Using Role-Play Simulations to Teach Environmental

NEWS & INFORMATION

Using Role-PlaySimulations to TeachEnvironmental DecisionMaking and ConflictResolution Techniques

Robert MeridethRachel Yaseen

As competition has increased in the UnitedStates and elsewhere over the allocation,use, and preservation of natural resources,the number of environmental conflictslikewise has proliferated. There is growingrecognition of the need for alternatives toreaching settlements—alternatives to pro-tracted litigation, contentious administra-tive rule making, and controversial legis-lative actions (Emerson and Yarde, 1997)-Environmental conflict resolution tech-niques—such as facilitated discussions,negotiation, and mediation—offer onesuch set of alternatives, especially for deal-ing with conflicts involving multiple stake-holders and interests.

Over the past several decades, a substantialbody of research and practice has helpedshape and inform a field of study focus-ing on environmental conflicts and theirresolution (Bingham, 1986; Blackburn andBruce, 1995; Crowfoot and Wondolleck,1990; Moore, 1998; Susskind, 2000; Won-dolleck and Yaffee, 2000). During the pastfour years, the Udall Center for Studies inPublic Policy at The University of Ari-zona—in partnership with the federalMorris K. Udall Foundation and its US In-stitute for Environmental Conflict Reso-lution—has developed and operated aresearch and outreach program in envi-ronmental conflict resolution.1 The UdallCenter also has organized and facilitatedseveral public forums and dialogues, suchas the Arizona Common Ground Round-table and Dialogue San Pedro, with the aimof providing neutral settings for face-to-face discussions on contentious environ-mental issues. As part of these efforts, andto instruct adult audiences in environmen-tal decision making and conflict resolutiontechniques, the Center has created, en-acted, and distributed several role-playsimulations.

In this article, we describe these exercisesand the processes we have used to developthem. We also discuss and analyze ourexperiences and outcomes enacting thegames. Finally, though our simulationsfocus on environmental conflicts in theSouthwest, we provide guidance for educa-tors, government officials, and environ-mental professionals who might want touse such techniques in their own geo-graphic or issue settings.

Environmental ConflictResolution SimulationsSimulations are devised scenarios—oftenbased on real-world situations—in whichparticipants assume the roles of characters(often different than their own real-lifesituations) to achieve an objective (Field,1997). In the case of environmental conflictsimulations, participants have the oppor-tunity to role-play a variety of stakeholdersin a dispute over water use, land manage-ment, endangered-species protection, facil-ity siting, or other such topics.

At a basic level, environmental role-playsimulations can serve as interesting, alter-native methods to instruct about the rangeof scientific, political, social, and culturalissues present in a particular environmen-tal conflict. Simulations also can be usefulto teach participants about more complexprocesses, such as the dynamics of groupdecision making, intergroup and intra-group conflicts, political tactics, interest-based lobbying, and about the realitiesof developing long-term collaborationsfor natural resources management (Ergi,1999).

The objective of a facilitated discussion ornegotiation, as simulated by the role-playexercises we discuss here, is to arrive at aconflict resolution acceptable to all, or atthe very least, to most of the interests repre-sented. (We mention later, however, thatfor a number of reasons, achieving this goalis often not possible—nor is it essential todo so—in the context of a game.) By takingon specific roles and value positions, re-searching and learning about the roles in-depth, gaining access to relevant and up-to-date information, and making decisionsbased on those roles, participants can learnabout an issue and other individuals' view-

points, and can develop a deeper apprecia-tion for the sources of conflict and pos-sible cooperation.

The gist of role-play simulations is rela-tively simple to explain. Each participant inthe simulation receives in advance of thegame a set of instructions that documentsthe setting and context of the simulatedconflict, lists the stakeholders involved, anddescribes the background and motivationsfor the participant's particular character.Having reviewed those materials, the parti-cipants (in their character roles) are thenled, in a roundtable format, by a facilitatorthrough various stages in the game: to statepositions and interests; to generate lists ofissues, questions, or evaluative criteria thatrelate to the interests; to identify policytools and other actions that might be usedto address the issues; and to attempt to de-velop viable sets of solutions.

We describe in more detail below, using ex-amples from the Udall Center experiences,the specific simulation components andthe enactment process.

Udall Center SimulationsThe Udall Center has developed two typesof exercises that focus on southwestern en-vironmental conflicts. The first type are thegames, Trouble in Tortuga! (Emerson, Mov-ius, and Merideth, 1999). addressing ranch-ing and land use issues, and Conflict on theCulebra! (Yarde, Merideth, and Moodie,1999). dealing with a watershed-based con-troversy. These simulations are simple, yetflexible, in terms of the conflict, context,and number and types of characters.

Both games were developed over severalmonths with the assistance of advisorycommittees.2 The simulations made theirrespective debuts at two professional con-ferences held in Tucson, Arizona: Tortuga!in October 1996 at "The Future of AridGrasslands" conference and Culebra! inSeptember 1998 at the Arizona Hydrologi-cal Society meeting. In each case, the simu-lations were showcased as featured eventsbefore audiences of conference attendees.Since the initial enactments, the simula-tions have been used in undergraduate andgraduate courses at The University of Ari-zona (including such disciplines as agricul-

News & Information 139

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core, IP address: 65.21.228.167, on subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046600001356

https://www.cambridge.org/core

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046600001356

NEWS & INFORMATION

tural economics, hydrology, planning, andpublic administration) and elsewhere, andin other community settings. In somecases, participants of the simulations havebeen inspired to develop their own role-play exercises.1

The second type is a game developed underthe auspices of a six-day workshop, "Door-ways to Dialogue," organized by the UdallCenter and Tucson-based EnvironmentalEducation Exchange in August 1999. In thatvenue, the workshop participants assistedin the creation of, and then enacted, theirown exercise that focused on an urban,land-use conflict, Breaking Barriers in BlackMountain (Yaseen, 2000). The idea behindthis approach to simulation design and de-velopment is that it allows the participantsto target a particular environmental issueand set of stakeholders that interests thegroup. In the "Doorways to Dialogue"workshop, this seemed to give the partici-pants ownership in the actual simulationand to help them learn more rapidly howthey might proceed to develop such gamesfor classroom, workplace, or communityuse.

Based on our own experiences and on com-ments we have received from several indi-viduals who have enacted the simulationsin their university courses and in othercommunity settings/ both organizers andparticipants have responded favorably tothe role-play simulation process. One orga-nizer indicated that the simulations givestudents a real-world experience in cop-ing with divergent interests surroundingan environmental conflict and that theycan give the classroom a stimulus to discussin a manageable setting such conceptsas interest-based bargaining, transactioncosts, interdependencies, and economicimpacts. The simulations also provide a sit-uation in which participants could experi-ence the effects of variations or inequitiesrelated to access to information, financialresources, or political influence.

Some participants have found the simula-tions too easily solvable, the roles too flex-ible, while others have found the exercisestoo complex. Some have thought the timedeadline was helpful, but almost all haveindicated more time and longer sessions

would be helpful. Many participants havesaid the simulations help build trust amongplayers, and allow the players to see otherperspectives and find common ground. Oras one participant informed the organizer,"I never thought about what the other sidethought about this issue before having toplay that role."

For use in the classroom, most of the orga-nizers have found that simulations of thissort seem easier to manage in courses withrelatively fewer students (30 or less) ratherthan large classes (50 or more), although,as we discuss below, there are several waysto involve more players. Simulations thatare less technically detailed are easier toplay than those that require quantitativesolutions or special expertise, such as engi-neering or legal backgrounds. The simula-tions seem to work best toward the middleor end of a course—once students have ac-quired some knowledge of issues or pro-cesses, or both. As one organizer said, "Itwas a good capstone experience for thecourse."

For use in community settings, there isoften more opportunity to engage partici-pants with diverse backgrounds whichbrings more variety and, perhaps, realityinto the role playing. In such settings, thereis often more flexibility in scheduling thesimulation to allow more time in which toenact the game and to achieve greater depththroughout the simulation's various stages.

All organizers have remarked that havingparticipants learn about their characters inadvance and develop an informed appreci-ation of the stakeholders' viewpoints andissues involved, is essential to ensuring amore lively and fruitful enactment of thesimulation. When players participate in thesimulation without sufficient depth of un-derstanding of their character, there is of-ten an inability on the part of those playersto engage the other stakeholders or to artic-ulate interests and negotiating positions.But, this also can become a quick lesson,at least to the less informed participant, ofthe value of information in a negotiationprocess.

Finally, almost all organizers have com-mented that while participants often feelfrustrated when they have insufficient time

to achieve a settlement or to "end thegame," there is widespread agreement thatthe real value of the simulation is in its abil-ity to involve the participants in the pro-cesses of discussion and negotiation—often hearing and understanding otherviewpoints, in essence, for the first time.

In the following sections, using the UdallCenter's Tortuga! simulation as the princi-pal model (and citing specific examplesfrom the Culebra! and Breaking Barriersexercises as appropriate), we describe theprocesses for designing, developing, andenacting a simulation for persons who maywant to create and use their own versions.

Designing and Developinga SimulationIn general, there are twelve steps to design-ing and developing the various compo-nents of a role-play simulation (Table 1).

The simulation developer first needs toidentify the intended audience and to ar-ticulate the training or instructional ob-jectives. For example, is the aim of thesimulation to be university undergraduatestudents, a group of environmental pro-fessionals with similar backgrounds, or adiverse gathering of community partici-pants? What particular issues, concepts, orprocesses are to be emphasized?

The next step is to determine the scope ofthe conflict, both in terms of issues (wateruse, land management, endangered speciesprotection, facility siting) and geography(parcel, watershed, county, regional scale).Another preliminary step is to begin toidentify the range of stakeholders involvedin the conflict. The goal in the simulationshould be to have a manageable number ofparticipants, but also to include as many ofthe relevant interests as possible. In a realconflict-resolution process, all significantstakeholders need to be part of the dis-cussion in order to achieve a viable andsustainable solution, but having too manyparticipants in a simulation can becomeunwieldy.

Next, the developer needs to identify anylegal, technical, social, environmental, orother constraints the game must address.Are there specific surface water flow pat-terns to consider, such as those associated

140 Environmental Practice 2 (2) June 2000




https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046600001356

NEWS & INFORMATION

Table 1. Steps for developing a role-play simulation game (modified after Field, 1997)

1. Identify target audience and specify training or instructional objectives2. Identify environmental conflict and geographic focus3. Create list of potential stakeholders4. Identify legal, technical, social, environmental, or other constraints game must

address5. Interview experts or stakeholders to gather details about various issues and

character roles6. Convene advisory group of experts to answer questions and brainstorm7. Prepare simulation documents and supplemental materials8. Edit simulation documents and materials with assistance of experts or advisory

group9. Hold trial run of simulation with consultants, educators, or professionals playing

roles10. Revise simulation documents as necessary based on trial run11. Enact simulation with target audience12. Prepare summary or analysis of simulation's outcomes and players' experiences

with southwestern, perennial streams? Or,are there particular laws, administrativerules, or legal doctrines that apply, suchas the "first in time, first in right" rulefor western surface water? The developershould interview and consult with expertsand stakeholders (similar to those beingportrayed in the simulation) to gather de-tails about the various issues and characterroles. Or the developer could convene agroup of knowledgeable persons (as wasdone to develop the Tortuga! and Culebra!games) to meet and help answer questionsand brainstorm collectively.

The developer should then prepare thegame materials, including descriptions ofthe conflict, context, and character roles, aswell as any supplemental materials, such asmaps, tables, background readings, andother informational items. The overviewfor Tortuga! shows how one might weaveenvironmental, social, cultural, and politi-cal issues within a narrative that also in-cludes a historical background on the con-flict, the present status of the situation, andpossibilities for future outcomes (Table 2).In terms of character development, thereare several components to consider: thecharacter's name, profession, personality,values, priorities, alliances, competitors,previous interactions with other charac-ters, attitudes, values, personal life, hob-bies, and best and worst outcomes to a ne-gotiated agreement (Table 3). Again, speak-

ing to actual stakeholders can be useful incapturing more realistically the various as-pects of the characters.

The developer should then circulate thedraft documents and solicit commentsfrom the experts or advisory group. Afterthis review and editing process, the devel-oper should then prepare a version of thesimulation document for use in a test run.For the test run, the developer should enactthe game following the process outlined inthe section below, using facilitators, con-sultants, educators, agency personnel, orother professionals to volunteer to play thestakeholder roles. This will be useful in be-ing able to gather critical assessments of thevarious components, processes, and out-comes related to the simulation.

The developer should revise the game com-ponents based on these comments and ex-periences and distribute the revised ver-sion, as appropriate, to the target audiencefor which the simulation was originally de-signed and developed. The developer thenshould enact the simulation and prepare asummary or analysis of the simulation'soutcomes and players' experiences.5

Enacting a SimulationParticipants

The Tortuga! simulation is designed to in-volve eight participants, each assuming therole of a character (rancher, developer, lo-

cal government official, environmentalist,state and federal agency representatives,etc.), and including one or two facilitators.Ideally, the participants will play a charac-ter different than their own real-life situa-tion. However, the role of facilitator is anessential one and there are certain skillsthat are critical.6 Also, there is often a needto have one or more note takers to assist thefacilitator. (The facilitator should discusswith the note takers, in advance of the exer-cise, any preferred format or procedures fornote taking.) In exercises where technicalor legal questions might arise, such as witha watershed-based exercise or complexland-use project, there may be a need foran objective expert (hydrologist, lawyer,or land-use planner) who can provide an-swers to specific questions as they mightarise in the game. And although Tortuga!and the other exercises have a fixed numberof characters, more or fewer persons canparticipate, depending on the interestsor constraints of the organizers andparticipants.7

Each participant should receive, in advanceof the simulation, a copy of the "Overview"(Table 2), his or her character's "Confiden-tial Instructions" (Table 3), as well as anymaps, summary sheets, or other supple-mental information. Each facilitator shouldreceive and review all materials, includingthe "Confidential Instructions" for facilita-tors and those for all stakeholders.

Logistics

A typical duration for the exercise is twotwo-hour sessions, with a 30-minute breakbetween sessions, followed by a 30-minutediscussion and assessment by the partici-pants of what they learned from the simu-lation exercise. The two-hour sessions aremeant to simulate two full-day meetings,ostensibly held on consecutive Saturdays,with the break simulating the interveningweek. Obviously, the format of this exercisecan be varied. Depending on time con-straints, the backgrounds and prior knowl-edge of the participants, or other factors,the simulation sessions can be enactedwithin time periods ranging from 45-minute to full-day sessions. Much moretime will need to be allocated if the partici-pants will be developing all or part of a sim-

Nevvs & Information 141




https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046600001356

NEWS & INFORMATION

Table 2. Overview from the simulation game, Trouble in Tortuga! (from Emerson, Movius, and Merideth, 1999)

There's trouble breiving in Tortuga—and how!

It all started with Ed Middleton's widow, owner of the 640-acre X-Bar Ranch—she up and died. Now the three Middleton kids, notinterested themselves in working the ranch and needing the cash real soon to pay inheritance taxes, are determined to sell the X-Bar to thehighest bidder. Developer Sidney Stone is eager to snap up the estate to build 400 clustered homes.

Neighboring ranchers, Gil Espinosa (La Rosita Ranch) and Toby Nunn (Bar Nunn Ranch) are keenly interested in these developments.Espinosa also want to buy the X-Bar—and its grazing rights to 15,000 acres in the adjacent San Cristobal National Forest—but doesn't havethe cash. Nunn wants to stay in ranching if possible, but a recent illness and a daughter in college mean that financial security has never beenas important as it is now—and there already has been an offer to buy the Bar Nunn.

Meanwhile, Espinosa has been told by Pat Wright, the district ranger of the US Forest Service, that La Rosita's grazing allotments on thepublic land are to be reduced next year because of a recent drought in the area. And local firebrand Corey Flintlock, an activist with SAGE(Save the Arid Grassland Environment), wants to keep both cattle and condos out of the area to protect the grasslands and the habitat of therare Gray Hawk. TJie status of the hawk also has interested Joey Waterstone of the State Game and Fish Commission, whose agency isconsidering the purchase of grassland conservation easements—including the area near Tortuga.

So while county planner Brady Euclid worries about the impact of the proposed clustered development on the small community of Tortuga—water, sewage, traffic schools, police and fire protection—the bigger worry is what some other developer—Blake Worstcase, for example—might do if Stone walks, or is driven, away from the deal with the Middletons.

In response to Euclid's request and worries about the increasingly confrontational atmosphere building in Tortuga, the planning board hasretained Jan Masters, a facilitator from an out-of-state conflict resolution firm to convene the major stakeholders. The board hopes that thestakeholders can develop a mutually agreeable solution that can inform the zoning board's need to make a decision regarding Stone'sdevelopment plans at the board's meeting in two weeks.

With time so short, the facilitator quickly interviewed the parties privately and all have agreed to participate in a series of two day-longmeetings to be held a week apart.

ulation, as with the Breaking Barriers exer-cise developed in the "Doorways to Dia-logue" workshop.

The recommended room arrangement forthe exercise is a roundtable format, withnameplates for each character. The tableshould accommodate all participants (allcharacters, facilitators, and note takers),with additional seating made availablearound the room for any observers or per-sons playing the roles of constituents. Flipcharts, blackboards, or overhead projec-tors to document the points of discussionshould be easily accessible and visible to allparticipants. This also applied to any en-larged maps, posters, or other graphicaldisplays.

Preparation

Sometime before the date of the simulationenactment, the organizer or person whowill play the character of facilitator shouldtalk individually to the participants to see ifthey have any questions about their charac-

ters or about the general format and pro-cess for the exercise. The organizer or facili-tator should encourage each participant tolearn as much as possible beforehand:about the issues involved in the conflict, thetype of character the participant will beplaying, and about what perspectives thatcharacter might realistically bring to thetable. The organizer might provide newsclippings or other readings on issues simi-lar to that dealt with in the simulation, orask the participants to interview personssimilar to those whose character they willassume in the simulation. As appropriate(and without getting too corny), the parti-cipants should feel free to use props (maps,charts, books), articles of clothing (such ashats, jackets, t-shirts, vests), or whateverelse might help them portray and projectthe "image" of their character.

On the day of the simulation and immedi-ately prior to the exercise, the facilitatorshould meet with the participants (as agroup) for a brief discussion about how the

simulation will begin and proceed. If agroup of stakeholders needs to select a rep-resentative to sit at the table, or if a charac-ter needs to meet with his or her constit-uents, they should do so prior to the begin-ning of the game. The facilitator begins thesimulation with a brief overview, such asrestating the history of the conflict, out-lining the reasons the stakeholders haveagreed to gather, elaborating the rules forprocedure that the stakeholders haveagreed to in advance (i.e., participants mustwait until being recognized by the facilita-tor to speak; all persons will show respectfor the others at the table, with no namecalling, profanity, or incivility; for groups,only the representative at the table can par-ticipate in the discussion, and so on). Thefacilitator then guides the simulationthrough its various stages.

Facilitated Discussion

The first stage of the facilitated discussionsolicits verbal positions from the various





https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046600001356

NEWS & INFORMATION

Table 3. Stakeholders from the simulation game, Trouble in Tortuga! (from Emerson, Movius, and Merideth, 1999)

Brady Euclid, county plannerCorey Flintlock, coordinator, Save the Arid Grassland Environment (SAGE)Toby Nunn, rancher, Bar Nunn Ranch

Gil Espinosa, rancher, La Rosita RanchSidney Stone, developer, Sierra GrandeJoey Waterstone, State Game and Fish CommissionPat Wright, San Cristobal district ranger, US Forest ServiceJan Masters, facilitator

Middleton children (heirs to the X-Bar Ranch; not participating in the simulation)Blake Worstcase (another developer; not participating in the simulation)

Example of Confidential Instructions for Gil Espinosa (La Rosita Ranch)

Cattle ranching sure isn't what it used to be. Your grandfather started up La Rosita Ranch nearly 60 years ago. For the past ten years—eversince Ed Middleton died—you have managed the X-Bar, and it's a beautiful old place. Such a shame that the Middleton kids are selling out.And the timing couldn't be worse! With cattle prices dropping, the only way to survive seems to be to sell more cattle, which means increasingthe herd. If district ranger Pat Wright's plan to drastically reduce grazing allotments goes through, you'll have to reduce the herd. How in theworld can anyone expect you to make a decent living again as a rancher if this happens? Tliis reduction must not go through1. To make sure itdoesn't, you have organized the district ranchers and retained an attorney to fight the reduction tooth-and-nail if necessary. But adding toyour headache is this crazy new development proposal, which you adamantly oppose. A massive new influx of residents to Tortuga will bringnothing but trouble. Tliey will ask for a new school, a new library—all those expensive improvements that city folks insist on. Your taxes willskyrocket! And most importantly, there will be recreational demands placed on the San Cristobal National Forest, threatening the continuedpractice of grazing on that prime piece of public land. But you have come up with a plan of your own. You and your neighbor Toby Nunn—always a good friend in a pinch—have agreed to approach Sydney Stone with a proposal to buy 100 acres of the X-Bar Ranch at the full pcr-acre price paid to the Middleton estate. In exchange, you are prepared to support Stone's plan (especially if fewer cluster units are planned).Tixis way you and Toby can qualify to buy the old X-Bar allotment. Wliileyou only need 40 acres to qualify, you would like some of this landto include Las Culebras Wash as a water source for your cattle.

stakeholder (one by one) and attempts totease out the implicit interests and con-cerns driving these positions. The note tak-ers list these points for all to see on the flipcharts, blackboard, or overhead transpar-encies. For example, in the Tortuga! exer-cise, rancher Gil Espinosa's interests andpositions (Table 3) might be expressed as:wanting to maintain or expand the herdsize for La Rosita Ranch, opposing theproposed reduction in grazing allowedon public lands, avoiding additional taxesthat might result from the increase in ser-vices needed from the development, andfearing potential conflicts with new resi-dents seeking to recreate on the nearbypublic lands.

The second stage of the process generatesfrom the stakeholders a list of issues forconsideration, often in the form of open-ended questions that relate to the interestsexpressed in the first stage. For example,some questions that might emerge from

the discussion of Gil Espinosa's interests inTortuga! are: How will the income and life-style of ranchers in Tortuga be preserved?Who will hold the X-Bar Ranch's public-land grazing permit? How many cattle peracre will be allowed on the US Forest Ser-vice land? How much will additional ser-vices and infrastructure cost as a result ofthe new residents in the planned develop-ment? And who will pay for these? Howmuch additional recreational use will therebe in on the public lands, and how will thisaffect the nearby ranches and their cattleoperations?

The end of the second stage is a good pointfor a break. If time permits, the breakmight be extended, especially to allow forcaucusing among stakeholders (who maywant to develop joint proposals of solu-tions for presentation later) or for meetingsbetween stakeholders and their constit-uents (if any). In addition, the break isthe time to introduce a surprise, a late-

breaking development, or a significantchange in the structure of the situation. Forexample, in Tortuga!, a news flash is intro-duced during the break that reports one ofthe ranchers has been offered a substantialamount of money to sell the ranch to an-other developer (Table 4). The break is alsothe time for the facilitator and note takersto organize and compile the notes (fromthe flip charts, blackboards, note cards) foruse in the next sessions, and for the facilita-tor to gather any information to answerquestions or clarify points that might havearisen during the earlier sessions. After thebreak concludes, the facilitator then re-sumes the simulation.

The third stage allows the stakeholders todiscuss actions or policy tools that might beused to address the issues or questions gen-erated in the previous stage. (If there hasbeen a surprise or late development duringthe break, the facilitator may want to allowthe participants to deal with this first, such





https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046600001356

NEWS & INFORMATION

Table 4. News Flash from the simulation game, Trouble in Tortuga! (from Emerson, Movius, and Merideth, 1999)

The Tortuga Times

Developer Offers to Buy Local Ranch

by Sam Storybored

Land developer Blake Worstcase has reportedly offered a substantial sum to Tortuga rancher Toby Nunn to purchase the Bar Nunn Ranch.

Worstcase intends to turn the ranch into 160 four-acre ranchettes.

Neither Worstcase nor Nunn were available for comment today, but one source close to the deal was quoted as saying, "Toby's a good person,but Blake is making it awfully hard to say no. It's a big chunk of money."

Fran Townelder, chairperson of the County Board of Supervisors, added, "If Sydney Stone's option expires, Worstcase will buy theX-Bar too.TIten we'll be looking at over 300 ranchettes and the end of ranching in Tortuga as we know it."

as by revisiting some of the items discussedin the earlier stages.) Some examples ofthe types of actions or policy tools thatmight be used in Tortuga! include the use ofeasements, green space dedication, zoningchanges, tax credits, state or federal fundsallocations, grazing allocation changes,water rights purchases, land buyouts, andlawsuits, to name a few. An alternative oradditional task at this point, depending onthe type of simulation exercise, might be todefine criteria with which to evaluate vari-ous proposals or plans that might emergelater. For example, in the Breaking Barriersexercise—with its focus being the prepara-tion of a land-use plan acceptable to a widevariety of stakeholders—the participantslisted some two dozen evaluation criteria,such as: impacts on traffic, noise, crime,and streetlights; sensitivity to cultural andheritage factors; ability to enhance eco-nomic growth in blighted areas; impacts onwater, wildlife, archeological sites; involve-ment of citizenry in decision making; andothers.

The fourth stage attempts to cluster pos-sible actions and policy tools into sets ofoptions that all stakeholders could agreeupon. An example of such a clustering forTortuga! might be that the developer (Sid-ney Stone) also buys the Bar Nunn Ranchfrom Nunn, designs the development withfenced-in clustering and green spaces,maintains grazing on certain portions ofboth ranches, provides allotments andgrazing options to Espinosa, provides as-surances of no further development otherthan what already has been proposed,

maintains access to public forest lands forrecreationists, sets aside a swath along thewash as a riparian corridor for hawk habi-tat preservation, sells development rightson a portion of the land to the state as anopen-space buffer, and shares some infra-structure costs. If agreeable to all parties,this set of options then becomes a condi-tion to Stone's receiving a favorable reportfrom the stakeholders on Stone's zoningamendment request. The evaluative criteriaidentified in stage three could also be ap-plied to the sets of options developed inthis stage, especially if there is a need to pri-oritize two or more sets of options. (Andfor a more experienced group of partici-pants, there could be an added complexityin the simulation—something that mightactually happen in a real negotiation—namely the refusal of one or more constit-uents to go along with their representativein ratifying an agreement, or for one ormore parties at the table to be obstruction-ist by refusing to negotiate further, thus un-dermining a possible resolution.)

The game proceeds through the four stagesdescribed above and continues throughthe time allotted, or earlier if a conclu-sion is reached or the discussions becomestalled. However, a complete solution isnot likely to be reached under these simu-lated conditions (i.e., there may not beenough time or there may not be enoughinformation available on some key issues).The real importance of the simulation is inlearning the process of how to deal withconflicts and how to develop possiblesolutions.

The final stage is the debriefing and discus-sion to give the players, now back in theirreal-life personalities, a chance to describeand evaluate their experiences during thesimulation. The facilitator should solicitcomments from each participant (andfrom members of the audience, as appro-priate) about the simulation exercise, theirroles, and any insights or lessons theymight have learned from playing their re-spective characters. The debriefing and dis-cussion is an important part of the simula-tion and therefore the facilitator should en-sure that the time allocated for that activityis guarded and not consumed by the earlierstages. And, to complete the documenta-tion process, either the organizer, facilita-tor, or both, will need to summarize thesecomments in a report that could be distrib-uted to the participants and any other in-terested observers.

SummaryRole-play simulations can offer innovativeand interesting means to teach about en-vironmental conflicts and approaches toachieve resolutions. Simulations can beused in a variety of settings and can involvea range of participants. And, as we have at-tempted to describe here, based on ourown experiences and those of several col-leagues, though simulations can require alot of detail and care in their design, devel-opment, and enactment, the results are wellworth the effort.

Notes1. For more information about these organiza-tions, please consult their respective Web sites:





https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046600001356

NEWS & INFORMATION

Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, TheUniversity or Arizona, udallcenter.arizona.edu;Morris K. Udall Foundation, udall.gov; US Insti-tute for Environmental Conflict Resolution,ecr.gov.

2. Each simulation relied on its own advisorycommittee, but both drew upon the membershipof the Environmental Dispute and ResolutionGroup (ENDRIG), now known as the ConflictAnalysis, Research, Mediation, and ManagementAlliance (CARMA), an informal group of fac-ulty, students, practitioners, agency personnel,non-governmental organization representatives,and interested members of the community.CARMA meetings are convened and hosted reg-ularly by the Udall Center to discuss research andpractical issues related to environmental con-flicts and approaches to resolution.

3- A recent example is that undertaken in March2000 by Melanie Seacat, public participationmanager for the Pima Association of Govern-ments in Tucson, AZ. Her simulation, Gridlockin Granite Roads, is aimed at using the role-play technique as a supplement to the public-participation process related to the allocation ofPima County's transportation improvementfunds. Seacat participated in an enactment of theTortuga! simulation in July 1999.

4- The respondents include: ChristopherBrown, assistant professor of geography, WestChester University, PA; Joan Calcagno, rostermanager, US Institute for Environmental Con-flict Resolution, Tucson, AZ; and two faculty atThe University of Arizona, James Washburne,assistant professor of hydrology and water re-sources, and Paul Wilson, professor of agricul-tural and resource economics.

5- The developer may want to incorporate a re-search component into the simulation, measur-ing such variables as pre- and post-simulationattitudes of the participants or audience mem-bers. Or the developer may want to use the simu-lation process to generate actual policy recom-mendations or as a mechanism to gather publiccomments on a particular issue or proposedproject. These outcomes could become part ofthe final report also.

6. The person who plays the character of facilita-tor (this could be the organizer of the simulation°r somebody else) should have some back-ground and skill at facilitating a group negotia-tion process. If the person is not a trained facili-tator, they should at least know how to lead andmanage a group discussion and be familiar withgroup discussion and information-gatheringtechniques, such as nominal group technique,story boarding, idea writing, or other such ap-proaches (Moore, 1994). The critical aspect ofthis is that the discussion should be structured,that everyone should be allowed to speak in turnand without interruption, and, given the like-lihood of there being participants with variouspersonalities and communication styles, thatboth verbal and written communications (Le.,asking participants to write their comments onnote cards) be used together or alternatively to

give everyone a chance to say something in themanner in which they can best express them-selves. The facilitator has six primary goals: 1) tomake sure that each party is given a chance tospeak and have his or her concerns acknowl-edged; 2) to keep the parties committed to work-ing toward a solution that everyone can live with;3) to acknowledge institutional, legal, and tech-nical constraints that might exist but to keep theparties focused on an interest-based solution;4) to help the parties generate several possible al-ternative options before focusing on any one op-tion for too long; 5) to identify and seek to gener-ate objectively any technical information thatmay be needed regarding either the assumptionson which different plans are based or the impli-cations of proposed plans; and 6) to remind theparties as necessary that failing to reach an ac-ceptable solution may lead to an outcome that isless satisfactory to all. The facilitator may need,from time to time, to stop the game and breakback into real life if there is a point where playceases because of some obstacle (such as an un-resolved question, lack of information, or un-controllable behavior or unresponsiveness onthe part of one or more players). In this casethe person playing the facilitator role stops thegame, everyone momentarily breaks character,and the facilitator and group deal with the sty-mie. Once the obstacles are resolved, the gamecontinues and the participants resume theircharacter roles.

7. There are several strategies for adding charac-ters or participants to a previously designed sim-ulation. The Tortuga! and Cidebra! simulationslend themselves easily to including additionalstakeholders, such as government officials, vari-ous types of environmentalists, members of thechamber of commerce or other business leaders,Native American tribal representatives, or otherrelevant individuals that might have an interestin the issue. The roles for these additional per-sons would need to be developed in advance.However, if the intent is to involve observers ormembers of an audience, an easier option is toask them to play the roles of constituents of thepreexisting characters. Throughout the game orduring the break, the characters can consult orseek advice from their assigned constituents,who are seated around the room (not at thetable). Another variant is that used in the Break-ing Barriers simulation, where there are eightcharacter types (an environmentalist being onetype), with two or three different persons orgroups (three different environmental groups,for example) included within that type. Onlyone person of that type sits at the table and theothers are seated around the room.

ReferencesBingham, G. 1986. Resolving Environmental Dis-putes^ Decade of Experiences. The ConservationFoundation, Washington, DC, 184 pp.Blackburn, J. W, and W. Bruce. 1995. MediatingEnvironmental Conflicts: Theory and Practice.Quorum Books, Westport, CT, 309 pp.

Crowfoot, J. E, and J. M. Wondolleck. 1990. En-vironmental Disputes: Community Involvementin Conflict Resolution. Island Press, Washington,DC, 278 pp.

Emerson, JC, and R. Yarde. 1997. The Case forEnvironmental Conflict Resolution (ECR). In AReport on the Proposed US Institute for Environ-mental Conflict Resolution (S.399). Morris K.Udall Foundation, Tucson, AZ, pp. 2-4.

Emerson, K., H. Movius, and R. Merideth. 1999.Trouble on the Tortuga!: A Role-play SimulationGame for Teaching Environmental Conflict Reso-lution Techniques (id rev. ed.). Udall Center forStudies in Public Policy at The University of Ari-zona, Tucson, AZ, 24 pp.

Ergi, C. P. 1999. The Environmental Round TableRole-play Exercise: The Dynamics of Multistake-holder Decision-Making Processes. Journal ofManagement Education 23(i):95-ii2.Field, P. 1997. Simulations: Learning by Doing.CBI Reports: A Newsletter of the Consensus Build-ing Institute 2(2):2.

Moore, C. M. 1994. Group Techniques for IdeaBuilding (id ed.). Sage Publications, ThousandOaks, CA, 110 pp.

Moore, C. 1998. Mediating Environmental andPublic Policy Disputes. CDR Associates, Boulder,CO.

Susskind, L, 2000. Negotiating EnvironmentalAgreements: Hmv to Avoid Escalating Confronta-tion, Needless Costs, and Unnecessary Litigation.Island Press, Washington, DC, 337 pp.

Wondolleck, J. M., and S. L Yaffee. 2000. MakingCollaboration Work Lessons from Innovation inthe Natural Resource Management. Island Press,Washington, DC (in press).

Yarde, R., R. Merideth, and S. Moodie. 1999.Conflict on the Culcbrah A Role-play SimulationGame for Teaching Environmental Conflict Reso-lution Techniques. Udall Center for Studies inPublic Policy at The University of Arizona, Tuc-son, AZ, 24 pp.

Yaseen, R. 2000. Breaking Barriers in BlackMountain: A Simulation Game. Udall Center forStudies in Public Policy at The University of Ari-zona, Tucson, AZ (in press).

Address correspondence to RobertMerideth, Coordinator, Policy InformationPrograms, Udall Center for Studies in PublicPolicy, Tlic University of Arizona, 803 KFirst St., Tucson, AZ 85719; (fax) 520-884-4702; (e-mail) [email protected].





https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046600001356

PRECIOUS HERITAGEThe Sta*u**f Biodiversity in theUnited State*Edited by tax* IJtein, Lyra S. toteer, andJonathan S L A A w l *

"\n PreciousHeritage waxof the leadingexperts on die ~

f Subject presentthe most compre-hensive andaccessible accountof the state of theAmerican biotato date. Theyinvite us to turninward, not byabandoning glob-

al conservation but by conserving our ownfauna and flora in a manner that will set ashining example for the rest of the world."—from the Foreword by Edward O. Wilson.

2000 416 pp.; 230 color photos.* 109 colorline illus.$45.00

HOT TOPICSEveryday Environmental Concerns1 k Abbasi, P. Irishnakumari, and F. I. KhanWhat are the likely impacts of a warmerearth? Why is the ozone hole predominandyover the Antarctic? How is radioactive wastetreated and transported? This book fora gen-eral readership covers these topics and more indetail, with numerous case histories and illus-trations.

2000 228 pp^ 27 One$19.95

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL1 6 * '•

An Australian Perspect iveEdition

Paul Begs, Gary trieriey, Heten, | ikr Cum, hat Mitchell, Andrew

(book explores die diverse environmentalre currendy face. Emphasizing

tirobkms in Australia, this book is built aroundcase studies focusing on health, population, land,water, forests, the atmosphere, and urbanization.This new edition includes substantial Aewcbta,extensive coverage of global environmentalproblems, and new material on population,water, and international cooperation.

1*99 414 MK 73 IIS color Mus>

$45.00

EL NINO, 1997-1998The Climate Event of the CenturyEdited by Stanley A. Changnon

This book pres-ents what hap-pened in theUnited States toallowed El Ninoto become ahousehold wordand a "climateevent of the ceo*tury" for sdentttts.It is a "snapshot"of events duringthe 14-monthperiod when El

Nino developed in die spring of 1997 and endedin die early summer of 1998. Its particular focusis on information that appeared in die media andon the Internet—the two major informationsources during the event.

2000 232 pp.; 65 line illus.doth $60.00/ pap«r $29.95

INTERNATIONAL PESTICIDEPRODUCT REGISTRATIONREQUIREMENTSThe Road to HarmonizationEdited by WiHa Garner, Patricia Royal, andFrancKca liem"Contributors from government and industryin many countries offer 34 papers on such top-ics as international harmonization through ISO,good laboratory practice regulations of the USEnvironmental Protection Agency, an industryperspective on the Food Quality Protection Actof 1996, the environmental assessment of pesti-cides in Brazil, and good laboratory practicesand pesticide regulation in Japan."—SciTech BooJ( News.

(ACS Symposium Series No. 724)(An American Chemical Society Publication)1999 336 pp.; 15 line «us-$125.00

ENVIRONMFourthMMflEW

Tlusceifciie examines theinterdisciplinary developments in

of environmental changes over thelatt&ree «?wW«"" years. It is the fourth editionof do* acdaimed book and has been completelyrevised to reflect the substantial amount of newinformation on techniques for environmentalreconstruction, glaciation in lower altitudes andthe southern hemisphere, climatic changes inthe twentieth century, and the causes of envi-ronmental change and to provide an up-to-

o( this important and politicized

350 pp^ illus.SJ5.00/ paper $34.95

STANDARD SOIL METHODS FORLONG-TERM ECOLOGICALRESEARCHEdited by € . Philip Robertson, David C. Coleman,CaroSw 1 Biedsoe, and Phillip SollinsThis second volume in the Long-TermEcological Research Network Series provides astandardized set of protocols for measuringsoil properties. Its goal is to facilitate cross-sitesyndiesis and evaluation of ecosystem processes.It is the first broadly based compendium ofmethods and will be an invaluable resource forccologists, agronomists, and soil scientists.

(The Long-Term Ecological ResearchNetwork Series)1999 480 pp.; 23 figures$85.00

THE WASTE CRISISLandfills, Incinerators, and theSearch for a Sustainable FutureHans Y. Tammemagi

"This textbookexamines solidwaste manage-ment in NorthAmerica andsolutions to thewaste crisis, usingseven case studiesfor illustration.The focus is onmunicipal waste,but dais is placedin the perspective

biomedical, and radioactive "pastes as well."—SciTech Boo\ News.

1999 296 pp.; 63 figurespaper $29.95

OXFORDUNIVERSITY PRESS

To order, or for more information, please write to:

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS • 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016.

To order any book by credit card, call toll-free 1-800-451-7556.

Prices and publication dates are subject to change.

www.oup-usa.org




https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046600001356

Documents

Using Role-Play Simulations to Teach Environmental