IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v50y2019i3p377-392.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Taking a Glimpse Into the Future by Playing?

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Lohmann

Abstract

Background . This article analyses whether an experimental policy-simulation might help political scientists in making predictions about prospective situations . Within the presented simulation-game, two groups of randomly assigned participants discussed the same issues but had different demographic structures. The ways in which their discussions transpired and results of the negotiation might provide a glimpse at how decisions might be made by societies in the future. Purpose . This article presents this special simulation-game. Furthermore, it seeks to discuss whether policy-simulations can be designed as experiments, whether there is a benefit, and for whom. Method . This study is based on both qualitative and quantitative data . The partici-pants in the simulation-game have been questioned in a pretest and in two post-tests. Furthermore, six pre- and post-interviews were conducted with involved experts. Results . The results show that the simulation-game can provide some ideas about the future, if perhaps not necessarily a wholly accurate image of the future. Observing experts and the participants gained some knowledge about how future generations might work together and where potential conflicts might be. Conclusion . Policy-simulations can be designed as experiments and might help to provide a glimpse into future, but designing such simulation-games is even more com-plex than designing simulationgames for a solely educational use.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Lohmann, 2019. "Taking a Glimpse Into the Future by Playing?," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 50(3), pages 377-392, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:50:y:2019:i:3:p:377-392
    DOI: 10.1177/1046878119848133
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046878119848133
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1046878119848133?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Silva, Carol & Weimer, David L., 2003. "The Advent of Internet Surveys for Political Research: A Comparison of Telephone and Internet Samples," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, January.
    2. Hal Caswell & Nora Sánchez Gassen, 2015. "The sensitivity analysis of population projections," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 33(28), pages 801-840.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hui Li & Robert P. Berrens & Alok K. Bohara & Hank C. Jenkins-Smith & Carol L. Silva & David L. Weimer, 2005. "Exploring the Beta Model Using Proportional Budget Information in a Contingent Valuation Study," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 17(8), pages 1-9.
    2. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    3. Aaron C. Sparks & Heather Hodges & Sarah Oliver & Eric R. A. N. Smith, 2020. "Confidence in Local, National, and International Scientists on Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    5. Michael D. Jones, 2014. "Cultural Characters and Climate Change: How Heroes Shape Our Perception of Climate Science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(1), pages 1-39, March.
    6. Sánchez, José J. & Baerenklau, Ken & González-Cabán, Armando, 2016. "Valuing hypothetical wildfire impacts with a Kuhn–Tucker model of recreation demand," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 63-70.
    7. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2008. "Internet CV surveys – a cheap, fast way to get large samples of biased values?," MPRA Paper 11471, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Beilei Cai & Trudy Cameron & Geoffrey Gerdes, 2010. "Distributional Preferences and the Incidence of Costs and Benefits in Climate Change Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(4), pages 429-458, August.
    9. Arthur van Soest & Arie Kapteyn, 2009. "Mode and Context Effects in Measuring Household Assets," Working Papers 200949, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    10. Matthias Schonlau & Arthur van Soest & Arie Kapteyn & Mick Couper, 2009. "Selection Bias in Web Surveys and the Use of Propensity Scores," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(3), pages 291-318, February.
    11. Roth, Alvin E. & Leider, Stephen, 2010. "Kidneys For Sale: Who Disapproves, and Why?," Scholarly Articles 5128483, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    12. Wirth, Ferdinand F. & Stanton, John L. & Wiley, James B., 2011. "The Relative Importance of Search versus Credence Product Attributes: Organic and Locally Grown," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(1), pages 1-15, April.
    13. V. Kerry Smith & Carol Mansfield & Aaron Strong, 2008. "Public or Private Production of Food Safety: What Do U.S. Consumers Want?," NBER Working Papers 14287, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2010. "Can cheap panel-based internet surveys substitute costly in-person interviews in CV surveys?," MPRA Paper 24069, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
    16. Jinan N. Allan & Joseph T. Ripberger & Wesley Wehde & Makenzie Krocak & Carol L. Silva & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith, 2020. "Geographic Distributions of Extreme Weather Risk Perceptions in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2498-2508, December.
    17. Murphy, Michael J., 2021. "Use of counterfactual population projections for assessing the demographic determinants of population ageing," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 106185, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Murakami, Kayo & Ida, Takanori & Tanaka, Makoto & Friedman, Lee, 2015. "Consumers' willingness to pay for renewable and nuclear energy: A comparative analysis between the US and Japan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 178-189.
    19. Hui Li & R. P. Berrens & A. K. Bohara & H. C. Jenkins-Smith & C. L. Silva & L. Weimer, 2004. "Telephone versus Internet samples for a national advisory referendum: are the underlying stated preferences the same?," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 173-176.
    20. Jamil, Rehan, 2020. "Hydroelectricity consumption forecast for Pakistan using ARIMA modeling and supply-demand analysis for the year 2030," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-10.

    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:sae:simgam:v:50:y:2019:i:3:p:377-392. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.