IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i12p3374-d571096.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Facilitating Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue and Collaboration in the Energy Transition of Municipalities through Serious Gaming

Author

Listed:
  • Tania Ouariachi

    (Professorship Communication, Behaviour & The Sustainable Society, Center of Expertise Energy, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Zernikeplein 7, 9747 AS Groningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Within the EU, energy transition at the local level is embedded in a complex stakeholder network with highly interdependent actors; if these actors have to collaborate to contribute to an efficient transition, they have to initiate a dialogue about their roles and interests. A good way to achieve this goal could be via serious gaming. Scholars suggest that serious games have the potential to increase multi-stakeholder’s dialogue and collaboration on climate-change-related issues; however, empirical evidence on the effectiveness, and the process is still limited. The aim of this paper is to use the We-Energy Game as a case study to provide empirical evidence on how serious gaming could facilitate dialogue and collaboration among different stakeholders, and which specific features influence the engagement of participants with the issue. For that purpose, a qualitative analysis on feedback and observations of group discussions is conducted, together with a survey for 125 stakeholders from diverse municipalities in The Netherlands to assess what type of features influence the engagement. The study reveals that the game engages participants mostly at the cognitive level, and that key elements in this process are game design, the debriefing session, and the role of the facilitator.

Suggested Citation

  • Tania Ouariachi, 2021. "Facilitating Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue and Collaboration in the Energy Transition of Municipalities through Serious Gaming," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-14, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:12:p:3374-:d:571096
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/12/3374/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/12/3374/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Victoria Wibeck & Tina‐Simone Neset, 2020. "Focus groups and serious gaming in climate change communication research—A methodological review," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(5), September.
    2. Jason S. Wu & Joey J. Lee, 2015. "Climate change games as tools for education and engagement," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(5), pages 413-418, May.
    3. Susanne C. Moser, 2010. "Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 31-53, January.
    4. Niklas Karlsson & George Loewenstein & Duane Seppi, 2009. "The ostrich effect: Selective attention to information," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 95-115, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Osman Arrobbio & Dario Padovan & Alessandro Sciullo, 2022. "Collective Action Initiatives as a Tool for a Peaceful Energy Transition," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-4, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Janel Jett & Leigh Raymond, 2021. "Issue Framing and U.S. State Energy and Climate Policy Choice," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 278-299, May.
    2. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    3. Umar, Tarik, 2022. "Complexity aversion when SeekingAlpha," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2).
    4. Kim, Donghan & Kim, Jun Sik & Seo, Sung Won, 2018. "What options to trade and when: Evidence from seasoned equity offerings," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 70-96.
    5. Kovacs, Tunde & Wang, Yadi, 2024. "Cry wolf and it appears: Debt ceiling debates and new corporate bond issues," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    6. Felix J. Formanski & Marcel M. Pein & David D. Loschelder & John-Oliver Engler & Onno Husen & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "Tipping points ahead? How laypeople respond to linear versus nonlinear climate change predictions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-20, November.
    7. Kops, Christopher & Pasichnichenko, Illia, 2023. "Testing negative value of information and ambiguity aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    8. Svatopluk Kapounek & Zuzana Kučerová & Evžen Kočenda, 2022. "Selective Attention in Exchange Rate Forecasting," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 210-229, May.
    9. Anne Marie Garvey & Laura Parte & Bridget McNally & José Antonio Gonzalo-Angulo, 2021. "True and Fair Override: Accounting Expert Opinions, Explanations from Behavioural Theories, and Discussions for Sustainability Accounting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-23, February.
    10. Wang, Albert Y. & Young, Michael, 2023. "Mood, attention, and household trading: Evidence from terrorist attacks," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    11. Andras Molnar & Shereen J. Chaudhry & George Loewenstein, 2020. ""It's Not about the Money. It's about Sending a Message!" Unpacking the Components of Revenge," CESifo Working Paper Series 8102, CESifo.
    12. Debra Javeline & Tracy Kijewski-Correa & Angela Chesler, 2019. "Does it matter if you “believe” in climate change? Not for coastal home vulnerability," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 511-532, August.
    13. Katherine Ball & Kirk Jalbert & Lisa Test, 2021. "Making the board: participatory game design for environmental action," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(1), pages 12-22, March.
    14. Julia Jouan & Mireille De Graeuwe & Matthieu Carof & Rim Baccar & Nathalie Bareille & Suzanne Bastian & Delphine Brogna & Giovanni Burgio & Sébastien Couvreur & Michał Cupiał & Benjamin Dumont & Anne-, 2020. "Learning Interdisciplinarity and Systems Approaches in Agroecology: Experience with the Serious Game SEGAE," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, May.
    15. Castagnetti, Alessandro & Schmacker, Renke, 2022. "Protecting the ego: Motivated information selection and updating," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    16. Cary Frydman & Nicholas Barberis & Colin Camerer & Peter Bossaerts & Antonio Rangel, 2012. "Using Neural Data to Test a Theory of Investor Behavior: An Application to Realization Utility," NBER Working Papers 18562, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Pagel, Michaela & Olafsson, Arna, 2017. "The Ostrich in Us: Selective Attention to Financial Accounts, Income, Spending, and Liquidity," CEPR Discussion Papers 12259, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Elena Argentesi & Helmut Lütkepohl & Massimo Motta, 2010. "Acquisition of Information and Share Prices: An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Dissonance," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 11(3), pages 381-396, August.
    19. Liu, Jia & Sonntag, Axel & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2022. "Information defaults in repeated public good provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 356-369.
    20. Leung, Benson Tsz Kin, 2020. "Limited cognitive ability and selective information processing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 345-369.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:12:p:3374-:d:571096. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.