I had about 20 dollars left in my savings when my dog got sick. I was given three choices: let him suffer (free), put him to sleep ($10), treat him at the vet’s ($100). Since I had lost my regular job, life hadn’t been easy for me. I had already had to refuse paying for my kid’s school trip. I had been eating cheap junk food and I hadn’t paid my rent. To top it all off, I had been treated as nothing at my temp job. The whole history with the dog was, however, too much. I decided to pay for his treatment and get indebted. It took me 14 days to go completely broke. The good thing was, it was only a game. The bad thing was that, as the game made clear, millions of people in the USA experience similar problems everyday.

Many faces of poverty

“Ending poverty in all forms everywhere” is the first entry on probably the most ambitious to-do list of our times: the Sustainable Development Goals. The biggest challenge is still to eradicate extreme poverty in less developed countries, currently defined as living on less than $1.90 per person a day. However, not only developing countries face the problem of poverty. While people in the most developed countries live in much better conditions, some of them are still considered poor. In the European Union, for example, in 2015 about 24% of population (more than 113 mln people) was at risk of poverty or social exclusion. And in the same year in the United States, the number of people living below the poverty line was officially estimated as 13,5% – more than 41 mln people.

This illustrates one of the biggest problems with poverty: its multidimensional, complex nature. There is no one, universal definition of what constitutes being poor. “Poverty does not have a single meaning. It has a series of meanings, linked through a series of resemblances”, according to the “Poverty: An International Glossary” publication. The same goes for the attempts to measure poverty. One of the most widely used concepts here is the distinction between absolute and relative poverty. The absolute poverty is defined by costs of fulfilling the very elemental needs, like food, water, clothing or shelter. This concept allows us to check and compare the basics, but it doesn’t account for the fact that people have other needs (social, cultural) and live within specific contexts. The concept of the relative poverty partially answers that concern, defining poverty as living in conditions that wouldn’t be considered a reasonable standard among the given society.

But problems with measurement are only a start here. In a rapidly changing world, poverty can manifest itself in very distinct, often veiled, ways. It is enough to think about the working poor. In 2015 there were 8,6 mln people in the United States who spent at least 27 hours a week in labor force (working or looking for work) but still lived below the official poverty level. And what about “the hidden homeless” – people who can’t afford their own place but their homelessness is not visible (and not included in official statistics) because they are e.g. sofa surfing or squatting? Some media and politicians also add to this obscurity, raising questions such as “is a poor person still poor if they own a flat-screen TV” or other technological goods?

Complexity and misconceptions

The fact that a person or a group of people is poor has usually multiple causes that can depend on many interlinked factors – global and local, structural and individual. Yet, the complexity of poverty is somehow overlooked in both political discourse and common perception. A good example here is the portrayal of the poor through the lense of their deservingness. If they’re poor because they’re “unfortunate”, then they deserve the relief programs. If they’re “lazy”, they don’t deserve that kind of generosity from the state. Such a distinction creates a perfect ideological battlefield for all political options, and it’s hardly a surprise that politics love exploiting it. For example, the concept of the deservingness of the poor has driven the discussion about public policy in the US for almost 50 years now.

The focus on the causes of poverty leads to two common misconceptions about how to “fight” it. The first one lies in believing that if we can distill reasons why people end up poor, we would be able to prevent the consequences. The second misconception is that knowing the causes of a problem makes the problem disappear. Paul Spicker, a long-time poverty scholar and practitioner, argues that such simplification is useless because poverty is “constantly shifting and changing, as an enormous range of processes coincide and collide”. If we want to tackle it effectively, we must accept that poverty is a wicked issue – “complex, multidimensional, unclear and changeable”. It consists of many intertwined problems and processes that change dynamically when new issue replaces an old one.

What to do with poverty, then? Well, the first step would be to follow Spicker’s argument that “responding to poverty is not a matter of solving problems: it is about trying to make things better than they were before”. There are no silver bullet-like policies that can make poverty disappear for good. However, by accepting that our policies “are never going to work comprehensively and exhaustively, but they can address some parts of the complex tangle or inter-related issues”, we can at least make some progress. The key to making things better is to acknowledge the complexity behind poverty. We have to understand that there is dynamics and a number of intertwined causes and objectives to meet. Therefore, there is also a need for cooperation, negotiation and engagement of a broad range of stakeholders. Most importantly, however, there are real stories about human suffering behind every manifestation of poverty, thus we have to be very careful when prioritizing actions and estimating their costs.

Games to foster deeper understanding of poverty

SPENT, the game I’ve mentioned at the beginning of this article, is a short browser game that does a great job in fostering empathy and changing attitude towards the poor. At the same time, it offers a harsh critique of the sociopolitical system that grants hardly any social security to people. The game puts you in the shoes of a person who has just lost their job. You have a kid and a pet, almost no savings and lots of upcoming expenses. Your goal is to survive as long as possible with a positive account balance. On the way, you need to make decisions how to use your savings and petty money you will be able to earn while looking for regular job. The best part of the game is that it actually gives you a glimpse of real emotions – fear, shame, anger, frustration, stress, all of them inseparably bound up with poverty. This leads to a deeper understanding of the problem, as it is a human being rather than an abstract notion of “the poor” that is at the center of the events.

While SPENT focuses on the individual perspective, the World’s Future social simulation is an exercise in the systemic nature of poverty. The participants assume the roles of policy- and decision- makers who operate on the national and global levels. Each of them is responsible for the part of the system (e.g. population, food production, goods and services, government agendas). They experience the impacts of their decisions over the long time, trying out different strategies and approaches to particular problems and dealing with emerging problems that stem both from their moves and other, independent, factors. At the same time they can observe how their policies affect the population and how many things can easily go wrong. Similar simulations (Lords of the Valley, Flood Resilience Game, Gifts of Culture) deal with the systemic aspects of poverty on the local level, e.g. in flood- and drought prone river valley.

Social simulations and games offer no silver bullet solution to poverty, of course. They can, however, give their participants a chance to experience the complexity of poverty in action. The bigger, yet still untapped potential of social simulations lies in their applicability to problems affecting our nearest neighborhoods. Regional and local policy makers and stakeholders can easily use social simulations to explore the problem of poverty in their area. Instead of forcing ideology and practising partisanship, they can focus on real actions that may trigger changes. Also members of local communities participating in simulations may use the opportunity to share their experiences with poverty or verify their beliefs against other people’s concepts. Social simulations can also be a safe test ground for exercising different strategies and consulting them with the most concerned citizens. Such a practice may not only widen their perspective but also help them identify potential policy backfires. And finally, putting policy makers in the shoes of people who experience poverty may foster empathy and understanding of what poverty is. Then, maybe, we’ll hear fewer questions who deserves what, and more inquiries about what can be done to make the situation better.

Disclaimer: The author was part of the team that worked on World’s Future, Flood Resilience Game, Gifts of Culture, and Lords of the Valley.

The post Why do we need games about poverty appeared first on Games4Sustainability.

The New Shores game is an online multiplayer simulation that places you on a remote island. Decide on the best way of using the island’s common resources. Choose between private wealth and community development. Create agreements and impose penalties on unwilling parties. Convince others that you are right or take a backseat and let the world turn around by itself. What will be the consequences? Register for New Shores game session and see for yourself!

Why COP23?

COP (Conference of Parties) annual conference was set in place to review adoption of the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as far back as in the 1994 year. The COP21 in Paris proved to be a milestone when all 196 members of the UNFCCC agreed to common legally binding global climate target – to cap climate change well below two degrees of warming.

This year COP23, presided by Fiji and hosted in Bonn, Germany, is a great opportunity to take a look back at what we were able to achieve throughout more than 20 years of work. But more than that, it is a chance to reflect on what we can do in the future.

Let’s do it together! Register for one of the open sessions on Tuesday (14th of November, 2017) for the New Shores game and share your thoughts and experience with us!

Registration closed! 

The post Celebrate COP23 with Games4Sustainability! appeared first on Games4Sustainability.

The Flood Resilience Game is a simulation that helps the flood professionals to identify policies and strategies that can make flood-prone communities more resilient.

But what does it mean, to be resilient?

There is this old fable about the oak and the reed. Both plants grew in the area exposed to wind and storms. The oak trusted in its strength, while the reed bent to the wind. Then the storm came. It broke the oak – but the reed survived. Bent but unbroken, it was able to adapt smartly to the new living conditions.

And this is what flood resilience is: the ability of a community to continue functioning and developing when struck by a flood.

The game presents the challenges that flood-prone communities in developing countries face every day. This way it creates an environment for exploring the strategies to increase flood resilience. The NGO staff who tested the game in Jakarta and Lima took roles of citizens living in a river valley (farmers, workers, entrepreneurs) and its authorities (local government and the water board). They confronted the harsh day-to-day reality. While the citizens had to find ways to provide for their families, the authorities bore the responsibility of managing the valley’s infrastructure and advancing its development.

The community in the Flood Resilience Game works as a system where all the parts are connected.

As their resources are limited, both citizens and authorities must face hard choices.

How much the residents spend on their food depends on the state of the food market. If they don’t eat properly, their health will worsen, they will be less efficient at work and in result they will earn less. They can go to the health clinic, but it costs them their hard-earned income. Their households bring them losses when flood damages them. They have children that they would like to educate, but the accessibility of education depends on the state of the local school.

Farmers suffer losses when the water supply is damaged; when the road is in a bad shape, workers have to spend more time to get to their workplaces in the distant city; entrepreneurs rely on the electronics and machines so they cannot provide their services when the power station is not working properly. Local government and the water board decide on the management and flood protection of specific infrastructure facilities, like the food market, the hospital, the power station, and more. But they don’t have enough means to take care of everything.

Just as in the real life, citizens and authorities of the valley have a lot on their minds, even without floods lurking around the corner.

Nobody knows which parcels the flood will strike. Only the water board have the historical data about past floods. There is also the feeling of confidence because the levees are supposed to protect the valley. During the first round of the game, the community members focus on reacting to the danger. They prepare the sandbags in case of a flood, they learn how to perform first aid or evacuate themselves properly. Preparedness-oriented actions are a clear choice at this point, as they don’t take much effort that is needed elsewhere. But is it enough? Then the levee breaks. It is always a moment of shock. “What happened, we were safe behind the levees, how come there is a flood now?”

Then the levee breaks. It is always a moment of shock. “What happened, we were safe behind the levees, how come there is a flood now?”

Remember the oak from the fable?

Levees play the role of the oak here. They are an expensive investment, and they have some advantages – but their strength is limited.

And when they break, not much can stop the water from devastating the area. This effect is even bigger if the people are confident that they are safe because the levees protect them.

After the first round, the losses in the valley are significant, but not critical. There are some flood accidents, resulting in the health decrease of the victims. Some houses and assets are damaged. If the owners don’t repair them immediately, the damage will pile up. It is similar when it comes to the infrastructure. Damaged hospital makes the cost of going to the health clinic much higher.

People of the valley know that there will be next flood, but they don’t know how strong it will be. In the second round, they start to think how they can reduce the risk of damage. The long-term actions, like the house retrofitting or permanent infrastructure protection, become popular among the players. They also discover that it is more efficient for them when they help each other, or when they create joint funds to finance specific actions. This social capital is often neglected in the context of the disaster response, and the role of the cooperation sparked by bonds between the community members is often underestimated.

Social capital is one of the five capitals (5C) represented in the game.

Others include:

• human capital (represented by the investment in education and health),
• physical capital (public infrastructure and private assets),
• financial capital (savings gathered by players, avoiding losing the long-term ability to produce income, also insurance – more about it later),
• and natural capital (using ecosystems and their services for increasing flood resilience – more on it later).

These capitals are complementary and describe the assets that the community consist of. Identifying and using them properly fosters community development and safety. With each flood the community experiences, the need for progressing from reactive actions towards flood resilience becomes clearer.

The third round introduces more advanced actions. The water board can now decide to create the early warning system. It is a huge investment but – when it’s working, and the community members know how to use it – it boosts the effectiveness of other protection measures. Citizens and authorities can buy insurance for their houses, assets, and infrastructure they manage.

They face the dilemma of further community development. Should they spend their budgets to improve their houses and infrastructure?

The question how to link the development and growth with disaster risk management is not easy.

Real-life cases show that new infrastructure or housing is often built on flood-prone areas.

There are many reasons why this can happen. The citizens and authorities may not be aware of the risk. The land may be cheaper than in the safer locations. On the other hand, there is also the dilemma of investing in development when the safety is uncertain.

But does it mean that the community should abandon its development goals? This is a hard choice that players have to face.

The fourth round represents a longer period – 15-25 years. During this round, the citizens and authorities decide on implementing long-term actions. They can relocate from flood-prone areas to the safer ones, they can use the natural capital and reforest the deforested parcels, they can also build a retention polder in the upper course of the river. Then, players experience how these decisions improve their safety in a long run. But they also see the future from the different angles: their level of development, the quality of their life, the effects of education of their children. Combined with the lessons from previous rounds, such “time-compression” allows the players to understand how they can design their future, so their community becomes flood resilient.

In the Flood Resilience Game, the players begin with little knowledge about the real flood vulnerability of their community and the ways of improving their safety.

Throughout the game, they progress from reactive actions (levees, preparedness) towards avoiding risk creation (prospective risk reduction). At the same time, they struggle with everyday problems (making a living, being healthy, taking care of children’s education). The game also recreates interdependencies between the specific members of a community. This way it highlights the need for communication, cooperation, and solidarity between them. All of this helps the players connect what happens in the game with their daily realities. Two-hour gameplay allows them to live through a couple of decades, so they can experience the long-term effects of the decisions that they can make now. In result, they can grasp better the whole concept of flood resilience, and why it is so important.

The game tests in Lima were run with the members of Practical Action organization, and in Jakarta with staff from various NGOs: Red Cross Indonesia, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Mercy Corp, Plan and Concern Worldwide. The testers gave their feedback about the game from their practitioner’s point of view. Right now the game is being refined. The next version will be released soon, and the possibility of a mobile application to allow players to handle more complex dynamics while interacting in the workshop is being explored. Stay updated with the Games4Sustainability blog for further information about the game.

You can read about Flood Resilience Game also on IIASA blog and in our Gamepedia.

Photos courtesy of Adriana Keating and Adam French.

The game was developed by the Centre for Systems Solutions (CRS) in collaboration with Adriana Keating and Adam French from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), with funding from the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance.

The post How game can help flood-prone communities appeared first on Games4Sustainability.