice. another is information from That invisible. As a municipality, usually therefore little area and you spend too time looking around you to find out where the organizations and develop- plans”. own ments are that are essential for the success of your gy offered a direct insight in each other’s current situation and future plans. as learning both learning about the position stakeholders, of other Therefore corridor) Liemers problem of oversupply in the (the about the issue at hand (Table 3). occurred ments (see Section 5.2), the added value of the integrated PSS for the various tasks was apparent to all players involved. The combination of the interac- tive map and real-time finances stimulated a discussion of the information. and, especially, on the proposed plans Participants questioned each other on these plans. This is the motives behind by remarks made in the illustrated questionnaire: “The tool effectively bringsmotives to surface”,the and in the essence of collabo- “It is insightful. It relates to the plenary discussion: ration, which is crucial. It is a good tool to do so”. The information technolo CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS In this article, we tested the applicability of facilitating both geodesign We can conclude that the combination and geodesign of game theory generating insight The interactive proved to work well for tool especially of the integrated workshop is addition, currently transferability In the The differences between the negotiation results of the workshops could 6. and game theory in an integrated workshop. We explored in an integrated workshop. We explored and game this for the Dutch theory Liemers cor- in the development urban for sites of planned case of oversupply can workshop integrated the which in way the examined specifically We ridor. stimulate learning. a realistic value for planning support: it creates discussion provides added and negotiationconnected to strongly real-life locations, aimed at designing a common, regional Participants solution. learn about problem and about the infor- financial and geographical interactive provided the through other each mation. in and learning about motivation. the issue at and each other’s The in- hand contextu- the to add helps therefore game theory tegration of geodesign and the it adds while simultaneously al discussion of geodesign to game theory, financial strategic behaviour of game theory to the geodesign. The results, in the form of the distribution of locations and financial outcomes, merely served for making negotiation the more realistic, stronger spatially grounded insight gen- value lies in the by facts. The greatest added better supported and outcome: e.g. how do municipalities the in the process behind interact, erated to This seems to changing circumstances? respond react to each other, and argue that some (2012), who be in line with Lee Brömmelstroet Te and (1994) problems are better approached through broad generalizations than through be This should taken into detailed models. account when considering the offer applied models the workshops: integrated the of disadvantages greatest of outcomes the Therefore, reality. of simplification (financial) considerable a the negotiations can only be used at a very general level. limited because the game-theoretical applicable only model is to settings in - The real point the participants that conclusion to the behaviour. real display that istic character of workshop the integrated to seems trigger the behaviour can also be observed in practice: at a regional level, one can find a solution realistic The harder. much this seems at the local level oversupply, but for “The discussion: plenary in the was also stressed workshop of the character with case, fictive a not is It reality. to close is It insightful. very was workshop real”. to make it have I think that helps a lot: you the map and the locations.

RIUS 4: GEO-DESIGN 88 INTEGRATING GEODESIGN AND GAME EXPERIMENTS FOR NEGOTIATING URBAN DEVELOPMENT 89 - - - Based on our work, several avenues for further research can be research distin- for further work, several avenues Based on our which an N-person prisoners’ dilemma occurs. In its current form, it can only In its current which occurs. dilemma prisoners’ N-person an in However, such settings. inte- the be to used strategic analyse behaviour grated workshop as an initial may serve evidence possibility of the to inte- chang- By with geodesign. experiment and modelling grate game-theoretical variations in the game-theoretical we model, can analyse ing the structural game a of complexity the increase also can we Moreover, situations. different integration of believe the that to reality. We strongly to make it closer in order game-theoretical modelling with geodesign may offer a promising approach because it particularly processes, development complex urban analysing for can take into account a specific interdependent situation among stakehold ers in the process and the results of the analysis can be of the analysis empirically validated and the results ers in process the done in this research. as we experimentswith have through real stakeholders tool The tool. this of potential the of exploration further a is first The guished. proved to be useful in the first stages of anegotiation process, when infor mation needs to be communicated efficiently. The application of the PSS in a more sophisticated information, and later stage would require more in-depth financial and spatialmodelling. A secondavenue is to broaden the sector in comparison could help to iden- which the tool is applied. A cross-sectoral tify crucial preconditions in negotiations: e.g. what is central the challenge in a specific context and situation, which information is necessary for deci- sion-making, players can be how many included in the strategic process, how geodesign-negotia in the strategic social interactions be included the could tion-game workshop, and how can the problem best be visualized in the PSS. - - - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES We would like to thank all partners involved to support support to involved all partners to thank like We would or cooperate in thesis). VU University, Amsterdam. Retrieved from http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/handle/1871/39296 thesis). VU University, Amsterdam. Urban Planning, 107(3), 332-342. workshops. Landscape and Oxford, United Kingdom: Basil Blackwell. Frontiers of Economics. Organization, 60 (1), 11-26. Experiments,” Journal of Economic Behavior and conflicts in regional policymaking in the Netherlands (PhD thesis). Delft, UniversityAvailable of Technology. online at http://repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir/uuid%3Af5821d4b-5299-4af9-baad-176dbf 1daabb/ 90(6), 1991-2001. understanding? Journal of Environmental Management, compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/ whitepapers-van-kosteninformatie dom: Sage. E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 4(1), 11-33. Retrieved from - http://ojs.unbc.ca/index.php/acme/ar ticle/view/723/585 a Multi-Agent System to Empower a Local Decision-Making Process for Land Use Management: The SelfCormas Experiment in Senegal. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 6(3). Available from http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS.html hem-Nijmegen. Retrieved from http://www.eib.nl/pdf/verkenning_woningbouwprogrammering_re gio_arnhem_nijmegen_KT.pdf Theory and Society, 11(4), 453-482. nomic Review, 90(4), 980-994. velopment. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Arciniegas López, G. A., & Janssen, R. (2012). Spatial decision support for collaborative land use planning Aumann, R. J. (1985). What is game theory trying to accomplish? In: K. J. Arrow, & S. Honkapohja, (Eds.), Contribution Voluntary in Punishment and “Communication 2006. Putterman. L. and Page, T. O., Bochet, Carton, L. J. (2007). Map making and map use in a multi-actor context. Spatial visualizations and frame Arciniegas López, G. A. (2012). Map-based decision support tools for collaborative land use planning (PhD planning use land collaborative for tools support decision Map-based (2012). A. G. López, Arciniegas Carton, L. J., & Thissen, W. A. H. (2009). Emerging conflict in collaborative mapping: towards a deeper CBS, PBL and Wageningen UR (2013) Compendium voor de Leefomgeving. Retrieved from http://www. http://bouwkosten.kosteninformatie.nl/ from Retrieved Kosteninformatie. – Bouwkosten (2013) Cobouw Cope, M., & Elwood, S. (Eds.). (2009). Qualitative GIS: A Mixed Methods Approach. London, United King Crampton, J. W., & Krygier, J. (2006). An Introduction to Critical Cartography. ACME: An International D’Aquino, P., Le Page, C., Bousquet, F., & Bah, A. (2003). Using Self-Designed Role-Playing Games and New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Dixit, A. K. and Skeath, S. (2004). Games of strategy. EIB, Economisch Instituut voor de Bouw (2013). Verkenning woningbouwprogrammering regio Arn- Elster, J. (1982). Marxism, functionalism and game theory. The case for methodological individualism. Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments, American Eco- Geertman, S., Stillwell, J., & Toppen, F. (Eds). (2013) Planning Support Systems for sustainable urban de- this project, this project, including: Mapsup (Jaap Rijs (Winona and Noordzuiden de Kroes) and Edwin execution and Uum) for the development van of the workshops, six the from municipalities all stakeholders in the Liemers and other corridor and city-region for (province Arnhem-Nijmegen) of Gelderland stakeholders playing game the with funding the project us; and NWO (for Re- in the Urban and iTOD programs). gions of the Delta

RIUS 4: GEO-DESIGN 90 INTEGRATING GEODESIGN AND GAME EXPERIMENTS FOR NEGOTIATING URBAN DEVELOPMENT 91 - tives, (66), 7-22. tives, (66), 481. 61-135. Sciences, 33(2-3), Available online at http://www.gelderland.nl/bedrijventerreinen. tion, 60(1), 35-40. 311-333. network. Futures, 36(3), Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 34-49. ing behaviors and outcomes. Cambridge University Press. bridge, United Kingdom: Environment and Urban Systems, 48, 16-27. Systems: A practitioner’s perspective. Computers, ory and Practice, 15(4), 527-542. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2014.963653 nen.nl demic Press. acteristics Using a Tablet. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 49(2), 127-143. Communication Modelling (LAP 2004), (pp. 179-196). ference on the Language-Action Perspective on Urban Systems, 36(1), 96-104. PSS improvement. Computers, Environment and Serious Game for Exploring and Training in Participatory Management of National Parks for Biodiver- sity Conservation: Design and Experience. In Games and Digital Entertainment (SBGAMES), 2009 VIII - http://www-ia.lip6.fr/~briot/cv/SimParc-SB from Retrieved IEEE. 93-100). (pp. on Symposium Brazilian GAMES09-IEEE.pdf systems. Environment and Planning A, 37(5), 909-924. ment of Spatial Economics & Spatial Information laboratory, Amsterdam. Generation of Planning. American Planning Association, APA Planners Press (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar). Goodchild, Goodchild, M. F. (2010). Towards Geodesign: Repurposing Cartography and GIS? Cartographic - Perspec 1968, 1243-1248. December Science, 13 commons. Tragedy of the G. (1968). Hardin, 472- 16(5), Science, Behavioral Dilemma. n-Prisoners’ Agreeable an as Action Collective (1971). R. Hardin, Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain IBIS-Province of Gelderland (2013). Voorraadgegevens bedrijventerreinen Gelderland per 1-1-2013. Lee, D. B. (1994). Retrospective on large-scale urban models, Journal of the American Planning Associa- Mayer, I.S., Carton, L. J., De Jong, M., Leijten, M., & Dammers, E. (2004) Gaming the future of an urban Harvard University Press. Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Myerson, R. B. (1991). Game bargain- on overconfidence negotiator and framing of effects The (1985). H. M. Bazerman, & A, M. Neale, Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cam- Pelzer, P., Geertman, S, Van der Heijden, R., & Rouwette, E. (2014) The added value of Planning Support Pelzer, P., & Geertman, S. (2014) Planning support systems and interdisciplinary learning. Planning - The Province of Gelderland (2013) Omgevingsvisie Gelderland. Retrieved from http://www.ruimtelijkeplan Rubin, J., & Brown, B. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. New York, NY: Aca- Thesis). Radboud University, Nijmegen. Samsura, D.A. (2014). Games and the city (Doctoral Schoepfer, I., & Rogers, S. (2014). A New Qualitative GIS Method for Investigating Neighbourhood Char- Con- Working International 9th the of Proceedings In Negotiation. of Worlds The June). (2004, M. Schoop, Press. ESRI CA: Redlands, Design. by Geography Changing Geodesign: for Framework A (2012). C. Steinitz, Te Brömmelstroet, M. (2012). Transparency, flexibility, simplicity: From buzzwords to strategies for real Vasconcelos, E., Lucena, C., Melo, G., Irving, M., Briot, J. P., Sebba, V., & Sordoni, A. (2009, October). A Vonk, G., Geertman, S., & Schot, P. (2005). Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning support VU University Amsterdam (2011). Land rents – determination of land rents for the Netherlands. Depart- Walker, D., & T. Daniels, T. L. (2011). The Planners Guide to CommunityViz: The Essential Tool for a New Webster, C. & Lai, W.C.L. (2003) Property Rights, Planning and Markets: Managing Spontaneous Cities RIUS 4: GEO-DESIGN 92